Strange Encounters of the Chicago Kind

Walking down Halsted street today just south of Diversey. What's that booming noise I hear? There's a fire station across the street from me and outside of the fire station there is a young fireman pounding on a giant tire (off a fire truck I presume) with a sledge hammer. This looks very hard and I guess this is how firemen workout. Or receive punishment.

Having made my purchases at the Home Depot I'm walking back the way I came. A new noise but the same tire. This time a fireman is lifting the tire onto one edge and flipping it over again and again like a giant coin. This also looks hard and that it would be quite a work out. I'm dying to say, "Looks like you're getting TIRED - get it"? I refrain, for once listening to the little good sense voice in my head. However, there is another civilian ahead also watching the workout. When I reach her I deliver my oh so clever line, "That looks TIRING, doesn't it? Get it?" I smile.

"I think he needs a psychiatrist", she responds and she is not smiling

"Looks like a pretty good work out to me."

"He probably can't even touch his toes." Is she getting angry with me?

"Well, as long as he can carry babies out of burning buildings", I counter. She is getting actually pissed at me now I can tell. Why?

"Babies aren't that heavy anyway". She's oh so clever but I'm up to the task.

"Ok then, I want him to be able to carry ME out of a burning building". Check and mate?

"He'd probably hit your head on a door and you'd need stitches" - visibly pissed at me now.

"But I'd rather have stitches than burn up, right?" MATE!

She gives me the talk to the hand signal and shaking her head she continues north on Halsted while I head down Diversey. What the hell just happened? Was it the substance of the argument itself or the fact that someone kept shoving logic in her face and it countered what she was already thinking.

Sound familiar? I think we've all had the experience of presenting perfectly logical arguments to a theist (in this case maybe a crazy person but what's the real difference?) and have those arguments get nowhere AND really piss them off. Sometimes it makes me feel bad but most of the time I just figure that that is a price you're going to have to pay for hanging onto magical thinking. You cannot support it or defend it with logic and actually I'm ok with that. If it helps you get through that scary dark night I say use it. But, when you're challenged to defend it maybe just say, "I can't use logic. I just prefer to think this way".

Hey, it's America and you think think anyway you want but just don't expect the entire country to be with you. Don't expect all of America to believe in your invisible friends just because you think it's such a great idea. Keep it as your own little secret and enjoy your freedom. Why isn't that enough?

Supernatural vs Rational

This link to the top ten reasons why God does not exist is from the book, Why Are You Atheists so Angry. It's a good list and brings to the forefront the crux of the major arguments FOR the existence of God. My favorite is #1 which I guess I knew but never really thought about all that much - the fact that there are thousands of examples of things that were once 'explained' via the supernatural that then moved over to having a rational explanation. Floods, lightning, evolution, eclipses, etc. You could make a really long list here. But there are exactly zero examples of anything that was thought to have a rational explanation but then went supernatural on us. NONE! And for things like consciousness (a favorite of the theist) which is a better thought: That consciousness is imbued in us by a creator or that we haven't exactly figured it out YET. The theist likes to pick at things that aren't explained YET (What caused the Big Bang?) and say that's where God is. A Spackle-paste God that only fills in the gaps I guess. The odds now of needing a supreme being to explain ANYTHING are essentially zero.

So, let's just drop all the posturing, hand wringing, and praying and get busy fixing things and feeding people!

The Ten Comandments

We have a small consulting business providing support, resources, and training for teachers of young children in the areas of science and math. Check us out - S&S Collaborations. But that's not important.

We recently ordered some marbles from glassmarbles.com. Good price and we were looking forward to more business with them for some things we're working on. We received our first shipment today with the enclosure you see to the left.

Yeah those would be the Ten Commandments.

What the H. E. Double toothpicks?

I think this is rude. I think this is as rude as knocking on people's doors and asking them if they are saved. It's as rude as the guy on the corner with the bull horn preaching hell and damnation. It's just simply rude to insert your philosophy in a place where it is not asked for, needed, nor appropriate.

Here's my letter back to them.

Dear Gary Saltsman,


We received our marbles today. Thank you for the quick service. Strangely we also received a copy of the Ten Commandments in our order. In case this is one of your workers doing something behind your back I thought I should let you know. In any case we consider this bit of proselytizing rude and unnecessary. As a rational humanist I'm offended by being reminded that a large percentage of my fellow humans seem to be stuck in iron age mysticism. This sort of thing being inserted in my shipment is as annoying as people knocking on my door trying to sell me bibles or asking if I've been saved. Notice that I didn't insert any quotes from Daniel Dennet, Richard Harris, or Christopher Hitchens when I placed my order. And by the way, since you've opened up this door, those are all real people who have actually written things while there is no evidence that Moses actually wrote the Ten Commandments.


So, if this was a mistake and you intend on correcting it that's fine. If this is your normal way of doing business I'm afraid you've gotten your last order from us. 


Sincerely,


Scott Welty
S&S Collaborations

I'm wondering what the take is out there? Am I over reacting? How's the letter? C'mon. . .COMMENT!

Everyone has a Right to their Own Opinion

"Everyone has a right to their own opinion". This is an oft used euphemism that I think has gotten twisted all out of shape. I think this popular phrase used to be reserved for taverns as in 'You can ignore the loudmouth at the end of the bar but he has a right to his own opinion".  Now it seems like if you have an opinion, no matter how crazy or lacking in factual support it is, you get to demand respect, time on tv and equal standing with those who actually know what they are talking about.

How did this happen?

Of course the drum I like to keep beating (my horse died) is evolution and science education. There is nothing to support the idea that the world is 5000 years old. Nothing. There is a LOT of scientific evidence that the earth is 4.5 billion years old. It is so crazy that the discrepancy can be that large and people (non-scientists) can have standing with their young earth theories.

Actually, they have standing and they don't. If you only watch tv and read papers and magazines it would seem that they have some standing. But, if you read scientific journals you'll find . . .

nothing.

In the actual world of science and technology, the people who are pressing for real answers and driving our culture forward, you'll find no mention of any of the crazy stuff from the religious right. They can holler, bury CNN in letters, gnash their teeth, and real learning and rationalism marches on without them. I wish there were a way to have them step back and see what an insignificant flea all that posturing is in the actual and real world of searching for truth.

On the other hand if you look at who is running school boards and making decisions about textbooks and curriculum it gets a little scary. I'd like to think that that is a local effect that will lose out in the end. . . 

There are no evil cabals
There are no conspiracies
There are no gods

It's just us here on this tiny mote but we are smart as hell and don't need to be held back by centuries-old superstitions.

And I'd like to think we won't be and that this turbulent chest thumping time between those who would keep us in the dark and those who would calmly lead us to real enlightenment will be just a semi-interesting blip in the ultimate history of the planet. 

National Day of Prayer

Well there you have it. The national day of prayer has come and gone. Like a lot of pretend things like Valentines Day, Ground Hog Day, Christmas...some people were in involved and many were not. I read a thing that asked if maybe it was political.

PA leeeeese!

Of course.

If you were truly a devout person of faith you wouldn't need a national day of your personal convictions. Not to mention that there is NO evidence that prayer has any more effect than crossing one's fingers, wishing, or hoping.

So sure let's celebrate a national day of saying stuff that has no effect and no way of being shown to be an actual communication with a deity. Well, that's a little beyond cumbersome. How about we call it . .

Thursday.

A day in which nothing out of the ordinary happened.

God SPEAKS!

This is from CNN. Their  Sunday religion column. This one is so funny I had to reprint the entire thing. My snarky insightful comments are embedded. 

By Karen Spears Zacharias, Special to CNN

I hear the audible voice of God. No, not in the same way that the Bible’s Eve did (allegedly) when God asked her outright and out loud: “Woman, what in my name have you done now?”
Scriptures don’t tell us specifically, but I suspect at that particular moment in eternity God must have sounded a lot like Perry Mason: “C’mon, tell the truth. You know I’m a specialist on getting people out of trouble.” (Is this for real? This person got printed at CNN? What's happening?)
Bestselling author Patti Callahan Henry is a pastor’s daughter in Alabama. You’d think if God spoke to anybody, it would be a pastor’s child, but Patti swears she has never heard the voice of God. The only time God speaks to her is through the written word.
I find that odd since God talks to me all the time.

Here's the problem with God speaking to people: 1. How can you tell the difference between an actual transmission from a diety and your own brain making you THINK you are getting a transmission from a diety? 2. Do you mean actual audible sound waves impinging on your ears? If so, why can't someone standing next to you hear him too? 3. Of course hearing happens in the brain so God skips the ear part and goes right to the part of the brain that interprets information from our ears. But like all of this stuff. . . how does it work? Is it REAL?  Now, back to the fun . . .


Certainly God knows I’m an auditory learner, so if he wants my attention he has to talk to me. How do you know what God knows? When God speaks to me, he sounds a lot like Garrison Keillor, (uh oh. . .) host of the radio show “A Prairie Home Companion." In other words, he’s engaging, often very funny, and almost always an absolute joy to be around. Even when God’s mad with me (more often that I care to admit), he’s fairly good-natured about it. Theologians who study this sort of thing (and get paid???) say that our image of God is formed by our relationships with our fathers. That image is formed in part by how our fathers speak to us. If they bark orders at us all the time, we might hear God as a crank. But if our fathers speak to us in instructive, encouraging tones, we may hear God as our best coach. My father died when I was young, so I don’t remember his voice, but I’ve listened to Garrison Keillor pretty regularly for 25 years. Doesn't this support the idea that God is a figment of your imagination and your indoctrination as a child. Why wouldn't a real being appear and sound the same to everyone?

When my husband and I were raising our children, we banned television from our household. (Child ABUSE!)"A Prairie Home Companion" (Actual child torture!!) was our primary form of entertainment on Sunday afternoons. With Sundays as our Sabbath, I suppose it is natural for me to associate God with Garrison. Oh sure, this all seems completely natural . . .

Many people don’t even speak to God, much less listen to what he has to say. (Because we're not crazy.) I imagine for some the thought of a God as Garrison Keillor would be pure hell, what with all that Guy Noir Private Eye nonsense and those saccharin sweet ketchup commercials. Perhaps (What, not sure?) like a good mother, though, God resorts to a variety of different voices to reach all of her children. Do you identify any of the following?
– Spock, from “Star Trek,” is the defining voice of God. Spock is half-mother (human) and half-father (Vulcan). Who could be more egalitarian, more Godlike than that? Anyone who thinks of God as arbitrary and capricious needs to have a chat with Mr. Spock, who once so rightly noted, “Nowhere am I so desperately needed as among a shipload of illogical humans.” Amen. Amen.
Anyone who thinks of God as NOT arbitrary and capricious should visit the aftermath of a tornado. Or could it be that the world has a randomness to it and the unproveable God doesn't exist?

More movie stars as God ensues and it is pretty depressing from a writer's point of view that this pap gets published and distributed and probably paid for makes we want to nearly give up as a writer. Go on if you dare. . .
– James Earl Jones. If I heard that baritone voice calling to me from a burning bush, it would stop me in my tracks. Who cares that Jones couldn’t cut the muster at Fort Benning’s legendary Ranger school? That’s nothing more than boot camp for a bunch of hellions anyway. There is something about the thundering power of Jones’ voice that naturally evokes trust from us. And if we can’t have a God in whom we can trust, what’s the point?
– Surely, Jeff Bridges is the voice of God for all the remnant of Jesus Freaks now seeking refuge as Episcopalians. “I am not Mr. Lebowski,” Bridge’s says in Coen Brothers’ “Big Lewoski,” in one of the oft-quoted lines in that cult classic. “You’re Mr. Lebowski. I am The Dude, so that’s what you call me. That or His Dudeness or uh, Duder, or, El Duderino, if you're not into the whole brevity thing.” Of course, aging Jesus Freaks and Episcopalians alike are all about that brevity thing, so they happily go along with “the Dude abides,” another classic line from the film.
– Yoda, of “Star Wars,” is the voice of God for Zen-seeking, yoga-loving Emergent Christians. Emergents are the melting pot of Christianity, the place where hipsters who want to be spiritual but not religious go for community - typically a local brewery or Starbucks. “Luminous beings are we,” says Yoda. “Not this crude matter. You must feel the Force around you. Here, between you, me, the tree, the rock, everywhere!”
– Writer C. Terry Cline Jr. says when God speaks to him, it is in the scolding voice of Pee-Wee Herman - “What did I tell you?” In Cline’s latest book, "The Return of Edgar Caycee," Cline claims he was channeled by the previously deceased reincarnation guru, whose fan club has rivaled that of God’s. Is it any wonder God is miffed with Cline for conjuring up Caycee again?
– Your momma. Sonny Brewer, a Navy veteran and my editor at San Francisco’s publishing house MacAdam/Cage, says that the only voice he’s ever associated with God was his mother’s. Sonny’s mom has been nearly mute for nearly 20 years, the result of a stroke. “She can sing hymns but she can’t talk,” Sonny says. “When I think of God speaking to me, I think of my momma. Like God, she always loves me, even when I’m a bad boy.”

Whatever the cause, nobody enjoys getting the silent treatment. It is a particularly troubling matter when God goes silent on us, when we can’t hear his voice at all, whether it’s a tender whisper of encouragement, raucous laughter, or a thundering rebuke, it is then that we are most keenly aware of God. Silence stills us. We pause and listen, ear pressed, waiting, anticipating, hoping for just a word of assurance that we have not been abandoned. Or no one is talking. Why can't this be the logical conclusion of not hearing anything?

We all have had days when we feel like we’ve failed God. (I don't) If in such moments we would listen to the wind in the trees, the waves curling on the beach, feet crunching in sand, and the song of the mockingbird as the evening sun sets, (jeezus, pour some syrup on it while you're at it! What no kittens?) we would surely hear creator God singing hymns over us, his creation. Ah metaphor. . . why can't those sounds just be what they are and it's just us here.

Look, there are actual intelligent theologians that you can have intelligent conversations with about the IDEA of God, faith, science all of that. I had that experience when teaching for the Carmelites. This woman's idea of God has never progressed past an 8 year old's Sunday school version. It's not an unusual stance but I wonder again at how this simplistic, juvenile (and poorly written) load gets published.

Tennessee- The Origin of the Specious Argument

Tennessee recently has allowed the teaching of creation science in their classrooms. That's nice. As written here before, you cannot legislate truth. There is no basis for creation science. There are several points that show that it is a flawed theory with many holes in it. That is is simply wrong. Why teach a wrong thing?

For example, back in Newton's day he had a contemporary, Robert Hooke, who discovered the simple math rule of how springs behave. So enamored with this rule he tried to apply it to the planets. He tried to show that the motion of the planets was caused by a force from the sun that was bigger when the planet was farther away just like a spring exerts a bigger force the farther you stretch it. This is a nice idea but it's wrong. It won't wash. You can't get the proper motion of the planets under the influence of such a force. So the idea just went away as bad ideas will do in the face of the data. You could have all the votes you wanted about that and you could even have a winning vote for Hooke's spring theory. You could even force teachers to teach it in school but the planets would still behave according to Newton's inverse square rule. And, if you voted money to send a probe to the moon or Mars based on a Hooke rule it would miss by a kabillion miles.

Now then. . . Trying to explain the variety of species, extinct species, and why we have a LOT in common with fish with intelligent design is hopeless. Intelligent design is just a pandering to what a bunch of religious zealots WANT to be true and because they are zealots it's not good enough for them to think it is true they want EVERYBODY to think it is true because somehow that will make it truer.

It won't. Why does this flawed theory of intelligent design keep getting resuscitated while Hooke's theory died peacefully in it's sleep? Because, Hooke's theory doesn't challenge anything in the bible.

I won't delineate the arguments here. I'm tired of that. The more you argue back and forth the more you give the zealots a platform. Let me just paint these broad strokes.

No university teaches Intelligent Design except for these. Notice there is no Big Ten school, no ivy league school, no school with a football team. If this is such a hot theory why aren't major research universities teaching it? You'll notice that all the schools have the word bible, baptist, seminary, etc in them. Not surprising and yet where is Notre Dame, Brigham Young, Georgetown, Loyola, St. Johns, DePaul, Duke, SMU, or Baylor?

When you read intelligent design crap the recurring theme is the old (and tiresome!) argument of 'incredulity'. Arguments that begin, "I just can't imagine. . . ", "Isn't it impossible. . . ", "How could it be . . . ", etc. These statements usually then go into some feature of the biological world that they find impossible to exist without a creator. The common example is the human eye.

The only problem with all of these arguments is that they've all been answered with a cogent, complete and simple theory of evolution. This is a common ploy. To CREATE controversy where none existed before they came along. To me THAT'S creation science - to create controversy by playing to the press as opposed to publishing peer reviewed scientific papers. But they don't do that. There is no journal or scientific organization that will accept any paper on intelligent design because . . . wait for it. . . IT'S NOT SCIENCE!

Then, see. . . it's all a conspiracy!!

And, if you're going to make incredulity a test of a theory let's pick anything from the quantum world or relativity. Why aren't those being attacked? For example, I can't 'imagine' an electron that has mass and yet no size. I can't imagine a photon of light and have light also be a wave. Why are teachers being allowed to teach crazy stuff like electron science or wave-particle duality to our youngsters? Why? Because the bible skipped over electrons and light (and the big bang by the way) so the faithful don't care. Oh, and that stuff about electrons and photons stands up to experiments. What experiment would you do to test intelligent design? There is none because the theory always ends up with . . . And then magic happened. You can't test for that. And maybe that's really the crux. The faithful are a group of people who somehow NEED there to be things that "just can't be explained". Somehow that is important to their world view so it is important that there is no experiment. This is better for them than an experiment that would come out in their favor. Unexplainable is somehow better.

Please read Your Inner Fish by Neil Shubin. It's clear. It's interesting. In it he not only explains how evolution works but shows how intelligent design fails miserably in explaining anything and ends up being self contradictory. For example, according to intelligent design everything is perfectly designed for its environment. Shubin shows many examples of species that plod along while NOT being so perfectly designed due to getting separated from where they first evolved. Why would a creator do this? Another obvious example is our own appendix.

The other excellent book is Why Evolution is True by Jerry Coyne. Read it. Similar to the above it is clear, concise and cuts to the heart of the intelligent design flaws.

Also, Darwin's own Origin of Species is surprisingly readable if a little lengthy. Oh, and it's free on Kindle.

Better yet, if you run into an intelligent design person you might ask them if they've read any of these or what they have read about evolution. Be prepared for a 'no' and a bunch of arguments of incredulity. Remember, just because due to someone's lack of education, they can't 'imagine' something doesn't make it impossible. In fact, if you want an argument using incredulity? Due to my having made it through a couple of college degrees and being a skeptic I can't imagine a deity that somehow builds creatures using magic. Which is more 'incredulous'?

I swear to Newton, if I had a kid in school in Tennessee I would move and move NORTH. In true Atlas Shrugged style, what if all the smart people (there must be some) left Tennessee?

Another Miracle

A navy jet recently crashed into an apartment building. It being mid day no one was home and no one was killed. The pilots ejected as per their training. Then this quote from the governor:

“I think it’s an act of divine providence,” Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell told the Virginian-Pilot newspaper.

Really? That's the first explanation that you can come up with? As if an explanation is even required. God saw to it to drive a plane into an apartment building but did so so that no one was killed. And his message was . . . . ? Or God was asleep at the helm and a plane was headed for the ground and at the last second God picked an apartment building with on one in it. This is the 'sorta-omnipotent' God.

Of course the obvious question by anyone with a brain is, if God is present for things like this why have the plane crash at all? Or why not have the plane just miss the apartment building and crash in the parking lot?

Why doesn't anyone come back on a statement like the governor's with a follow question or two? I'll tell you. Because we tip toe around statements of faith like that as if they are worth some extra respect and that is one of the small ways that myths continue to have life.

If the governor had said, " I think a giant squid stuck up a tentacle and pulled the jet down" he'd be driven from office within the month even though squids actually exist! We wouldn't respect or give the squid explanation ANY credence at all but we nod our heads and mumble something when someone says something equally stupid about 'divine providence'.

Voting Ain't Gonna Do It

If you vote for Mitt (are my eyes too close together?) Romney, Rick (Is that a rubber in your pocket young man?), or looks like any other Republican, that wont make evolution, global warming, the moon landings, nor gravity false. You can't vote/legislate truth. Only rationalism, logic and science reveal the truth. Let's have someone at the helm who understands how to solve problems regardless of their faith not someone who things faith will somehow magically solve problems.

The Scientific Method

I had the good fortune today to sit in on a couple of presentations at Fermi National Laboratory. There are two large research groups there representing the two giant detectors they have in the Tevatron. Each group has data and analysis that may be suggestive of the existence of the elusive Higgs particle which would be very large news.















Understand that I understood NONE of the physics per se but here’s what I observed:

• Calm and logical presentations
• Polite and attentive audience
• An almost crushing critical eye on their own data (more on this)
• Respectively presenting results from the other detector and from the big machine at CERN without any high fiving or end zone dances (but that would have been kind of awesome).
• Questions being asked and answered without any shouting or interrupting.

So, yes, all of this in direct opposition to what passes for public debate and intercourse these days (Republican “debates” or any asshole on FOX). I watched as each group looked very hard for ways their data could be WRONG. That’s right. That’s the real scientific method. You have a hypothesis, you collect data, it may be suggestive of the hypothesis but before you go there you check the 999 ways you could be wrong. They do a thing were they think they have a signal and then ask, “What are the odds that the background noise could have produced this signal”? They even have a thing called LEE which is the 'Look Elsewhere Effect'. I can only assume that that includes behind the sofa cushions. Stuff like that. They might not like the answer to those questions all the time but so it goes.

You’ll never find this among the creationists because they don’t understand the first thing about science or the scientific method. They have a preconceived idea about how the world works (not a testable hypothesis) then they put together ideas and things that may be suggestive of that preconceived idea, ignore all things that contradict, and call that science. What they are missing is the critical eye that would ask, what else might cover these observations? Is that more or less plausible than where we started? But no. They cannot accept any explanation that contradicts the initial world view because the whole point is to have another way to preach the world-view. . . science be damned!

We’re swimming in relativism where everyone with an idea thinks his is just as good as anyone else’s because he tweeted it. Luckily, real research doesn’t work that way. It’s god awful hard work but step by step our understanding of this universe increases. Any opinion you have about some piece of research better be well formed and based on the relevant and accepted theories around. You don't get to have an opinion just because it suits you. You don't get to have an opinion just because somehow you got it into your head that all opinions are equal. They're not.

Basic research may not lead to a world view that is exactly what we had in mind but that doesn’t matter. Keeping an open mind is critical if you expect to find anything new. Wherever pure research leads we all get to share in our increased understanding of this (one and only?) beautiful universe.

If we keep an open mind . . . and quit shouting!

What does the bible say about the bible . . and then I ramble.

I had this thought today. . . Does the bible itself actually claim to be 'the word of God' or written by God? If not then the 'good book' was handed down and at some point people started putting a magic cloak on it.

My research continues but I did find this nugget:

Christians believe that the Bible is from God, not because someone told them, but because the Bible claims it.

I'm guessing this won't be my last encounter with a circular argument. But then I guess I asked for it by asking if the bible referred to itself. Self reference, like time travel, always leads to difficulties.

The barber cuts the hair of all the people who don't cut their own. Who barbers the barber?
There are two indices in the library. One lists all the books that do not refer to themselves in any way and the other lists all the books that do. Which index is in which index?

Stuff like that.

Anyway, my bigger wondering was about the nature of the world and civilization at the time that we think the books of the old testament were assembled by Abraham and then maybe later by Charlton Heston.

From Wikepedia:
In historical archaeology, the ancient literature of the Iron Age includes the earliest texts preserved in manuscript tradition. Sanskrit literature and Chinese literature flourished in the Age. Other text includes the Avestan Gathas, the Indian Vedas and the oldest parts of the Hebrew Bible. The principal feature that distinguishes the Iron Age from the preceding ages is the introduction of alphabetic characters, and the consequent development of written language which enabled literature and historic record.^[1]

(jeez they sure underline a lot!)

Wow, Looks like the Hebrew Bible (old testament) wasn't the only writing laying around. Were any of these other pieces of literature given the magic cloak?

Here's the thing. I'm a rotten history student. I like it. It interests me but there is just so MUCH of it! Suffice it to say that the ancient books of the bible were written a LONG time ago. Now it is said that they were 'inspired' so that they are actually the word of God. OK.

However, would you allow that perhaps there were some misunderstandings? Would you allow that due to the temper of the times and the vagaries of passing things down that things like slavery, role of women, etc maybe got a less than heavenly treatment? If so, how hard is it to get re-inspired and do a new edition? I'm half serious (the other half is all smart-ass). The religious get so much grief (and rightly so) about the atrocities that are promoted in the bible that I can't see a down side for them for a re-write.

They won't have to prove that the re-write was actually written by God since they can't prove that model 1 was either. It's a faith thing. Some modern 'inspired' writers could really have at it! They could get the age of the universe correct. They could have the modern bible jibe with evolution! You could teach the new bible in Bio class and all are happy! You could keep the old stories about Noah etc. but perhaps the flood was not world wide but local and he took some cats and dogs. You could put in some fancy language about the big bang and you get some traction there because to date nobody knows what CAUSED the Big Bang. You could have some newer stories that include such modern characters as Archimedes and Galileo, Martin Luther and Muhammad Ali perhaps. You could fill in things about dinosaurs, the Chinese, the Aztecs, and the Whig Party. Stuff like that. Why in the end you'd have a wonderful book that would be. . .


Maybe a very nice set of science/history texts! Praise the Newton and pass the ammunition!

Hand of God

Theists are fond of seeing the hand of God in such things as devastating tornadoes. The two obvious questions are:

1. How does it work? Really, how does it work? What is the mechanism by which an entity controls the weather. I'll give you that he has the power to do it. What is the mechanism by which it works?

2. I like to ask, ok, they how would it have looked different if it were just random weather and not the hand of God? Look about the same I'm thinking. A family huddled in their house praying their asses off got carted off to heaven. Hmmm...maybe that's what they were praying for and it DOES work!

In short you only see the hand of God if you already believe in the hand of God. There is no objective proof of the work of a deity. As my boss at the museum used to say, "If I hadn't believed it with my own mind I never would have seen it".

Hoping and Knowing

There’s hoping and then there’s knowing. Religion is devoted to hoping and science and rationalism are devoted to knowing. When you pray you are hoping a LOT of things. You’re hoping that the lines are up, you’re hoping that the message will be answered. When you go to church and express your faith you hope that you are going to heaven. Even the faithful will agree that they don’t know any of those things but that they have faith. They’re hoping.

People are fond of saying that they know something “in their hearts”. This is put up as an unassailable position when in fact it's just a metaphor. Moreover, by saying you ONLY know something in your heart means that you’re hoping. Flowery language cannot be used against cold hard facts. You’re basing your premise on what you want to be true based on no information or research and probably via ignoring information that contradicts that which you are hoping.

When you know something (no matter how much you may wish it weren’t true) you know it based on research, facts, known theories, and testable and re-testable experiments. Your knowledge is firmly attached to reality. There is nothing between you and your knowledge that has to be accepted to move on. Nothing is based on hoping. Everything is open to examination and tests. That’s real knowledge. And if someone says to me, "Yes, but what about other realities or the supernatural", I say, well just show me an example and we'll take it from there. Experiments will continue and would frankly be fascinating!

I get the hoping part. It’s a scary world out there. Our lives are so short. We wish things were different perhaps. But hoping they were different doesn’t make it so. Every parent teaches their kids this pretty early on, right? You may wish your child didn’t have to go through the pain of a dying pet but making up a doggie heaven doesn’t change the facts. As kids grow they have a pretend world that meshes with the real world and that's great but we all know the difference, right?

None of this would be worth writing about nor would it be a problem except for the fact that hoping and reason are hoisted up on the dance floor as if they were on equal terms (because the former might actually be worth more votes). When it comes to the death of Bowser I could give a rats ass really what you tell your kid. But when it comes to how we operate something as complicated as the US of A I get a little nervous. Why should I care what invisible deity what candidate sends his hopes to. Why do we still say that someone is a “man of faith” as if that makes him qualified to lead the nation. If that were all it took we’d draft Tim Tebow and be done with it.

Examples abound. When the religious right tries to pretend that there is controversy regarding evolution they are putting their hope that the bible is true and accurate and that man is special up against tons of reality based research that says we are no more special than any other of our fellow creatures and that clearly there has been a plodding progression from simple organisms to more complicated. We’re part of that progression. How could we not be without being aliens from another planet? That these two positions are put up as if they were worthy debate contestants is ludicrous.

When people listen to congressmen instead of scientists when it comes to global warming it’s because they HOPE that it just isn’t true and that it’s really still 1957, gas is 29 cents a gallon, and Wally and the Beaver are on their way home from school. Sorry, the planet is definitely warming up and anyone who can read and think a little will agree with the thousands of SCIENTISTS who also agree that the planet is warming up and that it is industrialization that caused it. It’s a tough reality so just deal with it and let’s start working on solutions. There is nothing in the way of solving problems except denying that they exist!

anti evolution

There’s still a anti-evolution bill pending in New Hampshire.

Do these people have the remotest idea of how science works? You don't get a bug up your ass about your pretend friends and then try to get a fucking bill passed in support of it. No. You do real scientific research and publish your results in a peer reviewed journal.

Why no anti-gravity bill? or anti-neutrino bill? Or why not just come out and write an anti-science bill because you just can't handle all that logic and want to live about 5000 years ago.

Enjoy the cholera?

Why do we insist on remaining so stupid?

10 reasons to not vote for Santorum

I read today an article at CNN (why do I keep going to their site?) entitled: 10 Reasons Religious Conservatives Love Rick Santorum.

My comments are inserted in RED. (I used to grade a LOT of papers.)

1. Santorum’s a family man. “He’s got this big, vibrant family and he left the campaign trail last week to go back and be with his daughter in the hospital,” says Eli Bremer, chairman of Colorado's El Paso County Republican Party, centered around evangelical-heavy Colorado Springs. Santorum recently returned to Pennsylvania to respond to a health scare involving daughter Isabella – the youngest of his seven children – who suffers from a genetic disease. “I spent time with him last year, and he’s constantly thinking about his family,” Bremer says of Santorum. “It’s not just a political stunt.”

We've only had one president who was a bachelor - Franklin Pierce (the 15th . . . president, not the 15th Franklin Pierce). So, yeah, you're not going to get elected these days and not be a 'family man'. But what does that mean? Josh Powell was a family man. So were Robert Lynch, Bruce Sweazy, and Anthony Paul...they all killed their families. You elect a guy . . . not a family. Would it be possible for a single guy to be a good president? Of course so this item is a wash. There are good family guys and bad family guys and either way it's not a qualification for the presidency.

2. He’s not averse to getting politically incorrect when donning culture warrior chain mail. “So if the baby’s toe is in you can’t kill the baby – how about if the baby’s foot is in?” he famously asked U.S. Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-California, in a 1999 debate over a rare, later term abortion procedure that anti-abortion groups call a "partial birth" abortion.

I'll step back a little on this one. I'm actually for being politically incorrect (you BITCH!) but I will say that whether a stranger has an abortion (and I might be against abortion in philosophy) will affect my world not one whit. The president of the United States frankly cannot rule on abortion. It's the law of the land and will take 2/3 of the states to change that. The president of the United States should focus on what really affects the working people of this country and unborn (or partially unborn) children do not. That's just a cold hard fact. This is an emotional issue and one where you obviously take the stand that is required by the votes you are trying to get. I get that.

3. Santorum’s a homeschooling dad. His wife, Karen, is homeschooling or has homeschooled their seven children, making them a poster family for a movement populated largely by evangelical Christians and other serious believers. “It matters because it shows he’s a real part of our movement rather than simply someone who is politically sympathetic,” says Michael Farris, an evangelical conservative who leads the Home School Legal Defense Association.

Home schooling is a way to keep your kids ignorant. It's stupid. It's a way to hide them from scary things like evolution (150 years old), global warming (it's real), and negros. You're raising defective children who cannot work with anyone who thinks or looks different from them. Shame on you.

4. He’s a devout cradle Catholic. As a kid in Pennsylvania, Santorum the altar boy would spend Sunday mornings pushing hospital patients in wheelchairs to Mass. As a U.S. senator, Santorum attended Mass at St. Joseph’s on Capitol Hill each day before work. That piety gets respect with religious voters, regardless of affiliation. “Evangelicals have made him an honorary evangelical,” said Richard Land, public policy chief for the Southern Baptist Convention.

Well now. . . ok. He believes in invisible spirits. Luckily we live in a land where you're free as free can be to believe whatever. But we're talking about running the country. How does this belief in magical beings help one run the country?

5. Santorum’s not Mitt Romney. Millions of socially conservative voters still distrust the former Massachusetts governor on the hot button issues – abortion and same-sex marriage. Some, though not all, are put off by Romney’s Mormonism.

The US is mired in debt. We are still hated by a great number of countries. China is building EVERYTHING we invent. The planet is heating up. THESE are issues. How in the fuck is abortion and same-sex marriage a button at all let alone a hot one?

6. Santorum’s not Newt Gingrich. Many social conservatives, particularly those of the female persuasion, continue to be turned off by Gingrich’s two failed marriages and his admissions of past marital infidelity.

Adolf Hitler, Adam Sandler, and the Queen of England are also not Newt Gingrich. Next!

7. Santorum doesn’t just talk about opposing abortion, he’s legislated on it. As a senator, he was an architect of the Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003. He pushed the ban even in the1990s, when Bill Clinton was in the White House and the legislation stood nary a chance of a presidential signature. “He walked the walk,” Land says. “When no one else would carry our water in the Senate, he would.”

Just a quick reminder. . . does not affect your basic American o n e w h i t! This is posturing. This is taking a stand so that you can get votes from the mentally defective who pride themselves in liking babies. OK, who doesn't?! I like babies. I like puppies too! But it is not a day to day agenda item for the president of the United States. Get it?

8. Ditto on same-sex marriage. Santorum sponsored a constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage at a time when many Republicans lawmakers didn’t want to touch such a hot potato.

Sigh. . . Let's say you're a conservative evangelical and you DO get the country to outlaw same-sex marriage. How will your life change? How will this be a better land? All you'll get is a way to add to that smugness you already carry around because you believe in invisible people. You'll wake up and get to say, SO THERE! Oh, and by the way, the president cannot make this happen for you.

9. Santorum’s big on compassionate conservatism. Though he gets the most ink for controversial stances on issues such as homosexuality, Santorum has also been a leading advocate for funding to fight AIDS in the Third World and has led conservative responses to poverty. “A lot of people have a hard time getting Rick Santorum because they’re used to a debate between liberalism and complete free-market approach and he’s not either of those things,” says Michael Gerson, a Washington Post columnist and former speechwriter for President George W. Bush.

I like pistachio nuts.

10. Santorum isn’t afraid to challenge science, questioning the theory of evolution and dismissing global warming as “a hoax.” The former senator “confirms (social conservatives’) view of science as being at odds with a Christian worldview,” tweets Warren Throckmorton, a psychology professor at Grove City College, an evangelical Christian school in Pennsylvania.

Ok, here we go. This is either ignorance or pure posturing and I suspect the later. There is NO controversy in the biological sciences about evolution. There is only 'controversy' that is created by assholes who want schools to teach religion which is what creationism is. There is no university you could attend and major in intelligent design. It is transparent as hell and courts have seen intelligent design for that and ruled accordingly.

As for global warm the verdict is in. Here's a link to some quick references that show why it is real and that we caused it. The really scary part is that his counter argument to the scientific evidence that supports global warming is that, wait for it. . . .IT'S A HOAX! Oh sure. A few million scientists got together and decided to create this most giant of hoaxes since the landing on the moon. Yeah that is a LOT more believable than the data supporting global warming itself. Again, the only reason to say such a thing is that you are a complete unread idiot or that you are just posturing to an obvious group to get votes.

I think I'm leaning toward NOT supporting Rick Santorum for any office and especially the presidency.

Book Review: Mr g by Alan Lightman

I should say first off that I’m a big fan of Alan Lightman. I read his clever little book, Einstein’s Dreams, years ago when I was teaching physics at Maine East High. I used to buy a copy for each of my AP seniors as a graduation present. That said I recently saw Mr g sitting on the featured table at the neighborhood bookstore (Borders is gone but the mom and pop shops live on!) and just bought it without another thought.

As you may have already guessed, Mr g is a all seeing, all knowing, immortal, omnipotent being that lives in the ‘void’. He is accompanied there by his aunt and uncle - a literary or philosophical gizmo that has escaped me so far. Mr. g, after waking up from a nap decides to create a universe. He goes through may prototypes experimenting with what the initial conditions need to be to have it not blow up in 2 seconds and so forth. With zillions of his prototypes zinging around the void he settles on a favorite and gives it a name that involves the 10,000th prime number.

Lightman being an MIT physicist and professor of humanities gently works in good physics about time, the big bang, and evolution. Mr g is tempted to cause the creation of sentient beings and is surprised to find that with matter, energy and his initial boundary conditions it happens spontaneously all over the billions of galaxies in his favorite universe.

By Mr. g’s inherent ‘goodness’ the creation of a universe caused to be created his opposite - Baalial. He goes by various names but he is the cynic to Mr. g’s optimism. They have many interesting discussions about goodness, free will and more.

A thought provoking book, a quick read, and Mr. g never reveals himself to the sentient beings of the universe he created. . . .or does he?

Link to the book below. . . I notice that the reader reviews on Amazon are all over the place. I'd be interested to know what my fellow atheists think of the book.

Mr g by Alan Lightman

Joe Pa

Just read an obit of Joe Pa - the Penn State football coach. Nice guy, too bad the way it ended. But to the point of this blog here's a quote from the piece I read by Jack McCallum at SI.

But when the end came, it came with such breathtaking suddenness that even non-believers must pause for moment to wonder if it wasn't part of some cosmic script.

I guess this is just a writer trying to make a deadline or trying to a little more than a sports guy but what kind of a sentence is that? I'm a non-believer and I don't see any cosmic script here. Things happened as reported and all explainable by the vagaries of human behavior.

It's this kind of 'cosmic glasses' that a huge number of people enjoy looking through to help support their world view. This is not evil. This is just what people do. When there is a particularly beautiful sunrise some tend to think that some super being made is special just for them. Perhaps some cannot separate beauty from that beauty being connected to someone or some super-being creating it.

To me the oceans, the sky, a sailboat, a summer day . . . all of that is particularly beautiful. My thinking stops there and I just enjoy it as is.

Why I Care

Uh oh. . .here comes a presidential election year. I'm of two minds. Part of me wants to chuck the TV out the window (nice splash from the 12th floor!), disconnect from the internet, go for runs and walks until November. I can't stand all the stupid sound bites, the back biting, non-answers to simple questions, the posturing, and so forth.

But then there's this Mitt guy and I think of Martin Luther King: "To ignore evil is to become an accomplice to it". So let's see what fight do I want to fight. . .

As a scientist, I want to focus my attention on the candidates and their stand on science and rationalism. Mitt seems to be a guy who will say ANYTHING while understanding NOTHING in a run at the white house. Sadly this is probably a good strategy in the under-educated America in which we live.

So, what do I care what the president thinks? Well, I do because of his influence at the bully pulpit. I would like a leader who lets the conclusions of numerous experiments direct policy. That's not how it works however. What dictates policy is what can generate votes and sadly, stupid people's votes count just the same as intelligent people's.

For example, the Creationists want schools to teach the 'controversy' between evolution and creationism. . .BUT THEY CREATED THE PRETEND CONTROVERSY! There is NO controversy in the scientific community.

So then that's a conspiracy, right?

Sigh. . .

CRASH!

(That was the TV hitting the sidewalk.)

Sorry about the dog.

Seriously, I want a president who says something to the effect of, "Let the scientists teach science based on our current knowledge and their training as scientists and let the preacher teach his moral lessons." Nobody attending any university is being taught creationism. BECAUSE IT'S NOT SCIENCE!

Let's teach what we KNOW and preach what we BELIEVE.

No candidate is going to say that, right? Not Obama either who is pretty religious.

But, I taught at a catholic school (by the way the pope acknowledged evolution as the way the world works back in 1950) and I'm sure there was no up-ightness about what was being taught in the biology classroom. Why? Because they got their shot in the religion classroom! So, if you're uptight about evolution just take your kid to church (some protestant one I would think) and let them teach your kid too. Then, let the kid THINK for him or her self.

Scary?

HOLY CRAP! What if they pick 'wrong'.

I don't think Mitt has any clue about any real science. Real science says evolution is real and proveable and has for about a hundred years but he won't be able to cop to that. Hundreds of separate experiments and investigations show that the earth is warming up and that is our doing but he won't be able to cop to that either.

In this day and age it takes a big government to do big, important science for the sake of society as a whole. The days of a single scientist working late at night in his lab and inventing the light bulb are long past. Fundamental research requires huge labs and huge budgets. A guy who clearly doesn't understand it or chooses to ignore simple facts is a danger to society. Mitt is not the guy we need in the white house but I suspect 'the guy' doesn't exist and if he did he wouldn't be electable.

Guns make us safe

Think of the things you cannot advertise on TV.

cigarettes (they kill people)
people actually drinking liquor or beer
outright prostitution (political speeches get an exemption).
heroine (etc)
baby seal clubbing
kitten torture
selling babies

I would even imagine a hefty dose of outrage if one even showed a kid riding a tiny 2 wheeler with training wheels WITHOUT a helmet (on the child not the wheels). We’re nothing if not extremely safety conscious in this country. Oh yeah. I bought a pair of binoculars recently (true story!) and one of the items on the 2 page SAFTEY information sheet was to not swing them around by the strap. See? We’re extra safe in this country.

But it turns out you can and we do advertise guns on TV. Not up north here so much but in places like Indianapolis (hillbilly capital), Kentucky, etc. they definitely do.























And while it’s true enough that guns don’t kill people, people kill people, I’m puzzled by, on one hand our crazy, over-zealous safety consciousness played against our affection for about the most dangerous item around, the hand gun.

I’ve never bought a hand gun so maybe they come with a super duper safety sheet:

1. Do not aim at your head
2. Do not aim at your brother’s head
3. Etc.
4. Only shoot some bitch ho who dissed you.
5. Try to use that as a defense.
6. Do not look down the barrel to see if it is clean.
7. Do not look down the barrel for a laugh in a bar.
8. 9. Do not put gun near fundamental particle detectors as the steel will alter the magnetic field
9. Do NOT run out of bullets.
10. Do not swing around by the holster.

Whoops! Atheist blog. . . uh, YEAH, there's no God.

Cheers

the Sabbath

From a silly CNN article about 'faith-based predictions for 2012'.

Sabbath becomes trendy! Fourth Commandment makes a comeback! Sabbath named Time’s person of the year! A new movement sweeps the country. They call themselves 24/6. Worn out by being tethered to the grid 24/7, sick of being accessible all hours of the day, inundated by updates, upgrades, and breaking news, Americans finally rebel, demanding, “We need a day off.” People all over the country go offline for 24 hours every week. The simple break from the frenetic pace results in lowered cholesterol rates, fewer speeding tickets, and a reduction in marital strife. Peace, tranquility and contentment spread like wildfire.
–Jamie Korngold, rabbi and author of "The God Upgrade"

I gotta tell you, I'm FOR this. When we lived in the Caribbean just about everything is CLOSED on Sunday. Sure sometimes when you need a part or are out of rum this can be annoying but it does force you to take a day off. The towns are quiet. Fewer cars about and it makes for a nice break. I don't think there is any way to go back to a time when most businesses were closed on Sunday (or any day really) but it would make for a nice break.