New episode of Skepticule posted

Skepticule-002-20091001 is now posted.

Subscribe now!

In an hour or so I shall be on my way to TAM London, so expect some TAM-related posts next week.

Burnee links for Saturday

A Tale of Two Atheists
An unexpected assessment of a recent (invited) clash of opinion in the Wall Street Journal. Albert Mohler, president of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, clearly realises the difference between someone who uses language to explicate, and someone who uses it to obfuscate.

Lord Falconer suggests Archbishop of Canterbury’s stance on assisted suicide lacks Christian compassion - Telegraph:

"Dr Williams issued a rare joint statement with the Chief Rabbi, Sir Jonathan Sacks, and the Archbishop of Westminster, the Most Rev Vincent Nichols, stating their opposition to any change in the law on assisted suicide before Lord Falconer’s failed amendment. They spoke of their fears that vulnerable people would feel under pressure to end their lives and relieve the burden on family if assisted suicide were decriminalised."

It seems to me that these religious leaders aren't against assisted suicide because of some pious concern about putting the vulnerable elderly under pressure - they're against it because suicide is a "sin".

St Therese of Lisieux: come out, atheists, and fight | Matthew Parris - Times Online
As someone who has a professional interest in these relics, or rather in the reliquary containing them (or rather, in the stand on which the reliquary sits in one particular Roman Catholic Cathedral), I too find the whole charade patently ridiculous. (I've not seen the actual stand itself, and the reported long queues mean I probably never will....)

Ways of Knowing : EvolutionBlog
Are there different kinds of truth? As with a lot of discussion, it helps if the participants are using terms in the same way.

Unscientific America: Mooney & Kirshenbaum reviewed in BMJ
The reaction to M+K's accommodationist tome has been overwhelmingly negative (among those whose opinions I value).

Greta Christina's Blog: How Dare You Atheists Make Your Case! Or, The Fisking of Armstrong, 123
More plain speaking from Greta Christina - which is particularly appropriate given that this is a critique of Karen Armstrong, who's writing appears to be deliberately geared to impede communication rather than facilitate it.

Andrew Sullivan’s mushy theodicy « Why Evolution Is True
Jerry Coyne cuts through the mush. Once more I'm reminded why I'm on the side of Coyne, PZ Myers and Richard Dawkins regarding "accommodationism".
(via Pharyngula)

New episode of Skepticule now available

Skepticule-001-20090920 is now posted.

Subscribe now!

Is it worth arguing with theologians?

Over at Daylight Atheism there's a discussion about original sin. This is one of those fascinatingly odd ideas of Christianity that defies logic, though it's endlessly debated by earnestly learned theologians. I piped up in the comments to the effect that I didn't see the point of the discussion, and was roundly rebutted. Such debates can be interesting in a "let's see how far we can get with this puzzle" kind of way, but I don't see how they could sway those taking part. People who are prepared to argue at length about these issues are probably already fairly entrenched in their views.

Maybe the idea is to say something like "OK, let's for the sake of argument assume that God exists, and explore the ramifications of that assumption." But in what way is pointing out the logical inconsistencies of those ramifications likely to lead theists to question the initial assumption?

Let's assume for the sake of argument that there are fairies at the bottom of my garden. What is the point of discussing what they eat in the winter or how long it takes to dry off the dew from their wings in the morning before they are able to fly? Can you really have a useful discussion with someone who believes they have rational answers to such questions?

My fear is that by conceding the initial assumption, albeit temporarily, we also concede the legitimacy of the subsequent arguments, when such legitimacy is clearly unwarranted.

I'm an equal-opportunity sceptic. My stance is that we should deal even-handedly with creationists, alt-med proponents, psychics ... and theologians. It was pointed out to me, however, that though the participants of such discussions are unlikely to be persuaded from their respective positions, it is likely that there are others observing the discussion, and therefore it's useful to pursue the arguments for the simple reason that many agnostics - and even firm believers - have come to doubt their previously unchallenged beliefs by hearing them questioned.

This fits with my established opinion that religious fundamentalists (creationists, for example) should be publicly challenged because it alerts the religious moderates that nonsense is being promulgated in their name. So in response to the question posed in the title of this post, I hereby revise my answer to "yes".

"Religion and the Web" - BBC Radio 4, 2009-07-20

Beyond Belief is a long-standing BBC Radio 4 series, hosted by Ernie Rea, dealing with the religious interface with the everyday. Back in July it covered the internet:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00lny4g

The audio is available on iPlayer:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/console/b00lny4g

The first half of this 28-minute radio programme consists of various pro and con arguments about internet social networks, which mostly come down to "The internet isn't real!" (and therefore of little use in relationships). In particular the seminarian from Colorado seems to take the view that the internet is no good because it wasn't mentioned in the Bible, quoting a verse from John that he interprets as valuing face-to-face communication over writing letters. (Er... tell that to St Paul?)

But he misses the point. The internet is not something wholly different and "evil", it is merely an extension of previous media and means of communication. As host of The Rev Up Review podcast I contacted many people in the United States by email, instant messaging and Skype - people I am unlikely to have contacted otherwise. They would have been effectively out of my reach here in Portsmouth, UK.

Were these relationships of any less value that face-to-face ones? Perhaps. But in 2007 I flew across the Atlantic to attend a convention, and I met them in person, face-to-face. So these particular "internet" relationships are now exactly equivalent to "real life" relationships. Without the internet, however, they would almost certainly never have existed.

Listeners beyond the reach of iPlayer can download the mp3 audio from RapidShare:
http://rapidshare.com/files/341818810/BeyondBelief_ReligionAndTheWeb_20090720.mp3

Burnee links for Tuesday

Sex, flies and videotape: the secret lives of Harun Yahya | New Humanist
Creationists generally seem to be ignorant, deluded or disingenuous. Here's one who is deeply sinister.

Saving gods by making them even emptier of meaning : Pharyngula
PZ Myers muses on Karen Armstrong versus Richard Dawkins, and comes out with this great quote: "Science gets the job done, while religion makes excuses." I hear PZ is writing a book; let's hope we don't have to wait too long for it.

Creation Science Movement: The Vital Green-chlorophyll a 'tiny mutation'
"Its [sic] a world of complexity beyond my ability to follow, with many highly complicated interactions between enzymes and structures all of which have to be perfect for any of the others to make sense and for the whole to function" (my emphasis). Therefore Goddidit.

What If I Took My Students on a Field Trip to Get Debaptized? | Friendly Atheist by @hemantmehta
I live in the UK; the shenanigans perpetrated by the American religious never cease to amaze me.

Creation Museum Part 1 | Rationality Now
Here's Dan Gilbert's thorough report and analysis of Kentucky's Creation Museum (without the distraction of a 300-strong horde of atheist students).

"The Creation Museum makes it very clear that Noah took dinosaurs onto the ark. They’re very clear that dinosaurs lived with humans. They’re very clear that they really have no concept whatsoever of science… or reality. They are, however, exquisite craftsmen who make awesome dioramas."

Dan's photographs are small on the blog, but you can click on them to see them in hi-res (and well worth the clicking).
(via Friendly Atheist)

Tony Blair “profoundly wrong” to imagine religion as a peacemaking tool | National Secular Society
Tony's at it again, saying that if religions tolerate each other, peace will ensue. But how likely are religions to do such a thing? Not at all likely, given the lessons of history.

Greta Christina's Blog: Atheism and Patience
Why atheists must not tire of responding to the same old arguments they've heard time and time again.

I’m not a skeptical celebrity, how can I be involved? - Rational Moms
Useful advice and encouragement from Laurie T.
(via Bad Astronomy)

www.lifebite.co.uk | News Detail | The Greatest Showman on Earth
A creationist reviews the Times' extracts from Richard Dawkins' new book.

AfF #7: Argument from Scripture

(Click here for Arguments for Fred #6)

God exists because it says so in the Bible. How do we know the Bible is true? It says so in the Bible. But that's circular reasoning! How do we know it's circular reasoning? Because the laws of logic say so. How do we know the laws of logic are true? Because the laws of logic say so. But that's circular reasoning!

Does the above place the Bible on a par with the laws of logic? No, because the "God exists because it says so in the Bible" argument is invoking the laws of logic, while the initial accusation of circular reasoning does not invoke the veracity of the Bible. The two arguments are not equivalent, because one is internally consistent (the laws of logic say that circular reasoning isn't proof of anything) while the other (the veracity of the Bible) must rely on something external to itself (the laws of logic):

"It's okay to use circular reasoning to prove the truth of the Bible, because reasoning itself is circular when it says circular reasoning doesn't prove anything."

Clearly a tu quoque argument par excellence.*
_____
*Why use only one language when you can use three?