Burnee links for Monday

Why is a secular magazine interested in what believers think? - New Humanist Blog (Rationalist Association)
Why indeed. Caspar Melville explains, and introduces the latest issue of New Humanist magazine.

Marcus Borg: A Chronological New Testament
Inerrancy or chronology — canonical order as well as canonical content?

Giles Fraser, circumcision, liberalism and identity « Choice in Dying
Eric MacDonald on Giles Fraser's confusion.

"...Fraser’s argument plays fast and loose with how we are to understand membership in a faith community. He argues, as many others do, that faith has nothing essentially to do with belief."

RDF: Romney: Grounded in the Galaxy?
Lawrence Krauss extracts the Michael from Mitt.

Bucking skepticism, well drillers offer water witching during drought - The Washington Post
Let's hear it for ideomotor and anecdote!

Mythicism and messiahs

Here's yet another aspect of the "mythicism" discussion recently getting attention in the media. National Geographic have a 45-minute TV documentary on their website entitled The First Jesus, examining the proposition that Jesus based his messianic mission on a previous messiah named Simon. The evidence for this idea is an inscription, in ink, on a stone tablet, and rests on the interpretation of an indistinct word with a possibly missing letter. The tablet gets subjected to a series of high-tech tests in order to establish the existence — or not — of the missing letter.

http://channel.nationalgeographic.com/channel/videos/the-first-jesus/

(Apologies for autoplay. Click the pause button to stop.)

The conclusion? Well, as might be expected not all participants in the documentary come to the same one. But no matter what evidence is uncovered, there will always be sufficient indeterminacy to allow scholars to continue arguing for their own point of view.

Christian faith is like soup*

Mark Vernon

In the Guardian, Mark Vernon comments on new books by Rowan Williams and Francis Spufford, beginning by asking, "What's it like to be a Christian?" He expands this to mean, "...what is faith as experienced?"

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/belief/2012/aug/19/rowan-williams-francis-spufford-christian

On Spufford's Unapologetic:

A central worry for him is not that the rational justification for belief has been undone. Faith is not about that anyway: as Coleridge noted, the best argument for Christianity is that "it fits the human heart".

As if "fits the human heart" means anything. Don't get me wrong, I'm quite the fan of metaphorical language. But metaphor (along with simile, its more straight-talking cousin) is useful only up to a point. Great for feelings, intuition and opinion, but not much cop at conveying fact. Metaphors and similes are useful for pointing out near equivalencies, but unless one is aware of the inevitable mismatch between the metaphor and the thing for which it is metaphorical, one can be easily misled — or unknowingly uninformed — as to the actual nature of the thing being discussed.

On Williams' The Lion's World:

None of this proves the existence of God in the way a science would demand because its evidence arises from the inner lives of individuals.

Evidence of what? Indigestion? More imprecise mystery-mongering.

It does, though, reflect a strand in the philosophical discussion of God, often forgotten today. Pascal drew attention to the problem God has in revealing himself to creatures he has made to be free, because if God were to offer irrefutable evidence then that would force a relationship of coercion, not love. God's solution, Pascal proposed, is to "appear openly to those who seek him with all their heart, and [to remain] hidden from those who shun him".

How very … convenient.

Williams' book is largely about C. S. Lewis, so the preponderance of what Daniel C. Dennett calls deepities should not be a surprise.

---

*You didn't notice your soup bowl is directly under a leaking roof. No wonder it takes you so long to finish it, and no wonder it's so … thin.

Islam: The Untold Story

We've had Jesus mythicism, against which Bart Ehrman has recently stepped up as an unlikely champion — though his public arguments against those of Richard Carrier and Robert M. Price have been unconvincing in my opinion. I've not read Ehrman's new book, but neither have I read the relevant tomes from Carrier and Price (though this is an omission I hope to rectify for all three in due course).

Recently we've also had Muhammad mythicism, disreputably presented on Unbelievable? with mythicist Robert Spencer clashing noisily with Adnan Rashid. And in the past week Channel 4 has shown Tom Holland's TV documentary Islam: The Untold Story.

In contrast to the Unbelievable? altercation, Holland's film was quietly and studiously presented, but reached the alarming conclusion that there was no documentary evidence of Muhammad, neither contemporary nor for the subsequent century. Yet Islam claims to be true on the basis of the Qur'an — allegedly written by the Prophet, to whom the word of Allah was personally revealed. Holland is not a believer, and his approach has a different focus from that of Rageh Omaar's BBC2 documentary The Life of Muhammad (which itself drew some critical comments when I blogged about it).

Holland's documentary is available to view online:
http://www.channel4.com/programmes/islam-the-untold-story
(and incidentally will be re-broadcast on 4seven this coming Monday morning (audio described) at 02:05 BST, or alternatively it's available on YouTube — see below)

The film's controversial conclusion was bound to draw criticism from the faithful, and Holland has responded on the Channel 4 website:
http://www.channel4.com/programmes/islam-the-untold-story/articles/tom-holland-responds-to-the-programmes-critics

He defends his approach in this paragraph:

It is important to stress as we do in the film that this is a historical endeavour and is not a critique of one of the major monotheistic religions. It was commissioned as part of Channel 4's remit to support and stimulate well-informed debate on a wide range of issues, by providing access to information and views from around the world and by challenging established views.

Though this is perfectly valid, and he may not have criticised Islam directly, it's a little naive to expect his critics to agree that their faith has no foundation.

The documentary is currently available on YouTube in its entirety, so judge for yourself:

http://youtu.be/dm8xKh8eQqU

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.

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.

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.