"Grill a bishop" and you'll get undercooked answers

A revealing segment on the BBC Radio 4 Today Programme yesterday seemed to confirm (anecdotally at least) that young people are by no means apathetic about the god question. Bishop Graham Kings has taken it upon himself to answer secondary school pupils' questions about God. From the BBC website:

A Church of England bishop has called on Anglican clergy to take the Church's message to young people by trying to address the fundamental questions of life and death

Dr Graham Kings, the Bishop of Sherborne, in Dorset, says a lack of religious knowledge is one of the causes of religious doubt. Robert Pigott reports

The four-minute audio stream is here:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/today/hi/today/newsid_9367000/9367602.stm

The questions and answers that the Today editors included in the segment are transcribed below:

Q: "Do you think God planned the creation of nuclear weapons? Because seeing as he's supposed to be loving, that doesn't seem like a very loving thing to do."

A: "Not everything that happens in the world is God's design, so I don't think rape and racism and apartheid and smashing people up is God's design. But he has given us free will, either to respond to him and to other people lovingly, or not."

Q: "You say that God doesn't command everything, yet in the Bible it does, so surely somehow he did command that person to create nuclear weapons. Because in the Bible it says that God commands everything."

A: "It doesn't say that in the Bible."

Bishop Kings apparently blames young people's estrangement from the church partly on declining knowledge of the Bible. You may detect a recurring theme here. When asked how he knows there's life after death, the bishop replies, "I give the illustration of someone who's come back from the dead. Someone's come back and said, yes there is life after death, and that's Jesus of Nazareth himself. So I just have to be honest and say, well I believe in the afterlife because someone's come back and reported back."

Q: "You said a moment ago that homosexual relationships fall short of the glory of God." 

A: "I think we are designed for the glory of God. Paul says that in Romans 3, but he also says that just everybody falls short of the glory of God." 

Q: "If people are accepted exactly how they are, then surely God will accept them if they are homosexual. Why is it wrong, in that respect?" 

A: "God accepts them exactly as they are. What sometimes happens, and it doesn't always happen, is that sometimes they think, is this right, do I continue in a sexual relationship, or do I become celibate?"

Bishop Kings clearly bases everything on the Bible, but we didn't hear his answer to the obvious question, "How do you know the Bible is true?" (The answer is likely to have involved some circularity.) Note that Bishop Kings' answer to the question about homosexuality did not reference the Bible's unequivocal condemnation. This is probably because such a response would expose the Bible as a repository of repugnant immorality.

As if to emphasize the desperate disconnectedness of religion, Robert Pigott's report was immediately followed by Thought for the Day, in which Rhidian Brook gave us his take on Blue Monday (also available as a transcript). I would hope Mr Brook knows that Blue Monday is entirely made up by a PR company to sell holiday bookings, but I suppose if you subscribe to a belief for which the only "evidence" is fictitious scripture, it's difficult to tell these things apart.

Burnee links for Thursday

LessWrong - RationalWiki
Do you read Less Wrong? If so (apart from other things one might conclude from this fact), you should probably also read this. (Via Paul Wright.)

Angry UBC condo owners to protest hospice
I thought Canadians were sensible. Wait... these are Asian Canadians — does that make a difference?
(Via Pharyngula.)

Questions about Noah's Ark that may bug creationists | John Hollier | Comment is free | guardian.co.uk
It's disturbing that we are even considering this stuff. Noah and the Flood is a story. It never happened. Should we perhaps be concerned about the illogicality of a talking wolf who impersonated a grandmother? Does the story of Little Red Riding Hood contain any vestige of actual history? No.
(Via BCSE)

A Special Case of Double Effect « Choice in Dying
In the above post Eric MacDonald provides a perfect example of what he wrote about in a previous one:

"We can do much better than religious morality, almost every time, and that for a simple reason. Without God, we really do have to think about what would be best."

Journalism Warning Labels « Tom Scott
If you read actual printed (that is, on paper) journalism, rather than online (which is, as you know, not real...), you might find these labels useful.

Vatican letter told Ireland's Catholic bishops not to report child abuse | World news | The Guardian
Well that about wraps it up for the Vatican. Pope Benny will resign and the Catholic Church will be disbanded. (There is a minuscule possibility, however, that the Holy See will ignore this revelation and carry on pretty much as before.) The incriminating letter is available as a PDF.

What is Faith? « Choice in Dying
Eric MacDonald's critique of Alister McGrath.

Evidence for God: 50 Arguments and a challenge

Previously on this blog (and elsewhere) I've stated that I've refuted to my own satisfaction all the arguments for the existence of God that I've encountered, and that I'm happy to examine others. Some others have (possibly) turned up. In an uncanny echo of 50 Voices of Disbelief: Why We Are Atheists edited by Russell Blackford and Udo Schüklenk, along comes Evidence for God: 50 Arguments for Faith from the Bible, History, Philosophy, and Science edited by William Dembski and Michael Licona.

Recommended by Todd Pitner on the Premier Community Forum, it was thrown down placed before us as a challenge an invitation to examine up-to-date arguments for the existence of God. Some of us accepted that challenge invitation (some of us have also taken an age to get around to it).

The 272-page paperback comprises an Introduction and four sections:
Section One: The Question of Philosophy
Section Two: The Question of Science
Section Three: The Question of Jesus
Section Four: The Question of the Bible
followed by Notes and Contributors

The 50 arguments average less than five pages each, so most likely I'll be sampling them at odd intervals. But I intend to blog about them in order, so watch this space.

Gay couple's B&B victory and the value of civil partnerships

A gay couple who were refused a double room at a Bed & Breakfast establishment (because they were not married) won their legal action today against the B&B owners. The judge (according to the BBC report) found that the B&B owners' refusal was illegal discrimination.

The defendants, Peter and Hazelmary Bull, maintain that they have a "double bed" policy which excludes unmarried couples. Both they and the judge appear to have approached the case on this basis — that the refusal was not based on sexual orientation, but on marital status.

The couple, Martyn Hall and Steven Preddy who are in a civil partnership, appear along with their backers, the Equality and Human Rights Commission, to be spinning the judgement as a victory for gay rights. The BBC report quotes EHRC director John Wadham:

"The right of an individual to practise their religion and live out their beliefs is one of the most fundamental rights a person can have, but so is the right not to be turned away by a hotel just because you are gay."

Peter Tatchell is quoted saying:

"People of faith should not be permitted to use religion as an excuse to discriminate against other people."

Stonewall's chief executive Ben Summerskill is quoted saying:

"You can't turn away people from a hotel because they're black or Jewish and in 2011 you shouldn't be able to demean them by turning them away because they're gay either."

It seems from the report that the discrimination against which Judge Rutherford ruled was discrimination against unmarrieds rather than discrimination against gays. That said, the case does highlight something very wrong about the law regarding civil partnerships. Contrary to Steven Preddy's reported statement that the judgement showed civil partnerships were legally the same as marriages, it appears to have exposed civil partnerships as a sop to gays.

According to current UK law, only same-sex couples can enter into a civil partnership, and only opposite-sex couples can get married. The law needs to be changed, so that marriage and civil partnership truly are equal — and therefore non-discriminatory. This case shows why. Clearly Peter and Hazelmary Bull don't consider civil partnership and marriage to be equal. I can't help wondering if in the future they would happily allow a legally married gay couple to share a double room. I suspect not.

Paula Kirby at TAM London 2010

Paula Kirby's articles at the Washington Post "On Faith" Panel have all been worth reading; she's clear and concise and doesn't pussyfoot around. Paula is a regular contributor and commenter at RichardDawkins.net, but for many she came to prominence through her comprehensive review (posted at RD.net) of four of what had become known as Dawkins' Fleas — the several books published in direct response to The God Delusion.

For her appearance at TAM London Paula gave a talk I'd heard previously online. It was the talk she delivered at the Atheist Alliance International Convention held last summer in Copenhagen:

Part 1/5: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vtoxhZ314OE

Part 2/5: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NwD23xL8bdw
Part 3/5: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cSLhVj8Tbv8
Part 4/5: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LGSPZ2k2TWE
Part 5/5: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zVN62B8XeRI

Paula quoted at length from the political manifesto of the UK's Christian Party, exposing its assumptions and agenda. Now while it's not likely that such a party will gain significant power in the foreseeable future, it's only by our constant vigilance that its insidious influence (and that of similar religious lobby groups) will be kept at bay. Great Britain is not — yet — officially a secular society, but Paula Kirby's talk shows why it clearly ought to be.

Burnee links for Sunday

Science, Reason and Critical Thinking: The Turin Bicycle
Science? Pfft! I still believe it's the original artefact.

Faith and Science « Choice in Dying
Oh my, what a sorry mess of bedraggled shreds is the Biologos "statement of faith" once Eric MacDonald has ripped through it.

God was behind Big Bang, pope says - Technology & science - Science - msnbc.com

VATICAN CITY — God's mind was behind complex scientific theories such as the Big Bang, and Christians should reject the idea that the universe came into being by accident, Pope Benedict said Thursday

Well, he would say that, wouldn't he?

"The universe is not the result of chance, as some would want to make us believe," Benedict said on the day Christians mark the Epiphany, the day the Bible says the three kings reached the site where Jesus was born by following a star.

"Contemplating it (the universe) we are invited to read something profound into it: the wisdom of the creator, the inexhaustible creativity of God," he said in a sermon to some 10,000 people in St. Peter's Basilica on the feast day.

Just saying something doesn't make it true. Is unsubstantiated assertion all the religionists have left?

Much-loved millionaire in long-term stable relationship has child: cause for concern says Bishop Nazir-Ali | HumanistLife
The bish claims to be concerned for the child. Whatever you think of this particular family, you have to wonder if he isn't actually more concerned that the child's legal parents are a same-sex couple.

For the love of God – or good – support World Interfaith Harmony Week | Tony Blair and Prince Ghazi bin Muhammad | Comment is free | The Guardian
So some 2,000 years or so after a man was nailed to a tree for suggesting people should be nice to each other, Tony Blair says it's time to do just that. But it can't work. People of moderate faith may rally round his initiative, but it's not the moderates who are the problem. Those who take their faith seriously are the ones who stick to rigid dogma — precisely the ones who refuse to budge when their doctrine is found to be incompatible with other faiths.

Is “biblical Christianity” the only rational worldview? (And is atheism wicked?)
In the past I've railed in exasperation at some of the postings of Randal Rauser (The Tentative Apologist), but I must give him credit for his stand against a set of intransigent Christians at a site called Triablogue. (The link goes to the first of a series of posts about his encounter.)

The dangerous fight for the 'child witches' of Nigeria | Science | guardian.co.uk
Leo Igwe of the International Humanist and Ethical Union was arrested, beaten and imprisoned after rescuing one of these 'child witches', and his report is here:
My Arrest in Uyo - Butterflies and Wheels

Up Close and Personal « Choice in Dying
Here is the truth.

Confessions of a Catholic Atheist: The Antitheist
A demonstration of how one can clarify one's thoughts simply by explaining them.

Should atheists talk about evil?

That depends. "Evil" could be said to be an exclusively religious term. To talk about good and evil is to talk in the same realm as that occupied by "sin" — which seems a much more religious term.

Some might make the case that talk of "morality" is also exclusively religious. Indeed many religionists scoff at atheistic moral pronouncements, claiming that atheists have no business talking about morality because they have no grounding for it. But such a view is itself not so much grounded as perilously perched atop one horn of the Euthypro dilemma: that what is morally good is whatever God decrees — and however arbitrary such a decree may be, nothing else really counts as "moral".

It should also be recognised that some religionists make no distinction between morality and absolute morality. They seem unable to grasp that there can be any morality that isn't absolute. As an atheist who occasionally engages in online debate and discussion, I've come across this religious blind-spot more than once. After explaining at length how I see morality — what it is, where it comes from and so on — I'm still asked to justify it on metaphysical, transcendental grounds.

I'm currently reading The Moral Landscape by Sam Harris. I'm about halfway through, but so far Harris has fairly comprehensively laid the groundwork for a thesis that the distinction between facts and values is not as clear cut as the philosopher David Hume would have us believe. Hume's contention that you can't derive an ought from an is sounds on the face of it to be reasonable, leading to the kind of demand for moral grounding mentioned above.

Harris makes a good case for knowledge of moral facts about the world without resort to metaphysics. We know what the difference is between a state of everything being as lovely as it possibly could be, and the state of everything being as horrible as it possibly could be. And crucially we know that one of these is good and the other is bad. We do not need a transcendental moral law-giver to tell us which is which. Spread out between these two extremes are a myriad states of relative well-being, and while it may be difficult and in some cases impossible in practice to tell exactly where on a hypothetical scale of well-being these states lie, there can be no doubt that such a determination is possible in principle.

From what I've read so far it's too early to draw definitive conclusions from Harris's moral exposition, but I'm looking forward to the rest of the book.