If Creationism Is Science, Why Do They Need Tactics?

Creationist debating tactics all boil down to a single two-step strategy. Looking at these gives us a very strong clue both to those at whom they are aimed and the scant regard to honesty and integrity of those who use them.

1. Attack some obscure aspect of science, usually, but not always, something which impinges directly of their favourite mythical account of creation by a magic man using magic to make it all out of nothing. This can take several forms, including but not limited to:
   
   
   • Attacking a ridiculous parody of science.
   • Claiming something which has been explained either hasn't been or can't be explained.
   • Magnifying some obscure aspect about which there is disagreement in the science community and claiming this shows scientists can't agree about anything.
   • Claiming that something science does not yet know proves that this is unknowable and therefore science is flawed and can't answer questions.
   • Pointing to mistakes, revised or discarded earlier theories or even attempted hoaxes which some scientist may have been fooled briefly by, as proof that science gets things wrong. This can include representing mistaken or falsified accounts in the popular press as serious science, even when these have later been corrected.
   • Claiming that withdrawn papers or discarded theories are still part of the body of science and still presented as current theories, even referencing old books and journals as evidence.
   • Presenting an out of context quote from a famous scientist such as Darwin or Einstein and claiming is shows they didn't believe their own theory.
   • Confusing philosophical questions with science and claiming science is flawed because it can't tell you the purpose of your life, what the universe was created for or who made the scientific laws.
   • Lying.
2. Claim that this destroys the entire body of science and therefore their favourite notions wins by default.
   
   Thing which will never form part of their strategy are:
   
   
   • A falsifiable claim or prediction based on their god-did-it notion.
   • A statement of what they would accept as proof of the science they are attacking.
   • a description of the checkable evidence upon which their notion is based and an explanation of why it can only have the interpretation they ascribe to it.
   • A statement of what they would accept as falsifying it.

Quite clearly this strategy is designed to appeal to those who:

1. Don't understand science or the subject being attacked and will believe if you can create any degree of uncertainty over any aspect of science, or can show, accurately or not, that science was ever wrong about anything, the whole thing collapses.
2. Through cultural arrogance, parochial ignorance or a combination of both, will simply assume without question that the locally popular god is the only alternative on offer.
3. Crave the comfort of certainty and find anything which shakes that certainty uncomfortable and/or frightening and so are disinclined to question basic assumptions or learn anything which might cause them to call those basic assumptions into question.
4. Are deriving some sort of spurious self-affirmation from the thought that their inherited superstition automatically trumps anything which 'those crazy/elitist propeller-heads in white coats' and/or 'evil conspiracists' are dreaming up.

---

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

A Favourite Fallacious Fallacy

I couldn't find a picture of the Taxicab Fallacy so here's a parrot to represent people who spout apologetic fallacies without thinking about them. Yes, I know it's not a parrot, it's a kestrel, but you can't use that error to prove it's not a parrot. Taxicab fallacy you see.

Taking up the theme of Christian 'logic' again, I was pondering on a comment, left on my blog "How Dan Destroys The Bible" by someone who, perhaps understandably, wants to remain anonymous.

"In no sense is an argument a valid one if it is built upon the accuracy of what it is arguing is inaccurate. If the bible is false, then those entries are false, and cannot, therefore be used as part of your argument to show that the bible is false. You've created a loop. If those entries are true, then the bible is true, therefore your argument is false."

I understand this is known as the "Taxicab Fallacy" and is a favourite of Christian apologist and genocide and child-murder defender, William Lane Craig. For an excellent blog on this see The Fallacy of the "Taxi Cab Fallacy" by Plasma Engineer.

I thought it might be fun to see what we can do with this device which Christians and Muslims try to use to overcome the embarrassment of having holy books supposedly written/inspired by omniscient gods but which contain mistakes of fact or reason.

Imagine you're in court charged with a crime of which you are completely innocent and the prosecution have put up a statement by an eye-witness as evidence against you. The statement says the crime was committed on a Tuesday afternoon by a 6 feet tall, 220 lbs (15 stone 12 lbs if you're not American) woman with red hair and one leg. Your defence has pointed out that you are a 5 feet 6 inch male with black hair and the full complement of legs, and that the crime was actually committed on a Friday morning.

"Ah!", Say the prosecution, "but you can't use the errors in the statement to prove the statement is false because in no sense is an argument a valid one if it is built upon the accuracy of what it is arguing is inaccurate. If the statement is false, then those entries are false, and cannot, therefore be used as part of your argument to show that the statement is false. Therefore you have no grounds for questioning the accuracy of the witness statement".

"Got a good point there!", says your defence lawyer. "Can't dispute that logic!"

I wonder if my anonymous contributor would put his hands up and admit he/she must be guilty in that case because the witness statement is obviously true, or whether he would fire his defence lawyer.

I'm wondering is this 'logic' is just confined to written words or if it applies to other faulty things. In the UK we have a consumer-protection law called the "Trade Descriptions Act" which makes it an offence to lie about goods offered for sale. For example, it is illegal to state that a food item contains fewer calories than it actually contains, or that a washing powder makes your children glow in the dark when it doesn't.

I wonder if a rogue trader could get away with arguing that you can't use these errors as proof that his descriptions were wrong and misleading because, if the description is false, then those entries are false, and cannot, therefore be used as part of your argument to show that the description is false. The description is therefore true and not misleading.

I think if I took my car to the local garage because the lights didn't work and was told that the lights must be working because you can't use the fault to prove there is a fault with the lights, I might well use another garage in future.

As we can see, religious apologists have no worries about using the tactics of false witnesses, rogue traders or cowboy mechanics to pull the wool over the eyes of their followers who seem to have so much wool between their ears that this is almost too easy to do.

---

Favourite Fallacies - Pascal's Blunder

Blaise Pascal (1623-1662)

Blaise Pascal (1623-1662) was a French mathematician, philosopher, physicist, inventor and writer.

Also known as Pascal's Gambit, Pascal's Wager is the suggestion that, because the existence of God (and by that he meant the Christian god of course) can't be determined by pure reason, a person should 'wager' that one existed. He reasoned that if it turns out (i.e. is 'discovered' after death) that there is no god, then one has lost nothing. If it turns out that there is one, then one has gained everything. So, in effect, one is betting nothing against infinity.

Apart from its abject, and frankly disgraceful, abandonment of reason, in the implicit assumption that reality can be determined by a wager, where else does Pascal's Wager fail?

Well, as many people have pointed out, and as many apologists for other gods have shown, Pascal's Wager can be just as easily used for ANY deity, whether actually believe by anyone or merely hypothetical, whose supporters claim promises eternal life to believers and eternal suffering for non-believers. Indeed, it is frequently used for the Abrahamic god.


But apart from that damaging error, there are several unstated and fatal assumptions in Pascal's Wager which show that it only 'works' if you assume a priori the following:

1. There is an after-life - requiring a priori belief in the existence of a god and a soul.
2. The Abrahamic belief in Heaven and Hell is valid - requiring a priori belief in the existence of the Abrahamic god.
3. That the Abrahamic god is the only god, requiring a priori belief in the existence of the Abrahamic god.

What if we exclude these assumptions?

1. The wager fails since there is no difference in outcome no matter which we opt to bet on.
2. The wager fails because what happens, even if there is an after-life, may not depend on which option you bet on.
3. The wager fails because you will have almost certainly lost everything by opting to believe in the wrong god. With an infinite array of all possible gods being bet against just one, the bet to believe becomes indistinguishable from the bet not to belive.

So, without these a priori assumptions, where does that leave Pascal's Wager? It leaves it as a gamble in which you opt either to sacrifice your intellectual integrity, independence of thought and action and responsibility for your own beliefs and actions, against a life of freedom, personal integrity, self-reliance and personal responsibility.

You surrender freedom and self-respect in favour of abject, cringing, voluntary slavery.

And what benign, benevolent, loving god could respect a person who did that?

And this is the final nail in the coffin of Pascal's Wager: as any god with an IQ above that of a cucumber should be able to work out, it assumes the god it purports to promote is too stupid to notice that it's 'believers' don't have any real reason to believe in it but are just pretending to believe in case it's true.

In fact, Pascal's Wager, far from being the trump card many apologists like to keep up their sleeve for when they look like losing, actually shows what poor, tenuous things religious faiths, especially the Abrahamic faiths, are that they need to depend on such weak and hypocritical fallacies and implied threats to maintain themselves.

Pascal's Wager is an attempt to fool an omniscient god.

Or is it an attempt to fool a gullible people by those who know they're pushing a lie?

---

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

Fooling The People All Of The Time

Surely you've heard the story of the Emperor's new clothes, haven't you? Well, skip the next few paragraphs if you have then.

A conman went to the Emperor and told him he could make him a suit of clothes so fine, with such minute stitching, that only the most discerning; the most refined of people could see them in all their finery. He showed the Emperor an empty package which he said contained a sample of his handiwork. The Emperor, not wanting to appear coarse and unrefined, agreed that the sample was indeed the finest work he had ever seen, and ordered the conman to make him a full suit and to spare no expense. He would show the courtiers and nobility in his empire how refined he was. No one would doubt his refinement ever again. Not that they ever had, mind you.

The conman went away and dutifully delivered an empty package, and a very large bill, a few days later. The Emperor called all his courtiers together to see him in his new clothes after telling them they would only see them if they could appreciate their true finery. Not wanting to appear coarse and uncouth either, they all agreed that the clothes were the finest and most beautiful they had ever seen and complimented the Emperor on his good taste and discerning character.

It was agreed that they would hold a parade in the town so the Emperor could impress the townsfolk with his refinement and great taste in clothes. All the citizens were told the story of the new clothes and how only the most intelligent; the most refined of people could appreciate their wondrous beauty and the great skill of the tailor.

All that is apart from a young boy.

Yep. You've guessed it. The young boy noticed that the Emperor was starkers and said so.

He had scarcely got out the words, "Is that a ferret, Dad?" when a hand was clamped over his mouth and he was rounded on by all the townspeople and accused of blasphemy; of being possessed by evil demons who had blinded him to the truth, and the Emperor rode on and the people all went home, none of them daring to mention that they hadn't actually seen any clothes either in case they were treated like the little boy. Some of them even believed they may really be possessed by demons or had something wrong with them.

This is called peer pressure.

Patriot Bible University, Colorado, USA

The conman? Oh, he got away with it and set up a tailor's shop in the town and became very rich pulling the same trick time after time and even being admired for his great skill at tailoring. Later he set up a college to teach Tailor studies from which you could buy degrees in Tailoring. Graduate conmen went to other towns and countries and set up shops everywhere. Pretty soon you could see lots of people proudly showing off their new clothes and still no one had the courage to admit they couldn't see them because they thought they must have the wrong faith in tailoring.

Have you noticed how religious theologians come up with all manner of obscure philosophical arguments and tell us only the most intelligent; the most discerning; those possessed of the necessary refinements and understanding can see the obvious logic in them?

The Emperor's new tailor.

Have you noticed how few people have the courage to stand up and say, "Er... well... actually, that didn't make any sense at all", and so how everyone is left thinking they may be the only ones who can't understand the argument and that they may be the ones with the problem? And of course, those who haven't followed the argument at all will often be loudest in their praise of it, hoping to convince others that they have understood it.

Go to a meeting addressed by William Lane Craig or any of the many religious apologists currently plying their trade to appreciative audiences across the world for very large sums of money. Or just go to a church on a Sunday and watch the audience enthusiastically agreeing with the preacher, making large donations and never raising a voice in doubt.

This is called peer pressure.

Conforming with peer-pressure it's the most important human characteristic which theologians and other religious conmen and snake-oil salesmen exploit.

---

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

Christian Logic. No! Really!

Believe it or not, this is a theological argument used by the Christian apologist, Norman Geisler. I have taken it from "Why I became an Atheist: A Former Preacher Rejects Christianity" by John W. Loftus.

Supposedly, each step leads inexorably to the next in a 'logical' progression towards a therefore irrefutable conclusion:

1. Truth about reality is knowable.
2. Opposites cannot both be true.
3. The theistic God exists.
4. Miracles are possible.
5. Miracles performed in connection with a truth claim are acts of God to confirm the truth of Gods through a messenger of God.
6. The New Testament documents are reliable.
7. As Witnessed in the New Testament, Jesus claimed to be God.
8. Jesus' claim do divinity was proven by a unique convergence of miracles.
9. Therefore, Jesus was God in human flesh.
10. Whatever Jesus (who is God) affirmed as truth, is true.
11. Jesus affirmed that the Bible is the word of God and whatever is opposed to any biblical truth is false.

Can anyone discern a logical progression leading inexorably and irrefutably to the conclusion here? Apart from maybe the first two points, is there anything which is more than just an assertion or a statement of faith, with no connection with the preceding statement?

Let's see if it works with some other proposition. Let's see if we can use this method to 'prove' that the Pacific Ocean is composed of Scotch Whisky.

1. Truth about Whisky is knowable.
2. Opposites cannot both be true.
3. The Pacific Ocean is compose of Scotch Whisky.
4. Scotch Whisky is possible.
5. Scotch Whisky made in connection with the claim that the Pacific Ocean is made of Scotch Whisky is an act of people who distil Scotch Whisky to confirm the truth of the claim.
6. This blog is reliable.
7. As witnessed in this blog, the Pacific Ocean is composed of Scotch Whisky.
8. The claim that the Pacific Ocean is made of Scotch Whisky has been proven by the miracle of sea water turning into Scotch Whisky in the Pacific Ocean.
9. Therefore the Pacific Ocean is composed of Scotch Whisky.
10. Whatever is affirmed in this blog is true.
11. This blog affirms that the Pacific Ocean is composed of Scotch Whisky and whatever opposes the truth in this blog is false.

YAYHEY! It works!

Pacific Ocean, Made of Scotch Whisky

So, using Christian 'logic', we have 'proved' beyond any possible shadow of doubt that the Pacific Ocean is composed of Scotch Whisky. And, anything which opposes that, including scientific analysis, is false. So that proves it, then!

Given that devastating demonstration of the wondrous power of this theological reasoning, how can anyone now seriously doubt the existence of the Christian god and the truth of the Bible?

Well, that, folks, is the standard of 'logic' which convinces religious people and so gives them the self-confidence to dispense 'truth' to the rest of us and to pontificate on and interfere in all aspects of our lives, the education of our children, our laws and our legal system.

Or is it just the clever-sounding hogwash they use to bamboozle the people they fleece for a living and to gain a power and trust they could never earn on merit?

---

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

So Creationists, A Universe From Nothing?

Hardly an hour goes by without some Christian or Muslim fundamentalist posting a message on Twitter to the effect that Atheism/Evolution is the belief that nothing went bang and magically created everything, or some such infantile parody of science.

Of course, a few minutes on Google, or reading a book on Big Bang cosmology would dispel that cherished myth and I have dealt with this several times in this blog, here and here and here, so I'm not going to rehearse the science yet again.

Instead, let's look at what Christians and Muslims believe.

Um... well, strangely enough, they believe the universe was magically created out of nothing.

How odd that they believe the very thing they wrongly ridicule Atheists for believing. How odd that the infantile parody they accuse Atheists of believing is the very thing they believe themselves.

Anyone would think Creationists no more know what they believe than they know what Atheists believe.

So, Christians and Muslims, instead of showing your ignorance by being wrong about Atheism, how about showing us your knowledge by answering the following simple question:

Favourite Oxymorons - Religious Logic

One of the more absurd arguments for religion (in this case Christianity) I've seen today is:

"If God doesn't exist then there would be no Atheists so the existence of Atheists proves God exists".

No. Honestly!

By the same 'logic' if football didn't exist there would be no such thing as not playing football. Therefore it follows everyone would be playing football... if there was no such thing as football!

Yes, folks. People who think that makes any sense can readily fall for religions.

Let's see if we can get away with telling them that if there were no such thing as Atheism, everyone would be Atheist. We may even be able to get them to campaign for more Atheism so there would be fewer Atheists.

---

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

The God of Personal Necessity

Words of Delusion

This is probably the second most popular religious fallacy and, like the God of the Gaps fallacy is accepted by very many otherwise intelligent people. Like the God of the Gaps fallacy it too is so ludicrous when spelled out that it's astonishing that it's even attempted, yet it crops up time and again in discussion with believers of all creeds.

It takes several forms but essentially the argument is always, there must be a god otherwise the consequences would be [something undesirable, unpleasant or otherwise unacceptable].

Some examples are: