Skeptical Iconoclast

From a certain point of view

2013-07-18T14:07:00.000-07:00

Sometimes it takes me a long time to put together a thought in my head to the point where I can express it coherently to others. This one has taken me most of my career to figure out, but it all finally clicked into place a little while ago.

For as long as I've worked in news there's always been a response I haven't quite been able to articulate to the sentiment I often heard from others about how depressing the news always is. How all it is is one bad event after another, strung out over 60 minutes of television. While in most cases and on many days I can certainly agree with the reasoning behind such thoughts I always knew that that wasn't really true. That yes, a lot of bad happens and we report on a lot of it, but I never felt the same sense of doom from the news as so many others seemed to.
I was never able to articulate my feelings about it though so for years I let it go, even as something in the back of my head couldn't totally agree with it.

That was until recently. I was having a conversation about this subject and was again about to find myself agreeing that yes, the news is indeed largely negative when I had the epiphany it seems I'd been waiting to have for a long time.

There is just as much, if not more, optimism and inspiration to be found on the evening news than there ever is despair and sorrow. It all comes down to how you choose to look at things and how wide a focus you view what you're seeing.

Here's what I mean.

For every tragedy you see splashed across the screen there are just as many acts of heroism, bravery and compassion, if not more. While you may see a horrible auto accident with one person gravely injured there are several paramedics trying to save that life. For every shooting there are dozen of police officers who have dedicated their lives to protecting the public as best they can. For every missing person there may be dozens or hundreds of people willing to take time to help in the search. I could go on and on.

Yes, there is a lot of bad in this world and a lot of it gets reported, but when you look at those reports, within every single one you will find people who are doing whatever is in their capacity to help in whatever way they can.

Compassion, kindness and love are the human defaults, that's why to such a large degree they've become simply part of the background we don't even see anymore. People doing bad things are still such an exception to that default that that is why it makes the news.

So while we may talk about the depressing stuff primarily on the news, I suggest you try looking at the pictures from a different point of view. Look for the good being done and I guarantee, you'll find many more things to be optimistic about, rather than dismayed.

Canada's Dirty Healthcare Secret

2011-09-05T17:55:00.000-07:00

We have a problem with our health care here in Canada. It's something that the more I ask the more I've learned that this is a problem that most Canadians have encountered in one form or the other. That problem is the companies controlling our extended health benefits and their systemic issue of them delaying or outright denying coverage.

Let me start by laying out my particular situation. As some of you may be aware, I have a chronic disease called Crohn's. It's an autoimmune disease that effects my digestive system and can be incredibly debilitating and painful, usually requiring several surgeries over the course of a patients lifetime. After having surgery myself in 1998 and suffering a crippling bout in 2001 I've been largely symptom free, in large part due to a drug that at the time was in human clinical trials, of which I was a part. Since then the drug has been approved for use in Canada, so therefore it's now a medication that I have to pay for.

This is where our health care system has a problem. For most Canadians, medications are not covered by our basic medical plans provided by the government. Which means we pay for them out of our own pockets. Granted most Provincial governments have programs which subsidise some of the cost, but not all. This is where private insurance is introduced to our system. Most people, either individually or in most cases through their employer have extended coverage which includes in most cases the cost of all prescription drugs. Can you see where the problem is yet?

That's right, you've got private corporations, typically publicly traded companies, responsible for paying for the public's medications. Being a private company their first and main responsibility is not the welfare of it's clients, but rather profitability. One of the easiest ways to maintain that profitability is to pay out as little as possible for medications.

Now it's not as bad here as it is in the States, for example. Here if your doctor prescribes you a drug, legally they have to pay for it, which sadly is not the case in America. So how they get around that here is by delaying payment as long as possible.

It's a story I've heard far too often from too many people. They get a prescription and submit a claim to their insurer only to find there's a "problem" with their paperwork, or they never received the claim, the list of excuses goes on and on. For most this is little more than an annoyance as their drugs typically cost relatively little, usually under 100 dollars. But the strategy here, as far I can tell is exactly that. to annoy most people to the point where it's not worth re-submitting the same forms over and over again. They'd rather forget the 50 bucks and get on with their lives.

But what about those whose medications are necessary to their day to day wellness and which cost considerably more?

This is where I come back to my story. That drug that has kept me healthy for the last 10 years ain't cheap. In fact it costs about 36,000 for a years supply. It's largely subsidised by the Provincial government here, leaving my insurer, Manulife, to pick up the remainder, which is just shy of 10,000 bucks. Because of it's price, the government requires I go back to my doctor once a year in order to assess if I still require the medication, and re-apply for provincial coverage. Something that to me seems perfectly reasonable.

Whether the government decides to cover me or not, Manulife is still required to pay for my treatment. The catch? They need either my approval or rejection forms from the government. This is where the stall tactics come into play. I'm lucky that there is an advocacy group for patients on humira, (my medication) who handle all my paperwork and navigating all the bureaucracy for me, and they received my government approval at the beginning of August. Since then they've attempted FOUR times to get that paperwork to Manulife, the first three times Manulife claims to have never received it. I'll know tomorrow if the fourth attempt was received. So all said and done It's been over a month since I've been on my medication and could possibly be even longer. All so Manulife can save a buck.

In my case it's not so dire. I'll survive with only minor complications that should clear up shortly after I start treatment again. What I wonder though is how many people are being treated in the same manner whose health is in much worse shape than me? What about people who need chemotherapy, organ rejection drugs or HIV treatment? Are they getting the runaround as well?

Maybe it's time for us to put our health in the hands of those whose goal is to maintain our well-being instead of maintaining a healthy bottom line.

American Style Government? Yes Please.

2011-05-03T12:41:00.000-07:00

So today's musings are courtesy of last nights election results, in which a party that received only 40% of the vote will form a majority government with essentially dictatorial powers until the next election. I think it's time we change how we do things in Canada, don't you?

Next week, something frivolous. Promise.

Not Suitable For All Ages?

2011-04-25T14:57:00.000-07:00

Well things in my computer related world seem to be back on track, so here's this Mondays rant. And in a way my computer melting contributed to my thoughts on todays subject.

Nothing Today

2011-04-18T15:59:00.000-07:00

Due to some wonderful computer problems I won't be getting a video up today. The problem has been resolved, but I've been dealing with that and other things, so my Monday rant will be postponed until tomorrow.

I'll try and find something that irks me in the meantime. Something tells me that shouldn't be too difficult ;)

I Don't Know And Am Happy About It

2011-04-11T13:28:00.000-07:00

Today's little ditty is a bit all over the place, but then again, so is my mind. Enjoy.

And keep circulating those tapes.

Religious Sensitivity

2011-04-04T14:12:00.000-07:00

Going back to the roots of this blog with today's post, in which I'm perplexed by what offends religious folk.

It's Election Time

2011-03-28T17:15:00.000-07:00

This week I kinda go off on all those complaining about having another federal election in Canada.

And there's also a cameo by Moira about halfway in.

Games and PC's are beginning to piss me off

2011-03-21T14:08:00.000-07:00

My regularly scheduled rant was interrupted today by what is a far more pressing matter...

A Minor Diatribe

2011-03-14T16:23:00.000-07:00

So I think I may in fact make this a weekly thing, putting my thoughts down on video. Sometimes I find it easier to get my point across and sometimes I find it just more fun. So here it is, my exasperation with anti evolutionist thought.

Thoughts, Now with Video!!

2011-03-07T15:34:00.000-08:00

So I thought I'd skip the usual format and dive into the the world of vlogging. Not too sure if I'll continue, but I figure any way I can get myself motivated to get more content up here can't be a bad thing. So it it is, my inaugural rant. Enjoy.

Why So Hostile?

2011-02-13T17:39:00.000-08:00

It's a question I find myself asking the screen whenever I see coverage of protesters rallying against whatever it is they're rallying against. I understand for some of those present at these protests there is a lot of passion for the cause, but still, why so hostile?

How often do you see this scene? Protesters marching, yelling and disrupting the day of average people, usually with nothing to do with the subject of the protest? Quite a bit right? The latest I saw was a protest regarding the lack of social housing in Vancouver, all well and good until they protest took over a community center, shouting and intimidating the children that were there. The point of that was what exactly?

And that's what always annoys me the most about such things. The way you're going to achieve anything in a democracy is to get the support of the majority of voters. And who tend to make up the largest block of voters? Middle class folk in their middle ages and older. So how exactly does being a disruptive punk with no clear message get those people on your side? Oh right, it doesn't.

The best way to get through to people is with calm rational debate, presented clearly so your point can be understood. This doesn't mean protests can't take place, but make them civil, respectful and most of all coherent and I'm willing to bet they'd be far more effective than the typical offensive mess we tend to see on our streets or art gallery lawn.

Now I'm no genius, I know many others have arrived at this conclusion, which makes me wonder why it is this type of demonstration is so rarely seen. My best guess, most people involved aren't interested in seeing any of the causes they supposedly support gain any traction, but are more interested in causing mayhem and making a spectacle of themselves.

And to those who think you need this type of protest to get attention, be it from the public or the media, you're wrong. You tell the media you're having a protest, they'll be there, trust me. If you can hand deliver a story to them they'll show up every time, as it beats looking for one themselves. And when they cover your protest and can only present it as a non disruptive peaceful one, the viewers at home will be far more willing to listen to your point of view.

So to the people who do truly care about these causes I say this. Take back your protests, make these punks know they aren't welcome to march for your cause and get your point across without them.

Religion or not?

2011-01-25T12:32:00.000-08:00

There's an argument I tend to see and hear fairly often these days whenever debate over religion heats up between a believer and an atheist. It comes in many different flavours, but it typically boils down to the atheist mocking the religious only to be countered with the claim that atheism is itself a religion.

So is atheism a religion? well, no. But before I give you my reasons why it isn't, I'd first like to address these kinds of arguments. It always reminds me of two squabbling children, where one kid is mocking the other about, oh let's say his dad being a crook that knocked over a 7-11. The other child counters by accusing the other child's father of cheating on his taxes. As if the fact that he too is a criminal ceases all conversation, despite the fact that one crime is far worse than the other. Regardless though, it's a pointless argument that typically only devolves from there.

So taken back to the fight between adults, the accusation that the atheist is in fact a follower of a type of religion is played as a trump card. If atheism is religion too, then you have to stop mocking mine, I guess is the logic there...

Let's take the position for a moment that atheism IS a religion, does that somehow mean the questioning or doubt of other faiths ceases? I don't think so. I don't know many Christians who, because they're Christian accept that the Norse of Greek pantheons are just as valid as theirs.

If that's the case then why exactly does this approach get taken so often? I don't really know, however it does seem to be a type of logic that certain religious folk possess. I've seen it with the fight against evolution as well. The reasoning seems to follow that if just one bit of data is incorrect, it all must be spurious. While I can understand where this train of thought comes from as religion, unlike science does fall apart when it's writings or history is proven false. So if it's true for their religion, it follows it must be true of everything else. At least that's the only reason that makes sense to me.

But getting back to my earlier point, atheism is not a religion, although I think I see where the assertion that it is comes from.

Merriam-Webster has several definitions of religion, but I think the only one that could apply here is the following;

re·li·gion
noun \ri-ˈli-jən\
Definition of RELIGION

4: a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith

Now at first glance I can see how one could apply that definition to an atheist, specifically the type that state unequivocally that, "There is no god." That statement is one that can only be made on faith, most would claim. To say you know there is no god requires the same faith that stating there is one does.

Here's the thing though, when pressed, almost all atheists will admit that they don't know for certain, but rather the odds are so stacked in favour of no deity existing that it's practically the same thing.

It's a shorthand we're all guilty of, how often have you claimed something to be impossible, where in actuality you should say something along the line of, the odds of that occurring are so statistically unlikely as to be almost certainly impossible. Which phrase would you rather use in casual conversation?

So it's not a matter of faith when we state there is no god, it's just the same shorthand being applied.

So is there any faith involved in atheism, no. Just as there is no belief, in fact that's the basic definition, without belief.

But in conclusion, (and thanks for staying with me so far as I digressed) I really hate to see discussions of belief come to this point because typically when it does it shuts down any real communication. I'd urge calm and reason in any religious conversation, whether you're a believer or not. The only way someone will listen is if they're not being shouted at or mocked, I find.

Atheists and Religious Entertainment

2011-01-11T16:58:00.001-08:00

Now this is strictly from my own personal observations and I'd be curious to see how common this is, but in my experience, the folks who seem to enjoy movies, TV and other forms of entertainment with highly religious overtones or even with religion as the central theme, are atheists and agnostics.

It's something that at first glance seems rather counter-intuitive, but the more I thought on it, the more it started to make sense to me.

Here's the thing, most of the out of the closet atheists I know are pretty well read and educated about religion, more specifically Christianity. This is largely out of necessity, we find ourselves in debates rather frequently about the merits, validity and inconsistencies of the bible, so we have to know our stuff. This has led to a familiarity wit the subject material, so it's easier for us to follow any stories that use the bible for inspiration. We know the major players and the events referenced most of the time. In fact, I'll go out on a limb here and say in a lot of cases we're more familiar with the subject than most believers out there. Again though, this is based on my own experiences. In a lot of ways it's just like seeing any movie based on a book you've read, because you've read it, odds are you're more likely to watch.

But here's the thing that I think really makes atheists enjoy this genre more than those of faith... We know it's based on fiction. Let me explain. When you go see a movie or TV adaptation of a book, you rarely want to see exactly what's in the book. Part of the enjoyment is to see what kind of spin the scriptwriter will put on familiar material. A good example of this is the recent Walking Dead TV series. I love the comic, but they've taken the core concept and plot and gone in some different directions and fleshed out characters that were rather one dimensional in the books. It's nice to see someone take the cannon of an existing series in a new and interesting direction.

However, if you're someone of faith and you're watching a program that takes your holy book and turns it on it's ear, you're less likely to enjoy it because unlike me, it's perhaps challenging what you perceive to be true, while I'm just enjoying a different take on a old story.

Now before anyone goes and gets offended, I'm not saying this applies to everyone of faith, I'm sure there are tons of religious folk out there that enjoy a good blasphemous bit of entertainment too. But again, in my experience, it's the atheists out there that seem to be able to enjoy it more.

Life without Starbucks

2011-01-10T14:40:00.000-08:00

So I made the decision this weekend I was done with getting my coffee from Starbucks or any other coffee shop for that matter. The reason behind it was quite simple, money.
I was spending $5.25 a day for my six shot venti americano so with some quick math that adds up to over 150 bucks a month.

Seems like a pretty simple decision, right? Well not so much for me. I'm a creature of convienience, so it was always easier for me to get my coffee on the go, especially since there's a Starbucks right across the street so in my mind it always was the more appealing option to do that than brew my own at home, what with all the grinding, cleaning etc. Also I quickly became addicted to the strong punch of that much caffiene in one does, rather than getting it over a longer period of time with drip coffee.

But I finally decided to take the plunge. In order to help me stay on track I made the 200 dollar investment of getting a good coffee maker, the kind that all you do is push a button and it grinds and brews the amount you want at the strength you want. I figure the easier it is to do, the more likely I'll stick to it. Seems like a large investment at first, but really it should pay for itself in under 2 months.

So I'm onto day three, and so far I've not regretted my decision to give up the pricy coffee, but seeing as I'm a person that doesn't do change very well and gives up old habits hard, this should be an interesting month...

Where are we headed and does it matter?

2011-01-10T00:46:00.000-08:00

In the past few weeks there's been a spate of articles focusing on what makes a geek, what constitutes geek culture and where is it headed. Probably the two best pieces were written by Harry Knowles of AICN and Patton Oswalt in an editorial in WIRED.

My take on it all? I think they're both close to mark, but where the future is headed I think will be something in between. I think geek culture will ultimately fade back into being the picked on little sibling of the pop culture family. That being said, thanks to social networks we've discovered that there are a millions more of us out there than we ever thought, so being a geek will never be that obscure badge of honour that it once was.

Ultimately though, calling this the "Golden Age" or "Downfall" of geek culture I think is largely irrelevant. Being a geek has never been about being in the mainstream or an outcast. I don't think being a geek is to be obsessed with the minutia of a a given topic either. Being a geek is ultimately about passion as far as I'm concerned, a passion that goes beyond the typical.

What I mean by that is it's something that when you see, read or listen to for the first time you know, just know that this is something that will be a lifelong part of who you are. For me, like many of my generation, it was Star Wars. I don't remember much from that age, but I can recall with great detail seeing that film almost 30 years ago.

While it's been nice to have the things I'm most passionate about enjoy the type of mainstream popularity it is, at the end of the day I don't really care. I'll enjoy the ride while it lasts. But when this ends, as all fashions do, I'll continue to be the geek I've always been. Because to me, being a geek has never been about what I'm passionate about, or the popularity of it, but simply the fact that I am.

It's been a while...

2011-01-06T23:47:00.000-08:00

Well folks, it's been a long while since I've posted anything here. There are a few reasons, work, laziness but mainly I felt my scope for this blog, as well as my knowledge on the subjects were a tad too limited. When it comes to skepticism there are so many more knowledgeable and smarter folks out there doing an amazing job fighting the good fight I feel it better to defer to them rather than clutter things up.

So that being said, I'm not going to abandon this little corner of the net, instead I'm going to open up things a little... well actually a lot. I plan on discussing whatever pops into my head, be it anything from my take on the announcement of Star Wars finally being released on Blu-Ray to the Catholic church's latest ridiculous stand on whatever it is that week.

If anyone out there is still reading this, or to be honest if no one is, I'm hoping to have a little fun in the future getting up on my cyber-soapbox and poking life squarely in the eye with a pointed stick ;)

Talking to the Dead

2008-08-26T14:16:00.000-07:00

When it comes to practitioners of the supernatural, for the most part I consider them relatively harmless, at worst they are con men, at best harmless kooks. When it comes to those who can claim to speak to the dead though, I think the exact opposite, while I hope that the majority aren't acting maliciously, I do believe that all of them are doing harm.

But before I get into why I think that, let's get this off the table first. No one can speak to the dead. There is not one shred of scientific evidence to support it, be it psychic energy or mystical powers. None, there is no science backing up anyone claiming to speak to the deceased. What all of these mediums are doing, whether they're aware of it or not, is an old stage trick called cold reading. If you ever watch these people you can see it in action. Basically it begins with throwing out extremely vague questions, and then allowing the subject to fill in the detail. If you'd like to see more on that, I'd suggest you Google cold reading and James Randi.

So what do I mean when I say that all these mediums are doing harm? Well first of all, they're lying to their subject. They aren't in communication with that person's dead loved one. And to say they are is just plain cruel in my eyes. While mediums are good at providing generalities, what they cannot provide to their clients are specifics, at least real ones anyway. What happens to the subject that needs specific questions answered? Only two possibilities exist in that case, the medium either cannot supply it, or they lie and make something up.

The other thing that they are doing is interfering in the grieving process. How exactly is someone going to come to accept that a loved one is gone when they can talk to them whenever they want through a medium?

Many will say that whether real or not, mediums can provide comfort to the grieving. To me it seems a false comfort though. Instead of being comforted by memories you shared with the deceased, the comfort is coming from lies told to you by a stranger. And while it may be comforting, all it's doing is prolonging the grief, because inevitably one of two things will happen. Either the subject runs out of money, and the medium move on to another paying customer(I don't know of any that provide this service as a charity), or the subject eventually realizes that they've never been in contact with anyone, let alone the person they lost. At which point the grieving process has to start all over again.

Perhaps I'm wrong on this, but to me, comfort through lies and deception, no matter how well meaning, seem like no comfort at all.

2008-08-19T14:08:00.000-07:00

Last week a press conference was held to announce to the world that there is finally proof of the existence of Bigfoot. There were close to a hundred representatives from the media in attendance to witness the unveiling of this new and exciting evidence.
What was the earth shaking proof that this creature really does stalk the wilderness of North America? Well it turns out to be two blurry photographs and some rather dubious genetic tests.

Now the particulars of this bullshit really are irrelevant, what I would like to say a bit about is just how all of this was received, not just by the press, but by the public as well.

The overwhelming sense in the room after the presentation was one of complete skepticism. From where I'm sitting this came as an immense shock, and a very pleasant shock at that. Especially due to the reaction of the press when similar claims are made. Typically the media does some fluff piece giving far to much support to the cranks and oddballs making such bizarre claims ranging from alien abduction to haunted houses. It was a breath of fresh air to see news stories reporting this for what it was, a hoax, and a rather unconvincing one at that.

The public as well was extremely doubtful as to the claims made last week. The responses, to paraphrase, stated that if you expect us to believe that you've really found a Bigfoot, you have to produce far better evidence than this! It seems that Carl Sagan's axiom, "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence", is finally starting to take root.

All that being said, it's understandable that people are more willing to be skeptical of Bigfoot than other things. The non existence of Bigfoot really doesn't challenge many peoples world views in the ways that giving up a belief in religion and alternative medicine would do. For many people in order to be skeptical about those things require a huge shift in beliefs, lifestyle or both. Something that makes a lot of folks uncomfortable.

The backbone of a skeptical outlook is the ability to think critically, something that anyone can learn to do. And this latest Bigfoot announcement has shown that many are starting to do just that.

Where to Draw the Line?

2008-08-12T15:10:00.000-07:00

Being a skeptic that's a question I find myself asking quite often. It seems that almost everyone has some type of supernatural or pseudoscientific belief which my skepticism bangs up against on a regular basis. The dilemma that I find myself in is, do I leave it be and not challenge their spurious belief, or do I instead question it. And if I do start down that road, how aggressively do I pursue it?

I think here in lies one of the greatest challenges to widespread acceptance of a skeptical mindset. It's a very fine line I find myself treading, one that requires a lot of contemplation, I find.

Now obviously each situation requires a slightly different approach, depending on the person or group you're dealing with, but here are the rough guidelines that I've set for myself.

Rarely do I engage with guns blazing as it were, hell bent on destroying the opposing opinion. But here are a few instances where I feel an aggressive approach is warranted. Creationists, specifically anti-evolution IDers. These people and what they're peddling needs to be squashed, period end of sentence. What they want to do is bring about another dark ages by suppressing scientific inquiry and rational thought, two things which I will defend vigorously, even more so when their ignorance is aimed towards subverting the education of our children.
The only other time where I'll go all out is when specifically challenged by what is commonly referred to as "True Believers". This is usually in the desire on their part to convert me to their religion. Something I try to nip in the bud as quickly as possible.

Which leads me to the situations where I just keep my mouth shut. It's typically with the above mentioned True Believers. In my experience there is no intellectual curiosity in these folks, they've accepted their chosen dogma hook, line and sinker and nothing I could say will change their mind. So I just don't waste my energy on them anymore.

That leaves the middle ground. The territory that I find myself most often in. I find that most of the time I'll be talking with a person and discover that they hold some belief that they tend to "think" is true. Now I used quotes there because there tends to be a kernel of doubt in these people. The level of doubt will typically determine just how in depth I'm willing to go in questioning those beliefs. In the vast majority of encounters though, unless I see an opening to inject some skeptical reasoning, I'll just say something along the lines of, "Well, I'm pretty skeptical about the evidence for that." Or if the topic is religious I'll just drop the fact that I'm an atheist. More often than not, this will elicit a question from them as to why I think so, and in my experience someone is far more likely to remember the answer to a question they've asked, as opposed to just having facts thrust upon them.
Either that or, I'll ask just why they believe what they do, what evidence they think supports the claim they're making. The more questions I ask, the more it forces someone to really think about the logic behind the answers.

In an earlier post I talked about planting a seed, and that's exactly what I'm trying to do in these instances. Never have I had someone say to me that they've abandoned their faith based on conversations with me, and I don't ever expect to either. but as long as people are more willing to question the reasons for whatever they believe... Well what more could a skeptic ask for?

Is Agnosticism Better?

2008-05-12T11:52:00.000-07:00

In a recent comment left for me here I was asked is being agnostic on the subject of god is the better choice rather than atheism. In short, no, I don't it is.

It is true, there is no scientific way to either prove or disprove the existence of a supreme being, and I think most atheists will acknowledge that fact. So in a strict scientific sense I am agnostic where god is concerned. That being said, I am in practice an atheist concerning god because the probability of a divine creator is of such an tiny magnitude that for all practical purposes he might as well not exist anyway.

I see no reason why god deserves special attention when it comes to this subject. There are so many other things in our culture that are dismissed as false, yet you can apply the same argument to these things. Here's an example, all but the smallest children know that the Tooth Fairy does not exist. Yet strictly speaking we can't with 100 percent certainty scientifically say there is NO Tooth Fairy. We should all be agnostic when it comes to the Tooth Fairy, but we're not. We all know it is false and live our lives accordingly. Bertrand Russell makes this point quite humorously in the story of the celestial Teapot, and I suggest you Google that, for he explains this far more elegantly that I.

It seems to me that there are many things in the world that we should technically be agnostic about, yet we aren't. So why should we give a special pass to god? Just because there are a few books written about him? There are more books written about Harry Potter. If J.K. Rowling were to say that Harry Potter were in fact a real person, should we then apply the above logic to the boy wizard? Of course not.

So yes, in a very strict scientific sense, we should all be agnostic about pretty much everything, including god. However we all make assumptions based on the available evidence about what we choose to believe, or rather, not believe. For me that means that I choose to live my life under the assumption that god is not real and unless some evidence to refute that assumption is produced, will continue to do so. And the same goes for the Tooth Fairy, too.

Richard Dawkins puts is so well that I'll close with a quote from him, "We are all atheists about most of the gods that humanity has ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further."

It Ain't Easy

2008-05-05T12:10:00.000-07:00

Being a skeptic as well as being an atheist has never been easy, but I think it becomes even more difficult if you decide to publicly declare it. It takes a lot more knowledge in order to argue from a skeptical point of view than against one, although it really shouldn't be, it should, in fact be the other way around!

What I encounter again and again in conversations and debates over god or some other pseudoscience, is that despite the other person making the affirmative statement, (there is a god, homeopathy works, etc.) I'm the one that is expected to provide the evidence against whatever is being claimed. The scientific method though, requires that when an affirmative statement is made, the onus of proof is on the person making the claim.

I'm not quite sure how this came about, and complaining about it isn't going to change it, but what this means is that if you're going to try and fight superstition with reason, you're going to have to know more than the average person about whatever subject you're debating and in most cases you'll definitely need to know more than your opponent. You're not going to convince anyone that homeopathy is bunk by simply saying, "Prove it works." More often than not, all you'll get by way of reply is, "well, I believe it does, you tell me why it doesn't." and thus ends the conversation. But if you can bring some facts to the debate, while you most likely won't change their mind, you will hopefully be able to sow some seeds of doubt.

When it comes to religion, it gets even tougher for the skeptic. You have to be really well prepared in order to take on the faithful. Having said that I can see why more people stay quiet about their atheism. Once you've announced your lack of belief, you can expect to be challenged on it, and it can get pretty tiring, I'll admit.

Now don't get me wrong, I'm not complaining, I really enjoy getting into it with people open to an honest debate, and I certainly wouldn't be writing this blog if I didn't welcome trouble.

All I want to say is that if more people come out of the closet with their skepticism and atheism the sooner the burden of proof will switch back to those making irrational claims, rather than us opposing them. But until that time comes, if you're going to be an outspoken skeptic, you best know your stuff.

The Staying Power of Religion

2008-04-15T12:24:00.000-07:00

Apart from the social and community aspects of day to day life, I have to admit I really have no idea what use religion has in our lives anymore. It's fairly well accepted that religion was created by man in order to help explain the natural world. However today science has taken the place of religion in explaining the complex world we live in and does so exponentially better. Instead of using a godhead to answer any questions we might have as to why something happens, instead we have learned to observe and experiment and come up with the real answers as to why things happen and occur in nature.

Having said that, you'd think that once the main reason for religion was removed, people would be throwing off these illogical beliefs right left and center. However it seems the opposite is true. Religion, unlike almost every other superstition seems to have a staying power that the others don't.

I really don't have any answers as to why this is, but I do have a suspicion. I blame the parents, and this is why. Think of the many superstitions and illogical beliefs we all hold as children. Santa, the Easter Bunny and the Tooth Fairy for instance. When we reach a certain age and our skills at reasoning improve we come to the conclusion, (rightly) that these things cannot possibly exist. And our parents are right there supporting these conclusions.

However the opposite seems to be true when it comes to religion. When children question how all these fanciful stories in their parents holy books can possibly be true, instead of having their suspicions confirmed, (like in the sake of the aforementioned Mr. Claus) children are told that these stories, unlike the others, are indeed true and with an entire congregation of other adults backing the parents up, is it any surprise that kids end up believing this for the rest of their lives?

All that being said, is there anything that can be done about it? I don't know. I think the best way to combat this though is to keep religion out of the schools, something that is being hotly contested in the States right now. only by teaching children the skills necessary for critical thinking can we hope to beat back the dominance of religious superstition in the world today.

Government Subsidizing Bad Medicine

2008-04-07T12:03:00.000-07:00

A little reported story went by last week in my province of British Columbia. It seems that our government will now be providing financial assistance to families with an income of under 28 thousand who wish to receive acupuncture treatments. For whatever reason, and I suspect it's political, the government of BC is saying that acupuncture is a legitimate medical treatment, and as such should be covered under our health plan.

As you can imagine, this is something I have a huge issues with. First and most importantly in my opinion, this is wasting money on bogus pseudoscience. Instead of using this money to do something like, oh I dunno, reducing the cost of prescription medication or hiring more doctors or nurses, taxpayer money is instead going to a treatment that is at best, dubious.

As far as I'm aware there are no credible studies that prove that acupuncture has any health benefit whatsoever, perhaps apart from being a method to help one relax. And as far as practitioners claims that it balances the energy in a persons body, aiding in the body's healing, well, I think we all know that is just plain old bullshit. All of the other claims of acupuncture, such as curing cancer and HIV/AIDS have been systematically debunked by medical science, leaving only the nebulous claim that it promotes overall healing.

Now if people want to waste their time and money on acupuncture, I have no problem with it. My beef here is that by paying for these treatments, the government of BC is tacitly saying that acupuncture is a legitimate treatment option. What I want to know is where is the medical opposition to this? Why have I not heard a peep out of the BC College of Physicians? Are there no patient advocate groups that see the dangers in this?

On top of all that, this decision by the government creates a dangerous precedent for the future. If acupuncture gets the government seal of approval, why not homeopathy? Hell, it has just as much legitimate medical research to back it up as acupuncture, that being none.

So I urge anyone reading this who is a resident of British Columbia to contact your MLA and voice your displeasure at this move by the government. We don't want to go down the same road Great Britain has, with the state wasting billions on pseudo scientific bullshit.

Which is Crazier?

2008-03-17T14:18:00.000-07:00

In the last couple of months there has been a lot of renewed attention towards Scientology. This is mainly due to the leaked video of Tom Cruise and the award he received from the Church of Scientology. The thing I find really funny about all this attention is how many of my religious friends are so quick to jump all over Cruise and Scientology as crazy.

When I hear that I just have to quietly shake my head. Here we have people who believe in an omnipotent sky god and all the trappings and traditions that go along with it, making fun of another religion and it's own ridiculous claims to the answers to the universe.

But when I take a closer look at, say Christianity and Scientology, (and while I think both are nuts) Scientology comes across as a bit more believable in my opinion. Now keep in mind, this is the equivalent to me of finding leprechauns slightly more believable than dragons, just so you know where I'm coming from.

While both religions are complete works of fiction, Scientology has the advantage over most other religions simply because it's the youngest. Because it was created in the last hundred years, it fits far more easily into contemporary society and doesn't contain the same harsh rules and punishments that while common two thousand years ago, cause no end of problems for old religions trying to make all these dictums fit into a modern context.

As well Scientology roots it's mythology largely in aliens and UFOs. Again, slightly more plausible than the assertion that there is an all powerful entity living in the sky of which there s absolutely no evidence. Bear in mind, there is no evidence to support Lord Xenu either, but the existence of alien life of some sort is at least likely, as opposed to the Abrahamic alternative.

So for all those who belong to the older established religions, all I have to say is that Scientology doesn't hold exclusive rights to crazy, and to heed the advise of a wise man who once said, "People who live in bamboo houses shouldn't throw pandas."