What Do They Think? - Sid Cordle (CPA)

Politics is one of those areas I find it very difficult to be interested by. The attentional capabilities of my brain seem to have an automatic killswitch that is instantly triggered the moment I see a man in a suit standing in front of a green bench. However, at the European elections last year, I decided to try my hardest to become interested and educate myself about the decision ahead of me.

Now that the general election has been announced, I feel duty bound to bypass my indifference and educate myself again.

So, inspired by the laudable Skeptical Voter wiki, I decided to email my local candidates in the Erith and Thamesmead constituency and ask them a few questions that I thought would act as a useful barometer for me to understand what they think about the sort of issues that interest me.

The first response I have received back has been from Sid Cordle, candidate for the Christian Peoples Alliance. From my preliminary searches, Cordle was one of the candidates for whom the most information was available - little of it encouraging. This entertaining email exchange adequately demonstrates his views on homosexuality, for example.

Below are my questions and his responses:

1) Are you in favour of the idea of reforming the English libel laws as is currently being campaigned for by the Libel Reform Campaign (www.libelreform.org)?

Yes absolutely. The web site says Freedom of expression is a fundamental human right, and should only be limited in special circumstances. That is my view precisely.

2) What is your opinion on the funding of complementary and alternative medicines, such as homeopathy, by the NHS?

If there is scientific evidence thart they are beneficial, yes. Otherwise no. I am not convinced that all alternative medecines are a good thing.

3) Do you think it was appropriate for the government to sack Prof David Nutt from his scientific advisory role last year following his provision of scientific advice that ran in opposition to the government's drug policy?

No. This was absolutely wrong

4) Do you believe that religious belief should have any legal protection from ridicule or criticism?

In general No. I prefer free speech to legal protection, but Elton John is very wrong to say recently that Jesus Christ was a homosexual for no good reason. These sort of statements only encourage those who want legal protection.

5) Do you believe it is appropriate to allow any schools to omit the teaching of certain areas of the scientific curriculum for idealogical reasons, or for the teaching of such topics to be impacted for such reasons (such as Christian schools being able to teach creationism/creation science/intelligent design alongside or instead of evolution)?

Education is about understanding every point of view whether you agree with it or not. Of course schools need to teach both creation and evolution and help children to understand both points of view. If we take a view that this or that should not be taught we are moving from education to propaganda. Personally I am quite certain that the world was created by God. The idea that it happened through a random explosion has no bearing in scientific reality. I would expect this to be taught and also the theroy of the big bang with all its limitations to be taught.

So, apart from the obvious and fairly predictable enthusiasm for creationism, I found the rest of the responses unexpectedly reasonable. He is in favour of libel reform and evidence based health policy and sides with the scientists on the Nutt sack incident. This just shows that the prejudicial assumption I (and others, I am sure) often make that any proponent of one world view I find crazy is likely to subscribe to all the rest of them doesn't always hold up.

I will write up the rest of the candidates' responses if and when I receive them.

Prostitution is popular in France, that doesn't mean it's right.

The House of Commons Science and Technology Sub-Committee today met for an evidence check on homeopathy. This was done over two sessions in which panels of scientists and homeopaths were brought in to answer questions of evidence for the committee.

The first panel was made up of Prof Jayne Lawrence (Royal Pharmaceutical Society), Robert Wilson (British Association of Homeopathic Manufacturers), Paul Bennett (Boots the chemist), Tracey Brown (Sense About Science) and Dr Ben Goldacre (Bad Science blogger/columnist).

The second panel was made up of Dr Peter Fisher (London Homeopathic Hospital), Prof Edzard Ernst (Peninsula Medical School), Dr James Thallon (NHS West Kent), and Dr Robert Mathie (British Homeopathic Association).

The whole session can be watched here, and the Guardian's Ian Sample live blogged the whole thing here.

This is a good session chaired by a committee who are clearly adequately sceptical of homeopathy's evidence of efficacy. There are a few interesting points where the pro-homeopathy panel members are held against the ropes and forced to give rather telling, squirmy non-answers to the committee's questions.

Phil Willis, who chaired the meeting, was responsible for some particularly excellent moments, such as answering Robert Wilson's point that homeopathy is an old tradition and popular in France with the point that so is prostitution but that doesn't make it right. Even better was his incredulous response to Wilson's argument that if they didn't work people wouldn't keep buying them with, "that wasn't a serious comment was it?"

It's well worth watching the video and it's heartening to know that at least there are people in the Commons who value evidence and take a sceptical view of alternative medicine and that they don't all lobby the government to have lunar effects taken into account.

However, the important question, I'm sure, will soon be whether the probable future Conservative government shares this committee's interest in evidence.

-

Update: Read Ben Goldacre's review of events here.

The Science of Scams

Magician and sceptic, Derren Brown has recently taken part in an online project about the ways that apparently paranormal feats can be reproduced in believable looking ways. In each of the seven episodes of The Science of Scams, a different paranormal skill is demonstrated and then explained in terms of the scientific principals behind it. The topics discussed include ghost sightings, telekinesis and psychic readings among others. All the videos are well put together and are certainly worth watching.

The first video in the series is below:

He Works in Magisterious Ways

One area in which the so-called "new atheists" differ from what I can only assume are called "old atheists" is in their views on the possibility of harmonious co-existence between religion and science. Dawkins, Hitchens and Myers, while acknowledging that religious people can understand science and scientists can believe in God, see religious faith as either contradictory or, at worst, obstructive to good science. However, most moderate religious people, and a good number of atheists and agnostics, see no incompatibility between the two systems.


The most famous defence of the accomodationist position was made by Stephen Jay Gould in his definition of science and religion as "non-overlapping magisteria". Science is the realm of the observable, the empirical and the testable, he claimed; religion is the domain of that which is beyond human experience. Many people, in my experience, sum this position up in something like the statement that science deals with the 'how' while religion deals with the 'why' (like answer 'B' on this page); scientists may be able to tell us how the Earth came to be formed and how life evolved on it, but it is to the clergy that questions about the meaning of that life ought to be addressed.


I disagree. The 'how' and the 'why' defence is an easy maxim to rattle off in lieu of an agrument, but does it really mean anything at all? Does science helpfully limit itself to the dry mechanistic explanations? And does religion respectfully keep clear of them, only to shuffle out when someone asks a more metaphysical question? Of course not.


The Bible is full of explanations of how things work and how things happened - from the beginning of the Earth to its end. How many of these explanations you may wish to write off as poetically pregnant metaphors will be decided by the particular strain of the religion you most identify with. However, with even the most modern and woolly tea-and-biscuit fuelled reading of the Bible, it is a stretch to imply that the Good Book completely steers clear of physical and biological explanations or politely holds its tongue when any other 'how' question is raised.


Similarly, it is only a uselessly simplistic characterisation that would suggest that science limits itself to the 'how' questions. The rapidly evolving and endlessly enlightening fields of psychology, neurology and genetics have given us myriad insights into 'why' questions that mere decades ago would have been left entirely to theologians and philosophers. In fact science is even able to study the 'why' of religion itself (search Pubmed for 'religion' and 'brain' for examples).


Of course it is possible for scientists to be religious or for religious people to believe in evolution or the big bang. However, this is not proof that they are mutually compatible worldviews so much as further evidence of humans' ability to hold multiple incongruous viewpoints while coping with the resulting cognitive dissonance.


The cornerstone of science is scepticism of that for which there is no evidence. This is the reason scientists make hypotheses based on observations and then try to test those hypotheses to see whether they hold true after exhaustive efforts to falsify them. Any christian scientist (by which I mean a scientist who is religious, not a follower of Mary Baker Eddy) must either admit that they hold some parts of their life out of reach of the light of their scientific scepticism or tie themselves up in confusing knots of attempted justification and theological gymnastics.


The cornerstone of religion is faith in that for which there is no evidence, and it is for this reason that I see it as fundamentally incompatible with science. A christian (or muslim or jew etc.) who wishes to maintain their faith must approach certain questions without the genuine openmindedness that ideal science calls for.


Once again, I acknowledge that some scientists are religious and some religious people are scientists and I do not think it would be helpful to force polarisation on such people and make them choose one or the other. However, both worldviews cannot be held in one mind without the necessary compromise of one or both.


The religious scientist must protect his faith from the requisite questioning tools of his trade. The scientifically-literate believer must moderate the will, power and scope of their god so as not to to tread on the toes of what rational discovery has given us. Inconvenient as it may be, these are two almost entirely overlapping magisteria, both of which claim powers of explanation and enlightenment.

Five Things Atheists Don't Want You to Know

I always enjoy reading descriptions of atheists written by the sort of deeply religious people who seem to have never met one. Generalisations and bizarre false beliefs tend to abound. It always brings to my mind the image of a stooping elderly grandmother cautioning a young child of beasts that lurk on the moors at night. "Beware the Godless, my child," they seem to caution, "they have not hearts like we have. And they feed on good children like you."

An excellent example has appeared in the letters to the editor of the Red Deer Express, a community newspaper in Alberta. I must admit, I found this through Pharyngula - I don't just routinely scan through all Canadian newspapers in the hope of gloriously eccentric characterisations of atheists.

Anyway, in response to an on-going discussion about atheism, this writer explains:

Being the hot topic of the day, any discussion of atheism, should include
these ‘difficult to admit’ points:

And then goes on to list five points that atheists would rather people not know about them.

Firstly, atheists claim that they themselves are god. They claim they have superior knowledge then the rest of us by trying to say that they have better knowledge because of their own thinking. They will not acknowledge anyone else to be above them.

"They claim they have superior knowledge then (sic) the rest of us by trying to say that they have better knowledge because of their own thinking." Uh... They claim to have "superior knowledge" because they have "better knowledge"? Buh?

I'm not sure what she means when she says "they will not acknowledge anyone else to be above them". Biologically, I don't acknowledge anyone above me. I see all organisms around today on an equal level, since by our survival each of us has proven our fitness to be here (perhaps excepting the panda, which seems to be doing it's best to become extinct, thwarted only by the tenacious efforts of a handful of Chinese zoologists). I also do not see myself, or humanity in general, above any other species. Each species that survives must be equally well evolved for their surroundings.

But on a human level, I happily accept the hierachical organisation of society that puts some (or most, in fact) people in positions of more power than me.

And I certainly do not think I am god. But, an important part of rationalism is always admitting that you might be wrong.

Secondly, atheists have been hurt somewhere in their lives, can’t understand suffering, and are mad at God — so it is easier to deny there is one.

Wow, that's quite a generalisation. Some atheists have been hurt in their lives, just as some Christians have, and so have some Buddhists and some Muslims. Everyone has been hurt to a greater or lesser extent in their lives, so this point is irrelevant. And I don't understand why atheists shouldn't be able to understand suffering.

It's also a contradiction in terms: we are mad at God so we deny there is one? We're not mad at god precisely because we deny there is one. How can being angry at something lead you to decide that it doesn't exist?

Thirdly, atheists are looking for God for the same reason a thief would be looking for a police officer. They don’t want to be accountable to a higher being because of the wrong things they do.

No, atheists are looking for God for the same reason a thief would be looking for the toothfairy. We're not. Because we don't believe it exists.

Fourthly, atheists forget that when a person goes to a museum and admires a painting, that there was a painter/designer of that art piece. The art piece is absolute evidence of a painter and not caused by random nothingness.

All of the world, stars, animals, plants, oceans, and mountains are absolute proof of a divine intelligent being (beyond our human ability and thinking) who made these things.

Can the atheist make a tree? It is scientifically impossible for bees to fly (laws of physics) and yet they do. It is impossible for our eyes to see and yet they do. What more proof does an atheist need than their own heart pumping in their chest without them commanding their heart to pump each beat in perfect timing each and every second necessary?

This is a common way of phrasing the argument from design. You can see a painting and you know it was made by a painter, therefore the Earth/a tree/humans/a sponge/HIV or whatever must have been made by some kind of designer too. The problem is, the logic doesn't follow. Just because one or two or any number of things have been created in one way, doesn't mean that everything else was made the same way. In fact, a wall may be green because a painter has worked on it, but a leaf is not green for the same reason.

She uses some interesting examples to make her point:

"Can the atheist make a tree?"

Well, no. But surely this is as much an argument against the tree being created as anything else.

"It is scientifically impossible for bees to fly"

This was believed for some time since a couple of French entomologists suggested that bees' flight defied aerodynamics in 1934. However, unfortunately for this writer, the flight of bees has been thoroughly explained since the '30s and is no longer a mystery. Plus, on a note of pedantry, saying something is scientifically impossible doesn't really make any sense. The best she could have said is that it was unexplained by science.

"It is impossible for our eyes to see"

This claim is a little more myserious. I'm not sure on what basis she has decided that vision should be impossible, but it clearly isn't, and in fact eyes are very well understood by biologists.

"Their own heart pumping in their chest without them commanding their heart to pump each beat"

It's fairly obvious after even the briefest moment of consideration that we don't need to consciously attend to everything our body does. I don't need to purposefully tell my lungs to take in air every few seconds. I don't even really need to think too hard about what I want my limbs to do. What is the writer suggesting? That God is constantly monitoring the heart and breathing rates of every human, and every other animal, all the time? If that's the alternative, the idea that our brain stem can automate our bodily functions sounds considerably more plausible. And if you factor in the biological and physiological evidence we have that this is, indeed, the case, the writer's argument starts to look rather misguided.

Fifthly, denial is a strong coping mechanism in crisis, but does not serve anyone in the long run. Like an ostrich with its head in the sand, an atheist denies God not because God does not exist—but because the atheist doesn’t want God to exist and does not want to see the truth and evidence in front of their eyes.

I would rather believe in God and make sure my life is doing what is acceptable to this Superior Being than to not believe in God and find out I will be accountable to this God for everything I’ve done after I die. With 84% of the world’s population believing in the existence of God, I think the majority rules in this case.

I wonder what reason the writer would give if asked why she does not pray to Allah five times a day, or why she does not hold the cow as sacred, or why she does not sacrifice livestock to Neptune before embarking on travel. Is she denying these other faiths because she does not want them to be true? Isn't the evidence of these faiths just as close in front of her eyes as the evidence of hers is in front of ours? She cheerfully lives her life as an atheist to all other gods yet criticises those who do not believe in hers.

She would rather believe in God and make sure her life is doing what is acceptable to this Superior Being, but she is not taking into account the other superior beings whose existence is equally likely and equally self-evident. She is almost certainly not doing what is acceptable to them.

She ends with the argument ad populum. Apart from the fact that the popularity of an idea has no baring on its veracity, she also ignores the fact that, even if 84% of people believe in God (the statistics I found indicate that 86% are religious although only 54% are monotheistic), they certainly don't all believe in the same god. Even those that do believe in the same god often disagree wildly in what sorts of behaviour will please him/her/it. Personally I do not agree that the majority rules in this, or any, case.

Michael Jackson Late Interview

The naive belief I hold that humanity as generally decent has tripped me up again. I should have known Michael Jackson wouldn't even be in the ground before "psychic" scavengers would be all over him like some sort of disgusting, odious tumour.

James Van Praagh, one of the least competent or convincing "psychics" currently on the TV circuit, will go on Oprah soon to give the results of an interview he has conducted with Jackson posthumously.

Doctors and police needn't worry themselves about the details of Jackson's death, Van Praagh has already found the answers. When asked if foul play was involved, Jackson apparently told him, "I felt sick that day, very sick. My doctor Conrad told me to rest, but I had to practice moves for my upcoming concert. I was tired, very tired, then I collapsed".

Asked where he is now, Van Praagh was told, "I am surrounded by happiness. I never felt more happier."

Not to be left out, consistent barrel-scraper, Sylvia Brown is going on Montell Williams to talk about her recent conversations with Jackson's spirit. "He is doing well. Very well. He does not miss this physical world."

I hope I'm not the only person who finds this abhorrent and disgusting.

Why is it OK for these "psychics" to piss all over someone's memory by putting words into his dead mouth?

It shouldn't have surprised me that these people are speaking for Michael Jackson, because this is what they do all the time. This is how "psychics" make their living. People pay for them to rape the precious memories they have of their dearest loved-ones by tackily sticking on their own hastily conceived addenda.

When someone we love has gone, all we have left are our memories. The images that come to us when we think about them and the joy or wisdom or happiness they gave us is what lives on. These are what exist of them now. Memories of a loved one are their most important legacy. To the godless, it is the only way that they carry on past their mortal end.

Yet many people seem to think nothing of allowing certain self-appointed strangers the liberty to add to or subtract from those memories at will. Indeed they are glad for them to make up meretricious pleasantries to appease the applauding masses while holding no remorse for the genuinely special legacy they are shitting on.

James Van Praagh, Sylvia Brown, John Edwards, Derek Acorah, Colin Fry and the many others are, in my opinion, making their money in one of the most cynically dishonest and outright disgusting ways imaginable.

Homeopathic A&E

Mitchell and Webb (of BBC's Peep Show) show us what would happen if alternative medicine really were embraced by the mainstream.

A Few Videos

Here are a few videos I've seen recently that I think are worth being passed on.

NASA's LRO launch


This is from a webcam aboard NASA's Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter which launch a couple of days ago. This really is an awe-inspiring video, and it's incredible to see just how far up it goes in the six minutes of the video.
Having been born on the 80s, by which time the 1969 moon landing was just another piece of history, I find it interesting to wonder just how incredible it must have seemed at the time to see mankind make it's first steps to another body in the solar system.
Even if a manned mission to Mars launched in our lifetimes, I doubt it will be as much of a landmark as the moon landing was at the time. So it's a shame that, like all history, time has devalued its importance in the collective minds of those born since the 70s.

Colliding Particles


Part 4 of the brilliant Colliding Particles series of videos about CERN's work at the LHC. These videos are both informative and artful. Even though my knowledge and understanding of particle physics and of CERN's work could be politely described as woefully lacking, these videos manage to remain constantly fascinating, perhaps due to the humour and humanity with which they approach the subjects.

What would Jesus not do?


NonStampCollector has made a ton of brilliant videos. He excels in finding areas of Christianity whose lack of logic makes them worthy of intense ridicule, and then goes about delivering that ridicule expertly.
I think that humour and satire are probably among the greatest weapons sceptics and atheists have in fighting silly beliefs. I like to think that every time Eddie Izzard, Ricky Gervais or Tim Minchin mercilessly mock a certain stupid inconsistency of Christianity, for example, a few comedy fans who had previously been on the fence might lose just a little bit more grip on their belief.

Instruction Manual for Life


This nice and oddly haunting conceit aptly demonstrates the divisive nature of organised religion.

Opeth - Coil (live)


And for something comepletely different, a beautiful song by Opeth. When the vocals come in on the second verse, it gives me shivers.
To get the full power of the song, though, you need to listen to it in the context of the album where it is followed by the bludgeoningly heavy opening of Heir Apparent.

My Back Hurts - Poke Me with Toothpicks!

thelondonpaper, the only newspaper I read regularly, and one which I am generally willing to defend as being relatively thoughtful and intelligent, especially for a free publication, has joined the bandwagon for proclaiming that acupuncture works based on a recent study.

Apart from a few commendable nods toward scepticism, and a fence sitting conclusion that "the jury's still out", the overall tone of the article was, in my opinion, weighted in favour of the position that acupuncture is at least worth a try. In fact it ends with an entirely useless "case study":

There was only one thing for it. We sent our promotions manager Sarah Cox to an acupuncturist to relieve her chronic back pain...

Which, in turn, concludes:

My scepticism gave way to belief

My back and shoulders seemed looser. The dull ache had eased. I’ll definitely do another session.

Don't get me wrong, this was by no means the worst reporting of the Cherken et al. study (I still love ya, thelondonpaper, with all your wacky joined up lowercase letters!), but it would still give the impression to someone unaware of the science that it is worth shelling out money ("A one-hour session with Steve Kippax costs £80", the article helpfully informs us) for a treatment with no really compelling evidence.

Perhaps I should explain what this study actually said and how this, and most other papers, got it wrong.

The study randomised 638 adults with lower back pain into 4 groups: individualised acupuncture (an acupuncturist chooses the pin points based on a consultation), standardized acupuncture (pin points are chosen from text book positions corresponding to the teachings of traditional chinese medicine), simulated acupuncture (a placebo which uses non-penetrating toothpicks, but looks and feels the same to the patient and practitioner), or no acupuncture. All subjects continued to receive any standard care as well as the treatment associated with their group.

Placebo controlled trials like this are designed to test one thing: does this modality work better than placebo. If it does, it is good evidence that it is a worthwhile treatment with a real medical effect. If it performs as well as placebo, then its effects can be put down to those of placebo itself, and the null hypothesis can be accepted.

In this case, the two acupuncture groups scored remarkably similarly to the placebo acupuncture group. All of these performed better than the group that received no acupuncture, as would be expected.

What this shows is that acupuncture, individualized or standardised, performs no better than placebo, and this study can therefore be seen as evidence against its efficacy.

However, this is not the conclusion that the authors arrived at when they stated:

Although acupuncture was found effective for chronic low back pain,
tailoring needling sites to each patient and penetration of the skin appear to be unimportant in eliciting therapeutic benefits.

"Penetration of the skin appear(s) to be unimportant"!? In acupuncture!? Acupuncture - the therapy entirely charactrised by penetration of the skin with needles?

What they're saying is, because placebo acupuncture (poking with toothpicks, need I remind you) is as good as actual acupuncture, this must have therapeutic effect too!

This is exactly like trialling a new heart disease pill against a placebo sugar pill and then, on finding that they offer the same level of benefit, stating that sugar must actually have clinically useful effects for heart disease aswell!

This is not the proper conclusion of this trial! The proper conclusion is that acupuncture performs no better than placebo, and therefore can be assumed to be offering nothing but placebo benefit.

This doesn't mean that the placebo effect can't be quite impressive. It certainly can be. The placebo effect is an incredibly interesting, subtle and potentially powerful effect. The more invasive and extravagent the treatment, the greater the placebo effect. And acupuncture is up there for invasiveness and extravagance. And it's quite expensive, which always helps.

That's all this study shows that acupuncture is: placebo. To claim anything else of it is to speak above the level of evidence given.

So, this is the letter I've sent to thelondonpaper's letters page:

I'd like to point out the recent study you mentioned yesterday does not show that acupuncture "is good for your back". The study was designed to test whether there was any benefit of real acupuncture over placebo acupuncture (using not-penetrative tooth-picks, unbeknownst to the patient). It found that there was not. Any benefit observed owing to the acupuncture conditions was entirely explainable by the placebo effect of a novel and theatrically invasive intervention. To claim that because receiving acupuncture fared as well as being poked with tooth picks shows that both have clinical benefit is a misinterpretation of the evidence.
Tim, London

By the way, the quote I used ("is good for your back") was in the print version, but isn't in the online version, linked to above.

Kreed Kafer, please

So what has Derek Acorah been up to since his retirement from Most Haunted in the aftermath the Kreed Kafer incident? Well, it turns out he has a new self titled talking-to-the-dead show on one of the more obscure Sky channels.

It really is worth watching. For anyone who has only seen him shouting incoherently in dramatic night-vision and getting violent towards Yvette Fielding while "possessed", it will be a revelation to see him in a totally pink studio trying to work out why someone's pet rabbit is restless by talking over his shoulder to his invisible friend, Sam.

However, despite his woefully underwhelming cold reading and his hot reading, easily distinguishable by it's relative level of detail, the thing that really gets to me the most about his act is his merciless butchery of the English language.

The extent of this can not merely be described, so I have transcribed, word for word, an example from an episode that was on the other day. The following is said while addressing the owner of a pendant he is holding:

"Can I say to you, please, you would have knowledge of certain knowledge, but can I say to you, please, would I be correct, please, in my feelings of a person that would have been in - uh uh - connection with this at some time, would have come over to the world of spirit very fast?"

Did you get that?

To Answer Your Questions - Part 3

Part 3 of my answers to christiananswers.net's 44 Questions for the Yet-to-be-a-Believer. Part 1 and part 2 can be found elsewhere on my blog.

10. From whence comes humanity's universal moral sense?

The idea that religion is a useful source of morals is a common one. It is one of the few things that even many otherwise godless people are able to say in favour of religion. That whatever its flaws, the Bible is a useful moral guidebook is one of the most pervasive myths about religion's place in society. But it is a myth. I argue that wherever our moral sense does come from, it is certainly not from Christianity, or any religion.

For all the good messages the Bible gives ("Thou shalt not kill" etc) there are a good number of rules that vary between the vaguely ridiculous and the downright stupid. 1 Corinthians 11:14 tells us men must not have long hair; 1 Samuel 15:2-3 tells us that it is OK to kill men, women and children in the capture of a town; 1 Kings 22:21-22 tells us it is fine to lie if God tells us to; Exodus 31:13-15 tells us in no uncertain terms that anyone who works on the sabbath should be put to death; and Genesis 20:12 talks without criticism about Abraham's marriage to his sister.

And God hardly sets a good example. Between indiscriminately killing 3000 of his people in the Egyptian dessert for worshipping false idols to handing over the reins of Job's life, and those of this family, to Satan just to prove a point, God is the very image of a petty, capricious tyrant.

In general, modern Christians do not stone to death those who work on the sabbath, or marry their siblings, or keep slaves (as is approved throughout the Bible). The very fact that Christians are able to see past the stupid, nonsensical rules that fill the Bible's pages, and take note only of the sensible ones, shows that there is a moral sense inherent in us, apart from our religious upbringing. If our moral sense truly came from religion, then why shouldn't we take Lot's example and give our virgin daughters over to a rabble of men to be raped (Genesis 19:8)? Or sleep with them ourselves (Genesis 31-36)? The answer is simple: our moral sense does not come from the Bible.

So where do our morals come from? Well, there is a lot of compelling evidence that our modern moralistic and societal natures are evolved in the same way our physical attributes are. Many "human" societal conventions such as co-operation and even altruism have been observed in other animals, including those not closely evolutionarily related to us, such as ants. This implies that such social constructs are commonly evolved by species for whom it is useful to live and work together.

While these other animals may not exhibit exactly what we might subjectively call morals, it is certainly plausible to suggest that these tendencies of other social animals to adapt their behaviour to better accommodate living in proximity with others could be seen as sort of proto-morals. In any case, evolution is certainly plausible enough to reject any religious basis for the existence of a moral sense.

11. If man is nothing but the random arrangement of molecules, what motivates you to care and to live honorably in the world?

First, I should point out that calling man "nothing but the random arrangement of molecules" is something of a simplification of the scientific position on life and looks suspiciously like a deliberate strawman to attempt to invalidate the argument.

However, the answer to this question is really the same as the last part of the answer to number 10. Humans have evolved an in-built need to care and live honourably among our fellow humans. It is in-built because it is by these methods that our evolutionary ancesters were able to enjoy favour in society, find friends, find mates and generally make life easier for themselves. An individual incapable of showing care for anyone else would be snubbed by their group and lose the benefits of being part of the crowd, such as group hunting and the availablity of potential mates.

The assumption in the question is that it is only through acknowledgement of God that there is a reason to live a caring life. However, let's look at the flipside of that assumption: that a Christian, to whom, hyperthetically, it were proven there were no God, would immediately stop caring for other humans. This is clearly not the case as people with no belief in any higher power are able to lead just as caring lives as religious people as indeed people with beliefs in different gods are able to be just as caring as Christians.

The worst thing about arguments like this is that they remove people's autonomy. By creating a belief that our most basic and noble human traits are inextricably linked to a belief in God, we can deny ourselves credit for the wonderful things we do, as individuals and as a race.

Academic Freedom

I mentioned, in a post a little while ago, the debate around so-called "academic freedom". This is the new tactic that the creationist and intelligent design movements are using to try to sneak their own brands of faith-based dogma into the science classrooms of America, since previous attempts have failed.

Steven Novella has posted a very thorough and clear article on the subject on Skepticblog. I would urge anyone to go and read it, as it sums up this potentially worrying situation in more detail than I could.

Do Scientists Dream of Black Sheep?

Recently Tom Harkin, a US senator who founded the National Center of Complementary and Alternative Medicine (NCCAM), proclaimed that the Center had failed at one of its aims:

One of the purposes of this center was to investigate and validate alternative approaches. Quite frankly, I must say publicly that it has fallen short. I think quite frankly that in this center and in the office previously before it, most of its focus has been on disproving things rather than seeking out and approving.

Now, this statement betrays a very fundamental lack of understanding of the most basic tenets of science. The idea of science is to try to falsify things. By complaining that this is what has been done, Harkin is displaying the true dishonest reasons for the Center's existence.

This is a complaint that can be heard a lot among pseudo-scientists or paranormal practitioners. In a documentary shown on Channel 5 last year, Derek Ogilvie, the Baby Psychic, made a similar complaint after failing a test set up by James Randi (with a protocol to which he had unreservedly agreed beforehand, I might add). Ogilvie laments, "these tests are built for people to fail," as though he is revealing the methods of a crooked coconut shy.

Of course the truth is he is right. All scientific tests are built to be failed, because it is by these tests that something can be learnt. Science isn't designed to confirm whatever beliefs or biases are previously held by the tester, it is designed to find out whether a hypothesis is true; whether it conforms to reality. If a hypothesis fails a test that was designed to be failed, then it can't have been true. Whereas if a hypothesis passes a test you already knew it would pass, you have learnt nothing.

Allow me to illustrate this with a parable. Imagine two men go for a walk. One of them is a sceptical scientist, let's call him Karl (after Karl Popper). The other is a homeopath, let's call him Tom (after Mr. Harkin).

Our two men both see a white sheep in a field (for some reason, neither has seen a sheep before, but let's not worry about why that might be). Having seen this sheep, both of them formulate a sheep-based hypothesis - that all sheep are white - and they both decide to go their separate ways to test this.

Tom, our alternative medicine practitioner, wanders around looking for other white sheep, and with each one feels more confident about his position. He knows where he can find more white sheep, so he goes and looks at those, and by doing so further bolsters up his position in his mind.

Karl, on the other hand, heads off to unknown places looking around with genuine curiosity to see if there are any examples of sheep that are not white. Though he may see many white sheep, he keeps in mind that every new example he sees does not tell him anything new. He already knows white sheep exist, so seeing another white sheep means nothing. Eventually, he comes across a field wherein a black sheep quietly grazes.

Karl has disproved his hypothesis. Not all sheep are white. He now knows more than Tom. While Tom is confidently giving talks on his theory and backing himself up with hundreds of examples of white sheep, Karl has discovered that his original hypothesis was not true. He is now able to ditch it and come up with a new hypothesis that better matches reality, and start testing that.

By setting out to falsify their hypotheses, rather than confirm them, scientists are able to learn more about the world. Creationists, CAM proponents and pseudo-scientists look for confirming evidence and ignore or reject any evidence that contradicts their position. In this way, they leave themselves in the dark about the truth.

God's Love - The Vatican and Rape

The Vatican has officially defended a Brazilian Bishop who ex-communicated the doctors and mother of a 9 year old girl for allowing her an abortion after she conceived twins following alleged sexual abuse by her step-father.

Cardinal Re, of the Vatican, has said that, although it was a "sad case", the girl's would-be children "had the right to live" and that "the attack on the Brazilian Church is unjustified."

To me, the Catholic position on abortion in these cases seems nonsensical. Their argument seems to be that any conception is the perfect will of omnipotent God and that it is not our place, as imperfect humans, to divert its natural course by stopping the resulting birth from taking place.

Firstly, if we imperfect humans are able to override the will of God then he can't be very omnipotent. But more importantly, this logic implies that whatever act brought about the conception was also God's will.

Pre-marital sex is wrong, we're told, but if that sex leads to conception, it was God's will. Does this mean that in certain cases, pre-marital sex is actually right? Or can that only be determined retrospectively conception results. What if that pregnancy naturally self-terminates? Was it wrong again?

This leads to this present case. If any conception is sacred, does this mean that this poor 9-year-old's alleged rape was the will of God? Is the Catholic church actually confirming that God sanctions rape in some cases? Or worse, he orders it?

Of course this is a point where the theological trump card, "God works in mysterious ways" can be played. But if those mysterious ways involve the molestation of children, the supposed benefits of this belief system start to look rather thin on the ground.

Although, of course, that has nothing to do with the veracity of the existence of God. He could exist and be a vicious, baby-raping tyrant. In fact that would fit in rather nicely with his Old Testament persona. Not so well with the "God is love" mantra, though.

Derren Brown on scepticism

I've been a huge fan of Derren Brown since he first appeared on Channel 4 with a series of specials showcasing some of his excellent mentalism effects. His talent for the requisite skills of his art are perfectly set off by his magicians' persona, which artfully flits between the dramatic, the ironically smug and the genuinely humble.

My appreciation for his magic acts formed before my implicit, background belief in God was rejected and long before I had any concept of what has become known (in America, at least) as the sceptic (well, skeptic) movement. Therefore, I was pleased to discover when I read his book, Tricks of the Mind, that Derren Brown's views matched my own newly formed scepticism.

In a recent post on his blog, Derren excellently discribes his positions on religion, alternative medicine and belief in general. It's worth a read, because he's a very engaging writer, and if you enjoy the post, I'd certainly recommend his book.

Heroic summary of the case against MMR causing autism

I don't really want to use this blog to re-post stuff from other people's blogs. It's lazy, for one thing, and seems to rather miss the point of having an outlet for my own thoughts. That said, however, I shall now go on and do just that.

As part of the aftermath of Ben Goldacre's (of Bad Science) ripping of a radio show on LBC by Jeni Barnett, Holford Watch have written an absolutely heroic summary of the evidence in favour of vaccinations. It contains more links that you could shake many many sticks at and is a generally excellent repository of scientific and popular information on the subject.

If anyone reading this believes that MMR causes autism (and is intellectually truthful enough to be willing to objectively evaluate evidence), I urge you to read this post and click through to a few of the links on there.

Deal or No Deal's Psychic Test

The Australian version of Deal or No Deal has shown a special edition of the show where all the contestants are psychics (I don't know when it was aired, I just found it on Youtube).

It's a pretty brilliant idea to have psychics on this show. Contestants are asked to make definitely falisifiable predictions and those predictions are checked then and there to see whether they were right or not, so there's no room to make wooly predictions or wriggle out of misses.

The australian version of the show has an extra element that the British version lacks: every time a box is selected, the person holding that box is given the opportunity to guess what's in it, with a chance of winning $1000 if they're right. That means there are that many more falsifiable predictions to be tested.

There's a lot of padding on this show, but it's worth watching all the way through the above video and the other 4 parts on youtube to see how many of the predictions turn out to be true (spoiler: not very many).

To Answer Your Questions - Part 2

Part 2 of my answers to christiananswers.net's 44 Questions for the Yet-to-be-a-Believer. Part 1 is here.

4. How can anyone doubt the reliability of Scripture considering the number and proximity to originals of its many copied manuscripts?

There are two ways this question could be answered. One would be to demonstrate that, similarities aside, the differences between many of the known versions of the manuscripts should be worrying enough as to render laughable the concept of Biblical inerrancy. The other way would be to point out that the premise of the question is based on the non-sequitur that a greater number of corresponding texts somehow implies reliability. If that were the case, the Christian New Testament could be seen as less valid than the pre-Christian Old Testament, implying that Judaism is more correct than Christianity.

I also wonder what is meant by "originals" in the question?

5. Are you able to live consistently with your present worldview?

I'm not sure whether this question is intended to ask whether I can live in a consistent manner baring in mind the worldview I have, or whether I can live in a way consistent with my worldview.

Either way, the answer is yes, thanks.

6. Wouldn't it make better sense, even pragmatically, to live as though the God of the Bible does exist than as though He doesn't?

Would it make better sense to live in the pretense that a tyrannical, judgemental being in the sky watches my every move finding reasons to condemn me to an eternity of pain unless I dedicate a certain amount of my time and effort to unreservedly thanking him and glorifying his name, rather than to live trying honestly to better understand the world through rationality and evidence, free from the disingenuous and useless dogma and misplaced certainty of an ancient 'revealed' text?

No, it would not.

7. In what sense was Jesus a 'Good Man' if He was lying in His claim to be God?

It seems odd that the Christian website is asking the atheist in what sense Jesus was a good man, since it is their premise that he was good, not mine. If Jesus was lying about being the son of God (the alternative being that such quotes were attributed to him by his chroniclers) it certainly raises the question of whether he was a conman or whether his claims of divinity were a product of delusion. Nevertheless, if the Biblical accounts of his life (beyond the claims of divinity, of course) are correct, and he did heal the sick, help the poor, preach compassion and love and defy some of the sillier Jewish rules, then it does sound like he was a good man. Although of course it is not my place to judge another man's worth - Judge not, that ye be not judged.

8. Do you think that Jesus was misguided in affirming the truthfulness of Scripture?

Given that I have already rejected the idea that the scriptures are truthful, and the idea that Jesus was the son of God, the answer to this is evidently 'yes'.

9. If the Bible is not true, why is it so universally regarded as the 'Good Book'?

This argument is based on the argumentum ad populum (or as I call it, the Elvis Fallacy after the claim of his 1959 album that 50,000,000 Elvis Fans Can't Be Wrong). The truth is that any number of people can be wrong. Before it was demonstrated to be otherwise, the whole population of the world thought the Sun revolved around the Earth, but of course this did not make it so. The number of people holding an opinion has no baring on its veracity.

Question 9 is followed by a couple of follow on questions, so I'll answer those too.

-Are you aware that the Old Testament alone claims to be God's inspired word at least 2600 times?

This question appeals to the same circular reasoning of question 3 which I answered in part 1. The implication is that the Bible is true because the Bible says it's true. I could open up a new Word document now and copy and paste the words "This is the inspired word of God" 2600 times, print it out, get it bound, and then, by this logic, my magnum opus would have just as much claim to the divine well of truth as the Bible. Obviously, a book claiming something is not proof of that same book's claims.

Of course, this does not answer the question of whether I was aware of the number of times the Old Testament made claims of divine inspiration. I wasn't, but now I am. Thanks.

-Did you know that the Bible has been the number one best-seller every year since the 1436 invention of the Gutenberg printing press?

This is really a re-assertion of the same fallacy as question 9. Once again, the number of people to buy a particular book does not make any difference to the truth of that book's contents.

However once again, I have not answered the question. Yes, I did know that.

Part 3 will follow soon...

To Answer Your Questions - Part 1

ChristianAnswers.net, home of unwitting comedian Ray Comfort, has a patronisingly titled list of 44 questions for the "not-yet-a-believer". It claims that "in fact, considering the evidence, it no doubt requires more faith to stand outside the circle of those who believe than to join it". Therefore, the sceptic is challenged to answer a long list of questions designed to challenge their misplaced faith in rationality and free though.

I love doing a good test. I was probably the only person at school who looked forward to spelling tests. I even love filling in those questionnaires about the service at hotels. So a test aiming to make not-yet-believers question why they're not Christians sounds like great fun.

As there are 44 questions, I will post up my answers a few at a time because to answer them all in one go would probably stall the internet. Here are the first few:

1. How do you explain the high degree of design and order in the universe?

There are so many answers that could be given to this, and they have all been given before: here and here, for example, so I will be relatively brief.

The appearance of design and order is an illusion, perfectly well accounted for by scientific models and theories of the origins, and progressions, of life and the universe. Modern organisms are products of evolution - the mechanism whereby only the genes of those animals fit enough to mate are passed on and therefore attributes that aid survival in an environment generally carry on in a population while attributes that hinder survival do not. This theory well explains the many beautiful and complex attributes we can observe in ourselves and every other living organism.

Our perception of our environment as designed is a flipside to this same process. Over millions of years we have evolved to best fit the environment in which we live. Where things in nature seem to have been designed for us, the truth is almost exactly the opposite: we have, by the blind forces of an unknowable and uncaring biological and physical process, been shaped over millions of years to fit that nature.

It is also worth quickly looking at the premise of the question and wondering whether the universe even has a "high degree of design and order". While there are plenty of lovely things in the world - Ray Comfort's banana of course being one of them (although not exactly as God designed), there are also plenty of terrible, uncaring things that make life difficult for us, like cancers and viruses. And for all the wonderful apparent order of something like the eye, there is the uselessness of vestigiality.

2. How do you account for the vast archaeological documentation of Biblical stories, places, and people?

I was unaware that there was "vast archaeological documentation of Biblical stories", being of the understanding that there were many parts of the Bible that lacked any outside substantiation. So with interest I followed a link that accompanied the question, concisely entitled In what ways have archaeological discoveries verified it?

The link contains a list of five examples of people or events in the Bible that have been accounted for by evidence outside the Bible. In each case, the example is of a relatively inconsequential detail, such as whether Solomon really was as wealthy as we're told. There is no mention of any of the slightly more damning archaeological cases against the Bible, such as the lack of evidence for a world-wide flood, the lack of evidence of an Arc, the lack of evidence that kangaroos and koalas managed to get from the middle east to Australia after the flood or the pretty scant evidence that the exodus even took place - especially since somewhere near mount Sinai should be the corpses of 3000 idol-worshipping Israelites.

Given that they haven't accounted for any of these major inconsistencies, I refute the question's premise that there is "vast archaeological documentation of Biblical stories".

3. Since absolutely no Bible prophecy has ever failed (and there are hundreds), how can one realistically remain unconvinced that the Bible is of Divine origin?

Again, the link that accompanies this question gives aloof descriptions of these fulfilled prophecies, similar to the archaeological evidences of the last question. The main point they make is that, in the Old Testament, many prophecies were made that were fulfilled in the New Testament, many of them by Jesus. Let us remember however that prophecies of saviours, second comings and redemption are common to many mythologies and that a burgeoning religious group would do well to capitalise on such prophecies to give themselves extra weight. An author writing about the life of a man they believe to be the Messiah would not necessarily be exempt from the temptations of augmenting facts with details that would tie into the ancient and revered prophecies of the Hebrew scriptures, in order to convince fellows Jews of Jesus' divinity. Most of the prophecies of the Old Testament, like those of Nostradamus and of many modern psychics, are characteristically woolly and unspecific and therefore easy to mold to any agenda if desired.

Question 3 is followed by a few specific examples, so I will address these.

- Explain David's graphic portrayal of Jesus' death by crucifixion (Psalm 22) 1000 years previous to crucifixion being established as a form of capital punishment?

Psalm 22 only has a few lines which could refer to the actual circumstances of the death of Christ and although the piercing of hands and feet is described, there is no mention of being affixed to anything, let alone a cross. Therefore I think it is fair to question whether this is a description of crucifixion since any mention of the most distinguishing element of this mode of punishment is omitted. While crucifixion may not have been established at the time of writing of the psalms, other punishments involving nails, hands and feet may have been.

- How could any mere human pinpoint the birth town of the Messiah seven full centuries before the fact, as did the prophet Micah?

There is substantial evidence to say that Jesus was not born in Bethlehem at all. Robin Lane Fox's Truth and Fiction in the Bible contains a very clear break down of all the evidence that contradicts the Biblical and traditional accounts of Jesus' birth. To mercilessly paraphrase his far more thorough explanation: Joseph would not have been required to travel to the town of his birth had their been a census, any census would only be interested in where people live now. If there had been a census ordered by Quirinius, it would not have applied to Joseph anyway as Nazareth was still self-governing. Although a census, ordered by Quirinius, is recorded by Josephus, it was 10 years after the death of King Herod who died in 4BC.

The story placing Jesus' birth in Bethlehem at the time of both Herod and Quirinius was therefore most likely a specific attempt by the authors of Matthew and Luke (or some earlier oral tradition) to fulfil Micah's prophecy to lend weight to the idea that Jesus was the saviour.

- Account for the odds (1 in 10 to the 157th power) that even just 48 (of 300) Old Testament prophecies were fulfilled in one person, i.e Jesus.

This seems like an extremely odd way to ask this question. Why 48 of 300? Why the use of numerical odds altogether? I can only assume this is a cunning ploy to attempt to fool otherwise scientifically minded people that they know what they're talking about.

However, as I have already discussed, prophecies fulfilled within the Bible - especially in events recounted by people who have a personal or political interest in conveying and spreading their message - cannot be taken credulously as evidence of anything.

- How was it possible for the Old Testament prophet Isaiah to have predicted the virgin birth of Jesus (Isaiah 7:14) 700 years before it occurred?

This might as well be the same question as the last two. I do not accept the premise that there was a virgin birth and therefore I do not accept the supposed fulfilment of this prophecy as evidence of anything.

These last three examples have all used a type of circular reasoning characteristic of defenders of Biblical inerrancy. The Bible is true because the Bible says it's true.

Part 2 will follow soon...