Mirror, Mirror

Clicky for original

I’ve been weighing the point of making a post about the SFWA fuss over on Grim’s Tales but in the meantime I had a brief exchange on Twitter which I think illustrates the problem inherent in many of these sexism discussions. The responses of the other party (anonymous and somewhat paraphrased because I bear them no ill will) were almost exact mirror images of the kinds of replies that whip feminists into a frenzy of opprobrium when men reply to them or ask questions. They also show the problem will ‘call out culture’ and how debate is stifled rather than continued in a meaningful fashion.

The exchange began with a retweet:

“Thank god there are men to explain what sexism is to me because as a women I certainly would not know anything about that”

Now, I take offence at that. I’m not saying nobody should be able to say such things or that my offence has any special power to it – nobody has any right not to be offended. What I find ‘problematic’ though is the sexism inherent in the comment. If you are claiming to be against sexism or to be complaining about it, it strikes me as being rather unhelpful if you’re sexist yourself in so doing.

The reason I find this statement problematic is that, implicit within it, is the idea that men, somehow, can’t ‘grok’ sexism or that the experience of sexism is somehow something that only women suffer. I’ll spare you the details, but I find this to be bullshit through direct and indirect experience and through statistics on aspects of both men and women’s lives.

We’re told we should call out sexism when we see it. So I did. Not to the original source – I figured they wouldn’t be open to discussion based on past experience – but to the retweeter, someone fairly new to me but within the Venn diagram of a few of my interests which made me wonder why they retweeted it.

I kept it mild, to the effect that ‘Men suffer sexism too’.

In reply I was told:

“But I doubt you have it mansplained to you.”

‘Mansplained’ is a deeply sexist term and I’m sure there’s barely a man in existence who hasn’t had something ‘womansplained’ to them. When you’re discussing these topics it usually isn’t long before someone with a semester in gender studies pops up and starts telling you all about ‘patriarchy’ or something else. ‘Mansplaining’ is the equivalent of dismissing anything a woman might say as ‘chatter’ or ‘nagging’. It would not be considered acceptable the other way around and frankly I don’t see the problem in trying to understand and explain something in any case or to offer another point of view. It is through exchanges we get to truth.

I explained, as well as one can in a tweet, that this was a sexist term and that even worse, sexism against men is dismissed, explained, excused or even claimed not to exist.

“I hope I’m misinterpreting your intention, because it read as a dismissal of the OP as minor compared to UR suffering under sexism.

Which wasn’t what I said at all. That men can suffer sexism in no way diminishes the fact that women can suffer too. That someone has something worse doesn’t mean the other person isn’t also suffering. Dawkins was – rightly – called out on his ‘Dear  Muslima‘ comment to Rebecca Watson (though I must qualify that by saying I don’t think Watson had anything worthwhile to complain about) on this basis but it seems that isn’t the case the other way around, for some reason.

I pointed out that there is often outright hostility and open-mouthed disbelief when men treat any accusation of sexism, no matter how thin, with skepticism and asked how they would feel if the situation were reversed.

That wasn’t replied to. Though I got this:

“Interesting choice of things to be offended by. Your claim of victimhood is duly noted.”

Oddly enough, calling female sexism caller-outers professional victims is not even remotely tolerated or accepted, even if there’s past form.

Then I was accused of doing exactly what the OP was posting about:

“You have schooled me on what real sexism is, since I apparently don’t understand. Strangely enough, exactly what the OP was about.”

Of course, I did nothing of the sort. I assumed we both knew what sexism was and I called out the sexism I saw in the OP and the later replies. I hoped – rather than expected – to have my concerns treated with the same degree of respect as an accusation of sexism from a woman would be taken. It was not.

Now, I bear this person no ill will and unlike many I don’t think they’re being dishonest. I just think the attempt to have any debate at all on these issues is poisoned beyond virtually all hope of resolution. Discussion is, essentially, not permitted and neither MRAs nor feminists seem willing to accept that the other side may have any valid points whatsoever. As a guy stuck in the middle I seem to get it from both sides (though worse from the feminist side because I have a penis) and view the whole thing as exasperating.

In the wake of the SFWA nonsense this struck a particular nerve and I think it helps illustrate that both sides engage in similar, damn near identical, dismissal of each other.

Seven Refutations: Follow Up

Seven Refutations got some attention from the oxymoronically entitled ‘Reasonable Faith’ forum. Predictably the majority of replies are scoffing and misdirection but there’s a few bits and pieces there worth replying to, so this is a follow up. I don’t want to support WLC in any way as I think he’s a morally repugnant charlatan, so I won’t be posting in that forum but I’ll address what – few – pertinent points there are here.

1. Why is there something instead of nothing?

Objection: You don’t answer the question!
Counter: ‘I don’t know’ is an answer, you can substitute ‘we don’t know’ if you like. Saying ‘goddidit’ is still a god of the gaps and fallacious however you want to put it. The rest of this objection missed the point entirely.

Objection: False (WLC is making claims, not providing evidence), you’re currently trying to dispute part of his evidence.  To try to suggest that he therefore has no evidence either shows a deficient understand of what constitutes evidence, or disengenoussness (sic).
Counter: A claim (god did it) is not evidence, no matter how many times you claim it is. The deficiency in understanding of what words mean seems to be a big problem amongst apologists.

Objection: Further, isn’t “I don’t know” a tad bit antithetical to the truth? Do you actually care about the truth, or only about making yourself feel like you’re an intellectual?
Counter: It is honest and in pursuit of truth you can’t allow your preference or desire to shape what you think. I care enough about truth not to make things up or settle for shitty arguments.

Objection: “But what about those that think the brute fact that anything exists may be evidence for something else?”
Counter: It may or may not be. If you want to say the universe is evidence for god/Nyx/enormous quantum computer you’ll need to provide evidence.  Asserting it is ‘god’ without such backing is pointless, bald assertion.

Objection: “If you truly knew the arguments for the cause of why anything exists at all (the universe, time, space, etc…) like the Kalam, or the argument from contingency, you’d know that eventually there has to be a first cause to all this stuff in order to avoid infinite regression.”
Counter: I do, I have – in particular – addressed the nonsensical Kalam argument several times before. I reject the assertion that there HAS to be a first cause to all this stuff in general and that it is god in particular. Evidence still required. Otherwise – again – it’s just assertion.

2. Cause and Effect

Objection: You’re not addressing the ‘actual‘ cosmological argument.
Counter: Fuck me that’s a long-winded way of saying nothing at all. Saying ‘contingent’ doesn’t alter the objections to the claim in any way it just means you’re now claiming the universe is contingent and god is not. Still no evidence for a god and you’re now making two claims about two things without evidence. The refutation stands unchallenged even by this long-winded article. In the end it comes down to this ‘Everything has a cause’ may be a simplification but it is the core of the argument that is universal from WLC to stupid creationists on social media. The objections to it apply to every form of the cosmological argument so far presented whether long-winded and pseudo-intellectual or not. Here’s a longer-winded way of saying the same thing from my POV.

Objection: There are no exceptions within the scientific literature.  If you’re refering to quatum (sic) events like the creation and annihilation of virtual particles, then you’re confusing indeterminacy with being uncaused (sic).
Counter: ‘A little knowledge is a dangerous things’. Virtual particle pairs are not to to with indeterminacy. Here’s a brief, accessible overview of how this applies.

Objection: Please address the actual Kalam cosmological argument, “everything has a cause,” is not a part of the Kalam cosmological argument.  Neither is, “everything has a cause, except God.”  These are not premises to the argument, and as such your criticism does not address the argument.
Counter: Not using your preferred phrasing is not the same as not addressing the argument. Also it is by no means clear that the universe ‘began to exist’ in any meaningful sense, spacetime being what it is.

Objection: This argument is flawed from the start. You are implying these are contingent “gods.” Of course, if you are arguing against someone that holds the position that their God is contingent, your argument is a very good one. Unfortunately, as a Christian, I hold that God is uncreated. An eternal, uncaused God. Or, as Aristotle would put it, the unmoved mover. A necessary being that exists by its own necessity. Therefore, your argument is null and void against a non-contingent God(s).
Counter: This is covered in the original refutation being replied to.

3. Design & Complexity

Objection: You’re not accounting for the universe being the way it is.
Counter: Missing the point again. I don’t have to – though there is a lot of science on this it would be besides the point of this post and this counter. This is not an argument from ignorance, ‘I don’t know, therefore goddidit’ is.

Objection: What does my perspective have anything to do with observing nature and seeing that they are finely tuned? My perspective does nothing to change the brute fact that the laws of nature are expressed as mathematical equations, or that certain arbitrary quantities that were put in initial conditions for the laws of nature to run on were so precisely tuned, that it implies a designer like: the balance between matter and anti-matter, or the level of entropy.
Counter: This objection makes a good example of the problem of perspective. You are coming at it with the presupposition of design (still with no evidence, only fallacious argument from incredulity). That something can be described mathematically doesn’t make it designed, that qualities are what they are doesn’t mean they are designed. Fine tuning is ‘puddle thinking’ (ref: Douglas Adams) which is another example of distorting perspective.

Objection: What are you implying here? The oscillating model? The multiverse theorem? Even then, many of the multiverse models can’t account for fine-tunning.
Counter: No implication, just that things are as they are. If they were different they’d be different. We arose fitting the universe, not vice versa. There is no ‘fine tuning’.

4. Objective Morality

Objection: You say there’s no objective morality but you object to Craig on moral grounds!
Counter: No objective morality is not the same thing as no morality.

Objection: Saying there is a possible explanation, but not giving one, is the fallacy known as the Phantom Third Option.
Counter: The point is only that there are many possible explanations and zero reason to think, of this set, that yours is the one. At least not without evidence.

Objection: Also claiming that God rapes children? Have you actually read the bible?
Counter: Yes, and the history and observations thereof. This is why I say this. Mary would have been 12-14 (possibly even younger), too young to give meaningful consent. Furthermore she was not consulted or asked, but simply knocked up (at least according to your mythology). What else would we call this?

Objection: This seems like a rhetorical bluff, please provide information on what science investigates morality, and the relevant evidence.
Counter: For just one example, of many, check here. The objector has followed up in a manner that demonstrates they have no idea what they’re talking about. This – and other experiments like it – show that morality is not unique to humans and is determined by ev psych and conditions. It supports the point that there is no objective morality and that morality is ‘nothing more’ than a result of these things. Along with everything else it utterly destroys the idea that there’s anything objective about morality. The foundation and origin of morality is, like other traits, survival utility. In humans this is at the level of group selection and complicated by the separate evolution of social/moral systems and their exploitation by toxic memes (such as religion).

Objection: You then go on to accuse God of breaking his commandments. First, did he ever say that he was required to follow these commandments? I distinctly remember a “thou shalt” before each commandment.
Counter: If you’re arguing for an objective morality why would you make an exception for god? If the morality is truly universal and objective then it would also apply to god – how could it not? Entering into specific critique isn’t really relevant here save that WLC is trying to assert this one, particular, god. Point is there is no objective morality.

Objection: We really can’t point to anything that’s universally or objectively wrong? Really? What about torturing babies? Is that something that is “OK” at some point or another depending on the situation?
Counter: A terrorist has planted a nuclear bomb under New York and unless I torture the President’s newborn baby girl to death he will detonate it. The greater good is served by torturing the child to death. Perhaps a religious cult sacrifices a child once per year to ensure the harvest and has strong taboos about not doing this. Within their moral system this is not only the best option, but the only moral option, an honour and it would be immoral not to do it from their point of view. Morality is subjective, temporal, conditional. The closest we can seem to approach to objective morality – IMO – would be a combination of Utilitarianism and Epicureanism. The greatest good for the greatest number. That would still be subjective though – humanocentric if nothing else.

5. Ontological Argument

Objection: This does not answer the ontological argument. For one, a perfect roast beef sandwitch can be eaten, and so cannot be perfect. It also relies upon the existence of all the ingredients it is composed of, and so cannot be necessary. Making a mock version of an argument does not refute that argument, it simply refutes your understanding of the argument.
Counter: Reductio absurdum is a valid technique for exposing problems in the argument. A sandwich would not be perfect if it could NOT be eaten and why should there be only one, why shouldn’t it be a regenerating sandwich? For someone who has an imaginary friend you have a shockingly limited imagination. Stop limiting the OmNOMipotence of the ontological sandwich. The ingredients are intrinsic to the sandwich as the various qualities claimed for the god would be. This objection is absolutely groundless.

Objection: Please address the actual ontological argument.  Dr. Craig uses the argument formulated by Dr. Alvin Plantinga; the most charitable I can be of your above criticism is that it might invalidate Saint Anselm’s ontological argument, but the argument used by Dr. Craig is different.
Counter: It does. The rephrasings of the argument don’t invalidate the criticism which can be rephrased to meet every incarnation.
EG: 1.  It is possible that a maximally great roast beef sandwich exists.
2.  If it is possible for a maximally great roast beef sandwich to exist, then a Maximally Great roast beef sandwich exists in some possible world.
3.  If a maximally great roast beef sandwich exists in some possible world, then a maximally great roast beef sandwich exists in every possible world.
4.  If a maximally great roast beef sandwich exists in every possible world then a maximally great roast beef sandwich exists in the actual world.
5.  If a maximally great roast beef sandwich exists in the actual world then a maximally great roast beef sandwich exists.
6.  Therefore a maximally great roast beef sandwich exists.
7. Furthermore this is MY maximally great roast beef sandwich and therefore cannot be maximally great for me if it isn’t here for me to eat it.
8. Where the fuck is my roast beef sandwich?

Objection: You are using an outdated one so there are newer versions. Nonetheless, your argument still fails because it is talking about ontologically great properties of which a sandwich would not participate. Thus, the parody fails.
Counter: I’ve not seen any better ones and the basic problem is that the concept of a thing is not a thing. We can even imagine things which are logically and physically impossible (like various god definitions). The sandwich does not have to be an active participant. It must just be concievable.

6. Resurrection

Objection: JESUS MYTH! LOL! R U SRS?!?

Counter: Before I actually looked into it I assumed, as many do, that Jesus was a real person, just calcified in accrued myth over time. When I actually looked for evidence and applied historical and scientific method though, I found there was absolutely no evidence for him whatsoever. Now, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence but it is suspicious, especially given the contemporaneous historians, diarists etc make no mention and there’s no Roman record. Add that to analysis of the mystery cults of the period and the themes (Ref: Carrier, even though he’s a bit of a dickhead sometimes) and given the mythological nature of every single other religion – including modern ones – it seems a far more reasonable position that this Jesus character is pure fiction. Anyone who wants to claim otherwise is welcome to present evidence (NEW evidence please) that he existed. I cover this problem briefly here.

Objection: You can’t just wave your flag around and say “there’s no evidence” and act like you just refuted an argument. You have to refute the following facts about Jesus’ resurrection by merely naturalistic explanations- 1- Jesus’ tomb was found empty 3 days after his crucifixion. 2- On multiple occasions and in multiple settings, individuals and large GROUPS of people saw appearances of Jesus after He had died. 3- The disciples suddenly went from sheer doubt and depression about Jesus being who He says he was after He was killed to complete and utter confidence that Jesus was who He said he was, even to the point of death. People don’t die for things they know not to be true, and the disciples had the prime position to know whether or not Jesus’ resurrection was indeed true or not.
Counter: That you strongly believe your mythological events happened does not mean that they did. Until you can show that these supposed events did actually happen and were not simply stories, there is no case to answer.

7. Experiential

Objection: For the believer that has the inner-witness of the Holy Spirit, God’s existence is merely an axiomatic truth.
Counter: The same can be said for true believers of any and all religions. None of whom have any evidence. All of whom claim a unique handle on truth. Diax’s Rake applies.

8. Additional

Objection: “I don’t know” isn’t an answer.
Counter: It is an honest one. Having ‘an’ answer doesn’t make it a valid or reasonable answer. Insisting, loudly and at length, that 2+2=6.2759 doesn’t make it any more true. Point is ‘I don’t know’ doesn’t try to cram in an unsupported answer, as theism does.

Objection: Don’t mock us!
Counter: ‘Ridicule is the only weapon which may be used against unintelligable propositions…’ – Jefferson

Objection: You’re so angry!
Counter: Of course I fucking am. Look at all the harm religion does in the world. My anger has fuck all to do with the content of my points.

Objection: You’re a troll!
Counter: No, trolls don’t really engage other than to wind people up but it’s a typical gambit to smear someone who doesn’t agree with you as a troll.

Objection: You just want traffic to your site!
Counter: I don’t gain anything from it. Really, genuinely, I think WLC is a huge wanker and don’t want to support him.

Objection: You’re not using the biblical meaning of faith!
Counter: I disagree. I define it thus: Faith=(belief-evidence) in the religio-spiritual context. Why? Because that is what it is in this context. See number 2 here. This differentiates religious faith from trust or belief, which can be based on evidence while faith is not. Your supposed biblical definition is Hebrews 11:1
“Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.”
This is not inconsistent with my definition, indeed, it meets it. Hope is not substantial, hope is a wish that things will turn out in a particular way. Faith then is substituted for substance in this instance, it is not substance itself. The ‘evidence of things unseen’. Things that are not sensed, detected, confirmable are not evidence. Again, this is a substitution.
So faith is a substitute for substance and a substitute for evidence – things that would rationally support a belief.
As I said then, Faith=(belief-evidence)

Objection: WLC is a scholar with impeccable credentials!
Counter: This doesn’t stop him being a wanker or being wrong. As to the things he holds qualifications in, I refer you to Mr Wonka above. Even if he wasn’t an irredeemable tosspot, charlatan and terrible human being none of these ‘accomplishments’ would make him correct. It is possible for someone to be clever in one regard (in this one, selling people on sub-Chopra bullshit) while an idiot in another (logical and rational thought). Lest we forget, one of the most Brilliant scientists in history, Newton, was also a ceremonial magician and an alchemist.

Summary

None of these objections undermine or remove the refutations in any way. We still have claims without any evidence to back them up by the bucketload along with various strawmen. Craig’s arguments are child’s play to dismantle and nothing in these objections has done anything to bolster them.

Things I do believe

• I believe in the power of logic, reason and evidence to explain the world in which we find ourselves.
• I believe we have to deal with what ‘is’ first, over what ‘ought’ to be.
• I believe faith to be harmful, whether it be religion, ideology or anything else. Believing without evidence to support what you believe is fundamentally flawed – even dangerous.
• I believe atheism to be the only honest position on the question of god/supernaturalism.
• I believe freedom of expression is one of the paramount human rights and that it includes ‘icky speech’.
• I believe you have the right to be offended.
• I believe I have the right to offend you.
• I believe you’re responsible for your own intake.
• I am a ruthless egalitarian. I believe everyone should be treated equally regardless of race, gender, sexuality etc, only modified by their differing needs and the empirical facts of the situation.
• I believe in education for its own sake.
• I believe in art for its own sake.
• No matter how poorly you regard my work and art, I believe I’m worse. It makes me try harder.
• I try not to, but I loathe hypocrisy. If someone’s a hypocrite it at least shows that they’re trying to be a good person, even if they’re failing. This is why I rage so much at people who say they’re for social justice, but whom display their own prejudices. They disappoint me and break my heart.
• I believe misandry is a thing, because misogyny is a thing.
• I believe a little flirtation is harmless fun.
• I believe *ism to be wrong, whether it flows to or from marginalised groups. Prejudice is prejudice.
• I believe if you’re against something, you shouldn’t do it yourself.
• I believe complementary and alternative medicine is absolute bollocks.
• I believe I look fly in hats.
• I believe the best way to create an equal and fair society is to treat people equally and fairly. Without exception.
• I believe you’re allowed to ‘slip’, when you’re angry.
• I’m an ideological left-anarchist, but a pragmatic socialist. I believe in individual rights, but when you group individuals together the best guarantee of those rights is to consider the group.
• I believe there’s almost always another option to violence.
• I am a naturalist, a materialist.
• I believe the ‘best’, most objective moral system is a combination of Utilitarianism and Epicureanism. Pleasure has value.
• I would believe in democracy more if the electorate were better informed and the system were more representative.
• I believe in fidelity and honour, though it’s not for everyone.
• I believe respect must be earned.
• A care about people. I have a deep sense of empathy, I get embarrassed for others. When that quality of empathy is ignored or denied I feel it as a personal attack upon a part of my essential identity as a human being.
• I believe in being ‘decent’. In the sense of morally upright, respectable, kind and obliging. I put myself out for others often. I pay more than I should. I give people time. I am very forgiving. I am unforgiving of myself in this respect and I expect the same from others. I get upset when they fall short.
• I believe in a ‘hands off’ approach. Let people find their own way and motivation and they’ll do their best.
• I believe everyone deserves a second, and a third, chance.
• I believe the crux of human existence to be a struggle between altruism and selfishness.
• I believe in the power and importance of consent and the principle of ‘Ask and tell’.
• Do what thou wilt, so long as it harm none.
• I believe Scotch whisky is superior to Irish whiskey.
• I believe curry is one of mankind’s greatest inventions.
• I believe in taxation to support important social, educational and material infrastructure from which we all benefit.
• I believe in universal healthcare, free at the point of use. The right to life is the most basic right of all.
• I believe in abortion, up until the onset of consciousness.
• I form friendships quickly and easily, and often deeply. I may consider you a friend even if you don’t consider me a friend and I consider myself obligated to that friendship.
• I believe in treating people as individuals.
• I believe almost everyone is interesting.
• I try not to judge, I try to understand. I sometimes fail.
• I like most people. You have to be an absolute cunt for me not to get on with you.
• I believe sexy fun times and sexy fun art are harmless, positive even.
• I believe prostitution should be legalised – and regulated
• I believe drugs should be legalised – and regulated.
• I believe escapism is important.
• I believe you can find someone attractive and still appreciate them as a human being as well.
• I believe the internet should be free.
• I consider The Singularity to be a likely outcome for the human race.
• I believe games and the act of play to be more important than they’re normally considered to be.
• I believe you can entertain an idea without accepting it.
• I believe humour is important.
• I believe satire is a powerful way to undermine something you hate.
• I believe in crediting people with intelligence. I hate patronising or talking down to people.
• I believe in taking the long term view.
• I believe the human race has to get off this rock.
• I believe in greater human unity over greater balkanisation.
• I believe in free will.
• I believe stories can be powerful, but not overriding.
• I believe cats are better than dogs.
• I believe Flash Gordon and Big Trouble in Little China to be the greatest films ever made.
• I believe love is an unlimited resource.
• I believe you’ve gotten the wrong end of the stick.
• I believe creativity should be unfettered.
• I believe 2000AD is the best comic ever made.
• I believe fantasy is distinct from reality.
• I believe it’s not butter.
• I believe I can convince you of the things I believe, given enough time.

Shut Up & Listen When I tell you about ‘Check Your Privilege’.

I want you to ‘check your privilege’ about the phrase, ‘check your privilege’.

If someone is arguing with you, you should address their points, their reasoning, what they’re saying. When you tell someone to ‘check your privilege’ you are, essentially, engaging in an ‘ad hominem‘ fallacy, an ‘argument to the person’. For example:

“I don’t think that statement qualifies as sexist.”
“That’s because you’re a man, check your privilege.”

Simply because one is male (or white, or rich, or whatever else) doesn’t render one’s arguments invalid, it doesn’t mean you lack empathy, sympathy or imagination, it doesn’t even mean you haven’t experienced racism, sexism or whatever else yourself.

I’m sure in some ideal world ‘check your privilege’ is meant to mean ‘I say old chap, have you considered that your socioeconomic, racial and other statuses might affect your point of view?’ In practice however it means ‘Shut up you white male oppressor, you don’t know shit’ which is – in and of itself – quite startlingly sexist and racist.

I’m hardly the only person to note this.

Add to this things like ‘mansplaining’ (another horrifically sexist term) and the fact that some people think they can’t be *ist simply because they’re members of a self-identified oppressed group (riddle me this Batman, is the Nation of Islam racist against whites or not?) and its not hard to see why the perceived hypocrisy on display costs feminism and other activists a lot of support from people who should be natural allies – such as myself. The problems between the sceptic/atheist movement and skepchick/Atheismplus provide ample example of the problem here.

If your task is to communicate with people outside echo-chamber activist groups and their unquestioning hangers on then you have to listen to the experience and perception of the people you’re talking to. You also CANNOT presume that simply because a person agrees with you on one topic (say, atheism) that they must agree with you on another topic (feminism).

Questioning and challenging are vital to scientific enquiry and rational thought, challenging your claims about X,Y,Z doesn’t make the person challenging them *ist, it means they’re looking for evidence, testing your ideas to see if they’re robust and accurate. When you write these people off you’re harming yourself and your cause which would be much stronger if it did stand up to scrutiny and came out the other side unscathed.

We have all become very sensitised to sexism. I suffered a huge amount of unwarranted abuse over written works making fun of sexism and over a blog article defending what Neil Gaiman would call ‘icky speech‘. That has hyper-sensitised me to much of the hypocrisy I see in the ‘social justice’ movements, many of whom – to me – seem to have become the very things they hate.

In my experience many of these groups and their members are amongst the most obnoxious, bigoted and horrible human beings it has ever been my misfortune to come across – ironically as blind to their own bigotry as they claim others are to their own privilege.

If you’re a feminist and you’re calling out what you consider to be misogyny or sexism you want to be taken seriously and not dismissed, yet all too often this is exactly what happens if a man calls a woman out on misandry or sexism. Rather than acknowledging that men can suffer from sexism – or whites from racism – or anybody else from another other form of prejudice, this is dismissed, mocked, derided in exactly the same way as would not be considered acceptable the other way around.

This is a missed opportunity. We have a whole generation that is now very aware of unfairness on these sorts of bases but rather than going ‘You know what? You’re right, lets fight all forms of sexism together!’ it instead becomes a fight over who is more oppressed than who.

You don’t need to think the discrimination and prejudice is even or equal[1] to acknowledge that its bad and wrong and worthy of opposition.

Prejudice on the basis of sex/race/class/whatever is wrong, whichever direction it passes. Don’t be a hypocrite about it, it’ll cost you.

***

While I’m here I also want to pass comment on another thing that’s been going on lately.

Between the death of April Jones and ill-informed policy makers knee-jerking and Facebook drawing ire over ‘hate groups‘ along with policy signal shifts in the UK and the US the free internet is once again being chipped away at. I’m not saying that these rape joke or bad taste groups aren’t awful, but they are also legal and there’s nothing to suggest they actually harm anyone. After all, a picture of a person isn’t actually a person, its a picture and shock humour gets its ‘sting’ from being shocking, not being acceptable and beneath comment/reaction.

Of particular irony is the objection that these should be removed being on the basis of offence, often by the same people who were up in arms about images of breastfeeding being censored (also on the grounds of people being offended[2]). Personally, my opinion is that as long as it’s legal and age/membership restricted anything should go.

I am particularly worried about the ‘hate group’ reaction ending up being applied to kink/bdsm groups which given previous overreactions is nigh certain.

[1] – While I consider Watson’s ‘Elevatorgate’ fuss to be ‘a huge fuss about nothing’ I also consider this to be on occasion where Dawkins was wrong. That there are greater evils than lesser ones doesn’t mean the lesser ones aren’t also evil – and worth fighting.

[2] – And over-sensitive algorithms. 

Woolwich

I am disappointed with the reactions and actions on every side following the Woolwich attack.

This was a terrorist action, it was politically motivated as stated by the men who made the attack themselves. They took advantage of the prevalence of social media and camera phones to get their message out through multiple sources. This was an Islamic extremist action, also demonstrated the same way.

This was obvious and certain from the get-go given the near-live footage and the sheer number of corroborating witness accounts.

To try and divorce Islam from this action is patently ridiculous, just as it is ridiculous to try and divorce Christianity from the actions of the WBC or abortion clinic bombings and just as it is ridiculous to try and divorce the brutish racism of the EDL from their right-wing ideology.

Yet in the aftermath of the attacks the mainstream news was cutting out the initial part of the rant that invoked Allah and people who should be thoughtful, liberal, progressive commentators were bending over backwards to ignore the Islamic/political motivation and to write it off as random lunacy.

These sorts of actions are horrible, but they are comprehensible in the background of long-standing political interference by the US and UK in the Middle East, the actions of Israel in Palestine and the nature of the vast disparity between Western military technology and that of the Taliban and their ilk. That doesn’t make it excusable any more than understanding why our military has intervened in the Middle East makes that excusable.

Islam contains motivation and excuse for this sort of action, as does Christianity, Judaism, other faiths and ideologies. To ignore that, to cut it out of the conversation, is disingenuous in the extreme and given – in addition – the built-in misogyny and other issues with the faith it is staggering that people who consider themselves egalitarian and progressive would – in any way – excuse Islam its share of the blame.

Are we so afraid of being labelled ‘racist’ that we can’t admit there’s a problem here? Islam is a religion, not a race. Not everyone who follows it is a dangerous loon but it certainly appears to be a fairly strong risk factor. I am not picking on Islam specifically save in regard to this specific incident. Anyone who is convinced, utterly, that they are absolutely right and that their political or religious orthodoxy licenses them to destroy other human beings is a cunt.

We can’t let the fear of being tainted ‘racist’ block us from having an important, public discussion and – hopefully – a modernisation and reform of that faith. Especially when the perpetrators explicitly and openly described their motivations, reasoning and the role of their faith directly to camera.

Christianity managed to ‘de-militarise’ much of its dogma, though we still live with the consequences of that dogma to this day. Islam is still in the inquisitorial, absolutist, intolerant phase Christianity was from the Dark Ages to the Renaissance. It can change.

Seven Refutations

Insomuch as is possible I will limit myself to simple atheism, that is ‘I do not believe in god/s’ without involving naturalism, science etc. This is a basic, sceptical stance wherein we require evidence for a god before we believe in one (or indeed anything else). William Lane Craig’s ‘Seven arguments for god‘ keep getting brought up as ‘evidence’ when they’re not evidence and they’re barely even arguments. I will now show why:

1. Why is there something instead of nothing?

Leaving aside the science for a moment, ‘I don’t know’ is a perfectly acceptable answer. Is there a reason? There may or may not be. Is it even possible for there to be ‘nothing’? There’s some suggestion otherwise. Whatever the case, whether there a reason, an actor, a natural force at play or otherwise if you’re going to say ‘god did it’ you need evidence that god did it. WLC only has an assertion which, without evidence to back it up, is useless.

One down.

2. Cause and Effect

Again, leaving aside the scientific examples of exceptions to this this is a poor argument and not evidence. IF everything requires a cause then this must also apply to god itself, leading to an infinite regression of gods each creating the next one. Clearly this is not a logical or rational position. Craig takes up the ‘Kalam’ argument, which I have covered before. This one says ‘everything needs a cause, except god’. Well then, if there can be exceptions then not everything requires a cause.

Even if everything does require a cause that could be natural, one of any number of gods or something else entirely. Asserting it is god doesn’t make it so. You would need evidence to prove that assertion. Again, this is just an assertion and again, without evidence to back it up, it is useless. This is without even getting into issues like the impossibility of cause and effect before time and context.

Two down.

3. Argument from Design & Complexity

Again, ignoring the fact that science can account for the appearance of design and for natural complexity we still find this to be a poor argument. Things certainly might appear designed or special but that’s just our perspective on them. If they were different, they’d be different. If you shuffle a deck of cards the odds of them coming out in any particular order are around 1 in 10 to the power of 68 (I think, the point is that they’re long odds). Yet every time we shuffle a pack those incredibly long odds are made manifest in that particular order. We just happen to observe them in the order they have happened into.

Even then, much of the natural world is interdependent and deterministic, shortening the odds and moves in building cycles.

So, we can certainly say things ‘appear designed’ but there are a multitude of possibilities for this. Again, natural laws and interactions, again, any number of possible gods and again, other things we maybe haven’t thought of. WLC presumes god and wedges it in there because that’s all he can think of. Yet again, this is an assertion. Yet again, this assertion requires evidence to back it up. Yet again, he has none.

Three down.

4. Objective Morality

There have been innumerable moral systems over time. Morality is subjective, conditional and contextual. We really cannot point to anything at all that would universally be bad or wrong (or the worst option) in any and every circumstance. Ignoring the science, again, all we have here is an assertion and yet again, one without evidence. Craig specifically believes the Abrahamic god to be true, and that god has tremendous problems when you look at its morality. It breaks virtually every one of its own commandments, it kills, it lies, it even rapes children (Mary being adjudged to be a child by modern standards). The very split between the OT and the NT undermines this suggestion of objective morality.

Even if there were an objective moral system there are many possible explanations, natural ones, theistic ones and others. Craig fails to provide evidence that there is an objective moral system or that his god is the one behind it.

Four down.

5. Ontological Argument

This one is really rather crazy so why anyone takes it seriously I don’t know. The basic idea runs something like this:

• We can conceive of an all powerful, perfect being.
• Existence is a prerequisite of being all powerful and perfect.
• We can conceive of god.
• Therefore god exists.

I call this the ‘if wishes were horses’ argument.

Here’s my formulation.

• I can conceive of the perfect roast beef sandwich.
• Existence is a prerequisite of being the perfect roast beef sandwich and it is MY perfect roast beef sandwich so it would have to be here right now for me to eat.
• Where the fuck is my sandwich?

That we can conceive of a thing doesn’t, apparently, mean that thing actually exists outside of the conceptual space of our mind. Physical reality certainly appears to be much more limited. This conceptual being could also be anything from god to Allah to The Great Green Arkleseizure. We can also constantly improve on our concepts over time.

Yet again, no evidence here, just a theological/philosophical mind game that, in the end, provides no evidence.

Five down.

6. Resurrection

Here’s where Craig gets specifically into the Christian god. In brief there is:

1. No historical evidence for the existence of Jesus, even as a mortal man.
2. No historical evidence for the resurrection.

In short, again, these are claims which require evidence, not evidence themselves.

Six down.

7. Experiential

Subjective, personal experience is not evidence. Yes, people inculcated into a particular religion may claim to have a particular experience but this varies from person to person and culture to culture. The ‘spiritual experience’ of a Hindu is no more or less convincing than that of a Christian. While we give certain things a pass on the need for evidence (mundane, everyday experiences and so forth) really, we need evidence to rationally believe anything.

Your ‘encounter’ with god is no more convincing than my ‘encounter’ with an Aztec god after having taken mushrooms.

Seven down.

Summary

Every single one of WLC’s arguments are arguments from ignorance (I don’t know, therefore god did it) or arguments from personal incredulity (I can’t believe this happened any other way than god). These are, needless to say, fallacious lines of reasoning. There is no evidence here, just questions into which ‘god did it’ has been crudely rammed on absolutely no basis.

And yet WLC is considered the ‘best’ apologetics has to offer.

Free Education – At home and abroad

I’m a firm believer in free education. It was already eroded by the time I got to University age with loans creeping in and placing students in debt and the rise of ‘vocational training’. Both the simple joy of learning  and accomplishment have been seriously eroded and educational attainment has been commodified. The only possible reason someone might want to be educated is – apparently – to earn more money and that’s the basis of the loans.

There are plenty of other reasons to learn and there are many benefits to society as a whole in having an educated  populace. Education lifts people up, makes them more socially mobile, creates an informed and aware populace who can make informed decisions. Yes educated people tend to earn more, but they also understand more, tend to be more law abiding and socially conscious and more invested in their surroundings.

Education isn’t a commodity, it is a social investment.

Europe and Scandinavia understand this and Britain used to. There’s still some respect for academia here but it’s being eroded by the American commodification model. The US, for all its scholarship culture, has almost entirely commodified its higher education now and there are few exceptions, few places where talent, rather than money, talks.

Cooper Union is – or was – one of these.

Through outstanding academic programs in architecture, art and engineering, and a Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences, The Cooper Union for the Advancement of Science and Art prepares talented students to make enlightened contributions to society.

The College admits undergraduates solely on merit and awards full scholarships to all enrolled students. The institution provides close contact with a distinguished, creative faculty and fosters rigorous, humanistic learning that is enhanced by the process of design and augmented by the urban setting. Founded in 1859 by Peter Cooper, industrialist and philanthropist, The Cooper Union offers public programming for the civic, cultural and practicable enrichment of New York City.

This place is now under threat. One of the very few remaining institutions where someone can get in on merit is threatening to become a fees-based institution. The situation is more dire in the US and so Cooper Union’s students need our support. Everywhere across the world though we need to be aware that education is under stress from monetary interests and we need to recognise that education has its own value, beyond the monetary, in terms of art, culture and social investment in our future.

European countries understand this. Scandinavian countries understand this. Because of this these nations are ahead of the US and the UK in social and educational markers. The sky has not fallen in, if anything it has been shored up.

Please consider supporting Cooper Union, as I will.