Denying the evidence of declining UK Christianity

http://youtu.be/zerVCx1Cnbc


Ann Widdecombe is on a mission to persuade us that reports of the demise of Christianity are greatly exaggerated. Her case, however, is severely hampered by the examples she chooses to highlight in this BBC1 documentary, which — contrary to her statements — suggests that congregations are indeed dwindling. She gives two examples of churches that have increased attendance, but these are clearly the result of massive amounts of local immigration. This isn't growing or even maintaining Christianity, it's simply moving it around; it also creates a disturbing tendency towards ghettoisation.

Maybe the Church really does want a congregation to be all but swallowed up by East European immigrants, or even to be completely replaced with immigrant African Pentecostals. Of course, the effect of such immigration could indeed be seen as an increase in Christianity in the UK, but to me it seems more equivalent to claiming that the best answer to the UK's dwindling manufacturing base is to have more stuff imported into the country.

In the interests of balance (one assumes), Johann Hari and Evan Harris are interviewed during the programme, but as dissenting views (dissenting from the Widdecombe views, that is) they are given short shrift. This is frankly not surprising — she's done this before in TV documentaries: if she gets an answer she doesn't agree with she simply ignores it, with little or no comment.

One of the reasons Ann Widdecombe converted to Catholicism was Anglican support for female clergy, so it's ironic to watch her interviewing a female cleric on whether or not Christianity is declining (and agreeing with her). She also interviews Rowan Williams, the Archbishop of Canterbury, and agrees with him despite her "devil's advocate" questions, while presumably at the same time believing he's practising the wrong faith. But cognitive dissonance is no stranger to the blinkered Widdecombe thought-processes; she's quite happy to believe the Exodus really happened (because it's in the Bible), despite the total lack of archeological evidence that would have to be there if such a thing actually occurred.

A brace of podcasts — Skepticule Extra & Skepticule Record

Here's the latest instalment of Skepticule Extra, wherein Paul Baird, Paul ("Sinbad") Thompson and I discuss recently mutating DNA, whether a family of hateful fundamentalists really expects to convert anyone, if book-burning should make a difference, and whether a well known Christian apologist and debater is all he's cracked up to be:

http://www.skepticule.co.uk/2011/04/skepextra-003-20110417.html

Also available is the first episode of Skepticule Record, which though it's currently on the same RSS feed as Skepticule Extra, will be used to archive the audio of live events. The first is a recording of Dr. Tom Williamson's talk, "The Scientific Method: Uses and Abuses", given at Portsmouth Skeptics in the Pub last Thursday:

http://www.skepticule.co.uk/2011/04/skeprec-001-20110417.html

(Despite being recorded in a noisy bar with a football commentary in the background, the talk is listenable. I'm hoping, however, that next time a feed from the PA will be available.)

Burnee links for Sunday

Why bother with theologians? - steve's posterous
No more William Lane Craig for me. His debates with Krauss and Harris clearly showed his arguments to be moribund. Time to move on.

Harris is right, I was wrong | The Uncredible Hallq
More from Chris Hallquist on Craig vs Harris.

Debating God: Atheist and Evangelical Face Off at Notre Dame | (A)theologies | Religion Dispatches
An inside view of Craig vs Harris.

Sam the Man
Bruce Hood meets the man of the week.

Metamagician and the Hellfire Club: How I see the "New Atheism" - Part 1 of 2
Russell Blackford is always insightful — even though I don't always agree with him.

Religion lies about women - On Faith - The Washington Post
Paula Kirby on yet more lies of religion.

Could I believe in a supernatural God?

Something that came up in the latest Skepticule Extra discussion (podcast due out imminently — watch this space) prompts me to clarify a change of position. Back in January of 2010 I blogged about what I thought it would take for me to become a believer in God. That post appears somewhat inconclusive now, as I seem to have moved to a more hard-line stance.

Listening to a recent exchange between Richard Dawkins and A. C. Grayling, and reading Grayling's subsequent email to-and-fro with Jerry Coyne, I've realised that there's probably nothing that would convince me of the existence of God.

This of course stems from my naturalistic worldview, in which supernatural entities or events are precluded by definition. However:

There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio,
Than are dreamt of in your philosophy.

William Shakespeare: Hamlet, Act 1, Scene 5

The Bard may have been suggesting that there are things we know nothing of, but the more we find out, the more we realise that the universe is strange. And though strange, it has never, not even once, been found to be supernatural. Every time a "mystery" has been explained by science, that explanation has been a natural one. Not once has science come up with an explanation involving supernatural forces. Some might object that the remit of science prevents this, but what else are we to go on? Divine revelation?

Before I'm accused of being closed-minded on this issue, I should first point out that I consider the problem to be essentially one of definition. If you ask me what it would take for me to be convinced of the existence of God, I will necessarily want a clear definition of that God. You tell me precisely and coherently what you mean by God — with no obfuscation or appeals to mystery or ineffability — and I will tell you precisely and coherently what it would take for me to believe in that God.

Half an hour with the man of the week: Sam Harris on the Pod Delusion

A bit of a coup for the Pod Delusion, snagging what appears to be an exclusive interview with Sam Harris. Full marks to James O'Malley and Liz Lutgendorff for their insightful questions to the man of the week:


Direct link to mp3:
http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/PodDelusionExtra/~5/e-5lvw8K4EY/73131_20110415011202.mp3

Edited highlights of this interview are included in this week's regular Pod Delusion episode:
http://poddelusion.co.uk/blog/2011/04/15/episode-80-15th-april-2011/
Direct link to mp3:
http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/ThePodDelusion/~5/lzcbhEY7GgQ/73128_20110415010548.mp3

The audio from Sam Harris's conversation with Richard Dawkins is also available:
http://poddelusion.co.uk/blog/2011/04/13/sam-harris-richard-dawkins-talk-about-the-moral-landscape/
Direct link to mp3:
http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/PodDelusionExtra/~5/sKNwf1rmyI4/72635_20110413141016.mp3

Enjoy!

Burnee links for Thursday

Sam Harris vs. William Lane Craig debate review (part 1)
Luke Muehlhauser's review.

The Sam Harris-William Lane Craig debate: a review | The Uncredible Hallq
Chris Hallquist's review.

American Atheists | Interview: Douglas Adams
An interview about atheism.
(Via The Atheist Experience.)

FT.com / Books / Non-Fiction - The Ego Trick
A. C. Grayling reviews Julian Baggini's new book.

Giles Fraser on "The Moral Landscape" - steve's posterous
Steve Zara reviews the review.

The mythical Sam Harris | Andrew Brown | Comment is free | guardian.co.uk
Andrew Brown was apparently at the Harris/Fraser event, but I wonder if he's read The Moral Landscape? If he has, maybe he didn't get it.

Harris v Craig : Pharyngula
Looks like P. Z. Myers has undergone a conversion. Of sorts.

Shades of gray : Pharyngula
A bit of catching up and I came across this. Hey PZ, when's your book due out?!

Debate: Is there evidence for God? William Lane Craig vs Lawrence Krauss

Another day, another debate. This one is William Lane Craig vs Lawrence Krauss, arguing the toss over "Is there evidence for God?" The topic, alas, is poorly framed. What kind of evidence? If we're talking about pretty poor evidence, then Craig has it sewn up. Indeed this was exactly the tack he took, though needlessly (and somewhat comically) dressing it up with a ridiculous equation. In effect he said, "I have some evidence. Not very good evidence, but evidence. Therefore I win."

As in his debate a few days later with Sam Harris, he succeeded in frustrating those who might have wanted him to get to grips with the important issues. Lawrence Krauss is one of the foremost scientists in the world today, and he has much interesting insight into the nature of the cosmos, and — because he's thought about these things — whether the cosmos has a god in it. But Craig simply repeated his painfully circular syllogisms ad nauseam, and the whole thing seemed like a waste of time.

Krauss, it appears, thought so too. In a substantial guest-post on P. Z. Myers' blog Pharyngula he explains why:

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2011/04/05/lawrence-krauss-vs-william-lan/

But perhaps before reading Krauss's post mortem report you should watch the debate itself (but be warned — the audio on these videos is dreadful):

Part 1 of 6 http://youtu.be/71ZhJL56bdQ

Part 2 of 6 http://youtu.be/jHHTYbusTmw
Part 3 of 6 http://youtu.be/Tutz5id90lk
Part 4 of 6 http://youtu.be/vpv5mMRFUgQ
Part 5 of 6 http://youtu.be/WVOCxP8aWIY
Part 6 of 6 http://youtu.be/Fs_pgaSrxP8

P. Z. Myers also has some things to say about the debate, this amongst them:

Also, Craig claims to be using Bayesian logic. No, he is not. Scribbling a few trivial equations on his slides does not substitute for Craig's painful ignorance of physics.

Watching William Lane Craig used to be interesting, but I've seen him do the same stuff over and over, and now he's just boring.