I suffered through…2:10:34

I suffered through the 15 April 2012 The Magic Sandwich Show , all 9 parts . Two hours, ten minutes and 34 seconds of it.

Well, not really, in fact I enjoyed it very much.

Eric Hovind and Sye Ten Bruggencate are Presuppositional apologists who as a condition for “debate” demand that you accept that everybody knows the existence of God is true.

The main presupposition is that God exists and his word is true

Sye Ten Bruggencate

If we want to be intellectually honest, I am always going to go back to the circular argument that God reveals. How do I know? God reveals. How do I know? God reveals.

Eric Hovind

You can sum this up  in the phrase  The reason for reason is God. So end of discussion. Your reason comes from God and even if you deny the existence of God in your heart you know, as everybody does that he exists. You are lying to yourself or so the contend.

This kind of apologetic proves absolutely nothing and relies on…wait a minute…

You guessed it…Faith.

Well I am so sorry, but faith does not prove a thing.

They have no argument, are not willing to have a decent confrontation of ideas. Either you agree with their point of view or you are evading the truth that lies within your heathen heart. They have no desire for debate, all they want is to have a forum where they can do a monologue. A public place to proselytize. Reason has no place with this pair. As is true of Christian Presupposition Apologetics and any other line of “thought” that demands acceptance of a fixed idea before accepting debate. The scientific method is nonexistent to them.

I most surely empathized with AronRa’s frustration and had I been participating, might also have raised my voice at them. By the way AronRa must be commended on his effort given the time difference and his throat ailment. On the other hand, I believe that letting this couple of guys blow wind and expose themselves was a very good tactic, in line with this quote:

Never interrupt your enemy when he is making a mistake.

Napoleon Bonaparte

If you have time, I recommend that you give the whole 2 hours, 10 minutes and 34 seconds of the show a good look, and if not here is the video by Thunderf00t that pretty much puts it into a nutshell:

See you next time.

Posted in Agnosticism, Atheism, Religion, The Conscious Disbeliever

Scientific evidence



According to Evidence Based Medicine (EBM), healthcare professionals should make conscientious, explicit and judicious use of current best evidence in their daily practice.1



How does one come to do this?  

Clinical practice guidelines are systematically developed statements to assist practitioners with decisions about appropriate health care for specific patients’ circumstances.2



In  medicine scientific evidence is classified as follows:

  • Level of evidence A: recommendation based on evidence from multiple randomized trials or meta-analyses
  • Level of evidence B: recommendation based on evidence from a single randomized trial or nonrandomized studies
  • Level of evidence C: recommendation based on expert opinion, case studies, or standards of care.

Once the level of evidence has been reviewed, recommendations can be made. These recommendations are also classified:



Class I: conditions for which there is evidence and/or general agreement that a given procedure or treatment is useful and effective

Class II: conditions for which there is conflicting evidence and/or a divergence of opinion about the usefulness/efficacy of a procedure or treatment

Class IIa: weight of evidence/opinion is in favor of usefulness/efficacy

Class IIb: usefulness/efficacy is less well established by evidence/opinion

Class III: conditions for which there is evidence and/or general agreement that the procedure/treatment is not useful/effective and in some cases may be harmful.



Thus, level of evidence C and class II indicate, respectively, recommendations lacking supporting evidence and those subject to uncertainties about the appropriate medical decision.3

Using techniques from science, engineering and statistics, such as the systematic review of medical literature, meta-analysis, risk benifit analysis, and randomized control trials. Ex cathedra statements by the “medical expert” are considered to be least valid form of evidence. All “experts” are now expected to reference their pronouncements to scientific studies.



Based on this set of guidelines, can we classify religious writings like the Bible, the Bhagavad Gita or for that matter any religious book?



Let us give it a whack…



Is any of these books based on multiple randomized trials or meta-analyses?


One randomized trail or nonrandomized studies?


Is it based on expert opinion, case studies or standar of care?

Yes  (even this Yes is up for debate)

So, according to this review, the Bible and other religious books are  a Level of evidence C.

And now, on to set the class recommendation.

Following the evidence this type of writings must be a Class III ( “Class III: conditions for which there is evidence and/or general agreement that the procedure/treatment is not useful/effective and in some cases may be harmful”.)



So if the Bible or any religious writing were subject to evaluation of scientific evidence it would ultimately be seen as Level C and Class III, not acceptable as grounds for any kind of treatment, in fact you would most likely be setting yourself up for a nice malpractice lawsuit if you based your treatment on this level of evidence.



1 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence-based_medicine

2 Lohr K, Field M. A provisional instrument for assessing clinical practice guidelines. In Guidelines for Clinical Practice From Development to Use Edited by Field M, Lohr K. Washington DC: National Academy Press; 1992.

3 Tricoci, P., Allen, J. M., Kramer, J. M., Califf, R. M., & Smith, S. C., Jr. (2009). Scientific evidence underlying the ACC/AHA clinical practice guidelines. JAMA: the journal of the American Medical Association, 301(8), 831–841. Am Med Assoc.