Episode 004 April 20, 2008

EP 004 – The Exquisite Truth The Exquisite Truth 4/20/2008 Thaddeus fills in as co-host again this week. Tony Ford joins Kevin and Thaddeus to talk about Ben Stein and Expelled, and an IL representative who wants to ban atheists. Later, we introduce a new segment called The Bible Says WHAT? To close things out, we examine a new Refrigerator Haiku. Refrigerator Haiku If autumn roof tear Every full eye can wander Winter has wood bark Links Pharyngula: EXPELLED! Representative tries to put the fear of God in atheist Download Podcast

How many sides does our coin have?

It appears that with the advent of Ben Stein’s new movie, Expelled, the “debate” over science and religion is reaching a fever-pitch. But the one thing that is missing is a clear definition of what the debate is really about.

The creationists have done their best to portray the disagreement as a black and white issue; one where there is one question, and only two possible answers. By doing so, they create the impression that any reasoned and fair debate should assign equal consideration to the opposing sides, and choose which of the two alternatives is more acceptable. Creationists conveniently ignore the real fact that disputing one claim does not inherently prove that your own is the only alternative. Nor does it prove that your own claims have equal validity.

Let’s consider an alternative. Suppose that I said that the evidence supporting scientists’ claims that the outer comets are made mostly of ice was suspect. Now, consider that I further put forth that these comets were, in fact, constructed of ice cream, and were a frosty treat sent from a distant alien race.

I could argue all day that nobody has ever seen these outer comets, let alone touched one, and been able to extract a sample for examination. I could even go so far as to raise questions about mass spectrometry, or dredge up some old assumptions about comets to prove that scientists keep changing their minds on the issue of comet construction. I might even suggest that the idea of great balls of ice getting into orbit is so unlikely as to be impossible, and suggest an intelligent force must be behind their astronomic positioning.

All these points, while varyingly valid (although specious), do nothing to further my own claim that the comets are frozen dairy treats. But by couching the debate in questions of either/or, I have created the false assumption that anything which takes away from one side must add weight to the other.

Our largest problem arises in the fact that this black/white, either/or format of debate lends itself perfectly to media coverage. With 24 hour new media saturating the market, journalists realize that they do not have the time to express complicated questions, nor does the average viewer have to stomach for nuanced choices. Much better is the solid, right/left format. Then viewers can absorb the news, and turn to their favorite pundit for their opinion.

Under such circumstances one only needs to appeal to the most tenuous of religiosity to make a scientific explanation of biological life untenable for most people.

Let’s consider for a moment what the creationist argument consists of.

1. The world is far too complex to have happened accidentally; therefore natural selection is an inadequate explanation.
2. People all over the world believe in God in one form of another; therefore to dismiss God as fiction would be to discredit the opinions of most living humans.
3. Scientists have yet to close all of the gaps in the proposed evolutionary ladder, and still disagree on many of its finer points; therefore evolution is a failed theory, and must be discarded.
4. If we have evolved from lower life forms, then we have no reason to act as anything other than animals.
5. It is impossible to live a fulfilled life without some sense of accountability and reward from a greater power.

There are plenty of other points, and innumerable variations on the preceding arguments, but this is succinct collection of some of the more common ones.

The fact is that being incapable of grasping how natural select creates such complexity does not point to its impossibility, only your own limitations in understanding. This argument unvaryingly comes from people who have made a conscious decision not to understand the processes at hand. I will not even begin to present the scientific explanation behind natural selection; far too many people with a greater understanding than myself already done so. If you are interested in a detailed explanation, I suggest RichardDawkins.net. Furthermore, creationists reject the vast statistical challenges of natural selection, and replace it with one much greater. They choose to claim that natural life is so unlikely that it surely must be the result of an infinitely complex entity, living outside of time and causality.

An argument from numbers does nothing to validate their claims. For many centuries, virtually everyone believed that the Sun circled the Earth, and many people believe so to this day. This does not make it so, and no reasoning person would even give such claims consideration.

Science is a process. If we were to abandon that process every time a single experiment failed to explain a phenomenon in its entirety, there would be no science at all. To suggest that since science does not explain all of evolution, evolution should be dismissed is no different than saying that we should stop using computers because we do not fully understand the behavior and constructions of electrons at the quantum scale.

The argument that we need to be somehow separate from the rest of the animal kingdom in order to behave as humans is perhaps one of the most self deprecating arguments I have ever heard. I won’t even honor it with a response.

The need for a great purpose in one’s life is well known and understood. We all experience it; although some people believe the need justifies the fabrication.

Notice how none of these arguments do anything to strengthen their own claims. They aspire to cast doubt on evolution. The majority of them are specious, misrepresented, or arguments for an emotional response. To a one, they are dependent on a binary decision matrix. They only help to support the claimant’s position when that position is accepted as the only alternative.

Consider for a moment, French philosopher Blaise Pascal’s famous Pascal’s Gambit. Pascal argued that although God’s existence could not be proven, he could prove that belief in God was the logical wager. His argument went as so:

If there is a God, He is infinitely incomprehensible, since, having neither parts nor limits, He has no affinity to us. We are then incapable of knowing either what He is or if He is….

…”God is, or He is not.” But to which side shall we incline? Reason can decide nothing here. There is an infinite chaos which separated us. A game is being played at the extremity of this infinite distance where heads or tails will turn up. What will you wager? According to reason, you can do neither the one thing nor the other; according to reason, you can defend neither of the propositions.

Do not, then, reprove for error those who have made a choice; for you know nothing about it. “No, but I blame them for having made, not this choice, but a choice; for again both he who chooses heads and he who chooses tails are equally at fault, they are both in the wrong. The true course is not to wager at all.”

Yes; but you must wager. It is not optional. You are embarked. Which will you choose then? Let us see. Since you must choose, let us see which interests you least. You have two things to lose, the true and the good; and two things to stake, your reason and your will, your knowledge and your happiness; and your nature has two things to shun, error and misery. Your reason is no more shocked in choosing one rather than the other, since you must of necessity choose. This is one point settled. But your happiness? Let us weigh the gain and the loss in wagering that God is. Let us estimate these two chances. If you gain, you gain all; if you lose, you lose nothing. Wager, then, without hesitation that He is.

“That is very fine. Yes, I must wager; but I may perhaps wager too much.” Let us see. Since there is an equal risk of gain and of loss, if you had only to gain two lives, instead of one, you might still wager. But if there were three lives to gain, you would have to play (since you are under the necessity of playing), and you would be imprudent, when you are forced to play, not to chance your life to gain three at a game where there is an equal risk of loss and gain. But there is an eternity of life and happiness. And this being so, if there were an infinity of chances, of which one only would be for you, you would still be right in wagering one to win two, and you would act stupidly, being obliged to play, by refusing to stake one life against three at a game in which out of an infinity of chances there is one for you, if there were an infinity of an infinitely happy life to gain. But there is here an infinity of an infinitely happy life to gain, a chance of gain against a finite number of chances of loss, and what you stake is finite.

The problem with Pascal’s wager, is that he assumes only two possibilities; either the god he accepts exists, or there is none. If you consider his argument from the accurate assumption that there are hundreds of variations of God to believe in, and several dozen different gods to choose from, it becomes quickly apparent that if all but one of these gods must be false, the logical conclusion is that they all are false.

Creating a false dichotomy is no way to prove your point. When you consider the arguments of creationists within the context of multiple alternatives, it falls apart of its own accord. If the creation argument were in any way valid, it could stand on its own. Clearly, science does not advance itself by casting doubt on religion. Were religion a fraction as well founded as the scientific principal, they would not need to tilt at the windmills of modern learning.

Something a little off subject

While this really has nothing to do with The Exquisite Truth, I feel compelled to go off subject for just a moment.

Last night, my wife Christina and I joined some friends at 3^rd & Lindsley, here in Nashville. We saw an unbelievable musician, Martin Sexton. Since I can’t say enough good things about this guy, let me just say that it was one of the best performances I have ever seen. He was completely mesmerizing.

I can’t really decide if Martin’s performance made up for the complete torment that was the 3^rd & Lindsley. Not only is it small and cramped, but I strongly suspect that the fire marshal might have something to say about the number of tables and chairs they’ve managed to cram into the place. Any time you needed to get up, which was pretty often if you are a smoker (I’ll never understand non-smoking bars, it seems like banning forks at a buffet), at least three people needed file out ahead of you to make room. Once you managed to squirm out of your seat, the real surprise came; the establishment has just one toilet. I don’t mean that there is only one toilet in the men’s room, I mean there was one toilet for everyone. You can only imagine what this situation was like, after a couple hundred people were sharing it for a few hours.

The next disappointment came when we made the mistake of ordering dinner. We order a Cajun chicken alfredo. Honestly, I have had better pasta from Lean Cuisine. There is no doubt in my mind that the cook pulled the cardboard cover off my meal after microwaving it.

So, overall, we were cramped, hot, hygienically challenged, gastricly challenged, and suffering from nicotine withdrawals. Despite all of this, Martin Sexton was captivating.

In summation, if you ever get a chance to hear Martin Sexton, do not miss it. But if that chance is at the 3^rd & Lindsley, make sure to use the bathroom, and get something to eat before you get there. Also, if you are in the slightest bit claustrophobic, you may want to wait to see where he’ll play next.

Episode 003 April 13, 2008

We must be getting better; Episode 003 is done days ahead of schedule. This is our best episode to date. There’s lots of spirited debate, and the refrigerator haiku is proving to be a really fun segment. You have to listen to our vintage Thomas Jefferson recording, it’s an historical treasure.

Thaddeus fills in for Vania, who is out of town again this week. Jeff Pierce joins Kevin and Thaddeus for a second week. A discussion about bio-fuels morphs into a debate on universal health care. We talk about a quote from Thomas Jefferson, and we examine a new Refrigerator Haiku.

Thomas Jefferson Quote

“I rarely waste time in reading theological subjects… Ridicule is the only weapon that can be used against such unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them; and no man ever had a distinct idea of the trinity. It is mere Abracadabra of the mountebanks calling themselves the priests of Jesus. If it could be understood it would not answer their purpose. Their security is in their faculty of shedding darkness, like the scuttle-fish, thro’ the element in which they move, and making it impenetrable to the eye of a pursuing enemy, and there they will sulk.”

Listen to Thomas Jefferson read this quote in our “historical” recording.

Refrigerator Haiku

Purple Cicada
Cold spring morning grass like snow
Thunder in my dreams

Links

• Iraq War Cost
  
• Bio Fuels
  

Download

Episode 002 – March, 30, 2008

Thaddeus, a musician and producer from Nashville, TN, fills in for Vania, who is out of town this week. Jeff Pierce joins Kevin and Thaddeus to discuss his own spiritual journey. We discuss the death of Arthur C. Clarke, the health risks of crucifixion and self flagellation, and the evolution of religious dogma. Also, we introduce a new segment titled “Refrigerator Haikus.” Examine the haiku below, and join us on the forums to tell us what you greater significance you think is buried in its text.

Jeff, a musician from Chicago, IL (and Kevin’s brother), explains his personal experiences in exploring Buddhism, and Taoism, by way of Christianity. He describes the questions and discoveries that helped him come to terms with the dogma of traditional religions.

Download the episode

Refrigerator Haiku

Refrigerators
The television melted
An insect journey

Show Links

• Philippine Judge, and his three little friends.
  
• Crucifixion can be bad for your health.
  
• God, Man, and Arthur C. Clarke.
  

Episode 0001 is complete and available for download.

Thaddeus Schwartz joins Kevin and Vania this week to discuss current events from a secularist’s perspective.

Thaddeus, a construction manager and musician from Nashville, TN, explains his personal experiences in becoming an agnostic atheist. He describes the questions and discoveries that helped him develop his critical thinking skills. If you are interested hearing some of Thaddeus’ music, here are a few tracks he has shared especially for our listeners.

Has Anyone Seen My Pic?
The Last Song

This was a really fun episode to record. The discussion became pretty heated at times, but in the end, I think everyone left as friends.

In particular, the segment in which Thaddeus brought up some comments in a blog post by Vania sparked off quite debate over where you draw the line between faith and fact.

Vania brought up an interesting article on the latest regulations from the EPA, and set off a discussion on the value of human life, and pragmatism.

In addition, we talk about the Templeton Prize and its implications to science.

The Other Guy’s Perspective

Okay, so let’s clarify a few points on that first blog post. That was written by Kevin, the originator of this great podcast idea. Kevin and I are good friends, and we’ve come to enjoy our little debates, but we do have differing view points.

So I wanted to point up the notion where he says “We are not interested in raging at creationists, and ghost hunters.” On this point we are in complete agreement.

Now, as for the “The simple fact is that there are rational points to consider in these debates, and the rest is simply reactionary” comment, well. All of the rest is reactionary? Really?

My position is that religion, dogma, homeopathic medicine and the like are not bad things, and in fact can be integral to a person’s peace of mind, sense of identity, sense of community.

However, people have died because of these things. People have been killed in the name of a religion, people have been poisoned by bad medicines, and worse yet, people have died that could have lived because the science of the day was not given the respect that was its due.

What we intend here is to air out difficulties faced by scientists and by people trying to live by rational, methodical thinking, to laud the great events that support science, and perhaps lampoon when science is stupidly curtailed or ignored.

Science is not the enemy of religion. My view is that science makes no claim to the existence of god or the supernatural for the simple reason that science deals only with notions that can be measured quantitatively and qualitatively, in such a way that hypotheses can be constructed that can predict some phenomenon, and tests can be performed to support or disprove those hypotheses. Everything else is just human beings.

What we as moderators hope to be able to do is to use our common viewpoints and our different perspectives and opinions, to spark some debate among our panelists, and our audience. Part of gaining respect for our scientists and the good it brings to our world is by discussing it and its relevance to our daily lives.

So we encourage you, our audience, to get involved, volunteer to become a panelist, write feedback to the blogs, send us emails at mailto:comments@exquisitetruth.com.

Inaugural Post

Welcome to the Exquisite Truth blog site. Our podcast and companion site are intended as a subtle alternative to the hyperbole of the ongoing science/religion debate raging in our culture at the moment. We are not interested in raging at creationists, and ghost hunters. The simple fact is that there are rational points to consider in these debates, and the rest is simply reactionary. We hope to delve into real questions of truth, separate from dogma, and wishful thinking. We intend to build a community of actual rationalists interested in honest inquiry.