A Human Mind

The Benefits of being an Atheist

kalevala87@gmail.com (Fabio) — Thu, 02 Apr 2009 09:55:00 +0000

For the first time in this blog's history, I have a guest article. Reference can be found at the bottom of the post. Enjoy.

Benefits of Being an Atheist

More often than not as an atheist, people want to pry into your reasoning and motivation for making such a choice. Reason and logic are the glue that holds atheists together, so a challenging discussion is always welcome. However, when the argument becomes heated, religious adherents often fall back on faith and the notion that their “plan” will one day become evident. This idea may offer comfort, but there are benefits of having an atheist worldview as well.

Adaptability

While religious people hold hard and fast to outmoded beliefs, atheists learn to adapt to change and don’t have to resist the inevitable. Evolution, be it societal or otherwise, will continue to push forward whether you like it or not. Social Darwinism is alive and well, and those who aren’t ready to change will soon find themselves left in the dust.

Healthy Realism

Realism is another notch in the atheist’s belt. Being able to look at things through a paradigm developed through authentic experience and education enables the atheist to accept things that are true and real without fear of repercussions in the religious context. When new discoveries or knowledge become available, atheists can look at the facts and make judgements based on reason and logic.

Skepticism

Questioning social and religious mores is another thing that atheists do quite often. Rather than blindly accepting what is given to them, atheist perform their due diligence and judge things based on their merit, not on the source of information. If the same source seems to be giving consistently inaccurate information, however, then the credibility of that source can be judged accordingly.

Education

Many atheists seem to know more about religion than religious adherents. That said, atheists can read religious texts dispassionately and take in the information to develop logical and reasonable arguments to the contrary. Spending time learning about what the other side thinks, feels, and believes can empower you to make informed arguments if need be without attachment.

Freedom

Ultimately, atheists experience true freedom. Being able to evaluate information and make choices without doing them because of an arbitrary belief system is one of the most empowering things that you can do. Additionally, being able to think and act without fear of retribution by an omnipotent being enables you to feel true freedom.

This post was contributed by Courtney Phillips, who writes about the cheapest MBA. She welcomes your feedback at CourtneyPhillips80 at gmail.com

Why is Darwin nearly extinct in textbooks?

kalevala87@gmail.com (Fabio) — Fri, 06 Feb 2009 17:50:00 +0000

From the website of the University of Salford, where I'm currently studying as an exchange student.

Why is Darwin nearly extinct in textbooks?

Friday, 6 February 2009

Charles Darwin is missing from many textbooks.

As Charles Darwin's 200th birthday approaches, new research from the University of Salford has identified a decline in references to the pioneering scientist in A level textbooks - despite the continuing presence of creationist theory.
Dr Paul Rees, a lecturer in biology and former A level teacher, examined textbooks and syllabuses used in the UK since the sixties, and found that textbooks currently in use sometimes completely fail to mention Darwin, and often only deal very sketchily with the theory of evolution.
On the other hand, creationism gets several references in current textbooks, including Hall et al 2006 which says the idea that all living things are descended from a common ancestor is a minority view among the people of the world.
Dr Rees, who teaches in the School of Environment & Life Sciences said: "While the historical context of important theories, and the names of their proponents, are commonplace in textbooks written for some other subjects, such as psychology, in biology textbooks Darwin is sometimes not deemed important enough to mention.
"If people are giving space to nonsense like creationism, then they should certainly be mentioning the most important figure in our understanding of the natural world.
"Role models and icons are important to help young people become inspired by science. It's a shame that biology examiners and therefore textbooks don't always recognise this."
Dr Rees' research was first published in the journal School Science Review.

Nature vs. Nurture, round 295324329563234...

kalevala87@gmail.com (Fabio) — Thu, 05 Feb 2009 15:05:00 +0000

I had written a bit more than four or five long paragraphs as my personal reaction to an article I've just read on the latest issue of New Scientist but I was forced to delete everything as it turned out to be as awful and rambling a piece of writing as the article itself. I'm not usually that picky about it, but the more I read it, the more I think it is a confusing article, mixing - perhaps intentionally - things up.

It goes from claiming we have an inborn inclination to believe in the metaphysical to also claiming that there are no adaptive advantages in religion and belief. Unfortunately it forgets to explain how abstract beliefs have "permeated every human society" and survived this long without having been selected for together with their social construct-counterparts, religions. If Paul Bloom and Scott Atran's claim is really that belief in the supernatural is a natural trait resulting from "unique cognitive capacities that have made us so successful as a species" which also "work together to create a tendency for supernatural thinking," but that "a belief in life after death, for example, is hardly compatible with surviving in the here-and-now and propagating your genes," I'd love to see them try and explain how a trait can survive this long and being this pervasive without having been selected for. However hurtful it might be to me as an atheist to admit such a thing, religion does have its odd evolutionary advantages, and that's the only reason why faith still plagues our world today. For one, most religions have some sort of prohibition or regulation concerning self-inflicted death. Sure, the occasional religion will go as far as to reward death under certain circumstances, but luckily enough such strict religious observance is still limited in rate. Furthermore, it is fairly obvious that religions guarantee social cohesion amongst those who share a common belief, increasing stability and resulting in a clear evolutionary advantage. Also, has Scott Atran never heard the tenet "be fruitful and multiply"? Many religious regulations - ban on adultery and even religious tenets being the basis for civil and penal codes - no matter how narrow-minded in today's social context, are indeed aimed at ensuring some degree of stability within families, so as to make sure that the offspring can be raised relatively safely. Makes one wonder where Scott Atran found his degree. Cereal box? Plus, "unique cognitive capacities" must overlie neurological - and hence at least party genetic - elements. Unless, of course, we posit the existence of an unproven mind or soul and claim that goddidit.

However, following a long tradition of similar - and equally (self-)contradicting - articles, this one just can't but bring children under the spotlight once more. Apparently:

There is plenty of evidence that thinking about disembodied minds comes naturally. People readily form relationships with non-existing others: roughly half of all 4-year-olds have had an imaginary friend, and adults often form and maintain relationships with dead relatives, fictional characters and fantasy partners.

By any chance, am I the only one the two statements above give the creeps to? I, for one, have never had an imaginary friend - except for during the few years I was raised as a church goer and assumed god was real because everyone else around me did. And by all means I certainly don't have any sort of relationship with dead relatives of mine, fictional characters or fantasy partners (the odd fantasy about this or that Hollywood start doesn't count...). What the article describes - except for the part concerning kids' imaginary friends, a fairly common phenomenon and relatively harmless in most cases - are clear signs of schizophrenia.

The following, obvious step in the article is to give an appearance of scientificity to the whole thing by quoting some experiment allegedly proving that children are naturally prone to building a teleological view of the world. Yeah, I'm talking about Deborah Kelemen and her experiments. For those who don't know what I'm talking about, Deborah Kelemen is a psychologist working at the Child Cognition Laboratory at Boston University. According to the author of the article:

When Deborah Kelemen [...] asked 7 and 8-year-old children questions about inanimate objects and animals, she found that most believed they were created for a specific purpose. Pointy rocks are there for animals to scratch themselves on. Birds exist "to make nice music," while rivers exist so boats have something to float on.

However, reality is a tad different. Quoting from one of Kelemen's publications:

Analyses of the individual tasks to this point can be summarized as follows: Across age groups, children’s clearest intuitions about origins occurred with artifacts and natural events, with both purpose and design seen as highly relevant to explaining artifacts (which children view as humanmade) but somewhat irrelevant to explaining natural events (which children view as having physical–causal antecedents).
Children’s explanations for animals and nonliving natural objects fall somewhere between these poles but although Year 2 and Year 5 children had an equivalently strong tendency to generate artifact-like teleofunctional ideas when answering open-ended origins questions about animals and natural objects, it was younger children who showed more pronounced teleofunctional and intelligent design intuitions in closed-ended tasks. For example, Year 2 children were more likely to actively endorse teleofunctional over physical causal accounts when explaining natural objects and were more likely to endorse intelligent design rather than nondesign when explaining animals.
In the case of Year 5 children, the shift from being likely to generate teleofunctional explanations of animals and natural objects in an open-ended task, to then becoming ambivalent or eschewing them in the closed-ended origins-teleology task, potentially reflects children’s increasing scientific knowledge base—physical–causal response options probably triggered children’s latent knowledge of popular scientific explanations that they have not yet mastered enough to generate for themselves. There is some evidence, then, that older children’s reasoning undergoes some form of transition around 9 to 10 years of age as they increasingly retain and elaborate physical–causal explanations that are alternatives to teleofunctional and design explanations of the biological and nonbiological natural world.

I apologise for the long quote, but it was necessary. For those who can't be bothered to read through it all, I'll sum it up for you. What Kelemen is saying is that - surprise surprise - kids grow up. Yep. Two-year-olds are more likely than five-year-olds - and five-year-olds more likely than nine or ten-year-olds - to resort to teleofunctional arguments to explain the biological and non-biological natural world - e.g. birds exist to make nice music and they were created by god, rain exists so that we can have water and plants can grow and rain is sent by god. That's it. The oh so revolutionary discovery made by Deborah Kelemen is that as kids grow up and acquire deeper scientific knowledge of how the physical, natural world works they will progressively leave teleological - and theological - arguments behind unless imprinted to do so by their social environment (e.g. family, school, community).

Then the article "leaves them kids alone" to focus on adults and how, supposedly, they find it overwhelmingly difficult or even impossible to jettison their religious, superstitious beliefs and are bound to fall back into them whenever difficulties strike. Now, while that might be true of some, even many, people, that in no way means that religious belief is inborn, for the reasons I have just explained. It simply means that childhood imprinting might be harder to overcome for some than it is for others, something I can totally agree with. Harder but by no means impossible. Therefore, the claim that "god isn't going away, and that atheism will always be a hard sell. Religious belief is the 'path of least resistence' [...] while disbelief requires effort," is bollocks, as proven by the overwhelming number of atheists who tread happily though their godless existence. I'm one of them. Atheism was never a "hard sell" to me, rather the obvious solution to the cognitive dissonance that learning more about the world had caused in me as it conflicted with my previous upbringing. Disbelief requires no effort, only curiosity and a bit of opennes.

Finalmente ateobus

kalevala87@gmail.com (Fabio) — Sun, 01 Feb 2009 18:30:00 +0000

Direttamente dal sito dell'UAAR.

Genova, gli ateobus UAAR ‘tornano’ in circolazione

Avrebbero dovuto sfilare per la città dicendo che Dio non esiste, ma sono stati bloccati dalla concessionaria degli spazi pubblicitari che li trovava lesivi delle convinzioni religiose. Oggi gli ateobus hanno ottenuto il semaforo verde per un nuovo slogan e si preparano a dare ai genovesi due notizie allegre: “La buona notizia è che in Italia ci sono milioni di atei. Quella ottima è che credono nella libertà di espressione”.
«Dopo tutto l’inatteso bailamme per i vecchi ateobus, - spiega Raffaele Càrcano, segretario generale dell’Uaar - volevamo lanciare un altro messaggio: volevamo dire che, tra gli italiani, uno su sette è ateo o agnostico, anche se politici, media e aziende municipalizzate non ne tengono conto. La nostra è una campagna per la loro visibilità, perché più visibilità significa meno discriminazione e più rispetto». La IGP Decaux, la concessionaria degli spazi pubblicitari della società di trasporti genovese, ha dato il via libera al nuovo slogan, al posto del prece-dente: “La cattiva notizia è che Dio non esiste. Quella buona è che non ne hai bisogno”.
Intanto la Uaar non ha desistito con il vecchio slogan, anzi. Il gruppo Facebook che sostiene gli ateobus ha già 4000 sostenitori e sono stati raccolti 23 000 euro di donazioni per metterli in circolazione in altre città. «Non desistiamo perché è in gioco la libertà di espressione: – insiste Carcano – dobbiamo ribadire che, per la nostra Costituzione, credenti e non credenti hanno gli stessi diritti, compreso quello di dire “Dio c’è” o “Dio non c’è”».

Comunicato stampa Uaar

L’Uaar ha diffuso questo comunicato perché la notizia, a sua insaputa, era già trapelata sulla stampa. Ne ha infatti dato notizia questa mattina Repubblica, nella cronaca di Genova, e la notizia è stata prontamente ripresa dal Secolo XIX e dall’ANSA.

Nota tecnica: l’UAAR ha deciso di parlare di “un italiano su sette” in base ai dati forniti dall’ultimo rapporto sulla libertà religiosa redatto dal Dipartimento di Stato Americano, non certo sospettabile di simpatie nei confronti dell’ateismo e dell’agnosticismo. Vi si può infatti leggere che “the most recent data indicate that approximately 14 percent of the population identifies itself as either atheist or agnostic“.

Che il dibattito abbia inizio. A quanto pare la comunità di atei e agnostici sullo stesso sito dell'UAAR sembra essere piuttosto divisa nelle sue reazioni al nuovo slogan. C'è chi ritiene che si tratti di un passo indietro, di una pubblica "calata di braghe," e chi invece sostiene si tratti di una seplice risposta "al nuovo fronte" apertosi in Italia in seguito al primo slogan, bocciato dalla IGP Decaux. Personalmente non penso si tratti di un passo indietro o di un compromesso al ribasso da parte dell'UAAR, che, dal canto suo, ha comunque ottenuto una notevole copertura mediatica nonostante la bocciatura del primo slogan. E tutti sappiamo quanto sia difficile ottenere copertura mediatica in un paese come l'Italia.

Quindi l'UAAR - e con l'associazione anche l'intera comunità di atei e agnostici italiani, membri o meno - ha dovuto e deve chiedersi se sia più utile perseguire la via della provocazione su un tema "teorico" quale l'esistenza di una divinità o mostrare un po' di pragmatismo e sfruttare questa occasione per affermare un'altra realtà di fatto con potenziali benefici sociali per tutti i non-credenti. Quello che l'UAAR sta dicendo al paese con questo nuovo slogan è che gli atei esistono e sono tanti, e che essere atei non è un disonore. Se davvero si tratta di una guerra, sfruttare le circostanze piuttosto che ostinarsi a perseguire una strada senza via d'uscita non significa calare le braghe, significa mostrare una notevole superiorità e adattabilità. Darwin sarebbe orgoglioso.

Ancora ateobus.

kalevala87@gmail.com (Fabio) — Tue, 20 Jan 2009 18:30:00 +0000

Oggi ho ricevuto una e-mail di risposta dalla IGPDecaux, risposta che non avrebbe potuto essere più insignificante.

Buongiorno

con riferimento alla Sua richiesta d'informazioni sulla campagna UAAR pervenutami via mail, precisiamo quanto segue.

Abbiamo ritenuto di non poter esporre il messaggio cosi come si presentava sul bozzetto inviatoci dall'agenzia, dato il combinato disposto dell'articolo 10 e 46 del Codice di Autodisciplina Pubblicitaria ( il codice è scaricabile all'indirizzo: www.iap.it/it/codice.htm)

Ricordiamo che il Codice di Autodiscilplina Pubblicitaria è giunto alla 44° edizione ( la prima risale al 1966 ) ed è adottato da tutte le concessionarie e da tutti i mezzi pubblicitari italiani.

Cordiali saluti

Benedetta Arlati

Direzione Marketing - Responsabile Comunicazione e Immagine

tel. +39 02 62498294

fax. +39 02 6599037

www.igpdecaux.it

IGPDecaux S.p.A.

Piazza Cavour, 1 - 20121 Milano

Punto primo, io non ho mai richiesto informazioni, bensì ho scritto una e-mail di protesta. Punto secondo, anche se avessi richiesto informazioni, tale e-mail di risposta non riporta nulla che i precedenti comunicati stampa non contenessero già. Punto terzo, il fatto che il Codice di Autodisciplina Pubblicitaria abbia una lunga tradizione e venga adottato da tutte le concessionarie di pubblicità non rende la sua applicazione nel caso della campagna UAAR meno ingiusta.

In sostanza, in questo momento sono ancora più arrabbiato come persona e come cittadino. Perché sembra sempre che certa gente cerchi disperatamente di sotterrare le cagate che fa, invece di porvi rimedio?

Ateobus e IGPDecaux

kalevala87@gmail.com (Fabio) — Mon, 19 Jan 2009 01:44:00 +0000

Una piccola nota tecnica per chi fosse interessato a intervenire sulla vicenda degli spazi pubblicitari negati all'UAAR dalla società che li gestisce, la IGPDecaux. Invito tutti gli utenti con un account Facebook a iscriversi al gruppo relativo alla campagna. Invito inoltre tutti a inviare e-mail di protesta alla responsabile relazioni con il pubblico della società che ha deciso di uccidere la libertà di espressione di una minoranza già abbastanza discriminata in Italia. L'indirizzo è benedetta.arlati@igpdecaux.it

Autobus "atei" finalmente anche in terra italica...o forse no.

kalevala87@gmail.com (Fabio) — Sun, 18 Jan 2009 23:36:00 +0000

Ci sono momenti particolarmente importanti che semplicemente richiedono un nuovo post sul blog, non importa quanto sia impegnato con saggi da scrivere ed esami da sostenere. Purtroppo la notizia qui in Inghilterra, dove mi trovo al momento, mi è giunta con lieve ritardo ma colgo ugualmente l'occasione per congratularmi con l'UAAR per il coraggio dimostrato nel dar vita alla campagna sociale in questione e per esprimere il mio cordoglio per il (rinnovato) trapasso della libertà di espressione in Italia.

Pare infatti che non avremo, almeno per ora, "ateobus" a Genova o in altre città italiane. Questo perché la IGPDecaux, società che gestisce gli spazi publicitari sugli autobus in questione ha negato all'UAAR la libertà di parola e agli italiani la libertà di pensiero, senza dubbio sotto forti pressioni da parte della curia genovese. Riportando dal sito dell'UAAR:

La concessionaria di pubblicità IGPDecaux ha comunicato le motivazioni alla base della decisione di non accettare la pubblicità degli autobus UAAR “in base al combinato disposto dell’articolo 10 e 46 del Codice di Autodisciplina Pubblicitaria“.

Tale Codice recita:
Art. 10 – Convinzioni morali, civili, religiose e dignità della persona
La comunicazione commerciale non deve offendere le convinzioni morali, civili e religiose dei cittadini. Essa deve rispettare la dignità della persona umana in tutte le sue forme ed espressioni.
Art. 46 – Appelli al pubblico
È soggetto alle norme del presente Codice qualunque messaggio volto a sensibilizzare il pubblico su temi di interesse sociale, anche specifici, o che sollecita, direttamente o indirettamente, il volontario apporto di contribuzioni di qualsiasi natura, finalizzate al raggiungimento di obiettivi di carattere sociale.
Tali messaggi devono riportare l’identità dell’autore e del beneficiario della richiesta, nonché l’obiettivo sociale che si intende raggiungere.
I promotori di detti messaggi possono esprimere liberamente le proprie opinioni sul tema trattato, ma deve risultare chiaramente che trattasi di opinioni dei medesimi promotori e non di fatti accertati.
Per contro i messaggi non devono:
sfruttare indebitamente la miseria umana nuocendo alla dignità della persona, né ricorrere a richiami scioccanti tali da ingenerare ingiustificatamente allarmismi, sentimenti di paura o di grave turbamento;
colpevolizzare o addossare responsabilità a coloro che non intendano aderire all’appello;
presentare in modo esagerato il grado o la natura del problema sociale per il quale l’appello viene rivolto;
sovrastimare lo specifico o potenziale valore del contributo all’iniziativa;
sollecitare i minori ad offerte di denaro.
Le presenti disposizioni si applicano anche alla comunicazione commerciale che contenga riferimenti a cause sociali.

Adesso, che l'Art. 10 non sia applicabile alla campagna UAAR lo capirebbe anche un bambino di sei, in quanto i messaggi sociali proposti dall'associazione non includevano alcun invito ad iscriversi alla stessa o a contribuire economicamente ad essa. Per quanto riguarda l'Art. 46, non posso che sperare che tutte le emittenti televisive comincino ad applicare un simile codice di comportamento per quanto riguarda gli spot pubblicitari che mandano in onda. In quel modo potremmo finalmente dire addio alle odiate pubblicità sull'8x1000 all'ugualmente odiata Chiesa Cattolica, in quanto essi senza dubbio sfruttano "indebitamente la miseria umana nuocendo alla dignità della persona" e sovrastimano "lo specifico o potenziale valore del contributo all’iniziativa."

Inoltre posso dire di conoscere personalmente persone che senza dubbio hanno sentito, in innumerevoli occasioni, le loro "convinzioni morali, civili, religiose e dignità della persona" polverizzate da esempi di comunicazione commerciale senza dubbio discutibili in gusto e intento. Tali pubblicità sono tuttora visibili su mezzi pubblici presenti sull'intero territorio nazionale. Non mi sento neanche obbligato a riportare esemi specifici. Scegliete una pubblicità a caso e state pur certi che almeno una volta quella pubblicità avrà insultato qualcuno.

E che rispondere a coloro che ritengono la campagna dell'UAAR come "l'ultima delle provocazioni contro la Chiesa Cattolica?" Piuttosto triste che i media debbano dare anche in questa occasione un tale esempio di inveterato servilismo nei confronti di una monarchia assoluta, di uno stato straniero a cui permettiamo di interferire con la vita politica e sociale italiana. Esattamente quale parte del testo pubblicitario proposto dall'UAAR:

«La cattiva notizia è che Dio non esiste. Quella buona, è che non ne hai bisogno»

faceva menzione della Chiesa Cattolica? Il fatto che l'Italia sia un paese a maggioranza cattolica fa necessariamente di ogni attacco logico, filosofico, scientifico e puramente razionale contro la semplice nozione di un essere supremo un attacco contro la Chiesa Cattolica? O si tratta più semplicemente di quello, di una critica alla pura idea di dio e ai devastanti effetti che essa ha avuto nella storia umana e nel nostro presente, non solo a livello globale ma anche a livello strettamente individuale? Consiglierei al pontefice e al suo club un po' di sana modestia - lo ammetto, piuttosto difficile aspettarsene da coloro che hanno la pretesa di essere rappresentanti in terra di una divinità la cui esistenza non è mai stata provata nonostante millenni di tentativi.

C'è da dire che forse l'UAAR il suo risultato lo ha raggiunto ugualmente e che tutta l'attenzione mediatica a livello nazionale potrebbe aiutare la giusta causa dell'incredulità e dello scetticismo molto più di quanto un paio di cartelloni nel capoluogo ligure avrebbero potuto fare. Resta tuttavia il fatto che l'Italia non potrà mai e poi mai considerarsi un paese moderno finché la libertà d'espressione continuerà ad essere repressa dalla paura della maggioranza dominante di contemplare la possibilità che si stia sbagliando.

Children ain't born believers.

kalevala87@gmail.com (Fabio) — Wed, 17 Dec 2008 17:34:00 +0000

I've been wanting to post a blog entry on this for quite a while but university's been awfully exhausting lately and I haven't had a chance to. A few days ago I stumbled upon an article on the subject and I've decided to actually chip in my two cents on the topic now that I have a few minutes to spare. There you go, the original article on the Telegraph website. It is a few weeks old, but as I've said I haven't had too much time on my hands lately.

For those who can't be bothered to read the article, it goes on about Dr Justin L. Barrett's "research" and bold statements. Dr Barrett - formally known as a psychologist and cognitive scientist, but de facto a Christian apologist - claims that, according to psychological experiments carried out on children, kids seem to possess an innate tendency to identify purpose or meaning in things. True. What is ignored in this reasoning, though, is the why. Barrett obviously needed to assume that such a tendency be actually a yearning for divine presence in our lives, but there is absolutely nothing suggesting any such thing. What kids do is form a basic assumption, a framework, on which to base their development. Dr Barrett, it seems, has studied kids desperately trying to find in them proof that his own personal belief was worth something but has never bothered to talk to kids and understand them. Anyone who has ever had any sort of contact with a young child will be familiar with that exciting - albeit sometimes annoying - phase kids start going through at about three to four years of age. The "why" phase. Their brain goes "look at that! There HAS to be a reason why that thing is like that! Let's ask mum!" That's really all the mystery there is to it. It's a phase, one kids slowly grow out of as they acquire more factual knowledge of the world. Barrett's assumption is that the natural world and man-made objects will innately appear as different to children and that couldn't be any more wrong. Quite the opposite. Their tendency to, at first, consider the natural world as equal to common objects created by man - therefore as having a first cause - is physiological and is exactly what pushes them to enquire about it, stomping parents with questions and absorbing notions where available. They have no reason to assume there is any difference between the universe and a telephone because they don't know any better - yet. It's an autocatalytic reaction and it's part of children's development. Hardly proof of a divine.

He also goes on to say that such a tendency inevitably leads kids to develop a belief in a superior, intelligent entity that imbued everything that exists with a purpose. Wrong. If anything, kids' curiosity is the essence of scepticism. Kids believe in Santa Claus. Kids believe in the Tooth Fairy. Kids believe in what they are exposed to - until they start getting dangerously curious - but kids do not develop complex theologies unless imprinted to adopt one first.

Ultimately, what the experiments have actually proved is that children possess:

a certain notion of causality, needed to make sense of this new, big, confusing world in our early developmental stages, when we lack actual knowledge.
an impressive creativity.

Nothing more.

You owe me, bitch!

kalevala87@gmail.com (Fabio) — Sun, 07 Dec 2008 15:18:00 +0000

Free Software explained by Stephen Fry

kalevala87@gmail.com (Fabio) — Tue, 02 Dec 2008 21:27:00 +0000

Atheism 101 FAQ pt. 8

kalevala87@gmail.com (Fabio) — Fri, 07 Nov 2008 14:38:00 +0000

Q: How do we account for the historical Person of Jesus Christ? He has made such an impact upon history that we even measure our calendar by Him. 2000 years on and millions still follow Him.

A: Since the previous FAQ proved to be rather ridiculous, I've decided to answer two in a day and get this farce over with. Now, the historicity of Jesus. There's no such thing. Not a shred of evidence outside the Christian writings, and self-reference hardly counts as evidence. The theory of Jesus as a historical figure relies almost entirely on the four gospels, anonymous texts (the names of Mark, Matthew, Luke and John were added to the titles - or, rather, the titles themselves were added - only around 180 CE, out of thin air) supposedly based on older texts which, will you look at that, are lost, nowhere to be found. What all of this means is that:

The almighty god of the Judeo-Christian tradition sent his own son - that is, himself - to save mankind from a ruling he himself had issued and, in so doing, he had to sacrifice himself to himself. In the process, though, he forgot to write down anything of his own, no revelations and no prophecies, trusting oral communication to be enough. And now we have a canon Bible, with four gospels said to be an accurate report of the deeds and words of Jesus and his apostles but whose earliest versions available are written in Koine Greek - whereas the languages of the alleged Jesus and his apostles had to be Aramaic - and which are anonymous as well as undated. That is basically to say that the belief of all Christians around the world is based on secondary documents, translations - if they actually are translations of previous texts - whose source texts are not available for quality assessment because, apparently, this almighty god did not care enough about the original manuscripts to prevent them from being lost or destroyed. Not only that, but these translations - although officially recounting the same events - also contradict each other more often than would be acceptable even for a historical document by a human, fallible, mortal author. One example, but many others could be made, is that of the description of Jesus' lineage. The authors of the gospels trace Jesus' genealogy to the house of David through Joseph, Jesus' human father. As they do this they contradict each other, which is difficult to imagine if said authors had actually been contemporaries of Jesus. Matthew says Jesus descended from the house of David through Solomon, whereas according to Luke it was through Nathan. Then Luke tells us that the name of Joseph's father was Heli whereas Matthew says it was Jacob. Then again, all attempts to trace Jesus' genealogy back through the house of David through Joseph are rather silly, if Jospeh really wasn't Jesus' biological father as the Bible would have us believe. All these incongruences are difficult to justify and the only explanation is that the authors of the gospels were not really Aramaic-speaking contemporaries of Jesus and that the Greek "translations" we have are actually the originals, written by later authors to support the Jesus myth.

It is then easy to see how using texts inherent to the very Christian faith in order to prove Jesus' historicity is a clumsy choice at best. Unfortunately for Christian apologetics, non-Christian sources are not all too useful either, and actually make the situation even worse for proponents of an historical Jesus. Sometimes Christians like to claim there to be an impressive amount of first-hand historical evidence of the existence of Jesus. Unfortunately, there is not a single document dating back to the alleged Jesus' lifetime, or immediately after, and bearing witness to the man's deeds and words. Not from Josephus, a Romano-Jewish historian contemporary of the alleged Jesus, outside of a later, Christian interpolation recognised as such even by prominent apologetics. Not from a contemporary and rival historian of Josephus, Justus of Tiberias, who, in the words of Photius, 9th-century Patriarch of Constantinople, "makes not one mention of Jesus, of what happened to him, or of the wonderful works that he did." Not from anyone else. There is an impressive lack of whatever historical reference to a Jesus for centuries - and for decades even as far as Christian writings go - after his alleged lifetime and death. It's as if he had been forgotten and rediscovered by historians who, as a result of tradition and religious compliance, were obliged to take his existence for granted, as is still the case. Well, it's about time we destroyed the myth of a general consensus in the scholarly community.

Atheism 101 FAQ pt. 7

kalevala87@gmail.com (Fabio) — Fri, 07 Nov 2008 14:33:00 +0000

Q: How do you explain the changed lives of millions of people throughout history who testify to a life changing experience with Jesus Christ?

A: How do you explain the changed lives of millions of people throughout history who testify to a life changing experience with the Buddha? How about those whose life has been changed for the better by abandoning metaphysical belief entirely? Seriously, do you really think this an actual argument? I think I've said enough already.

Atheism 101 FAQ pt. 6

kalevala87@gmail.com (Fabio) — Tue, 04 Nov 2008 16:51:00 +0000

Q: Where does all the matter in the universe come from?

A: Well, this is easy. We don't know. There are different theories but unfortunately we cannot test them as we can't travel back to the moment of the Big Bang or to the time before the Big Bang, given that there was most likely no "where" and "when" prior to the Big Bang itself. The general consensus is that the Big Bang did not happen inside our universe, but that it created it, giving birth to space - and consequently time - itself. Basically, asking what was before the Big Bang is not only irrelevant but also makes little sense, as there was no before and the knowledge of it would in no way mutilate the power of the theory to explain how the universe came to be or the power of all physical theories to describe how it currently works. Still, if we insist on asking this question, then we should assume an agnostic stance on the origin of the universe while waiting for further discoveries - which, of course, is not the same as to say that we should consider an almighty creator as a possibility.

It's funny. Whenever arguments against the existence of god are given - and no matter how convincing they are - the Creationist reaction is to call everyone arrogant, claiming we should define ourselves at least agnostic about it. But then, when the scientific community admits not to have all the answers yet and that we should not jump to conclusions while waiting for further study to be carried out, the Creationists are the first to claim that gap for themselves and their deity, whatever it may be. All of a sudden, science's "dunno" becomes in their eyes an admission to ignorance and powerlessness. Double standards only make the Creationists out there laughable, I think.

Ultimately, Creationism will never be an answer as it raises more questions than it answers even assuming, as some Creationists do, that the Big Bang actually happened but that god was behind it. Where was god before the Big Bang? Where is he now? Who created god in the first place? Were the materials used by god to create the universe also created ex nihilo? How is that possible if a singularity arising from nothing is not possible either? Creationism is not scientific and will never be. The notion of god's existence is not falsifiable and requires the existence of a metaphysical power that cannot be tolerated by natural laws unless we strip it of its omniscient and almighty side. God is not the answer to the question.

Atheism 101 FAQ pt. 5

kalevala87@gmail.com (Fabio) — Mon, 03 Nov 2008 13:58:00 +0000

Q: What about the evidence of design in all of creation? It is obvious that anything that is designed has to have an intelligent creator. For example, a computer never came about by mere accident, but had to have been thought out and planned by an intelligent designer. It is the same with creation, and more so, as the natural world is far more complicated than anything humanity can create.

A: Enough with the Watchmaker analogy, already. It was rejected by scientists and liberal theologians alike already in the late 19th century, there was absolutely no need to resuscitate this crap. But still, Creationists did and here we are, in 2008, still fighting the same absurdities William Paley had come up with in 1802. The only difference being that he did not have the means to know how foolish his argument was and that, indeed, considering the knowledge of the day it probably also made sense. Anyway, let's go over this one more time.

The Argument from Design goes like this. Suppose you're walking on the beach and all of a sudden you see a watch being washed ashore. You pick it up and the first thing you think, apparently, is "how cool is that. This watch and its inner functioning are so complex that it surely must have been designed by a great mind." For this reason, Creationists think, the universe and its incredible complexity and order must have been the creation of a Creator.

Wrong. I'm not sure exactly how many rebuttals to this arguments have been proposed throughout history, but I think I know at least a few.

I) A watch is complex.
II) A watch was designed and created by a watchmaker.
III) The universe is complex.
IV) The universe was therefore designed and created.

The consequence does not follow from the premises. The fact that watches and the universe share characteristic X, which is complexity, does not imply that they will also share characteristic Z, having been created. Furthermore, watches and the universe do not share characteristic Y, that is being orderly, as will be shown later on. Leaves and money bills are complex cellulose structures, yet money bills do not grow on trees, no matter how strongly some people wish they did.

A watchmaker is bound to create watches from pre-existing materials, whereas the Creationists' god is supposed to have created the universe ex nihilo. The analogy, as it is, doesn't stand on its own, unless we assume there was a creator who created the materials the other creator worked on to build the universe, or that one creator did both things.

But even then, if so complex a universe just had to be created by a god, then so complex a mind that it could, in its turn, create such complexity had to be created as well. If we assume, as Creationists always do, that their god requires no first cause and that it has simply always been, then there is no reason not to assume that the universe and its complexity have always existed, in one form or another, and that they require no first cause. Creationists, from the height of their wisdom, have never been able to address this point.

Also, the watchmaker from the analogy most likely had a father. Most likely he also had a grandfather, a great-grandfather, a great-great-grandfather and so on. Assuming that at least a few of these men had been watchmakers within their lifetime, they had probably learnt the skills from someone and then passed on the knowledge to the following generations. With each passing generation, however, the knowledge was worked upon, expanded, slightly modified with a pace equal to that of technological evolution, improving materials, tools and techniques. All this, if anything, resembles much more Darwin's Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection, unless we assume that the Creationist god had a nearly endless series of gods coming before him, passing the noble art of universe-making down to each generation, improving it all the time.

All this, however, would make the Creationists' current god only a newcomer and a sucky one at that. I contend that the nature of the universe is far from being as orderedly complex as Creationists like to assume. This god wouldn't pass Engineering or Architecture 101 in any decent university. As far as universes go, this one is a real mess. There was a time even scientists believed our universe to be not only incredibly complex but also incredibly orderly, but then Einstein came along and started proving to us that we were sorely mistaken. There is absolutely nothing designed in our chaotic and violent universe. Think of Einstein's relativity. What omniscient and almighty creator would create a universe in which time is dilated by high gravitational potential? What god would disseminate his creation with exploding stars, black holes - placing one at the centre of most galaxies -, bathe everything in a deadly dose of ionizing radiation, then pick a random pale blue dot in an insignificant corner of one of the countless galaxies of this universe and then populate it with such an astounding number of species including us, not bothering to correct flaws that an eight-grader could pinpoint? Why create genetic mutations and deadly viruses and bacteria? And why make us, who are supposed to be god's greatest creation, susceptible to all this? Why make our bodies so weak and imperfect? Was god simply unable to create something better or unwilling to create something better? Sorry, but Epicurus nailed it a long time ago.

I could go on like this for a little longer, but I'm honestly growing tired. I'll leave it at that, so that everyone can draw personal conclusions.

Atheism 101 FAQ pt. 4

kalevala87@gmail.com (Fabio) — Sun, 02 Nov 2008 00:33:00 +0000

Q: Isn’t it a bit extreme to assert "God does not exist"? To make such a statement you would have to have complete knowledge and to have been everywhere in the universe. Maybe God dwells somewhere in the universe you don’t know of or have not been to? Is that possible?

A: There is so much wrong with this question that I'm having a hard time deciding where to start dissecting it. As I see it, this is but a version of the old "you can't prove a negative" dogma. I'm not sure where this particular argument originated but it commonly seems to have its one and only line of defence in a broken understanding of Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle. However, I feel that getting into Quantum physics just to address the point raised would be pretty much useless, so I'll keep it much simpler.

First off, not all atheists are equally assertive. Many will stick to a mild lack of belief in a supernatural reality or specifically in a creative power. However, just as many - including me - will go as far as to say that god does not exist. In doing so we're often spat at the aforementioned rebuke about negatives being unprovable. What most believers fail to understand is that "you can't prove a negative" is as self-contradicting as a statement can possibly be. If negatives cannot be proven, then one cannot prove that the absolute, negative statement "you can't prove a negative" is true either, therefore destroying every bit of its absoluteness and leaving us with a statement that sounds rather more like "some negatives can be proven." Think of a statement such as "one is not the same as two." It is common sense that one and two are not the same, we can easily take it as a postulate without bothering to look for supportive evidence. Same goes for less mathematical statements. Let's take for example "the ancient Romans did not build the Hubble telescope." Should we declare ourselves agnostics about the making of the Hubble? Don't think so. The real deal with most negative statements is not really that they can't be proven, rather that they needn't be proven at all. If, on the other hand, one were to use an affirmative phrase like "the ancient Romans did build the Hubble telescope," then that person would be in serious trouble as his, and only his, would be the burden of proof.

Statements about the existence of god are really not all too different, as demonstrated by the hopeless quest for evidence proponents of Creationism need to embark on whenever they seek to have some sort of rational debate. Whoever claims that "god exists," has the responsibility to provide enough evidence to support such claim, else it is bound to be rejected. Sure, someone might contend that we have enough historical and archaeological evidence to rule out the possibility that the Romans could have built anything even vaguely comparable to the Hubble, whereas we have no piece of evidence as irrefutable as that to rule out the existence of god. Of course one such person would have to wilfully and ill-willingly ignore centuries of scientific achievements, but dignity doesn't seem to be amongst the top concerns of the average theist these days. But really, the real problem with all this is not the Creationist tendency to claim evidence they don't actually have, rather the fact that statements about the existence of an entity "god" are completely and utterly useless without a meaningful definition of "god," and theists are usually unable to provide a clear one. Roughly put, you can't possibly disprove the existence of a vague "god" whose attributes are unspecified. Of course you can nearly always safely assume that the god theist X is talking about is the one of the Judeo-Christian tradition and, in that context, "god does not exist," is far from being an arrogant statement.

Atheism 101 FAQ pt. 3

kalevala87@gmail.com (Fabio) — Sat, 01 Nov 2008 13:04:00 +0000

Q: Why does humanity seem to have an innate desire and need to worship something, or someone? Why is there such a universal religious sense within humanity?

A: Once again, the question is intentionally misleading. I don't think there is such a universal religious sense within humanity. First of all the fact that no child will display religious behaviour unless led to do so by the surrounding culture - and that the particular belief held by the kid in that case will be that spawned by the surrounding culture - is proof enough that we are, by all means, born atheists and, in far too many cases, raised otherwise. Secondly, the fact that so many people, at some point in their lives, leave metaphysical belief behind is proof enough that we are not compelled by our genetic heritage to embrace a particular religion or world view. Yes, I am aware of the research that is being done into the possibility of a "god gene," and I find it all quite interesting. Still, gene activation and deactivation is a factor that should be kept in mind. Possessing the "god gene," should such a thing actually exist, would not necessarily bind one to belief for the rest of his or her existence.

There are, however, two characteristics that are inescapably hard-wired within us and that have given birth to mystical belief, organised religions and organised theologies. These two characteristics are 1) a constant search for meaning in a way that it minimises cognitive dissonance and 2) the need to keep one's sense of belonging alive and well. Belief and organised religion has been able to satisfy both such needs for most of our history and I don't think anyone in his right mind could deny that belief and religion have served some evolutionary purpose. Natural selection leaves little choice, if something is useful it will survive. Religion and belief have survived because they are the easy way out. It takes much less psychological effort to abandon oneself to the idea that a creative power has shaped everything that exists and, at the mere price of having to swallow mindless dogma and respect strict rules, one can feel part of a comprehensive group. The worship of a deity, and the sense of submission towards said deity are not hard-wired in us, but mere by-products of particular religious beliefs, a price to pay in order to be part of a group. Different cultures in different historical periods and geographical locations have built different religious customs around more or less different conceptions of deity, thereby altering the price to pay in order to be part of those particular groups. Some abandon entirely the concept of collective worship, favouring private rituals, whereas others subordinate the belief in one or more deities to the more central idea of ancestor or animal worship. All this, rather than being evidence of a transcending reality we are intrinsically attuned with, is evidence that religious beliefs and rituals are culture-determined and survive natural selection provided they are able to cater for the two aforementioned human needs.

Atheism 101 FAQ pt. 2

kalevala87@gmail.com (Fabio) — Sat, 01 Nov 2008 00:29:00 +0000

Atheism 101 FAQ pt. 2

As promised, here comes another Q/A.

Q: Where does all of the incredibly complex information come from that is stored within DNA? Information doesn’t just appear by itself. Someone has to put it there.

A: This is probably the most interesting question of all those on the list. At least it would be if it were asked with an underlying dose of intellectual honesty. The problem with it is that it's intentionally vague. I'm far from being an expert on information theory, yet even I can tell that to ask such a question one must first provide a definition of information to work on. Somehow I get the feeling that what Creationists actually have in mind is a particular understanding - or, rather, misunderstanding - of information that might favour their own agenda if they manage to phrase the question with enough ambiguity. But as far as reality goes, genetic information "generates itself." RNA and Protein splicing, Frame-shit mutations, deletions, duplications, insertions, etc., all these occurrences result in mutations and, as a consequence, in genetic information which is slightly different from the original one. The resulting genetic code, whether Creationists like it or not, is new information generated via imperfect natural mechanisms. The usual rebuke made by Creationists to this is that such mechanisms either simply act on existing information modifying it or they simply give way to detrimental or, at best, neutral mutations. All of a sudden they demand instances of such mechanisms giving rise not just to mutations, but to beneficial mutations - which was obviously their hidden agenda right from the start - regardless of the fact that benefit is in no way a prerogative of genetic mutations and of the resulting new information, since benefit is always relative to the environment. To put it in the terms of Information Theory, mutations create Shannon Information content in the form of new nucleotide chains, whereas selection will increase the specificity of the new information once the content is transformed into active protein with a function, thereby crushing all Creationist hopes of finding their safety in Information Theory. One could then provide examples of beneficial mutations, such as the evolution of photoreceptors in mammals (for further information see Michael H. Rowe, Trichromatic Color Vision in Primates, News in Physiological Sciences, Vol. 17, No. 3, 93-98, June 2002, relevant section available with full text here.), but not even that could possibly shake the Creationists' conviction that the Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection has to be wrong because their deity cannot possibly be.

Atheism 101 FAQ pt. 1

kalevala87@gmail.com (Fabio) — Thu, 30 Oct 2008 22:30:00 +0000

Surfing the web, looking for something, anything, to blog about tonight, I stumbled upon one of those "Questions for Atheists and Skeptics" pages - this particular one being part of the spotlightministries.org.uk website which, admittedly, I had never heard of before. Anyway, whoever published this is irrelevant as most of the points raised are fairly trite and stink of old. Regardless, it might prove to be a fairly entertaining way to kill some time. So, here we go.

Q: If we live in a purely material world then how do we account for the many supernatural experiences that people have, such as encounters with God, ghosts, spirits, etc (obviously, exactly what all of these encounters actually are are all interpreted by different people in different ways but the fact remains that people encounter things that do not fit a purely naturalistic world view). Are we really to conclude that all of these people are delusional, deceptive, or mad? Or could it be that people are having real encounters with real supernatural beings not explainable through purely scientific mediums?

A: Usually when the person setting out to answer the first question of such a list is immediately obliged to point out that the question is built on a false premise, things don't bode well for whoever wrote the question in the first place. I think I may have dedicated a whole blog entry a while ago about why the very idea of "supernatural" is self-contradicting, but I'll just limit myself to saying that if something happens and has recordable consequences, then said phenomenon is physical, natural and, therefore, explicable by means of scientific investigation. As far as hard evidence goes, the physical, the natural, is all there is and nothing "supernatural" can, by definition, exist. Now, this made clear, we can move on to the interesting part. The sheer number of reports make it so that no one could possibly deny that such accounts, or at least part of them (we must always keep in mind the occasional mythomaniac and compulsive liar), are accounts of real phenomena. What the sceptic will have a problem with is their mainstream interpretation. Are the people who live OOB experiences actually leaving their physical body? No. Are people living NDEs actually walking in a cone of light that would lead them towards another plane of existence? No. Metaphysical hogwash stopped having any relevance in serious debates some three centuries ago and it certainly cannot be taken seriously in 2008. Does it mean then that these people are "delusional, deceptive or mad?" Not in the least. Where metaphysical arguments are crushed, neurology is working hard to provide some answers and has already done so in many cases. The interpretation most theists have of such phenomena is firmly built upon the assumption of an irrefutable mind-body duality (in some cases a mind-body-spirit trinity, but the distinction is fairly trivial for all practical purposes.), an assumption largely and consistently rejected by modern science. We are not separated from our brain, we are our brain. From such a perspective, paranormal phenomena such as OOB and ND experiences become nothing but a subject of study for modern neuroscience. An interesting and complex one, but still within the reach of scientific scrutiny. Roughly put, every "mystical" phenomenon can be explained as the result of a stimulation of certain areas of our brain, regardless of such stimulation being traumatic or not. We can safely assume all this because of all the exhaustive research that has been carried out in recent years by scientists such as Mario Beauregard (regardless of his own, personal interpretation of his research), Dr. Barry L Beyerstein, Dr. Olaf Blanke - who, together with his colleagues, actually managed to repeatedly trigger OOB experiences in people by means of electrical stimulation of specific areas of the subjects' brain (for further information see Blanke O., Landis T., Spinelli L. and Seeck M., Out-of-body experience and autoscopy of neurological origin, Brain, Vol. 127, No. 2, 243-258, 2004, full text available here.). Electrical stimulation, of course, is likely not to be the only trigger for mystical experiences, as stimulation can occurr in many ways. Interestingly, many of the most famous and most crucial mystical experiences and visions in the history of world religions have been reported happening on top of mountains or at high altitudes. It has long been known that both the low oxygen rates and the isolation can deeply affect the temporoparietal junction in the brain, the very same area linked with mystical experiences by Blanke's research and the reason behind so many mountaineers with no relevant, deeply held beliefs experiencing comparable happenings (for further information see Arzy S., Idel M., Landis T., Blanke O., Why revelations have occurred on mountains? Linking mystical experiences and cognitive neuroscience, Med Hypotheses, 2005; Vol. 65, Issue 5: 841-5, full text available here.). Once again, delusion and pathological predisposition - although valid explanations in many cases - are far from being the only ones. People who live such experiences are hardly to blame for what happens to them. What is unjustified, however, is the eagerness of some to label such phenomena as a clear sign of the existence of a divine and of a transcending reality. It is a naif approach to things, sometimes even the result of ill will and ulterior motives. Such rushed conclusions cannot stand the pressure of rational scrutiny, so we might as well stop shouting miracle whenever something apparently inexplicable happens.

As I was answering this question it occurred to me that it would be much better if I spread my answers over different, daily blog entries. This would both make them easier to read and allow me to go on posting for a few days without having to stand the tedious search for a topic on a daily basis. So, stay tuned for the next Q/A.

When semantics takes its toll.

kalevala87@gmail.com (Fabio) — Sun, 26 Oct 2008 13:54:00 +0000

I should be entertaining myself with homework and assignments, but I've realised there's something bugging me far too much for me to let it go unnoticed any longer. I've been out of the whole online debating scene for a few months. I'm not sure whether I've grown tired of always fighting the same people or if I've become physically unable to tolerate their use of the same, old, stretched arguments over and over again. Whatever the reason, the mere idea of logging in on a public forum and engage in a debate makes me feel nauseous. Still, I sometimes check out boards and blogs all over the web and I sometimes feel the urge to bang my head against the wall, just like the good ol' times when I had to dodge ad personams Matrix-style to get my point across.

One of the last debates I took part in was one concerning the existence of Free Will and Free Agency and the issue of whether or not the mind is a physical entity bound to the principle of causality. Now, of all the arguments I've heard there is a recurrent one I find extremely annoying. Believe it or not I've happened to stumble upon people who contend the mind is a non-physical entity linked to the physical brain by a process of feedback loop because the most common definition of mind as used by most speakers of all natural languages is that of a non-physical entity.

Admittedly all this transcends the particular debate and mine is a criticism against a debating technique used by some people regardless of topic. Dictionary entries and the use we make of words - which are, I'd like to remind, nothing but conventions - reflect the mainstream way of understanding reality and the universe we live in. They by no means build the reality we live in or constitute proof of anything. Our use of words and the meaning we attach to a particular utterance and to its representation in written language is directed by our ever changing understanding of reality and not vice versa. Do you want to prove that the mind is a non-physical entity beyond the reach of causality? Then you must provide an instance of physical changes in a living brain, be them traumatic or not, producing no change whatsoever in the behavioural patterns of a living organism. It would also be nice if you could explain how anything in the physical world we live in can be uncaused above quantum level - and even at quantum level we might one day find out that the apparent randomness of microscopical systems is actually not that random at all. Time will tell.

An equally irritating argument used by many Free Will proponents goes as follows:

1. we live and act throughout each day of our existence with the clear perception of having free will and agency.
2. therefore free will and agency do exist.

Wrong. Perceiving free will is no more a proof of its existence than seeing the sun move through the sky is proof that our system is geocentric. If anything, one might argue that our perception of free will is but an evolutionary defence mechanism to preserve self-image. So many people are so manifestly unable to cope with the mere idea of having no real free will that the need for such a defence mechanism becomes blatant from an evolutionary perspective, just as many individuals seem to need to cling to their beliefs in order to keep themselves alive.

Since I'm at it I think I might as well address a point I deem much more important than the need of single individuals to embrace the illusive perception of free will. It's a point whose discussion, I think, has been made necessary by the emergence of the gene-centred theory of evolution. Let's assume for a moment that Dawkins' thorough explanation of why and how altruism still has a place in the Selfish Gene theory were not enough for some people and that the deletion of free will on a naturalistic basis could pose, according to the same people, an equal threat to the ethical existence of our civilisation. To be honest I've always had a hard time understanding what all the fuss about this stems from, as the solution has always appeared fairly blatant to me. If I were to make an educated guess I'd say that the problem some people have with the theory is caused by a deeply rooted adherence to dualism. People will always have issues with a gene-centred theory of evolution and its obvious implications for as long as they will stick to seeing themselves as something separated from their genes. If you think about it, the most common argument against the acceptance of the theory is not unlike one of the most common points raised against atheism.

Once you eliminate free will and free agency, if we are nothing but machines whose actions are determined by genetics and causality, then everything is allowed and there is no longer accountability.

Once again, wrong. That would only be the case if our genes were the decision-making components of machines of which we represent the conscious self. The problem ceases to be as soon as you accept the idea that we are not controlled by our genes, we are our genes. We are genetic machines that evolution has provided with self-awareness and the illusion of free will as defence mechanisms and as means to a posteriori rationalise all those decisions we take as a result of all those underground processes that placing under our direct control would jeopardise the survival of the genetic machine we are. As a result we, our own genes, can be held entirely accountable and judged by a jury of peer genetic machines.

Ultimately, if the idea of giving our free will up is really so terrifying, one could very well phrase the whole thing slightly differently and say that the free agency of our genetic machines is perfectly intact and that it is our self-awareness that is actually more deficient than we'd like to think.

Sometimes they come back.

kalevala87@gmail.com (Fabio) — Sat, 25 Oct 2008 11:35:00 +0000

One month since my last post. About one month since I got here, one month of my exchange year gone, and a lot to fill you people in about. Most of the past month I've spent going to class, going to parties and having what most people my age would think of as fun - and perhaps, however unremarkable to most, that is exactly the most relevant aspect of the time I've spent here. I, who have never been the life and soul of the party - and never will, mind you - am at least starting to go to parties in the first place. It's not really about me enjoying the social convention named "party" or not, it's about me finding myself willing, even eager, to be around people. I'm not quite used to that, I admit, but I must say I'm starting to like the feeling and, above all, the idea of this whole experience changing me in such a way. Or of change happening in my life, regardless of form and entity. I have spent my whole existence up until now openly resisting change, rejecting anything that could threaten to break the fragile balance I had found in my life, even if that meant keeping people away and experiencing much less of some aspects of life than would be healthy for a guy my age - although I've clearly experienced other aspects of existence most people are fairly clueless about, for good or for bad. And now here I am, facing change in small doses just about every day, with a strange mix of respectful caution and clumsy fascination. Here I am, experiencing things that should be common place for someone my age, but I don't care. I've never been a fan of tight schedules anyway.

But hey, sometimes I nearly forget this is also supposed to be yet another "angry atheist" blog, engaged and all that. Since I wouldn't want to piss off part of my readership - wait a sec, what readership? - I guess the topic deserves at least one mention. Yes, I'm still an atheist and I'm just as angry one as I was when I left Italy. That's one thing that is not going to change, exchange year or not. I must say I've met quite a few evil unbelievers here already, proving my point that we're far from being a dying breed. I've also met the occasional, promising agnostic paralysed by that one nasty form of fear of death and kenophobia. Last night in particular was quite entertaining. I spent it with Tobias, Lawrence, Diego and Sylvain, the funny Belgian guy who speaks Italian better than many Italians. We watched Lucky Number Slevin - definitely a good film - and then a short piece of Dawkins' The Root of All Evil?, which triggered the following debate about belief, relgion, politics and - not quite sure how - girls. I guess the fact that girls are the greatest mistery in the universe made the link seem less absurd last night. It was one of those times that can make even an angry, cynical, militant atheist realise that debate and hermeneutic exchange still have something to offer to this world if we just bother to give it a shot. Probably none of us has managed to convince anyone of his own thesis and vice versa, but we have learnt something new about each other and, one might argue, that's the main point in a conversation.

Well, tonight it's party-time yet again, so I'd better pull myself together. There would be much more to tell about my first month here, but most of it would seem fairly trivial and would only make sense to me and a close few others. Therefore, I'll just leave it at that.

My Salfordian adventures, pt.1

kalevala87@gmail.com (Fabio) — Thu, 25 Sep 2008 10:19:00 +0000

I reckon I've been neglecting my blog for a while, but I figured no one would actually miss it. Besides, I have an excuse. The preparation, both psychological and practical, for my moving to England has kept me quite busy during the past month(s) or so. Now that I'm here I'm just so busy with trying to survive that the idea of blogging hasn't even crossed my mind until now. ButI've just done some shopping, mostly food, and I'm now waiting in my room for the right time to go out again and face the world once more. While waiting I've decided to let the web know I'm still alive.

They say an exchange year is a life-changing experience and I can sort of agree with that. I'm still not sure whether the change will be for the better or for the worse, but I can definitely feel some changing going on, even though I've only been here since Saturday night. This is my first time living away from home for an extended period of time. As if that were not enough, I'm living on my own and in a foreign country. How's that for a sudden twist? I know that doesn't make me special in any way, that countless other students just here on this campus are in my same situation, and that in a few years' time, with some acquired wisdom and hindsight all this is gonna look like a piece of cake, but I can't help looking at things from my own perspective and from the present moment. It's not that I'm scared. I mean, if I've managed to survive these first five days I can probably survive the next nine months. Laundry allowing, that is. Well, anyway, I suppose things will improve with time and I will eventually get a hold of how things work in the big big world.

Fundie VS. Spore

kalevala87@gmail.com (Fabio) — Thu, 11 Sep 2008 15:25:00 +0000

Once more, thanks to my friend Tiska for directing my attention towards something so unbelievable that at first I thought it was just a satirical website along the lines of the Landover Baptist Church one. I mean, it just had to be. Sadly, though, the http://antispore.com/ blog definitely seems to be quite real. Terrifyingly real. Yeah, you got it right. Right now, somewhere in the world, there is a Christian fundie - well, considering their IQ and their habit to wander in packs there might be several of them - conducting a crusade against Will Wright's new game Spore, published by EA. In the words of the blog's author - who, I take it, is a Christian mum who found out about the game thanks to her kid's desire to have it - :

I created this blog to find support for and follow my progress in letting Electronic Arts know that their biggest attack on Christian values to date will not be tolerated.

We can not allow the gaming industry to invade our homes and poison the minds of our children.

After all, their billions in revenue and all the advertising in the world are no match for the power of God.

Please feel free to contact me at antispore@gmail.com

The whole blog goes on like that, shifting from blatant and astonishing self-righteousness to the occasional display of alleged martyrdom for the preservation of her faith. In the latest entry she, I think, reaches the bottom and start digging even further, leaving every single hope of proving amusing behind and turning into the condescending kind of prick we know only a fundie can be, dispensing words of wisdom of such impressive size as "so it’s clear that Earth was made by God’s hand, not science," and "people of science claim that the Earth is the way it is because of millions of years of time and science effecting it. But we are taught and believe that our world is this way and has the aged look because of the flood of Noah. It was the waters covering the Earth on such a grand scale that caused the aging that people of science claim as proof."

Judging from the little I could see, all of the comments left by the unfortunate readers of such nonsense were from atheists or, in general, gamers appalled beyond belief - pun intended - by such an abyssal lack of common sense, even though the author still expresses gratitude for some support she's supposedly been receiving from like-minded individuals (pretty terrifying perspective, isn't it?). Obviously she has - as far as I could see - never bothered to address any of the points raised in the comments, or to answer at all, and I didn't really expect otherwise.

Well, anyway, there's little to say about the blog and its author but I still thought I'd share it with the rest of the world. If anything, it's great if you want to have a laugh. What I found particularly amusing is they way it is inevitably going to prove an incredible and unexpected source of revenue for EA, like an ad campaign they didn't have to pay for. I'm sure right now someone at EA is actually thanking a deity of their choice for such a blessing. Oh, yeah, on an even lighter note it looks as if irony is being particularly merciless towards our poor fundie. I'll let the picture speak for itself. Must be her deity's peculiar sense of humour.

Now, all of you, go buy a copy of Spore. Yeah, I know, maybe you don't like Wright's games or maybe it's just not your kind of game, but look at it this way. For each copy of Spore sold in the world, a fundie somewhere might have a deadly stroke. Please, think of the world. I'm sure you will do the right thing.

My personality according to Jung

kalevala87@gmail.com (Fabio) — Sun, 24 Aug 2008 21:26:00 +0000

INTP - "Architect". Greatest precision in thought and language. Can readily discern contradictions and inconsistencies. The world exists primarily to be understood. 3.3% of total population.

Main type	Variant

Enneagram Test Results

Type 1	Perfectionism	\|\|\|\|\|\|\|\|\|\|\|\|\|\|	60%
Type 2	Helpfulness	\|\|\|\|\|\|\|\|\|\|\|\|	50%
Type 3	Image Awareness	\|\|\|\|\|\|\|\|\|\|	40%
Type 4	Sensitivity	\|\|\|\|\|\|\|\|\|\|\|\|\|\|	56%
Type 5	Detachment	\|\|\|\|\|\|\|\|\|\|\|\|\|\|	60%
Type 6	Anxiety	\|\|\|\|\|\|\|\|\|\|\|\|\|\|\|\|	66%
Type 7	Adventurousness	\|\|\|\|\|\|\|\|\|\|\|\|	43%
Type 8	Aggressiveness	\|\|\|\|\|\|\|\|\|\|\|\|\|\|\|\|\|\|	80%
Type 9	Calmness	\|\|\|\|\|\|\|\|\|\|\|\|\|\|	53%

Your main type is 8
Your variant is social

http://similarminds.com/

Human blood produced from embryonic stem cells

kalevala87@gmail.com (Fabio) — Fri, 22 Aug 2008 13:58:00 +0000

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/health/article4567387.ece

August 20, 2008
Vials of human blood have been grown from embryonic stem cells for the first time during research that promises to provide an almost limitless supply suitable for transfusion into any patient.
The achievement by scientists in the United States could lead to trials of the blood within two years, and ultimately to an alternative to donations that would transform medicine.
If such blood was made from stem cells of the O negative blood type, which is compatible with every blood group but is often in short supply, it could be given safely to anybody who needs a transfusion.
Stem-cell-derived blood would also eliminate the risk of transmitting the pathogens that cause hepatitis, HIV and Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease (CJD) through transfusions.
Scientists behind the advance said that it has huge therapeutic potential and could easily become the first application of embryonic stem-cell research to enter widespread clinical use. “Limitations in the supply of blood can have potentially life-threatening consequences for patients with massive blood loss,” said Robert Lanza, of Advanced Cell Technology (ACT) in Massachusetts, who led the experiments. “Embryonic stem cells represent a new source of cells that can be propagated and expanded indefinitely, providing a potentially inexhaustible source of red blood cells for human therapy. The identification of a stem cell line with O negative blood type would permit the production of compatible ‘universal donor’ blood.”
Blood comes in four groups, A, B, AB and O, and in two rhesus types, positive and negative, and only some of these are compatible with one another. A person with type A, for example, can donate to people with type A or AB, and receive blood of type A or O. Only O negative blood can be given to any patient.
While there is no national shortage of donated blood in Britain, O negative blood sometimes runs low. It is also used widely in military medicine.
The research also has more immediate clinical promise for efforts to turn embryonic stem cells into other types of tissue, to treat conditions such as diabetes and Parkinson’s.
One of the biggest safety hurdles that must be cleared before stem-cell therapies enter clinical trials is the risk of uncontrolled cell growth causing cancer. Red blood cells, however, do not have nuclei that carry the genetic material that goes wrong in cancer, and thus should not present this danger. “This could be one of the biggest breaks for the early clinical application of embryonic stem cells,” Dr Lanza said. “There is still work to be done, but we could certainly be studying these cells clinically within the next year or two.”
While a few red blood cells have been created from embryonic stem cells before, the ACT team is the first to mass-produce them on the scale required for medical use. They also showed that the red cells were capable of carrying oxygen, and that they responded to biological cues in similar fashion to the real thing. About two thirds had no nucleus, which suggests that they are fully fledged adult red blood cells, and the researchers hope to bring this closer to 100 per cent. Details of the research are published in the journal Blood.
Though embryonic stem cells were used in this experiment, it may be possible to create blood from reprogrammed adult cells, also known as induced pluripotent (IPS) cells. These would circumvent some ethical objections to the use of embryonic tissue.
Independent scientists welcomed the work. Professor Alex Medvinsky, a blood stem cell expert at the University of Edinburgh, said: “The problem with relying on donated blood is that there are always shortages. The ability to generate red blood cells in very large numbers would be a very big thing.”

Moving

kalevala87@gmail.com (Fabio) — Fri, 22 Aug 2008 08:15:00 +0000

Pringles cantenna, eh? I so have to try that one...