A Human Mind

#4 COOL vs UnCOOL

noreply@blogger.com (Fabio P) — Thu, 04 Aug 2011 11:56:00 +0000

It's a well-established fact that many religions - particularly the three big monotheisms - have a tendency to discriminate against women in various ways or otherwise consistently reaffirm women's allegedly inferior status, to the point that even the very act of giving birth - considered women's only redeeming quality in some religious circles - is deemed unclean (Leviticus 12). Well, it now appears that more and more women are taking notice of how unwelcome they are in the gentlemen's club that is organised religion.

In data presented in a report by the Barna Group about the state of religiousness in the US, church attendance among women has decreased by 11% since 1991, down to an encouraging 44%. Likewise, the percentage of women who engage in Bible reading during the week (outside of church events) has dropped by 10 points, down to 40%, and the percentage of women who see the Bible as entirely accurate by 7 points, down to 42%. The notion of divine omniscience, omnipotence and general perfection of the Judeo-Christian god has also taken a 10% hit, while still a significant 70%. But hey, Rome wasn't built in a day.

The decision to make drivers here in the UK state whether they want their organs donated or not - or whether they don't want to answer just yet - whenever they apply for a new license or a license renewal has sparked some serious controversy. The question was always there, but it was not compulsory and hence routinely ignored by most. Apparently nudging people to make, or at least consider, important choices at some point in their lives is a violation of some human right or fundamental freedom. The freedom to re fuse to save up to six people's lives as your final act on this planet? Go figure. I suppose allowing people the freedom to be idiots is all part of a democracy, but I still root for a more utilitarian approach to organ donation (or alternatively to the donation of bodies for research and education purposes.), one that will dispense with the supremacy of superstitious fears and unreasonable opinions. I long for the day artificial organs will become routine replacement for biological ones as much as the next geek, but until that glorious day, organ donation should not be a matter of choice. I suppose it could even take its rightful place as the most reasonable of all death rituals, for believers and non-believers alike.

50 IQ points short of good marketing.

noreply@blogger.com (Fabio P) — Fri, 29 Jul 2011 20:20:00 +0000

Imagine you're the head of a big chain of fast food restaurants. A competitor publicly accuses you of selling seriously unhealthy food. They go a bit overboard in their campaign against you, publishing data - maybe real, maybe fake - allegedly proving how their food is healthier than yours. They even manage to rally animal rights associations against you, accusing you of torture, and an extreme fringe group goes as far as to plant a bomb in one of your restaurants, killing several customers. Now, imagine you have a good PR department. In that case you will probably try to prove the accusations wrong, you'll condemn your competitors and those extremists, you'll do your damned best to show that you're different. If it goes well, the public will see you're not that bad. Definitely not bad enough to warrant bombing your restaurants. You might even gain a few customers while your competitors lose a bunch. What if your PR department is run by special-need clowns, though?

I suppose in that case you will probably run an advert campaign with bloody images of your abattoir, publish all the awful nutritional statistics of your products you've desperately been trying to hide from the public and thereby commit financial suicide. Well, it appears a certain Muslim group has just opted for the colourful outfit and the red nose. Over the past week, members of proscribed radical Islamist group Islam4UK have been flooding the London boroughs of Waltham Forest, Tower Hamlets and Newham with stickers signalling the entrance in a "Sharia-controlled zone" and clearly stating how "gambling," "music or concerts," "porn or prostitution," "drugs or smoking"and "alcohol" should thereby be considered banned on religious grounds. "We want to run the area as a Sharia-controlled zone and really to put the seeds down for an Islamic Emirate in the long term," claims the leader of the illegal group. I guess if religious groups had better marketing strategists, this world would be in far worse shape. Long live terrible marketing.

#3 COOL vs UnCOOL

noreply@blogger.com (Fabio P) — Wed, 27 Jul 2011 21:52:00 +0000

In the wake of the meaningless scandal surrounding the perfectly legal creation of cybrids and chimeras by the three licensed UK universities - King’s College London, Newcastle University and Warwick University - there are timidly encouraging news. On the other side of the pond, a lawsuit filed in 2009 and which was threatening to cancel federal funding of embryonic stem cell research has just been dismissed. One can only hope the next presidential elections won't end up creating a new Republican regime hell-bent on destroying what little the current, tame president has managed to achieve. No offence, Barack, but you could have done a lot more.

I have in the past written about the silly notion of non-overlapping magisteria and I don't think I'll ever get tired of fighting against it. As a consequence I cannot be kind with anyone who even attempts to defend the construct. Even as famous a scientist as Francis Collins. In a recent statement the American geneticist blamed "angry atheists" for somehow keeping the public away from science by depicting it as antithetical to belief in deities or the metaphysical. Sorry Francis, but there are still people who think that attempting to use our knowledge of the natural world to somehow support a belief in the supernatural is a ridiculous endeavour. Science is the study of reality and if you want to play the exciting game of science you must accept reality for what it is, and others have a right to question whether your skewed and partial acceptance of reality will somehow affect your scientific performance.

Norway attacks in context

noreply@blogger.com (Fabio P) — Wed, 27 Jul 2011 13:51:00 +0000

Ever since finding out about the tragedy that has recently befallen Norway, I have been fighting the temptation to write a blog entry about it. One the one hand it was – and maybe still is – too early to rationally interpret this catastrophe. On the other, however, there are people out there who couldn't even wait for the dust to settle before turning the blood of 76 people into a rhetorical device. That's why, after hearing Glenn Beck hypocritically compare the victims of the Norway massacre to the Hitlerian Youth (I have never heard him complain about Christian indoctrination camps) and remembering that one of the main purposes of this blog has always been to challenge idiocy of this magnitude, I have decided to put my thoughts on the matter into words.

Over the past two days I've been doing my homework. Reading about the attacks, learning new details as they were published, even downloading a PDF copy of Anders Breivik's political manifesto. As painful and at times sickening an experience as it was, I did not wish to enter this unprepared and jump to the same kind of unwarranted conclusions as those who immediately blamed the attacks on unidentified Islamic terrorists. No, Anders Breivik is quite clearly not a Muslim. Once that became clear, the nonsense began. Suddenly, those who blamed Muslims moved on to blame the West for not being afraid enough, despite the fact that this stance has an awful lot in common with the perpetrator's. More politically-savvy right-wingers were quick to engage in buck-passing, claiming Breivik was not one of them, or condemn his methods while acknowledging his motives as legitimate and complaining that his actions are likely to inflict a serious blow to the "cause of anti-Islamism."

What is next? Well, over the next few days and weeks I'm expecting a barrage of rationalisation and further nonsense. Let's face it, it's only a matter of time before the Norwegian tragedy crops up on the atheist blogosphere and, inevitably, on the usual Christian apologetic websites. And when that happens, Anders Breivik will take his place in the card deck, next to Hitler, Stalin and a bunch of other notorious individuals. Buck-passing in a different shape, I suppose. Either that, or we can at least try to be grown-up about it and spell things out the way they really are. So, which is it? Madman? Right-wing nutter? Christian extremist? White supremacist? Atheist nihilist? The clues are all in the 1500 pages published online by Breivik shortly before the killing rampage. Here's a summary of what I could gather from a quick reading of the manifesto.

Breivik is not an easy man to label. While it is tempting to simply dismiss him as an insane murder, I don't think that's a constructive option, for it would blind us to the real nature and magnitude of the threat he and people like him represent. However twisted, he has a political agenda and a very rational – scrupulously so – way of pursuing it. He describes in detail not only how to go about the physical and technical preparation for similar attacks, but also how to politically gather support by targeting the “patriotic-nationalist youth movements” and the “trance/electronica movement,” among others, in a European recruiting strategy.
Somewhat incoherently and naively he attempts to speak out against ideology (specifically Marxism, multiculturalism, radical feminism and, to an extent, secularism), while fully embracing one of his own.
He is not a racist. Not overtly, at any rate. He discusses at length what he believes is a great bane in our European society, multiculturalism, but he is careful to point out that:

Islam is NOT a race. So avoid talking about race. It is a cultural war, not a race war!

He also points out that his battle is one against all “hate-ideologies” including “national socialism.
He is a Christian, but of a new and strange kind. The whole document is filled with references to Christendom and the struggle to retain Europe's Christian roots, clearly reminiscent of Christian right-wing rhetoric in the Western world. Breivik claims to be part of a newly-founded Knights Templar Order and describes in detail the aim and structure of the organisation. Breivik himself states:

If you have a personal relationship with Jesus Christ and God then you are a religious Christian. Myself and many more like me do not necessarily have a personal relationship with Jesus Christ and God. We do however believe in Christianity as a cultural, social, identity and moral platform. This makes us Christian. ”

The sheer hatred for “suicidal Humanism,” and the insistence that the adoption of a more metaphysical outlook to life is required to become an effective “Kinght Templar” fail to warrant his classification as anything other than a believer. Breivik offers further confirmation of this:

I have not yet felt the need to ask God for strength, yet... But I’m pretty sure I will pray to God as I’m rushing through my city, guns blazing, with 100 armed system protectors pursuing me with the intention to stop and/or kill. […] It is likely that I will pray to God for strength at one point during that operation, as I think most people in that situation would. […] I guess I will find out... If there is a God I will be allowed to enter heaven as all other martyrs for the Church in the past. […] It is therefore essential and it is strongly recommended that all Justiciar Knights (even our Christian agnostic and Christian atheist brothers and sisters) attend Church before the operation to seek absolution and to request that God infuses our soul and our armour of steel with the armour of spiritual protection and confidence.

He advocates a unification of European Christendom by dismantling Protestant Churches – guilty of “encouraging and defending the ordination of women, divorce, abortion, the mass scale distribution of contraceptive pills” and of “contributing to glorify homosexuality (including the ordination of homosexuals)” - and replacing them with a Catholic Church with a stronger social, cultural and political influence. Some of the essays contained in the documents and authored by people other than Breivik, however, advocate more extreme views and the establishment of a real Christian theocracy.
He is definitely a conservative, at least socially (He is not your textbook economical conservative, at least not by any US standard. ). With his strong condemnation of radical feminism, he advocates a return to a more traditional model of family based on marriage and procreation (clearly an attempt to restore some demographic balance in Europe), while still proposing that a moderate feminist movement “could prove lethal to Islam.” He consistently bemoans a progressive “feminisation” of society in the wake of the “sexual revolution.”

Even though I haven't read all 1500-odd pages, what I have read leaves very little room for interpretation. Anders Breivik is a man driven by an encompassing ideology and fuelled by a terrifying determination to accomplish what he thinks is a spiritual mission, a war to free Europe from a menacing presence. It's a veritable crusade and the choice of the Kinghts Templar symbolism is not random. He claims to be part of a well-structured organisation, yet I suspect this claim is going to be met with scepticism. That is a danger. Dismissing his actions and words as the result of insanity might be reassuring, but it will not do his victims any justice and will only expose us to the threat represented by the many people like him who would plunge the Western world into a new Dark Age of religious dominance.

#2 COOL vs UnCOOL

noreply@blogger.com (Fabio P) — Sun, 17 Jul 2011 22:06:00 +0000

When he's not being dragged into a shitstorm just before TAM9, Prof Richard Dawkins is certainly a busy bee. Few people have worked harder than he has to promote the cause of rational thinking in a very irrational world. Yet his literature has so far been inaccessible to the youngest of readers, those who will inherit this planet in but a few years and those our efforts should be focused on the most. All that should change with "The Magic of Reality: How We Know What's Really True." The book is already a sensation, with a series of public readings planned in October, including an event at the Royal Albert Hall in London. Some silly people have obviously accused Dawkins of attempting to spread atheism among children, apparently by using illustrations by Harry Potter concept artist Dave McKean, but the latter disagrees. In his words, "it's a book to encourage young readers to be creatively sceptical." Dawkins himself commented that "there is something very cheap about magic in the supernatural sense, like turning a frog into a prince with a magic wand. Reality has a grander, poetic magic of its own." Can't really argue with that.

Sometimes I wonder how long it’s going to take for Francis Collins to realise that his belief in god is simply untenable. How many more “gaps” will he need to see filled before deciding to jump off the BioLogos crazy bandwagon? Maybe a few more or maybe he'll somehow manage to survive the cognitive dissonance. Either way, the "Evolutionary Creationists" nonsense will probably linger on for as long as people like Ryan Pettey, documentary filmmaker, will exist. Advertising his film "A Leap of Truth" through the BioLogos forums, the man says:

We wanted to put something proactive on the table that could help motivate an elevated conversation about the “war” between science and faith. It was our goal to help Christians see (and accept) the complexity of the issues raised by modern science, as well as help them to courageously engage with the theological conversations happening within the sphere of Christian culture today. We wanted the film to address the topic hermeneutically, historically, and socially in order to gain a better perspective on the issues, and, hopefully, address some of the fears (justified or otherwise) concerning what science is telling us about our physical origins.

By reading a bit of the transcript we understand that the whole documentary is essentially an attempt to tell Christians how a certain interpretation of their scriptures could support an evolutionary origin of life. Which is fair enough if that's as close as the targeted audience - "the Evangelical Christian community" - will ever get to accepting reality, but I would definitely expect someone as intelligent as Francis Collins to do far better than them.

No such thing as innocent superstition.

noreply@blogger.com (Fabio P) — Mon, 11 Jul 2011 13:25:00 +0000

To most people in the Western world, "juju" will likely sound like a cocktail's name. In the 100,000 estimated Nigerian human trafficking victims, however, the word will likely evoke sheer terror and rather painful memories. Kiram, 18, from the Nigerian state of Edo, is one of them. When her slavers trapped her naked inside a coffin for hours, cut her repeatedly with a razor blade all over her body and forced her to swear an oath to give them most of the money she would make by selling her body to men on Europe's streets, her fear of the juju death curse that would befall her were she to break the oath was the only thing ensuring her compliance. "I grew up believing that juju can kill people," Kiram says. And yet there's hope. Despite her fear, she found the strength to talk and reveal her story. With her handler sentenced to 20 years in prison and her belief in juju fading, she bears witness to the power of reason to free people from terror.

People's failure to fathom superstition's true power to ruin lives is, I think, behind many an instance of the "let people believe what they want" stance. It's a failure to understand that beliefs and opinions aren't just ideal constructions of no consequence by virtue of their being non-physical. They are a driving force behind people's actions and reactions. They have a very real power to affect the physical world by affecting the way people interact with it. So if you think there's any such thing as an inherently harmless superstition, that's because you haven't thought about it hard enough. Period.

#1 COOL vs UnCOOL

noreply@blogger.com (Fabio P) — Wed, 06 Jul 2011 16:23:00 +0000

Welcome to the first issue of what I have decided - roughly five minutes ago - will be a weekly feature on this blog from now on: the "COOL vs UnCOOL" column. Just 'cause it sounds fun, really. And because it should prevent this blog from falling into yet another bottomless hiatus due to lack of ideas for more meaningful posts. Let's face it, we all need some silly fun every now and again.

Charlie's Playhouse: Evolution for Kids

Awesome way for kids to familiarise themselves with the biological sciences in a fun way. Check out the Giant Evolution Timeline Playmat, a must-buy for all rational parents raising rational children. I know I'd buy one if I had kids.

Seven in Heaven Way, nonsense battle

C'mon, seriously? This is just not what I call picking battles wisely. We have people trying to teach children that The Flintstones was an accurate depiction of reality, and somebody over at New York City Atheists thought it would be good PR to throw a hissy fit over the name of a street?

We're doing it right, we could be doing it better.

noreply@blogger.com (Fabio P) — Wed, 06 Jul 2011 15:05:00 +0000

A recent poll carried out on a sample of 1,032 Swiss citizens revealed some pretty interesting facts that can easily be generalised to other Western countries.

only 760 were registred church members.
1 in 5 in the age group 18-39 revealed being considering leaving his or her church (Catholic or Protestant).
a whopping 62% of the entire sample revealed attending church out of mere habit.
28% claimed to enjoy church services, but only 5% stated that they actually believe in god.
7% expressed concern as to what happens after death.

The situation in Switzerland is indicative of a widespread, progressive disillusion with organised religion and, in many cases, with belief itself. Even the last religious strongholds in the West have, in recent years, witnessed a drastic decline in the number of people who profess a religious belief. The United States are a case in point and the last American Religious Identification Survey published in 2009 was fairly clear (see graph). So, it would seem, the rise of the "new atheists" and what Alister McGrath called their "aggressive tone" have actually paid off and are likely to do so for a bit longer. With religion and belief no longer exempted from public scrutiny, the debate about the god delusion is bound to linger on. However, that might be all for nought if we fail to plan ahead.

McGrath does have a point. The resurgence of atheism has so far centred mostly on disputing the claims tossed around blindly by the religious wing or opposing certain political manoeuvres such as attempting to squeeze creationist nonsense into science classes. Of course, McGrath considers this a shortcoming, whereas anyone with common sense would understand that it is all driven by necessity, by the need to see the future of humanity grounded in facts and reality, rather than mythology. He is also wrong when stating that "the debate concerns which is the better explanation, not who is deluded." As far as explanations go, creationism offers none and he knows it. Nevertheless, it is true that devoting all of our strength to countering unscientific hogwash and failing to put the positive sides of atheism on display could prove to be seriously counter-productive, if not destructive in the long run. Some say that arguing with creationists is merely "preaching to the choir." In a sense, that's true. By destroying their credibility in the public arena we have managed to make a lot of noise and made it clear that being an atheist is a perfectly reasonable stance. That has opened an impressive amount of closets, but I'm not sure if the number of true de-converts can really be considered significant. That represents our failure to take human psychology into account, our failure to ask ourselves why most people are drawn to religion and faith, and to act accordingly. In my humble opinion, the terms "belonging" and "purpose" need to take centre stage in the future of secular activism, because a sense of social cohesion and purpose are likely to be the driving forces behind many people's affinity for organised religion. After all, the fear of nihilism and purposelessness has always scared many people away from atheism and secularism, and it's to those people, those on the fence, those looking for a valid alternative, that we must cater.

I know many in the secular world are severely allergic to the notion of moving atheism forward from a mere rejection of the god notion, for fear of becoming too similar to the very thing we're fighting. However, pragmatism must prevail for humanity's sake. If for atheism to put on its working gloves and re-build itself into a more coherent form is what it takes to offer the fence-sitters what they need to leave superstition behind, isn't it worth the effort? I suspect the alternative would be to forever see atheism confined to the province of intellectual exercise. True, but of little consequence to society.

There is grandeur in the atheist view of life.

noreply@blogger.com (Fabio P) — Mon, 04 Jul 2011 23:43:00 +0000

All credit goes to AndromedasWake for his outstanding job trying to familiarise people with science and a naturalistic outlook to life. Bravo.

Atheism and a rational morality

noreply@blogger.com (Fabio P) — Tue, 28 Jun 2011 21:23:00 +0000

Atheists are often accused of having no solid foundation to base their moral or ethical codes on and are therefore assumed to be, by necessity, moral relativists. I disagree. I'm not going to argue that most atheists are actually moral absolutists because I honestly have no idea and I doubt a poll has ever been done on the subject. My argument is rather that morality does appear to be relative (that is, culturally and time specific) to an extent but that that doesn't mean moral relativism ought to be espoused. In fact, we have the ability to rationally motivate the choice of a given ethical paradigm over a variety of others. Furthermore I hold that religious tradition is a terribly unstable foundation for an ethical code and that our knowledge of facts of nature can provide a far better one.

Religions are no sufficient standard.

I have always thought that if you embrace an all-encompassing metaphysical "reality," you can only ever be as good as the god(s) or, more generally, the entities that supposedly inhabit it. And vice versa. Considering how most deities ever conjured into existence - figuratively - by human imagination have all shared the one feature of displaying the basest of human drives and behaviours, it is not surprising how most of our history has not been particularly praiseworthy in moral terms. That has set an interesting phenomenon in motion, by which divine laws would last only as long as the god(s) that issued them (and the particular social customs of the specific population), only to be replaced over time by updated divine whims and new customs altogether. This absurd situation has made the apologists' work a living nightmare, as they attempt to reconcile unreconcilable moral tenets, all the while maintaining that their deity's word is immutable and that moral relativism is a devilry. Take the Mosaic covenant as an example, most of which is dispensed with in the New Testament on the grounds of changed cultural and social circumstances - a textbook definition of divine moral relativism. So, you see, your average modern Christian apologist, meddling and interfering with modern policy-making, is in the uncomfortable position of having to decry a "certain dominant moral relativism" while actually acknowledging that their deity once sanctioned practices that would consensually be considered as immoral and unethical by most modern standards, simply because allegedly required at one time to keep god's chosen people at bay. All this obviously doesn't even begin to address the issue of which particular religious code among the hundreds or thousands in existence should actually be considered the true one, and the primacy of one (or three) of them over the rest appears entirely arbitrary. There you have it. No religious creed can coherently form the basis of a functional social contract capable of supporting the evolution of our civilisation. Religious creeds can only communicate to us - or impose on us - the demands of this or that deity but they will always fail to provide a rational justification for the dos and don'ts necessary for social living. Not to mention that they're too unreliable, just like said deities, and prone to the very social relativism they wish to condemn.

Right and Wrong can be rationally explained.

Now, here's the problem. Once god(s) have lost their moral high ground, such a change leaves a noticeable hole in our justification for morality, at least according to some. That is, the social contracts used to manage our society become meaningless to some people - or so they like to claim - unless we can find a definition for the "good" that social contracts aspire to. Apparently something cannot be "good" if not by divine decree. Fortunately for us, that's ridiculous. We have pretty good ways to support a definition of "good" and "right" without resorting to the metaphysical. We could easily define as "good" all those actions and behaviours that can help us maximise well-being for the highest number of people. Some might argue that the very definition of "well-being" needs to be stated and agreed upon, but that is just being captious. Artists and philosophers have been writing about happiness for millennia, and most of us experience happiness to varying degrees frequently enough to create a consensus as to what constitutes "well-being." It then becomes obvious that some of the most important ethical tenets forcibly upheld by religions under pain of eternal torture and because "god says so," become simply self-evident. A society in which murder, theft and lying are routinely practised by the majority of people would simply be a short-lived one. A society in which one's belongings and one's well-being are constantly at risk is a society with no cohesion and social bonding, and it's bound to break down. A society in which the normal exchange of accurate and reliable information is made impossible by consistently lying to each other all the time would meet the same fate. Additionally, a successful society is one in which poverty is minimised as much as possible; loneliness is reduced in favour of social cohesion, a sense of belonging and purpose. When the focus is shifted from whatever personal relationship with the metaphysical to the individual well-being as a function of the collective well-being, we finally have a rationally-motivated notion of "good" to pursue. No metaphysical religious belief can offer that.

Evolution is no Social Darwinist

noreply@blogger.com (Fabio P) — Mon, 27 Jun 2011 18:06:00 +0000

For the past couple of days I have been undecided as to the topic of my next blog entry. I considered tackling the "15 questions for Evolutionists" pamphlet which has been circulating on the internet for a while now, but it is in the process of being debunked by several people as I write and I don't wish to provide the campaign with even more undue publicity. I then thought about discussing the legalisation of gay marriage in New York and how this historical step towards a more civilised future represents yet another nail in the coffin of the current, antiquated status quo and its decaying religious paraphernalia. Yet neither option struck me as particularly interesting. Then I remembered a plan for a post I had put aside a while ago due to lack of time and realised it was long overdue. It addresses one particular claim - accusation, more like - often made against atheists and, even more commonly, raised in debates concerning the validity of the Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection. The claim usually goes something like:

"Evolution (or Atheism) leads to Social Darwinism."

This fails on so many levels that it's really surprising to still see it being used.

The deal with Social Darwinism is at least three-fold:

It predates Darwin's theories by several millennia.
It has actually no foundation in the scientific theory of evolution by natural selection.
It is routinely enforced by those who reject the scientific theory of evolution by natural selection.

The entire construct of Social Darwinism in its present guise is the handiwork of Herbert Spencer, 19th-century philosopher and political theorist (among other things.). Now, there are two things Mr Spencer is usually credited for: writing about evolution before Darwin did and coining the expression "survival of the fittest." While the first needs to be qualified by saying that Spencer's idea of evolution was radically different from Darwin's, as it relied on a Lamarckian mechanism of inheritance of acquired traits, the second is correct. He did, indeed, come up with "survival of the fittest" as a definition for the mechanism of natural selection outlined in Darwin's work. This is probably the reason why Spencer is often thought to have simply applied Darwin's theory to social mechanics. That is, however, not true. Despite borrowing the notion of natural selection from Darwin, Spencer remained true to his own, incorrect theory of evolution, which differed from Darwin's in two key aspects. Lamarckian inheritance and, more importantly, directionality.

In essence, Spencer believed evolution to be a process with a direction - simple to complex - and, crucially, an end point at which equilibrium is achieved. This contrasts strongly with the Darwinian theory, according to which there are no more or less evolved organisms, only organisms more or less adapted relative to their environments. It is by applying his own theory to societies that Spencer created a framework, and an allegedly scientific justification, for behaviours and policies that have existed throughout human history but that have only since the 19th century been called "Social Darwinism." In Spencer's sociological theory, the end point of evolution was the ultimate societal model. Said ultimate society was, in Spencer's mind, made up of individuals perfectly shaped by evolution to live life socially with other people, a society in which no one would cause anyone any pain and in which individuals would derive pleasure from behaving altruistically. An admirable goal in itself, but Spencer believed that the only way to achieve it would be to allow interpersonal relationships to develop to their natural consequences without any interference from institutions, legal and ethical codes. Only that way, Spencer thought, would humans learn the consequences of their actions and learn how to cooperate for the benefit of everyone. His plan included minimising the power of the government to create an efficient welfare state, prohibiting public education, free health care and state efforts to reduce poverty. Remind you of anyone?

OK, it was Spencer's fault, but Darwin's natural selection is still key to Social Darwinism and eugenics!

Hmmmnope, it isn't. In fact, a correct understanding of evolution makes an evolutionary justification for Social Darwinism and eugenics impossible, and for several reasons. First of all, it's called natural selection for a reason. Applying entirely arbitrary selective constraints to a human population for the sake of "weeding out the unfit" is just that, arbitrary. What Social Spencerists do is apply artificial pressure on society - much the same way breeders of certain animals do - so as to satisfy the requirements of their own political, religious or personal ideology. Eugenics is but an extreme form of that, and is just as arbitrary. Natural selection, on the other hand, is never arbitrary.

Secondly, what is truly central to the idea of Social Darwinism is the incorrect assumption that cut-throat competition is the main force driving evolution, whether biological or social. That's completely wrong. On the contrary, altruism and cooperation tend to significantly increase fitness. Darwin himself understood this to an extent when, in his The Descent of Man (1871, p.89), he wrote about the evolution and evolutionary benefit of altruistic and social behaviour:

In the first place, as the reasoning powers and foresight of the members became improved, each man would soon learn that if he aided his fellow-men, he would commonly receive aid in return. From this low motive he might acquire the habit of aiding his fellows; and the habit of performing benevolent actions certainly strengthens the feeling of sympathy which gives the first impulse to benevolent actions. Habits, moreover, followed during many generations probably tend to be inherited.

Modern research has but supported Darwin's hunch by observing cooperation and altruistic behaviour in countless species other than our own. Therefore, as we've seen, the Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection offers no support for extreme policies aimed at artificially increasing pressure on the weaker elements of our society. On the contrary, a true understanding of how evolution works would prompt us to adopt altruism as a central feature of our social life. After all, the one inevitable conclusion of accepting evolution is that every organism on this planet - past, present and future - is part of the same, big family. That would explain why those who reject the Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection are also often supporters of ignoble, immoral economic and social policies that do our nature of social animals no justice. Our fellow primates would be appalled.

NOMA? No, thanks.

noreply@blogger.com (Fabio P) — Sat, 25 Jun 2011 18:42:00 +0000

Few individuals have been more controversial than Stephen J. Gould in the history of modern science. The great communicator of evolutionary science, despite being caught in his own battle against the [sarcasm]evils[/sarcasm] of sociobiology and evolutionary psychology, didn't fail to give his best shot at solving the long-standing conflict between science and faith - or, as I normally think of it, between reality and fantasy. It's only a shame that such an ambitious undertaking would result in such a resounding failure and that Gould's purported solution to the war for reason would prove to be one of its worst enemies yet.

Twelve years after Gould's Rocks of Ages we live in a world in which NOMAs are routinely employed by the faithful as a protection from rational scrutiny. By arbitrarily drawing a line between what empirical investigation can supposedly do and what it should leave alone, Gould has effectively elevated the metaphysical to the status of objective reality and belief in it to legitimate stance. So not only have NOMAs failed to grant science exclusive domain over the physical, but they have turned the teaching of science into a no-man's land in which belief and personal opinion should have as much relevance as empirically-derived data. It is certainly not surprising then, that by granting belief in the metaphysical the status of theory of reality, NOMAs have further crippled science by preventing any application of our scientific knowledge to any matter of ethical and moral relevance, even when our understanding of human nature, cognition and biology have reached a level more than sufficient to construct coherent ethical theories grounded in natural facts rather than spiritual assumptions.

It is not my intention to insult the poor man's name any more than the result of his personal quest has done, but I must wonder what led Gould to believe that religion - historically fuelled by universal ambitions - would agree to be confined to the realm of personal beliefs? How could anyone - PhD or otherwise - believe that religions would agree not to invade the province of the scientific magisterium? NOMAs have given religions their cake and invited them to eat it too.

Will we ever manage to rid ourselves of the NOMAs' legacy? The progressive disenchantment with organised religion and belief in many countries, especially in the Western world, would suggest so. There's no doubt, however, that we're looking at an uphill trek. One that could have been made far easier by not granting superstition any undue recognition.

Could the wind be changing?

noreply@blogger.com (Fabio P) — Fri, 24 Jun 2011 16:25:00 +0000

For the past few years we've been hearing and reading in the media mentions of the "rise of the New Atheists," generally with a strongly negative connotation. While that is a reflection of the general mistrust and lack of respect that atheists are met with in many countries, it is also a sign that atheism has become a force to reckon with on all matters of social and civil policy. The reason behind that is that the relentless work of the global atheist community, however exhausting, has accomplished very important goals. We have established a vocal presence in the media, internet above all. We have managed to get the message across that being an atheist is perfectly acceptable. We have slowly chipped away at the social stigma that came with acknowledging one's lack of ~~credulity~~ belief, and this way we have opened many a closet and convinced countless to come out of them.

So, while our numbers rise - and while organised religion is busy dealing with its own scandals, loss of influence in the western world, and with the effects of the global economic crisis - we're working on jumping yet another major obstacle, earning yet another trophy, in our media-dominated society. It is undeniable that religion and belief have always been big sellers in cinema and TV productions, with faith nearly always depicted in a overly positive light and framed in a usually heart-warming (or -breaking) plot that sees acceptance of a supernatural reality as the positive culmination of a personal turmoil. Even when a film takes a jab at organised religion, personal faith usually comes out unscathed and over-glorified. That is why the news of a film with an atheist main hero is welcome news indeed.

The Ledge, written and directed by Matthew Chapman, and starring Liv Tyler, Charlie Hunnam and Patrick Wilson, attempts to take a shot at that one massive cinematographic taboo. Sadly I can only comment on its importance as a milestone in the fight for a secular world, and not on its inherent quality as a film. That is because it is currently in a test run release - in selected theatres and online - only on US territory. Should the beta testing prove successful, it would probably be released internationally. So, American atheists - closeted or otherwise -, take a stand on this one and help make The Ledge a big hit. Here's what you can do:

Help us sell out the "test run" in NYC and prove The Ledge should be pushed nationwide! The film opens July 8th at the IFC Center, 323 6th Avenue (at West 3rd St), New York, NY. You can buy tickets at MovieTickets.com, and showtimes will be up by Monday, July 4. 212-924-7771. Take the A, B, C, D, E, F or M to the West 4th Street/Washington Square stop or the 1 to Christopher Street/Sheridan Square.
Help us sell out the "test run" in LA and prove The Ledge should be pushed nationwide! The film opens July 8th at Sunset 5, 8000 Sunset Blvd., West Hollywood, CA. You can buy tickets at Laemmle's Sunset 5, and showtimes will be up by Monday, July 4. Three hours free parking with ticket validation. 310-478-3836.
Don't live in New York or Los Angeles? You can see The Ledge right now through Video on Demand (your cable service), through the iTunes Store (go to the link and click View in iTunes), on the Internet at Sundance Now.
Subscribe to the film's Facebook Page, Twitter Feed and YouTube channel, and invite your friends to do the same.
Blog about the film, or review it if you get a chance to watch it!
Post a link to the film website on link sharing sites like Digg and StumbleUpon.
Talk about it on any forum and social community you happen to be a member of.
Tell those pesky theists about it! Nothing sells more than some negative publicity, which they will happily provide.

Just get the word out. Even should the film fail to be the "atheist Brokeback Mountain" it is being marketed as in some circles, it will be a step in the right direction.

Creationist Peer Review

noreply@blogger.com (Fabio P) — Thu, 24 Mar 2011 21:05:00 +0000

Genes and information

noreply@blogger.com (Fabio P) — Wed, 23 Mar 2011 22:56:00 +0000

The following was meant to be a reply to a post on a Christian forum I stumbled upon. About half way through, however, I decided to post it as a blog entry. It's my very personal take on the everlasting debate on the power of genetic mutations to create new information. Bear in mind I am no geneticist.

-----------

This [mutations cannot create information] is a common claim among Creationists, but it is a meaningless one for several reasons.

For one, you claim that mutations only reduce information, yet you make no effort to explain what you mean by "information." As a matter of fact, any novel mutation is new information being added to the gene pool of the population. By your logic the evolution of a reptile into a bird would also inherently require the LOSS of many somatic traits, such as teeth. The truth is bit more complicated than that.

The truth is that no organism can be said to contain more or less genetic information than another because the identification of "information" in genetics is not that straightforward. If it were a simple matter of "longer genome, more information," then the flower Paris japonica, the marbled lungfish and the amoeba Polychaos dubium could be said to contain exponentially more genetic information than the human genome. Size is not complexity.

You must also keep in mind that the genome itself is rather meaningless. You could actually say that the genome is not really information. DNA is just a long molecule. It only becomes information when it is read, and whether the long molecule contains any meaningful information depends entirely on the reader. Let me give you an example: take a string of letters, something like "vervoerdersaansprakelijkheidsverzekering." Now, I will assume it will strike you as meaningless gibberish. However to a Dutch speaker it should mean something like "carriers' liability insurance." Meaning - and therefore information - is a function of the interpreter being used. Better said, information only arises upon interpretation. In the case of genetics, the genetic code is only information when it is interpreted, when it transforms from genotype to phenotype, from complex, three-dimensional molecule into what many call the "language" of life. What makes DNA more complex than the string I've used in my example is that DNA has no punctuation to speak of (there are stop codons, but let's not complicate things now). DNA is a long sequence of 4 "letters" (A,C,G,T) arranged in different orders. Now, even though there are 4 letters, DNA is actually read by triplets, with each triplet "meaning" a different amino-acid (amino-acids are the building blocks of proteins). Also, there are more possible triplets than there are amino-acids, and that's because even in DNA - like in languages - there are synonyms. For example, both TTA and CTG "mean" the amino-acid leucine. Furthermore, you mustn't forget that much of our DNA doesn't code for proteins at all. You may know it as "junk DNA" but they actually have very important functions in that they influence the way and the frequency with which the coding regions of DNA are "read" to become proteins. To maintain our analogy we could say that while coding DNA is read as nouns, non-coding regions are read as verbs or adverbs.

So, how do mutations fit in all this? Well, there are several types of mutations. There are substitutions, in which a single letter in a genetic sequence is mutated. Since there are synonyms in DNA, that can make a big difference or no difference at all. TTA can become TTG, with no change in meaning, or TCA, which means a different amino-acid.

Then there are insertions and deletions. Now, since there is no punctuation in DNA, such mutations have a HUGE impact on the "meaning" - that is, the resulting phenotype - of the genetic structure. They effectively shift the reading frame of the entire sequence following the mutation. They write a new text. Pretty radical mutations, all in all, yet the fact that an organism may benefit even from frame-shift mutations is further evidence of the power of mutations to generate the variety of life we observe every day. There are also other types of mutations, but you get the gist of it. The bottom line is that mutations produce new information when they impose new changes on an organism's phenotype relative to the parent phenotype - or relative to the population as a whole.

Let's not forget that the process by which mutations generate new information has no bearing over its quality, over whether or not the new information will be useful for the organism. The quality of the genetic text, so to speak, can only be assessed relative to the environment the organism lives in. While many mutations will prove deleterious, others may have no effect whatsoever on the protein product. A few may offer an advantage. There is no way to tell just by reading the sequence, their protein "meaning" must be observed in action, and the environment will always have the last word.

Comfortably Stupid

noreply@blogger.com (Fabio P) — Fri, 18 Mar 2011 19:29:00 +0000

Over the past few months I have resolved to take a much more permissive approach to online idiocy than I did before. It wasn't exactly a choice, university simply doesn't leave me much time to fight online stupidity the way I used to. For this reason I definitely couldn't see myself going back to blogging any time soon.

However, that was before I had the misfortune of stumbling upon a post on Ray "Banana" Comfort's blog. Now, we're all used to Creationists being stupid. We're used to them being dishonest and ignorant in a disturbingly proud fashion. I guess many of us are also used to them being downright evil, but how used to that can you really get? Very much so, Hannah Arendt would say, and that's probably true. Fortunately I have not yet succumbed to normalisation, and the revolting words of someone trying to exploit the suffering of others to drive a point home still get to me. Enough to write a post about it. Enough to punch the person in question repeatedly, but sadly I don't know Banana's address.

Showing an impressive lack of Christian charity and mercy - I admit the very notion still has the power to make me chuckle - Ray has the guts to claim that atheism construes earthquakes as "nature making improvements. Everything [...] getting better." All this after nearly 7,000 people - and counting - have lost their lives in Japan. He then goes on to expand the analogy to "cancer, suffering, pain and death," describing them as "nature improving things through evolutionary change." Now, there are at least three levels on which such statements would be deserving of a lifelong internet ban and a violent kick in the gonads.

#1: Banana is morally corrupt. I've already said this, it is ethically despicable to exploit the death and suffering of thousands of people to make a point, especially if you lack the grace to let the dust settle first.

#2: Banana is philosophically wrong. Atheism makes no attempt to provide an explanation for natural phenomena because that is not its aim. Unless you accept naturalism as an intrinsic part of atheism, in which case atheism offers no explanation for natural phenomena other than what can be factually and empirically proven. Atheism is a very specific stance on one very specific aspect of reality. The provision of physical explanation for natural phenomena is the province of science. A large majority of the scientific community may be non-believers, but atheism and science are not synonyms.

#3: Banana is factually wrong. There is no way earthquakes or cancer can rationally be construed as nature's way of improving things for several reasons. Claiming that nature is constantly at work to improve things means granting nature the status of a conscious entity possessing some undefined notion of what "good" and "bad" are. Sadly for Comfort there is no highway in nature stretching from "worse" to "better" and both notions are about as relative as anything can be. If anything can be claimed about nature, that's that it is ever changing and always in motion, but not consciously so. As a consequence, any attempt to describe nature as some sort of Soviet central authority is an impressive straw man argument. Interestingly, Banana goes as far as to destroy his own point by quoting Dawkins' statement that "nature is neither kind nor cruel but indifferent."

So no, atheism doesn't say that the thousands of people killed by the earthquake and tsunami in Japan have died for the betterment of nature itself. Nor does atheism claim that cancer victims die for the sake of evolutionary improvement - nonsense to anyone who knows the first thing about how evolution works. While earthquakes and disease represent forms of selective pressure they can in no way be construed as the actions of a self-aware nature striving for improvement - unless you believe in a personal god behind nature, that is.

Ultimately, there is no intentionality in nature. As scary and as saddening as it may be to acknowledge that thousands of people can die for no higher purpose than devastating quirks of a system governed by physical laws that we are working to understand - and that, most importantly, we can understand -, I hold it to be a better alternative than dying for the quirks of a moody deity whose workings would ultimately be unknowable. If such a deity existed, of course. Banana may claim that "evolution has left you as nobody among billions," and that may be true in purely numerical terms. Yet, even as nobodies among billions of nobodies we are complex enough to be capable of impressive feats, including mobilising to help rebuild a country after a catastrophe. As uncertain as life without inherent, god-given meaning may be, it is far from the hopeless one Banana claims. This is undoubtedly part of the grandeur of the naturalistic view of existence that Darwin spoke of and that Banana and his friends will probably never be able to understand. It is why we cannot be unmoved by the sight of the Pale Blue Dot picture and what it entails. Maybe it is just that. The uncertainty and fragility of a life without god is too much for some people to see the inherent potential in it. Or maybe it is just laziness, an unwillingness to build our own future as a species in spite of a sometimes uncooperative and threatening natural world. For the rest of us, that's the challenge which we call life and I personally wouldn't have it any other way.

The Hitler Card

noreply@blogger.com (Fabio P) — Thu, 16 Sep 2010 19:53:00 +0000

This must have happened to you too. You find yourself debating a believer - or a mob of them, as it often happens - and before you know it you are forced yet again to disprove the ridiculous assertion that the Nazi regime was a godless creation of a staunch atheist. Usually at that point it is safe to conclude that any hope for a rational debate is long gone. However, it's still amazing how it took the Pope less than two hours to blurt out such mindless drivel.

Even in our own lifetime, we can recall how Britain and her leaders stood against a Nazi tyranny that wished to eradicate God from society and denied our common humanity to many, especially the Jews, who were thought unfit to live.

And

As we reflect on the sobering lessons of the atheist extremism of the twentieth century, let us never forget how the exclusion of God, religion and virtue from public life leads ultimately to a truncated vision of man and of society and thus to a “reductive vision of the person and his destiny

You would expect the man to have some sort of hesitation when discussing the subject before thousands of people, considering the fact that the pontiff himself was a happy member of the Hitler-Jugend back in the days when wearing a kippah was akin to carrying a bullseye on your back. Of course, we've all heard his heartfelt rebuttal that he had no choice in the matter, but, as it happens, that's a lie. Joining the Hitler-Jugend was mandatory since 1936, whereas the future Pope joined in 1941 at the age of 14. It's however quite interesting that there is no record of Joseph ever joining the Deutsches Jungvolk - a group for children aged 10-14 - despite the fact that it was also mandatory. It appears therefore that the future man of god somehow managed to evade conscription until the age of 14, when he willingly joined the HJ. That only adds to the insult of his statement that resistance during the Nazi regime was impossible, an insult to the memory of the countless who did resist and lost their lives accordingly. We're talking about 3.5 million Germans sent to concentration camps and over 70,000 executed for opposition against the Nazi regime.

The Pope's statements also clash with Hitler's recorded opinions on the subject. It is somewhat laughable to hear anyone speak of the Nazi regime as an example of exclusion of god from the public life, when just about every public speech by Hitler contained a mention of god and of the divine mandate Hitler believed to be exercising. There is absolutely no doubt that he held a belief in a personal deity - the same the Pope believes in - and that he saw himself as a messenger and executioner of god's divine will on earth. Claims that Hitler was secretly an atheist make no sense in light of his 1933 decision to shut down and outlaw all freethinker and secular associations, whose membership at the time made up a negligible and uninfluential minority. Hitler was a believer, and a staunch one at that.

A few will claim that his belief the result of mere pathology and nothing else - a stance the Pope has adopted when attempting to clumsily contain the threat posed to the integrity of the Church by the priests accused of abusing children - as well as by the embarrassing cover-up put in place by the Catholic Church themselves. That would seem to imply that there is a criterion to tell genuinely held faith from pathological zeal, but I suspect such method would prove to be ultimately very selective and biased. Furthermore, even if we were to concede Hitler's atheism and only publicly advertised belief in god - used as a means to appease the populace - we would still be left with millions of Germans to account for, genuinely convinced that Hitler was god's messenger. Ultimately, popular support would still make the Nazi regime a machine driven by the fuel of metaphysical belief and religious ideology.

Today, the United Kingdom strives to be a modern and multicultural society. In this challenging enterprise, may it always maintain its respect for those traditional values and cultural expressions that more aggressive forms of secularism no longer value or even tolerate.

Oh, if only atheists around the world - not only in the UK - had the cohesion necessary to truly be an aggressive source of secularism. Don't get me wrong, I have no doubt that day will come. The day that the balance of power will shift in favour of reason and common sense, but for the moment we're still left to fight an uneven battle. Yet things might be changing, if the Catholic Church's popularity crisis is any indicator. With thousands of tickets for events related to the papal visit remaining unsold, 77% of the interviewed population being opposed to the use of taxpayer's money being employed to pay for the Pope's expenses, and with the UK government now left to bear the political weight of its poor choices - and not all concerning the Pope's trip - the UK might very well be on its way to becoming a major stronghold for the much needed, aggressive secularism.

Making no difference?

noreply@blogger.com (Fabio P) — Fri, 16 Jul 2010 23:42:00 +0000

Surfing around a few social networks and other websites created and populated by non-theists I've come across people who seem to hold a most curious stance. Now, as we all know activism is not everyone's cup of tea. Spending hours upon hours arguing against theists on the subject matters of science, religion and philosophy is not exactly many people's idea of having an awesome time and I can perfectly understand that. I personally think such engagement is much more than needed in the 21st century, but I see no shame in choosing to embrace the "live and let live" school of thought.

There are, however, members of the non-theistic community who appear to steer clear of debates not because they are unpleasant per se, but because they deem the whole practice a pointless waste of time. Preaching to the converts, they call it. Now, I have no problem understanding how it might appear to be all a huge, futile exercise in rhetoric. We are all familiar with the extreme aversion most believers seem to display for anything even remotely resembling a rational argument against what they perceive to be self-evident truths, and I know nine times out of ten we will get to the end of a debate certain to have wasted our breath and our time on people who wouldn't concede a point if their lives depended on it. Yet, is that really the case?

Think about it. While there are a few lucky enough to have never received a religious education, most non-theists out there were, at some point, believers of this or that religious conviction. Certainly something must have happened to cause them to abandon their faith. I have no statistics at hand - I'm not even sure they exist - but I'll go out on a limb and say that while personal development is a fundamental requirement for such a metamorphosis, external influences are just as important. Being the social animals we are, I have no doubt that talking to - or arguing with - atheists and agnostic was far from useless for the personal growth of these people. No single debate or conversation was probably a deal-sealer for any of them, but if talking to theists can sow the seed of healthy doubt in their minds, even if we're talking about 1 in 100 people, that will have made a difference. Remember that for every brainwashed Kirk Cameron out there there is a sane individual who happened to be brought up in a particular religion and caged into it by social constraints but who has been living a secret life as a fence-sitter, simply waiting for that chance to jump to the other side. Those are the ones we should do our best to help and those are the ones who will certainly benefit from a healthy, rational debate. Also, keep in mind that the internet is a big place and that your audience will include far more people than just the particular theist you happen to be talking to right now. What happens on the internet, stays on the internet - for the most part - and will be found by others in the future. There are lurkers on every forum, blog and social network, most just trying to muster the courage to step up and ask a question or raise a point, some just looking for the strength to finally embrace the label of atheist in their local community. Their numbers are growing - in some areas more than in others - and they are learning from other atheists and huge billboards that there's no shame in holding no belief and that they have a right to be free from cultural handcuffs. With every vandalised billboard their determination increases ever more.

We are on the verge of a revolution, a pivotal turning point in our history, and this change is being brought about also by the many people who dedicate their time to those out there willing to listen to reason, even when it seems to be in vain.

Find a real job, sensationalist journalism is not.

noreply@blogger.com (Fabio P) — Mon, 12 Jul 2010 09:24:00 +0000

There was a time I'd try to at least conceal my contempt for the popular press, but that time is long gone. I hate the popular press. I hate it to the point that I consistently fail to see most forms of journalism as an actual profession deserving of the title.

And what do they do? Instead of trying to change my mind they go straight ahead and provide me with confirmation for my opinion, proving to the world - the part that knows better, at least - that they're just sensation-hungry dimwits with no real understanding of what they're really selling.

We live in a world besieged by individuals who firmly believe our planet to be 10,000 years old, a few of them even less. Hell, a few of them even think the planet to be flat. And what do journalists do? They will happily toss a huge

Earth younger than previously thought, say scientists

All that because "4.537 billion years minus 70 million years is still friggin' old" or "science provides even more accurate dating for the planet" somehow just don't seem to have the same pizazz and flamboyance that readers oh so much enjoy - except those with a brain, mind you. I wonder when it became the norm for publishers and journalists alike to think of readers as morons, as junkies waiting for their daily fix of emotionally-charged headlines. Maybe I'm weird, but I still pick content over sensation.

What makes us tick? And how do we tick?

noreply@blogger.com (Fabio P) — Wed, 07 Jul 2010 10:02:00 +0000

Looks like researchers from the University of Waterloo's Department of Psychology have decided to find out, with a particular stress on the subject of religious belief. With a twist, however. They have decided to focus on atheists, humanists and sceptics, assessing the variety and extent of their (our) values and attitudes on matters ranging from politics to ethics. I urge everyone to complete the survey, if anything for the simple fact that for once we're given a chance to dispel a few of the myths and stereotypes that haunt us. The survey can be found here and should take you under 20 minutes to complete.

Some things truly are priceless.

noreply@blogger.com (Fabio P) — Mon, 05 Jul 2010 13:32:00 +0000

Building a 62-feet-high, 40-feet-wide, fibreglass and foam statue of Zombie Jesus: $300,000.

Watching it as it is struck by lightning and burns in a matter of minutes, together with the pride of those who commissioned it: priceless.

There are quite a few things that can be said about life, but if there is one thing that she won't have said about herself, that's that she doesn't have a sense of humour. Funny how Christopher Hitchen's developing cancer has to most definitely be a sign of this or that god, but a lightning setting a huge Jesus on fire is just...a lightning.

Christopher Hitchens et alia.

noreply@blogger.com (Fabio P) — Thu, 01 Jul 2010 23:50:00 +0000

Yes, I do realise I'm slightly late but I've only now read the latest developments about Christopher Hitchens' health conditions and I wanted to publicly wish him all the best in his battle against cancer. Not that I believe in the power of wishes, of course. That would be an insult to everything Christopher stands for. It's funny though. It's funny - or maybe sad? - that my first thought was that quite a few people out there will probably be secretly cheering at the thought of supposed divine retribution being long due, possibly giggling, even praying their respective deities to give Christopher's cancer a winning edge over him. Yes, it does sound awful, but we know it's true. After all we're talking about one of the few people on this planet truly not afraid of speaking their mind, a man whose particular mind is as sharp as a katana but who has somehow become famous for being as abrasive and coarse as sandpaper. Someone who never spared the most worshipped individuals of our time the harshest of critiques, bringing uncomfortable truths to light the way a proper reporter should. A bit of a modern Oscar Wilde, perhaps with a bit more substance to him than just a dandy spirit and a wee bit less subtlety. Don't get me wrong now, I love Oscar Wilde, I'm just saying.

This, however, is not meant to be an apology - much less an eulogy - for Mr Hitchens. After all, he doesn't need the former and the latter would be an awful display of morbidity on my part. Not to mention that even I find myself quite often at odds with him on certain subjects - the Middle-Eastern conflict, to name one - so I'd never go as far as to adulate him. Not that he'd like it, anyway. Hopefully that will go to show those pesky theists that we don't blindly follow what they love to call the leaders of our movement. Hell, wouldn't it be great if we really were a movement as they claim we are? Think of what we could accomplish. That, however, is still wishful thinking at present.

On an entirely unrelated subject, today I found myself contemplating an interesting - and definitely blog-worthy - thought. It came to mind as I was watching the Nth debate on gay marriage and gay rights. You might or might not know that this country, Italy, still ranks among the most homophobic in Europe, second only to Romania if I remember correctly. When debating the subject of homosexuality and gay marriage one of the most common "rebuttals" coming from the religiously-driven opposition is homosexuality's supposed being "unnatural." Don't bother to explain them that homosexuality is quite a widespread phenomenon in the natural world, they won't listen.

The rationale behind their stance seems to be that homosexuality is unnatural since it does not lead to fruitful procreation and new life. That's when the realisation dawned on me. Aren't we atheists usually the ones being defined as soulless beasts driven by instincts and with no intellectual or moral depth whatsoever? Weird, considering the way they handle the subject. It's not so much the fact that they find homosexuality unnatural, but on what grounds and what it actually entails. Looking at it from the opposite angle we find the tacit assumption that interpersonal relationships between men and women are only truly of any consequence when procreation occurs. What's even worse is what follows from that in terms of gender roles. According to such a world view women's worth is only measured by the fertility of their ova, the capacity of their uteri and their mothering skills, men of any value only insofar as the power of their pelvic thrust and the energy of their swimming little Navy Seals allow them to conform to some abstract understanding of the notion of "natural." Wouldn't you expect a lot more from a mob of self-proclaimed moral individuals, always so keen to criticise the supposed sterility of a naturalistic world view? It's sad to realise that some people will never really be able to see the beauty in nature for what it really is, busy as they are building theological constructs upon it and trying to redefine things in a way that might please them more than reality itself.

Hard to please?

noreply@blogger.com (Fabio P) — Thu, 01 Jul 2010 21:40:00 +0000

Brian [Cox, that is] confirmed you as a friend on Facebook.

I'm most certainly not.

Disability and the alleged necessity of belief.

noreply@blogger.com (Fabio P) — Sat, 26 Jun 2010 01:17:00 +0000

I've been away from the whole online debating scene for about as long as I've been away from my blog - and for the very same reasons. Still, when you're one of them "angry atheists" confrontation does seem to follow you around, no matter where you go and regardless of whether you actually have polemic intentions or not.

Over the past few months I have stumbled several times upon a sort of sociological cliché that to date leaves me extremely perplexed. It is not so much an argument that people will consciously throw at you, it's more of a genuine expectation that forms in people's minds and that is blurted out in certain situations in a very Pavlovian way.

I have probably never mentioned it in these pages - mostly because it just doesn't matter - but I have a disability. I suffer from Spina bifida, a congenital neural tube defect. Click on the link if you want to know more, I won't bother to explain because that's not the point of the post. Talking to people I have found out that many among them - upon finding out about your disability - will be conditioned into taking for granted your holding a belief in a deity or higher order because of your disability. Even weirder than that, should they find out about your atheism before discovering your disability, they will end up having a hard time reconciling the two things. My guess is that it's just an extension of the old - and inaccurate - theistic mantra that there are no atheists in foxholes or on sinking ships, that even the staunchest of unbelievers will give into faith when facing dire times. When even that assumption betrays them, they will simply state their categorical conviction that your atheism is nothing but a rebellion against god for what you, as it happens, must consider a divine trial, and little matters that they're actually wrong, for their conviction is adamant.

Now, the point of this post is not to prove that there is no correlation between disability and religious belief - I don't need to, just as I don't need to prove that there are no flying unicorns. I doubt there is a single paper out there investigating the subject, and if it exists I've never happened to read it. The point of this post is to show how there doesn't have to be a necessary link between disability and metaphysical belief, and that such assumptions are unfair and misleading - not to mention insulting to some. That said, what better way to explore the subject than to use myself as an example? Well then, let's get to the root of the problem. It seems to me that the rationale behind such irrational assumption is, in the eyes of those who perpetuate it, as follows:

People with disabilities lead a difficult life.
As a consequence they must find a way to cope.
The best way to cope with a disability is to believe there to be a purpose behind it.
Belief in a divine master plan can give disability purpose.
Disabled people are likely to believe in god because of their disability.

The main problem with this reasoning is that there are so many problems with it that it's pretty hard to decide where to begin. For one, disabilities are as different as are people on this pale blue dot. People affected will react to their disabilities in the most diverse ways, but I doubt many among them will harbour the illusion that the life of the able-bodied be inherently easier than theirs. I most certainly don't, nor do I feel any more desperate to find a way to cope with life than my able-bodied sister does in her darkest hours.

Furthermore, were point 2 correct, point 3 still wouldn't follow as a logical consequence, whereas point 4 is just purely unwarranted. There is no such thing as a perfect, universally applicable way to cope with difficulties in life, so why should disabilities be an exception? I myself could argue that the best way to come to terms with a disability is to accept that it is fundamentally meaningless and that it is likely there to stay - until research yields effective treatment methods, of course. From where I'm standing, believing - which I don't - my disability to be the divine mark impressed upon me by a higher entity for a purpose that is apparently not for me to know would only infuriate me and lead me to question the ethics and morality of this divine entity. No reason would be good enough for such a form of testing.

As a variation of this part, a few hold the belief that all the conditions - genetic or otherwise - known to man are but the result of the decay of humans as a consequence of the fall. I not only find it plain stupid - as it rests upon a more or less literal interpretation of the Genesis account - but also fairly insulting as an individual as well as as a member of the human species. Point 5 decades as a consequence for lack of valid premises. Next time you meet a disabled person who happens to be an atheist, please, pretend not to be surprised. You'll be doing yourself and your reputation a favour.

Still standing.

noreply@blogger.com (Fabio P) — Fri, 25 Jun 2010 00:46:00 +0000

After what has probably been the longest hiatus in this blog's not too long history I find myself yet again in the extremely uncomfortable position of having to jump-start this little compilation of musings back to life, breaking the ice as if it were always the first time. In my defence, life does have a tendency to get in the way of side projects.

Not that I feel obliged in any way to justify my absence, of course. The lack of a regular readership and of feedback of any kind makes it so that I never feel too guilty for abandoning this thing even for months at a time, only to come back to it when the desire to write something becomes too compelling. Still, I suppose a brief update would be a nice and easy way to get back to posting.

Over the past few months my life has taken a surprising turn - don't worry, no religious epiphany. Not sure whether for good or for bad yet, but it certainly has. After spending a few months preparing for my exams and working on my thesis - an English-to-Italian translation of Language in Dementia, a paper by Murray Grossman published in Handbook of the Neuroscience of Language, edited by Brigitte Stemmer and Harry Whitaker - I finally graduated cum laude on March 18, earning my BA in translation studies. Of course, since life has its own way of teaching us lessons I have since long come to realise that my professional future does not rest within the scope of translation or interpreting. Don't get me wrong, I have the utmost respect for both professional figures since a few of my friends have decided to pursue a career in that line, but as far as I'm concerned it's been one of the most boring experiences of my life. Which takes us to my decision to apply for an MRes in Speech, Language and Cognition at University College London - hopefully a prelude to a longer stay there for a PhD. The application has been sent, I should find out whether it was accepted or not in a week or two, but it all looks promising. If things go well, I'll be moving to London before the end of the summer.

Why such a radical change, you might ask. Well, in a way it was more of a slow development rather than a sudden change. Ever since I started attending classes in general and applied linguistics, my love for languages has slowly been turning into love for language as a phenomenon and human artefact. Given my equally profound passion for science, the decision to pursue an academic career in the field of neurolinguistics was only too logical a step.

I admit that's not all there is to it. Over the past year my grandmother's dementia has been progressing pretty rapidly, with a major breakdown and loss of cognitive functioning back in October. The whole thing has been pretty hard on my whole family and she is part of the reason - together with university - I've been away from this blog for so long. It's sad to think that I haven't been able to have a coherent conversation with my grandmother for the past two years. Nowadays she's just an empty husk, a shadow of the person she used to be. Her language is incoherent and we've come to a point that interpreting what she's trying to tell us is a matter of guessing. I guess you can probably understand why I chose to translate the aforementioned text for my BA thesis. I was trying to understand what was slowly stealing my grandmother, what was robbing her of her mind and her language. In a way, I needed to understand. Can't say it has made things any easier, of course, but I've promised to myself - and to her, for what it's worth - that I'd give her downfall and our efforts a meaning. After all, as an atheist I don't have the luxury to be as gullible as to believe life to have some intrinsic meaning. I don't have the luxury of crutch-like belief in a deity that will take care of everything I'm too terrified to take care of on my own. I know I'll have to work hard to give my life meaning, in order to die one day with the knowledge of having made a difference, and doing research sounds to me like a pretty damn good way to do that.