Miracle Cures

No one believes everything they are told and this especially applies to advertising. So there is a built-in understanding by both the advertisers and consumers that some claims should not be taken seriously. If even a small fraction of what advertising tells us was true the world would have to be a very different and bizarre place.

If I saw an advertisement telling me that drinking a particular brand of rum will transport me to a tropical island I would not take that ad as being lierally true. But if I saw an ad telling me that an airline can fly me to one I would take it literally.

So I wouldn’t drink the rum and expect to instantly find myself on an island but I would expect that if I boarded the plane I would get there. These are obvious extremes of advertising which are metaphorical at one extreme and literal at the other. Everyone understands this which is why the ad promising something impossible is allowed, but what about less clear examples?

There have been two cases recently (one here in New Zealand and one in the UK) where churches have got themselves into trouble over advertising that they can perform medical miracles, specifically that God can heal diseases which cannot be treated by conventional medicine.

Is this false advertising? If the people making the ad genuinely believe it is true then maybe it isn’t. If there is a certain amount of evidence indicating that prayer works (and there is) maybe it isn’t false. Wait, did I just say that there is evidence prayer works? Me, the atheist who likes to rant against and generally denigrate religion?

Yeah, sure. There is some evidence it works. There is some evidence homeopathy works, and water divining, and there is some evidence of alien abductions, and the Loch Ness monster, and fairies, and Santa Claus. But the real question should be: how much evidence is there and how good is it?

The answer for prayer is not very much, and rather poor. But you could say the same thing about some conventional drugs whose efficacy has later been found to be less than originally thought. So did the pharmaceutical company who advertised that drug indulge in false advertising too?

The thing that many people don’t seem to be able to get quite right is judging the balance of evidence. It’s too easy to pick one piece of evidence which fits what you want to believe and say that is proof. And it’s not just religious people who indulge in this behaviour – everyone does, including me (although I would like to think I am aware of the issue and deliberately try to avoid it).

Looking at the balance of evidence on the healing power of prayer I would have to say that it doesn’t work. There have been some studies showing positive results but there have been others showing negative results too (the people prayed for were actually sicker than those who weren’t).

In general studies involving phenomena which are either very weak or non-existent (healing prayer, homeopathy, monsters, mystic forces, etc) produce mixed results like this, plus the bigger and more tightly controlled the experiment is the more inconclusive the result is.

There are other effects worth considering though. They are the placebo effect and the benefits of having a positive outlook. If people are prayed for these effects might manifest themselves. Unfortunately there is the possible negative outcome too where people relying on alternative therapies might neglect potentially far more effective conventional ones.

So the whole issue is actually quite complex and it’s far from clear whether banning advertising of religious interventions is justified. After all, anyone who really takes those things seriously is likely to be a bit fantasy prone in the first place and might just as easily be susceptible to other poorly supported procedures such as natural and alternative remedies.

I have seen many dubious products advertised and sold in real pharmacies. These include herbal remedies, aromatherapy, acupressure, magnetic therapy, and many others. None of these (apart from the occasional herb which has some limited effect) are supported by any real evidence. I wonder how long it will be before the pharmacy starts offering expensive bottles of holy water as well?

Fallacies Revealed

This is my evaluation of the logical fallacies in the blog post I did yesterday. Many of these are open to interpretation so you might not totally agree with my analysis. Also in the small space available I haven’t had time to discuss the full detail of these fallacies. However I hope this makes my point.

So here’s the argument from yesterday with my explanation of the fallacies in square brackets [like this]. Remember that this is a fictitious example which I made up but it is based on real arguments I have heard from creationists. Also note that I personally do not believe any of this stuff!

Before you listen to an evolutionist you should know that science rejects God as the cause of life, so their opinion is hardly worth listening to. [poisoning the well: setting up the argument so that the opposition is already disadvantaged before his point is even considered] And remember that if we believe that evolution is true the next thing will be that we have to reject God and start worshipping Satan instead. [slippery slope: the first step doesn't have to lead to the most extreme case, believing in evolution doesn't make you a Satanist] Is that what we want as moral Christians? [wishful thinking: just because we want to believe something is true doesn't mean it is; loaded question: the question is phrased in a way which only allows one answer]

As well as being immoral, evolution makes no sense. The Darwinists say that we evolved from monkeys [false premise: evolution does not say humans evolved from monkeys] by pure chance [false premise: natural selection is not driven by simple chance]. How can they believe that? If we evolved from monkeys why are there still monkeys? [non sequitur: even if we did evolve from some monkeys the un-evolved monkeys could still exist] Plus it has been mathematically shown that the complexity of modern life cannot have arisen by chance. [straw man: changing the opposition's argument so that it is easier to refute, evolution does not say complex life evolved by simple chance]

If you look at the theory of evolution (and it is just a theory) [ambiguity: the word "theory" can mean several things and the wrong one is deliberately chosen here] you will see that it is far from perfect and scientists are still debating it. [nirvana fallacy: the theory isn't perfect but it is very good] So we cannot use it as a reasonable explanation of the origin of life. Yet despite all the problems with evolution Darwinists still criticise the Bible for errors they imagine are there. [tu quoque: avoiding a criticism of your argument by turning it back on the other person]

You will notice that very few evolutionists – even their high priest Richard Dawkins [tu quoque: trying to suggest science has a religious element by giving Dawkins a religious title; ad hominem: attacking the person instead of the argument] – try to debate against creationists which shows that they know that evolution can’t stand up to a fair comparison with creation. [argument ad nauseam: after hearing the same invalid argument too many times people stop trying to refute it]

When I went to a debate between a well known creationist and an evolutionist the evolutionist didn’t have many good answers to the creationists questions. He used a fallacy to defend his position which is obviously wrong. [fallacy fallacy: just because the evolutionist used a logical fallacy doesn't mean he's wrong]

But many well known scientific figures such as Isaac Newton have been Christians and their theories were shown to be true science. [genetic fallacy: the origin of the idea doesn't prove its truth; appeal to authority: authority figures aren't always right; composition/division fallacy: information sources can be right on some points and wrong on others] And even Einstein said that “God doesn’t play dice” so he obviously believes in a god [ambiguity: Einstein didn't believe in a personal god, he used the word as a metaphor] who personally controls the universe. Why don’t other scientists accept what this great person said? [appeal to authority: even if Einstein had believed in a god his opinion would not have proved the idea]

I just cannot believe that this whole beautiful universe works the way scientists say. It makes so much more sense just to accept the fact that a god is responsible for all of this. Nothing else makes sense. [fallacy from personal incredulity: just because a person doesn't understand or accept something doesn't mean it's not true]

So evolution makes no sense. What about Christianity? As you will see from my points below it is undeniably a better worldview…

Believing in a god is just a natural part of human nature [appeal to nature: what is natural isn't necessarily true] and every culture in the world has a god belief. If there is no god where does this belief come from? And more people believe Christianity than any other religion. Why would they do that if it wasn’t real? [bandwagon, also known as appeal to popularity: a widely accepted idea isn't necessarily true]

The Bible is the word of God so how can it possibly be untrue? [begging the question: the conclusion is contained in the initial premise - we have no proof that the Bible is the word of God] It’s illogical to reject it. The Bible is either true or it isn’t [black and white: the Bible contains some truth but a lot of myth as well] and many parts of the Bible have been shown to be true by archaeologists and historians so it’s obviously a book of fact, not fiction. [composition/division fallacy: parts of the Bible might be historical but many other parts aren't]

Some people say that every religion has some element of truth and others say that they are all wrong. The reality is between those extremes: one religion is right and the rest are wrong. [middle ground fallacy: sometimes the extreme position is true] But Christianity isn’t just another religion and it needs to be treated differently because its teaching is from a higher plain of truth. [special pleading: one side of the argument demands special treatment, such as less scrutiny, than the other]

Christianity gives us eternal life which is better than a final death like the atheists believe in. [wishful thinking: immortality is a nice idea but that doesn't make it true] You should be a Christian because you do want to be a good person, don’t you? [loaded question: everyone wants to be a good person but the question leads to a false conclusion based on this (that you need to be a Christian to be good)] Because they have no basis for their morality, the people who reject Christianity are immoral and their opinion cannot be trusted. [ad hominem: attacking the person; poisoning the well: trying to reject the opposition's argument before it is even heard]

How can morality be good or even real if it comes from a species who evolved from monkeys? [false premise: humans didn't evolve from monkeys; non sequitur: the conclusion doesn't necessarily follow from the initial statement because a species which evolved from monkeys could still be moral] Morality can only make sense if it was created by God. [genetic fallacy: the source of a phenomena shouldn't be used to prove or disprove its truth]

Some people criticise Christianity because they think Christians have been responsible for atrocities in the past, but the people who burned witches, killed the Jews and Muslims in the Crusades, and started holy wars weren’t true Christians. [no true Scotsman: anything which doesn't fit the argument is rejected as not being part of the group under discussion]

If you join Christianity you will have great friendship and happiness by participating in the church’s inspirational worship. [appeal to emotion: producing a positive emotion doesn't imply truth]

We all know that God exists, so it’s up to atheists to show he doesn’t. [burden of proof: the person making the claim must provide the evidence of its accuracy] They just don’t seem to be able to do this. [ad ignorantiam, or appeal to ignorance: something cannot be accepted just because the contrary argument cannot be completely proved]

If you’re still doubtful then explain these real events…

How is it that the Earth has just the right temperature, gravity, and many other things for human life to exist? [the Texas sharpshooter: taking the final result and fitting a cause to it after the fact] This seems to show that God created it that way. [confirmation bias: only believing the material which agrees with what you want to believe and ignoring the rest (there are many things about the universe which make it less suitable for life)]

In the last week three friends I know have had their children accepted for prestigious universities, [the gambler's fallacy: a string of similar events does not prove a link] but I heard that an atheist in the neighbourhood has been sent to prison. [anecdotal: uncontrolled and unreliable examples of a phenomenon cannot be used as proof]

Finally, my neighbour had cancer and our church prayed for him and now he’s feeling better. [false cause, post hoc ergo propter hoc: a result which follows an event isn't necessarily caused by that event; anecdotal: people recover from illness purely by chance] The doctor’s can’t explain how this happened.

So that’s it. Remember the fallacy fallacy: despite all of those fallacies being found the argument could still be true. But it seems unlikely!

Logically Fallacious

After my last post on a specific logical fallacy I was challenged to present a list of them which are often used in arguments. I thought it might be fun to produce an argument based on these fallacies and see how many can be identified.

I have found no area of debate where logical fallacies are more apparent than in the old creationism versus evolution discussion. So I made up an argument a creationist might use to support his religion. Note that this is entirely created by me but it is based on real arguments I have heard from believers…

Thank you for letting me tell you why creationism is undoubtedly the best explanation for the origin of this world and life on it. Creationism is the only belief supported by the true word of God as written in the Bible and is the most commonly accepted theory in the world today. Please read through the rest of this material and you will see that creationism is undoubtedly true.

Before you listen to an evolutionist you should know that science rejects God as the cause of life, so their opinion is hardly worth listening to. And remember that if we believe that evolution is true the next thing will be that we have to reject God and start worshipping Satan instead. Is that what we want as moral Christians?

As well as being immoral, evolution makes no sense. The Darwinists say that we evolved from monkeys by pure chance. How can they believe that? If we evolved from monkeys why are there still monkeys? Plus it has been mathematically shown that the complexity of modern life cannot have arisen by chance.

If you look at the theory of evolution (and it is just a theory) you will see that it is far from perfect and scientists are still debating it. So we cannot use it as a reasonable explanation of the origin of life. Yet despite all the problems with evolution Darwinists still criticise the Bible for errors they imagine are there.

You will notice that very few evolutionists – even their high priest Richard Dawkins – try to debate against creationists which shows that they know that evolution can’t stand up to a fair comparison with creation.

When I went to a debate between a well known creationist and an evolutionist the evolutionist didn’t have many good answers to the creationists questions. He used a fallacy to defend his position which is obviously wrong.

But many well known scientific figures such as Isaac Newton have been Christians and their theories were shown to be true science. And even Einstein said that “God doesn’t play dice” so he obviously believes in a god who personally controls the universe. Why don’t other scientists accept what this great person said?

I just cannot believe that this whole beautiful universe works the way scientists say. It makes so much more sense just to accept the fact that a god is responsible for all of this. Nothing else makes sense.

So evolution makes no sense. What about Christianity? As you will see from my points below it is undeniably a better worldview…

Believing in a god is just a natural part of human nature and every culture in the world has a god belief. If there is no god where does this belief come from? And more people believe Christianity than any other religion. Why would they do that if it wasn’t real?

The Bible is the word of God so how can it possibly be untrue? It’s illogical to reject it. The Bible is either true or it isn’t and many parts of the Bible have been shown to be true by archaeologists and historians so it’s obviously a book of fact, not fiction.

Some people say that every religion has some element of truth and others say that they are all wrong. The reality is between those extremes: one religion is right and the rest are wrong. But Christianity isn’t just another religion and it needs to be treated differently because its teaching is from a higher plain of truth.

Christianity gives us eternal life which is better than a final death like the atheists believe in. You should be a Christian because you do want to be a good person, don’t you? Because they have no basis for their morality, the people who reject Christianity are immoral and their opinion cannot be trusted.

How can morality be good or even real if it comes from a species who evolved from monkeys? Morality can only make sense if it was created by God.

Some people criticise Christianity because they think Christians have been responsible for atrocities in the past, but the people who burned witches, killed the Jews and Muslims in the Crusades, and started holy wars weren’t true Christians.

If you join Christianity you will have great friendship and happiness by participating in the church’s inspirational worship.

We all know that God exists, so it’s up to atheists to show he doesn’t. They just don’t seem to be able to do this.

If you’re still doubtful then explain these real events…

How is it that the Earth has just the right temperature, gravity, and many other things for human life to exist? This seems to show that God created it that way.

In the last week three friends I know have had their children accepted for prestigious universities, but I heard that an atheist in the neighbourhood has been sent to prison.

Finally, my neighbour had cancer and our church prayed for him and now he’s feeling better. The doctor’s can’t explain how this happened.

So there is the case against science and for the Christian God. And it sounds fairly convincing, at least in places. But look for all the logical fallacies (I found over 40 of them) and it might not be quite so good. Remember that finding fallacies in an argument doesn’t necessarily mean it’s not true (that would be the fallacy fallacy) but it should at least be a good reason to question the quality of the person’s argument.

Playing Chess with Pigeons

I recently bought a new Mac t-shirt which features the words “I think, therefore iMac”. It’s a classic in formal geek attire, of course, along with my others with quotes such as “Hello, I’m a Mac” and “Think Different”.

On a seemingly unconnected subject, when I’m debating with people (as I often do) I usually notice that my opponents have an obvious lack of skill in the area of the basics of correct debating style and often indulge in obvious errors of logic.

How are these two factoids linked? They both involve philosophy! Well, sort of.

One of my favourite annoying habits when asked about the Apple t-shirt is to explain the meaning of the phrase by going back to French philosopher Rene Descartes’ “I think, therefore I am” or “cogito ergo sum”. So that’s the philosophy link for the first item.

Many people fail to debate effectively because they don’t understand logical fallacies, another important part of philosophy. Unfortunately they are often so ignorant of these fallacies that they don’t even realise they’ve lost the debate.

There’s a classic quote regarding debating with creationists which I think is relevant. It’s: “Debating creationists on the topic of evolution is rather like trying to play chess with a pigeon; it knocks the pieces over, craps on the board, and flies back to its flock to claim victory. – Scott D. Weitzenhoffer”.

I don’t claim to be an expert on philosophy (far from it) but I have a vague interest in the subject, especially the fallacies because they so often arise in the skeptical examination of different topics. So I thought in this blog entry I might mention one of my favourite logical fallacies – of course it’s one my opponents use, not me!

A fallacy which often appears when debating religion is special pleading. Here’s an explanation and example I got from a poster on the subject of logical fallacies…

Special Pleading: Moving the goalposts or making up exceptions when a claim is shown to be false. Humans are funny creatures and have a foolish aversion to being wrong. Rather than appreciate the benefits of being able to change one’s mind through better understanding, many will invent ways to cling to old beliefs.

Example: Edward Johns claimed to be psychic, but when his “abilities” were tested under proper scientific conditions, they magically disappeared. Edward explained this saying that one had to have faith in his abilities for them to work.

In fact, every time someone with claimed paranormal abilities (ESP, clairvoyance, faith healing, dowsing, etc) is tested in a properly controlled situation they fail, even if they have agreed to the conditions before the test.

When it comes to religion I frequently hear special pleading arguments. When a person is asked to show evidence supporting their beliefs they say that their knowledge of reality is special and is not open to scientific testing. But they would never accept the same special treatment they demand for themselves being applied to any other person or group.

For example they might say that being healed by prayer cannot be tested by science yet if another cult, especially one which isn’t part of a mainstream religion, claims that they have special healing powers but offer no proof they will immediately reject that as superstition.

What they cannot see is that to someone with no specific attachment to a religious belief (for example, an atheist) all of the belief systems, including theirs, look about the same: they are all just different examples of superstition.

All I ask of these people is that they put themselves in the position of someone else and look at how their beliefs hold up to unbiased scrutiny. If you are a Mormon, for example, look at how a Catholic must see you when you say you believe in a book which has been proven wrong beyond any reasonable doubt.

If you really believe that your form of faith, or unsupported belief, or superstition (call it whatever you want) is really any different then there’s a good chance you are deluded and you probably invoke special pleading with monotonous regularity.

When it comes to the defence of one religious position over others remember one thing: you can’t all be right, but you can all be wrong!

End of the World (Again)

The end of the world is a great topic of discussion. In this blog alone I have mentioned it in “Epic Fail” on 2011-05-22, “The End of What?” on 2011-03-18, “The End of the World” on 2009-08-19, and “Doomsday” on 2008-09-11. But predictions of the end go back thousands of years. So what’s the latest?

Reuters just published the results of a poll which found that nearly 15 percent of people worldwide think the world will end during their lifetime. The poll covered over 16,000 people in more than 20 countries but I can’t find the exact questions or other methodology. However this result seems to fit in with the ridiculous beliefs many people have so I see no good reason to question it.

One of the researchers said “Whether they think it will come to an end through the hands of God, or a natural disaster or a political event, whatever the reason, one in seven thinks the end of the world is coming.” so it sounds like there is a variety of different “reasoning” involved.

One question I often have in this situation is exactly what “the end of the world” means. Does it mean the physical destruction of the planet? Or maybe it just means the extinction of the human species or of all life on Earth. Or maybe something as simple as some sort of apocalyptic destruction of society with the planet and life surviving in a somehow diminished form.

If a supernatural process is invoked then all bets are off. One attribute of the supernatural is that there are no rules. A god or other supernatural entity can do anything at all so the whole universe could be just “switched off” at any time the god feels like it. But any speculation of that sort is barely even worth acknowledging, at least in some ways.

Predictions of the end of the world have been continuous since people first considered the possibility. And (obviously) every one has been wrong so far, or maybe it’s not obvious, because at least one religious group has claimed that the apocalypse has already happened: we just didn’t notice! And that is a real claim – could I make up something so ridiculous?

The latest mindless fad leading to end of world predictions is the Mayan Calendar which cycles every 5125 years. The fact that it cycles rather than ending hasn’t stopped people claiming this could mark the destruction of Earth by some (mostly unspecified) mechanism. Up to 10% of people worldwide think this is a possibility according to the poll.

Of course Christian eschatology has been a great source of end of world predictions. According to the most sensible interpretation of Jesus’ own words (standard disclaimer here: if Jesus even existed and if the gospels bear any resemblance to what he said if he did exist) he would return in an event marking the end of the world before the life of the people with him ended (see Matthew 24:34, Mark 13:30, Luke 21:32, for example). It seems to me that he’s a bit overdue!

The world will end eventually I guess, but it will probably survive in some form even when the Sun reaches its much discussed giant phase where it will expand to many times its current size and “consume” the Earth. And that event is still 5 billion years away so it’s of no immediate concern!

But who cares about all of this stuff anyway? What difference does it make if people believe crazy stuff? I think it does have some relevance because I think the biggest problem we have today is short-term thinking. The two major sources of this are the political system which concentrates on a single (3 or 4 year) political cycle and the economic system which concentrates on producing good results for the current reporting period (generally one year or a few years in the future).

Many problems don’t respond to thinking of that sort and they are the problems which are increasingly threatening to end our current way of life (note that I’m not talking about the destruction of the Earth, or the end of human life, just a major change in how we live). These problems are well known: overpopulation, peak oil, global climate change, decimation of food sources such as fisheries, and others.

If people think the world is going to end soon anyway what’s the point of long term thinking? If you don’t think this is a genuine problem then look at this quote from James Watt, the Secretary of the Interior during the Reagan era: “We don’t have to protect the environment, the Second Coming is at hand.” He’s a total moron, right? Unfortunately that moron was in charge of American environmental policy! So nutty beliefs are obviously dangerous.

But it goes beyond people with crazy beliefs getting into positions of power. If a sufficient number of voters have crazy beliefs then they get that power effectively too. They can vote for extremists and other people with no handle on reality. And that is dangerous.

Am I Deluded?

Occasionally I write a blog entry examining my own beliefs and opinions and you, the reader, might be excused for wondering whether I have some sort of insecurity regarding these subjects. If I was confident my worldview and conclusions on different subjects were genuinely realistic then why would I need to question them periodically?

It’s a good question but I would say that it is only people who do continually question their own beliefs who can maintain a genuinely realistic view of the world because otherwise they would be no better than the people they criticise. So in some ways it is the people who are most doubtful who are the most likely to be correct, an odd situation but one which makes sense when you think about it.

I listen to and read a lot of skeptical material every week and the thing that I consistently notice is the certainty the opponents of rationality have that their view is correct. By “opponents of rationality” here I mean people like religious and political conservatives, libertarians, and science deniers.

I’m not saying I disagree with everything these groups believe (especially the libertarians who I do share some beliefs with) but in general I would find myself disagreeing more than agreeing.

So let’s get down to the specific issues where I should be continually reconsidering my position.

First on the list is the easy stuff. The areas where non-rational beliefs, such as religion, disagree with science, the most obvious example being evolution. I admit that science can be wrong and I make sure I catch up with all the latest news on the subject of evolution. But I often wonder whether I need to because evolution is rock solid. There is no real doubt about it and it would be totally astonishing if we ever had any real reason to doubt it. Still, that’s probably the way fundamentalists feel about creation – and they’re wrong – so I continue to look.

Next is the stuff which is fairly certain but still far from settled regarding the details. The most obvious example here is global warming. I think that most of the doubters now agree that the world is warming but the denial has now shifted to the cause of that phenomenon. And that is genuinely difficult to establish with any certainty. But the only new evidence doubting the consensus involves the details rather than the basics, so I think it is still safe to strongly support the reality of anthropogenic global warming while still remaining open to new evidence.

Continuing on the spectrum of doubt we come to historical (or allegedly historical) events. The classic example here is the existence of Jesus. I have said in the past that I doubt whether he existed at all but I am swinging more to the opinion that a person (or several people) existed which the stories are based on. I see no reason to take the supernatural stories: the star, resurrection, etc, seriously though, so the opinion that the Jesus of the Bible didn’t exist is still quite realistic.

Finally there is the stuff, mostly political, which I am most unsure about. I am fairly well to the left politically but I agree that it is difficult to really evaluate the relative merits of various political ideologies. It’s more important to look at each issue on its merits and respond based on what makes sense rather than applying a standard political response. So I usually disagree with my political opposition because they usually do follow a standard ideology.

For example I completely reject the idea that privatisation, austerity measures, globalisation, etc are the best answers to our political problems. In some cases they might be, but I see no evidence that the right are carefully considering individual cases before they apply these measures. Instead they simply prescribe them no matter what the problem might be.

So it seems to me that when my opponents say that my arguments are no better than theirs, just different, they are wrong. My arguments are better than theirs because I constantly apply skeptical methodology to them, just like I apply it to my opponents. And the argument that skeptical methodology is no better than whatever methodology they use (such as faith) is just untrue. Sure, you can argue that using a particular methodology to justify that same methodology is a circular argument but I think reverting to common sense can circumvent that criticism.

It’s just intrinsically more sensible to believe the results of objective tests rather than accepting things on faith. It’s more sensible to accept the opinion of experts rather than individuals who have no experience in the area under discussion. And it’s better to question everything, especially the things you desperately want to be true.

If I am deluded I would never be able to appreciate that fact. That’s part of the process of delusion. But at least I am aware of the standard mechanisms of delusion (believing in conspiracy theories, accepting what’s in a old book before what’s in a scientific paper, giving a preferred myth a “free pass” while applying harsh criticism to the similar beliefs of others, etc) so I hope I have at least minimised that possibility!

Belief in Woo

It’s almost Christmas again so I guess it’s also time to deal with belief in superstitious nonsense (also known as “woo”) again. A recent report showed that belief in the paranormal, superstition, and various other oddities is quite strong in new Zealand although it’s better than in some other countries like the US where superstition in the form of religious belief is much stronger.

There were various statistics presented in the report so I might just go through a few of them and comment on related matters of (I hope) interest.

According to the survey of 1000 people about a third think the Earth has been visited by aliens. So called “minority” groups such as Maori and Pacific people had a higher rate of belief than New Zealanders of European origin. I’m not sure what that means.

There’s nothing too silly about believing in aliens. After all, just about every rational person thinks there is life elsewhere in the Universe, that life should lead to intelligence at least in some cases, and that some intelligent life must be far more advanced than us since our planet formed almost 10 billion years after the Big Bang.

The problem is that if aliens have visited Earth they have certainly acted strangely. They seem to have been very obvious to certain groups of people and kept themselves well hidden from others (for example, very few UFO reports come from astronomers). So even if we think aliens should exist I think it’s still safest to work on the interim hypothesis that they haven’t visited Earth.

The same survey found that 55 per cent believe that some people have psychic power, such as ESP. I guess a lot of popular culture does push the idea that psychic powers are real and few people have much familiarity with the real research (and even then there are a few results which seem to support the idea) so this level of belief isn’t a surprise.

Psychic powers in general would require new laws of physics because it’s hard to see how they could be accommodated within the current understanding of the Universe, but they aren’t completely impossible. However the requirement to change the well understood laws of physics to explain a phenomenon which has almost zero evidence for existence is not rational. So people who believe in psychic powers are very likely either ignorant or irrational. Still, the fact that those labels apply to only just over half our population is actually fairly good!

The fact that women (67%), older people (63%), and Maori (60%) are more likely to believe is probably best left alone. It’s hard to comment on a phenomenon like that without seeming sexist, ageist or racist!

So what about that ultimate question: Does God exist? In New Zealand 60% of the population believe in a “god or universal spirit”. It’s rather unfortunate that the “universal spirit” bit was added there because I don’t think anyone (myself included) really knows what that means. It can mean so many different things that it really means nothing so the whole statistic is almost useless.

That result is actually quite low, especially when the “universal spirit” stuff is included. Obviously genuine religious belief is low here and other recent statistics seem to indicate it is declining. Good news at last!

Related to this 80% think that Jesus was a real person and 57% believe in life after death. Belief in Jesus as a real person is yet another question which is open to interpretation. Obviously the Bible stories aren’t true, and no rational person would believe them, if only for the reason that the stories are contradictory!

So how close to the traditional portrayal of Jesus would a real historic figure have to be before we could say he actually was the person described in the Bible (because he really wasn’t described anywhere else, a suspicious fact in itself)? Would it be sufficient to have someone who vaguely fitted the description? Should we say the Bible gospels are “based on a true story” like some movies?

Regarding life after death. Maybe this is based on wishful thinking although it was interesting to note that older people believed in it less than younger! There has been real research in this area with some interesting results but the more solid studies which should reveal good evidence have all revealed nothing, a classic sign of a phenomenon which doesn’t exist.

Yet again men were more cynical and women more credulous regarding the existence of god (and don’t forget that rather poorly defined “universal spirit”). Obviously women are more open to poorly supported ideas. Is this good or bad? I will leave it to you to decide!

Finally the saddest statistic of all: a quarter of the participants in the survey believe that astrology can predict the future. Astrology is really rather silly and I’m a bit surprised that belief in it is that high. Still, I suppose it’s all those women pushing the rate up!

Harmless Cranks?

Many skeptics are seen as being a bit too serious, a bit lacking in fun and imagination, and a bit too willing to rant about the harm resulting from various forms of pseudoscience and superstition. And that’s a good point, isn’t it? After all, what’s the harm in believing in the Loch Ness monster, in alien abductions, in creationism, or in the existence of a conspiracy around JFK’s assassination, or the 9/11 attacks, or global warming?

Isn’t it good to have people who disagree with the majority or official opinion and who have the imagination and originality to look at things differently? Well yes, in a way that is true, but there are a few salient points which I think should be taken into account here.

The first is that believing in something which is clearly untrue is basically harmless until the believer goes on some sort of campaign to try to force other people into taking up those views. Creationists wanting their myths taught in schools as science would be one example. The world needs more scientific and technical professionals and believing that something which has been proven untrue beyond all reasonable doubt does not help produce good graduates in these areas.

People who genuinely believe in literal creationism are probably so prone to fantasy or so tied up with the dogma of their church that they will probably never escape the delusion. So it’s pointless trying to help them. But it is important to try to stop the rot spreading to others, at least in a form where it is disguised as science and is being portrayed as a realistic alternative to real theories.

A second point is the existence of the “thin end of the wedge” or “slippery slope” argument. Sometimes this sort of point is made in an invalid way to support a fallacious argument. For example, someone might say: “we shouldn’t let our military be involved in peacekeeping missions because the next thing you know they’ll be starting a war!” or “Obama shouldn’t introduce health reforms because that will lead to America turning to communism”.

It’s usually obvious when a slippery slope argument has been used to stretch a point to a ridiculous degree, but there are times when it makes a valid point and it shouldn’t be automatically rejected. Giving superstition even a foothold in the science classroom is a bad idea for example, because it sets a legal precedent for that to spread. If we let intelligent design in today it could easily be pure creationism tomorrow, and that is a realistic possibility.

If people want to study creationism then they should do it in a phenomenology of religion, mythology, theology, or ancient literature class where it belongs. That’s fine because, like other classic literature, it’s worth studying in that way. But it isn’t science now and it never will be.

There is also the point that people who believe in one absurd theory often believe in others, because these things tend to group together. For example I know a lot of creationists who are also global warming deniers, and a lot of 9/11 conspiracy theorists who also think that using nuclear weapons against what they see as terrorist states is justified, and people who use a lot of natural medicine who also refuse to have their children vaccinated.

So what might be a harmless belief such as creationism (assuming it is privately held and not used to launch a public campaign of misinformation) often goes hand in hand with something which is politically relevant like global warming denial. People vote based on these views and that can be dangerous. Do we really want people with no handle on reality at all deciding who rules a country like the US, because that is partly what’s happening.

The final point I should make is that people should be prepared to let go of their beliefs when they are clearly wrong. The inability to change and to admit when you are wrong is a classic symptom of a fantasy prone personality. Sure I agree, nothing is ever proven 100% but it can get pretty close. Having a belief in an alternative theory is fine to begin with: let’s have the debate. But when a point is shown to be wrong move on. Don’t hold on to ridiculous ideas past the point where they are no longer useful.

Here’s just a few of the things which are proven beyond any reasonable doubt and should no longer be seriously debated…

Evolution is undoubtedly true, although details of the exact mechanisms involved will continue to be discovered. Any theory which excludes evolution is false and that includes literal creationism. In fact literal creationism is disproved by so many other areas of science that it is the most pathetic thing anyone in our modern age could really take seriously.

Obama is a US citizen. The paper work is there and the evidence is good enough to draw a reasonable conclusion. Just get over it, OK? And Obama’s policies bear about as much resemblance to socialism as Stalin’s did to free market economics. If there’s something about his proposed reforms you don’t like say what it is instead of using unrealistic labels like “socialist”.

The buildings destroyed in the 9/11 attack on New York were the victims of the aircraft which hit them and of the debris of those collisions. There’s no reason to think there was a controlled demolition because the mechanisms involved have been perfectly well explained by competent engineers without requiring a vast government conspiracy. If there’s a simple, well-supported answer to a question why instead support one which requires an incredibly complex conspiracy?

Global warming is happening and there’s little doubt that it is primarily caused by human activity. The overall result will be very negative and we do need to do something about it. It will disturb some of the current large corporations who deal with fossil fuel but new industries will replace them and that should be good. Debate the extent or what our response should be to GW but don’t pretend it’s not happening.

So, in summary, I don’t think there is such a thing as a harmless belief in a ridiculous idea and I think the answer is to attack all forms of superstition and false belief, no matter how trivial they seem on the surface, and no matter how much the people involved just seems like harmless cranks.

Faith in Soothsayers

People really are stupid, at least a lot of them are. Maybe I’m focussing on a biased sample but stupidity is the only diagnosis I could possibly get from some of the comments I have heard recently in the New Zealand media. Now I am talking about a popular social commentator and contributors to talkback radio, and these aren’t exactly places where common sense and logical thought flourish but, wow, this is just sad.

The subject was the “Moon Man”, Ken Ring, a local expert on earthquake prediction (if you want to be generous) or a nutter (if you want to be less so) and his prediction of a major earthquake near full moon this month. While there were some aftershocks on that day (aftershocks following the big Canterbury earthquake of last year happen every day and will continue for a while yet) there was no big one as he predicted. So it would seem that he was wrong. But you wouldn’t think that based on what some people were saying.

One newspaper commentator noted that without a background in science it was hard to distinguish between the scientists and the nutters. She listed a series of scientific issues and concluded with “Who knows?”, and “There’s a lot of us who might as well be living in the 16th century given our gullibility and our desire to put our faith in soothsayers”. That is actually a very relevant and accurate observation (although it’s also a very obvious one).

So what were “the people” saying? One caller to a talkback radio station the day after the major quake predicted by the “Moon Man” Ken Ring failed to eventuate said this: “I’ve got nothing against the dude, you know I welcome anyone who is going to give us warning because to me warning is preparation.”

Yes, OK. Warning for what? Warning for something that didn’t happen apparently. Isn’t being warned about something that isn’t real almost as bad as not being warned about something that is?

Here’s another: “What Ken Ring has done for me is made sure that we now are prepared and I say thank God for this”.

Huh? Prepared for what? Prepared for a major earthquake which didn’t happen? The experts have been saying there will be continuing smaller aftershocks and probably one major one. That’s exactly what has happened. What has Ken Ring contributed to that exactly? Nothing. In fact it’s worse than nothing because he has contributed a lot of false information.

Here’s an interesting one: “No one died in an earthquake in New Zealand yesterday and should that not be the focus?”

Yeah that’s good. But no one died not because of Ken Ring’s warning but because there wasn’t a major earthquake. Are we now giving Ring credit for an earthquake not happening which he told us to prepare for?

And finally the most bizarre of all: “Caller: He warned us. If he hadn’t told us to do that well we wouldn’t have been prepared for it. Host: But he’s a scaremongerer [sic]. According to the John Campbells of this world. Caller: Well he needs his head read. Yeah”.

If he hadn’t warned us we wouldn’t have been prepared for something that didn’t happen apparently. And anyone who questions this nonsense needs his head read? Really? If any heads need reading I think I know where I would suggest that it might be best to dispense that psychiatric help!

Dozens of experts have stated that there is no reliable way to use the Moon’s position to predict earthquakes and that there is no reason to think Ken Ring could predict them accurately. Why don’t people just accept that? And if they can’t just take the experts’ word for it have a look at the facts. If you do that it’s very apparent that the the experts are right.

But most people don’t listen to experts. They listen to talkback hosts like John Tamihere who said. “We’ve spent millions of dollars on all this sort of seismology stuff and on all the king’s horses and all the king’s men and Ken Ring is as good as any seismologist in this country. Full stop.”

Full stop. Is that right John. Does saying full stop at the conclusion of a mindless and ignorant opinion like that make it more real? I’m afraid it doesn’t really work that way although I’m sure your listeners are happier to have reality simplified in such a way that they don’t have to think too much. Unfortunately you’re wrong. Full stop.

And Tamihere’s co-host got a bit mixed up as well. He said: “He [Ken Ring] got pretty close to it… [the time of the original Canterbury earthquake]“. Unfortunately he was looking at the wrong date. When corrected he said “Yeah anyway but then they’re vicious towards him, vicious!”.

Yeah, anyway. You’re a moron. Full stop.

Dogs vs Cats

One of the problems of being a freethinker is… well… it’s that you’re a freethinker! Look at the freethinking communities in modern society: skeptics, atheists, progressives, science supporters, none of them seem to have much political, economic, or social power. Why is this?

One reason I think is that freethinkers are hard to organise. It’s like herding cats. Conservatives, traditional religious people, and other people who aren’t that interested in more abstract things like art, science and philosophy, are often better organised. They are more like “pack animals”, more like dogs. They work in a group.

Of course it’s easier to work in a group when your belief system is based on an ideology or a dogma instead of being something you have developed yourself through years of careful thought and examination of the evidence and facts.

I have found that conservatives, for example, have a very uniform set of beliefs and you can often see exactly where those ideas came from – sometimes down to the catchphrases they use. And it’s often very obvious that they haven’t put the slightest thought into establishing the veracity of the beliefs they have adopted from others. They simply mimic what they are told someone with their worldview should think.

And it’s not just the right which is at fault. I’ve heard some equally ridiculous nonsense from the more committed members of the political left. They parrot catchphrases from left-leaning political parties and NGOs and they clearly have put about as much research into what they think is real as the people from the opposite extreme. So this isn’t a simple left versus right argument, it’s a thinking versus non-thinking one.

So there seems to be significant agreement amongst the members of both political extremes. On the other hand the more freethinking types I mentioned above almost always disagree with each other. They’re not likely to disagree over things that are clearly true but they will often disagree about the details and how to act to achieve a certain aim.

For example, almost all freethinkers will disagree with the idea of teaching religious dogma in schools, particularly when it is disguised as science such as intelligent design or creationism (note that these aren’t actually science). Some opponents of this will say go on the offensive and make the creationists look like the fools they are. Others will say be nice because we don’t want to gain an aggressive reputation. And others will say let religion be taught because kids can tell fact from fiction anyway (although often they can’t).

But the conservative Christians will be almost united behind the idea that religion should be taught. They might not care whether it’s disguised as science or not, but they will be a lot more united, committed and organised than their opponents.

It’s easy to be committed when you aren’t really interested in the facts. It’s easy to be organised when you believe what your leaders tell you instead of being skeptical of their claims. And it’s easy to be united when you refuse to think for yourself. So their ignorance, laziness, and corruption is actually a huge asset to the conservatives. When you want to stick to facts, fight fair, and think about the ultimate consequences of your actions it’s hard to compete.

So it might seem that rationality, skepticism, and logical thinking are doomed. Well maybe they are since the majority of people don’t think, act, or vote that way and in a democracy it’s the majority that rules.

I don’t think it would be good for the freethinking community to become more like their opponents and start becoming better organised politically through accepting a common ideology. For example, although I agree with some of what Greenpeace does I disagree with a lot too so I would never join that organisation. And although I disagree with almost everything New Zealand’s libertarian party, Act, believe in, there are actually a few things that I agree with them about.

When you think for yourself nothing is ever black and white. The world is very subtle, nuanced, and interesting. I love that way of thinking but it’s not going to lead to an organisation with any real political clout. That’s unfortunate because it’s really exactly what the world needs more of.

But I’d rather be right, moral and totally lacking in political influence than a mindless automaton who has political power but is just an extension of some corrupt religious or political group.

Oh, and one last thing: I’ve got nothing against dogs. I love dogs and aren’t so keen on cats. But I don’t think they are necessary a great model for human behaviour!