A funny thing happened on the way to the Royal Albert Hall

It was yesterday, and actually I was already there, attempting to take pictures of the various flag sellers, when I was accosted by a gentleman brandishing what appeared to be a "Flip" video camera, who asked me if I'd like to take part in a "Vox Pop":

http://www.winkball.com/entries/MrWdBOWYKRvC/&t

So of course I said yes.

Blog-dearth excuses: Skepticule Extra

My blogging schedule has gone to pot, that's clear. I kept up the one-post-per-day for over eight months, until other things (life, or something masquerading as such) impinged on my daily creative output. Here's an example — the Skepticule Extra podcast comes out every fortnight on average, and the most recently published show features an interview with Matt Flannagan of the MandM blog. He talks about the Euthyphro dilemma and Divine Command Theory:

http://www.skepticule.co.uk/2011/09/skepextra-013-20110821.html

And there's other stuff. Enjoy.

(The next show, number 14, will be published any day now.)

Burnee links for Sunday

Links all from RD.net, mostly circumventing the Times paywall:

The Wonder Years - The Times Leading Article - The Times - RichardDawkins.net
A leader sparked off by excerpts from Richard Dawkins' new book for children. (Note that a forthcoming episode of the Skepticule Extra podcast will be dealing with science education.)

[UPDATE - audio]Evolution? Children do Adam and Eve it - Richard Dawkins - The Times - Eureka - RichardDawkins.net
This is the Eureka article to which the the Times leader (linked above) refers.

Attack of the Theocrats! How the Religious Right Harms Us All- —and What We Can Do About It - Sean Faircloth - Pitchstone Publishing - RichardDawkins.net
Alarming to note that a book like this is necessary in the officially secular US. How much more are such warnings needed in the UK, where state religion puts secularism at a disadvantage?

Leading bishop hits out at Dawkins for reducing ‘faith into ignorance’ - Ruth Gledhill, Religion correspondent - The Times - RichardDawkins.net
It's truly laughable that the quotes chosen are perfect examples of scientific impossibilities, and yet the bishop apparently thinks it insulting that Dawkins points them out to be so. But miracles by definition are occurrences that contradict science. Miracles, fairy tales — how is one supposed to tell the difference?

‘Children are indoctrinated. I want to open their minds' - Alexander Linklater - The Times - RichardDawkins.net
More in the Times: an interview about the new book for children.

17th October — Stephen Law vs William Lane Craig

Polly Toynbee, president of the British Humanist Association, was due to debate William Lane Craig, to kick off his October tour of the UK. She pulled out once she realised what kind of thing a debate with Craig is, and philosopher Stephen Law has stepped in to take her place.

I had decided not to attend the debate, as I was getting pretty sick of Craig's debating style. He does these things not in an effort to explore the arguments, but to "win". We saw this with two recent debates, first with Lawrence Krauss, and then with Sam Harris. Both Krauss and Harris have interesting and original things to say about their particular areas of concern, cosmology and morality respectively. But Craig isn't concerned with learning from either of them. Perhaps though, Krauss and Harris learned something from Craig — but it would not have been anything about the evidence for God, or the moral necessity of God. They may, however, have learned how to score superficial debating points — not that either of them would have been interested in doing such a thing.

So I decided, as noted above, that I was done with Craig and his "Reasonable Faith Tour".

I have, however, reconsidered. Previously I decided not to attend a conversation between Sam Harris and Giles Fraser (regular readers will know how much Fraser irritates me), but later regretted my decision, because when I changed my mind I discovered all tickets were sold.

To forestall potentially similar regrets I do now have a ticket for the Craig vs Law debate at Westminster Central Hall at 7:30 pm on Monday 17th October. Partly this is because I'm currently reading Stephen Law's new book, Believing Bullshit, and partly because of all those put up against Craig on this tour and elsewhere, Stephen Law seems likely to be the most capable of tackling Craig on his own terms. Perusal of his blog indicates he's not taking the debate lightly (he is, at least, getting plenty of advice).

Naturally you can expect a full report.

Burnee links for Thursday

Spirituality: It’s only human! - On Faith - The Washington Post
An older post from Paula Kirby's On Faith column. She's not saying anything new to me, but it nevertheless needs saying, again and again. Maybe, just maybe it will eventually sink in to the religionists that they have no proprietorial exclusivity on morality.

Guerilla Skepticism and Wikipedia
I've often fancied having a go at editing Wikipedia, but I'm aware what a time-sink that endeavour can be. Susan Gerbic has some suggestions for where to start, and why (with a specific — laudable — goal in mind).

Forget What Did: Everything in the garden is rosy.
A cheerful disposition is such a valuable thing to possess...

Ten Things Everyone Should Know About Time | Cosmic Variance | Discover Magazine
Take time to read this list. Some of the items are surprisingly non-intuitive.

Greta Christina's Blog: The Santa Delusion: Why "Religion Is Useful" Is a Terrible Argument For Religion
Don't be like Slartibartfast: "I'd far rather be happy than right any day."

More on objective morality

Here's the latest video from that scourge of theistic obfuscation, NonStampCollector. What's interesting about his approach here (apart from his unusually minimal wielding of the subtle, awesome power of Microsoft Paint) is that in order to make his point he takes on board almost every assumption and presupposition tacitly proposed by William Lane Craig — and still shows why they lack foundation.

http://youtu.be/zXO26pObTZA


The whole question of morality — objective, absolute or otherwise — is now receiving much-needed scrutiny, and the theistic (particularly Christian) proprietorial claims on it are being shown for what they are — unfounded, vacuous and arbitrary.

(Via Fergus Gallagher.)

Irrelevant exegesis

Darrell Bock, the author of Chapter 29 of Dembski & Licona's Evidence for God, entitled "The Son of Man", was recently a guest on Premier Radio's Unbelievable? programme. On that occasion he was opposite Bart Erhman talking about the latter's book Forged, and the conversation was, for me (as far as I recall), a little technical and mostly irrelevant. That should have been fair warning, for in this chapter — scarcely two pages long — Bock searches for Old and New Testament mentions of the phrase "Son of Man" and attempts to interpret their meanings (which incidentally he maintains are different in different contexts).

Here's an example:

One way is to discuss whether the use of the title comes with a clear use of Daniel 7, an indirect use or no use, since this is the only OT passage that is connected to the title specifically in the NT. Most uses of the title do not make an explicit connection to Daniel 7. In fact, the explicit uses that do come appear in two places: (1) the eschatological discourse where Jesus discusses the return of the Son of Man and (2) at Jesus' examination by the Jewish leadership where he speaks of the Son of Man seated at God's right hand coming on the clouds, a remark that combines Daniel 7 and Psalm 110:1. This means that in most uses in the gospels Jesus used the title but did not give a reference to tie it to as an explanation. Both of the explicit uses come late in Jesus' ministry.

To whom is Bock directing this scrutiny of minutiae? In a book purporting to offer arguments and evidence for God, it seems more than a little premature. Shouldn't we establish the provenance of scripture itself before discussing its apparent subtleties?

Bock's final paragraph is this:

So the Son of Man is a title Jesus used to refer to himself and his authority. He revealed its full import toward the end of his ministry. But the title referred to Jesus as the representative of humanity who also engaged in divine activity. It was a way of saying I am the One sent with divine authority to also be the representative of humanity. In this context, all of Jesus' ministry and work, including his suffering on the cross for sin takes place.

To which I reply, "So what?"

---

4truth.net:
http://www.4truth.net/fourtruthpbjesus.aspx?pageid=8589952903