OK, I couldn't resist this:
http://www.360cities.net/image/curiosity-rover-martian-solar-day-2
Mars Panorama - Curiosity rover: Martian solar day 2 in New Mexico
(Via Dave at Hampshire Skeptics Society.)
Saturday, 18 August 2012
Choosing Hats or choosing facts?
It's time for the Choosing Hats blog to change its name. In a post by Matthias McMahon (a mad hatter I've not encountered before1) titled "But They're All The Same" an attempt is made to show that Christianity, amongst all religions, is exclusively the correct one.
What McMahon does not address here is why it's necessary for any of them to be correct. He begins with a statement that might, however, be true:
Perhaps some — even many — atheists allege this, but it's not a line I would take. My problem with Christianity is not that it's a religion amongst many, it's that the truth-claims of Christianity are insufficiently substantiated. McMahon then offers a decidedly odd proof:
"Legend has it…"? Did the missionary establish the veracity of the dedication before using it to disprove the existence of Thor? If I was a follower of Thor I might claim that the legend was misinterpreted, or that Thor's wrath would be manifest in other ways than a rather crass strike of thunder. This smells of a straw man.
Then we get our regular dose of PABS2:
This straw man is rotting so much it will spontaneously combust. But McMahon gallops on regardless, head down, PA blinkers on:
And then this:
Yeah, we know; Goddidit. There's more of course, but frankly I can't be arsed. I'm done with this crap.
1Turns out this is McFormtist without the wacko username.
2Presuppositional apologetic bullshit.
What McMahon does not address here is why it's necessary for any of them to be correct. He begins with a statement that might, however, be true:
"It is often alleged by many atheists that all religions are the same, and all religions are false, and since Christianity is a religion, therefore Christianity must also be false."
"Legend has it there was a tree dedicated to Thor many years ago. It was said that cutting this tree down would incur the wrath of Thor. A Christian missionary proceeded to cut the tree down, and to the surprise of everyone but the Christian, Thor did not appear in his thunderous array and strike down the missionary. If cutting down that tree should have incurred the wrath of Thor, and it ultimately did not, then it’s reasonable to conclude Thor does not exist."
Then we get our regular dose of PABS2:
"“Facts” of reality are interpreted underneath the umbrella of “Nature of Facts.” Facts are secondary to the meaning or nature of Fact. This explains much more fully the out-of-hand rejection of religion and gods by certain atheists. It’s not, “I’m not convinced that this religion is true,” but more like, “No religion is true. Therefore any fact supporting any religion isn’t valid.” But he seldom articulates this, because he is often unaware that he possess his own take on the Nature of Facts. His feigned neutrality is in reality a plain bias rooted in sinful suppression of his knowledge of the truth of God."
"The Christian religion is so robust as to include claims regarding the very reasoning abilities of the atheist in his denial of Christianity’s truth. Indeed, there is nothing the atheist can do or say that *can’t* be explained by Christianity. The the scheme of Evolution, the most popular fallback reason for the non-Christian, depends upon ideas and preconditions for which the atheist cannot account. The moment an atheist (or any other non-Christian) opens his mouth to utter a syllable in denial of Christianity, he has begged the question in favor of Christianity’s truth."
"But, just so that I’m being perfectly clear: I’m not alleging that Christianity is just the best explanation for reality. I’m asserting that it is the *only consistent* explanation for reality, and therefore the best. And since the doctrine of Christianity is the formulation of reality given to us by the very God who created reality, it’s only appropriate to affirm such, unashamed. As such, it has never been refuted. Particular historical facts surrounding events in the Bible have been questioned, but only by men who on better days would admit their reasoning isn’t perfect all the time, and their hyper-skepticism regarding biblical history consequently destroys all knowledge they could possibly hope for, resulting in special pleading on their own part. Grand “scientific” schemes have been constructed as an allegedly viable alternative to the Biblical account, but these constructs fail to be either consistent with themselves or comprehensive enough to stand on the same ground of Christianity in competition."
1Turns out this is McFormtist without the wacko username.
2Presuppositional apologetic bullshit.
Friday, 17 August 2012
As foretold: Genesis Expo to resurrect
Nevertheless it was comforting to know it was out of action, and that opportunist schoolkids were no longer being lured in and fed unsubstantiated nonsense. Alas, it seems the hiatus was merely an all too brief respite. According to the latest bulletin from CSM, Genesis Expo will be re-opening in its refurbished and dual-floored glory. Within the invitation to celebrate CSM's 80th anniversary at a Day Conference on 3rd November comes this throwaway line:
There will be an opportunity to view the newly refurbished Expo and exhibits as well.
It appears that only advance booking is available for the "Day Conference" — no tickets on the door.
Thursday, 16 August 2012
30 episodes and counting — new Skepticule Extra available
Far back in the mists of prehistory we used to do a podcast...
Skepticule Extra 030 is now seated on a server, all scintillating, twinkly and tautologous, just waiting for you — or your trusty podcatcher — to download it.
Go on, you know you want to:
http://www.skepticule.co.uk/2012/08/skepextra-030-20120701.html
Is there more evidence for a Dishonest Debater than there is for a Cosmic Creator? Download, tune in and find out.
How close did we come to never knowing the secrets of those who knew secrets? To crack this one, listen to episode 30's enigmatic second half.
Episode 31, with guest Hayley Stevens (as announced elsewhere) will be available longly.
Skepticule Extra 030 is now seated on a server, all scintillating, twinkly and tautologous, just waiting for you — or your trusty podcatcher — to download it.
Go on, you know you want to:
http://www.skepticule.co.uk/2012/08/skepextra-030-20120701.html
Is there more evidence for a Dishonest Debater than there is for a Cosmic Creator? Download, tune in and find out.
How close did we come to never knowing the secrets of those who knew secrets? To crack this one, listen to episode 30's enigmatic second half.
Episode 31, with guest Hayley Stevens (as announced elsewhere) will be available longly.
NOMA, sexism and PZ Myers
The current spat in the "atheist movement" is a cause for some glee in certain theistic quarters, with suggestions that if a reconciliation of the "schism" (currently exemplified between "new atheist" blogger PZ Myers and atheist YouTuber Thunderf00t) cannot be achieved, then the "movement" is doomed.
This, I think, misunderstands the nature of the split. The "atheist movement" was never a cohesive body, and likely never will be. Some Christians are suggesting that the movement's leaders need to make a stand, issue some decrees and whip the dissenters into line, or else the movement will fragment and disintegrate. But atheism as a movement has never been integrated. There's no doctrinal dogma to which atheists are required to subscribe, no articles of faith. The only thing that all atheists have in common is a disbelief in gods. Beyond that, they are as disparate as any random collection of individuals. That such a group could even begin to consider itself a "movement" is, to put it charitably, optimistic.
There are no atheist leaders, just some atheists who tend to be more vocal than others. It is in the nature of freethought not to take things on authority alone, so any calls for prominent atheists to grab the movement by the scruff of the neck and shake some sense into it will be for the most part ignored. Atheism will not fragment as a result of this latest hoo-hah because it's already fragmented, by definition.
The current controversy over sexism in the skeptical/atheist movement is, as far as I can see, merely an extension of the well established conflict over non-overlapping magisteria (NOMA). With regard to potential incompatibilities between religion and science we have two factions: on the one hand those who claim that science and religion are fundamentally incompatible — and the source of a great many problems in today's culture — and on the other those who claim that it's possible to find an accommodation between science and religion because they deal with different realms of enquiry. Atheists on each side of the NOMA debate will be forever opposed, because each side has a different way of dealing with religion. Arch-accomodationists will take a pragmatic approach to working with theists, on the basis that theism doesn't deal with scientific matters. Extreme anti-accommodationists will simply refuse to work with theists on scientific matters on the basis that theism does deal with scientific matters, but in an unscientific way.
In the sexism debate, views divide down the middle in a manner similar to the NOMA split. On one side are those who say that sexism is a problem that needs to be addressed (by, for instance, talking openly about it rather than sweeping it under the rug, and by implementing clearly stated harassment policies wherever these might be appropriate), and on the other are those who say that though sexism certainly exists, it isn't a particular problem in skepticism/atheism — any more than elsewhere — and that the current disagreement is a molehill that has blown up into a raging volcano.
I've no idea if what I'm about to write will alienate some of my readers, but I feel I must be open about my own biases on these matters.
Taking NOMA first, though I can see the value of making nice with theists in order to get things done (and because they are people — and therefore deserving of respect and consideration), I see no merit in pretending that science and religion are compatible when even a superficial examination shows they are anything but.
Second, on the question of sexism in general and the problem of sexual harassment at skeptic/atheist events in particular, some women have reported that there is a problem. Are we to ignore this? Certainly not. As a man I don't experience the types of unwelcome attention that are being reported (and have been reported in "the movement" for over a year now) so I can only go by the reports. The fact that some other women have said that in their experience it isn't a problem is insufficient reason for not doing anything.
It seems to me that in both the NOMA debate and the discussions (I use the term advisedly) about sexual harassment, PZ Myers has got it right. His stand on this and other matters speaks of an intellectual integrity that is to be admired rather than dismissed. His uncompromising attitude may well alienate many, but that's because he will not accommodate. Often I find his views quite unpalatable, but as far as I'm aware he always gives his reasons, and I find I usually agree with them.
(I hearby declare that you may unsubscribe/unfollow/block me now.)
This, I think, misunderstands the nature of the split. The "atheist movement" was never a cohesive body, and likely never will be. Some Christians are suggesting that the movement's leaders need to make a stand, issue some decrees and whip the dissenters into line, or else the movement will fragment and disintegrate. But atheism as a movement has never been integrated. There's no doctrinal dogma to which atheists are required to subscribe, no articles of faith. The only thing that all atheists have in common is a disbelief in gods. Beyond that, they are as disparate as any random collection of individuals. That such a group could even begin to consider itself a "movement" is, to put it charitably, optimistic.
There are no atheist leaders, just some atheists who tend to be more vocal than others. It is in the nature of freethought not to take things on authority alone, so any calls for prominent atheists to grab the movement by the scruff of the neck and shake some sense into it will be for the most part ignored. Atheism will not fragment as a result of this latest hoo-hah because it's already fragmented, by definition.
The current controversy over sexism in the skeptical/atheist movement is, as far as I can see, merely an extension of the well established conflict over non-overlapping magisteria (NOMA). With regard to potential incompatibilities between religion and science we have two factions: on the one hand those who claim that science and religion are fundamentally incompatible — and the source of a great many problems in today's culture — and on the other those who claim that it's possible to find an accommodation between science and religion because they deal with different realms of enquiry. Atheists on each side of the NOMA debate will be forever opposed, because each side has a different way of dealing with religion. Arch-accomodationists will take a pragmatic approach to working with theists, on the basis that theism doesn't deal with scientific matters. Extreme anti-accommodationists will simply refuse to work with theists on scientific matters on the basis that theism does deal with scientific matters, but in an unscientific way.
In the sexism debate, views divide down the middle in a manner similar to the NOMA split. On one side are those who say that sexism is a problem that needs to be addressed (by, for instance, talking openly about it rather than sweeping it under the rug, and by implementing clearly stated harassment policies wherever these might be appropriate), and on the other are those who say that though sexism certainly exists, it isn't a particular problem in skepticism/atheism — any more than elsewhere — and that the current disagreement is a molehill that has blown up into a raging volcano.
I've no idea if what I'm about to write will alienate some of my readers, but I feel I must be open about my own biases on these matters.
Taking NOMA first, though I can see the value of making nice with theists in order to get things done (and because they are people — and therefore deserving of respect and consideration), I see no merit in pretending that science and religion are compatible when even a superficial examination shows they are anything but.
Second, on the question of sexism in general and the problem of sexual harassment at skeptic/atheist events in particular, some women have reported that there is a problem. Are we to ignore this? Certainly not. As a man I don't experience the types of unwelcome attention that are being reported (and have been reported in "the movement" for over a year now) so I can only go by the reports. The fact that some other women have said that in their experience it isn't a problem is insufficient reason for not doing anything.
It seems to me that in both the NOMA debate and the discussions (I use the term advisedly) about sexual harassment, PZ Myers has got it right. His stand on this and other matters speaks of an intellectual integrity that is to be admired rather than dismissed. His uncompromising attitude may well alienate many, but that's because he will not accommodate. Often I find his views quite unpalatable, but as far as I'm aware he always gives his reasons, and I find I usually agree with them.
(I hearby declare that you may unsubscribe/unfollow/block me now.)
Burnee links for Thursday
Mars orbiter catches pic of Curiosity on its way down! | Bad Astronomy | Discover Magazine
Wow!
Atheism
A gentle story of enlightenment.
It's What Moral Philosophers Do - Richard Dawkins - RichardDawkins.net - RichardDawkins.net
Dawkins makes an excellent point about moral philosophy, tacitly showing that those who react emotionally to serious arguments without thinking them through, don't deserve to be given serious attention (Catholicism, I'm looking at you).
Is psychic Sally Morgan deluded but essentially harmless? | Simon Singh | Science | guardian.co.uk
Deluded and essentially dangerous.
Atheism
A gentle story of enlightenment.
Dawkins makes an excellent point about moral philosophy, tacitly showing that those who react emotionally to serious arguments without thinking them through, don't deserve to be given serious attention (Catholicism, I'm looking at you).
Is psychic Sally Morgan deluded but essentially harmless? | Simon Singh | Science | guardian.co.uk
Deluded and essentially dangerous.
An odd definition of "murder"
Via Paul Baird on Facebook, this article about a recent court ruling raises the question of how far the law should restrict personal freedom:
BBC News - Tony Nicklinson loses High Court right-to-die case
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-19249680
Paul B posted thus:
...and I added a comment:
BBC News - Tony Nicklinson loses High Court right-to-die case
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-19249680
Paul B posted thus:
A very difficult case, but I cannot agree that this is the right outcome. The question must surely include his own wishes, the possibility of improvement and the quality of his life.
In denying him the right to die have we condemned him to a living death instead ? I think that we have, and we have no right to do so.
It's disgraceful. I can't decide whether the judge was too afraid of making a controversial ruling, or was hiding behind the notion that it would be a "slippery slope" or "thin end of the wedge" to allow a doctor to grant this patient's request.
Those supporting the decision are saying it's not for the court to change the law, and that it's for Parliament to decide if the law should be changed. But unless some controversial court decisions are actually made, Parliament will do nothing.
"For someone else to kill him would amount to murder." I'd be interested to hear the definition of "murder" that fits this particular case.
"The law is well established..." I don't see why a court can't make an exception on the basis of mitigating circumstances, while still making it clear that it is, precisely, an exception.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
