TAM London edition of Skepticule now available

Skepticule-003-20091014 is now posted.

Subscribe now!

This edition features an interview with satirical blogger Crispian Jago.

The purpose of life

This post is sparked by an interesting recent episode of The Unbelievers, an engaging podcast out of New Zealand, in which the two hosts discussed (among other things) the idea of purpose, and how it colours the perception of both religious and non-religious people. While they agreed that atheism does not itself have a purpose, they nevertheless went on to speculate that the purpose of life could in some sense be "to reproduce". This, I feel, illustrates the strong grip that the idea of "intention" has on our human way of thinking, and it's not, in my opinion, helpful.

In the absence of a religious purpose for human life (for instance, "the glorification of God"), it might seem reasonable for perpetuation of the species to be offered as a substitute. But reproduction is simply what humans, and other species, do. If they didn't, they would become extinct. Reproduction is not, therefore, a purpose, but simply the result of evolution. Those that are best at reproduction (which includes being good at surviving to reproductive age) are the ones who pass on their genes to the most offspring.

Such a statement is somewhat tautologous ("the ones that survive are the ones that survive"), but its very tautology shows why the idea of a "purpose" behind it is wrong-headed. Human reproduction is the way it is as a result of random mutation and natural selection. There never was any over-arching intention or purpose behind it. Any instinctive impulse to reproduce is there because those without such an impulse tended not to reproduce.

But if there's no intrinsic purpose to life, why are we here? That, surely, is entirely up to us.

Simon Singh at TAM London

Simon Singh, bastion of journalistic integrity with his stand against an apparently vexatious libel suit brought against him by the British Chiropractic Association, talked initially about the Bible Code, which is the idea that holy scripture contains hidden references to modern events — or in other words predictions — and therefore must be the true Word of God. This, apparently, is nonsense and has been shown to be such by applying the same "decoding" techniques to other literature. For instance, Herman Melville's Moby Dick can be shown to contain hidden references to the death of Diana, Princess of Wales.

This was but preamble to what I think most of us in the audience wanted to hear: the story so far regarding the libel suit. Singh then told us the story, explaining why he decided not to back down, and illustrated how his stand has raised two related but separate issues: the threat to freedom of speech, where essential and legitimate criticism of bogus practices is suppressed — often by journalists' self-censorship for fear of being sued; and the absurdly inflated costs of defending a libel case in England — to the point where aggrieved plaintiffs go out of their way to sue in this country because they know that in most cases a defendant cannot afford to win, let alone lose. Another reason he cited for not backing down, "Because I'm right," elicited spontaneous applause from the TAM London audience.

Singh explained all this without once uttering the "contentious" phrase that apparently triggered the BCA's action. That was left to the blogger "Jack of Kent" (aka lawyer David Allen Green) who during the Q & A read the offending paragraph from Singh's Guardian article. I was pleased to meet the notorious Jack of Kent the previous evening at the Penderel's Oak in Holborn, where several of those attending the "secret" George Hrab gig gravitated afterwards. Jack of Kent explained during conversation on Friday evening that as a lawyer he's able to say stuff others can't, because he knows just how far he can go without being sued.

Simon Singh thanked all those who continue to support him in the stand he's taking, singling out satirical blogger Crispian Jago for lightening his spirit.

For our part, the TAM London audience gave Simon Singh a standing ovation.

Theodicy, or idiocy?

Listening to a recent episode of Unbelievable? in which Andrew Wilson and Norman Bacrac discussed their occasionally coincident views of God, I was struck once again by how the subject of theology seems to have been invented purely as an attempt to reconcile the inconsistencies of god-belief. The fact that theologians appear to tie themselves in logical knots trying to show how an omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent and omnibenevolent deity is somehow compatible and consistent with the physical universe as we perceive it, simply shows that they refuse to accept the most parsimonious explanation.

Theodicy, for example, is a real problem, but it's a problem that goes away entirely if you apply Occam's razor and accept that in all probability God doesn't exist.

For a relentless no-holds-barred take-down of theology, see this recent post from Chris Ray at Factonista:

Why skeptics do not, and should not, waste their time with academic theology | Factonista

Burnee links for Friday

The discarded crutches prove that miracles can happen - Telegraph:

"Lourdes is littered with discarded crutches and we can argue the toss about whether it’s a result of psychosomatic healing or divine help. But a remarkable number of those miracles of healing have been independently verified by doctors with no church connections. And that’s a fact."

I think you'll find "the fact" is that in the history of Lourdes pilgrimages, less than a hundred Vatican-ratified miracles are deemed to have occurred. Taken as a percentage of the total number of pilgrims visiting the shrine in the hope of a miracle, that's an appalling record.

Call to stop relaxation of assisted suicide rules amid questions about Lord Phillips' role - Telegraph:

In an interview with The Daily Telegraph’s columnist Mary Riddell on Sept 11, Lord Phillips said he felt “enormous sympathy” for terminally ill patients who wanted to end their own lives in assisted suicides.

He added that he sympathised with people facing a “quite hideous termination of their life” as a result of “horrible diseases” who wanted to avoid a prolonged death and spare their relatives pain or distress.

The campaigners claimed that these remarks showed that Lord Phillips had allowed his personal views to colour his judgement in the Purdy case - which overturned two early decisions by more junior courts - as the country’s senior Law Lord.

Would it have been better if Lord Phillips had said he felt "no sympathy" for terminally ill patients? The Christian Legal Centre seem to be impugning the man simply because they don't agree with his judgement, when all he's doing is showing that he can see both sides of the argument - which is surely what we want in a judge.

Dr. Frank Lipman: Swine Flu: What To Do? - The Huffington Post
Authoritative advice from someone described as an "Integrative Physician" (maybe he uses calculus as a diagnostic tool). So what happened to "complementary" and "alternative"? (Personally I prefer the term "quack".) Here's his final piece of advice:

14) Keep homeopathic Oscillococcinum on hand

Take it at the earliest sign of a cold or flu. Early intervention is essential. If you are exposed to someone with the flu directly, you can take one dose twice a day for two days. You can also take one vial once a week throughout the winter, and two or three times a week during flu season, as a preventative measure.

Well, at least you won't die of thirst (or perhaps it's sugar-deprivation).
(Via Pharyngula)

A creationist edition of The Origin « Why Evolution Is True
I try to be charitable. I don't like to label people stupid unjustly. But Ray Comfort and Kirk Cameron give every appearance of being willfully stupid. Ignorance, of course, is no crime, but Comfort has been told time and again where he's getting the most basic aspects of evolutionary theory wrong, yet he persists in spouting non-scientific nonsense. He's completely out of his depth, but appears not to realise it. Or if he does realise it, he's just plain dishonest. Jerry Coyne has the right idea:

"Enough. You don’t have to read this introduction; the theology is as dreadful as the science."

William Lane Craig Provides the “Scholarly” Basis for Holy Horror « manicstreetpreacher's blog
Craig's God is for those of a strong stomach only. This deity's morals are the epitome of fickle caprice - he may lay down the law for you, but he doesn't follow it himself. And he may even command you to break his law ("Do as I say, not as I do"). And anyway, what does it matter if innocents are slaughtered? If they're innocent they'll be going to heaven that much sooner. Manicstreetpreacher dissects Craig's repugnant moral philosophy with surgical abandon.

Advice for atheists? : Pharyngula
PZ is getting uppity. (What, again?)

Greta Christina's Blog: Atheism and History: A Grandiose Thought
Greta Christina is thinking big.

The First Amendment and Obama’s Administration | Center for Inquiry
Ibn Warraq points out that the approval of the recent UN Human Rights Council resolution (US co-sponsored) against - among other things - "negative stereotyping of religions" ought to mean that the First Amendment be repealed. Somehow I don't think that's going to happen.

BBC NEWS | Magazine | When sceptics fight back
BBC coverage of TAM London

The Amazing Meeting, London: Skeptics In The Pub Grows Up - Londonist
More coverage of TAM London

WEEK 1a: “Christianity: Boring, Untrue and Irrelevant?” « Alpha Course: Reviewed
The beginning of Stephen Butterfield's series of blog posts on the Alpha Course.

Science, Reason and Critical Thinking: TAM London
Upcoming Skepticule interviewee Crispian Jago gives us his TAM London round-up.

TAM London in review | Bad Astronomy | Discover Magazine
JREF president Phil Plait reviews the event.

Why skeptics do not, and should not, waste their time with academic theology | Factonista
a) Theology is irrelevant, b) Theology is about dishonesty, c) Theology is without substance.

Jon Ronson at TAM London

When the gnome-like figure of Jon Ronson* mounted the Mermaid stage I was pleasantly surprised to find that the impression of flabbergasted diffidence given by his media appearances seems to be his natural persona. My previous knowledge of him derives from two programmes: a BBC Radio 4 documentary about Robbie Williams attending a UFO convention to speak to alien abductees, and a Channel 4 film in the recent Revelations series, about the Alpha Course.

I'm currently reading his book, Them - Adventures with Extremists, and finding it compulsive. Ronson has a down-to-earth narrative style that's hard to put down.

He began his presentation with a trailer for the film The Men Who Stare at Goats, based on his book of the same name, though he said he had nothing to do with the making of the film. It's about the US military's psychic spying programme, which bizarrely included attempts to kill with the power of the mind. Hence the goats, which were used as target practice. Ronson showed a few other clips from the film as he outlined the absurdity of it all.

I vaguely remember a BBC Horizon programme from decades ago on this subject, and I remember my amazement watching it. Surely, I thought, the US military weren't really doing this? The TV programme itself seemed to remain neutral on the veracity of the claims, which included "remote viewing", but to me the whole thing appeared completely crackpot.

Ronson also showed a clip verifying his dubious distinction of having a weapon named after him. The "Ronsonator" is a fiendish device, as we saw during demonstrations of similar weapons, which could perhaps be described as the knuckle-dusters from Hell:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BSM-bhQUJ-8



During the Q & A Ronson answered questions about his film on the Alpha Course, updated us on the whereabouts of one of the subjects of Them, and declined to talk about his current project, which is about Scientology, other than to say that his relations with the Scientologists had so far been cordial. Fascinating stuff.
________
*Jon Ronson's website froze my browser (Firefox Mac) - you have been warned.

Absolute knowledge of God's existence

Would it not be possible for an omnipotent God to implant into someone's mind the certain knowledge that he exists?

If that were possible, and if it has happened, then there is - or was - at least one person who at some point in time has known with absolute certainty that God exists. I'm not talking about faith here; by absolute certainty I mean certainty of God's existence, plus the additional certainty that such knowledge is true. This is knowledge that doesn't require proof, or even evidence. It just is.

Would such knowledge qualify as "properly basic belief"? If so, and you come across someone who claims as much, and additionally claims to possess such knowledge, then there's absolutely no point in engaging them in debate about the truth or otherwise of their belief, because they know what they know, and rational argument will be futile. This person knows that God exists, and nothing will shake that knowledge because it is true knowledge.

To anyone else, however, such "knowledge" - whether true knowledge or not - is indistinguishable from delusion.