Beyond Belief

Moving Day. bey0ndbelief.wordpress.com

2014-02-11T14:13:00.002-06:00

I'm headed over to Wordpress.com. This will be my last post here.

Please... follow me to my new home.

Beer: Schneider Weisse: Tap 6 Aventinus

2013-11-02T17:15:00.001-05:00

I can't do more justice than the reviewers at Beer Advocate,

Just a fantastic beer.

A Felid-itous Visit to Professor Ceiling Cat.

2013-11-02T17:10:00.001-05:00

Business took me to Chicago recently, and I had a little time to arrange a meeting with Dr. Jerry Coyne, author of "Why Evolution Is True." The good Dr. was open to a visit, and he graciously spent a half hour or so entertaining my thoughts on belief, discussion of his thoughts on free will, and general thoughts on the incompatibility of religious thinking and scientific thinking. (This latter topic is the subject of his soon-to-be-released book).

After making my way to campus on a gorgeous October afternoon...

... and stopping to eat a personal sized Edwardo's stuffed spinach and pepperoni pizza...

I found Dr. Coyne's lair (and Professor "Ceiling Cat" himself!)

And wrestled an autograph from the author (along with a prized cat drawing)

Ragism, Tagism, Bagism, This ism , That ism... Ism Ism Ism. Conversation circuit breaker: Scientism

2013-08-19T08:20:00.001-05:00

Adam Frank writes on NPR, about Scientism.

But his dog's breakfast of self-contradicting, ground shifting definitions is pure "proof-in-the-pudding" that this term ought to be avoided at all cost, for its total lack of value in any serious discussion of science, philosophy, consciousness, etc. Let's do a survey of the bad in this article:
=======
1. "Scientism is getting a lot of play these days. It's a difficult word to pin down because it takes on a wide range of meanings depending on who is throwing it around. According to , scientism is:

    'an exaggerated trust in the efficacy of the methods of natural science applied to all areas of investigation (as in philosophy, the social sciences, and the humanities).'

Thus, scientism is the "science can explain everything," (or, at least, "science explains everything important"), kind of position some folks take in arguments about religion, philosophy, the value of the humanities, etc."

=======
Let's start on a good note: It is true,the meaning of "scientism" is contingent on who is using it, and for what purpose. That is because it is a pure propaganda word. A conversation stopper. A rhetorical parry to distract from the pursuit of discussing the merits: is this true or not? How do we know? Does the method work IN THIS CASE?

"Exaggerated"... who's making the determination of what is the "appropriate" amount of trust in efficacy of science? This is an appeal to invisible authority.
Scare quotes around "science explains everything important" Who makes this claim? Only people claiming that scientism exists, as far as I can see. Straw man!

2. "What Pinker fails to see in this passage is that it is precisely the enormous power and the enormous success of science that put it in a unique position for misuse by those who claim to speak in its name"
=========
This addresses the misuse of a tool, not the value of the tool. This does not address the question "does the method arrive at better "truths" than guessing, superstition, etc." That is OK... because discussers of "scientism" never want to talk about that. They want to talk about definitiosn of scientism and how bad it is.... ewww.

Wait... maybe they're saying they want to make science seem like religion, wherein institutional abuse of power in the name of "God" is common. It is a last ditch ploy by the "faithful" to try to save their sinking asses by dragging others down with them.
======
3. "The efficacy of science generates a powerful attraction for advocates of (often unspoken) philosophical assumptions. These are people who seek to cloak their beliefs in the legitimacy of the scientific enterprise. This is where scientism raises its ugly head."
====
The first half of this sentence almost seems like a criminal or mental diagnosis. Who are these aberrant sickos attracted to "efficacy?" And why won't they speak their hideous assumptions? (i.e. the assumptions that I, the scientism boogeyman, asserts they have. Why won't they cop to the straw man I see so clearly?)

So... scientism is a method used by the wolves, seeking cover under sheeps clothing? So, it's not SCIENCE that is bad... it's not an exaggerated trust in the efficacy of science, but it is a cheap tactic by those who willfully misuse the "appearance of authority" of science to attempt to foist bullshit on others? I would agree, but would call that hucksterism, fraud, and a dozen other words before I went inventing the term "scientism."
====
4. "But his easy dismissal of scientism as a "boo-word" misses the point that science gets used within culture for more than just legitimate purposes."
====
Again, this is not what the author defined "scientism" as early on. Here, he seems to define "scientism" as "The misuse of science in culture for illegitimate purposes."
The "normative" talk about "misuse" and degrees of legitimacy does not bear on the tool and its efficacy. Early on he said scientism is "an exaggerated trust in the efficacy of the methods of natural science"

So where does "scientism" reside? In the purveyor of bullshit, trying to hitch a bit of vicarious cred from the words "science" and "doctor" and "study"? Then advertising is guilty of constant "scientism."   Does it reside in the RECEIVER, who abjures USING scientific skepticism and accepts, at face value, anything that arrives in a lab coat? I believe we have a word for that: misplaced credulity, superstition, blind faith.
====
5. "Part of this misappropriation comes from thinking that, since science is so good at providing explanations, explanations are all that matter. It's an approach that levels human experience in ways that are both dangerous and sad."
====
So the author is feeling a little put off that his experiences aren't receiving the attention they should because everyone is focused on explanations of common occurrences and measurable effects, etc.? It sounds like he is expressing a degree of jealousy that his (and his ilk's) claims of "other ways of knowing" aren't being respected. Could it be because they can't demonstrate or discuss these other ways of knowing sensibly, consistently?

But worse, is the author offering yet another definition of Scientism, and if so, WHO is the proponent of it other than those people ASSERTING scientism exists? I know NO scientist (or "regular person" who abides by a scientific approach to the world) who says "Explanation is all that matters."
====
6. "Pinker is quite right that scientism is not a coherent doctrine. But that doesn't mean the term is empty."
====
This is bass-ackwards linguistics and etymology. Someone with a bias against science coins the phrase, and now we all have to try to squeeze meaning from it?? Why not put a name to an explicit phenomenon and stick with it. What is the word for misuse of science? What is the word for deceiving by operating under the credibility of a legitimate body of knowledge? What is the name for preying on suckers? We do NOT need to invent Scientism and allow it to be used as a club. There is precedent in the creation and use of the term "atheist" and as rhetorical tactics go, it's pretty powerful.   But let's recognize it for what it is: The coining of a new word as a rhetorical tactic to seek purchase when other means of argument are failing. Conversation diversion, and stoppage over fear of some perceived negative trait. Scientism is bad... he is a scientist. He is bad. Q.E.D.
====
7. The signoff: --- "You can keep up with more of what Adam Frank is thinking on Facebook and on Twitter."
====
No.. no, i don't think I can because this mush is not followable. If you find his writing appealing or meaningful, you may have confirmation bias that seeks support for your innate assumption that there IS some thing, or behavior, out there called "scientism." Let me reiterate... there may be a thing out there... an experience... or a tendency by some to limit their experience by using an analytical method over an intuitive approach. But we don't need to invent new buzzwords to talk about it. THIS word is not going to help describe that thing, clarify anyone's thinking or advance your end goal. All it does is serve as a weapon hurled against science, in an attempt to equate science with religion and to stop or derail discussions onto a self-serving siding, where nothing moves forward.

Think about it... if you're confronted by someone doing something, would you rather say "Hey.. that's "scientism"! Stop it." or would it be more effective to clearly discuss the specific thing being done? You are misrepresenting data. You are making claims you cannot support. Your certainty minimizes my concerns and experience.You're a fraud.

ANY of these would be better than reaching into your arsenal and deploying the utterly destructive "S" bomb.

Organ Preservation

2013-05-11T09:54:00.005-05:00

Organism -- Organ -- Organic -- What a wonderful root word. A system of many parts, functioning together as one for purposes any individual component could simply not achieve. I first started thinking about this as I began reading Neal Stephenson's "Cryptonomicon," in which the protagonist's childhood is filled with work involving a large church organ.

Any individual pipe played one note, in one timbre. Alone, the parts were minimally useful, and limited in function.

I thought a bit more about "organs" in the context of work relations, and the "organism" that any company is: A bunch of individuals coming together, applying their individual skillsets to the common goal, raising the organism of their company to heights and achievements unattainable by any of the individuals. What an organism built the pyramids?

When it falls to his father to maintain the organ, the mystery of the beautiful sounds is revealed in the mechanisms that allow it all to happen... hundreds of elements strung together, mechanically, systematically, so that an infinite variety of sounds could be achieved.

Then I got thinking, how do you make an organism? How do you get individual parts to bind together for a common function?

Seems to me there are machines, and organisms. Machines have been constructed from a bunch of discrete parts thrown together by someone who sees a novel use in their combination. An organism, on the other hand, is a voluntary, or evolved, association of organs and systems and components. How about an organic machine? What if someone sees that forcibly combining the functions of a variety of organic systems can achieve amazing results? That sounds like a company, if each organism participates voluntarily, and a machinery of slavery if not -- visualize a French slave Galley ship, oarsmen shackled to their seats, bound to fulfill their role until they die.

Is it any different in the human organism? We are an evolved amalgam of symbiotic, parasitic, and co-dependent "organisms" acting as a single unit. We are FULL of specialized organs performing narrow tasks, ALL working to keep this mass of protoplasm alive and replicating.

I like to say, "You can't help what you're born into, but it need not determine who you are or what you do." But it is not so for all of the organisms in our body. Did the eye get to choose to join? Can it change function for a while? Can the eye decide it wants to be an anus for a week? Why is it so different for individual humans? Perhaps an individual's choice to change and leave the organism into which he or she is born is not so easy, either? We may be unaware of an organism in which we participate. Does the liver "know" that it is required to produce bile, or be kicked to the curb?

The lines between discrete and dependent organisms is quite difficult to draw. When a cell decides it will no longer replicate and divide the way 4 billion ancestral generations of its kin have done, it is called a cancer. It is excised or killed. What if a cancer could leave the organism, so that the organism wasn't affected? Could such apostate cell structures live alone? What if such a change "snuck past the goalie" (in a hockey metaphor) didn't upset the organism, and the change had beneficial results for the organism as a whole. We'll call this deviation a beneficial mutation.
-----
Tangential aside:
Which subcomponent of the human organism got the best role? I'd vote for eyes... or any sub-organ contributing to sensations. Yeah, alimentary canal, I know you got a bum deal... Day after day, same shit.
-----

And then, how do you keep an organ or organism healthy? It's all the same, I suppose: Align the parts; assure each is playing its role; cut out the cancers, replace the cracked pipes. Grease one, oil another, be sure the next is sliding freely. Tightly restrain this one, balance that one against another's force. Make the organ sing.

But where does the organism go, what does it do, what is it "for?"... who leads it to achieve its intended result? On a pipe organ -- all mechanical stops and whistles-- the organ player manipulates the internal organs of the Organ to achieve beautiful results. What is the leader of each individual human organism? Where is the organ player, pressing our keys, playing our pedals.... Is there one? Is there an "I" driving this beautiful hunk of protoplasm? And in a company, what force aligns the voluntarily assembled components to pull together? What of a religion? What of a societal organism? Who's saying where society should go... other than the mad tumbling of all the independent sub-components inside it, acting according to the principles they choose as guides to action.

Whether we get a harmony or a cacophony... who's to say how it is "supposed to be. It's organic. It "is what it is." And then one day, some part of your organ rebels and you leap up and say, "'It is what it is!' my ass! You traitorous bit of flesh. I'm the driver of this organism, and you're going to get tuned up!! I'm in control!!"

All of the other systems leap to the defense of the organism, and the battle to preserve the organ is on! Eventually we all join some "Organ" preservation society...

Free Markets: How the cards are stacked.

2012-11-29T09:31:00.001-06:00

Ostensibly about copyright, the case of Supap Kirtsaeng is about how the American people are living under a system that stacks economic advancement strongly in favor of the corporation, rather than the individual. It is about keeping us in the dark about trans-national pricing of commodities, so that we complacently pay the highest price the corporation can extract.

A corporation is allowed to locate its manufacture offshore, to reap the benefits of low cost labor, then import the product and mark up the prices to "what the market will bear" in the US. It's the standard mode of doing business. Find cheaper sources abroad, to enhance profit.

With a secure, high-paying market in place, that same manufacturer is then open to sell the same, cheaply manufactured product in other markets, at much lower prices... whatever the market will bear there. What a win/win for the manufacturer. Corporations are allowed to move production jobs away from where they would pay high wages, then re-import the product to extract whatever might be left of those high wages their former workers still hold.

Kirtsaeng had the genius and temerity to reverse the flow, in the market for textbooks. If an American company can produce and sell a text book in Thailand for pennies on the dollar, why shouldn't he be allowed to import the book and sell it here? He implemented his plan and made $1.2 million selling books, shipped to him by family in his native Thailand, to his American classmates.

A free-market capitalist should be THRILLED by this competition and improved "efficiency" in the market. Well, except that efficiency is not actually what they seek, individually. In reality they seek to protect markets, limiting competition, so that they can charge the highest price possible. When they want to take advantage of "Low Cost Countries" it's all well and good. But when someone flips the tables on them, they cry foul.

Pharmaceutical companies follow the same model, citing research and development costs as the rationale for charging US consumers hundreds of times more for the same drugs. This model is extractive in the extreme, focusing not on how to build and grow a nation or an economy, but instead focusing on how to stack the cards in favor of vampiric, extractive industries. They focus on how to keep the cow still while sucking the milk, blood, meat and bone from the docile and complacent carcass of the American public.

This SCOTUS case is just one more attempt by industry to stick their fingers in the leaking dike of policy regulating US/international commerce. The alternative? Stop protecting these industries, free the market and let information spread freely and rapidly, enhancing knowledge and civilization worldwide.

Isolationism -- It's not just for nations anymore!

2012-11-19T11:39:00.000-06:00

I'm coming to the hard won conclusion that I exist on a small island of human interaction, the shores of which are being eroded by the pull of conflicting thought processes.

Maxim 1: "You only get what you allow." This has been a liberating force in my life, as I worked my way out from under relatively mild forms of "abuse"... whether it be bullying as a child, or oppressive employers, or manipulative "friends," of dogmatic religious thinking. I learned, over time to confidently establish what I would and would not allow in my life, and walk away from those unwilling to give me room to be "me." We DO have the power to change our situations. We DO have the ability to be whatever we want to be.

Coming to this conclusion has brought many positive benefits to my life, but I think until now I have been ignoring the potentially erosive side effects of assuming I can control the shape of love. I'll save the punchline for later.

Maxim 2: "You only get what you give." The Beatles phrased it differently, saying, "And in the end, the love you take is equal to the love you make." The beauty of sharing, the value of giving, the payback for love is unquestionable. The amount of trust I receive does, in my experience, seem to be directly tied to the amount I give.

Yet these two halves of my Ying/Yang are fighting. Unilateral openness, to give love and trust, and to share with others leaves me open to being taken advantage of. And somehow my fear of being taken advantage of has become the dominant force in my approach to others; a self fulfilling prophecy, as my constricted willingness to give of myself for fear of being abused leaves my relations with others a shadow of what they could be. To use a Louisiana/Mississippi metaphor... my efforts to dam the river and prevent flooding, have resulted in a reduction in the size of my island, because no silt is laid down to build and restore land washed away in the floods.

In an attempt to avoid being taken advantage of, or have my trust violated, I extend the hand of "love" with an attached EULA... you know, and "End User Licensing Agreement." The kind of thing you see every time you download a new piece of software.

"Rob agrees to participate in this act of friendship, but there are no guarantees either written or implied. This offer of assistance today in no way obligates said offerer to any further commitments." And worse, this approach affects how I RECEIVE love and friendship. "Further, any decency, assistance, or show of generosity offered to Rob, shall be paid back immediately in equal dollar value. If cash value is not determinable, then giver accepts that no tangible obligation has been established." If I accept a gift, I'm bound (in my mind) to some reciprocity... so I'd rather pay equal measures and keep the slate of paybacks wiped clean. I sure as hell want to avoid accepting a "chit" that can later be called in for WAY more than I thought I was being given at the time I accepted it.

In establishing protective boundaries to avoid being hurt, I have also inadvertently erected presumptive filters through which I see every human approach: How is this person's attempt to interact with me going to violate me? How can I make sure that, if I agree to interact, I set the terms to protect my interests? How can I engage in "conditional love" and make sure I leave myself sufficient escape clauses that I never really commit to it? How will my accepting the love and kindness of others set me up for undesired future obligations, and what obligations are those givers burying beneath their offering? If I don't believe in GIVING unconditional trust and love, how can I ever receive it? And yet, history cannot be ignored, and I cannot wish for a world filled with good-intentioned fellow-travellers. We must, to some degree, acknowledge and prepare for the ill-willed; the dangerous; the predatory. At question is, "To what degree?"

I am no where near resolving this conflict, but somewhere out there it seems that the answer is in the idea that I must believe that the degree to which a person can take advantage of me is never more powerful than the way I can influence the world by giving. Somehow I have to accept that the degree to which I deserved any perceived "abuse" or "violation of trust" or "being taken advantage of"... or the degree to which I can control it in advance... is no more explicable than the degree to which I have "earned" or "deserve" the love and trust of my family and friends. Spending time defending one uncontrollable aspect, while devoting no time to building up the other is clearly not working.

Something's gotta give... but I can't let go of either maxim, nor see a route to successfully temper them to appropriate weights. But as I look at the mainland from my shrinking, eroding island, I hear the increasingly strident, wise tones of a Maine'r saying, "Ayup... Ya can't get the'ah from he'ah."

"Even a Blind Squirrel Finds an Acorn..."

2012-10-01T08:19:00.003-05:00

I was thrilled to read a ruling on a lawsuit claiming that mandatory contraceptive coverage by insurers violated the Religious Liberty of Employers.

I wrote, a few weeks back, in this post,

But let us expose the absurdity of this “I don’t want MY money funding things I disagree with!” logic from one more angle: Imagine you are an employer. To keep the numbers simple (if not 100% realistic) let’s assume you pay an employee $1,000 dollars for the services she has rendered to you, and you submit $1,000 in tax money to the government for services they are (ostensibly) rendering. If you believe your “conscience” allows you to demand that the government not use that $1,000 for making contraception more available, what stops you from insisting that your female employee not be allowed to spend “your” money on contraception herself? In both cases you are a party to a contract. One is a labor agreement, the other is a social compact, and in NEITHER case do you have control over what is done with the money you agree to pay to these entities.

Focusing on RFRA, the court held (Read about the whole ruling here):

the challenged regulations do not demand that plaintiffs alter their behavior in a manner that will directly and inevitably prevent plaintiffs from acting in accordance with their religious beliefs…. [P]laintiffs remain free to exercise their religion, by not using contraceptives and by discouraging employees from using contraceptives. The burden of which plaintiffs complain is that funds, which plaintiffs will contribute to a group health plan, might, after a series of independent decisions by health care providers and patients covered by OIH’s plan, subsidize someone else’s participation in an activity that is condemned by plaintiffs’ religion. This Court rejects the proposition that requiring indirect financial support of a practice, from which plaintiff himself abstains according to his religious principles, constitutes a substantial burden on plaintiff’s religious exercise….

… [T]he health care plan will offend plaintiffs’ religious beliefs only if an OIH employee (or covered family member) makes an independent decision to use the plan to cover counseling related to or the purchase of contraceptives. Already, OIH and Frank O’Brien pay salaries to their employees---money the employees may use to purchase contraceptives or to contribute to a religious organization. By comparison, the contribution to a health care plan has no more than a de minimus impact on the plaintiff’s religious beliefs than paying salaries and other benefits to employees.

I'd love to believe that the justices involved read my blog before making the decision, but Occam's Razor forces me to draw a much simpler, more parsimonious and less egomaniacal conclusion: Coming to this conclusion is not rocket science, and the plaintiffs' position is so weak that it is likely ANY decent judicial mind would arrive at these very same conclusions.

Nonetheless...I was glad to see I dreamed it up independently, prior to the court ruling. "Even a blind squirrel finds an acorn once in a while."

47% of all Statistics Are Made up... By Mitt.

2012-09-19T13:05:00.004-05:00

I thought momentarily that Christian Schneider was going to do something I have rarely seen, in his opinion piece of Wednesday, September 19, 2012 “Insulting Voters Not Best Strategy.” I thought the conservative Schneider was going to admit that one of his own made a mistake.

He laid out the factual details of Mitt Romney’s “47%” blunder, and I hoped he was going to explain why Romney’s statements were unfair, incorrect, or ill advised. Let’s start there, before getting to Schneider. Romney said,
“There are 47 percent of the people who will vote for the president no matter what. All right, there are 47 percent who are with him, who are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims, who believe the government has a responsibility to care for them, who believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you-name-it -- that that's an entitlement.”

Romney simultaneously implies that ALL Democratic voters are poor, dependent and shiftless AND that NONE of the 47% non-taxpaying, so-called dependent people vote Republican. Neither of these propositions are true. There are plenty of wealthy, or middle class voters who vote Democratic; a substantial percentage of those not paying taxes are elderly folks who certainly paid taxes most of their lives but are now on fixed income; and a substantial percentage of Romney’s support comes from poor, red-state inhabitants making less than $24,000 a year who still vote Republican.

But Christian Schneider never got to the kind of mea-culpas hinted at by the column’s title. Instead, he noted that Romney’s gaffe was reminiscent of Obama’s 2008 “cling to guns and religion” comment in Pennsylvania. This is some sort of distractionary “two-wrongs may not make a right, but you’re just as guilty, judge not, lest ye be judged” kind of argument. Schneider does it again in his final paragraph, accusing Obama of “fomenting class warfare” but acknowledging Romney’s doing the same thing in reverse. Can’t a conservative criticize a Republican without having to first tell us all how bad the Democrat is?

Finally, all wistful hope was lost when Schneider began “Eastwooding.” He wrote, “(Oddly enough, Obama was talking about rural Democrats; his thoughts on rural Republicans might make the author of “50 Shades of Grey” blush.)” I thought when Clint Eastwood talked to an empty chair at the recent Republican Convention, implying the President of the United States dropped the F-bomb, that we would have seen the last attempt by a Republican to put words in the President’s mouth. Mr. Christian… Do you actually have ANY evidence of what the President would say about rural Republicans, or do you just want to suggest the President is a filthy mouthed sado-masochist, so therefore we should let Romney’s upper-crust, ill advised, factually incoherent bad-mouthing of Democrats slide?

I thought momentarily that Christian Schneider (no relation) was going to do something I have rarely seen, in his opinion piece of Wednesday, September 19, 2012 “Insulting Voters Not Best Strategy.” I thought the conservative Schneider was going to admit that one of his own made a mistake.

He laid out the factual details of Mitt Romney’s “47%” blunder, and I hoped he was going to explain why Romney’s statements were unfair, incorrect, or ill advised. Let’s start there, before getting to Schneider. Romney said,

“There are 47 percent of the people who will vote for the president no matter what. All right, there are 47 percent who are with him, who are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims, who believe the government has a responsibility to care for them, who believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you-name-it -- that that's an entitlement.”

But Schneider never got to the kind of mea-culpas hinted at by the column’s title. Instead, he noted that Romney’s gaffe was reminiscent of Obama’s 2008 “cling to guns and religion” comment in Pennsylvania. This is some sort of distractionary, “two-wrongs may not make a right, but you’re just as guilty; judge not, lest ye be judged” kind of argument. Schneider does it again in his final paragraph, accusing Obama of “fomenting class warfare” but acknowledging Romney’s doing the same thing in reverse. Can’t a conservative criticize a Republican without having to first tell us all how bad the Democrat is?

Finally, all wistful hope was lost when Schneider began “Eastwooding.” He wrote, “(Oddly enough, Obama was talking about rural Democrats; his thoughts on rural Republicans might make the author of “50 Shades of Grey” blush.)” I thought when Clint Eastwood talked to an empty chair at the recent Republican Convention, implying the President of the United States dropped the F-bomb, that we would have seen the last attempt by a Republican to put words in the President’s mouth. Mr. Christian… Do you actually have ANY evidence of what the President would say about rural Republicans, or do you just want to suggest the President is a filthy mouthed sado-masochist, so therefore we should let Romney’s upper-crust, ill advised, factually incoherent bad-mouthing of Democrats slide?

Shoe on the Other Foot?

2012-08-10T16:25:00.003-05:00

I started my new job today at Chik-Fil-A, working the cash register, taking orders and delivering food. Sadly, I'm not sure I'm going to last.

When I went to deliver food to my first customer I asked him, "Do you support equal civil benefits for all married people, regardless of the gender balance in the marriage? In other words, do you believe gay married couples should be treated equally, with the same civil rights for gay marriages as are granted to heterosexual marriages?"

Dumbfounded, Bubba snapped back at me. "Hell no! What the fuck kinda question is that! Gimme my chicken!"

I tossed the tray backwards over my head and said, "I'm sorry. My religious beliefs prevent me from feeding a person who is as bigoted as you. It is against my conscience to provide sustenance to the living, walking vessel of such prejudices and blatant discrimination."

You should have seen the look on my manager's face!! He yelled "You're fired!" and I yelled back, "You can't remove me from a position that I cannot do because of my religious beliefs. You're trampling on my religious expression!!"

So I intend to go back tomorrow and hold down that job, and not deliver any chicken to anyone who disagrees with my position. And there ain't a damn thing the manager can do.

========

Question time: Why would my assertion of religious belief be any less protected than, say, a pharmacist who refuses to dispense birth control for religious reasons? Is it because one's a private business and one's a government regulated, licensed job?

If it is legitimate to ask for a law to protect your religious beliefs, even if they interrupt the normal delivery of services, what distinguishes Chik-Fil-A from a pharmacy?

Is it only okay to have such rules apply to places where government money is being spent, or where government regulation/licensure is involved?

That seems absolutely Jabberwocky to me. Why would religious expressions only be protected if GOVERNMENT money is involved? That seems to invert Separation of Church and State, and impose on government a religious restriction that is not imposed on private employers. The only result I can see from that is government must effectively become an enforcer of each individual's religious whims.

So why, Mr. Private Business Owner, would you advocate for a conscientious objection clause to be included in government work or government funded work, but not allow the same to your own employees?

Believe What You Want!

2012-08-08T22:26:00.000-05:00

Recently a friend, in the midst of a turbulent debate with me over the causes of global warming, reached his limits. Neither side appeared to have a solid foundation for their case, in the eyes of the other. Evidence offered as conclusive proof by one of us was blown off by the other as marginally relevant, or grossly misread. In fact, both of us often used the same piece of "evidence" to arrive at diametrically opposed conclusions. As I argued against his position he looked at me and said, "Look, we're not getting anywhere. People believe what they want to believe."

People believe what they want to believe.

It stopped me in my tracks, and initially had me despising the cynicism on display. But the more I think about "belief," and getting beyond it, the more I view his comment as a truly profound statement. It will take a few more (dozens?) posts to fully explain why, but let's start with the assumption he's right. If people believe what they want, what do people want to believe?

We humans have an incredible bias towards interpreting new experience in light of past experience. So we tend to want to believe we're right already, and we look for confirmation of existing beliefs in every new piece of data. At best, this is referred to as "confirmation bias" and scientists go out of their way to eliminate its influence on their experiments. At worst this tendency manifests itself in conspiracy theorists who see EVERYTHING as proof of their position.

We have a tendency to WANT to believe things that allow us to continue holding beliefs we already have adopted and, in some cases, even ingrained into our very identity by holding them so long. People WANT to believe in a consistent identity, and tend to not believe things that might force them to reconsider something that they feel is a part of them.

This brings up a nasty conflict... for the next post.

There is no such thing as "Good Writing"

2012-08-07T11:45:00.001-05:00

I had a chance to sing at a recent backyard party, under marginal duress and significant influence of drink. It went off surprisingly well, and a few people commented on my "nice voice." One lady however, a professional singer, said that singing is not like riding a bike and if I wanted to develop my voice I would have to practice and build my instrument, not just expect to whip it out once a year at a karaoke mic. I have no intention of becoming a singer, but it reminded me of a college English teacher who told me, "There's no such thing as good writing! Only good Re-Writing."

I do have intention of being a writer, but I must stop fooling myself, thinking that somehow a brilliant treatise is going to spring full-formed onto the page without practicing and "building my instrument" on a regular basis.

So, if for nothing more than to practice my writing "scales," I intend to write a little something here every day (or so). There will not be any full on attempt at re-writing. But the exercise, I hope, will lead to a stronger voice, and be a sign of active commitment to the goal of writing for publication.

Discipline, practice, success.

Brewery Ommegang: Abbey Ale

2012-04-02T22:18:00.002-05:00

Well, the title of my blog says it's about the search for truth and fine beers. It's about time I focus on a fine beer. Ommegang's "Abbey Ale" is a stellar brew, that becomes more spectacular as it migrates from fridge temperature to room temperature. They produce a number of incredible beverages, with "Three Philosophers" being my favorite, but "Abbey Ale" is unbelievably (an adjective I like) amazing!! Hie thee, and away!! Find an Abbey Ale now!

Where "religious liberty" ends... Society.

2012-02-24T00:02:00.000-06:00

Religious Liberty. Powerful words at the center of a firestorm in recent weeks. Unless you’re completely disconnected from current events, you have probably heard about the dispute over the new mandate for insurance providers to include contraception in their coverage: good policy or a direct assault on the First Amendment right to free exercise of religion? This mandate applies even to insurance companies owned and operated by religious institutions, and these corporations are shouting from the rooftops their religious liberty is infringed. Is it? I’m feeling Socratic today, so may I ask a few questions that seem to be lacking elsewhere in the discussion, to try to understand this perspective?

Who has been forced, by this new rule, to use contraception against their will?

I think even the holiest of rollers will admit that the new rule doesn’t force anyone to use contraception. No individual is forced to change a belief or act against them in their own life. So where exactly does the “force” against conscience come in? Supposedly it is in forcing “institutions of faith” to contradict their beliefs. Whether an institution can have beliefs or be a “conscientious objector” are reasonable questions. I’m not surprised to see organizations taking this tack, as it is intimately bound to the ethos of the Citizens United decision by the Supreme Court , in which corporate rights were elevated to par with individual citizens, and the act of “spending money” is deemed equal to speech. It’s not surprising, but it’s not right either. “Conscientious objection” is an individual, human capacity.

Or perhaps you see it as an infringement when the Government uses tax money to pay for a public service that you, individually would never pay for because those actions would violate your private religious beliefs. You seem to imply it is “normal” to be able to pick and choose government services, like a buffet. Can we opt out of paying for ANY government service we disagree with? You don’t like contraception. I don’t like wars and oil subsidies. Should we both be able to withhold tax payments for those portions of our bill? What would society look like if we allowed each person to only pay for the things they like, or personally/directly use? Nasty, brutish and short, that’s what. The fact of living in a society means that sometimes you pay for services you don’t use, or from which you only benefit indirectly. Sometimes you pay for services you disagree with, when the overall effect is positive. I cannot help but be reminded of the peasant in Monty Python’s “Holy Grail.” “Come see the violence inherent in thesystem. Help! Help! I’m being repressed.”

Yes, a system… a society… enforces some compromise on the individual… but it also brings benefits. Next.

How is running an insurance company an inalienable tenet of your faith?

The government regulates insurance providers, and just because a business is owned or run by a religious institution does not mean that everything that insurance business does falls under the protection of the First Amendment’s protection of “religious exercise.” Running an insurance business is not a religious exercise. If it were possible to claim that a commercial activity is a part of your “faith” or “mission,” you would see religious organizations falling all over themselves to claim that everything they’re involved with is a part of their faith , and thus can’t be regulated. (Shock! This is exactly what we see.) That’s an untenable path to follow as a pluralistic nation. It would be a cynical ploy, more in service to profit than religious rights, focused more on avoiding societal rules and regulations. This is precisely the game many religiously owned corporations are willing to play, as they seek ways to reduce their tax burden, or increase competitiveness by offering commercial services free of labor and safety rules. What a bonus if they simultaneously get to forcibly impose a tenet of their faith on others, even those who do not believe as they do.

But let us expose the absurdity of this “I don’t want MY money funding things I disagree with!” logic from one more angle: Imagine you are an employer. To keep the numbers simple (if not 100% realistic) let’s assume you pay an employee $1,000 dollars for the services she has rendered to you, and you submit $1,000 in tax money to the government for services they are (ostensibly) rendering. If you believe your “conscience” allows you to demand that the government not use that $1,000 for making contraception more available, what stops you from insisting that your female employee not be allowed to spend “your” money on contraception herself? In both cases you are a party to a contract. One is a labor agreement, the other is a social compact, and in NEITHER case do you have control over what is done with the money you agree to pay to these entities.

Is available contraception in the best interest of the nation and our society?

As I understand it, the cost of making contraception universally available to those who wish to use it is immensely less expensive to society than the restrictive approach to contraceptive access. What is the best policy course to reduce medical expenses overall? What is the best course to provide the MOST people the right to choose to control their reproductive health? What is the solution that improves health the most, while costing the least to each citizen – both monetarily and in terms of having to sacrifice freedom for “the common good?” In the public sphere, the measures are tangible and have to do with cost and quality of health care. It is good theater to try to entangle these issues AND morality in a single, complex rhetorical ball of string, but if we separate the issues, the policy of providing contraception is a “good” for society from a cost perspective. I know, I know… some of you “just can’t put a price on a moral issue.”

Who should have to pay for your private beliefs?

You might think that this new insurance mandate is forcing YOU to act against your conscience by paying for something you don’t like. But the inverse is just as true. Consider if you got your way? Contraception is not subsidized by the state, and is less available. It will be more expensive on many fronts. Is it fair to me, and others like me, that you can use your beliefs to justify imposing costs on the entire society? What makes it “OK” for you to have moral objections to a policy that saves you money, when you don’t seem to be willing to allow me to have moral objections against a policy that costs me more money? Why is YOUR morality more important than society’s pocketbook? But this is where the problem lies:

The money and the morality need to be separated.

Why not go for the “win/win?” Let your tax money enable the policy that is cheaper AND preserves individual freedom (not corporate, or institutional claims to freedom). At the same time, go ahead and continue to live by your own moral code regarding contraception. Everybody’s happy then. In fact, we would be on the same side: I am all for making society more efficient, while allowing individuals to practice their private beliefs in their own lives.

You can choose to adopt and follow the more expensive religious standards for yourself. THAT is your religious right: to practice your beliefs, even if they cost more… just like the person who buys organic milk, or green energy because they think it is the right thing to do for Mother Earth. But, I submit, you may not use your scruples to tell others whether they cannot choose or use contraception. You cannot force the costs and societal impacts of your religious beliefs on those who don’t share your belief. And if you don’t like the public, secular, societal policy decision made by our elected officials, then run for office. But please, don’t try to be a “Legislature of One,” using your claims of “conscience” to enforce your expensive will on society.

A sign of the apocalypse?

2012-02-12T20:06:00.001-06:00

Note: This post was found in my "draft" section, from a few years back.
+++++
Slumdog Millionaire, the multi-oscar nominated film about a poor kid's life in India, is rated R by the Motion Picture Association of America. I've seen the movie. It is very good, but I walked out wondering, "How did that get an R rating?" No sex scenes, a little violence... where's the beef?

So I visited the MPAA site, and found it was "Rated R for some violence, disturbing images and language." Disturbing images? Slums in India? A boy falling into an outhouse? Car battery torture... ah, yes.... the brief torture scene.

And so we pass into a new era... when American citizens have torture deemed too strong to look at in movies, but acceptable as an interrogation technique authorized by the government. Sigh...
Obama, bring us back!

Oh, Lord... I am SOoooo Sorry!!

2012-02-12T19:43:00.002-06:00

In the spirit of Scientific honesty, I have to retract (or at least heavily modify) my previous opinion. I have since gone on to read the book in which many behavioral psychology experiments have been put in context, Daniel Kahneman's "Thinking, Fast and Slow."

My full review is here.http://www.goodreads.com/review/show/261437465

But let me just say that this book has given me a new tolerance for the word "intuition" (when used carefully in the context of "learned" technical or professional expertise. The article comparing the "intuitive" answer and the "reflective" answer phrased things pretty poorly. Instead of arguing for two "different ways of thinking, neither wrong or right" they might have said, "The brain functions in two, sequential systems, and the first of the two is very perceptive and adept at pattern seeking, but horrible at analysis and higher order functions like statistics.

Knowing that your "system 1" brain is likely to make errors, it is critical to train yourself to NOT immediately follow system 1 to a decision. But on the other side of the coin, it is essential that you allow your system 1 to do what it does well and trust it.... because from the "magical" function of system 1 flows inspiration, improvisation and discovery.

Science... Look into it... and for God's sake do it right!

2011-09-26T15:34:00.002-05:00

A posting on the RD.NET site today linked me to a study finding that Belief in God Boils Down to a Gut Feeling. In it the experimentors conducted a test, which included the following:

Shenhav and his colleagues investigated that question in a series of studies. In the first, 882 American adults answered online surveys about their belief in God. Next, the participants took a three-question math test with questions such as, "A bat and a ball cost $1.10 in total. The bat costs $1 more than the ball. How much does the ball cost?"
The intuitive answer to that question is 10 cents, since most people's first impulse is to knock $1 off the total. But people who use "reflective" reasoning to question their first impulse are more likely to get the correct answer: 5 cents.

Note that the "intuitive" answer is WRONG.
In fact, calling it an "intuitive" answer doesn't even rise to the level of being wrong. It's a guess, based on faulty logic and an inability to reason. Period. I will grant that different people have different levels of the "ability to reason," or "to read instructions." But it is a category error of epic proportions to call these failings intuition.

So that was all that bothered me, right? (Oh... you haven't been reading me long enough if you thought this was over.) Toward the end of the article the authors of the study opine, "vis a vis some unhippily empirical comment made by me,"**

"It's not that one way is better than the other," study researcher David Rand of Harvard said in a statement. "Intuitions are important and reflection is important, and you want some balance of the two. Where you are on that spectrum affects how you come out in terms of belief in God."

WHAT!! It's not that one way is better than the other? It sure as hell is, unless you enjoy losing 22% on every transaction you engage in! (That's my intuitive sense of how far off the original answer was. hmm, what do you know... it's wrong too!)

When someone starts sneaking intuition into a discussion, it almost surely is as a trump card to reason, the same way "faith" is used. "Oh well, I can feel my back pressed firmly to the wall, time to use my get out of jail free card and claim that "You just don't understand spirituality and intuition."

** Quote by Tim Minchin, in Storm... a 9 minute, relentless takedown of similar "bullshit" argumentative tactics as those on display by this Harvard Professor.

The Scarlet Letter!

2011-08-15T22:55:00.000-05:00

It is becoming increasingly common for damaged companies to rebrand themselves. Nothing particularly new there, but the number of companies moving to the letter "A" is interesting.

Is an "A" brand a way out of negative, or pejorative opinion? Novell has been bought out by "AttachMate." Philip Morris became "Altria", to shed the stench of tobacco. GMAC became "Ally Bank." And Arthur Andersen became "Accenture." Even psychotropic drugs carry names like "Abilify"

Can't atheists do the same thing and adopt an "A" brand?

The Five Mistakes Most Catholics Make -- Simplified to 1

2011-07-22T09:35:00.000-05:00

Driving the the airport, I found my rental car had pre-programmed radio settings for the "Eternal Word Network." A Catholic radio station. The host was interviewing Gary Zimak of "Following The Truth", who was pontificating about his "reversion" to Catholicism, and his new book on the five mistakes Catholics make.

Listening closely, they all amounted to one thing: According to Gary, the biggest mistake a Catholic can make is to think for him/her self. His list of five essential activities to overcome the mistakes are a compendium of synonyms for "abase thyself", bow to authority, and don't think... ask the Church.

The SINGLE mistake Catholics make at this point, is to continue to invest their whole selves (and money) into a political organization that has covered up pedophilia systematically, as a policy... and doing so by abandoning critical thinking.

Go See Tim Minchin

2011-06-21T22:30:00.001-05:00

About 8 months ago a friend introduced me to a few YouTube videos by Tim Minchin. Within the next couple of months I became quite a fan and swore to go see him if he came anywhere within a two state radius of me. Damn the luck, he came to Chicago!!

June 14th I caught his opening show of the "Just For Laughs" festival, and it was so far above and beyond worth the $25 per ticket we spent to see him. What an evening. Minchin is a mix of Elton John, Gilbert and Sullivan, David Bowie, Robert Ingersoll, Bertrand Russell, and Tom Lehrer... but better.

I am apparently not alone in my assessment: The woman sitting next to me had flown in from Israel to see all 5 of Tim's Chicago shows.

When he finally breaks HUGE in America (probably with his musical "Matilda") the throngs to see him will be difficult to overcome. Catch him now while he is remotely "unknown" and the tickets are wonderfully cheap!!

And if you live where he is not appearing, soak up every second of his material on YouTube. Great stuff, and too many excellent songs to bother putting a "favorite" list together. Enjoy!

Too many coincidences?

2011-05-31T08:57:00.001-05:00

So, I'm reading the latest posting by Sam Harris, at www.samharris.org. "Morality Without 'Free Will'" is the title, and look at the number of Facebook likes.

It just seems a little TOO lucky. :-)

Great Day in Oregon, for the Visible and the Existent!

2011-05-26T15:13:00.001-05:00

So sanity in a governing body can prevail? The Oregon Senate's passage of a bill making death by faith healing a subject for first degree murder prosecution is a dim spot of hope in a legal landscape increasingly covered in faith. The decision fits in with an earlier post of mine that society can/does/must limit religious practices, all the time. I particularly liked the rationale for extending the law.

It is designed to apply rules equally to all parents whose children die because they didn’t get medical care. Current law makes it tougher to convict parents who do not provide a child with medical care for religious reasons than those who don’t for reasons such as neglect.

To paraphrase Delos Banning McKown, "Neglect and faith healing look very much alike."

Halloween Horrors

2010-11-01T16:38:00.000-05:00

There's always one wackaloon in my neighborhood handing out Christian tracts. This year's is especially lovely. A $1-Billion bill, with the "Billion Dollar Question" on its reverse side: "Are you going to Hell?" Of course it also tells you the only way to avoid it is to read and obey the Bible.

Brought to you by Ray "BananaMan" Comfort, and Living Waters Ministry.
A great gift for kids! Anyone else suffer this kind of silliness and want to share?

The Power (and abuse ) of Precedent: Inconceivable!

2010-10-22T11:22:00.001-05:00

In an article on the Freedom From Religion Foundation’s work to stop prayer being broadcast over loudspeakers at a Tennessee high school’s football games, a parent responds in defense of the practice:

But parent Jim Rogers, whose son Jason is manager of the football team at East Hamilton School, said he believes public Christian prayer falls under his free speech rights.

“Our country was founded on the principle of religious suffrage and the freedom to express that religion. They incorporated God into our money, the oath of office, our legal system, the Pledge of Allegiance. You cannot find one aspect of our secular government that doesn’t make reference to our creator,” he said.

“Founded on.” In deference to Inigo Montoya, “I don’t think that word means what you think it means.”

The founders did not incorporate god in our money. The first appearance of “In God We Trust” is 1861. It got there by the act of Salmon P. Chase, Secretary of the Treasury, founder of nothing.

The national motto was changed from E Pluribus Unum (From many, One) to “In God We Trust” in the mid 1950’s as a part of the “Red Scare” response to “godless Communism” that also injected “Under God” into the Pledge of Allegiance.

So Help Me God is not an official part of the Presidential Oath of Office.

It is one thing to argue from facts, and another to argue from ignorant beliefs that have been foisted on you by people with an agenda. All you have to do is repeat a lie often enough and it becomes truth, and the incremental precedents set in all of these small cases, build up to a group of brainwashed Christians actively seeking to designate America a Christian Nation.

Alternatively, you could do a little fact checking and find truth of another person's assertions, rather than simply repeating falsehoods that support the position you wish were true.

When the supreme court rules that “ceremonial deism” or “God inserted to the pledge” is done primarily for secular reasons and has little or no effect on the establishment of religion, I would argue: Incremental rulings and insertions of God into the secular public square prop up the lunacy and fallacious arguments of people like parent Jim Rogers.

And that’s just inconceivable!

"..no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust"

2010-10-20T10:24:00.008-05:00

Over at Religion Clause there is discussion of a very heated exchange between Kentucky State Attorney General Jack Conway and Libertarian/Republican candidate for Senate Ron Paul, over the nature of Paul's religious belief.

Conway fired the first shot in this campaign commercial (click to view). IMHO, pretty low on the scum scale for reprehensible campaign tactics, especially the closing line, "Why are so many questions being asked about Rand Paul?" Uh... because you just asked them, perhaps??

Paul replied, indignantly faithfully, in his own commercial (click to view). He's got good writers. He pulls on many Christian heart-strings/themes in this ad. Paul "holds Christ in his heart;" has a wife and kids (straight, married); accuses opponent of "bearing false witness" (commandment allusions, always good.)

Then, in a debate on October 17, both sides furthered their positions. In what could be viewed as a rhetorical master-stroke, Paul recalls the Army/McCarthy hearings, asking Conway, "Have you no decency? Have you no shame?"

Both sides are completely wrong, and their responses speak to the desperate need for an alternative approach to these injections of faith in the election process. Each man is attacking the other's faith, but no one is attacking the injection of faith into the process.

There are two critical problems to address here:

1) What is an effective approach to the Conway's of the world who inject "faith" as a legitimate campaign question... a de-facto religious test, designed explicitly to ask people to base their votes on the degree to which a candidate is "one of us?" Certainly a candidate doing this is not the same as the federal government having a "religious test" for office, but it has the same effect. What tactic can successfully rebut this shameless injection of religion into politics?

2) On the other hand, Paul asserts that anyone who ridicules another's faith is completely beyond the pale. This, too, needs to be successfully rebutted. There is no reason whatsoever why, if a person is injecting their faith into the defense of their candidacy, or as a justification for it, that critics should not be able to rail on them about the intermingling of "faith" and politics OR call them to account for specifics of how that faith might influence their legislation.

Two of my key assumptions about what one "should" or "should not" do in a campaign have been violated:
1. Don't bring faith/religion into politics, because as an elected representative you must serve in a secular government, legislating for the faith-neutral rights of ALL citizens.
2. Don't assert that certain topics are off limits for discussion simply because they relate to your faith, ESPECIALLY if you feel it is acceptable to bring your faith into your campaign as a positive support for your candidacy. You must take the good with the bad. Do not call, as Paul did, anyone who questions another man's faith a practitioner of gutter politics.
How can we effectively rebut the religious trump card asserted by paul in this debate excerpt?

Beyond the candidates, how can we STOP idiot moderators from asking, as if it were a legitimate question, "Let's be clear... do you think he's a Good Christian?" See 1:19 mark in this link.

If we take this specific case as microcosm, and look back at the "Compassion Forum" held during the Obama campaign in 2008 (among other instances), we can see there is a larger pattern in elections across the U.S. to inject a religious test during the campaign process. For our democracy, and for individual candidates, I ask you to come up with the most effective rebuttal you can. Let's help eliminate religious tests from the campaign trail.

How would you reply to someone who questioned your fitness for office because of your non-belief (or belief in a minority God)?
How would you most effectively call an opponent on the carpet who begins to use his faith as support for his candidacy?
How would you reply to the moderator's inappropriate question?