Reasonably Aaron

William Lane Craig vs Sam Harris Debate

2011-04-08T19:26:00.003+08:00

For those not in the know, there was a debate held last night (this morning Australian time) between philosopher/professional debater William Lane Craig and atheist/professional speaker Sam Harris at the University of Notre Dame (a famous Catholic university in the states).

Audio is available here for those who did not get to see it.

Last year I decided to start taking morality seriously. To say I didn't understand what the big deal was would be an understatement. Then I sat down and did what I usually do. Find the state-of-the-art philosophical papers which deal with this exact subject and read them. Many would opt for the historical route, but I'm impressed with the way modern Western analytic philosophy writers are clear and concise and can cut through the bull.

At first I took the ultra-sceptical route and declared that morality did not exist. This I took to be almost obvious under an atheistic world as any definition of "good" or "moral" would ultimately end up being circular or arbitrary. I even took this position to a debate at the UWA Atheist and Agnostic society last year against our resident Peter Singer supporting utilitarian. This half debate served two purposes - one to gauge the reaction of my peers and to see to what extent I could defend this view.

The first paper to change my view was Erik Wielenberg who presented an atheistic defence of moral ontology. He showed that the potential existence of morality under atheism didn't represent a challenge to those who take a permissive view of the extent of ontological development. If an atheist can accept that mathematical truths exist in an objective sense despite not being material, then there is no real reason to suppose that an atheist couldn't also take morality to exist in an extended ontology.

Okay. So that didn't convert me - it showed me that it was in theory possible to construct an atheistic objective morality. What actually changed my mind was a rewatch of a debate between William Lane Craig and Shelly Kagan (Professor of ethics at Yale). It was funny to first hear William Lane Craig say exactly word for word my current position and then to hear Shelly Kagan provide a moral framework in which not only is moral objectivity permissible under atheism, but in fact describe what this framework is.

The more I thought about what Kagan said, the more I believe it and the more I saw the exact same or similar framework being proposed in the literature (including Wielenberg). For those who are interested, the debate can be seen here: (Part 1/10) Given that this was one debate that even Christians themselves admit Craig probably lost - it's worth a watch and I cannot do justice with it in words.

So what does this all have to do with the debate between Harris and Craig. Well to put simply one should listen to the debate Craig had with Kagan before the debate with Harris. You will notice that Craig presents what is basically the exact same case despite Kagan providing top quality answers to his questions. There may as well have never have been a debate between Craig and Kagan considering Craig didn't take anything from it.

Craig definitely won this debate against Harris - whatever that really means.

Harris is a good speaker. He is actually funny and says some really insightful things. The problem is he was all over the place in terms of answering Craig's objections and never refuted Craig's knock-down argument that he presented in the 1st reply. Craig on the other hand was clear, concise and devastatingly brutal with his rhetoric. Harris was a Brazilian soccer team which showed individual talent yet lack cohesion whereas Craig was more like the 70's Netherlands and their "total football" philosophy.

Enough rhetoric from myself - what might I have done differently? Here is my case:

My Case Against Theistic Morality

Craig mentioned that only under theism is there a sound grounding for an objective morality. He also criticised Harris who brought Christianity into the equation. I would argue that Craig actually presented a homo-centric morality - something which isn't warranted given theism qua theism.

Imagine if you will that there was an alien species who were actually the basis or teleology for the universe. Us humans then would be accidental by-products and merely animals in comparison to this advanced species (AS). In fact "real God" (RG) told AS that we humans were to be treated the way humans today tend to treat animals. (Paralleling to the "stewardship" espoused by Genesis) RG also provides verifiable miracles which help AS and no AS could be persuaded by atheism due to the obvious nature of RG's influence. AS then comes to earth and tells us that we are to be perpetual slaves to AS because we are merely slightly advanced animals (compared to the brilliance which is AS). In such a universe it would not be immoral for AS to do this to us - in the same way that Christians/Muslims and Jews see no problem with slitting the throats of live animals to kill them.

In this universe, human morality would be useless and irrelevant - similar to how monkeys may show reciprocal altruism but because they do not display "higher functionality" they are not moral agents. Should us humans then permit ourselves to be slaves? Given that this scenario is possible under theism, it is unclear how anything in humanity could be grounded when the morality is only relevant to AS. By not considering such a scenario I believe Craig is inadvertently smuggling in homo-centric theistic theories.

This is where I believe atheistic morals would surpass theistic morality. Theistic morality, in the case I just presented may not consider humans to be the highest being worthy of moral consideration. Atheistic morality (as espoused by Kagan etc) on the other hand is concerned with the well-being of ALL sentient beings. This would inform AS as to the proper treatment of us as well as us to other animals.

In such a world with RG and AS, us humans would never accept the state-of-play and would revolt against any plan to enslave us. This to me speaks of why theism (without smuggling in homo-centric ideas) doesn't naturally provide the basis of morality because morality MUST pertain to at minimum, the interests of humans. Theism on the other hand could base it on anything, from AS, to iPod's to God itself. Why should we care?

Fine Tuning - A Brief Intro.

2010-11-05T00:51:00.005+08:00

If there is one argument for the existence of God which stops and makes me pause it is the fine tuning argument. While I am not impressed with the logic of the conclusion, there are a number of things about this universe which seem to require an explanation.

That the universe has produced intelligent creatures which are able to figure it out (at least in a limited sense) seems highly implausible given our current present understanding of physics (those parts of physics which have currently been verified, as opposed to speculative M-theory, etc).

Some might say that the fact that the universe has produced intelligent creatures is of no more significance than a universe filled entirely with black holes - although this is technically true in a value-neutral sense, there is still something non-mundane about creatures which have the ability to create value. One might also say that the relative complexity of the human brain, which produces meaningful consciousness, is that which is to be valued. Regardless, I will assume that humans do have value.

That human brains have a level of complexity which can produce meaningful consciousness (higher level thought versus chimpanzees, etc) is a fairly uncontentious observation. The explanation of how humans arrived at this state however is contentious. Many would have us believe that only God can be responsible, while most scientists and atheists alike will say that evolution provides a satisfactory explanation.

Although humans have evolved their brain under evolution, it is not true that in all possible universes that evolution can even start. Under our current understanding of how the universe works, the universe needs the correct conditions to allow life to start at all. For example, some universes may only last millions of years instead of billions of years - which isn't enough time to allow life to form (life requires heavy elements which can only be formed in supernovae) and evolution to take hold all else being equal. Some universes may only consist of black holes (gravity too high) - such a universe would be unsuited for starting life, hence evolution cannot even start to produce complex beings.

Although there are many unitless constants which come up in different areas of fundamental physics, Marin Rees has come up with six constants which he deemed to be fundamental to the structure of the universe. These are generally the values/constants quoted by those who defend the fine tuning argument for theism and I will use them here.

Perhaps the most significant of these constants is the cosmological constant which is said to be fine-tuned to within 120 orders of magnitude. (Steven Weinberg 1989 "The Cosmological Constant Problem") That is to say that if the value were increased by 1 part in 10^120 the universe would have expanded too rapidly.

Unfounded Assumptions
1. That these six numbers are "dials" a designer/universe generator can play with (or degrees of freedom for possible universes).
2. That the laws of physics as we know them must apply to all possible universes.
3. That we know the possible probable range the six numbers can take.
4. That we understand physics enough to come to a reasonable conclusion (i.e. god-of-the-gaps)
5. That there is only one possible universe.

1. Currently there is no grand unification theory or any theory which is able to explain the laws of physics as we currently know them. Given this we cannot say whether these constants are actually constants or if they are based on more fundamental relationships, either mathematical or on some other "constant".

2. We only know the laws of physics given that which we see in this current universe. What reason do we have to suppose that the laws of physics are the same in all possible universes? Are the laws of the universe like Pi and a logical necessity or are they merely contingent.

3. Unless we have a defined probability of the range of values our fine tuned constants can take - our set of fine tuned constants are actually isomorphic to a coarsely tuned universe.

4. Our knowledge of physics isn't sufficient to come to grand conclusions about the nature of some yet-unknown unifying theory. In this sense, the fine tuning argument is merely a god-of-the gaps style of argument where it feeds on our current lack of knowledge.

5. Given that we only have one universe, we are unable to conclude anything about general possible universes based on purely empirical methods. That is to say we cannot say the possible ranges of these constants given only one universe without any other reason why. We cannot also rule out multiple universes outside of our detection abilities or current detection abilities.

Interesting Observation
Isn't it interesting how physics concludes that life is possible given the constants of nature as they are? God could have created the universe in such a way to make life impossible under pure naturalism (a 6000 year old earth, etc), yet apparently we are to believe that he did so in a way which still makes sense under naturalism. Wouldn't it be miraculous if the universe couldn't have possibly have created life - yet still did. THAT would require a serious explanation, however the fine-tuning argument as-is isn't a threat to the naturalists ontology.

A Justification For Atheism - Critique

2010-10-25T06:07:00.000+08:00

Kel over at Kelosophy has just posted a justification for his non-belief of theism. Here I am critiquing his post for two purposes - I wish to offer objections which an intelligent theist might raise as well as providing advice and challenges and a framework as to how I may answer the same question. I do not believe there are any fundamental epistemological problems with his defense, and hence his disbelief is justified.

The Ontology Of God

there's at least a general sense by which the concept [God] can be understood.

I'm not entirely sure I would be willing to concede this to the theist. In terms of the ontology of God we are never offered any positive or primary ontic properties, only relational or negative properties. I don't believe it's possible to discuss anything without positive/primary properties, (nor would we accept this in everyday situations) and hence we still don't know what God is. [1,2]

Agnosticism

and strong agnostics who take such an entity as being unknowable

As an aside: isn't identifying God as "being unknowable" a truth claim?!

Logical Problem of Evil

When it comes to the conception of God as being omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent, the existence of such a concept is seen to be incompatible with the existence of evil. Such a conception of God can be ruled out, and indeed much time and effort has gone into addressing this concern. The problem of evil is justification for being a strong atheist, at least in respect to conceptions of God that involved absolute power and absolute goodness.

This is known as the logical problem of evil and it doesn't seem stand up in it's strongest form. Theists may be justified in their belief that all appearance of evil has a rational explanation (known as Skeptical Theism) that we may only understand if we too knew everything. We don't know everything therefore there might be good reasons for evil or apparent evil to exist.

A weaker form of this argument is to state that the level and amount of suffering makes much more sense under atheism than theism (argument to the best explanation) and the theist needs to demonstrate why evil can serve some greater purpose. [3] This is generally a good rhetorical trick because it makes otherwise intelligent Christians justify genocide, etc. [4]

The Ontology Of God

Likewise other traits are problematic.

I think the strongest is the impossibility of omniscience (it's impossible to know everything). [5] There is also the problem of omnipotence, being all-good and being free. If God can do everything and is free to do anything than that includes being evil. But it is metaphysically impossible for God to be evil. Also, as humans can be evil but God cannot - it stands to reason that we can do things God cannot. Hence he cannot be omnipotent. [6]

God vs Logic

can God make a rock so heavy that he can't lift?

An objection to this is to note that such a sentence is logically meaningless and hence the theist can modify the definition of omnipotent to mean "that whatever is logically possible". Such a concession may make some theists uncomfortable as it means that God is inferior to logic! If they do not concede this then logic is arbitrary and/or God is above/beyond logic and is therefore meaningless for humans to pontificate over.

Deductive vs Inductive Approaches

These kind of proofs though are at least to me unsatisfying because while they ground God in definition they don't capture the essence of what God is.

There are two ways to arrive at God. One is through pure reason (Anslem, Thomas, Scholastics), the other is through evidence (Natural Theology). Pure reason lead us to abominations such as the ontological argument for God! It's also a shaky edifice because to undermine any conclusion makes it almost impossible to patch one's argument. On the other hand natural theology sounds more like what the average person identifies with as God.

Boundaries/Scope of Explanatory Power

Can something supernatural act within the natural world?

I don't see how this is metaphysically impossible. I like to think of it this way - imagine we are in the matrix and those outside the matrix are "supernatural". Although those inside the matrix cannot interact with the matrix (unless there are built-in mechanisms), those on the outside can affect things inside the matrix.

If something is acting in the natural world what stops it being natural itself?

Supernaturalism has generally meant something along the lines of acausal will generating actions (i.e. uncaused causes, contra-causal free will, etc)

Can something simultaneously be in and outside of time? Can something outside of time experience or be said to have a thought?

There are serious coherency problems here in that humans, who are beings in-time, find it hard (if not impossible) to talk about these things. I try to stay away from it!

An undetected and undetectable deity is indistinguishable from there being no deity at all.

It's actually much worse than that! Even if there was some miracle, it is epistemically equivalent to highly advanced technology. It's impossible to tell the difference between a booming voice from the sky and aliens messing with us. [7]

Consciousness

Altering the brain alters conscious experience.

Have you heard of the split-brain patient where one half of his brain is an atheist and the other is a Christian? [8]

Tea Pot Skepticism

Nor could they disprove Santa for that matter, or an alleged china teapot orbiting between Earth and Mars too small to be detected by any instrument.

I'd be wary of taking this line of thinking too far just as a matter of principle - we don't just disbelieve these claims (Santa, tea-pot's) on the absence of evidence alone but because there are also good reasons to suppose they are not true.

First Cause Arguments

the notion of a clockwork universe, with notions like the arrow of time and causality probabilistic rather than definite

This one is a bit tricky depending on which QM interpretation you follow - there are currently at least 12. [9] In terms of the Kalam Cosmological Argument - it's foremost Christian proponent William Lane Craig says that it only works under A-theory of time (that time has a direction, etc) instead of B-theory of time (time is a 4D unchanging manifold). Despite Craig's defense of A-theory, many philosophers remain unconvinced over A or B (it's one of the most uncertain areas of philosophy) and the jury is still out. [10] Physicists would likely be more comfortable with B-theory. For example, in Hawking's new book [11] he advocates something which resembles B-theory. Not all A theorists are theists - you could still argue against Kalam with A-theory. [12]

Fine Tuning

There's no reason to assume that life, and more specifically us, is the focal point for the laws of physics. Evolutionarily so much owed to our existence is a product of contingency that it makes no sense to privilege us more than any other life-form.

Two problems with this. If there is only one universe then the existence of humans seems extremely improbable and very surprising. [13] Secondly evolutionary contingency can only exist when life is able to start existing - hence stars need to last a certain amount of time, the universe has to be a certain age, etc. While I could write for pages and pages about good ways to handle the fine tuning argument I can actually just point to Christian philosophers who actually argued that our "fine tuned" universe is equivalent to a "coarse tuned" universe if we do not have a probability distribution on what values the constants could have. [14]

Morality

Morality, evidentially, clearly is an evolved trait and requires no further explanation.

I recently debated a fellow atheist in our atheist club at university over the existence and nature of morality. My position is basically that objective morality doesn't exist (moral skepticism/nihilism) but that moral behaviour certainly does exist and must be evolutionary. I would say its very difficult if not impossible to get from moral behaviour to absolute morality without presupposing a miracle! (Then there is the issue of how the describe the ontology of absolute morality in a naturalistic framework. [15])

Cognitive Basis for Religion

We are wired for agency and in particular human agency.

Worse still we are wired to remember minimally counterintuitive ideas. Almost all supernatural entities can be reduced to singular ontological violations. Ghosts = People - Body's, Zombies = People - Soul, Magic Pendant = Object + Ability to listen, etc [16, 17]

In this respect, explaining God belief is just one of the many weird things that permeates in our species without good reason.

Our brains are still basically the same since when we left the Savannah some 100,000 years ago. We have stone age brains in a modern world with atomic weapons/global warming. This should alarm anyone! Even if you take God belief away, it transforms into New Age or any other metaphysical/existential crutch.

Conclusion

I find the quest for justifying belief to be difficult. At what point do you stop researching and just get on with your life? For most weak atheists it's just about simply pointing out that the traditional theistic arguments don't resonate with them and until they do, one is justified in not accepting them. Perhaps its just a case of doing what one usually does in cases where expertise is required - and that is to tentatively appeal to the authorities? So long as there is a vanguard of intelligent and sophisticated atheist philosophers of religion, we need not fear the development of some new fangeled attempt by Christian philosophers to bamboozle us into accepting some seductive sounding ontological argument.

All I know is that I learn the most when I push my atheistic brethren and see where it goes.

References

[1] George Smith "The Case Against God"
[2] Youtube, ProfMTH "What is God?"
[3] William Rowe "The Evidential Argument from Evil"
[4] William Lane Craig, "Slaughter of the Cannanites"
[5] Problems with Devine Omniscience
[6] For these and others (apparently there are PLENTY of incompatible properties of God), see Michael Martin.
[7] Gregory Dawes "Theism and Explanation"
[8] V.S. Ramachandran
[9] Interpretations of QM
[10] Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy on Time
[11] Hawking, "The Grand Design"
[12] Quentin Smith (I think...)
[13] Luke Barnes presents a terrific introduction to this.
[14] Lydia/Timothy McGrew
[15] J.L. Mackie (Argument from Queerness)
[16] Pascal Boyer "Religion Explained"
[17] Scott Atran "In God's We Trust"

BTB: What happened to Paul's Church?

2010-10-23T17:15:00.004+08:00

Blogging the bible: 1 Corinthians 12

There are different kinds of gifts, but the same Spirit. There are different kinds of service, but the same Lord. There are different kinds of working, but the same God works all of them in all men.

Now to each one the manifestation of the Spirit is given for the common good.

To one there is given through the Spirit the message of wisdom
to another the message of knowledge by means of the same Spirit,
to another faith by the same Spirit,
to another gifts of healing by that one Spirit,
to another miraculous powers,
to another prophecy,
to another distinguishing between spirits,
to another speaking in different kinds of tongues,
and to still another the interpretation of tongues.

All these are the work of one and the same Spirit, and he gives them to each one, just as he determines.

Now you are the body of Christ, and each one of you is a part of it.
And in the church God has appointed

first of all apostles,
second prophets,
third teachers,
then workers of miracles

also

those having gifts of healing,
those able to help others,
those with gifts of administration,
and those speaking in different kinds of tongues.

Questions
Does this sound anything like the Churches that exist today?
If not, why not?
What happened to Paul's Chruch?
Given that Paul was writing to the Corinthians around 50-60CE, doesn't this illustrate what a different world the ancients used to live in compared to today?
What happened to all these spiritual gifts?
Notice how many of these gifts are actually testable? (How many do you suppose would stand up to rational scrutiny)

Rageing my thesis...

2010-10-22T22:20:00.003+08:00

Modern Theistic Arguments

2010-10-11T19:27:00.003+08:00

Disclaimer: I am not a theist nor am I an accommodationist.

Larry Moran has issued the following challenge:

This brings me to my challenge. I challenge all theists and all their accommodationist friends to post their very best 21st century, sophisticated (or not), arguments for the existence of God.

Let me first begin by expanding the disclaimer...

I don't think any theistic argument succeeds rigorous or sceptical scrutiny however to deny that new argument exist seems to me to be ignorant. Some atheists seem to be of the opinion that the failure of these arguments and their non-existance are somehow equivalent. Nevertheless I will list some "sophisticated" arguments for the existence of God and the truth of Christianity from modern proponents.

Evidentialist
Evidentialists maintain that there exists positive evidence for not only the existence of God but also for the truth of Christianity. (Hereby known as G/C or God/Christianity)

Many modern "sophisticated" arguments take a Bayesian probabilistic approach by trying to quantify what many have called "converging lines of evidence". In plain speak this means that there exists many small pieces to the puzzle which, if taken in isolation mean very little however when taken together provide positive evidence for the truth of G/C, in a similar way as to how a detective might go about collecting evidence to build a case.

The most prominent defender of this view is Richard Swinburne.

The same technique can be used to justify the belief in the resurrection of Jesus. For example, in a debate between Craig and Ehrman, Craig uses Bayesian probability to prove the resurrection is historical.

Tangentially related to the evidentialists are those who believe certain facts of nature/modern science are more probable under theism than atheism.

These include

the insufficiency of evolution to explain some feature such as information/irreducible complexity, etc.
the inability to provide positive proof of abiogenesis. (Problems of chirality, etc)
the fine tuning of the constants of nature (using modern cosmology, hence this is a new argument).
the existence of the universality of belief in the supernatural.

Note: Ironically one of the best defeaters for the fine tuning argument come from Christian philosophers! (Tim and Lydia McGrew)

Many evidentialists are skeptical and critical of their non-evidentialist brethren.

Non-evidentialist
Non-evidentialists don't believe any evidentialist claims succeed and so they resort to different tactics to prove the existence of G/C or to maintain that their beliefs are justified. Some may even claim that proving the truth of G/C is irrelevant.

The most popular proponent of a non-evidentialist epistemology is Alvin Plantinga who maintains that belief in God is properly basic (that is to say it doesn't depend on any other belief).

What is a properly basic belief in reformed epistemology? Well let's say I have a black can in front of me (which I do) then the belief of the colour of this can is a properly basic belief because it relies on accurate sense data (i.e. my eyes). Plantinga says that when he reads the bible he senses the holy spirit, and given that he believes this is accurate sense data, he can be confident that his belief in the holy spirit is properly basic. (This is a thumbnail sketch of a very complicated set of propositions, so don't critique Plantinga on my butchering!)

Plantinga is also famous for his warranted Christian belief which is the proposition that if Christianity is true than one is justified in believing Christianity. This may seem trivial but there were sceptical attacks which concluded that even if Christianity was true, one would not be justified in believing it.

Of less interest seem to be the presuppositionists who believe only Christian Theism provides a coherent world-view. I wouldn't call this sophisticated, but it seems to be modern.

So there we have it. Modern sophisticated justifications and arguments for the truth of G/C. If you want an atheists view on modern philosophy of religion, try someone respected like Graham Oppy (he's Aussie, he's awesome!) over say Richard Dawkins.

Meta Comment: I'm not surprised atheists usually get creamed in debates with professional Christian debaters. When the view is that there exists no new arguments in the last 200 years for G/C then it isn't surprising when they get shown up in a live debate and then are unable to even comprehend what the Christian is saying. This ignorance also flows through to the audience (both sides) who are far less educated in these things.

HMS Pinafore

2010-09-11T21:18:00.003+08:00

As the girly-guy I am, I like Gilbert and Sullivan Operas. I find their work comically absurd and a fresh historical look into 19th century life and culture. Of their work, I particularly like HMS Pinafore, a triple love story revolving around the clash between classes.

HMS Pinafore is coming to the Playhouse Theatre in Perth from this Thursday (16/9) to Sunday (19/9). It's something I'd seriously consider going to. It's probably the only professional performance that one is likely to find of Pinafore for some time.

For those who haven't got a clue what HMS Pinafore is about or what it is like, I have attached a YouTube clip of the end of the first act.

Ralph, who is in love with Josephine, approaches her and pours out his heart. Josephine rejects him because, she is the Captains daughter (middle class) and Ralph is merely a common sailor (lower class). Despite this Josephine is secretly in love with Ralph but cannot admit it.

In the scene attached, Ralph can no longer stand it and decides to end it all (his life that is) - only for Josephine to come in at the last second, stop him, and proclaim her love for him. They then plan to elope that night.

It's a good time to be an atheist!

2010-09-07T18:00:00.005+08:00

It's a good time to be an atheist - a really good time to be an atheist!

Science and Philosophy

God not needed to explain the origins of the universe - This provides scientific rationale against the cosmological and fine tuning arguments.

Synthetic Life - Craig Venter has shown that synthetic life is possible. This research, amongst others, will lead to a further understanding of abiogenesis.

Extrasolar Planets - Hundreds of extrasolar Earth-like planets have been discovered showing that the Earth-like planets are not rare in the universe and increases the probability of earth-like life elsewhere in the universe.

Scientific Morality - Although I don't necessarily buy this, Sam Harris thinks science can answer questions on morality.

Free will is an illusion - Some theistic traditions require free will to have moral culpability.

Majority of scientists/historians/psychologists/sociologists are atheistic - The more knowledgeable you are the less likely it is you believe in god.

Majority of philosophers are atheistic - Even the study of philosophy does not lead one to god, even though philosophy is the last great stand for the religious.

"God's Will" is our will - fMRI scans show that when people are asked what God wants, its equivalent to what they want.

Politics and Society

Australia has an openly atheistic Prime Minster - Not many people cared about this fact.

The fastest growing "religion" is none - People are no longer keeping their religious traditions.

Societies which are organically atheist are healthier - Contrary to the belief that without religion society would collapse.

2 Million books sold on one atheistic book - The God Delusion has sold over 2 million copies!

Christian Atheists and Atheist Clergy - Even some of the religious no longer really believe.

Love Shyness - A Bleak Future

2010-09-03T20:04:00.002+08:00

This is part of a series on Love Shyness. The index can be found here.

Despite being heavily criticised, Maslow's hierarchy of needs serves a rough guide to the needs of the individual in an individualistic society. Love shy males by their very nature suffer physiologically through lack of sex, love and belonging due to the absence of sexual intimacy and also fail to reach self-actualisation due to their issues related to spontaneity, etc. If Maslow's hierarchy was to be believed, love shy males would therefore be at higher risk of personal failure than their non-shy counterparts. Let's see what Gilmartin discovered about the love-shy population and their success in life.

Unemployment

In a study of white, college educated males in 1982, Gilmartin discovered that 3.6% of the non-shy population was unemployed while 16% of the older love-shy males were unemployed at the time of the interview. Basically love-shy males are extremely prone to unemployment, prolonged under-employment and/or part-time employment.

Annual Income

The average income for the older love-shy males in 1979-1981 was only $14,782 despite 93% of these love-shy males having an undergraduate degree and 42% having at least one graduate degree. Despite not giving comparative figures for the non-shy population, Gilmartin states that this number is low and represents an unrewarded and ignored segment of the American population.

Housing

Of the 100 older love-shy males interviewed, all were living in small one-bedroom apartments. Gilmartin judges that 73% were living in less than desirable neighbourhoods and their living quarters were often cramped and cluttered.

Socioeconomic Mobility

Gilmartin noticed that based on the reports of the older love-shy males, their socioeconomic status had been reduced in relation to their upbringing. For example, a love-shy male who grew up in a middle class household (which is interestingly true of the majority of love-shy males) is more likely to drift into the lower class in adulthood. This seems counter-intuitive considering love-shy males are more likely to obtain higher education - a term which sociologists call "status inconsistent". These "status inconsistent" people are seldomly happy, content or productive.

Catch-22

If love-shyness leads to low income and career instability then this also has further implications in the ability for the love-shy to overcome their limitations. First of all, in terms of confidence, their financial condition does not allow them to feel in control of their lives. Secondly and perhaps more importantly, society looks down on those earning less, which affects their ability to attract women. For example, OkCupid has tracked the number of messages a man gets in relation to his age and his income and not surprisingly the lower the income, the less messages a man gets, particularly above the age of 23. Women are still attracted to men who bring home the bacon.

Basically, they are stuck in a downwards spiral. Their love-shyness leads to low income, which makes them unable to find a mate, which does not help their confidence, etc, leading to more career instability, and so on.

In a 1977 survey of happiness and income, 46% of people earning >$20,000 were "very happy", compared to 33% for $10,000 to $19,999, and 29% for those earning less than $10,000.

At Work

Those love-shy males who do obtain work often struggle with issues of confidence and social networking - critical areas for many jobs. This can lead to a stagnation in the advance of ones career and general distrust from their colleagues.

In a questionnaire developed to measure the attitudes of the love shy and their non love shy counterparts, the following results were obtained.

Competitiveness:
100% Non-Shy
32% Older Love-Shy

Easily discouraged:
0% Non-Shy
100% Older Love-Shy

Seldomly let ones-self down:
72% Non-Shy
4% Older Love-Shy

Enjoy making decisions:
88% Non-Shy
38% Older Love-Shy

Solutions

Gilmartin offers the following advice.

THE CHOICE OF A MAJOR IS OF INFINITELY GREATER IMPORTANCE THAN GRADEPOINT AVERAGE. To put it bluntly, A STRAIGHT "C" AVERAGE IN THE RIGHT DISCIPLINE WILL BE OF VASTLY GREATER VALUE TO THE LOVE-SHY THAN A STRAIGHT "A" AVERAGE IN THE WRONG DISCIPLINE.

[Yes, it appears as all-caps in the book]

Completion of a major in a technical field with only a "C" average will very likely get a love-shy man a much better career opportunity than will an "A" average in a non-technical discipline that is not clearly related to the job market.
...
Intellectual self-enlightenment or "insight" is now recognized by most psychologists as being quite useless from the standpoint of curing love-shyness.
...
It can be asserted with considerably certainty that love-shy men who major in technical fields and who develop salable, technical skills, adjust to their adult lives a great deal better than do love-shys who major in the liberal arts, social science, education and humanities disciplines.

This is something I have personally thought about over the past six months or more since I started reading this book. Doing a degree in physics is all well and good from an intellectual point of view, but it doesn't build a foreseeable stable and profitable future, things which most people require to feel confident within themselves. Another problem is the lack of females who are in the field, which decreases the probability of meeting someone who shares similar interests.

Despite my love of physics, I'm not sure I can exactly feel content with the picture of myself being 40 and living alone in a small flat in Germany...I've yet to come up with a reasonable picture as to where my future will take me. There are a million other ancillary issues which complicate things too. They all lead to me having a lack of motivation in finishing my PhD.

What Dawkins Got Wrong

2010-09-01T19:13:00.003+08:00

Last week I finally presented my talk on "What Dawkins Got Wrong" to the UWA Atheist and Agnostic Society, which was previously postponed due to my broken ankle. The talk was derived mainly from Wielenberg's paper titled "Dawkins's Gambit, Hume's Aroma, and God's Simplicity".

Previously I agreed with Dawkin's central argument in his book "The God Delusion" as I shared a similar, heavily scientific world-view. As time has gone and I've read a lot more in philosophy, I now no longer believe that Dawkin's presented the best possible case for atheism, which, in my opinion, is a shame. After I read the paper by Wielenberg, I agreed with the critics of Dawkins who argue that Dawkins attacks an almost straw-man like God.

My intention in giving the talk was to open people up to a different way of thinking and I can't say I succeeded in this task. I learned that not everyone shares an appreciation of philosophy and it was difficult to remember back to the time when I agreed with the masses. I wasn't able to elucidate the reasons why I changed my mind - at least not convincingly in my opinion.

Many of the counter-objections I faced were similar in nature to a discussion at Common Sense Atheism, which also provided another source for my case against Dawkins.

It's perhaps too harsh to suggest that Dawkins got things wrong (sensational headlines usually attract audiences), but he didn't present the best arguments as to why one should be an atheist, which of course gives his critics and detractors plenty of room to manoeuvre. It's also a particularly pernicious aspect of Dawkins argumentative style that he tends to over state his case. (Yes, my irony detector is buzzing like crazy)

Collision - Part 2 - The Discussion

2010-08-18T19:39:00.003+08:00

I've broken my analysis of the Collision event into two posts. The first post covered the movie and the second post (this one) will cover the discussion between UWA's Ben Rae and Daniel Midgley which followed the movie (including their appearance on RTR earlier that day).

Ben Rae was the representative of the Christian Union at UWA. Ben has a degree in Science (neuroscience) and stated that he was raised Christian and surprise, surprise discovered that Christianity was true. How lucky of him to be born into the correct religion! (A good case for the outsider test for faith...)

Daniel Midgley was the representative of the UWA Atheist and Agnostic Society. Daniel is a lecturer in linguistics and an ex-Mormon. He also has the excellent blog Good Reason and a spot on local radio station RTR. He is the closest thing we have to a super-star atheist.

Earlier in the day, Ben and Daniel had a discussion on RTR which can be downloaded here. Many of the talking points were repeated in both the radio discussion and the post-movie discussion so I am going to treat them all together.

Many Christians and Atheists continually talk about "tone" and how the new atheist movement can be strident, snide, arrogant and uncivilised. I can report that both sides were pleasant to each other and the entire tone of the discussion was conductive to a fruitful discussion of ideas. There were times when both parties were talking past each other or going around in circles but these were stopped by Daniel and Ben by moving on to other questions. There was only one "uncivilised" moment in the event when a (probably atheist/agnostic) student interjected, but overall the audience sat captivated listening to the discussion. Props to Daniel and Ben for their professionalism, preparation and civility during the discussion. This is the nicest I am going to be towards Daniel and Ben...

Like most discussions there is a difference between matters of fact and matters of opinions. Facts are true irrespective or argumentation whereas opinions are backed by argumentation and are evaluated by third parties. Both sides engaged in an assertion-fest, that is they told us what their opinions were, but rarely supported them with argumentation and when they did, they were primarily weak.

Ben's Blunders

One of the most egregious factual errors by Ben Rae was his mischaracterisation of Buddhism. This drew gasps of disbelief and murmurs of discontent from the audience and rightly so. This of course is rather problematic for Ben. Imagine if someone claimed that Christianity was a religion where Paul was the Son of God - this person would clearly be ignorant of the teachings of Christianity, yet surely Ben would not claim this is sufficient justification for their disbelief in Christianity. When we are told Ben has evaluated Christianity and found it to be true, we could always ask why he hasn't studied Buddhism? (Clearly studying Buddhism from the words of fellow Christians is problematic) This would surely lead to an uncomfortable double standard. Ben seems to be justified in not understanding Buddhism yet a Buddhist would not be justified in not understanding Christianity.

I was also taken aback by Ben's repeated assertion that Christianity is an historical religion, and its claims (namely the resurrection) can be validated historically. When Daniel pressed him, Ben used the following historical criteria - Ben asked us to read the Gospels and ask ourselves if it made sense...Whoa...This made me cringe and had I been in Daniel's shoes I would have pounded him on this and the notion that Christianity is an historical religion.

In the category of "correct, but painful to admit" was Ben's response to Daniel quoting the end of Mark which tells believers that they can handle snakes. Ben stated that it shouldn't have been in the Bible. This amusing answer was scoffed at by the audience and rightly so. Apart from alienating the section of the audience which believes the Bible is the inerrant word of God, it made God look incompetent by letting generations and generations of people believe (including a whole denomination, namely Pentecostals) this was supposed to be in the Bible, yet Ben is one of the lucky ones to know it shouldn't be there. (How lucky is Ben - he clearly knows the truth better than 99.99% of all Christians who have ever lived and was born into it too!) Daniel didn't respond to this, and in discussion after the event, he revealed that he didn't need to say any more, Ben had said it all.

Ben made an interesting argument that the ability of humans to do science points to a God. The problem with this argument is that it's like a loaded coin - heads you win, tails I lose. It would also be true that the inability to perform science can also be argued to be compatible with theism. In fact some medieval Islamic theologians came to the conclusion that science was against God because you would be taking away God's will and sovereignty and effectively testing God. Ben's argument is nothing more than looking at the way things are - and contriving a just-so story to explain it, one which invokes God.

Many of Ben's other errors were perhaps not errors but looking at history with Christian glasses on. He conveniently ignores the reality of medieval Christianity, the fall of scholarship and the destruction of knowledge, the opposition of science by the Church and instead focuses on the post-reformation era where the falling Church hegemony coincided with intellectual freedom and curiosity.

Overall his argument was similar to Douglas Wilson - and to be honest - is the only thing worth asking. Whether Christianity has been good to this world is entirely dependent on whether it is true or not. If Christianity is true then it follows that it is good because it leads souls to heaven.

Daniel's Dodges

Now I turn my attention to the home team so-to-speak and look at where Daniel went wrong.

Ben's tactic was simple and effective. On what basis does Daniel have to declare Christianity either right or wrong and if Daniel can present a basis - why should anyone else care about it? Right and wrong being not just subjective (such as "I like strawberry icecream") but based on questions of morality.

Daniel - like so many intelligent atheists - failed to answer the Christians questions regarding morality satisfactorily. For example, Daniel kept reinforcing the notion that atheists can be as moral as Christians but this isn't necessarily relevant.

There are two categories of moral claims Christians generally make (there may be more - but I am simplifying it).

The strong claim is the biblical claim that non-believers are wicked, they lie and cannot be trusted. This view isn't taken as true by the vast majority of Christians because it is verifiable - and not surprisingly - is false.

The weaker claim is a theological claim, namely that moral ontology leads to the conclusion that the existence of objective morality can only be true if God exists. (As the argument continues, objective morality exists, therefore God exists). This is a standard argument that the majority of Christians hold to.

Daniel was effectively challenging the strong claims but did not address the weaker claim. In fact when Daniel scored a rhetorical victory by telling Ben not to give up his religion if he doesn't know why X is bad, he was again, still attacking the strong position instead of the general weaker claim.

In the world of the Christian - the atheist has no moral basis and is therefore acting inconsistently by being moral. This inconsistency is seen as a deeply help acceptance that moral truth exists, is objective, and grounded in a higher being. The garden variety atheist would reject this of course - but the job is to explain why.

I generally agree that atheism entails no moral position. Why? Because atheism is a position regarding the existence of God - and God alone. One must develop a positive moral ontology (instead of attacking one) - and this could take any form. For example, you could be a utilitarian or a deontologist. I personally have no defined morality because I have yet to be convinced of any moral system - I therefore divert most of my judgement to a socially neutral position.

Is morality even objective? Daniel didn't press this on Ben but seemed to take it as a given. Many standard responses include "we know X is wrong", therefore objective morality. This is false because we don't actually "know", we "feel" (emotional, intuition) or we "believe" or we have been lead to believe (via culture, etc), or we have the opinion that "X is wrong". Knowledge is a very strong claim in epistemology and there are many moral skeptics who would even go as far as to argue that moral knowledge qua knowledge is impossible.

Another standard response is "we all know murder is wrong". Of course this is a rather sneaky one because murder is defined to be illegal. Murder is a judgement on the action of killing - of which killing is in and of itself not intrinsically immoral. Human history can attest to the variability in how illegal killing is defined.

Another Christian classic is how can the atheist say that what Hitler (or any other tyrant) did was wrong. The easy answer is to merely ask the question, why did Hitler do what he did? In this case we see two problems with his moral reasoning. First he makes factual claims about Jews (and others) which are wrong and he bridges the is/ought gap with little to no justification. (i.e. it does not follow that because race X is inferior that they should be exterminated). I would question any tyrant on the basis that what they did was either factually questionable or contained faulty moral reasoning.

A serious problem for the Christian is not just their moral ontology but their moral epistemology. Is there any evidence from the history of Christianity that Christians know what this objective morality is? It is a problem to suppose that a devine God would on one hand let his people believe slavery is fine for an extended period of time only to later reveal to them that they were mistaken. How much suffering could have been averted if people knew that slavery was wrong all along? I generally take the view that people do what they do because they generally have compelling reasons (at least to themselves) as to why they do something. Many good people supported slavery because they believed it was sanctioned by God, and there is a clear biblical basis for this.

Ben claimed that Daniel (and other atheists) were merely using Christian morals to judge Christianity. This seems unlikely as it cannot be possible that one could use one standard to judge that same standard wrong unless one was applying it incorrectly. (For example, if Hexopoidian morality said cannibalism was okay - you could not be using this Hexopoidian standard if you conclude cannibalism is wrong. Note that I made up the word Hexopoidian.)

Ben also made an analogy to an apple tree in that atheists are chopping down the tree and expecting apples. (Namely getting rid of the basis for morality and expecting morality to exist) This is not necessarily true if the atheist position is correct. If it is true that there is no god then it follows that all morality - including Christian morality - was always just plain old human morality. The moon does not fly off into space if we discover tomorrow that Newton was wrong about his theory of Gravity. Therefore the atheist hasn't chopped down any tree - they are just looking at it a different way. Daniel was correct in asserting that Christian morality is merely human morality - but perhaps an argument to back up his assertion would have driven the point home more succinctly.

The drunken skeptic who yelled out from the audience about mirror neurons also failed to account for objective morality. If anything it makes the atheists position worse because he is claiming our moral guide is comprised of something irrational (i.e. emotion) and something evolved. These cannot be (and thankfully are not) the basis of a morality. The Christian would therefore have the upper hand by claiming that these mirror neurons don't merely produce morality but reflect it as God's mechanism to delivering moral truth. Ben was quite right in asking "so what?", however this isn't going to convince those on the other side that he is engaging with the statement.

I don't want to proclaim that I understand morality - because I don't. I admit that I have no moral system that I call my own but we need to be humble and admit that we are all in the same boat here. Even if the Christian is right - it still does not follow that he knows what is right and what is wrong. If people applied more moral skepticism instead of moral certainty when it is not warranted - a lot of suffering in this world could be prevented. There is nothing worse in my eyes than a good person doing something evil, when they believe it is good and they do so for faulty reasons.

Summary

Those Christians who understand my criticisms of Daniel will likely find their position has not changed after the discussion as Daniel did not mount any direct challenge to their faith.

For those on the fence, they are likely to find Daniel's position more reasonable, not because he was necessarily right but because his arguments were compelling. The average person knows in their heart that slavery is wrong - the Christian can tell us all they like they we are basing or borrowing our morality from them but when the average person picks up a bible and sees the condoning of slavery - we understand that the Christian is being inconsistent and picking and choosing their position.

The average person doesn't need a justification or feel as if they have to provide one as to why they believe slavery is wrong. The Christian may not like this but I doubt the average person will be swayed will appeals to a higher standard. Most people "know it" because they feel it, and that's it. This is why the New Atheists tactics have been so popular despite being riddled with logical errors. The Christian tactic of attempting to frame the debate in a Christian centric way is - in my opinion at least - doomed. Their best chance would be to actually defend what is written and show that peoples inner moral feeling just need a little bit of tweaking to be lined up with the bible.

For those on the fence who "get it", they will not be convinced by either person!

As for the die hard atheist - well I'm sure they go away from this feeling frustrated that the Christian didn't get it, and think that the Christian just needs to read some more books on evolution, etc. In reality it is the atheist who didn't get it, because they denigrated philosophy while championing reason.

I'm sure by this stage I've made everyone think that I'm a pompous, arrogant asshole who thinks he's better than both sides - either that or you are fuming at me because you think I didn't get it. If so then my job is complete.

Collision - Part 1 - The Movie

2010-08-10T23:16:00.004+08:00

I'm going to be breaking my analysis of the Collision event into two posts. The first post (this one) will cover the movie and the second post will cover the discussion between UWA's Ben Rae and Daniel Midgley which followed the movie (including their appearance on RTR earlier that day).

According to Wikipedia, Douglas Wilson, who represented Christianity in this movie, is an evangelical theologian and pastor. Christopher Hitchens, on the other hand, who represented Atheism, is merely a gifted writer and reporter. Given this large discrepancy in the qualifications of these two candidates we should expect Wilson to demolish Hitchens and this is exactly what we find. No, that was not an error. Wilson outperformed Hitchens in terms of argumentation yet Hitchens was far more persuasive in his message - which, in my opinion, has been the strength of the New Atheist movement. Instead of getting bogged down in games of semantics and word definitions, the emphasis is more on persuading and getting others to agree.

The main question behind Collision was whether Christianity is good for the world or not. Douglas Wilson summed up this entire debate nicely when he stated

If Christianity is bad for the world, atheists can't consistently point this out, having no fixed way of defining "bad."

And I agree. At no stage did Hitchen actually point out a coherent rationale for determining that Christianity is not good for the world, hence why I believe Hitchens "lost" the argument. Hitchens on the other hand presented a more persuasive argument because he was able to rely on our common societal moral to critique Christianity. Given the strong persuasive value we put on this societal moral - Hitchens was more persuasive.

Why then wasn't Wilson's message persuasive?

Wilson's problem is that the message he is promoting is not a popular modern message. He isn't promoting a liberal style of Christianity which tries to promote good in the world (works based salvation) - he is promoting a conservative Christianity which preaches the "Good News" as the solution to making the world better (faith based salvation). The entire argument is moot considering they will never agree to this difference. Hitchens looks at the effect Christianity had/has in a secular sense, that is to say, apart from it's truth claims.

Hitchens continuously evaded Wilson's requests to provide an account of morality under atheism. In the "Christianity Today" article which contains the series of letters which sparked the movie Collision, Wilson summed it up nicely when he stated

I am simply saying that a good person needs to be able, at a minimum, to define what goodness is and tell us what the basis for it is. Your handwaving—"ordinary morality is innate"—does not even begin to meet the standard.

Without this basis, Wilson is quite right in concluding that Hitchens has merely his opinion, and what does this opinion matter anyway?

Wilson's made one argumentative mistake came when he tried to equate Atheism with mere molecules and chemical reactions (i.e. reductive naturalism). The reason this argumentation does not work is because Atheism is "only" a question of the existence of a god/gods. It is not necessarily a rejection of supernaturalism nor does it necessarily lead to nihilism or reductive naturalism despite the religious wish that it should. (One would have to make a positive argumentation to show god is required for supernaturalism, etc)

Another argumentative mistake Wilson made was to assume that if atheism cannot account for morality then this means that theism is correct. This, although being a seemingly popular and persuasive argument, does not hold water. The classic example I can think of is if we go back to 200 BC and ask the Greek's what caused thunder. The religious people would say "Zeus" and the non-religious people wouldn't have an answer. Does the non-religious answer mean that Zeus is the correct answer? No! It just means that the honest non-religious person just doesn't know, and as it turns out, neither did the person who believed in Zeus. The problem is that the answer Zeus would have been the much more persuasive answer (due to it's narrative).

Next post I will look at the post-movie discussion held between Rae and Midgley.

Update

2010-08-08T21:42:00.003+08:00

I'm finally back on both feet and am able to walk for short periods with a bearable amount of pain. The new X-Ray taken at the six-weeks post-second-op stage revealed I had not re-broken my ankle despite my best efforts in tripping and landing on my ankle in my slippery bathroom. It's been a rather depressing past few weeks and I can't wait for life to return to normal.

To kill four birds with one stone I made my way to uni to do some admin, see my lab partner, see my friends, get legless and see an Atheist vs Christian event. A neighbour was nice enough to take me to the train station and an atheist friend was nice enough to drive me home after the event.

In the following weeks to warm up to starting my PhD thesis again I plan on posting a number of blog posts instead of just reading, playing games, watching movies all day and thinking useless thoughts.

First I want to cover the Atheist vs Christian event that took place on Thursday. Then I want to complete my love shyness series (which seems to be getting more views based on the FEEDJIT info) and continue my conversation with Kel.

I Heart Scott Atran

2010-06-18T17:23:00.003+08:00

I find it fascinating that brilliant scientists and philosophers have no clue how to deal with the basic irrationality of human life and society other than to insist against all reason and evidence that things ought to be rational and evidence based. Makes me embarrassed to be an atheist.

Two Weeks Forward - Two Weeks Backwards

2010-06-14T22:33:00.002+08:00

tl;dr - I re-broke my ankle and just came back from my second operation.
(Note: I am dosed up on pain medication while writing this...)

Thursday was two weeks post-operation so I planned on heading down to Fremantle Hospital with the expectation that my sutures would come out and the dressing on my foot re-done. At least that was the plan...Reality had something else in store for me.

So to start with my grandparents were going to pick me up from my house and drive me to Fremantle. When they pulled into the driveway my Grandmother, who suffers from Alzheimer's got out of the car and stormed off down the road. She wasn't happy that she wasn't told she was going to be coming to pick me up - of course she was told but didn't remember. I told my Granddad not to worry about me and go look after her. It upsets me when these things happen to both of them, but I had to head off to the clinic. I remember my Grandmother doing this once before when they came to visit. She just walked out the door and headed down the street only to forget two minutes later why she left in the first place. You hear about these things on the news, they go wandering and are found dead days later...

So I call for a taxi and meet a nice taxi driver (driving a hybrid) who offers to drive me back for a discount (considering he works around the area where I live and nowhere near where I am going to). When he finds out I study Physics he asks if I would be willing to tutor members of his community. Naturally I accept and am grateful for the offer. A $50 taxi ride later I arrive at the hospital a few minutes early.

This is when the receptionist told me my appointment was tomorrow...

Alas it wasn't the next day - I had my appointment card with me and showed her. She accepted it and told me where to go. I had the sutures removed by a lovely nurse named Jenny and got to see my scar. The removal was painless and my scar impressive. I was expecting the removal to be painful thanks to a burning memory of my sister screaming the doctors surgery down when she had stitches removed when we were much younger. As this did not happen, I was feeling much better. I was even feeling far more sprightly on my crutches. Happy days!

Despite not being on the system the correct day, they decided to X-Ray my ankle and I was to report to the doctor in between patients. Apparently this wasn't necessary, but I am glad they did. When the doctor came to see me the first thing he told me was that I re-broke my ankle.

What. The. Fuck.

I scanned my memory banks to wonder how the hell this could have happened. I had two candidates, my "fall" or the night I remember waking up in agony. Whatever - it wasn't that important. The question now was, now what? The doctors first suggestion was surgery next week (as in, seven days time) then after some phone-calls and what felt like an eternity lying down in the examination room with a million thoughts swirling in my head - he put me on the waiting list for the next day and booked me into the same day unit at Fremantle.

At this stage I would have been heading home ready to have a nap to compensate for waking up early, instead I was carted from the Orthopaedic Clinic to Emergency (to "check in") and then to the Same Day Unit. Upon talking to the male orderly who transported me, I found out he lives in Huntingdale, the same suburb I grew up in for ten or more years and went to primary school at. Finally arriving at my dingy and depressing bed-for-the-night, I gathered my thoughts before calling my father and friends to let them know what was going on.

Thursday night was rather crap. Next to me in one bed was a chronic snorer (to which the nurses offered ear plugs) and in the next was a poor young lady who might have lost vision in one eye. Listening to her plight, I stopped feeling sorry for myself. Fortunately my nurse was a very nice Asian woman named Dorothy who wore a small green tail and was called "Dorothy the Dinosaur". Little things like that make me smile. So too did the attractive young female doctor who was about to give me the consent for surgery spiel which I had already heard before. I should have just let her go on...

Friday came and around 10-11am I found out that I might have a chance to get surgery at Kaleeya hospital - so they bussed me there. In the transfer room waiting for the bus, I spotted an old male across from me with massively swollen feet, swollen ankles and a rather disturbing bulge on his upper thigh...

When I arrived at Kaleeya hospital and after a lengthy delay waiting for Fremantle to discharge me - I found out that listed on my file under religion was "JW: Jehovah's Witness". This freaked me out, given the potential implications - but I suspected the consent form (which indicated I would accept blood) would override this otherwise irrelevant information. The lady never asked me, so I didn't say anything (Why didn't I???).

I ended up in the same ward I stayed in the last time I had surgery there, but in a different bed. In my old bed was a sprightly old man who had a hip replacement after stumbling in the dark at his daughters home. His daughter was a rather...barbie/cougaresque individual and the one memory I perhaps will not forget of the man himself was his bum-wiggle he did while testing out his new hips.

The attractive, young (notice a theme here??) physio who was worried about me the previous time (because I made an ass out of myself) and kept me in for much longer than I had liked noticed that I was back and she wasn't too pleased. Quite a few of the nurses also noticed that I was back, including Jenny, who had helped with my cast the previous day.

Around 3-4pm, after waiting all day without a meal, I was told there wasn't enough time to do my operation (I was third and the second one took too long) and that I would have to wait until the next day. Okay - I know I can't do anything about it. That night the other man in the ward got his chainsaw up and running right when I needed to get up early in the morning for surgery. This man was a rather stern looking individual who spoke with an impediment due to his childhood inability to discern high frequency sounds. From what I overheard it sounded like he was involved, inadvertently with organised crime members of Perth. Despite seeming like he might be the type of person who would gun you down in the middle of the night, he was actually a mild mannered (mature aged) student studying psychology.

Saturday I got up at 5:30am, showered and fasted ready for surgery...At around 10am I got told that the waiting list had blown up to 15 people and I will not be having surgery today. At this stage I was getting rather despondent - so it was perhaps timely that things started to turn around at this point.

My Dad came by and dropped off my laptop with a new USB Digital TV receiver. I had desperately wanted to watch the soccer but didn't want to spend a ridiculous amount to do it on the hospital's TV system. The USB TV receiver's reception was poor and only one channel was found - SBS. Boo-ya! Okay, so I might not get to see the footy (maybe it was a good thing considering they both lost) but at least I can watch Australia vs Germany on Sunday night. While my Dad and I were having coffee near reception, he nearly got whiplash when he spotted the cougar and was left confused when she spoke to me. "Is she a nurse? No wonder you want to stay here", "No Dad, she isn't a nurse"...

When my Dad and I went back to my ward to set up the Digital TV receiver, my young attractive female doctor (a different one!) approached me and asked if I wanted to see the X-Rays. I accepted the invitation and it then dawned on me how bad things were. Before there was only a small spiral hair-line fracture in my fibula. Now the fibula had broken in two below the screws that were previously put in. Ouch! This time they were going to have to put a plate in as well as pins. The nurses and doctors all had a good laugh at the X-Rays, and truth be told - I found them funny too considering how ridiculous this whole situation had been.

After my Dad left some friends came by to visit which cheered me up immensely. The impeccable Madge dropped off her DS so that I could play games and Jerry gave me some yummy asian snacks (with the puzzling english phrase "Love Letters" on the box). I went to bed after having watched some soccer and played some DS feeling a lot better, and the snoring man had gotten a lot better overnight.

I got up Sunday and repeated the familiar fast and shower routine before getting the good news that I will be operated on. I was transported from Kaleeya to Fremantle via Ambulance, chatting to a nice Ambo about science on the ride there. I arrived in the "recovery ward" not knowing how long it would take until I was taken to theatre. To the right of me I saw the kids area, with ample amounts of Pooh smeared everywhere. On the curtains, on the walls, on the ceiling. (The bear that is...) It made me feel sad knowing that children have been here to have an operation. Perhaps some never even made it...

In between reading trashy magazines I overheard the induction of a lovely 92 year old lady named Dorothy and the disappointing tale of a young man who was involved in a crash while drink driving and still believed insurance will pay out!

The first magazine I read was called Grazia. The articles were inane and the models they used were not my type of female. It was an interesting look into the air-headed mind of a fashionista who is willing to pay thousands for a fucking hand bag. Note to self - avoid these kinds of women at all cost!! Woman's Weekly on the other hand was far more down to earth. I read a story about Glenn McGrath and his new lover which although being implausibly idealistic did have me enthralled (perhaps out of boredom more than anything). The other noteworthy article was one about a 10 year old girl who tried to divorce her much older Yemeni husband. The narrative, which was compelling reading, did appear to have been written by someone a lot older. It was now around 11:30am and I was about to go in to the theatre and was glad to have given up those magazines.

The anaesthetist read up on the previous drugs used and with my acceptance chose to use the same drugs to get me off to sleep. Ah ha! I remember the last time when I had the first drug how bizarre it made me feel. This time I get to experience it again...The theatre was surprisingly beautiful considering the old and dank feel of the waiting room. I was given the drugs and the "oxygen" (it was a funny smelling oxygen...) and felt the same feelings come back again. This time it manifested itself as a feeling of dread in my stomach and filling my lower torso. It took me longer to go under but when I did it was fairly instant, the next memory is waking up in recovery. Two to three hours just went by with no perceived time elapse, just the way I like it.

The first post-op memory was of the nurse proclaiming my bladder had 271mL of fluid in it and of me thinking "that's too accurate". Also, how did she know, and why is it important? I woke up and was whisked away by ambulance back to Kaleeya. I was much more sleepy this time and the journey wasn't continuously conscious. The rest of the afternoon was just a combination of sleep and battling pain until dinner came. It turns out the amount of fluid in my bladder is of concern. If it goes over 500mL and I am unable to discharge (due to drugs), I would require a catheter - and I didn't want a bloody catheter that's for sure! My bladder was starting to fill up, and it was getting to the stage where I had to go or...the unthinkable. With all my might, and with the taps in the toilet running I managed to fill the bottle (to over 600mL, despite the ultrasound bladder gauge saying I had much less!). It was almost orgasmic...

After dinner and a milo I had some pain medication and that's when things started to go funny. I was playing Pokemon on the DS when I came across a part of the game which I did previously (before the game was wiped!). For some reason no matter how hard I tried I kept failing to do it. It was like I was suddenly stupid! The next thing I know I'm breaking out in a sweat, am getting dizzy and feel like the milo is going to make a reappearance. My thoughts were like I'm losing control, almost the same feeling just before going under. I'm getting agitated and concerned which in turn is making things worse. I tell Jenny (the same nurse as the clinic before) and she gives me some oxygen and some anti-nausea medication. After a frightful ten minutes or so I drift off to sleep for an hour or so and wake up feeling better. I pick up the DS and complete the section of the game first time - I can think again!

Later that night I awoke to the sounds of soccer, so I turn on my laptop, set up the TV and watch it when Australia were down 1-0. At half time I was given some medication for the pain and fell asleep during the second half just after Cahill got sent off. I'm glad I didn't stay up to watch the score go to 4-0. Ouch.

This morning I woke up to the sight and sounds of rain. Two new guys came into the ward. Both of them sustained their injuries from doing stunts on motorcycles. One of them was just starting the journey to recovery and the other was ending the journey. And here I was, a rollerskating injury. How lame by comparison?

I just had to wait for the doctor and physio to clear me to leave which took a long time. Most of the day was spent trying to get comfortable with the pain ebbing and flowing from bearable to uncomfortable. The nurses helped by moving the cast which felt like it was crushing my leg. Many of the drugs also helped me sleep, which made it difficult to perform when the physio came by to test me out as I was somewhat woosey. I passed the test and was allowed to go home! It took another three to four hours to wait for the pharmacy to deliver the medication and to get everything set up so I could be discharged.

Now begins the long and boring recovery period...again. But in the mean time its hurting like a bitch! Need more drugs...

Love Shyness - Movies

2010-06-08T23:20:00.000+08:00

This is part of a series on Love Shyness. The index can be found here.

Gilmartin's work has revealed that Love Shy men prefer a different genre of movie than their non-shy counterparts. When asked to list movies Love Shy men have watched at the theatre at least five times, some movies stood out.

For example, one 39-year old love-shy man had seen the 1973 film JEREMY 86 times, at least in part because he was so overwhelmed by the appearance of the star, Glynnis O'Connor.

The plot is more important to the Love Shy male than the actress involved.

On the other hand, "10" was one of the comparatively few films which a small number of the self-confident non-shys had seen multiple times. The non-shys had loved it whereas the love-shys hated it—despite the fact that both groups agreed with the premise that Bo Derek is an extremely beautiful woman.

Most of the loveshys had found it to be dreadfully boring because it contained an unstructured, highly confusing story with no love or romance. Simply put, it did not engross the emotions. It did not touch the heartstrings.

The top five movies were as follows (keeping in mind that this study was done in the 80's)

1. Jeremy (1973) 86 times.
2. David and Lisa (1962) 46 times.
3. Forbidden Games (1952) 44 times.
4. The Umbrellas of Cherbourg (1965) 37 times.
5. The Graduate (1967) 29 times.

Plot summaries of the movies have been sourced from IMDb and show a relatively consistent theme in the popular movies.

Jeremy

Jeremy Jones is learning Cello at an arts school in New York. At school he spots Susan Rollins, who practices for a ballet audition, and he falls in love on first sight. He's very diffident in nearing her, so he gets some help of his experienced friend Ralph. Susan's first impression isn't great, until she hears him play his Cello. The movie paints a quiet image of him winning her heart and the development of their relationship.

David and Lisa

The emotional story of a young man in a mental institution for teens who begins to understand his psychosis in the environment of others with mental and emotional problems. He finds intimacy with Lisa, a young woman suffering from schizophrenia.

Forbidden Games

A girl of perhaps five or six is orphaned in an air raid while fleeing a French city with her parents early in World War II. She is befriended by a pre-adolescent peasant boy after she wandered away from the other refugees, and is taken in for a few weeks by his family. The children become fast friends, and the film follows their attempt to assimilate the deaths they both face, and the religious rituals surrounding those deaths, through the construction of a cemetery for all sorts of animals. Child-like and adult activity are frequently at cross-purposes, however.

The Umbrellas of Cherbourg

Geneviève, 17, lives with her widowed mother, who owns an umbrella shop in Cherbourg. She and Guy, a twenty-year-old auto mechanic, are secretly in love and want to marry, but when she reveals this to her mother, her mother objects on the grounds that Geneviève is too young and Guy is not mature or well-established enough, particularly since he has not yet done his required military service. Shortly after this, Guy is drafted to serve in the war in Algeria. Before he leaves, he and Geneviève consummate their love for each other, which results in her becoming pregnant. While Guy is away they drift apart, and Geneviève, strongly encouraged by her mother, accepts a marriage proposal from a well-to-do gem dealer named Roland Cassard, who has fallen in love with her at first sight and has promised to bring up her child as his own. (The character of Cassard is continued from Demy's earlier film [i]Lola[/i] (1961).) Guy is wounded and is discharged before his two-year term is up, but when he returns to Cherbourg Geneviève has already married and moved away. He struggles with depression and anger, but eventually is healed by falling in love with and marrying Madeleine, a young woman who had been caring for his now-deceased aunt Élise. Using an inheritance from his aunt, Guy fulfills his ambition of opening a service station. Years later, the now conspicuously wealthy Geneviève, traveling with her daughter, Guy's child, accidentally meet Guy at his service station. While the two have only a brief conversation about the state of their respective lives, the conversation is clearly fraught with unspoken fondness and regret.

The Graduate

Benjamin Braddock returns home to California after successfully completing college. He gets a hero's welcome from his parents but Ben isn't quite sure what to do with the rest of his life. He is soon seduced by Mrs. Robinson, the wife of his father's partner, who methodically pursues the inexperienced young man. Soon, they are meeting regularly in hotel rooms. Warned by her to stay away from her daughter Elaine, his father goads him into taking her out on a date. He finds he quite likes Elaine but when she learns he's been having an affair with her own mother, she'll have nothing to do with him. He's smitten however and pursues her.

Love Shyness - Beauty and the love-shy

2010-06-08T23:10:00.000+08:00

This is part of a series on Love Shyness. The index can be found here.

Gilmartin spends an entire chapter on beauty, as he believes its a crucial element in the creation and continuation of love-shyness.

Chronically love-shy men have an unusually strong penchant for physical beauty. To be sure, virtually everyone loves beauty. However, one of the most significant findings of the study upon which this book is based is that beauty is quite a bit more important to the love-shy than it is to the non-shy.

This need for beauty which the love-shy feel is very strong as well as highly generalized. And it extends to such things as dogs, automobiles, music, natural scenery, as well as to women. And it clearly suggests a major reason as to why most love-shy men could never be really well satisfied—particularly since their own level of physical attractiveness tends to be at least somewhat below average.

I had to laugh at the last sentence given that I've accepted for a long time that I am of below average attractiveness.

The Need for Beauty

As I have indicated, the love-shy men studied for this research very seldom or never dated. They were all far too shy to assert themselves with women, and particularly with women whom they found attractive. However, they desperately wanted to date and to spend all of their time with just one opposite sexed partner whom they could love.

This desperation leads to fantasising and day dreaming about the object of their desires. Day dreaming constitutes a vicarious form of wish-fulfilment and gives unrealistic expectations.

I asked each respondent: "Compared to other teenagers at the time you were a teenager, were fantasies and daydreams more OR less important to you?" And zero percent (nobody) of the non-shys indicated that daydreams and fantasies were more important, compared to fully 87 percent of the older love-shys and 61 percent of the younger love-shys.

Who knows how many years I have spent day dreaming, something I do even to this day.

What do these day dreams consist of?

The fantasies enjoyed by these men typically entailed being warmly loved by very feminine, nurturant, non-assertive but liberal-minded women with long hair, beautiful faces, and very little or no make-up. They tended to fantasize women with a rather delicate, ethereal beauty, and with a gentleness and vulnerability that is not realistically likely to be found in today's world.

Its kind of scary to realise that these private fantasises of mine are actually rather universal for love shy individuals.

How bad is the delusion?

But curiously, most of the younger love-shy men seemed to maintain a sense of optimism that they could or would somehow one day magically be able to win such a specimen without taking any positive steps on their own initiative.

I'm not sure I've ever been this delusional. Although it was always a dream for this to happen, I knew the odds of it happening were next to none. Having said that, without taking any positive steps of my own initiative, I was able to "win" much inferior specimens. (Keeping with the language employed). Therefore its not intrinsically impossible.

Their fantasies and daydreams revolved almost exclusively around the imagery of already having such a beautiful woman. Virtually none of the shy men ever spent any time visualizing themselves taking positive steps to introduce themselves or to otherwise allow themselves to become acquainted with available and accessible women.

This doesn't seem that surprising. Considering the former is something positive and locked-in, whereas the latter scenario is uncertain and potentially negative, its easy to understand why someone would rather think about something pleasant rather than something which could stress them out.

Clinical psychologists often recommend that shy people engage in mental rehersals in their mind's eye.

Looking back - I highly recommend this tactic!

A key theme of this chapter is to suggest that "real, live, accessible women" are not beautiful enough to meet the unrealistically stringent demands and needs of the love-shy. Simply put, the love-shy will not fantasize a female face that is not sufficiently beautiful to constitute a wish fulfillment.

I would say this conclusion is perhaps a little too harsh, however given the next piece of data - it's perhaps warranted.

A further illustration of this uncompromisingly romantic attitude of the love-shy can be seen in the pattern of response to this statement: "I would not want to date anyone to whom I could not visualize (fantasize) myself as being married." Fully 64 percent of the older love-shys together with 46 percent of the younger ones agreed. In contrast, only 4 percent of the self-confident non-shy men saw fit to agree.

I somewhat agree with this sentiment...

Again, most love-shy men would like to somehow magically bypass what many of them perceive as the cruel indignity of dating, and just somehow wake up one morning married to the esthetically lovely, beautiful girl of their dreams.

Well yeah...

What about the "average" woman?

The love-shy tend to feel more comfortable and they tend to converse more fluently when they are in the company of a less-than-beautiful girl than when they are with the type of girl who is so attractive that marriage to her is immediately visualized and envisioned. In essence, the closer a girl comes toward meeting a love-shy man's tastes and predilections in the physical (especially facial) attractiveness department, the more shy and inhibited he is likely to be in his efforts to converse with her.

To finish this section, I would like to highlight something rather curious that I never knew about.

Psychologists have known since the late 1960s that introverts tend to prefer small-breasted women, whereas extroverts tend to prefer those with large breasts. In fact, there appears to be a rather strong statistical relationship between how extroverted (outgoing) a man is, and how large he wants the breasts of his female partner to be.

Love Shyness - Medical Symptoms

2010-06-08T23:00:00.000+08:00

This is part of a series on Love Shyness. The index can be found here.

Gilmartin's survey of the love-shy also delved into the medical histories of the love-shy to determine whether there were any common medical conditions the love-shy shared in greater or lesser proportion to the average population. He also speculates on the potential origin of such differences.

Headaches - No statistically significant deviation

Back Aches - Slightly less amongst older love shy, much less amongst younger love shy than the population. Gilmartin speculates the lack of rough sports may be a contributing factor.
Bedwetting - Slight less likely to have wet their bed after the age of 4.

Weight Problems - No statistical difference. Weight problems ruled out as a potential cause of love-shyness.
Constipation and Diarrhea - No statistical difference. Gilmartin tries to establish a link between nervousness and digestive problems.
Flatulence - No statistical difference.

Height - No statistical difference.

Eyeglasses - Three to four times the number of love shy males to their non-shy counterparts started to wear glasses after their 16th birthday. Gilmartin suggests this is due to the love-shy pursuing academic qualifications (i.e. heavy reading). Gilmartin also suggests that the love-shy should not wear "dark and heavy plastic frames", but this book was written in the 80's...

Acne - 53% of the younger love shy males and 63% of the older love shy males reported "moderate to severe" acne, compared to 26% of the self-confident non-shy men. Acne can. as Gilmartin says, leave emotional scars during adolescence.

Insomnia - 19% of the older love shy males and 16% of the younger love shy males suffered insomnia. This compared starkly to the zero number of non-shy men who were insomniacs. (Phrased as "difficulty in falling asleep")

Stuttering - 97% of the non-shy men had never had problems stuttering. On the other hand the love shy men had more problems stuttering, with only around 45% claiming stuttering was never a problem in some time of their life.

Buck teeth - Three to four times more prevalent in love shy males than their non-shy counterparts.

Hypocondria -

Handling Door Knobs: 10-16% of love shy males have problems handling door knobs compared to 0% of non-shy males.

Touching the Floor: 31-46% of the love shy males are compelled to wash their hands after touching the floor (for example doing push-ups), compared to 0% of non-shy males.

Bananas: 52-65% of the love shy males would not eat a banana until all back or grey spots were removed. This compares to 33% of non-shy males.

Bowel Movements: 25-31% of the love shy males were fascinated by their own bowel movements. This was true for only 4% of the non-shy males.

Garbage Removal: 52-68% of the love shy males were compelled to wash their hands immediately after taking the garbage out, compared to 35% of non-shy males.

Physchotherapy - All of the older love shy males had at some time in their life sought help from a psychiatrist or clinical psychologist. On the other hand, just over one third of younger love shy males, and a measly 3% of non-shy males have done the same thing. Despite the high prevalence of love shy males seeking help, they find they are unable to be helped with their love shy problems through these "conventional" means and many had major complaints about their experiences.

Next I will discuss two vital findings from the research. The statistically significant link between nasal problems and love-shyness and the link between love-shyness and those with reactive hypoglycaemia.

Love Shyness - Love as a Drug

2010-06-08T21:30:00.000+08:00

This is part of a series on Love Shyness. The index can be found here.

Most people have been in love at one time or another. Gilmartin discusses the biochemistry of falling in love.

The available data indicate that romantic love feelings commence in the region of the lower brain that is known as the hypothalamus. The hypothalamus is composed of a dense cluster of nerves which controls hundreds of bodily functions and impacts in a large host of ways the entire nervous system. Whenever a person subjectively perceives another human being as romantically appealing a portion of the hypothalamus transmits a message by way of various chemicals to the pituitary gland. And in turn the pituatary releases a host of its own hormones which rapidly suffuse the entire bloodstream. The sex glands respond to these hormones by rapidly releasing into the bloodstream their own hormones which have the effect, even among preadolescent children, of creating a more rapid heartbeat and a feeling of lightness in the head. Simultaneously the nerve pathways in and around the hypothalamus produce chemicals
that induce—provided that these chemicals continued to be produced over a long period of time—what people refer to as "falling in love".

Gilmartin tries to link the hypothalamus to the love shy.

Simply put, for severely love-shy men the "love nucleus" portion of the hypothalamus may "awaken to full operation" seven or eight or nine years prematurely, long before adolescence is arrived at with its normal surge of sex hormones. The prepubescent child who does not have any awareness of sex or of erotic feelings (as these do not usually occur prior to adolescence) interprets the powerful feelings he does feel as being those of overhwelming romantic love.

Do you remember the last time you started to fall in love with someone?

Among the first signs of "falling in love" is a giddy high similar to what might be obtained as a result of an amphetamine boost. This "high" is a sign that the brain has entered a distinct neurochemical state. This occurs as a result of the hypothalamus releasing a chemical substance (probably phenylethylamine) that is very much like an amphetamine and which, like any "upper", makes the heart beat faster and confers energy.

This high is enough to give the average person the motivation to act on their feelings. The love shy on the other hand are incapable of harnessing this energy through flirting and winning the attention of the loved person. Should the love not be reciprocated, this high usually quickly fades.

In not being able to make the approach to the love object the biochemical "high" remains endemic in the love-shy child's brain for an indefinite, usually quite lengthy period of time. And the elementary school boy (or man as the case might be) becomes "hooked" on his own brain biochemicals.

I remember during high school having long term crushes on girls, lasting anywhere from half a year to years on end. Despite this, it was extremely rare for me to do anything about it and when I did - and usually failed - I would quickly move on to another person. Looking back, I can appreciate the love as a drug analogy. The high was a period of happiness, whereas "coming down" always left me morose.

Gilmartin suggests that "the ability to share many experiences with the love object would operate to remove the "rosy colored smokescreen" of infatuation, thus preventing this addiction." This is something that I can appreciate, despite never having spent any length of time with any object of my affections.

On the effects of withdrawl, Gilmartin notes:

A key consideration for anyone who gets hooked on drugs is that of withdrawal. Whether a person gets hooked on pills or on natural drugs that the brain produces, the "crash" of withdrawal can be highly distracting and debilitating for a person of any age.

Gilmartin also discusses the role of chocolate - something which should be familiar to lonely single women...

But of especial interest here is the finding that people who "crash" after having been deeply in love tend to have an unusually strong craving for chocolate. Very noteworthy is the fact that chocolate is high into phenylethylamine—the very substance that is released by the brain into the bloodstream as a concomitant of falling in love. When the love-feelings cease the body craves chocolate because it has developed a tolerance to the phenylethylamines which it is no longer getting—because the brain has stopped secreting them.

I can say that I usually have strong cravings for chocolate. Now I know why!

Teenage Jehovah's Witness 'died after refusing blood'

2010-06-06T22:29:00.003+08:00

I often wonder if I would have died for my religion if put in such a position. I suspect I would have, and would have done so without hesitation. This person will never get the opportunity to change their mind despite the high probability he might not have remained in this religion.

BBC
A teenage Jehovah's Witness crushed by a car as it crashed into a West Midlands shop is thought to have died after refusing a blood transfusion.
Joshua McAuley, 15, was airlifted to hospital from the incident in Smethwick on Saturday but died later that day.
Elder at Smethwick's Kingdom Hall of Jehovah's Witnesses Clive Parker said Joshua, who worshipped there, had "made a stand on the blood issue".
A post-mortem examination is due to be carried out on Thursday.
Joshua is believed to have told doctors at Selly Oak Hospital not to give him a blood transfusion on religious grounds.
Jehovah's Witnesses refuse transfusions because they believe the use of products derived from blood is forbidden by God.
A spokesman for West Midlands Police said Joshua's family, who live in Smethwick, did not wish to comment.
Mr Parker said Joshua was conscious after the accident in Cape Hill. He added the family worshipped at Smethwick's Kingdom Hall.
He said: "A mother has lost her son, and Joshua had a brother. He has lost his brother, he was there in the morning and then gone by the afternoon. They are terribly distressed."
A spokesman for Selly Oak Hospital would not comment on the individual case but described the issue as an "extraordinarily complex area" with no set rules.
"There is no automatic right to override parental wishes or that of a minor. It is a very complex area that has to be approached on a case-by-case basis," he said.
Two other adults were injured in the crash, which happened in the Cape Hill area at 1114 BST.
Police said a 24-year-old woman was in a serious but stable condition in hospital and a 32-year-old man sustained a suspected broken arm and leg.
A 28-year-old man from the Winson Green area of Birmingham was arrested after the crash and bailed pending further inquiries.

Congratulazioni Francesca Schiavone

2010-06-06T12:28:00.004+08:00

The final of the French Open wasn't just a battle between Stosur and Schiavone. For me it was a battle between my nationalistic pride and the passion of a past memory.

Years ago while watching the Hopman Cup on TV (Wikipedia tells me this was 2005), I noticed a young Italian tennis player by the name of Francesca Schiavone. I was immediately paralysed by her looks and couldn't take me eyes off her.

Now admittedly Francesca is no Anna Kournikova, so what was it that struck me about this unassuming Italian tennis player? Well it turns out that she looked like she could have been the identical twin of the girl I was courting at the time, Cassandra, the same girl who I had pursued for at least five years. My obsession, my strength, my weakness - on TV...playing tennis...for Italy - no wonder I was confused!

Alas I lost contact with Cassandra a long time ago and recently I just lost all of my photos of her when my Dad broke my backup drive. I still find myself thinking about her from time to time wondering what she is doing today, how her life is going, if she ever remembers me and wondering what life would be like had we stuck together. Her birthday is the 12th of January, I know this because its still in my mobile phone, a yearly reminder (I don't know why exactly?) Then I remember all the negative things - and I move on with a wry smile.

So my congratulations go out to Francesca - a gentle reminder of some past love which shall never return.

2002 : The Year I Discovered Leonard Cohen

2010-06-03T22:38:00.005+08:00

I'm not the type of person who goes to concerts. I've only been to one I've paid for in my life and the others I was working at. To me this is a kind of a big deal!

---

This morning I got in as early as I could (just after 9am) and bought concert tickets to see Leonard Cohen at Members Equity Stadium in November (2 days before TAM - believe it or not). I feel fortunate to be given a second chance considering I was not able to attend last years world tour as I was overseas. I feared it might have been the last chance, but alas he is back! Given that Leonard is in his 70's now, you never know when it's going to be the last time - and it's something I would like to look back and say that I got to see a legend, and one of my favourite artists, in concert.

I first discovered Leonard Cohen when I heard R.E.M.'s cover of his song "First We Take Manhattan". As R.E.M. were my "teenage" band of obsession (and the only band I've seen in concert), their endorsement of Cohen's music gave me the impetus to discover his back-catalogue. In some respects, if it was not for the internet and "try-before-you-buy" (which is obviously illegal), I wouldn't have discovered his work nor would I now own his back catalogue on CD.

The year was 2002. I was in the first year of university struggling with the pains of depression, shyness and a dysfunction family. I was still an apatheist/agnostic searching for spiritual meaning to my life and this is when I took solace in his music. He gave me the greatest spiritual lesson of all and converted me to his religion of choice - love.

With a CD-walkman (iPod's were too new and expensive for someone who didn't even have a job) and the music of Leonard Cohen and R.E.M. combined with a new zeal towards life, I undertook a life-transforming change codified under the name "Operation Kohoutek". I chose the name Kohoutek after the comet which promised so much yet delivered so little and the hauntingly beautiful song of the same name by R.E.M.

Despite the pessimistic name, the operation was a success and has defined my life ever since. I was able to throw off the shackles of being a teenager and evolve into a young adult. Having left high school obese, I rediscovered the simple joy of sports (and lost around 30kgs). Piece by piece I was discovering who the real Aaron was - gaining confidence and finding my mojo. Leonard Cohen's music was the soundtrack to this stage of my life. The eternal battle between light and dark, happiness and depression, love and hate.

Eight years on, I feel an immense amount of pride looking back at Operation Kohoutek. This was the first real chance in my life to exercise true autonomy and I approached it with an awe inspiring amount of fervour and passion. Although I was never able to solve my depression or shyness issues (at least not for another few years), I had transformed myself into a functioning human being. Despite Leonard Cohen's music sometimes being described as music to kill yourself to, it perhaps stopped me doing exactly that.

This is why I am looking forward to his concert. His music touched me and continues to inspire me and motivate me even today and although he may never know or care about how much his music means to me and thousands of like minded fans around the world - I want a chance, perhaps a final chance - to see my hero and hear his tunes live.

Draw Mohammed Day - Other Contrarians

2010-06-02T23:24:00.004+08:00

In a previous post I defended the rationale behind my contrarian stance as to why I would not be supporting the Draw Mohammed Day. The UWA Atheist and Agnostic Society wisely decided not to officially sanction this event although members were free to partake on their own behalf. Despite the "official" stance the vast majority participated during the "Atheists In The Tav" weekly event. Efforts to reason with my friends and colleagues fell flat - but that's okay, we are all free to disagree. (That's not to say I wasn't disappointed with my ability to defend my position!)

Since this time there have been some reasoned responses put out by some prominent YouTube atheists and agnostics. In particular Richard "the dick" Coughlan (coughlan666 on YouTube) and LiberalViewer (on YouTube - not sure what his real name is).

These are the main points I took from their reservations behind supporting this event.

coughlan666 (3.35 ratio up to down votes) - The protest was a failure as there was less freedom after the event (referring to the Facebook ban by Pakistan).

LiberalViewer (11.8 ratio up to down votes) - There is a risk of alienating those we should be working with - the moderate Muslims who renounce terrorism. It also gave Fox News a way to spin the event.

I'm glad I wasn't the only person pissing in the wind. We as rationalists must not succumb to group-think. I can accept there are times when many members of a group can synchronise on their conclusions based on sound reasoning, but when the argumentation takes on an emotional characteristic, it's important to stop and think. The first sign of a movement which could turn toxic is when no one questions the "leaders" or prominent members (in this case the likes of Thunderf00t and PZ Myers, etc.) I didn't renounce a "cult" to join another!!

One great resource I've heard about which does exactly this is "You're Not Helping"

To give one example of a wonderful contrarian response to the recent brouhaha concerning the New Atheists not given a seat at a Vatican sponsored faith conference - read this post.

Love Shyness - Stalking

2010-06-01T00:40:00.002+08:00

This is part of a series on Love Shyness. The index can be found here.

As I have mentioned before in "What to look for in others", love shy males may stare at or stalk girls without ever intending to do anything about it.

Why do love shy males, who are relatively timid and shy engage in such behaviour?

At this point the reader may be somewhat confused because it obviously requires some amount of "nerve" or non-shyness in order to engage in this sort of compulsive behavior. Of course, most non-shy men never had any need to engage in this sort of compulsive behavior; they could interact and communicate face-to-face with the women of their choosing.

What is it that the love-shy think about when staring?

they would fantasize and daydream very deeply and long about the particular girl with whom they were uncontrollably infatuated and towards whom they had felt impelled to stare. Their fantasies made her out to be a sort of "saint"—someone who would somehow understand them and their love-shyness problems.

Many of the love-shys had fantasized about how this girl of their dreams would really like to meet them, and about how this "angel" of a girl would one day find a way to assume the assertive role in opening up a friendship with them.

Do they ever give up this delusion?

Many of the love-shys had remained incredibly "innocent" in this regard until their early 30s, when some of them started to become quite cynical.

I became cynical in my early to mid-20's that's for sure!

What would happen if a girl ever looked back?

Of course, the problem was that any time the girl actually looked as though she might be ready to make an actual move towards the love-shy man doing the staring, that love-shy man would instantly become overwhelmed with fright. And he would either very quickly walk or run away, or he would turn his head in a different direction.

An all too familiar tale really...

Gilmartin goes into some personal testimony of males who have been beaten up (by friends or cousins etc) or arrested because of this stalking. Some love shy males write love letters to unsuspecting females which can get them in trouble.

After receiving the love letters these shy men had written, the women often became very nervous and upset. Often they would respond by going to the police or the dean or to some other legal source about the matter.

I admit I did this once, which caused great distress to all concerned. Looking back I can somewhat laugh it off because nothing official came of it. Although I was lucky to "get away with it", many do not. Of course the inevitable trouble associated with such actions can be devastating to the love shy male.

This outcome served to further disillusion many of the love-shy men about women. Indeed, this type of (to them) hostile response caused many of the love-shy men to become all the more lethargic about doing anything constructive to remedy their love-shyness situation.

The problem is that the love shy males does not have the correct methods available to him to solve the situation he is in. Instead he does things which makes his situation worse, which leads to a downwards spiral. Later I will discuss positive ways in which the love shy male can begin to make progress with this problem.

Love Shyness - What to look for in others

2010-06-01T00:30:00.001+08:00

This is part of a series on Love Shyness. The index can be found here.

Love Shyness is problematic both for the sufferers and for the friends and families of those affected. We all want our friends and family members to be happy and to do this we need to know what is wrong with them and what we can do for them. Without help and support, love shy males can live a long, lonely and depressed life without ever getting what it is they really want.

Love Shyness is, at least in my opinion, embarrassing. Admitting any abnormality comes with potential social cost, especially when confirming to certain norms is expected. It's also embarrassing because it can be seen as a personal failure, as if somehow the person who is Love Shy is weak or inferior, especially compared to their friends who can get their act together.

Love Shy males may do or be seen to do the following...
1) They do not date or rarely talk to members of the opposite sex
2) They do not participate in mixed-sex events
3) They spend a lot of time looking at pictures of attractive unobtainable women
4) They obsess about sex, but never make any advances towards satisfying their demand
5) They stare or stalk girls without ever intending to do anything about it

I would like to elaborate on number 5 because it is perhaps the most serious and can carry important legal ramifications.

It's important to remember that the Love Shy male is on average much less likely to engage in ANY crime (except stalking).

From Gilmartin:

As a case in point I asked each man to respond to this statement:

"There have been times when I have stared for long periods at a girl whom I have found very attractive; but as soon as she would look in my direction I would immediately look away."

Fully 97 percent of the older love-shy men together with 71 percent of the younger love-shys indicated that this had been "true" for them. In stark contrast, only 11 percent of the self-confident non-shy men indicated that this statement was true for themselves.

This obsessive behaviour can lead to stalking.

I asked each respondent to react to the statement:

"There have been times when I have followed a girl whom I have found attractive all over campus or town; but I have looked away whenever she looked in my direction, and I have not said anything to her because of my extreme shyness."

Zero percent (nobody) of the self-confident non-shys indicated "yes" to this statement. On the other hand, 44 percent of the older love-shys along with 35 percent of the younger love-shys indicated that the statement was "true" for themselves.

Moreover, fully 19 percent (almost one-fifth) of the older love-shys together with 13 percent of the younger love-shys agreed that they had "gotten into trouble" at one time or another as a result of an uncontrollable urge to follow a girl all over campus or all over town without ever saying anything to her.

Although I have never followed someone around, I must admit that I have found myself "planning" on being where "she" might be just so I could see her. Always in the back of my mind was the worry that I was stalking - yet there was always a certain hard-to-shake compulsion...

Needless to say, this sort of behavior had been very unnerving and upsetting to most of the women who had been victimized by it. Most people tend to fear that which they do not understand. And most of the victimized women found this staring (then looking or running away) behavior to be exceedingly strange. And they did not know how to respond to it.

It is my desire that people who may have been harassed or stalked by someone with love shyness to understand that these people are not dangerous and actually require help. This of course should not be confused with general warnings over the dangers caused by real stalkers and psychopaths who are out to hurt people.

If you suspect someone is love shy, then you should engage in positive measures, which may or may not be covert (depending on the sensitivity of the person) to help them become less love shy. Love shyness should be nipped in the bud in childhood (I will discuss this later) however there is still going to be a certain percentage who fall through the cracks. In future posts I will look at positive ways in which the love shy can turn their life around.

Love Shyness - Common Symptoms

2010-06-01T00:20:00.001+08:00

This is part of a series on Love Shyness. The index can be found here.

As I mentioned in the previous post - normality can exist in groups where otherwise the individual might be considered abnormal. The following characteristics are shared by many Love Shy individuals. Gilmartin suggests that love-shy males should satisfy all these criteria, however personally it does not seem entirely reasonable to be disqualified over one or two criteria. Those which I have put in bold are, I believe, key to love shyness.

(1) He is a virgin; in other words, he has never had sexual intercourse.
(2) He is a person who very rarely goes out socially with women. None of the love-shys studied for this book had dated more than four times during the year prior to being interviewed.
(3) He is a person without a past history of any emotionally close, meaningful relationships of a romantic and/or sexual nature with any member of the opposite sex.
(4) He is a person who has suffered and is continuing to suffer emotionally because of a lack of meaningful female companionship. In short, he is a person who desperately wishes to have a relationship with a woman, but does not have one because of shyness.
(5) He is a man who becomes extremely anxiety-ridden over so much as the mere thought of asserting himself vis-a-vis a woman in a casual, friendly way. This is the essence of "love-shyness".
(6) He is a man who is strictly heterosexual in his romantic and erotic
orientations. In other words, he is a person who is in no way a homosexual.
(7) He is male. No female love-shys were studied for this research.

Personally I no longer qualify for many of these symptoms yet I still believe it is still relevent.
1) I was fortunate enough to lose my virginity to a strong girl who "took care of me". Although I could equally imagine this still being relevant today had I not been that fortunate. Given that I have been fortunate enough to meet quite a few strong ladies, is this perhaps a sea-change brought about by the sexual revolution?

2) I make continual efforts to spend time with strong women friends, but dating (particularly online dating) is still problematic.

3) Still relevant. Being 26 and without having dated anyone longer than a couple of weeks troubles me immensely.

4) Still relevant. It is perhaps not surprising that deprivation can lead to obsession, initiating a downward spiral to depression.

5) Somewhat relevant. I've developed immensely in the confidence department over the past few years thanks to many different techniques.

6,7) Relevant. Although it is still possible to be female or homosexual and love-shy, it is much more problematic for heterosexual males who are often culturally expected to "make the first move". Females and homosexual males are (generally) fortunate enough that they can rely on others to take the lead. This was more of a problem in previous eras however some cultural norms are hard to shake.

Before the age of 20 I would have satisfied all the above criteria. Suffice to say there is hope out there to change ones fate. Even if one cannot "solve" love-shyness, it should still be possible to progress out of the depths of despair to a level where one can function as a human being.

It's important to note that love-shy males are not the following...

1) Closet homosexuals - Love shy males are not attracted to members of the same sex. Many love shy males may be confused by others with homosexuals as they are less likely to interact with females. Indeed, my father has noted this many times, somewhat jokingly, somewhat seriously.

2) Male lesbians - Love shy males are not males who feel they were born in the wrong body yet are only attracted to females.

3) Asexual - Despite the lack of sexual activity, love shy males are not asexual, some in fact may be hypersexual, that is they may have an unhealthy preoccupation with sex coupled with a lack of release valve. This leads to a negative perception of their sex lives contrasted with asexuals who aren't obsessed.

Could most nerds be considered love-shy?

I don't believe that anyone can be correctly classified as "love-shy" unless he truly craves emotionally meaningful female companionship. Deprivation is never enough by itself to cause mental anguish, pain and suffering. A person cannot feel deprived of something unless and until he actually wants the thing of which he is being deprived. A person who truly feels deprived of something he very dearly wants will necessarily suffer a very great deal (1) from anxiety, and (2) from very painful and highly distracting feelings of preoccupation.

What's the difference between those who are deprived and those who are love-shy?

If the deprived person is accorded an opportunity to work towards the thing he so strongly desires, his energy-wasting preoccupation and distractability will rapidly dissipate. However, the love-shy man cannot do this. The love-shy man is prevented from working towards his female companionship goal by his intractable shyness and inhibition, and by the inordinately strong fears of interpersonal anxiety that accompany love-shyness and which are intrinsic to it. Simply put, the mere thought of asserting himself in a friendly way vis-a-vis a girl whom he finds attractive fills a love-shy man with overwhelmingly painful (and forbidding) anxiety feelings. Hence, he can only continue to feel preoccupied and painfully distracted.

By now most people should be able to recognise themselves in this as love-shy or not.

Not a day went by from the age of at least 10 to my early 20's when I did not think about "someone" constantly. The first thing I thought about when I woke up was them and the last thing I thought about before going to sleep was them. Some crushes continued for years without anything happening. School was always a battle of attention between my work and the object of my desires. Yet the mere thought of acting on those feelings was enough to freeze me on the spot. Saying a friendly "Hi." was out of the question - so too maintaining any eye contact despite desiring to look at them all the time.

Do you have a friend or family member who seems to be love shy? Next post I will look at the symptoms you can look for in others which may indicate that they might be suffering (and it really is suffering) from love-shyness.

Love Shyness - Definition

2010-06-01T00:10:00.002+08:00

This is part of a series on Love Shyness. The index can be found here.

Don't let anyone tell you that normal doesn't exist. There are many characteristics which can be defined rather rigidly, with exceptions representative of pathologies. For example, it is normal to have four fingers and a thumb on one had. To not have this is a pathology. This isn't a judgement - five or three fingered individuals aren't bad or worse people, they are just different. Political correctness to me means not to discriminate or bully those things people can't choose - having said that there is nothing wrong with pointing out what is and to always remember that you cannot easily derive an ought from an is. (Such as you cannot say six finger/thumbed people are bad just because it's "not normal")

Certain pathologies are rather consistent amongst populations where one particular pathology is present. When this happens, one can actually derive a normality within a sub-population of abnormal people! To put this more simply, internet trolls/kooks are very highly likely to be male. It is therefore normal to be a male internet kook, but abnormal to be a female internet kook.

Love Shyness, as defined is only relevant to the male heterosexual population - however there are likely female love-shys (and homosexual male love-shys), but they are unlikely to suffer the same problems as a male love-shys due to cultural considerations.

From Gilmartin's book:

This book is about heterosexual, "single, never married" men who have never voluntarily chosen to remain "single, never married", but who have been constrained to remain that way because of severe shyness in informal social situations involving women. This form of chronic, severe shyness can best be labeled "love-shyness". And it afflicts approximately 1.5 percent of all American males.

Indeed, [this book] is devoted to men who would like nothing better than to be able to marry and to have children, but who are not moving towards these goals because of severe bashfulness, shyness and social timidity.

Love-shyness is a life-crippling condition. Victims of love-shyness cannot marry. They cannot have children, and they cannot participate in the normal adolescent and young adult activities of dating and courtship.

This book was written in 1985.

Today many young women complain about what they perceive to be a serious shortage of eligible heterosexual men who are desirous of a permanent, intimate, committed relationship with a woman. As this book will make quite clear, the love-shy constitute a rich and long neglected supply of such men.

Looks like nothing has changed in the past 25 years! It would be interesting to see if the new sexual revolution has lowered the rate of love-shy males in the population.

Why is shyness a problem?

To be shy is to have one's actions (or lack of them) misunderstood, misinterpreted and misread by others. An extreme fear of the pain of anxiety prevents the shy person from taking the kinds of action that are in accordance with his or her values, wishes, knowledge and rational judgment. More simply put, shyness inhibits people from assuming a sense of responsibility for their behavior. It makes them feel and truly believe that they are not in the "driver's seat" of their own lives and destinies.

We all get shy at some stage don't we?

Well there are two kinds of social situations,
1) Personal social situations
2) Impersonal social situations

Impersonal social situations deal with public performance, etc. Essentially a "scripted" environment. On the other hand personal social situations are "unscripted" and deal with one on one or group talk where one has no "script". The love-shy are particularly susceptible to shyness in personal social situations. While most people can get away with being shy in impersonal social situations, most people cannot maintain happiness when they are shy in personal social situations.

Next post I will look at what symptoms are common in love-shy males.

Love Shyness - Index

2010-06-01T00:00:00.010+08:00

I want to start a series on a relatively unknown condition known as "Love Shyness", something which I have and yet have only recently discovered exists. It is my hope that people who come across this may see themselves in it too, and realise they are not alone and it explains why conventional treatments for shyness, anxiety and social phobias may not be appropriate for the Love Shy individual.

Here is a tentative index, updated when new posts are made (or when new topics are introduced).

1. What is Love-Shyness
1.1. Definition
1.2. Common Symptoms
1.3. What to look for in others

2. The Origins of Love-Shyness
2.1. Pre-Childhood
2.1.1. Role of Family
2.2. Childhood
2.2.1. Early Childhood Crushes
2.3. Physiological

3. Living with Love-Shyness
3.1. Beauty and the love-shy
3.2. Love as a drug
3.3. A bleak future
3.4. Psychology of the Love-Shy
3.4.1. Love-Shy and the law
3.4.1.1. Stalking
3.4.2. Movies
3.5. Medical Symptoms
3.5.1. The nose
3.5.2. Reactive Hypoglycaemia

4. Curing Love-Shyness
4.1. Positive Steps
4.2. Support
4.2.1. Friends
4.2.2. Family
4.3. Prevention
4.3.1. Reforming Childhood Norms

Appendix.
A.1. Studies of the Love-Shy

This series is based mainly on Dr Brian G. Gilmartin's book "Shyness & Love" injected with my own tales and thoughts.

Like a ton of bricks

2010-05-31T20:37:00.003+08:00

I arrived home today after an extended stay in hospital to an empty house. After hobbling around the house in crutches trying to get my gear organised I got myself into an unfortunate position and gracefully fell to the floor. I suppose it was at this point that the realisation of this situation finally hit me like a ton of bricks. This was what life was going to be like for the next six weeks or so.

Exhausted, I did what I always do. I waited a while and tried again. I got up and continued my day because that is all you can do.

Oh, Snap!

2010-05-24T16:01:00.000+08:00

Yesterday I broke my ankle after I fell learning to roller-skate. As I fell awkwardly I heard a snap and lost functionality of my foot; Clearly something wasn't right. Fantastic people helped me get back on my foot until my friend who I went with got the car around to take me to the hospital. Poking, prodding and three X-Ray's later I get the diagnostic I suspected, a broken ankle. As a present I was given a cast, two crutches and an invitation to come back Wednesday to go under the knife to put some metal in to make it all better.

Lying on the skating ring floor getting attended to, a flurry of thoughts raced into my head. All of my carefully laid out plans seemed to have gone down with me and perhaps worst of all was that I felt insanely guilty. Guilty that my friend had to finish her skating session early and cart me off to the hospital and guilty that these strangers had to help me out. I know it wasn't my fault per se, but that didn't make me feel any less guilt. Any time I feel like an imposition, I feel guilty - just the way it is for me I guess.

Madge was fantastic both as a friend and as a human being, keeping me company while waiting in hospital, lugging my gear around and making me laugh. She also drove me home despite living quite some distance away. She, as president of the UWA Atheist and Agnostic society, now needs to find a replacement to the talk I was planning on doing Thursday called "What Dawkins Got Wrong", a tribute (of sorts) to Luke at Common Sense Atheism (which nearly infected my computer with up to 90 viruses thanks to some hacker...) Alas I can still do the talk next semester.

Now I just have to figure out where to go from here. How can I make lemonade from these lemons?

Life after Death : Take Two

2010-05-19T23:16:00.000+08:00

As a freethinker I enjoy mulling over the abundant possibilities that may occur after the death of my body and mind. On the basis of evidence alone I see no reason to believe anything other than nothingness will occur, nevertheless its fun to think of what a desirable afterlife's might be.

All of these "what if" questions do bug me. What if my mother hadn't died, what if she died when I was a child? What if I found out that girl liked me? What if I had taken that one opportunity over another? So many possibilities, so many probabilities. Some of them in my control, most of them out of my control. Some of them only a result of a current state of mind, one which I may no longer hold. All measures of fairness go out the window. It is what it is.

So I wonder if giving my current life another go would be worth it. Would this seriously be something I would like to do time and time again until I have achieved all I needed to do, whatever that might mean.

Given I cannot control what may or may not be in some potential future life - all I have to work with is who I am today. How easy is it, given this range of complexity, uncertainty and unfairness not to conclude there is a bigger plan, or that there is meaning to this all. It's certainty easier and more comforting that cold hard reality. I never really did buy into Sagan's "Pale Blue Dot" or any of those other secular feel-good stories.

The Rudd Giveth - The Rudd Taketh Away

2010-05-19T22:17:00.000+08:00

During the financial crisis The Rudd gave each Australian around $900 to $950 as economic stimulus. The intent was that people would spend this money and thus avoid a recession. It appeared to be a success, although its practically impossible to quantify the real effect had it not been done. We are all Keynesians now right?

I did not contribute to this stimulus because I am not your average consumer. I saved that money and put it into various investments. I kept the money in the country with the intent that it should be worth more in future years.

Well it turns out that my oh so wise investments were anything but when The Rudd announced a 40% "super profits" tax on mining companies. My stock in Rio Tinto fell drastically and I went from a neat paper profit to an actualised loss in a period of days. Although the stock passed my mental stop loss level - I exited the position without suffering even more losses had I held it to this date.

All in all I have lost that which The Rudd gave, with some extra interest added on top. Easy come, easy go.

I might have a justifiable capitalistic reason to be annoyed at this but my inner socialist is actually rather happy. Of course no one takes socialism or capitalism seriously any more outside of the morality play that is the United States. But I digress...

So perhaps a little bit of perspective is needed here. It's too easy to criticise this tax as a money grab or as a cold blanket over successful businesses but is it really that horrific?

Most economic cycles, left to their own accord go through unhealthy boom/bust cycles. I say unhealthy because we are talking about the real destruction of wealth, real people with real lives losing real jobs (you get the picture). The boom/bust cycle only helps the rich get richer and breeds inequality. Keynesian economics aims to get rid of this boom/bust cycle by using government intervention to cool any signs of overheating (tax, etc) and stoke the fires at any sign of cooling (stimulus, etc). At least that's the theory and for a long time the Howard government did admirably by keeping a surplus in the boom times.

The stimulus was one such example of a measure used to stoke the fire. I see this mining tax as the opposite - as a way of cooling down the overheated mining industry. Besides, we need to pay back the stimulus. (Just as an aside the housing market was pumped with the first home owners grant - it wasn't necessarily the best move in an overheated market.)

There was also another argument that I had forgotten. Rio Tinto et al. do not own the resources. These resources are part of Australia, and shouldn't they benefit the Commonwealth of Australia? Why should we allow multi-nationals to profit from our land without giving back? I would consider it immoral for these companies to go into say an African country, take all of their resources and leave without contributing. Of course the irony is that the money they might have been made in tax can be wiped out of peoples superannuation with a modest downside adjustment.

The only question on the table should be is whether the 40% tax goes too far. I certainly doubt (or should I say hope) that number was plucked from thin air or from Henry's backside. It can't be that all bad if a few mining projects get canned. Its not like we are overflowing with skilled labour desperately seeking work. Only time will tell.

Draw Mohammed Day

2010-05-19T20:47:00.000+08:00

Even though I cannot draw, I will not be participating in the Draw Mohammed Day which is to take place tomorrow the 20th of May.

I refuse to join this movement for the same reason I refuse to desecrate crackers, steal candy from babies and piss on people's graves. Basically all of those things are dick moves and I'm better than that. I want to criticise movements by use of words, and by reasoned arguments instead of crass displays of offence. I know the usual arguments, that the new atheists are about knocking down sacred cows and raising consciousness by highlighting the absurdities of peoples beliefs but thus approach may not work with Islam. Christianity, for all its faults, has matured.

I fully support the rights of those who chose to play these types of games, in the same way I support the right of Pauline Hanson to make an idiot out of herself by saying stupid racist things. I might even defend to my death the right for people to say or do these things, but this does not mean that I endorse or wish to go along with them.

This stance seems to end in a rather uncomfortable contradiction. On one hand I support free speech rights, yet isn't this protest about how our free speech rights are being eroded by religious fundamentalism?

"What about free speech?"
"But that's not the point. You're giving this place a bad name. I've got my position to think of"
- Amnesia, Chumbawamba

Let's be realistic - free speech is an illusion. There are many things people cannot and should not say. If you say the wrong thing to the wrong person you can lose business deals, friends, respect, etc. Free speech may allow you to insult or demean someone as much as you like, but don't act all shocked when someone gets offended or tries to defend their honour.

The average Muslim has a lot to be unhappy about. Most Muslim countries are backwaters technologically and culturally. They are viewed with suspicion and fear in the successful and godless west. The only appeal to some golden Islamic age is centuries ago. It must be difficult for the average Muslim to accept that maybe Sharia Law doesn't work and their religion wouldn't be good for humanity. Israel doesn't seem to be going away and the west is involved in two wars against Muslim countries, interfering with their politics and stealing their oil.

Are the New Atheists trying to reach out to these Muslims? Are they trying to engage them in debate or discussion? All that seems to come out of them is insults and disrespect. To the average Muslim, being Islamic is part of their identity and to disrespect their religion is tantamount to racism despite the obviousness as to the difference between ones religion and ones race. Instead of trying to understand, the New Atheists seem to be the worst when it comes to pigeon-holing. (Sam Harris is one such example where he uses his intuition instead of cold hard facts in determining that Islam is evil)

Is kowtowing to the request not to draw Mohammed problematic? Hardly. Can anyone imagine any real life example where one would be inconvenienced by not being allowed to draw Mohammed? We know that people have to go out of their way to draw Mohammed. This is something active - someone has to consciously do this. It's not some naive social faux pas. I'm not suggesting there should be a law against it, I'm just suggesting that the thoughtful atheist shouldn't be engaging in these petty actions.

So my questions to the New Atheists is this...
What are you really trying to accomplish here? I don't know about you but I want to see the back of religion by people turning away from it en mass naturally and I want this to happen according to sound scientific principles - the only principles that are guaranteed to be more successful than intuition or flinging crap against a wall and seeing what sticks. To me the solution to religion is simple - economic prosperity. What part of insulting Islam helps to enrich economic prosperity? (Perhaps I should invest in broken glass companies)

Do you think that you are not to blame when you provoke a lion and it starts to attack you? It's the lions nature - and you know that. You are supposed to be better and more smarter than that.

Show me the study which says that ridicule and mockery are sure-fire ways to dissuade people from their religion?

Feel free to disagree and show me where I have gone wrong.

Imagine...

2010-04-06T10:23:00.000+08:00

Imagine if you will that you were living a double life. Imagine you knew there was something different about you, but you were not aware of what it specifically was. Imagine getting confused as if you saw blue as green and was wondering why no one else thought this. Imagine you desperately wanted things to change, to be better, but to start you needed to know what it was and where things went wrong. Imagine the futility in heading down false paths time after time either by "professionals" or with self-help.

Imagine then you read a book and in this book lays bare your entire soul as if the pages of your life have been scraped from your brain and laid bare in print for the entire world to see. Imagine that reading this book is like wearing a pair of glasses and you can now see the world unblurred for the first time but on the horizon are dark clouds gathering. All those thoughts and actions merely statistical certainties for "people like you".

"People like you", the acceptance that you are not alone, and that "not alone" is not merely a meaningless pair of words. It was always going to be a certainty that people like you exist - only a narcissist could believe otherwise. No. It was the stories in which you could see yourself and place yourself in those situations. One different computer module running on many different computers.

Imagine that you didn't find this book and continued on your statistically determined life and this life was no better than today, indeed perhaps the best years have already passed you by. Wouldn't you feel fortunate that you found this book?

Who are these raging atheists that don't want you to go to church!

2010-03-31T09:54:00.000+08:00

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_dUVZozf-i0

...and love of God

2010-03-29T06:49:00.001+08:00

I remember back to the days in primary school when we used to sing the National Anthem, "School Song" and say the "School Creed". The school song was sung to the tune of "This Land is Your Land", an American folk song - something I didn't know until The Simpsons played an adaptation in the year 2000 called "This Log is Your Log".

Thinking lately about my past as a child of a Jehovah's Witness - I remember the school creed and how it contained the phrase (which seemed rather tacked on to the end) "and love of God". This despite the fact I went to a government school! What I remember about it was that I was not only forbidden from singing the national anthem but also saying the school creed.

The national anthem was a no-no because it displays patriotism and makes us "part of this world". There is no point having allegiance to any country as a Jehovah's Witness because they are all artificial constructs and detract from worship. Also forbidden were voting and going to war!

What about the school creed - why was it bad when it contained the word God in it? Well I don't recall the exact reason, but I recall creeds in general were forbidden! I think the reference to either a generic god or the "Christian" God didn't help as it wasn't directed at the "same" God as the one the Jehovah's Witnesses worship. It was also seen as a meaningless throw-away phrase, something which shouldn't be uttered just because you have to, but should be said in earnest and with belief.

One of the fondest memories of the school creed as I stood back and listened was how the "...and love of God" part was sometimes mumbled and mocked by the students who probably objected to the word love more than the word God.

I often wonder if they still have the school creed and whether or not it contains that phrase given the rise of secularism and the fact that it was a government school and they can be rather sensitive about things like that. As a witness I might have protested the creed and now as a secularist I would likely protest the creed too...funny how it's all come around full circle.

Parental Choice: Abortion and Blood Transfusions

2010-03-26T22:51:00.000+08:00

Over drinks at our weekly "Atheists In The Tav" meeting, I shocked my fellow non-theistic brethren by mentioning that I consider abortion to be wrong. I am of course open to criticism and to having my mind changed but I have yet to hear of a convincing justification which permits social abortion. (Social abortion defined as being abortion for financial, personal, cosmetic reasons, etc.) I do not consider this position to be emotionally driven, nor dogmatic. Having said this, I understand that life is messy and would consider it problematic to outlaw, prohibit or criminalise abortion and therefore the solution should be to develop sound approaches (based on empirical methods) to reduce abortions.

The rationale behind my stance is unlikely to be new, however I don't believe I have heard it before in religious circles because of its implications. It happens to be personal to me, given that there was a time in my life in which a similar circumstance may have had deadly consequences.

For those who do not know, my parents became Jehovah's Witnesses and my dad was even baptised. Naturally as a young child around a decade old, I followed and was drawn into the message and lifestyle. I was always a "good boy" so adopting a religious lifestyle wasn't too much of a stretch. I was drawn into that world so much that I remember giving a talk in Year 7 in front of my classmates about how evolution was a lie. I was convinced I was not going to go to university (witnesses strongly object to universities) and that my "career" would revolve around witnessing full-time.

Based on two verses in the bible, Jehovah's Witnesses forbid blood transfusions. The real life effect of this rule is that some adults refuse and children are denied life saving blood transfusions and as a result, many die. The question naturally becomes, should the religious beliefs of the parents trump the right to life saving treatment for the child?

Before I address this questions - it might be pertinent to ask - What is the mentality behind those who subscribe to these beliefs? How could any parent allow their child to die when there is treatment available? The answer is simple and lies in the ultimate fatalism which is fundamentalist religious belief. If you really believe that this world isn't that significant and that after you die you will be reunited with all of your loved ones in a new Eden on Earth - then it should be no big deal to "sacrifice" you child, knowing that by doing so they will be guaranteed acceptance into the new paradise. In fact, for one not to do this would be illogical and would perhaps indicate that they don't really believe it. What more to prove to God that you really believe than to sacrifice your children by following His commands?

So on one side we have parents who believe that letting their children die is the correct thing to do and on the other you have the secular state or hospitals who wish to ensure the child does not die a needless death. What is the solution to this age-old paradox?

Well, maybe we should ask the child? This sounds good in theory but looking back to my childhood - I remember carrying a card around which said that I was not to take blood! If I was in a situation where I needed blood to stay alive and I was a "believer" at the time I would have said NO BLOOD - and I would have died. Yet here I am today - an atheist who does not believe in that God nor wish to follow those arbitrary religious commands. I can unequivocally state that I am pro-blood and would have been really bummed out dying young (as only a dead person can) from something I no longer believe to be true.

The other obvious problem with asking the child is that they are very likely to mirror their parents beliefs and are unable to make an informed judgement on the issue (one could also mention that many adults do not make informed judgements before doing religious things like flying planes into buildings). How easy would it be for the parent to tell their child that death is favourable, because they will see them soon in the new Earth where all the experiences they might miss in this world, they can do in the next.

The real theoretical question we should be asking is what would the child want if the child had the life experiences and knowledge of an adult. Given that the child may possibly chose a life which is contrary to the decision at hand - no adult should force this decision on them. At first glance this seems reasonable, it's nothing more than fulfilling the wishes of a considerate individual. It should be obvious that no religious adult could possibly accept this and would still deny treatment. It therefore should be on the state to ensure the safety of the child purely on the grounds that the childs wishes (projected as a knowledgeable adult) have not been taken into consideration.

Some astute thinkers might have noticed the flaw in my previous question - it is impossible to know what the child might chose if they were a knowledgeable adult! Although we could apply general statistical considerations for example the extremely low teenage retention rates for Jehovah's Witnesses, it cannot tell us what one particular individual may do as an adult. Does this destroy my argument? No! The fact that we may not know what one might chose as a knowledgeable adult should give us reason to err on the side of caution. If you deny the opportunity for the child to become a knowledgeable adult, you are taking their future choice away from them - and quite frankly, those are the only choices worth having - ones based on sound knowledge.

I'll illustrate this in a table:

JW True + No Blood = Happy! (Lucky not to have chance to lose faith?)
JW False + No Blood = Wasted life - might have lost faith as adult
JW True + Blood (forced) = No blame on individual as intolerant state (run by Satan [seriously]) forced the decision. Good for child who grows up and has choice to be either JW or not.
JW False + Blood (forced) = Life not wasted - Good for child who grows up and has choice to be either JW or not.

There are still two potential problems/objections with what I have presented!

1. Parents should be allowed as the knowledgeable adults, to make the choice for their child.

I believe such an attitude is unhelpful. We should not allow parents to force children into many life affecting situations such as what career to have, who we should or shouldn't marry and which religion we believe in. These should be free will choices the individual makes (for it to be genuine) , and we should not accept someone else telling us what is effectively a preference. Of course the parent has a role in education and guidance, but the child will eventually become their own individual who will like different things and may even believe in different things. Children are not property nor are they our clones!

2. Parents would rather their children die than lose faith.
Given that the child may potentially lose their faith in the future, the adult would feel even more obliged to forbid treatment in the fear that their son/daughter may not join them in the new Earth. But this is the same as I mentioned before - the adult is not allowing the child to have their own free will knowledgeable decision, they are telling them what to believe! I believe only beliefs and opinions which are formed using knowledge and free will are worth having.

If you apply these same principles to abortion...what do you get?
To be continued...

How to solve depression - Christian style

2010-03-08T16:32:00.000+08:00

On a story about Charmaine Dragun (ex-Channel 10 news presented) who committed suicide on Lexapro (the antidepressant I take) the following comment was made by a Christian.

ry of Perth Posted at 1:27 PM Today

Very sad. I pray the family is well. Stay away from phyciatry. It is not a proven physiological science at all. Phyciatry does not offer a cure, it onyl offers to correct symptoms, but in doing so the chemicals they prescribe see other disastrous effects produced, like suicide. The cure is found in Jesus Christ. I have this theory, that "mental illness" is the spirits way of telling us we need a change of life. Often this change of life is for people who are from God to come close to God. Before you call me crazy, stop and think (and research if you like) what so called "western medicine" is saying about "mental illness" and what they try to "fix" it with.

I knew Jesus could cast out demons, but cure mental illness too!! Is there nothing he can't do...Someone should tell the people at Beyond Blue their flyers about treatment are wrong when they mention prayer is ineffective.

Richard Carrier Arrested!

2010-03-07T12:37:00.000+08:00

It has come to my attention that on 21st July, Richard Carrier was arrested after a warrant went out for his arrest. The following day Carrier confessed. Here is a transcript of Carrier's confession.

Q. have you bin in the devils snare
A: yes.

Q. is yo'r bro: Andrew ensnared by the devils snare:
A Yes

The court found Carrier guilty of the crime of witchcraft. The year was 1692.

Source

Oh Yeah - I have a blog

2010-03-06T15:48:00.000+08:00

I can't remember the last time I blogged so I thought I would write something otherwise I may as well just shut the thing down!

It's been a very busy year so far given that I am aiming to finish my PhD towards the end of this year or early next year. In fact I have four reports that I need to finish and submit before March 15 otherwise I cannot go back to Italy and do some more experiments! I was there recently in November and thoroughly enjoyed my time in Germany afterwards (well I actually spent all my time in Munich). I visited the Dachau concentration camp and found the entire experience creepy knowing what went on there and trying to imagine myself in such a position. My first impression when entering the "Arbeit Macht Frei" gates was that the place looks and feels like Fremantle Prison.

Two weeks ago I helped out at the UWA AAS (Atheist and Agnostic Society) O-Day stall. We signed up just under sixty people, slightly less than last year even though we were better prepared :(
Daniel held the Mormons at bay by debating them all throughout the day which greatly amused those around who were glad the Mormons were distracted. I managed to score myself a copy of the Mormon Bible thanks to the brave Paul (who ended up debating a creationist for a while who had only one talking point...). An impromptu survey identified 12 Christian groups (including clubs and churches) to the lowly one atheist club.

Many people came up to our stall asking what it was we were doing in a joking kind of way. After all, a Christian group is full of Christians who do Christian things. So what does a club that merely disbelieves in God do? Well it turns out we do some things. This year we are continuing Atheists in the Tav on Thursdays as well as adding "Talktorials" on Tuesday which is where someone does a talk and we have a discussion afterwards. I must admit that after a summer reading some of the best philosophy material and actually understanding them, coming back down to earth by interacting with post-high school educated people was um...yeah...need I say more? Yes this makes me sound like some Ivory Tower liberal elitist, but so what?

Perhaps the most disheartening aspect of O-Day was the general lack of knowledge as to what an atheist is (they worship the devil?), what they believe in (atheists believe in nothing, right?), that was present amongst the general population. As for the overall evil atheist agenda (TM), this may not be a bad thing - as I suspect many are also ignorant of religion in general too.

The first welcoming BBQ went well despite the 42 degrees weather. (It was even worse being one of the people who operated the BBQ) We had a number of "freshers" (for those who are not familiar with the vernacular, these are freshmen, first year university students). Quite a few new people also joined up when they went past and wondered what we were doing. So far so good...

Unfortunately no one new turned up to the tav (which isn't that surprising considering most freshers are still 17 and the legal age for entering a pub and drinking is 18) and we had a disappointing turn out for Kylie Sturgess' talk on "Sex and Skepticsm", which was a highly enjoyable talk with lots of new and interesting statistics on the correlation between the sexes and belief in non-rational things. Kylie will be presenting this talk again (or a modified version thereof) at the Global Atheist Convention in Melbourne (where Madge and Paul - president and vice of AAS - are going). I wish I was going but alas its a bad time of year to pop over to Melbourne for the weekend *sigh* We suspect the poor attendance was due to the time we had the talk, I just hope Daniel's talk on Tuesday is better attended (Kylie's talk was on a Thursday which isn't a day we designated for our talktorials but alas...)

It will soon be the one year anniversary of my mothers passing away. Its been an incredibly tough year for myself and my family. I don't expect I will ever "get over" it but merely find new ways to cope with the new normal. I still occasionally cry myself to sleep or even worse have vivid dreams of her. It should be a reminder for people that you should always mend bridges, say "I love you" and take care of those around you - because once they are gone its too late and you might not get time to say "goodbye".

The Atheists Nightmare

2009-12-24T11:25:00.001+08:00

Is a banana right?

Single Ladies of Perth (What They Believe)

2009-12-20T17:38:00.000+08:00

In my previous post I mentioned a new poll from Nielsen about faith in Australia so I was curious as to what the level of belief is present in single females aged from 18 to 30 from Perth (considering that I am a single 25 year old male from Perth).

Based on the Nielsen survey I should expect the following to be representative.

Believer- Age 18 to 24 - 55% (male and female, countrywide, etc)
Believer- Age 25 to 29 - 71% (male and female, countrywide, etc)

Non Believer- Age 18 to 24 - 42%
Non Believer- Age 25 to 29 - 28%

To conduct my informal poll, I used the advanced search feature in RSVP (an online dating website) and counted how many matches for each category. The results can be found in the following link

http://spreadsheets.google.com/ccc?key=0ArrHRRAOnrM5dFZOOWxhOWVpbXZ5WjdOclUyTDdXaHc&hl=en
(J/I/H/B/S represent Judaism, Islam, Hindu, Buddhism and Sikh respectively.)

The results match the Nielsen poll relatively well with the notable inverse correlation between atheism/agnosticism and age. (That is to say, the younger generation has a higher level of atheism/agnosticism than their older counterparts)

Out of those who listed their religion the following was found.

Atheist/Agnostic - Age 18-24 - 35%
Atheist/Agnostic - Age 25-29 - 27%

It should be noted that approximately 61% of people post their religion/beliefs on their profile. Does this mean that 39% of people don't care about religion?

Instead of speculating on what the results mean, I will do the same thing this time next year to see how the demographics shift.

(From personal experience the high number of Catholics is not a surprise to me. Many Catholics who I have met are cultural Catholics, which is to say they are of (usually Italian) heritage such that considering oneself Catholic is synonymous with cultural identity.)

News Clippings

2009-12-19T21:18:00.000+08:00

All kids must read the Bible, federal Opposition Leader Tony Abbott says

Tony Abbott is the Climate Change Denialist, Abortion denying, Catholic head of the right wing party of Australia. I used to be a fan of the Liberal party, but now this nut case is in charge I would rather (and would likely) vote for the Greens.

Herald Sun

We believe in miracles, and UFO's

This article confirms that most Australians are still supersitious and religious, even if they do not attend church. The statistics also show no decline in the level of atheism or skepticism in the community. I loved this quote "The surprising findings from a Nielsen poll for the Herald show Australia is a credulous nation, willing to mix and match religious faith with belief in other phenomena."

Sydney Morning Herald

Adversaries of piety and proof

I found this interesting article from Peter Slezak who teaches history and philosophy at the University of NSW. (Dated Novemeber 2008) It's good quality considering the target audience (newspaper readers).

The Australian

Pope declares second miracle, clearing way for Mary MacKillop Sainthood

After an exhaustive and highly scientific examination of all the evidence, the Pope has told God that Mary is now a saint. As ridiculous as this is, Australians are no doubt patting each other on the back over our first "saint". Not bad for a nation founded by convicts aye?

Perth Now

Scribbling incoherent thoughts on intrinsicness?

2009-12-10T22:49:00.000+08:00

Luke Muehlhauser over at Common Sense Atheism recently responded in his blog to an article by Christian Apologist and philosopher William Lane Craig pertaining to a question Luke asked of Craig. I'm going to admit my ignorance here when they talk about "intrinsic value", in particular Craig's view that humans have intrinsic value.

To get to the bottom of this I headed over to dictionary.com and looked up what "intrinsic" means and here is the relevant definition.

" belonging to a thing by its very nature: the intrinsic value of a gold ring. "

I thought the example of a gold ring having intrinsic value to be deeply concerning. I would contend that a gold ring is not intrinsically valuable because there is nothing about the nature of gold nor the nature of rings nor the nature of gold rings which is valuable. The valuableness of a gold ring comes from its rarity, desirability and on an arbitrary monetary value. All of these attributes of value are not in and of themselves related to the nature of the gold ring in question.

Rarity pertains to the abundance of gold. There is nothing about the chemical Au which lends its nature to be rare, it just happens to be rare based on how the universe forms. Desirability is a consequence of rational (or in the case of gold rings, irrational...) agents assigning otherwise arbitrary value to mere metal. If there were an abundance of gold, it would no longer be considered desirable, which would also affect the "arbitrary monetary value".

The only way I could see this making any sense is if I am not understanding what "nature" means in this context. Now that I think about it a bit more, perhaps Luke and Craig are talking past each other based on a differing concept of what nature means. If one views nature in a Platonic or teleological sense, then I can understand how one can say a gold ring is intrinsically valuable - of course I reject Platoism and teleology. File this under incomplete...

Loftus vs D'Souza

2009-12-05T02:55:00.000+08:00

This is an open letter/post to John W. Loftus who will soon (Feb 10, 2010) debate Dinesh D'Souza.

It seems (from Unreasonable Faith) D'Souza is into NDE's as evidenced by this YouTube clip where D'Souza goes on Fox to challenge atheists.

Here is a great article on from infidels.org on NDE's, and I suspect D'Souza will (in a Gish Gallup way) bring this up during the debate. If John knows this or gets to know this, he should be able to come up with something meaty to counter him.

Believers: $4.5m; Atheists: nil

2009-11-30T12:33:00.000+08:00

http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/society-and-culture/believers-45m-atheists-nil-20091127-jw77.html

The Violinist

2009-11-23T15:57:00.000+08:00

As a male I tend to not get involved in the pro/anti abortion debate except as ethical thought experiments and what-if scenarios.

I've never come across this before and I think its interesting. It's known as the "Violinist Thought Experiment" as a defense of abortion. Although the analogy is slightly flawed (it can be fixed) it does then raise a number of questions. I want to raise one particular objection from an anti-abortion point of view...

You wake up in the morning and find yourself back to back in bed with an unconscious violinist. A famous unconscious violinist. He has been found to have a fatal kidney ailment, and the Society of Music Lovers has canvassed all the available medical records and found that you alone have the right blood type to help. They have therefore kidnapped you, and last night the violinist's circulatory system was plugged into yours, so that your kidneys can be used to extract poisons from his blood as well as your own. The director of the hospital now tells you, "Look, we're sorry the Society of Music Lovers did this to you--we would never have permitted it if we had known. But still, they did it, and the violinist is now plugged into you. To unplug you would be to kill him. But never mind, it's only for nine months. By then he will have recovered from his ailment, and can safely be unplugged from you." Is it morally incumbent on you to accede to this situation?

J.J Thomson

The flaw I see in this analogy lies mainly in the circumstances one finds oneself in. The analogy almost seems to take the view that "you are pregnant...now what?", and takes the action (sex) out of the equation.

So what then is the role of sex and does the act of sex, perhaps originally done for any purpose (such as for fun) entail one to accept any and all responsibility for the consequences of said action even if measures were taken to reduce the probability of said consequence occurring?

Or to put it more formally...

If person P performs action X, does it mean P has to take full responsibility for all consequences Y1, Y2, etc that may result from action X, where each consequence Y1, Y2, etc has an associated probability P(Y1), P(Y2), etc associated with said action? (Whether one is knowledgeable about the probabilities or not)

The intuitive answer is that one might be inclined to accept this and say that if one has sex and falls pregnant, one must take full responsibility for getting pregnant in the first place.

(1) X = Have sex

Y1 = Fall pregnant

P(Y1) = 0.1 (for example)

Y2 = Contract a STD

P(Y2) = 0.01 (for example)

Y3 = Have heart attack and die

P(Y3) = 0.0001 (for example)

But this does not hold for other examples and therefore it cannot be true that one ought to take responsibility for a "failed risk", highlighted in this example.

(2) X = In a bad neighborhood wearing revealing clothes

Y1 = Assaulted

P(Y1) = 0.2 (say...)

Y2 = Raped

P(Y2) = 0.1 (say...)

Y3 = Killed

P(Y3) = 0.001 (say...)

Is P fully responsible for getting assaulted or raped given she knew (intuitively or otherwise) the risks associated with the action? Is P fully responsible if she was unaware of the risks associated? (By say stumbling into the wrong area though no fault of her own or by being mentally handicapped)

Many callous people have suggested P is responsible however I believe that is wrong-headed.

I would say (1) and (2) cannot be compared because they deal with consequences in different categories.

In (2), the consequences Y1, Y2, Y3 all relate to actions done against P by other agents whereas (1) are natural/normal consequences related to the action itself.

Unless someone can see a flaw in my reasoning, I am forced to conclude the analogy does not work and therefore one can simultaneously be anti-"for social reasons" abortion and pro-violinist-choice. The only exceptions are rape and incest abortions (which belong in the same category as (2)), which, to be consistent, would be okay.

Disgustingly American

2009-11-20T19:53:00.000+08:00

America..............Check
Obese.................Check
Southern State...Check
Mobile Home.....Check
No Insurance.....Check
Religious............Check

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2010308166_apusstuckinchair.html

This is perhaps the most disgustingly American story I've ever read.

Extraordinary Claims...

2009-08-22T14:51:00.000+08:00

Some people have raised doubts about the validity of the saying "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence".

Here is a story where a historian uses this phrase to raise doubts about a 1st Century Church in Jordan.

Thomas Parker, a historian at the University of North Carolina-Raleigh, who led the team that discovered the church in Aqaba, said that while he hadn't seen the Rihab site, any such claim should be taken with a degree of caution.

"An extraordinary claim like this requires extraordinary evidence," he said. "We need to see the artifacts and dating evidence to suggest such an occupation in the 1st century A.D."

Religion Explained - Pascal Boyer

2009-08-18T09:38:00.000+08:00

I'm working my way through this amazing book on the anthropology of religion. When I finish the book I plan on quote mining the book on my blog. Here is an example of a passage in the book I found particularly poignant.

Chapter 6: Why is religion about death?
"Displaced Terror and Cold Comfort" (Page 205)

In experimental studies, subjects are asked to read a story or magazine article that highlights the inevitability of death. They are then asked a set of apparently unrelated questions...Their reactions are compared to those of subjects who had read an innocuous piece of prose with no mention of morality. The difference between these two grounds is always striking.

Those who have read "mortality-salient" stories tend to be much harsher in their reactions to socially deviant behaviour. They are less tolerant of even minor misdemeanours and would demand longer sentences and higher bail. They react more strongly to offensive use of common cultural symbols such as the American flag or a crucifix. They also become more defensive toward members of other groups and more prone to stereotype them, to find an illusory correlation between being a member of another social ground and being a criminal.

UWA Secular Week - Rachel Dunlop

2009-08-08T22:03:00.000+08:00

Rachel Dunlop was the last speaker on Saturday evening and for the UWA Secular Week 2009.

“Dr Rachie Reports” – Dr Rachel Dunlop
Adventures of a scientist in an alternative medicine world.

CAM – Complementary, Alternative
SCAM – Supplementary + CAM…

In my spare time

Science communicator

Background advertising, marketing

Vice president of Aus Skeptics

Member of Mystery Investigators

“Dr Rachie Reports” on the Skeptic Zone pidcast

Blogs – Skeptics book of pooh pooh, skeptic zoners.

“Bed of nails”

Skeptic Zoners

Snuffing out ear candles…

Debunking the detox myth

New year fad

They don’t work

Make a lot of money

Alt med - $30 billion industry…

Skeptic Zone Podcast

Pharmacy Quackery

Homeopathy included with evidence based medicine

Science under siege

The hijacking of scienctific terminology and tech to lend legitimacy to quackery

Everyday words “tested” “energy”

More specialised such as “double blind” “infrared tech” “frequencies”, etc

Taken out of context, don’t mean anything

This has the effect of blinding the public with science, it sounds sciency so it must be true

Science hijacked

Enzyme Detergent

Biological…

DNAge – makeup

Bio-magnetic

Swisse multivitamins

Olay Regenerist

Blogged in Book of pooh pooh

Outrageous claims of cream

Science equipment hijacked

Alergy testing machine

Computerised homeopathy

E-meter

Live blood analysis…

Supposed to diagnose illness from drop of blood on microscope

Sell you supplement to cure you…

Science hijacked

Foot detox

On dogs…

Quackery in pharmacies

Pharmacies selling quackery

Iridology in pharmacies

Ear candles…

Negative energy!

Evidence they do harm

People lose hearing due to hot wax

Burns in ear canal…DON’T USE THEM

Magnetic aids

Homeopathy

Aus Skeptics Letter

Open letter to parmacists of Australia

Highlighting ear candling

Picked up by some pharmacist groups

Recommended to take action against things which might cause harm.

Hasn’t really done much – might only recommend against them

“Ask your pharmacist”

Respected members of the community

Giving credence to the alt meds

Hair analysis

Allergy testing

Analysis of hair to find allergies

“Quantum technology”

Scientific jargon to lend legitimacy

Hair analysis is scientific – not all

Blood supply provides nutrients

Absorbed into the hair shaft and carried along with hair growth

Used in drug testing in sport

Ben Cousins

The affordable way to find out what is making you sick

$195

“Quantum technology”

Tested with 300 different food compounds…

300 Item List

Coke, Died Coke, Pepsi Max

Different brands of chocolate, etc

Do they actually test your hair?

Same person, two different tests at different times

30 or so – all different – one similar was carrot on allergy “test”

Hijacking of a legitimate scientific technique

Guam disease, similar to Lou Gehrig’s Parkinson’s and Alzheimers

Post mortem exam sho toxic levels of amino acid

Found amino acid (BMAA) in cycad seeds

Fruit bats have BMAA too – are eaten by the locals (all of it)

Blue-green algae make this neurotoxin

Dr Cox developed method to detect BMAA

High end chromatography, etc

Good science vs quackery

Placing strand in beaker, insering into “quantum machine” and making dial move, lights flash and printing out randomly generated :allergies”

This has no basis in science, can NOT determine allergies

Quacks hijack complex process

Anti-vax lobby, America

Jenny McCarthy and Jim Carrey

Son has autism, “mommy instinct” told her vaccines caused autism

“Cured” him with “bio-intervention”

“Green our vaccines”

Appears on Larry King Live, blog by Oprah, likelt a talk show

Blogged about composition of her and Evan’s poo

She blames “f…ing” manufacturers

Jenny McCarthy Body Count

44,901 preventable illnesses

168 preventable deaths

Age of Autism

Are we poisoning our kids?

Ad’s in America

Australia connection

Australian Vaccination Network are the ones in Australia who are against vaccination

Mission statement says heath without vaccination

Spread misinformation

Side-effects worse than disease

Anti-medicine in general

Perpetuate “Big Pharma” conspiracy theories, Aus Skeptics “on the take”

Campaigning has contributed to low vaccination rates

London (50% from 95%) in some parts – MMR

Causes children to get MMR

Aust – 90-95%

Certain parts – northern NSW 66%

Whooping cough 8041 vs 1554

Damage – 3 in NSW deaths, 4 week old (couldn’t get it)

Too young, but lived in area where many were not

Journalism

“Anti-vaccine nutters put us all in danger”

“Selfish dummy mummies need consciences pricked”

Responsible scientific journalism

Sunday Night on Channel Seven – Compete with sixty minutes

Anti-vaxers look irresponsible and ill-informed

Nothing more than a bad cough treated with homeopathy

Reality: Brain damage, cracked ribs, henia, pneumonia, “100 days”

Leading cause of death 90% pneumonia

Would have had brain damage if she survived

Channel 7 were inundated with AVN crazies…

Not anti-vax…”pro choice”

Dr Gisselle Cook…hasn’t given a vaccination for 18 years

Response from anti-vaxers

Dana death was not caused by pertussis but was scaremongering

Asked for “true” cause of death

Her mother was irresponsible for not seeing the signs

“Shed” virus from their own vaccination

Disturbing anti-vax info sent to the family

Skeptics Response

Form a help group

Conspiracy Theories

Flu is not the biggest danger, it’s the vaccine

From Pakistan Daily

Which was from David Icke (davidicke.com)

Thinks royal family is lizards…

Illuminati – Obama, WHO, Rockerfellers, etc

Response from Pro-science

Ad in The Australia

Sponsored by Dick Smith

Immunisation – Get the facts

Seek accurate factual information

ABC: Dick Smith criticises anti-vaccination ‘misinformation’

How to spot a scam

Visit Scamwatch from Aust Government www.scamwatch.gov.au

The treatment claims to be effective against a very wide range of ailments

There is no scientific evidence to back up the claims that the miracle cure actually works – not just testimonials (Luke from Melbourne)

The product relies on some guru figure or certain ingredient that is claimed to have mystical properties

Whats the harm?

Lots!

Target the venerable : those with cancer

UWA Secular Week - Richard Saunders

2009-08-08T21:57:00.000+08:00

Richard Saunders kicked off the Saturday evening lectures. He provided some hands-on demonstrations of water dousing and spoon bending.

“Skepticism 101” – Richard Saunders

Australian Skeptics
Mystery Investigators
“The One” TV Show
The Skeptic Zone Podcast

School show Mystery Investigators

Aus Skeptics $100,000 Randi type prize
Was on “The One” – didn’t find them!

WA Skeptics

www.undeceivingourselves.com

Australia Skeptics

www.skeptics.com.au

Internet for skeptics

Revolution in the past 1-1.5 years thanks to the internet

Twitter, facebook, skype – connect and network

Was in TAM, Las Vegas – 1000 people in one room

Movement booming – thanks to the internet collecting like minded people

“the skeptic” – Australia sceptical magazine

Skepticism, Science, Society

Richard Saunders

Writes book on origami

Pigasis – Mascot to the James Randi Foundation! (origami) – Flying pig

Pigasis went to Rome, Vatican

Little ear-rings

James Randi, Phil Plait (bad astronomer) – in Alaska

Randi undergoing chemo

81 years old – still sharp!

What is skepticism?

Not cynic

It’s a method not a position

Like science skepticism is open to review and modification

We might be wrong!

Not closed to a position

Do not say “there are no ghosts”

Ask for evidence

You are human and that means you can be fooled!!

Doesn’t mean you are slow, its just the way humans have evolved

Demonstration of black dots in white grid!

You can see something that is not there

That’s how easily you can be fooled

“Seeing is believeing” – Not necessarily, you can be tricked

Optical Illusion – Shadow (same as Midgely’s talk)

Chessboard illusion – online

Skeptics also have fun!

80-100 in the pub – Sydney Skeptics

Wouldn’t do it unless it was fun.

What is the supernatural?

Events or powers unknown to science that seem to have an impact in the real world.

Spoon bending

Talking with the dead

Ghosts

Spoon bending 101

Uri Geller

Magic trick – even scientists and fellow magicians can be fooled by magic

Talking WITH the dead

“The One” – Search for Australias most gifted psychic

Seven contestants

Winner by phone poll

Charmain Wilson – Witch

Should be lining up for nobel prize

Cold Reading

Cold reading is NOT

Getting your clues from body language, how someone is dressed, cheating with background info, nothing but generalizations

80% of the cold reading takes place in the mind of the subject

Sold on the idea before they get started.

They are already convinced

Cold reading is

Mind game in the mind of the subject

Reaching out by the subject…wishful

May or may not be a careful and cynical ploy

Not out necessarily to do harm – might believe what they are saying

Does not need to be very good at all.

The Pipe Ploy

Who smoked the pipe please?

I’m getting pipe smoke…

Someone on the other side is telling me about a pipe they liked.

Why am I smelling pipe smoke?

Dog, living near water, pipe, etc

Lots of response

Dad “smoked” vs “smokes”

Little white dog used commonly

More relatives, more chance

3 generations – 14 ancestors

Lots of chance

Extend to aunts, uncles, etc

Friends, relations, all other people

Increase the chances!

“Dad’s Friend at work…”

If someone cannot think of anyone…

“Go home and check!”

If one strikes out…

No lose scenario

Dead family member

Who passed from cancer please?

I'm getting a mother figure who passed from cancer.

Cold Reading book

The full facts book of cold reading

Lynne Kelly “Tauromancy”

Divination with chopsticks

Tauro = bull magic

People were told it was a trick, still wanted to pay her for a private reading

The Fish Cycle

Small fish -> Bigger fish -> Even bigger fish -> wow…what a fish

Fishy Cycle

Physic getting feedback, makes them believe it

Reinforced by exaggerations

“Prove it to yourself” (?)

They all say that

When not convinced, become angry

Closed minded!!

Cynic

The un(Amazing) Valda

2003 – Psychic + Alternative Fair

Initial D with man in his late 50’s

Ah! D stands for “Dad”

Initial H with lady in her 50’s

Ah! H stands for “Helper”

Who liked to cook…scones

Eating scones while reading books….

Then…

Join hands because people “gone over” from Bali bombings (1 year on)

What was she thinking…

Using it for a sideshow

Newage (newage like sewage…)

Quantum, ancient, breakthrough, new science

www.eastrovedica.com/html/newagedictionary.htm

Aura, Chakras, Crystals, Prana, Therapeutic Touch

“Energy, meditation, life energy, Chi and Qi”

Making stuff up

Magnetic Bio-spiritual kinesiology

Holistic energy balancing

People actually do this! They are not “made up” per se.

Nova

“Holistic journal”

Mind-Body-Wallet Festival

“Spirit” not wallet…joke

Scientologists!!

Don’t be a skeptic – ask questions

Ghosts

“Orb”

Little flecks of dust, water, etc – catch flash unfocused and sent back to the camera

Not a mystery but still believed

Ghosts on camera

On Sunrise

“Wearing same clothes!!”

Photograph in Dr Edward Jenner’s home, the man who invented the smallpox vaccine, has stunned experts.

Paradoilia

Shapes in clouds, etc

Lighting, dust, etc

Looks like figure!

Can exaggerate it if you want to

Today Tonight

Spider!!

Green – looks like ghost

School

Wanted to find out real explanation instead of dismissing it

Legs feel heavy by the time you go up stairs…

Dowsing

Using sticks to find water

Claims since 1980

Results as random chance, no one shows power…

UWA Secular Week - Michael Tan

2009-08-07T21:48:00.000+08:00

The second and final talk on Friday was given by Michael Tan.

“The Immorality of Religion” – Michael Tan

Why is this a difficult topic?

Criticising religious ideas is considered offensive

By singling out a religion I may be accused of prejudice

“I hate all religions equally!”

Prejudice vs intellectual discourse

Engage in discussion

-Educaton

Religion in the world

33% Christian

21% islam

14% hindu

16% non-religious

Half are theistic but not religious

Religion in Australia

62% Christian

29% no religion

9% other

2006 Census

Christianity declining 5% per year going to “no religion”

What I won’t be talking about

Wars

Communism

Pseudoscience

Intelligent design

Crusades

Terrorism

Suicide killings

Extremism

Morons

Westboro Baptist Church

“Behead those who say Islam is violent”

What I will be talking about

Moral implication of conventional theism

Why God, if he exists, is NOT good

The impact of religious education on moral judgements

How these points relate to my disbelief

Moral implications of theism

Theism = belief in deity; god

General properties of God:

Perfectly good

Loving

Merciful

All powerful

All knowing

Perfectly just

“No being can be all powerful and all knowing – contradiction”

Can’t exercise free will

Calvinists – no free will

God = Evil dictator

God is NOT great (Hitchens)

The god of the old testament is a petty, unjust…malevolent bully (Dawkins)

How does God tell us what is moral?

Rules were given to a select few by God

What does this mean for people who were not given these rules?

The Chinese, etc…

For modern society, these rules are now totally ambiguous and selectively ignorable.

Epicurus (Problem of Evil)

Poem…

Moral implications of theism

Human suffering

20,000 die each day

Massacres, holocaust, hunger, etc

Accessory not to help

Evolution

Compartmentalization

Belief in evolution + theism

Indifferent to suffering

Necessary for our existence

Much better ways of doing it

Like in the bible!

Some animals designed to be brutal

Indifferent struggle for survival

Natural disasters

Mt Vesuvius

Tsunamis, earthquakes, etc

Original Sin

Take the story of Adam and Eve

Before they knew the different between right and wrong were told “Don’t eat from this tree”

Then, they were condemned (?)

Then, ALL humankind suffered the consequences (?)

This requires a “human” sacrifice such that we could all be forgiven (?)

Because he was perfect (God?), this potentially cancels out the original sin (which was not just in the first place) if we “ask” for forgiveness.

God as a judge

Concept of “perfect justice”

Life is some sort of a test, on which we will be judged at death. Fair?\

Has God given us the tools to determine this.

Didn’t ask to be born.

Born into sin

What are we in fact “judged” on?

God judges BELIEF (taking to be true)

While beliefs may change, BELIEF itself is NON-VOLUNTARY

Believe or disbelief on a whim – and mean it

Thought Crime?

Repentant murderers will be rewarded, while Atheist Samaritans will be tortured.

A good system of justice?

How is disbelief per se a crime?

If I told you a story about a talking snake, virgin mother…?

Tell a Muslim

Ask him to believe

What should their punishment be?

Pascals wager – what if I’m wrong?

If a study on astrology was shown to be “95% certain?”

1 in 5 studies should say this

Disturbing predicament…what is a “good judge”?

Even if true, wouldn’t like it nor worship

Glad there is no evidence!

Problem of hell/ retribution

How can anyone be happy believing that hell is a real place?

How could anyone bring someone into the world knowing they risk an eternity of suffering?

Why don’t we run our courtrooms like God’s courtroom?

“Baby-in-the-oven” analogy

Why doesn’t God heal amputees?

Miracles

Benny Hill, and faith healers

Why would a God allow only select people to be healed, while others suffered and died?

Atheist morality

To profess believe in hell for non-believers is a profound insult

To say that morals come from a holy book a profound insult

The Bible

Who killed more in the bible?

God – 2 million

Satan – 10

Deuteronomy 25:11-12

Grabbing genitals!! – Cut off hand

Leviticus 20
Exodus 21
Deut 17:2-7

If this is “for the time” – so what? Why at any time should this be true?

Could slavery ever be okay?

The unforgivable sin
Matthew 12:31
Mark 3:29

Sins of blasphemy – worst is denying the holy spirit

Everlasting sin!!

Distoreted morals

Bad education vs bad religion

People with AIDS = homosexual ; misconception

Not so much of a problem here, is in USA

Freedom of religion – to what extent should we allow?

To what extend should we allow religion?

Graphic depictions of violence

Jesus on a cross

Repulsive! But not to all

Hanging, Guillotine, Stoning

Is repulsive

Distorted morality

Infant died from “oral suction” – Herpes – circumcision practice.

Birth control/abortions

Stem cell research

Sexuality

Is Homosexuality always wrong

Islam – 75%

Pro, Cath, Budd, No (15%)

Is Abortion always wrong

Similar

Teen abortion stats

More religious – more abortions!

Sustainable future

Theists world-view

1. Life is a temporary condition

2. The afterlife is eternal

3. The world was created for us

4. End in war of nations

Non-religions

1. Only one life

2. Consciousness ends at death

3. World not created for us

4. Human survival is not guaranteed

Distaste vs disbelief

Why don’t I believe?

Hell, evil, lack of evidence, people make things up all the time

UWA Secular Week - Daniel Midgley

2009-08-07T21:38:00.000+08:00

The first talk on Friday was given by UWA linguistics lecturer Daniel Midgley.

"Science and Superstition: What's the Difference?" by Daniel Midgley

Blog good reason
Ex-mormon (Formon)
Mormon beliefs are crazy
Less crazy with more people

“Jesus dwells in my heart” less crazy

Some worthy skills

Distinguish truth from error

Explain things we discover in the world

Learn more about things

But this job is undermined by superstitious ways of thinking

Ladders and umbrellas
Its bad luck to

Walk under ladders

Open an umbrella in the house

Some supersitions have their basis in common sense

Ladders = Things can fall on you

Umbrella = Dangerous

Jinxing It

Don’t say that – it might happen

On an airplane – partner was worried, didn’t say something because of the fear it might happen

The secret

“Law of attraction”

1. Know exactly what you want

2. Ask the universe for it

3. Feel, behave and know as if the object of your desire is already yours (visualize)

4. Be open to receive it and let go of (the attachment to) the outcome.

“Testimonial”

Validating an illness

Believes already cured (of cancer)

Unexpected chain of events

Images of “deity”

Pareidolia

Jesus in ultrasound

Mary on toast

Jesus on dog arse

Glyph of allah in watermelon

Alligator with English “God” (God on his side!!!)

Buddhists with wasps nest looks like Buddah

Car with Michael Jackson

Guiding the interpretation

Alternative Medicine

Homeopathy, kinesiology, reflexology, Reiki, acupuncture, etc

No reproducible tests shows any difference between alternative therapies and a placebo

Practitioners expend energy explaining away failures

Faith Healing

A belief that a supernatural being will heal someone

Olive oil, laying on hands, blessed oil holder (James 5:14)

Praying for a parking spot

God takes car of affluent Americans/Australians…

Double bind tests? Likely no difference…

Why do we have superstitions?

Attempts to make sense out of a confusing and seemingly random world

Attempts to control our environment

Find out whats causing

Make stop when bad, make again when good

Pigeons under random conditions developed superstitions.

Our human brains

Our brains are pattern recognisers

Good but not perfect

Overestimate risk

Crime rates appear to be higher even though statistics do not back up these claims

Function most poorly under conditions of

Complexity

Multi-factorality

Very large numbers

Lottery

Unusual domains

Would a pen dropped on the moon float away? Astronaughts don’t because they have “heavy shoes”

Fear or threat

We fall victim to certain cognitive traps

Optical illusions

Brain shows us in ways that are useful to us

Monty Hall problem

Three doors – mathematics

Why do superstitions seem to work

Magical thinking

Mind can affect physical world

Magical substances / images / symbols ets

Selective observation

Count the hits and forget the misses

Got a car and saw the same one everywhere! They were always there, didn’t notices them.

The Secret!

Clustering errors

Confirmation bias

We see what we expect to see

Post Hoc fallacy

Belief that first thing causes the next, even when it doesn’t.

Homeopathy when curing common cold – nothing happened, just natural healing

Ad hoc explanations for failure

Didn’t wish hard enough, wasn’t God’s plan

“Heal the whole person”

“Healing crisis!”

Denial!

Science v Superstition

Science

Rely on empirical evidence

Data comes from observations in the real world

Keep track of what the facts mean

Statistics

Sound principles

Occam’s Razor

Superstition

Preconceptions are held sacred

Absolutely true, vitas and must be supported

Recognition of false patters encouraged

Conclusions first, then look for support

Accept supporting evidence, ignore evidence to the contrary

Emotional reasoning

Wild leaps of logic

Faith is superior to evidence

Science works better

Scientific explanations work better than supernatural explanations

Data comes from observing the natural world, so we can do experiments

Supernatural world is hypothetical and unobservable

Easy to tell the difference between two competing natural hypotheses by doing experiments

Can’t tell the difference between two supernatural hypotheses

Not required to believe in hypothetical beings

Even so…

Even when we know about the scientific method

We still need to realise that were seeing a part of the picture

Future observations may cause paradigm shifts

Need to stay open to new evidence

Be prepared to change our views if evidence requires it

Hold believes tentatively

Is there harm in a false belief?

Tigers poached for genitals, bones, etc – use in back market, Chinese medicine

Prayer used instead of medical care – 11 year old died

Are superstitions and science compatible?

Many scientific people hold superstitions.

That’s not the issue

Can you do science and superstition at the same time?

Science and superstition are

Fundamentally different ways of seeing the world and trying to understand problems.

They use different mechanisms

And react differently to confirmation

Science vs Faith

“cartoon” diagram

The advantage

Using rations science basked explanations helps to

Keep from getting fooled, etc

The Magical Wishing Ferret

Rub his belly

Give Daniel chocolate

Just believe!!

UWA Secular Week - Aaron Alderman

2009-08-04T21:35:00.000+08:00

The slides from my talk can be found here
http://groups.google.com/group/uwaatheists/files

I felt my talk went well, based on comments from others. I took up 47 and rushed because I was covering a lot of ground. My goal wasn't to debunk Christianity per se (the title was to get people interested, I think 30-50 people turned up), it was mainly about tackling the bible.

UWA Secular Week - Diana Warnock

2009-08-03T16:01:00.000+08:00

Diana Warnock spoke at Secular Week detailing the history of secularism in Perth, in particular her role in the parliament and how she campaigned for abortion rights for women.

Here are some notes I took from her talk:

Diana Warnock
MP – 2 terms – Humanist of the year 1999
Godless in Perth

In opposition when in parliament
Not allowed to heckle the first speech – hecklers allowed after
Atheism in past 2 years has gone from “do not talk about it” to “talk about it loudly” – thanks to Dawkins, Harris
Acknowledged as a point of view
Fundamentalist Christians annoyed!
ABS – Many more ticking no religion in census
Civil celebrants as popular as religious celebrants

2005 – 40th year of humanists in WA
Perth Technical College – First meeting – lecturers and friends
Against Vietnam war
Make a stand against the war
Basic aim – forum for discussion – moral issues and questions for those who disregard belief in God
Support rational solutions to human problems
Promotion of civil liberties
Secular education
Lobby for secular (1975) celebrants
Public education, environment, euthanasia, creationism, abortion

1970’s
Community SW-WA (Denmark)
It was the 70’s!!
“Intentional community”

This year
Darwin day

Why did people join the humanists?
People of likemind
Similar views
Tired of the religious, want to be in a secular space

Why am I a humanist?
Religious education 5-17
Never prayed! Didn’t believe
Didn’t abandon religion
Religious schools were perceived to be better – strict, controlling
Unable to believe in the supernatural
Interested in moral values and ethics
“Godless atheist” -> “Godless in Perth” - not offensive anymore!!
Middle class people were “religious”
Wasn’t acceptable to talk about religion…
Never had a religious talk with parents - they were 88!

Godless Atheists can have morals and ethics
Many people with ethics and morals don’t have a god.
Some people were bad even though they were religious
Those churches more interested in sex life than inequalities in society (50’s)
Talked in a Synagogue to fight for inequality (in her 20’s)
Catholics immovable

In a Catholic mass for a funeral
Never had talked about religion – not an issue – didn’t talk about, wasn’t important
Not anti-religion, a-religious.
Serious about keeping civil society free of “one persons religion”
Should be secular
Justice not religious backing

Tony Abbott – Captain Catholic – health minister wanted rights to deny RU486 because of religious reasons
Catholics should be free not to take it themselves
Should not tell other people what to do…
Moral value in most human activists – private matter (moral and values in the 50’s were a private matter)
Should not be decided by a religious person who is a health minister

Case:
Let’s say someone believed blood transfusions were bad – they became health minister – imagine what would happen to the health system
Rich people could have gone around abortion laws – could have done it in this case
Would this be acceptable?
Medical decisions in medical grounds
Should not force people to have or not have an abortion

Personal choice, personal moral choice.
Humanists don’t seek to publically berate people about their religion
Only if it affects the general population should one speak out
Separation of church and state

Parading religion in public – Kevin Rudd, Tony Abbott
Directed at getting a vote!

No one asked her in parliament in religion
“Very Australian”
Asked to attend services in all kinds of churches, etc
Made many donations to religious donations
It’s what you do as MP
Willing to help all comers

Leader of Pro-Choice 1998
Two catholic schools did not ask for her to visit
MPs supposed to go to schools in the district – there were 6 catholic in the area
Was asked “not to come back again” – wasn’t happy with it
Some made no comment – some said they are entitled to her view
Some Catholic + Jewish had no problem with her view at all

Jeffery Barker – Aust Fin Review
Aussies must reject policies of faith
“We aren’t better people because of faith”
Consequences on democratic politics
Intolerance, authoritarian, poisonous teachings
Non negotiable disputes!!
Political Lesson: Compromise is not a dirty word!!!
Respect views of believes and non-believers.
Cannot say one religious group has “true” and can impose their values
Politics arises from diversity

Lead a prayer – call one a scumbag afterwards
Compassion, decent, courageous is more about personality than religious
Judge people by character (Martin Luther King)

Fair-go for the “Godless Atheists”
Not abusive now – used to be

3 months - 800 pages in Hansard – abortion debate
Death threats, faeces, plastic foetuses in mail
Atheists have right to point of view – not immoral

UWA Secular Week

2009-07-31T22:03:00.000+08:00

Tuesday I will be giving a talk for the UWA Atheist and Agnostic Societies "Secular Week". I will be giving basically the same talk I presented to the Perth Atheist's Meet-up group (approx 21 people came) earlier last month which went well (apart from not showing the powerpoint presentation!!)

Thomas Sutton blogged about it here.

I plan on live-blogging the week!

The Atheist Agnostic Society presents the very first UWA secular week on the 3rd of August. It's basically a week of science, skepticism, and secularism where we have a whole bunch of events and speakers and things. It also happens to be close to national science week.

This year we have some awesome guest speakers, Richard Saunders and Dr Rachael Dunlop from the Skeptic Zone, who will hopefully present a talk on Saturday the 8th. We're trying to raise some money for their flights over here. http://skepticzone.wordpress.com/2009/07/01/get-skeptic-zone-to-perth/

As well as this we will have a number of other events throughout the week. So far we have a couple of other guest speakers, a flying spaghetti monster themed bbq, and a fundraising game we invented based on Pascal's wager.

Richard Saunders and Dr Rachael Dunlop have confirmed that they'll be coming and giving a presentation at UWA. The venue is booked and everything, but we still need to raise money for their flights. Here's the event for that:
http://www.facebook.com/event.php?eid=114887206313&ref=mf

Currently, here is a full list of secular week events:

MONDAY - Talk by Diana Warnock, former state politician, women's rights activist, and Humanist of the Year 1999 on "Godless in Perth"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diana_Warnock
http://www.facebook.com/event.php?eid=245948600005

TUESDAY - Talk by Aaron Alderman - "Debunking Christianity"

WEDNESDAY - FSM BBQ & Pascal's Wager on Oak Lawn

THURSDAY - Atheists in the Tav!
Also, unrelated to us, Sci Tech is having a Comedy Debate: "Would God or Science win in a fight?"

FRIDAY -
Talk by Daniel Midgley
Talk by Dr Michael Tan - "The immorality of religion"

SAT - Free public lecture by Rachael Dunlop and Richard Saunders
http://www.facebook.com/event.php?eid=114887206313&ref=mf

SUN - Perth Atheists Meetup, come along and meet the wider atheist community in our fair city.

Eucharistic Miracle??

2009-05-28T20:48:00.001+08:00

Are credulous people attracted to religion, or does religion make people credulous?

Manchester Faith & Culture Examiner's Dyan Puma asked "Will Atheists accept this science" where she makes the case for a Eucharistic miracle occurring and how it has been "scientifically determined".

Well, I am an atheist and a scientist in training so I will examine this case and put forward my opinion.

I would further offer that if the Atheist has not found this truth, it is either because he or she has not accepted, or does not posses, the gift of faith. But, whoever sincerely seeks to believe, will find all the evidence necessary to believe.

So first of all this is offensive. She is blaming the atheist for not coming to the same conclusion as herself. What is this "gift of faith" she talks about? Why is this gift not available to everyone? It seems insulting to suggest God gives some this gift but not all, even those who did sincerely seek to believe. (She will no doubt claim the atheist never really truly wanted to believe)

When she says "sincerely seeks to believe", she is basically saying that we should remember all the good things and those things which confirm our beliefs and ignore those things which are bad and don't confirm what we want to believe. At all costs we must not question the validity of any of these "evidences", we should just accept that they are what we are looking for.

To turn the tables on her, I'm going to claim that as a religious person she has not found the truth because she has let her faith blind her to the evidence which goes against her religious beliefs. If only she would be more critical and skeptical of her religion, then she would see the truth. She has never sincerely wanted to seek the truth because she doesn't accept evidence which goes against her belief. If only she would be more open minded.

What is a Eucharistic Miracle?
Roman Catholics believe that when a priest says some hocus pocus over some bread and wine, it transforms into the actual body and blood of Jesus. Every Catholic must truly believe it is the literal body and blood or Jesus or they are committing a grave sin. They then eat Jesus' body and drink Jesus' blood. These beliefs were formulated before the days of DNA and before science could actually tell the difference between someone's flesh and bread. Basically they believe in magic.

If we were to take any sample of bread or wine and put it under the microscope, one would not be able to tell the difference between a consecrated or unconsecrated host. (That is, we could not tell which one had been changed by the priest and which one hasn't) Catholics have gotten around this by maintaining that it really does change but not in a physical sense, but it changes in essence. This is just a fancy way of saying their initial beliefs were wrong, but because they can never be wrong they change the definition of works so that science can't prove them wrong.

A Eucharistic miracle is when the bread and/or wine (or one of them) actually physically changes. You know, it does what Catholics believe it does...

The back story

Emphasis is intentional...

A Basilian monk, wise in the ways of the world, but not in the ways of faith, was having trouble with his belief in the real presence of Our Lord in the Eucharist. He prayed constantly for relief from his doubts, and from the fear that he was losing his vocation. He suffered day after day as he went through the routine of his priesthood, as these doubts continued to gnaw at him.

The situation in the world did not help him. There were many heresies cropping up all the time, which kept chipping away at his faith; some were within the church as well as from the outside. This monk couldn't help but become more and more convinced by the logic of these heresies, especially the one concerning his particular problem - the physical presence of Jesus in the Eucharist.

And then...

One morning, during a very strong attack of doubt, he began the Consecration of the Mass. He used the same size host which is used in the Latin Rite masses today. What he beheld as he consecrated the bread and wine caused his hands to shake, indeed his whole body began to tremble. He stood for a long time with his back to the people, and finally turned to them slowly.

He said, "O fortunate witnesses to whom the Blessed God, to confound my disbelief, has wished to reveal Himself in the Most Blessed Sacrament and to render Himself visible to our eyes. Come brethren, and marvel at our God so close to us. Behold the Flesh and Blood of our most beloved Christ."

The host had turned into Flesh, and the wine, into Blood.

Now the final line is telling. The story goes that the host turned into flesh, but isn't this what happens every time? Well in this case it was an actual transformation, or at least that is the impression people got.

They tested the skin and blood and found, lo and behold, it was "real".

The Flesh is real flesh and the Blood is real blood.
Both the Flesh and the Blood belong to the human species.
The Flesh and the Blood have the same blood type, AB, which matches the blood that was identified on the Shroud of Turin. This type of blood is found in roughly 3% of human beings, but in 14-15% of those living in certain parts of Palestine and the Middle East.
The Flesh consists of the muscular tissue of the heart.
In the Flesh, the following body parts are present: the myocardium; the endocardium; the vagus nerve; and the left ventricle.
In the Blood there were found proteins in the same normal proportions as are found in the fresh blood of a living person.
In the Blood there were found the following minerals: chlorides, phosphorus, magnesium, potassium, sodium and calcium.
The five clots of Blood, though different in shape and size, are equal in weight. Also, one of the clots weighs as much as two, and two as much as three. Whether one clot, two clots or five clots are weighed, they always amount to 15.85 grams.
The preservation of the Flesh and the Blood, which were left in their natural state for twelve centuries and exposed to the action of atmospheric and biological agents, remains an extraordinary phenomenon.

Is this a miracle?

I have no doubt the flesh is really someone's heart. I have no doubt the blood is someone's blood. In fact if I never knew that "over 500 testes were conducted, all of which supported the conclusions listed above", I still would have been willing to concede that the flesh was really someone's heat and the blood is someone's blood.

Was it a miracle? No!

What I want to know is why the police were not involved. This was not a miracle. The monk decided to scam the credulous by stealing flesh from someone's heart (hopefully from a cadaver) and taking their blood. He did this to draw attention to himself, to quell the heresies and fool the credulous that his religion which he had doubts about was really true. This is a classic example of "lying for Jesus" (that is to say, for the common good, or for the glory of God).

Summary

Catholics believe bread and wine can magically turn into Jesus' body and blood when a priest mumbles some incantations over it. Of course we know that in reality this does not happen nor do Catholics really believe this because when it actually happens, it gets turned into a "miracle". It also follows that they are less likely to actually eat the flesh and blood if it was actually flesh and blood. To do so would be cannibalism and disgusting.

The fact that this so-called miracle happened when this monk was having doubts over whether or not the Eucharist actually turns into the body and blood of Jesus is sufficient reason to doubt anything special happened that day. He stole the flesh from someone's heart and took some blood to convince everyone and the heretics a miracle happened and the credulous fell for it. There is nothing scientific for the atheist to explain. It was a fraud and a scam.

How to Scientificallty Verify a Miracle

Can science say anything about miracles? Yes!

Get a priest into a room with say ten scientists. Make sure the scientists are impartial with a variety of religions and backgrounds. Make sure there are video recorders, microphones and viewers in another room to ensure impartiality.

Let the priest bring say a box of 100 wafers and say 100mL of wine. Make sure the priest does not have any blood or flesh with him. Get the scientists to verify the wafters are bread and the wine is wine.

Let the priest say his words over the wafer and wine making sure that at no time he touches anything (unless its part of the procedure) with the video recorders and observers watching him for any magic tricks.

Get the scientists to check to see if the wafters of wine have turned into flesh and blood.

Do this as many times as necessary. At any time, should the scientists verify that the bread and wine have turned into flesh and blood. It would be reasonable to conclude that a miracle occured.

Just like any supernatural test in the past - we know this will fail, and will always fail and the true believers will rationalise it and make up every excuse in the book. For those who think it will work, well James Randi will give you a million if you can prove it (why not give it to charity?).

Conclusions

David Hume would conclude that it is far more likely that this monk engaged in fraud than a miracle occurred. Given the back story, the probability of fraud is even higher. It doesn't matter how many times we study the flesh or blood.

Let me give an analogy. A magician appears to cut someone in half in a box, he spins the two halves of the box around, joins them together and the person exists the box unharmed. Studying the person who was apparently cut in half does not mean the person was really cut in half, no matter how many times you "scientifically" check them.

The Response to the "New Atheists"

2009-05-25T16:24:00.000+08:00

In 2002 Richard Dawkins presented a talk to TED called "An Atheist Call to Arms". Four years later, after Kitzmiller vs Dover (the famous evolution versus intelligent design court decision) "The God Delusion" represents the start of a movement known as "New Atheism" where atheists are called to unite under a common banner, to come out of the closet and to admit that they don't believe in any god's and everyone else should get used to it.

Four books by four authors stand as the benchmark for the tone and arguments set forth by the New Atheists.

"The God Delusion" by Richard Dawkins
"The End of Faith" by Sam Harris
"god Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything" by Christopher Hitchens
"Breaking the Spell" by Daniel Dennett

Since then a number of other books have been published on Atheism on various specific topics including philosophy, science, New Testament scholarship, skepticism and deconversion stories/arguments.

Since then the Christian propaganda machine has been working overtime to discredit these New Atheists. I've compiled a list of books I've found on Amazon which are responses mainly directed at Dawkins, but also at the "new atheists". This list is not likely to be complete. As I find new books, I will add them to this list.

" The Irrational Atheist: Dissecting... " by Vox Day
" The reason for God: Belief in an age of skepticism " by Timothy Keller
" The Truth Behind the New Atheism " by David Marshall
" The Devil's Delusion: Atheism and Its Science... " by David Berlinski
" The Dawkins Delusion? Atheism Fundamentalism " by Alister McGrath
" God's undertaker: Has science buried God? " by John Lennox
" The End of Reason: A response to the new atheists " by Ravi Zacharias
" God and the new atheism " by John Haught
" The Truth about Jesus and the "Lost Gospels" " by David Marshall
" The New Atheist Crusades and their unholy... " by Becky Garrison
" Answering the new atheism: Dismantling Dawkins... " by Scott Hahn
" God is no Delusion: A refutation of Richard Dawkins " by Thomas Crean
" The Twilight of Atheism: The rise and fall of... " by Alister McGrath
" Atheism Remix: A Christian Confronts the new atheists " by R. Albert Mohler
" The Dawkins Letters: Challenging the atheist myths " by David Robertson
" The Delusion of Disbelief: Why the new atheism is... " by David Aikman
" Atheism is false Richard Dawkins and the Impossible... " by Reuben Stone
" Letter to an atheist " by Michael Patrick Leahy
" I don't have enough faith to be an atheist " by Normal Geisler
" No One sees God: The Dark Night of Atheists and... " by Michael Novak
" The New Atheists: The twilight of reason and the... " by Tina Beattie
" Atheist Delusions: The Christian revolution... " by David Bentley Hart
" Dawkins' GOD: Genes, memes and the meaning of life " by Alister McGrath
" The Real Face of Atheism " by Ravi Zacharias

Cullingreviewingus

2009-05-23T22:30:00.000+08:00

I've noticed lately that the number of blogs I have subscribed to has gone through the roof (in a variety of subjects from atheism to cartoons to finance and science, etc). The same could be said of the number of YouTube channels I have subscribed too as well. Add to this Slashdot and New Scientist and it takes me a couple of hours per day to get through the "news". Because of this, I'm going to have to cull some blogs from my list...

Anyway, here are the blogs about Atheism I frequently visit and a general review of them.

Continually Updated
Pharyungla
Goes without saying really. PZ is an Internet star (is this an achievement?) and outspoken atheist in the mould of Richard Dawkins. This is atheist blog central. At first I found the blog to be annoying because there were so many posts each day - but now I enjoy the many musings and its the first stop in getting atheist news. PZ's character and intellect make this a good blog to visit. Plenty of Christian trolls to feed.

Friendly Atheist
The guy who sold his soul on EBay has a book and a blog. Hemant is an ex-Jain and has a unique perspective on atheism in America. Just like the name of the blog suggests - his posts are always cordial and friendly. Sometimes Friendly Atheist is ahead of PZ in news - sometimes he makes the news. Has become a favourite of mine. Not that many Christian trolls.

Unreasonable Faith
Daniel Florien's blog is similar to Friendly Atheist with news, videos, opinions, unique ways of looking at things, etc. Not that many Christian trolls but the comment section can have a lively discussion.

The Atheist Experience
The blog of the stars TV Show (Channel FFreeThinker on YouTube). There is usually an extensive post or two from ex-Christians and others who tackle the nuts and bots of the culture wars and Atheism versus Theism debate. Considering they are based in Texas, this is ground zero to the next Intelligent Design versus Evolution battle in the classroom.

Debunking Christianity
John W. Loftus's blog based on the book "Why I became an atheist" tackles many aspects of Christianity. The level of discourse is always intelligent and the guest bloggers always add something extra. Debunking Christianity is a troll magnet, thanks to John's personality, the title of the blog and presence on TheologyWeb.

Frequently Updated
Common Sense Atheism
Luke is a young athiest who goes to great lengths to provide respect to Christians, Christian Philosophers and Religious Studies and presents them to lay people in an accessible way. The most valuable resource on this blog are 400+ atheist/theist debates and his continual reminder that even atheists are prone to not using common sense or rationality. Christian trolls are generally respectful.

Evaluating Christianity
A lawyer evaluates Christianity. I find it always interesting to hear the viewpoints of different atheists in different professions and why they reject Christianity. As a scientist its interesting to hear an intelligent perspective from a lawyer. Has quickly become a favourite of mine.

Moderately Updated
Kelosophy
Fellow Australian. The atheism movement isn't as prominent (or needed) here in Australia but its good to hear from a fellow Aussie who shares similar views and can express it intelligently.

Good Reason
Fellow West Aussie and member of the UWA Atheist and Agnostic society. Interestingly - an exmormon.

ex-apologist
I found this blog when reading up on religious philosophy. I have found it to be a good source of philosophical arguments against theism.

Infrequently Updated
Failing the Insider Test
The guy who wrote this blog made a few posts on a Facebook Christian/Atheist discussion. I enjoyed his intelligent and thoughtful (although infrequent) ideas about how as a theist, Christianity didn't pass the "insider test". The quality of posts make up for the lack of posts!

Richard Carrier Blog
Richard Carrier rarely updates his blog. Can sometimes be a source of great gems, but otherwise few and far between. If you like the work of Carrier, you can find some of his early thoughts here.

Steven Carr's Blog
I like Steven's style and his writings. Usually says the same things over and over again because his critics cannot answer them.

Plantinga-Dennett Debate Review, Review

2009-05-18T11:54:00.000+08:00

I may give my own take on the Plantinga - Dennett "debate" or exchange later, but for now I am going to review a review of this exchange. This review was what lead me to listen to the debate so I could judge for myself. By the way, this is going to be somewhat of a rant...

As a person with short hair, even I couldn't help pulling out my hair out at this debate review of the Plantinga - Dennett exchange which can be found HERE.

I prefer to remain anonymous for various reasons, in particular because I am inclined towards Plantinga's position over Dennett's and were this to become well-known it could damage or destroy my career in analytic philosophy. This is something I prefer not to put my family through. I almost didn't publish these comments at all, but as far as I could tell, this would be the only public record of the discussion.

Actually Sir, I can see why this review could destroy your career in analytic philosophy and it has nothing to do with the fact that you are a theist. (By the way, nice way to play the "persecuted" Christian card...) I would say it is because you have problems grasping simple comprehension and concepts which should be obvious to any philosopher. (Or heck, layperson!) You take great joy in attacking Dennett, yet seem oblivious to what he is actually saying. I would venture to say that people such as yourself and your fellow Christian well-poisoners are damaging American Philosophy (I say American because its an American phenomenon) because of your inability to consider the potential falsity of your position. (Yes I understand that you might feel the same way about us secularists, but at least we are "allowed" to consider positions which go against what we believe)

It is perhaps the first time in centuries that Christians have been such a high concentration of professional philosophers.

Am I surprised the well-poisoners are entering philosophy? No, because they tried and failed to get in the front door of science with the likes of Intelligent Design, so now they are going around the back to "destroy" methodological naturalism and the scientific method. As a scientist I must cackle (in a mad scientist kind of way) because science was founded on theistic beliefs and philosophy and has eroded them ever since. Modern theistic philosophy is required because of this and I see "professional" theistic philosophers such as Craig, Van Inwagen and Plantinga as being "science deniers", who pick and choose the bits of science (or pseudoscience in the case of Intelligent Design) which support their positions.

Dennett has arrived and is setting up his equipment. It seems appropriate somehow that Dennett would be using technological equipment where Plantinga gives a more traditional sort of talk.

2:20 pm - Plantinga enters. The tension between the titans fills the room.

2:21 pm - No immediate greeting between the two figures. Dennett stares at his computer. It is awkward.

2:25 pm - Still no eye contact. Both figures appear uncomfortable. I'm probably reading into their body language, but they seem to realize that something hangs on the match.

2:27 pm - Plantinga attempts to make eye contact with Dennett. Dennett still refuses.

2:29 pm - Dennett and Plantinga make awkward attempts at conversation. Dennett still seems uninterested. I wonder what this foreshadows.

Dennett notably doesn't clap for Plantinga.

2:35 pm - Plantinga begins to speak. He looks like Abraham Lincoln. Dennett looks like Santa Claus. Feel free to imagine these two as those characters.

Juvenile...This reviewer is clearly trying to paint Dennett as "hostile".

Plantinga seems more concerned with careful, methodical, clear philosophy, Dennett with exciting, compelling, shocking ideas.

Um...what? Plantinga is the one with shocking ideas, such as the next one...

He [Plantinga] even mentions that outrageous (to the naturalist) idea that the demons are part of the errors in human development. Dennett is clearly stunned and amused. He probably thinks Plantinga's claims are insane or at least silly. Plantinga's orthodoxy is completely unabashed. It is commendable that he is wholly without embarrassment, something rare for a modern Christian. Perhaps it signals an attitude to come.

Not being embarrassed about positing demons as part of the errors in human development?!?!

The Christian doesn't have to change her views according to current science.

If I could sum up Plantinga's argument in one sentence, it would be that.

Dennett is shaking his head and continues to appear amused. Imagine Santa with a sense for the absurd and ironic and a strong snarky streak. Less appealing, admittedly, but still an interesting character.

The lame insults continue...

Dennett claps!

If this doofus didn't include the exclamation mark, I wouldn't have complained, but I see this as indicative of the overall tone of this review. Dennett the snarky, mean spirited, atheist devil against warm, inviting Plantinga who stands up in the face of evil unabashed with his Christian orthodoxy. Style over substance, Aristotle over Plato. It gets worse...The next part takes place during Dennett's rebuttal/commentary.

Contemporary evolutionary theory can't rule out ID. "Except on grounds that it is an entirely gratuitous fantasy." Is the punchline an insult?!

Yes Sir, it is an insult - and the fact that you did not "get it" speaks volumes. As a follower of Plantinga, this does not surprise me! Dennett obviously explains this...

Sure, the intelligent theist can keep going on believing. He calls theistic belief a fairy tale. Now he's getting explicitly insulting. He thinks theistic belief can corrupt our common epistemological fabric and involve theism into politics.

He was correct and his examples were appropriate.

He shows a slide mocking the eschatological views of Christians.

What is not to be mocked about those who take the view that the world must end, and end in the most bloody and violent terms possible - AND - who seek to self-fulfill this prophecy?

He calls theism an unrespectable position, and compares it to astrology. He says it is irrational and doesn't deserve respect.

Yes he did "compare" but he didn't say they were equivalent. He was equating the effects of fantasies (such as astrology) on our epistemological fabric and noting that astrology is mild whereas public policy can be based on the fantasies of theism.

He compares theism to holocaust deniers and things have gone off the rails. This is outrageous.

He compared them because holocaust deniers do affect the epistemological fabric of society! The whole point he was trying to make is that there are many fantasies, some mild and can be tolerated (astrology) and others toxic (holocaust denialers, "Obama is the anti-Christ"ers) all of which can be entirely consistent with what we observe in reality...this does not make them true, nor beneficial to society. If we are to accept Plantinga's special plea for the acceptance of theism, the floodgates open to all sorts of unverifiable claims, some benign, some toxic. If the author spent less time being offended and more time understanding he would see that Dennett "won" this point by showing the absurdity of Plantinga's appeal.

All Plantinga must do to beat Dennett now is to reply with grace. For Plantingian dry wit, this is easy.

And there we have it ladies and gentleman...All you have to do to show Christianity is true when an argument has been shown to be fallacious - you just have to reply with grace...

"Is Plantinga's theism in any better position than these other fantasies?" He's going to create a Plantinga-guided natural selection. It is hard to explain, but the argument basically mocks Plantinga. I am incensed. The response is a long string of insults, and little more. This is pathetic. I had more faith in Dennett. He is just making the Flying Spaghetti Monster argument and getting laughs from real, intolerant jerks.

Now I can tell the reviewer has lost all sense of objectivity and his mind has closed up tight completely impervious to what Dennett was saying, and all he can hear are "insults". What Dennett did was to cleverly use Plantinga's argument and show that it is just as valid if we posit that the intelligent designer or intervener was Superman. Yes it was a "Flying Spaghetti Monster" argument, and yes, it is a valid counter-argument.

It is going on and on. Sigh. I wanted this to be interesting! Dennett does not understand what a disservice he does his cause by not taking his smartest opponents seriously. He will lose thoughtful acolytes as a result.

His "smartest" opponents are only working within a specific framework that they themselves have decided to snooker themselves into. Many secular philosophers understand this. If you cut one of your own legs off, don't be surprised if you cannot compete with the two legged runners. It is perhaps cruel of us to make fun of the one legged runners, but the one legged runners were arrogant and presumed they could run as faster and some even said they would be faster than the best two legged runners. (Think of one leg as "there is a God" and the other leg "there is no God", and that by working together they can be better than if one leg was removed - which goes for either side...)

Dennett has made himself extremely vulnerable because he is mocking Plantinga, who is arguably one of the finest epistemologists of the last fifty years.

I think the reviewer has placed Plantinga on a pedestal in his mind and is let down that Dennett doesn't want to play according to his rules.

Plantinga can't champion Behe and Dennett is going to mock him. I thought so.

And? What do you expect? Plantinga decided to base an argument on Behe's discredited work. What does that tell you about the effectiveness of this line of argumentation on someone who advocates science as a tool for knowledge? Any argument which involved the flatness of Earth would also be a ridiculous line of enquiry and would be concerned more with fantasy (some other world) than reality.

Dennett recounts Plantinga and Peter Van Inwagen's invitation to debate Behe in 1997. He is seriously mocking not only Plantinga but Van Inwagen as well. He thought the Behe book was a joke and this made Plantinga and Van Inwagen look bad.

The guys who cut their leg off found a wheelchair but were disqualified because it goes against the rules.

For those on the fence, they will likely think Dennett is being a serious jerk.

I agree that Dennett was going after Plantinga with all guns blazing. This isn't a tea party, its supposed to be a serious philosophical conference and discussion. Dennett however treated Plantinga's arguments as seriously as was warranted, and I have a feeling the reviewer has some left over hostility from the previous point.

Again, all he needs to do is judge that the probability of cell complexity is higher on theism than naturalism. It appears that Dennett's reply is that Plantinga has no justifiable method of making the relevant probability judgments. There's a subtle implication that because Plantinga isn't a scientist he should shut up.

Give the boy a prize he has finally figured it out. How can these theologians perform arm-chair navel-gazing science? Until they get their hands dirty in the lab, they are not in a position to judge these things. (Especially considering they are naturalism denialers) To make these proclamations still requires them to stand on the shoulders of scientific giants. Its one big argument from personal incredulity. "*I* don't see how its probable, therefore its not probable."

Just like no lay-person can estimate with high precision whether or not a bridge will fall down, under what conditions and when, no lay-person can judge the probability of the likelihood a cell could have resulted from naturalism. You need to get your hands dirty - ironically in a field where the majority are secularists. Picking the discredited work of a person who even has a disclaimer attached to the universities website is NOT how science is done, and supports Dennett's claim that Plantinga cannot base his probabilities on anything meaningful.

Dennett has effectively made the discussion ideological.

Science versus fantasy. How is Plantinga's work any less of an ideology? Remember the Wedge Strategy...

but I am still open, though a bit upset by Dennett's truly nasty comments.

Objectivity was lost a long time ago.

Dennett is ending with a joke. He is now going after the Christian fish. It is clear that something terrible is coming.

Cause Dennett is "teh Devil" right?

"Destroy the author of things to discover the nature of the universe."
...
Basically, he is talking about murdering God. Dennett has revealed a deep wickedness in his character. I will never take him seriously as a philosopher again.

Oh boy...Murdering God?? He is no more murdering God than Nietzsche when he said "God is dead". Dennett's point is crystal clear. If we want to move on to discovering the nature of the universe, either from a scientific or philosophical point of view, then we should discard the fantasies of the past. The fact that this reviewer thinks that it is a "wickedness" says something about the nature of the reviewer and their lack of ability to comprehend what someone is saying. I also wonder why whether someone is "wicked" or "nice" is a conditionality to taking them seriously?

Conclusion

I have a feeling this secret undercover reporter is not a philosopher at a secular university who must surpress his name for fear of losing his job. I actually think its more likely that this person is a random bible believing Christian who judges an argument based on the character of the person presenting it, rather than on the value of the truth itself. If this person is a philosopher, then I have nothing but contempt for them for losing their objectivity, missing many crucial points and getting emotional and substituting an argument with an appeal to authority. The obsession of the reviwer with the character of Dennett reveals that he wants any excuse to not listen and dismiss Dennett's arguments, like so many closed minded people who focus on anything other than the argument at hand.

Blog Comments
This was an honest and frank review of the debate by a Christian left in the blog comments.

If Plantinga can't defend the relevance of the arguments he's making for the whole discussion then what good is it to bother to make the argument.
...
Is Dennett really misrepresenting the project of scientific inquiry or are we Christians really unwilling to admit that the strictness of scientific method and practice makes us appear more like fideists by our own agendas to understand the universe?
...
I can't blame the atheists for their tactics if we're not going to make a choice between offering a solid defense or admitting and being willful participants in a brand of fideism.

- Blake

Reincarnation, Castes and Sin

2009-05-18T00:36:00.000+08:00

I was reading through a Protestant versus Catholic debate over at the CARM discussion forum (Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry) when I found this quote from a Christian regarding original and generational sin.

Infants might not commit too many sins, but have inherited generational curses, which are judgements that are passed on to individuals because of sins perpetuated in a family in a number of generations. Generational curses are similar to original sin curses because they can be passed down on a generational basis. They differ in that generational curses do not impose eternal judgement. They bring judgement or bondage during an individual's life, reducing the quality of life, until that individual addresses the sin issues that put the curses into place.

This is similar in spirit to the beliefs of Buddhists (Tibetan or otherwise) who believe that if someone is born (reincarnation) into a lower caste, they deserve it because of some indiscretion in a previous life. Conversely if someone is born into a higher caste, they deserve it because they were wronged or were good in a previous life.

On the surface it appears to be a rather benign belief however behind these unprovable dogmas lies injustice and inequality. To compound the misery of being born into the lower class, one is subjected to extra punishment because they obviously deserve it...Thus gives slave masters the rite to beat their slaves should they try to escape or rebel.

One can see why these beliefs became influential - like many unfounded religious beliefs, they are good for the control of the populace and keeping the status quo in favour of those born with a silver spoon in their mouth.

“Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful.” - Seneca

Perhaps most disappointing, this isn't something that was left in the past but was present in Tibet circa 1950. This is what bothers me about the "Free Tibet" movement. Do they understand that it was actually really bad for the lower class before China "liberated" them? (Not that communistic China with religious intolerance is necessarily better) Are they just returning the power to those who never deserved it in the first place, those who believe they ought to be in power through divine rite? One can only hope that the Dalai Lama has used his time in exile to Westernise himself and strive for a progressive Tibet, should China ever allow secession. However I very much doubt China will relinquish Tibet unless a Soviet style collapse occured - in other words, very unlikely.

As a final note I don't find it surprising that those who hold onto these beliefs and vigorously defend them are the ones who were born on the right side of the ledger. Golden rule be damned!

True Scotsman?

2009-05-15T18:50:00.000+08:00

I've noticed in discourses between ex-Christians and Christians the following sometimes takes place...

Ex: I used to be a Christian, but I no longer believe.
C: So you were never a true Christian?
Ex: I used to believe I was.
C: Clearly you were never a true Christian because true Christians are once saved, always saved.
Ex: But I used to believe I was.
C: But you are not now, hence you were never a true Christian.
Ex: That's an example of a "No True Scotsman" fallacy.

Is the ex-Christian right here or is there something he is missing?
I believe it depends on which type of Christianity we are talking about here.

For Calvinists the Christian is correct here but they are speaking a different language. For Calvinists if you are not a Calvinist at death, then you were never meant to be saved. If you are a Calvinist at death then you were always meant to be saved. The confusion comes about because Calvinists do not advocate Free Will, therefore before time, God had chosen who were the chosen ones and who were reprobate.

Therefore it is reasonable for the Calvinist to state that an ex-Christian was never saved because they fell away. This of course neglects the possibility that the ex-Christian might come back to their faith - in which case they were meant to be saved, etc ad nauseum.

So if someone pulls the "once saved, always saved line" or the No True Scotsman - chances are they might be a Baptist or any protestant sect which relies on the teachings of John Calvin.

Heaven

2009-05-15T17:19:00.000+08:00

Revelation 12:7,8
7 And there was war in heaven. Michael and his angels fought against the dragon, and the dragon and his angels fought back.
8 But he was not strong enough, and they lost their place in heaven.

Based on Genesis 1:1, I could perhaps reasonably presume that the angels were created along with heaven (and the earth). If they were created earlier or later this would not invalidate my argument - but I believe its reasonable to presume they had to have been created. I would also like to presume that the devil was not created evil but became evil through his own free will. If the devil was created evil, this means God creates evil things.

Why then did the devil go against God and wage war in heaven? This question, when taken to its logical conclusion will form the thesis behind my belief that heaven is nonsensical.

What is heaven?

Despite heaven as being the goal for most Christians, not much is known about what to expect, what the rules are, etc. The bible is very vague on these matters, but it gives the overall impression that heaven is a "good thing" and worth aspiring to (as opposed to hell with its fire and distance from God, the latter being inconsequential to those who do not believe). The characteristics appeal to our emotions that we wish to meet those we love in the next life and there will be no suffering or injustice. Could the reason why the specifics of heaven are not known be because God doesn't exist and heaven is wishful thinking?

Like many other theological constructs, we have no physical or accessible evidence of heaven so one has to take these issues on faith. I have no reason to believe mere wishful thinking is enough to make something real, otherwise contradictory wishes could not be separated as true versus false. A Christian believes and wishes heaven exists, a Buddhist believes and wishes reincarnation occurs after death. Given this, I cannot believe in heaven as an atheist.

Can I Speculate?
Even though I do not believe in an actual heaven, I wish to speculate on some characteristics that it might have. Is it possible to discuss something one does not believe actually exists? I believe so, I can discuss an imaginary animal (say a dolphin which has evolved intelligence) and state its characteristics (DNA, large brain, ability to communicate) despite my knowledge that it does not exist. In my opinion these speculations are reasonable.

We know these games of speculation occur in works of fiction and fantasy. Many role players have guidelines associated with characters of which people agree are not real. I have even been witness to many heated conversations over these invented characters. Therefore I am justified in believing one can use logic and reasoning in speculating on fictional or fantasy worlds - including heaven (regardless of its existence).

Reasonable Assumptions
I would like to propose the following propositions associated with heaven which I believe are reasonable.

Free will exists in heaven
Humans have free will in heaven
Heaven will last forever
Hell is the opposite to heaven
The devil cannot reenter heaven

Justifying These Assumptions

Free will exists in heaven
Free will must exist in heaven otherwise the angles and Satan could not have rebeled against God unless they were designed to rebel against God. So free will exists in heaven unless God creates evil beings - which goes against the common characteristics of God.

Humans have free will in heaven
If humans did not have free will in heaven, the following would follow.

Free will would be contingent on the human body (it seems odd to give us free will in this life and deny it in the next).
We would be merely robots in heaven.
Free will is better than no free will, therefore heaven would be worse than this life.

I therefore believe free will in heaven is true.

Heaven will last forever
Hell is the opposite to heaven

I believe these to be obvious and does not require justification.

The devil cannot re-enter heaven

This one is harder to justify. It may be that the devil can choose to re-enter heaven but chooses not to. It could be "in the nature" of the devil to resist God. If the devil cannot choose to re-enter heaven, one might argue that he doesn't have free will (in the same way God cannot will to do evil). Given I don't find the Christian notion of evil to be correct - its hard to formulate this in a sensible way...

Using These Assumptions

It should be possible using simple statistically analysis to construct a model of the number of people in heaven at any given time. For a sufficiently large number of people or souls in heaven, we can approximate it as continuous rather than discrete.

N(t=0) = N0

For the non-scientists out there, this statement just says that the number of people in heaven at the start is some value N0

If we assume that when t=0, no more souls are created and all souls which have been created are either in Heaven or Hell, then

Ntotal = Nheaven + Nhell

Which is the law of conservation of souls.

After some time t, we expect some people to have used their free will in heaven to leave and follow Satan. Lets say there are L number of people who do this.

N(t) = N0 - L

Although it is not possible to estimate how many people this would be, based on a simple population dynamics argument, we can assume a proportion of people per unit time will leave or disobey God.

In mathematical terms, this represents a first order differential equation of the form

dN/N = - R dt

Where N is the number in heaven and R is the proportional rate loss of souls in heaven per unit time. For example, if there were one billion people in heaven, and one million souls left in one millenia, the rate would be R = 0.001 people per millennia.

Solving this differential equation with the initial conditions gives us the result

N(t) = N0 Exp(-R t)

Which is a simple exponential decay function. (Think radioactive decay)

Given heaven lasts forever, we can see from the population function that the population of people in heaven will tend to zero as the time t goes to infinity.

Potential "Outs"

Lukeprog over at "Common Sense Atheism" presents a four part series on "Escaping Hell"
Part One
Part Two
Part Three
Part Four

Conclusion

If heaven was one-way, which is to say, you may only enter once and it is possible to leave then it stands to reason, by simple population dynamics that over time, heaven will be devoid of all humans or any souls which have free will. I therefore conclude that this concept of heaven to be absurd and it would be more logical to allow people to re-enter heaven or escape hell.

Why Loftus Should NOT Debate Craig

2009-05-15T16:49:00.000+08:00

I'm a huge fan of John W. Loftus and think he brings more to New Atheism than the four horseman combined. In fact I would like to see more of Loftus around the place. Why Loftus is not as big if not bigger than Hitchens is beyond me. However I am weary about his campaign to debate William Lane Craig.

I could be wrong about this but I see no indication that he is ready to debate Craig. I don't doubt he has the arguments, I doubt he has the most effective message delivery. The recent Carrier v Craig debate was a huge let down. I knew Carrier had good arguments but failed to deliver on the night and given that there was a lot of hype surrounding the debate, it was a disappointing affair. I wonder if Loftus v Craig will turn out the same way?

Has Loftus read every Craig debate? Has he formulated a response to all of his boilerplate arguments? Has he done so in a convincing fashion which will enable him to "win" the debate. Is Loftus even interested in winning the debate or just presenting a case (aka Carrier)? What in Loftus' own book or internet postings could be used against him?

Don't get me wrong - I wan't Loftus to win, just like I want my sports team to win, but if he's spent his winter sitting on the couch and snacking on fast food, I wont be expecting him to run a marathon come summer. Take Kagan v Craig, Kagan has spent his life learning and teaching secular ethics and spent the entire Q & A effectively "schooling" Craig. Is Loftus in the same league?

I also question the debate topic "Is Christianity more probable than atheism?". I can almost imagine it now. Loftus gets up there and presents a plausible and rational account for the reasonableness for atheism and Craig responds by using a multi-part Bayesian analysis of the probabilities involved (aka Ehrman v Craig). Loftus then wastes all his time picking apart the tortured logic, or avoids the issue, either way he will be on the back foot defending and playing into Craig's plan. Game over.

Mr Loftus, prove me wrong Sir.

The Faithful Poor

2009-05-09T23:02:00.000+08:00

Statistics
From a recent Pew Forum survey:
Two thirds of Americans who earn under $30k per year pray daily, on the other hand just under half of rich people who earn under $100k per year pray daily. The correlation is consistent throughout the data. The poorer you are, the more you pray.

Shouldn't the rich thank God every day that they are rich? And shouldn't the poor to be annoyed at God that they are poor? Or perhaps one could equally make the case that the rich feel that they don't need God, whereas the poor are constantly hounding God hoping he will make things better for them. Considering that Church's get better attendance during recessions, I would favour the latter. Average people are likely to pray for selfish reasons - so that things are better in their own life. (I'm sure there are more plausible explanations too)

When I was younger and believed what I was taught about the Bible and God, I never prayed to God asking for things because I was taught that is not the way God works. Prayer was used for thanksgiving, and we were to "ride it out" until the end of time, or when we die, and after that we get a new Earth, a new Eden.

Why Christianity is Successful
I see the story of Jesus as a battle-of-the-classes story. Under the Jewish system, God was for the Jews and in particular the priests who were often wealthy, holier-than-thou people who had the keys to God. When Jesus died, he took God and gave it to everyone, Jew and Gentile. He also took the power away from the priestly class and gave it to the people. The irony being that hundreds of years later the Roman Catholic Church came along and resumed the class distinction. This is one of the (many) criticisms Protestants have against Catholics in that they have become that which Jesus taught against.

What made Jesus different is that he came from a lower class family (a carpenter), hung around with nobodies (fishermen, prostitutes, etc) and was persecuted by "the man" and later killed only to defeat them all by rising again after three days, giving God to all peoples. Couple this with the promise of everlasting life in heaven and one can see why those who suffer the most in this life (such as black female poor people - the group with the highest levels of faith) have a greater propensity to believe.

Moral Hazard
One of the goals of the "New Atheism" is to show the world that atheists are not inhuman monsters and are generally smart, normal people, the type who you would let you child marry or let run the country for you. By doing so there are going to be many who will be "atheist evangelists" who will actively try to "deconvert" Christians from their "delusions".

In "Breaking the Spell", Daniel Dennett asks the question whether we should study religion as a natural phenomenon. Considering anthropologists have already been studying religion one might forgive Daniel and assume he was talking about taking it mainstream and in the process knocking down the sacred cows, aka PZ Myers and anti-compatiblism. (Which is to say the results of science cannot be logically reconciled with religion).

So how can we white intelligent rich males (the main atheist demographic) encourage the black disadvantaged poor female (the main Christian demographic) to give up what might be their only crutch in life? One might argue that by doing this, we are doing her a disservice. On the other hand, perhaps this is the only way to stop the cycle of suffering? To the atheist its clear that Christianity has been a strong influence which has kept women's equality down all these years (although to be fair, the same goes for most religions) and which has fuelled the divide between races and the haves and have-nots. Yet on the other hand, it is Christianity which offers hope to those oppressed!

The Solution
I believe the easiest solution is to give everyone a decent secular education. A smart society is going to function better, will be richer, and will favour disbelief over belief. I don't mean that we should actively teach anti-religion, but instead we should do what Daniel Dennett advocates and teach religions in a fair way (that is to say, show the students the different beliefs of the world).

The great thing about this solution is that we are fairly confident it already works and does not require force, intimidation or brainwashing. The only people who would object to this are those who believe it's easier to control a population who do not think for themselves...

They Would Not Have Died For A Lie?

2009-05-08T11:36:00.000+08:00

It is often claimed by Christians that the apostles of Jesus were martyred for their beliefs and because they did not recant, they truly believed what they were preaching, that is to say - they were not making it up, they did not lie.

There are a number of problems with this claim

1) There is very little evidence that Jesus' apostles were martyred.
2) If they were killed, we may not know why they were killed.
3) If we knew why they were killed, this doesn't tell us about which belief they died for.
4) There are numerous parallels with other people dying for their beliefs.
5) All we are left with is the impression that they really believed something, but that does not make it a physical reality.

There is very little evidence that Jesus' apostles were martyred.
It is generally accepted that the stories of Jesus' apostles being martyred are "traditions" with a few exceptions. Some of these traditions contradict each other with some apostles being killed in different locations. Many traditions only start to appear in the written record hundreds of years after the events with no contemporary or near contemporary accounts. This makes the reliability of the traditions suspect. Many Christians parrot these claims without understanding the lack of evidence for this belief and if they are to use it as an argument in favour of their belief, they are merely repeating legends thought up to make Christians feel good about being persecuted.

If they were killed, we may not know why they were killed.
Let us presume for the moment that some early Christians were killed of their beliefs. We may not know the circumstances behind their arrest, trial and execution. Christians were persecuted for going against Jewish and Roman laws and customs. We do not know if they had any opportunity to recant their beliefs before being killed. To say they were martyred for going against the laws of the land does in no way bolster the validity of their belief than does a political protester.

If we knew why they were killed, this doesn't tell us about what belief they died for.
Let us presume that they were killed for preaching Christianity. This doesn't tell us which version of Christianity they died for. Were they preaching a bodily risen Jesus as represented in the gospels and orthodox Christianity, or were they preaching a non-bodily risen Jesus as implied in the letters of Paul, or perhaps they were Gnostic's? For all we know they could have died preaching something which is completely different to what modern Christians now believe. This would render their death in vain and would give no validity to orthodox Christianity.

There are numerous parallels with other people dying for their beliefs.
Joseph Smith, the founder of Mormonism was persecuted for his beliefs yet did not recant. Does that mean he was telling the truth? (I'm sure most Christians agree that he was a false prophet, some even believe he was intentionally dishonest) We also know people are willing to die for their beliefs about being abducted by UFOs. In most cases I have no doubt people really truly believe what they are spouting, but this gives no validity to the truth claims behind this belief.

All we are left with is the impression that they really believed something, but that does not make it a physical reality.
We know modern Catholics believe Jesus is really present in the Eucharist, yet there is no physical evidence this is the case. Given that, would a Catholic who is willing to die for their belief in the presence of Jesus in the Eucharist lend validity to the actual presence of Jesus in the Eucharist? In fact, if an aspect of a religion requires faith, even faith in things believed but not seen, then we should expect that there are devout people who are willing to die, an ultimate test of their faith, which wouldn't be too much of an ordeal considering they are promised heaven on the other side.

Conclusion
Given the lack of evidence we have, we ought to be sceptical of the claims that Jesus' Apostles died for their belief in the physical resurrection of Jesus. As arguments for the validity of Jesus' resurrection go, this argument is one of the least arguments I find convincing - firstly because there is little foundation in evidence and secondly because it doesn't reveal to us anything other than establishing that they believed what they preached - which many people do not doubt. (Which would technically render this argument a straw man because people don't really believe they were liars)

Resumption of Blogging

2009-05-05T20:20:00.000+08:00

On the 12th of March my mother was admitted to hospital, where we later found out that she suffered from a stroke. The stroke was caused by her type-1 diabetes which she could rarely keep under control (known as fragile diabetes) and was the cause of her recent frequent hospitalisation.

That night we were told it was a major stroke caused by a clot in her neck and upon the examination of the CAT scan, it was clear that one half of her brain had completely died, with swelling putting pressure on the opposing side. The prognosis was not good and the following week the doctor informed us of the likely best case and worse case scenarios. Even the best case was still paralysis, lack of motor control, loss of cognitive functions and profound disability.

As the days passed the possibility of any reasonable recovery had reduced to a practical zero and there were only two options left, keep her on artificial life support until another problem caused her death or remove the breathing tube when her breathing was as strong as the doctors could make it and let nature take its course, without any further resuscitation attempts.

The doctor asked us to take into consideration, not what we would have wanted but what my mother would have wanted given the circumstances. We decided that she would have not have wanted to be kept alive in those conditions, and the doctors agreed and removed the breathing tube. The doctors had made it clear that had my mother been older they wouldn't have even attempted a recovery on the first day due to the extreme brain damage, but decided to try to relieve the swelling because of her age and potential to fight.

A few days later on the 24th of March 2009 my mother passed away in palliative care. The funeral was the day after my 25th birthday, the 31st of March. My mother was only 48 and leaves behind my sister and her three children and my father. My mum taught me to grow up at an early age and I can indirectly thank her for giving me harsh insights into the brutality of what it means to be human. Some days I felt like I was the only one who tried to understand her and I feel that for the first time in twenty years she is finally at peace, albeit not in the way anyone wanted. I never knew my Pop, and my sisters young ones will never know their Nanna, who loved them so very much. She left us too soon, but will not leave my heart.

Hiatus

2009-03-15T02:06:00.000+09:00

This blog will be going on hiatus until further notice.

Wilful Ignorance

2009-03-07T22:12:00.000+09:00

without understanding an opponent's position, you'll never learn anything. For all you ever get is confirmation of your own agenda.

- Kel on Pharynugla

People like to have opinions about everything - from politics to religion, philosophy, science, technology, parenting, etc. It's natural as humans to have opinions and to want those opinions validated, mostly by those close to us. We form groups of like minded people who share similar values and ostracise other groups. This of course can sterilise conversation, and ideas as a group becomes homogeneous, back-patting and dogmatic. Without a contrarian, without doubt, our ideas can never be challenged and we may never discover if we are ever wrong.

There are of course, some ideas which transcend opinion and are in the realm of facts and truths. The lack of (serious) flat earth societies is testament to the idea that peoples minds can be changed when it comes to issues of undeniable fact even if our basic intuitions (the earth looks flat) fail us. This doesn't work in all cases - to steal the ironic title of Ray Comfort's new book "You can bring a person to knowledge, but you can't make them think". The irony being that Ray has consistently been given the information, yet wilfully ignores it.

The difference between wilful ignorance and natural ignorance is the question of will. There are always going to be two sides (or more) to a story, and especially for controversial issues, the fact that a multitude of people exist on the other side means that you ought not to ignore it. Some people might be too scared to question their opinions or ideas they have for many reasons, including social ostricization, fear of hell, fear of being wrong, fearing the consequences, or an unhealthy belief that their position is indisputable - irrespective of what the other group has to say. Others are just arrogant and stubborn...

Natural ignorance is understandable. No one person knows everything, and some of us just go with our gut when it comes to things we do not know about. The question is, are you able to admit that you are not knowledgeable about something and that you might be wrong. If the answer is yes, then you are showing humility and an open mind. If you say no, you are probably closed minded and wilfully ignorant. Even if you believe you are knowledgeable about something, there is always a chance you might have missed something or new information has come to light. In either case, is there any justification for ever closing ones mind?

A novel idea I learned in high school when debating was to be put in *any* position. Which is to say, instead of just debating the side you already believe in, there is a chance you might need to defend the other point of view - even if you do not believe it. This is where debating becomes a game about convincing people you are right, or winning, even if you are in opposition to what is being proposed. This is the game lawyers play, especially in criminal cases where they know they are defending someone who really did commit the crime. Naturally there are bound to be sandbaggers who will present the case they do not believe in, in a negative light to convince people that point of view has no merit. This would make them fail the class or make their record look bad!

The easiest way to distinguish between someone who is wilfully ignorant and naturally ignorant is to ask them to argue for the other side. If they are unable to come up with even the basis of a cogent argument - they do not understand the other side. If someone claims they have "done the research" or presents themselves as an authority, yet does not present "common knowledge", it becomes trivial to identify those who have serious objections to those who are sandbagging for their cause. Sometimes it can be frustrating when you know someone is being wilfully ignorant - and you want to call them out on it.

I highly recommend Christians take the Debunking Christianity Challenge.
http://debunkingchristianity.blogspot.com/2007/11/take-debunking-christianity-challenge.html
One of the next books on my list of books to read is "Why I Became an Atheist: A Former Preacher Rejects Christianity" by John W. Loftus.
If there is one thing the "new atheists" cannot deal with, it's that fact that none of them were ever apologists for a faith and lost it, so they do not really understand the other point of view.

New Blog

2009-03-05T13:03:00.000+09:00

I've started a new blog:
http://learningchristianity.blogspot.com/

As a result, I will be toning down any anti-Christian or anti-religion rhetoric.
Having said that creationists are still fair game!

Belief and Faith

2009-03-02T21:39:00.000+09:00

Belief and faith
A theist is one who believes and has faith in God.

Belief without faith
I've found that many say they lose faith but still believe in God.

Faith without belief
Is it possible to not believe in God but still have faith?

No belief and no faith
The atheist does not have belief, nor faith in God.

Question of the day: Could an atheist become a theist or religious without believing in God but having faith regardless?

Debating: Lose the Battle - Win the War

2009-03-01T05:24:00.000+09:00

Want to formally debate the following?
Creationists
Christians
9/11 Truthers
Global Warming Deniers
Moon Hoaxers
...

Well I take my hat off to you. You are clearly braver than I.
All those listed above have a material advantage in a debate and that is simply that they can rattle off a number of plausible sounding arguments in less than than it takes to debunk them.

Why they win.

Think about it. You enter a formal debate where each side has twenty minutes to open and say fifteen minute for the response. Those in the above category can make their simplistic case (eg Evolution is *just* a theory, as you can *clearly* see from this image the shadows are wrong, Al Gore was *discredited*) and it takes a good five minutes to refute each argument. Lets say it takes five minutes to disprove something which takes one minute to state. That's a 5:1 time advantage. This means someone can rattle off four arguments which take four minutes to state and twenty minutes to refute - going over the specified time limit for a response.

Why does it take so long?

Some may ask, why does it take so long to formulate a response? (eg. How come you can't distill a refutation of the Kalam Cosmological argument into a few sentences)

The easiest answer is that common sense is poor when it comes to truth-value, yet easy to manipulate for those who are not willing to do the leg work and actually research a topic. Confusing the common use of the term theory is an example of a case where one (who isn't a scientist or a knowledgeable person) takes use of the popular but misleading wrong definition and runs with it.

Compare:
"If evolution is true, why is it just a theory?"
with
"You are mistaking the definition of theory. A scientific theory is powerful because it explains facts. As more facts emerge a theory is either disproved, refined or further backed up with evidence. You can never prove a theory but you can disprove it."

On the basis of word count alone, the refutation takes just over 4 times more words!

Countering Stupid with Stupid.

The success of the New Atheists when debating, in particular Christopher Hitchens, is testament to countering stupid with stupid. I'm not suggesting that Hitchens presents wrong arguments, but he does so in the same simplistic manner as his opposition. This is why he is good in debates, yet lacks thoroughness and can be seen to be simple minded by his opponents. Perhaps Hitchens in a debate gives the opposition gets a taste of their own medicine.

For example, how long might it take an atheist to formulate an argument for the "Problem of Evil" and think about how long it would take a theist to properly articulate a response. The problem of evil is a simplistic argument to make, one which can use emotional appeal to convey to the audience (eg. Why would a loving God allow suffering in the world) yet requires the theist to go into great deal. Any theist who can rattle off a simplistic answer clearly is doing a disservice to the vast amount of literature (as in books) on this subject.

What you cannot do.

Whatever you do, you cannot do the following

State that it has been refuted. This will then give the other person license to use the exact same argument against things which have not been refuted, but which they do not wish to address.
Attack the person for being stupid, simple minded or wrong without explaining why they are wrong. After all, there is a chance if there is this one stupid person you are debating there is likely at least one other stupid person like them in the audience.
Refuse to answer. By refusing to answer you are effectively giving up. This can be difficult when the opponent presents something you are not familiar with, and perhaps even see as being a good argument.
Say you don't know. There is no time for humility in debates. If you don't know, this gives your opponent ammunition that clearly they have made a valid argument if you cannot refute it.

What you can do.

All is not lost! There are a few things you can do to even the playing field. It might not make you win the battle, but it might help win the war against stupid.

Debate anyway. Just having a visible presence and presenting your arguments gives others the notion that there exists alternatives. It might even plant the seed of doubt in their mind.
Fight stupid with stupid. If its good enough for the opponent to rattle off a few one lines, its also good enough for you. It may be intellectually dishonest, but your opponent clear started it!
Find novel ways of answering the question instead of giving the same canned response.
Humour! Most Creationists/Christians/Conspiract Theoriests are deadly serious. Mixing some humour in shows a human touch.
Get under the skin of your opponent.
Stay knowledgeable about the subject area including common fallacies, common arguments and especially uncommon arguments. (Print out the friggin talk.origins page on creationist arguments if need be)

Debates in General

Debates are not for determining truth value. This is something that people ought to be clear about. The format of a debate is such that a crappy defense does not make a poor argument. For example, Christianity isn't disproved if some random guy cannot defend his faith nor does Creationism become valid because a moron thinks theories are crazy ideas scientists come up with to deny God.

Debates are not won by content or the truth value of a position. It is won by the best debater, the person who strikes the right chord, the right set of words, plays to their strengths and their opponents weaknesses, and those who come across as human and approachable. Its the typical snake-oil saleman technique to get people to depart with their hard earned dollars, but in this case, to depart from their normal though process into one where they become right.

For the real argument, consult the literature, organise conferences, allow a continuous dialogue. If you look for bite-size truth, you will always end up intellectually starved.

Creationism and the Illuminati

2009-02-22T19:36:00.000+09:00

For creationists the following maxim is usually true - the universe screams of design and intent, and the designer is God and we are the intent. Liberal Christians would say evolution intended for our existence and traditional Christians would say we were made fully formed some few thousand years ago. There are a few causes of this belief
a) The bible says and implies this - which therefore makes it a required belief.
b) Humans have evolved the ability to seek patterns, even if there isn't any.
c) Some sense of order exists in the world - and for some this requires explanation.

From the Catechism of the Catholic Church

The world: starting from movement, becoming, contingency, and the world's order and beauty, one can come to a knowledge of God as the origin and the end of the universe.

Without being able to find patterns in nature we would never have survived in the wild. Patterns in nature include the seasons, the moon, the stars, tracks in the sand, etc. Knowledge of these helped early crop growers, find water sources and develop primitive science such as tool making. The downside is finding patterns where none exist and giving wacky explanations to accompany them - whether we look into the clouds or stars and see images or hear things that go bump in the night. Some might say they are just harmless and are a healthy part of peoples imaginations, until they are taken seriously and we are required to consult the skies to know what kind of day we are to have or worship the sun.

Only since the advent of modern science have people been able to explain order, this time in terms of mathematics based on simple models. Seasons are easily explainable when one considers the Earth is tilted on its axis and orbits the Sun. There is no need to invoke imagery of death (winter) and re-birth (spring) which formed the basis of what today is known as Christmas, which was hijacked by the Christians.

God botherers like to evoke the supernatural as an explanation to order. For example they say that life cannot come from non-life - this implies God made life as there is no naturalistic explanation. Apart from being a logical fallacy, a false dichotomy, the truth of the matter is that there is no barrier to a naturalistic explanation for life coming from non-life.

When I was young and self taught myself chemistry in high school, I used to believe there was a difference between life-stuff and non-life-stuff. For example, the stuff wood (life) is made of is different to the stuff graphite (non-life) is made of. Learning that they are actually composed the same stuff - atoms, molecules, etc changed my perspective on things. Of course I never had an explanation for what this non-life stuff was...In some sense what I believed would have been little different to what the ancients might have believed about the nature of "stuff".

Arguments from design break down when one considers natural order which can be produced from chaos. This includes cyclones/hurricanes and crystals. We don't need to suppose a supernatural or even natural cyclone maker or crystal designer - we have nature and it's laws which are able to do it with no effort - just time. Emergence from chaos is a fascinating modern study in mathematics which has applications in ecology, quantum physics and artificial intelligence studies. These ideas in combination with the existing pieces of the puzzle (ie the creation of amino acids from basic elements) leads me to believe abiogenesis (life from non-life) is not simply plausible but has likely happened numerous times over the universe.

So what does this have to do with the Illuminati?

Well I'm not actually talking about the group of people known as the Illuminati, but those who believe there exists groups of people who are in control of this world. (ie Conspiracy Theorists) To me they are suffering the same kind of delusion the creationists are - they are perceiving order in the world when in actual fact there are just blind natural forces at play or just patterns in the noise.

What makes people who believe in the Illuminati different is that they are seeing order and intent in groups of humans and across groups of humans and claiming there are people "behind the scenes" pulling the strings and conspiring (perhaps to take over the world). This is similar to what Adam Smith's claimed drove the efficiency of capitalism, the "invisible hand" which controls free markets. Interestingly these patters are suppose to have come from independent humans with different wills but still results in patterns people want to make a story to.

There is a fine line between seeing patterns in a scientific, objective sense - and combining it with another powerful mind trick the confirmation bias...

Personally I see no evidence of agency or intent in the universe or within groups of people. The burden of proof has not been met. This is not a positive claim, but a dismissal of those who claim otherwise. Those who make the case of agency in the universe, and this agency is Jesus have the burden of proof - one which I believe has not been sufficiently met. Similarly those who make the case that the Illuminati are trying to set up a New World Order also have the burden of proof - one which I reject. It's perhaps no coincidence that many who believe in the Illuminati also evoke Christian apocolyptic themes.

What would the world look like without Jesus or the Illuminati? Well - exactly the same!

Rick Santelli - Will Atlas Shrug?

2009-02-21T05:42:00.000+09:00

Rick Santelli is a self-professed Ayn Randian libertarian who believes the free market should be left to work things out and the more the government fiddles, the worse things may become. He is the bond reporter for CNBC and is well known for his opposition for all the bailouts and in this video he is speaking against President Obama's plan to bail out home owners who got themselves in too deep who shouldn't have. This video has unleashed a tremendous reaction from Republicans, Democrats, Libertarians and average Joe's who feel their voice has been silenced.

As much as I hate the Republican's for taking on the loony social Christian right (perhaps as a convenience rather than for ideological reasons) I do favour the traditional Republican economic values. In the enlightenment they fought for the separation of Church and State. I believe in the separation of Economics and State. Given states will always have budgets and will always collect taxes, the most optimal scenario is to have low taxes with small governments who provide necessities the free market cannot reasonably be asked to own (ie health care, education, defence, etc).

Ayn Randian "objectivist" philosophy states that its a good thing for man to be selfish - but not selfish in the traditional sense of the word. Traditionally selfish would mean someone who stole or leeched off someone. In objectivism, a leech cannot be selfish because they are not helping themselves. By relying on others all it takes is for the other person to leave the picture and the leech is screwed! This philosophy has been the backbone of modern capitalism despite its obvious antagonistic view with traditional Christian values. (An irony I find amusing considering the links between the Republican Party and their Christian affiliation)

When Rick talks about people "carrying the water" he is talking about all the Ayn Randian selfish people who are generating the GDP, creating jobs and working hard - the people who are "Real Americans". On the other hand those who "drink the water" are those members of society who do not help themselves (I'm only talking about those who can, not those who cannot) and rely on the hard work of others to get by. The classic example of a water drinker is the single woman who recently had eight more IVF children despite having no job and six more at home.

I remember an anecdote from someone who explains why hippy communes did not succeed. It was simple - there were too many people doing too little, too few people doing too much, and those resented those who did little. It works against the human spirit of "fairness", but does not go against the will of humans to help others who are truly at need.

The question Ayn Rand posed in Atlas Shrugged was that, what if those who carried the world on their shoulders (mirroring the Greek God Atlas) were to give up (shrug). Well clearly society would cease to function and the basis on to which capitalism has been so successful (the drive to better oneself) is removed. The unintended consequence or "moral hazard" of communism is the reduction in desire to work hard.

So what are these important "moral hazards"? They are an interesting pair of words which explains what happens when one party loses its incentive to proceed as it would if something wasn't done. Would you still lock your car if you had car insurance? Well perhaps, but there is less incentive to. A moral hazard would exist when one takings out insurance, doesn't lock their car and relies on the insurance company to give them a new car. Their behaviour has changed, to the detriment of the insurer. Would you act with less risk if the government will bail you out if you are "too big to fall"?

Moral hazard is perhaps the best explanation as to the current failure of the markets. There was no risk with writing or taking peoples mortgages because they were passed on like a game of "pass the parcel" until the music stopped and people were left with rubbish. The mortgage brokers had the benefits of the commissions with no risk - giving them carte-blanch to falsify information. The banks didn't care because they would pass the mortgage on (taking a commission with them) and so on and so forth.

All these hyper-inflated house prices were artificial. Those who bought high should shoulder the burden of their mistake. The government is taking pity on them and giving them money to reduce the principle so they can refinance away from their stupid decision to get a loan which starts off low in repayments and resets to normal after a few years. (An ARM loan) Let me put this in another way. Should the government compensate those who lost money in the tech bubble which burst because it was unseen and dramatic for those involved?

There are plenty of people (myself included) who did not jump in the red hot market - or missed the opportunity to get in. Now that the markets are bound to reduce to their pre-hyper-inflated values, why can't people like myself jump into the market and pick up a bargain thanks to the bad decisions made by people who shouldn't have gotten a loan in the first place? This is the way the free market works and this is what Rick Santelli and most people want! The more the prices are kept artificially high, the less affordable they are.

Larry Kudlow (who I do not agree with on his Keynesian policies) noted that in California where prices have fallen, sales are rising! This is exactly the free market working. The same free market others are claiming is not working. Rick at another time noticed correctly "the market isn't working the way the government wants it to work".

The average Joe's are highly supportive of Santelli - why? Because they have had enough of those people in society who "drink the water" - and they all know who they are. Too many irresponsible people were treating their houses like a bank, getting second mortgages, a second car, spending their money on crap (thanks to Bush's spend your way out of a recession) and many of those who didn't do that - who were responsible are not having to foot the bill. Let's not forget the moral hazard!!

Those "water drinkers" include all the CEO's and bankers who got money for nothing or money for risk and high leverage. They aren't the Ayn Randian selfish people - they are just simply morons! Rick was there from day one saying no to the bank bailouts, no to reckless government spending on his (and others - including his kid's kid's) dime.

Many nay-sayers think its a bit rich for Santelli and his trading buddy's to be rallying against this cause. They believe those traders are either highly paid or speculators, the people who got us into this mess. Are they right? No! Those traders (in the pits in Chicago trading treasuries, eurodollars, etc) are simply the cogs in the wheel of capitalism. The role of speculators is highly controversial. Those traders certainly weren't the ones who were buying up houses on the premise that "house prices would never go down". No one complains about speculators in oil when the prices are driven down (if one can even say the role of speculators is anything other than marginal price movements - supply and demand is far more of a factor).

The democrats who have gone in to bat for Obama have said that this plan helps those whose equity is negative or low to refinance! The problems with this is
a) If their equity is negative - too bad - you bought too high.
b) If they cannot repay now - why did they get the bad contract to start with? (ARM's etc...)
c) Many of those people will not be able to repay regardless - these are the liars and fools who should never had gotten a loan to start with.

Obama's supporters say we need this to get the markets going again. The only problem is - the stock market has spoken and today we broke below a twelve year low! (If you invested twelve years ago you might have lost money today) Things are getting worse and the market is not confident with these plans. Some say we need to do something - but its worse to do something quick without thinking and make things worse. Santelli and co can see this is a bad idea. I won't pretend I have the answers, but there are thousands of intelligent people out there - doesn't one of them have an idea and a voice?

So I ask the question - Will Atlas shrug? Will we get to July and Santelli's Tea (or T-bill) Party comes where millions of American's speak their voice and say "NO" - we will not support the slackers in society - this is America where we value hard work over handouts - investing over speculation. The good news is...Obama IS listening Santelli. I have hope Obama will converge on the "right" idea - even if we go through ten or more bad ones. If you do not have hope - what else do you have?

On behalf of all hard working, penny saving libertarians - I raise a cup of tea to Santelli and his courage.

PS - As an Australian I find this fascinating. It's a completely different culture and ethic, one which I am not sure would work worldwide. Heartless capitalism, in my opinion, yields far more heart in the long run than heartful socialism.

Fosters and 10 Quid Notes

2009-02-15T02:46:00.000+09:00

This time tomorrow I will be making my way to Heathrow Airport back to Australia. If there are two things that have surprised me about England are the copious amounts of empty Fosters cans I have seen on the streets and in bushes and the face of Charles Darwin on the 10 Pound Note.

Before I came there was an ad campaign run by the British Humanists on the side of buses saying "There is probably no God, now stop worrying and enjoy your life". Well the Christians could not let that go unchallenged so naturally they came out with ads of their own. First were some ads which I saw which said "The fool said in their heart there is no God", a biblical reference (from Psalms if my memory serves me well) and there is a new ad campaign which was mentioned on TV. It mirrors the style and message of the atheist campaign and will say something like "There is definitely a God and you should join the Christian Party".

I believe the ad campaign by the British Humanists has done more than they could ever have anticipated and follow-up ads like these which hit the news headlines are bound to get people talking again about these things. I do not mind that the Christian Party is using their political funds for this purpose, they have the right to free speech after all, what bothers me is what happened behind the scenes.

The humanists were not allowed to say "There is definitley no God" nor "There is no God", they had to compromise with the word probably. On what basis? I believe its to do with standards of advertising and not allowing false claims. Compare this to the Christians who are allowed to get away with "definitely a God". No doubt there was no objection to making such strong statments of fact despite the ability to produce a smigin of evidence. This to me is the nature of the game, for thousands of years we have been told by assertion that a God exists, and atheists have the burden of proof to prove a negative - an impossibility.

Still, I wont be losing any sleep over it or protesting in the streets or refusing to ride (or drive, as the case may be) a bus which said God exists. But this debate is one which will favour the atheists - mainly because we aren't staying quiet or in our place but coming to the table, something which in the past would have gotten us run out of town or burned at the stake. The Christians are free to run counter-ads but all they will do is highlight what they are countering against - more free advertising for the original ads - at no extra cost!

2009 - Reasonable Expectations

2009-01-26T00:19:00.000+09:00

Tuesday afternoon I am leaving Perth for Italy to perform some experiments at Sincrotrone Trieste. This will be my third visit and I'm really hoping to get some good physics out this time so I can progress in my PhD. After I have finished a seven day stint (16-20 Hour Days, Italian Pizza, Lots of Italian Coffee) I will be spending roughly a week in England where I will visit some long lost relatives of which only one I have met here in Australia.

I can't say my PhD is going along well at all. I had a number of set backs in 2008 which slowed my progress. This includes numerous delays in rebuilding the equipment from scratch, a sick mother, constant migraines and a return of a general malaise and questions about my present and future. I moved back home with my parents late 2007 after being bullied by my then housemates and things have not been the same since. The only highlight being meeting a beautiful girl from the US, which ended after religious differences early 2008.

The first thing I want to do when I get back from England is look to move out of my parents home and into an apartment by myself. I've been given a $5,000 per annum pay rise for my scholarship thanks to the university's acknowledgement that the scholarship is not enough to live on - so that should go into finding a place to rent. Current prices for a one bedroom, one bathroom flat are around $180 per week! Compared to $150 last year and $120 the year before...The rental market in Perth is insane and I doubt this "economic downturn" will dampen this.

Come early March and university starts again so I will be looking after some third year students doing their labs. My sister is also due to give birth to her third child and first boy Tyson Matthew and late March will be my 25th birthday. Depending on how things work out I might decide to take a proactive role in the Atheist and Agnostic Society (if anyone can be bothered - last year there were quite a number of members who joined but nothing ever happened) especially for Darwin's 250th anniversary.

The last pieces of equipment have arrived so I can redesign the voltage supplies for my experiment at UWA. With any luck I will get to start doing some experiments again late February, early March (providing nothing goes wrong...). From this either a new apparatus needs to be built or the one I have built will produce something meaningful (highly doubtful as it was only designed to be a prototype). We should also have a third member to our team when a new post doctorate is chosen by my supervisor. Picture on the right is a test and confirmation of the effectiveness of our apparatus.

Our aim is to visit the synchrotron every six months (we are commercialising a device for use in the next generation synchrotrons; so I obviously cannot go into it here!) for testing and to hopefully find some Physics too. All together the experiments at home and in Italy comprise my PhD, contingent on what happens. I have a fear that I will not discover new physics or have enough in one and a half years time to complete my PhD. (My scholarship only lasts for a further year and a half, but I can continue without getting paid)

What worries me most is that I feel as if I am starting to burnout and lose interest in life in general. I miss my mojo and I need to find it again!

Fuck You Dogmatic Atheists

2008-12-25T23:16:00.000+09:00

You disgust me. I’m sorry I wasted my time reading your blog, but I’m never coming back again.

Although I truly can’t fathom how someone can go from being a skeptic to believing that a deity poofed things into existence, and a guy rose from the dead after three days, based on a single book of dubious origin, more power to you if it makes you happy.

Well – congratulations on burying your head in the sand. I wonder what horrific even in your life pushed you running screaming into the waiting arms of your invisible friend.

Your religion is about as believable as that picture of an Anglo-Jesus comforting a group of racially diverse children……as of course the Bible says he often did.

oh my goodness. i’m so sad to see this. farewell, you were once a force for good and reason on the internet. i’m sorry to see your mind stolen away.

What happened to you? You used to have a brain, or at least seemed like it. Since the de-enlightenment has apparently occurred, I will no longer frequent. Perhaps some time in the land of ignorance will turn you around.

I see you’ve started this thread with a picture of a paediphile priest and four of his victims. I hope you’ve given their names to the police.

It’s sad so see someone who’s too tired or scared to keep thinking. Have fun with your death cult.

Did death scare you that much?

Is it April 1st already?

Swapping cold reality for a comforting myth is something of a tragedy. Celebrating ignorance is not something I’m comfortable with. Nevertheless, you gotta do what you gotta go, so good luck!

You took the blue pill. Understandable, but sad.

Dear me, how pathetic. You used to think for yourself, and now you’ve let a bunch of Christians brainwash you. Hope it was worth it.

any reason you’ve put up a pic of such a historically silly european jesus? or is the idea of a non-white middle-easterner somehow scary?i guess you’ve already sacrificed rationality, a little side of racism should get things good and finished.

oh yes and merry christmas: the holiday where christians celebrate the impregnation of a 14 year old by a murderous diety…who then lets a king slaughter all the under-2-year-old males in town! yay!

If I ever get an abortion, I’ll dedicate it to you. Enjoy the vapid, glassy-eyed company, moron.

Without even meeting you I can tell that you have the personality construct of an addict which is evident in your see-sawing from one extreme to another. You were a crappy atheist to begin with. Enjoy your mindless devotion to Jebus and the Deathcult.

I hope you find you way back to logical thinking someday! Good luck though if it makes you happy.

Welcome to the make-believe world of jewish, dinosaur-riding zombies who, despite creating the universe, just cannot seem to handle money.

This is the most pathetically hilarious thing I’ve ever seen. Anyone claiming to be an Atheist who later recants was never an Atheist. Doubt and fear of damnation still lingered deep in your psyche. The mind control of religion is a deep scar that often never heals.

You stupid fuck. How can you do such a thing, worship a being that doesn’t exist and doesn’t give a fuck about any one of us. Dumb fuck.

You always were a bit unhinged.

That picture RT posted of the white Jesus surrounded by a racially diverse group of pawing children speaks volumes. Notice how adoringly they look up at him, and how lovingly he looks back. He appreciates that sort of wide-eyed and ignorant adoration. Little kids will believe practically anything. No wonder Jesus wants to surround himself with them.

What a tool you are….get a life. No, join the other losers of the God Cult and leave the URL to someone more deserving, tool.

I can understand vacilating between atheism and some form of deism, but straight to believing that God in a dead jewish carpenter is extreme. hope it works for you.

Congratulations on making your way into the intellectual pig sty I took so long to get out of.
As for your name, when you dropped the “a-”, you should have also dropped the “-aving”… and replaced it with “-etarded”.
Enjoy your new-found ignorance. It’s bliss.

You are scared of death, scared of other people’s death, and rather than confront this you have decided to run away. This is understandable, it is human. But your own cowardice does not give weight to Christiobollox any more than it would to Hinduism if you happen to have been brought in India.

Congratulations. You’ve abandoned reason for madness, clarity for obfuscation and freedom for bondage. You’ve bought into the greatest con of the ages, and willingly support all manner of inhuman and degrading tenets of that faith, all in the name of a celestial white male who’s giving you a carte blanche to rape, pillage and molest the planet.

This reminds me of, “I have given up on reality and am now looking for a good fantasy.” Have a nice fantasy. Just remember, if you ever let yourself doubt again, that religious experience is generated in the brain by physical processes.

I can’t believe someone who hosted an atheist site has converted. The ignorance is stronger than I thought. I don’t blame you for personally converting. That’s your business. But I think the fact that you, of all people, converted is sad. WHY? How did this happen?

Nerd Badge

2008-12-24T20:16:00.000+09:00

I feel like a proper nerd today. I got my Karma rating in Slashdot up to "Excellent". Hello to readers out there who clicked on my "homepage" in Slashdot and arrived here.