Archive for the ‘Religion’ Category

It’s Not Between Science And God

Tuesday, May 18th, 2010

While I was somewhat moved to post this by this article at the Chronicle of Higher Education, it’s really a point I keep making, and keep having to make. Reading the article, and the comments, it seems that the default consensus is that one must pick between a materialistic view of the universe, where even if there is much that is unknown, there is nothing which is inherently unknowable[1], nothing “beyond” understanding, just beyond our present knowledge, and the JudeoChristianIslamic God.

This is bollocks.

The choice is, basically, between science, and every god, demon, spirit, entity, manifestation, or idea ever imagined and yet to be imagined. Pretending as if Zeus, Odin, Kali, Osiris, Xenu, the Angel Moroni, and the Flying Spaghetti Monster have already been eliminated from the running oversimplifies the issue and more or less hands victory to the Believers. However, once you reject the idea that the universe can be understood through science, you reject the scientific method and all it entails and implies. You reject not just some specific theories or knowledge, but the entirety of our way of knowing. You are left with nothing but the subjective, the personal experience, the whim. You are left with no means of distinguishing between Christianity, Mormonism, and Scientology in terms of which one is “true”, because any methods you devise will, ultimately, rely on some variant of the scientific method (or on bloody violence, purges, and the burning of heretics). If you accept, for example, archaeology as a means of proving that the pre-Columbian civilizations described in “The Book of Mormon” did not exist, you are accepting the supremacy of science as a means of determining truth — and if you accept that, you must accept that there are no truths “beyond” science. (Though, again, I wish to emphasize this doesn’t mean all the answers are known, just that there is no way we will ever know the answers if we abandon science.)

Absent science, and the scientific way of thinking, there is no means of convincing a neutral party that your god is more ‘real’ than someone else’s. How, for example, can you prove an E-Meter is bunk if you reject the scientific model of the universe? That is, if you say, “This a magic machine that reads emotions!”, I could, in a scientific frame of mind, say, “OK. If this is true, then we can set up tests. We can take people who have been proven to have certain mental illnesses, and others who do not, but are pretending to, and we will see if you can figure out who is who consistently over many tests. Then we can take the E-Meters and make 10 give basically random readings and 10 work as designed, and see if the accuracy goes up or down as expected. Then…”. However, this requires first accepting the primacy of science, the idea we live in a knowable universe that does not allow for supernatural intervention. Otherwise, any failure can be ascribed to any cause one can imagine — the agents of Xenu, “negative vibes”, or anything else, and this cannot in turn be tested for and eliminated as a factor.

It’s been said, quite often, that the difference between an atheist and a believer is “one less god”. Any truly honest believer who applies the same filter to his or her own god that they do to all the others would be compelled to become an atheist. Any believer who attempts to prove their god is the right one via the tools of science is asserting that science is how we understand the universe and that this understanding does not permit, by definition, the supernatural. Any believer who simply asserts their god is the “right” one and offers no evidence beyond their subjective experiences or other arguments by assertion (“So many people believe in my god, they can’t all be wrong!” or “If my god wasn’t real, the world would be horrible!” or, my personal favorite, “If my god isn’t real, then there can’t be any morality!”)has no means of convicing anyone, so they are ultimately left with coercion — faith at the point of a sword.

(Any time you see the word “god”, in the above, please interpret it as reading “god, gods, goddesses, godlings, demons, spirits, body thetans, fay folk, and every other such thing”. This isn’t about Yahweh. This is about choosing between a universe that can be known and a universe that can’t, and that’s the only choice there is. Once you’ve chosen to believe in an unknowable universe, you have chosen to abandon the only tool which can tell you what should be believed.)

[1]“Inherently” is a key word. There may be things we will never know, because no method will ever be found to know them. This does not mean they are inherently unknowable. Consider, as one of a trillion possible examples, a man marooned in 1756 (a randomly picked year) on an island somewhere in the Pacific, who dies there, alone. What were his final words? Barring some fairly spectacular changes in our understanding of the universe and how it can be manipulated, I am happy to say “No one can know the answer to that.” It would be rather ridiculous to say “Since there exists this unknown thing, this proves there’s a God”, but just about every “God of the gaps” argument, which is what virtually all modern “proofs” of the existence of some god boil down to, is precisely this.  There is nothing inherent in the nature of “a man’s final words” that makes them unknowable and beyond science, even if it is not possible for anyone to know this hypothetical man’s last lonely utterance. I cannot tell you with absolute certainty why there is a universe at all. I can offer some speculations and ideas. I, or at least some alternate me who is a competent physicist, could probably devise experiments to test at least some of them. It may be that this is a fairly simple question when all is said and done and we’ll soon be making universes as High School lab projects. It may be that it is a question whose answer cannot be found. Even in the latter case, though, there’s absolutely no reason to leap from there to god… no reason to say, “Since we don’t know why or how the universe exists, this proves the existence of some other entity I just made up.” The universe does exist; this is a fact. (Descartes notwithstanding). Making up some cause of the universe which cannot, itself, be proven to exist does not work. It answers no questions. It provides no knowledge. It tells us nothing about how we should live our lives, what values we should hold, what is good or evil, or how to increase crop yields or overclock our graphics cards. “Some entity outside reality made reality” is a non-answer. If this non-answer gives you emotional comfort, it’s only because you’re not thinking about it very hard. (It also, inevitably, instantly leads to “Who made that entity?”, which means it’s either turtles all the way down, or we leap forward to “If a universe-creating entity can spontaneously exist, so can a universe, rendering the entity unnecessary.”)

Posted in Religion, Science | Comments Off

Bell Curves Are Not Miracles

Wednesday, May 12th, 2010

So, we have a tragic air crash in Libya. And while you read this brief blog entry, far more people than died in that are going to be dying all around the world, we just won’t be hearing about it on the news. And, no, this isn’t some kind of “Every life is precious and sacred and when someone dies we are all diminished, blah, blah, blah” piece of glurge. Our brains cannot comprehend the number of deaths (and every other tragedy — rape, mutilation, torture, starvation, disease) which occur around us daily, and I don’t mean that as poetic metaphor, but as scientific fact — they can’t. We are only capable of perceiving around 100 or so other people as “real humans”. Google “Dunbar’s Number”, or, even better, “Monkeysphere” to read more. However, that’s not the point of this post.

Rather, I want to focus on what I am sure is about to happen — a whole nauseating tidal wave of posts, essays, and email describing one person’s survival as a “miracle” and showing this proves the grace, compassion, love, etc ad very nauseum of God, or whatever entity or entities the writer happens to believe run the universe.

Simply put: No.

A “miracle” would be the shattered remnants of the plane lifting themselves into the air, knitting themselves together into a whole plane, and being safely redeposited on the ground with everyone alive, healthy, cured of whatever unknown diseases they may have had festering inside of them, while a choir of angels appeared and made statements to the press. (And I’d still reserve judgment until Penn&Teller had had a chance to look over the scene)

An improbable event is not a miracle. It’s just… improbable, and to a large extent, every event of our lives is improbable. Given the huge array of choices, decisions, and possibilities, what are the odds of you getting the precise box of cereal you just bought at the grocery store? Consider the other customers coming and going, the speed at which you walked to the store, your decision to go shopping today instead of tomorrow or yesterday, your decision to go down Aisle 3 first instead of Aisle 2, the fact you spotted a coupon for Raisin Bran this morning and chose to buy it instead of the generic store brand, and on and on… it’s ludicrously unlikely. A million different things had to happen in just the right order for that particular box to end up in your hand, and not the box which was in front of it, or the box behind it, or the box that the clerk is bringing to restock, or… you get the idea.

The odds of any given lottery number coming up are one in 40 million, but twice a week, a one in forty million event happens in my state.

Out of hundreds of plane crashes, occuring under hugely varying circumstances with extremely chaotic conditions, sooner or later, there will be an improbable survivor. That’s all this is — the far end of the bell curve, no more a miracle than someone dying from an extremely trivial accident that normally would result in nothing more than a slight bruise is a miracle. This is a sign of nothing, this teaches us nothing, this demonstrates nothing — except, perhaps, that far too many people do not understand physics, probability, or that the only meaning to be found in life is the meaning you choose to impose upon it.

Tags: , ,
Posted in Religion, Science | Comments Off

Atrocity In Oklahoma

Thursday, April 29th, 2010

I used to believe that I had reached the point in my cynicism where nothing would seriously shock me. Outrage me, certainly, but not actually shock. Not actually reach the point where I’m left staring at the screen thinking “How could someone do that?” Even when I read about some of horrors and atrocities which continue to spread throughout the world, I am appalled and revolted and disgusted, but not really surprised. You expect brutal genocides in Africa, insane religious fanatics in the Middle East, people who think the Cultural Revolution was a good idea in Berkeley.

I am not sure if it’s a good or bad thing that I actually managed to be shocked today.

Specifically, this. Oklahoma — a state known for being bombed by a terrorist and trying to classify the Oscar winning film “The Tin Drum” as kiddie porn — has passed, overwhelmingly, despite the governor’s veto, a law which will prevent doctors from being sued if they lie, if they deliberately, willfully, and knowingly, withhold the results of tests indicating that a fetus may have genetic defects. Why? Because a woman might choose to abort the fetus if it will only live for a day, in agony. Or will most likely die in the 8th or 9th month of pregnancy. Or be born in such a state that it will never know or experience life in any way that can be called human. Or would require medical care amounting to millions of dollars for the few years it might be able to stay alive. Or simply be too difficult for the woman or her family to handle, or too risky, or too heartbreaking. There are many reasons why a woman might choose to abort, some sounder than others, but all deeply personal and absolutely no one’s business but hers.

This law basically grants doctors the right to lie if they feel the patient will do something they don’t like with the truth. (It does not, I presume, permit them to tell the woman her fetus DOES have a birth defect if it doesn’t, though I don’t see why not. If we accept that it’s moral for a doctor to lie to prevent an abortion, why shouldn’t he be permitted to lie to encourage one? I’m sure we can all think of a few people the world could do without — every politician who voted for this law, for example. Oh, for a time machine and some RU486. But I digress.)

It is almost… no, it is impossible for me to conceive of the kind of depraved mentality which could even propose this law, much less vote for it, much less do so in the confidence that it will win you praise, not a quick trip to the nearest oak tree via a stout piece of hemp rope. I make an effort, really I do, to understand the other guy’s point of view. This doesn’t mean I will agree with them or be kind to them or spout some hippie crap about how “all points of view are valid”. I do believe, or I did believe, that no one is evil in their own mind, that every sane person is motivated by a desire to do good. Their premises may be horribly flawed and thus their desire results in evil, but if you dig at them enough, you can see some sort of logic, however twisted.

This, though… no. There is nothing here which can be discussed, debated, considered, or evaluated. To pass a law of this kind, you must be a creature utterly without a conscience, and anyone who knows me might be a little slack jawed at what it would take to get me to say that.  To sit there and vote “Yes” for a law this depraved basically places you outside the pale of humanity.

There is vast national outrage over Arizona passing a law which says “If you’re committing a crime, you’ll be punished for that crime.” Where is the national outrage over this?

I completely oppose, obviously, laws banning abortion outright. But such a law, no matter how wrong it would be, does not come close to the depths of evil of this abomination. Under such a regime, a woman can at least trust her doctor to tell her the truth — even if she can’t abort a fetus which will be born deformed or dead, she can emotionally steel herself for it. She can find support among friends and family. If the defect in question is not lethal, she can research and prepare for what she will face. If she knows she cannot support the child, she can try to arrange for it to be cared for by private or public charities before the birth. But under the nightmare realm of Oklahoma, none of this is possible. Note that the decision is entirely in the mind of the doctor — he must decide, based on nothing but whim, if a woman “might” decide to abort based on the news, and then withhold it if he so wishes. Thus,even a woman who would be willing and able to care for a child with birth defects is denied any of the above tools. She will not find out until the moment of birth — if it survived to be born — what she is carrying. She will have been lied to by her own doctor, the man or woman she trusted to provide care for herself and her child. How could she ever trust that person, or any doctor, ever again?

“Madness” is too small a word. “Evil” is too broad. This is atrocity.

Tags: , , ,
Posted in Politics, Religion | 2 Comments »

Comedy Central Pays The Dane Geld

Friday, April 23rd, 2010

“And that is called paying the Danegeld,

But we’ve proved it again and again

That if you’ve once paid him the Danegeld

You’ll never get rid of the Dane.” (Rudyard Kipling)

Or, in this particular case, the Muslim-geld.

Two nights ago, Comedy Central ran a butchered and censored episode of South Park, in which not only was the name of Mohammed bleeped out, but so was an extensive ending speech, apparently one about not giving in to fear, intimidation, and terrorism. One presumes this speech was censored because Comedy Central’s cowardly executives would spontaneously combust if they heard it (and it would be damn good thing if they did, frankly. Burn censors, not books!)

While some speculate this is all a meta-commentary by Matt and Trey, they deny it, and I believe them.

What it’s all about, of course, is presenting the “image of Mohammed”, which apparently offends some braindead followers of Islam. Of course, offending people isn’t anything new to either South Park or Comedy Central. They’re shown Jesus Christ defecating on (that’s “taking a bit ol’ shit on”, for you inbred redneck types) George Bush. They showed — in the censored episode — Shiva (or maybe Buddha, I forget) sniffing coke. They’ve shown God as a deformed fanged walrus creature. They’ve shown PETA members having sex with animals (granted, that may be more reporting than satire, but anyway…), they’ve shown right wingers as ignorant gun nuts and left wingers as ignorant hippies, they’ve mocked, insulted, and defamed everything one can imagine, often in very crude and scatalogical ways. And they’ve gotten plenty of protests, sternly worded letters, and threats of lawsuits, but only one time, only for one group, do they back down.

For Muslims.

So we’re back to Dane geld. And now they’ve learned. They can silence anything, censor anything, impose any viewpoint they want, just by posting a random rant on a random website. Comedy Central has handed over all of its moral authority to any kook who doesn’t like what they’ve chosen to make fun of this week — so long as the kook is Muslim. (Are you an atheist offended by South Park showing Richard Dawkins having sex with a transexual school teacher? A Christian offended by Jesus being portrayed as an ineffectual shlub? A Mormon offended by the mockery of your faith’s founding? Too bad for you. Comedy Central isn’t scared enough of you. If you’re a Muslim, though, you’re golden.)

Oh, BTW…

This is a picture of Muhammed. If you can't see it, do a Google Image search for "Mohammed South Park"

Mohammed

And, if there are any Muslims reading this, don’t say “We’re a religion of peace!” or “It’s just some violent extremists!”.

It is true, there are violent Christian extremists — ask abortion doctors.

There are violent Jewish extremists.

There are violent environmentalist and animal rights extremists.

There are violent right-wing extremists, violent black extremists, violent gay extremists, violent anti-gay extremists, violent extremists of every ethos, philosophy, and creed. It would not surprise me if there are violent Amish extremists out there, building beautifully carved wooden bombs that they set to go off when the horse and buggy goes over 10 miles an hour.

Despite knowing this, publishers of all sorts only back down from one group of extremists — Muslims. Why? Becuase they know, or have good reason to believe, that as a percentage of the whole population of Muslims, those willing to perform violence in the name of their religion are a much, much, larger segment than among any of the other groups I’ve mentioned, who are mostly content to froth, fume, and write letters to the FCC. While violence of this sort committed by non-Muslims is absolutely real and undeniable — again, ask an abortion doctor — there are so few individuals in these groups willing to go that far that the calculus of risk says that it’s safe to take the chance. It may happen, but it probably won’t. When it comes to Muslims, though, this calculus says the risk is too great.

Why is that, hypothetical Muslim reader?

Is it because people just hate and fear Muslims irrationally?

Or is it because the presumably sane majority among the Muslim population is unwilling to address their own extremist elements directly and forcefully, to not spend time pointing fingers at extremists in other religions or talking about “insensitivity” or “cultural difference”, but to actually stand up and say “This is wrong, we live in a multicultural society and if we want the right to worship as we please, we must not just abide, but actively defend, the right of others to differ from us and even to mock us.”?

Hint: It’s the second one.

Ball’s in your court. Because, sooner or later, everyone learns that paying Dane geld doesn’t rid you of the Dane, but standing up to him does.

Tags: , ,
Posted in Politics, Religion | Comments Off

Cause of Earthquake in Haiti: SAAAATAN!!!!

Thursday, January 14th, 2010

Today’s double-facepalm, courtesy of Pat Robertson.

Short summary: According to Pat Robertson, Haiti is suffering because, 300 years ago, Haitians made a deal with Satan.

There is only one proper response to this:

Posted in Politics, Religion | Comments Off

Ninefold Welfare Mom Not Getting Sympathy — Gee, Ya Think?

Wednesday, January 6th, 2010

OK, let me start off by saying that if this article presents all the relevant facts, the woman may have a legal case. Regardless of what I, and any sane person, might think of her, if someone does something to your body without your consent or a legitimate legal requirement (i.e, tracking devices for felons on parole), you have had your rights violated and you should receive just and due compensation. Respecting the rights of people you disagree with isn’t just limited to supporting pornographers, racists, right-to-lifers, and homophobes. It even extends to welfare moms, and since the basis of all human rights is one’s ownership of one’s own physical body, a violation of that most essential piece of property is a violation of your rights, and it is (sigh….) the duty of the State to defend your rights. That is its only valid function.

HOWEVER….

There’s a big difference between acknowledging someone’s rights, and treating them with any kind of respect. The “Reverend” Phelps has a right to protest, as does Operation Rescue, even when their protests cause emotional pain and suffering, because we do not limit speech if it makes someone feel bad. Indeed, if you ban all speech which causes anyone to be upset, you ban all speech of any meaning. NONE THE LESS, I can and will openly despise, mock, jeer, and loathe those people, because doing so is part of my right to free speech, and if they want pity or sympathy when they’re arrested, or, even better, beaten to a pulp (but that would be wrong), they’re barking up the wrong kettle of fish in a barrel, or something. Ms. Savicki may or may not have had her rights violated — the courts will decide based on the facts — but she’s not entitled to the smallest smidgen of pity. By continuing to produce children well beyond her capacity to support them, she exploits the generosity of society as well as condemning the children she allegedly loves to inferior upbringing. She is not a good person. Hostility towards someone who squanders the resources of the pack is hard-wired into our genes. A monkey who tosses away his own bananas doesn’t bug us, but one who throws away the bananas the entire pack has set aside hits us in our hindbrain. Ms. Savicki lives off the generosity of society — contrary to what the leftists might think, there is no right to anything which requires the labor of others to produce. Whatever social support networks are put into place in a society are a gift from the productive members of that society to those who, at least in theory, want to support themselves but cannot, for reasons which, again at least theoretically, are out of their control. Recipients of such aid have, I feel, a moral duty to minimize their drain on the resources set aside, because doing so reduces the effect on the contributors and leaves more for each other person in need. No matter how the lawyers may spin this, people like Ms. Savicki aren’t robbing the Wall Street Fat Cats — they’re robbing the genuinely needy.

Mandating reversible sterilization for welfare recipients and capping benefits no matter how many kids you have is logical and moral. Not surprisingly, the right wing “right to life” folks oppose the former and leftists oppose the latter, so don’t expect it any time soon.

Posted in Politics, Religion | Comments Off

And To Start Off… Eco Friendly Wedding Rings

Monday, December 28th, 2009

Ah, the nice thing about life in the modern world is that there’s never a shortage of things to point at and laugh. Of course, sometimes, the thing you’re laughing at is sort of a shared joke. For example, the eco-friendly wedding ring. I can’t help but feel the people behind this are laughing up their sleeves (and all the way to the bank) at the people who would buy something like this and take it seriously. I mean… “voluntary carbon offset tax”??? Who thinks, “I want to buy some gold, but it has to socially responsible gold!”? Apparently, enough people to keep “GreenKaret” in business.

Environmentalism has really only been around for a century or two, but it has the possibility of becoming an even bigger scam, overall, than religion.

Of course, it tends to fill a lot of the same needs — “the environment” is an awful lot like “God”. It’s big, scary, random, incomprehensible, and is explained to you be an elite caste who demand that you trust them. You can perform any number of rituals to improve your standing with “the environment” but you’ll never see any concrete, undeniable, proof you’ve done so. Perhaps most importantly, you can judge other people based on how pure they are and if they’re doing all the right things in all the right ways. You get the superego high of being part of something “bigger than yourself” while still being able to indulge your id by hating, despising, and mocking all those who don’t share your faith or who aren’t as good as you.

Yeah, pretty much the same as religion.

Tags: , ,
Posted in Religion, Science | Comments Off