Mitt Romney finally addressed the issue of his Mormonism, and in light of current political tastes, his speech was a good one. But it really doesn't address why it matters that a man who is a Mormon is running for President.
We have freedom of religion in this country, and it is a right I whole heartedly support. But this addresses people's opinions of deities, and that is all it is supposed to protect. Believe in one god, thousands, or none, the government, and the people in civic affairs, should treat all the same. However, religious freedom does not give one free reign to say and do anything, as long as one claims it is part of one's religion. It doesn't matter if one's religion requires ingesting peyote, since doing so is illegal for secular reasons, one cannot do so in the name of religious freedom. Likewise for refusing medical treatment to children. It is insane that there is any tolerance for parents refusing proven medical treatments to children due to religious objections. Likewise, religious freedom does not give one free reign to believe any bizarro thing and be exempt from appropriate character judgements. If you believe a space shop is following a comet, you deserve derision, whether you call it a religion or not.
And here is the problem with Mormonism. This religion goes beyond believing in things unseen and unproven (ie Jesus' supposed resurrection), and leaps to believing things that are demonstrably false. For example, the pre-Columbian populations of the America's were demonstrably not descended from lost tribes of Israel. There is also the issue of polygamy, and apparently the Mormon church was officially racist within the last century. And don't even get me started on the magic glasses and the secret underwear.
But the point is this: A candidate that believes all animal species were created ex nihilo 6,000 years ago shows a grotesque ignorance of history, or astonishing stupidity, to be kind. This matters in a leader, whether he calls his delusion a religion or not. Likewise for believing the "Native American" population is descended from lost tribes of Israel. It matters that a leader be in touch with the realities of the world. If the last 7 years demonstrates anything, it demonstrates that. It's not good enough to have all the right opinions and be surrounded by smart people. Our next leader needs to be an intelligent, educated, reality-based man, and the beliefs of Mormonism, moreso even than Fundamentalist Christianity, runs counter to that goal. If that seems too bitter a pill to swallow, consider if Romney was a believer of Voodoo, or was a Scientologist, or a Raelian? Would you still maintain his religious views were irrelevant? If your opinion changes, then de facto what you believe in is freedom of religion, but only for large politically powerful religions, and tough noogies for everyone else. Sorry, that isn't what America was founded on.
Believe in the gods of your choice, and participate in the religious culture in which you are comfortable. I don't hold anyone who attends a Catholic service to everything the Vatican says. But when you start believing idiotic things about factual subjects, such as the Pope's supposed infallibility, I care, and so should everyone else considering giving you the position of Leader of the Free World. Romney needs to make it clear that he repudiates the idiocy of Mormonism, else he look to support it by his silence.
Thursday, December 6, 2007
Wednesday, December 5, 2007
Humans outdone by Rats for causing Extinctions
In case you are one of these people that wants to blame humanity for everything, get a load of this article about the extinctions caused by rats. One island creatively dubbed Rat Island, populated with rats fleeing a Japanese ship, has become completely devoid of the birds that normally would nest there. It's not the only one:
"Rats have all but wiped out the seabirds on about a dozen large islands and many smaller islands in the refuge, which is home to an estimated 40 million nesting seabirds. Puffins, auklets and storm petrels are most at risk because they leave their eggs and young for extended periods while foraging.
Rats have been the scourge of islands worldwide. According to the California-based group Island Conservation, rats are to blame for between 40 percent and 60 percent of all seabirds and reptile extinctions, with 90 percent of those occurring on islands
'Rats are one of the worst invasive species around,' said Gregg Howald, program manager for Island Conservation, which is working with the U.S. government on a plan for Rat Island.."
This has caused a rare turnabout in the scientific community, which is preparing an attempt to wipe out the rats on these islands.
"The state is joining forces with federal wildlife biologists in a multi-pronged attack to drive the rats from Alaska.
State regulations went into effect this fall requiring mariners to check for rats and try to eradicate them if found. Violators face a year in jail and a $10,000 fine. Corporations could be fined up to $200,000.
... mariners [are told] to kill every rat on board, have traps set at all times, keep trash and food in rat-proof containers, use line guards — funnel-shaped devices that go around mooring lines — to keep rats from getting off or coming aboard, and never throw a live rat over the side. Rats are excellent swimmers.
The assault on the rats of 6,871-acre Rat Island could begin as early as next October. The plan — which involves the use of a blood thinner that will cause the rodents to bleed to death — still must be reviewed and sent out for public comment.
Scientists want to see how the project goes before deciding whether to try to exterminate the rats on other islands."
They apparently have had success with this strategy on other smaller islands. I hope they have taken the necessary caution to consider the effect removing the rats might have on the wildlife that has lived among the rats for many generations and possibly adapted to, or become dependent, on them. We need only look at the cane toad fiasco in Austrailia for a reminder of how badly good intentions can go when mankind attempts to change the biological landscape. Still, I remain hopeful.
And for those who are determined to blame all of this on humans anyway on the grounds that the rats would never have made it onto those islands were it not for our ships, by that reasoning, we could extend the blame to whatever actions by ancient species led to human beings in the first place. We may have assisted the rats getting onto the islands, but they did the damage.
"Rats have all but wiped out the seabirds on about a dozen large islands and many smaller islands in the refuge, which is home to an estimated 40 million nesting seabirds. Puffins, auklets and storm petrels are most at risk because they leave their eggs and young for extended periods while foraging.
Rats have been the scourge of islands worldwide. According to the California-based group Island Conservation, rats are to blame for between 40 percent and 60 percent of all seabirds and reptile extinctions, with 90 percent of those occurring on islands
'Rats are one of the worst invasive species around,' said Gregg Howald, program manager for Island Conservation, which is working with the U.S. government on a plan for Rat Island.."
This has caused a rare turnabout in the scientific community, which is preparing an attempt to wipe out the rats on these islands.
"The state is joining forces with federal wildlife biologists in a multi-pronged attack to drive the rats from Alaska.
State regulations went into effect this fall requiring mariners to check for rats and try to eradicate them if found. Violators face a year in jail and a $10,000 fine. Corporations could be fined up to $200,000.
... mariners [are told] to kill every rat on board, have traps set at all times, keep trash and food in rat-proof containers, use line guards — funnel-shaped devices that go around mooring lines — to keep rats from getting off or coming aboard, and never throw a live rat over the side. Rats are excellent swimmers.
The assault on the rats of 6,871-acre Rat Island could begin as early as next October. The plan — which involves the use of a blood thinner that will cause the rodents to bleed to death — still must be reviewed and sent out for public comment.
Scientists want to see how the project goes before deciding whether to try to exterminate the rats on other islands."
They apparently have had success with this strategy on other smaller islands. I hope they have taken the necessary caution to consider the effect removing the rats might have on the wildlife that has lived among the rats for many generations and possibly adapted to, or become dependent, on them. We need only look at the cane toad fiasco in Austrailia for a reminder of how badly good intentions can go when mankind attempts to change the biological landscape. Still, I remain hopeful.
And for those who are determined to blame all of this on humans anyway on the grounds that the rats would never have made it onto those islands were it not for our ships, by that reasoning, we could extend the blame to whatever actions by ancient species led to human beings in the first place. We may have assisted the rats getting onto the islands, but they did the damage.
Tuesday, December 4, 2007
Huckabee's Brilliant Dodge
Republican presidential hopeful Mike Huckabee was asked by George Stephanopolous whether or not Mitt Romney was a Christian. Huckabee dodged brilliantly, saying that no one can make that call for anyone else, and that's up to Mitt Romney to say. This did three things at once:
1) It made Huckabee look oh so kind by refusing to speak negatively about someone else, and oh so tolerant by appearing to grant legitimacy to religion views.
2) In fact, his answer screams "Don't vote for this guy, he's not a Christian" to the Religious Right Huckabee is courting. They know were Romney a Christian Huckabee would say so.
3) He's basically dared the media to ask Romney, something poor ol' Mitt can't possibly come out of smelling well.
Of course, the seriously bad side to this, and the Bible question in the last debate as well, is that it is treading awfully close to a de facto religious test for office. We not only aren't supposed to have such a thing in this country, but we are supposed to believe in the irrelevancy of religion when it comes to civic matters. This is a core American principle that those touting "traditional values" have led the way in destroying. America was founded on the attitude "If the law allows what my religion forbids, I will abide by my religious limits anyway, because that is what I believe", not "If the law allows what my religion forbids, I will change the law, because that is the way everyone should believe." Those who think the President should be a Christian are being more unAmerican that 40 flag burners.
1) It made Huckabee look oh so kind by refusing to speak negatively about someone else, and oh so tolerant by appearing to grant legitimacy to religion views.
2) In fact, his answer screams "Don't vote for this guy, he's not a Christian" to the Religious Right Huckabee is courting. They know were Romney a Christian Huckabee would say so.
3) He's basically dared the media to ask Romney, something poor ol' Mitt can't possibly come out of smelling well.
Of course, the seriously bad side to this, and the Bible question in the last debate as well, is that it is treading awfully close to a de facto religious test for office. We not only aren't supposed to have such a thing in this country, but we are supposed to believe in the irrelevancy of religion when it comes to civic matters. This is a core American principle that those touting "traditional values" have led the way in destroying. America was founded on the attitude "If the law allows what my religion forbids, I will abide by my religious limits anyway, because that is what I believe", not "If the law allows what my religion forbids, I will change the law, because that is the way everyone should believe." Those who think the President should be a Christian are being more unAmerican that 40 flag burners.
Prager's Circular Reasoning about "The Left"
One of the scare words that many conservatives use to avoid having to make substantive arguments is “The left”. It is rarely defined objectively, but is simply hurled about willy nilly at all those who oppose the speaker’s views. It is used to dismiss arguments rather than refute them, and in some cases, used in a circular manner to avoid the real issues involved. Dennis Prager’s latest screed is a perfect example of this.
Prager attempts to dispel the notion that the world hates America:
”One of the most widely held beliefs in the contemporary world -- so widely held it is not disputed -- is that, with few exceptions, the world hates America. One of the Democrats' major accusations against the Bush administration is that it has increased hatred of America to unprecedented levels. And in many polls, the United States is held to be among the greatest obstacles to world peace and harmony.
But it is not true that the world hates America. It is the world's left that hates America. However, because the left dominates the world's news media and because most people, understandably, believe what the news media report, many people, including Americans, believe that the world hates America. “
Well no shit Dennis. Why would “the right” hate America? The Right, led by Rightist in Chief George Bush, rule America. What we (who use the term honestly) call “left” in America is considered right of center by most of the rest of the world. The “world’s left” hates America because that IS the world, at least the part whose respect we desire.
And why would that be? Simple. By the myopia through which the Pragers of the world see the world, all who are not right are left. And what defines right these days?
Resistance to abortion because of religious views of life.
Support of supply-side economics in defiance of all evidence.
Resistance to good science education including evolution.
Denial of anthropocentric global warming.
The insistence that Saddam Hussein was in league with Osama Bin Laden and had weapons of mass destruction.
There are many more examples, but those will suffice. In other words Dennis, the world appears leftist to you because here in the states, The Right is defined by those who support positions which bely reality. The rest of the world is left because they do a much better (though granted still woefully inadequate) job of recognizing reality, and we in America, particularly the right (and too the left) have a problem with this.
Prager’s only other argument is pathetically illogical:
”There is another obvious argument against the belief that the world hates America: Many millions of people would rather live in America than in any other country. How does the left explain this? Why would people want to come to a country they loathe? Why don't people want to live in Sweden or France as much as they wish to live in America? Those are rich and free countries, too.
For the same reason everyone hates Terrell Owens or Randy Moss when they play for another team, but loves them when they play for their team. Or to put it another way, is it really hard to understand why a kid beaten up by the bully’s gang might want to be a member of that gang? Is it REALLY difficult to understand why an Iraqi who hates America for destroying his country might see America as a good place to live? I guess that’s just another reality that is entirely too complicated for Prager and the Right to see.
Prager attempts to dispel the notion that the world hates America:
”One of the most widely held beliefs in the contemporary world -- so widely held it is not disputed -- is that, with few exceptions, the world hates America. One of the Democrats' major accusations against the Bush administration is that it has increased hatred of America to unprecedented levels. And in many polls, the United States is held to be among the greatest obstacles to world peace and harmony.
But it is not true that the world hates America. It is the world's left that hates America. However, because the left dominates the world's news media and because most people, understandably, believe what the news media report, many people, including Americans, believe that the world hates America. “
Well no shit Dennis. Why would “the right” hate America? The Right, led by Rightist in Chief George Bush, rule America. What we (who use the term honestly) call “left” in America is considered right of center by most of the rest of the world. The “world’s left” hates America because that IS the world, at least the part whose respect we desire.
And why would that be? Simple. By the myopia through which the Pragers of the world see the world, all who are not right are left. And what defines right these days?
Resistance to abortion because of religious views of life.
Support of supply-side economics in defiance of all evidence.
Resistance to good science education including evolution.
Denial of anthropocentric global warming.
The insistence that Saddam Hussein was in league with Osama Bin Laden and had weapons of mass destruction.
There are many more examples, but those will suffice. In other words Dennis, the world appears leftist to you because here in the states, The Right is defined by those who support positions which bely reality. The rest of the world is left because they do a much better (though granted still woefully inadequate) job of recognizing reality, and we in America, particularly the right (and too the left) have a problem with this.
Prager’s only other argument is pathetically illogical:
”There is another obvious argument against the belief that the world hates America: Many millions of people would rather live in America than in any other country. How does the left explain this? Why would people want to come to a country they loathe? Why don't people want to live in Sweden or France as much as they wish to live in America? Those are rich and free countries, too.
For the same reason everyone hates Terrell Owens or Randy Moss when they play for another team, but loves them when they play for their team. Or to put it another way, is it really hard to understand why a kid beaten up by the bully’s gang might want to be a member of that gang? Is it REALLY difficult to understand why an Iraqi who hates America for destroying his country might see America as a good place to live? I guess that’s just another reality that is entirely too complicated for Prager and the Right to see.
Monday, December 3, 2007
Classic Special Pleading for Religion
On another thread of mine Little David left a lengthy comment that I thought was such a perfect example of the special pleading religion gets, and is demanded on its behalf, in our society, that it deserved its own post and fisking. It is also a perfect example of the kind of intellectually dishonest shilling we've come to expect from right-wing pundits, which guarantees to bely attempts at rational discourse. Ever the optimist, I will try anyway.
"Sorry, I think I am starting to see evidence of an almost unreasonable hysteria against anything that hints of religious beliefs. Evidence of this is the statement: 'They may occasionally reach the same conclusions, but they are, at their core, opposed, and they always will be.'"
Here right away we see the standard Coulterish tactic of using baseless inflammatory rhetoric in lieu of sound reasoning. A simple factual claim that science, being driven by evidence, and religion, being driven by faith, are at their core opposed, is "hysterical"? By what standards? None, it is just a good example of the fallacy of poisoning the well: after all, why should the arguments of "hysterical" people be dealt with logically?
To be clear, this atheist has no trouble whatsoever with other people holding religious beliefs, or basing their personal life decisions on them. What I, and many in the reality-based community object to is the use of these faith-based beliefs to make decisions in the public sphere, or the facade that these beliefs are compatible or comparable to science.
"Some atheists are starting to sound as unreasonable in insisting of the 'facts' being something they can NOT prove (God does not exist) as those who insist that every syllable uttered in the Bible is infallible."
Ah, right off the Fox News script: "some people say". What atheists sound this way? Name them. What exactly did they say? Quote them, IN CONTEXT. There is a good reason the right-wing apologists, be they Little David or Dinesh D'Souza, rarely do so: their claims can't stand up to the facts, so all they have to rely on is baseless generalizations. Any why the scare quotes around the word "facts"? It's just another rhetorical trick this crowd loves. Instead of attacking a claim with which they differ head on with logic and evidence, they simply put scare quotes around it. This allows them to treat it as refuted without having to do the hard work of actually doing so.
Once one examines this claim logically one can easily see why all those distractions would be in there. That the Bible is not infallible can be verified, in multiple independent instances, by any person with a sound mind and a dictionary. Anyone claiming otherwise is acting in defiance of the facts. Little David wishes to compare this to the claim that the evidence supports the notion that there are no gods? As Dawkins has illustrated so deftly, all one need do to see the absurdity of such claims is to restate them in terms of other gods, or other, unproven entities:
Some athorists are starting to sound as unreasonable in insisting of the 'facts' being something they can NOT prove (Thor does not exist) as those who insist that every syllable uttered in the Hárbarðsljóð is infallible.
Some aunicornists are starting to sound as unreasonable in insisting of the 'facts' being something they can NOT prove (unicorns do not exist) as those who insist that every syllable uttered in the Holy Book of Unicornism is infallible.
Are these statements any more absurd than the original? The evidence for Thor and unicorns is identical to that for the Christian gods - zero, nada. So why would anyone insist that somehow his gods deserve what others are denied? Simple: it is what he was raised with, as most of us were, and it seems more comfortable and familiar. But to a Hindu, the story that a man was nailed to a tree to save everyone from the crimes of his great-great-great...great-grandfather sounds just as absurd as the story of 1,000 gods and the wheel of life sounds to those of us raised in a Christian society. Thus, when someone says something like this:
"While the infallible Bible crowd might be described as being at one end of the spectrum, atheists who attempt to prove that the evidence already proves God does not exist are at the other end of the spectrum and just as unreasonable to many of us who sit somewhere in the center."
We can see that he is not in the center at all. He is decidedly biased towards the notion that there is some credibility to the claims of Christianity. Thus, anyone who simply recognizes the complete lack of evidence for his gods (be they atheist, Hindu, or Buddhist) will look biased to him, and he will claim they need to give special consideration to his gods that he does not claim for equally evidence-free notions such as Thor and unicorns:
"I think that someone who describes himself as an agnostic (rather then an atheist) is being more then reasonable as long as they will 'reasonably' continue to appraise reality if God seeks to prove that He does exist to them."
[sigh] Once again we see the intellectually dishonest use of scare quotes to poison the well. Never mind demonstrating logically that atheistic views are unreasonable. Just put scare quotes around "reasonably" and run.
On no other subject are people told that reasonableness demands they remain undecided concerning the existence of that with no evidence supporting it. No one says we must be agnostics with regard to unicorns or Thor. Yet with the Christian gods we are supposed to make a special case. Why? Social familiarity, and nothing else.
No, sorry, I am an atheist, as are many others, because we have examined the evidence and it implies quite strongly that the Christian gods do not exist, the same as unicorns and Thor. Show us some evidence, and we'll examine it. Until then, we will follow the evidence where it leads, and conclude there are no gods. In some cases, absence of evidence is indeed evidence of absence, and whether it is a supposed elephant in my living room, or a supposed infinite god that supposedly created the universe, the complete lack of evidence is solid evidence they do not exist.
"Would you accept this 'statement of scientific truth'? If God does not exist, it is impossible to scientifically prove this lack of existence."
Here we see another tactic of semantic games, equivocation with the term "prove". Strictly speaking, nothing in science is ever proven. It is always conceivable that we might one day find evidence for a mermaid, or a god. Nonetheless, as the evidence piles up and the probability of error approaches zero, in the layman's sense, they are proven to not exist. When someone claims, as apologists for gods often do, that they have logical reasons A, B, C, D, and E for their views, and those arguments are all subsequently shown to be either logically or factually flawed as knowledge progresses, it becomes formidable evidence for the nonexistence of those entities.
So my answer to the question is this: the gods are, in principle, no more, and no less, scientifically provable, than any other concept (depending of course on how they are defined). Further, the level of proof for the nonexistence of gods is comparable to that of the proof for the nonexistence of mermaids.
"If God does exist He should be able to prove His existence so that it would be unreasonable for a person who is not delusional to continue to insist there is no God?"
Everyone put on your irony SCUBA gear for this one, for this is precisely the point we atheists make. Yes, exactly, a god as the one depicted by the old testament should be able to prove himself to me easily. Oh yes, I could be swayed. Bring my great grandmother back from the grave. Make the stars in the sky line up and say "I am the Lord thy god". Tell me exactly where the Dow will close on 12/2/2008. Have one of my gifts under the tree turn out to be Jessica Alba wearing nothing but a bow on her head. Have the world spontaneously ban soccer. I'm not unreasonable, and god could accomplish these and even more wondrous things.
But that isn't what we experience is it? God has done NOTHING whatever to reveal himself, not to anyone with a modicum of intelligence and knowledge. No clear-cut prophecies, no futuristic knowledge, no verifiable miracles, nothing. Just a bunch of vague, question-begging nonsense in the Bible, and lots of creative after-the-fact rationalizing, just like every other fraud. Uri Geller could lay claim to being a god with comparable evidence.
That is nothing at all like what we should expect. The old testament god makes himself known to a level that only the delusional could deny. Why can't the one you claim exists do so? Simple: he doesn't exist.
"If you would accept such an above 'statement of scientific truth' I guess that would make you an agnostic and not an unreasonable atheist."
Ah, how appropriate to end with more well-poisoning. Atheists are unreasonable are they? Why? Are aunicornists unreasonable? Are athorists unreasonable? This is such a Bill O'Reillyism: agree with me or you're unreasonable. Sorry, it doesn't work that way. Atheists aren't unreasonable or hysterical. We simply don't extend the special pleading to the gods of Christianity the way some people do. We treat all concepts, all gods, the same way: Unicorns do not exist. Yahweh does not exist. Thor does not exist. Yoda does not exist. There are no evidenciary differences that make any difference. The only difference is that one claim offends many Americans far more than the others, and thus is resisted by them arbitrarily.
"Sorry, I think I am starting to see evidence of an almost unreasonable hysteria against anything that hints of religious beliefs. Evidence of this is the statement: 'They may occasionally reach the same conclusions, but they are, at their core, opposed, and they always will be.'"
Here right away we see the standard Coulterish tactic of using baseless inflammatory rhetoric in lieu of sound reasoning. A simple factual claim that science, being driven by evidence, and religion, being driven by faith, are at their core opposed, is "hysterical"? By what standards? None, it is just a good example of the fallacy of poisoning the well: after all, why should the arguments of "hysterical" people be dealt with logically?
To be clear, this atheist has no trouble whatsoever with other people holding religious beliefs, or basing their personal life decisions on them. What I, and many in the reality-based community object to is the use of these faith-based beliefs to make decisions in the public sphere, or the facade that these beliefs are compatible or comparable to science.
"Some atheists are starting to sound as unreasonable in insisting of the 'facts' being something they can NOT prove (God does not exist) as those who insist that every syllable uttered in the Bible is infallible."
Ah, right off the Fox News script: "some people say". What atheists sound this way? Name them. What exactly did they say? Quote them, IN CONTEXT. There is a good reason the right-wing apologists, be they Little David or Dinesh D'Souza, rarely do so: their claims can't stand up to the facts, so all they have to rely on is baseless generalizations. Any why the scare quotes around the word "facts"? It's just another rhetorical trick this crowd loves. Instead of attacking a claim with which they differ head on with logic and evidence, they simply put scare quotes around it. This allows them to treat it as refuted without having to do the hard work of actually doing so.
Once one examines this claim logically one can easily see why all those distractions would be in there. That the Bible is not infallible can be verified, in multiple independent instances, by any person with a sound mind and a dictionary. Anyone claiming otherwise is acting in defiance of the facts. Little David wishes to compare this to the claim that the evidence supports the notion that there are no gods? As Dawkins has illustrated so deftly, all one need do to see the absurdity of such claims is to restate them in terms of other gods, or other, unproven entities:
Some athorists are starting to sound as unreasonable in insisting of the 'facts' being something they can NOT prove (Thor does not exist) as those who insist that every syllable uttered in the Hárbarðsljóð is infallible.
Some aunicornists are starting to sound as unreasonable in insisting of the 'facts' being something they can NOT prove (unicorns do not exist) as those who insist that every syllable uttered in the Holy Book of Unicornism is infallible.
Are these statements any more absurd than the original? The evidence for Thor and unicorns is identical to that for the Christian gods - zero, nada. So why would anyone insist that somehow his gods deserve what others are denied? Simple: it is what he was raised with, as most of us were, and it seems more comfortable and familiar. But to a Hindu, the story that a man was nailed to a tree to save everyone from the crimes of his great-great-great...great-grandfather sounds just as absurd as the story of 1,000 gods and the wheel of life sounds to those of us raised in a Christian society. Thus, when someone says something like this:
"While the infallible Bible crowd might be described as being at one end of the spectrum, atheists who attempt to prove that the evidence already proves God does not exist are at the other end of the spectrum and just as unreasonable to many of us who sit somewhere in the center."
We can see that he is not in the center at all. He is decidedly biased towards the notion that there is some credibility to the claims of Christianity. Thus, anyone who simply recognizes the complete lack of evidence for his gods (be they atheist, Hindu, or Buddhist) will look biased to him, and he will claim they need to give special consideration to his gods that he does not claim for equally evidence-free notions such as Thor and unicorns:
"I think that someone who describes himself as an agnostic (rather then an atheist) is being more then reasonable as long as they will 'reasonably' continue to appraise reality if God seeks to prove that He does exist to them."
[sigh] Once again we see the intellectually dishonest use of scare quotes to poison the well. Never mind demonstrating logically that atheistic views are unreasonable. Just put scare quotes around "reasonably" and run.
On no other subject are people told that reasonableness demands they remain undecided concerning the existence of that with no evidence supporting it. No one says we must be agnostics with regard to unicorns or Thor. Yet with the Christian gods we are supposed to make a special case. Why? Social familiarity, and nothing else.
No, sorry, I am an atheist, as are many others, because we have examined the evidence and it implies quite strongly that the Christian gods do not exist, the same as unicorns and Thor. Show us some evidence, and we'll examine it. Until then, we will follow the evidence where it leads, and conclude there are no gods. In some cases, absence of evidence is indeed evidence of absence, and whether it is a supposed elephant in my living room, or a supposed infinite god that supposedly created the universe, the complete lack of evidence is solid evidence they do not exist.
"Would you accept this 'statement of scientific truth'? If God does not exist, it is impossible to scientifically prove this lack of existence."
Here we see another tactic of semantic games, equivocation with the term "prove". Strictly speaking, nothing in science is ever proven. It is always conceivable that we might one day find evidence for a mermaid, or a god. Nonetheless, as the evidence piles up and the probability of error approaches zero, in the layman's sense, they are proven to not exist. When someone claims, as apologists for gods often do, that they have logical reasons A, B, C, D, and E for their views, and those arguments are all subsequently shown to be either logically or factually flawed as knowledge progresses, it becomes formidable evidence for the nonexistence of those entities.
So my answer to the question is this: the gods are, in principle, no more, and no less, scientifically provable, than any other concept (depending of course on how they are defined). Further, the level of proof for the nonexistence of gods is comparable to that of the proof for the nonexistence of mermaids.
"If God does exist He should be able to prove His existence so that it would be unreasonable for a person who is not delusional to continue to insist there is no God?"
Everyone put on your irony SCUBA gear for this one, for this is precisely the point we atheists make. Yes, exactly, a god as the one depicted by the old testament should be able to prove himself to me easily. Oh yes, I could be swayed. Bring my great grandmother back from the grave. Make the stars in the sky line up and say "I am the Lord thy god". Tell me exactly where the Dow will close on 12/2/2008. Have one of my gifts under the tree turn out to be Jessica Alba wearing nothing but a bow on her head. Have the world spontaneously ban soccer. I'm not unreasonable, and god could accomplish these and even more wondrous things.
But that isn't what we experience is it? God has done NOTHING whatever to reveal himself, not to anyone with a modicum of intelligence and knowledge. No clear-cut prophecies, no futuristic knowledge, no verifiable miracles, nothing. Just a bunch of vague, question-begging nonsense in the Bible, and lots of creative after-the-fact rationalizing, just like every other fraud. Uri Geller could lay claim to being a god with comparable evidence.
That is nothing at all like what we should expect. The old testament god makes himself known to a level that only the delusional could deny. Why can't the one you claim exists do so? Simple: he doesn't exist.
"If you would accept such an above 'statement of scientific truth' I guess that would make you an agnostic and not an unreasonable atheist."
Ah, how appropriate to end with more well-poisoning. Atheists are unreasonable are they? Why? Are aunicornists unreasonable? Are athorists unreasonable? This is such a Bill O'Reillyism: agree with me or you're unreasonable. Sorry, it doesn't work that way. Atheists aren't unreasonable or hysterical. We simply don't extend the special pleading to the gods of Christianity the way some people do. We treat all concepts, all gods, the same way: Unicorns do not exist. Yahweh does not exist. Thor does not exist. Yoda does not exist. There are no evidenciary differences that make any difference. The only difference is that one claim offends many Americans far more than the others, and thus is resisted by them arbitrarily.
Sunday, December 2, 2007
Hawaii, and the BCS Big Conference Bias
Ever since it's inception, the BCS has been a wonderful case study of human psychology in action, as the college football wonks attempted to create a system of selecting their championship finalists that didn't depend on polls. And every year the process gave them results that differed sufficiently from the polls, they declared it flawed and altered it...to be more like the polls.
This year a flaw in the BCS process comes to light that is more insidious, and shows once again that a good understanding of mathematics can help avoid some undesired outcomes.
The problem has actually been a part of the process many years. It was put there when the BCS succumbed to the complaints of some coaches and commentators that having computer ratings play such a large role in the process (as it did at the time) encouraged teams to run up the score against inferior opponents in order to increase their rankings. Never mind that running up the score helps one obtain superior poll numbers as well, or that no player has ever died or been psychologically scarred by giving up one-too-many touchdowns, or that what constitutes "running up the score" vs "winning convincingly" is in the eye of the beholder, or that good computer rankings (as Jeff Sagarin so patiently tried to explain) have a formula of diminishing returns on score differential. Winning by 100 does not count as 5x as much as winning by 20, but it does and should count more.
Nonetheless, the BCS required the computer rankings to ignore score. And as so often happens with good intentions, what was designed to protect the weaker teams actually hurt them far more than a 70-0 drubbing. It completely locked them out of the BCS championship game, just as surely as if they had been forbidden on paper from participating.
Here's why: with the computer rankings ignoring score, the only component that matters (aside from winnning) is quality of competition. A team from a major conference who is 10-1 is going to rate higher than a team from a weak conference that is 10-1, and that is as it should be, all things being equal. But there is the rub, for what if the major conference team has won by an average score of 21-17, whereas the minor conference team has won by an average of 52-3? Now who is superior? Hard to tell. However, it is not hard to tell who will be ranked higher by the computers - the team from the major conference. Always.
Hawaii is the victim of that this year. They are the only undefeated team in Div I (or whatever it is called now) in the nation. But they are only ranked 12th in the BCS because they play in a minor conference. They've won their games by an average score of 43-24, but it wouldn't matter if they won them 100-0, they could never reach the championship game because their weak schedule guarantees the lame #14 ranking in the computers they have now.
Now some of my more scientific-minded readers might be wondering: So what? It's only football. True, but this is not about football. This about how a lack of a good mathematical understanding in our society can lead to subtle social injustices inflicted by otherwise well-meaning people. I don't think the BCS leaders decided to exclude teams from small conferences from the championship, but they didn't understand the math, so that is exactly what they have done.
This year a flaw in the BCS process comes to light that is more insidious, and shows once again that a good understanding of mathematics can help avoid some undesired outcomes.
The problem has actually been a part of the process many years. It was put there when the BCS succumbed to the complaints of some coaches and commentators that having computer ratings play such a large role in the process (as it did at the time) encouraged teams to run up the score against inferior opponents in order to increase their rankings. Never mind that running up the score helps one obtain superior poll numbers as well, or that no player has ever died or been psychologically scarred by giving up one-too-many touchdowns, or that what constitutes "running up the score" vs "winning convincingly" is in the eye of the beholder, or that good computer rankings (as Jeff Sagarin so patiently tried to explain) have a formula of diminishing returns on score differential. Winning by 100 does not count as 5x as much as winning by 20, but it does and should count more.
Nonetheless, the BCS required the computer rankings to ignore score. And as so often happens with good intentions, what was designed to protect the weaker teams actually hurt them far more than a 70-0 drubbing. It completely locked them out of the BCS championship game, just as surely as if they had been forbidden on paper from participating.
Here's why: with the computer rankings ignoring score, the only component that matters (aside from winnning) is quality of competition. A team from a major conference who is 10-1 is going to rate higher than a team from a weak conference that is 10-1, and that is as it should be, all things being equal. But there is the rub, for what if the major conference team has won by an average score of 21-17, whereas the minor conference team has won by an average of 52-3? Now who is superior? Hard to tell. However, it is not hard to tell who will be ranked higher by the computers - the team from the major conference. Always.
Hawaii is the victim of that this year. They are the only undefeated team in Div I (or whatever it is called now) in the nation. But they are only ranked 12th in the BCS because they play in a minor conference. They've won their games by an average score of 43-24, but it wouldn't matter if they won them 100-0, they could never reach the championship game because their weak schedule guarantees the lame #14 ranking in the computers they have now.
Now some of my more scientific-minded readers might be wondering: So what? It's only football. True, but this is not about football. This about how a lack of a good mathematical understanding in our society can lead to subtle social injustices inflicted by otherwise well-meaning people. I don't think the BCS leaders decided to exclude teams from small conferences from the championship, but they didn't understand the math, so that is exactly what they have done.
Saturday, December 1, 2007
Hear the Cry of the Wolf
In some rare good environmental news, the gray wolf has reached population figures (over 1,500) high enough for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to remove them from the endangered species list, which would once again allow hunting of wolves. For some environmentalists, the move is too fast, and should have waited until the population reached 2,000 or 3,000. But there is a method to the madness:
"Federal wildlife officials offer a paradoxical reasoning for their bid to remove the animal from the endangered list. To survive in the Rockies, they say, wolves must be hunted and killed.
By reclassifying them as "big-game," wolves could emerge from centuries of persecution and find a niche along other regularly hunted predators such as mountain lions and black bears. Those predators, too, were once at risk of disappearing but rebounded after their status changed from predators that could be shot on sight to big-game animals with limits on how many can be hunted.
Similarly, if wolves are removed from the endangered list, proponents argue, states could tailor the number of wolf hunting permits around target population levels.
But some wolf experts say managing wolves is not so simple. David Mech, a University of Minnesota researcher considered one of the world's leading experts on wolf behavior, predicted populations in the Northern Rockies could hold steady or keep expanding, even with hunting permitted, if the wily animals prove too smart for hunters. "
Read the full story here. The fact that continually amazed me when reading articles like this is just how low the populations of some of these creatures is. We are so used to the huge population figures of humans, whether it is the millions that live in our cities, or the 50,000+ that fill football stadiums every weekend. It is sobering to learn that in all of Idaho, Wyoming, and Montana, there are only 1,500 wolves, and just how precarious a population that is.
"Federal wildlife officials offer a paradoxical reasoning for their bid to remove the animal from the endangered list. To survive in the Rockies, they say, wolves must be hunted and killed.
By reclassifying them as "big-game," wolves could emerge from centuries of persecution and find a niche along other regularly hunted predators such as mountain lions and black bears. Those predators, too, were once at risk of disappearing but rebounded after their status changed from predators that could be shot on sight to big-game animals with limits on how many can be hunted.
Similarly, if wolves are removed from the endangered list, proponents argue, states could tailor the number of wolf hunting permits around target population levels.
But some wolf experts say managing wolves is not so simple. David Mech, a University of Minnesota researcher considered one of the world's leading experts on wolf behavior, predicted populations in the Northern Rockies could hold steady or keep expanding, even with hunting permitted, if the wily animals prove too smart for hunters. "
Read the full story here. The fact that continually amazed me when reading articles like this is just how low the populations of some of these creatures is. We are so used to the huge population figures of humans, whether it is the millions that live in our cities, or the 50,000+ that fill football stadiums every weekend. It is sobering to learn that in all of Idaho, Wyoming, and Montana, there are only 1,500 wolves, and just how precarious a population that is.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
