Sherlock Holmes and the Case of the Cottingley Fairies

Posted on by

Sherlock Holmes Arthur Conan Doyle Cottingley FairiesIn 1917, two girls spent much of their summer playing by a stream. Repeatedly scolded for returning home wet and muddy, they said that they were playing with fairies. To prove it, they borrowed a camera and returned claiming that they had proof. That photo is shown here.

A total of five photos were taken over several years. The fairies were called the Cottingley fairies after Cottingley, England, the town where the girls lived.

A relative showed two of the photos at a 1919 public meeting of the Theosophical Society, a spiritualist organization. From there, Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, a devotee of spiritualism, took the baton. He wrote a 1920 article in The Strand Magazine that made the photos famous. (The Strand was also where Conan Doyle first published his Sherlock Holmes stories.) To his credit, Conan Doyle asked experts to evaluate the authenticity of the photos. The opinions were mixed, but he decided to support the story anyway.

Spiritualism, the popular belief that we can communicate with the spirits of the dead, was waning at the time of the article. Magician Harry Houdini, annoyed by fakers using tricks to defraud the gullible, devoted much time to debunking psychics and mediums in the 1920s until his death in 1926.

Houdini and Conan Doyle had been friends, but the friendship failed with their opposite views on spiritualism. Conan Doyle believed that Houdini himself had supernatural powers and was using them to suppress the powers of the psychics that he debunked. (I’ve written more about Conan Doyle’s susceptibility to magical thinking here.)

Research in 1983 exposed details of the Cottingley hoax, and the two principals finally admitted that they had faked the fairies using cardboard cutouts of drawings copied from a book.

The Amazing Randi 

Magician James Randi masterminded Project Alpha, a scheme to plant two fake psychics (Steve Shaw and Michael Edwards, actually talented amateur magicians) in the McDonnell Laboratory for Psychical Research in 1979. Randi contacted the researchers before planting his fakes to caution them how to avoid being deceived. The advice was thorough and genuine, and if they’d followed it, they would have uncovered the trickery.

Two years later, after the lab’s impressive successes were well known within the psychic community and the fake psychics were celebrities, the deception was made public. The press was so bad that the McDonnell laboratory shut down.

The moral of the story is that unless you’re a magician, don’t pretend that you can expose a magician. Said another way, just because you’re smart (and let’s assume both that the researchers were smart and most skeptics are smart), don’t think that you can’t be duped. This was Conan Doyle’s failing.

Magician Ricky Jay said, “The ideal audience [for a magician] would be Nobel Prize winners. … They often have an ego with them that says, ‘I am really smart so I can’t be fooled.’ No one is easier to fool.”

If you believe in the existence of fairies at the bottom of the garden,
you are deemed fit for the [loony] bin.
If you believe in parthenogenesis, ascension, transubstantiation and all the rest of it,
you are deemed fit to govern the country.
— Jonathan Meades

(This is an update of a post that originally appeared 6/2/12.)

Photo credit:Wikimedia

25 Stupid Arguments Christians Should Avoid (Part 6)

Posted on by

stupid Christian arguments apologeticsLet’s continue with our exploration of stupid arguments Christians shouldn’t use (Part 1 here).

Stupid Argument #20a: Science can’t explain everything; therefore, God. The origin of life? Of consciousness? Of the universe? If you don’t have an answer, I do—God did it!

Science doesn’t have answers to some questions, and we’ll have to be patient. But some apologists seem desperate and insistent in their search for answers to life’s riddles. This is because they already have an answer. They started their investigation with an answer.

“Time’s up!” they say. “Pass your tests to the front.”

This apparent eagerness to understand reality is simply a smokescreen. They want to shoehorn in their answer for all puzzles, and science’s answers are irrelevant. If science did come up with a consensus view of a Christian’s puzzle du jour, our Christian would simply drop the resolved issue and find a new one.

Don’t tell me an issue is a big deal to you if it’s not. If your faith is built on science not having an answer to abiogenesis, say, then let’s talk about it. But if you have no skin in the game and you’re simply going to move the goalposts when you lose, it’s a waste of time.

Science is the only discipline that tells us new things about reality. As just one example of well-founded science, consider that we’re communicating with computers over the internet.

Stupid Argument #20b: Science has been wrong; therefore, God. What about Piltdown Man? The steady-state universe? The origin of the moon? Science changes its mind all the time! What kind of a reliable foundation is this?

Remember what it was that uncovered the Piltdown Man hoax, discovered that the universe is expanding, and improved our understanding of the origin of the solar system—it was science every time, not the Bible and not theologians or philosophers. Science is imperfect but self-correcting. Science delivers.

Stupid Argument #21a: Scientific illiteracy. “Tide goes in, tide goes out. Never a miscommunication. You can’t explain that.” — Bill O’Reilly

Actually, Bill, the big kids have understood for centuries how earth’s rotation and the gravitational effects of the sun and moon cause tides.

Another example of scientific cluelessness is Ray Comfort’s famous video where he holds up a banana and declares, “Behold the atheist’s nightmare!” No, Ray, the banana that God gave us was small, tasteless, and full of seeds. The sweet Cavendish banana that you held up is the result of thousands of years of human cultivation.

Ray’s “crocoduck” (his conclusion that since we don’t see a crocodile/duck hybrid, evolution is crap) gets an honorable mention.

We all have to start somewhere. If you’re scientifically or mathematically undereducated, compensate with an open mind. Too often what I see instead is scientific illiteracy combined, not with open-mindedness, but with hubris. If your education came from the Discovery Institute, Answers in Genesis, or the Creation Research Institute, you’ve been poorly educated. Your confidence is misplaced.

Stupid Argument #21b: Mathematical illiteracy. The life of Jesus fulfilled 300 prophecies! The probability of just eight of these coming true randomly—that is, without him being the real deal—is 1 in 1017. Cover the state of Texas in silver dollars two feet deep and find a particular one, blindfolded, by dumb luck—that’s the equivalent probability.

Whatcha gonna say against probability, right? Actually, a fair amount: I dismantle that ridiculous argument here.

We humans have a surprisingly poor native grasp of probability. Another helpful puzzle is the Monty Hall problem. Give it a try and see how you do.

Stupid Argument #22: Relying on the ignorance of your audience. Put a single cell in a normal saline solution, and poke it with a needle. You’ve got all the elements of life, and yet you’ll never get life. Don’t tell me that evolution works!

I heard this while speaking to Intelligent Design proponent Jonathan Wells at a Discovery Institute book release event. I forgot what I asked to get this response, but it stopped me. I’d never heard this puzzle before and didn’t have anything to say in response.

But I do now. No biologist says that this was the step prior to this cell on its evolutionary progression, so the puzzle is meaningless. He’s right that you’ll never get life from that mixture, but no one said that you would. That cell came from another living cell and so on back through much speciation to the beginning of life on earth.

But, having a doctorate in molecular and cellular biology, Wells knew this. Why then pose this challenge? Why take advantage of my ignorance?

Here’s another example. I attended a presentation by Andrew Snelling (PhD in geology) of the Institute for Creation Research on radioisotope dating of Grand Canyon rocks (summary here). He collected a number of samples of amphibolite. They were from a single layer and so were all the same age. He sent them to two laboratories for four kinds of radioisotope dating. The date results were all over the map. Conclusion: radioisotope dating is unreliable.

Only after I did some research did I discover that amphibolite is metamorphic rock and that only igneous rock can be reliably radioisotope dated.

So a geologist (who knows that radioisotope dating isn’t reliable on metamorphic rocks) gets some metamorphic rocks, has them dated, and then is shocked—shocked!—when the dates aren’t reliable. A “devastating failure for long-age geology,” as the subtitle suggests? Not quite.

Snelling counted on the ignorance of his audience, and he fooled me—at least until he could get out of the auditorium. I was not amused, and this did nothing to build support for his position.

Continue with Part 7.

I conclude [that this fallacious reasoning]
must be a product of a brain unsatisfied with doubt;
as nature abhors a vacuum,
so, too, does the brain abhor no explanation.
It therefore fills in one, no matter how unlikely.
— Michael Shermer

Photo credit: Eric Petruno

Genetic and Ad Hominem Fallacies

Posted on by

Genetic and Ad Hominem FallaciesIn 2012, the Heartland Institute (an American conservative think tank) put up a series of billboards featuring Ted Kaczynski (the Unabomber), Charles Manson (a cult leader), and Fidel Castro (a dictator). The text was the same for each: “I still believe in Global Warming. Do you?”

These are examples of the genetic fallacy. We’re asked, “How plausible can the claim of global warming be if these nutjobs accept it?” A genetic fallacy ignores any actual evidence or argument and looks instead at the origin (think genesis) of the argument. It’s a fallacy because it offers no relevant argument.

More examples

Another example would be, “You’re a vegetarian? Don’t you know that Hitler was a vegetarian?”

But consider this: “You can’t tell me that those new phosphorescent zucchinis are safe! Don’t you know that the research that supports that claim was funded exclusively by MegaCorp, the company that patented that vegetable?”

This makes more than a simple origins claim (X comes from/is supported by Y) and is more compelling. To make this a classic genetic fallacy, we’d need to strip it down like this: “Don’t tell me that phosphorescent zucchinis are safe! MegaCorp says they’re safe.” Maybe the research funded by MegaCorp was actually good science.

Genetic fallacies in Christianity?

Now consider these claims: “Christianity was influenced by myths of dying-and-rising saviors; therefore, the resurrection of Jesus must also be a myth.” Or, “The Noah flood story came from a society influenced by neighboring flood stories like that of Gilgamesh; therefore, the Noah flood story is a myth.”

These are (1) genetic, since they make conclusions based on origins, (2) unsubstantiated, since these claims will need lots of supporting evidence, and (3) fallacies. I would argue that these aren’t genetic fallacies, however. They fail in my mind because the unequivocal conclusion (“… must also be a myth”) can’t be drawn from evidence that simply points in that direction.

The fallacy vanishes when we make a conclusion that could follow from the evidence: “Christianity was influenced by myths of dying-and-rising saviors; therefore, we must consider that the resurrection of Jesus may also be a myth.” We still have work to do to establish that Christianity was influenced as claimed, but the fallacy is gone.

Related fallacies

The genetic fallacy is the term for any argument that points solely to origin as its evidence, but there are many subsets of the genetic fallacy based on the specific origin.

  • Ad hominem: attacking the person rather than the argument. “Senator Jones wants to raise taxes, but he beats his dog; therefore, raising taxes is a bad idea.”
  • Tu quoque: saying, in effect, “Oh yeah? Well you do, too!” This argument tries to respond to a problem by claiming that the other person suffers from it also.
  • Argument from authority fallacy: using someone as a relevant source when that person is not an authority in the field at hand or is biased.
  • Credential fallacy: rejecting an authority because that person doesn’t have the right degrees.
  • Ad feminam: rejecting an authority because that person is a woman.

And so on.

Avoid making thoughtless charges of these fallacies. Not every attack on a person is an ad hominem fallacy. “Just ignore that fire alarm; that’s nutty Mrs. Smith” may be a fallacy, but “Ignore that fire alarm; that’s Mrs. Smith, and she’s phoned in a false alarm every week for three years” isn’t. (It may not be the safest response for the fire department, but it’s not a logical fallacy.)

And as seen above, not every genetic (origins) argument is a fallacy.

The human race can’t quit stupid cold turkey.
— commenter Greg G.

(This is an update of a post that originally appeared 5/12/12.)

Photo credit: Simon Varwell

Guest Post: 25 Godly Blunders

Posted on by

This is a guest post from Stephen Gray, a modified excerpt from his upcoming book.

Stephen Gray has a degree in engineering from the University of Pennsylvania, with graduate work in physics from Harvard. He has been studying science and its relationship to religion for years. He is the author of Christianity in Ruins: Refuting the Faith, which is expected to be released in a few weeks. 

Here’s his list of God’s blunders.

  1. The perfect God created an imperfect universe. That was his first lapse.
  2. God is merciful, just, perfect, moral, omniscient, omnipresent, omnipotent, omnibenevolent, omnifree, transcendent, genderless, beginningless, causeless, infinite, spaceless, and timeless or eternal. He could easily provide evidence for these properties but doesn’t. Big error.
  3. God created the world and a man and woman. He liked his creation. Adam and Eve were given free will, allowing them to disobey God’s orders. God made another blunder.
  4. Adam and Eve manifested a program bug called “original sin.” That made God place an evil spell on all of humanity forever. That was extremely immoral and comprised one of his worst misdeeds.
  5. God intended the Bible to be a guide to morality and to show his love for humanity, but the older part is full of things like genocides, cannibalism, murder, and blood sacrifices, all done or ordered by God himself. The contrast between what God says and what he does defines hypocrisy.
  6. God had the Bible written to explain his rules and to teach us about Jesus. But the book contains contradictions, ambiguities, ridiculous science, incorrect history, pointless trivia, poor continuity, duplications, inaccurate arithmetic, wrong geography, imitations of older myths, impossible miracles, and plentiful immorality. It deserves a grade of F–, but God shows no remorse.
  7. God could have made our self-control stronger without limiting free will. Not doing this was another bungle.
  8. God, finding his work to be terrible, started over. He killed everything, even flowers, birds, trees, kittens, babies, and fetuses, making him the most prolific abortionist and animal killer of all time. The deaths did not help, so his mass murder was an inexcusable foulup.
  9. God showed extreme sadism by telling Abraham to kill his son but stopped him at the last second. God also had Satan torture Job and kill his ten children. God never apologized or explained. These acts were unusually evil even for God.
  10. God later created a “son,” who both was born at a specific time and existed eternally. This issue will remain a baffling puzzle until all theologians get fired for pointless speculation. Then we can declare it nonsense and forget about it.
  11. Jesus descended from King David in two different ways, but the actual father was the Holy Spirit. Was the son descended from David or not? Confusing.
  12. The son is identical to God and part of him, so he is his own father and his own son. Objective observers see that this is nuts.
  13. The third part of God is identical to but separate from the first two. Its first act was to impregnate Jesus’ mother. It is not known whether this thing is a person, part of one, or something else. The parts of God are called the Trinity, but a Binity might be slightly less ridiculous.
  14. How God’s third ingredient impregnated the virgin is obscure. He, she, or it may have used Joseph’s semen and, having no need to do anything the normal way, entered Mary through her ear. This avoids the problem of Mary’s vagina.
  15. There are more supernatural entities in this monotheistic religion. He is called Satan, Beelzebub, Lucifer, etc. He practices deception and tempts humans to sin, quite superfluous given our curse of original sin. God is unable to kill him even though Satan is outnumbered three to one by the Trinity—or not.
  16. The Bible explains how to be saved from Hell, but there are many different ways, each one necessary and sufficient. That is logically impossible, so believers have every right to be confused. Leaving salvation unclear is a major blunder.
  17. By painfully killing his son, God punished himself or part of himself in a 1/3 suicide that lasted only a day and a half, so his self-punishment was insincere. Given his record of mistakes, he should have voluntarily disappeared.
  18. The son, Jesus—that is, God, part of God, or something—was dead but is now alive and with his father, that is, himself, so the sacrifice did and did not occur. That is evidence of God’s inability to think. He needs a brain transplant.
  19. The son was supposed to come back in the 1st century, but he’s been absent for 2000 years. A psychiatrist would label this extreme passive-aggressiveness, but the only word doctors have for being that late is dead.
  20. God said that the postmortem life will occur in Heaven, whatever that is. There is no coherent account of what happens there, but many people are eager to go anyway. God might make a good salesman for house plots in a swamp.
  21. In the second part of the book, God orders eternal roasting as punishment for disbelief, even if a person sincerely tries to believe but cannot. Giving us the ability to reason but punishing us for using it is a horrible, evil crime. God should commit suicide or permanently confine himself to a padded cell.
  22. God wants humans to freely love him but issues hideous threats if we don’t. One cannot love while being threatened. Major mistake.
  23. God persists in permanently hiding, perhaps out of shame for his extreme incompetence. His hiddenness makes it almost impossible for a rational person to believe in him, indicating a self-defeating personality. His failure to get help for this problem is a major offense.
  24. One of God’s worst errors was creating millions of people who believe in him despite the lack of evidence and the presence of so many mistakes in his book. This proves that the human brain is defective, so its designer is also defective.
  25. God let his favorite religion split into hundreds of branches. The Old Testament God has been properly called the nastiest character in all fiction. His sick behavior and failure to get it treated is negligent.

This particular God could not run a taco stand, let alone a universe.

The God of the Old Testament is arguably
the most unpleasant character in all fiction:
jealous and proud of it;
a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak;
a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser;
a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal,
genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal,
sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully.
— Richard Dawkins

25 Stupid Arguments Christians Should Avoid

Posted on by

stupid Christian argumentsHey, gang! Get your Christian Fallacy Bingo cards ready, and cross off the bogus arguments as they’re called out! These are some of the dumb arguments apologists often use. Christians, do us all a favor—yourself especially—and make good arguments. These aren’t what you want to use.

Stupid Argument #1: the consequences of atheism are depressing. Atheism is sad or unfortunate or otherwise discouraging, or atheism declares that life is hopeless and meaningless.

This is like saying that the consequences of earthquakes and hurricanes are sad or unfortunate. Sure, the consequences of reality can be sad, but that doesn’t make them untrue. “Atheism is depressing; therefore, it’s false” is a childish way of looking at the world. A pat on the head might make us feel better, but are we not adults looking for the truth?

As for life being meaningless, I find no ultimate meaning, but then neither can the Christian. I have plenty of the ordinary kind of meaning. Look up the word in the dictionary—there is nothing about God or about ultimate or transcendental grounding. (More on objective truth here.)

Stupid Argument #2: I sense God’s presence; therefore, God exists.

The argument is more completely stated: If God existed, I would sense his presence; I sense God’s presence; therefore, God exists. This is the logical fallacy of affirming the consequent (if P then Q; Q; therefore P). I’ve discussed this in more detail here.

I can’t tell whether you’ve deluded yourself or whether you’re justified in believing in a supernatural experience. Nevertheless, your subjective personal experience may be convincing to you, but it won’t convince anyone else.

Stupid Argument #3: defending God’s immoral actions. Christians might say that genocide or slavery was simply what they did back then, and God was working within the social framework of the time. Or they might say that God might have his own reasons that we mortals can’t understand.

This is just embarrassing. You’re seriously going to handwave away God’s being okay with slavery and ordering genocide? If it’s wrong now, it was wrong then. How do you get past the fact that the Old Testament reads just like the blog of an early Iron Age tribal people rather than the actual wisdom of the omniscient creator of the universe? And if you dismiss slavery as not that big a deal, would you accept Old Testament slavery in our own society?

As for God having his own unfathomable reasons for immoral actions, this is the Hypothetical God Fallacy. No, we don’t start with God and then fit the facts to support that presupposition; we follow the facts where they lead—whether toward God or not.

Stupid Argument #4: I’ll believe the first-century eyewitnesses over modern historians. The Christian gives more weight to writings closer to the events.

The Christian wants license to dismiss unwanted ideas from modern sources. It’s fair to be concerned about the accretion of layers of dogma or tradition over time, but a good New Testament historian would try to do the opposite and strip away these layers to uncover the history of the first century.

As for the “eyewitness” claim, this is often slipped in without comment or justification. None of the gospels claim to be eyewitness accounts. That Matthew and Luke (to take two of them) borrow heavily from Mark—often copying passages word for word—make clear that they’re not eyewitness accounts. And those gospels that do make the claim (the Gospel of Peter, for example) are rejected by the church. Show compelling evidence for the remarkable eyewitness claim before confidently tossing it out.

Of course, getting closer to the events is a good policy. Problem is, this doesn’t work to Christianity’s favor. We’re separated from both Islam and Mormonism by less time than from Christianity. Mormonism in particular fares much better than Christianity in a historical analysis (more here). This is an argument the Christian wants to avoid.

What arguments should be in this list?

There will be some controversy about this list. Maybe some of these have enough merit that they deserve more space. Maybe you’d combine or divide them differently. And I’m sure there are plenty that I’ve forgotten.

At the very least, referring back to the argument number might be a shorthand way for us to respond to bogus arguments by Christian commenters. But my hope is that thoughtful Christians will understand the problems behind these arguments and minimize them in their own discourse.

Continue with Part 2.

DNA and [radioisotope] dating shows that
we evolved with all life over billions of years.
Bible says God created us from dust and ribs.
I’m torn.
— Ricky Gervais

Appendix: 25 Stupid Arguments Christians Should Avoid (Complete List)

Continue with Part 2.

 

Church Civil Disobedience: Pulpit Freedom Sunday

Posted on by

church nonprofit statusIt’s another dreaded election year, and Pulpit Freedom Sunday, where pastors violate the law and critique candidates for political office, is around the corner (October 5, 2014).

The leaders of many religious organizations somehow feel imposed upon by the IRS because they can’t politick from the pulpit, as if that somehow comes along when preaching the gospel. But why? They can speak out all they want on social issues. No one forced tax-exempt donations on them—in fact, they took them willingly—so it’s surprising that they’re now chafing at the regulations that come along for the ride. The solution is easy: if nonprofit status is a deal with the devil, then don’t accept nonprofit status.

The Internal Revenue Service makes clear that churches and pastors may organize non-partisan voter education activities, voter registration, and get-out-the-vote drives (with an emphasis on non-partisan). Religious leaders speaking for themselves can say whatever they want, and they can speak “about important issues of public policy.”

However, all nonprofit organizations, including religious organizations

are absolutely prohibited from directly or indirectly participating in, or intervening in, any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office. Contributions to political campaign funds or public statements of position (verbal or written) made by or on behalf of the organization in favor of or in opposition to any candidate for public office clearly violate the prohibition against political campaign activity. … Religious leaders cannot make partisan comments in official organization publications or at official church functions. …

[Nonprofits] must avoid any issue advocacy that functions as political campaign intervention. Even if a statement does not expressly tell an audience to vote for or against a specific candidate, an organization delivering the statement is at risk of violating the political campaign intervention prohibition if there is any message favoring or opposing a candidate.

But some pastors can’t accept this. I don’t know if they honestly think that it’s unfair or if they figure that they’ve already tipped the playing field so much in their favor that they’ll try their luck for even more, but the Alliance Defense Fund has organized the annual Pulpit Freedom Sunday. On this day:

The pastors will exercise their First Amendment right to preach on the subject [of the moral qualifications of candidates seeking public office], despite federal tax regulations that prohibit intervening or participating in a political campaign. …

The point of the Pulpit Initiative is very simple: the IRS should not be the one making the decision by threatening to revoke a church’s tax-exempt status. We need to get the government out of the pulpit.

Wow—strange thinking. Tax-exempt status is granted by the government. It’s a contract, not a right, and it comes with strings attached. If we the public will be subsidizing an organization, we are entitled to limit its actions. No one’s strong-arming the church, and they can drop both the nonprofit status and the strings attached any time they want.

The motivation seems clear. Conservative politicians know that churches will in general tip the balance in their favor, so they do what they can to whip up anger about an imagined injustice.

The head of the IRS addressed this conflict of tax-exempt status and freedom of speech:

Freedom of speech and religious liberty are essential elements of our democracy. But the Supreme Court has in essence held that tax exemption is a privilege, not a right, stating, “Congress has not violated [an organization’s] First Amendment rights by declining to subsidize its First Amendment activities.”

If the IRS constraints against speaking out on political issues are a problem, then don’t enter into a contract with the IRS. Drop your nonprofit status, tell church members that they can no longer deduct donations, and then you can give your opinion about any candidate or issue.

But to keep your nonprofit status, you must follow the rules.

See also: “What Do Churches Have to Hide?”

No man ever believes that the bible means what it says;
he is always convinced that it says what he means
— George Bernard Shaw

(This is an update of a post that originally appeared 5/11/12.)


Photo credit: Wikimedia