Skepticule at The Book of Mormon

How did Skepticule's Three Pauls like The Book of Mormon? Find out by listening to this episode of the Skepticule podcast (not safe for those of a puritanically unsweary disposition):

http://www.skepticule.co.uk/2013/09/skepticule-054-20130831.html

And here are some pics (including Piccadilly Circus on the way to the Prince of Wales Theatre):

Some reviews wot I wrote, "way back"

Just a quick post to alert those who might be interested — I've set up a page of links to my reviews for The Fix Online, which was part of the TTA Press publishing empire. I wrote these mostly in 2008, but alas The Fix Online is no more. Thanks to the Wayback Machine, however, the text is still available, though mostly unformatted.

Incidentally the links to the podcast fiction I reviewed in my column "From the Podosphere" seem to be working, so if you're looking for some science-fiction audio, some fantasy audio or some horror audio to while away some hours (or scare you silly) check out what I liked and give it a try.

Click here to go to the page.

Jason Lisle doesn't know everything (and neither do I)

Jason Lisle, presup creationist, has a blog. He recently posted an article espousing the "How do you know?" tactic when dealing with unbelievers. His egregious assertions, I felt, deserved similar treatment:

Paul S. Jenkins says:

September 7, 2013 at 6:57 am

The Christian worldview alone makes it possible for us to answer these questions and have genuine knowledge. This is because knowledge stems from the nature of God (Proverbs 1:7, Colossians 2:3).

How do you know this?

[Dr. Lisle: God has revealed it in His Word. Did you not read the verses?]

Paul S. Jenkins says:

September 19, 2013 at 2:12 pm

How do you know the words are true?

[Dr. Lisle: If they were not, it would be impossible to know anything because there could be no justification for those things necessary for knowledge. And it is possible to know some things.]

Paul S. Jenkins says:

September 21, 2013 at 9:22 am

“If they were not, it would be impossible to know anything because there could be no justification for those things necessary for knowledge. And it is possible to know some things.”

It’s possible to know things without justification.

[Dr. Lisle: In logic and philosophy, knowledge is actually defined as "true, justified belief." So it is impossible to have knowledge without justification. You can have beliefs without justification, but not knowledge.]

For example, I know that I am thinking (whatever “I” might be defined as), and I’m certain of that — it’s self evident.

[Dr. Lisle: How do you know that? How do you know that you are the one doing the thinking? If you cannot even define "I" then how can you be certain that "I think?"]

Also, I know that I don’t know everything, and I’m certain of that too.

[Dr. Lisle: How do you know that you don't know everything? Unless you know everything, how can you be certain that what you think you know is actually true, and therefore "known?" By the way, I agree with your belief that you don't know everything. But I maintain that you can't really know even that without relying upon Christian principles.

This is also self evident (that is, the contrary is impossible).

[Dr. Lisle: You are asserting that it is impossible to know everything? How do you know that? How do you know that there cannot be a Being who knows everything?]

In those two examples, my certain knowledge is independent of anything other the existence of the entity referred to as “I”,

[Dr. Lisle: Two problems: (1) You don't have certain knowledge of the two examples you gave - at least you haven't yet explained how you do. (2) You claim that even these examples are dependent on the entity referred to as "I." But how, on your own worldview, do you know that "I" (you) exist?]

therefore it is false to say that it depends on the truth of particular words of scripture (or anything else, for that matter).

[Dr. Lisle: God claims that knowledge begins with Him (Proverbs 1:7). Indeed He is the truth (John 14:6) and all knowledge is hidden in Him (Colossians 2:3). Apart from God, apart from the truth of the Christian worldview, we couldn't know anything at all. We've seen this demonstrated in many conversations on this blog. Unbelievers just cannot rationally justify those things necessary for knowledge, such as the reliability of senses, or the properties of laws of logic.]

I didn't see Lisle's final responses immediately, but when I got around to addressing them he had closed off comments on his blogpost. So I didn't get a chance to counter-respond, and his action in arbitrarily guillotining all comments has resolved me not to comment on anything else he writes on his blog.

Nevertheless, the weakness of his final responses needs pointing out.

[Dr. Lisle: In logic and philosophy, knowledge is actually defined as "true, justified belief." So it is impossible to have knowledge without justification. You can have beliefs without justification, but not knowledge.]

Despite Lisle's comment, it is possible to have knowledge without justification. Here's the definition of axiom: "A self-evident or universally recognized truth." If it's self-evident, I don't need justification, or evidence, to support it.

[Dr. Lisle: How do you know that? How do you know that you are the one doing the thinking? If you cannot even define "I" then how can you be certain that "I think?"]

I didn't claim that I was was the one doing the thinking. I merely claimed that an entity designated by "I" was thinking. It doesn't matter who or what that entity is — it is irrefutably thinking.

[Dr. Lisle: How do you know that you don't know everything? Unless you know everything, how can you be certain that what you think you know is actually true, and therefore "known?" By the way, I agree with your belief that you don't know everything. But I maintain that you can't really know even that without relying upon Christian principles.]

Lisle is asking me how I know that I don't know everything. Really? He's suggesting that I could be mistaken about not being omniscient? If I were mistaken about not being omniscient, that would mean I was, in fact, omniscient. But how can an omniscient being be mistaken? I don't think Lisle has thought this through. It appears that he's claiming there is only absolute certainty about everything — omniscience — or no certainty about anything. But I have shown that it is indeed possible to be absolutely certain of something, and I gave a couple of examples. His assertion that knowledge is only possible by relying on Christian principles is just that — an assertion, and he has not shown how he can know that his source for that claim is true.

[Dr. Lisle: You are asserting that it is impossible to know everything? How do you know that? How do you know that there cannot be a Being who knows everything?]

I did not make that assertion. I asserted that it is self-evident that I am not omniscient. I made no assertion about the impossibility of omniscience.

[Dr. Lisle: Two problems: (1) You don't have certain knowledge of the two examples you gave - at least you haven't yet explained how you do. (2) You claim that even these examples are dependent on the entity referred to as "I." But how, on your own worldview, do you know that "I" (you) exist?]

(1) Lisle isn't following the argument. I do have certain knowledge that I am not omniscient — see above. (2) There is an entity that is thinking, else the assertion could not have been made (how is something asserted, if not by an entity of some kind?), and if an entity is thinking, it clearly exists — see Descartes.

[Dr. Lisle: God claims that knowledge begins with Him (Proverbs 1:7). Indeed He is the truth (John 14:6) and all knowledge is hidden in Him (Colossians 2:3). Apart from God, apart from the truth of the Christian worldview, we couldn't know anything at all. We've seen this demonstrated in many conversations on this blog. Unbelievers just cannot rationally justify those things necessary for knowledge, such as the reliability of senses, or the properties of laws of logic.]

Lisle quotes scripture without giving any justification for its truth value, and then just repeats what he said before as if he didn't read the argument. As for "Unbelievers just cannot rationally justify those things necessary for knowledge" — I just have.

Burnee links for Tuesday

How to read and understand a scientific paper: a guide for non-scientists | Violent metaphors
This looks like an awful lot of work. Probably because it's an awful lot of work.

Alas, poor Wallace | teleskopos
Some facts about Wallace, Darwin and established knowledge. As skeptics, we should be more careful about this stuff.
(Via Mark Edon.)

It's not the morphine, it's the size of the cage: Rat Park experiment upturns conventional wisdom about addiction - garry's subposthaven
New evidence: change your beliefs.

Bot & Dolly's Box takes CG into the real world (video)
The possibilities are ... probably unknown at this point. But this short video is highly impressive.


▶ Tim Minchin Occasional Address and Honorary Degree of Doctor of Letters - YouTube
Surprisingly inspiring.


Atheism starts its megachurch: Is it a religion now? - Salon.com
Short answer: no. It's great that the Sunday Assembly is expanding so rapidly, and though I'm not likely to attend on a regular basis even if one opens near me, I wholeheartedly support what they're doing.

Christianity as literary criticism

In a Facebook thread about the Sunday Assembly I mentioned (in the most vague and general terms) my concerns about its pseudo-religious components. A link was posted to the transcript of Dave Tomlinson's contribution to one of the Sunday Assembly's events, which expressed the kind of indeterminate non-theology that I find pretty vacuous. I responded on Facebook as follows:

Tomlinson is equivocating. He's using "truth" in the sense of truth that doesn't have to be factually true. This is all very nice and fine — I value "story" greatly myself — but it's no more than literary criticism. How do prayers and miracles relate to the kind of "truth" Tomlinson talks about? What about the bodily resurrection of Christ? Is the Easter story no more than "story", containing the kind of "truth" that doesn't have to be actually true? It's all very wishy-washy, and can be made to mean anything anyone fancies it means.

Harry Potter is true, in the sense Tomlinson means. But it's not factually true. If there's a manual explaining how to perform the spells related in JK Rowling's series, I'm not going to believe the spells actually work unless someone can demonstrate that they do.

In the face of a claim that "the meat of Christianity is the teaching of Jesus and his following through on it to the cross"  — and the implication that miracles and prayer are side-issues — I followed up with this:

I have no problem with learning life-lessons from literature or myth or anything else we might categorise as "story" — and as far as I'm concerned there's nothing in literary criticism that I need to be skeptical about. I am skeptical about miracles and prayer as portrayed by those who say miracles are more than mere interpreted legend — that actual supernatural events took place — and those who say prayer is actual two-way communication between human and supernatural entities, rather than some kind of objectified meditation. I appreciate that there are many gradations of "Christian" — from the inerrantist literalist fundamentalist to the "sea-of-faith" virtual atheist who thinks Christianity is a-nice-idea-shame-it-isn't-true. Each to their own, I say. The kind of Christian I find annoying, however, is one who espouses the metaphorical view when challenged about miracles and prayer, only to claim intimate knowledge of the mind of God when challenged about scriptural morality in the public square.

As usual this is an ongoing thread. Check it out for any further developments.

Chris French bites his tongue

Chris French

It's not the first time that Professor Chris French has appeared on Beyond Belief — Ernie Rae's religious discussion programme on BBC Radio 4. I remember the Prof's contribution to a previous Beyond Belief discussion about guardian angels, and I remember my amazement that he made said contribution in a calm, level tone, eschewing the mockery such a subject clearly deserved.

This time the subject was near-death experiences, and though I consider it deserving of equal mockery, many of a religious bent (and even some who are not so cognitively misshapen) give the idea that NDEs are evidence of an afterlife disproportionate credence. To me, however, the issue couldn't be more clear-cut: near-death experiences are evidence of being near death, nothing more. Anything that you perceive when you are near death — when your brain is shutting down (aka dying) — cannot be relied upon as accurate representations of reality. Why isn't this obvious?

Listen to Prof. French's voice of reason amongst the pseudo-respectable woo here:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b039pdtj/Beyond_Belief_NearDeath_Experiences/

Or download the podcast version here:

http://downloads.bbc.co.uk/podcasts/radio4/belief/belief_20130909-1700a.mp3

The blurb from the iPlayer:

Beyond Belief debates the place of religion and faith in today's complex world. Ernie Rea is joined by a panel to discuss how religious beliefs and traditions affect our values and perspectives. Near-Death Experiences often seem to include bright lights, the presence of benevolent spirits and a sense of peace - in other words a very positive experience. However, more unusually, there are others whose experience is very different, some cite overwhelming fear and visions of being chased by demons. Do these have a rational scientific explanation or are they indications of a life beyond this one? Joining Ernie Rea to discuss the nature of Near-Death Experiences are Dr Penny Sartori of the University of Swansea, whose book 'The Wisdom of Near-Death Experiences' is due to be published in 2014; the Very Reverend Professor Gordon McPhate, the Dean of Chester Cathedral who is also a trained Pathologist and a member of the Royal College of Physicians and Chris French, Professor of Psychology at Goldsmiths College, the University of London.

Producer: Liz Leonard.

Burnee links for Monday

Nagel’s bat doesn’t demonstrate incompleteness in materialist science | coelsblog
You'll never know what it's like to be a bat. And that's OK.

Richard Carrier Blogs: Defining the Supernatural
"Supernatural" doesn't necessarily mean untestable.

No One is Born Gay (or Straight): Here Are 5 Reasons Why | Social (In)Queery
Well, that's interesting. Maybe it's true.

Stephen Fry — Am I an Islamophobe?
He of brain-the-size-of-the-Universe finds himself having to say it yet again. And I'm guessing it won't be the last time.