Ok, so I've already thrashed out the idea of the difference between atheism and agnosticism and my own choice in the matter. It can be a difficult choice, however, not because of the fear or anxiety of coming out as an atheist and the social stigma that may bring (although that may be a factor) but because of the fine line between the two categories in defining your personal view of the universe. Recently I was lucky enough to be killing some time on YouTube when I came across this little gem from Penn Jillette from his series "Penn Says". I think he does a fine job of explaining the difference and the reason why both he and I agree on being atheist, but as always you should have a look and make up your own mind.
Tuesday, September 29, 2009
Wednesday, May 20, 2009
Newsflash! - Ireland falls through time warp, lands in 1940s
OK, so this isn't really a newsflash anymore but it is still one of the more important issues raised in Irish society since the country entered recession. To those of you who missed it, earlier this year Justice Minister Dermot Ahern introduced an amendment to the 2006 Defamation Bill which created an offence of blasphemy, punishable by a fine of €100,000 (which was later reduced to €25000). Furthermore the law defines the criterion for having comitted such an offence as:
There's no denying the cultural history of Ireland which has led us to where we are now. 1940s Ireland was a place which most children and newcomers to Ireland would find intensely foreign and strange. The Catholic church ruled the country with an iron fist, well maybe just a wooden one. The rules of civilized society at the time determined everything from the social interactions of men and women and the direction of national policy to the eating habits of the Irish populace and the availability of information. It is here where the problem begins. As the British Prime Minister William Pitt stated in a speech of 1770:
That is exactly what happened in Ireland. The Catholic Church assumed a level of power and authority over the Irish people which was both unwarranted and in part unwelcome. I don't bear any ill sentiment towards anyone of faith, everyone should be free to do whatever they want. However, when it comes to regulating and legislating the rights of a nation it is the needs of the few which must outweigh the needs of the many. Although I am loath to use a Star Trek quote in this context, Gene Roddenberry who was a tremendous force for rational thinking said it best in the Next Generation episode "The Drumhead":
There's a reason for the statue of blind justice outside so many courthouses around the world. The law doesn't or at least shouldn't make any differentiation between people on any basis be it age, race, faith etc. No-one gets special preference and no-one gets adversely treated. These principles are so important to a civilised society in fact, that most countries choose to enshrine them in laws or in constitutions as in the first amendment to the US constitution or Article 40 of our own.
Thus the first problem with the blasphemy law, and probably the biggest flaw in its already weak construction is that it incentivises outrage. In the context of the previous paragraphs, I would suggest that protecting the rights and freedoms of individuals in society is one of the most important functions of legislation. However, this law is contrary to that principle. The blasphemy laws does not protect the rights of the religious. People are entitled to their religious ideas, no matter how crazy they may seem to other people. The "other people", however, are deserving of the right to disagree with these ideas and even mock or ridicule them. A difference of opinion is the most important factor in cultural development since it encourages debate, change and thus progress.
Some would argue that in our new era of terrorism and cultural conflict that laws such as this are needed to protect certain vulnerable groups against hate speech and hate crimes. This argument is deeply flawed though. Firstly, the text of the law makes no mention of hate speech or violence against any social group. Secondly it contradicts Dermot Ahern's argument that the reason for enacting the law was so as not to leave a hole in the legislation following the repeal of the previous blasphemy law. Finally, but perhaps most importantly is that hate crime or hate speech legislation is one of the greatest cons in recent history. Most crimes involving violence which are committed today are due in no small part to hate. If a man beats another man because that man is sleeping with his wife, then hate will play a role in that crime. The motivation for a crime should not affect its sentencing. Utimately, the hate crime concept does nothing more than support the idea that race or religion or gender or sexuality is some dividing line and that people should be split into groups or categories. As a rational society, we must not enact elastoplast laws like this which only serve to treat the symptoms rather than the cause.
Getting back on topic, however the other major problem with the current blasphemy law is the reversal of a trend over the last several decades toward a more rational, tolerant and secular society.
The road toward an enlightened and tolerant society has been a long and difficult one and it has taken nearly fifty years to chip away at the grip of catholicism on the minds of the Irish population but there have been several landmark achievements over the years which have served to highlight the progress made by Irish society as a result of the efforts of a dedicated minority. The following list of events is by no means exhaustive but some of the dates may be surprising in terms of how we view our modern society, it sure shocked the hell out of me.
Irish society has come so far and achieved so much in creating a tolerant multi-cultural society that the actions of one narrow-minded little civil servant should not be allowed to jeopardise our hard-earned progress. To this end, I encourage everyone out there to sign a petition to have this ridiculous law repealed at:
In addition anyone of a more curious or campaigning disposition can follow and support the campaign to repeal the law at:
Finally, as I usually do, I leave you all with a quote on the topic, which tonight comes from Colonel Robert Ingersoll, a veteran of the American Civil War and leader of the Freethought movement:
Uttering material that is grossly abusive or insulting in relation to matters held sacred by any religion, thereby causing outrage among a substantial number of the adherents of that religion; and he or she intends, by the publication of the matter concerned, to cause such outrage.There are several reasons for the hot-button nature of this issue and the strong response to the publication of the bill, mainly due to what is seen as the reversal of the progress towards a rational, secular society that has been achieved over the last half-century.
There's no denying the cultural history of Ireland which has led us to where we are now. 1940s Ireland was a place which most children and newcomers to Ireland would find intensely foreign and strange. The Catholic church ruled the country with an iron fist, well maybe just a wooden one. The rules of civilized society at the time determined everything from the social interactions of men and women and the direction of national policy to the eating habits of the Irish populace and the availability of information. It is here where the problem begins. As the British Prime Minister William Pitt stated in a speech of 1770:
Unlimited power is apt to corrupt the minds of those who possess it
That is exactly what happened in Ireland. The Catholic Church assumed a level of power and authority over the Irish people which was both unwarranted and in part unwelcome. I don't bear any ill sentiment towards anyone of faith, everyone should be free to do whatever they want. However, when it comes to regulating and legislating the rights of a nation it is the needs of the few which must outweigh the needs of the many. Although I am loath to use a Star Trek quote in this context, Gene Roddenberry who was a tremendous force for rational thinking said it best in the Next Generation episode "The Drumhead":
With the first link the chain is forged; the first speech censored, the first thought forbidden, the first freedom denied chains us all irrevocably. The first time any man's freedom is trodden on, we're all damaged by it.
There's a reason for the statue of blind justice outside so many courthouses around the world. The law doesn't or at least shouldn't make any differentiation between people on any basis be it age, race, faith etc. No-one gets special preference and no-one gets adversely treated. These principles are so important to a civilised society in fact, that most countries choose to enshrine them in laws or in constitutions as in the first amendment to the US constitution or Article 40 of our own.
Thus the first problem with the blasphemy law, and probably the biggest flaw in its already weak construction is that it incentivises outrage. In the context of the previous paragraphs, I would suggest that protecting the rights and freedoms of individuals in society is one of the most important functions of legislation. However, this law is contrary to that principle. The blasphemy laws does not protect the rights of the religious. People are entitled to their religious ideas, no matter how crazy they may seem to other people. The "other people", however, are deserving of the right to disagree with these ideas and even mock or ridicule them. A difference of opinion is the most important factor in cultural development since it encourages debate, change and thus progress.
Some would argue that in our new era of terrorism and cultural conflict that laws such as this are needed to protect certain vulnerable groups against hate speech and hate crimes. This argument is deeply flawed though. Firstly, the text of the law makes no mention of hate speech or violence against any social group. Secondly it contradicts Dermot Ahern's argument that the reason for enacting the law was so as not to leave a hole in the legislation following the repeal of the previous blasphemy law. Finally, but perhaps most importantly is that hate crime or hate speech legislation is one of the greatest cons in recent history. Most crimes involving violence which are committed today are due in no small part to hate. If a man beats another man because that man is sleeping with his wife, then hate will play a role in that crime. The motivation for a crime should not affect its sentencing. Utimately, the hate crime concept does nothing more than support the idea that race or religion or gender or sexuality is some dividing line and that people should be split into groups or categories. As a rational society, we must not enact elastoplast laws like this which only serve to treat the symptoms rather than the cause.
Getting back on topic, however the other major problem with the current blasphemy law is the reversal of a trend over the last several decades toward a more rational, tolerant and secular society.
The road toward an enlightened and tolerant society has been a long and difficult one and it has taken nearly fifty years to chip away at the grip of catholicism on the minds of the Irish population but there have been several landmark achievements over the years which have served to highlight the progress made by Irish society as a result of the efforts of a dedicated minority. The following list of events is by no means exhaustive but some of the dates may be surprising in terms of how we view our modern society, it sure shocked the hell out of me.
- 1972 - 5th Amendment to the Constitution of Ireland removes the special position of the Catholic Church and the recognition of other named religious denominations
- 1988 - Norris vs. Ireland - The European Court of Human Rights rules that the laws in Ireland criminalising homosexuality contravenes the European Convention of Human Rights.
- 1992 - 13th Amendment to the Constitution of Ireland guarantees the freedom to travel outside the state for the purposes of having an abortion
- 1992 - 14th Amendment to the Constitution of Ireland removes the prohibition on the distribution of information relating to abortion
- 1993 - Homosexuality is decriminalised in Ireland
- 1995 - 15th Amendment to the Constitution of Ireland provides for the dissolution of marriage under certain specified circumstances
- 1995 - Playboy Magazine, an icon of liberalism is legalised for sale in Ireland
- 2000 - Films including The Life of Brian, A Clockwork Orange and From Dusk Till Dawn have their censorship ban lifted.
- 2003 - The European Convention of Human Rights Act is passed by the Oireachtas incoporating the convention into Irish law.
- 2009 - On 24 June the Civil Partnership Bill is presented to Dail Eireann. If passed it will significantly update the rights of LGBT couples in Ireland
Irish society has come so far and achieved so much in creating a tolerant multi-cultural society that the actions of one narrow-minded little civil servant should not be allowed to jeopardise our hard-earned progress. To this end, I encourage everyone out there to sign a petition to have this ridiculous law repealed at:
In addition anyone of a more curious or campaigning disposition can follow and support the campaign to repeal the law at:
Finally, as I usually do, I leave you all with a quote on the topic, which tonight comes from Colonel Robert Ingersoll, a veteran of the American Civil War and leader of the Freethought movement:
"This crime of blasphemy was invented by priests for the purposes of defending doctrines which are not able to take care of themselves"
Wednesday, April 8, 2009
Intelligent design and the myth of irreducible complexity
The creationist movement around the world has grown in strength and number over the last half century or so, particularly in places with a high degree of cultural diversity and poor educational standards such as the Bible belt of the American south and mid-west. The creationist movement shouldn't pose a problem for anyone because of their beliefs. There are groups out there with far stranger views of the world than creationists. It's only when creationists decided to try and prove their faith that the scientific community and latterly the world at large began to sit up and pay attention. The idea of proving one's faith is rather paradoxical as demonstrated in The Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy:
The attempt to teach creation science in the classroom began in the sixties with the publication of "The Genesis Flood" where Henry Morris and John Whitcomb argued for a literal interpretation of the genesis creation story. Their argument focused on proving that the earth could be created in six literal days, that humans and dinosaurs co-existed and that each species was specifically created by God (which would be some achievement it has to be said since approximately 99% of all the species that have ever existed are now extinct). These guys gained a newfound popularity among conservative Christians in America and were quickly established on the lecture circuit with Morris going on to found the Institute for Creation Research. The creation science movement grew steadily until it received two major hammer-blows in the eighties. The first was in 1982 when the Mc. Lean v. Arkansas case saw the court ruling that the proposed "Balanced Treatment for Creation-Science and Evolution-Science Act" was unconstitutional. Then in 1987 the Louisiana Supreme Court ruled that the same law which was shot down in Arkansas but passed by the Louisiana legislature was unconstitutional. Creationists soon realised that a change of tactics was needed.
This change came about in the late 1980s as a result of the Louisiana ruling. In 1989 a biology textbook called Of Pandas and People emerged which put forth the arguments of the scientific theory of intelligent design. This pseudoscientific garbage claims that there is a significant amount of scientific evidence which shows that life on earth could not have reached this point without having been designed by a supernatural creator. The champion of this cause has been Michael Behe, a lecturer in biochemistry at Lehigh University, and his pet project of irreducible complexity.
The first time I heard of the idea of irreducible complexity, that is the idea that there are creatures alive today whose biological structure is so complex that it had to have been designed, it seemed immediately ludricous. A further explanation of the argument is that it is claimed that the action of evolution which involves incremental changes to an organism cannot explain the development of higher order structures such as flagellates where every component of the structure needs to be together in order for the creature to function. This idea seemed even more ridiculous than the simple explanation. It seemed to me that these so-called scientists had completely misinterpreted natural selection either accidentally or deliberately.
The problem lies in the interpretation of how natural selection effects incremental changes in an organism. The intelligent design advocates believe that evolution has the effect of adding bits on to a creature one piece at a time until you get a working creature. This is shown most clearly in Behe's book "Darwin's Black Box". In this book, Behe argues that bacterial flagella consist of 10 different biological components, all of which must be in place and functioning for the flagellum to work. Firstly, as biologist Kenneth Miller proved, the flagellum can continue to perform the same function with as little as four components. Secondly, Behe's argument that if you take one component away the organism stops functioning seems to completely miss the point. A modern car for example won't work in the way that it should if you take away the engine or the steering wheel or the gearbox. Yet the modern car wasn't designed piece by piece, adding bits on until you ended up with a functioning vehicle. Rather it evolved from simple horse or even ox drawn carts through stagecoaches and wagons to early vehicles like the Model T to the cars we drive today. In the same way evolution updates an organism not by adding new bits on in the way Behe claims but by constant revisions of the entire organism. In order to demonstrate this idea it is necessary to set up a little thought experiment.
Back in the 1850s when Charles Darwin was formulating his theory of evolution, he was influenced not only by the things he saw on his travels but also by the prevailing theories of the time. One in particular has had a long lasting impact on biological and anthropological research. That is of course the concept of division of labour put forward by economist Adam Smith. Although Smith was referring to economic principles of society the same holds true for evolutionary development.
Imagine the following scenario, you have five people stranded on a desert island for years (think Lost). Now this island is big enough that it has taken them this length of time to explore it all. Now let us assume that these five people are all intelligent, quick learners but with no special skills of any kind. One day, while exploring the island they find an abandoned ship. Although seaworthy there is no crew. The islanders decide to use this ship to get home and climb aboard. Now once onboard, they decide to split up in order to run the ship so one person goes to the engine room, one to the bridge, one to the galley and so on. Slowly but surely each one learns how to use the equipment associated with their specific function on the ship. Now let's assume that this is a particularly large planet or at least a particularly slow ship so that it takes them ten years to get home. By the time they arrive, each one will have changed, evolved if you will from being an all-rounder with no special skills to being an expert in whatever ship's function they found themselves.
The same is true of biological organisms at different levels of order. Embryonic stem cells for example are pluripotent cells, blank slates if you will, capable of transforming into any cell type necessary upon receiving instruction from DNA during gestation. In the same way if we trace our evolutionary history back to the first single celled organisms, we will find that those simple creatures behaved in the same way as the people on the imaginary ship. They cooperated in order to survive, thus creating the idea of a society. Eventually after millions of years of evolution these individuals became so interdependent that they became the cells that make up our liver and kidneys and everything that makes us human. Now this doesn't directly refute Mr. Behe's argument about an intelligent designer granted, but it does in an albeit simplified manner show how simple amoebic life forms through co-operation and the raw processes of natural and sexual selection can and have shaped the diversity of life we see on this planet every day. Once again I am going to leave the final words on this subject to another and for the second time in a row to Stan Marsh. This thought is for those people who believe that intelligent design and people like Michael Behe have the answers to the origins of life. Take it away Stan:
"The argument goes something like this. I refuse to prove I exist says God for proof denies faith and without faith I am nothing. But says man, the babelfish is a dead giveaway isn't it. It proves you exist and so therefore you don't. Q.E.D. Oh, dear I hadn't thought of that says God and promptly vanishes in a puff of logic."
The attempt to teach creation science in the classroom began in the sixties with the publication of "The Genesis Flood" where Henry Morris and John Whitcomb argued for a literal interpretation of the genesis creation story. Their argument focused on proving that the earth could be created in six literal days, that humans and dinosaurs co-existed and that each species was specifically created by God (which would be some achievement it has to be said since approximately 99% of all the species that have ever existed are now extinct). These guys gained a newfound popularity among conservative Christians in America and were quickly established on the lecture circuit with Morris going on to found the Institute for Creation Research. The creation science movement grew steadily until it received two major hammer-blows in the eighties. The first was in 1982 when the Mc. Lean v. Arkansas case saw the court ruling that the proposed "Balanced Treatment for Creation-Science and Evolution-Science Act" was unconstitutional. Then in 1987 the Louisiana Supreme Court ruled that the same law which was shot down in Arkansas but passed by the Louisiana legislature was unconstitutional. Creationists soon realised that a change of tactics was needed.
This change came about in the late 1980s as a result of the Louisiana ruling. In 1989 a biology textbook called Of Pandas and People emerged which put forth the arguments of the scientific theory of intelligent design. This pseudoscientific garbage claims that there is a significant amount of scientific evidence which shows that life on earth could not have reached this point without having been designed by a supernatural creator. The champion of this cause has been Michael Behe, a lecturer in biochemistry at Lehigh University, and his pet project of irreducible complexity.
The first time I heard of the idea of irreducible complexity, that is the idea that there are creatures alive today whose biological structure is so complex that it had to have been designed, it seemed immediately ludricous. A further explanation of the argument is that it is claimed that the action of evolution which involves incremental changes to an organism cannot explain the development of higher order structures such as flagellates where every component of the structure needs to be together in order for the creature to function. This idea seemed even more ridiculous than the simple explanation. It seemed to me that these so-called scientists had completely misinterpreted natural selection either accidentally or deliberately.
The problem lies in the interpretation of how natural selection effects incremental changes in an organism. The intelligent design advocates believe that evolution has the effect of adding bits on to a creature one piece at a time until you get a working creature. This is shown most clearly in Behe's book "Darwin's Black Box". In this book, Behe argues that bacterial flagella consist of 10 different biological components, all of which must be in place and functioning for the flagellum to work. Firstly, as biologist Kenneth Miller proved, the flagellum can continue to perform the same function with as little as four components. Secondly, Behe's argument that if you take one component away the organism stops functioning seems to completely miss the point. A modern car for example won't work in the way that it should if you take away the engine or the steering wheel or the gearbox. Yet the modern car wasn't designed piece by piece, adding bits on until you ended up with a functioning vehicle. Rather it evolved from simple horse or even ox drawn carts through stagecoaches and wagons to early vehicles like the Model T to the cars we drive today. In the same way evolution updates an organism not by adding new bits on in the way Behe claims but by constant revisions of the entire organism. In order to demonstrate this idea it is necessary to set up a little thought experiment.
Back in the 1850s when Charles Darwin was formulating his theory of evolution, he was influenced not only by the things he saw on his travels but also by the prevailing theories of the time. One in particular has had a long lasting impact on biological and anthropological research. That is of course the concept of division of labour put forward by economist Adam Smith. Although Smith was referring to economic principles of society the same holds true for evolutionary development.
Imagine the following scenario, you have five people stranded on a desert island for years (think Lost). Now this island is big enough that it has taken them this length of time to explore it all. Now let us assume that these five people are all intelligent, quick learners but with no special skills of any kind. One day, while exploring the island they find an abandoned ship. Although seaworthy there is no crew. The islanders decide to use this ship to get home and climb aboard. Now once onboard, they decide to split up in order to run the ship so one person goes to the engine room, one to the bridge, one to the galley and so on. Slowly but surely each one learns how to use the equipment associated with their specific function on the ship. Now let's assume that this is a particularly large planet or at least a particularly slow ship so that it takes them ten years to get home. By the time they arrive, each one will have changed, evolved if you will from being an all-rounder with no special skills to being an expert in whatever ship's function they found themselves.
The same is true of biological organisms at different levels of order. Embryonic stem cells for example are pluripotent cells, blank slates if you will, capable of transforming into any cell type necessary upon receiving instruction from DNA during gestation. In the same way if we trace our evolutionary history back to the first single celled organisms, we will find that those simple creatures behaved in the same way as the people on the imaginary ship. They cooperated in order to survive, thus creating the idea of a society. Eventually after millions of years of evolution these individuals became so interdependent that they became the cells that make up our liver and kidneys and everything that makes us human. Now this doesn't directly refute Mr. Behe's argument about an intelligent designer granted, but it does in an albeit simplified manner show how simple amoebic life forms through co-operation and the raw processes of natural and sexual selection can and have shaped the diversity of life we see on this planet every day. Once again I am going to leave the final words on this subject to another and for the second time in a row to Stan Marsh. This thought is for those people who believe that intelligent design and people like Michael Behe have the answers to the origins of life. Take it away Stan:
"At first I thought you were all stupid, listening to this douche's advice, but now I understand that you're all here because you're scared. You're scared of death and he offers you some kind of understanding. You all want to believe in it so much, I know you do. We need to recognize this stuff for what it is: magic tricks. Because whatever's really going on in life and in death is much more amazing than this douche."
Tuesday, April 7, 2009
Life, The Universe and Everything - Not such a hard question after all.
The other day while listening to the original radio play of "The Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy" by Douglas Adams, I was fascinated by the amount of scenes and dialogue which I had either overlooked or forgotten since the first time I listened to it. One piece in particular though stuck in my mind. The scene in question revolves around the unveiling of the answer to the ultimate question of life, the universe and everything. The conversation goes like this:
"Deep Thought: The answer to Everything ...
Vroomfondel: Yes!
Deep Thought: Life, The Universe and Everything ...
Majikthise: Yes!
Deep Thought: Is ...
Vroomfondel: Yes!
Deep Thought: 42
Majikthise: We're going to get lynched you know that
Deep Thought: The problem such as it was was too broadly based. You never actually stated what the question was.
Vroomfondel: But it was the Ultimate Question, the Question of Life, the Universe and Everything."
Just like the hapless philosophers Vroomfondel and Majikthise in The Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy, quite a lot of thought has been given over to this question over the course of history and more than a few trees have had to lay down their lives so some person or another can expound their idea of the answer. The problem with historical philosophers just as with the fictional ones we have seen here is that they truly didn't understand the question they were asking. I think this is why this question has consumed so much human activity because as far as I can see, the most obvious facet of the question of life, the universe and everything is relatively easy to answer and explain, namely the oft-asked question of why are we here.
Before we tackle that question though, it is worth considering the complexity of the whole question of life the universe and everything. As I've just mentioned, the common "why are we here question" is just one facet of the problem of answering the ultimate question. A facet is an appropriate term to use here since the question remains the same but the sense in which it is used changes, thus all the head scratching. So that I don't lose anyone's attention or my own train of thought at this point I shall simplify my argument. The question of why we are here is similar to the stone soup fairy tale of the Brothers Grimm. In the end you only get out of it what you put into it. By that I mean, if you are pondering how the universe came into existence and consequently humans you will best find your answers among the big bang and other physical theories. On the other hand if you are wondering about our current purpose on earth then your eventual answer will be completely different.
Before we tackle that question though, it is worth considering the complexity of the whole question of life the universe and everything. As I've just mentioned, the common "why are we here question" is just one facet of the problem of answering the ultimate question. A facet is an appropriate term to use here since the question remains the same but the sense in which it is used changes, thus all the head scratching. So that I don't lose anyone's attention or my own train of thought at this point I shall simplify my argument. The question of why we are here is similar to the stone soup fairy tale of the Brothers Grimm. In the end you only get out of it what you put into it. By that I mean, if you are pondering how the universe came into existence and consequently humans you will best find your answers among the big bang and other physical theories. On the other hand if you are wondering about our current purpose on earth then your eventual answer will be completely different.
For me the question of why we are here has always been about human existence and our purpose in life. The question of the existence of the universe was never really a problem either because I felt it was unimportant or because I've never really had a problem understanding the concepts of the creation of time and relativity and an infinite universe. Human existence and behaviour on the other hand is a far larger subject than the universe. At first the task of divining any sort of meaning on this subject seemed impossible. Then a few years ago I happened by accident on a book by zoologist Matt Ridley called "The Red Queen". It laid out with unanswerable simplicity the nature of human behaviour and the purpose of existence.
Since then the natural world has been opened up to me and I can see the whole of human behaviour with a clarity I never thought possible. The revelation was like opening your eyes for the first time. I don't wish through these essays to deliberately change anyone's mind and this is not some pulpit from which I preach some new doctrine but if you find yourself at a point in your life where you're looking for the big answers in life then you could do worse than reading The Red Queen.
Getting back to the point though, the answer to the question of why are we here is now so simple to me that I have trouble imagining how people have trouble answering it in the first place. It reminds me of first going back to teach youngers students having completed my degree. Some equations were so fundamental and easy to understand it was hard to explain it to people who had never seen them before. The real reason why we are all here on this planet (or another like it somewhere) is sex. Its kind of anti-climactic for all of human existence to be broken down to one word but there you go. We are here to reproduce, to spam our environment with little copies of ourselves so that our genes gain some measure of immortality. From the earliest days of this planet we have worked together at one biological level or another to ensure that our essence, our genes are passed on from one generation to the next. Once you can get your head around that, every other little detail starts to fall into place.
A female friemd once asked me (in a moment of mild frustration) why are all the best men taken, to which I replied - because they are the best. When you look at the science of human behaviour it all becomes clear. Women have a large biological investment in having children compared to men. A woman is limited to one child every nine months, a man is limited to, well a man is limited to as many children as the number of women he can seduce. Thus over the course of history these differing biological traits have lead to defined behavioural patterns when seeking out future mates or partners since that sounds better. Men seek quantity and women quality. Thus the physical characteristics which a man looks for in a woman is the ability to bear healthy children: hourglass figure, pale skin (i.e. less able to hide any genetic imperfections) and of course a bountiful chest. Think Angelina in Gone in 60 Seconds and you're there. Women on the other hand have different ideas, not only because of the time issue but because of the altricial (helpless) nature of human children. Thus a woman looks for a man who is reliable, dependable amd loyal. Because of this trait, a woman will often choose a man who is less good looking than one she could possibly get under normal circumstances akthough it has to be said that most of the time both sexes will attempt to get the best possible match if they can. As Gregory House once said to the wife of a patient in an episode of House MD:
This disparity in behavioural attitudes leads to the common misnomer of the battle of the sexes although it is really a balancing act of the tendencies of both sexes. Thus when we look at the course of family structures over the years we see that families have varied from harem type families with one dominant male and many females such as in ancient kingdoms and of course Utah to polyamorous societies like the free love movement. Human family structure is like a tide ebbing and flowing between these endpoints.
Once you start to look at the science of human behaviour what before seemed like everyday easily dismissed facts of life become fascinating trips through the history of human development. Eventually the answer becomes apparent and your perspective is changed forever. Some people have argued in the past about the most important field of human endeavour be it artificial intelligence, space exploration or cosmology. But for me at least, nothing could be more important than exploring our own selves. The only real risk of failure in this endeavour is the temptation of false promises or easy solutions like religion or astrology. To demonstrate this point I will leave the closing words to Stan Marsh, an eight year old wise beyond his years:
Since then the natural world has been opened up to me and I can see the whole of human behaviour with a clarity I never thought possible. The revelation was like opening your eyes for the first time. I don't wish through these essays to deliberately change anyone's mind and this is not some pulpit from which I preach some new doctrine but if you find yourself at a point in your life where you're looking for the big answers in life then you could do worse than reading The Red Queen.
Getting back to the point though, the answer to the question of why are we here is now so simple to me that I have trouble imagining how people have trouble answering it in the first place. It reminds me of first going back to teach youngers students having completed my degree. Some equations were so fundamental and easy to understand it was hard to explain it to people who had never seen them before. The real reason why we are all here on this planet (or another like it somewhere) is sex. Its kind of anti-climactic for all of human existence to be broken down to one word but there you go. We are here to reproduce, to spam our environment with little copies of ourselves so that our genes gain some measure of immortality. From the earliest days of this planet we have worked together at one biological level or another to ensure that our essence, our genes are passed on from one generation to the next. Once you can get your head around that, every other little detail starts to fall into place.
A female friemd once asked me (in a moment of mild frustration) why are all the best men taken, to which I replied - because they are the best. When you look at the science of human behaviour it all becomes clear. Women have a large biological investment in having children compared to men. A woman is limited to one child every nine months, a man is limited to, well a man is limited to as many children as the number of women he can seduce. Thus over the course of history these differing biological traits have lead to defined behavioural patterns when seeking out future mates or partners since that sounds better. Men seek quantity and women quality. Thus the physical characteristics which a man looks for in a woman is the ability to bear healthy children: hourglass figure, pale skin (i.e. less able to hide any genetic imperfections) and of course a bountiful chest. Think Angelina in Gone in 60 Seconds and you're there. Women on the other hand have different ideas, not only because of the time issue but because of the altricial (helpless) nature of human children. Thus a woman looks for a man who is reliable, dependable amd loyal. Because of this trait, a woman will often choose a man who is less good looking than one she could possibly get under normal circumstances akthough it has to be said that most of the time both sexes will attempt to get the best possible match if they can. As Gregory House once said to the wife of a patient in an episode of House MD:
"Sevens marry sevens, nines marry nines, fours marry fours. Maybe there's some wiggle room if someone gets pregnant or if there's enough money but you've got at least three points on your husband and your frock says you didn't do it for the money and your breasts say you don't have any kids."
This disparity in behavioural attitudes leads to the common misnomer of the battle of the sexes although it is really a balancing act of the tendencies of both sexes. Thus when we look at the course of family structures over the years we see that families have varied from harem type families with one dominant male and many females such as in ancient kingdoms and of course Utah to polyamorous societies like the free love movement. Human family structure is like a tide ebbing and flowing between these endpoints.
Once you start to look at the science of human behaviour what before seemed like everyday easily dismissed facts of life become fascinating trips through the history of human development. Eventually the answer becomes apparent and your perspective is changed forever. Some people have argued in the past about the most important field of human endeavour be it artificial intelligence, space exploration or cosmology. But for me at least, nothing could be more important than exploring our own selves. The only real risk of failure in this endeavour is the temptation of false promises or easy solutions like religion or astrology. To demonstrate this point I will leave the closing words to Stan Marsh, an eight year old wise beyond his years:
"The big questions in life are tough: why are we here, where are we from, where are we going? But if people believe in asshole douchey liars like you we're never going to find the real answers to those questions. You're not just lying to people, you're slowing down the progress of all mankind."
Friday, April 3, 2009
Atheism or agnosticism - a guide to choosing your new non-religion
Ok so lately there's been a question weighing on my mind regarding what pigeonhole I should put myself in when it comes to religion. Its been a good few years now since I realised that the Catholic faith in which I was raised was complete bullshit. Since then I have managed to stay outside the whole atheist vs. agnostic debate. Lately however, several different news articles and tv programmes have conspired to bring the question to the forefront of my thinking.
For those of you in need of a little philosophy refresher, atheism is the belief that there is no god (although some claim that it is the knowledge that there is no god) where as agnosticism is best described as I saw on a forum recently as:
As a scientist, albeit armchair scientist at the moment, I have always tended to side with the agnostics because the world that I see has always been about facts and figures and provable arguments and atheism does seem to be a leap into the unknown. There seems to be a degree of blind faith involved. In addition, there are a lot of people who label themselves as atheist who do so only because they have become disillusioned with the church and see atheism or at least calling themselves atheist as some sort of rebellion or counter-attack against whatever problem they have with their faith. If you watch the "Red Hot Catholic Love" episode of South Park you'll see what I mean.
Lately though, having explored the subject in more detail I started to realise that some of the ideas that I had had for years regarding religion and faith were more in line with atheist thought than agnosticism. One quote in particular by Stephen Roberts:
By way of example look at the story of Moses in the basket in the river which was taken from the story of Horus in Egyptian mythology, the story of god taking mortal form to save the lives of his people like the story of Quetzlcoatl in Toltec mythology, the depiction of god as an old man with a flowing white beard like Zeus in Greek mythology or even the great flood which can be found in no less than twenty three different world mythology some of which date back almost 5000 years such as the epic of Gilgamesh in Sumerian mythology.
Having read all of these fascinating stories from all around the world I soon came to realise a few things. One of which was the tendency for the number of deities in the dominant mythology of the day to decrease as time went on. We have gone from a world dominated by multitheistic faiths such as Greek, Roman and Egyptian to the monotheistic faiths of the last millennium such as Christianity and Islam to atheistic faiths such as Buddhism and humanism. Secondly, and probably more importantly, religion or mythology, whatever you want to call it, has always been about a person or group of people trying to explain the world around them.
A quick perusal of ancient mythologies will show that people tended to create gods in their own images to match the level of technological and philosophical awareness they had. Thus you had Norse mythology where Thor created thunder and lightning as he rode across the sky and swung his mighty hammer Mjollnir and Freyr as the god of agriculture and fertility. Then in Greek mythology you had similarly tangible deities such as Poseidon ruling over the sea and Artemis, goddess of the hunt but you also had more existential deities such as Athena, goddess of wisdom and Apollo, god of truth and prophecy. People have always invented gods which represent things which are close to their hearts or perhaps more darkly, representations of how they wished they could be.
Christianity is a prime example of this. In the bible, or at least the new testament, biblical writers have managed to create a god which reflects how people like to think of themselves even though they know its untrue. Thus you have a god which is compassionate, merciful, loving and forgiving. Most people just aren't like that but its the ideal that they strive for which may not be a bad thing.
My aim here though is not to change anyone's religion but merely to confirm my own or lack thereof. I respect people's religion although as someone once said:
This is evident most clearly in the ongoing stem cell research debate. There are a number of questions which, legitimately deserved to be asked regarding the future of stem cell research. I would have thought however, that any religious objection to such research would have to have some sort of scriptural foundation i.e. a passage in the bible. Once again, it would appear that I'm wrong. The only passage I could find which could be interpreted as authoritative in this matter is Leviticus 17:11 which states:
At the end of it all, I realised that my own particular worldview has been shaped by many factors, increasing my knowledge of the natural world and the universe, exploring the truth behind the simple religious stories of my childhood and coming to terms with the fact that the biggest problem with religion is religious people. I will leave the last word on this one to Penn Jillette who sums up the impact of the bible quite nicely:
For those of you in need of a little philosophy refresher, atheism is the belief that there is no god (although some claim that it is the knowledge that there is no god) where as agnosticism is best described as I saw on a forum recently as:
"a man shall not profess to know or believe that for which he has no grounds to believe"The source of the argument therefore, is the view of atheists that agnostics are fence-sitting cowards who refuse to get drawn into any kind of religious debate while agnostics view atheists as intellectually weak people who need to believe in something even if its nothing. Now that is probably an unfair generalisation and it would be wrong to tar all atheists and agnostics with the same brush but these viewpoints seem to recur again and again.
As a scientist, albeit armchair scientist at the moment, I have always tended to side with the agnostics because the world that I see has always been about facts and figures and provable arguments and atheism does seem to be a leap into the unknown. There seems to be a degree of blind faith involved. In addition, there are a lot of people who label themselves as atheist who do so only because they have become disillusioned with the church and see atheism or at least calling themselves atheist as some sort of rebellion or counter-attack against whatever problem they have with their faith. If you watch the "Red Hot Catholic Love" episode of South Park you'll see what I mean.
Lately though, having explored the subject in more detail I started to realise that some of the ideas that I had had for years regarding religion and faith were more in line with atheist thought than agnosticism. One quote in particular by Stephen Roberts:
"When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours"reminded me of a thought I had while reading through a dictionary of world mythologies. It seems to me that if there were some core truth to Christianity (well Catholicism anyway) that there would be some event, some record in the bible which was entirely unique which had not been seen before. In the words of U2, I still haven't found what I'm looking for. There just isn't any concept or character or event in the bible which hasn't been recorded in some older world mythology.
By way of example look at the story of Moses in the basket in the river which was taken from the story of Horus in Egyptian mythology, the story of god taking mortal form to save the lives of his people like the story of Quetzlcoatl in Toltec mythology, the depiction of god as an old man with a flowing white beard like Zeus in Greek mythology or even the great flood which can be found in no less than twenty three different world mythology some of which date back almost 5000 years such as the epic of Gilgamesh in Sumerian mythology.
Having read all of these fascinating stories from all around the world I soon came to realise a few things. One of which was the tendency for the number of deities in the dominant mythology of the day to decrease as time went on. We have gone from a world dominated by multitheistic faiths such as Greek, Roman and Egyptian to the monotheistic faiths of the last millennium such as Christianity and Islam to atheistic faiths such as Buddhism and humanism. Secondly, and probably more importantly, religion or mythology, whatever you want to call it, has always been about a person or group of people trying to explain the world around them.
A quick perusal of ancient mythologies will show that people tended to create gods in their own images to match the level of technological and philosophical awareness they had. Thus you had Norse mythology where Thor created thunder and lightning as he rode across the sky and swung his mighty hammer Mjollnir and Freyr as the god of agriculture and fertility. Then in Greek mythology you had similarly tangible deities such as Poseidon ruling over the sea and Artemis, goddess of the hunt but you also had more existential deities such as Athena, goddess of wisdom and Apollo, god of truth and prophecy. People have always invented gods which represent things which are close to their hearts or perhaps more darkly, representations of how they wished they could be.
Christianity is a prime example of this. In the bible, or at least the new testament, biblical writers have managed to create a god which reflects how people like to think of themselves even though they know its untrue. Thus you have a god which is compassionate, merciful, loving and forgiving. Most people just aren't like that but its the ideal that they strive for which may not be a bad thing.
My aim here though is not to change anyone's religion but merely to confirm my own or lack thereof. I respect people's religion although as someone once said:
"You should respect someone's religion in the same way that you respect their theory that their wife is beautiful and their children smart."Everyone has the right to believe what they want to believe, even if it is Scientology. This is what really irritates me about evangelism. The idea of people trying to brainwash, bully or otherwise persuade you to their way of thinking is infuriating, not least of which because it contradicts the very word of god they are trying to spread:
"Turn not your steps into pagan territory and do not enter any samaritan city. Go instead to the lost sheep of the houses of Israel and preach saying the kingdom of heaven is at hand." Matthew 10: 5-8But evangelism isn't just brainwashing people its also lying to them. There's a certain dishonesty in this kind of make it up as you go along kind of religion that really annoys me as well. The syncretic and canonical nature of christianity allows the church to twist scripture to suit whatever mission statement is best suited to winning over the biggest number of new customers.
This is evident most clearly in the ongoing stem cell research debate. There are a number of questions which, legitimately deserved to be asked regarding the future of stem cell research. I would have thought however, that any religious objection to such research would have to have some sort of scriptural foundation i.e. a passage in the bible. Once again, it would appear that I'm wrong. The only passage I could find which could be interpreted as authoritative in this matter is Leviticus 17:11 which states:
"For the life of the flesh is in the blood"This would seem to indicate that according to the bible that life begins when the blood begins to circulate which happens when the foetus is 8 days old and not at conception and yet the christians have taken it upon themselves to make up their own rule.
At the end of it all, I realised that my own particular worldview has been shaped by many factors, increasing my knowledge of the natural world and the universe, exploring the truth behind the simple religious stories of my childhood and coming to terms with the fact that the biggest problem with religion is religious people. I will leave the last word on this one to Penn Jillette who sums up the impact of the bible quite nicely:
"Whatever you do don't read the bible for a moral code. It advocates prejudice, cruelty, superstition and murder. Read it because we need more atheists and nothing will get you there faster than reading the damn bible."
Wednesday, April 1, 2009
Earth Hour - The Dark Ages are back!
Well I hope you all enjoyed your 60 minutes in the dark last Saturday because as far as I'm concerned it was truly metaphorical of the techonological dark age we are about to enter if the green movement get their way.
Before we start, let's get a few things clear. I'm not a global warming skeptic at least in the traditionally accepted sense of the term. I accept that climate change is happening and that we are in a warming period unlike any previous era. I also accept that the likely cause of this increased warming is human activity over the last 35000 years. Let's remember for a minute that the IPCC report on global warming states that the warming observed over the last 50 years is due to human activity and not that the warming observed is due to human activity over the last 50 years. The phrasing of the IPCC conclusion is incredibly precise and a simple change in the order of the words leads to a vastly different interpretation. Anthropogenic greenhouse gases don't just come from Range Rovers and Hummers but from a wide array of human activities some of which date back just a few hundred years such as electricity production and metal fabrication and some which date back thousands of years such as farming and alcohol production.
There are however a couple of questions which still need to be answered.
The first of these is the extent to which the currently observed climate changes are part of a natural phenomenon. Carbon dioxide and mean temperature data extracted from ice core samples over the last 400,000 years show a cyclical trend in warming and cooling periods. While the current warming period shows carbon dioxide concentrations much higher than expected for the observed temperature data, it still follows that at some future point, either far in the future as part of a natural process or much sooner as a result of human activity, an inflexion point will occur where cooling begins and an ice age beckons. After all, we have evidence of such ice ages as far back as the Cryogenian some 850 million years ago and even the Huronian some 2.7 billion years ago although the latter is merely hypothesized. It stands to reason, therefore, that with or without our help, the planet is able to go through a significant warming period and come out the other side without any harm done. In fact, it may be the case that the planet needs to go through this cycle of warming and cooling and may be just another natural phenomenon like the flipping of the poles or extinction level events, although this is just supposition on my part. As a corollary to that idea, we should really if only as a thought exercise look at adapting to life on a hotter and later colder earth because if this is part of some natural process, aided by us or not, then taking steps to make this planet comfortable for humans for another thousand years may result in the kind of drastic consequences that environmentalists are always going on about in terms of inaction.
The second question or problem as it were regarding the current climate change movement is the fact that, in the mainstream, the blame and/or responsibility for our current predicament is placed squarely on the shoulders of motorists. It seems that we should all abandon our SUVs and sportscars because we are killing the planet and instead choose bicycles and Toyta Priuses (or is that Prii) or worst of all the totally terrible and disgusting G-Wiz, best described by James May as the most stupid, useless and dangerous car ever to stalk the earth. After all the only thing that comes out of the back of a Prius is love and of course, smugness. Now, having said that I really do think that the idea of having a whopping great 4x4 when you live in suburban anywhere is ridiculous. My problem with the Prius brigade is a technological one. For as long as humans have existed, our technological progress has been inextricably linked to our ability and indeed our desire to go faster. The car is a defining invention in our collective history and has evolved to the point (at least in Europe) where you can sit in comfort in a vehicle capable of 100+ miles per hour with a range of up to 1000km with luxuries like sat nav and climate control. If we then have to go back to vehicles with a top speed of 40, a range of 60 miles and having to choose between headlights and windscreen wipers then we will have taken a massive technological leap backwards. This wouldn't be the first time such a leap has happened. After all back in the 1300s when people were developing the first matchlock muskets, the average archer could manage 12-15 rounds per minute with an accuracy of over 200 yards compared to 3 rounds every two minutes from the musket and accuracy about half that of the archer. The reason behind this change however was the need to go backward to go forward. An archer could take anything up to 10 or 15 years to train whereas a rifleman could be trained in mere days or weeks. I don't see this problem with automotive development, particularly with the release of the Honda Clarity, the world's first hydrogen fuelled car. This car at least provides the same range, cost and comfort as that which we are used to.
Another problem which I have with the Prius brigade, however, is what I suspect is a dishonest motive in targeting the car as the cause of climate change. I think that there are other factors involved in this environmentalist plot. One factor is most certainly money. Let's for a second look back to two years ago when swedish car manufacturer Koenigsegg introduced the CCX,R the world's first biofuel supercar. Now, where was the fanfare with Greenpeace holding up the CCXR as the poster boy of the green movement. Nowhere, is where, because at a pricetag of 840,000stg. it was hardly cheap. And that is the problem with the green movement. There is a pervasive hatred of anything expensive or luxurious regardless of how beneficial to the environment that product might be. After all when research showed that trains were more environmentally damaging than cars (per passenger by the way), the response from friends of the earth was not that people should drive more but that the greenest journey is one that isn't made at all. That one kind of speaks for itself.
The other problem with the Prius brigade which brings me back to the central topic of sitting in the dark for an hour (not that I did anyway) which is that there seems to be a veiled attempt at a Luddite movement under the guise of being green. All technology is suddenly starting to come under intense scrutiny for its greenness. Although the car has borne the brunt of neo-luddite invective, computers, mobile technology and even biotech and nanotech have come in for a bashing from these nutters.
At the end of the day, we should all be doing our bit to help the planet, because its the only one we've got (that we know of). At the same time though, we shouldn't be taken in by all the misdirection out there forcing us down a particular lifestyle choice like vegetarianism or primitivism because we are afraid of the consequences or because of guilt over what we have done. The climate change question is still open and although the IPCC has concluded the likelihood of anthropogenic climate change as the cause of current global warming, the matter is not sealed and every day we are researching new causes, new technologies and new treatments for this problem. I'll leave the last word on this topic to Gerald Broflovski whose advice to his son Kyle in South Park should be heeded by anyone who feels guilty about killing the planet the next time they tuck into a cheeseburger:
Before we start, let's get a few things clear. I'm not a global warming skeptic at least in the traditionally accepted sense of the term. I accept that climate change is happening and that we are in a warming period unlike any previous era. I also accept that the likely cause of this increased warming is human activity over the last 35000 years. Let's remember for a minute that the IPCC report on global warming states that the warming observed over the last 50 years is due to human activity and not that the warming observed is due to human activity over the last 50 years. The phrasing of the IPCC conclusion is incredibly precise and a simple change in the order of the words leads to a vastly different interpretation. Anthropogenic greenhouse gases don't just come from Range Rovers and Hummers but from a wide array of human activities some of which date back just a few hundred years such as electricity production and metal fabrication and some which date back thousands of years such as farming and alcohol production.
There are however a couple of questions which still need to be answered.
The first of these is the extent to which the currently observed climate changes are part of a natural phenomenon. Carbon dioxide and mean temperature data extracted from ice core samples over the last 400,000 years show a cyclical trend in warming and cooling periods. While the current warming period shows carbon dioxide concentrations much higher than expected for the observed temperature data, it still follows that at some future point, either far in the future as part of a natural process or much sooner as a result of human activity, an inflexion point will occur where cooling begins and an ice age beckons. After all, we have evidence of such ice ages as far back as the Cryogenian some 850 million years ago and even the Huronian some 2.7 billion years ago although the latter is merely hypothesized. It stands to reason, therefore, that with or without our help, the planet is able to go through a significant warming period and come out the other side without any harm done. In fact, it may be the case that the planet needs to go through this cycle of warming and cooling and may be just another natural phenomenon like the flipping of the poles or extinction level events, although this is just supposition on my part. As a corollary to that idea, we should really if only as a thought exercise look at adapting to life on a hotter and later colder earth because if this is part of some natural process, aided by us or not, then taking steps to make this planet comfortable for humans for another thousand years may result in the kind of drastic consequences that environmentalists are always going on about in terms of inaction.
The second question or problem as it were regarding the current climate change movement is the fact that, in the mainstream, the blame and/or responsibility for our current predicament is placed squarely on the shoulders of motorists. It seems that we should all abandon our SUVs and sportscars because we are killing the planet and instead choose bicycles and Toyta Priuses (or is that Prii) or worst of all the totally terrible and disgusting G-Wiz, best described by James May as the most stupid, useless and dangerous car ever to stalk the earth. After all the only thing that comes out of the back of a Prius is love and of course, smugness. Now, having said that I really do think that the idea of having a whopping great 4x4 when you live in suburban anywhere is ridiculous. My problem with the Prius brigade is a technological one. For as long as humans have existed, our technological progress has been inextricably linked to our ability and indeed our desire to go faster. The car is a defining invention in our collective history and has evolved to the point (at least in Europe) where you can sit in comfort in a vehicle capable of 100+ miles per hour with a range of up to 1000km with luxuries like sat nav and climate control. If we then have to go back to vehicles with a top speed of 40, a range of 60 miles and having to choose between headlights and windscreen wipers then we will have taken a massive technological leap backwards. This wouldn't be the first time such a leap has happened. After all back in the 1300s when people were developing the first matchlock muskets, the average archer could manage 12-15 rounds per minute with an accuracy of over 200 yards compared to 3 rounds every two minutes from the musket and accuracy about half that of the archer. The reason behind this change however was the need to go backward to go forward. An archer could take anything up to 10 or 15 years to train whereas a rifleman could be trained in mere days or weeks. I don't see this problem with automotive development, particularly with the release of the Honda Clarity, the world's first hydrogen fuelled car. This car at least provides the same range, cost and comfort as that which we are used to.
Another problem which I have with the Prius brigade, however, is what I suspect is a dishonest motive in targeting the car as the cause of climate change. I think that there are other factors involved in this environmentalist plot. One factor is most certainly money. Let's for a second look back to two years ago when swedish car manufacturer Koenigsegg introduced the CCX,R the world's first biofuel supercar. Now, where was the fanfare with Greenpeace holding up the CCXR as the poster boy of the green movement. Nowhere, is where, because at a pricetag of 840,000stg. it was hardly cheap. And that is the problem with the green movement. There is a pervasive hatred of anything expensive or luxurious regardless of how beneficial to the environment that product might be. After all when research showed that trains were more environmentally damaging than cars (per passenger by the way), the response from friends of the earth was not that people should drive more but that the greenest journey is one that isn't made at all. That one kind of speaks for itself.
The other problem with the Prius brigade which brings me back to the central topic of sitting in the dark for an hour (not that I did anyway) which is that there seems to be a veiled attempt at a Luddite movement under the guise of being green. All technology is suddenly starting to come under intense scrutiny for its greenness. Although the car has borne the brunt of neo-luddite invective, computers, mobile technology and even biotech and nanotech have come in for a bashing from these nutters.
At the end of the day, we should all be doing our bit to help the planet, because its the only one we've got (that we know of). At the same time though, we shouldn't be taken in by all the misdirection out there forcing us down a particular lifestyle choice like vegetarianism or primitivism because we are afraid of the consequences or because of guilt over what we have done. The climate change question is still open and although the IPCC has concluded the likelihood of anthropogenic climate change as the cause of current global warming, the matter is not sealed and every day we are researching new causes, new technologies and new treatments for this problem. I'll leave the last word on this topic to Gerald Broflovski whose advice to his son Kyle in South Park should be heeded by anyone who feels guilty about killing the planet the next time they tuck into a cheeseburger:
"But to believe in something just because you're afraid of the consequences if you don't believe in something is no reason to believe in something"
Thursday, March 26, 2009
Texas - Abandon hope all ye who enter here!
Well I suppose it had to happen eventually. The lone star state has finally decided to follow in the footsteps of its most famous son, George W Bush and become a complete dumbass and the laughing stock of the free thinking world. For those of you who missed it,a group of conservatives (who shall hereafter be referred to as inbred rednecks) were narrowly defeated in their attempt to force biology teachers in the state to teach the strengths and weaknesses of scientific theories. So, that's not all that bad you might say. Open debate is good for science. Well yes, except for the fact that the barrel of this legislative gun is aimed squarely at evolution. Yes folks, that's right it's another creationist plot to get their worldview brought in to the science classroom and it has raised or at least revived several key issues regarding the creationist fallacy.
The biggest issue for me as an outsider looking in at this circus is the fact that the rational people, the ones who are fighting hard to get rid of this kind of insidious religious dogma from public schools have completely missed the point. Penn & Teller outlined the position of the rational Americans quite brilliantly on their show bullshit when they said:
It's not just America though where these battles are being fought. Creationists around the world are increasing in number and volume with their calls for "creation science" to be taught in schools. Its happening in Northern Ireland, the UK, Holland and many other countries. The main argument being trotted out by these people is that their viewpoint should be given equal weight so that school children can make up their own mind which they would like to believe. This argument is ridiculous to the point of absurd. We cannot and should not waste children's time with every crackpot theory that someone has about a particular topic. We don't have physics teachers spending half the class on the theory that the earth is round and the other half on the one that it is flat. Check out these nutcases if you don't believe me!
The other really aggravating argument which seems to fuel most of the fundamentalist rhetoric that is bandied about by the creationists is the use of Charles Darwin as the ultimate authority in evolution. Creationists use the term "darwinist" in an almost derogatory manner to describe people who support evolution as if all our knowledge regarding evolution comes from The Origin of Species. These people are so narrow minded that they believe that since they base their argument on one supposedly infallible text then we must as well. As someone once said: " A coward believes all other men are cowards and a thief believes all others are thieves". It's as if someone who wanted to find fault with airbags blamed it all on Gottlieb Daimler. Modern evolution has adapted since Darwin's day to incorporate all the evidence which has been discovered in the fields of biology, palaentology, anthropology, zoology and psychology.
In the end right-thinking people won out and another nail was driven firmly into the coffin of creationist dogma but like so many George A. Romero bad guys, creationism won't stay dead so we have to be ever watchful. I'll leave the last words on this topic to Thomas Jefferson who saw the future rise of these people over two hundred years ago:
The biggest issue for me as an outsider looking in at this circus is the fact that the rational people, the ones who are fighting hard to get rid of this kind of insidious religious dogma from public schools have completely missed the point. Penn & Teller outlined the position of the rational Americans quite brilliantly on their show bullshit when they said:
"We all belong to a club. That club is called the United States of America. As members of the club we pay dues called taxes. The club is run according to the club rules which we call the constitution. These rules state that if something is paid for with taxes then it can't have religion in it. It's in the pesky by-laws."For these people it's the fact that religion is creeping into schools is the big deal and not that the ideas proferred by idiots like Michael Behe and the rest of the intelligent design movement are junk science and that consequently schoolkids aren't getting the proper scientific education that they're going to need to prepare them for careers in science.
It's not just America though where these battles are being fought. Creationists around the world are increasing in number and volume with their calls for "creation science" to be taught in schools. Its happening in Northern Ireland, the UK, Holland and many other countries. The main argument being trotted out by these people is that their viewpoint should be given equal weight so that school children can make up their own mind which they would like to believe. This argument is ridiculous to the point of absurd. We cannot and should not waste children's time with every crackpot theory that someone has about a particular topic. We don't have physics teachers spending half the class on the theory that the earth is round and the other half on the one that it is flat. Check out these nutcases if you don't believe me!
http://www.alaska.net/~clund/e_djublonskopf/Flatearthsociety.htmSimilarly we don't hear the outraged cries of holocaust deniers clamouring to be heard in history class. The simple truth of the matter is that evolution as we understand it today is the single biggest hole in the already leaky theory that is christian fundamentalism. Which leads me nicely on to my next point.
The other really aggravating argument which seems to fuel most of the fundamentalist rhetoric that is bandied about by the creationists is the use of Charles Darwin as the ultimate authority in evolution. Creationists use the term "darwinist" in an almost derogatory manner to describe people who support evolution as if all our knowledge regarding evolution comes from The Origin of Species. These people are so narrow minded that they believe that since they base their argument on one supposedly infallible text then we must as well. As someone once said: " A coward believes all other men are cowards and a thief believes all others are thieves". It's as if someone who wanted to find fault with airbags blamed it all on Gottlieb Daimler. Modern evolution has adapted since Darwin's day to incorporate all the evidence which has been discovered in the fields of biology, palaentology, anthropology, zoology and psychology.
In the end right-thinking people won out and another nail was driven firmly into the coffin of creationist dogma but like so many George A. Romero bad guys, creationism won't stay dead so we have to be ever watchful. I'll leave the last words on this topic to Thomas Jefferson who saw the future rise of these people over two hundred years ago:
"The price of freedom is eternal vigilance"
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)