The Amazing Meeting 6 is now less than two weeks away. Is anyone out there planning to attend? Speak up here! Is anybody interested in getting together for a BoF meetup at some point during that weekend? My time there is limited to Thursday night through Saturday night. I won’t be attending any of the optional shows, so my evenings will be open. Maybe if there are other blog groups that are getting together, we can merge our parties into a group of four!

The latest Skeptics’ Circle is up over at Andrea’s Buzzing About. There are a lot of good articles on a variety of topics.

One that I found enlightening was Seth Manapio’s analysis of Mein Kampf, in which he looks for evidence that Hitler was taking his marching orders directly from Darwin. Scandalous!

I don’t have time for a real post today, so I thought I’d steal something from elsewhere. I was reading the comments to the Bad Astronomy article on the 50th anniversary of the Explorer 1 satellite. Phil battles purveyors of crackpot ideas all the time, but especially those about space (killer asteroids, moon hoaxers, etc.). A reader named Kate speculated on the similarity in thinking between space crackpots and fundies:

It seems that the groups mentioned above have a hard time understanding that science is a process and not a doctrine, belief or “text”. Science is a tool you use to find out about the world around you and it is an ongoing process.

Why is it so difficult to understand that refinements in technology and the greater knowledge we gather with these refinements will, over time, expand our understanding of the universe and that old theories may, at times, fall by the wayside, but that our understanding of the fundamental processes that define the basis of scientific knowledge are strengthened by this “weeding out” process?

What I found interesting was the reply of a reader named Pat. He believes that these people need a structured world, whether that is imposed by religion or aliens:

It is the only kind of worldview some people understand, particularly those with control issues. They need a firm etiology, and since science can’t provide one they either adopt one or create one. It’s the very fluidity of scientific explanation that makes it unpalatable. It is much more comforting to say “X knows” or “I know” rather than “we don’t know.”

Attributing purpose and cause is a normal human response: it’s how we learn correct social behavior through punishment and reward. Punishment is a dominance behavior, and because of this it is in our behavior to assume a punisher, or dominant individual, for events that are adverse.

Assuming an event is simply chance or accident is a behavior that is not very natural. Ignoring a “warning” from a dominant individual is antisocial. So, assuming an event is random and otherwise simply coincidence is an aberrant, antisocial behavior.

I’ve long maintained that fundies need a simplistic structure to their world, with God acting as father and punisher.

Pat followed up a bit later with this comment:

Okay : ) - I guess not everybody shares my genuine fascination with this phenomenon. I don’t attribute it to a weakness of character or a lack of intelligence. If anything, the reason it is so widespread is because it is a “normal” behavior, like hatred of the outsider, and it might be that the only way to counter it is to understand it in depth and where its source lies.

Education appears to be the only tonic that works to remedy this, so it would seem to be better to go after intolerance of education ahead of focusing on attacking logically weak accepted conventions. Currently, there is perceived nobility in lacking education, and this needs to be crushed rather deliberately. People once educated in critical thinking are much less vulnerable to fallacies of magical thinking.

I would love to attribute it to a weakness of character or a lack of intelligence, but I fear he may be right. This is how we’re wired. We can rise above it, but the normal or default state is to believe in monsters. That’s also why education is so important, and we can’t let it be corrupted by IDers.

The latest Carnival of the Godless is up at Axis of Jared, and it’s an especially good one! When I let you know about these, I like to point out at least one good post that you should read, in case you don’t have time for them all. There are just too many good posts this week. Here are my favorites. Consider reading at least these.

Let’s start off with something fun. Polite Company has a hilarious script showing what happened when God got Mary “in trouble”. And he didn’t even have the decency to make an honest woman of her! You should consider performing this play at your next church event.

The next two are philosophical. The Barefoot Bum talks about what “The New Atheism” is really about. He says:

The New Atheism is anti-religion. Not because religion is always bad, or because everything bad comes from religion, but you can use religion to “prove” anything, good, bad or indifferent. It denies and actively erodes the skepticism and criticality that is each person’s only fundamental protection against being exploited and oppressed by lies and bullshit.
…
But, bad as religion is, it cannot be eliminated by force. Religion is, in a sense, self-slavery, and you cannot free a person who has enslaved himself.

Martin Wagner, at The Atheist Experience, has a profound insight into religion’s hold on people, in his article “Is faux-intellectualism part of religion’s appeal?” This might explain the behavior of one of our recent prolific commenters:

It would seem that, to a least a percentage of its followers, Christianity appeals because it provides them with a vehicle for intellectual poseurdom. Without anything in the way of scientific education or expertise behind them, creationists are unique among cranks in the perverse confidence with which they lash themselves to the mast of their stale and long-debunked claims. They’ll confidently and even condescendingly inform experts with Ph.D’s and 25 years of field work that there is no evidence at all to support what is probably the best-supported theory in all science. This goes beyond mere stupidity or even run-of-the-mill ideological denialism into a bold and deliberate repudiation of knowledge and even reality itself.

Speaking of our recent troll, Shalini tells people like him “For what seems like the millionth time, I am *not* a Darwinist”. Here’s just one pithy excerpt:

A lot of Darwin’s ideas are outdated and plain wrong. Therefore, when the ID-iots trumpet their silly list of ‘scientists who are skeptical of Darwinism’, it is clear that they are either liars or people who have no clue about what they are attempting to argue against.

The last article I want to call your attention to is not part of the Carnival. While I was over at Shuffl reading his Carnival entry, I found an even better article: “If Religions Made Bras”. For example:

Fundamentalist Christian “Original Sin Bra” “The Fall” came when Eve ate the apple and so there isn’t anything to be done about it since bosoms are evil, evil, wicked, satanic, vile, and against biblical family values, but our bra is richly padded and embroidered with biblical passages to make you look more upright and smug and yet pleasing to the eyes of the men God has sent to bless your life.

ID Bra
1 One size fits all creationists. (from Frank J.)

2 It supports nothing, but does a pretty good job of covering it up. (from Jim Lovejoy)

3 It provides no support and comes in two sizes: myth and misses! (from Homer Sapiens).

4 Actually you can order it, but it falls apart on examination. (from Walter Bushell)

What? No Duggar Family bra?

Lastly, for your entertainment pleasure, I present the ID Creationist Bingo card. Use it the next time an ID-iot leaves a comment here. I had to shrink it to get it to fit within my margins. You can find the easier-to-read original over at Skeptico. This was suggested by one of the commenters to Shalini’s post.

Carnival of the Godless #78 is up over at Greta Christina’s Blog.

I haven’t finished checking out all of the articles yet, but I want to draw your attention immediately to the very first one: “16 Techniques of Critical Thinking” over at Lukeprog. It’s one of the best posts I’ve read in a while. Critical thinking is one of the most important skills we can have in this confusing age we live in, yet it’s apparently one of the rarest skills, considering how many people believe in UFOs, astrology, homeopathy, chiropractic, Sylvia Browne, Uri Geller, and creationism.

Here’s the short version of his 16 techniques:

1. Clarify
2. Be accurate
3. Be precise
4. Be relevant
5. Know your purpose
6. Identify assumptions
7. Check your emotions
8. Empathize
9. Know your own ignorance
10. Be independent
11. Think through implications
12. Know your own biases
13. Suspend judgment
14. Consider the opposition
15. Recognize cultural assumptions
16. Be fair, not selfish

Go on over and read the whole article. It explains each of these points in detail. When you’re done with that, go check out the rest of the Carnival of the Godless.

Thanks to Bad Astronomy for alerting me to the cartoons of Cectic (I still haven’t figured out how to pronounce that). Here’s one of my favorites:

They’ve pretty much run out of any other arguments.

Go over to Cectic’s site and read the rest.

A couple of recent comments over on my AIG Research Paper Winner article were about Bible prophecy. I thought it would be a good idea to expand that a bit into its own article.

Reader Tara states:

One thing that bewilders the human mind is the ability to foretell the future. God has that ability. I would strongly suggest studying Bible prophecy. This subject is not something many like to hear about because the fact is, IT IS PROOF that God exists.

I responded to her assertion with:

No. It is merely proof that somebody can go into the Bible after the fact and data mine for sentences that they like and twist and conform the “evidence” into whatever shape they want.

Most people who believe in Bible prophecy do not believe in the prophecies of Nostradamus, but they are effectively identical. In both cases, supporters take ambiguous statements and pair them with ambiguous historical events and say it’s a match.

If you disbelieve Nostradamus, you must disbelieve Bible prophecy for the exact same reason!

Tara’s only response to this was:

As far as Nastradamus [sic] is concerned; he was proven to be a hoax long ago. Actually, he took some prophecies from the Bible and claimed they were from him.

To be fair, the exchange was mostly about other issues raised in the article. The Bible prophecy stuff was more of a side argument. She was probably more interested in the main debate, which is why she didn’t address my prophecy points too thoroughly.

Let’s look at the one point she did mention. I had said:

If you disbelieve Nostradamus, you must disbelieve Bible prophecy for the exact same reason!

To which she replied:

As far as Nastradamus [sic] is concerned; he was proven to be a hoax long ago.

I guess she’s saying that she rejects my premise. OK. But why? The only difference that I can see is that the Bible is a “holy book” and “the word of God”, whereas Nostradamus was just a charlatan.

But what facts are there that the Bible is a “holy book” and “the word of God”?

None.

Now that we’ve established that, let’s compare Bible prophecy with Nostradamus’ prophecies. Their credibility and accuracy are identical (Credibility: none. Accuracy: poor). As I said above, the only way either book looks accurate is because their supporters went in after the fact and bent historical events around vague statements.

Since both texts are equally bogus, you must reject both as oracles.

As further proof that both books are bogus, answer this question:
Why have there been no accurate and specific predictions derived from either book before the fact?

There is a cottage industry of people making claims that the Bible says that XYZ will happen on a certain date. Remember Y2K? Some of those were Biblical predictions. Nothing happened. Numerous Christian sects are based on Bible prophecy, such as the 7th Day Adventists and the Jehovah’s Witnesses. Both organizations made very specific predictions about when the world would end. When it didn’t, they both made new predictions. When those didn’t happen, they tried again, etc.

If the Bible is so prophetic, then why can’t it be used as prophecy? I’ll tell you: It’s because people are going in after the fact, cherry picking data, and molding it around vague, ambiguous Biblical statements.

Internet Infidels

I did a quick Google search, and I came across a good thread at the Internet Infidels Discussion Board. A reader wants to know how to assess a claim of Biblical prophecy. Another reader writes:

There are several criteria for claiming prophecy fulfillment. Farrell Till has outlined them numerous times before. Here are five of them:

1. It must be shown that the event predicted actually occurred.

2. It must be shown that the prophecy was made prior to the event predicted.

3. The event must be far enough in advance to eliminate guesswork. I could predict we will send a manned mission to Mars, but such an educated guess would hardly be prophetic.

4. The prophecy must be specific. If claiming prophecy fulfillment requires “correct interpretation” of vague statements, it isn’t prophecy fulfillment.

5. The prophecy cannot be easily self-fulfilled.

That same reader added this in a later post:

I thought of the 6th criteria: The prophecy can’t be overly general or about things that occur all of the time. E.g., general predictions about earthquakes, famine, and pestilence fall into this category of non-prophecies.

So there you have it. Six excellent criteria for assessing any prediction, no matter the source.

Farrell Till and Biblical Inerrancy

This Farrell Till fellow seems quite astute, so I went in search of his website. He publishes The Skeptical Review. It has a FAQ (Frequently Asinine Questions). Here are a few excerpts:

Who is Farrell Till?

Farrell Till is a well-known voice in the battle against the absurd doctrine of biblical inerrancy. A Church of Christ minister and evangelist and now an atheist, Till’s speciality is disproving that any prophecy in the Bible has ever been fulfilled in all of its details. In other words, Till holds and proves that the Judeo-Christian Bible contains 100% false prophecy. [emphasis added]

What the hell is “inerrancy,” anyway?

It’s the belief that the Judeo-Christian Bible is free of all errors or contradictions in matters of science, geology, theology, cosmology, or anything else you’d care to name. Yeah, we know what you’re thinking: “How pathetic.” But it’s hard to maintain power and control over “the faithful” if the pastor concedes that the Bible is shot full of errors (which it is), and that’s what the inerrancy doctrine is all about: power and control.

Some “inerrantists” believe that the as-is Bible — the one that you bought at Wal-Mart this morning — is 100% free of any errors whatsoever. There are other inerrantists who hold that the King James Version (KJV) of the Bible is 100% free of errors, but not any other versions of the Bible. And then there’s a THIRD crowd of “inerrantists” who believe that the inerrancy doctrine applies to only the “original autographs” (manuscripts) of the Bible’s books, but it doesn’t necessarily apply to any contemporary copy of the Bible. Since there is no such thing as an “original autograph” of any of the Bible’s books, this third group of inerrantists is little more than a bunch of weasels. The have-your-cake-and-eat-it-too crowd, if you will.

Logical Fallacies

The best part of the FAQ deals with three of the most common logical fallacies:

Each time that a Christian or Jew comes along and joins this email list, they almost always engage in at least three of the many dozens of logical fallacies, namely:
• special pleading,
• question begging, and
• arguing by assertion.

SPECIAL PLEADING
My playing field needs to be superior to yours

You insist that we accord to the Bible a special status as the “inspired Word of God,” thus granting it an exemption from logic, reason, human experience, history, contrary evidence, textual analysis, and every other tool that humans use to separate fact from fiction. If the Bible claims that Jesus rose from the dead, then, by George, we’re obligated to accept that as a historical fact.

QUESTION BEGGING
Let’s reason in circles

You insist that the Bible is the “inspired Word of God,” and you know this because the Bible says of itself that it’s the “inspired Word of God,” and you know the statement is true because “God never lies,” and you know “God never lies” because he says of himself in the Bible that he “never lies,” and you know that God must have ACTUALLY SAID THIS because the Bible is the “inspired Word of God,” and you know this because the Bible says of itself that it’s the “inspired Word of God,” and…

ARGUING BY ASSERTION
It’s true because I say so

You claim that the Bible is the “inspired Word of God,” and you insist that we accept this because you said it.

Now tell me that the fundies don’t use all three of these (usually simultaneously!).

The 68th Skeptics’ Circle is up now over at Aardvarchaeology.

One of the posts that caught my eye was Greta Christina’s A Self-Referential Game of Twister: What Religion Looks Like From the Outside. Here’s just one excerpt:

Science has a built-in self-correcting mechanism; religion has the opposite, a built-in self-perpetuating mechanism that actively resists correction.

I also read an article about spiritualist camps over at the Bad Idea Blog, but what really caught my eye was a different article on that site. It turns out that the Virgin Mary appears on a garage door in Pennsylvania every evening!

If you bathe in the oil puddle on the garage floor, will all of your ailments be cured?