Author: shockofgod
Keywords:
Added: September 2, 2010
Sep
1
Thanks to TheRationalizer for the link
RICHARD FEYNMAN, Nobel laureate and physicist extraordinaire, called it a “magic number” and its value “one of the greatest damn mysteries of physics”. The number he was referring to, which goes by the symbol alpha and the rather more long-winded name of the fine-structure constant, is magic indeed. If it were a mere 4% bigger or smaller than it is, stars would not be able to sustain the nuclear reactions that synthesise carbon and oxygen. One consequence would be that squishy, carbon-based life would not exist.
Why alpha takes on the precise value it has, so delicately fine-tuned for life, is a deep scientific mystery. A new piece of astrophysical research may, however, have uncovered a crucial piece of the puzzle. In a paper just submitted to Physical Review Letters, a team led by John Webb and Julian King from the University of New South Wales in Australia present evidence that the fine-structure constant may not actually be constant after all. Rather, it seems to vary from place to place within the universe. If their results hold up to the scrutiny, and can be replicated, they will have profound implications—for they suggest that the universe stretches far beyond what telescopes can observe, and that the laws of physics vary within it. Instead of the whole universe being fine-tuned for life, then, humanity finds itself in a corner of space where, Goldilocks-like, the values of the fundamental constants happen to be just right for it.
... continue reading
Aug
31
I’ve been pretty hard on Francis Collins, what with his mixing faith and science and telling people that there’s empirical evidence for God’s existence. But that makes it extra incumbent on me to give him kudos when he does something right. I mentioned the other day his support of stem-cell research, which is discussed in a new article, “The Covenant,” in The New Yorker. Maybe I was too eager to get in a lick against Christianity, so let me say that I much appreciate his going to bat for good science and humanitarian medicine. And then there’s this:
Collins strongly disputes that assessment [Craig Venter's pronouncement that the Human Genome Project has contributed little to medicine]. He says that after reading the Times story he sat down and wrote out a list of breakthroughs directly attributable to the advances in genomics, among them providing new understanding of age-related macular degeneration, Crohn’s disease and the role of autophagy, and Parkinson’s disease and the central role of alpha-synuclein aggregates; and the development of a recent drug for lupus. “It’s revolutionized everything that we do,” he says. He has discussed some of this with his friend the militant atheist Christopher Hitchens: “As you might have heard, Christopher has esophageal cancer, and I have actually been spending a fair amount of time with him and his wife, Carol, trying to help him sort through the options for therapy—including some rather cutting-edge approaches based on cancer genomics.”
I’m not going to pull my punches if Collins continues his public harmonizing of science and faith, but any Christian who would try to cure the world’s most vocal atheist is a Christian I can appreciate—and live with.
continue to WEIT for links
Aug
30
Aug
29
One of the things I have noticed in dealing with Christians on this blog and in person is that they are hard to deal with. They are hard to deal with because of their belief system and their world view. They are nearly impossible to talk with rationally (about religion, especially theirs) and they are dead set in their ways. They can quote snippets of the Bible with such forceful authority that it can make your hair stand on end. They speak as if their opinion is the God-sanctioned truth about both religion and politics.
Having been a Christian myself, I know from personal experience that “proving” to a Christian that they are wrong doesn’t work. Trying to show them that the Bible is wrong or contradictory doesn’t work. Trying to go against what their Christian leaders preach is pointless, too. The reason it is so hard is because of their mindset, their world view, their beliefs and the assurance that they are right.
Look at the things they believe:
- God is everywhere
- God hears all
- God sees all
- God acts (when he feels like it)
- God is mysterious
- God must be taken on faith
- The Bible is the word of God
- The Bible is infallible
- There are no contradictions in the Bible
- God intervenes when he sees fit
- God answers prayer – yes, no, wait
- God heals when he sees fit
- God can explain everything away
- Faith can explain everything away
- Contradictions are okay as long as they are from God
- God is the answer to everything
- It is up to him to give us the answers if he wants
- God is the way, the truth and the life
- Anything can be argued/proved by the Bible
- The earth is young
- God created it
- He put things there to trip up the scientists
- I’m a Christian, you’re a Christian, we’re all Christians (but I am in the right)
- All other religions are wrong
- Other religions have myths, fairy tales, superstitions but not mine
- There are angels around that help
- There are demons around that hinder
- I am right. You are wrong. You are a poor lost soul going to hell, sent there by a loving God, but it is your choice.
- God wants us all to come to him
- All you have to do to get to heaven is… take your pick depending on which Christian/religion you are talking to).
- God is, was, and ever shall be
- The earth is going to be destroyed
- God told us what was going to happen a long time ago
- God performs miracles
- God disrupts nature
- God uses natural events to punish sin
- God loves you and wants you to come to him, but if you don’t he wants you to spend an eternity in torturous hell
- Humanity is sinful
- Without God we are hopeless, helpless and lawless
- After we die we go to heaven
- God lives in me
- God shows me what to do
- God speaks to me through his word
- Things happen for a reason
- The world is evil
I know not all Christians believe every single one of the things I wrote down, but that is another problem with Christianity – there are just too darn many variations. Some believe this, some believe that, some are adamantly opposed to this teaching and others are adamantly opposed to that teaching. Interpretation is everything. My denomination is better than yours. We have the real truth. That is one of the reasons I started taking a close look at my own beliefs, because of the many factions of Christianity.
So, if you can’t argue with Christians, can’t prove to them that they are wrong or their Bible is inadequate, can’t show them their preachers don’t always know what they are talking about, you can’t convince them that they are using circular reasoning, what can you do?
Remember change occurs gradually. You can’t lambaste someone into changing their beliefs; it only makes them more defensive. The harder you try, the more they resist. The more they resist, the more firmly they dig in their heals against change.
I remember when I became a Christian and I bet a lot of you do, too (if you weren’t lucky enough to be born into a non-religious home). The first time I heard about being a born-again Christian I scoffed at the idea. After all, I was a good Catholic girl. What on earth did I need that for? But every once in awhile I would be confronted with that idea again, I heard more about it, I heard some Catholics were doing it, one of my friends did it, I became more open to it and sought out more examples that it might be true. And then eventually I tentatively did it myself. Then I looked for even more examples that I was doing the right thing. The more I looked the more convinced I became and soon my whole world view was changed around to look for God and Christianity everywhere. And I found the wonders of God wherever I looked. And I blocked out contradictions and the things that didn’t make sense.
My deconversion story is much the same. I scoffed at unbelievers. How could they not believe? How could they not see God at work everywhere? How could they not know that Jesus was the only way to heaven? How could they not see and hear the beauty of God’s word and experience the same fear I felt if I were not to believe in it?
My deconversion was a slow and imperfect process. At first I heard about some more liberal Christians and I couldn’t believe it. How could they even claim to still be Christians? But then I met some and saw that they were genuine, just not as strict as I was. And so I loosened up a little. And then a little more.
I heard how some people were saying that maybe Jesus wasn’t the only way to God, just one way. I scoffed at that, too. Of course Jesus was the only way; it said so right in the Bible. But the door was opened a crack and I was open to hearing more examples.
I don’t want to go through each stage of my deconversion, but I think you get the idea. It happened gradually as I heard bits and pieces, closed my mind to it, heard some more, opened my mind a crack, looked for more examples, tentatively explored some thoughts in my journal and with a few close friends, took a step or two back, looked some more, opened some more, explored some more.
It wasn’t arguments, persuasive or otherwise, that got me to either one of the extremes. It wasn’t proofs and reports. It wasn’t people railing against what I believed. It was hearing and listening, little bits at a time. It was done in my own time. It was opening doors, just a crack here and there, testing things out. It was seeking out confirmation other peoples’ experience, through books and websites. It was two steps forward and one step back.
You can’t whack people over the head and expect them to change immediately. You can’t try to argue them out of a corner they have painted themselves into. You can’t force the truth onto them. It takes awhile to change a mindset. I had to overcome internal resistance to the fact that I might be wrong. This is never easy. To admit I might be wrong takes courage, even if I am just admitting it to myself.
So don’t lambaste, don’t rail, don’t argue. Don’t try to force the door open because what will happen is that those Christians, with their integrity at stake, with their whole belief system and world view in jeopardy will lock that door with multiple locks, they will jam a chair up under the doorknob, they will alert the authorities that someone is trying to force their way in and they will close themselves off even more.
Instead, try some compassion. Remember that a lot of us were there at one time, too. Make suggestions. Offer different ways of looking at things. Be an example. Share your story. Instead of trying to force the door open, slip a little note under the door. Maybe they will read it, if not now, then later.
Here is my note for now:
Dear Christian,
Things are so much simpler when you look at life from a natural point of view instead of a spiritual one. Here is my world view:
- There are no supernatural beings – not Gods, not angels, not demons
- There are no miracles, no mystical elements, no revelations
- Natural phenomena is… natural, things happen because they do
- Humanity is beautiful - there is more good in the world than bad
- We live, we die, we create our own meaning in life
Try walking around one day with that view of life and see what happens.
[First published by Theresa Jan. 17, 2007]
Aug
27
PZ Myers is an associate professor of biology at the University of Minnesota at Morris and the man behind the popular science blog Pharyngula.
Q: What’s the first thing you read in the morning?
A: My site, Pharyngula, of course. I have to clean up spam, catch up with the conversation, and feed the fires with my own contributions.
Q: What newspapers and magazines do you subscribe to or read regularly? What do you read in print versus online or mobile?
A: I read Nature, Science, BioEssays, Development, Developmental Biology, PNAS [Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences] regularly, and a few other journals irregularly. I read almost nothing printed on paper—I prefer to download PDF’s and read them on my laptop or iPad.
Newspapers I might read occasionally for the novelty, usually if there’s one left on the table at the coffee shop. I do browse The New York Times online
Q: What books have you recently read?
A: I read a book every day or two, except lately when I’ve been swamped with work. Last book read was Lone Frank’s Mindfield: How Brain Science Is Changing Our World, before that was Oren Harman’s The Price of Altruism, Erik Larson’s Thunderstruck, a fun little book called Quirks of Human Anatomy by Lewis Held, it goes on and on. I tend to slurp up any printed matter that stumbles before my eyes.
Q: Has your reading of professional journals changed in the past 10 years? If so, how?
A: Not in subject matter, which remains almost entirely in developmental and evolutionary biology. I have picked up browsing the PLoS journals. The big change is in the switch to electronic media—10 years ago, it was a matter of regular trips to the library to photocopy papers. Now I just stuff PDF’s onto a hard drive.
Q: Do you read blogs? If so, what blogs do you like best?
A: My faves right now are Why Evolution Is True, Sandwalk, Butterflies and Wheels, ERV, a few others—anything where the personality of the author shines through, and I do favor hard-edged godless science writers who don’t mince words.
… continue reading
Aug
27
Aug
24
By Dan Barker
Buy new: $10.17
32 used and new from $8.75
Customer Rating:
Customer tags: atheist(76), freethinking(44), freethought(37), humanism(36), god(23), ethics(20), dawkins(18), evangelical(17), fundamentalism(15), religion(10), christianity(9), dan barker(3)
Aug
22
By David Mills
Buy new: $10.17
42 used and new from $8.70
Customer Rating:
Customer tags: atheist(85), skepticism(47), intelligent design(41), science and religion(40), evolution(37), creationism(36), christianity(32), atheist universe(23), cosmology(19), religion(14), new atheism(10), david mills(6)
Aug
22
Aug
20
On a pretty impressive site that aims at having a balanced view of religions called Patheos, there is a page for Evangelicalism that offers little more than self-congratulatory bluster for its philosophical and apologetical achievements in the last few decades.
If you'll actually read through Patheos it'll become clear what is seen as trajectories in philosophy and apologetics is little more than self-congratulatory bluster given the religious diversity in the world. Atheist philosopher Quentin Smith tells it like it is, that God "is now alive and well in his last academic stronghold, philosophy departments." That's LAST stronghold. The notion of God has already been ousted from most every other department in the university. So why on earth would evangelicals be quoting Quentin Smith or feeling good about what he said?
The bottom line is that you cannot have a religious trajectory that will last very long without a good solid foundation, and what evangelicals will have to come to grips with is the lack of a Biblical foundation for what they believe. It simply is not there. They have completely and utterly ignored this.
I'm here to remind them, by pointing out that Natural Theology is dead, and that their philosophical renaissance is nothing more than fundamentalism on stilts.
If you'll actually read through Patheos it'll become clear what is seen as trajectories in philosophy and apologetics is little more than self-congratulatory bluster given the religious diversity in the world. Atheist philosopher Quentin Smith tells it like it is, that God "is now alive and well in his last academic stronghold, philosophy departments." That's LAST stronghold. The notion of God has already been ousted from most every other department in the university. So why on earth would evangelicals be quoting Quentin Smith or feeling good about what he said?
The bottom line is that you cannot have a religious trajectory that will last very long without a good solid foundation, and what evangelicals will have to come to grips with is the lack of a Biblical foundation for what they believe. It simply is not there. They have completely and utterly ignored this.
I'm here to remind them, by pointing out that Natural Theology is dead, and that their philosophical renaissance is nothing more than fundamentalism on stilts.
Aug
19
The worst part of this call is not that Dr. Laura says “nigger” eleven times to a black caller who has sought her advice for dealing with racial intolerance, and that’s why this cry for help is my WTF Moment of the Month.
No, the worst part of this call is that after several minutes of constant condescension and rude interruptions (by Laura, not the caller who Laura should be listening to),
Aug
17
…but pretty stupid.
I didn’t vote for Obama and I don’t even like him or agree with what he’s doing, so why would I dislike the Tea Party movement?
Well, for one thing, I’m not a Republican.
In case you didn’t know, Republicans have far less registered voters than Democrats, and in many states, there are more registered as Independent/Unaffiliated than Republican
Looking at registered voters is important, because this is one of the single largest determining factors for whether a person will vote. In 2008, 89.6% of the population (source) who was registered to vote went out and cast a ballot of some kind. Add to this the fact that eleven states have more people registered Independent/Unaffiliated than are registered Republican or Democrat, and you can see that Independents make the different in elections.
For those curious, the national breakdown in 2008 looked like this (source):
This means both main parties rely heavily upon Independents. After a solid defeat, it’s no surprise that Republicans have been reaching out in a major way to independents. But is it reaching out, or encouraging people to be repelled by Democrats?
The Tea Party is nothing but a rebranding of Republicanism, with a slightly different formula for making campaign promises. Parting from the past eight years of fear mongering via “the terrorists are out to get us” rhetoric, we are seeing a new angle that hasn’t been en vogue since the Cold War: anti-Communism fear mongering.
I’m a Socialish (it’s like a socialist, but not really), and I can assure you: Obama is no comrade of mine.
Perhaps hoping to capitalize on the disenfranchised Libertarian voter, perhaps the result of nothing more than sheer embarrassment over the Bush years, the Tea Party is little more than an attempt to drum up anti-Obama sentiment for Republicans under a different banner. After all, if those Independents aren’t voting for Obama, that must mean they’re voting for the Republican… you wouldn’t throw your vote away on some third party candidate, right?
One can already see the Tea Party is not a cohesive contingent with any sort of codified platform or ideology. There are rifts opening left and right (mostly right), dividing the group into irreconcilable contingencies with only one thing in common: a dislike for Obama.
You can’t organize people whose only common trait is that they aren’t something. As an atheist, I know a thing or two about negative group formation. It’s enough to bring people together, but it’s not enough to keep them together. The endgame strategy behind the Tea Party is clearly to elect a Republican in 2012.
And which Republican? If the Tea Party was rallying behind Ron Paul, I would be happily surprised, but they aren’t. Instead, the emerging figurehead who seems to be most active in the rallies is Sarah Palin, but this only serves to show how little impact the Tea Party itself will have. Palin is not a viable candidate (I bet Republicans will end up with Romney, and that he’ll lose to Obama).
Let’s face it. Any group that not only allows, but encourages Palin to become associated with them is not worth being a part of, and their intelligence has to be called into question. No one should have any respect for that pea-brained quitter.
I’m angry at Obama, too, but I don’t run into the arms of the first pleasant sounding siren who comes along. Anyone promising to lower taxes at a time of record debt is clearly out of touch and certainly not fiscally responsible It’s going to take increased taxes to pay for the Bush years, let alone the Obama years, so the single biggest galvanizing issue that the Tea Party rallies behind is not only economically irresponsible, it cannot be exercised.
There will be taxes, get over it.
Even if some sort of freak accident killed every other candidate and Ron Paul were elected, he would have to raise taxes. Even if he cut every single government program, fired every government employee he legally could, and sold children who were abandoned to the state as sex slaves… he would still have to raise taxes (and unemployment would be unprecedented).
Yeah, it sucks, but we have no one to blame but Republicans, Democrats, and the American morons who elected them. The question is: will people wise up and realize the Tea Party is a Republican front? Will people put their time, energy and money behind real efforts to add political diversity to the two-tone landscape?
Be a Libertarian, be an Anarchist, be a Socialist, be something with an established ideology and its own identity, or even be an Independent, the free agent of politics. Don’t settle for the same old shit in a different box.
Unless you’re a Republican, then don that tri-cornered hat and remember: election day is Wednesday, November 10th. [Shh… don’t tell them…]
I didn’t vote for Obama and I don’t even like him or agree with what he’s doing, so why would I dislike the Tea Party movement?
Well, for one thing, I’m not a Republican.
In case you didn’t know, Republicans have far less registered voters than Democrats, and in many states, there are more registered as Independent/Unaffiliated than Republican
Looking at registered voters is important, because this is one of the single largest determining factors for whether a person will vote. In 2008, 89.6% of the population (source) who was registered to vote went out and cast a ballot of some kind. Add to this the fact that eleven states have more people registered Independent/Unaffiliated than are registered Republican or Democrat, and you can see that Independents make the different in elections.
For those curious, the national breakdown in 2008 looked like this (source):
43.62% Democrat
30.72% Republican
23.98% Independent/Unaffiliated
1.44% Other*
* (From biggest to smallest: Constitution, Libertarian, Reform, Working Family, and still others, mostly Socialist or Secessionist/Independence parties)
This means both main parties rely heavily upon Independents. After a solid defeat, it’s no surprise that Republicans have been reaching out in a major way to independents. But is it reaching out, or encouraging people to be repelled by Democrats?
The Tea Party is nothing but a rebranding of Republicanism, with a slightly different formula for making campaign promises. Parting from the past eight years of fear mongering via “the terrorists are out to get us” rhetoric, we are seeing a new angle that hasn’t been en vogue since the Cold War: anti-Communism fear mongering.
I’m a Socialish (it’s like a socialist, but not really), and I can assure you: Obama is no comrade of mine.
Perhaps hoping to capitalize on the disenfranchised Libertarian voter, perhaps the result of nothing more than sheer embarrassment over the Bush years, the Tea Party is little more than an attempt to drum up anti-Obama sentiment for Republicans under a different banner. After all, if those Independents aren’t voting for Obama, that must mean they’re voting for the Republican… you wouldn’t throw your vote away on some third party candidate, right?
One can already see the Tea Party is not a cohesive contingent with any sort of codified platform or ideology. There are rifts opening left and right (mostly right), dividing the group into irreconcilable contingencies with only one thing in common: a dislike for Obama.
You can’t organize people whose only common trait is that they aren’t something. As an atheist, I know a thing or two about negative group formation. It’s enough to bring people together, but it’s not enough to keep them together. The endgame strategy behind the Tea Party is clearly to elect a Republican in 2012.
And which Republican? If the Tea Party was rallying behind Ron Paul, I would be happily surprised, but they aren’t. Instead, the emerging figurehead who seems to be most active in the rallies is Sarah Palin, but this only serves to show how little impact the Tea Party itself will have. Palin is not a viable candidate (I bet Republicans will end up with Romney, and that he’ll lose to Obama).
Let’s face it. Any group that not only allows, but encourages Palin to become associated with them is not worth being a part of, and their intelligence has to be called into question. No one should have any respect for that pea-brained quitter.
I’m angry at Obama, too, but I don’t run into the arms of the first pleasant sounding siren who comes along. Anyone promising to lower taxes at a time of record debt is clearly out of touch and certainly not fiscally responsible It’s going to take increased taxes to pay for the Bush years, let alone the Obama years, so the single biggest galvanizing issue that the Tea Party rallies behind is not only economically irresponsible, it cannot be exercised.
There will be taxes, get over it.
Even if some sort of freak accident killed every other candidate and Ron Paul were elected, he would have to raise taxes. Even if he cut every single government program, fired every government employee he legally could, and sold children who were abandoned to the state as sex slaves… he would still have to raise taxes (and unemployment would be unprecedented).
Yeah, it sucks, but we have no one to blame but Republicans, Democrats, and the American morons who elected them. The question is: will people wise up and realize the Tea Party is a Republican front? Will people put their time, energy and money behind real efforts to add political diversity to the two-tone landscape?
Be a Libertarian, be an Anarchist, be a Socialist, be something with an established ideology and its own identity, or even be an Independent, the free agent of politics. Don’t settle for the same old shit in a different box.
Unless you’re a Republican, then don that tri-cornered hat and remember: election day is Wednesday, November 10th. [Shh… don’t tell them…]
Aug
16
No Smoking Triple Fail BP and the Gulf Hell and the Laws of Thermodynamics Reason Twilight is Awful #2045 Awesome Storm Clouds [...]
Aug
15
Aug
14
