 the
Skeptic's Dictionary Newsletter
47
September 23, 2004
"No educated man stating plainly the
elementary notions that every educated man holds about the matters that
principally concern government could be elected to office in a democratic
state, save perhaps by a miracle. His frankness would arouse fear, and those
fears would run against him; it is his business to arouse fears that will
run in favor of him." H.L. Mencken,
Notes on Democracy
In this issue: SI posts my article on hoaxes and
I'm interviewed on Skeptical Sunday; a few
updates and comments posted; fiction for the bereaved;
mediums fail the test; a lot of
feedback on the good god question; Freethought Day in
Sacramento; and a trip through some alternate
realities.
What's New
Since the last newsletter, Skeptical
Inquirer has posted my article from the July 2004 issue on
"Pranks, Frauds, and
Hoaxes from Around the World." On September 19th, I was interviewed
by Seth Shostak of SETI's
Skeptical Sunday
program. I've also
- updated the Inset Fuel Stabilizer entry
to include a link to Tony Cairn's
"Fuel Saving
Gadgets;"
-
commented on
Dr. Michael Fitzpatrick;s (MMR
and Autism) article in the Guardian regarding parents of
autistic children who believe their personal experience and research--most
of which has been guided only by the desire to prove what they already
believe, namely, that their children's autism was caused by
vaccinations--qualify them as experts on both autism and vaccination;
-
commented on
the Biological Society of Washington, which published a paper by
Stephen C. Meyer on intelligent design and then repudiated the paper;
-
posted a news
item regarding Wangari Maathai, the Kenyan assistant minister for
environment and natural resources and a professor of biology at Nairobi
University, who claims that HIV/AIDS was a biological weapon manufactured
by the developed world to wipe out the black race from developing
countries;
-
commented on
the PBS program The Question of God;
-
posted a letter
claiming EMDR "works" and my comments on the claim; and
- updated my
skeptical essays page.
Jon Edward's New Gift
Jon Edward, who says he hears dead people,
has found a way to fill in the dead time now that his television show
Crossing Over has been axed. He's written a novel called
Final Beginnings. He's also come up with a novel way to sell copies of
his book.
The
only way you can get a ticket to his show is to buy a copy of his book for
$23.95. Very clever. To those who doubt his gift as a medium, Edward has
this to say: "It's like saying not liking apple pie means apple pie doesn't
exist."
How to Test a Medium
Psychologists
Richard Wiseman
and Ciaran
O'Keeffe tried to replicate
Gary Schwartz's
afterlife experiments, a test of the claim that certain mediums are
getting messages from the dead in the form of bits and pieces of data that
they translate into words and give "sitters" the opportunity to make sense
out of. Skeptics
think the mediums are using
cold reading techniques,
although many mediums may be unaware that they are doing so. According to
the
Guardian Unlimited, Wiseman and O'Keeffe
contacted the Spiritualists'
National Union and asked for five mediums with good track records at
providing readings by proxy--in which they never meet the person or
"sitter" they are producing a reading for.
Each medium was placed in a studio while the sitters sat out of sight
and earshot in another room. Taking each sitter--male staff or students
from the University of Hertfordshire--in turn, all five mediums attempted
to give them readings.
Schwartz usually had his mediums and sitters
in the same room. In some experiments, the sitters provided feedback to the
mediums. After a session, the sitters would evaluate the accuracy of the
reading. In some of the experiments, the accuracy of the reading was
contrasted with that of a control.
Wiseman and O'Keeffe
criticized Schwartz
for judging biases and control group biases (among other things). They
eliminated the latter by not using controls in their own experiments and
they eliminated the former by jumbling up the mediums' comments and playing
them back in random order to the sitters. They asked the sitters if they
could recognize which reading was theirs. They couldn't.
Wiseman and O'Keefe presented their research
to a meeting of the Parapsychological Association, hosted by the
Austrian Society
for Parapsychology, in Vienna last August and, according to the
BBC.com, have
submitted a paper on the experiments to a peer-reviewed journal.
Wiseman co-authored
Guidelines for Testing Psychic Claimants with
Robert Morris, who
held the Koestler Chair of Parapsychology at Edinburgh University from 1985
until his sudden death last month.
Feedback
I received several responses to my comments
on whether the concept of a good God is compatible with evil and I have
reproduced those responses below. First, my apologies for using 'good' and
'evil' as nouns. I don't believe they name anything. They're adjectives.
Secondly, I didn't mean to imply that all atheists would agree that a given
particular act or person is good or evil.
Also, I think some theologians believe they have a free pass with a
concept of God as inscrutable. Maybe God's a utilitarian trying to squeeze
as much goodness as possible out of the universe he created. Maybe he
created the universe out of love, a love we can't understand. Maybe. And
maybe pigs can fly. It's not logically impossible. It's also not logically
impossible that God is evil and allows goodness only to maximize the amount
of evil in the universe. If one allows that God is inscrutable (that is,
that we can't know for sure what God is like or what God's motives might be)
then what is possible about God does not have to make sense in terms of what
is possible or what would be expected from any human, even the most moral or
most intelligent human designer.
I don't think that defenders of God's goodness claim to
prove or know that God is good--they take that on faith--but rather to
defend the claim that a good God does not necessarily imply that the
universe should have all or mostly good things in it.
I also agree with those who maintain that
the conception of gods that makes the most sense is the one that assert that
gods can't be interested in anything human because gods are perfect. If
anything we did could affect the gods, they wouldn't be perfect. Thus, none of
our behavior--sinful, worshipping, or beseeching some god for a favor--could
move any god either to punish or reward us or be pleased or displeased with
us in any way. However, I recognize that not everybody agrees on what the
concept of perfection entails. Some think it entails necessary existence;
others are sure it does not entail existence of any kind. Most think it
entails goodness, but not everyone agrees on what the concept of perfect
goodness entails. And so it goes.
I might also note that intelligent design is appealing to people who
already believe in God the designer of the universe and who focus on some
small part of Nature where they are unable to imagine—or at least they try
to get others to agree that they are unable to imagine—how several parts of a complex
item came together by naturalistic forces and laws. But if God micromanages
creation, what does this imply about God’s nature? If God is in the details,
then don’t the details reveal what God is like? What do the details say to
me? They say whoever or whatever is behind them is amoral, completely
indifferent to our happiness or unhappiness, pain, or pleasure. The price of
intelligent design, it seems to me, is goodness. It would be granting too
much to the theologians to allow them to claim that only intelligent design
can explain some things but when it comes to explaining the apparent
amorality of the design we're asked to admit the possibility that what
appears amoral may not really be amoral. If what appears amoral may not
really be amoral then what appears intelligently designed may not be
designed by any intelligence.
Also, I should have made it clear that I
don't accept the idea that there is much probability that a perfectly good,
omniscient creator is responsible for the universe known and loved by
science. The history of the universe with its extinctions of not just
millions of species on this planet but of whole galaxies throughout the
universe, with a past of this planet--and most likely the rest of the
universe as well--filled with catastrophic collisions and a future for this
planet revolving around a dead sun before ultimate annihilation, and so on,
do not fill me with awe for a benevolent being. The evidence seems much
better explained in terms of impersonal forces and laws.
Finally, I might have explained that the
reason the concept of God doesn't resonate with me is because I find it to
be utterly useless for explaining or understanding anything.
Anyway, here are the responses to my
comments on God and evil. The first letter writer also objected
to my negative comments about Thabo Mbeki's views on treating AIDS
and for agreeing with Eric from South Africa who wrote
AIDS dissident and advisor to the South African Health Minister, Dr.
Robert Giraldo, recently recommended that HIV+ patients take a mixture of
olive oil, lemon juice, garlic, and African potato.
To recommend that HIV+ people consume a substance known to suppress
the immune system in a country with an estimated 7 million HIV+ people,
strikes me as being criminally irresponsible.
***
Anthony writes:
As a subscriber who enjoys your skeptical newsletter, I object to one
of your views below, which is to deplore the unfortunate President Thabo
Mbeki of South Africa's stand against the science purveyed by the AIDS
establishment.
In this case, your much practiced skepticism fails you and doesn't go far
enough. The truth is that the HIV theory of AIDS is unscientific nonsense
perpetrated by a pack of thoughtless and irresponsible scientists at the top
of the field of retrovirology. The one fine mind in the field who examined
this idea in the top peer reviewed publications at the time (1987 and 1988)
rejected the idea as baseless and the evidence produced for it inadequate,
and has maintained that position since--for which he has been poorly
rewarded by being drummed out of the field, and ostracized ever since. If
you examine the debate in detail, however, with a skeptical mind such as
yours you will find it impossible to accept the current view and its almost
endless list of anomalies, which I hope you have already noticed.
I could give you the top references in the issue including some just out
which will knock your socks off --if your practised skepticism will stretch
that far. Perhaps you have made up your mind in public on the issue already,
however.
reply: I'd like to see your references and hope you will send them on
so we can all be enlightened. I know about dissident
Kerry Mullis,
by the way. His views should be taken seriously, given what he has
accomplished, but I remain unconvinced that he's right and that the HIV theory is
"nonsense" foisted on an unsuspecting world by "a pack of thoughtless and
irresponsible scientists."
Quite the
contrary.
By the way, in this letter you also dismiss the arguments of those who
cannot believe in a good, just, all powerful God as inconsistent with the
existence of evil. You shouldn't act so fast. It is a generally accepted
conclusion now among good philosophers, despite the endless efforts of the
apologists from Aquinas on. For an example of the argument in a nutshell,
see Simon Blackburn's little book from Oxford
University Press,
"Think." Pure logic indicates
quite quickly that if a God exists at all he cannot have any of these
attributes and/or he cannot have any relation to human beings.
I am surprised that you as an atheist haven't advanced to being more
decisive on the issue!
Anthony
reply: I'll try to be more decisive in the future. But I think you
might also recognize that not all philosophers agree on the meaning of such
conceptions as "perfect being, " "goodness," or "God."
***
Jeremy writes:
I take minor issue with this:
"Atheists don't deny there is a real difference between good and evil,
but we deny that we need God, loving or unloving, to either determine what
that difference is or to help us figure out what we consider good and evil."
As an atheist, I don't deny there is a difference between good and evil,
however, that recognition is based on recognition of the definition of 'good
and evil' put forth by those who find the construct relevant. I recognize
the definition of good and evil just as I recognize that some people believe
in god, some believe in UFOs, etc. You say that we atheists do not need god,
loving or unloving, to help us figure out the difference between, or our
personal conception of, good and evil. That seems reasonable, but why would
anyone, atheist or not, need to figure out the difference between, or
maintain a personal conception of, good and evil? The answer must be either
to judge other's behaviors, modulate personal behavior, or both. I find
that I do not require the maintenance of a worldview based on conceptions of
good and evil from which to dictate my judgments of others nor to modulate
my behavior. I have a feeling that maintaining some type of worldview is
crucial to social functioning, however at this point in my life the only
worldview I'd adopt would be Hofstader's game-theory-based concept of
Superrationality. Superrationality allows for a dichotomy which includes
what could be considered good (superrational), and not as good (not
superrational), but nothing I'd classify as 'evil'. These days it seems
whenever someone mentions 'evil' they sound like they're talking about a
comic book.
Jeremy
***
Steve writes:
You said: A reader recommended Lee Strobel's The Case for Faith: A
Journalist Investigates the Toughest Objections to Christianity. I bought
it and have read the list of the so-called toughest objections and I've
read the entire response to the first objection, characterized by Mr. Strobel thusly: Since evil and suffering exist, a loving God cannot. I
feel a moral obligation to respond. Neither a logical atheist nor a
logical Zoroastrian would make the case against Christianity by
maintaining that the existence of evil and suffering are logically
incompatible with a loving God.
I respond: Actually, I believe a logical atheist (I consider myself one)
could agree with **a version** of this argument, if some unspoken
assumptions are brought to light.
You continue: A logical atheist would not maintain that evil and
suffering are incompatible with the concept of a loving God as long as
loving is not defined in such a way as to make it impossible by definition.
But if the concept of a loving God means that there might be some unknown or
unfathomable purpose that this loving God has for all the evil and suffering
in the universe, then the concepts are compatible.
I continue: The main unspoken assumption is the psychological suffering
willfully inflicted by such a God on rational creatures when he/she
willfully remains inscrutable in situations where his actions, or passivity,
cause or allow evil to exist. A number of quite detailed books by
professional philosophers take off on points like this or similar to this in
looking at the existence of evil as an argument against the existence of
God. Now, this is not the only point that they add to an expanded argument
from the existence of evil, but, nonetheless, it is *a* point. So, I think
your statement may have been technically correct re Strobel's exact
counterclaims (I've read "The Case for Christ" myself) but is incomplete if
part of a discussion about the problem of evil in general.
Steverino
***
James writes:
There is one idea in your essay that stood out to me:
"Atheists don't deny there is a real difference between good and evil..."
In simple terms, I agree.
Being a soft atheist myself, I've questioned the concepts of good, evil,
morality, and other terms that can imply a supernatural basis. I tried to
replace "good" with a more precise term, like "desirable" or "beneficial."
What do you think of this idea: there is no good or evil, no sin or virtue,
no right or wrong, that is independent of human thought? (Not that this is
my original idea; I suppose the Utilitarians and Humanists believe this).
I think Kant got me started on these ideas in biomedical ethics class,
because I was taught that he believed there is an absolute good independent
of human thought.
James
***
Scott writes:
You opine:
"It is true, however, that there have been philosophers who have argued
that God can't be all-Good and all-Powerful because of the existence of evil
and suffering. The argument states that if God is all-Good, he would prevent
evil if he could. So either he can't and isn't all-powerful. Or, he can but
won't, in which case he is not all-Good. Again, this argument fails because
one can imagine God as having some good reason for allowing evil and
suffering."
This is a classic argument, one of God's inscrutability. However, I
believe it to be flawed. If God cannot be known, even from his actions, then
he cannot be known at all. In other words, if you can explain away the
existence of evil by saying that God is really good but allows evil for ends
we cannot fathom, you can equally say that God is evil but allows good to
exist for unknown reasons. Heck, you could even say the Bible is a lie
designed to weed out the gullible from the true skeptics God embraces.
If the same application of logic leads to completely contradictory
conclusions, I think that the argument is pretty well falsified.
In fact, I believe most among the faithful would reject the idea that God
is unknowable. To them, he is quite knowable, otherwise why would he be
worthy of worship? So the premise behind the argument is weak also. You
can't just wave around God's mysteriousness when it is convenient and then
pretend you know what he is about at other times.
Scott
Amen to that!
Freethought Day
Sacramento will be celebrating its 3rd Annual Freethought Day on Sunday,
October 10, 2004 in Waterfront Park, Old Sacramento, Front and L Streets.
The event is free and will run from 11:00 AM until 4:00 PM.
This year the theme is "Dare to Think for Yourself!" Speaking at the
event will be former Eagle Scout Darrell Lambert, who will tell the story of
his being "kicked out" of the Boy Scouts of America when he refused to
profess a belief in a god.
Michael Newdow, who challenged the phrase "under God" in the Pledge of
Allegiance before the United States Supreme Court, will be the featured
entertainer. He will play guitar and showcase his singing/songwriting
talents.
Also appearing will be local musical talents Roberta Chevrette and James
Israel. There will be poetry readings, skits, and magic performed by Richard
Kowaleski, a gallery of historical freethinkers, and a children's critical
thinking activity station.
Freethought Day commemorates the anniversary of the date in 1692 when the
colonial governor of Massachusetts declared that spectral evidence would no
longer be admissible in court, effectively ending the Salem witch trials.
His was the first declaration requiring that evidence admitted in court be
restricted to the real world.
The event is co-sponsored by
The Humanist Association of the Greater Sacramento Area and
Atheists and Other
Freethinkers.
Alternate Realities
The Alternate
Realities Center (ARC) is based in Southern Appalachia near Johnson City,
which is located in upper East Tennessee. The ARC hosts monthly
meetings as well as an annual conference. According to their website, the ARC
"performs serious study,
research, and investigation of the Paranormal with our goal to sponsor
leading-edge research into the potentials and powers of human consciousness.
We explore phenomena that do not necessarily fit conventional scientific
models, while maintaining a strong and rigorous commitment to scientific
methodology and procedures with efforts to focus on the Human equation..."
The caps on paranormal and human are theirs and may have some significance
in the alternate world. Seriously, though, how can a group of grown-up
humans say with a straight face that they are using conventional science to
study what conventional science won't study?
According to their website, "The ARC is not a cult, single-cause
institute, or political action group [and]...Although not exactly proven, yet theorized by known science, we assume
that our Universe is one of many and that each Universe has many levels of
existence; In other words, it is multiplanar. In this we may extrapolate
that there could be many different 'realities'."
This sounds like something the
New Age
Gnostics, mentioned in the last newsletter, might be interested in. I
don't know what "known science" the ARC is thinking of, but their idea of
many layers of existence is one held by the
Yanomamö.
Their world of myths and invisible entities
consists of four parallel layers, one above the other, including the third
layer of forests, rivers and gardens in which they live. Accomplished
shamans can call the beautiful hekura spirits from the sky, hills,
trees or even from the edge of the universe to enter their bodies through
the chest and there to find another world of forests and rivers within. (Blackmore:
Consciousness, 316).
Of course, the shamans don't use science to enter these layers of
reality, unless you count ebene ("a complex hallucinogenic green
powder") as science.
The ARC folks say that their "primary purpose is the attempt to present data and scientific
evidence that will alter the 'paradigms' of our
modern society."
Maybe they should take some mind-altering drugs.
Often, the accepted way of doing things, or the way we think about our
world invokes frustration as it becomes no longer convenient, or appropriate
to suit our immediate need. The desire for change often leads us to open our
eyes, as well as our minds, and search beyond the accepted truth. When the
act of looking 'outside the box' inspires a 'change
of mind', we refer to this as a 'paradigm shift'...
The organization most certainly encourages individual exploration of both
the 'outer' as well as the 'inner' world. Our focus is to promote and
maintain global awareness and open mindedness, broadening our scope of
acceptance as a species to what is possible in the Universe. In support of
our purpose and goals "The ARC" can best be described by the organization's
decade old motto... "People helping people to find the Truth"...
Isn't that what Timothy
Leary said he was trying to do?
Anyway, if you are near East Tennessee State University on Saturday
(September 25th), you might want to attend the ARC
10th anniversary
conference. There will be featured talks on Planet X (without
Phil Plait
to correct the record) and Zecharia Sitchin.
Leah Haley will be there to sign copies of her new book: Unlocking Alien
Closets: Abductions, Mind Control, and Spirituality.
On the other hand, you might prefer to fly to Toronto and take in the
Skeptical Exposition in the
Medical Sciences building at the University of Toronto from noon to 5 p.m.
The Canadian skeptics are offering $1,000 to anyone who can determine by
mental powers alone the contents of several envelopes. Sounds like a job for
paradigm shifters.
***
.....until next time.....
|
