Project Steve

In 2001 The Discovery Institute, a fundamentalist conservative Christian think tank based in Seattle, Washington, released a document named A Scientific Dissent from Darwinism. This is a list of scientists who were prepared to state that they were 'sceptical about the ability of random mutations and natural selection to account for the complexity of life' and 'dispute that all known scientific evidence supports [Darwinian] evolution'. As of the August 2008 update, it consisted of 761 signatures. The Discovery Institute and other creationist organisations such as Answers In Genesis regularly refer to the document to support their view that intelligent design should be taught as a genuine science.

Dissent From Darwin Ad.2001 

I think it is one of the more persuasive arguments of creationists, however it is fairly easy to see some fundamental flaws in the tactic of producing a list of supporters to uphold a knowledge claim. Firstly, a list of this size represents only around 0.023 % of the world's scientists (Biology and Ideology from Descartes to Dawkins,  Denis Alexander and Ronald L. Numbers (eds), Chicago University Press, 2001). Secondly, a closer perusal shows that many of the scientists have no affiliation to the biological sciences (although of course one has to be careful not to fall into the trap of authority worship). Thirdly, The Discovery Institute appears to have gathered their signatories under an extremely sweeping statement. Doubting that 'all known scientific evidence supports evolution' does not necessarily equate to a belief in creationism or intelligent design. The wording of the statement itself appears to me to be rather specious, since the modern understanding of evolution includes mechanisms other than random mutations and natural selection (including, for example, genetic drift).

In an effort to counter the impact of A Scientific Dissent from Darwinism, the National Center for Science Education produced its own list of supporters of Darwinism. In a demonstration of 'scientific humour', the list is limited to scientists with the name 'Steve' or variations thereof (it was named in honour of the late evolutionary biologist Stephen Jay Gould). Since Steves represent around only 1% of scientists the pool of signatories is therefore small. Despite this, the list is larger and contains more biologists and more eminent scientists than the original. The 300th signature was that of Stephen Hawking. At the time of writing, the Steve-o-Meter stands at 1271 signatories, and can be accessed here.

Jesus appears in pot of marmite

I spotted a story in the news this week about a Welsh family who found the image of Jesus on the lid of a pot of sandwich spread. What do you think?:

I know that God moves in mysterious ways, but this is a bit too mysterious for my liking. It appears to be a case of a perceiving something that you want to in an otherwise random assortment of shapes. The family, themselves, appear to take comfort in the appearance of the image, saying "We've had a tough couple of months; my mum's been really ill and it's comforting to think that if he is there, he's watching over us."

After a quick perusal of google I have realised these kinds of sightings are a lot more common than you might think. In recent years Jesus' face has appeared on, among other things, a beer bottle, a fish stick, a shower curtain, a nebula, a pancake and a tortilla:

Pareidolia 

Blaise Pascal vs. Homer Simpson

Blaise Pascal (1623 - 1662) was a French mathematician, physicist, inventor, writer and philosopher. He was a religious man who came up with a probabilistic argument for belief in God, now well known as Pascal's Wager. This states that, regardless of the evidence, it is infinitely safer to trust in God's existence, since you have everything to gain if correct, and nothing to lose if wrong.

To me, this is hardly profound, since surely an omnipotent God would see right through such a ruse. In addition it would be a rather mean-spirited and capricious God who was prepared to reward you just for taking a gamble.

I recently came across a reworking of this from a different philosopher. Homer Simpson's Wager posits that its best not to pray to any god, since if you get it wrong you'll just end up pissing off the real one.

Religion vs Secularism

In this debate (recorded in Sydney, Australia, in March 2013) British philosopher A.C. Grayling joins Sean Faircloth, director of the Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science, Jesuit priest Father Frank Brennan and the Hon. Pru Goward M.P. to discuss the influence of religion in Australia and the U.S. The speakers discuss whether the church and state should or can ever be decisively divided, and where each institution stands among evolving social and political values:

The Role of the Catholic Church

Here's a good debate from intelligencesquared.com which considers the motion 'This house believes the Catholic Church is a force for good in the world'.

The End of the World is Nigh

One of the most widely held but irrational beliefs around today is that the apocalypse is just around the corner. Hopefully some TOK students will still be around after December 21st of this year, when the Mayan calendar allegedly predicts the end of the world (this appears, incidentally, to be a misconception based on the fact that one counting period is due to end and another to begin), and this post might actually get a few hits. If we do survive, I confidently predict that most doom-mongers will simply explain the miscalculation away, switch to a different date and continue to prepare for the worst.

It appears to me that beliefs like this are ingrained in many people due to an unconscious (or perhaps conscious) feeling that they exist only to be witness to something truly extraordinary at some point in their lives (known as religious 'solipsism'). Perhaps this is a by-product of  our evolutionary past, allowing us to value our own survival (or maybe just an indication of a big ego). However something weird is at work in cases like this where huge numbers of people ignore reason in favour of blind belief. Some kind of backlash against scientific evidence and authority also seems to be at work; so much so, that with approximately a quarter of the American public believing that the world will end during their lifetime, NASA has decided to publish a document to refute their claims.

The tortured logic of some apocalyptic claims is actually quite amusing (especially where 'scientific evidence' appears to be cherry-picked to support them). As always, a quote by my favourite blogger, Ben Goldacre, is appropriate here: "...You can't reason people out of positions they didn't reason themselves into" (Bad Science, Harper Collins, London, 2009). In the clip below, American radio evangelist Harold Camping predicts the end of the world on May 21st, 2011. This came after he had incorrectly prophesied the End on two previous occasions:

I think its a childish character trait of mine, but I really enjoy making predictions that come true and then being able to tell people "I told you so". While correctly predicting the apocalypse would be the ultimate 'I told you so' moment, it's unfortunate that there would be nobody around to actually say this to. And if the world doesn't end on December 21st, 2012... well, I told you so.

Our Obsession With the Apocalypse

Glossary of Philosophy

Enlightenment Rationalism Empiricism The Encyclopaedists Analytic synthetic distinction Logic Determinism Kant	Romanticism Rousseau Schelling and Coleridge Hegel Idealism Vs. Materialism Hegel's Dialectics Marx's Dialectical Materialism Schopenhauer & Nietzsche	Analytic Philosophy Bertrand Russell Wittgenstein: Tractatus Wittgenstein: Language Games The Private Language Argument Richard Rorty Timeline	Existentialism Kierkegaard: The solitary wanderer Martin Heidegger Edmund Husserl Sartre: Existence precedes essence Albert Camus
God Proofs of God's Existence: Argument from design Ontological argument Cosmological argument Pascal's Wager Kierkegaard Marx Nietzsche The Death of God	Mind Plato Aristotle Leibniz Epiphenomenalism Dualism Descartes Identity Theory Spinoza Behaviourism Ryle Ghost in the machine	Natural Science Popper Kuhn Feyerabend Science in the post- modern world	Moral philosophy Kant's Categorical Imperative Utilitarianism Nietzsche: The genealogy of morals Sartre and Bad Faith

Religion vs Science

Religion vs Science

Teaching Evolution in South Korea

You might think that the fight of creationists to limit the teaching of evolution in public schools is restricted to the United States. However, it emerged this week (as reported in the article from Nature, below) that the South Korean Government has instructed publishers to consider removing references to evolution in high-school biology textbooks.

I was surprised to read that a sizable minority of biology teachers in South Korea are sceptical of the theory of evolution by natural selection, believing that 'much of the scientific community doubts if evolution occurs'.
Creationism in South Korea

Reason and the Universality of Human Rights

In December 1948 the General Assembly of the United Nations adopted the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), a full list of all 30 articles of which can be found here. The Assembly called upon all member countries to publicize the text of the Declaration and "to cause it to be disseminated, displayed, read and expounded principally in schools and other educational institutions, without distinction based on the political status of countries or territories." In 1976 it was adopted as international law, having been ratified by a sufficient number of nations. It is now perhaps the cornerstone of international political ethics.

It was constructed, of course, as a consequence of the horrors perpetrated by the Nazis during the Second World War, and was based on the reasoning that all human beings are "born fee and equal in dignity and rights" (Article 1). However its wording has been subjected to considerable criticism over a number of years. Proponents of alternative schooling, for example, are against the adoption of "universal elementary education" (Article 26), while organisations such as Amnesty International have argued that there is a need to adopt a right of refusal to kill in times of war (currently not mentioned by the Declaration). Some Muslim countries (such as Saudi Arabia, Iran and Sudan) have critisised the UDHR for failing to take the religious context of Islam into account. In 1990 the Cairo Declaration on Human Rights in Islam (CDHRI) was adopted by member states of the Organisation of the Islamic Conference, as an alternative.

The biggest problem has been one of enforcing the terms of the Declaration and reprimanding those who violate them. Implicit in this is the fact that some countries interpret the articles differently to others. However, the UN Security Council has always found it difficult to get its members to come to a consensus where it is necessary to use force. This weakness was exposed in September, 2002, when President George W. Bush brought his case against Iraq to the General Assembly and challenged the UN to take action against Baghdad for failing to disarm. Unable to get the UN Security Council to act, Bush succeeded in securing permission from the US Congress to act against Iraq without UN approval. The American message seemed clear: as a senior administration official put it at the time, "we don't need the Security Council." This could be interpreted as proof that the logic of universal human rights enshrined in the Declaration is flawed, as suggested by author Will Self in this BBC podcast:

Dawkins on Darwin

In this podcast for the James Randi Educational Foundation, Richard Dawkins discusses his affinity with Charles Darwin and the importance of the theory of evolution by natural selection in modern science. He comments on his ideas of the development of morality in humans through evolutionary principles, which I have posted about previously. He does, of course, also discuss his atheism and views on religious belief.

Sanal Edamaruku and Indian Blasphemy Laws

In March, 2012, worshipers at the Church of Our lady of Velankanni, a Catholic church in Mumbai, India's financial centre, reported seeing a statue of Jesus on a crucifix with water collecting like tears at its feet. Soon after, hundreds of people began to arrive at the church to see the 'miracle' and collect drops of the water in bottles.

Sanal Edamaruku, author and head of the Indian Rationalist Organisation, was asked to investigate by television channel TV-9. He found that water was building up close to the crucifix from a broken drain, passing up the wall due to capillary action and collecting on the statue. He later reported this during a televised interview and debate. It might be expected that this would have been the end of the matter, but soon afterwards formal complaints were filed against Edamaruku for inciting racial and religious hatred under British colonial-era legislation which obliges the state to punish those who offend the faith of others. Arrest warrants are currently out for him and he faces the prospect of three years in prison if tried and found guilty.

While it does seem to me that his comments did cause offence to believers of the 'miracle', I don't think he set out deliberately to do so, but rather to carry out a rational investigation. It also seems strange that a country like India, founded on secularism, may be prepared to punish one of its citizens under a law on blasphemy. However, you may take the view that there was no need to debunk a phenomenon which was bringing comfort and happiness to a large number of people and, under the letter of the law, he did cause offence regardless of his motives. The application of this law reminds me in some ways of the case of Simon Singh, the science author who was sued for libel by the British Chiropractic Association (BCA) after he critisised their claims of being able to heal a number of childhood illnesses by massage of the spine.

Edamaruku's blog can be found here, and, below, I've posted an article about his story from the Indian newspaper, the Hindu:
  Debunking a Miracle

The Ethics of IVF

One of the most controversial aspects of modern medical ethics is the use of in vitro fertilisation (IVF). Ethical views appear, in general, to have changed considerably in western countries since the birth of the first test tube baby, Louise Brown, in Britain in 1978 - so much so that it is now largely accepted that homosexual couples can seek IVF treatment and the sex of a baby may be determined prior to pregnancy.

Most religious groups seem to have given IVF qualified acceptance. The Anglican Church, for instance, allows IVF within marriage, but forbids the donation of eggs and sperm. The Hindu religion allows IVF, but only if the gametes used in the procedure come from a married couple seeking pregnancy. Hindus may also donate sperm, but the donor must be a close relative of the infertile husband. Buddhists have a very liberal attitude towards assisted pregnancy - it is permitted for both married and unmarried couples and men are free to donate sperm. While Islam allows IVF treatment, it must be within the bounds of marriage. After divorce or death of one of the spouses, preserved sperm or eggs are not permitted to be used, since the Muslim marriage contact would be seen to have been broken. My understanding of Jewish Law is that since the scriptures direct Jews to procreate, if this is not possible via a normal pregnancy, it is acceptable for this to be achieved by artificial means. There does not appear to be a clear consensus among rabbis over some aspects of IVF such as the implantation of multiple embryos (some of which may of course not result in a viable pregnancy).

Of the major world religions, Catholicism appears to take the most authoritarian and conservative stance, in line with its absolutist take on morality and ethics. It accepts that Catholic couples may seek medical treatment for infertility, but does not permit the use of IVF or the donation of eggs or sperm. The Vatican's position is that it is immoral to separate sex and procreation. In June 2006 Pope Benedict XVI made a series of statements to clarify his view of IVF treatment:

• The human being has the right to be generated, not produced, to come to life not in virtue of an artificial process but of a human act in the full sense of the term: the union between a man and a woman. 
• Never before in history has human procreation, and therefore the family, which is its natural place, been so threatened as in today's culture. 
• Procreation must always take place within the family.
• ...true love is only that which comes from the union of a man and a woman.
• A true family comes from the union of two people from different sexes.

Robert Winston is a pioneer of some techniques of IVF and is currently professor of Science and Society at Imperial College, London. He was an advisor to the World Health Organisation as part of their programme on human reproduction between 1975 and 1977, and is now a celebrity after presenting numerous science documentaries on British television. He currently sits in the House of Lords on the side of the Labour Party and therefore also has political affiliations. In the following podcast he sets out his views on the ethics of IVF treatment:

David Hume

David Hume (1711-1776) was a Scottish philosopher, historian and essayist. He was a controversial figure, known for his religious sceptisism (a dangerous position at the time - he wanted to make a career as an academic, but was always denied an academic post due to his apparent atheism). He is often cited as a principle influence on many important figures in philosophy and science, including Immanuel Kant, Charles Darwin and Thomas Huxley, amongst others.

In this BBC podcast, his life and legacy are discussed:

Why do Morals exist?

In his book The God Delusion (Mariner, New York, 2008), Richard Dawkins devotes a chapter to morality (chapter 6 - The roots of morality: why are we good?). His premise is that morality is essentially something that evolved from pre-existing instincts. He states that a somewhat diluted form of morality (altruism) exists in animals for 4 reasons:

• Genetic kinship and the unconscious desire for one's genes to pass to the next generation
• Reciprocation: the expectation or anticipation that favours given will be repaid later
• The benefit of acquiring a 'reputation' for generosity
• The benefit of being able to identify oneself as dominant due to the ability to give favours without necessarily expecting payback

He gives examples to show that these desires exist in animals today. For example, cleaner wrasse earn the right to pick parasites and dead tissue from their larger fishy clients by acquiring a reputation for being good cleaners. Cheaters have been observed to lose their cleaning rights and hence their client base.

Actions of animals which seem to be pure acts of kindness with no apparent expectation of payback are somewhat difficult to explain, but Dawkins cites the example of the babbler birds of Australia and the Pacific Islands. Some individuals have been observed to assert their dominance by feeding subordinates, reacting violently if the subordinate bird tries to reverse these roles. Similarly, dominant birds will also actively compete for the dangerous role of sentinel - the right to sit on the highest branches to look out for predators.

He goes on to look at the reactions of humans when faced with moral dilemmas and discusses the question of whether morals are universal. I've added this part of the chapter below:

Dawkins - A Case Study in the Roots of Morality

The Devil

The concept of the devil as the enemy of God appears to be specifically a creation of modern Christianity. He appears in the Old Testament, but here he is more of a trickster, sent by God to test the faith of his people. His identification with the snake that tempts Eve in Genesis appears to be a product of Christian revisionism. In the Qur’an (where he is identified as Iblis, an entity created by God from fire) he is given a mission by God to deceive mankind in order to allow the faithful to be identified at Judgment Day. The role of trickster and mischief-maker is clearly identifiable with Pagan gods such Loki. In Buddhism the figure of Mara, the tempter, appears and tries to tempt the Buddha. Eastern religions such as Hinduism recognize that evil exists, but not in the form of an identifiable being.

In the Middle Ages, especially during the time of the Black Death, it was convenient for the Catholic Church to blame the misfortunes that befell Europe on a malevolent supernatural force. In some ways this was a propaganda coup for the Church, and they were able to increase their hold over the common people and decrease the influence of ancient superstitions and other religions. The devil was identified with Paganism. Witches were thought to consort with him, and therefore were punished horribly. Interestingly, Pagans themselves did not recognize Satan. They did worship horned gods (probably based on Greek deities such as Pan), and the recognizable modern image of the devil (as a horned beast) can probably be traced back to this.

As the concept of Satan developed from more of a metaphor to an embodiment of evil, some religions grew up which, by their own admission, worshipped him directly as a deity. I read recently that there are signs that Satanism is becoming socially tolerated (though perhaps not by Christians). For example,the British Armed Forces now allow it to be practiced openly.

In this BBC podcast, a group of historians discuss the origins of the devil and the folklore that surrounds him:

St. Thomas Aquinas

St. Thomas Aquinas (1225 - 1274) was one of the greatest thinkers in European History. He was a Dominican priest who believed that the ideas of Aristotle should be applied to Catholic teaching. Aristotle sought to develop a universal method of reasoning through which it would be possible to learn everything there is to know about reality. Thomas Aquinas tried to apply these same ideas to the understanding of religion. He felt that it was possible for a person to accept religious teachings by faith alone, but he also asserted that theology is a science in which careful application of reason can yield observable proofs of knowledge. He taught that individuals could come to know God through scientific study of the Universe - a revolutionary idea in a medieval world in which the average person was happy to leave knowledge in the hands of the clergy. He could be credited with forcing the Church to come to terms with allowing common people access to religious knowledge. In doing so, he perhaps also became one of the founding fathers of scientific thinking.

In this BBC podcast, a group of historians, philosophers and educators discuss his legacy:

Morality without religion

One theory of ethics (and it could be argued therefore morality) is the existence of religion. Certainly many religious figures have argued that religion (their own) is the glue that holds society together and prevents us from entering a moral abyss. During his 2007 visit to Brazil, Pope Benedict XVI said:

"Where God is absent - God with the human face of Jesus Christ - these [moral] values fail to show themselves with their full force: nor does a consensus arise concerning them.
I do not mean that nonbelievers cannot live a lofty and exemplary morality; I am only saying that a society in which God is absent will not find the necessary consensus on moral values or the strength to live according to the model of these values".

Another commonly touted argument is that amoral (or immoral) figures throughout history (such as Stalin) professed to being atheists.

Not everyone would agree with this. The Greek philosopher Plato (228-348 BC) believed that ethics could not be derived from religion. He raised the question:

"Is something good because God says it is good, or does God say it is good because it is good?"

If it is possible for something to be inherently good, then it seems it is not necessary to appeal to the existence of God (and therefore organised religion) as the basis of ethics and morals. Of course, other ideas of the genesis of ethics exist: moral relativism, self-interest, duty ethics and utilitarianism. Therefore it could be argued that ethics and morals can exist completely independently of religion.

Richard Dawkins would not be expected to agree with the religious ethics argument. In the video below he sets out his beliefs that it is possible for an atheist to be a moral person. He also discusses his view that morals developed through natural selection as altruism developed in our ancestors.

The God Delusion

Richard Dawkins is a former Oxford professor of the public understanding of science and author of the 2006 best-selling book 'The God Delusion'. In it he contends that a belief in the existence of God is contrary to all evidence and is therefore a fallacy, and argues that religion is the root of many evils. He has been described as a 'fundamentalist atheist'.

The book has divided opinion. In Turkey for example Dawkins' website was banned. A number of books have been published in defense of religion, rebutting his arguments. If you trawl through the internet its also obvious that he has developed a cult following, but has also to some extent become demonised. Over the last few years he has started to travel, debatating the issues on global television. He has appeared on televised debates in Mexico and the US, and even dropped in to the Bill O'Reilly Show on Fox News.

In 2007 he produced a two part documentary series on British television (Channel 4). I've copied youtube links for the first episode below if you are interested in seeing it. Remember that it's his personal opinion. It's interesting to analyse his language when he talks respectively about science and religion, and he does tend to come across as occasionally arrogant and condescending, depending on your point of view:

Arguments in favour of the existence of God

William Lane Craig (born August 23, 1949) is an American evangelical Christian theologian and philosopher. He is currently a research professor of philosophy at Talbot School of Theology, Biola, a private Christian university in southern California. He is a good speaker and is well known for appearing in debates championing the existence of God. In this youtube clip he sets out his arguments. Some of them could be taken straight out of a TOK textbook while I feel that others are rather circular arguments and have premises based in his own faith. I do, however, think this clip makes a nice starting point for a discussion on this topic, whatever your own position is: