For some reason creationists are in a crusade to try to discredit the notion that birds have evolved from dinosaurs. It's probably their second-most popular specific claim that they oppose about evolutionary history (the most popular being, of course, that humans and apes have a common ancestor species.) I don't even understand why they hate the notion that much. Even the creationists who accept 99% of the theory of evolution (without using that name, of course) still oppose the notion that birds are dinosaurs.
There are a couple of scientists who, while not being creationists, also loudly oppose the notion that birds evolved from dinosaurs. They are very vocal, and are sometimes quoted in tabloids and blogs.
Naturally creationists often cling to these tabloid articles as well. It really helps bolster their anti-evolutionary movement when they can quote newspaper headers like "birds have not evolved from dinosaurs after all, say scientists".
There's a huge irony in this, however. Those few scientists are not defending creationism. Their claim is that birds and dinosaurs have a more ancient common ancestor, rather than birds having evolved directly from dinosaurs. (This claim has been discredited by paleontologists and evolutionary biologists time and again, but it's still a somewhat rational and scientific hypothesis to make. It simply puts into question where exactly birds branched out in the evolutionary tree, and proposes that it happened earlier.)
In other words, the creationists are promoting an alternative evolutionary tree for birds, without realizing it. Those scientists who create those controversial tabloid news headers are not claiming that evolution didn't happen. They are simply saying that birds evolved from a more ancient ancestral species than dinosaurs.
Friday, December 13, 2013
Thursday, November 28, 2013
The Bible needs constant reassurance
Have you noticed how so many Christians, especially apologists, are constantly repeating the same mantras about how "the Bible is the perfect word of God", how it's infallible and unchanging, how there are no contradictions, how it's morally absolute, and so on? Likewise Christians are constantly repeating how God is good, God loves you, etc.
Many people have noticed, and they make a quite good point, that this is quite telling about the Bible.
Normally a work or other source of information does not need constant reassurances because it can stand on its own. You don't see people constantly reassuring that, to take a completely random example, "Euclid's Elements is full of correct and useful mathematical proofs." They don't have to do that because Euclid's Elements can stand on its own merits and does not need people to be constantly reminding you how good it is. You can check the veracity of what it says and come up with your own conclusions about its validity.
Not so with the Bible. It cannot stand on its own merits (given how many morally questionable rules and advise it gives, how many contradictions it has, how heinous the crimes of the god it depicts are, and so on) and thus Christians need to be constantly reassuring and reminding themselves that it is good and valid.
If the Bible were indeed the perfect, infallible word of a perfect omniscient God, then it would need no such reassurances because anybody would be able to check its validity on their own.
Many people have noticed, and they make a quite good point, that this is quite telling about the Bible.
Normally a work or other source of information does not need constant reassurances because it can stand on its own. You don't see people constantly reassuring that, to take a completely random example, "Euclid's Elements is full of correct and useful mathematical proofs." They don't have to do that because Euclid's Elements can stand on its own merits and does not need people to be constantly reminding you how good it is. You can check the veracity of what it says and come up with your own conclusions about its validity.
Not so with the Bible. It cannot stand on its own merits (given how many morally questionable rules and advise it gives, how many contradictions it has, how heinous the crimes of the god it depicts are, and so on) and thus Christians need to be constantly reassuring and reminding themselves that it is good and valid.
If the Bible were indeed the perfect, infallible word of a perfect omniscient God, then it would need no such reassurances because anybody would be able to check its validity on their own.
Wednesday, November 20, 2013
Proof of virginity
Deuteronomy 22 is overall one of the most embarrassing chapters in the entire Bible and doesn't get much attention among Christians. It's seldom brought up in church, or even in Bible study sessions, and even when it rarely is brought up, it's usually quickly shoved aside with some light excuses and rationalizations.
Perhaps the most embarrassing passages of this chapter are the following:
This passage has quite many problems. All these problems give an interesting light to the claim that the Bible is the perfect and infallible word of God.
Firstly, this really demonstrates the emphasis that this culture of the antiquity put on virginity, but let's not go there now.
One of the major problems with this passage (supposedly from the perfect and infallible word of God) is that the "proof of virginity" is extremely flimsy. There are many problems with it, including:
Of course the even more serious and embarrassing part is the death by stoning if a woman cannot prove having been a virgin. How exactly is this moral and just? Is this really the perfect absolute morality that we are supposed to embrace?
Notice also what happens if the man does not like her new wife and is unable to accuse her of being a slut: He pays money to the wive's parents and is forced to be married to her for life. That's one happy marriage for you. And of course, the woman is not consulted on any of this.
How many Christians, who advocate the Bible as the perfect and infallible word of God, the absolute moral law that we all should follow, would be ready to follow these passages?
Perhaps the most embarrassing passages of this chapter are the following:
13 If a man takes a wife and, after sleeping with her, dislikes her 14 and slanders her and gives her a bad name, saying, “I married this woman, but when I approached her, I did not find proof of her virginity,” 15 then the young woman’s father and mother shall bring to the town elders at the gate proof that she was a virgin. 16 Her father will say to the elders, “I gave my daughter in marriage to this man, but he dislikes her. 17 Now he has slandered her and said, ‘I did not find your daughter to be a virgin.’ But here is the proof of my daughter’s virginity.” Then her parents shall display the cloth before the elders of the town, 18 and the elders shall take the man and punish him. 19 They shall fine him a hundred shekels of silver and give them to the young woman’s father, because this man has given an Israelite virgin a bad name. She shall continue to be his wife; he must not divorce her as long as he lives.What this is saying that when a married woman has sex with her husband for the first time, it's expected for her to bleed (because her hymen breaks), and for the parents of the woman to take the bedsheet as "proof" that she was a virgin.
20 If, however, the charge is true and no proof of the young woman’s virginity can be found, 21 she shall be brought to the door of her father’s house and there the men of her town shall stone her to death. She has done an outrageous thing in Israel by being promiscuous while still in her father’s house. You must purge the evil from among you.
This passage has quite many problems. All these problems give an interesting light to the claim that the Bible is the perfect and infallible word of God.
Firstly, this really demonstrates the emphasis that this culture of the antiquity put on virginity, but let's not go there now.
One of the major problems with this passage (supposedly from the perfect and infallible word of God) is that the "proof of virginity" is extremely flimsy. There are many problems with it, including:
- Not all women, even if virgin, bleed when having sex for the first time. There are numerous reasons for this. Also, some women may bleed more than others, and some may bleed so little that it wouldn't leave any clearly visible and unambiguous stain. This means that a woman could get stoned to death because she happened to be one of the unlucky ones who didn't bleed.
- The blood stain could be trivially faked. If the parents didn't want their daughter to die, then they could easily fabricate the "proof".
- How are the parents supposed to get the bedsheet? Are they supposed to be waiting on the other room or something? Moreover, even if the sheet would get stained, the man could easily dispose of the bedsheet and claim that there was no blood.
Of course the even more serious and embarrassing part is the death by stoning if a woman cannot prove having been a virgin. How exactly is this moral and just? Is this really the perfect absolute morality that we are supposed to embrace?
Notice also what happens if the man does not like her new wife and is unable to accuse her of being a slut: He pays money to the wive's parents and is forced to be married to her for life. That's one happy marriage for you. And of course, the woman is not consulted on any of this.
How many Christians, who advocate the Bible as the perfect and infallible word of God, the absolute moral law that we all should follow, would be ready to follow these passages?
Thursday, October 24, 2013
The deceptive first premise of Kalam
To recapitulate the Kalam cosmological argument, it goes like this:
The first premise is ambiguous because it doesn't specify what kind of "begins to exist" it's talking about. It implies, but doesn't unambiguously state, that it's talking about creation ex nihilo (in other words, out-of-nothing, ie. first there's nothing, then something appears.)
Assuming creation ex nihilo is unfounded because we have exactly zero examples of this. We cannot corroborate that it happens, and even if it happens, if it has a cause, and even if it has a cause, what that cause might be. Simply assuming that it happens and, especially, that it must have a cause, is completely faulty logic. "It makes sense" is not a valid argument for this.
However, when people like Craig try to defend it, they will switch to the other meaning of "begins to exist", which is the more abstract version, ie. energy/matter transforming from one form to another (in other words, for example a table "begins to exist" when the carpenter builds it.)
This is not a distortion or misinterpretation of what, for example, Craig does. This is exactly his argument. In a video, when responding to the objections to the first premise, he directly states things like "didn't dinosaurs begin to exist? Didn't I began to exist?" and then proceeds to belittle the people who present the objection.
- Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
- The Universe began to exist.
- Therefore the Universe has a cause.
The first premise is ambiguous because it doesn't specify what kind of "begins to exist" it's talking about. It implies, but doesn't unambiguously state, that it's talking about creation ex nihilo (in other words, out-of-nothing, ie. first there's nothing, then something appears.)
Assuming creation ex nihilo is unfounded because we have exactly zero examples of this. We cannot corroborate that it happens, and even if it happens, if it has a cause, and even if it has a cause, what that cause might be. Simply assuming that it happens and, especially, that it must have a cause, is completely faulty logic. "It makes sense" is not a valid argument for this.
However, when people like Craig try to defend it, they will switch to the other meaning of "begins to exist", which is the more abstract version, ie. energy/matter transforming from one form to another (in other words, for example a table "begins to exist" when the carpenter builds it.)
This is not a distortion or misinterpretation of what, for example, Craig does. This is exactly his argument. In a video, when responding to the objections to the first premise, he directly states things like "didn't dinosaurs begin to exist? Didn't I began to exist?" and then proceeds to belittle the people who present the objection.
Tuesday, October 22, 2013
Determining the cause for events
When faced with claims of extraordinary events (such as psychic phenomena or miracles), there are, roughly speaking, two steps to be performed to determine their veracity:
The second step is also extremely important, and it's the step that most of these people want to skip. They will spend enormous amounts of time and effort to convince themselves and other people that the extraordinary event is indeed happening... and then just jump to their preferred conclusion, without even attempting to corroborate if that's the true cause.
For example, many believers will spend lots of time trying to convince people that miracle healings do indeed happen. They then just jump to God.
This is, of course, flawed reasoning. Even if the event were really happening, that still doesn't tell us what causes it. That would have to be determined before we can draw any conclusions.
(Of course it doesn't help much that all such extraordinary claims fail miserably even step 1.)
- Corroborating that the event actually happens.
- Determining the cause for that event.
The second step is also extremely important, and it's the step that most of these people want to skip. They will spend enormous amounts of time and effort to convince themselves and other people that the extraordinary event is indeed happening... and then just jump to their preferred conclusion, without even attempting to corroborate if that's the true cause.
For example, many believers will spend lots of time trying to convince people that miracle healings do indeed happen. They then just jump to God.
This is, of course, flawed reasoning. Even if the event were really happening, that still doesn't tell us what causes it. That would have to be determined before we can draw any conclusions.
(Of course it doesn't help much that all such extraordinary claims fail miserably even step 1.)
Thursday, October 10, 2013
"Anti-supernaturalism"
Some Christian pseudophilosophers accuse scientists and skeptics for being "naturalists" and "anti-supernaturalists." In other words, they accuse them of having the bias and preconception that only the physical exists, and every single phenomenon must have a physical, natural explanation, and that supernatural explanations are rejected outright, without consideration and as a matter of principle.
While extreme naturalists (ie. those who really and honestly think like that, and who willfully reject even the possibility of the existence of the supernatural) are a relative minority of all scientists and skeptics (the majority of them not rejecting the supernatural outright, but considering naturalism as the default position until otherwise demonstrated), even extreme naturalism is quite justified. A lot more justified than the opposite.
The reason for this is that naturalism just outright works, and gives real, tangible results that have a real effect on the real world, and has been so for millenia, while supernaturalism has an abysmal record on this.
Every single step in our technological and medical progress, every single discovery, every single advance in both real-world useful knowledge and in practical applications, has been a pure product of naturalism. In other words, of studying the physical world, finding out how it works, and applying that knowledge to affect our surroundings.
And not only has every single such step been thanks to naturalism, it has been extremely efficient at it. We make more progress via naturalist techniques and approaches in one year than supernaturalism has done in thousands of years.
Supernaturalism is just useless for anything tangible. Our knowledge has not advanced thanks to it, our technology has not advanced thanks to it, our medicine has not advanced thanks to it... in fact, nothing of real tangible value has advanced thanks to supernaturalism. Supernaturalism has not contributed in any way, shape or form to our current level of progress. The only things that supernaturalism has affected are fuzzy abstract notions, opinions, behaviors, feelings and personal subjective experiences. None of which has actually helped progress, nor can be demonstrated to be actually caused by anything supernatural.
So why exactly should one believe in the supernatural? Not only is pure naturalism a good and pragmatic choice, it's the only rational choice.
While extreme naturalists (ie. those who really and honestly think like that, and who willfully reject even the possibility of the existence of the supernatural) are a relative minority of all scientists and skeptics (the majority of them not rejecting the supernatural outright, but considering naturalism as the default position until otherwise demonstrated), even extreme naturalism is quite justified. A lot more justified than the opposite.
The reason for this is that naturalism just outright works, and gives real, tangible results that have a real effect on the real world, and has been so for millenia, while supernaturalism has an abysmal record on this.
Every single step in our technological and medical progress, every single discovery, every single advance in both real-world useful knowledge and in practical applications, has been a pure product of naturalism. In other words, of studying the physical world, finding out how it works, and applying that knowledge to affect our surroundings.
And not only has every single such step been thanks to naturalism, it has been extremely efficient at it. We make more progress via naturalist techniques and approaches in one year than supernaturalism has done in thousands of years.
Supernaturalism is just useless for anything tangible. Our knowledge has not advanced thanks to it, our technology has not advanced thanks to it, our medicine has not advanced thanks to it... in fact, nothing of real tangible value has advanced thanks to supernaturalism. Supernaturalism has not contributed in any way, shape or form to our current level of progress. The only things that supernaturalism has affected are fuzzy abstract notions, opinions, behaviors, feelings and personal subjective experiences. None of which has actually helped progress, nor can be demonstrated to be actually caused by anything supernatural.
So why exactly should one believe in the supernatural? Not only is pure naturalism a good and pragmatic choice, it's the only rational choice.
Tuesday, October 1, 2013
The "God vs. science" false dichotomy
There seems to be a rather curious deeply-ingrained notion among many of the most fundamentalist Christians and creationists that whatever science cannot explain, God is somehow automatically a valid default answer.
Many of them will spend countless hours trying to discredit science and find holes in it, belittling it, denigrating it and mocking it. Once they find a hole that science cannot currently explain, or the explanation is too esoteric for the average layman to understand, they will cling to it like rabid dogs.
Somehow they have this notion that they can fill these gaps with God. In fact, they often talk like God would be somehow automatically the default valid, and only, alternative. Therefore, if you succeed in "disproving" some aspect of science, you have (they think) automatically proven the existence of God.
This is just an outright false dichotomy. Even if there is something that science can't explain, even if it's something that science will never be able to explain (for example because of our limited resources and the fact that we are bound by physical laws), that doesn't somehow automatically give credence to the existence of a god. It simply means that we don't know, and that's it.
And this isn't even going into the fact that even if we entertained the god hypothesis, we would still know absolutely nothing about this god. These Christians always jump from "the god explanation" to "the God of Christianity", as if that would be a completely sensible and valid thing to do.
This can be really blatant sometimes. I was once engaged in an online conversation with a Christian, and the subject was precisely this. When I asked how can we know anything about this hypothetical god, he literally started quoting the Bible, as if that were the completely natural and logical thing to do.
Many of them will spend countless hours trying to discredit science and find holes in it, belittling it, denigrating it and mocking it. Once they find a hole that science cannot currently explain, or the explanation is too esoteric for the average layman to understand, they will cling to it like rabid dogs.
Somehow they have this notion that they can fill these gaps with God. In fact, they often talk like God would be somehow automatically the default valid, and only, alternative. Therefore, if you succeed in "disproving" some aspect of science, you have (they think) automatically proven the existence of God.
This is just an outright false dichotomy. Even if there is something that science can't explain, even if it's something that science will never be able to explain (for example because of our limited resources and the fact that we are bound by physical laws), that doesn't somehow automatically give credence to the existence of a god. It simply means that we don't know, and that's it.
And this isn't even going into the fact that even if we entertained the god hypothesis, we would still know absolutely nothing about this god. These Christians always jump from "the god explanation" to "the God of Christianity", as if that would be a completely sensible and valid thing to do.
This can be really blatant sometimes. I was once engaged in an online conversation with a Christian, and the subject was precisely this. When I asked how can we know anything about this hypothetical god, he literally started quoting the Bible, as if that were the completely natural and logical thing to do.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)