In Memoriam: Christopher Hitchens, 13th April 1949 – 15 December 2011

One year on...

Stocking filler

Just to let you know. There is 25% off the print version of Unbelievable until Christmas, if you buy it from Lulu.com.

It would be an ideal stocking filler for a friend or family.

Poking the bear

A couple of weeks ago, just for giggles, I decided to tweet Shirley Phelps-Roper from the Westboro Baptist Church, telling her about my book, linking to my blog and asking for a retweet

Strangely enough, I've not yet received a response. 

Today, I tweeted a similar request to the Pope. I sent two tweets, one in German and one in English. *

I wonder if, unlike that Phelps-Roper woman, the Bishop of Rome; the Vicar of Christ on Earth; the Holder of the Keys of Saint Peter, will do the right thing. We'll see...

*EDIT
After some advice from a friend, I have sent another tweet in Latin.

Appetizer #5: Intellectual Dishonesty

One of the most pernicious and objectionable things about the concept of religion is its tendency to creep into the education system. When my son was five years old, he came home from school one day and announced that God had made the world in six days!

It is still the law in the United Kingdom that some form of religious instruction be present in the school curriculum, and whilst I have no real objection to a comparative and historical study of religion in schools, I would have thought that a five-year-old could manage quite well without it until he or she is older. Of course, there is an argument to be made that the kind of religion taught in British primary schools only serves to inoculate children against religious belief in later life. For my son, however, I would prefer that the inoculation be forgone, and the balance of time yielded to extra reading, writing and arithmetic.

In any case, the issues at stake are much wider than that of primary education. It would appear that, left unchecked, faith would eventually make its way in to secondary school science classrooms as well. It hardly needs to be said that there is no room for faith in the field of scientific inquiry; there can be no greater affront to science, and the scientific method, than the acceptance of unsubstantiated dogma on the grounds of faith. You do not hear people talk about their faith in the theory of evolution say, or in the Copenhagen Interpretation of quantum mechanics. One either accepts the evidence or one does not; faith has nothing to do with it. So it should be with the teaching of science.

When faith does rear its ugly head in the scientific arena the results are invariably disastrous. Take for example the Intelligent Design (ID) movement. This movement appears to be most prevalent in America, although the idea is gradually creeping into Europe as well. Using the teleological argument, proponents of ID argue that the complexity of the biological world, as well the wider cosmos, imply some kind of creator or intelligent designer. Of course the arguments are couched in more 'scientific language', with words such as God, creator and faith judiciously left out. This is because the main bone of contention in the ID community seems to be that their theory is not represented in American school science classes. The inclusion of words like God or faith in the ID literature would preclude the theory at the outset from being taught in schools, because to do so would be an infraction of the constitutional 'wall of separation' between church and state, an eminently sensible idea which unlike in the United Kingdom, exists in the United States.

In order to get around this constitutional obstacle, the Intelligent Design ‘theory’, as it is publicly presented, makes no claims to the identity of the designer and proponents are fond of pointing out that he/she/they could in fact have been some kind of ultra-intelligent alien. However, it would appear that the majority of ID proponents are in fact religious believers, and it is a safe bet that behind closed church doors the Intelligent Designer is positively identified as the supernatural Judeo-Christian God.

The inadequacies ID theory are really laid bare when it is stacked up against real science. Mainstream science begins with observation which, through experiment, can be used to describe a model. As evidence is gathered, a hypothesis can be suggested to explain the model. Any hypothesis must make predictions which can be tested by further observation and experiment, during which time the hypothesis can be modified or abandoned in favour of another one. Only once a hypothesis has survived rigorous testing may it be used to formulate a scientific theory, but even then it must, unlike a mathematical proof, be open to falsification should any conflicting evidence come to light. ID on the other hand begins, and ends, with a hypothesis, with its proponents merely interpreting the evidence to fit their conjecture. This has meant that whenever it has been tested in court, the ruling has been that ID is not science. Indeed, one of the chief criticisms directed towards the ID camp is the distinct dearth of peer reviewed papers emanating from it. In its efforts to ‘debunk’ the neo-Darwinian paradigm of evolution by purely natural selection, ID does not appear to undertake any science of its own. The game plan appears to be to cast doubt on a well established and rigorously tested scientific theory and then to replace it with, at best, unimaginative guesswork, or at worst, pseudoscientific garbage.

Intelligent Design can best be thought of as a contemporary manifestation of the Creation Science movements of the 19th and early 20th centuries. In fact, the only real difference between them is that proponents of Creation Science make no secret about who the Intelligent Designer is. ID is therefore, merely a denomination of Creationism, and so words like Creationist and Creationism can justifiably be used to reference both groups—something that I intend to do from now on.

Evolution by purely natural selection and Creationism are not just at odds with one another, they are wholly incompatible; the findings of evolutionary biology threaten the perceived ‘truth’ of the teachings of bible. However, when one listens to the Creationists one gets a very different impression. It is as though they think they have uncovered overwhelming inconsistencies in current scientific dogma, inconsistencies that are an affront to science, and must be countered with ‘real’ science. The picture painted is that of avenging heroes that have, against all the odds, reopened the debate on the origins of life on earth. In the real world though, the sole motivation of the Creationist movements appears to be not genuine scientific inquiry at all, but rather the desperate reaction of those who know that they are in a weak position.

Let me expand upon this a little. The book of Genesis states quite clearly that God made all the creatures of the earth, creatures that would bring forth only after their kind, and then as a separate enterprise he created humanity in his own image. Imagine instead that Genesis 1:20-31 said something like this:

And God planted the seed of life upon the earth.
Then, God said “From this tiny seed may life be set in motion, undirected by me, across the face of the earth”.
And so it was that the seed brought forth a menagerie of creatures, each generation, to a tiny degree, different from the one before. Each minuscule difference being utilised by life itself, according to its ability to survive.
Then, when life had achieved a form that most represented God’s image, God said unto it, “Thou art my most important creation and thou shalt be called man and woman.
“Listen up; I’ve got a few ground rules for you”

I would like to bet that if that is what the bible had said, the Creationist movements would never have got started. There would be no need for them. When Charles Darwin put forward his exciting discoveries in 1859, far from being attacked as a heretic he would have been hailed as some kind of saint; a hero of the faithful. The theory of evolution would have been seen as scientific proof of the veracity of Genesis and Christianity in general.

Of course, you may think that I am being a little frivolous here, but the serious point to be made is that if Genesis had been written differently, then what are now perceived to be ‘errors’ or ‘lies’ or 'gaps' in evolutionary theory would be overlooked, perhaps even ‘covered up’ by the very people who attempt to 'expose' them today. Ironically though, their beliefs about the way of the world would not be based on anything even approaching science; stubborn faith in a few words of ancient scripture would be more than sufficient to convince them.

Sound familiar?

Pity me

I have just watched a video of a debate between creationist Eric Hovind and atheist Bernie Dehler. Now that my blood has stopped bubbling and I have managed to unlock my clenched jaw, I find myself unable to refrain from unloading some of my frustration into this post. 

I have listened to/watched more than my fair share of creationist debates and lectures in my time, many of them involving that proven liar and thief, Kent Hovind, who just happens to be the father Eric, the creationist in this video. However, I can't remember a time when I have been so ticked off as a result.

Eric Hovind is every bit as arrogant and ignorant as his father, but he manages to be even more irritating, if such a thing is possible. You'll have to watch the video for yourself to get a feel for what I mean, but I don't recommend it. I lost count of how many times Eric displayed his total lack of understanding of science, philosophy, logic or morality. Indeed, virtually every argument he made did violence to those terms. Like his dad, Eric never really shut up and let the other guy talk - he just steamrollered all over him, spouting nonsensical drivel to the delight of a baying crowd - and he used the perennial debaters trick of evading difficult questions by asking one of his own.

Although the whole debate was a torturous tangle of stupid, there were two hoofing great fallacious arguments that stood out for me:

First, whenever Mr Dehler said anything, Eric always asked "could you be wrong about everything you just said?" 

In the spirit of intellectual honesty, his opponant was obliged to answer "Yes". "Well," came the gleeful reply, "that means that you admit that you don't know anything". Hovind's 'logic' is that if you 'know' something that later turns out to be wrong, you didn't know it in the first place - you only believed it. 

So, if you admit that you might not be right about anything, you are admitting that all of your thoughts are merely beliefs and that you have no knowledge. The problem with this is that it wipes out all of science, and unless one aspires to be as arrogant as a creationist, it wipes out all forms of knowledge on any subject. And this, by the way, applies to Hovind's claims to knowledge as well - he's just too shit stupid to realise it.

Second, there was another particular piece of 'argumentation' that Hovind used throughout the debate, that it is so inane, so wrong-headed, so bat-shit crazy, that it stands out, in a strong field, as the most stupid thing that either of the Hovind boys has ever said. It is this:

"If you don't know everything, you can't know anything."

Yup, you read that right - If you don't know everything, you can't know anything....

....unless...

...unless you know someone who knows everything. 

Or, to put it another way, there is can be no knowledge without God.

Brilliant! Genius! Change one syllable and the whole delicate epigram just falls apart. Here is how the conversation should have gone as soon as Hovind made this staggeringly moronic statement:

Dehler: But wait, Mr Hovind, I have a question for you. Do you think you are God?

Hovind: Of course not.

Dehler: But you just said that you know everything.

Hovind: No I didn't.

Dehler: Er, yes. Yes you did. Think about (if you can). You claim to know God.

Hovind: Uh Huh

Dehler: But 'knowing God' is 'knowing something' right?

Hovind: Erm

Dehler: So if you claim to know God, you are claiming to know something and so, by your argument, you must be claiming to know everything...

Hovind: Well I...

Dehler: ...and if you are claiming to know everything...

Hovind: Hold on a minute now...

Dehler: ...then you are claiming to be God. QED. At what is more...

Hovind: Whoa there...

Dehler: ...you are in fact claiming that in order to know God, you have to be God. 

Hovind: That's not what I meant.

Dehler: I'm sure it isn't, but that it what you said......and another thing...since you claim to know everything, and since I know you, I can, by your own arguments, safely say that I know you are a glans.

Sadly, Dehler was too nice a chap to go down this route, but Eric did get his comeuppance in the Q&A when an 11 year-old called him on the very point I've just made, and he was forced to bluster and patronise and condescend his way out of it. I'd like to say that this delicious moment made the rest of the video worth the watch. But it didn't. Ho hum.

I need reviews

Hello fellows

I'm not sure how many of you have bought my book. I have noticed spikes in blog traffic following Google+ posts and retweets, and corresponding spikes in sales following the spikes in blog traffic, so it is safe to assume that a few of you have bought it. How many of you have read it, or what you think of it unfortunately remains a mystery.

If you are reading this and have already read the book, I would humbly urge you to give me a review on Amazon or Lulu or both. They really do help...well the good ones do at any rate. Having said that, I would welcome any feedback, good or bad. I have been plugging away at self promotion for a while now, but I am still not completely sure it is worth my while continuing. A review or two, or even a comment here on this blog, would help me to decide.

Thanks

Stu

Appetizer #4: The end is nigh

The message of the book of Revelation is that before lost souls are deposited into hell forever, the world is to be judged. The popular phrase ‘Judgement Day’, however, would appear to be a misnomer because, if the book of Revelation is anything to go by, the period of judgement will extend over at least a thousand years (Revelation 20) - a period of great tribulation and suffering known as ‘The End Times’ or ‘The Last Days’.

Interestingly, mainstream Christianity is very hesitant to name a date for these End Times, although a large number of Christians, perhaps even the majority when looked at globally, believe that it will occur within their lifetime. Of course, there are countless examples of individual amateur prophets, parading around with placards proclaiming that “the end of the world is nigh”, but there are various denominations who peddle this view on a much larger scale. For instance, the Jehovah's Witnesses have, on a number of occasions, argued, or at least implied, that a specific year would mark the end of the world. Needless to say, their track record in this area is not all that it could be. Nevertheless, the Jehovah's Witnesses still hang on to the idea that we are at least living in the “Last Days”, such having begun in October 1914. This conviction is based on a rather convoluted reading of scripture, from both Testaments, together with some arbitrary number juggling, in order to arrive at this specific date.

Please now join me on a journey into the weird and wonderful world of Christian eschatology:

• In the Gospel of Luke (21:24) Jesus says that Jerusalem will be ‘trodden down of the Gentiles, until the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled.’ Furthermore, Luke (1:32) and the Old Testament book of Ezekiel (21:27) make it clear that the times of the Gentiles will be fulfilled when Jesus becomes King. This trampling of the Gentiles, argue the Jehovah’s Witnesses, began when Jerusalem was conquered by the Babylonians in 607 BCE, and its end will signify the return of Jesus and the end of the world.

So, this trampling is crucial it would seem. We know when it began, but how long will it last?

• The book of Daniel (Chapter 4) details a prophetic dream, that King Nebuchadnezzar has, involving a tree being cut down and “seven times”, or in some translations “seven periods of time”, passing over it. Daniel interprets this dream, explaining that the tree is representative of Nebuchadnezzar himself. Turning back to Ezekiel (Chapters 17 and 31), Jehovah’s Witnesses interpret the scripture to mean that trees can be considered as representing rulership. Therefore, they say, the cutting down of a tree can be seen as an interruption of rulership, or a trampling of one.

So the trampling will last for seven periods of time. But how long is a ‘period of time’? How long is a piece of string?

• Chapter 12 of the book of Revelation, verse 6, tells the story of a woman fleeing into the wilderness, and being protected by God from a dragon, for 1,260 days. Verse 14, however, describes the same period as “a time, and times, and half a time”. Jehovah's Witnesses evidently take this to mean that “time” means “one period of time” and “times” means “two periods of time”, because they argue that, based on this passage, 1,260 days equals three and a half periods of time! This means that a period of time is equal to 360 days (or roughly one year), and so seven periods of time must therefore be equal to 2,520 days (or roughly seven years). But, the argument goes, this cannot be the whole story, because seven years is not long enough—obviously the trampling of God's rulership did not stop in 600 BCE—Daniel's prophecy must be talking of a much longer period of time than seven years. (Note that this is not the obvious conclusion to draw here but let’s go along with it for now.)
• In order to square this circle, the Jehovah’s Witnesses return to the Old Testament and the books of Numbers and Ezekiel. In Numbers 14:34 we find God punishing the Israelites for 40 days; one day for each year of faithlessness. In Ezekiel 4:4-6 we find the “son of man” commanded to lie on his left side for 390 days and on his right for 40 days, in order to bear the sins of Israel and Judah respectively; again, one day for each year of sin. These scriptural titbits apparently prove that “one day” can also mean “one year”. Therefore, 2,520 days can be taken as meaning 2,520 years!
• Finally, this in turn means that seven periods of time beginning in 607 BCE would come to a close circa 1914! Phew, got there in the end! By this reasoning, if you can call it that, Jesus Christ was appointed as King in 1914 CE, marking the beginning of the “Last Days”.

Hardly a QED is it? Believe it or not though, the plot thickens...

From these “calculations” various Jehovah's Witness tracts produced over the years have gone out of their way to imply a specific year for the end of the world, revising the date as each prediction fails. The most recent of these 'predictions' implied 1975 as the year to watch out for, and since then they seem to have stopped making predictions (and who can blame them?) Their forecast of the beginning of ‘The Last Days’ however, remains in their literature presumably because it corresponds quite nicely with the onset of the First World War, hence the specific claim of October 1914.

According to the Gospels (e.g. Matthew 24:7, Mark 13:8, Luke 21:10), Jesus said that he would return only after the world had witnessed times of international warfare, famine, earthquakes and plagues. The First World War was obviously unlike anything that had gone before in terms of scale and the Second World War surpassed even that. Accordingly, these conflicts are seen as fulfilment of prophecy, and the plight of starving Ethiopians and events such as the Indonesian tsunami in 2004 can only have served to cynically fortify that position. That is certainly the impression that I get whenever Jehovah's witnesses call at my house and ask me if I am worried about the state of the world by referencing the big news story of the week and then tying it to Matthew 24:7.

This ghoulish evangelism is just a tad too close to schadenfreude for my tastes, but the “1914 theory” also has a number of more common sense objections, both scriptural and secular. For a start, most historians agree that Jerusalem fell to Babylon in 587 rather than 607 BCE. Furthermore, there is no indication in the book of Daniel that his prophetic dream about the reign of Nebuchadnezzar had any wider implications that would necessitate a second fulfilment of the prophecy. Finally, regarding the theory that a day can also means a year, we could just as easily take a different passage from scripture, perhaps one from 2 Peter 3—‘that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day’—and use the above 'reasoning' to argue that the end of the world will begin circa 2,500,000 CE!

So, witnesses to the Jehovah incident, it might be time for a rethink...

…and while your at it, you might want to re-evaluate a few other things. Read my book for some suggestions.