Word of the Day: Hoare’s Dictum

C.A.R. Hoare and his wife stand outside Buckingham Palace after he was knighted by the queenSir Charles Hoare was a pioneer in computer science.  He observed:

There are two methods in software design.  One is to make the program so simple, there are obviously no errors.  The other is to make it so complicated, there are no obvious errors.

This applies to logical arguments as well: you can make the argument so simple that there are obviously no errors.  Or you can make it so complicated that there are no obvious errors.

A simple, straightforward argument for God’s existence might be, “Of course God exists.  He’s sitting right over there!”  Many arguments claim to be simple and straightforward—“the Bible is obviously correct” or “God obviously exists” for example—but are mere assertions rather than arguments backed with evidence.

Lots of apologetic arguments fall on the wrong side of this Hoare’s Dictum.  The Transcendental Argument, for example, is often a five-minute dissertation about what grounds logic and whether a mind must exist to hold it.

The Ontological Argument goes like this.  First we define “God” as the greatest possible being that we can imagine.  Two: consider existence only in someone’s mind versus existence in reality—the latter is obviously greater.  Three: since “God” must be the greatest possible being, he must exist in reality.  If he didn’t, he wouldn’t meet his definition as the greatest possible being.

When hit with an argument like this for the first time, you’re left scratching your head, unsure what to conclude.  These arguments are effective not because they’re correct (in fact, they fall apart under examination) but because they’re confusing.

The colloquial version of the argument is:

If you can’t dazzle ’em with brilliance, then baffle ’em with bullshit.

Photo credit: Microsoft

Related posts:

Related links:

  • Hoare’s Dictum” has been defined in computer science as, “Premature optimization is the root of all evil,” so perhaps this use should be Hoare’s Second Dictum.

End of the World (Again)

Many years marked on a parchment, and then crossed offHey gang!  This has been great fun, but today is the last day for this blog.  Of course, that’s because this is the last day for everything.  God ends the world today.

I hope you took advantage of my “Only 21 More Shopping Days Till the End of the World” post and got those nagging last-minute items off your to-do list.  (If you need background on why today is the grand finale, check out that post.)

The parchment above is a relic showing some of many, many failed attempts at predicting the end of the world, going all the way back to the gospel story itself, in which Jesus says,

Truly I tell you, some who are standing here will not taste death before they see the kingdom of God.

It’s been close to 2000 years since those “standing here” reportedly heard those words.  Oops!

So, there won’t be a tomorrow tomorrow … unless, of course, this is just the latest in a long list of pathetic, groundless predictions for the end of the world.

In which case, c’mon back for more polite but pointed critiques of Christianity!

Artwork credit: Kyle Hepworth

Related posts and links:

  • Check out Ask an Atheist” has a photo of Seattle Atheists’ end-of-the-world sandwich board.
  • The Skeptics Annotated Bible has long list of gospel predictions of the imminent end.
  • Lest we forget” is a video with clips of Camping’s claims.
  • Jessica Fostvedt, “Doomsday, Apocalypse, and Rapture, Oh my!” Scientific American, 10/7/11.
  • Stephanie Pappas, “Preacher still says Oct. 21 for end of world,” MSNBC, 10/14/11.
  • Benjamin Radford, “10 Failed Doomsday Predictions,” LiveScience, 11/04/09.

How Religious are Americans? Not as Much as You Think.

Americans are famously religious compared to other countries in the West.  But new studies have peeked behind the curtain to determine how religious Americans really are.

Turns out: not so much.

Rather than ask people how often they attend church, the better studies measure what people actually do.  The results are surprising.  Americans are hardly more religious than people living in other industrialized countries.  Yet they consistently—and more or less uniquely—want others to believe they are more religious than they really are.

The question “How often do you go to church?” confronts Americans in ways that it doesn’t elsewhere in the West.  They see it as a question with a correct answer, and this has skewed poll results.

What else does this need to give the “correct” answer hide?  If Americans fib when reporting their church attendance, might they be doing the same when answering questions about their own belief?  Perhaps this explains the dramatic rise in the number of “Nones” (those who check “None of the Above” on religious surveys).  We may not be seeing a loss of faith but an increase in honesty.

Clues to this mismatch between poll results and reality have been glaring for a while.

Even as pundits theorized about why Americans were so much more religious than Europeans, quiet voices on the ground asked how, if so many Americans were attending services, the pews of so many churches could be deserted.

In fact, actual church attendance is about half what people report.

We may have been asking the wrong question.  Instead of, “Why are Americans so much more religious?” the more pointed question may be, “Why are Americans so much more compelled to portray themselves as religious?”  If we can tear down some of the barriers to honesty, helping them feel comfortable being open about their disbelief, religious Americans might be able to be open about their true beliefs.  Or lack thereof.

Photo credit: Mark Bridge

Related articles:

  • Shankar Vedantam, “Walking Santa, Talking Christ,” Slate, 12/22/10.

Contradictions in the Resurrection Account

A Swiss Army knife with dozens of crazy "blades"How many days did Jesus teach after his resurrection?  Most Christians know that “He appeared to them over a period of forty days” (Acts 1:3).  But the supposed author of that book wrote elsewhere that he ascended into heaven the same day as the resurrection (Luke 24:51).

When Jesus died, did an earthquake open the graves of many people, who walked around Jerusalem and were seen by many?  Only Matthew reports this remarkable event.  It’s hard to imagine any reliable version of the story omitting this zombie apocalypse.

The different accounts of the resurrection are full of contradictions like this.  They can’t even agree on whether Jesus was crucified on the day before Passover (John) or the day after (the other three).

  • What were the last words of Jesus?  Three gospels give three different versions.
  • Who buried Jesus?  Matthew says that it was Joseph of Arimathea.  No, apparently it was the Jews and their rulers, all strangers to Jesus (Acts).
  • How many women came to the tomb Easter morning?  Was it one, as told in John?  Two (Matthew)?  Three (Mark)?  Or more (Luke)?
  • Did an angel cause a great earthquake that rolled back the stone in front of the tomb?  Yes, according to Matthew.  The other gospels are silent on this extraordinary detail.
  • Who did the women see at the tomb?  One person (Matthew and Mark) or two (Luke and John)?
  • Was the tomb already open when they got there?  Matthew says no; the other three say yes.
  • Did the women tell the disciples?  Matthew and Luke make clear that they did so immediately.  But Mark says, “Trembling and bewildered, the women went out and fled from the tomb.  They said nothing to anyone, because they were afraid.”  And that’s where the book ends, which makes it a mystery how Mark thinks that the resurrection story ever got out.
  • Did Mary Magdalene cry at the tomb?  That makes sense—the tomb was empty and Jesus’s body was gone.  At least, that’s the story according to John.  But wait a minute—in Matthew’s account, the women were “filled with joy.”
  • Did Mary Magdalene recognize Jesus?  Of course!  She’d known him for years.  At least, Matthew says that she did.  But John and Luke make clear that she didn’t.
  • Could Jesus’s followers touch him?  John says no; the other gospels say yes.
  • Where did Jesus tell the disciples to meet him?  In Galilee (Matthew and Mark) or Jerusalem (Luke and Acts)?
  • Who saw Jesus resurrected?  Paul says that a group of over 500 people saw him (1 Cor. 15:6).  Sounds like crucial evidence, but why don’t any of the gospels record it?
  • Should the gospel be preached to everyone?  In Matthew 28:19, Jesus says to “teach all nations.”  But hold on—in the same book he says, “Do not go among the Gentiles or enter any town of the Samaritans” (Matt. 10:5).  Which is it?

Many Christians cite the resurrection as the most important historical claim that the Bible makes.  If the resurrection is true, they argue, the gospel message must be taken seriously.  I’ll agree with that.  But how reliable is an account riddled with these contradictions?

I’ve seen Christians respond in three ways.

(1) They’ll nitpick the definition of “contradiction.”  Contradictions, they’ll say, are two sentences of the form “A” and “not-A.”  For example: “Jesus was born in Bethlehem” and “Jesus was not born in Bethlehem.”  Being precise helps make sure we communicate clearly, but this can also be a caltrop argument, a way of dodging the issue.  These sure sound like contradictions to me, but if you’d prefer to imagine that we’re talking about “incongruities” or “inconsistencies,” feel free.

(2) They’ll respond to these “inconsistencies” by harmonizing the gospels.  That is, instead of following the facts where they lead and considering that the gospels might be legend instead of history, they insist on their Christian presupposition, reject any alternatives, and bludgeon all the gospels together like a misshapen Swiss Army knife.

  • How many women were at the tomb?  Obviously, five or more, our apologist will say.  When John only says that Mary Magdalene came to the tomb, he’s not saying that others didn’t come, right?  Checkmate, atheists!
  • Why didn’t all the gospels note that a group of 500 people saw Jesus (instead of only Paul)?  Why didn’t they all record the earthquakes and the zombie apocalypse (instead of only Matthew)?  Our apologist will argue that each author is entitled to make editorial adjustments as he sees fit.
  • Was the tomb already open or not?  Did Mary Magdalene recognize Jesus or not?  Did Jesus remain for 40 days or not?  Should the gospel be preached to everyone or not?  Did the women tell the disciples or not?  Was Jesus crucified the day after Passover or not?  Who knows what he’ll come up with, but our apologist will have some sort of harmonization for these, too.

Yep, the ol’ kindergarten try.

(3) They’ll try to turn this weakness into a strength by arguing that four independent stories (the gospels aren’t, but never mind) shouldn’t agree on every detail.  If they did, one would imagine collusion rather than accurate biography.  Yes, biography and collusion are two possibilities, but another is that this could be legend.

Let’s drop any preconceptions and find the best explanation.

Photo credit: ThinkGeek

Acknowledgement: This list was inspired by one composed by Richard Russell.

Related links:

Televangelists Prove Prayer Is Useless

Do you ever watch televangelists?  It’s one long infomercial that always ends with a direct appeal in two parts: please pray for us, and send lots of cash, as much as you can.

But why bother with the request for money?  People who have the ear of the almighty creator of the universe can tap into a whole lot more than whatever’s in their wallets.  Who cares about trifling financial donations when you can get help from the Big Man himself?

Indeed, televangelists’ appeals for money make clear that they know what I know: that praying is like waiting for the Great Pumpkin.  People can reliably deliver money, but prayer doesn’t deliver anything.

This reminds me of a quote from that persuasive theologian, George Carlin.  About God, he says,

But he loves you!  He loves you … and he needs money!  He always needs money.  He’s all-powerful, all-perfect, all-knowing, and all-wise … but somehow he just can’t handle money.

It starts about one minute into this piece.  (Caution: the dialogue is a bit R-rated.  It is George Carlin, after all.)

 

Photo credit: Wikipedia

Related posts: