POTUS 2012

Hold a gun to my head and I predict that Obama will be re-elected today by a narrow margin.

Unlike a lot of other predictions, the idea that he will lose the popular vote doesn't make a lot of sense to me. If anything, I would bet that Romney could win without the popular vote, just as Bush did in 2000.

Here's my 270towin map:

What a surprise!

Steorn failed. The 1st Law remains intact. What a surprise. I could have never predicted that...

Now we'll just wait and see how those "over unity devices" work out.

It's getting difficult to guard the optimism

As I said on Tue, the polls for Obama look great and if this holds, he should win in 23 days. As of this morning, fivethirtyeight.com shows him with a 91% win probability, a 5-point popular vote spread (51.9:46.6)and 348 EV (270 needed), Pollster gives him 320 EV and an 8-point popular vote spread (49.8:41.9), while Intrade has him with 80% probability to win.

One of the neat things you can do is go to 270towin and play with the states to see various outcomes for the election. Taking for granted a win in all the 2004 Kerry states, it appears that Obama has also solidly locked in Iowa and New Mexico, bringing him to 264 EV. Amazingly, all Obama has to do is win one of the remaining tossup states: FL, OH, VA, NC, IN, CO, NV, or MO. McCain has to sweep every one of these swing states to win...and that's why sites that run probabilities like fivethirtyeight have Obama winning with 9:1 odds given current polling data.

Basically, my predicted map is shown below, in which Obama wins OH but loses FL, wins VA but loses NC, wins CO but loses NV, wins 1 of the 5 NE districts (Omaha) but loses both MO and IN. This would give Obama 307 EV to McCain's 231. I also predict Obama to win around 51% of the popular vote and I think McCain will get around 48.5%, with third-party candidates drawing less than expected due to the financial crisis:

Aren't prognostications fun?

And here's a countdown clock for the election:

My "I told you so" moment

Ok, so it's time to gloat. Here is his full speech, and it is a great one.

Almost a year and a half ago, I put in my lot with Obama. In re-reading that post, it saddens me to see how much the Muslim rumors, propagated in large part by FauxNews' false report that he attended a Madrassa, have persisted. It also saddened me to see how race has played into the elections in large part due to Appalachian demographics. (BTW, see Montana, Iowa, Idaho...&c as a refutation of the claim that Obama can't win "working class whites").

Although there have been ups and downs, I saw his potential early on and I still see it.

He will make an excellent president.

Below, I've posted an electoral map prediction from Markos. I think it looks pretty good: Obama 283 - McCain 255. I would put money on an Obama win in 5 months just as I did put money on his primary victory in January 2007.

I can't wait!

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.

Consumer debt

*UPDATE: (6/8) - The breakdown in consumer debt, according to CNBC, is around $957B in "revolving" credit, comprised of credit cards and charge accounts, and $1.608T in "non-revolving" credit, comprised of college loans, car loans, etc. Doing the calcs on credit card debt, then, gives $957B/96M = $9958 per household. The average home having $10k in credit card debt is still rather scary...*

It seems almost incomprehensible that consumers now have $2.52 TRILLION in debt (besides mortgages).

The recent census estimates for the number of households in the US was 111 million in 2006; let's estimate 120 million households right now. Of those, estimate (generously) that 80% of all households have an active credit card, which means 96 million households have credit cards.

Divide $2.52 trillion by 96 million and you get $26,250 in credit card debt per household.

Despite protestations to the contrary, that looks like a lot of damn credit card debt.

I'm pretty worried about the economy. Stephen Roach talks about a "double bubble" that will only be solved by long-term painful re-adjustment of American's consumer spending and debt ratios. His proposed solution is focus on exports and re-investment in infrastructure. Our nation's infrastructure is crumbling, and Barack has a plan to invest the war's capital into exactly this sector, establishing a national infrastructure bank. Nice how that dovetails.

More reasons to worry about the economy

**UPDATE: 2/9/08, the hits just keep on coming**

I was introduced to Nouriel Roubini through a friend's stepdad, and I'm glad I was. A few days ago, Roubini gave us the 12 steps to a systemic financial crisis, and today he tells us why the government and Fed's actions leading to successful aversion of this crisis is unlikely.

I've posted interesting snippits below, they are long but worth the read:

Deep Thoughts (with Jack Handey): Oil, v2

In the first installment of deep thoughts on oil, I tried to distance myself from a claim that we're on the right side of the Hubbert curve with respect to oil production.

Even the most optimistic scenarios have the right-side of the curve pushed out to 2040 or so:

Now, as I pointed out in the first installment, along with the higher price of oil comes new methodologies of extraction, like shale oil. These same sorts of development may push the availability of oil out for another 500 or 1000 years, but the question/problem is the rate of production versus rate of consumption. At the risk of sounding like cursed Cassandra, I now have a few more authoritative voices to back up my fears: consider The Economist's article this week on C. de Margerie, CEO of Total Oil.

Mr de Margerie's opinions also stand out, at least within the ranks of senior oilmen. Last year he declared that the world would never be able to increase its output of oil from the current level of 85m barrels per day (b/d) to 100m b/d, let alone the 120m b/d that energy analysts predict will be needed by 2030. That is in stark contrast with the view of Rex Tillerson, the chief executive of Total's larger American rival, Exxon Mobil, who argues that the world is neither short of oil, nor likely to be any time soon. It also contradicts the line of the Organisation of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC), which claims that the only thing that prevents its members from producing more oil is the fear that no one will buy it.
...
Mr de Margerie is careful to point out that he is not predicting “peak oil” in a geological sense. His definition of peak oil is “when supply cannot meet demand”. He believes that the fuel that the world needs to keep its cars and factories running may well be out there, somewhere. It is just getting harder and harder to extract, for technical as well as political reasons. For one thing, he points out, the output of existing fields is declining by 5m-6m b/d every year. That means that oil firms have to find lots of new fields just to keep production at today's levels. Moreover, the sorts of fields that Western oil firms are starting to develop, in very deep water, or of nearly solid, tar-like oil, are ever more technically challenging. There is not enough skilled labour and fancy equipment in the world, he believes, to ramp up production as quickly as people hope.
...
Perhaps the best measure of Mr de Margerie's gloomy outlook for the oil industry is his eagerness to get Total into nuclear power. Though he says he is not about to increase Total's token 1% stake in Areva, France's nuclear-engineering giant, he clearly sees nuclear energy as part of Total's future. Why would an oil firm want to enter such a controversial field, unless it feels that it is already out on a limb?

Although I doubt we'll see doomsday scenarios like this one playing out any time soon, it is necessary to be mindful of how many other predictions about oil have been wrong -- like how, back in August, experts declared it would never go up to $100/barrel. I'm ready to buy that Honda hydrogen car & power station now.

Gloom and doom

Want some free advice from a professor of economics?

• US recession and global economic slowdown in 2008
• Central banks are behind the curve and Fed easing will not prevent a US recession
• Severe financial losses (over $1 trillion) and systemic risk forthe financial system
• Recoupling of the rest of the world with a global economic slowdown
• Cash is king: avoid a variety of risky assets
• Further sharp and persistent re-pricing of risk
• The credit boom/bubble party is over!

Nouriel Roubini was among the first to see the oncoming recession, and both he and Krugman, another economist whose prescience is well-documented, are bearish and in general agreement that house prices have a long way left to fall. For our part, my spouse and I will be waiting to buy...

I wonder, if the worst-case-scenario plays out, how stable our jobs will be. We work in education, and generally speaking, this area of work is recession-proof, so we ought to be okay...

Why the GOP will lose in '08

The "Grand Old Party" is in trouble, its own insiders declare. The solution? Convince poorer people that Jesus is a Republican.

Let's analyze some facts:

1. The country where the terrorists were located who attacked us on 9/11 is Afghanistan
2. The person who is most singularly responsible for 9/11 is still at large there
3. 15 of the 19 9/11 hijackers were Saudis; our continued reliance on Arab oil is a national security risk and strategic error
   
4. Iraq had absolutely no connection whatsoever to 9/11 or terrorism before we invaded
5. Terrorism in Iraq sprang up as fanatical Muslims fought against what they saw as "an occupation" by the infidel West of their homeland -- a cause célèbre, according to the NIE
6. Justifications about removing a "murderous dictator" ignore the fact that our invasion has caused the death of tens of thousands (if not hundreds of thousands) of Iraqi deaths
7. We armed Saddam with chemical weapons that he later used on his own people
8. We trained Afghanis in the art of warfare and they are now using these tactics on us
   
9. Now, we are losing ground in Afghanistan (and have been now for some time), and it has been the deadliest year yet for our troops there, despite the increasing role NATO plays in the war
   
10. The only conclusions one can make at this point center on the fact that even if we "win" in Iraq, we'll only be undoing the damage that we caused by invading and fighting an unjust war; we are clearly not "winning" in Afghanistan, which was a just war that has been bungled by the Bush administration and their failed policies
    
11. If Dems don't win this election cycle hands-down, I may be lost in despair over the stupidity of the American electorate

Apropos #3 above, Dems have finally passed an energy bill, one which reduces our dependence on foreign oil and strengthens our national security.

Deep Thoughts (with Jack Handey): Oil

Those with no plan for the future will inherit the plans laid by others.

I used to laugh when my dad told me he thought the government should impose a $1 tax on gasoline. I tried to tell him how that would slow growth to a crawl and cripple the economy for years. After reading today's Friedman column and giving it some thought, I now wonder if ol' dad didn't have it right all along.

What worries me a great deal is the relationship between oil and climate change and war.

At the risk of sounding like cursed Cassandra, I want to wax poetic about peak oil for one second. No one actually knows how much oil the world has left, because the Arab states refuse to allow independent audits of their reserves and fields. It could very well be the case that they have been plotting (for decades) to hobble the mighty US giant by making us completely dependent on their oil up to the day it runs dry. At that moment, our economy and our military would be crippled. When I think about Iran wanting to build nuclear facilities, even at the risk of war, it only reinforces this concern. It's like they know we're on the right side of Hubbert's bell curve. If this is true, friends, then we're all fucked.

But, let's say this is not the case at all, and that oil fears are unfounded. Let's say for a moment that we have 200 years of oil supply left in the ground. In fact, recent advances in shale oil technology seem to hold great promise that perhaps as much as 15 million barrels per day of our 21 million barrels per day consumed could be domestically supplied. What does this change in terms of US foreign policy? Not too much, given that we are still not capable of being "energy independent" -- i.e., able to supply all of our own oil demand.

Few people, certainly, would deny that those who control our oil supplies wield enormous influence over us. Some might argue that they are co-dependent since their economies become structured on the export/sale of this resource to us, and so in effect, that we are in a symbiotic relationship. They might say that worrying that Iran/OPEC/whomever would stop selling oil is absurd because their countries would bankrupt themselves.

People like the Heritage Foundation, in this assessment of the ties between national security and US dependence on oil, are irrational and incoherent:

Energy independence, defined as competitive local production of all the energy we need, remains a mirage. It is energy security that we need to accomplish, in which abundant and affordable energy supply is within reach of all Americans. Rec­ognizing the inherent, systemic, and long-term instability of the global oil markets is the first step in addressing the problem the U.S. is facing.

This was their grand, sweeping conclusion. They spell out the fact that by 2017, 70% of US energy needs will be imported if current trends continue, but then they say to just keep importing it. Don't solve the problem, in other words, just use more military force to try to secure the sources of those imports. Absolutely irrational...especially given that the DoD uses more oil than any other source in our country.

This came after admitting that striking Iran would be disastrous for the global supply of oil, and could push prices up to $83 pb if Iran's 15 million barrels were cut off from world supply:

The economic consequences of a military strike on Iran's nuclear facilities to the world energy mar­ket would likely be significant, if not disastrous. Immediately following military action, according to a Turkish assessment, uncertainty about Iran's abili­ty to sustain oil production at the current level of 4 mbd could drive oil prices above $80 per barrel.[9] If Iran retaliated and escalated by shutting down the Strait of Hormuz, which would merely require plac­ing anti-ship mines in the strait,[10] the temporary loss of more that 15 million barrels of oil to the international market could drive oil prices above $83 per barrel, the historic height of the 1970s (adjusted for inflation).[11] In fact, a recent Heritage Foundation war game and economic study specu­lated that oil prices could go as high as $120/barrel for a limited time.

Guess what? We're already at $95 and this supply hasn't been cut off. Try again. Looks more like $120 is a closer guess.

Conservatives have no answers when it comes to energy policy. They want to continue the status quo. This is the most irresponsible and dangerous possible approach to our country's long-term economic stability and national security. We must develop more energy independence. Now.

Whether or not you agree with the science of climate change, you cannot deny that oil revenues are being funneled to terrorism and that we are, indirectly, buying the very weapons and supporting the very enemies we send our troops to die fighting with each $ we spend on oil. Saudi Arabia and Iran are both state sponsors of terrorism, and their entire economies have been supported by our addiction to oil. In graphical form, it looks like this:


Learn to equate a gasoline pump with a gun, and you'll start to get the picture.

The energy alternatives already exist, and so the government's role at this point is to make those alternatives viable and competitive on the world market. So long as oil-sponsored politicians run our country, nothing will change. Both Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton know this, and have great energy plans to fix the central issue of transitioning America's oil-based economy into a green and sustainable one.

It's time to elect a responsible and bold leader as America's chief executive, not another regressive conservative who cares more about the status quo and doesn't connect our oil addiction to our wars and national insecurity.

Go progressive.

I agree with Jack Handey -- we need to elect a robot as president next, so we can recover from the Bush years by allowing the newly-elected robot President to tour the country and take bullets from enraged citizens.

Rudy & the mob

From one of the first times I saw Giuliani, I swear I thought to myself, "he looks crooked, like a mobster or something." While prescience is not one of my gifts, and such shallow judgments must be brushed aside in exchange for evidence, I have to wonder, with Rudy's ever-widening Bernard Kerik scandal, if I was on to something. At any rate, Rudy scares me more than pretty much any other front-runner because of his insane foreign policy -- he'd definitely start a war with Iran. His domestic policies are modeled right after King George, as well.

New Barna Poll on Christian Trends

A while ago, I analyzed some leading indicators about the growth of Christianity in today's world. I was responding to a claim that today's Evangelical kids are leaving the fold at a faster-than-ever rate as they grow up. My conclusions at the time were:

First, the numbers for the rise and fall of Christianity's numbers are all over the map, but two cited trends are ubiquitous: i) the rise of fundamentalist sects, and ii) the demise of "liberal" and Catholic sects in the modern world. While the latter seems logical enough, the former is a bit suspect to me. According to Mission Frontiers, Christianity is growing on the global scale at approximately 2.6% per year, while the population growth (globally) is around 1.6%. That means that at best, Christianity is enjoying a worldwide 1% increase. What we find with all these numbers, though, is a huge upsurge in the population of fundie/charismatic believers in 3rd world countries -- the Catholics' previous stronghold is being assaulted by Evangelical missionaries. How much of the net 1% increase is only in 3rd world countries?

Now, a new Barna poll seems to confirm this suspicion. The title of the article says it all, "Most Twentysomethings Put Christianity on the Shelf Following Spiritually Active Teen Years." The caveat in buying this is what I said a long time ago: you have to carefully examine how Barna defines a Christian. Oftentimes, their criteria are so strict that many people who I would call "serious Christians" are cut from the poll. For example, they may be asked, "Do you believe that all Scripture is inerrant?" And when they respond, "No," they're not considered Christians.

The intensity of religious commitment is lower among young adults, but not as low as might be assumed. Among those in their twenties and thirties, 6% have beliefs that qualify them as evangelical. This is statistically on par with the level among today’s teenagers (5%), but about half the rate of those over age 40 (12%). One-third of young adults (36%) qualify as born again Christians, which is slightly lower than the 44% of those over 40. (In the Barna survey, evangelicals and born again Christians are defined based upon religious beliefs and commitments, not based on the terms people use to describe themselves.)

This is how Barna's "4% of teens have a Biblical worldview" poll was conducted.

Barna's definition of a biblical worldview included a belief that absolutes exist and a belief that the Bible defines them. Additionally, the definition stipulated a belief that: Christ lived a sinless life; God is the "all-powerful and all-knowing Creator of the universe and He stills rules it today"; salvation is by grace and not by works; Satan is a real being; Christians have a responsibility to witness; and the Bible is "accurate in all of its teachings."

The research found that those who attended college were more likely to have a biblical worldview than those who did not (6 percent versus 2 percent). Married adults also were more likely to have such a worldview (5 percent for married people versus 2 percent for singles). Also, 10 percent of Republicans but only 2 percent of independents and 1 percent of Democrats had a biblical worldview.

I would say that the 6% figure quoted is thus likely far too low.

In the new poll, they conclude that 81% of 29 years olds were "churched" as teens, but only 20% are still "spiritually active" and 61% disengaged in their twenties. There are other international polls that confirm this is a worldwide trend:

Australian Youth Follow The Secular Trend

Aug. 11, 2006

Less than half Australia’s young people say they believe in a god, and many believe there is little truth in religion, a new study has found. The three-year national study, a joint project between Monash University, the Australian Catholic University and the Christian Research Association, found many young people live an entirely secular life.

Spanish Youngsters Have Had It With Religion, Too

Aug. 11, 2006

A poll of 1,450 young people in Spain shows that most believe that religion is of little importance and has no place in schools. The survey of people aged 15 to 29 shows that attitudes have changed radically since the era of the dictator Franco. Then, homosexuality was banned. Now gay marriage is legal, with 80 percent of those who were asked agreeing with the change in the law.

A third of those polled declared themselves non-believers, with the majority of the remainder stating that religion had little relevance in their lives.
(more)

Despite these trends, we must be careful to reject the hasty generalization that "religion is dying" -- because it's not, (neither is atheism) and because many people have fallen into this trap before, especially claiming that "science is destroying religion."

I also want to reaffirm something I've said before -- I don't seek the demise of religion. I am not even sure that all religion is bad or harmful to humanity. If we call ourselves freethinkers, then we ought to have an evidentialist approach to such questions, and SFAIK, no such evidence exists. What I would love to see is the demise of anti-intellectual elements of all religions.
________________
Technorati tags: God, Religion, Atheism

Statistical Note of Interest

This post is solely an observation of facts, using the benchmark of a well-known theistic group blog that I think serves well as a comparison to this group blog. Don't go over-analyzing my motives or what this is supposed to mean, please.

That said...Debunking Christianity is set to overtake Triablogue in site traffic, according to data from sitemeter for both sites:

Triablogue Sitemeter traffic prediction


Debunking Christianity Sitemeter traffic prediction:

In comparing stats, you want to use the largest data set possible to minimize your error and maximize your confidence interval approach: thus, use the data from the entire previous month. Based on that data, the Triablogue gets 1 more visit per hour, 35 more per day, 243 more per week and 1,053 more per month than DC. Of note is that DC has been around since January 2006, while the Triablogue has archives going back to April of '04.

Also note that the stats will change over even the course of the day, so don't fuss at me for poor subtraction if you aren't using the stats from the pics above.

Possibly of more interest is that the readership of the tblog has been pretty stagnant over the past year, and the upward trend of DC's readership may indicate that within 2 months, we will have higher stats across the board:

DC (year)
tblog (year)
As I said, these are anecdotally amusing to me, not indicative of any deeper meaning. Thanks to all the readers of DC for your support and comments: theists and nonbelievers.

On the "Prophecies" of Atheists, and Other Topics

On the Triablogue post Atheist Eschatology and the False Prophets, Paul Manata criticizes those who have made "prophetic" remarks about the future of religion. Paul is especially concerned with those whose predictions declared a near and present end to religion -- crushed and killed by the power of scientific progress. I actually agree with him on some points. Our comments on that post run over into Dusman's combox. I've pasted the exchanges below.

I initially replied at Tblog (1/12/07, 7AM):

Anyone who claims to have prescience regarding the future state of man, or the overall effect of religion upon man, would have a heavy burden of evidence to bear.

I have long wrestled with the idea that religion is entirely bad for mankind. I am not sure that this proposition is true.

I am sure that fundamentalist dogmatism, and especially that which conflicts with scientific knowledge, is dangerous for the progress of mankind. However, part of that very progress is the peaceful spreading of knowledge through education, and not forcing "conversions" or "deconversions" upon people, or ever erecting a state which enforces any sort of religion or irreligion. Freedom of religion is part of our progress. States like the USSR, North Korea, North Vietnam, Cambodia, etc., etc., show us the danger of [tyrannical] fascism that attempts to strip from [by force] people the freedom to express and practice religion.

I've commented more on this at length. I have begun to consider that some sorts of religion, and some of its rituals and beliefs, may serve as a sort of "placeholder" for many people who do not have the interest or rigor to critically and seriously examine (exhaustively) philosophical arguments. At some point, the placeholder may be rightfully usurped by the person's own acquisition of beliefs -- rather than inheriting and swallowing wholesale the prepackaged orthodoxy. However, people must have beliefs about morality, and value. If they cannot be bothered to consider, as one alternative, the existential arguments concerning man's freedom to transcend and determine value, or the arguments of virtue theories of ethics, or of utilitarianism...then what will they consider? Is it possible for humans to exist in a sort of vacuum of beliefs? No.

From whence cometh their beliefs? Parents. Schools. Experience.

Some religions would provide a better set of beliefs than some of these 3 sources. For instance, I think that Buddhism would confer and prescribe a better way to live than a child reared in North Korea and educated (indoctrinated) by its schools and their "Great Leader". Ditto with some religious fundamentalism.

Religions have, by time and necessity, evolved. They have dropped off the more primitive aspects (ie blood sacrifices) and adopted humanistic aspects (ie altruism and charity). Therefore, much good comes in the package. Much that intersects with rational thinking can be found in the box that is orthodox religion.

And therefore, I have a hard time feeling the same sort of impetus to deconvert the masses that, say, Sam Harris or Dawkins do. I find myself too skeptical to paint with so wide a brush. However, I do wish that those persons who hold specific religious beliefs that I consider detrimental to progress [and to the person's own mental health] would give an ear and some credence to the arguments against those beliefs. I am frightened by anti-intellectualism, which runs rampant in some religious circles. And that is what compels me to argue against those topics that I do.

wlotter thoughtfully responded (1/12, 12:25 PM):

nsfl,

You speak often about the "progress of mankind". I am assuming of course that you imply progression towards a somewhat absolute 'scientific' and 'moral' framework shared by all mankind resulting in a utopic existence? And what would that look like? (Or at least a favorable transient step?).

Realistically for you ( personally), meaning of life can only be derived from your interpretation of the progression itself and the part you play/played. (Regardless of how many scientific 'facts' you have within your grasp.)

I wonder if this is less illusionary than a Christian's quest for heaven?

And I am sure you would say would say that a Christian's meaning is derived from a set of myths that they believe.

I wonder sometimes if deep down we are all just searching for heaven. And if we are, why?

To which I retorted (as Nelly Furtado, 1/12, 4:21 PM):

You speak often about the "progress of mankind". I am assuming of course that you imply progression towards a somewhat absolute 'scientific' and 'moral' framework shared by all mankind resulting in a utopic existence? And what would that look like? (Or at least a favorable transient step?).

I like the way Richard Taylor has illustrated aspects of Sisyphus to point out that, even if no cosmic meaning exists, or no objective measure by which to measure progress or significance, we cannot deny that value has intrinsically subjective character. I think this applies well to your question. Let us assume that when the sun expands to swallow the earth, that this is the end of mankind. Does that render the value I have for my own life nonexistent? No. It only renders it cosmically and objectively insignificant.

I have no vision of utopia. Progress may be an end in itself.

Realistically for you ( personally), meaning of life can only be derived from your interpretation of the progression itself and the part you play/played. (Regardless of how many scientific 'facts' you have within your grasp.)

My meaning can be derived from whatever I find valuable -- from the happiness of my spouse to the rolling of my rock up a hill.

I wonder if this is less illusionary than a Christian's quest for heaven?

Perhaps not, in the ultimate sense. Perhaps we are all just shadows and dust, in the cosmic sense, striving against the unstoppable wind which scatters us abroad. But what ought we do? Find no beauty? Find no meaning? Have no values? It is impossible to do otherwise.

And I am sure you would say would say that a Christian's meaning is derived from a set of myths that they believe.

Some. Most of a Christian's meaning is derived from their sense of self and family, much of which is based on experience and reality. So long as the believer thinks that God is happy with them, this equates to their being a good person, and being "on the right path". This gives them the same sort of tranquility that I have in being on that same "right path" and in being "a good person". Myths are not necessarily false, as they can illustrate truths.

I wonder sometimes if deep down we are all just searching for heaven. And if we are, why?

Death is too much for our self-awareness to bear. Futility leads to despair. And that is why every culture throughout history invented religions and religious myths. Neandertals have even been found with the evidence of death rites and rituals at their gravesites.

I have more thoughts along those lines, and some very general ideas on existentialism, and Sisyphus, in this post.

Paul then replied, but obfuscated my words (1/12, 5:24 PM):

"I like the way Richard Taylor has illustrated aspects of Sisyphus to point out that, even if no cosmic meaning exists, or no objective measure by which to measure progress or significance, we cannot deny that value has intrinsically subjective character. I think this applies well to your question. Let us assume that when the sun expands to swallow the earth, that this is the end of mankind. Does that render the value I have for my own life nonexistent? No. It only renders it cosmically and objectively insignificant."

So you subjectively assign value to your life, even though there objectively is none.

Thanks for the admission.

Atheists choose to ignore reality and invent stories for themselves.

But then they complain that Christians invent religion and ignore the scientific finding of "the real world."

At any rate, since it's subjective then there's nothing objectively wrong with the child molester who subjectively assigns his life the value and purpose of "lover of children."

I called him on it (as Boy George, 1/12, 6:53 PM):

Paul,

As usual, you commit a non sequitur as you leap from ones sense of self-purpose to the issues surrounding moral duties, obligations, and properties.

I don't feel like chasing off after that red herring. I've had my say.

Paul (1/12, 8:18 PM):

Boy George,

No, I simply said that a child molester could assign the subjective value to his life that he chose to.

You'll note that I said there was nothing objectively wrong with him assigning subjective value to his life.

I never said that the act itself wasn't wrong, just the assignment of value, which the above commenter said in his post.

So, as usual, you forget to even apply critical reading skills to just a few sentences a theist writes, let alone an entire book.

But, to take it further, given the atheist that I responded to, I don't see how any "objective morals" could exist. Remember, he said,

"no cosmic meaning exists, or no objective measure by which to measure progress or significance"

And given this outlook, one would have a defeater for all his beliefs, including his ethical ones. So, even though I'm not guilty if the crime yoiu accuse me of, I wouldn't have been even if I did what you said.

Now, I could go off on a tangent about how careless internet atheists seem to be these days, but I don't feel like chasing that.

I've had my say.

best,

~PM

Me again (as Boy George, 1/13, 3:55 AM)

Paul,

Actually, she said:

"...even if no cosmic meaning exists, or no objective measure by which to measure progress or significance..."

Very convenient of you to have left off the boldened part.

1/13/2007 3:55 AM

Paul's last response at the Tblog (1/13, 8:47 AM)

I didn't need that part in ther Boy George because my point has to do with there actually being no cosmic value and meaning.

My point was, *given the view* that meaning and value is subjectively assigned, then what's the problem wioth a molester assigning himself the value of "lover of children?"

So, the "even if" did not affect my point.

Now, if you want to say that there possibily *is* cosmic value and meaning, that is objective, well now we're back to the other problem.

Or, if you just want to remain *agnostic* about our origens, our purpose, etc., then as I said above, you have a defeater for all your beliefs.

glad I could help,

~PM

Then things move to Dusman's blog, following his reply to Paul's post, I wrote:

Isn't it a bit silly to compare the two "camps", since one claims supernatural powers of prescience and the other doesn't?

Dusman responded (4:24 PM):

Greetings to our church blog Mr. Morgan!

Now, to answer your question, I'd say no. This is because (1) Paul Manata never claimed to have supernatural powers of prescience, and (2) since he wrote the article with a different intention than that which you've seemingly superimposed upon it, your above comment which was obviously designed to show that he is making a category error is simply unsubstantiated. Take care and I appreciate you taking the time to post.

And Paul rejoined (7:21 PM):

nsfl,

Isn't it a bit silly to be a member of a camp that doesn't claim supernatural powers of prescience, uet still make prophetic predictions? If you have no business predicting future events, then don't do it! So, your post serves to undermine the friends in your "camp."

Anyway, you missed the relevant point of comparison, as Dusman points (literally as well, look at his picture!) out.

I find it odd that you'd be sticking up for a "camp" that has made the predictions I docummented for hundreds of years. I mean, since when does being an atheist give you freedom to just wildly assert things about the future, especially when the assertions consistently fail to come true.

Now, you can think in agreement with the atheists prophets of doom, and predict that Christianity will end once people read a few more science books, but, using induction, it appears that those claims won't be coming true.

To which I replied (6:45 AM):

Dusman,

(1) No, he didn't, but the belief system of Christianity holds within it the intrinsic capability to interpret prophetic, divine, and therefore true accounts of the future. Atheists have no parallel source to go to in order to try to fit the vision of prophecy over the picture of present events.

(2) Paul wanted to point out that people have been wrong about the demise of religion. He's right. It's just silly, though, to compare Christian eschatology [claimed as divinely inspired] to atheist eschatology [admittedly fallible].

Paul,

Every human being bets on the future with each decision they make: you call football games before they're played, you don't enroll in college without the belief that you will complete it, etc., etc. We humans have the capacity to imagine the future, and therefore, we often make predictions.

I mean, since when does being an atheist give you freedom to just wildly assert things about the future, especially when the assertions consistently fail to come true.

I don't quite understand this. Are you claiming that we are not all free to make predictions, if we so choose? Now, the question of taking our predictions seriously, or gaining prestige and authority in the area, is another matter entirely. However, stock market gurus do exist. Certain people seem to be very good at predicting the future (in limited respects). Are you saying that they shouldn't attempt to do so, for their own benefit (and that of others)?

I don't claim to belong to a "camp" of any sort. I certainly share beliefs with other people, just as you do with other people. But I think just as you would distance yourself from, say, the Catholic view of birth control [perhaps], so I would separate myself from anyone who claims to know the future with any degree of certainty.

Was or was not your intent to show that people were wrong in predicting the demise of religion? If so, then you accomplished that, and I agree with you on it. Which leads to the next point:

Now, you can think in agreement with the atheists prophets of doom, and predict that Christianity will end once people read a few more science books, but, using induction, it appears that those claims won't be coming true.

I wrote:
"If people agree that the scientific method establishes knowledge, and that faith is not knowledge, then the bifurcation of science and religion is a deep and meaningful issue. If faith has not suffered, it has certainly adapted as knowledge has been established to contradict the teachings and interpretations of the Bible. Admittedly, theists may always claim that the contradiction lies in the interpretation of their Scriptures, and not in the Scriptures themselves, but the effect of marginalization of faith via scientific progress is a real phenomenon that I think modern theists are quite well-aware of."

Do you agree or disagree that the establishment of knowledge via science (or at least, the belief in this knowledge) has diminished, in some respects, people's reliance upon the Bible? I'm not claiming here that some people don't take the Bible's authority (or belief thereof) over that of scientific evidence. But you must admit that science has forever changed the landscape of Christianity.

I don't think Christianity will die off from science. I think it will continue to evolve. Just as it has for thousands of years.

Around 1 billion (or more) Christians accept many scientific theories that you (and many others) reject, for example. That is a huge impact on the body, is it not?

And, the secularization of Europe is something the Pope has candidly admitted as of late. The global trend of secularization is that modern, technologically-advanced societies are trending that way (with the USA as a stubborn slow holdout), while the 3rd world is expanding in religious belief as Communism fell and missionary efforts have redoubled there: esp. Africa and India.

I think modernization and science don't spell "doom" for Xians or religion in general, but spell "change".

Paul shot back (2:57 PM):

Hi nsfl,

So when Bertrand Russell, Dan Dennett, Sam Harris, et al. predict the end of faith they're just doing the philosophers equivalent of "calling football" games?

Couldn't have said it better myself. And here we thought the atheological minds that the public hears the most from were actually trying to use reason.

Bottom line: My post pointed out that atheists have their own embarrassing prophets to silence. Before you go picking on Christians, clean up your own back yard. from my perspective, it's pretty messy.

My last comment (written 1/17/07, don't know when Dusman will allow it to be posted); Paul words in italics:

So when Bertrand Russell, Dan Dennett, Sam Harris, et al. predict the end of faith they're just doing the philosophers equivalent of "calling football" games?

Yes, basically.

Couldn't have said it better myself. And here we thought the atheological minds that the public hears the most from were actually trying to use reason.

They are. Just like you do when you call a football game. And my analogy may be a little better than I thought: when you use your brain to calculate probabilities and compare stats, you use reason in calling the game; but, your evaluation will always be a little skewed towards the team you (identify with) like the most. It's hard to be impartial in matters of football or religion, isn't it?

Bottom line: My post pointed out that atheists have their own embarrassing prophets to silence.

I disagree with the concept of silencing people. I disagree with the concept that people aren't free to predict the future all they want. If they garner support for their "prophecies", I think it's absurd. But, just as they are free to do this, so people are free to take their prescient powers seriously. I do not.

Before you go picking on Christians, clean up your own back yard. from my perspective, it's pretty messy.

Perhaps the better way to put it is to say: "If you're really freethinkers, do you need a shepherd around to tell you what the future will be like, or can you judge her/his words and think for yourselves?" I don't have the right or obligation to "silence" anyone, but I could try to persuade persons whom I think put way way way too much stock in, say, Dawkins.

Anyway, I understand your point, but I still think you're trying to parallel two orthogonal lines: you can't compare religion with non-religion in this way, when there is no meaningful basis for comparison of the two camps' self-styled "prophets". People [stupid ones] really believe that Pat Robertson hears from God; no one thinks that of Dennett. Therefore, no one thinks that Dennett has to be right...contrariwise...

Thanks for the civil exchange.

I thought the conversation worth sharing. I hope you agree. Please feel free to comment if you agree, disagree, or anything in between!

**UPDATE: Paul wanted me to include a comment he left after I had written this post. So let it be done:

Paul's last comment at Dusman's place, 8:49 PM --

Well, nsfl, people's hearts get the best of them when they "call" football games. I still like the analogy. In fact, it's even closer than we thought. Here we have a bunch of emotional atheists rooting with their heart and not their head. I did that, but the Chargers still lost! I mean, you may think they're applying reason, but if I picked the wrong team for the past few hundred years, I think you'd say that my emotions are getting the best of me. I mean, would you listen to a Vegas Line on the odds is they had been wrong for hundreds of years. No, he'd get fired. And so ther best thing for you guys to do is fire the emotion driven atheists (Dennett, Bawkins, Harris, et al)., and find a new odds maker.

I can parallel the two because I think atheism is just as religiously driven and motivated as Christianity is. And, two, I'm comparing the goofballs in our camp with the goofballs in your camp. A wrong prediction is a wrong prediction, no matter which way you slice it. If we're getting mocked, you're getting mocked.

Paul basically repeated what I said in a much earlier comment -- that I laugh at people who take anyone's claims to prescience seriously. Thus I can't/don't have to "fire" anyone, since I never employed them to do my thinking or analysis for me. And I'll admit that when it comes to being in a "camp" with others of like mind, it is quite possible to be driven by emotion to defend a fellow camper's position before thinking it through clearly. Thus, I'll admit that many people, me included, may rush to propose something, or defend something, on the basis of emotion alone without considering the merits of the argument. In the case of "predictions/prophecies", this is clearly often the case. But, since I don't typically refer to any of these fellows as idols of mine, and since I have actually distanced myself from two of them (esp. Dawkins), you may not be able to paint me with this broad brush.

If you notice, when I mock Pat Robertson, I don't claim that all Christians are being mocked. When I mock Jerry Falwell, I don't claim all Christians are also theocratic loons. I even specify from time to time that not all are. You ought to consider the same application of selectivity: not all atheists make dumb predictions. Furthermore, some atheists post scientific polling to support their predictions. **END UPDATE**
________________
Technorati tags: God, Religion, Atheism, Philosophy

The More Things Change...

In the October 1927 issue of Popular Science, we see some interesting thoughts from men who were, well, thoughtful:

Will Durant, Ph.D., Philosopher; Author, The Story of Philosophy; Director, Labor Temple School, New York

GOD, to me, is the creative power operating continuously in all the processes of growth. Religion is reverence for, and cooperation with, all the forces of growth, within ourselves and without. Science, if it takes its lead from physics, is in irreconcilable conflict with religion; but if science takes its lead from biology (as it may in our century) and recognizes that the processes of life reveal the inner nature of the world more nearly than the mechanisms of matter, it may be possible to reconcile science with a sane, natural religion.

As to harmonizing the theory of evolution with the Biblical account of creation I do not believe it can be done, and I do not see why it should. The story of Genesis is beautiful, and profoundly significant as symbolism; but there is no good reason to torture it into conformity with modern theory.

I'm reminded of Karen Armstrong's article, "Resisting Modernity" in which she writes

By the middle of the 20th century, pundits and intellectuals in the West generally took it for granted that secularism was the coming ideology and that religion would never again play a major role in public life. However, within a few years, it became clear that a militant piety had erupted in every major faith, dragging God and religion back to center stage from the sidelines to which they had been relegated. The 1979 Islamic Revolution in Iran showed the potential of this new form of faith. Western observers were astonished to see an obscure mullah overturning what had appeared to be one of the most progressive countries in the Middle East. “Who ever took religion seriously?” cried a frustrated official in the US State Department shortly after the revolution. But the United States itself had recently witnessed the rise of Jerry Falwell and his Moral Majority, and a radical religiosity fueled the Arab- Israeli conflict on both sides.

It is often forgotten that Darwin had friends within the Evangelical community for years. For years, Christians did not see the science of evolutionary theory as a threat to their faith.

For years, the attitude, "religion is dying as knowledge increases" has proven itself false. The postivists celebrated their empiricism and assumed that other human beings would fall into lockstep with them. They predicted the downfall of religion as science became the accepted way of looking at the world. They were wrong.

Many people saw the path of science bifurcate from that of religion -- the assumption of naturalism and the insistence on evidence contrasts sharply against that of dogma, tradition and faith; but the goal of science, the end of science, modern people still believe, converged with that of religion -- upon God. Many of these sorts of people (Durant above, Jastrow below) believe that science will somehow bring about, at whatever future point in time, more knowledge of God, rather than less reason to believe.

The attitude of Jastrow has a fatal flaw in its logic:

For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been waiting there for centuries.
--Robert Jastrow, astronomer, in God and the Astronomers, W. W. Norton, p. 116, (1978).

If scientists are truly dedicated to discovering as much knowledge as possible via the application of reason and the scientific method to our universe, then this fails on many points. For one, it wouldn't be a scientist's nightmare to discover a Deity. If the method of science (somehow, theoretically) leads there, then the "true" scientist, following the method, should rejoice. And so this leads to the natural question: can the method of science actually provide such evidence? Because science has piled up mountains of natural knowledge, and undercuts belief in supernatural processes by providing evidence for a reasonable and rational natural alternative explanation, I do not think so.

For another thing, the mountains of ignorance have not been scaled by anyone, because believing that something is true doesn't accomplish the same work as science -- it doesn't confer real knowledge. The theologians are not standing there, waiting on scientists to catch up. The theologians have instead contributed to the mountains of ignorance for centuries (rather than standing loftily above them) by insisting on adherence to their various conflicting Scriptures and various conflicting interpretations. They are standing at the bottom of the mountain, professing to know what is above in the lofty heights; they do not know it.

It is only in Modernism that the Catholic faith finally admitted that the Big Bang and evolution are not anti-theistic and not heretical. And it is only because of the overwhelming evidence for both of these propositions, neither of which have ever even reasonably been posited by theologians. The primitive ideas for both of these things can be traced back to the Greeks and beyond, but it is one thing to say that people have had beliefs, and another thing entirely to say that people have established scientific knowledge.

Although I think the modern attitudes of most scientists have changed (see esp. the bottom part of that article) with respect to optimism towards the disappearance of superstition and religious dogma, there is no good reason to think that the underlying logic has changed. If people agree that the scientific method establishes knowledge, and that faith is not knowledge, then the bifurcation of science and religion is a deep and meaningful issue. If faith has not suffered, it has certainly adapted as knowledge has been established to contradict the teachings and interpretations of the Bible. Admittedly, theists may always claim that the contradiction lies in the interpretation of their Scriptures, and not in the Scriptures themselves, but the effect of marginalization of faith via scientific progress is a real phenomenon that I think modern theists are quite well-aware of.

And I think that their opposition to modern science is thus well-understood. They know the primitive and superstitious beliefs and traditions of the ancients have been left behind in the wake of scientific progress and revolution -- and turning backwards is an option they know isn't open or available.

Is it even possible for science to justify faith, or will it continue to peck away at the underlying support for belief in the necessity or evidence of supernaturalism?
________________
Technorati tags: Philosophy

Who is John Galt? Why, Steorn!

Those of you familiar with Ayn Rand's favorite character, John Galt, may recall his development of an engine that ran on static electricity in the air. Well, it appears the next best accomplishment has been claimed: Steorn claims to have built a technology capable of deriving >100% energy from magnetic fields! Not only do perpetual motion/energy machines violate basic physical principles, they hold unlimited fantasy potential to fascinate us. The company has issued a challenge and set up a scientific "jury" system to test their invention. Word of advice: don't hold your breath.

HT: SciAm Observations
________________
Technorati tags: Physics