Ok, where do I sign up?

Ok so I’m stealing this directly from Phil Plait’s latest post so no points for originality here. But I just love this idea.

 

art from "S.H.O.O.T First" by Ben Bates

 

S.H.O.O.T. are basically militant atheists, tasked with hunting down supernatural creatures, especially those of religious significance, that they don’t even believe in….every time you read a comic about someone fighting the supernatural, they’re really doing it on the supernatural’s own terms. If you’re fighting a vampire, you bring stakes and holy water – that kind of thing. I don’t think there’s ever been a team like “S.H.O.O.T.” that basically thinks it’s all bunk, and just goes after any threat with science and bullets, and scientific bullets.

 

Scientific Bullets?!? AWESOME.

 

That said this does raise some interesting questions in my mind. Right there in the description of what this new comic is all about is the implication that atheists wouldn’t believe in something supernatural even as they were fillings its non-corporeal arse with scientific lead. This is an argument that often comes up when dealing with proponents of the supernatural, that atheists and skeptics are simply closed minded to the existence of supernatural powers and would thus dismiss any evidence that supported it…apparently even as they engage in a face to face, life to death fight with it!

 

To me this is a truly ridiculous idea. I for one know exactly what it would take to get me to believe in any supernatural claim. Evidence, good, honest to Darwin, stone cold solid evidence.* Show me high quality, scientific evidence that vampires exist and, no matter how incredulous that idea may be right now, I would accept it. The same goes any other supernatural claim, including those made by the various world religions.

 

I am not closed to the idea of the supernatural and certainly not to the point that I would reject it even as I bust a cap in its face. But you need to give me something here people if you wish me to take your claims seriously. I would love the supernatural to be real, I really would, but I am not just going to take someone’s word for it. You want me to believe you? Then show me the evidence.

 

* Though I guess technically if you presented evidence for the supernatural then it would no longer be supernatural but rather simply yet more natural. Hmmmm.

Countering “The Narrative”

A recurring phenomenon in the spate of Islamic terror attacks has been that the perpetrators are often citizens who turn on their own countries. Mjr. Hasan’s attack on Ft. Hood in America being a prime example. A recent 60 minutes documentary purports to explain how peaceful Muslims can be turned into fanatical extremists willing to engage in suicide attacks on the very countries they live in.

Recruiters for these fundamentalist Islamic organisations rely on ‘the narrative’, a collection of stories, conspiracy theories, propaganda, and outright lies that claims the USA and the rest of Western civilisation is trying to eradicate Islam. This set of stories has been propagating wildly since the terrorist attack on the World Trade Centre and appeals not to the poor and needy, but to prosperous and educated citizens who make foreign countries their home. Consider Mohamed Atta, the leader of the WTC attacks and educated at universities in Cairo and Hamburg. Mohammad Sidique Khan, leader of the London metro attacks, educated at Leeds University and prior to the attack was holding down a steady job. Or the would-be Times Square bomber, Faisal Shahzad. He holds double degrees from American universities, had a good job, a wife, and a nice house in the suburbs. These are the faces of Islamic terrorism in the West.

Even though there are many instances of Western governments defending or supporting Muslims in Bosnia, Somalia, Kuwait, Pakistan and Indonesia (disaster relief), Iraq and Afghanistan (overthrowing tyrannies) belief in the narrative remains strong. This set of beliefs is also being successfully exported to Western countries, with tragic results. Hatred of those who kill Muslims is encouraged yet, despite the fact that deliberate suicide bombings by Al-Qaeda kill more Muslims than drone attacks by American forces, adherents to the narrative still direct their hatred towards the West and their support towards terrorist organisations. The narrative includes the idea that the US government actually encouraged Al-Qaeda to carry out the attack on the WTC as a justification to invade Afghanistan – these fundamentalist Muslims are apparently 9/11 truthers.

Funded by the oil revenues of the Arab states, political Islamism is attempting to spread itself across the globe by going to war with any opposition. Having seized control of many regimes in the Muslim world, Islamists are enlarging the area they control. Conflicts between Muslims and other local populations in Russia, Indonesia, India, North Africa, Europe, and the USA show they have been extremely successful in spreading their ideology and bringing the fight to us. According to Maajid Nawaz (a former Islamic radical) of the Quilliam Foundation, countering the narrative is the most important aspect to preventing the spread of Islamism. I would add that moving away from an oil-based economy and ending the cozy relationship with Saudi leaders would also help by cutting off the economic backing of this dangerous, and deadly, movement.

Atheist fundamentalism?

Fundamentalism. Not a word I ever expected to hear in connection with atheism, other than by those who don’t know any better or by those who do know better but wish to be provocative. Atheism can’t lead to fundamentalism as it has no doctrine. Atheism has no principles, no practices, no rituals and no dogma. It is simply the absense of theistic belief.

Unfortunately I have now revised my opinion, I think it is now correct to refer to atheist fundamentalism. It might not be strictly accurate, all the above applies, but I do think it is descriptive. I say this in light of a video I have just watched from Coughlan666. I’m not generally a Coughlan fan, his videos are not my cup of tea and I am not subbed to him. In fact I stumbled across his blogtv on one occasion and got booted out by him. So, credentials established, I’m not a Coughlan groupie.

In the video Coughlan reads out a number of messages he has received from atheists since he posted this video attacking Pat Condell, and quite frankly it’s disgusting. I’ll just quote a couple:
Continue reading Atheist fundamentalism?

What would you say?

Following on from AndromedasWake’s excellent post the other day and my own recent research/thinking on the issue of teaching skepticism I have found myself thinking a lot about science knowledge and the general public. As I am sure you are all way too painfully aware when it comes to good scientific understanding the general public have something of an antagonistic relationship with reality.

 

For every person who applies good skeptical thinking and basic scientific understanding in their everyday lives there are at least three people who religiously check their horoscopes on the way to visit their local homeopath. In the recent election for example I discovered that my local MP supported making homeopathy available on the NHS and one of the smaller parties had climate change denialism as part of its manifesto. Something is seriously wrong with that.

 

So what can we, as hardened and, if I may say so, devilishly attractive skeptics, do about it? How can we help to make the general public more skeptical and more science literate? Well I am sorry to say that I don’t have an answer. I’ve been trying to do my small part by working on a “beginners guide” style book about skepticism but it is not as though that has never been done before. As such my thoughts have recently turned to smaller things, which brings me to the point of this post. I have a question for you.

 

If you could give one bit of advice, drop one bit of knowledge or just make one suggestion to the general public or someone new to skepticism then what would it be?*

 

Maybe we can’t influence the world as a whole, but perhaps we can start sowing little seeds of logical and rational thinking. I like to think of this as bulletpoint skepticism. Little catchy easy to remember pieces of information that can change the way people thing. For example simply knowing about something like pareidolia makes it less likely that you will be convinced that you’re really are seeing the virgin Mary in your breakfast cereal.

 

Anyway it is just an idea that I had, not sure if it is a good one or not or even if I have explained it at all well, but I look forward to seeing what you guys come up with. Plus I haven’t posted anything in ages and felt that I really should put something up. All these newbies are starting to make me look bad. 😉

 

* Be warned, if you come up with something great I am so stealing it for my book.

My Letter To William Lane Craig @ Reasonablefaith.com

No good can come from not having the heart to write a blog, and for this reason I found myself plundering my hard drive for material that might sort of work.

Fortunately, anything relating to WLC – the lord of untruth – is worth a gander. I, along with Theo Warner and AndromedasWake and others, have recently been the bemused victims of our very own Craig fantroll; I would link but the nugatory traffic that such an action would result in seems too generous.”Victim” is, of course, subjective. Being a victim implies some sort of damage or loss, and I can detect neither, though in reality I say this only to numb the hurts. The trolling typically takes the form of either a) a short out of context clip of a video titled to inspire ridicule or b) a marginally longer but still often out of context clip of a video conjoined with a longer clip of William Craig apparently schooling us. I’m informed that Theo is reduced to a shambling mass of jelly by this stern treatment; AndromedasWake has resorted to watching videos of cats falling into boxes in order to counteract the vicious pwn, and as for myself . . . well, I’m eating a lot of chocolate and weeping into net curtains. We are pain. Continue reading My Letter To William Lane Craig @ Reasonablefaith.com

Don’t forget ‘Climategate’

So, that damn volcano is at it again, David Cameron has been elected Britain’s smuggest man, and the World Cup is only one month away. Does anyone remember what was going on before all this highly distracting news materialised?

When travelling from Heathrow to central London last week upon my return to the UK, I picked up a couple of papers to catch up on the happenings of the prior six weeks. Amongst everything, the article that interested me most was actually in the Metro (for all you non-Londoners, it’s hardly a diamond mine of current affairs commentary, sort of the written version of MSN News). It was about the call of 255 National Academy of Science members (including 11 Nobel laureates) to end the media persecution of climate science. Remember how countless news organisations (…and Fox) reported the deliberate distortion of data, supposedly revealed in private emails leaked from the Climate Research Unit? Remember how a modicum of actual research revealed that the entire controversy boiled down to nothing but misunderstandings and desperate lies by deniers of anthropogenic global warming? Well, 255 scientists recently signed a letter to Science expressing their concern at how these lies damage the reputation of science in the public eye. The letter, which can be read here, should in my opinion be propagated far and wide, and I am somewhat disappointed that many papers only quoted the odd word from it, rather than reproducing it in full. As such, I am placing a copy in this post to display my support.

Continue reading Don’t forget ‘Climategate’

Science vs. Religion

A sociological survey by Prof. Elaine Howard Ecklund of Rice University has asked a sample of 1,700 scientists from top tier American universities about their view on religion. Perhaps surprisingly, a large proportion (50%) did claim a religious identity. The scientists in this survey were less religious than the general population, 52% said they had no religious affiliation compared with only 14% of the American population. A greater majority (65%) say they are interested in matters of spirituality. Ecklund has recently published a book discussing her research called, Science vs Religion: What Scientists Really Think.

Around 300 of these scientists (both religious and non-religious) were followed up in more in-depth interviews. Many scientists had the view that religion was not a topic for discussion amongst their colleagues and chose to keep their faith hidden. Others had unorthodox views of religion – not believing in God while still identifying as a catholic, for example. Only 2% identified their beliefs as ‘fundamental’ or ‘evangelical’. The best news was that none of the interviewees though intelligent design (creationism) should be taught in classrooms.

Interestingly, the results of this survey indicate that learning about science does not seem to cause people to lose their religious beliefs. Most of these scientists had already come to their religious point of view before engaging into higher education. The biggest predictor of a scientist’s religion (or lack thereof) was still the religion of their parents.

I think this survey has revealed some heartening information about the scientific community (at least in USA). Scientists that are also religious already understand the tensions between science and faith, and how to resolve them. These religious scientists are also more likely to be accepted into faith-based communities and have the best chance of imparting good scientific information. As long as they are not to scared to ‘come out’ to their colleagues, there is a great opportunity for some useful dialogue in the science vs. religion debate.

Ecklund, Elaine and Christopher Scheitle 2007. ‘Religion Among Academic Scientists: Distinctions, Disciplines, and Demographics.’ Social Problems 54: 289-307.

They’ll let anyone do this: Introducing Squawk

Greetings to the League of Reason.

For better or for worse I have been installed as a member of the blogging team. Many of you will be familiar with my posts on the boards, though to date my more significant contribution has been in the live chat.  With this additional role on the blog I hope to stimulate discussion on a variety of topics of interest to members of the league.

But what to do with this first post? Not an easy question to answer, so I suppose I ought to introduce myself to those who have not had reason to interact with me to date. I’m from the UK and was raised as a Catholic in accordance with my Mothers religious belief. I attended faith schools from the age of 4 until 18, one Church of England, the others Catholic. My religiosity throughout that time was inversely proportional to my ability to think critically and my exposure to new information.

Continue reading They’ll let anyone do this: Introducing Squawk

what is this i don’t even

Paul Chambers, a 26 year-old man from Doncaster has been found guilty of posting an “indecent, obscene or menacing” tweet. Yes, a tweet, on Twitter. In his own words, the tweet was “innocuous hyperbole”. In other words, not harmful, offensive or meant to be taken seriously. Reading the tweet, I can certainly see that. Judge for yourselves:

Crap! Robin Hood Airport is closed. You’ve got a week… otherwise I’m blowing the airport sky high!

Note that this was posted in the context of the airport being closed before he was due to fly. It was not actually directed at the airport, but when found by an employee was reported to the police, who arrested him. He has been fined£1,000 and now has a criminal record. Ever the gentleman, Stephen Fry has offered to shout the fine, but the man’s life will almost certainly take an unnecessary dent* from this fiasco and I can’t help but wonder how the average British tax-payer feels, knowing how the justice budget is being spent.

I found the Judge’s words to be the most staggering part of the story:

A district judge ruled the Tweet was “of a menacing nature in the context of the times in which we live”.

Tell me, what isn’t menacing in the context of the times in which we live? Have we really made so little progress in our efforts to combat terrorism over the last decade? What good is an expensive ‘War on Terror’ abroad if we still live in terror at our computers?

More painful though, is the ironic reference to context. Since, in the context of the times in which we live, isn’t this OBVIOUSLY a joke?

Apparently not.

Click here to follow this news on Twitter.

*Update: It seems Paul was half-way through his accountancy qualification. The conviction will officially prevent him from graduating. That makes me a sad panda.

If Men Look At My Wife The Universe Will Fold In On Itself

Seen this? A few days late with it, but I’m blithely unconcerned.

A Muslim woman has been fined for wearing a burka in a post office in Novara, Italy, after the mayor passed a law forbidding face-covering garb inside public buildings. Mayor Massimo Giordano could maybe be described as an Islamophobe, but as far as I’m concerned that’s like calling someone a murderophobe or a rapistophobe. It’s entirely rational to dislike or fear Islam, which makes it not a phobia but a very sensible intellectual stance.

Continue reading If Men Look At My Wife The Universe Will Fold In On Itself