Lying about time — relaunch of the Sci Phi Show

Recently I was pleased to discover that Jason Rennie has relaunched the Sci Phi Show — a podcast looking at philosophy and science fiction. The first of Jason's new episodes dealt with lying — what it is and whether it is always morally wrong to lie. He cited a couple of definitions from the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy:

1. To make a false statement with the intention to deceive.
2. To make an assertion that is believed to be false to some audience with the intention to deceive the audience about the content of that assertion.

Jason explained the four conditions that need to apply to the second definition in order to make it clear: the Statement condition, the Untruthfulness condition, the Addressee condition and the Intention to deceive addressee condition. This second definition is the more precise and therefore more useful one, but Jason demonstrated in his subsequent discussion that use of the term "lie" often implies a degree of wrongness. (The Stanford definition explores some of these issues.)

Whether you consider a lie to be more or less morally wrong depends on your basis for morality. If you base it on an inviolable precept such as, "Thou shalt not bear false witness," you might find little leeway to consider the philosophical niceties. As I see it, the general prohibition on lying is to do with notions of trust and the reliability of communications. It may be perfectly moral to lie in certain specific circumstances (Jason suggested several), but if lying became the norm the fabric of society would quickly unravel.

Jason's second show was about time travel, and began with a discussion of definitions of time. Defining time appears to be fraught with impossibilities; for instance, what's the answer to the question, "How long can a condition of no change persist?" It depends whether you think time is something that passes, irrespective of events that occur. Note that of all our many ways of measuring time — to astonishing accuracy — none of them is objectively measuring the passage of time, but merely counting the occurrence of extremely regular events (although that raises the question of how we know these events are "regular").

However, this is pretty simple stuff in comparison with Jason's overview of alternative theories of time and his explanation of time-travel paradoxes — highly recommended, if you don't mind your brain turning to spaghetti.

Burnee links for Thursday

A Clockwork Revolution in Philosophy - steve's posterous
Steve Zara ponders dualism (by way of Doctor Who).

Embrace the digital backlash - Take time to think - Documental.ly
In praise of quiet time.

"Examined Lives": The secret lives of philosophers - Philosophy - Salon.com
A. C. Grayling savours the parts while not swallowing the whole.

YouTube - Is it always right to uphold your religious convictions?
It depends what you mean by "uphold":
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e20tHZSUKys

Pompey Skeptics in the Pub — 2nd Thursday of every month

When the inaugural Winchester Skeptics in the Pub had to be relocated because the original venue wasn't likely to accommodate the enthusiastic hordes who came to see Simon Singh, Rebecca Watson and Sid Rodrigues, it seemed to me like SitP had arrived. That was over a year ago. SitP in Britain received a further boost from the networking at last year's TAM London, and shortly after that event I was pleased to hear that moves were afoot to start a SitP in Portsmouth (where I live).

And start it did, though perhaps not on quite the scale of Winchester SitP — but give it time. On Tuesday evening the first Pompey Skeptics in the Pub (at the Mermaid, 222 New Road, Portsmouth PO2 7RW) featured a reading by Pam Lee on the importance of critical thought even about those things we take for granted, a skeptical quiz by Trish Hänn, and a cosmology presentation (with mind-boggling slides and video) on dark matter and dark energy by Chaz Shapiro.

It was small gathering of local and not so local people who identify more or less as skeptics (including a more or less skeptical but definitely well-trained dog), who generally agreed that the evening had gone well and that it should be a regular event. So join us on the second Thursday each month, from 10th March onwards. (And check out the photographic evidence, courtesy of Malcolm Stein.)

The Atheist Experience — listen or watch, but don't miss it

Given the name* of this blog and the tenor of most of its posts, readers would not be surprised to learn that I listen to several atheistically themed podcasts. The atheist podcast that I look forward to most, however, and have done since I first encountered it a couple of years ago, is The Atheist Experience, a live call-in TV show from the Atheist Community of Austin. It's available via an audio podcast feed (on iTunes, for instance), and that's how I normally listen.

If a show is especially good one week, I'll make a point of watching the video version. This week's was one such, hosted by Jen Peeples and Tracie Harris. Even before substituted host Matt Dillahunty called in at the end, I had already decided it was worth a blogpost. The hosts of The Atheist Experience are the sharpest explicators and defenders of the atheist viewpoint I've come across. Their consistently high standards of debate, argument, explanation and critical thought make the show archive a treasured resource.

For your enjoyment and education I embed this week's show here — #693: Misconceptions About Atheists — and I particularly recommend the exchange with caller Mike starting around 21'40":
http://blip.tv/file/4674944


The ACA also sponsor audio-only podcast The Non Prophets (which will occasionally be referenced on the TV show), along with many local activities.

---

*"Notes from an Evil Burnee" is a dead giveaway, considering the last two words are an anagram.

Equality is against Melanie Phillips' religion (and vice versa)

After a disorientating but mercifully brief instant of agreement with Melanie Phillips when she interrogated Anthony Seldon on last week's Moral Maze, I now find things are back to normal, as evidenced in her latest column at Mail Online today, in which she attempts to perpetuate the myth that religious views are being marginalised in Britain.

...schoolchildren are to be bombarded with homosexual references in maths, geography and ­science lessons as part of a Government-backed drive to promote the gay agenda.

Bombarded? In maths?

In maths, they will be taught ­statistics through census ­findings about the number of ­homosexuals in the population.

And about other things, I suspect. Even if this is true, it's hardly bombardment. Certainly not to the extent that in history lessons they may be bombarded with — horror of horrors — historical dates.

The bed and breakfast hoteliers Peter and Hazelmary Bull — who were recently sued for turning away two homosexuals who wished to share a bedroom — were but the latest religious believers to fall foul of the gay inquisition merely for upholding ­Christian values.

They were guilty of illegal discrimination against a couple who were in a legal civil partnership, on the basis that the couple weren't married. The judge ruled that for this purpose marriage and civil partnership are equivalent.

Catholic adoption agencies were forced to shut down after they refused to place ­children with same-sex couples.

Quite right too. If agencies refuse to treat people equally, they have no business providing a public service.

Marriage registrars were forced to step down for refusing to officiate at civil unions.

If they refuse to do the job they're paid for, they should do the decent thing and seek other employment.

It seems that just about everything in Britain is now run according to the gay agenda.

Yeah, just about everything. Gay trains, gay supermarkets, gay refuse collection. Does Melanie Phillips find herself using gay hyperbole, by any chance?

Of course, for people such as the Bulls, George Orwell’s famous observation that some are more equal than others is all too painfully true. Indeed, the obsession with equality has now reached ludicrous, as well as oppressive, proportions.

Well, we wouldn't want things to be too equal, now, would we?

Burnee links for Sunday

Book review: Sam Harris’ The Moral Landscape
Russell Blackford reviews Sam Harris's new book.

Blackford reviews The Moral Landscape « Why Evolution Is True
Jerry Coyne's take on Russel Blackford's review, with a follow-up here:
Harris responds to Blackford « Why Evolution Is True

Tell me now how do I feel – Bad Science
Ben Goldacre is blue about Blue Monday. Again.

THE WORLD QUESTION CENTER 2011
Richard Dawkins gives his answer to the question: "WHAT SCIENTIFIC CONCEPT WOULD IMPROVE EVERYBODY'S COGNITIVE TOOLKIT?" (Read the others too.)

The Q.E.D conference « BARsoc.org
The Ghost Investigations Today panel is one I hope to attend at QED. (The "Breakout Room" will be showing The God Who Wasn't There, but I could watch that another time on DVD.)

Ms Information - Communicating the Message in the Skeptiverse « She Thought
Some fascinating insight from Geologic HQ.
(Via George Hrab.)

Metamagician and the Hellfire Club: Unpalatable truths
Russell Blackford (him again!) is a glutton for punishment.

The British Humanist Association
Relative to recent discussions about secular morality, it's useful to remind ourselves of one particular organisation's objectives.

Open warfare round the dinner table: the mediasphere responds to Baroness Warsi | HumanistLife
Roundup of press reactions to Warsi's recent speech.

Happiness — if you can't define it, you can't legislate for it

The Moral Maze on BBC Radio 4 this week was about happiness. At least, that's what it purported to be about, but most of the discussion was concerned with attempts to agree on a definition of happiness. From the BBC website:

They call it Blue Monday - January 24th - the unhappiest day of the year. Christmas seems a long time ago, but the bills for it are dropping on the mat, we've failed at all our New Year's resolutions, the weather is awful and all we've got to look forward to is February. But do not despair, our government is coming to the rescue. Politicians are so worried about our state of mind it was their New Year's resolution to do something about it.

On January 5th was the first meeting of the "Measuring National Well-being Advisory Forum" and the Office of National Statistics has just started a consultation on making general well-being (GWB) a key national statistic, alongside the more traditional things like Gross Domestic Product. Setting aside the question can you measure happiness - the moral question is should you?

Money isn't the key to happiness and perhaps we should see ourselves as more than just units of economic production and consumption. But is it the job of the state to concern itself with our emotional life and build that in to policy making? A lot of what makes us happy as individuals may not be very good for us, our fellow man, or society as a whole. Will we start being fed a very particular one-size fits all view of happiness and "the good life"? Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness is all very well, but should happiness be an end in itself? Shouldn't we be asking what we as individuals can to do make other people's lives better, rather than asking what the state can do to make us happier?

Chaired by Michael Buerk with Melanie Phillips, Matthew Taylor, Claire Fox and Clifford Longley.

Witnesses:

• Professor Lord Richard Layard, Director, the Centre for Economic Performance, LSE
• Simon Blackburn, Bertrand Russell Professor of Philosophy at the University of Cambridge
• Anthony Seldon, Master, Wellington College
• Phillip Hodson, Psychotherapist and author who popularised 'phone-in' therapy in his role as Britain's first 'agony uncle'.

Streaming audio of this 45-minute radio programme is available on the iPlayer:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/i/xhj84/

Unsurprisingly no consensus on the definition of happiness was reached. Simon Blackburn suggested that happiness equated with living a meaningful life, but that just takes the question one step back: can we agree on what is "meaningful"?

At the beginning of the programme Richard Layard's utilitarian analysis met with a degree of disdain, though I imagine he's used to such recoil from the merest hint of reductionism. But if you want to get to the crux of the matter then an honestly reductionist approach has a lot to commend it. At least it might yield tangible results, as apposed to an insistence that happiness can never be satisfactorily defined and that it's a waste of time trying.

Further on in the discussion I found myself in the unfamiliar position of agreeing with Melanie Phillips, albeit fleetingly, when she questioned Anthony Seldon's specific singling out of happiness-promoting characteristics as fit subjects for the secondary school curriculum. She lost my agreement an instant later when she suggested that instead he should just teach religion. A moment before, she had casually claimed that the things Seldon associated with happiness were all common to religion; careful examination of the facts, however, belies this claim. Seldon's justification for "teaching happiness" was presented on the basis of correlation with higher A-level results: pupils feel better about themselves — therefore they do better in exams. I don't think I need to set this out as a formal syllogism to show that its reasoning is flawed.

My own view of "happiness" is that it isn't something one should strive to achieve, because like the gold at the end of the rainbow it will be forever out of reach. Happiness is more a state of intentionality than it is a state of being. Like consciousness and free will, happiness is something we are aware of, which might at the same time be an illusory construct of our cognitive faculties. Even if we use Simon Blackburn's definition and link happiness to meaning, that can only lead to confusion about what things are meaningful. So I come back to intention: happiness isn't something we gain, it's something we do.