Further to Mr Andrew Davis’ erudite missive of last month, a certain “Mr Titch Shenton” writes to me today concerning his beloved TV celebrity and witty ranconteur Jeremy Clarkson…

So you feel Jeremy Clarkson should die?
A well thought out un-biased scientific evaluation then?
Personally I could think of a lot more deserving individuals (you are rapidly heading towards the top of the list), dictators, murderers, child abusers and just about all terrorists.
Returning to Mr Clarkson. When you do as much for charity as he and his wife, especially on behalf of the Armed Forces, who protect your individual freedom of speech (obviously drivel on your part), I may offer you the time of day.
Don’t get me wrong, I am not a complete advocate of Mr Clarkson, in fact, a lot of his opinions do not marry that of my own. That said, I have not published an internet site pertaining to his demise.
As an obviously educated individual, you should be ashamed of yourself, for inciting such discent of a fellow human being.
I can only surmise that you are a person of the lowest moral character, and desperate to generate some publicity for yourself, whatever the cost, to try a bolster your egotistical opinion of yourself.
You will forever remain in the lowest pit of my own opinion. Were it not for Mr Clarksons’ charity work, and undoubted loyalty to this country, I would not have even attempted to write to you.
You have however, stirred something from within that demanded this prose.
A education to you sir, that is how one expresses dislike in an idividual in a democracy.

Yours with a loathing I thought I was incapable of,

Mr Titch.

With a fanbase like this Jeremy Clarkson could rule the world.

After my illustrated glib one-liner on the scatty Slovenian intellectual Slavoj Žižek, my friend Trond son of Trond pointed me toward this fascinating YouTube:

Žižek may talk shite on occasion, but the man is an international treasure.

Yesterday’s work and computer crisis continues, so I’ve no time to write anything substantial. Not even a glib one-liner.

This utoob is yer lot for today.

Hat tip: Trond, son of Trond

With creationist godbotherers on the march it might be churlish to ridicule the Church of Rome for speculating about the existence of intelligent life in the universe. Alien life that could even be free from ‘original sin’, according to Gabriel Funes SJ, director of the Vatican Observatory. And then there’s the Catholic Church’s planned celebration of Charles Darwin.

As for the Church’s unimpressive record when it comes to defending science and free inquiry, Funes replies that mistakes were made, but it is time to turn the page and look to the future.

Catholics as brothers in reason. What would Jürgen Habermas have to say?

Here we see the world’s scattiest philosopher, sociologist, cultural critic and intellectual meedja tart Slavoj Žižek showing that ideas can be thought up, consumed and disposed of all in one go. He may be out to lunch, but Žižek clearly possesses a logical side to his character. I’m impressed.

Via Will

The application of science can, according to AC Grayling, create serious ethical dilemmas. Indeed it can, but scientific data can also confound the designs of ideologues and cultural critics. Take, for example, recent neurological research which disproves the assertions of commentators who plough a moral relativist furrow when trying to convince us of their political prejudices.

In his fortnightly New Scientist column, Grayling the philosopher (not the Guardian Comment is Free wind-up merchant) discusses the implications of research which shows that across our species mirror neurons in the motor cortex of the brain fire in sympathy with what the individual perceives in the activity and experiences of others. That is, irrespective of ethnicity, nationality, gender or whatever, we create in our minds a model of what others are experiencing.

The essential point, says Grayling, is that mirror neurons underwrite the ability to recognise what helps or distresses others, what they suffer and enjoy, what they need and what harms them. Morality is therefore hard-wired into our neural network:

“So even when customs differ, fundamental morality does not; and if two societies differ over what they consider to be moral, one of them must just be plain wrong.”

Some of us already hold a belief that this is a defining characteristic of humanity, but this in itself is a prejudice. Or rather was. What the data now show is that the basis for morality is shared by all humans, and there is a universality to our being that crosses ethnic and cultural divides.

Masao-Kun is one helluva choreographer. Deep respect!

This may be your lot for today.

Last night I thought about writing something about the BBC documentary series Wild China that has just started its six-episode run. But events in China have taken a catastrophic turn in the form of a very wild natural event that is reported to have resulted in the deaths of thousands.

Unlike in Burma, the Chinese authorities are known for their skill in dealing with natural disasters such as the 7.8 magnitude earthquake that hit Sichuan province early this morning. Let’s hope that all goes well with the emergency effort, and there are no aftershocks that take further lives.

The first episode of wildlife film producer Phil Chapman’s documentary broadcast yesterday was superb, and I’m looking forward very much to the rest of the series. The dead tree edition of the Radio Times this week describes the film as “sumptuous”, and for very good reason. Chapman says that there was a lot of negotiation involved between himself and the Chinese state broadcaster, which is ever wary of foreigners. Says Chapman:

Our greatest misconception of the country is that it’s military-dominated, industrialised, trashed, with a cowed population. Well, it just isn’t like that. China’s a big, beautiful country, with amazing people, most of whom don’t give a shit about Beijing or politics. I was expecting a much more guarded, fearful society, but that couldn’t be further from the truth. Once you’re in, it’s hard not to fall in love with the place.”

It sounds like the kind of place I should see for myself. What Chapman says is no doubt correct, and those of us who spend much time criticising China for its state capitalist dictatorship would do well to remember this and keep a sense of perspective. Totalitarianism is a complex beast.

Following my criticism last month of Jürgen Habermas’ essay on the dialectic of secularisation, and my conjecture at the author’s own spiritual journey, I had some email correspondence on the matter with John and Anja of Obscene Desserts. As part of that John pointed me toward a series of essays published by Eurozine.

This was at the end of April, and I’ve only now gotten round to reading Sven-Eric Liedman’s contribution to the debate, titled “Den förtrollande materialismen” (“The enchanting materialism” – there is an English translation), and originally published in Ord och Bild. Liedman is an historian of ideas at the University of Göteborg.

The following quote from Liedman’s essay stands out for me:

“It is also reasonable to see the fascination with religion among European intellectuals in that light [the "postmodern" or at least "late modern" need for context and meaning in a world that has become so terribly, terribly complicated]. Religion has also become a challenge for them. Even though they do not submit themselves and their belief to it, they recognise it as something to consider with deep sincerity.”

Could this secular intellectual fixation with religion have something to do with the current poverty of philosophical speculation and ideological discourse? When the estimable critic Slavoj Žižek starts wibbling on about Marxism and Christianity, decades after the last liberation theologians were fired by the current pope from their teaching positions and relieved of pastoral duties, then you know that something is seriously awry in the academy.

Don’t get me wrong; Liedman’s essay is interesting, but I cannot help thinking that the analytic tools of psychoanalysis, psychiatry and anthropology are better suited to a study of the rebirth of religion (if there is such a thing) than a rather dry socio-philosophy infused with Weber’s Protestant Work Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism.

Liedman seems particularly interested in the phenomenal rise of Pentecostal Christianity in large parts of the world. Pentecostalism may indeed thrive in certain environments, whether they be developed, as in the case of the US, or developing, as in South America and parts of Africa. But I think Liedman mixes up correlation and causation, and the comparison/contrast between Pentecostalism and Salafism is unconvincing. Or at least Liedman is being simplistic in reducing complex cultural and political phenomena to such basic elements. Liedman also underestimates the influence of Pentecostal Christianity among the black communities of western Europe.

Liedman’s discussion of Salafism in its own right displays an inability or unwillingness to grasp the cultural issues involved. I am certainly not saying that I have any deeper understanding of what’s going on here, but I do think that the cultural dynamic is a lot more complex (and potentially interesting) than that presented in Liedman’s very eurocentric essay.

Reading Liedman’s article, and especially the references to the dialogue between Jürgen Habermas and Josef Ratzinger, I have to admit that my arsey comments about the former are at least partly unwarranted. But in general terms I still feel very uncomfortable with this rarified debate. It is on a plane so far removed from the often base impetus for many people’s fascination with religion and the super-natural that I find it difficult to see what value it has.

Liedman’s criticism of Richard Dawkins is off the mark. It fails to recognise that the anger evident in The God Delusion (there’s a hint in the title!) is part of a coordinated polemic which is entirely justified in the circumstances. Ditto Christopher Hitchens, who doesn’t do philosophy at all.

In the final few paragraphs of the essay Liedman goes all mystical. Which for a materialist intellectual will not do at all.

Jimmy Mizen lived in Lee, just a kilometre or so down the road from where I stay when I’m in London. The 16 year-old was murdered yesterday by an attacker he had refused to fight. Jimmy is reported to have been a “gentle giant”, happy to give his dad a hug and a kiss.

Lee is a quiet residential area in the borough of Lewisham. Neither poor nor wealthy, Lee is not a violent place, and I have never felt threatened while walking its streets.

Jimmy is the 13th London teenager to be killed since the start of the year.