Houston: video of Dawkins award to Hitchens

October 25, 2011 • 4:22 pm

A good 30-minute video of Richard Dawkins giving his eponymous award to Christopher Hitchens at the Texas Freethought Convention, and Hitch’s response to the award, has finally become available. You can find the link here. Richard’s introduction is touching and funny; Hitch’s response, which he struggles against his illness to deliver, is deeply moving and inspiring.

Watch it, even if you saw my earlier post with an inferior video.

The text of Richard’s speech is also at the site, as well as a very short bonus video of Richard talking about how a child delivered to him a video from Ray Comfort.

May Ceiling Cat bless you, Hitch, for all your good works. Your courage empowers us all.

New children’s book on evolution, fact-checked and with foreword by moi

October 25, 2011 • 12:22 pm

Laurence Pringle, a well known author of children’s books on science and nature, has just come out with his new book on evolution, Billions of Years, Amazing Changes.  It’s intended for children between the ages of 9 and 12. Besides writing the foreword, I vetted all the science, so you can be guaranteed that your kids won’t be learning anything wrong.

(Notice the reptilian bias on the cover)

It is, I think, a very worthwhile book. I haven’t followed children’s books on evolution, but figured it was time I got involved.  I don’t know if there are any competitors, but I’d recommend this one. You can get it for only $12.11 on Amazon.  And Amazon allows you to look inside, so you can check it out before you buy.

Here’s my foreword (click to enlarge).

Andrew Sullivan explains why he’s gay but still Catholic

October 25, 2011 • 9:19 am

Over at The Dish, Andrew Sullivan posted a video (below; for some reason it’s in semi-animation) explaining how he can be openly gay and still be a member of the Catholic Church.

[vodpod id=ExternalVideo.1006251&w=425&h=350&fv=]

Maybe it’s the animation, but he looks pretty tortured as he explains this: a visible sign of cognitive dissonance.  Here’s a bit of the last half:

I just believe that the church’s fixation on defining us by a sexual act—a nonprocreating sexual act—to be [an] absurdly myopic, viewed the wrong way down the telescope.  And I think it’s sustained, unfortunately, by a lot of emotionally crippled gay men who run the church. And they’ve done a great job in the last ten years of making sure that no one with an independent mind or spirit can really enter the seminaries.

. . . I’m not a Catholic because of issues like gayness. I’m a Catholic because of what I believe to be its revelation of the truth about everything.  And either it’s true or it isn’t.  And it’s possible for it to be true on some core levels, and yet mistaken, and misplaced, and misguided in other areas. And if you look at the history of the Church, it’s full of it. So I try and hang in there, and let God do the rest.

Whenever I get ticked off at Sullivan, I try to remember how tortured he must be (and it shows in the video) about trying to be a good gay Catholic. The problems are evident in just the two excerpts above.

First, the Catholic church’s policy is not just the product of a few twisted, “emotionally crippled gay men.” It is the official dogma of the Catholic church. Homosexuality is seen not only as “disordered,” but as a sin, one that, if acted upon, can send you to hell if you don’t confess it. By fobbing off church policy as the misguided notions of a few miscreants, he totally neglects the Biblical basis for the proscription of homosexual acts, one that would make it hard to ever change church policy.  He also absolves himself from hypocrisy when attending church by somehow denying that the official stance of that church decrees Sullivan as a sinner.

Second, how does Sullivan know that the Church’s view of homosexuality isn’t part of the “truth about everything”? After all, a lot of Catholics, including important people in the Church, think that it is.  Sullivan thinks that the revelation that homosexuality is a sin is simply a mistaken interpretation—of what seems pretty plain in scripture. So Sullivan re-interprets scripture as erroneous, cherry-picking the bits he likes and dumping the bits that make him a sinner.

He’s not a sinner, of course, because Catholic dogma is bunk.  But the fact that he’s tortured about all this, and has to engage in the dubious and intellectually insupportable tactic of deciding himself which bits of revelation are true and which aren’t, shows the whole misguided enterprise of his remaining a Catholic.  If he wants to have his own religion, one that makes gays acceptable, well, more power to him, but since he apparently accepts a lot of what the Bible says as true on “core levels,” his own faith will remain bunk.

I feel sorry for him.  Religion poisons everything, including Andrew Sullivan.

Big news: evangelicals reject accommodationism once again

October 25, 2011 • 6:07 am

The Southern Baptist Convention is the most numerous Protestant sect in America, comprising over 16 million adherents and second only to Catholics in numbers of American Christians (68.5 million).  Since Catholics formally accept evolution (though the official position, that hominins were injected with a soul, is a form of theistic evolution), converting Southern Baptists to accepting science and evolution should be a major goal of accommodationist organizations like BioLogos.

And Lord knows those organizations have tried.  Unsuccessfully.  Diehard evangelicals simply won’t give up the literal truth of the Bible, no matter how many times they’re told that it’s metaphor, poetry, or parable.

In frustration, Karl Giberson (an apostate from BioLogos) and Randall Stephens wrote an op-ed piece in last week’s New York Times decrying evangelical Christians’ rejection of both reason and scientific knowledge. They singled out evolution and gay marriage as two items that don’t deserve to be rejected, since “the Bible does not condemn evolution and says next to nothing about gay marriage.” (This is of course more than a tad disingenuous, for Biblical scripture is pretty clear on the sinfulness of homosexuality, and of course evolution wasn’t known when the Bible was written—indeed, the book tells a completely different creation story.)

Well, neither BioLogos‘s rump-osculation of faith nor Giberson and Stephens’ scorn are going to work.  Albert Mohler, president of the Southern Baptist Theological seminary and the U.S.’s most famous and vociferous member of his sect, tells us why in his blog piece “Total capitulation: the evangelical surrender of truth.” (Note the word “of” here, clearly stating that this sect already has the truth.)

Going after Giberson and Stephens’s piece, Mohler pinpoints the flaw for him and his followers:

Following a line of argument popular among secular observers of conservative Protestantism, [Giberson and Stephens] explain that fundamentalism “appeals to evangelicals who have become convinced that their country has been overrun by a vast secular conspiracy.” In other words, they explain evangelical conviction in terms of psychology, not theology.

That is:

Their essay reveals the central question that evangelicals must now answer: Do we really believe that the Bible is the Word of God?

Mohler’s answer, of course, is “yes.” And to these folks, God has spoken clearly on the immorality of homosexuality. Mohler rejects Giberson’s view that the Bible doesn’t say anything relevant to gay marriage:

That hardly represents an honest or respectful approach to dealing with the Bible’s comprehensive and consistent revelation concerning human sexuality in general and homosexuality in particular. Is Romans 1, for example, just a scattered proof text? Is not all of the Bible God’s Word? Well, Giberson has already made his view of the Bible clear — it is simply “trumped” by science when describing the natural world.

Giberson and Stephens reject those who believe the Bible’s clear teachings on the sinfulness of homosexuality and prefer a figure like David Myers who “believes that Christians can be faithful to God, the Bible, and their tradition and still believe that homosexuality is morally acceptable.” On what authority? Once again, the norms of secular science trump everything else.

I weep for the gay Baptists, just as I weep for gay Catholics like Andrew Sullivan. How can they possibly remain members of their church?

In the end—and this is why accommodationism will fail with people like this—the Bible is what trumps science, reason, or empathy:

Oddly, Giberson and Stephens criticize evangelical leaders who, for example, “pepper their presentations with so many Bible verses that their messages appear to be straight out of Scripture.” Do they seriously believe that evangelical Christians should prefer leaders who would let the Bible be silent and base their arguments on some other authority? Clearly, this is exactly what they suggest.

. . .We know know that when Giberson and Stephens speak of the Bible “as our sacred book,” they mean something far less than what evangelicals have historically believed — that the Bible is the very Word of God. The most honest part of that paragraph is found where the writers admit that they “find it hard to recognize our religious tradition in the mainstream evangelical conversation.”

That is a huge admission — and one that is especially telling. Giberson and Stephens are far outside of the evangelical mainstream, and they know it. Even on the issue of evolution, Giberson affirmed Talk of the Nation host Neal Conan’s assertion that the rejection of evolutionary theory “is the mainstream of evangelical thought.”

The problem with accommodationism is the same problem Sam Harris has singled out about apologists for Islamic extremism: apologists and accommodationists simply do not believe that religious people mean what they say.  Southern Baptists accept the primacy of the Bible, and if it conflicts with evolution and gay rights, well, “God said it, I believe it, that settles it.”

Mohler’s last paragraph shows us clearly why accommodation will fail with groups like this:

Evangelical Christians will either stand upon the authority and total truthfulness of the Bible, or we will inevitably capitulate to the secular worldview. Giberson and Stephens force us to see, and to acknowledge, the consequences of the evangelical surrender of truth.

The accommodationist strategy of telling such people that they don’t have to choose between the Bible and science (or reason, or the simple morality of gay rights) because there is either no conflict, or they’re reading the Bible wrong, is a misguided and futile strategy.  The Bible is pretty clear on this stuff, and since the Bible is God’s word, Mohler and his minions will not be moved. They do feel that they have to choose, and they’ll always choose God.

Templeton and BioLogos are wasting their money trying to turn these people toward science. Giberson and Stephens realize this, and so have resorted to calling out the intransigence of people like Mohler.  That, of course, won’t work either.  If you think any of the Bible as divinely inspired or reflecting historical truths about God and Jesus—as Giberson and Stephens apparently do—then you have no leverage to go after Mohler and other literalists. As Mohler notes, by what authority an Giberson and Stephens assert that they know the “correct” way to interpret Scripture?

No, there’s no convincing Mohler and his flock. Instead, the only solution is to educate the next generation about the folly of religious superstition.

h/t: Sigmund

_________

UPDATE: Note that alert reader Jerrold Alpern found a letter in today’s NYT from the Chief Communications Officer of Kentucky’s Creation Museum. It includes this hilarious statement:

Accepting the Bible as God’s literal truth doesn’t mean that we discount science. It does mean that we interpret scientific evidence from the biblical viewpoint. We evaluate the same evidence as evolutionists, but they interpret it from their viewpoint. Evidence isn’t labeled with dates and facts; we arrive at conclusions about the unobservable past based on our pre-existing beliefs. This exercise also involves reason.

Some evidence, of course, is labeled with dates.

 

Rock contest: food

October 25, 2011 • 5:17 am

One of my college friends and I sometimes pass the time by naming words (e.g., different colors) and asking the other to name a rock song in which each words appear.  The last time we met, while hiking through the English countryside, we did a “food challenge,” naming different comestibles and asking the other to name the song and artist in which that food appears.  Test yourself on these items, naming the song and the artist for each of these items of food or drink.

I’m not offering a prize here (my stocks of WEIT are waning), but if you think you know rock lyrics, these shouldn’t be too hard.  The songs have to be rock songs (e.g., the kind of stuff that would have appeared on a top 40 station); no blues or Frank Sinatra-type pop.   And Googling is cheating, though I’ve tried to make some of these Google-proof.

Hamburger and malt (same song)

Hot dog and french fries (same song)

Coke (the soft drink)

Latte

Cake

Cherry pie

Pumpkin pie

Fudge

Fried chicken

I have landed (and nommed)

October 24, 2011 • 11:00 am

Via Grrlscientists’s site at the Guardian comes this short video of a finch (species unknown by me) landing on a bird feeder.  It’s in slow motion, and shows what aerodynamic skills are required for just a simple landing.

And here’s a video, taken by the same person, of a killer whale great white shark catching what looks to be a penguin:

The video was taken by vurtrunner, whose YouTube channel is here. Check out the videos of a bullet fired through gelatin and a bullet penetrating four balloons.

The videographer’s own site, which is in German, is here, and last August I posted what I think is his/her best video, that of a Eurasian eagle owl, talons fully extended, also coming in for a landing.

Anne Crumpacker’s new website on secular parenting

October 24, 2011 • 10:38 am

If you’re a regular here, you’ll surely remember the story of Mason Crumpacker, the eight-year-old Texas girl who asked Christopher Hitchens to advise her on good books to read. It was a touching story, complete with Mason’s heartfelt thank-you letter to Hitch and a narrative of the episode written by Anne Crumpacker, Mason’s mom.

Inspired by interest in the affair, Anne has just started a new website (some call it “blog”) hoping to turn her daughter’s meeting with Hitchens into something good that could influence more people. It’s SocraticMama.com, and here’s her description of it:

Recently I wrote an essay on how my daughter, Mason Crumpacker, met the author Christopher HItchens, who is battling stage four esophageal cancer.  I think that the reason the post became so popular was that people were moved by Christopher Hitchens’s kindness to Mason and how he took care despite his illness to answer her questions seriously.  Their story inspired me to create an interactive blog site—a place where ideas are judged on merit alone, where questions are explored, and where adults and kids can come together to puzzle about life’s wonders.  I would like to dedicate the site in Mr. Hitchens’s honor.

SocraticMama.com is intended as an fun-loving open forum for secular parents and their children. However, you do not need to have a young child or teen still living at home to participate.  We value the wisdom of grandparents and empty-nesters alike.  Also, we would deeply appreciate any academics or professionals who would like to share about their research as well as graphic artists, filmmakers,  and authors who can help make the site really shine.  Feel free to showcase your work as long as it contributes to the discussion.

Socrates believed that the truth could be discovered by asking questions.

Are you willing to try?

 

 

Can there be evidence for the supernatural?: an interview with Maarten Boudry

October 24, 2011 • 5:40 am

You might recall Belgian philosopher Maarten Boudry, whose work I’ve discussed several times, including his analysis about how one could test for the existence of the supernatural (he agrees with me rather than P.Z. on this issue) as well as his paper (also written with colleagues) philosophically analyzing the intelligent-design idea of “irreducible complexity.”

Yesterday evening the Think Atheist Radio Show had an interview with Boudry that is available at this website. Listeners can also grab the show from the Think Atheist iTunes page.  Here’s the Think Atheist blurb:

Dr. Maarten Boudry:  Dr. Boudry is a philosopher and Doctoral Researcher at Ghent University in Belgium. I first became aware of Dr. Boudry late last year during the extended back and forth between Jerry Coyne, PZ Myers, Sean Carroll and others on the question of whether there could ever be convincing evidence for the existence of God. Dr. Boudry’s work was cited and discussed and made quite an impression. His doctoral dissertation, Here Be Dragons (pdf), recently came across my radar, the reading of which gave me no less of a reason to be impressed. He joined us to talk about whether science can say anything about the supernatural, “irreducible complexity”, and the demarcation between science vs. pseudoscience.

He makes some good points, including the notion that many pseudosciences—and not just religion depend on “supernatural” explanations, and he highlights the problem of defining what is “supernatural.”  It’s well worth listening to, especially if you haven’t read Boudry’s papers.