What would it take to convince you that you're mistaken?

A critical test of anyone who appears to hold fundamental - or indeed fundamentalist - beliefs, is to ask the question, "What would it take to convince you that you're mistaken?" Someone who is convinced beyond reason that their beliefs are true will always reply to the effect that nothing would convince them. This is a sure sign of unreasonable fixed belief, and it's not worth anyone's time trying to argue them out of their position.

It's a question often asked of atheists, but Michael Shermer's flippant response, "A deposit of ten million dollars in a Swiss bank account under my name," doesn't count*.

For myself, the idea of a personal God who listens to your thoughts, answers your prayers, obsesses over what you do with your sexual organs and demands worship on pain of eternal banishment to some undefined unpleasantness, is absurd in the extreme and not worthy of consideration. I therefore find it hard to imagine anything that could convince me that such a God exists. Nevertheless, just because I can't imagine it, doesn't mean it's not a possibility, however remote. There's a chance I could be convinced of God's existence, but only if He convinced me Himself, in person, in a manner congruent with my reasonable standards for evidence. I will not, however, accept his petition from any third party.

The probability of such a petition is highly unlikely, I believe, but (as I've already indicated) not completely out of the question.

There is, however, an area where I would be more likely to accept the existence of some kind of intelligent creator - though this intelligence would bear little resemblance to the God of scripture.

If scientific analysis were to reveal that the Big Bang could not have been instigated by anything other than the creative will of some kind of intelligence, science might have to concede that the universe came about by other than natural processes. But speculation about what happened at, during, just before or just after the Big Bang appears to be mired in philosophy rather than science, with doubts about whether you can meaningfully say anything temporal or spacial about an event that brought both space and time into existence. (You might also question your definition of 'natural processes'.)

Similarly, if science were to show that the presence of information in DNA could not have originated naturally, the existence of some agency that inserted the information would have to be postulated. But we would have no reason to call that agent 'God'. Just because such an agent would likely be beyond our comprehension, we are not barred from speculating on its origins.

What applies to DNA also applies to the Big Bang. Calling the originator of the Big Bang 'God', or the originator of the information present in DNA 'God', simply stops all further speculation. It's an abdication of intellectual responsibility, not worthy of science, and should be deplored.

Science has yet to explain these things, but that doesn't mean the answer is "Goddidit."

There are many arguments for the existence of God, and the Argument from Design (also known as the teleological argument) is the least weak.

(*During a recent debate in Australia between John Lennox and Michael Shermer, the moderator asked Shermer, "What piece of evidence, formula, piece of reasoning, whatever ... what would cause you to believe in God?")

Fantasy on a Thursday night: Apparitions - BBC1

Utter tosh or serious religious fiction?

Apparently the new high-profile drama Apparitions, starring Martin Shaw, was originally scheduled for the beginning of this year, but is only now appearing on UK TV screens:

http://www.sfx.co.uk/page/sfx?entry=exclusive_interview_joe_ahearne_on

It's earnest stuff, judging by the first two episodes, with plenty of gore and special effects, but it has a problem with credibility. Being based on Catholicism, it inevitably elicits rolled eyes as the main characters come out with religious nonsense as if it were established fact. Martin Shaw plays a Catholic priest who moonlights as an exorcist - naturally he's very good, playing it as Judge John Deed in a dog collar.

It will be interesting to see whether the Catholic Church denounces the show. I have a feeling it won't. It didn't denounce the film The Exorcist, and probably rightly so, as everything in that film ought to have reinforced any Catholic's faith.

And if the Catholic Church doesn't denounce Apparitions, are we to interpret that as tacit approval - that the things it portrays are in line with Catholic doctrine?

Religion or Cult - is there any difference?

[I]f you pound people hard enough with certainty when they're feeling vulnerable under the pressures of life; if you offer them instant family when their lives are poor in friendship; if you offer them a message which makes meaning of life, when their lives are confused and problematical; if you offer them a special task - to spread the group's gospel when their work is dull or meaningless, or they can find no work to do; if you offer them clear leadership when they can find no-one to admire or believe in or follow in their world or church; if you offer all this, together with intoxicating, mind numbing worship - then you're offering a powerful package which many people will buy.

The passage above, spoken on air only yesterday, is a comprehensive exposition of the mind-wrecking aspects of religion. But this wasn't some so-called New Atheist ranting against the evils of faith, this was The Rt Rev. Tom Butler, whom you can hear delivering his Thought for the Day on BBC Radio 4 here:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/realmedia/thought/t20081118.ram

You can read the whole thing for yourself here:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/programmes/thought/documents/t20081118.shtml

Burnee links for Wednesday

How atheists robbed me of my faith in atheism | Comment is free | guardian.co.uk

Susan McCarthy: Tact means not saying 'you're going hell', or, 'I don't believe it' | Comment is free | guardian.co.uk

Put creationism on a par with evolution, say third of teachers - Times Online

NeuroLogica Blog » Reflexology in UK Schools

Greg M. Epstein: Atheism/Agnosticism Plus Compassion Equals Humanism - On Faith at washingtonpost.com

(Just a few links this week - I've been busy.)

Fires of Hell

The flames of hell, the lake of fire, eternal torment, unremitting agony - it sounds tough, and sufficiently off-putting to deter any potential sinner.

"But it's not like that," say the religious moderates. "That's an outmoded view of Hell," they say. "Hell," they say, "is separation from God."

Oh really. Well in that case, as an atheist I'm here to tell you - it's not so bad.

Californians are selfish?

Sooner or later we'll have to deal with this in the UK, but for now we can only look in abject amazement at what the Californian majority has done.

Personally I can't understand it. The nearest thing I can liken the passing of Proposition 8 to is an unbelievably selfish dog-in-the-manger attitude. We can be thankful for one small mercy I suppose: at least those same-sex marriages that occurred during the brief respite will not be annulled.

"Marriage is ours! You can't have it!" seems to encapsulate what the vote is saying. The majority don't want gay marriage. Fine, it's entirely up to you whether you approve or not. But don't deny it to those who do want it. Gay marriages aren't performed in church, so it's not a religious issue.

In the UK we have church marriages and we have registry office marriages. The church should consider itself privileged that signing the register as part of a church ceremony counts as a legal wedding. Those who don't wish for a church ceremony can have a civil wedding at a registry office - and they will be legally married under UK law.

The church is free to make up its own rules as to who can and can't be married in church (though in the case of the Church of England it's a bit more complicated than that, because they are the 'established church'). Those who don't like the rules can get married in a registry office.

It seems to me that what's happened in California is that the majority has voted for the church to have dominion over the secular. In a country whose constitution explicitly forbids such interference, this is a serious matter indeed.

In the general euphoria surrounding the news that the American electorate made a wise choice on November 4, the passing of Proposition 8 in California is unpleasant and embarrassing.

UPDATE, 2008-11-12:

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

Burnee links for Sunday (belated post - more soon)

Missed a post last Sunday - here's what would have been in it (probably) . . .

---

"Website censorship erodes the very freedoms that the home secretary
purports to defend"

John Ozimek: A victory for the terrorists | Comment is free | guardian.co.uk

The UK's law banning the display of material that "directly or
indirectly" encourages terrorism is likely to be unenforceable.

---

"There is no contradiction between creation and science, says Benedict XVI"

Stephen Hawking to address Vatican conference on evolution -Times Online

"The Catholic Church accepts evolution, but sees it as part of the
divine plan. Pope Benedict has been described as a 'theistic
evolutionist' who believes that God created life through evolution,
and thus that there is no inherent clash between religion and science.

"The Catholic Church does not take the Genesis story that God created
the world in six days literally, regarding it instead as an allegory.
However some Christians - not least in the United States - do take the
Genesis account literally and object to evolution being taught in
school."

---

"A passion for conservative values has united diverse Christian
groups, giving them influence way beyond their numbers"

Religion remains fundamental to US politics | Susan Jacoby - Times Online

"To most of my European friends, an inexplicable aspect of American
culture is the quixotic persistence and social influence of religious
fundamentalism. They cannot understand how Americans could seriously
consider for the second highest office in the land a candidate who has
worshipped all her adult life at churches where congregants believe
the literal truth of every word in the Bible and practise 'speaking in
tongues'. Thanks to YouTube, we even know that Sarah Palin has been
blessed to protect her against witchcraft."

(Some of the comments on this article are discouraging, to say the least.)

---

Vatican approves psychological tests for screening out homosexuals :: Damian Thompson

"The Vatican has given cautious approval to the use of psychological
tests to root out men with 'deep-seated homosexual tendencies' from
seminaries. Rome first used this phrase in 2005, when it said that
these tendencies were a bar to ordination; now, in a document released
today, it sanctions the use of tests to identify those 'deep-seated'
traits - but not without the seminarian's permission.

"Voluntary tests can also be used to identify men for whom the burden
of celibacy is too great and will cause emotional disturbance even if
they manage to keep their vows."

---

Two posts from Tim Farley:
The Long Tail of Skeptical Web Sites « Skeptical Software Tools

Skeptics! Load your google bombs! « Skeptical Software Tools
If you've previously linked to Stop Sylvia Browne, you should now link to Stop Sylvia Dot Com, like this: Stop Sylvia Browne. Why is this important? See Tim's post.

---