Not much of one, I admit. But as a means of easing my way back to blogging after a hiatus of several weeks I thought you might like to know that there's a new episode of Skepticule Extra available for your downloadable listening pleasure (or frustration, depending on whether or not you agree with any of the four Pauls).
And then give us some feedback (iTunes review, blog comment, email). In this episode we talk about a secular parachuting prison chaplain who promotes alternative medicine in space. Or something like that.
Documents cast light on Causeway creationist wrangle - Local - Belfast Newsletter
Apparently
there was a possibility that private public grant funding for the information
centre could have been made conditional on the creationist
interpretation being included in the information. Whether or not that
condition was ever made, or accepted, it remains true that the
creationist interpretation was included. This illustrates the insidious nature of creationism, and the necessity for eternal vigilance. (Via BCSE.)
Yesterday I noticed BBC Three was to broadcast the second in a three-episode series ostensibly on conspiracy theories, this one taking a small group of creationists on a coach trip in America and showing them the evidence for evolution. It sounds like a recipe for disaster, and so it turned out, more or less. Jerry Coyne was in it:
Soon after watching the whole thing, I posted my reaction on Facebook:
OK I watched it, and some parts were indeed disastrous — kind of like Big Brother Goes On The Road. They started in Las Vegas, for no other reason (that I could discern) than it allowed for some clichéd photo-opportunities.
Jerry Coyne doesn't suffer fools, and his debunking of Noah's Ark did not go down well with the creationists. The creationist who appeared to have appointed himself "star-of-the-show" also seemed to be entertaining the idea that the show itself was a conspiracy, and he was impervious to reason, maintaining that the purpose of science was to deny God.
The presenter, Andrew Maxwell, nailed it with his bemused announcement that he couldn't understand how, in the face of so much evidence for evolution, the creationists simply dismissed anything that was contrary to scripture. He asked one of them why they even bother to look at the science if they're not going to accept anything that doesn't agree with what they already believe.
A frustrating programme that generated — on my part — more than its fair share of sighing and head-shaking.
This was followed by some disingenuous (I felt) puzzlement, which led me to expand on my remark:
Paul JenkinsMy objection to the ontobollocksical argument is that it's entirely about concepts. A concept is something that exists only in minds, and no matter how much you conceive of an entity — or its maximal greatness — there's nothing to make that magical transition from concept to reality.
Of course it's possible for something to exist as a concept as well as existing in reality, but these are two different things than can be causally related in only one direction: from the real thing to the concept of that thing — not the other way around. For a concept of an entity to have a causal relationship towards an actual entity something else has to be involved. The concept alone is not enough.
The ontobollocksical argument is no more than a fancy and roundabout way of saying, "I can imagine something, therefore it must exist."
Yet further responses asserted I was wrong about this, and suggested I should deal with the premises of the argument — something I felt disinclined to do at the time, given that attempts were being made to shift the burden of proof on to me by mere assertion.
Nevertheless I stand by what I posted, and in case anyone's still interested here's how I deal with said premises. The ontological argument goes like this (from Wikipedia):
Our understanding of God is a being than which no greater can be conceived.
The idea of God exists in the mind.
A being which exists both in the mind and in reality is greater than a being that exists only in the mind.
If God only exists in the mind, then we can conceive of a greater being—that which exists in reality.
We cannot be imagining something that is greater than God.
Therefore, God exists.
Premise 1 is fine as far as it goes — you can conceive of God any way you want. But is it really possible to conceive of ultimate greatness? I think not, other than as a label for what is frankly an inconceivable nebulosity. Can you, for example, conceive of infinity? You can have the idea in your mind of a very big number, a number so big that there isn't any number above it — but can you hold that concept in your mind as a number, rather than as a label for something that is, in actuality, inconceivable? Saying — in the St. Anselm formulation — that God is a being than which no greater can be
conceived is of no use because you can't actually conceive of even that. You can give it a label, but it's a label that cannot be attached to anything.
So the ontological argument falls at its first premise, proving only that it is — as it has always been — bollocks.
Last Thursday I was very pleased to attend a lecture at Portsmouth Grammar School given by Professor Lawrence Krauss. His book A Universe from Nothing has caused a stir in both religious and scientific circles. Richard Dawkins has (somewhat hyperbolically) characterised its significance on a par with Darwin's Origin, while apologists such as the mathematician John Lennox have complained that the "nothing" that Krauss writes about is not a "real" nothing (non-tautologically speaking, if that's possible).
Krauss is an excellent speaker, and though his talk did get into some very abstruse concepts — which gave him a legitimate opportunity to suggest that a more expansive explanation is available in his book — he was engaging throughout.
I have the Kindle version of A Universe from Nothing, so could not get it signed by the author. But I also have a copy of Quantum Man, so my dad (who has his own copy) and I queued up after the lecture for the signing. Here's Dad with the Prof:
It was great lecture and my dad and I thoroughly enjoyed it. As for the question, “why is there something rather than nothing?” — I tend to the view that there was always something, and that the philosophical nothing is a concept only. The way I see it there are four options:
1. There never was anything, and there never will be. 2. There was something, and then there wasn’t. 3. There always was something. 4. There was nothing (the philosophical nothing) and then there was something.
Clearly (1) is not the case, and (to us) is indistinguishable from (2) as both these positions are refuted by the existence of anything at all. (4) is contentious if one believes that a true philosophical nothing is incapable of spawning a something. Which leaves (3) — the eternal something (at least, eternal in the past — it may be possible for the sum total of all the somethings to self-annihilate and become a philosophical nothing). If theists want to complain that Krauss’s nothing is not a philosophical nothing, that’s fine by me, but then I would ask them if their God is eternal. If God is eternal then the philosophical nothing is an impossibility, and they should stop asking how something can come from nothing.
The latest episode of Skepticule Extra — number thirty-three — is ready for download, streaming, retrieving from the feed, and generally being the internet's best batch of triple skeptical paulness. (The shownotes are pretty awesome too.)
Skepticule co-host Paul Thompson has issued a challenge to all Christians (and two in particular) calling for them to prove with hard cash that they are indeed True ChristiansTM in accordance with the teachings of Jesus as recorded in the New Testament:
550 complaints | Butterflies and Wheels
Tom Holland's film Islam: The Untold Story has been withdrawn from re-screening by Channel 4, due to the "offence" it has caused. Interesting that those offended aren't saying his film isn't factual — I'm reminded of Rageh Omaar's documentary, The Life of Muhammad, in which he repeatedly used the phrase "according to Muslim tradition" when describing allegedly historical occurrences.
But…but…is it Biblical? | Pharyngula
The creotards have come up with a good one: the Ark had gas-lamps fed from environmentally friendly methane digesters. Whatever next? Read the comments for some great ideas, including my favourite: the Ark was powered by a nuclear reactor (I'm sure there's a biblical verse that mentions this — I just need to find it and give it the "correct" interpretation. Exegetical hermeneutics FTW.)
This evening I watched something my faithful telly-watching machine recorded for me last week — Rosh Hashanah: Science vs Religion, a half-hour programme presented by the Chief Rabbi, Jonathan Sacks.
Lord Sacks is often on Thought for the Day,
speaking with his characteristic measured pace, endowing each word with
great meaning and authority. His precise enunciation, however, fails to
conceal an embarrassing fact: that the meaning and authority are wholly
spurious. It's almost as if he strings words together solely based on
their euphony, without consideration of what the words might actually
mean.
"For me, science is one of the greatest achievements of humankind — a gift given to us by God."
Well, which is it, Lord Sacks? An achievement of humankind? Or a gift from God? (Is it any wonder he thinks science and religion are compatible when he obviously can't see the blatant incompatibility of what he's saying right at the start of his own TV programme?)
You have a couple of days to catch the whole thing on iPlayer:
Religion and science are frequently set up as polar opposites; incompatible ways of thinking. The Chief Rabbi Lord Sacks begs to differ. For him, science and religion can, and should, work together. To mark Rosh Hashanah, the Jewish New Year, he puts his position to the test. He meets three non-believing scientists, each at the top of their field: neurologist Baroness Susan Greenfield, theoretical physicist Professor Jim Al-Khalili, and the person best known for leading the scientific attack on religion, Professor Richard Dawkins. Will the Chief Rabbi succeed in convincing the militant defender of atheism that science and religion need not be at war?
It's clear that all three of the atheist scientists to whom Lord Sacks puts his plea are willing to concede that there are limits to science — and that's where the Chief Rabbi jumps in to claim the ground for himself, while simultaneously decrying "God of the gaps". But he doesn't seem to realise that just because science doesn't have answers to certain questions, he cannot claim that religion does. Because it doesn't. All that religion can do is interpret scripture — which more often than not means making stuff up.
Not a surprise, but some of us will keep plugging away. I object to the implication that theists are the only commentators qualified to think. The BBCshould include non-religious viewpoints on Thought for the Day, or else rename it Religious Thought for the Day or something similar — something clearly indicating that these are thoughts from a religious perspective.
I was alerted to this latest non-development — and latest demonstration of BBC obstinacy — by Justin Brierley's post on the Unbelievable? Facebook page, to which I added a comment (whole thread to date follows):
Alan VaughanGood
for them! Those with no religion have no place on a religious
programme. If it were a stamp collecting programme I would expect only
those who collect stamps to participate. Listeners would have no desire
to listen to someone with no interest in stamps. Kudos
Paul Jenkins“People
have complained, as they have the right to, and I have taken a view
that at this moment in time as far as I’m concerned we stay as we do.
“It is a specific slot within the Today programme which is a reflection from a religious perspective on stories of importance in the news.”
Well,
the slot *is* called "Religious Thought for the Day", so therefore
no-one but the religious is qualified to be on it. If, however, the slot
was called merely "Thought for the Day" then one could naturally expect
non-religious viewpoints to be given a proportionate hearing.
Peter ByromWe've
been given plenty of rhetoric recently about how atheism is not a
religion or even a worldview (e.g. "if atheism is a religion, then off
is a TV channel, and abstinence is a sex position" etc) so if this really is an officially religious slot then, frankly, the atheists can't have it both ways.
However,
I must say I'm disappointed that the BBC doesn't have a programme like
Justin's! Indeed there's plenty of anti-religion and pro-secularism bias
in the BBC already so, again frankly, I hardly think the NSS have much
to complain about and it looks much more like they're trying to encroach
upon one of the few religious slots left.
John Humberstone"We've
been given plenty of rhetoric recently about how atheism is not a
religion or even a worldview (e.g. "if atheism is a religion, then off
is a TV channel, and abstinence is a sex position" etc) so if this really is an officially religious slot then, frankly, the atheists can't have it both ways."
All that needs to happen is that they stick to the title of the slot - Thought for the Day. Couldn't be simpler really.
Socratic dialogue and dramatised reportage seems an odd combination for radio comedy, but that's what BBC Radio 4 is giving us with the current series of Brian Gulliver's Travels. This week, in "Anidara", the hapless travel writer is forced to confront the vegetarian question, aka "Is it wrong to eat meat?"
Neil Pearson, playing the eponymous traveller, is just right for this role — his worldly familiarity coupled with a hint of erudition hits exactly the right note. The series (this is the second) comprises six half-hour episodes, with two more to come. Streaming audio of this week's episode is available until 12:02PM Wed, 12 Sep 2012:
Paul S. Jenkins, writer, podcaster and tech-enthusiast (and atheist and skeptic) lives and works in Hampshire, UK. Notes from an Evil Burnee is his blog about things skeptical.