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.

Comics I Enjoy

XKCD

A pretty nerdy comic about math, science, and the internet. As a computer science major I find this comic particularly amusing as many of the comics refer to concepts in math, logic, or computer science. The humour tends to be hit-and-miss.

Some of them that I find particularly amusing:

Centrifugal Force
Fetishes (this probably isn't funny to about 99.9% of the population, but I find it hilarious)
Beliefs (okay, so this isn't the funniest XKCD, but I had to post this one for its content)

Cectic

A skeptic comic. Possibly my favourite webcomic of all. Common themes are religious skepticism (or lack thereof), conspiracy theorists, and "alternative medicine". Unfortunately it isn't updated frequently anymore, but it is still active. It's pretty consistently hilarious.

Ones I find particularly amusing:

ScientLOLogy
sry guyz my brain d/ced
Conclusive Proof

We The Robots

A comic about robots! Common themes are skepticism and office life.

The True Meaning of Christmas
An Atheist, Damned to Hell
Introduction, Chapter 002

Saturday Morning Breakfast Cereal

I don't even know how to describe this comic. Instead let me just give a sample of ones I find funny (they don't have names so I had to make them up!):

A Religious Look at the Origins of the Universe
The Most Elegant Language Ever Created (computer programming joke, but I think anyone can appreciate it)
Finished Building the Universe

Maybe I should just stop it...

For anyone wondering, the young theist from earlier posts has not gotten back to me since my last message (which was sent over a month ago and is quoted in my earlier blog post). However, recently I have been trying to start correspondences with many different theists to see the kinds of explanations I get from them. Often I am just trying half-heartedly, as it seems pointless. After this latest one, I really feel like maybe I should just stop - I am not getting the answers I want and these conversations are just depressing me.

He started out sounding fairly intelligent. Very few grammatical mistakes, good grammar, and laid out his case fairly concisely. Things went downhill quickly from there, though. After explaining a strong piece of evidence for the common ancestory of humans and other apes, the telomere-telomere fusion of chromosome 2, this theist responded:

It's a common cop-out that evolutionists make, to try to psycho-analyze God. They claim that we have to understand the mind of the designer before they will admit that design exists. [....]

You have answered the way that every evolutionist I've spoken with does...you didn't answer my question and give me a piece of EMPIRICAL evidence proving evolution true. Empirical evidence is not "why else would it be this way." Empirical evidence is "this observable fact proves that it cannot be any other way." It's funny how many evolutionists don't understand the difference between scientific proof and assumption. They somehow think there is a difference between creationism and evolution, without realizing that both are belief systems. If there was empirical evidence for evolution, the theory of evolution would be the law of evolution. If there were empirical evidence for God, belief in God would be replaced with the scientific law of God, and I could show it to you. But faith is required.

It also appears you're assuming yourself greater than God, if you are laying down the terms by which you will accept him (insisting to know why the numbers of chromosomes are the way they are before you will believe). If God is real, then he is greater than us, and we must capitulate to him, not vice versa.

Err... Okay, so no matter how much the evidence points towards evolution, since a god could in theory have made things that way and we can't know the mind of god, there can't be any evidence for evolution! Amazing... This is worse than the person who claims dinosaur fossils were put there by god to trick the unfaithful, because this guy won't even give a possible explanation.

He then went on (after claiming I refused to tell him my objections to god, though I had tried to as best as I could explain why I thought god was unlikely) to say this:

If evolution is true, then you and I are just accidentally-glorified globs of dust, and there is no objective reason for one glob of dust to care what any glob of dust believes about its origin. The fact that you and other evolutionists strongly argue the evolutionary viewpoint proves that at least something in an evolutionist doesn't believe that evolution is true. It would be inconsistent with an evolutionary worldview for an evolutionary-believing glob of dust to care so strongly about whether the ideas of a creationist-believing glob of dust were "right" or "wrong", when the very concept of "right" and "wrong" is contrivance made up in the minds of globs of dust. Once the globs of dust die, they lose their memory, and have no recollection of whether they were "right" or "wrong" about what they believed. So why even discuss it, if evolution were actually true? If evolution is true, why fight so strongly against intelligent design in the school systems? If we globs of dust blow ourselves to kingdom come with nuclear weapons, so what? Our existence was an unintentional accident in the first place, and therefore has no objective value worth preserving. These are the necessary correlaries of evolutionary theory, yet I have never encountered a person who truly believes these correlaries, or who fully acts in a manner consistent with them.

*facepalm*

By the way, if any theists are reading this and think they are being represented unfairly by their fellow believers, feel free to speak up, either in the comments or in an email to me.

Correspondance with a Young Theist Part 2

The conversation has continued. To see the first part, click here.

K: I know the bible is true because I've lived with it, I've read it and every time it has proven itself true and alive to me. I know my Word and my God to be true, then everything that go against the truth in It is wrong.
The contradictions you pointed out aren't good examples because they both imply that He dies on a Shee-Shee, Friday as we know it, the day when the Sabbath started from 6 p.m.-6p.m. our time, John 19:14-16 and Mark 15:25 are talking about Shee-Shee, and Mark 14:12 is talking about Hah-Mee-Shee which is thursday, the day Jesus met with the disciples.
I believe most of science is based on untruths. However a lot of it is truth such as atoms, elements, physics and others.
So you believe emotions are chemical reactions, or processes in ones brain?

T:Every single verse in the bible has "proven itself true"? Tell me, how is it that a verse like II Kings 2:23-24 has proven itself to be true (that's the verse where the 2 she-bears maul 42 youths, one of my favourites)?
I think you've misunderstood the biblical contradiction with the passover - John clearly states that Jesus was arrested and crucified before the passover meal, and all of the other gospels contradict this. But you've made your point - you believe all of the bible, and I fear if we pursue the finer details of all of the contradictions we will just be quoting things at each other and neither of us will be convinced.
Here are a couple of questions you haven't commented on yet:
1. Even if you take the bible as completely true, how do you know your particular interpretation of James 1:17 (which is a very vague verse, in my opinion) is correct?
2. Even if you take your interpretation of James 1:17 as true, this does not imply that a universe that has no god would have no good - it just implies that in this universe, where you claim there is a god, there is no good that does not come from your god. This being the case, do you still believe that a world without a god would be full of evil, and if you do, why?
3. Why are believers in other religions, who believe in their holy book just as fervently as you (and give no justification for it, just as you don't), wrong? Do you just think the feeling you get about the bible is different from the one they get about their book, and so it must be right?
It's very unfortunate that you reject so much of science. I hope you pursue a better education in science at some point, because I think you are far too quick to dismiss a lot of very good science.
"So you believe emotions are chemical reactions, or processes in ones brain?" Yes. You can ask me more questions than one at a time, you know.

K:1. Yes there are many different translations, but all have their roots in the original Hebrew, or Greek text, and all mean the same, the reason that there is dispute between verses is because of misunderstanding, and yes I claim to understand this verse. Every gift He gives is good and perfect, not what I had said originally.
2. You asking me to imagine the world without God is like myself asking you to explain physics to me if science was not real, of course some people are going to come up with certain explanations, but they're not true, and it's not possible.
3. Jesus says in John 14:6 (from my Bible, not online) "I am the Way, the Truth, and the Light. No one comes to the Father except through me."
Jesus said He was the only way to come to KNOW("yada'" Hbrw. Recognition of truth through personal experience, and intimate relationship) the Father. So I believe Jesus is the only Way, not the ways other people describe.
I prefer one question at a time, so... did you know that I would give my life for you? Every real Christian would when it comes down to it. If I had to choose between my life and anyone else's, I would gladly give my life up for them. Not only because my God would want me to, but because I've come to love everyone (that I know of) and this means I love you. I care for you and what happens to your life.

T:1. I said interpretation, not translation. "Every gift He gives is good and perfect, not what i had said originally." This has a drastically different meaning than the actual quote, "Every good and perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of the heavenly lights, who does not change like shifting shadows" and it is different from what you were originally claiming (which is that every good and perfect thing comes from above). It also still leads to ambiguity - what "gifts" are we talking about here? Is anything a gift, as you seemed to originally think, or only objects, or only things given from one person to another?
2. "You asking me to imagine the world without God is like myself asking you to explain physics to me if science was not real" There are many disanalogies here - for one, science is just a method of discovery, without which there would be no physics. I can explain physics theories (just not how they are come up with or supported) without science. A better analogy would be something like "Explain how science would work in a world where empirical inferences were not a valid way of attaining knowledge", to which I would reply "I don't know". Instead of saying you don't know, you claimed to know how the world would be, failed to support why the world would be this way, and contradicted yourself repeatedly.
3. So basically, the bible is true because it says it is. If you were brought up in a different religion, you would defend it in the same way as you defend Christianity now.
4. You haven't answered one of the questions posed in my last reply, so here it is again: You claim that the bible has proven itself to be true to you. I asked how every single verse could have possibly proven itself to be true, particularly a verse like II Kings 2:23-24.
It's easier to die for someone (or something) than to live for them. You claim you would die for me, or someone like me, yet do you give every cent you own to Unicef? Surely your money is worth less than your life. Did you know that for about every $200 given to Unicef, a life is saved?

Reflection

The conversation has, in my opinion, greatly deteriorated at this point and I don't think I can go any further with it. I wanted to try to understand a theist's perspective, but this theist went from being a bit ignorant (which is fine - I'm ignorant too) to being utterly dogmatic. I don't expect him to justify why he believes the bible when the bible says it is true, yet I can't help asking more questions. I am honestly curious how he could possibly justify and believe certain things.

Correspondance with a Young Theist

From time to time, I get comments on things I wrote and posted on the internet long ago. One of the most commented things I have ever posted is a (very teenager-like) rant against Christianity. As you can guess, I get a lot of very mixed feedback. I won't post the link here, mainly out of embarrassment that I wrote something which seems so infantile to me now (I wonder how I will look at these blog posts in a few years).

I would like to relate a bit of the ongoing conversation I have been having with a young (~16) theist, sparked by his initial comment on my rant. I don't want to post the entire conversation here (as it is quite long and many of his comments are hard to understand), so I will just try to concisely write the main points of the conversation in a more readable style, occasionally copying and pasting from the original conversation (as such, much of this conversation is not as it originally appeared. I have been as charitable as possible and the purpose of this is not to make fun of my fellow converser). Messages by me will be denoted with T and messages by my fellow converser will be denoted with K.

The Conversation

K: I'm sorry for the way that Christianity has presented itself to you. I'm sorry for all the bad that it's done. I'm sorry we have led people to believe Christianity is a religion, as it isn't - it is a relationship with God. God loves you. If there is anything I can do for you, please let me know.

T: There are two things you can do for me.
1. Do something good, like donate to Unicef or volunteer at a soup kitchen. But do it without thinking about your god. Don't do it to score points towards heaven. Do it because you want to do something good.
2. Imagine, for a second, that there is no god. Honestly reflect on this, and get back to me with your thoughts.

K: I can't do something good without doing it for my god. The reason I do good is because of God's love which I feel. When I felt it, I wanted to do good. If you felt it you would never want to do another injustice again. I'll get back to you with my thoughts based on your second request.

T: Strange that you claim that after feeling god's love you wouldn't want to do another injustice, as when it is put to the test, atheists are just as likely to help/ignore the needy as Christians (i.e. see the study by Curlin entitled "Do Religious Physicians Disproportionately Care for the Underserved?", published in Ann Fam Med 2007; 5: 353-360).

K: Many people call themselves Christians, but few will choose to follow Christianity as the life style. I thought about the possibility that my God doesn't exist and I'm assuming the big bang theory would be His replacement. If it happened that way then the earth would be completely consumed with evil, all of our choices would be evil, we couldn't know what good or perfect is, and that doesn't sound very nice.

T: How would the big bang be the replacement for your god? The big bang theory is basically a description of the rapid expansion of our universe within the first few moments of our its existence. It is also a very well supported theory, so if the big bang is mutually exclusive with your god for some reason, it seems much more justifiable to believe in the big bang.
Why would the world be consumed with evil if there was no god?

K: Sorry, I meant evolution, not the big bang theory. I do not believe in evolution. The world would be consumed with evil if there was no god because my god is every good and perfect thing, so without him there would be no good and all that would be left is evil.

T: I'm not sure I understand you when you say you don't believe in evolution - are you simply unaware of the evidence for evolution, or do you think there is some sort of giant scientist evolution conspiracy? Regardless, I suggest you read something by Ken Miller, he is both a theist and an evolutionary biologist so perhaps he will appeal to you.
Saying that your god is every good and perfect thing is quite vague and I quite frankly have no idea what it means. Is a cold drink on a hot day god? Is giving to charity god? Even if you believe that your god is every good and perfect thing in this universe, how do you know that in a universe without your god there would be no good?

K: "Every good and every perfect gift is from above, and comes down from the Father of lights" (James 1:17). This is why I believe that every good thing comes from god.

T: The bible isn't exactly a book I think you should be accepting everything from uncritically - it endorses genocide and slavery. Are you sure that all of it is the true word of your god?

K: I've been wanting someone for awhile now to tell me where God ordains or asserts, in the Bible, humans owning other humans.

T: Well, it's pretty clear the author of Leviticus doesn't have a problem with slavery - the only problem with it if you beat your slave so hard that he/she dies within a day or two hours. If the slave dies after that it's okay:
"When a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod so hard that the slave dies under his hand, he shall be punished. If, however, the slave survives for a day or two, he is not to be punished, since the slave is his own property." (Exodus 21:20-21 NAB)

K: True, slavery was condoned, but it wasn't a race issue, it could be anyone, and they had to consent to be sold. Did you see the next verses
26 If a man strikes the eye of his male or female servant, and destroys it, he shall let him go free for the sake of his eye. 27 And if he knocks out the tooth of his male or female servant, he shall let him go free for the sake of his tooth.

T: So it's fine if I beat my slave, but not if I break any teeth? Come on. You think that makes it better? The verse I quoted explicitly states that it is okay if you beat your slave because they are your property. I don't see how putting regulations on not breaking a couple of parts of the body makes this better.
Also, slavery was a race issue in the bible - foreigners were treated differently under the bible's slavery laws (see Leviticus 25:44-46 and Exodus 21:2-6 NLT). Also, since Canaan and all of his descendants were cursed to be slaves those of a particular ancestry are (for some strange reason that makes no sense to me) cursed to be slaves.
Back to my original point, the bible contains things that are false. If you don't accept that certain parts are wrong, you have to throw away much of modern science. All I am saying is, don't take everything from the bible uncritically, since there are obvious examples where it contains things that are less than true. This being the case, and interpretation being another issue, why do you assume that there would be no good if there was no god based entirely on your interpretation of a single passage?

K: I believe everything in the Bible true, and I know it is true. Whether or not you say I can't, I still know.
The creation story doesn't negate all of modern science, Christians believe God made certain things the way they are in the scientific realm, but you're right the creation story completely negates all of evolution.

T: How do you know everything in the bible is true?
Why are those of other religions, who also claim to just "know" their holy book is true, wrong?
Do you also believe the parts of the bible that contradict each other (to pick one example of many, was Jesus crucified the day before passover as in John 19:14-16, or the day after as in Mark 14:12, Mark 15:25?)?
If you believe the creation story to be true, you have to believe that the foundation of modern biology is wrong. If you believe there actually was a giant flood, you have to think that geologists' methods of doing just about anything are just completely wrong. If you think the world is only a few thousands of years old, you have to believe that chemistry, astronomy, and geology (once again) are all mistaken... In other words, you have to give up much of modern science.
I'm curious, though, how do you rationalize biology being so wrong about something they are so sure about? Do you think evolutionary theory is some sort of conspiracy, are biologists just fabricating all the evidence for it, or are biologists all just plain wrong?


That is it. If the conversation gets interesting again I may post another entry about it.

Reflection

I pursued this conversation in order to try to get a better understanding of this theist's perspective. Sometimes it's difficult to relate to someone with so radically different a world-view. I am impressed with the theist's willingness to engage and continue in a discussion, and I came to like him. I feel kind of bad for him, it seems like he has had some very uncritical role models.

The one thing that really stuck out in the conversation was when he claimed to just know that everything in the bible is true. Obviously, if this were a debate, that would be a pointless claim - it would be like announcing that you know you are right, and expecting that to be a valid point. However, this is not a debate. It is a conversation, and perhaps I should just take that announcement as him shutting down the discussion - he is basically saying that his belief in the bible needs no justification, so there is no point in me questioning it. I was just too curious to leave it at that, and I am eagerly waiting his reply to my last comment in which I try to explore this a little further.

I am interested to know how he will respond to the contradictions in the bible (I assume, since he has already claimed that everything in the bible is true, that he will try to claim they are not really contradictions). It will also be interesting to see how he responds to the fact that other people of other faiths believe just as firmly as he does in their holy books.

"Why care what the crazies think?" follow-up

I was surfing the interwebs and found this comic. It would have fit well with my previous post: