Excerpts from the mind of the Grim Panda

Bases, and finalized minis

2012-02-09T23:11:00.002-06:00

Not show quality or anything, but I like 'em!

Rollergirl

2012-02-05T22:06:00.002-06:00

I picked her up because she was super cheap. She looks a little nuts, and is good evidence as to why I ought to be thinning my paints - her skin went from being smooth to being all lumpy because of the multiple coats of paint I used.

Still, she was fun to paint.

Socrates

2012-02-05T22:04:00.000-06:00

Here's Chronoscope's Socrates.

This one was almost impossible to pass up when I saw him in the store... but he's been a bitch to paint. Loads of tiny little details...

Although, I did some custom sculpting on him. Using my dremel, I carved out a hollow in the cup, to make it recessed and seem like there was fluid in it.

Sligg Squarg Herder Part 2

2012-02-05T22:01:00.000-06:00

Here's the Sligg part.

I like how he came out, even if the camera makes the mistakes pop out.

Sligg Squarg Herder (part 1)

2012-02-04T01:02:00.002-06:00

The squarg half of the Chronoscope Sligg Squarg Herder.

I'm going to redo the eyes, though.

Minis 2

2012-02-04T00:04:00.000-06:00

And here's my second work in progress:

Chronoscope's Alien Oppressor.

Minis 1

2012-02-03T18:17:00.001-06:00

I've been painting minis as a sort of relaxation, a way to take my mind off of other things for a while.

While I can't claim that I'm any good, I hope that I'll get better and that these entries will show my progress over time.

First up, my in-progress SHD-1 Primitive Shadow Hawk.

I'm trying a few different techniques, and this is the first time I've painted on a metal fig.

Edit:

And now, with an extra hour or two:

A skeptic's case for fantasy (pt 1)

2011-12-02T15:41:00.001-06:00

If skeptics are so into science, debunking myths, destroying superstition, and eliminating fantastic explanations for the natural world.... then why are so many of us avid fantasy readers?

Insofar as my personal observations can offer an explanation for the whole of skepticdom, I have a theory. Skeptics aren't out to remove the sense of wonderment in the world. We're not out to eliminate the beautiful, or the sublime. We're out to remove the bullshit. The explanations that don't explain anything.

"Why did it rain today?"
It was Magic! It was God! It was Rick Perry's prayers!

And this is where we call bullshit.

Magic, used in this sense, is an excuse. It isn't an explanation. God didn't make it rain. The nature of the physical world resulted in rain. And, as huge as Rick Perry's ego may be, his prayers had about as much to do with the rain as did the price of butter on Mars. The entire enterprise of fantastic explanations is bullshit.

But fantasy novels have magic, you could say. They have elves and unicorns and vampires and spell-slinging wizards and deities and demigods and supernatural powers! The power of prayer can change things!

Sure. But the worlds described in those fantasy novels aren't our world. They might resemble our world. They might have some of the same places, or people, or things. But the truth that underlies any good fantasy novel is that there, the rules are different.

But there are rules.

The character might not know what those rules are, sure. The reader might not know what those rules are. The author might not even know what those rules are. But they're there.

Of course, the existence of those rules isn't what makes fantasy so... fantastic. The stories, the characters, the brilliant portraits of amazing places and events all combine to make an entertaining experience.

And that's just the start.

Two forms of crazy

2011-04-14T15:04:00.002-05:00

Here: homeless men take beatings for cash; and here: Virginia Tech student stabs himself to prove god exists.

These are a bit odd for me, of course -- the first because of the intersection between free choice and the lure of "easy" money to desperate men; the second because of the obvious religious underpinnings in what is obviously a unwell man.

I see them as symptomatic, byproducts of a culture that emphasizes two extremes: capitalism money on one hand, and conviction in religious beliefs on another. These could be outliers, but more likely it is going to happen more and more often in the future.

Incommensurability of Science and Religion (draft, pt. 1)

2010-07-06T09:07:00.003-05:00

Because individuals are isolated from one another by the subjective nature of experiences, two individuals cannot relate to one another unless they share a commonality. In humans this is typically non-problematic, as individuals within similar cultures often have similar experiences and speak similar languages; humans from disparate cultures have larger gaps to overcome, but the disparities in mutual experience can be bridged through third-party interpretation.

But imagine the massive gap of experience, language, and understanding that would be present should a human come into contact with a truly alien species. The barriers to communication, let alone mutual understanding, would be nearly impossible to overcome. There would be no shared experience, no shared biology, no shared technological understanding, and no shared foundation of belief.

In one episode of the television show Futurama (Hell is the H-Word), ambassadors from Earth attempt to negotiate peace with a race of alien "brain balls." The negotiations are almost pointless; it is obvious to the viewer that there is no common basis for understanding.

"BRAIN BALL #2
The elders tell of a young ball much
like you. He bounced three metres in
the air. Then he bounced 1.8 metres
in the air. Then he bounced four metres
in the air. Do I make myself clear?

KISSINGER
Mr. Ambassador, our people tell the
same story. Oy.

[Bender paces around shaking his fists.]

BENDER
These balls are making me testy. If
they don't stop bouncing and jiggling,
I swear I'm gonna shove this treaty
up their -- Wait a second. Where do
you shove things up a ball?

KISSINGER
This isn't a productive area of discussion."

If we mark the disparity between humans and an alien species as being at one extreme of a continuum, we can place the intimate closeness and intuitive communication that develops between identical twins at another extreme. The twins have virtually no barriers to mutual understanding and communication while humans and aliens have seemingly insurmountable ones.

But the cases that fall in the middle are no less interesting. Humans from different cultures, with different languages and different values, have no small obstacle to overcome in order to relate to one another. The considerable effort necessary to translate an ancient text - let alone the effort necessary to understand it - is a testament to the difficulties inherent to the conveyance of information from one culture to another.

We can identify a number of commonalities that, when present, greatly aid in communication. The most basic, as I've alluded to above, is shared experience. Even two individuals that have wildly different languages might find a way to communicate the rather abstract concept of the passing of time by indicating the movement of the sun in the sky. Common language, then, is a kind of shared experience, as is common biology (a fact which might serve to explain some of the difficulty men and women experience when communicating with one another). But perhaps the most important is common understanding. If one person ardently believes that the sun revolves around the earth and that the seasons are caused by a series of deities, he will find it impossible to understand the scientific explanation for the progression of seasons (the change of Earth's position and tilt during the course of its orbit around the sun).

And thus, we have a basic description of what happens when someone who understands the world through science tries to communicate with someone who understands the world through religion. This is a particularly insidious disparity because the individuals can have common experience and even common language, but still be wholly incapable of communication.

... to be continued ...

Hey, would you look'it that! I got married!

2010-06-17T08:06:00.004-05:00

Haven't written here in a while. Mostly because I've been busy with other stuff, but partially because I don't know what to say. There have been so many changes in my life - and so many changes to come - that just keeping up with all of them has had me exhausted.

A little over two months ago I got married to the most wonderful woman I've ever had the pleasure of knowing. Elizabeth and I mesh so well on so many different levels that it's hard to imagine what life was like when she wasn't around. I won't say that we finish each other's sentences, but our relationship is so open, so honest, so refreshing that there is very little that actually gets between us. Our dynamic is constantly shifting to manage the various trials and tribulations in our lives - from planning the wedding to dealing with 4:30am shifts at work and to getting ready for law school in the Fall.

The wedding itself was absolutely amazing. Some of our closest friends from Texas, Michigan, New Jersey, and beyond came out to see us, and family came in from New York, California, Michigan, New Jersey, Wisconsin... It was great seeing everybody, but even then it's the precious moments I spent alone with Elizabeth that really stick out in my memory. I don't think I'll ever forget the pure, unbridled joy that was in her smile, the passion and love that was in her eyes, or the way I felt when I first saw her in her wedding dress.

There were a lot of little details that we worked insanely hard to pull off - from the board game theme to the food, the music and the tablecloths... And everything turned out so well. Oh, there were complications, of course - there always are - but there was nothing that could have pulled us down from sharing our day with one another.

And we all had a good time :)

Perhaps as it should be, our wedding day was the happiest I've ever been. Those of you who've known me long enough know that for a long, long time, I wasn't the kind of guy who believed in happiness, in things turning out for the best, and in finding someone so perfect... Elizabeth says that before she even met me, she was waiting for me. And now that she's found me, she's never letting go. For my part, I'd been through a lot before I met Elizabeth, and I had given up on relationships, let alone love. But after we met, things just felt so natural, so wonderful...

Elizabeth got me to smile again. And now, waking up beside her every morning, exploring life together, having adventures big and small... I smile all of the time.

And now, Kitten Pictures

2010-01-25T20:36:00.000-06:00

Apparently I can't stop posting pictures today.

See how much our little Ozlet has grown up? Mika too, obviously, but the tiny pictures of Oz made me smile tonight.

More pictures

2010-01-25T20:27:00.000-06:00

...and while we're on the topic of old pictures of me, here are a couple from my more goth phase.

Enjoy, and try not to laugh too hard at the intense emo-ness.

When I was Seventeen...

2010-01-25T20:25:00.000-06:00

Believe it or not, this is a picture of me when I was 17. Behind me is the scenic sunset of South Dakota's badlands.

Yes - my hair was that long, and yes - it was died black.

The bandanna was handy to hide the fact that we were camping, and my hair was getting ucky.

Though, I think that look worked for me.

Climate change "infographic"

2009-12-16T13:06:00.002-06:00

Here.

It is a beautifully done set of graphics, point / counterpoint analysis, and is a good attempt at presenting unbiased information on climate change. Certainly, it is something worth looking at.

As for myself, I like to come down on the side of the scientists. After all, even if global warming isn't caused by humans, a dramatic upward shift in temperatures could be catastrophic, and we ought to try and prevent it.

Feedburner

2009-12-16T12:57:00.001-06:00

I've added Feedburner to my blog, so I can have a better idea of who / how many people subscribe. let me know if you experience any hiccups with the feed!

Thanks.

The Honey and the Stick

2009-12-08T10:32:00.005-06:00

The "new atheist" movement -- what I tend to consider the modern politicization of atheism and the attempt to revoke religion's protected status -- is generally seen as the product of angry white males. Thus, the stick of the atheist movement: strong talk, strong action, and unabashed brow-beating of those pursuing willful ignorance. This perception isn't wholly inaccurate, however, since many of the outstanding figures in the atheist movement are white males, and these are generally very passionate and outspoken in their respective positions.

There is in fact a contra-position to the angry white male within the atheist movement, and it has been proposed that it should be taken up by the many atheist women. This is meant to be the honey: the loving, caring, kinder and gentler side of the atheist movement. It would be unfair to say this position is one of compromise and apologetic, since one of the mantras of the softer atheism is "love the believer, hate the belief," but it is generally seen as being at odds with the angry atheism.

But what we're talking about here is methodology. A recent USA Today op-ed had this to say of the two approaches:

These competing approaches could not be further apart. One is an invitation to a duel. The other is a fair-minded appeal for recognition and respect. Or, to put it in terms of the gay rights movement, one is like trying to turn everyone gay and the other is like trying to secure equal rights for gay men and lesbians.

Of course, the argument here is that trying to force everyone to be gay is patently ridiculous, and by extension so is trying to overthrow religion. There are a plethora of obvious fallacies we can apply to this argument (for starters, it's a faulty analogy, but it's also a straw man and a red herring), but its largest failing is one found wherever people discuss the "rift" in atheism. What the author -- and many, many others -- fails to appreciate is the the symbiotic nature of the two approaches: the honey and the stick.

Without the stick, politicians, religious leaders, and the world at large would be free to dismiss atheists who call for equal rights, equal recognition, and and equal respect. Without the angry atheists, the movement would be nigh silent in the clamorous din of screaming majorities and protesting minorities. Without angry atheists, there would be no cause for politicians to stop and listen to our cries. Without angry atheists, there would be no rallying cries, no public call to arms, and no atheist movement.

Without the honey, the movement would just as easily be dismissed as a brash, irrational outburst of a vocal few. By displaying the softer side of unbelief, we can foster cooperation with allies in the religious sphere, project a front that achieves tremendous successes in the social and political spheres, and foster real, long-term change in our society. But we'd be kidding ourselves if we thought that one side could persevere without the other.

The way I see it, the atheist movement is trying to sell a product people don't want to buy. After all, our competitors have been dominant for thousands of years, and get to make incredible claims about how wonderfully miraculous their product is (and how no good, terrible, awful, and inferior ours is). The stick is what'll get us into people's homes -- a forceful bruiser who's not ashamed to break down your door -- while the honey -- the slick, confident, and charismatic salesperson who comes inside and shows you the wonders of the product -- makes a convert out of you.

Chainmail! And it's for sale!

2009-11-18T18:15:00.010-06:00

Sorry for the varying image quality; my good camera died on me partway through the process.

Medium Dice pouch, round bottom
Holds 30-35 dice easily
Bright aluminum: $25
Stainless steel: $30
Single color aluminum: $30
Multi-Colored aluminum: $35
Feed your inner geek! Or, give the gift of geekiness to a geek close to your heart. :)

Two-color "Diamond Drop" earrings
Anodized aluminum, stainless steel ear hooks
$10
Please note that because of the anodization process, some rings may have slightly discolored areas. I try to minimize how often these discolored rings make it into my final product, but I can't make any promises.

Two-color "Orbital" Earrings
Anodized aluminum rings, stainless steel hooks
$10

Stainless steel keyring / keyring extension
European 9-in-1
$3 w/ 1 keyring, $3.50 w/2 keyrings (one on each end)
These are fantastically durable - I've had mine for five years now and it has survived heavy use and abuse.

Stainless steel "Snakeskin" bracelet
Made to measure, European 6 in 1
$40 (Adjustable "handcuff" version: $60, $100 for a pair)

Half-Persian 3 in 1 chain
Anodized aluminum
Made to order! I use a nickel-plated S-hook to make it easy to take off / put on.
Bracelet: $20
Choker / Necklace: $30

Stretch bracelets
Black neoprene rings provide the stretch to these. As made, will fit over a woman's hand fairly easily, can be made to fit a man.
$15-$25 depending on colors / complexity.
These are fun, and super lightweight! Please note that the rings can catch on fabric, however, so care should be taken when wearing these with long sleeved shirts.

Perfection and God's Existence

2009-11-12T08:09:00.005-06:00

Starting with the premise that the universe is not perfect, it's a short jump to the logical conclusion that an omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, omnipresent deity does not exist. How you get there can vary, but one of my favorites follows this line of thought:

1. A perfect deity (omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, omnipresent, etc), would necessarily create a perfect universe. [A⊃B]

2. Observationally, the universe is not perfect: 99.99999999% of it is hostile to life, higher order intelligence is frail and fraught with problems (psychoses, delusions, degenerative diseases), entropy indicates that the whole of the universe will eventually die of heat death, etc. [¬B]

3. Therefore, a perfect deity does not exist. [∴¬A]

It's one of my favorites because it's simple, has very few explicit assumptions, and arrives at the conclusion using only a single rule of logic. Logically, it is a deductive argument that is both sound and valid: all you need for a conclusive proof.

Unfortunately, it's also an argument that no theist would accept, and here's why:

First, no theist would accept (2) as a valid assertion. The reasons are endless, but they all seem to boil down to a handful of unimaginative religious truisms: God's will is mysterious, God is testing us with imperfection, the devil is the source of all evils, or we're unable to see the perfection of God's creation. Each one of these, of course, assumes that God exists, and forces the theist into more logical fallacies than you can shake a stick at. Start with circular reasoning & begging the question: God exists, therefore the universe is perfect, therefore God exists. Throw in some appeal to authority (the Bible says it's true!), appeal to fear (But, if God doesn't exist, life would be meaningless!), and others, to taste, and before you know it you've got a veritable cornucopia of bad logic.

Second, more astute logicians will note that my argument only disproves the existence of a god that is perfect and that has those attributes (though this latter point is debatable). But, should my theist opponent go in this direction, I'd like to point one just one small thing: a god that is not perfect but nevertheless demands that you pay homage to him is nothing more than an insecure, sadistic sky-bully, and doesn't deserve the praise you heap upon him. After all, I wouldn't expect my cats to worship me, nor would I threaten them with an eternity of pain and suffering if they bite me after I took away their food and water. Once you accept that said deity isn't perfect, you lose the ability to argue from moral superiority and religious infallibility.

Finally, a theist would argue with the assertion that a perfect god would necessarily create a perfect universe. This last counterargument is perhaps the most troublesome -- not the least because it shows that my opponent possesses the ability to reason, but ignores it except when suiting -- but also because it has the most tenuous connection: necessarily is a strong relationship between two things, and requires justification. After all, a perfect creator could just as easily create an imperfect creation, couldn't he? Humans, for example, could purposely set out to make a watch that doesn't tell time correctly, even though the means for making an accurate watch are well within our capabilities.

Troublesome doesn't mean insurmountable, however. If one insists on the analogy between a human's creation and a god's creation, the argument quickly fails: a human has to expend a tremendous amount of effort to create something that is merely excellent, let alone perfect. And then, it is entirely possibly that perfection is beyond the capabilities of humans, as mired in imperfection as we are. So, scratch that analogy -- it doesn't work, and it's nothing more than an appeal to the theist's favored watchmaker argument.

But the analogy does give a hint as to why perfection begets perfection. If a human were to set out to create the perfect watch, one that would keep time accurately for eternity, he'd need (at the very least) the knowledge of how to use the available materials in such a way that they'd last forever. Entropy tells us that's impossible, however, so he'd also need the ability to shield the watch from the decaying forces of the universe -- a power that is beyond human endeavor. He'd need a plethora of other abilities too, but assuming he had them he'd be a perfect watchmaker: perfection begetting perfection.

Still, is a perfect creation the necessary product of a perfect creator? I have to admit, there's an intellectual trap here that nearly snared me: if God were perfect, why couldn't he create whatever he wanted, imperfection included? After all, omniscience would include knowledge of imperfection, so God should be able to do it. But creating imperfection would imply a conflict of God's supposed characteristics: by creating the pain, misery, suffering, and hate in the world around us, he couldn't be omnibenevolent (all-loving does not include torturing those you love to see if they love you back). On top of that, omnipotence would imply that there would be no need to create an imperfect universe (if God wanted us to learn to love him back, he could have done it in such a way that we didn't need an imperfect world to do so).

Bottom line, whenever one justifies the creation of an imperfect world, it removes the sense of perfection from the creator. Ability: yes. Knowledge: yes. But to actually create an imperfect universe implies boredom, curiosity, sadism, insecurity, or inability, all of which undermine the core of belief in god.

...and they say atheists never argue against the "complex" versions of modern theology. :)

Notes on Being an Atheist pt1

2009-11-10T10:54:00.003-06:00

Everyone comes to atheism differently, and everyone has different concepts, biases, and experiences that affect what atheism means to them. My own ideas regarding atheism have changed dramatically over the past few years as I've grown, studied, and adapted, to the point where I figured I should write out a few of the things I believe to be tied to my atheism.

For me, being an atheist means:

1. Having a concrete sense of morality that is based on reason, pragmatism, and social justice -- not religion.

2. Knowing that "right" and "wrong" are relative terms, created and defined by humans, and absent of metaphysical meaning (i.e., they aren't informed by God).

3. Understanding that there is no real sense of good and evil in the world, only the actions that humans are capable of. Some of these actions cause pain, suffering, and misery, and others bring happiness, joy, and pleasure. Some do both.

4. Knowing what I believe, while accepting that I may be wrong.

5. Refusing to blindly accept unjustified evidence toward a thing's existence, or lack thereof.

6. Expecting that I will be mistaken about any number of things, and being willing to change my change my beliefs should they be contradictory, or if they no longer correspond to the available evidence.

7. Acting in accordance with the laws of society, but interacting with the laws themselves to avoid stagnation and complacency in our moral outlook.

8. Living my life according to the standards I set for myself.

9. Treating life as the exception, not the rule in the universe, and respecting it accordingly.

10. Advancing the positive role of humanity as stewards of life, being uniquely suited as intelligent and feeling beings while also having the capability to affirm or destroy life.

Blaaaarg!

2009-11-06T10:49:00.003-06:00

Has it really been a month? Cripes. I guess I should write more? Or something?

I was going to write something funny about the LHC getting shut down by bird droppings and how it was destined to fail because of that quantum future higgs-boson weird thingyjobber, but then I realized that we're talking about THE MOST COMPLEX MACHINE EVER CONSTRUCTED IN THE HISTORY OF MANKIND.

And I felt a little better about it.

In other news, I'm still not psychic:

me: I'm trying out my psychic powers. Has your head exploded yet?
Or even like... a bad headache?
I'll settle for a twinge, or an itch if you've got one.
Sent at 10:40 AM on Friday

Natalie: lol
you're silly

me: No?
Sigh.
You're not wearing a tin-foil hat, are you?

Natalie: nope

Definitions of Atheism 1

2009-10-02T13:49:00.005-05:00

I'm compiling a (frightening) list of the various definitions of "atheist" and "atheism" I'm finding across the web--along with some other, related and equally insane definitions. From time to time I might add emphasis or comment, but for the most part, the insanity speaks for itself.

1. - http://www.creationkid.org/dictionary.html
Atheism is a religion that believes that God does not exist in any form.
--
An Atheist is a member of the religion that teaches that God does not exist; moreover and Atheist is someone who is convinced that God does not exist.
--
An Anti-Creationist is someone, namely an atheist, who is negatively emotionally affected by the notion that there is a God; an Anti-Creationist will defend their position ruthlessly and will not allude to logic and the evidence provided by the natural world.

2. - http://www.spiritrestoration.org/Theological_Terms/A_Prior_%20to_Born_Again.htm

Atheism
This word comes from two Greek words, a the negator, and theos, God. Atheism teaches that there is no God of any kind, anywhere, anytime. Some atheists claim to "Excercise no belief in a god" the same way they would exercise no belief in pink unicorns. Logically, an atheist would be an evolutionist.

The Bible teaches that all men know there is a God (Rom. 2:14-15). Therefore, they will be without excuse (Rom. 1:20 ) on the day of judgment. Instead, atheists willingly suppress the knowledge of God by their unrighteousness (Rom. 1:18-19).

Ninety-Nine Percent?

2009-10-02T09:20:00.003-05:00

Let's make this absolutely, abundantly clear: I am an atheist.

I am not a "99%" atheist. I don't hold out one section of my belief and say "Well, God might exist, but..." I am a strong atheist, which is the form of atheism one has when they believe the negative: that God (god, gods) does not exist. And don't go changing the meaning of "God" to be something like "whatever caused everything to exist" or "the objective, immutable universe." When science needs a word to describe those concepts, it'll use one that doesn't have religious connotations or invoke images of a creator deity who constructed the universe in seven days.

Atheism is an ontological position. It deals with a thing's existence (or lack thereof). One might also be a a-unicornist, or a-chupacabraist, or a-leprechaunist (the positions in apposition to the belief that unicorns, chupacabras, and leprechauns exist, respectively). In fact, if you really want to, you can call me an atheist, a-unicornist, a-chupacabraist, a-leprechaunist, a-hobbitist, a-elfist, a-whatever made up thing you wantist. The only reason atheist is a special term in our society is because so many people believe in God that it has become necessary to separate myself from them with a label.

When it comes to ontological beliefs, you can believe something exists, believe it doesn't exist, or have no belief at all about it. If I were to write a story about some creature you've never heard of before, you wouldn't have any beliefs about that creature's existence. In fact, it is impossible for you to have any beliefs at all about that creature until you've read my story (or, if for some very strange reason, it's existence is logically implied from other facts, but we'll save that for later).

1. I believe that X exists.
2. I believe that X doesn't exist.
3. I have no beliefs about X's existence.

If X is God, then anyone who falls under 2 or 3 is an atheist. 2 describes strong atheism, 3 describes what is commonly referred to as weak atheism. I fall under category 2. Not every atheist is a strong atheist, but there is no 99% belief even as a weak atheist. Category 3 includes people who have never heard of the concept of God (like you've never heard of the creature in my story), as well as people who are aware of the concept but haven't come down on one side or the other.

I am also agnostic. That doesn't mean I waffle back and forth about God's existence. It doesn't mean that I have reservations about God's existence. It doesn't mean that I'm unsure, that I'm scared, that I'm copping out, or that I'm dishonest about being an atheist.

Agnosticism is an epistemic position. It deals with the knowledge of God's existence (or lack thereof). I am an agnostic because I know enough about epistemology to understand three things: first, that absolute knowledge (justified true belief, if you use Plato's terminology) is almost impossible to attain; second, that God, if it did exist, would be outside of our frame of reference and would as a result be impossible to verify empirically; and third, that proving a negative is a damn hard thing to do.

But here's the thing: you don't need to have absolute knowledge, empirical verification, or proof that God doesn't exist in order to be an atheist. I don't have absolute knowledge that my car is in the parking lot when I'm inside my office, but I'll be damned if it isn't right where I left it when I go to drive home. I haven't personally experienced my own death, but I understand that I'll die just the same. Finally, I can't prove that the logical statement (A or not A) is always true, but it's an extremely useful assumption.

So I'm an atheist and agnostic. To be fair, under those (very strict) rules, I'm agnostic about pretty much everything--unicorns, chupacabras, and leprechauns included. Again, the only reason I have to go out of my way to say that I'm agnostic about God is because of the sheer mass of people who mistakenly believe that they do have knowledge of God's existence.

Again: 100% atheist. (If you think for some reason that I've fallen to the terrible 99%, let me know. If you can prove it, I'll buy you a cookie.)

At this point you can (and should) ask why I'm a strong atheist even though I'm agnostic. The easiest way to explain is to go back to my example of a creature from a story. For the sake of discussion, let's call my creature a "Purbloin Grumdinger." The P.G. is a small, furry woodland creature with a large puffy tail, a penchant for eating nuts, and a habit of jumping from branch to branch to find more food, escape predators, and to mate.

Before you had ever heard of the Purbloin Grumdinger, you had no beliefs about it's existence. However now that you've got a basic grasp of the concept you can say:

1. Yes! The P.G. exists! (Though where I'm from they just call it a squirrel.)
2. No! The P.G. does not exist! (The P.G. is a fictional creature, and any resemblance to a squirrel is merely coincidental.)
3. I do not have any beliefs about the P.G. (Get back to me when you've got more evidence than just your story.)

So we've got this story, and the story is telling us about this thing as if it actually existed. The story may be fiction, but it may non-fiction as well. If all you focused on was the description of the P.G., you might be inclined to fall under #1, and justifiably so--you've got no reason to believe the story is fictional. If you're more skeptical (or if you have rigorous tests regarding what you will or will not believe) you're more likely to fall under #3, and that's justifiable as well.

So why would anyone pick #2? Recall how I mentioned earlier that something's existence can be logically implied from other facts. For example, the existence of subatomic particles isn't directly verifiable (at least not by me--I'm not a physicist) , but their existence is implied by other, observable events. This sort of argument is the bread and butter of modern science: observations imply X; try to test for X directly; prove that X exists.

The process works exactly the same when the facts imply something's nonexistence as well. Suppose that in my story I told you about the P.G., but then I also explained how it lived in purple-leaved trees under a lime-green sky in the year 1921. All of a sudden, the facts don't add up: the P.G. may resemble a squirrel, but if we assume the description is accurate then we have to assume that the rest of the story is as well. Because we know that the sky wasn't lime-green and there were no trees with purple leaves in 1921, we infer that the story is a work of fiction and as a result we know that the P.G. is fictional as well.

Since the only evidence for P.G.'s existence is made up, it would be foolish to believe that P.G. exists, and it's only marginally less foolish to withhold judgment altogether. The available evidence implies that P.G. does not exist. Therefore, I choose to believe that P.G. does not exist. New evidence may surface later, of course, and if it were compelling I would be more than willing to change my mind.

Replace P.G. with God (duh). Same process: the evidence we have for God's existence is either anecdotal (and therefore unverifiable and useless), or comes from a book that contains enough contradictions, falsehoods, and obfuscating language that the whole is suspect and once again, useless. The implication is that God (repeat for gods plural: Zeus, Odin, Ra--pick your deity) does not exist, and my resulting belief is that God does not exist.

One last time: 100% atheist, 100% a-unicornist, and still agnostic.

An open letter to a certain national news figure

2009-10-01T09:08:00.005-05:00

Dear Sir,

It is with great humility that I, a member of the American religious "nones," thank you for your service to this nation, its peoples, politics, and moral foundation. Even though I am only one of the forty-five million Americans who choose a path other than what is prescribed in the major world religions, I recognize the value of your tireless efforts, even as they cost your network hundreds of thousands of dollars in advertising revenue every week.

Sir, you have taken it upon yourself to be a spokesperson of American religious and moral values, this much is clear. And in this role you have shown a true, unbiased opinion; you have provided a moral compass for millions of Americans; you have defined our priorities; you have rallied our supporters. From your example, I know that it is more important to expose open patriotism in our nation's public schools than it is to ensure millions of Americans enjoy the higher quality of life which access to health care would provide. From your example I understand that as a religious "none" I and my fellows are contemptuous fools, that our efforts to make America a proud nation of many peoples, many religions, and many prosperities is instead destroying my home country--simply because we do not have a belief in God. From your scathing assault on our nation's politics, I see now that in place of God I worship instead material things, power, money, status, and President Barack Obama.

From your teachings I now know that I should abandon my search for a peace between religions. I know that I should give up my attempts to help my fellow human beings. I know that I should guard jealously my possessions, and that I should not gladly give a portion of them to the government, though it would ensure that my sickly neighbor be made well again. I know that petty cruelties and racism are not only acceptable, but morally correct and necessary. I know that instead of building hope, I should be sowing discontent, strife, and hatred for my fellow man, regardless of his worth and beliefs. I know that I should blindly believe what I am told, though perhaps only when listening to you.

Thank you, sir, for painting the world in simple black and white. In my foolishness, I had once believed the world to be a complex place, with many nuances and paths, many beliefs and options, many brilliant hues of color beyond even the shades of gray you refuse to acknowledge. Thank you for polarizing the men and women in our nation with a "for us, or against us" attitude that, while it surely fortifies your die-hard supporters, sheds light on so many more moderate individuals such that they, like I, become disillusioned with the established religious authority. Thank you for marginalizing the role of science in this country, since even though science has found cures for terrible diseases, made our country prosperous and competitive in the global marketplace, and solidified our standard of living, it is ultimately trust in science that undermines the true meaning of the American Way.

Thank you for dismissing my fears about the global environment, and for ridiculing those who strive to reduce the impact of human industrialization on the only planet we have. I realize now that it is not important for my grandchildren to know what a rain forest is, what a tree looks like, what it is to breathe clean air or enjoy the beauty of our planet's natural wonders. Instead I realize that I should take what I can, while I can, leaving great and terrible messes for my progeny to clean up, even as we deny the funds to research the tools they'll need to do so. I realize that, since my ardent disbelief in an afterlife implies that this life is the only one I'll get, I should squander it on petty wastes and gross materialism instead of using it to do the best I can for myself and my fellows.

Thank you, sir, for showing me that your most humble way is the only way, and that my forty-five million (and growing) nonbeliever friends are dead wrong.

Sincerely yours,
Matthew

On Snake Oil and Science

2009-09-15T14:51:00.005-05:00

Later this week I'll become the official blogger for the Austin Skeptical Society, and the voice of skeptical Austin. In the meantime, you, my dear Twitter friends, get a sneak peak at the kinds of articles I'll be posting when the blog goes live. For now, enjoy the draft of the inaugural Austin Skeptical Society blog post!

On Snake Oil and Science

Recently I got into something of a conflagration on the internet. Pointless, I know, but it started fairly innocently: a Twitter acquaintance of mine commented on the Whole Foods fiasco, and in response I suggested the local Central Market as an organic / wholesome shopping alternative. Say what you will about the relative merits of organic foods, nutrition, and your weekly grocery bill, because I'm not going to get into that here. But what was interesting (and the reason it was important to tell you that this was on Twitter) was the fact that, mere moments after we made our comments I received an unsolicited message from Natural Grocers.

"Hello!" it said. "For yummy organic food, why don't you check out the new Natural Grocers on Guadalupe!" Well, okay. Never mind that I had already been to the Natural Grocers in question, and never mind that even though it was within easy walking distance, I still preferred Central Market. No, in my humble opinion Natural Grocers isn't so much of a grocery store as it is a front for Vitamin Cottage, a feel-good kind of supplement pusher that puts homeopathic remedies and cleansing concoctions on the familiar, untouchable "natural equals better!" pedestal.

Maybe it is a personal failing of mine, but I don’t take kindly to spammers in any form, so I decided to take the Natural Grocers twitter crew for a spin. We tossed some banter back and forth about why I didn't plan on returning to their store when finally they linked to what they considered scientific evidence for the efficacy of nutritional supplements.

Each of the four articles they provided were penned by one Jacob Schor, ND, who in turn cited a number of medical and naturopathic journals. "Doctor" Schor is an accredited Doctor of Naturopathy, an impressive-sounding title which has absolutely no legal, practical, or medical meaning in 34 states, including Texas (ND's aren't even allowed to "practice" their medicine in Texas. The remaining states play kowtow to the Council on Naturopathic Medical Education, the leading accreditor of naturopathy schools, which never lets you forget that it has been "recognized by the U.S. Secretary of Education" -- essentially meaning that they've agreed to follow the rules on student loans).

But let's give him a momentary suspension of disbelief: he appears to have a highly advanced understanding of a very specific area of science, and when he doesn't cite his own articles or quote from Wikipedia, he links to abstracts from places such as the American Society of Clinical Oncology, which appears to be a legitimate medical organization. Dr. Schor, who has been chosen as the spokesperson for Natural Grocers, cites real, honest, bona-fide science! Unfortunately, in the same breath that he uses to cite scientific sources he derides MD's for not realizing the power of homeopathy sooner: "I feel like I've woken up this morning in an alternate universe where the medical powers freely accept the power of natural medicine." I guess he wants us to ignore the fact that the most effective natural medicines went on to become simply medicine, which scientists then went and figured out how to make in usable quantities and ultimately made more effective. I guess we'll have to forgive doctors for not realizing that one of a billion different natural compounds could be effective in a highly specific, incredibly limited manner.

At this point I had more or less abandoned the twitter argument in favor of something more productive (after all, I have a job, two cats, and a wonderful fiancée) but I couldn't help but marvel at the intricate levels of woo they've set up to sell snake oil to the masses. The amount of effort these people have gone through to appear legitimate might as well have been spent actually becoming the doctors who actually do go out into the world, test which bits of herbal medicine work and which don't, and provide a useful service to the greater population.

But then I suppose that there is always a market for snake oil, and the best pushers are those who believe it truly can perform miracles.

Remember folks, doctors (medical doctors, who went to medical school, studied medicine, learned in hospitals, and who are licensed to practice medicine) are there to help you. If St. John's Wort actually did something, and it could be proven to do something beyond the placebo effect, you'd get a prescription for it when you went in for your annual checkup. Just a thought.