(not so) rational ahmand's corner

He Does Exist

noreply@blogger.com (rational ahmand) — Sun, 15 Jun 2008 11:25:00 -0400

OK, I know I am an atheist; but I have talked to God, well actually iGod. Try him out (or is it her?). Don't expect this god to be all-knowing though. It reminds me of the strained conversations Neo had with the Oracle in the film, "The Matrix." You know, the lines uttered whenever he met the Oracle in The Matrix trilogy, where you were supposed to think something insightful and sagacious was being expressed, when it was just gibberish?

In any case, have fun talking to (i)God, after all -- he does exists. Take that disbelievers! Thanks Again Ruby.

http://www.titane.ca/concordia/dfar251/igod/main.html

~AP

New Name

noreply@blogger.com (rational ahmand) — Fri, 23 May 2008 11:38:00 -0400

As I stated in the previous post, I changed the domain name of this blog. You can now reach it at: http://www.rationalahmand.com. But, for others who haven't seen this update, if they type in the former url: http://ahmandishere.blogspot.com, then it shall still redirect them to the correct page. That's a good thing. I hope this doesn't disturb the 1-3 member readership of my blog.

I thought the change made sense, making the title and the domain name of this blog identical. And, it gives me more a feeling of proprietorship over my website.

~AP

Back In Action

noreply@blogger.com (rational ahmand) — Wed, 14 May 2008 21:10:00 -0400

Unfortunately, I have been inactive for a while. I had to get my personal life together. However, now that I am back, I have some new posts I plan to spring on here. Be on the look out for the URL to change soon as well, as I have provisionally decided to register a custom domain name that is consistent with the blog's title. I am hoping the confusion will not lose my two or three readers.

~AP

Psychological Humor part IV

noreply@blogger.com (rational ahmand) — Sun, 7 Jan 2007 02:07:00 -0500

Here's a recent psychology joke that I found:

~AP

What I Think About The 'Skins' (and other Indian sports teams)

noreply@blogger.com (rational ahmand) — Tue, 19 Dec 2006 22:25:00 -0500

For the record, I hate the Washington Redskins, and all the rest of the racist sports teams. If I hadn't a drop of American Indian blood in me, I'd still vigorously hate the team. But, I think these cartoons below speak for themselves:

(Note: You can click on these comic strips to see them full-size.)

~AP

Squirrel Intentionality

noreply@blogger.com (rational ahmand) — Mon, 11 Dec 2006 23:39:00 -0500

Scientist examines city squirrels' lives

Yahoo! News

What they've discovered is that the critters are downright crafty.

Start with their attitude toward other squirrels' food. They want it and won't hesitate to steal it.

To ward off thieves, squirrels engage in a shell game: They go through the motions of digging and pretending to jam acorns into the ground, even smoothing out the grass to make it appear as if they're covering their hiding spot, before running off with the acorns still in their mouths.

"What possible purpose could that be for other than fake out somebody watching them bury it?" said Peter Smallwood, a University of Richmond biologist.

Squirrels figure out how to outsmart devices designed to keep them away from food — something naturalist Howard Youth learned the hard way. Squirrels broke into four types of bird feeders in his Maryland yard before he found one that they couldn't penetrate. So far.

"They will try something new and eventually, if one gets it, the other ones will notice and they will figure out a way to thwart the bird feeder," Youth said.

OK, so besides these critters being really cute and entertaining to watch, they are quite clever. I tend to stare at them while walking around campus. It's hilarious how they will steal your food when your back is turned (ever see a squirrel eat pepperoni pizza?). Well, I guess it's funny unless it's your food and you're hungry.

These little guys are greedy. And according to this article, they really do lose their nuts. Oh well, they'll just steal another squirrel's nuts. I guess it's no wonder why I always see them chasing each other.

In any case, I refer to them as intentional because pace behaviorists: people who assert that only directly observable behavior can be scientifically studied, and eliminativists: people who assert that common-sense or "folk" psychology is wrong and will be replaced by an advanced neuroscience -- intentionality seems the best scientific explanation of their behavior. I.e., their behavior is "directed" in some way, presumably because they (in some sense) want food. This seems trivially true, unless you happen to meet a clever philosopher or scientist with a connectionist bias who may try to convince you otherwise. However ... "philosophical scruple should not trump good science." (This is an ironic sentence, since the person who wrote it – Quine – was against the practice of scientific psychology, as we know it today.) That's not to say there aren't other possible explanations (e.g., connectionism/PDP) but all of them seem lacking without invoking intentionality/representation.

Yes, I favor the computational/representational theory of thought (CRTT), or the now "classical" theory of mind in cognitive science because it's still the best game in town as far as cognitive science is concerned. It works well with explaining the aforementioned squirrels' behavior. And there's plenty more where that came from. Although I'm not denying CRTT has some shortcomings; but that'll have to wait for another post.

~AP

Thar's Water In Dem Hills!

noreply@blogger.com (rational ahmand) — Thu, 7 Dec 2006 21:16:00 -0500

Martian Gullies Show Traces of Flowing Water within the Past Decade

Scientific American.com

Deposits formed in Martian gullies during the past seven years suggest that liquid water exists on Mars today. Researchers have observed two downhill tracks of light-colored material that were not present in images taken by the Mars Global Surveyor spacecraft before 1999.

It's only a matter of time now. That is, only a matter of time until astronomers find microscopic organisms, such as extremophiles. I'm quite confident of that. If not on Mars, then Europa, or some other celestial object that is life-friendly.

~AP

Something Completely Random

noreply@blogger.com (rational ahmand) — Thu, 30 Nov 2006 21:53:00 -0500

Photo Highlight

Yahoo! News

This is about nothing in particular. I just thought the monkey was cute and amusing. However, there are interesting cynical jokes about society one can make in reference to this picture. I mean, as far as issues with advertising, big business, or human/monkey intelligence, etc. So, please you guys do the jokes and leave them here as comments (note bene: leave "race" out of it).

~AP

Philosophical Humor part IV

noreply@blogger.com (rational ahmand) — Thu, 16 Nov 2006 16:01:00 -0500

Well here's a new one. I saw this posted on the office door of one of my profs. and decided to find it on the web. It's not knock down funny; but I find it amusing.

http://www.rhymeswithorange.com/

~AP

Funny Contradictions part 1

noreply@blogger.com (rational ahmand) — Wed, 15 Nov 2006 12:42:00 -0500

This is a new sub-thread that I will continue to do in line with the Psychological Humor and Philosophical Humor sub-threads, in the effort to poke fun at contradictory statements and arguments that I come across. This is a much-downscaled version of what is done by The Daily Show with Jon Stewart, where he points out the inconsistencies of politcal leaders and pundits. So without further adieu...

Going to the local food co-op for food where I've sometimes worked, it was startling to find out that a very kind and usually quiet volunteer was revealed to be an obnoxious misogynist. Apparently, from the claims of current workers, he was quite the Christian Fundamentalist, walking around constantly reading the Bible. Moreover, he was known to say many disparaging things about women, such as they shouldn't drive, or they need to be with a man. He would also call the store sometimes and ask the female employees on dates. Needless to say, this got all the anarchist/emo/radical feminist co-op employees (and volunteers) panties in a bunch.

This shocked me beacuse when I worked along side him; I never saw this side revealed. In any case, what were amusing were not his conservative or sexist views, but the intolerance by workers at the co-op which was supposed to be a progressive establishment, where all are welcomed. I revealed this farce in my previous post about this co-op: How Liberal Or Conservative Are You?. It's obvious now that not all viewpoints are welcomed, but that viewpoints only to the left of the political spectrum are welcomed.

This hypocrisy is revealed in a statement by one worker who upset about (I'll say) "Bob's" blatant misogyny and discomfort he caused to many female employees. He asserted, "He is gone, bleep that he can't do that at the co-op. I reply, "Yeah he's a weirdo, but he's free to hold whatever beliefs he wants." Response, "No, not here. This is the co-op. He can't say that stuff here about women. At the co-op we're all about equality."

If that's what they are about, then cool; but they should admit they have a anarchist/feminist/socialist/vegetarian agenda to the potential employees, instead of hiding behind the façade of being an open marketplace (no pun intended) of ideas. (This was all to apparent during my job interview, I was asked what were my "food politics.")

~AP

Yes I Am Addicted

noreply@blogger.com (rational ahmand) — Thu, 9 Nov 2006 21:01:00 -0500

“Hi, everyone my name is Rational Ahmand and I have an internet addiction.” I guess this is the beginning of my twelve step program to control my newly found addiction. Which is funny, seeing that I am adamantly against viewing (too much) TV and playing video games, when it's at least more than a few hours everyday (or better, more than a few hours every week). However, the versatility of the modern PC and the internet makes it oh so hard to resist! It's an interesting hypothesis whether blogging entails having an internet addiction – a highly probable and testable claim, to be sure.

There are increasing reports of "internet addiction" among younger adults; and I suppose that I'm no different in this respect. (I use scare quotes around ‘internet addiction’ because it's still open whether this problem is a genuine addiction, and if so, if it really needs treatment. There has been little psychological research on this alleged phenomenon thus far. However, research in this area is vastly growing.) Well what can I do? Umm, I could start simply by leaving this post and doing something totally constructive and unrelated to using the computer or other multimedia devices. But, a lot of my schoolwork and research depends on regular usage of the computer, so trying to avoid it in the long term is a hasty decision. Here is a site that purports to help internet addicts: center for Internet Addiction. If anyone else is afflicted with this "addiction," maybe this could be a starting place for help. Alternatively, a cognitive therapist could be better.

What about you? Do you have a so-called internet addiction? Here's a survey: Internet Stress Survey. I make no claims of this survey's validity. You can use it merely as a starting point of interest. Until then, I’ll see (or chat with) you on the web!

~AP

Return of the Jed ... I mean, Democrats

noreply@blogger.com (rational ahmand) — Wed, 8 Nov 2006 11:49:00 -0500

At the risk of appearing to be a bigger geek than some of you already think I am ... The election results coming in today reminds me of the scenes in Star Wars episode VI: Return of the Jedi, wherein the rebel alliance finally beats the Galactic Empire. Well, at least it does so far. The control of the Senate is still up for grabs as I write this.

Yes, I probably sound biased writing this, but at this point, I really don't care.
__________________________________
Update 11/09/06: The democrats also took control of the Senate, making my goofy analogy complete.

~AP

The 'Real' Aristotle

noreply@blogger.com (rational ahmand) — Tue, 7 Nov 2006 20:59:00 -0500

Times Online

Aristotle as he really looked

A bust of Aristotle found beneath the Acropolis in Athens is the first to show the Greek philosopher with a hooked nose

Hmm, so this is what Aristotle may have looked like. No big surprise, but maybe it is to all those Afrocentrists out there who claim that he and the other Socratic philosophers (and virtually any famous person from antiquity) were black. Of course, I always lose this battle with some of my friends, because the self-deception is quite strong in them.

According to some of my pals, and others who aren't, my social beliefs are "white-washed" from my Eurocentric studies because I disbelieve that these ancient people were black. Although there is no credible evidence to support the Afrocentric claims which they otherwise avow. (Notice that I restrict the scope of 'evidence' with the modifier 'credible', to emphasize that the so-called evidence they do have is unconvincing. Afrocentrists tend to cherrypick evidence that supports their views and reject the ones that don't. To be frank, they're just practicing pseudohistory.)

Ah well, none of us are immune to irrational beliefs. Critical thinking skills, pursuing reason to wherever it may lead, seems to be a good antidote to irrationality (at least to the degree that human psychology allows us to). Aristotle and his Socratic predecessors certainly thought so.

~AP

The 'Just World' & Christianity

noreply@blogger.com (rational ahmand) — Mon, 6 Nov 2006 16:02:00 -0500

Here is something that really irritated me this morning. Why the heck do (some) Christians seem so blindly accepting of the "just world hypothesis?" This hypothesis proposes that the world is as it should be. I see friends and acquaintances constantly spewing the following statements or etching them on their web pages: "everything is how it's supposed to be," "everyday is blessed," or "God is the reason for blah blah blah." I think to myself, "Are they that naïve? Do they genuinely believe this; or are they just astoundingly ignorant of what is happening in the world?"

Religious beliefs aside, what would make them take such an absurd view of the world? I find these people to be either really stupid, or really sheltered and oblivious to hold such a patently false view of the world. Moreover, such views generate apathy towards others in bad situations. Just world believers rationalize the apparent contradictions to their view by blaming the victims, asserting that the people in bad situations somehow deserve their poor lot in life; or they think some people's suffering – we’re talking millions here, but just one person is unacceptable – is part of God's larger “plan” for us? What freaking plan? To satisfy his sadistic desires? Why does an omniperfect, omnipotent being need to use an imperfect process (e.g., some form of utilitarianism) to enact his ultimate plan? This irrational view brings on the old "problem of evil" with a vengeance.

For those not acquainted with the argument, it's basically goes (excuse my crude presentation of it): why does God allow evil to exist if he is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent? If "he" is omnibenevolent, why does he allow evil to exist when he is omnipotent and omniscient and can stop it? Can he not foresee it happening? But he's omniscient – he necessarily knows everything that has ever happened, is happening, and will ever happen. And he's necessarily all-powerful. Maybe, evil needs to exist for humans to practice morality. OK, maybe, but why does there have to be so much of it? Isn't just a few examples enough? Better yet, can’t he just give us an innate concept of evil? After all, isn't he necessarily all-powerful? So (provisionally) accepting that God is omniscient and omnipotent, should we still view him as omnibenevolent? Well, maybe evil doesn't actually exist. Can you really take that claim seriously? It's patently false. Trudging through all the other details, the likely conclusion: God doesn't exist (or he exists, but he ain't the God of Judeo-Christian doctrine).

So the just world hypothesis resurrects (no pun intended) this old argument against God's existence. Ironically, it seems the most damming problem for some ordinary believers. However, to philosophically trained people, it isn't that pernicious. Modal logic (e.g., defining the scope of necessarily p vs. p necessarily), "loosens" the hook on God as far as the all-knowing part. Well at least in all logically possible worlds (i.e., counterfactual conditions). In this world, he still owes us a big explanation for the overwhelming evil.

Leaving that problem aside however, it seems that either many theists on careful reflection of these false assertions would (I hope) probably reject the just world hypothesis, or if held on to, then it would probably reveal they're disturbing lack of touch with the real world.

Addendum: I thought this quote out of the new book, Letter to a Christian Nation by the philosopher Sam Harris, seemed appropiate to this post:

The truth is that many who claim to be transformed by Christ's love are deeply, even murderously, intolerant of criticism... such hatred draws considerable support from the Bible.

~AP

Eat Your Veggies

noreply@blogger.com (rational ahmand) — Sun, 29 Oct 2006 12:55:00 -0500

Study: Vegetables may keep brains young

Yahoo! News

CHICAGO - New research on vegetables and aging gives mothers another reason to say "I told you so." It found that eating vegetables appears to help keep the brain young and may slow the mental decline sometimes associated with growing old.

I'm taking a break from religion bashing (I don’t actually consider it religion bashing per se) to talk about something tasty – vegetables! OK, I'll admit I wasn't enthralled with vegetables when I was younger, but I did really like some. I liked kale and mashed potatoes a lot. As I matured, and did a stint as a vegetarian, I came to love vegetables. But for those who don't, this study reported in the journal Neurology claims that eating vegetables caused older people to be mental sharper than others who ate little to no vegetables. Eat up senior citizens. This is one in many studies giving mounting evidence that eating plenty of vegetables, ceteris paribus, staves off mental decline.

After eating for a while at my school’s co-op, I was giving an A+ physical by my physician. She actually told me I was too healthy, and to go eat a McDonald’s hamburger! Unbeknownst to her, I do often pig out on junk food, but I balance it out with pigging out on vegetarian meals because I find them equally tasty. Hmm, interesting … maybe the vegetarians are on to something after all. This gives me incentive to go pig out at the local co-op today. So, later everyone – I’m feeling hungry!

~AP

YouTube Atheism Finale

noreply@blogger.com (rational ahmand) — Sat, 28 Oct 2006 10:43:00 -0400

Here's the last set of atheist videos from YouTube that I wanted to share (at least for right now). There are many other atheist-related videos on the website though. Again, I want to put my disclaimer that these videos don't necessarily represent my views. But I agree with some of the points made, even if I don't in the way in which they are presented.

Without giving away the content of these videos, I will say it seems that the creator has a naïve view of epistemology and the psychology of belief-formation. Moreover, his expository of Christian doctrine neglects how psychologically comforting it is to believe that no matter what happens to you, there's someone who will always be there for you and has the power to make it better. Nor, does he account for the fact that self-deception may mask what only seems to be a genuine belief. It's hard to know what our genuine beliefs are without careful reflection; and it’s hard to simply "choose" what we want to sincerely believe. Now, after that minor criticism caveat, enjoy!

P.S. If you disagree with me and/or the content of these videos or the previously posted ones, that's cool. But don't be like some other previous commenters that merely yell, "Burn in hell!" That’s lame; be more creative. Think out what you disagree with, because your contention may have merit. Come on, you don’t want to be the raging nut leaving idiotic comments on people's blogs, do you? Besides, it should be obvious that since I'm atheist and materialist, such attempts to upset me will be ineffective. And taken out of a religious context, it becomes clear that the belief in “hell” is utterly ridiculous.

~AP

Something To Ruin Your Halloween

noreply@blogger.com (rational ahmand) — Fri, 27 Oct 2006 00:40:00 -0400

Math vs. vampires: vampires lose

World Science

If vampires—corpses that rise up to suck the blood of the living—sound biologically implausible to you, you’re not alone. They exist purely in legend, as virtually all scientists agree.

But for any vampire believers undissuaded by biological facts, a professor has come up with a second proof of their unreality, using math.

If vampires ever existed in the forms in which movies and books portray them, they would have quickly wiped out humanity long ago, according to physics professor Costas Efthimiou of the University of Central Florida in Orlando, Fla.

Well I don't think this actually ruins anyone's Halloween; but it may, if you believe in the infamous monsters associated with the holiday. Vampires, which inter alia, assuming they actually existed, would have wiped out humanity by now if they did. So there would be no need for Blade. The scientists in the article above have also explained what I have told friends for years about why the belief in vodou "curses" is mostly bunk. A schmuck who poisons a person with a neurotoxin from puffer fish, tetrodotoxin, can achieve the manifestation of a zombie-like state on some hapless victim. In addition, the belief in zombies is communally reinforced in Haitian and other similar cultures that practice vodou. (The view that all vodou practitioners can [and will] invoke a zombie curse onto someone is suggestively racist and xenophobic against Afro-Caribbean religious systems.)

Philosophers have their own "zombies" that they talk about. However, they’re of a different type than the concept of vodou zombies. In philosophy (particularly, philosophy of mind), “zombies” are beings postulated in gedanken (or thought) experiments that are utterly indistinguishable from human beings in behavior, looks, and speech, but lack any form of consciousness.

Of course, some philosophers think if it quacks like a duck and looks like a duck – it is a duck. But I’m unsure if that’s true. After all, duck decoys look like ducks and sound like ducks, but they definitely aren’t ducks! Or else, duck hunting would be cruel and absurd, not to mention a waste of time. (It still may be cruel and absurd; but that’s a different subject.) That doesn’t necessarily mean concept {zombie} is actually coherent or plausible. Nevertheless, it takes more than a simple behaviorist or superficialist account to refute this reoccurring notion in philosophy.

More relevantly, these zombie attacks are not the knockdown arguments they’re cracked up to be against physicalism – the view that everything that actually exists is physical. Indeed, some physicalists use these arguments to support their views. Additionally, these arguments are railed against functionalism – the view that mental states and processes are determined by the functions they play in the mind/brain – especially, because some people aren’t comfortable with the idea that, machines could, in principle, become conscious ceteris paribus.¹ But I digress, as usual.

In any case, irrational beliefs – in monsters or otherwise – are notoriously detail resistant; so "true" (self-deceived) believers will unlikely be daunted by disconfirming evidence and logical reasoning.
__________________________________________
¹This "ceteris paribus" would be the most difficult matter to overcome. However, if strong A.I. (i.e., artificial intelligence) is true, then it can be met.

~AP

Hello 1984!

noreply@blogger.com (rational ahmand) — Wed, 25 Oct 2006 19:44:00 -0400

I don't have much to add here. I think this video clip speaks for itself. Well, the implications of what's being talked about here, makes me reluctant to even right something against King, err, I mean President Bush. I will assert one thing – Congress has failed the American people miserably. (Yet these jerks claim to be so American, but are so quick to trash some of our deepest held values.) I hope people are pleased at the leaders they've chosen to represent them.

Boys and girls, can you say "Sta-lin?" Gee, Canada is looking really good right about now.

~AP

Rethinking the "Principle of Charity"

noreply@blogger.com (rational ahmand) — Mon, 23 Oct 2006 22:47:00 -0400

Remember when I said sometimes I might have to modify or even refute previous notions or beliefs I avowed? Well, if you don't, here's your chance to see it in action. I'm trying to stay afloat on Neurath's boat baby! I will warn people in advance that this may come off as totally trivial or pedantic to you. If so, enjoy some of my other recent posts below. Or go to my archives or web links.

In any case, some of you may have seen me evoke the so-called principle of charity: being charitable in translating other's utterances when you're unsure of their meaning, on several occasions in this blog. I thought this was a bedrock, epistemic principle of preserving rationality in other's arguments. However, after a recent lecture in my proseminar on cognitive science, I have taken this principle to be quite dubious. Don't get me wrong; there's nothing wrong about being fair to other people's views, but the principle of charity asserts something much more contentious.

First mentioned by Neil L. Wilson, the principle was given fame by the likes of philosophers W.V. Quine and Donald Davidson in somewhat different formulations. Not being one of his strongest arguments, Quine being a radical behaviorist (the position that only directly, observable behavior [or dispositions to behave] could be studied scientifically), used this principle as a heuristic device for people to translate each other. Or in his classical example, to translate the utterances of some natives who speak a different language that shouted, "Gavagi!" Anyway, Quine was a skeptic of meaning. So the soundness (or lack thereof) of his arguments had strong implications for psychology, since without meaning we didn't have representations, concepts, propositions, and the like. In short, without meaning, we didn't have cognitive psychology – the main research program of scientific psychology today.

Nowadays, behaviorism has been scraped as the paradigm of psychological research because it ultimately failed; (ironically) largely through its increasingly accurate measurements of behavior that couldn't be accounted for by simply behavioristic explanations (e.g., spatial navigation in rats, the flight of honeybees, or language learning in humans). To be fair to behaviorists though, where else can you start in a science of the mind, but by studying behavior? Indeed, the error is to assume that mental phenomena cannot be studied by virtue of observable behavior or dispositions, and/or ex hypothesi all that exists is observable behavior and dispositions, not any of the intentional kind. But I digressed.

According to Quine (if I understand him correctly), we don't actually capture any meaning by the principle of charity; but our analytical hypotheses (i.e., arbitrary stipulations), gives us an "air" of determinacy to other's translations. Yet, if you think that claiming that other people don’t express any meaning in any of their sentences and words they utter; or that normally we can't know what they actually mean if they do so is weird – then bingo, you win! Nevertheless, being a behaviorist, Quine would acknowledge there is a "stimulus meaning," which is merely your degree of assention or dissention (saying "yes" or "no") to some stimulus, but that's about it. (For sake of brevity, I won't go into an expository of his view on observation sentences – which is the closest he will allow for there being some objectivity in translation.)

So yeah, as the principle of charity stands, it appears dubious because we don't actually use it in translation; and it's rather vague what someone means by the term 'rationality' that is presupposed by the so-called principle. Admittedly, I throw around the term 'rationality' a lot in this blog. But I use it in the sense that Georges Rey asserts is the property of a propositional attitude by virtue of holding certain kinds of relations to evidence, other propositional attitudes and action – which, is what Quine wants to deny in using the principle of charity. (After all, these attitudes would imply intentionality.) However, that doesn't necessarily change the fact that these are still fuzzy terms, and presupposing, I (or any one else for that matter) actually have clear and distinct meanings of these terms when envoking the principle of charity, or other equally dubious epistemic notions, is tendentious.

~AP

A Quick Religious Rant

noreply@blogger.com (rational ahmand) — Sun, 22 Oct 2006 13:30:00 -0400

It seems the higher in religiosity or more conservative someone is the worst their judgments and decision-making on important matters are. These guys really annoy me. Unsurprisingly, there is supporting evidence for my contention to give legitimacy to my frustration. The post below with the YouTube videos on atheism also addresses this point. Moreover, it's not that highly religious people necessarily make bad decisions or reason poorly on some event that gets me frustrated; it's that they find these bad judgments or decisions and the negative consequences of following them as perfectly rational, which is upsetting.

Yet, I freely admit that it's rather hard to construct an operational definition of 'religiosity', inter alia, for a study measure showing a causal connection from religiosity to lower intelligence (or IQ).¹ There are various studies showing strong positive correlations between high religiosity and lower education level or lower IQ, but a strong relationship between these two variables is not convincing evidence of any (significant) causal relationship. So, I wouldn't take it to the wall for this view.

In any case, I guess I should give an example to avoid being vague. (Didn't your grade school teacher warn you about that too?) One example was when I found myself going to a "Gospel" Happy Hour. Something I've done on multiple occasions because I enjoyed the performances and eating free food. But the last time the event was hosted, it really ruffled my feathers. There was a woman promoting her ministry through a fashion show/ theatrical presentation of her views. She was promoting an abstinence only program and a youth ministry that touted Christian "values." They also were promoting t-shirts and her new book about her journey to becoming self-righteous.

The minister was also a practicing physician, what specialty I cannot recall exactly. I think she was an anesthiologist. But although her professinal background seemed irrelevant to the topic, I think she stated it to give the implication that since she was highly educated, she must've known what she's talking about. Or, more charitably, perhaps she stated this to merely show the audience that those of a scientific bent can still be devout Christians.

She declared proudly how she was "thirty years old and still a virgin." Well, good for her! Wearing your sexual frustration on your sleeve as a badge of honor seems ridiculous. If you want to live like that, fine, but I don't care and it doesn't impress me. Even more ridiculous is her ministry's attempt to "re-virginize" its members, through following abstinence, when they join it. As if not being a virgin made you less of a good person.

If that wasn't annoying enough, the minister also declared how once one of her female members joined, the member renounced her homosexuality. Now I'm thinking, {oh f*#$^&@ please!} If the woman was actually lesbian, she is likely to be just repressing her true sexual orientation. But I guess that doesn't matter anyway, if you're going to be abstinent. However, what upsets me is the fact that this anesthiologist/minister would take such an unsophisticated view of homosexuality, thrown out years ago by all credible psychiatrists and professional psychologists. I remarked to philosopher Allen Stairs (cf. to my remark in this previous post) that this was roughly analogous to me joining some church and no longer being black.

This was a subtle discrimination against gays; and although I'm not gay, bigotry of this sort against any minority group offends me. Moreover, many sexual health studies have shown abstinence only programs are unlikely to be effective. It upsets me more that such obvious falsehoods are coming from someone whom should know better.
___________________________
¹I am fully aware that using IQ scores as a valid measure of intelligence is controversial in itself. However, since this is a problem for all of educational and psychological testing, it would be unfair to make this general psychometric problem, sui generis to measures of religiosity and intelligence. It does call into question whether what we're assessing with IQ scores genuinely constitutes (all of) "intelligence;" but the inverse relationship between IQ (or education) and religiosity still holds.

~AP

More YouTube Atheism

noreply@blogger.com (rational ahmand) — Sat, 21 Oct 2006 04:08:00 -0400

These videos, unlike the others below this post, are a bit easier to watch (well, unless you're deeply religious). I say easier to watch, in the sense that there isn't anything graphic that could be disturbing. Enjoy:

~AP

Atheism a' la YouTube!

noreply@blogger.com (rational ahmand) — Sat, 21 Oct 2006 03:13:00 -0400

Here's some interesting videos I randomly saw on YouTube.com. Caveat: these assertions are not necessarily what I think or believe, but some of the points made are pretty darn close to them.

I must warn readers though, that some of the images may be disturbing. So take that into consideration before deciding to watch the videos below. Right, well on with the show:

(P.S. That is not me on this video, just in case you thought so. Besides, I don't wear football jerseys)

And last, but not least, the atheist bulldog Richard Dawkins:

~AP

Universe Looks Like An Egg

noreply@blogger.com (rational ahmand) — Sun, 15 Oct 2006 19:49:00 -0400

http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/061009_mystery_monday.html

Space.com

Instead of being perfectly round like a globe, the universe might be a bit stretched in shape like a pill.

The newly proposed shape could be caused by a magnetic field that pervades the entire cosmos or defects in the fabric of space and time, researchers said.

Well, it isn't exactly shaped like an egg (or a pill as they claim in the article). The illustration above is just a new sketch representing how the universe looks after including all the light gathered from the oldest times of the universe (13.7 billion years is a lot of traveling!). This is akin to the representation of the earth that a globe yields.

I think it's still safe to say that most astrophysicists cling to the spherical model since it coheres better with current theory and most of the data. And since I have no deep background in this field, I'll have to rely on the informed opinion of the astrophysics community-at-large and not a few mavericks. Nevertheless, their hypothesis that the shape of the universe is ellipsoidal is still interesting.

~AP

Just Click It!

noreply@blogger.com (rational ahmand) — Fri, 13 Oct 2006 00:38:00 -0400

By the way, in case you haven't been immature enough to just starting clicking on things in this webpage to see what it does, then start now! Every link or button on this blog serves a practical purpose. The arrows to the right of each post title allow you to navigate between each post. (Although, I'm still tweaking some of its functions.) There is also another option to navigate between posts using the horizontal arrows to the far, upper right (or upper left, depending on your browser) of the webpage.

Moreover, you can click on the permalinks or the post titles to go to the individual, post pages. To the very bottom of the webpage, you can use the links down there to go back to the home page, or if you're on an archive page, you can click the arrows at the bottom of the page to navigate between the next or previous posts as well. (You can also get back to the home page by clicking on the title of my blog: rational ahmand.) There's some other nifty stuff down there as well. Explore!

In addition, if during the process of reading a post you think I'm using too much jargon for your understanding (or taste), then click on any word and it will instantly open a page to define it for you. Another way to get more information is to go to the post page (via the clicking the post title, the permalink, or using the internal search engines) and you will see "links to this post" at the bottom of each post. I have links – wherever available – that link to other posts that I've previously wrote on the same subject.

Or, in the same area, you may (eventually) see other links to other bloggers who've linked to me. On all of the post pages, you will see "related posts from blogosphere" to check other websites. Caveat, these "related" posts are not always relevant or related to the content of my posts. But they're supposed to be.

Alternatively, you can click on the labels or go to the side bar and use my de.lici.ous tags to see related posts. In the righthand side bar, you can also catch the most recent comments someone posted, or click on the different categories to open (or close) a list of web links to various subjects related to this website. Check out the latest news events as well.

If you know a great website, maybe you're own, feel free to create a link in my posts or trackback to me. I’m open to having reciprocal links to other bloggers’ websites. That is, assuming it suits certain minimal criteria – which exclude splogs, or blogs with weird, bizarre, or pseudoscientific content.

Lastly, I think it's obvious I put a translation device after each post for some non-English speakers, who still want to read my blog. Hey, don’t blame for any mistranslation, as I didn’t create the program; take that up with Google. Yet, it seems to preserve most of the semantic content in my posts. Yes, I know I have talked about my modifications before in, The Editopia Has Arrived. However, I neglected to mention some of these previously new options. Hmm, I may make this post standard reading for people who have questions about how to navigate through my blog or questions about what some of the gadgets do. There's still more options available that I haven't talked about, but you should let the kid out and try them for yourself.

~AP

Reasons I'd Go To Church But Still Not Believe

noreply@blogger.com (rational ahmand) — Thu, 12 Oct 2006 20:02:00 -0400

Just a heads up: I may write a few more posts that are religiously based during this week, and possibly during the following one. I guess it's because, a lot of religious phenomena has surrounded me lately. I don't mean of the supernatural kind though.

Anyway, one thing I've thought about, and talked to with other, atheists and theist alike, was some of the cool things about church. (As a kid, I doubt I'd think I would utter something like that. But I digress.) One of the things that I was curious about was attending a Sunday mass at a Catholic church. Since I was brought up in mainly traditional black, Christian churches (and I think a Muslim one at an even earlier age), I felt left out from the less flamboyant styles of worship.

Moreover, the beliefs and practices of the Roman Catholic church seemed more reverent to me – faith qua faith – compared to the black Baptist and A.M.E. churches that I attended as a child. These annoying places, where I grew to detest seeing the old women in their garish outfits; listening to the sensationalistic sermons; people "catching" the Holy Spirit; the multiple tithing in one service; the old, dreary slave-based hymnals (or instead, the frenzied hoopin' and hollerin') ; and my parents constant prodding to get "saved."

Did I mention the multiple tithing? Why? I think that, inter alia, if you're going to donate a portion of your life-savings to God (I guess to pay the bills in heaven), then at least do so in the way of your choosing – not necessarily to the church. These credulous people could have been saving away money to put their kids through college! Not to get into a rant here (sorry again Dennis Miller), but I perceive the proliferation of many black churches within the inner cities as a scourge that's virtually as bad as the rampant liquor stores and drug-dealing. Well, with some qualification of course. I just don't see the point of them being so widespread throughout low-income urban areas.¹ It seems they're exploiting the inner city folk almost as much as the needless multiple bodegas and gun shops.

In any case, despite all my misgivings about black churches, going to a Catholic church, and now that I think of it going to a Jewish synagogue as well, seems interesting – just for experience’s sake.

Besides that, I recall reading some material from one of my amusing philosophy professors, Georges Rey, who wrote in his essay, Meta-Atheism, how he enjoyed church for its aesthetic qualities. Viz., he enjoyed things such as religious music and art. And after today, I spoke with another prof., Allen Stairs; he asserted how going to art galleries was such a wonderful experience that it could be likened to sex. I don't know about that, but we agreed that religious experiences could be of the same ilk; and that atheists shouldn't come down so hard on "believers." So these sorts of thoughts led me to think that church can be enjoyable for cultural reasons, for social get-togethers with friends, and probably for other relevant reasons, apart from religious devotion.
________________________________________
¹Well, actually, ex hypothesi, I have a pretty good idea why. Perhaps, like the other two institutions mentioned above (and arguably several others), the churches' constant draining of personal income and mental pacification of the black community contributes to its self-destruction. However, I won't take it to the wall for this claim; nor shall I flesh out an argument for it here.

~AP