The Atheist Experience — a weekly live TV phone-in show from Austin, Texas — this week dealt highly effectively with a version of the Moral Argument for the Existence of God (even though the caller didn't frame it in exactly those terms).
This:
http://blip.tv/the-atheist-experience-tv-show/atheist-experience-795-argument-from-making-sense-6494842
Matt and Tracie set out in no uncertain terms why biblical morality is such a crock.
Monday, 7 January 2013
Saturday, 5 January 2013
Who needs truth when you have apologetics?
Last week's Unbelievable? aired a talk given by Premier Radio's favourite Christian apologist William Lane Craig, at the 2011 Bethinking conference as part of the Reasonable Faith Tour of the UK.
I understand that this talk was given to Christians, so I was concerned to hear Craig begin by misrepresenting the meaning of secularism. In fact he seemed to base his whole talk on an incorrect premise: that the "secularisation" of Britain was a bad thing because it was based in a naturalistic philosophy that denies God. But secularism is merely the idea that matters of religious belief should be independent of government (and vice versa) — and as such is as beneficial to those who hold religious beliefs as it is to those who don't.
Later on — in what might be classed as an appeal to non-authority — Craig quoted Satan, further damning any credibility he might have otherwise retained in my view. Perhaps he just doesn't see how risible his arguments sound when he plumbs such depths; he seems happy enough blowing his own trumpet about how easily he can fill a hall with an audience. Sure, he's preaching to the converted and trying to inspire them, and I appreciate that a little hyperbole can go a long way.
But Craig shouldn't be let off the hook for playing fast and loose with facts. He describes the Crucifixion as the one historical fact about Jesus of Nazareth that is universally acknowledged among historical critical scholars. This is of course true, so long as your definition of "historical critical scholars" includes only those who acknowledge the Crucifixion as a historical fact.
Craig also seems very fond of referring to "The Church" as if it were a single homogenous entity, when we all know that this couldn't be further from the truth. During the Q & A he was asked about evangelising to Darwinists and postmodernists, and he advised skirting around such issues:
Huh? Is that all?
The final question was about Christ being the "second Adam", and how this could be true if Adam didn't actually exist as a real person. Craig said he affirmed the historical Adam, but for those who don't, the phrase "second Adam" would be purely symbolic. For me, this lackadaisical attitude to facts exemplifies so much of Christian apologetics, and is why I find it utterly unconvincing.
I understand that this talk was given to Christians, so I was concerned to hear Craig begin by misrepresenting the meaning of secularism. In fact he seemed to base his whole talk on an incorrect premise: that the "secularisation" of Britain was a bad thing because it was based in a naturalistic philosophy that denies God. But secularism is merely the idea that matters of religious belief should be independent of government (and vice versa) — and as such is as beneficial to those who hold religious beliefs as it is to those who don't.
Later on — in what might be classed as an appeal to non-authority — Craig quoted Satan, further damning any credibility he might have otherwise retained in my view. Perhaps he just doesn't see how risible his arguments sound when he plumbs such depths; he seems happy enough blowing his own trumpet about how easily he can fill a hall with an audience. Sure, he's preaching to the converted and trying to inspire them, and I appreciate that a little hyperbole can go a long way.
But Craig shouldn't be let off the hook for playing fast and loose with facts. He describes the Crucifixion as the one historical fact about Jesus of Nazareth that is universally acknowledged among historical critical scholars. This is of course true, so long as your definition of "historical critical scholars" includes only those who acknowledge the Crucifixion as a historical fact.
Craig also seems very fond of referring to "The Church" as if it were a single homogenous entity, when we all know that this couldn't be further from the truth. During the Q & A he was asked about evangelising to Darwinists and postmodernists, and he advised skirting around such issues:
My evangelistic strategy is to set the bar as low as you can; make it as easy as possible to become a Christian. There are very few things you need to believe to be a Christian: you've got to believe that God exists, that Jesus Christ is divine, that he died for your sins and rose from the dead, and that you will be saved by grace, through placing your faith in his atoning death — and really that's about it, you know?
The final question was about Christ being the "second Adam", and how this could be true if Adam didn't actually exist as a real person. Craig said he affirmed the historical Adam, but for those who don't, the phrase "second Adam" would be purely symbolic. For me, this lackadaisical attitude to facts exemplifies so much of Christian apologetics, and is why I find it utterly unconvincing.
Tuesday, 1 January 2013
At last Skepticule Extra — but wait, there's more
Starting the new year with a bit of catch-up, Skepticule Extra number 37 is available for your nostalgic reminiscence (OK, I promise to do better this year).
Can women be bishops? Can secularists be religious? Can celebrity evangelists make money?
Stand by for another dose of Skepticule Extra imminently.
Can women be bishops? Can secularists be religious? Can celebrity evangelists make money?
Stand by for another dose of Skepticule Extra imminently.
Labels:
Skepticule Extra
Wednesday, 26 December 2012
Burnee links for Boxing Day
Some old ones, some new ones...
It’s time to abort the Catholic Church | Pharyngula
PZ Myers tells us what he thinks.
On Shunning Fellow Atheists and Skeptics | Center for Inquiry
A measure of calm rationality at CFI.
‘How do atheists find meaning in life?’ - - The Washington Post
Paula Kirby gives the obvious but eloquent answer to one of the dumbest theistic questions.
The 21st Floor » Blog Archive » Easier to be good without god
You cannot out-source your moral decisions.
Is the Geek Movement bad for science? | Martin Robbins
The Lay Scientist expands a comment.
(Via Kash Farooq)
The Goodacre Debate » Richard Carrier Blogs
Richard Carrier blogs about his debate with Mark Goodacre on Unbelievable?
Four lessons I learnt in 2012 | Hayley Stevens
Hayley is an inspiration.
How to become a charlatan | Edzard Ernst
So very tempting...
It’s time to abort the Catholic Church | Pharyngula
PZ Myers tells us what he thinks.
On Shunning Fellow Atheists and Skeptics | Center for Inquiry
A measure of calm rationality at CFI.
‘How do atheists find meaning in life?’ - - The Washington Post
Paula Kirby gives the obvious but eloquent answer to one of the dumbest theistic questions.
The 21st Floor » Blog Archive » Easier to be good without god
You cannot out-source your moral decisions.
Is the Geek Movement bad for science? | Martin Robbins
The Lay Scientist expands a comment.
(Via Kash Farooq)
The Goodacre Debate » Richard Carrier Blogs
Richard Carrier blogs about his debate with Mark Goodacre on Unbelievable?
Four lessons I learnt in 2012 | Hayley Stevens
Hayley is an inspiration.
How to become a charlatan | Edzard Ernst
So very tempting...
Labels:
Burnee links
Tuesday, 27 November 2012
What's this? A blogpost? Surely not!
Not much of one, I admit. But as a means of easing my way back to blogging after a hiatus of several weeks I thought you might like to know that there's a new episode of Skepticule Extra available for your downloadable listening pleasure (or frustration, depending on whether or not you agree with any of the four Pauls).
Anyway, give it a listen:
http://www.skepticule.co.uk/2012/11/skepextra-035-20121007.html
And then give us some feedback (iTunes review, blog comment, email). In this episode we talk about a secular parachuting prison chaplain who promotes alternative medicine in space. Or something like that.
Anyway, give it a listen:
http://www.skepticule.co.uk/2012/11/skepextra-035-20121007.html
And then give us some feedback (iTunes review, blog comment, email). In this episode we talk about a secular parachuting prison chaplain who promotes alternative medicine in space. Or something like that.
Labels:
Skepticule Extra
Tuesday, 16 October 2012
Burnee links for Tuesday
Google Europe Blog: A worthy winner for the inaugural Tony Sale award
And a worthy first commemoration of the man who rebuilt Colossus.
(Via National Museum of Computing.)
Philip Kitcher: The Trouble With Scientism | The New Republic
Lengthy and thought-provoking, but I was initially confused by his usage of "humanistic". A more careful explication of what he means by "scientism" would also have helped.
The Way of the Mister: Mormonism is Racism - YouTube
This, and magic underpants.
Claims of Peer Review for Intelligent Design examined … and debunked « Skeptical Science
"Intelligent Design" is not science.
Documents cast light on Causeway creationist wrangle - Local - Belfast Newsletter
Apparently there was a possibility thatprivate public grant funding for the information
centre could have been made conditional on the creationist
interpretation being included in the information. Whether or not that
condition was ever made, or accepted, it remains true that the
creationist interpretation was included. This illustrates the insidious nature of creationism, and the necessity for eternal vigilance.
(Via BCSE.)
And a worthy first commemoration of the man who rebuilt Colossus.
(Via National Museum of Computing.)
Philip Kitcher: The Trouble With Scientism | The New Republic
Lengthy and thought-provoking, but I was initially confused by his usage of "humanistic". A more careful explication of what he means by "scientism" would also have helped.
The Way of the Mister: Mormonism is Racism - YouTube
This, and magic underpants.
Claims of Peer Review for Intelligent Design examined … and debunked « Skeptical Science
"Intelligent Design" is not science.
Documents cast light on Causeway creationist wrangle - Local - Belfast Newsletter
Apparently there was a possibility that
(Via BCSE.)
Labels:
Burnee links
Tuesday, 9 October 2012
Creationist road trip conspires against reality
Yesterday I noticed BBC Three was to broadcast the second in a three-episode series ostensibly on conspiracy theories, this one taking a small group of creationists on a coach trip in America and showing them the evidence for evolution. It sounds like a recipe for disaster, and so it turned out, more or less. Jerry Coyne was in it:
Soon after watching the whole thing, I posted my reaction on Facebook:
Conspiracy Road Trip: Creationism is on iPlayer at the moment, and as it's BBC Three it's likely to be available again fairly soon.
UPDATE 2012-10-13:
Here's the whole thing on YouTube:
http://youtu.be/Oju_lpqa6Ug
...and here's Jerry Coyne's post about it:
http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2012/10/10/conspiracy-road-trip-with-creationists-noahs-ark-and-other-lolz/
Soon after watching the whole thing, I posted my reaction on Facebook:
OK I watched it, and some parts were indeed disastrous — kind of like Big Brother Goes On The Road. They started in Las Vegas, for no other reason (that I could discern) than it allowed for some clichéd photo-opportunities.
Jerry Coyne doesn't suffer fools, and his debunking of Noah's Ark did not go down well with the creationists. The creationist who appeared to have appointed himself "star-of-the-show" also seemed to be entertaining the idea that the show itself was a conspiracy, and he was impervious to reason, maintaining that the purpose of science was to deny God.
The presenter, Andrew Maxwell, nailed it with his bemused announcement that he couldn't understand how, in the face of so much evidence for evolution, the creationists simply dismissed anything that was contrary to scripture. He asked one of them why they even bother to look at the science if they're not going to accept anything that doesn't agree with what they already believe.
A frustrating programme that generated — on my part — more than its fair share of sighing and head-shaking.
UPDATE 2012-10-13:
Here's the whole thing on YouTube:
http://youtu.be/Oju_lpqa6Ug
...and here's Jerry Coyne's post about it:
http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2012/10/10/conspiracy-road-trip-with-creationists-noahs-ark-and-other-lolz/
Labels:
Andrew Maxwell,
BBC3,
creationism,
Facebook,
Jerry Coyne,
Noah's Ark
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)