Tuesday, December 31, 2013

2013 Year in Review

So it’s the end of the year which means it’s time for a review. I didn’t get all I wanted to get done this year, but I’ve had some notable moments.

One article I am proud of is Disproof of Eben Alexander’s Proof of Heaven. For those who don’t know, Eben Alexander is a neurosurgeon who claimed the following. He was in a coma induced by bacterial meningitis that left him with an all-but-destroyed brain. As such, while in this coma he was incapable of hallucinating or dreaming what he experienced: a trip to heaven. Eben Alexander also had some memories of surrounding events while he was in his coma. As you might expect, this story is baloney. I picked some juicy tidbits of one journalistic investigation exposing this fraud but I also did some of my own research that suggests some interesting and fairly shady things about Eben Alexander.

Another big thing is my series on William Lane Craig versus Rosenberg. An atheist philosopher Alex Rosenberg debated Christian philosopher William Lane Craig over whether faith in God is reasonable. I’ve complained in the past about how atheists screw up royally in presenting the case for atheism in debates against the likes of William Lane Craig, and in this series I painstakingly examine what Rosenberg did, what he did wrong, and how he could have done better. I have (possibly vain) hope that this will help atheists do better in debates against Craig.

So those are the two big ones. Other stuff:

  • I attacked William Lane Craig’s infamous kalam cosmological argument.
  • I argued for the presumption of atheism, mentioning one bad but tempting way to argue for it and giving a much better way to argue for it.
  • Who Goes to Heaven and Hell? Here I debunk theory after theory (e.g. only those who believe in Jesus get to heaven, the rest go to hell) a religious person might believe, while also noting a more general problem.
  • William Lane Craig’s Concession: Atheism is Not Implausible. Yep, pretty much what the title says. It's a notable concession for someone who has been arguing against it for decades.
  • Are Debates Worthwhile? Some atheists think that atheism versus theism debates (of the structured, public sort that William Lane Craig participates in) are not worthwhile. Is that true?
  • Why doesn’t God heal amputees? Lots of supposed miracles have been claimed, but amputees getting their limbs back? Not so much. Here I give some insight as to why this sort of miracle (and non-miracle) assertion pattern has occurred. A related article is Bad Timing, discussing the when-you-think-about-it odd choice for God when would choose to use his supernatural fireworks.
  • Apologetics for Genocide. William Lane Craig has earned some notoriety for defending the genocide depicted in the Bible. Richard Dawkins gave a response to this that was surprisingly bad, so I gave a better one, arguing that deep down Christians know that if God exists he is not like the deity depicted in the Old Testament.
  • Lastly, I countered the objection one Christian minister launched against atheism, the old “You can’t prove a negative” claim to explain why this oft-repeated nonsense is, well, nonsense.

So, yeah. I hope to do even more next year to advance reason and intelligently argue for atheism. Have a happy and logical new year everyone!

Saturday, November 30, 2013

You Can’t Prove a Negative?

A Christian minister from Georgia by the name of Dr. Nelson L. Price wrote on his website, “One of the laws of logic is that you can’t prove a negative.” It’s no surprise that an ignorant religious man would use the “You can’t prove a negative” claim to undermine the justification for atheism, but this is the sort of claim that isn’t unique to such people. The 2008-06-25 Doonesbury comic claimed it was “philosophically impossible” to prove a negative. To make matters worse, I have, ironically enough, seen even atheists claim that you can’t prove a negative! So for Christians who wish to undermine atheism, comic strip writers, misguided atheists, and for those who just like reason and logic, let’s discuss this topic.

First, when you encounter someone who says, “You can’t prove a negative,” ask them to prove it. A few seconds after they start trying to prove it, inform them that by proving it they would be undermining their own position that “You can’t prove a negative.”

Second, there are some pretty obvious counterexamples to “You can’t prove a negative” in math, logic, science, and everyday life. One example is Euclid’s proof that there is no greatest prime number. Another example is “There is no married bachelor.” Just delineate the meaning of the term “bachelor” and the rest is fairly self-explanatory. Yet another example (for most people) is “There is no pink elephant before my eyes right now that is highly visible to me.” All one has to do is look and there will be sufficient evidence for the nonexistence of the highly visible pink elephant. So one can prove a negative, both in the sense of rigorous proof like we have in math and logic, and also in the weaker sense of “having sufficiently strong evidence” (as in the case of the highly visible pink elephant). It’s also worth noting that science relies on evidentially-supported negatives all the time; that’s why science has physical laws, which tell us what is and isn’t physically possible.

Atheists above all people should reject the idea that we can’t prove the nonexistence of a thing. Even if “married bachelors” and “the greatest prime number” weren’t obvious examples of things we can prove don’t exist, what about God? Surely we can prove the nonexistence of God, at least in the sense of having sufficiently strong evidence against God’s existence, thanks at least in part to the argument from evil.

Wednesday, October 23, 2013

Apologetics for Genocide

The Problem

Deuteronomy 20:16-18 reports God seemingly ordering a genocide (“do not leave anything alive that breathes” in the NIV). Other verses could be used, e.g. Joshua 10:40 where the “don’t leave alive anything that breathes” sort of language is used again, and 1 Samuel 15:3 where God seemingly orders the killing of men, women, children, and infants. These passages should be troubling for anybody who is a Christian or is considering Christianity.

Christians deal with these troublesome passages in different ways. Some Christians reject Biblical inerrancy, believing the writings of the New Testament to be more reliable than e.g. Deuteronomy and the books of Samuel, and there is at least some rational basis for this. Mainstream historians date the synoptic Gospels (Matthew, Mark, and Luke) and the letters of Paul to within the first century, a few decades after the alleged resurrection of Jesus. In contrast, mainstream scholarship dates Deuteronomy, Joshua, and the books of Samuel centuries after the alleged events took place. If you’re a Christian who rejects Biblical inerrancy, it’s not hard to guess which set of books is more likely to contain reliable information.

Some Christians, such as Paul Copan, don’t interpret the Bible in such a way that such a widespread slaughter took place, but rather as hyperbole to describe the Israelites crushing military opposition, similar to how a football coach would say “We murdered the other team” to describe soundly trouncing the opposing team in a game. Odd as that may seem, there is precedent for this in the Ancient Near East, using the hyperbole of total devastation to describe a victory. For example, Hittite king Mursili II who ruled in the early 13th and 14th century BCE is recorded as saying that he emptied certain mountains of humanity, when this wasn’t literally true. At around 1230 BCE, Rameses II’s son Merenptah said, within the context of a military campaign in an inscription known as the Merneptah Stele, that Israel has been wiped out and that its seed does not exist. There is also some evidence for the non-literal and hyperbole interpretation within the Old Testament itself. For example, 1 Samuel 15 ostensibly has all of the Amalekites being destroyed (remember 1 Samuel 15:3?) but the Amalekites pop up again in 1 Samuel 27:8 where David raided the Amalekites. The Biblical inerrantist could easily interpret 1 Samuel 15 as coinciding with Ancient Near Eastern hyperbole.

Still, there are those Christians who interpret some of the more barbaric passages more literally. William Lane Craig for instance seems to think that a perfectly good God might do something like this with respect to the slaughter of Canaanite men, women, and children.

In fairness to Craig, he doesn’t consider it genocide. Why? Craig says this:

The judgment of God upon these tribal groups, which had become so incredibly debauched by that time, is that they were being divested of their land. Canaan was being given over to Israel, whom God had now brought out of Egypt. If the Canaanite tribes, seeing the armies of Israel, had simply chosen to flee, no one would have been killed at all. There was no command to pursue and hunt down the Canaanite peoples.

It is therefore completely misleading to characterize God’s command to Israel as a command to commit genocide. Rather it was first and foremost a command to drive the tribes out of the land and to occupy it. Only those who remained behind were to be utterly exterminated.

But what if they all stayed (the Bible doesn’t say they did, but still…)? Wouldn’t that be genocide? When dealing with apparent mass slaughters in the Old Testament, some Christians seem to define genocide narrowly so that only those cases where the slaughter is due to ethnicity will it count as genocide. For example, Justin Taylor’s blog at the Gospel Coalition says:
“Ethnic cleansing” and genocide refer to destruction of a people due to their ethnicity, and therefore this would be an inappropriate category for the destruction of the Canaanites.

One could define the word “genocide” to mean that if they want, but there also exists the broader definition in which deliberately killing a large group of a nation’s people is enough to constitute genocide. Using the narrow definition while ignoring the broader definition seems like an unsuccessful attempt at avoiding the unpleasant label of “genocide.”

William Lane Craig

William Lane Craig has gained some notoriety in the world of internet atheism for being an apologist for genocide. Here is what William Lane Craig has to say:

So whom does God wrong in commanding the destruction of the Canaanites? Not the Canaanite adults, for they were corrupt and deserving of judgement. Not the children, for they inherit eternal life. So who is wronged?

So according to Craig, in this story neither the Canaanite adults (deserving of judgment) nor the children (who go to heaven) were wronged. Craig then goes into some stuff about how the people doing the killing were the most wronged, and then explains (successfully or otherwise) how they weren’t wronged. You can see Dawkins criticize Craig on this sort of thing here, even quoting all the same words that I just did.

What Dawkins doesn’t do though is offer much of a rebuttal to Craig’s argument; instead he expresses his moral disgust of Craig. Maybe Dawkins thought no rebuttal is needed, but if the answer to “Who was wronged?” is “Nobody” then we need to reconsider our intellectual grounds for rejecting Craig’s argument if we don’t have any real rebuttal. If we can’t find anybody who was actually wronged by what we’re trying to call an atrocity, we need to offer more than just emotional disgust to defeat Craig’s position.

On the surface at least Craig’s response would seem to have some merit; certainly anybody deserving of the death penalty wouldn’t be wronged in being killed on the orders of the supreme judge in the universe, and the Israelites effectively transport the children to a very pleasant place, so that the children wouldn’t be wronged either. You might think the children were wronged by being separated from their parents, but if the parents were really deserving of the death penalty, this wouldn’t be so bad. Even if they weren’t deserving of the death penalty, a Christian could say the really good parents were not separated from their children but were with them in heaven. So who was wronged? And why is it more difficult than normal to find who was wronged in a story about genocide?

Here’s why: in Craig’s fairy tale, God has basically rigged everything so that actions that would otherwise have horrible consequences—especially in a worldview in which there is no afterlife—actually have good consequences. For example, in Craig’s story the dead children go to heaven, whereas an atheist might believe that any murdered children simply cease to exist. Even if some of the adults killed were innocent, on Craig’s view they would have been judged fairly by God. Again, an atheist might believe any killed person simply ceases to be.

An omnipotent God could arrange the world in such a way that actions that are terrible in the real world turn out to be good, e.g. God creating a world where shooting people actually makes them healthier, and where killing children doesn’t make the cease to be but instead merely transports them to a very pleasant place. It’s the sort of situation that makes “A good God would never order someone to do X” a lot trickier. One could claim, “A good God could never order us to shoot children” and the theist might reply, “But what about a situation where God arranged the world so that shooting children makes them healthier and doesn’t harm them in any way…”

The situation of an omnipotent deity being able to change the rules like that also cuts down other would-be objections. For instance, one could argue that he children suffered horribly when the Israelites killed them. But an omnipotent deity changes the game: the Christian could say something like, “Maybe God made them all sleep while this happened in a way that the children felt no pain at all.” Granted, the Bible doesn’t say this supernatural anesthesia happened, but it doesn’t contradict it either, and the Christian is free to speculate about matters that don’t contradict their holy book.

It might be tempting to argue that this Christian’s ad hoc damage control in positing supernatural anesthesia should be rejected and that the Christian should accept the “God ordered the massacre without anesthesia” belief instead. One problem with this response though is that it’s the Christian’s religion, not ours, and like it or not it’s their fairy tale to make up or add to as they please. We don’t want to tell them their fairy tale is false and that they should accept some other fairy tale—at least not when the replacement fairy tale is where a “perfectly good” God is more savage and brutal. It’s better to get the theist to abandon fairy tales altogether.

Another Approach

So where do we go from here? Does the omnipotent God being able to change the rules like that render the genocide story immune to intellectual criticism? No. There is something we could call the “Do you really believe it?” test. If a woman claims that God told her to kill her sleeping son, we would all think she’s nuts. In fact, most Christians would think she’s nuts. If a leader of a country kills men, women, and children saying God commanded him to do it, we would all think he’s nuts. In fact, most Christians would think he’s nuts. It seems as though deep down they know a perfectly good God wouldn’t order things like that. If there is an infallibly good God, it seems he would think it’s good for us and our children to live out our lives without anybody murdering them, hence our skepticism towards someone saying God ordered them to commit genocide. The Christian (at least the Christian who believes the massacres happened) needs to give us a good reason why we should be skeptical of someone in modern times claiming God ordered them to slaughter men, women and children and not so skeptical of the story in which God allegedly orders the massacres depicted in the (literal interpretation of) the Old Testament.

Saturday, September 28, 2013

Bad Timing

As I mentioned in my previous post, according to the Bible God did some pretty amazing stuff. Not only is there the proverbial burning bush in the in Exodus 3, but also the pillar of fire of Exodus 13:21, and the supernatural plagues that God brought upon ancient Egypt in Exodus 7-11, and the parting of the red sea in Exodus 14:21-22—and that’s all just from one book of the Old Testament!

But when you think about it, the time period in which these conspicuous miracles allegedly took place was during the most superstitious times in history, when there were none of the objective and reliable recording technologies (as video cameras) to capture them. For the Judeo-Christian who believes God works miracles today, why did God stop doing the conspicuous miracles like the parting of the red sea? Why not do them now? Seems to me that if God wanted people to believe in him, he would have made the obvious miracles of legend in the modern day, where we could reliably record them. If God could only choose one place to work fantastic miracles for people to believe in him, a time period with the recording technology we have now would have been a better time, and choosing the most superstitious time period without such technology would be bad timing.

Saturday, September 21, 2013

Why doesn’t God heal amputees?

There have been a number of miracles claimed, e.g. someone getting healed from AIDS. Why would God heal those sorts of diseases but not amputees? One factor that's important to recognize is this: AIDS (and other diseases) can be misdiagnosed. Not only is science fallible, but people practicing science are fallible. It is possible to get a false positive on an HIV test, for example. When the person is told they have AIDS, and now it turns out that they don’t, concluding “Miracle!” as opposed to a false positive is the temptation. In contrast, it’s pretty hard to get a false positive on an amputee.

Other claimed healings are those of cancer, but spontaneous remissions have been known to happen. A person might get better from a cold after being prayed for, but the person would have gotten better without prayer anyway. Similarly, it’s not implausible that some people would recover from cancer purely by natural means after being prayed for. Disease is the type of thing that an immune system can fight against, as opposed to a severed limb. People healed of cancer might be tempted to shout “Miracle!” as opposed to crediting the fortunate event to spontaneous remission. In contrast, it's pretty implausible that the immune system would suddenly poof a limb into existence.

So the problem with other healings is this: the evidence is underdeterminative. It isn’t clear that non-divine causes played a role with (for example) cancer, when spontaneous remission is known to happen. And people have been misdiagnosed as HIV positive when a subsequent test answers in the negative, as in the case of Jim Malone. Thus when someone is “cured” of an HIV infection or from cancer, there are non-miraculous explanations. In contrast, if an amputee were suddenly healed after being prayed for, the “Miracle!” explanation would pretty much be the only explanation. Funny how those sorts of miracles are the ones that don’t occur, isn’t it? For the theist who believes that God supernaturally intervenes in the modern world, this should be cause for the theist to reconsider that belief.

Things like a misdiagnosis and a successful immune system wouldn’t apply for such an amputee healing, and the evidence for a miracle would be a lot more determinative. So why don’t we see God perform miracles of this sort? Why doesn’t God perform miracles in cases like these where a miracle would be the only viable explanation of healing, unlike the cases of cancer and a putatively healed HIV infection? Why would God act in such a way that his “miracles” would be indistinguishable from a non-miraculous world of misdiagnosing mishaps and natural healing, as if God weren’t miraculously intervening at all?

One might say “God needs to remain hidden.” This would be problematic for Christian apologists who believe there is strong evidence for their religion. And Christians in general would have to give up the claim that God worked obvious miracles like water into wine, or God raising Jesus from the dead. And let’s not forget the rather impressive supernatural events of the Old Testament such as the proverbial burning bush in the in Exodus 3, or the pillar of fire of Exodus 13:21, or the conspicuous supernatural plagues that God brought upon ancient Egypt in Exodus 7-11, or the parting of the red sea in Exodus 14:21-22—and that’s all just from one book of the Old Testament! So the idea that God wants to remain hidden just doesn’t hold water if the Judeo-Christian God exists. The Judeo-Christian theist is thus in an intellectual hard spot, especially if he or she wishes to claim that God performs miracles today.

Friday, August 30, 2013

Disproof of Eben Alexander’s Proof of Heaven

Introduction

For those who don’t know, Eben Alexander is a neurosurgeon who claimed the following. He was in a coma induced by bacterial meningitis that left him with an all-but-destroyed brain. As such, while in this coma he was incapable of hallucinating or dreaming what he experienced: a trip to heaven. Eben Alexander also had some memories of surrounding events while he was in his coma.

He wrote about his experiences in his book, Proof of Heaven, published October 2012. Some months later, it had sold well over a million copies and had been a #1 New York Times best seller. In case anybody’s worried about his income not being heavenly enough, he also sells a $59 webinar series called “Discover Your Own Proof of Heaven.” Eben Alexander’s website lifebeyonddeath.net describes it like this:

Now fully recovered [from his coma] and determined to share his experience with the world, Dr. Alexander offers this four-part online course, the first of its kind.

He has partnered with brainwave entrainment pioneers Sacred Acoustics to create an unprecedented program to guide you to a blissful brain state where you can seek out your own connection to source. Each session includes a live talk from Dr. Alexander on the insights he gained through his NDE, meditation instructions from Karen Newell, co-founder of Sacred Acoustics, and an exclusive download of a Sacred Acoustics audio meditation designed in collaboration with Dr. Alexander and enhanced by acoustic brainwave entrainment technology.

It should come has no surprise that skeptics wish to debunk Eben Alexander’s claims about his experiences as e.g. hallucinatory. But the real explanation is the ugly word that even skeptics are reluctant to accuse a fellow man of science.

Fraud.

Background from The Esquire Article

The August 2013 issue of Esquire published its findings of an investigation that took months in an article called “The Prophet.” I’ll be citing page numbers from the paper-version of the magazine which begins on p. 88. Should anybody wish to read the online version, it is (as of this writing) available for $1.99, and in my opinion a couple bucks is well worth the price of admission.

According to the Esquire article, Eben Alexander was a man plagued with lawsuits and terminations of surgical privileges. One lawsuit involved Alexander allegedly “not informing the woman that permanent facial paralysis might result from the operation,” which, unfortunately, it did. When inquiring about the two-page consent form the woman signed, Alexander could find only the first page.

And that page, as the lawyer noted, had multiple punch holes and fray marks, indicating that it had been filed in [the patient’s] chart, extracted from the file, and later refilled.” Further, he said, additional documents had also gone missing, including a letter that the patient’s primary neurosurgeon had sent to Alexander, notifying him of her postoperative facial paralysis. The woman’s attorney argued that “it is reasonable to infer that this pattern of disappearance of probative evidence was not coincidental, but was in fact deliberate.” The attorney was arguing, in other words, that when Alexander found things that didn’t fit the story he wanted to tell, he changed them, or made them disappear altogether.

Sometime later, Brigham and Women’s hospital in Boston terminated his surgical privileges by virtue of firing him. Was the lawsuit a factor? Maybe, but another possible factor was a novel his friend Michael Palmer wrote called The Patient. Folks at Brigham who read it soon realized that the protagonist was a stand-in for Alexander (though the protagonist was female) and “the vile, venal chief of neurosurgery, the fictional Carl Gilbride, was supposed to be the Brigham’s real-life chair of neurosurgery, Eben Alexander’s boss” (pp. 93-94) whom Eben Alexander did not get along with.

He later became a surgeon at UMass Memorial Medical Center, but in August 2003 the hospital suspended Alexander’s surgical privileges “on the basis or allegation of improper performance of surgery” (p. 94). One example: “a bit of plastic was left behind in a woman’s neck” which resulted in another lawsuit for poor Alexander. He later resigned from his hospital and moved to Virginia, where he worked at Lynchburg General Hospital.

The lawsuits didn’t end there. Eben Alexander accidentally fused the wrong vertebrae during surgery on a tobacco farmer’s back. By July 12, 2007 he saw his mistake and had his first follow-up with the tobacco farmer, but he didn’t tell him. Instead he edited his operative report of the surgery to make it look like he hadn’t done anything wrong (p. 95). It’s unclear when the hospital found out about Alexander’s mistake, but Alexander confessed to the patient about his mistake and the hospital terminated Eben Alexander’s surgical privileges. The event caused the tobacco farmer to file a $3 million lawsuit. By the time the patient filed the lawsuit, Alexander found another job. While the boss at his new job described Alexander as brilliant, he also said that “Neurosurgery requires the ability to intensely concentrate on one thing for a long period of time” and that this was “not Eben’s MO.”

With a $3 million lawsuit pending, Alexander could really use a lot of cash, and when the lawsuit was in its preliminary stages, Eben Alexander went into the aforementioned coma. After he came out of it, he would claim he had visited heaven, and would write a book called Proof of Heaven. By the time his pending lawsuits are resolved, Alexander “will have settled five malpractice cases in the last ten years” (p. 95). In case you’re wondering whether that’s a lot, Esquire reports that “Only one other Virginia-licensed neurosurgeon has settled as many cases in that time period, and none have settled more” (p. 95).

If I were Eben Alexander, I’d consider obtaining another source of income before my license got revoked, preferably one with a lot of money to help me with that huge pending lawsuit. Guess it’s awfully lucky for this neurosurgeon that he had this very profitable experience of visiting heaven as the $3 million lawsuit was hovering over him, huh? Not only did he make scads of money from the experience via the #1 New York Times bestselling book, he also sells other stuff pertaining to his experience, including the “Discover Your Own Proof of Heaven” webinar series and something he calls “meditative acoustics.” According to his website, he also co-founded an organization called “Eternea” where, if you’re willing to shell out $1,200 a year or more, you can qualify for a membership status called “archangel.” The organization also has something it calls the “Blue Butterfly Society” which according to their website comprises of “high net worth individuals” and “celebrities, top athletes, as well as prominent corporate and political leaders from around the world.” Governors are for “top benefactors.” How “top” is a top benefactor? The web page I saw didn’t say, but an old web page that no longer exists on the website did; it said that membership dues begin at $10,000 per year, and lifetime membership is offered to anyone who makes a major lump sum gift of $25,000 or more. (Guess what Scientology, you might have some competition!) And with Eben Alexander having committed serious offenses of deception (his attempted cover-ups in the malpractice lawsuits) when the deceptions suited him financially, how could anybody not find this man credible and trustworthy?

Proof of Heaven?

Eben Alexander’s background as depicted by Esquire (and my own bit of web research) is already enough to warrant at least the suspicion of fraud, but there’s more. First, I’ll start with something relatively minor. Alexander reports that during his coma it been raining for six consecutive days that just before he awakened from his coma, the rain stopped and there was a “perfect rainbow.” One problem: the meteorological data don’t support his story of the six consecutive days of rain (though there were three days of rain during the coma), and there could not have been a rainbow on the day he awoke from the coma (p. 125).

Maybe that’s a mild fabrication, but the big one is the cause of the coma. Alexander’s medical records of the coma are confidential, and Alexander hasn’t made them public, but one of the doctors treating him when the EMTs brought Alexander in November 10, 2008 (the start of Alexander’s coma) had to put him in a chemically induced coma, whereas Alexander claims his coma was caused by bacterial meningitis. Alexander doesn’t mention the chemically induced cause of the coma in his book Proof of Heaven. Was Alexander left with an “all-but-destroyed brain” during his coma like he claimed, thus unable to experience hallucinatory experiences? Nope; during the first few days of the coma he was conscious in the sense that he could have conscious experiences (hallucinatory or otherwise). In the words of the doctor, he was “Conscious but delirious” (p. 126). Add this on top of his history of deceitfully altering the historical facts to suit him in the case of his medical malpractices, when all the evidence is considered, Eben Alexander is probably a fraud.

Lessons to Learn

The incident has lessons to teach for both skeptics and religious believers. What lesson might this teach skeptics? Take a look at Scientific American’s response to Eben Alexander in April 2013. If you read carefully, you’ll see that it doesn’t really refute Eben Alexander’s claims. To be sure, it mentions various cases of hallucinatory experiences, such as parkinsonian postencephalitic patients and migraine headaches. But none of these apply to a case where a person reports vivid at-length dream-like experiences when the physical brain is incapable of producing such experiences (and memories thereof) due to the sort of coma Eben Alexander allegedly had. Someone in the article suggests that maybe the near death experience occurred “as he was surfacing from the coma and his cortex was returning to full function.” But that doesn’t quite work because Alexander allegedly had memories of surrounding events that occurred while he was in his coma.

To the unbiased observer who is agnostic about Alexander’s claims, this article would have had all the appearance of blowing smoke in our eyes. If one doesn’t yet have the refutation for some position, the intellectually honest thing to do is to admit we don’t have the refutation yet and do some investigation (which in this case took several months). But that isn’t quite what happened with Scientific American here. From one vantage point that’s understandable; wouldn’t even a temporary silence regarding what’s wrong with Alexander’s claims look bad for us skeptics? So why wait for a thorough investigation to unravel the real truth?

Here’s one unfortunate fact of life that skeptics and everyone else has to face: just because a belief is wrong, that doesn’t necessarily mean we will have the immediate means to show that it is false. I understand it would look pretty bad if someone claims to have scientific evidence for a claim like Eben Alexander’s and us skeptics were stunned to silence, admitting we don’t yet know of a refutation. So the temptation then comes to say something, even if it’s B.S., just to avoid the sort of silence that might lead one to believe the false claim is actually true. Is that what happened here? Yes, but maybe not intentionally. It’s quite possible that the author sincerely believed that what he said had something to do with Eben Alexander’s hallucinatory experiences, but at the very least he gave a false impression of refuting Alexander’s claims when the real refutation had yet to arrive.

I also hope the case of Eben Alexander serves as a lesson for religious believers. If even a neurosurgeon with what seemed to be very strong evidence for a visit to heaven (while in a coma in which he allegedly couldn’t have any conscious experiences, a brilliant neurosurgeon who worked at one of the nation’s most prestigious hospitals experienced a trip to heaven etc.) can be phony, we should also have a great deal of skepticism about supposed trips to heaven (or hell) for pretty much anybody else. Granted, the reason for other people’s phony experiences might not always be fraud, but we should still be skeptical. I think even religious believers are capable of, to at least degree, embracing the virtue of reasonable skepticism.

Fortunately, there are religious believers like that, e.g. this theist who reviewed Eben Alexander’s book who engaged in some healthy, critical thinking. A bit of digging (reading the comments associated with the review) suggests that the reviewer appears to be a theologically liberal Christian who is agnostic about the afterlife. Even though the reviewer wasn’t aware that the cause of the coma was not as Eben Alexander claimed, the reviewer was still astute enough to observe that Alexander’s “medical practice was going down the toilet and he needed to make some easy money.” Christians and other religious believers could learn a lot from this person.

Monday, August 26, 2013

William Lane Craig’s Concession: Atheism is Not Implausible

Earlier this week I searched Reasonable Faith and chanced upon this concession from William Lane Craig in a “Question of the Week” response when speaking of how some atheists don’t put forth very good cases:

I agree with you, Arash, that atheism is not an implausible worldview and that therefore the poverty of atheist argumentation cannot be written off to the bankruptcy of atheism itself.

You read that right, Craig conceding that atheism is not an implausible worldview. Not exactly a ringing endorsement of atheism of course, but admitting that atheism is not implausible seems notable enough considering the decades of time and effort he’s put forth into arguing against it.

Craig is also (unfortunately) right about some atheists putting forth an intellectually destitute case for atheism, as I illustrated in Rosenberg’s numerous failures in debating William Lane Craig. The good news of course is that much better arguments and rebuttals are available (and in my series on Rosenberg versus William Lane Craig, I give details on how Rosenberg could have done much better), and there have been some atheists who do a decent job in defending atheism in front of Craig. At any rate, it’s nice to know that one thing atheists and Craig can agree on is that atheism is not an implausible worldview.