I have always had an issue with Sherlock Holmes. Not because I dislike the character or anything like that, but because of his misuse of terms.
Holmes frequently claims that he has arrived at his various astounding conclusions via deduction. Yet, it is clear to anyone familiar with types of inferences that deduction plays a relatively minor role in his reasoning. His keen observations and abductive inferences are what play the larger role in his inferences.
Deductive reasoning is when, given a certain set of assumptions, your conclusion must (logically) be true. There is no possible way that it is not true. So, if your assumptions are:
1. P implies Q
2. P
Then you can deductively conclude: Q
So, for example:
If I am sitting, I am not standing
I am sitting
Therefore, I am not standing
Deductive reasoning is very strong - the only way a valid deductive inference can be incorrect is if one of your assumptions is incorrect.
Abductive reasoning is different. You have some thing(s) to explain, and you do so by reasoning about what could have caused those things.
1. Q
2. P implies Q
Therefore, P (maybe)
For example, my friend is late for our scheduled meeting. If the bus was running late, this would cause her to be late. Therefore, it is reasonable to assume the bus is running late. This is an abductive inference. Even if the assumptions are true, it may be the case that the conclusion is false. However, this is still an invaluable reasoning tool which we all use frequently throughout the day.
The other main form of inferential reasoning is inductive reasoning, where you reach a conclusion based on repeated observations. Just like abductive reasoning, an inductive inference is not as airtight as deductive, and can be incorrect
So, let's look at what Holmes does. I will take the example Wikipedia uses.
1. If leather on the side of a shoe is scored by several parallel cuts, it was caused by someone who scraped around the edges of the sole in order to remove crusted mud.
2. If a London doctor's shoes are scraped to remove crusted mud, the person who so scraped them is the doctor's servant girl.
3. If someone cuts a shoe while scraping it to remove encrusted mud, that person is clumsy and careless.
4. If someone's shoes had encrusted mud on them, that person has been very wet lately and has been out in vile weather.
5. Watson's shoes are cut
Therefore, Watson has been out in vile weather and has a clumsy servant girl.
Note that the first 4 premises must not have been deduced - it is possible for any one of them to be false in certain circumstances, and therefore at least part of the justification for them will be inductive or abductive. Yet, given these premises, there is no big surprise about the conclusion. Nearly anyone who is given these premises could come to the conclusion which Holmes comes to. The deductive inference is not the interesting part. This story of how Holmes did this inference is also very questionable. Did his mind really first come up with all of those disjointed premises, and then realize they all fit together in this nice deductive pattern to a specific conclusion? I find it much more likely that Holmes has really done is made the observation of the cut shoes (an observation), and then realized that the best explanation for the cuts in the shoe is a clumsy servant girl scraping mud off of the shoes (he likely abduced that they were cut while scraping mud off his shoes, and knew from an inductive inference that doctors usually have their servant girls scrape the mud off his shoes). He then realized that this implies that Watson has been muddy and that Watson has a clumsy servant girl. The deduction of these conclusions is secondary to the inference to the best explanation (inference to the best explanation is just abductive reasoning) of the shoe cuts.
A second pedantic issue that I have with Holmes' reasoning is when he claims, about possible explanations "When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth." While I must admit that this is, technically, true, it is very hard to ever know that you have all of the possible explanations, so you never know exactly what "remains". Simply, this never applies to any of Holmes' situations. He never proves that the various crimes he is investigating could not have been caused by aliens, who used their superior technology to plant evidence. This is extremely improbable, but it has not been shown to be impossible. What Holmes' does do, is inference to the best explanation, not the only remaining possible explanation.
Wednesday, December 23, 2009
Tuesday, December 22, 2009
Reasons to be skeptical
I recently came across a book, Joshi's Holistic Detox: 21 days to a healthier slimmer you - for life by Nish Joshi. I am going to use this book as an example of things that should make you skeptical.
Notice that this is a book about diet and nutrition. As such, this is on a subject which there is copious amounts of serious research on. It is, quite simply, a subject we as humans can readily investigate using well established research techniques. Why is this important? Because this is a field in which it is possible to have expertise.
So, of course, the first question is this: Does the author have any expertise in the field he is writing about? Some quick points about this: in various countries, only particular terms are regulated. The title "Registered Dietitian" are protected titles in Canada and the US, meaning that you are only allowed to use the RD title if you actually have the qualifications for it (meaning you must have received an education from a registered college) - just like you can only call yourself an MD if you have gone through medical school. The term nutritionist, on the other hand, is not regulated in many of the provinces in Canada. This means calling yourself a nutritionist is meaningless in the provinces it is unregulated - I could legally pronounce my dog to be a nutritionist. He is unlikely to ever become an RD, though, as he lacks the capacity to read or write.
So, the first test of this book: Does the author have the qualifications relevant to the subject matter? The answer is, I sure don't think so. The only qualifications which the book suggests that the author has is that he has designed some diets which some celebrities have followed. This is probably the biggest reason to be skeptical of a book like this - it is possible to have professional training in this field, and the author simply lacks it. It is possible that he is a wonderful self-taught nutrition guru, but the fact that he has made no effort in getting registered qualifications of this is worrying.
Second test: Do any of the people who endorse this book have the relevant qualifications? Even if the author does have qualifications, if the only people that have anything positive to say about the book are unqualified, it may mean that the author has a very fringe position in the field. On the back of Joshi's book, there are 2 positive comments from actors (Patsy Kensit and Sadie Frost) and then positive comments from popular magazines. Again, Joshi fails this test.
Now, for some general comments on the content of the book: a quick flip to the back shows that it endorses various sorts of quackery: Acupuncture, allergy elimination, etc. On page 21, he suggests his readers drink 2 litres of water a day (this is 8 cups). This is a common misconception, we do not need this much water intake. The entire book is full of huge claims about toxins in our bodies and that doing various things will flush them out, that the water we drink is full of chemicals, yet there are no citations for any of it.
Now, the book does advise some obviously good things - cutting out junk food, drinking less alcohol, avoiding packaged meals, etc. It is hard to fault this sort of advice, and it certainly isn't the case that everything in the book is untrue. However, we have been given no reason to accept the authority of the author, and so the fact that a claim appears in this book lends it no more weight than it already had on its own.
Notice that this is a book about diet and nutrition. As such, this is on a subject which there is copious amounts of serious research on. It is, quite simply, a subject we as humans can readily investigate using well established research techniques. Why is this important? Because this is a field in which it is possible to have expertise.
So, of course, the first question is this: Does the author have any expertise in the field he is writing about? Some quick points about this: in various countries, only particular terms are regulated. The title "Registered Dietitian" are protected titles in Canada and the US, meaning that you are only allowed to use the RD title if you actually have the qualifications for it (meaning you must have received an education from a registered college) - just like you can only call yourself an MD if you have gone through medical school. The term nutritionist, on the other hand, is not regulated in many of the provinces in Canada. This means calling yourself a nutritionist is meaningless in the provinces it is unregulated - I could legally pronounce my dog to be a nutritionist. He is unlikely to ever become an RD, though, as he lacks the capacity to read or write.
So, the first test of this book: Does the author have the qualifications relevant to the subject matter? The answer is, I sure don't think so. The only qualifications which the book suggests that the author has is that he has designed some diets which some celebrities have followed. This is probably the biggest reason to be skeptical of a book like this - it is possible to have professional training in this field, and the author simply lacks it. It is possible that he is a wonderful self-taught nutrition guru, but the fact that he has made no effort in getting registered qualifications of this is worrying.
Second test: Do any of the people who endorse this book have the relevant qualifications? Even if the author does have qualifications, if the only people that have anything positive to say about the book are unqualified, it may mean that the author has a very fringe position in the field. On the back of Joshi's book, there are 2 positive comments from actors (Patsy Kensit and Sadie Frost) and then positive comments from popular magazines. Again, Joshi fails this test.
Now, for some general comments on the content of the book: a quick flip to the back shows that it endorses various sorts of quackery: Acupuncture, allergy elimination, etc. On page 21, he suggests his readers drink 2 litres of water a day (this is 8 cups). This is a common misconception, we do not need this much water intake. The entire book is full of huge claims about toxins in our bodies and that doing various things will flush them out, that the water we drink is full of chemicals, yet there are no citations for any of it.
Now, the book does advise some obviously good things - cutting out junk food, drinking less alcohol, avoiding packaged meals, etc. It is hard to fault this sort of advice, and it certainly isn't the case that everything in the book is untrue. However, we have been given no reason to accept the authority of the author, and so the fact that a claim appears in this book lends it no more weight than it already had on its own.
Saturday, December 19, 2009
What the Bleep?
I just finished watching possibly the strangest docudrama I have ever had the misfortune of seeing, What the Bleep Do We Know!? The movie was even stranger than I thought it would be. I knew that it had all kinds of weird quantum-consciousness-positive-thinking-magic-powers stuff, but I had never heard about all the other weird stuff in it. There is a misuse of quantum physics, psychology, neuroscience, biology, topped off with some wishy-washy spiritualism. Woven through it all is a bizarre story about a deaf girl.
It is hard to construct exactly what the thesis of the film is. I will, to the best of my ability, attempt to outline it. For the first while, every sentence has at least one mention of "quantum physics" in it. It builds up how strange physics is (although they do so in an often very inaccurate way). It makes the weird claim that Native Americans were unable to see Columbus' ships as they approached, because they had no concept of the ships they were in, and this goes to show that what we see is determined by our preconceptions of it (or some such thing). They then claim that the brain has no way of telling the difference between mental images and sensory perceptions (which is simply false - many of the same mechanisms are used in imagination as they are in actual sensory perception, and this is an interesting and hot topic in cognitive science, but just because some of the same mechanisms are used does not mean they are identical), and then therefore our minds can create our perceptions. This is, somehow, tied to the observer effect in quantum physics (in a way that isn't particularly specified). I have no idea how these two are related - on the one hand, the film seems to be claiming that we can change what we perceive, which would supposedly change the universe for us. On the other hand, it seems to be claiming we can change the universe for other people as well (it claims that people meditating can reduce crime), and this is supposedly due to (a misunderstanding of) the observer effect. Regardless, the bottom line is that we can (the film claims) change the universe through thought.
I was prepared for that sort of stuff. However, it goes on to make some other very strange claims. It speculates based on Hebbian Theory (that which fires together, wires together) that we can affect which of our concepts are interconnected, and attempt to disconnect the positive ones from the negative. It goes on to talk about addiction. It is rather odd the way they flip between nerve cells and normal cells, and between nutrients and neurotransmitters - it claims that we can become addicted to emotions because emotions release chemicals the same way drugs do, and as we become more addicted, the number of receptors for each of these chemicals will decrease. These cells with reduced receptors will then replicate, making more cells with fewer receptors, and OMG THIS MEANS THAT IF YOU ARE ADDICTED TO EMOTIONS THEN YOUR CELLS WILL NOT HAVE THE RECEPTORS THEY NEED TO GET NUTRIENTS AND YOU WILL GET OLD AND DIE. Wait, what? Somewhere we went from claims which might be somewhat plausible (some emotions are correllated with certain neurotransmitters, and I am actually uncertain whether feeling an intense emotion for long periods of time may reduce the number of receptors a neuron has - I need to learn more physiological psychology) to claims that are certainly false (this reduction is receptors will somehow affect how all cells, including ones outside the nervous system, uptake nutrients). The biology is so wishy-washy it is hard to say what exactly their misconceptions are.
Speaking of wishy-washy, the film ends with a bunch of very odd wishy-washy spiritualism. There are claims like that "God is the superposition of all the spirit from all things", and "You are a god in the making". One man claims that he creates his day every morning using his magical powers, and does so by asking "the ultimate observer" (what the bleep does that mean?) to affect the quantum field in such a way to make his life better, but to do it in such a way that it is unexpected. This must make things really convenient - if something good happens, he can claim it was his quantum-magic that did it, but he never has to actually predict what will happen.
The storyline woven into the film was possibly the strangest part. At one point the protagonist is at a wedding, and seems able to see the addictions (or something?) of all of the other wedding guests, and seeing how they are controlled by such addictions. This makes it sound coherent, but the way it is presented is just bonkers. It is amusing to watch, anyways.
In the end, What the Bleep Do We Know!? is a heap of random pseudo-science and misconceptions, presented in an incoherent jumble. I'm not sure why it ever became as big as it was.
It is hard to construct exactly what the thesis of the film is. I will, to the best of my ability, attempt to outline it. For the first while, every sentence has at least one mention of "quantum physics" in it. It builds up how strange physics is (although they do so in an often very inaccurate way). It makes the weird claim that Native Americans were unable to see Columbus' ships as they approached, because they had no concept of the ships they were in, and this goes to show that what we see is determined by our preconceptions of it (or some such thing). They then claim that the brain has no way of telling the difference between mental images and sensory perceptions (which is simply false - many of the same mechanisms are used in imagination as they are in actual sensory perception, and this is an interesting and hot topic in cognitive science, but just because some of the same mechanisms are used does not mean they are identical), and then therefore our minds can create our perceptions. This is, somehow, tied to the observer effect in quantum physics (in a way that isn't particularly specified). I have no idea how these two are related - on the one hand, the film seems to be claiming that we can change what we perceive, which would supposedly change the universe for us. On the other hand, it seems to be claiming we can change the universe for other people as well (it claims that people meditating can reduce crime), and this is supposedly due to (a misunderstanding of) the observer effect. Regardless, the bottom line is that we can (the film claims) change the universe through thought.
I was prepared for that sort of stuff. However, it goes on to make some other very strange claims. It speculates based on Hebbian Theory (that which fires together, wires together) that we can affect which of our concepts are interconnected, and attempt to disconnect the positive ones from the negative. It goes on to talk about addiction. It is rather odd the way they flip between nerve cells and normal cells, and between nutrients and neurotransmitters - it claims that we can become addicted to emotions because emotions release chemicals the same way drugs do, and as we become more addicted, the number of receptors for each of these chemicals will decrease. These cells with reduced receptors will then replicate, making more cells with fewer receptors, and OMG THIS MEANS THAT IF YOU ARE ADDICTED TO EMOTIONS THEN YOUR CELLS WILL NOT HAVE THE RECEPTORS THEY NEED TO GET NUTRIENTS AND YOU WILL GET OLD AND DIE. Wait, what? Somewhere we went from claims which might be somewhat plausible (some emotions are correllated with certain neurotransmitters, and I am actually uncertain whether feeling an intense emotion for long periods of time may reduce the number of receptors a neuron has - I need to learn more physiological psychology) to claims that are certainly false (this reduction is receptors will somehow affect how all cells, including ones outside the nervous system, uptake nutrients). The biology is so wishy-washy it is hard to say what exactly their misconceptions are.
Speaking of wishy-washy, the film ends with a bunch of very odd wishy-washy spiritualism. There are claims like that "God is the superposition of all the spirit from all things", and "You are a god in the making". One man claims that he creates his day every morning using his magical powers, and does so by asking "the ultimate observer" (what the bleep does that mean?) to affect the quantum field in such a way to make his life better, but to do it in such a way that it is unexpected. This must make things really convenient - if something good happens, he can claim it was his quantum-magic that did it, but he never has to actually predict what will happen.
The storyline woven into the film was possibly the strangest part. At one point the protagonist is at a wedding, and seems able to see the addictions (or something?) of all of the other wedding guests, and seeing how they are controlled by such addictions. This makes it sound coherent, but the way it is presented is just bonkers. It is amusing to watch, anyways.
In the end, What the Bleep Do We Know!? is a heap of random pseudo-science and misconceptions, presented in an incoherent jumble. I'm not sure why it ever became as big as it was.
Friday, December 18, 2009
Bunch o' Reviews
It's been quite a while since I have actually posted anything here. I figured I would attempt to get back into it, at least for the next while.
I often write reviews of bad Christian apologetics. To break this trend (and show that this isn't all that I read), I am going to do a few quick reviews of some books I have read recently.
The God Part of the Brain by Matthew Alper
I picked this book up expecting a book full of neuroscientific findings about religious belief. I was very disapointed. Much of the book is, instead, talking about the author's journey away from religious belief, and how basic science has undermined much of traditional religion. I ended up just skimming much of this, since it seemed completely irrelevant to the thesis of the book.
When the thesis is finally mentioned, and the book goes on to explain it, I found the basic idea unoriginal. Basically, a predisposition to religious beliefs evolved to lessen the anxiety humans feel about death. It might have been better if more space was devoted to exploring the evidence and the ramifications of this idea, but the book was short as it was and much of the space was wasted on the bits irrelevant to this thesis.
Overall, I can't recommend this book.
Gödel's Proof by Ernest Nagel, James R. Newman, edited and foreword by Douglas R. Hofstadter
The proof to which the title refers to, of course, is his classic proof of the incompleteness of logical systems (for more specific information, you can read about it on wikipedia). This was enormously important for the history of mathematics, extremely interesting as a logical proof, and has been (unfortunately) misused in attempts to prove all sorts of far-reaching philosophical conclusions.
The book itself presents the argument in a very easy to understand way. It gives the overall structure of the proof, without getting too bogged down in details and formality. It's quite readable (or as readable as you could expect, given the subject matter), and does a wonderful job of getting the basic structure of the proof across.
I highly recommend this to any one who is interested in logic or mathematics, especially those who have not had a chance to study Gödel's result before.
Mindfield by Lone Frank
This books talks about how the cognitive sciences, particularly neuroscience, are having an effect on other fields and on everyday life. A very good balance is achieved between depth and breadth of issues. The book looks at a very broad array of topics, but - although I may have been inspired to want to read more about a specific topic - I never felt that something was covered only superficially.
The topics the book talks about are how neuroscience can give us insight on religion, morality, happiness, social interactions, economics, marketing, and lieing. A very interesting read for anyone interested in any one of those topics.
Happiness by Richard Layard
This book was rather interesting. It looked at many scientific findings about happiness - sociological findings about the happiness of different countries through the years, the effects of various things on the happiness of the individual or a whole country, etc. He uses this to put forward some arguments on policy changes which would increase the happiness of a country, and things which affect happiness in our everyday lives.
This is a very thought-provoking book. I have a feeling many hard-core libertarians would have a lot of problems with the arguments put forward, but I would still recommend this book to them and anyone else interested in the science of happiness.
I often write reviews of bad Christian apologetics. To break this trend (and show that this isn't all that I read), I am going to do a few quick reviews of some books I have read recently.
The God Part of the Brain by Matthew Alper
I picked this book up expecting a book full of neuroscientific findings about religious belief. I was very disapointed. Much of the book is, instead, talking about the author's journey away from religious belief, and how basic science has undermined much of traditional religion. I ended up just skimming much of this, since it seemed completely irrelevant to the thesis of the book.
When the thesis is finally mentioned, and the book goes on to explain it, I found the basic idea unoriginal. Basically, a predisposition to religious beliefs evolved to lessen the anxiety humans feel about death. It might have been better if more space was devoted to exploring the evidence and the ramifications of this idea, but the book was short as it was and much of the space was wasted on the bits irrelevant to this thesis.
Overall, I can't recommend this book.
Gödel's Proof by Ernest Nagel, James R. Newman, edited and foreword by Douglas R. Hofstadter
The proof to which the title refers to, of course, is his classic proof of the incompleteness of logical systems (for more specific information, you can read about it on wikipedia). This was enormously important for the history of mathematics, extremely interesting as a logical proof, and has been (unfortunately) misused in attempts to prove all sorts of far-reaching philosophical conclusions.
The book itself presents the argument in a very easy to understand way. It gives the overall structure of the proof, without getting too bogged down in details and formality. It's quite readable (or as readable as you could expect, given the subject matter), and does a wonderful job of getting the basic structure of the proof across.
I highly recommend this to any one who is interested in logic or mathematics, especially those who have not had a chance to study Gödel's result before.
Mindfield by Lone Frank
This books talks about how the cognitive sciences, particularly neuroscience, are having an effect on other fields and on everyday life. A very good balance is achieved between depth and breadth of issues. The book looks at a very broad array of topics, but - although I may have been inspired to want to read more about a specific topic - I never felt that something was covered only superficially.
The topics the book talks about are how neuroscience can give us insight on religion, morality, happiness, social interactions, economics, marketing, and lieing. A very interesting read for anyone interested in any one of those topics.
Happiness by Richard Layard
This book was rather interesting. It looked at many scientific findings about happiness - sociological findings about the happiness of different countries through the years, the effects of various things on the happiness of the individual or a whole country, etc. He uses this to put forward some arguments on policy changes which would increase the happiness of a country, and things which affect happiness in our everyday lives.
This is a very thought-provoking book. I have a feeling many hard-core libertarians would have a lot of problems with the arguments put forward, but I would still recommend this book to them and anyone else interested in the science of happiness.
Tuesday, June 16, 2009
The Case for a Creator - Book Review
To finally finish off my trilogy of Lee Strobel book reviews, here is my review of The Case for a Creator.
I wasn't expecting much from this book - I was expecting a rehash of tired old design arguments and intelligent design bullshit. In many aspects it was just as I expected - Lee Strobel interviewed only people who agreed with what he was setting out to prove (meaning he ignored the fact that the vast majority of scientists would disagree with much of what the interviewees were saying). He interviewed people like Mike Behe and Stephen Meyer of the intelligent design movement. This was all quite boring and old, making the majority of the book just difficult to get through.
However, there were a couple of bits which perked my interest.
The first of these interesting bits was in chapter 5, where William Lane Craig is interviewed. I knew that Craig was a big proponent of the first cause argument, but I never really understood how he could possibly make it a sound argument. Even if you grant that everything that came to exist has a cause, and the universe came to exist, all that leaves you with is some unnamed cause which you know nothing about. How could anyone possibly use this to argue for the existence of a personal, intelligent, eternal cosmic mind?
Craig also argues that there are two types of things which are timeless and immaterial: abstract objects like mathematical entities, and minds. Since the cause of the universe must be immaterial and timeless, and mathematical entities cannot create the universe, a mind must have.
Finally, he argues that if there was a mechanistic cause for the universe, there would be no reason for the universe to be finite - the sufficient condition for the universe to be created would be eternally fulfilled, meaning the universe should have been created an eternity ago. Only an agent with freedom of will could choose when to create the universe.
I was pretty amazed to read these arguments. I imagine even most theists reading them would cringe. The first argument relies entirely on a strange dichotomy. What exactly are "personal explanations"? Explanations at the level of a person's desires and preferences. This doesn't make them magical entities to be set aside from scientific explanations. Psychology is in the business of trying to understand how people work, and so this science's explanations would be personal explanations. We could make a dichotomy between baking explanations ("baking soda makes baked things fluffier, so that is why this cake came out so fluffy") and scientific explanations ("The chemical reaction between baking soda and the acids in the other ingredients are catalyzed by the heat of the oven..." etc). This would not mean that the ultimate cause of the universe must be a baking explanation, and thus the universe was created by an eternal oven.
The second argument is just silly - it first begs the question by assuming dualism. Second, it assumes this dichotomy that timeless and immaterial things must either be minds or mathematical entities.
The final argument seems pretty much incoherent, but I suppose the response to it would be that as far as we know, time started when the universe did, so in no sense would there have been conditions which were satisfied for a time before the universe. I won't touch Craig's childish notion of free-will, in order to keep things concise.
The second thing which surprised me about this book was chapter 10: Evidence of Consciousness. The chapter is full of bad arguments, doesn't bother to define what the soul is (even though it is touted as the solution to all the philosophical problems of consciousness) or how it works, and doesn't tackle any of the traditional problems with dualism. There is an appeal to near death experiences (which reminds me of The Spiritual Brain), but the real argument is that if the universe didn't start with any minds, a mindless universe couldn't create them. Consider the analogous argument: if the universe didn't start with snowflakes, there is no way it could have created them.
Well, that's it. This is probably the last Strobel book I'll read. I have now read all of the books which our local Campus for Christ group hands out. I hope they start giving out different ones - reading these Christian books can be quite fun, but I would never want to support the author.
I wasn't expecting much from this book - I was expecting a rehash of tired old design arguments and intelligent design bullshit. In many aspects it was just as I expected - Lee Strobel interviewed only people who agreed with what he was setting out to prove (meaning he ignored the fact that the vast majority of scientists would disagree with much of what the interviewees were saying). He interviewed people like Mike Behe and Stephen Meyer of the intelligent design movement. This was all quite boring and old, making the majority of the book just difficult to get through.
However, there were a couple of bits which perked my interest.
The first of these interesting bits was in chapter 5, where William Lane Craig is interviewed. I knew that Craig was a big proponent of the first cause argument, but I never really understood how he could possibly make it a sound argument. Even if you grant that everything that came to exist has a cause, and the universe came to exist, all that leaves you with is some unnamed cause which you know nothing about. How could anyone possibly use this to argue for the existence of a personal, intelligent, eternal cosmic mind?
Imagine you walked into the kitchen and saw the kettle boiling on the stove. You ask, 'why is the kettle boiling?' Your wife might say 'Well, because the kinetic energy of the flame is conducted by the metal bottom of the kettle to the water, causing the water molecules to vibrate faster and faster until they're thrown off in the form of steam.' That would be a scientific explanation. Or she might say 'I put it on to make a cup of tea.' That would be a personal explanation. (page 135)Craig goes on to explain that since whatever caused the universe can't be given a scientific explanation in the terms of the events leading up to it, the explanation for the universe must be a personal one (i.e. the cause must be a personal being).
Craig also argues that there are two types of things which are timeless and immaterial: abstract objects like mathematical entities, and minds. Since the cause of the universe must be immaterial and timeless, and mathematical entities cannot create the universe, a mind must have.
Finally, he argues that if there was a mechanistic cause for the universe, there would be no reason for the universe to be finite - the sufficient condition for the universe to be created would be eternally fulfilled, meaning the universe should have been created an eternity ago. Only an agent with freedom of will could choose when to create the universe.
I was pretty amazed to read these arguments. I imagine even most theists reading them would cringe. The first argument relies entirely on a strange dichotomy. What exactly are "personal explanations"? Explanations at the level of a person's desires and preferences. This doesn't make them magical entities to be set aside from scientific explanations. Psychology is in the business of trying to understand how people work, and so this science's explanations would be personal explanations. We could make a dichotomy between baking explanations ("baking soda makes baked things fluffier, so that is why this cake came out so fluffy") and scientific explanations ("The chemical reaction between baking soda and the acids in the other ingredients are catalyzed by the heat of the oven..." etc). This would not mean that the ultimate cause of the universe must be a baking explanation, and thus the universe was created by an eternal oven.
The second argument is just silly - it first begs the question by assuming dualism. Second, it assumes this dichotomy that timeless and immaterial things must either be minds or mathematical entities.
The final argument seems pretty much incoherent, but I suppose the response to it would be that as far as we know, time started when the universe did, so in no sense would there have been conditions which were satisfied for a time before the universe. I won't touch Craig's childish notion of free-will, in order to keep things concise.
The second thing which surprised me about this book was chapter 10: Evidence of Consciousness. The chapter is full of bad arguments, doesn't bother to define what the soul is (even though it is touted as the solution to all the philosophical problems of consciousness) or how it works, and doesn't tackle any of the traditional problems with dualism. There is an appeal to near death experiences (which reminds me of The Spiritual Brain), but the real argument is that if the universe didn't start with any minds, a mindless universe couldn't create them. Consider the analogous argument: if the universe didn't start with snowflakes, there is no way it could have created them.
Well, that's it. This is probably the last Strobel book I'll read. I have now read all of the books which our local Campus for Christ group hands out. I hope they start giving out different ones - reading these Christian books can be quite fun, but I would never want to support the author.
Monday, April 27, 2009
Good News
I am too used to reading horrible news from the US about states discriminating against queers, struggles Intelligent Design proponents who are trying to get their stuff into schools, blatant disregard for the First Amendment, etc. For once I've found an article that is uplifting.
It seems some atheist ads have been having a pretty big impact in the states. The Secular Humanists of the Lowcountry have boomed after putting up some billboards, and are looking at having new types of events:
It seems some atheist ads have been having a pretty big impact in the states. The Secular Humanists of the Lowcountry have boomed after putting up some billboards, and are looking at having new types of events:
And now parents were coming out of the woodwork asking for family-oriented programs where they could meet like-minded nonbelievers.The article goes on to discuss the growing percentage of Americans willing to identify themselves as having no religion.
“Is everyone in favor of sponsoring a picnic for humanists with families?” asked the board president, Jonathan Lamb, a 27-year-old meteorologist, eliciting a chorus of “ayes.”
Thursday, April 23, 2009
The Case for Faith - Book Review
I meant to write this post much earlier, but somehow it got put off until now despite my having finished reading The Case for Faith days after my last post. On to the review.
Like Strobel's The Case for Christ, each chapter of the book deals with a different issue in an interview with a different "expert". The Case for Faith is written specifically for people who on their way to Jesus "are faced with intellectual barriers standing squarely in their path" (from the back of the book summary).
Overall, The Case for Faith was a much more enjoyable read than The Case for Christ. It serves as an interesting example of how Christian apologetics deal with different theological issues. I found it a fun (though frustrating) read. I would recommend it if someone was looking for an example of popular apologetics, but not for anyone looking for a serious look at philosophy of religion or theology. Most of the arguments are either what you would expect to hear from students in a first year philosophy course, or worse.
A quick look at each chapter:
Objection #1: Suffering Disproves God (interviewee: Peter John Kreeft)
Of course, one of the first issues the book seeks to deal with is the issue of suffering. The chapter can be summed up as follows: Free will leads to evil (what about natural disasters?), and the experience of evil often leads people to a strengthened faith. Therefore evil isn't such a bad thing, since it brings people closer to God! One could question why an omniscient being can't come up with a slightly better way of doing things, and this brings up all sorts of questions about what the interaction between free will and human psychology is (why do people become more faithful after experiencing suffering? Due to some psychological fact about humans. Why couldn't God change human psychology so that the experience of eating ice cream brought us closer to him? This no more takes away our freedom than the way things currently are.)
The best part of the chapter, or perhaps the book, occurs on page 47. I will quote it in full so I can't be accused of taking it out of context (I assume it will be hard to believe that this quote occurs in the book):
This chapter is not as interesting as the first. It can be summarized simply as: No, miracles don't contradict science, because God can do anything. That's fine with me (is this objection really supposed to be a serious one, or is this chapter just filler?). If you assume an omnipotent being that can do anything, including break natural laws, then miracles aren't too big of a problem. The problem is providing evidence that shows the assumption is warranted.
Objection #3: Evolution Explains Life, So God Isn't Needed (interviewee: Walter L. Bradley)
Oh boy. Creationism time. This chapter isn't too fun - it is just a rehash of intelligent design propaganda without anything new. I assume that the next book, The Case for a Creator, will deal with this in depth. Since I will likely be reviewing that book next, I'll leave this stuff until then.
Objection #4: God Isn't Worthy of Worship If He Kills Innocent Children (interviewee: Norman L. Geisler)
This chapter brings us back to some fun stuff. The bible describes (in numerous instances) God killing or ordering the killing of many children. Some instances: the great flood, the curse of Egypt, genocide of the Amalekites, destruction of the Canaanites, bears mauling 42 kids for calling Elisha a baldhead, etc.
This chapter deals with the genocides in the following way:
1. Children aren't innocent, because they have original sin.
2. Children who die while young get to go to heaven, so it's a good thing if they die (but don't you go kill them unless God tells you to!)
3. Children growing up in these corrupt societies (God was ordering their destruction because they were corrupt) will grow up to be corrupt, so it's really best if they die (what happened to free will?).
Somehow, I doubt many people find this sort of reasoning convincing.
Better yet is the way it deals with the story of Elisha and the bears. It is claimed that the people mauled to death were "youths", which probably means young adults. They also probably had violent intentions. Therefore, obviously, it is justifiable that God sent down bears to maul them.
Objection #5: It's Offensive to Claim Jesus Is the Only Way to God (interviewee: Ravi Zacharias)
This seems to be another filler chapter. Summary: There is no way for a faith to include everyone, and it isn't offensive if it's the truth.
Objection #6: A Loving God Would Never Torture People in Hell (interviewee: J.P. Moreland)
Basically, it is claimed that God doesn't torture people in hell. At least, not actively. Hell is actually just separation from God, and this is extremely painful. But the big claim is this: everyone chooses to be separated from God. The audacious claim is made that actually, all atheists know deep down that there is a god. God gave us just enough evidence to let us know he exists but not so much that it isn't possible to claim he doesn't, so atheists have a way out. Atheists actually all disbelieve for other underlying reasons (i.e. they are being rebellious, don't want it to be true, or have a bad relationship with their father). Quite simply, no satisfactory rebuttal of the objection presented in this chapter was given.
Objection #7: Church History is Littered with Oppression and Violence (interviewee: John Woodbridge)
This chapter is about what you would expect. The evils done by Christianity were done by misguided people, and Christianity leads people to do many good things. It's just a No True Scotsman fallacy coupled with cherry-picking the good things Christians have done or do.
Objection #8: I Still Have Doubts, So I Can't Be Christian (interviewee: Lynn Anderson)
It is claimed that it is natural to have doubts, but this is okay. This chapter doesn't really have any argumentation, it is just trying to give Christians a "stick-with-it" attitude towards their faith.
That's all. As I said, it is an interesting example of Christian apologetics. However, it seems all of the issues are either not dealt with very well, or not very serious objections to begin with.
Like Strobel's The Case for Christ, each chapter of the book deals with a different issue in an interview with a different "expert". The Case for Faith is written specifically for people who on their way to Jesus "are faced with intellectual barriers standing squarely in their path" (from the back of the book summary).
Overall, The Case for Faith was a much more enjoyable read than The Case for Christ. It serves as an interesting example of how Christian apologetics deal with different theological issues. I found it a fun (though frustrating) read. I would recommend it if someone was looking for an example of popular apologetics, but not for anyone looking for a serious look at philosophy of religion or theology. Most of the arguments are either what you would expect to hear from students in a first year philosophy course, or worse.
A quick look at each chapter:
Objection #1: Suffering Disproves God (interviewee: Peter John Kreeft)
Of course, one of the first issues the book seeks to deal with is the issue of suffering. The chapter can be summed up as follows: Free will leads to evil (what about natural disasters?), and the experience of evil often leads people to a strengthened faith. Therefore evil isn't such a bad thing, since it brings people closer to God! One could question why an omniscient being can't come up with a slightly better way of doing things, and this brings up all sorts of questions about what the interaction between free will and human psychology is (why do people become more faithful after experiencing suffering? Due to some psychological fact about humans. Why couldn't God change human psychology so that the experience of eating ice cream brought us closer to him? This no more takes away our freedom than the way things currently are.)
The best part of the chapter, or perhaps the book, occurs on page 47. I will quote it in full so I can't be accused of taking it out of context (I assume it will be hard to believe that this quote occurs in the book):
"Are there any other ways in which you believe evil works against atheism?" [Strobel] asked.Wow. This is an amazing quote. Kreeft should get some kind of an award for this. I've tried counting the number of errors/misconceptions present in this passage, but sometimes something is so far from making any sense that it isn't possible to sort out the tangled mess of assumptions being used. Here is my attempt at a short (not exhaustive) list of all of the major errors/misconceptions (if you are bored, try finding more and writing them in a comment).
"Yes, there are," [Kreeft] replied. "If there is no Creator and therefore no moment of creation, then everything is the result of evolution. If there was no beginning or first cause, then the universe must have always existed. That means the universe has been evolving for an infinite amount of time-and, by now, everything should already be perfect. There would have been plenty of time for evolution to have finished and evil to have been vanquished. But there still is evil and suffering and imperfection-and that proves the atheist wrong about the universe."
- Atheism does not imply that the universe has existed in its present form for eternity. There is simply no reason to think that if there is not a god, the universe must have existed forever.
- Even if the universe did exist forever, biological evolution is not progressive. Species tend to evolve to fit their environment, not to become "perfect". Even if a species is a perfect fit for their evironment, when that environment changes, so will they.
- Even if the universe existed forever AND evolution was progressive, there is no reason to think the end result would be perfection. The function could asymptote off at some point due to a physical restraint (i.e. there may be no physical way that organisms could evolve to not be completely prone to cancer). There is also the issue of "arms races" between species, which could go on forever, and whenever one species is ahead of the other, members of the other species suffer.
- Finally, even if the universe existed forever, evolution was progressive, and there were no physical restraints keeping organisms from reaching perfection, the universe could be cyclic. That is, it could be the case that every 20 billion years or so, the universe goes through a "big crunch", and begins in a new big bang event. There would be an eternal universe, but only a finite time for organisms to evolve.
This chapter is not as interesting as the first. It can be summarized simply as: No, miracles don't contradict science, because God can do anything. That's fine with me (is this objection really supposed to be a serious one, or is this chapter just filler?). If you assume an omnipotent being that can do anything, including break natural laws, then miracles aren't too big of a problem. The problem is providing evidence that shows the assumption is warranted.
Objection #3: Evolution Explains Life, So God Isn't Needed (interviewee: Walter L. Bradley)
Oh boy. Creationism time. This chapter isn't too fun - it is just a rehash of intelligent design propaganda without anything new. I assume that the next book, The Case for a Creator, will deal with this in depth. Since I will likely be reviewing that book next, I'll leave this stuff until then.
Objection #4: God Isn't Worthy of Worship If He Kills Innocent Children (interviewee: Norman L. Geisler)
This chapter brings us back to some fun stuff. The bible describes (in numerous instances) God killing or ordering the killing of many children. Some instances: the great flood, the curse of Egypt, genocide of the Amalekites, destruction of the Canaanites, bears mauling 42 kids for calling Elisha a baldhead, etc.
This chapter deals with the genocides in the following way:
1. Children aren't innocent, because they have original sin.
2. Children who die while young get to go to heaven, so it's a good thing if they die (but don't you go kill them unless God tells you to!)
3. Children growing up in these corrupt societies (God was ordering their destruction because they were corrupt) will grow up to be corrupt, so it's really best if they die (what happened to free will?).
Somehow, I doubt many people find this sort of reasoning convincing.
Better yet is the way it deals with the story of Elisha and the bears. It is claimed that the people mauled to death were "youths", which probably means young adults. They also probably had violent intentions. Therefore, obviously, it is justifiable that God sent down bears to maul them.
Objection #5: It's Offensive to Claim Jesus Is the Only Way to God (interviewee: Ravi Zacharias)
This seems to be another filler chapter. Summary: There is no way for a faith to include everyone, and it isn't offensive if it's the truth.
Objection #6: A Loving God Would Never Torture People in Hell (interviewee: J.P. Moreland)
Basically, it is claimed that God doesn't torture people in hell. At least, not actively. Hell is actually just separation from God, and this is extremely painful. But the big claim is this: everyone chooses to be separated from God. The audacious claim is made that actually, all atheists know deep down that there is a god. God gave us just enough evidence to let us know he exists but not so much that it isn't possible to claim he doesn't, so atheists have a way out. Atheists actually all disbelieve for other underlying reasons (i.e. they are being rebellious, don't want it to be true, or have a bad relationship with their father). Quite simply, no satisfactory rebuttal of the objection presented in this chapter was given.
Objection #7: Church History is Littered with Oppression and Violence (interviewee: John Woodbridge)
This chapter is about what you would expect. The evils done by Christianity were done by misguided people, and Christianity leads people to do many good things. It's just a No True Scotsman fallacy coupled with cherry-picking the good things Christians have done or do.
Objection #8: I Still Have Doubts, So I Can't Be Christian (interviewee: Lynn Anderson)
It is claimed that it is natural to have doubts, but this is okay. This chapter doesn't really have any argumentation, it is just trying to give Christians a "stick-with-it" attitude towards their faith.
That's all. As I said, it is an interesting example of Christian apologetics. However, it seems all of the issues are either not dealt with very well, or not very serious objections to begin with.
Wednesday, February 25, 2009
The Case for Christ - Book Review
Campus for Christ, a club on campus here at UW, frequently hands out packages with free books by Christian apologists. These free books include The Case for Christ, The Case for Faith, and The Case for a Creator all by Lee Strobel. I've collected all of them and am now making my way through them. I plan to post reviews of each of them as I read them.
The first of them, The Case for Christ, argues that there is historical evidence that Christ existed and was the son of God. Quite frankly, the book is excessively dull and there isn't much in it that I feel the need to review in detail (for reasons which will become apparent).
In each chapter of the book, an expert is interviewed, with Strobel posing questions and arguments which challenge the idea that Jesus was the son of God. Each chapter has a question for a subtitle, for example chapter 5: "Does Archeology Confirm or Contradict Jesus' Biographies?" You can guess what the answer given to each of the questions is going to be just based on the author of the book. Since most of the claims rely entirely upon appeals to authority, you won't get much more out of reading the chapter than you would if asking for a one word answer to the questions.
Of course, appeal to authority can be necessary on many subjects, and this just happens to be one of those subjects, so the book shouldn't be criticized for relying on authorities. However, it can be criticized severely on the choice of authorities. Not a single person skeptical of the claim that Jesus is the son of God is interviewed in this book. For comparison, look at (the admittedly biased) Bullshit!'s episode on the Bible, in which the Bible is claimed to be bullshit. In this 30 minute (minus commercials) show, Penn and Teller not only interview Shermer as their skeptic, but also a Christian biblical scholar (i.e. someone who does not agree with the conclusion of the show). Bullshit! is able to do it, so why didn't Strobel? One can only conclude that the book is biased to the extreme. I'm sure there are scholars (like Bart Ehrman) who would certainly disagree with many things in that book, and so I don't see any reason to take a certain biased sampling of scholars seriously.
One of the arguments which comes up several time in the book is that the New Testament was written at a time when many eyewitnesses of the event would still be around, thus if it contained any errors, someone would have pointed it out. I am certainly not a historian and don't know what methods are acceptable in a historical analysis, but this seems to me an extremely poor argument. These books were written at a time before mass communication - even if eyewitnesses did disagree with the written accounts and even tried correcting them, it would be pretty damn hard after the writings spread beyond their immediate area. Not to mention that even eyewitnesses might believe the event happened differently than it actually did, due psychological phenomena like false memories.
One damning point of the book is in the twelth chapter, the interview with William Craig. Craig is quoted as saying, "...the hypothesis that God raised Jesus from the dead doesn't contradict science or any known facts of experience. All it requires is the hypothesis that God exists" page 300. While I agree that magic isn't too unlikely when you believe in a magic generator (a god) who has a particular queer fancy to fulfill a particular set of prophecies, this is much like saying it is likely little gremlins stole my keys because I can't find my keys, and I believe there to be key-eating gremlins. It comes down to requiring belief in a Judeo-Christian god to even get Craig's argument off the ground.
Overall, I don't think I could recommend this book to anyone. This isn't because I just disagree with it - I would and have recommended books which I disagree a great deal with. It's just because this particular book is boring and I really don't think many people would gain anything from reading it.
The first of them, The Case for Christ, argues that there is historical evidence that Christ existed and was the son of God. Quite frankly, the book is excessively dull and there isn't much in it that I feel the need to review in detail (for reasons which will become apparent).
In each chapter of the book, an expert is interviewed, with Strobel posing questions and arguments which challenge the idea that Jesus was the son of God. Each chapter has a question for a subtitle, for example chapter 5: "Does Archeology Confirm or Contradict Jesus' Biographies?" You can guess what the answer given to each of the questions is going to be just based on the author of the book. Since most of the claims rely entirely upon appeals to authority, you won't get much more out of reading the chapter than you would if asking for a one word answer to the questions.
Of course, appeal to authority can be necessary on many subjects, and this just happens to be one of those subjects, so the book shouldn't be criticized for relying on authorities. However, it can be criticized severely on the choice of authorities. Not a single person skeptical of the claim that Jesus is the son of God is interviewed in this book. For comparison, look at (the admittedly biased) Bullshit!'s episode on the Bible, in which the Bible is claimed to be bullshit. In this 30 minute (minus commercials) show, Penn and Teller not only interview Shermer as their skeptic, but also a Christian biblical scholar (i.e. someone who does not agree with the conclusion of the show). Bullshit! is able to do it, so why didn't Strobel? One can only conclude that the book is biased to the extreme. I'm sure there are scholars (like Bart Ehrman) who would certainly disagree with many things in that book, and so I don't see any reason to take a certain biased sampling of scholars seriously.
One of the arguments which comes up several time in the book is that the New Testament was written at a time when many eyewitnesses of the event would still be around, thus if it contained any errors, someone would have pointed it out. I am certainly not a historian and don't know what methods are acceptable in a historical analysis, but this seems to me an extremely poor argument. These books were written at a time before mass communication - even if eyewitnesses did disagree with the written accounts and even tried correcting them, it would be pretty damn hard after the writings spread beyond their immediate area. Not to mention that even eyewitnesses might believe the event happened differently than it actually did, due psychological phenomena like false memories.
One damning point of the book is in the twelth chapter, the interview with William Craig. Craig is quoted as saying, "...the hypothesis that God raised Jesus from the dead doesn't contradict science or any known facts of experience. All it requires is the hypothesis that God exists" page 300. While I agree that magic isn't too unlikely when you believe in a magic generator (a god) who has a particular queer fancy to fulfill a particular set of prophecies, this is much like saying it is likely little gremlins stole my keys because I can't find my keys, and I believe there to be key-eating gremlins. It comes down to requiring belief in a Judeo-Christian god to even get Craig's argument off the ground.
Overall, I don't think I could recommend this book to anyone. This isn't because I just disagree with it - I would and have recommended books which I disagree a great deal with. It's just because this particular book is boring and I really don't think many people would gain anything from reading it.
Thursday, January 22, 2009
How Common is Young Earth Creationism?
Campus for Christ is all over campus advertising for their upcoming debate. Of course, I ended up having a run in with one of their members.
Their members tend to try to strike up conversation with anyone who passes by or shows a faint interest in their event. The person I ended up talking to quickly realized I was an atheist (I don't exactly hide it), and started arguing that there must be a god... because the earth can't be more than a few thousand years old.
I was amazed to find out that I was speaking with a young earth creationist. He seemed convinced that it was a tenable scientific position that more and more scientists are taking (when I asked where the peer reviewed journal articles are, he claimed there was a hidden agenda in the review committees of all scientific journals).
The entire encounter left me wondering - how common are young earth creationists in Canada? The only statistic I could find (from http://www.catholic.org/international/international_story.php?id=24747) claims "26 percent of Canadians believe 'that God created human beings pretty much in their present form within the last 10,000 years or so'".
The irony of all of this is that, under my sweater, I was wearing this shirt. If 26% of Canadians are young earth creationists, maybe the satire isn't as obvious as I had hoped (Poe's Law in action?).
Their members tend to try to strike up conversation with anyone who passes by or shows a faint interest in their event. The person I ended up talking to quickly realized I was an atheist (I don't exactly hide it), and started arguing that there must be a god... because the earth can't be more than a few thousand years old.
I was amazed to find out that I was speaking with a young earth creationist. He seemed convinced that it was a tenable scientific position that more and more scientists are taking (when I asked where the peer reviewed journal articles are, he claimed there was a hidden agenda in the review committees of all scientific journals).
The entire encounter left me wondering - how common are young earth creationists in Canada? The only statistic I could find (from http://www.catholic.org/international/international_story.php?id=24747) claims "26 percent of Canadians believe 'that God created human beings pretty much in their present form within the last 10,000 years or so'".
The irony of all of this is that, under my sweater, I was wearing this shirt. If 26% of Canadians are young earth creationists, maybe the satire isn't as obvious as I had hoped (Poe's Law in action?).
Wednesday, January 21, 2009
Soul Cravings - Book Review
Campus For Christ gives out a number of books free around campus. One of them is Soul Cravings, by Erwin McManus, which I took the time to read recently.
Before I get into the actual book, I want to give a warning. The book for some reason doesn't number its pages (despite having 200-300 pages), so in order to reference any part of the book, I am going to have to cite the section of the book (the sections being Intimacy, Destiny, Meaning and Seek, in that order), and then the entry number - quite a cumbersome way to cite anything, and not as accurate as a page number since the entries span 2-5 pages.
The theme of this book is that we all have "cravings of the soul", things we can't deny and which are just part of life. Of course, the only way to satisfy these cravings is to accept God and Jesus Christ. The very fact that we have these cravings is (according to the book) evidence of God's existence and that evolution doesn't work. I will quickly overview each section, then go back and look at all of the anti-intellectualism and anti-atheist bullshit that is found throughout the book.
The first section of the book is Intimacy. It argues we all crave and need love. And (here it comes), we need God in order to have love: "When we are disconnected from God, we find ourselves increasingly empty of love" (Intimacy, Entry 14). The section seems to be claiming something like this: Some people have abandonment issues which makes it hard for them to love God, God is needed to feel love, we all need love, so those poor little atheists are all just sad, loveless people that have been hurt at some point in their lives.
Second section: Destiny. This section is supposed to be an uplifting section about how we can all reach our dreams if we want. Our dreams are cravings of our soul, which of course can't be explained by evolution. Life is meaningless if there is no God (Entry 17) and our souls long for god when we are "hiding in a cave" even if we are atheists (Entry 12).
The third section is entitled Meaning. It's about the soul's craving for truth. We seek truth in different ways, for example faith or reason, which are both pretty much the same thing. Philosophy apparently tells us we can't believe in an objective reality, science tells us we must believe in nothing except the material world, and so they are opposed to one another. Atheists claim they can't believe in what they can't see, yet they believe in oxygen (Entry 9).
The final section, Seek, is really just the summary of the other sections.
Now that we have a quick summary of the book, let's look a bit more closely at it, particularly the anti-intellectualism and anti-atheist stuff. I will just be picking quotes from the books that convey the overall message.
"[B]y all theories of aerodynamics and physics, the bumblebee should not be able to fly, but it can. No scientific reason why it should; it just does" (Destiny, Entry 4) which is of course, completely false (see Wikipedia on bumblebee flight).
Randy, who suffers from a form of dwarfism and was not expected to live long past birth, is quoted approvingly as saying: "'I am living proof that Darwin was wrong - or at least had a poor definition of who was the most fit to survive'" (Destiny, Entry 4). Note that Darwin didn't coin the phrase "survival of the fittest", and the phrase refers to reproductive fitness, not necessarily physical fitness; this quote simply betrays a profound ignorance about evolution. This is one of the many, many quotes that take shots at evolution while simultaneously showing a complete lack of understanding of the theory of evolution.
"If there were no God, it would be inane for us to search for significance or to be ambitious for success" (Destiny, Entry 18). No reason is given for this, except in the previous chapter where it is claimed that if we have to die, life is meaningless for some reason.
"Somehow we know it's not supposed to be a dog-eat-dog world. If it's all evolutionary, then we should be motivated only by survival of the fittest" (Destiny, Entry 19). What would it mean to be motivated "only by survival of the fittest"? I don't even know where his thinking has gone wrong, since I don't even know what he thinks that would mean.
"If you step back and extract the emotion and look at it objectively, you begin to realize that faith and reason have a lot in common. Oh, they come to different conclusions, but they're both trying to do the same thing" (Meaning, Entry 4). He admits that faith and reason come to different conclusions. Too easy?
"We live in a time when philosophers question even the existence of reality" (Meaning, Entry 5). No names, philosophical movements, or anything is given to back up this claim. So who are these philosophers? How is this new, considering Descartes, Hume, Berkeley, etc. all questioned the existence of reality in some way or other and lived centuries ago? It certainly isn't the case that most philosophers doubt the existence of reality, if that is what he is trying to say here...
"Our philosophers went searching for truth, and when they returned, they told us that there is no truth to be known, that nothing is true, and that all we can do is create our own truth and hope for the best" (Meaning, Entry 8). See comments about the preceding quote.
"For some, to believe in God is way too much of a stretch. They consider it an insult to their intelligence. For them believing in something they cannot see is absurd. And if you talk about the effect of God on people's lives, they will insist that secondary evidence is not good enough. It has to be primary, or it's not real. So then there is love. Some people who do not believe in God are consistent and don't believe in love either" (Seek). The implication is, if you don't believe in God but believe in love, you are inconsistent, since you can't see either! There are huge disanalogies here, plus the implication is built on a straw-man (I believe in plenty of things I can't see, and not being able to see them isn't the reason I don't believe in any gods - though if I COULD see a god, it would probably cause me to believe in it).
"[M]y nonscientific research has found a direct correlation between losing faith in love and losing faith in God" (Seek). Keyword: nonscientific.
So, overall, this book is an anti-intellectual screed that, if nothing else, helps to perpetuate silly misconceptions about atheists and anti-scientific views among Christians.
Before I get into the actual book, I want to give a warning. The book for some reason doesn't number its pages (despite having 200-300 pages), so in order to reference any part of the book, I am going to have to cite the section of the book (the sections being Intimacy, Destiny, Meaning and Seek, in that order), and then the entry number - quite a cumbersome way to cite anything, and not as accurate as a page number since the entries span 2-5 pages.
The theme of this book is that we all have "cravings of the soul", things we can't deny and which are just part of life. Of course, the only way to satisfy these cravings is to accept God and Jesus Christ. The very fact that we have these cravings is (according to the book) evidence of God's existence and that evolution doesn't work. I will quickly overview each section, then go back and look at all of the anti-intellectualism and anti-atheist bullshit that is found throughout the book.
The first section of the book is Intimacy. It argues we all crave and need love. And (here it comes), we need God in order to have love: "When we are disconnected from God, we find ourselves increasingly empty of love" (Intimacy, Entry 14). The section seems to be claiming something like this: Some people have abandonment issues which makes it hard for them to love God, God is needed to feel love, we all need love, so those poor little atheists are all just sad, loveless people that have been hurt at some point in their lives.
Second section: Destiny. This section is supposed to be an uplifting section about how we can all reach our dreams if we want. Our dreams are cravings of our soul, which of course can't be explained by evolution. Life is meaningless if there is no God (Entry 17) and our souls long for god when we are "hiding in a cave" even if we are atheists (Entry 12).
The third section is entitled Meaning. It's about the soul's craving for truth. We seek truth in different ways, for example faith or reason, which are both pretty much the same thing. Philosophy apparently tells us we can't believe in an objective reality, science tells us we must believe in nothing except the material world, and so they are opposed to one another. Atheists claim they can't believe in what they can't see, yet they believe in oxygen (Entry 9).
The final section, Seek, is really just the summary of the other sections.
Now that we have a quick summary of the book, let's look a bit more closely at it, particularly the anti-intellectualism and anti-atheist stuff. I will just be picking quotes from the books that convey the overall message.
"[B]y all theories of aerodynamics and physics, the bumblebee should not be able to fly, but it can. No scientific reason why it should; it just does" (Destiny, Entry 4) which is of course, completely false (see Wikipedia on bumblebee flight).
Randy, who suffers from a form of dwarfism and was not expected to live long past birth, is quoted approvingly as saying: "'I am living proof that Darwin was wrong - or at least had a poor definition of who was the most fit to survive'" (Destiny, Entry 4). Note that Darwin didn't coin the phrase "survival of the fittest", and the phrase refers to reproductive fitness, not necessarily physical fitness; this quote simply betrays a profound ignorance about evolution. This is one of the many, many quotes that take shots at evolution while simultaneously showing a complete lack of understanding of the theory of evolution.
"If there were no God, it would be inane for us to search for significance or to be ambitious for success" (Destiny, Entry 18). No reason is given for this, except in the previous chapter where it is claimed that if we have to die, life is meaningless for some reason.
"Somehow we know it's not supposed to be a dog-eat-dog world. If it's all evolutionary, then we should be motivated only by survival of the fittest" (Destiny, Entry 19). What would it mean to be motivated "only by survival of the fittest"? I don't even know where his thinking has gone wrong, since I don't even know what he thinks that would mean.
"If you step back and extract the emotion and look at it objectively, you begin to realize that faith and reason have a lot in common. Oh, they come to different conclusions, but they're both trying to do the same thing" (Meaning, Entry 4). He admits that faith and reason come to different conclusions. Too easy?
"We live in a time when philosophers question even the existence of reality" (Meaning, Entry 5). No names, philosophical movements, or anything is given to back up this claim. So who are these philosophers? How is this new, considering Descartes, Hume, Berkeley, etc. all questioned the existence of reality in some way or other and lived centuries ago? It certainly isn't the case that most philosophers doubt the existence of reality, if that is what he is trying to say here...
"Our philosophers went searching for truth, and when they returned, they told us that there is no truth to be known, that nothing is true, and that all we can do is create our own truth and hope for the best" (Meaning, Entry 8). See comments about the preceding quote.
"For some, to believe in God is way too much of a stretch. They consider it an insult to their intelligence. For them believing in something they cannot see is absurd. And if you talk about the effect of God on people's lives, they will insist that secondary evidence is not good enough. It has to be primary, or it's not real. So then there is love. Some people who do not believe in God are consistent and don't believe in love either" (Seek). The implication is, if you don't believe in God but believe in love, you are inconsistent, since you can't see either! There are huge disanalogies here, plus the implication is built on a straw-man (I believe in plenty of things I can't see, and not being able to see them isn't the reason I don't believe in any gods - though if I COULD see a god, it would probably cause me to believe in it).
"[M]y nonscientific research has found a direct correlation between losing faith in love and losing faith in God" (Seek). Keyword: nonscientific.
So, overall, this book is an anti-intellectual screed that, if nothing else, helps to perpetuate silly misconceptions about atheists and anti-scientific views among Christians.
Wednesday, January 14, 2009
"What Does It Matter?"
First, let me apologize for my long absence from blogging. I will be making more of an effort, now that I am back in classes, to write blog posts fairly regularly (no promises on this).
Onto this post: while strolling down the halls of my school, I happened upon a poster asking the question "DNA: DESIGN OR CHANCE?" Of course, immediately I knew this was an advertisement for some sort of religious organization - who but a creationist would pose this false dichotomy (natural selection works on chance mutations, but of course this means there is selection involved as well, which is the very opposite of chance)? In the bottom left of the poster, there was the logo for Campus for Christ, possibly the biggest and best funded Christian club on campus (out of the dozen or so that there are). The only other information on the poster was a website: ultimatequestions.org
Apparently William Craig is going to be coming to the University of Waterloo, and debating Christopher diCarlo. I had heard months ago that William Craig was going to be in Waterloo, and that Campus for Christ was interested in hosting a debate with him against an atheist. Someone had left an email address with one of the members of the Atheists, Agnostics and Freethinkers of Waterloo. I emailed the address, showing an interest in co-hosting this event. I never got any information about what was going on, and no one else attempted to contact me, so I didn't know that the debate was still going to happen. Apparently it is, and quite soon, too (for those interested, see the "Ultimate Questions" site and click the "Events" tab).
While browsing the Ultimate Questions site, I checked out the articles they had. While two of the three articles seemed to just be a rehash of the same old design argument garbage, one, by William Craig, was entitled "What Does It Matter?" This is the article that made me decide I need to finally write another blog post.
The article is extremely short, so I will just quote it in full here (if you want to read it without my commentary, go to the Ultimate Questions site and click "articles"). The article outlines three reasons why it makes a difference whether God exists or not. While I don't think I would disagree that it matters whether God exists or not (if a Christian god exists, for example, I would be much more concerned about making sure I get into heaven), Craig's article is actually just an attack on atheism:
Finally, Craig's last point (quoted more for completion than anything else):
Onto this post: while strolling down the halls of my school, I happened upon a poster asking the question "DNA: DESIGN OR CHANCE?" Of course, immediately I knew this was an advertisement for some sort of religious organization - who but a creationist would pose this false dichotomy (natural selection works on chance mutations, but of course this means there is selection involved as well, which is the very opposite of chance)? In the bottom left of the poster, there was the logo for Campus for Christ, possibly the biggest and best funded Christian club on campus (out of the dozen or so that there are). The only other information on the poster was a website: ultimatequestions.org
Apparently William Craig is going to be coming to the University of Waterloo, and debating Christopher diCarlo. I had heard months ago that William Craig was going to be in Waterloo, and that Campus for Christ was interested in hosting a debate with him against an atheist. Someone had left an email address with one of the members of the Atheists, Agnostics and Freethinkers of Waterloo. I emailed the address, showing an interest in co-hosting this event. I never got any information about what was going on, and no one else attempted to contact me, so I didn't know that the debate was still going to happen. Apparently it is, and quite soon, too (for those interested, see the "Ultimate Questions" site and click the "Events" tab).
While browsing the Ultimate Questions site, I checked out the articles they had. While two of the three articles seemed to just be a rehash of the same old design argument garbage, one, by William Craig, was entitled "What Does It Matter?" This is the article that made me decide I need to finally write another blog post.
The article is extremely short, so I will just quote it in full here (if you want to read it without my commentary, go to the Ultimate Questions site and click "articles"). The article outlines three reasons why it makes a difference whether God exists or not. While I don't think I would disagree that it matters whether God exists or not (if a Christian god exists, for example, I would be much more concerned about making sure I get into heaven), Craig's article is actually just an attack on atheism:
The following are three reasons why it makes a big difference whether God exists:This is his first reason. I read this and am shocked. Is he actually saying that alleviating suffering doesn't matter? If we have finite lives, doesn't alleviating suffering and promoting the good just become more meaningful? I have trouble even understanding what he is trying to say here. Simply, he is not seeing people as ends in themselves. I fail to see how, if no one is an end in themselves, any meaning is added if we live forever.
1. If God does not exist, life is ultimately meaningless. If there is no God, then it makes no ultimate difference whether you ever existed or not. True, your life might have a relative significance in that you influenced others or affected the course of history. But ultimately mankind is doomed to perish in the heat death of the universe. Ultimately it makes no difference who you are or what you do. Your life is inconsequential.
Thus, the contributions of the scientist to the advance of human knowledge, the research of the doctor to alleviate pain and suffering, the efforts of the diplomat to secure peace in the world, the sacrifices of good people everywhere to better the lot of the human race—ultimately all these come to nothing.
Thus, if atheism is true, life is ultimately meaningless.
2. If God does not exist, then we must ultimately live without hope. First, there is no hope of deliverance from evil. Although many people ask how God could create a world involving so much evil, by far most of the suffering in the world is due to man’s own inhumanity to man.Craig seems to be very confused here - he seems to think that God is the only possible thing that can save us from any evils. This is one of the things which worry me about theism - the idea that we don't have to work to try to achieve justice, since in the end God just tips the scales and makes everything right again anyways. A simple quote from the Humanist Manifesto II is sufficient to rebut Craig's "point": "No deity will save us; we must save ourselves."
The horror of two world wars during the last century effectively destroyed the 19th century’s naive optimism about human progress. If God does not exist, then we are locked without hope in a world filled with gratuitous and unredeemed suffering, and there is no hope for deliverance from evil.
Moreover, if there is no God, there is no hope of deliverance from aging, disease, and death. Given atheism, there is no afterlife beyond the grave. Atheism is thus a philosophy without hope.
Finally, Craig's last point (quoted more for completion than anything else):
3. On the other hand, if God does exist, then there is meaning and hope, and the possibility of coming to know God and His love personally. Think of it! That the infinite God should love you and want you to be His personal friend. This would be the highest status a human being could enjoy! Clearly, if God exists, it makes not only a tremendous difference for mankind in general, but it could make a life-changing difference for you as well.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
