Where: The Bar, 2132 East Carson Street
When: 7:00pm-11:00 Friday, February 19th. [3rd Friday of the month!]

Joining us this month will be Ashley Paramore (the Healthy Addict) and Hemant Mehta (the Friendly Atheist), who are in town for a panel discussion at Jubilee 2010. We are starting at a new time, 7PM. You can RSVP on Facebook or Meetup. If you’re new, be sure to check out Liz’s Google map that shows the best places to find parking.

Where: The Bar, 2132 East Carson Street
When: 7:30pm-11ish? Friday, January 15th. [3rd Friday of the month!]

You can RSVP on Facebook or Meetup, and check out the Google map that shows the best places to find parking.

Where: The Bar, 2132 East Carson Street
When: 7:30pm-11ish? Friday, November 20th. [3rd Friday of the month!]

You can RSVP on Facebook or Meetup, and check out the Google map that shows the best places to find parking.

FSM treats

I probably can’t make it but I hope you’ll join the folks who’ve RSVP’d on Facebook and Meetup and say hello to our new organizer Bill C. He’s keeping DS alive on those sites as Laura and I are no longer able to (hence the lack of updates here) and that makes him AWESOME! Thanks Bill!

So here are the deets:

Where: The Bar, 2132 East Carson Street
When: 7:30pm-11ish? Friday, November 20th. [3rd Friday of the month!]

And here’s a Google map that shows where The Bar is and where we typically find parking, that should help you if you need directions.

Oh oh… Check out the message board at the Facebook group linked above — There’ve been some great suggestions for possible outings and fun holiday things to do for next month’s gathering. It’s a great way to be in contact with the folks you meet at DS.

Happy Thanksgiving!

You should come out, especially if you’re interested in taking over this much neglected site, as several of our regulars are making long-distance moves, and have taken on new challenges like grad school and better jobs that require more of our time.

Last month we had an awesome turnout and met lots of new friends getting ready to start the new academic year. That’s very Pittsburgh, isn’t it? People coming and going — almost an annual refresh. Sure, it happens elsewhere but it’s just so noticeable here. And I like it. And, I’ll drink to that. (Tomorrow, around 7:30ish. Maybe with you.)

So. See you Friday? Starts at 7:30. You can RSVP here or on our Facebook invite, if you’re a Facebooker, or on Meetup by clicking on the badge in the sidebar.

Oh! And check out these photos David sent in from the CFI picnic last Saturday:

CFI Pittsburgh Canoe Trip 2009

Just one of the tracts is written for atheists; it is entitled “Who has the most to lose?” and predictably puts forth a summarized version of Pascal’s Wager–a closed dichotomy between evangelical Christianity and atheism:

When confronted with the claims of Christ, many people want to know what happens if Christians are wrong and there is no God. Conversely, the major concern of Christians is what happens to unbelievers if THEY are wrong. Who has the most to lose?
…
Suppose unbelievers are wrong….Most of all, dwelling in hell for all of eternity is the most horrible consequence imaginable.

I’m sure you can imagine where it goes from there. But wait, what about all those other religions? What if Christians are wrong and Muslims are right? What if neo-paganism is the best way to go and Mormonism is wrong? Why did the author of these tracts seem so ready to talk about other religions before he narrowed in on atheists and had to establish a false dichotomy that ignored other options beside Christianity?

This is the disingenuous reasoning behind every variant of Pascal’s Wager. If the best thing you can put forward in a tract for atheists is “better play it safe,” then the alternative option to atheism should simply be the religion that promises the worst hell. That would probably be Islam. But heck, I could make up a worse hell right now. On what grounds would that not become the new exclusive option in the dichotomy?

On no grounds whatsoever, of course. And those are the same grounds upon which Christianity is the exclusive option. There are other significant issues with Pascal’s Wager, but this one stands out to me the most. Can any serious person take the Wager seriously?

This year, we are doing something a little different – for those who prefer a little extra challenge, we are offering three different options for participants to choose. All of the excursions end at the outfitters location in West Newton – the differences are in the put-in locations. You have the choice of 1.a fairly short run (2 hrs or so) from Cedar Creek Park, or 2. a medium length run (4 hrs or so) from Smithton, or 3. for those desiring something a little more lengthy, putting in at Whitsett (6 hrs or so). Every one can arrive at the outfitter at the time appropriate for their run and be transported to the put-in location. Then, as the group works its way downstream, those who have opted for the shorter runs can join the group as they get to the other put-in locations. By the time we get to West Newton, we should have a veritable armada – well, flotilla, anyway.

Rate schedule is as follows: $30 from Cedar Creek Park, $35 from Smithton, and $40 from Whitsett. This price is per canoe, two people per canoe. A third person can ride in the canoe for an additional $3. This is great if you have a child or a friend who wants to participate. And for those of you who have your own canoe, the outfitter will transport your canoe to the put-in for a nominal fee ($3 or $4 I think).

So if you are looking for some summer fun, come on along for the ride. Maybe YOU can enjoy the rope swing – or not. To reserve your canoe, e-mail BillK at unkabeard@verizon.net and send a check for the correct amount to:

CFI-Pittsburgh
PO Box 19003
Pittsburgh, PA 15213

Reservations need to be in and paid by July 31st.

This year finances kept me from attending TAM and I was just plain jealous reading all the updates.  But I quickly remembered that I still have my awesome local community of skeptics right here in Pittsburgh! This Friday’s Drinking Skeptically couldn’t come at a better time.  While I can’t promise anyone famous, I can promise you excellent conversation with smart, freethinking folks who love to have fun.  Whether you drink Yuengling, a rum and Coke or just plain water, you should be there this Friday.  I’ll be the one drinking the Buzzed Aldrin.

What: Drinking Skeptically in Pittsburgh
Where: The Bar @ 2131 E. Carson Street, Southside
When: Friday, July 17th @ 7:30pm
Bring: Yourself and a friend!

RSVP on Meetup or Facebook!

For example, I often hear something along these lines: “You are never going to be able to get the kind of scientific proof for God that you’re demanding.” The term “scientific” in these conversations subtly invokes the “non-overlapping magisteria” concept, implying that the atheist is locked into a laboratorial philosophic naturalism that prevents him/her from considering the possibility of something that by definition cannot be known.

Yet how can anyone–theist or atheist–claim that a god cannot be known or claim that there will never be a rational reason for believing that a god exists? If we agree on what “existence” means (and I really think we can), it is absurd to claim that a god–by definition–cannot be known. To do so would require the exact kind of knowledge about this god and its nature that is being called “impossible.” If a god exists, I maintain hope that we could actually find out. So far, there’s just no good reason to think that one exists.

And this leads to the second misunderstanding inherent in the question above: that rational inquiry (or “science”) is necessarily unable to discover some things about the universe. Science isn’t just something you do in the laboratory in a vain attempt to put god under the microscope. Science is an approach to life and reality that cares about distinguishing between true claims and false ones. When you do something as simple as looking for a candy bar that a friend told you was on your desk, you are using the scientific method to determine whether or not the statement is accurate.

My standards of evidence are simple: anything that exists has to make its case for existing. This does not preclude the existence of God, wind, computers, or fairies. I am not committed to philosophical naturalism, and I don’t know many atheists who are. And, as I said above, it is absurd (and internally contradictory) to say that a god can never be known by rational inquiry. But what cannot be rationally accepted as evidence of a god (or anything) are isolated appeals to ignorance, arguments from personal incredulity, or incoherent emotional testimonials that continually move the target back when questioned, rendering the claims unfalsifiable. If those are the standards of evidence you require to accept a claim as true, you should be a member of every religion, past and present.

Proper standards of evidence are found in a coherent epistemology. There will be multiple ways to explain anything, no matter how absurd the claim. True claims will stand up to rational inquiry, and the most reasonable of the varied explanations is the one that must be awarded the label of truth. Is there any better way of distinguishing between fact and fantasy?