My paper “A New Euthyphro” has been published by the journal Think: Philosophy for Everyone (a journal of the Royal Institute of Philosophy) volume 9, issue 25. Think is an enjoyable  journal featuring presentations of complex philosophical issues in a stripped-down digestable way for a wider audience than just those with graduate degrees in philosophy. In fact I think that presenting issues in this way is precisely the philosopher’s role, to serve the wider human community and not just the academic elite.

In this paper I present a modern version of the classic dialogue Euthyphro by Plato, a dialogue that was once thought (and still is by some outside the field of philosophy of religion) to have demolished the idea that morality is determined by the will or commands of God. In this version, however, Euthyphro is given a fighting chance by being allowed to share the insights of modern philosophy of religion and meta-ethics as it has dismantled Plato’s critique.

The paper was actually accepted for publication in this journal in 2007, but after quite some months the editor’s computer crashed, and the article, along with my contact details, were lost. A couple of years later when nothing seemed to be happening I got back in touch, found out what had happened, and the wheels started moving again, and now at last it has rolled off the press.

An interesting discussion broke out over at M and M recently about a guest post by bethyada on whether or not the tax exempt status of churches directly costs taxpayers. I’ll let his piece speak for itself and won’t really get into the actual subject of it, because in the comments section a different issue came up that I’d like to put out there for your consideration.

One of the correspondents was insistent that the tax exempt status of churches amounted to a “privilege” that nobody else gets, and that no organisation should have tax exempt status by virtue of of being a church – they had to actually be charitable. According to New Zealand law, a charitable purpose (for tax exemption purposes) “includes every charitable purpose, whether it relates to the relief of poverty, the advancement of education or religion, or any other matter beneficial to the community.”
Interested? Read the rest.

Episode 35 is an analysis of a recent talk given by Sam Harris on science and human values. The talk was part of a TED conference, and you can see part 1 here. Harris thinks that he has argued that moral facts are actually scientific facts. I think he has failed, and here I offer an explanation of how I think he has failed. In brief, I think his entire presentation is an exercise in circular reasoning.

Harris has a new book on the subject, The Moral Landscape, which is to be released later this year. If you’d like to order a copy, please use this link and the Book Depository will look kindly on me.

Episode 035: Sam Harris, Science and Morality [ 46:28 ] Play Now | Play in Popup | Download

Some people – generally those who openly identify with what is nebulously called “the left,” think it’s an old chestnut that there’s a “liberal bias” in mainstream media. That claim, they might suppose, is just a case of whining conservatives who don’t like the media telling it like it is. Anyone can pontificate on generalities. I’d rather give you an example.

This time the credit goes to the Verum Serum blog (a fantastic blog I have recently discovered) for bringing this example to my attention. Remember George Tiller? He was an abortionist who carried out very late term abortions – literally killing babies at a point in their lives where other babies of the same age were being delivered in maternity wards. He was shot dead by a man who opposed what he was doing, and he became the darling of the media for a while. He served, in the minds of many, largely thanks to this coverage, as a reminder of the dangerous “right wing” ideology simmering beneath the surface of the pro-life movement, and his death was used as a justification for accusations against conservatives as being “neo Nazis,” some pro-choicers going as far as to advocate killing pro-lifers and their families in retribution to even things up a little.

It’s likely that you had heard of George Tiller. Now think fast – who is Jim Pouillon?

Unless you already had a special interest in the abortion issue (or you have read or heard comments about him from someone who has such an interest), I’m pretty certain that you don’t know who Jim Pouillon is. He was a pro life advocate who was shot dead for holding a sign. Apparently his message in defence of the unborn irritated somebody.

Mainstream media outlets Time, the LA Times, the New York Times and the Washington Post, combined, gave the death of George Tiller a total of sixty separate pieces of writing, using up 46,556 words. That’s the size of a master’s thesis. By contrast, these same media outlets printed twelve stories that mentioned the shooting of Jim Pouillon (Time included none at all, compared with at least nine stories on George Tiller’s shooting), using up 5,339 words. Comparing this murder to the murder of George Tiller In coverage space, that’s a ratio of about 1:8.7. These media outlets thought that it was almost nine times more important to make sure you knew about an abortionist being shot than to tell you about the murder of a pro-lifer. In the LA Times and Washington post the average was even worse, a 1:20 ratio.

This is to say nothing of the intensely negative stance taken towards Poullion (a stance bordering on depicting the man as more or less deserving what he got) with the overflowing admiration for Tiller. These stats alone say nothing about the way that such stories recalled past acts of violence against abortionists or abortion clinics, but are completely silent on any other acts of aggression towards pro lifers. When Mr Pouillon was shot dead in the street, no newspaper implied that it was time for pro choice advocates to “go into damage control mode.”

John’s comments from Verum Serum are so apt (bold and italtics are mine):

It’s impossible to look at the numbers, not to mention the tone of the coverage itself, and avoid the obvious conclusion that the press has a dog in this fight. The reporters writing these stories are nearly all pro-choice. So are the editors assigning the stories and writing the headlines. As a result, right-wing violence garners a lot more media coverage. It’s not a conspiracy, just confirmation bias in action.

And it extends far beyond this story. Did you know that a Crisis Pregnancy Center in Arizona was burned out just before Christmas? Probably not since not a single major media outlet covered the story. But if someone sets fire to an abortion clinic you can bet it will be national news.

Sadly, the MSM’s story selection eventually forms a kind of conventional wisdom, one that suggests “right-wing” is the natural prefix for “extremism.” In contrast, examples of left-wing violence are just a blip, a local crime story with no national implications worth mentioning if the story is mentioned at all.

The other day I blogged to remind people that in spite of the fact that I’m more than a little sceptical, jaded and cynical about people who claim that they know of a miracle that has occurred, I believe that they can and do happen. The case of Duane Miller is powerful testimony to that. But I saw this today, just another reminder of why I am so cynical about such claims in general:

This man is part of the reason that so many people write Christians off as gullible simpletons who will believe anything if it furthers their cause. This is why Christians need to be sceptical, because what you see in this video clip is alarmingly common.

I’m going to put in some serious hours over the next few days and work on the next podcast episode. I haven’t picked a title yet, but it’s going to be about science and morality, or more specifically, whether or not there’s a basis of morality in science. By “morality” I do not mean to talk about psychology. In other words, the issue I’ll be discussing isn’t whether or not science can explain why people form some of the moral beliefs they do. That’s not an ethical question, it’s a psychological question. This episode will be about the relationship between morality and science.

I’ll be interacting with Sam Harris, one of the so-called “new atheists,” prolific writer and speaker against religious belief. He has proposed a scientific basis of morality, and his new book on the subject will be released later this year. I can’t say a lot at this stage as I’ll be listening to a series of talks by him on the subject tonight. Sit tight.

For those who don’t regularly read the blog, here’s another reminder about my trip to Oxford in late August. I’ll be speaking on religion in the public square at Merton College, Oxford University. It’s for the conference of the European Society for the Philosophy of Religion. I’m raising funds to make the trip (alas, amateurs like me don’t have academic departments to support them). Check out my original post on the subject if you haven’t, seen it already (or click on the flashing “help get me to Oxford” button on the right). I’ve really appreciated the donations that people have so generously given. As things stand at the moment, I’m just a little under halfway there.

One of the true giants of philosophy of the last 100 years, Antony Garrard Newton Flew has passed away at the good age of 87. The eighth of April 2010 was his last day.

He was best known during most of his academic career as a truly intellectually respectable proponent of what is sometimes called “negative atheism.” In fact Flew was largely the one responsible for the introduction of that term. He acknowledged that the word “atheist” historically referred to one who believed that God does not exist, but he asked for a gentler usage, where it essentially means an agnostic who is inclined to doubt theism rather than accept it.

That changed in 2004 when Flew moved away from atheism, and accepted that there was a God after all. Things heated up in 2007 with the publication of There is a God: How the World’s most notorious atheist changed his mind. Unfortunately, many in the atheist community, especially Richard Dawkins and PZ Myers, responded to this change of mind by belittling and patronising Flew with suggestions that he had lost his marbles, that Christians were manipulating him into saying what they wanted, and that his change of mind was “sad.” I suppose there are no holds barred when it comes to the possibility of admitting that an intelligent person was convinced by the evidence that there is a God. Flew was strongly critical of the work of Dawkins, labelling him a “bigot”. Those close to Flew maintained that whether he was right or wrong, he knew full well what he was talking about when he explained his new position. According to Antony Flew himself:

My name is on the book and it represents exactly my opinions. I would not have a book issued in my name that I do not 100 percent agree with. I needed someone to do the actual writing because I’m 84 and that was Roy Varghese’s role. The idea that someone manipulated me because I’m old is exactly wrong. I may be old but it is hard to manipulate me. This is my book and it represents my thinking.

I wish he had changed his mind more than he did, for obvious reasons.

The world recently lost one of its finest philosophers.

In the appropriate sense, I am a sceptic (and no, my American friends, I did not misspell that). Some people claim to be sceptics when all they really mean (or at least all they accurately convey) is that they are passionately devoted to the thesis that God doesn’t exist and religion is bunk. They’re not really that sceptical. I think I am. If someone tells me that a miracle occurred at her local church last Sunday and someone’s filling was turned to gold (and yes, I have heard precisely this claim made), I doubt it. I’ve been to plenty of churches and meetings where there were preachers who believed in such things, and I’ve been to meetings where people claimed – right then and there, that a miraculous healing had taken place. Every single time it was false. I have witnessed no such thing actually take place right in front of me, and I tend not to believe such claims because I don’t believe that they are substantiated. But I said “tend.” I don’t dogmatically assert that they are impossible, and I don’t rule them out.

I am, after all, a Christian. I believe that God is real, and some of the most important facts of history are facts about miraculous events (most obviously and importantly, the resurrection of Jesus). Being as sceptical and cynical as I am, and trying as hard as I have tried to avoid the hysteria and gullibility that runs rampant in some Christian circles, I run a real risk – a risk that I sometimes, unfortunately, succumb to – of acting as though such things cannot happen at all. That’s not what I believe. What’s more, to the person who is not ideologically committed to ruling out the possibility of miraculous or supernatural things happening in the world, the evidence is there for any sincere seeker that such things have in fact happened. Setting aside for now the big kahuna – the life, death and resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth – there are other examples in history, including modern history as well. Are they common? No. They’re miracles and strange occurrences. If you do go looking for examples, you will find dozens and dozens (and DOZENS) of frauds. I’ve watched enough of them in person and on Youtube to have cringed hundreds of times at the credulity of some people. But serious examples are there. Here are three examples.
Interested? Read the rest.

As you may have heard, after ten years behind closed doors, the Shroud of Turin is about to go on display.

The book I’m reading at the moment, The Jesus Legend by Paul Eddy and Greg Boyd has had me thinking a lot about discussions over the historicity of Jesus and his death and resurrection, so although I’ve known about the shroud for years (I first watched a video about it when I was eleven or twelve), seeing it in the news piqued my interest.

The news story notes, “But experts stand by carbon-dating of scraps of the cloth that determine the linen was made in the 13th or 14th century in a kind of medieval forgery.” Reality is never, of course, that simple, and the facts are more accurately stated by saying that there are some experts who think that the Shroud is a medieval forgery, and there are some who do not believe that it is.

The case for the medieval origin of the Shroud of Turin was published as “Radiocarbon Dating of the Shroud of Turin,” Nature 337:6208 (1989), 611-615. The late Ray Rogers, in 2005, published a critique of that re-dating of the shroud, arguing that the method used was flawed. Discussions of his evidence and other material can be perused over at the Shroud of Turin Story website. Another significant peer reviewed work is M. S. Benford and J. G. Marino, “Discrepancies in the radiocarbon dating area of the Turin Shroud,” Chemistry Today 26:4 (2008).

But, sceptics aren’t convinced. For example: “A Skeptical Response to Studies on the Radiocarbon Sample from the Shroud of Turinby Raymond N. Rogers, Thermochimica Acta 425 (2005) 189-194,” by Steven D. Schafersman, Science Consultant and Administrator, The Skeptical Shroud of Turin Website.

I’m not a chemist and I have absolutely no expertise in analysing fabric samples. Explore those arguments for yourself and see what you make of them. As best I can tell, they indicate that the authenticity of the Shroud of Turin as an artefact from the first century that appears to depict wounds like those we would expect on the body of Jesus of Nazareth remains, from a scientific point of view, an open question.
Interested? Read the rest.

Today I spotted a (now inactive) comic called Cectic. Here’s how the author, Rudiz Muiznieks, describes his comic:

Cectic is the user manual for your brain, in comic-form. It was originally published every Monday, Wednesday, and Friday, but real-life interceded, and as of November 2008 was only published (approximately) once every few weeks on Sundays. On January 24, 2009, Rudis announced that Cectic had come to an end.
Cectic is for skeptics. If you’re not amused, try Chick Publications, or Dan’s Pulpit (sent to me by a reader who referred to it as the Anti-Cectic).

The particular comic on this site that served as my introduction to Cectic was this one:

(Taken from http://cectic.com/146.html)

I was a little stunned at first. Not at the profundity of the point being made – anything but! I was stunned by the realisation that the author of the comic appears to genuinely think that he has scored a rhetorical point. Unfortunately, I’m fairly sure that many of the “sceptics” for whom Cectic is intended would have read this, smiled and nodded wisely, saying to themselves something like “Haha, yes, excellent point. You’ve really cornered those fundies on this one! Why don’t they see this?”

What irritates me further is the knowledge that Cectic isn’t alone. This breathtakingly shallow analysis is common – unless my experiences are atypical. So why do I take issue with it? Let me count the ways (OK there are only a few ways, but it was a short conversation!):

Firstly, the Christian in this discussion grants without hesitation that requirements that held in the Old Testament, by virtue of being in the Old Testament, no longer apply today. He doesn’t make a rather obvious reply like “Wait, no we don’t believe that at all. Kidnapping is forbidden in the Old Testament but not the New Testament, yet we don’t think that’s OK. No, that is not the principle we hold to at all.” This would have stopped the other guy’s faulty analysis dead in its tracks, because its underlying principle would be rejected right from the start.

Secondly, the Christian accepts without hesitation the claim that the biblical case – the entire biblical case – that there is something wrong with homosexuality comes from the book of Leviticus. There’s no reference to the creation account, to the case of Sodom and Gomorrah, to the early chapters of Romans or to the first letter to the Corinthians, all of which contribute to the Christian understanding that is being criticised here. The fact is, absolutely nobody would grant that this claim about Leviticus being the only relevant source is correct. This is to say nothing of the way that it is assumed that in reality, Christians should regard nothing in the book of Leviticus as being of any value (not even “love your neighbour as yourself,” which is in Leviticus, right after the list of sexual sins, including homosexual acts).

Thirdly, the Christian affirms that Christian leaders and teachers (in this case his pastor) affirm that the above claims are in fact what Christians believe. But Christians believe neither of these two things. Further, it is suggested that the case is so absurd that Christians are likely to see it as silly, but continue to rely on it anyway on the basis of church authority.

There’s little (if any) point in actually interacting with people who think this way. It’s clear that they didn’t get to this point of view by honest observation or by actually making an effort to find out what other people really think, so it’s not like accuracy is regarded as particularly important by people who present stuff like this. Pointing out to people who present things like this that the representation is faulty at every step of the way is unlikely to be a productive enterprise. I suppose it’s (perhaps) revealing that this is the way a self-professed sceptic writes a “user manual for your brain.” What’s truly ironic is that it appears that this comic was presented to show that conservative Christians are the ones with shallow arguments that they haven’t really thought about.

Glenn Peoples