Bishop’s letter to the Giboff and Steve

In response to the claims against my religion by Giboff and Steve, I declare the following:

My religion is mixed. I have Anglican values and Scientific beliefs, a kind of Gnosticism. Essentially I am saying that in so far as my religious beliefs are concerned where science refutes a claim in the Bible then that claim is not valid. Equally, where science cannot refute a claim in the Bible then that claim should be considered valid (i.e. fill in the gaps) until science can refute it.

From the way I see it, I am not trying to impose myself onto others, I put my views on this site and people can use them as they see fit. They are not compelled to come on this website. The only people who think I’m trying to impose myself onto them are those who are not able to justify their own position as rigorously as I can mine. The people who say to me “I don’t do politics” were doing politics up until the point they said that!

They only moral (i.e. a attitude/value one wants others to adopt as a general principle) I have is that I am against morals and don’t see a place for them in our society. Many other post-modernists share that view. I instead have a personal code of ethics which I live by as others do the 10 commandments – If you look at that code you’ll see that all of the ten commandments are in there!

I feel quite sad for you both, the way that despite how educated you are, the way you are attacking me for creating a belief system, when the basis on which you are attacking it is from an opposing belief system! You both appear to me to be empiricists – That is you think the truth is in the material world and that one should access it through objective observation.

As someone who started my philosophical journey as a constructivist, I think that is delusional myself. You can’t have an idea of an external reality without constructing it! You can’t know whether something is true, without reference to something that is not true. It is you both that are deluding yourselves thinking that you are anymore objective than me.

The fact is my belief system as a scientist reflects that more of an open-minded Agnostic. My religion is essentially that of a Confirmed Anglican who lost faith in Christ as Saviour after reading beyond the Gospels. With my philosophy that of a constructivist then the only option for a religion beyond being Agnostic is being Gnostic. My Gnosticism is based on building what I know about the Abrahamic Texts, with what I know about science, with what I know about how equality law recognises specific aspects of religion such as choices to do with food, clothes, jewellery, etc. which are my own personal likes and dislikes in reference to the scriptures. On this basis, it is quite fun trolling people who actually believe in their religion beyond its basis as a ‘philosophical lifestyle choice’ in Equality Law, especially Atheists like Steve and those who give David’s line legitimacy, like Jews, Christians, and Muslims.

So put simply Giboff – your hunch was right. My religion is more of an instrument shall we say to make life more interesting and justify my personality, especially when it goes up against those people who don’t see themselves as religious, like Steve, attack it in such a way that exposes their religious beliefs. For instance if you look at the definition of belief in the Equality Act 2010:

Religion has the meaning usually given to it but belief includes religious and philosophical beliefs including lack of belief (e.g. Atheism). Generally, a belief should affect your life choices or the way you live for it to be included in the definition.

On that basis, I am legally entitled to have multiple belief systems, including religious, philosophical etc. Just because some of these are based on justifying my personality, which is a manifestation of various medical conditions and experiences, does not mean it is any less valid in law, as those who actually hold their religious beliefs on par with their philosophical, political and social/personal ones, among others.

21 thoughts on “Bishop’s letter to the Giboff and Steve”

  1. I did not hide my beliefs, I offered them willingly. I attacked yours as they are mental, and to defend it, you wander into your usual flights of fantasy and quasi-intellectualism.

    I’ll stop messaging you now, as it’s futile, and probably bordering on harassment.

    Good luck for the future (although i think you’ll understand I hope you won’t be representing me again!)


    1. Steve, if you an others are more willing to vote for someone other than me because I am not the same as you, and have a way of thinking that most people don’t understand yet, even though I have the private sector ethos of “getting the job done”, then maybe you need to get your priorities right. Name me one thing another Pontypridd town councillor has done for Pontypridd? None have had the lasting impact that my underpass in Treforest has had.

      Two of my favourite cities in the world are Birmingham and Brussels because I’m unlikely to meet people who are identical to me in more than a couple of ways as it makes me uncomfortable being around people who make me feel less unique. You calling me “mental” on that basis is actually a complement in that regard as it means I am deviant from the norm. People said the same thing about Galelio, Einstein, Darwin and William Price. I am not the same as you or anyone else and you should not rubbish what I believe, regardless of which part of my multidimensional mind I am use to hold that belief, simply because I am not willing to change that fact.

      I am the beautiful swan even if you see me as an ugly duckling because I don’t conform to any of the prototypes you have constructed as someone who has never been educated outside the South Wales Valleys, and thus has not had the chance to meet the elite philosophical minds that I have at Kingston and Aberystwyth.

      1. Elite minds… You pompous, misguided man… You have no idea wha minds I interacted with in education, or elsewhere in my life.

        I know I said I wouldn’t reply, but I want to say one thing. The next interaction with me, will be me campaigning negatively against you when you come up for reelection. I’ll do this by letting people know your views. Nothing more.
        The underpass is not a lasting improvement, it’s a coat of paint. Sums you up, scratch the surface and there’s nothing of true substance behind it.

        1. The troller becomes the trolled! 😉 There is no trolling more satisfying than getting a lurker to come out of lurking!

          Looks like my “seminal” paper, ‘Increasing participation in online communities’ came in handy! 😉

  2. OK.

    Firstly I do not mean to attack you, even if i am a little sarcastic occasionally (and sometime more than a little).

    You have never admitted to creating your own belief system before, and we are not attacking your creation of it, merely the system itself.

    You may create a stance in order to justify your personality, launch an attack from it or simply to troll people who hold beliefs which are serious but incongruent with their religious texts. However, to use it to justify policies or your world view to others where it consists of perverse logic is simply not scientific and is sophisticated in the worst possible way.

    Your argument appears to be this: i) the bible is clearly inaccurate, ii) its inherent fallacies call its truth into question; iii) proven science has no fallacy by its nature, iv) proven science is therefore more accurate than the bible, v) unproven science is fallacious so I will revert to the bible.

    The problem there is this: if you watch Catchphrase and the little man appears and tells you it is an apple, and each square disappears to reveal an orange fruit except for the last square, then you would claim that under that last square is the defining characteristic of an apple regardless of the other eight squares. Atheists simply argue that, after the first square, each subsequent square to the last square is also likely to reveal a perfect orange. Christians would swear blind that it was an apple even after the last square is revealed.

    I would argue that you do seek to impose your views. In the same way that any public intellectual does. Not in the sense of requiring them to be believed, but by arguing for their inclusion in society. By publishing views and opinions under your name and with the authority you purport to have, you must take responsibility for their content. As I said, your views are not restricted to postings on this site and consist of various letters and other unsolicited postings.

    Your stance on morals is new to me. Your views on DNA Thieves seems to contain a significant amount of moral judgement, and your posts are littered with suggestions that we use the law to impose controls of various sorts. However, I agree with you, morality is inherently subjective.

    Now I’m not going to get drawn into an empiricist/constructivist debate. If you want a debate over dialectics or Piagetian models of understanding then start another thread. Suffice it to say that I don’t think either Steve or i have stated that we are more objective than you, and clearly we have our belief systems (I am not strictly an empiricist by the way), but any criticisms which have arisen are not doing to your being unable to prove anything, only the collapsed logic along the route. Rules of logic apply to constructivists too, even post-constructivists (similarly, if you want the post-structuralist debate then that is something neither Steve nor I have brought up but am quite sure we are both well equipped to deal with that in another thread)

    One further point, you really don’t need to educate me in the Equality Act. I am aware of the EA2010 definition of belief, but the Act does not give you the right to any particular belief as defined (that right is given elsewhere to you), it relates to the definition used to assess whether there has been any discrimination and is heavily affected in its interpretation by case law and other regulations as to what a religious or philosophical belief is – If you are using this Act to give a basis to your “entitlement” to hold multiple belief systems then your LLM isn’t worth the paper its written on, though you may rightly argue that you have legal protections because of it if your belief system is defined as a philosophical or religious belief (which I doubt it would for various reasons).

    I don’t want this to all seem as if I am picking on you. i appreciate that you have certain problems and I have the benefit of constructing my world view with unencumbered interaction with those around me, but simply using verbal gesticulating to claim that there is a real sound basis to your opinion does you little good where you are arguing with people who are as capable (perhaps more so) than you at arguing well above this level.

    Finally, I really do commend you in reaching the levels you have with what I assume is Aspergers – best way to combat it is to take an extra ten minutes to read what you have written and think about how it would be understood by those reading it, because some thing really do make you seem quite nutty, even where they are clearly well intentioned and could be properly argued in the right way, and you do have a role representing the public – please take that as a genuinely well intentioned comment

    1. Before I take 10 minutes out to think about what you said, two thoughts came to mind.

      I remember watching an episode of Catchphrase, and what was behind the first square was something orange with a grey thing coming out of it that was rotating. I said straight away, “a clockwork orange” and the others had to go through many tiles to guess it! So eventually the perfect orange did appear, but I know it was an orange before everyone else!

      Secondly, Aspergers is a syndrome. Some call it a type of autism.

      I define a syndrome as: A set of personality traits resulting from a physiological difference that is problematic for those whom aren’t advantaged by that personality type.

      I define autistic as: A personality type that results from a combination of below average empathising quotient and above average systemising quotient.

      I define autism as: A disability that arises from persons with an autistic personality having the traits associated with that personality treated as impairments.

      I therefore define Asperger syndrome as: A label for someone whose autistic personality gives then advantages over those without it in areas of systemising, but whom is disadvantages in empathising results in these strengths being overlooked and therefore disabling their participation in society through their strengths becoming impairments and therefore them having a diagnosis of autism.

  3. The comparison with William price is an interesting one, him being one of my fascinations. He was a brilliant mind, but lived his life as an misunderstood oddity. He is remembered fondly rather than with admiration though, because of his mental traits (claiming legal right over land based on ancient ancestry for example). The sad thing about him is that he wasted his potential political talents to promote his Druidic beliefs.

    His social endeavours were his truly admirable traits, especially regarding free healthcare…. But no one remembers these because of his outlandish religious beliefs.

    This is where you need to learn the lessons from history, and tone down your religious beliefs.

    What do people remember, dr William price, firebrand chartist, defender of civil liberties, proponent of free health care, or dr William price, Druid who walked the mountains naked, and later legalised cremation?

    His beliefs have overshadowed his deeds, and it is sad, but he will forever be remembered as mad dr price.

    You don’t want the same to happen to you.

    1. I claim legal right to land based on ancestry – as do all Freemen of Llantrisant who own the common!

      In 100 years time, do you think anyone in Llantrisant will know who Dr Kim Howells was? They will all know who Dr William Price was.

      Do you think most members of the public know who Robert Owen was? Do you think anyone in my constituency knows who Professor Jenny Preece is? These people matter to me and the last of the two knows of and has cited my work.

      Many people in Wales don’t even know who Carwyn Jones is. There are probably more students in IT departments in universities the USA who know who I am than Dr Kim Howells who brought in the Communications Act 2003.

    1. “I’ll stop messaging you now, as it’s futile, and probably bordering on harassment.”

      Saying that to an experienced troller like myself is like inviting a goat to cross a bridge in Scandinavia!

      1. I won’t pretend to be au fait with Internet protocols, so maybe I was being a lurker. You have far more knowledge than me in this area.

        You still can’t describe your own paper as seminal however, even if you were being ironic…

        And price wasn’t the claiming the land as a freeman, he was claiming to be the heir to the welsh bards.

        His views and beliefs unfortunately took on a form not dissimilar to Joseph smiths, what with ancient tablets only he could understand.
        This is why he was considered mad. Your glorification of Solomon based on a system of beliefs created by yourself is just like this.

        Get some humility and self awareness before you’re remembered as a joke.

        1. I think you’ll find being called a “joke” for having a set of ‘religious beliefs’ only fuels the “legitimacy” and “credibility” defence of what makes one set of beliefs more valid than another? A thousand flies does not make dog poo desirable – so just because I’m a religion of 1 unique set of beliefs and everyone else supports a mainstream established one with ‘religious beliefs’ no more logically constructed than mine, doesn’t mean they are less of a joke.

          It fact, common among all religions is a sense of superiority over other religions. This makes hypocrisy trolling that much more fun:

  4. Just wondering what does make a paper seminal?

    If it is originality then surely all papers are seminal on one level.

    If it is citation then it must mean a significant contribution, which is open to question and undefinable by anything but academic agreement

    One way or the other, without a group of experts denoting a paper as seminal the word is devoid of meaning

    100 citations is not a lot over 5 years and tens of thousands of US computer students (let alone those from other countries with access)

    1. My definition of a seminal paper, is the same as at Kingston Business School where I picked up the term – A publication from which a lot of other research publications have come and made an impact. When you think that 2007 paper has won all the accolades it has, and is cited in many PhDs, Masters, First Degrees, and is taught on many of those degrees and referred to in many blogs, and other online publications, then I would say it is seminal!

    1. When you consider that my h-index is 5 and my g-index is 11 with a total of 158 citations over 10 years, which is better than pretty much all of my supervisors at universities in South Wales, with only one exception, and that exception is now co-authoring a paper with me, then I’d say I’m a Valley Boy made good!

      I’d say I’d be very handy in a Marxist society. I’m a worker that has already risen up. I was stranded on Incapacity benefit for years, before working for an employer, and then becoming self-employed and owning 100% my own limited company, whilst co-operating with others through a co-operative. If anyone wants the workers to be in control of the means of production, distribution and exchange, then those workers should follow my path work for themselves instead of capitalist enterprise. My co-operative is ready to take them on as subcontractors, as by the end of the year we will have zero people on PAYE! You can’t emancipate the working class any more than by making them business owners of which they are accountable only to themselves!

  5. I should say that i go by “Giboff” not “the Giboff”, as that is what my dear mother Christened me.

    I may be the definite article but i dont need one to identify who i am, I will leave that level of arrogane to people like you The Jonathan

    1. Clearly you missed the intertexuality with the Bible?:

      Paul’s letters to the Corinthians
      Paul’s letters to the Romans
      Paul’s letters to the Thessalonians

      On this basis, I thought you might like my bit of creative writing in response. You know, if you were to actually look at the categories of my posts, then that might give you some clue as to their relevance!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *