Did Jesus make a sacrifice?

It is “Saviour on a Stick Season ™” this weekend.  Christians around the globe will be celebrating the brutal torture and execution of a man followed three days later by eating chocolate poultry products in order to celebrate his resurrection and ascension- or buggering off back home as I like to call it.

For many Christians, especially the Bible literalists and Young Earthers such as those behind the “Good News” magazine, Christmas is not seen as an important festival, indeed many do not even celebrate it.  It is in fact Easter that is the main Christian celebration of the year.  I could go into a long winded explanation/ rant about how Easter is not Christian and is just another example of theft perpetrated against the fun loving Pagans who have had one of their many nature based festivals hi-jacked.  Even the name “Easter” harks back to its Pagan origins- Eastre or Eostre was a Germanic Goddess who not only lent her name to the Christian festival, but was also the name given to the month of April in the old Pagan calendar.  I could also point out that chocolate has nothing at all to do with Jesus or Christianity- eggs are linked back to the Pagan festival and chocolate, well chocolate is yummy and contrary to popular belief does not give you spots, though may force you to buy new trousers.  I could talk about any number of these things considering they are the origins and the real reasons for Easter celebrations.

But I won’t.

You see for a large portion of the population Easter means acknowledging the most important event in the Christian calendar.  We shall ignore for a moment the fact that the historicity of a physical man named Jesus whom we can attribute the biblical events to is constantly being debated and assume that Jesus did exist.  But, did he make a sacrifice?  The sacrifice made by Christ and the resurrection which followed are so vital to Christianity that one must wonder whether the cult could survive if either or both of these events were removed.  Before we address what sacrifice could have been made and whether the passages carry any historical merit, lets first look at what the bible says happened, we shall use the King James Version:

Jesus was arrested by the Romans

“And Jesus said unto him, Friend, wherefore art thou come? Then came they, and laid hands on Jesus and took him.” Matthew 26:50

Okay.  Lets say this happened.  Nothing out of the ordinary here.

Jesus was put on a cross and executed

“And they crucified him, and parted his garments, casting lots: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet, They parted my garments among them, and upon my vesture did they cast lots.”  Matthew 27:35

Despite the fact that no contemporary records exist to suggest this occurred it is accepted as fact by many, including non Christians.  The only non Biblical accounts come as much as a century later and does nothing more than quote what Christians at the time believed

When he died the graves opened and bodies got up and walked about- zombies, yes actual fucking zombies!

“And the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints which slept arose.  And came out of the graves after his resurrection, and went into the holy city, and appeared unto many” Matthew 27:52-53

Not only do we have zombies, but people saw them.  Lots of people.  Now call me cynical, but if a city under Roman occupation was invaded by zombies, do you not think ONE contemporary historian would have written about it.  Do you not think even ONE non contemporary historian would have written about it.  Its official, Resident Evil is in fact a Biblical video game.  With Chris Redfield as Jesus and Jill Valentine as Mary Magdalene.  Wesker can be Pontius Pilot and Barry can be Judas.  There.

There was an earthquake

“And, behold, the veil of the temple was rent in twain from the top to the bottom; and the earth did quake, and the rocks rent;”…… Matthew 27:51

“Now when the centurion, and they that were with him, watching Jesus, saw the earthquake, and those things that were done, they feared greatly, saying, Truly this was the Son of God.” Matthew 27:54

Now maybe there was an earthquake at the time, there are earthquakes recorded during the first century, but as we can’t even decide on a date when Jesus was allegedly executed it is pointless looking through the records to find earthquakes of the time.  But lets say there was an earthquake that coincided with the crucifixion, what does this prove, a man dies on the cross who we (as Romans) do not believe to be a divine being, there is then an earthquake.  I suppose it is not unreasonable to think that at that time people may have drawn a correlation between the two.  But as far as good evidence of the divine it is sorely lacking.  Without having an actual date for the crucifixion this “evidence” is useless as well as irrelevant.

Jesus was placed in a tomb and it was sealed with a stone

“So they went, and made the sepulchre [tomb] sure, sealing the stone, and setting a watch.” Matthew 27:66

Again, nothing particularly out of the ordinary here.  Nothing to disprove one way or the other.  Not an absurd thing to do, but maybe a little OTT.

Three days later his body was gone

“In the end of the sabbath, as it began to dawn toward the first day of the week, came Mary Magdalene and the other Mary to see the sepulchre.  And, behold, there was a great earthquake: for the angel of the Lord descended from heaven, and came and rolled back the stone from the door, and sat upon it.  His countenance was like lightning, and his raiment white as snow And for fear of him the keepers did shake, and became as dead men. And the angel answered and said unto the women, Fear not ye: for I know that ye seek Jesus, which was crucified.  He is not here: for he is risen, as he said.”  Matthew 28:1-6

So we have more earthquakes, angels and women finding an empty tomb.  One of the issues with this is that each of the different versions of the tomb being discovered contradicts each other.  They all have women involved in finding the tomb, but each contains elements drastically different to the others.  This is the most extreme example; others involve men being involved, Romans and nameless women.

He ascended to heaven

“So then after the Lord had spoken unto them, he was received up into heaven, and sat on the right hand of God” Mark 16:19

Matthew doesn’t actually say that Jesus ascended, in fact it isn’t mentioned what happened to him.  But let’s go along with what Mark says.

There are other elements to the story, but these are the important ones.  So, ignoring the extreme historical inaccuracies (zombies spring to mind) we have the story here of a divine being, being executed, then resurrecting three days later and ascending into heaven.  Lets assume this is true.  We come back to the question of “What sacrifice was actually made?”.

As far as I can see there was none.  We have three options related to sacrifice:

1) Jesus was a fully mortal entity who died on the cross and did not resurrect- A sacrifice is made.

2) Jesus was either fully mortal or part god and died on the cross but was resurrected 3 days alter- not really a sacrifice, just a minor annoyance for a couple of hours.
3) Jesus was god incarnated as human flesh, “Died” on the cross and ascended back home 3 days later. No sacrifice at all.

Now if we take the first option then the whole resurrection thing is out the window. A normal human existed who spread the “good news” but he was not divine and did not resurrect.  There was indeed a genuine sacrifice made and if this was the story being stuck to we could maybe hold back on some of the criticism, but it isn’t Jesus is not a normal human being but he is divine.  Therefore number one is out the window.What about number 2?  Well it has been suggested that Jesus is half and half- sort of like when Commander Riker becomes part Q in series 1 of TNG.  The problem that arises here is, did Jesus suffer?  If he did suffer then a sacrifice of sorts was made, but not as big of a one as Christians like to make out.  Crucifixion was the most common form of execution in the ancient world and so he only endured what others did.  Painful sure, but is it enough of a sacrifice to devote your entire life to him?  But we are making the assumption that physical pain was felt, remember we’re dealing with a Human/Q hybrid.  Without any more information we simply cannot just “assume” he suffered.  We need more than that.  But even if he did suffer in pain, he didn’t stay dead and ended up in the after life as second in command.  That’s hardly a sacrifice, army officers have suffered more before being promoted.

So, what about number 3?  Number 3 includes both the crucifixion and the resurrection of a truly divine being.  But was Jesus divine?  Although he never came out and said “I am god” it is heavily implied throughout the New testament that he is god come flesh.  Looking at the wording is important, God refers to himself as “I AM” in Exodus 3:13-15 and Jesus also uses this terminology throughout the book of John.  It is also generally accepted that Jesus is god incarnate, part of the Holy Trinity, itself simply different aspects of the one god.

So if Jesus was simply God, then again, what sacrifice was made, he didn’t stay dead, a three day coma is hardly a sacrifice, and his suffering (if he did even feel anything) is feeble in comparison to some methods of execution (The Brazen Bull springs to mind).  But even if he did suffer, he suffered for a couple of days out of 6000 (Young Earth Christians) or a couple of days out of 13.7 Billion years (Old Earth/ Universe).

One way I could accept a sacrifice was made would be if we take option 2 but assume Jesus had no knowledge that he would resurrect.  In this instant a genuine sacrifice is made, it agrees with the Bible and still allows Jesus to be divine.  This would be a win situation for Christianity if Jesus had indeed no knowledge of his impending resurrection.  Sadly, that isn’t the case, not only did he know but he made damn sure others knew too:

He then began to teach them that the Son of Man must suffer many things and be rejected by the elders, chief priests and teachers of the law, and that he must be killed and after three days rise again.  Mark 8:31

Saying, Sir, we remember that that deceiver said, while he was yet alive, After three days I will rise again.  Matthew 27:63

So that scuppers that idea.  Jesus was divine, Jesus knew he would be resurrected.  Jesus knew he would ascend to heaven to sit by his father/ himself.  So I ask again, what sacrifice was actually made.  Maybe we could say he suffered a few days torture?  Well others have suffered far worse, for far longer, for far more important reasons- Jesus suffering is nothing compared to what happened in Auschwitz.  If he thinks a few days of torture are worth salvation then the victims of the death camps should be the real divine lords.

So, we have established that the only way a genuine sacrifice could have been made is if Jesus was human or had no knowledge of his resurrection.  The Bible clearly states that neither is true and dogma supports it.  No meaningful sacrifice, if any, has occurred.  We can have either a divine resurrected Jesus or we can have a human Jesus dying on the cross, but we can’t have both.  I suggest we forget this nonsense, chow down on the eggs and celebrate the start of Spring, that is after all the true meaning of Eastre.

Vaccinations: A matter of rights?

Currently in the UK swine flu vaccines are being offered to those seen to be at risk of contracting the virus and those who are in direct contact with these individuals[1].  A list of these groups can be found at NHS choices website[2].  This is a preventative measure to limit the spread of the swine flu virus and protect those in society who will be most vulnerable to serious illness if they contract swine flu.  Limiting the spread of a flu pandemic is a major priority for policy makers and the reason why so much has been invested into advertising good hygiene practices (The “Catch it, Bin it, Kill it” campaign in the UK[3]).

Another way to prevent the spread of the virus is to vaccinate those who live and work closely with vulnerable individual first.   Healthcare workers are currently being offered the vaccine.  By vaccinating people in groups at risk of spreading the virus limits the spread within hubs of vulnerable individual such as hospitals.  The importance of vaccinating people in these groups cannot be understated which is why Professor Salisbury has been so critical of NHS staff who do not take the vaccine:

“They [NHS staff] have a duty to their patients not to infect their patients and they have a duty to their families,” [4]

Vaccines are often criticised as not being 100% effective, the NHS choices website state:

“Seasonal flu vaccines give around 70-80% protection against infection with flu virus strains. Because the swine flu vaccines are an exact match to the swine flu strain that is currently circulating, they should give at least this amount of protection.” [5]

Even if a vaccine is only 70% effective against infection, it will still limit the spread of the virus and slow the rate of infection, allowing for healthcare services to cope with a pandemic.  It is because the vaccine is not 100% effective that as many people as possible should take the vaccine when offered, particularly those who are at risk of spreading the virus to those with compromised immune systems.   Given that vaccines are aimed at preventing the spread of the flu virus to those most vulnerable and the lack of a 100% effective vaccine, I think it is highly irresponsible to advocate not having the vaccine.  By protesting against vaccines and spreading misinformation about side effects anti-vaccination protestors are in direct opposition to the health of the society.

As noted by some[6], the government currently have no plans for a mandatory vaccination program, yet this is one of the issues campaigners are protesting against. The claim that the government is suppressing civil liberties by forcing people to be vaccinated is false, the local authority current has powers to:

“require examination, hospitalisation, or isolation of infected persons, create a criminal offence relating to exposing others to risk of infection, and allow some controls over school attendance and playgrounds.

In other words, although local authorities cannot force people to be vaccinated under those powers, they can for example refuse to admit children to school unless they have been vaccinated.”[7]

There is also a contingency plan for a national medical emergency, however this is only in extreme cases.  Whilst a contingency program for mandatory vaccinations is a contentious issue and should be properly discussed, the anti vaccination protester are using this as a screen to evoke hostility towards the current vaccination program.

Many anti-vaccination protester have focused on people’s right to choose wither to vaccinate or not[8].  Whilst I support people rights, these rights only extend to a point where they do not affect the rights of others.  It maybe my right to smoke, however I do not get the choice of where I can smoke and if some people do not wish to smell cigarette smoke should not have to, and that is their right.  Although anti-vaccination protesters have the right to choose wither they take the jab can they guarantee that they will not infect a vulnerable individual?  Their right to choose should not affect the rights of other individuals to be well protected against the flu virus.

Although the anti vaccination protest in Edinburgh this weekend will focus on the swine flu vaccine, VAN (vaccine awareness network) also campaign against other vaccines, including DTP, a vaccine that requires herd immunity to protect children who cannot for medical reason have the vaccine.  A comprehensive lay-review written by an immunologist can be found here[9].  Again, the rights of an individual to choose not to vaccinate should not affect the rights of other to herd immunity.

Even if anti-vaccination protestors decide to quarantine themselves in order to ensure they do not encourage the spread of infection, they are still advocating other people not taking the vaccine.  What if the scare mongering that they promote convinces a critical care nurse? Or a parent with young children? By muddying the waters and creating needless concerns anti-vaccination protesters are guilty of putting us all at a greater risk of infection.

I do not intend to convince anyone with this post, I just want make people think about the implications of not taking the flu jab when offered to them.  Anyone concerned about getting the flu jab should consult qualified medical authority and a list of sources can be found at the end of this post. The NHS website is a great resource for clear, comprehensive advice. The anti-vaccination protesters are trying to persuade people that they have the right to choose however this is a selfish attitude that ignores the impact on others.

For information about vaccines seek legitimate medical authority not opinion. Here is a list of resources you may want to consider:

http://www.nhs.uk/Conditions/Pandemic-flu/Pages/QA.aspx#vaccine

http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/Swineflu/DG_177831

http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/?p=1296

http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/?p=2084#more-2084

---

[1] http://www.nhs.uk/news/2009/04April/Pages/Swineflulatest.aspx

[2] http://www.nhs.uk/conditions/pandemic-flu/Pages/Introduction.aspx

[3]http://www.nhs.uk/video/pages/medialibrary.aspx?Uri=video/2009/October/Pages/CatchitBinitKillitAutumn2009.aspx

[4] http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/swine-flu/6087782/Swine-flu-Doctors-who-refuse-vaccine-putting-patients-at-risk.html

[5] http://www.nhs.uk/Conditions/Pandemic-flu/Pages/Vaccine.aspx

[6] http://notsofriendlyhumanist.wordpress.com/2009/12/09/anti-vax-march-this-saturday-in-edinburgh/

[7] http://www.scribd.com/doc/23331409/Home-Office-Provision-for-compulsory-vaccination-under-the-Civil-Contingencies-Act

[8] http://www.vaccineriskawareness.com/phy/clim/115923/IMG-0009.JPG

[9] http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/?p=516

Alex Buque

Edinburgh Skeptics

Anti-vaccination march

“We won’t let sceptics hijack climate talks” screamed the headline from The Independent’s front page on Tuesday December 8^th.  This cry rang out in regard to the climate conference currently taking place in Copenhagen.  The headline refers to those who deny that climate change happens, or at least that it is man-made.  These are climate change deniers, referred to both by the media and by themselves as “sceptics”.  The problem is, they aren’t sceptics in any sense of the word that makes sense.

There is a growing sceptical movement within the UK, but those of us associated with groups such as “Skeptics in the Pub” would not, and do not, take too kindly to being lumped in with the climate change deniers, and that is what can be implied by the misuse of the term “sceptic”.

A sceptic is someone who is open minded enough to allow the good evidence in and change their opinion no matter how deep routed.  Someone who will look at all the evidence, and most importantly, someone who will not manipulate the evidence to suit them, or cherry pick, avoiding those tests, reports and papers that they disagree with; a more prudent term for such types is denialist. Many of those involved in Skepticism (notice the K?) are also involved in various avenues of science and know how to look at the evidence and how to access and assess it.

Climate change “Sceptics” just don’t.  Climate change is not the only area to be filled with these “false sceptics”.  There are many who claim the terrorist attacks on the World Trade centre in 2001 were the work of the American Government itself, and its clearly obvious the towers collapsed through a controlled explosion.  There are some, such as (allegedly) BNP leader Nick Griffin who claim that the Holocaust never happened or if it did it was very small and no where near 6,000,000 Jews died.  There are those who insist the government is hiding  a deep dark secret- namely that the Royal Family are all lizards! (Notably David Icke) These “false sceptics” for the most part are simply amusing, and at worst they are annoying and offensive.  But rarely do they get much support, either from the public at large and especially the scientific community.

But, there is one group of “false sceptics” who can and do influence the public way of thinking.  These are the Vaccination Sceptics, commonly known as the Anti-Vaxers.  These can be found globally and they speak in one voice “Vaccinations are bad”.  Some are in favour of certain vaccinations, whereas many more would see an end to vaccinations all together.  And it is this group we wish to address.  It is this group that we are writing about.  The anti-vaxers.

Several years ago, the country experienced fear and desperation caused by sloppy journalism and even worse science that linked the MMR vaccine to autism.  This is, as it was then and before, completely bogus.  This is the same mentality of those involved in the Witch hunts, and 400 years after they died out, it seems the witch hunters are back in force, but with a different victim.

This coming Saturday (12^th December) at 12 Noon a collection of anti-vaxers will march through the centre of Edinburgh declaring the Swine Flu jab is dangerous.  Swine flu is a killer.  Vaccine’s offer the best way of combating it before it has a chance to even take hold.  I’m an asthma sufferer and was amongst the first in line to get my shot two weeks ago at the Pentland Medical Centre.  I would rather have the jab than Swine Flu- breathing can be difficult enough for me without the addition of a pandemic flu strain.  We implore those reading this to copy and paste both this introduction and the accompanying blog post made by one of my colleagues at the Edinburgh Skeptics.

This coalition is led by the Vaccine Awareness Network a group whose website praises David Icke (he of the reptilian overlords fame) and spews forth misinformation about vaccination with little or no thought for the potential dangers.

Vaccinations save lives.

Fact.

Not vaccinating your children, or yourselves if you are at risk, could be putting their, yours or other peoples lives in danger.

Fact.

There are of course always risks with any medication, but the benefits nearly always outweigh dangers.

Fact.

We implore those who are available to, to make their facts known.  We are all for freedom of speech.  People are entitled to their own opinions, they are not, however, entitled to their own facts.

The following blog (reproduced below) was written by Keir Liddle of the Edinburgh Skeptics and can be found at http://andyourelectronmicroscope.wordpress.com/2009/12/08/better-the-disease-then-the-vaccine/

We encourage you to re-post, re-print and re-publish where ever possible.  And to our Journalistic friends, feel free to check out all of the links posted here if you are unable to print this article and blog in full.

Alex Pryce

Founder & Co-Chair

Edinburgh Skeptics Society

Better the disease than the vaccine?

“This coming Saturday there will be an anti swine-flu vaccine march organised by the Vaccine awareness network there will also be a swine flu “scam” conference in Kirkcaldy in the evening. There are a couple of things about this that distress me greatly about this turn of events.

The first thing that worries me is the misrepresentation of facts on the vaccine awareness website (as well as out-and-out lies) about vaccination.

Especially pernicious is the ghoulish “Girl dies after taking swine flu vaccine” which chimes well with the oft-repeated mantra of the anti-vaxxer “Better the disease than the vaccine” but how well does it chime with the reality? Vaccinations can, and do, have side effects 10-25% of people however in a study in the New England Journal of medicine of 2200 people it was found that:

‘No severe adverse side effects associated with the vaccine were noted. In the non adjuvanted-vaccine groups, injection-site or systemic reactions, most mild in nature, were noted in 5.5 to 15.9% of subjects.’

This finding is fairly typical of research into the H1N1 vaccine, unfortunately using science and evidence to appeal to peoples reason seems to fall somewhat flat when faced with people willing to exploit emotive soundbites and misinformation. As of November 19, 2009, the World Health Organization (WHO) has said that 65 million doses of vaccine had been administered and that it had a similar safety profile to the seasonal flu vaccine, with no significant differences in the adverse events produced by the different types of vaccine. There has been one report of an adverse event per 10,000 doses of vaccine, with only five percent of these adverse events being serious, an overall rate of serious events of one in 200,000 doses.

In the UK there have been 22,444 confirmed cases of Swine flu and 270 deaths – thats around 1 death for every 83 cases. Given the likelihood of a severe reaction (which does not necessarily include death) to the H1N1 vaccine is 1 in 200,000 doses which seems better the “disease or the vaccine”?

Another common anti-vax myth is that the virus is man made and could not possibly have come to exist within nature this ignores scientific facts about the flu virus and viruses in general. The first being, rather uncontroversial unless one is a creationist, that the simplicity of viruses and microbes allows them to mutate and evolve in order to aid better multiplication and transmission. Nature does not exist in a stable state – new viruses are constantly emerging – it is only the ones that are successful enough to start an infection chain that we have to deal with. Furthermore the recombinant status of Influenza A viruses is an adaptation to allow it to infect more people and avoid the immune system defeating it – there are 16 known H antigens and 9 known N antigens.

‘All influenza A pandemics since [the Spanish flu pandemic], and indeed almost all cases of influenza A worldwide (excepting human infections from avian viruses such as H5N1 and H7N7), have been caused by descendants of the 1918 virus, including “drifted” H1N1 viruses and reassorted H2N2 and H3N2 viruses. The latter are composed of key genes from the 1918 virus, updated by subsequently incorporated avian influenza genes that code for novel surface proteins, making the 1918 virus indeed the “mother” of all pandemics.’

There is also plenty of fear and misinformation present about the chemicals used in vaccines being toxic or being somehow otherwise harmful. Again the vast majority of these stories are baseless paranoia and just plain wrong. To pick one example you could look at the case of Squalene and the implication of its involvement in Gulf war syndrome (JDC has an excellent blog about this here.) The gist of the matter being that squalene contained within vaccines was blamed for causing, through some unknown and unobserved mechanism, GWS – however on closer inspection the vaccines the troops were given did not actually contain squalene.

‘A link between the health problems of Gulf-War veterans and possible presence of squalene in vaccines received by these soldiers has been suggested. One published report has suggested that some army veterans who received anthrax vaccines developed anti-squalene antibodies and that these antibodies caused disabilities. However, squalene was not added to the vaccines administered to these veterans, nor was it used in the manufacturing process. Various papers have been published outlining the technical deficiencies in that original report.’

Similar nonsense can usually be found claiming thimerosal causes autism: there is no science that suggests this to be the case.

Frankly there are a hundred and things wrong with the vaccine awareness networks campaign of fear, paranoia and misinformation. I would hope people could see through the nonsense and realise that vaccines are being used as scapegoats and that they should trust the words of medical professionals and scientists as opposed to hysterical anti-vax parents. As no matter how pure their motives it just does not make them right.

The following table comes from the national network for immunization information :

Common claims found on misinformation websites

Claims	Facts
Natural methods of enhancing immunity are better than vaccinations.	The only ‘natural way’ to be immune is to have the disease. Immunity from a preventive vaccine provides protection against disease when a person is exposed to it in the future. That immunity is usually similar to what is acquired from natural infection, although several doses of a vaccine may have to be given for a child to have a full immune response.
Epidemiology—often used to establish vaccine safety—is not science but number crunching.	Epidemiology is a well-established scientific discipline that, among other things, identifies the cause of diseases and the factors that increase a person’s risk for a disease.
Giving multiple vaccines at the same time causes an ‘overload’ of the immune system.	Vaccination does not overburden a child’s immune system; the recommended vaccines use only a small portion of the immune system’s “memory”.
Vaccines are ineffective.	Vaccines have spared millions of people the effects of devastating diseases. (See Vaccine effectiveness).
Prior to the use of vaccinations these diseases had begun to decline due to improved nutrition and hygiene.	In the 19th and 20th centuries, some infectious diseases began to be better controlled because of improvements in sanitation, clean water, pasteurized milk, pest control, etc. However, vaccine-preventable diseases only began to drop dramatically after the vaccines for those diseases were licensed and were given to large numbers of children. (See Vaccine effectiveness).
Vaccines cause illnesses or disorders of unknown cause such as autism, sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS), immune dysfunction, diabetes, neurological disorders, allergic rhinitis, eczema, and asthma.	Scientific evidence does not support these claims. See IOM reports.
Contaminated vaccination lots (or “hot lots”) are more likely to cause an adverse reaction.	The Food and Drug Administration regulates the production of vaccines very carefully to assure the potency, purity and safety of vaccines.

There now follow some links:

WHO: Causality assessment of adverse events following immunization

CDC: ten things you need to know about vaccines

NHS: Immunisation website

The excellent – NHS Choices behind the headlines blog which I heartily recommend to anyone who wants to know the inside track about health stories reported in the media…

The bottom line for me is that this paranoia and fear is largely baseless and we should not condemn our children (or anyone elses) to potential lethal or life altering disease and illness on the actions of a movement based on ignorance.

Cheers”

An Open Letter to Alliance Boots

The Merseyside Skeptics have recently posted this open letter which has since been picked up by The Richard Dawkins Foundation and Skepchick amongst many others.

________________________________________________________________________________

The Boots brand is synonymous with health care in the United Kingdom. Your website speaks proudly about your role as a health care provider and your commitment to deliver exceptional patient care. For many people, you are their first resource for medical advice; and their chosen dispensary for prescription and non-prescription medicines. The British public trusts Boots.

However, in evidence given recently to the Commons Science and Technology Committee, you admitted that you do not believe homeopathy to be efficacious. Despite this, homeopathic products are offered for sale in Boots pharmacies – many of them bearing the trusted Boots brand.

Not only is this two-hundred-year-old pseudo-therapy implausible, it is scientifically absurd. The purported mechanisms of action fly in the face of our understanding of chemistry, physics, pharmacology and physiology. As you are aware, the best and most rigorous scientific research concludes that homeopathy offers no therapeutic effect beyond placebo, but you continue to sell these products regardless because “customers believe they work”. Is this the standard you set for yourselves?

The majority of people do not have the time or inclination to check whether the scientific literature supports the claims of efficacy made by products such as homeopathy. We trust brands such as Boots to check the facts for us, to provide sound medical advice that is in our interest and supply only those products with a demonstrable medical benefit.

We don’t expect to find products on the shelf at our local pharmacy which do not work.

Not only are these products ineffective, they can also be dangerous. Patients may delay seeking proper medical assistance because they believe homeopathy can treat their condition. Until recently, the Boots website even went so far as to tell patients that “after taking a homeopathic medicine your symptoms may become slightly worse,” and that this is “a sign that the body’s natural energies have started to counteract the illness”. Advice such as this directly encourages patients to wait before seeking real medical attention, even when their condition deteriorates.

We call upon Boots to withdraw all homeopathic products from your shelves. You should not be involved in the sale of ineffective products, because your customers trust you to do what is right for their health. Surely you agree that your commitment to excellent patient care is better served by supplying only those products whose claims can be substantiated by rigorous scientific research? Or do you really believe that Boots should be in the business of selling placebos to the sick and the injured?

The support lent by Boots to this quack therapy contributes directly to its acceptance as a valid medical treatment by the British public, acceptance it does not warrant and support it does not deserve. Please do the right thing, and remove this bogus therapy from your shelves.

Yours sincerely,
Merseyside Skeptics Society

http://www.merseysideskeptics.org.uk/an-open-letter-to-alliance-boots/

Skeptical Snobbishness

Skepticism.  It appears to be the possession of the super intelligent, those who look down their noses at others less curious.  Those who don’t understand the concepts of PHD level science.  If you are not a skeptic you’re an idiot.  If you’re not a hard core skeptic then you’re not committed.  Unless you’ve read the back catalogue of Carl Sagan and the complete works of Plato then how dare you call yourself a skeptic.  We don’t want to have wishy washy middle grounders involved.  Screw those who think ESP might be worth investigating.  Go to hell all of you who think that there is even a slight possibility that the investigation of anomalous, usually “paranormal” activity is worth the time energy and money of modern science.  Leave the room and never come back all of you who don’t follow our doctrine to the letter.

This is the impression I’m beginning to get of modern skepticism.  I used to take offence at believers and non-skeptics accusing us of cynicism, of being close minded and being fundamentalists.  But, after numerous discussions with skeptics, it appears that the opening paragraph is not a million miles from the truth.  I have had numerous conversations that have included phrases from the OP and its worrying to see this level of “evangelism”.  It reminds me of the West Borough Baptist Church, home of the Phelps clan and their insistence that theirs is the right path of Christianity and all those who disagree (even other Christians) are doomed to hell.  We are not too different- we are the right type of skepticism, all those who don’t agree, even rational scientists and other skeptics can go to hell.

We have gone from legitimate enquiry and research to almost becoming what we fought against.  I’m not talking about legitimate debates, I’m talking about the general attitude.  An attitude that “I’m better than you”.

Now don’t get me wrong, I think the belief in ghosts, gods and alternate medicine is silly, bordering on the psychotic in some, but should we really elevate ourselves above our station?  Should we become what we criticise and fight against?

By focusing just on the choir, on those already hardened skeptics, we become a private members club.  Many a time I have said “the information and evidence needs to be freely available” and the response has been “it is”.  Well I would argue it’s only freely available to those who know its there and for the most part that’s the choir.  People like Professor Richard Wiseman, Professor Chris French and James Randi make this information available and accessible to all.  They are presenting their findings in a way that the layman can understand.  I am not a scientist, I could have a discussion about science but not a debate.  I make the occasional scientific Malapropism and occasionally misunderstand an argument.  But so what.  By the terms of the opening paragraph I should be shunned by the skeptical community.  But people like Wiseman, French and Randi make science appealing and understandable.  It is them that will help to encourage more critical thought.  Not self righteous skeptics groups sat in the back room of a dirty old pub, organising their new empire and deciding the terms and conditions for involvement in the group of “super-friends”.

This is just my humble pinion.  Many skeptics seem quite happy to involve the other side in discussion, but when you develop the attitude of “I’m better than you”, then there is an issue.  Skeptical snobbishness is rampant.  Many a time I have heard a snort of condescending laughter at an innocent comment, or a refusal to “waste our time” testing mediums or psychics.  I don’t see it as a waste of time.  If we can encourage one believer to question rationally and look for a logical answer to their questions then I think our time was well spent.

I have also heard it said that the “middle ground” is already hardened skeptics who just don’t get involved.  What a ridiculous notion.  The middle ground already agrees with us?  How is that the middle ground?  The name of the author/ scientist/ whatever that put this notion forward escapes me, but if one person says its true it must be, right?  Then lets ignore anyone who isn’t us.  Better yet, lets put a stake in the middle of Edinburgh’s Grass market and burn them for heresy.  Tripe.

Most of what we consider beneath us, is what we should be embracing.  Its fine to have social meet ups and sit around discussing the latest scientific breakthrough in words of 8 syllables or more, it’s a great night for like minded people.  There should be much more Skeptics in the Pubs and similar groups.  But to do only this will cause us to stagnate and the skeptical community must change its name to Cynical Evangelists.  I’m not suggesting we spend every day debunking psychics or overdosing on homeopathy to prove a point, but once in a while, and more often than we currently do, we must take off our self righteous hats and embrace a little pop Skepticism.

If we don’t, we might as well Christen Richard Dawkins a Messiah, and hold up David Icke as the anti-Christ, put together a book of sins and fables, then declare ourselves the “Church of Skepticism”.

Darwin Conversion and the middle Ground

Okay.  So you may have gathered from the last blog entry that I have made some fairly obvious onservations.  Well yes thats the point.  There are three camps: Those who wholeheartedly believe without a shadow of a doubt, the hardcore skeptics who are active and know the best way to counter arguments from the other side and then there’s the middle ground.

No I’m not talking agnostic or going to start rambling about definitions again, by the middle ground I mean those who may not be sure.  Those who may be skeptical and not believe in, say, ghosts or psychics but don’t know enough about the subject to really have a discussion on the matter.  those who are easy prey for the fraudulent mediums, the street preachers and the Most Huanted followers.  Those who simply don’t believe BUT could easily be swayed if a creationist came along with a really stron SOUNDING argument full of big words that would stun the confused middle-grounder.

They’re the ones I’m interested in.  Have been since I started Edinburgh Skeptics, in fact that was one of the driving forces behind it.  There are some wonderful videos on Youtube (I point you in the direciton of “Qualiasoup”s back catalogue) but its a case of getting the right people to watch.  One of the things I;ve started doing at the Skeptics in the Pub meetings is to demonstrate “Classic Debunking”, taking a claim of the paranormal or supernatural that ahs already been debunked  and that we as the faithful congregation already know about.  But the fact that there are still people out there who believe its possible to melt the head of a spoon off simply by using your mind and rubbing it.  These people may see it as a trick but not know how its done and being told by a psychic its paranormal could tip a fgew people over to the dark side.

I’m not interested in the hard core of each side.  Yes its fun to debate a street preacher, or point out to ghost hunters that orbs are just dust (YES some of them still believe otherwise!), but that won’t convince anyone and is done more for the contest, the debate and the contest,  It also helps to keep your debating mind fresh and up to date for when you need it.

So, if some of these posts seem a little obvious at times, then well, I’m not going to apologise. You may know spoons can be melting with pre bending, or that some psychics use cold or hot reading but others do not and its them I want to help.

So that brings us on to our first main point, something we’ve all heard and I assume most know is false:

Charles darwin’s Death Bed Conversion:

This story ahs been doing the rounds for a while now, and along with the eye quote from Chapter 6 of “…species” is one of the main weopns pulled out against (mainly) atheists and evolutionists ro blacken Darwin’s name.

So lets look at this story shall we:

The story concerns a woman named Lady Elizabeth Hope.  Hope was born in Australia in 1842, the daughter of a British Army Officer.  Whilst living in England, she and her father became involved in the evangelical temperance movement (basically a religious group dedicated to being teetoal) and resided just 6 miles from Darwin’s home Downe House in Kent in the early 1880s.

With her second husband (her first being Admiral Sir James Hope) she moved to America and it is here in 1915 (33 years AFTER Darwin’s death) that she started to make the claim that she had visited darwin shortly before his death and that he had recanted his Theory of Evolution and had ordered a congregation so he may preech of the saviour Christ.

The revelation appeared in an American religious magazine entitled “Watchman Examiner”.  Here is the text of the original article by Lady Hope:

It was one of those glorious autumn afternoons, that we sometimes enjoy in England, when I was asked to go in and sit with the well known professor, Charles Darwin. He was almost bedridden for some months before he died. I used to feel when I saw him that his fine presence would make a grand picture for our Royal Academy; but never did I think so more strongly than on this particular occasion.

He was sitting up in bed, wearing a soft embroidered dressing gown, of rather a rich purple shade.

Propped up by pillows, he was gazing out on a far-stretching scene of woods and cornfields, which glowed in the light of one of those marvelous sunsets which are the beauty of Kent and Surrey. His noble forehead and fine features seem to be lit up with pleasure as I entered the room.

He waved his hand toward the window as he pointed out the scene beyond, while in the other hand he held an open Bible, which he was always studying.

“What are you reading now?” I asked as I seated myself beside his bedside. “Hebrews!” he answered – “still Hebrews. ‘The Royal Book’ I call it. Isn’t it grand?”

Then, placing his finger on certain passages, he commented on them.

I made some allusions to the strong opinions expressed by many persons on the history of the creation, its grandeur, and then their treatment of the earlier chapters of the Book of Genesis.

He seemed greatly distressed, his fingers twitched nervously, and a look of agony came over his face as he said: “I was a young man with unformed ideas. I threw out queries, suggestions, wondering all the time over everything, and to my astonishment, the ideas took like wildfire. People made a religion of them.”

Then he paused, and after a few more sentences on “the holiness of God” and the “grandeur of this book,” looking at the Bible which he was holding tenderly all the time, he suddenly said: “I have a summer house in the garden which holds about thirty people. It is over there,” pointing through the open window. “I want you very much to speak there. I know you read the Bible in the villages. To-morrow afternoon I should like the servants on the place, some tenants and a few of the neighbours; to gather there. Will you speak to them?”

“What shall I speak about?” I asked.

“Christ Jesus!” he replied in a clear, emphatic voice, adding in a lower tone, “and his salvation. Is not that the best theme? And then I want you to sing some hymns with them. You lead on your small instrument, do you not?” The wonderful look of brightness and animation on his face as he said this I shall never forget, for he added: “If you take the meeting at three o’clock this window will be open, and you will know that I am joining in with the singing.”

How I wished I could have made a picture of the fine old man and his beautiful surroundings on that memorable day!

So, according to a devoutly Christian woman living several miles from Darwin at the time of his death, the author of one of the greatest and most important books in history has changed his mind and accepted Christ.

The problem is, there is no evidence to suggest that Lady Hope had ever met darwin let alone be present at his deathbed.  Indeed the Darwin family have actively protested against this suggestion and state Hope was nowhere near their father nor did he recant.

Now some may argue that Lady Hope is telling the truth and that the Children are lying to protect their father’s reputation.  This deathbed conversion has been used as an important weopon by creationists to cast doubt on darwin and to blacken his name – though the most troubling things is, I’ve heard it used more often than not as some sort of debunk of Evolution.  That the creator of the idea dismissed it surely shows that it is a false theory.

This is where we get the problems and where we are fully able to debunk and refute these rediculous claims.

1.  The fact that the claim has been refuted by two of Darwin’s children publicly and that there is no record or mention of Hope ever visiting Darwin casts immediate doubt on the validity of the claim.  This is of course not a strong argument but serves as cirumstantial evidence.

2. This is the main argument against this claim.  It’s entitled “So What?”.  So what if Darwin did recant on his deathbed?  How does this in anyway destroy the Theory of Evolution?  Darwin was not the first perosn to put the idea forward, he simply did it in a detailed and accessible way.  Since Darwin we have discovered DNA and mapped the human genome, combined with the fossil record and observable examples of micro evolution we don’t even need Darwin to show that Evolution works.  Without the “Origin of the Species” it may have taken a little bit longer, but with the other research being done at the time it wouldn’t have made much of an impact (if any) on our current understanding of Evolution.

If Darwin recanted, so what.  Maybe he was delusional at the end?  But, even if he in sound mind turned to god and rejected Evolution, it still would not dent the Evolution vs Creation debate.  Does it blacken his name at all?  No, maybe he recanted, maybe he didn’t.  The man’s legacy and contribution to our understanding of evolution and the natural world is overwhelming.  His personal views don’t have any bearing on his scientific contribution.

This argument that he recanted is pointless and irrelevent.  If its ever mentioned, don’t fight back, just say “so what?”

Alex Pryce

Information on Lady Hope and the claim can be found at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lady_Hope

Yes I know its Wiki, but there are links through it that back it up.

But ehre’s a CHRISTIAN MINISTER refuting it: http://www.traviscase.org/Sermons/Appendix/12-LadyHopeStory.html

Definitions

So where to begin?  What do we call ourselves?  There are so many terms and words out there to describe groups of people who are basically the same thing.  We also have the mis-labelling.

Humanists, atheists, agnostics, skeptics, brights, free thinkers, critical thinkers.  There are so many words out there that the mind boggles at the suggestion of new descriptions.  Now yes, you can argue that technically atheists and agnostics are not the same and that skeptics and humanists are not in the same game.  Generally though each of these groups tend to find it rather easy to mingle and interact with one another.  Its like one group is Rugby Union and the other Rugby League.  Playing the same game but with slightly different rules.

Of course you can be a theist and skeptical about ghosts, you can be an atheist but still believe in ghosts and alternative medicine.  Its not always very likely but its very possible and I’ve met several people who don’t believe in gods in any way be it straight theist or pantheism yet still believe that homeopathic medicines can cure what ails ya!

So what do we call ourselves?  Each word, I have heard people state, can conjur up negative opinions and associations.  As a skeptic I am constantly called a cynic and closed minded.  Thats just not true.  I find that to be a skeptic you have to be MORE open minded than the believer.  As a skeptic I would happily believe in ghosts, gods and Santa Clause if the evidence was there, or at least good evidence.  Anecdotes and faith are not enough to proove the existence of spirits.  But I would accept them if the evidence came in.  Surely that is a lot more open minded than a believer refusing point blank to accept that they might just be wrong.  So I ask again, who is the closed minded one?

We then have the word Bright.  Now I attend the Bright’s meetup in Edinburgh, great bunch of people and a wonderful afternoon of conversation and discussion ensues over a few pints of Caledonian 80.  As a group they’re great, but the word is something I don’t like.  “Bright” is a term I believe was first put forward by Daniel Dennett in the States and later picked up by Richard Dawkins and basically implies an intelligent, “Bright” individual.  Basically its Atheism in all but name.  My issue with the word is that it has the opposite implication that anyone who is not a “Bright” is dim, dull and unintelligent.  This is just not true, the fact that these groups exist is great for the “cause” and the furtherment of critical thinking, I just worry that the word gives off the wrong impressions.

We then come to agnostic.  I’ve never quite “got” agnosticism.  As far as I can see there are only two options when it comes to theistic belief- you either believe in god or you don’t.  By not being sure or not knowing as agnostics claim you are therefore placing yourselves in the atheist camp by the very definition of the words.  A theist is someone who believes in god, an atheist doesn’t.  If you don;t know or aren’t sure if god exists then you cannot be a theist you become an atheist because you are “without god” (dicitonary definition of atheist).  People may try and argue that agnostic is a separate camp and that atheism, theism and agnosticism are all equal and different belief systems.  They’re not.  Agnosticism is part of either theism or atheism.

Agnostic Theist:  Someone who believes in god but doesn’t have all the evidence in.

Gnostic Theist: Someone who KNOWS god exists.

Agnostic Atheist: Someone who doesn’t believe in god, but cannot proove for a fact he doesn’t exist.

Gnostic Atheist:  Someone who KNOWS god doesn’t exist.

Now agnostic theists seem to be quite rare, when was the last time you heard a theist say “I believe in god, but I’m not sure”?  However with atheism the term “Agnostic Atheist” tends to be the most common.  With the exception of a few beer induced rants I can think of no atheist that claims to know for a fact that god doesn’t exist, even Richard Dawkins, probably the world’s best known atheist, states quite clearly in “The God Delusion” that he is a agnostic atheist but with leanings toward a gnostic attitude.  So even the patron saint of atheism doesn’t state catagorically that God does not exist.

So what are we to learn from the constant labelling?  Well, simply that human beings like to have their little groups and names.  In an attempt to bring rational thinking to a wider audience all sorts of names have been thrown around.  I’m quite happy sticking with Atheist and Skeptic.  I see no need to have a dozen words for near identical causes, it creates the religious problem- it divides.  Instead of creating new labels and new groups we need to be unified if we are ever going to get anywhere in changing society for the better.  To open up critical thinking to include all, we need to know who we are and what we stand for.

The words Atheist and Skeptic have been around for thousands of years and are still the best descriptions of what we are and what we do.  Why do we need to change that?  If people think the words are negative then we have to educate them to the actual meanings, it is far better we do that than create a new sub genre.

Atheist, Skeptic, Out and Proud!

AP

Welcome

Hello there!  We are really starting to take off with the Edinburgh Skeptics and felt we needed to “get out there” more, and so, we are getting involved with the creation and administration of a variety of new online options.  We have a forum starting any day now, podcasts in the pipeline, video podcasts, a regularly updated website, we’re heading onto Twitter and we now have this blog!

Myself (Alex Pryce) and Alex Boque will be adding to the blog when we get the chance with news and informaiton as well as a fair ammount of whining (Most likely from myself!).

We want to encourage the membership of Edinburgh Skeptics to get involved also.  Drop us a line, an email, get in touch with something you want to shout about.  Got a link for a vid or webpage of interest get in touch.  Read a good book, seen a great lecture, want to tell us your latest encounter with the street preachers regularly stalking the Royal Mile, then get in touch.

Visit our website www.edinburghskeptics.info and email us.  This blog is about, and for, the wider skeptical community.

That said, lets move on and up!

AP