Skeptico

Andrew Brown fails to understand the rules of secular debate

It really is about time the Guardian pensioned off Andrew Brown. Surely his poorly argued articles must be an embarrassment to them – perhaps they could trade him to the Huffington Post, or something. Take a look at his latest post where he claims that Militant secularists fail to understand the rules of secular debate. Really? Who are these “militant” secularists Brown refers to? Here’s how he defines them:

There are three kinds of people in Britain today who might be taken for militant secularists: that is to say people who are not just themselves unbelievers, but have an emotional investment in the extirpation of religious belief in others. There are the adolescents who have just discovered "rationality"; there are gay people who feel personally threatened by traditional monotheist morality; and, in this country, there are parents frustrated by the admissions policy of religiously controlled schools.

Well, I’m not a teenager, a gay person or a parent in the UK so I guess I’m not a militant secularist. But I’m also not engaged in warfare or combat, so perhaps Brown is, inadvertently, partly right for once. But he’s still mostly wrong.

But what about his main contention – how does he justify his headline, that militant secularists don’t understand the rules of secular debate? To find out, you have to read to Brown’s penultimate paragraph. There you will find his argument, which I reproduce in its entirety:

But the militant secularist takes for granted that "the religious" have no access to reason. There can be no reasoning with his opponents. All he can do is to repeat himself more loudly until the idiots understand.

One can only marvel at the vacuousness of that paragraph. What evidence does he offer to show that the militant secularist “takes for granted” that the religious have no access to reason? Well, none. He offers no evidence, not even one example. One could say that he just assumes, or takes for granted, that they do this. And it’s a ridiculous assumption. Just take a look at any atheist or skeptical blog, or any book by any of the leading atheist writers, and see if the arguments presented are based on just taking for granted that the opposition are not rational. On the contrary, you will find thousands of words analyzing the writings of religious apologists to demonstrate that they are irrational. Look at this post – I don’t take anything for granted, I demonstrate that Brown doesn’t offer any evidence (ie is not using reason) to support his contention. If you present arguments to show something then by definition you are not taking it for granted.

To paraphrase Brown’s sub-headline, Andrew Brown just assumes that “militant secularists” assume that 'the religious' have no access to reason – all he does is repeat himself, loudly. The only interesting question arising from Brown’s post, is who the hell is Andrew Brown any why does someone with such a poor grip on rational argument get to have a regular column in a national newspaper?

A Wonderful Life - Without Religion

CNN: shame on you. Not for publishing Larry Alex Taunton’s (“Special to CNN”) opinion piece on why the country would decline without Christian belief: My Take: When Bedford Falls Becomes Pottersville. Not per se. But for making it their main story. This was what greeted me when I turned on my screen this morning:

That was right in the middle, up front and at the top, on the home page of a supposedly “news” organization. Hard to miss. In case you can’t read the blurb, it says:

The 1946 classic "It's a Wonderful Life" is a fitting metaphor for a nation absent Christian belief, author Larry Taunton says. Those wanting to do away with the faith should be careful what they wish for, he says.

After a brief summary of the film and a couple of paragraphs of how “voters think America is in decline” he gets down to the thing he believes is causing all the trouble:

Richard Dawkins, the Oxford scientist and atheist provocateur, calls Christianity a “mental virus” that should be eradicated.

The professor should be more careful in what he wishes for. Like many others, he grossly underestimates the degree to which his own moral and intellectual sensibilities have been informed by the Judeo-Christian worldview.

Or alternatively, Larry Alex Taunton grossly overestimates such things. The notable thing about  these ‘oh noes, without Jesus life would be terrible’ pieces is just how little evidence they offer to support their view, and this one is no exception. Look at the arguments presented and marvel that CNN thought this worth publishing:

Jesus Christ said that his followers were to be like “salt”; that is, a people whose presence is felt for the good that they do. As a man or woman’s evil nature is gentled and restrained by the grace of God, there is a corresponding outward transformation of society. The data bears this out. According to the research of The Barna Group, Christians are the most charitable segment of the population by a substantial margin. Hence, any society that is liberally sprinkled with them has a greater concern for the poor, sick, orphaned and widowed - “the least of these,” as Jesus called them.

And yet the USA, of the rich nations in the world is one of the most religious, but has the greatest income inequality. While Sweden and Denmark, the least religious, are the most egalitarian with a comprehensive social safety net. More Than 9 in 10 Americans Continue to Believe in God, so how can unbelief be responsible for the problems Taunton identifies? How does Taunton explain all that? Well, by ignoring it.

(This is precisely what Nietzsche, and Hitler after him, hated about Christianity.)

Except that Hitler was a Christian, and Nazi racial ideology was religious, creationist and opposed to Darwinism.

But Christian influence goes well beyond benevolence: Our laws, art, literature and institutions find meaning in a rich Christian heritage. In his new book "Civilization: The West and the Rest," Harvard historian Niall Ferguson argues that the decline of the West can, in part, be attributed to the decline of a robust Christian presence in Western culture.

Note, not “Niall Ferguson,” but “Harvard historian Niall Ferguson.” Classic appeal to authority without, you’ll note, one shred of evidence to support the “argument.”

Ferguson’s point is largely an economic one, but the inference that Christianity has served to strengthen the fabric of life in the West as we have known it is unmistakable. T.S. Eliot made a similar observation: “If Christianity goes, the whole of our culture goes.”

T.S. Eliot now. Taunton sure loves his argument from authority.

That is just another way of saying that the difference between a nation with meaningful Christian influence and a nation without it is the difference between Bedford Falls and Pottersville.

It may be “another way of saying” it, but that doesn’t make it true.

To summarize, Taunton’s arguments that Pottersville shows us what life would be like without Jesus, were:

• Assertion
• Jesus said so
• Hitler (seriously)
• A Harvard historian said so
• T.S. Eliot said so
• er… that’s it.

Pottersville doesn’t even show us what life would be like without religion, it just shows what life would have been like if just one man hadn’t been born. The other inhabitants of the town were presumably just as religious (or non-religious) as they were before. As I recall, there was not even a suggestion that mean old Potter wasn’t religious. In reality, if we want to know what life would really be like with less religion we only have to look at Sweden and Denmark. And CNN is still the mistrusted name in news.

Philosophy Isn't Logic (Apparently)

Via Jerry Coyne I learn of some Remarkably stupid remarks by a sophisticated theologian. In the New York Times this week is an article about philosopher Alvin Plantinga, headlined Philosopher Sticks Up for God. Well maybe he does, but not with logic. Get a load of this reason why we should believe in god:

Mr. Plantinga readily admits that he has no proof that God exists. But he also thinks that doesn’t matter. Belief in God, he argues, is what philosophers call a basic belief: It is no more in need of proof than the belief that the past exists, or that other people have minds, or that one plus one equals two.

“You really can’t sensibly claim theistic belief is irrational without showing it isn’t true,” Mr. Plantinga said. And that, he argues, is simply beyond what science can do.

Brilliant. Just declare the laws of logic to be completely backward, and… er well that’s it really. If you can’t prove god doesn’t exist, then he does. To which I reply, well Mr. Plantinga, when are you going to repay the $1,000 I loaned you? What, you say, I never loaned you the money? Well, can you prove I didn’t? Because by your logic, if you can’t prove I didn’t, then I did. And I want my $1,000.

You have to marvel at the workings of the religious mind. So certain that god exists that you can just declare it true. That’s what philosophers do, apparently.

He’s no better in his criticisms of Richard Dawkins or Daniel Dennett either:

Mr. Dawkins? “Dancing on the lunatic fringe,” Mr. Plantinga declares. Mr. Dennett? A reverse fundamentalist who proceeds by “inane ridicule and burlesque” rather than by careful philosophical argument.

Proceeds by “inane ridicule and burlesque”? You mean like saying your opponent is “dancing on the lunatic fringe”? Do you ever think about any of the things you say, Mr. Plantinga? Serious question.

The article ends with:

“To call a philosopher irrational, those are fighting words,” he said. “Being rational is a philosopher’s aim.

Then you failed.

John Haught - Where's The Tea?

John Haught relented and allowed the release of the video of his debate with Jerry Coyne: Science and Religion: Are They Compatible? (Spoiler: Haught says yes; Jerry no.) This was only after Coyne allowed Haught to post this complaint. Haught’s initial refusal, and his lengthy complaint got me to do one thing I rarely do, namely watch an hour and a half long (with questions) video of a debate. Having watched it, I can say that Haught’s complaint directed at Coyne:

…you used the event primarily to launch a sneering and condescending ad hominem.

…is entirely without merit. I watched the whole thing and there was no ad hominem – Jerry Coyne attacked Haught’s arguments only. Haught needs to learn the meaning of ad hominem.

Haught also accused Coyne of misrepresenting Haught’s views, of taking them out of context:

You grossly distorted every quotation you used, and then you coated over your [mis]understanding of these statements with your own uncritical creationist and literalist set of assumptions about the Bible and theology.

The burden of proof is with those making the positive claim, so if Haught wants to claim that Coyne took his quotes out of context, it is up to Haught to show, in context, what the quotes actually meant and that this was different from the way Coyne represented them. In fact, I challenge Haught to take just one quote that Coyne used incorrectly, and explain what it meant, in context. Just one will do. As far as I know, he hasn’t done this anywhere (if anyone wants to post a link to where he has done this, please do). Until he does, we are justified in dismissing this claim without evidence, just as it was asserted without evidence.

There is one part of Haught’s talk that I wanted to examine. Haught is claiming that science and religion are compatible, it’s just that religion has access to some additional “layers” that science can’t access. To explain this, he uses a metaphor of a teapot boiling. You can watch him talking about this in the video, but I found a transcript of Haught’s testimony at the Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District trial transcript where he makes the exact same argument, so to save transcribing the video I’m just going to quote that:

I think most of the issues in science and religion discussions, most of the confusion that occurs happens because we fail to distinguish different levels of explanation. And so what I advocate is layered or -- layered explanation or explanatory pluralism, according to which almost every phenomenon in our experience can be explained at a plurality of levels.

And a simple example would be a teapot. Suppose a teapot is boiling on your stove and someone comes into the room and says, explain to me why that's boiling. Well, one explanation would be it's boiling because the water molecules are moving around excitedly and the liquid state is being transformed into gas.

But at the same time you could just as easily have answered that question by saying, it's boiling because my wife turned the gas on. Or you could also answer that same question by saying it's boiling because I want tea.

All three answers are right, but they don't conflict with each other because they're working at different levels. Science works at one level of investigation, religion at another. And it would be a mistake to say that the teapot is boiling because I turned the gas on rather than because the molecules are moving around. It would be a mistake to say the teapot is boiling because of molecular movement rather than because I want tea. No, you can have a plurality of levels of explanation. But the problems occur when one assumes that there's only one level.

He’s saying that by analogy, “the water molecules are moving around excitedly…” is the scientific explanation while “I want tea” is the religious type of explanation: they’re different but not incompatible, and science can’t provide the latter explanation. The problem for Haught is that his metaphor is self-refuting. Science can tell us about water molecules vibrating, but it can also tell us if the kettle is on because someone wants tea. For example, we could observe the kettle and see if someone pours the boiling water into a teapot and makes tea. We can also check to see of someone drinks the tea or if they just pour it down the sink. In other words, “I want tea” is testable, so it is a scientific explanation. A huge flaw in Haught’s analogy is we know tea exists! Haught still has to show that there are religious explanations for things that are both (a) correct and (b) different from anything science or secular reasoning provides. In other words, Haught needs to show us that the “tea” in his analogy exists. Where’s the tea? Haught’s metaphor may demonstrate that such explanations could exist, but he has given us no reason to suppose that they do.

Jerry also pointed this error out in the Q&A (starting at time 15:05), stating that Haught “hasn’t given us a single bit of evidence” that  these other layers exist. So Coyne did respond to points that Haught made, despite Haught’s claim that he didn’t. So as as an argument it fails, and as a complaint that Coyne didn’t respond, it fails.  And yet, this seems to Haught’s main argument. One wonders which debate Haught was at.

There is just one other aspect of Haught’s talk that I want to deal with. This starts a couple of minutes into the Q&A session, and is so wrong that I transcribed the whole thing. He labels Coyne’s approach as “scientism” and criticizes it like this:

Scientism is the belief, the belief (I emphasize that term) that science is the only road for truth. Science says take nothing on faith as you just heard Jerry say, but it takes faith to accept scientism. Therefore, we shouldn’t accept scientism. The logic of this is so unsurpassably watertight that really once you say that you dismantle the intellectual credibility of everything that Jerry just said.

For someone who criticizes Coyne for not fully understanding his opponent’s position and for getting all his knowledge from creationist websites, Haught sure seems to like criticizing a distorted version of Coyne’s position – a simplistic version that is frequently presented on creationist websites. I don’t know if Coyne ever said that science is the only road to truth – I doubt it, and I certainly don’t think he said so in this debate. I’m pretty sure that Coyne’s position (and mine) is that science has proved to be the most reliable method we know for evaluating claims and figuring out how the universe works. And we do have evidence for that. (How does Haught think we can all watch him on our computers at home? Did the technology for this come from something other than science? Obviously not.) If Haught is claiming that there is a better method, it is up to him to justify that claim. Haught needs to explain his different method for evaluating claims, and provide evidence that it does indeed provide additional, correct information not available to science. If he cannot do this then this is just a fallacious and vacuous appeal to other ways of knowing. And the logic of this is so unsurpassably watertight that unless Haught can explain his other way of knowing (and show that it really provides new, different and correct information) Haught has dismantled the intellectual credibility of everything he just said.

Other reviews of the debate

Choice in Dying has a post Q&A: Haught on God: Bitter, Impolite and Wrong, where he says many of the things I have been saying, only longer.

Jon Stewart Epic FAIL

The Daily Show’s Jon Stewart is generally a very good interviewer, often asking his political guests some of the more difficult questions while remaining courteous and without making up straw man positions. He often asks the questions (and follow up questions) that many real journalists should be asking, and he clearly demonstrates intelligence and the ability to think on his feet and react to what his interviewees are saying. After watching him interview someone called Marilynne Robinson on The Daily Show Thursday (interview starts at 14.33 in) I have to say that in future he should stick to politics and leave science and/or religion alone.

Robinson apparently has a Ph.D. in English and a Pulitzer Prize for Fiction, and has just released a book called Absence of Mind.  According to Amazon’s product description:

Absence of Mind challenges postmodern atheists who crusade against religion under the banner of science. In Robinson’s view, scientific reasoning does not denote a sense of logical infallibility, as thinkers like Richard Dawkins might suggest.

Already you know you are hearing from someone who doesn’t understand even the basics of that which she seeks to criticize, since science does not claim anything even close to “logical infallibility,” it merely claims to be the most reliable method of investigating reality.  (Once the word “infallibility” is used by someone criticizing science, you know straight off that they will try to conflate science and religion. Only religion claims infallibility.) Of course, that’s just flap copy, but after listening to Robinson’s dopey arguments on Thursday I would suggest that in future she stick to writing fiction and leave any expose of the faults with science to someone who knows what they are talking about.

Robinson starts off the interview with an unsupported assertion (all transcriptions by me from the teevee):

ROBINSON: …people on one side of the argument have claimed the authority of science but they have not construed an argument that actually satisfies the standards of science.

A bold claim. One you might expect her to justify using (say) an argument that actually satisfies the standards of science. Let’s see how she does:

ROBINSON: I don’t think frankly that it’s scientific to proceed from the study of ants to a conclusion about the nature of the cosmos.

And a million scientists went, “huh?”  At this point, Stewart should have asked her WTF she was talking about (he actually just nodded and said “Right”), because I had no clue.  Robinson never explained what she meant either. Proceeding “from the study of ants to a conclusion about the nature of the cosmos”?  If anyone reading this has any idea what she was babbling about, please let me know in the comments.

STEWART: Who do you think is more afraid: do you think science fears religion more than religion fears science, or is there equal mistrust to go around?

The correct answer is that religion fears science – because science, bit by bit, has proved the various claims of religion to be totally wrong. Of course scientists sometimes fear the political power of the religious to muzzle science, to prevent the teaching of science where it conflicts with religious ideas. But science certainly doesn’t fear religion itself.

That would have been the correct answer. Not Robinson’s answer though, which was:

ROBINSON: I’m really not sure about the nature of the controversy because I know lots of religious people that [sic] love science and I know lots of scientists who seem to be completely at ease with religion. It’s the quality of science and the quality of religion that determines the nature of the conversation.

(Sigh.) It is disappointing to hear from supposedly intelligent people, arguments that have been refuted again and again. And for someone who is claiming to challenge postmodern atheists (whoever they are), you would think she could have first spend ten minutes reading a couple of atheist blogs where this question has been patiently answered again and again. I’ll try one more time. Yes, we know that some scientists can be religious. That is because human beings are very good at rationalizing incompatible information. It does not alter the fact that science has proven many of the claims of numerous religions to be completely wrong, which means that science and religion are in many instances, incompatible. Why is that so hard to understand?

Here’s where Stewart goes off the rails:

STEWART: I’ve always been fascinated that the more you delve into science, the more it appears to rely on faith. They start to speak about the universe as if, well there’s “most of the universe is anti matter [sic],” oh really, where’s that? “Well, you can’t see it.”  Well, where is it? “It’s there.” Well, can you measure it?  “We’re working on it.”

It’s a very similar argument to someone who would say God created everything.  Well where is he? “Well, he’s there.” And I’m always struck by the similarity of the arguments at their core.

Wrong Jon, just wrong. The arguments may appear similar superficially, but at their core they are fundamentally different.  (I’m assuming Stewart meant dark matter, not anti matter since “most of the universe” is actually dark matter and dark energy, not anti matter.)

Superficially, it may appear that “God exists” is similar to “dark matter exists” – superficially in that you can’t see either. But is that really the standard we should be applying when evaluating scientific claims? We can’t see something, so it’s faith? I guess Stewart's show must be based on faith too then, since I can’t see the radio waves hitting my satellite dish either.

Examining this less superficially, “at their core,” why do scientists say that dark matter exists? Well, dark matter was initially hypothesized to explain why the rotational speed of galaxies was faster than expected, given the mass of visible matter in the galaxies. Then, having hypothesized dark matter, additional ways of testing this hypothesis were devised – for example, gravitational lensing.  Dark Matter Exists. Dark matter has been tested, and so far it has passed the tests. Furthermore, if some different scientists in the future find evidence that contradicts dark matter, or if they come up with a better explanation for the observations than dark matter, the new explanation will be adopted and dark matter abandoned.

Those are the differences between science and faith, differences that Stewart has apparently not noticed in his extensive delving into science. Science is based on observation of the real universe, confirmed or dis confirmed by experiment, and always subject to revision when better data comes along. Religion is based on the authority of old texts, is resistant to dis-confirmation, and in many cases stubbornly refuses to change even when proven to be completely wrong. But yeah, both God and dark matter are invisible so they both rely on faith. Good insight there Jon.

STEWART: Is it that the human mind has created these two disciplines, each one sort of equally at the mercy of our limitations?

No, the problem is that one discipline is based on reality while the other is not, and yet the one not based on reality is given undeserved respect and freedom from criticism.

ROBINSON: I think it’s also true that until quite recently many great scientists such as Isaac Newton and so on were profoundly religious people.

Again – yes we know. This doesn’t mean that science and religion are compatible. Newton was an alchemist as well. He was wrong about that too.

ROBINSON: …we need the best insights from science and the best insights from religion.

What insights can we get from religion?  Name one – name one insight that we couldn’t get without religion.

ROBINSON: The gladiators from both sides are I think inferior representatives of both sides, and that’s where the conflict comes from.

No, the conflict comes from the fact that many religious claims have been proven by science to be totally wrong, and yet many religious people refuse to accept this fact, insisting that their religious fantasies be given equal (or even superior) credence to science.  Although I do agree that Stewart and Robinson are both inferior representatives in this subject.  “Absence of Mind” – a good description of how both Stewart and Robinson arrived at their arguments. Robinson comes over as a profoundly stupid person – one who has examined this subject superficially and thinks she has something profound to say, but who in reality is merely parroting arguments that would be ripped apart in minutes in the comments section of any one of a thousand atheist blogs.

One more point – I don’t buy the argument that Stewart is just a comedian and so shouldn’t be held to account. He clearly can be a tough interviewer when it suits him: just see his interviews with Bill Kristol, Ron Paul or any number of right wing politicians.  He wasn’t joking when he said “the more you delve into science, the more it appears to rely on faith,” he was making a serious point.

Iran - 2,000 Years Behind

An mother of two has been found guilty of adultery in an Iranian court. Adultery is a crime? Yes, apparently it is in Iran. Sharia law.  We know she’s guilty though because she confessed after being subjected to 99 lashes. Want to know the best part? Her sentence is death by stoning.

Actually no, that’s not the best part. As CNN report in Iranian mother of two to be stoned to death, she’ll be buried up to her chest first:

Ashtiani, 42, will be buried up to her chest, according to an Amnesty International report citing the Iranian penal code. The stones that will be hurled at her will be large enough to cause pain but not so large as to kill her immediately.

Actually The Guardian reports that if the convicted person manages to free themselves from the hole, the death sentence is commuted. Well that's OK then. Although they also say the victim is buried up to her neck, not chest. (Men only get buried up to their waists.)

In a masterpiece of understatement, the US Assistant Secretary of State P.J. Crowley apparently said:

"From the United States' standpoint, we don't think putting women to death for adultery is an appropriate punishment."

Really? You “don’t think”? Not “appropriate”? Christ, what’s wrong with you? How about this is totally wrong on any level no matter what the crime? And according to Amnesty International, there are several other women in Iran waiting the same punishment.

Amnesty International is trying to pressurize Iran to commute these death sentences. One would hope that the State Department could also muster a somewhat stronger response that that of the lame P.J. Crowley.

The Vatican - Still Doesn't Get It

First some positive news. It seems the authorities in one country have decided that accusations of raping children deserve a proper investigation. Belgian prosecutors this week raided the headquarters of the Belgian Catholic Church as part of their investigation into child sex abuse claims, as reported by the BBC in Belgian Catholic offices raided in sex abuse probe:

Brussels prosecutors were looking for material relating to allegations of sex abuse, a spokesman for the prosecutors' office said.

"This is a case that the Brussels prosecutors' office received recently, containing a statement of facts in relation to alleged sexual abuse of minors by a number of people within the Church," said Jean-Marc Meilleur.

"The object of the searches is to verify the declaration and eventually gather evidence about these declarations."

Finally, the prosecution body of one country at least has decided that professing belief in a magic invisible sky fairy doesn’t mean that you can rape children without the possibility of being prosecuted. Better late than never. Let’s hope that other countries now follow suit.

Regular criminals, when investigated, usually profess innocence at this point, as they are entitled to do.  The Vatican though, sings a different tune. They are shocked, shocked I tell you, that the authorities dare to treat the church as though they didn’t have a special exemption to the rules that affect everyone else.  You just knew this was coming: Vatican 'indignant' over Belgium police raids

The Vatican has expressed shock at raids, including the "violation" of a cathedral crypt, by Belgian police investigating alleged child sex abuse.

Get that? the Vatican is shocked, not that its priests would rape children, but that the authorities would dare to investigate such alleged crimes. Shocked, not that children were violated, but that a bleeding crypt if you please was violated. It gets better:

The Vatican has summoned the Belgian ambassador to the Holy See to voice anger over Thursday's raids.

I hope the Belgian ambassador told them to go to hell.

And just when you thought they couldn’t get any more hyperbolic, one of their men in dresses tells us Belgium raids 'worse than Communist era'

The Vatican has stepped up its criticism of raids by Belgian police investigating alleged child sex abuse, calling the detention of priests "serious and unbelievable".

Cardinal Tarcisio Bertone, the Vatican Secretary of State, said "there are no precedents, not even under the old communist regimes".

He goes on to claim that the priests were held for nine hours without food or drink, which if true would be wrong. The accused deserve to be treated according to the law, which should include the rights to food and drink, not to mention a lawyer. But there are “no precedents” for this? “Not even under the old communist regimes”? Doubtful. I think what he means is that there are “no precedents” for treating the Catholic Church just like any other body that is accused of breaking the law. Which may well be true. And it’s about time such a precedent was set.

Vatican Excuse Bingo

The excuses the Vatican and its supporters have now come up with to justify its systematic cover up of the rape of children have now officially exceeded the numbers required for a 5x5 bingo card.  Consequently, I give you Vatican Excuse Bingo.  Play it when Bill Donohue is on (if you can bear watching that disgusting slime bag) and you will be finished in no time. 

Explanations:

In the unlikely event that you’re not familiar with any of the excuses summarized on the card, I give a slightly more detailed explanation for each, below.

Long Time Ago

It all happened a long time ago and the church has changed.  No fair to keep bringing it up.

Secular Society

It’s the fault of The secularization of society.  If only everyone was a good catholic and kept his mouth shut, things would be just fine.

Women’s Ordination / Abortion / Gay Marriage

The only agenda of the church’s critics is women's ordination, abortion and gay marriage.

Pornography

With so much invasion of eroticism, sometimes it's not easy to stay celibate or to respect children.  Not easy!

Jews / Liberal Media / The Internet / Satan

The Jews are always behind everything as is The liberal media (ie The New York Times).  Oh and Satan.  Yes he exists.

Like the Persecution of Jews

Criticizing the Catholic Church is just like persecution of the Jews because pointing out that the church systematically covered up the rape of children for decades is exactly like murdering six million Jews. 

(Yes we know this conflicts with the previous point.  We hope you won’t notice.)

Hatred of Christianity

What motivates the church’s critics most of all is a pathological hatred of Christianity. 

Homosexuals

Of course, the real problem is homosexuality not pedophilia.  You see, there is a relationship between homosexuality and pedophilia.  That is true.  That is the problem.

Masons

It’s both the fault of freemasonic organizations that portray pedophilia as normal, and also a conspiracy by masonic lodges and big business to undermine the church.  Simultaneously.

Post Pubescent

It wasn’t pedophilia because the kids (most of them anyway) were post-pubescent.  And they wore sexy short shorts.  (OK I made the last bit up.)

Boy Scouts / Schoolteachers

Employers from every walk of life – schoolteachers, boy scouts – all molest kids.  For example, just this month, Rabbi Baruch Lebovits was found guilty on eight counts of sexually abusing a Brooklyn boy.  (Hey, it’s fault of the Jews again.)

Petty Gossip

It really is.  Petty gossip about raping children and systematically covering it up for years.  So annoying.

Therapy

The priests were not reported to the police because they were being put in therapy instead.  It was the zeitgeist of the day you see.  Everyone did it.

Catholic Standards

At least the Catholic Church has the standard that rape is wrong (even if it falls short of that standard), unlike atheists.

You Didn’t Object

Victims didn’t object - most 15-year-old teenage boys wouldn’t allow themselves to be molested. So why did you?”

Gold Diggers

These so-called victims are just gold diggers – just out to make a buck off the poor honest church.

Radical Lawyers

The liberal media has teamed up with Radical Lawyers to persecute the church.

Parents

Parents and psychologists are to blame for not reporting the sex abuse in a timely fashion.  Because if they had reported the abuse promptly the church would have acted immediately.

No Smoking Gun

Cardinal Joey Ratzinger knew nooothing about it.  Nooothing, I tell you.  Move along now.

Did I miss any?

(Post Script: If you liked Vatican Excuse Bingo, then you’ll love Cold Reader Bingo and Creationist Bingo.)

Nailed It

Nailed it so well, I hope Jesus and Mo’s creators won’t mind me reproducing the whole thing:

Fine Tuning Arguments

Suppose someone is rolling a set of two dice.  He rolls a double six – something with a one in 36 chance of happening.  Which is more likely, that the person rolled a set of regular dice and just got lucky, or that he rolled a special set where both dice have just sixes on all faces?  (Let’s assume you can’t see any but the sides that are on the top.)  You might think that since a regular set would produce a double six in only one out of 36 attempts, he is more likely to have rolled the trick dice with just sixes.  But after a moment’s thought you would probably realize that was wrong.  With just one roll of the dice, you would have no way of knowing.  The person might have been rolling the dice all day, and you just happened to come along at the exact time that he rolled the double six.  Of course, you could stay and see if he rolled the dice again, and if he kept getting double sixes then you would suspect there was something fishy going on.  But with just one roll, there is no way you could tell.  You wouldn’t have enough information.

The same would be true if the guy rolled three dice and got three sixes, or four dice and got four sixes, or five dice… etc etc.  If he only called you over to look when he’d got all sixes, you wouldn’t know if his roll had been especially lucky, or if he had spent hours rolling other combinations, and only called you to look when the result was all sixes.  No matter how many dice he rolled at once, or how high the apparent odds against it happening by chance, you wouldn’t know he was cheating just by looking at the result of one roll.  You also wouldn’t know how many other people are rolling dice at the same time, but who are keeping quiet about it because they rolled uninteresting combinations.  At the very least, you would need to see a few consecutive rolls from this one guy before you could form any conclusions.

It seems to me that fine tuning arguments are similar to the dice rolling guy.  The fine tuning argument is this: the odds of “rolling the dice” to get, by chance, a universe where life can exist, are so low that the universe must have been designed.  But the objections to this are the same as with the dice rolling guy: unless we know how many universes there are, and how many big bangs there have been, we can’t know if our particular universe is very unlikely to have occurred by chance or not.  There might be millions of universes.  And if there are a very large number of universes, then the odds of getting one tuned for life, are very good.  And in that case, there are good odds that in at least one of the universes tuned for life, there evolved intelligent people like us who remark that this universe looks fine tuned for life.

Now, you may say, we don’t have proof that additional universes exist, or that there have been several big bangs.  And I say that’s not my problem, it’s the problem of those making the fine tuning argument.  If fine tuners are claiming that the odds of getting a universe suitable for life are extremely low, then it’s up to them to show that this is the only universe that exists or has ever existed.  Their calculations that show the incredibly low probabilities of a universe suitable for life, assume there is and has only ever been one universe.  Why is this?  Because to get the probability of getting any universe tuned for life, they have to multiply their probability of getting one universe tuned for life by the total number of universes.  They never do this – which means they are implicitly multiplying by one universe.  So, before we accept their claim, they first have to demonstrate that there really is only one universe.  It’s their claim, remember?  They have to justify all parts of it, not just the bits they like.   So as part of their own calculation, they must demonstrate that there is only one universe.  As far as I know, no one has ever done this.

I have heard some say that multiple universes violate Occam’s Razor – one universe is “simpler,” they say.  But this argument misinterprets Occam’s Razor.  Occam’s Razor doesn’t say choose the simplest – if it did then “Goddidit” would be the answer to anything, because Goddidit is simple.  Occam’s Razor actually says don’t make up unnecessary assumptions.  We know that universes exist because we live in one.  Unless there is a solid reason to think that there are no other universes apart from the one we see, it would be an additional assumption to insist without evidence that this is the only one.  To be most generous to fine tuners, the best they can claim is that the assumption of many universes is an equal assumption to the claim that there can only be one, and so Occam’s Razor is a wash – you can’t use it to choose one way or the other.  The burden of proof is therefore still upon the ones making the fine tuning claim.

Of course, we don’t need multiple universes to reject fine tuning arguments.  We don’t actually know enough to be able to calculate meaningful probabilities of getting, by chance, the so-called fine tuned constants of this universe.  We can only examine one universe, and can’t really say for sure what would happen if the conditions were different.  Fine tuning arguments are really just god of the gaps arguments – we don’t know why the constants look fine tuned, so we’re going to use god to explain the gap in our knowledge.  Never a very productive way of trying to learn the truth about anything.  Also, we don’t know what kind of life would have evolved if the universe was very different from this one.  Life as we know it might not exist, but that wouldn’t mean that completely different life forms couldn’t evolve.  Again fine tuning arguments say more about the lack of imagination in the people making the arguments than about the truth of the conclusions they are claiming. 

But even if we ignore these flaws, the burden of proof is still with the fine tuners to demonstrate that this is the only universe that exists or has even existed (or at least, that there is only a small number).  Until they do this, fine tuners are like the person pointing to the guy who just told you he rolled several dice and got all sixes, while failing to investigate all the other people in the world and throughout history, who have rolled dice but didn’t tell you the results. 

Additional Reading

Physicist Victor Stenger has many other arguments against fine tuning, including simulated universes with very different values for the so-called “fine tuning” constants.  He also states that multiverses are suggested by modern cosmological models.

Chaotic Inflation, proposed by physicist Andrei Linde, models our universe as one of many that grew as part of a multiverse… – he hypothesizes that the expanding cloud of billions of galaxies that we call the big bang may be just one fragment of a much larger universe in which big bangs go off all the time, each one with different values for the fundamental constants.

Note: this post was initially inspired by this comment by regular commenter AvalonXQ. 

Bill Donohue - even more vile than previously thought

I wasn’t planning to write any more about the vile Bill Donohue and his defense of priests raping small children while the Catholic church covered it up.  I really wasn’t.  I thought I had covered Donohue’s disgusting views in enough detail two weeks ago.  But Donohue has surprised me – really surprised me this time – with an even lower even more morally bankrupt defense of pedophile priests.  Donohue actually said on Larry King Tuesday night that when priests rape children, this is not pedophilia because (wait for it) most of the children were over about 13 years of age.  Oh and the problem is really homosexuality, because “that’s what homosexuals do.” 

I found it hard to believe that even Donohue would say such a thing, that these words had been taken out of context or something.  Check out the transcript from CNN (with my added bold):

DONOHUE: It's not pedophelia. Most of the victims are post- pubescent. You have to get your facts straight. I'm sorry. If I'm the only one who is dealing with facts tonight, that's it. The vast majority of the victims are post-pubescent. That's not pedophelia, buddy. That's homosexuality.

ROBERTS: Bill, I don't think, as a person of faith, that you really know what you're talking about when it comes to --

DONOHUE: If the study of criminal justice -- it's not my opinion. Take a look at the social science data. I never said they're homosexuals in that way.

ROBERTS: They said they cut down on --
(CROSSTALK)

KING: Sinead, quickly.

O'CONNOR: Can I just ask very quickly with that gentleman -- sorry, I don't know your name, sir. I'm not quite sure what post- pubescent means. Would you mind explaining that to me

DONOHUE: Explain what?

O'CONNOR: Post-pubescent.

DONOHUE: Post-pubescent means beyond puberty. In other words, you're adolescent. That's what homosexuals do, and of the molesters have been homosexuals in the Catholic church.

ROBERTS: So the boys deserved it because they're post-pubescent.

DONOHUE: If you want to take that conclusion, I think that's scurrilous. I never said that. Why would you say that about homosexuals?

O'CONNOR: Larry, what age does somebody become, you know, become post-pubescent in America, as a matter of interest?

KING: What is the age?

ROBERTS: I don't know. Let's ask Bill. He seems to know.

KING: Well, folks --

DONOHUE: Twelve, thirteen years of age.

Yeah, try that defense in court – “but, your honor, she was over 13” – see how far it gets you.

It’s hard to know what to say after that.  Mind-blowing.  Even the Catholic church has not to my knowledge used such a defense.  All I can really think of to say is, isn’t it time to stop asking Bill Donohue his opinions, to stop having him on network TV as though his opinions were in any way valid or relevant?  He should really be finished as a pundit after this.  Why would any serious news media ever quote this disgusting moron’s views on anything, ever again?

Bill Donohue - Vile and Immoral

Bill Donohue, self appointed cheerleader for the Roman Catholic church, has declared that the problem with the recent child abuse scandal in the church is not the abuse – the problem, according to Donohue, is that people are criticizing the church for the abuse.  Seriously.  Find it hard to believe that anyone could make such a case with a straight face?  Read his article, Criticism of Catholic Church is unfair (oh, boo hoo), which starts:

The rash of stories about priestly sexual abuse in Europe, especially in Ireland and Germany, has put many Catholics on the defensive. They should not be. While sexual molestation of any kind is always indefensible, the politics surrounding this story is also indefensible.

Note the words “While sexual molestation of any kind is always indefensible…” – and consider that is the only indication Donohue gives in the entire 650 word article that sexual molestation of children is bad.  Go on, read the whole thing.  There is nothing else in the whole piece – nothing – that indicates that raping children is wrong, it’s all about how everyone is being mean to the Catholic church.  Incredible.

Donohue starts with the old false equivalence trick:

Employers from every walk of life, in both the U.S. and Europe, have long handled cases of alleged sex abuse by employees as an internal matter. Rarely have employers called the cops, and none was required to do so.

He’s comparing rape of children to “alleged sex abuse by employees.”  Is he saying that companies in the US and Europe have been aware of their employees raping children as a part of their work?  Well, it’s hard to know for sure what’s in the mind of this old idiot, but somehow I don’t think even he is saying this.  What he is trying to get away with is equating workplace sexual harassment – the boss groping his secretary, say – with raping children.  And while it is certainly true that, say 30 or 40 years ago, sexist bosses could get away with things they would likely be sued and/or fired for now (watch Mad Men), this is nothing like what the church is accused of covering up.  Not even close.

Anyone who maintains that in North America or Europe it was common practice for employers outside the Catholic Church to file a police report about suspected wrongdoing by their employees needs to put up or shut up: Where is the evidence?

No one is saying that employers had to file a police report about any suspected wrongdoing by their employees.  That would be ridiculous.  I think most people would suggest that if an employer knew one of his employees had committed rape of a child while doing his job, then the employer should certainly report it.  And most probably would.  And the duty to report would be even greater if the employee’s job was to supervise the child that he had raped.  A job such as, for example, a schoolteacher, scout leader or a bleeding Roman Catholic priest.

Beyond that issue, the focus on sexual abuse in the Catholic Church is far out of proportion to the attention given by the media to the sexual molestation of minors when committed by non-Catholic clergymen. According to a report by the New York Times in October, the Brooklyn district attorney's office had filed charges in 26 cases of sexual abuse involving members of the ultra-Orthodox Jewish community.

Donohue just has to bring the Jews into it.  Hey, some Jews in Brooklyn abused children, so we can too.  Sorry, not an excuse.  If a Jewish religious community has been abusing children then that is just as bad, and the guilty people should be jailed.  If that didn't receive as much publicity as the Catholic church’s abuses, it’s because the Catholic church has a wider congregation, and the abuse affected many more children.

The reason the church is rightly getting all the criticism is that they claim to be god’s representatives on Earth, and they routinely preach their morality to the rest of us, including those of us who don’t believe their particular fairly story.  They demand obedience from their followers.  They (the priests) as part of their jobs are in positions of authority over small children.  They should be above reproach, but they have been shown to be unworthy of the trust placed upon them.  Most Catholics know this.  Even the pope seems to recognize it (belatedly).  But Donohue, while paying lip service to the “indefensible” nature of such abuse, thinks that the real problem here is with people criticizing the church for the abuse.  He actually says that this criticism – just the criticism mind you – is “immoral.”  If anything is immoral it is Donohue and this vile article.

Buffy and the Enablers of the NCSE

Scienceblogger Josh Rosenau has a post up where he claims that there are other valid ways of knowing, apart from science.  Regular readers will know that woos make this claim all the time, which is why I think this subject is pretty important.  So much so that I wrote about the fallacy that is The appeal to other ways of knowing - the claim that the tools of critical thinking and science are not sufficient to evaluate the believer’s claim; therefore the believer's claim has validity despite the lack of evidence for it.  It’s generally not worth making a new post about this every time someone mentions it, but Josh, as well as being a blogger with the generally awesome Scienceblogs, is also Public Information Project Director at the National Center for Science Education (NCSE), the organization that works to keep evolution in US public school science education.  So when Josh suggests that religion might provide one valid way of knowing, it’s relevant.   

Josh’s (first) post on this subject is On vampires and ways of knowing.  It was written in response to Jerry Coyne’s post How many “ways of knowing” are there? (which is how I found it).  You have to scroll down a few pages in Josh’s post before you get to where he starts to support his “other ways of knowing” argument.  If you read those two posts (especially Jerry’s), you’ll realize that what’s behind this discussion is the recent argument about so called “accommodationism” – the idea that science and religion need not conflict.  Accommodationists think that the “new atheists” with their harsh criticisms of religion, are making it harder to get people to accept evolution.  (I’m simplifying the discussion.  If you’re been reading PZ, Larry, Jason or Jerry Coyne, you’ll know what I’m talking about.)  The accomodationist stance does appear to be the NCSE’s position, although Josh’s post is not an official NCSE statement.

The reason for that preamble, is that before Josh gets to his “other ways of knowing” arguments, he takes a dig at the people who don’t approve of accommodation, or as Josh refers to them, “enablers”:

This is all part of the long and tedious battle between a clique of atheists who seem intent on enabling creationists in their muddling of the nature of science (enablers) and people who think it's possible for science and religion to exist without meaningful conflict (so-called accommodationists).  [My bold.]

He repeats this “enablers” wording later, and in comments.

First of all, you’ll note that Josh in no way demonstrates that the new atheists are “enabling creationists,” (he even says that they only “seem intent on…”) and yet he immediately follows by assuming his point is proven and henceforth labels the people he disagrees with as “enablers” – which is ad hominem, since he didn’t justify the wording.  As a further sign of his dishonesty, he doesn’t even use the much less pejorative (and more accurate) description of his own side, which would be “accommodationists.”  Instead he uses “so-called accommodationists.”  Weasel wording at best, and hardly a positive sign. 

More to the point, “enablers” seemed like a strange label to apply to the anti-accommodationist people.  It’s a specific term used by psychotherapists and the like, and has a specific meaning.  I looked up “enabler” in several places.  This one is fairly typical, where it defines enablers as people who:

…allow loved ones to behave in ways that are destructive. For example, an enabler wife of an alcoholic might continue to provide the husband with alcohol. A person might be an enabler of a gambler or compulsive spender by lending them money to get out of debt.

In this fashion, though the enabler may be acting out of love and trying to help or protect a person, he or she is actually making a chronic problem like an addiction worse. By continuing to lend money to the gambler, for example, the gambler doesn’t have to face the consequences of his actions. Someone is there to bail him out of trouble and continue to enable his behavior.

Looking at that explanation, it seems to me that if anything, the real enablers are the accommodationists.  Think about it.  They (the accommodationists) tell the addict (religious believer) that their religious delusions are OK and totally not inconsistent with science at all.  They (the accommodationists) are the ones who actually do enable the addicts (religious believers) by providing them with their drugs (rationalizations for belief in both religion and evolution).  They are certainly protecting religious believers from having to face the consequences of their beliefs.  I’ll leave you to decide which side is actually making a chronic problem worse.  Regardless of what you think, it’s pretty clear that Josh has made no attempt to justify calling his opponents enablers.  His argument by label is lazy and not a little sleazy.  And since he’s really describing what his side does, it’s actually also projection.  (Hey, I can do psycho-babble too.)

OK, so what are Josh’s other ways of knowing?  Essentially, it’s what we get from fiction:

…telling stories about vampires is a great way to convey certain truths about the world we all live in. These aren't truths that science can independently verify, but they are still true in a meaningful way.

No one should watch Buffy the Vampire Slayer they (sic) way they would watch a documentary, but they should certainly watch the show. It's brilliant, and it uses this exact sort of literary truth to tackle tricky subjects like drug addiction, spousal abuse, peer pressure, bullying, and the challenges of adolescence in late 20th century America with a sophistication and humor that would be impossible in any other form.

Oh dear.  It’s hard to believe a smart person could make such a bad argument.  He’s saying (and he further clarified this is the comments and in subsequent posts) that works of fiction tell us truths, make us think of things, or in a way, that perhaps we wouldn’t be able to otherwise.  Maybe, but he’s confusing a way of knowing something with a way of having it explained.  Reading fiction may be a way of understanding something – but it’s just an explanation of what is already known by some other means.  It’s not a way to determine what is true in the first place.

For example, in Buffy the Vampire Slayer, one of the characters gets so heavily into magic that it messes up her life.  Nothing else has meaning for her anymore, she lies to her friends, she puts herself and her friends in danger, nearly gets someone killed, damages her own physical and mental health.  This is obviously an allegory about drug addiction.  From this we learn that drug addiction is bad.  But we don’t know that drug addiction is bad from this episode of Buffy.  We know that drug addiction is bad from stories about drug addiction, from people we have known who were addicts, from reports on addiction etc.  We already knew this from some other way of knowing – one based on observation, verification and replication (aka “science”).  The fictional Buffy the Vampire Slayer just explains this – gets us to remember and understand these facts that were already known before by some other means.  But we only get the allegory, and register the fact that addiction is bad, because we already know addition addiction is bad.  If we didn’t already know addition addiction was bad, the allegory wouldn’t make sense.

Buffy also tells us things that are not true.  For example, that vampires exist.  And yet we don’t learn from Buffy that vampires exist - we already know they don’t.

Josh must know this, but he digs himself in deeper in one of his follow up posts, Defining terms:

To return, then, to ways of knowing, I'll define them as systematic methods of evaluating truth claims against new sources of knowledge

For once I agree.  But how do you use Buffy to evaluate the truth or otherwise of the statements:

1. Drug addiction is bad
2. Vampires exist.

You can’t do that from watching Buffy – you have to go outside of the fictional TV program, and check what they’re telling you against the real world.  That is, you must do some form of science (informally defined), to check what Buffy is telling you – to “know” what is true, if you like.  Therefore Buffy is not a way of knowing, by Josh’s own definition.

The peculiar irony here is that the talk Jerry is complaining about was delivered at DragonCon, a science fiction/fantasy convention filled with people celebrating the truth of unreal things. I didn't see Genie's talk because I was manning NCSE's booth, watching a parade of costumed fans wait in line to get autographs from William Shatner (James T. Kirk), Leonard Nimoy (Spock), Kate Mulgrew (Star Trek Voyager's Capt. Janeway), and Patrick Stewart (Jean-Luc Picard). These fans are devoted to the various incarnations of Star Trek, and were willing to spend $40-75 for just one signature from one of the Star Trek captains. And they don't all want the same signature. Some think Picard is the greatest captain in the Star Trek Universe, some think Kirk is the better captain, and a few prefer Janeway.

These, again, are truth claims…

Again, oh dear.  No, these are not truth claims.  These are opinions. 

In any event, science as a "way of knowing" does not produce truth. People have known that since the failure of logical positivism in the early 20th century; science can lead us away from untruths, and lets us narrow in on the truth, but science can only approach truth asymptotically, and rarely as any sort of smooth function. Furthermore, the truths that other "ways of knowing" aim to provide are of a different sort than scientific claims. As a scientific claim, "vampires fear crosses" is as meaningless as "Picard is a better captain than Kirk" or "The Cubs are the greatest team in baseball's history," and none of those is any more scientifically meaningful than "Jesus is my personal savior."  [My bold.]

Tell that to people who believe, literally, that Jesus is their personal savior.

"Picard is a better captain than Kirk" is an opinion only, not a scientific claim as Josh proposes.  "The Cubs are the greatest team in baseball's history," might be just an opinion, or perhaps it could be verified empirically by tabulating numbers of games won or lost, numbers of home runs scored or whatever.  Then it would be a scientific claim.  If it were, then it would clearly be more meaningful, scientifically, than the Jesus statement.  Either way, Josh is wrong again.

I like novels. I like TV. I like art. I like baseball. I think there is truth to be found in such endeavors, and I think any brush that sweeps away the enterprise of religion as a "way of knowing" must also sweep away art and a host of other human activities. I've tossed out the comparison before, and have yet to get any useful reply to it.

OK, here’s a reply.  Novels and art are not ways of knowing – they can be ways of explaining what is already known, ways to make us think, or pure entertainment only, but they are not ways of knowing.  So when we say religion is not a way of knowing, we clearly do not need to sweep away novels or art as a way of knowing, because they were not ways of knowing in the first place.

Novels and art do not usually make empirical claims.  In the rare cases where they do (for example, many people believe The Da Vinci Code is based on fact), those claims can be tested.  Where they are false, the claim can be dismissed, but that doesn’t require us to “sweep away” the rest of fiction that is just fiction. 

I hope those replies were useful.

Josh continued to defend his idea in comments, and in further posts.  (You should read the comments – most disagree with Josh.)  In one comment, Josh writes

How do we decide that some non-empirical ways of knowing are OK, while others are incompatible with science?

The only basis Coyne offers, and the only one I can recall being offered by other enablers, is that religion and science are incompatible because religions can make false empirical claims.

No, that’s not it.  The problem with religious ways of knowing are:

1. There is no basis for making most religious claims.  They were essentially made up, usually by ignorant ancient peoples with no idea of how the world actually works.  Some of these claims are actually known to be wrong, and
2. There is no mechanism to change religious claims when new information is discovered that shows they were wrong.  On the contrary, religious believers go to great lengths to cherry pick the things that they think supports their position, while ignoring what contradicts it.  And then they lie about the whole thing.

Obviously, science works in the exact opposite way from points 1 and 2 above.  It’s disturbing that someone who works for the NCSE (and blogs at Scienceblogs) doesn’t know this.

Jerry Coyne ends his post with:

As for “ways of knowing,” my response is always, “What do you find out? What do you “know”?  And how would you know if you were wrong? Was Jesus the son of God?  Christians’ “way of knowing” tells them, “Yes, of course!” But Islamic “ways of knowing” say, “No, of course not, and you’ll burn in hell if you believe that.”  Revelation, dogma, and scripture are not in fact ways of knowing; they are ways of believing.  There are no “truths” that religion can produce which are independent of truths derived from secular reason.

Precisely.  Josh’s piece is a totally muddled post relying on little more than equivocation between different things that can appear in fiction, compared to things you can find in religious texts.  He just took a blog post from someone he says is an evangelical Christian, and repeated that blogger’s points uncritically (and at great length).  It was such a poorly thought out piece that Josh wrote four more posts in the three days following the original one, to try to reply to criticisms raised in the comments and rescue the jumble of the original post.  Which wouldn’t matter if Josh were a regular blogger, but he’s Public Information Project Director at the National Center for Science Education!  While he does state that his blog is not official NCSE policy, it gives a worrying insight into the way they may be thinking.

In my view, the only interesting thing to come from Josh’s piece was the insight that the NCSE and other “so-called accommodationists” are enablers – that is, they’re enabling religious people to continue with their destructive delusions.  Apparently it’s a part of being codependent.  (I didn’t “know” that from Josh’s post, by the way.  I had to check external sources.)

Other bloggers on Josh’s post:

Jason Rosenhouse - Ways of Knowing

Ophelia Benson - Ways of whatting?

Blair Waffle Project

Via Ophelia I was unfortunate enough to find this piece of drivel written by British ex-PM Tony Blair, entitled Without God's Truth at its centre, no community can fulfil its potential.  Really?  “No community can fulfil its potential”?  None?  I guess the Danes and the Swedes must be pretty unfulfilled, then.  Oh wait, no they’re not!

But Blair doesn’t need facts, or even a valid argument.  See how he starts by invoking something he thinks we can all agree on - the recent financial crisis:

The limits to individualism are in one sense plain. We only need to contemplate the financial crisis to understand that the pursuit of maximum short-term profit, without proper regard to the communal good, is a mistake and leads to neither profit nor good.

A reasonable point to make.  Arguments could be made for this point or against it, and we could certainly compare their merits and decide if the pursuit of maximum short-term profit was to blame or not.  But Blair isn’t going this route.  Instead, the waffle starts:

Yet, at a deeper level, the case against a purely individualistic or materialistic philosophy has to be made. Young people today have access to technology, to opportunity, to experiences good and bad on a scale my generation never knew and my father's generation would find fantastical, like something out of science fiction.

“Yet, at a deeper level…”?  What does that even mean?  What “level” is he talking about?  Deeper than what?  Measured how?  Why does this case have to be made?  What does modern technology have to do with it?  Will Blair tell us?  Of course not.  His argument has no explanation (nor logic or evidence), just assertion:

The danger is clear: that pursuit of pleasure becomes an end in itself. It is here that faith can step in, can show us a proper sense of duty to others, responsibility for the world around us, and can lead us to, as the Holy Father calls it, caritas in veritate.

Of course – this is where faith can step in.  Obviously.  Because what we need is obviously to believe in more things that are not backed by evidence. That’s the ticket.  Accepting more things without a shred of evidence, or even in the teeth of evidence, is just what we need now.  After all, it worked so well in the past.  Note that Blair has shown absolutely no connection between this and the financial crisis he started his article with.

After the experience of fascism, Soviet Communism or viewing life in North Korea or the cultural revolution in China, it is easier for us to grasp the dangers of a too-powerful state.

Agreed.  Also, religiously controlled Iran, Saudi Arabia, The Taliban, Sudan...  And don’t forget, Hitler was religiously inspired.  No dangers of a too-powerful state there, no siree.  Phew, good job that faith “stepped in” to prevent the dangers of a too-powerful state.  Caritas in Veritate (Charity in Truth) my ass.

Of course, the regimes of Soviet Communism, China or North Korea were/are not exactly bastions of rationality and critical thinking either.  They were/are quasi religious regimes based largely on faith (no evidence their systems worked). They just required faith in something else, not the things Tony Blair has faith in, so that was the bad faith, not the good faith, right Tony?  Right.

But I would argue that even the concept of community has its limitations. We use the word in two senses: one to distinguish it from government, to emphasise civic society if you like; the other sense is just to describe the general community of public opinion. In politics, of course, especially in a democracy, "the people" are the boss; public opinion is to be courted and if not surrendered to, as (sic) least managed.

“The people" are the boss”?  Funny, I didn’t think the people of Britain supported the war in Iraq.  In what sense were the people “the boss” when that decision was being made?  But at least Blair admits that the only thing politicians have to do is manage public opinion, not actually, you know, listen to it in any way.  Otherwise known as spin.

Of course, Blair is saving up for his big finish, where faith and belief in god is the only thing that can save us:

It is here that Faith enlarges and enriches the idea of community. The recent Papal Encyclical is a remarkable document in many respects. It repays reading and re-reading. But one strand throughout it is a strong rejoinder to the notion of relativism, to the description of the human condition in society as just some amoral negotiation or set of compromises with modernity; or even just obedience to the majority opinion. Not that it is anti-technology or anti-modern; or indeed anti-democratic. But it widens and deepens the relationship between individuals and the community in which they live. It puts God's Truth at the centre of it. In one passage, it describes humanism devoid of faith as "inhuman humanism": "Without God, man neither knows which way to go, nor even understands who he is."

Blair’s catholic church had such a strong moral compass that it allowed multiple serial pedophiles to prey on innocent children in church while protecting the predators from the law, and the rape and molestation of thousands of children in over 250 catholic schools for decades.  Hey Tony, do those articles I just linked repay reading and re-reading too?  Caritas in Veritate.

Faith is such a good moral guidance that one in every 33 women who attend worship services regularly has been the target of sexual advances by a religious leader.  In what sense did faith enlarge and enrich the idea of community for those women?  Do tell.

Of course, I see it now.  The 9/11 hijackers were motivated only by “a purely individualistic or materialistic philosophy” and “pursuit of pleasure.”  If only they had had some religious faith instead, all that horror could have been avoided.  Yeah, what we need is more faith in the world.  How could I possibly have missed this obvious conclusion?

And this twit was Prime Minister? 

The Ontological Argument for God

I’ve never understood the supposed difficulty in refuting the ontological argument for god’s existence.  Apart from the fact that it’s an argument from logic and reason alone, rather than from any actual verifiable evidence – which should rule it out as an argument to be considered seriously anyway in my view – it never seemed to make any sense.  Still, some people apparently believe it, including one recent commenter who listed it among the numerous “proofs” that god exists, so I thought it was time I deconstructed it.  As you’ll see, it didn’t take long to locate the logical fallacy that’s at its heart.

The ontological argument was originally put forward by Anselm of Canterbury in the 11th century.  Wikipedia has two versions of it, but I’m going to refer to what I think is a better version at The Internet Dictionary of Philosophy: “The Classic Version of the Ontological Argument” as they call it, which they say can accurately be summarized thus:

1) It is a conceptual truth (or, so to speak, true by definition) that God is a being than which none greater can be imagined (i.e., the greatest possible being that can be imagined).

2) God exists as an idea in the mind.

3) A being that exists as an idea in the mind and in reality is, other things being equal, greater than a being that exists only as an idea in the mind.

4) Thus, if God exists only as an idea in the mind, then we can imagine something that is greater than God (i.e., a greatest possible being that does exist).

No.  Correction - if God exists only as an idea in the mind, then all this means is that we can imagine something that is greater than the idea of God in the mind – not greater than a God who actually exists.  Anselm’s argument relies entirely on equivocation - the misleading use of a term that has more than one meaning, while glossing over which meaning is intended at a particular time.  Specifically, Anselm relies on there being two meanings of the word “God,” and he slips between these definitions as it suits him.  What are these two meanings of the word “God”?  They are (1) a god who exists in reality and (2) a god who exists only in the mind.  In point 4 above he uses the “god who exists only in the mind” version, but in point 5 he tries to make you think he was talking about the “god who exists in reality,” because point 5 is:

5) But we cannot imagine something that is greater than God (for it is a contradiction to suppose that we can imagine a being greater than the greatest possible being that can be imagined.)

Yes, but “the greatest possible being that can be imagined” is not God who exists only as an idea in the mind – so there is no contradiction.  It only seems to be a contradiction because Anselm is equivocating between the different meanings of the word “God” and has glossed over which meaning he is using at different points in his argument.

6) Therefore, God exists.

No.  Epic FAIL.  Therefore nothing.  All this shows is that we can imagine something greater than a God who exists only in the mind. But “God who exists only in the mind” is not “a being than which none greater can be imagined.”  In fact, premise 3 specifically states there can be something greater than this – a God who exists in reality - and so the argument is contradicted by its own premises.  “God who exists only in the mind” is not God, as defined in premise 1, and so it is possible to imagine something greater, without violating premise 1.

Anselm’s mistake will become clearer if we define his terms in a less ambiguous way.  I will rename Anselm’s different versions of God, as God-1 and God-2:

God-1 = God who exists in reality (the thing whose existence we are trying to prove).

God-2 = a God who exists only as an idea in the mind.

Now we can rephrase the argument:

1. Nothing greater than God-1 can be imagined
2. God-2 exists. 
3. God-1 is greater than God-2
4. If God-1 does not exist then we can imagine something greater than God-2 (i.e., God-1)
5. But we cannot imagine something that is greater than God-1
6. Therefore God-1 exists

You can see quite clearly now that the argument is bogus.  Point 4 is where it goes wrong.  It only appears to work because Anselm equivocates about the definitions of God-1 and God-2.  This is what he is doing.  He is trying to make point 4 sound like, “If God-1 does not exist then we can imagine something greater than God-1” (which would be a contradiction to point 1).  But point 4 only makes sense as “…we can imagine something greater than God-2 (i.e., God-1),” as in my version.  (Otherwise he is actually saying “If God-1 does not exist then we can imagine something greater than God-1 (i.e., God-1),” which is gibberish.)  He hopes you won’t notice he changed God-2 to God-1 in point 5, setting up the contradiction to point 1.  But he wasn’t talking about God-1 in point 4, so there is no contradiction.  Consequently, point 6 “Therefore God-1 exists,” just doesn’t follow.

Not only that, but now we’ve deconstructed it, we can see it doesn’t even make sense.  Consider this.  Point 5 is just a restatement of point 1.  So if you leave out this repeated point (you don’t need it here since it’s already been stated), the last two points (4 and 6) are:

• If God-1 does not exist then we can imagine something greater than God-2 (i.e., God-1)
• Therefore God-1 exists

To simplify even further, we can cut out what this allows us to imagine, which leaves:

• If God-1 does not exist then …
• … God-1 exists

To go back to the phrasing of the original argument, he is saying, if God exists only as an idea in the mind, then God exists in reality. Or, put it even more simply, if God doesn’t exist then he exists.

I have read several versions of Anselm’s argument, and they all fall apart for exactly the same reason - the logical fallacy of equivocation.  The only surprising thing about this argument, in my view, is that anyone thinks it should be taken seriously.

The thing that made the things for which there is no known maker

I don’t normally post YouTube videos, but after some thought I decided I would post this link to The thing that made the things for which there is no known maker, that was originally linked by commenter PaulJ on the Atheism is Not a Religion post.  It’s a bit long at just over nine minutes, but you’ll get the idea after less than a minute into it.  It demonstrates the fallacy of thinking that if you can’t explain where something came from, then god must have done it.

In future, when some theist says something like, “what is the origin of life and/or the origin of the information" necessary to bring life into existence?” you can answer with: “The thing that made the things for which there is no known maker and that causes and directs the events that we can't otherwise explain and which doesn't need to have been made and is the one thing from which to ask for things that no human can give and without him we can't be fully happy and is unlimited by all the laws of physics and never began and will never finish and is invisible but is actually everywhere at once and who is so perfect that even if he killed millions of people, including babies, he still would be perfect and who is so powerful and magical that he can even make a virgin pregnant if he wanted to."

Which is, of course, just as meaningful and useful an answer as “god.”

Other Videos

It’s also worth checking out the other You Tube videos from NonStampCollector.  For example, What Would Jesus NOT Do?, ATHEIST!!!!!!!, How amazing is God's Forgiveness? Not very, and The Great Debate.

Atheism is Not a Religion

This is a refrain I’m hearing a lot from religious apologists – atheism is a religion. Also its equally fallacious siblings, science is a religion and evolution is a religion. It’s a sign of their desperation that the best argument they have is not that atheism is wrong, or that god does exist (supported by evidence of course), but that atheism is a religion too. A strange argument for a religious person to make on the face of it.  Is it supposed to strengthen the atheist’s position or weaken the theist’s one? In reality it’s a sign they have run out of arguments.

Still, this argument is widely made, and so it needs to be addressed. Atheism (and here I mean the so-called “weak atheism” that does not claim proof that god does not exist), is just the lack of god-belief – nothing more and nothing less. And as someone once said, if atheism is a religion, not collecting stamps is a hobby.

That really ought to end the discussion right there. Clearly, a mere lack of belief in something cannot be a religion. In addition, atheism has no sacred texts, no tenets, no ceremonies. Even theists making this argument must know all that. So they must have something else in mind when they trot this one out, but what is it? What are they really thinking? Well, if you look at various definitions of religion, the only things that could possibly apply to atheism would be something like this:

6. Something one believes in and follows devotedly

or this:

4. A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion.

Obviously I don’t know if that’s what they mean – I don’t read minds. But I can’t see what else it could be. They must be referring to certain activities of atheists – writing books and blogs, financing bus ads, joining atheist groups, etc. They think atheists are “religious in their atheism” as one person put it to me – the word “religious” being used here colloquially to mean something felt very strongly, or followed enthusiastically. But this definition of religion is so broad that virtually anything people enjoy doing very much, or follow strongly or obsessively, is a religion. It’s a definition of religion that is so broad that it’s meaningless. In reality, most of the things that people follow enthusiastically, are just hobbies. And ironically, although not collecting stamps is not a hobby, getting involved in atheist activities (writing books and blogs, attending atheist meetings) might well be a hobby for some people. But it is a hobby, not a religion.

What Is Religion?

I’m sure that argument won’t convince all theists to abandon this rhetorical trope they love so much.  To really address the argument, we have to define religion, and then see if atheism fits the definition. While I don’t think I can define religion completely, I think I can state the minimum that religion has to have to still be a religion. And it seems to me that there is one thing at least that is common to all religions. It’s this. In my view, religion at a minimum, has to have the following characteristic:

Religion must include something you have to accept on faith – that is, without evidence commensurate with the extraordinary nature of the belief.

Most religions will include other things too, but they must require faith. Of course, not all things that require faith are religions, but all religions must require faith.

The minimum definition covers all the religions I’m familiar with. For example, it includes any religion that involves belief in god or gods – something you have to believe in without evidence. Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Hinduism… all require you to believe in god or gods as a minimum, without evidence. The minimum definition would also include religions that don’t require belief in god, but require faith in other things. For example, I believe it would include Buddhism, which (for example) includes the belief that living beings go through a succession of lifetimes and rebirth. It would also include Scientology – no evidence for Xenu, that I’m aware of. Maybe you can think of some actual religions that would be excluded, but I haven’t been able to so far.

So religion requires belief without evidence. And by that definition atheism cannot possibly be a religion because atheists do not have to believe in anything to be an atheist – either with or without evidence. QED.

Now, some religious people may say, “but that’s not my definition of religion”. To which I say, OK, then give me your definition. Give me your definition of religion, that doesn’t require belief without evidence, that includes your religion, the others I named, and atheism. And it needs to be better than the two dictionary definitions I cited above.  Give me that definition. Because here’s the thing. The problems I have with religions are:

1. They are not based on fact or on any reasonable evidence commensurate with the claims they make. In many cases, the claims they make are plainly absurd and are actually contradicted by the evidence.
2. Religious proponents demand respect, and adherence to their delusions by others. This despite (1) above.

Those are the aspects of religion that I object to. Clearly atheism doesn’t fit 1 (or 2) above, so it is nothing like any of the religions I object to. If your religion does not require belief without faith, then I probably wouldn’t have a problem with it. Assuming, of course, all the tenets of your religion are actually backed up by evidence extraordinary enough for the extraordinary claims your religion makes. But they never do. 

In my view, theists will have their work cut out to deny this minimum requirement for religion.  Come on – they even refer to their religion as “my faith”. 

Evidence and Extraordinary Evidence

Some religious people will claim that their religious beliefs are backed by evidence. This is where it gets tricky, because many religious people genuinely believe their religion is rational and backed by evidence. For example, one Christian I debated cited that the evidence Christianity was real, was (and I quote), “the resurrection of Christ”. Of course, the resurrection of Christ, if it had actually happened, would be pretty good evidence for Christianity. But, unfortunately, there is no good evidence for the resurrection. Certainly, nothing close to the extraordinary evidence we would need to accept this extraordinary claim.

Extraordinary Claims

This needs explaining in more detail. Why do extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence? Well, all claims require exactly the same amount of evidence, it’s just that most "ordinary" claims are already backed by extraordinary evidence that you don’t think about. When we say “extraordinary claims”, what we actually mean are claims that do not already have evidence supporting them, or sometimes claims that have extraordinary evidence against them. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence because they usually contradict claims that are backed by extraordinary evidence.

So why is Jesus’ resurrection an extraordinary claim, and why is the Bible not extraordinary evidence for it? Well, the resurrection goes against all the evidence we have that people do not come back to life, spontaneously, after two days of being dead. Modern medicine can bring people back from what would have been considered in earlier years to be “dead”, but not after 2 days of being dead with no modern life support to keep the vital organs working. In fact, it is probably reasonably safe to say it has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt that people cannot come back to life after being dead for two days without modern life support. So, extraordinary claim it is.

On the other hand, the evidence we are offered in support of this extraordinary claim consists only of accounts written decades after the event, by people who were not there when the events described were purported to have occurred. We are offered nothing but hearsay anecdotes from superstitious people with a clear reason for wanting others to think the story true. This is hardly acceptable evidence to counteract the fact that this never happens. Christians might ask, what evidence would an atheist accept for such an extraordinary claim? And in reality, it is hard to imagine that there could possibly be any evidence good enough for us to accept the resurrection as true. Christians may claim that this is unfair, or that we are closed minded, but the fact that you are unlikely to find extraordinary evidence for this event 2,000 years after the fact, is hardly the non-believer’s fault. The real question, considering the weakness of the evidence, and the wildly extraordinary nature of the claim, is why would anyone believe any of it in the first place?  The truth is, they accept it on faith.  In fact, the acceptance of this story on faith alone is usually considered to be essential to the true believer. And although that was just Christianity, the same lack of evidence, and belief based on faith alone, applies to the claims of all the other religions that I’m familiar with.

Religions require belief in extraordinary claims without anything close to the extraordinary evidence that is required.  Atheism requires no belief in anything.  The contrast couldn’t be clearer.

But the believer has one final shot – one last desperate rhetorical item to fling at the atheist.  Here we go.

More Faith To Be An Atheist?

The final argument many religious apologists throw into the mix is it takes more faith to be an atheist than it does to believe in god. That certainly took me by surprise the first time I heard it. I think what they’re trying to say is this. Atheists think matter just appeared out of nowhere, that something came out of nothing. But where did the matter come from? To think that matter appeared out of nowhere requires more faith than to think a creator made everything. Why is there something rather than nothing? To think that matter just appeared by itself, requires faith.

Atheists don’t think matter came out of nowhere. Atheists say we don’t know where matter came from; we don’t know why there is something rather than nothing. Maybe one day we’ll know, or maybe we won’t. But we don’t know now. Theists are exactly the same. They don’t know either, but the difference is they make up an explanation (god). But it’s just a made up explanation – they have no reason to suppose it’s true, other than that they just like it.

And it’s a useless explanation. Unless they know something about this “God” – how he created everything; why he created it; what he’s likely to do next - it’s a lack of an explanation. It’s just a placeholder until a real explanation comes along. Except that the theist won’t be open to the real explanation when and if science is able to provide one. The god placeholder prevents investigation into any real tentative explanations. The theist who says god created everything, is the one with the faith – faith that “god” is the explanation and that no other is possible. The atheist is content to say “we don’t know”. For now, anyway. And it’s obvious that saying “we don’t know,” requires no faith.  That may be a hard thing to do for people who want all the answers, but it certainly isn’t religion.

One last thing.  Some theists have responded to the “if atheism is a religion, not collecting stamps is a hobby” argument by pointing out that non stamp collectors (aphilatelists?) don’t write books or blogs about not collecting stamps, don’t post anti stamp collecting ads on buses, don't ridicule stamp collectors, etc.  This is meant to demonstrate that the “stamp collecting” analogy is weak.  It actually demonstrates that the analogy is very good, since it highlights one of the main problems atheists have with many religious people.

Here’s the thing they are missing, and the real problem most atheists have with religion.  If stamp collectors demanded that people who don’t collect stamps obey their stamp collecting rules, started wars with groups who collected slightly different types of stamps, denied non-stamp collectors rights or discriminated against them, bullied them in school, claimed you had to collect stamps to be a suitable person to run for public office, tried to get stamp collecting taught in schools as science in opposition to real science, demanded that people be killed for printing cartoons that made fun of stamp collectors, claimed that non-stamp collectors lacked moral judgment, made up ridiculous straw man positions they claimed non-stamp collectors took, and then argued against those straw men positions etc etc, - then non-stamp collectors probably would criticize stamp collectors in the way atheists criticize many religious people. And with good reason. Not collecting stamps would still not be a hobby.  Or a religion.

Proof That God Exists (Not)

From PZ I found Proof That God Exists – a series of questions designed to force the conclusion that (you guessed it), god exists.  The site presents a series of yes/no questions about whether laws of logic, science and absolute morals exist – questions to which I answered “yes”.  Sure, I guess “absolute moral laws” might be debatable, but I thought, murder is always bad and so I answered yes.

When I answered the last question with “I do not believe that God exists”, I got the following “proof”.  Well, not so much.  I imagine the logical fallacies employed will be obvious:

Denying the existence of God is not unbelief but an exercise in self-deception. You may know things, but you cannot account for anything you know.

And neither can you.  The difference is that you make up an answer - “God” – and put him in the place where you have no answer.  But it’s just a made up explanation – you have no reason to suppose it’s true, other than that you just like it.  And it’s a useless explanation. Unless you know something about this “God” – how he created everything; why he created it; what he’s likely to do next - it’s a lack of an explanation. It’s just a placeholder until a real explanation comes along.

Arguing against God's existence would be on par with arguing against the existence of air, breathing it all the while.

False analogy.  If a living animal is deprived of air, it will die.  This is a repeatable, reliable and undoubted observation.  I wouldn’t have to put up some lame 20 questions website to prove it either.

You use the universal, immaterial, unchanging laws of logic, mathematics, science, and absolute morality in order to come to rational decisions, but you cannot account for them. These laws are not the only way God has revealed himself to you, but they are sufficient to show the irrationality of your thinking, and expose your guilt for denying Him.

Pure assertion, unsupported by arguments presented so far. 

There is a reason that you deny the existence of God and it has nothing to do with proof. I can show this to you. Examine what your initial reaction was to the proof of God's existence offered on this website.

OK.  My initial reaction was… “let’s list the logical fallacies you’re using and put up a blog post”.  What’s your point?

Did you think that you could continue to deny God because you are not a scientist, or philosopher but 'Surely somewhere, sometime, a philosopher or scientist will come up with an explanation for universal, immaterial, unchanging laws apart from God?' Did you try to come up with an alternate explanation on your own?

No – see above.  I don’t need to come up with “an alternate explanation” – you’re the one making the claim so it is up to you to support that claim.

OR Did you even consider that the proof was valid?

First – it wasn't proof.  Proof only exists within math.  This was an attempt to prove something using logic only.  Even if the logic wasn’t flawed (which it was, but let’s say it wasn't), it would still not be “proof”, or even particularly good evidence.  Logic is great, but at the end of the exercise when you have your logical conclusion, you still have to test your conclusion against reality to see if it is true.  Science is full of experiments that seemed logically sound but failed the experiment and were discarded.  When I agreed the laws of logic exist, I didn’t agree that logic is always correct and will always lead you to the correct solution.  So for many reasons, your “proof” is quite obviously not valid.

Hoping that an alternate explanation for universal, immaterial, unchanging laws can someday be found apart from God, is a blind leap of faith, or wishful thinking. Isn't it interesting that this is exactly what professed unbelievers accuse Christians of?

Yeah, but that’s not what I did.  I’m just saying that if you or I don’t have the answer, you don’t get to say “therefore God” by default.

Please examine the real reason why you are running from God. It is my prayer that God will open your eyes and change your heart so that you may be saved from your sin, embraced by His forgiving love, and come to know the peace which passes all understanding.

I’m not running from something that (probably) doesn’t exist.  And we know that prayer is useless so go on, knock yourself out, pray for me.  Pray for some better logic while you’re at it.

The whole website was an exercise in argument from ignorance – you can’t explain it, therefore God.  Throw in an argument by bad analogy, some confident assertion that you have proved your point, and the customary attempt to assign motives to disbelief (“running from God”) and it’s the same standard vacuous religious drivel we’ve all heard before.  Nothing to see here.

Do You Have Frog's Legs?

…Then hop over the bar and get me a drink.

Ba-Boom!

A frog that constantly changes color is being worshipped as a god in India:

Hundreds of people are flocking to Reji Kumar’s home in India daily to pray and ask for miracles.

[…]

The frog was a dazzling white colour when Reji, who is from Thiruvananthapuram, the capital of Kerala, in south India, first spotted it.

Then it changed to yellow and had gone grey by the time he got it home.

“By night the frog was dark yellow, and then it became transparent so you could see its internal organs," Reji, a life worker, reportedly said.

"It seemed like a miracle to me that this frog had so many different coats. So now people come to see him and pray to him.”

I suppose it’s about as much use as praying to any other god.  Which is to say, completely useless.  There is a more serious problem though – it seems the frog won’t eat anything:

My one problem is that this frog does not appear to eat. I keep trying to feed it but it doesn’t eat anything. I don’t know what else to give it

Yeah that's right - they're worried he might croak.  (Croak.  Frog - croak.  I kill myself sometimes.)  But why?  Hey, it couldn't be down to the fact that he's keeping the damn thing in a glass jar could it?

Seriously - that's no way to treat your lord and savior.

I pray that you buggers let me go.

Christians Justify Torture

Several bloggers have commented on the recent Pew Survey on whether or not different religious groups support torture. Interestingly, the question they asked was unequivocal – there were no euphemisms such as “enhanced interrogation” or yes it is / no it isn’t terms like “waterboarding”.  The question was unequivocally about torture:

Do you think the use of torture against suspected terrorists in order to gain important information can often be justified, sometimes be justified, rarely be justified, or never be justified?

The results by religious grouping below clearly shows that the more Christian you are, the more likely you are to think that torture was justified:

I’m not sure how statistically significant these results are. The numbers questioned in the attend religious services “weekly”, “monthly…” and “seldom or never” were 336, 225 and 168 respectively. That seems a little low to be used for drawing too many conclusions, although I could be wrong. If anyone has the statistical know-how to crunch the numbers and calculate statistical significance I’d be very interested. Also, the number supporting torture in the less religious groups is still fairly high in my view. Torture was justified at least “sometimes” by around 40% of the “unaffiliated” and “attend religious services seldom or never” groups. That compares with 54% to 62% of the religious groups.

Even so, significant or not, these results hardly support the view that religion (specifically Christianity) provides a moral compass, or that reading the Bible or going to church is necessary for one to be moral or good. And, really, should this surprise anyone? Consider what the “good book”, aka The Word Of God has to say about the use of torture. Just a few snippets:

If a man beats his male or female slave with a rod and the slave dies as a direct result, he must be punished, but he is not to be punished if the slave gets up after a day or two, since the slave is his property. Exodus 21:20-21

Oh yeah, you say, but that was just for slaves. Slaves are property, right? But it wasn't just slaves. Look what David did (with God’s approval) to all the inhabitants of several cities:

And he brought forth the people that were therein, and put them under saws, and under harrows of iron, and under axes of iron, and made them pass through the brick-kiln: and thus did he unto all the cities of the children of Ammon. 2 Samuel 12:31

Hum, saws, harrows, axes, the brick-kiln - well at least they didn't waterboard.

Jesus approved of the practice:

The lord of that servant will come in a day when he looketh not for him, and at an hour when he is not aware, and will cut him in sunder, and will appoint him his portion with the unbelievers. And that servant, which knew his lord's will, and prepared not himself, neither did according to his will, shall be beaten with many stripes. Luke 12:46-48

Oh that Jesus - such a barrel of fun. But then, he got it from his dad:

And to them it was given that they should not kill them, but that they should be tormented five months: and their torment was as the torment of a scorpion, when he striketh a man. And in those days shall men seek death, and shall not find it; and shall desire to die, and death shall flee from them. Revelation 9:5-6

Much more at the Skeptic’s Annotated Bible’s What the Bible says about Torture page.

This survey really shouldn’t surprise anyone. The Bible, Christianity, religion are not necessary for one to be moral or good.

Melanie Phillips Wrong Again

One of the most consistently stupid “journalists” writing on the subject of science and intelligent design has to be Melanie Phillips. I commented two years ago on another horrendous anti-science piece of hers: Idiot Journalist is the new enemy of reason.  Now she’s back again writing in the Spectator, with a piece entitled Creating An Insult To Intelligence – actually a highly accurate headline considering what she wrote under it.

Listening to the Today programme this morning, I was irritated once again by yet another misrepresentation of Intelligent Design as a form of Creationism. In an item on the growing popularity of Intelligent Design, John Humphrys interviewed Professor Ken Miller of Brown University in the US who spoke on the subject last evening at the Faraday Institute, Cambridge. Humphrys suggested that Intelligent Design might be considered a kind of middle ground between Darwinism and Creationism. Miller agreed but went further, saying that Intelligent Design was

nothing more than an attempt to repackage good old-fashioned Creationism and make it more palatable.

But this is totally untrue. Miller referred to a landmark US court case in 2005, Kitzmiller v Dover Area School District, which did indeed uphold the argument that Intelligent Design was a form of Creationism in its ruling that teaching Intelligent Design violated the constitutional ban against teaching religion in public schools. But the court was simply wrong, doubtless because it had heard muddled testimony from the likes of Prof Miller.

The court was”simply wrong”? What, because you say so? And why was Miller’s testimony “muddled”? Because you didn’t like it? Or because you didn’t understand it? In any case, the court was not “wrong”, simply or otherwise. The court was shown evidence (actually, virtual proof) of the link between creationism and ID. The transitional version - cdesign proponentsists – was discovered.

Put simply, the ID book Of Pandas and People that was discussed at the Dover trial was originally a unashamed creation book called Creation Biology. (You know it’s a creation book because it has the word “Creation” in the title. You’re welcome.) Just after the Supreme Court ruling against creation science in Edwards v. Aguillard, the Disco Tute decided to remake the book as an ID book, rewriting large parts of it to make it all “sciencey” and not creationism at all.  No, really. But unfortunately for them, they were in such a hurry to do so that in changing the wording in one place from “creationists” to (presumably) “intelligent design proponents”, they morphed the two phrases and the book actually included the words “cdesign proponentsists”. Apparently they believe in a designer but not in a spell checker. Hilarious. Click the NCSE’s Missing Link discovered! for a detailed explanation of what they did. Also, The Panda's Thumb's Missing link: “cdesign proponentsists”.

Whatever the ramifications of the specific school textbooks under scrutiny in the Kitzmiller/Dover case, the fact is that Intelligent Design not only does not come out of Creationism but stands against it. This is because Creationism comes out of religion while Intelligent Design comes out of science.

Which is funny, because cdesign proponentsists (excuse me) intelligent design proponents don’t do any science. Instead they write long whiney articles about why ID is too science.

Creationism, whose proponents are Bible literalists, is a specific doctrine which holds that the earth was literally created in six days. Intelligent Design, whose proponents are mainly scientists, holds that the complexity of science suggests that there must have been a governing intelligence behind the origin of matter, which could not have developed spontaneously from nothing.

So how did the existence of this “governing intelligence” result in there being matter? According to IDists, the designer designed stuff. Stuff that could not have evolved. So after he had designed it, surely he must have implemented his design? But how did he do this, if the “matter […] could not have developed spontaneously from nothing” as Phillips writes? Didn’t the designer have to “create” the matter? If not, where did it come from? And if the designer did create matter, how is this not “creationism”? Obviously it’s not literal six day creationism, but who said creationism had to be literal six day creationism as in Genesis? Regardless of whether ID has its roots in religious creation or not (it does, but even if it didn’t), it’s still creationism. Clearly it’s more than just “design” (intelligent or otherwise). Somewhere along the line, the designer had to create stuff too.

The confusion arises partly out of ignorance, with people lazily confusing belief in a Creator with Creationism.

A bit like how people lazily confuse the appearance of design with belief in a designer.

But belief in a Creator is common to all people of monotheistic faith – with many scientists amongst them -- the vast majority of whom would regard Creationism as totally ludicrous. In coming to the conclusion that a governing intelligence must have been responsible for the ultimate origin of matter, Intelligent Design proponents are essentially saying there must have been a creator.

There you are - “there must have been a creator”.  Told you.

The difference between them and people of religious faith is that ID proponents do not necessarily believe in a personalised Creator, or God.

Well, yes they do, but even if they didn’t, it’s still creationism. It’s still “magic man did it”.

As a result, both Creationists and many others of religious faith disdain Intelligent Design, just as ID proponents think Creationism is totally off the wall. Yet the two continue to be conflated. And ignorance is only partly responsible for the confusion, since militant evangelical atheists deliberately conflate Intelligent Design with Creationism in order to smear and discredit ID and its adherents.

No, we conflate them because they are the same. If they want it to be science they need to do some science. Then they need to write it up and present it for publication in a science journal. Then have it peer reviewed, and stuff like that. But that’s too hard. Instead they just want to whine about how mean scientists are for calling them creationists. Boo hoo.

Easter and God the Victim

A little perspective on Easter (which is today).

Yesterday, PZ reported on the “debate” between Christopher Hitchens and radio host Todd Friel – a labored exercise in Pascal’s Wager. Freil basically says, if we assume the Christian story is true, don’t you agree that atheists will go to hell? It goes on for over ten minutes, but there really isn’t much more to it than that. Hitchens does an excellent job of demolishing the idiot. (Click the link above – PZ has the full interview embedded.)

There was one area where I felt I had something to add to Hitchens’ rebuttal.  It was with Freil’s suggestion that Jesus’s death on the cross was an act of generosity.  As best I can recall, this is what Freil said:

If Jesus took the punishment that you deserve… wouldn’t that be the single greatest act of kindness in the history of the world?

Hitchens replied no, because he (Hitchens) hadn’t been born then and hadn’t been consulted.  Which is true, but I could think of additional reasons why this wasn’t an act of kindness.

I wanted to ask, who made this rule?  Who decided that Jesus had to die a horrible death before my sins could be forgiven? Surely this rule was made up by god? But why does he have to follow it? He’s god. He could forgive any sins he wanted. What possible difference could it make that Jesus did or did not die on the cross? And then it struck me – god is just playing victim. (“Oh boo hoo, I died on the cross for you, the least you could do is love me and praise me your whole life.”) Jesus's dying on the cross wasn’t an act of generosity. On the contrary, it was totally self serving – nothing but a piece of passive aggressive manipulative bullying. God had simply set himself up so he could play victim for the rest of eternity. What a wimp.

And it’s actually worse than that. The reward god has for us if we believe in him and praise him our whole lives, is that he won’t send us to burn in the hell that he created for us. We’re supposed to be grateful that Jesus died so that god could give himself permission not to torture us for eternity. That would be like me setting up a torture chamber in my basement and expecting people to think I was generous for agreeing not to lock them up there and torture them for the rest of their lives (as long as they worship me). That wouldn’t be considered an act of kindness. I would rightly be considered a psychopath for even setting up the torture chamber in the first place.

So to recap on god’s generosity at Easter: to save us from an eternity of torture in hell that he (god) created and had decided to send us to, based on rules he (god) made up all by himself, he (god) suffered torture (that he planned) on the cross, so that now as long as you worship him, he won’t send you to the hell that he can freely choose not to send you to anyway. And this, we are expected to believe, is act of kindness.

What a moron.

Top Atheist Bloggers

Daniel at Unreasonable Faith has just published his list of the Top 30 Atheist/Agnostic/Skeptic Blogs which includes Skeptico.  Thanks Daniel. 

His top five are:

1. Pharyngula
2. Friendly Atheist
3. Cynical-C
4. Debunking Christianity
5. Atheist Media Blog

Pharyngula is on the top of my RSS feed and Friendly Atheist is there too, as are several of his other 25 (click the link for the full list).  It's worth checking out some of the others if like me you haven’t read them all.

Explain that "code of conduct" thing

Religious people - explain that “code of conduct” thing for me again.  You know, how the bible and the ten commandments is supposed to be:

the historical foundation of American law, moral values and code of conduct.

And then explain this:

A 24-year-old ski lift operator who fatally shot the general manager of the Eldora ski area was determined to kill co-workers who weren't Christian, according to court records obtained Thursday.

The documents, filed Wednesday in Boulder District Court, said witnesses told authorities that Derik Bonestroo walked into a building at work, fired a gun into the ceiling and said: "If you're not Christian, you're going to die."

Because from this story, it seems to me that this Christian “code of conduct” is pretty useless.

I’m not saying that most Christians or even many Christians would ever do such a thing.  What I’m saying, is that being Christian, reading your bible, following God, clearly does not make you moral and is clearly not necessary as a “code of conduct” for us to follow.  So, Christians, explain please exactly why I’m wrong here or stop banging on about how atheists are amoral.  Please.

Hat tip to Atheist Revolution.

Ten Commandments Moron

I just received an email advising me that “help is on the way,” with a link to Scott Teague’s Ten Commandment Awareness Walk’ to Washington, D.C..  Teague is apparently the founder of “The Ten Commandment Warriors,” ("warriors"?) and claims he is answering a call from God to make America aware of the ten commandments.  Because, you know, there is so little awareness of these things right now.

My mission is to bring awareness to our great nation and to remind all that the Ten Commandments are the historical foundation of American law, moral values and code of conduct.

Well, perhaps Teague isn’t really that aware himself of what those ten commandments actually are.  Only two – you shall not kill and you shall not steal – are actually laws in the US.  You shall not bear false witness is only  a law in the specific case of where an oath has been sworn.  A “code of conduct”?  We need to be told not to kill people?

Teague doesn’t care.  He thinks the recession is punishment from God because we have turned our back on him, or something:

He believes the cause of the economic recession and other problems across the nation are a result of America turning its back on God and is claiming the scripture in II Chronicles 7:14 (If my people who are called by my name shall humble themselves and pray and seek my face and turn from their wicked ways, then will I hear from heaven and will forgive their sin and will heal their land) as the solution. Teague says he is asking men and women everywhere to join him in prayer for America on March 4th.

Oh I see, they’re going to pray also.  Well that’s a relief.  For a minute I thought it was going to be a walk only – a purely symbolic act that would make people feel they’re doing something but ultimately would have absolutely no effect at all.  But they’re going to pray as well.  Phew!  Good to know this Teague guy has fully thought this through.

The best bit was at the end:

Teague says he he has no doubt that God has blessed a drought stricken Johnson County with rain and snow recently because so many people have fought to keep the Ten Commandments in the courthouse. “It works at this level, and God can work at any level, and I believe he will.”

Wow, Teague has never heard of winter.  I guess it’s not mentioned in the bible.

"Where’s all this snow coming from?"

COTG

My favorite post from the Carnival of the Godless yesterday was What Must We Do To Be Saved?  The writer has actually read the relevant sections of the Bible to try to discover what Jesus wants us to do so that we can be saved an eternity of hellfire torment from our loving God.  Is it just to forgive others, as Jesus says in Matthew, or is it to be good, or not blaspheme, or keep the commandments (which ones?), or give all your money to the poor, or…?  You get the idea.  Jesus seems a little confused about what we have to do.

Anyway, an excellent example of how to examine the Bible rationally and demonstrate its contradictions.  Worth bookmarking.

Mark Souder Gets It. Or Not

From PZ I learned of more stupidity from a Republican Congressman. Yeah, hard to believe, but true.  Rep. Mark Souder, in a recent interview, claimed admitted that the highlight of his year was appearing in Expelled:

I personally believe that there is no issue more important to our society than intelligent design. I believe that if there wasn't a purpose in designing you — regardless of who you view the designer as being — then, from my perspective, you can't be fallen from that design. If you can't be fallen from that design, there's no point to evangelism.

First off, this is a critical thinking blog and so I am required by law to tell you this is an Appeal to Consequences logical fallacy – the truth (or otherwise) of something does not depend on the consequences of it being true (or not).  If it did, Santa Claus must be real, or Christmas wouldn’t be so much fun.  Of course, you knew that.

My legal duties taken care of, it struck me that, fallacious logic or not, Souder unintentionally spoke the truth there.  As he said, “If you can't be fallen from that design, there's no point to evangelism.”  Quite true.  Unfortunately, Souder will probably not draw the obvious conclusion from his own words, namely there's no point to evangelism.  But then, we know from Senator Mark Pryor that you don’t need to pass an IQ test to get into congress, so perhaps we shouldn't be surprised.

Carnival of the Godless - Special Newtonmas Edition

This Thursday we celebrate the birthday of Sir Isaac Newton, born December 25th, 1642 (old style calendar).  Newton remains one of the true giants of science, having discovered that gravity affects celestial bodies according to the same laws that we observe on Earth. Newton’s equations are still used by NASA when sending vehicles into space.  Of course, Newton was also religious, but he was a man of his time – a time before we knew about evolution, before man had shrunk the need for God as an explanation to just that of a “designer” who tinkers with DNA (according to Michael Behe, anyway).  Perhaps if Newton had been born today he would have been less enamored of religion, just as he would almost certainly not have experimented with alchemy.  Anyway, his religious beliefs in no way diminish his scientific achievements, and his birthday (Newtonmas) should be celebrated.

That’s all very well, but recently I’ve become aware of the war on Newtonmas (TWON).  Apparently many Christians, not content with appropriating the Winter solstice celebrations that take place today (Happy Solstice to any pagans reading), and the celebrations and customs of other religions, now want to appropriate the Newtonmas holiday too.  They are even calling TWON, “the war on Christmas.”  How dumb is that?  So I’m going to start with several posts that comment on this absurd “war.”  Here goes…

The War On Christmas (TWOC)

To start us off, Ron Gold presents The "War On Christmas": Bill O'Reilly's Ill-Conceived Fight posted at The Invisible Pink Unicorn, arguing that if you're concerned with what greeting a store clerk gives you, then maybe you're really condemning the secularization of the commercialization of Christmas.  Nice thinking.

Yvette presents O'Reilly: Holidays For Christians Only posted at Blue Linchpin. This is an open letter to O'Reilly containing some logical arguments.  Ha – like he’d even recognize a logical argument.  Worth a try, though.

Robert McCormick presents Good for Goodness sake posted at Relatively Science, where he tells us that the Bible (Jeremiah  10:1-5) outlaws the whole idea of a Christmas tree anyway.  Huh – so the Bible’s against Christmas too?  I guess I’d better post a picture of a Christmas tree, then.  Here it is.

Vjack presents How Christians Have Secularized Christmas posted at Atheist Revolution, about how Christians are themselves responsible for the war on Christmas, and how they have the solution in their own hands (if they are willing to take it).

Vjack also presents Encouraging Children to Believe Falsehoods posted at Mississippi Atheists (he has two atheist blogs!?), asking if teaching our kids the Santa Claus myth undermines our credibility when we later try to teach them critical thinking.  No Santa?  That that really would be TWOC.  What about Newton in a Santa hat?  Would that be OK?

To round up TWOC posts, Procrustes presents State of Christmas posted at State of Protest.  He concludes the State of Christmas is that the State should stay out of Christmas and all religious affairs.  And that is really where TWOC should end.

Just Regular Godlessness

There were some non-TWOC posts too.  First off, H presents maybe god was only pro-life for daniel and isaiah (the guys, not the books) posted at ...And That's How You Live With A Curse, asking, if God is so against abortion, how come he calls so  often for children – including unborn children - to be killed?  I  think we should be told.  (Backed up with Bible quotes.)  Wow.  I guess God needs a hug.  Perhaps he’ll get one if I post some mistletoe.

Adrian Hayter presents Crackergate Continues: FSMdude Interrogated posted at The Atheist Blogger.  Apparently "You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor” is optional for some Christians.  Somebody called the cops on a kid who had posted YouTube videos of magic crackers being desecrated, alleging the kid had a gun and was planning a murder spree.  Nice.

Regular Skeptico commenter (and fierce debater) Tom Foss presents On Suffering and Sacrifice posted at Dubito Ergo Sum, asking Christians, if you could go back in time and successfully rescue Jesus from the crucifixion, would you do it?  The way some believers answer that question is… interesting.

Greta Christina presents two posts on what is it like being an atheist in the LGBT community compared with being LGBT in the atheist community.  Part one is Being an Atheist in the Queer Community, and part two (on what she thinks we should do about it) is How To Be An Ally with Atheists, posted at Greta Christina's Blog.  Greta’s posts are always insightful, and these are no exception.

Yvette presents A World Without Gods posted at Blue Linchpin, asking if atheists should really be working on changing minds through logic and reason, or would a better strategy be to reach out to theists in other ways?

Arensb presents Foxholes and Shoe Leather posted at Epsilon Clue.  He tackles the old "no atheists in foxholes" myth, and argues that even if it were true, it’s only because people resort to desperate measures in desperate times.  It doesn’t mean those desperate measures are effective.

Hank presents Why I am not an atheist posted at Dangerous Intersection.  Also the reasons he is an atheist.  Not as confusing as it might it appear.

Seth Manapio presents suicide posted at Whiskey Before Breakfast... the Blog – on why people without faith still have reasons to live.  And care about things in general.

Mansur Ahmed presents The Great Religious Divide posted at Film, Literature, and the Human Condition.  Explains why Humanism is not a religion, but is rather an ethical approach to life.

Summer presents Raising Kids Without Religion posted at Wired For Noise.  The post title speaks for itself, although the interesting thing is that it’s written by a person of faith.

Transplanted Lawyer presents Invoke Rule Eleven On The Thomas More Law Center posted at Not A Potted Plant, about how the Thomas More Law Center is wrong on all counts regarding the Muslim-bashing lawsuit they filed alleging America is a Christian Nation.

I hope you like the picture of the holly – another image the Christians appropriated.  Btw, don’t do what I did and Google images of “holly.”  Funnily enough, if you do that you don’t get many pictures of holly, just lots of skimpily clad women.  You have to Google “Christmas Holly”, which proves the war on Christmas has failed, if you ask me.  (And I know you all just Googled images of “holly” anyway.  Santa can see you, you know.)

While we’re on the subject, Ron Britton presents Stop the (re)Presses! posted at Bay of Fundie, describing how some fundies have become outraged at Victoria's Secret store displays. BoF's posts are usually amusing, and this one is no exception.

Andrew Bernardin presents Where Does the Soul Go? posted at the evolving mind. 

Steve Snyder (SocraticGadfly) presents Obama sellout NO. 344 - Rick Warren at inaugural posted at SocraticGadfly. A short post on why we might as well throw politics under the bus and get Jeremiah Wright in the mix, too.

I even sneaked in a quick post of my own on why Rick Warren Is Wrong.

Finally, Chris Hallquist presents David Aikman's _The Delusion of Disbelief_ posted at The Uncredible Hallq – his latest entry in a longer series critiquing the critics of Dawkins, Dennett, and Harris.

That’s It

That’s it for this edition of the COTG.  So kick back on Thursday and raise a glass to Sir Isaac. And remember, Newton was actually born on December 25th, unlike, er, that other guy whose birthday is also celebrated by many the same day.  Of course, celebrating Newtonmas doesn’t mean you can’t also celebrate Christmas if you want (or Hanukkah, or anything else for that matter).  Santa, trees, presents, turkey etc are not restricted to Christians, so celebrate the day any way you want.  And ho ho ho.

The next edition of COTG will be in three weeks time on January 11th, 2009, at CyberLizard's Collection.  Please submit all entries using the GOTG submission form - that way, the host receives your entries via email as nicely ready-formatted html.

And I believe Brent is looking for hosts.  Hosting the carnival is a great way to raise the profile of your blog.  Check out the Carnival of the Godless page for guidelines and for contact information for hosting requests.

Rick Warren Is Wrong

A wrong choice for Obama to be a major figure in his inauguration, but also wrong in general.

I know that Obama’s big deal is supposedly inclusiveness – to include all in his cabinet and the decision making, even those who may disagree with him.  Well OK, including some people who may disagree with you, and who won’t be afraid to stand up to you, can be a good thing.  We could have done with some of that over the past eight years.  But having someone who disagrees with you is one thing.  It is OK to disagree at times.  What is not OK is to include someone who is just plain wrong.

Warren is wrong on so many things.  Many people have pointed out that he is wrong on Proposition 8, and everything to do with the treatment of gay people.  But then Obama has also said he’s against gay people being allowed to marry, so perhaps Obama agrees with Warren on this topic, on some level at least.  So it’s not this thing that surprises me so much about this pick.  It disappoints me considerably, but it doesn’t totally surprise me.  What I do find incomprehensible though, for a President-Elect who has promised to reinstate the importance of science in his administration, is that he will give so much prominence to an evolution denier.

For example, this is Warren during a debate with Sam Harris:

If you're asking me do I believe in evolution, the answer is no, I don't. I believe that God, at a moment, created man. I do believe Genesis is literal, but I do also know metaphorical terms are used. Did God come down and blow in man's nose? If you believe in God, you don't have a problem accepting miracles. So if God wants to do it that way, it's fine with me.

Warren’s ignorance of science most likely informs his other positions on gay rights, stem cell research and women's rights.  Such a man should not have any place in Obama’s inauguration.  Inclusiveness is OK, wrong is just wrong at any time.

Jesus The Play

My favorite post from yesterday’s COTG is undoubtedly The Resurrection ! - Adapted For The Stage.  It’s the supposed rough drafts of, well, the resurrection of Jesus, adapted for the stage.  The different drafts represent the different versions of the resurrection myth, depending on which gospel you are reading, and shows the author’s difficulties in arriving at a consistent story that agrees with all the different versions found in the Bible.  It’s very well done.  I really can’t quote any of it – you have to read it all to get the full benefit.  The first part (based on Matthew) might seem a little slow, but as you read on to the second part and beyond, you’ll see the point.

It’s one of those posts that makes me say, “I wish I’d thought of that.”

Blasphemy Logic Failure

From Orac today I learnt of the latest attempt by the religious to claim the entitlement they clearly believe is their birthright, namely to prevent anyone from criticizing their delusions. Apparently the United Nations has just backed an anti-blasphemy measure proposed by Islamic countries. Although this is currently only advisory to other UN members, the religious nuts clearly won’t stop there unless they absolutely have to. This is an issue of free speech – no one has a right to never be offended. Orac has a good expose of the dangers with this, and there’s no need for me to repeat the arguments here. Check out Orac’s post Anti-blasphemy = anti-free speech for the details.

I wanted to comment on one point though – fallacious logic from the Dutch government. Apparently the Dutch may scrap the current legal ban they have on blasphemy, effectively expanding hate speech to include it. The bit that caught my eye was the flawed justification for it:

The statement said there was no difference between insults aimed against people based on their race, religion, sexual orientation or handicap.

No no no no wrong wrong wrong. (Sigh.) We’ve been through this before. The argument is a false analogy.  It’s quiet simple really. Race, handicap, sexual orientation are things that people ARE. Religious beliefs are IDEAS. They are not analogs. They are different things altogether. You should not criticize people because of their race, sexual orientation etc because these things can not be right or wrong, they just are. And we are all human beings, we should not be criticized for being black, being gay, whatever.  But an idea (such as believing in the tenets of a religion) can be right or wrong. (Usually wrong, actually, in the case of religion, although that is besides the point with respect to the logic.) It’s really discouraging that the government of such a modern democracy apparently relies on such piss poor logic.

And look at the argument – it is nothing more than an argument by analogy – almost always fallacious. Here is their argument. It goes something like this:

1. We all know that ________ (insert preferred thing - racism, homophobia – something no one can disagree with) is bad.
2. Criticizing religion is just like ­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­_________ (same thing as in 1. above)
3. Therefore criticizing religion is bad.

You’ll notice, no actual evidence facts or logic are offered to show that criticizing religion is, actually, bad.  And as I wrote before, when someone argues by analogy, you can be pretty sure it’s because they don’t have any facts, evidence or logic to support their position. Because if they had any facts, evidence or logic they would presumably present it. Now maybe someone can come up with a reason we shouldn’t criticize religion.  I can’t think of a valid reason off hand, but perhaps there is one somewhere.  But one thing is for sure, saying it’s just like racism isn’t it.

All ideas should be open to criticism.  But no ideas should be subject to criticism more than religious ideas – they’re the ideas, out of all the ideas out there, not backed by evidence and in many cases clearly contradicted by the evidence.  Which is of course why they want to ban criticism – because they know their delusions won’t stand up to investigation.

Hindu Buddha Allah, bigger than God

God's own reputation was at stake in yesterday’s presidential election. That’s not my opinion, obviously. It was the opinion of Arnold Conrad, the former pastor of Grace Evangelical Free Church in Davenport, who took it upon himself at a McCain rally a few weeks ago, to warn God of the implications of an Obama win:

There are millions of people around this world praying to their god—whether it’s Hindu, Buddha, Allah—that [John McCain’s] opponent wins, for a variety of reasons. And Lord, I pray that you will guard your own reputation, because they’re going to think that their God is bigger than you, if that happens,

OK, well ignoring for now that Allah is just another name for the God that the Jews, Christians and Muslims all worship, and that Hindu and Buddha are not gods anyway, what can we conclude from last night’s Obama victory? Presumably that the Christian god is smaller than that of the other religions. According to pastor Conrad, anyway. And he should know, being a pastor and all.

Alternatively, prayer has no effect on anything. Perhaps any Christians reading this can tell us which.

I guess we should all be grateful Conrad didn’t call on any really powerful gods. For example Thor, who would have beaten them all with his big Smashum hammer!  Phew - close call!

Religulous

So I saw Religulous yesterday. This is a brief review – I didn’t take notes, and in any case telling you details would spoil the actual film. But I will say that it’s very funny. And worth seeing.

Maher gets his laughs by just asking various religious people to explain and justify their beliefs. All he needs in addition are a few snarky words and comedic glances to camera combined with some subtitled comments and sharp editing. It’s hard to name my favorite piece, but one that does stick out is the interview with creationist US Senator Mark Pryor, who actually said that humans didn’t know it was wrong to kill people before we got the ten commandments. But to his credit, Pryor did go on to point out that you don’t need to pass an IQ test before you can be a US Senator. Thanks for clearing that up.

Although most of the movie was comedic, the end contained the serious message Maher obviously intended the movie to make. With scenes showing nuclear explosions and the like captioned with quotes from the Book of Revelation, Maher laments that we developed the tools to annihilate life on Earth while some of the people with their fingers on the trigger still believe in the biblical End Times. He calls on the anti-religionists to come out of the closet and assert themselves. He also has a message for those who consider themselves moderately religious – examine your faith to determine if it's really worth the cost. Or to put it another way, the moderates provide cover for the religious nut cases who could really do some damage. The serious end was at odds with the rest of the film, but at least the message was clear.

Criticisms

Some have criticized the film for just going for the soft targets – the less sophisticated religious rather than religious scholars. For example, American Thinker suggested that Rick Warren would have been a better opponent for Maher. Well, considering this example of Rick Warren’s piss poor logic, I have to disagree. Warren would have been no better than most of the people Maher used in his film, but he would certainly have been less funny. The fact is, religion makes no sense when you examine it critically, no matter how much you’ve studied its nuances. This criticism is little more than a courtier’s reply – if you’re not interviewing experts in the design and manufacture of invisible garments, you’re not entitled to point out that the emperor has no clothes. I think Maher was perhaps a little mean with the blue collar workers at the truck stop church, but most of his interviewees were fair game. Remember, he did try to get interviews at the Vatican and with representatives of the Mormon Church but was thrown out of both locations.

Others have criticized Maher for not being honest in describing the film’s intent when booking the interviews. For example, Maher’s name was never mentioned in advance, nor was the true name of the film. It has been suggested that this is similar to the way the producers of Expelled hid the true meaning of their film from Dawkins and others. But those interviewed in Expelled were never told the true intent of the film even during the interviews. No one being interviewed by Maher could have been in doubt of his true intent for very long.

So overall, a good film. Some religious people are predictably complaining that Maher was unfair, and that he won’t convert anyone with this film, but that wasn’t his intention. The film is aimed (in my opinion) at weak believers and non-believers, and for them it will hit the mark.

Now, if Maher could only learn to apply some of this kind of critical thinking to his wacky beliefs about “western” medicine, vaccines and germ theory, I might start watching Real Time again.

Girls Gone Wicca

Apparently it’s not Harry Potter’s fault any more. It’s Buffy’s fault. Yes, 50,000 women have stopped going to church and it’s all the faulty of Buffy the Vampire Slayer, according to a recent study published in Women and Religion in the West. The study's author Dr. Kristin Aune, a sociologist at the University of Derby, is quoted saying:

"Because of its focus on female empowerment, young women are attracted by Wicca, popularized by the TV series Buffy the Vampire Slayer. In short, women are abandoning the church."

Well, somehow I’m not convinced of this. First, Willow, not Buffy, was the witch. The report doesn’t mention 50,000 women patrolling graveyards at night with wooden stakes. Perhaps if women are abandoning the church, it’s because of some other reason.

Second, neither the summary of the actual study nor its index mention Buffy at all. Wicca is mentioned (it just says “see spirituality"), but it doesn’t seem to be a major part of the study. So I wonder if bringing Buffy into it isn’t just a way to drum up publicity for this otherwise distinct minority interest $100 book. (If so, it seems to have worked.)

Anyway, I won’t be convinced until I hear of 50,000 boys leaving the church to get into construction so they can emulate Xander. Now that would be surprising, if not exactly empowering.

 

Hey, Jesus was a carpenter you know.

Edger - New Atheist Blog

The Edger is a new student blog promoting "secularism, atheism, science, humanism , and the cosmos".  From an initial look it seems to have some very good writing.  Two posts  initially stand out for me, the first being A People’s Guide to the Catholic League:

It takes some practice to get used to reading the Catholic League’s nauseatingly self-promoting, whiny press releases, but once repetition vaccinates you against the obnoxious professional victimhood of its patriarch Bill Donohue, you see that certain patterns start to emerge. One thing you notice is that even though the League’s mission statement identifies it as a “civil rights organization,” the League does not appear to have ever done anything that could even be mistaken for “civil rights” work at any point in its history.

Donohue is certainly a professional victim, as I have written before.  The other post I especially liked, and on a subject I wish I'd thought of, is How to criticize the “New Atheists:” a seven-step guide to writing the perfect reactionary hissy-fit.

...unlike you, the New Atheists have not taken the decades of study required to lodge yourself in an obscure nitch of your religion’s ivory tower to which nobody listens except the others trapped in the same nitch, you are understandably infuriated that Hitchens never once mentions Eric Rust’s clever interpretation of Tillich’s commentary on the epistemology of empiricism as applied to the miraculous, or that Harris never even bothers to set himself against every single sentence of The City of God. Sure, nobody cares about what theologians have to say, and their commentary is wholly irrelevant if there isn’t a God in the first place, but so what? You’re a religious writer; what do you need with honesty?

With almost a dozen young writers it's a very professional looking site, well worth adding to your RSS feed.

Prayer Fails Again

See the gas price board on the right? This is from April, aka “the good old days,” when regular was under $4.00 a gallon even in San Francisco. Back then, someone called Rocky Twyman decided the solution to high gas prices was to ask God to lower them:

Twyman […] staged a pray-in at a San Francisco Chevron station on Friday [April 25], asking God for cheaper gas. He did the same thing in the nation's Capitol on Wednesday [April 23], with volunteers from a soup kitchen joining in.

He repeated the performance again on May 28. Well guess what, he was successful! Yes, according to The BBC, Twyman is claiming:

…the credit for the recent sharp drop in the US price of petrol.

Rocky Twyman, 59, a veteran community campaigner, started Pray At The Pump meetings at petrol stations in April.

Since then, the average price of what the US calls gasoline has fallen from more than $4 a gallon to $3.80.

Well then, I guess it’s time we atheists admitted we were wrong and that God really does exist. If prayers really do work, we must have been wrong all this time, yes? Let’s take a look at the (no doubt) solid evidence that prayer worked in this case. I got this graph from GasBuddy.com, showing the prices in San Francisco and DC (the places where he prayed back in April), as well as the US average:

Click the graph for a bigger image.  I’ve added a couple of arrows to indicate when the prayers took place. And as you can see, gas prices came down immediately after the prayer...  er, rose despite the prayers.  Actually, rose even more steeply immediately after the prayers on May 28. And they’re still higher than they were at any time before the prayers started.

You know, looking at this graph, it’s almost as if prayer is completely useless at influencing gas prices.

The Atheism Tapes

I've just finished watching The Atheism Tapes, which despite the name is actually two DVDs.  They consist of Jonathan Miller's interviews, on the subject of atheism, with:

• philosopher Colin McGinn
• philosopher Daniel Dennett
• physicist Steven Weinberg
• Arthur Miller,
• Richard Dawkins
• theologian Denys Turner

They have some brief clips online, if you want to get a flavor.

Funnily enough, I actually enjoyed Colin McGinn's piece the most.  Funny because I'm usually not a great fan of philosophers.  He discussed the ontological argument for God - ie an argument from reason alone, rather than from any actual verifiable evidence.  You might know what I would think of an argument that is not supported by any verifiable evidence - not much.  The way McGinn explains it, the argument is that God must exist because of the way God is defined.  That sounds to me like circular reasoning.  If you click the link above you'll find several versions of the argument, none exactly the way McGinn describes it, and none making any sense to me.  The argument sounds like pure sophistry.

A more interesting point was McGinn's rebuttal of the "no morals without God" drivel we've all heard before.  McGinn says that "do not steal" is obviously a good rule, we all know we shouldn't steal, and God tells us not to steal, so God is right.  But supposing God said "it's OK to kill", would we then think it was OK to kill?  Answer - no of course we wouldn't.  We would, in that instance, say God was wrong.  In fact, God does say "don't kill", but we knew that already - we knew God was right because we already knew it, not because God just told us, so obviously we don't get our morality from God.  Christopher Hitchens made the same point but in a slightly different way.  He said something like, do you really think humans thought it was OK to kill and steal, before Moses came down from the mountain with his tablets?  "Oh, you mean we shouldn't kill?  OK, right  got it.  Thanks - didn't realize."

The other interviews are all interesting.  Miller, for example, gives an insight into what it was like growing up Jewish in Brooklyn in the early 1900s.

The producers say they will donate $3 from the sale of each DVD set to the Military Association of Atheists and Freethinkers (MAAF) to support Specialist Jeremy Hall's case and the constitutional right of soldiers for freedom from religion. Hall is the atheist soldier who was sent home from Iraq as protection, after receiving threats from other soldiers because of his atheism.  Funny, you'd think if he offended anyone, the Christian soldiers would just forgive him.  But apparently they didn't. Anyway, the MAFF needs all the support it can get on this issue, and the donation to this cause is worthwhile in addition to what you get on the DVDs.

Paroled To Sin Again

Don't you just love those stories about how some criminal found Jesus while in prison, and gave up his criminal ways?  No, me neither.  But the religious do.  Specifically, the Episcopal Church, who converted the convicted murderer James Tramel.  Tramel was convicted in the stabbing death of a homeless man in 1985, but apparently he found love for Jesus in prison, to the extent that the Episcopal Church ordained him as a priest.  The Church naturally lobbied for Tramel to be paroled, and only four months after his release in 2006, they made him rector of Trinity Episcopal Church in San Francisco. 

What a heartwarming story.  What could possibly go wrong?  Try sexual abuse of a parishioner:

It's [at the Church] that the victim said Tramel, who is married and has a young child, took advantage of her during counseling sessions.

"They didn't give an honest depiction of this man," said the victim, a 36-year-old San Francisco resident. The Chronicle does not identify victims of sexual abuse.

The diocese acknowledges that Tramel abused his power and committed sexual misconduct...

So, theists, remind me - where does morality come from, again? 

Atheism Requires No Faith

This is another piece of flawed reasoning the religious have been throwing around a lot recently – “it requires more faith to be an atheist than to believe in God.” I guess there must have been a memo sent round or something. Talking points. That’s the only explanation. It’s certainly not because it’s a valid argument.

The usual rebuttal given is that atheism just means no belief in God, and it doesn’t require any more faith to have no belief in God than it does to have no belief in Russell’s Teapot. That’s obviously true but I think it misses the point the theists are trying to make.

What they’re really saying

I think what they’re trying to say is this. Atheists think matter just appeared out of nowhere, that something came out of nothing. But where did the matter come from? To think that matter appeared out of nowhere requires more faith than to think a creator made everything. The theists quite often mess up the argument further by misunderstanding the big bang, or with dodgy statistics, or with appeals to ignorance of abiogenesis. But that’s the basic argument. Why is there something rather than nothing? To think that matter just appeared by itself, requires faith.

The flaw in their argument

Atheists don’t think matter came out of nowhere. Atheists say we don’t know where matter came from; we don’t know why there is something rather than nothing. Maybe one day we’ll know, or maybe we won’t. But we don’t know now. Theists are exactly the same. They don’t know either, but the difference is they make up an explanation (God). But it’s just a made up explanation – they have no reason to suppose it’s true, other than that they just like it.

And it’s a useless explanation. Unless they know something about this “God” – how he created everything; why he created it; what he’s likely to do next - it’s a lack of an explanation. It’s just a placeholder until a real explanation comes along. Except that the theist won’t be open to the real explanation when and if science is able to provide one. The placeholder prevents investigation into the real explanation. The theist is the one with the faith – faith that “God” is the explanation and that no other is possible. The atheist is content to say “we don’t know”. For now, anyway. And it’s obvious that saying “we don’t know,” requires no faith.

Egnor Attributes Scientific Progress to Religion

OK, so I’m a little late to this one. But I still think I have something to add. Well I would.

PZ wrote a piece extolling the virtues of science over religion in curing diseases such as cancer, and bemoaning the shortage of funds to support research. (And also bemoaning the money wasted on useless woo projects such as homeopathy and creationism.) The Discovery Institute’s pet brain surgeon, Michael Egnor, then penned what he probably imagined was a decent rebuttal - Cancer Research, Prayer, and St. Jude. A snippet:

I take exception to his claim that prayer and religious faith had nothing to do with the improvements in the treatment of cancer.

The remarkable progress in the treatment of cancer in the past several decades had a lot to do with faith and prayer. Myers misunderstands the origins of modern medical science and the history and nature of cancer treatment.

[…]

Advances in science and cancer treatment emerged, not from science in isolation, but from a culture that made science possible and that directed the fruits of scientific work toward good and compassionate goals. The culture from which science has emerged is Judeo-Christian culture, and modern science has arisen only in Judeo-Christian culture.

PZ responded, as did Orac and Steven Novella, so I don’t need to repeat all their points in detail. Obviously scientific discoveries took place in other cultures apart from Judeo-Christian ones, and even more obviously, the main contribution of religion to scientific discovery has been to suppress it and deny reality, rather than to encourage any new discoveries. Opposition to stem cell research on religious grounds is an obvious example. As is Egnor’s support of the Discovery Institute, a body that wants to deny evolution and instead promote the pseudoscientific idea of Intelligent Design. Egnor even denies that knowledge of evolution has any bearing on medical research – a view that if accepted by researchers, would without doubt hinder new discoveries. Egnor’s views are decidedly anti-science.

Steven Novella also noted that Egnor’s argument was a diversionary tactic. PZ had argued that science, not woo or prayer, has resulted in improvements in treatments for cancer; Egnor shifted the argument to claim that only faith and religion motivated those scientific discoveries. Well OK, he can think that if he wants, but hasn’t he just admitted that it is only through science that these discoveries can actually be made? If you examine Egnor’s almost 2,000 words, you won’t find anything that suggests science is not the best (or only) method for making new discoveries in medicine. And yet this is the man who would bypass the scientific method to teach pseudoscience in schools, and have researchers ignore the implications of evolution in their work. His best argument is that, well, er, science was motivated by religion. Really? That’s the best you got?

OK then. So my question to Michael Egnor is this: now that you have apparently conceded that only science will result in progress, will you publicly admit that we should consider only scientific ideas about how we got here, and disavow quasi religious ideas such as ID? No? I don’t think he will either.

I want to comment on one additional point he made:

The application of science to care for the sick presupposes the view that we have an ethical obligation to help the weakest among us. The atheist view of metaphysics — that the universe has no purpose and no designer and no transcendent ethical code — provides no impetus to scientific inquiry or to the compassionate application of scientific knowledge.

An example he uses is the claimed higher rates for survival of epidemics in early Christian communities, compared with those in pagan communities. This, he claims, was due to the care that Christians provided for the sick, and their refusal to flee when an epidemic struck. (In pagan communities, healthy people fled.) Assuming this is true, all this shows is that early Christians were better than early pagans. Or, if you like, Christian irrationality was better than pagan irrationality. Of course, preferable to both is rationality. By now we should have progressed beyond the world view of second century pagans, with or without religion.

Of course, Egnor’s argument is just the old “no morality without Jesus” drivel we have all heard and debunked many times before. Good people do good things and bad people do bad things, religion notwithstanding. But as someone once said, only religion can make good people do bad things. Egnor shows here that his opposition to evolution is not based on rationality, but on his religious beliefs. Which is great for him, I guess. But not something anyone else need take seriously.

Damned Aliens

So the Vatican’s chief astronomer thinks extraterrestrial life might exist:

Writing in the Vatican newspaper, the astronomer, Father Gabriel Funes, said intelligent beings created by God could exist in outer space.

[…]

Just as there are multiple forms of life on earth, so there could exist intelligent beings in outer space created by God. And some aliens could even be free from original sin, he speculates.

Um-Kay. But didn’t God so love the world that he gave his only begotten Son? So all those aliens must be headed for hell, since they’ve never been given the opportunity to accept Jesus Christ as their savior. Seems rather harsh. Not to mention bad planning – creating all those life forms for them all to be damned to an eternity of fire and brimstone. (Apart from those who are free from original sin, of course.  But surely that can't be all of them?) 

I can’t help thinking that God didn’t think this through very carefully.

Those Militant Stamp Collectors

The other week I got involved in a debate with a theist in the comments to this Depleted Cranium blog post. Commenter Jason insisted that atheism is a religion, to which I replied with “if atheism is a religion them not collecting stamps is a hobby.”  He replied with this:

If people organised groups around the theme of not collecting stamps, wrote books about the virtue of not collecting stamps and identified themselves as definitely not stamp collectors, while at the same time running around rubbishing stamp collecting as a deluded hobby practiced by idiots, most people would recognize the actions of somebody who has turned “not stamp collecting” into a hobby they have.

Jason’s reply is a fine example of someone who has thought part the way through an issue, but not all the way. It’s pretty obvious what he is missing. I replied that if stamp collectors demanded that people who don’t collect stamps obey their stamp collecting rules, started wars with groups who collected slightly different types of stamps, denied non-stamp collectors rights or discriminated against them, bullied them in school, claimed you had to collect stamps to be a suitable person to run for public office, tried to get stamp collecting taught in schools as science in opposition to real science, demanded that people be killed for printing cartoons that made fun of stamp collectors, claimed that non-stamp collectors lacked moral judgment, made up ridiculous straw man positions they claimed non-stamp collectors took, and then argued against those straw men positions etc etc, - then non-stamp collectors would probably criticize stamp collectors the way Jason suggested. And with good reason. Not collecting stamps would still not be a hobby though.

Thinking about Jason’s argument the next day, I had a feeling I’d heard it somewhere else recently. Then I remembered – I think Jason had been reading Dinesh D’Souza. That explained why his arguments were so lame. The thing is, if religious people just followed their religions without bothering anyone else, didn’t try to get creationism taught in science class, etc, I wouldn’t care over much. I’d still think they were a little silly. On the level of children believing in Santa Claus, perhaps. And I still wouldn’t want to listen to them prattling on about their delusions. (Look, the grownups are talking now. Go over in the corner and play with your bibles for a while.) But I wouldn’t care about it, not really. The problem with religion though, is that they can never just keep it to themselves. They insist that everyone respects their delusions and follows their rules. They are like militant stamp collectors. Join our stamp collecting club or else.  And that's the basic problem with religion.  That, and  the fact that it's mostly nonsense.

The rest of Jason’s arguments were against the convoluted straw man atheist he insisted we all are. Read the whole comments thread only if you are feeling masochistic.

Actually, it's called "Begging"

A Chihuahua has begun joining in daily prayers at a Buddhist temple in Japan.

He’s probably praying the monk stops the pointless ritual and feeds him already.  There's probably more chance that’ll come true than whatever the monk’s praying for.

Expelled from Expelled

Read PZ’s description about how he was not allowed in to see the new dumb creationist film “Expelled” – the one about how poor old Intelligent Design is being discriminated against in favor of Evolution because it (ID, not evolution), has not passed scientific muster. They wouldn’t let in PZ but did let in Richard Dawkins.  What morons.

Also read this account from a pro-ID person who supposedly witnessed the whole thing. Apparently he thinks that “anyone walking away from this film will be convinced that the merits of Intelligent Design should be on the same level playing field as Evolutionary Theory”. The comments to that post so far are critical (to be polite) of this guy, his account and his view of the film. Worth a read if only to marvel at the IDists' stupidity.

Vox Keeps His Readers In The Dark

Via the Bad Astronomer I read this absurd post from a blogger called Vox who seems to think that dark matter and dark energy are outside the scope of science which means that secular societies are “arguably insane”.  Of course, Vox’s argument is unarguably retarded.  He’s saying that because we don’t know exactly what dark matter and dark energy are, they’re outside the realm of science. But that’s obviously false: it’s only through science that we even know that dark matter and dark energy exist. There is nothing in the bible about the universe being 72.1% dark energy and 23.3% dark matter. Nor does it say on which day God created them.  They don’t exist, according to the nomadic goat herders who wrote the bibble.  Furthermore, if we are ever to understand dark matter and dark energy, that will only happen through the process of science, not by assuming it’s too complex and so Goddidit.  Vox's silly argument is just another lame Science Doesn't Know Everything appeal.

I did post a comment on Saturday, asking the assembled loons who support the blog’s author, what other method they would use to try to understand dark matter and dark energy. Unsurprisingly they had no reply.

God Fails

Newsflash: God failed tonight to get Huckabee elected President. Imagine my surprise.

We know Huckabee was God’s candidate. After all, the man himself said:

There’s only one explanation for it, and it’s not a human one. It’s the same power that helped a little boy with two fish and five loaves feed a crowd of five thousand people. (Applause) That’s the only way that our campaign can be doing what it’s doing. And I’m not being facetious nor am I trying to be trite. There literally are thousands of people across this country who are praying that a little will become much, and it has. And it defies all explanation, it has confounded the pundits. And I’m enjoying every minute of them trying to figure it out, and until they look at it, from a, just experience beyond human, they’ll never figure it out. And it’s probably just as well. That’s honestly why it’s happening.

I’ll repeat – Huckabee said of his earlier poll success: “There’s only one explanation for it”. Only one. What’s the explanation now then Mike? Did God change his mind? Or is he not powerful enough to swing a few measly votes? Or,  maybe your imaginary sky fairy doesn’t exist.

There’s only one explanation for it, and it’s not a supernatural one. It’s the same complete lack of power that proves again and again that prayer doesn’t work. (Applause)  And I’m not being facetious (actually I am, but who’s counting), nor am I trying to be trite. There literally were thousands of people across this country who were praying that a little will become much, and it didn’t. And it is totally expected and totally explainable. It has confounded the religious idiots (OK, some redundancy there).  And I’m enjoying every minute of them trying to figure it out. And until they look at it from a rational perspective (as if) they’ll never figure it out. And that's a pity. That’s honestly why it happened.

Honestly.

Your God was no use. Never was. Never will be.

More Intolerance from the Religious

Ron at The Frame Problem informed me of a University’s refusal to recognize an atheist group. The vice-president of the club, blogging in Cosmopolitan, has the actual response to the atheists’ application, from the Campus Clubs department:

While the Campus Clubs department understands the goals and visions of your organization, they are not compatible with the guidelines of what may be approved and incorporated into our department. While the promotion of reason, science and freedom of inquiry are perfectly legitimate goals, what is most in question in regards to your club’s vision is the promotion of “a fulfilling life without religion and superstition“. While this university is indeed technically a secular institution, secular does not denote taking an active stance in opposition to the principles and status of religious beliefs and practices. To be clear, this is not meant to say that the promotion of science and reason are illegitimate goals. But due to the need to respect and tolerate the views of others, the Campus Clubs department is unable to approve a club of this nature at this time.

I’m afraid they don’t understand the meaning of the word “tolerate”. To “tolerate” the views of others doesn’t mean you can’t criticize them, it just means you don’t prevent those views from being heard. Only by actually trying to prevent views from being heard – for example, by refusing to approve a club whose views you may disagree with – are you being intolerant. I guess they also need to look up the word “irony”.

Once again, despite the nice sounding wording (that it took them nine months to craft), what we have here is the usual intolerant attitude of the religious, whose only response to people who don’t accept their delusions – is to ban them. And yes I know, this group hasn’t been “banned”, strictly speaking. They can still exist (I presume); they just don’t get the freebies the religious groups get. But make no mistake, they would ban this group if they could. And this group isn’t even an in your face atheists’ group. Their name is the Laurier Freethought Alliance.

The Freethought group recently responded in an extremely conciliatory way, in an attempt to get the decision reversed, and it’ll be interesting to see what happens. But why should they have to kowtow in this way? Can you imagine a Christian group (in the West) having to explain itself in such apologetic and conciliatory terms to get approved? If you can, I’d like to hear about it. 

Sniveling Cowardly Christians

From PZ I learned today that MySpace is run by religious bigots who have deleted atheist users, groups and content:

Early this month, MySpace again deleted the Atheist and Agnostic Group (35,000 members). This deletion, due largely to complaints from people who find atheism offensive, marks the second time MySpace has cancelled the group since November 2007.

[…]

“MySpace refuses to undelete the group, although it never violated any terms of service,” said Bryan Pesta, Ph.D., the group’s moderator. “When the largest Christian group was hacked, MySpace’s Founder, Tom Anderson, personally restored the group, and promised to protect it from future deletions.”

What a bunch of sniveling cowards this Christian group must be. Rather than engage in debate with the atheists, rather than show some evidence to back up their beliefs, or even just ignore the atheists, they had to start an organized campaign to have the group deleted. Because Christians only feel safe when no one allowed to challenge their delusions. It’s a sad commentary on their pathetic excuse for a religion that their god is so frightened of a few atheists that even an atheists’ MySpace page can’t be allowed to exist. Remember this the next time you hear Bill Donohue’s professional victim act, or The Christian News Wire whining about some imagined insult. Remember this the next time someone tells the “New Atheists” that we need to be more accommodating to Christians, less aggressive, more understanding of the “moderate” Christians, or whatever. Where are the “moderate Christians” protesting the atheists’ group’s right to exist? This act shows the religious mindset as it really is – intolerant, authoritarian, cowardly and vindictive.

Other Sources

The Cleveland Plain Dealer: MySpace deletes hacked Web site for atheists and agnostics

Wikipedia page on The Atheist and Agnostic Group.

February 2, 2007 – Update

Podblack reports MySpace have restored the group.

.

Extraordinarily Mangled

After I had finished writing Monday’s Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence post, I Googled extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence to see what else had been written about it: had I missed anything or got something wrong? Surprisingly, the first hit was the Christian Apologetics & Research Ministry (CARM) – with a critique of the way atheists supposedly apply the extraordinary claims doctrine when examining claims of Jesus’ resurrection. Unsurprisingly, they managed to mangle the atheists’ position. Equally unsurprisingly it’s choc full of logical fallacies. It starts with a possibly unintentional statement that the Christian has already made his mind up about the resurrection, whether he has any evidence or not:

In Jesus' resurrection, for example, Christians presuppose that God exists and that He could easily have raised Jesus from the dead. The evidence of fulfilled prophecy, eyewitness records, and changed lives of the disciples is enough to convince many people who believe in God that Jesus rose from the dead. This is a logical conclusion based on the presupposition and the evidence.

The CARM’s position that “Christians presuppose that God exists and that He could easily have raised Jesus from the dead” is circular reasoning: they’re using the resurrection as evidence that Jesus was resurrected (and was therefore the son of God, etc), but their admitted presupposition is that God exists and would have resurrected his son. Of course, if you start from the position that Jesus was the son of God then your “logical conclusion” pretty much has to be that Jesus was resurrected. Who needs evidence?

They then misstate the atheists’ position to accuse atheists of doing what they just admitted to doing themselves:

Atheists, on the other hand, would negate the resurrection by default since their presupposition that there is no God would require that God involvement cannot occur. Therefore, for an atheist the extraordinary evidence would have to be "exceptionally" extraordinary in order to overcome his atheistic presuppositions.

No. It has nothing to do with “atheistic presuppositions”. It is because of the “presupposition” (actually, the extraordinary evidence that exists), that show DEAD PEOPLE DO NOT COME BACK TO LIFE. I’m not talking about people who were technically “dead” for a short while but who were brought back by heroic modern medicine. I’m talking about someone who was really dead, for nearly two days, without modern machinery to keep the organs working, who was resurrected by magic.

I find it telling that the CARM accuse atheists of presupposing their conclusion (they don’t), when that is exactly what the CARM just did. (Projection?) And remember, I used their own actual statement of what their presuppositions are, from their own article – not a straw man version of their presuppositions as they did with the atheists' supposed presupposition.

This is why the skeptic must require "extraordinary evidence." It enables him to retain his presupposition should the extraordinary level of the evidence not be met. Therefore, requiring extraordinary evidence effectively stacks the deck against the claim.

No. The absurdity of the claim – a dead person coming back to life - stacks the deck against the claim.

When debating skeptics, I often ask them to tell me what would qualify as extraordinary evidence for the resurrection of Jesus. Generally, nothing sensible is offered. Normal evidence would be written accounts. Extraordinary evidence would be a film, but we know that this extraordinary evidence is not reasonable since there was no film in Jesus' time. Therefore, can the requirement that extraordinary claims (Christ's resurrection) require extraordinary evidence apply to Jesus' resurrection?

It can and it should. It is not the fault of the atheist that Christians have nothing but lame second-hand anecdotes for this patently absurd claim. The burden of proof is upon the claimant, not upon those who doubt the absurd claim.

It would seem not. Since Jesus' resurrection is alleged to be a historical event, then it seems logical that normal historical evidence and normal historical examination of that evidence would be all we could offer. The resurrection is supposed to be an event of history and since it claims historical validity, then typical criteria for examining historical claims should be applied.

No. Unless the historical claims they refer to also involve raising the dead. Which they rarely do.

They go on to equivocate about how historic claims are judged differently because of the difficulty in testing events that happened a long time ago. But historians are generally evaluating claims such as who won a war, why they won (better tactics, better weapons?), who was involved in implementing legislation, etc. These things can often be inferred from a variety of sources. But they are not, in the main, extraordinary claims. One historian might say a war was won because of a better general; another might say it was bad weather than got the troops of one side bogged down in the mud. One or both of these explanations might be wrong. But neither requires you to accept some new and extraordinary claim such as (for example) that if you accept Jesus you will live in heaven forever. The CARM equivocate about this difference:

Furthermore, we cannot ascertain all things with absolute certainty. We cannot, for example, prove that Alexander the Great (356-323 B.C.) ever lived by observing him. But, we have ancient writings from eyewitnesses concerning his existence. Skeptics readily believe in Alexander the Great without involving the scientific method and without requiring "extraordinary evidence" yet they will require it of Jesus' existence.

No. They have created a false analogy. When expressed properly, it applies to the atheist position, not the Christian one, as I will demonstrate. As with Alexander the Great, we cannot prove that a historic Jesus actually existed. However, we have ancient writings (not from eyewitnesses, but I’ll let that slide for the sake of argument), concerning his existence. I am prepared to accept that a historic Jesus could have lived, without involving the scientific method and without requiring "extraordinary evidence". What I will not accept is that he died, was resurrected, and now lives in the sky. That, is the extraordinary claim. It is absurd. And there is no rational reason for anyone to believe it.

Huckabee: Evidence Please

From PZ I learn that Presidential candidate Mike Huckabee wants to amend the US constitution so it agrees with his version of God’s standards:

"I have opponents in this race who do not want to change the Constitution," Huckabee told a Michigan audience on Monday. "But I believe it's a lot easier to change the Constitution than it would be to change the word of the living god. And that's what we need to do -- to amend the Constitution so it's in God's standards rather than try to change God's standards so it lines up with some contemporary view."

Well OK, Mike. Just one thing – show us the evidence that the old book of myths you are relying on is actually the word of God. And remember, Extraordinary Claims Require Extraordinary Evidence, so extraordinary evidence only please, no references to The Bible itself to prove The Bible is the word of God. No appeals to popularity or ancient knowledge. I’m sure you must have the evidence if you’re willing to change the constitution to take account of it. Surely you wouldn’t just say it’s true without having the evidence to back it up? Didn’t you study theology? Well then – you must have found some pretty extraordinary evidence for such an extraordinary claim, otherwise you would have been wasting your time all those years, wouldn’t you?

So the comments are open for Mike, or any of his followers, to post their  extraordinary evidence to justify why we should change the US constitution so it agrees with their holy book. Or to withdraw the idiotic idea. (Although we know they’ll never do that.)