Adam Rutherford and the creation of life

Tomorrow evening I'll be at the annual Darwin Day Lecture held by the British Humanist Association. This year it will be delivered by Adam Rutherford:

I attended last year's lecture by Armand Leroi, which was excellent, so I'm looking forward to hearing what, if anything, Adam Rutherford has to say about "Creation". He's known to be provocative when it comes to matters of religious faith, so depending on the audience make-up the Q&A (if there is one) could be lively.

The claims of religious faith are not exempt

The HOTS Bath advertising nonsense seems to have shaken out those wedded to religious privilege. Hayley Stevens has done us all a favour in highlighting it with her ASA complaint.

Brendan O'Neill at the Telegraph seems to be one of the more belligerent fulminators against the ASA's ruling:

This is an outrageous attack on freedom of religion, on the basic right of people to express central tenets of their faith.

Central tenets such as, for instance, homosexuality is an abomination? Or those who don't believe in Jesus/God are destined for "eternal conscious torment"? Or that contraception is an evil worse than AIDS? Granted, these aren't exactly touted around as attractive propositions you might want to try out on the streets around Bath Abbey, but they are as without factual basis as anything promoted by snake-oil salesmen.

You have a recently deceased relative? A central tenet of some religious faith is that God can bring a dead person back to life. Should we allow a religious group to make such a specific claim on the streets of Bath, or anywhere else for that matter? We should not. But by law we must. The ASA covers published advertising only, so any oral claims of resurrection made on the streets are beyond its remit. But apparently HOTS Bath did claim, in their leaflets and on their website, that serious illness can be alleviated by prayer. This is a medical claim, and they provide no acceptable evidence to support it. The ASA was right, therefore, to put a stop to it.

O'Neill is simply illustrating the undeserved privilege religious faith has enjoyed for so long — a privilege built into UK political culture — and which religion in general will try to hang on to for as long as it can.

Elsewhere in the Telegraph Tom Chivers gives the side of sanity:

This isn't an outrageous attack on religion. People are still allowed to believe, and state that they believe, in obvious nonsense like faith healing. But advertising laws can't be redrawn just because someone decides their product is religious; if they make actual empirical medical claims, then they need to be able to provide actual empirical medical evidence.

Personally I'd like to see some actual empirical evidence for religious faith's other claims too.

(Via HumanistLife.)

Burnee links for Sunday

In Antithesis, Vol 2, No. 1
Choosing Hats has published another issue of its apologetics journal. I read Stephen Rodgers' article "The New Atheism, Fast Company, and the Integrity of Doubt". Despite the obscure title the article is engagingly written (if a bit wordy at times — and Rodgers has a fondness for footnotes that leak all over the feet of adjacent pages) but there's little of substance there. Basically his thesis is, "New Atheism? Pfft! We've seen it all before." So that's it folks: to rebut the "Four Horsemen" all you need to do is claim you already have. I do object, however, to Rodgers' maligning the honesty of Sam Harris. Stooping to such low tactics reveals the underlying desperation of the apologetic method.

“It’s Part of their Culture” - Reading Nick Cohen in the light of the Jaipur affair - Richard Dawkins - RD.net - RichardDawkins.net
Some "cultures", however, are inherently bad.

UK Advertising Standards Authority try and stop Healing on the Streets | News | Bible Reflections | prayer, healing
HOTS Bath still not getting it.

Anoka, our little blight on the prairie | Pharyngula
Hard to take. But these kids have been ill-served. Children are the future of humanity — don't neglect them.

New Rule: Atheism is not a religion! Unbaptizes Mitt Romney's Dead Father-In-Law! - YouTube
Bill Maher nails Mormon ludicrousness (ludicrity? ludicrosity? whatever...)

The Road to Hell

"What About Those Who Have Never Heard the Gospel?"

This is the title of chapter 40 of Dembski & Licona's Evidence for God, and once again it's a chapter that seems to be in the wrong section. I'm currently reading the section titled The Question of Jesus, and this chapter should clearly be in the final section, The Question of the Bible — it is, after all, about the Gospel. True, Michael R. Licona is following on from his previous chapter about whether Jesus is the only path to God, but it nevertheless seems out of place.

That said, this chapter reveals more of the quagmire that Christians stir up for themselves when they insist on taking the Bible as written (or inspired) by the all-powerful creator of the universe. The essence of Licona's thesis here is that there are two types of revelation from God: general revelation and special revelation. (Unbidden, an image of God looking remarkably like Albert Einstein springs to mind.) General revelation is a knowledge of God apparent in Creation (with, naturally, a capital 'C'), and special revelation is a knowledge of God made available through the Gospel. If you reject either of these revelations you're damned to Hell.

According to Romans chapter one, God has made some of his invisible attributes known through the world in which we live. The stars, the sun, the moon, the ocean, and many other wonders of nature were not the work of a bull, a horse, a calf, or a man. These are the products of a cosmic designer of immense intelligence. In Romans chapter 2, Paul tells us that God has instilled basic knowledge of his moral laws in our conscience, so that, instinctively, we know that actions such as rape, murder, stealing, and falsehood are immoral. We all are accountable to God for immoral actions we have committed of varying degrees. Theologians refer to this type of knowledge as general revelation. In other words, given our universe and our conscience, we should be aware that a God of some sort exists and that we have failed to live up to his moral law.

I don't accept the notion that "the world in which we live" is the product of "a cosmic designer of immense intelligence". For me, the evidence for such designer simply isn't as compelling as the evidence for the alternative hypothesis — that the world in which we live is the result of natural processes, without the intervention of a supernatural agent. Therefore, according to Licona, I'm damned even if I never encounter the Gospel.

According to Licona, those who do accept the idea of a cosmic designer, but — for whatever reason — believe that the designer is some deity other than Jesus/God fall into one of two categories: those who have never encountered the Gospel, and those who have. The first category are granted salvation by virtue of their honest, blameless ignorance; the second — sorry, you got the wrong god, despite being shown the right one, so to Hell with your sinful soul.

Several times Licona admits that the Bible doesn't have specific answers to particular questions, and resorts to what he calls speculation. This, it appears, is a code-word for what Christians seem to do quite a lot in their "interpretation" of scripture — that is, they simply make stuff up.

Let’s summarize. We’ve faced the difficult questions pertaining to the fate of those who die without ever having heard the gospel as well as that of babies and the mentally handicapped who lack the mental capacity to understand the gospel. Since the Bible does not directly address either of these questions, speculation pertaining to possible solutions is our only course of action. However, we may look at other situations in which God has acted and get a glimpse into his character. We observed two divine principles: (1) God judges us according to our response to the knowledge about him we are given. At minimal, this knowledge consists of the fact that there is a Creator to whom we will stand accountable for our moral failures. (2) God does not hold accountable those who lack the mental capacity to choose between good and evil.

Licona's two divine principles each appear to be fundamentally problematic: (1) that there is a  Creator is not a fact but a Christian presupposition unsupported by compelling evidence, and (2) according to Genesis God does indeed hold accountable those who lack the mental capacity to choose between good and evil. Adam and Eve were specifically denied the knowledge of good and evil, yet according to the story God still held them accountable, to the extent that their "sin" is visited on every single human being since.

My own take on this "problem" is that it isn't a problem at all, but merely one more part of the obfuscation necessary in attempting to resolve something that doesn't make sense in the first place.

---

4truth.net:
http://www.4truth.net/fourtruthpbjesus.aspx?pageid=8589952889

Burnee links for Friday

The absurd whiteness of Be Scofield | Pharyngula
PZ Myers is tempted to dismiss yet more bashing of "New Atheists".

The hounding of 'Psychic Sally' is becoming a modern-day witch-hunt – Telegraph Blogs
The hounding of skeptics for their rational demand for evidence in support of extraordinary claims is becoming a modern-day witch-hunt. Witchfinder-General Brendan O'Neill is — at best — apparently happy to let "psychics" spread their delusions to vulnerable people, or — at worst — happy to let known frauds continue to defraud the vulnerable.

AlbertMohler.com – The President, the Pill, and Religious Liberty in Peril
This tenor of this article is similar to the attitude of the Catholic Church in the UK — complaining that their religious liberty is infringed, when what they really care about is that they're no longer allowed to discriminate unfairly. But there's another point apparent here. What US law seems to be saying is that employers must provide health insurance, which must include the availability of contraception. Mohler's article is objecting to employers having to pay for something (contraception) that may be against their religious beliefs, but as far as I can tell that is not what will happen. Employers will provide insurance, and that insurance will comply with the law. Employers will not, in fact, be buying contraception, any more than an employer buys the food bought with an employee's salary. If Mohler were a vegetarian and employed someone who wasn't, would he object to his employee buying meat? If Mohler hated football, would he object to his employee buying tickets for a football game? An employer pays an employee for work, skills and experience. What the employee does with the salary is the employee's own affair. If employment law requires an employer to pay for health insurance, any claim the employee makes on that insurance is likewise the employee's own affair.
(Via Chris Bolt.)

The believer’s inner needs | Butterflies and Wheels
Ophelia Benson reads Kenan Malik's talk with which he opened the CFI Blasphemy! Conference.

Too Westernized, secular and progressive to be authentic | Butterflies and Wheels
And goes on reading...

ASA rules against faith-healing claims

First it was the BBC:

Bath Christian group's 'God can heal' adverts banned

A Christian group has been banned from claiming that God can heal illnesses on its website and in leaflets.

The Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) said it had concluded that the adverts by Healing on the Streets (HOTS) - Bath, were misleading. It said a leaflet available to download from the group's website said: "Need Healing? God can heal today!" The group, based in Bradford-on-Avon, Wiltshire, said it was disappointed with the decision and would appeal. HOTS Bath said its vision was to promote Christian healing "as a daily lifestyle for every believer".

But the BBC was cagey about the origin of the complaint:

The ASA said it had been alerted to the adverts by a complainant, and concluded that they could encourage false hope and were irresponsible. HOTS Bath said: "It seems very odd to us that the ASA wants to prevent us from stating on our website the basic Christian belief that God can heal illness.

It's not odd, it's the law. HOTS Bath may consider it a "basic Christian belief that God can heal illness" but unless they can substantiate that claim they have no business putting it in an ad on a website, and therefore the ASA ruling is correct.

The ASA didn't reveal the identity of the complainant. Said complainant, however, was understandably aggrieved at the statement subsequently placed on the HOTS website:

It appears that the complaint to the ASA was made by a group generally opposed to Christianity, and it seems strange to us that on the basis of a purely ideological objection to what we say on our website, the ASA has decided it is appropriate to insist that we cannot talk about a common and widely held belief that is an important aspect of conventional Christian faith.

Hayley Stevens, well-known skeptic and paranormal investigator — and the complainant in this case — decided to put the record straight on her blog, Hayley is a Ghost, despite the adverse publicity likely to result. This was then taken up by the Bath Chronicle, which quotes Hayley on her reasons for making the complaint to the ASA. Still HOTS Bath fail to understand the issue at hand, illustrating the de facto privileged position religious faith continues to enjoy — and expect — in the UK. They maintain the ASA (and by extension Hayley Stevens herself, as complainant) are objecting to their ideology, when in fact it's a simple matter of evidence for claims made.

The story then appeared on the Daily Mail website, together with an invitation for reader comments. The article itself is reasonably (and unusually) dispassionate — but the comments, as might be expected, are something else.

Hayley Stevens is to be applauded for not only making the complaint in the first place, but also for standing up to be counted despite the unwelcome attention she must have known it would bring.

---

A short interview with Hayley Stevens, conducted after the recent Beyond the Veil one-day conference at Conway Hall at which she spoke (and before the ASA ruling discussed above), will be featured in the next episode of the Skepticule Extra podcast.

Respect other beliefs (but damn those believers to Hell)

In chapter 39 of Dembski & Licona's Evidence for God, co-editor Michael R. Licona asks, "Is Jesus the Only Way?" — and in the process gets a bit side-tracked, revealing some fundamental inconsistencies with god-belief in general and Christianity in particular.

He begins by quoting the Bible (of course):

“I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father but through me.” (John 14:6)

...among other parts, then goes on to claim Jesus's exclusivity in the salvation department by means of his prediction that he would rise from the dead.

This is a pretty good test and differs from those offered by other religions.

It might be pretty good as far as Mike Licona is concerned, but isn't it, at heart, a non sequitur? Will you believe me if I tell you I can get you into Heaven? No? How about if I offer to perform a magic trick — will you believe me now? Resurrection and divinity are too tenuously related, in my opinion, for one to be a guarantee of the other.

Licona grants that literary comparisons of scriptures don't serve to place one above another, so he keeps coming back to the resurrection. This isn't surprising given he has co-written a book about it.

Space does not permit me to provide a historical case for Jesus’ resurrection. Gary Habermas and I have done so in The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus. If we may assume for the moment that Jesus was truly who he claimed to be, this goes a long way toward reconciling his claim to being the exclusive route to God with the uneasiness it brings.

The "uneasiness" he refers to is the apparent arrogance of Jesus's exclusive claim. But saying "If we may assume for the moment that Jesus was truly who he claimed to be, this goes a long way toward reconciling his claim..." isn't saying much, other than "If we may assume Jesus is the only way to God, then Jesus is the only way to God." Jesus's claim is therefore not arrogant (with its concomitant "uneasiness"), but only if the claim is true — which Licona admits he's simply assuming.

Licona spends some time on the Heaven's Gate cult, extrapolating it to other non-Christian religions. (Personally I feel he could extend his scope to one more religion....)

If we can assess the truth-claims of the Heaven’s Gate religion, we can assess the truth-claims of other religions. Followers of other religions may find that their religious beliefs and practices bring them feelings of peace and hope and give them a purpose for living. In fact, here is a true statement: A number of valuable benefits have been realized by followers of non-Christian religions. However, if Jesus’ claim to be the exclusive way to God is true, then the following statement is false: Muhammad provided an effective way to be acceptable to God. In other words, a religion can be true in a subjective sense while being false in an objective one. I am interested in following religious teachings that are true in both senses.

He may say that, but I get the feeling from this chapter, and indeed the whole book, that everything he and his contributors write is geared not to truth but to confirmation.

Then comes a rather oblique section on the ethics of proselytism, attempting to justify exclusive claims with a so-called respect for other religions (and non-religion). Given the preponderance of special pleading, excuses and spurious rights to non-offence demanded by so many of the religious I find this section not just disingenuous but laughable. Licona then has the gall to come out with this:

Moreover, there are times when truth should not be sacrificed for the sake of avoiding offense. While the Titanic was sinking, since lifeboats were available, it would have been unethical for the crew, in the interest of reducing panic for the moment, to have told all of the passengers to go back to their cabins and sleep through the night because everything would be fine in the morning. Truth is important. Decisions of greater importance should drive us to discover the truth, rather than dilute or deny it in our efforts not to offend, which as we have seen is a no-win situation. However, when sharing our faith with others, Christians should remember to do it “with gentleness and respect” (1 Peter 3:15). We should love others and be graceful in our efforts to share the greatest news ever told.

And to tell them they're heading to Hell if they don't believe.

---

4truth.net:
http://www.4truth.net/fourtruthpbjesus.aspx?pageid=8589952887