YouTube - The Rapture
Glad to see someone considered the practicalities.
Why out-of-body and near-death experiences don’t prove God « Why Evolution Is True
No mention of Gary Habermas, I note.
BioDundee - News : Homeopathy is ‘dangerous and wasteful’ says Abertay Expert
Clearly stated, but will it be enough for the Government to act? (Judging by what happened south of the border, it seems doubtful.)
New Humanist - Islamic creationism on tour
Hasn't this bunch already done the rounds in the UK?
How can we corral data to reveal the big picture? | Ben Goldacre | Comment is free | The Guardian
Maybe it's impossible to be truly objective about data...
Sunday, 22 May 2011
Saturday, 21 May 2011
Absolutely wrong — more anti-naturalism in Dembski & Licona
As an exercise in misrepresentation Nancy Pearcey's contribution to Dembski & Licona's Evidence for God is hard to beat. In "How Darwinism Dumbs Us Down — Evolution and Postmodernism" she tries to make a case for naturalism being self-refuting. She doesn't refer to, or even mention Alvin Plantinga's Evolutionary Argument Against Naturalism, though she's writing about the same idea — but in a much dumbed-down manner lacking any focus. She claims that Darwinism undercuts rationality, without making a sufficient case for such a claim; her thesis in this respect suffers from the same flaw as Plantinga's: that although it's most likely true that evolution is responsible for our belief-forming mechanisms, our belief-forming mechanisms are not solely produced by evolution.
Critics of evolution (usually theists) often claim that "believers in evolution" maintain that Darwin's theory is responsible for absolutely everything. This straw man once again illustrates the theistic obsession with absolutes — Darwinism is responsible for everything, or it's responsible for nothing. (The theistic world is black and white: morality, for instance, is objective, absolute, unchanging and set in stone, or else it is an insubstantial figment of human imagination — nothing in between.) Pearcey's chapter provides examples early on, when she discusses the wider application of a naturalistic worldview:
This is wrong on several counts. Darwinism does not mean that "all our beliefs and values are products of evolutionary forces" — only some of them. Ideas do not "arise in the human brain by chance" — to suggest that they do in any significant quantity, is to suggest that the process of thinking is no more than a random synaptic cacophony — some of which might by chance be "useful". Clearly this is not so. As for pragmatism being "truth is what works", this is such a blatant oversimplification one hardly knows where to start with it. The entries on "pragmatism" in Wikipedia and the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy might be worth a try. (Note that although Pearcey uses the phrase "natural selection" she seems confused as to how it operates. She appears to be suggesting that ideas can be inherited — in a kind of transcendental Lamarckism.)
Unfortunately the paragraph quoted above is only the fourth in Pearcey's chapter, and it effectively undermines and invalidates most of what follows it. It's an all or nothing argument, which, if you take it literally and find even one tiny flaw, the whole edifice crumbles. To use a favourite anti-naturalism ploy, it's self-refuting.
4truth.net
http://www.4truth.net/fourtruthpbscience.aspx?pageid=8589952923
Critics of evolution (usually theists) often claim that "believers in evolution" maintain that Darwin's theory is responsible for absolutely everything. This straw man once again illustrates the theistic obsession with absolutes — Darwinism is responsible for everything, or it's responsible for nothing. (The theistic world is black and white: morality, for instance, is objective, absolute, unchanging and set in stone, or else it is an insubstantial figment of human imagination — nothing in between.) Pearcey's chapter provides examples early on, when she discusses the wider application of a naturalistic worldview:
At the foundation of these efforts, however, was a naturalistic approach to knowledge itself (epistemology). The logic went like this: If humans are products of Darwinian natural selection, that obviously includes the human brain–which in turn means all our beliefs and values are products of evolutionary forces: Ideas arise in the human brain by chance, just like Darwin's chance variations in nature; and the ones that stick around to become firm beliefs and convictions are those that give an advantage in the struggle for survival. This view of knowledge came to be called pragmatism (truth is what works) or instrumentalism (ideas are merely tools for survival). (p 82.)
Unfortunately the paragraph quoted above is only the fourth in Pearcey's chapter, and it effectively undermines and invalidates most of what follows it. It's an all or nothing argument, which, if you take it literally and find even one tiny flaw, the whole edifice crumbles. To use a favourite anti-naturalism ploy, it's self-refuting.
4truth.net
http://www.4truth.net/fourtruthpbscience.aspx?pageid=8589952923
Friday, 20 May 2011
"Objective" morality — not all it's cracked up to be
This week the podcast of Premier's Saturday discussion programme Unbelievable? was available for download the day before broadcast. The show's description reads:
It's that last sentence that irks. Christians — and others of a religious persuasion — seem to be obsessed with the idea of "objective" morality. Justin Brierley exemplified this attitude in his uncharacteristic interrogation of Leslie Scrace towards the close of this week's discussion. He repeatedly questioned the basis on which Leslie judged certain parts of the Bible to be immoral. The vice-like grip of this mindset was evident in the way both Justin and his other guest Chris Sinkinson claimed that morality must be "objective" or else it isn't morality. When Leslie suggested that Epicurus was a better moral teacher than Jesus, and treated women better than Jesus did, Justin responded thus:
And when Leslie said he thinks the human race hasn't arrived at a proper treatment of women, Justin replied:
Let's nail this persistent accusation. Where do Christians get their "objective" morality? Obviously it comes from scripture. Often the Ten Commandments are cited as a repository of moral standards. Disregarding for the present the obvious moral flaws within the Decalogue, let's just examine the idea of having a list of written rules — however the list may have originated. A set of laws, literally set in stone, inflexible and unquestionable, will inevitably lead to their inappropriate application, as all such laws do. The Ten Commandments can be described as "petty bureaucracy gone mad" — insistence on their application in all cases without exception is akin to the pompous official who says, "Sorry, I sympathise, but rules is rules. It's more than my job's worth to make an exception in your case."
There's huge irony in the religious insistence on blindly following a rule book, while at the same time decrying those who attempt to make moral judgements based on circumstances and consequences. The humanist approach is to consider notions of fairness, and the effects our decisions will have on those around us and on the wider world. The religious idea of morality is to follow an ancient text regardless of the moral consequences, and to hell with anyone who disagrees. That's not morality, "objective" or otherwise.
Look at it this way: who is exhibiting greater moral responsibility — those who attempt to derive and construct moral guidance from the circumstances the human race finds itself in, for the furtherance of human well-being, or those who ignore such efforts and stick rigidly to a list of obviously outdated "laws"?
"Rules are made to be broken." It's a cliché, but it's true. Rules — including moral rules — are not the be-all and end-all of how we should act. A list of rules is merely a handy aide-mémoire — a short-cut to help in knowing what to do in a wide range of circumstances, but not all circumstances. There will be times when the rules won't fit the circumstances, and we'll have to decide for ourselves how to act. Those who have taken it upon themselves to consider moral questions from the humanist perspective will clearly be better equipped to deal with such situations than those who rely slavishly on a list of supposedly inerrant rules.
Religious morality is no more "objective" than humanist morality. Humanist morality is founded on continuous study of circumstances and consequences — a morality that evolves, and is progressively honed by scientific knowledge, moderated by individual and group desires and aspirations, and a consideration of the well-being of the global human race. Religious morality on the other hand is "founded" on ancient texts of dubious provenance — it is, to all intents and purposes, arbitrary.
This week on Unbelievable : Is the Bible Unbelievable? Leslie Scrace & Chris Sinkinson
Former Methodist minister turned atheist Leslie Scrace stopped reading the Bible after he lost his faith. 20 years later he read it again and wrote a book-by-book account of how he views it as an atheist called "An Unbelievers Guide to the Bible". Leslie criticises parts of the Old Testament that he sees as primitive and immoral while praising other parts of scripture that illustrate humanist values. Chris Sinkinson is a church pastor and teaches Old Testament and Apologetics at Moorlands Bible College. He responds saying that the Bible can't be dissected in the way Leslie attempts and that taking God out of the morality of the Bible robs it of its meaning. They discuss books such as Job, Joshua, Song of Solomon and the Gospels. Chris also challenges Leslie on whether his humanist morality has any objective foundation.
Where does the "better" come from? This is the whole problem, for me, of the humanist perspective — that they talk about better this and better that, all the while denying that there is this standard that the better is getting closer to.
But you haven't explained what this proper standard is and how it exists independently of evolution and everything else.
There's huge irony in the religious insistence on blindly following a rule book, while at the same time decrying those who attempt to make moral judgements based on circumstances and consequences. The humanist approach is to consider notions of fairness, and the effects our decisions will have on those around us and on the wider world. The religious idea of morality is to follow an ancient text regardless of the moral consequences, and to hell with anyone who disagrees. That's not morality, "objective" or otherwise.
Look at it this way: who is exhibiting greater moral responsibility — those who attempt to derive and construct moral guidance from the circumstances the human race finds itself in, for the furtherance of human well-being, or those who ignore such efforts and stick rigidly to a list of obviously outdated "laws"?
"Rules are made to be broken." It's a cliché, but it's true. Rules — including moral rules — are not the be-all and end-all of how we should act. A list of rules is merely a handy aide-mémoire — a short-cut to help in knowing what to do in a wide range of circumstances, but not all circumstances. There will be times when the rules won't fit the circumstances, and we'll have to decide for ourselves how to act. Those who have taken it upon themselves to consider moral questions from the humanist perspective will clearly be better equipped to deal with such situations than those who rely slavishly on a list of supposedly inerrant rules.
Religious morality is no more "objective" than humanist morality. Humanist morality is founded on continuous study of circumstances and consequences — a morality that evolves, and is progressively honed by scientific knowledge, moderated by individual and group desires and aspirations, and a consideration of the well-being of the global human race. Religious morality on the other hand is "founded" on ancient texts of dubious provenance — it is, to all intents and purposes, arbitrary.
Thursday, 19 May 2011
Burnee links for Thursday
Asking the wrong question: how crap research gets drugs to market – Bad Science
Ben Goldacre touched on this problem with big-pharma-funded research in his spot during Uncaged Monkeys last Friday (at the Basingstoke Anvil — a great night out and highly enjoyable, thanks for asking), and it is very worrying.
Refs for talk, new book on the evils of Big Pharma, and a tour of medical schools - bengoldacre - secondary blog
Doctor Ben again, incidentally confirming that he talked about this stuff in Uncaged Monkeys. His attempt to reach every medical student in the country is a truly awe-inspiring project.
DMD --------------------
Draw Mohammad, the day before the Rapture, in defence of free speech.
New Humanist: An encounter with the Centre for Intelligent Design – debating creationism, ID and Holocaust denial
Actually with Alasdair Noble, its director, at a science festival in Edinburgh.
Rapture Relief - Media
You can't fault the logic, and it's in a good cause!
Stephen Hawking: 'There is no heaven; it's a fairy story' | Science | The Guardian
Hawking tends to pare down his communication to the essentials, to give us his refreshing no-nonsense take on the great questions.
Twitter / @ben goldacre: If you ever feel down, you ...
... should know that this video of nerdy girls playing old synthesisers is here for you http://post.ly/23Sbr
And here it is:
http://youtu.be/aeujZtBvMFY
Ben Goldacre touched on this problem with big-pharma-funded research in his spot during Uncaged Monkeys last Friday (at the Basingstoke Anvil — a great night out and highly enjoyable, thanks for asking), and it is very worrying.
Refs for talk, new book on the evils of Big Pharma, and a tour of medical schools - bengoldacre - secondary blog
Doctor Ben again, incidentally confirming that he talked about this stuff in Uncaged Monkeys. His attempt to reach every medical student in the country is a truly awe-inspiring project.
DMD --------------------
Draw Mohammad, the day before the Rapture, in defence of free speech.
New Humanist: An encounter with the Centre for Intelligent Design – debating creationism, ID and Holocaust denial
Actually with Alasdair Noble, its director, at a science festival in Edinburgh.
Rapture Relief - Media
You can't fault the logic, and it's in a good cause!
Stephen Hawking: 'There is no heaven; it's a fairy story' | Science | The Guardian
Hawking tends to pare down his communication to the essentials, to give us his refreshing no-nonsense take on the great questions.
Twitter / @ben goldacre: If you ever feel down, you ...
... should know that this video of nerdy girls playing old synthesisers is here for you http://post.ly/23Sbr
And here it is:
http://youtu.be/aeujZtBvMFY
Labels:
Burnee links
Wednesday, 18 May 2011
New Skepticule Record (Portsmouth Skeptics in the Pub) available
Dr. Chaz Shapiro delivered a fascinating talk on dark matter and dark energy at Portsmouth Skeptics in the Pub on Thursday 12th May, at its new venue The Fat Fox.
Audio is available in the Skepticule Record podcast feed here:
http://www.skepticule.co.uk/2011/05/skeprec-002-20110512.html
There was another highly engaging talk later the same evening by Dr. Paul Curzon, on artificial intelligence. Audio should be available shortly.
Tuesday, 17 May 2011
Monday, 16 May 2011
Uncaged Monkeys at the Anvil, Basingstoke
"So what's this Uncaged Monkeys thing you're going to see then? Is it a band?"It may have been different, geeky, at times hilarious and at other times intensely moving. It may not be the usual fare at the Basingstoke Anvil, but it filled pretty well all of the hall's 1400 seats.
"No, it's not a band."
"A play?"
"No, it's ... science. And comedy."
"Oh. That sounds —"
"By the people in Radio Four's The Infinite Monkey Cage. You heard of that?"
"Er, no."
"Well, they just got a Sony Award."
Robin Ince started the show off, casting some aspersions on Professor Brian Cox — whom he claimed never listened to the introductions so he could say what he liked. Then it was time for TV's Professor Wonder Boy to wow us with potted particle physics. He hit us with the Higgs boson, and claimed that particle accelerators were always built near airports in order to give them a sense of perspective. In a generally reassuring manner he touched on the likelihood of the Large Hadron Collider destroying the Earth, using a technical term that I forget — though I remember it was four letters beginning and ending in "t". (There was also a "w" and an asterisk in it somewhere). He showed us a graphic of government funding, challenging us to locate the spend on scientific research. He pointed out the bill for the bank bail-out, and that it was greater than the amount spent on science ... since Jesus. And he did the Big Bang.
Ben Goldacre chased his wild hair and oscillating eyebrows around the stage, with tales of placebos, big pharma and fish oil pills, and he showed us a picture of his cat Henrietta, plus a certificate of her medical qualifications — the same qualifications claimed by nutritionist Gillian McKeith. Great mirth ensued, but the stuff about big pharma was actually quite worrying.
Steve Jones talked about evolution, illustrating natural selection with something from his own early career as an engineer. His example was a process of converting a liquid to a powder by forcing it at high pressure through metal nozzles. Apparently these nozzles used to corrode and become ineffective very quickly. Rather than try to work out the best shape for these nozzles, the designers used a form of random mutation, making ten copies, each slightly — but randomly — different from the original. These copies then were tested, and best one was then randomly mutated ten times and then those copies were tested. After several cycles of such random mutation and selection, they ended up with a nozzle that lasted 100 times longer than the original, but no-one knew why.
Simon Singh electrocuted a gherkin on stage, which was highly illuminating (literally, though what it would taste like after that, he didn't say). Of such insights is the scientific knowledge regarding the size and the age of the universe derived. And he too did the Big Bang. He ended with the story of his somewhat pedantic insistence on the accuracy of song lyrics, which is appropriate because we were also entertained by Helen Arney, who sang to us while playing the ukele.
There was a session during which Robin Ince passed on tweeted questions to Ben Goldacre, Brian Cox and Simon Singh. (There is also a podcast — Free Primates — in which the Uncaged Monkeys answer questions they didn't have time to deal with on stage.)
Naturally the show could not pass without several mentions of Carl Sagan, of whom both Robin Ince and Brian Cox are declared fans. Sagan's Pale Blue Dot brought the proceedings to a moving close.
Altogether it was a splendidly enjoyable evening, and I saw the whole thing close up as I was on the front row. What I should have realised is that the Anvil is the nearest venue for many of those people who attend Winchester Skeptics in the Pub, as well as the fledgling Portsmouth Skeptics in the Pub. Several were indeed attending, and I was pleased to be able to join some of them for a curry after the show.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)