Blind Leading the Blind

Alister McGrath has written another vacuous piece attacking the new atheists. He seems unhealthily obsessed with them.

It's an extended exercise in equivocation on the meaning of faith. He starts by complaining how the naughty new atheists caricature faith:

One of the core New Atheist assertions, endlessly and uncritically repeated on New Atheist websites, is Richard Dawkins's dogmatic statement that faith is "blind trust, in the absence of evidence, even in the teeth of evidence."

...and:

For Dawkins, this means that faith counts as a "form of mental illness." This nasty intellectual perversion is limited to religious people. "Faith, being belief that isn't based on evidence, is the principal vice of any religion."

Fair enough (except it's obviously not limited to religious people, and I have no idea who would say that - the quote doesn't say that); generally speaking the faithful I've met do make the leap of faith in the face of evidence to the contrary; that is certainly how I became a theist. But it's true also that other theists claim a different basis for their belief, including, apparently, McGrath. Since it's not "blind trust, in the absence of evidence, even in the teeth of evidence", it must be because of evidence, mustn't it?

Faith is based on reason, yet not limited to the somewhat meagre truths that reason can actually prove.

So McGrath agrees with the new atheists that faith goes beyond reason! Welcome aboard. Except in one particular; that the truths that reason 'proves' (to be charitable, let's allow that in the non-scientific sense) are 'meagre'. These 'meagre' truths, of which McGrath is so contemptuous, include:

• Man was not fashioned from dust and woman from his spare rib
• The Earth was not magicked into being before there was any light
• Women are not subservient to men
• Homosexuals are not doing anything wrong
• All religions cannot all be right; they can all be wrong
• There is no need to take what another person says on trust
• Freedom of belief is a good thing, and religions usually only encourage belief in themselves
• Freedom of expression is a good thing, and religions usually discourage questioning of belief

McGrath goes on:

It is not a blind leap into the dark, but a joyful discovery of a bigger picture of things, of which we are part. It is complex and rich idea [sic], which goes far beyond simply asserting or holding that certain things are true.

If it's a joyful discovery of a bigger picture of things, then why can it not be demonstrated? Here's the thing; theists 'discover' bigger pictures all the time. They either relate to reality or are a figment of their imagination. How to decide? Of course, there's only one answer to that, and McGrath won't like it.

Theists present multifarious and contradictory 'bigger pictures' to non-believers, and then moan at them for quibbling about evidence. If we are to accept McGrath's word without evidence, then we may just as well accept a Muslim's, a Jew's, a Scientologist's or Al Queda's. Theists then say, no, you must discover it yourself. No, no, and again, no. Without reason and evidence one cannot be sure one isn't fooling *oneself* any more than the many theists clearly are. To think anything else is to adopt the arrogant mantle of omniscience. Far from being scientistic, new atheists are simply being modest in their claims to knowledge; while theists presume to know more than their fellows. Such hubris.

McGrath promises more of this drivel, so it's going to be a long road to Golgotha.

Read more »

Templetonia

After many recent 'Science and Religion' accommodations, noticed by folk like Jerry Coyne and Ophelia Benson, often centring around the activities of the Templeton Foundation, one becomes sensitive to any hints of agenda setting from that source.

Taner Edis highlights the sort of misunderstanding that has been successfully propagated by those who are Templeton beneficiaries. He's been reading Paul Froese and Christopher Bader's America's Four Gods, and quotes them saying:

Although the arguments of the New Atheists are certainly engaging, they tend to misrepresent the current relationships among science, progressivism, and belief in God. Today, Democrats and cultural progressives are overwhelmingly likely to believe in God. Many professional scientists are also devout believers. In sum, a large swath of America is religiously devout, politically liberal, and scientifically savvy—three things we are told cannot go together.

This makes the usual mistake of equating accommodationism between science and religion with the ability for individuals to accommodate both science and religion. This latter fact has always been true, and will no doubt continue to be, for some people, but it has no bearing on their respective epistemic standings. Science is the most reliable way of knowing we have discovered, whereas religion has had almost no success as a way of knowing. In fact, it would appear that anything that religions say that is true, such as certain moral rules, pre-dates those religions. If they have 'discovered' anything that didn't pre-date them (and I cannot think of anything right now), any such discovery would be accidental, because they have no method of justifying their beliefs; the beliefs would simply be held dogmatically.

Froese and Bader's reference to many professional scientists being devout believers is a little dubious; maybe it relates to some research from another Templeton beneficiary, Elaine Ecklund. She claims that fifty percent of scientists are traditionally religious, but as Jason Rosenhaus points out, the data disagrees:

Asked about their beliefs in God, 34% chose “I don't believe in God,” while 30% chose, “I do not know if there is a God, and there is no way to find out.” That's 64% who are atheist or agnostic, as compared to just 6% of the general public.
An additional 8% opted for, “I believe in a higher power, but it is not God.” That makes 72% of scientists who are explicitly non-theistic in their religious views (compared to 16% of the public generally.) Pretty stark.

The worry with Templeton funding is the corrupting influence it may have on the good conduct of science. Tom Rees notes just how bad a Templeton funded divine healing research project, run by Candice Brown, Associate Professor of Religious Studies at Indiana University, and published last year, is:

It's a useless study, then. Now, a lot of people set out to do useless studies, but mostly they don't get funded or published. So what happened here?
Well, it won't surprise you to learn that the Templeton Foundation paid for this pitiful charade of science. They got their money's worth, though, in terms of gullible press headlines.

And the journal (the Southern Medical Journal) that published this nonsense?

They publish a lot of stuff on prayer - 137 articles in the last 5 years alone.

Not too surprising; a simple search on 'prayer' at Templeton yields 4 projects with a total funding of $4.5m. And this doesn't include the Candice Brown study that Rees mentions, since it's been funded from the Flame of Love project, another Templeton waste of money, doing 'Scientific Research on the Experience and Expression of Godly Love in the Pentecostal Tradition', to the tune of $2,326,362.

To draw from this feeble research the, admittedly tentative, conclusion that 'proximity could be the key to success' of prayer is laughable. That money is wasted on so many theo-scientific projects, that could be used to deliver genuine medical advances using real science, is a crying shame.

Read more »

A Gender Setting Agenda Setting

Image by Getty Images via @daylife

Sian Massey has been withdrawn from this weekend's game at Corby Town in the Blue Square League.

This is through no fault of her own, but due to the massive media attention brought on by Andy Gray's and Richard Key's ignorant and prejudiced comments on her abilities as an official in a football match. Rather brilliantly, she showed herself to be very good at the job, although even if she had made errors that wouldn't justify the sexism displayed by Gray and Keys; she's allowed to be human.

A major part of the problem here is that their comments come as no surprise to me; I play football regularly and if I pulled up every player who made non politically correct remarks I'd have no time to play any football. Sexism is rife in the game, and probably many other sports. It's good that these two have become high profile victims of their own prejudices, to highlight this endemic problem. I'm not entirely sure one instance of casual sexism is sufficient to warrant summary sacking, but this incident, and this, show that these are not aberrations; it reflects their normal behaviour. And while that can be allowed in the private sphere, in the public sphere, including the workplace, it's completely unacceptable. I don't believe for a second that these are the first such incidents in the last 20 years of Sky football broadcasting. Why has it taken this long to come to light? Richard Keys suggested there were dark forces at work, possibly alluding to the phone hacking scandal - Andy Gray is suing the News of the World for breach of privacy. But such prehistoric attitudes must have been condoned, or overlooked, for decades, so one cannot be hopeful that sexism can be rooted out just by sacking these two offenders.

Which brings me back to poor Sian Massey, a blameless individual who doesn't have the benefit of years of fat salary cheques to fall back on, and whose career has been temporarily blighted by this controversy. Here's hoping she can be given full support to return to her duties. How wonderful if she could progress and referee the World Cup Final eventually? Good luck to her.

Read more »

Morecambe & Wise Can Stay in Hotel, Court Rules

The welcome news that a gay couple have won their case for unfair discrimination against the Bulls, of the Chymorvah Hotel, near Penzance, who refused to let them share a double bed, has provoked predictably hysterical responses from Christians. This case was brought under the Equality Act 2010, which consolidated Britain's previously diverse laws on discrimination, and looks to ensure that Morecambe and Wise, and Laurel and Hardy, as well as civil partners, can seek accommodation (and engage with other businesses) without fear of censure, humiliation and no roof over their heads. In fact, in my youth, penury drove me to share double beds with my mates on occasion, for anything but carnal purposes.

One of the problems with this whole area is the equivocation between discrimination and unfair discrimination - 'discrimination' is often used as a shortened version for the unfair one. And the Act doesn't help too much; the preamble includes:

...to reform and harmonise equality law and restate the greater part of the enactments relating to discrimination and harassment related to certain personal characteristics...

Clearly there is a presumption that discrimination based on personal characteristics is unfair. The judgement stated the law as it stands:

For the purposes of these Regulations, a person (“A”) discriminates against another (“B”) if, on the grounds of the sexual orientation of B or any other person except A, A treats B less favourably than he treats or would treat others (in cases where there is no material difference in the relevant circumstances) .

And hear the unfairness is made as clear as it ever is ('unfair' doesn't feature in the Act); to treat someone less favourably because of x, where x is a personal characteristic.

The relevant protected characteristics are age, disability, gender reassignment, race, religion or belief, sex and sexual orientation. So, conversely, a gay couple running a hotel couldn't refuse entry to Christians because of their homophobic beliefs; more debatable, this, I think, since beliefs are far more variable and self determining than sexual orientation. But, on balance, I'd rather err on the liberal side on that one, and agree with the Act.

Anglican blogger Cranmer brings up an interesting conundrum; how can we tell if the Bulls are prejudiced? It's plain we cannot tell exactly, and as long as we resist the thought police, we never shall. But laws must operate on actions, and the actions of the Bulls were unfairly discriminating, so the law can conclude that their actions were prejudicial. If the Bulls maintain they love all things homosexual or, more reasonably, are indifferent to them, fair enough. But the law cannot act on that.

Christians disingenuously point out that unmarried heterosexuals are also banned, so the ruling should not apply. But that is a bogus argument; Christian disqualification of gay marriage ensures the effect is discriminatory. The Act explicitly equates marriage and civil partnership in any case, making the legal case invalid too.

Cranmer objects to (Director of Stonewall) Ben Summerskill's words:

Religious freedom shouldn't be used as a cloak for prejudice.

Why would anyone think that religious freedom was being used as a cloak for prejudice?

Here are a few of the comments:

Rebel Saint says:

The gay mafia are well organised and have lots of friends in high places due to their over representation in the media. However the feeling amongst the population at large - particularly the C2DE's - is still disgust and antipathy (go read the comments on the Sky News website for example). Alas, they can't be bothered to vote so the gay mafia win.

Bred in the Bone says:

They should inform all guest both hetro and homo that buggery is unacceptable on these premises without discriminating.

Then when guests check just ask them do they like it up the arse.

Oswin said:

Bred in the bone

Tee hee ... harrumphs! :o)

And in a subsequent post, English Viking said:

Homosexualists are perfectly capable of getting married, and having children for that matter.

They have exactly the same choice as a normal person; marry a nice lass.

PS Don't call me a bigot for the use of the word 'normal'. It won't work.

No, I can't imagine what gives people the idea that religious freedom is being used as a cover for prejudice.

Finally, Commenter Anabaptist makes clear again the theist obsession with theocracy, just as Catholics and Muslims all too often do:

Christians need to continue to act according to their faith, neither expecting nor demanding privileged treatment by the state, and taking the consequences as did Jesus and Paul. 'We should obey God rather than men,' is the principle that was applied by the apostles, and it needs to be ours.

If anyone honestly believes this, then it renders them a fifth columnist in their own country, prepared to usurp its properly made laws in favour of a barbarous tradition. It's the same madness that drives Catholics to protect paedophiles and Islamists to blow up innocent commuters.

It is simply evil.

Read more »

Government cares more for Tiddles than for You

Image via Wikipedia

A little while back I published some correspondence with Francis Maude, my MP and now Minister for the Cabinet Office and Paymaster General, discussing the report on homeopathy by the House of Commons Science and Technology Committee. I urged him to back their conclusions and to stop allowing public money to be spent on a treatment that hasn't been shown to work. In his reply he said:

Where a doctor and a patient believe that a homeopathic treatment may be of benefit to the patient, I believe doctors should be free to prescribe that medicine. All therapies should be considered equally, and decisions on whether or not to provide them on the NHS should be evidence-based, as is the case with all other conventional medicines and treatments.

He took the approach that patient choice was an important aspect in the provision of homeopathy. One wonders, if someone requested hoodoo, or sexual healing, would he be so keen to support patient choice? I wrote back to him pointing out this paragraph from the report:

The Government’s position on homeopathy is confused. On the one hand, it accepts that homeopathy is a placebo treatment. This is an evidence-based view. On the other hand, it funds homeopathy on the NHS without taking a view on the ethics of providing placebo treatments. We argue that this undermines the relationship between NHS doctors and their patients, reduces real patient choice and puts patients’ health at risk. The Government should stop allowing the funding of homeopathy on the NHS.

...noting that the Committee's position was that homeopathy reduced patient choice. He replied:

I think this argument you refer to is flawed. The argument goes that patient choice is meaningless when patients are not properly informed about the implications of the treatments they are selecting, and thus diminishes "real" patient choice.

In arguing this, the Select Committee pass judgement on homeopathic treatments, labelling them a "phoney" or "fake" choice. I am not a medical expert, and would not like to make judgements of this kind in the place of experienced medical professionals. GPs rightly should provide information to patients about different treatments, and must be held to account for the decisions they and their patients make under their advisement. I would not seek to undermine this critically important relationship in this way.

It is difficult to see how taking this choice away from GPs and patients could constitute an increase in choice; in my opinion this is simply taking choice away.

Should patients also be supported by the NHS if they choose urine therapy too? Or would that be taking the piss? Of course, the major flaw here is that GPs are in no position to judge the efficacy of any particular treatment either; that is determined by peer-reviewed clinical trials. Despite not being a medical expert himself, and apparently unacquainted with the science, he still sees fit to support public funding of a treatment that hasn't been shown to work. So far, so inconsistent.

But now the government has decided to add another layer of inconsistency on top of this watered down approach. DEFRA have clamped down on the use of homeopathic remedies for animals:

Some herbal and homeopathic products are claiming medicinal benefits without scientific proof, meaning they may not properly treat or prevent serious diseases, leaving pets at risk.

The Veterinary Medicines Directorate’s (VMD) Director of Operations, John FitzGerald, said:

“Some of these products are claiming to be effective and safe when no scientific evidence has been presented to us to show they are.

“Animal owners have a right to know if a product does what it claims. The products claim to treat diseases which can cause serious welfare problems and in some circumstances kill animals if not properly treated. So in some cases owners are giving remedies to their pets which don’t treat the problem.”

Bizarre; so these are the Government's current recommendations:

• Animal owners cannot choose a homeopathic remedy in conjunction with their vet, because no scientific evidence has been presented to show they are effective and safe, but...
• Patients can choose a homeopathic remedy in conjunction with their doctor, even though no scientific evidence has been presented to show they are effective and safe.

The government clearly doesn't care about our welfare as much as our pets'.


And note that they even allow us the freedom of choice to catch malaria; oh, sweet liberty!

Read more »

Catholic FAQ

(Laminate and issue to all Catholic congregations)

If I fall pregnant and suffer a life threatening illness that requires an abortion to save me, can I secure that life-saving treatment?

• There's good news and bad news. The good news is that an indirect abortion, whereby treatment of the illness has the double effect of aborting the baby*, is allowed. The bad news is that if the only treatment available requires a direct abortion, involving an action to end the life of the baby*, that is not allowed. You, and your baby*, must die, which is the greater good.

If I'm serving the community and advising on such abortions, what will happen to me if I approve an abortion that the Church considers direct?

• You will be summarily excommunicated, which is the greater good.

If a priest abuses children in his care, what will happen to him?

• He will be given pastoral care and help to re-integrate into the community. Well, a nearby community, anyway, which is the greater good.

If I discover that a priest is abusing children in his care, what will happen if I inform the local authorities?

• You will be summarily excommunicated, which is the greater good.

If I'm married and my spouse contracts HIV, can I wear a condom to prevent catching the fatal disease?

• There's good news and bad news. The good news is that you could become a prostitute and your spouse could then procure your services for sex, in which case condom use would be seen as a step on the road to a greater morality. The bad news is that if you simply want to have a loving conjugal relationship, condom use is a mortal sin, so you must risk contracting the fatal disease, which is the greater good.

I've got five children already and cannot afford any more, but I still want to enjoy full conjugal relations; can I use artificial contraceptives to avoid falling pregnant?

• No; you may use hit and miss methods, such as the rhythm method, or refrain from sexual relations altogether, which is the greater good.

If I contract a terminal illness that removes all vestiges of humanity and dignity from my dying days, can I take charge of my life and end my inhumane and undignified existence?

• This is all bad news, I'm afraid, which we like to call 'good news'. The answer is No, which is the greater good.

I'm a homosexual. Can I...?

• Stop there. No, which is the greater good.

*We mean foetus.

Read more »

Danger Man

Image via Wikipedia

In arguing against religious influence in the public sphere I think it's important to distinguish between the right of the religious to express their opinion in a democratic society, which should be defended, and any undue influence their opinion carries, or privilege allowed to their opinion, which should be resisted.

The unfortunate case of St. Joseph's Hospital in Arizona highlights the undue influence religion can have. A hospital that chose to save a mother's life and abort her child has been condemned by the Bishop of Phoenix, and he is withdrawing its Catholic status. This barmy and misogynist decision is, nonetheless, in accordance with Catholic doctrine. A hospital losing Catholic status should be treated as of no consequence - there is no direct funding involved, although indirect funding may be affected - and yet letters have been exchanged between health authority and Diocese as if these things mattered. It's laughable that officials should be wasting their time responding to this deluded cleric. In the Bishop's letter to Catholic Healthcare West (CHW), who run St Joseph's, in November, he said this, in response to CHW's decision to disagree with his judgement on the abortion case:

But this resolution is unacceptable because it disregards my authority and responsibility to interpret the moral law and to teach the Catholic faith as a Successor of the Apostles.

Note the capitals on 'Successor'; he's referring to the supposed Apostolic Succession claimed by the Catholic Church. We see the privilege demanded by this priest for his moral authority, over and above the rest of us. This is quite simply unacceptable in a modern liberal democracy; no one person and no organisation can claim moral authority just because.

Now, in one sense I would grant he has authority; he is responsible for his Catholic Diocese so he has every right to give and withdraw Catholic status as he sees fit. However, writing to the responsible authority and badgering them to change their medical procedures because of some bogus authority *he* claims is fundamentally anti-democratic, and he should be roundly condemned for it. Unfortunately, too many people are still in thrall to his bogus authority, so by dint of popular support he still has undue influence. But one day such interventions in the running of our every day institutions will be regarded as ludicrous, and no attention will be paid.

This is the goal of new atheists, and gnu atheists, and accommodationists should also be looking to achieve this aim.

Read more »