Exploiting credulity

Yea, religions give plenty of false hopes.

The fact that a believer is happier than a skeptic is no more to the point than the fact that a drunken man is happier than a sober one.

George Bernard Shaw

Youtube Atheism

I have been neglecting my blog lately (close to two freaking months actually). I am just too lazy to pen down what I thought of lately. I'm sure that will change when my conscription ends.

So, nope, no new mini essays from me. Instead I will post some of the videos that I enjoyed.

Here's a little something on Evolution, specifically Systematic Phylogenetics, by AronRa. Unfortunately, embedding is disabled for the video - so here's the direct link.

Then we have this video. I found it particularly refreshing (perhaps a tiny bit disturbing for the rioting scenes) - a reminder that we are definitely still animals whatever else we may wish we are.

Here's a satire by DarkMatter2525, "If Atheists Acted Religious". Actually, to be specific, it's more like "If Atheists Acted Like Religious Bigoted Americans"

TheThinkingAtheist has been churning out a couple of nice videos for our entertainment. My favorite is this one.

And this one is about Christianity.

Teaching Science

"You are doing it WRONG" is my conclusion when I look at Singapore's science education.

The science curriculum is evidently designed for application purposes only. Facts after facts, equations after equations is what science is depicted as to the children.

That's is why I have issues with it. Science is NOT JUST ANY body of knowledge. Science is the body of knowledge acquired by the scientific method. Yet the method itself never gets a mention when it deserves more.

Here's my thing: Teaching the future pillars of our nation that haemoglobin is a protein whose amino acid sequence is encoded in DNA which itself is a molecule housed in the nucleus of almost all of your body's cells is NOT as important as teaching them the Scientific Method, the method that scientists used to discover the fore mentioned fact.

Proper understanding of the scientific method is crucial for responsible citizenry in the age of science and technology. As far as I can tell, it is the ignorance and fear of science that causes the visceral hostile reactions to science and new technology where the general public is concerned.

Aside from a more complete understanding of the scientific method, perhaps the stories behind the central theories of the major branches of science could be presented as well. The basic idea is to expose students to the evidence that convinced the scientific community that those theories are valid.

I think such a class should be made to complement the current curriculum for all students.

For a better future.

Teaching Philosophy

Sometimes I wonder why we don't have philosophy taught earlier in schools. In Singapore, presumably because it would be seen as being practically useless. The kind of uselessness only matched by our Civics & Morals Education classes.

Now that I mentioned CME classes, I think it should be integrated with the philosophy class I wish to advocate. After all, ethics is discussed under philosophy.

Let's talk about the ethics aspect first since we're at it. CME classes comes across as a complete waste of time by being the superficial drivel that it is. Such classes usually briefly discusses morals without ever talking about the reasons for morality in the first place. Calling it superficial is already too nice.

For too long, students are taught to be good without ever being taught why we should be good. Morality comes across as an absolute concept not far removed from the religious concept of morality (ie, obedience). The class could introduce secular humanism and possibly other ethical philosophies for comparison with religious morality. Stuff like the Golden Rule and the Euthyphro's dilemma would be part of the discussion in such a class.

Moving away from ethics, I think philosophy should be taught because it is important in life. Students should be exposed to the stuff of philosophy like metaphysics & epistemology and the different philosophies floating around. And in the process, also learn about logical arguments.

What is objective and subjective? What is naturalism? What is the different between metaphysical and methodological? What are the logical fallacies? What are the problems of so-and-so philosophy?

Students should be taught why such things are relevant to their lives. And since this is my blog, I'm going to be unapologetic about this - people need to know why even metaphysical naturalism is more tenable than any religious crap.

Yes, one of my motives for advocating teaching philosophy is that it can be corrosive to religions. I believe that the reason why so many people still believe in bullshit is because they never thought about their own personal philosophy (or religion for the matter) at a deeper level. If nothing else, it is a logic 101 class that any human being desperately needs.

Wait, no, being corrosive to religion is not my sole motive. I think that what is more important is that the class would have the effect of purging non-evidence-based beliefs. Religion just happens to be included.

Perhaps, I have made the class sound biased. That is not what the class would be but what I hope it would achieve if we managed to engage the students.

Layman Public

This was originally written as a response to letter published in the New Paper (24 March). However, I never got around to write it down proper.

Instead of doing that, I decided to just pick out a few bits and post them in this blog entry. (And yes, I do realized that's like 2 months ago - things happened).

The church has said that the claims of faith healing were based on actual testimonies by those who have had such first hand experiences. These claims should be demonstrably verifiable.

Yes, indeed, such reports should be demonstrably verifiable.

However, take note, the real issue is with demonstrating what the claims in the testimonies. And that must be done via clinical trials (since we are talking about "medicine"). The testimonies themselves are not worth much at all - for the make one of the lousier forms of evidence.

Anecdotes about subjective experience is necessarily second hand information to any objective observer. They are known to be wrought with psychological and perceptual errors such as confirmation biases, false memories and other illusions. Given such knowledge, scientists tend to treat anecdotes as starting points for further research - the anecdote itself is close to being worthless without other supporting objective data.

...... if there are people who can testify that they were healed through such prayers and prove their case with medical research?

As mentioned previously, personal testimonies are not worth much as evidence - such data is clouded by a myriad of human errors.

In medical cases, a layman may (and many times will) interpret the well-known placebo effect as the efficacy of the alternative medicine he is observing. That is just one reason - other phenomenons prevent uncritical individuals from knowing fact from fiction thus rendering such testimonies useless.

In any case, if we're talking about healing through prayer, I dare bet that the medical records will show that is as effective as chance (or at best, the placebo effect). On a side note, I want to add that taking aspirin while praying your headache away is not a demonstration of the efficacy of prayer.

I would like to add in the matters of faith, science is not reliable measure. Science cannot make pronouncements one way or the other on God,

False.

Science is, in principle, capable of examining the question of god(s)' existence. The existence of any entity that we can meaningfully say to exist should be detectable and measurable - God or gods is no exception.

* Why "meaningfully say to exist"?, check out On Existence.

If your god, or any gods, exist in actual physical reality, he would be detectable. Similarly, if your god, or any gods, is capable of manifesting and interacting with the natural world, he would be detectable even if he is "supernatural".

... metaphysics,

False too.

Metaphysics, ie the study of the nature of reality, should at least partially informed by science. As long we're still talking about our observable reality, I seriously doubt metaphysics belongs to the list.

... ethics...

Why is ethics even on the list? Why do some religious still think in such a manner?

Science is a method of acquiring knowledge, NOT a system of ethics. Science comes closest with ethics as an informant but the method itself is amoral.

Scientists being ethical and unethical is a separate issue and has no bearing on the methodology itself.

... and so on and it certainly cannot declare them meaningless.

Who did that anyways? (If you followed the letters yourself, you might ask the same question)

Science does not make such value judgments. But if your belief involve actual physical reality, then science most definitely can inform your of its validity.

...... The claims could "mislead the public" because they "do not operate under scientific boundaries".

I disagree with the usage of the phrase "do not operate under scientific boundaries" in the context.

Nature does not operate under scientific laws. Rather scientific laws are our attempts to describe how nature operates. Unlike our legal laws, scientific laws are descriptive not prescriptive. We follow legal laws; Scientific laws describe the workings of nature. There's a difference - understand the logic.

The relevant, more appropriate, phrase may be "have not been sufficiently verified" or "yet to be demonstrated beyond reasonable doubt". When phrased this way, it exposes the emptiness of the tired arguments against the idea that things "operate under scientific boundaries".

Faith healing cannot be quantified by science.

Utterly wrong.

If faith healing actually works (ie, cures illnesses), its effects would be quantifiable. This would show up as statistical significance on clinical trials. This is true regardless whether its mechanisms is known or unknown ("supernatural" or not).

... (science) which itself changes over time with each new scientific discovery.

Hmmm, why is this always phrased with the implicit idea that it's a bad thing?

It's the beauty of science that it is self-correcting in nature.

Which is worst? Changing and inching towards a more accurate picture of reality or stay wrong forever and not know it as with religious dogma.

I'll take science over religion (or any dogma) any and everyday.

I Love AETV

Enough said.

Here's the most recent video (on the day of posting) with the AETV hosts, Tracie Harris and Martin Wagner.

Here's another one with Matt Dillahunty (President of the ACA) and guest, AronRa.

Here's some older posts on the Atheist Experience.

Comforting. Really?

When challenged to defend religion or just the belief in god(s), a common defense deployed is it provides comfort. hope and etc. This also a common argument from sympathetic non-believers when confronted with anti-theistic or anti-religious sentiments.

This defense is fallacious and, in my opinion, superficial. And in the context of particular religions, it is an utterly warped idea.


The Fallacy
That which is comforting is not necessarily true. It is a fallacy easily understood but frequently overlooked when it is committed (as is the case of this defense).

The truth value of a claim does not depend on the amount of comfort it offers. The truth can be painful; A lie can be comforting. An example of a comforting lie is the security blanket. The blanket itself does not provide any security apart from tactile comfort. But the belief that it does provides the same effect.

I don't think I need to push this point further - This should be easily understood.


Preferring Lies
When such a defense is made when the truth of a religion is in question, it carries with it implicitly that a comforting lie is more preferable over actual facts. I personally don't agree with this but if someone wants to believe comforting falsehoods, that's his/her prerogative. It becomes objectionable though if he/she takes steps to make others believe in his nonsense.

Granted that someone may actually value comfort over truth, I am unable to accept that something is still comforting if you actually knew it was false. If I was in those shoes, I'd be hard pressed to find any shred of comfort at all after realizing that it's a falsehood.

From this point of view, it is not surprising that this argument is made by sympathetic non-believers. If they were believers, I'd think that they would find such an argument pretty condescending - "Oh they don't care about truth, they just want to feel good."

In any case, such comforts afforded by a belief is superficial if the belief itself is false of unsubstantiated.


Comforting? Seriously?
I find this defense ironic in the case of the Abrahamic faiths, especially Christianity.

Just think about it, which part of believing that:
A sky-daddy overseeing this universe under his totalitarian rule and he shall judge who shall qualify entry into heaven (though he already knew beforehand whom shall and shall not enter heaven or hell before he even created anything at all). This same sky-daddy allegedly loves you and answers your prayers occasionally only if it is part of his divine plan by miraculously messing with the laws of nature if need be.

However, you're a miserable wretch because your ancestors committed the original sin which the sky-daddy should have seen coming. Somehow you and all descendants alike, who had nothing to do with that, has to take the blame according to his game rules. On top of that, the only way he could forgive humanity was via the blood sacrifice of his only son (who, apparently, is also himself). His son, or himself, went to suffer in hell for 3 days before he un-dies to return to heaven to be with his father, or himself.

Where on Earth is the comfort?!