Do a good deed or three, after listening to Skepticule

Here's the latest episode of the internet's best UK-podcast-featuring-three-guys-named-Paul:

http://www.skepticule.co.uk/2013/08/skepticule-052-20130728.html

Skepticule 052 — altruistically non-cynical about desirable Jewish symbols scientifically festive for human origins. Or something.

The meaning of scripture

From a Facebook thread, concerning the mutability of scriptural interpretation:

• 

  Paul Jenkins You're at liberty to interpret the Bible any way you want. There's enormous scope for this: along with different translations and appeal to context, there's also the option to claim that something that is superficially nonsense is actually quite sensible and profound — if only we were party to God's ineffable intentions. It's a bit like when a novelist goofs in the plotting and gets mail from fans asking how can such-and-such be, since it appears to contradict something in the early chapters. The novelist merely replies that it does actually make sense, and all will be revealed in the sequel.

  3 hours ago · Like
• 

  Ian Taylor "Mark 16:17-18 - King James Version (KJV)
  17 And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues;
  
  18 They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover."
  Come on Paul, reinterpret this for me.

  2 hours ago · Like
• 

  Ian Taylor Oh yea, "...they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover.", clearly means that they'll put gramma's quilt back over her when they're done the 'laying hands' bit!

  2 hours ago · Like
• 

  Paul Jenkins "Come on Paul, reinterpret this for me."
  
  OK, I'll have a go. But I don't know the original language, so I'll leave that aspect.
  
  "Mark 16:17-18 - King James Version (KJV)
  17 And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues;"
  
  Well, when signs _follow_, it means that these are evident later, not necessarily at the current time (which would explain why believers may not be able to do these things now). Casting out devils could mean anything, but speaking with new tongues simply means they will be inspired to great oratory.
  
  "18 They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover."
  
  Anyone may "take up serpents" — the text doesn't actually state that the serpents won't kill them. As for drinking deadly things, this will likely cause them to be poisoned to death, but it will probably be a relatively painless death (without hurt), despite the grimaces on their faces (which God probably makes them do for the sake of discouraging others from following suit).
  
  Laying hands on the sick is merely a symbolic gesture — the recovering refers to the multiple times they do it.
  
  That's just off the top of my head. With some time devoted to it I could probably twist it into something completely unrecognisable. (I shan't be doing this, by the way.)

  2 hours ago · Like
• 

  Paul Jenkins "...and they shall recover.", clearly means that they'll put gramma's quilt back over her when they're done the 'laying hands' bit!"
  
  I think you're getting the hang of this.

  2 hours ago · Like
• 

  Ian Taylor Well, we've all heard this kind of apologetics, sure, which amount to caviling. Not really the kind of thing GOD, as Jesus, would bother telling us, and not really the kind of thing a believer would believe Jesus meant to tell us.
  The Gospels really should come with a warning, you know, for the kids and the stupid, maybe even the faithful.

  2 hours ago · Like
• 

  Paul Jenkins This matter of interpretation reminds me of a story I heard about a group of Plymouth Brethren who needed pews for their Meeting House. Someone alerted them to pews being salvaged from another church, but when the Brethren saw the pews they said they weren't suitable because there was the shape of a cross formed in fretwork in the back of each seat. (Plymouth Brethren eschew crosses).
  
  However, the Brethren were satisfied when it was explained to them that the pews did at one time have crosses carved into the backs, but they'd since been "cut out".

  2 hours ago · Edited · Like
• 

  Ian Taylor how pragmatic of them.

  2 hours ago · Like

It's ongoing, so there may be more...

Skepticule 51 is available for your listening pleasure

This is shorter than our usual podcast, but still contains plenty to ... complain about:

Bad SF; Theocratic school management; Hoax disaster rescue; Secular Promise; Rain dance killing; Muslim prayer TV call; Teenage TED cancer test; Westboro consistency;

http://www.skepticule.co.uk/2013/08/skepticule-051-20130713.html

Burnee links for Friday

Science education vs. high-profile ignorance | Ars Technica
Some say creationism in the UK isn't a problem, and that we don't need to worry about it. As for free creationist DVDs being distributed to British schools, "British school teachers are not stupid enough to uncritically accept these things." But what America has now, Britain often gets eventually. This is no time for complacency.

Science is not the Enemy of the Humanities | New Republic
Bask in Pinker's luminous prose, in defence of scientism.

Repudiating scientism, rather than surrendering to it » Pharyngula
In which PZ expresses his disappointment with Steven Pinker's essay on scientism.

100 of Britain and Ireland’s secular thinkers you should know about, who aren’t white men | The Heresy Club
This is a useful list — SitP organisers take note. (I'm reminded that all the speakers in the main hall on the final day of Winchester Science Festival were women. I'm also reminded that QED's list of speakers this year was satisfyingly diverse.)

National Secular Society - Woking Council issue 'clarification' on worshippers’ parking policy
Sounds like progress, but I'm wary. I'd like to see the criteria Woking Council are using to decide who gets free parking.

Skepticule's half century

Just a quick reminder in advance of an imminent Skepticule announcement: if you haven't yet listened to the 50th episode of Skepticule, in which the three Pauls engage in a bit of gratuitous retrospective self-congratulation, here's your chance. Catch it before it goes away! (It's not going away, but listen anyway....)

http://www.skepticule.co.uk/2013/07/skepticule-050-20130707.html

Including the regular Pearced Off, plus a bonus contribution, features and other goodies you didn't know you didn't want to miss.

Subscribe here:
http://www.skepticule.co.uk/feeds/posts/default?alt=rss

Get it from iTunes here:
http://itunes.apple.com/WebObjects/MZStore.woa/wa/viewPodcast?id=330565544

Download the mp3 file here:
http://traffic.libsyn.com/revup/Skepticule-050-20130707.mp3

My Kalām Krash

1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause of its existence.
2. The Universe began to exist.
3. Therefore the Universe has a cause of its existence.

This is the Kalām Cosmological Argument for the existence of God — the favourite argument of William Lane Craig. It boils down to "The Universe had to be created by something, ergo, God." The KCA is also related to the argument that out of nothing, nothing comes. So let's look at the KCA a bit more (don't worry, this won't take long, and it doesn't involve any multiverses).

The current cosmological consensus is that the Universe began with the Big Bang, at which both space and time came into being. The essential part of the KCA is the notion of "cause". We know that causes always come before effects, because if cause and effect are simultaneous it's impossible to distinguish between the two. To put this another way, both the cause and the effect, if simultaneous, can be said to have come about spontaneously.

The notion of "before" is dependent on the notion of "time". At the Big Bang there was no time, therefore the common understanding of cause and effect cannot hold. Where the traditional relationship between cause and effect does not apply, the claim that effects depend on causes is no longer supportable. One cannot, therefore, rule out the possibility of the Big Bang arising from nothing, spontaneously — without a cause.

The first premise of the KCA needs to be revised:

1. Everything that begins to exist (except the Universe) has a cause of its existence.

Fixed.

Philosophy in the pub on the radio

One of my favourite Radio 4 programmes is back for a new series. This week's episode of The Philosopher's Arms was on "Free Riders". Half an hour isn't enough time to go very deeply into a philosophical subject, so the treatment is necessarily superficial. Nevertheless, the light-hearted treatment and brisk pace is enough to whet one's appetite for more thorough study (or just studious contemplation).

BBC Radio 4 - The Philosopher's Arms

Here's a clip:



From the programme's website:

Free Riders

Series 3 Episode 1 of 4

Duration: 28 minutes

First broadcast: Tuesday 30 July 2013

Pints and philosophical puzzles with Matthew Sweet. Each week Matthew goes to the pub to discuss a knotty conundrum with an audience and a panel of experts. Free will, exploitation, sex, sexism, blame and shame are just some of the topics to be mulled over in this series of The Philosopher's Arms.
We look at the issue of 'free-riding', with Oxford philosopher Roger Crisp.
Producer: Estelle Doyle.

Here's a link to the first episode (streaming audio available for about a year):

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b037hmy3