"Grill a bishop" and you'll get undercooked answers

A revealing segment on the BBC Radio 4 Today Programme yesterday seemed to confirm (anecdotally at least) that young people are by no means apathetic about the god question. Bishop Graham Kings has taken it upon himself to answer secondary school pupils' questions about God. From the BBC website:

A Church of England bishop has called on Anglican clergy to take the Church's message to young people by trying to address the fundamental questions of life and death

Dr Graham Kings, the Bishop of Sherborne, in Dorset, says a lack of religious knowledge is one of the causes of religious doubt. Robert Pigott reports

The four-minute audio stream is here:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/today/hi/today/newsid_9367000/9367602.stm

The questions and answers that the Today editors included in the segment are transcribed below:

Q: "Do you think God planned the creation of nuclear weapons? Because seeing as he's supposed to be loving, that doesn't seem like a very loving thing to do."

A: "Not everything that happens in the world is God's design, so I don't think rape and racism and apartheid and smashing people up is God's design. But he has given us free will, either to respond to him and to other people lovingly, or not."

Q: "You say that God doesn't command everything, yet in the Bible it does, so surely somehow he did command that person to create nuclear weapons. Because in the Bible it says that God commands everything."

A: "It doesn't say that in the Bible."

Bishop Kings apparently blames young people's estrangement from the church partly on declining knowledge of the Bible. You may detect a recurring theme here. When asked how he knows there's life after death, the bishop replies, "I give the illustration of someone who's come back from the dead. Someone's come back and said, yes there is life after death, and that's Jesus of Nazareth himself. So I just have to be honest and say, well I believe in the afterlife because someone's come back and reported back."

Q: "You said a moment ago that homosexual relationships fall short of the glory of God." 

A: "I think we are designed for the glory of God. Paul says that in Romans 3, but he also says that just everybody falls short of the glory of God." 

Q: "If people are accepted exactly how they are, then surely God will accept them if they are homosexual. Why is it wrong, in that respect?" 

A: "God accepts them exactly as they are. What sometimes happens, and it doesn't always happen, is that sometimes they think, is this right, do I continue in a sexual relationship, or do I become celibate?"

Bishop Kings clearly bases everything on the Bible, but we didn't hear his answer to the obvious question, "How do you know the Bible is true?" (The answer is likely to have involved some circularity.) Note that Bishop Kings' answer to the question about homosexuality did not reference the Bible's unequivocal condemnation. This is probably because such a response would expose the Bible as a repository of repugnant immorality.

As if to emphasize the desperate disconnectedness of religion, Robert Pigott's report was immediately followed by Thought for the Day, in which Rhidian Brook gave us his take on Blue Monday (also available as a transcript). I would hope Mr Brook knows that Blue Monday is entirely made up by a PR company to sell holiday bookings, but I suppose if you subscribe to a belief for which the only "evidence" is fictitious scripture, it's difficult to tell these things apart.

Burnee links for Thursday

LessWrong - RationalWiki
Do you read Less Wrong? If so (apart from other things one might conclude from this fact), you should probably also read this. (Via Paul Wright.)

Angry UBC condo owners to protest hospice
I thought Canadians were sensible. Wait... these are Asian Canadians — does that make a difference?
(Via Pharyngula.)

Questions about Noah's Ark that may bug creationists | John Hollier | Comment is free | guardian.co.uk
It's disturbing that we are even considering this stuff. Noah and the Flood is a story. It never happened. Should we perhaps be concerned about the illogicality of a talking wolf who impersonated a grandmother? Does the story of Little Red Riding Hood contain any vestige of actual history? No.
(Via BCSE)

A Special Case of Double Effect « Choice in Dying
In the above post Eric MacDonald provides a perfect example of what he wrote about in a previous one:

"We can do much better than religious morality, almost every time, and that for a simple reason. Without God, we really do have to think about what would be best."

Journalism Warning Labels « Tom Scott
If you read actual printed (that is, on paper) journalism, rather than online (which is, as you know, not real...), you might find these labels useful.

Vatican letter told Ireland's Catholic bishops not to report child abuse | World news | The Guardian
Well that about wraps it up for the Vatican. Pope Benny will resign and the Catholic Church will be disbanded. (There is a minuscule possibility, however, that the Holy See will ignore this revelation and carry on pretty much as before.) The incriminating letter is available as a PDF.

What is Faith? « Choice in Dying
Eric MacDonald's critique of Alister McGrath.

Evidence for God: 50 Arguments and a challenge

Previously on this blog (and elsewhere) I've stated that I've refuted to my own satisfaction all the arguments for the existence of God that I've encountered, and that I'm happy to examine others. Some others have (possibly) turned up. In an uncanny echo of 50 Voices of Disbelief: Why We Are Atheists edited by Russell Blackford and Udo Schüklenk, along comes Evidence for God: 50 Arguments for Faith from the Bible, History, Philosophy, and Science edited by William Dembski and Michael Licona.

Recommended by Todd Pitner on the Premier Community Forum, it was thrown down placed before us as a challenge an invitation to examine up-to-date arguments for the existence of God. Some of us accepted that challenge invitation (some of us have also taken an age to get around to it).

The 272-page paperback comprises an Introduction and four sections:
Section One: The Question of Philosophy
Section Two: The Question of Science
Section Three: The Question of Jesus
Section Four: The Question of the Bible
followed by Notes and Contributors

The 50 arguments average less than five pages each, so most likely I'll be sampling them at odd intervals. But I intend to blog about them in order, so watch this space.

Gay couple's B&B victory and the value of civil partnerships

A gay couple who were refused a double room at a Bed & Breakfast establishment (because they were not married) won their legal action today against the B&B owners. The judge (according to the BBC report) found that the B&B owners' refusal was illegal discrimination.

The defendants, Peter and Hazelmary Bull, maintain that they have a "double bed" policy which excludes unmarried couples. Both they and the judge appear to have approached the case on this basis — that the refusal was not based on sexual orientation, but on marital status.

The couple, Martyn Hall and Steven Preddy who are in a civil partnership, appear along with their backers, the Equality and Human Rights Commission, to be spinning the judgement as a victory for gay rights. The BBC report quotes EHRC director John Wadham:

"The right of an individual to practise their religion and live out their beliefs is one of the most fundamental rights a person can have, but so is the right not to be turned away by a hotel just because you are gay."

Peter Tatchell is quoted saying:

"People of faith should not be permitted to use religion as an excuse to discriminate against other people."

Stonewall's chief executive Ben Summerskill is quoted saying:

"You can't turn away people from a hotel because they're black or Jewish and in 2011 you shouldn't be able to demean them by turning them away because they're gay either."

It seems from the report that the discrimination against which Judge Rutherford ruled was discrimination against unmarrieds rather than discrimination against gays. That said, the case does highlight something very wrong about the law regarding civil partnerships. Contrary to Steven Preddy's reported statement that the judgement showed civil partnerships were legally the same as marriages, it appears to have exposed civil partnerships as a sop to gays.

According to current UK law, only same-sex couples can enter into a civil partnership, and only opposite-sex couples can get married. The law needs to be changed, so that marriage and civil partnership truly are equal — and therefore non-discriminatory. This case shows why. Clearly Peter and Hazelmary Bull don't consider civil partnership and marriage to be equal. I can't help wondering if in the future they would happily allow a legally married gay couple to share a double room. I suspect not.

Paula Kirby at TAM London 2010

Paula Kirby's articles at the Washington Post "On Faith" Panel have all been worth reading; she's clear and concise and doesn't pussyfoot around. Paula is a regular contributor and commenter at RichardDawkins.net, but for many she came to prominence through her comprehensive review (posted at RD.net) of four of what had become known as Dawkins' Fleas — the several books published in direct response to The God Delusion.

For her appearance at TAM London Paula gave a talk I'd heard previously online. It was the talk she delivered at the Atheist Alliance International Convention held last summer in Copenhagen:

Part 1/5: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vtoxhZ314OE

Part 2/5: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NwD23xL8bdw
Part 3/5: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cSLhVj8Tbv8
Part 4/5: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LGSPZ2k2TWE
Part 5/5: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zVN62B8XeRI

Paula quoted at length from the political manifesto of the UK's Christian Party, exposing its assumptions and agenda. Now while it's not likely that such a party will gain significant power in the foreseeable future, it's only by our constant vigilance that its insidious influence (and that of similar religious lobby groups) will be kept at bay. Great Britain is not — yet — officially a secular society, but Paula Kirby's talk shows why it clearly ought to be.

Burnee links for Sunday

Science, Reason and Critical Thinking: The Turin Bicycle
Science? Pfft! I still believe it's the original artefact.

Faith and Science « Choice in Dying
Oh my, what a sorry mess of bedraggled shreds is the Biologos "statement of faith" once Eric MacDonald has ripped through it.

God was behind Big Bang, pope says - Technology & science - Science - msnbc.com

VATICAN CITY — God's mind was behind complex scientific theories such as the Big Bang, and Christians should reject the idea that the universe came into being by accident, Pope Benedict said Thursday

Well, he would say that, wouldn't he?

"The universe is not the result of chance, as some would want to make us believe," Benedict said on the day Christians mark the Epiphany, the day the Bible says the three kings reached the site where Jesus was born by following a star.

"Contemplating it (the universe) we are invited to read something profound into it: the wisdom of the creator, the inexhaustible creativity of God," he said in a sermon to some 10,000 people in St. Peter's Basilica on the feast day.

Just saying something doesn't make it true. Is unsubstantiated assertion all the religionists have left?

Much-loved millionaire in long-term stable relationship has child: cause for concern says Bishop Nazir-Ali | HumanistLife
The bish claims to be concerned for the child. Whatever you think of this particular family, you have to wonder if he isn't actually more concerned that the child's legal parents are a same-sex couple.

For the love of God – or good – support World Interfaith Harmony Week | Tony Blair and Prince Ghazi bin Muhammad | Comment is free | The Guardian
So some 2,000 years or so after a man was nailed to a tree for suggesting people should be nice to each other, Tony Blair says it's time to do just that. But it can't work. People of moderate faith may rally round his initiative, but it's not the moderates who are the problem. Those who take their faith seriously are the ones who stick to rigid dogma — precisely the ones who refuse to budge when their doctrine is found to be incompatible with other faiths.

Is “biblical Christianity” the only rational worldview? (And is atheism wicked?)
In the past I've railed in exasperation at some of the postings of Randal Rauser (The Tentative Apologist), but I must give him credit for his stand against a set of intransigent Christians at a site called Triablogue. (The link goes to the first of a series of posts about his encounter.)

The dangerous fight for the 'child witches' of Nigeria | Science | guardian.co.uk
Leo Igwe of the International Humanist and Ethical Union was arrested, beaten and imprisoned after rescuing one of these 'child witches', and his report is here:
My Arrest in Uyo - Butterflies and Wheels

Up Close and Personal « Choice in Dying
Here is the truth.

Confessions of a Catholic Atheist: The Antitheist
A demonstration of how one can clarify one's thoughts simply by explaining them.

Should atheists talk about evil?

That depends. "Evil" could be said to be an exclusively religious term. To talk about good and evil is to talk in the same realm as that occupied by "sin" — which seems a much more religious term.

Some might make the case that talk of "morality" is also exclusively religious. Indeed many religionists scoff at atheistic moral pronouncements, claiming that atheists have no business talking about morality because they have no grounding for it. But such a view is itself not so much grounded as perilously perched atop one horn of the Euthypro dilemma: that what is morally good is whatever God decrees — and however arbitrary such a decree may be, nothing else really counts as "moral".

It should also be recognised that some religionists make no distinction between morality and absolute morality. They seem unable to grasp that there can be any morality that isn't absolute. As an atheist who occasionally engages in online debate and discussion, I've come across this religious blind-spot more than once. After explaining at length how I see morality — what it is, where it comes from and so on — I'm still asked to justify it on metaphysical, transcendental grounds.

I'm currently reading The Moral Landscape by Sam Harris. I'm about halfway through, but so far Harris has fairly comprehensively laid the groundwork for a thesis that the distinction between facts and values is not as clear cut as the philosopher David Hume would have us believe. Hume's contention that you can't derive an ought from an is sounds on the face of it to be reasonable, leading to the kind of demand for moral grounding mentioned above.

Harris makes a good case for knowledge of moral facts about the world without resort to metaphysics. We know what the difference is between a state of everything being as lovely as it possibly could be, and the state of everything being as horrible as it possibly could be. And crucially we know that one of these is good and the other is bad. We do not need a transcendental moral law-giver to tell us which is which. Spread out between these two extremes are a myriad states of relative well-being, and while it may be difficult and in some cases impossible in practice to tell exactly where on a hypothetical scale of well-being these states lie, there can be no doubt that such a determination is possible in principle.

From what I've read so far it's too early to draw definitive conclusions from Harris's moral exposition, but I'm looking forward to the rest of the book.

Karen James at TAM London 2010

The Beagle Project is one of those enterprises that's quite hard to categorise. Is it really an educational project, or should it be classified as a glorified publicity stunt? Sailing a replica of Captain Fitzroy's square-rigged Beagle along the same route the original took when Charles Darwin was five years aboard could be considered a relatively pointless exercise, especially when the cost (apparently some £3.3 million at 2007 prices) is taken into account.

This is not the only prospective replica sea-vessel currently touting for funds. There are people in Kentucky who want to build a "replica" of Noah's Ark. I don't know if they intend to fill it two by two with animals, but they'll have difficulty finding dinos and dodos.

So what's the difference between these two enterprises? Well, HMS Beagle actually existed. Darwin wrote a book, The Voyage of the Beagle, in which he documented the five years he spent as a sea-fairing "natural philosopher". In contrast to the Old Testament story of the Ark, Darwin's record is not only an eye-witness account, it is autobiography. The notes he made on his travels are available for free on the web. This is something that actually happened.

The proposed Ark, of course, is based on carefully excavated and meticulously documented archeological artefacts, from which a reasonably accurate replica of the actual vessel is to be reconstructed. No it isn't — it's based entirely on a story in a book that also tells of a talking snake.

So the difference between the Beagle and the Ark is that we know for certain that HMS Beagle actually existed, and all we know about the Ark is what is written in an unreliable and contradictory scripture that's so full of metaphor and scientific nonsense that it has to be treated as literature rather than historical record.

Now that we've got that out of the way, let's consider the merits of the Beagle Project. The idea is to marry the historical facts of Darwin's voyage and the discoveries he made, with a global educational enterprise illustrating evolution.

Dr Karen James is the Director of Science for the Beagle Project, and at TAM London she outlined the project's aims and benefits. These are also available on the project's website:

The 21st century voyage of the Beagle will inspire global audiences through unique public engagement and learning programmes, and original scientific research in evolutionary biology, biodiversity and climate change.

She will cross the North and South Atlantic, the Pacific and Indian Oceans, round both Cape Horn and the Cape of Good Hope. She will sail in her ancestor's wake, with international crews of young scientists and sailors aboard applying the tools of modern science to the work started by Darwin and Captain Fitzroy 170 years before. International friendships and scientific alliances will form, and people the world over will follow the voyage, adventure and science aboard through the Beagle's interactive website.

The replica ship won't be quite the same as the original:

She will be built of larch and oak planking on oak frames. Unlike the 1831 Beagle, her 2009[*] descendent will have diesel auxiliary engines, radar, GPS navigation, satellite communications and modern safety equipment. Her design will be approved by Germanischer Lloyds and she will be certified for Category A - unrestricted ocean sailing. The build will be carried out in Milford Haven, Pembrokeshire under the supervision of master shipwright Detlev Loell.

(*It appears the website could do with some updating.)

Modern biology — including modern medicine — is so thoroughly underpinned by evolutionary theory that without the theory we would be back to the days of cupping and blood-letting, or even the four humours and demonic possession. And yet, in America at least, about 40 percent of the general population do not accept evolution as a true scientific account of living organisms. This is a shocking state of affairs, and while the Beagle Project risks being accused of Disneyfying science, a desperate situation calls for desperate measures. If the Beagle Project stands a good chance of educating people about evolution in spite of a pervading culture of denialism, it needs to go ahead. For the sake of the scientific literacy of future generations, the Beagle Project should receive wholehearted support.

Burnee links for Thursday

The Blair Hitch Project | Politics | Vanity Fair
Christopher Hitchens gives his account of the clash.

Sarah Palin's Camp Says Depraved Liberals Blame Sarah Palin for Mass Murders
Is Palin is digging her own political grave? Let's hope so.

Dave, Andy, and Georgia and their unbelievable, ridiculous fable : Pharyngula
Ugh! Creationists.

The Importance of Critical Engagement | MandM
Some Christian teachers are prepared to engage with teenagers on a basis other than indoctrination.
(Via Patient and Persistant)

Tessera: Should you join a gym in January? No.
Sound and comforting (and realistic) advice.

Sadly ironic « Why Evolution Is True
Jerry Coyne on the Gabrielle Giffords shooting.

BBC News - Cases dropped against malaria homeopaths
This is a less than desirable result. People may have died because homeopaths recommended ineffective "medications" in lieu of vaccination.

How incorrect reports of Giffords’ death spread on Twitter - Lost Remote
Maybe we need different rules for different times. The internet changes everything.

Anonymity and the Dark Side of the Internet - NYTimes.com
Stanley Fish reviews The Offensive Internet by Nussbaum et al.

Salmaan Taseer, Aasia Bibi and Pakistan's struggle with extremism | World news | The Observer
Reading about what's happening in Pakistan it's hard to disagree with Christopher Hitchens that religion poisons everything. Here's a place where religion has infected the minds of ordinary people with what can only be described as evil.

Doctors criticise chief rabbi's edict against donor cards | World news | The Guardian
Who does he think he is — the Pope? Yet another case of a high priest thinking he knows things he clearly doesn't.

Bloggers' word choice bares their personality traits, study finds
Interesting. But to me though, it seems awfully lazy — and worse, depressing...

Into the Hands of Strangers « Choice in Dying
Read it.

Mary Warnock on Morality and Religion « Choice in Dying
Forthright and lucid post from Eric MacDonald on morality and government. The final paragraphs should be pasted onto the walls wherever laws are made.

Jesus and Mo
Disgusting! Write to the network!

Kicking the creationist ladder

Earlier today James Thomas posted an article on his posterous about a recent visit he made to the Natural History Museum, accompanied by a friend who happened to be an ardent creationist. James's article raises some important points about how we deal with creationists and why they appear to us to be so closed-minded to the evidence for evolution. You should go and read it. (Don't worry, I'll wait...)

James and I had a brief Twitter exchange about the issue he raises, which is that it doesn't help to characterise creationists as ignorant fools, because a sincerely held belief in a six-day creation only 6,000 years ago is fundamental to their faith. To accept that even one part of the biblical creation story is not a literal record of historical fact would undermine their whole belief system. This is why, as James points out, they will not accept the evidence for evolution even if presented with overwhelming masses of it, such as that found at the Natural History Museum.

But if an assault on creation "science" isn't going to work, that leaves only the fundamental beliefs themselves. My own understanding of creationism is that where there's conflict between what the Bible says and what science teaches us, creationists insist that the science must by definition be wrong. It matters not a jot that the science is backed up by rigorous research and incontrovertible evidence — creationists have to find some way of making it wrong because the alternative, that the Bible is wrong, is too shocking to contemplate.

So rather than reiterating the evidence for evolution and an old earth, should we instead be attempting to undermine belief in the inerrancy of the Bible? Such a course, I fear, is unlikely to win many friends in either camp. I can imagine the responses — "You've no right to interfere with people's faith. Let them believe what they want." Or, "How dare you attack us for simply stating our beliefs! This is typical New Atheist militancy!"

During our brief exchange today James suggested that "Maybe our job is to cushion the fall as well as kicking the ladder?" That's a nice metaphor but it's also a difficult strategy to get right. The problem — as anyone who's had a ladder kicked from under them would probably testify — is that the fall is really frightening. It's only after they've landed on the cushion do they discover they were going to be perfectly safe all along.

What conversion stories have in common

I've heard or read quite a few stories of religious people who have lost their faith. I'm also aware of (fewer) stories of atheists becoming religious. And though these could not be regarded as anything like a representative sample, they do appear to have certain common characteristics.

Religious people who give up their faith seem to do so because of nagging doubts that increase to the point when they can no longer, in all honesty, continue to lie to themselves.

The non-believers who become religious appear to do so as a result of some emotional experience. Not because of reason, or persuasion, but because of some susceptibility to an emotional appeal.

My reaction to the first set — the believers who lose their belief — is, "What took you so long?"

My reaction to the second — people who convert from non-belief to belief — is plain bewilderment. How can they be suddenly convinced of the existence of God when there is, as far as I can see, no justification for such a belief? (I appreciate that this could be my failing rather than theirs.)

I've examined and refuted to my own satisfaction all the "arguments for the existence of God" I've encountered (and I'm willing to consider others), but it's clear that while these arguments aren't convincing to me, neither are they the cause of belief in converts. Believers of all stripes may attempt to bolster their faith "after the fact" with these arguments, but I don't think the arguments play any part in conversion from non-belief in a deity to belief in a deity.

Religious converts have rarely become believers as a result of rational argument, so it's no surprise that only rarely can they be subsequently reasoned out of their faith.

An Atheist's Journey

Like many atheists, I used to be a Christian. At least, I called myself a Christian — it was how I was brought up. Not that I understood what being a Christian actually was. As a child I was told that there were things I wasn't meant to understand, and there were other things that would become clear to me as I grew older.

Prayer, for instance, was one of many things I had to take on faith. Prayer seemed to me like attempted telepathy — attempted, because it was always one way only, despite contrary depictions in the Bible, with its profusion of "And the Lord said unto..."

Although as a child I had no concrete evidence of the existence of God, I assumed this was because I was a child, and in the fullness of time God would make his presence known to me. As a teenager I expected God's presence to become apparent, either gradually or as a Damascene revelation.

It never happened. My puzzlement at the absence of revelation eventually gave way to relief as I realised that most of the hard problems of faith would disappear if I took on the proposition suggested by the lack of evidence: that the God of the Bible didn't exist. This was a revelation of sorts. Without a belief in God, the absurdities of religion no longer had to be resolved, and just faded into nothing. Suddenly the Universe made a whole lot more sense — and so I found I was an atheist.

At the time, the fact that the majority of the world's population was more or less religious didn't bother me. Clearly belief in supernatural agents is a hangover from ancient animism, and has helped the human race survive. (Tribes are much better at conquering other tribes, inventing things and creating cultural heritage if they're not preoccupied with the eternal verities — let the priests and theologians deal with all that stuff.)

There remained, however, one intractable problem, which meant that though by age 15 or so I self-identified as an atheist, I was not a vocal atheist. People could believe in a god if they wanted. I didn't, but I was nonetheless troubled by the notion that without God there is no moral authority.

Like many, for me it was the attack on the World Trade Center that transformed me from a godless but passive observer to an atheist prepared to defend my position. I had witnessed the destruction caused by the folly of delusion, and felt the need to stand up and be counted. I read Richard Dawkins' The God Delusion and discovered whose side I was on — when previously I'd hardly been aware there was a side.

As for moral authority, I came to understand that morality does not originate in scripture as I had once thought — which had caused me to subdue any atheistic declarations I might have been inclined to make — but from our innate human intuition. Our moral conscience has evolved with us as a human race, but only been distorted by scripture (indeed scripture contains much that is morally repugnant).

These days I'm happy to be counted as an "out" atheist, though I'm not evangelical. In my day-job I mix with religious people and see no reason to challenge them about their faith. It's only when wrong-headed beliefs have an adverse impact on the well-being of innocents that I'm likely to become vocal. In my own time, however, I'm willing to engage in discussions about faith, especially online. I may have little chance of persuading a hardcore fundamentalist out of his or her irrational beliefs, but you never know who's listening.

Burnee links for Sunday

Science, Reason and Critical Thinking: Hello, I'm an Atheist: Awe
...and I'm an RC. (Actually I'm not, but you knew that.)

Why Are Believers So Hostile Toward Atheists? | Belief | AlterNet
Greta Christina ponders hostility.

A successful campaign against a new ‘faith’ school | HumanistLife
Whether or not the South West London Humanists' campaign was instrumental in the decision (and it may not have been), this is a fine example of consciousness-raising and engagement.

The time machine | The Rather Friendly Skeptic
There are stories of true believers becoming skeptics through exposure to "the skeptical movement" but this is clearly a case of someone finding their own way out of the woo. (Shame Hayley won't be bringing the time machine to QED though...)

Nox’s Wall of Text, Part 1. | Unreasonable Faith
Custador quotes at length from the Unreasonable Faith forum on the subject of the truth of the Bible (with more to come).

Taxonomy of the Logical Fallacies
Neat!
(Via Philosophy Bites Daily)

Purpose in Puebla — more on the Mexico debate

After listening to William Lane Craig's discussion with Justin Brierley on the latest Unbelievable? programme* on Premier Christian Radio (about the recent debate in Puebla, Mexico) I'm becoming more convinced that he's mired in a philosophical dead-end. It's all about purpose — the universe's purpose and your own personal purpose. Craig appears to think that if the universe doesn't have a purpose, then no-one can have a purpose, and therefore any purpose atheists might claim is merely illusory or "pretend". (Incidentally, I have been similarly accused.)

Craig makes a clearly false distinction between "pretend purposes" and "real purposes", as if only those purposes validated by a deity are "real". This is nonsense. A purpose is a purpose is a purpose. If someone has an intention (whoever they may be) then their purpose is no less "real" than any other purpose. The only pretend purposes are those "intended" by fictional characters — and a great many deities fall into that category.

The more I hear of this argument about purpose, the clearer it becomes that the theists cannot conceive of a universe without an overarching purpose — it's the foundation of their argument from design. They seem to assume that a universe without some purpose or other is a physical impossibility, and therefore simply take it as read: of course the universe has a purpose — how could it not?

Well, as Richard Dawkins pointed out in the debate, we accept that a mountain doesn't have a purpose. So why should we assume that the universe does have a purpose?

---

*The relevant Unbelievable? programme can be downloaded here:
http://media.premier.org.uk/unbelievable/28c90db3-db8d-405d-adde-88bdb6290ee5.mp3

Simulated research: an experimental life

A long time ago in a galaxy far, far away, a group of research scientists set up a simulation experiment using multiple artificial intelligences running on a vast array of extremely fast supercomputers. The simulation was of the emergence of life on an insignificant little blue-green planet orbiting a small unregarded yellow sun in the uncharted backwaters of the unfashionable end of the Western spiral arm of the galaxy.*

The scientists entered certain values into an instance of this simulation, such that sooner or later simulated life would not only emerge on this simulated planet, but would develop simulated intelligence, income tax and rice pudding. And this is what in fact happened.

The intelligent simulated life-forms began to wonder what it was all for, and some speculated about the group of scientists (though of course they did not call them such) who had instigated the whole thing. They came up with a number of theories, including the suggestion that the research scientists themselves (though of course they did not call them such) didn't actually exist. "There's no compelling evidence," they said, "that the universe we live in was created by a group of research scientists" — though they did not use those exact words. "The burden of proof rests with those who claim that the universe was created by a group of research scientists." (Though the words they used might not have been exactly those.)

Some others felt that the doubters were obviously wrong. "Look at the simulated trees," they said (or words to that effect). "The evidence for the existence of the group of research scientists is all around us. How else could simulated life arise, if not by the intentional actions of a group of research scientists?"

The doubters, however, were not impressed. Some of them had done scientific research themselves, and had discovered that much of the simulated life around them, including themselves, exhibited signs of common structure, as if all the various examples of complex simulated life were derived from a much simpler simulated life, and had developed, over a long period of time, from such simple simulated life. They found that they could tinker with that structure and cause certain types of simulated life to develop in particular ways. By examining the structure of all simulated life, they were able to document how it had developed from, ultimately, something very simple indeed.

Those who held to the theory that the simulated universe was instigated by a group of research scientists had to agree that it was not necessary for said research scientists to tinker in any ongoing way, except occasionally in response to special appeals. Sometimes it was felt necessary that events should proceed in a way that did not conform to the established, well-known pattern. Such non-conforming events (if indeed they were non-conforming — some of the doubters disputed even this) were naturally taken as evidence for the existence of the group of research scientists. But though the doubters had shown that the research scientists were not strictly necessary in the normal run of things, they had not shown how everything could have started off at the beginning of time. Surely, therefore, the group of research scientists were responsible for that?

"Not necessarily," said the doubters. "We know how all complex simulated life has developed from simpler simulated life, right back to the least complex simulated life. It seems likely that we will discover how that simplest simulated life came into being."

"But you don't know, do you? It's reasonable, therefore, to suppose that the research scientists were responsible."

"No, we don't know," said the doubters, "but that's no excuse for falling back on an entirely unsupported theory that has no evidence and cannot be falsified."

"You just don't want there to be a group of research scientists, do you? Clearly you're in denial. Or maybe you can't bear the thought of a group of research scientists watching your every move and taking notes."

The doubters were unmoved by what they considered to be appeals to emotion. They had looked at the evidence for the group of research scientists and found it wanting. They were aware that their own research was incomplete, that they still lacked information, but felt justified in reserving judgement regarding the existence of the group of research scientists.

Others did not agree. "How come," they said to the doubters, "that the universe we live in is just the way it is — a way that appears exactly right for us? It must have been made that way so we could be here. And we know who made it. It was obviously the group of research scientists."

"No," said the doubters. "You've got it backwards. We are exactly like we are because we live here. Our universe is what makes us what we are, not the other way around."

"But what made our universe? It must have been the group of research scientists!"

"What made the group of research scientists?" asked the doubters.

"Now you're just being silly."

Of course the group of research scientists observed all of these exchanges and did indeed take notes. Eventually they decided — for no particular reason — that the experiment was complete, and they switched off the simulation.

*With apologies to George Lucas and Douglas Adams

Burnee links for Thursday

Top Conversation Killers for Atheists: How Religious Theists Can Hurt Their Cause
Good, basic advice — but are the right people going to read it?

An Insulting Message of Peace
Happy New Year from Pope Benny, who lives in a place not unlike Disneyland — a fantasy constructed around a totally unrealistic view of the rest of the world.

“Integrating” Science and Religion « Choice in Dying
Eric MacDonald on the error of Adam and Eve.

The day the devil went to seminary and other bizarre things
Need confirmation of the essential vacuity of theology? Check this out (and the comments).

Accommodationism at Berkeley/NCSE website « Why Evolution Is True
Are science and religion compatible? There are some scientists who are religious, and there are religious believers who do good science. But that doesn't alter the fact that religion makes claims that science has repeatedly shown can't possibly be true. Or the fact that science has shown that the universe works in ways that are in direct contradiction to religious dogma.

Daylight Atheism > Abortion Care at Catholic Hospitals
More unbending Catholic dogma coming to light. Why any woman of child-bearing age would want to remain in this religion is a complete mystery.

House Republicans Appoint Climate Change Deniers to Committee Chairs | Center for Inquiry
Welcome, America, to your new unscientific overlords.

Religion and the Madness of Crowds | Center for Inquiry
"Religion is essentially a form of deception," says John Shook.

Can one do philosophy of religion? | Evolving Thoughts
John Wilkins wonders if all the old religious arguments should be indexed to save time, then they could be refuted by number.

Young Freethought: Hitchens vs Blair Analysed
A useful commentary on the recent Blair-Hitch Project in Toronto, along with a mostly complete video of the event:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ddsz9XBhrYA

"Even idiots?" (Out of the mouths of babes...)

A welcome reminder from Ron Britton at Bay of Fundie alerted me to this gem of a clip from Outnumbered:

http://youtu.be/c0BaYBhjC00


Outnumbered is written by Guy Jenkin and Andy Hamilton. (Andy Hamilton is responsible for that exemplar of the BBC's religious radio programming, Old Harry's Game — set in Hell.)

Now at PodCastle - my latest narration

"Balfour and Meriwether in the Adventure of the Emperor's Vengeance" by Daniel Abraham, narrated by Paul S. Jenkins, is now available for free download at PodCastle.

With elements of secret religious history this steampunk fantasy is set in Victorian London, speculating on an alternative origin of the industrial age. Download it now, put it on your iPod, burn it to a CD, or listen on the website. Your comments are welcome on the Escape Artists Discussion Forum. Enjoy.

Does the Universe have a purpose? — a debate in Puebla, Mexico

This debate was part of the International Festival of Great Minds conference that took place in November 2010, at BUAP Benemerita Universidad Autónoma De Puebla on the theme of “The Origins of the Future — A Life Experience: Rebirth.”

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p6tIee8FwX8


Notable for its fortuitous placing of Richard Dawkins against William Lane Craig — an opposition that Dawkins has hitherto vocally declined — this debate had probably the weirdest format I've ever seen. The participants gave their speeches in a boxing ring!

On the "No" side (the universe does not have a purpose) were Matt Ridley, Michael Shermer and Richard Dawkins, and on the "Yes" side were Douglas Geivett, David Wolpe and William Lane Craig. Michio Kaku provided a kind of commentary towards the end, declaring both sides wrong.

Craig doesn't change; his style of debate doesn't vary from one event to another. As usual he restated the motion, declaring what his side believes, and (in a characteristic effort to erect a suitably inflammable straw man) what the other side believes, and stated what the other side must prove, and what his side would show. As usual he shifted the burden of proof, declaring that it was up to the other side to show that the universe does not have a purpose. Pardon me for being stubborn, but if I'm told that something I can't detect is in fact there despite my inability to detect it, I tend not to change my mind about its existence unless shown compelling evidence.

On the contrary (and as expected), Craig took the existence of a purpose to the universe as the default position. He did concede, however, that if God does not exist, then the universe does not have a purpose. Unfortunately for the legitimacy of his argument he took the flip side of that premise to be that if the universe does have a purpose, then the God of Biblical theism exists. For someone who claims to be a philosopher this false dilemma was a disingenuous tactic. In his usual manner Craig also ran through ten arguments for the existence of a Creator in one of his rebuttals, claiming they were persuasive when in fact they were nothing of the kind — all ten have been long since repeatedly refuted, but that doesn't stop him trotting them out on demand.

This particular debate format was bad enough that it tended to limit speeches to superficial point-scoring. The maximum time allowed for the six initial presentations was six minutes each, with subsequent rebuttals at less than two minutes — hardly enough time to refute even one fallacious argument for the existence of a deity, let alone ten.

Whether or not the universe has a purpose, I'm not sure what purpose this debate served. To my biased sensibilities the "No" side won hands down, but the whole affair was less than edifying. One good thing to come out of it, however, was further exposure of William Lane Craig's empty rhetoric.

Andy Nyman at TAM London 2010

As part of a series of official and unofficial fringe events taking place around the weekend of TAM London, attendees were offered discounted tickets to see Ghost Stories, a live stage show currently running at the Duke of York's Theatre. The show is produced by — and stars — Andy Nyman, whom I knew only from some TV appearances (for example in Charlie Brooker's zombie Big Brother spoof, Dead Set) and from his being credited as Derren Brown's co-writer.

The discounted tickets, it turned out, were for a performance of Ghost Stories on Friday evening at 9 pm, exclusively for TAM London delegates. The show is billed as the scariest in London, and I had serious doubts as to how it would play to an auditorium of skeptics.

To my surprise, however, Ghost Stories is a skeptical show, but no less scary for that. Indeed it was very scary, and spookily so — in the grand tradition of truly supernatural horror. The show's generally light-hearted tone is liberally punctuated with unsettling moments and unexpected shocks. Throughout the performance the tension increases as the audience's nervous laughter repeatedly morphs into gasps of terror. At one point towards the end of the evening someone in my row emitted a piercing shriek while jumping literally out of his seat.

So the following day it was a subdued Andy Nyman who took to the TAM London stage when Amateur Transplants had finished entertaining us immediately after lunch. Not everyone in the room had been to see Ghost Stories the previous evening, so he could not talk about the show in any depth. The format was not a talk or lecture, but the first of several discussions at TAM London. Andy Nyman was on stage with Richard Wiseman, with whom he has previous associations (there were photographs to back this up), and they had a nice chat that we were able to overhear, and — in the subsequent Q&A — to join in.

The effectiveness of Ghost Stories as a live experience relies to a large degree on the element of surprise, and Andy Nyman wasn't going to give the game away for those who hadn't seen it. He did, however, talk generally about what goes into making a successful show, whether on stage or on TV, and about his association with Derren Brown.

If you haven't seen Ghost Stories, do.

Some New Year thoughts on presuppositional logic

"Logic" is part and parcel of the nature of existence. How do I know my reasoning has any validity? Simple: I am aware that logic exists. Therefore I can rely on logic when I use reason as a path to knowledge. How do I know logic exists? The fact that I know anything at all is an indication that the underlying logic of reasoning is valid.

I can assume my reasoning is valid, because if I wasn't able to do it I wouldn't be able to make that assumption. Assuming things is part of the act of reasoning.

Presuppositionalists, however, claim that reasoning is only possible because God exists. They assume that if God hadn't created logic we wouldn't be able to reason, and that because we can reason, therefore God exists.

But logic isn't something separate and above the universe. Logic is not transcendent, it's merely a description of an aspect of the universe as we experience it. Asking whether there are absolute laws of logic is akin to asking if there's an absolute universe. It's like asking if there is matter and energy that is somehow "outside" the matter and energy of the universe, or "beyond" space and time. You might as well ask what happens when an irresistible force hits an immovable object, or what is the mathematical formula for the area of a square circle, or what's the marital status of a married bachelor. These questions don't make sense, and just because they can be asked doesn't mean they have answers. They don't.

Presuppositionalists claim that unbelievers have no basis for assuming that  their reasoning is valid, because (they say) we use unvalidated reasoning in an attempt to validate itself. On the other hand, presuppositionalists assume their reasoning is valid because reasoning was created by God. This, of course, presupposes the existence of God, and is the ultimate God-of-the-gaps argument: the only way that reasoning will work is if it was created by God — therefore God exists. But I would throw the presuppositionalists' question back at them: how do they know that their reasoning is valid? It isn't enough to say that God created reasoning, or even to say that there exist absolute laws of logic that transcend the universe. How do they know that? How do they know that such knowledge is true?

The truth is, they don't.

Burnee links for New Year's Eve

British Centre for Science Education: "Evolution and its rivals" - special issue of Synthese
The articles are available online for free (including as downloadable PDFs) until the end of 2010.
(Oops — a bit late with this! Maybe they'll be available again.)

A Holiday Message from Ricky Gervais: Why I'm An Atheist - Speakeasy - WSJ
Plain speaking from Ricky Gervais. However, some of the comments at the WSJ are pretty inane.
(Via RD.net)

Prince Charles too dangerous to be king: This eccentric royal could imperil monarchy | Mail Online
I think most level-headed people are aware of the the Prince of Woo's woolly-mindedness. He's propped up the alternative-medicine industry in the UK and his ill-judged pronouncements have stultified the country's architectural progress. Sure, he needs something to do while waiting to accede, but most of what he's done seems to have been on the whole detrimental. Maybe when he's King he'll be too occupied in the pomp and ceremony of regal duties to pay attention to his hobby horses.

Johann Hari: Your right to protest is under threat - Johann Hari, Commentators - The Independent
The threat is that people will be too afraid of indiscriminate police tactics to join what should be a peaceful protest.

But the shepherd never gets fleeced… : Pharyngula
OK, this is America, but I thought they were supposed to have "separation of church and state" over there. Apparently they just love their priests so much...

Daylight Atheism > Bowing to the Text
Concerning ID's intellectual honesty.

Intelligent Design creationism is fundamentally wrong : Pharyngula
PZ is a-skewering again. Shame he has to do this, but those IDiots are persistent. (And wrong.)

Casey Luskin distorts Behe’s paper « Why Evolution Is True
Exactly as Jerry Coyne predicted.

Does God Exist? Ricky Gervais Takes Your Questions - Speakeasy - WSJ
A follow-up to his previous piece. It's a gem.

YouTube - QED Vodka
Do you know how homeopathic remedies are made?


Celebrity endorsements that are science fiction trashed in annual list | Science | The Guardian
Unfortunately the people who lap up celebrity gossip are probably not the ones who read the Guardian science pages.

Sarah Hippolitus - Love is Stronger than Logic
A fascinating insight into a panel that took place after a one-on-one theist-atheist debate.

The New Age Medicine of Prince Charles | The Quackometer
Andy Lewis gets his teeth into the heir to the throne.

Ignorance: Comparing Dawkins and Plantinga | The Uncredible Hallq
Chris Hallquist is about to tackle the so-called philosophical ignorance of Dawkins and compare it to the so-called scientific ignorance of Plantinga. This could get interesting.

Sam Harris: A New Year's Resolution for the Rich
Clear and unequivocal. Plain speaking (as always) from Sam Harris.

Holy books for the UK government! : Pharyngula
There are probably plenty of candidates qualifying for legal protection from textual molestation.

Hyperbole and a Half: The Year Kenny Loggins Ruined Christmas
A heartwarming Christmas story (that encapsulates the skeptical viewpoint).

"Has God Gone Global?" — Night Waves — BBC Radio 3

From the BBC blurb:

Philip Dodd is joined by a panel of thinkers at the Sage Gateshead to discuss the impact global religion will have on future politics - for good or ill:

David Holloway, vicar of Evangelical Jesmond Parish Church in Newcastle argues that Britain must reconnect with its Christian roots.

Medhi Hassan, Senior Political Editor of the New Statesman Magazine and practising Muslim. A key opponent of Islamophobia in the British Press.

Maryam Narmazie, political activist and spokesperson for Iran Solidarity, Equal Rights Now, the One Law for All Campaign against Sharia Law in Britain and the Council of Ex-Muslims of Britain.

Philip Blond, influential theologian behind Red Toryism and Director of the Res publica think tank.

(http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00wfxwh#synopsis)

45 minutes streaming audio available on iPlayer:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b00wfxwh/Night_Waves_Free_Thinking_2010_Has_God_Gone_Global/

The discussion was considerably frustrating to listen to. Maryam Namazie had her work cut out countering the usual inanities: secularists have no basis for morality, Dawkins' stridency is the last gasp of atheism, we must live in harmony with other religions even though mine is true and all the others are false, etc.

Burnee links for Saturday

Greta Christina's Blog: Why Religion Is Like Fanfic
A post from 2007, but worth revisiting every so often.

---

Stone Age flour

"Ultimately there can only be one ‘preconceived view of the evidence’ that can be correct—one that is based on a true history of man’s origins. The Bible’s account of history is true—a history that makes it clear that evolutionary ideas of a pre-agriculture ‘Stone Age’ are without foundation. Early man not only practiced agriculture but also made “all kinds of tools of bronze and iron” (Genesis 4:22), though later circumstances saw some people lose that capacity."

Creation Ministries International bemoans the "preconceived view of the evidence" allegedly adopted by evolutionary theory, then blatantly boasts of its own. Bye-bye logic.

---

Sense About Science | The effects of the English libel laws on bloggers
An article complementing Sense About Science's guide ‘So you’ve had a threatening letter. What can you do?’

---

I Have Been Putting on my Shoes | The Quackometer
Andy Lewis on libel risks and precautions for bloggers.

---

Johann Hari: How to spot a lame, lame argument - Johann Hari, Commentators - The Independent
'what-aboutery', and how to keep arguments focussed.

---

Richard Dawkins | Christopher Hitchens is my hero of 2010 | Comment is free | guardian.co.uk
One gnu-atheist praises another — no surprise there, but it's worth reading nevertheless.

---

Greta Christina's Blog: Can Atheism Be Proven Wrong?
It could be, but like Greta I'm not holding my breath.

---

Hospital Trust faces £120 million in cuts to front line services but finds the money for chaplains and prayer rooms | National Secular Society
According to the article the Royal Oldham Hospital prayer room has a new ablution area for Muslim users.

---

Wikileaks and the Long Haul « Clay Shirky
Whatever is done about WikiLeaks, it should be legal. It's no good complaining that someone has done something illegal, and then using illegal counter-measures. See this quote from "A Man for All Seasons":

William Roper: So, now you give the Devil the benefit of law!
Sir Thomas More: Yes! What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?
William Roper: Yes, I'd cut down every law in England to do that!
Sir Thomas More: Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned 'round on you, where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country is planted thick with laws, from coast to coast, Man's laws, not God's! And if you cut them down, and you're just the man to do it, do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake!

---

Curiouser and curiouser: managing discovery making : Nature News
Nobel laureate Ahmed Zewail explains why fundamental science is crucial to scientific progress.

---

'Intelligent Design' is a flawed apologetic | Ekklesia
Bob Carling gives a comprehensive account of the condition of ID in Britain today, in the light of Michael Behe's lecture tour and the new Centre for Intelligent Design.

---

Mutual criticism is vital in science. Libel laws threaten it | Ben Goldacre | Comment is free | guardian.co.uk
This is the gist of Ben Goldacre's recent World Service "Discovery" radio programme.

---

The Scientific Guide to Global Warming Skepticism
A lay-person's guide (downloadable PDF).

---

Manchester Made It Easy: QED. Manchester. Question. Explore. Discover.
Dr Janis Bennion explains about the QED conference in February.

---

The Rogues Gallery » Blog Archive » Evil Woman
"If this does not define the word “Vulture”, than I do not know how else to define it."
It's hard to believe that the hospital authorities turn a blind eye to such despicable exploitation.

---

Cardiff Humanists are not “aggressive atheists” trying to ban Christmas | HumanistLife
More on those angry god-deniers who are hell-bent on expunging all mention of Christmas from society.

---

Pray, should we keep this law for ever and ever? Amen - News - TES Connect
No, we shouldn't. This is a hangover from a time when the religious make-up up state schools was different from how it is today. School assemblies serve several useful purposes, but "worship" isn't one of them. Many schools, as Andrew Copson points out, simply ignore the law. When I was in secondary education, our RE teacher told us that it was clear who was being worshipped in our morning assembly, and it wasn't God.
(Via HumanistLife)

---

Adam Rutherford at TAM London 2010

"I'm going to talk to you about Jesus."

Thus did scientist, TV presenter, editor and professional geek Adam Rutherford begin his TAM London talk. It turns out that he had done the Alpha Course ― a series of free evangelical evening classes, versions of which are held all over the country, indeed all over the world. This seems a rather odd thing for him to have done, given that he is an atheist. The course is designed for those he described as the de-churched ― that is, those who were brought up with a more or less Christian background and belief, and subsequently lapsed. For the un-churched ― those who grew up without religious indoctrination ― the course is likely to be far less effective. As part of his exploration of the Alpha Course Adam Rutherford interviewed its current leader, the man responsible for its global expansion, evangelical preacher Nicky Gumbel. The whole thing is written up at the Guardian | Comment is Free | Belief (which I highly recommend).

I've seen the ads for the Alpha Course, and I've watched Jon Ronson's TV documentary. A few years ago I also saw several of the David Frost TV series "Alpha: Will it Change Their Lives?" and its more recent follow up: "Alpha: Did it Change Their Lives?" The David Frost series featured clips from the Alpha Course led by Nicky Gumbel at Holy Trinity Brompton. Apparently the satellite courses make extensive use of videos of Nicky Gumbel's sermons (if sermon is the right word), though they are free to adapt.

Prior to Adam Rutherford's talk I would have said that the most controversial aspect of the Alpha Course is the weekend away. The course includes a residential component at which the participants can immerse themselves in evangelical godliness, culminating in a session of glossolalia ― otherwise known as "speaking in tongues".

I got the impression from the David Frost series that the course is intended for teetering agnostics, and is unlikely to sway those who self-identify as atheists. There was nothing I heard in the Nicky Gumbel clips, or saw in any of the documentaries, to suggest that they are using anything other than small group dynamics to encourage people to share and discuss hitherto private thoughts about belief. To be honest, I found it unimpressive. The fact that they are promoting glossolalia suggests that the whole enterprise is geared towards emotional response and "personal experience of the Holy Spirit" rather than addressing annoying factors like reason and evidence.

Adam Rutherford's experience seems to bear out my suspicions, though he identified an additional concern that I don't recall surfacing in the documentaries. The Alpha Course, he says, is a homophobic cult. He puts it that strongly, despite finding Nicky Gumbel himself to be a thoroughly nice chap.