Tuesday, 12 March 2013
Unbelievable? Facebook facepalm (part 1)
Here's a recent thread from the Unbelievable? Facebook group. I post it here as an example of how rational discussion can get derailed when someone claims to have knowledge but can't substantiate it.
Monday, 11 March 2013
Burnee links for Monday
A new humanist book by Grayling, and a critique by Appleyard « Why Evolution Is True
Based on Jerry Coyne's review of Brian Appleyard's review, I'm looking forward to reading A. C. Grayling's new book.
What is it like to be a cat? « Why Evolution Is True
Not rigorous science, but certainly a pointer towards further research.
Atheist Ethicist: How to Refute Desirism
Step by step instructions. But so far no-one has done it.
National Secular Society - The Catholic Church must change or die
Personally I think it's going down either way. Not fast, not soon, but definitely down.
National Secular Society - Sexual segregation at a UCL event a scandal, say students
Professor Krauss kicked up enough fuss to ensure this disgraceful lapse got publicity.
Guest post on the “debate” at UCL » Butterflies and Wheels
More on the UCL farce.
Might Christianity be both true and terrible? » Pharyngula
Well, no. But what if? PZ turns the tables on Damon Linker.
Based on Jerry Coyne's review of Brian Appleyard's review, I'm looking forward to reading A. C. Grayling's new book.
What is it like to be a cat? « Why Evolution Is True
Not rigorous science, but certainly a pointer towards further research.
Atheist Ethicist: How to Refute Desirism
Step by step instructions. But so far no-one has done it.
Personally I think it's going down either way. Not fast, not soon, but definitely down.
National Secular Society - Sexual segregation at a UCL event a scandal, say students
Professor Krauss kicked up enough fuss to ensure this disgraceful lapse got publicity.
Guest post on the “debate” at UCL » Butterflies and Wheels
More on the UCL farce.
Might Christianity be both true and terrible? » Pharyngula
Well, no. But what if? PZ turns the tables on Damon Linker.
High ideals in Red Lion Square
Via James O'Malley (and Sid Rodrigues), a fascinating half-hour BBC documentary from 1975 about Conway Hall:
http://youtu.be/YZzKwCa0oGA
This is my era (I was studying in London about then), and though I well remember the embarrassing 70's fashion, I'd forgotten the clipped accents. The programme is notable for its forthright message towards the end, which these days would have been softened and countered in the interests of so-called balance.
http://youtu.be/YZzKwCa0oGA
This is my era (I was studying in London about then), and though I well remember the embarrassing 70's fashion, I'd forgotten the clipped accents. The programme is notable for its forthright message towards the end, which these days would have been softened and countered in the interests of so-called balance.
Friday, 8 March 2013
CFI-UK one-day conference: Tricks of the Mind
I'm going to this. I've been to several of the CFI-UK events organised by Stephen Law, and they've all been excellent.
Click here to buy tickets.
Come and hear some of the world’s leading experts explain how our minds can distort and deceive, including how they often play a role in generating a wide range of paranormal experiences. Discussion will include magic, time distortion, hypnotism and past-life regression.
Presented by the British Humanist Association, the Centre for Inquiry UK, and Conway Hall. Organised and introduced by Stephen Law.
Date: Saturday, 30th March 2013 Venue: Conway Hall (main hall), 25 Red Lion Square, Holborn, WC1R 4RL London (nearest tube Holborn) Time: 10.30am registration (for a 11am start). Ends 4pm
Programme
11.00 Daniela Rudloff: Mental ‘Short-Cuts’ - The Good, the Bad and the Ugly
Can we trust our eyes? Why does a footballer’s performance usually drop right after they’ve been sold to a high-paying football club? What exactly is “anchoring”, and why are we doing it on dry land?
Daniela Rudloff will answer these and other questions by giving an introduction to the everyday mental shortcuts and biases we often employ, arguing that even though they might be misleading, they are also necessary – and almost impossible to avoid.
Daniela has always had a profound interest in critical thinking, leading her to join the German Skeptics in 1994. In 2006 she commenced a PhD in Psychology to find out what keeps Joe Bloggs from being a rational, reasonable and sceptical person.
12.00 Claudia Hammond: Time Warped
We are obsessed with time, but why does it play so many tricks on us? Why does time slow down when you're afraid and speed up as you get older? Drawing on the latest research from the fields of psychology, neuroscience and biology, and using original research on the way memory shapes our understanding of time, the awarding-winning writer and broadcaster Claudia Hammond delves into the mysteries of time perception and how the mind creates a sense of time.
Claudia is an award-winning broadcaster, writer and psychology lecturer. She is the presenter of All in the Mind & Mind Changers on BBC Radio 4 and the Health Check on BBC World Service Radio every week and BBC World News TV every month. Claudia is a columnist for BBC.com and the author of "Time Warped: Unlocking the Mysteries of Time Perception" and "Emotional Rollercoaster - a journey through the science of feelings" which won the Aoen Transmission Prize in February 2013.
2.00 Martin S Taylor: More Lives Than One?
Martin S Taylor became interested in hypnosis when he was studying for a PhD at Imperial College, and soon became well known on the student circuit with his science based lecture-demonstration. At first he believed in the traditional view that hypnosis is a special induced state of mind, but discussions with friends and his experience with his own hypnotic subjects led him to subscribe to the 'social-compliance' view, namely that hypnosis is best explained by normal, well-understood psychological principles.
He now makes a living as a lecturer and consultant on hypnosis, talking and demonstrating at schools, universities, and anywhere else they'll pay him. It was at one of Martin's lectures that Derren Brown was inspired to take up his career, and Martin has worked with Derren on a number of recent television shows. Recently he has been working as a hypnosis consultant for Paramount Pictures, producing promotional videos for horror films.
In today’s talk, Martin will be examining the notion that hypnosis can be used to get people to remember past lives, a phenomenon taken by many as evidence of reincarnation.
3.00 Robert Teszka: Mind and Magic
Robert Teszka is a cognitive psychologist, magician, science promoter, and massive geek. He uses the techniques of misdirection to study the psychology of attention and awareness at Goldsmiths University, and has travelled internationally to give lectures on the surprising insights of cognitive psychology.
Mind and Magic is a talk about how our own minds deceive us as readily as any magician, and how magician's tricks can help us understand our minds a bit better. Expect a curated collection of demonstrations, experiments, and original research - and perhaps a magic trick or two - as Rob attempts to convince you that sometimes, you just can't trust your own mind.
March 30th, 2013Conway Hall
25 Red Lion Square
Holborn, WC1R 4RL
United Kingdom
Thursday, 7 March 2013
An essential aspect of management
http://youtu.be/wAgg32weT80
(Via Ophelia Benson.)
Monday, 4 March 2013
Giles Fraser speaks the truth
I've said some things about Giles Fraser on this blog in the past, but recently — since his resignation from St Paul's — he's been pleasingly unpredictable, and my previous minimal respect for him has grown. He still says stuff I disagree with, but his performance on this morning's Thought for the Day makes me want to put previous disagreements aside. As I soaked in the bath I could hardly believe what was coming out of the radio: no-nonsense speaking of truth to power — and on Thought for the Day!
Well done Giles.
Downloadable mp3 from here, for 30 days:
http://downloads.bbc.co.uk/podcasts/radio4/thought/thought_20130304-1117a.mp3
Streaming audio here:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p015vmw9
Text transcript from BBC website:
Clearly I'm not alone in my assessment of this particular TftD:
http://www.platitudes.org.uk/platblog/index.php?entry=entry130304-081648
Well done Giles.
Downloadable mp3 from here, for 30 days:
http://downloads.bbc.co.uk/podcasts/radio4/thought/thought_20130304-1117a.mp3
Streaming audio here:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p015vmw9
Text transcript from BBC website:
This morning the Roman Catholic Church in Scotland is waking up to one of the biggest crises in its modern history. A few weeks ago, Cardinal Keith O’Brien was expecting to be in Rome electing the next Pope. Now he’s in disgrace, vowing that he’ll never again take part in public life.
We still don’t know the details of what he did, simply that he’s admitted to sexual misconduct amongst his fellow priests. Charges of hypocrisy have been swift to follow. This month last year, the Cardinal was on this very programme attacking gay marriage as evidence for the “degeneration of society into immorality”. Indeed, he insisted: “if the UK does go in for same sex marriage it is indeed shaming our country.”
So why is it that all the churches - and not just the Roman Catholic church - seem to attract so many gay men who are themselves so virulently hostile to homosexuality? Perhaps it has to do with a misplaced sense of shame about being gay, a sense of shame that they go on to reinforce by being vocal supporters of the very theology that they themselves have been the victims of. As the novelist Roz Kaveney tweeted yesterday: “I feel sorry for O'Brien. I hope one day he realises that the sense of sexual sinfulness the Church forced on him was an abuse.” And that “O'Brien needs to distinguish between his sexual desires and his bad behaviour and not see all of it as sin.” I totally agree.
The election of a new Pope provides an opportunity for real change. The culture of secrecy that fearfully hides this bad behaviour – and not least the clerical abuse of children – needs dismantling from its very foundations. Inappropriate sexual relationships, relationships that trade on unequal power and enforced silence, are the product of an unwillingness to speak honestly, openly and compassionately about sex in general and homosexuality in particular. The importance of marriage as being available to both gay and straight people – and indeed to priests – is that it allows sexual desire to be rightly located in loving and stable relationships. I know there are people who see things differently, but I’m sorry: the churches’ condemnation of homosexuality has forced gay sex into the shadows, thus again reinforcing a sense of shame that, for me, is the real source of abuse.
Things may now be changing. It is encouraging that four priests have had the courage to speak out against a Cardinal – though one of them has expressed the fear that the Catholic church would “crush him” if they could. This is precisely the climate of fear that does so much to create the conditions of clerical abuse.
“It seems to me that there is nowhere to hide now,” said Diarmaid MacCulloch, the professor of the history of the church at Oxford University in a recent interview. He goes on: “We have had two Popes in succession that have denied that the church needed to change at all. The Roman church has to face realities that it has steadily avoided facing for the last thirty years.” And I might add, not just the Roman church, but my own church too.
Clearly I'm not alone in my assessment of this particular TftD:
http://www.platitudes.org.uk/platblog/index.php?entry=entry130304-081648
Sunday, 3 March 2013
Burnee links for Sunday
I get email: explosive beginnings » Pharyngula
A great response to a recurring smug question.
I can defend both Lawrence Krauss and philosophy! » Pharyngula
I think philosophy is important and worthwhile, except when it crosses the line into theology (when it becomes unimportant and worthless). But that's just my opinion.
Please don’t use this argument » Pharyngula
Think before you post (or speak, or...).
Intelligent Design Gets Peer-Review… Sort Of | Smilodon's Retreat
Intelligent Design isn't science.
Humanism's faith in reason represents our best hope | AC Grayling | Comment is free | The Observer
Succinct outline of humanistic principles; the comments are interesting too. (Not sure about the "faith" in the title, but that could be the sub-editors....)
Stephen Law: Tricks of the Mind event CFI, March 30th.
This looks good. And Martin S. Taylor was excellent at Winchester Skeptics last Thursday.
A great response to a recurring smug question.
I can defend both Lawrence Krauss and philosophy! » Pharyngula
I think philosophy is important and worthwhile, except when it crosses the line into theology (when it becomes unimportant and worthless). But that's just my opinion.
Please don’t use this argument » Pharyngula
Think before you post (or speak, or...).
Intelligent Design Gets Peer-Review… Sort Of | Smilodon's Retreat
Intelligent Design isn't science.
Succinct outline of humanistic principles; the comments are interesting too. (Not sure about the "faith" in the title, but that could be the sub-editors....)
Stephen Law: Tricks of the Mind event CFI, March 30th.
This looks good. And Martin S. Taylor was excellent at Winchester Skeptics last Thursday.
Confessions of a Medium — BBC Radio 4
This was on BBC Radio 4 a couple of days ago and should be available for the rest of this week. It's a radio drama by A. L. Kennedy about a spiritual medium in the 19th century (played by the inimitable Bill Nighy). He's not quite what he seems.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b00pn34n/Saturday_Drama_Confessions_of_a_Medium/
From the iPlayer:
Confessions of a Medium
Starring Bill Nighy as Thomson and Robert Glenister as Mr. Parker. A gothic, shadowy, and darkly comic drama about illusion, delusion and desire. Based on a true story in 1870's London. Mr. Parker is a sincere and kind man in search of a higher meaning to life. He has moved from conventional religion to séances and spiritualism. He believes he's met his saviour in the guise of Mr. Thomson - a charming, erudite, and utterly mesmerising medium, but unbeknown to Parker, Thomson is a complete and utter fake.
DIRECTED BY PAULINE HARRIS BBC DRAMA NORTH
Credits
Thomson Bill Nighy
Parker Robert Glenister
Morton Jonathan Keeble
Mr Gordon Jonathan Keeble
Gentleman Jonathan Keeble
Wilson Jonathan Keeble
Waiter Jonathan Keeble
Mills Andrew Westfield
Butler Andrew Westfield
Miss Foster Fiona Clarke
Mrs Gordon Fiona Clarke
Lady No.1 Fiona Clarke
Miss Blackstone Daryl Fishwick
Woman Daryl Fishwick
Pianist Daniel Browell
http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b00pn34n/Saturday_Drama_Confessions_of_a_Medium/
From the iPlayer:
Starring Bill Nighy as Thomson and Robert Glenister as Mr. Parker. A gothic, shadowy, and darkly comic drama about illusion, delusion and desire. Based on a true story in 1870's London. Mr. Parker is a sincere and kind man in search of a higher meaning to life. He has moved from conventional religion to séances and spiritualism. He believes he's met his saviour in the guise of Mr. Thomson - a charming, erudite, and utterly mesmerising medium, but unbeknown to Parker, Thomson is a complete and utter fake.
DIRECTED BY PAULINE HARRIS BBC DRAMA NORTH
Credits
Thomson Bill Nighy
Parker Robert Glenister
Morton Jonathan Keeble
Mr Gordon Jonathan Keeble
Gentleman Jonathan Keeble
Wilson Jonathan Keeble
Waiter Jonathan Keeble
Mills Andrew Westfield
Butler Andrew Westfield
Miss Foster Fiona Clarke
Mrs Gordon Fiona Clarke
Lady No.1 Fiona Clarke
Miss Blackstone Daryl Fishwick
Woman Daryl Fishwick
Pianist Daniel Browell
Jehovah's Creationists
One Saturday in January, thinking the doorbell indicated the postman delivering an expected package, I opened the door to two gentlemen whom I instantly identified (don't ask me how) as either Mormons or Jehovah's Witnesses. Their first question confirmed my initial assessment: they asked me what I thought God's name was. My reply — that I didn't think there was any such entity as God, and so his name was of no importance to me — brought a suggestion that they read me something from the Bible, but I interrupted with a counter-suggestion that quoting Bible verses to an atheist was a hiding to nothing.
The younger guy who had so far conducted this conversation seemed a bit deflated by this, but the older one stepped in at this point to ask me why I was an atheist. I said I hadn't come across convincing evidence for the existence of any gods. Cue the creationist argument: had I looked at the multitude of living things and how marvellous and complicated they were? Yes I had, and I understood that they are all related, with common ancestry, and had come about over very long periods of time through a process of random mutation and natural selection.
Then he began talking about "kinds" and separate creation, and that different kinds could not breed with each other. I said that if he meant species, this was a reasonable definition, but although different species can't in general inter-breed, it's useful to consider the analogy of language. Children understand the language of their parents, who understand the language of their parents, and so on, and if you go back far enough you'll find a couple speaking one language who are direct ancestors of people alive today who can't understand each other's languages. And so it is with evolution.
But then he changed tack and talked about the eye, saying it couldn't have come about by evolution, to which I responded that it probably could, starting with something as simple as a patch of skin that had randomly developed some basic sensitivity to light. I think at this point he realised that he was talking to someone who has actually thought about such things, and suggested I might like to read something, to which I responded that, yes, I would. (This whole conversation took place on my doorstep, and I had things to do.)
They gave me a brochure entitled Was Life Created? And in return I gave them an Atheist Tract — several copies of which I keep by the door specifically for occasions like this. I thanked the pair of them, wished them good morning and closed the door.
But what of the brochure?
Was Life Created? is published by Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania, in 2010. Though the masthead says "Made in Britain", spellings reveal it was written for an American audience. I read it through, making a few notes, and a quick check of the Jehovah's Witnesses' website turned up a PDF (the PDF, however, says "Made in the United States of America").
From the first section, "What do you believe?":
First, note the implication that atheism is a choice. This, no doubt, is tied up with what Paul says in Romans 1:20, about being "without excuse", though that part is left out of the quote when it appears later in the brochure.
The next section, "The Living Planet" — which is essentially a crude rendering of the fine-tuning argument — contains a number of loaded phrases that might be missed by those unfamiliar with the low-grade apologetic techniques employed here.
Note the language of design and manufacture taken for granted in these question-begging excerpts. The circularity, however, does not end there; next we have a section titled "Who designed it first?" which aims to catalogue instances of engineering and science taking their inspiration from nature.
They quote Michael Behe, who says (essentially, as all Intelligent Design proponents do, no matter what fancy language they use) it's designed if it looks designed.
Each section of the brochure ends with a couple of questions, and most of these are loaded or begged in some way. The section just covered ("Who designed it first?") asks:
There's then a subsection headed "Was it designed? If the copy requires a designer, what about the original?" Unfortunately for the brochure's thesis, this subheading appears to undermine itself. The copy doesn't require a designer, it only requires a copier — which is what the "original" does, albeit imperfectly. Indeed it is this very imperfection that drives evolution.
The next section — "Evolution myths and facts" — attempts to discredit the theory of evolution and claims that the fossil record doesn't provide evidence of what creationists and ID proponents like to call "macro-evolution". They claim to be happy with the idea that species can change (or "adapt") due to environmental pressure, but only up to a point. And that point appears to be arbitrarily undefined. What it comes down to is analogous to believing that it is possible for someone to stand on a step, but quite impossible to ascend a flight of stairs. Much is made of "Wolf-Ekkehard Lönnig, a scientist from the Max Planck Institute for Plant Breeding Research in Germany," who claims that:
Fond though they are of footnotes, the JW's are not above making a bald assertion:
If this was Wikipedia, that phrase "Many researchers agree" would be immediately followed by "[citation needed]".
The final main section is titled "Science and the Genesis account". Jehovah's Witnesses, apparently, are not young-earth creationists, but old-earth creationists. How, then, do they reconcile the conflicting information in Genesis? Do they claim it's meant to be poetic? Metaphorical? Wrong? Untrue? No, they don't. This section, it turns out, is one huge exercise in semantic gymnastics. I won't go into it here — read the linked PDF if you're interested. Suffice to say, if the JW's really think that reading scripture in this way can reveal truth of any kind there's no hope for them — they are beyond logic. The Bible, for them, can mean anything they want it to mean.
The final section, "Does it matter what you believe?" seems to be an argument from consequences. After quoting William Provine saying, "I can see no cosmic or ultimate meaning in human life," they ask:
Well, yes.
That — apart from the "accident" bit (see above) — is how it is.
Get used to it.
The younger guy who had so far conducted this conversation seemed a bit deflated by this, but the older one stepped in at this point to ask me why I was an atheist. I said I hadn't come across convincing evidence for the existence of any gods. Cue the creationist argument: had I looked at the multitude of living things and how marvellous and complicated they were? Yes I had, and I understood that they are all related, with common ancestry, and had come about over very long periods of time through a process of random mutation and natural selection.
Then he began talking about "kinds" and separate creation, and that different kinds could not breed with each other. I said that if he meant species, this was a reasonable definition, but although different species can't in general inter-breed, it's useful to consider the analogy of language. Children understand the language of their parents, who understand the language of their parents, and so on, and if you go back far enough you'll find a couple speaking one language who are direct ancestors of people alive today who can't understand each other's languages. And so it is with evolution.
But then he changed tack and talked about the eye, saying it couldn't have come about by evolution, to which I responded that it probably could, starting with something as simple as a patch of skin that had randomly developed some basic sensitivity to light. I think at this point he realised that he was talking to someone who has actually thought about such things, and suggested I might like to read something, to which I responded that, yes, I would. (This whole conversation took place on my doorstep, and I had things to do.)
But what of the brochure?
Was Life Created? is published by Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania, in 2010. Though the masthead says "Made in Britain", spellings reveal it was written for an American audience. I read it through, making a few notes, and a quick check of the Jehovah's Witnesses' website turned up a PDF (the PDF, however, says "Made in the United States of America").
From the first section, "What do you believe?":
It is not the purpose of this material to ridicule the views either of fundamentalists or of those who choose not to believe in God. Rather, it is our hope that this brochure will prompt you to examine again the basis for some of your beliefs. It will present an explanation of the Bible’s account of creation that you may not have previously considered. And it will emphasize why it really does matter what you believe about how life began.
The next section, "The Living Planet" — which is essentially a crude rendering of the fine-tuning argument — contains a number of loaded phrases that might be missed by those unfamiliar with the low-grade apologetic techniques employed here.
Are earth’s features a product of blind chance or of purposeful design? Without its tailor-made moon, our planet would wobble like a spinning top... ...earth is protected by amazing armor—a powerful magnetic field and a custom-made atmosphere. Earth’s atmosphere and magnetic field truly are marvels of design that are still not fully understood.
As you consider the following examples, ask yourself, ‘Who really deserves the credit for these designs?’
...
Who deserves the credit?
...
Who is nature’s patent holder?
Each section of the brochure ends with a couple of questions, and most of these are loaded or begged in some way. The section just covered ("Who designed it first?") asks:
- Does it seem logical to you to believe that the brilliant engineering evident in nature came about by accident?
There's then a subsection headed "Was it designed? If the copy requires a designer, what about the original?" Unfortunately for the brochure's thesis, this subheading appears to undermine itself. The copy doesn't require a designer, it only requires a copier — which is what the "original" does, albeit imperfectly. Indeed it is this very imperfection that drives evolution.
The next section — "Evolution myths and facts" — attempts to discredit the theory of evolution and claims that the fossil record doesn't provide evidence of what creationists and ID proponents like to call "macro-evolution". They claim to be happy with the idea that species can change (or "adapt") due to environmental pressure, but only up to a point. And that point appears to be arbitrarily undefined. What it comes down to is analogous to believing that it is possible for someone to stand on a step, but quite impossible to ascend a flight of stairs. Much is made of "Wolf-Ekkehard Lönnig, a scientist from the Max Planck Institute for Plant Breeding Research in Germany," who claims that:
Some Googling reveals that Lönnig is an ID proponent who, like Michael Behe, appears to have been disowned by his own institution. The brochure includes a footnote:“Mutations cannot transform an original species [of plant or animal] into an entirely new one. This conclusion agrees with all the experiences and results of mutation research of the 20th century taken together as well as with the laws of probability.”
Lönnig believes that life was created. His comments in this publication are his own and do not represent the opinion of the Max Planck Institute for Plant Breeding Research.
To date, scientists worldwide have unearthed and cataloged some 200 million large fossils and billions of small fossils. Many researchers agree that this vast and detailed record shows that all the major groups of animals appeared suddenly and remained virtually unchanged, with many species disappearing as suddenly as they arrived.
The final main section is titled "Science and the Genesis account". Jehovah's Witnesses, apparently, are not young-earth creationists, but old-earth creationists. How, then, do they reconcile the conflicting information in Genesis? Do they claim it's meant to be poetic? Metaphorical? Wrong? Untrue? No, they don't. This section, it turns out, is one huge exercise in semantic gymnastics. I won't go into it here — read the linked PDF if you're interested. Suffice to say, if the JW's really think that reading scripture in this way can reveal truth of any kind there's no hope for them — they are beyond logic. The Bible, for them, can mean anything they want it to mean.
The final section, "Does it matter what you believe?" seems to be an argument from consequences. After quoting William Provine saying, "I can see no cosmic or ultimate meaning in human life," they ask:
Consider the significance of those words. If ultimate meaning in life were nonexistent, then you would have no purpose in living other than to try to do some measure of good and perhaps pass on your genetic traits to the next generation. At death, you would cease to exist forever. Your brain, with its ability to think, reason, and meditate on the meaning of life, would simply be an accident of nature.
That — apart from the "accident" bit (see above) — is how it is.
Get used to it.
This post is based on one of my segments in a recent episode of the Skepticule podcast.
Edited 2022-06-08 to update links to JW.ORG and Jason Curry's Atheist Tract.
Saturday, 16 February 2013
Burnee links for Saturday
Jerry Coyne continues his fruitless quest. I admire his persistence, but can't help feeling he's wasting an awful lot of time.
50 Years of Stupid Grammar Advice - The Chronicle Review - The Chronicle of Higher Education
Hmm. He could be right, you know. (The Elements of Style is a very short book, after all.)
Slavery. Bible style. | Reasonably Faithless
James East finds out if the Bible is in favour of owning people as property, with all that might imply.
Atheist Ethicist: A Non-Religious, Non-Evolutionary Account of "Ought"
A concise explanation of the fundamentals of desire utilitarianism, by its leading exponent.
Wednesday, 6 February 2013
Creationism's lack of Wonders
So I was more than a little disappointed with this lack-lustre response from my local creationist organisation, the Creation Science Movement.
On Sunday 27th January, the BBC TV aired the first of a new series called Wonders of Life, presented by Professor Brian Cox. In this first episode he wondered what life was and how it began. Like all science writers for the Beeb, Cox is a fully paid up atheist, and he set out to establish a sequence from inanimate matter to simple living cells, and so on to ourselves. He informed us that at the beginning there was energy. The First Law of Thermodynamics says that energy can neither be created nor destroyed, though it can change from one form to another. He demonstrated this with a waterfall where potential energy at the top of the fall is changed into kinetic energy of movement, heat and noise as the water descends. But the total amount of energy remains unchanged. All correct! He then argued that if energy cannot be added to or lost, then energy is eternal! He does not conclude that if energy has always existed, so too must matter be everlasting. Thus he dodges the problem of how matter and energy could have been created from nothing in the first place.
He continued by saying that all processes involve a change whereby the energy becomes less able to do work, this being the Second Law. He doesn’t draw the obvious conclusion that if the universe has always existed, all the energy would have lost its potential to do work long ago and would have degenerated into heat at a very low temperature. Our universe is brimming over with energy at a high potential, so it isn’t eternal at all, but had a beginning. How could it have started at a high potential, that is, a highly ordered state? Well, not on its own!
Dr Cox told us that all living things that have ever been derive their energy from a flow of hydrogen ions in their mitochondria. Quite true! He demonstrated a simple battery made from two bottles of water with different acidities. He then wired them up to a miniature fan, which sprang into life, while gases bubbled from the electrodes. So, he argued, a flow of hydrogen ions creates life – QED. He didn’t take into account the glaring fact that the current needed a motor to make use of this energy as a fan. In the same way, in every living thing, the hydrogen ion potential in the mitochondrion requires a miniature protein motor called ATP Synthase to produce usable energy for the living cell. Someone must have designed and manufactured the fan. How much more is a Creator required for the ATP Synthase with its 31 precise components?
From then on, the professor told us, living things progressed from simple to more complex living things by mistakes in copying genes that are then selected by the environment – Darwinian evolution. Yet we know that mutations scramble the information in those genes. Moreover, how can precise genetic information come about by chance?
Now that he has told us how life began, the series should become more credible as he celebrates the wonders of life. It could hardly get less believable!
Shame. I had hoped for something more meaty to celebrate my 700th blogpost!
Saturday, 2 February 2013
Burnee links for Saturday
Busy, busy, busy. So here are some links to be going on with.
In a Crisis, Humanists Seem Absent - NYTimes.com
A thoughtful article, pinpointing some of the issues relating to the establishment of distinct humanist groups within society.
(Via James Croft on Facebook)
Daft complaint to the BBC by anti-vax activists
Illustrating the skewed world inhabited by anti-vaxxers.
(Via Crispian Jago on Facebook.)
The Skeptical Probe: Dr Hugh Ross - Lying for God
Assert something sufficiently often and with enough confidence and it simply becomes true, doesn't it? I was surprised and alarmed that Premier Radio associated itself with Reasons to Believe — to the extent of using that organisation's name as the subtitle of last year's Unbelievable?: The Conference. (See also the Facebook discussion.)
Sunday’s Caller and Public Response: Confirmation is not a Rebuttal » The Atheist Experience
The incomparable Tracie Harris offers some clarification of sin.
Cruella-blog: Mehdi Hasan makes me really angry.
Kate Smurthwaite gets cross. Again.
The Royal Institution: Can we just give it to the National Trust? Or the Science Museum Group? « The Thought Stash
Kash Farooq on a lamentable failure of communication.
A thoughtful article, pinpointing some of the issues relating to the establishment of distinct humanist groups within society.
(Via James Croft on Facebook)
Daft complaint to the BBC by anti-vax activists
Illustrating the skewed world inhabited by anti-vaxxers.
(Via Crispian Jago on Facebook.)
The Skeptical Probe: Dr Hugh Ross - Lying for God
Assert something sufficiently often and with enough confidence and it simply becomes true, doesn't it? I was surprised and alarmed that Premier Radio associated itself with Reasons to Believe — to the extent of using that organisation's name as the subtitle of last year's Unbelievable?: The Conference. (See also the Facebook discussion.)
Sunday’s Caller and Public Response: Confirmation is not a Rebuttal » The Atheist Experience
The incomparable Tracie Harris offers some clarification of sin.
Cruella-blog: Mehdi Hasan makes me really angry.
Kate Smurthwaite gets cross. Again.
The Royal Institution: Can we just give it to the National Trust? Or the Science Museum Group? « The Thought Stash
Kash Farooq on a lamentable failure of communication.
Monday, 7 January 2013
Axp decry the Christian crib-sheet
The Atheist Experience — a weekly live TV phone-in show from Austin, Texas — this week dealt highly effectively with a version of the Moral Argument for the Existence of God (even though the caller didn't frame it in exactly those terms).
This:
http://blip.tv/the-atheist-experience-tv-show/atheist-experience-795-argument-from-making-sense-6494842
Matt and Tracie set out in no uncertain terms why biblical morality is such a crock.
This:
http://blip.tv/the-atheist-experience-tv-show/atheist-experience-795-argument-from-making-sense-6494842
Matt and Tracie set out in no uncertain terms why biblical morality is such a crock.
Saturday, 5 January 2013
Who needs truth when you have apologetics?
Last week's Unbelievable? aired a talk given by Premier Radio's favourite Christian apologist William Lane Craig, at the 2011 Bethinking conference as part of the Reasonable Faith Tour of the UK.
I understand that this talk was given to Christians, so I was concerned to hear Craig begin by misrepresenting the meaning of secularism. In fact he seemed to base his whole talk on an incorrect premise: that the "secularisation" of Britain was a bad thing because it was based in a naturalistic philosophy that denies God. But secularism is merely the idea that matters of religious belief should be independent of government (and vice versa) — and as such is as beneficial to those who hold religious beliefs as it is to those who don't.
Later on — in what might be classed as an appeal to non-authority — Craig quoted Satan, further damning any credibility he might have otherwise retained in my view. Perhaps he just doesn't see how risible his arguments sound when he plumbs such depths; he seems happy enough blowing his own trumpet about how easily he can fill a hall with an audience. Sure, he's preaching to the converted and trying to inspire them, and I appreciate that a little hyperbole can go a long way.
But Craig shouldn't be let off the hook for playing fast and loose with facts. He describes the Crucifixion as the one historical fact about Jesus of Nazareth that is universally acknowledged among historical critical scholars. This is of course true, so long as your definition of "historical critical scholars" includes only those who acknowledge the Crucifixion as a historical fact.
Craig also seems very fond of referring to "The Church" as if it were a single homogenous entity, when we all know that this couldn't be further from the truth. During the Q & A he was asked about evangelising to Darwinists and postmodernists, and he advised skirting around such issues:
Huh? Is that all?
The final question was about Christ being the "second Adam", and how this could be true if Adam didn't actually exist as a real person. Craig said he affirmed the historical Adam, but for those who don't, the phrase "second Adam" would be purely symbolic. For me, this lackadaisical attitude to facts exemplifies so much of Christian apologetics, and is why I find it utterly unconvincing.
Later on — in what might be classed as an appeal to non-authority — Craig quoted Satan, further damning any credibility he might have otherwise retained in my view. Perhaps he just doesn't see how risible his arguments sound when he plumbs such depths; he seems happy enough blowing his own trumpet about how easily he can fill a hall with an audience. Sure, he's preaching to the converted and trying to inspire them, and I appreciate that a little hyperbole can go a long way.
But Craig shouldn't be let off the hook for playing fast and loose with facts. He describes the Crucifixion as the one historical fact about Jesus of Nazareth that is universally acknowledged among historical critical scholars. This is of course true, so long as your definition of "historical critical scholars" includes only those who acknowledge the Crucifixion as a historical fact.
Craig also seems very fond of referring to "The Church" as if it were a single homogenous entity, when we all know that this couldn't be further from the truth. During the Q & A he was asked about evangelising to Darwinists and postmodernists, and he advised skirting around such issues:
My evangelistic strategy is to set the bar as low as you can; make it as easy as possible to become a Christian. There are very few things you need to believe to be a Christian: you've got to believe that God exists, that Jesus Christ is divine, that he died for your sins and rose from the dead, and that you will be saved by grace, through placing your faith in his atoning death — and really that's about it, you know?
The final question was about Christ being the "second Adam", and how this could be true if Adam didn't actually exist as a real person. Craig said he affirmed the historical Adam, but for those who don't, the phrase "second Adam" would be purely symbolic. For me, this lackadaisical attitude to facts exemplifies so much of Christian apologetics, and is why I find it utterly unconvincing.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)