Regulation of assault weapons

I like this take by Kristof, which hits the nail home in terms of stats and studies on gun violence:

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention calculates that each year there are more than 11,000 gun homicides and nearly 19,000 gun suicides. That’s 30,000 firearms deaths a year in the United States. At that rate, there have already been some 2,500 violent gun deaths since Sandy Hook. David Hemenway, a public health specialist at Harvard, says that having a gun at home increases the risk of suicide in that household by two to four times.
To reduce auto deaths, we’ve taken a public health approach that you might call “car control” — driver’s licenses, air bags, seat belts, auto registration. The result is a steady decline in vehicle fatalities so that some time soon gun deaths are likely to exceed traffic fatalities, for the first time in modern American history.

See, the point is that no one said we'd ban cars when we had auto deaths. Instead we applied more rules for how you get a car and track ownership. The government didn't "take away your cars" and they aren't going to do that now. But it's about time for registration and careful database tracking on every firearm, along with other commonsense measures to improve public safety (e.g., firing pin markers, bans on all "highly-lethal" ammo types...).

Mint the coin already

A debt ceiling bypass idea that I wrote about on January 2 that may have sounded "fringe" is now clearly mainstream: bypass the debt ceiling fight altogether using legal means. Don't let the Republicans' brand of economic terrorism (give me what I want or I will harm innocent third parties) survive as an option any longer. In our current political calculus, Republicans control only the House -- and that largely by gerrymandering -- yet feel that having 1/3 the political power entitles them to use the debt ceiling as 100% leverage to get further serious entitlement/spending cuts. Sadly, this is not the time to try to highlight their extremism by letting the US Govt Default date approach. Reforming that bunch is not going to happen.

So now is the time to mint the $1T platinum coin. (Or 1,000 $1B platinum coins, but why waste the metal?) And then instruct the Treasury Secretary to hold on to it and be prepared to deposit it at the Fed once the Republicans make it clear they're willing to blow up the economy if they don't get what they want. Take the debt ceiling off the table today, before all the hype and news attention centers on the fight.

Of course Republicans will scream tyranny and executive overreach. But it seems pretty clearly constitutional. And furthermore, it's Congress who racked up the bills. Tax cuts and unfunded wars and unfunded entitlement increases all happened on the Republicans watch. Now they're bitching because the Treasury has to borrow to pay the bills they incurred.

Did Jesus Rise Bodily from the Dead? Arif Ahmed vs. Gary Habermas Debate

There is a really good defense of Humean skepticism towards the Christian belief in the Resurrection by Prof. Arif Ahmed. I saw this a few months back via the Debunking Christianity website. I forgot to link it at the time and found myself trying to remember it recently. Luckily I was able to retrieve it (see below).

The form of Dr. Ahmed's arguments are very simple forms of Humean skepticism, and he was kind enough to email me a copy of the handout from his presentation:

The Case Against Resurrection (Prof. Arif Ahmed)

All the arguments assume that we have evidence far stronger than what is available in the Bible: in particular we assume that we have contemporary testimony from witnesses who are known to be both independent of one another and highly educated; and we assume that the testimony states directly that a corpse came back to life after three days as a solid body able to pass through rock (John 20:19, 20:26).

First argument
(1) If two hypotheses are compatible with the evidence we should prefer the one that we expect to be more frequent given evidence of that type.
(2) We have frequently observed and verified beyond doubt cases of independent and educated witnesses testifying at the time to something that didn’t happen.
(3) We have never observed and verified cases of bodily reanimation after three days or of solid bodies passing through rock.
(4) Therefore, it is more likely that the witnesses got it wrong.

Second argument
(1) If two hypotheses are compatible with the evidence then we should prefer the one that we expect to be more frequent given evidence of that type.
(2) We have frequently verified cases of an apparent miracle turning out to have an initially unknown natural explanation.
(3) We have never verified cases (except possibly that in dispute) of an apparent miracle having no natural explanation (known or unknown).
(4) Therefore, a presently unknown natural explanation is more likely than a supernatural Resurrection.

Third Argument
(1) If the evidence gives us no reason to prefer one hypothesis to another we should give them equal weight
(2) The evidence gives no reason to prefer Resurrection to any other supernatural explanation.
(3) Therefore a supernatural Resurrection is no more likely than a supernatural hallucination (or Satan, or Baal, or…)

See the video below:

Did Jesus Rise Bodily from the Dead? Arif Ahmed vs. Gary Habermas Debate (posted below) | YouTube link

"If I Only Had a Gun" ABCNews 20/20

First: I have two loaded shotguns within reach of my bed for home defense. Consider that before labeling me the new epithet: hoplophobe. I think it is wise to have a loaded shotgun in your home for this reason, but I obviously think it should be kept completely safe from children and teenagers. This was one of the main focal points of the program -- the statistics involving gun violence are staggering.

One of the major thrusts of the news piece was to inform viewers about the ridiculous gun show loophole that allows criminals and crazy people to buy guns, no questions asked, with no tracking records. It's fuc*ing insane. A young man whose sister was killed at VT went in and bought 15 guns in an hour, including handguns and shotguns and an assault rifle, no questions asked. No ID needed. And lawmakers have zero balls to do anything about it because they are beholden to gun nuts in this country.

All a sane citizen can hope for is a common sense common ground between allowing assault weapons to be sold to criminals and banning all guns outright. And that sort of middle ground does exist. In England, handguns are illegal and their murder rate is one-third of ours. Handguns are used in 8 of 10 murders by firearms. That still gives law-abiding citizens the right to bear arms, just not a certain kind of them. Obviously, that's already the case! We already can't legally own Stinger missiles either, but is that an infringement of our 2nd Amendment rights? No. Ditto for many other kinds of "arms" that are illegal.

I watched the 20/20 piece and came away semi-informed as to the general difficulty of responding with force when a shooter is causing carnage all around you. Basically, your adrenaline counteracts your ability to think clearly and aim effectively, and likely your gun is stowed in an inconvenient place so that you will have to be exposed to pull it out and use it. I don't want to carry concealed, mainly due to the fact that I don't think we need to return to the Wild West where everyone is out there with a gun fending for themselves. The probability of needing to have a gun to defend yourself is basically very unlikely compared to the risk involved in carrying one.

I have often argued with gun nuts that while there were 134 "justifiable homicides" with a handgun in 1999, there were 866 (6.5 times that many) accidental fatal shootings, 314 deaths where intent was unclear, 12,102 murders and 17,424 suicides in 1998. There were 336 deaths of children by accidental shootings in 1998. This basically shows you that the idea that you'll likely need to defend yourself with lethal force is a poor excuse for carrying a gun. It is 3 times likelier a child will be killed by your gun, 6.5 times likelier that someone will be accidentally killed with your gun, 120 times likelier someone will be murdered with it and 170 times likelier someone will use it to commit suicide. And, the 134 justifiables include police shootings! Probably less than a third of that number comes from citizens defending themselves and/or their homes. I will do some research this summer, rather than a few quick Google searches, and compile more relevant statistics and correlations.

Critics of the 20/20 program say the show was unrealistic, but I think they are distorting the facts. They claim the instructor immediately went for the kid with the gun, but as you can see from the clip, that is blatantly untrue. The instructor killed the lecturer first, then went right-to-left sweeping through the room, shooting everyone along the way. The students with the gun were often hit early because they stood erect, trying to unholster the weapon, rather than taking cover first. The other people in the room ran wildly in all directions, ducking.

Dialog with Andy

Two of the guys at work are very thoughtful theists who I enjoy bantering with about theological issues. I've posted my recent dialog with Andy below, his responses are indented further and mine are between carets (>>, <<). The hyperlinks have been added to this to refer to things I've already written on the topics:

Andy wrote:

God is recorded in the sacred writ as being omniscient, omnipotent, and omnipresent. I've been pondering lately the implications of the third quality, given what we've learned about relativity.

>>I actually don't know if I agree with this premise or not. I think that early Christian thought didn't have this concept, but that later Christian thinkers, re-discovering philosophy from the Greeks and Romans, adopted it. For the sake of argument, let's say you're right. What I would bring up, though, are certain aspects of the OT, in particular, where God asks questions and other things in the Bible that don't comport well in a literal reading with these properties.<<

Someone ostensibly traveling at the speed of light need not age. (Is this correct?) The closer one travels to the speed of light, the slower time "moves." (I guess in actuality, there may somehow be a continuum and time moves more slowly as speeds are gradually increased, so that even at 60 miles an hour, you might age a fraction slower than someone standing still?) But this is not central to my thoughts.

>>You are right, but an important distinction: Remember that in physics, you must always clarify your frame of reference. More time passes for an observer to your frame of reference than for you within the frame of reference. It isn't that there is such a universal thing as "time" -- in the same way that there isn't such a universal thing as "space" -- space-time is experienced locally for each person, thus the need for different frames of reference. In other words, if God has on a watch, and goes near the speed of light from X to Y and back to X, the amount of time that has passed for God will be very very little compared to what we experienced in watching the space ship leave and return (observers).

But...yes, this is the basis for the Lorentz factor.<<

I cannot be in two places (let's call them points X and Y in three dimensions) "at the same time." However, as my speed increases, I can move from point X to point Y, closer and closer to "the same time" Time becomes a sort of fourth dimension, so that as I move faster, the interrelatedness and interdependence of time and space become apparent. Indeed, exceeding the speed of light even allows me to move backward on the timeline?

>>Indeed, the four-dimensional nature of space-time makes it such that if you sort of have to pick three to move through rapidly, so that you are not moving through the fourth rapidly. A really good overview of both special and general relativity is given in both of Brian Greene's layman-oriented books: The Elegant Universe and Fabric of the Cosmos.<<

The Christian theistic concept of a God that exists outside of physical time (Ravi Zacharias maintains that the Judeo-Christian God is the only God of the major world religions that attempts to speak of a God existing outside of time) then allows for a quite elementary explanation of an omnipresent God, in the sense that God is able to be in multiple places at the same time. I don't know whether it's better to explain it as God moving at an extremely fast speed, so that time slows or even reverses, allowing God to move back and forth on the space-time continuum, or whether you simply view God as existing outside of the fourth dimension of time, able to move through space without the constraints of time. In either case, this would make issues like prophecy, omnipresence, etc, all much more palatable to our limited human reason. God can simultaneously be at points X and Y, given his ability to "move quckly" and be free from the constraints of time. And so on for points, Z, W, V, etc. :) Any thoughts?

>>There is an a priori issue that must be addressed about the idea of omnipresence: what does it mean to say that God "is" somewhere? Is God even composed of a substance? If so, then we could speak of how His matter is located within space-time at those coordinates (think: Columbia, SC are the 3 space dimensions and Sun, 8/24/08 @ 1 PM is the 1 time dimension), but then we start to wonder -- is God's matter/substance interspersed between physical matter/substances? Is it like God exists between the atoms in my body (and everywhere else), and if so, then can we say that God exists "within" space-time? Can we say that God is actually omnipresent, since to be between two things is not to be at those actual things?

I think that a lot of the properties ascribed to God don't withstand serious logical scrutiny. If God "is" somewhere, does that mean being a part of that space/matter, or distinct from it? If God is "at" distinct coordinates within space-time, then is God is just as much a part of the universe as you and I? Then does that make God just as bound to the laws of physics as we are? And if so, how could God create that which God is a part of?

I don't think that special (or general) relativity really serves to provide a basis for omnipresence, because omnipresence itself is antithetical to the concepts of physics.

There is also a fundamental physical issue that makes it problematic to say that relativity "allows for a quite elementary explanation" of omnipresence. One of the things relativity does is prevent anything with mass from actually moving at the speed of light, and definitely not faster than it. [note: a differentiation must be made between c (3.0 x 10^8 m/s) and the speed of light outside of a vacuum (c/n), thus things like the faster-than-light Cherenkov radiation observed in nuclear cores]. This is a first principle issue that would diminish the ability to use the physics to justify omnipresence. Nothing is actually allowed to travel at light speed with mass, and it must travel in only one distinct direction at a time. This would also prevent traveling backwards through time as nothing could travel faster-than-light.

If God is massless, then in that sense God is not composed of anything. If God is not composed of anything, then God isn't "located" anywhere. And that gets back to the a priori issue of whether omnipresence even makes sense. You can't say, "God is at coordinates: A, B, C, D within space-time," because there isn't any "stuff" (matter/substance) which actually occupies space or time there.

In addition, as I said above, special relativity allows for objects moving rapidly in three dimensions to move very slowly in the fourth. This would put a lot of limits on your idea of being "able to be in multiple places at the same time" -- for although God could (theoretically) travel from X to Y with no apparent time loss to the observer (us), this framework still puts God thoroughly "inside" space-time. God's frame of reference is still very much bound by space-time in the sense that time still passes for God. So God is still bound to physics, rather than, as most theists believe, able to create physics.

So, to me, to try to use physics to justify or explain omnipresence is both unnecessary and illogical. You can't use a physical theory to try to explain an immaterial God. You can still believe in God, of course, but you can't support the property of omnipresence using physics.<<

On an unrelated note, what do you think about having some sort of "faith forum" in the chapel from time to time, where different faculty or staff are free to speak on topics of deeper significance, eventually even allowing some debates, Q & A, apologetic lectures, etc. I think it would be neat to all come under one figurative big tent in the collective pursuit of truth.

>>I think that sort of thing would be great. I just don't know if I personally would want to participate as a religious skeptic, since it could really be a bad thing for me career-wise. A lot of parents would just never forgive me or like me again if they heard me present arguments against the existence of a theistic God, and you might be surprised at the ways that some people would bring that up later on as ammo against me. But I would go, I would enjoy it, and I would push my students to attend. I just don't know if I personally would want to be up there at the podium/lectern. Maybe in a few years...

-------- Original Message --------

	Subject:	Re: chat yesterday
	Date:	Thu, 17 Jul 2008 04:43:46 -0700 (PDT)
	From:	Andy

Ultimately, for better or worse, I chose to focus on one or two key points. I’ve found in discussions like this it’s quite easy to try to advance on a dozen different concurrent fronts, leaving both sides unable to address any of the issues fully. Perhaps we just take a bite-size piece at a time in our pursuit of the truth. And I’ll try to provide a more timely response next time, should you respond.

>>I understand and agree.<<

First, by way of introduction, let me say that I understand why it would appear to you that Christ’s claim to BE truth is a conflation of terminology. You must admit this would follow naturally for someone who denies any metaphysical personality*. J But assume for the sake of argument that that a metaphysical personality exists (for you must grant that a finite being cannot posit with any certainty the non-existence of an infinite one). If you can picture even for a moment that this possibility exists, it becomes easier to follow Christ’s seemingly incongruous statements.

>>It seems here, and below with your asterisk-marked footnote, you may be admitting that there are things that are not philosophically "neutral" to discuss. If that is so, then you may be literally wasting your time in this dialog. I don't think that it is so. I think that most of what we'll disagree on can be examined objectively without the need for presupposing a certain viewpoint. I hope so, or else we're just arguing post hoc to legitimize (to ourselves, mostly) what we already want to believe is true, because we can't be persuaded by rational argument.

I don't think it's possible to ascribe personhood to a logical relationship. Logical relations and things like properties are the "basement" or foundation in metaphysics -- part of what philosophers refer to as universals, and there are some different ways that they describe them: nominalism, conceptualism and realism. Without getting off on a tangent, truth is a relation, or a correspondence between particulars. It is also universal because it is the relation or correspondence between an infinite number of particulars.

Personhood implies a mind (intentionality), and a mind implies more than one simple relation or property. Therefore, a mind occurs much higher up on the scale of metaphysics. Mind is not a universal. This is true whether or not I believe in God or an immaterial spirit. Minds are more than just one logical relation or property, but cannot be an infinite number of them. It's a non sequitur to say that relations between things are equal to the things themselves: walking is not just two legs, but the relationship between how they move in space-time; thinking is not just a brain, but how it functions in space-time. Another example: if Jesus is truth, and if it is true that evil exists, then Jesus is the evil that exists. I think we'd both agree that there is an error in the logic here.<<

In the same way, when he claims in the same unbelievable statement to be THE truth, is he saying that he is the representation of every physical truth? Of course not. But is he the only truth that matters in an ultimate, metaphysical sense?

>>But determining that which is true depends on knowing how logic works. Logically, Jesus can be "the way to avoid damnation" or "the only way to heaven" or something like that. Jesus cannot be "truth, period"...which is what people sometimes say or imply by referring to Jesus as truth. I think we probably agree on that.<<

I’ve found it a fascinating reinforcement of this concept that in many cases, people who reject Christ’s claims often begin to part ways with Christ as the source of Truth when a clear prohibition of scripture does not square with their lifestyle. They are unwilling to adhere to God’s moral law, and seeking to create their own moral code, they exchange the metaphysical “truth” of scripture for their own metaphysical “truth,” typically establishing moral boundaries that fit their lifestyle. Isn’t it interesting that modern attempts to invent a new morality seldom forge any rules that would de-legitimize the new moralist’s own behavior? The moral code they create always seems conveniently to square with their current behavior.

>>As I think you know, I'm not a moral relativist. Thus, a lot of what you said above doesn't apply to me. However, I can say that my lifestyle today versus my lifestyle at the time I was in church are pretty much identical. That is, I haven't taken up anything since leaving the church that was prohibited, and thus there was no incentive for decadence for me.

I'm not sure if you are in this boat, but lots of people don't believe that atheists exist. It's an interesting thing for me to hear that, as I wonder how these same people would react to me if I claimed that religion was just opiate for the masses, or said, "No one really believes in God. Deep down they know it's an invented device to help us live with the belief that there's cosmic significance to our existence, and it helps us cope with death and hardships. But they establish this to fit their lifestyle, their desire to believe that we're all more important than we really are..." It's a little insulting, isn't it? And presumptuous. Now, am I saying that you may not be correct about *some* people? No. But I'm sure the above parallel argument (that no one really believes in God) also applies about *some* people as well. I'll agree with you that sometimes it is the case that person X actually believes in the Bible and the interpretations of it given by Evangelicals, but really wants to "fornicate" and engage in "lasciviousness" (I love the KJV), and so might try to stop believing in the suddenly-inconvenient moral standard that it is against God's commandments.

However, it doesn't explain, at all, any transition in metaphysical beliefs from conservative/Evangelical Christian all the way to atheist. It may explain why certain people would relax their moral standards in order to assuage their own guilt. But, all one would need to do is transition from conservative/Evangelical Christian to a liberal Christian (e.g., Unitarian Universalist) or Deist or any of the other hundreds of options in between. There's no need to change one's metaphysical views in order to change one's moral views.

Also, consider this: does it really serve a purpose to invent/create something you don't *actually believe* is true? This implies that people reject what is true in order to do what they want, and yet if they really don't *believe* that what they reject was wrong, then they're self-delusional, and one would think, probably won't be able to live with a mind divided between what one wants to be true versus what one really thinks is true. How does it gain any relief to the sinner who pretends not to believe in his sin, but deep down still feels the guilt and shame?

The last part of your sentence could be (and probably was) used to explain why the church no longer puts people in stocks, no longer prohibits movies, music, technology, etc., etc., etc. That is, one could always say that freedom/liberty of conscience is really a "crutch" or a symptom/sign of the loss of spiritual goodness. Lots of people still refuse to allow women to wear pants or makeup, etc., etc., and they might look at you and say, "Isn't it interesting, Andy, that your 'new morality' is supposed to be grounded in God's grace and liberty, but it always legitimizes those things you already *want* to do?!?!?" The same logic works there. I think the premise is what's flawed.<<

Interestingly, while your moral realism proposes that there is a transcendent moral standard out there, in the same way that you would accuse those who follow a certain religion of “creating” their own codes through their own creativity, I believe that it’s impossible for you to prove that the moral realist is not doing ultimately the same thing—as every moral realist out there may not agree on morality, and must fabricate his own moral code. I think more problematic, though, is the issue of consequences. What consequences does Hitler suffer for his actions?

>>By your own beliefs, if *anyone* repents and asks God for forgiveness, they will suffer no consequences in the afterlife for their actions, yes? And thus the dilemma of many theistic beliefs is exposed -- you can't have both mercy and justice. You can have mercy for some and justice for others. To say that by Jesus' death, justice is served, is to pervert what justice means: Jesus was said to be morally perfect and thus innocent. Letting someone innocent "take the fall" for someone guilty is not just. It's merciful on the part of the one who volunteered to take the fall. <<

Perhaps we can relegate this to our next debate.

>>Probably a good idea. This can get convoluted in a hurry.<<

To say something “ought” to be a certain way becomes a meaningless distinction, simply a set of neurons firing in your brain at the present time, if there are no consequences. It immediately begs the questions, “Who says so?” and more importantly, “So what?” To put a moral standard out there that no one need follow might avoid the unpleasant thought of ultimate consequences in the afterlife, but it would seem there is little value in following this moral law, and little danger in breaking it. I would be eager to hear your thoughts on this, though, since I haven’t studied it except for a cursory reading online…

>>In responding to that, I would point out that there are no consequences for not believing that 2+2=4. Morality, to me, is the same way. You don't have to have consequences in an afterlife in order to make something true.

Causing harm is immoral. You (all of us) ought not cause harm.

That's just the simple truth of the matter. Trying to get into why, and how, and whether or not someone believes it or accepts it are all different issues. I would say, briefly, that just as singular objects have a metaphysical property about them that we call "1", so moral actions have a metaphysical property that we call "good" or "evil". The labels themselves may be arbitrary (imagine for a moment switching around the labels, or the numbers), but the underlying properties are not. And the underlying properties (causing harm, or alleviating suffering) exist independently of our human mind and desire.

In the same way that 2+2=4, morality is all about causing harm and recognizing the symmetry principle: you have to apply the standard of actions to others that you want applied to yourself.<<

Looking forward to more good discussions on Truth, Andy

Me too! Now it's your turn. Tag, you're it!

I'll post the responses later on. Since it took us a few months to get this dialog fully going, it'll probably be a while.

The fear of reprisals among atheists

The conversation on the message board at GC is turning to the issue of making our membership directory there private to non-members. (It is now private) Charlie, the same guy I debated concerning alternative energy, has of course waxed poetic randroid-style about fear and courage and individuality. While I think comparing the "coming out as atheists" thing to a civil rights movement is fallacious, I do know of many instances of workplace discrimination and illegal terminations based on atheism. However, I don't like the comparison between atheist "movements" and civil rights movements:

Most important is that this isn't about ending some entrenched economic system or clear and flagrant inequality before the law. We have none of the same legal and moral authority that civil rights and abolitionist groups had on their side. And it was this very issue that became an argument a while back between D.J. Grothe and PZ when atheists today were contrasted to civil rights crusaders in the 60s. Ditto with gay rights groups, who are still denied marriage and have been targets of violence since time out of mind. We have to go back to the Puritans or Bruno to get that sort of comparison with atheists.

Honestly, I feel that I could face a risk to my job security if my boss(es) were pressured regarding the extent of my nonreligion, given ties to groups like Godless Columbia. My workplace is susceptible to outside pressures and politics. But, this sort of prejudice is not akin to the legal discrimination that other groups face based on race, sex and sexual preference.

If people want their privacy, they should have it, while not walking around worrying about being the victim of a hate crime like that at the UU of Knoxville. Now, on to the latest post by Charlie:

I think everyone is making more of this than what it is. I don't think anyone is more out there than myself, and the negative backlash I have received has been minimal.

I think you should separate out two very different things:

1) fear of violence
2) fear of reprisals -- attempts to smear you, get you fired, &c

As for (1), you are a physically-large male with an agressive attitude, so it doesn't surprise me in the slightest that you neither worry about, nor have reason to, acts of violence directed against you for your lack of religious beliefs.

As for (2), you are lucky. Many of us work in places that we can easily be fired for minor offenses, and although saying, "I'll sue!" sounds good and all, at best, this will lead to months of no pay followed by (hopefully) reinstatement and some coverage of our legal fees. Given the conservative composition of the high courts and recent relevant rulings in areas of labor protection, especially Enquist v. Oregon Dept. of Ag. (ruling), I wouldn't hold my breath.

I keep a blog that my boss reads on a regular basis where I publish my unvarnished opinions on anything and everything. No backlash. In fact, it is often the topic of conversation at work.

Then you are obviously lucky to work under someone who isn't a bigot. Many are not so lucky. I don't think that the people here are worried about "people not liking me at work," but rather, some Evangelical-type supervisor who would find a way to start putting undue pressure on you or finding ways to discredit your job performance once they learned.

People disagree with me, but they respect me. That is because I don't hide in fear or shame.

When I was at the University of Florida, I started the only non-theistic student group on campus and have even been on national TV to defend my views. (I argued against the placement of a Decalogue monument in Dixie County, Florida. While we were there, people cussed at me from the crowd gathered around and said crap to my wife while I was on-camera. Unfortunately, the satellite feed was cut off right as it was getting ready to be my turn to talk to Alan Colmes, who would've let me speak uninterrupted for a few minutes. I still wonder if Hannity had me cut off because I sounded half-competent and cognizant of the facts surrounding the other cases he referenced...)

Does that sound like I "hide" from being an atheist?

However, now that I'm working, with a baby on the way, the security and stability of my job is far more important than having my meetup.com profile public. In the question of risk versus reward, what is the reward? The real risk I face is in having a someone related to work find something online about me they don't agree with, then rally others to have me fired. There's something to be said about people's poor grasp on the concept of complete liberty in the freedom of expression.

The real threat here is not getting assaulted or fired. It is being embarrassed. It is sticking out from the herd. It is being an individual.

If you say so. Sounds to me like you don't really care about the evidence of discrimination based on atheism in the workplace and school for others. You just choose to pretend all that doesn't exist or doesn't matter. If you feel strongly that it's about "being embarrassed" then that's all that matters to you, right?

I am with Seneca when he said that it is better to die on your feet than live on your knees.

Yeah because having a public membership directory of a meetup group is to "die on your feet", while having a private one to non-members is to "live on your knees"...

Believe me when I say that everyone of you is more likely to die or be injured in a car wreck than to be assaulted or lose your job as a consequence of being a freethinker.

So do you wear a seat belt, or is that also fear? Do you show courage and "die on your feet" by not wearing a seat belt?

It's about risk and reward Charlie, nothing more. Having a private membership directory to non-members is not "hiding in fear" any more than your wearing a seat belt in the car is "driving in fear".

A few more words on solar and wind (and nuclear)

*UPDATE: I just saw this item regarding a breakthrough in solar storage using splitting water and fuel cells*

Round two!

I've double-indented his words and single-indented mine:

1. The problem with solar power is this thing called "night."

2. The problem with wind power is this thing called "no wind blowing today."

The problem with your two statements is this thing called "reading comprehension"...

I already pointed out, all by myself, that:

The particular barriers applying to solar and wind are storage and efficiency, and there are good solutions out there for both involving either: 1) compressed air storage of energy, or 2) pumping water uphill.

That is to say that there are already obvious and easy solutions to the issues of storage -- given that there is much more energy available than we need to harness, all we have to do is store it when there's extra and transmit it when it's needed.

I anticipate being hit with a straw man argument about being a global warmer denier, but I am not one of those people.

I don't do logical fallacies...at least not on purpose.

What I will say is that most of these apocalyptic scenarios are overblown, and that change in energy technology will come more rapidly and more unexpectedly than you realize.

Perhaps they are, and perhaps it will. Here is a good argument to consider.

But to embrace Gore's stupidity will only hamper the solution to the problem by killing our economy.

First, environmentalism is not a cult of personality. It reminds me of how creationists use the term "Darwinism" instead of evolution because it makes it an ideology (-ism) and makes it all about Darwin at the same time. Second, there are lots of really smart people out there who have looked at this and realize that spending $700B a year on foreign oil is killing our economy and that by taxing oil and giving tax incentives to move to renewables, we'll be relying on markets to use the now-cheaper energy sources (subsidized) and innovate. Also, the infrastructure, once built, is massively cheaper than oil. It's the initial investment that's expensive.

Free market innovation is the way to go not tyrannical dictates and embracing dubious technologies.

I don't see anyone saying that Uncle Sam should run factories to produce solar panels or windmills. We do argue that Uncle Sam ought to adjust tax rates on carbon-based fuels and offer tax incentives on non-carbon sources. It's about taxation and monetary policy. As of right now, Exxon has no incentive to invest in alternatives, so they invest a dismal 1% of their profits in alternative energy. (source)

I think we have the technology now to end most fossil fuel consumption, and it is called nuclear energy.

I'm actually in agreement with you that nuclear is a necessary part of the energy package that solves both the climate change and the foreign oil problems we currently face. MIT did a great study a while back. However, the issue of long-term storage of high-level waste has never been satisfactorily dealt with, although there are some promises in recycling the waste material using technology developed by a professor I worked with at UF (details).

Unfortunately, environmentalists have hamstrung this industry with their stupidity. But cheap electricity would be a boon to electric cars and mass transit. I think nuclear power would provide this if the regulatory hurdles could be eliminated.

On a general note, Charlie, I think we can have a productive and fruitful dialog, but it would be nice if you would refrain from disparaging all environmentalists as "stupid"...and as I said, I'm in agreement with you that nuclear power should be pushed more as a transition. In the long term, one downside is that Uranium is just like fossil fuels -- a finite resource.

In the short term, we have good reserves of Uranium, as do our friends, Australia and Canada. It has the potential to be cheaper than even coal, and already provides around 20% of US electricity. Both Barack and McCain promise to work to include nucelar in their energy proposals, although Barack doesn't support giving subsidies to them as McCain does. (more)

I'm all for clean water and clean air, but I'm not going to deify the planet or damn capitalism along the way.

I don't understand why it's socialistic to strategically place the long-term good of our economy and national security above short-term interests...?

The modern environmental movement bears little relation to the conservation movements of the past but are simply the last refuge of Marxists who saw a new way to castigate the free market by turning from Red to Green.

Do you have any evidence that there is a conspiracy amongst Communists in the USA to move us to solar and wind and other renewables?

On a sidenote, I think the Tesla Roadster is a great car, and I love that company. I think the future belongs to capitalist innovators like those behind Tesla.

The future belongs to capitalists, that's for sure.

PS: Republicans blocked a solar and wind tax credit for the fourth time this summer. They set a record for the number of filibusters during the first year of a two-year session. To repeat: they've filibustered more in one year than any Congress before filibustered in two.

This dialog was more respectful on his part, I think.

A few words on solar and wind

There's a particularly nasty person in our Godless Columbia group. I say this not because of what he thinks, but because of his arrogance and his obvious Randroid leanings. He thinks he's John Galt, I guess.

In a recent thread on our message board, he said Gore was an idiot and yada, yada, yada...I had to respond:

Carbon-based fuels are finite and contribute to climate change. These are two facts that no amount of spin or sarcasm can change. Thus, it doesn't really matter whether or not alternatives are expensive, since we have no choice but to adapt; it isn't a question of if, but how quickly it can be done.

There is no way that wind and solar will ever generate the energy an industrial/information society needs to function. This is the pipe dream of pantheistic environmentalists. Even Al Gore can't power his own life without resorting to fossil fuels and appeasing guilt with carbon offsets.

From Scientific American:
A Solar Grand Plan

A massive switch from coal, oil, natural gas and nuclear power plants to solar power plants could supply 69 percent of the U.S.’s electricity and 35 percent of its total energy by 2050.
...
The energy in sunlight striking the earth for 40 minutes is equivalent to global energy consumption for a year. The U.S. is lucky to be endowed with a vast resource; at least 250,000 square miles of land in the Southwest alone are suitable for constructing solar power plants, and that land receives more than 4,500 quadrillion British thermal units (Btu) of solar radiation a year. Converting only 2.5 percent of that radiation into electricity would match the nation’s total energy consumption in 2006.

This analysis completely ignores wind, geothermal and other alternatives like hydropower -- tidal and additional waterfall-based generators.

It also limits the cost to $400B total...when analysts are being realistic by pointing out that we're spending $700B a year on foreign oil, and to redirect a large piece of that will be necessary each and every year from here on out until we have the infrastructure in place.

From a study conducted at Stanford University:
Evaluation of global wind power

Global wind power potential for the year 2000 was estimated to be ~72 TW (or ~54,000 Mtoe). As such, sufficient wind exists to supply all the world's energy needs (i.e., 6995-10177 Mtoe), although many practical barriers need to be overcome to realize this potential.

Thus, approximately five times the amount of world demand for energy exists in the form of wind alone.

The particular barriers applying to solar and wind are storage and efficiency, and there are good solutions out there for both involving either: 1) compressed air storage of energy, or 2) pumping water uphill. To believe that we have the intellectual ability to go to the moon and build the Large Hadron Collider, but can't use wind farms and solar farms all over the country to eventually replace carbon-based sources is a bit credulous.

Basically, it isn't a question of if, but how quickly it can be done.

Environmentalism is a new religion with sacred spaces, a dogma, an object of veneration, an apocalyptic doomsday, and even a system of guilt and indulgences.

Environmentalism far pre-dates Gore, which I seriously hope you know, so who/what is the object of veneration? The earth? Since it is our sustaining force, I would say that may be justified...

Environmentalism is the recognition that our resources are finite, as well as rapidly changing; that our impact on those resources is both long-lasting and growing rapidly as the global population explodes and economies expand. From this, it is logical to conclude that our technology and innovation must adapt to these facts...however costly or inconvenient they may be.

This guy is busy calling another member of GC a coward for not being more open (angry?) about atheism at work, so he'll probably take a little while to respond.

VT shooting & gun laws

It's hard to believe that it's been a year since the VT shootings. It's harder still to believe that Virginians refused to amend gun statutes to protect citizens from mentally-disturbed persons making gun purchases.

NRA continues to hold dominion over Virginia
Posted January 26th, 2008 at 9:30 am

Guest Post by Morbo

After the Virginia Tech massacre, I wrote a post predicting that the horrific incident would do nothing to change our gun policy. I secretly hoped I’d be proven wrong. Sadly, it looks like I won’t.

In Virginia, lawmakers have rejected modest legislation closing a loophole that allows people to buy weapons at gun shows without undergoing a background check. This should be a no-brainer after what happened, but still the measure failed.

Reported The Washington Post:

Gun-control advocates, including survivors of the April 16 shooting rampage that took the lives of 32 victims at Virginia Tech, poured into a Senate committee meeting to support a bill that would require background checks for all gun-show sales. They then staged a “lie-in,” lying on their backs outside the Capitol to draw attention to gun deaths in Virginia last year.

Some of the survivors offered compelling personal testimony. Colin Goddard, 22, who survived the shootings and is now a senior at the school, cut to the chase when he said: “People tell me I am alive because of God or luck or a bunch of other stuff. I don’t know how much I can accept any of those, but one thing I can’t accept is that it was just criminals being criminals and I was just caught in the wrong situation at the wrong time.”

Amazingly, several gun nuts attended this event with weapons strapped on their hips. That’s right — in Virginia, it is legal to attend a public meeting of government representatives wearing a pistol. One complained that background checks are “onerous” because they can take as long as one day to complete.

At the hearing, some of the surviving students were approached by gun nuts who explained to them that had the students been armed, they could have taken out the shooter, Cho Seung-Hui. These gun nuts are clearly disturbed — yet the legislature listens to them, not the families of those who were killed.

A panel of the Virginia House of Delegates had already voted down closing the loophole. The Senate hearing was an attempt to revive it, but on Wednesday the members of the Courts of Justice Committee voted it down 9-6. All seven Republicans on the committee voted against it, as did two Democrats.

To the gun nuts, “gun control” is synonymous with seizure of weapons. They do this on purpose to frighten people. Thus, the debate becomes whether people can have guns or not instead of what reasonable restrictions we can put in place to make sure the wrong people don’t have access to guns. I don’t want to take away the rifle your uncle Fred uses to hunt deer. I do want to make sure that a deranged person can’t go to a gun show, walk out with an assault rifle and head for the nearest middle school.

If Virginia won’t even pass a baby-step measure like this in the wake of the Virginia Tech killings, then all hope for any sensible gun laws in that state is lost. As I said back in April, we are left to wait until some other deranged person decides to top Cho Seung-Hui’s grim record.

After this was written, we had the NIU shootings. Did he get those guns illegally? Nope.

The graduate student bought two of his four guns at a Champaign, Ill., gun store Saturday — indicating that he had been planning his assault for at least six days, ABC News' Richard Esposito and Pierre Thomas report. The other weapons were purchased from the same store in December and August 2007.

Medved is a moron

Right-wing website Town Hall has a column up by Michael Medved on why Americans should "resist" voting for an atheist as president. It's a load of bullshit from the getgo, and Don Feder's column in USAToday last year was much more articulate. However, given the CNN "faith" special tonight involving the Democratic candidates, it is probably worth looking at:

He begins with a repetition of something we already knew -- that atheists are more distrusted as a minority than any other:

Despite the recent spate of major bestsellers touting the virtues of atheism, polls show consistent, stubborn reluctance on the part of the public to cast their votes for a presidential candidate who denies the existence of God.

Funny that he even thinks we need reminding of that, since he's writing to an almost exclusively conservative audience, all of whom believe that already.

Meanwhile, the members of Congress may hardly qualify as saintly or angelic, but of the 535 men and women in the House and Senate, only one (the shameless radical rabble-rouser Fortney “Pete” Stark of Oakland, California) openly describes himself as an atheist. [link added]

Hyperbole, anyone? First, only a moron would think that Stark is the only nonbeliever in Congress, he's just the only one with the courage and political prospects that enable him to declare it. Not that we haven't heard this sort of stupidity before over Stark. One point to make is that the members of Congress (or the church in general) who have been caught in sexual scandals or what-not are actually more likely to be right-wing "Religious Right" crusaders than lefties like Stark or Sanders or Feingold: Mark Foley, Larry "wide stance" Craig, Bob Allen, Newt Gingrich...read the whole list. And so, if claiming the religious mantle has no real effect on one's behavior as a public official, what is the thrust of Medved's argument?

An atheist may be a good person, a good politician, a good family man (or woman), and even a good patriot, but a publicly proclaimed non-believer as president would, for three reasons, be bad for the country.

Okay, so tell us then, why? Here are his three justifications:

1. Hollowness and Hypocrisy at State Occasions
2. Disconnecting from the People
3. Winning the War on Islamo-Nazism

One of the things that struck me in reading this list was how contradictory his logic was. Before I get into that...

First, can history tell us anything about non-religious presidents? Consider that a few presidents in our history have been about as religious as a toothpick, even if they still believed in God (I'm thinking of the usual suspects -- Jefferson, Lincoln, Grant, &c.). Would you say that the first two had any real discernible impact on their ability to preside over (1) and (2)? Lincoln would certainly not fit into the (2) category easily -- considering that about 1/2 of the nation was "disconnected" from him, but he's considered one of (if not the) greatest presidents. In addition, some of the more overtly religious (like Carter) have turned out to be horrid presidents. So even Medved would have to agree that being able to "connect" with the people of America by having shared views on everything in no way makes one a good Chief Executive or Commander in Chief.

Second, the ability to say, "Let us remember the sacred history of our forefathers and honor them and their achievements," doesn't require shared beliefs with them.

Third, Medved's logic is so convoluted on item three I can't even figure out what he's trying to say:

Our enemies insist that God plays the central role in the current war and that they affirm and defend him, while we reject and ignore him. The proper response to such assertions involves the citation of our religious traditions and commitments, and the credible argument that embrace of modernity, tolerance and democracy need not lead to godless materialism.

WTF? It literally sounds as if Medved thinks that these lunatics have a point and that we ought to sit down at the philosophical table and give them the credibility and standing to engage in such debates with us. It goes on:

In this context, an atheist president conforms to the most hostile anti-America stereotypes of Islamic fanatics and makes it that much harder to appeal to Muslim moderates whose cooperation (or at least neutrality) we very much need. The charge that our battle amounts to a “war against Islam” seems more persuasive when an openly identified non-believer leads our side—after all, President Atheist says he believes in nothing, so it’s easy to assume that he leads a war against belief itself. A conventional adherent of Judeo-Christian faith can, on the other hand, make the case that our fight constitutes of an effort to defend our own way of life, not a war to suppress some alternative – and that way of life includes a specific sort of free-wheeling, open-minded religiosity that has blessed this nation and could also bless the nations of the Middle East.

...again, I'm lost. Is he saying that we would be "aiding the terrorists" by having an atheist president, because then one of their "points" would be confirmed? Correct me if I'm wrong here, but don't they often refer to us as "Crusaders" -- trying to force their culture and religion to conform with ours? And isn't the term "infidel" used to describe non-Muslims, not just nonbelievers? And isn't the "war against radical Islam" what the right-wing wants and isn't it even their own frickin' phrase? This column makes zero sense to me.
--
Now, as far as angry, vocal atheists go, there are some. And as far as the problems that they cause for atheism, there are some. Although the importance of religion in our society must not be underestimated, neither must secular America, especially the trend as it applies towards younger Americans, something I've emphasized before:

The proportion of atheists and agnostics increases from 6% of Elders (ages 61+) and 9% of Boomers (ages 42-60), to 14% of Busters (23-41) and 19% of adult Mosaics (18-22).

Looking at very recent polls, around 18% of Americans do not believe in God. This trend is in line with other recent assessments of the state of atheism, and the disparity in numbers between "atheist" and "82% of people believe in God" confirms that people are still reluctant to self-identify with "the A word" despite their admission that they don't believe in God. In the largest religious self-identification survey ever undertaken, 14% of those surveyed reported "no religion" but only 0.4% explicitly as "atheist". A more recent Baylor study found only 50% of "religious nones" identify as "atheists" -- again note the disparity between non-religious persons and people willing to identify as "atheist" and/or be active in some sort of atheist organization. Another recent poll in The Nation shows that the number of nonbelievers is much higher than commonly recognized - at around 27% not believing in a God (those willing to self-identify as atheists is still much lower).

Regardless of the exact number, the number of atheists visible in politics is next to zero, and that is unlikely to change. Atheists are still distrusted and that prejudice won't change overnight. And that's a lot of why people are reluctant to use the label, even when they admit that they aren't theists. However, the idea that, as America progresses and as the levels of the non-religious and apathetic continue to rise, we won't or can't elect a President with no religion is just wishful thinking on his part. Given the demographics above, it becomes all the more likely as time goes on.

The next time Medved wants to tackle such a topic, he ought to have at least one solid argument behind him.

On morality and hope vs. godlessness

A sometime-reader and commenter of this blog sent me some questions over the weekend via email. I tried to send them twice to him, but I don't know if he's receiving them. Since they were good topics for conversation, I figured I'd paste my response in here.

As best I can remember, I first heard from Jamie Bonnett back in April 2007, randomly, as he looked up the Friel-Tabash debate and found my email as a result. He works for everynation.org as a campus minister at UNCG -- I don't know anything about the ministry, but I read an interesting critique of the organization by Richard Bartholomew at talk2action in which it was compared to Maranatha Campus Ministries. He first wrote me in a somewhat-confrontational manner, challenging me to present arguments for God's nonexistence; but from there, our e-dialog took on a more friendly and conversational tone.

On cell phones & brain tumors

Having a background in chemistry & physics, I am very skeptical of the new report that mobile phones cause brain tumors. Being a "good" scientist, though, I am willing to hear the detailed arguments and wait and see what evidence is brought forth to support the hypothesis.

The major cause of my skepticism is that electromagnetic radiation in the radio frequencies used by mobile phones (UHF) has wavelengths of around 10 to 100 cm. These energies are only high enough to cause bond rotation and vibration, not homolysis or ionization. If, on the physical level, this is true...what is the mechanism responsible for purported biological tissue damage? Government experts have agreed with this logic for decades.

Before people look at the UHF radiation, they should consider alternative explanations, nearly all of which could be fixed easily: I know that some heat is generated by the phones, and there can be some constructive interference, as well as issues with the batteries and materials in the phones themselves. If it is the case that cell phones cause health issues, I'll bet the ranch that one of these is chiefly responsible.

On a lighter note, check out this hilarious video about Expelled! It's supposed to poke fun at science & scientists, but as with everything else, it just makes creationists look stupid.

Last night's Ohio debate

So this was what HRC was referring to last night, with her line about the media oogling over Obama? (more here on the debate, more here on SNL & Obama)

Clinton & Obama surrogates present science proposals

Well, it wasn't exactly Science Debate 2008, but it was something, at least. At least we've made some progress. Now wait and see how poorly the McCain proposals stack up against the Democrats'...oh, wait, he has no such proposals on his site, unlike Barack's technology and energy/environment sections and HRC's innovation and energy sections.

The clusterfuc* that is election day

If you really want to lose all faith in the American political system, read this.

There really is a problem with atheism

I made a very brief comment on Oct 11th about my take on Sam Harris' controversial talk at the Atheist Alliance conference (video here). I told a friend that I agreed with Sam about dropping labels entirely, and had already done so a few months back with two small but important first steps -- removing my "religious views" from my facebook and MySpace profiles. Basically, the premise he puts forth is that the label "atheist" is now a hindrance to the causes for which we fight. I agree, despite some good arguments contrariwise.

There seem to be two general avenues for responses to Sam's case: 1) it doesn't matter what we label ourselves, as others will continue to do so, and any "new" label will ultimately be dealt the same fate as "atheist;" and, 2) it doesn't serve the interests of the group to abandon the label, as we need it for some reason X. Both of these two issues were raised in the Q&A session after Sam's talk.

Ellen Johnson writes along the lines of (1):

Blacks are still dealing with bigoted notions that they are lazy and on welfare. Jews are still dealing with claims that they are cheap or that they run the media. Italians are still having to deal with claims that they are all in the mafia, etc., etc. Yet, we don't seriously suggest that they change, or not use, their names in order to stop having to refute certain bigoted ideas. Should gays call themselves "non-heterosexuals" in order to be accepted?

This is rhetorical, of course, but these are also very weak analogies. Race/ethnicity is undeniable, visual and physical, making easy markers for partitioning people into neat little categories. Gay behaviors (not the preferences) are the same. In addition, one day, would it not be preferable to be truly "race-blind" (unlike the Colbert version) -- without labels, and to no longer need to identify oneself as either straight or gay? If someone is a great music composer, need we introduce them with, "the great black composer..." or "the amazing gay composer..."? I think we subconsciously recognize that this does happen and that it is wrong, as a person's race or sexual preference is completely irrelevant to nearly every discussion in which it occurs. Is it necessary to invoke one's own race to battle racism? One's own sexual preference to battle bigotry? Do I have to say, "As a Jew/black/gay man, it is wrong to say that about Jews/blacks/gay men..."?

Second, she misses the mark with that last comment -- Sam advocates dropping labels entirely, not switching one for another.

PZ writes along the lines of (2):

Like you, I look forward to a post-theist future when the term "atheist" is a quaint relic that lacks any contemporary context, as silly as saying that one is an a-Zeusist or an aleprechaunist. That time is not now...Those labels you denigrate...are useful rallying cries for the tiny, scattered bubbles of rationality drifting in the sea of superstition and ignorance. It's how we find each other and grow. It's how we build whole communities working for a common cause, rather than acting as isolated individuals. I'd like to see more openly secular communities and institutions forming, and I think to do that we have to accept labels and banners and symbols, and we have to be open about expressing our ideas and encouraging others to join us. That's how we'll make a lasting difference.

This pragmatic concern ignores important distinctions between things like ending slavery and gaining civil rights versus the "endgame" that secular groups have in mind. All that secular groups (responsible and ethical ones, anyway) want is to extricate religion from government and to present arguments in the public sphere that will convince extremists to abandon their violence. This is a far cry from the economic and cultural entanglements of slavery and racism, which always involved only one ethnic group and which did not affect a majority of the American public. A plethora of other distinctions can be drawn here.

Most important is that this isn't about ending some entrenched economic system or clear and flagrant inequality before the law. We have none of the same legal and moral authority that civil rights and abolitionist groups had on their side. And it was this very issue that became an argument a while back between D.J. Grothe and PZ when atheists today were contrasted to civil rights crusaders in the 60s. Ditto with gay rights groups, who are still denied marriage and have been targets of violence since time out of mind. We have to go back to the Puritans or Bruno to get that sort of comparison with atheists.

More apt is the analogy to racist attitudes; this is the problem non-believers face -- prejudice. No one group really accomplished anything worth mentioning to drastically change widespread attitudes about race. Instead, and quite like theistic conceptions of atheists, it takes years and years of access to and familiarity with former objects of derision to begin to recognize them as equals. Like Sam mentioned during the Q&A, there may be no real "strategy" to turn around public perceptions of atheism. It may be a decentralized phenomenon that occurs over a long period of time solely as the result of us (atheists) just being who we are and going about our daily business for the prejudices to start to fade.

I agree with him entirely that this won't happen as the result of some distinct and marginalized group being ever more vocal. However, I do think that this was an important "catalyst" -- if you will -- to spark the dialogs that must begin and continue indefinitely. It will happen as the result of sustained long-term social adjustment, not conferences and books (though they played an important part).

The other issue Sam spoke of is the need for atheists to be more accepting of subjective human experiences in meditation and contemplative exercises. Long story short, we need to come to recognize that a lot of what religion offers is based on something real, the human need to transcend our circumstances at times and find a sort of "center" through one of the various introspective means at our disposal. For far too long we've conceded that ground entirely to religion and cast it aside as "mysticism" -- though it need not be.

I plan to try to do more meditation and find out if it is beneficial to me or not. If so, then great; if not, I'll quit.

In the end, all this bickering about labels doesn't do a damn thing to accomplish what it is we are all hoping for: the end of extremist religion and recognition of the intellectual paucity of theistic arguments. But I do agree with Sam that the labels may hinder reaching those goals.

The new skepticism

I was reminded this morning in thinking about things like climate change and evolution how starkly different the certitude level on issues in "pure" politics (like war, foreign policy and economic policy) is from scientific issues. I was thinking about how King W will come out and feign cautious, wise skepticism to reserve judgment on things like whether humans are causing global warming and on ID-creationism. The way these issues are framed appeals to American's sense of fairness and objectivity - "let's sit down and discuss all the rational possibilities, and at the end of it, since these issues are so complicated, we'll still have uncertainty, and thus cause for further debate," this frame says. And conservatives love to toe the party line on this in all discussions about climate change and evolutionary biology.

But look how starkly different these conservatives are when asked to discuss the realities of the Iraq war and our general muscular, hawkish foreign policies, or economic policies. Then, "debate" is not so welcome, and instead you become a terrorist sympathizer or a limp-wristed sissy whose idealitistic notions deserve the label of "flower child"...

Scientists have always been promoters of skepticism. The scientific method is conducive to doubt, as its goal is to provide explanations for natural phenomena which have been thoroughly tested in an effort to debunk their validity. Most of the progress we make in science, contrary to public misconception, is based on what we prove wrong. For example, if I have a hypothesis about how a cell regulates its own MAPK proteins, and I test it and falsify it, then we have progress in the form of eliminating possible rational answers. Cumulatively, these falsifications build up until there are only so many rational alternatives left, and these become, if you will, scientific orthodoxy. But even the most hardened orthodoxy, it is understood, is still subject to modification: that's the beauty of scientific knowledge -- it can always be improved and progress is the goal, not just a possibility.

All that said, I want to point out that it is this very tentative nature of science which those who want to exploit the lack of dogma seize on. Any "controversy" in science, real or imagined, can be created because people understand that a white lab coat is not the same thing as a Roman collar -- our lack of dogma makes it easy to challenge the status quo and current thinking. We eschew rigidity and faith in favor of evidence and questioning.

Those with agendas have exploited this feature of science to no end, emphasizing the fact that "all the facts are never in" -- that it is always possible to find new data that would modify our current interpretations of existing data. Sharon Begley explores this theme in climate change at length in an August Newsweek article, "The Truth About Denial". She carefully chronicles the years-long efforts on the part of energy and oil companies to inject doubt into the mainstream American consciousness about the science behind climate change. It is a powerful strategy, and difficult to overcome.

Just yesterday, I had a surprising conversation with a science teacher who told me that both she and her husband are "climate skeptics". I started a conversation with her, and she told me that the sorts of scientific issues she feels are unresolved involve such things as Mars warming and the decay of the magnetic field of the earth. What was amazing to me was that, although her degree and background are in mathematics and not physics, she certainly had the available faculties to look up and investigate the veracity of these objections for herself, but hadn't. I found out that she had heard this somewhere (Faux News, probably), and had simply believed her source enough not to even go check it out. Little did she know that scientists have addressed all these possible alternative explanations for years, and that they have all been found lacking in merit for various technical reasons.

I really recommend the following index and "guides" for point-by-point refutations of the common objections to man-made climate change:

• The IPCC AR4 report FAQ section (pdf)
  
• Coby Beck's How to talk to Global Warming Skeptic
• New Scientist: Climate Change: A guide for the perplexed
• RealClimate: Response to common contrarian arguments
• NERC (UK): Climate change debate summary
• UK Met Office: Climate Change Myths
• Brian Angliss A Thorough Debunking
• John Cross Skeptical Science

These are all excellent resources with scientific references that should be shared amongst all your friends and colleagues, especially those with whom you think contentious discussions on climate change could take place.

What is so amazing to me is how easily duped people are who feign prudent skepticism towards scientific consensus, but display credulity by swallowing and mindlessly repeating talking points in politics (such as "if we fight them there, we won't have to fight them here" &c.). Is it just that people self-select their news sources in accordance with their pre-determined policy positions, and refuse to budge? Am I the same way? Is it possible to be that way (ignore one side's perspective) if there are actual facts which we can analyze to determine who is right and who is wrong?

Upon further analysis, the president's rationale for invading has been shown a farce and a lie, and every single rationale for the surge and every claim and metric used to support that "the surge is working" falls apart. The central issue of, "Even if we make Iraq 100% safe militarily, that doesn't solve the ethno-sectarian conflict and magically create a unified central government," is continually ignored now, even though Cheney admitted this kept them out of Iraq in 1994.

The numbers get spun in order to keep current policies in place, and people get shuffled when they are no longer willing to spin the right way. As Greenwald recently noted, when Bush is unable to find generals who tell him what he wants to hear, he simply replaces them with those who will. And now, as war with Iran is planned by the right, precipitated by lack of diplomatic progress, and with Faux News dutifully banging the war drums, we need skepticism and cynicism more than ever before. Will it manifest itself? God I hope so.

Why is it that the new skepticism is strongly directed towards scientists, but not towards politics with the same intensity and fervor?

Evil and Atheism

Always my favorite approach to the case for atheism (and see two older notes I wrote on it: 1, 2) -- the argument from evil.

Listen to Prof. Eric Dayton present this argument in a debate against William Lane Craig at the University of Saskatchewan:

“Do Evil and Suffering Disprove God?”