Randal Rauser is Absurd

http://www.christianpost.com/blogs/tentativeapologist/2010/04/belief-in-god-vs-belief-in-pink-unicorns-yawn-28/

Randal Rauser finds the Invisible Pink Unicorn and Flying Spaghetti Monster arguments to be boring and absurd:

“So here's the first point which will be highlighted with italics to showcase its profundity: Invisible pink unicorns and flying spaghetti monsters are absurd because they are arbitrary relative to the data sets available to all known epistemic communities. Sorry my atheist friends but a "duh" is in order here. Don't you get that?”

What these data sets are we don’t know. Rauser doesn’t find it necessary to provide data. Perhaps he knows deep down that providing data on the talking snake and the virgin birth is impossible because it doesn’t exist, similar to data for the Invisible Pink Unicorn or the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Of course, we don’t have data to disprove any of those ideas so they are all equal in credibility.

Wrong but Friendly

http://www.newsreview.com/sacramento/content?oid=1413226

Ron Vanderwell explains his doubts over the atheist position but he does it in such a friendly manner. Therefore, I apologize in advance if it seems as though I’m kicking too hard:

“But I’ve got to respect people who are committed to that faith. It’s inspiring to watch someone stake everything on something they can’t prove. It’s pretty ballsy, actually.

Most atheists would never brag about it, of course—which I respect—but theirs really is a gutsy kind of faith. After all, how could anybody ever prove that God wasn’t there?”

I can turn that statement right around and ask Vanderwell how he plans to prove God’s existence? I guess the debate between theism and atheism is simply one of ballsiness?

“Throughout history, people have always bought into the idea that someone “bigger” was in charge. Granted, we could never quite agree on just who or what that bigger-than-us entity was (think of the Crusades, for instance). But whatever brand name people might choose, everyone agreed that there was someone or something. This works for me. I look up at the night stars at Emigrant Gap, and those galaxies sure don’t look like an accident. Seems like it’d be hard to be an atheist outdoors.”

Sure, the idea that someone “bigger” is in charge works for Vanderwell and many others but, that doesn’t make them right. When I look at the galaxies I don’t think, “Wow they look like an accident”. First off, basing an idea on how something looks is bad science. Second, I think, “Isn’t it amazing that the laws of nature of created such beauty? Of course, that’s what we perceive from here on Earth. The reality is that there is so much chaos in this universe.”

“During recent centuries, some academics have concluded that those stars are really just accidents. Evolution, it’s called.”

Stars have nothing to do with evolution, moving on.

“Maybe I’m too uptight about the whole science thing. But think about it: The best science of the day produced the flat Earth theory.”

We can thank the Bible for giving us the flat Earth theory.

“Then, later, the better science of the day produced the round Earth theory. (Note: At press time, the Earth was still round.)”

The nature of science is that if you find evidence that debunks the current theory and provides you with a new theory, you go with the better theory.

“How does it feel to be such a minority? How do you shore up your faith on the days when you suspect that maybe you were put here for a reason?”

At times being an atheist can be frustrating. Mostly when listening to fundamentalists who are just plain wrong. Of course, I often say that theists shouldn’t be offended because faith is a choice, they choose to be offended. It works the same way for us atheists. We have to expect that not everyone will hold our position of non-belief. Vanderwell’s ideas are wrong but he comes off as friendly when expressing his views. He fits into that group of theists who you wouldn’t mind having a discussion with. Do I think I’m here for a reason? Well, on a purely biological level I’m here to eat, sleep and, mate. As for being put here. I wasn’t “put” here by any sort of higher power but, I am here and while I’m here I might as well make the most of it.

Pron!

http://www.catholic.net/index.php?option=zenit&id=28996

PORN!

Now that I have your attention, let’s talk about porn, the latest thing to be blamed by the Catholic Church for their problems.

“"That Catholic priests and members of religious orders are among the worst abusers fills all Catholics, including myself, with horror and disgust," he said.

The prelate pointed out that "it is not just a Church problem, here or overseas."

He explained, "The relentless pornification of parts of the culture, and the push for sexual 'liberation,' which at its extremes wants pedophilia accepted as just another sexual preference, are also part of the problem.”

I’m sure if you were to talk to the average consumer of adult entertainment, of which I’m positive there are many. You’d find strong condemnation for all forms of pedophilia. In this Cardinal’s world however, the desire for some people to explore their sexuality in a safe manner is what causes priests to rape children. What a jack-off.

Defending Our Position

http://www.philosophynow.org/issue78/78antony.htm

Michael Antony argues against atheism:

“The question I wish to ask is this: How can the New Atheists employ evidentialist principles to argue that religious belief is irrational if they are unwilling to apply those same principles to atheism? If the New Atheists’ atheism is not evidence-based, as Hitchens implies in the above quotation, doesn’t evidentialism entail that atheism is itself irrational or epistemically unjustified? The answer is ‘Yes’; at least if evidentialism is interpreted in the standard way. So it appears that the New Atheists need some fix for evidentialism – a kind of ‘theoretical plug-in’ – which legitimizes their atheism in the absence of evidence.”

This is a response to Hitchens statement that “what can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence.” While this statement does simplify the issue it does have an air of truth to it. Atheists are constantly asked to give evidence to disprove god but often aren’t given arguments outside of “The Bible says so”. Sure there are better thought out arguments at which point presenting evidence or lack thereof becomes necessary. Atheism is “not evidence-based” in the sense that we base our lack of belief on the absence of evidence.

He wants to put the burden of proof in the lap of the atheists. I wonder exactly how we are supposed to prove our disbelief in something non-existent.

Person 1: I don’t believe in pink elephants because of a lack of evidence
Person 2: Prove that this lack of evidence exists, otherwise you are being irrational
Person 1: *Puzzled stare*

Now you see the problem with this idea that atheists have to prove their disbelief in god. Theists however, need to prove their god exists. Let’s look at Antony’s arguments one by one:

“While the word ‘atheism’ has been used in something like this sense (see for example Antony Flew’s article ‘The Presumption of Atheism’), it is a highly non-standard use. So understood, atheism would include agnosticism, since agnostics are also not theists. However, on the common understanding of atheism – no divine reality of any kind exists – atheism and agnosticism are mutually exclusive. Some insist that this non-standard sense of ‘atheism’ is the only possible sense, because a-theism means without theism. But if that were a good argument, the Space Shuttle would be an automobile, since it moves on its own (mobile=move, auto=by itself). Ditto for dogs and cats.

Yet none of that really matters, for even the non-standard sense of ‘atheism’ does nothing to neutralize evidentialism’s demand for evidence. As we saw, evidentialism applies to all ‘doxastic’ attitudes toward a proposition P: believing P, believing not-P, suspending judgment about P, etc. Therefore evidentialism says, with respect to the proposition God exists, that any attitude toward it will be rational or justified if and only if it fits one’s evidence. Now it is true that if one had no position whatever regarding the proposition God exists (perhaps because one has never entertained the thought), no evidence would be required for that non-position. But the New Atheists all believe that (probably) no God or other divine reality exists. And that belief must be evidence-based if it is to be rationally held, according to evidentialism. So insisting that atheism isn’t a belief doesn’t help.”

This is a rather lengthy mischaracterization of the atheist position. As mentioned above the position is based on absence of evidence not evidence of absence as Antony would prefer to have it. Atheists don’t hold evidence for the absence of god. Whereas the theist believes in something that they claim to have evidence for yet that evidence is absent.

“Another common claim of the New Atheists is that you ‘can’t prove a negative’ – where what is typically meant is a negative existence claim of the form ‘X does not exist’. Rhetorically, this claim functions to legitimize the idea that evidence needn’t be provided for God’s nonexistence. After all, if evidence cannot be provided for a proposition it would be irrational to expect one to provide some, and so reasonable to believe that evidence isn’t needed. But the claim that you can’t prove a negative cannot help the atheist. That is because, on each of two possible ways of interpreting what it means to ‘prove’ something, it is generally false that you can’t prove a negative (and often true that you can’t prove a positive).
Consider first, proofs which deliver certainty, as in mathematics or logic. Such proofs are sometimes possible for negative existence claims, such as the claim that there is no greatest prime number. One can also prove with certainty that there are no Xs whenever the concept X can be shown to be incoherent (like the concepts round square, or 3pm on the sun). Of course, it is true that many negative existence claims cannot be proved with absolute certainty, but the same holds for positive existence claims, for example, from science or common sense, such as that there are electrons or tables and chairs. So there’s nothing special here about negative existence claims.

Turn next to proofs which aim to establish only the probable truth of their conclusions. These are the sorts of proofs which result from successful scientific and other empirical investigations. In this sense of ‘proof’, it is easy to prove the non-existence of many things: for example, that there is no pomegranate in my hand, or no snow-capped mountains in the Sahara Desert. And while it may be difficult or impossible to even in this weaker sense prove the non-existence of many things – goblins, sombreros in the Sombrero Galaxy – the same goes for many positive existence claims – that Aristotle sneezed on his 20th birthday; that there is a transcendent deity; that there is a sombrero somewhere in the Sombrero Galaxy. So, again, there is nothing unique about negative existence claims. The unfortunate saying that one can’t prove a negative should be dropped.”

The whole of the argument here is that it may be possible to prove god. Ok, but is it been proven? No. Just because we can’t prove it doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist. Of course, this is an argument that is neither for nor against the possibility of the existence of god. Here we get to the burden of proof argument I discussed earlier:

“The concept of ‘burden of proof’ (Latin, onus probandi) originally goes back to classical Roman law, and it remains important in legal theory. Who has the burden of proof, and what it consists of, is determined by a judge or by established rules which vary across legal systems. The same is true of formal debates which occur in a variety of formats. The idea of ‘burden of proof’ also has application in non-formal settings; for example, in academic disputes or public controversies. However, without a judge or rules to determine who has the burden and how it is to be discharged, it becomes unclear how the concept is to be applied, or even whether it has clear application.

“Yet although the concept of burden of proof in informal settings is ill-understood, that does not stop many from confidently proclaiming how the burden of proof should be assigned. The most egregious mistake is to think that it is a matter of logic. Rather, the burden of proof is a methodological or procedural concept. It is, in Nicolas Rescher’s words, “a regulative principle of rationality in the context of argumentation, a ground rule, as it were, of the process of rational controversy” (Dialectics, 1977). Another error is to presume that the burden falls on whoever is making the grammatically positive statement. However, positive statements can often be translated reasonably faithfully into negative statements, and vice versa: the statement ‘everything happens for a reason’ can be expressed as ‘there are no coincidences’, and ‘there is nothing supernatural’ can be restated as ‘reality is wholly natural’. A third problem is that to be taken seriously many negative statements – ‘there are no atoms’, ‘there are no coincidences’ – require evidence, whereas the corresponding positive statements do not.”

He wants to start off by arguing over the definition itself. Fair enough, I’ve been doing that in regards to how he seems to define atheism.

A quick Google search will reveal there are two definitions of the burden of proof: one legal and the other philosophic. Antony for his part appears to be going with the legal definition, which is irrelevant to the god question. If we look at the philosophic version we see that:

“This burden of proof is often asymmetrical and typically falls more heavily on the party that makes either an ontologically positive claim, or makes a claim more "extraordinary” (Marcello Truzzi).

Antony’s arguments have so far been based more on disagreements over definitions of atheists and how to define the arguments.

“No. The trouble is that Ockham’s Razor is of little use in disputes over whether some entity X exists. That is because it is typically an open question in such disputes whether everything that needs explaining can in fact be explained without X. Theists believe, or at least suspect, that there are features of reality which are inexplicable without appeal to a divine being: the existence of a contingent universe, the fine-tuning of physical constants, etc. We need not decide here whether a divine being is needed to explain these things: what is important is just that the Razor itself cannot decide such matters. It comes into play only assuming that a complete explanation of the relevant phenomena is possible without X; at which point it licenses us to eliminate X from our ontology. But theists will not accept that a complete explanation of reality is possible without appeal to a divine being, so long as no compelling case for that claim has been made. So Ockham’s Razor can have no persuasive force in this debate.”

The second last sentence of this argument sums up the problem with this argument. If theists will not accept that a complete explanation of reality is possible without appeal to a divine being than we have an irreconcilable difference in views. Antony does add that it’s possible for that position to change if evidence can be given to explain reality without god. Ladies and gentleman I give you the god of gaps argument. Atheists are simply saying with Ockham’s Razor that we can’t explain this but don’t automatically assume it’s god. Furthermore, we aren’t saying that god doesn’t exist because of that.

His next argument is deals with absence of evidence being evidence of absence. As mentioned I don’t necessarily think the two have to be intertwined. No absence of evidence for god does not disprove god but it doesn’t prove him either. Antony does give a lengthy argument that deals with this issue along with attempts to refute the tooth-fairy argument though it doesn’t seem like a wise investment of time when the issue here is how we are defining the atheist position in the first place. He does bring up arguments of fine tuning and religious experience as “weak evidence” for the existence of a god. This argument gets into the debate of whether the universe is fine tuned and the validity of religious experiences.

You will hear theists say that their position is misrepresented by the fundamentalists, no doubt. The more radical positions are not held by all believers. However, the same can be said about atheists. A point Antony misses throughout his argument.

Colorado and Prayer

http://www.thedenverdailynews.com/article.php?aID=8151
Atheists in Colorado are suing the governor after he issued National Day of Prayer proclamations:

“A Wisconsin-based group of atheists and agnostics that won a lawsuit last week in which a federal judge ruled that the National Day of Prayer is unconstitutional is hoping that the decision will assist in a similar lawsuit filed against the governor in Colorado.

The Freedom From Religion Foundation is suing Gov. Bill Ritter for showing “governmental preference for religion” by issuing National Day of Prayer proclamations in Colorado. The lawsuit — first filed in 2008 in Denver District Court and is awaiting summary judgment that is expected in early May — charges that Ritter violated the state constitution by issuing proclamations on the National Day of Prayer in 2007 and then again in 2008.

Ritter’s proclamation in 2007 was based on a belief that the prayer day is “intended as a day for Americans to celebrate rights purportedly endowed by their Creator,” according to the Freedom From Religion Foundation. The group points out that Ritter participated in a prayer day event at the Capitol in 2007 and again in 2008. In 2008, he read a proclamation with a theme from Psalm 28:7, “The Lord is my strength and my shield; my heart trusts Him and I am helped.”

The Colorado Springs-based National Day of Prayer Task Force, chaired by Shirley Dobson, wife of Focus on the Family founder Dr. James Dobson, assists in crafting prayer day proclamations such as the ones read by Ritter. The Freedom From Religious Foundation’s lawsuit alleges that Ritter has aligned both himself and the state with the National Day of Prayer Task Force. They believe reading such proclamations gives official “recognition to the endorsement of religion” and “turns nonbelievers into ‘political outsiders.’”

“The whole message is public officials telling constituents to pray,” said Annie Laurie Gaylor, co-founder of the Freedom From Religion Foundation. “What we argued is that they have no such right under our constitution — Colorado State or U.S. — and that it’s an affront and a violation of our freedom of conscience, you can’t get much more of an affront to someone who’s an atheist or an agnostic than being told by their president they’re supposed to be religious and pray.”

Wisconisin U.S. District Judge Barbara Crabb ruled last week that the National Day of Prayer “goes beyond mere ‘acknowledgement’ of religion because its sole purpose is to encourage all citizens to engage in prayer, an inherently religious exercise that served no secular function in this context.”

She ruled that the national prayer day violates the First Amendment, which bans the creation of a “law respecting an establishment of religion” by the federal government.

This year’s National Day of Prayer is scheduled for May 6. The White House said last week in a Tweet that regardless of the ruling, Obama “intends to recognize a National Day of Prayer.” Crabb’s ruling does not prohibit the president from issuing an official presidential prayer proclamation. But the National Day of Prayer Task Force is still calling on Obama to appeal the decision.

A spokesman for Ritter’s office was unable to tell the Denver Daily News yesterday whether the governor intends to issue an official proclamation on this year’s National Day of Prayer. Several attempts to get on-the-record comment from the governor’s office failed.

Gaylor fully expects Ritter to issue an official proclamation, especially given the fact that he’s “under the gun” from the separate lawsuit in Colorado, she said. But she expects her group to win the lawsuit, especially given the momentum from last week’s federal ruling.

Four Coloradans are named on the lawsuit as plaintiffs. One of the plaintiffs, David Habecker, gained national and local recognition as an atheist for refusing to recite the Pledge of Allegiance after he was elected as an Estes Park town trustee. In 2005, voters recalled Habecker from the town board for his decision not to recite the pledge.

Habecker claimed at the time and maintains his opinion today that saying the phrase “under God” in the pledge violated separation of church and state.

“You can’t have a National Day of Prayer, an official day of prayer, coming from our federal government,” said Habecker. “We’re supposed to not be intertwined with religion, and I don’t know of anybody that’s non-religious that prays; non-religious people usually don’t have some imaginary person in the sky that they pray to.”
In a statement released last week following the ruling in Wisconsin, Shirley Dobson said she believes the National Day of Prayer is something that would be supported by the nation’s Founding Fathers.

“Since the days of our Founding Fathers, the government has protected and encouraged public prayer and other expressions of dependence on the Almighty,” said Dobson. “This is a concerted effort by a small but determined number of people who have tried to prohibit all references to the Creator in the public square, whether it be the Ten Commandments, the Pledge of Allegiance, or the simple act of corporate prayer — this is unconscionable for a free society.”

Congressman Doug Lamborn, R-Colorado Springs, agrees with Dobson and her supporters. He also points out that the prayer day is completely voluntary.

“It in no way requires Americans to participate in prayer,” he said in a statement last week. “Unfortunately, some in our country are seeking freedom from religion, rather than freedom of religion.”

But Habecker points out that when politicians issue proclamations designating a day of prayer, non-believers feel like they’re doing something wrong by not participating.

“I am an atheist, which is in many parts of the world, and many parts of this country, that’s considered normal,” he said. “I’m not an oddball, I’m a normal person. I don’t believe in mythical, invisible people in the sky and zombies and other things.””

Guess Who's Back?

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/04/20/politics/main6415666.shtml

In the world of, “Why can’t they just go away?” Rick Santorum is back and he has some things to say about evolution:

“Asked about his position on evolution, Santorum requested a definition of the term more than once; he then suggested that the question actually concerned "Darwinism."

"Look, I believe that we were created by God," Santorum said. "That we have a soul. Now, if you can square that with evolution, fine. I don't know. I'm not an expert in evolution. What I can say is that I believe that we are created in the image and likeness of God, that we have a soul, and that we are not just a mistake. A mutation. I think we are something that God put on this earth, and have a divine spark, as Abraham Lincoln said."

"My feeling is the bottom line is I think it's important for society to understand that we are not just animals," he added. "…if we are just animals, and we're no different than any other animal out there, then the world is a very different place. And our expectations of others are very different. And I don't think it's true. And I don't think it's healthy."”

Santorum should explain what he means by Darwinism. Is he talking about some sort of religion?

We are just animals, it does change things but not in the negative way that Santorum describes. When we as a species come to accept that we are just animals who are part of the web of life we realize that it is necessary for our survival.

Anti-evolutionist Atheist

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/political-bookworm/2010/04/cupp_skips_the_facts_in_arguin.html

S.E. Cupp has a new book attacking evolution. Joshua Rosenau responding to a request from Steven Levingston does a wonderful job tearing it apart:

“have chosen Chapter Four – Thou Shalt Evolve. In this chapter, Cupp sums up her take on evolution like this: “The debate over the legitimacy of evolution isn’t really about a battle between fact and fiction. It’s about Christianity, and the liberal media’s attempt to eradicate it from all corners of society.”

As I don’t have the credentials to assess Cupp’s understanding of evolution, I have called on an expert in the field. I asked Joshua Rosenau to weigh in on Cupp’s scholarship. Rosenau is public information project director at the National Center for Science Education, which is a not-for-profit organization devoted to the teaching of evolution in public schools. Among its 4,000 members are scientists, teachers, clergy, and people holding a variety of religious beliefs.
Here is Rosenau’s response to Cupp’s chapter on evolution.

By Joshua Rosenau

S.E. Cupp's handling of science and religion misrepresents the nature of evolution, obscures the science of biology, and dismisses the deeply-held religious views of most Christians outside of the fundamentalist subculture. This is the sort of misrepresentation which leads her to concoct an anti-Christian conspiracy on the part of reporters, and – bizarrely – to say that Darwin is "quite literally the Anti Christ" for liberals.

Cupp presents creationism as "a counter-argument" to evolution, yet never provides a clear account of what evolution is, nor what she thinks creationism means.
Creationism is certainly not a scientific argument of any sort. Scientists, teachers, federal courts, and reporters all recognize that creationism is a religious argument that abuses specific sciences and science as an enterprise. In addition to evolution – the foundation of modern biology – many young earth creationists reject conventional plate tectonics (the basis of modern geology), and the basic physics behind radioisotopic dating methods. Conservation of mass and energy, not to mention basic thermodynamics, go out the window to concoct scenarios by which a global flood could transpire. All this abuses science as a way of testing claims about the world, twisting it to allow supernatural religious claims to supersede empirical science.

Cupp presents evolution -- and science more generally -- as the enemy of religion. Reporters' "propping up of science," she writes, is an "attack on Christianity." If anything, it is Cupp's approach which insults Christians. Research detailed in Elaine Ecklund's forthcoming "Science vs. Religion," shows that many scientists are religious themselves and do not generally regard science and religion as enemies.
Nor do Christian non-scientists, as illustrated by a string of powerful statements from the leadership of Catholic, Lutheran, Methodist, Episcopalian, and Presbyterian denominations, among others. Their views were put eloquently in a letter signed by more than 12,000 Christian clergy: "We the undersigned, Christian clergy from many different traditions, believe that the timeless truths of the Bible and the discoveries of modern science may comfortably coexist. … [T]he theory of evolution is a foundational scientific truth…. To reject this truth or to treat it as 'one theory among others' is to deliberately embrace scientific ignorance … We believe that among God’s good gifts are human minds capable of critical thought and that the failure to fully employ this gift is a rejection of the will of our Creator. To argue that God’s loving plan of salvation for humanity precludes the full employment of the God-given faculty of reason is to attempt to limit God, an act of hubris. … We ask that science remain science and that religion remain religion, two very different, but complementary, forms of truth."

Cupp's deepest offense against science comes in treating opinion polls as measures of scientific validity. Creationism belongs in science classes, she claims, because it is "not a conspiracy theory," and "half the American population believes it." The former claim is dubious at best, and the latter is simply irrelevant.

Scientific truth is universal, and Cupp wrongly focuses only on American polls. A 2006 analysis found that America was the second-least accepting of evolution among 35 industrialized nations, ahead of Turkey but behind scientific powerhouses like Cyprus, not to mention religious nations like Italy, Poland, and Ireland.

Regardless of polling, a scientific theory is measured by its ability to make testable and correct predictions, and to be accepted by scientists as a useful tool. Evolution is the foundation of modern biology, biotechnology, and medicine, and a vital component of agriculture, engineering, and other sciences crucial to American economic competitiveness, and polls cannot change the truth.

Cupp might have done her readers a service by even glancingly noting the scientific basis for evolution's nearly uniform acceptance among practicing biologists, or at least looked to the more meaningful surveys of scientists' opinion.

Cupp claims that statements about evolution's support among scientists are themselves "another way of saying faith and science are incompatible and believers are on the losing side of the argument." This argument insults the many Christians – scientists and non-scientists – who accept evolution and find science and religion compatible.

On top of misrepresenting the nature of science and the nature of religion, Cupp's coverage does violence not just to the science of evolution, but to the public's expectations of science journalists and science teachers. She misreports recent history and legal proceedings. She twists math itself to claim that 44 percent is "not a minority."

She concludes by complaining that "the liberal media is not interested in acknowledging our nation as a deeply religious one," and repeats her claim that evolution is a weapon used to attack Christians.

In fact, Cupp is the one who seems uninterested in acknowledging the nature of American religious faith. Many Americans find that evolution deepens and informs their faith, and reject the anti-science stance Cupp (an avowed atheist) attributes to religion. That many Americans do find evolution contrary to their religion does not, in any event, change the scientific truth of the matter.

Whether our nation is or isn't "deeply religious" does not change what science is or how it works, and does not change the century and a half of meticulous research which has convinced scientists that evolution is essential to biology and biology education.”

I was taken aback when I read that Cupp is an atheist but apparently it is true. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S.E._Cupp). Atheist doesn’t always equal rational and acceptance of evolution and non-belief, as pointed about by Rosenau don’t necessarily go hand-in-hand.