It ends up with this quote from Stephen Fry.
 |
| Stephen Fry on the subject of Intelligent Design |
Showing posts with label Skepticism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Skepticism. Show all posts
Friday, 26 July 2013
Thought-provoking video about Intelligent Design
What a thought provoking video about Intelligent Design, from The Thinking Atheist!
It ends up with this quote from Stephen Fry.
It ends up with this quote from Stephen Fry.
Thursday, 11 July 2013
Another UK crisis - MPs pay
The UK Government has imposed a 1% limit on the increase of salary for public sector workers for the next three years, having already frozen pay for the last two years. (At the same time thy increased pension contributions by 1.28% this year, leading to a net decrease in take-home pay while inflation is obviously raging.)
Some people find that outrageous. Others consider it to be an fair and inevitable way of balancing the books. But whichever camp you might be in, I suspect that we are almost all in agreement that it would be grossly unfair if Members of Parliament (MPs) are awarded any increase in salary higher than that. And yet, this is what they tell us we should expect. In fact they might be awarded an increase of more than 10%, because (at the second attempt) the independent body that reviews their salaries has deemed that they are underpaid.
Neglecting the fact that many of them have second and third paid jobs, along with fairly generous expenses allowances and long periods when Parliament is not sitting, which world is this independent panel living in?
Somehow, it appears that the government is powerless to prevent this inevitable increase. Exactly why that might be the case is completely unclear to me. In my view, the MPs should:
Failing that, I can see the potential for one of the biggest protest marches ever seen in London. I will be there, whatever else might be happening that day.
Will you?
Further comment: 38 Degrees is obviously lining itself up for a goo campaign on this topic. Participate in their consultation by following this link.
Some people find that outrageous. Others consider it to be an fair and inevitable way of balancing the books. But whichever camp you might be in, I suspect that we are almost all in agreement that it would be grossly unfair if Members of Parliament (MPs) are awarded any increase in salary higher than that. And yet, this is what they tell us we should expect. In fact they might be awarded an increase of more than 10%, because (at the second attempt) the independent body that reviews their salaries has deemed that they are underpaid.
Neglecting the fact that many of them have second and third paid jobs, along with fairly generous expenses allowances and long periods when Parliament is not sitting, which world is this independent panel living in?
Somehow, it appears that the government is powerless to prevent this inevitable increase. Exactly why that might be the case is completely unclear to me. In my view, the MPs should:
- Do the job that they are paid for - full time, like the rest of us - and yes that sometimes means working late with little appreciation and for much less money than MPs already receive.
- Not have additional salaried posts.
- Definitely have their salary increases capped - as after all, they are public sector workers too.
Failing that, I can see the potential for one of the biggest protest marches ever seen in London. I will be there, whatever else might be happening that day.
Will you?
Further comment: 38 Degrees is obviously lining itself up for a goo campaign on this topic. Participate in their consultation by following this link.
Sunday, 7 July 2013
Skeptical about Skeptoid - go for green instead!
The Skeptoid podcast has been one of my favourites for two or three years, and Brian Dunning's analyses of the topics that he covers generally have my trust. One or two things might have influenced my views about Dunning recently, but setting aside accusations of fraud that have echoed around the skeptical community (if indeed it really is a singular community) in this week's episode I think he actually has a couple of things dangerously wrong.
He was talking about laser pointers. Are they really dangerous?
Obviously the answer is that some of them are indeed a hazard, but I have to point out that his reasoning to determine which are safe is far from my own understanding of the topic, and advice from laser safety experts.
Dunning's approach was correct in pointing out that the human eye is more sensitive to green light than red, but his conclusion was the opposite of normal thinking. The reason might be that he has incorrectly assumed that increased sensitivity (i.e. ability to perceive the smallest amounts of light) correlates with sensitivity to damage (which it does not). The brightness of some green pointers is truly scary, but not all of them are actually dangerous.
Damage to the eye is caused by power, not by apparent brightness. OK - you might have a coloured spot in your vision for longer if the light seems brighter, but that doesn't necessarily mean that you have damaged your retina. On the other hand, infra-red lasers can easily blind you without seeming bright. Indeed they can do their terrible damage invisibly. (I work with people who operate IR lasers which would only be eye-safe at a distance of 20,000km by they way.)
In fact, the science in the above claims should be interpreted in this way. Green pointers appear brighter than red pointers for the same power. So a red 1 mW laser pointer seems surprisingly dim compared with a green pointer of the same power. To compensate for this, people are tempted to buy higher power red pointers. You might need tens of milliwatts to compete with 1 mW of green. This is where the danger lies.
Brian Dunning's conclusion that you should never use a green pointer is misleading and potentially dangerous. You should use green wherever possible, but just ensure that its 'peak output power' is less than 1 mW, not the 1 to 5 mW that Dunning recommended.
Then you can be certain that your audience's eyes will be safe. You should still avoid shining the light direct into anyone's eyes though.
Small note: There is a theoretical potential failure mode for green lasers, where they go to even higher power. If you spot your pointer getting much brighter then you should get it tested. In my own experience they seem to get dimmer with time, but this is only a matter of statistics (and perhaps ageing eyes?).
He was talking about laser pointers. Are they really dangerous?
Obviously the answer is that some of them are indeed a hazard, but I have to point out that his reasoning to determine which are safe is far from my own understanding of the topic, and advice from laser safety experts.
Dunning's approach was correct in pointing out that the human eye is more sensitive to green light than red, but his conclusion was the opposite of normal thinking. The reason might be that he has incorrectly assumed that increased sensitivity (i.e. ability to perceive the smallest amounts of light) correlates with sensitivity to damage (which it does not). The brightness of some green pointers is truly scary, but not all of them are actually dangerous.
Damage to the eye is caused by power, not by apparent brightness. OK - you might have a coloured spot in your vision for longer if the light seems brighter, but that doesn't necessarily mean that you have damaged your retina. On the other hand, infra-red lasers can easily blind you without seeming bright. Indeed they can do their terrible damage invisibly. (I work with people who operate IR lasers which would only be eye-safe at a distance of 20,000km by they way.)
In fact, the science in the above claims should be interpreted in this way. Green pointers appear brighter than red pointers for the same power. So a red 1 mW laser pointer seems surprisingly dim compared with a green pointer of the same power. To compensate for this, people are tempted to buy higher power red pointers. You might need tens of milliwatts to compete with 1 mW of green. This is where the danger lies.
Brian Dunning's conclusion that you should never use a green pointer is misleading and potentially dangerous. You should use green wherever possible, but just ensure that its 'peak output power' is less than 1 mW, not the 1 to 5 mW that Dunning recommended.
Then you can be certain that your audience's eyes will be safe. You should still avoid shining the light direct into anyone's eyes though.
Small note: There is a theoretical potential failure mode for green lasers, where they go to even higher power. If you spot your pointer getting much brighter then you should get it tested. In my own experience they seem to get dimmer with time, but this is only a matter of statistics (and perhaps ageing eyes?).
Friday, 5 July 2013
Downloading consciousness?
Have you heard of the '2045 Project'? I started to hear a few whispers about this fascinating and seemingly impossible idea recently.
Founded by a wealth Russian entrepreneur, Dmitry Itskov, in February 2011, the project aims to develop the technology required to download a human mind into a robot avatar, essentially extending life, perhaps as far as immortality. By that time Itskov will be about 65 years old.
Interesting! Apart from the obvious worry about choosing exactly the right moment to kill your real self and transfer your 'soul' (for want of a better word) into a machine, there must be no end of other moral implications. Does the 'robot you' then have human rights? Does it have the right to reproduce, and if so, what algorithms go into the production of the offspring. Is there a way to make the mingling of computerised brainwaves sound like a romantic encounter, and if not, in what way could this being be described as being fully human? And if the avatar offspring went through the terrible twos while it effectively inhabited an adult body, how would the parents cope?
I can't resist asking whether it forces God out of the picture too? After all, which part of the new synthetic 'you' did God create? Unlike the conventional type of 'intelligent design', the success of this project might demonstrate that ID is real.
If it happens in your lifetime you can decide for yourself.
Founded by a wealth Russian entrepreneur, Dmitry Itskov, in February 2011, the project aims to develop the technology required to download a human mind into a robot avatar, essentially extending life, perhaps as far as immortality. By that time Itskov will be about 65 years old.
Interesting! Apart from the obvious worry about choosing exactly the right moment to kill your real self and transfer your 'soul' (for want of a better word) into a machine, there must be no end of other moral implications. Does the 'robot you' then have human rights? Does it have the right to reproduce, and if so, what algorithms go into the production of the offspring. Is there a way to make the mingling of computerised brainwaves sound like a romantic encounter, and if not, in what way could this being be described as being fully human? And if the avatar offspring went through the terrible twos while it effectively inhabited an adult body, how would the parents cope?
I can't resist asking whether it forces God out of the picture too? After all, which part of the new synthetic 'you' did God create? Unlike the conventional type of 'intelligent design', the success of this project might demonstrate that ID is real.
If it happens in your lifetime you can decide for yourself.
Sunday, 30 June 2013
Lennox's non-fairy tale?
Oxford University Professor, John Lennox mumbled some incoherent nonsense (it is reported, e.g. here and here, and much better here) at the
'National Prayer Breakfast'. Presumably Lennox is quite good at mathematics. If not, he would not be a professor at Oxford University. Nevertheless, if the reports of the event are to be believed then he seems to grasp very little of logic. Isn't that surprising?
Apparently he 'preached' that atheism was a "delusion" and a "fairy tale for those afraid of the light".
Can anyone explain to me how this can be true? Surely atheism is the lack of all these religious fairy tales, not specifically the Christian fairy-tale that Lennox happens to like.
Perhaps Prof. Lennox has been an outspoken critic of "God Delusion" author Richard Dawkins, but if that is the only thing that makes him famous then perhaps he should be called 'a-famous'.
As for blaming atheism for the "moral drift" in society, (as is reported), I would just point him to accounts of the activities of Roman Catholic Priests over recent years and indeed Muslim men who have married child brides over many centuries (collectively, at least). Where is the moral drift now? Has it been led by religious men, perchance?
Dismissing the common assumption that science and religion are not compatible, he said "There is no necessary conflict between science and God, the real conflict is between world views, atheism and theism".
If not, why is he picking this particular fight? Moving on, we hear that:
"God is not the same kind of explanation as science is.
Now . . . on this point we can agree. One is a delusion and one is not. But then:
God is the explanation of why there is a universe at all in which science can be done."
Lennox might tell us this. But after all, this is just a fairy story!
Isn't it?
Apparently he 'preached' that atheism was a "delusion" and a "fairy tale for those afraid of the light".
Can anyone explain to me how this can be true? Surely atheism is the lack of all these religious fairy tales, not specifically the Christian fairy-tale that Lennox happens to like.
Perhaps Prof. Lennox has been an outspoken critic of "God Delusion" author Richard Dawkins, but if that is the only thing that makes him famous then perhaps he should be called 'a-famous'.
As for blaming atheism for the "moral drift" in society, (as is reported), I would just point him to accounts of the activities of Roman Catholic Priests over recent years and indeed Muslim men who have married child brides over many centuries (collectively, at least). Where is the moral drift now? Has it been led by religious men, perchance?
Dismissing the common assumption that science and religion are not compatible, he said "There is no necessary conflict between science and God, the real conflict is between world views, atheism and theism".
If not, why is he picking this particular fight? Moving on, we hear that:
"God is not the same kind of explanation as science is.
Now . . . on this point we can agree. One is a delusion and one is not. But then:
God is the explanation of why there is a universe at all in which science can be done."
Lennox might tell us this. But after all, this is just a fairy story!
Isn't it?
Dr Lennox was addressing over 600 people at the Bible Society-sponsored National Prayer Breakfast at the Houses of Parliament.
As Professor of Mathematics at Oxford University, Dr Lennox has frequently spoken out against modern-day atheism, calling Richard Dawkins 'wrong'.
He said that the new atheism is responsible for 'the moral drift' in today's society. And he added that science and religion are not opposed.
'There is no necessary conflict between science and God, the real conflict is between worldviews, atheism and theism,' he said.
'God is not the same kind of explanation as science is,' he added. 'God is the explanation of why there is a universe at all in which science can be done.'
He warned that, 'The playing field is not level since atheism has become so dominant ... and is often regarded as the default position in the media.'
The risk of this is, he said, that society would forget 'the contribution of Christianity to the moral foundations of our society'.
- See more at: http://www.baptisttimes.co.uk/index.php/national-news/986-atheism-a-delusion-john-lennox-#sthash.x2vSZjv2.dpufvvOxford University Professor John Lennox told over 600 people at the National Prayer Breakfast why he is not convinced by atheism.
The math professor told guests at the Bible Society-sponsored event that atheism was a "delusion" and a "fairy tale for those afraid of the light".
He urged Christians to have "the courage to create public space" for the discussion of "a biblical worldview", as he pointed to the example of Tyndale, who translated the Bible into English 400 years ago and would eventually be executed.
Dr Lennox, who has been an outspoken critic of "God Delusion" author Richard Dawkins, blamed new atheism for the "moral drift" in society.
He also dismissed the common assumption that science and religion are not compatible.
"There is no necessary conflict between science and God, the real conflict is between worldviews, atheism and theism," he said.
"God is not the same kind of explanation as science is. God is the explanation of why there is a universe at all in which science can be done."
As Professor of Mathematics at Oxford University, Dr Lennox has frequently spoken out against modern-day atheism, calling Richard Dawkins 'wrong'.
He said that the new atheism is responsible for 'the moral drift' in today's society. And he added that science and religion are not opposed.
'There is no necessary conflict between science and God, the real conflict is between worldviews, atheism and theism,' he said.
'God is not the same kind of explanation as science is,' he added. 'God is the explanation of why there is a universe at all in which science can be done.'
He warned that, 'The playing field is not level since atheism has become so dominant ... and is often regarded as the default position in the media.'
The risk of this is, he said, that society would forget 'the contribution of Christianity to the moral foundations of our society'.
- See more at: http://www.baptisttimes.co.uk/index.php/national-news/986-atheism-a-delusion-john-lennox-#sthash.x2vSZjv2.dpufvvOxford University Professor John Lennox told over 600 people at the National Prayer Breakfast why he is not convinced by atheism.
The math professor told guests at the Bible Society-sponsored event that atheism was a "delusion" and a "fairy tale for those afraid of the light".
He urged Christians to have "the courage to create public space" for the discussion of "a biblical worldview", as he pointed to the example of Tyndale, who translated the Bible into English 400 years ago and would eventually be executed.
Dr Lennox, who has been an outspoken critic of "God Delusion" author Richard Dawkins, blamed new atheism for the "moral drift" in society.
He also dismissed the common assumption that science and religion are not compatible.
"There is no necessary conflict between science and God, the real conflict is between worldviews, atheism and theism," he said.
"God is not the same kind of explanation as science is. God is the explanation of why there is a universe at all in which science can be done."
Atheism
is a 'delusion', a 'fairy tale for those afraid of the light'. That was
the message from Prof John Lennox from Oxford University on Tuesday
morning (25 June).
He also urged Christians to have 'the courage to create public space' for the discussion of 'a biblical worldview' in society - citing the example of Tyndale's translation of the Bible into English 400 years ago.
- See more at: http://www.baptisttimes.co.uk/index.php/national-news/986-atheism-a-delusion-john-lennox-#sthash.x2vSZjv2.dpuf
He also urged Christians to have 'the courage to create public space' for the discussion of 'a biblical worldview' in society - citing the example of Tyndale's translation of the Bible into English 400 years ago.
- See more at: http://www.baptisttimes.co.uk/index.php/national-news/986-atheism-a-delusion-john-lennox-#sthash.x2vSZjv2.dpuf
Dr Lennox was addressing over 600 people at the Bible Society-sponsored National Prayer Breakfast at the Houses of Parliament.
As Professor of Mathematics at Oxford University, Dr Lennox has frequently spoken out against modern-day atheism, calling Richard Dawkins 'wrong'.
He said that the new atheism is responsible for 'the moral drift' in today's society. And he added that science and religion are not opposed.
'There is no necessary conflict between science and God, the real conflict is between worldviews, atheism and theism,' he said.
'God is not the same kind of explanation as science is,' he added. 'God is the explanation of why there is a universe at all in which science can be done.'
He warned that, 'The playing field is not level since atheism has become so dominant ... and is often regarded as the default position in the media.'
The risk of this is, he said, that society would forget 'the contribution of Christianity to the moral foundations of our society'.
- See more at: http://www.baptisttimes.co.uk/index.php/national-news/986-atheism-a-delusion-john-lennox-#sthash.x2vSZjv2.dpuf
As Professor of Mathematics at Oxford University, Dr Lennox has frequently spoken out against modern-day atheism, calling Richard Dawkins 'wrong'.
He said that the new atheism is responsible for 'the moral drift' in today's society. And he added that science and religion are not opposed.
'There is no necessary conflict between science and God, the real conflict is between worldviews, atheism and theism,' he said.
'God is not the same kind of explanation as science is,' he added. 'God is the explanation of why there is a universe at all in which science can be done.'
He warned that, 'The playing field is not level since atheism has become so dominant ... and is often regarded as the default position in the media.'
The risk of this is, he said, that society would forget 'the contribution of Christianity to the moral foundations of our society'.
- See more at: http://www.baptisttimes.co.uk/index.php/national-news/986-atheism-a-delusion-john-lennox-#sthash.x2vSZjv2.dpuf
Atheism
is a 'delusion', a 'fairy tale for those afraid of the light'. That was
the message from Prof John Lennox from Oxford University on Tuesday
morning (25 June).
He also urged Christians to have 'the courage to create public space' for the discussion of 'a biblical worldview' in society - citing the example of Tyndale's translation of the Bible into English 400 years ago.
- See more at: http://www.baptisttimes.co.uk/index.php/national-news/986-atheism-a-delusion-john-lennox-#sthash.x2vSZjv2.dpuf
He also urged Christians to have 'the courage to create public space' for the discussion of 'a biblical worldview' in society - citing the example of Tyndale's translation of the Bible into English 400 years ago.
- See more at: http://www.baptisttimes.co.uk/index.php/national-news/986-atheism-a-delusion-john-lennox-#sthash.x2vSZjv2.dpuf
Atheism
is a 'delusion', a 'fairy tale for those afraid of the light'. That was
the message from Prof John Lennox from Oxford University on Tuesday
morning (25 June).
He also urged Christians to have 'the courage to create public space' for the discussion of 'a biblical worldview' in society - citing the example of Tyndale's translation of the Bible into English 400 years ago.
- See more at: http://www.baptisttimes.co.uk/index.php/national-news/986-atheism-a-delusion-john-lennox-#sthash.x2vSZjv2.dpuf
He also urged Christians to have 'the courage to create public space' for the discussion of 'a biblical worldview' in society - citing the example of Tyndale's translation of the Bible into English 400 years ago.
- See more at: http://www.baptisttimes.co.uk/index.php/national-news/986-atheism-a-delusion-john-lennox-#sthash.x2vSZjv2.dpuf
Atheism
is a 'delusion', a 'fairy tale for those afraid of the light'. That was
the message from Prof John Lennox from Oxford University on Tuesday
morning (25 June).
He also urged Christians to have 'the courage to create public space' for the discussion of 'a biblical worldview' in society - citing the example of Tyndale's translation of the Bible into English 400 years ago.
- See more at: http://www.baptisttimes.co.uk/index.php/national-news/986-atheism-a-delusion-john-lennox-#sthash.x2vSZjv2.dpuf
He also urged Christians to have 'the courage to create public space' for the discussion of 'a biblical worldview' in society - citing the example of Tyndale's translation of the Bible into English 400 years ago.
- See more at: http://www.baptisttimes.co.uk/index.php/national-news/986-atheism-a-delusion-john-lennox-#sthash.x2vSZjv2.dpuf
Friday, 7 June 2013
Brilliant people might not be the most productive
I used to report to a director, but via matrix management work for another utterly brilliant man. When it came to detail, I felt like an intellectual-dwarf compared with either. But looking at the situation in a different way I review it like this.
When I went to my director with a good idea I would come out of the meeting with an even better idea.
When I went to my day-to-day boss with an idea, I would return with three more ideas! (None of them were mine but all were sensible.)
Both of them were brilliant men (and still are). Neither of them had the talents of making a decision to do anything nor of making things happen, nor the talent of making people follow them. I respect and like both of them in spite of those flaws.
After that I worked for someone who had none of the intellectual prowess of my previous bosses, and yet he seemed to be able to gather followers and lead the ordinary people in the direction that he required - whether it was for the company or for personal gain - whether the followers recognise that they were merely being used or not.
This sort of thing seems to have happened frustratingly often throughout my professional career.
So it seems to me to be clear that the most brilliant intellects have no chance of prevailing in the real world. That probably means that a perfect world will never be achieved. Incidentally, only one of the above - the one who I least respect - has children.
Is this happening the world over? Does this make tomorrow's planned demonstrations 'The Big IF' in London a waste of time? I won't be going, but I will certainly be writing about it.
The world is complicated isn't it?
When I went to my director with a good idea I would come out of the meeting with an even better idea.
When I went to my day-to-day boss with an idea, I would return with three more ideas! (None of them were mine but all were sensible.)
Both of them were brilliant men (and still are). Neither of them had the talents of making a decision to do anything nor of making things happen, nor the talent of making people follow them. I respect and like both of them in spite of those flaws.
After that I worked for someone who had none of the intellectual prowess of my previous bosses, and yet he seemed to be able to gather followers and lead the ordinary people in the direction that he required - whether it was for the company or for personal gain - whether the followers recognise that they were merely being used or not.
This sort of thing seems to have happened frustratingly often throughout my professional career.
So it seems to me to be clear that the most brilliant intellects have no chance of prevailing in the real world. That probably means that a perfect world will never be achieved. Incidentally, only one of the above - the one who I least respect - has children.
Is this happening the world over? Does this make tomorrow's planned demonstrations 'The Big IF' in London a waste of time? I won't be going, but I will certainly be writing about it.
The world is complicated isn't it?
Monday, 27 May 2013
Does an intelligent designer solve the ID problem?
Having been reading about the Cambrian Explosion which I mentioned recently, it might be a good time to contemplate the creation of information.
Can information be created without intelligent intervention?
Intelligent Design (ID) proponents claim that the existence of their 'intelligent designer' (who has no link with theology - honestly!) is implied by the diversity of new information created during the Cambrian Explosion. Something intelligent must have interfered to make life blossom over that short period of 50 million years. They can't think of any better explanations, so this has got to be the best one. This idea comes from the Law of Conservation of Information. That sounds scientific doesn't it, but as Wikipedia explains, it is not really a scientific law at all. It is an invention of William Dembski, founded on a vaguely related topic by (real scientist) Peter Medawar in his book The Limits of Science (1984). Perhaps in the public mind it is also backed up by cherry-picked terminology from some very esoteric quantum mechanics.
Aside from the fact that their 'law' is just made up and that it is mathematically falsifiable, is their argument about information even reasonable?
To the first approximation, the answer has got to be NO! Snowflakes have structure. They happen to be created in a random sort of way but their crystal structure is certainly not free of information. Similarly if you dissolve a lot of salt in hot water and then let the solution cool down, the salt will crystallise. Surely this is information too - and it was definitely self-created.
Neither of those examples give information that is then read back and used to make a future action happen though, so in a sense they might not count.
Taking the opposite extreme, the creation of different forms of life, the question gets a little more complex. Let's make the assumption - for the time being - that this new information did come from an intelligent designer in just the way that this blog post is new information created by me. How did I develop the concept that I want to present, formulate it and publish it?
Obviously some measure of intelligence might have been involved for the latter two stages and I leave it to my intelligent readers to decide how much of it is demonstrated, but just invoking intelligence is not enough is it? Aside from the fact that intelligence is a quantity that is notoriously hard to define and measure, intelligence in itself does not create new ideas. Somewhere in the mind of a designer there has to be a 'spark' that starts off a thought process, leading to a train of thought.
Where does that spark itself come from? Since I am not a dualist I cannot use my soul as an explanation of the source of inspiration. Therefore I am left with the problem of finding an explanation for the information that has been conveyed by my own intelligence.
In other words, invoking an intelligent designer does not move us forward at all. I think this condemns Intelligent Design to the realms of pseudo-science, if indeed it had not already managed to do that for itself in other ways.
Or perhaps the idea for this post came from the great Intelligent Designer in the sky?
Can information be created without intelligent intervention?
Intelligent Design (ID) proponents claim that the existence of their 'intelligent designer' (who has no link with theology - honestly!) is implied by the diversity of new information created during the Cambrian Explosion. Something intelligent must have interfered to make life blossom over that short period of 50 million years. They can't think of any better explanations, so this has got to be the best one. This idea comes from the Law of Conservation of Information. That sounds scientific doesn't it, but as Wikipedia explains, it is not really a scientific law at all. It is an invention of William Dembski, founded on a vaguely related topic by (real scientist) Peter Medawar in his book The Limits of Science (1984). Perhaps in the public mind it is also backed up by cherry-picked terminology from some very esoteric quantum mechanics.
Aside from the fact that their 'law' is just made up and that it is mathematically falsifiable, is their argument about information even reasonable?
To the first approximation, the answer has got to be NO! Snowflakes have structure. They happen to be created in a random sort of way but their crystal structure is certainly not free of information. Similarly if you dissolve a lot of salt in hot water and then let the solution cool down, the salt will crystallise. Surely this is information too - and it was definitely self-created.
Neither of those examples give information that is then read back and used to make a future action happen though, so in a sense they might not count.
Taking the opposite extreme, the creation of different forms of life, the question gets a little more complex. Let's make the assumption - for the time being - that this new information did come from an intelligent designer in just the way that this blog post is new information created by me. How did I develop the concept that I want to present, formulate it and publish it?
Obviously some measure of intelligence might have been involved for the latter two stages and I leave it to my intelligent readers to decide how much of it is demonstrated, but just invoking intelligence is not enough is it? Aside from the fact that intelligence is a quantity that is notoriously hard to define and measure, intelligence in itself does not create new ideas. Somewhere in the mind of a designer there has to be a 'spark' that starts off a thought process, leading to a train of thought.
Where does that spark itself come from? Since I am not a dualist I cannot use my soul as an explanation of the source of inspiration. Therefore I am left with the problem of finding an explanation for the information that has been conveyed by my own intelligence.
In other words, invoking an intelligent designer does not move us forward at all. I think this condemns Intelligent Design to the realms of pseudo-science, if indeed it had not already managed to do that for itself in other ways.
Or perhaps the idea for this post came from the great Intelligent Designer in the sky?
Thursday, 23 May 2013
Atheists redeemed, but not yet saved
It's official! Atheists have been redeemed by the death of Jesus and it is possible for us to be good people, according to a story in The Guardian. Pope Francis has announced it!
Now don't get too carried away by this 'good news', if indeed it is a surprise to anyone who has actually thought about the subject at all. As any good Catholic will tell you (if you can find one) redemption and salvation are not the same thing. As Michelle Arnold says on Catholic Answers
" . . . redemption is collective and salvation is individual. By his passion, death, and resurrection, Christ redeemed humanity collectively from slavery to sin and from the debt of punishment mankind -- as a whole -- owed due to sin. Each and every person, Christian or non-Christian, is redeemed because he is a member of the human race.
Salvation is the application of redemption to individuals. Although a member of redeemed humanity, and therefore himself redeemed, a person can freely choose to deliberately reject the graces won for him by Christ and go to hell."
Obviously that makes perfect sense and wins an award from the Campaign for Clear English, but in spite of the religious babble you get the point. Because of the mythical death of a fictional character, you are forgiven for the sins that you didn't commit and relieved of a debt that you apparently owed for inexplicable reasons, whether a believer or not. But you are not yet forgiven for the ones that you have personally committed including those that you are even thinking of committing.
So the pope might seem to be giving some ground, but not enough for us atheists to get to heaven. He implies that salvation might be achieved by being good, but even he doesn't have the authority to override the bible does he? Good works alone will not get you to heaven.
Now he only has to work on one thing that is more important. How can he get his own flock and their priests to start to be good!
Now don't get too carried away by this 'good news', if indeed it is a surprise to anyone who has actually thought about the subject at all. As any good Catholic will tell you (if you can find one) redemption and salvation are not the same thing. As Michelle Arnold says on Catholic Answers
" . . . redemption is collective and salvation is individual. By his passion, death, and resurrection, Christ redeemed humanity collectively from slavery to sin and from the debt of punishment mankind -- as a whole -- owed due to sin. Each and every person, Christian or non-Christian, is redeemed because he is a member of the human race.
Salvation is the application of redemption to individuals. Although a member of redeemed humanity, and therefore himself redeemed, a person can freely choose to deliberately reject the graces won for him by Christ and go to hell."
Obviously that makes perfect sense and wins an award from the Campaign for Clear English, but in spite of the religious babble you get the point. Because of the mythical death of a fictional character, you are forgiven for the sins that you didn't commit and relieved of a debt that you apparently owed for inexplicable reasons, whether a believer or not. But you are not yet forgiven for the ones that you have personally committed including those that you are even thinking of committing.
So the pope might seem to be giving some ground, but not enough for us atheists to get to heaven. He implies that salvation might be achieved by being good, but even he doesn't have the authority to override the bible does he? Good works alone will not get you to heaven.
Now he only has to work on one thing that is more important. How can he get his own flock and their priests to start to be good!
Tuesday, 14 May 2013
Should psychics be prosecuted?
If psychics offer their services to the police in order to solve a mystery or a crime and it all goes horribly wrong, which party should be considered culpable?
From time to time we hear about cases where psychics seem to offer that vital clue that police needed in order to solve a difficult case. Correlation does not always imply causation of course, but facts like this do not often convince a gullible public who are left thinking that 'there must be something in it'.
One recent case where a psychic's total failure has been revealed was that of the investigation of the disappearance of kidnap victim Amanda Berry about 10 years ago. With the final escape of Amanda we now discover for certain that the psychic Sylvia Browne had (at least) made a mistake. Her claim that Amanda was no longer in the land of the living has now been shown to be complete fabrication. I seem to remember that there was a similar case in Bristol UK, just last year, resulting in a false accusation of an innocent man.
Now I wouldn't like to suggest that this particular failed psychic is necessarily using her fame to interfere malevolently with police investigation. It is quite possible that she truly believes in her abilities (not that she is just using a high profile case like this as a publicity stunt to bring the punters in to see her stage performances.) I have a friend who also believes that she has these abilities even though she is a scientist. She realises that the evidence is not yet compelling enough to convince me.
However, the simple belief in one's abilities is one matter, but when interfering in matters that are truly a matter of life and death, actions should surely carry a degree of responsibility.
No doubt Sylvia Browne's stage work carries the disclaimer "For entertainment purposes only" in small writing, for legal reasons. So I wonder why her work with the police should not be treated in the same way - also for legal reasons. Should a prosecution be initiated for supposed psychics who waste police time in this way? I speak in general terms - not necessarily in this specific case, but surely YES.
On the other hand, are the police failing in their duty by even considering that a psychic might be able to help? In my view, the answer is an emphatic YES. Disciplinary action should be taken against the officers who have failed in their duty to the public by even entertaining the idea that this might be useful. Naturally it might have been a media propaganda stunt on their behalf too, but this sort of thing is at best a smoke screen to placate the credible public.
It is time to stop tolerating interference with the due process of law.
From time to time we hear about cases where psychics seem to offer that vital clue that police needed in order to solve a difficult case. Correlation does not always imply causation of course, but facts like this do not often convince a gullible public who are left thinking that 'there must be something in it'.
One recent case where a psychic's total failure has been revealed was that of the investigation of the disappearance of kidnap victim Amanda Berry about 10 years ago. With the final escape of Amanda we now discover for certain that the psychic Sylvia Browne had (at least) made a mistake. Her claim that Amanda was no longer in the land of the living has now been shown to be complete fabrication. I seem to remember that there was a similar case in Bristol UK, just last year, resulting in a false accusation of an innocent man.
Now I wouldn't like to suggest that this particular failed psychic is necessarily using her fame to interfere malevolently with police investigation. It is quite possible that she truly believes in her abilities (not that she is just using a high profile case like this as a publicity stunt to bring the punters in to see her stage performances.) I have a friend who also believes that she has these abilities even though she is a scientist. She realises that the evidence is not yet compelling enough to convince me.
However, the simple belief in one's abilities is one matter, but when interfering in matters that are truly a matter of life and death, actions should surely carry a degree of responsibility.
No doubt Sylvia Browne's stage work carries the disclaimer "For entertainment purposes only" in small writing, for legal reasons. So I wonder why her work with the police should not be treated in the same way - also for legal reasons. Should a prosecution be initiated for supposed psychics who waste police time in this way? I speak in general terms - not necessarily in this specific case, but surely YES.
On the other hand, are the police failing in their duty by even considering that a psychic might be able to help? In my view, the answer is an emphatic YES. Disciplinary action should be taken against the officers who have failed in their duty to the public by even entertaining the idea that this might be useful. Naturally it might have been a media propaganda stunt on their behalf too, but this sort of thing is at best a smoke screen to placate the credible public.
It is time to stop tolerating interference with the due process of law.
Monday, 13 May 2013
My two 'spirit guides'
A dear friend told me today that I have invisible companionship.
This is not just one spirit guide, but two! Apparently not everyone is blessed in this way, but it is far from unusual. My friend claims to have more guides than me.
I find it genuinely interesting that I know people who believe in things that I can't recognise in the world. My Christian friends know God through his son Jesus (in spite of all that nonsense about the Trinity which makes no real sense to anyone as far as I can tell). My Islamic friends have faith in Allah and his prophet Mohamed (upon whom I wish no peace or blessing whatsoever). At least Islam is a little less 'spooky', even though I find it more frightening in other ways. And my own sister sees ghosts and has always been much more sensitive to the paranormal than I am.
I'm almost jealous of them. It seems that I am missing this special, interesting, sixth sense.
I don't even believe that we have souls in this dualistic sense, so I find it very difficult to believe in ghosts or spirits. But I am still fascinated by the idea.
As for these invisible companions who (apparently) know so much about me, very little has been revealed. They don't have names and nothing is known of the lives that they no longer have. Both are (or were?) male, which I find genuinely surprising since the minority of my close friends would want to claim that.
Apparently one is mischievous and the other is 'a free spirit'. What that happens to say about me is unclear.
What questions can I ask my friend to find out more about my guides? Your input would be useful. Please leave a comment if you can help. I can already think of a few questions.
Any more?
This is not just one spirit guide, but two! Apparently not everyone is blessed in this way, but it is far from unusual. My friend claims to have more guides than me.
I find it genuinely interesting that I know people who believe in things that I can't recognise in the world. My Christian friends know God through his son Jesus (in spite of all that nonsense about the Trinity which makes no real sense to anyone as far as I can tell). My Islamic friends have faith in Allah and his prophet Mohamed (upon whom I wish no peace or blessing whatsoever). At least Islam is a little less 'spooky', even though I find it more frightening in other ways. And my own sister sees ghosts and has always been much more sensitive to the paranormal than I am.
I'm almost jealous of them. It seems that I am missing this special, interesting, sixth sense.
I don't even believe that we have souls in this dualistic sense, so I find it very difficult to believe in ghosts or spirits. But I am still fascinated by the idea.
As for these invisible companions who (apparently) know so much about me, very little has been revealed. They don't have names and nothing is known of the lives that they no longer have. Both are (or were?) male, which I find genuinely surprising since the minority of my close friends would want to claim that.
Apparently one is mischievous and the other is 'a free spirit'. What that happens to say about me is unclear.
What questions can I ask my friend to find out more about my guides? Your input would be useful. Please leave a comment if you can help. I can already think of a few questions.
- Have they chosen me of have I chosen them?
- Do they like me?
- Do they 'guide' anyone else?
Any more?
Saturday, 11 May 2013
Tuesday, 7 May 2013
Kissing the Blarney Stone
Even before I realised that I was a skeptic, I thought the tradition of kissing the Blarney Stone was an example of the Irish getting their own back on the English - not to mention the other nationalities!
This is a view of my daughter trying to do it (a little while ago).
So tell me this. If this is truly the 'other half of The Stone of Scone', why would anyone build it into the outside of an Irish castle?
It doesn't ring true to me, but I'm open to being corrected.
This is a view of my daughter trying to do it (a little while ago).
 |
| Kissing the Blarney Stone |
It doesn't ring true to me, but I'm open to being corrected.
Friday, 3 May 2013
Adam Rutherford at Oxford Skeptics
The speaker at Oxford Skeptics in the Pub this week was one of the best yet. Adam Rutherford engaged an audience of about 60, speaking on the subject of 'Creation'. The event was held in a new location, the St Aldate's Tavern. A good choice, I must say!
When I say that he engaged the audience, he used wit and wisdom to answer questions and challenges in the most interesting round-about ways, and yet still managed to give a satisfactory answer.
There is no point trying to give an account of the talk that he gave. I will just note a few of the things that I found surprising.
A great evening out! If you get chance to see him you should take it.
Small note: Boo to Martin Robbins for trying to be more than an 'ordinary member' of the audience. He wasn't a very interesting speaker when he was supposed to be the speaker, and he wasn't much better as a member of the audience.
When I say that he engaged the audience, he used wit and wisdom to answer questions and challenges in the most interesting round-about ways, and yet still managed to give a satisfactory answer.
There is no point trying to give an account of the talk that he gave. I will just note a few of the things that I found surprising.
- The family tree of Charles II of Spain, the last of the Hapsburgs, with all its inter-generational loops.
- The Murchison meteorite, which contains traces of one of the four letters of the genetic code - one that we find it difficult to synthesise here on Earth. (And yet the hypothesis of panspermia was rejected as non-scientific. Apparently it is a nice idea but there is no evidence for it.)
- That the Miller-Urey experiment was actually more successful than originally thought. In fact, it produced all 20 essential amino acids - many more than there were able to identify at the time.
- A definition of life - "Life is the opposite of decay"
- GM cress which detects land mines by changing colour - and yet is not on the market due to an intellectual property dispute.
A great evening out! If you get chance to see him you should take it.
Small note: Boo to Martin Robbins for trying to be more than an 'ordinary member' of the audience. He wasn't a very interesting speaker when he was supposed to be the speaker, and he wasn't much better as a member of the audience.
Tuesday, 23 April 2013
Clarke's First Law
Today I was reminded of Arthur C Clarke's 'first law'. Clarke was one of my favorite sci-fi authors as I grew up, and he is famous for having invented the idea of the geo-synchronous orbit. We all rely on these satellites for communications these days.
Clarke maintained that three laws were enough for anyone - so he limited himself to this many.
His first law has often seemed right to me:
When a distinguished but elderly scientist states that something is possible, he is almost certainly right. When he states that something is impossible, he is very probably wrong.
See Clarke's three laws here
Clarke maintained that three laws were enough for anyone - so he limited himself to this many.
His first law has often seemed right to me:
When a distinguished but elderly scientist states that something is possible, he is almost certainly right. When he states that something is impossible, he is very probably wrong.
See Clarke's three laws here
Monday, 22 April 2013
I feel like resigning . . .
I feel like resigning . . .
. . . from public service because of what the UK Government is doing to the (already pitiful) pensions that we agreed - contractually
(but who said that you could trust the government?)
. . . and from the internet in general
following the revelations that Brian Dunning of skeptoid.com has pleaded (or plead) guilty of something called Wire Fraud.
Skeptoid has been one of my favourite podcasts for several years (even though I don't really like the tone of voice that he uses), and it is widely respected in the skeptical community. Dunning's explanation is here and it sounds plausible. Maybe he is now plea-bargaining, or maybe he's guilty. Even using the tools of skepticism I can't decide what to think.
Now I'm being told to be skeptical about Skeptoid. Should I detect a conspiracy here?
I think I will continue to listen to it until it ends.
. . . from public service because of what the UK Government is doing to the (already pitiful) pensions that we agreed - contractually
(but who said that you could trust the government?)
. . . and from the internet in general
following the revelations that Brian Dunning of skeptoid.com has pleaded (or plead) guilty of something called Wire Fraud.
Skeptoid has been one of my favourite podcasts for several years (even though I don't really like the tone of voice that he uses), and it is widely respected in the skeptical community. Dunning's explanation is here and it sounds plausible. Maybe he is now plea-bargaining, or maybe he's guilty. Even using the tools of skepticism I can't decide what to think.
Now I'm being told to be skeptical about Skeptoid. Should I detect a conspiracy here?
I think I will continue to listen to it until it ends.
Friday, 19 April 2013
The Baghdad Batteries
When do you think batteries were invented? 200 years ago or 2000?
I tend to believe in the former, but some claim that some Sumerian artifacts were used as batteries for gold plating of other artifacts, and that they were made about 250 BCE.
These are known as the Baghdad Batteries, or Parthian Batteries and you can see the Wikipedia article here.
I'm feeling skeptical!
This article seems to me to have a much better explanation of the findings. Electricity then becomes a modern invention again.
I tend to believe in the former, but some claim that some Sumerian artifacts were used as batteries for gold plating of other artifacts, and that they were made about 250 BCE.
These are known as the Baghdad Batteries, or Parthian Batteries and you can see the Wikipedia article here.
I'm feeling skeptical!
This article seems to me to have a much better explanation of the findings. Electricity then becomes a modern invention again.
Sunday, 14 April 2013
Creationist science . . . or is it?
Over lunch last week I found myself in an interesting debate with a gentle and progressive Muslim friend and a gentle and polite Christian friend. I'm hoping both of them will continue to debate in such an open way, and that our full and frank debate did not offend them.
I must write about part of the discussion.
It was about the battle between supporters of Intelligent Design (ID) and the supporters of the Theory of Evolution. My Christian friend put the point that both sides accuse each other of 'not being scientific' and that they should drop this argument and move to the evidence. When I complained that this was a reasonable point of view from the point of view of evolution he asked me how I would define science.
In my own amateur way I said that science was the process whereby someone develops an idea into a hypothesis which can then be compared with the evidence from the world around us, and as confidence was developed that there was a good level of agreement the hypothesis might develop into the status of a Theory. Ultimately when the evidence is overwhelming then the Theory might reach the coveted state of becoming a Law. (I should have added the question of falsifiability.)
He agreed.
I added that ID specifically doesn't do this. It looks for evidence and then tries to fit a hypothesis to it retrospectively. He disagreed.
So I asked him where the hypothesis for ID might be, and I was amazed to hear that his answer was that the bible is the hypothesis.
I pointed out that the bible is not exactly self-consistent and offered the evidence of the two versions of the creation story in Genesis and was told that they were not very different in the grand scheme of things. I disagree about that. See for yourself that the whole thing is in a different order in the second version. The first is Genesis 1:1-2:3, and the second is Genesis 2:4-25.)
So which of us is correct?
I must write about part of the discussion.
It was about the battle between supporters of Intelligent Design (ID) and the supporters of the Theory of Evolution. My Christian friend put the point that both sides accuse each other of 'not being scientific' and that they should drop this argument and move to the evidence. When I complained that this was a reasonable point of view from the point of view of evolution he asked me how I would define science.
In my own amateur way I said that science was the process whereby someone develops an idea into a hypothesis which can then be compared with the evidence from the world around us, and as confidence was developed that there was a good level of agreement the hypothesis might develop into the status of a Theory. Ultimately when the evidence is overwhelming then the Theory might reach the coveted state of becoming a Law. (I should have added the question of falsifiability.)
He agreed.
I added that ID specifically doesn't do this. It looks for evidence and then tries to fit a hypothesis to it retrospectively. He disagreed.
So I asked him where the hypothesis for ID might be, and I was amazed to hear that his answer was that the bible is the hypothesis.
I pointed out that the bible is not exactly self-consistent and offered the evidence of the two versions of the creation story in Genesis and was told that they were not very different in the grand scheme of things. I disagree about that. See for yourself that the whole thing is in a different order in the second version. The first is Genesis 1:1-2:3, and the second is Genesis 2:4-25.)
So which of us is correct?
- Can the bible be offered rationally as an hypothesis for Intelligent Design?
- Does ID truly follow the scientific method or does it just try to use convenient parts of scientific methods to pick selective holes in evolution without offering a complete counter-proposal?
- Is ID falsifiable? If the bible is its hypothesis then I would suggest that it is self-falsifying.
- Which point of view indulges in more ad hominem attacks? Evolutionists rarely call their opponents names (although sometimes the word creotards has come up in discussion) whereas the ID lobby never fails to use terms like 'Darwinist' (which they consider pejorative), 'neo-Darwinist' (which is clearly more so) and worse?
Thursday, 4 April 2013
Is Martin Robbins skeptical enough?
Martin Robbins, blogger for the Guardian, spoke to a packed audience at Oxford Skeptics in the Pub this week. It was not the usual venue (which has a great meeting room but no atmosphere), but a real pub called the Port Mahon in St Clements. The down-side of this is that the room was long and narrow, filled with an audience of 50 or more, and if you were unlucky enough to be sitting near the back it was difficult to hear or see. In fact many were not lucky enough to be sitting at all, but the atmosphere was friendly and nobody was complaining
Still, I got more than the gist of his string of anecdotes about quack medicine in Africa, with tales of Joseph Obi in Gambia, Jim "Bleachgate" Humble, Homeopaths without Borders, the 'Real Medicine Foundation', and Jeremy Sherr.
His source of information was a period of a month or so in Africa a couple of years ago. He had been generously supported by The Wellcome Trust. He and his team were quite successful in their attempt to find quack 1st-world medics plying their trade, but he was keen to point out that some of their associates actually do good charitable work.
Perhaps I was most surprised by his message about skepticism. He clearly demonstrates a skeptical attitude on a lot of topics, and yet he seems to doubt the value of skeptical blogging in the Western world. He asks why more skeptics don't get out to Africa to see for themselves what is going on there and to try to do something about it.
And yet . . . he has just been there on a well funded mission and clearly managed to do nothing that is very useful. Yes he brings back a message about quack medics practising their trade in African countries, but then tells us that nobody here will do anything about it, and that it might even be a bad thing if they did.
To me it is obvious why more skeptics do not go on these missions. For a start there is no source of funding, whereas quack medicine funds itself. Secondly, anyone who thought about it would understand that Western quack medicine is probably no more harmful than the indigenous quack medicine practised by witch doctors and shaman. I for one am not a fan of interfering in developing countries.
If we have learnt anything in recent decades it is that well funded and well-intentioned charity often manage to do more harm than good.
Amateur skeptics are hardly likely to achieve anything better are we?
Still, I got more than the gist of his string of anecdotes about quack medicine in Africa, with tales of Joseph Obi in Gambia, Jim "Bleachgate" Humble, Homeopaths without Borders, the 'Real Medicine Foundation', and Jeremy Sherr.
His source of information was a period of a month or so in Africa a couple of years ago. He had been generously supported by The Wellcome Trust. He and his team were quite successful in their attempt to find quack 1st-world medics plying their trade, but he was keen to point out that some of their associates actually do good charitable work.
Perhaps I was most surprised by his message about skepticism. He clearly demonstrates a skeptical attitude on a lot of topics, and yet he seems to doubt the value of skeptical blogging in the Western world. He asks why more skeptics don't get out to Africa to see for themselves what is going on there and to try to do something about it.
And yet . . . he has just been there on a well funded mission and clearly managed to do nothing that is very useful. Yes he brings back a message about quack medics practising their trade in African countries, but then tells us that nobody here will do anything about it, and that it might even be a bad thing if they did.
To me it is obvious why more skeptics do not go on these missions. For a start there is no source of funding, whereas quack medicine funds itself. Secondly, anyone who thought about it would understand that Western quack medicine is probably no more harmful than the indigenous quack medicine practised by witch doctors and shaman. I for one am not a fan of interfering in developing countries.
If we have learnt anything in recent decades it is that well funded and well-intentioned charity often manage to do more harm than good.
Amateur skeptics are hardly likely to achieve anything better are we?
Wednesday, 3 April 2013
Failed Tory leaders . . .
Iain Duncan Smith ('IDS') used to be leader of the Conservative Party. He didn't last long. He wasn't exactly inspirational. In fact a dessicated slug would have been more inspiring. Of course I am not a Tory supporter. I actually have a conscience.
The current Tory leader (and Prime Minister - spit!) has aquiesced to IDS being the Work and Pensions Secretary. Of course he knows little about work (as ordinary people experience it) or pensions, but why should that matter? In that capacity he recently committed an interesting faux-pas where he claimed that he could live on £53 per week - just 3% of his current salary.
So anyone who shares my desire that he should honour that claim might like to sign a petition at change.org. Let's embarrass him into proving that he could do it. As they say:
This petition calls on Iain Duncan Smith to live on this budget for at least one year. This would help realise the conservative party`s current mantra that "We are all in this together".
This would mean a 97% reduction in his current income, which is £1,581.02 a week or £225 a day after tax* [Source: The Telegraph]
The current Tory leader (and Prime Minister - spit!) has aquiesced to IDS being the Work and Pensions Secretary. Of course he knows little about work (as ordinary people experience it) or pensions, but why should that matter? In that capacity he recently committed an interesting faux-pas where he claimed that he could live on £53 per week - just 3% of his current salary.
So anyone who shares my desire that he should honour that claim might like to sign a petition at change.org. Let's embarrass him into proving that he could do it. As they say:
This petition calls for Iain Duncan Smith, the current Work
and Pensions Secretary, to prove his claim of being able to live on
£7.57 a day, or £53 a week.
On Monday's Today Programme David Bennett, a market trader, said that
after his housing benefit had been cut, he lives on £53 per week. The
next interviewee was Work and Pensions Secretary Iain Duncan Smith, who
was defending the changes. The interviewer then asked him if he could
live on this amount. He replied: "If I had to, I would."This petition calls on Iain Duncan Smith to live on this budget for at least one year. This would help realise the conservative party`s current mantra that "We are all in this together".
This would mean a 97% reduction in his current income, which is £1,581.02 a week or £225 a day after tax* [Source: The Telegraph]
Saturday, 30 March 2013
Christ myth: some inconsistencies
"Truth is not hard to kill but a lie well told is immortal" - - Mark Twain
I know that it might be hard to accept that the stories of the life of Jesus are merely myths, but many people claim exactly that. One of their starting points is the inconsistencies in the bible's own accounts of the life of Jesus. Another is the suggestion that the bible was written so long after the time of the supposed events that it can't possibly be accurate - which after all is consistent with what we actually see.
First century Judea was a strategically important region from the Roman point of view and it is particularly well documented by plenty of writers. The surprising thing is that the writers of the bible got things so wrong. Here are a few of the inconsistencies that make the Jesus myth so difficult to believe:
Given this amount of inconsistency in the story, how can anyone actually believe it.
On a charge of perjury, doesn't the bible indict itself?
I know that it might be hard to accept that the stories of the life of Jesus are merely myths, but many people claim exactly that. One of their starting points is the inconsistencies in the bible's own accounts of the life of Jesus. Another is the suggestion that the bible was written so long after the time of the supposed events that it can't possibly be accurate - which after all is consistent with what we actually see.
First century Judea was a strategically important region from the Roman point of view and it is particularly well documented by plenty of writers. The surprising thing is that the writers of the bible got things so wrong. Here are a few of the inconsistencies that make the Jesus myth so difficult to believe:
- Caesar did not tax the world in the time of Quirinius. The first such tax was imposed in 74CE.
- Quirinius and Herod did not overlap.
- There is no archaeological evidence that Nazareth existed at the beginning of the first century, but did it did exist by the end (when the gospels were written).
- The term Nazarene did not imply coming from Nazereth, so if he actually existed the mythical Jesus might have been a 'Nazarene'.
- It is very unlikely that the slaughter of the innocents occurred. Herod made a lot of enemies who then catalogued his misdeeds in every detail but they never mentioned this slaughter. Anyway this story is only found in one of the gospels, Matthew, and is a clear redaction of the Moses story anyway.
- The ministry of Jesus is not found described in any documents other than the bible for about a century - which is much too late to count as contemporaneous evidence.
- The triumphant entry into Jerusalem is described differently in each of the gospels, but nobody else records it, including those who were known to have been there at the time.
- The accounts of the trials of Jesus are different in all the gospels and they were not recorded elsewhere.
- The various versions of the crucifixion in the gospels are incompatible in almost every detail. The synoptic gospels have it starting at 3 p.m. on the afternoon of Passover, but John has it on the day before. All four say it was Friday.
- The crucifixion darkness was not recorded by anyone else, and neither were the ripping of the temple veil nor the earthquakes. The mass resurrection in Jerusalem also appears to have gone unnoticed.
- The resurrection was originally only mentioned in Luke and Acts. The account in Mark was probably added later and John doesn't bother with this trivial detail.
Given this amount of inconsistency in the story, how can anyone actually believe it.
On a charge of perjury, doesn't the bible indict itself?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)