There's a post over at SkepticBlog. I wanted to leave a comment - however, my wireless router functions as a proxy, and SkepticBlog won't let me comment from behind a proxy. :(
So, here's the response I wanted to make, just in case it gets noticed.
My sense is that it’s probably futile for my friend to “provide the evidence” that he pretends to be interested in seeing. How, then, do we reach such people, people who are out actively advocating against public health? I put the question to you.
On Friday, June 4th, Vancouver was the recipient of Dr. Deepak Chopra – quantum mystic, magic thinker, and purveyor of high-quality woo. In the interest of promoting the cause of evidence-based science and thought, skeptics from Vancouver’s chapter of the Center for Inquiry were on hand to engage the audience on their way into the event. We were armed with flyers (which can be seen here), and voices of reason. For more background on the event, you are invited to read the pre-event coverage from this blog.
I thought better of my tut-tutting and offered to put together a new flyer that might have proved more effective. I was supposed to do this over a month ago - but hey, better late than never, yeah?
If atheism is true, then where did the universe come from? Something can't come from nothing!
Sound familiar? If you've ever argued religion with a theist - particularly online - chance are are you've heard something like this before.
Typically, my response has been to dismiss the claim as an argument from ignorance: Just another example of the old and easily dismissed claim that since we don't know how X happened, God must have done it. This dismissal is sufficient and justified - but unfortunately it is unsatisfactory in the mind of the theists that like to raise it.
However, it turns out we have an answer. Lawrence Krauss spends an hour discussing contemporary cosmology. Eventually, he considers the question: Why is there something rather than nothing? His answer:
There had to be. If you have nothing in quantum physics, you'll always get something. It's that simple. It doesn't convince any of those people - but it's true.
Give it a go. I promise that it's one of the best uses you'll ever find for spending a free hour of your time - you can't have sex and eat icecream all day.
It is no exaggeration to describe the movement popularized by the likes of Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett, Sam Harris, and Christopher Hitchens as a new and particularly zealous form of fundamentalism--an atheist fundamentalism.
Reza is unexpectedly correct on one thing, however. Describing contemporary atheism as fundamentalism isn't an exaggeration at all. To the contrary: It's flat-out wrong.
Fundamentalism only means to be in strict adherence to certain precepts within a prescribed text. Atheism does have a body of literature - but no text is prescribed as sacred or fundamental in any way. Without a sacred, ideologically prescribed text, atheism simply cannot be a fundamentalist world-view. It fails to meet the single necessary (and sufficient) criterion for the qualification.
When presented with the inevitable fallacies of theologians, we free-thinkers should exhibit neither contempt nor feigned surprise, but rather a tired and well-practiced pity; for if we were to deny theologians their fallacies of assumption, there would be no theologians.
To show contempt to theologians for their logical shortcomings would be analogous to showing contempt to the dung beetle for living a life dedicated to excrement. In the case of either creature their means of securing a lifestyle is an essential part of what they are. It cannot be helped.
Instead we should consider the ingenuity of the dung beetle, and marvel at the constructions it can achieve from mere excrement. Similarly we should marvel at theologians for the not dissimilar inventiveness they display given their limitations. Their available tools are restricted to logical fallacies and intellectually hollow rhetoric. It is no small accomplishment for theologians to construct a parody of argumentation from these components - and the accomplishment is only greater should they manage to keep a straight face while doing so.
Looking into Dr. Flannagan's online profile reveals that he "holds a PhD in Theology from the University of Otago, a Masters (with First Class Honours) and a Bachelors in Philosophy from the University of Waikato... His area of expertise is Philosophy of Religion, Ethics and Theology."
This is... peculiar. Because in his post, Dr. Flannagan demonstrates a breathtaking naiveté regarding the billboard slogans put forward by the NZ Atheist Bus Campaign.
It's an irony that the first strongly negative response to the NZ Atheist Billboards that I have come across is from someone who is - effectively - on our side.
It's uninspired stuff - entirely undeserving of its exclamation point. Perigo isn't worth the time of a full response - however, he does serve very well as a Simplicio against which to discuss the significance of the term 'Probably' in the campaign.
Pigeon Mountain is a quick drive from my house. It’s not actually a mountain – that’s just the name. It’s a big hill though. I pass it on the way home some sometimes. Sometimes I’ll pass it at night if I’m coming home from a movie or something. And very occasionally – once every six months or so (more if I’m having a rough patch) – I’ll get the urge to go climb it at night.
At a brisk walk, it takes me about five minutes to get to the top – so no, it isn’t all that far, but it’s high enough. I don’t know if I imagine it or not, but it feels like I get less light pollution when I’m that far above the level of the street lights. The stars seem to stand out more. Pigeon Mountain is on a bit of a peninsula, so there’s pretty much constant sea winds. I wander up there in my jacket on a warm-ish night, and the wind fills my ears. I look up, and the night sky fills my vision. I look up, and my mind fills the universe.
Did you know that fake acupuncture is better than the real thing?
Sound crazy? Maybe - but it's true. Pretending to pierce the skin with toothpicks outperforms the use of acupuncture needles. To make matters worse, piercing the wrong places with needles can outperform piercing the right ones.
Acupuncture is all based around the idea that piercing the correct points of the body with needles will stimulate qi, a supernatural vitalistic fluid that flows through and around the body. This stimulation is claimed to perform many wonderful things, such as healing and pain relief.
If piercing the wrong place or even failing to pierce the skin at all outperforms the real thing, it's a bit like a pharmaceutical company that tries to put a new drug - with side effects - on the market despite that drug being outperformed by mere sugar pills.
We can say 'with side effects', because acupuncture is not risk free. There are risks to acupuncture. Risks such as accidental piercing of the vital tissues such as the heart, lungs, or spine. These kinds of side-effect can result in significant harm - in extreme cases, even death.
That outcome is a long-shot to be sure. But is it really worth the risk - however small - for a treatment that is demonstrably outperformed by toothpicks?
Consider C0nc0rdance's video on the subject, and judge for yourself.
The truth is that what actually happens during moralistic periods is virtually the same as what goes on in more liberal times; what differs is the lack of openness about people’s behaviour and the hidden nature of any harmful consequences. In moralistic periods, sin, crime and vice get pushed so far under the carpet that moralisers, believing (rather as children do) that what they cannot see does not exist, feel great self-satisfaction. The honesty of more liberal times, and the fact that everyone can then see harm when it occurs, affronts the moralisers; and they hasten to force it back into darkness.
A friend of mine is living overseas at the moment. She's getting stuck into writing, and sent me an email a little while back with her latest idea for a story. I'm anxiously awaiting the first draft of her first chapter.
One of the main villains in her story is going to be Lucifer. I offered to give her a run down of some of the symbolism that's wrapped up under the surface of Lucifer in Christian mythology, and she said yes. I thought that my response would take a few paragraphs, but my fingers took over and she got herself an essay. A dæmon made me do it. :P
Anyway, this was cobbled together in the late hours of the evening after I'd had a few beers, so it's a bit of a ramble. I also didn't put in any references. Really, I was just vomiting up a chunk of knowledge that's been sitting in the intestines of my brain for the few years. I'm putting it up here, in the harsh light of day, mainly to expose it to as much criticism as possible - in truth, I don't know how right or wrong I am when I pieced all this together, and I'd like to know. So I open myself to your correction and dissent: It only makes me stronger.
Besides, there's a small chance you might even find this interesting. :D
On the subject of advertising though, I hate it when religious organisations do it, and I'm not too crazy about evangelical atheism either. It's kind of like the latter missed the point somewhere along the line.
The quote above is from an email conversation I've had with some friends. Full disclosure: The quote is taken out of context; this quote was followed up with some important qualifications that changed its meaning in the context it was given.
That said, this quote succinctly states a common feeling I'm getting from people whenever the subject of atheist bus ads or billboards comes up. There's an important response to this sentiment.
The NZ Atheist Bus Campaign will unveil billboards with friendly atheist slogans in Auckland, Wellington, and Christchurch this week.
The campaign has chosen the three winning phrases from more than 900 public submissions of billboard slogans. “We’re excited about this opportunity to promote these thoughtful slogans and hope they’ll get people to stop and think.” said Simon Fisher, spokesperson for the Campaign.
While the precise wording of the three new slogans is intended to be a surprise, Mr Fisher says that all three designs will include the text “There’s probably no God, now stop worrying and enjoy your life” borrowed from the successful UK bus campaign.
With the launch of the billboard campaign, the organisation is also reopening its call for donations from people who want to see the billboards moved to other cities. “While the bus campaign would have been limited to main centres, the great thing about these canvases is that once printed they can be toured to other centres” said Mr Fisher. “If a community wants to put one of our billboards up in their area they can contact us, arrange a location, and we’ll be delighted to lend them the canvas”.
Despite similar campaigns being run internationally, the organisation’s plans to place ads on buses in New Zealand hit a brick wall earlier this year when NZ Bus accepted and then rejected the billboards, leading to the Campaign’s decision to take the issue to a tribunal. “The Campaign is still committed to the discrimination case against NZ Bus through the Office of Human Rights Proceedings. “We have kept funds in reserve for a bus advertising campaign if this is successful.” said Mr Fisher.
Interested Kiwis can see the billboards in Auckland, Wellington and Christchurch from Friday this week.
It's an irony that the first strongly negative response to the NZ Atheist Billboards that I have come across is from someone who is - effectively - on our side.
