Philip Dodd is joined by a panel of thinkers at the Sage Gateshead to discuss the impact global religion will have on future politics - for good or ill:
David Holloway, vicar of Evangelical Jesmond Parish Church in Newcastle argues that Britain must reconnect with its Christian roots.
Medhi Hassan, Senior Political Editor of the New Statesman Magazine and practising Muslim. A key opponent of Islamophobia in the British Press.
Maryam Narmazie, political activist and spokesperson for Iran Solidarity, Equal Rights Now, the One Law for All Campaign against Sharia Law in Britain and the Council of Ex-Muslims of Britain.
Philip Blond, influential theologian behind Red Toryism and Director of the Res publica think tank.
The discussion was considerably frustrating to listen to. Maryam Namazie had her work cut out countering the usual inanities: secularists have no basis for morality, Dawkins' stridency is the last gasp of atheism, we must live in harmony with other religions even though mine is true and all the others are false, etc.
"Ultimately there can only be one ‘preconceived view of the evidence’ that can be correct—one that is based on a true history of man’s origins. The Bible’s account of history is true—a history that makes it clear that evolutionary ideas of a pre-agriculture ‘Stone Age’ are without foundation. Early man not only practiced agriculture but also made “all kinds of tools of bronze and iron” (Genesis 4:22), though later circumstances saw some people lose that capacity."
William Roper: So, now you give the Devil the benefit of law! Sir Thomas More: Yes! What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil? William Roper: Yes, I'd cut down every law in England to do that! Sir Thomas More: Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned 'round on you, where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country is planted thick with laws, from coast to coast, Man's laws, not God's! And if you cut them down, and you're just the man to do it, do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake!
Thus did scientist, TV presenter, editor and professional geek Adam Rutherford begin his TAM London talk. It turns out that he had done the Alpha Course ― a series of free evangelical evening classes, versions of which are held all over the country, indeed all over the world. This seems a rather odd thing for him to have done, given that he is an atheist. The course is designed for those he described as the de-churched ― that is, those who were brought up with a more or less Christian background and belief, and subsequently lapsed. For the un-churched ― those who grew up without religious indoctrination ― the course is likely to be far less effective. As part of his exploration of the Alpha Course Adam Rutherford interviewed its current leader, the man responsible for its global expansion, evangelical preacher Nicky Gumbel. The whole thing is written up at the Guardian | Comment is Free | Belief (which I highly recommend).
I've seen the ads for the Alpha Course, and I've watched Jon Ronson's TV documentary. A few years ago I also saw several of the David Frost TV series "Alpha: Will it Change Their Lives?" and its more recent follow up: "Alpha: Did it Change Their Lives?" The David Frost series featured clips from the Alpha Course led by Nicky Gumbel at Holy Trinity Brompton. Apparently the satellite courses make extensive use of videos of Nicky Gumbel's sermons (if sermon is the right word), though they are free to adapt.
Prior to Adam Rutherford's talk I would have said that the most controversial aspect of the Alpha Course is the weekend away. The course includes a residential component at which the participants can immerse themselves in evangelical godliness, culminating in a session of glossolalia ― otherwise known as "speaking in tongues".
I got the impression from the David Frost series that the course is intended for teetering agnostics, and is unlikely to sway those who self-identify as atheists. There was nothing I heard in the Nicky Gumbel clips, or saw in any of the documentaries, to suggest that they are using anything other than small group dynamics to encourage people to share and discuss hitherto private thoughts about belief. To be honest, I found it unimpressive. The fact that they are promoting glossolalia suggests that the whole enterprise is geared towards emotional response and "personal experience of the Holy Spirit" rather than addressing annoying factors like reason and evidence.
Adam Rutherford's experience seems to bear out my suspicions, though he identified an additional concern that I don't recall surfacing in the documentaries. The Alpha Course, he says, is a homophobic cult. He puts it that strongly, despite finding Nicky Gumbel himself to be a thoroughly nice chap.
Most of what he says seems relatively "non-creationist", though he seems to be hung up about what happens when species become extinct. He's claiming that because we don't see evolution instantly filling the gaps left by extinct species, therefore evolution isn't happening (which proves it isn't true). He even mentions that biologists don't expect to see evolution filling the gaps because it happens slowly. But isn't that precisely what we should expect? Extinction may occur "suddenly", but the resulting gaps in the environment aren't going to be instantly filled. Evolution takes time.
Further on he says this rather odd thing: "Species can split into different varieties through natural or intelligently guided selection-as with dog or apple breeding- but this is division, not addition of the gene pool." It is addition to the gene pool — where once you had a single species, now you have two. Greater variety or biodiversity is surely an increase in the total of genetic information.
Hayes seems to be in two minds about environmentalism, espousing sensible ecological husbandry on the one hand (not for the good of the planet, but because it will look good to be doing the right thing when Jesus returns), while on the other admitting it's probably all for nought as the good guys are going to be raptured.
Environmentalism clearly doesn't easily mix with God-talk and eschatology.
David Allen Green, also known as legal blogger Jack of Kent, was the latest speaker at Winchester Skeptics in the Pub on 24th November at the Roebuck Inn. Fresh from the #TwitterJokeTrial appeal dismissal David gave us his account of proceedings in an engaging talk without notes or PowerPoint. The issues raised by the Paul ChambersTwitter affair and others have implications beyond the internet social media within which they would initially appear to be confined. Issues of privacy, publication, and the status of conversations conducted online via Twitter or Facebook, or any online forum where the distinction between public and private conversation space becomes blurred, are all considerations that can lead to unexpected (and undesirable) consequences.
One of the problems is that the phenomenon of online social media is still relatively new, and people will inevitably be testing its limits, whether intentionally or unintentionally. And because it's new, the resolution of such tests seems often to be the job of the courts. For the hapless participants this is likely to be unnerving, extremely expensive and potentially life-changing.
David Allen Green, aka Jack of Kent, has made a name for himself as the foremost explicator of these matters. He's a media lawyer with a reputation for clear legal analysis set out in a way understandable to non-lawyers (that is, the rest of us). I met him briefly at the Penderel's Oak in Holborn, the evening before TAM London 2009, and one thing I particularly remember from our brief conversation was his statement that as a lawyer he was in a position to say things about current legal cases that non-lawyers could not, because he knew precisely how far he could go while staying within the law. He confirmed in his SitP talk that his writing is deliberately "legal-proof".
He explained how he got into blogging and how he became a Skeptic (with a K), saying that his skepticism was founded on no more than an insistence that there should be a critical or evidence-based approach to issues when appropriate. He stressed that skepticism shouldn't be used as a means to specific ends.
He has given talks on witchcraft trials from a strictly legal standpoint, maintaining that the existence or not of witchcraft — in the sense of supernatural powers — was never an issue. He detailed his involvement with the Simon Singh libel case, and the importance of libel reform. He also touched on a couple of other cases he's been involved with, Dave Osler and Sally Bercow, but went into more detail about Paul Chambers, whose case is ongoing, though looking pretty grim at present.
In addition to his Jack of Kent blog — so significant in letting the world know the salient details of Simon Singh's battle with the British Chiropractic Association — David Allen Green has also been blogging regularly at New Statesman. They must be pleased with his efforts, as he is now the New Statesman legal correspondent. He also writes the Bad Law? column at The Lawyer.
The Q&A was understandably centred around the Paul Chambers #TwitterJokeTrial case, and its implications for establishing a dividing line between public and private conversation space. In response to a question David gave the example of a Daily Mail article that appeared to intentionally humiliate a civil servant making extensive use of Twitter. The question is, was it reasonable for Sarah Baskerville to treat Twitter as a private medium for off-the-cuff comments about her work and colleagues? Personally I think one has to be mindful of the reach of internet social media, but given Twitter's informality this is easy to forget.
This was an excellent talk about serious issues, delivered by an insider with a gift for explication of complex matters.
I had a couple of questions for David, which I would have asked if I hadn't felt that they'd likely derail the Q&A conversation, centred as it was on the public/private demarcation issue. The first is about the Simon Singh libel case: at a point fairly late in proceedings it appeared that the BCA themselves had posted a libellous statement on their website, to the effect that Simon Singh had been malicious in his article. On his Jack of Kent blog David wrote that if Simon decided to countersue, the case would be over. The BCA amended their website, but the offending statement was still accessible if one knew the correct URL. At the time I thought this was a sign that the BCA knew they were going to lose, and that this hastily amended (but not immediately deleted) libel was a ploy to end the case without losing face over their original suit. I'm curious as to whether this incident had any eventual bearing on the case.
"No, we don't respect your desire to needlessly torment animals because some hallucinating desert nomads did it centuries ago. We don't respect it at all. You can cry that we are 'persecuting' you if we stop you committing acts of cruelty if you want.
"It's what the religious – Christian, Jew and Muslim alike – did when we stopped you tormenting women and gays and anybody else you could get your hands on. One of the great markers of the advance of human kindness is the howls you will hear from the Men of God."
Stephen Law: Draft paper for comments
I've struggled with attempts to understand Alvin Plantinga's "Evolutionary Argument Against Naturalism" — and been unable to pin down precisely why I don't buy it. It takes an articulate philosopher's analysis to tease its abstruse strands apart, for which much thanks are due to Stephen Law.
Creation Science Movement - News: "Species can split into different varieties through natural or intelligently guided selection-as with dog or apple breeding- but this is division, not addition of the gene pool."
God-talk and eschatology.
Westminster Chapel is a large 19thC Romanesque style evangelical church located in Buckingham Gate, London, opposite its junction with Petty France. On Monday 22nd November I arrived at the appointed hour of 6:30 pm just as the doors were opened. I presented my ticket and was given a question slip and a "Promo Copy — Not for Resale" DVD, Unlocking the Mystery of Life by Illustra Media.
Taking advantage of my punctuality I was able to grab a good position in the centre of the third pew from the front. Before me a large screen hung above a raised stage with a lectern to the right and a drum kit to the left. (I hoped we were not to be subjected to live evangelical music, though faint recorded music emanated from the PA speakers either side of the stage.) The screen above displayed the logo for Justin Brierley's Premier Christian RadioUnbelievable? show, promoting the evening's event, Darwin or Design: An Evening with Michael Behe.
Professor Behe arrived about 6:35, and a little later I noticed Keith Fox take a seat near the front. As seven o'clock approached I estimated that between 150 and 200 people filled the ground floor pews, leaving the galleries empty. (I saw no video cameras, though an official-looking photographer took pictures throughout the evening from various viewpoints, including of the audience).
At about 7:05 Justin Brierley mounted the stage to introduce the evening's proceedings. David Williams, a trustee of the Centre for Intelligent Design was first up, touting the centre's ID merchandise, including DVDs of that disgracefully mendacious film Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed, and the textbook Explore Evolution. Also available was Michael Behe's book Darwin's Black Box, though strangely not his latest, The Edge ofEvolution. After a short introduction from Justin, Prof. Behe took the stage.
I shall not give a blow by blow account of Michael Behe's talk. Justin mentioned that the event was being recorded for later broadcast, apparently including the Q&A, so those interested will be able to hear the talk for themselves. What follows are my comments on what I consider Behe's more contentious points.
Behe used the mousetrap as an example of irreducible complexity and proceeded to speculate as to how it might work if any one of its parts were removed — concluding that of course it wouldn't work, it would be broken. But Prof. Behe knows (I hope) that mousetraps don't reproduce, and that they are, in fact, designed. This IC argument is no better than Paley's Watch. Watches, you'll note, also don't reproduce.
Would you believe he's still using Mount Rushmore as an example of design detection? But the only reason we can tell that the sculptures of US presidents' heads were designed is because we know what faces look like, and we also have some concept of the shapes that natural erosion can produce on a mountainside. Suppose Mount Rushmore was observed by an alien race who had no concept of human faces — would they be able to detect that the mountain's contours had been designed? Behe's design detection is based entirely on preconceptions and comes down to no more than if it looks designed it must have had a designer.
Behe's problem is in the way he formulates his thesis. He claims that the way to detect design is to look for "a purposeful arrangement of parts", and apparently can't see that this is begging the question. By describing something as "purposeful" he's assuming that it's designed, in a kind of teleological tautology. Once again Behe's "design-detection" is no more than it's designed if it looks designed.
Along with repeating his "purposeful arrangement" mantra, Behe consistently labelled Darwinian evolution as "chance" and "accident" when he clearly knows that these words inaccurately characterise the process. He must be aware that the only accidental or chance aspect of evolutionary theory is random genetic mutation. The component of evolution that causes the actual evolving — natural selection — is far from chance or accident.
After fourteen years of comprehensive refutation, Michael Behe is still flogging the flagellum. Indeed, during the Q&A he was challenged that his examples of irreducible complexity, including the bacterial flagellum, have all been refuted. His response? "They're wrong!"
At one point in the lecture he asserted that the evidence for design is strong, while there is little evidence for Darwinism, going on to describe Darwinism's attempt to explain complexity as "wishful speculation". But intelligent design is itself the ultimate wishful speculation: "it's so complicated it must have been designed."
SETI, the search for extra-terrestrial intelligence, was raised in the Q&A. SETI is often cited by ID enthusiasts as an example of design-detection, as if to give ID legitimacy by comparison. SETI scientists, however, are not looking for an intelligent signal from space, but for a narrow-band signal. Any modulation of that signal is expected to have been lost (smeared out), so it's unlikely to carry any intelligent content. Comparisons with the efforts of ID proponents are unwarranted.
When challenged by Keith Fox, Behe stated that if ID is correct, evolutionary biologists are wasting their time looking for evolutionary pathways to explain complexity. And yet he insists ID is not a science-stopper. Behe has claimed elsewhere that mainstream science ignores ID for "philosophical reasons", but there's a good reason for that — it's because ID is a philosophical idea, not a scientific one.
Behe claims that complex biological systems are "best explained by intelligent design" — this is a very peculiar use of the word "explained". One might reasonably ask for some — indeed any — details of this explanation. But ID proponents never provide any. Behe's response elsewhere to this criticism, and in the light of apparent flaws in the "design" of nature, is that "we can't know the mind of the designer." This is what I find so profoundly frustrating about ID. In what way can any of this be even remotely described as science?
ID has no evidence of its own. ID proponents carry out no research, restricting themselves to pointing out gaps in evolutionary theory. If something can't currently be explained by evolution, they claim that somebody (the "intelligent designer") must have done it instead. They contend that science is itself unnecessarily restricted in its scope by a priori ruling out supernatural explanations. But science must, if it is to be at all useful to us, restrict itself to methodological naturalism. If science were to accept non-natural explanations for observed phenomena, the scientific method would be irretrievably broken and useless, and scientific progress would grind to a halt.
It was an interesting but frustrating evening. Given the hype surrounding Behe's week-long whistle-stop UK lecture tour I had expected something new. But it was the same old nonsense — indeed the same old non-science. UPDATE 2010-12-02:
Here's a short, useful video on Behe's irreducible complexity. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W96AJ0ChboU
Early in his presentation Behe showed this Far Side cartoon, and went on to say that anyone will recognise that the skewering device was designed for a purpose — to which I would ask, has he never seen a Venus Flytrap? The way Gary Larson has drawn the device indicates to me that it could well be a rare jungle plant that has evolved to capture large animals. The ankle suspension is obviously a plant. So I think Behe clearly missed his point here, exposing his ID presuppositions.
(Go to the presentation PDF for the cartoon caption, though it's not part of Behe's thesis.)
Paul S. Jenkins, writer, podcaster and tech-enthusiast (and atheist and skeptic) lives and works in Hampshire, UK. Notes from an Evil Burnee is his blog about things skeptical.
Posts
