polydaidaloi.com

The media have been reporting on the case of Rom Houeben, a man who was believed to be in a coma for 23 years but was actually conscious the whole time. I didn’t may much attention until a tweet via @SkepticZone alerted me to James Randi’s take on this.

Now after having seen a video of Mr Houben’s “facilitated communication” via keyboard, I’m sure that the carers have hoodwinked the media. It is extremely strange that Houeben with limited motor skills, can negotiate a keyboard with such ease. As mentioned by Randi and pointed out at Wired . Arthur Caplan, who is cited in the Wired story, has a longer opinion here. His concerns are:

Most troubling about the claim that Houben is communicating are the facts that he is doing so with the help of a therapist who points his finger to the keys on a computer keyboard.

The therapist, Linda Wouters, has told news reporters that she can feel Houben guiding her hand with gentle pressure from his fingers. She feels him objecting when she moves his hand toward an incorrect letter. But, given his injuries, Houben should not be able to generate any pressure in his fingers. And if he can do so, why did no one else detect this ability over the past 23 years?

The technique of having someone point your finger to a keyboard is called facilitated communication. Sadly, it has been shown time and again to be unreliable. There is something of the ouiji board about the whole thing.

Many experts have sent me e-mails noting that people have used facilitated communication with autistic children and other brain-damaged individuals but that it did not hold up. The Association for Behavior Analysis International (ABAI), the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry and the American Association on Mental Retardation have called facilitated communication a “discredited technique” and warn that “its use is unwarranted and unethical.”

Yes, the story of Rom Houben plays out well. But that is no excuse for the media to be stupid and lazy which describes their coverage of Houben.

Recently on a Amazon book buying extravaganza, I decided to pick up Robert Crumb’s The Book of Genesis Illustrated. I’m not a fan of Crumb (but that I do recognise him well culturally) and it was out of curiosity that I made the purchase.

Crumb’s approach to Genesis was to represent the text (with a few changes here and there) and the stories as written. So there is plenty of violence and sex far more explicit than some who hold Genesis dear would like acknowledge. As Crumb says:

“If people of faith say what I’ve done is blasphemous or profane, I’d shrug my shoulders and say, ‘I just illustrated what is there,’ ” Crumb says. “I’m not ridiculing it, just illustrating the exact words that are there. I restrained myself. I really didn’t want to make visual jokes about it. I hope people see it for what it is.”

It is the strength of the book that Crumb does take such a literal (albeit in a different manner from Christian Fundamentalists) approach to the text. After having to deal with Genesis in the context of tired debates regarding evolution, reading the text in the spirit of Crumb was indeed a revelation.

Warning: Some images below may be NSFW.
More »

Greg Craven is the vice-chancellor of the Australian Catholic University (a place where you study to be a Pope I think) and along with pressures of such a lofty position, he also carries the burden of Christians in Australia, privilege as revealed in his screed against atheists in today’s SMH

It seems the problem is that we atheists are doing a disservice to the delicate sensibilities of Craven by daring to speak out. Far better the day of past when atheists were confined to the margins of society and Catholics could go about their business unopposed. Craven’s problem is with the notion that atheists how have a voice and challenging the authority of religion. He then cries persecution confusing his privilege with being part of a persecuted minority.

As an atheist I do not hate Christians (or people of any religious persuasion) nor want to see religion removed from society.It is not about the person for religious folk, like atheist folk, run the full gamut of personalities likeable and not so likeable. What I want is the institutions that perpetuate unthinking religious dogma to be torn off their pedestals. For their unwarranted prestige to be removed so that they have to wallow in the mire with the rest of us.

Craven is finding the competition fierce and I pity him that as vice-chancellor he has no intellectual defence other than to cry that the atheists are oppressing him. It is not even an attempt at apologetics, just pathetic privileged whining.

Oh, and don’t complain about people misrepresenting the Catholic church’s litany of sins by including “despise women, wish to persecute homosexuals” when that is exactly the Pope’s sales pitch to disaffected Anglicans.

Despite the best intents of all involved, atheism is starting to take on the practices of religion. The latest development is a schism!

The schism seems to be Michael Ruse on one side and Dawkins, Myers, Coyne and Dennett on the other. Not sure what Hitchens is doing but likely he is sitting in a bar somewhere. It really is a silly situation as atheism is not structured in any way. Apart from not believing that a god exists, you can take you own path. But with formation of neologisms such as faithist and accomodationist, there does seem to be a move by some define “the true atheist.”

Ruse’s article does have one good point. Religion is a complex matter for many and is capable of good as well as evil. I don’t buy the Hitchens’ absurd reductionist analysis of religious influence being all evil. But after that Ruse goes downhill. His “taking scholarship seriously” is my “taking theology far to seriously than it deserve.” And calling Platinga a philosopher is a remarkable example of charity. Then there is this bit of stupidity:

If, as the new atheists think, Darwinian evolutionary biology is incompatible with Christianity, then will they give me a good argument as to why the science should be taught in schools if it implies the falsity of religion?

More »