Sunday, 5 December 2010

The Faith Fallacy

What’s so good about Faith?


Faith: The thing held most dearly and proudly by the ‘faithful’; the means by which the ‘faithful’ know things without evidence; the means by which no evidence is needed to believe in a god, the nature of gods, and that the things attributed to gods were indeed performed by them.

Faith: The knowledge of things not seen.

For a Christian, faith is the means by which they know with complete confidence that there is a god and a heaven and the ONLY way to get to Heaven is by acceptance of God’s son, Jesus and by following his teaching as revealed in the Bible which faith tells them was unquestionably either dictated by or at least inspired by the god in Heaven.

Faith is also the means by which Christians know with absolute confidence that all the other religions are wrong.

For a Moslem, faith is the means by which they know with complete confidence that there is a god and a heaven and the ONLY way to get to Heaven is by acceptance that Mohammed was the last prophet of that god and wrote a book with clear and concise instructions which must be followed without question.

Faith is also the means by which Muslims know with absolute confidence that all the other religions are wrong.

For a Jew, faith is the means by which they know with complete confidence that there is a god and a heaven and the ONLY way to get to Heaven is by following the laws and rules as revealed by God to Moses, Elijah and other prophets and which include strict dietary rules, dress codes and observance of special days when life is lived differently to normal days.

Faith is also the means by which Jews know with absolute confidence that all the other religions are wrong.

For a Sikh... but you're probably getting bored by now and have recognised a pattern here.

But hold on! If faith is telling different people completely contradictory things and leading them to mutually exclusive conclusions, how can it be the sure and certain way to know the truth?

Clearly it can't, so what good is faith as a measure of physical reality, or even of mystical ‘transcendent reality’?

Let’s do a little mind experiment.

Imagine you’re the unfortunate victim of mistaken identity and find yourself in a court of law, charged with some offence or other of which you are completely innocent. Your defence team has brought in expert witnesses who have presented undeniable scientific evidence showing that, not only could you not have committed the crime, but you weren’t even in the same town at the time the offence was committed.

Well, that’s just about clinched it, hasn't it? Innocence proved beyond a shadow of a doubt. Case dismissed! Phew! I expect you’re wondering why you were ever prosecuted in the first place. And you WOULD be so acquitted in a society in which guilt or innocence is decided by a rational examination of evidence and logically deduced conclusions from that examination.

Imagine now you live in a society which holds that faith is a superior form of knowledge; that faith is a sure and certain way to determine the truth. So sure and certain in fact that evidence is regarded as inferior and not to be trusted, especially when it contradicts faith; a society which is, in fact, founded on good Christian, Islamic and/or Jewish principles; principles which were used to justify the society having that form in the first place. A society founded on the faith of the faithful.

The prosecution have put up a witness who has sworn on a holy book that he has faith that you are guilty. He freely admits he has no evidence but explains that his faith is strong; he has no doubt at all that you are guilty because this has been revealed to him by faith. Since faith is superior to evidence as a measure of reality, the jury should ignore the defence evidence and go with faith. In fact, he argues, it would show a lack of faith amounting to heresy to believe mere scientific evidence in the face of strong faith. So weak is mere evidence compared to faith that he did not look for it nor at the defence evidence. He had no need. His faith is strong.  The jury should understand, as good followers of the faith, that all the so-called defence 'evidence' shows is just how misleading science is and why it should not be trusted... and anyone who doesn't see that is showing suspiciously heretical arrogance and is betraying the oath they swore when they entered the jury box...

Who would you want the jury to believe?

Suddenly faith is not so reliable after all. Faith can lead to completely wrong conclusions. Faith can convict the innocent and free the guilty. Faith can lead to wrong being mistaken for right.

Faith can lead the faithful to convict those with the 'wrong' faith of being unfaithful...

That’s why the same process of faith leads Christians, Jews, Muslims, Sikhs, and all the other religions, and every different sect to conclude that they, and they alone, are right and all the others are wrong.

Faith is a trap set to catch the unwary. It was invented by religious leaders because they had no evidence.  Had they had real evidence, you can be sure they would be forever trumpeting that fact and citing it at every opportunity. Children the world over would be herded in droves to see this wonderful evidence. "There's your reason to believe", the priests would shout. "You don't need 'faith'! We have the evidence!"

Faith is not a virtue; faith is unquestioning obedience to dogma, and that is a sin.

To believe through faith alone is to make the assumption that something MUST be true just because you believe it. The arrogance of that belief would be breathtaking if the notion of faith had not poisoned our culture to the extent that this arrogance is considered an admirable quality; that being ‘faithful’ is assumed to equate to being good.

Faith is the trick by which the unscrupulous control the credulous and gullible, and make people ashamed and guilty for having doubt and asking questions.

Faith is the means by which Jewish, Islamic, Christian and other religion’s clerics and theologians have sought to exercise control and hold back human cultural, ethical and scientific development to a level it attained in the Bronze Age, at the nomadic pastoralist stage, when the myths and superstitions were first written down.

Faith is the means by which charlatans seek to prevent us asking the questions and accepting the answers which would break their grip on society.

Faith is the mind-numbing toxin of the religion parasite, in all it's different varieties.

Do not have faith in faith for that way leads to insanity.





submit to reddit



Friday, 5 November 2010

On Omniscience and Freewill

Despite my blog exposing the logical fallacy of an inerrantly omniscient god and free will, it seems the full implications of this have gone unnoticed by many.

Let’s recap:

We are discussing the god of the Bible which Christians, Jews and Moslem all regard as omniscient (all-knowing) and whom they believe has granted mankind free will.

Following from this is the idea that, by exercising this free will, mankind committed the ultimate sin of disobeying God and must now seek God’s forgiveness. God does not pre-ordain our decisions so we bear sole responsibility for our own actions and are accountable to God for them. At the same time, God is all knowing and inerrant and so knows everything with absolute certainty. He knows everything about the past, present and future and is never wrong, ever.

Christians, Jews and Muslims and their various sects all believe they alone know the special secrets for gaining this god’s forgiveness for this supposed supreme sin of disobeying God. The only way to achieve this is by joining them, accepting their dogmas and following their rituals.

Furthermore, mankind knows about this sin, about God’s inerrant omniscience, about mankind’s free will and about the need for forgiveness, because it’s all written down in a book either written by, dictated by or inspired by this inerrant (and perfect) god, so it too is inerrant and absolutely true.

Surprisingly though, a simple question which can be answered with a simple “yes” or “no” answer seems to put Christians, Jews and Muslims all into the same flat panic.

The simple question is:

If God has always known what you will have for breakfast tomorrow, can you choose to have something else instead?

So what exactly is the problem here?

Let’s consider the possible answers:

Answer 1. Yes.

Ah! Then something can happen that God didn’t know about, so God is not omniscient or inerrant. God got it wrong, and god didn’t know your eventual choice.

And the Bible is wrong about the god described in it.

Oops!

Answer 2. No.

Ah! So you can't chose to do something other than what God has known you’ll do, and had known for ever that you’ll do, even from before he (so it is believe) created you.

In that case, God’s inerrant omniscience means you don't have free will and your actions have all been pre-determined for you by God’s prior knowledge of your actions. In effect, you are no different to an automaton.

And, as a mere automaton of course, you can’t be held responsible for you actions. Accountability lies with the person controlling you – which is er... God.

And that means all this stuff about human disobedience, sin and needing to beg God for forgiveness is wrong.

Oops!

So how to resolve this paradox?

Well, we could always argue that this God isn’t actually inerrantly omniscient. That restores human free will and our accountability for our own actions, but where does it leave God?

It leaves God as someone who is less than perfect, who makes mistakes and doesn’t actually know everything. In fact, it makes God unfit to judge us humans and condemn us for making mistakes, being less than perfect and not knowing everything. In fact, it places God on an equal footing to humans.

Perhaps there are Christians, Muslims and Jews who can accept that, but where does it leave the Bible?

The Bible is no longer the inerrant word of an omniscient god. In fact it’s wrong on at least one, if not both, the central tenets of Christianity, Judaism and Islam. It’s either wrong about the nature of God, or about human free will, or both. Moreover, the moral judgement of the god described in it is now in question. This god has apparently judged humans to be sinful when it is also capable of doing wrong. Let him who is without guilt cast the first stone.

The Bible is no more reliable as a guide to truth and morality than had it been written by mere humans, (which of course is precisely who wrote it and why it can be safely dismissed as a guide to truth and morality).

Clearly there is no satisfactory way to resolve this problem.

And the entire foundation of three major world religions has just collapsed under its own internal contradiction. The thread upon which the whole edifice dangled has just vanished, if you'll excuse a slightly mixed metaphor.

And, when you ask a Christian, Jew or Moslem that simple little question, requiring a simple yes or no answer, you will quickly discover that either they have never thought about the central tenets of their ‘faith’, or they are only too well aware of the lie at the heart of it. They will either blunder into an answer, and then squirm as you point out the implication of it, or, much more likely, they will wriggle and squirm and do anything but give an honest answer.

A very nice example of this can bee seen at Chirpstory - Christian Dishonesty where a fundamentalist Christian starts off confidently answering a question until he realises where it's leading, then nothing will induce him to give a straight yes or no answer to a simple question. Clearly he knows whichever answer he gives will expose the lie he knows exists at the very heart of his 'faith'.

These latter ones are the ones who are well aware that their professed ‘faith’ is a lie. These will usually be the ones who are actively trying to persuade others into believing something they know to be false. These will be those proudly pious people who make smugly condescending pronouncements about the shortcomings of others and about their special relationship with God and how this gives them a short-cut to knowledge which is unquestionably superior to that gained through diligent learning and reason. They may also be the priests, pastors, preachers, clerics, rabbis, imams and other snake-oil salesmen who have a vested interest in trying to control you through the fear and superstition they themselves know to be untrue.

These will be the ones claiming to know the magic spells, rituals and incantations which will help you gain this god’s forgiveness; a forgiveness they know to be unnecessary for a guilt they know to be unjustified from a god they know does not exist.

This central logical contradiction at the heart of all the Abrahamic, guilt-based religions betrays their human origins and the desire to exert control over others which motivated them.

And it takes only a simple little question to expose the many charlatans who feast off the opportunities it creates for controlling others and the many phoney pious Christians, Muslims and Jews who know their 'faith' is a lie but none-the-less continue to piously profess it because it allows them to pose as superior to the rest of us.

These morally bankrupt Atheists (for that is what they are) are a disgrace to humanity. As a fellow Atheist I am ashamed of them and their moral degeneracy. As a human being I am angry at the harm they've done to people, to human culture and to the societies they've perverted for their own nefarious purposes.

We can be better than that. For the sake of humanity we should do better than that.





submit to reddit




Income from ads will be donated to charities such as moderate centre-left groups, humanist, humanitarian and wildlife protection and welfare organisations.

Saturday, 23 October 2010

On Quantum Cats and Future History

Hold onto your hat. This could get a little rough.

At the heart of quantum mechanics lies a paradox. All experimentation has shown that a particle has a dual nature - the so-called quantum duality. It is, at the same time, a particle or 'quanta' of energy, and a wave. It has been shown that a single photon, fired at two slits in a screen, passes through both slits simultaneously and creates an interference pattern with itself on a photosensitive detector behind the slits. And it's not just two slits. The same effect will be seen with three, four, five slits or as many slits as you like.

Furthermore, it has also been shown that, when we try to observe a particle on its journey through the two slits, by placing a detector behind one of them, the interference pattern disappears and the particle behaves like a perfectly respectable single entity and passes dutifully through the slit with the detector and not through the other one.

Observation has (apparently) caused the waveform to collapse into a particle. Seemingly, our observation of it has changed the nature of reality with respect to the particle being observed and it now only has one future.

The conclusion is inescapable, even if a little disturbing. All particles have many futures, possibly infinitely many futures, and they all take all of them.

The experimental data showing the collapse of the wave into a single future by our observation of it has also lead some people to conclude that somehow we create reality by detecting it, even leading some to speculate that there was no reality until mankind was there to observe it.

This conclusion is the 'Copenhagen Interpretation' of quantum duality and has lead to the multiverse hypothesis, where all possible universes, representing all possible futures potentially co-exist but we determine which one by our observation.

Cue, Schrödinger's Cat.

In an attempt to repudiate this view, Erwin Schrödinger devised a thought experiment in which a live cat is placed in a sealed box, with air, food and water, and a phial of cyanide linked to a device which breaks it, so killing the cat, on detecting a particle emitted by a single atom of a radioactive isotope.

In this system, the cat's future is inevitably linked to a single quantum event - a radioactive decay - which is purely random and independent of any other event. The future of the isotope is either decayed or not and the future of the cat is either alive or dead. However, since the emitted particle will exist simultaneously in both possible futures, and the isotope will thus be both decayed and not decayed at the same time, so the cat will be simultaneously both alive and dead.

However, if the Copenhagen Interpretation is correct, this paradox will only be resolved when we open the box and observe the state of the isotope. Only then will the cat's future be determined; until that point, according Copenhagen, the cat will be both dead and alive.

This, of course, is a highly anthropocentric view of reality and assumes that observation is a uniquely human ability. In fact, it's naive. 'Observation' is carried out by detecting the effect(s) of a particle interacting with one or more other particles. Observation is witnessing the effects of quantum entanglement, when the future of one particle becomes entangled with that of another, and this has been happening since the beginning of time regardless of whether humans were present to witness it or not.

Schrödinger had intended his thought experiment to show the illogicality of the Copenhagen Interpretation but it failed to do that. What it lead people to conclude is that we discover which future we are in when we observe reality. When we open the box we discover whether we are in a future in which the cat is alive, or one in which it is dead. The multiverse hypothesis is not scratched by Schrödinger's cat.

The late, great Richard Feynman, working at Caltech, went some way towards resolving this problem. He showed that all possible histories with respect to a single particle can be expressed as a probability distribution expressing the 'sum over histories' and that this distribution is the wave we see when we observe the wave nature of a quantum event.

He has also shown that for complex systems, these waves 'decohere' to produce what may be a single future. This apparently refutes the multiverse hypothesis, but it may not do. It is still possible to view the future histories of small objects like atoms and molecules as having multiple possible futures because we know they, like particles, take all possible paths through spacetime. It could be that decoherence occurs only above a certain level of complexity.

The largest objects which have been shown to pass simultaneously through both slits in a two slit experiment are molecules of buckminsterfullerene (C60) consisting of sixty carbon atoms arranged in a geodesic - the dome-shaped structures designed by the architect Buckminster Fuller. Sixty atoms is large for inorganic molecules but still quite small for organic molecules, and many orders of magnitude smaller than an organism such as a cat, dead or alive. And we know that if we throw a dead cat at a couple of slots in a wall, it won't go through both, don't we? In fact, unless our aim is good, it'll most likely go through neither and we'll see the dead cat bounce.

So what do we make of this? Small objects have many possible futures, yet larger objects have only one - and we don't yet know where the dividing line is...

Rosa's speculation:
It could also be that what we see as 'now' is an advancing front of decoherence as we move into an array of futures. That NOW is only the interface between our macro-reality and micro-futures operating at the quantum level.




submit to reddit



Tuesday, 5 October 2010

The Joy of Living

The Joy of Living - although this was not the last song Ewan MacColl wrote, it was meant as a farewell to the world and to the people he loved.

Farewell you northern hills, you mountains all goodbye
Moorlands and stony ridges, crags and peaks goodbye
Glyder Fach farewell, Culbeg, Scafell, cloud bearing Suilven
Sun warmed rocks and the cold of Bleaklow's frozen sea
The snow and the wind and the rain of hills and mountains
Days in the sun and the tempered wind and the air like wine
And you drink and you drink till you’re drunk on the joy of living

Farewell to you my love, my time is almost done
Lie in my arms once more until the darkness comes
You filled all my days, held the night at bay, dearest companion
Years pass by and they're gone with the speed of birds in flight
Our lives like the verse of a song heard in the mountains
Give me your hand and love and join your voice with mine
And we'll sing of the hurt and the pain and the joy of living

Farewell to you my chicks, soon you must fly alone
Flesh of my flesh, my future life, bone of my bone
May your wings be strong, may your days be long, safe be your journey
Each of you bears inside of you the gift of love
May it bring you light and warmth and the pleasure of giving
Eagerly savour each new day and the taste of its mouth
Never lose sight of the thrill and the joy of living

Take me to some high place of heather, rock and ling
Scatter my dust and ashes, feed me to the wind
So that I may be part of all you see, the air you are breathing
I'll be part of the curlew's cry and the soaring hawk
The blue milkwort and the sundew hung with diamonds
I'll be riding the gentle wind that blows through your hair
Reminding you how we shared in the joy of living

© Ewan MacColl Ltd 1986. Black And White

Ewan MacColl, whom I had the pleasure of meeting twice, spending a great couple of evenings with him and his partner Peggy Seeger, died in 1989, aged 74.

more info : http://www.ewanmaccoll.com/
www.dickgaughan.co.uk/chain/ewan-maccoll.html





submit to reddit





Monday, 27 September 2010

What Makes You So Special?

Your Story


[Edit. This article has now been greatly expanded into my book, What Makes You So Special? : From the Big Bang to You, available in paperback or ebook for Kindle]

Bear with me a while because yours is a long story but it's a story very much worth telling.

About 13.7 billion years ago the universe came into existence as a singularity. We know this because the universe is expanding in all directions at a measurable rate. Projecting this backwards leads to a time when the entire universe occupied a single point of nearly infinite density; a black hole or singularity.

We also know that time and space are part of the universe and do not exist independently of it, so there is no sense in which we can talk of where and when this singularity occurred in some pre-existing space-time dimension.

Friday, 10 September 2010

Reasons to Speak Out [Updated 16-April-2013]

A short collection of writings, poems and other stuff.

First they came...,

When the Nazis came for the communists,
I remained silent;
after all I was not a communist.

When they locked up the social democrats,
I remained silent;
after all I was not a social democrat.

When they came for the trade unionists,
I did not speak out;
after all I was not a trade unionist.

[When they came for the Jews and the Romani
I did not speak out;
after all I was not a Jew or a Roma]

When they came for me,
there was no one left to speak out.

Pastor Martin Niemöller (with additional verse by me)

Friday, 20 August 2010

The Doublethink of the God Delusion

Doublethink or the ability to simultaneously hold two mutually contradictory opinions.
This blog is a response to the challenge from @TweetMinistries on Twitter to comment on a blog by Gary Gutting, a philosophy teacher at the University of Notre Dame. The blog was a critique of, “The God Delusion” by Richard Dawkins.

Gutting's orginal blog may be read at: http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/08/11/on-dawkinss-atheism-a-response/

Gutting starts off badly and shows he hasn't understood what he is criticising by summarising Dawkins as saying natural selection explains the complexity of the universe. Dawkins only ever argues that natural selection accounts for the diversity and complexity of life, not of the universe. However, this is not the central argument of Gutting’s case.

The central argument is that Dawkins failed to take into account the theological argument that God is a special case and can be regarded as irrational, therefore it should be exempt from arguments aimed at showing there is no rational basis for a belief in one.

Gutting correctly points out that Dawkins' argument is that a creator god would necessarily be more complex than the universe it created, therefore the argument for a god from complexity is unsatisfactory in that it simply introduces another unexplained layer of complexity, so not only failing to solve the problem but actually making it worse.

He then complains that Dawkins never addressed the fact that, “philosophers from Thomas Aquinas through contemporary thinkers have offered detailed discussions of the question that provide intelligent suggestions about how to think coherently about a simple substance that has the power and knowledge attributed to God”.

This neatly sidesteps the problem of the necessary knowledge and information required to create a universe with all its complexity. The definition of God is shifted dramatically away from an omniscient, omnipotent god capable of emotions such as love and anger, able to formulate morality, hand down laws of behaviour and to monitor and record our thoughts, and in whose image we were created, to something much easier to fit into the debate at hand. This god is now a simple substance, presumably having no complexity whatsoever, yet still has the “power and knowledge attributed to it”.

In other words, this god has complexity without having complexity. Yep! That IS irrational, but that’s not a problem either. You see there is always “the possibility that God is a necessary being (that is, a being that, by its very nature, must exist, no matter what). On this traditional view, God’s existence would be, so to speak, self-explanatory and so need no explanation...”, something Gutting also complains that Dawkins didn’t take into account.

What Gutting is complaining of here is that Dawkins should have accepted the workarounds for the difficult questions which theologians have assiduously devised to help them ignore them, and that he cheated by not allowing for them.

Yes indeed, Dawkins, in his argument that there was no rational explanation for a god did not take into account that there is an irrational explanation which should have been regarded as rational because it’s not fair to subject it to rational analysis (because it would fail that test).

Gutting then attempts to support this view by reference to Bertrand Russell’s point that we would require very strong evidence to believe that there is a teapot in orbit around the sun. Dawkins agrees with Russell that an extraordinary claim such as that requires an extraordinary level of supporting evidence to justify its acceptance.

He points out that, if astronauts had reported a teapot shaped object in orbit and satellite data had strongly suggested that there was indeed a teapot in orbit, this would be sufficient evidence to at least cause us to allow for the possibility of the teapot hypothesis being correct.

Gutting then tries to argue that there is indeed just such strong evidence to support the god hypothesis. Unfortunately the only evidence he has to offer is, “There are sensible people who report having had some kind of direct awareness of a divine being”, neglecting to point out that none have ever produced evidence of a reality, and, “there are competent philosophers who endorse arguments for God’s existence”, as though arguments from authority are a good as real evidence.

What Gutting is attempting to do here is to suggest that somehow, the subjective interpretations of perception and the opinions of philosophers should be place on an equal footing with scientific data and independent eye-witness accounts. This is, of course, nothing more than special pleading again. The god hypothesis will only work if you exempt it from the normal tests you apply to other hypotheses, therefore it should be granted these exemption without further justification.

Gutting reinforces this claim with, “But religious believers will plausibly reply that science is suited to discover only what is material (indeed, the best definition of “material” may be just “the sort of thing that science can discover”). They will also cite our experiences of our own conscious life (thoughts, feelings, desires, etc.) as excellent evidence for the existence of immaterial realities that cannot be fully understood by science”.

He has ignored the fact that neurophysiology is material and so consciousness, thoughts, feelings, etc, are not evidence of the immaterial at all (‘plausible’ seems to mean ‘convenient’ in this context). And there again is that plea of special status for the god hypothesis. Now the reason is that this god should be exempt from ALL tests of existence because it is now assumed to be immaterial and so beyond the reach of science.

In summary then, Gutting is arguing that Dawkins was wrong to argue that there is no rational basis for belief in a god because belief in god is irrational and Dawkins should have accepted that as er... rational.

Presumably this form of 'logic' is perfectly acceptable in theological circles.

We also have here yet another example of the special pleading which theologians use to defend their god hypothesis. Their little hypothesis wants to play with the big boys of science and compete on an equal footing, but it needs affirmative action and special assistance to get by. It’s not fair that it should have to take the same tests scientific hypotheses have to pass. It’s perfectly fair to claim it is as rational as scientific hypotheses even though it is irrational.

This compartmentalised doublethink is a perfect example of Dawkins’ God Delusion.

It's really rather sad that humans, in attempting to create a god, have only managed to create a seriously handicapped one.





submit to reddit



Thursday, 19 August 2010

Refuting the Arguments For God

These arguments for God appear on http://snapshotsofgod.com/evidence.htm .

This blog examines them one by one and shows the fallacy behind them.

“If you live in a desert and never leave it, you won't find a shred of evidence for the existence for polar ice caps or polar bears.”

True, but if you had never heard of polar icecaps and bears, why would you even think of looking for them? You won’t find any evidence of Martians either but is that a reason to believe they exist? Of course not. Whilst absence of evidence is far from being proof of absence, it is most certainly supporting evidence for the idea of absence.  It is a very long way from being proof or even evidence of presence.

The extraordinary thing is that the blogger opens his blog with what amounts to a claim that the absence of evidence is in some way evidence of presence!

The temptation is to walk away right now.  Let’s hope things get better...

“If you live a world apart from God and never venture beyond it, you won't find a shred of evidence for God.”

Crikey! So, if you accept any ‘evidence’ a priori as evidence for God, whatever and wherever it might be, you will er... find evidence for God. Now why didn’t I think of that when I was doing biological research? “Look professor! If only you would accept a priori any evidence as evidence that my hypothesis is correct, you will see that I have validated it. Why won’t you be reasonable and agree with me?”

It would have made life SO much easier not having to bother with actual evidence or logical interpretation of results.

It’s nonsense of course. This is an example of special pleading. The God hypothesis can’t be expected to stand the same rigorous test that science requires of other hypotheses. It has special needs.

“A universe that is very precisely tuned to support life, from the very unique properties of carbon, oxygen, hydrogen, nitrogen and other elements that form life to the physical laws that allow matter to exist in a delicate balance between black holes and plasma.”

Intelligent life, capable of formulating questions about the origins of life and of the universe, and asking questions about why the universe is as it is, can ONLY exist in a universe in which it is capable of existing. This simple truism means that you can only ask why the universe supports intelligent life in a universe which supports intelligent life.  In other words, the universe is not as it is so you can question it, but rather you can question it BECAUSE it is the way it is.

Now, as to the science behind the universe which makes it capable of supporting intelligent life, this may be because of  the initial conditions at the moment of the Big Bang.  Quite simply, we do not yet know why the initial conditions in the Big Bang were as they were and we don’t yet know whether they were inevitable or not, however, as the Feynman equation seems to show, it is entirely likely that all possible universes came into existence in a so-called quantum foam, each with its own self-contained space-time. The fact that we can ask these questions means we MUST be in a universe in which the intial conditions were those necessary to allow the evolution of intelligence.

In essence, this argument is another fallacious ‘god of the gaps’ argument, which says that, if there is something science hasn’t yet explained, it will never explain it, and the only explanation MUST be that [insert your favourite god] must have done it. The argument is fallacious for two reasons:
  • Because science hasn’t YET explained something does NOT mean it’s beyond explanation. Note here the dishonest implication that science has discovered everything discoverable.  No scientist has ever made that claim.
  • Even if this WERE true it would not prove the only explanation is the one claimed. This is the false dichotomy fallacy and betrays again the underlying dishonesty of the religious argument.  The argument is never about whether the conclusion is supported by the evidence and the logic but about whether it arrives at the desired conclusion.
What the blogger needs to show is that a natural explanation for the universe being the way it is, and for living things to have evolved in this tiny part of it, is impossible. Only then is it logical to look for a supernatural explanation. Of course he has done none of that but is merely relying on the reader's underlying cultural assumption that a supernatural explanation must be required because he/she can't think of a natural one.

And we haven't even considered which of the infinite array of hypothetical supernatural explanations it might be. Again, there is the dependence on cultural assumption, in this case that the only possible supernatural explanation is the locally popular god. This is nothing more than a cynical attempt to use the reader's ignorance to pull the wool over his/her eyes.

“Life itself, which is not just a mere assemblage of the right chemicals, but a system of hundreds of interrelated components working in harmony to create the miracle we call life, all precisely coded in the DNA of every cell.”

This is simply a statement of the obvious. There is no mystery to be explained here and nothing which requires a supernatural explanation. I suspect the blogger either believes, or wants you to believe, that living things are thought by science to have arisen, fully formed, in their present state, so is asking us to explain how this could all have happened ‘by chance’.

Of course, science says no such thing. The theory of evolution explains why living things appear to be designed. They ARE designed by a natural, unthinking and undirected, yet inevitable, process called natural selection which, at every generation acts as a filter to ensure those best able to reproduce successfully are those more likely to produce offspring which inherit those abilities.

Design CAN be natural and undirected, and, given the huge timescale over which it operates, can produce amazing refinement, but the design is only and always towards improving the ability to replicate in a changing environment.  Most evolutionary chains eventually lead to extinction so one thing we can say with some degree of certainty is that species are NOT designed for indefinite survival.  Evolution does not have goals.  Just as a falling stone is not intentionally trying to reach the ground, so evolving life it not trying to reach any particular design criterion.  It is being driven by an unthinking yet inevitable force. 

The notion that somehow evolution is directed towards a particular goal is a manifestation of anthropocentrism - the notion that the purpose of everything is to allow humans to exist.  This is a religious, not a scientific point of view.  There is no requirement for science to explain it in those terms.

Living things are essentially vehicles for the replicators they play host too. These replicators, in turn, have evolved vehicles capable of replicating them.

This argument is either
  • the argument from ignorance fallacy – I don’t know how it happened so it must have been done by my favourite god
  • the argument from design fallacy – If something looks as though it was designed, and it wasn’t designed by a human, it must have been designed by my favourite god.
And then, of course, there is the ever-popular false dichotomy fallacy which always concludes with, ‘so it must have been my god’.

“Innate and unique characteristics of human beings which are not readily explained by adaptation, such as artistic creativity, a sense or moral right and wrong which often contradicts "survival of the fittest" and a desire to seek answers about God, even among those who say they do not believe.”

Er... except that they are if we include memetic evolution. Again, though, we have the argument from ignorance combined with our old friend, the false dichotomy.

“Veracity of Scripture in prophecy, history and scientific information “

Such a shame the blogger didn’t see fit to back up this assertion with authenticated examples, but that’s probably asking too much, even for a book which was written or edited AFTER the events it purports to prophesy. In fact, any reading of the Bible will reveal a very large number of prophesies which didn't come true, including a prediction that the Nile would dry up and Egypt would be destroyed.

“People and events in the Bible which have been corroborated by historical and archeological (sic) evidence.”

Right! So every book which mentions actual people and/or events is gospel truth is it? This would be a laughable claim if it wasn’t made so frequently and in all seriousness by otherwise intelligent people. Even so, it is factually incorrect in many instances. There is no archaeological evidence nor Egyptian historical records, for any of the events described in Exodus, for example. The archaeological evidence shows that the town of Jericho never had walls in the period when it was allegedly captured by the Israelites, for example. The Census at the time of Jesus supposed birth occurred in 6 CE. King Herod died in 4 BCE, etc, etc.

“The consistency of the message found in the scriptures of almost all religions. The Bible, for instance, was written by 40 diverse men who lived over a span of 1,500 years, kept separate records and recorded events independently, yet it tells a remarkably consistent story.”

Consistent, as in forbidding killing then ordering it? Consistent, as in telling us to take an eye for an eye AND to forgive our enemies and turn the other cheek? Consistent, as in telling us to honour our mother and father AND to forsake them?

And, as Bart D. Ehrlman shows in his book, "Jesus Interrupted: Revealing the Hidden Contradictions in the Bible", a horizontal reading of the Bible shows it is remarkably inconsistent and often contradictory with the Gospels often making diametrically opposite claims, even about the very fundamentals of Christian belief such as the nature of Jesus and how to get to Heaven.

This is the cherry-picking fallacy. Because I can find some bits in the Bible I agree with it must have been inspired (or written) by my favourite god, and especially if I ignore the bits which don’t support my argument. And of course, where the Bible IS consistent in its morality, it is merely plagiarising Humanist morality, found in all cultures at all times, and claiming it as its own. The idea that people habitually murdered one another and stole their neighbours goods until a god told them not to is idiotic. Human societies have always had cultures which sanctioned cooperation and mutual support and in which selfishness is penalised.

“Prophecies recorded in scripture that were fulfilled in detail hundreds of years later, most notably in the life of Jesus Christ.”

No examples again. And again the apparent, or feigned, ignorance over the history of the Bible itself. And of course, no recognition of the fact that the stories about Jesus were written by people who knew these prophesies and who had an interest in presenting Jesus as having fulfilled them.

“Revelations in scripture about scientific facts that were not discovered by mankind until recently. As an example, practices to control infectious diseases that were not discovered by science until the late 1800's were recorded as laws given to Moses by God in Leviticus around 1400 B.C. The Quran also contains many references to knowledge that was not discovered by science until many centuries later.”

Well, well! By 3,500 years ago man had learned to associate cleanliness with health. And this is evidence for a god how, exactly? Well it's evidence because the blogger asserts it is, that's how.

Of course, neither the Bible nor the Quran explain infection in terms of microscopic bacteria or viruses; neither of them enunciate Koch's Postulates; neither of them mention antiseptics or antibiotics; and nowhere is there any discussion of immunity, vaccination or how to produce vaccines. In short, neither of them actually deal with the science of infection and infection control, but why spoil a good claim with evidence, eh?

There is no instance of anyone ever reading the Bible or Qur'an and forecasting the next scientific discovery. There is a very good reason for this. They are only good for 'forecasting' past events, and then only with an enormous stretch of the imagination often bending the meaning of words to breaking point.

“The account of the life of Jesus Christ. Many, even atheists, who have studied the gospels have come away concluding, based on reason and historical evidence, that the best explanation is that Jesus is indeed the Messiah, the Christ, sent by God to reveal Himself to mankind.”

Argumentum ad assertum. No evidence of these converted atheists is necessary. We are just expected to believe they existed and were converted. But, for every claimed converted atheist there are probably hundreds of former Christians who became atheists, many of them BECAUSE they read the Bible and stopped just accepting what they were told it contained. Instead of the inspired and inspiring word of an omniscient and inerrant loving god they found:
  • a muddle of old origin myths involving a volcano god
  • the ramblings of schizophrenics
  • some early attempts to formulate laws for living in the desert in a misogynistic and brutal society which regarded half its members as sub-human and all other peoples as lesser being
  • a story of Egyptian origins which the Egyptians seem not to have noticed despite an alleged mass-slaughter of children in a single night and the entire destruction of the army
  • a brutal and often arbitrary set of rules which would result in arrest and imprisonment in any civilised country for anyone who tried to follow them today
  • some romanticised histories of early kings
  • a collection of obviously plagiarised, but often contradictory and confused accounts of one or more Jewish rabbinical activists, embroidered and tailored to meet the needs of the ruling class of an empire in terminal decline, by incorporating it with other popular cults such as Mithraism and the various animist cults popular in Rome, Constantinople, Antioch, Alexandria and other centres of the old empire
“Personal experiences of prayer, healings, spiritual encounters and changed lives.

"Answers to prayer which go beyond anything that can be rationally attributed to chance or coincidence."


"Unexplained medical healings that occur in conjunction with spiritual experiences."

"Accounts by rational, mature individuals of hearing a voice within that is beyond their own thoughts, of seeing angels or of having visions."

"People whose lives have been dramatically changed through experiences that they can only describe as having been touched by a power beyond themselves, or as one of experiencing God."

"These are at least evidences of God, are they not?”

No. They are evidence only of some people’s ability to place whatever interpretation they want on events, in order to reinforce their own sense of self-importance. God answered my prayer because he likes me; God healed me because I’m special; my ‘voices’ mean I’ve been chosen by a god, etc, etc, etc.

The argument that it must have been my god because it can’t have been [insert whatever you don’t want it to have been] is not an argument for a god; it is an argument for the god delusion.

Share on Twitter.

Friday, 6 August 2010

Biblical Contradictions

For a long list of Biblical contradictions please see  http://www.evilbible.com/Biblical%20Contradictions.htm

Also see http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/ for an annotated Bible pointing out the errors and contradictions.  Something like 1616 of them in all.

The Special Needs God of Creationism

Science works by applying a set of agreed fundamental requirements, based on the principles of logic, mathematics, and established accepted scientific axioms, to all hypotheses. All competing hypotheses must meet these basic requirements and each will stand or fall according to how well or badly the presented supporting evidence, when view according to these principles, supports the hypothesis. No serious scientist would expect to get away with pleading that his favourite hypotheses should be exempt from, say, an accepted fundamental law and least of all from one which is fundamental to his hypothesis.

For example, imagine a scientist who is proposing a new hypothesis explaining flight and claiming it is a much better account of how an aircraft flies than any other. In fact, it is so brilliant that it utterly destroys the science of aerodynamics and will require the fundamental laws of physics to be re-written.

He has rightly pointed out that a fundamental requirement of any aerodynamic theory is that it must explain how an object in flight in air is apparently defying gravity and is able to move up and down in a controlled manner in a gravity field. However, it has been pointed out to him that, applying HIS hypothesis would not actually explain anything. If it were true, no object would actually be able to leave the ground, let alone move up or down in the air, in a controlled manner or not.

Imagine the reaction from his fellow scientists when he retorted that this was not a problem for his hypothesis because it was a special case and was exempt from any principle or principles which rendered it false. How long do you think this scientist’s credibility would last? About as long as it took his fellow scientists to stop laughing and persuade their incredulous colleagues that he had really made that claim - and was not even joking!

Now, consider the Creationist hypothesis concerning causality. They will argue that all things must have a cause (ignoring things like spontaneous decay of radioactive isotopes, which don’t, but let’s ignore that with them for the time being). The argument goes that, since everything must have a cause, there must have been a prime cause for all things and that the only possible prime cause must have been their favourite god. They also argue that this is an absolute universal law of logic from which nothing can escape and to which all scientific theories must be subject, with absolutely no exceptions.

We can also ignore the fact that, even if this was true, it would not establish that this prime causing is their favourite god, or anything even remotely like it. Assume for a moment that creationists have established somehow that the need for a prime cause IS an absolute and immutable fundamental law of the universe and that any such prime cause can only be their god.

“Ah!” You’ll no doubt now be saying, “What was the cause of the creationist god?” And you’d be entirely correct. Applying our universal immutable law to which all things must be subject, the creationist god must also have had a cause. The ‘prime cause’ is not prime at all.

Okay, so let’s hypothesise a cause before the prime cause (a sub-prime cause?). In fact, we now have to hypothesis an infinitely regressing continuum of pre-pre-pre- (ad infinitum) prime causes. In fact our prime cause hypothesis does not explain causality at all. The prime cause hypothesis has just collapsed under its own absurd logic. It has spectacularly falsified itself, something only possible for the more absurd hypotheses.

“No!” Creationists will retort. “My hypothesis is a special case and is exempt from its own fundamental law! Everything else is obliged to pass the test of my first cause hypothesis, but my god is exempt. It is a special case to which special laws apply. It is not fair to expect it to compete with science on an equal footing”.  And they are not even joking. Special pleading is a fundamental part of almost all theology!

The creationist’s god is like a special needs child which can’t be expected to compete on an equal footing with normal children. It needs affirmative action and special provisions to be able to lead the semblance of a normal existence. These sentiments would be quite understandable, even laudable from the point of view of parents who have such an unfortunate child, but why have creationists created a god with so many handicaps and challenges that it needs to be treated as a special needs child?

The answer of course, is that they had no choice. Their problem is that their god IS handicapped. These handicaps were inherited from its parents. It was created by people who find reality difficult to understand and so constantly strive to live in an alternate one: one with simplistic answers, carefully constructed so as to be amenable to people with little or no learning and who take comfort in ignorance.

So of course it too can’t cope with reality either.  Imaginary friends are only as good as the minds that imagine them.





submit to reddit




Income from ads will be donated to charities such as moderate centre-left groups, humanist, humanitarian and wildlife protection and welfare organisations.


Thursday, 5 August 2010

The False Dichotomy Fallacy - Creationism's Moral Failing

Read any serious scientific paper and you will see evidence and discussions which support the hypothesis or theory under consideration. The authors may refer to opposing or alternative hypotheses but only to compare and contrast their results or arguments. Any evidence against any opposing hypothesis is completely irrelevant to that task, as are any deficiencies in that evidence.

The authors know that their hypothesis will only stand if they can show firm evidence supporting it, or if they don’t they will quickly learn from the peer review process which will give their paper short shrift. The humiliation of having a paper rejected on the grounds that ‘the author has presented no evidence supporting his/her conclusions nor his/her underlying hypothesis’ is not a good career move in an ambitious young scientist, who will never be an old scientist unless they learn better science.

Now compare that to a reading of any ‘creation science’ article – which is never subjected to the peer review process by submitting it to respected fellow scientist regarded as experts in the particular field. Almost invariably, the entire thrust of the article will be attacking established science, and in particular, established science which conflicts with the creationist view. There will rarely be a presentation of hard evidence supporting creationism or ‘intelligent design’ to give it it’s alternative name.

It’s as though the author wants you to believe that there are only two possible hypotheses: the established scientific view with all it’s supporting evidence, or the creationist view. You are expected to believe that, if they can cast doubt on the scientific view, their own view will somehow gain strength from it and if they can destroy it, their preferred view will automatically be accepted as the correct one.

A moment's thought should lead you to see the fallacy there. There are not just two possible alternative hypotheses. In fact there are an almost infinite number, limited only by human imagination. Each hypothesis must stand (or fall) on its own. If no evidence is available to support it, it falls by default. No single theory, no matter how fond it's proponents are of it, has the special distinction of being accepted as the right one in the absence of any supporting evidence.

But that is exactly what the author wants you to believe. This is the false dichotomy fallacy. It is the scientific and intellectual equivalent of a deliberate lie designed to mislead. Creation ‘scientists’ use this fallacy for two reasons:
  • They have no evidence for their creation hypothesis, so have none to present and no conclusions to draw from it.
  • They want to mislead you into believing their hypothesis even though they have no evidence for it.

This neatly illustrates the intellectual dishonesty of creationism. It is the technique of the confidence trickster who has identified his mark and is playing to his weaknesses.

It is dishonest in it’s pretence of using scientific methodology. Just using scientific-sounding words and aping a scientific style of writing is not science. It is dishonest because:
  • it deliberately sets out to mislead and to deceive and so reveals a hidden agenda that the writer wants to conceal from you.
  • it exploits an assumed ignorance and/or lack of critical thinking ability in its target readership.
  • it betrays an awareness of this ignorance and intellectual deficit, yet fails to correct it. Instead it assiduously seeks to perpetuate and exploit it it.

Creation science shows the intellectual and moral bankruptcy of creationism. Not surprisingly, proponents of it are loud in their claim to occupy the moral high-ground, as they shout out from the moral gutter in which they live.





submit to reddit


Saturday, 31 July 2010

Kent Hovind's Ten Most Ignorant Questions

The convicted fraudster and Young Earth Creationist, Dr Kent Hovind, (or to give him his proper academic title, Mr Kent Hovind) claims to have ten questions which Evolutionists cannot/will not answer.

Various estimates put Hovind's income from his idiosyncratic biological, geophysical and cosmological claims and lecture tours at $1-2 million dollars per annum.

Hovind's doctorate (which was in Christian Education, not, as has been claimed, in a science subject of any sort) was the result of a short correspondence course with an unaccredited Bible college, Patriot Bible University.

Patriot Bible Shed, Colorado, USA
The college refuses to release his dissertation but those who have managed to see a copy report that it is incomplete, repetitions, unoriginal, lacking references with very little academic merit, and shows a lack of basic understanding and knowledge of science. Hovind claims to be a scientist but his sole science 'qualification' appears to be that he taught 'science' in private high-schools, all of which were fundamentalist Christian schools, some of which Hovind himself owned.

[Later note: A copy of Kent Hovind's doctoral 'dissertation' is now available on Wikileaks at http://wikileaks.org/wiki/Young-earth_creationist_Kent_Hovind's_doctoral_dissertation. As readers can see, this is barely up to the standard required for an 'A' level assignment report and shows no evidence of having been submitted for peer review.]

This blog both answers Hovind’s ten questions and exposes the attempted deception behind them.

  1. Where did the space for the Universe come from?
  2. Space is part of the Universe. Space (and time) came into existence along with everything else in the Universe. There is no space or time ‘outside’ the Universe and no scientific theory claims they pre-existed it. Stephen Hawking, retired Lucasian Professor of Astronomy at Cambridge, England, has recently argued that gravity is all that is required to explain how the Universe originated as a singularity in what has been called the Big Bang.

    This has nothing to do with the Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection (TOE), which explains the fact of evolution by explaining how natural selection produces diversity when acting on variation in replicators, so explaining how the observable similarities and differences between varieties, species, families, orders, etc came about.

    Kent Hovind now needs to explain why he asked this question when he could easily have checked this in any book on cosmology or any website dealing with the subject.

    He needs to explain why he has perpetuated a fallacy about space existing independently of the Universe when it has been known for about 100 years that it doesn't and why he failed to take the opportunity to dispel this fallacy.

    He also needs to explain why he misleads his target audience by implying that the origin of the Universe is part of the TOE when he could have checked and dispelled that misconception too.

  3. Where did matter come from?
  4. Matter is composed of elementary particles, which are themselves a form of energy. This has been known ever since Albert Einstein explained it with his famous e = mc2 formula, probably the best known of all mathematical formulae. Energy itself is what came into existence in the singularity at the beginning of space-time. See below for details of how energy is organised.

    Kent Hovind now needs to explain why he feigns ignorance of this and has pretended the question has not been answered.

    Incidentally, the origin of matter has nothing whatever to do with the TOE, so he also needs to explain why he misleads his target audience by pretending it does.

  5. Where did the laws of the Universe come from (gravity, inertia, etc.)?
  6. These are fundamental laws of matter. They are descriptive not prescriptive. They are what science uses to describe what happens. For example, they describe what will happen if you pick up a stone and drop it. They do not make the stone fall.

    First Newton in his Principia Mathematica and later Einstein with his Special and General Theories of Relativity have shown the mathematics behind gravity and the laws of motion. They did not 'come from' somewhere independent of the Universe and of matter but are a fundamental aspect of matter (see 2 above). This question is a daft as asking Kent Hovind where his weight came from as though it came to him independently of his body.

    The fact is, we could not ask these questions about fundamentals of the Universe in a Universe in which the fundamental laws were different. It is self-evident that intelligent life can only exist in a Universe in which it is capable or existing, and this Universe is one such Universe. It follows therefore that this Universe must have certain fundamental qualities.

    Hovind now needs to explain why he has feigned ignorance of basic science or claims to be a scientist yet doesn't understand the difference between description and proscription.

    And again, this has nothing to do with the TOE.

  7. How did matter get so perfectly organized?
  8. It isn't perfectly organized and no scientific theory claims it to be, least of all biology and evolution.

    At the lowest level matter is chaotic. There are several good science books dealing with chaos theory and how order is an inevitable emergent property of chaos. Fractals are also part of this general body of knowledge.

    This question illustrates how Hovind uses a dishonest technique with his question because it requires us to accept a fallacy to answer it. It's the trick of begging the question, used by people who know they are pushing a lie.

    There is so much information available on this that Hovind now needs to explain why he has implied that this is an unanswered question.

    Yet again, this is not part of the TOE.

  9. Where did the energy come from to do all the organizing?
  10. Which scientific theory claims matter is organized by energy? Note again the dishonest begged question which depends on the scientific ignorance of his target audience for it's success.

    The origin of energy per se is fundamental to theories of the singularity (Big Bang) origin of the Universe. There are four forms of energy: weak and strong nuclear forces, electromagnetic force and gravity. All observations confirm that gravity is equal to the sum of the other three forms and that gravity is the negative of the other three. The sum total of energy in the Universe is zero.

    This is also well known to physics so Hovind now needs to explain why he has again feigned ignorance of it.

    And again, this is not part of the TOE.

  11. When, where, why, and how did life come from non-living matter?
  12. Theories of the origin of replicators (biogenesis) are not part of any theory of evolution. Evolution by Natural Selection explains how natural selection acting on variations in replication has led to the current (and past) diversity of life on Earth.

    Hovind has played the common trick here of using the term ‘life’ without defining it. If he means the ability to replicate, then chemistry is the answer. If he is requiring evolutionists to explain some quality he would like to be present, he first needs to explain exactly what that is and then justify his insistence that science explain something which he wishes to be present merely to satisfy his requirements for the Universe.

    Hovind has been told this on numerous occasions so he now needs to explain why he pretends not to have had the question answered. He also need to come up with a scientifically valid definition of ‘life’.

  13. When, where, why, and how did life learn to reproduce itself?
  14. Well, at last! A question which actually relates, even if fallaciously, to the TOE, but there’s that weasel term ‘life’ again, and still no definition.

    If he’s asking how replicators ‘learned’ to replicate then he might just as well ask how any atoms and molecules ‘learn’ to do chemistry. How does sodium hydroxide and hydrochloric acid ‘learn’ to make sodium chloride and water?

    Of course, as Hovind knows, there is no learning process involved. Hovind now needs to explain why he implied there is and again needed to use the dishonest ploy of the begged question.

  15. With what did the first cell capable of sexual reproduction reproduce?
  16. With other cells of course. Evolution takes place in the gene pool, not in individuals. Hovind is here playing on a common misconception about evolution. There is never a single individual which suddenly evolves into a new species. No mother ever gives birth to an entirely new species and no TOE has ever claimed this to be the case. Evolution is a process which takes place over time, not a single event, as any cursory reading of a basic biology textbook would have shown him

    Hovind has been told this on many occasions, so he now needs to explain why he still plays on this common misconception in his target audience instead of correcting them and educating them about the real TOE.

    Again there is the traditional dishonesty of the begged question which requires us to accept his fallacies in order to answer it.

  17. Why would any plant or animal want to reproduce more of its kind since this would only make more mouths to feed and decrease the chances of survival? (Does the individual have a drive to survive, or the species? How do you explain the origin of reproduction?)
  18. Which TOE claims any species evolves in any particular direction because that's where it 'wants' to go? Again we see the begged question.

    Replicators replicate because that's what replicators do, just as objects fall in a gravity field because that's what objects acting under gravity do. If this replication leads to food shortages then that is part of the environment in which these replicators replicate, and one of the factors involved in natural selection. Those replicators best able to survive and reproduce will be those whose genes will come to dominate the gene pool. If this evolution leads to extinction then the species will go extinct. There is no plan involved and the very many extinctions show that no intelligence was involved either.

    Hovind now needs to explain why he is requiring evolutionists to explain something which isn't part of the TOE, when he has been told many times that it isn’t. He must also explain why he has knowingly chosen to perpetuate a fallacy rather than to dispel it.

  19. How can mutations (recombining of the genetic code) create any new, improved varieties? (Recombining English letters will never produce Chinese books.)
  20. Who claimed mutation is 'recombination of genetic code'?

    Mutation is simply imperfect replication. This creates variation on which natural selection operates, and, in so doing over time, changes the ratio of different variants in the gene pool. Accumulation of these small changes over the deep time in which evolution operates leads to large changes in the species. These accumulated changes in isolated gene pools can lead to loss of the ability to interbreed with members of other gene pools with which it was once continuous. This is defined by taxonomists as a new species. A definition, incidentally, which is purely man-made and is not mandatory on nature.

    And of course all this is exactly what the theory of evolution explains. Ironically, Hovind is claiming science hasn't explained what the very theory he is attacking explains. He either doesn't understand what he is attacking, or he does understand it but is dishonestly playing to an audience which doesn't.

    Hovind now needs to explain why he asked a misleading question about mutation instead of telling his target audience what he has been told on countless occasions, and so educating them about an important and fascinating aspect of biological science. Instead, he has chosen to knowingly perpetuate a fallacy.

So there we have it. None of the first seven question relate to the TOE so are not questions evolutions need to answer. Never–the-less all these questions, where they relate to science, have been answered by physicists and cosmologists and the answers can be found in an good text books on the subject, or on any good on-line sources which deal with these questions. This can be done by anyone with the determination to find them and who is not afraid to look.

The rest of Hovind's questions are of the straw man type where evolutionists are asked to explain something which is not claimed by the TOE and which Hovind has included deliberately to mislead his target audience in order to perpetuate fallacies and misunderstandings about the TOE. Of course you will not find answers to these questions in standard evolution reference works since they are not part of evolutionary theory.

But there is another, deeper fallacy which Hovind is perpetuating here. Any scientific theory must stand on its own and show the evidence for its own validity. Merely falsifying a rival theory does not automatically validate any other theory.

Let’s assume just for one moment that Hovind and his fellow creationist had found the evidence they crave and could successfully refute the Big Bang, theories of the structure of space-time and the nature of matter, and the Theory of Evolution. They would merely have shown some scientific theories to be wrong. They would NOT have shown that their preferred hypothesis – that their god did it all – was right. That hypothesis would still need to be validated by evidence and experimentation.

Moreover, it would need to state clearly exactly what would falsify it.

Until they had succeeded in doing this their hypothesis would still be just one of an infinite array of possible alternative hypotheses and, even restricting these hypotheses to origin myths, it would have no more going for it that any other origin myth.

Hovind is here knowingly perpetuating one of the oldest and most dishonest fallacies; the false dichotomy. He is falsely implying that, if science is wrong, his is the only alternative and so becomes right by default. It doesn’t, and to imply differently is dishonest. It is a disgraceful attempt to exploit the general level of ignorance and stupidity he assumes in his target audience and which he works assiduously to perpetuate.

Hovind's questions also subscribe to the 'god of the gaps' fallacy. This makes the entirely fallacies assumption that, if there is something science hasn't yet answered, the ONLY possible answer is that God did it. This is, of course, nonsense, but it plays again to the general level of ignorance and stupidity Hovind assumes in his target audience. Not satisfied with that deceit however, Hovind over-does things by making up gaps where none exist.

Creationists have never produced a single piece of scientific data which supports their hypothesis; they have never performed, or even described, experiments which validate it, and they will never say what would falsify it. For these reasons alone it has no place in any discussion of alternative scientific theories. It barely deserved to be called a hypothesis in the scientific meaning of the word. A 'notion' would perhaps be more accurate.

The only reason creationist attack science and especially the TOE is because it conflicts with their theology. That is not a problem for science; it is a problem for their theology. They are struggling to reconcile an illogical belief in a myth for which there is no evidence and the ever-increasing scientific evidence which shows it to be wrong. An honest person would accept the evidence and admit to being wrong.

So, 'Dr' Kent Hovind, you say you have many more such questions for evolutionists. Post them, and this time let’s hope they actually relate to evolution and deal with real problems for evolution theory, and that they show you to be less of a charlatan than these ten.

Oh! And while you're at it, could you please say what evidence you would accept as validating the Big Bang Theory and the Theory of Evolution. An honest critic of these would have no difficulty in so doing.

And maybe you could answer my simple question - which science books did you study when looking for answers to those questions, and what did you not understand?

Feel free to respond.




submit to reddit




Income from ads will be donated to charities such as moderate centre-left groups, humanist, humanitarian and wildlife protection and welfare organisations.


Thursday, 29 July 2010

The Evolution of God

Whenever you’re wondering about the origins of something in human evolution or human culture, think 'East African plains'. The East African plains are where almost all our modern characteristics evolved. That's where we evolved upright walking, fully opposable thumbs and, perhaps most importantly, our brains.

As our brains developed we developed pattern-recognition, maybe firstly for facial recognition, which led us later to develop reading and writing skills, amongst other things. Early on however, it helped us to track animals by recognising the footprints of the different prey and predator species. We are probably the only species which can look at a set of footprints and ‘read’ the information in them. We can tell the species, or at least the family – big cat, dog, antelope, ostrich, etc - and we can tell where it came from, where it was going and, with a little learning, how long ago it passed by.

All this is invaluable information for both catching lunch and avoiding becoming something else’s lunch. Inheritors of these skills, in the presence of a powerful brain, would have had enormous advantage, so the genetic variations which facilitated them would have spread rapidly through the gene-pool.

Our brain allowed us to learn these skills and to pass them on to the next generation, and the ability to teach and to learn also allowed us to develop cultures by establishing group norms and ethics, and to pass these on to the next generation. Group cohesion and, especially, group identity would have been enhanced by these cultural norms, inculcated from birth and accepted as ‘right’ by the whole group. Failure to comply would have meant exclusion from the group – not a very attractive prospect for a species which is relatively weak as an individual but immensely strong when part of a coordinated group.

Incidentally, Man is not alone in developing cultures which are passed from one generation to the next. The other African apes all have observable cultural differences between groups, as do some more distantly related simian species such as macaques, and baboons. Dolphins and killer whales also have distinct cultural groups and even some species of bird have local (i.e., cultural) calls and songs.

But I digress.

Early humans were now inheriting two different sorts of replicators. They were inheriting biological genes which determined their physical form and they were inheriting cultural or 'memory genes', more correctly now known as memes, which determined their culture, group norms and ethics.

Just as with the other African ape species, we would probably have lived in small groups of related individuals, each group dominated by an alpha male. This alpha male would have won his ‘right’ to be leader and the size of the group would have been related to how many individuals this alpha male (and maybe his alpha female mate) could exert control over. The alpha male would have had first pick of the females and would have enforced this right, maybe through a group of loyal supporters, by the sanction of physical punishment against those who infringed his right or who threatened his dominance. The idea that the alpha male had this right would have been passed on from one generation to the next as a group norm or ethic.

In evolutionary terms, there would be an advantage in the alpha male passing on the genes which enabled him to dominate and the group would have benefited by being more likely to be led by a strong male able to dominate and lead. However, there would have been an evolutionary arms race between these ‘alpha male’ genes and genes which predisposed to illicit sexual activity, since these genes would have enjoyed the protection of the alpha male. Whether these ‘genes’ were actual DNA genes or memes, inherited as part of group culture, is immaterial. The fact is that human groups would have been evolving by gene-meme co-evolution. Replicators have no concern for the nature of the other replicators with which they form alliances.

Now, place yourself in such a group in the plains of East Africa. The plains of East Africa have very many rocky out-crops which offer shelter and which are good vantage points from which to survey the surrounding plain. These outcrops also give the alpha male good vantage points from which to survey the group and keep an eye on what’s going on: who’s doing what and with whom, with particular regard to illicit sexual activity. Alternatively, other males and females will be trying to evade his watchful eye, and those of his supporters.

It is easy to see how this idea of a dominant alpha male, who is at the same time, the strong leader on whom the group depends, and the vengeful deliverer of pain and suffering for any transgression of the group norms, came to evolve in human culture. It is also easy to see why this alpha male takes a special interest in the sexual activities of his 'subjects', and is especially concerned that females remain inactive until he's had his turn, or at least sanctioned their mating.

Domination of his group through controlling their sexual activity ensures his genes get priority and he can also use this control as a reward system to ensure obedience. Meanwhile other selection forces are ensuring continued 'illicit' sexual activity, even making this thrilling and exciting.

Now, move on two or three hundred thousand years and remove man from the East African plains. Place him now in larger nomadic tribes or into settled farming communities and towns across Africa, Europe, Asia and into the Americas. Now there is no place for a single alpha male to sit and watch the whole group and the group is too large or diverse for him to dominate it, yet he still exists in the culture. The memes which arose on the plains of East Africa are still being replicated down through the generations. So many of our cultural ideas have been conditioned by the alpha male's presence and have evolved in an environment in which he exists, but the physical reality of the alpha male has now been replaced by the cultural idea of one.

The alpha male now sits on some imaginary vantage point overlooking the tribe, still the benevolent protector and leader, the guardian of the law, and the vengeful enforcer of his right to grant permission for sexual activity and for whose permission all, but especially the females, must wait until he grants it through the symbolic ceremony of marriage.

His loyal supporters who act as his enforcers, still exist though. They have become a self-selecting band who act as though the alpha male still exists and whose claim to power and authority is that they represent him and are doing his bidding. They have become his priesthood.

Welcome to the god hypothesis: the imaginary benevolent leader who is also the object of fear; the loving protector who punishes transgression and who takes a special interest in our sexual activities. The man whose authority to rule is now so deeply embedded in human culture that many regard it as a sin punishable by unimaginable pain and suffering and withdrawal of the alpha male's 'love' even to question it. And the leader who may just take it into his head to show us his power by some random act of indiscriminate violence if we're not very careful.

God: a cultural idea which is a fossil relic of our evolution as an ape on the plains of East Africa.

Cultural evolution explains both the origin of the idea of a god and its fallacy. The cultural idea of a god is evidence of human evolution as an ape on the plains of East Africa.





submit to reddit




Thursday, 22 July 2010

The Nature of Atheist Belief

A charge frequently levelled at Atheist is that Atheism is a belief system just like religion, so let’s look at what 'belief' actually means.

Scientific belief is not an absolute position, but is always subject to review, revision and, when justified by evidence or logical deduction, abandonment. No scientific belief is sacred and unchallengeable, save perhaps the belief that no scientific belief is sacred and unchallengeable.

1. Strong scientific belief
I believe that, when I drop a stone it will fall towards earth. This belief is based on a life-time of experience, the knowledge that Earth has gravity and that gravity will cause it to happen, based in turn on the acceptance of the body of scientific opinion that gravity will cause a small object to fall towards a large one (though this latter explains how gravity works and so only explains what I can observe for myself).

My belief that a stone will always fall under gravity is strong because it is evidence-based and can be repeatedly tested in experiments. However, it allows for the possibility that one day a stone may fail to fall and so overthrow the entire theory of gravity, necessitating a complete revision of some basic scientific principles. And, of course, in the special circumstances which might prevail at some future state of the Universe, there may be no gravity so a stone would not then fall to Earth, although in such circumstances there would be no Earth, no stone and no-one to drop it.

2. Weak scientific belief.
I believe that Manchester United could win the Premier League next season. This belief is derived from the fact that there IS a Premier League in which Football teams compete and that Manchester United is a team in that league. These are factual observations which can be independently verified. I also believe that Manchester United have a team capable of winning the Premier League. This is based on the evidence of past results.

However, this belief in a possible outcome is NOT a strong belief because I also have a belief in several possible, mutually exclusive, alternative outcomes. I also believe that any other team in the Premiership could win the title. Given sufficient time and information, the probability of any one of them doing so could be ranked in order of probability, though maybe never accurately since some of the required information is itself subject to probability and uncertainty. However, it MAY be possible to reach a broad measure of confidence in the approximate final position of most teams, so my belief that Manchester United could win the title can be given an approximate measure of confidence.

Note: this latter belief differs from my belief in gravity only in the degree of confidence. Both are observation-based and can be scientifically verified, yet both are subject to probability and both allow for the possibility of being wrong. The probability of a stone not falling under gravity is very low (almost, but not quite, zero); the probability of Manchester United winning the Premiership may be less than 50%, however, my belief is only in the POSSIBILITY of it happening, not in the certainty of it, so I have complete confidence that it is possible, though it may not be probable.

3. Religious belief
Religious belief never allows for the possibility of being wrong. Faith is certainty, based on unchallengeable ‘truths’ which must be accepted a priori. No observations or experimental testing is required. Indeed, the act of doing so is an act of doubt which is contrary to faith and tantamount to heresy. Given the choice between faith-based ‘knowledge’ and evidence which refutes that knowledge, the true believer will choose faith and dismiss the contrary evidence.

4. The difference
So what is the fundamental difference between scientific belief and religious belief?

With scientific belief, the observer adopts a position subservient to the factual, observable, or logically deducible evidence and bases their belief, and their confidence in that belief in that evidence. The believer is subservient to, and is humbled by, the evidence.

A consequence of this subservience is that there can be no belief in its absence. Evidence drives belief, so, with no evidential drivers there can be no belief. This is where atheist arrive at their belief that there are no gods. There is no evidence for them so no belief that they exist. To believe they do so would be the equivalent of believing in a force which moves a stone horizontally when dropped. To believe in the absence of evidence is to adopt the religious position.

With religious belief, the ‘observer’ adopts a superior position and holds the view that something MUST be true simply because they believe it. The ‘knowledge’ they derive from their faith needs no evidential or logical support. Indeed, observational evidence is immaterial and irrelevant. The observer is superior to the evidence and can determine ‘truth’ by belief alone. In effect, religious belief is the assumption that the Universe is subservient to the will of the believer and facts only exist if permitted so to do.

As an Atheist, I find the arrogance of the religious position to be an affront to the Universe and an abuse of what must be one of the greatest creations of evolution – the human brain and the mind it allows us to have. It is an affront to humanity.

In the unlikely event that there is a sentient creator of the Universe, it is difficult to believe that it would not also be affronted by the arrogance of religious belief.
Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...
Web Analytics