NOMA, sexism and PZ Myers

The current spat in the "atheist movement" is a cause for some glee in certain theistic quarters, with suggestions that if a reconciliation of the "schism" (currently exemplified between "new atheist" blogger PZ Myers and atheist YouTuber Thunderf00t) cannot be achieved, then the "movement" is doomed.

This, I think, misunderstands the nature of the split. The "atheist movement" was never a cohesive body, and likely never will be. Some Christians are suggesting that the movement's leaders need to make a stand, issue some decrees and whip the dissenters into line, or else the movement will fragment and disintegrate. But atheism as a movement has never been integrated. There's no doctrinal dogma to which atheists are required to subscribe, no articles of faith. The only thing that all atheists have in common is a disbelief in gods. Beyond that, they are as disparate as any random collection of individuals. That such a group could even begin to consider itself a "movement" is, to put it charitably, optimistic.

There are no atheist leaders, just some atheists who tend to be more vocal than others. It is in the nature of freethought not to take things on authority alone, so any calls for prominent atheists to grab the movement by the scruff of the neck and shake some sense into it will be for the most part ignored. Atheism will not fragment as a result of this latest hoo-hah because it's already fragmented, by definition.

The current controversy over sexism in the skeptical/atheist movement is, as far as I can see, merely an extension of the well established conflict over non-overlapping magisteria (NOMA). With regard to potential incompatibilities between religion and science we have two factions: on the one hand those who claim that science and religion are fundamentally incompatible — and the source of a great many problems in today's culture — and on the other those who claim that it's possible to find an accommodation between science and religion because they deal with different realms of enquiry. Atheists on each side of the NOMA debate will be forever opposed, because each side has a different way of dealing with religion. Arch-accomodationists will take a pragmatic approach to working with theists, on the basis that theism doesn't deal with scientific matters. Extreme anti-accommodationists will simply refuse to work with theists on scientific matters on the basis that theism does deal with scientific matters, but in an unscientific way.

In the sexism debate, views divide down the middle in a manner similar to the NOMA split. On one side are those who say that sexism is a problem that needs to be addressed (by, for instance, talking openly about it rather than sweeping it under the rug, and by implementing clearly stated harassment policies wherever these might be appropriate), and on the other are those who say that though sexism certainly exists, it isn't a particular problem in skepticism/atheism — any more than elsewhere — and that the current disagreement is a molehill that has blown up into a raging volcano.

I've no idea if what I'm about to write will alienate some of my readers, but I feel I must be open about my own biases on these matters.

Taking NOMA first, though I can see the value of making nice with theists in order to get things done (and because they are people — and therefore deserving of respect and consideration), I see no merit in pretending that science and religion are compatible when even a superficial examination shows they are anything but.

Second, on the question of sexism in general and the problem of sexual harassment at skeptic/atheist events in particular, some women have reported that there is a problem. Are we to ignore this? Certainly not. As a man I don't experience the types of unwelcome attention that are being reported (and have been reported in "the movement" for over a year now) so I can only go by the reports. The fact that some other women have said that in their experience it isn't a problem is insufficient reason for not doing anything.

It seems to me that in both the NOMA debate and the discussions (I use the term advisedly) about sexual harassment, PZ Myers has got it right. His stand on this and other matters speaks of an intellectual integrity that is to be admired rather than dismissed. His uncompromising attitude may well alienate many, but that's because he will not accommodate. Often I find his views quite unpalatable, but as far as I'm aware he always gives his reasons, and I find I usually agree with them.

(I hearby declare that you may unsubscribe/unfollow/block me now.)

Burnee links for Thursday

Mars orbiter catches pic of Curiosity on its way down! | Bad Astronomy | Discover Magazine

Wow!

Atheism
A gentle story of enlightenment.

It's What Moral Philosophers Do - Richard Dawkins - RichardDawkins.net - RichardDawkins.net
Dawkins makes an excellent point about moral philosophy, tacitly showing that those who react emotionally to serious arguments without thinking them through, don't deserve to be given serious attention (Catholicism, I'm looking at you).

Is psychic Sally Morgan deluded but essentially harmless? | Simon Singh | Science | guardian.co.uk
Deluded and essentially dangerous.

An odd definition of "murder"

Via Paul Baird on Facebook, this article about a recent court ruling raises the question of how far the law should restrict personal freedom:

BBC News - Tony Nicklinson loses High Court right-to-die case
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-19249680

Paul B posted thus:

A very difficult case, but I cannot agree that this is the right outcome. The question must surely include his own wishes, the possibility of improvement and the quality of his life.

In denying him the right to die have we condemned him to a living death instead ? I think that we have, and we have no right to do so.

...and I added a comment:

It's disgraceful. I can't decide whether the judge was too afraid of making a controversial ruling, or was hiding behind the notion that it would be a "slippery slope" or "thin end of the wedge" to allow a doctor to grant this patient's request.

Those supporting the decision are saying it's not for the court to change the law, and that it's for Parliament to decide if the law should be changed. But unless some controversial court decisions are actually made, Parliament will do nothing.

"For someone else to kill him would amount to murder." I'd be interested to hear the definition of "murder" that fits this particular case.

"The law is well established..." I don't see why a court can't make an exception on the basis of mitigating circumstances, while still making it clear that it is, precisely, an exception.

At the time of writing there are two other comments as well.

The Human Bible — with Robert M. Price

I absolutely love this podcast:

Robert M. Price is a one-off. I first heard him a few years ago interviewed on another podcast about his Bible Geek persona, and have since come across him in various places — notably as one of the hosts of the Point of Inquiry podcast after previous host D. J. Grothe left to preside over the JREF. In April this year Bob Price appeared on Premier Radio's Unbelievable? opposite David Instone-Brewer, who seemed bamboozled by the Bible Geek's vast and confident knowledge.

Some biblical scholars wear their knowledge like a crown, or at least like an expensive suit of clothes requiring careful laundering and only suitable for the poshest occasions. Bob Price wears his erudition like a pair of frayed and faded jeans. He appears to have an instantaneous random access memory of all things biblical, and will throw his nuggets out into the world with nary a care, and often a wry comment. He's not a believer, but maybe this gives his take on scripture an objectivity perhaps lacking in those who so desperately want scripture to be true.

Get your weekly dose of objective scripture here:
http://www.thehumanbible.net/

Subscribe with iTunes here:
http://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/the-human-bible/id506886767
...or with any podcatcher here:
http://thehumanbible.libsyn.com/rss

Prof. Steve Jones on The Life Scientific

Today I listened to a delightful conversation between Jim Al-Khalili and geneticist Steve Jones, on the former's BBC Radio 4 programme The Life Scientific. It's over a week since it was broadcast, but all episodes are available as mp3 downloads from the BBC website. I've seen Prof. Steve Jones "in the flesh" a number of times — first as part of last year's Uncaged Monkeys tour at the Basingstoke Anvil, and more recently at this year's QED, after which he stepped in to introduce his former pupil Adam Rutherford when he gave the Darwin Day Lecture at Congress Hall in London.

This half-hour conversation is a low-key affair, with many insights into what it's like to be a research scientist. Steve Jones made a surprising point about mediocre science being worthwhile despite its mediocrity. There were also comments from Jerry Coyne, with whom Steve Jones worked. Fascinating stuff.

Download the mp3 audio here:
http://downloads.bbc.co.uk/podcasts/radio4/tls/tls_20120807-0930c.mp3

Subscribe to the podcast in iTunes:
itpc://downloads.bbc.co.uk/podcasts/radio4/tls/rss.xml
...or other podcatcher:
http://downloads.bbc.co.uk/podcasts/radio4/tls/rss.xml

The website for The Life Scientific is here:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b01lhfs5

A creationist talk in Portsmouth

I've been suffering a surfeit* of creationism recently, which reminded me that I'd not written up the creationist talk I attended locally back in April. It was put on by Creation Ministries International and hosted by Portsmouth Christian Fellowship at the Drayton Institute, which is a community centre cum church hall within walking distance of where I live. (Though I've not written about this before, I did talk about it on Skepticule Extra episode 25.)

The talk was given by Dominic Statham, a name vaguely familiar to me — and more familiar once I realised I'd blogged about an article he wrote on last year's riots. Statham is a good speaker; he has his delivery down pat and "gives good Powerpoint". He sounds British, and is apparently an engineer, not a biologist. His talk was titled "Darwin's Theory: Good Science?" and appears to be one of several he gave throughout a UK tour — apparently he was giving another talk in Plymouth the next day.

His talk in Drayton was well attended; about 50 chairs were laid out, and most were occupied. I arrived in plenty of time and got a good seat near the front.

Dominic Statham

Statham began by stating (in words and on screen) that "Microbes to Man" is contrary to the Bible, and went on to explain the basics of Darwin's theory. This was OK as far as it went, though he slanted his explanation with typical creationist doublespeak. He talked about "survival of the fittest" as if it meant only that the stronger win out over the weaker, but this isn't what Darwin exclusively meant, as I'm sure Statham is aware. "Fittest" in this context means most closely adapted to prevailing conditions, as in "fitting its environment". Statham's implied meaning was "fittest" as in "most fit and healthy", which is clearly a skewed interpretation if not a downright distortion.

Mentioning education, Statham referred to "so-called" science classes, showing his bias, and such loaded language was evident throughout his talk. As part of his explanation of evolutionary theory he said ordinary chemicals "just happened" to come together to form living organisms. His overview of evolutionary theory was specifically set up to be easily knocked down. He described two "steps" to evolution: number one, chemicals evolved to single-cell organisms; and number two, cells evolved to man. That's a very lopsided division, but it enabled him to claim, correctly, that science currently has no proven explanation of abiogenesis, and therefore, even before we begin to discuss evolution from microbes to man, half of evolutionary theory is speculative hypothesis unsupported by evidence. But this is a straw man; abiogenesis is not part of evolutionary theory, and Darwin had little to say about it.

There was no mention of plants in Statham's explanation of evolution, though my understanding is that all plants are part of the evolutionary tree of life. There was mention of "variation within kinds" — but my understanding of "kind" is that it's a biblical term with no scientific validity.

Statham soon moved on to some technical aspects of evolution, beginning with homology — animals sharing similar body plans (same number of limbs, digits, etc., laid out in similar patterns). Despite what evolutionists infer, Statham claimed, homology does not point to common ancestry. He gave three reasons for this:

1. Embryonic development in homologous animals is different. For example, in comparing human hands to frog hands, human hands develop in the womb by the death of cells between the fingers, while in frogs the digits are formed by sprouting new growth. I took this at face value, but later, consulting the Talk Origins archive, I discovered the reason for this is that frogs have webbed feet, which cell-death between the digits would not allow.
2. Similar structures (such as limbs) in homologous animals grow from different segments of the embryo. Again, a bit of research reveals that this is by no means universal — some homologous structures grow from the same embryonic segments, some grow from different segments. Statham was presenting this as cut-and-dried disproof of evolution when it isn't.
3. Similar structures are controlled by different genes, therefore homology doesn't prove evolution. Statham merely quoted an authority for this one, giving no examples.

At the time, of course, Statham's confident statements sounded convincing, and if I'd been on the fence I would quite likely have taken what he said at face value and come away with the idea that evolution wasn't true. Clearly that was his intention, and no doubt it was effective with some of his mostly Christian audience (if they weren't already creationists).

So, having shown to his satisfaction that evolution is insufficient to explain the diversity of life, Statham stated his own explanation: a designer. He went on to state that "software encoded in DNA" is how cells work, and showed a computer animation of the highly complex structures within a cell, with the clear implication that this was all too complicated to have happened by chance. And such it might be, but it's not by chance alone that evolution works. Variations resulting from faulty copying of genes (mutation — aka the "random chance" part) coupled with natural selection, whereby those organisms less suited to their environment tend to die out before reproducing while those more suited (by virtue of their different genetic information) survive, is mostly how evolution works. As for the complexity of the cell, I would guess that the earliest cells were very much simpler than shown in the animation. The complexity of present-day cells is the result of eons of evolution — but nevertheless creationists want to say it was put there, ready made, by God.

Statham went on to cite ATP Synthase and the bacterial flagellum as examples of complexity. I know nothing of ATP Synthase, but the flagellum is a favourite of creationists in general, and of engineer-creationists in particular — and Statham is one such. We know, despite the best efforts of Michael Behe that the flagellum is not "irreducibly complex". But if you deny stepwise refinement, as Statham apparently does, the development of such structures must be highly mysterious. He quoted Michael Denton describing the complexity of the cell, and then edged into conspiracy-theory mode, claiming that academics are not free to voice doubts about evolution. He promoted the film Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed, understandably omitting to mention that it's pretty much outright lies from start to finish.

Having already appealed to authorities, Statham quoted several more. Prof Sir Ernst Chain FRS apparently said that evolutionary theory had "…no evidence and was irreconcilable with the facts," (though I'm unable to verify this quote). Statham put up a slide with big letters reading "Evolution is a Faith" and stated that if the Bible is not right about creation, people will question it about other things. Well, yes, that's the logical thing to do. It's not logical to believe something is true just because you don't like the consequences if it's false.

Statham moved on to yet another authority, this time William Provine of Cornell University. The quote on screen contained lots of ellipsis, which immediately set alarm bells ringing — creationists are notorious for quote-mining. Back home I looked up the quote and found something a bit strange.

"Let me summarize my views on what modern evolutionary biology tells us loud and clear … There are no gods, no purposes, no goal-directed forces of any kind. There is no life after death. When I die, I am absolutely certain that I am going to be dead. That’s the end for me. There is no ultimate foundation for ethics, no ultimate meaning to life, and no free will for humans, either."

That's pasted directly from CMI's website, and yet it isn't what Statham showed. Looking at the screen he explained that when Provine says "modern science" he means "evolution". But Provine doesn't say "modern science", he says "modern evolutionary biology". I've no idea what's going on here.

Still quoting, now from the Bible; Romans 1:20:

"For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities – his eternal power and divine nature – have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse."

This is basically, "Look around you, of course there's a creator!" (We'll leave aside the inherent problem of clearly seeing qualities that are invisible…)

Then Matthew 7:13-14:

"Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it."

Creationists, thankfully, are in the minority.

Rounding off this trinity of Bible quotes we have 1 Peter 3:15:

"But in your hearts revere Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect,"

This is the apologists' verse. (Too bad some of them forget the last sentence.)

Statham suggested members of the audience might like to subscribe to the quarterly Creation magazine — a year's subscription would get you an extra issue; a three-year subscription would get you an extra issue plus a DVD. (But only if you paid in full on the night.) Statham showed several examples of the articles in the magazine — on, for example, "modern science" — though here that doesn't necessarily mean "evolution", apparently. Another article was on refuting Richard Dawkins — which I was pleased to see. Dawkins got several mentions in Statham's talk, indicating that the infamous god-hating militant evolutionist baby-eater is still rattling cages.

Then it became a bit farcical. Statham showed some testimonials for Creation magazine — after all, you wouldn't simply take his word for how great it is, would you? The first testimonial was from that well-known arbiter of all that's worthwhile in scientific literature, the comedian Peter Kay. The second was from someone named Pat F. The third … there was no third — we have two testimonials: a comedian, and anonymous Pat F. (I'm convinced — here's my credit card.)

Finally before the break, Statham promoted the website (Creation.com) and a book titled The Creation Answers Book by Batten, Catchpoole, Sarfati and Wieland, disturbingly suggesting it could be bought for teenagers setting off for university.

During the break I looked at the merchandise, of which there was plenty: books and DVDs, including the despicable Expelled.

There were six questions in the Q&A, all answered by Statham with confidence, giving me the impression that there was nothing he hadn't heard before. He even had additional Powerpoint and videos to address specific questions — almost as if the questions were planted (but I don't think they were). I've paraphrased Statham's responses below, and added appropriate links.

Q1: Darwinism is bad science — why is it still taught?

• Because animals are observed to change. But this is micro- not macro-evolution. Genetic information for micro-evolution is already present.
• Evolutionists are committed to philosophical naturalism.
• Secular scientists say natural processes today means natural processes for origins.
• They are looking for reasons not to believe in God.
• The Intelligent Design movement is doing a lot of good, but they don't present an alternative. We do; the alternative is Christ.

Q2: There's lots of evidence for the Earth being older than 10,000 years.

• Yes there is evidence for an ancient Earth, but dating methods are unreliable. Carbon 14 dating shows the Earth is young. [My understanding is that radiocarbon dating is good for up to 60,000 years, so it can't be used to prove an old Earth, but neither does it show the Earth is young.]
• The Moon's orbit is increasing, but at the rate it is, for an old Earth it ought to be farther away by now.
• There's not enough salt in the sea for an old Earth.
• Dinosaur remains are evidence for a young Earth. In Montana, dinosaur bones (not fossils) have been found with organic soft tissue still in evidence, which should have decayed if they were millions of years old.
• Science cannot tell us how old the Earth is.
• An old Earth conflicts with the Bible. Statham recommended another book: 15 Reasons to Take Genesis as History.

Q3: Where are dinosaurs in the Bible?

• Dinosaurs were made on the same day (the sixth) as Man.
• Dinosaurs were on the Ark, and lived contemporaneously with Man.
• Dinosaurs were called dragons, and some were fire-breathing.
• Carlisle Cathedral has a picture of a dinosaur on the tomb of Richard Bell, dating from 1496.

Q4: Has the universe been around longer than the Earth?

• The stars were made after the Earth.
• Billions of light years away should mean they are billions of years old, but relativity accounts for the apparent age of starlight.
• The Bible says God "stretched out the heavens" — meaning cosmic inflation.

Q5: Did Darwin have a deathbed conversion?

• Probably not, but either way it makes no difference.

Q6: How were the fossils created?

• A global flood; there is lots of evidence that fossils were buried in flood conditions.
• Fossils in the Grand Canyon are all aligned, as if carried by a current.
• Jellyfish fossils must have fossilised in hours, because they are very soft and would otherwise decay or be destroyed.
• There is an absence of transitional forms in the fossil record, such as between invertebrate marine animals and vertebrate marine animals (fish).
• The order of fossils in rock is virtually a formal falsification of Darwin's theory.

Statham made that last point (or rather, assertion) as his final comment to the final question at the end of the evening. There was no opportunity to challenge him on it before the organiser from Portsmouth Christian Fellowship got up to thank him for his talk and to lead the congregation — pardon me, the audience — in a prayer, after which I made my escape.

What did I learn from this talk? I learned that a creationist lecturing to a sympathetic audience can sound very convincing. Dominic Statham was quite clever in not stating some things outright; instead he let the audience infer what they wanted to believe from his tacit implications. I recognised his use of loaded language immediately, but only because I've heard such disingenuous slanting before. Creationists, however, are at least open about what they're up to — they want God back in our culture, and have no truck with secularism. The Intelligent Design crowd on the other hand are more insidious in their aims, all the while claiming that ID has nothing to do with religion.

---

*Watch this space...

Winchester Science Festival, Day 2 — some disjointed ramblings

On Saturday July 21 I went to the middle day of the three-day Winchester Science Festival¹, at the Winchester Discovery Centre. Here are some uncoordinated notes and musings on it.

Arrived in good time after parking in Tower St multi-storey (£8 for the day). Hardly anyone there. Collected my pre-booked tickets (all nine of them) and had a cup of coffee while people came in.

First talk was Peter Harrison on Lucid Dreaming. I had no idea this was anything more than a curiosity, but apparently LD has been very useful in exploring how the brain works. Also it's a relatively recent science.

Lewis Dartnell was ill so we had short fill-ins from Peter Harrison and Simon Watt, which were excellent, and I don't feel short-changed for not hearing about Alien Evolution. Simon Watt then delivered his scheduled talk, "Sperm Warfare" — highly informative, amusing and in parts somewhat alarming.

Andrew Pontzen and Tom Whyntie then gave us an elaborate dramatisation of the hunt for Dark Matter — very funny and informative (but necessarily inconclusive).

Lunch was at a pizza place nearby (but I made sure to have only a starter and drink only water). Sat opposite Alice Sheppard who answered my supplementary² question about spinning galaxies as illustrated in the previous talk — some of them rotate against the intuitive direction: the "trailing" arms do actually lead, in some galaxies. Back in time for Jenny Rohn's talk about the Science is Vital campaign (but despite my abstemious attitude to lunch I found it hard to concentrate).

Stephen Curry talked about how X-rays allow us to see how viruses work. He's a good speaker, and his Powerpoint was one of the best I've seen.

Sylvia McLain let us know what scientists look like and what they do. She is, along with Jenny Rohn and Stephen Curry, part of the Occam's Typewriter blogging network.

Probably my favourite talk of the day (possibly tying with Peter Harrison's) was "String Theory" presented by Milton Mermikides. It wasn't the kind of physics you might expect from the title, being about the science of music, with wonderful demonstrations from Bridget Mermikides and Ned Evett (the "glass guitarist").

With about an hour to spare before the evening entertainment, some of us indulged with tea and cake in the Discovery Centre, before the live set by Ned Evett, whose guitars are all fretless — the "fretboards" being mirror glass. Difficult to play, perhaps, but he made it appear effortless.

Eleanor Curry, daughter of previous speaker Stephen Curry, did a 15-minute stand-up about what it's like to be a sixth-former trying to decide which university to attend. Brilliant stuff — this youngster will be stratospheric.

Helen Arney tunes her ukelele

Helen Arney delivered a preview of her Edinburgh Fringe show, "Voice of an Angle" which included her contention that equilateral triangles are so named for their connection with horses (works for me).

A meal had been booked at a local Asian restaurant, but unfortunately they'd had a power cut and couldn't serve us. The manager, however, guided us to another of their restaurants that could accommodate us — but this one was Japanese. Nevertheless we had a good time, despite the unscheduled switch in cuisine, leaving the place around midnight.

Highly enjoyable and informative day. If they do it again next year I'll go to the whole thing.

---

¹Thanks are due to festival director James Thomas — Winchester Science Festival was his brainchild.
²Alice Sheppard answered a previous question of mine about spinning galaxies when she gave a talk at Winchester Skeptics in the Pub.

I waste my time for you — Debate: Does God Exist?

This isn't the first time I've live-commented on Facebook while watching or listening to some online media or other. In line with my recent decision to repost (or archive — knowing how volatile other fora can be) my stuff from Facebook, here's my reaction to a 2004 debate linked to in the CFI group.

---

http://youtu.be/qMuHMVVoPjw
Debate - Does God Exist? Hare Krishna Monk vs Stephen Law (1-0)



Here's the YouTube blurb:

"They Said It Was Chance"

Open Discussion on the Existence of God between
HH Sivarama Swami and Dr Stephen Law at University College, London

And here are the comments posted in the Skepticule Extra Facebook group:

• 
  Fergus Gallagher What does "(1-0)" signify?

  4 hours ago ·
• 
  

  Paul Jenkins Don't know. I haven't watched it yet. (It looks suspiciously like a score...)

  4 hours ago ·
• 
  

  Fergus Gallagher Indeed it does.

  4 hours ago ·
• 
  

  Paul Jenkins I'm nearly half way through this now — just started with audience questions.
  
  HH Sivarama Swami has rather odd ideas about induction and deduction. Stephen Law is running his Evil God Challenge, based on an agreed definition of "God", but the discussion is now floundering as that definition becomes indistinct.
  
  Also (unless I misheard him) HH Sivarama Swami seems to be claiming that personal revelation can be proved experimentally.

  3 hours ago ·
• 
  

  Paul Jenkins We're now into what I would characterise as the "karma of the gaps in our understanding of causality" argument. (Or to put it another way, total BS.)

  2 hours ago ·
• 
  

  Paul Jenkins The swami seems to be conflating "order" and "structure" with "moral goodness". He has a very loose definition of God, which he appears to think allows him to make sweeping generalisations about God's character. Stephen Law, on the other hand, has been specific in repeatedly tying the definition down to omnipotence and omnibenevolence, which allows him to run his EGC to show that theodicies and the mystery card simply don't work.
  
  Then there's the argument about free will, which is a whole other kettle of worms.

  2 hours ago ·
• 
  

  Paul Jenkins Good summing up by Stephen Law. Show of hands: 62 to 17 (with 14 abstentions) in favour of HH Sivarama Swami.

  about an hour ago ·
• 
  

  Paul Jenkins The swami repeated his claim to have performed an experiment to show the existence of God, and that it was repeatable, but did not cite any peer-reviewed papers to back up his claim. Bizarrely he also claimed that those who have performed the experiment do not need to debate the matter — so what was he doing here?

  about an hour ago ·
• 
  

  Fergus Gallagher I didn't know SL had developed his EGC way back in 2004

  about an hour ago ·
• 
  

  Fergus Gallagher Worth watching?

  about an hour ago ·
• 
  

  Paul Jenkins Meh. I waste my time for you ;-)

  about an hour ago ·
• 
  

  Fergus Gallagher True secular altruism.

  about an hour ago ·

Burnee links for Sunday

Stephen Law: Religious Experience and Karen Armstrong's God
Well, that's that then.

Next up: Everything I have to say about William Lane Craig | The Uncredible Hallq
Should be interesting, and comprehensive; Chris Hallquist is no lightweight.

BBC Radio 2 - Ian D Montfort Is: Unbelievable
A truly fantastic radio psychic medium — cold reading and barnum statements given hilarious over-the-top treatment (original audio no longer available, but there's a two-minute clip on the site).

Fire-walking gone awry | Mano Singham
What happens when woo-meisters don't understand what's really going on...

Phlegmatic - Interpreting the Olympic Opening Ceremony
We all know the Olympics opening ceremony was highly symbolic, but here's a helpful explanation for those who might have got the wrong end of the stick.
(Via Paul Wright.)

Triablogue: Funeral for atheism
This is what you get when you can't see beyond dogmatic scripture.

I get confidential email

This is another Facebook repost, from a while back:

---

I received a confidential email. I know it's a confidential email because it says it's confidential right there in the email itself. Plus, it's addressed to "undisclosed recipients" and you can't get more confidential than that. Anyway, here's what it said:

As-Salamu Alaykum,

I am Aisha Tagro from Republic of Ivory Coast .Being that I lost my Father recently. My father was a Minister of interior withthe regime of Ex-president Laurent Gbagbo (Mr. Desire Tagro) until his death.

He was assassinated by the Rebels following the politicaluprising. Before his death, he deposited $15. 500,000.00 (Million dollars) Thefunds are in a safe private bank here is my country which I will give youdetails upon receipt of your acknowledgement of this confidential message Iwant you to do me a favour to retrieve this money from the bank and save itinto your bank account in your country or any safer place as the beneficiarymeanwhile I have plans to do investment in your country.

This is my reason for writing to you. Please, if youare willing to assist me indicate your interest by replying me soonest I don’tmine becoming a Christian if that is what I have to do to have a good and reliable assistance for my good future.

Best regards.

Yours sincerely,

Miss. Aisha Tagro.

It's a terrible story. Miss Tagro's father was assassinated by rebels, but he seems to have been lucky in being able to stash away fifteen and a half million dollars in a safe private bank. Unfortunately Miss Tagro herself seems unable at present (though I can't see why) to use that money to invest in the UK and wants me to do it for her. Sympathetic as I am to her dire plight, I don't really see what I can do. I have little investment expertise so I can't honestly advise her, other than to suggest she contacts the concerns she wants to invest in and asks for their assistance. That, it seems to me, would be a more efficient way of going about things.

Also, I'm concerned that she thinks I might be some kind of right-wing Christian bigot, as she offers to convert to Christianity — as if that would make me more likely to assist her. It's all very confusing, and makes me wonder if she might not be a little unhinged as a result of her recent bereavement. I think she may have sent this request in grief-stricken haste and might possibly come to regret it. For the moment, therefore, I shall not respond, unless she contacts me again after taking some time to rethink her audacious plan.

(I'd be obliged if you folks didn't spread this around, since it is — as she states in her email — confidential.)

---

Check out the comments on the original post, as they shed some light on email scammers' motivations.

What's in your head counts more than what's on it

Those headgear option selectors are at it again. Talk about parading your blatant obscurantism for all to see. All together now — assert with me:

"Christianity is a process. It is a commitment, a vow, a pledge. It is a complete overhaul and reformation. The creatures of God, created for the purpose of living and breathing the truth and glory of their Creator: that is Christianity."

Inevitably the presup spiel bursts forth (though McFormtist manages to achieve this without using the word "account"):

"As difficult as it may be to admit, even unbelievers are creatures of God and hence bear His image, and so due to common grace they are aware of such things as double-speak and hypocrisy, even if they aren’t consistent in their application of that judgment to themselves."

I'm wondering (again) exactly what "...bear His image" actually means. Like a tattoo? A brand? An earmark? And amongst the professed gratitude for atheistic criticism we of course we get the usual PA claim (which can never be delivered without its hallmark smugness):

"Along the same lines of our response to the problem of evil, we should be thankful whenever we see unbelievers calling these things out. It demonstrates unbelievers’ recognition of evil. We must be careful to call evil “evil” and not make excuses for it. We must agree that evil is evil, but we must also be ready to make specific qualifications for what exactly constitutes it. We need to show them that they have no basis to call anything evil on their own terms, and that only on ours can they make any sense of evil and have a reason to fight against it."

Sez you.

(Reposted from Facebook.)

"Compatibilist" free will — God-given?

This blog has been quiet of late, which I regret, but while I've neglected Evil Burnee I have been posting stuff on Facebook. So I've decided to repost anything remotely substantial here (edited as I consider necessary), while brief items will be included in Burnee Links (Facebook friends and subscribers may wish to tweak their settings if they feel they're getting too much of me).

---

Some really blinkered stuff has come out of Choosing Hats recently. Here's "RazorsKiss" simultaneously exhibiting the usual snark at "village atheists" while playing the mystery card with respect to "God's will". All while berating another believer who just happens not to be a member of the preferred sect. Also, note the "impossible state of God not existing" — a revealing assertion that tells us in no uncertain terms (as if we didn't already know) where this blogger is coming from. How about this:

"For all their talk of reason, and logic, note that it all arises from and because of random chance – which is definitionally irrational. If God doesn’t control all things in this pastor’s worldview, what does? He ceded the field, and has practically denied Isaiah 46, which says God has declared the end from the beginning."

So much for free will, as God has everything predetermined, and the death of those poor kids was their destiny. Pretty sick, in my opinion.

(Reposted from Facebook.)

Atheist prayer — isn't this just silly?

Posted by Justin Brierley in his Unbelievable? Facebook group:

Are you an atheist? If there is a God do you want to find out? On the latest show I announced The Atheist Prayer Experiment. I'll post up more details in due course, but if you want to take part then email unbelievable@premier.org.uk

What on earth could this be? Getting atheists to pray to a god they don't believe in? Is there any way this "experiment" could be in the least valid?

Who knows? This strikes me as another theistic attempt to inject scientific rationality into something intrinsically irrational. I was highly skeptical of the recent experiment aiming to determine the efficacy of intercessory prayer. As it turned out, the study showed a marginally negative effect — that is, heart patients aware that they were being prayed for did slightly worse in their overall recovery. But that doesn't change my view that such experiments are pretty much worthless; after all, who's to say that any patients weren't being randomly prayed for by people not involved in the study, with consequently unpredictable skewing of the results? And isn't God supposed to take a dim view of being tested (despite being perfectly OK with testing his subjects — Abraham and Isaac, for instance)?

To me the whole idea seems like a pointless waste of time — nevertheless I await Justin's explication (though I'm not holding my breath).

---

UPDATE 20120819:

The paper by Tim Mawson to which Justin Brierley referred in his announcement is available here:
http://www.springerlink.com/content/a77r315j041p4213/?MUD=MP

The Atheist Prayer Experiment webpage is here:
http://www.premier.org.uk/atheistprayerexperiment

---

UPDATE 20120822: 


More here:
Notes from an Evil Burnee: An experiment designed to be useless

Burnee links for Thursday

To Paula | The Heresy Club
I tend to agree. It saddens me that such a letter needs to be written.

Your freedom to impose your religion ends where your child begins | coelsblog
Circumscribing the circumcision debate.

History, My Bum Knee, and Some People I Want to Thank | Greta Christina's Blog
Western society makes progress.

Temple of the Future — We Have Failed Leah Libresco
James Croft says humanists must be able to explain their morality.

Tessera: The Emotional Eating Kit
Sounds like good stuff. Not actually harmful, anyway. Not anything, to tell the truth, but don't let that stop you throwing your money away if it makes you feel better (if not in actual fact better).

Voice of Reason: Lawrence Krauss - Reality is liberating - YouTube
"The great thing about science is not knowing."


Higgs Boson announcement from CERN: why the god particle is so important. - Slate Magazine
More Krauss, this time on the CERN announcement and nothing interesting.

Moral argument for the existence of tedium

The moral argument for the existence of God is in my opinion so completely wrong, so groundless and so obviously flawed, that I find it astonishing anyone takes it seriously. And when I come across a screed that proposes the moral argument without a shred of embarrassment, I can only shake my head and move on. One such screed is this, by Jonathan McLatchie. I've looked at it, shaken my head and moved on from it more than once, but there remains a nagging concern that though its falsehood is plain to me, some people still — amazingly — take the argument seriously.

It's all very well for me to assert that the arguments put forth in this piece are spent and vacuous, but it seems there are some people to whom this is not apparent. Therefore, despite the tedium involved (and despite having done it before), I must perforce demonstrate why the argument so spectacularly fails.

Moral Argument – Overview
The moral argument for the existence of God refers to the claim that God is needed to provide a coherent ontological foundation for the existence of objective moral values and duties. The argument can be summarised in the following syllogism:

Premise 1: If God does not exist, then objective moral values and duties do not exist.
Premise 2: Objective moral values and duties do exist.
Conclusion: Therefore, God exists.

Since this is a logically valid syllogism, the atheist, in order to maintain his non-belief in God, must reject at least one of the two Premises. By “objective” morality we mean a system of ethics which universally pertains irrespective of the opinions or tastes of human persons: for example, the holocaust was morally wrong irrespective of what Hitler and the Nazis believed about it, and it would have remained morally wrong even if the Nazis had won World War II and compelled everyone into compliance with their values. This view, known in philosophy as “moral realism,” contrasts with “moral relativism” which maintains that no-one is objectively correct or incorrect with respect to their moral values and judgements.

This doesn't work at all. For a start it isn't a logically valid syllogism, because there's more than one definition of objective. McLatchie (like William Lane Craig) seems to be using a definition that requires objective moral values to mean God-given moral values — which of course is begging the question. His definition above is too vague: "a system of ethics which universally pertains irrespective of the opinions or tastes of human persons" and it craftily slips in the idea of universality being a necessary part of what it is to be objective.  But objective is simply the opposite of subjective, that is, independent of any single individual. This does not rule out objective moral values that are formulated jointly, after consideration of the consequences of moral actions. Nor does it rule out objective moral values that can change according to circumstances. Right at the start, therefore, Premise 1 fails.

Moreover, in the absence of theism, nobody has been able to conceive of a defensible grounding for moral values.

This always makes me laugh, because it implies that theism can provide "a defensible grounding for moral values." No theist can justify this, only merely assert it. Where do theists get their moral grounding? It's in a book — a book that no present-day theists had a hand in writing, that has no demonstrably sound provenance, and that contains "moral guidance" even theists admit — by their textual wrangling to make things fit — is of dubious moral value. When it comes to making moral decisions, I submit that ignoring circumstances and consequences in favour of "playing by the book" is an abdication of moral responsibility.

Moral Argument – An Important Distinction
It is important to bear in mind that the moral argument pertains to the ultimate source of objective moral values and duties (moral ontology) and not how we know what is moral or immoral (moral epistemology) and not 'what we mean' by good/bad or right/wrong (moral semantics). The theistic ethicist maintains that moral values are grounded in the character and nature of God. 

This doesn't work either. McLatchie has not established that there is, or needs to be, an "ultimate source of objective moral values and duties". In referring to moral ontology McLatchie is claiming that objective moral values and duties have some kind of existence in reality, independent of anything else. He hasn't established this, he's just assuming it.

There follows a fairly straight exposition of the Euthyphro dilemma, with this addendum:

The question is posed this way: Is x the right thing to do because God commands it, or does God command it because it is already the right thing to do? I take the former option. Normally, the problem with accepting the horn is that there is a presumption that the commands in question from God are arbitrary (i.e. God could have commanded that we ought to lie). But that's just false. The theist wants to say that God is essentially loving, honest etc., and therefore, in all worlds at which God exists, his commands are going to be consistent with his nature. And therefore, in all worlds, he will disapprove of lying.

Theists may indeed want to say that God is essentially loving, honest etc., but unfortunately they have no justification for saying it, other than to define God in this way. "It's God's nature," they say. But is God's nature essentially loving, honest etc., because it is God's? Or is God essentially loving, honest etc., because he is beholden to his nature? In answer, theists will eventually say that God and his nature are one and the same thing, which kind of makes the whole thing circular: God is good because good is God, and vice versa — unhelpful at best.

Moral Argument – The Shortcomings of Utilitarianism

There are various nontheistic systems of ethics, none of which succeed in providing a robust ontological foundation or objective moral values and duties. One of these systems, popularised recently by Sam Harris in his book The Moral Landscape, is called utilitarianism, and (in its most common formulation) refers to the view that ethics are determined by what constitutes the greatest happiness for the greatest number. One difficulty lies in the fact that it attempts to balance two different scales employed to assess the moral virtue of an action (i.e. the amount of utility produced and the number of people affected). This can often lead to conflicting answers—in some cases an activity might be considered better for a greater number of individuals whereas a different activity might create a greater overall utility. Utilitarians try to maximize with their actions the utility of the long-term consequences of those actions. However, short of possession of omniscience, it is impossible to evaluate the respective long-term results of different activities. Utilitarianism also does not take into account the individual’s intent—Activity X could be done sincerely by an individual who believes that what he is doing will create the maximum utility. But if activity X turns out in the long-term not to produce the desired utility, then his action, under the philosophy of utilitarianism, would be considered less moral than an activity that created more utility.

Yeah, this stuff is hard, in case you hadn't noticed. So much easier to look it up in a book, and disregard any subsequent ramifications. Personally I'd rather entrust moral decisions to people who have carefully considered the circumstances and consequences of those decisions, than entrust them to a bunch of Christians with a crib-sheet.

Moral Argument – Conclusion
In conclusion, the moral argument is a robust argument for the existence of God.

Actually it's not.

Humans, being shaped in the image of God, have an intuitive sense of right and wrong.

Christians like to say that humans are "shaped in the image of God," but this is one of those meaningless phrases they can never explain. And the reason why we have an intuitive sense of right and wrong is because we have an evolved conscience.

It is not at all clear how the atheist, except at the expense of moral realism, can maintain an objective standard of ethics without such a being as God as his ontological foundation.

 It's not at all clear to Jonathan McLatchie — that much is clear.