God said it, I believe it, that settles it

This is the saddest "reality tv" I have seen in a long time. I cry for these kids:

God's gift to atheism

Denver based "Christian philosopher" Douglas Groothuis has prepared an Apologetics Manifesto, the first thesis of which is as follows: Christian apologetics involves the public presentation and defense of Christianity as true, reasonable, knowable, and existentially pertinent to both individuals and entire cultures. Apologetics involves rebutting unbelieving accusations against Christianity as well as giving a constructive case for Christian theism. I encourage you all to check out the entire Manifesto: http://www.ivpress.com/groothuis/pdf.php/doug/000010.pdf

As previously noted on this site, Groothuis is a modern day version of William Paley (1743-1805). Paley is credited with creating the watchmaker analogy or the "argument from design" to support the existence of God. If you have the time, please go to iTunes and search "Groothuis". Under the podcast results you will find some recordings of the Professor speaking to a partisan congregation at the Grace Chapel in Englewood, Colorado. Please listen to what he has to say - I couldn't buy a better advertisement for the intellectual vacuity of the argument of intelligent design. The summary of Groothuis' argument in point form is as follows: 1. Intelligence results in complex designs; 2. Biological organisms are complex 3. Biological organisms must have been designed; 4. The designer must be the Judeo-Christian god. After listening to Groothuis, I left a couple messages for him on twitter:

Just listened 2 podcast of U discussing evolution. Have U studied phylogenetics & tracing of mitochondrial DNA btwn species? Groothuis didn't respond to this.

What would your reaction be to abiogenesis peformed in lab setting? Would you just say: "that's how God did it"? Groothuis' responded to this question as follows:

No one has come close to doing it, and all naturalistic theories of abiogensis fail. See S. Meyer, "Signature in the Cell." [please see this link to see what an eminent authority Mr. Meyer is: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_C._Meyer ]

There is no known mechanism for increasing genetic information to account for the diversity and complexity of life. [I love P.Z. Meyers retort to this suggestion: "You can build up an awesome mess of complexity by accident, so you need to demonstrate something other than complexity to demonstrate intent."]

Shortly following this exchange, Groothuis blocked me from following his public twitter profile. So much for his commitment to the public presentation and defence of Christianity.

I have to admit that I admire Groothuis for his chutzpah in much the same way as I admire Randall "Tex" Cobb for surviving 15 rounds with Larry Holmes in their infamous 1982 WBC World heavyweight title boxing match. However, when listening to Groothuis, I am reminded of Howard Cosell's famous assessment following Holme's legendary pummelling of Cobb:

"I wonder if that referee (Steve Crosson) is [conducting] an advertisement for the abolition of the very sport that he is a part of? "

*Note - I found the picture above on the website of Evidence America which offers to send apolegetic speakers to your Church or Christian organization to "speak on the contemporary apologetic issues facing our faith in the 21st century" - these presentations (which apparently include the insightful graphic displayed above) are apparently "full of relevant, factual information as well as powerful Biblical thinking". It's too bad they, like Groothuis, only speak to the converted.

A great picture of a real hell in our solar system

This picture of the surface of our Sun was recently taken by NASA's Solar Dynamics Observatory (the "SDO"). It is hoped that the SDO will help us understand the Sun's influence on earth and near-earth space by studying the solar atmosphere on small scales of space and time and in many wavelengths simultaneously. The SDO's goal is to understand, driving towards a predictive capability, the solar variations that influence life on earth.

It amazes me how a picture can be taken of something located between 147-152 million kilometers (depending on the time of year) from earth.

What does this have to do with atheism? Nothing really ... but is sure is cool.

Quote of the day by Bertrand Russell

Thanks to Lisa for reminding me of this excellent quote by Bertrand Russell (pictured above at age 10) from his essay What I Believe:

"I believe that when I die I shall rot, and nothing of my ego will survive. I am not young and I love life. But I should scorn to shiver with terror at the thought of annihilation. Happiness is nonetheless true happiness because it must come to an end, nor do thought and love lose their value because they are not everlasting. Many a man has borne himself proudly on the scaffold; surely the same pride should teach us to think truly about man's place in the world. Even if the open windows of science at first make us shiver after the cosy indoor warmth of traditional humanizing myths, in the end the fresh air brings vigour, and the great spaces have a splendour of their own."

Atheist Grace

Last night at a public function, I was asked to present an impromptu toast to Queen Elizabeth II. For those unaware of the Canadian political system, Betty is our ceremonial head of state. Let's just say that the 30 seconds notice I was given in no way assisted my abysmal performance.

In any event, the only reason I mention this is that I want to be prepared for the next time I am asked to say grace before a public gathering. The following is loosely based on the World Hunger Grace and is the best that I have come up with so far:

For food in a world where many walk in hunger
For peace in a world where many walk in fear
For friends in a world where many walk alone
Let's give thanks to whatever we believe is responsible for our good fortune
Amen
Let's give thanks to all those, both past and present,
Who have turned our society into what it is today,
And let's continue with their endeavor to make the world a better place.

Cheers

Postscript - reddit.com visitors have suggested another couple excellent secular graces:

Thank you to the farmers who grew the crops and raised the animals we're about to eat, and to the animals also for their delicious flesh. Thank you to the migrant workers who picked these crops for probably about a dollar an hour. Thank you to my wife who cooked the meal. Thank you Presidents Lincoln and Cleveland for establishing the USDA that inspected the food for pathogens, and Anton van Leeuwenhoek for discovering pathogens in the first place, and Galileo for inventing the compound microscope he used to do it. Thank you Louis Pasteur for coming up with the process to make this milk and juice safe to drink. Now let's eat, r'amen. [courtesy of rooktakesqueen]

We are thankful for being. We are thankful for being here. We are thankful for being here together. [courtesy of MasterAaron01]

[The picture reproduced above is entitled "Green Shoal" and was painted by Hamilton, Ontario based artist Charles Meanwell]

There is no Holy Trinity - the Qur'an says so!

I've always found the concept of the trinity (i.e. Father, Son and Holy Ghost) incomprehensible. Three in one? Apparently, some Roman Catholic educators are fond of using a clover as a symbol to explain the trinity. However, if you're going to use the clover as your analogy, why can't we have four in one?

So we have the questions: How God can be one yet three, how the Trinity can be separate but the same? This, my friends, is one of the deepest mysteries of the Christian faith. Some of them will tell you: “We’re not supposed to understand it.”

But, lo and behold, I have found the answer. There is no such thing as the trinity. Another (supposedly) holy book, the Qur'an, tells me so:

5:73 They surely disbelieve who say: Lo! Allah is the third of three; when there is no God save the One God. If they desist not from so saying a painful doom will fall on those of them who disbelieve.

5:74 Will they not rather turn unto Allah and seek forgiveness of Him ? For Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.

5:75 The Messiah, son of Mary, was no other than a messenger, messengers (the like of whom) had passed away before him. And his mother was a saintly woman. And they both used to eat (earthly) food. See how We make the revelations clear for them, and see how they are turned away!

Allah loves me. This I know. For the Qur'an tells me so.

R.I.P. Professor Antony Flew

This is an interesting article from The Telegraph regarding the recent passing of brilliant rationalist philosopher Antony Flew (11 February 1923 – 8 April 2010): http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/obituaries/culture-obituaries/books-obituaries/7586929/Professor-Antony-Flew.html

Flew is credited as having coined the name of the "No True Scotsman" logical fallacy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_True_Scotsman. A notable atheist thinker, he also created a furor among atheists when his thinking meandered (very late in life) towards a non-specific theism.

Mr. Atheist ... please explain why arbitrarily killing children is wrong

A theist recently posed the following question to me: So please explain to us all why arbitrarily killing children is wrong .

At the outset, I should make it clear that my answer will explain why I believe arbitrary killing children (or any human or nonhuman animal for that matter) is wrong. Undoubtedly, there are individuals who take the view that indiscriminate killing is amusing and, by their standards, "right" - we commonly refer to such individuals as sociopaths. Sociopaths provide an excellent example of why there is no such thing as an objective right and wrong. The concepts of right and wrong only make sense from the perspective of an individual who has subjectively determined their own personal morality.

So the question remains: how have I subjectively determined that arbitrarily killing children is wrong? The quick answer is that I have an evolved and learned sense of repugnance towards unjustified killing. The learning part is easy - being kind to others is a behavior which has been ingrained in me since birth. The evolved aversion to killing is a bit harder to explain.

Robert Wright touches on the subject of "evolutionary ethics" in his excellent book The Moral Animal. Wright explains:

"Among ethical philosophers, there is nothing approaching agreement on where we might turn for basic moral values - except, perhaps, nowhere. It is only a slight exaggeration to say that the prevailing moral philosophy within many philosophy departments is nihilism. ...

... Darwin's sometimes diffuse speculations about the "social instincts" have given way to theories firmly grounded in logic and fact, the theories of reciproical altruism and kin selection. And they don't leave our moral sentiments feeling as celestial as they used to. Sympathy, empathy, compassion, conscience, guilt, remorse, even the very sense of justice, the sense that doers of good deserve reward and doers of bad deserve punishment - all these can now be viewed as vestiges of organic history on a particular planet."

Acclaimed moral philosopher Peter Singer considered the question of why people act ethically in his book How Are We To Live? While noting that there is evidence to support the cynical view that self-interest lurks below the surface of every ethical action, Singer observes that people sometimes act ethically in ways that cannot be explained by evolutionary impulses, such as those who donate blood to anonymous recipients. Singer concludes by suggesting that perhaps Aristotle was right when he suggested that people become virtuous by practicing virtue.

The best explanation I have found for a secular, subjective sense of right and wrong is provided by Australian psychologist and social researcher Hugh Mackay in Right & Wrong. Mackay makes a strong case to suggest that true moral mindfulness amounts to each individual deciding what is right and wrong for themself. This doesn't mean that people make moral decisions in a social vacuum. However, Mackay writes: "there will be many occasions when we will decide, on the basis of our own experience and our own private reflections, that something is right or wrong for us, even though other people - including people close to us - may reach a different conclusion." Mackay explains that while moral decision-making is an inherently subjective process, that doesn't mean "anything goes". Although there is no absolute rule to guide every decision - no universal "right answers" - there is always a right answer for each individual and it is up to them to work it out.

The idea of having a supernatural deity tell them what is right and wrong (or bestowing them with an inherent sense to discern that distinction) appeals to religious believers. The problem with this approach is that: "cheating, lying and exploiting other people are not wrong because this or that religion says they are; they are wrong because societies can't function harmoniously unless people agree to respect each other's rights, needs and well-being". (Mackay, p. 238). The same can be said for the arbitrary killing of children. Of course, if you rely on your deity to make the rules, at any given time he/she/it can direct you (as the Bible tells us God commanded Abraham) to kill an innocent child.

If you smoke enough weed ....

Some of you may know that Haile Selassie I (1892-1975), pictured above, was Ethiopia's regent from 1916 to 1930 and Emperor from 1930 to 1974. However, I bet very few of you were aware that he is also revered as God incarnate among the Rastafari movement.

The parallels between Selassie's veneration by the Rastafarians and the mythology arising from the historical Jesus is striking. The current edition of Think: Philosophy for everyone has an excellent essay by Edmund Standing which describes these parallels. The article can be accessed here: http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayFulltext?type=1&fid=7191800&jid=THI&volumeId=9&issueId=24&aid=7191792

Spring has sprung

It was 25 celcius in southwestern Ontario today so I took the opportunity to plant an atheist Christmas tree.

Isn't blasphemy a strange concept?

There's no better day than Good Friday to reflect on the concept of blasphemy. I have searched long and hard for a succinct definition and this is the best I could come up with: when someone makes fun of your fairytales.

I am sure one of you can do better than that.

Happy April Fool's Day

Happy April Fool's Day: http://www.theonion.com/audio/desire-to-ejaculate-motivates-local-christian-to-w,13649/