Foul play reported at show by psychic Sally Morgan

On Sept 11th, while psychic Sally Morgan was displaying her amazing abilities in the Grand Canal Theatre in Dublin, several of the audience (who had paid 40 quid a ticket) reported that they heard a strange voice at the back of the room relaying information to her.

They told their story to Joe Duffy on RTE radio (12th Sept show):

Sue went to see psychic Sally Morgan last night in the Grand Canal Theatre. She was great in the first half but during the second half Sue began to hear somebody talking loudly at the back of where she was sitting. She thought it was somebody heckling but she soon realised that everything he said Sally was repeating on stage. He would say a name like David and she would repeat it onstage. Other callers who were also at the show tell of similar experiences.

At the very least, it seems that a few believers are now skeptical of Sally's professed psychic abilities. One woman reported that while she was queing at the end of the show to get a book signed, the woman in front of her asked Sally about one of the names she was calling out during the show. The woman in question had realised too late that this name was relevant to her. Shockingly, Sally allegedly dismissed the grieving woman, who had forked out €40 for the ticket and presumably another sum for a book, saying that she was finished relaying messages for the evening. In other words, give me your money and get lost. End of story.

It's sad that even some of the women that called into the radio show, who heard the man relaying information to Sally, still think she is a genuine psychic and cares about her grieving audiences. There is only one thing that Sally and her staff are interested in - I'll leave it up to you to work it out.

Of course, that 'voices in the head' are used as part of a psychic's show is not a new discovery. They've been doing it for years. Most famously, the faith-healer Peter Popoff was exposed as use this technique by James Randi back in the 1980s. This incident is detailed in the below video, in which he also embarrasses Uri Geller on the Tonight Show.

Sally Morgan be warned.

(Source)

Read More...

Summary only...

Skeptical Twitter community brings down internet spammer

See here for an excellent summary of the history behind the recent arrest of internet spammer and sender of death threats, Dennis Markuze (aka David Mabus).

The kook pictured below has spammed the inbox of hundreds of skeptical bloggers for years, starting off with relatively harmless verbal diarrhea, but becoming more and more sinister in recent times. His downfall came when he moved his tirade of abuse to Twitter, following which he (presumably unknowingly) began to harass the Montreal police department. The skeptical Twitter community then launched a petition to get the Montreal police to investigate Markuze. It worked. He was arrested and now faces 16 separate charges, and is currently undergoing a 30-day psychological evaluation.

What a moron.

Read More...

Summary only...

The good, the bad and the ugly of Lyme disease treatment

Treating human disease is difficult for a number of reasons, not least the fact that patients have preconceptions about what treatments they want to receive. If a doctor prescribes a certain medication, and the patient - in full knowledge of the facts - decides not to take it, then there is not much more that the doctor can do. A case in point is highlighted in the March 2011 edition of Nature Reviews Rheumatology, specifically in a Case Study article entitled: "A case revealing the natural history of untreated Lyme disease".

In this article, a rheumatologist named Robert T. Schoen recounts the story of a patient he had who was determined to use a combination of acupuncture and homeopathy to cure her Lyme disease, a condition brought about by a bite from a tick of the Borrelia genus. Although the alternative treatments occasionally gave her some relief from her symptoms (the placebo effect - alive and strong), her Lyme disease, and painful arthritic episodes, kept coming back.

But still, she refused to take antibiotics:

The rheumatologist confirmed the diagnosis of Lyme arthritis and prescribed amoxicillin (500 mg, three times daily for 28 days) to hasten the resolution of the current episode of arthritis and to prevent subsequent flare-ups. The patient initially agreed to take this treatment and to return at the completion of antibiotic therapy. When seen a month later, however, she had not taken any of the prescribed antibiotic therapy.

Medically speaking, this was obviously not an ideal situation for the patient. However, through her refusal to accept the convential Lyme disease treatment, the disease was able to progress naturally over a period of almost 4 years - Lyme disease is usually treated successfully with antibiotics. This situation gave the doctors a unique opportunity to study how the disease progresses and, ultimately, determine how effective the conventional treatments are following such a long disease period.

Below is a timeline for the four years (click to enlarge). Symptoms are displayed above the timeline. The visits to the homeopath, acupuncturist and rheumatologist are color-coded and displayed below the timeline.

Notice how even the homeopath eventually admitted defeat and prescribed antibiotics for the patient - and she still didn't take them!

Eventually, after four years of failed alterntive treatments, the patient was in so much pain that she had confined herself to bed for a month. She relunctantly visited and listened to the advice of a rheumatologist and took a 30-day course of doxycycline. Six months later, she had no further arthritis and remained well.

Schoen concludes:

...patients who are not treated with antibiotic therapy are known to have recurrent episodes of oligoarthritis, often affecting the knee. Indeed, this Case Study demonstrates that Lyme arthritis, if untreated, continues to occur in a well-characterized pattern that can last for years. Furthermore, the arthritis in this patient is thought to have resulted from B. burgdorferi infection (in the absence of previous antibiotic therapy) rather than a postinfectious inflammatory process, and her condition was cured with a relatively short course of antibiotic treatment. The clinical identification of this increasingly uncommon long-term form of Lyme arthritis is important and appropriate management, even at this late-stage of disease, can result in gratifying treatment outcomes.

This case shows two things quite clearly:

1 - Even after four years of allowing Lyme disease to progress naturally, the patient was still successfully treated with antibiotics (the good)

2 - Acupuncture (the bad) and homeopathy (the ugly) are not effective at treating Lyme disease

The first point above bodes well for Lyme disease patients; conventional medicine can still be effective, even years after contracting the disease.

The second point simply serves as a warning to those who seek out unproven remedies for serious illnesses - do so at your own peril.

Read More...

Summary only...

Psychic wastes police time, as usual

It turns out there was no mass grave in Texas. Of course, the police had no choice. They have to follow up a 'lead' when it involves the possible murder of children, because if they don't and it turns out to be true, then there will be a massive public outcry. But I wonder, has a psychic ever actually been shown to have provided a significant case-solving piece of information?

No, according to this article:

What appears to be most annoying to police officers is that when crimes happen—especially high-profile crimes—psychics call in offering information—sometimes hundreds of them. Regardless of whether the information is even acknowledged, the psychic claims that the police consulted him or her on that case. This appears to have been the MO of more than a few famous psychics, whose cases numbered into the hundreds and thousands. How many they actually worked on, let alone were invited into, is anyone's guess.

Often on any given case, no two psychics agree, so which one is to be believed? Even if one is singled out, the information that psychics give is typically too vague and impressionistic to narrow down the field of search, and it looks impressive only in retrospect.

Joe Nickell asks psychics to step forward and solve the great mysteries, such as where is Jimmy Hoffa? Or who killed JonBenet Ramsey? So far, psychics have tried but none has succeeded.

Says debunker Gary Posner, who criticizes the lack of controlled studies of paranormal phenomena, "There has not been a single iron-clad case, bulletproof case that has been convincing."

In addition, no psychic has ever stepped forward to try for the million-dollar reward that James Randi's educational foundation offers (nor any other financial award from other agencies) for proving their psychic powers in controlled conditions. This certainly baffles the average person.

Thus far, a psychic's reliability for law enforcement has not been established. Anecdotal information is sometimes impressive and even surprising, but nothing can be concluded about using psychics as resources in solving a crime.

Read More...

Summary only...

Sovereign Independent - much huff and puff but no substance

I became a member on Skeptic Ireland yesterday and upon reading a recent post there, my attention was drawn to the Sovereign Independent website - a real goldmine for conspiracy theories and New World Order nonsense. The co-editor is called Neil Foster and in this post he attacks an article in the Irish Independent (a real newspaper) by Ed Power which pokes fun at conspiracy theories. Here is an excerpt from Power's piece:

Spend just a few minutes on the internet and it becomes obvious we live in the golden age of conspiracy theories. From climate change (concocted by Al Gore and grant-hungry scientists) to September 11 (a CIA plot to stir up resentment against the Arab world) there is, it seems, a crank hypothesis for everything.

He provides a list of popular conspiracy theories including the JFK assassination, the origin of AIDS and even that Stephen King shot John Lennon! At the end of the article, Power mentions a few theories that actually did turn out to be true. These include the infamous Tuskegee syphilis study on black men conducted by the American government, CIA-funded propaganda during the Cold War, and finally the assertion that Ireland's economic problems were caused by a greedy cabal of bankers (this last one is obviously being referred to as a conspiracy theory tongue-in-cheekily, as it is widely known to be patently true)

And so, how did Neil Foster of the Sovereign Independent respond?

Well, he was angry. Very angry. In fact, such was his outrage at 'this piece of gutter journalism', I fully expected him to show us all how to critically analyse an article in a proper journalistic manner....

But no. As it turns out, Foster is the real 'gutter journalist' here. First of all, his article is littered with nasty rants using terms such as 'moron', 'comic book garbage' and 'junk fuelled buffoonery'. Hardly journalistic prose worthy of a Pulitzer, now is it?

Furthermore, Foster is livid at Power for not considering the mounds of 'EVIDENCE!' that support his Orwellian worldview of secret societies and Big Pharma cabals that are moments away from taking over the world. Oh, and the word EVIDENCE! is always capitalised - don't you know that's a sign of a reputable journalist.

And what EVIDENCE! does Foster present?

Firstly, on the subject of Osama Bin Laden he begins with John Hill, who produced the 'Ripple Effect' DVD supposedly showing that the London 7/7 bombers were tricked into getting the tube by the UK government so that their movements could be caught on CCTV and the bombings later pinned on them. Indeed, according to Hill, the innocent young men were supposedly murdered in Canary Wharf and never made it to the site of the bombings. Foster claims that Hill and his crank theories were vindicated in a court of law:

I wonder if [Ed Power is] any relation to Peter Power, the lackey, or accomplice in the 7/7 London Bombings which interestingly are not mentioned in this hitpiece. I wonder if that’s got anything to do with the FACT that a jury found 10 to 2 in favour of John Anthony Hill recently in his ‘Ripple Effect’ trial?

'In favour of' Hill. Hmmm... This ambiguous sentence seems to be implying that a jury vindicated Hill's beliefs that the London 7/7 bombings were orchestrated by the UK government. I guess Foster has proved his point.

Oh no, wait. On closer inspection, Foster is simply manipulating the truth here. What a surprise!

All of Hill's nonsense was, of course, thoroughly debunked and indeed Hill was shown to simply be a bit of a loony - it has even been alleged that he claimed on his website to be the Messiah, and he also claimed that George Lucas was told the script of Star Wars telepathically by The Force. Following completion of his DVD, Hill sent it out to the judge and jury foreman in a trial linked to the attacks. For sending the DVD to people directly involved in the trial, Hill was arrested for perverting the course of justice. Indeed, it was this charge for which the jury found in his favour - that he didn't pervert the course of justice - but they most definitely did not endorse any of the claims in his conspiracy theory DVD, which is what Neil Foster is clearly trying to imply as EVIDENCE! to support his article. He truly is a beacon of journalistic honesty, this Foster chap!

The next piece of EVIDENCE! put forward by Foster is to support his claim that Osama Bin Laden was already dead prior to the recent announcement that US troops had killed him. The extent of his EVIDENCE! actually just turns out to be a 2007 interview by Benazir Bhutto in which she claims he is dead. Never mind the fact that she clearly implies in an interview a week later that he is, in fact, alive (she goes as far as saying that 'Osama Bin Laden is rubbing his hands in glee as he as he looks at what's happening in Pakistan'). Foster's EVIDENCE! amounts to cherry-picking whatever he likes from the internet to support his preconceived ideas. His mind is clearly muddled by confirmation bias.

This is the extent of the EVIDENCE! offered by Foster to support his claims, an irrelevant court decision and a cherry-picked comment, none of which he actually links to or presents references for.

But the final piece of 'gutter journalism' displayed by Foster is simply amazing. It turns out that he apparently can't even read. Here is what he has to say about the segment of Power's article on 'Conspiracy theories that turned out to be true' (Power's original words in bold, followed by Foster's response):

‘The American government conducted medical experiments on poor black men’… This is ADMITTED by the American government!

As is this… ‘The CIA Paid Journalists to Write Propaganda’ although the past tense shouldn’t be used because they still do it today! Try reading ‘Who Paid the Piper: CIA and the Cultural Cold War’ – By Francis Stoner Saunders.

But of course the whole hitpiece is designed to divert attention from the last ‘theory’ in your comic strip suggesting that it’s farcical to suggest that:
‘The Irish Economy Was Destroyed by a Cabal of Bungling Bankers, Incompetent Politicians and Sycophantic Regulators’

I’ll add the words you deliberately left out in this line:
‘The Irish economy was DELIBERATELY destroyed by a cabal of CRIMINAL bankers, CORRUPT, TREASONOUS politicians and BOUGHT & PAID FOR ‘REGULATORS’

Look around the country Power and see the effects of this ‘conspiracy theory’ in every town and city in the country where people are losing their homes and businesses, bankers are raping the country, the IMF is taking the country and unemployment is now reaching pandemic proportions; a PANDEMIC deliberately released upon the western world by a criminal elite who are openly pushing for a world government to save us all from ourselves.

The day is coming very soon when those responsible for this corruption will be taken to task and those in the mainstream media, and the lackeys they use to try to attempt unsuccessfully, to discredit the truth, (are you listening Jamie?) will also be held accountable for their inaction in warning the Irish people on matters of great importance, destroying their lives and those of future generations.

That's right folks! In his rage, Foster ploughed straight into his vitriolic rantings without even realising that Power was clearly pointing out that these particular examples are, in fact, true.

Not only that, but he deleted my comment pointing out the above, along with two comments from a person called Jamie, from Skeptic Ireland, who also happens to disagree with him (Foster attacks Jamie in the article too). Freedom of speech obviously isn't a priority for the Sovereign Independent.

Two things Mr Foster:

1) Understand when something is being said in jest.

2) If you are going to accuse others of 'gutter journalism', in your response try not to use ad hominen insults, completely debunked EVIDENCE! and cherry-picked facts. Oh, and try to read the article properly and not delete dissenting comments.

Read More...

Summary only...

Thoughts on some recent Premier debates

Last week I listened to three debates, all of which were hosted by Premier. Actually only two of them were debates (Alistar McGrath vs Stephen Law and Sye TenB vs Paul Baird), while the third was actually just William Lane Craig discussing a previous debate he 'kind of' had with Richard Dawkins.

Anyway here are my thoughts on all three. I list them in chronological order...


1) William Lane Craig discussion (audio here)

The gist of this program was that Craig was reporting on a debate he had with Dawkins in Mexico entitled 'Does the universe have a purpose?'. In fact, it was more of a panel vs panel debate, but this program mostly focused on the exchanges between Craig and Dawkins. Craig's main point throughout the program was that there is objective purpose in the universe, but the atheist worldview can only ever create illusory subjective purpose - e.g. I will be a great parent, I will learn how to play the guitar, etc. Craig agrees that everyone can create these types of purpose, but that they are ultimately transient and imaginary, unlike the real objective purpose that theists are privy to. Strangely, throughout the hour-long program, Craig never actually tells us what this real objective purpose is. He just keeps stating that it's there.

The irony, of course, is that he is labelling the only real purpose that we know exists (i.e. individual goals and objectives that we all have, including Craig) as being imaginary, while at the same time he contends that some unexplained and unproven transcendental purpose (which is almost certainly imaginary) is the only real purpose in the universe.

How strange.



2) Alistar McGrath vs Stephen Law (audio here)

This debate meandered over a number of topics with the usual wordy 'I'm-going-to-completely-change-the-subject' non-answers from McGrath. The first part that particularly interested me was when McGrath said that problems with any worldview arise when a claim is made that 'we are right' and 'you are wrong', and this can include both atheism and theism. Law pointed out that claiming you are right is fine, as long as you respect the right of your opponent to be wrong. It is when a person or movement becomes authoritarian that problems arise - i.e. when they say not only 'we are right', but also 'and you have to agree with us or else'.

The closing section of the debate saw Law in the driving seat as he pinned down both McGrath, and the host Justin, with his argument that we could all be worshipping the wrong God. Why can't it be an evil God? There is good and evil in the world, and yet most theists presume that God is good, and that any evil in the world is due to the 'fall of man'. The flip side, explained Law, is that perhaps God is actually evil, and so any good in the world is due to the fall of man from evil. He points out that even though nobody really believes this, it is equally as plausible and, crucially, is not defeated by any of the classical arguments for the existence of God as they are all neutral to the question of whether God is good or evil. Its quite a clever argument, and McGrath's response boiled down to 'God reveals himself and gives people comfort'. Law responded to say that evil spirits often reveal themselves to people, who are subsequently put on medication. For more on this intriguing argument see here.



3) Sye TenB vs Paul Baird (audio here)

Here we had Round 2 of the debate on presuppositional apologetics (PA) between Sye TenB and Paul Baird. In the first debate it was quite clear that Sye was not actually going to talk about the subject of the debate, but instead give a demonstration of it. It was refreshing, therefore, to see that this second debate was actually on the subject of PA and, tellingly, Sye was on shaky ground from the start. Paul brought up several criticims of PA, none of which were effectively dealt with by Sye.

One example was when Paul 'switched hats' and agreed to accept Sye's argument up to a point. Even if we accept that a God is the precondition to truth, logic, knowledge, etc, how do we get from there to exclusively the Christian God? Sye tried his best to evade this question with another 'how do you account for x, y and z' merry-go-round, but it was obvious that even Justin wasn't impressed with his non-answer after non-answer. Paul is uploading a transcript of the whole debate, and this part is especially telling:

Justin: I mean, essentially, this is again, picking up something Rolf Wolfram said to you in response to that show, Sye, he said "It's a circular argument because it presupposes the truth of the Bible" so, I think this all comes down to same point. What's the basis on which you presuppose the truth of the Bible over anything other belief system for this apologetic?

Sye: Well, for a start, if an unbeliever asks me a question like this, this is my response to Paul, "Pizza sleeps fast under the twice"

[pause]

Justin: Hmm. Ok

Sye: That's my response to Paul.

Justin: I understand that for Paul, you're saying that without laws of logic, denying those sorts of things, denying a God upon which those sorts of things rest, he can't get anywhere. But I suppose it's how do you move him from that to Christianity...

Note that Sye evaded answering Justin's question and last time I checked, Justin is not an 'unbeliever'. The criticism still stands, regardless of whether anyone can or cannot account for logic. That everyone except Sye can see this glaring flaw in his argument shows how deeply entrenched, and perhaps deluded, Sye really is. As I've said before, I think many people give Sye too much credit - he's nothing more than another Ray Comfort with an insatiable appetite for attention and publicity.

Read More...

Summary only...

Atheists to converge on Dublin

The World Atheist Convention is taking place in June (3-5th) right on my doorstep in Dublin.

The speakers will include:

• Richard Dawkins UK (evolutionary biologist)
• Lone Frank DK (neurobiologist, science writer)
• Michael Nugent IRL (chairperson Atheist Ireland)
• Paula Kirby UK (secular consultant, activist)
• PZ Myers USA (author science blog Pharyngula)
• Jane Donnelly IRL (education officer Atheist Ireland)
• Dan Barker USA (Freedom from Religion Foundation)
• Rebecca Watson USA (Skepchick blogger, podcaster)
• David Nash UK (professor, expert on blasphemy)
• Ivana Bacik IRL (Irish Senator in 30th Oireachtas)
• Aroup Chaterjee UK (physician, activist, author)
• Annie Laurie Gaylor USA (Freedom from Religion Foundation)
• Mark Embleton UK (president Atheism UK)


This couldn't be more accessible to me. I literally work across the street from the building where the convention will take place. Even so, I'm not sure if I'll go. I saw several of these speakers at TAM London last year and although I'm sure they might have different talks, for some reason I'm not all that pushed on going. I'd actually prefer to just go to the evening social sessions, assuming there will be some. Perhaps if some of the nice folks I met at TAM decide to go, then I'll attend the convention itself.

Let's wait and see...

Read More...

Summary only...

Black Magic Fail

In 2008, an Indian man called Sanal Edamaruku agreed for a famous tantra master to try and kill him with 'black magic' on live TV. The event was apparently watched by millions of people in India, many of whom live in fear of this type of black magic. Scheduled programs were dropped to allow for the live pictures to beamed across the country. As described by Edamaruku:

He boasted that he was able to kill anyone by mantra and tantra within three minutes. I grabbed my chance to put him in check and offered myself for a test. Caught on air, he couldn't escape without losing face – and his high-profile clientele. So our unprecedented experiment began.

As you can see, the tantrik tries lots of different methods and Edamaruku just stands there and laughs...





Following the failure to kill his volunteer, the tantrik suggests that he is invoking a god to protect himself. Edamaruku just laughs this suggestion off and explains that he is an atheist. The tantrik, clearly grasping at straws at this stage, claims that the black magic must be done at night, and so Edamaruku calls his bluff and offers his services again...that very night.

With no way to escape, he upped the stakes and agreed to perform the "ultimate destruction ceremony" that would kill me dead sure. With ratings soaring, the programme overran, rolling on and on in "breaking news" mode. The channel announced another round of our epic battle for the night show.

Not surprisingly, the black magic had NO effect whatsoever. Most importantly, millions of people saw that a superstition they had grown up believing to be true was actually a load of nonsense.

Part of the success of this event was the fact that the tantrik clearly believed in his abilities and so agreed to demonstrate them on live TV. Unfortunately, most practitioners of pseudoscience are less eager to directly test their claims in such a mainstream way (although a few have tried, and failed). Perhaps they know if they did so, the results would be similar to the above.

Read More...

Summary only...

TAM London Day 2

After a night on the beer, Day 2 of TAM London started off with a lot of water and coffee...

The first talk of the day was by Marcus Chown, who gave a talk on the "Top 10 Bonkers Things About The Universe" (much of which is covered here). For instance, all the matter that makes up the human race is actually only the size of a sugar cube - by virtue of the fact that the majority of an atom is empty space. Also, time isn't constant as it is influenced by gravity. The closer you are to a strong gravitational force (i.e. large mass), the slower time actually goes, meaning someone at the top of a staircase is ageing faster than someone at the bottom. Oh and he ended with a space montage to the sound of Ziggy Stardust. Nice.

DJ Grothe then gave probably the only talk of the weekend that was solely about skepticism. He issued a bit of a rallying call and encouraged everyone to be more active, in setting up skeptical blogs, sceptical meetings and so on. So I'll dedicate this post to you DJ. Happy? :-D

Today's panel discussion was hosted by Rebecca Watson and was on "Technology and New Media". The panelists were Gia Milinovich, Kate Russell, Neil Denny and Martin Robbins (who live blogged the whole conference). They spoke about blogs, podcasts, twitter as well as 'old media' and the vast differences between them.

Melinda Gebbie was the next speaker and she was interviewed by Rebecca Watson about her new book, Lost Girls, which is basically a pornographic story made from the point of view of women. She wrote the book to fill a niche that she explains exists because almost all pornography is currently made from a man's perspective. As one of the questioners said, basically porn with a plot then. This segment didn't seem to have much to do with skepticism though, as one blogger points out here.

The last talk before lunch was one I was really looking forward too. Unfortunately, Stephen Fry couldn't make it and the consolation was a pre-recorded interview with him and Tim Minchin. It wasn't bad, but to be honest, Minchin (understandably) isn't much of an interviewer (it was more of a two-way conversation really) and whoever edited the footage needs to be sacked. So I was a bit disappointed but it was interesting to hear his opinion on skepticism and his mastery of the language was evident on several occasions.

LUNCH!!

Graham Linehan was interviewed by Jon Ronson straight after lunch, an encounter that was always likely to be entertaining. Although the subject matter of Twitter did provide for some interesting discussion (and several very funny videos), I was hoping to hear a bit more about Linehan's experiences writing Father Ted, Black Books, etc. Down with this sort of thing...

The next speaker was guaranteed to get a good reception. PZ Myers talks about tone and how "we shouldn't gratuitously obnoxious, we should be purposefully obnoxious." His talk was good but the highlight was the Q and A session. The organisers gave him a bit longer than other speakers as it was obvious a lot of people would want to ask questions. And PZ is in his element when he has to think on his feet. His answers were always engaging, concise and appropriate. Oh and did I mention that I met him. Just in case here's the pic again...

COFFEE!!

The last talk of the weekend went to Alan Moore, creator of comic book franchises such as Watchmen and V for Vendetta. I have to be honest, I was struggling as this stage, the previous night was really catching up with me. Moore proceeded to recite a poem about the town where he grew up that seemed to go on for at least 20-25 minutes. Not the best end to the weekend in my opinion (then again, I'm not a comic book fan).

And that was it! Randi closed the conference and everyone said their goodbyes. All in all, it was an Amazing experience and I would recommended it to anyone who is interested in skeptical thinking and general science. Or if you just want to have 3 nights on the beer in a row.

Read More...

Summary only...

TAM London Day 1

I'm just back from TAM London. It was amazing alright. Here's a brief summary of Day 1...

(photos from various TAM London Facebook members - cheers!)

Richard Wiseman was the host and he did a great job all weekend, breaking up each talk with a few jokes or a magic trick. My favourite was probably this:

I've just signed up to Reincarnation Weekly. It was a bit expensive - £200 - but then I thought, what the hell, you only live once

Susan Blackmore was first up. She spoke about her journey from being an avid believer in the paranormal through to becoming a skeptic. She talked us through some of the experiments she did on paranormal activity and ESP, including when she debunked a series of ganzfeld studies. Her talk was very interesting and she is a good enthusiastic speaker. She is also known for expanding on the theory of memes, although she didn't go into this aspect of her work.

Next up was Richard Dawkins. He gave a lecture entitled "Evolution: The New Classics" in which he proposed the idea that evolutionary mechanisms tie into to almost all other aspects of education and are important for many seemingly unrelated subjects, including engineering, computer science, etc. I was glad that he came up with new material for the talk as I had been worried that he might just rehash the same old stuff we've all seen him say a million times. So I was impressed, although I heard a few other participants say otherwise. Dawkins doesn't really engage with the crowd much and comes off a bit robotic so this might have disappointed some people.

Cory Doctorow gave a talk about copyright law and related issues. This area isn't of great interest to me so my mind tended to wander a bit but he is a great speaker and I would recommend going to see him talk if this is your thing.

Adam Rutherford was next up and his talk was very entertaining. He mostly spoke about his experiences in the Alpha Course, a program which attempts to re-educate and re-convert Christians who have fallen away from Christianity. He spoke of how they use airy fairy language to make points about Christianity and regularly use strangely conceived metaphors and analogies about the Bible including, apparently, several references to Frodo and Lord of the Rings!

LUNCH!!

First up after lunch was Andy Nyman, who is probably best known for being the co-creator of all of Derren Brown's TV shows and live performances (or at least this is how I know of him). He was interviewed by Richard Wiseman and spoke a bit about his work with Derren, but most of the time was spent discussing Ghost Stories, which is a live horror play he created. I haven't seen it, but am planning to go soon.

Paula Kirby came next and gave a talk about the political manifesto of the fundamentalist Christian Party. It was quite entertaining, especially when she read out some of the more absurd statements - and there were plenty of those to choose from, e.g. “The fact that we’re not allowed to hit children any more is the root of all crime in society”. Nuff said.

A panel discussion discussing Skeptical Activism was then hosted by Tracey Brown, managing director of Sense About Science. The panelists were Simon Singh, David Allen Green (who blogs as Jack of Kent) and Evan Harris (Lib Dem politician). This was an interesting discussion and there was a lot of talk about alternative medicine. Indeed, in the Q&A session, Jonathan Ross's daughter, Honey, informed the room that her school gives out homeopathic remedies to the kids - a revelation that stunned many of the crowd.

COFFEE!!

The last official talk of the first day was actually an interview of James Randi by comedian Robin Ince. This was a great end to the day and Randi told some stories about how he messed with Uri Geller and Peter Popoff back in the 70s and 80s.

Randi then presented two JREF awards - one to Ben Goldacre and a special one to a 15 year old boy called Rhys Morgan with Crohn's disease who managed to take on the dodgy drug companies and get an alternative remedy called Miracle Mineral Solution off the market, because it was basically just bleach. Brilliant!

The evening event with Tim Minchin and friends was optional and I went along. It was very funny and they premiered Tim's new short animated video Storm - trailer below.



Sorry for the short synopsis but if you want more see the Guardian Live blog here. Day 2 (and some photos) to follow...

Read More...

Summary only...

PZ Myers....and me....and beer!

TAM London starts today. I went to register yesterday evening in the Hilton Metropole, following which I sauntered up to the hotel bar. Who was standing there, but only PZ Myers!

We spoke over a beer for about 15-20 minutes. Really nice guy. I mentioned to him that he had linked to my blog in the past, with respect to my email debate with Casey Luskin. Actually, PZ also left a comment here on another thread.

Anyway, good start!

I also saw Randi, sporting a full length black cape and hat. Nice.

Go TAM!

Read More...

Summary only...

Anyone going to TAM London...?

I'll be there. Let me know and we can meet up for a drink...

Read More...

Summary only...

Spammers are getting plain lazy

I've posted before about those email scammers who try to convince you that you've won some lottery you never entered or need your help getting large sums of money out of a central African country. You know what the email usually entails, a convoluted story and a plea for help.

Well, it seems they are getting lazy. Check this one out that just came into our work email address:

Re: FUNDS FOR YOU

I am Mrs Stella Ethan, a Christian. I have picked you for an inheritance, Everything is available. Please contact me for more details. Private contact email: mrs.stallaethan@jpwind.com

They're just not putting the same effort in these days, huh?

Read More...

Summary only...

A reply to homeopath Sheelagh Behan

I recently co-authored a letter to the Irish Times in response to a letter from homeopath Sheelagh Behan, in which she offered a defence of homeopathy following an earlier anti-alternative medicine article by Paul O'Donoghue (founding member of the Irish Skeptics Society). The letter wasn't published and so I have posted it here instead.

Madam,

Sheelagh Behan's defense of homeopathy (letters, 17th September) uses some fairly common strategies employed by homeopaths to bolster their art, but she fails to actually provide any compelling reasons to endorse the prescription of water for medical conditions more serious than dehydration. Her arguments can be summed up as a combination of the fallacies; i) appeal to the people, ii) appeal to authority, and iii) pseudo-scientific language.

i) Yes homeopathy is widely used; so were leeches, but no matter how many people used them they were never more effective than a placebo. Science is not a democracy - it relies on reproducible experimental evidence.

ii) Regarding the two studies actually mentioned; the first, a study of E. coli in Dutch piglets was published in a journal entitled "Homeopathy", an outlet unlikely to critically examine homeopathic hypotheses. The second, namely Luc Montagnier's study of electromagnetic signals from DNA in water did not even directly test the power of dilution but instead attributed an effect to dilution following a *filtration step*. Indeed, unfiltered bacteria gave no signal at all when diluted, in direct contrast to the central tenet of homeopathy. Also, the electromagnetic signals reported following filtration were mostly unaffected by dilution rather than enhanced by it, and the authors make no claim to have shown a mechanism for homeopathic efficacy. All in all, their results might be true, but using Occam's razor one would first need to rule out simpler explanations, such as the filtration process introducing a contaminant that may emit the signal. (Edit: see here for a thorough rebuttal of Montagnier's study)

iii) Lastly, hormesis, the belief that a little poison is good for you, is neither widely accepted in toxicology nor does it validate homeopathy's second principle of so called "potentization". It is closer to Murphy's law (which isn't a law) or the 80-20 rule (which isn't a rule) than to any scientific law and it does nothing to prove there is any trace (or memory) of the original "remedy" left after so many dilutions. If there are such traces (or memories), then patients would also receive the effects of whatever else the water has previously diluted.

While people in any free society should have the right to seek whatever treatment they prefer, they should be completely informed as to what they might be paying for, whether directly or through health insurance premiums. Homeopathy makes claims that its treatments are more effective than a placebo and, therefore, does not reliably inform patients and the public.

As Dara O'Briain says, when alternative medicine works, it simply becomes *medicine*...

Read More...

Summary only...

Arguments for the existence of God

Here I will list arguments for the existence of God and my responses. If you have an argument that I missing please post it as a comment and I will add it to the list. The description of each argument is taken from Wiki or here. I don't claim that any of my responses are novel and I haven't read any deep philosophical thoughts on these issues. They are just my thoughts. If you disagree with anything, feel free to let me know.


1) The cosmological argument argues that there was a "first cause", or "prime mover" who is identified as God. It starts with a claim about the world, like its containing entities or motion.

Response:

-This argument depends on the idea that everything and anything that happens must have a cause. The trouble is that if this is asserted, then it must necessarily also apply to God - what caused God? If the argument is that God does not need a cause then it is inconsistent to apply that criterion to everything else - a fallacy called 'special pleading'. If God does not need a cause, then perhaps energy/matter does not need a cause and might have existed in some form prior to the big bang. Indeed, I have posted before about the possibility that energy/matter has always existed.



2) The teleological argument argues that the universe's order and complexity are best explained by reference to a creator God. It starts with a rather more complicated claim about the world, i.e. that it exhibits order and design.

Response:

-This is the classic argument from design and has been brought to the fore in recent times due to the Intelligent Design movement. There are many flaws to this argument (which I discussed in detail with Casey Luskin here) but the simplest is that it is simply an argument from ignorance. The proponent can't think of how a complex system could have come about and so concludes that it must have been designed by God - 'Goddidit'. Of course, we do know how complexity comes about in many cases, such as in a snowflake or a crystal lattice - through purely natural processes. Computer simulations like Avida have shown that, given enough time, a simple program can generate incredible complexity.

-Also, there are many examples of bad design in biology, which is at odds with the concept of a perfect creation by an omnipotent designer.

-A further issue with this argument is that it results in an infinite regress. If God is capable of designing the universe, it stands to reason that he is of sufficient complexity to require design. So who designed God? Perhaps another God - but then who designed him? Etc.



3) The ontological argument is based on arguments about a "being greater than which cannot be conceived". It starts simply with a concept of God. Avicenna St. Anselm of Canterbury and Alvin Plantinga formulated this argument to show that if it is logically possible for God (a necessary being) to exist, then God exists.

Response:

-This is a very weak argument - essentially that if God is perfect, then he must exist as to not exist would be considered 'less' than perfect. Firstly it is begging the question since the existence of God is already assumed in the first place.

-Also, this 'proof' can be used to 'prove' the existence of anything, as famously shown for Gaunilno's Perfect Island. If you can conceive of anything that you consider to be perfect, then it must exist. This clearly shows the failings of this particular argument.

-It is similar to using Curry's paradox to prove the existence of something, i.e. "If this sentence is true, then God exists". They are nothing more than word games.



4) Arguments that a non-physical quality observed in the universe is of fundamental importance and not an epiphenomenon, such as beauty (Argument from beauty), love (Argument from love), or religious experience (Argument from religious experience), are arguments for theism as against materialism.

Response:

-These types of arguments have no solid foundation as they are completely subjective. Beauty and love are fuzzy concepts that mean different things to different people, while religious experience, by definition, is a personal phenomenon. These arguments might, therefore, be considered compelling to an individual, but they are not persuasive as all-encompassing reasons to believe in the existence of God. If beauty is evidence for God, does this mean ugliness is evidence against God? Similarly, if the sudden recovery of a terminally ill patient is evidence for God, then a healthy person dropping dead is surely evidence against God? It doesn't work only one way.

-The claim that beauty and love are transcendental is also weak, as different degrees of 'love' are known to be simulated in people on recreational drugs, strongly suggesting that they are products of purely physical processes involving hormones.

-Furthermore, religious experience cannot be trusted for the simple fact that most testable declarations based on revelation turn out to be false - most notably end-of-the-world predictions.



5) The anthropic argument suggests that basic facts, such as our existence, are best explained by the existence of God. The conditions that allow life in the Universe can only occur when certain universal fundamental physical constants lie within a very narrow range, so that if any of several fundamental constants were only slightly different the universe would be empty, or even non-existent.

Response:

-This is also known as the fine-tuning argument or the Goldilocks argument. Firstly, according to some scientists the properties that are spoken of as being fine-tuned do not necessarily have to be as they are. But even if we grant that they must be as they are for this particular universe, it is conceivable that different parameters would simply result in a different universe (whether we can comprehend this universe or not).

-To take the example of life, we have adapted to live in the conditions that exist - not the other way around. An analogy is to imagine pouring water into a glass. The water fills the glass according to whatever shape the glass is. However, an anthropic glass proponent might suggest that the glass was perfectly designed to hold the shape the water assumes in the glass - no other shaped glass could accommodate it in that specific shape. So everything in the universe, including life, has adapted to the conditions inherent to the universe.

-Perhaps there are (or have been) many universes and this is the only one we can exist in. If so, it is not surprising that we find ourselves in this universe asking these questions.




6) The moral argument argues that the existence of objective morality depends on the existence of God.

Response:

-Proponents of this argument contend that an absolute standard of morality, God, is needed in order to know what is right and wrong. This fails on several levels. Firstly, there is Euthyphro's dilemma: "Is what is morally good commanded by God because it is morally good (meaning it is independent of God), or is it morally good because it is commanded by God (meaning it is arbitrary as God could make anything good)?"

-Secondly, it is only assumed that there is an absolute moral standard, not actually demonstrated. Different cultures have had different morals over the years, so moral relativism is an alternative. A typical counter to this is that this means that child rape is not absolutely morally wrong, putting the moral relativist in the awkward position of having to agree as they believe in no absolute moral standards. This is simply an attempt to insert an emotionally-charged subject into the debate. It can also work in reverse - if God decided tomorrow that child rape was morally good, would all Christians embrace it and actively engage in it? I doubt that they would - this shows that morality exists apart from God.

-So if morality doesn't come from God, where does it come from? The obvious answer is through the evolution of a social species in which the majority live by the Golden Rule (treat others as you would like to be treated). How else could we survive? A society in which lying, murder, rape, etc are considered morally good by the majority would never thrive. This doesn't mean that the reverse society (i.e. our society) cannot harbour individuals with bad morals, but just that the majority need to be morally good.

-Finally, there are many thought experiments on morality which show the inconsistency of claiming that there is an absolute moral standard.



7) The transcendental argument for the existence of God (TAG) suggests that logic, science, ethics, and other things we take seriously do not make sense in the absence of God, and that atheistic arguments must ultimately refute themselves if pressed with rigorous consistency.

Response:

-This is probably the argument I have the most experience in dealing with, mainly through my discussions with Sye TenB. This approach, also known as presuppositional apologetics, is fundamentally flawed because it is dependent on the idea of absolutes and certainty - two things that the proponent demonstrably does not have. Indeed, despite making claims of certainty, the proponent cannot even prove that they exist for certain.

-This approach is simply a device in order to 'win' debates by pointing out inconsistencies in a non-Christian's 'worldview' using engineered circular arguments. The proponent will resist all attempts to critically examine the problems with their own 'worldview' because this would be putting God on trial. Convenient!

-For further reading on the failings of TAG see Presuppositionalist Nonsense Parts I, II and III.


8) The will to believe doctrine was pragmatist philosopher William James' attempt to prove God by showing that the adoption of theism as a hypothesis "works" in a believer's life. This doctrine depended heavily on James' pragmatic theory of truth where beliefs are proven by how they work when adopted rather than by proofs before they are believed (a form of the hypothetico-deductive method).

Response:

-This argument is completely subjective and is in no way an argument for the existence of God. There are many 'believers' who find that their belief or religion doesn't work out and leave their faith. So if this argument has any merit, then these reconverts have to be accepted as evidence against God. This contradiction highlights the failings of this approach.




9) The argument from reason holds that if, as thoroughgoing naturalism entails, all of our thoughts are the effect of a physical cause, then we have no reason for assuming that they are also the consequent of a reasonable ground. Knowledge, however, is apprehended by reasoning from ground to consequent. Therefore, if naturalism were true, there would be no way of knowing it—or anything else not the direct result of a physical cause—and we could not even suppose it, except by a fluke.

Response:

-The fact that humans can reason is self-evident. Any attempt to disprove that humans can reason must use reason in the disproof. It can be said to be axiomatic, as I have argued here for other concepts such as perception and truth. Since we must use reason to make any argument, this means it is pointless to try and argue that God is the necessary precondition for reason. If this was so, one should be able explain this without using reason. To put it simply, reason is not contingent on God, but the very concept of God is contingent on reason.



10) The modal cosmological argument, the argument from contingency, suggests that because the universe might not have existed (i.e. is contingent), we need some explanation of why it does. Wherever there are two possibilities, it suggests, something must determine which of those possibilities is realised. As the universe is contingent, then, there must be some reason for its existence; it must have a cause. In fact, the only kind of being whose existence requires no explanation is a necessary being, a being that could not have failed to exist. The ultimate cause of everything must therefore be a necessary being, such as God.

Response:

-This fails for many of the same reasons that the cosmological argument fails. Also, on what basis can it be asserted that the universe might not have existed? This is an unjustified premise for this argument. I have argued before that there is no reason to suspect that nothingness ever existed (so to speak).



11) Pascal’s Wager is an argument for belief in God based not on an appeal to evidence that God exists but rather based on an appeal to self-interest. It is in our interests to believe in God, the argument suggests, and it is therefore rational for us to do so.

Response:

-Pascal's wager is the eternal hedge bet. The idea that you are better off believing in God just in case he does exist is a bit of a 'last resort' approach. If God is omniscient, he will know that you don't really believe in him and you are just hedging your bets.

-Plus, I don't see it as being as simple as just believing in God. According to most Christians you have to dedicate your whole life to him. Screw that - that's no hedge bet, that's a life sentence.



12) The argument from improbability explains that it is mathematically virtually impossible for the chain of events to have happened, that must have happened, in order for us to be here. This impossibility points to an omnipotent creator.

Response:

-This argument, made famous by Fred Hoyle's flawed 747 and junkyard analogy, suffers from a lack of understanding of probability and large numbers in general. I agree completely that it is virtually impossible for this reality, including biological life, to have *poofed* into existence almost exactly as it is now. But this is not what most nonbelievers believe happened - this is actually what many theists believe! The error here is that the proponent of the argument is predicting in advance what the outcome will be. It is also virtually impossible to win the lottery, but people win it all the time. Is this a miracle, or is it just inevitable given the large numbers of people who buy tickets? So the thing that is actually virtually impossible is to predict who will win the lottery in advance, not whether or not someone will win it.

-Another good analogy is that of a sequence of 52 cards. Imagine the odds of a particular sequence of 52 cards coming up (8.06582E+67 to 1 apparently). That is virtually impossible! Now deal out a deck of cards. Is the sequence that appeared impossible? No, of course not - the cards had to be dealt in some order, just as the universe (and life, once it appeared) had to evolve in some way.



[This is my 100th blog post. Hurrah!]

Read More...

Summary only...

I got acupuncture - *facepalm*

About 2-3 years ago, I woke up with a very sore neck. It was agonising when I tried to turn my neck to look to the side.

Owwww!!

Nevertheless, I just carried on with my day, assuming it would eventually go away. Later in the day, I was in the local shopping centre with my girlfriend (now my fiance, w00t!) and the pain was still most certainly there. I needed to do something - fast - so I asked an employee if there were any medical or massage services in the shopping centre.

The only option was a Chinese alternative medicine shop.

Uh oh!

Against my better judgment (I was desperate at this stage) I approached the counter and asked if they do massages, as that was all I wanted. The young Chinese man asked me to explain the problem, which I did, briefly, and he then proceeded to tell me that I needed the 'full treatment' consisting of three parts - skin suction, acupuncture and massage. Acupuncture! Needless to say I declined his advice and explained that all I wanted was a massage.

He accepted my request and took me into the back room where I sat on a bed for a few minutes. Then the 'doctor' came in with the same guy from the counter and they spoke to each other in Chinese for a few minutes. Then, the counter guy told me that the doctor insisted I get the full treatment as it was necessary to treat my specific neck problem. I was very impressed by this diagnosis and treatment decision based purely on the information I had initially told the counter guy - that I woke up with a sore neck!

I actually felt under pressure (you don't disagree with a doctor, now do you?), and when the counter guy offered me a discounted price, against all my principles, I just backed down and agreed to it. Plus, I was somewhat curious to experience acupuncture, despite being skeptical of it. I took off my top and lay on my front, and the doctor placed two plastic objects on my back, one on each shoulder blade, that tightened my skin through a vacuum mechanism (called 'cupping' apparently). This lasted for about 20 minutes.



Next, he stuck needles in my back and neck. About 7 or 8 in total. If he was putting them in precise places, he must have been very good at it, because he put them all in in the space of about 10 seconds and then was gone - for 30 minutes. I lay there on my front and tried to keep still. After about 10 minutes I had to shift slightly as my position wasn't very comfortable. In the process of moving, my neck and back hurt quite a lot. I could feel the needles sticking in and, well, they hurt. I don't know why but I thought acupuncture wouldn't hurt much. Needless (needles!) to say, I wasn't feeling much better at this stage.



The final part of the treatment was a 10 minute neck massage, which is what I actually wanted in the first place. It was pretty poor compared to what you would expect from a professional. My session finished with me feeling a bit underwhelmed.

I got up and was leaving when the counter guy insisted that I buy some 'herbal plasters' to wear on my shoulders. I just wanted to get out of there so I said OK and, conveniently enough, this brought the price back to the original total (before my discount). For the record, it was about €70. Yeah, a rip off. I could have got a 60 minute full body massage for that price.

But the quackery didn't end there. As I was paying, the counter guy recommended that I book my next session now, as I would definitely need a series of sessions to deal with my problem properly - he didn't mention this at the start of course. At this stage, I was getting pissed off with the hard sell, and I just said no and left.

Well, did it work?

I honestly felt no difference straight after. My neck still hurt. Then again, I don't know the time-frame in which acupuncture is supposed to work. A few days later, my neck felt fine. Maybe it worked, or maybe it didn't. Personally, I attribute my recovery to the memory foam pillow I bought shortly after my quackery session - or to the fact that, well, it just went away, like pains often do.

Looking back, I feel scammed. The counter guy was clearly just a good salesman, and I can see why people get drawn in (including me!). The fact that he knew that I needed the 'full treatment' (within seconds of my telling him that my neck was sore) is just ridiculous. Then, when I had explained that I just wanted a massage, he waited until I was in the back room before trying to sell me the 'full treatment' again - this time in front of the doctor, who hadn't examined me at all but amazingly also knew that I needed the works. Then he pushed the add-on impulse sale at the end, and even went for the continuation sale. Luckily, I didn't fall for the latter, but I can see why others might if they truly believe that their treatment won't work unless they book another few sessions.

All in all, I actually don't regret it, because it was a valuable (yet expensive!) lesson to never go against my instincts again - at least not where pseudoscience is involved.

Read More...

Summary only...

TAM London 2010

Got my ticket!!



Well, technically have just paid for it online and now have to wait for it to arrive in the mail, but these are minor details...

Read More...

Summary only...

James Randi overdoses on sleeping pills!!!

32 homeopathic sleeping pills, and nothing happens...

Brilliant!

Read More...

Summary only...

More musings on presuppositionalism

Following a discussion which started here and ended up here, I have had a few more thoughts on the presuppositionalist position. If you are unfamiliar with presuppositionalism I suggest you start here.

I'm going to address three presuppositionalist claims in turn. (Sorry if the following is a bit slapdash but a lot of it has been copied and pasted from my comments at the threads linked to above and is very train-of-thought-ish)

1) God being the source of logic/truth is the presuppositionalist's original presupposition.

Claiming that this is the original presupposition is clearly flawed from the start. For example, how can you presuppose that God is the source of anything prior to presupposing that God exists? Surely they must presuppose that God exists first, and so their claim is already defunct. But even that presupposition, God existing, would not be their original one.

In order to presuppose anything, one must first presuppose several other things, including logic and truth. Any presupposition that is claimed to take precedent over presupposed logic and truth can be dismissed as both illogical and false, due to the absence of presupposed logic and truth.

Put simply, without first presupposing logic and truth, the claim that 'God is the source of logic and truth' is the same as the claim that 'God is not the source of logic and truth'.

It means nothing.

Think about it. How can something be true in the absence of truth, or logical in the absence of logic?

Importantly, this argument is not affected by the reality of the situation. For example, even if we grant that God is the source of logic and truth (which we don't, of course, but bear with me), claiming that this is your original presupposition is still fallacious for the reasons outlined above. Thus, the presuppositionalist's position is fallacious, regardless of what the truth actually is.

As I said to Dan:

Logic exists. Any attempt to prove the opposite must use logic, thus making logic an axiom.

Same for truth and knowledge. Try and disprove them without using them in the disproof. Impossible!

The concept of God is not an axiom because a potential disproof of God would obviously not rely on the existence of God

So you see I don't need God to account for logic (it is axiomatic), but on the contrary, you need logic to account for God. If you disagree that you need logic to account for God, then this automatically makes your account for God illogical, by virtue of the fact that you are not initially presupposing logic.

2) Christian presuppositionalists have a source of absolute knowledge.

Presuppositionalists often claim that they have a source of absolute knowledge. It's a defensive mechanism they use to get out of answering difficult questions. Essentially, it's like saying: "I don't know, but I know a guy who does".

But, of course, when pressed on this source of absolute knowledge, the details are very vague. For example they never seem to be able to access this absolute knowledge if you ask them an answerable question. So it's a bit inaccurate to claim to have a source of absolute knowledge if you don't have access to it. Unless you can tap it at any time, then you actually don't have a source of absolute knowledge.

Secondly, since all knowledge of God comes from Scripture, this means that everything there is to be known must be found in Scripture (for that is what absolute knowledge is - literally everything).

Including, for example, a list of Best Movie awards from the Oscars, and the proof of Fermat's last theorem. If this information isn't in there somewhere, then Scripture does not contain absolute knowledge, meaning the claim of a presuppositionalist that they have a source to such knowledge is wrong.

If a presuppositionalist's response to this is that 'source of absolute knowledge' means just 'God has absolute knowledge', then so what? You just believe in a smart guy. Big deal.


3) Christian presuppositionalists have a basis to expect the uniformity of nature.

A major tenent of presuppositionalism is the claim that their worldview has a basis for expecting the future to be like the past. That is, they can induce what will happen in the future by observing what has happened in the past - induction. This is also known as the uniformity of nature.

As Greg Bahnsen, a famous presuppositionalist, says:

Which worldview may reasonably expect that causal connections function uniformly throughout the universe or that the future will be like the past?

Well, certainly not the Christian worldview. One word - miracles.

If God can literally turn water into wine, then a Christian can never know for sure that the water they are about to drink will remain water. Pretty much anything can be turned into anything else at the whim of an omnipotent God, so Christians have no reason or basis to expect uniformity.

Read More...

Summary only...

God FAQ

After many centuries of inquiry, countless publications and debates, and untold suffering and conflict, a combined effort spanning multiple disciplines has come up with a pertinent Frequently Asked Questions list about God.

Marvel at the results...

http://www.officialgodfaq.com/

Read More...

Summary only...