Seven Spanish Surprises

I have just enjoyed four relaxing (and yet exhausting) days in the Spanish capital, Madrid.  I had never been there before, and one of the delights of going to a new place is to see what surprises you.  Some things are just surprising to us foreigners.  Others are fascinating facts that I will try to remember.

First of all something that would have seemed normal to English visitors to another city, but Madrid residents found it to be a surprise.  It rained some of the time!  Generally speaking it rained rather softly, but on Wednesday morning when the guard was changed outside the splendid Royal Palace it rained in English style.  Still, it was an impressive spectacle.

Madrid - changing the guard, almost London style!

There was so much rain that the roads were awash.

Madrid - unusually rainy!

Second surprise - it is hard to buy bottles of wine with screw tops.  In UK these days it is almost un-necessary to own a corkscrew.  Even in France the standards are changing.  But on holiday in a nice hotel in Madrid, where no such tool is available, there was no point buying a bottle of wine to enjoy in the evening.

Thirdly, architecture built in marzipan, seen in a shop window in Toledo (of which, more below).

Built out of marzipan!

Fourth, on various menus I saw the words 'jamon de york'.  The dictionary was not much help with the word 'york', but I didn't need it to translate jamon as ham.  My host in Toledo, (of which, more below, really!), told me that this was a type of boiled ham, rather than the cured variety, and that 'york' literally meant the place, York.  Having grown up in and around York I was unaware that the city was so famous in Spain, or that the city had a particular tradition with boiled ham.  However, I did notice the similarity between the Spanish pronunciation of 'jamon' (with the j being an h sound produced at the back of the throat), and the English word 'gammon'.

Fifth, was a splendid utilitarian set of double sided pews seen in the cathedral.  I can only assume that one side should be used to face the alter in transept for smaller services, whereas the other would be more appropriate to face the main alter in the centre of the church.

The Cathedral in Madrid - face the other way
if you don't like the sermon perhaps?

On the other hand, if you did not find the sermon to your liking perhaps you could choose to face in the opposite direction - at risk of ex-communication of course.

Sixth was delightful illusion seen in the city.  The guy sat there as though floating in the air with a fascinated crowd around him.  He waved at passers-by - but only with his left hand.  Perhaps that gives you a clue?  I wonder whether he employed someone to hold up a screen while he got on and off the contraption.  It would be a shame to spoil the illusion.

Illusionist floating eerily in mid air. 
He never seemed to wave with his right hand.

And finally, the very best surprise of all was that a dear Spanish friend and her husband collected us from our hotel one evening and drove us to the historic city of Toledo.

Historic Toledo

They showed us around the Christian, Jewish and Islamic influenced areas and then introduced us to a delightful restaurant where they generously entertained us for dinner.

After delicious Spanish cuisine

Nobody could have hoped for better hosts.  Thank you to both of them.  I'm looking forward to attempting to return the favour when they visit England.

I hope it will be soon!

Things Christians say: part 10. You should read this.

A weekly series of responses to the things Christians say to atheists, based on the video reproduced here on 30th January 2012.  The aim is to tackle one every weekend, to give both a moderate, polite response to each question ('Piano'), followed by a more forceful rebuttal of the same question ('Forte'). 


You really need to read 'this' (substitute any book or web site)

Piano

I have read quite a lot of Christian writings and so far I find all of the arguments unconvincing.  If you would like to convince me why I should read another version then I would respectfully request that you tell me why this particular work is different.  I would like to hope that it will be more convincing than everything else that I have ever read.

Now don't bother to tell me that I am not being open-minded.  All I ask is a little more than a reference to a book or web site.  If your explanation is good enough, then I will read it.  If not, I doubt I will bother.  I don't promise to be easily convinced.  I don't promise not to explain why I disagree with it - which almost inevitably I will - but I would at least think about it.

***

Forte

So, you are giving me a reference to another work of apologetic fiction?  OK, I might read it, quickly, as long as I don't have to pay for it.  I am long past the point of being prepared to part with good money to read the nonsensical outpourings of yet another theologian or apologist, who hopes to make a profit in a futile attempt to make sense of christian doctrine.  Each and every one seems to me to be a work of desperation, starting off from the unprovable position that the bible is true.

Let us look instead at your bible itself, apparently the inspired word of God, to many Christians infallible and uncontestably true.  Since it is Easter eve, it would be appropriate to look at the Easter story itself.

Dan Barker of the Freedom From Religion Foundation long ago offered a challenge to anyone who would take it up.  Write a version of the Easter myth that is fully consistent with all four of the gospels.  As far as I know, nobody has even attempted it, and indeed it would seem a waste of time to do so.  The gospels can't even agree which day the crucifixion took place or the order of events thereafter.

Starting off from such shaky ground, it is tempting to wonder how christianity became so widespread.

Oh yes - I nearly forgot - it became widespread because of the Roman Empire, and because it became the official religion of it after Constantine 'fell out' with Mithraism.  After that it spread because it was profitable to the priests, kept the poor poor and it promised eternal life to those who suffered faithfully and obediently in this world.

I being a little cynical here?  I think not.
 

Last week: Worshipping Satan indeed!
Next week: If there's no god I don't know how anybody would get up in the morning.

Christian Contrasts on Good Friday

You may be surprised to hear that this week I actually went into a church - more to the point into a Roman Catholic Cathedral.  I walked through the door thinking to myself that this world-wide institution is sometimes said to be 'one of the greatest forces for evil in the world'.  Whether that is true or not, it does at least exemplify some of the contrasts that are to be found everywhere in Christianity.  This is a topic that could hardly be addressed on a better day than Good Friday - when Christians around the world strangely conspire to celebrate the torture and death of their saviour.

The Cathedral in Madrid - only completed in 1994.

Obviously many Christians will complain that Catholics are 'the wrong kind of Christian' and that the Roman Catholic Church does not represent the views of all the other churches.  I accept that.  Roman Catholicism certainly stretches the whole Christ myth and all its trappings to a point very close to the ridiculous.  However, that is not to say that the other churches are free of quirks.  Just for now, lets take a look at the contrasts to be found in Catholicism.

Madrid Cathedral - beautiful decorations behind the altar.

The glorious church pictured in this post (and visited this week) is the rather recently completed cathedral in Madrid.  Like so many of the buildings in that beautiful city, it demonstrates some of the finest architectural qualities that Europe has to offer.  The splendid buildings all over the centre of the city show the kind of quality that many Italian cities can only attempt to replicate.  It is impossible to compare the cut stone of Madrid with the crumbling, plastered walls that attempt to hide the fact that many of the walls of the buildings in Naples are built of little more than rubble.

Few would deny that it is a magnificent building, brightly decorated in a style that suits the city well. The quality of the gold-leaf decorations can hardly be questioned.  The whole building exudes a feeling of quality.

But did you notice something else?  A forlorn figure, barely visible in the foreground, silhouetted against the obvious opulence?

The Crucifixion - a forlorn figure silhouetted against opulence.

Here we come to that great Catholic paradox, common to all the basilicas and cathedrals around the world, and probably at its worst in The Vatican itself.  Somehow they have to 'sell' the contrast between obvious affluence and the abject suffering of the limp body nailed to a cross, in some kind of ritualistic, bronze-age, scape-goat death.  On its own this is disgusting enough.  As Christopher Hitchens said, "What ill is crucifixion a cure for?"

The Roman Catholic Church takes this concept of a good kind of suffering to an extreme, and of course for them it is the cure for something called 'original sin'.  At least most protestant churches have to decency to spare their congregations from the gruesome details of crucifixion.

One other feature of Catholic churches around Europe also intrigues me. 

At every door or gate you can find someone begging for money.  There is never a crowd, but just enough of the professional poor to promote a good sense of moral blackmail in passers-by. 

I ask myself how this tradition is 'policed'.  Is it self-controlled by the people who make a profession of seeming so poor, at least in comparison to the riches of the building that they are 'guarding'? Perhaps they know that one or two of them might collect enough money, whereas too many would collect much less and have to split it between more of them.  Perhaps they take it in turns.  Or is is controlled by the church itself?  Is there a roster?  Are the people charged a license fee for use of prime real estate?  I wouldn't put this past the machinations of a world-wide racket which makes a living out of the suffering of the poor.  Do any of you know the answer?

I don't mean to mock the poor, but I do mean to mock the contrasts.  How can the clergy fail to be embarrassed by their own church?

Small note:  I haven't even touched on the other, more newsworthy, sins of The Church!

Amazing Hitchslap Index: part 6

Here is the next instalment of 'The Amazing Hitchslap Index', summarising the content of the next 7 of the 66 'Hitchslaps' uploaded to Youtube by Loy Machedo as explained here.  For each Hitchslap, I summarise the content in the form of direct quotations and summaries, list co-stars and 'authorities' called upon.  This series should help you to find that one perfect Hitchslap to send to someone who you are debating.

Hitchslap 37 - The great debate with Tony Blair

Hitchslap 37 Religion is insanity.  6:54
A text from Cardinal Newman.  
"The Catholic Church holds it better for the sun and moon to drop from heaven, for the earth to fail, and for all the many millions on it to die of starvation in extremest agony, as far as temporal affliction goes, than that one soul, I will not say 'should be lost', but should commit one single venial sin, should tell one wilful untruth, or should steal one farthing without excuse."
What we have here is a distillation of precisely what is twisted and immoral in the faith mentality.
Its consideration of human being as a raw material in a cruel experiment where we are created sick and then ordered to be well
Installed about this is a celestial dictatorship, a kind of divine North Korea
Greedy for uncritical praise 
Swift to punish the original sin with which it so tenderly gifted us in the first place.
Redemption is promised at the low price of the surrender of your critical faculties.
Is it good for the world to appeal to our credulity and not our skepticism? (and a list of other things)
Birth place of mono-theism . . . should be enough room for two states in the same land . . .  but the parties of god have a veto on it.
People kill each other's children for ancient books and caves and relics.
What will happen when messianic fanatics get hold of an apocalyptic weapon?
‘Co-stars’: Tony Blair debate
Cited: Cardinal John Henry Newman's Apologia, Steven Weinberg, Iran, Tsarism in Putin's Russia
Link: http://youtu.be/SBqdaDXQW2A

Hitchslap 38 Waging war on the world.  5:42
Clinton administration intervened to prevent Iranians from invading Afghanistan.
Al Qaeda is a highly sectarian organisation which regards Shia as heretics who can be slaughtered at any time in the name of God.  Doesn't have a chance of winning hearts and minds.  Its defeat is certain
Named plaintiff on the wire tapping case.
Water-boarding self-evidently crossing the line that constitutes torture.
We have no right to throw away our ancient liberties.  All we need is to be very patient and very intelligent and of course very ruthless.
You advocate withdrawal and surrender.
...reduced Afghanistan to complete peonage and slavery.  50% of the Muslim population – the female part – is regarded as sub-human.
‘Co-stars’: Justin Ramondo
Cited: Al Qaeda, Hazara, Shia, East Timor
Link: http://youtu.be/PovQ2TCHVeM

Hitchslap 39 The cure for poverty.  4:34
In fairness no-one was arguing that religion should or will die out in the world.
It would be better if there was a great deal more by way of an outbreak of secularism.
We know that the cure for poverty is the empowerment of women to control the rate at which they reproduce.
Name me one religion that stands for that or ever has.
If I was a member of a church that preached that AIDS was not as bad as condoms I would be putting some conscience money into Africa too.
You may think its a bit cracked to think that Joseph Smith found another bible in up-state New York, but you should see our missionaries in action.
Great deal of charitable work is nothing compared to the harm that they do, but it is a great deal all the same
Don't require divine permission to know right from wrong. Don't need commandments administered to us ten at a time and in tablet form.
I have done my best – believe me, I have more.
‘Co-stars’: Tony Blair debate
Cited: Roman Catholics, Mormons, Rabbi Hillel, Confucius, Socrates, Wahhabi , Shia, Joseph Smith, Mamas Hesbullah
Link: http://youtu.be/r8YLfhtac9k

Hitchslap 40 The after life.  4:41
We know our chemical composition.  We are made out of stardust.
Will my dog or cat be there in heaven too? (Never ask about that hellish tabby being reassembled in the infernal regions.)
Wishful thinking for heaven is hedonistic, but why would people who are wish-thinking want hell?
Farrakhan in 1985 said “Remember Jews – when god puts you in the ovens it is for ever”– great moan and groan of pleasure that came from that audience.
Stupidity and nastiness and criminality of this religious nut bag
Call someone an imam or a priest or reverend and there is nothing that they can't get away with in our cultrure.
When someone gets up and says I'm a person of faith . . . means “I'm a person who will believe practically anything on no evidence at all”
You would think that the Lord himself would have had enough of the songs of praise after the first 5 billion years.
Tertullian on hell and heaven . . . From heaven you can go to the edge and look down on the torments and endless tortures of the damned.  That is a founding statement of Christianity  You can't disown it now. 
Ratzinger – an over-dressed little ponce who was himself a member of the Hitler youth
‘Co-stars’: Rabbi Schmuley Boteach, 
Cited: Dinesh's clever case for the afterlife, Louis Farrakhan, Tertullian, Ratzinger, Hitler Youth
Link: http://youtu.be/jQG3y_C_J_c

Hitchslap 41 Jesus's teachings are not moral.  5:56
Birth of Jesus in the bible – virgin 
List of virgin births.  No end to the way in which this kind of thing can be fabricated.
Potency and pungency of the story . . . inviting you not to rely on your thinking faculties but on straight out credulity.
Appear to be part of the hard and soft wiring of legend in our mammalian primate history 
If you want to have a prophet it is better if his mother is a virgin.
Joseph Smith never made that claim but Mrs Smith was well enough known to make it rather unlikely that that thing could be sold.
Revolting idea of human sacrifice, scape-goating and vicarious redemption.  Repulsive immoral idea.
C S Lewis on forgiveness. Asinine fatuity being the description of his conduct.
Either a lunatic or the devil of hell, a madman or something worse.
Lewis can't complete a syllogism, and never could.  Paltry logic.
‘Co-stars’: Dinesh D'Sousa
Cited: Demigod Perseus, Jupiter, Buddha, Aztec god, Attis, Genghis Kahn, Krishna, Horus, Mercury, Romulus, Virgin Mary, Joseph Smith, C S Lewis, Thomas Jefferson
Link: http://youtu.be/6qPxh0JJwhk

Hitchslap 42 The insult of religion.  3:57
Relieves you of the idea that plagues are punishments as the church used to preach.
Free yourself from appalling burden of superstition from our primate past.
Study plate tectonics – you won't do what the Archbishop of Haiti did.
Earthquake in Haiti – quarter of million victims.  God had something to say to Haiti and this is the way he chose to say it.
Responsibility to take on learning to free ourselves of superstition.
Crucial events happened 3000 to 2000 years ago in illiterate desert Arabia and Palestine and at that moment only, the heavens decided that it was time to intervene.
If I don't believe it I wouldn't have any source for ethics or  morality.
Please don't pile the insulting onto the irrational.
If I don't accept these sacrifices in the desert I have no reason to tell right from wrong.
God must have wanted the exile to be ended and we know that it was ended by Christian Europe throwing Jewish babies into furnaces
Some rabbis used to claim that the holocaust was a punishment for exile.
Dinesh asked his father Everyone else seems to be Hindu, why are we Christians  Because Portuguese inquisition got to this part of India first.
To leave the C of E behind, believe me, is no sweat.
George Herbert referred to “The sweet mediocrity of our native church.”
What do you get if you cross an Anglican with a Jehovah's Witness?  Somebody who comes to your door and bothers you for no particular reason.
‘Co-stars’: Dinesh D'Sousa
Cited: George Herbert, Archbishop of Haiti, Cardinal Archbishop of New York
Link: http://youtu.be/dfbWpaT78ZY

Hitchslap 43 Morals without God. 1:31
Invite the audience to join a thought experiment.
If it was conclusively demonstrated that [list of people] and all the other imposters are nothing more than legendary or mythical or fraudulent figures are you going to [list of 'sins'].  I submit that this is not so.
If there was no god, no prophets and no revelation, our moral dilemmas would be exactly as they are now.  Who doubts it?
‘Co-stars’: A panel
Cited: Jesus, Abraham, Moses, Mohammed, Joseph Smith and all the other imposters
Link: http://youtu.be/-D-cCNbMWxk

Hitchslap 44 Hitchslappin the 10 commandments.  8:07
Moses himself was a revisionist.  At least 4 versions of the Decalogue.
Commandment against the making of graven images upsetting to Catholics.
How do you take the Lord's name in vain?  Nobody has worked exactly how to obey this.  It is usually wise when promulgating eternal laws to be clear about what you mean.
Honour thy father and mother comes with an inducement.  Then you will have longer tenure of the land that has been promised to you.
Thou shalt not kill – but almost immediately afterwards Moses ordered murder of his supporters' friends and brothers.
Turkish government tried recently to make adultery a crime, but failed.
Don't know of any society that says it is ok to steal.
Idea of bearing false witness is and should be shocking to the entire human conscience – it may be the finest of the commandments.  Shows a rare and careful sense of the balance and scruple that is required for judgement and justice.
Last commandment forbids coveting.  Considers women equivalent to chattels.  Forbidden even to think.  Attempt to suppress a desire that must have been put into us by god.
Did god make men or did men make many gods?
Looking at a god who improvises, is jealous, short tempered, inconsistent.
A new ten commandments is read.
Denounce all jihadists and crusaders for what they are.
Don't swallow your moral code in tablet form.
‘Co-stars’: 
Cited: Moses, 
Link: http://youtu.be/tiJqQE5WChk


Hitchslap Index posts: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9

The next parts coming regularly.  Check back for more!

Please add your comments, suggestions and corrections so that they can be included (with credit) in the final summary index that will be made up of these posts.

Are we all biased?

A few weeks ago I talked a bit about Cognitive Dissonance and the way that our minds work to make the greatest possible sense of the confusing world around us.  Expanding a little on that idea, let us think a bit about 'Cognitive Bias'.  Thousands of experiments have been run to investigate the effects of cognitive bias in our lives.  It turns out that there are three kinds of bias:

Bias that we have no bias

The observation that I see things clearly as they really are and you are biased.


Confirmation bias

The mind has evolved for us to keep our beliefs consistent.  Science is one of the few methods we have to force us to confront and test our beliefs, but it need not be a threat to us to recognise that we have our weaknesses.


Bias that we are better than average

For example, we all tend to think that we are better drivers than average, have a better sense of humour than average etc.  Evidently this can't be true globally, but it is good for us that we think of ourselves in this positive way.


Yes!  We all do this - even wise people like you and me!

This is why it is so difficult of us to accept information that attacks these central views of ourselves.  For example, if you have a strong belief that you have 'met the risen Jesus' your whole view of life will conspire to confirm your belief, even though you have no evidence to confirm that what you believe is really true.  When I say evidence, of course I mean objective evidence that everyone else can share, not the evidence of coincidence and anecdote that we can all provide from our experiences.

In fact there is now a very strong body of opinion that memory is much less reliable than we like to think - however good we think our memory is.  In fact, memory is generally wrong to a certain extent, but we have to accept that it is the best that we can do.  Reading your own old diaries you probably don't remember what it was like to be that person, but your mind will build a narrative to minimise the cognitive dissonance around that disturbing observation.

We (as in 'we' who have taken the time to read and listen about the science of the mind, even if not study it professionally) know that our memories are shaped to be consonant with our current views of ourselves and the stories that we tell to explain ourselves.  There is overwhelming evidence to suggest that our memories are not as reliable as we think they are, and no good quality evidence to the contrary.

How and what we remember affect our cognitive dissonance.  Many think that memory is like a recorder, but now we know that it is a constantly constructed process.  Your memories emphasise your current views over the top of the things that happened.  Researchers have followed people's memories over time and it is found that our memories very much depend on whatever supports our current beliefs.  We want to avoid being in a state of dissonance.

We should hold on to our beliefs but we should hold them lightly enough that we can accept new information, new ways of doing things and new improvements.  It is harder to do this if it is something that you have invested a lot of effort into a particular point of view.

However, I assure you that it is perfectly possible to deconvert from a belief system and feel much happier about it.

Then again . . . I'm biased.

Ironic - and her sister ships

I predict a sudden surge in stories about the loss of the ship RMS Titanic.  I don't use any special powers to make that prediction, since we are approaching the 100th anniversary of the disaster.

I happen to know a few surprising things about that magnificent vessel which need not have been lost so tragically.  I hope you might be able to use them during the next week or two.

However, I should say that I don't presume to judge the actions of her captain.  I remember a few years ago that members of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers spent several months being 'wise' in letters to the magazine Professional Engineering, about what ought to have been done to save Titanic.  Their comments seemed plausible until a Royal Navy Commander wrote in and put them right on a number of topics relating the the practical day-to-day wisdom of operation of big multi-screw ships.  I found that to be a salutary lesson for a young engineer.  Professional engineers should be revered when they are talking about their own speciality, but treated with suspicion when they stray to other areas.  Indeed they ought to know better than to express an opinion if they do not know it to be accurate or valuable.   I noticed that the letters on that topic dried up rather quickly.

Regarding Titanic's Captain though, Edward J Smith was a Commander in the Royal Naval Reserve.  This meant that he had the right to fly the Blue Ensign on ships that he commanded, rather than the normal Red Ensign.  The owners of the White Star Line were, no doubt, aware of the marketing value of such a gesture.  It would make their ships appear safer than those of rival companies.  How Ironic!  (Although Ironic was NOT a sister ship of Titanic!)

You might not realise it, but the Titanic was not actually unique.  She had two sister ships.  Olympic, launched June 1911, had been in service for months at the time of the Titanic disaster.  She was also crossing the Atlantic at the time, in the opposite direction and too far away to come to help.  Britannic was still being built (and it was planned that she would be called Gigantic, but the marketing wisdom of the shipping line did not fail them in this case).  She was the only one of the three not to be captained by Smith.

Of the three ships only Olympic survived for long, being scrapped in the mid 1930s.  Soon after Titanic's sinking the First World War began, and Britannic was converted into a hospital ship.  In slightly suspicious circumstances she was sunk in the Mediterranean Sea, either by a mine or by a torpedo from a German U-boat.  The wreck has been extensively studied and controversy rages to this day.  Whether it was a war crime or not is somewhat academic now, but people still argue about it.

Olympic's early career was not unblemished either.  Just 3 months after her 1911 launch she collided with HMS Hawke near Southampton, UK.  Her Captain's reputation seems not to have been badly damaged.  Edward J Smith's next command was . . . Titanic.

Violet Jessop - survivor of Titanic and her sisters.

Three unlucky ships share one other remarkable coincidence.  Violet Jessop was on Olympic at the time of the collision, then as a stewardess survived the sinking of Titanic.  Just a couple of years later she was then unlucky enough to be on Britannic at just the wrong moment.

The realisation of what was happening again must have given her a sinking feeling.

Amazing Hitchslap Index: part 5

Here is the next instalment of 'The Amazing Hitchslap Index', summarising the content of the next 7 of the 66 'Hitchslaps' uploaded to Youtube by Loy Machedo as explained here.  For each Hitchslap, I summarise the content in the form of direct quotations and summaries, list co-stars and 'authorities' called upon.  This series should help you to find that one perfect Hitchslap to send to someone who you are debating.

Hitchslap 29 - The world is full of 'pope types'

Hitchslap 29 Religion has no moral authority.  5:34
Certainly not going to criticise Islam for not having a pope
Christianity never had only one pope and still doesn't – Pope of the Coptic Christians, Eastern Orthodox Patriarch – christian world is full of pope-types
Impossible to have moral authority with religion.  The two things are so sharply divorced.
In case of the moral blackmail of Denmark . . . 
Then as Hitchslap 18  Link: http://youtu.be/XR41ACn9R8c
‘Co-stars’: 
Cited: Yusef Al Karadawi, Prof Ramadan, Eastern Orthodox Patriarch, Coptic Pope
Link: http://youtu.be/is12JYel-Rg

Hitchslap 30 Mother Teresa did not believe in god.  6:35
Moving and honest that she tried her best to believe.
Her atheism was not like mine.  I'm glad to think that it is not true that there is a dictator in the heavens and so the fact that there is no evidence for it pleases me.
Encouraged by cynical old men to carry on because she was a great marketing tool for her church.
That sounds like white noise . . . nonsense to me
If I had told you in 2001 that Mother Teresa didn't believe that Jesus was present in the eucharist . . . you would have accused me of slander.
You're not likely to be anybody's professor Mr Donahue.
[An Englishman has to be quiet when an Irishman talks]
Took money from the Duvalier family and Charles Keating
The great strength of the Catholic church used to be that it knew how to discipline fanatics, enthusiasts and zealots. 
Had to give her an exorcism in 1997
I turned out to be right though didn't I?
As Mr Donahue was trying and failing to say – his church has an answer for everything.
‘Co-stars’: Hardball debate, Bill Donahue
Cited: Mother Teresa, Lord Macauly, Duvalier family, Charles Keating, Archbishop of Calcutta
Link: http://youtu.be/5YBWoIwTq5c

Hitchslap 31 Hitchens invited on fox to be spoken over.  4:39
Refugees from Iraqi terror gangs flooding back into Afghanistan to try their luck there.
Obama praised . . . more teachable, evolving towards my position
I'm sorry darling . . . 
McCain losing capacity – e.g. choice of running mate
Sarah Palin not even curious about foreign policy
‘Co-stars’: Fox News
Cited: Slate, Barrack Obama, Biden, Milosovitch, John McCain, Sarah Palin
Link: http://youtu.be/9UpSecroiC4

Hitchslap 32 I hate religion.  4:22
I can't hate anyone in who's existence I don't really believe.
Ghastly ageing intolerant virgin
Eschewed the birth canal – or used it as a one way street.
All religions have one thing in common, hatred of the genitalia, especially the female, and I don't share this view.
Texts themselves say what they say.
Take no thought for the morrow because the world is coming to an end really soon and nothing else matters.
Islam (Hadith) says that apostates are to be killed.
Fundamentalists have the original texts on their side.
As long as these texts are respected we are always in danger of a revival of the most poisonous toxic horrible stuff.
Millions of grieving parents thought their children were in limbo for ever because they had not been baptised.
Aids in Africa is of course very bad but not as bad as condoms in Africa.
Pascal's Wager
‘Co-stars’: Red Eye, Fox News
Cited: Pope, Pascal
Link: http://youtu.be/mXTIl2cGmGs

Hitchslap 33 Shirley Williams is a disgrace.  3:20
[Is Salman Rushdie's knighthood an insult to muslims worldwide.]
I think that's a contemptible statement and that everyone who applauded it should be thoroughly ashamed of themselves.
What do we have that is better than our language?
An author who had sparked a renaissance of writing, produced a whole new branch of English literature.
Tariq Ramadan said that the protests in Pakistan are purely a matter of violent vicious internal politics.
It shouldn't have been our high commissioner who was called in by the Pakistani government – we should have hauled in the envoy of Pakistan and told him “Stop that right now or do without all the aid we give you”.
We won't have talk of murder for the writing of novels
Sullen resentful boring atmosphere in this room!
‘Co-stars’: BBC 'Question Time'?
Cited: Tariq Ramadan, Shirley Williams
Link: http://youtu.be/7iEKbIwTfbE

Hitchslap 34 Randel Terry.  1:45
Have been sitting here in this chair listening to you being a megaphone for fraud
Are you asking me or telling me?
Encouraging extremists and religious fanatics like Randel Terry
‘Co-stars’: 
Cited: Michael Schiver, Randel Terry
Link: http://youtu.be/EbheZsHP32Q
 
Hitchslap 35 Jerry Falwell was scum.  4:25
. . . giving me the opportunity to be rude about a man on the day he is buried.
Do you want to spend all your time whimpering about what I have said?
That has been true of every fraud in history
Believed in the rapture, creationism, that the Antichrist was a Jewish male who is already amongst us.
May have been both a hypocrite and a bigot.
It shows how much vulgarity fraud and bigotry you can get away with on mainstream airwaves as long as you have the word reverend in front of your name.
‘Co-stars’: Paula Zahn, Eric Metaxis
Cited: Jim and Tanny Bakers
Link: http://youtu.be/RLDUk8pIgLA
 
Hitchslap 36 Scientology and Mormonism are obvious rackets.  3:24
Know a lot of people who do not try to profit from religion.
Racketeering is and always has been an important part of religion.
Some religions simply ARE rackets , e.g. Scientology and Mormonism.
Nothing more than the record of a successful con job.
They don't know any more than you do whether there was a virgin birth.
Asking us to believe their propensity to faith.
Then on to Billy Graham as in Hitchslap 09.
‘Co-stars’: In Depth
Cited: Billy Graham
Link: http://youtu.be/Q9O-sR_quCI




Hitchslap Index posts: 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9


The next parts coming regularly.  Check back for more!

Please add your comments, suggestions and corrections so that they can be included (with credit) in the final summary index that will be made up of these posts.

New Scientist's 'God Issue' disappoints

From the link to the editorial below, you can follow links to the articles.  That action will ask you to register, but it is free.  Is it worth it?  Decide for yourself.

I rarely find time to read the magazine New Scientist, but when a friend pointed out to me that the 17th March 2012 edition was sub-titled "The God Issue - The surprising new science of religion", I expected something interesting.  However, starting from the editorial itself, the signs were not good.  (This was a short homily about how nice religious people can be (but neglecting how horrible they can be) and about how society discriminates against atheists (which at least is true).  It is written by someone who clearly has taken no interest in the science of religion, and fails to understand that secularism is not an anti-religious movement as such.  Secularists do specifically recognise that 'religion is deeply etched in society' and this is precisely what worries them.  Secularists realise that those in minority beliefs are disadvantaged as much as non-believers, and that a secular society would offer freedom of religion as well as freedom from it. 

The choice of authors for the articles shows that this editor either does not have the budget or lacks the knowledge to make a better selection. One other theme emerges - but it is hardly one that justifies the selection.

Moving on the the first of these authors, Justin Barrett seems to be a little known academic with a book to sell.  On the basis of this performance I think you should not be tempted to buy it.  He starts with basic and obvious observations (to anyone who has read anything at all about the subject) that babies are born to recognise agency, that adults retain some of these characteristics, and that we are all sensitive to the concept of 'design'.  Eventually he gets to 'theory of mind' and develops the idea to say that we are all born believers in 'natural religion'.  So what?  He goes on to point out that nobody starts believing in Santa when they are adults, but that they do convert to religions, as if this proves something superior about gods.  He neglects to mention that there is no well-funded and well practised organisation offering Santa as a solution to all your problems when you are feeling at your most sensitive and vulnerable.  Religions do tend to prey on those who are in need.

Barrett's assertion that "adults do not typically eat sacrifices left out for the gods" demonstrates precisely that he has no notion of the role of the priesthood.  These people live solely on the sacrifices of their followers - either literally as in the priests of the temple in Jerusalem or metaphorically by consuming financial contributions.  Religion is big business.  Just look at the Vatican if you don't believe that.

The second article is by Ara Norenzan (who has a book to sell - and no - don't buy it on the basis of this article).  So - there's a bit of a puzzle about the way that societies transitioned to city dwelling.  Organised 'big' religions blossomed at around the same time.  Does this necessarily mean that religions forged societies?  It might do, but it doesn't say anything about their truth, or about the existence of a god.  Norenzan's rambling collection of barely relevant stories is at least followed by a sensible conclusion - however unscientific.  The societies in the world that are most atheistic have become the most cooperative, peaceful and prosperous.

All in all I was unsure what message he was trying to purvey.  Perhaps it was that religion might have kick-started society, but that now it is not necessary to maintain it.  If so, why did he ramble on about the observation that cults and religious movements rarely last long.

Robert Macauley also has a book to sell and has nothing useful to say in it.  He takes a page and a half to say little more than that theology is not the same as religion and to tell a few anecdotes.  So what?

At last we come to the real meat in the sandwich of The God Issue though!  (I say that metaphorically and do not intend offense to vegetarians!)

Victor Stenger always has a new book to sell, and his books are always worth reading.  His article is the shortest, and yet it has more value than the sum of all the others.  As the only actual  'scientist' among them, he gets straight to the point of what science has to say about the testability of specific religious claims.  It is hardly relevant whether there is a gap in our minds for a god.  There is simply no evidence that there are any deities to fill that gap.  Here at last is a well known scientist talking about a subject that he knows and understands.  The editor of New Scientist should have made sure that there were more articles of this standard.

Alain de Botton - a self-made straw man

And finally to the dismal stream of tosh from an interview with Alain de Botton (who also has a dismal book to sell).  He thinks it is time for atheists to join together in a community, and that a cathedral of atheism is worth building.  Had his book been announced on 1st April it might have been recognised more clearly for what it appears to be.  This is a man who seems to have no ideas of any value - or if he has them he hides them very well.  He is ideal material for the press who have until now had to manufacture straw-man versions of Dawkins, Hitchens, Harris and Dennett in order to make any (false) headway against their rationality.  Here, handed to them on a plate, is a self-made straw-man.  Maybe he is right about one thing though.  The atheist community should come together.  They should do this solely to 'ex-communicate' de Botton and other people who have nothing useful to say, making it completely obvious that he does not speak on behalf of many of us.

My conclusion is obvious.  This was a collection of writings by authors who deserve their status as being largely unknown, with one jewel in the crown, namely Victor J Stenger.  Did I find any of the promised 'surprising new science ofreligion'?  Emphatically no!  None of the fascinating outputs of neuroscience were mentioned at all.  Nothing is mentioned about the evolutionary value that might have caused religions to work as a by-product of the survival value of recognising agency in the world.  There was little sign of real scientific investigation of religious claims with only one of the articles having anything valuable to say on the subject. 

Having failed to find any interesting science, it clearly recognised the economic value of an article in New Scientist for those who want to sell a book, and yet it totally neglects the fact that big religions exist as big businesses.  It totally ignores the observation that, if not so deeply embedded in society, each and every one of them could be described as a racket which benefits a small group of priestly types at the expense of the people. 

Two out of ten for New Scientist!

Things Christians say: part 9. Worshipping Satan indeed!

A weekly series of responses to the things Christians say to atheists, based on the video reproduced here on 30th January 2012.  The aim is to tackle one every weekend, to give both a moderate, polite response to each question ('Piano'), followed by a more forceful rebuttal of the same question ('Forte'). 


So does that mean you worship Satan or something?

Piano

It would be hard to worship anyone who I don't believe in, and strangely I believe in neither your God nor your devil, generally speaking for the same reasons.

I know that I can say 'your god' and 'your devil' from the question that you ask.  The very fact that people sometimes ask it reveals something about those people.  It shows their focus on the a specific way of thinking, the very polarised one dimensional view that God is at the good end of the spectrum and Satan at the other.  Outside that single dimension, as most atheists realise, there are other gods that we equally disbelieve in.  (Muslims fall into the same trap of course.)

Satan is unique to the Abrahamic religions.  In particular Christianity and Islam focus on his evil role.  One would not expect a Buddhist or Hindu to believe in Satan because their systems of belief simply do not include him.

Similarly I think it is unlikely that any Atheists believe in Satan, let alone worship him or work for him.


***

Forte

Some people who have irrational thoughts about invisible sky beings have to believe in invisible underworld beings, and they chose all sorts of pejorative methods to undermine people who do not share their views.  This type of argument is known as 'the straw man'.  It is rarely a technique that improves understanding of an argument.

Those of us who do not believe in ridiculous, inconsistent and unsupported ideas, written down by peasants in the bronze age, in one of the most illiterate parts of the world, have no such need.  How does the idea of Satan help to explain anything about the world when the god that you worship is so manifestly evil anyway?

You might have noticed that the term 'act of god' always means something bad.  Whether it be earthquakes, storms or pestilence, if you believe in a god then you have to believe that he is a uncaring and ruthless monster.

How is there any room for Satan, who presumably is even worse than God?  Maybe you believe that he uses techniques of sweetness and light to lure people to an unpleasant eternity.  Atheists don't.

Or perhaps you confuse the word 'atheist' with the word 'satanist'?  It would be an easy mistake to make.  They both end with 'ist'.
 

Last week: The bible is totally scientific!
Next week: You really need to read 'this' (substitute any book or web site)

God's protection

Recently a comment was left on an old post, Omniscient God, by Twitter user @TastesLikeYou.  Comments often go un-noticed and I thought this one deserved a bit more publicity so I reproduce it here as a guest post, by kind permission of its author (who I am sure would like more followers on Twitter).

It was a reply to a previous comment by another American friend of mine, who unfortunately resists the temptation to comment any more.

Panda.  

Regarding a couple of your points :

"But as your child grows you realise that you can not bail them out every time they get in trouble that they must learn to do it them selves or suffer the consequence. Same is true of God the Father, sometimes even though we pray and ask, the predestination is for us to suffer."

It's fine for you to praise the work of God in your little ivory tower and ponder his mysterious ways but give a thought to the reality of life out there.

Because, oh, if only God WAS that reliable to protect us until we reach an age where we could indeed stand on our own two feet. But every day (amongst other daily atrocities), your God watches paedophiles abusing children, children dying from starvation, hospital wards with diseased and dying youngsters, etc but he does .... nothing!

So he foresees the moment of horror, witnesses it in real time too and yet, in most cases, brings no relief to the suffering. Predestination? Sounds pretty tough that he has predestined this.

How can you possibly praise a god for his great works when he shows no compassion to those who are in no position to accept or reject god? How can he possibly be expected to be glorified when he his heinous crimes scream out over the pages of the Bible and across the timeline of human history?

"Why are atheists so obsessed with proving that God doesn't exist anyways?"

Because if I can prove to people that God is unlikely to exist in the format that humans attribute to him, we will keep religion out of our government, schools and other areas of life that have no place to be infiltrated by followers of myths.

I was a fervent Christian for many years and I panicked at the thought of questioning the bible and his word. But actions speak louder than words and, to be blunt, God was found severely wanting on 'action'.

Kind regards.

@TastesLikeYou

p.s I must add, that his choice to ignore the pleas of the innocent are backed up in the bible :

"Job 9:23 When a scourge brings sudden death, he mocks the despair of the innocent."

Perhaps he is just plain nasty after all.

Here be dragons

A year or two ago I came across this wonderful introduction to Critical Thinking.  It was produced by the great Brian Dunning, the host and creator of one of the very best skeptical podcasts, Skeptoid.com.

At 41 minutes in length, you might need to schedule a little quality time to concentrate on "Here be Dragons" which is available at that link in a variety of formats.  I very much doubt that you will be disappointed, however often you have seen it before.

And if you have never listened to the Skeptoid podcast then it is definitely time to start now.

Amazing Hitchslap Index: part 4

Here is the next instalment of 'The Amazing Hitchslap Index', summarising the content of the next 7 of the 66 'Hitchslaps' uploaded to Youtube by Loy Machedo as explained here.  For each Hitchslap, I summarise the content in the form of direct quotations and summaries, list co-stars and 'authorities' called upon.  This series should help you to find that one perfect Hitchslap to send to someone who you are debating.

Hitchslap 22 - Don't take no thought for the morrow

Hitchslap 22: Jesus the fraud  4:44
Got to believe in everything I say or go to hell or heaven
Willing to grant the immaculate conception, the virgin birth, and the resurrection, annunciation and the assumption.  It doesn't prove the truth of the proposition that you should take no thought for the morrow.
Deluded bronze-age inhabitants of Palestine.
On the historicity point there are two reasons to believe in some sort of charismatic deluded rabbi
1/  The amount of fabrication needed to get him born in Bethlehem. None of the story of the nativity is true in any detail.
2/  That the witnesses to the resurrection were women,  illiterate stupid deluded hysterical girls who would never have been believed in a Jewish court of the time.
It is impressive to me that the evidence is so obviously, strenuously cobbled together.
Noble words of Socrates will continue to illuminate.
‘Co-stars’: 
Cited: C S Lewis, Socrates, Jesus
Link: http://youtu.be/578G-wu6z88

Hitchslap 23: Religion is the poison chalice  2:43
Implied question – why don't you accept this wonderful offer, why wouldn't you like to meet Shakespeare
 . . . Corporeally reassembled
When Socrates was sentenced to death for his philosophical investigations and blasphemy he hoped to have discussions with other philosophers.
Whether it goes on or not after I die, I don't know, but I do know I want to do it while I'm alive.
I don't know enough, haven't understood enough . . .
Wouldn't have it any other way
Dead until you believe as they do.  What a terrible thing to be telling children.  
‘Co-stars’: 
Cited: Shakespeare, Socrates
Link: http://youtu.be/k_Vex-TYA9o 

Hitchslap 24: Religious right and wrong.  4:23
Christian scientist – or at least scientist who is Christian.
Mark Twain said of Mary Baker Eddy “chloroform in print”
People have been around for at least 100,000 years.  They were born and they died, living not much more than 25 years. Dying of their teeth, appendix, terrible diseases, misery, malnutrition and fear.  Where do the earthquakes . . .
Awful cults of sacrifice, war and rape.  Struggle to make progress.
To the point where they could brew beer – a breakthrough in my opinion.
You have to believe this if you believe in mono-theism, for the first 97-98 thousand years heaven watches with indifference.  3000 years ago at the most it is decided that heaven must intervene now, but the revelation must be made to the most backward, barbaric, illiterate, superstitious and savage people in the most stony part of the world.
Not in China where they could already read.  Not in the Indus valley.
Force them to cut their way through all the neighbours with slaughter, genocide and racism and settle in the only part of the middle east where there is no oil.
And without this we wouldn't know right from wrong!
‘Co-stars’: 
Cited: Mary Baker Eddy, Mark Twain, Richard Dawkins, Francis Collins
Link: http://youtu.be/K7Pgxg6h1SQ

Hitchslap 25: religion poisons everything.  05:35
[If there is no god why do you spend all your life trying to convince . . .]
Not my whole career but now a major pre-occupation.
Opposition to theocracy.
Resist those who serious want to encompass the destruction of civilisation.
Mono-theistic Messianic religion wants us to die.
Can tell the yearning for things to be over, whenever you read any of its real texts.
Escatological argument that if you don't believe that there is going to be an apocalypse then you are not really a believer.
Extreme Muslims can't wait for the 'final solution'.
Cult of death to be opposed in our daily lives where there are people who only want to ruin good relationships between different people, nations, tribes . . . 
When I said "Religion poisons everything" I meant that it infects us in our most basic integrity and says that we can't be moral . . . and forces us to love someone that we fear.
Though I do, some nights, stay home, I enjoy more the nights when I go out and fight against this ultimate wickedness and ultimate stupidity.
‘Co-stars’: 
Cited: Rapture, Israeli settlers, Messiah
Link: http://youtu.be/k6YzS-TXT08

Hitchslap 26: Christians prey on the dying.  2:47
[Serious illness – has it shaped you view of the afterlife?]
It fractionally increases my contempt for the false consolation element of religion and my dislike for the dictatorial and totalitarian part of it.
Perfectly normal in this society to approach dying people who you don't know and say “Now are you going to change your mind?”  Its considered almost a polite question.
Horrible undertone of blackmail to it.  History of fraud.
People say “I'm writing to you as a friend”.
...haven't had quite the vinegar that I would like to have had
To Catholics:  Would it be polite to say “You may only have a few days left but you don't have to live as a serf you know”?
I think it would be something of a breach of taste but if it is in the name of god it has a sort of licence.
‘Co-stars’: 
Cited: Charles Darwin, Thomas Paine, Sam Harris
Link: http://youtu.be/Mky96adnjso

Hitchslap 27: God is a joke and the believer is the punchline.  1:40
One of the reasons I like debating the religious is that you never know what they are going to say next.
Already had a suggestion that god is only really a guru, a friend when you are in need.
He wouldn't do anything like bugger around with Job to prove a point.
For hundreds and thousands of years this kind of discussion would have been in most places impossible to have, or Sam and I would have been having it at risk of our lives.
Religion now comes to us in this smiley-faced ingratiating way because it has had to give so much ground and because we know so much more.
You have no right to forget how it behaved when it was strong, when it really did believe that it had god on its side.
‘Co-stars’: 
Cited: Sam Harris
Link: http://youtu.be/0grNMmK4S8I

Hitchslap 28: Slavery and genocide with divine permission.  3:41
Whoever asked that has obviously only just come into the room.
McGrath was unusually good on this point – Dostoevsky.  If god exists we have to do what he says, and if he does not exist then we can do what we like.
Is it not said of god's chosen people in the Pentateuch that they can do exactly as they like to other people with divine permission?
Have been to Iran, not allowed to sentence a woman who is a virgin to death, but religious law means she can be raped by the revolutionary guard, then she is not a virgin any more and can be sentenced to death.
Divine permission enables actions that a morally normally unbeliever would not contemplate. Genital mutilation – who would do that.
Morally normal and intelligent people find themselves saying fatuous and wicked things.
Suicide bombing community is entirely faith based
Genital mutilation community is entirely faith based
Slavery is mandated by the bible.  Abolitionist might have been christians but it was about time.
Name an ethical statement made or an action performed by a believer in the name of faith that couldn't have been by an infidel, and name, if you can, and this is easier, a wicked action that could only have been mandated by faith. Then you will see how silly your question was, whoever you were.
‘Co-stars’: Alistair McGrath
Cited: Dostoevsky, Poet Laureate
Link: http://youtu.be/eO-E3tnFOOk


Hitchslap Index posts: 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9

The next parts coming regularly.  Check back for more!

Please add your comments, suggestions and corrections so that they can be included (with credit) in the final summary index that will be made up of these posts.

Dawkins at his best, last weekend

Update 10th December 2012, sadly this video is no longer available. 

Update 4th February 2013 - here is another copy of the video, albeit without the introduction! Follow this link. 

See Richard Dawkins'  the keynote address at the American Atheists National Convention in Bethesda, Maryland, March 25, 2012, with a rousing introduction by Sean Faircloth.

This is one of those rare speeches where you seen Richard speaking in many different styles from humble to strident, from serious to jubilant.

See his delight in introducing the first member of The Clergy Project to make his lack of faith public.

Well worth half an hour, wherever you live!

So . . . God makes us good?

How often have you heard the argument that it is not possible (or even necessary) to be good if you do not believe in a god?  Let's not get into the question of defining 'good' as that is a long topic on its own.  Let's not even worry which particular god.   I would accept 'good' as being whatever tends to greater well-being, along the lines proposed by Sam Harris in "The Moral Landscape".  (I really must buy the book and read it but I have so many others to read first!)

I have often heard people argue the 'good without god' point with christians.  Many atheists are outraged by the question "So why are you good?"  Personally I find the question to be more risible (and indeed ignorant) than offensive.   However, I understand that for some of us atheists it is a useful rhetorical counter-argument.  It can be an opportunity to turn the table on theists who normally seem to claim the 'moral high ground' of being offended as their own.

It is interesting to see the way that some decent god-fearing people assure their atheist protagonist that without god there would be nothing to stop them stealing, raping and murdering.  I have heard peaceful people expressing surprise that atheists in general do not feel a need to indulge in criminal activities.

In one report which is easily found on the web, but difficult to verify, I read that 75 percent of Americans are 'God­‐fearing Christians'; 75 percent of prisoners are God­‐fearing Christians. 10 percent of Americans are atheists; 0.2 percent of prisoners are atheists.  That sounds like good evidence for the atheist point of view if it is actually true, but to be honest I tend to be skeptical about the claim.  I think it seems most likely that one of the statistics dates from a 1925 survey of prisons, and that the rest has become an internet meme after some mischief on a web site.  (Please correct me in the comments if I am wrong.)

However, even if you assume that the data is true, I wonder what this statistic really means.  Is this the figure for people who are in the process of going into prison, or the figure for people who are already coping with the obvious difficulties of prison life?  I'm not so sure how I would behave if I found myself in that situation, but I suspect that I would answer the question differently in the two cases.  Once in the prison I think I would want to do everything possible to avoid standing out from the crowd.  If that meant pretending to be christian again, I think my conscience would not prevent me from such a claim! 

Would god forgive me for such duplicitous behaviour?  Strangely enough I don't worry about that too much.

Is this a church?

You and I have (at least) one thing in common.  You might not expect it to be the thing that I am about to say, because it doesn't sound quite like the sort of thing I would normally write.

We have been brought together by the power of a mysterious, worldwide and transcendent entity.  In our daily lives we witness to our fellow humans, evangelising to young and old and teaching our followers about the deepest meanings of life.  The spiritual support that we bring to each other fulfils the pastoral needs of members of our broader community.  Uplifting those who feel oppressed, we can all play our part in comforting the afflicted and protecting them from the evil influences all around us.

In spite of these powerful and wonderful strengths we are divided into different 'churches'.  Our 'faith' might  divide us from our closest friends and family.  Some of us are persecuted for our beliefs by people who are not so enlightened.

The name of this transcendent entity is written with no vowels. 

www

Of course I am drawing an analogy, and all analogies are wrong.  But it is clear to me that the internet offers an international opportunity for all of us to join a community of like-minded people, whatever our views might be.  We are no longer separated from each other as we have been throughout the whole of human history, limited by the happenstance of our birth and upbringing.

Internet christianity - not quite the same thing.  (Source here)

Almost every day I communicate with people all around the globe.  At last the minority groups who's diversity strengthens humanity can act together.

Our 'churches' are neither physical buildings nor gatherings of believers at a special time of the day or week.  They are much more transcendent than that.  The church of Facebook has more followers than most 'real' religions (certainly if you divide the big religions into their factions).  The cult of Twitter opens up a meritocratic world to anyone who wants their word to be heard.  Free blogging facilities let all of us expand on our views and invite comments from others.  Even the sect of Second Life offers companionship and friendship to insomniacs who need to wile away the dark hours while the world around them sleeps peacefully.  Each of these online communities plays a role similar to that of a church.

Persecution is rife too.  How often do you hear people say "Facebook is just evil".  "Twitter is such a waste of time - why do I want to know what lady Gaga had for breakfast?" "Online friends are not real friends". "Second Life is only there because of the virtual sex."  "Why would I want to read the ramblings of an amateur writer on a blog - I never read blogs".  "Get out and get a life" and the old and unfounded canard "too much screen time will damage your eyes".

All of these show a definite narrow-mindedness, and they neglect to celebrate the unity of the world wide web.  It is not even worth debunking them.  Whatever its flaws the world-wide web allows communication on a scale that has never been known before.  Whether your preferred access to the web is through Windows, Mac, Linux or other more specialised operating systems, and whether via desktop, laptop, tablet or phone, we all have a huge resource at our fingertips.

Of course we all know that in an ideal world it would be great if everyone could have fulfilling and satisfying 'real lives' with real people who we can see and touch.  But whether our own personal limitations are geographical, physical or psychological, the online communities all play a role like that of the churches.  We can all support the unfortunate and 'disabled' (whatever that might mean) and everyone can be equal in a way that is not always possible in reality.

Good or bad, if you are reading this then you must be part of one of those communities.  Where would we be without them?

I believe we would be impoverished?

Things Christians Say, part 8: The bible is totally scientific!

A weekly series of responses to the things Christians say to atheists, based on the video reproduced here on 30th January 2012.  The aim is to tackle one every weekend, to give both a moderate, polite response to each question ('Piano'), followed by a more forceful rebuttal of the same question ('Forte'). 


The bible is totally scientific!

Piano

It has become a favourite ploy of some preachers to claim that the bible contains a lot more science than we thought.

Typically they will make a claim, and then give a reference to a bible verse, which naturally the listeners do not have time to look up and consider.  This means that even the most fair-minded member of the congregation will not have a chance to examine the claims.

Now obviously whatever claims I choose to 'debunk' you could say that, yes, obviously that one is stretching things beyond the bounds of credulity, but I invite you to suggest a few examples in the comments if you can.

Now of course the bible does contain some scientific observations.  I say scientific in that any observations of the real world are the beginning of science.  However, when I last looked I found no equations in the bible.  Whenever I have actually looked at any of the examples that I have heard cited, the 'science' of the scriptures is dressed up as metaphor in such a way that it could mean something deep.  On the other hand it could just be poetic.

I respectfully invite my fair minded readers to provide any proof that the bible's science is above kindergarten level.

Few examples of claims that I have heard, and comments about them:
The world is round: Isaiah 40:22.  In saying "It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth" it entirely neglects the three dimensional nature of a sphere.  Science: 1/10
Stars too numerous to count: Jer 33:22's "All the innumerable host of heaven" surely means beings, not stars.   Besides that we know how many stars there are in the galaxy, and it would be pushing it to suggest that this text mentions any knowledge of other galaxies at all.  Science: 1/10
Gravity: Job 26:7. "Suspending the earth in the void" means something about gravity?  To me it says the opposite.  Science 1/10
Stars emit sound:  Ps 19:3 "Their music" means nothing and anyway might not refer to stars, and Job 38:7's "when the morning stars sang together" is obvious poetry.  Oh yes, by the way - stars do not make a noise as such.  They are in the vacuum of space which does not carry sound.
The hydrological cycle.  Eccl. 1:7 neglects to mention the word 'rain' at all (science 1/10), but at least Job 36:27  does a fair job of recognising that mist forms over the sea and that mist is wet.  This is about the best and I give it a score of 5/10!

***

Forte

Let's face it!  Claims that the bible is the source of all science are pretty risible aren't they.  Even if you can find examples better than the ones given above, the biblical texts are at best vague, unsystematic and entirely non-mathematical.  I would contend that they could barely be represented as science with any honesty or integrity to a child of age greater than about 10.

Worse than that, while putting myself through the 'pain' (and amusement) of listening to a few Youtube sermons that claim verses of the bible to explain science, I actually put myself to the trouble (and further amusement) of looking up the references in two respected translations.  (Obviously everyone has their favourite bible which spins 'the word' in the way that they like best, but I chose KJV and New English.)  When you actually look up the verses you find that roughly 50% of the time they refer to nothing that resembles the claim whatsoever.

When you hear a preacher claiming biblical science, just look up his references.  Decide for yourself whether they mean anything with a deeper understanding of science than you would expect to have had in the bronze age.  Do not underestimate the technology of the bronze age - wheels had barely been invented - but you should seriously question whether any of it is science in the modern sense.



Last week: You're SO closed-minded
Next week: So does that mean you worship Satan or something?

Mind games

Think of a two digit number, containing two different odd digits.  Write that number down and see the small note at the end of this post.

Professor Chris French gave a talk about Anomalistic Psychology at the Reading Skeptics in the Pub meeting last week.

Chris French - former editor of 'The Skeptic' magazine

Touching on diverse topics including dowsing, psychic abilities, spoon bending, card tricks and paranormal experiences, he gave a whistle-stop tour through the science that explains how our brains are so easily confused.  He explained that he spends his life taking a scientific approach to these investigations because so many people have superstitious beliefs.  This popularity must suggest that it is an important part of 'being human' and therefore it is worth understanding it properly.

One of the disturbing effects that he described was that of eye-witness testimony.  Basically it is now well established that such testimony can not be trusted, and yet every legal system in the world relies on it.  We all mis-remember details, and surprisingly it is even found that the reliability is not improved when there are multiple witnesses.  It actually becomes worse!  Any opportunity that the witnesses might have to discuss what they have seen, they accidentally contaminate each other's memories without realising it.

These results come from the staging of mock crimes.  It has been found that at least 40% of people are susceptible to 'suggestions' from others.  Errors might even be introduced accidentally by someone who is investigating the crime.  If a 'stooge' is introduced too, the proportion of people who unwittingly modify their testimony can rise to 60%.

Moving on from the fascinating talk by Chris, these interesting reports resonate strongly with other research on the same topic.  I have heard reports of witnesses being influenced, either accidentally or on purpose, by investigating officers.  Just a simple question like 'Did you see a red car at the scene?' could plant the idea of red cars in the memory, even if their initial answer had been to deny noticing the car.  The next time the memory is recalled, the red car has a chance of featuring in it.

Some institutions actually train their staff in techniques to minimise the risk of memory contamination though. Banks are aware that accurate reporting of the facts can lead to better investigations, with a greater chance of stolen money being recovered.  They know that once people have had chance to confer they tend to converge on a single narrative and forget other essential details.

One way to avoid that is to take contemporaneous notes - which is something that police are trained to do.  Something that is written down at the time carries much more weight than something that is remembered later.  Hence in the more progressive institutions, staff are trained how to behave after an incident. They are told to sit down on their own and write down everything that they can remember, before talking to anyone else.

Armed with a little knowledge about eye witness testimony, it makes me fear for the justice system.  How many people are wrongly convicted because of false memories?

On the other hand it also gives me a lot of hope that it is a good way to explain personal religious revelations without having to resort to a supernatural explanations! 


Small note: Relating to the first line of this post, Chris French told us that 33% of people choose 37, and 25% choose 35.  I don't know whether you chose one of those numbers, but I did, and I think its scary how predictable we are!

May be gone some time

We might all know a version of the famous phrase uttered by Lawrence 'Titus' Oates as he left the tent for the last time, in an heroic act of self-sacrifice, attempting to save the rest of his party at the tragic end of Scott's disastrous mission to the South Pole.

Scott's crew - on a day without a blizzard

One hundred years ago this week, Oates, who had been suffering terribly from the effects of frostbite and exhaustion, quietly told his companions "I am just going outside and may be some time."  His companions survived only a few days longer as the Antarctic winter closed in around them.

I have known the story of Captain Scott since I was a boy and I have always been saddened by it.  When it was first told to me, I wasn't aware that anyone had begun to question Scott's skills as a leader, or the wisdom of some of the decisions that were made during the journey.  Somehow we were meant to praise the efforts of a famous Englishman, battling against impossible odds in an under-funded attempt to reach the South Pole first.  Somehow we were being taught that the success of Amundsen's team was due to the way that they had 'cheated' by using dogs to haul their sleighs, whereas Scott's (failed) attempt to use mechanical methods were not considered to constitute cheating.  (See this comparison between the two missions.)

A century after the death of Robert Falcon Scott and his crew, I think even the English have the perspective to recognise weaknesses in his leadership skills, and yet still to respect him.  In particular I would question his fateful decision to attempt the last stretch to the pole with five team members, even though they had only planned the resources for four.  We can still recognise the great qualities of a man who was driven by his passion to succeed and to keep his team happy.  At the same time I completely respect his competitor's use of the best equipment and arctic experience available at the time, to succeed and to survive.

Amundsen successfully reached the South Pole - without 'cheating'.

I mentioned last year in 'Tears and Heroism' that I do feel a certain empathy with Scott.

One of the things I found that I have in common with Scott was an inability to organise things properly.  Yes - I am indulging in another bout of self-deprecation as a dear friend sometimes reminds me.  But I fear that I could organise things no better than Scott did.

The other was that he has a tendency towards lacrimosity, both in sad situations and (surprisingly) in happy occasions.  He found that it was embarrassing to him and to the other men around him .

Perhaps at the time I had been having a bad day and was feeling less confident about my organisation skills than I am now.  Tears in happy moments are still a daily threat though.  Thank goodness for the happy moments!



Small note: Don't worry - Something Surprising will continue on schedule tomorrow in spite of the title!