A creationist sent me a DVD

On June 8, I protested the "Stand Up for Religious Freedom" rally -- which was an interesting hodgepodge of people rallying against Obama and the Affordable Care Act -- in Scranton, PA. You can read about my protesting experience at the rally and see my pictures -- mainly of the ralliers holding some really awkward signs ranging from "God's law comes first. Repeal socialist Obamacare!" to "The pill causes cancer" -- from the rally here.

While at the rally, at least one man spoke to me about 'creation science' and creationism following asking me if I -- to quote his words -- "believe in evolution." He said that he wanted to send me DVDs in the mail, so I told him this was fine as long as he paid the postage. Surprisingly, the man delivered...and left his cell phone number on the bottom of this note (the DVD covers it). Perhaps after watching -- whether or not I can even make it through the two hours -- I can sell this online? With a retail value of $24.95, it should sell for something...

This is a great improvement from hate mail I have received (both online and via snail mail) from my Aunt Lori, Aunt Carol, anonymous commenters, [former] college classmates, semi-professional wrestlers, library workers, soccer players, many people from Northeastern Pennsylvania including high-school bullies and people in the military, and people wishing me an unmerry Christmas who think I should have been expelled from college [and note that Mohammad and Beelzebub are proud of me].

Maybe, though, it isn't an improvement....

Lawrence Krauss clarifies his comments regarding philosophy, apologizes

I published a new article on Examiner.com titled "Lawrence Krauss clarifies his comments regarding philosophy, apologizes." Read the first paragraph of the article below and visit Examiner.com to read the rest of the article.

Theoretical physicist Lawrence Krauss has drawn the ire of many following some of his comments at American Atheists' 2012 national convention including “philosophy is the field that hasn't progressed in 2000 years whereas science has” and in an interview with The Atlantic in which he asserted that philosophy of science has “no impact on physics what so ever.” Philosopher of science Massimo Pigliucci responded to some of Krauss' comments in a lengthy blog post on RationallySpeaking.org noting that Krauss' comments are a “combination of profound ignorance and hubris.” Today, in a Scientific American article titled "The Consolation of Philosophy," Krauss clarified his statements regarding philosophy and apologized to those whom he offended.

Read more of the article on Examiner.com here.

Philosophers Gregory Bassham, David Albert critique Lawrence Krauss' ideas

Lawrence Krauss' recent presentation at American Atheists' 2012 convention has drawn the ire of philosophers and philosophically-minded persons who take contention not only with what Krauss refers to as 'nothing' in his recent book “A Universe From Nothing,” but also with his comments concerning philosophy.

Krauss, in his presentation, asserted that “philosophy is the field that hasn't progressed in 2000 years whereas science has” and insisted this his definition of 'nothing' is correct while saying that philosophers “don't understand.” Krauss also noted, “...what we mean by something and nothing has completely changed since the time the classical philosophers and theologians first raised the issue. This is an idea I can't seem to explain to philosophers and theologians.”

Dr. Gregory Bassham -- Chair and Professor of Philosophy at King's College in Pennsylvania whose areas of specialization are popular culture and philosophy, philosophy of law and critical thinking -- comments for this article.

Continue reading on Examiner.com Philosophers Gregory Bassham, David Albert critique Lawrence Krauss' ideas - Scranton Atheism | Examiner.com

A response to Lawrence Krauss' comments denigrating philosophy at American Atheists' 2012 convention

Lawrence Krauss' speech at American Atheists' 2012 national convention

Lawrence Krauss is quite a prolific figure in and outside of the secular community. For readers who may not be familiar, Krauss recieved a Ph.D. from MIT, is the Foundation Professor and Director of the Origins Initiative, and is the Co-Director of the Cosmology Initiative at Arizona State University. With these honors that are just a small portion of his impressive CV, I expect a great deal from Krauss and certainly would not expect him to denigrate philosophy and philosophers during his speech at American Atheists' 2012 convention which I had attended, but I was tremendously disappointed ... even though it might have been the case that he may have been angry or 'in a bad mood' (I'll get into the anger issue toward the bottom of the post).

In my undergraduate studies as a philosophy major at King's College, one thing I learned -- heavily stressed by many of my professors -- was the principle of charity which roughly dictates that persons should read or otherwise interpret arguments or statements which may seem unclear, ambiguous, or vague in -- as readers may have guessed -- a charitable fashion perhaps to make the argument or statement as 'intelligent as possible.'

When Krauss had denigrated philosophers and philosophy during his recent speech, I had thought -- as I often do when I grimace like David Silverman did in an interview with Bill O' Reilly interview -- that Krauss was simply erring or otherwise had a slip-up, but as his speech continued, this didn't seem to be the case. I wanted, of course, to interpret his statements so that they don't sound really uninformed and reckless, but there doesn't appear to be a 'way out.'

Here are some examples of some interesting portions from Krauss' speech in which Krauss denigrates philosophy and doesn't appear to understand what he is talking about regarding philosophy. As you can see, there was not only one comment.

(1) 1:35: “What's truly amazing is that science has progressed to the point where the question 'Why something rather than nothing,' which many people have thought of as a religious or philosophical question, has become a scientific one in spite of some moronic philosophers who have just written for the New York Times today.”

(2) 2:33: “'Out of nothing comes nothing' is as philosophers have said thousands of years ago and have maintained ever since. Of course philosophy is the field that hasn't progressed in two thousand years whereas science has.” (this elicited a very odd and worrying applause from the audience)

(3) 3:19: "We don't understand the universe by thinking about it, we understand the universe from probing."

(4) 18:00: "Nothing is not what we used to think it was. I've tried to explain that in small words to philosophers, but as I say, some of them - they don't understand. But we now understand using the laws of quantum mechanics..."

(5) 18:21: "We now know that due to quantum mechanics and relativity, empty space is a boiling, bubbling brew of virtual particles popping in and out of existence at times so short you can't see them. Now that does sound like philosophy."

(6) 35:42: Science has demonstrated that a universe from nothing is not only plausible, but likely. More importantly, what we mean by something and nothing has completely changed since the time the classical philosophers and theologians first raised this issue. This is an idea I can't seem to explain to philosophers and theologians. It's changed. Those questions you asked aren't relevant now.

I have many other points of contention with Krauss' speech that will remain unlisted (particularly surrounding point three), but I would like to focus on the points I listed and explain why I believe Krauss' comments seem to be quite reckless and uninformed. I'll explain just some progress philosophy has made in the past two thousand years, show how philosophy informs science, and how science informs philosophy. Hopefully readers will be charitable toward me and not dismiss the post because I happen to be critiquing Lawrence Krauss or otherwise offering some criticism instead of focusing on the positive. We're supposed to be skeptics and challenge that which sounds off-base, right?

It strikes me quite odd that one can claim that no progress is made in an academic discipline within the past two thousand years. While atheists like Krauss denigrate theology [and we happen to believe, of course, that belief in supernatural entities is unwarranted], theology has even progressed in the past two thousand years. Men dominated (and perhaps still dominate) the field of theology, but with just some progress -- largely because of the book "Sexism and God Talk" -- we can see 'moves' away from a male-dominates perspective toward a more equitable or otherwise diverse perspective. Whether or not supernatural entities exist does not matter here.

Theology aside, and back to philosophy, there has been tremendous advancement in philosophy which Krauss, perhaps ironically, almost addresses in a roundabout way when he mentions musings of the Ancient Greeks. Philosophy has largely shed, although Krauss didn't mention this, ideas of Plato's forms, elements, ideas of a soul, and much more (see Plato's ideas here).

One of the most famous 'modern philosophers,' Descartes, as this Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy article suggests, provided a philosophical groundwork for the possibility of the science. Much unlike some medieval philosophers [whom many critique, and rightly so, as perhaps 'hijacking philosophy' to conform with Christian belief or otherwise wedding philosophy with theology], Descartes questioned his initial assumptions -- regardless of believing in a god -- and developed the famous "I think therefore I am" phrase. Descartes, as his Wikipedia article explains, postulated the view which would be called Cartesian dualism positing a material body and an immaterial mind. Much of Descartes' work has inspired revolutions and, of course, progress in philosophy. Old ideas were thrown aside when new ideas refuted them.

Epistemology is a branch of philosophy which deals with knowledge. This field of philosophy has seen a tremendous amount of progress and has, as one might and should suppose, informed science. One recent sign of progress in philosophy was spawned by a short article by Edmund Gettier called "Is justified true belief knowledge" which challenged conceptions of knowledge seemingly forcing readers to draw distinctions between the two. Because of Gettier, epistemology has drastically reformed (and not in the Plantingian sense). The 'controversy' still continues and new ideas of looking at knowledge, particularly epistemic virtues or 'virtues of the mind' may have been a result.

It's also important to note, because it is very relevant to this discussion surrounding Krauss' comments, that science is informed by philosophy. To start, science is based on the belief that the future will resemble the past. Additionally -- although similar, but slightly different --scientists, in order to even start or 'do work,' must assume nature is uniform (a philosophical assumption). Science also operates under the banner of methodological naturalism [restricting its study to the natural world or otherwise assuming that, while doing science, the natural world is all that exists depending on your interpretation] based on a philosophical assumption [that naturalistic explanations are most fruitful and perhaps some other assumptions].

When considering which scientific theories better account for data or otherwise provide a better framework for explaining phenomena, persons are 'doing philosophy' considering, perhaps, ideas such as parsimony, fruitfulness, falsifiablity, conservativism, and testability. One must draw conclusions (engage in philosophy) when 'theory-weighing.' In physics, for example, philosophy has a great impact one whether certain intepretations of quantum mechanics are plausible or not! Many-worlds interpretation? Copenhagan interpreation? Ideas of Bohm? Bell? Mach?

Another example of progress in philosophy and the interaction between science and philosophy surrounds the idea of causal determinism which is largely rejected nowadays by philosophers and scientists. Ideas [in the past 2000 years and even in the last four hundred] of the universe being a 'billiard table' of sorts were abound in which if we knew how the 'billiard balls' moved on the 'table,' we would be able to predict outcomes. Some thought that we, when asserting to understand the laws of physics, could predict events reaching so far even to human behavior or otherwise could justifiably believe that the future is unalterable vis-a-vis appeals to laws of physics and (some other assumptions). Some major hammerblows from philosophical investigation have been dealt...and progress was made.

I could go into much more detail about progress in philosophy and how philosophy informs science, but I don't think it is needed; a few examples should suffice to prove my point. For Lawrence Krauss to denigrate philosophy -- it seems -- is for him to shoot himself in his feet because the work he engages in is directly informed by [the progress of] philosophy. While scientific investigation largely deals with the empirical, much reflection or conclusion-drawing is wholly apart from experience...and we can and do have a mix of the two. Unfortunately, Krauss doesn't seem to be very knowledgeable in the area of philosophy, his off-color comments detract from his speech, and Krauss seems to give people a very distorted view of philosophy as something that has withered away that has no place in discussions about cosmology, physics, and science at large.

If Lawrence Krauss reads this, I would like for him to -- if I am getting something wrong here -- explain or otherwise better clarify his comments and he hopefully will apologize for the philosophy denigration. There's no need for a 'war' between science and philosophy. The fields can and should (and do) inform each other. Progress in philosophy can translate to progress in science and, as both domains attempt to do, increase our knowledge of the universe.

For more insight into the idea of 'progress in philosophy,' please read Massimo Pigliucci's post titled "Progress in philosophy not an oxymoron."

An ending note:

Although I think it to be quite obvious that Krauss misunderstands philosophy because of his various statements showing such misunderstanding and denigrating philosophy, anger may account for some of Krauss' comments. As mentioned in Krauss' speech, philosopher David Albert reviewed Krauss' book and was not happy with Krauss' book.

After Krauss' talk, I had confronted Krauss simply asking him why he said that philosophy has not progressed in the past two thousand years. Krauss, not answering my question, expressed his displeasure with Albert and walked away after I said -- if I recall correctly -- that if he had a disagreement with a philosopher, he should show why the arguments from the philosopher fail rather than dismissing philosophy. Regardless, even if anger was the case -- which it doesn't seem to be considering the many differing statements Krauss had during his speech -- Krauss was acting extremely unprofessional to 'take out' his anger on philosophy and philosophers multiple times during his speech.

"Debunked Science" admits of openness, progress

Persons who try to discredit science or otherwise are quite skeptical of the scientific enterprise frequently voice the following claim almost immediately betraying a very fundamental misunderstanding:

You can't trust scientific findings! Scientists got it wrong so much in the past and what we think was a fact constantly gets overturned! Everything we know today is going to turn out to be wrong in the future. Look at [example x theory or idea]. People thought that was true, but now we know it is not. You can't trust scientists.

A recent NPR article titled "Debunked Science: Studies Take Heat in 2011" discusses three non-findings/retractions that lead the author to write, "2011 may go down as the year of the retraction in the scientific world." Additionally, the author noted that "non-discoveries" of 2011 (a genetic basis for longevity, a new form of life, an explanation for autism, and a link between a virus and chronic fatigue syndrome) "have something in common: They involved findings that both scientists and the public badly wanted to believe."

I am worried that the above "you can't trust science" sentiment may be reinforced by this article and am quite dismayed that the author did not dedicate some space to detail why people should not be dismayed (especially when the general public, it seems, does not know too much about science as a discipline, but rather looks at science as a technology mill).

Interestingly, some of what the author mentions to provide evidence to support his claim of "2011 may go down as the year of retraction in the scientific world" is not even a study or otherwise was not even accepted by the scientific community.

The caption for the article's picture of Mono Lake in California where some thought a new form of bacterial life was found says, "The report was immediately greeted with skepticism from the scientific community." Later in the article, regarding the possible new form of life, the author notes, "[M]any experts in field were unimpressed by NASA's event [the press conference announcing the finding]."

One of the researchers, Wolfe-Simon, said the following, according to a Wired.com article:

“These data show that we are getting substitution across the board,” Wolfe-Simon says. “This microbe, if we are correct, has solved the challenge of being alive in a different way.”

“It isn’t about arsenic, and it isn’t about Mono Lake,” says Wolfe-Simon. “There’s something fundamental about understanding the flexibility of life. Any life, a microbe, a tree, you grind it up and it’s going to be CHNOPS. But we have a single sample of life. You can’t look for what you don’t know.”

Let's suppose, though, that the scientists did 'jump the gun' and claimed that a new form of life was found and that their statements were later retracted. Would this lead to the conclusion that scientists' findings can't be trusted or that this is somehow a flaw in the scientific process? Peer review is a very important part of the scientific process. Findings of researchers are 'out in the open' so that others can critique the data and possibly lead to either retractions of published findings. This should be considered a great strength of science and should give people good reasons to, in many cases, assent to experts' opinions/findings.

The level of openness in science is much different than, say, what goes on in the minds of young earth creationists (YEC's) or '9/11 truthers' in many cases. In science, when good reasons are presented that should lead one to reject a certain idea, the idea is rejected and scientists are willing to reject the idea. When YEC's are shown that the earth is indeed older than 10,000 years, the YEC's attempt to 'save their theories' by making ad-hoc (unfalsifiable and unjustified) moves such as "Well, the universe was made with the appearance of age" or "God just wants our faith to be tested." Truthers claim that evidence against their ideas are just part of a conspiracy, a distraction from the real conspiracy, or a fabrication of the mass media/government because that is what "they" "want you to believe."

Some theists, additionally, when faced with the problem of natural evil (the argument that belief in an omni-good god is irrational because of the amount of egregious suffering in the universe caused by natural occurrences), seem to employ similar thinking. Instead of giving up belief in an omni-good god when presented with reason, argument, and evidence (vis-a-vis the problem of natural evil), some theists assert "for all we know, there could be a reason that God has, but we just don't know it." What is the reason for this? How can we know that "there could be a reason" and why don't these people apply such skepticism globally? (For all we know, perhaps God requires earthquakes for the salvation of children, so we shouldn't say earthquakes are a bad thing...)

If your belief is immune to being shown false, it seems, that belief ought to be rendered irrational. A wise man, as David Hume once said, proportions his belief to the evidence. When the evidence is greatly weighed against a certain idea, the wise course of action would be to discard the idea instead of making ad-hoc moves to 'save your theory.' Falsifiability, as we see, is a very important characteristic of a good [scientific] explanation while unfalsifiable beliefs, no matter what evidence might come up tomorrow, would not be discarded.

The whole notion of willingness to discard ideas when good reason, argument, and evidence is presented shows a great level of intellectual honesty and should lead people to trust findings generated from such a 'system.' Each retraction in science should lead a person to conclude that, even though they don't have the expertise to thoroughly analyze findings, a great deal of justified trust can be placed in the findings of scientists. After all, other experts are out there who do analyze the findings to 'wipe away' possible biases of the researchers reporting the results or flaws in studies.

Science, contrary to what the NPR article seems to assert, isn't about what scientists want to believe, but rather is concerned with what is true or otherwise can be justifiably asserted given the current evidence. Unfortunately, some reporting by media outlets [and not the scientists themselves] can 'jump the gun' and individual readers will believe a certain proposition when the scientists themselves are not even making a claim.

While it may be the case [or some may even argue is the case] that much of what we believe now about the universe will be either overturned or greatly amended in the future, this should not lead us to despair, but rather should assure us that scientists are honest and willing to amend or overturn findings provided new evidence comes in. This is what we call progress.

Confidence in science: Faith, fact, or something else?

A discussion in the New York Times starting with an article published on December 21, 2011 titled "On Flu Strains, Folkies and Faith in Science" prompted readers to ponder whether scientific inquiry and discovery will lead humanity down a smoother road, whether scientific inquiry will produce more good than harm (or vice-versa), whether there should be limits on scientific inquiry, and whether 'faith' in science is the same kind of faith as, say, religious faith.

A follow-up article published on December 23, 2011 titled "Is Confidence in Science as a Source of Progress Based on Faith or Fact?" includes various views on whether, as you might guess, "confidence in science," according to the article, "as a source of human progress is underpinned by fact or faith." The author notes, "Some readers may have missed that the discussion was not about confidence in science as an enterprise, but confidence that benefits would always accrue to society from applications of scientific knowledge."

These topics ought to be interesting to many whether they have a very slim understanding of philosophy, science, and philosophy of science. Unfortunately, though, those with a slim understanding of philosophy, science, and philosophy of science are often confused or missing some major points such as when they think 'faith in science' [this phrase should not even exist, especially amongst those who do have an understanding of science, philosophy, and philosophy of science because the definition of faith, I would wager, is generally 'belief without evidence'] is the same as 'faith in religious ideas.'

Andrew C. Revkin, in the "On Flu Strains, Folkies and Faith in Science" article, seems to put quite a high bar on the word 'prove.' He writes, "I'm a huge fan of science, as is obvious given that I've spent my life studying it and writing about it. I think that more science and science literacy, and fostering a culture of innovation and inquiry, will boost odds of a relatively smooth ride for humanity as our appetite for resources crests. But can I prove that? No." He continues, "...I have confidence that scientific inquiry, as long as it is carried out in a transparent way, will endure as a force for progress - particularly in comparison to the track record for movements in which ideology trumps reason. And, no, I can't prove that."

I'm not sure why the author notes that he "can't prove that" and perhaps am further confused as to why he doesn't continue noting that, from what we have seen so far, scientific inquiry has yielded a tremendous amount of information, discovery, new technology, and so much more that has made human life better. Although, of course, we have also created technology which can kill people at a rate much faster than ever before, it seems evident that the scales are tipped in favor of 'good' and not 'evil' in this case. We're living much longer, we're understanding more about the universe, we're using technology that was once only dreamed of in science fiction, and we have almost eradicated diseases which would regularly kill or make life horrid for many.

While we can't 'prove' what science will yield in the future, we can be very inductively justified in assuming that, on good evidence, that scientific inquiry will make life much better by looking at the current trend...and this isn't faith - or at least the same kind of faith as, say, religious faith like Pete Seeger, in the article, mentions. The author notes, "...Seeger recalled how his father used to prod friends who were scientists in this way: You think that an infinite increase in empirical information is a good thing. Can you prove it? He'd then retort that faith in science is no different than faith in anything else (emphasis mine).

'Faith in science,' if we must use this term, is much different than 'faith in anything else.' As I noted, we are inductively justified in believing that science will continue to be a source of human progress.

When religious claims are concerned, proponents often lack good reason for their claims and can and do often admit that they have no reason to believe, but rather hold faith. Faith, according to some, is a virtue.

"Trust that God has a plan for you," people say.

"My experience thus far has dictated that there is more than meets the eye even though I can't show you this," people say.

That boy over there who recovered from a bacterial infection... just believe that a Mohawk Indian who lived 350 years ago named Kateri Tekakwitha intervened and the doctors, simple regression of the disease, or other naturalistic explanations had nothing to do with it and instead of simply saying "I don't know," jump to the conclusion that there was supernatural intervention.

Additionally, as you might expect, the arguments/reasons for belief in the Christian god are often very problematic and do not 'hold up' to inquiry. "Have faith" is the 'last card' that is often played, even if some incontrovertible evidence came about that showed the belief were false a la Alvin Plantinga and William Lane Craig [videos in links] who believe that the Holy Spirit has given them reasons to believe via an immediate experience and nothing can serve as a defeater to Christian belief [thus, it seems, making Christian belief unfalsifiable and irrational].

Scientists do not, by any means, operate on "faith" like those of religious sects often do. Consider methodological naturalism -- the assumption scientists make that the natural world is all that exists -- when doing research. Some religious persons might say that this is a faith-based claim. Scientists operate under methodological naturalism because they want to explain the natural world and look for naturalistic explanations [and supernatural explanations do not have good explanatory power, generally are not testable, and are not conservative or fruitful].

We see that 'faith in science,' if we must call it that, is much different than 'faith in religion.'

When I consider belief and what I believe, I think that knowledge is provisional - it is best on the best interpretation of what we know now and could be, of course, wrong in the future or undermined by various skeptical hypotheses. For all I know, I could have been created five minutes ago with pre-programmed memories and holes in my socks or I could be a brain in a vat. I don't believe these things because I have no good reasons to do so. I can't be "100% certain" or 'prove that I am not a brain in a vat,' but belief in the external world, for example, as opposed to the world being an illusion, is justified - and very much so. The word 'prove,' it seems is quite useless in contexts such as these.

Philosopher Jonathan Kvanvig writes, "There is no reason whatsoever to think that believing the truth is always impossible; the best that could be claimed is that there is no guarantee in any given case that we have achieved the state of believing the truth. Perhaps it follows that we should not hope for the chimera of infallibility."

Returning to the article, and moving away from whether 'faith in science' is the same as religious faith, Brad Allenby writes:

There has to be a big dollop of faith: no single person can possibly begin to understand the world we live in from first principles. It is, of course, a rationalistic faith, in that I am fairly confirmed in my belief that, say, 747’s will fly because in fact the vast majority of them do, and frequently. More fundamentally, my faith that 747’s will fly is of a different kind than the traditional religious kind, in that the latter cannot be supported by direct experience, but only by interpretations of direct experience which pull on the faith narrative.

Allenby is indeed "fairly confirmed" in his belief that "747s will fly because in fact the vast majority of them do, and frequently," but I don't see the value of calling this belief faith. This belief can simply be called a justified belief and direct experience is not needed for this sort of belief to be justified. We can assent to the experts, appeal to others' past experiences, and so much more in order to be justified in believing that future 747s will fly.

Steve Fuller writes:

The prospect that scientists have created a lethal strain of avian flu and are on the verge of publishing their technique in the world’s leading scientific journal has reopened the debate over science’s aspiration to ‘universal knowledge’ in two distinct senses: Should science investigate everything, and should its findings be made available to everyone? Doubts on both fronts pertain to the potential evil that might be unleashed, either by will or by accident. That the doubts should center so clearly on evil consequences betrays the theological origins of the concern. From the serpent in the Garden of Eden to the Cartesian demon of modern skepticism, evil is always portrayed as something that simulates good in nearly all respects. Yet knee-jerk moves to censor and otherwise restrict scientific inquiry threaten to compound rather than the remove the evil in question.

The common lingering concern of "Well, what if advances in technology lead to ruin, horror, and misuse" has probably permeated almost every new technological advance that can be used for harm. Despite this, we're quite happy to continue progressing and rightfully so. We're happy to enjoy our smartphones, laptop, new vaccines, and lives generally free of tuberculosis and polio. While technology might be used for 'evil' (and can often be), it is 'up to us' to police.

We often balance the benefits and costs of our actions and can do so regarding technology. For example, I'm quite aware that my privacy has diminished because of my internet use, owning a smartphones, and much more. To completely refrain from taking advantage of modern technology because of concerns of privacy, it seems, is quite silly. If, though, the trade-off were much more in-line with the negative, I might refrain, but I enjoy my technology and don't want to give it up because of what seem to be very minute concerns.

While some 'evil' may and almost certainly will come about because of progress, it seems to be the case that the benefits far outweigh the costs and deciding to stop progress in fear of some negative consequences is more harmful than progressing to begin with.

To be fair, there are, of course, some moral concerns that may come about when considering progress that we should be mindful of. Perhaps it may be for the best, for example, to not produce a technology which can be embedded in someone's skin at birth that would be unremovable and would constantly transmit a GPS signal to a government. Civil liberties concerns, we can see, crop up. We can, though, stop some progress/technology and not all. We can 'sit down' and consider certain issues without abandoning the entire enterprise of progress.

A refreshing comment from Angela Dellaporta on the difference between 'faith in science' and religious faith reads:

Science is intrinsically humble. Any scientific hypothesis must be tested repeatedly, by many different people, before it is believed. If the hypothesis does not meet the standards, then it is not considered to be scientific truth. These high standards make it easy to have faith in scientifically proven facts — though the best scientists will admit that there is always a margin for error, however small. Faith in religion is a very different thing. It is faith in the unprovable, faith in the mystery, faith in the unknown and unknowable. Because of this, humility, rather than stridence, is usually expected in those who have a deep religious faith, too.

While I enjoy this comment, I still find the phrase 'faith in scientifically proven facts' to be useless because it is not faith, but rather warranted belief. Hope not for the chimera of infallibility, for "100% certainty" is a distraction.

Confidence in science is not faith, but it is rather inductively justified. Reject the phrase 'faith in science' and do not allow belief about scientific principles or advancement to be relegated to the same status as religious faith. It is all too often that religious persons try to claim that their 'faith in science' -- which is justified if we must use the term -- is the same as religious faith, but this is simply not the case. Additionally, people argue that a naturalistic world view is simply inadequate and that religious faith is needed. We can be justified in looking to science for progress and answers to questions. Fear not, though, those of you who may be having visions of scientism floating in your heads...science is not the only way to arrive at conclusions, for other disciplines such as philosophy are needed.

For more on the topic of faith, please listen to the second episode of the NEPA Freethought Society Podcast in which I talk about some ideas I presented here and much more.

As always, feel free to add comments and questions below...and don't assume that I'm talking about all religious people or all definitions of faith.

Dr. Steve Novella: Chiropractor Dan Golaszewski practices pseudoscience

I published an article titled "Dr. Steve Novella: Chiropractor Dan Golaszewski practices pseudoscience." Read this article and more on my Examiner.com page and please subscribe for instant updates.

For a longer treatment on this topic, please read my blog post titled "My Skeptical Adventure with Chiropractic: Taking Dr. Dan Golaszewski to task."

NASA's Kepler discoveries cast doubts on theistic belief

I published a new Examiner.com article titled "NASA's Kepler discoveries cast doubts on theistic belief." Read this article and more on my Examiner.com page and please subscribe for instant updates.

Santorum: Scientific community "afraid of discussion" about God in classrooms

I published a new Examiner.com article titled "Santorum: Scientific community "afraid of discussion" about God in classrooms." Read this article and more on my Examiner.com page and please subscribe for instant updates.

Dr. Steve Novella comments on 'alternative medicine' at Marywood health fair

I published a new article on Examiner.com titled "Dr. Steve Novella comments on 'alternative medicine' at Marywood health fair." Read this article and more on my Examiner.com page and please subscribe for instant updates.

9/11 Truthers and Creationists are Strange Bedfellows

In a previous post, I noted the various failures of the '9/11 Truth Movement' focusing on commentary from the book How to Think About Weird Things: Critical Thinking for a New Age by Theodore Shick and Lewis Vaughn in addition to an article from a demolition expert who counters the claims made by '9/11 truthers.' While I touched on various logical fallacies and critical thinking errors, I did not focus on the specific strategies of the '9/11 Truth Movement' nor did I notice that 'truthers' are very similar to creationists. In this post, I will argue that the fallacies of the '9/11 truther movement' are very similar to creationists by point out very specific examples drawn from a local blogger known as "Big Dan" of "Big Dan's Big Blog" in addition to other websites that include 9/11 conspiracy theories and denial of evolution.

Here's my argument in a simple deductive form because many have missed the point.

Premise one: One is unjustified in believing a conclusion if the methodology used to arrive at such a conclusion is deeply flawed.
Premise two: The methodology creationists use is deeply flawed.
Premise three: The methodology '9/11 truthers' use is similar to that of creationists.
Conslusion: One is unjustified in believing the conclusion of '9/11 truthers.'

One of the biggest strategies of both creationists and '9/11 truthers' is what I will call the 'house of cards strategy.' '9/11 truthers' and creationists envision accepted accounts of how the world is and what has happened in the past as a flimsy house of cards; if one part of the house is 'pulled out,' they believe that the accepted account completely fails and, of course, their version automatically wins out. This is a classic example of a false dichotomy in which two options are posed and if one is problematic, the flawed logic assumes, the other option automatically wins. As far as evolution and the accepted version of the narrative and happenings surrounding 9/11, it will be the case that there will be some errors in what was initially posited as truth - and this is inevitable. The errors, though, do not entail that the entire theory falls apart.


'9/11 truthers' and creationists love to cherry pick some accounts instead of looking at the whole picture. Creationists, for example, will point to Piltdown Man or Haeckel's Embyros (without, of course, looking for what the relevant experts have to say about these or performing a rudimentary Google search) and believe that this is enough reason to discount evolution.


'9/11 truthers' will say things like "The hijackers' names were not on the flight manifests" and conclude, of course, that "this is evidence of a lie." The earliest released information was, in fact, not manifests, but rather lists of the victims. The manifests were later released, but the '9/11 truthers' will not acknowledge that...and if they do, they offer ad hoc explanations to explain away the evidence which leads me into the next point...


Creationists and '9/11 Truthers,' when confronted with evidence that would dismiss their arguments, offer unfalsifiable/untestable explanations that are coupled with no evidence or very weak evidence. Creationists may say that fossils are just 'a test of faith.' '9/11 truthers' will say that the evidence is simply part of the conspiracy. In the case of photos of the hijackers, Big Dan notes that "You'd have to contact family members and get them to provide you with photos, right? Unless of course you had the photos in advance [...] There is NO WAY (emphasis his) - they would have withheld the complete list of alleged hijackers [sic] names until such time as they had tracked down every perfectly framed and in-focus head shot of every alleged hijacker." Why should we assume that fossils are a 'test of faith?' How can we possibly demonstrate this? Why assume that the evidence is part of the conspiracy?


Creationists and '9/11 truthers' both make inappropriate appeals to authority and assume, just because someone has some sort of title, that everything that person says is true regardless of what other relevant experts have to say who overwhelmingly disagree. Creationists appeal to people like Michael Behe who allege that systems must be intelligently designed because if one part of a system is removed, the system breaks down. '9/11 truthers' appeal to what ought to be called the poster-child of the inappropriate appeal to authority, ae911truth.org, for their information. The 'experts' are often speaking outside of their fields and do not offer peer-reviewed studies to supplement their ideas. The 'Architects and engineers for 9/11 truth' are speaking outside of their field when they are discussing controlled demolition. The controlled demolition experts have not come to a consensus stating that 9/11 was a controlled demolition...and those are the people we should listen to (and not just because they are experts on controlled demolitions, but rather because they are the best to interpret the evidence and present the evidence).


Creationists and '9/11 truthers' commit the informal logical fallacy known as the argument from ignorance. Both groups frequently use this pattern, championed by Bill O' Reilly, to supplement their arguments: this can't be explained, therefore conspiracy/God. Just because something can't be explained or is not explained does not mean that the creationist or '9/11 truther' is justified in asserting their claims.


The main narrative of the 9/11 conspiracy theorists is that the government and the media lie, have lied, and have participated in deception in the past. They reason, therefore, that since the media and government presented information regarding 9/11, it must be false. Creationists point to examples like Cold Fusion or paint scientists to be 'dogmatists' and therefore reason that scientists can not be trusted. Both camps posit non-sequiturs unjustifiably distrusting the sources of information (that are often quite unrelated or have nothing to do with what they are attacking).


While it is often a great idea to distrust patently unreliable sources of information such as World Net Daily, Conservapedia, or Life Site News, for example, the reasons for doing so should be quite obvious and rejecting such sources is acceptable. In the case of the government and media, it certainly is true that there has been deception and lies, but it simply doesn't follow that everything presented by the government and media (particularly information surrounding 9/11 is false). Similarly, attacking all of science or evolution by attacking certain scientists or trying to paint scientists as dogmatists is unjustified. One of the main goals of science is to reduce bias as much as possible, weed out bad ideas by scrutiny and peer review, and arrive at the best information possible. While some bad studies may be published, this doesn't mean that everything published should be dismissed.


Creationists and '9/11 truthers' commit the false cause fallacy. Creationists claim that evolution is part of a strategy to 'eliminate God' in the schools and 'promote atheism.' They look at the removal of school prayer, for example, and notice the increase of teaching of evolution in schools and reason that there is some sort of 'agenda' going on. '9/11 truthers' allege that 9/11 was some conspiracy by the Bush administration because of the increased militarism of the United States (namely Iraq and Afghanistan).'


Creationists and '9/11 truthers' create the illusion of controversy. Creationists allege that there is a great deal of controversy and that evolution is 'just a weak theory.' 'Organizations' such as the Discovery Institute try to make their side seem professional by asserting that there are 'creation scientists.' No significant amount of scientists, though, reject evolution despite various lists that creationists may accumulate. Similar to the creationists, '9/11 truthers' also present lists of people. Right on the front page of ae911truth.org, one of the first group of lines of text seen reads "1,601 verified architectural and engineering professionals and 13,342 other supporters have signed the petition demanding of Congress a truly independent investigation."
Truth is not a matter of popularity. When scientists reach a consensus, their ideas are not justified simply because there are so many people who accept them, but rather because the evidence warrants a consensus and because there is no reasonable doubt. While specifics or predictions made by the background theory might be questionable, the background theory itself does not suddenly become unjustified.


While I have not devoted a significant amount of time to study of the 9/11 attacks, I can spot fallacious thinking when I see it. Creationists and '9/11 truthers' commit very similar errors in thinking...not to mention the fact that much of the information they present has been discredited or 'answered' in various venues.

"Paranormal Group 'Science' Disputed" Letter to the Editor Published!

Recently, I submitted a letter to the editor to the local Times Leader newspaper and it was published, with little or no alterations that criticizes 'paranormal investigation' and flatly, with no reserve, calls it pseudoscience. While this critique is mainly focused on a local group, NEPA Paranormal, the points made can generally be applied to any paranormal group or claims. This critique, though, is quite limited (less than 250 words), but I get my point across.

I'm really happy about this publication and give the Times Leader editor lots of credit for publishing this critique. Unfortunately, there is an extreme lack of skepticism in the media and the pseudoscience to skepticism ratio is overwhelming toward pseudoscience. I also published a slightly longer version of this critique on my Examiner.com page. Without further delay, this is the letter as published in the Times Leader:

Paranormal group ‘science’ disputed

A recently published article titled “Paranormal investigators take on Swetland Homestead” features members of the local group NEPA Paranormal investigating the Swetland Homestead in Wyoming. Although NEPA Paranormal claims that its work is scientific, its work is anything but scientific.

NEPA Paranormal, according to its website’s home page, takes “a scientific approach to the paranormal,” but its “About Us” page notes that the members “do believe the paranormal exists, and want some answers.” Right from the start, NEPA Paranormal members are not acting scientifically; they are starting with an unsubstantiated belief that the paranormal exists when those who are properly scientific should start from a neutral position of non-belief.

NEPA Paranormal’s website also notes the use of “professional equipment” such as “geophones” (“to pick up vibrations such as phantom footsteps”), EMF meters (the group has “theories that spirits may givr (sic) off EMF when trying to manifest itself (sic)”) and EVP Field Processors (to capture “human-sounding voices from an unknown source”). Such devices are not endorsed by scientific studies, but rather rejected.

Paranormal investigation similar to that of NEPA Paranormal is not scientific, but rather is pseudo-scientific. Operating under the guise of science, paranormal investigators lack sufficient evidence to establish their claims, endorse unprovable claims, present information that runs contrary to scientific findings, and attribute the unexplained and ambiguous to paranormal activity instead of saying “I don’t know” or looking for naturalistic explanations.

Addendum to my Michael Voris Interview

Recently, I wrote an article for Examiner.com based on my interview with Michael Voris whom I briefly met in Wilkes-Barre after he gave a speech. I also got a picture with him. Voris is, hands down, my 'favorite Catholic' because he is very entertaining, consistent, and is a great look into what fundamental Christianity is like. In my Examiner.com article, I did not intend to counter Voris' arguments and only wanted to report. I was also quite limited in text. This blog post will be a refutation of Voris' arguments.

Regarding Voris' speech at Marywood University, I'm in agreement with Voris. The local diocese agreed to host Voris, so he bought a plane ticket and scheduled to fly on a certain date at a certain time. Before reserving speakers and before said speakers make plans to fly, the diocese should first do a quick background check on their speakers. In the case of Voris, it's quite easy to find his YouTube channel. The Diocese thought that he was "too insensitive" to people of other faiths...perhaps admitting that Voris is 'more Catholic' than members of the diocese. If you are a Catholic who believes that everything the Church says is true, you should not hesitate to say that those of other faiths and no faiths are wrong...and that's exactly what Voris does. While this exclusivist stance (my religion is right and all the others are wrong) may be morally repugnant and reek of absolute certainty, it is intellectually honest.

I think the best solution for the diocese would have been inviting Voris and then having a representative on-site to give a rebuttal after his speech. Voris certainly would have accepted this and the diocese could have not screwed him out of a plane ticket. Voris and those in the diocese both profess to be Catholic...and Voris really represents the Catholic viewpoint (despite some of his political opinions, evolution denial, etc). If they disagree with him, the way that they should have gone about disagreement was to have a rebuttal right after his speech.

In my article, Voris repeats the all-to-often "atheists can't make sense of morality if they don't believe in God." This argument is a really bad one that is quite insulting. It's quite obvious that atheists, just like everyone else, can be moral individuals (and are). When people raise this objection to atheists, I typically ask them, "If you suddenly came to the conclusion that there is no good reason to believe in God, would you go out and commit genocide?" I've never heard one person say yes. It's clear, at least to me, that morality does not stem from belief in God; whether or not one believes in God is irrelevant to the question of morality. People are moral individuals mainly because they have empathy, morality is an evolutionary product, people want to see others prosper, people want to avoid punishment, etc.

We can talk of morality in a contingent sense in which morality only makes sense because sentient, conscious creatures exist. We realize, since others have the capacity to feel pain, be self-aware, experience deep emotions, etc, that we have moral obligations to others. When we self-reflect, we notice that other creatures have similar needs and wants as we do including safety, love, etc. Confucius, before Jesus, noted what should be the conclusion of these realizations: "One should not treat others in ways that one would not like to be treated."

Theists also have significant problems when they appeal to God as a lawgiver or some sort of moral standard to look up to. One of the biggest problems is known as the Euthyphro Dilemma which came from the writings of Plato. The problem is roughly this, updated to modern contexts: "Does God endorse that which is good or is that which is good good because God endorses it?" If God endorses that which is good, we need not appeal to God because there is some other standard by which the goodness is judged. If moral standards are good because God endorses them, then we have a "might makes right" problem and morality can be arbitrary; God can endorse any action such as torturing babies for the fun of it and because he would endorse it, the action would be good. Of course, torturing babies for the fun of it is not good, so this option can't work.

A theist might appeal to God's nature by saying "God's nature is good" or "God would never endorse evil actions," but this causes more problems. The "God's nature" objection delves deeper into the problem. By what standard is God's nature good? Is God's nature good because God endorses it or is God's nature good because God's nature endorses that which is good? For every "x" that a theist uses to answer the dilemma, they delve deeper into the problem. If a theist says that God would never endorse evil actions, this means that there is some outside standard to God that determines whether or not an action is evil (and thus God would not need to be part of the moral equation). This might also be problematic with God's omnipotence, but that's only a minor detail here.

Morality is a product of evolution and common sense. We realize that we need to work together and be nice to others on a very basic level in order for society to exist and to survive. We didn't need the ten commandments or the proverbial Mount Sinai to understand that murder and perjury are wrong. Morality is also a product of experience and socialization. We understand, through life experience, that we ought to behave in certain ways and not behave in certain ways in order to flourish. For more on the moral argument for God's existence, the Euthyphro Dilemma, and why people behave poorly, please click on the hyperlinks.

Responding to Voris, we can object to the actions of Hitler and the Nazis because we can understand why genocide is horrendous for several obvious reasons. We don't need a belief in God or some divine lawgiver to understand why genocide is wrong. We, as empathetic individuals, can understand that the Holocaust was wrong because innocent people are being deprived of basic human rights, murdered, tortured, forced to work in prison camps, etc. Only a psychopath or an extreme anti-Semite would believe that Hitler was justified in killing millions of people...and their 'opinions' do not matter in the moral conversations.

Voris poses several objections to atheists such as "they can't explain where the universe came from or explain love." Both of these objections are profoundly fallacious; they are arguments from ignorance and burden-shifting. The burden of proof is on the theist to demonstrate God, not the atheist. If the atheist can't answer a question posed by a theist, this doesn't suddenly justify belief in God or make these position/argument justified.

This sort of thinking is similar to what 9/11 conspiracy theorists and holocaust revisionists employ. If a person can't explain how a building would fall in a certain matter, the 'truther' thinks, then belief in a conspiracy is justified. The revisionists say, "No holes, no Holocaust" and find several 'problems' in the 'official explanations' of the Holocaust and because of this, they think that their arguments are justified, but this is not how argumentation works.

This is also a false dichotomy - one in which if you can't answer my objections, my side suddenly is justified. This sort of thinking also happens in the evolution/intelligent design 'debates.' The ID proponent says, "Look at blood clotting. You can't explain that." They think, just because the evolution proponent can't answer a question, intelligent design is suddenly justified. All that this means, though is "I can't explain one problem" and does not immediately defeat a position. Intelligent design, in this case, would only be justified in the ID proponent can make a case for why their position is the correct one.

Bill O' Reilly tried this sort of thinking in a recent discussion with David Silverman when he said, "Tides go in, tides go out. You can't explain that." O'Reilly thinks that just because an atheist can't explain the tides or, in a later video, "how the moon got there," that belief in God is justified. Voris is doing the same exact thing. You can't explain 'x' does not entail that an opposing position is automatically defeated.

Throughout history, we did not know how to explain phenomena such as thunder, earthquakes, disease, and seizures. In times past, people used gods to explain all of these, but we have now found naturalistic explanations and no longer need to assert God to explain what we previously did not understand. While we might not be able to understand "where the universe came from," this doesn't mean that we can justifiably say "God did it." Which God did it, anyway? How do we know the Christian god did it? Why couldn't some naturalistic explanation account for it? If we don't know how something works, we should be honest and say "I don't know" instead of jumping to supernatural conclusions. Why should we ever go from "I don't know" to "God did it?" This strategy, from theists, is often called "God of the gaps." Theists posit God into areas that are currently unexplained, but over time, God gets 'smaller and smaller' as new information is found.

"You can't explain love" is fallacious for the reasons I detailed above...and is even more silly. We actually can explain love...and it is a product of the brain. We're attracted to certain individuals and certain neurotransmitters in the brain emit hormones such as oxytocin. Attraction also is completely plausible within an evolutionary framework. While we can have sex with people we hate and don't need love for reproduction, this doesn't entail that love makes no sense within an evolutionary framework. Regardless, even if we can't make sense of love, this doesn't entail that God exists or that atheists are unjustified in their positions.

Voris believes that evolution is treated almost as dogma in the scientific community. "Dogma" is not a word that makes sense within the scientific community because theories are constantly put to the test and could be falsified when profound objections are levied. Scientists and non-scientists accept evolution because of the tremendous amount of evidence supporting it including be not limited to shared DNA, speciation, the fossil record, vestigial organs, etc. The idea that we descended from a common ancestor is a fact, not a dogma. Year by year, contrary to what Voris says, evolution becomes more and more justified. In the time of Darwin, sufficient evidence existed to substantiate evolution, but now -- with the fossil record, DNA, and answers to questions of 'complexity' -- the evidence for evolution is stronger and stronger. I'd like to know about the brilliant minds who shot holes through evolution...

Voris says, "How can you make life out of slamming rocks together" and immediately shows his ignorance of evolution. No scientists say that life emerged from "slamming rocks together." Voris conflates abiogenesis, the field in which life emerging from non-life is explored, with evolution. Abiogenesis and evolution are two separate disciplines...and just because we might not be able to explain how life came from non-life does not entail that belief in evolution is unjustified or belief in God is justified.

Voris' comments on homosexuality are completely unjustified. His statements endorsing 'curing homosexuality' are not endorsed by any credible psychologist or psychology association. People aren't gay because "something got off the rails somewhere," but rather because they were born that way. Sexual orientation is not a matter of choice or a product of bad life experiences.

I could have written objections to Voris' arguments in my Examiner.com article, but my intent was to report, not to raise objections to Voris. My article was, in no way, an endorsement of Voris. Many people understood that, but 'casual viewers' who didn't know me were unaware of this. Sorry for that! This post could have been much longer, but I simply wanted to get the basic objections out there.