Can women be bishops? Can secularists be religious? Can celebrity evangelists make money?
Stand by for another dose of Skepticule Extra imminently.
Showing posts with label Skepticule Extra. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Skepticule Extra. Show all posts
Tuesday, 1 January 2013
At last Skepticule Extra — but wait, there's more
Starting the new year with a bit of catch-up, Skepticule Extra number 37 is available for your nostalgic reminiscence (OK, I promise to do better this year).
Can women be bishops? Can secularists be religious? Can celebrity evangelists make money?
Stand by for another dose of Skepticule Extra imminently.
Can women be bishops? Can secularists be religious? Can celebrity evangelists make money?
Stand by for another dose of Skepticule Extra imminently.
Tuesday, 27 November 2012
What's this? A blogpost? Surely not!
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).
Anyway, give it a listen:
http://www.skepticule.co.uk/2012/11/skepextra-035-20121007.html
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.
Anyway, give it a listen:
http://www.skepticule.co.uk/2012/11/skepextra-035-20121007.html
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.
Sunday, 30 September 2012
Skepticule goodness
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.)
http://www.skepticule.co.uk/2012/09/skepextra-033-20120909.html
We discuss the plus, survive the live, pull a leg, refuse abuse and scorn the horn.
http://www.skepticule.co.uk/2012/09/skepextra-033-20120909.html
We discuss the plus, survive the live, pull a leg, refuse abuse and scorn the horn.
Monday, 17 September 2012
Skepticule Extra 32
Download the latest episode of Skepticule Extra here:
http://www.skepticule.co.uk/2012/09/skepextra-032-20120826.html
...and listen to some cutting remarks, some experimental remarks, some Sunday supermarket remarks and some healthy streetwise remarks.
(The next episode — already recorded — will be available with all due slowness.)
http://www.skepticule.co.uk/2012/09/skepextra-032-20120826.html
...and listen to some cutting remarks, some experimental remarks, some Sunday supermarket remarks and some healthy streetwise remarks.
(The next episode — already recorded — will be available with all due slowness.)
Tuesday, 28 August 2012
Extra Skepticule goodness for your downloading pleasure
Imagine doing a podcast every day for a month (August, say). That's a lot of podcasting. Then imagine spreading those podcasts over 18 months or so. It's still a lot (but not nearly as impressive).
Episode 31 of Skepticule Extra is now available to stick in your ear, featuring paranormal investigator Hayley Stevens and her HOTS exploits, Bigfoot projectiles, Nessie pictures, and a Project Barnum* update (with tantalising hints of something new on the skeptical horizon). We also go down to Down House — which is in Downe — the home Charles Darwin, and where he originated his species (he had ten kids), and we talk about designing some creative intelligence (or something).
http://www.skepticule.co.uk/2012/08/skepextra-031-20120812.html
*Don't forget to vote for Project Barnum as Website of the Month on Heart Internet!
Episode 31 of Skepticule Extra is now available to stick in your ear, featuring paranormal investigator Hayley Stevens and her HOTS exploits, Bigfoot projectiles, Nessie pictures, and a Project Barnum* update (with tantalising hints of something new on the skeptical horizon). We also go down to Down House — which is in Downe — the home Charles Darwin, and where he originated his species (he had ten kids), and we talk about designing some creative intelligence (or something).
http://www.skepticule.co.uk/2012/08/skepextra-031-20120812.html
*Don't forget to vote for Project Barnum as Website of the Month on Heart Internet!
Thursday, 16 August 2012
30 episodes and counting — new Skepticule Extra available
Far back in the mists of prehistory we used to do a podcast...
Skepticule Extra 030 is now seated on a server, all scintillating, twinkly and tautologous, just waiting for you — or your trusty podcatcher — to download it.
Go on, you know you want to:
http://www.skepticule.co.uk/2012/08/skepextra-030-20120701.html
Is there more evidence for a Dishonest Debater than there is for a Cosmic Creator? Download, tune in and find out.
How close did we come to never knowing the secrets of those who knew secrets? To crack this one, listen to episode 30's enigmatic second half.
Episode 31, with guest Hayley Stevens (as announced elsewhere) will be available longly.
Skepticule Extra 030 is now seated on a server, all scintillating, twinkly and tautologous, just waiting for you — or your trusty podcatcher — to download it.
Go on, you know you want to:
http://www.skepticule.co.uk/2012/08/skepextra-030-20120701.html
Is there more evidence for a Dishonest Debater than there is for a Cosmic Creator? Download, tune in and find out.
How close did we come to never knowing the secrets of those who knew secrets? To crack this one, listen to episode 30's enigmatic second half.
Episode 31, with guest Hayley Stevens (as announced elsewhere) will be available longly.
Tuesday, 19 June 2012
Monsters in an area of confusion
As discussed on Skepticule Extra 28, the Goddess Roundtable podcast is a festival of woo. After hearing co-host Paul Thompson describe this particular episode I decided to give it a listen. I posted a link on Facebook and commented as it progressed:
Listening to this now — it's hilarious:
http://www.blogtalkradio.com/goddessroundtable/2010/10/29/the-monster-in-the-vagina-testament-to-vaginal-exorcisms
Listening to this now — it's hilarious:
http://www.blogtalkradio.com/goddessroundtable/2010/10/29/the-monster-in-the-vagina-testament-to-vaginal-exorcisms
Paul Jenkins It's also depressing — that there are people living such fantasy and believing it's real.Sunday at 15:41 ·- Paul Jenkins Now at about 16 minutes, and wondering if it's actually an allegory for sensible sexual health maintenance...
-
- Paul Jenkins Oh, it's a phone-in show. Why does she need the phones? Can't she just communicate telepathically or something?
-
-
-
- Paul Jenkins This caller says she has "some confusion in the womb area". I presume this is a euphemism.Sunday at 16:17 · · 1
-
-
- Paul Jenkins Not sure why it's called Goddess Roundtable — she nattered bollocks (in more than one sense) for half an hour, then responded with barnum statements and cold reading of the deludons who called her show.
- Paul Jenkins It's over. Now, is a cup of tea a good remedy for a potentially exploding skull?
Sunday, 17 June 2012
Extra Skepticule goodness for your downloading and listening pleasure
Skepticule Extra 28 is now available, just as we've recorded number 29:
http://www.skepticule.co.uk/2012/06/skepextra-028-20120610.html
Creationist crop circles in your vagina call for more skepticism, zero atheists and serpentine health and safety precautions.
Parts of SkepExtra 30 (a milestone!) will probably be recorded next Saturday, during Alan Turing's centenary (another milestone!) at Bletchley Park. See you there — and if you see us, be prepared to speak into the mic.
http://www.skepticule.co.uk/2012/06/skepextra-028-20120610.html
Creationist crop circles in your vagina call for more skepticism, zero atheists and serpentine health and safety precautions.
Parts of SkepExtra 30 (a milestone!) will probably be recorded next Saturday, during Alan Turing's centenary (another milestone!) at Bletchley Park. See you there — and if you see us, be prepared to speak into the mic.
Wednesday, 6 June 2012
ID proponents still pretending to do "science"
On the 17th of November last year Stephen C. Meyer delivered a lecture at the Royal Horseguards Hotel in London, at an event sponsored by the Centre for Intelligent Design. The lecture, hosted by Lord Mackay of Clashfern, was titled "Is there a Signature in the Cell?" — presumably based on Meyer's similarly titled book, Signature in the Cell. The three Pauls talked about the lecture on our Skepticule Extra podcast, but I thought it might be useful to put my own thoughts on it in writing (though much of this will be a repeat of what I said on on the podcast).
The event was shrouded in a certain amount of spurious secrecy, as can be seen from this extract from the C4ID website:
Also in the audience was Justin Brierley, host of Premier's Unbelievable? radio programme, who posted this on Facebook:
Some months after the lecture a video of it was made available on YouTube, so I decided to watch it. What follows are some thoughts triggered as I watched.
http://youtu.be/NbluTDb1Nfs
Meyer begins with some sensible localisation, stating that in the United States Intelligent Design is perceived as connected to Young Earth Creationism. This is not so in the United Kingdom — because in the UK we never had the equivalent of the Scopes trial. This is presumably because in the UK we don't have separation of Church and State (even though we might be viewed as a more secular society than the US).
Meyer goes on to make a number of general points, beginning with the main point of ID, the Question of Design — is there a mind behind biological complexity? He mentions Richard Dawkins, oddly suggesting that he's not regarded as seriously as he used to be, due to his media involvement. This might be wishful thinking on Meyer's part, but nevertheless Meyer says he likes Dawkins' directness.
Meyer then claims that "today there is a very spirited discussion going on about the adequacy of natural selection and random mutation to produce not the minor variations … but the fundamental innovations in the history of life." He doesn't cite any sources for these spirited discussions, which makes me think this is merely sowing the seeds of doubt, as he's clearly doing when he claims that many evolutionary biologists are now saying that neo-Darwinian mechanics of mutation and selection are insufficient to produce large scale innovations. Again no direct sources — how many is 'many'? And the introduction of "large scale innovations" hints that he's favouring "micro-evolution" over "macro-evolution".
The origin of life — of the first cell — is not explained by Darwinian evolution, Meyer says, which appears to be an effort on his part to bias the story. He's asking how can Darwin be said to have refuted the design argument if he was unable to explain the "design" of the first cell. As far as I'm aware that's not what happened; Darwin showed that a designer was not necessary for evolution, but admitted ignorance of the origin of life. ID proponents such as Meyer are spinning this as a disingenuous claim by evolutionists, when it's nothing of the kind.
Meyer says the acceptance of ignorance about the origin of the first cell is due to a prevailing view that life was simple — a globule of plasm — and the intellectual leap to evolving life wasn't that great. Then we're on to some particular buzzwords beloved by the ID crowd, beginning with "sequence specificity". Something is "sequence specific" if the sequence determines the form (and therefore the function). Meyer shows an animation to illustrate how proteins are synthesized — starting with the sequence of genes along the spine of a DNA molecule. It all looks very complicated, but presumably illustrates how present-day cells work. It's likely, it seems to me, that the very first self-replicating cells were far simpler.
The "DNA Enigma", Meyer claims, concerns the origin of information, and he explains that there are two* types of information: Shannon information — the reduction of uncertainty, by which the more improbable an event, the more information is conveyed by the outcome of that event (in a strictly mathematical sense), but this cannot account for 'specified' complexity. He seems to be saying that specified complexity is present if you recognize what a given sequence represents. That, it seems to me, is post hoc rationalisation, as if "specified complexity" refers to complexity that contains information that has no apparent correlation to the function it produces — suspiciously like an argument from ignorance — and yet can only be recognised after the fact. As usual with ID proponents, this claim to be able to identify design isn't elaborated before we're on to something else — in this case a quotation from Jacques Monod: "A striking appearance of design." Monod apparently attributes this striking appearance to chance or necessity, or a combination of the two, in explaining natural processes.
Meyer says chance can produce the "appearance of design", but it's only good for short sequences. But what about selection? Meyer claims that applying natural selection to the origin of life is begging the question — invoking replication and 'life' in order to explain life's origin. I think, however, that he may be too restrictive in his ordering — natural selection doesn't have to kick in only after DNA, it can presumably operate on the simplest self-replicating molecules — the very first precursors to DNA/RNA etc.
Meyer goes on to mention the RNA world (which approximates to what I suggested above). He says the RNA world is problematic and he's happy to speak about it in the Q&A and that he covers it in his book. This, to me, seems like a cop-out.
Monod's third option is self-organisation. But chemistry alone, Meyer says, cannot determine the sequence of bases in DNA. So we don't know what determines the base sequence — once again we're back to an argument from ignorance. He says it's not the physics and chemistry that determines the sequence — when what he probably means is that he can't think of any mechanism by which physics and chemistry could determine the sequence.
Meyer then invokes an "inference to the best explanation", but unfortunately what he proposes isn't actually an explanation. It offers nothing extra, over and above what "I don't know" offers. The reason why we can make inferences to the best explanation in other areas — why we can speculate about possible causes for events or phenomena, is we understand how those causes work. It's no good proposing a cause when we don't know how that cause works, because that doesn't have any explanatory power. "It was designed" doesn't explain anything unless we can say how it was designed. This is my fundamental objection to ID.
By way of example of such an inference Meyer uses the presence of geological layers of volcanic ash. That's a valid example, because we know how volcanoes produce layers of volcanic ash. It's not valid for inferring a design to first life.
Meyer concludes with a lame graphic to illustrate the argument he uses in his book, Signature in the Cell. He has four options to explain the appearance of design: 1) Chance; 2) Necessity; 3) Chance plus Necessity; 4) ID — and then he eliminates all but ID. But he's not established that these are the only options, and they could all be wrong.
The video then jumps to the Q&A session, but apparently only the final question. The screen indicates Meyer might have been discussing the accusation that ID is an argument from ignorance, but from what's actually on the screen I don't think he could have done it very well, as the graphics seemed to reinforce the idea that ID is indeed an argument from ignorance.
The final question was "What is Science?" Meyer says it's a method, and mentions that this is relevant to whether ID is or is not science. But he says he's not interested in whether ID is science, only in whether it's true (or more likely to be true). He claims that the accusation that ID is not science is a ploy to avoid discussing it scientifically. I could just as easily say that his lack of concern about whether ID is science is a ploy to avoid applying the scientific method to it. He claims throughout his lecture, however, that he's using the kind of science employed by Charles Darwin.
A URL at the end of the video invites people to download a free digital companion to the book. I did this, even though I had to register with the Discovery Institute in order to get the PDF, though I've not yet read it. It appears to be a response to various criticisms of Signature in the Cell.
Most apparent from this lecture is that despite a resurgence of interest in the UK (manifested by the formation of C4ID in Scotland), ID has nothing new to offer on the question of life's origins, and remains hidebound in a tacit endorsement of scriptural infallibility. ID is an explanation of sorts, if you have fairly low expectations of what an "explanation" is supposed to tell you, but isn't in any sense a scientific explanation.
As far as I recall, Meyer didn't elucidate the second type.
The event was shrouded in a certain amount of spurious secrecy, as can be seen from this extract from the C4ID website:
The audience of some 90 invited guests included leading scientists, philosophers, Parliamentarians, educationalists, theologians, lawyers, and representatives of the media and business sectors. Given the controversial nature of the subject and the desire not to inhibit discussion, C4ID requested that the identity of the participants remain protected. The attendance of so many significant figures signals real interest in the topic, but, as Lord Mackay stressed in his introduction, their presence was not taken as an indication of support for the position of Intelligent Design (ID)
I have a confession... I'm coming off the fence over ID, well certainly at least with the origin of DNA. This lecture which I attended recently and the shows I have done convince me that when it comes to biogenesis, ID makes sense.
I've been criticised by theistic evolutionists for featuring ID on the show. But when it comes down to it, I don't see the difference. If TE says that the process that kick started evolution was in some sense goal oriented by divine guidance - then isn't that the same as saying that the assembly of the first self replication molecule was not down to blind forces and chance? Which is essentially what Stephen Meyer argues.
Some Christian don't like the theological implications of God "tinkering" but if we believe God intervenes in all kinds of other ways in miracles, the resurrecion etc. why shoudn't the moment of life's creation fall under this? And if the problem is that it doesn't look good theologically, then aren't the TEs doing what they critices YECs for - allowing their theological presuppositions to dictate what is allowed in the scientific realm.
I dont have a theological axe to grind when it comes to ID, I just think that given what we know now, and because I can't see good reason why deisgn isn't a viable explanation, it is the best explanation.
Just my musings, feel free to tear them apart!
http://youtu.be/NbluTDb1Nfs
Meyer begins with some sensible localisation, stating that in the United States Intelligent Design is perceived as connected to Young Earth Creationism. This is not so in the United Kingdom — because in the UK we never had the equivalent of the Scopes trial. This is presumably because in the UK we don't have separation of Church and State (even though we might be viewed as a more secular society than the US).
Meyer goes on to make a number of general points, beginning with the main point of ID, the Question of Design — is there a mind behind biological complexity? He mentions Richard Dawkins, oddly suggesting that he's not regarded as seriously as he used to be, due to his media involvement. This might be wishful thinking on Meyer's part, but nevertheless Meyer says he likes Dawkins' directness.
Meyer then claims that "today there is a very spirited discussion going on about the adequacy of natural selection and random mutation to produce not the minor variations … but the fundamental innovations in the history of life." He doesn't cite any sources for these spirited discussions, which makes me think this is merely sowing the seeds of doubt, as he's clearly doing when he claims that many evolutionary biologists are now saying that neo-Darwinian mechanics of mutation and selection are insufficient to produce large scale innovations. Again no direct sources — how many is 'many'? And the introduction of "large scale innovations" hints that he's favouring "micro-evolution" over "macro-evolution".
The origin of life — of the first cell — is not explained by Darwinian evolution, Meyer says, which appears to be an effort on his part to bias the story. He's asking how can Darwin be said to have refuted the design argument if he was unable to explain the "design" of the first cell. As far as I'm aware that's not what happened; Darwin showed that a designer was not necessary for evolution, but admitted ignorance of the origin of life. ID proponents such as Meyer are spinning this as a disingenuous claim by evolutionists, when it's nothing of the kind.
Meyer says the acceptance of ignorance about the origin of the first cell is due to a prevailing view that life was simple — a globule of plasm — and the intellectual leap to evolving life wasn't that great. Then we're on to some particular buzzwords beloved by the ID crowd, beginning with "sequence specificity". Something is "sequence specific" if the sequence determines the form (and therefore the function). Meyer shows an animation to illustrate how proteins are synthesized — starting with the sequence of genes along the spine of a DNA molecule. It all looks very complicated, but presumably illustrates how present-day cells work. It's likely, it seems to me, that the very first self-replicating cells were far simpler.
The "DNA Enigma", Meyer claims, concerns the origin of information, and he explains that there are two* types of information: Shannon information — the reduction of uncertainty, by which the more improbable an event, the more information is conveyed by the outcome of that event (in a strictly mathematical sense), but this cannot account for 'specified' complexity. He seems to be saying that specified complexity is present if you recognize what a given sequence represents. That, it seems to me, is post hoc rationalisation, as if "specified complexity" refers to complexity that contains information that has no apparent correlation to the function it produces — suspiciously like an argument from ignorance — and yet can only be recognised after the fact. As usual with ID proponents, this claim to be able to identify design isn't elaborated before we're on to something else — in this case a quotation from Jacques Monod: "A striking appearance of design." Monod apparently attributes this striking appearance to chance or necessity, or a combination of the two, in explaining natural processes.
Meyer says chance can produce the "appearance of design", but it's only good for short sequences. But what about selection? Meyer claims that applying natural selection to the origin of life is begging the question — invoking replication and 'life' in order to explain life's origin. I think, however, that he may be too restrictive in his ordering — natural selection doesn't have to kick in only after DNA, it can presumably operate on the simplest self-replicating molecules — the very first precursors to DNA/RNA etc.
Meyer goes on to mention the RNA world (which approximates to what I suggested above). He says the RNA world is problematic and he's happy to speak about it in the Q&A and that he covers it in his book. This, to me, seems like a cop-out.
Monod's third option is self-organisation. But chemistry alone, Meyer says, cannot determine the sequence of bases in DNA. So we don't know what determines the base sequence — once again we're back to an argument from ignorance. He says it's not the physics and chemistry that determines the sequence — when what he probably means is that he can't think of any mechanism by which physics and chemistry could determine the sequence.
Meyer then invokes an "inference to the best explanation", but unfortunately what he proposes isn't actually an explanation. It offers nothing extra, over and above what "I don't know" offers. The reason why we can make inferences to the best explanation in other areas — why we can speculate about possible causes for events or phenomena, is we understand how those causes work. It's no good proposing a cause when we don't know how that cause works, because that doesn't have any explanatory power. "It was designed" doesn't explain anything unless we can say how it was designed. This is my fundamental objection to ID.
By way of example of such an inference Meyer uses the presence of geological layers of volcanic ash. That's a valid example, because we know how volcanoes produce layers of volcanic ash. It's not valid for inferring a design to first life.
Meyer concludes with a lame graphic to illustrate the argument he uses in his book, Signature in the Cell. He has four options to explain the appearance of design: 1) Chance; 2) Necessity; 3) Chance plus Necessity; 4) ID — and then he eliminates all but ID. But he's not established that these are the only options, and they could all be wrong.
The video then jumps to the Q&A session, but apparently only the final question. The screen indicates Meyer might have been discussing the accusation that ID is an argument from ignorance, but from what's actually on the screen I don't think he could have done it very well, as the graphics seemed to reinforce the idea that ID is indeed an argument from ignorance.
The final question was "What is Science?" Meyer says it's a method, and mentions that this is relevant to whether ID is or is not science. But he says he's not interested in whether ID is science, only in whether it's true (or more likely to be true). He claims that the accusation that ID is not science is a ploy to avoid discussing it scientifically. I could just as easily say that his lack of concern about whether ID is science is a ploy to avoid applying the scientific method to it. He claims throughout his lecture, however, that he's using the kind of science employed by Charles Darwin.
A URL at the end of the video invites people to download a free digital companion to the book. I did this, even though I had to register with the Discovery Institute in order to get the PDF, though I've not yet read it. It appears to be a response to various criticisms of Signature in the Cell.
Most apparent from this lecture is that despite a resurgence of interest in the UK (manifested by the formation of C4ID in Scotland), ID has nothing new to offer on the question of life's origins, and remains hidebound in a tacit endorsement of scriptural infallibility. ID is an explanation of sorts, if you have fairly low expectations of what an "explanation" is supposed to tell you, but isn't in any sense a scientific explanation.
As far as I recall, Meyer didn't elucidate the second type.
Tuesday, 5 June 2012
James Croft on Skepticule Extra
James Croft was our guest on the latest episode of Skepticule Extra. Hear about humanist communities and the recent Reason Rally:
http://www.skepticule.co.uk/2012/06/skepextra-027-20120520.html
Well worth 75 minutes of anyone's time...
http://www.skepticule.co.uk/2012/06/skepextra-027-20120520.html
Well worth 75 minutes of anyone's time...
Monday, 9 April 2012
Skepticule Extra 23 available for your listening pleasure
Skepticule Extra 24 will be recorded tonight, if all goes to plan. But while you're waiting for that one to go live, listen to our previous show!
Skepticule Extra 23 features a surprise guest (at least, it's a surprise if you can't be bothered to check out the shownotes, or if you skip over the intro).
Lots of meat in this episode: 9/11, ID, dowsing for a million dollars — along with plenty of other delights...
http://www.skepticule.co.uk/2012/04/skepextra-023-20120325.html
Skepticule Extra 23 features a surprise guest (at least, it's a surprise if you can't be bothered to check out the shownotes, or if you skip over the intro).
Lots of meat in this episode: 9/11, ID, dowsing for a million dollars — along with plenty of other delights...
http://www.skepticule.co.uk/2012/04/skepextra-023-20120325.html
Wednesday, 21 March 2012
Incomprehensible actions for unknown reasons
There is a theme in the affairs of apologists, which taken at the flood, leads on to incoherence.*
At Choosing Hats, contributor McFormtist considers what constitutes successful apologetics. As the type of apologetic usually in question at Choosing Hats is "covenantal" or "presuppositional" apologetics, and my own limited encounters with presuppositionalists have led me to the conclusion that presuppositonal apologetics is spectacularly unsuccessful in the declared purpose of apologetics in general, naturally my interest was piqued.
Early on in the piece comes this:
McFormtist was good enough to reply, and it was in the reply that I saw the recurrence of a theme I've encountered before when Christians are questioned about their evangelism. They don't do it because of its results — the purpose of apologetics is indeed irrelevant to its effect. They do it because God told them to do it. It's all about obedience. Men must do what God tells them to do, regardless of whether it makes sense or leads to unintended consequences. That's unintended by man, of course: God works in mysterious ways — who can fathom the depths of His intention?
This theme is also present in the Westboro Baptist Church. When Shirley Phelps-Roper and her husband Brent were guests on the Skepticule Extra podcast, they made it clear they were not concerned with the effect their uncompromising brand of evangelism (if you can call it that) might have on the people they were picketing. The results of what they did were irrelevant to them and their purpose. Their only purpose — a purpose they appeared determined to pursue regardless — was to obey God. Anything else was a side-issue and of minimal importance.
So, coupling God's "mysterious ways" with His commands interpreted from scripture, we end up with groups of devout believers earnestly carrying out incoherent actions for reasons they accept they cannot understand. These people are doing incomprehensible stuff and they don't know why.
*With apologies to William Shakespeare
At Choosing Hats, contributor McFormtist considers what constitutes successful apologetics. As the type of apologetic usually in question at Choosing Hats is "covenantal" or "presuppositional" apologetics, and my own limited encounters with presuppositionalists have led me to the conclusion that presuppositonal apologetics is spectacularly unsuccessful in the declared purpose of apologetics in general, naturally my interest was piqued.
Early on in the piece comes this:
- Our theology dictates to us that it is God who changes men’s hearts. As Reformed Christians, we understand that God in His Holy Sovereignty is superintending everything that comes to pass, including the salvation of men, and that the conversion of men starts and ends by God’s active working in their hearts, and this moving is not dependent in any way upon man’s efforts, whether they be those of the evangelist or of the one being evangelized. (Eze. 36:26, John 3:8)
McFormtist was good enough to reply, and it was in the reply that I saw the recurrence of a theme I've encountered before when Christians are questioned about their evangelism. They don't do it because of its results — the purpose of apologetics is indeed irrelevant to its effect. They do it because God told them to do it. It's all about obedience. Men must do what God tells them to do, regardless of whether it makes sense or leads to unintended consequences. That's unintended by man, of course: God works in mysterious ways — who can fathom the depths of His intention?
This theme is also present in the Westboro Baptist Church. When Shirley Phelps-Roper and her husband Brent were guests on the Skepticule Extra podcast, they made it clear they were not concerned with the effect their uncompromising brand of evangelism (if you can call it that) might have on the people they were picketing. The results of what they did were irrelevant to them and their purpose. Their only purpose — a purpose they appeared determined to pursue regardless — was to obey God. Anything else was a side-issue and of minimal importance.
So, coupling God's "mysterious ways" with His commands interpreted from scripture, we end up with groups of devout believers earnestly carrying out incoherent actions for reasons they accept they cannot understand. These people are doing incomprehensible stuff and they don't know why.
*With apologies to William Shakespeare
Monday, 19 March 2012
Skepticule Extra 22
Late (as usual) but all the more superbly great for having to be waited for. (And yes I know that a conjunction is something you're not supposed to end a sentence with.)
It's Skepticule Extra, episode 22! (that's an exclamation mark, not a factorial — which incidentally would be 1.12400072777760768 x 10^21 according to Wolfram Alpha).
In this episode the three Pauls discuss, among other things, skeptical and godless conferences, non-skeptical (but highly lucrative) books, and debating delusion.
http://www.skepticule.co.uk/2012/03/skepextra-022-20120226.html
It's Skepticule Extra, episode 22! (that's an exclamation mark, not a factorial — which incidentally would be 1.12400072777760768 x 10^21 according to Wolfram Alpha).
In this episode the three Pauls discuss, among other things, skeptical and godless conferences, non-skeptical (but highly lucrative) books, and debating delusion.
http://www.skepticule.co.uk/2012/03/skepextra-022-20120226.html
Saturday, 18 February 2012
Skepticule Extra 020
Skepticule Extra 021 will be with you shortly, but meanwhile why not listen to number 20, in which the three Pauls talk about blasphemy, ghosts, and the posthumous baptism of atheists by morons Mormons — amongst other things. The episode also features an interview with Hayley Stevens about the ethics of ghost hunting (the subject of her talk at the CFIUK Beyond the Veil conference).
Go on, you know you want to.
http://www.skepticule.co.uk/2012/02/skepextra-020-20120129.html
Go on, you know you want to.
http://www.skepticule.co.uk/2012/02/skepextra-020-20120129.html
Tuesday, 3 January 2012
Late, later, latest episode of Skepticule Extra at last available
I've been busy. Plus, this episode of Skepticule Extra is the first I've done using the "triple ender" technique, designed to overcome problems with the variable quality of Skype by using three separately recorded voice tracks. I think it turned out OK, and if the individual recordings are up to scratch this should be the preferred way of producing a Skype podcast. Having done it once I've discovered there isn't that much extra work involved (although working out how to do it in GarageBand took a while).
SkepExtra-019-20111211
In this episode the three Pauls discuss clerical gay-bashing, Kraussian cosmology, undesirable abortion, televisual archaeology and complementary medical soft-pedalling.
SkepExtra-019-20111211
In this episode the three Pauls discuss clerical gay-bashing, Kraussian cosmology, undesirable abortion, televisual archaeology and complementary medical soft-pedalling.
Saturday, 3 December 2011
Skepticule Extra 017 now available
Somewhat delayed, the 17th edition of Skepticule Extra is now available for listening. Go here for this delectable download:
http://www.skepticule.co.uk/2011/12/skepextra-017-20111113.html
The three Pauls deal actively with some feedback, then discuss some planned disruptive action to Remembrance Sunday, some libel action, some political action, and some concentrated apologetics action. It's an all-action episode...
http://www.skepticule.co.uk/2011/12/skepextra-017-20111113.html
The three Pauls deal actively with some feedback, then discuss some planned disruptive action to Remembrance Sunday, some libel action, some political action, and some concentrated apologetics action. It's an all-action episode...
Saturday, 19 November 2011
New episode of Skepticule Extra
In the latest episode of Skepticule Extra (at least, the latest to be made live), the three Pauls discuss William Lane Craig's Reasonable Faith tour, an ineffective investigation into child abuse in Ealing, a project to alert audiences to fraudulent mediumship, and murderous obsession in the Bible. (In short, the usual stuff.)
http://www.skepticule.co.uk/2011/11/skepextra-016-20111030.html
Listen, enjoy, comment (feedback@skepticule.co.uk).
http://www.skepticule.co.uk/2011/11/skepextra-016-20111030.html
Listen, enjoy, comment (feedback@skepticule.co.uk).
Friday, 4 November 2011
Miraculous irrationality
Last Saturday's Unbelievable? was a discussion between Gary Habermas, Christian, and Geoff Campos, atheist, recorded during the Bethinking apologetics conference at Westminster Chapel, as part of William Lane Craig's Reasonable Faith Tour. I listened with mixed feelings, as there had been a brief possibility that the three Pauls of Skepticule Extra could have been the ones in conversation with Gary Habermas, rather than Geoff Campos. In the event I think Geoff gave a good account of himself and his position with regard to the question at issue — which was, "Is it rational to believe in miracles?"
Nevertheless I found myself at times disagreeing with everyone in the conversation. A good deal was said about Geoff's stance on the status of the "supernatural", and Justin Brierley — moderating the discussion — made the inevitable point about denial of supernature closing off options, suggesting that perhaps Geoff was being closed-minded if he did not accept that supernatural events were even possible.
This is an invidious position to hold in the face of theistic miracle claims, but I think it's a result of not defining one's terms. Though the definition of "supernatural" was explored, I don't recall anyone clarifying what was meant by "rational". For an event to be rationally believed in, that event must conform to reason and logic. Its causes and effects must be capable of description in rational terms, and those causes and effects must lie entirely in the physical realm — because the physical realm of causes and effects is the only realm in which rationally observed phenomena have been verified to occur.
So the question posed by Justin for this show contained the seeds of its own irrationality. It's not rational to believe in miracles, because by definition miracles are effects without rational causes.
Streaming audio here:
http://www.premierradio.org.uk/listen/ondemand.aspx?mediaid={B9C493B0-276B-492F-82B7-C2C5D5F06EFA}
Download mp3 here:
http://media.premier.org.uk/unbelievable/f4ac58fb-9cf3-4ad7-aa49-1392546b275f.mp3
Saturday, 8 October 2011
After some delay, the latest Skepticule Extra is available
Many thanks to James Williams for being our guest on Skepticule Extra. This show covers science teaching, statistical religiosity in Britain and the mendacity (or otherwise) of the Jehovah's Witnesses (including the editorship of the Watch Tower).
http://www.skepticule.co.uk/2011/10/skepextra-015-20110918.html
http://www.skepticule.co.uk/2011/10/skepextra-015-20110918.html
Wednesday, 5 October 2011
A presuppositional impasse
In the Skepticule Extra Facebook group, Skepticule co-host Paul Baird posted a link to an episode of the Fundamentally Flawed podcast in which Alex Botten and Jim Gardner took on Eric Hovind and Sye Ten Bruggencate. It was a while before I got around to listening to it (it's over an hour and a half long), but last night I did listen, and while doing so I posted my thoughts and reactions as comments on Paul B's link. Skepticule Extra is a closed Facebook group, so for the benefit(!) of non-members I've pasted my comments below (others' comments omitted, as I didn't see them until I'd finished listening):
Paul Jenkins Just got to Sye's complaint about Alex's blog comments. Convenient he exhibits his paranoia at the point his schtick is evidently failing to make any progress.
23 hours ago ·
Paul Jenkins Here's my take on a couple of questions: 1. Is it possible for an omnipotent God (if he exists) to reveal something to me such that I can be certain of it? Answer: no, because "possibility" necessarily excludes "certainty" — that is, the question is incoherent. 2. Is it possible that we don't know anything at all? Answer: yes, apart from the knowledge that "thinking" is going on somewhere. But we function in the world nevertheless — amazing, isn't it?
22 hours ago ·
Paul Jenkins 3. Is appealing to your senses and reason to justify your senses and reason a viciously circular argument? Answer: no. It's circular but it's not vicious. And appealing to scripture to justify scripture is also circular. 4. Can the laws of logic change? Answer: this question is incoherent because it misunderstands the nature of logic. Logic isn't something over and above the physical universe, it is a characteristic of existence. Without logic there is no existence. Logic is inextricably entwined with existence and causality, and our understanding of it may change with our understanding of reality. Eric's point about the ontology of logic is invalid because his conception of the nature of logic is false.
22 hours ago ·
Paul Jenkins Coming to the end now. And I think Eric is about to ask Alex and Jim to repent (if previous experience is anything to go by).
22 hours ago ·
Paul Jenkins BTW, Jim's description of Sye's refusal to debate scripture with a non-believer as a "cop-out" is spot on. Sye is effectively refusing to debate scripture with anyone who disagrees with him. Maybe that's why he's so fond of the presuppositional approach — anyone who falls for the binary nature of the TAG is easy prey, while those who don't will necessarily stall at the first question because they realise it's a false dichotomy.
22 hours ago ·
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
