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.

Speaking of the Daily Mail...

I wrote a couple of weeks ago about the Daily Mail's habit of grossly sensationalising health reporting by crudely dividing all foods, objects and activities into those that cure or cause cancer.

However, their love of hyperbole extends past their health pages and even past their news. Into their film reviews.

Below is a screenshot from Rotten Tomatoes showing an aggregated list of reviews for the new film Watchmen. The concensus among reviewers seems to be that it's an excellently made film, but that its main flaw is that it will be difficult to understand for those unfamilliar with the graphic novel on which it is based.

Note the opinion of the Daily Mail's Christopher Tookey:

So, no over-reactions there, then.

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.

Need a new religion?

Are you bored of other faiths? Do you find cassocks unflattering? Do yarmulkes mess up your hair? Do you really love bacon and shellfish? Do you find it a little odd that your sole purpose in life should be to worship a being who created you specifically so that he had some people to worship him? Are you on Facebook?

Well then, allow me to present my new alternative: Metal is our Religion.

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.