Straw dollies

It's the usual "straw dolly" ...set up a false assumption and then knock it down..How clever are you!

There are/is at least one/or more alternatives.
1) The Heimlich is not without consequence...and can cause damage.
Inappropriate intervention..particularly by amateurs can/could/perhaps should leave you open to assault charges
2) Not all "choking" is appropriately treated by the HM..eg. serious internal regurgitation and vomiting. However
3) I would say the BEST treatment is to:
Perform the appropriate action, (if you know how/are qualified/can actually accurately diagnose the condition)
and ALSO pray.
Most good doctors get this!

Some would say..'well prayer can't hurt'
Others, myself included have experience which suggests that when I put my arrogance aside; Prayer does considerably more than just 'not hurt'

As for the esteemed Professor Krauss, one would expect considerably more intellectual integrity than the establishment of such straw dollies ( I do recognise that he may not have been specifically responsible for this meme...but I suspect he did say the words!)

a classic straw dolly

just bash it and it will fall apart!

aka The Easy Target

Religion and politics(i)

I have blogged before about paying attention to Richard Dawkins, the atheist apologist, who is once again doing the rounds of Australia.
His basic tenet is that religion is bad per se. And he makes a good fist of his case.
I was interested in his performance on Q & A recently which has received quite a lot of media attention. This is partly because of the way he seemed flabbergasted by Senator Steve Fielding's views about creationism, and indeed started to lampoon the good senator instead of his views (or so it seems to me and some others). "You a Parliamentarian of Australia...believe that the world was created less than 10,000 years ago"
Now I have no brief for Senator Fielding and indeed find his views laughable. But the discussion needs to be contracted on a less personal basis.
In fact Fielding declared that he had not said (on that program at least...and he hadn't) what his views were at all. He was rather set up, and I suppose Dawkins was too. They were even seated next to each other!
Dawkins makes quite a sophisticated attack on Christianity in particular. At one stage he accused Christian apologists of "cherry picking" the Bible, to only look at the good consistent and modern bits.
I have thought since, that he rather does that himself.
He conveniently fails to address the more sophisticated discussion about the complex nature of religion, and its role in the cohesion of society. He does not address or explain the significance of religion in the maintenace and development of high culture. He prefers rather to pick a few examples (and of course after thousands of years there are many) of where there have been scandalous betrayals of the true spirit of Christianity (or what ever faith) and does not choose to enlighten us with a discussion of the works of charity of the countless men and women who have themselves to the service of the poor, or the education of the young.
I think Dawkins is important because he receives such attention. But part of the reason he receives such attention is because his analysis in the most public forums is often the very 'cherry-picking' that he is so critical of in others.

Mea Culpa!

I found myself yesterday with a moment to spare(see here for an outline of yesterday), an hour to kill or what ever and did not resist temptation. I bought myself the Christmas present I was going to tell other people to buy me ---Richard Dawkins, The God Delusion.
This book, whilst glaringly flawed, is I think probably quite important. Like von Daniken's "Chariots of the gods"(but rather better) it is important because it is popular and will therefore reach an audience that will not necessarily be able to properly critique it. Because it deals with complexity both in religion and in science, few are equipped with the intellectual tools that enable them to weigh the arguments. People do have a lot of common sense though and if they read around it they will be able to have bash at weighing the arguments.
Dawkins' original premise is that religion should not be without scrutiny, and the special place afforded to religion throughout the world often means that it is not scrutinised where almost all other aspects of life are. I take his point and think it is rather a good one.
Though I am a convinced Christian I also think of myself as a sceptic, I do not accept everything simply because it is part of the package. And we say in the post-modern religious world (if that is not an oxymoron) that everything is provisional, and I mean everything and I live with that exciting dynamic.
I don't think Dawkins does. He is something of an anti-religious fundamentalist. That is, there is one truth and that truth is that religion is bad. Even when he is being vaguely tolerant (seldom) there is a strong undercurrent of thgis fundamentalism.
This has been exposed by others more competent than I, I notice Frank Brennan on the First Tuesday Book Club said much the same thing (only better). Not terribly scientific of Dr Dawkins, but good polemic.
I am enjoying it, becuase it is actually too light (like von Daninken) and therefore popular (which is good) but also inadequate (which is bad).
I will no doubt say more in the coming days. (I suspect it's the sort of book that I'll finish today!! because while frustrating and curious in parts it is easy and compelling reading-this too is both good and bad)
I will have to find myself another Christmas present....though I did hear news of a really, really big one last night from someone who loves me a whole lot.
Bloody hell! How will I top a European progress?

Chris's funeral

I left home at 10, went to the dentist, had an hour to kill so had a coffee, said prayers in the shopping centre (always a good thing to do); bought a copy of the "God Delusion". Had lunch with my deanery colleagues. very nice and pleasnat. And popped back to see that the little one was OK (12 episodes of Will & Grace later....she was supposed to be cleaning her room)
The funeral began at 2 and the Church was packed and into two overflow spaces as well.
It went well. He was a remarkable gift of a person. A man who found out when he was 17 that he could easily die and decided to throw himself into living. This so electrified those whose lives he touched that they lived a bit better too. Very Christlike.
It makes one wonder why we don't throw ourselves properly into life, and why we always presume that we have tomorrow.