They never see the irony

   So there was a state representative from Mississippi calling for the killing of gay people in the news just the other day...but that's not what I'm really here to talk about. What he said included, "The only opinion that counts is God’s: see Romans 1:26-28 and Leviticus 20:13." Leviticus is the verse that calls for the killing of gay people, which I already knew. I was curious about the Romans verse. It states the following:

²⁶ Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. ²⁷ In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error.

²⁸ Furthermore, just as they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, so God gave them over to a depraved mind, so that they do what ought not to be done.

   So I became curious as to the context. Apparently, Paul is telling the Romans how the Big G is taking out his wrath on the nonbelievers...nonbelievers who are supposed to be able to see invisible evidence.

²⁰ For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.

   This is essentially the argument from ignorance. (You can't explain the tides; therefore, God.) Yet, this is still not what I am here to discuss. It is rather the next three verses that I find interesting. (Emphasis mine.)

²¹ For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. ²² Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools ²³ and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like a mortal human being and birds and animals and reptiles.

   That sort of sounds familiar...

   Of course, there are a few differences: (1) Christians didn't "exchange the glory of the immortal God" for this image. Instead, they strangely conflate the two. They treat Jesus as both god and mortal human. On the one hand, they try to claim that Jesus "died" for our sins, but then on the other hand they try to claim that Jesus is part of that "immortal God." I'm sorry, but something that is immortal, by definition, cannot die. So either Jesus is (was) mortal and could have died on that cross and then not be part of that "immortal God" or he is immortal and therefore could be part of that "immortal God" but could not die on a cross. It can't be both; that would be a violation of the law of excluded middle. And, finally, (2) there are no "birds and animals and reptiles" in the image. The big irony, still, is that the main Christian image is "made to look like a mortal human being."

   Then again, I already knew Christians are pretty oblivious to irony. They are, after all, very good (or bad, depending on perspective) about ignoring Matthew 6:5-8

⁵ “And when you pray, do not be like the hypocrites, for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the street corners to be seen by others. Truly I tell you, they have received their reward in full. ⁶ But when you pray, go into your room, close the door and pray to your Father, who is unseen. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you. ⁷ And when you pray, do not keep on babbling like pagans, for they think they will be heard because of their many words. ⁸ Do not be like them, for your Father knows what you need before you ask him.

God and I Am Legend

   I am not one to watch new movies. Actually, I'm not one to watch movies, period. Typically I'll just watch a movie on TV if I've got nothing better to do on a weekend night. Such was the case last night when I watched I Am Legend.

   The movie wasn't too bad, but the whole god part of it all was a bit disappointing. Robert (Will Smith) and Anna get into a conversation about a colony to protect the survivors of the zombie virus. She claims it exists; Robert claims it doesn't. Robert goes on to ask Anna why she thinks it exists. Well, she "just knows." What she should have done is turned the tables and asked him how he knew it didn't exist as Robert was also making a positive claim. Anna apparently isn't that bright, and, when asked again, says "God told me," or some shit like that. She goes on to talk about how the timing of their meeting couldn't have just been a coincidence; therefore, it was part of God's plan. See, Robert had been broadcasting a message to survivors on all AM radio frequencies for years. She only just now heard that message. And the timing was great because Robert had become suicidal, so Anna had to rescue Robert from himself. Well, Robert goes into a problem of evil speech and yells, "There is no god!" at Anna a couple times.

   Immediately after this, the movie begins to climax. Zombies find Robert's home and attack in droves. They eventually have to flee into the basement, where Robert has a lab where he experiments with potential treatments for the disease. After years of testing, it turns out that his latest treatment is working. So, since zombies are closing in, he draws some of the healing human's blood and gives it to Anna and then hides her and a boy named Ethan in a little alcove. Robert remains outside to kill the zombies (and himself) because he suddenly realizes there is a god and that god's plan was indeed to send Anna to find Robert so he could give her the cure that he has found just in the nick of time. Even though Robert has to die, it's a happy ending because he was an angry atheist who found God!!!

   Except, there seems to be a bit of a problem. That has to deal with why Robert had become suicidal. That happened because his dog, Sam, became infected and he had to kill her. And that happened because Robert got caught in a booby trap. The booby trap involved a manikin. My two main questions are (1) how did Robert just notice this manikin? Was he driving through a neighborhood he had never traveled through before? And (2) how had zombies not even accidentally set off that trap? My assumption is that trap was put there by a human. Based on the story, that manikin would have likely been there for years. I can understand the zombies not falling for a manikin as a trick, but to not even check it out or just wonder by? No, that doesn't seem right. I suppose the other alternative is that the manikin and trap were placed by the zombies, but, while the zombies are not completely stupid, it is suggested in the movie that they may not be all that smart either. At any rate, it seems like God's plan must have then involved Robert getting caught by the trap. Otherwise, Anna wouldn't have had to rescue Robert from depression. In other words, God's plan involved making Robert depressed by making Robert kill his dog. That doesn't sound like a very nice plan.

   I suppose religious apologists could provide two explanations*: (1)Satan! It's typical for the religious to find a scape goat to explain why things go wrong. And (2), this wasn't part of God's plan. It happened because Robert wasn't listening to God. (Maybe this god should have given Robert a reason to listen!) At any rate, God can't lose! And that's one thing I hate about religious people: anything seemingly good gets attributed to a god and anything bad is someone else's fault, and it's all asserted without evidence! It was a disappointing end to the movie.

* Sure, it's just a movie and a work of fiction, but the "it can't just be coincidence" argument unfortunately reflects real life arguments.

UPDATE: When I originally wrote this, I was at a loss for words on that last point. It's hard to really argue against people who can make up whatever they want. So, I have instead thought of an alternative explanation to hopefully highlight the problem: "Robert could not hear the one true god, Flying Spaghetti Monster, because Robert did not eat pasta, the media through which FSM delivers His message." Maybe that's the problem. Why not? I have just as much evidence for my claim as anyone who would say Satan or ignoring god was the problem (if we are to assume a god exists).

This doesn't fix the problem.

   Silly liberal(?) Christians! I was browsing the timeline of a Facebook friend and found this ridiculous image. In searching for the image, I found a webpage with a likewise silly comment:

YES, THANK YOU! It’s so hard sometimes to tell non-Christians that you’re Christian when you live in a world where “Christian” means Gay-basher and determiner of law.

My type of Christianity is the kind that LOVES and DOESN’T judge. So two men dig each other. Get over it. So the laws of Christianity don’t govern the whole country. Get over it and read the constitution.

Jesus was a rad dude, you guys.

Oh, gotta love those FOX News fallacies!

   Or not. Someone named Larry Alex Taunton put together a doozie of an opinion piece on the Reason Rally. Let's break the worst of it down!

But there is something not quite right about all of this. Christianity, whatever the faults of its adherents, has a rich intellectual tradition that has a comprehensive view of life.

Pascal's Wager

This is a supplementary post of my breakdown of the book "I Don't Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist." Related posts can be found by clicking here.

   Pascal's Wager is often presented to atheists by Christians (even if the don't know there is a name for it). It's a lousy argument for belief. The basics of the argument are as follows:

Pascal's Wager...is a suggestion posed by...Blaise Pascal that since the existence of God cannot be proved (or disproved) through reason, but since in his view there was much to be gained from wagering that God exists (and little to be gained from wagering that God doesn't exist), a rational person should simply wager that God exists (and live accordingly).

And the logic breaks down as follows:

1. "God is, or He is not"
2. A Game is being played... where heads or tails will turn up.
3. According to reason, you can defend neither of the propositions.
4. You must wager. (It's not optional.)
5. Let us weigh the gain and the loss in wagering that God is. Let us estimate these two chances. If you gain, you gain all; if you lose, you lose nothing.
6. Wager, then, without hesitation that He is. (...) There is here an infinity of an infinitely happy life to gain, a chance of gain against a finite number of chances of loss, and what you stake is finite. And so our proposition is of infinite force, when there is the finite to stake in a game where there are equal risks of gain and of loss, and the infinite to gain.

   I can go ahead and grant the first four premises for the sake of argument, as it is the fifth premise that is deeply flawed. Pascal is assuming that, if God exists, (1) you will be rewarded with an infinite afterlife if you wager that God exists and (2) you get nothing if you wager that God does not exist. It is interesting because he claims that God is unknowable, yet he assumes he knows the results for believing. This is absurd. Atheists, therefore, have been known to suggest that if a god exists, it rewards people for being skeptical over being gullible; in other words, there is reward for wagering that God does not exists but not for wagering that God does exist. Just changing that assumption reverses the recommended wager. This is why Pascal's Wager is ultimately useless in regards to the existence of a god.

Face, meet Palm - Of Course Theology Matters!!!

   On Monday, January 30, 2012, Frank Rich, "New York Magazine`s" writer
at large, appeared on the Rachel Maddow Show. He about left me pulling out my hair after some of the stupid things he said. Here is the video for reference (you can skip ahead to at least the 2:00 mark). Below, I'll be covering parts of the transcript that disappointed me.

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Can you name all the fallacious arguments in this video?

I found this video in my list of recommendations. Watch it for yourself, and see if you can find all the flaws. I'll reveal what I found below the fold. If anyone sees any that I missed, let me know in the comments!

Buzzwords of Ignorance: Constitution

Credit goes to Don Baker and his "Buzzwords of Ignorance" series on The Atheist Experience for the inspiration of this post title. The idea of "Buzzwords of Ignorance" is to address words that are used primarily to evoke an emotional response as opposed to making a rational argument due to the ignorance of the audience being addressed, essentially making the word meaningless. Needless to say, this post has no connection to Mr. Baker's series.

   There are essentially three cases where I see the word "constitution" (and its derivatives) used out of ignorance:

1. Policy X is unconstitutional.
2. Policy X goes against the Founding Fathers' original intent of the Constitution.
3. Politician X will restore the Constitution.

Why be Skeptical???

   Once upon a time, I wrote a post on methodological skepticism, gave some (OK, maybe only one) practical examples of where someone might use skepticism. I did not, however, really go into why someone would want to be skeptical. This post is being inspired, once again, by that lengthy Facebook tread in which a theist said something like, "Don't just be skeptical." This theist was talking about the colloquial term of the word (recall, meaning "an attitude of doubt") as they also said that we atheists need to investigate. As methodological skepticism contains an investigative element to it, the theist could not be talking about this form of skepticism. There was also the reoccurring theme on the tread discussing how theists get frustrated with atheists for asking for evidence and that atheists should essentially just trust the subjective feelings of the religious. In my last post, I discussed that we know such feelings are unreliable because of the inconsistent beliefs in gods that they create. In this post, my goal is to continue to demonstrate why following one's feelings are generally a bad idea as well as show how theists ask others for evidence.

   The easiest way, perhaps, to achieve my goals is to use the example of a used car salesman. I suspect most everyone knows when buying a used vehicle, you are not to simply trust the salesman if he tells you that the vehicle you are interested in is in fine working order. Instead, you have to at least take the vehicle on a test drive. It is also suggested that you kick the tires and check under the hood. These are even phrases that are often used to mean "to test something out" in regards to products other than cars. (In fact, I used "check under the hood" in regards to religions in my first response to that Facebook thread, which is what led me to consider this example.) I am not trying to advertise for their business—they just happen to have a useful, catchy slogan—but there is a company that suggests you have the dealer "show [you] the CARFAX!" The point of this is people are greatly encouraged to be skeptical (this is methodological skepticism, mind you) when it comes to purchasing used cars. Likely, there was a time when used car salesman gained a reputation of conning gullible customers into buying vehicles they didn't want (because the vehicle would turn out to have major defects) and likewise paying a lot more than the vehicle was worth. Sometime after that, skeptics must have come to the rescue, suggesting people look for evidence—inspect—that the vehicle is worth the asking price. And this is why being skeptical is important—it helps prevent a person from suckering for the tactics of con artists.

   So, I think people generally do understand why being skeptical is important and display skepticism in their lives. Part of the problem, as I have already discussed, is that they may not realize the terminology of what they are doing is "skepticism." Another problem, I suspect, comes into play when the shoe is on the other foot. When a person is a consumer, they understand the value of skepticism, but when they are the seller? Then skepticism becomes their enemy. Skepticism in their customer can never work in the seller's advantage, and can actually work against them. (Note that if the seller is being honest, then skepticism should have little to no net effect.) It is this problem for the seller that we see when it comes to theists discouraging atheists from being skeptical. The theists are the seller and the atheists are the consumer/customer. Yes, even though the theist may not have a financial gain in mind, they still have something to gain from converting people to Christianity. Remember that post on cognitive dissonance? I did not mention it there, but the first study done on cognitive dissonance was on a religious cult. To reduce dissonance, they proselytized! Go figure why theists don't want atheists to be skeptical!

   If I am wrong about this, theists, I present you a challenge: the next time you go buy a used car (or any product of significant cost), do not be skeptical! Do not take the vehicle on a test drive. Do not kick the tires, check under the hood, ask for the CARFAX, etc. If you get the feeling that the vehicle is a good vehicle and get the feeling that the salesman is an honest person, trust your feelings! If you can do this, then I am willing to believe that you actually find no virtue in skepticism and are not just discouraging me from using skepticism out of frustration that I am not buying your product.

Ask God: Why This Is a Bad Idea and Why We Ask for Evidence

   As with my last post, this post is inspired by a large thread on Facebook about discussions between atheists and theists. This time, though, I want to take time to address an idea proposed by the theist I had mentioned I spent much of my time responding to as well as similar ideas presented throughout the thread. For this post and the sake of argument, I will be making three assumptions:

1. A god, and one god only, exists.
2. This god interacts with people through some method similar to telepathy.
3. This god does not mislead/deceive people when it interacts with them.

   The idea proposed by the theist is that atheists should just seek out or ask this god to reveal itself (as opposed, I assume, to atheists asking the theists to present evidence for the god they claim exists). This may sound like a good idea, but once you look at the world as a whole, the idea is problematic. Basically, the problem comes down to this: there are many people (perhaps billions) who claim to speak to God, but they often still disagree on things. As God is not deceptive (part of my assumptions), they should all be in agreement if they are truly speaking to God. Before we can consider asking God, we need to determine why there is so much disagreement.

Possible!

   This is in response to people like my father who use this argument that "it's possible God could exist" as one to support the position of letting religious people believe what they want to believe. The problem is that lots of things are possible. If we wish to discuss the origins of the universe, perhaps a Flying Spaghetti Monster created the universe. Perhaps the universe was created by an extraterrestrial named Ted who accidentally blew up his apartment while trying to make beer.

   Maybe most of the world leaders are actually shape-shifting lizards. Maybe our bodies are host to immortal alien spiritual beings called thetans that are here because Xenu blew them up with hydrogen bombs...or something like that. Hey, it's possible!!!

   I could go on and on and on. The point is that I don't give a crap about what is possible because, again, lots of things are possible. What I'm interested in is what's probable. All of these things that I have listed are possible, but they all lack evidence to support them. Thus, they are highly improbable. And I'll continue to ridicule people who actually believe in any of these things without any or even just lousy supporting evidence.

Jacko fans, forget Murry, what about Burzynski, Wakefield, and worse?

This post was to have been released last night (Nov 29), but it seems Blogger was not working well and I received errors trying to post.

   I caught ABC World News this evening, and it seems one of their top stories was about Conrad Murry. And all I really have to say is with all the other quackery out there in medicine, why must we worry about Murry so much?

   A big story that broke yesterday (not in "mainstream" media) on the blogosphere is about a clinic in Houston, TX, that charges hundreds of thousands of dollars for fake cures for cancer. How these businesses survive for many years, as this Stanislaw Burzynski has been up to this for roughly 35 years, is beyond me! I actually suppose it's the same type of thinking that allows people to believe in psychics, astrology, personal gods, and--of course--homeopathy. Desperate times call for thoughtless measures.

   Granted, it would seem that Burzynski isn't necessarily killing anyone; the cancer is the more obvious culprit. But what he does is rips off families who are looking for hope. Then again, Michael Jackson seems to have set himself up for disaster, but so many want to see Murry suffer. Where are the calls for Burzynski to be locked up?

   And it doesn't stop with Burzynski, as suggested by the post's title. There is the damage Andrew Wakefield has caused by making people afraid of vaccinations due to his fraudulent claim that they cause autism.

   Then there are all the TV quacks, such as Dr. Oz, even Dr. Phil (though admittedly not as bad as others), and many other quacks Oprah has promoted, like Deepak Chopra.

  ...Speaking of which, I am now watching Lawrence O'Donnell on which Chopra is going to be on as a guest. Chopra is another quack that deals in pseudoscience and was apparently a friend of Jackson. WHY?!?!? Can we please stop listening to these people??? On top of that, people are going to be upset with Murry when Jackson hung out with quacks like Chopra? Seriously, people! How many people has Chopra potentially killed and/or ripped off by promoting bullshit? And people want to bust out the pitchforks and torches on Murry!

   The point of all of this is that there is tons of bullshit medicine out there, yet all the focus as of late is on Murry. The sad part is that it's not really because of his unethical practice that people are outraged; it's because Michael fucking Jackson died in his care. That is what bothers me the most--it's all fun and games until a world-famous celebrity dies.

"Money doesn't exist!"

   The video below is from July, though I only discovered this version recently. I had always seen one titled "Atheists Bitchslap" that ended after the woman, Kate Smurthwaite, said, "...I'm not an idiot." It was harsh, but a point with which I agree - it's not smart to believe in things without evidence. However, this extended clip shows the theists proving her point by claiming that she has faith that money exists. That's just a load of bull, and she gives some examples of why that is.

   I think I understand where they are coming from, though. Money symbolically represents something else that has value. Money is essentially the solution to an overly complex barter system. By that I mean to ask what do you do if person A has something that person B wants, person B has something person C wants, person C has something person D wants, and finally person D has something person A wants? You can't necessarily get all four people together to exchange items, so you instead create something, money, that represents the value of the items. Nowadays, with computers, the exchange of money has even become symbolic. So you have symbology on top of symbology which creates an even greater disconnect from the physical objects that are represented. At some level, they know this, and I think the best response that I saw that would reveal this would be to ask them for some large amount of their nonexistent money. After all, if it doesn't exist, that shouldn't be an issue.

The Problem of Common Sense - Another Preview to IDHEF

   I've been reading further into IDHEF and have been noticing they are asking the readers a number of questions, primarily "What would you do?" questions. I assume the point is to appeal to the reader's common sense. By definition, there is a huge problem with common sense. The Free Dictionary defines it as follows:

Sound judgment not based on specialized knowledge; native good judgment.

Using common sense is fine when people are dealing with things that don't require specialized knowledge, but, all too often, people try to apply common sense to things that are beyond, well, "common" knowledge.

   I have observed this quite regularly recently with conservative politics in regards to economic policy. When it comes to debt control, for example, there have been many politicians comparing government budget management to the way people manage their personal budgets. The idea is that people have developed a "common sense" toward budget management and this can be applied to the government. The problem, though, is that government has different goals and serves a different purpose than an individual, not to mention that it operates on a much larger economic scale (macroeconomics for the government vs. microeconomics for an individual). UPDATE: I have learned that this flawed thinking is known as a false analogy. Yet, it would seem that the flaw is a result of using simple "common sense" thinking.

   Another favorite case of mine is the Monty Hall problem. Just watch the video for starters.



   As the guy said, most people, including myself, initially think it is 50/50. And, if you read the comments, you will likely find people who still think it is 50/50 after the solution is explained. The confusion comes from people appealing to their "common sense." If a person entered the problem with just the choice of two doors, it would be 50/50. Common sense recognizes this, but fails to recognize that the initial choice in a door and the revealing of a goat adds information to the puzzle. Ultimately, common sense ends up being wrong.

   Getting back to IDHEF, I have been seeing, as previously stated, questions where the goal seems to be to get the reader to use their common sense. I think common sense ends up being wrong in many of these instances. I won't go into any particular examples here, but I want readers of the book to be wary of this and to think questions through thoroughly. It also wouldn't hurt to apply this in real life as well.

---

   UPDATE: Another example I have seen a bit of involves this question:

A bat and a ball together cost $1.10. The bat costs a dollar more than the ball. How much does the ball cost?

Apparently a lot of people will answer $0.10. What they seem to do is just subtract that $1 from the total. But if the ball costs $1.10, then the bat has to cost $1.10, bringing the total to $1.20. Yet, the total was given as $1.10. A little extra thought has to be put into this to figure out that the ball actually costs $0.05 (and thus the bat costs $1.05).

   The webpage I found that had that example also has a nice probability question that makes for a good example:

Now, think about tossing a coin six times. Which is more likely: heads-heads-heads-tails-tails-tails or tails-tails-heads-heads-tails-heads?

You might think that the second one seems more random, so it's more likely. That error would fall into what Kahneman and Tversky would call the representativeness heuristic or, more specifically, the misconception of chance -- in other words, we tend to go on our intuitive notions of what an unrigged coin toss should look like rather than actually calculating.

If you think about the probabilities of each, you'll realize the two combinations are equally likely.

Deepak Chopra busts out the measuring stick!

(via Atheist Media Blog)

   On Nov. 2, Deepak Chopra was Bill O'Reilly's guest. They spend a bunch of time bashing Richard Dawkins. There are certainly some interesting parts, which I will comment on below the fold.

Another Logical Fallacy: Argument from Authority

   In researching for my last post, I came across an argument from authority in the comments for the video I linked. The fallacy is actually quite simple, but yet very common. The argument generally breaks down like this:

1. Person x is really smart.
2. Person x says that y is true.
3. Therefore, y is true.

   It is important to note that this sort of argument is not always a fallacy. The places where it is not a fallacy tend to be where multiple people are cited on topics for which those people are experts. For example, when I say that 97% of climate scientists agree that global warming is real, it is pretty safe to say that global warming is indeed real. (It is still true, though, that those scientists could be wrong, so staying skeptical is of course acceptable.) But whenever you see someone cite one or even just a few specific people, be alert for the argument from authority, espcially if the topic is not in the field of expertise of the authority figure(s) or if the authority figure(s) holds a minority position amongst peers.

   Anyway, here is a portion of the YouTube comment in question:

Dr. Collins is a brilliant man who mapped out the human genome consisting of 3.1 billion letters in DNA code creating an instruction manual for the make up of the human being. I'd listen to what he has to say.

So, the first premise should be fairly obvious; the commenter is setting up Dr. Collins' credentials. The second premise is already known from the context of the video, which is related to Dr. Collins' belief in Christianity. Now, the conclusion here is not quite matching with the argument from authority, but it is still close in that it is still suggesting the audience strongly consider Collins ideas because he is smart. And, sure, I'll listen to what he has to say, but if he makes fallacious arguments, I'll point them out.

   Additionally, these arguments seem to be an attempt to get the audience to not think for themselves (or question the authority figure). Sometimes I see arguements like the one above, but the person will add, "Do you think you are smarter than <authority figure>?" It should raise the obvious response question, "What do you do when two people smarter than you have conflicting opinions? Then how do you decide who is correct?" The same can even be applied with Francis Collins. There are other smart people (Neil deGrasse Tyson, Stephen Hawking, and Lawrance Krauss just to name a few) who are atheists and reject Christianity's claims. So how do we decide who is right?

Think for yourself.

---

   On an additional note, I am not counting this as a preview of IDHEF. I do not recall this argument being brought up much, if at all, in what I have read thus far. I just thought this is a fallacy people should be aware of in general usage.

UPDATE: Actually, upon further reading of IDHEF, this argument has come up a few times. I'll often reference to this post when it comes up in my review.

Another Logical Fallacy: Special Pleading (IDHEF Preview)

   One important fallacy I missed in my original post is special pleading. Most often, special pleading involves holding a double standard, where different standards are being applied to similar situations. This should be an easy concept to grasp, but sometimes the differences in standards are difficult to recognize as the person guilty of special pleading may also provide an explanation of why they feel the situation is actually deserving of a double standard. In which case it becomes a matter of whether or not the audience accepts the explanation. At other times, the standard may not be known by the observer, in which case it will be hard to recognize the pleading.

   I recently watched Bill Maher's "Religulous" and one of the people interviewed was Francis Collins. Francis Collins is a scientist — and is said to be a really good scientist at that — but he is also religious. He provides a few examples of special pleading in just a few minutes in this video. (The copyright holder has disabled embedding, so you have to go to YouTube directly.)

   The first case of special pleading can be seen around 35 seconds in. There Collins says "They were close to [eyewitnesses]" after Maher called Collins out on his original claim that they were eyewitnesses. This is special pleading in that Collins wants to be able to call the authors of the gospels "eyewitnesses" even though such people who are writing from second-hand information would most likely never be called eyewitnesses in any other circumstance. (Not that eyewitness testimony is even reliable, but that is a separate issue.)

   The second case of special pleading is shortly thereafter around 48 seconds. Here, Collins is pleading that he should not be expected to follow a rigorous standard for evidence in the case of his religious beliefs. This is one of those that may be less obvious. First, this is one of those cases where the audience my not be familiar with the scientific standard for evidence. Then, Collins twists things to make it appear that it is Maher who is pleading by saying (emphasis mine), "You are setting up a standard..." An ignorant audience will likely fall for Collins' twist. But there was a reason Maher brought up the idea of a lab experiment. As stated, Collins is a scientist. Collins thus follows a rigorous standard when it comes to his career work. Additionally, there is a concept in skepticism — and science applies skepticism to its methods — popularized by Carl Sagan, that "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."

   There will also be examples of this in IDHEF, (the shorthand for) the book I will be discussing in the near future of my blog. Those cases will be addressed as they come up.

Childish Tricks that Appear Responsible - Guilt Trip

   YouTube trolls can be so frustrating! (Which is why I try not to spend a lot of time on YouTube comment boards.) I got the "There are real/more important issues to worry about" tactic pulled on me today. This is more commonly used in the form of "There are starving children in Africa" tactic. It is such a frustrating one as it is difficult to respond to. The tactic makes the user appear to be the "better man" because they are (supposedly) more worried about the serious issue while the victim (me, in this case) is made to look petty. Googling this, I found a few sites that refer to this as the guilt trip fallacy.

Most of us are familiar with the concept of “guilt-tripping” someone. This is a fallacy. If you try to make someone feel guilty to get them to do, or not do, something, then you are committing this fallacy. Let’s say you are out to eat and someone with you doesn’t finish her food. If you say, “You know there are starving children in Africa so you should finish your food” you are trying to guilt-trip the person into eating the food. Guilt alone shouldn’t be responsible for making someone accept a claim or course of action.

   Mr. YouTube Troll was essentially trying to guilt trip me into no longer arguing with him (or maybe it was a her, so Ms. YouTube Troll - stupid English language needs more gender-neutral terms), and thus they "win" the argument due to me abandoning said argument...which I eventually did since I realized I was dealing with a troll (and nobody ever wins an argument with a troll). The signs of a troll were obvious from the comments he/she had left when I entered the board, so I don't know why I didn't avoid confrontation from the start. I must remember the golden rule...

   Back to the fallacy, though, anyone have suggestions for dealing with this one? I don't think I handled it well. I basically asked who defines "real," which I think is a legitimate question, but fails to expose the troll's insincerity. In hindsight, I was thinking a better response might have been, "You're right! So why are you arguing about it?" possibly adding, "Why don't you go away and let us petty people bicker about this?" That would at least turn it on the head of the troll. Of course there is the option of not feeding the troll any further. Unfortunately, as pointed out above, that seems to be the goal of the troll, so that plays right into their hand.

Your suggestions?

Radical!!! - Part 4: System Justification Theory

This is looking to become a 5-part series. Links will be added as the posts become available. Part 1  Part 2  Part 3  Part 5

   Last Thursday, I learned from a blog about System Justification Theory (SJT for short). In part 1 of this series, before I had even heard of SJT, I suggested that many people are content with the status quo.
EDIT: By the way, I recommend checking out the entire series on this (currently 6 parts - don't know if there will be more); unfortunately, the author is not linking to the new posts from the original, so it'll take some work finding them.

Let's face it, most people will show content with the status quo. The status quo brings with it predictability. When things stay the same, you know tomorrow (that's a metaphor for the future, not the literal tomorrow) will be pretty much the same as today. You know how to prepare for tomorrow, because you've already done so numerous times already. Change, however, can be challenging. When you don't know what tomorrow will bring, how do you prepare for tomorrow?

SJT agrees with this premise. According to Wikipedia:

System justification theory (SJT) is a scientific theory within social psychology that proposes people have a motivation to defend and bolster the status quo, that is, to see it as good, legitimate, and desirable.

   Essentially the theory states that people have three interests for which they desire to hold favorable views: self, group, and system. More importantly, and more relevant to this topic, the theory addresses how people behave when their favorable views are threatened. (A threat is basically anything that suggests that the person's favorable view is incorrect.) According to the theory, people reach for stereotypes to help keep their views favorable. Additionally, people in the privileged group are likely to believe negative stereotypes of the underprivileged groups while the underprivileged groups are likely to believe positive stereotypes of the privileged group.

   In regards to OWS and more specifically to the differences between rich and poor, the rich will tend to believe stereotypes like "The poor are poor because they are lazy" while the poor will tend to believe stereotypes like "Rich people earned their money because they are smart and/or hard workers." Note that the poor won't necessarily buy into the stereotype that they are lazy. This is because they still desire to have a favorable view of themselves. So they instead buy into a positive stereotype about rich people. Or, interestingly, they will throw their group under the bus. (My guess is that out of the three views, the "group" view is actually the least important.) This can be seen on the "We are the 53%" tumblr, where people, many of whom are probably part of the 47% (in reference to those who did not pay federal income taxes in recent years) at some point of their lives, are posting messages suggesting that the Occupiers should STFU (shut the fuck up). They seem to be doing two things: 1. Playing on the stereotype of poor people being lazy by stating that they are hard workers and 2. Implying that they do not consider themselves poor (some say they make "good money"). Or, maybe they consider themselves part of the responsible poor, so they are actually dividing the group, throwing who they consider to be the rotten apples of the bunch under the bus, so they can keep their overall favorable view of the group? (As this theory is relatively new to me, I still have kinks in my understanding to work out.)

   This idea of throwing the group under the bus is important to understanding part 3 of this series. There, I backed up criticism of a woman with a "Not..." sign. This woman is in some bizarre state where she is distancing herself from the groups advocating for change, yet is out advocating for change. A possible explanation can be found in some of the discussion about this woman on various blogs. There is the suggestion that as soon as this woman and likewise the middle class get what they want, they'll abandon the movement and leave the hippies, freaks, the poor, etc. to fight for themselves. Unfortunately, with how this woman has distanced herself from those groups, that is probably a correct assumption.

   In regards to part 1 (and even part 2) of the series, the theory explains the misuse of the word "radical." Those who use the word in a demeaning way are going to be those who don't want change and this is their way to exclude those advocating for change from the group.

   In light of this, I got one thing slightly wrong in part 1. There I suggested that in addition to avoiding change, people might use the word in a demeaning way to make themselves feel superior. I treated these ways to use the word as though they could be independent of each other. In other words, one person may use the word in a demeaning way to justify the system and to avoid getting involved in advocating for change, but not necessarily to make themselves feel superior. Or, they could use the word to feel superior, without really caring if things change or not. But, based on my understanding of SJT, they are actually independent. People will most likely use the word in a demeaning way to both discourage change and make themselves feel superior (or rather to split the group).

   As discouraging as it is to be outcast from the group, if you are pushing for change, stay strong. Hopefully you now have a better understanding of the motivations behind the name-calling. Realize that you are actually the courageous and/or altruistic one, while they are either the timid ones too afraid to rock the boat (when coming from the underprivileged group) or they are selfish (when coming from the privileged group).

Radical!!! - Part 3: OWS and more on shooting yourself in the foot.

This is looking to become a 5-part series. Links will be added as the posts become available. Part 1  Part 2  Part 4  Part 5

   When I first started drafting thoughts for this series in my mind back in September, I was thinking of it primarily in terms of atheism, though the ideas can be applied generally. Now we have the Occupy Wall Street movement and this series gained a greater importance. In part 1, I alluded to this movement in my supplementary material. Of particular interest is the picture of the woman below:

   While this woman is supporting the OWS movement, her sign is problematic. Most people probably don't see the problem (commentary reacting to the original blog post linked above support this idea). Stephanie Zvan at Almost Diamonds does a good job breaking down each point of the sign. I suggest you go read that piece, but I'll go ahead and summarize here: The woman is addressing groups that have been negatively stereotyped by those who do not want to succeed, so she is distancing herself from those groups when she should be embracing them, effectively empowering the stereotypes of those trying to destroy the movement. Just for an example, take Zvan's point of being a hippie:

It is the hippies who have kept the spirit of protest alive over these last few decades as everyone else has been calling participatory democracy “un-American.” Without the hippies, no one would have much idea how to put these protests together.

   Some of those defending the woman have pointed out that she could be making factual statements. Sure. But does she need to announce this to the world? I don't consider myself a hippie, for example. I have discussed before that I think they abuse the appeal to nature fallacy, thinking that anything natural is automatically better than anything engineered (food and medicine, particularly), but I am a fan and support that "spirit of protest," even if I might happen to disagree with what they are protesting. When it comes to OWS, I do not disagree with the hippies, so why should I distance myself from them on this issue? I shouldn't, and in fact I am with the hippies! After all, protests work better the more people you have.

If you don’t understand that part of a protest is the threat of numbers, perhaps you should be listening to the old-timers more. Without a mob, these protests would have no power.

   Long point short, don't be the woman in the picture if you support change. This includes supporting the groups that advocate for change, even if you don't agree with them on every issue. This is what I was upset about in my first post about the new girlfriend of a friend. When she was saying things like "I'm an independent." or "There are extremists on both sides" she was being that woman in the picture. Good luck advocating for change after you've isolated yourself from all the groups that are. Or, as I suggested in part 1, maybe that's the point? I'll cover this more in part 4.