George Hrab at #QEDcon — "The Assumption"

George Hrab not only gave stellar service as MC of the QED conference (Question.Explore.Discover) on the weekend of 5th & 6th February 2011 in Manchester, UK but also performed after the Gala Dinner on Saturday night. This is a sample of his gig, shot on a JVC GC-FM1 pocket camcorder.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YX2exQvY5P0


The quality isn't great, as I was some way away and the lighting levels were fairly low, so the picture is grainy. The image stabilisation in iMovie works well, but judders when camera flashes go off. And I was right next to one of the speakers, which is why the sound is overmodulated in parts. (The JVC GC-FM1 pocket camcorder is fixed-focus and has no adjustments. It's a point-and-shoot camcorder, so I pointed and shot.)

But apart from all that, I'm quite pleased with the result.

Moral argument fails to impress

In the second instalment of my review of Evidence for God edited by Dembski & Licona, I look at "The Moral Argument for God's Existence" by Paul Copan.*

The short form:

In a fairly blustering manner Copan merely asserts that objective moral values are built in to humans because they are made in the image of God. He refers obliquely to Alvin Plantinga's Evolutionary Argument Against Naturalism but doesn't offer much else. To him the only options are moral absolutism on the one hand and moral relativism on the other. (He should read Sam Harris.)

The longer form:

Copan is using the same argument as William Lane Craig:

1. If objective moral values exist, then God exists.
2. Objective moral values do exist.
3. Therefore, God exists.

This is a tired old argument that fails in both its premises (it's also poorly — and circularly — worded.) For a start, Copan doesn't define objective moral values in any other way than existing "whether or not a person or culture believes in them" (p 20.) This says nothing about their source. Copan simply assumes that humans are aware of these values because humans "have been made in the image of God" (p 21.) As usual for proponents of this argument he doesn't explain what this is supposed to mean. Premise 1 is an example of begging the question, in which the premise contains the assumption it's attempting to prove: by objective, Copan and Craig mean transcendent or god-given, because that's what they think is meant by "existing whether or not a person or culture believes in them".

But there's no reason to suppose that so-called objective moral values exist independent of what people believe. We know that humans tend to detect agency, and do so even when — in some cases — no agents are present. They evolved as such because detecting agency gave them a survival advantage — it's better to detect agents when no agents are present, than not to detect them when they are. This propensity for attributing agency led early humans into animism, and then into varieties of theism. So the idea of a "supreme agent" comes rather easily to a culture steeped in the necessary detection of agency, and that superior agent is naturally assumed to have intentions and desires regarding the beings over which it is supreme.

The truth, however, is that moral values are not handed down from above, but built up from within the evolving culture itself, as matters of social glue, co-operation for common benefit, and mutual flourishing. Organised religion seeks to codify these values in order to offer shortcuts to moral decision-making, unfortunately tending to set the values in stone, often with disastrous results.

But back to the book. In several places Copan contradicts himself. He places objective morality and relative morality as opposites with nothing in between, yet quotes Samuel Johnson as saying, "The fact that there is such a thing as twilight does not mean that we cannot distinguish between day and night" (p 22.) He goes on to maintain that without objective moral values we cannot know right from wrong. He also maintains that "normally functioning human beings" are aware of objective moral values, and then uses Jeffrey Dahmer — a psychopath — as an example of what happens if you don't believe in them. He's already said that atheists can be moral, yet here he's equating them with psychopaths?

This is really unimpressive. We're only two chapters in, and I can only assume Dembski and Licona put the weakest arguments first, and that the strong ones are later in the book. I hope so, else this review is going to be an extremely tedious project.

---

*A version of Copan's chapter is available here:
http://www.4truth.net/fourtruthpbgod.aspx?pageid=8589952712

Burnee links for Sunday

Religion: Faith in science : Nature News
I share Jerry Coyne's unease at Templeton's research-skewing programme of grants and prizes. Research into "spirituality" isn't likely to go anywhere until someone can actually define it. It's all woolly-minded obfuscation designed to give religion some kind of scientific validity. It won't work.

Science, Reason and Critical Thinking: Rupert and the God Delusion
The indefatigable (and fearless...) Crispian Jago does it again.

Johann Hari: Get bishops out of our law-making - Johann Hari, Commentators - The Independent
Bishops, Out! Last year I attended a discussion/debate organised by the Labour Humanists at the Houses of Parliament, on precisely this issue. It was clear then, as it is now, that the position of the so-called Lords Spiritual is completely untenable. They have as much right to be there as a group of unelected dentists.

Gays will be faking it if they marry in church – Telegraph Blogs
This is a really strange piece by Cristina Odone. Is she confused about what marriage is? Marriage has a legal definition in English Law (setting aside for the moment its equivalence or non-equivalence to civil partnership), but how it's defined religiously depends surely on the religion in question. Getting married in a church counts as a legal marriage in Britain, but that's a concession. Whatever additional significance is conferred by a religious ritual is entirely dependent on who's officiating and who's participating. (Or to put it another way, it's all made up — so you can ascribe whatever meaning you like to it.) Cristina Odone is getting all exercised by something that has no real significance in law. But that's what religionists do, isn't it?
(Via Humanist Life.)

The Alister McGrath sneaky side-step shuffle : Pharyngula
PZ Myers exposes vacuous theology. Maybe he should pick a more robust target, as McGrath's circumlocutory effusion is well known for its absence of content.

Why are you an atheist? : Pharyngula
Here's a post from PZ Myers that I missed at the beginning of the month. Worth going back for though.

The ineffable is thoroughly effed — on Unbelievable?

Premier's Unbelievable? radio show continues to be a "curate's egg" experience. Some episodes are engaging and thought-provoking, but often they can be frustrating, and listening to them can be quite fascinating in a "Can this possibly get any worse?" kind of way. Today's show was like that. Justin Brierley's guests were Chris Sinkinson and John Hick. Here's Justin's introduction from the Unbelievable? website:

In an age of religious pluralism it can seem arrogant for Christians to claim they have "the truth" or the only means to salvation. So when Jesus said "no-one comes to the Father except through me" what did he mean? And what about those who have not heard the Gospel? John Hick is a noted philosopher and theologian who is a proponent of a pluralist view of religion - that there is one light (God) but many lampshades (religious expressions). Chris Sinkinson is a pastor and Bible tutor who has critiqued Hick's work. He says that pluralism empties Christianity of any content and in its own way disrespects other religions more than his own exclusivist stance.

I grant that this might be of interest to theologians, but I wonder how it would have gone down with the average Premier Radio listener. (No doubt we'll discover next week, when Justin reads some of his email — but I don't know how typical the respondents to Unbelievable? are.)

The show is available as mp3 audio here:
http://media.premier.org.uk/unbelievable/780e0b5d-0808-44f6-b9ac-063c3a2fdd31.mp3

In many ways I felt John Hick had the right idea. He was challenging all religions that claim to know the truth, much as an atheist might challenge, but seemed to take the lowest common denominator and opt for the kind of apophatic deity so beloved of the likes of Karen Armstrong and Terry Eagleton: God is a mystery; God is unknowable. So how can these people claim to know anything at all about such a God? John Hick almost, but not quite, went as far as to say that one couldn't know if God actually existed. In the face of such lack of knowledge he seemed to take that last bit on faith; he chose to believe in something called the "Ultimate Real" — presumably given such a name so that it needn't be defined in any substantial manner. Bear in mind that this Ultimate Real isn't a personal God. It has no personality, and it certainly doesn't answer prayers. There is, in fact, no way at all of knowing that it exists.

It's all very cosy, and presumably John Hick finds it reassuring that this Ultimate Real is there somewhere, in some sense. Maybe. Reassuring or not, personally I care whether my beliefs are true, and I'd like to believe something because it's true, rather than for any other reason.

Coalition drops the homeopathetic pill

Today, from HM Government, I received this email:

You signed a petition asking the Prime Minister to implement the recommendations of the House Commons Science and Technology committee evidence check on Homeopathy.

Her Majesty's Government has responded to that petition and you can view it here:

http://www.hmg.gov.uk/epetition-responses/petition-view.aspx?epref=nohomeopathy

Her Majesty's Government

Petition information - http://petitions.number10.gov.uk/nohomeopathy/

If you would like to opt out of receiving further mail on this or any other petitions you signed, please email optoutpetitions@hmg.gov.uk

It asks if I'd like to opt out of further emails.... Might as well, given the effectiveness of signing this particular petition. Here's HM Government's response to the petition in question:

The new Government considered the findings and recommendations of the House of Commons Science and Technology Committee and has published a full response. 

The Department of Health will not be withdrawing funding for homeopathy on the NHS, nor will the licensing of homeopathic products be stopped.  Decisions on the provision and funding of any treatment will remain the responsibility of the NHS locally.

A patient who wants homeopathic treatment on the NHS should speak to his or her GP.  If the GP is satisfied this would be the most appropriate and effective treatment then, subject to any local commissioning policies, he or she can refer them to a practitioner or one of the NHS homeopathic hospitals. 

In deciding whether homeopathy is appropriate for a patient, the treating clinician would be expected to take into account safety, clinical and cost-effectiveness as well as the availability of suitably qualified and regulated practitioners.  The Department of Health would not intervene in such decisions.

The Department’s response to the Science and Technology Committee report explains the reasons behind its decisions in more detail.  The response can be found on clicking on the following link:

http://www.dh.gov.uk/en/Publicationsandstatistics/Publications/PublicationsPolicyAndGuidance/DH_4006368

So there you have it. In response to the recommendations of the House of Commons Science and Technology Committee Evidence Check on Homeopathy, the Government is going to do ... precisely nothing.

Incidentally, that last link goes to something entitled: "Government response to the House of Lords Select Committee on Science & Technology report: Resistance to antibiotics and other antimicrobial agents", which as far as I can tell has nothing whatever to do with homeopathy.

Homeopathetic, that's what I call it.

Four Burnee links for Thursday

Mosque school arrest following Channel 4 documentary | UK news | The Guardian
Glad to see something happening about the atrocities filmed in this programme.

Driving Things to the Extreme « A Thousand Things Astronomy
To anyone who thinks you need hugely expensive astronomical equipment to take pictures of celestial bodies...

Teaching of evolution in school science under new threat
The idea that there could be schools that are not required to teach the national curriculum seems totally ludicrous to me.

On Faith Panelists Blog: Religion: the ultimate tyranny - Paula Kirby
She's back! And rightly objecting to the ludicrous implication that religion is in favour of freedom. PZ Myers liked this article too:

Ah, that feels so good…Paula Kirby really cut loose on the believers yesterday. The topic was the compatibility of religion and freedom—they're about as compatible as religion and science.

Religion claims to set its followers free, while all the time holding them in thrall and insisting they kiss the hand of their jailer. There can be no true freedom so long as religion still keeps the human mind in shackles.

You really must read the whole thing. It's probably not a good idea to do it at work, though, because afterwords you'll want to snuggle up and fall asleep.

A protest song to define protest songs

A fascinating article by Dorian Lynskey in today's Guardian online tells the story of "Strange Fruit", the protest song that defined the career of jazz singer Billie Holiday.

It is a clear, fresh New York night in March 1939. You're on a date and you've decided to investigate a new club in a former speakeasy on West 4th Street: Cafe Society, which calls itself "The Wrong Place for the Right People". Even if you don't get the gag on the way in – the doormen wear tattered clothes – then the penny drops when you enter the L-shaped, 200-capacity basement and see the satirical murals spoofing Manhattan's high-society swells. Unusually for a New York nightclub, black patrons are not just welcomed but privileged with the best seats in the house.

You've heard the buzz about the resident singer, a 23-year-old black woman called Billie Holiday who made her name up in Harlem with Count Basie's band. She has golden-brown, almost Polynesian skin, a ripe figure and a single gardenia in her hair. She has a way of owning the room, but she's not flashy. Her voice is plump and pleasure-seeking, prodding and caressing a song until it yields more delights than its author had intended, bringing a spark of vivacity and a measure of cool to even the hokier material.

And then it happens. The house lights go down, leaving Holiday illuminated by the hard, white beam of a single spotlight.

Click to read more.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h4ZyuULy9zs