I’m sick and tired of the way that extremist conservative claims about history – such that Abraham Lincoln actually existed – are taken seriously, but serious, well-thought-out, well evidenced and reasonable claims – like the claim that Richard Carrier does not exist – are demonised. This is manifestly unfair. As Tim McGrew has recently shown, pure Bayesian probability gives us excellent reasons to doubt this strong claim:
Read the rest of the entry »

Really? So humanism is natural law theory? Or maybe a humanist wrote the book of Romans. Someone didn’t do much thinking when making this one! If humanism were really nothing more than a moral epistemology then someone should have told them!

Alexander Pruss recently presented this “fun argument for dualism” at his blog:

(Premise) Our embodiment is universally seen as funny.

(Premise, justified inductively by 1) Our embodiment is objectively funny.

(Premise) The essence of the funny is incongruity.

(Premise) If materialism is true, there is no incongruity in our embodiment.

(Premise) If materialism is false, then dualism is true.

There is incongruity in our embodiment. (2 and 3)

Materialism is false. (4 and 6)

Dualism is true. (5 and 7)

My reply: Don’t ever do that again, or anything like it.

Two men met at a Christian conference. Man A eyed man B suspiciously before striking up a conversation. The following back and forth ensued:

Man A: What’s that Bible you have there?

Man B: Hello to you too. It’s an ESV.

Man A: Oh, well that’s pretty good I guess…. Luther or Calvin?

Man B: I’m sorry?

Man A: Luther or Calvin?

Man B: Ah, well, Calvin I supp-

Man A: Yes! Yes, good, Calvin!

Man B: Ah, OK, good. Look, my name’s Greg. It’s nice to meet you.

Man A: Greg you say. Well Greg, Trinitarian and all that?

Man B: Yes, of course.

Man A: Of course, of course. Now, think fast: Pre, Post, or A?

Man B: I’m sorry, what?

Man A: The millennium! Pre, Post or A?

Man B: Um, well, I don’t- I mean I’m not really decided. Maybe Amillennial, but Postmillennialism could be right, I’ve never really thought hard about tha-

Man A: Ah, well, at least you’re not the other one. Westminster confession?

Man B: Yes, it’s pretty good. Not infallible, mind you, but it’s good.

Man A: Mmmm, sounding a bit liberal there… we’ll work on it. Sola Scriptura?

Man B: Yes, actually. Yes, as long as it’s properly understood.

Man A: Properly understood? That better not be a cop out!

Man B: No, not at all. I just mean that I accept that idea as it was historically understood by the Reformers.

Man A: … alright then. Justification by faith?

Man B: Yes.

Man A: Abortion is wrong right?

Man B: Yes, definitely. It’s like killing anyone else.

Man A: Yes, Amen! Good, good. Same sex marriage. Yes or no?

Man B: No.

Man A: Well said.

Man B: Why are you doin-

Man A: Oh nothing. Nothing, don’t worry. Sounds like you’ll be alright.

Man B: I’m relieved!

Man A: Yes, yes, don’t worry, you’re not like those liberal punks. They’ll be sorry when they end up roasting in hell forever.

Man B: Well you know I’m not really sure that the Bible teaches that that’s what will happ-

Man A: Liberal! Postmodern! You’ve given up a biblical worldview! Heck, you’ve just thrown evangelical Christianity away! You’re so emotional!

Glenn Peoples

Looking over recent census based statitstics on religion, I note that there are some deniers out there. Those deniers at statistics new Zealand claim that affiliation with Christian demoninations is on the decline, and there is a rise in numbers of those willing to change their identification from “other” to “no religion.” What a pack of deniers. Clearly they are anti-science.

But my say-so isn’t going to cut it I fear. I need… a graph! People believe graphs. But there’s one problem… all this pesky data lying around. What if people find it? They might become diners too, and we can’t have that. Then I struck on a brilliant idea. I gathered up all this data and emailed it off to East Anglia’s Hadley Climatic Research Centre. I hear they’re great at making stuff up number crunching.

Before the final result was produced, there were a number of emails sent around between collaborators who were to produce the final version of the graph. I liked what I heard. Mick Kelly said:

Hmmm, I’m concerned by the possibility that we might be going through a longer – 10 year – period of relatively stable numbers beyond what you might expect from temporary backsliding as people go through University etc. Speculation, but if I see this as a possibility then others might also. Anyway, I’ll maybe cut the last few points off the curve before I give the talk again as that’s trending down as a result of the end effects and the recent “heathen-esqe” years.

Smooth move! I was hoping that some of the others might come to the party to massage the data and make sure that it gives the result that I want people to believe right result. I was not disappointed. Phil Jones had just the thing, right before the final diagram was produced:

Once Tim’s got a diagram here we’ll send that off to Glenn either later today or first thing tomorrow. I’ve just completed Mike’s trick of adding in the real number of Christians to each series for the last 10 years (ie from 2000 onwards) to hide the decline. We wouldn’t want anyone to notice the decline. That would be bad.

Bad indeed! Now instead of a decline in the Christian percentage, we have scientific proof that we’re heading for a revival! Oh, I suppose you’ll want to see the graph. After all, there’s no proof without a graph. So here it is:

Where are the deniers now?

I like The Colbert Report. Here Colbert hosts and tackles Bart Ehrman, a scholar I’ve said things about before. The result is pleasing to me. That skeptics with a penchant for the sensational like this get so much favorable press among skeptics without a background in biblical studies is a source of some frustration to many who know better. I think the treatment his work receives in this interview is more in keeping with what it deserves.

The one thing I can’t figure out is why Ehrman here seems to think that a concession to a critic, like “yeah,” “right” or “exactly,” is a rebuttal of the criticism.

Some hat tipping is in order here. Firstly to Pansy and Peony where I saw this clip. Secondly to Dr Tim McGrew for bringing the link to my attention, and thirdly to Matt and Madeleine’s M and M blog where Tim posted the link. I’m running out of hats!

Hey everyone, this is my last podcast episode for 2008, So I thought I’d do something light hearted. Here’s a brief glimpse at purgatory, aka “what lefties do do Christmas.” Enjoy. I can’t take credit for the story. It was concocted by one John Mitchell, and can be found here.

Merry Christmas!

Episode 022: Merry Christmas! [ 7:36 ] Play Now | Play in Popup | Download

I’m sure this has been around for a while, but I’ve only just discovered David Chalmers’ philosophical humour site here.

It has some gems, two of my favourite being:

From the Philosophical Lexicon: alvinize, v. To stimulate protracted discussion by making a bizarre claim. “His contention that natural evil is due to Satanic agency alvinized his listeners.”

If you’re a Plantinga reader, you get it. If not, too bad.)

And secondly, the page on Nietzsche’s guide to tech support here is fantastic. The advice, “What you’ve done in your function, fool, is the coding equivalent of failing to empty your colostomy bag” seems to flow rather naturally from the late nihilist.