Skeptico

Carnival of the Godless

Posted at A Load Of Bright. If you only have time to read one article, read The Atheist Experience on Why do atheists speak out? This is why – an eloquent put down of an one Christian’s idiotic view of atheists.

If, as Terry implies, it is the God of the Bible whose "wisdom" I should prefer, I confess to being puzzled by the idea that I should consider a being who consigns anyone who does not worship him to his satisfaction to an eternity of agonizing torment as "wise," when my own, pitifully inadequate notions of human wisdom tell me that a being like that is by definition a horrendously wicked and evil tyrant. Any God who refuses to make his existence unambiguously clear, and then is willing to consign individuals to eternal torture simply for doubting his existence, can only be unutterably evil, and the fact that Christians think that such a God is a paragon of all that is good is a view that quite simply perverts any meaning the notion of "goodness" could possibly have. For a Christian to hold such a view and still think he is "better off than the atheist" reveals the intellectually and morally corrupting force of Christian "faith" more powerfully than any atheist critique ever could.

Ex-Homosexual Offended

The religious nutbars are at it again. What’s getting them unglued this time is this poster for San Francisco’s Folsom Street Fair:

A predictable response comes from the Christian News Wire reporting on (quote) the Sick Perverts in San Francisco. (Aren’t all perverts sick? Oh never mind.) Here they go:

This year, "Perverts Without Morals" chose to deliberately mock Jesus Christ, Christians and The Last Supper, by depicting half naked homosexuals, leather men and women as the 12 Apostles, and display sex toys in place of the bread and wine.

A bloody fist can be seen in front of the central figure portraying Jesus Christ, possibly representing the vile sex act of "fisting" - where one's fist is fully inserted into another individual's anal cavity.

They seem to know a lot about this kind of thing. More than you’d expect decent Christians to be aware of at any rate.  Wonder how? Wonder no more:

Stephen Bennett, president of SBM and a former homosexual said, "This is the most vile, vulgar and disgusting public display of filth I have ever seen in my life.

A “former homosexual”? Funny, I wasn’t aware you could change. I guess all those “pray me straight” sessions must work after all. Who knew? Anyway, “former homosexuals” are apparently a bit like former smokers – more anti gay (or anti-smoking) than those who never partook in the first place. Repressing your natural tendencies must make you pretty frustrated and angry. Mix that in with religion and we have:

There is no doubt a double standard when Christians and Christianity are mocked by homosexuals and degenerates in such a blatant, vile and sick way. Where is the media outrage over this event? We Christians will no longer tolerate this abuse nor be silent.

Bennett ended, "I call upon the homosexual Human Rights Campaign, GLAAD, GLSEN, and the Gay and Lesbian Task Force to publicly condemn this blatant mockery of Christians and Christianity by some within their community, and condemn this sick public display of immoral behavior. I call upon the Miller Brewing Company to pull their endorsement of this event. I call for the organizers of this filth to immediately apologize to Christians worldwide and remove this Last Supper mockery. I also call upon every law abiding official and citizen in America who has any morals to do what they can to shut down this Folsom Street 'Filth' Fair once and for all."

And there, once again, we see the religious in their true colors. Calling for immediate censorship of anything they don’t like, and (of course, you knew this was coming), an apology. Because we all have to apologize when someone makes fun of their invisible sky fairy and they get upset.  And Rick Warren thinks atheists are angry.

I think someone needs a hug. But not in a gay way.

70th Skeptics’ Circle

The 70th Skeptics Circle has just been posted at Conspiracy Factory. Plenty of good skeptical posts to keep you occupied..

One More Time - Acupuncture Does NOT Work

The most exasperating aspect of this recent acupuncture study was the numerous “acupuncture works” type headlines in the press. (Of course, we know that BBC science reporting is quackery, but the BBC wasn’t alone in this case.)

The study CLEARLY shows that sham acupuncture – needles put in the “wrong” place – works the same as the “real” stuff. Therefore acupuncture - releasing of blocked “chi” by placing needles at specific positions – does not work. In fact, it’s probably safe to say that “chi” does not even exist, and so neither can the “meridians” it is supposed to flow along.

As Steven Novella put it:

First let us consider the difference between “real” acupuncture and “sham” acupuncture. Acupuncture is based upon the ancient and superstitious pre-scientific notion that there are lines of mysterious life energy (chi) flowing through our bodies, and that the flow of this energy is responsible for health and illness. Acupuncture is supposed to free up blockages in the flow of chi energy. I grant this idea a scientific plausibility of zero - meaning we can safely discard it.

What does the evidence show for the chi theory of acupuncture? The evidence is overwhelmingly negative, and this study supports this negative consensus. Most well-designed studies that compare traditional and sham acupuncture show no difference between the groups.

Novella goes on to explain the real problem with believing in this “chi” nonsense – namely that it prevents anyone from discovering what (if anything) is really happening when someone receives acupuncture treatment. Something I’ve been saying for years. Novella’s entire article is really worth a read – it summarizes just about everything you really need to know about acupuncture.

Also good is Orac’s Yawn...another overhyped acupuncture study – which includes some additional problems he found with this recent study. Problems that would have made acupuncture look better than it actually was. Yes I know – I was shocked too.

Also, read Bad Science.

I look forward to the numerous compelling anecdotes from true believers, that are sure to appear in the comments.

Other Skeptico writings on Acupuncture

Click the links below. Note the number of times I had to change the news headlines so they reflected what the study actually showed.

Placebo - pregnancy pain cure

Acupuncture does not cut blood pressure

Still no evidence acupuncture works

Acupuncture – it really really doesn't work

No point to acupuncture on animals

Equivocation on acupuncture

The Drivel Driven Life

TechSkeptic sent me a link to this Newsweek article from April - The God Debate – a debate between atheist Sam Harris and “Purpose Driven Life” author, Pastor Rick Warren. Harris did a pretty good job exposing many of the flaws in Warren’s arguments, but I still found the article depressing reading. To understand why, just take a look at this – Warren’s explanation for why he believes in God:

One of the great evidences of God is answered prayer. I have a friend, a Canadian friend, who has an immigration issue. He's an intern at this church, and so I said, "God, I need you to help me with this," as I went out for my evening walk. As I was walking I met a woman. She said, "I'm an immigration attorney; I'd be happy to take this case."

That argument was actually put forward by a grown man – one who sells millions of books and is listened to and taken seriously by millions of people. Harris called it “a classic sampling error”. I’d call it a classic case of post hoc ergo propter hoc boosted by confirmation bias. All well run studies that control for biases such as those show that prayer doesn’t work. Some studies purportedly show that prayer works, but when examined critically all positive prayer studies turn out to be either flawed or fraudulent. But none of that matters to Pastor Rick. Pastor Rick wanted an immigration attorney, Pastor Rick met an immigration attorney, therefore God exists. It’s the distance this man’s thinking is from any kind of rational argument that’s so depressing.

If that wasn’t enough, Warren actually accuses Harris of being “non-rational”. While this Zen like technique might work for a kung-fu master using his opponent’s strength against him, with Warren it just makes you go “What?” The argument makes no sense.  And at the end of the debate he actually invokes Pascal’s Wager:

[Harris is] betting his life that he's right. I'm betting my life that Jesus was not a liar. When we die, if he's right, I've lost nothing. If I'm right, he's lost everything. I'm not willing to make that gamble.

The flaws of Pascal’s Wager are well known. But this is the lame Pascal’s Wager with a twist of false dilemma thrown in for good measure. He’s saying, either Jesus is a liar or he’s not. And surely you’re not saying Jesus is s liar, are you? Warren is apparently too dumb to see a third option: Jesus didn’t say the things the Bible claims he said. Funny thing – I’m sure that Harris had a reply to this incredibly profound lame ending argument of Warren’s. Probably something along the lines of what I wrote above. Although perhaps a little more polite. But for some reason the Newsweek article ended without Harris’ reply, as if Warren’s dumb argument was the final word. And Warren wonders why some atheists are angry.

When will CAM do this?

Merck just pulled its experimental AIDS vaccine because early results show it doesn’t work:

It was a notable failure for the first of a new class of experimental vaccines that were meant to prevent or sharply limit HIV infection by training the body's white blood cells to attack other cells that have been invaded by the virus.

"This study represented an important test of a fundamental concept in this field, and unfortunately the results were not what we had hoped," said Dr. Mark Feinberg, vice president of medical affairs at Merck's vaccine unit.

This is, of course, disappointing. But it’s good that the lack of efficacy of this vaccine has been recognized, and the drug withdrawn.

The difference between this and complementary and alternative "medicine" (CAM) is starkly shown. Real medicine is tested for efficacy, and abandoned if it doesn’t work. When was the last time any CAM treatment was publicly abandoned by its practitioners because they discovered it didn’t work? For example, can you remember any of the following happening, ever:

Reiki practitioners pulling Reiki for treatment of (say) migraines, because they determined it doesn’t work for that.

Therapeutic Touch practitioners pulling TT for treatment of (say) post operative pain, because they determined it doesn’t work for that.

Acupuncturists pulling acupuncture for treatment of (say) arthritis, because they determined it doesn’t work for that.

Homeopaths pulling (say) Belladonna for the treatment of urinary tract infections, because they determined it doesn’t work for that.

Religious authorities pulling prayer for (say) heart problems, because they determined it doesn’t work for that. (Even if the study is replicated and they discover prayer still doesn’t work for that.)

“Energy Healers” such as Adam Dreamhealer saying he won’t treat (say) head injuries any more, because he determined his treatment doesn’t work for head injuries.

Defeat Autism Now (DAN) doctors pulling one of their pseudoscientific “cures” for autism, because they determined it doesn’t work for that.

Naturopaths pulling (say) detox diets because they determined that detox diets don’t work.

Chiropractors pulling chiropractic treatments for (say) any particular type of cancer, because they determined that treatment of supposed “subluxations” doesn’t work for that.

When did any of those happen? Of course, the answer is “never”. CAM treatments are NEVER pulled by CAM practitioners. So either all CAM treatments must always work, and there are no CAM treatments that don’t work, or CAM treatments are never pulled because CAM treatments are never tested to see if they do work.

That can’t be true though, surely? I mean, if they never test therapies to see if they work, then how were CAM treatments ever determined in the first place? And how are CAM practitioners so sure they work now? Nah – that can’t be the case. If testing CAM treatments to see if they work wasn’t a part of CAM, then no errors in CAM would ever be corrected. If no one ever tested CAM to see if any CAM treatments don’t work, then therapies that don’t work would be a permanent feature of CAM. That can’t be right. CAM must always work all the time then. CAM is quite obviously a miracle.

A final comment from the AIDS vaccine article:

… in another sense, the study was a success - because the goal of research is to find definitive answers, even if they are disappointing ones.

And that would be yet another difference between real medicine and CAM. Real scientists welcome even a negative study, because it tells them something they didn’t know before. By abandoning treatments that don’t work they can focus on determining what does. Of course, if you have absolute certainty that your CAM works whatever the evidence to the contrary, you’ll never discover anything new that does work.

Carnival of the Godless

Just posted at Ain’t Christian. Includes a post from yours truly – but also many other good posts from a godless perspective.  Good Sunday reading while those Xian types are at church.

Radio Observatory faces closure

I’ve just been reading this Wash Post story about the Arecibo Observatory in Puerto Rico, which is apparently the largest and most sensitive radio telescope on Earth:

..among astronomers, Arecibo is an icon of hard science. Its instruments have netted a decades-long string of discoveries about the structure and evolution of the universe. Its high-powered radar has mapped in exquisite detail the surfaces and interiors of neighboring planets.

And it is the only site on the planet able to track asteroids with enough precision to tell which ones might plow into Earth - a disaster that could cause as many as a billion deaths and that experts say is preventable with enough warning.

This is the observatory featured in the movie Contact. If you read the whole article, it describes more of the real science performed there. Unfortunately it faces closure due to a funding shortfall.

The National Science Foundation, which has long funded the dish, has told the Cornell University-operated facility that it will have to close if it cannot find outside sources for half of its already reduced $8 million budget in the next three years - an ultimatum that has sent ripples of despair through the scientific community.

It seems a shame that the only observatory able to warn us of a disastrous asteroid impact (not to mention all the other science it performs), may have to close for the want of only $4 million (that’s million with an “M”). They are looking for other funding, so I’m hopeful it will stay operational.

In other news, federal money given to religious groups is in excess of $2 billion (that’s billion with a “B”) annually. Phew - that’s a relief. Because I’d be concerned if money that could be spent on science was instead being wasted on pointless superstitious nonsense unrelated to anything happening in the real world.

Richard Dawkins’ New Charity

The Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science has just been set up as a charity in the UK and the US. Read its mission statement, which begins:

I have just visited my local branch of Britain’s biggest bookshop chain, and this is what I found: six books on astronomy and nineteen books on astrology. The real science is outnumbered three to one by the pseudoscience.

A mission statement that starts like that has to be good. Anyway, if you’re stuck for a charity to give to, this one looks like a good one. Also see The OUT Campaign and get your T shirt.

69th Skeptics’ Circle

The 69th Skeptics Circle Saloon has just been posted at unscrewing the inscrutable (how did Brent get to be # 69?). Also in a plain links list for easy selection. 24 skeptical links this time – plenty of good reading for you.

Suck It Jesus

From unscrewing the inscrutable I learn of the Academy of Television Arts & Sciences’ craven capitulation to the demands of the religious thugs of the Catholic League. This is what got them so mad – comedian Kathy Griffin’s Emmy acceptance speech:

A lot of people come up here and thank Jesus for this award. I want you to know that no one had less to do with this award than Jesus. Can you believe this shit? Hell has frozen over. Suck it, Jesus. This award is my God now.

You just know what came next. The Catholic League’s president Bill Donohue:

The Academy of Television Arts & Sciences reacted responsibly to our criticism of Kathy Griffin’s verbal assault on 85 percent of the U.S. population. The ball is now in Griffin’s court. The self-described ‘complete militant atheist’ needs to make a swift and unequivocal apology to Christians. If she does, she will get this issue behind her. If she does not, she will be remembered as a foul-mouthed bigot for the rest of her life.

Griffin “needs” to make an apology? She “needs” to? Really? Er, no she doesn’t. Not at all.  She doesn’t “need” to do anything. You need her to, Donohue. That’s what you really meant. You “need” it, not her, not any atheists. You need it because your silly fairy tale beliefs are so pathetic, vacuous and delicate they can’t stand three critical words from a comedian. In the above paragraph we see the religious mind in its natural state, demanding obsequiousness, respect, censorship and fearful apology, and they demand all this without a hint of embarrassment or self-awareness. This poor downtrodden 85% of the population (his figure) are too fearful to allow the American TV viewing public to hear three words critical of their invisible sky fairy, and they’re prepared and actually proud that they managed to get Griffin’s acceptance speech on TV censored.

Remember this the next time someone criticizes Richard Dawkins for being “shrill” or whatever. Remember the Catholic League thinks things will be OK just as long as we atheists show respect for these arrogant morons and their delusional beliefs, and as long as we remember what we “need” to do to keep them from censoring our words and thoughts. Just don’t get too uppity. From this we get a glimpse of what the Catholic League would really like to be able to do if they got the chance.

Send any emails of support to Griffin’s Agent. Email the Academy of Television Arts & Sciences and tell them what a bunch of cowards they are.

But most of all, Suck It Donohue. Yes, and Suck It Jesus.

The “Autism Community” Punk’d!

Orac and Kevin Leitch both comment on how  the “Autism Community” (whoever the hell they are – who decided they represented the “Autism Community”?) have asked for messages of support for Andrew Wakefield. You know, the researcher whose crappy “research” supposedly linked autism to the MMR vaccine, and thereby (with the help of a complicit media) caused a reduction in uptake of the vaccine and an increase in Measles. (No reduction in autism, funnily enough.)

Anyway, several people posted messages with, shall we say, less than supportive messages. But the “Autism Community” is only accepting supportive messages. Shame.

Anyway, I thought I should post a message. But it had to be supportive, or it wouldn’t have been published. This is what I wrote:

Well done Dr. Wakefield. Although the medical establishment denies your research. Keep up the good work. Even though you are criticized. For the sake of the children. I know you are a man of integrity. Every thing you have said has turned out right. Lots of kids got autism from vaccines. Did that stop them poisoning our kids?. I don’t think so. So much for integrity. All we have are beacons of honesty such as yourself. Let our words give you strength. I trust you will continue your research. Autism is treatable. Real doctors know that.

U Menteur

So, I hear you say, a strange message from me. Seems a little too supportive.  And who the hell is U Menteur?

Perhaps if I started each sentence on a new line, my message might be a little clearer:

Well done Dr. Wakefield.

Although the medical establishment denies your research.

Keep up the good work.

Even though you are criticized.

For the sake of the children.

I know you are a man of integrity.

Every thing you have said has turned out right.

Lots of kids got autism from vaccines.

Did that stop them poisoning our kids?.

 

I don’t think so.

So much for integrity.

 

All we have are beacons of honesty such as yourself.

 

Let our words give you strength.

I trust you will continue your research.

Autism is treatable.

Real doctors know that.

I’ve bolded the first letter of each sentence - just read down. Also, “Menteur” is French for “liar”. So it’s signed, “U Liar”.

The funny thing – they published it. Click the thumbnail to read the actual section (just in case they take it down).

Childish? Of course. But deserved.

ID Creationist Bingo

This post was inspired by the continued poor and already debunked arguments put forward by creationists - notably on the comments to this post by me, and to a post on Neurologica blog - but also elsewhere. The only remarkable thing about the creationists' arguments is it's remarkable how they continue to parrot the same arguments after they have been debunked years ago. Anyway, I've had some fun recently playing ID Creationist Bingo. You check off a square every time the relevant dopey argument is presented. You win when you have a straight line of five - horizontally, vertically or diagonally. The "JOKER" square can either be a free square, or you can reserve it for any new ludicrous argument presented (as long as it is presented with total sincerity), or any argument I've missed.

If you don't know what all these creationist arguments are then you haven't spent much time talking to creationists on the web. If you don't know how to debunk any of them you could go to Talk.Origins Arguments against Creationism and their 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution, read what Steven Novella has to say or browse Pharyngula.

The Parsimony of the Multiverse

I wasn’t going to do this again for a while. Comment on something on Dembski’s blog. Their standard is so lame. But I had to contradict this one as it represents a common misinterpretation of Occam’s Razor.

The post in full:

“In science, parsimony is preference for the least complex explanation for an observation. This is generally regarded as good when judging hypotheses. Occam’s razor also states the ‘principle of parsimony.’” See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parsimony

In the post below (”Multiverse of the Gaps”), I point to a recent paper in which a Darwinist attempts to get around the extremely small probability (less than 1 in 10 raised to the negative 1,018) of life emerging by chance by invoking an infinite “multiverse.”

The question for the class today is which is the most parsimonious hypothesis: One designer or infinite universes?

Answer: the multiverse is the more parsimonious. The mistake he’s making is in thinking that parsimony means the “least complex” or simplest explanation. Of course it doesn’t. If it meant choose the simplest explanation then Occam would always choose “Goddidit”. Because, what is simpler that “Goddidit”? No. Occam’s Razor means, don’t make stuff up. Or if you have to, make up as little as possible.

Suppose I have a cat. One night, I leave out a saucer of milk, and in the morning the milk has gone. No one saw who or what drank the milk. Lets say there are two possibilities:

1. The cat drank it

or

2. The milk fairy drank it

Occam tells us to reject option 2. This is because option 2 requires us to invent an unnecessary entity - the milk fairy. It is an invention because we have no evidence that the milk fairy exists. And it is unnecessary because there is a plausible explanation that does not require a milk fairy - the cat.

Note also that strictly speaking, both solutions are equally simple. The cat hypothesis is only simpler in that you haven't had to invent a new, unnecessary entity.  Occam says that if you insist it could be the milk fairy, you have invented an unnecessary entity. And why would you do that?

So the answer to the original question is – it depends if there is any evidence for God, and if there is any evidence for the multiverse.

I haven’t seen any convincing evidence for God. Of course, the whole “extremely small probability” baloney is itself supposed to be the evidence for God – so we can’t include that or we’d be assuming the conclusion. It’s been debunked anyway. I’ll draw a blank on the evidence for God, then.

While I don’t think there is any hard evidence yet for the multiverse, I believe it is predicted by some of the math in string theory, and that the multiverse makes some predictions that may soon be testable. Astrophysicist Victor Stenger states:

No new hypothesis is needed to consider multiple universes. In fact, it takes an added hypothesis to rule them out-- a super law of nature that says only one universe can exist. But we know of no such law, so we would violate Occam's razor to insist on only one universe.

We know this universe exists. Why should there be no others? On the other hand, we don’t know God exists. While we currently can’t be sure, it seems to me that God is the milk fairy in my analogy. Just because I think that one of several million cats drank the milk, that doesn’t mean that it is more parsimonious to insist the milk fairy drank it.

Galileoists – teach the controversy!

Via Pharyngula I just discovered a new blog essential for my RSS list, dealing with ID, atheism etc – Tiny Frog.  See today the post questioning the outdated Galileoist Theory of Gravity - The Stifling Dominance of Secular Academia. Then check out some of the earlier posts as I did. Excellent reading.