Commitments

When do beliefs and facts collide?

When you decide at the outset that something is true, your commitment may blind you to contrary evidence and rational expectations. Let's compare the intellectual commitments of science versus, say, politics or religion: In science, we presume the uniformity of nature. This means we assume that the laws of gravity, electromagnetism, etc., are fundamental properties of the universe, rather than contingent features that are subject to change. This presumption is useful because it allows us to interpolate and extrapolate data. A simple example would be inferring the age of the earth from geological processes, or isotope decay, or measuring the distance to stars. This premise is very, very difficult to falsify.

And that's the beauty of skepticism: start with very basic assumptions, and continue to question them as new evidence and information arises. Religious belief is quite different for two main reasons: 1) some religions require obedience and faith that is defined as without evidence, and 2) the commitments of religious people are sometimes so complex that they don't even realize how difficult their position is to defend. The first reason is rather clear and doesn't need much elaboration, in the sense that belief in a Garden of Eden or Resurrection or whatever clearly defies common sense and every scientific principle known to man.

Two books

I never get around to reading books anymore. Maybe soon. Young children just aren't helping me with productivity...although they may be providing me with two things that seem pretty important to most people: the meaning of life and an afterlife.

Scientology

I have apparently never written on the topic, aside from a random link in a post about Scientology's effort to do away with CSICOP.

But after reading the book review on Wright's new hard-hitting journalistic manifesto, I had to link.

The thing that bothers me so much: everyone knows that L. Ron Hubbard was a science fiction writer before he "invented" Scientology. And when you read about what Hubbard claims is the "true" history of the universe, it makes you want to bang your head on your keyboard.

“The planet Earth, formerly called Teegeeack, was part of a confederation of planets under the leadership of a despot ruler named Xenu,” said Hubbard, who was a best-selling science fiction writer before he became the prophet of a new religion. To suppress a rebellion, Xenu tricked the confederations into coming in for fake income tax investigations. Billions of thetans were taken to Teegeeack (you remember: Earth), “where they were dropped into volcanoes and then blown up with hydrogen bombs.” Suffice it to say I’m not hanging around Earth next time I’m between lives. Hubbard apparently could go on for hours — or pages — with this stuff. Wright informs us, as if it were just an oversight, that “Hubbard never really explained how he came by these revelations,” but elsewhere he says they came to him at the dentist’s office. Of the Borgia-like goings-on after Hubbard’s death in 1986, Wright says cheerfully, “Every new religion faces an existential crisis following the death of its charismatic founder.” He always refers to Scientology respectfully as “the church.”

How can any sane person not understand that he was just creating more science fiction? What amazing revelation brought him this "knowledge"? It's really sad.

A more sane realization is that Hubbard likely invented the church just to get away with not paying some taxes. Then, after he realized how many suckers there are out there, it became a revenue stream for him, rather than a tax shelter...

To be honest, people in Christianity or Islam are not much better. They claim ancient people had "revelations" from angels or directly from God. They believe all the fantastic claims of the Bible and Quran about how the earth/people came to be. The amount of evidence for their claims is exactly equal to those of Hubbard.

Outward Bound and the Call of the Wild

I've gone on two Outward Bound 3-4 day group excursions. The trips really recharged me and reminded me of studying the transcendentalists. SciAm has a good article talking about what time out in nature does to us:

But a recent article by researchers at the University of Rochester shows that experiences with nature can affect more than our mood. In a series of studies, Netta Weinstein, Andrew Przybylski, and Richard Ryan, University of Rochester, show that exposure to nature can affect our priorities and alter what we think is important in life. In short, we become less self-focused and more other-focused. Our value priorities shift from personal gain, to a broader focus on community and connection with others.

To demonstrate this effect, they ran a series of studies. In their first study, the researchers randomly assigned individuals to view a slide show that either depicted scenes of human-made or natural environments. The slides were matched across a variety of characteristics, to eliminate the possibility that the results were due to things like color, complexity, or brightness of the images. The participants were instructed to try to immerse themselves in the images—to notice the colors and textures and imagine the sounds and smells. After watching the slide show (which took about 8 minutes), the participants completed a series of questions about their life aspirations.

Of particular interest were responses to extrinsic life aspirations , like being financially successful or admired by many people; as contrasted with intrinsic life aspirations , like deep and enduring relationships, or working toward the betterment of society. The results showed that people who watched the nature images scored significantly lower on extrinsic life aspirations, and significantly higher on intrinsic life aspirations. The effect was particularly strong for participants who reported being “immersed” in the images. This basic effect was further explored in three subsequent studies. The later studies showed the same effect for true nature experiences: being in a small room with plants, for example.

As people spend less and less time outdoors, I fear we'll see these encouraging results affect smaller portions of the population. I think if we all spent more time in nature that issues like global warming and pollution would be far less polarized. We'd all feel connected to the issues more personally.

On another (completely unrelated) note, SciAm has an article by Shermer talking about skepticism that was really good:

So many claims of this nature are based on negative evidence. That is, if science cannot explain X, then your explanation for X is necessarily true. Not so. In science, lots of mysteries are left unexplained until further evidence arises, and problems are often left unsolved until another day. I recall a mystery in cosmology in the early 1990s whereby it appeared that there were stars older than the universe itself—the daughter was older than the mother! Thinking that I might have a hot story to write about that would reveal something deeply wrong with current cosmological models, I first queried California Institute of Technology cosmologist Kip S. Thorne, who assured me that the discrepancy was merely a problem in the current estimates of the age of the universe and that it would resolve itself in time with more data and better dating techniques. It did, as so many problems in science eventually do. In the meantime, it is okay to say, “I don’t know,” “I’m not sure” and “Let’s wait and see.”

...Most people (scientists included) treat the God question separate from all these other claims. They are right to do so as long as the particular claim in question cannot—even in principle—be examined by science. But what might that include? Most religious claims are testable, such as prayer positively influencing healing. In this case, controlled experiments to date show no difference between prayed-for and not-prayed-for patients. And beyond such controlled research, why does God only seem to heal illnesses that often go away on their own? What would compel me to believe would be something unequivocal, such as if an amputee grew a new limb. Amphibians can do it. Surely an omnipotent deity could do it. Many Iraqi War vets eagerly await divine action

...There is no positive evidence for [the origin of the universe], but neither is there positive evidence for the traditional answer to the question—God. And in both cases, we are left with the reductio ad absurdum question of what came before the multiverse or God. If God is defined as that which does not need to be created, then why can’t the universe (or multiverse) be defined as that which does not need to be created?

In both cases, we have only negative evidence along the lines of “I can’t think of any other explanation,” which is no evidence at all. If there is one thing that the history of science has taught us, it is that it is arrogant to think we now know enough to know that we cannot know. So for the time being, it comes down to cognitive or emotional preference: an answer with only negative evidence or no answer at all. God, multiverse or Unknown. Which one you choose depends on your tolerance for ambiguity and how much you want to believe. For me, I remain in sublime awe of the great Unknown.

I want to believe in the cyclic universe, but I'm quite willing to admit that no one knows, and that we may never know with any degree of certainty, how our universe came to be as it is today (although it may have never "come to be" at all).

What a surprise!

Steorn failed. The 1st Law remains intact. What a surprise. I could have never predicted that...

Now we'll just wait and see how those "over unity devices" work out.

The origin of myths

From a smart guy:

If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way.
- Bertrand Russell

This explains why stories like the Garden of Eden are so easily accepted: we all understand the concept of temptation by the "forbidden fruit" and project onto God our own natures and characteristics. From the same smart guy, a warning not to fall on one's own sword with global, self-refuting skepticism:

When one admits that nothing is certain one must, I think, also admit that some things are much more nearly certain than others. It is much more nearly certain that we are assembled here tonight than it is that this or that political party is in the right. Certainly there are degrees of certainty, and one should be very careful to emphasize that fact, because otherwise one is landed in an utter skepticism, and complete skepticism would, of course, be totally barren and completely useless. -- Bertrand Russell (1872 - 1970), "Am I An Atheist Or An Agnostic?", 1947

Quite right. As a friend of mine says, "Should you be skeptical of being skeptical?" The simple way to avoid this dilemma is to say that skepticism is a simple way to filter unreliable information from your own beliefs. Require more evidence to believe claims that are further removed from your own experience, instincts and contradict scientific thinking. Require less evidence to believe claims that line up with your own experience, instincts and follow scientific laws. These two presuppositions are not defended a priori, but after seeing the empirical result of forming more reliable beliefs (knowledge).

Starting with skepticism

An old friend of mine makes an argument for taking a critical approach to religious claims from the start which he calls the outsider test for faith (OTF):

The outsider test is simply a challenge to test one’s own religious faith with the presumption of skepticism, as an outsider. It calls upon believers to "Test or examine your religious beliefs as if you were outsiders with the same presumption of skepticism you use to test or examine other religious beliefs." Its presumption is that when examining any set of religious beliefs skepticism is warranted, since the odds are good that the particular set of religious beliefs you have adopted is wrong.

This is restating, in formal language and with much support, a web meme that began with a quote by Steven F. Roberts:

"I contend we are both atheists, I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours." -- Stephen F. Roberts

Sometimes something is said like this by Dawkins or Hitchens or Harris: "We're both atheists about Zeus and Thor and almost all of the other gods who have ever existed. I just go one god further than you do."

I also like this math-based permutation of the same idea:

True by sheer force of numbers: the number of gods I reject is approximately equal to the number of gods you don't believe in. Here's the mathematics for the hard-of-thinking: x ≅ x+1, for sufficiently large x. Here x is the number of gods you don't believe in, which has been measured and found to be precisely a metric shitload. I just reject one more.

Of course, there are some criticisms of these sentiments, and I don't mind to address their major complaints.

First, I agree that by saying, "Because you reject a great many claims in religions other than yours, you must reject the claims in yours, or all claims in all religions," is a non sequitur. But I don't even think that's the point. I think the point is that in order to reject claims in other religions, you adopt a certain level of scrutiny and critical thinking towards those claims. You rely solely on the evidence and the logic. The atheist is saying to you, "I think you have a double standard, in that you aren't as critical of the claims in your own religion as you are towards other religions (and even towards atheism)."

Second, I agree that to call someone an "atheist towards god X but not god Y" may be semantically wrong, although I think the point is trivial. Perhaps it is like saying, "You are a vegetarian towards beef but not towards chicken." Either you're a vegetarian or not, right? And so the semantic argument is that you can't call Christians "atheists" towards other gods because the word atheist means, literally, "without [a] god" and not "without this one particular god"...

So what atheists should instead say, apparently, is something like, "If you are as skeptical towards religious claims in your own religion as you are towards others, you'd probably find they don't merit your belief and you'd abandon your own religion entirely in the same way you reject other religions."

The other night I went out and drank with, literally, a room full of Christians and talked about the problem of evil. I was the only non-theist in a room of about 20 theists. It went well, I think...for me. After all, I did have on my side basically the most powerful and irrefutable argument against the existence of an all-good and all-powerful being ever. Anyway, near the end of the night a guy basically told me to "roll the dice" on a god. I asked him why he thought I hadn't already tried that, then told him, briefly, why I thought Pascal's Wager sucked.

Pascal's Wager intersects with the "OTF" concept for the reason that you can't place a "safe bet" when it comes to religion. It's always possible, if you don't use the route of skepticism, for a given religion to be correct about some claim about what's required for salvation or to avoid damnation. But if you do use the route of skepticism, then you will end up withholding belief in all religions because of the paucity of the evidence to substantiate such extraordinary claims.

Another problem is that you can't simultaneously believe in/follow/meet the requirements of all the religions simultaneously. Also, you can't believe in something just because you think of it as a cost-benefit ratio. Your belief won't be authentic. I've trod this ground before. There are other flaws with Pascal's Wager, of course, and other responses to it.

Long story short, skepticism towards religion makes sense.

Godless money

Dole is losing to Kay Hagan in NC, and thus is using fear of us mean evil atheists to scare people away from her opponent. I just didn't know that there was such a thing as "godless money" lol.

Seed Magazine endorsed Obama. No surprise there.

A new article in Newsweek discusses belief in the paranormal and supernatural as a coping mechanism.

Hitchens debated the guy who wrote, "I Don't Have Enough Faith to be an Atheist".

Pretty random thing

A student that I had last year, who I genuinely like, came by randomly Friday and asked me, "What do evolutionists think happens after we die?"

After I corrected his notion that all believers in sound biology are necessarily non-believers in an afterlife, I used the frequent parallel between "before you were born" and "after you die" to try to explain what it means to lose consciousness.

By coincidence, Sunday, I read this article in SciAm: "Never Say Die - Why We Can't Imagine Death".

Today, I saw this and giggled.

Comment on "Extraordinary Claims Demand Extraordinary Evidence"

We've heard the phrase before that evidence ought to be inversely proportional to the ordinariness of a claim: the more ordinary, the less evidence we require for tentative belief; the less ordinary, the more evidence we require for belief. This seems a wise maxim to hold, no matter the area of espistemology. Many theists, though, toss this maxim out the window when discussing the paucity of evidence they rely upon (Scripture) to justify belief in the most extraordinary of all claims (miracles).

I just left the following comment at an old haunt of mine:

If something occurs that is outside of not only my own personal experience, but the cumulative experience of science, especially since science exists to test boundaries and conditions to see what the laws of nature are and when/if they change, much skepticism should be brought to bear on the claim.

I would say it is a good deal simpler than you are making it here, and perhaps this could be seen more clearly if we remove the context from "miracle" to "violation" of the laws of nature. Suppose that I, scientist X, am working under conditions that no one has worked under before: say, a particle accelerator of potential 20 TeV. If I see something under those conditions that "appears" to violate the laws of physics, the same amount of scrutiny should be brought to bear on my claim as any other claim that a violation has occurred, be it of divine origin or not. And the purpose of the doubt here is to actually find out the truth: the verification principle in the philosophy of science. If the claim is true, and if the violation is natural, then the conditions and test may be repeated and ought to produce the same "violation": at which time, and once fully described, it no longer is a violation, but another law of nature!

On the other hand, suppose that we aren't discovering new laws of nature by creating conditions and tests which are extraordinary, but rather we're in the realm of the mundane. In these conditions, a supposed violation would probably draw just as much scrutiny from you (a believer) as from me (an unbeliever). If I claim that I have a dragon in my shed (to use Sagan as you did in your post), for instance, you would be naturally skeptical and would require more evidence than my "say-so" about it. But if I claim to have a lawn mower in my shed, you won't even blink.

Ditto with religion: the issue is not whether or not a God logically could violate the laws of nature, but whether the evidence we have (the say-so of anonymous persons 2000 years ago) is enough to convince us that violations did happen.

Skeptical thoughts re the Bible

I've made no bones about my feeling that the resurrection is a myth, as well as the birth narratives. I've also explained why skepticism is warranted when approaching the Bible in general, given the nature of ancient superstition, the lack of fact finding capabilities for writers in the era, the relative dearth of gospel-related facts in the earliest NT (Pauline) manuscripts, the growth of legend as the gospels aged, and so forth.

I just wanted to highlight two posts at my old haunt that are very good on these issues:

1. Why I don't believe in the resurrection, by Matthew Green
2. Where is the 800 pound gorilla? by Bart Willruth

A lot of the stuff being written at DC is sort of "pop culture atheism", but the overall tenor of conversation there is much higher than, say, the RRS.

The Importance of Skepticism

When I am asked by my Christian friends how I can reject the historicity of the Gospels, I am reminded of the story of Ronald Edwin Hunkeler, the young boy who would later be depicted as a possessed child in The Exorcist book and movie.

About a year and a half ago, I strong-armed my wife into agreeing to watch The Exorcist with me. I was falling asleep about an hour into it, while she was starting to get frightened, and used the excuse of my non-interest to turn it off. I can remember her mentioning at some time that the demonic voices and sounds in the movie were from some "real" exorcisms, added for authenticity and scare effect; I'd heard this before. I can also remember people talking about how this movie, based on the novel of the same name, was derived from a true story. Now, this is where the title of my post starts to come in.

Kennedy's parishoners on threats to faith & anti-intellectualism

D. James Kennedy, who I love to critique, had his church vote on perceived spiritual "threats" in our country. I was amazed to see the list:

How dangerous are the following to the spiritual health of America?

	Very	Somewhat	Not very
The ACLU and similar groups	96	3	1
Pro-homosexual indoctrination	95	4	1
Abortion	93	6	1
Islamic terrorism	91	8	1
Hollywood	89	10	1
News Media	87	12	1
Darwinism/evolution	85	14	1
Cults and false religion	82	16	2
Atheism	82	16	2
Courts	81	18	1
Apathetic/uninformed Christians	79	20	1
Colleges and Universities	78	21	1
Public education (K-12)	69	29	2
Congress	63	35	2

As PZ joked, we "very dangerous" atheists are slacking off if we're way down at #9 below teh gayz. Now, the comment I want to make is especially directed towards "colleges and universities" as well as "public education"...

While there can be no doubt that there is a certain anti-intellectual crowd within the faith community, I would by no means suggest that this is the "best" crowd. In fact, while it may or may not be a plurality, such a group would probably be the rural, uneducated religious follower rather than a smart and sophisticated believer with apologetic resources. *UPDATE: A new study is underway at BU to gauge and improve the image of Evangelical scholarship and to highlight the existence of the Evangelical intelligentsia. Groups like Kennedy's here do this study no favors.*

I've pointed out before that I think the IQ issue doesn't work when comparing believers to non-believers: I think it's bunk. So let's clearly set aside questions of intelligence and focus on the question of education (not one and the same).

First, the facts show that getting a college education does not lead to a loss of religious belief in general. At best, it may lead to a large percentage of students changing religious affiliation and/or becoming more generous with their orthodoxy.

Second, while faculty at universities tend to be far less likely to be "born again" or Evangelical-types, 4 in 5 describe themselves as "spiritual" and so it's factually false to say that most professors are materialistic atheists.

Third, it is crystal clear that the younger generation is trending towards nonreligious attitudes.

What sorts of conclusions can we draw from these facts? It seems that both educated and uneducated younger people are trending away from organized religion. However, there is still a clear aversion to self-identify as an atheist, and it doesn't seem that we can blame universities and colleges for the trend.

My interpretation is that basically, the anti-intellectual sentiment expressed by the average believer is more a reflection of attitude towards arrogance and self-reliance, perceived effects of education, than actually believing that education is evil or wrong. While majors in the sciences certainly seem to believe in God far less than other people, perhaps cause/effect should be investigated there: consider the possibility that people majoring in the sciences are skeptical by nature. Therefore, all the repeated studies (including these) which have shown that fewer than 50% of scientists believe in God, that more than 60% are atheists and agnostics, that belief in God among "elite scientists" (NAS Members) is a mere 7%, and that 95% of NAS biologists are either atheists or agnostics, can't be blamed on science itself (c.f., SciAm 1999, Nature 1997).

Ask yourself this: why is it that people who have to think logically to survive in their careers, to depend upon evidence and critical inquiry, are much more likely to reject the God hypothesis? Pride? You can see it that way, I suppose, if you want. But doesn't that imply that science itself is prideful, in saying that we ought to use our brains and the best evidence available to establish knowledge and valid beliefs? If that's pride, call me the devil, I guess...

I think that people who are drawn to science are people who are analytically-oriented and skeptically-minded by nature. We're the types who want evidence and logical arguments to persuade us. Perhaps we can simply be viewed with equity by those unlike us, and learn to view them likewise, rather than elevating ourselves unduly because of our genetically or environmentally-determined natures, which we cannot ourselves claim credit for. And perhaps others (believers) can stop denigrating us unduly for the same reason; skeptics may be hardwired for skepticism.

My polycarbonate bottle

So I bought a Trudeau water bottle from Target and today I was wondering if it is made with BPA. Luckily, it doesn't seem to be, given that Trudeau is a Canadian company and they've been looking into BPA for a while now.

I think the fear over BPA is a lot of hype. It's probably a good idea to buy BPA-free baby bottles, because infant development is so sensitive. However, adults should not fear. For one thing, the solubility of BPA is 120-300 mg/L at around room temperature, which basically means that it is nearly insoluble in water and thus migration from the plastic into your drink is going to be next to nonexistent.

I really love my Trudeau brand bottle -- the double wall design is very useful as it avoids all condensation and keeps your hands dry. Also, the drinking straw is wonderful because it sucks to completely unscrew and rescrew the top on a bottle for each drink. It's also proven nearly spill proof. Try one!

A reminder of the incoherence of the resurrection narratives

Glorious Ishtar! Isn't it lovely how the Christians co-opted all the fun pagan festivals for boring prudish commemorations? Have a wonderful myth day!

1. Did Jesus Really Rise From The Dead?
2. Easter: Did Jesus Arise? The Choice is Obvious
3. Why Wasn't There any Veneration of Jesus' Empty Tomb?
4. Is There Historical Evidence for the Resurrection of Jesus?
5. The Martyrdom Argument
6. Why I Don't Buy the Resurrection Story
7. The Historicity of Jesus' Resurrection: The Debate between Christians and Skeptics
8. Misc. others

Since Dan Barker has already invented the wheel, why should I reinvent it? From his article, "Did Jesus Really Rise from the Dead?" we see the parallel passages from the gospels (and Acts) laid out so as to show us the impossible task of harmonization of the resurrection stories.

What time did the women visit the tomb?

1. Matthew: "as it began to dawn" (28:1)


2. Mark "very early in the morning . . . at the rising of the sun" (16:2, KJV); "when the sun had risen" (NRSV); "just after sunrise" (NIV)


3. Luke: "very early in the morning" (24:1, KJV) "at early dawn" (NRSV)


4. John: "when it was yet dark" (20:1)

Who were the women?

1. Matthew: Mary Magdalene and the other Mary (28:1)


2. Mark: Mary Magdalene, the mother of James, and Salome (16:1)


3. Luke: Mary Magdalene, Joanna, Mary the mother of James, and other women (24:10)


4. John: Mary Magdalene (20:1)

What was their purpose?

1. Matthew: to see the tomb (28:1)


2. Mark: had already seen the tomb (15:47), brought spices (16:1)


3. Luke: had already seen the tomb (23:55), brought spices (24:1)


4. John: the body had already been spiced before they arrived (19:39,40)

Was the tomb open when they arrived?

1. Matthew: No (28:2)


2. Mark: Yes (16:4)


3. Luke: Yes (24:2)


4. John: Yes (20:1)

Who was at the tomb when they arrived?

1. Matthew: One angel (28:2-7)


2. Mark: One young man (16:5)


3. Luke: Two men (24:4)


4. John: Two angels (20:12)

Where were these messengers situated?

1. Matthew: Angel sitting on the stone (28:2)


2. Mark: Young man sitting inside, on the right (16:5)


3. Luke: Two men standing inside (24:4)


4. John: Two angels sitting on each end of the bed (20:12)

What did the messenger(s) say?

1. Matthew: "Fear not ye: for I know that ye seek Jesus, which was crucified. He is not here for he is risen, as he said. Come, see the place where the Lord lay. And go quickly, and tell his disciples that he is risen from the dead: and, behold, he goeth before you into Galilee; there shall ye see him: lo, I have told you." (28:5-7)


2. Mark: "Be not afrighted: Ye seek Jesus of Nazareth, which was crucified: he is risen; he is not here: behold the place where they laid him. But go your way, tell his disciples and Peter that he goeth before you into Galilee: there shall ye see him, as he said unto you." (16:6-7)


3. Luke: "Why seek ye the living among the dead? He is not here, but is risen: remember how he spake unto you when he was yet in Galilee, Saying, The Son of man must be delivered into the hands of sinful men, and be crucified, and the third day rise again." (24:5-7)


4. John: "Woman, why weepest thou?" (20:13)

Did the women tell what happened?

1. Matthew: Yes (28:8)


2. Mark: No. "Neither said they any thing to any man." (16:8)


3. Luke: Yes. "And they returned from the tomb and told all these things to the eleven, and to all the rest." (24:9, 22-24)


4. John: Yes (20:18)

When Mary returned from the tomb, did she know Jesus had been resurrected?

1. Matthew: Yes (28:7-8)


2. Mark: Yes (16:10,11[23])


3. Luke: Yes (24:6-9,23)


4. John: No (20:2)

When did Mary first see Jesus?

1. Matthew: Before she returned to the disciples (28:9)


2. Mark: Before she returned to the disciples (16:9,10[23])


3. John: After she returned to the disciples (20:2,14)

Could Jesus be touched after the resurrection?

1. Matthew: Yes (28:9)


2. John: No (20:17), Yes (20:27)

After the women, to whom did Jesus first appear?

1. Matthew: Eleven disciples (28:16)


2. Mark: Two disciples in the country, later to eleven (16:12,14[23])


3. Luke: Two disciples in Emmaus, later to eleven (24:13,36)


4. John: Ten disciples (Judas and Thomas were absent) (20:19, 24)


5. Paul: First to Cephas (Peter), then to the twelve. (Twelve? Judas was dead). (I Corinthians 15:5)

Where did Jesus first appear to the disciples?

1. Matthew: On a mountain in Galilee (60-100 miles away) (28:16-17)


2. Mark: To two in the country, to eleven "as they sat at meat" (16:12,14[23])


3. Luke: In Emmaus (about seven miles away) at evening, to the rest in a room in Jerusalem later that night. (24:31, 36)


4. John: In a room, at evening (20:19)

Did the disciples believe the two men?

1. Mark: No (16:13[23])


2. Luke: Yes (24:34--it is the group speaking here, not the two)

What happened at that first appearance?

1. Matthew: Disciples worshipped, some doubted, "Go preach." (28:17-20)


2. Mark: Jesus reprimanded them, said "Go preach" (16:14-19[23])


3. Luke: Christ incognito, vanishing act, materialized out of thin air, reprimand, supper (24:13-51)


4. John: Passed through solid door, disciples happy, Jesus blesses them, no reprimand (21:19-23)

Did Jesus stay on earth for more than a day?

1. Mark: No (16:19[23]) Compare 16:14 with John 20:19 to show that this was all done on Sunday


2. Luke: No (24:50-52) It all happened on Sunday


3. John: Yes, at least eight days (20:26, 21:1-22)


4. Acts: Yes, at least forty days (1:3)

Where did the ascension take place?

1. Matthew: No ascension. Book ends on mountain in Galilee


2. Mark: In or near Jerusalem, after supper (16:19[23])


3. Luke: In Bethany, very close to Jerusalem, after supper (24:50-51)


4. John: No ascension


5. Paul: No ascension


6. Acts: Ascended from Mount of Olives (1:9-12)

He is risen! Not.

The logical incoherence of prayer

I'm sure everyone has heard of or seen idiot Gov. Sonny Purdue howling to Jesus for water. I'm not mad about that; he's just another stupid politician who scheduled his "rain prayer" (on government property during his own taxpayer-funded workday) on a day that it was already supposed to rain according to the weather service (though it didn't). What makes me mad is this:

Twenty-two protesters were forced to stay more than a block away, out of earshot and out of sight of the prayer service, on Martin Luther King Jr. Drive. They were members of the Atlanta Freethought Society. Signs include "Hail Priest-King Perdue" or "Pray on the Church Steps, not the Capitol Steps."

Now that, friends, pisses me off. Preventing a group of freethinkers' First Amendment-given right to freedom of speech, assembly and petition is just over the frigging top. That sort of thing should bring a lawsuit against every government office from dogcatcher to the "guvnah" himself.

Rational people already understand the logical conundrums that render prayer completely incoherent:

Imagine for a moment that Sonny's wisely-planned timing had paid off and it had begun to rain at the end of the day, as was predicted a week ahead of time (when he planned the event) by the weather services. Of course, everyone there would have claimed that their prayers had moved God to act on their behalf. Ditto if it rains the next day or the next...and basically up to and including the day it finally does rain -- prayer will be credited with the rain.

What about the fact that there is already a terrible drought that has cost the state a great deal of money? And that it is only going to get worse from here? How many farmers or residents with gardens have lost a great deal of money (the former maybe even being bankrupted, the latter having to buy food they planned to grow)? Whether God did it that very day, the next day, next week, month, year...the negative consequences of failing to act ahead of time still deserve to be accounted for. And how will theists do it?

They will blame US, of course! They'll say that God is angry about abortion or gay marriage or whatever. The funniest thing is the idea that God will stop being mad if people pray about it, or after some arbitrary amount of time punishing us all.

Basically God has the perfect system: getting all the credit for "answers" and none of the blame for "failures"! Think of it this way: heads, God wins; and tails, you lose!

If God exists, and wants to do something, then God will do it, right? Why does God need your help (prayer) to do it? Is God lacking confidence? Does God need encouragement? Or is God forgetful, and you're like the helpful pager that goes off before a meeting? He's got Alzheimer's?

Perhaps all prayer is horizontal -- for our own benefit?

Perhaps people think God doesn't really give a shit about things, and they have to raise God's conscientiousness about it...? That little girl dying of leukemia will just have to suffer and die, because God doesn't f-ing care...until you pray, that is. If God doesn't care enough to actually act until asked to do so, what kind of "goodness" does God possess, anyway?

God's like a grumpy old uncle whose ties to the family are so weak that he has to be prodded to attend holiday dinners, but, importantly, still cares just enough such that he can still be prodded to do so. He won't come on his own, though...

Perhaps they think that God is democratic in nature, and that a tally of votes is necessary for God to act -- God only cares about majority popularity: argumentum ad populum, anyone?

The only answer to these questions that renders coherence to reality at all is the simplest answer, and the most likely to be true: there is no God or gods, and if there are, then they don't give a shit and your prayers are you, as a grown-up adult, talking to your invisible magic friend, just like you did when you were a little child. Every empirical study has shown the same thing -- that prayers do nothing. Don't believe me? Find one documented amputee whose limb grew back from prayer. One. Ever. Here are documented cases of the flaws in these studies I've cited, and here are some of my thoughts on those studies.

Credulity Demonstrated

On my school campus, we have a "free speech zone" or two on campus that are heavily trafficked; campus preachers and student groups use them for advertising/proselytizing purposes on a regular basis. Brother Jed Smock had been on campus recently, so I went out to watch him for entertainment value a little on Thursday and Friday -- where I met a man who had a "free energy" device (FED). I and two other skeptics challenged him to demonstrate this marvelous supernatural device, and he did.

Long story short, he brought this little fan-driven motor to my lab bench and asked me to test the batteries connected to it with a voltmeter. Then, he started it turning (he input mechanical energy) and let it go on for a long time. The fan was kept running by the batteries connected to the motor. The key is, one of the batteries was running the motor against the resistance, while the other battery was supposed to be charged at a rate greater than the first battery's depletion!

Afterwards, I tested the batteries and found that the voltage reported was actually higher than before he started. What I should've realized at the time was the energy he input was far greater than the resistance the fan encountered. Voltage is not energy. But at the time, I told him I was a bit confused. I adamantly declared his idea of a FED was nonsense, but I told him I'd have to go home and think over how his device generated more voltage in the battery. Also, I should've made him stay there for more than 4 minutes.

The difference in the energy put in (when he started the motor by spinning the fan) versus put out would've become quite clear as the fan eventually slowed and stopped. The initial turn of the fan's rotor put in exactly as much charge into the batteries as they lacked, as this was the load on the motor.

Basically, the guy ran Bedini's "School Girl Experiment":


First, when you click the link of the schematic above, you see that this guy is spouting off complete and utter nonsense:

On this slide, we show a theoretical scheme which several researchers have discovered and used to build simple free energy motors. In this scheme, we drive an ordinary d.c. series motor by a two wire system from an ordinary battery. The motor produces shaft horsepower, at -- say -- some 30 or 40 percent efficiency, compared to the power drained from the battery. This much of the circuit is perfectly ordinary.
The trick here is to get the battery to recharge itself, without furnishing normal power to it, or expending work from the external circuit in the process.

To do this, recall that a charged particle in a "hooking" del-phi river moves itself. This is true for an ion, as well as for an electron. We need only make the del-phi in correct fashion and synchronize it; specifically, we must not release the hose nozzles we utilize to produce our del-phi river or waves.

The inventors who have discovered this have used various variations, but here we show a common one. First, we add an "energizer" (often referred to by various other names) to the circuit. This device makes the del-phi waves we will utilize, but does NOT make currents of electron masses. In other words, it makes pure Ø-dot. It takes a little work to do this, for the energizer circuit must pump a few charges now and then. So the energizer draws a little bit of power from the motor, but not very much.

WTF? Anyway, the technical take-down of all FEDs based on this sort of scheme can be found here by Eric Krieg. Krieg is like the James Randi of "over unity device" skepticism.

Now, if this sounds familiar to my long-time readers, they may recall that I mentioned a company called Steorn using similar technology/concepts as the aforementioned device. I said at the time not to hold your breath waiting on a demonstration, and...whattya know? I was right!

The fellow at UF with the earthshatteringly-important FED is named Rick Friedrich. Rick runs truthinheart.com, specializing in publication of various obscure titles in theology...and overunity electronic technology developed by John Bedini and Tom Bearden. His page describing John Bedini's new book (that he has published) alludes to the details of the devices that supposedly defy the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics (LoT). John had these details up on a web page, now archived here, that includes scans of the patents he received and shows the schematic diagrams for these devices.

Although his credentials appear to have come under some scrutiny, Bearden's work got published (somehow) in an obscure journal. You can read his scans of the article here at his site. Probably the funniest thing from the article is the circular references -- he says that his results have been independently verified by "Naudin", and supports this with an endnote [2]. Go to reference 2, and you find the words, "Communicated in Ref. 1". Hilariously, reference 1 is quite difficult to even understand, but claims a paper by Bearden himself, in Adv. in Chem. Phys. 114. This is a print-on-demand book selling for $245. Not exactly an easy reference to check, but the table of contents doesn't mention Bearden or any of his co-authors.

Basically, if something sounds too good to be true, it is.

See here for a skeptical investigation into a similar bunch of nonsense perpetrated by Dennis Lee.
________________
Technorati tags: God, Religion, Atheism, Church-state, Politics, Philosophy, Intelligent Design, Evolution, Creationism --

Blind Faith: The Unholy Alliance of Religion and Medicine

We have all heard the various arguments that religion is good for your health in some way or another. We have all heard that there are "numerous studies that show/support this"...where is the proof?

Some time back, I took a serious look at this question, and found, with no exception whatsoever, that no study had ever established any such correlation. (Make sure to check out the comments section of that post)

The problems with all studies purporting to support this correlation are consistently demographic and sociological in nature -- for example: studies that show that older people who attend church are twice as likely to be healthy as those who don't are flawed when they do not take into account the question of whether those who do not attend are still religious, and those who physically cannot go out to church because they are sick. That is, it is cherry-picking an already-healthy group (those who can go out [at all] every week) and comparing them to a group that certainly contains some bedridden and shut-in elderly persons.

These sorts of flaws pervade the studies claimed to support the contention that I have looked at, without exception. The best-controlled studies show no statistical significant effects of prayer or religion upon health, and many show the converse. The researchers are quick to point out that many sick persons adopt more religious beliefs as their illness progresses, though, in order to "protect" cherry-picking in the opposite way from that mentioned before. Also, the newest and most comprehensive studies on intercessory prayer proved to have no good effect whatsoever upon those being prayed for. See here for serious analysis of that study.

I have also pointed out that the correlation between health and religion is one we expect, given the numerous promises to "covenant health" throughout the Bible. Dr. Richard Sloan has done more research in this field than any other medical doctor I'm aware of, and he agrees that the bottom line is, "no evidence":

When you suggest that religious activity is associated with better health, you implicitly suggest quite the opposite: that poor health is a product of insufficient devotion, insufficient faith. It's bad enough to be sick. It's worse still to be catastrophically ill. To add the burden of guilt and remorse on top of that is simply unconscionable. And that happens all the time.

So for a variety of ethical reasons, it seems clear to me, regardless of what the empirical evidence is, that bringing religion into medicine not only makes no sense, it's simply wrong to do, even if there were solid evidence--which, of course, there isn't.

So . . . there's just no solid evidence, and the ethical problems are so serious they have to be addressed. We should simply not tolerate attempts to bring religion into medicine until these matters have been resolved.

I am posting below an excerpt from the Chronicle from his new book, Blind Faith: The Unholy Alliance of Religion and Medicine, which takes the longest and most comprehensive look at the connection between medicine and religion that has ever been published. It will not help give the religious any more faith, and will instead present unequivocal evidence that their prayers are being uttered to uncaring, dead, empty space, rather than an all-loving and knowing Being. But, those I know who waste their time wailing to walls and uncaring air are somewhat unlikely to allow empirical evidence to sway their supernatural "feelings".

The Critical Distinction Between Science and Religion
By RICHARD P. SLOAN
http://chronicle.com/weekly/v53/i11/11b01301.htm

The view that all human experience can be reduced to the function of biological activity may be satisfying to scientists, but it is anathema to theologians. The researchers Marguerite Lederberg and George Fitchett recognize this problem in an interesting article with the provocative title "Can You Measure a Sunbeam With a Ruler?" In it, they explore the scientific problems with attempts to reduce the experience of religion to the measurable quantities of science. The point of their title is to reiterate a longstanding concern in science: the difficulty of quantifying human experience. By attempting to measure a sunbeam and in so doing reduce it to that which can be quantified by a ruler, we lose the character of the sunbeam itself. While such measurement may be possible, it cannot capture the essence of the sunbeam and in fact may distort it.

Trying to quantify religious experience by counting the number of times a person reports attending church, the most commonly used index of religious involvement, is like trying to measure a sunbeam with a ruler: It may be possible, but the essential character of the experience is lost in the process. It is like trying to quantify the aesthetic experience of listening to a Beethoven symphony by counting the number of times a listener smiles. No doubt we could conduct brain-imaging studies to demonstrate differences in the activity of cerebral structures while listening to the Ninth Symphony and to white noise. Would that tell us anything about the aesthetic experience? Would it mean that this experience is explained by the activity of that specific brain region? Is that all there is to it? Is the majesty of listening to Beethoven, viewing the Grand Canyon, or appreciating the vastness of the universe merely the product of increased activity of certain regions in the brain? And could we reproduce these experiences simply by administering the right medication or electrical stimulation?

As productive as this strategy of reductionism has been and as promising as it continues to be for science, we ought to question seriously what insights it yields in the study of religion. Religion and science are independent approaches to knowledge, and neither can be reduced to the other. Religion and science are fundamentally different, with the former relying on faith as a source of wisdom and the latter demanding evidence. Religious truths generally are considered to be enduring and not subject to change. Scientific truths, on the other hand, are completely dependent on evidence, and as new evidence emerges, scientific truths change accordingly.

For these reasons, attempts to understand religious experience by scientific means can never be satisfying to religion. They can satisfy only science.

Using the methods of science to examine religion has another seemingly unintended consequence: It has led to attempts to establish the relative merits of different religious traditions by scientific means. After all, if we can determine scientifically whether frequency of attendance or frequency of prayer is associated with health outcomes, then shouldn't we begin to test whether the type of service makes a difference? If we are truly interested in collecting information relevant to health outcomes, then we should want to know whether it is better for our health to attend a Catholic mass or a Quaker meeting. Are Orthodox Jewish services better for our health than Reform services? Is there a health advantage to praying five times a day, as Muslims do, as opposed to the three times of Orthodox Jews? Why is it acceptable to determine that more-frequent attendance at religious services is better for your health than less-frequent attendance, but it is not acceptable to determine that Christian services are better for your health than attending Jewish or Muslim services?

Most researchers in the field of religion and health do not address this matter. My guess is that if they were asked, they would oppose contrasting the health benefits of different religious denominations. But why should they object? Presumably, the objection to studying the different health effects of Christianity, Judaism, and Islam, for example, is that it would be offensive if we discovered that one religion was superior to the other two. The offense lies in the implication that those who practice the medically less beneficial religions would be better off converting to the medically more beneficial one.

Such a recommendation would be seen as out of bounds by most people. But why should it be? Attending services at an Orthodox synagogue or a Catholic church is a religious behavior that we can measure, just like attending services more or less frequently. Why is recommending conversion from one religious denomination to another for hypothetical health benefits more offensive than recommending that people who attend services only once per month attend more frequently because the latter, some believe, is better for their health, or recommending that people increase the amount of time spent praying?

We are on dangerous ground here, and the danger lies once again in a critical distinction between science and religion. It is a distinction that proponents of the religion-health connection obliterate, whether they intend to or not. Science permits us, in principle, to answer these questions. Without a doubt, we could conduct a study contrasting the health effects of Christianity, Judaism, and Islam, for example. It could be done in precisely the same way that researchers have examined the effects of higher versus lower frequency of attendance at religious services, or greater or lower frequency of private prayer or reading the Bible or listening to religious radio programming. From the scientific perspective, there is no fundamental difference between using religious denomination or religious attendance as the predictor variable.

Although science allows us to conduct such a study, ethics and religion ought to tell us how ridiculous such a comparison would be. In today's world (and in the past as well), we have ample evidence of religious strife. This should not diminish the value that religion has for many people, but no one can dismiss the fact that religious factionalism has been responsible for conflict at the societal and familial level for thousands of years. Even if we could, hypothetically, demonstrate that Protestant prayer is better for one's health than Catholic prayer, why would we ever want to do so?

It undoubtedly is true that we can submit religious ritual and experiences to scientific study to determine if they are associated with beneficial health outcomes. But to do so runs the risk of trivializing the religious experience, making it no different from other medical recommendations made by physicians. If attending religious services becomes no different than consuming a low-fat diet or getting regular exercise, a great deal will have been lost. Bringing religion into the world of the scientist must by definition reduce religion to measurable indices that strip it of the sense of transcendence that distinguishes it from other aspects of our lives. Doing this dumbs religion down, making it so bland and universally acceptable that it has lost all of its meaning.

Ironically, this reductionism is precisely the problem that many in the religious community have railed against. Steven Goldberg, author of Seduced by Science, wrote, "When prayer is innocuous, it is no rival to the materialistic view of the world." Bringing religion into the "laboratory" of the scientist cannot help but contribute to the inevitable comparisons of the "scientifically established" virtues of one religion, or one type of religious practice, over others. In a world riven with religious factionalism and strife, it's hard to think of a worse idea.

Richard P. Sloan is a professor of behavioral medicine at Columbia University. This essay is excerpted from Blind Faith: The Unholy Alliance of Religion and Medicine, published this month by St. Martin's Press.

The Chronicle Review
Volume 53, Issue 11, Page B13
________________
Technorati tags: God, Religion

Who is John Galt? Why, Steorn!

Those of you familiar with Ayn Rand's favorite character, John Galt, may recall his development of an engine that ran on static electricity in the air. Well, it appears the next best accomplishment has been claimed: Steorn claims to have built a technology capable of deriving >100% energy from magnetic fields! Not only do perpetual motion/energy machines violate basic physical principles, they hold unlimited fantasy potential to fascinate us. The company has issued a challenge and set up a scientific "jury" system to test their invention. Word of advice: don't hold your breath.

HT: SciAm Observations
________________
Technorati tags: Physics

Spock is My Hero, Too

I was just reading over an article in Skepchick entitled, "Logic vs. Emotion," and had some thoughts. The writer tells us her childhood hero was Mr. Spock, the paragon of Stoicism, and she discusses the commonly-held misconception that atheists/skeptics are emotionless creatures, by choice or by necessity.

Human beings are animals. As animals, we have biological and physiological functions over which we have very little control. Our emotions are the result of biochemical responses to stimuli, responses that are shared qualitatively by many other primates. The selective advantages to these responses are fairly clear: emotional bonding to our mates occurs as a function of oxytocin and other chemicals, functioning as a "glue" which confers beneficence to reproductive fitness.

As some of us are obviously predisposed towards more emotional displays than others, it doesn't reflect upon any notion of free will (laughable as that is). We really don't have a lot of control over our levels of sentimentality or propensity towards weeping. And it may be the case that the more control we have (genetically speaking), the more proclivity we have for rational thinking, rather than wishful thinking. But no matter how rational we are, we cannot deny the animal part of us that feels.

I think the problem isn't that we some of us lack control over our emotions, and make decisions emotively. I think the problem is that the nature of some decisions is that there is no logical argument that can be constructed from known true premises.

As Donna Druchunas writes:

What I have outgrown is my naive belief that logic trumps personal experience and emotions in every situation.

Examples here would include how to handle forgiveness in a relationship, whether or not to change careers...&c. Even if we can throw a few true premises in, like, "Well, she's never cheated before," or, "I'll make more money as a patent attorney than a teacher," there are always lacking threads to join these premises together to reach a conclusion. For example, you just don't know if she will have the capability or opportunity in the future to cheat, or whether or not the job market will be in the future where it is today. Thus you can't rely on these premises to take you to a straightforward conclusion.

Spock is my hero because he uses reason as far as he can, and then admits when there is uncertainty involved in a decision. Humans must live with and make decisions from uncertainty and doubt. That doesn't mean we can't rely on logic and reason, jettisoning them in favor of how we feel, as most analyses can include at least some logic. It's just part of the human condition not to know everything about anything.