Aranamuss!

Error Bars

2011-07-20T19:21:00.000-04:00

(via XKCD)

Alt text: But to us there is but one God, plus or minus one. --1 Corinthians 8:6±2.

Troll God

2011-07-05T19:00:00.000-04:00

I think I need one of these...

2011-07-01T19:18:00.000-04:00

Was Jesus a Raptor?

2011-06-25T19:14:00.000-04:00

A question I think biblical scholars seriously need to address.

Dara O'Briain on Science

2011-06-15T15:35:00.000-04:00

Physicists

2011-06-10T19:08:00.001-04:00

God and water

2011-06-03T15:02:00.003-04:00

Pascal the Rascal

2011-05-29T19:02:00.000-04:00

Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blind-folded fear.
-Thomas Jefferson

Recently, on Atheist Revolution, the following argument against Pascal's Wager was made:

There is no reason why you couldn't turn the argument around and ask the Christian why he or she doesn't believe in [insert any particular god here]. If the wager is really about self-protection, the logical extension would be that one would need to simultaneously be an adherent of all religions.

Second, it does not take a genius to realize that belief does not work like Christians imply when they use the wager. Suppose for a second that I became genuinely concerned about the possibility of roasting in Christian hell. Even if I wanted to, it isn't as though I could simply flip a switch and start believing in the Christian god. The best I could do would be to feign belief. Perhaps that would be enough to appease the Christian, but it hardly saves my "soul."

I've heard many arguments back and forth about Pascal's Wager, and these are two of the most common responses atheists make to it. Though I think Pascal's Wager is a terrible argument, I have to admit, these are two of the weakest responses to the argument.

For the first argument, consider this: Many religions are mutually exclusive, so being an adherent of all religions is out of the question. But, if it is true that you have infinite to gain from believing in at least some god, it may be rational (in the self-interested, not normative, sense of the term) to abandon atheism and take a bet on some god. The argument then becomes which sorts of gods are most likely, but atheism is excluded.

As for the second argument, while it is clear we can't "flip a switch" to change our beliefs, it is clear we have at least some control over our beliefs. We can put ourselves in situations which will challenge our beliefs, or which will be likely to foster certain beliefs. Perhaps, by actively trying to cultivate a religious belief, attending churches, steeping yourself in religious literature, avoiding conflicting points of view, etc. you could genuinely cause a belief in a deity. It doesn't need to be as easy as flicking a switch, but some control over beliefs some seem possible, and so it seems silly to place so much weight on the idea that on this particular issue, it may be impossible to create a belief.

It's not that I think the above arguments are completely without merit, just that they are not fatal, and there are much larger problems with Pascal's Wager. By ignoring the larger issues, too much is being granted to the wager.

The biggest problem? All of the bizarre implicit assumptions of the argument. Why assume all gods care that you believe in them? That seems like an odd trait for any god to have. Some conceivable gods have this property, but why think those gods are any more likely than the conceivable gods who like critical thinking and want us to come to the conclusion that there are no gods, or gods who are shy and hate for people to worship/believe in them? To me, it is bizarre to think a god exists who is so petty that it will punish or reward based entirely on whether you happen to believe in it, despite not giving evidence for itself. Slightly more believable is a deity who likes humans to use rationality, wherever it brings them. Hence the above Jefferson quote.

Vaccines ARE NOT antibiotics

2011-03-20T19:34:00.000-04:00

In the last couple of days, I have twice run across a misconception that just stuns me. People seem to be under the impression that vaccines are contributing to issues with antibiotic resistant diseases just like antibiotics are. This seems to be related to another misconception I've run into, where people seem to think all drugs do roughly the same thing (so pain killers and other medication that treats symptoms are lumped in with antibiotics).

This really betrays a fundamental misunderstanding. Vaccines are either a weakened or killed version of a harmful disease-causing microbe. By injecting you with this, your immune system learns how to fight microbes that look like that, and so are prepared the next time something like that comes along. The next time your body is infected with these microbes, your body will quickly dispatch them, and you either will feel no symptoms, or symptoms much weaker and for a much shorter duration than you otherwise would.

Antibiotics, on the other hand, directly kill bacteria. This is useful in many cases - in some instances, the bacterial infection will be deadly if antibiotics are not used to kill off or weaken the bacterial intruders. But this causes a problem - the more antibiotics we use, and the more common they are in our environment, the more bacteria are exposed to it. Since there will, occassionally, be mutants who are immune to a given antibiotic, using an antibiotic kills all of the competitors for this immune mutant, and so it will reproduce and the immune strain will become more common. So, the more we use antibiotics, the less effective they will become. This is evolution at work. This is a direct effect of antibiotics, there is no way vaccines could possibly contribute to this.

So please, keep this in mind. Vaccines are extremely useful preventative medicines, and there is already enough bad pseudoscience people hold against them without muddying the waters with thinking they contribute to antibiotic immune bacteria.

Thanks for the home run!

2011-03-12T23:29:00.000-05:00

(click to enlarge)

"Weaving the Cosmos" review

2011-03-05T23:11:00.048-05:00

It's been a while since I've done a book review. I received Weaving the Cosmos by Chris Clarke for Christmas, from someone who thought it might be of interest to me. I can hardly blame them - from the title, it sounds like it would be about cosmology. The subtitle makes it sound like it might be of even greater interest - Science, Religion and Ecology. Unfortunately, the book is more of a jumbled mish-mash of vague claims based on poor science and strange theology.

It's interesting to note that for some reason, Clarke defines religion as "willed and discerning participation in the mutual love of the greatest whole" (page 63). Depending on what is meant by "the greatest whole" (it is not defined, as far as I can tell), I see no reason that a completely irreligious atheist could not be said to partake in religion. Perhaps this vague definition is for a reason - Clarke seems unable to decide what it is he believes. He rejects a "petty God of factual propositions" who created the universe, toys with his creation, or wants us to act a particular way. Yet he doesn't want to claim religion is just a tingly feeling. I'm not sure what it is Clarke does believe, after reading this book - I have the feeling he is just bending over backwards to be as inclusive as possible, and not even attempting to put forward a coherent picture.

It was hard to pin down exactly what the thesis of the book was, let alone how it was supposed to establish it. Using a lot of dubious scholarship (relying heavily on Matte Blanco's bilogic, which is supposedly a logic of the unconscious, and several times making reference to the bogus quantum mind theory), the most charitable interpretation of Clarke's argument I can piece together is this:
1. Religion relies on intuition
2. Science needs intuition too, because quantum physics is hard to deal with using traditional logic
3. Feeling unified with the world is good
4. Global warming is an impending crisis
5. Therefore, religion and science are not enemies, and we should solve global warming by feeling unified with the universe

Needless to say, I was not impressed with his reasoning.

Jesus Grilled Cheese

2011-03-01T22:28:00.001-05:00

via SMBC

"Militant"

2011-02-26T10:24:00.000-05:00

Atheist Cat

2011-02-20T22:23:00.001-05:00

The Double Standard

2011-02-12T21:21:00.000-05:00

The Undead

2011-02-05T23:18:00.003-05:00

Bible passage of the month

2011-01-30T22:11:00.000-05:00

Deuteronomy 25:11-12

¹¹ If two men are fighting and the wife of one of them comes to rescue her husband from his assailant, and she reaches out and seizes him by his private parts, ¹² you shall cut off her hand. Show her no pity.

I once asked an evangelical Christian about this one. She replied that the sort of woman who would do this sort of thing (grab a man by the "private parts") must be pretty crazy, and so deserves it.

This is why you shouldn't believe everything on the internet

2011-01-25T10:21:00.002-05:00

God's Press Conference

2011-01-24T11:36:00.000-05:00

via SMBC Theater

What a great idea...

2011-01-18T14:23:00.000-05:00

To anyone concerned that their astrological sign has change...

2011-01-14T08:31:00.001-05:00

...don't worry about it, astrology doesn't work, so this is meaningless.

"To Vaccinate or Not"

2011-01-08T13:20:00.000-05:00

Here is a great interview with Meryl Dorey, president of the anti-vaccination "The Australian Vaccination Network Inc.", asking her about the recent news regarding the fraud involved in a study linking vaccines and autism.

A Reply to Steve Harvey on Atheists

2011-01-03T13:42:00.003-05:00

Merry Christmas/Happy Holidays!

2010-12-25T22:17:00.000-05:00

The True Story of the Wise Men

2010-12-24T01:35:00.001-05:00