With elements of secret religious history this steampunk fantasy is set in Victorian London, speculating on an alternative origin of the industrial age. Download it now, put it on your iPod, burn it to a CD, or listen on the website. Your comments are welcome on the Escape Artists Discussion Forum. Enjoy.
Notable for its fortuitous placing of Richard Dawkins against William Lane Craig — an opposition that Dawkins has hitherto vocally declined — this debate had probably the weirdest format I've ever seen. The participants gave their speeches in a boxing ring!
Craig doesn't change; his style of debate doesn't vary from one event to another. As usual he restated the motion, declaring what his side believes, and (in a characteristic effort to erect a suitably inflammable straw man) what the other side believes, and stated what the other side must prove, and what his side would show. As usual he shifted the burden of proof, declaring that it was up to the other side to show that the universe does not have a purpose. Pardon me for being stubborn, but if I'm told that something I can't detect is in fact there despite my inability to detect it, I tend not to change my mind about its existence unless shown compelling evidence.
On the contrary (and as expected), Craig took the existence of a purpose to the universe as the default position. He did concede, however, that if God does not exist, then the universe does not have a purpose. Unfortunately for the legitimacy of his argument he took the flip side of that premise to be that if the universe does have a purpose, then the God of Biblical theism exists. For someone who claims to be a philosopher this false dilemma was a disingenuous tactic. In his usual manner Craig also ran through ten arguments for the existence of a Creator in one of his rebuttals, claiming they were persuasive when in fact they were nothing of the kind — all ten have been long since repeatedly refuted, but that doesn't stop him trotting them out on demand.
This particular debate format was bad enough that it tended to limit speeches to superficial point-scoring. The maximum time allowed for the six initial presentations was six minutes each, with subsequent rebuttals at less than two minutes — hardly enough time to refute even one fallacious argument for the existence of a deity, let alone ten.
Whether or not the universe has a purpose, I'm not sure what purpose this debate served. To my biased sensibilities the "No" side won hands down, but the whole affair was less than edifying. One good thing to come out of it, however, was further exposure of William Lane Craig's empty rhetoric.
As part of a series of official and unofficial fringe events taking place around the weekend of TAM London, attendees were offered discounted tickets to see Ghost Stories, a live stage show currently running at the Duke of York's Theatre. The show is produced by — and stars — Andy Nyman, whom I knew only from some TV appearances (for example in Charlie Brooker's zombie Big Brother spoof, Dead Set) and from his being credited as Derren Brown's co-writer.
The discounted tickets, it turned out, were for a performance of Ghost Stories on Friday evening at 9 pm, exclusively for TAM London delegates. The show is billed as the scariest in London, and I had serious doubts as to how it would play to an auditorium of skeptics.
To my surprise, however, Ghost Stories is a skeptical show, but no less scary for that. Indeed it was very scary, and spookily so — in the grand tradition of truly supernatural horror. The show's generally light-hearted tone is liberally punctuated with unsettling moments and unexpected shocks. Throughout the performance the tension increases as the audience's nervous laughter repeatedly morphs into gasps of terror. At one point towards the end of the evening someone in my row emitted a piercing shriek while jumping literally out of his seat.
So the following day it was a subdued Andy Nyman who took to the TAM London stage when Amateur Transplants had finished entertaining us immediately after lunch. Not everyone in the room had been to see Ghost Stories the previous evening, so he could not talk about the show in any depth. The format was not a talk or lecture, but the first of several discussions at TAM London. Andy Nyman was on stage with Richard Wiseman, with whom he has previous associations (there were photographs to back this up), and they had a nice chat that we were able to overhear, and — in the subsequent Q&A — to join in.
The effectiveness of Ghost Stories as a live experience relies to a large degree on the element of surprise, and Andy Nyman wasn't going to give the game away for those who hadn't seen it. He did, however, talk generally about what goes into making a successful show, whether on stage or on TV, and about his association with Derren Brown.
"Logic" is part and parcel of the nature of existence. How do I know my reasoning has any validity? Simple: I am aware that logic exists. Therefore I can rely on logic when I use reason as a path to knowledge. How do I know logic exists? The fact that I know anything at all is an indication that the underlying logic of reasoning is valid.
I can assume my reasoning is valid, because if I wasn't able to do it I wouldn't be able to make that assumption. Assuming things is part of the act of reasoning.
Presuppositionalists, however, claim that reasoning is only possible because God exists. They assume that if God hadn't created logic we wouldn't be able to reason, and that because we can reason, therefore God exists.
But logic isn't something separate and above the universe. Logic is not transcendent, it's merely a description of an aspect of the universe as we experience it. Asking whether there are absolutelaws of logic is akin to asking if there's an absolute universe. It's like asking if there is matter and energy that is somehow "outside" the matter and energy of the universe, or "beyond" space and time. You might as well ask what happens when an irresistible force hits an immovable object, or what is the mathematical formula for the area of a square circle, or what's the marital status of a married bachelor. These questions don't make sense, and just because they can be asked doesn't mean they have answers. They don't.
Presuppositionalists claim that unbelievers have no basis for assuming that their reasoning is valid, because (they say) we use unvalidated reasoning in an attempt to validate itself. On the other hand, presuppositionalists assume their reasoning is valid because reasoning was created by God. This, of course, presupposes the existence of God, and is the ultimate God-of-the-gaps argument: the only way that reasoning will work is if it was created by God — therefore God exists. But I would throw the presuppositionalists' question back at them: how do they know that their reasoning is valid? It isn't enough to say that God created reasoning, or even to say that there exist absolute laws of logic that transcend the universe. How do they know that? How do they know that such knowledge is true?
Prince Charles too dangerous to be king: This eccentric royal could imperil monarchy | Mail Online
I think most level-headed people are aware of the the Prince of Woo's woolly-mindedness. He's propped up the alternative-medicine industry in the UK and his ill-judged pronouncements have stultified the country's architectural progress. Sure, he needs something to do while waiting to accede, but most of what he's done seems to have been on the whole detrimental. Maybe when he's King he'll be too occupied in the pomp and ceremony of regal duties to pay attention to his hobby horses.
But the shepherd never gets fleeced… : Pharyngula
OK, this is America, but I thought they were supposed to have "separation of church and state" over there. Apparently they just love their priests so much...
Philip Dodd is joined by a panel of thinkers at the Sage Gateshead to discuss the impact global religion will have on future politics - for good or ill:
David Holloway, vicar of Evangelical Jesmond Parish Church in Newcastle argues that Britain must reconnect with its Christian roots.
Medhi Hassan, Senior Political Editor of the New Statesman Magazine and practising Muslim. A key opponent of Islamophobia in the British Press.
Maryam Narmazie, political activist and spokesperson for Iran Solidarity, Equal Rights Now, the One Law for All Campaign against Sharia Law in Britain and the Council of Ex-Muslims of Britain.
Philip Blond, influential theologian behind Red Toryism and Director of the Res publica think tank.
The discussion was considerably frustrating to listen to. Maryam Namazie had her work cut out countering the usual inanities: secularists have no basis for morality, Dawkins' stridency is the last gasp of atheism, we must live in harmony with other religions even though mine is true and all the others are false, etc.
"Ultimately there can only be one ‘preconceived view of the evidence’ that can be correct—one that is based on a true history of man’s origins. The Bible’s account of history is true—a history that makes it clear that evolutionary ideas of a pre-agriculture ‘Stone Age’ are without foundation. Early man not only practiced agriculture but also made “all kinds of tools of bronze and iron” (Genesis 4:22), though later circumstances saw some people lose that capacity."
William Roper: So, now you give the Devil the benefit of law! Sir Thomas More: Yes! What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil? William Roper: Yes, I'd cut down every law in England to do that! Sir Thomas More: Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned 'round on you, where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country is planted thick with laws, from coast to coast, Man's laws, not God's! And if you cut them down, and you're just the man to do it, do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake!
Paul S. Jenkins, writer, podcaster and tech-enthusiast (and atheist and skeptic) lives and works in Hampshire, UK. Notes from an Evil Burnee is his blog about things skeptical.
As part of a series of official and unofficial fringe events taking place around the weekend of TAM London, attendees were offered discounted tickets to see Ghost Stories, a live stage show currently running at the Duke of York's Theatre. The show is produced by — and stars — Andy Nyman, whom I knew only from some TV appearances (for example in Charlie Brooker's zombie Big Brother spoof, Dead Set) and from his being credited as Derren Brown's co-writer.
The discounted tickets, it turned out, were for a performance of Ghost Stories on Friday evening at 9 pm, exclusively for TAM London delegates. The show is billed as the scariest in London, and I had serious doubts as to how it would play to an auditorium of skeptics.
To my surprise, however, Ghost Stories is a skeptical show, but no less scary for that. Indeed it was very scary, and spookily so — in the grand tradition of truly supernatural horror. The show's generally light-hearted tone is liberally punctuated with unsettling moments and unexpected shocks. Throughout the performance the tension increases as the audience's nervous laughter repeatedly morphs into gasps of terror. At one point towards the end of the evening someone in my row emitted a piercing shriek while jumping literally out of his seat.
So the following day it was a subdued Andy Nyman who took to the TAM London stage when Amateur Transplants had finished entertaining us immediately after lunch. Not everyone in the room had been to see Ghost Stories the previous evening, so he could not talk about the show in any depth. The format was not a talk or lecture, but the first of several discussions at TAM London. Andy Nyman was on stage with Richard Wiseman, with whom he has previous associations (there were photographs to back this up), and they had a nice chat that we were able to overhear, and — in the subsequent Q&A — to join in.
The effectiveness of Ghost Stories as a live experience relies to a large degree on the element of surprise, and Andy Nyman wasn't going to give the game away for those who hadn't seen it. He did, however, talk generally about what goes into making a successful show, whether on stage or on TV, and about his association with Derren Brown.
"Ultimately there can only be one ‘preconceived view of the evidence’ that can be correct—one that is based on a true history of man’s origins. The Bible’s account of history is true—a history that makes it clear that evolutionary ideas of a pre-agriculture ‘Stone Age’ are without foundation. Early man not only practiced agriculture but also made “all kinds of tools of bronze and iron” (Genesis 4:22), though later circumstances saw some people lose that capacity."
Paul S. Jenkins, writer, podcaster and tech-enthusiast (and atheist and skeptic) lives and works in Hampshire, UK. Notes from an Evil Burnee is his blog about things skeptical.
Posts
