The truth about Islam?

From the Radio Times website:

The Qur'an

Monday 14 July
8:00pm - 10:00pm
Channel 4

Too many Westerners criticise Islam while lacking a basic knowledge of it; this long (two hours) but rewarding primer is full of revelations. It reports what the Qur'an actually says about killing to defend the faith, and about women, and explains how Sharia operates, the differences between Sunni and Shia, and the recent influence of Saudi Wahhabism. It also reminds us that the Qur'an sanctifies Mary and Jesus, and that its emphasis on intellectual enquiry put medieval Muslim scholars ahead of ours. (Not to mention architects, who are lauded daily (7.50pm C4) as part of The Seven Wonders of the Muslim World.) Sticking to analysing the text would have made the film shorter, and perhaps better: the sections on "Islamic" terrorists skate over complex conflicts, giving succour to extremists on both sides. But the discovery that the violent and the virtuous can find support in the Qur'an is central to a portrait of a religion that, like so many others, is built on an arcane, equivocal text.

RT reviewer - Jack Seale

VIDEO Plus+: 4085

Subtitled, High definition

This appears to be part of Channel 4's current Islamic stream of TV. On the same day C4 will also give us The Seven Wonders of the Muslim World and Shariah TV.

It should be interesting.

Women bishops have a problem with reality

On the Today programme this morning:

Thirteen hundred clergy, including several bishops, have written to the Archbishops of Canterbury and York in protest at the prospect of women being made bishops. Canon Beaumont Brandie, from the group Forward in Faith which opposes women priests, says this as a warning shot to the Church that they must do something to respect their views.

Listen to the streaming audio here:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/today/hi/today/newsid_7483000/7483108.stm



The problem with the appointment of women bishops, apparently, is that according to a certain faction within the Anglican Church, they might not be "real" bishops, and consequently any male priests they ordain would not be "real" priests. And therefore any Communion Services these priests conduct would not be "genuine."

I'm sorry, I couldn't help laughing.

Is DNA proof of intelligent design?

"Everything we know about coded information leads us to believe that it requires a designer. DNA is coded information, therefore DNA requires a designer."

I've heard statements similar to the above put forward as scientific evidence for an intelligent designer. Rephrased as a formal syllogism it becomes:

Coded information requires a designer; DNA is coded information; therefore DNA requires a designer.

But the first premise only tells part of the story. Coded information has been produced in vast quantities, by humans. Every instance of coded information, other than DNA, has been produced by humans. Are we to infer that the information in DNA was produced by humans?

The problem with the argument as initially phrased is that everything we know about coded information is probably not everything there is to know about it. Until Darwin, the same logic was used to show that the complexity of life requires a designer. It doesn't. There may well be something fundamentally simple and elegant - the equivalent of Darwinian natural selection - that will explain how coded information can arise naturally. Just because we don't yet know what it is, doesn't make positing a designer (intelligent or otherwise) at all valid.

'Homeopathy works!' - Mail Online

Homeopathy really does work and doctors should recognise its healing effects, say researchers.

This is from the Mail Online website. I don't know if it's also in the printed version (I try to avoid the Mail if at all possible). But the title above, including the quotation marks, is the title used on the site. So maybe this is a sceptical report after all - who can tell? Is this an example of the Mail just presenting the facts, with no imposed spin?

A study found that allergy sufferers who were given homeopathic treatment were ten times more likely to be cured than those given a dummy pill instead.

What kind of study?

The study was carried out by doctors in Glasgow, led by Dr David Reilly of the Glasgow Homeopathic Hospital, one of five specialist hospitals in Britain. He said the difference in results from the two treatments was statistically significant.

Ah. Well he would say that, wouldn't he, being "of the Glasgow Homeopathic Hospital"?

Or perhaps I'm being unfair. Perhaps this was a double-blinded, randomised clinical trial. The phrase "clinical trials" is actually attributed to Dr Reilly later in the report, so I posted a comment* on the article, suggesting that we might like to see references to his study, so that it can be checked out, and perhaps reveal homeopathy to be the wonderfully efficacious evidence-based medicine it has hitherto failed to be considered as.

Or not.

*UPDATE 2008-07-01:

Well, I tried to post a comment. It didn't appear, and I can't believe I was the only one who tried. Despite the invitation to share your thoughts, it seems the Mail doesn't want any feedback on this article**.

**UPDATE 2008-08-01:

It has come to my attention that this is an old article from 2003. Unfortunately Mail Online gives no indication of this on its website, but it presumably explains why comments are not being accepted.

The Atheist Thirteen

Taking up Nullifidian's challenge:

(If you’d like to take part, copy these questions, and answer them in your own words on your own blog.)

Q1. How would you define “atheism”?

Atheism is not believing in god(s). Strictly speaking, a-theism is not believing in a theistic god, so one could perhaps be an atheist and a deist at the same time. Whatever, atheism is not a religion. Nor is it, strictly, the active denial of the existence of gods.

Q2. Was your upbringing religious? If so, what tradition?

Anglican. C of E. I went to a Methodist Sunday School.

Q3. How would you describe “Intelligent Design”, using only one word?

Antiscience.

Q4. What scientific endeavour really excites you?

Computer technology. This is science that has direct and immediate impact on a huge number of people, in so many different ways.

Q5. If you could change one thing about the “atheist community”, what would it be and why?

If only atheists could agree with each other, some momentum for social change could be built up. But that's a forlorn hope - atheists tend to be independent and freethinking. They arrive at their views by their own considered thinking process, so it's hardly surprising there's no agreed script. The religious have dogma, so they don't need to think about these things....

Q6. If your child came up to you and said “I’m joining the clergy”, what would be your first response?

Surprise. Because, for a start, I don't have any children.

Q7. What’s your favourite theistic argument, and how do you usually refute it?

The teleological argument: that without God, the universe has no meaning or purpose. Guess what? The universe has no meaning or purpose.

Q8. What’s your most “controversial” (as far as general attitudes amongst other atheists goes) viewpoint?

That religious moderates aren't really religious? I don't understand how anyone can be considered truly religious without being devoutly religious. And it's a short step from devout to fundamentalist - that's why I think religion should be stamped out.

Q9. Of the “Four Horsemen” (Dawkins, Dennett, Hitchens and Harris) who is your favourite, and why?

Horses (horsemen) for courses: Dawkins for his careful consideration and precise expression; Dennett for his gentle, rational deconstruction of religion; Hitchens for his rapier intellect in a scrap; and Harris for his sublime mastery of language.

Q10. If you could convince just one theistic person to abandon their beliefs, who would it be?

Pope Benny. There are lots of cranky religions out there, but the Roman Catholics have global reach, and their loony superstitions bear down with an alarming weight of numbers.

Now name three other atheist blogs that you’d like to see take up the Atheist Thirteen gauntlet:

1. Pharyngula
2. onegoodmove
3. Julia Sweeney

Hurry up now - there's not much of Friday the Thirteenth left!

The rational atheist - August Berkshire on KKMS Live! with Jeff & Lee

August Berkshire, president of Minnesota Atheists, was recently (23 May 2008) a guest on KKMS Live! with Jeff & Lee, during a segment entitled Understanding and Responding to Atheists' Beliefs. It was a generally civilised discussion, with people calling in with questions or comments. The audio is available as an mp3 file here:

http://www.kkmslive.com/MP3/17052308-AugustBerkshire.MP3

In his quiet, rational and persistently patient manner August dealt swiftly with every point raised. Anyone who consistently accuses atheists of being militant should listen to this 40-minute programme.

Thought for the Day: Time to retire this tired old format

Thought for the Day is a regular three-minute spot on the BBC's premier morning news radio show, Today, and has been for as long as I can remember. Despite its seeming permanence, it is misnamed - it should be called Religious Thought for the Day.

This morning's Thought, for example, was from Abdal Hakim Murad, Muslim Chaplain at the University of Cambridge. (The BBC seems keen to give a platform to various faiths, but not to anyone of no faith.) The Chaplain's Thought was an irrelevant musing on whether or not students should be allowed to take performance-enhancing drugs before examinations. This could be an interesting ethical question, but here it was inevitably mired in muddled thinking and unwarranted assumptions.

Listen for yourself on the BBC's listen again service:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/realmedia/thought/t20080523.ram


Download RealPlayer here

...or get the mp3 version via podcast:
http://downloads.bbc.co.uk/podcasts/radio4/thought/rss.xml

(The script of this Thought is not yet available, but I'll post an update when it is, along with my comments.)

UPDATE, 2008-05-27:

The text of Friday's Thought for the Day is now available here:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/programmes/thought/documents/t20080523.shtml

Here are a few excerpts:

Those who work in schools or universities know, as one of the privileges of their vocation, the moving splendour of the unfolding of human intelligence, surely the greatest sign of God.

Surely not. The unfolding of human intelligence (or its moving splendour) can signify various things, but there's no evidence that God is one of them.

In our world of matter, there is the miracle of consciousness.

This assumes that consciousness is something that cannot be produced by matter alone. It's a philosophical point that has not been shown to be true.

Are we, in our pharmaceutically unmodified state, as God intends us to be?

Whether modified or not, the assumption that our state is somehow the subject of the intention of a supernatural power, is unwarranted.

So if the brain exists to understand and cultivate God's earth, and to work out the existence and nature of God, what could be wrong with improving it by artificial means?

The operative word is the second one in the above quote - if. But there's no evidence that the brain exists to do anything of the sort. The speaker is imputing teleology where none exists. The brain is the way it is because it has evolved that way, and evolutionary pressures are not intentional.

...we can stimulate intelligence, but we cannot produce it; it will always remain a miracle, to be used reverently and responsibly.

I'm in favour of using intelligence responsibly, and even of stimulating it, but to suggest that we cannot produce intelligence and never will, is to malign countless researchers who are endeavouring to achieve this very thing. Maybe they should all give up now and spend their time more fruitfully - counting angels on a pinhead, maybe?

Incidentally, while searching for an alternative source for the text of this Thought, I came across Platitude of the Day, a site devoted to parodies of Thought for the Day. You can find the the entry relevant to Friday's broadcast here:
http://www.platitudes.org.uk/platblog/index.php?entry=entry080523-081407