Death of Debate

More and more I'm coming to realize that debating is less and less relevant in today's world. The idea of a debate is simple enough: two (or more) debaters have different opinions on a course of action or truth claim and they each present compelling arguments to convince the audience to their point of view. However, the problem is that most debates use arguments, not evidence, to state their case. Arguments, however, are not always based on scientific evidence and instead are based on emotions.

When listening to someone present an emotionally-charged argument I'm beginning to realize that as the emotion increases, the evidence decreases. In other words, when you have little evidence (or in the face of contradictory evidence) appeal to the listener's emotions. This works because our emotions are far more developed than our logic and we are more likely to react to, and remember, our emotions. The 'truth' of the argument now rests with how it made us feel not the logic behind it.

Churches and pseudoscience purveyors have known this, either consciously or unconsciously. Blaming atheists, homosexuals or Jews for the ills of society is easy to do. Simply show that they displease god and when god is upset, god causes bad things to happen. Why? Because the Bible says so. Bad things bring out negative emotions therefore believers now connect these people to their emotions.

Now, try to use logic to show that atheists are not the cause of the problem. It takes a long stream of logic and there will always be questions requiring answers. But the listener must work to follow the logic and may forget the reasons whereas the emotional response is almost instantaneous and easily recalled.

It seems that believers in religion and pseudoscience have stalled in their evolution of thinking. Arguments that rely on emotion are no longer relevant now that we have the scientific method of acquiring evidence and actually testing ideas. We know this works because science has allowed an exponential increase in human knowledge and technology.

As Jonathan Haidt outlines in his book, 'The Happiness Hypothesis', our mind consists of an elephant and a rider. The elephant represents autonomic brain functions and our emotions. The elephant, for the most part, does what it wants. The rider is our logic and reason but it is not in control of the elephant. Instead it is a slave or advisor to the elephant. It is given control only when the elephant wants to be controlled. It's important to recognize that in this model, the elephant came first and has been very successful through its evolution. The rider evolved to assist the elephant and add variety to the elephant's choices. This, too, was successful in evolution.

To move forward we must work hard to train our elephant to give more control to the rider. Debating through emotions can no longer be accepted, we must teach through science and reason. Maybe our next leap in evolution will be to give our rider a whip.

Here's a talk by Jonathan Haidt that inspired me to read his book:

More Fun!

Bob Marley acting as his own legal counsel:

Expelled on YouTube

Expelled is on Youtube here:

http://www.youtube.com/user/virtualprophecy

It probably won't be up for too long as I'm sure there is some sort of copyright infringement. I'm just glad I could see it without giving a dime to the producers!

Everything that needs to be said about the movie likely has. My only purpose in watching it was to try and understand the point of view of the IDers. I think the three big points that IDers will rally around are:

1. ID is a competitive theory to Evolution - this is nonsense. ID is an idea, it hasn't made it to hypothesis let alone theory. Sorry, but schools don't have time to teach ideas in science.

2. Evolution leads to atheism - maybe, but so what? What if it lead to Hinduism, or Jainism? Just because an established theory based on mountains of fact and evidence changes a person's worldview doesn't mean the theory is wrong. It is the dogmatic preservation of worldviews that leads to conflict, not the ability to change.

3. Evolution is a dangerous idea that leads to mass murder - this is an emotional conspiracy theory that, I think, honestly strikes fear in theists. They really do think that Hitler's godlessness is what made him evil (no one knows for sure if Hitler was godless). No matter how much we try to counter the idea they will still cover their ears and hum loudly. But again, even if we could prove that the Holocast was completely due to evolution that still doesn't make the theory wrong.

So, if you're home ill or doing a mundane chore, watch Expelled if you want to make it worse.

How Many Gods?

I keep hearing theists argue that there is a god because of design, or morality, or how it 'feels right'. From there, of course, they're happy to say how this god is a Christian, or Muslim, Jewish, etc (ya, ya, they're the same, I know).

However, I can't understand how ANY theist argument proves the existance of ONE god. Every one of their arguments could just as easily describe many gods (a sun-making god, a planet-making god, black hole god, etc.).

From now on, I think I'll start challenging theists with this:

Without using a holy book, give evidence that it's impossible for 2 or more gods to exist.

For The Budding Chemist

Want to get your kids interested in chemistry? Why not show them how to destroy a gummy bear:

Just Because

Now this is funny!

Climate Change

Potholer54 on Youtube has an excellent series of videos, including the 'Made Easy' series. He's a former Science Journalist who is now making free science videos based on his past and recent research. The videos below are Part 1 and 2 of his Climate Change series (at least one more Part is on the way):

Climate Change - The Scientific Debate


Climate Change - The Objections


He carefully looks at the science of Climate Change and gives a balanced view of the proponents and skeptics - using science to determine who is most likely correct, imagine that! Enjoy.

Life At 40

I turned 40 yesterday and, remarkably, today feels the same as yesterday. Maybe it hasn't hit me yet but I certainly don't feel 40. No mental crisis, no failing ability, no longing for the past or fearing of the future. I am.

Honestly, I think it's atheism that has protected me through this transition. I've spent an embarrassing amount of time reading atheist books, watching atheist videos and thinking atheistic thoughts and have found... contentment. It's amazing to have a mind that can freely contemplate and look with wonder at the universe. The understanding that science is the best tool we've ever created to make sense of the world and provide technologies to make life more enjoyable.

When I look back at human history I recognize that I live, in almost every way, a far better life than virtually every other human who ever lived. Shelter, food, love, knowledge; I could go on. The Pharoahs who deified themselves, collected immense wealth and made slaves of their people didn't have a toilet, air conditioning or basic medicine - but I do!

If Life, as they say, begins at 40, I'm ready.

The God Puzzle

I'm a subscriber to DonExodus2's channel on YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/user/DonExodus2). He's a Christian that has made some excellent science videos. He's not a creationist but he did make a two-part video on why he believes in god. He seems to be intelligent, highly educated and yet, he believes. I have always been fascinated by people like this. I suppose the only real answer is that they want to believe.

In trying to think of an analogy for why this is, so I came up with a 'god puzzle'. Imagine we believe that god gives us a great puzzle to solve and all the abilities we'd require to solve it. We go out into the world and begin finding pieces of the puzzle (the beauty of butterflies, DNA is the building block of life, gravity is warping of space/time, etc.). We eagerly put these pieces together knowing that the final picture will be the definition of what god is. However, when we have only a few pieces left we look at the puzzle and are horrified! Instead of a description of god, we can plainly see it says, "God does not exist."

As a freethinker, we can overcome our shock and become enlightened. We've done it, we've solved the puzzle! For a believer, the truth paralyzes them. Their options are to let go of their preconceived ideas or to deny what they see (maybe demons are tricking them). They may smash the puzzle and attempt to hide the pieces forever. Or, in the case of educated believers, they simply refuse to finish it. They'll continue to collect puzzle pieces but will stop putting them together. They'd rather spend time finding pieces than solving puzzles.

I always thought that this would make a good plot for a story. God exists, however, god decides to create a puzzle that proves god's non-existence. This god gives people the ability discover this truth. Upon their death, god gives the greatest reward to those who use their abilities properly and stand firm in their belief that there is no god. Heaven, it turns out, is reserved for honest atheists!

Here's one of DonExodus2's evolution videos:

Sarah Pukin'

This video is no longer relevant but I'm disappointed that I didn't see it during the American election:

Oodles of Science Videos

Have a thirst for Physics, Evolution, Cosmology, etc? Check out Zuke696's playlist:

http://www.youtube.com/profile_play_list?user=Zuke696

No shortage of videos here!

What Do We Tell The Children?

Atheists, it is said, don't want to indoctrinate their children into atheism. Like all blanket generalizations, this likely isn't true. Just as there are parents pounding the fear of god into their kids, there are likely many parents giving the opposite message: you'd better not start believing in god(s) or else....!

The goal isn't to make kids atheists, or a-conservatives or a-liberals or a-discoists. No parent should be teaching kids what not to believe! Instead, a rational goal will be to teach kids how to believe. In other words, arm them with tools that help them to determine what is worthwhile believing in and what is not.

Kids need to learn skepticism. They need to learn to question what they are being told. To be highly suspicious if someone tells you to believe something "because I say so!" To distinguish between theory and idea, fact and speculation, truth and a lie.

Skepticism, though, is very difficult. We need to understand truths about reality to interact with it. If I go near the edge will I really fall off? Is there a lion behind that bush? Always assuming the worst (I will fall off; there is a lion) leads to mental paralysis and paranoia. We have to build some trust that we have some answers.

Religions, I believe, evolved partly from this. Through experimentation (scientific!) people began to learn about the hazards of a cliff (edges can crumble; it's windy up there) and decisions are made that cliff edges are, indeed, dangerous. Instead of constantly testing the cliff (ok Bob, it's your turn to stand on the edge) those in charge declare it dangerous and tell children not to question the wisdom passed down from our ancestors lest they be killed. We are commanded to respect what the authorities say.

Side note: It's easy to see how heroes can be created by challenging rules. Only the bravest, strongest members can take on the lion and survive leading to heroic tales of how Bob killed the lion (Paul, John, Xavier, Mordecai, Wilma and Betty didn't, so are forgotten by history).

Today's society is challenging the authorities themselves. However, the pendulum is swinging too far to the left. Challenging authority seems to mean 'disregard authority'. Examples of this are running rampant in public schools. Children seem to have little sense of authority and openly defy their parents and teachers, "You're not the boss of me!"

We need to teach children that authorities are required. Someone has to be in charge, someone has to create rules and someone must enforce them. Civilization is defined by rules that allow large groups of people to interact peacefully. We must stop on red. However, the true goal of our enlightenment is to discover that the chickens, not the farmer, rule the henhouse*. God doesn't make the rules, we do. Most importantly, we can question the rules and we can change them.

Science is the greatest tool we have for discovering truths. And from this discovery we can establish better rules. Law allows us a method for creating, enforcing and changing them. A free and just society is one that has this ability.

So, teach your children to ask questions about the rules but please teach them to abide by them. Show them that there is a proper way to challenge a rule. Don't let them learn that the way to change a maximum highway speed is to constantly exceed it. Being asked to be quiet is not infringing on your freedom of speech since others get a chance to talk. As Matt Delahunty, President of the Atheist Community of Austin says, "My rights end, where yours begin." A great message for kids to learn.


* Unless, of course, the farmer built the henhouse but for this analogy, let's assume a tornado made it from a junkyard ;)

CEO Salaries

Reading the Toronto Star yesterday and there was a picture of the CEO's from the 'Big 3' automakers during their plea for a $25 billion bailout. The article made sure the reader knew about their multi-multi million-dollar benefits (did the guy from Chrysler really get a $250 Million retirement package from his last job???)

Now, it's normal for people to complain that these CEOs should start significantly cutting their pay before any bailout but this misses the larger picture. Their pay is but a small part of all the expenses of these large corporations. Ridiculously high, but small overall. The larger problem is ego.

Not only do these CEOs really believe they deserve outrageous pay, so does everyone else. Every stockholder is endorsing their pay. Every car buyer is funding it. The real problem is, why do they deserve it?

The fallacy is that we all think the top dogs at corporations are really smart and talented. Somehow, they're all geniuses. But geniuses at what? Is the CEO the cause of past success or simply a correlation to the success? It's starting to look like people are finally waking up to the fact that upper managers don't really know how to run businesses as much as they think they do. They don't have magical predictive powers and the fact that the 'Big 3' are all on the verge of failing at the same time shows that they've merely been copying each other all along. If something appears to increase sales at Ford, well, GM and Chrysler are pressured to implement the same policy. Need money? Just borrow more! They're too big to fail and besides, they can let the next CEO figure out how to pay it off.

That's it, isn't it? Whether it's dumping poisons into the environment, running huge debts and deficits or drilling more and more oil our political and business leaders simply aren't solving the problems they are getting rich and powerful creating. It's always a case of leaving it to the next generation. After all, if you're ridiculously rich now, you're ensuring that your offspring will be able to buy their way out of any horrific future. Isn't it the way of evolution? The rich get to survive? Somewhere, Darwin weeps.

Mental Gymnastics of Science

Back in high school I used to write a yearly physics test that was a contest put out by the University of Waterloo. I never scored anything impressive but it was fun to challenge my understanding of the material. The person who organized the test (I forget the name) once made a comment that has stuck with me all these years. Of course, I don't remember the exact words but essentially, this is what he said:

I credit my past professor for finally convincing me that objects travelling in a circle, accelerate toward the centre of the circle.

I learned this concept in physics but I couldn't understand it. I've ridden on rides where you are strapped to the outside of a circle and the ride spins. I certainly don't feel like flying toward the centre; I felt like flying off! Here, physics is attempting to defy common sense.

Now, today I know why physics is right. It's not just the math or one of Newton's laws, it really does make sense - but it took hard mental work. However, not everyone is prepared to do the work to understand concepts like this. It is this mental inability (or laziness) that leads people to follow conspiracy theories and religions because the answers they provide are easy to understand. Reminds me of Ken Ham's retarded statement, "God said it, I believe it, that settles it!"

Science demands that we deny what seems obvious. No, the sun does not orbit the earth even though it's perfectly obvious that it goes around us. Solid rocks really are mostly empty space. Mass increases and length decreases the faster we go. It takes mental gymnastics to understand this but eventually it opens up our minds to new ideas and greater understanding.

Religions and pseudoscience, on the other hand, also use mental gymnastics but they require a schizophrenic mind - one that has to flip between reality and the absurd. However, there's no clear distinction between which is which. Instead of abandoning the old, one must reconcile through complex rationalizing or simply take the easy way of 'god only knows'.

The final question then is, if both methods require mental gymnastics how do we know if either is right? Typically people will assume its a coin-flip - 50/50 chance. However, science actually has evidence - repeatable and predictable. This doesn't establish science as absolute but it does show it to be almost completely true and the other almost completely false. If only kids could learn this - science isn't true, but it has enough evidence that it is almost certainly true. It's rational to trust science because, well, it works!

3 Questions Before I Die

First let me say that as far as I can tell, my death is not imminent. However, I do wish to know the answers to these 3 questions in whatever time I have left:

1. Where DID the universe come from? What little I understand of the 'Big Bang Theory' seems to answer what happens after the bang, but not before. Maybe the Universe expands, contracts, bangs, expands, etc., like a bouncing ball but this would assume the total energy would go down - so where did the original energy come from? The idea that it came 'from nothing' is intriguing. However, the theist argument that 'god did it' only really postulates that god was the catalyst for converting nothing to everything; it doesn't say how god did it (or, how many gods it would take to do it!). I like the idea that 'nothing' is really positive and negative forces (like, -1 and +1) which, overall, give you nothing but, when separated, you have something and 'anti-something'. However, is the universe the positive or negative? Where did the other side go?

2. What is the smallest thing there is? This is basically a question about quantum mechanics. Vibrating strings? What are THEY made of? Why do they vibrate (the 'voice of god' so say our theist friends)? Then there is the 8-dimensional object proposed by Garrett Lisi on TED.com which is REALLY intriguing. Will this be answered sooner rather than later?

3. Why do people WANT things?* This is really about consciousness. We can build robots and digitial computer people and program them to respond to their environment but we've been unsuccessful to get these things to 'want'. If I kill the Boss on Level 3 of a video game, the computer doesn't care. It doesn't mourn. The Boss doesn't 'want' to live - it's just programmed to put up a fight. I, however, WANT to win and stay in the game. Why? If I am made up of molecules, how can molecules WANT something? Again, our theist friends throw god in there - god gives us souls, etc. But, as usual, their answer is no answer. How does god do this? What buttons does the soul push to make us want to win, buy a specific car or eat a cheeseburger?

The good news is that research is ongoing in each of these areas. The answers are important because they'll be able to lead to tremendous advances in science and health. We'll know the limits of the physical world and understand the secrets of life itself. And to think, we all live at a time where the answers are within our grasp.



* I have two crazy ideas on this. First, molecules can 'want' through magnetism. Two opposite charges 'want' to come together but they don't know why. When combined with a living brain, is this the root of our wants? Second, everything seems to be made of vibrations - even our sense of smell may work by vibrations (see The Science of Scent on TED.com). If we assign each unique vibration a musical note we can postulate that some vibrations and combinations of vibrations are 'musical' and pleasing. Others are not. This can be determined through evolution. Thoughts, therefore, may be the 'music' of our brain. Maybe our brain does not work on logic algorithms but pleasing musical notes and chords.

The Ultimate Logic

A comment from jwil2570 on YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/user/jwil2570) during a discussion about god:

In this Universe, for every action there is a equal and opposite reaction.

Therefore, because the big bang happened, than the big bang also didn't happen.

If god exist, than he also doesn't.

And even if I'm wrong about this..........I'm also right.

And because there is an equal and opposite reaction to everything.............

There must also NOT be an equal and opposite reaction to everything.

Any thoughts? Even if there are, than there isn't.

Now, that's funny!

Funny Video

Ok, I couldn't resist clicking on one more YouTube video and it's a gem. This lady thanks god for her purpose in life because she discovers she still has Health Insurance! Oh, the stupid, it brains my hurt!



I stopped laughing when I realized she teaches preschoolers and said, "these little children are going to be getting their praise on 24/7, that's what's up."

What about the children, won't anyone think about the children?

Where Morality Comes From

I spent lots of time this morning watching 'philos71' on YouTube. His videos are well produced, calm and composed. No ranting or harping here. However, he specifically asks questions of atheists which I carefully replied too. My favourite was his, "where do morals come from" question. I gave him an answer which I reproduce below:

I get my morals from philosophy, history and rational discussion. I start from the basic premise that I won't consciously, negatively impact your life if you'll do the same for me. Cooperation makes life easier than competition. I'll let you sleep while I stand guard against lions, then we switch. Morals start from there.

Imagine a society where ALL things are permitted, including senseless murder. I don't want to be murdered, neither do you. We could join forces to protect each other and define one moral - don't murder each other. Over time, we'd gain more members and eventually develop more morals (don't steal, don't hurt, etc.). We don't need an 'authority' to tell us morals, we can, over time, figure them out.

philos71 responded to my answer with this:

You can't say this with authority. Every time an authority is taken out of the picture chaos takes over. The problem with atheism (and SPECIALLY atheistic humanism) is that you think man is basically and intrinsically good. Man is indeed CAPABLE of doing good things, but left alone is fueled by his innate nature to sin. I'm sorry if I sounded arrogant, your replies have been very cultured and refined.

See, he is actually quite pleasant! I responded to this with:

Yes, chaos might ensue but it takes time for complete anarchy. In the meantime, the process will restart - people will begin to gather in common groups, then groups combine. Religion served the purpose of codifying the laws. However, when religions collide we have two (or more) unalterable doctrines trying to coexist. Eons of strife led to the idea of secularism - global rules that protect basic rights and allow religious groups to apply laws to themselves only (membership must be voluntary).

I mention voluntary membership because I agree with Dawkins that it is wrong to indoctrinate children into specific religious rules before they have a chance to decide for themselves. Remember, my hypothetical world allows people to choose to be in the society (and a religion) or not (if not, they generally go to prison - too bad we can't just send them to Australia like the good ole days! - I jest).

He also wants to know how morality could evolve. I think he's thinking in terms of non-thinking organisms. Here's how I reponded to this one:

We start with a simple moral and add more. Those who agree, stay in our group, those who don't, leave. We pass our morals on to our children. They make further changes eventually creating laws (and, sigh, lawyers). Even simple cells can do this. They create a large sphere colony. The outer ones try to work their way inside but many are killed by predators. The protected ones inside reproduce causing the sphere to grow larger. 'Outer cells sacrificed for inner ones' morality.

Posts on YouTube have character limits so I couldn't go further. However, the idea is that simple cells create a 'morality' that helps them survive. Is sacrificing cells a 'good' moral? Defining 'good' is very hard but if we assume 'goodness' is that which enhances survival, then the cell morality is, indeed, good! Over time, a collection of cells can become a multicellular organism. Over more time, this organism can defend itself without sacrifice. Morality evolves...

Ring My Bell

Ha ha! For some reason, the song 'Ring My Bell' jumped into my head today and it just occurred to me what she means by 'Ring My Bell'! I really hope these neuroscientists figure out our consciousness soon, man, I must be going crazy...

Atheism is NOT a Choice

As a society, we fight to end racism. Why? We decided that it is unfair to discriminate against people simply because of their race. Further, it is unfair to discriminate against something that people did not choose to be. Dark-skinned people were born with dark skin, they didn't 'choose' to have dark skin.

For this reason we cannot discriminate against women (they didn't choose their sex) and, as we have finally learned, homosexuals (evidence shows they don't 'choose' their orientation). The defeat of Proposition 8 in California, I think, has a silver lining. It is bringing 'gay marriage' to the top of peoples' minds and I think the fight to allow gay marriage will intensify and sweep the US just as mixed marriages (both mixed by religion and race) are now commonplace. A declaration by the Supreme Court won't be far away (in the meantime, homosexuals are welcome to come to Canada to get married and its a nice vacation spot too!).

However, discrimination of atheists remain rampant in the US. I think this is because most people believe athiests 'choose' to be. This is simply false. Atheism is the default position. We are all born atheists! I didn't choose to be an atheist - I was born one!

However, the idea of gods entered my mind at an early age. Although I was not indoctrinated, everyone around me seemed to be. For me, this was confusing. Why wasn't I being indoctrinated? What religion was I supposed to be? My parents thought they were helping me by not talking about it (they were likely as confused as I was) but it really troubled me for many years. I kept searching for a 'religion' without understanding that no religion is actually OK - there were others. I was probably 28 before I actually heard about 'humanists' from a TV show (produced by NOVA, I believe). I still remember, for the first time in my life, discovering that good, honest atheists actually existed (before then, I bought into the idea that atheists were 'bad' people). Finding life on Mars probably would be only slightly more astonishing. For me, it was a life-changing moment. Finally, I knew 'what' I was.

As atheists we need to recognize that we truly are being discriminated against unfairly. We cannot let the theists bully and attack us simply because of how we were born. Stand up atheists! Get angry! Speak out againt atheist discrimination!

Jews: "We're Still Here"

I just finished watching 'God on Trial' (available here: http://www.youtube.com/profile_play_list?user=godontrail). A commentor below the video repeated the line that, I'm sure, many Jews say when they reflect on god:

We're still here.

This angers me just as it should anger Jews. The ancestors of the Jews had to endure multiple humiliations, tortures, rapes, dehumanizations and murders just so that today's Jews could proudly say, "We're still here"? This is appalling!

How dare they stand on the victims of their past and declare themselves 'special' and 'favoured'? How dare they suggest what their ancestors went through was a sacrifice for them now? These innocents did not choose their fate.

No. This is a great 'evil'. Their religion has poisoned their minds and blinded them. The proper response is to abandon their god and fight to prevent the injustices of the past. To join forces with the rest of us who want to cast away and banish the Abrahamic god from our lives - forever.