I’m always astounded at how poor data-gathering devices we humans are.  Forget all the hallucinations and misinterpretations, we simply don’t notice or retain most of what happens around us.  Here’s a great demonstration (via Richard Wiseman’s blog)

I was pretty pathetic. How did you all do?

This is one of the reasons we developed the scientific method. Trusting our senses and powers of observation failed us too many times. We recognize our own shortcomings and try to overcome them.

Those of you who also follow my posts at FriendlyAtheist know I’m a huge fan of Neil deGrasse Tyson. I think he’s an excellent science communicator and role model. He’s so enthusiastic about science and he makes others interested through his exuberance.

Back story (taken from the youtube info):

TIME recently went to interview Neil deGrasse Tyson and we noticed a huge crate had been delivered to his office. He was then kind enough to open it on-camera. The back story of this gift is that Neil was adamant that ABC News include the Saturn V Rocket on its list of The 7 Wonders of America. The folks at the Marshall Space Flight Center in Huntsville, Alabama were so grateful, they sent Neil a replica.

I’ve watched this several times and I still find myself compelled to smile each time.  Learning things is fun, but Tyson manages to have fun while inspiring a sense of awe and wonder.

[Holding his new model of the Saturn V] This and only this is the only piece of hardware to ever take humans to another world.   The space shuttle… is cool, but it goes into Earth orbit -- you’re still attached to the earth.  This thing gets you off of Earth into space… to another world.

…

I submit to you that this is the crowning achievement of human ingenuity and the fulfillment of dreams in the history of what it is to be human.

Wonderful.

Can you tell the difference between Aliens and Demons?  If you were visited in the night by an intelligent, non-human entity, could you really distinguish between them?  (In a sidenote I’m not addressing right now, how would you know the voice in your head is God and not a tricky demon?  How do you know devils can’t impersonate voices?)

Although nobody would know it in an age with laptops and cell phones, I’m in New York City right now. I hopped on a bus to go see my sister Julia Galef give a presentation on rationality – my first post was written while on the BoltBus, actually. The talk was entitled “Aliens, Psychics and Ghosts, Oh My! Or, How Our Brains Fool Us Into Believing Strange Things.” I thoroughly enjoyed it.

John Henry Fuseli’s 1781 painting “The Nightmare” is now seen as a classic account of sleep paralysis accredited to a demon

One interesting point was that while reports of alien abductions are a relatively new phenomenon, the psychological reasons behind such hallucinations are not.  However, instead of blaming aliens, people used to blame the bad boys of the supernatural world: Demons.

In “alien abductions”, people tend to report waking up, feeling pinned down and unable to move, seeing visions of visitors, and often experiencing sexual stimulation. These are the familiar symptoms of sleep paralysis and hypnopompic hallucinations.

During sleep, the brain stops controlling the muscles – that’s why we don’t flail around in our sleep as we act out our dreams. Sometimes when woken from a deep sleep, the brain doesn’t immediately retake control, leaving the poor person both awake and unable to move (This has happened to me, and I was lucid enough to recognize what was happening.  It was a fascinating experience.)   It can be particularly difficult to breathe.   When woken up from a deep sleep, a person is also prone to vivid hallucinations. This combination explains the commonly heard reports of alien abductions.

But before aliens, people interpreted those perceptions as demons – same symptoms, different supernatural explanation.  Online Etymology says the term “Nightmare” originally meant “an evil female spirit afflicting sleepers with a feeling of suffocation”.  Sound familiar?

John Henry Fuseli’s painting “The Nightmare” shows an evil-looking imp sitting on a woman’s chest while she lies in bed. Psychologists now believe it to be an early representation of sleep paralysis.  It’s telling that the same evidence can fit seamlessly into countless supernatural  theories.

How cool is it that we can look at ancient experiences people thought were supernatural and explain them in scientific ways?  Epilepsy, schizophrenia, sleep paralysis, oxygen/sensory/nutritional deprivation… The gaps keep getting smaller and there’s less and less room for God.

The poor Vatican

The Catholic Church tries to foster a reputation for their good works with the poor (unless of course the poor want to use condoms, the naughty boys). Given their desired public image, I was rather surprised to read that they’re threatening to stop providing care unless they’re allowed to discriminate against homosexuals:

The Catholic Archdiocese of Washington said Wednesday that it will be unable to continue the social service programs it runs for the District if the city doesn’t change a proposed same-sex marriage law, a threat that could affect tens of thousands of people the church helps with adoption, homelessness and health care.

Under the bill, headed for a D.C. Council vote next month, religious organizations would not be required to perform or make space available for same-sex weddings. But they would have to obey city laws prohibiting discrimination against gay men and lesbians.

Yeah, that just screams “charity” and “compassion” to me.

When I worked at the Secular Coalition for America, we did a lot of lobbying on the Faith-Based Initiatives. It was our position that, at the least, any organization receiving federal money should abide by the reasonable secular federal anti-discrimination laws.

And Catholic Charities – the 501(c)3 nonprofit arm of the Church – IS receiving federal dollars. Millions of federal dollars. Do they expect that money to come completely without any conditions?  It is not a fundamental right to receive $8.2 million in federal contracts.

Council member David Catania has the right idea, saying “If they find living under our laws so oppressive that they can no longer take city resources, the city will have to find an alternative partner to step in to fill the shoes.”

I think my friend Rob Boston at Americans United for Separation of Church and State put it best on the AU blog:

Let me get this straight: The church is saying, “Unless you bow to our demands, we’ll stop taking your money”?

Church leaders really need to come up with some better threats.

Decisions, decisions…

I recently discovered Abstruse Goose, a wonderfully nerdy webcomic. This recent comic seemed appropriate and touching:

Remember who our true enemies are. They are not the religious fundamentalists or the religious moderates giving them cover. Our true enemies are the dangerous memes that are influencing so many of our friends, family, and neighbors: that it’s admirable to believe without evidence, that homosexuality is unconscionable, that there can be no truth outside a particular scripture.

In order to combat these memes, we must encourage critical thinking skills, compassion, and a thirst for learning – effectively immunizing people against the mind viruses.

… Doesn’t that make satire a vaccine? Satire gives people a small, mostly harmless dose of the crazy so that they can recognize it in the future. It’s a fun thought.

Ray Comfort recently decided to pollute the waters of intellectual integrity by printing his own edition of Darwin’s Origin of Species putting his own 50-page foreword [edit: corrected spelling throughout] at the beginning. This foreword misrepresents the theory in an attempt to discredit evolution, connect Darwin to Hitler, and generally mislead students.

Students? Yes, Ray Comfort’s Living Water Ministries is threatening to distribute these books to college students free of charge. How kind.

Who better to counter this nonsense than the Secular Student Alliance? I recently took a volunteer position with the organization as Communications Director, and earlier this week we put out a press release announcing our intention to mobilize our groups against the deliberate attempt to mislead students:

“We’re asking students to respond proactively. We believe the best way to respond to misinformation is with a positive, educational campaign,” says August Brunsman, executive director for the Secular Student Alliance.
…
Students are aware that the distributors have the first amendment right to pass out their anti-evolution literature, but are being encouraged by the Secular Student Alliance to use their own rights to respond with a friendly, science-based message.

The Secular Student Alliance at Yale University, for example, has plans to set up a table promoting “alternative theories on sexual education,” appropriately named Students for Stork Acknowledgment.

I am clearly not an unbiased observer, but I think this is the right way to counter ignorance and misinformation: with education and friendliness. To my surprise, our press release just got posted verbatim at Ray Comfort’s blog! There are 83 comments as I write this, with a surprising number of supporters commenting.

Personally, I think we would benefit from printing a copy of the Bible with a foreword at the beginning explaining how each chapter got considered canon or not, how the book is mistranslated, and what Jesus’ followers thought at the time. Essentially, I want to put my college professor Bart Ehrman’s books inside the front cover of the Bible. And then we could distribute that to Sunday school classes.

What is so threatening about our billboard ads?

I don’t understand why religious individuals get so offended by the words “Don’t believe in God? You are not alone.” or “Millions are good without God.” They have an absolute right to be offended and an absolute right to speak out against our peaceful message. What they don’t have is the right to stifle our speech.

First they vandalized the billboard in Moscow, Idaho. Twice.

Now, the Cincinnati Coalition of Reason billboard is being taken down and moved because the landowner leasing the space was receiving multiple threats.

Around 2:00 PM yesterday, the United Coalition of Reason, which paid $3,875.00 for a one-month run of the billboard, was contacted by Lamar Advertising of Cincinnati. Lamar reported that the landowner of the site had been threatened over the billboard’s message and wanted it taken down. Lamar only leases the land the billboard stands on.

“We weren’t given the landowner’s name or precise details,” reported Fred Edwords, national director of the United Coalition of Reason. “Nor did we pursue them. It was sufficient to learn that this person had received multiple, significant threats and that Lamar would act quickly to alleviate the problem.”

Edwords added: “Lamar was most apologetic to us regarding the situation. It was a development they hadn’t expected. Nor had we. Nothing like this has ever happened to us before.”

I think everyone involved is handling the situation well – the Cincinnati CoR is concerned for the owner, the advertising company will accommodate the move, and it sounds as though everyone is being civil and reasonable.

Oh, except the people making threats. Seriously, what’s their problem?

Daniel, thank you for giving me the opportunity to contribute on your excellent site and thank you everyone for being a part of this wonderful community.  I already recognize some of you from FriendlyAtheist.com and I feel quite at home.

On Tuesday, U.S. District Judge Currie ruled that South Carolina’s “I Believe” license plates featuring a cross in front of a stained glass window were unconstitutional.  It was a pretty blatant endorsement of religion in general and a sect of religion – protestant Christianity – in particular.

Image from Crooks and Liars

But how, I hear you ask, was it an unconstitutional when the state government surely MUST have supported the same rights for all religious views?  Right?  Oh, wait.  Scratch that (from Americans United for Separation of Church and State’s blog):

When State Sen. Yance McGill was asked by the Associated Press in May 2009 whether he would support a Wiccan tag, he said, “Well, that’s not what I consider to be a religion.”

When asked about a Buddhist tag, he said “I’d have to look at the individual situation. But I’m telling you, I firmly believe in this [Christian] tag.”

Rep. Bill Sandifer also backed the “Christian” plate, but emphatically asserted that he would never do the same for a plate featuring Islamic symbols and language.

“Absolutely and positively no,” he said.

And, let’s not forget, [ed: Lt. Gov] Bauer himself also said no to the same question.

“I would not [support a tag for Islam] because that is not the group I support,” he said.

It doesn’t get much more obvious than that.  These state politicians wanted to give state recognition and privileges to a certain religious group that they, themselves, support.  Religious groups they didn’t personally support wouldn’t get special government treatment.

One thing I found interesting was the list of plaintiffs:  The Hindu American Foundation, the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee, three Reverends, and a Rabbi (all go before the bar… ahem.  Sorry, bad pun.)  It’s a clever strategy to involve religious individuals in bringing this kind of suit.  It prevents the appearance of “religion vs. atheism”.

But it’s telling that there were no atheists along with the religious individuals.  I’ve come across this before – the ACLU sometimes asks not to have any atheist plaintiffs because they think it’ll damage their chances of winning.  Sad, isn’t it?

It’s possible that our involvement would influence judges in these cases and attract negative public attention.  What does that say about our justice system and the state of our society?  Even as we fight (and win!) these battles in court, we have far to go in our culture.

Congress voted Monday to cut federal funding for the superconducting monkey collider, a controversial experiment which has cost taxpayers an estimated $7.6 billion a year since its creation in 1983.

The collider, which was to be built within a 45-mile-long circular tunnel, would accelerate monkeys to near-light speeds before smashing them together. Scientists insist the collider is an important step toward understanding the universe, because no one can yet say for certain what kind of noises monkeys would make if collided at those high speeds.

“It could be a thump, a splat, or maybe even a sound that hasn’t yet been heard by human ears,” said project head Dr. Eric Reed Friday, in an impassioned plea to Congress. “How are we supposed to understand things like the atom or the nature of gravity if we don’t even know what colliding monkeys sound like?”….

Construction of the collider’s acceleration mechanism was delayed for years, as scientists couldn’t decide how to get the monkeys up to smashing speed. Last month, it was finally decided that the collider would employ a system in which the monkeys run through the tunnels chasing holographic projections of bananas. “Monkeys love bananas,” Reed said, “and they’re willing to run extremely fast to get them.”

(via The Onion, of course)

Give him a warm welcome! He’ll start posting tomorrow morning.

Evolution is a fact. Beyond reasonable doubt, beyond serious doubt, beyond sane, informed, intelligent doubt evolution is a fact. The evidence for evolution is at least as strong for the evidence for the Holocaust, even allowing for eye witnesses to the Holocaust.

It is the plain truth that we are cousins of chimpanzees, somewhat more distant cousins of monkeys, more distant cousins still of aardvarks and manatees, yet more distant cousins f bananas and turnips… continue the list as long as desired. That didn’t have to be true. It is not self-evidently, tautologically, obviously true, and there was a time when most people, even educated people, thought it wasn’t. It didn’t have to be true, but it is. We now this because a rising flood of evidence supports it.

Evolution is a fact, and this book will demonstrate it. No reputable scientist disputes it, and no unbiased reader will close the book doubting it. (p. 8-9)

I agree with Dawkins that the evidence for evolution is overwhelming for someone who looks at it with an open mind. Though I’m not sure about the “no reputable scientist disputes it” part. Perhaps that should be “no reputable biologist disputes it,” because that is their discipline — a biologist who denies evolution is like a computer scientist who denies operating systems.

I’m sure there are Christian scientists (the career, not the cult) who dispute evolution, but that doesn’t mean they are not reputable physicists or geologists. It just means they’re brainwashed into believing the Bible over reality.

Dawkins also says, “no unbiased reader will close the book doubting [evolution].” But how can a reader be unbiased? Does such a specimen even exist?

Rumor has it that this was done by the then-President of Seattle Atheists.

(via)

The LA Times recently had an article about a small provision in the Senate version of the Heath Care bill:

Healthcare provision seeks to embrace prayer treatments

Backed by some of the most powerful members of the Senate, a little-noticed provision in the healthcare overhaul bill would require insurers to consider covering Christian Science prayer treatments as medical expenses.

The provision, which was added by Sen. Orrin Hatch and backed by John Kerry and the late Ted Kennedy, prevents discrimination against “religious and spiritual health care” by health insurers providing care through the proposed Gateway system. There was a similar provision in the House version of the bill, but that has since been removed in the newest version, HR3962. This Senate version still remains.

Health Care Deform

Pullquote: This would be an absolute invitation to organize
Annie Laurie Gaylor

The bill in question is S.1679, the “Affordable Health Choices Act.” The provision in question reads as follows:

‘‘The essential benefits provided for in subparagraph (A) shall include a requirement that there be non-discrimination in health care in a manner that, with respect to an individual who is eligible for medical or surgical care under a qualified health plan offered through a Gateway, prohibits the Administrator of the Gateway, or a qualified health plan offered through the Gateway, from denying such individual benefits for religious or spiritual health care, except that such religious or spiritual health care shall be an expense eligible for deduction as a medical care expense as determined by Internal Revenue Service Rulings interpreting section 213(d) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 as of January 1, 2009.” (Sec 3103(d))

If I’m reading this right (and there’s no guarantee that I am), this would affect all insurers who take part in the Affordable Health Benefit Gateway programs that the bill seeks to create in the individual states. These programs would be administered by the states and paid for by federal grants, and would assist those people without health care, either by steering them to programs they can afford or by providing subsidized health insurance. This particular provision would prevent any of those insurers from discriminating against “spiritual health care” provided that it fit the definition of deductible medical care.

As the bill says, the IRS tax code provides a definition of medical care in Title 26, Section 213(d). The tax code itself doesn’t specifically mention anything about prayer cures, but according to IRS Publication 502 (PDF), “You can include in medical expenses fees you pay to Christian Science practitioners for medical care.” (p. 7) Also chiropractors, but that’s another argument.

So that explains the emphasis in the LA Times article about Christian Science. The IRS already considered their services as medical expense for the purposes of tax deduction, so this provision would require certain health insurers to pay for it.

Critical Condition, or only Serious?

Pullquote: I offered this amendment because I believe that everyone, regardless of religious affiliation, should have access to healthcare.
Sen. Orrin Hatch

Naturally, the Freedom From Religion Foundation is all over this. Again from the LA Times article:

Annie Laurie Gaylor, co-president of the Freedom From Religion Foundation, a group of atheists and agnostics that promotes separation of church and state, said the opportunity to receive payment for spiritual care could encourage other groups to seek similar status.

Gaylor’s point there is questionable. Certainly, many religious groups might try to get themselves injected into the tax code as providers of spiritual medical care, but there’s no reason to think that any will succeed. Further, as a spokeswoman for John Kerry pointed out, companies are prevented from discriminating, but that just means they are required to apply the same standards across the board. The insurers may declare that they will only provide reimbursement for procedures that meet their standards for efficacy. And that would leave the Christian Scientists out in the cold.

Still, it seems obvious that this provision will lead to many lawsuits and heated arguments, and add to the risk that the Government will be entangled with religion. So what’s the point? According to Orrin Hatch, “I offered this amendment because I believe that everyone, regardless of religious affiliation, should have access to health care.” But I don’t see how the provision as currently worded does that. One could easily add a provision that wouldn’t fund an insurer that discriminated on the basis of religion, so why the language of “religious and spiritual health care”?

Right now there are still more questions than answers, and more heat than light. While I think that the FFRF is banging the drum a bit too hard, I basically agree that the bill would be better off without the complications that this provision brings.

I suggest calling or e-mailing your Senators and requesting that this provision be struck from the bill. Tell them that if the provision remains, then during the next election you and all your friends will pray for their reelection — rather than donating, assisting their campaign or, you know, voting.

According to Kwabena Boahen, a computer scientist at Stanford University, a robot with a processor as smart as the human brain would require at least 10 megawatts to operate. That’s the amount of energy produced by a small hydroelectric plant. But a small group of computer scientists may have hit on a new neural supercomputer that could someday emulate the human brain’s low energy requirements of just 20 watts–barely enough to run a dim light bulb….

[The new idea] trades the extreme precision of digital transistors for the brain’s chaos of many neurons firing, with misfires 30 percent to 90 percent of the time. Yet the brain works with this messy system by relying on crowds of neurons to shout over the noise of misfires and competing signals.

That willingness to give up precision for chaos could lead to a new era of creative computing that simulates the unpredictable patterns of brain activity. It could also represent a far more energy-efficient era — the Neurogrid fits in a briefcase and runs on what amounts to a few D batteries, or less than a watt. Rather than transistors, it uses capacitors that get the same voltage of neurons.

Let me be the first to welcome our new neurogrid overlords.

(For a fuller writeup on this, see this discovery article.)

The cooing of pigeons brought memory into the procession. Dessie remembered how her father had said, sitting at the head of the table, “I told Rabbit I was going to raise some pigeons and—do you know?—he said, ‘No white pigeons.’ ‘Why not white?’ I asked him, and he said, ‘They’re the rare worst of bad luck. You take a flight of white pigeons and they’ll bring sadness and death. Get gray ones.’ ‘I like white ones.’ ‘Get gray ones,’ he told me. And as the sky covers me, I’ll get white ones.”

And [his wife] Liza said patiently, “Why do you be forever testing, Samuel? Gray ones taste just as good and they’re bigger.”

“I’ll let no flimsy fairy tale push me,” Samuel said.

And Liza said with her dreadful simplicity, “You’re already pushed by your own contentiousness. You’re a mule of contention, a very mule!”

“Someone’s got to do these things,” he said sullenly. “Else Fate would not ever get nose-thumbed and mankind would still be clinging to the top branches of a tree.”

And of course he got white pigeons and waited truculently for sadness and death until he’d proved his point.

And yet, as Dessie realizes, “Sadness and death… you just have to wait around long enough and it will come” — white pigeons or gray ones.