Archive for January, 2009

In our last episode, Robin had discovered the location of the secret underground lab where Commissioner Gordon has been held prisoner. Meanwhile, Woodstock played an elaborate prank on Snoopy involving Linus’s security blanket, some Elmer’s Glue, and a feather pillow, and Andy and Opie had finally found Barney Fife passed out at the fishing hole after enjoying a little too much of the whiskey he’d been ordered to confiscate from Otis. Finally, philosopher Paul Copan had contributed a sincere but naive two-part question to Lee Strobel’s list, prompting Martin once again to fire up the old Mac. Philosopher Paul Copan: Given the commonly recognized and scientifically supported belief that the universe (all matter, energy, space, time) began to exist a finite time ago and that the universe is remarkably finely tuned for life, does this not (strongly) suggest that the universe is ontologically haunted and that this fact should require further exploration, given the metaphysically staggering implications? Copan is a little wide of the mark in terms of what is scientifically supported about the universe’s origins. From my layman’s standpoint, let me relate my own understanding of where science is right now on that subject. Yes, the universe as we know it has a finite history, but of what came before, we know nothing. The Big Bang theory is not a creation ex nihilo theory, but simply one that describes the event that caused our universe to expand into its present form. The concept I find most plausible is that the pre-BB universe existed in a quantum state, with the BB itself a quantum event. Causal explanations are nicely disposed of here, since causality itself — indeed, most of physics if I understand it correctly — is a non-issue at the quantum level. In short, there was never a state of nonexistence preceding the Big Bang. And quantum mechanics dispenses with the need to think of the universe as...
Read more

Ray Comfort. The Uwe Boll of Christian apologetics. You know, it’d be pretty easy to do a Ray Comfort Drinking Game. Just take a shot at any straw-man attack on atheists, moronic canard about evolution… On second thought, alcohol poisoning within minutes might be a real hazard. Better not. Still, he’s worth a laugh, poor sad idiot. Notice there are no comments allowed, though. Knock me over with a feather.

Hey everybody, let’s all pray for the failure of the new president! Wait, you silly fundie, haven’t you heard that it is treasonous to criticize a sitting president in a time of war? OOOOOHHHHH! I’ve been waiting to say that for a long time. …But seriously, folks, I’d like to say a few words about partisanship. I don’t believe in treating both sides equally. That should be clear from my consistently stated position on teaching Intelligent Design in schools (for example, in this press release that I wrote), or their latest smokescreen, euphemistically known as “academic freedom” or “teach the controversy.” There is no “controversy” other than the one raised by a tiny minority of religious goons seeking to camouflage their efforts to make political hay. Matt and I have both repeatedly said that it’s a good thing to be biased in favor of reality, and not make up reasons to criticize both sides equally. There are not really two sides to the question of whether we landed on the moon, or whether Barack Obama is secretly a reptoid. Or rather, there are two sides, but one side is clearly a bunch of idiots. So. I’ve occasionally been accused of being a partisan hack for Obama. I don’t love everything Obama does. I have some objections to his overt religious statements, which I believe I’ve aired out on the show before. I’m not delighted with his choice of Rick Warren as a speaker yesterday. When I specifically object to some of Obama’s policies, I’ll let you know. However, it would be a mistake to think that it reflects some sort of unthinking bias if I am less critical of this president than the previous one. Casting around for an analogy… okay, let’s talk about movies. I absolutely love Inherit the Wind. It’s one of my favorite movies of all time. I own the DVD, I watch it repeatedly. It is an enduring classic with...
Read more

Hey gang. Did you hear? George W. Bush is not the president any more! He’s gone! Out! Everybody exhale. That frackin’ miserable useless failure has joined the expanding ranks of our nation’s many unemployed! We have a new guy. I like him. I have high, but realistic hopes for him. I do think there has been a bit of excess from the media hype machine about his inauguration, but I put that down to pride over the fact that the USA, with its utterly appalling history of racism, has elected a non-white president, as well as general excitement over the fact that George W. Bush is no longer the president! I’m pleased to be living in an America where the people are excited, rather than appalled and embarrassed by, our president. But go easy on the rockstar stuff. President Obama has eight years of almost apocalyptic disaster to fix. It will take time. He will have failures as well as successes. He knows how hard a row he has to hoe. I just want all of his slathering fans supporters to know that too. The higher they build you up, the longer and harder the fall you may be in for. Just remember, Obama is a man, not a messiah. I think he stands to be a better president than most we’ve had in my lifetime. But let’s keep our heads, and stay realistic. Today’s excitement aside, tomorrow we’re back to workaday. There’s a big job ahead. Good luck, Mr. President.

A fellow emailed the TV show address with this forwarded list of questions that apologists have for atheists, taken from Lee Strobel’s site. What is surprising is how simplistic and banal many the questions are (most of them being variations of “if God didn’t create us, who/what did?”). Only one question is any good, and one is downright idiotic. You’d think these guys had never read any atheist literature in their lives. They probably haven’t, though, being apologists, you’d think that doing so would at least give them some kind of frame of reference from which to formulate good responses to atheists’ and skeptics’ criticism of religion. Or maybe they’re worried they wouldn’t be able to respond… The following answers are my own. Readers are invited to offer their own answers in the comments. Lee opens: What Would I Ask an Atheist? Hemant Mehta’s offer for me to respond to questions from atheists led me to ponder this topic: what would I ask an atheist in return? Hmmmmm. I decided to send emails to some of my friends and ask them for their suggestions. Here are their replies. Hmmmm indeed. Here are the questions: Apologist Mike Licona: “What turns you off about Christianity? Irrespective of one’s worldview, many experience periods of doubt. Do you ever doubt your atheism and, if so, what is it about theism or Christianity that is most troubling to your atheism?” I’m glad this question came first, as it’s actually the first time I’ve heard a question phrased this way from any Christian. Notice Licona doesn’t ask why I don’t believe, he asks why Christianity is a turnoff. Which is quite a different matter. Licona has noticed that, apart from disbelief, there is something about religion in particular that rubs atheists the wrong way. Very astute, Mike. (Except, of course, for slipping in the mistaken attempt at equivocation with...
Read more