jump to navigation

Ham on Nye February 6, 2014

Posted by Ubi Dubium in Brain Glitches, Responses, UbiDubiKids.
Tags: , , , , , , , , , ,
15 comments

There’s been so much discussion of the recent “debate” between Bill Nye and Ken Ham, so I’m not going to do a full review.  Bill did a good job, and Ken Ham was exactly the ideologue that I expected him to be. For a full commentary, see elsewhere.

But during the debate, there were a couple of things that Bill missed saying, and I was practically jumping up and down in my seat, saying “C’mon Bill, there’s a really good point I want you to make here, and you’re not making it!”

The first one is probably a small thing, and it’s where Bill missed Ham’s direct misrepresentation of the results of a radiometric dating test on a lump of lava containing carbonized wood. (I have not researched the particulars of this claim, I’m just discussing what was claimed at the debate.)  Ham claimed that the stone had been dated at 45 million years, and that the carbonized wood had been carbon dated at 45,000 years.  And Bill didn’t catch the glaring error here.  Carbon dating can’t go farther back than about 45,000 years or so, so if you use that test on something way older, the only result you will get back is 45,000+, and it can’t say how much older than that the sample is.  If you use the wrong tool to do your measuring, you get unhelpful results.  To me, this is like trying to weigh an elephant using a bathroom scale that goes up to 300 lbs.  No matter how accurately calibrated the scale is, if you try to weigh an elephant on it, the only answer you’ll get is “more than 300” or “off the scale”.  If you try to claim that the scale said that the elephant weighs 300 lbs, therefore the scale is useless, you’re just wrong.  And to claim the radiometric date of a rock sample can’t be correct at 45 million years old because a carbon date came back as 45,000+ is also just wrong.  And I’m pretty sure that someone would have pointed this out to Ham at some point, which makes him not only delusional, but a liar.

The second one, though, is a huge point that I really wanted Bill to hammer home.  Ham claims that creationism is science, but it cant be, because he is doing it backwards.  People doing real science start with the evidence, and draw their conclusions from the evidence, even if the results are not what they expected.  They then test their conclusions against the real world, and if they don’t hold up against all the evidence the conclusions are modified or thrown out.

Ham starts with his conclusion, then looks for specific evidence to back it up, and ignores everything else.  And he said flat-out that there is nothing that would get him to change his mind about his conclusion.  As a result, he’ll never discover anything new about the world.  That’s not how you do science, that’s how you do confirmation bias.  And that’s why his creationism is not a valid subject for science class.  I wanted Bill to really tackle him on this, and he didn’t.  Of course, Ham did a lot of Bill’s job on this, by stating that there’s nothing that could ever change his mind.   But I think Bill should have directly said “You’re doing it backwards” at some point during the evening.

p.s. I also have to point out that I love the way Bill kept referring to the venue as a “facility” and never once called it a “museum”.  Nice touch, that.

p.p.s. During the evening, Ken Ham actually said this: “Now, the Bible says, ‘If you come to God believing that He is, He will reveal Himself to you, and you will know.’ ”   He said it twice during his talk.  UbiDubiKid#1 was watching it with me, and she almost fell out of her seat laughing each time.  In between being overcome with fits of laughing, she said, “He’s just made the perfect circular argument!  Decide you believe in god, and then you’ll know there’s a god!”

 

Don’t say “Miracles are impossible” May 3, 2013

Posted by Ubi Dubium in Rants, Responses.
Tags: , , , , , , ,
8 comments

Every so often, I hear a discussion or debate between a believer and a non-believer, and the non-believer will begin going on about how the miracles claimed by religion are physically impossible.  How people can’t walk on water because there isn’t enough surface tension, how people can’t really turn into pillars of salt, how water can’t become wine, how people can’t actually come back from the dead, etc.  Even JT, in what was otherwise a very good debate, recently used this argument.

I feel a need to point out that this is a very weak argument against theism, and that it’s an ineffective tactic for use in a debate.  This is because the believer comes back with “Well DUH!  That’s how god shows his power.  If it was physically possible, then it wouldn’t be much of a miracle, would it?”  Rather like the way a child believes in Santa, even when you point out that he really could not fit down the chimney.  “It’s magic, silly.”  If someone believes in magic, then no amount of pointing out how impossible it all is will change their minds.

Now I do think bringing up miracles can be a useful tactic in a debate or a discussion.  But not in the context of “they’re impossible”.  So here’s my version of a more useful discussion of “miracles”.

First, I think we should define exactly what we mean by a “miracle”.  Some people talk about the victory of a sports team as a miracle, or the spontaneous remission of cancer, or their finding just the parking space they need right when they need it.  These events might be very unlikely, but there is enough of a chance that these things would occur that we would expect them to happen every once in awhile.  When I’m discussing miracles with believers, I want to rule out these unlikely but possible things as miracles.  If we take a group of 100 people who have a cancer that has a 99% fatality rate and have all the members of a church pray for those people and one survives, that’s not a miracle.  That’s the statistically expected result.  That one person might feel like they were granted a personal miracle, but the 99 other dead people certainly weren’t.

When I’m discussing miracles, I want to discuss those claimed events that would be in complete violation of all observed natural law.  Religions certainly have enough of those in their ancient books.  A good example of this would be the story of the sun stopping in the sky during a battle.  In reality, if this happened, that would mean the earth had stopped rotating, and then started up again later.  I have not run the numbers, but I think that the amount of energy that would be required to overcome the earth’s angular momentum, and then to put it back again, would cause catastrophic damage to everything on the surface and maybe melt the earth’s crust.  This is the kind of miracle I would want to discuss, literally impossible things, the sort of event where the statistically expected number of times we should ever expect it to happen on its own is “none”.

Biblegod is described as an all-powerful being who is able to do things that violate the known laws of the universe.  He is protrayed as making specific local violations happen, in order to establish his existence or power, reward the faithful, or punish evildoers.  The OT in particular is full of this sort of miracle. Why don’t they happen any more?

There are several possible answers I commonly hear on this:

1.  They still happen, but we aren’t looking in the right way.

2. They don’t happen anymore because Jesus.

3. They don’t happen anymore because Mysterious Ways™

4. They never happened because the bible is a big book of tall tales.

So, my responses to these:

1. ” We aren’t looking in the right way.”  With our  modern advances, we have many more ways of observing the universe than ever before, and also more ways of communicating those results to each other.  If there were genuine supernatual events happening, someone would have measured them by now, written a paper and won a Nobel.  Or at least won the $1,000,000 from the JREF.  But so far, the closer and more accurately we look, the more the miracles are just not showing up.  We study intercessory prayer and discover that it does nothing.   Amputees are never healed.  People who say god talks to them are never given any accurate information that they could not hve gotten another way.   I’ve actually heard believers say things like “Well, if you don’t believe, then you won’t see the miracle.  You have to believe first.”  There’s a name for making up your mind first, then looking for the evidence to back it up afterward: Confirmation Bias.

2. “They don’t happen anymore because Jesus.”  The premise is that god doesn’t need any of that OT stuff anymore because there’s a “new covenant” and now all that’s needed is a personal relationship with Jesus.  No more animal sacrifices, no big showy miracles, bacon is OK now, tattoos are allowed, all of that stuff that was so vital to keep biblegod from smiting you is now not needed anymore (although somehow homosexuality is still bad, go figure).  I have a couple of problems with this.  First, the NT also has miracles.  People had Jesus right in front of them, and they still needed miracles, and even then most of those people did not drop everything to become followers.  Thomas asked for evidence before he could believe, and he got it.  Later the apostles were supposedly also working miracles to demonstrate the truth of their message.  So “not needing miracles” anymore does not fly.

My other problem with this is that biblegod is supposed to be a perfect being.  So, a perfect being who used to show off all the time but now doesn’t?  A perfect being who used to throw temper tantrums if people were wicked, flooding the earth or swallowing them up with an earthquake or a fish, but now he’s apparently had anger management lessons?  Why would a perfect being change?  Why would a perfect being ever need to change the rules?   He used to be all jealous and badass and smitey, and insisted on strange pointless rituals and demanded the smell of barbeque, and now he just wants to live in your heart and help you find your keys?  This makes no sense at all.

3. They don’t happen anymore because Mysterious Ways™.  “God has a plan and we can’t understand it. He’s just so far above us that we couldn’t begin to comprehend him.  We just have to trust.”  This one is a cop-out.  If biblegod is so frikkin mysterious, then how do you claim to understand anything about him at all?  Yet preachers get up and say:  “I know what god wants, he wants you to think a and b and c, never think d or e or f, and you must hate x and y and z because he does.  I assure you that if you believe exactly what I tell you this book says, you’ll be doing exactly what he wants.  He loves guns, he hates gays, he will rain down blessings if you say this particular prayer, and he wants you to give me at least 10% of your money.”  This version of god is not mysterious in the least! If he’s so mysterious you can’t understand him, then he’s mysterious enough that the preachers don’t understand him and the prophets didn’t understand him either.   If you use “Mysterious Ways™” to explain theological problems away, then you need to stop trying to convince people that you understand anything about your god.

4. They never happened because the bible is a big book of tall tales.   People tell impressive stories around the campfire, later other people write them down, and then years later other people think all that stuff was supposed to be real.  Yeah. This is the only one of the options that really makes any consistent sense.

Does anybody else have any other explanations they’ve heard from believers for the absense of modern miracles?