Saturday, 1 September 2012

Private beliefs lead to public harm

Religious belief is a private matter. If people want to believe in some kind of god, that's their affair, and nobody else's business.

Unfortunately it doesn't work out like that. Listen to this edition of BBC Radio 4's Beyond Belief, in which Ernie Rae talks to two people who believe in witchcraft (and, incidentally, one who doesn't).

http://downloads.bbc.co.uk/podcasts/radio4/belief/belief_20120820-1700a.mp3

Here's the blurb from the BBC website:
Ernie Rea explores the relationship between African churches, witchcraft & child abuse with expert guests: Pastor Mahele Tangata, pastor of a Congolese Church in North West London; Romain Matondo, Co-ordinator for the Congolese Family Centre; and Dr Richard Hoskins, an expert on witchcraft-based child abuse cases. The Metropolitan police reports that it has investigated 83 'faith based' child abuse cases involving witchcraft in the last ten years. A belief in witchcraft is common to some traditional African religions and to some elements of Christianity; but accusing children of witchcraft seems a comparatively modern phenomenon. Where does it come from? What can be done to prevent it? And are the churches concerned doing enough? 
It's horrifying to hear Mahele Tangata's unsubstantiated assertions. Richard Hoskins attempts to counter him on his own ground by questioning the pastor's interpretation of scripture, but it's clearly not working. Here we have yet another instance of unsupportable beliefs leading to serious harm, which then gets soft treatment because the whole business is insulated by faith.

Asking "...are the churches concerned doing enough?" is a bit pointless. The churches concerned are peopled by those who believe witchcraft is real, otherwise this problem wouldn't exist. The other churches — the ones that are not concerned — are just that: not concerned.

Children are being abused and in some cases killed because of irrational, unsupported beliefs. This is one of those instances when it isn't enough to point out the illegality of actions derived from wrong-headed beliefs. The beliefs themselves need to be called out, and those religionists citing them as justification for abuse should be hauled before the courts.

Friday, 31 August 2012

Burnee links for Friday

Credit where credit is due « Choice in Dying
Eric MacDonald's take on Peter Stanford's Telegraph article (linked in the previous Burnee links).

Anyone for tennis — Creation Ministries International
A strategy proposed for dealing with evilutionists — but it works both ways, and ought to bring up short a "Gish galloper". (The comments, unfortunately, are a haven of delusion.)

Giles Fraser versus human rights | Butterflies and Wheels
GF went up in my estimation as a result of his stances on the Occupy movement and equal marriage (and incidentally on disestablishmentarianism), but he's wrong on circumcision, as Ophelia Benson points out.

AlbertMohler.com – Atheists in the Pulpit — The Sad Charade of the Clergy Project
How to miss the point, and be dismissive and unpleasant with it.

Atheist Ethicist
Alonzo Fyfe's blog. To follow if you're interested in Desire Utilitarianism. Which I am (thanks Fergus).

Andrew Copson: Tony Nicklinson and the Ethics of Assisted Dying — Huffington Post
"The only really difficult ethical question surrounding assisted suicide is how we can ensure that an individual's desire to end their life is the genuine, settled, free choice of a mentally competent individual."
And of course this must be addressed. Using this concern as an excuse not to change the law ("Slippery slope!" "Thin end of the wedge!") is a cowardly cop-out.

Thursday, 30 August 2012

The Bletchley Circle

Next week's Radio Times has an article by E. Jane Dickson previewing a new ITV drama, The Bletchley Circle (Thursday 9 pm), celebrating the work of Britain's wartime code-breakers. The article interviews four former Bletchley girls — Mavis Batey, Jean Valentine, Beryl Middleton and Nina Horwood, current ages spanning 87 to 91.

Apparently the drama is not about their work at Bletchley Park, but a fictional crime story set after the war.

http://youtu.be/rhLb1-00ihI


The real Bletchley Park story is fascinating, with much cultural, historical and technological significance, but I can't help feeling that this series is simply an attempt to capitalise on topical interest (we've just had the Alan Turing centenary, for example).

The drama is written by Guy Burt, about whom I know little (typically the ITV press release makes much of the actors, the producer, the director and the commissioning team, but makes no mention of the writer). I might watch the first episode, but if the writer had been Anthony Horowitz I'd commit to the whole thing.

Tuesday, 28 August 2012

Time to refocus?

I've made a number of statements in the past concerning my opinion of theology, describing it variously as "wild speculation", "a cloudy, indistinct field of contemplation that isn't susceptible to rational discussion", "piffle" and "lies, damned lies, and theology". I've expressed my exasperation with certain kinds of believers. I've engaged with believers online, in the knowledge that I'm unlikely to sway their beliefs. I've even critiqued an entire book of apologetics, at length. What has all this achieved?

My initial reasons for engaging were set out some time ago, and were based on two questions:
  1. How come so many people claim to believe patently crazy stuff?
  2. What can we do to mitigate the influence of crazy beliefs on everyday life?
The first is of academic interest, and something that I'd like to resolve at some stage (I have a few ideas), but it doesn't directly impact me or mine (except those of mine who actively subscribe to such views). So there's no pressing need for me to pursue it, other than curiosity.

The second is of paramount importance. Where crazy beliefs inform actions they can have seriously detrimental effect on many aspects of life. Practices and policies derived from unsubstantiated dogma need to be challenged where they conflict with rationally desired outcomes. And though their derivation from dogma may be obvious, substantiation based on evidence is the only acceptable justification.

Pursuing No. 1 above can become tiresome. For example, I've reached my nonsense-tolerance limit as far as presuppositional apologetics is concerned, and I'll no longer engage with it in any but the most cursory way. PA is a minority belief within the broader theistic morass (indeed it appears to be an undesirable bedfellow to much of that morass) so ignoring it will be of little consequence. There are other aspects of the theistic morass that I will still address, but from now on only in the context of real world consequences.

I am resolved to shift my emphasis not just for the sake of my sanity but as a result of concerns surfacing during the past year and coming to a head right now. Any nominally vocal atheist today will be aware of the threatened schism within the "atheist movement" — with one group attempting to rebrand itself as Atheism Plus. How successful this will be remains unclear, but I support the impetus to take atheism beyond the dictionary definition in order to achieve progress in particular areas of concern.

Skepticule co-host Paul Baird, in a post entitled "The Looking Glass War between Theists and Atheists", points out that among all the arguments, debates etc., there isn't actually much difference between those on opposite sides of the divide:
It does seem to me that there is a thin line between atheism and theism and that it's wrong to make any sweeping judgements based on whether one believes in a god compared to whether one does not. There are smart atheists, there are smart theists, there are theists with mental health problems and there are atheists with mental health problems too. It's as though it's the subject that attracts them all. It's like trainspotting with gods. We're all standing at the end of the same platform with our notebooks.
Which makes me wonder what on earth we are doing there. His final paragraph sums up the practical implications of it all, providing some perspective:
I just don't have the level of of enthusiasm to do the debates, exchanges of views or the research to participate in areas outside of the immediate impact of English Social Christianity on English Public Policy as it immediately affects my life and the lives of those close to me.
In a comment to the Facebook syndication of the post, Professor Paul Braterman makes an implicit, practical suggestion:
Some of my best friends are Christians. I long since decided that debating the existence of God is not a fruitful exercise, and that whatever harm may come from such belief should be the subject of criticism in its own right.
An excellent strategy, and one I will endeavour to follow from now on.

Extra Skepticule goodness for your downloading pleasure

Imagine doing a podcast every day for a month (August, say). That's a lot of podcasting. Then imagine spreading those podcasts over 18 months or so. It's still a lot (but not nearly as impressive).

Episode 31 of Skepticule Extra is now available to stick in your ear, featuring paranormal investigator Hayley Stevens and her HOTS exploits, Bigfoot projectiles, Nessie pictures, and a Project Barnum* update (with tantalising hints of something new on the skeptical horizon). We also go down to Down House — which is in Downe — the home Charles Darwin, and where he originated his species (he had ten kids), and we talk about designing some creative intelligence (or something).

http://www.skepticule.co.uk/2012/08/skepextra-031-20120812.html



*Don't forget to vote for Project Barnum as Website of the Month on Heart Internet!

Monday, 27 August 2012

My QED 2012 experience — part 2

(Click here for part 1.)

I bought lunch in the hotel bar (I wasn't going to repeat last year's mistake, when a bunch of us decided to eat out — unfortunately on that occasion service was so slow we had to bring our food back with us, twenty minutes late for Jim Al-Khalili's talk on time travel). So this time it was coffee and a sandwich — basic, cheap and quick — and I'd had a good breakfast, plus I was booked in for the Gala Dinner in the evening.

I was looking forward to Ophelia Benson's talk, titled "Silencing for God", as I read her blog Butterflies and Wheels (at least I try to; she's so prolific it's hard to keep up — a point I made to her in a brief conversation the previous evening during the Mixer). Her first example of free speech suppression was from University College London, where there had been some fuss over the use of a Jesus and Mo cartoon appearing on the Facebook page for the university's Atheist Secularist & Humanist Society. The Students' Union claimed this was offensive and demanded it be taken down. The controversy spread to the London School of Economics with similar results, and even further: award-winning young skeptic Rhys Morgan used the cartoon (actually it was the cover of a Jesus and Mo book) as his profile picture as a mark of solidarity with the ASHS, and his school demanded he take it down — on pain of expulsion. These are classic claims of the right not to be offended — which as it happens is not actually a right. Interesting to note that Rhys Morgan and "Author" (pen-name of the author of Jesus and Mo) were both at QED.
DSC_3386_OpheliaBenson_1DSC_3388_OpheliaBenson_2DSC_3390_OpheliaBenson_3
Ophelia had plenty of other examples from all around the world, many using intimidation to stifle free speech. The problem is that religions (of many different stripes) believe they have the right to censor the words of people who don't subscribe to the particular religion that's objecting. It's only by standing firm, en masse, that this kind of thing will be defeated — which is difficult when you're faced with what appear to be genuine threats.

Sarah Angliss delivered a talk-cum-demonstration entitled "Voices of the Dead", which included some highly surreal music and a live demonstration (recording as well as playback) of an Edison Phonograph. Weird instruments were in evidence, including what must be the ultimate weird instrument, a theremin, played by waving one's hands at and around it. The instrument on stage appeared to be commercially produced (it had the "Moog" logo on it). Sarah was another speaker I was keen to hear on account of her reference to a temporary exhibition (which I saw at the Science Museum) of the work of Daphne Oram, including the original "Oramics Machine" used for creating electronic music.
DSC_3395_SarahAngliss_1DSC_3397_Phonograph_1DSC_3396_SarahAngliss_2DSC_3406_Robot_1

Previously I'd only come across Massimo Polidoro in Skeptical Inquirer, for which magazine he writes a regular column. He's been involved in the JREF Million Dollar Challenge, overseeing many attempts to prove paranormal phenomena, both as part of the MDC and elsewhere, none of which has so far succeeded. His talk, "The Search for Superman", documented some of the more unusual and hilarious of these attempts.
DSC_3413_MassimoPolidoro_1DSC_3414_MassimoPolidoro_2

The afternoon concluded with Richard Saunders, well-known to listeners of the podcast The Skeptic Zone, otherwise well-known to viewers of Australian TV. His talk, "The Delights & Dangers of being a TV Skeptic", gave us the inside story on some of the programmes and series on which he's appeared. He also demonstrated the infamous "Power Balance" bracelet, using a not entirely unknown volunteer:
DSC_3417_RichardSaunders_1DSC_3424_PowerBalance_1DSC_3429_PowerBalance_2
The Power Balance story is one of success for the balanced powers of organised skepticism. After several publicised tests and prolonged media exposure the product — shown to be fake — was withdrawn, and the company sold. Unfortunately other bogus woo has promptly jumped in to fill the gap in a credulous market. Eternal vigilance required!

The Gala Dinner on Saturday evening was a success. I didn't hesitate to book for this optional extra, as last year's was definitely worth it, but how successful it is for any individual depends on whose table you're assigned to, and what mix of dining companions you find yourself amongst. After the dinner, Robin Ince introduced the Skeptic Awards, which were followed by a musical performance from Sarah Angliss, including yet another weird instrument — a sonorous saw coaxed into audibility using a violin bow. Then we had laid-back stand-up from Alun Cochrane (superb), and stand-up plus conjuring from Paul Zenon, whose performance with a full beer glass swinging from a string, while walking among the audience, was as surprising as it was scary (I still wonder if he's ever had a serious accident — and concomitant injury claims — as a result of this reckless stunt). It was, needless to say, the cause of much nervous hilarity.

The night apparently continued with dancing late into the early morning, but I needed some sleep.

Burnee links for Monday

How not to build inclusive communities | The Atheist Experience
The voice of Experience.

How an extraordinary day spent with Tony Nicklinson changed my views on right-to-die - Telegraph
So often those against assisted dying pay lip-service to concern and compassion without exhibiting either. Maybe it takes agonising encounters like this one to bring home the reality.

John Finnemore - 50 Things You Must Do Before You're 30 - YouTube
Some excellent advice, on the back of what must be described as a "pet peeve".


No Precedent? Then Set One! — Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science
The assisted-dying debate is no place for the argument from tradition.

Why I Secretly Root For the Atheists in Debates… | Catholic Exchange
Because nobody can beat such a brilliant debater as William Lane Craig. Yeah, yeah, we've heard this before. Craig may be good at point-scoring in formal debates (the precise formality of which he often determines in advance), but none of that leads to advancement in understanding. He admits that logical argument isn't what convinced him, nor is it likely to convince others, so his motives are questionable. His arguments (all five of them) have been demolished time and again by those who've had time to examine them properly. And his version of Divine Command Theory will leave a very nasty taste in the mouth of all right-thinking individuals.