Monthly Archive for June, 2009Page 2 of 4

Science Centre Promoting Pseudo-Science?

I recently came back from a trip to Dynamic Earth in Sudbury, Ontario with my daughter's class. Great facility and a fun tour into a inactive mine!

However, while perusing the Gift Shop I came across some magnetic jewelry. However, under the display was a bunch of cards from the manufacturer of the jewelry that was extolling the virtues of magnets and how researchers are finding health benefits from them.

Wait.

Pseudo-scientific claims at a Science facility?!?

I've sent off a letter to them and will post their response. The letter is below:

On June 11th, I was a parent volunteer with a Grade 5 class visiting Dynamic Earth. The kids thoroughly enjoyed the facility and enjoyed learning about the science of mining, rocks and minerals.

As always, the gift shop is a fun place for the children to browse and find science-related gifts and memorabilia. However, I was shocked and deeply disappointed to see a small card on display near the magnetic jewelry that was promoting the 'health benefits' of wearing magnetic bracelets. Although I misplaced the card, I remember it saying something about 'researchers have found benefits of magnets for health'.

I am a teacher, skeptic and staunch defender of science. How could a 'science' facility actually promote pseudo-science about magnetic jewelry?

I've taken the liberty to give you a website that looks at the research done on 'magnetic healing' here:

http://skepdic.com/magnetic.html

However, I'm sure you have real scientists at your facility that could look up research into 'magnetic healing' and form their own opinions.

Please, for the good of science, remove any and all claims that magnets might heal people. A scientific facility has an obligation to promote real science and never, ever, promote pseudo-science that is permeating our culture and standing in the way of valuable research. If people want to buy jewelry that is magnetic, fine, but don't promote non-scientific nonsense.

Dear Annabel Croft

Dear Annabel Croft,

Just FYI:

Homeopathy is full of shit

/hattip: @bengoldacre

The Telegraph: BBC supports Islam and attacks Christianity, says whinging git

Yeah, it’s from The Torygraph.

The BBC supports Islam and attacks Christianity, according to Don Maclean, the former Radio 2 religious programme presenter.

Maclean, who hosted Good Morning Sunday for 16 years, claimed that the corporation is biased against Christianity and had embarked on a movement to “secularise the country”.

Translation:

Bwaaaah boo hoo boo hoo! Nobody loves Jesus’n'Mary’n'Mo — oops, not Mo — anymore but me! Waaaah boo hoo hoo! Sob sob! etc.

If you can be arsed, the rest of it’s over there, but I wouldn’t bother if I were you.

Actually, I shouldn’t have bothered with this post. Pah, too late now—might as well press “publish”.

P.S. Why was “git” not in my computer’s dictionary? Had to remedy that pronto! Oh, look, there was a good outcome of posting this tosh.

Creationists admit lying for Jesus

From the William Crawley’s blog over at the BBC:

On today’s Sunday Sequence, the CEO of Creation Ministries UK responded to claims by one of the world’s leading authorities on evolution that he was duped into appearing in an anti-Darwinian film.

Professor Peter Bowler, the author of a biography of Charles Darwin and many other books on the history of evolution, said he was interviewed for the The Voyage That Shook The World without realising that the film was being made by a Creationist [sic] group.

Professor Bowler, who has spent most of his academic career at Queen’s University, Belfast, researching Darwinism, says he is unhappy to be appearing in what he regards as an “anti-Darwinian” film which offers an historically distorted portrait of Darwin. He claims that the film’s narrative implies that Darwin’s theory led him towards racism, whereas recent historical work by James Moore and Adrian Desmond shows that Darwin’s scientific work was partly motivated by the naturalist’s passionate opposition to racism.

Professor Bowler says he, along with his colleagues Sandra Herbert and Janet Browne, only discovered that they had inadvertently contributed to a Creationist [sic] film a month before the film’s release. Peter Bowler also raised concerns about how the editing of his own interview could leave viewers with a false impression of his own perspective on Darwin.

Phil Bell, CEO of Creation Ministries UK, acknoweged that his organisation established a “front company” called Fathom Media, because they were concerned that experts such as Peter Bowler would not agree to take part in the film if they realised it was an “overtly Creationist [sic]” production. “At the end of the day,” he said, “[when] people see ‘Creationist’ [sic], instantly the shutters go up and that would have shut us off from talking to the sort of experts, such as Professor Bowler, that we wanted to get to.”

My emphasis.

One of the commentators, korotiotio, makes this point:

The producers intention for this documentary was to create a film that would be attractive to secular broadcasters and NOT an “anti-Darwin creationist polemic”, thus the production company Fathom Media was set-up to produce and market the film. Which by the way, is standard practice in television land.

While this is true, the admission from the producers as to their reasons for setting up a “front” is in spite of the fact that it’s standard practice, not germane to it.

Crawley filed this under “religion” and “ethics”. Obviously he’s using the “ethics” category as a shorthand for “gross violations of ethics”.

Read the full text of Crawley’s post over at the BBC: “Creationists defend Darwin film”

/hattip: RD.net

How to get a geek into the woods, or Geocaching


Last year, after our wedding, we hauled ourselves up to Duluth to get away for a day or two. On our jaunt, I wanted pie and had heard of Betty's Pies, which is on the way to Two Harbors. So, we get pie, but have time to kill, so we stumble into Gooseberry Falls State Park. At the visitors center, there are displays of stuffed animals in the area, birch canoes, etc. But, there are also brightly colored signs advertising Geocaching at the State Parks (sponsored by Best Buy.)

We wander over to the info desk, check out a Garmin eTrex GPS, received a sheet with instructions for the GPS and headed out of the door.

We did get lost, but wandering around a state park isn't boring, even if you are lost. We eventually followed the right path to lead us to the "cache." We hiked on well established trails to an outhouse which overlooked Lake Superior. It was a great view and something we wouldn't have found on our own.

We were hooked. When we came back home, I plugged in coordinates to a few caches in Como Park and one that was stuck in a train on Energy Park into my car's GPS. We had no luck finding anything and stopped looking. We started up again about a month ago, because our friends, Crystal and Vic, started Geocaching. They were actually finding things like Geocoins, and Travel Bugs. It sounded really interesting, so we headed out with the Mio DigiWalker c310x. We didn't find anything.

We found a Garmin eTrex Venture HC for about $85 refurbished to up our game a bit. Still, the caches we tried to find were elusive. It looks like the Como area is more difficult then we would like and was probably a bad place to start out.

Since then, we have crawled over Central Park and Villa Park in Roseville, Crosby Park in Saint Paul and Lake Harriet in Minneapolis. We have left a bunch of Travel Bugs we purchased to leave in caches, a handful of geocoins, and some trinkets. It's been fun, even if we've both been soaked, exhaused, muddied, pricked, bit and frusturated.

For more information on Geocaching, visit www.geocaching.com.

How to get a geek into the woods, or Geocaching


Last year, after our wedding, we hauled ourselves up to Duluth to get away for a day or two. On our jaunt, I wanted pie and had heard of Betty's Pies, which is on the way to Two Harbors. So, we get pie, but have time to kill, so we stumble into Gooseberry Falls State Park. At the visitors center, there are displays of stuffed animals in the area, birch canoes, etc. But, there are also brightly colored signs advertising Geocaching at the State Parks (sponsored by Best Buy.)

We wander over to the info desk, check out a Garmin eTrex GPS, received a sheet with instructions for the GPS and headed out of the door.

We did get lost, but wandering around a state park isn't boring, even if you are lost. We eventually followed the right path to lead us to the "cache." We hiked on well established trails to an outhouse which overlooked Lake Superior. It was a great view and something we wouldn't have found on our own.

We were hooked. When we came back home, I plugged in coordinates to a few caches in Como Park and one that was stuck in a train on Energy Park into my car's GPS. We had no luck finding anything and stopped looking. We started up again about a month ago, because our friends, Crystal and Vic, started Geocaching. They were actually finding things like Geocoins, and Travel Bugs. It sounded really interesting, so we headed out with the Mio DigiWalker c310x. We didn't find anything.

We found a Garmin eTrex Venture HC for about $85 refurbished to up our game a bit. Still, the caches we tried to find were elusive. It looks like the Como area is more difficult then we would like and was probably a bad place to start out.

Since then, we have crawled over Central Park and Villa Park in Roseville, Crosby Park in Saint Paul and Lake Harriet in Minneapolis. We have left a bunch of Travel Bugs we purchased to leave in caches, a handful of geocoins, and some trinkets. It's been fun, even if we've both been soaked, exhaused, muddied, pricked, bit and frusturated.

For more information on Geocaching, visit www.geocaching.com.

Stop Speaking For God

(video below transcript)

Patrician Atheist Here.

It never fails to amaze and perplex me when Christians and other theists presume to speak on behalf of whatever god (or gods) they believe in. No matter what kind of theist I speak to and/or debate, it almost always ends up resulting in them confidently speaking for the divine and intimately knowing just about everything the divine wants. Even outside of debate I witness this practice just about every day. The fact that their personal opinion is being applied as, and substituted for, that of their god or gods is completely ignored. For some peculiar reason these theists either cannot, or refuse to, take credit for their own opinions outright.

Of course, it never occurs to these theists that if their all-powerful, divine fabrications could speak and act for themselves there would be no atheists (as far as the specific god or gods that could do these things, anyway). Unsurprisingly, Christianity will be a main focus of this video, though all theists will be addressed, as well. This is a result of the fact that I commonly debate with and endure mostly Christians – not to mention the fact that Christianity is the religion of most of my fellow countrymen, many of who would like nothing more than to impose their religious beliefs on me. Specifically, I will address Christians and other theists who routinely speak on behalf of God in order to justify their personal beliefs - so most of them. And I will compare this practice to that of atheists and other religious skeptics who genuinely own their personal opinions without pretending to be middlemen, especially for the supernatural.

The poet Percy Shelley once stated “If God has spoken, why is the world not convinced?” This quote is a relatively popular classic, and for good reason. It makes an extremely valid point. God, as far as atheists and other religious skeptics are concerned, has not spoken. And God has not spoken largely because of the complete lack of evidence for him outside of the imaginations of his believers, which makes it very difficult for him to do anything.

Being an atheist and Secular Humanist, I do not accept the Bible, or any other religious texts, as a valid source for the existence of any deities. Likewise for the continued ramblings and circumstantial evidence from Christians or other theists that God, or some other supernatural abstraction, does, in fact, exist. Nothing short of a deity physically showing himself to me - face to face, as it were - talking to me in person and showing me his power will convince me otherwise, and even then I would allow science to scrutinize these acts just to make sure. Admittedly, my standards of evidence are high.

Taking this into account, Christians and other theists are wasting both their time and the time of religious skeptics such as myself by trying to convince us otherwise through their appeals to faith and pseudo-reason and logic. This in itself would be bad enough if they were not also arrogantly presuming to speak on behalf of their god. Because what they are doing is simply giving their own personal opinion and trying to attach more authority to it by invoking the divine.

We see it every day. The faithful confidently tell us things like “God views homosexuality as a sin” or “God hates abortion” or “God wants you to wait for marriage to have sex.” They even presume to tell us that “God loves us.” Christians and other theists are constantly trying to whack atheists and religious skeptics over the head with the will of God, when all they are trying to impose on us is their personal opinion. Regardless of what sources they derive these conclusions from, they are still the personal conclusions and opinions of whatever Christian or other theist is speaking for the divine. They simply hope to add weight to their own selfish opinions by bringing God or some other deity into the fray when there is resistance to their beliefs.

Here are some of the more popular forms Christians and other theists use to speak on behalf of God:

God wants (insert personal opinion here)
God thinks (insert personal opinion here)
God says (insert personal opinion here)
God loves (insert personal opinion here)
God hates (insert personal opinion here)
God likes (insert personal opinion here)
God (insert verb(s) of personal choice here) America
(insert personal opinion here)
-God

On any given day, untold numbers of theists from government leaders to charlatan preachers to average Joe Shmoe are all guilty of using one or more of these forms of speaking for the divine. The Christian god, specifically, is apparently a very diverse, contradictory flip-flopper as he holds both liberal and conservative positions, as well as everything in-between since his followers and their opinions of his views are often at odds. If he was real he would never make it in politics.

In fact, the personal opinions of theists have created more contradictory versions of God, not to mention denominations of Christianity and other religions, than Christians and other theists know what to do with. After all, truth in matters concerning both the divine and religious orthodoxy is simply the opinion that survives and/or breaks off into rival factions.

Essentially, Christians and other theists are willing and pitiful middlemen for supernatural absurdities like God. And as far as Christians are concerned, this should not be surprising since they already view themselves as fallen creatures who are subjects of an aggressive and vile make-believe deity. These fallen creatures have some ego, though. Screw that whole humble thing and turning the other cheek.

When we do not heed their words they get mad at us not because we are rejecting God, as they claim, but because we are rejecting their prideful personal opinions and positions. If Christians, and others, truly believed there God is even half as powerful as they claim, they would allow him to deal with heretics like me on his own. I mean, where is that tough guy from the Old Testament? There should be no need to speak, much less act, for a supposedly all-powerful God who is also believed by many theists to be responsible for all that happens.

Nevertheless, when religious skeptics or theists disagree with Christians or other theists the latter three often invoke God for immediate help. Instead of bolstering their argument or opinion they are actually viewed as being insincere and arrogant by religious skeptics, and often other theists. And this is largely because they are not owning their personal opinion, but simply applying it to the opinion of God for some authority. Some may say that needing to call upon the divine is a sign of a weakness - like me. Why can't they, their opinions and positions stand on their own, like those of atheists and other non-theists?

Because with atheists and the like, what you see is what you get. We don't need to resort to making our opinions and views those of others in order to feel secure we are correct or content our arguments are sound. And our standards of evidence are way higher than that of Christians and other theists, which is why we reject absurdities like God, Christianity and other gods and religions.

If only God could come down here, clarify his opinions and sort everything out. That would show everyone, right? Yes, it would actually. Remember, atheists and other religious skeptics aren’t theists because they don’t see sufficient evidence for the existence of the divine. And this complete lack of evidence for the existence of God, or any other supernatural force, is a serious problem to overcome - for the intellectually honest, anyway.

Clearly, if the mythical Christian god (or any other god) could speak for itself and be seen Christians – or the religious followers of another god who could do these things – would have the religious market cornered. End of story. Whatever religion’s deity could do this would dominate the world and have the ultimate authority virtually every religion vies for. Unfortunately, no god has never spoken for himself. And it is because of this that no religion has ever completely dominated mankind throughout recorded history.

In the end, what God wants is largely a matter of the opinion of whoever is telling us what God wants. So my advice to Christians and other theists is to speak for yourself. God has not spoken, and if he wants to speak to us he knows where to find us.

Patrician Atheist,

See ya Around.


Peep Show Puzzles Series

BugEyeBrigadeInBlue.jpg
BugEyeBrigadeInTerraCotta.jpg
BugEyeBrigadeInYellow.jpg
DevilInDuplicateInBurgundy.jpg
DevilInDuplicateInGreen.jpg
FaceFlipInBrown.jpg
FaceFlipInPurple.jpg
FaceOffOnTheFly.jpg
FaceOffOnTheFlyInOrange.jpg
ForayInFaceBuildingInBlackAndBrown.jpg
ForayInFaceBuildingInBlackAndBrownII.jpg
ForayInFaceBuildingInBlackAndGray.jpg
ForayInFaceBuildingInBurgundy.jpg
ForayInFaceBuildingInLavender.jpg
LipServiceLegion.jpg
LipServiceLegionsInPlastic.jpg
MasksAreMirrors.jpg
MasksAreMirrorsInTandem.jpg
ParasolParanoia.jpg
ParasolParanoiaII.jpg
PortraitsAndPalettesInBeige.jpg
PortraitsAndPalettesInBlue.jpg
PortraitsAndPalettesInGold.jpg

Confessions of a Lapsed [Person Who Doesn't Believe In Gods]

Jenn Q Public (“one part reason, two parts awesome” – LOL!) is apparently a lapsed atheist. Sorry, I meant Atheist. The capitalisation is important, you see, because that means that Atheists are Dogmatic, Militant, Intolerant, and all of those other extra-bad qualities that only atheists (sorry, Atheists) exhibit and is never, ever, ever found in religious people.

NEVER!

So she wrote it up.

I didn’t follow her point (if there was one) mainly because she was describing herself as an Atheist who followed the quasi-religious doctrine of Atheism, whatever that is. Is this where the “New” comes in in “New Atheists”? I’m still to understand what that means too.

So, in order to understand what she was saying, I translated it into words I could understand, seeing if it would make more sense to me and if I would see myself and other atheists/secularists reflected in the mirror of her concern:

Confessions of a Lapsed [Person Who Doesn't Believe In Gods]

Do you believe in God? Really? And you’re willing to admit it in public?

Oops. Sorry, for a moment I slipped back into the arrogant [Lack Of Belief In Gods] of my youth.

Before my parents had children, they decided to raise their kids in a secular home. We had gifts at Christmas time and chocolate covered matzoh during Passover, but there was no religion and certainly no God.

When I was in grade school, God was just a kind of nondescript character who popped up in Little House on the Prairie books from time to time. He seemed like a decent enough fellow, but was more or less a bit player who didn’t have much to say.

After my grandfather died when I was seven, his Baptist minister lifted me up in his arms and told me, “It’s all right, Grandpa’s with God now.” At that moment, I could feel my dress was hiked up in the back and all I could think about was pulling it back down. But later, I asked around and discovered that God was our Heavenly father, whatever that was supposed to mean.

I figured, who better to ask about my Heavenly father than my earthly father, but when I did he laughed.

He wasn’t amused in a “kids say the darnedest things” kind of way. He was laughing derisively at the idea that my mother’s family believed in God. And thus began my introduction to [A Lack Of Belief In Gods].

There are people who call themselves [a person who doesn't believe in gods] who are simply nonbelievers, and then there are the big “A” [People Who Don't Believe In Gods] for whom [Lack Of Belief In Gods] is almost a religion. This quasi-religious doctrine isn’t neutral on the existence of other religions; rather, [A Lack Of Belief In Gods] is a virulently anti-theistic creed characterized by sneering contempt for religion and a profoundly dogmatic bigotry toward people of faith.

Want to know how [People Who Don't Believe In Gods] see the rest of us?

I grew up learning from my father that [A Lack Of Belief In Gods] is rational, and therefore, religious belief is irrational; [A Lack Of Belief In Gods] is defined by logic, religious faith by fantasy; and science is real while religion is make believe. Faith, I was taught, requires a willful stifling of reason.

The Torah, the Gospels, the Qur’an? All woefully inaccurate, laughably inconsistent fictions used to encourage belief in an illusion for the purpose of social control.

My curiosity in religion surfaced again in seventh grade when several of my friends were planning Bat Mitzvahs. Surely my friends weren’t ignorant enough to actually believe in God, were they? The answer was no. For most of these reform Jews, this celebration marked the official end to the tedium of Hebrew school. Most of their families were Ethical Culturists with a recreational interest in preserving their Jewish cultural identity. In other words, they too were [People Who Don't Believe In Gods].

By the time I reached high school, having had little contact with religion, I was convinced that people of faith were credulous and unenlightened. They gravitated toward soothing tales of God and afterlife to help them deal with their own mortality. At best, I considered belief in God an anachronism, a quaint vestige of days gone by, on par with superstitions about wicked thoughts causing birth defects.

At my extremely liberal college, I was exposed to even more militant [Lack Of Belief In Gods]. It was there that I learned the mere whiff of religiosity is worthy of denigration. Many of the people I met approached religion with something between disdain and loathing, and considered all religious belief a form of fanaticism. Christians in particular were characterized as knuckle-dragging, mouth-breathing fundies (and that was in polite company.)

Fortunately my mother taught me enough manners that I kept my bias to myself.

In this new environment, my [Lack Of Belief In Gods] was more than evidence of good reasoning, it was a socially desirable badge of intellectual superiority. Make no mistake: [People Who Don't Believe In Gods] think they’re smarter than you. [A Lack Of Belief In Gods] isn’t simple skepticism. It is a certainty that believers are wrong, and by extension, intellectually inferior. Religion, especially Judeo-Christian religion, is nothing more than a crutch for dupes.

But [People Who Don't Believe In Gods] aren’t content to leave religion as a mere object of ridicule. They want it cleansed from public life. And enlightened as they are, they’ve come up with quite the pretense for justifying the righteousness of their bigotry: they are defending the vision of our founding fathers from a dominionist conspiracy to establish Christianity as the state religion.

You see, for liberal [People Who Don't Believe In Gods], the only thing worse than religion is the Religious Right, a term they use to encompass all Christian conservatives. And what better way to siphon fuel from the Religious Right than to convince Americans that the government is perpetually on the verge of becoming a theocracy?

And so, they accuse local governments of trampling the Constitution in the name of God and they find subliminal Christian iconography in political ads. They wring new meanings from Thomas Jefferson’s notion of separation between church and state, and condemn our country’s motto and the status of Christmas as a national holiday. But above all, [People Who Don't Believe In Gods] stoke fear among religious and nonreligious alike that conservatives view government as a tool to force religion down your throat.

Pope-slandering buffoon Bill Maher, something of a patron saint among [People Who Don't Believe In Gods], has called religion “the ultimate hustle.” Last fall, Maher’s fellow liberal Chris Matthews, a self-described Catholic, roundly criticized Alaska Governor Sarah Palin for talking about prayer in a “secular environment” and complained that she made the Republican Party look more like a church tent than a big tent. In March, Matthews complained, “Why does everything sound like the ‘700 Club’ with this Party now?” Such examples of anti-religious bias can be found every day on cable news, network television, and in the pages of The New York Times and The Washington Post.

As my politics strayed right of center after college, I realized I wanted no part of that Maher/Matthews worldview based in elitism and the ridicule of others. I made the transition from [A Person Who Doesn't Believe In Gods] to [a person who doesn't believe in gods] to agnostic, and have since discovered why it is often said that religion is experiential.

There was a time when I would have preferred any manner of torture to admitting the possibility of a higher power. These days, I’m proud to say I lost my faith in the [Person Who Doesn't Believe In Gods] creed.

Nope, still not getting it. Perhaps if I translated “secular” and “liberal” and “elitism” and “thinking” and “having a fucking clue” from their right-wing “meanings” I might have had more success.

Perhaps next time.

/hattip to The Barefoot Bum.

£75 of awesome sceptical activist WIN!

Now here’s an example of great sceptical activism, all centred around the ongoing BCA vs Simon Singh libel claim and recent ASA adjudication on chiropractic advertising.

Simon over at Adventures in nonsense has been busying himself recently:

For some time, chiropractic has managed to get away with being the acceptable face of alternative medicine. With some evidence to show that it helps with lower back pain, and many chiropractors only using the therapy for this purpose, it was seen by many as a legitimate therapy and largely escaped criticism from sceptics.

That all changed when the BCA decided to sue Simon Singh for libel. In a fine example of the Streisand effect, all the energy usually reserved for criticising homeopaths and reiki healers was redirected straight at those chiropractors making wild and outlandish claims to treat colic, asthma and a host of other problems unrelated to the spine.

With the BCA attempting to stifle debate over the bogus claims pointed out by Simon Singh, I was determined to do something.

Golly gosh, what did he do? What did he do?

[Don't you just love cliff-hangers?]

I don’t want to give the game away here, so pop on over and read what Simon and his chums have been up to from the man himself.

Petition: Withdraw support for creationist zoo in schools

Over at RD.net today, someone has posted a petition:

We the undersigned petition the Prime Minister to withdraw support for Noah’s Ark Zoo Farm, and education focused, yet ardently creationist establishment.

Noah’s Ark Zoo Farm (NAZF) is a zoo just outside Bristol that markets itself to schools and is heavily focused on child education.

However, instead of teaching well-established science, it promotes creationism.

The literature displayed at the zoo is hostile to Darwin and his theories and attempts to debunk techniques such as radio carbon dating and interpretation of the fossil record.

Much of this literature – which is presented as fact – contradicts science on the national curriculum, thereby actively damaging a child’s education. This can be evidenced on their website; however, this is much diluted compared the ardent creationist material on display at the zoo.

NAZF also uses the VisitBritian logo to market the zoo.

The stated aim of VisitBritain (Britain’s national tourism agency) is to market Britain worldwide and to develop England’s visitor economy.

By promoting the NAZF, with its creationist agenda and harmful educational materials, VisitBritian is damaging the reputation of the United Kingdom.

I’m a little of two minds over this. On one hand, I feel people should be able to believe any bat-shit insane proposition they like. On the other, the fact that the wingnuts behind this zoo are making inroads into schools (what the fuck does RE [religious "education" - a [s]tatutory subject with non-statutory programme of study] have to do with biology?) is not on for precisely the reasons that creationism isn’t already taught in science lessons: it’s not science.

As these two concerns are not necessarily mutually exclusive, the only reason that I’m signing this petition is for the second reason, and not the first.

I just wanted to make that clear.

I also think that the fourth paragraph (the one starting The literature displayed at the zoo…) is both superfluous and frames the petition badly. I do understand and appreciate why it’s there, although I wish it weren’t and think the petition would be better off for it.

Note: The petition is scheduled to close on the 26th June 2009 (six days [ha!] from the date of this post) so please sign it, and repost as far and wide as you can.

Revelations in Ireland Disclose Yet Again the Rotten Structure of the Catholic Church

This news is of course no longer current, since the revelations, in Ireland of all countries, of the sexual abuse by Catholic priests of young boys in orphanages and schools, occurred a month ago. On the other hand, I have not posted to this blog for an even longer period, so I suppose there is a certain symmetry here.

I am not particularly attracted to any of the major or minor superstitions- oops, religions- that have ever existed. But I particularly despise the Catholic Church. Not the millions of devout Catholics in the world, who of course have, under our wonderful First Amendment, the right to worship the deity(s) of their choice. The putrid odor instead emanates from the sanctimonious hypocrites currently in charge of the decaying Catholic organization, who have chronically condoned and concealed the sexual abuse of innocent children (mostly boys) by Catholic priests.

It is bad enough that the malignant leadership of the Catholic church has failed to punish and/or expel priests known to be guilty of the terrible sin of having sex with trusting children. But far worse, these spiritual “leaders” have instead transferred the guilty priests to other flocks of innocent doves, permitting these fiends to continue feasting on new young victims.

The current Catholic church hierarchy clearly qualifies as one of the foulest pestilences that God (if there were a God) has wrought upon the Earth. One wonders what sin Humanity has committed, great enough to justify the visitation upon us of such a putrescent plague. Only God in his infinite wisdom knows!

Here endeth today’s lesson.

Revelations in Ireland Disclose Yet Again the Rotten Structure of the Catholic Church

This news is of course no longer current, since the revelations, in Ireland of all countries, of the sexual abuse by Catholic priests of young boys in orphanages and schools, occurred a month ago. On the other hand, I have not posted to this blog for an even longer period, so I suppose there is a certain symmetry here.

I am not particularly attracted to any of the major or minor superstitions- oops, religions- that have ever existed. But I particularly despise the Catholic Church. Not the millions of devout Catholics in the world, who of course have, under our wonderful First Amendment, the right to worship the deity(s) of their choice. The putrid odor instead emanates from the sanctimonious hypocrites currently in charge of the decaying Catholic organization, who have chronically condoned and concealed the sexual abuse of innocent children (mostly boys) by Catholic priests.

It is bad enough that the malignant leadership of the Catholic church has failed to punish and/or expel priests known to be guilty of the terrible sin of having sex with trusting children. But far worse, these spiritual “leaders” have instead transferred the guilty priests to other flocks of innocent doves, permitting these fiends to continue feasting on new young victims.

The current Catholic church hierarchy clearly qualifies as one of the foulest pestilences that God (if there were a God) has wrought upon the Earth. One wonders what sin Humanity has committed, great enough to justify the visitation upon us of such a putrescent plague. Only God in his infinite wisdom knows!

Here endeth today’s lesson.

Does the Euthyphro Dilemma Argue For Theism? (Part Two)

Marc Schooley, author of the The Areopagus, (who also comments as MS Quixote) argues adamantly in a post on his blog that the Euthyphro Dilemma advances theism. MS Quixote referenced this argument during a discussion on the reasons why people are theists or atheists at the blog Daylight Atheism.

I intend to present a comprehensive case as to why the Euthyphro Dilemma advances atheism, but to do this, I must substantively and seriously address the reasons given by MS Quixote as to why he believes the Euthyphro Dilemma advances theism. This is my goal, and I intend to demonstrate my case thoroughly and convincingly.

This is my second post which analyzes MS Quixote's argument for why the Euthyphro Dilemma advances theism rather than atheism.

Last time, I explained my assertion that one cannot avoid the ED by positing that the paradigm of goodness is embedded in God's nature:

The first philosophic move of the theist is to pass through the horns of the ED by locating the Good as the nature of God. In effect, the theist answers the dilemma by saying “neither.” Hence, the theist claims that the good is not independent of God, as posited by horn one, nor is the good commanded by God, as claimed by horn two. In effect, a tertium quid is presented: God’s nature is the paradigm of goodness. God’s nature is the good...Note, the theist objection does not say that God’s nature is good; it says that God’s nature is the good.


(The emphasis on the final sentence of that quote is solely mine.)

MS Quixote tries to argue that the paradigm of goodness is embedded in God's nature; but he is simultaneously arguing that God's nature is "the good" rather than good. So he seems to be arguing that there is, in fact, no way to tell whether the paradigm of goodness really is, in and of itself, actually good.

Let's try to use your argument for a thought experiment:

Goodness is embedded in God's nature necessarily, since God is the paradigm of goodness. God's standard for goodness is not a coherent concept - because God is the standard. But why is God good? Because he is; it's a brute fact of existence - deal with it. But what if God's nature was malevolent: if God's nature is the paradigm of goodness, and God's nature is malevolent, then is malevolence actually goodness? God could've been anything, but he just is good. We just got lucky that he isn't apathetic or malevolent or bipolar. God's the standard for goodness because he is - through God, all things are. We know God is good because all things are patterned from him - we can tell that all things are patterned from God's goodness, we can tell that he is the ultimate paradigm, because that's just exactly the kind of world we seem to inhabit:

No random, indiscriminate earthquakes, volcano eruptions, mudslides, or tsunamis,

No rampant diseases such as polio, typhoid, smallpox, or the Black Plague,

Just goodness. We know God is good because that's just the way the world works.

You want evidence, you say? You want to know if this assertion really means something?

Just examine the world around you. Then you'll know.

Why do we really say that God is the paradigm of goodness? Why do we really believe in a maximally great being?

Perhaps it's comforting. Perhaps it's disorienting to believe that we are here on this planet, in the middle of this universe, lacking guidance, lacking care, and lacking supervision.

Perhaps that was the best explanation we had at one time. Perhaps it helps us derive meaning from our existence. Perhaps we feel that it keeps us in touch with the traditions of our families and our communities.

It doesn't mean anything to say that any God is the paradigm of goodness if we refuse to define a standard for goodness. So you say that God is the standard? Fine, judge God by his handiwork, if that's what you believe.

God is "the good", you say. God is "maximally great", you say. How do you know?, I say.

Do you know that God's nature is the paradigm of goodness because it is good, or do you know that God's nature is the paradigm of goodness because it is his nature, by fiat?

If you know that God's nature is the paradigm of goodness because of some outside standard, then your God is inferior to that standard. If you know that God's nature is the paradigm of goodness because it is - by fiat - then you've admitted that you have no basis for interpreting God's nature as "good" or "evil".

Whatever God's nature becomes (or rather, what it has become) is the good; whatever it does not become (or rather, what it has not become) is not the good. As a consequence, you have absolutely no idea what the good resultant from God's nature should be, nor what it is, nor what it means.

Anyone can say, "this comes from God, it must be the good!"

"Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you believe atrocities." - Voltaire

Does the Euthyphro Dilemma Argue For Theism? (Part One)

Marc Schooley, author of the The Areopagus, (who also comments as MS Quixote) argues adamantly in a post on his blog that the Euthyphro Dilemma advances theism. MS Quixote referenced this argument during a discussion on the reasons why people are theists or atheists at the blog Daylight Atheism.

I intend to present a comprehensive case as to why the Euthyphro Dilemma advances atheism, but to do this, I must substantively and seriously address the reasons given by MS Quixote as to why he believes the Euthyphro Dilemma advances theism. This is my goal, and I intend to demonstrate my case thoroughly and convincingly.

First, I must commend MS Quixote for his well-written and well-argued critique of ED. I recommend his summary of ED and the surrounding controversies to anyone who desires to obtain a solid understanding of what exactly the dilemma is, and what is meant by it, when both theists and atheists refer to it.

Because MS Quixote has done such an excellent job covering the historic origins of the Euthyphro Dilemma and the traditional use of ED by atheists, I will not delve into those sections of his essay here. I hope that my readers of this entry will already have some knowledge of the dilemma, and if they don't, I recommend MS Quixote's summary of it, because he does a much better job of summarizing it then I could have done.

Let's cut right to the meat of this discussion: Quixote's critiques of the dilemma.

MS Quixote asserts that:
Another nemesis of the dilemma is the tertium quid, the third option. If a viable third option is presented, the dilemma is rightly deemed a false dilemma. The dilemmas above appear to be true dilemmas; there do not appear to be other alternatives to dead/alive and pregnant/not pregnant. However, if a dilemma states that children like either football or baseball, it is rather simple to provide other options, say, basketball. Thus, the dilemma is defeated. This is commonly referred to as “passing through the horns of the dilemma.”

Lastly, one may “grasp the horns of the dilemma.” If it may be shown that one or both of the premises of a dilemma is false, the dilemma is successfully defeated. With ED, the theist is able to both pass through the horns and grasp them.


So, is the theist really able to both pass through the horns of the Euthyphro Dilemma and grasp them? This is the bedrock of MS Quixote's argument: if I cannot demonstrate that his arguments (which purport to demonstrate that the theist can pass through and grasp the horns of the ED) are invalid, then I cannot state that MS Quixote is incorrect when he claims that the ED argues for theism rather than atheism.

MS Quixote's first step is to demonstrate that the Euthyphro Dilemma is, in fact, a false dilemma, by presenting a viable alternative, a third option, in addition to the two horns of the Dilemma as summarized:

The first horn of the dilemma—Is good willed by God because it is good—locates the good independently of God. The good is conceived of as some standard or other that God recognizes in determining what is good. If this state of affairs obtains, God is subservient to standard independent of his eternal being; there is at least one entity He is not sovereign over. Moreover, he becomes the mere messenger of goodness. Admittedly, this position is untenable for Christian theists.

The second horn of the dilemma—or is it good because it is willed by God—tends to render the commands of God arbitrary. The ED proponent argues with this horn that God could have just as well commanded rape and murder as goods, and that they are evils is only at the whim of God’s command. Furthermore, under the second horn, often referred to as Divine Command Ethics (DCT), it is difficult to make informative claims about Gods goodness, if goodness is solely based upon what God says it is. What does it then mean to say that God is good?


While acknowledging that both horns of the original dilemma are untenable for Christianity, MS Quixote presents his third option:

The first philosophic move of the theist is to pass through the horns of the ED by locating the Good as the nature of God. In effect, the theist answers the dilemma by saying “neither.” Hence, the theist claims that the good is not independent of God, as posited by horn one, nor is the good commanded by God, as claimed by horn two. In effect, a tertium quid is presented: God’s nature is the paradigm of goodness. God’s nature is the good.


Ah ha, the ED is clearly bunk, then! So we're finished, right?

Not necessarily.

As MS Quixote aptly recognizes, many proponents of the Euthyphro Dilemma are not prepared to accept this alternative as an answer to the dilemma. In fact, these critics argue that this framing only moves the dilemma one step farther back:

ED is re-erected around the theist’s contention that God’s nature is the good: Is God’s goodness good in relation to some independent standard, or it is good because God’s character is good? The former presents the same problem as the first horn of the original dilemma, the latter, the same problem as the second horn of the original dilemma which again seems arbitrary or whimsical. After all, God’s character could have been anything.


MS Quixote responds that those critics who reply to his offered alternative with this response fail to understand exactly what he really means with his third option:

Theists generally consider the reformulation of the dilemma a clear indicator that the ED supporter has misunderstood the theist contention that God’s nature is the good. Note, the theist objection does not say that God’s nature is good; it says that God’s nature is the good.

The ED supporter has attempted to establish an infinite regress with the reformulation of the dilemma; however, the theist response precludes this outcome by positing God’s nature as a metaphysical ultimate, a brute fact of existence. Brute facts are explanatory propositions that require or admit no explanation themselves.


So God's goodness is a brute fact of existence. But wait, God's nature isn't good; it is the good, according to MS Quixote.

So how we can call God "good" if we have no standard for what is "good"? If "the good" is defined as God's nature, then anything that is God's nature is "the good". But God could be entirely malevolent, and since it is his nature, then complete malevolence is "the good". For who are the pots to question the potter? God can smash all of them if he wants, err, if that's his nature.

And why not? What's preventing God from being completely malevolent? And how do we know that if there is a God, that he isn't entirely malevolent? If God's nature is "the good", and we cannot define "the good" apart from God's nature, then how can we ascribe any qualities at all to this nebulous concept known as "the good"?

If we agree with MS Quixote's definition of "the good", then we now have no coherent standard for whether something is good or evil. In fact, good and evil become meaningless and obsolete; things are either part of "the good" or they are not part of "the good". God's nature defines what is "the good". And those who speak in the name of God get to define what is God's nature!

"Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities." - Voltaire

The Unit


I read a neat book called "The Unit", by Ninni Holmqvist. I say "neat" because it has an Orwellian, Handmaid's Tale sort of skeevy-ness about it. The book is set in the future, though not the far off future. Perhaps a generation forward. The Party (government) sets up a system in which "the dispensable" (childless women over fifty and childless men over sixty) are placed into a Reserve Bank Housing Unit. All of their needs are met (food, clothing, shopping, movies, activities, hobbies, housing, and medical). In fact, their needs are met so well that most live more affluent lives in the unit than they did outside. This is partly because the government has turned the country into a purely economically driven economy where families are, supposedly, the most precious resource. They did this to ensure that the GDP would stay on an upward trend. Mothers and fathers have to split maternity leave. There's a law stating moms must return to work and the government subsidizes child care from six months on. Those who do not have children, as I said, are dispensable. They are seen as a drain on the economy when they reach fifty, under the assumption that they won't be working much longer and have no one to care for. They go to the Unit. The Unit sounds like a pretty cool place (having all your needs met and all) until you understand the caveat. While you're being pampered and have every available comfort, you also are used for biological and medical experiments. You're also used as a donor. At any time, you might have a cornea or kidney or other organ taken. These organs are given to the "needed people" of society. Ultimately, after a few years, you make your "final donation" (heart or lungs). But, what happens when a dispensable gets pregnant (because, yes,...you can hook-up as much as you want in the Unit)? The powers that be assume women over fifty are pre-menopausal or menopausal, so this is a rare occurence. But, what if? This is what happens to the book's protagonist. I won't ruin the ending, but it's unexpected and thought provoking. I highly recommend checking this out! I don't like fiction and I blew through this in a day. Let me know what you think.