Should Christianity be silent? Ann Widdecombe projects

Once again I'm reacting to a post on the New Humanist blog — this time it's about a Daily Express article by Ann Widdecombe. I responded in the comments to the Express article, but apparently their commenting system accepts plain text only, so my carefully formatted HTML appears very untidy. (I've pasted the properly formatted version below.)

Has anyone noticed that what the opponents of religion really want is that Christianity should be silent?

What I have noticed is that Christianity is definitely not silent, and that as soon as opponents of religion raise any objection to Christianity's lack of silence on matters with which it has no business to be concerned, they are labelled "strident" or "shrill" or "militant" (or in this case, "bigoted").

Those who run the zoo have established workshops which cover the national science curriculum but do not include discussion of religion and do not promote the extreme creationist view that the world was created 6,000 years ago. In other words it is a moderate, education-focused organisation that challenges children’s minds and produces evidence from fossils.

That the zoo promotes a slightly less extreme version of creationism does not make it "moderate". It may be "education-focussed", but that's because it has a religious agenda it wants to get into British science classes. Creationism and "intelligent design" are not science.

In short the British Humanist association does not believe that children should be allowed even to discuss creation or to be exposed to any evidence that might support it.

I'm a member of the BHA myself, and I'm not aware of any prohibition on children being allowed to discuss any subject at all. As for children being exposed to "evidence" for creation, there isn't any. The only authority for creationism is in scripture, but the Book of Genesis is not a science textbook.

With regard to scientific testing of the efficacy of prayer, most properly conducted tests are negative, but this is a distraction anyway because whenever negative results are obtained, the religious can explain them away (God is not susceptible to testing; it's impossible for an omniscient deity to conform to the protocols of a randomised double blind clinical trial; how do we know that other people who are not part of the trial aren't praying for opposing results. And so on.) I'm not surprised that Ann Widdecombe should cherry-pick a supposedly positive test of prayer while failing to mention the many that have shown no effect — her grasp of scientific method was exposed in her TV programme about Mosaic Law: she prefers to believe the Exodus took place (because it's in the Bible) despite there being no archeological evidence for it.

She is probably right in saying that the BHA and NSS will be vocal during the Pope's visit in September.

It is as well therefore to understand their bigoted approach from the outset.

I believe the bigotry of Ann Widdecombe's church of choice was clearly displayed in her debate with Christopher Hitchens and Stephen Fry in October last year.

That Ann Widdecombe accuses opponents of religion of wanting Christianity to be silent is a classic piece of projection.

An agnostic manifestly confused

Via the New Humanist blog I came across this Slate article by Ron Rosenbaum: "An Agnostic Manifesto". Paul Sims (NH editor) describes it as "excellent", but I can only hope he's being ironic. He invited comments on the New Humanist blog, so I posted the following:

Much of this comes down to definitions. Agnosticism and to a lesser extent atheism are oft-misunderstood terms. Even theism as a description of a certain kind of religious belief leaves a lot undefined.

With this article Ron Rosenbaum is engaging heavily in the straw man fallacy. Richard Dawkins, forever portrayed as the ArchAtheist, says clearly in The God Delusion (in his chapter entitled "The God Hypothesis") that he is agnostic on the matter of the existence of God.

Rosenbaum is also mistaken if he thinks that science purports to "know everything". If that were the case there would be no point in science continuing, as there would be nothing left to discover. There's no evidence that scientists the world over are quitting their jobs and attempting to find something else to do. Science isn't yet — nor is it ever likely to be — redundant.

Faced with the fundamental question: "Why is there something rather than nothing?" atheists have faith that science will tell us eventually. Most seem never to consider that it may well be a philosophic, logical impossibility for something to create itself from nothing.

Whether "most" atheists have or have not considered this is a moot point, but it has been addressed, by Lawrence Krauss, Adolf Grünbaum and others. There's also the entirely acceptable response, "We don't know," which Rosenbaum rightly describes as the agnostic position, and which most of the so called "New Atheists" (or to use a term I've seen recently, "Gnu Atheists") would embrace wholeheartedly as valid. Their position on the existence of God is derived not from a dogmatic stance, but on the balance of probabilities. It's a position based on evidence, and on logic. And most important, given this discussion, it's open to revision in the light of new evidence and new arguments.

Rosenbaum on Aquinas:

His eventual explanation entailed a Supreme Being standing outside of time and space somehow endowing it with existence (and interfering once in a while) without explaining what caused this source of "uncaused causation" to be created in the first place.

When someone talks about a source of "uncaused causation" they're unlikely to feel obliged to explain the cause of that source. It's in the description.

I should point out that I accept all that science has proven with evidence and falsifiable hypotheses but don't believe there is evidence or falsifiable certitude that science can prove or disprove everything.

I don't believe there's a reputable scientist that does believe science can prove or disprove everything.

Straw man, straw man, straw man.

(Rosenbaum's confused article was picked up by Jen Peeples on yesterday's Atheist Experience  TV show (#669) The mp3 audio of the show is available for download, and the Blip.TV video version is embedded below.)

http://blip.tv/file/3984616

Book review: Losing My Religion by William Lobdell

William Lobdell's compulsive autobiography is an honest, open chronicle of his conversion to evangelical Christianity — and his subsequent de-conversion as a result of his exhaustive journalistic investigation of religion. His book's subtitle, How I Lost My Faith Reporting on Religion in America — and Found Unexpected Peace, accurately describes the arc of his story. We see how he became enamoured of Christianity, and how the church of his choice didn't quite live up to his expectations, and how he nevertheless reconciled his misgivings and embraced his faith.

We read of his perseverance in pursuit of his dream job, eventually landing the post of religion writer for the Los Angeles Times. And by his own account he seems to have been very good at that job. But still the church didn't quite meet his needs, and he decided to become a Roman Catholic. Even while undergoing special Catholic training classes he continued his investigative journalism, often into priest-paedophilia. At the very moment he was due to be formally accepted into the Catholic Church, he was breaking a big story of Catholic priests sexually abusing children in their care. Nagging doubts that hadn't been of too much concern now rose to the surface and he decided to delay his official conversion. The appalling catalogue he helped to unveil continued to grow, and as it did so his faith dwindled, until eventually there was nothing left of it.

Losing My Religion is a page-turner that grips from beginning to end. It's an honest description of what it's like to fall into religion, and out of it again, and on the way we discover the true horror of the Catholic-priest-paedophilia scandal in America.

(On Sunday January 31st 2010, William Lobdell was interviewed by Mary Hynes on CBC Radio's Tapestry programme. Tapestry is available as a podcast — also for iTunes. The mp3 audio of this edition is available for direct download via Castroller.)

Lobdell, W. (2009) Losing My Religion: How I Lost My Faith Reporting on Religion in America — and Found Unexpected Peace, New York: HarperCollins; ISBN 978-0-06-162681-4; hardcover $25.99

Burnee links for Monday

The Atheist Experience: Atheism and Skepticism
Matt Dillahunty on the "Skeptics' Schism"

Sunday Sacrilege: Metaphorical Acid : Pharyngula

"Interpreting the Bible through metaphor is a kind of blasphemy: it's like spraying it with acid. Most of it burns away, and all that's left is a story about people trying to explain the universe as best they can, with no gods, no magic, no angels, no devils."

The Godless Delusion - by Patrick Madrid and Kenneth Hennsley - Surprised by Truth - RichardDawkins.net
A Catholic response to atheistic naturalism, purporting to be a rational discourse (which is belied by the emotive, unbalanced language that can be sampled at Amazon.com).

The Blue Brain Blues - Materialist ethics and simulated minds - Steve Zara - RD.net - RichardDawkins.net
Should we consider the rights of artificial life?

God and evidence - a strident proposal - steve's posterous
Steve Zara argues that evidence for the existence God — of the kind that would be acceptable to atheists — is not logically possible.

British girls undergo horror of genital mutilation despite tough laws | Society | The Observer
It's hard to believe this is happening anywhere in the modern world, but apparently it's going on here in the UK, despite being illegal, and no-one has been prosecuted. (Be warned, the accompanying video contains some disturbing images.)

Encounter - 18 July 2010 - The Loss of Civic Virtue?
Comprehensive discussion of public morality, featuring Richard Harries, Andrew Copson and Simon Blackburn. Based on a lecture Harries delivered at Westminster Hall, the programme was produced by ABC radio (mp3 download and streaming audio, plus transcript).

'Choice' fetish spawns mind-meltingly stupid homeopathy policy | Martin Robbins | Science | guardian.co.uk
It. Beggars. Belief.

Secret Email Reveals more Homeopathic Killing in Kenya | The Quackometer
Scary stuff, by people who seem oblivious to the harm they are likely to engender.

The Atheist Experience™: The moral compass
Matt Dillahunty exposes the insane logic (or inane illogic) of Catholic dogma.

We may be able to discuss and debate the moral impact of masturbation (I'd say there's no moral assessment to be made), but if you believe that masturbation is worse than rape, you're no longer eligible to participate in the discussion. You've sacrificed your humanity on the altar of laziness and blind servility and you won't be allowed to rejoin the discussion until you correct that.

If Britain decides to ban the burqa I might just start wearing one | David Mitchell | Comment is free | The Observer
There's a difference between disrespect and criticism.

Presuppositional gymnastics

The following is a reaction to an email exchange between Paul Baird and Sye Ten Bruggencate, posted on the Unbelievable? discussion group prior to today's Unbelievable? programme in which they took part. I've now listened to the show and have only this to add: I came across Sye's website 18 months ago — I thought the argument presented was bogus then, and I think it's bogus now.

The presuppositional argument seems to be predicated at its root on one basic premise — that absolute laws of logic exist. This does indeed sound as if it's true. Without logic we can't know anything is true. Descartes' "I think, therefore I am" would not stand up without logic. But to say that the laws of logic are "absolute" may be misunderstanding the nature of reasoning. To get an inkling of why this might be, consider how the universe would look if there were no such thing as logic. If we couldn't rely on logic to enable us to understand the world, what would the world look like to us? Would it look like anything at all? Isn't even our very existence as conscious entities completely impossible without the existence of logic? In this sense, the existence of logic may in fact be "properly basic" — and consequently we have no need to search for its origin (because, being properly basic, it doesn't have one).

Unfortunately for those unbelievers who engage in discussion with apologists of the presuppositional variety (as well as with those who simply borrow from presuppositional apologetics), any reasoned argument — it can be about anything at all — tends to be met with the rejoinder that the unbeliever surely has no way of knowing how anything is true, because he or she has no absolute logical standard on which to base their "reasoned" arguments. This is extremely tiresome, as it's a debate-stopper. You can't argue with someone who denies that you have any basis for using reasoned argument. Of course, while the unbeliever has no basis for logic, this doesn't however apply to the the apologist, who claims that absolute laws of logic come from God. This claim, like many put forward by apologists, isn't backed up by evidence — it is simply asserted.

Christian apologists in particular may claim that their absolute moral or logical authority is revealed in the Bible, but to do this they have to use the circular argument that the Bible is true because it says it is true (in the Bible). Challenge an apologist on this and they will reply that it's perfectly acceptable to use the Bible as its own authority, because the unbeliever is using logic to verify that logic and reason work, which, the apologists claim, is also circular.

Using logic and reason to verify the truth of logic and reason is not circular, however, if logic and reason are properly basic.

Some apologists of the presuppositional persuasion do seem prone to moralizing from on-high. Maybe this has something to do with their preoccupation with absolutes. In many discussions you are quite likely to see such apologists passing high-handed remarks about the unbeliever's eternal soul, about how the apologist will nonetheless offer up crocodile prayers in the apparently earnest wish that the unbeliever finds God and relents of his or her wicked ways. And if that fails to impress (as it surely does), there will likely be more crocodile regrets that the unbeliever is destined for Hell. All this extraneous nonsense is irrelevant to the debate, and acts as an annoying and alienating smokescreen.

Tiresome is what I called it above, and if I see it in an online discussion or debate it will discourage me from contributing, because I know that the presuppositional mindset is pretty much impregnable — as it is meant to be. Presuppositional apologetics is a field that appears explicitly designed to defend faith from rationality by attempting to undermine the basis for rationality itself.

Here's a (fictitious but typical) example of an effort to undermine rational argument:

Apologist: "Do absolute morals exist?"

Unbeliever: "No."

Apologist: "Are you absolutely sure of that, or is it merely your opinion?"

Disregarding the obvious false dichotomy of that last question, you can see where this is going. If the unbeliever replies that he or she is not absolutely sure that absolute morality doesn't exist, the apologist can continue to claim that it does. If however the unbeliever claims to be absolutely sure that absolute morality does not exist, the apologist will go on to enquire where the unbeliever's absolute knowledge comes from. Swap out morality for logic (or science, or truth), rinse and repeat, and the argument will stall before ever advancing to the field of human instinct, shared values, social cohesion, evolution, kin selection or any other discipline that seeks to explore the modern basis of ethical behaviour.

But the laws of logic are not absolute — in the sense of being separate from the universe. It seems likely to me that "logic" is an emergent property of matter and energy. If the universe didn't exist, neither would the "laws" of logic. That the universe is susceptible to rational analysis doesn't have to be proved; logic isn't contingent, it isn't based on anything.

Logic is properly basic. It just is.

WuduMate: a symbol of what's to come?

An innocuous little brochure came to my attention at work a few weeks ago. It details a range of fittings that can be installed in toilet accommodation accessible by members of the public. Ritual washing can apparently present problems to the devout who need to perform their rite at particular times of the day, and often the facilities available are less than amenable. The front of the trifold brochure shows a man with his foot in a washbasin, and the tag-line "There has to be an easier way...."

Indeed there is an easier way*, but it's not the one that the manufacturers of the WuduMate would prefer you use. Specialist Washing Co would rather you purchase the WuduMate and install it in your publicly accessible toilets, so that people who want to wash their feet don't have to stick them in a washbasin.

The company, according to its website www.specwash.com, will supply a solution for many ritual washing requirements — at home, at work, travelling, in the multi-faith room, or in the mosque.

That last sentence above contains the essence of my unease about this company and its promotion of its products — a company that calls itself "Specialist Washing Co." Specialist washing in this case is extremely special, by which I mean Islamic. The company is not called Islamic Washing Co, or even Ritual Washing Co. "Specialist Washing" is used here as a euphemism, and though it may not have been the company's intention, the impression it gives is that they are trying to hide their true purpose — to persuade providers of public toilets to include facilities for the exclusive use of devout Muslims. Nowhere in the brochure or on the website did I find any suggestion that these facilities could be used by non-Muslims who might want to wash their feet in a non-religious fashion.

On the website much is made of the provision of facilities in multi-faith rooms. To me the idea of a multi-faith room is a particularly preposterous one. Religious faith is of course important — even a confirmed atheist like myself must acknowledge that faith plays an important and often central role in many people's lives. But the faiths professed by believers in different religions can be so at odds with each other that the idea of lumping them all together in one room seems like a recipe for conflict, or at least contradiction. Specialist Washing Co are suggesting that such rooms should be equipped with expensive and space-consuming sanitary-ware (plus the plumbing of water supplies and drainage that goes with it) for a specific religious ritual in a public place.

By all means put these things in your home, your mosque, or even your palace. But don't expect the rest of us to pay for you to carry out an elaborate ritual at our expense.

_________
*The easier way? Don't do it.

Penn and Teller: Magic on the radio - BBC Radio 4 Today Programme

A short interview with Penn Jillette on the Today Programme this morning...

"US magicians Penn and Teller are performing in the UK after a 16-year absence. The two spoke to presenter Evan Davis ahead of a performance in the Westfield shopping centre, although Penn does all the talking. They discussed how they write new material, the relationship between their ardent atheism and magic, and the power of live performance."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/today/hi/today/newsid_8818000/8818981.stm
(3'56" streaming audio)

A snippet from Penn : "We're big fans of Dawkins and Hitchens...."