The Fighting Skeptic

Ghost Hunters

2010-08-22T21:23:00.000+10:00

The other day, my son was watching Ghost Hunters International. Don't ask me why - he also watches Whale Wars (and that's another blog post entirely). Anyway, I was sitting here making snide comments about it and at one point I said "You know, there's never been a Ghost Hunters show where at the end they say 'actually, we found absolutely nothing paranormal here'."

What happened next? They "investigated" the castle of Vlad Tepes in Romania. And in the end, they said "Actually, we found absolutely nothing paranormal here".

Huh?

What happened? Can it really be believed?

Well, yes actually. The reason is simple. The person who approached the show (the current owner of the castle) to request an investigation was concerned about tourism. He requested the GHI team investigation because tourists were being frightened away by all the ghost stories about the castle. Of course they were going to find nothing paranormal - of course they wanted to make this guy happy by stating categorically that the castle isn't haunted. I can't say whether there was any kind of financial transaction involved, obviously - they don't make those kinds of details public. But at the very least it's great for marketing. The tourists can see the sign that says "Certified Ghost Free!" with the Ghost Hunters and SyFy Channel logos on it, and they'll go watch the show. Obviously.

Alien Landscapes

2010-08-18T19:09:00.000+10:00

Time for another photography post!

A couple of years ago (2008) I went on a holiday with my partner to South Australia, and I took quite a lot of photos. While in Goolwa, I noticed all these little yellow flowers about the landscape - Soursobs. Since I like taking pictures of flowers, I thought I'd get a nice close-up of one of these. I ended up lying on my belly, looking up at these tiny flowers. This is one of the pictures I got:

I liked this perspective so much that for the rest of the holiday I looked for more opportunities for shots from this low point of view.

I really liked the way it took quite small plants and makes them appear larger-than-life. For this reason I dubbed this style of photograph my "Alien Landscapes".

Free Will - A Dialogue

2010-07-31T22:31:00.001+10:00

Characters:

Salviati: a skeptic
Sagredo: an atheist
Simplicio: a Christian

Salviati: It is so good to see the both of you back again for some more intelligent discourse. I was starting to think that your fundamental differences were getting in the way of your friendship.

Simplicio: Of course not. Although Sagredo is clearly a heretical infidel and will suffer eternal damnation for it, I would not be a very good Christian if I let this get in the way of friendship.

Sagredo: My friend, is my damnation surely such an inevitability?

Simplicio: OF course! Unless you renounce your sinful ways and accept the Lord into your heart, you will be judged in the end of days and found wanting. I of course would prefer not to see you suffer that fate, but I know that you are incorrigible.

Sagredo: I like to think that if God exists, then He is kind and loving enough to recognise that I am fundamentally a good man, and will not damn me outright for simply refusing to bow and worship Him when He provided no good evidence for His existence.

Simplicio: Then, alas, you are doomed.

Salviati: But does it have to be so?

Simplicio: What do you mean?

Salviati: I mean, is Sagredo's damnation predestined, inevitable?

Simplicio: Of course not. God gave us free will in order that we may choose to serve Him.

Salviati: Sagredo, could you choose to avoid this awful fate by accepting the existence and dominance of God - what Simplicio poetically describes as "letting God into your heart"?

Sagredo: I very much doubt it. At this point in my life, it would take an epic miracle to convince me that God is real and worthy of my worship.

Salviati: So in fact, you can't simply choose to believe.

Sagredo: I suppose that this is true. I have no free will in the matter.

Simplicio: Don't be ridiculous. Of course you do. You could choose right now to become a believer.

Sagredo: I disagree. I have read many stories about people who were converted after specific experiences where, apparently, God manifested Himself directly into their lives, and it never sounds much like them making a free choice. Take the story of Saul on the road to Damascus.

Simplicio: Of course. Saul, fresh from persecuting the followers of Jesus, experiences a great light from heaven and a voice saying "Saul, Saul, why do you persecute me?"

Sagredo: Exactly. God is right there in his face, with all the divine majesty He can muster. Saul sees the light, hears the voice, and is struck blind for three days. It doesn't exactly sound like Saul had much of a choice! Under the circumstances, could he really have simply said to God "no, go away, I'm not interested"?

Simplicio: When you put it like that, I suppose so. But the issue of free will is somewhat deeper than that. It's not about the big issues. We all encounter situations in our lives that seem to leave us with no choice. The point is that we have free will. We can choose to go left or right, to have bread or soup for lunch...

Salviati: To fall in love with a man or a woman...

Sagredo: Right. You can't tell me that Salviati has any choice in his sexual preference.

Salviati: Forgive me, but that is a subject for another discussion and only a peripheral example in this one.

Sagredo: Of course. My point is that any apparent "choice" I make is a consequences of innumerable prior events, each of which is itself determined by innumerable prior events.

Simplicio: And so on back to the First Cause.

Sagredo: The Big Bang, yes.

Simplicio: So what you're saying is that there is no free will at all - that our actions are determined by prior events, our future course is all laid out and we can't influence it in any way.

Sagredo: Don't confuse determinism with predestination. If God is both timeless and omniscient, then predestination is immediately implied by that. However, that's not what I'm talking about.

Salviati: So do you think there is free will?

Sagredo: In the sense that there is a "soul" or homunculus which holds executive control over my actions, no.

Simplicio: Then your actions are predetermined.

Sagredo: Well, yes. Our actions are determined by the events that come before. However, the influences of other events are so numerous and varied that tracking their influences is well-nigh impossible.

Salviati: Newtonian physics is deterministic. If you know the position and velocity of every particle in the universe at a specific time, you could predict future events with 100% certainty.

Simplicio: But now we know that Newton was wrong - there are some events that cannot be predicted.

Sagredo: Sort of. The principles of quantum mechanics - particularly Heisenberg's principle of uncertainty - demonstrate that it is impossible to know the position and location of any particle with complete accuracy. However, this does not actually mean that events aren't determined.

Simplicio: I don't understand.

Sagredo: I'm afraid that's not surprising. I don't exactly understand it either. But the idea is that while specific quantum events aren't predictable, these events are on a very small scale. When many are considered together, their effects are aggregated into a form that is quite predictable.

Salviati: Specifically, the probabilities associated with certain quantum events are measurable and predictable. But the intricacies of quantum mechanics are also beside the point here.

Simplicio: Basically your point is that a vast number of predictable, determined events, combine in such a complex way as to give us the illusion that we are acting under our own free will.

Sagredo: Exactly. Even our thoughts are determined by the deterministic firing of neurons in our brains.

Simplicio: I know very little about how brains work.

Sagredo: I have some knowledge, but not that of an expert.

Salviati: Perhaps that can be the subject of our next discourse.

Simplicio: I would very much enjoy that. For now though, I must bid you farewell. I have a baptism to attend.

Sagredo: May you gain much pleasure from that meaninless ritual.

Simplicio: Thank you, my friend. Farewell!

Salviati: Remember that we still have not discussed morality in an agnostic framework.

Sagredo: Of course! Something to look forward to!

(exeunt)

Rationalism

2010-07-13T21:41:00.000+10:00

Image via Wikipedia

You should read this blog post: Skeptopia: Re-Branding.

I'm pretty much completely in agreement here. I have called myself a Skeptic, and I have called myself an Atheist. However, I do consider the two to be separate - since there are Skeptics who are not Atheists (Martin Gardner) and there are Atheists who are not Skeptics (Bill Maher). So neither label really sums me up.

However, Skeptopia's label - or rather Skeptopia's husband's label - of Rationalist kinda works for me. Rationalism is all about using reason and science to explore the world. Rationalism values verification by evidence and experiment. This is independent from Skepticism for one primary reason. Skepticism is about questioning and correcting claims that are made without evidence. In a sense, being a skeptic is about using evidence to disprove claims. That's not quite the same as being rational.

Atheism also comes with a big bag of worms. For a start, it's a loaded term for many Christians. Polls regularly place atheists as the most mistrusted minority. Religious people believe (incorrectly, as it turns out) that atheists have no foundation for a sense of morality. Also, atheism is in essence a negative claim - I do not believe.

Both of these ideas are negative in concept. I perceive no evidence to support your claim. I do not believe in God. Rationalism involves actively exploring the universe, using science and evidence as the tools to do so. It feels much better to me to be making a positive statement about myself rather than adopting a negative attitude.

Yes, I'm sure I'll take some flak for saying this. There are some people who feel that skepticism, or atheism, is itself a positive stance. There is absolutely a place for skepticism, and a place for atheism. Both have engendered vibrant, lively communities that do make a positive contribution to the world. I value both, and will continue to participate in both.

I am an atheist. I am a skeptic.

But more importantly, I am a rationalist.

I saw a UFO

2010-07-10T20:41:00.001+10:00

It was when I was in the USA for TAM7, July 2009. Because Canberra to Las Vegas is an awful long way to go for a long weekend, I had organised with friends to spend the week in Los Angeles, and to visit the Grand Canyon and Meteor Crater before heading in to Vegas. It was on the trip from Arizona to Vegas that I saw the UFO.

I don't know if you know this, but the road from Meteor Crater to Vegas, which eventually crosses the Hoover Dam, has a section of very long, straight road. Really long. I think were were on that road for about two and a half hours, travelling at 70mph. There wasn't much to look at, and that's perhaps why I noticed it.

It was a bright light, very high in the sky. It appeared to be travelling at least as fast as we were. The sky was cloudless, so it was hard to judge its altitude. It followed us for several minutes, then completely vanished. It didn't fade out, or change direction (in fact, it didn't change direction even once while I watched it). It just disappeared.

Here's my point. I did not know then, and do not know now, what it was. It remains unidentified. It was an unidentified flying object - a UFO.

Now I happen to think that it was an airliner, or perhaps the ISS, which happened to reflect the sun in my direction for a time. It didn't do anything out of the ordinary, didn't appear to be breaking any laws of physics - although from my perspective it appeared to be travelling very fast - and I have absolutely no reason at all to believe that it was anything extraterrestrial.

In some peoples' minds, the anecdote I have presented would be considered evidence that it was an extraterrestrial craft. Although to be fair, most alien advocates would simply say that it might have been extraterrestrial. After all, the only unusual things that it did were appear to travel very fast, and disappear at the end of the sighting. However, it shows a difference between the mind of a believer and the mind of a skeptic.

My first thought was "Oh, it's probably an airliner". Their first thought is "Oh, it might be extraterrestrial!" A skeptic does not leap to any conclusion that seems out of the ordinary. The starting assumption is that whatever it is, it probably has a simple explanation. Extraterrestrials visiting earth is not a simple explanation.

Even if extraterrestrial intelligent life can, physically, visit earth, I don't think they'll be setting down alongside some poor guy no-one's going to believe, and strutting up and down wearing silly antennae on their heads making "beep beep" noises.

Atheism and Agnosticism - a Dialogue

2010-07-07T15:42:00.002+10:00

Characters:

Salviati: a skeptic
Sagredo: an atheist
Simplicio: a Christian

Salviati: Welcome back, my friends. I believe that we were discussing whether one could be a religious skeptic or not.

Simplicio: Of course, and it is still my opinion that the answer is self-evident, since there are many skeptics who are also religious, such as Martin Gardner.

Sagredo: And it is still my opinion that atheism is the logical result of critical thinking. If some subjects (such as religion) are exempt from skepticism, then what is the point of being a skeptic?

Simplicio: Well, it all depends on what the claim is that you are examining, doesn't it? Would you agree that murder is bad?

Sagredo: Of course. Depriving another person of their life is an evil act.

Simplicio: How can an atheist determine what is good and evil without reference to an external morality? Part of the purpose of religion is to provide a clearly-defined morality that can govern life for the betterment of society.

Sagredo: Is Christian morality absolute?

Simplicio: Of course!

Sagredo: Then why does it change?

Simplicio: Change?

Sagredo: Of course! Christian morality changes along with society! A hundred years ago it was not immoral to discriminate against women. A thousand years ago and we were torturing and burning heretics.

Simplicio: I think you are confused over the definition of "absolute". Of course Christian morality changes along with society. That's not what "absolute morality" means.

Salviati: I think that by "absolute", Simplicio is referring to the absolute authority of the lawgiver.

Simplicio: That's right. Murder is wrong, and it doesn't suddenly become right just because it's convenient. Morality is inflixible. Without an external reality, how do we know what is and isn't right? It isn't something that you can conduct experiments in, is it Mr Empirical?

Salviati: Now, let's not stoop to name-calling.

Simplicio: I apologise. But I would like to know how the atheist can ever be sure about anything. Atheism is the denial of God's existence, is it not?

Sagredo: Well, I wouln't quite define it that way, but yes. I do not believe that there is a God.

Simplicio: Because you have no evidence of His existence, is that right?

Sagredo: That is correct. I have seen no evidence convincing enough to make me believe that a God exists.

Simplicio: So you are absolutely certain of God's nonexistence.

Sagredo: As certain as I think it is possible for me to be, yes. However, if God were suddenly to reveal himself to me via irrefutable and convincing evidence, then I would have to reconsider.

Simplicio: Then how can you consider yourself an atheist?

Sagredo: Because I don't believe in God.

Simplicio: But you just admitted that God might exist.

Sagredo: Yes. But I've seen no evidence of that so far, so my conclusion is that he doesn't.

Simplicio: Then you are not an atheist.

Sagredo: Yes I am. I don't believe God exists.

Simplicio: But...

Salviati: Let's not go around in circles here. Sagredo is separating belief in God from knowledge of God. He says that he does not possess the belief, but also does not possess absolute knowledge.

Simplicio: Then he is not an atheist, but an agnostic.

Sagredo: The two are not mutually exclusive.

Simplicio: I do not understand.

Sagredo: I can be, and am, both atheist and agnostic. I see them as two different and separate continua. In one direction you have the spectrum of belief, with atheism at one end and theism at the other. I do not believe - I believe. That has very little to do with evidence. Evidence is placed along a different continuum, at right angles to the first. Gnostic - agnostic. I have evidence - I do not have evidence.

Salviati: A person can therefore adopt one of four positions - Agnostic Atheist, Gnostic Atheist, Agnostic Theist or Gnostic Theist. An Agnostic Atheist does not believe but has no evidence either way. A Gnostic Atheist does not believe, and has evidence.

Simplicio: Similarly, an Agnostic Theist believes despite lack of evidence, while a Gnostic Theist believes because of evidence.

Salviati: Exactly.

Simplicio: I guess by that reckoning I would be considered an Agnostic Theist, since I do not believe in explicit miracles - which would I assume be considered evidence?

Sagredo: They would, if verified.

Simplicio: Is Gnostic Atheism a rational position? How can one claim to have evidence of the nonexistence of God?

Sagredo: Some people hold this position. Richard Dawkins, for example, maintains that a universe with a God would be observably different from a universe without one. Since what is observable is consistent with a universe without God, he considers this to be sufficient evidence of a God-less universe.

Simplicio: But that still leaves open the question of morality. How can an athist, agnostic or otherwise, claim to be following a moral code?

Salviati: That is a fascinating question that unfortunately will have to wait for another time, since I have an appointment with my cardiologist.

Sagredo: Shall we meet again to discuss the matter then?

Simplicio: Of course! I always enjoy our stimulating discussions.

(exeunt)

Google ads

2010-07-04T20:09:00.000+10:00

You may have noticed that I have Google ads in my blog. Please click the links occasionally. Right now I am not working and I could do with the trickle of ad revenue that clicking ads generates.

That said, be careful not to click too much. They have fraud spotters that will auto-ban people who look like they might be clickbots.

A history of World War I - in the form of a bar fight

2010-06-28T22:15:00.000+10:00

This was recently posted to the JREF Forums by member Dave Rogers. I received permission to reproduce it here, which I am doing because it is such a brilliant synopsis of the whole war, covering all of the major events with style and humour.

Germany, Austria and Italy are stood together in the middle of the bar-room, when Serbia bumps into Austria, and spills Austria's pint.

Austria demands Serbia buy it a complete new suit, because there are splashes on its trouser leg.

Germany expresses its support for Austria's point of view.

Britain recommends that everyone calm down a bit.

Serbia points out that it can't afford a whole suit, but offers to pay for cleaning Austria's trousers.

Russia and Serbia look at Austria.

Austria asks Serbia who it's looking at.

Russia suggests that Austria should leave its little brother alone.

Austria inquires as to whose army will assist Russia in compelling it to do so.

Germany appeals to Britain that France has been looking at it, and that this is sufficiently out of order that Britain should not intervene.

Britain replies that France can look at who it wants to, that Britain is looking at Germany too, and what is Germany going to do about it?

Germany tells Russia to stop looking at Austria, or Germany will render Russia incapable of such action.

Britain and France ask Germany whether it's looking at Belgium.

Turkey and Germany go off into a corner and whisper. When they come back, Turkey makes a show of not looking at anyone.

Germany rolls up its sleeves, looks at France, and punches Belgium.

France and Britain punch Germany. Austria punches Russia. Germany punches Britan and France with one hand and Russia with the other. Russia throws a punch at Germany, but misses and nearly falls over. Japan calls over from the other side of the room that it's on Britain's side, but stays there. Italy surprises everyone by punching Austria.

Australia punches Turkey, and gets punched back. There are no hard feelings, because Britain made Australia do it.

France gets thrown through a plate glass window, but gets back up and carries on fighting. Russia gets thrown through another one, gets knocked out, suffers brain damage, and wakes up with a complete personality change.

Italy throws a punch at Austria and misses, but Austria falls over anyway. Italy raises both fists in the air and runs round the room chanting.

America waits till Germany is about to fall over, then walks over, waves a fist at Germany while Britain knocks it out, then pretends it won the fight all by itself.

By now all the chairs are broken, and the big mirror over the bar is shattered. Britain, France and America agree that Germany threw the first punch, so the whole thing is Germany's fault. While Germany is still unconscious, they go through its pockets, steal its wallet, and buy drinks for all their friends.

Nobody comes out of it looking particularly good.

Dave

Magic and Martial Arts

2010-06-28T20:42:00.000+10:00

It is a common misconception that Europe never developed codified formal martial arts. It's not true. The earliest known European martial arts manual, known as Royal Armouries Manuscript I.33 possibly dates from the turn of the 14th Century. It describes a formal system of sword and buckler fighting. When I say "a formal system" I mean that it provides a foundation for an effective martial art by providing advice on technique and method. The buckler you see in my logo above got as battered as it is in I.33 training. As a style it is fluid and aggressive, and brutally effective.

Not long after is the Italian manual Flos Duellatorum (Flower of Battle) by Fiore Dei Liberi. This is a comprehensive manual for the Italian martial artist, containing sections on wrestling, dagger, sword (one handed, two handed, and in armour), pollaxe, spear and fighting on horseback. If you lived in Italy in the early 1400s and had any interest in swordplay, then you would have studied Fiore in some way or another.

We also have traditions and manuals surviving from England, Germany, France, Poland, Spain. To be sure, there was very much a living tradition of martial arts in Europe. There are a variety of good techniques from each of these traditions that goes up to what today is known as Western Martial Arts (WMA) or sometimes Historical European Martial Arts (HEMA).

There is one thing, however, that a student of Eastern martial arts might notice about the Western: Never is there any magic involved.

Japanese and Chinese martial arts are redolent with chi, ki or qi. You just can't avoid it. I've heard a master swordsman describe striking as "building up and releasing your chi". Many eastern martial arts go even further and include actual magic. The Chinese "technique" of Dim Mak, or "death touch" involves killing a person by disrupting their chi, which can supposedly be done with nothing more than a touch. Needless to say, this has never been actually demonstrated. Other traditions go further and claim that a Qi Gong master can actually knock people down without touching them! The tradition of Yello Bamboo describes itself as "white magic", and claims that they can harm or kill people with their chi.

There is absolutely nothing of the sort in European martial arts. In Europe its all about putting your sword in your opponent's face before he does it to you. Magic doesn't help. Fiori didn't teach magic. Ringneck didn't teach magic. George Silver, Capo Ferro and Di Grassi didn't teach magic. In fact the Spanish rapier school headed by Carranza and Narvaez known as Destreza, which started around 1500, taught swordplay by applying geometry, biomechanics and natural philosophy. It was based on rennaisance humanist reason, science, and mathematics, and was known as the "Philosophy of Arms". Destreza was the only system of European swordplay that George Silver would admit to having a "True Fight".

Of course, no all Asian martial arts include these magical techniques. Some appeal to chi as a metaphor for biomechanics, and some are based purely on physical techniques and are as magic-free as anything that originated on this side of the Urals. My point is that magic is present in Asia, and isn't in Europe.

So why is there such a difference? Why do the Eastern and the Western martial arts differ so much in their approach? I have a theory. Asia has a tradition of martial arts which goes back centuries. The Shaolin Temple in Henan Province was founded in the 5th century and may well have been teaching martial arts continuously from that time. The European schools, however, were interrupted.

Gunpowder and firearms never killed off the Chinese martial arts the way they did the European. Swordsmanship in Europe became a civilian, rather than a military, skill. Swords became lighter and thinner, and techniques became more and more for nonlethal settling of arguments than necessary self-defence against deadly attack. By the late 18th century swordplay was a game that noblemen played. This of course became the modern fencing that we see in the Olympics today, which bears little or or no resemblance to the deadly systems taught by Fiori and the anonymous German author of Ms I.33.

Firearms did not have this effect in Asia. Instead, the Asian martial arts evolved, in order to counter the deadly effect of bullets. "So you have a gun? Well look at what I can do!" So now the Shaolin is taught alongside the Wudang and the Qigong. They had to do something!

Today, you can learn an Asian martial art that has been taught continuously since AD1500. No-one remembers how people fought in Europe in 1500. Except...

Today, there are organisations devoted to reconstructing the historical European martial arts. In the USA, Europe and Australia you can now learn George Silver and Fiori, Talhoffer and Capo Ferro.

Totally without magic.

Proprioception

2010-06-27T22:55:00.000+10:00

Proprioception

One of the great things about being interested in science is that I get to use words like "proprioception". Wikipedia says that it is the "sense of the relative positions of the body". It's what lets you know where the various bits of your body are at any time. Close your eyes and raise one arm. How do you know which arm is raised? Proprioception. It's the real sixth sense.

Actually there are quite a few more than six senses. How do you know when you need to pee? It's not exactly touch, is it? It's a separate sense. Like proprioception is a separate sense. It lets us know what our limbs are doing. A temporary and mild loss of proprioception can cause us to lose our balance, run into things, or knock things over. This commonly occurs around puberty, when the shape and structure of our bodies changes radically in a short time. Alcohol also reduces it, which is why drunks stumble.

I first learned about proprioception, although I didn't yet know what it was called, as a child. I always thought I had a good sense of balance (another sense!) - when I was walking along a beam or a log, I'd always know exactly where I'd have to stick my arm out in order to regain my balance. I was using proprioception to correct where my balance was deficient. Today, as a swordfighter, I use proprioception in an entirely different mode.

When playing our particular game of fake fighting, we consider safety to be paramount, trumping everything including authenticity. When we fight, we do so in a very safe way. Proprioception is the reason that the phrase "fighting safely" is not an oxymoron. One of the primary ways we fight safely is that we always know where the sword (axe, spear) is at any time. We have a strictly limited set of legal blows - top of head, upper and lower arms, torso, upper and lower legs - all in very controlled ways. Knowing where the sword is and how it is moving is essential to this process.

In fact, I have found that with experience, one's proprioception actually extends outside the body into the weapon itself (actually, it doesn't, but there is a strong illusion of it doing so). So "knowing where the weapon is" becomes instinctual - a sensory experience rather than an intellectual one. This is one of those things that can only come with experience. I can't teach someone the sense of proprioception of the sword the way I can teach someone a particular technique. However, that doesn't mean that it can't be learned.

Next time you knock something off a shelf with a stray elbow, think about the sense of proprioception, now you know that it exists. It can be trained. If you think you're just clumsy, or have two left feet, try and be aware of proprioception. Think about where your various limbs are - pay attention to this sense. You'll find that over time you can become more and more aware of your sense of proprioception, and who knows? You may find yourself becoming less and less clumsy over time.

Ain't science great?

Atheism, Theism and Skepticism - a Dialogue

2010-06-21T17:46:00.003+10:00

Characters:

Salviati: a skeptic
Sagredo: an atheist
Simplicio: a Christian

Simplicio: The claim has been made to me thus, that a Christian cannot be a skeptic, for as soon as one starts thinking about one's own religion skeptically, one is naturally drawn into an atheistic position - for the faith that we as Christians have is not supported by the evidence that skeptics demand.

Sagredo: Yes, I feel that this is true. And for this reason a Christian, or for that matter any theist, cannot be a true skeptic.

Simplicio: But what defines a "true skeptic"? Did you not just commit the No True Scotsman fallacy?

Sagredo: Well, I suppose I did just there, yes. But at the same time I still think that the reasoning is valid. After all, the claim "God exists" is as subject to skeptical scrutiny as any other claim, such as "ghosts exist", is it not?

Simplicio: This is true if, and only if, the claim that "God exists" is a testable claim. Christian concepts such as sin and salvation are moral ideas, not empirical claims. The moral compass does not easily admit to empirical inquiry.

Salviati: To a certain extent this is true, however it could be claimed that a moral society is a safe, stable and happy society. A society where morality is rewarded and immorality is punished is a society where people feel happy and safe, and this can be demonstrated empirically.

Sagredo: Oh, so it is your belief that morality should be legislated now?

Salviati: Of course not. I was referring both to a legislative system of rewards and punishments and also a societal system. A person who routinely finds it worthwhile to lie to others, for example, will soon find that other people do not afford him respect or trust, and the benefits thereof.

Sagredo: So while it is your contention that morality is good for society, the skeptical position is that religion does not necessarily imply morality.

Simplicio: But religion is all about morality. Religion offers a foundation for moral thought by adopting the position that a being of perfect morality - God - is the external determinant of what is and is not good. Without that objective morality, a society is free to decide what is moral more or less arbitrarily. What is to stop a secular society from determining that it is okay to lie?

Salviati: The societal disadvantages that I outlined above, for a start.

Sagredo: Indeed. It is my belief that the Judeo-Christian morality that most industrialised nations follow is the way it is was because that is what works.

Simplicio: But look at highly religious Islamic societies such as Iraq, Afghanistan and Saudi Arabia - where women are marginalised and tolerance is minimal. Is that morality?

Sagredo: Of course, you just named some of the most happy and stable of middle-eastern countries.

Simplicio: Which only goes to show that the Christian morality is superior to the Islamic. You should like that - it is an empirical demonstration of better morals!

Sagredo: And in response I present secular societies such as Norway and Sweden, which have lower crime rates and lower occurrence of teenage pregnancy than a highly religious society such as the United States.

Salviati: This is all very well, but I do not see how it relates to the initial subject of our conversation, which is whether a Christian can be a skeptic.

Simplicio: Of course it relates!

Sagredo: Of course it doesn't relate!

Salviati: Now now, rather than just automatically gainsaying everything the other person says, let's have some actual discussion.

Simplicio: Very well. The late Martin Gardner was a skeptic - in fact he was one of the founders of the modern skeptical movement - and he was a theist - although not a Christian such as I. His contention was that belief in a Higher Power was satisfying on a personal level, even though there was no actual evidence to support it. Was he not a "proper skeptic" because of this?

Sagredo: This is quite different from being a Christian. Christianity makes many claims about things that can be empirically tested. Miracles, for example. The efficacy of intercessory prayer.

Simplicio: Who says prayer does not work?

Sagredo: I say it. Studies have shown that patients who are being prayed for do no better than those who aren't, and in one study, actually did worse.

Simplicio: They were testing the wrong thing.

Salviati: So you are now saying that prayer works only when it doesn't have any discernable effect?

Simplicio: Of course not. I'm saying that prayer works in ways other than the empirically testable.

Sagredo: What ways?

Salviati: For the moment I don't think it really matters. Simplicio's point is that people hold to religion for reasons other than the purely material, and therefore the claims of religion are hard to test empirically.

Simplicio: Exactly. How can one empirically test for sin?

Salviati: But I sense that we are starting to get to the point where we are arguing pointlessly, and I need to get to my home. But I would like to continue discussing the subject when next we meet? Do you agree?

Sagredo: Of course. I hope I can continue to demonstrate that if one is skeptical, then one should be skeptical of religion as well.

Simplicio: I will be looking forward to your attempts to do so.

(exeunt)

Webcomic

2010-06-14T22:26:00.000+10:00

The Curse of Ham

2010-06-07T00:50:00.000+10:00

"In the six hundredth year of Noah's life, on the seventeenth day of the second month—on that day all the springs of the great deep burst forth, and the floodgates of the heavens were opened. And rain fell on the earth forty days and forty nights.

On that very day Noah and his sons, Shem, Ham and Japheth, together with his wife and the wives of his three sons, entered the ark. They had with them every wild animal according to its kind, all livestock according to their kinds, every creature that moves along the ground according to its kind and every bird according to its kind, everything with wings. Pairs of all creatures that have the breath of life in them came to Noah and entered the ark. The animals going in were male and female of every living thing, as God had commanded Noah. Then the LORD shut him in.

For forty days the flood kept coming on the earth, and as the waters increased they lifted the ark high above the earth. The waters rose and increased greatly on the earth, and the ark floated on the surface of the water. They rose greatly on the earth, and all the high mountains under the entire heavens were covered. The waters rose and covered the mountains to a depth of more than twenty feet. Every living thing that moved on the earth perished—birds, livestock, wild animals, all the creatures that swarm over the earth, and all mankind. Everything on dry land that had the breath of life in its nostrils died. Every living thing on the face of the earth was wiped out; men and animals and the creatures that move along the ground and the birds of the air were wiped from the earth. Only Noah was left, and those with him in the ark.

The waters flooded the earth for a hundred and fifty days", during which the Grand Canyon was carved out and fossils were transported to the top of the highest mountains. You know the rest. White dove, olive branch, everyone lived happily ever after. Right? Right?

Let's skip ahead a couple of chapters, to the bit that they don't teach to children in Sunday school:

"The sons of Noah who came out of the ark were Shem, Ham and Japheth. (Ham was the father of Canaan.) These were the three sons of Noah, and from them came the people who were scattered over the earth.

Noah, a man of the soil, proceeded to plant a vineyard. When he drank some of its wine, he became drunk and lay uncovered inside his tent. Ham, the father of Canaan, saw his father's nakedness and told his two brothers outside. But Shem and Japheth took a garment and laid it across their shoulders; then they walked in backward and covered their father's nakedness. Their faces were turned the other way so that they would not see their father's nakedness.

When Noah awoke from his wine and found out what his youngest son had done to him, he said, "Cursed be Canaan! The lowest of slaves will he be to his brothers." He also said, "Blessed be the LORD, the God of Shem! May Canaan be the slave of Shem. May God extend the territory of Japheth; may Japheth live in the tents of Shem, and may Canaan be his slave."

After the flood Noah lived 350 years. Altogether, Noah lived 950 years, and then he died."

Recently, science blogger PZ Myers visited the Creation Museum in Kentucky, accompanied by almost 300 people from the Secular Student Alliance. There is a poster on display there, which shows the dispersal after Babel of the sons of Noah. It shows an arrow leading from Babel into Africa, labelled "Descendents of Ham".

For centuries, Noah's curse on Canaan has been used as a justification for slavery of black people, specifically Africans. Many early Christian sources discuss the Curse of Canaan, assigning it the physical characteristic of darkened skin.

Origen Adamantius, one of the most distinguished of the early Christian fathers, wrote in his "Homilies on Genesis": "the Egyptians are prone to a degenerate life and quickly sink to every slavery of the vices. Look at the origin of the race and you will discover that their father Cham, who had laughed at his father’s nakedness, deserved a judgment of this kind, that his son Chanaan should be a servant to his brothers, in which case the condition of bondage would prove the wickedness of his conduct. Not without merit, therefore, does the discolored posterity imitate the ignobility of the race."

The apocryphal work known as the Cave of Treasures, which probably dates from the 4th century AD, says "When Noah awoke. . .he cursed him and said: ‘Cursed be Ham and may he be slave to his brothers’. . .and he became a slave, he and his lineage, namely the Egyptians, the Abyssinians, and the Indians. Indeed, Ham lost all sense of shame and he became black and was called shameless all the days of his life, forever."

The Syrian Christian bishop Ishodad of Merv wrote in the 9th Century that when Noah cursed Canaan, "instantly, by the force of the curse. . .his face and entire body became black. This is the black color which has persisted in his descendents."

So where did the idea come from that the descendents of Ham, specifically the cursed Canaan, dispersed into Africa? Let's look at Genesis again:

"Then they said, "Come, let us build ourselves a city, with a tower that reaches to the heavens, so that we may make a name for ourselves and not be scattered over the face of the whole earth." But the LORD came down to see the city and the tower that the men were building. The LORD said, "If as one people speaking the same language they have begun to do this, then nothing they plan to do will be impossible for them. Come, let us go down and confuse their language so they will not understand each other." So the LORD scattered them from there over all the earth, and they stopped building the city. That is why it was called Babel — because there the LORD confused the language of the whole world. From there the LORD scattered them over the face of the whole earth."

Then it goes on into the begats, describing Lot's descent from Noah. Nope, nothing there about Ham, or Canaan, or for that matter Africa. Let's look a little deeper.

Psalm 78 reads, in part, "He struck down all the firstborn of Egypt, the firstfruits of manhood in the tents of Ham." Psalm 105: "Then Israel entered Egypt; Jacob lived as an alien in the land of Ham." Clearly, the Psalms place Ham in Egypt - hence the descent outlined in the Cave of Treasures. But Ham was not the one who was cursed. What about Ham's son, Canaan? Let's skip a couple of hundred years, over the time of the Israelites' captivity in Egypt, Moses, and the Exodus. After Moses' death, his aide's son Joshua was told to reconquer the promised land:

"Joshua said to the Israelites, "Come here and listen to the words of the LORD your God. This is how you will know that the living God is among you and that he will certainly drive out before you the Canaanites, Hittites, Hivites, Perizzites, Girgashites, Amorites and Jebusites."

The Canaanites clearly were not in Egypt by the time of Joshua's conquest. I think it's reasonable to say that the Canaanites bore some relationship to Canaan. The Bible suggests that Canaan fathered the Phonecians, the Sinites, all of the tribes that Joshua named and more - none of whom inhabited Egypt. He was, apparently, a pretty prolific fellow.

In fact, The apocryphal Book of Jubilees atrributes both the Curse and the conquest to Canaan's refusal to join his brothers in Egypt. Instead, he settled on the eastern shores of the Mediterranean, in effect "squatting" within the inheritance of Shem.

Now, what does this mean for the Creation Museum? The descent of the Africans from Ham is indisputable, assuming of course that you accept the historical accuracy of the Biblical account. For the sake of argument, I will do so. According to Paul de Lagarde, who wrote in 1867 that "Mar Ephrem the Syrian said: When Noah awoke and was told what Canaan did. . . Noah said, ‘Cursed be Canaan and may God make his face black,’ and immediately the face of Canaan changed; so did that of his father Ham, and their white faces became black and dark and their color changed." This agrees with the Cave of Treasures - that Ham and Canaan shared Noah's curse and became black. But this is not part of the Biblical canon.

So when Ken Ham and the Christian apologists say that the poster displayed in the Creation Museum is not racist, and does not promote slavery of blacks, they are, technically, correct. The Bible does not say that Africans should be slaves. Early Christian commentators such as Origen do, and some books of the Apocrypha do. But a careful examination of the Bible itself does not.

Modern Biblical scholars, of course, don't claim that the Bible supports slavery, even those passages like Ephesians 6:5 - which says that slaves should obey their masters with respect and fear - and Colossians 4:1 - which says that masters should treat their slaves well. Today, scholars would urge that these passages need to be read in the context of their time - a time where slavery was common, where slaves were not necessarily treated harshly (that passage from Colossians being evidence) and rather were considered part of the family. But all that simply goes to show that the word of God changes. In a time where slavery was considered okay, the Bible supported it. Now that slavery is not considered okay, the Bible does not support it.

Is God's Word inerrant, consistent and unchanging, as some Christian apologists claim it is? Or is it purely a social construct, made by and for humankind, supporting whatever it is that society requires it to support at the time? Apologists are very keen these days to say that the Bible does not support issues that we now consider immoral. Christianity, therefore, is not racist. It is not sexist (despite Ephesians 5:22-24 and Timothy 2:11-12). It is not anti-gay (despite Romans 1:31-32). Oh wait. Christianity is still anti-gay. I guess they haven't caught up with that one yet.

Christianity follows the social mores of the time. During the 18th, 19th and early 20th centuries, the Pat Robertsons and the Jerry Falwells of the time were using the story of the Curse of Canaan to support the traffic of slaves from Africa. Modern Christianity on the other hand supports peace, love and tolerance. One of the purposes of religion is to give people good moral teachings and encourage them to participate and be good members of society. Christianity has a history that seems incredibly barbaric to us with our modern perspective. There were crusades, witch-burnings, torture, slavery, subjugation of women, war, genocide. All were done in accordance with the best theology and biblical scholarship that was available at the time, and Christians would be wise to remember this, and take responsibility for the history of their religion.

But times change. Christanity no longer commits atrocities such as these. Although the American evangelical movement still has a lot to answer for in their treatment of homosexuals and their promotion of antiscientific agendas, at least they don't torture and burn witches to death any more. Well, most of the time.

Creationism to be Taught in Queensland Schools?

2010-05-30T14:16:00.000+10:00

So apparently, Creationism is to be taught to Queensland students.

I've been a bit of a follower of creationism for a while, ever since I found a webforum (now, alas, mostly defunct) where I could debate with creationists. I learned a lot about creationism, and found that creationism is, more or less, bullshit.

Creationism, essentially, is the proposition that God (or in its more recent incarnation, an unspecified "Intelligent Designer") created human beings in their current form. There are young-earth creationists who believe that the earth was created within the last 10,000 years, and old-earth creationists, who believe that the earth is ancient, and day-age creationists, who believe...

You know what? Never mind. The thing that unites all different flavours of creationism is the fervent belief that evolution is false. Since evolution is one of the most evidence-supported theories in modern science, believing that it is false is one of the most irrational things that otherwise normal human beings can do.

Creationism has been in the courts of the United States quite a lot since the Scopes "Monkey" trial of 1925, where a high school teacher was found guilty of the crime of teaching evolution to children. The main point is this: evolution is science, creationism is not. There have been many attempts to have creationism taught in American schools, and each time it has been ruled unconstitutional. But it's been a while since we've had creationism in Australian schools. There was some debate in the early 1980s, but in general creationism has not been a part of the Australian curriculum, even when so-called "Special Religious Education" is.

Until now. Queensland is now going to be teaching creationism.

But wait! Let's have a closer look.

The Herald Sun article I linked above states that creationism will be taught in the history curriculum, which is part of Studies of Society and Environment (SOSE). The article includes the following paragraph:

Queensland History Teachers' Association head Kay Bishop said the curriculum asked students to develop their historical skills in an "investigation of a controversial issue" such as "human origins (eg, Darwin's theory of evolution and its critics").

Is this teaching creationism, or is this teaching about creationism? I do not believe in the "sweep it under the rug" method of teaching. I don't believe that it would be proper to pretend that the whole creationism movement doesn't exist - especially since religious students likely get information about it from church sources anyway (which are, of course, famously unbiased in this area). So I agree that students should be taught about creationism. It should absolutely not be taught as science, or as an "alternative" or a "balance" to evolution. But as a sociological phenomenon, or as a part of comparative religion, or even as a historical controversy, then sure. I don't have a problem with that.

However, I do still have severe reservations. Creationists will use any loophole they can to get their views in the schools. In the US, it comes under the guise of "academic freedom". My worry is that this mention of creationism as a "controversial issue" in a history course could leave an opening for a teacher with an axe to grind to start pushing the creationist agenda to students who don't know enough to be skeptical. It's not just a foot in the door. It's a foot in the back door.

Anyway, I'm not sure it's not all a tempest in a teacup anyway. It's worth knowing that the Queensland school curriculum is online, and a quick search for the word "creationism" returns no results. And while a search for the phrase "controversial issue" returns 944 results, none of the first 20 are in the Curriculum section of the website.

It very much appears to me like the curriculum itself makes no mention at all of creationism, and the idea that the curriculum supports teaching creationism is the result of a single partial quote by a teacher. Now I don't know whether Kay Bishop is a creationist or not. I think she was simply using creationism as an example of a controversial issue. I'm pretty sure that this is just one more example of a journalist running off with a soundbite.

Time will tell, though. If this becomes more than it appears to be, then I'll reconsider my position.

Photography: AAF

2010-05-27T22:32:00.001+10:00

Time for another photo post!

The medieval group I'm a member of is called the Ancient Arts Fellowship, also known as the "AAF". It's about as frequently spelt out as it is pronounced ("Aahf"). Members of the AAF are often called AAFlings. I am a founding member of this group, which was incorporated in 1986. This frequently makes me feel old. Some of our members are actually younger than the group is.

The AAF is a Dark Age/early Medieval reenactment group. We fight, and we do craft, armouring, costuming and cooking.

We train twice a week, with sword, shield, spear and axe:

We do public shows for school history classes:

Sometimes we get together with other groups:

We feast:

One of the highlights of the year is our annual camping event, Beorg-wic (an Anglo-Saxon word meaning a fortified camp). Most people attend in period costume...

There's fighting...

Traditional archery...

Craft workshops...

And sometimes, fog...

More information about the group is on the website, linked at the top of this post. We have an online photo gallery which has photos taken by people other than me - including some particularly nice studio portraits by a bloke named Jason McCarthy. Here's one of me that I particularly like:

Why do I do this?

Mostly because it's interesting and fun. The AAF is a fantastic group of people, who interact socially as well as in the context of the club. Learning to fight is fun, and it is good exercise.

I should note here that we are strictly speaking not a western martial arts group. Although we do teach certain aspects of WMA, our fighting style has been developed with safety as a first priority. Although our fighting appears dangerous to people watching, it is a lot safer to the participants than a game of football. We have the occasional bruise or abrasion, very rarely a more serious injury, but in general this is a very safe and fun pastime.

Apart from any other aspect of the club, the thing that ties it all together is an enthusiasm for history. Our core period is AD 700 - 1066, in the area of northern Europe and Britain. Mostly, the Viking, Saxon and Norman cultures, culminating in the battles of Stamford Bridge and Hastings, which changed the course of British history.

What's so special about history? I strongly feel that an understanding of history is important to understand the present. But that's a post for another time.

Evil is the Absence of Good

2010-05-19T19:16:00.000+10:00

As the Smug Christian in my last post said,

The young man holds up a newspaper he takes from the desk of a neighbor who has been reading it. "Here is one of the most disgusting tabloids this country hosts, professor. Is there such a thing as immorality?"

"Of course there is, now look..."

"Wrong again, sir. You see, immorality is merely the absence of morality. Is there such thing as injustice? No. Injustice is the absence of justice. Is there such a thing as evil?" The Christian pauses.

"Isn't evil the absence of good?"

The professor's face has turned an alarming color. He is so angry he is temporarily speechless. The Christian continues. "If there is evil in the world, professor, and we all agree there is, then God, if he exists, must be accomplishing a work through the agency of evil. What is that work, God is accomplishing? The Bible tells us it is to see if each one of us will, of our own free will, choose good over evil."

I'd like to go into a little more detail about this one little bit. This statement comes at the end of a rather long rant about how cold is the absence of heat, darkness is the absence of light, and death is the absence of life. In these, Smug Christian is more or less correct. However, when he goes on and says that evil is the absence of good, he's wrong.

Now, as we all know, morality is relative, so in a sense there can't be any objective definition of "good" and "evil" anyway. I'm going to take a philosophical shortcut though, and define the terms according to our modern Euro-Americo-Australian society. Evil is that which brings harm to others, and Good is the minimisation or elimination of harm. Both exist, in as much as a philosophical concept can exist in the first place.

And don't be tempted by that argument to turn the premise around and say that Good is the absence of Evil. This is not the case either. Both Good and Evil are active stances - one has to choose to do Good acts, just as much as one has to choose to do Evil acts. Doing neither is neutral - nothing - neither Good nor Evil.

Of course, this is all about Smug Christian's anti-dualistic premise, which like the rest of the story is a strawman. Scientists don't work from a premise of dualism, only evidence. If the evidence suggests two opposite ideas, then they will go with that. More often than not, what appear on the surface to be two sides of a coin are actually two ends of a continuum. An act of Good and an act of Evil aren't clearly defined. Remember that old question about the runaway train about to hit five homeless people, but you can divert it so it only hits one surgeon? Any given act will fall somewhere along the Good-Evil continuum, but it's unlikely any act will be at one of the terminators. Like everything else, there's a bell curve.

And that's another post entirely.

The Professor and the Christian

2010-05-16T20:27:00.001+10:00

Originally published 29/01/2008 on arthwollipot.com
Republished 13/05/2008 on the JREF Forum

A fable of flawed understanding

I was about to give up on my old hobby of arguing with creationists, but then I found this, and it affected me so much that I had to write something about it.

It takes a while to read, but it's well worth it to understand just how wrong it is.

Here is the passage in full. I found it on a website of jokes, but I don't think it's all that funny. At the end I will give my reasons for not liking it.

Science vs. Christianity
This takes a while to read, but it's well worth it. May we be prepared always to give an answer to the reason for our faith...
"LET ME EXPLAIN THE problem science has with Jesus Christ." The atheist professor of philosophy pauses before his class and then asks one of his new students to stand. "You're a Christian, aren't you, son?"
"Yes, sir."
"So you believe in God?"
"Absolutely."
"Is God good?"
"Sure! God's good."
"Is God all-powerful? Can God do anything?"
"Yes."
"Are you good or evil?"
"The Bible says I'm evil."
The professor grins knowingly. "Ahh! THE BIBLE!" He considers for a moment. "Here's one for you. Let's say there's a sick person over here and you can cure him. You can do it. Would you help them? Would you try?"
"Yes sir, I would."
"So you're good...!"
"I wouldn't say that."
"Why not say that? You would help a sick and maimed person if you could... in fact most of us would if we could... God doesn't."
No answer.
"He doesn't, does he? My brother was a Christian who died of cancer even though he prayed to Jesus to heal him. How is this Jesus good? Hmmm? Can you answer that one?" No answer.
The elderly man is sympathetic. "No, you can't, can you?" He takes a sip of water from a glass on his desk to give the student time to relax. In philosophy, you have to go easy with the new ones. "Let's start again, young fella. Is God good?"
"Er... Yes."
"Is Satan good?"
"No."
"Where does Satan come from?"
The student falters. "From... God..."
"That's right. God made Satan, didn't he?" The elderly man runs his bony fingers through his thinning hair and turns to the smirking, student audience. "I think we're going to have a lot of fun this semester, ladies and gentlemen." He turns back to the Christian. "Tell me, son. Is there evil in this world?"
"Yes, sir."
"Evil's everywhere, isn't it? Did God make everything?"
"Yes."
"Who created evil?"
No answer.
"Is there sickness in this world? Immorality? Hatred? Ugliness? All the terrible things - do they exist in this world?"
The student squirms on his feet. "Yes."
"Who created them?"
No answer.
The professor suddenly shouts at his student. "WHO CREATED THEM? TELL ME, PLEASE!" The professor closes in for the kill and climbs into the Christian's face. In a still small voice: "God created all evil, didn't He, son?"
No answer.
The student tries to hold the steady, experienced gaze and fails.
Suddenly the lecturer breaks away to pace the front of the classroom like an aging panther. The class is mesmerized. "Tell me," he continues, "How is it that this God is good if He created all evil throughout all time?"
The professor swishes his arms around to encompass the wickedness of the world. "All the hatred, the brutality, all the pain, all the torture, all the death and ugliness and all the suffering created by this good God is all over the world, isn't it, young man?"
No answer.
"Don't you see it all over the place? Huh?" Pause. "Don't you?" The professor leans into the student's face again and whispers,
"Is God good?"
No answer..
"Do you believe in Jesus Christ, son?"
The student's voice betrays him and cracks. "Yes, professor. I do."
The old man shakes his head sadly. "Science says you have five senses you use to identify and observe the world around you. Have you ever seen your Jesus?"
"No, sir. I've never seen Him."
"Then tell us if you've ever heard your Jesus?"
"No, sir. I have not."
"Have you ever felt your Jesus, tasted your Jesus or smelt your Jesus... in fact, do you have any sensory perception of your God whatsoever?"
No answer.
"Answer me, please."
"No, sir, I'm afraid I haven't."
"You're AFRAID... you haven't?"
"No, sir."
"Yet you still believe in him?"
"...yes..."
"That takes FAITH!" The professor smiles sagely at the underling. "According to the rules of empirical, testable, demonstrable protocol, science says your God doesn't exist. What do you say to that, son? Where is your God now?"
The student doesn't answer.
"Sit down, please."
The Christian sits...Defeated. Another Christian raises his hand. "Professor, may I address the class?"
The professor turns and smiles. "Ah, another Christian in the vanguard! Come, come, young man. Speak some proper wisdom to the gathering."
The Christian looks around the room. "Some interesting points you are making, sir. Now I've got a question for you. Is there such thing as heat?"
"Yes," the professor replies. "There's heat."
"Is there such a thing as cold?"
"Yes, son, there's cold too."
"No, sir, there isn't."
The professor's grin freezes. The room suddenly goes very cold. The second Christian continues. "You can have lots of heat, even more heat, super-heat, mega-heat, white heat, a little heat or no heat but we don't have anything called 'cold'. We can hit 458 degrees below zero, which is no heat, but we can't go any further after that.
"There is no such thing as cold, otherwise we would be able to go colder than 458 - You see, sir, cold is only a word we use to describe the absence of heat. We cannot measure cold. Heat we can measure in thermal units because heat is energy. Cold is not the opposite of heat, sir, just the absence of it."
Silence.
A pin drops somewhere in the classroom.
"Is there such a thing as darkness, professor?"
"That's a dumb question, son. What is night if it isn't darkness? What are you getting at...?"
"So you say there is such a thing as darkness?"
"Yes..."
"You're wrong again, sir. Darkness is not something, it is the absence of something. You can have low light, normal light, bright light, flashing light but if you have no light constantly you have nothing and it's called darkness, isn't it? That's the meaning we use to define the word. In reality, Darkness isn't. If it were, you would be able to make darkness darker and give me a jar of it. Can you...give me a jar of darker darkness, professor?"
Despite himself, the professor smiles at the young effrontery before him. This will indeed be a good semester. "Would you mind telling us what your point is, young man?"
"Yes, professor. My point is, your philosophical premise is flawed to start with and so your conclusion must be in error...."
The professor goes toxic. "Flawed...? How dare you...!"
"Sir, may I explain what I mean?" The class is all ears.
"Explain... oh, explain..." The professor makes an admirable effort to regain control. Suddenly he is affability itself. He waves his hand to silence the class, for the student to continue.
"You are working on the premise of duality," the Christian explains. "That for example there is life and then here's death; a good God and a bad God. You are viewing the concept of God as something finite, something we can measure. Sir, science cannot even explain a thought. It uses electricity and magnetism but has never seen, much less fully understood them. To view death as the opposite of life is to be ignorant of the fact that death cannot exist as a substantive thing. Death is not the opposite of life, merely the absence of it."
The young man holds up a newspaper he takes from the desk of a neighbor who has been reading it. "Here is one of the most disgusting tabloids this country hosts, professor. Is there such a thing as immorality?"
"Of course there is, now look..."
"Wrong again, sir. You see, immorality is merely the absence of morality. Is there such thing as injustice? No. Injustice is the absence of justice. Is there such a thing as evil?" The Christian pauses.
"Isn't evil the absence of good?"
The professor's face has turned an alarming color. He is so angry he is temporarily speechless. The Christian continues. "If there is evil in the world, professor, and we all agree there is, then God, if he exists, must be accomplishing a work through the agency of evil. What is that work, God is accomplishing? The Bible tells us it is to see if each one of us will, of our own free will, choose good over evil."
The professor bridles. "As a philosophical scientist, I don't view this matter as having anything to do with any choice; as a realist, I absolutely do not recognize the concept of God or any other theological factor as being part of the world equation because God is not observable."
"I would have thought that the absence of God's moral code in this world is probably one of the most observable phenomena going," the Christian replies. "Newspapers make billions of dollars reporting it every week! Tell me, professor. Do you teach your students that they evolved from a monkey?"
"If you are referring to the natural evolutionary process, young man, yes, of course I do."
"Have you ever observed evolution with your own eyes, sir?"
The professor makes a sucking sound with his teeth and gives his student a silent, stony stare.
"Professor. Since no-one has ever observed the process of evolution at work and cannot even prove that this process is an on-going endeavor, are you not teaching your opinion, sir? Are you now not a scientist, but a priest?"
"I'll overlook your impudence in the light of our philosophical discussion. Now, have you quite finished?" the professor hisses.
"So you don't accept God's moral code to do what is righteous?"
"I believe in what is - that's science!"
"Ahh! SCIENCE!" the student's face spits into a grin. "Sir, you rightly state that science is the study of observed phenomena. Science too is a premise which is flawed..."
"SCIENCE IS FLAWED..?" the professor splutters.
The class is in uproar. The Christian remains standing until the commotion has subsided. "To continue the point you were making earlier to the other student, may I give you an example of what I mean?"
The professor wisely keeps silent. The Christian looks around the room.
"Is there anyone in the class who has ever seen the professor's brain?"
The class breaks out in laughter. The Christian points towards his elderly, crumbling tutor. "Is there anyone here who has ever heard the professor's brain...felt the professor's brain, touched or smelt the professor's brain?" No one appears to have done so.
The Christian shakes his head sadly.
"It appears no one here has had any sensory perception of the professor's brain whatsoever. Well, according to the rules of empirical, testable, demonstrable protocol, science says the professor has no brain."
The class is in chaos. The Christian sits...
Because that is what a chair is for.

OK, this is me back. This little scenario is all very well and makes the Christians all smug and self-satisfied, because the second Christian really put the old atheist professor in his place.

But let me tell you something. The professor must have been only newly converted to atheism, because he gave all the wrong answers! It's a good thing he was a philosophy professor and not a science professor, because with answers like that he would have flunked high school!

Let's have a look at this then shall we? I'm not a professor of any kind, but I'm going to elaborate here on the things that I would have done differently.

First of all, I feel that it is extremely rude to attack someone's religious faith in this manner, regardless of what you feel about what is true or not. The professor, having recently lost his brother to cancer, is lashing back at the Christians in the class because he feels that he was betrayed by God, and he is being inexcusably rude about it, too. It is a classic transferrence of anger, and the poor professor needs grief counselling. So in the first place I would not have begun a philosphy class with the express purpose of trying to destroy other peoples' faith. Their faith is not my concern. When they publicly preach falsehood, I tend to want to speak up. In this case, neither of the Christians were publicly preaching falsehood. In fact the second Christian probably had a better grip on reality than the professor did.

OK, so let's see where the professor went wrong after this. Any science professor should know that cold is an absence of heat and darkness is an absence of light. I knew that in third grade. For all his upholding of scientific principles, this professor also should have known that science relies as much on deduction and scenario-modelling as it does on direct observation. If observation were all there was to it, then the entire scientific corpus would consist of only what any particular student observed. I did not observe Vesuvius erupting. According to the Christian in this story, that means that it didn't. But someone did. His name was Pliny the younger, and he wrote down what he saw. I trust an eyewitness account.

Now, in science, the emphasis is on experiment. You don't just write down what you observe. You contrive a set of circumstances to answer a particular question about something you observe. Then you write down the results of your experiment, and (this is the crucial bit) see whether anyone else observes the same thing.

So in essence, the argument about not observing evolution and not observing the professor's brain is flawed, because science does not solely rely on direct observation. Of course, observation is an important part of science, and the position that only what can be observed exists is called positivism. The professor in this story is obviously a positivist, and the second Christian points out the flaws in this philosophy quite effectively. But positivism is not science.

Okay, next bit. The professor "goes toxic" when someone questions his philosophical standpoint. This is in a philosophy class right? Isn't part of the point of philosophy to question one another's worldview? This professor shouldn't be in science, and if he "goes toxic" at the first sign that a student can think independently, then he doesn't belong in philosophy, either! For me, that student would be well on the way to an 'A'.

Then, after going toxic, he also bridles. "As a philosophical scientist," he says, "I don't view this matter as having anything to do with any choice; as a realist, I absolutely do not recognize the concept of God or any other theological factor as being part of the world equation because God is not observable."

Here his stance is also deeply flawed. He describes himself as a "philosophical scientist". This is a delusion. For reasons discussed above he cannot call himself a scientist in any sense of the word, philosophical or not. He claims to be a realist, but describes a positivist. He should also deny the existence of electrons and protons, because they are not observable either. Recently we have been able to observe atoms (with scanning tunneling electron microscopes), but never their constituents. However, the theory predicts certain things, and what can be observed supports the results that are predicted. The theory agrees with observation. To doubt the existence of electrons because they can't be observed casts doubt on a large number of scientific principles, some of which agree with observation to a startling degree.

Here's another way to look at it. Can you observe air? No. This doesn't mean that air doesn't exist. You can't smell sarin gas, either. But sarin gas can kill you.

So far I have been kind of supporting the Christian against the professor, because to me the Christian's stance makes more sense than the professor's. However, the Christian makes one major fundamental mistake, which tells me that he really has absolutely no understanding of what science is or what it is about. The professor's answer to this loaded question is wrong in every significant detail.

The Christian asks "Tell me, professor. Do you teach your students that they evolved from a monkey?"

This is such a tired old argument that all Christians should know it by now if they didn't choose to see evolution in a flawed light. The 'correct' answer (which the professor failed to provide) is "No, I do not teach my students that they evolved from a monkey. I teach my students that they and monkeys had a common ancestor, which was neither a monkey nor a student. The observed evidence supports this."

But Christians (not all Christians mind you) do not accept the true definition of evolution, and continue to argue against the principle that people are descended from monkeys. They ask "if people evolved from monkeys, why are there still monkeys?"

the Christian in the story asks "Have you ever observed evolution with your own eyes, sir?" and again, the professor answers the question badly (as of course suits the Christian author of the scenario).

The 'correct' answer to this question is "Have you ever observed love with your own eyes? Have you ever observed faith? Have you ever observed the Resurrection with your own eyes? Just because we don't observe something with our own eyes doesn't mean that we can't accept evidence from other sources. Your Bible tells you that the Resurrection occurred. The fossil record, amongst other evidence, tells us that evolution occurred."

This will only get the Christian going though. If you ever answer this question in this way, be prepared to answer all of the other questions that invariably follow about transitional fossils, polystrate fossils, and if it gets that far down the track, radiometric dating.

The Christian in the story states "Sir, you rightly state that science is the study of observed phenomena" then goes on to 'disprove' the existence of the professor's brain. The professor is dumbstruck in the light of the Christian's brilliant observation. Yet more evidence that he is not fit to be a science professor, since he doesn't have the answer to the obvious ploy which is provided as a clinching argument.

The 'correct' answer is: "Okay, so you hypothesise that my brain doesn't exist. How are you going to go about proving it? Hypothesis without experiment is not science. The best way to prove your hypothesis would be to open up my head and have a look. But that would in all likelihood kill me, which is against the law and against your Christian ethic. So you'll have to find another way to prove it. But before you spend a lot of time (and probably money) doing so, I might point out that in dissecting cadavers, surgeons and anatomy students have never opened up the head of a dead human and found no brain. So Occam's Razor tells us that your hypothesis is incorrect to the point of reasonable doubt. The counter-hypothesis that I do in fact have a brain fits the observed reality (that I am here, walking, talking, breathing and speaking to you) much better than your hypothesis does."

This clearly demonstrates that while science is correctly described as the study of observed phenomena, it doesn't work just to draw direct conclusions from what directly hits your senses. You have to question what you observe. Although science is the study of the observed phenomena, the Christian in the story stops at 'observed phenomena' and skips the 'study' part. If science could be reduced to a single question, it would not be "what?" as the Christian in the story seems to think. It would be "how?"

Science cannot disprove God. The mistake (or rather, one of the mistakes) that the professor made in the story is in assuming that because God cannot be observed, God doesn't exist. This is not a good basis for atheism, because as you can clearly see from this story, it is a very weak foundation. It is indeed a flawed philosophy. The basis for atheism is much more complex and subtle.

The Christian in the story falls into massive overgeneralisation by his statement "Science too is a premise which is flawed..." No. What is flawed is the professor's stance on science. The reason the professor's stance on science is flawed is that the whole story was written by a Christian, whose own stance on science was flawed. Just like the second Christian in the story, the author overgeneralises his/her own belief in science as the real thing, and sets up a massive strawman which of course is only too easy to defeat. It was designed to be argued against, so of course it is. If the author had understood science better, the story could never have been written in this form.

All of the characters in the story are reflections of the author's self. The first Christian is the author at a young age, looking for affirmation of his or her faith and not receiving it from an uncaring, antagonistic world.

The professor is the personification of all these doubts. He is the personification of the author's own flawed understanding of science and its purpose.

The second Christian is the author after going out and reading some books by Kent Hovind and Phillip Johnson. The author after reaffirming his/her faith, who now has all the answers. Unfortunately he only has the answers to the questions he himself poses. The professor knows no more about science than the author does - how could he? This is why the professor is ultimately humbled and embarrassed in front of the whole class. It is satisfying to Christians because they see their attacker fall and crumble like the walls of Jericho.

Perhaps the whole story is part autobiography, part wish-fulfillment. It is possible that the first half of the story actually happened to the author, and the second half is what the author would have said and done had he/she had the answers at that stage of life. Perhaps. If so, the two halves of the story probably occurred years apart in the author's life.

It seems more likely to me that it was a Christian trying to teach other Christians how to have more faith in their beliefs, despite having them attacked mercilessly. It does that, at the expense of flawed argument and flawed understanding. The purpose behind telling the story is sound - Christians should indeed be prepared to defend their faith and provide reasons for it. But the reasons given in the story are not good ones.

The story perpetuates the myth that science is bunk. That science is somehow contrary or opposed to faith. That all of science is built on a flawed philosophy.

The first thing that some Christians seem to be unable or unwilling to understand is that science cannot disprove anything. It can only prove things. And it can only prove things on a provisional basis. Nothing is final, because it's always possible for more evidence to come in.

Christians always try to attack science by asking for certain, definite proof that God doesn't exist. Science cannot provide that, and they then leap on that inability as evidence that science is flawed. Well, that's just comparing apples and oranges. It is like relying on the Bible to tell you how to service your car. The Bible can't show you how to change a spark plug? Aha! The Bible is built on a flawed premise!

They also leap on the incompleteness of science. Since science does not have all the answers, it can't possibly be right. The more amazing belief among some Christians I have encountered is the more epistemological view that science simply has it wrong. It asks the wrong questions and comes to the wrong conclusions. It makes a flawed basis for understanding the world because it is simply erroneous. This is totally weird to me, because at its basis, science is built upon finding verifiable explanations for observed phenomena. The Scientific Method is the closest we can come to finding the truth about something.

I hope you can see now why I don't like this story. It perpetuates a flawed and incorrect stereotype - that of the atheist who constantly attacks the faith of good Chrisians - and demonstrates an insufficient method of defence against it. It was written by a Christian for other Christians, but the author's understanding of the subject matter is so incomplete that all it does is perpetuate the incompleteness to others. It does not teach anything of worth, except for the fundamental purpose - to encourage Christians to be able to justify their faith.

The moral of the story - always have an understanding of what you are arguing against, or be prepared to accept when someone points out the flaws in the understanding you do have.

God Hates Sex

2010-05-13T22:16:00.000+10:00

Why does God hate sex?

It seems to be a universal thread running through many religions - the prohibition and repression of sexual activities of all kinds. Don't have sex outside marriage. Don't masturbate. Don't engage in homosexual sex. Dress modestly, don't talk about it, don't think about it, be pure in thought and deed.

Me, I really like sex. I think sex is fun and a great thing to do. But according to many religions - Christianity especially - I am a sinner because of it. A fornicator. I'm going to hell.

One theory is that sexuality is controlled by the priesthood as a way of controlling people. Because every human being is sexual, every human being is guilty of some sexual transgression, some "perversion", some sin. By managing the parishioner's guilt, the priests make sure they control that parishioner's behaviour. Confess and tithe, or you'll burn for eternity!

Unfortunately, the sexual taboo has been there so long that it has permeated our culture. Sex has for centuries been seen as dirty, bad, nasty. The 1960s and the invention of the contraceptive pill helped, but sexuality is still not seen as normal!

It's high time that society as a whole comes to terms with sex. It exists, it's fun, people are going to want to do it in an astounding variety of different ways. It's not wrong.

The Fighting Skeptic

2010-05-09T21:59:00.002+10:00

I've settled on a name for this blog. The Fighting Skeptic.

As I mentioned in my first post, I tried to find a name for the blog before settling on the (fairly lame) name My Place In The Universe. Now I've got a better one.

Why the Fighting Skeptic? Well, I'm a skeptic, and I fight. Not any of that dangerous, injury-prone stuff though. No, I play a particular swordfighting game that is based on historical techniques, but made safe. It is a martial art, but it is certainly not a practical one.

I fight with a dark ages reenactment society called the Ancient Arts Fellowship. I am a founding member of the group, which was founded in 1986. That's rather a long time, if you think about it.

The logo at the top of my screen is my sword and buckler. The sword was made by a local guy named Ewan, and it is very light and flexible. It is a Viking-Norman transitional style sword, Type Xa under the Oakeshott typology. The buckler I made myself, with a hammer. Each and every nick and dent is honestly obtained through combat.

I think that "The Fighting Skeptic" is a much pithier blog title than the old one. And it combines two of my particular interests. And after all, "The Fighting Skeptic Who Also Plays Roleplaying Games And Takes Photographs" is just a bit too long.

National Masturbation Day

2010-05-05T22:14:00.001+10:00

It may interest you to know that tomorrow, 6th May, is National Masturbation Day.

Actually, officially, it is the National Day of Prayer in the United States. In 1952, President Truman signed a congressional resolution that declared an annual national day of prayer. In 1988, President Reagan amended the declaration and set the day to be the first Thursday of May. Interestingly, according to the above-linked website, 33 out of 44 presidents have signed a resolution declaring a national day of prayer, and four of those presidents who did not sign a resolution died in office!

Scary, huh?

Anyway, a bunch of atheists in Massachusetts have decided that this whole idea is unconstitutional - and it is - and have made a declaration of their own. According to Steven Naughtajoo,

We've actually just finished a study with three groups of people. One group would pray for things, the other group would masturbate while thinking of those things that the people were praying for, and the control group was just asked to think about those things for a little while. All tests showed that the same rate of achieving goals was reached with each method so one can conclude that masturbating is just as effective as praying.

Quite frankly, I agree. Certain members of the community on the JREF Forum have been "fwapping" to express concern for others for ages. "Your marriage is on the rocks? I'll fwap for you." "Diagnosed with a serious illness? Fwapping." "Dog died? Fwap fwap fwap." There's even a smiley for it. Actually, on the JREF, there's a smiley for pretty much everything, so that's not surprising.

The idea is that if a religious person feels concerned about someone, but is not in a position to be able to directly help, that person will pray. They believe that this will somehow bring that person's concern to God's attention (I thought He was omniscient, but anyway...) and God will somehow intervene and assist the object of concern. Unfortunately, carefully-designed studies suggest that prayer actually has no significant effect upon the object of concern. However, it does make the person praying feel better about not doing anything more concrete.

Masturbation has exactly the same effect. It doesn't affect the object of concern, and it makes the masturbater feel good.

So tomorrow, I hope that you will support this effort with... er, some effort of your own. I know I will.

A logo for skepticism

2010-05-04T22:38:00.001+10:00

I am of the opinion that skepticism needs a logo. A simple image, of a size and clarity that is usable as, say, a forum icon, or a Twibbon. Something that is instantly recognisable, that I could wear as a lapel pin.

Religions have them - the cross for Christianity, the crescent for Islam, the star of David for Judaism. Corporations have them - the apple with the bite out of it to represent the large consumer electronics company. Even atheism has now adopted a red letter A as a de facto symbol for the New Atheism movement. I know - I wear one as a lapel pin.

But atheism is not skepticism. I consider myself a skeptic first, and an atheist later. I have nothing that I can wear as a lapel pin, or put on a t-shirt even, that says "I am a skeptic!"

I don't know what such a logo should be. I don't know of a single symbol that represents all of skepticism. The problem is that skepticism is very wide-ranging. We skeptics are skeptical of UFOs, , chiropractic, ghosts, psychics, homoeopathy, and on and on through all the different varieties of what we refer to as "woo". There's no single unifying theme in all of this, except for the idea of thinking critically, which is kinda hard to encapsulate in a single image.

I don't have a solution, but in return for the scarlet "A" of atheism, here's a similar "S" for skepticism. By using the letter S, I avoid the whole K vs C argument. If someone wants to make it into a lapel pin, I'll buy one.

Photography: Locations

2010-04-30T20:15:00.002+10:00

So as you should know, I like taking photos. So here I thought I might showcase some of my photography, all from my Flickr photostream. For all these photos, click on the picture to go straight to the photo on Flickr.

There are several... well, "themes" to my photography. On Flickr, I have them sorted into Collections. In this post, I will highlight a collection called Locations. Other collections will be featured in future posts.

I've taken photos in several locations within Canberra, Tasmania, Fiji, and the Grand Canyon in the USA. Right now there's about 150 photos in this collection, including the following:

Carillon:

A waterfall in Colo i Suva, Fiji:

The Grand Canyon, Arizona:

(this one's much better at a larger size)

Death in a Cemetary:

Tasmanian River:

Surf Beach, Batehaven NSW:

Author Verification

2010-04-21T01:09:00.000+10:00

I've just sent a bunch of people on Facebook requests to verify me as the author of this blog. I am Arthwollipot, aka Andrew Gould, and I am the author of My Place In The Universe. You know me.

Yooouuuu... Knoooowwwwwww...... Meeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee.........

Mysterious Ways

2010-04-21T00:11:00.000+10:00

I have been suffering a head cold for the last few days. My maxillary sinuses have been filling up with a naturally-produced mucous, causing difficulty breathing, excessive nasal discharge, catarrh, and repetitive sneezing. This has been caused by a rhinovirus or a coronavirus of some kind. But it's very annoying and somewhat painful. It's put me in the mood to think about Intelligent Design.

According to proponents of the theory, human beings were designed in their current form deliberately, by a Designer - usually unspecified, but in practically all cases the Abrahamic God. This Designer wanted me to suffer a blocked nasal passage when this equally intelligently designed rhinovirus took up residence in my skull. This intelligent designer deliberately and with forethought designed my maxillary sinus (and depending on your particular doctrine it could be that the designer specifically designed my maxillary sinus independent of designing everyone else's) in order that it be difficult to drain under most normal conditions.

Why would any intelligent designer design such misery?

Ask any proponent of the theory and you will receive the answer that "the ID might be operating from criteria beyond our meager comprehension". In other words, God works in Mysterious Ways.

This is the ultimate out. This is the answer to any question. Why do we suffer from catarrh? Mysterious Ways. Why are there guinea worms? Mysterious Ways. Why do we get back problems? Mysterious Ways. Why are our retinas backwards while those of the cephalopods are the right way around? Mysterious ways.

There is no question about Intelligent Design that cannot be answered by this formula. In essence, it's "I don't know" couched in terms of religion.

To the religious, everything must have a purpose. When a child dies, it cannot possibly be random chance - it has to be ordained by God for some mysterious purpose of his/her/its/their own. Because I don't understand why my tiny, innocent baby was ordained by God to be afflicted with cholera, I chalk it up to some divine purpose that I am to small and stupid to understand. God must have a reason for taking this small, helpless, innocent child's life. He must!

He certainly does work in Mysterious Ways. Or maybe he doesn't exist, and your child's cholera was caused by bacteria in contaminated water.

Spreading the Word

2010-04-19T19:37:00.003+10:00

Outreach is important.

This is crucial, so I'll say it again:

Outreach. Is. Important.

I've been to TAM, I've been to Skeptics In The Pub, I've been to the Global Atheist Convention, and all of them have one thing in common. They are preaching to the converted. This is all very well - it's fun, and interesting, and we're all sure to learn new things from them. But they're not increasing the number of skeptics in the world.

I have to make an aside here, and state that this is my opinion only. I do not represent anyone other than myself when I say that I don't think there are enough people in the world who are skeptics. Here's an example of what I'm talking about. In 2009, the seventh Amaz!ng Meeting in Las Vegas had a little over a thousand attendees - one of which was me. In contrast, the regular Mind, Body, Spirit festival in Sydney has over 180 exhibitors, 60 psychics, 40 guest speakers, and many thousands of people through the door every day.

Skeptics are outnumbered, and this is why outreach is important. All of us skeptics know that a science-friendly, evidence-based approach to life is far better than gullibility and magical thinking. It costs us less, in our health and in our wallets. We know that science is the fuel that powers the technology locomotive, and we know that this locomotive is the way to a more secure and prosperous future.

So how do we go about convincing anyone of this?

I don't actually have a good answer to this question, but I'm always open to ideas. Personally, I believe I've converted at least one person to a mostly-skeptical point of view, but then again I've known that person for many years. There has to be a better way.

Science is cool! But no-one cares.

I did an experiment once. I went to a number of people in my workplace and asked them if they knew what happened in 1066. All were under the age of 30. Every one of them - every single one answered "no". Furthermore, all of them wondered why they ought to know what happened in 1066. It doesn't affect how they live their lives. It has absolutely no relevance whatsoever to them, so why should they bother to learn?

I'll tell you why. Because knowing stuff is awesome!!!

I just wish we as skeptics could convince more people of that.