|
| I have just finished reading Michael Shermer’s Why People Believe Weird Things.
I will write a full review of this book at a later stage. However, what
I found most interesting about the book was Shermer’s discussion on the
characteristics of pseudoscientific and pseudohistoric groups, such as
‘scientific’ creationists, Holocaust deniers and extreme Afrocentrists.
These fringe groups make various claims that are supported by very
little evidence and their beliefs run contrary to common scholarly
views on history and science. Shermer argues that these groups, due to
the lack of evidence for their claims, resort to fallacious modes of
argument in order to advocate their views. These groups share the
following common characteristics:
- They are absolutely certain that they have the truth (pg 206);
- They concentrate on opponent’s weak points, while rarely saying anything definitive about their own position (pg 212);
- They
exploit errors made by scholars who are making opposing arguments,
implying that because a few of their opponents’ conclusions are wrong,
that all of their conclusions must be wrong (pg 212);
- They use quotations taken out of context to buttress their own position (pg 212);
- They
mistake honest, genuine debates between scholars about certain points
within the field for a dispute about the existence of the entire field
(pg 212);
- They focus on what is not known and ignore what is known, emphasize data that fit and discount data that do not fit (pg 212);
- They rely on post hoc rationalisation, after-the-fact-reasoning to justify contrary evidence (pg 216); and
- When the ideas of fringe groups fail to be accepted by mainstream scholars, advocates propagate conspiracy theories. (pg 206).
Anyone familiar with ‘scientific’ creationism – especially the young earth variety – will recognise some of these tactics. | | |
| A Difference of Paradigms...One day at a car show . . .
Seller: Hi there. Here to buy the most technological car in the world, the Mastec Turbo 320i?
Buyer:
Hi! I’m looking for a new car and I’ve heard quite a bit about this
model. Obviously, I have a few questions about the car before I decide
to buy.
S: No problem. You will soon see that this is the
best choice for you. The Mastec Turbo 320i is the latest in motor
engineering. It is the safest vehicle around, providing you with a
sense of security and a great feeling of peace. Its impressive style
and performance will outperform your greatest expectations.
B:
Sounds good! Do you have any test results on performance and safety
features? Any information on fuel consumption? The results of crash
tests, perhaps? I would like to take a look at those.
S: Who
needs tests? To ask for tests is quite narrow minded, don’t you think?
There are other ways to determine if a car is the perfect and safest
model.
B: Such as?
S: Personal experience is one way: drive the car and you will find out; just drive it once, and your eyes will be opened.
B: Okay, let’s take a test drive.
S: Sorry, but you can only drive it once you have bought it.
B: What? That doesn’t make sense. What guarantee do I have that it will actually work?
S: Prove that this car isn’t safe or mechanically sound!
B:
What? But I’m the potential buyer; I don’t need to prove anything. As
the seller, the onus is on you to convince me that your model is worth
driving.
S: You are too skeptical, young man. Take it from me: drive this car, “it is a free gift!”
B:
A free gift? I’ve realised that that is simply an advertising slogan to
attract potential buyers. Even if you give me the car for free, I still
have to pay in terms of time and energy washing it, servicing it, and
fixing it. A car can never be free because it demands some form of
commitment. I have to know exactly what I’m buying before I commit.
Anyway, the small print in your pamphlet says that I will have to pay
10% of my monthly salary for the rest of my life for the vehicle. Where
is the “free” in that?
S: Let’s not worry about costs. Buy
it! You won’t be sorry. If you don’t, you will drive another model with
terrible safety standards, and you will most certainly die a horrible
death in a motor accident. Save yourself from much suffering: buy this car before it’s too late.
B:
So now you use fear in an attempt win me over? Again I ask you: what
guarantee do you have that it will actually work as you claim? You say
a lot, but you have little to back it up.
S: [Sighs]
You just have to trust what I say. You know, we can argue all we want
about mechanical tests and verifiable evidence, but at the end of the
day it all boils down to something called faith. All you need is faith to realise that this car is the only top class vehicle in the world! This is a matter of the heart, not the mind.
B: I’m sorry, but faith is not enough. Thanks for your time, but I’ve decided not to buy the Mastec Turbo 320i. | | |
| On a Lighter Note...It seems as though all of my posts so far have been very serious in nature. I read this today and figured it might be nice to post something of a much lighter note. Read, enjoy, and please feel free to leave comments even though I didn't write it.
Phil Osopher and Larry Logic went camping. After they got their tent all set up, both men fell sound asleep.
Some hours later, Logic wakes Phil and says, "Look toward the sky, my friend. What do you see?"
Phil replies, "I see millions of stars."
"What does that tell you?" asked Logic.
Phil
Osopher ponders for a minute then says, "Astronomically speaking, it
tells me there are millions of galaxies and potentially billions of
planets. Astrologically, it tells me that Saturn is in Leo. Time wise,
it appears to be approximately a quarter past three in the morning.
Theologically, the Lord is all-powerful and we are small and
insignificant. Meteorologically, it seems we will have a beautiful day
tomorrow. What's it tell you, friend?"
"Someone stole our tent."
| | |
| The Final Prayer...A struggling Christian kneels . . .
Dear God
I
still often wonder if you are out there. I remember that I often used
to look up at the stars at night and stare at the breath-taking wonder
of the universe, and I just knew, deep down inside, that you existed. I
remember the times I used to speak to you, and some of those times I
really thought I felt your presence, and I just knew, deep down inside,
that you were there.
But I’m sorry to say that I’m not so
certain anymore. I have learned that, on its own, just knowing that
something is true, deep down inside, does not mean that it is. I will
keep on searching, but I also need you to do your part. If you do
exist, and if you are a God who wants to have a personal relationship
with me, I want you to let me know. But God, I do not want you to
appeal to my heart - I need you to appeal to my mind first.
I
hope that one day I will join you again, and be certain that our
relationship is true. I hope that I will be able to find you. But until
then, this will be my final prayer. I hope for, and look forward to,
your response.
Amen
an ex-Christian stands up . . . | | |
| Question
Why don’t you believe in the Resurrection?
Answer
In my blog yesterday, Consistency of Thought, I wrote that one of the main reasons why I left Christianity was because, as a Christian, I was using double standards when deciding what to believe. When I was a Christian, I would laugh at someone who might claim that they heard a dog speaking English. Why? Well, the idea of a talking dog is inconsistent with daily experience and our current knowledge of canine anatomy. But, as a Christian, I was more than willing to believe a four thousand year old story that a donkey once spoke.
Incredible claims require very good evidence, so as a Christian I would not believe the talking dog story if very good evidence was not presented. But, at the same time I fully accepted the Bible’s account of a talking donkey without any evidence at all. Can you see the inconsistency here? On leaving Christianity, I was free to use the same set of standards to evaluate various claims. As a result, I no longer believe the talking donkey account described in Numbers 22:28-30, just as I would not believe the hypothetical claim of a talking canine.
I approach the claim of Jesus’ Resurrection in the same way. The idea of a person bodily rising from the dead after three days is so alien to our daily experience of death and so counter to what we currently know about the human body, it’s only rational to be skeptical of such a claim unless very, very good evidence were presented. Is there good evidence? Consider the following: (1) we have no independent, non-Christian records of the Resurrection from the time of the event; (2) the accounts were written in an age of wonder and superstition, when stories of resurrected ‘god men’ were quite common, (3) when you work through gospels in the order in which they were written, the accounts of the Resurrection become more incredible and fabulous – indicating legendary development; and (4) there is evidence that the gospels were tampered with years after they were written (consider the late insertion of Mark 16:9-20).
In his article on the Resurrection, the historian Richard Carrier presents the following scenario:
“Can you imagine a movement today claiming that a soldier in World War Two rose physically from the dead, but when you asked for proof all they offered you were a mere handful of anonymous religious tracts written in the 1980's? Would it be even remotely reasonable to believe such a thing on so feeble a proof?”
Imagine if such a movement existed. If you are a Christian, and you ask me why I don’t believe in the Resurrection, I would turn the question around and ask if you believe the claim that the World War Two soldier rose from the grave? If you think you would answer no, think about why you wouldn’t believe that claim, and you will then understand why I don’t believe that Jesus rose from the dead.
Additional reading
1) Jeff Lowder provides a good overview of both sides of the Resurrection debate.
2) Apologist William Lane Craig argues that the Resurrection is a historical fact.
3) Historian Richard Carrier argues why he doesn't buy the Resurrection story.
| | |
|
