Skepfeeds-The Best Skeptical blogs of the day

Richard Dawkins’ problem: Bill Maher

Posted in Skepdude by Skepdude on September 29, 2009

Richard Dawkins is in hot water! The Atheist Alliance International has an award named after him which they award during their annual conference, and its description reads like this (according to Wikipedia, I can’t find a description of the award at the AAI website at all):

The Richard Dawkins Award will be given every year to honor an outstanding atheist whose contributions raise public awareness of the nontheist life stance; who through writings, media, the arts, film, and/or the stage advocates increased scientific knowledge; who through work or by example teaches acceptance of the nontheist philosophy; and whose public posture mirrors the uncompromising nontheist life stance of Dr. Richard Dawkins.

I was able to find this short post on the AAI website about the upcoming 2009 convention though, and from there I get this quote which seems to validate the Wikipedia entry (emphasis mine):

We are also pleased to announce that Bill Maher, effervescent host of HBO’s Real Time with Bill Maher and host and co-producer of the 2008 documentary movie Religulous, will be in attendance Friday evening to receive the 2009 AAI Richard Dawkins Award for his efforts to further the values science and reason in the world.

The case against this nomination has been made brilliantly by Orac, and I don’t need to repeat what he said except for the main point. One of the criteria for awarding the RDA is “advocates increased scientific knowledge”. Bill Maher does the exact opposite, and not only when medical issues are involved. To this day I remember listening in horror to the podcast version of the show when he and Ashton Kutcher, I think if my memory serves me correctly, were talking crap about the NASA orbiters sent to Mars!

Newsflash AAI: Bill Maher makes no effort to “further the values of science” in the world. He does make a great effort to further atheism, but he is as anti science as!

The AAI is whoring itself for the spotlight a celebrity like Bill Maher can shine on them, and I for one, and it appears Orac also, do not support this sort of behavior.

So why is this Richard Dawkins’ problem?  Well for one, even though he did not have anything to do with the selection process, the award bares his name. Secondly, he will be there at the convention, thus lending credence to the idea that he approves of Maher as a receipient. Thirdly one only needs to look at the convention website to see Maher’s and Dawkins’ pics front and center, and the Richard Dawkins Foundation Emblema right on the website banner, almost as big as the AAI portion of the banner.

For all intents and purposes it seems clear to me that RD is not an innocent bystander, whose name was “hijacked” by the AAI. If he did not support Maher as a recipient of an award bearing his name, he would say so openly not hide behind the “I did not choose him” excuse, because that is what in reality it is. It is clear that Richard Dawkins has no problem at all with this, even if Maher most clearly makes no effort whatsoever to advance the values of science; even though Maher takes every chance to trash science and push ridiculous “holistic” treatments whenever he cans; even when Maher ridicules the Mars probes as a waste of money. I guess having a celebrity on your side is more important than being intellectually honest. Here is a telling quote from an entry on the website:

Whilst Richard was not involved in the decision, he is nevertheless happy to go along with it. Just as he worked with Bishop Harries to protest against creationist schools in the UK, and just as he regularly recommends Kenneth Miller’s books on evolution to religious people, he understands that it is not a prerequisite to agree with a person on all issues in order to unite in support of a common objective. Richard and Christopher Hitchens don’t see eye to eye on all political matters, but that doesn’t stop them from working together against the dangers of religion. Honoring the creation of ‘Religulous’ does not imply endorsement of all of Bill Maher’s other views, and does not preclude Richard’s arguing against them on future occasions. It is simply showing proper appreciation of his brilliant film.

This is a load of crap, and I call bullshit. I am disgusted to see this sort of straw man arguing on this reputable website. No one is implying that Dawkins has to agree with Maher on everything. Our argument is simple, Maher does not fulfill the criteria that the AAI itself has set up for its award recipients. Dawkins needs to acknowledge this, and not pretend he does not understand our point, or pretend that he was not aware of Maher’s anti scientific views, and, at this point when it has all been pointed out to him, ignore it completely. That is not what a man of reason does!

Also, the point about disagreeing with Hitchens on political issues is a false analogy that does not apply. We’re not saying that Dawkins needs to agree with Maher on political issues, or social issues. We’re saying that it is dishonest to endorse Maher as the recipient of an award which in part is meant to honor him for his advancement and support for science, which he most certainly lacks to the highest degree, and at the same time try to hide behind the “I did not know/ I didn’t have anything to do with this” excuse. If you knew or not, were involved or not,  is irrelevant so long as you think they did the right thing and you ignore the evidence to the contrary. If you endorse this recipient, you cannot put up this sort of defense. It is dishonest and pathetic, and we expect more from one of the most prominent public figures of our movement.

Bill Maher may be a great atheist, and may have done more than anyone alive today to advance the cause of atheism. However, either the AAI needs to change the criteria for the RD Award, or they need to retract the award from Maher. Somehow, knowing human nature, I suspect neither of these will happen. They will proudly use Maher’s name and face until they can squeeze no more publicity out of it, and keep the word “science” in their award description, because everybody knows that word is prestigious. In the mean time a dangerously misguided woo woo lover will keep on spouting anti scientific nonsense as much as he can, because hey he got an award for advancing scientific knowledge. How’s that for irony?


Mr. Deity and Da Man

Posted in Skepdude by Skepdude on September 29, 2009

Preliminary autopsy reveals underlying condition for british girl who died hours after receiving cancer vaccine

Posted in Skepdude by Skepdude on September 29, 2009

Natalie Morton, the 14-year-old british girl who collapsed and died a few hours after receiving the HPV vaccine, seems to have had a “serious underlying medical condition”, an NHS Trust has said. No more details were provided at this time as an in depth post mortem is to be performed.

In the mean time, the NHS maintains that the vaccine is “most unlikely” to have caused this unfortunate tragedy, and earlier today the British Government resumed the vaccination program which was temporarily halted when this happened. Also, the vaccine manufacturer, GlaxoSmithKline, is recalling the batch for further testing. The response of both the government and the vaccine maker seem appropriate at this time.

More than 1.4 million doses have been given out so far, of which there have been 4,657 suspected reactions reported (about 0.33% or 1 in 300), and the adverse effects were: headache, nausea, dizziness, sore arm and rash. Those numbers imply that the vaccine is very safe indeed, and trying to draw a causal connection between the vaccine itself and this girl’s death is flimsy at best, especially if we consider the new announcement about the underlying condition. I will report new developments as they become public.

Enemy Territory

Posted in JREF by Skepdude on September 29, 2009


On a recent trip to Sedona, I decided to feign naiveté and enter a few shops in the guise of an open-minded seeker of knowledge. (Wait, I really do try to be that! Guise not needed!) I was prepared to have my worldview changed completely based on what I was told and what happened. I simply would keep my opinion to myself.

I have a friend who has a serious heart condition. It is as yet undiagnosed, and it causes considerable discomfort. Many of the shops in Sedona sell crystals which are supposed to solve health problems such as these, so I presented my case to the shop owners and asked for help. It went like this:

ME: Hello, can you help me? I have a friend who’s suffering from a heart condition, and I’d like to see if crystals could help.

CRYSTAL MERCHANT: Oh yes, they’re excellent for that. Crystals are very powerful, and don’t have the side effects of pharmaceuticals.

ME: What should I buy?

CRYSTAL MERCHANT: Let me consult a book.

She pulled out a large tome called The Crystal Bible. I could see that it was simply a matter of looking up the word “heart” in the index. She took out a notepad and wrote down the names of twelve different crystals.

CRYSTAL MERCHANT: This one is for heart problems… this one is for.. um.. problems of the heart, yes. This one is for issues with the heart chakra. (pause) There are different approaches, but they won’t interfere with each other so it’s safe.