Scott's thoughts - Cogito ergo sum

Doubt Quiz

2011-10-18T12:03:00.001-06:00

I just finished listening to the audio book of "Doubt: A History: The Great Doubters and Their Legacy of Innovation from Socrates and Jesus to Thomas Jefferson and Emily Dickinson" http://tinyurl.com/3afhqe (yes I have way too much time on my hands)
At the beginning of the book, she has a little quiz on a person's religious standpoints and their degrees of certainty. I'm really curious (insert incredibly nosy) on where people fall. I realize it can be a very private matter(is privacy still a thing?), so don't share if you don't want to(honestly, who doesn't want to tell other people their most deepest held beliefs). If you do, I would love to see the results, and how many of the people fall where. I also realize certain labels or words mean different things to different people (though obviously my definitions are the correct ones). She talks a bit about definitions in the book, and the context she gives would be helpful, but I really don't expect anyone I know to read the introduction to the book (passive aggressive way of saying I think I'm better than everyone. I mean, I listened to a whole audio book). I am obviously ripping it out of its context, so if you do decide to go take the quiz, please take it with a grain of salt!(ie please still be my friend if you don't like what this says or implies)
The "Scale of Doubt" Quiz:
http://being.publicradio.org/programs/doubt/quiz.shtml
Click on the link for the actual quiz, has a handy button on the bottom where one can 'calculate'

I cut and pasted the quiz for those who don't want to do it, but just want to see it.

Do you believe that a particular religious tradition holds accurate knowledge of the ultimate nature of reality and the purpose of human life?
yesnonot sure
Do you believe that some thinking being consciously made the universe?
yesnonot sure
Is there an identifiable force coursing through the universe, holding it together, or uniting all life-forms?
yesnonot sure
Could prayer be in any way effective, that is, do you believe that such a being or force (as posited above) could ever be responsive to your thoughts or words?
yesnonot sure
Do you believe this being or force can think or speak?
yesnonot sure
Do you believe this being has a memory or can make plans?
yesnonot sure
Does this force sometimes take a human form?
yesnonot sure
Do you believe that the thinking part or animating force of a human being continues to exist after the body has died?
yesnonot sure
Do you believe that any part of a human being survives death, elsewhere or here on earth?
yesnonot sure
Do you believe that feelings about things should be admitted as evidence in establishing reality?
yesnonot sure
Do you believe that love and inner feelings of morality suggest that there is a world beyond that of biology, social patterns, and accident — i.e., a realm of higher meaning?
yesnonot sure
Do you believe that the world is not completely knowable by science?
yesnonot sure
If someone were to say "The universe is nothing but an accidental pile of stuff, jostling around with no rhyme nor reason, and all life on earth is but a tiny, utterly inconsequential speck of nothing, in a corner of space, existing in the blink of an eye never to be judged, noticed, or remembered," would you say, "Now that's going a bit far, that's a bit wrongheaded?"
yesnonot sure

Disclosure time, depending how I answer questions two and three, (no or not sure, I'm still debating on which one I think): "You are an agnostic" or "You may still be an atheist or agnostic, though not of the materialist variety" or "You are a hard-core atheist and of a certain variety: a rational materialist".

Arguing with a creationist

2011-08-29T10:18:00.000-06:00

I'm starting to feel like a creationist is equivalent to the black knight. Arthur is the internet.

The Sagan Series

2011-07-09T10:34:00.001-06:00

It's a rainy day, so it's a good day to watch The Sagan Series. Who am I kidding, any day is a good day for an injection of some Carl Sagan. I have seen a couple, but never all six all at one time. Well worth the roughly twenty three minutes for all six. Something about listening to Carl Sagan's voice is always inspiring for me. The man was a credit to the human species.

The Sagan Series (Part 1) - Nasa The Frontier Is Everywhere

The Sagan Series (Part 2) - Life Looks For Life

The Sagan Series (Part 3) - A Reassuring Fable

The Sagan Series (Part 4) - Nasa Per Aspera Ad Astra

The Sagan Series (Part 5) - SETI Decide To Listen

The Sagan Series (Part 6) - End Of An Era: The Final Shuttle Launch

Old Man Leudecke and The Nerdist

2011-07-08T11:26:00.000-06:00

I tend to get a little proselytizing and excited about things that I really enjoy. I guess I feel, if this gives me enjoyment and happiness, it should for you too! With that in mind, lately the two highest on the list would be Old Man Leudecke and The Nerdist podcast.

Old Man Leudecke is a banjo player from Nova Scotia. I missed the first time Niki saw him, but was able to catch his tour through Edmonton in May. I know when most people hear "banjo music" their ears shut off, but you must try and get past that. The combination of the dulcet tones of the banjo mixed with his truly great songwriting is a combination well worth listening to. How can a person not love a musician who has a song that is all about bacon?! He also played some Roger Miller at his show. He said he had never done this before, and this helped to truly cement my love of this travelling troubadour. I feel like dancing and smiling everytime I hear his music, and hope you do too.

The second thing I have been all evangelical about lately is The Nerdist podcast. It helps that Chris Hardwick and his co-horts are really funny. Combine that with the great guests they have and the fact that they would get my Kids in the Hall references.(They seem to have a good knowledge Canadian comedy) I also like that they don't disparage people. They generally speak well of other people, which is a rare thing in the age of the interwebs and celebrity. I think this combination of good heartedness and humour is what gives me happy nerd brain at the end of each episode. As someone who also knows nothing of the comedy industry, and how comics work, I find the discussions into the industry fascinating. The show is basically them shooting the breeze with a famous comedian/actor.
I know some people would look down on them for all the swears, but honestly, I don't care what the fuck you say, it's how you say it. Language is just a tool for communicating ideas. If your ideas and thoughts come across, and I like them, who gives a cows intestinal tract. As long as you are getting them across in a matter fitting the context. Swearing actually has testable benefits, but that's a discussion for another time. Oh, and I don't want to give the impression that it's one long curse fest, but I know some people shut the brain off at the first sign of a "F" bomb, and wanted to give fair warning. With all that said, go download The Nerdist from your podcast aggregate of choice. Go. Now. DO IT! I'm going to take my own advice and listen to another episode right now. It's always a good time for a laugh and a smile!

Faith and Reason

2011-05-04T21:37:00.005-06:00

I have a question that's going to seem contentious and condescending. It's not consciously meant to be that way though. It has been wiggling around in my brain for over a week now.
First a little background. I downloaded two Christian podcasts based off of a sought out recommendation. The first one is called 'Fighting for the Faith', and the second is 'Table Talk Radio'. They are both Lutheran based podcasts. I sought them out mainly to try and find some well thought out and contrary views to my own. Mainly just to keep challenging myself and to not always listen/read viewpoints that align with my own. I've only listened to a couple of episodes, they're not very well thought out, but they are contrary. I also am listening to the oldest ones first, so I'm not gonna give up on them yet. I can't remember which one, but one of them basically said Reason needs to be subservient to Faith. That it can't be trusted if it contradicts what one reads in the Bible. I found this a little odd, wondering what mental gymnastics they accomplished to reach that conclusion without 'reasoning' their way into it. It's like the silliness that says you don't interpret the Bible, you just read it. Now to my question. What's separates being a Lutheran from a cult, or cult-like thinking at least? I'm picking on the Lutherans specifically because of Luther's quotes about reason and it's relation to faith. When I think of a cult, I think of a group that doesn't like questions, or critical examination of it's beliefs. The underlining thought is that if you, or an idea, is contrary to the groups beliefs, the groups beliefs can never be wrong. Therefore it's you and the reasoning that got you there that has to be wrong. In this case the 'group' is the Bible. I don't think it's just the Lutherans that do this. It's probably the type of thinking that leads William Craig to argue the way he does.
Am I way off on this? Can one be a critical thinker and have religious faith? How do the people out there mash the two together for themselves?
I found a site called The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy when doing some searching on this subject. It had a entry on Martin Luther and an entry on Faith and Reason. People might find that interesting reading for more background.
Cheers,
Scott
PS - Full disclosure, my Mennonite heritage makes me predisposed not to like Luther, or his intellectual descendants, though everyone's all ecumenical nowadays. Can one have intellectual descendants when one dislikes Reason?
PPS - I'm still looking for more podcasts to give me different religious perspectives. I just ask they are not scientifically illiterate. Recommendations welcome.

God and Disaster

2011-03-15T09:15:00.023-06:00

A.C. Grayling recently wrote a small essay on the RD website, and I thought I would reprint it here. I saw one too many "I'm praying for Japan" tweets and Facebook status'. I understand the desire to want to help. I also realize it can make one feel like they are helping. The idea that praying for Japan means one actually did something tangible to help makes me feel a little melancholy. Especially if it would lead a person to think, "I don't need to donate or help out this disaster, I prayed for them." I think the essay sums up things fairly well.
Cheers,
Scott
PS - If one wants to donate, to help the relief efforts in Japan, CBC has a web page set up of different organizations. http://www.cbc.ca/japanrelief/

"One thinks with sorrow of the hundreds of thousands whose lives have been horrendously lost or affected by the great Japanese earthquake and tsunami, which will put a black mark against this year 2011 in the annals, coming so soon after the earthquake that hit Christchurch in New Zealand. The events are almost certainly linked tectonically, reminding us of the vast forces of nature that are normal for the planet itself but inimical to human life, especially when lived dangerously close to the jigsaw cracks of the earth’s surface.

Someone told me that there were to be special prayers in their local church for the people of Japan. This well-intentioned and fundamentally kindly proceeding nevertheless shows how absurd, in the literal sense of this term, are religious belief and practice. When I saw the television footage of people going to church in Christchurch after the tragic quake there, the following thoughts pressed.

It would be very unkind to think that the churchgoers were going to give thanks that they personally escaped; one would not wish to impute selfishness and personal relief in the midst of a disaster in which many people arbitrarily and suddenly lost their lives through ‘an act of God’. If they were going to pray for their god to look after the souls of those who had died, why would they think he would do so since he had just caused, or allowed, their bodies to be suddenly and violently crushed or drowned?

Indeed, were they praising and supplicating a deity who designed a world that causes such arbitrary and sudden mass killings? An omniscient being would know all the implications of what it does, so it would know it was arranging matters with these awful outcomes. Were they praising the planner of their sufferings for their sufferings, and also begging his help to escape what he had planned?

Perhaps they think that their god was not responsible for the earthquake. If they believe that their god designed a world in which such things happen but left the world alone thereafter and does not intervene when it turns lethal on his creatures, then they implicitly question his moral character. If he is not powerful enough to do something about the world’s periodic murderous indifference to human beings, then in what sense is he a god? Instead he seems to be a big helpless ghost, useless to pray to and unworthy of praise.

For if he is not competent to stop an earthquake or save its victims, he is definitely not competent to create a world. And if he is powerful enough to do both, but created a dangerous world that inflicts violent and agonizing sufferings arbitrarily on sentient creatures, then he is vile. Either way, what are people thinking who believe in such a being, and who go to church to praise and worship it? How, in the face of events which human kindness and concern registers as tragic and in need of help – help which human beings proceed to give to their fellows: no angels appear from the sky to do it – can they believe such an incoherent fiction as the idea of a deity? This is a perennial puzzle."

True Grit

2011-01-22T01:08:00.001-07:00

My favourite minor character. Bear Man.

I just saw the new True Grit. I enjoyed the movie, and would recommend anyone to see it. It left me feeling thoughtful. The crunch of the snow, the blowing wind, and my long black cloak seemed very fitting as I left the theatre. I just needed boots, gun and cowboy hat. My cousin, who I saw it with, and I parted ways after the show. I had the car ride home to ponder. I didn't listen to the radio or podcasts. There are many little things I enjoyed about the movie. The hymns playing throughout were beautiful, gave one a sense of gravitas, and old time religion. The language of the characters could at the same time seem uneducated and well spoken. It was an language stripped of diplomacy, but direct and functional. There was a lot of quick little bits of humour in the script for those paying attention. There was an honesty and a bluntness to the film I appreciated. It gave you the feeling of a way of living that was hard, matter of fact and not so comfortable. The movie seemed to say, 'that's the way life is, people die, shit happens, you deal with it as you can'. It was not gruesomely violent and what violence there was seemed to make a point rather than be violent for it's own sake. There were many little moments that I enjoyed. When a man didn't stand for a women and she insulted him for it made me smile. The portrayal of abuse, sexism and casual racism was felt subtly, rather than shouted at you. From start to finish I was engrossed. There are other things I could say, but I think I'll leave it at that. I'm not a professional when it comes to reviewing movies, but it was entertaining, thoughtful, and enjoyable. That's all I can ask.
Cheers.
Scott
PS - The fact that John Wayne and his acting had no part in this movie helped. I know he's an American icon and all, but the man could not act.
PPS - The other recent theatre film I have seen is The King's Speech. Great film, go see it if you feel True Grit would not be your cup of tea.

A Belated Happy New Year.

2011-01-19T14:08:00.000-07:00

We're not that far from February, but happy new year all the same. What's the protocol on that? How long do I have to say it before I get shunned? I was just wondering, what sort of resolutions people have made? Mine is to call a friend that I have not talked to for over a month, at least once a week. Facebook sucks for actually staying close with friends, so this is my solution. I trust everyone is well, and look forward to chatting with some good friends.
If anyone's resolution is to buy me stuff, I found that I can order all the discworld novels, signed by the author. The internet is truly a wonderful thing.
My favourite quote from the latest discworld novels is what I'll end this little entry with.
"The Patrician took a sip of his beer. "I have told this to few people, gentlemen, and I suspect I never will again, but one day when I was a young boy on holiday in Uberwald I was walking along the bank of a stream when I saw a mother otter with her cubs. A very endearing sight, I'm sure you will agree, and even as I watched, the mother otter dived into the water and came up with a plump salmon, which she subdued and dragged onto a half-submerged log. As she ate it, while of course it was still alive, the body split and I remember to its day the sweet pinkness of its roes as they spilled out, much to the delight of the baby otters who scrambled over themselves to feed on the delicacy. One of nature's wonders, gentlemen: mother and children dining upon mother and children. And that's when I first learned about evil. It is built in to the very nature of the universe. Every world spins in pain. If there is any kind of supreme being, I told myself, it is up to all of us to become his moral superior."
-- Terry Pratchett, Unseen Academicals
Cheers.

It's almost Hogswatch!

2010-12-24T09:29:00.002-07:00

I just finished watching The Hogfather movie last night, which was enjoyable. If I ever had a nanny, I would want it to be Susan of Sto Helit. Wish Death could have been more like I imagined though, but that's the problem with movies from books is it not. As always, Mr Pratchett has some great lines in amongst the humour. My favourite would be the following, which was taken from the book:
Susan: "Thank you. Now ... tell me ..."
Death: What would have happened if you hadn't saved him"
"Yes! The sun would have risen just the same, yes?"
No.
"Oh, come on. You can't expect me to believe that. It's an astronomical fact."
The sun would not have risen.
She turned on him.
"It's been a long night, Grandfather! I'm tired and I need a bath! I don't need silliness!"
The sun would not have risen.
"Really? Then what would have happened, pray?"
A mere ball of flaming gas would have illuminated the world.
They walked in silence for a moment.
"Ah," said Susan dully. "Trickery with words. I would have thought you'd have been more literal-minded than that."
I am nothing if not literal-minded. Trickery with words is where humans live.
"All right," said Susan. "I'm not stupid. You're saying that humans need ... fantasies to make life bearable."
Really? As if it was some kind of pink pill? No. Humans need fantasy to be human. To be the place where the falling angel meets the rising ape.
"Tooth fairies? Hogfathers? Little ---"
Yes. As practice. You have to start out learning to believe the little lies.
"So we can believe the big ones?"
Yes. Justice. Mercy. Duty. That sort of thing.
"They're not the same at all!"
You think so? Then take the universe and grind it down to the finest powder and sieve it through the finest sieve and then show me one atom of justice, one molecule of mercy. And yet --- Death waved a hand. And yet you act as if there is some ideal order in the world, as if there is some ... rightness in the universe by which it may be judged.
"Yes, but people have got to believe that, or what's the point ---"
My point exactly.
She tried to assemble her thoughts.
There is a place where two galaxies have been colliding for a million years, said Death, apropos of nothing. Don't try to tell me that's right.
"Yes, but people don't think about that," said Susan. Somewhere there was a bed ...
Correct. Stars explode, worlds collide, there's hardly anywhere in the universe where humans can live without being frozen or fried, and yet you believe that a ... a bed is a normal thing. It is the most amazing talent.
"Talent?"
Oh, yes. A very special kind of stupidity. You think that the whole universe is inside your heads.
"You make us sound mad," said Susan. A nice warm bed ...
No. You need to believe in things that aren't true. How else can they become? said Death, helping her up onto Binky.
"These mountains," said Susan, as the horse rose. "Are they real mountains, or some sort of shadows?"
Yes.
Susan knew that was all she was going to get.

The line about human being where the fallen angel meets the rising ape, that's what I'm celebrating. Happy Hogswatch everyone, and Merry Christmas.
Scott

PS And other things ending in 'olly

Winter Solstice & Lunar Eclipse

2010-12-20T17:45:00.001-07:00

It's all over the interwebs, but just in case you didn't know, a full Lunar Eclipse and Winter Solstice fall on the same day this year. Get out there and look at that moon. If you're like me and on MST, then total eclipse will begin at 0:41 MST on Tuesday. Here's a link to NASA's page. I sure hope we have clear skies for it. "Good night, and keep watching the skis."
Cheers,
Scott
This picture can be found here.

Happy Saturnalia!

2010-12-17T09:07:00.031-07:00

Today is the traditional first day of Saturnalia, Dec 17. I love the Christmas season, so much history, across so many cultures. Living in the north, with cold, dark and snow a constant, celebrating seems like a proper reaction. In a different time of my life, I used to feel offended when people would take away from a Christian focused Christmas time, now I know how silly that was. James McGrath has a good entry on that topic. With that in mind, I very much appreciate the Wikipedia entry on Winter Solstice observances. It has a list of a lot of other celebrations during this time of year. So many good excuses to party and be with the ones you love. It seems like there are also many good excuses to scare small children.
Music is an integral part of the Christmas season, and my favourite modern Christmas song is by Tim Minchin. It have some very good lines that sum up how I feel about Christmas. If you choose to buy it on itunes, all the proceeds go to charity. Go buy it. I really like this song.

For an older Christmas carol, I love the Roger Miller classic "Old Toy Trains".

Changing ones mind

2010-12-16T22:46:00.000-07:00

It's been several months since I've had time to do any entries. That does not mean the thinking has stopped. If it had, then maybe I would have stopped? Lately something I've been pondering is changing your mind or deconversion from previous beliefs. Many of the people who know me know I've changed my beliefs a lot in the last decade. I feel it very keenly sometimes. I think the video below explains how ones belief slowly can be eroded away. He's specifically talking about belief in g0d, but I think it can apply to anything. I know it's sort of how it worked for me. Enough points get countered strongly enough, you just end up waking up one day believing something different. On a slightly related note, I asked a friend a few months back what started him on his road to deconversion. To paraphrase my memory of what he said, he said that instead of just reading the quotes that apologists would use, he went to the source material. Finding that Christian apologists tend to distort and 'lie for Jesus' makes it hard to buy into their arguments. That's a specific reason not to believe, but as the video shows, it takes more than just one specific reason.

WNYC - Radiolab Is Awesome

2010-08-06T18:09:00.024-06:00

I know I'm probably one of the last people to have started listening to Radiolab. I've listened to the oldest three episodes that itunes has, each from 2007. All three have left me feeling excited and wishing my vocabulary was bigger. Not that the show is hard to understand. I just wish my brain would not keep saying, "This is such a "expletive of your choice" amazing podcast."
The most memorable phrase from the Who Am I episode was that you are one head injury away from being a completely different person. The ramifications of that have me a little dumbfounded. The Placebo episode also has me seriously pondering the amazing ability our bodies have to heal ourselves. Something that does not exist can cure you. Well, at least 25% of the time, but you'll have to listen to get the whole story.
Anyways, if anyone has room for one more podcast to fit into their play list, I would strongly, energetically, beseechingly, heartily, and vigorously encourage everyone to listen to Radiolab! I'm looking forward to a road trip soon, just so I can listen to 30+ hours of it. Though my lovely wife might not be so keen. Who am I kidding. She's intelligent and beautiful, and intelligent beautiful people love Radiolab.
Cheers,
Scott

The White Stripes

2010-07-28T13:55:00.000-06:00

I was just listening to The White Stripes, and I thought I would share one small reason I think they are great.
They did a tour of every province and territory in Canada, something big bands rarely, if ever, do.

The director was interviewed on CBC's show Q, the episode can be listened to here. The actual interview starts at the 44:40 minute mark of the podcast.
I like the Simpsons bit with them too.

Dilution

2010-07-13T11:29:00.001-06:00

Oh xkcd how I love you. It's just water people.

Katie Melua is a good sport

2010-07-12T13:02:00.001-06:00

I had never heard this story before, but I thought it was pretty funny. Katie Melua wrote a song, and obviously songs are not the place to look for accuracy. Simon Singh wrote an article about it, and she actually wrote a little joke revision. I realize this is a pretty old story, but it's new to me.

The video clip comes from the end of Micheal Shermer's TED talk.
Cheers,
Scott

Penn Jillette on why you should read your Bible and more

2010-07-10T10:20:00.003-06:00

For the record, I have read the entire Bible, twice, and was halfway through a third when I decided I just didn't want to anymore.
There's a new study that suggests anxiety may be at the root of religious extremism.
I've been listening through all the Reasonable Doubts podcast, and just heard the one Determinism v Free Will.
http://doubtreligion.blogspot.com/2009/01/episode-29-free-willy-vs-determinator.html
The idea that we are not uncaused causers makes sense to me. I still have not come down on one side though, and it seems like a very complicated discussion. If anyone else has time to listen to the podcast, I would love to hear others thoughts.
Cheers,
Scott

Knowledge is preferable to ignorance

2010-07-07T22:35:00.000-06:00

If I could choose to meet anyone I wanted from the last 100 years, living or dead, my first choice would be Carl Sagan. I have yet to come across a quote or interview I have not thoroughly enjoyed. I think it's time to have a Cosmos party.
The second would probably be Tolkien.
Who would you choose?

I love the quote at the end of that video.
"The significance of our lives and our fragile planet is then determined only by our own wisdom and courage. We are the custodians of life's meaning. We long for a Parent to care for us, to forgive us our errors, to save us from our childish mistakes. But knowledge is preferable to ignorance. Better by far to embrace the hard truth than a reassuring fable. If we crave some cosmic purpose, then let us find ourselves a worthy goal."
Carl Sagan - "A Pale Blue Dot"
Cheers,
Scott

McGrath has a good point.

2010-06-23T19:01:00.001-06:00

I think James McGrath at Exploring Our Matrix has a very good point about YEC's preaching a false gospel. He was recently interviewed, in which they briefly talked about it.
Even mentioning young earth creationists is depressing to me. I find Carl Sagan is the perfect antidote.

Cheers,
Scott

There is much I don't know.

2010-06-23T18:35:00.004-06:00

I've been working with my Dad a lot the last few weeks. It involves running heavy equipment, which gives me lots of time to listen to podcasts. The three that have been in my ear non stop have been Q, Religions of the Ancient Mediterranean, and Conversations From The Pale Blue Dot. I highly recommend all three. Conversations is particularly interesting to me, as Luke does not only interview people that would reinforce his viewpoint. He mainly focuses on the philosophy of religion and the Atheism/Christian divide. Someone who comes up a lot in discussion is William Lane Craig. Dr Craig is someone who would most definitely destroy me in any sort of intellectual challenge. There is something about him that bugs me though, and I feel as if it is indicative of most evangelicals. The following three quotes illustrate my unease.

"Therefore, when a person refuses to come to Christ it is never just because of lack of evidence or because of intellectual difficulties: at root, he refuses to come because he willingly ignores and rejects the drawing of God's Spirit on his heart. No one in the final analysis really fails to become a Christian because of lack of arguments; he fails to become a Christian because he loves darkness rather than light and wants nothing to do with God." [William Lane Craig, Reasonable Faith: Christian Truth and Apologetics, (Revised edition, Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 1994), pp. 35-36.]

"Should a conflict arise between the witness of the Holy Spirit to the fundamental truth of the Christian faith and beliefs based on argument and evidence, then it is the former which must take precedence over the latter, not vice versa." [William Lane Craig, Reasonable Faith: Christian Truth and Apologetics, (Revised edition, Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 1994), p. 36.]

"The Bible says all men are without excuse. Even those who are given no good reason to believe and many persuasive reasons to disbelieve have no excuse, because the ultimate reason they do not believe is that they have deliberately rejected God's Holy Spirit." [William Lane Craig, Reasonable Faith: Christian Truth and Apologetics, (Revised edition, Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 1994), p. 37.]

I know we all have our bias'. That humans tend to accept evidence that reinforces personal viewpoints, and reject anything that contradicts. With that said, I feel I have changed my mind on many issues when thinking through the evidence, and examining my own inner reasons. My vastly different outlook on Christianity within the last ten years would be an example. These quotes drive home to me the futility of trying to reason with anyone with an entrenched religious position. I know I changed, but I think the change comes organically within the person. It can not be forced. Dr Craig illustrates this perfectly. He claims to be all about reason and evidence, but quotes like this lead me to distrust that. Much like the young earth creationists, it seems that nothing would ever change his mind. I just find that to be very dishonest.
This has led me to think that I will keep my personal intellectually journey to a close few, and try to avoid debate as much as possible. I love the debate, but I am beginning to see the futility of it. People will believe whatever they want, no matter how mind numbingly ignorant and crazy. Let me be clear, in no way am I saying religion makes people stupid. When a person is so committed to a viewpoint that nothing will change their mind, that's just stubbornness, and very human.
Cheers,
Scott

Gorilla Encounter

2010-05-21T09:21:00.001-06:00

This is a pretty amazing encounter between two different species. I don't know how much is anthropomorphizing, but there is obviously some sort of actual relationship. I think for people who treat all species of equal value, this raises some interesting points.

Evolution of the Eye

2010-05-19T18:56:00.000-06:00

David Attenborough's voice is just great. Really have to get around to watching 'Planet Earth'.

Fallacies

2010-05-19T16:51:00.002-06:00

I have a brief barrage of fallacies spoken at me today. I thought I would list the ones I can remember. It was sort of amusing, and I did not say too much as the person ranted. With some people, the relationship is important, you know saying anything of substance is not really going to get you anywhere, and it's best to just let everything go without comment. Until writing about it later on a blog of course.

Now for the fallacies committed, at least the ones I can remember:

Argument From Adverse Consequences (Appeal To Fear, Scare Tactics):
saying an opponent must be wrong, because if he is right, then bad things would ensue. For example: God must exist, because a godless society would be lawless and dangerous. Or: the defendant in a murder trial must be found guilty, because otherwise husbands will be encouraged to murder their wives.
Excluded Middle (False Dichotomy, Faulty Dilemma, Bifurcation):
assuming there are only two alternatives when in fact there are more. For example, assuming Atheism is the only alternative to Fundamentalism, or being a traitor is the only alternative to being a loud patriot.
Argument By Question:
asking your opponent a question which does not have a snappy answer. (Or anyway, no snappy answer that the audience has the background to understand.) Your opponent has a choice: he can look weak or he can look long-winded. For example, "How can scientists expect us to believe that anything as complex as a single living cell could have arisen as a result of random natural processes ?"
Actually, pretty well any question has this effect to some extent. It usually takes longer to answer a question than ask it.
Argument By Vehemence:
being loud. Trial lawyers are taught this rule:
If you have the facts, pound on the facts.
If you have the law, pound on the law.
If you don't have either, pound on the table.
The above rule paints vehemence as an act of desperation. But it can also be a way to seize control of the agenda, use up the opponent's time, or just intimidate the easily cowed. And it's not necessarily aimed at winning the day. A tantrum or a fit is also a way to get a reputation, so that in the future, no one will mess with you. Depending on what you're loud about, this may also be an Appeal To Force, Argument By Emotive Language, Needling, or Changing The Subject.
Complex Question (Tying):
unrelated points are treated as if they should be accepted or rejected together. In fact, each point should be accepted or rejected on its own merits. For example, "Do you support freedom and the right to bear arms?"
Argument By Pigheadedness (Doggedness):
refusing to accept something after everyone else thinks it is well enough proved. For example, there are still Flat Earthers.
Non Sequitur:
something that just does not follow. For example, "Tens of thousands of Americans have seen lights in the night sky which they could not identify. The existence of life on other planets is fast becoming certainty !"
Another example: arguing at length that your religion is of great help to many people. Then, concluding that the teachings of your religion are undoubtably true. Or: "Bill lives in a large building, so his apartment must be large."
Argument By Fast Talking:
if you go from one idea to the next quickly enough, the audience won't have time to think. This is connected to Changing The Subject and (to some audiences) Argument By Personal Charm. However, some psychologists say that to understand what you hear, you must for a brief moment believe it. If this is true, then rapid delivery does not leave people time to reject what they hear.

All those and more can be found at this site. There were probably a few more committed, but those are the ones that stand out. Several were done at the same time. I obviously commit some of them myself, but I think the slower a discussion is, and more thought out, that tends to keep fallacies to a minimum.
Cheers,
Scott

Explanation

2010-05-11T15:16:00.000-06:00

I was blogging through Tim Keller's book, The Reason for God: Belief in an Age of Skepticism. I had already read through it, and was proceeding to blog through each chapter. It's been awhile since my last entry, so I thought I would explain why. I get the e-skeptic email, which had an article that ended with the quote below. It neatly summed up why I just didn't want to keep going through that book.
"Timothy Keller’s, The Reason for God, though falling short of any expectations one might harbour based on the title, does serve us with distinction as an important offering of contemporary conservative Christian thought. The reader hoping for philosophically satisfying discourse on an Uncaused First Cause may find himself frustrated and sadly disappointed by the more narrow scope of Reverend Keller’s dogmatic perspective. Nevertheless, for anyone wishing to maintain an understanding of modern fundamentalist Christian doctrine, this work is a must read." - Kenneth Grubbs
The whole article can be found here. I was really looking for something different when I started going through that book. It seems to be more for people who want to believe, or already do believe in a particular fundamentalist world view. It's not really for skeptics though. In that way, I found it very similar to the Alpha course.
I do feel a little bit of a quitter for not blogging through each chapter, but it's just not worth the time. If you have not really thought about belief before, are not really a skeptic, or maybe want a glimpse into one version of Christianity, then it's is a perfect book. I just don't fall into any of those categories at the moment.
Cheers.
PS - SMBC, it just makes me laugh so much.

TED: The Dangers of Science Denialism - Michael Specter

2010-04-29T08:58:00.000-06:00

Among the books I am currently busy trying to read, is Michael Specter's book Denialism. If you don't have time to read his book, watch his TED talk. I appreciate how he points out our problems, but love the call to fix them. Denialism gets us no where.

Great Courses

2010-03-11T11:26:00.001-07:00

     I've made a discovery at my local public library. They have university courses on CD. They're published by The Teaching Company. I get them from the library, rip the course to itunes, and now I can't go anywhere without my headphones. Any down time and I start listening. It's awesome! So far I have taken out:
An Introduction to Greek Philosophy pt 1 & 2
From Jesus to Constantine: A History Of Early Christianity pt 1 & 2
Historical Jesus pt 1
At the moment the library won't let me put on any more holds, something about reaching a 'hold limit'. I'm just waiting for my current holds to come in so I can rip them, return them, and get some more. I highly recommend visiting your local library and checking them out. There is a wide array of subjects.
     I'm currently reading Slavoj Žižek's book, The Puppet and The Dwarf. I'll confess, it is making me feel quiet dull, but hopefully it begins to make sense by the end.
   I had a very good discussion with a friend over beers last Thursday. The conversation meandered over to Anabaptists/Mennonites and I learned more about the Mennonite intellectual traditions. I did not realize the Lutherans considered us such heretics, and only recently retracted that position. Our strong commitment to separation of Church and State. Menno's realized that Church and State just led to Empire, and that Christians should have no part of Empire. It was a very heretical idea at the time. That Mennonites traditionally don't read the Bible is the same way many other Christian traditions do. There are a lot of Mennonite profs in University's and it seems there is a good reason for that. There's a lot to be proud of.
     That's been Scott's thoughts over the last few weeks. I'm still working through the truth seeker challenge. Waiting on the library really. I'll end with a statement that I've been mulling over since last Thursday.
"I believe in God, but I don't think God exists."
Cheers,
Scott

Sir Terry Pratchett Lecture about Alzheimer's and assisted dying.

2010-02-03T13:00:00.000-07:00

I found this lecture to be very thought provoking. There are six clips in all, and are all worth watching or listening to.

Alpha - Three Sessions Down

2010-01-28T09:16:00.001-07:00

Some xkcd to start off this post:

I wonder if I am too critical. I shall explain.
I have been enjoying Alpha. The people are very nice, the food is great and I even re-connected with an old friend.
There have been three Alpha sessions so far. Number one "Christianity: Boring, Untrue, Irrelevant?", Number two "What is the Evidence for Christianity?", and Number three "Why did Jesus die?". It's been kind of interesting hearing these teachings with a different mindset. There are so many more problems than I used to let myself see. Belief is pretty powerful stuff, and I believed pretty powerfully. When I think about it, it makes me sad. I do miss it. It almost feels like I am going through the final stages of a separation, except the other person in the relationship might never have existed. I have not yet completely given up on belief, just the more traditional Christian belief, "relationship with Jesus", that I had. If it is something you can lose, I seemed to have misplaced it and picked up some sort of naturalism. The desire to slip back into the more evangelical world view is definitely there. The only thing that stops me is I can't live or preach what I don't really believe. Belief for the sake of belief does not really appeal.
What does this have to do with being too critical? Someone at our table asked to read the notes I had been taking. She made the comment that they seemed to be mostly critical. She was concerned that in criticizing the flaws I saw, I would become bitter. The suggestion was made that I try and write down the positive. She's right, it is too easy to be critical, and I don't want to be bitter. I also don't want to give ideas and beliefs a free ride in my brain. I think the part of it is that there is so much in the Alpha videos that seems contentious to me. I know Mr Gumbel is not trying to, but it seems like he's helping decide what it is that I no longer believe, rather than introduce me to belief. It is also starting to be apparent that Alpha is geared towards Christians, or those with no history in the Christian tradition, not towards the skeptic.
My thoughts are a little all over the place, but I'll end with this. I'll try to write notes in a little more of a positive light. Can a person write critical thoughts of ideas and beliefs without being too critical?
Just to show I'm not too one sided, I am half way through Jesus is Dead by Robert Price. The books seems little all over the place and don't really like his writing style either. Maybe I am too critical. In the words of Megan, "You cynical bastard". I like to think they were said with affection...
Cheers,
Scott

The Challenge

2010-01-20T16:43:00.004-07:00

I've decided to climb a mountain of literature, hopefully within a year. I might have to squeeze two or three years into this, but we'll see how it goes. Lukeprog at Common Sense Atheism has written a post called the Ultimate Truth Seeker Challenge. Go read the post so you get the general idea, I'll wait.

Now I know this might seem a little silly or pointless, depending on your view of the world and the nature of truth. Some people would probably add, or take away, different books. It's a challenge though, and I want to give it a shot. I don't expect to be any sort of expert when I'm done. I do expect to be able to at least have a better idea of my beliefs, and maybe be a little more eloquent in describing them.

The tricky part is I can't read the books in order. It all depends on the library, ordering, and when things arrive. I don't have the time to blog through each book, but I might at least write an entry after I finish each one. I'll keep a notebook handy as I'm reading too, just so I don't forget everything.

I've made up a list of the books and the status of each. If you're in the Edmonton area and you want to read these too, I have an online library list. You can see which ones they have in stock. If anyone feels like donating any of the books, I would not say no. As well, if anyone wants to read them too, let me know, maybe we could discuss the books together as we go.

Cheers,

Scott
PS - If someone had strong objections to a book, thinking there was a much better one to be put in it's place, I am open to discussion.

Library Has in Stock /On Order:

01 - 50 Reasons People Give for Believing in a God:

Guy P. Harrison (354 pages, beginner, skeptical)

02 - Handbook of Christian Apologetics: Hundreds of Answers to Crucial Questions:

Peter Kreeft / Ronald K Tracelli (406 pages, beginner, apologetic)

04 - Reasonable Faith:

William Lane Craig (416 pages, intermediate, apologetic)

05 - Jesus is Dead:

Robert Price (279 pages, intermediate, skeptical)

06 - Jesus Legend, The: A Case for the Historical Reliability of the Synoptic Jesus Tradition:

Greg Boyd & Paul Eddy (480 pages, intermediate, apologetic)

07 - Sense & Goodness Without God: A Defence of Metaphysical Naturalism:

Richard Carrier (444 pages, intermediate, skeptical)

09 - The Case Against Christianity (Paperback):

Michael Martin (256 pages, advanced, skeptical)

13 - The Existence of God :

Richard Swinburne (376 pages, advanced, apologetic)

Library Is Not Ordering; Trying Through Inter-Library Loans Department:

08 - Philosophical Foundations for a Christian Worldview:

J.P. Moreland & William Lane Craig

10 - Scaling the Secular City:

J.P. Moreland (288 pages, advanced, apologetic)

11 - Arguing for Atheism:

Robin Le Poidevin (184, pages, advanced, skeptical)

14 - Theism and Explanation:

Gregory Dawes (222 pages, advanced, skeptical)

15 - The Non-existence of God:

Nicholas Everitt (352 pages, advanced, skeptical)

19 - The Rationality of Theism:

Paul Copan & others

20- Arguing about Gods:

Graham Oppy (472 pages, advanced, skeptical)

21 - The Blackwell Companion to Natural Theology:

William Lane Craig & others (704 pages, advanced, apologetic)

22 - Logic and Theism:

Jordan Howard Sobel (676 pages, advanced, skeptical)

Library Is Trying to Order:

12 - In Defense of Natural Theology: A Post-humean Assessment :

James F. Sennett & others (336 pages, advanced, apologetic)

18 - Atheism: A Philosophical Justification:

Michael Martin (541 pages, advanced, skeptical)

Have Asked Library to Order:

16 - The Miracle Of Theism:

J.L. Mackie (278 pages, advanced, skeptical)

17 - Reasons for Hope Within:

Michael J. Murray & others (429 pages, advanced, apologetic)

19 - The Rationality of Theism:

Paul Copan & others (304 pages, advanced, apologetic)

Can try to order at later date:

03 - The Christian Delusion: Why Faith Fails:

John W. Loftus (385 pages, intermediate, skeptical)

Published in April 27, 2010

Already Own:

23 - Warranted Christian Belief:

Alvin Plantiga (528 pages, advanced, apologetic)

Explore the Matrix

2010-01-15T10:01:00.003-07:00

I've been going through my google reader, catching up on whatever interesting blog entries I missed. One that I have been enjoying more and more is James F. McGrath's blog Exporing Our Matrix. It's sometimes academic yet readable, and he posts lots of sci-fi and science stuff, so what's not to like!
This entry from January is a good example of why I like it. His post on Santa and Religion was also very good.

Now for a random xkcd comic.

Cheers.

Alpha Course

2010-01-13T16:40:00.001-07:00

A cousin of mine invited me to join him and his wife in the Alpha course. My wife has volleyball on Wednesday nights, so I decided to go. Mainly for kicks and giggles. Tonight's the first night, and depending on how it goes and if I decide to go again, I might write some more about it. My younger brother firmly told me to keep my mouth shut and not to be a shit disturber. With that in mind I'll take my moleskin, try to be quiet, and listen.
On a not incompletely unrelated topic, I just found this website. http://www.philosophyofreligion.info/. I am curious who is behind it, if it was a university or just some random person?
Cheers,
Scott
PS - Just because I like to have pictures in entries, here's a random Saturday Morning Breakfast Cereal.

Terry Pratchett: Rather be a rising monkey than a fallen angel.

2009-12-20T15:29:00.002-07:00

My favourite author just did some interviews for the guardian. If you have not read the discworld novels, you are missing out. They are the only books that I have laughed so hard while reading someone thought I was weeping.
More interviews can be found at:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/video/2009/dec/18/book-club-terry-pratchett

High Voltage Cattle Prod

2009-12-20T14:27:00.000-07:00

I had an impulse purchase at Chapters the other week. It was a book called, "What We Believe But Cannot Prove; Today's Leading Thinkers on Science in the age of Certainty". I was shopping for other people, but the price was right and it seemed interesting. The entries vary in length and tone, but I'm going to reproduce the one that induced the purchase.

"Seth Lloyd"

"Seth Lloyd is a quantum mechanical engineer and a professor in the Department of Mechanical Engineering at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, where he specializes in the design of quantum computers and quantum communications systems. He is the author of Programming the Universe."

"I believe in science. Unlike mathematical theorems, scientific results can't be proved. They can only be tested again and again until only a fool would refuse to believe them.
I cannot prove that electrons exist, but I believe fervently in their existence. And if you don't believe in them, I have a high-voltage cattle prod I'm willing to apply as an argument on their behalf. Electrons speak for themselves."

The "high-voltage cattle prod" line made me laugh out loud.

Last Comment

2009-12-07T08:33:00.002-07:00

I couldn't watch this whole video, the American makes it unbearable. The last comment of the video is pretty funny and makes it worth the pain. Saw the video via Pharyngula.

Cognitive Biases

2009-12-05T09:34:00.006-07:00

I just finished A.J. Jacobs book, "The Guinea Pig Diaries". It was a good, easy little read, and I would recommend it. His one experiment of trying to live rationally was interesting, and at the end of the book he had a list of cognitive biases which I found fascinating.
Cognitive biases are interesting for many reasons, I especially like the blind spot bias, which I am probably very guilty of. Just knowing that I probably commit several of these a day is, in a weird way, helpful. It's a long list, which is also kind of depressing. It does help to explain why there is so much woo woo in the world though...
I thought it would be helpful to list them, so I just cut and past the entire list from the Wikipedia article .

"Many of these biases are studied for how they affect belief formation, business decisions, and scientific research.

Bandwagon effect — the tendency to do (or believe) things because many other people do (or believe) the same. Related to groupthink and herd behaviour.
Base rate fallacy — ignoring available statistical data in favour of particulars.
Bias blind spot — the tendency not to compensate for one's own cognitive biases.^[1]
Choice-supportive bias — the tendency to remember one's choices as better than they actually were.
Confirmation bias — the tendency to search for or interpret information in a way that confirms one's preconceptions.
Congruence bias — the tendency to test hypotheses exclusively through direct testing, in contrast to tests of possible alternative hypotheses.
Contrast effect — the enhancement or diminishing of a weight or other measurement when compared with a recently observed contrasting object.
Déformation professionnelle — the tendency to look at things according to the conventions of one's own profession, forgetting any broader point of view.
Denomination effect — the tendency to spend more money when it is denominated in small amounts (e.g. coins) than large amounts (e.g. bills).^[2]
Distinction bias — the tendency to view two options as more dissimilar when evaluating them simultaneously than when evaluating them separately.^[3]
Endowment effect — "the fact that people often demand much more to give up an object than they would be willing to pay to acquire it".^[4]
Experimenter's or Expectation bias — the tendency for experimenters to believe, certify, and publish data that agree with their expectations for the outcome of an experiment, and to disbelieve, discard, or downgrade the corresponding weightings for data that appear to conflict with those expectations.^[5]
Extraordinarity bias — the tendency to value an object more than others in the same category as a result of an extraordinarity of that object that does not, in itself, change the value.^{[citation needed]}
Focusing effect — prediction bias occurring when people place too much importance on one aspect of an event; causes error in accurately predicting the utility of a future outcome.
Framing — Using an approach or description of the situation or issue that is too narrow. Also framing effect — drawing different conclusions based on how data is presented.
Hyperbolic discounting — the tendency for people to have a stronger preference for more immediate payoffs relative to later payoffs, where the tendency increases the closer to the present both payoffs are.
Illusion of control — the tendency for human beings to believe they can control or at least influence outcomes that they clearly cannot.
Impact bias — the tendency for people to overestimate the length or the intensity of the impact of future feeling states.
Information bias — the tendency to seek information even when it cannot affect action.
Irrational escalation — the tendency to make irrational decisions based upon rational decisions in the past or to justify actions already taken.
Just-world phenomenon - witnesses of an "inexplicable injustice . . . will rationalize it by searching for things that the victim might have done to deserve it"
Loss aversion — "the disutility of giving up an object is greater than the utility associated with acquiring it".^[6] (see also sunk cost effects and Endowment effect).
Mere exposure effect — the tendency for people to express undue liking for things merely because they are familiar with them.
Money illusion — the tendency of people to concentrate on the nominal (face value) of money rather than its value in terms of purchasing power.
Moral credential effect — the tendency of a track record of non-prejudice to increase subsequent prejudice.
Need for Closure — the need to reach a verdict in important matters; to have an answer and to escape the feeling of doubt and uncertainty. The personal context (time or social pressure) might increase this bias.^[7]
Neglect of probability — the tendency to completely disregard probability when making a decision under uncertainty.
Not Invented Here — the tendency to ignore that a product or solution already exists, because its source is seen as an "enemy" or as "inferior".
Omission bias — the tendency to judge harmful actions as worse, or less moral, than equally harmful omissions (inactions).
Outcome bias — the tendency to judge a decision by its eventual outcome instead of based on the quality of the decision at the time it was made.
Planning fallacy — the tendency to underestimate task-completion times.
Post-purchase rationalization — the tendency to persuade oneself through rational argument that a purchase was a good value.
Pseudocertainty effect — the tendency to make risk-averse choices if the expected outcome is positive, but make risk-seeking choices to avoid negative outcomes.
Reactance — the urge to do the opposite of what someone wants you to do out of a need to resist a perceived attempt to constrain your freedom of choice.
Restraint bias - the tendency to overestimate one's ability to show restraint in the face of temptation.
Selective perception — the tendency for expectations to affect perception.
Semmelweis reflex — the tendency to reject new evidence that contradicts an established paradigm.^[8]
Status quo bias — the tendency for people to like things to stay relatively the same (see also loss aversion, endowment effect, and system justification).^[9]
Von Restorff effect — the tendency for an item that "stands out like a sore thumb" to be more likely to be remembered than other items.
Wishful thinking — the formation of beliefs and the making of decisions according to what is pleasing to imagine instead of by appeal to evidence or rationality.
Zero-risk bias — preference for reducing a small risk to zero over a greater reduction in a larger risk.

[edit] Biases in probability and belief

Many of these biases are often studied for how they affect business and economic decisions and how they affect experimental research.

Ambiguity effect — the avoidance of options for which missing information makes the probability seem "unknown".
Anchoring effect — the tendency to rely too heavily, or "anchor," on a past reference or on one trait or piece of information when making decisions (also called "insufficient adjustment").
Attentional bias — neglect of relevant data when making judgments of a correlation or association.
Authority bias — the tendency to value an ambiguous stimulus (e.g., an art performance) according to the opinion of someone who is seen as an authority on the topic.
Availability heuristic — estimating what is more likely by what is more available in memory, which is biased toward vivid, unusual, or emotionally charged examples.
Availability cascade — a self-reinforcing process in which a collective belief gains more and more plausibility through its increasing repetition in public discourse (or "repeat something long enough and it will become true").
Belief bias — an effect where someone's evaluation of the logical strength of an argument is biased by the believability of the conclusion.
Clustering illusion — the tendency to see patterns where actually none exist.
Capability bias — The tendency to believe that the closer average performance is to a target, the tighter the distribution of the data set.
Conjunction fallacy — the tendency to assume that specific conditions are more probable than general ones.
Disposition effect — the tendency to sell assets that have increased in value but hold assets that have decreased in value.
Gambler's fallacy — the tendency to think that future probabilities are altered by past events, when in reality they are unchanged. Results from an erroneous conceptualization of the normal distribution. For example, "I've flipped heads with this coin five times consecutively, so the chance of tails coming out on the sixth flip is much greater than heads."
Hawthorne effect — the tendency of people to perform or perceive differently when they know that they are being observed.
Hindsight bias — sometimes called the "I-knew-it-all-along" effect, the inclination to see past events as being predictable.
Illusory correlation — beliefs that inaccurately suppose a relationship between a certain type of action and an effect.^[10]
Ludic fallacy — the analysis of chance-related problems according to the belief that the unstructured randomness found in life resembles the structured randomness found in games, ignoring the non-gaussian distribution of many real-world results.
Neglect of prior base rates effect — the tendency to neglect known odds when reevaluating odds in light of weak evidence.
Observer-expectancy effect — when a researcher expects a given result and therefore unconsciously manipulates an experiment or misinterprets data in order to find it (see also subject-expectancy effect).
Optimism bias — the systematic tendency to be over-optimistic about the outcome of planned actions.
Ostrich effect — ignoring an obvious (negative) situation.
Overconfidence effect — excessive confidence in one's own answers to questions. For example, for certain types of question, answers that people rate as "99% certain" turn out to be wrong 40% of the time.
Positive outcome bias — a tendency in prediction to overestimate the probability of good things happening to them (see also wishful thinking, optimism bias, and valence effect).
Pareidolia — vague and random stimulus (often an image or sound) are perceived as significant, e.g., seeing images of animals or faces in clouds, the man in the moon, and hearing hidden messages on records played in reverse.
Primacy effect — the tendency to weigh initial events more than subsequent events.
Recency effect — the tendency to weigh recent events more than earlier events (see also peak-end rule).
Disregard of regression toward the mean — the tendency to expect extreme performance to continue.
Selection bias — a distortion of evidence or data that arises from the way that the data are collected.
Stereotyping — expecting a member of a group to have certain characteristics without having actual information about that individual.
Subadditivity effect — the tendency to judge probability of the whole to be less than the probabilities of the parts.
Subjective validation — perception that something is true if a subject's belief demands it to be true. Also assigns perceived connections between coincidences.
Telescoping effect — the effect that recent events appear to have occurred more remotely and remote events appear to have occurred more recently.
Texas sharpshooter fallacy — the fallacy of selecting or adjusting a hypothesis after the data is collected, making it impossible to test the hypothesis fairly. Refers to the concept of firing shots at a barn door, drawing a circle around the best group, and declaring that to be the target.

[edit] Social biases

Most of these biases are labeled as attributional biases.

Actor-observer bias — the tendency for explanations of other individuals' behaviours to overemphasize the influence of their personality and under-emphasize the influence of their situation (see also fundamental attribution error). However, this is coupled with the opposite tendency for the self in that explanations for our own behaviours overemphasize the influence of our situation and under-emphasize the influence of our own personality.
Egocentric bias — occurs when people claim more responsibility for themselves for the results of a joint action than an outside observer would.
Forer effect (aka Barnum Effect) — the tendency to give high accuracy ratings to descriptions of their personality that supposedly are tailored specifically for them, but are in fact vague and general enough to apply to a wide range of people. For example, horoscopes.
False consensus effect — the tendency for people to overestimate the degree to which others agree with them.
Fundamental attribution error — the tendency for people to over-emphasize personality-based explanations for behaviours observed in others while under-emphasizing the role and power of situational influences on the same behaviour (see also actor-observer bias, group attribution error, positivity effect, and negativity effect).
Halo effect — the tendency for a person's positive or negative traits to "spill over" from one area of their personality to another in others' perceptions of them (see also physical attractiveness stereotype).
Herd instinct — Common tendency to adopt the opinions and follow the behaviors of the majority to feel safer and to avoid conflict.
Illusion of asymmetric insight — people perceive their knowledge of their peers to surpass their peers' knowledge of them.
Illusion of transparency — people overestimate others' ability to know them, and they also overestimate their ability to know others.
Illusory superiority — overestimating one's desirable qualities, and underestimating undesirable qualities, relative to other people. Also known as Superiority bias (also known as "Lake Wobegon effect", "better-than-average effect", "superiority bias", or Dunning-Kruger effect).
Ingroup bias — the tendency for people to give preferential treatment to others they perceive to be members of their own groups.
Just-world phenomenon — the tendency for people to believe that the world is just and therefore people "get what they deserve."
Notational bias — a form of cultural bias in which a notation induces the appearance of a nonexistent natural law.
Outgroup homogeneity bias — individuals see members of their own group as being relatively more varied than members of other groups.
Projection bias — the tendency to unconsciously assume that others share the same or similar thoughts, beliefs, values, or positions.
Self-serving bias (also called "behavioural confirmation effect") — the tendency to claim more responsibility for successes than failures. It may also manifest itself as a tendency for people to evaluate ambiguous information in a way beneficial to their interests (see also group-serving bias).
Self-fulfilling prophecy — the tendency to engage in behaviours that elicit results which will (consciously or not) confirm existing attitudes.^[11]
System justification — the tendency to defend and bolster the status quo. Existing social, economic, and political arrangements tend to be preferred, and alternatives disparaged sometimes even at the expense of individual and collective self-interest. (See also status quo bias.)
Trait ascription bias — the tendency for people to view themselves as relatively variable in terms of personality, behavior and mood while viewing others as much more predictable.
Ultimate attribution error — Similar to the fundamental attribution error, in this error a person is likely to make an internal attribution to an entire group instead of the individuals within the group.

[edit] Memory errors

Further information: Memory bias

Consistency bias — incorrectly remembering one's past attitudes and behaviour as resembling present attitudes and behaviour.
Cryptomnesia — a form of mis-attribution where a memory is mistaken for imagination.
Egocentric bias — recalling the past in a self-serving manner, e.g. remembering one's exam grades as being better than they were, or remembering a caught fish as being bigger than it was
False memory — confusion of imagination with memory, or the confusion of true memories with false memories.
Hindsight bias — filtering memory of past events through present knowledge, so that those events look more predictable than they actually were; also known as the 'I-knew-it-all-along effect'.
Reminiscence bump — the effect that people tend to recall more personal events from adolescence and early adulthood than from other lifetime periods.
Rosy retrospection — the tendency to rate past events more positively than they had actually rated them when the event occurred.
Self-serving bias — perceiving oneself responsible for desirable outcomes but not responsible for undesirable ones.
Suggestibility — a form of mis-attribution where ideas suggested by a questioner are mistaken for memory.
[edit] Common theoretical causes of some cognitive biases

Attribute substitution – making a complex, difficult judgement by unconsciously substituting an easier judgement^[12]
Attribution theory, especially:
- Salience
Cognitive dissonance, and related:
- Impression management
- Self-perception theory
Heuristics, including:
- Availability heuristic – estimating what is more likely by what is more available in memory, which is biased toward vivid, unusual, or emotionally charged examples^[10]
- Representativeness heuristic – judging probabilities on the basis of resemblance^[10]
- Affect heuristic – basing a decision on an emotional reaction rather than a calculation of risks and benefits ^{[13] "}

Gay and Christian

2009-11-16T12:09:00.003-07:00

This is a blog post by a friend from my dts in Hawaii and the trip to China. I am amazed by her strength and hope she can effect some change.
http://wemeblog.wordpress.com/2009/11/16/this-is-a-life-or-death-stituation/

The Reason For God - Chapter Six Review

2009-11-06T13:05:00.002-07:00

I've been avoiding finishing this review, it's becoming depressing. Keller is predictable in his arguments and from my perspective not making very good ones. I don't like being so negative, but it's especially hard with this chapter.
The Title for Chapter Six is "Science Has Disproved Christianity". Obviously this is not the case, as you can't disprove religious belief. Faith can't be tested. You can give reasonable doubt, make good arguments, but if I believe that chocolate ice cream is the best, then that's what I believe. Unless you make a testable criteria for the best ice cream, belief trumps all.
Keller makes the usual jabs at Dawkins and those guys. This is silly, Dawkins is a biologist, not a philosopher of religion. His personal opinion, although popular, is just that. Keller also takes issue with evolution being an all encompassing theory. Which is fine, because scientists don't do that, Christians do. When Christians talk about evolution, they tend to throw in physics, geology and others into the mix, confusing things even more.
What I wish Keller had answered was the fact that when religion makes a testable claim and falls into the realm of science, it's believers tend to ignore the evidence and go with their beliefs. An example could be the role of religion is society. If Christians make a claim about the result of a "godless" society, we can look at societies that are "godless", and see if the prediction lines up with the result.
When a believer plays the miracle card, miracles by their definition are untestable and useless. That is presupposing that a miracle actually happened.
Keller does make a claim about Genesis that I would like to quote.
"In each couplet one chapter describes a historical even and the other is a song or poem about the theological meaning of the event...I think Genesis 1 has the earmarks of poetry and is therefore a "song" about the wonder and meaning of God's creation. Genesis 2 is an account of how it happened."
He just made a claim that can be investigated and studied. He claims that Genesis two could be considered "true". In no way shape or form is Genesis 2 an account of "how it happened." Well, if you want to throw out all modern scientific evidence, sure, it's true. That quote is the equivalent of someone claiming that the sun revolves around the earth. If you want to believe that, then yes, science has disproved your version of Christianity.
To end on a more positive note, if anyone is interested in more thoughts and discussions on this topic, and a few others, by scholars and people who seem to know what they are talking about, try the links below.
http://exploringourmatrix.blogspot.com/2009/11/around-blogosphere.html
http://egalicontrarian.com/
http://commonsenseatheism.com/?p=4238
http://exploringourmatrix.blogspot.com/2009/11/evolutionary-theology.html
http://evolutionarytheology.wordpress.com/
http://www.nd.edu/~cprelig/conferences/video/my_ways/index.htm
That could get a person started, there is a ton a stuff out there.
Cheers,
Scott
PS - I would recommend three books as starters for those wishing to see the evidence for evolution.
Why Evolution is True by Jerry Coyne
Evolution: What the Fossils Say and Why It Matters by Donald R. Prothero
The Greatest show on Earth by Richard Dawkins. This is Dawkins talking about something he's an expert on, not his personal beliefs.
Please don't argue the validity of the scientific evidence without doing some basic investigation, which I would say these books are.

Carl Sagan and Peter Gzowski

2009-09-25T15:00:00.004-06:00

I remember first listening to this interview in 1995. It's a great interview, and it makes me miss being able to listen to Gzowski interview people. These are two people I wish I could have met. In my life, this interview is probably one of many roots to how I look at the world now and where I am going. I even ordered the transcript tape in high school, but I lent it to a teacher. He promptly "lost it", for which I am still mildly bitter.

The Might Be Giants

2009-09-17T16:18:00.001-06:00

I am in love with They Might Be Giants at the moment. I got my library to order their album, Here Comes Science, and can't wait to listen to the whole thing.
Niki really likes Meet the Elements, probably because she's a chemist, but I can't stop watching I Am A Paleontogist. Love the dancing dinosaur bones:)

Grain of Salt

2009-09-17T14:00:00.000-06:00

I just saw this video via the magic box. As in all America media, I would take it with a grain of salt, and a high degree of skepticism, but I think he asked a good question.
"Can Christianity be rescued from Christians?"
It's an obviously a loaded question, but the fundy subculture does seem to take pride in renouncing facts for faith.

The Reason For God - Chapter Five Review

2009-08-31T13:59:00.000-06:00

It's been a busy summer, but I am finally able to do another entry on my critique of The Reason For God by Timothy Keller. I have other things on the go, so I am hoping to pick up the pace with these.

This chapter deals with the topic of Hell, or more specifically, "How Can A Loving God Send People To Hell?" As you can tell, Keller has framed the problem of hell to be one of how can a loving g0d send people to a place of eternal torment. This is not actually what I would see as the main problem, but I will talk about that at the end of the post.

He starts off with addressing the objection that "A God of Judgement Simply Can't Exist". He then builds on the idea that a g0d of judgement could exist, but it's modernity that has led us to believe that we can determine what is right and what is wrong. That "In ancient times it was understood that there was a transcendent moral order outside the self, built in to the fabric of the universe." The spirit of modernity has given us a responsibility to choose right from wrong. This modernity driven moral objection is a result of our culture, that other cultures are offended if there is no judgement.This ability of Christianity to offend all cultures Keller sees as a sign of it's inherent truth. To quote, "If Christianity were the truth, it would have to be offending and correcting your thinking at some place. Maybe this is the place, the Christian docrtrine of divine judgement".

He then moves on to the critique that a God can't be both love and a judge. He proposes that without the idea of judgement, people would descend into an endless cycle of revenge. "Only if I am sure that there's a God who will right all wrongs and settle all accounts perfectly to I have the power to refrain". Therefore if you want love, you must have judgement. Keller uses Nazism and Communism as examples of this. I find this very disappointing. It's been pointed out that the Soviet Union was a religious state, in that Stalin used religious thinking and ideals to hold power. Nazi Germany was very much Lutheran/Catholic. To make his point the French terror would probably be his only good example of a athiestic society gone amock, but I would have to look into that more. Phil Zuckerman's book touches on this point, and I wonder what Keller would make of it.

A Loving God Would Not Allow Hell. To this Keller says that it's our idea of hell that is wrong. That it's not that g0d gave us a certain amount of time, then once we die he casts our souls into hell. That it's actually us that choose hell. By rejecting g0d, and removing ourselves from its presence, that is the essence of hell. He borrows heavily from C.S. Lewis' book, The Great Divorce with this argument. He also illuminates that the fire of hell is allegorical. That the symbolism of fire in the Bible is one of consumption and disintegration. Keller seems to skip around the idea that one could leave hell after death, but we choose to stay rather out of our own selfishenss. I find it very interesting that Keller makes the point that people change. "Today's outspoken believer may be tomorrow's apostate, and today's outspoken unbeliever may be tomorrow's convert". This raises some serious questions which he does not address and therefore, I feel, weakens the overall chapter.
To sum up the chapter, Keller says that we get our idea that g0d is love from the Bible. That no where else would this be evident. Outside of Christianity, he says, there is no evidence for a loving g0d. He uses that to say Christianity also teaches judgement, and if we want the Christian g0d of love, we must also accept the Christian g0d of Judgment.

That's the chapter as it stood out to me. I tried not to criticize as much, but just sort of put out the basics of Kellers' argument and see what reaction it might get. I mentioned earlier that the love part was not the main problem for me. I wish Keller would have addressed this problem.
(i) God exists, and is essentially omnipotent, omniscient, and perfectly good.
(ii) Some created persons will be consigned to hell forever.
(iii) If God is omnipotent, He is able to avoid (ii).
(iv) If God is omniscient, He knows how to avoid (ii).
(v) If God is perfectly good, He wants to avoid (ii).
(vi) Therefore, if (i), then not (ii).
This is found in Marilyn McCord Adams’ The problem of hell: a problem of evil for Christians published in Reasoned Faith. I discovered it via this blog. I would encourage people to read lukeprog as he seems to be fairly balanced in his reasoning. I find it very challenging. He often gives credit to the Theists when it's due, and calls out the Atheists when they are trying to pull a fast one.
Cheers,
Scott
PS - On a lighter note, people might like how Rowan Atkinson presents hell.

The Oldest Bible

2009-08-28T14:18:00.000-06:00

I am working on a new blog post, but I discovered this in my readings. Thought it was interesting, have to love that BBC radio.

Null Hypothesis

2009-07-27T12:10:00.004-06:00

I am currently in Victoria visiting family and friends. My father in law subscribes to Scientific America, which had this article in it. You can find the original here. I enjoyed it, and instead of quoting bits and pieces, thought I would just post the whole thing.

Cheers,

Scott

In a 1997 episode of The Simpsons entitled “The Springfield Files” — a parody of X-Files in which Homer has an alien encounter in the woods (after imbibing 10 bottles of Red Tick Beer) — Leonard Nimoy voices the intro as he once did for his post-Spock run on the television mystery series In Search of…: “The following tale of alien encounters is true. And by true, I mean false. It’s all lies. But they’re entertaining lies, and in the end isn’t that the real truth? The answer is no.”

No cubed. The postmodernist belief in the relativism of truth, coupled to the clicker culture of mass media where attention spans are measured in New York minutes, leaves us with a bewildering array of truth claims packaged in infotainment units. It must be true — I saw it on television, at the movies, on the Internet. The Twilight Zone, The Outer Limits, That’s Incredible, The Sixth Sense, Poltergeist, Loose Change, Zeitgeist the Movie. Mysteries, magic, myths and monsters. The occult and the supernatural. Conspiracies and cabals. The face on Mars and aliens on Earth. Bigfoot and Loch Ness. ESP and PSI. UFOs and ETIs. JFK, RFK and MLK — alphabet conspiracies. Altered states and hypnotic regression. Remote viewing and astroprojection. Ouija boards and Tarot cards. Astrology and palm reading. Acupuncture and chiropractic. Repressed memories and false memories. Talking to the dead and listening to your inner child. Such claims are an obfuscating amalgam of theory and conjecture, reality and fantasy, nonfiction and science fiction. Cue dramatic music. Darken the backdrop. Cast a shaft of light across the host’s face. The truth is out there. I want to believe.

What I want to believe based on emotions and what I should believe based on evidence does not always coincide. And after 99 monthly columns of exploring such topics (this is Opus 100), I conclude that I’m a skeptic not because I do not want to believe but because I want to know. I believe that the truth is out there. But how can we tell the difference between what we would like to be true and what is actually true? The answer is science.

Science begins with the null hypothesis, which assumes that the claim under investigation is not true until demonstrated otherwise. The statistical standards of evidence needed to reject the null hypothesis are substantial. Ideally, in a controlled experiment, we would like to be 95 to 99 percent confident that the results were not caused by chance before we offer our provisional assent that the effect may be real. Failure to reject the null hypothesis does not make the claim false, and, conversely, rejecting the null hypothesis is not a warranty on truth. Nevertheless, the scientific method is the best tool ever devised to discriminate between true and false patterns, to distinguish between reality and fantasy, and to detect baloney.

The null hypothesis means that the burden of proof is on the person asserting a positive claim, not on the skeptics to disprove it. I once appeared on Larry King Live to discuss UFOs (a perennial favorite of his), along with a table full of UFOlogists. King’s questions for other skeptics and me typically miss this central tenet of science. It is not up to the skeptics to disprove UFOs. Although we cannot run a controlled experiment that would yield a statistical probability of rejecting (or not) the null hypothesis that aliens are not visiting Earth, proof would be simple: show us an alien spacecraft or an extraterrestrial body. Until then, keep searching and get back to us when you have something. Unfortunately for UFOlogists, scientists cannot accept as definitive proof of alien visitation such evidence as blurry photographs, grainy videos and anecdotes about spooky lights in the sky. Photographs and videos can be easily doctored, and lights in the sky have many prosaic explanations (aerial flares, lighted balloons, experimental aircraft, even Venus). Nor do government documents with redacted paragraphs count as evidence for ET contact, because we know that governments keep secrets for national security reasons. Terrestrial secrets do not equate to extraterrestrial cover-ups.

So many claims of this nature are based on negative evidence. That is, if science cannot explain X, then your explanation for X is necessarily true. Not so. In science, lots of mysteries are left unexplained until further evidence arises, and problems are often left unsolved until another day. I recall a mystery in cosmology in the early 1990s whereby it appeared that there were stars older than the universe itself — the daughter was older than the mother! Thinking that I might have a hot story to write about that would reveal something deeply wrong with current cosmological models, I first queried California Institute of Technology cosmologist Kip S. Thorne, who assured me that the discrepancy was merely a problem in the current estimates of the age of the universe and that it would resolve itself in time with more data and better dating techniques. It did, as so many problems in science eventually do. In the meantime, it is okay to say, “I don’t know,” “I’m not sure” and “Let’s wait and see.”

To be fair, not all claims are subject to laboratory experiments and statistical tests. Many historical and inferential sciences require nuanced analyses of data and a convergence of evidence from multiple lines of inquiry that point to an unmistakable conclusion. Just as detectives employ the convergence of evidence technique to deduce who most likely committed a crime, scientists employ the method to determine the likeliest explanation for a particular phenomenon. Cosmologists reconstruct the history of the universe by integrating data from cosmology, astronomy, astrophysics, spectroscopy, general relativity and quantum mechanics. Geologists reconstruct the history of Earth through a convergence of evidence from geology, geophysics and geochemistry. Archaeologists piece together the history of a civilization from pollen grains, kitchen middens, potshards, tools, works of art, written sources and other site-specific artifacts. Climate scientists prove anthropogenic global warming from the environmental sciences, planetary geology, geophysics, glaciology, meteorology, chemistry, biology, ecology, among other disciplines. Evolutionary biologists uncover the history of life on Earth from geology, paleontology, botany, zoology, biogeography, comparative anatomy and physiology, genetics, and so on.

Once an inferential or historical science is well established through the accumulation of positive evidence, however, it is just as sound as a laboratory or experimental science. For creationists to disprove evolution, for example, they need to unravel all these independent lines of evidence as well as construct a rival theory that can explain them better than the theory of evolution. They have not, instead employing only negative evidence in the form of “if evolutionary biologists cannot present a natural explanation of X, then a supernatural explanation of X must be true.”

The principle of positive evidence applies to all claims. Skeptics are from Missouri, the Show-Me state. Show me a Sasquatch body. Show me the archaeological artifacts from Atlantis. Show me a Ouija board that spells words with securely blindfolded participants. Show me a Nostradamus quatrain that predicted World War II or 9/11 before (not after) the fact (postdictions don’t count in science). Show me the evidence that alternative medicines work better than placebos. Show me an ET or take me to the Mothership. Show me the Intelligent Designer. Show me God. Show me, and I’ll believe.

Most people (scientists included) treat the God question separate from all these other claims. They are right to do so as long as the particular claim in question cannot — even in principle — be examined by science. But what might that include? Most religious claims are testable, such as prayer positively influencing healing. In this case, controlled experiments to date show no difference between prayed-for and not-prayed-for patients. And beyond such controlled research, why does God only seem to heal illnesses that often go away on their own? What would compel me to believe would be something unequivocal, such as if an amputee grew a new limb. Amphibians can do it. Surely an omnipotent deity could do it. Many Iraqi War vets eagerly await divine action.

There is one mystery I will concede that science may not be able to answer, and that is the question of what existed before our universe began. One answer is the multiverse. According to the theory, multiple universes each had their own genesis, and some of these universes gave birth (perhaps through collapsing black holes) to baby universes, one of which was ours. There is no positive evidence for this conjecture, but neither is there positive evidence for the traditional answer to the question — God. And in both cases, we are left with the reductio ad absurdum question of what came before the multiverse or God. If God is defined as that which does not need to be created, then why can’t the universe (or multiverse) be defined as that which does not need to be created?

In both cases, we have only negative evidence along the lines of “I can’t think of any other explanation,” which is no evidence at all. If there is one thing that the history of science has taught us, it is that it is arrogant to think we now know enough to know that we cannot know. So for the time being, it comes down to cognitive or emotional preference: an answer with only negative evidence or no answer at all. God, multiverse or Unknown. Which one you choose depends on your tolerance for ambiguity and how much you want to believe. For me, I remain in sublime awe of the great Unknown.

The Reason For God - Chapter Four Review

2009-07-07T21:09:00.012-06:00

Chapter Four of Keller's book is entitled, "The Church Is Responsible For So Much Injustice."
This is taking much more time and work than I expected. For this chapter I am going to bullet point Keller's rebuttals to the criticism and then my thoughts on the rebuttals.

People are affected by their emotional backgrounds with how they react to Christianity intellectually.

Interesting that Keller would start off with this, seeing how he so often rails against relativism.
I guess when one is critical, you must have met some naughty Christians. It felt like he was saying you could not be against Christianity without having some sort of personal grudge. I found this offensive, mainly because I want the message that I grew up with and loved to be true.

Many people with harmful pasts, abusive families and character flaws become Christians. Christianity is for people who realize they are sick and need the grace of g0d. Therefore it's to be expected that Christians would be a mixed bag of good and bad.

I hear this argument a lot when Christianity fails to live up to its own claims. The problem with this is, either your all powerful g0d changes all lives or he doesn't. I think it's very interesting that you get 'born again' experiences in all forms of faith. The appeal to 'we're all sinners struggling to get through' just makes me sigh and think that it is not really different from any other human created belief system.

All societies have killed and abused their citizenry. You can't just blame religious thought for this, even the commies did it, and they were atheists!

I guess I would say, again, this just leads one to say Christianity is another human created institution. If you're just like everyone else, and yet claim a supernatural source, where does that leave you? Keller using those evil commies as an atheistic society is interesting. Stalin was taught by the church, and used what he learned there to manipulate his people. He calls his list of societies that hurt people, and were not Christian, "rational and secular". That made me laugh. Secular maybe, rational I don't think so. I can't think of any society in history I would call "rational". I think it's very difficult to make a society rational. The whole "counting bodies" argument always tires me.

People who are super fanatical and hateful are not fanatical enough. If you were really fanatical about your faith, a 'real' Christian, then you would treat others with love. This is because you would be so humbled by being "accepted by g0d by sheer grace."

This seems to me to be the no true Scotsman fallacy.

Christ's own teachings have a built in critique against the abuses the church has done throughout history. Christianity teaches against the hypocrisy it has committed. You can't criticize Christianity without using it's own morals.

I think there is some validity in arguing that Christianity has not lived up to itself. I would probably take it a lot further than Keller, and say the argument could be made that Christianity sold out around the time of Paul. I am curious what Keller would make of Jesus being another apocalyptic Jewish teacher. That would change the view of Jesus' teachings.

Look at all the good that Christianity has done. From abolitionists to Bonhoeffer to Martin Luther King Jr. These are examples of 'true' Christianity.

This would work for me if you could not provide examples of the same thing in other faiths. As well, I could be mistaken, but I believe many of the first abolitionists were humanists. Also, King got much of his anti violence message from Gandhi. I don't say this to discount the good that Christians have done, but only suggest that maybe its origin are not supernatural. Christianity is just so very, well, human. The history of its church just makes that more clear.
I also find it very curious that all his examples happen after the enlightenment.

I feel Keller might have answered the criticism in a superficial way in this chapter, but missed the greater point.
Cheers,
Scott

Baloney Detection Kit

2009-07-07T10:53:00.003-06:00

A worth wile watch for everyone.

Original video can be found here.
Hoping to do the next chapter review tonight.
Oh, Mr Deity has two more episodes up. lol.

Honesty

2009-06-24T21:20:00.002-06:00

Things are a bit buys, so I have not had time to do a review of the next chapter.
I thought I would quickly share something that I thought was interesting and honest. Recently I was around a conversation about homosexuality. I did not actively partake, but something interesting was said. A person stated they had to believe being gay was via nurture and had nothing to do with persons biological makeup. This person stated this because if it was something you were born with, why would g0d condemn it? That would make g0d, or at least the Bible, immoral and something to be ignored. Seeing how this person could not believe that, then being gay can't be something you are born with.
I found it interesting, and also found the honestly refreshing. I would tend to agree too, if being gay is biological, the g0d found in much of the Bible is evil and should be ignored.
Mr Deity touches upon this in the latest episode.
Cheers,
Scott

The Reason For God - Chapter Three Review

2009-06-16T12:08:00.009-06:00

The title for Chapter three is, Christianity Is A Straitjacket.
Keller goes on to expand the criticism to mean that Christianity, "...looks like an enemy of social cohesion, cultural adaptability, and even authentic person hood. However, this objection is based on mistakes about the nature of truth, community, Christianity, and of liberty itself."
These are how explains that those are mistakes:

Truth is Unavoidable
Keller explains that there must be a form of absolute truth because, if you are skeptic of everything, then you can't believe in anything. If you think everything is a "power play", then even your statement is. He's again trying to deal with relativism, this time in how it relates to truth. I don't really see why if his religion is relative, that must mean everything is. Why can't just his version of Christianity be relative? I can see the possibility for there to be an absolute truth, but the assumption that his beliefs could fall into that category is pretty huge.

Community Can't Be Completely Inclusive
I agree with his main point in this section. To have a community, you have to have a definition and a boundary for that community. If you don't have those, then you're just a bunch of people standing around. If you want to define your community to mean anyone who stands in a field, then that's your community. I would just say, we define as a culture what kind of communities we tolerate. There are lots of things as a society we have said we won't tolerate. Keller says, "but we should not criticize churches when they maintain standards for membership in accord with their beliefs. Every community must do the same". That's just silly. Yes I agree you have to have definitions for your in group, it's stupid to say everyone must be OK with your community. If your church says it's OK to have slaves and kill your children for disrespecting you because it's biblical, society is perfectly within its rights to put a stop to your community. If your 'community' continues to believe things that are patently false; IE the world underwent a global flood, the earth is six thousand years old, why should we not criticize that?? You deserve to be laughed at. If you don't bring any evidence, why can't you be criticized? If I went around claiming superpowers, and everyone in my social group claimed superpowers, why should we expect not to be mocked when said powers were never shown? Or even if it was shown we honestly thought we had powers, and there were good reasons for us thinking we did. I went on longer than I meant to, but Keller claiming that people can't criticize churches for their standards is just stupid. I agree a community can have any standard they want. Just don't expect me to refrain from pointing out if they are asinine.

Christianity Isn't Culturally Rigid
I would again agree with part of what Keller says in this section. How Christianity can adapt to every culture. How Christianity has grown in every nation and people of many different traditions believe in it. I would just like to point out that in previous generations, much of this was done through genocide. What happened after 1492 in the 'new world' is on par with, if not much greater than, the holocaust of WWII. It really helps a new religion get established if you wipe out or overpower any nation that does not convert. If you read the writings of the Puritans and how they viewed the new world, these are not the Christians of Keller's belief system. These are people far removed from his standards of morality in relation to other people. To be clear, I don't blame all the crimes in the new world on Christians, but they sure seemed to hurt a lot more then help.
I agree Christianity does not have to be culturally rigid, and in much of the world it no longer is. It was to a huge extent though, and for a very long time. Christianity is very adaptive, and can accommodate many different types of people. One would expect that in a large religion.
For further reading/viewing on on these topics I would suggest:
http://www.amazon.com/What-America-Short-History-World/dp/0786720972
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/500_Nations

Freedom Isn't Simple
The basic premise for this is, if you want to achieve something worthwhile, it will restrict your freedom. An example Keller uses is playing piano or having a loving marriage. Your end goal requires that you practise/work/restrict what you might want to do instead. I don't disagree with this overall principle, as it makes sense. He uses this to again show how relativism is bad because to say one should restrict themselves for a greater good is taking a absolutist stance.
He uses the analogy of someone who rebels against g0d being a fish out of water. The problem with that is according to Keller's world view, g0d created the water, fish, and everything in the first place. I see this as raising a lot more problems than it solves. If you restrict yourself to practising to become good at the piano, the piano does not threaten you like a tyrant with torture for all eternity. That was just the thought that popped into my head while reading this section.

The Chapter is summed up with, Love, the Ultimate Freedom, Is More Constraining Than We Might Think.
Keller talks about how loving constrains us, and I think sums up his position well with the last paragraph: "The love of Christ constrains. Once you realize how Jesus changed for you and gave himself for you, you aren't afraid of giving up your freedom and therefore finding your freedom in him."
I totally can understand how and why Keller comes to this conclusion. I am just left feeling he has made some huge assumptions and not really explained why I should accept them. For one, if someone drops you down a well, then makes the "sacrifice" of coming down to get you, why am I suppose to be grateful? For the sake of the analogy, I am assuming there is a well to be dropped down in the first place. I would expect the person who tossed me into the well to help get me out. I would be grateful for there help, especially if they made it impossible to get me out on my own. Should I be grateful to that person? Probably not, unless of course it's in the same way an abused spouse is grateful the abuser does not leave them. That sounds kind of harsh, but I think it holds for the version of reality Keller is asking people to accept.

That wraps up the Chapter. I am actually enjoying the book, even though it may not sound like it.
Cheers,
Scott

The Reason For God - Chapter Two Review

2009-06-10T15:48:00.017-06:00

I must say, I enjoyed Chapter two more than Chapter One. I appreciate the attempt to answer a more difficult argument. The title of Chapter two is, "How Could A Good God Allow Suffering?"
Keller begins by using the Tsunami of 2004 as an example of a g0d preventable tragedy. He also paraphrases Epicurus' problem, "Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is impotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Whence then is evil?"

The first section proposes that Evil and Suffering Isn't Evidence Against God.
His basic support for this premise is the "mysterious ways" argument. We may not be able to see why these things happen, but g0d must have a plan. I view this as a cop out, a brilliant one, but a cop-out nonetheless. He says it well, but he is still saying, "my g0d and his existence is immune to all logical arguments." The story used to example this is that of Joseph. Joseph has bad things happen, then good things happen after the bad things. If you're talking about an all powerful g0d, this g0d could create us with character, with all the things that we supposedly go through suffering to get. Ockham's razor seems to also weaken this line of thinking, but maybe I am just missing something obvious.

After that Keller postulates Evil and Suffering May be (if Anything) Evidence for God.
He defends this statement by using C.S. Lewis' argument, if there was not g0d, then we would not have a concept of good and evil. He also quotes Alvin Plantiga, saying basically the same thing. What happens if you can show that our concept of right and wrong evolved with us??
I think this is a weird form of the Ontological argument: "If I can conceive of evil, there must be a g0d to give me that perception". Suffering is a problem for the believer because I am accepting their presupposition that there is a g0d. When you take away that supposition, what happens for the skeptic is the ancient philosophical idea of "shit happens". I concede that this could lead to issue of where the skeptic might get their morality from. I just don't see how the skeptic would have to go with the assumption that, if I think something is evil, I must believe in a g0d. Does that not more point to fuzzy thinking in the skeptic, rather than any proof for the theist? Again, I could be missing a deeper point here, but still think this is a unresolved problem for a protestant Christian.

Keller rounds off the chapter by going into the suffering of Jesus, and because he was supposedly g0d, that means g0d shares in our suffering. I did not realize that the idea of g0d suffering was fairly new. Keller uses the idea of Christ suffering with us, the terrors of this world, to mean "the ultimate defeat of evil and suffering. It will not only be ended but so radically vanquished that what has happened will only serve to make our future life and joy infinitely greater". This seems to me more of a day dream than any sort of reasonable belief. What makes him think this? The fact that people of all faiths keep promising a better world for their followers makes this highly suspect. It would be nice to think that everything will be set right, that the universe will end like a Disney movie. I just find it odd that Keller would use this argument in a book for skeptics. It does not really answer the criticism except by saying, "Trust me, this is all for the best." Reminds me of a Grumpy Old Men quote about wishing...
If you accept his beliefs, then this would probably work. He's not writing to the choir though. He's trying to answer skeptics, and so this seems an odd argument to include.

This is a tough topic for the believer to answer, especially in one chapter. Maybe if Keller had a whole book for this one topic he might be able to more fully explain his reasoning. Or maybe there just isn't an answer for 'if there's a g0d, why there is suffering'. I was recently reading the reverse of this argument, "The Evil God Challenge". I don't know if it's tenable, but it shows how much bigger this discussion could be.
Cheers,
Scott
PS - It is my understanding that in the Job era of thinking, g0d was responsible for any evil that happened. That the devil was just his 'agent'. The writers of the O.T. recognized that because g0d has final authority, g0d gets all the responsibility. Am I wrong in that understanding?

The Reason For God - Chapter One Review

2009-06-09T15:33:00.016-06:00

The criticism of Christianity being refuted in chapter one is, "There Can't Be Just Be One True Religion." Keller better clarifies this position by stating, "To insist that one faith has a better grasp of the Truth than others is intolerant." He does concede that this works against peace in our world. Once a religion can claim sole truth, it is easy to 'stereotype and caricature other ones'. He also concedes that this will most likely lead to violence. Keller then proceeds to list out three common reactions to this problem.

First reaction to the problem of religious exclusiveness, outlaw religion.
I would agree with him this would never work, and is counterproductive. I would concede that maybe every society needs some sort of fairy tale or narrative to function. I think it's interesting that when Keller talks about the explosive growth of religion, he fails to point out that it's in predominantly poor and uneducated countries. The fact is that the U.S. is an anomaly among wealthy nations in its belief system. This has more to do with its history of anti intellectualism than any sort of benefit of religious belief. I wonder what he thinks of the evidence that religious belief tends to leave a society worse off.

Second reaction to the problem of religious exclusiveness, condemn religion.
He claims that condemning religion leads to the following statements:
"All major religions are equally valid and basically teach the same thing". Who would say this! The fact that someone would raise this as an objection makes me despair about the type of skeptics who actually challenge Keller.
The next statement that condemning religion might lead to is, "Each religion sees part of spiritual truth, but none can see the whole truth." He then uses the classic blind men feeling an elephant analogy to parable this stance. His reaction to this is, "How could you possibly know that no religion can see the whole truth unless you yourself have the superior, comprehensive knowledge of spiritual reality you just claimed none of the religions have." PZ Myers has an excellent retort to this kind of thinking. It's long, so I have posted it at the bottom.
The statement to follow that is, "Religious belief is too culturally and historically conditioned to be 'truth'". He goes to use the classic argument against relativism. I don't really see how this defeats the relativism of religion. If you were taught something from a young age by everyone you trusted and loved, you would believe that. This is why there are always fights over what gets taught in school. Belief in Santa is relative, and not discoverable outside of it's cultural context. Once everyone stops believing in Santa, he's "dead". How is religion different? I don't care if he argues against relativism, I want to know how religion is not relative? I can see how math is not relative, everyone can discover its principles. The language around math may be a construct, but the principles remain the same. How does one discover non-relative religious principles? Are there any? This is making me feel like Keller would prefer to engage in 'straw-man' arguments.
That last statement that Keller says might result from condemning religion is, "It is arrogant to insist your religion is right and to convert others to it". I don't dispute that certain beliefs might have more validity than others, but something Keller asks is: why do the skeptics care what other people believe? He offers no answer, but I will. What others do with their beliefs affects my life. Notice I said what people do with their beliefs. Unlike the g0d depicted in much of the Bible, I don't believe in thought crime. A line of morality could be, 'What kind of society do you want to live in.' Then behaviours of others resulting from belief would matter. I would also say that evidence gives credence, or as Hitchens puts it, "That which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence." When you claim exclusivity, but yet can't show any evidence on how you are exclusive, why should we not consider that arrogant? In fact, why should you not be laughed at? Again, I feel as if he skipped over the meat of this issue and answered the easy critics.

Third reaction to the problem of religious exclusiveness, keep religion private.
He says that it's not possible, that everyone brings their beliefs and spirituality to the public sphere. Keller says everything is morally relative, unless people bring their belief in g0d around with them. He does a nice little straw man caricature of a 'anything goes' morality. The problem is, when believers make claims in the public realm, they bring a giant 'g0d' stamp: "I'm right because g0d says so!" He conveniently ignores that this is one of the reasons why religion and state mixture is deplorable. He also says we have to have religion so we know what kind of society to build. He touches on a post modern idea of dialogue and constructing a society, then completely misses the point. *sigh*

Of course his answer to the problem of exclusive religion claims is, "Christianity can save the World". These are his reasons why:
Biblical doctrine of people being created in the image of 'g0d' leads to respect for others. Other people will recognize Christians as 'good' because of Jesus' teachings.
The Christian gospel should make people feel humble in light of their 'salvation', and therefore treat others with respect.
Christians in the first two centuries were so nice, gave people more rights, in comparison with the culture around them.
He then proceeds to say that, "We cannot skip lightly over the fact that there have been injustices done by the church in the name of Christ, yet who can deny that the force of Christians' most fundamental beliefs can be a powerful impetus for peace-making in our troubled world?"
He just did skip lightly, and it annoyed me, though I suspect he tries to answer the injustices later in the book. As to his claims on how Christianity will save the world, there are natural explanations for all of them. Not really a whiff of anything supernatural in them. An example off the top of my head would be: if Christians were bad asses, persecuting people, in an empire with a big, well trained army, it is not a religion that will get off the ground. He seems to assume early Christianity was a cohesive belief system, which would imply he knows very little about the early church. Christianity has changed many times over, and it will continue to do so. I really enjoy how he calls Jesus' teachings good, but uses the classical argument later on that he was a bad moral teacher, which helps prove he was g0d.
To sum up, I would agree that there could be one true religion, but Keller in no way shows that it has to be Protestant Christianity. For me this book is off to a rough start. One too many straw men. I am also left with the feeling that there are tougher problems within this one chapter that Keller has chosen to ignore. I remember feeling annoyed at the weakness of the first chapter on my first run through the book, but I think it gets a little better.
Cheers,
Scott

Once upon a time, four blind men were walking in the forest, and they bumped into an elephant.

Moe was in front, and found himself holding the trunk. "It has a tentacle," he said. "I think we have found a giant squid!"

Larry bumped into the side of the elephant. "It's a wall," he said, "A big, bristly wall."

Curly, at the back, touched the tail. "It's nothing to worry about, nothing but a piece of rope dangling in the trail."

Eagletosh saw the interruption as an opportunity to sit in the shade beneath a tree and relax. "It is my considered opinion," he said, "that whatever it is has feathers. Beautiful iridescent feathers of many hues."

The first three, being of a scientifical bent, quickly collaborated and changed places, and confirmed each other's observations; they agreed that each had been correct in the results of their investigations, except that there wasn't a hint of feathers anywhere about, but clearly their interpretations required correction and more data. So they explored further, reporting to each other what they were finding, in order to establish a more complete picture of the obstacle in the path.

"Tracing the tentacle back, I find that it is attached to a large head with eyes, fan-shaped ears, and a mouth bearing tusks. It is not a squid, alas, but seems to be a large mammal of some sort," said Moe.

"Quite right, Moe — I have found four thick limbs. Definitely a large tetrapod," said Larry.

Curly seems distressed. "It's a bit complicated and delicate back here, guys, but I have probed an interesting orifice. Since this is a children's story, I will defer on reporting the details."

Eagletosh yawns and stretches in the shade of a tree. "It has wings, large wings, that it may ascend into the heavens and inspire humanity. There could be no purpose to such an animal without an ability to loft a metaphor and give us something to which we might aspire."

The other three ignore the idling philosopher, because exciting things are happening with their elephant!

"I can feel its trunk grasping the vegetation, uprooting it, and stuffing it into its mouth! It's prehensile! Amazing!", said Moe.

Larry presses his ear against the animal's flank. "I can hear rumbling noises as its digestive system processes the food! It's very loud and large."

There is a squishy plop from the back end. "Oh, no," says Curly, "I can smell that, and I think I should go take a bath."

"You are all completely missing the beauty of its unfurled wings," sneers Eagletosh, "While you tinker with pedestrian trivialities and muck about in earthy debasement, I contemplate the transcendant qualities of this noble creature. 'Tis an angel made manifest, a symbol of the deeper meaning of life."

"No wings, knucklehead, and no feathers, either," says Moe.

"Philistine," says Eagletosh. "Perhaps they are invisible, or tucked inside clever hidden pockets on the flank of the elephant, or better yet, I suspect they are quantum. You can't prove they aren't quantum."

The investigations continue, in meticulous detail by the three, and in ever broader strokes of metaphorical speculation by the one. Many years later, they have accomplished much.

Moe has studied the elephant and its behavior for years, figuring out how to communicate with it and other members of the herd, working out their diet, their diseases and health, and how to get them to work alongside people. He has profited, using elephants as heavy labor in construction work, and he has also used them, unfortunately, in war. He has not figured out how to use them as an air force, however…but he is a master of elephant biology and industry.

Larry studied the elephant, but has also used his knowledge of the animal to study the other beasts in the region: giraffes and hippos and lions and even people. He is an expert in comparative anatomy and physiology, and also has come up with an interesting theory to explain the similarities and differences between these animals. He is a famous scholar of the living world.

Curly's experiences lead him to explore the environment of the elephant, from the dung beetles that scurry after them to the leafy branches they strip from the trees. He learns how the elephant is dependent on its surroundings, and how its actions change the forest and the plains. He becomes an ecologist and conservationist, and works to protect the herds and the other elements of thebiome.

Eagletosh writes books. Very influential books. Soon, many of the people who have never encountered an elephant are convinced that they all have wings. Those who have seen photos are at least persuaded that elephants have quantum wings, which just happened to be vibrating invisibly when the picture was snapped. He convinces many people that the true virtue of the elephant lies in its splendid wings — to the point that anyone who disagrees and claims that they are only terrestrial animals is betraying the beauty of the elephant.

Exasperated, Larry takes a break from writing technical treatises about mammalian anatomy, and writes a book for the lay public, The Elephant Has No Wings. While quite popular, theEagletoshians are outraged. How dare he denigrate the volant proboscidian ? Does he think it a mere mechanical mammal, mired in mud, never soaring among the stars? Has he no appreciation for the scholarship of the experts in elephant wings? Doesn't he realize that he can't possibly disprove the existence of wings on elephants, especially when they can be tucked so neatly into the quantum? (The question of how the original prophets ofwingedness came by their information never seems to come up, or is never considered very deeply.) It was offensive to cripple the poor elephants, rendering them earthbound.

When that book was quickly followed by Moe's The Elephant Walks and Curly's Land of the Elephant, the elephant wing scholars were in a panic — they were being attacked by experts in elephants, who seemed to know far more about elephants than they did! Fortunately, the scientists knew little about elephant's wings — surprising, that — and the public was steeped in favorable certainty that elephants, far away, were flapping gallantly through the sky. They also had the benefit of vast sums of money. Wealth was rarely associated with competence in matters elephantine, and tycoons were pouring cash into efforts to reconcile the virtuouswingedness of elephants with the uncomfortable reality of anatomy. Even a few scientists who ought to know better were swayed over to the side of the winged; to their credit, it was rarely because of profit, but more because they were sentimentally attached to the idea of wings. They couldn't deny the evidence, however, and were usually observed to squirm as they invoked the mystic power of the quantum, or of fleeting, invisible wings that only appeared when no one was looking.

And there the battle stands, an ongoing argument between the blind who struggle to explore the world as it is around them, and the blind who prefer to conjure phantoms in the spaces within their skulls. I have to disappoint you, because I have no ending and no resolution, only a question.

Where do you find meaning and joy and richness and beauty, O Reader? In elephants, or elephants' wings?

Mr Deity

2009-06-09T10:14:00.004-06:00

After a year, Mr Deity has a new episode up, and it's the start of a new season. Some might not find it that funny, but I think it's hilarious.

The original can be found at http://mrdeity.com/s3ep1.html.
Cheers,
Scott

Intro to Review

2009-06-08T10:27:00.008-06:00

I have finished Timothy Keller's book, and will now try to sum up each chapter individually and my reactions to it. He has his book split into two parts, the first part being a defence against the criticisms of Christianity. He endeavors to be ecumenical, but admits this extends only to the protestant form of the Christian faith. The second half of the book is more focused on the positive reasons for, rather than against, believing in protestant Christianity. This also being a summary, I might miss some things. If anyone has read the book and feels I missed something important, please comment.
My overall reaction to the book is, he has written a decent apologetic book. There is a bit of circular reasoning. When reading the notes as I went along, I noticed he quoted a quote, rather than the source, which sort of bugged me. Ultimately I think he falls short, but as I go through it again, I might change my mind.
As well, I think this is a never ending discussion. I recently had a discussion on this topic, which has me thinking the back and forth between atheism and theism is about power. This would put Christianity at a disadvantage, because it's supposed to be the release of power and not the quest for it. The debate between the two positions might also be a false dichotomy, but I am trying to figure out what that would mean.
Keller did call for continuing dialogue in his introduction, which I appreciated. If we shut off dialogue, we're all screwed.
Post on Chapter one to be up soon.
Cheers,
Scott

Blogging Through A Book

2009-06-01T21:58:00.008-06:00

I am going to blog my way through Timothy Keller's book The Reason for God: Belief in an Age of Skepticism. It was given to me by a friend over this last weekend.
A shallow and inaccurate analogy of my belief in god would be a Guitar Hero rock meter. The middle being totally Agnostic, the left being Agnostic Atheist and the right being Agnostic Christian. I think everyone is an Agnostic when it come to god, but the meter being which world view you subscribe to most in your everyday life. That could be wrong if you could prove belief in god was a priori and not a posteriori.
Anyways, I think where my 'meter' is at prompted the gift. I appreciate a gift, so intend to be diligent to the givers intent. I plan to read through the book, then re-read it, posting an entry after each chapter. This should help me understand what the author intended overall, and digest that before responding in a positive or negative manner.
Comments as I go through the book are more than welcome. I am off to read, should have the first post up in a day or two.
Cheers.

Let's oppress women and children, it's Biblical!

2009-05-12T17:08:00.004-06:00

Just want to say, I was being extremely sarcastic in the title.
I am currently reading, "Quiverfull" by Katheryn Joyce. It is, as the title suggests, a look at the Quiverfull movement. The movement takes it's title from Psalm 127:3-5, which basically says having lots of kids is a blessing. If that was where the movement stopped, it might be OK, but it's not. There are so many scary problems with it, I am having trouble knowing where to start.

Being a man, I will start with how it views men. Men are walking hormones, with no self control. They must be in total authority over their family, or g0d will be angry and everyone will be punished. Here is a quote that helps make my point on the self control front,
"...Pearl recounts the complaint of a young man disgusted with his friend's wife for 'dressing so g0dless', that is wearing clothes that have aroused him. She was no 'little hidden treasure', as he'd have his own wife be, he wrote with disgust..."
This is unsurprisingly close to the Muslim view as well. Women have to cover up, dress modestly, because men can't control themselves. This is crap, if you believe thought crime is bad, then it's up to YOU to control yourself. If women walked around naked, the man is still responsible. Jesus said pluck your own eye out. Shifting this to the women, saying, "look, they made me sin because I can see side boob" is reprehensible. Grow up, realize if you have a problem with how women dress, it's YOUR problem. There is no difference between saying how a women is dressed caused you to sin, and saying how a women is dressed caused you to rape her. It's bullshit and needs to called bullshit. If anyone ever trots out that argument, roll up a newspaper, hit them on the nose, and firmly say, "NO!".
Men are also so out of control, that if women don't always feel up for sex, don't behave like the man's personal servant, then it's the women's fault if he cheats or beats her. This is another example of shifting blame, "I am not in control of what I do, it's all your fault."
Of course the men in this movement can justify this with scripture, but the slave traders also justified their actions in the same way. The Bible is not always the best source for personal ethics. Though I do see the teachings of Jesus emphasizing personal responsibility, and the idea that women must cover up was added later by writers adding stuff to Paul's letters.

Another major ideal of this movement, which I have touched on, is the final authority of the man. Men are seen as little kings, granted authority by g0d, who must be obeyed. Women don't dare teach or think in front of men, that's not submissive and might make them look stupid. When you treat fifty percent of your populations like moronic baby producing machines, that's bad. I know they'll say it's because they love women, and it's how g0d intended it. That's exactly the same argument some Muslim men I talked with in Hong Kong had to say. In fact, most of this movement seems indistinguishable to an outsider from how Muslims talk about women. Replace Pastor with Imam, Bible with Koran, and God with Allah, and there's not much difference.

I was home schooled for a part of my education. It was nothing on how this movement sees homeschooling. It's seen as a way to control the children, and keep them from questioning anything. I guess I would be scared too, knowing that my beliefs had been proved false and ridiculous. You want to keep your kids away from that and indoctrinate them, so when they finally are able to think for themselves, they can't. Smother them with lies and falsehoods, so much so that if they ever stop believing, their whole world view is ripped away. It's hard to shake something like that. I mean, if someone told you that everything your parents and those around you brought you up to believe was mainly bullshit, what would you do? If you are constantly told, "This is what g0d wants, and if you disobey him, you are going to burn in hell!", you're going to be scared when someone challenges that. Personally, I think you could make a strong argument that it's abuse.

I am only halfway through the book, I might have some more thoughts when I am done. The fact that people justify what they do by saying it's 'Biblical' really bothers me.
I would point out that Katheryn Joyce's tone in the book is not a condemning one. It reads more like a documentary to me, which is all the more sad. She does not have to say how horrible this movement is, it's so blatantly obvious. Something that has also really bothered me is how much this is mainstream in American Christian community. The pastors, teachers and leaders who endorse and support it are big names. From Focus on the family to John Piper. I grew up thinking they were people I could trust. That illusion was buried awhile back, but this just helped put another nail in the coffin. I guarantee if you run in Christian circles you will run into variations of this type of thinking. If I ever have daughters, my greatest fear would be they choose to marry some lunatic who believes this shit.
Cheers.

Sad and scary

2009-04-21T12:53:00.002-06:00

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2007/dec/09/tracymcveigh.theobserver
This is a very depressing look at modern witchcraft. As in ages past, it's the vulnerable and weak that are the victims. I would like to think this is an isolated incident, but it's not. Even in Canada and the U.S. people speak as if witches are something to be afraid of, even Sarah Palin's church had a speaker that prayed to protect her from witchcraft. I know most people will be horrified by all that, believers and non believers. I just don't know if it's belief that separates your average evangelical in North America from the ones in that part of Africa. Then if they are not separated by belief, what would it take for that to happen here?
This AIG video is a good example. I think I might know what they are trying to say, but is sure looks like they are saying, "believe in g0d or some kid is going to shoot you."
Anyways, this all has me kind of depressed.
Scott

Interview at the Creation Museum

2009-03-17T11:06:00.003-06:00

I found Michael Shermers interview at the creation museum very interesting. Click on the link to watch it. He was very polite and mainly just asked questions. I thought the womens answers also very interesting. She seemed to contradict herself often, saying interpretation was important at one point, and then saying you couldn't interpret Genesis. If you set out saying, 'I know what scripture says, so anything that contradicts it must be wrong' is very weird. It's also a form of interpretation, which she said you can't do.
I don't really see any difference between how this women chooses to believe, and how a Scientologist chooses to believe. I guess it bugs me, because she can literally make stuff up. If you don't have to prove anything, you can just say, "this is the way it is", and there is no obligation to offer any evidence.
I wonder what she would think of theologians like J.I. Packer who thinks she is flat out wrong when it comes to her literal reading of Genesis. Would she care, would she say he does not know how to read the Bible? I guess we have an idea, because of how she dismissed Collins and Miller.
Watching the interview has left me a little baffled and worn out. It seems to me to be so sad that all that money would go to something that has no real importance to Christianity, peoples lives, and can only really do harm.
I think I need a cup of tea and a shower.
Scott

Stem Cell Research and Ideology

2009-03-10T08:48:00.002-06:00

The restrictions on stem cell research have been lifted. Now, I don't know how stem cell research works. I am not a biologist or a chemist, or any sort of reputable scientist. Pharyngula has an article on what it would take for it to be turned into a cure. The reason I bring it up is, stem cell research was part of the previous American governments war on science, and seems to be quite controversial down there. It appears to me that there was never a good argument against stem cell research. That it was mainly a "slippery slope" argument.
This leads me to ideology. Ideology would be a very good explanation for why people are against stem cell research. I assume I work within an ideology as well, and it got me wondering what issues I am for or against, not based on any sort logic, thought, or reason, but just because of my personal ideology. A friend on Facebook joined a "impeach Obama" group. I found this very curious. I am not American, but from what I understand of their history and laws, there is no foundation for a group of this type. Especially so early on in his term. You could probably make a good case for impeaching Bush, but I am not a constitutional lawyer. What struck me about that group, it was obviously based on ideology. There was no thought or reason, no holding the government accountable for the previous eight years. These people just said what their ideology told them. When it's so obvious, it makes it hard to take that person seriously.
Part of my ideology is that voting is important and constructive. I get annoyed when people don't vote, and I don't really care what their reasoning is. They could be right, have very good reasons, but I just get annoyed when people don't vote. Another part of my ideology would be freedom of speech and freedom of the press.
What things do you agree with, just because they are part of your ideology? Would you join an impeach group because you did not like a politician, and not because he had actually done anything wrong?
Cheers,
Scott

What Is America?

2009-03-02T20:41:00.004-07:00

I just finished reading 'What is America?' by Ronald Wright. I would highly recommend it. Some of the historical information I had heard before, through shows such as 500 Nations. It's a good read for those wanting to understand the American psyche.
I had not realized just how much of the Pre Columbian east coast was farm land. My understanding of the original Americans was a more 'Last of the Mohicans' style, but that was something that the victors wanted people to think. That they had taken land that was not being used, that the 'noble savages' had no need for it. An example of this being a lie is The Cherokee nation. In the early 19th century it had it's own constitution, and a higher literacy rate than the U.S.
It was interesting to me that Bush was not even close to being an anomaly, but the first "Bush" was Andrew Jackson, and that he ignored the supreme court to expel the Cherokee. It was his inauguration that would be one of the first moments when you could point to the divide between the "enlightenment" America and the "Frontier" America. One embracing learning and the other embracing myth and superstition.
It was also fascinating to see how much the Puritans have affected how the 'Andrew Jackson Americans' view themselves and their relation to the world. I have joked about the puritan heritage, but it's a terrible and disgusting thing. I once admired their spirituality and literacy, but this book is just one in a long line that has dispelled that admiration. I am actually embarrassed that I thought that way. They are a classic example of how belief can be a poison, even long after you are gone. It got me thinking of what I was working out before, in a previous post, about belief not being important. What you believe can be irrelevant, emphasis on the can be, but how you believe is important. What Peter Rollins called heretical orthodoxy. To quote from the beginning of his book,
"Instead of following the Greek-influenced idea of orthodoxy as right belief...help(ing) us to rediscover the more Hebraic and mystical notion of the orthodox Christian as one who believes in the right way - that is, believing in a loving, sacrificial and Christlike manner. The reversal from 'right belief' to 'believing in the right way' is in no way a move to some binary opposite of the first (for the opposite of right belief is wrong belief); rather, it is a way transcending the binary altogether. Thus orthodoxy is no longer (mis)understood as the opposite of heresy but rather is understood as a term that signals a way of being in the world rather than a means of believing things about the world."
It's surprised me that the 'What is America' and the bit it talked about the Puritans would make me think of that quote. The Puritans and their cultural heirs, the modern fundamentalist, are continuing the focus on belief as the be all and end all of their lives, rather than believing in the right way. This is why you get a focus on issues rather than people. Portions of archaic holy text having to be literal would be an example of what you believe running amok. If your focus is instead of believing in the right way, I would hope that would lead to a more loving focus on right relationship with the people around you, and a flexibility in allowing for error in your belief system.
There are a lot of good quotes in 'What is America'. I could probably spend the next month with entries on it, but this is a small portion of where it got me thinking. I doubt that's where it will take yours, but read it, and let me know where it led you.
Cheers,
Scott

Dialogue

2009-02-24T08:36:00.005-07:00

I have been mulling over a problem the last few days, and I am curious what other people think. His new book is out and I am wondering, would you pursue a dialogue with a person like Ray Comfort? I would compare him to the mental equivalent of people like Sylvia Brown, or especially David Irving. These people are not necessarily evil, they can be quite 'smart', but they are intellectually harmful, destructive, and tend to lie or ignore evidence. . That would be my main problem with Ray, he acts like he works within the rules of reason and logic, but ignores them habitually. If he was working within a more postmodern thought pattern, I probably would not care. If you're gonna play the logic/reason game, you should play by the rules. I hope if meeting them I would be polite, but have the courage to tell them they are full of bullshit. David Irving is especially insidious. The modus operandi of the holocaust denial movement, as in creationism, you ignore anything that would expose your world view as fantasy. The comic above is a nice illustration of this type of thinking.
Back to my question. Is there a point to having a dialogue with people like that? This is most likely a very hypothetical question, as I will never meet the fellow, but what then do you do with people who subscribe to that sort of world view? Do you gently point them in the direction of more credible apologists. I might have gone that route, pointing out the works of Ken Miller or Francis Collins when addressing the science, and maybe people like Alvin Plantinga when addressing the logic and philosophy. They are all Christians, thought provoking, and unlike when quoting Comfort, don't make it seem like you have sub average cognitive functioning. For a person into Sylvia Brown, I would probably recommend Michael Shermer or Carl Sagan.
I am starting to wonder if the best move is to just ask a person like that questions, and then minimize contact whenever possible. Though this does not sit well with me, as I like reading and being exposed to opposing views. A habit I have developed is to google the names of authors I like, along with the word 'criticism'. This does not always lead to valid criticism, but it can lead to some funny rants. Being exposed to views that contradict my confirmation bias helped me get to where I am now, so I think it can also be helpful for others. Again though, after initial exposure to a person who espouses ideas and views similar to Comfort/Brown/Irving, is it best to eject from the dialogue before your brain squeezes out of your ears and tries to strangle you?
I have met very thoughtful, and thought provoking people of faith. I do like those sort of intense God talks, but when I meet a Ray Comfort type fundamentalist, I find it hard not to get angry. It does not do me any good, it's not constructive and I can't have a good discussion with the person, because I am too annoyed. It's like having a nice warm shower, with someone dumping a bucket of cold water on you. Actually not cold water, but a bucket of runny, cold, cow shit. You need another shower to just to wash the stink off.
What would you do? Do you talk to the Comforts of the world, try to stay calm, polite and respectful, or do you just excuse yourself and try not to get the mental equivalent of cow shit on you before you leave?
Cheers,
Scott

Postmodernism and Theology

2009-02-10T12:38:00.002-07:00

Something happened over 300 years ago in Western culture. It had a huge impact on how we view the world, it's called the The Enlightenment, which was preceded by the age of reason. I think this had a huge impact on how people practice Christianity.
I'm a big fan of the scientific method, it obviously works, and is probably the best tool we have for discovering realities in the natural world. Many in the religious community reject much this tool points out, and yet embrace the practice when thinking about their relationship with God. The Bible is approached as something that can be studied, taken apart, and truth can be extracted in much the same way a Chemist would create medicine. When you reduce it to an interpretation, you miss the point. I think Christianity is starting to recover from the adoption of enlightenment thinking and is maybe moving towards the more mystical side of things.
I listened to a speaker this last week who got me thinking along these lines, his name was Peter Rollins. He gave me great hope for a direction of belief, which is that belief does not necessarily matter. What you believe might not be nearly as important as I was led to think. I'm still processing what that means, but I think it is leading me in a good direction. A painting would be a good analogy of this for me. Science can tell us how it was painted, when it was painted, what kind of paint was used, but the meaning of the painting is in the eye of the beholder. It might not matter what I think the painting means, but it's more important that I keep wrestling with that meaning. I liked a story Peter gave which two rabbis are arguing over a verse in the Torah, an argument that has gone on for over twenty years. In the parable God gets so annoyed by the endless discussion that he comes down and he tells them that he will reveal what it really means. However, right at this moment they respond by saying, "What right do you have to tell us what it means? You gave us the words, now leave us in peace to wrestle with them."
That story, and more of what was talked about are in this interview.
Well, that's what I've been thinking about this last week. I might decide it's all bunk, but maybe not.
Cheers.

Hits, Misses, and Ideology

2009-02-03T12:05:00.002-07:00

I listened to two podcast lately, and each one got me pondering about how we think.
The first podcast was an interview of Christopher Burns, who is a thinker on modern information management. Here is the link to his interview.
The second podcast is the first in a series called, 'The Climate Wars.' It was done by the CBC radio show 'Ideas'. Here is the link to the paper on the study that was mentioned by Donald Braman.
Us humans tend to remember views and ideas that agree with our own, and our brain actively ignores evidence that would force us to change our ideas and views. Basically, it's very very hard to be skeptical, especially of our own beliefs. We don't like it, and it's like working out at the gym. The more you do it, the stronger the skeptic muscle gets. This was what struck me in Christopher Burns podcast.
It amazed me that the Ideas program had such a strong example of that. In America, climate change became an ideological war, and the same happened, in a lesser extent, in countries with strong American media presence. It seems that the conservative right in America saw the solutions to climate change as a subtle attack on their 'values'. If the solutions to climate change were switched from regulations on pollution, and things of that nature, but to nuclear plants and ideas of that nature, their views on climate change switched. The science had no effect on their views. The science never changed, but the solutions effected if people would accept the science or not. In the first example, people would deny climate change. In the second, with solutions they found ideologically acceptable, all of a sudden climate change was real, happening and we needed to do something about it! I found that truly astonishing.
To learn from this, if you have a very strong opinion on something, be wary of ignoring evidence just because it disagrees with your ideology. There is a strong chance your brain is working against you to keep you in the dark. Examples of people remembering hits and ignoring misses would be holocaust deniers and young earth creationists, which, unsurprisingly, approach their subject matter in almost identical ways. A good further look at this would be Michael Shermers, 'Why people believe weird things'
That's all for today.
Cheers.

Reading

2009-01-20T08:59:00.002-07:00

Happy Inauguration day.
Reading has been an important part of my life for about seventeen years. It started with the Narnia books, traveled to Tolkien, bloomed into SF and then expanded beyond. If we ever have kids, then I hope to encourage reading in the wee ones. Outside of the benefits of learning and brain development, I think one of the most important things is the constant challenge in perspective. We all look at the world in slightly different ways. Sometimes in vastly different ways. Reading can challenge our preconceived ideas. From blogs on the internet to Mark Twain, rarely will authors let us sit comfortably with our ignorance. Yes a person can sit within one genre and thought, but the true gift of reading is to find books that don't reinforce what you already think. This is the true fear of the fundamentalist, and why books get banned. It just occurred to me, that's why I not longer go to "Christian" book stores. I think that's why I always loved SF, it shows you the possibilities. Where ideas can take you, or the consequences of current actions. It's amazing what people like A.C. Clarke foresaw in their writing. They can also tell really cool stories, that are just fun to read. Terry Pratchett is brilliant in this way. He makes me fall down laughing, but also pokes fun at how we look at the world.
Why did I feel the need to write about this? I guess because the written word gives me hope. As long as ideas can be passed around, then the fundamentalist can't make the rest of us stay static. Also, once again America has a president that values learning and it looks like he is going to end the war on science. I think it's telling that one of the insults in the election was 'elitist', which, as far as I could tell, meant that you could read.
"Where they have burned books, they will end in burning human beings."
Heinrich Heine 1933

Ethics

2009-01-13T15:56:00.002-07:00

Something that I have varied my beliefs in is ethics or how we view right and wrong. Are things good and right whether God exists or not, or are they only good because 'God' says so?
I am not a moral relativist, I lean towards things being good and evil all the time, and yet I realize most of what I think of as good is culturally influenced.
I have heard it said, "If I did not believe in God, then I would do whatever the hell I wanted."
I think that is the moral equivalent of being a child. It's as if I only do something because my parents say so, but have not considered the reason or thought behind the action. It is also the sort of thinking that leads people to commit horrible acts because their religion tells them to, and I reject that.
It's a topic I feel the need to think about more, and this is a short post, but that's what I am pondering at the moment.
Scott

Recovery

2009-01-06T12:37:00.003-07:00

It's been two months, my only new years resolution is to write in this every Tuesday morning.
I had a realization last night, I am a recovering fundamentalist. Between 1999 and roughly 2004 I went all out with my Christian faith, in how I thought it was supposed to be practiced. Which would be the Christianity of Spurgeon, Robert Murray McCheyne, Lewis, and modern teachings of that sort. With hindsight, I would say I ignored reason and objectivity and just went 'balls to the wall'. God and Jesus were all I cared about, and figuring out how to live life for them was my goal. From the position I am in now, I am amazed that I was able to be freed from that. It's hard when I think about it, and I have a lot of mixed emotions about it. I will admit, it was good times, the travels, and the peace in thinking you understand how the universe works was comforting.
I obviously still have aspects of that time still working in me, one is the need to proselytize whatever I think is important. I'm fairly social anyways, so it's hard to just let things slide.
Not everything I learned during that period was of no use, and it did teach some valuable lessons. Moving on from then has been hard, and understanding from the few very close to me has helped. Some of the fundamentalist teachings can be good, think sermon on the mount variety, but a lot of it can also be very very harmful.
Moving on from here, something that I want to work on more in how I view the world is summed up in the famous quote from Spinoza,
"I have made a ceaseless effort not to ridicule, not to bewail, not to scorn human actions, but to understand them."
S.
Oh, and I am super stoked that my brother and sister in law both got me a subscription to Skeptic.

I have a dream

2008-11-05T10:10:00.002-07:00

An amazing thing has happened, Obama got elected, though I think everyone knows that.
The comparison has been made, and will probably be made again, but after listening to Obamas acceptance speech I listened to the historic I have a dream speech. It's amazing to listen to one after another, and gave me great hope for our neighbors to the south. Way to go, I hope you keep showing the world you're growing up. It won't be easy, and I think PZ Myers was correct in his post today. It's still a time of optimism and I am happy I was alive to see it.
Cheers,
Noophy.

The Other

2008-11-03T13:56:00.005-07:00

I am tired of people being turned into the "other".
It's something politicians do often, because you have to turn the other side into the enemy. Religions also seem to be very good at it.
Categorizing whole peoples is never very helpful, and history has shown us what happens when it's taken to an extreme. I put up these two propaganda posters to demonstrate what it can look like, they are offensive and almost seem cartoonish. When it's done today it is often much more subtle and insidious.
A good example would be Elizabeth Doles run for senate in the U.S. and how she characterized her opponent as an atheist.
I do think ideas can have a bad influence on a culture or a people as a whole, but to turn around and say these people are inherently bad is what I have a problem with.
Being aware that turning people into the other is used as a weapon against us all is the first step in being able to resist it. Links to examples of this would be very welcome.
Cheers,
Noophy

The purpose

2008-10-24T12:35:00.000-06:00

This is my first entry for this blog. I don't really expect anyone to read it, but the reason I am writing is more for self therapy, so that's OK. Beliefs, personal convictions and ideas change a lot in ones lifetime. I feel the need to explore where I am going with mine. As well, as the title would suggest, I hope this will help keep me thinking, and therefore existing. Though as Thomas Kida has shown, Don't Believe Everything You Think.

I find myself drawn more and more to what I would call a skeptical, or reason based outlook, with the scientific method being the authority. In a post-modern setting there are reasons to say this might not be a perfect way of looking at the world, but it is one that has been very good at building trust. Everything demands some sort of trust, there is an incredibly small amount of things in our lives that we don't take on authority. We just can't experience everything empirically. That means, whatever type of authority we put our trust in matters. I might challenge that authority eventually, but at the moment I trust the scientific method.
I started out my life with a evangelical Christian based world view. That got shaken up every now and then, but was always the core. It reached it's most intense around 2003, and has since been fading away for various reasons. I can safely say that it is at its lowest point ever, and I like to think for very good reasons. I guess it's those reasons that will most likely be the subject of most of my entries.
This was a little scattered, but hopefully I will be a little better with pulling my thoughts together over time. To end, I would like to lay out Carl Sagan's Baloney Detection Kit, as a little guidance for myself.

Wherever possible there must be independent confirmation of the facts
Encourage substantive debate on the evidence by knowledgeable proponents of all points of view.
Arguments from authority carry little weight (in science there are no "authorities").
Spin more than one hypothesis - don't simply run with the first idea that caught your fancy.
Try not to get overly attached to a hypothesis just because it's yours.
Quantify, wherever possible.
If there is a chain of argument every link in the chain must work.
"Occam's razor" - if there are two hypothesis that explain the data equally well choose the simpler.
Ask whether the hypothesis can, at least in principle, be falsified (shown to be false by some unambiguous test). In other words, it is testable? Can others duplicate the experiment and get the same result?

Additional issues are

Conduct control experiments - especially "double blind" experiments where the person taking measurements is not aware of the test and control subjects.
Check for confounding factors - separate the variables.

Common fallacies of logic and rhetoric

Ad hominem - attacking the arguer and not the argument.
Argument from "authority".
Argument from adverse consequences (putting pressure on the decision maker by pointing out dire consequences of an "unfavourable" decision).
Appeal to ignorance (absence of evidence is not evidence of absence).
Special pleading (typically referring to god's will).
Begging the question (assuming an answer in the way the question is phrased).
Observational selection (counting the hits and forgetting the misses).
Statistics of small numbers (such as drawing conclusions from inadequate sample sizes).
Misunderstanding the nature of statistics (President Eisenhower expressing astonishment and alarm on discovering that fully half of all Americans have below average intelligence!)
Inconsistency (e.g. military expenditures based on worst case scenarios but scientific projections on environmental dangers thriftily ignored because they are not "proved").
Non sequitur - "it does not follow" - the logic falls down.
Post hoc, ergo propter hoc - "it happened after so it was caused by" - confusion of cause and effect.
Meaningless question ("what happens when an irresistible force meets an immovable object?).
Excluded middle - considering only the two extremes in a range of possibilities (making the "other side" look worse than it really is).
Short-term v. long-term - a subset of excluded middle ("why pursue fundamental science when we have so huge a budget deficit?").
Slippery slope - a subset of excluded middle - unwarranted extrapolation of the effects (give an inch and they will take a mile).
Confusion of correlation and causation.
Straw man - caricaturing (or stereotyping) a position to make it easier to attack..
Suppressed evidence or half-truths.
Weasel words - for example, use of euphemisms for war such as "police action" to get around limitations on Presidential powers. "An important art of politicians is to find new names for institutions which under old names have become odious to the public"

This was taken from The Demon-Haunted World, and I would highly suggest it.
Noophy.
PS - If anyone does read, comments are welcome. I just ask they be thought out.