Don't Feed the Animals

9 Societal Fixes for Personal Freedom

2012-01-20T17:29:00.001-05:00

The most important political issues to me have always been based around personal freedom and empowerment. I feel like all other interests and concerns should step aside in favor of giving individuals the most freedom and opportunities to live the life they most desire. I also feel like such a mission is a cooperative effort, acknowledging that people working together are capable of achieving far greater net accomplishment than a few individuals climbing to the top on the backs of others. It is with these values that I have great concern for the current position of the US government on many issues. Here is what I believe should happen if we are to truly achieve status as a great nation of great individuals:

1. End the War on Drugs

Nearly every academic analysis of the war on drugs in recent years has determined that it is a failure that has cost the world more money and lives than it has saved. Further, while the war itself is a drain on resources, drug legalization would help raise money, albeit a small amount. But the main reason that the war on drugs must end is that it constitutes, in its very principle, a violation of the human right to consume or not consume anything we choose. If a government were truly acting in the best interest of its citizens, this would be the most straight-forward change to make.

2. Replace For-Profit Health Insurance

On the topic of human rights, health (along with financial mobility) is an often-marginalized aspect of freedom. As individuals, we have nothing if not our health. This is why we cannot allow private, self-interested institutions to have a monopoly on decisions about our healthcare. A public healthcare service would allow all citizens a high standard level of care, improving overall health and reducing the cost of healthcare as a whole by emphasizing preventative care and best practices.

3. Campaign Finance and Lobby Reform

It should be apparent to anyone: allowing private money to affect the strength and message of public political campaigns will result in the rich and powerful having their interests catered to by politicians. This hardly ever works out in the favor of the masses. Imposing a limit to the amount that private interests can contribute to a political candidate and budgeting for publicly funded elections would help even the playing field to allow the public to rally around candidates who truly speak with their voice.

4. End Corporate Personhood

The notion that corporations are people is both practically absurd and politically dangerous. In addition to enabling undue influence in politics by large and irresponsible corporations, the status of personhood seems to come with no liability that natural persons must deal with. You cannot arrest a corporation or send them to jail. So, while corporations enjoy the benefits of being regarded as persons, they suffer none of the drawbacks. This outlook weighs heavily in their favor and must be struck down.

5. Keep the Internet Neutral

Lawmakers don’t know what to make of the Internet, so they let their most vocal (read: generous) constituents tell them what to think. To this end, we have had numerous attempts at regulating the content and flow of the Internet. Such measures are always heavy-handed, misguided and vague pieces of legislature that display no foresight or savvy. The UN has proposed that Internet access should be a human right and attempts by businesses to censor and manipulate that right are a terrible precedent.

6. Rebalance Taxes

Today, taxes are treated like a punishment on people who aren’t financially savvy enough to avoid them. Much has been said recently about the top 1% and their lack of contribution, accumulating wealth rapidly while the rest of society finds that their financial mobility resembles feudal Europe. While the rich insist that their wealth allows them to provide jobs for others, the numbers simply do not tell the same story. Their wealth will do much more good in the hands of the public, enabling lower and middle class families to invest and build their lives without such a heavy tax burden.

7. Refocus On Infrastructure, Science, Technology, Health and Education

In a world where every fix must be quick and cheap, it would be refreshing to once again embrace the concept of investing in our people and our future. Infrastructure, science, technology, health and education; the US has fallen behind its contemporaries in every category. Despite the optimism with which people regard life in the States, it is unfortunately much more pleasant in other parts of the world these days. These sectors are important for both societal strength and long-term economic growth. It is a shame that we are so focused on paranoid national defense and costly band-aids for the banking industry.

8. Reform Intellectual Property Law

As they stand, intellectual property laws are less about protecting creators and more about stifling competition. When there exist firms whose only reason for existence is to purchase patents for the purpose of litigation against potential infringement, you know something is wrong. Patents themselves can be so vague so as to eliminate entire classes of products from being developed. Copyright law is also getting out of hand, with the RIAA and MPAA able to fund legislation through the US Congress. We should be encouraging the exchange of ideas and information, not jealously guarding it with aggressive legislation and litigation.

9. Repeal the Patriot Act and NDAA (National Defense Authorization Act)

It’s been over a decade since 9/11, yet we are still looking for ways to skirt around due process. From a concerned citizen’s perspective, it seems like the government has very little respect for the freedom that we’re all supposedly born with. It has been demonstrated that the security measures instituted in the last 10 years have been largely for show, with the few breakthroughs coming through traditional (and legal) information gathering techniques. It’s time to return to the rule of law that the authors of the US Constitution envisioned.

Of Piracy And Entitlement

2012-01-20T00:31:00.000-05:00

You can’t escape the topic du jour: piracy of copyrighted intellectual property. First, the SOPA (Stop Online Piracy Act) and PIPA (Protect Intellectual Property Act) protests and now the take down of MegaUpload. I’ve made it clear that, in its current form, copyright law needs to change and the companies enforcing that law are often doing so to lash out in defense of their dwindling influence. That doesn’t mean, though, that I support wholesale redistribution of copyrighted content for profit. That is what MegaUpload is accused of and, after reading the indictment, I have to agree that they seriously played the game wrong.

In this game, there are two rules: don’t hijack content for your own profit, and don’t taunt the sharks. MegaUpload did both. And they got bitten.

The indictment can be read here: http://www.scribd.com/fullscreen/78786408

I’ll summarize it here:

They were aware of the existence of offending files on their servers.
They had the capability to detect offending files at any time.
They did nothing to prevent the upload of offending files.
DMCA (Digital Millennium Copyright Act) take-down requests resulted in only the deactivation of a link to an offending file, not the removal of the file itself, allowing other links to the same file to continue to work.
They created for-pay services that specifically capitalized off of copyrighted material.
They offered uploaders rewards for uploading heavily downloaded files, but did not punish them for uploading copyrighted material.
They inserted advertisements in front of streaming copyrighted material.
They willingly and swiftly identified and took down child porn, but not copyrighted material.
They presented the facade of a legitimate media sharing service by manipulating their “top files” listing to only display legal files.
They presented the facade of a personal private online storage service, but only offered such capability to their highest tier of paying customers.
They made no payments to the copyright owners whose content they made money from hosting and streaming.
They copied videos directly from YouTube to effectively create a larger collection of videos.
The management of the site themselves used MegaUpload to upload, download and share copyrighted material.

In short, MegaUpload is fucked. Yes, copyright laws are out of date, but they exist and are easy enough to avoid tripping over. MegaUpload, on the other hand, embraced copyright infringement as their bread and butter and did the absolute minimum necessary to appear as if they were a legitimate business. Here are a few things they could have done to avoid the shit they are in now:

Actually remove the files indicated by DMCA requests.
Not reward users if the file they uploaded was found to violate copyright law.
Use their knowledge of existing offending files to prevent them from being repeatedly uploaded.
Offered to compensate copyright holders.

As a website driven by user-submitted content, they would not have been held liable for illegal content uploaded to their servers if they had shown significant concern for the fact that such activity was happening. In actuality, any concern they might have shown was plainly false, as evidenced by their DMCA procedure of deactivating a link to a file rather than removing the file completely. Sure, they wouldn’t have made nearly as much money, but they also wouldn’t be in jail right now.

Now, you might ask what the difference is between MegaUpload and a torrent site like The Pirate Bay. The big difference is that MegaUpload actually hosted offending content on servers that they paid for and made money directly from the viewing and downloading of said content. Torrent sites, on the other hand, simply aggregate information about potentially downloadable files. The files themselves are distributed amongst the anonymous users and never actually hosted in a central location. Torrent sites may make money from advertisements displayed while users browse the listings, but a listing is a mere reference and nothing more. Torrent trackers are a little closer to the action, and they actually facilitate the connection between users sharing their files, but at no point does either the tracker or the torrent listing site actually possess a single byte of copyrighted data.

So here’s my beef: people are playing it off like MegaUpload was the victim of a corrupt government crackdown. It’s as if they feel entitled to unchallenged piracy. They knew they were sticking it to the man by taking part in the parade and they are offended that the cops were waiting for them at the end of the street. I feel like this attitude is absolutely devastating to the otherwise legitimate message that the act of piracy attempts to convey.

Let’s get our story straight here. Piracy exists because the barrier to enjoy copyrighted content is unnecessarily high. It costs too much. It is not easy enough to acquire. It is not available in the formats users desire. It is riddled with boobytraps to restrict our freedom to enjoy it how users want to. Very little of the money users pay actually goes to the creators of the content. Pirated versions present a superior user experience. By pirating content, users are voting for a better, more affordable product, not simply a free product.

What users do NOT want to convey is that they are entitled to free content at the producer’s and distributor’s expense. Further, in order to successfully convey the right message, users must also demonstrate that they are well-informed and respectful of the law, despite not agreeing with it. MegaUpload was not respectful of the laws that they violated and lashing out in revenge for them is tactless, immature and delusional.

A Word On Piracy of Intellectual Property

2012-01-19T18:23:00.002-05:00

Let’s analyze the current debate about intellectual property, along with the bills SOPA and PIPA. I will begin with an observation:

Content distributors support SOPA and PIPA. Content creators and sharers are against SOPA and PIPA.

By now, everyone should be up to date on what exactly are SOPA and PIPA, but to sum it up, they are twin bills going through Congress that seek to punish sites for featuring copyright-infringing content. These bills were funded by groups like the RIAA and MPAA to protect their businesses against the new and growing threat of unauthorized internet distribution. This is done under the guise of protecting “American” intellectual property against foreign theives.

Earlier today, the world’s most popular site for copyrighted content sharing, The Pirate Bay, issued a press release that made a fine point:

Over a century ago Thomas Edison got the patent for a device which would "do for the eye what the phonograph does for the ear". He called it the Kinetoscope. He was not only amongst the first to record video, he was also the first person to own the copyright to a motion picture.

Because of Edisons patents for the motion pictures it was close to financially impossible to create motion pictures in the North american east coast. The movie studios therefor relocated to California, and founded what we today call Hollywood. The reason was mostly because there was no patent. There was also no copyright to speak of, so the studios could copy old stories and make movies out of them - like Fantasia, one of Disneys biggest hits ever.

There you have it: Hollywood and the MPAA would not exist today if not for the initiative to skirt existing copyright law. Now, they are the ones who are fighting hardest to uphold it in the wild frontier of the Internet.

Content creators, otherwise known as artists, oppose SOPA and PIPA because they understand how sharing not only plays a part in their creative process, but also benefits their careers by exposing their work to a larger audience. Gone is the Metallica mentality. Artists do not create in a vacuum. They are influenced by other artists. They sample and borrow snippets to create whole new pieces. Andy Warhol’s legacy would be diminished if not for wholesale copying of images of Campbell’s Soup and Marilyn Monroe. The entire “jungle” genre of electronic music is based off the unauthorized sampling of a single piece of copyrighted music. Every aspect of society and culture is built from the pieces that came before it.

The Internet decentralizes artistic promotion. No longer are artists required to sign with a label or distribution company in order to get their works seen and heard by an audience. The quality of their work speaks for itself as their audience distributes it willingly based on their enjoyment. The whole process builds community, loyalty and collaboration like nothing that centralized distribution could ever hope to achieve. In other words, the RIAA and MPAA now have a better, more efficient competitor, and they’re trying to use Congress to stamp it out.

Of course there is the question of if actual damage is caused by illegal sharing and usage of copyrighted material. The going rate for music sharing is a penalty of around $150,000 per song. When it costs about $1 to purchase a song, coupled with the fact that only but the most extremely popular songs are downloaded as many times from a single source, such a charge is outrageous and completely out of line with similar crimes. Serious fraud and property damage carries lesser fines. If damage is caused by illegal sharing and usage, it is unlikely to match the magnitude that their fines indicate.

If we were to value every song at such an enormous rate, it would be safe to say that the barrier of entry for using any song in, say, a video montage would force the montage creator to forgo music completely. The result is that nobody hears the music, nobody gets curious and looks it up. Nobody listens to the album that its on and develops a love for the artist. Nobody buys tickets to the concert when the artist visits their town. The distributor and the artist lose out by restricting use and enjoyment of their product to only people who have been distinctly marketed to and have paid the upfront cost. In this way, it is likely that distributors are actually harming their business by aggressively enforcing their copyrights.

In the meantime, while the artist or distributor may not be paid up front by the consumer who illegally downloads a song, there are more opportunities for both parties to make money. The consumer may later purchase the song or album, or may purchase a subsequent song that they wouldn’t have discovered otherwise. There are concert tickets and merchandise to consider. There is word of mouth, which gets an enormous boost when consumers don’t feel like their wallets are being pried open.

In 1979, Fred Rogers, known for his PBS show Mr. Rogers Neighborhood, appeared before the Supreme Court to testify against the idea that recording a television show with a VCR (or Betamax in this case) is piracy. The Supreme Court upheld his testimony in their ruling. It seems that the lesson was not learned, however, because distributors still consider music sharing to be theft. The primary motivation for this classification must be victimization because it does not coincide with any economical analysis.

With any shift in the way intellectual property is distributed, it is up to the artists and primary distributors to change their tactics or else they fall behind the trends, which are far more powerful than legislation. Fashion designers, in response to having their designs copied by counterfeiters, have resorted to making their designs more complex, using materials and construction that are impossible to replicate with ease. The rock band Foo Fighters recorded their latest album Wasting Light using only analog equipment and every CD was packaged with a small section of the master tape, thus giving the consumer incentive to purchase a valid copy of the album. Solutions are out there, but it takes a certain sense of entitlement to think that using the courts is an acceptable substitute for coming up with them.

The reason why movies and music are pirated in the first place has less to do with getting things for free and has more to do with accessibility. Media is overpriced to begin with, and when people can afford it, they are required to put up with a range of hassles in order to enjoy it. DRM (digital rights management) and copy protection often prevent consumers from enjoying their purchase in many ways. The measures that companies put in place to protect their content from being stolen ends up motivating consumers to find an alternative distribution without those hassles. Still, despite all of this, companies are posting record profits while weathering ever-increasing piracy rates.

It is understandable to be sympathetic towards the MPAA, the RIAA and the gaming industry. After all, the existing law is on their side and every business has the right to pursue a profit. Not to mention that companies are obligated to enforce their copyrights, lest they lose them. Further, it seems to be that the people most responsible for the alleged copyright infringement are the ones calling for copyright law reform, stating that there has been a paradigm shift -- one that they started. But, as a society, a few principles should be held above all other motives. Freedom of speech and the free exchange of ideas top that list, and any legislation that supposes to inhibit these principles, either by direct restriction or by interpretation of vague statues, should be struck down swiftly and conclusively.

On Interfaces

2011-12-10T02:45:00.001-05:00

Two movies, both depicting law enforcement in the future, have me thinking about the way in which we interact with electronics these days and where we’re headed with interface design. I begin by saying that the movies have it mostly wrong. In Timecop, released in 1994 and starring Jean-Claude Van Damme, the cars of the future (in this case 2004) resemble airplane cockpits that require numerous switches to be toggled before a voice command is given to the self-driving vehicle. I laughed as I imagined myself performing this exhausting routine at every stop along my Sunday errand run. We should be grateful that cars today turn themselves on when you approach them. At least they got the voice command part right. Simplicity is key.

Even though this car drives itself, it is still a pain in the ass.

So is elegance, but it is by far the most difficult element of interface design to pair with simplicity. In the 2002 film Minority Report, the famous scene where Tom Cruise manipulates a reactive wrap-around display with graceful hand gestures inspired many interface designers over the next several years to actualize something similar. Out of that thread was spun intermediate incarnations that made their way to TED talks, as well as consumer products like the Nintendo Wii and Microsoft Kinect. And I’m here to say that, despite the sales figures and sense of elegance that these interfaces project, they are not simple.

Exhausting

I received a Nintendo Wii for my birthday roughly a year after it was released. I was anxious to experience what everyone was drooling over, so I bought games like Metroid Prime and Mario Kart. I was sorely disappointed. The act of holding up my hand and waving it around seemed almost draconian when I considered it against the alternative of needing only to wiggle my fingers across a keypad or to flick my wrist with a mouse in my hand. The act of aiming in Metroid Prime became exhausting and I quickly switched to button-based steering in Mario Kart as it was far more precise than actually turning the controller like a steering wheel. While the Wii remote inspired many new types of games that were enjoyable when played with a full range of motion, many players eventually found ways to minimize their physical exertion to properly manipulate the gyroscope inside it. The Wii craze was almost like a dance that goes along to a popular song; entertaining and fun for those who enjoyed the physical element, but unnecessary for experiencing a game. And the Kinect is more of the same.

Am I the only one who finds this less fun than using a controller?

Ultimately, I don’t want to wave my hand to manipulate my computer display -- I want to give a thought command. I’ll settle for just moving fingers, though. The interface in Minority Report was quite impressive visually, but using it would be exhausting. If I had to lift my arms and hold them out while arranging files on my computer, I would spend considerably less time on it. My girlfriend might like that, but I don’t.

She just wanted to forward a funny cartoon to her grandchildren.

Simplicity, therefore, is a minimal amount of effort required to perform tasks. But let’s get back to elegance. I see it as a sort of aesthetic flow associated with using an interface. Abundant elegance is why the Minority Report scene was so influential, especially when you consider the score it was set to (Franz Schubert's Symphony #8 in B Minor, an homage to the late Stanley Kubrick). But elegance is empty without simplicity in the world of interface design. As much as I detest the company and its former CEO, Apple has set the standard for simplicity and elegance in two markets; smart phones and laptop computers.

Politics and cost aside, there is an elegance to Apple’s smart phone iOS that its main competitor Android fails to grasp. The essence lies in movements; both by the graphical elements that the operating system displays and by the fingers that manipulate them. Android feels like it apologizes for the lack of buttons and tactile response, while the iOS embraces the flat glass screen as a tactile element in itself, relying more on swipes and multi-touch gestures than finger taps. Having used both, I find myself helplessly enslaved by the horrible politics surrounding the iPhone simply because I cannot part with the superior interface design. First world problems, I know.

Meanwhile, the multi-touch trackpad that Apple uses on all of its laptops has no competition. Though many people have preferences in using either Mac OS X or Windows, both systems are negligibly different to a normal user. Once again, cost and politics aside (as well as PC gaming tendencies), the process of using an Apple laptop is both simple and elegant, miles ahead of any Windows-based interface. And that includes touch-screens (once again, this requires too much movement for such simple tasks).

This is one of only two reasons to buy a Mac.

Surprisingly, Apple has failed to improve its desktop computing interface beyond the standard of the classic Windows-based PC, and in some cases has regressed. While laptops are more likely to be used for simple tasks and general productivity, desktop computers provide a more potentially demanding experience when it comes to interface design. A trackpad might be suitable for a small screen with no more than a couple windows open at any one time, but a large, high-resolution monitor with many elements on display and graphical programs requiring to-the-pixel accuracy is too much for mere touch. This is why a mouse is still superior for desktop computing and gaming. I will even add that while a Mac user may see their mouse’s lack of a button (or a second button, for that matter) as more simple, it is not an appropriate or useful “optimization” to the design of a mouse. Using a PC mouse with multiple buttons allows the user to approach the future of computing with mere finger flicks and maximum control with a single appendage.

As the reader, you’re free to disagree with me on any of these points. These are the aspects of interfaces that I think are important, but which interface you enjoy most is a personal thing. That’s why they still make manual transmissions for cars. That’s why they have a handset extension for mobile phones. But interfaces will always succeed by allowing the user to do more with less effort and by appealing to their sense of style at the same time.

I found this picture of you disagreeing with me.

The Great Tournament

2011-12-02T10:23:00.001-05:00

What would you say if I told you that a football team was going to win its first million games? I'm guessing one of two things. Either you would say that it is impossible or that it could only happen with the help of god. Now, what would you say if I told you that the odds of some inanimate atoms coalescing together to form a living organism were even lower than a football team's chances of winning a million games? A billion? You'd probably say the same thing; that such an event was either impossible or that a god would have to be involved to help things along. So here we are, each a collection of inanimate atoms that have come together to form an immensely complex living organism. Just thinking about the odds is enough to make someone a believer. Now, what if I told you that a football team winning its first million games was inevitable?

Think about a college football single-elimination tournament with a million rounds. I'm not sure how many teams would have to start the tournament to make it that long, but bear with me for a moment. Let's fast forward to the end of the tournament, round #1,000,000. Both teams in this round are undefeated up to this point. (They have to be, or else they wouldn't be here.) That means their records are at 999,999 wins and 0 losses. Now, outside of this tournament perspective, you would say that it is impossible for any football team to win 999,999 games in a row. But here we are, with two of them. And the winner will reach a million. Guaranteed.

Nature is like an infinitely long tournament. In any given moment in time (round), in any given event (match), out of infinite possibilities (teams), only "one" thing can happen (winner). What determines what happens? Physics, quantum probabilities, starting positions, etc. (We can get into that in another post.) The end result is what we experience as our current reality. We look at all of the possibilities competing for the chance to continue and believe that, given the individual odds, it is impossible for any single one to occur, but the reality is that, due to the tournament nature of existence, there will always be a winner. We live in the winning scenario.

Now, when believers look at existence, they see a college football team with a record of 999,999 and declare that only a team with the guidance of god could accomplish such a feat. Rationalists, on the other hand, understand that a team with an undefeated record is 100% inevitable, given that nature works like a tournament of events. You could still argue that the specific team that wins the tournament was guided by god the entire time, but that would be unnecessary and misleading. If you were to look at the field of competitors at the beginning of the tournament (the big bang), you could not say which would be the winner. There would be too many competitors that each would have a minuscule chance of winning, and too many rounds where anything could happen. We can only comment on what we see before us now, the current results of The Great Tournament; both improbable and inevitable.

You've Become An Atheist, Now What?

2011-11-12T21:40:00.000-05:00

All right, you've decided that god doesn't exist. I'm right there with you, but please forgive me if I question your motivations. If you're new to atheism, I'd say it's a good bet that your foundation of non-belief is still a little shaky. I don't assume to know why you've decided to declare yourself as a godless heathen, and don't think that I don't believe you, but as I'm about to explain, there's more to atheism than simply declaring that god doesn't exist. But let's not get ahead of ourselves: all that being an atheist means is that you don't believe in a god. There is no doctrine or set of morals that you have to follow. What I mean by "more" is this: the idea of god is so pervasive in our society and its believers are so persistent in touting their arguments, it is thus imperative that you reinforce your raw disbelief with real knowledge and rational thoughts.

Many people find themselves turning away from god because they cannot fathom why evil exists despite his omnipotence and supposed benevolence. Others still have had bad experiences with Church clergy. There are even some who simply never grew up with much religious pressure and gradually realized that there wasn't anything to believe in. I'm one of those. However, if you're a logician, you may notice that none of these reasons for turning away from god are actually arguments against his existence. They're primarily emotional intuitions that god probably doesn't exist, but, at best, you can say that you merely doubt his existence or maybe even misunderstand his nature. That's what a believer would pounce on when trying to turn you back to the flock, anyways.

When you think about it, no matter how you define god, the question of if one exists or not is ultimately a question about how reality works. If we believe that god actually interacts with reality, then studying the world should reveal god's nature. If god does not interact with the world, then contemplating one's existence is futile. The quick truth of the matter is that the people who are intimately involved in studying the world are the ones who are most likely to not believe in god. Why is that? Two reasons: the more we understand about the world, the more we see that it follows predictable and unbiased physical laws, and personal experiences of god can be generalized with well-understood psychological principles. What that means is that if god does exist, the most specific definition we could give it would be that of the unchanging, unpersonified laws of physics. That's a far cry from the classically defined meddling god of the bible.

But let's be honest, it's not always the big broad views of the world that inspire all of us to believe in god, sometimes it's the personal touches that we experience in our lives. It's the coincidences that make us feel like someone is looking out for us. It's the privileges we have that we must thank someone for. It's the strength we cannot find anywhere else but in something greater than us. Sometimes, it's even the voice inside our head that we cannot deny. The best response to all of that is always skepticism; is it really god? Do we have any proof? Could we be mistaken? Could it be that we are misled about the rarity of luck? Could it be that for every good thing we experience, we're ignoring a dozen bad things? Could it be that we have the strength within us already? Could it be that the voice is really our own?

If I were a doctor treating you for religion exposure, this would be my prescription:

A basic understanding of the natural sciences: physics, biology (especially evolution and neurology), and cosmology.
A basic understanding of the social sciences: psychology, sociology, and behavioral economics.
Exposure to logic: the black swan theory, and probability theory.
The cultural history of religion.

Here is what I would not suggest:

Countering apologetic arguments.
Pointing out flaws in your old beliefs.
Reconciling your old beliefs with your new knowledge.

The reasoning behind my method is as follows. Arguments in favor of god's existence do not matter. With a competent knowledge of the natural world and how it works, any possible definition of god falls into one of three categories. God is either a) irrelevant to existence, b) confined to the gaps in our knowledge of the natural world, or c) precluded from existing because his definition conflicts with verifiable facts. Of those three categories, only one need be taken semi-seriously; the god of the gaps. But this is a pathetic position for god to be in, as the all-powerful creator of the universe is now confined to nothing more than an ever-receding pocket of ignorance while the scope of our knowledge expands with every new scientific discovery.

Many born-again Christians claim that they used to be atheist as well. This is a tactic to make the atheist position appear to be assailable, but the truth may be that they never really understood what it meant to lack belief in a god. It all boils down to a single idea: reinforce your understanding of the world with real knowledge and the understanding of how knowledge is defined. With that foundation, any argument that seeks to tell you that you're wrong must pass through the same gauntlet of scrutiny that every other truth that we know about the world had to survive before we called it truth. You'll find that god, any way you look at it, fails the test every time. Then you'll know that you're really an atheist.

My personal resource list:

The Black Swan by Nassim Nicholas Taleb - Introduced me to a new way of thinking about historical analysis, probabilities, and so-called "experts."

Predictably Irrational by Dan Ariely - Helped me understand that decision-making is not always about our preferences and abilities.

The Greatest Show on Earth by Richard Dawkins - Gives a thorough-but-basic overview of evolution and all of the sciences that go into understanding it.

The Selfish Gene by Richard Dawkins - Details the nature of natural selection by analyzing it's smallest unit; the gene.

A Universe From Nothing by Lawrence Krauss - This hour-long talk will update you on the current state of physics and cosmology in terms of understanding how the universe may have begun and how it may end.

The Fabric of the Cosmos by Brian Greene - A thorough understanding of the physical nature of existence. Was just turned into a NOVA miniseries for easy consumption.

Occam Guides The Way

2011-11-09T19:42:00.000-05:00

What is Occam's Razor and why is it useful?

Occam's Razor is a preliminary tool of logical deduction. It states that when comparing two or more explanations for a phenomenon, the explanation with the fewest unproved assumptions is the most likely. It is useful in determining likelihood, but one should not be mislead in thinking that it points directly to the right choice. For a skeptic, Occam's Razor is about finding the most realistic explanation to favor while waiting for more information.

Here's an example:

Let's say you have to explain how the universe began. You do some measurements and calculations and discover a possible way that the universe could have begun on its own, using the existing laws of physics. You also have the alternate explanation of "god did it."

Now, let's compare these two options:

1. The theory where the universe started as a result of the laws of physics is simple, elegant, scientifically substantiated and mathematically sound. All elements of this argument are previously defined and proved. It's also falsifiable. The only thing missing is a direct observation.

2. The idea where god created the universe creates more questions than it answers. Yes, god did it, but what is god? Does god actually exist? What was god's intention in creating it? How do you prove it?

Both options explain the same thing, and are equal only because we lack a definitive smoking gun. In the future, as we learn more, this may change, but at this moment, all that matters is that either of these two answers COULD be true. We need a way to decide which answer is more likely.

Here comes Occam's Razor. Using it, we cut out explanations that introduce more questions than they resolve. The Razor favors the explanations with the fewest assumptions. Thus, option 2 is cut. WHY do we do this? Well, over history, it has repeatedly shown itself to be a reliable way to recognize bullshit for what it is. Occam's Razor predicts correct explanations quite well, too. It doesn't work 100% of the time, but it is a good pragmatic tool.

Let's look at another application of Occam's Razor:

When trying to decide between materialism (matter and energy are the only things that exist) and dualism (apart from physical matter and energy, there is also a spiritual element to the world) we have to look at the assumptions that both positions make.

1. Materialism: Currently, physical matter and energy are the only things we have proved to exist in our world with any reliability. As a result, we find no compulsion to explain various mysteries like consciousness in terms of anything except physical phenomenon. While there is no smoking gun that shows the physical structure of our brains creating consciousness, we are able to manipulate the quality of consciousness very accurately through physical means.

2. Dualism: Without a smoking gun for materialism, dualism fills the unexplained gap with a simple answer - that of a spiritual element. However, this element is not clearly defined, nor has it been measured. It is one giant assumption.

As you can probably tell, Occam's Razor clearly favors materialism because we have indirect, but measurable evidence for it, while dualism seems to only exist as an option because materialism hasn't been explicitly proved.

Morals Are the Genes of Society

2011-11-08T23:07:00.000-05:00

Right now, in almost every cell of your body, you have genetic data which makes up your DNA. Your genes determine how your body develops and functions. You own your particular set of genes because millions of years of evolution through natural selection have singled out the best features for continued survival. But the game of survival is always changing and the same features that your ancestors had a billion years ago may be useless for you today.

Morals, being a set of rules for conduct within society, work in much the same way as genes. Beginning as far back as our mammal ancestors, behavior among groups has tended toward harmony, but the conditions for that harmony are always changing. Some species, like horses, arrange themselves automatically into detailed hierarchies, while others, like monkeys, work better in general class systems. Approved behaviors within each system vary, but it is clear what actions will help an individual get along in their community and what will get them ostracized.

Some species of monkey have social grooming behavior. Who does the grooming is not always a simple measure of who is lower on the hierarchy. Many times, monkeys will groom their peers in exchange for food or sex. Meanwhile, monkeys who do not pull in their share of gathering or lose in fights can be ignored completely during grooming time. While rudimentary, you can see a form of morality at work within such a society.

It would be wrong to say that morality is in our genes. Rather, our entire code of morals is itself made of a kind of social DNA. The communal values that existed in our primate ancestors stayed with us as we left the jungles of Africa and spread throughout the world. But as we changed and grew into new types of societies, our moral base had to change as well. Hunter-gatherer morals gave way to morals that approved of more sedentary lifestyles that agriculture affords. As specialists, bureaucracy and class systems developed as a result of increased sedentary lifestyles and population density, morals had to change to cover that ground, too.

The selection factors for moral genes are different today than they were a thousand years ago. Once, the Church handed out relevant and meaningful moral guidelines and laws, but social sentiment has always resisted stagnation. The advancement of technology and politics rendered many religious viewpoints irrelevant, while the same technology allowed public knowledge to spread and human rights to develop, thus creating a rift between how the Bible taught people to treat others and how they felt was actually decent behavior. In the end, the public changed the church’s interpretation of it’s own morals, demonstrating the social origin of morality over any divinely inspired version.

An example of this can be found in the Catholic Church’s official stance on the Jewish people. Once completely ostracized from large cities and communities on command of the Church, Jews gradually found themselves accepted into society by citizens who were apathetic to the Church's opinion. It wasn’t until Jewish integration had reached a tipping point that the Church officially changed its position on the matter and formally recognized Jews as worthy citizens.

None of this happens over night. Like evolution itself, social change takes a long time. Bad ideas are filtered out over multiple generations. Good ideas are bred in through positive reinforcement. Many institutions, such as religion and nationalism, work to spread and solidify a stagnant moral structure, but society is moved forward by more than just cooperation. While it could be argued that religion still has a solid grasp on morality, when one looks at the source material and compares it to the current state of affairs, it's clear that long strides have been taken. Paradigms are crumbling into dust. Knowledge and technology snowballs and begets new lifestyles, new ways of sharing information, and new lights to see the same people in.

My Philosophy: Nihilism

2011-10-18T13:24:00.000-04:00

Readers familiar to my blog may get a composite view of my philosophy by piecing together the general idea of all of my posts, but I thought I would sum it up as neatly as possible right now:

1. There is no god, creator, supernatural, soul or mystical power. (Materialism)
2. There is no intrinsic purpose or meaning to anything. (Nihilism)
3. We decide our purpose and meaning for ourselves. (Existentialism)
4. I recognize pleasure as a biologically-intrinsic motivating factor, so I pursue things that give me it: friends, family, community, fun, enrichment, positivity, and helping others. (Humanism)

Now, let’s expand each point to make it all a bit easier to understand:

1. I can’t debunk a supreme being in a single paragraph, but my reasoning is simple. There is no physical evidence for one, it is not necessary to invoke one to explain the workings of the universe, and the typical description of one is identifiably a human construct. There are well-documented psychological phenomenon that explain first-hand experiences, group experiences, and other delusions that usually are enough to convince people of a supreme being’s existence, but there is never any evidence, nor does any falsifiable statement about a supreme being hold up under scrutiny.

The same holds true for any supernatural claim. If supernatural forces exist, they either have a measurable effect on reality or they don’t. If they have a measurable effect on reality, we’d be able to scientifically prove they exist. If they don’t have an effect, then what’s the point of even considering that they exist?

2. In man’s search for meaning, we typically look to a supreme creator, an originator, to give us purpose. Knowing now that there is no intelligence or motivation behind our origin, it logically follows that we also have no intrinsic purpose or meaning. The very fact that we can think and assign meaning to our lives and other things means nothing on the cosmic sense. Carl Sagan’s comment about us being a way for the cosmos to know itself is romantic to think about, but it is an afterthought 14 billion years in the making. As are all justifications for why we are here.

3. Without any meaning or purpose assigned to the human race by a higher order of intelligence, we are left as the sole proprietors of our definition and identity. As long as we understand that our existence has no meaning or goal, we get to decide what we are going to do with our time here. This point gets especially important when you consider that, as a mammal species, our expected survival time is about a couple million years.

4. Individually, without any purpose or meaning, what is the point of getting out of bed in the morning? Well, that question is asked from the perspective of someone who thinks that we’re infused with motivation to live by a creator. But why does any animal wake up and go about their thing every morning (or night)? We are all internally driven by our DNA to do something: survive. That at least gets our eyes open. Humans have a slightly different situation, though. Since we have the ability to analyze our place in the greater universe, we are able to think about more than just survival. This is a self-defeating attribute sometimes because a lot of people figure that we’re just part of a greater plan when we’re really not.

Knowing that we’re on our own, on a tiny rock hurtling through space, begets a sense of urgency to really discover how to cope with our reality. So, knowing that we’re not here for any reason, but we are here none the less, how would we like to spend our time? Well, we happen to have these nifty things called serotonin receptors that give us good feelings when we do the right things. Luckily, there are lots of things we can do to ensure that we get a constant reward from them throughout our lives.

Let’s think positivity. When you’re good to someone, it feels good for you, too. That makes them likely to return the favor. This is a positive feedback loop. Sometimes it gets broken when someone hesitates, but it’s a better bet to perpetuate it than it is to let it drop. Individual pleasure also matters, but we must remind ourselves that pleasure must be earned in a communal society. Extrapolating these ideas to the larger population, it makes sense that a world where everyone is kind and giving to each other is one where the serotonin flows in abundance.

Unfortunately, many people are more determined to see the differences in others than the similarities. They have philosophies that set them apart from others in principle, mainly because their premises aren’t based on stark reality but instead on intuition that is evolutionarily tuned for survival in the wild. We must understand that the same thought processes that brought us down from the trees and out of the jungle are not the processes that are going to help us beat the trend and survive beyond our expected extinction. We now know enough about our world to abandon superstition and prejudice because there is no intrinsic justification for it.

I think that the sooner everyone thinks this way, the better.

Hotels, Hostels, and More!

2011-10-14T23:19:00.000-04:00

My girlfriend stole my write-up about the places that we stayed during our 3-week trip to Europe and posted it on her own blog. The dirty thief. Go check it out if that sort of thing interests you:

Dry As Toast: Where We Stayed During our European Travels

You Are The 99%

2011-10-12T17:27:00.003-04:00

“They’re very comfortable. They enjoy shopping. It brings them a lot of pleasure.” I was listening to my friend Danny describe his recent visit to a town in Westchester County, home of many of this country’s top 1%. I thought about my trips to the store; nervous excursions laced with anxiety over pressure from corporations seducing me into giving them money I can’t afford to waste. I’m sure a lot of other people feel the same as I do these days. If it isn’t shopping, it’s the job market, or the labor dispute, or the dwindling clientele, or the overbearing debt that feels like your world and your potential are growing smaller with every day. It could be the dearth of dignity in tightening your belt while others let it slip another notch.

After my talk with Danny, I rode the subway down to Fulton Street and walked the rest of the way to the Occupy Wall Street protest grounds. It’s the protest that too many people don’t realize even represents them. While spending the previous week across the country in California, I took the opportunity to gather a few sample opinions from the West Coast about what is going on. “I’ll represent myself, thank you very much,” said my sister. She’s injured and can’t afford health insurance, so she has resorted to prayer. “I don’t really understand what they’re protesting,” said my uncle.

Last week, I also read the words of an officer who worked the barricade at Occupy Wall Street; he didn’t know and he didn’t care what the protest was about, it was just a job to him. Little did he know that he was a single labor dispute away from stepping across the line to join it.

The media has been doing their best to downplay the protests, even as they pop up around the country, by passing the crowd off as a bunch of hippies, punks, druggies and lazy students. I didn’t have to try very hard to find that wasn’t true.

Mark Bray, a PhD student in History at Rutgers, is a member of Occupy Wall Street’s press team. He stood under the Press Area sign, patiently and eloquently answering questions from the news crew from ABC 7. As I listened, the reporter was asking him to comment on the law enforcement expenditure that the protest had resulted in. It was just another tactic to marginalize the movement; get the public angry at them for spending their money. The response: “As you see, we are here peacefully and aren’t breaking any laws, but we are surrounded by police officers. We can’t control how much the city spends.”

City Council Member Ydanis Rodriguez was there in the press pit, advocating for the movement. He strongly expressed to me his dissatisfaction with the cuts from an overextended budget that resulted in 2 billion dollars taken away from education, immigrant services, and creating jobs. “This is the biggest movement that ... has happened in this nation, in our generation,” he said. “We cannot have 99% of the people living in these conditions.” He continued, “We cannot expect Wall Street, which has been doing so good financially within the past few years, to make profits without making contributions.”

There has been a lot of confusion about the message of the protest, but Council Member Rodriguez was quick to give his input on that. “The movement has a message. The millionaires should contribute more to this city. We should increase taxes on millionaires, that’s one. Second, when we balance the budget on the local level, we should not only cut on the working class people, or only cut on education. It is time for the wealthy in this city to be more responsible and to increase their level of contribution.”

Of course, everyone has their own gripes and their own solutions. That’s what makes this such an identifiable movement. I met Gregory, a mortgage banker who saw the crash happening from the front line. His solution was to end the debt attrition by offering debt forgiveness on mortgages on the condition that buyers move out of their homes. “That sounds like putting a band-aid on an internal hemorrhage,” I told him, but he was not swayed. He was angry, as we all should be.

A college professor was using the “human mic” to make a speech in one corner of Liberty Park. He spoke only a few words at a time, waiting for those immediately around him to repeat them so that those outside of his range could hear. He gave the protesters a history lesson, talking about examples of government corruption and giving them encouragement by describing past successes in peaceful protest. Though the top-down view of the crowd showed dyed hair, dreadlocks and piercings here and there, many stood in their work clothes, in their suits and ties, and cheered after every line.

America, there is life at Occupy Wall Street. Though you may not have been given the complete story about why they’re protesting and what they hope to get out of it, they’re trying to represent you. They’re trying to get you a better life. So if you’re feeling anxious when you pay your bills or when your boss calls you into their office, or when you look at your bank statement, just realize that everyone at Liberty Park is just like you. That’s because you are the 99%.

The Well-Dressed Caveman

2011-10-09T15:03:00.003-04:00

As living beings, subject to the molding forces of evolution like every other animal, we are perpetually in transition. That may be hard to fathom because as long as we can remember, we’ve always been the same and the natural world around us has remained mostly changeless as well. Few humans will ever consider that they are not at the pinnacle of the evolutionary process, the last stop on the line. Further, we consider ourselves so far removed from the rest of the evolutionary process that we neglect to recognize how much of our bodies, brains and thoughts are more artifact than invention.

Reason and logic are new to us. Our species didn’t start out using reason to make decisions. In the beginning, it was survival as usual, which meant intuition was all we knew. That’s understandable because our brains and bodies are evolution-optimized survival machines. Our bodies are compound machinations of animal features. Our intuition is what can best be described as our animal sense, but most of us still treasure it as our main decision-making mechanic. While our world progresses and society collects around the constructs of science and reasoned knowledge, we still use our intuition to do most of our thinking.

This is nobody’s fault. This isn’t something to get defensive about. We are born this way and the vast majority of us aren’t even exposed to the idea of rationality in any meaningful way. What’s more, we will continue this way as a society for thousands of years. For as far as we can see into the future, we will be haunted by the specter of our genes. What this translates into is a perpetual struggle between the advocates of reason against the built-in system of flawed instant deduction we call intuition.

A recent study found a correlation between reliance on intuition and spiritual thinking. The study asked participants questions with seemingly apparent answers, ones that their intuition could easily provide, while the correct answers were less obvious. The test was to see if the participant would trust their intuition or if they would pause to apply better thinking techniques to get the correct answer. For instance, consider the following: “A baseball and bat cost $1.10 together. The bat costs one dollar more than the ball. How much does the bat cost?” The intuitive answer is that the bat costs $1. The correct answer is $1.05.

It was found that the study participants who were more spiritual were more likely to give the intuitive answer to the questions. This doesn’t mean that religious people are bad with math, just that they trust the answer that their minds provide quickest. While reason and logic work slower, they often give us answers that are more useful. Spiritualism is only a small example of intuition run rampant.

Intuitive thinking can be seen in many areas of society. What we know as conventional wisdom is often intuitive: idiomatic ideas that are perpetuated throughout society because they fit into sound bites, but are not necessarily logical or scientifically sound. One example of incorrect conventional wisdom would be the idea that the earlier a person loses their virginity, the more likely they are to become delinquent. Thankfully, due to scientific inquiry, we know this is not true, but this will not stop intuitive thinkers from believing it.

Incorrect health trends are perpetrated with conventional wisdom: cell phone health risks, the efficacy of acai berries, the toxicity of plastic bottles, paranoia about genetically modified crops, etc. It appeals to intuition to draw the connection between chemicals and health problems, and between natural things and health benefits. Science and skepticism tends to set things straight, but intuition is heavily favored in situations where knowledge is lacking. This is why, to the bulk of the population, new scientific developments are usually suspect, while ideas that appeal to a natural state of being are welcomed without question.

Other factors in why intuition often wins out over reason are our cognitive biases that convince us that our ideas are correct. We treat our intuitive ideas like possessions and we unknowingly defend them against opposition by blindly ignoring conflicting information. We see any attempt to dissuade us as a theft. We look for evidence to support our claims, but we never look for evidence to counter them. It takes a rare person to release this kind of jealous ownership over their ideas and intuition to embrace a more structured and reliable way of establishing knowledge.

In the end, we are and always will be well-dressed cavemen. The best we can do is to teach logic and rationality early in the education of our future generations. Consider that the occurrence of cholera in some Bangladeshi villages was reduced by 50% when women were instructed to fold an old sari 4 times over and pour water through it. The world lacks education and promoting its spread, even of simple techniques, can only make things better. We cannot escape our biology completely, but we can create a culture where we are taught to rely less on intuition and more on reason.

How To Destroy A Grassroots Movement

2011-10-06T02:32:00.001-04:00

Every political movement starts out with anger. The two most recent movements that the United States has known have been the Tea Party and, currently, Occupy Wall Street. I would like to take a brief moment to talk about what happened to the Tea Party and to explain how it is relevant to Occupy Wall Street today.

Most people will say that the Tea Party is alive and well, and more powerful than ever, but you won't hear that story from its founding members. As far as they are concerned, the Tea Party movement has been hijacked and transformed to the point where it can no longer be called the Tea Party anymore. So we won't refer to its current form by that name, we will call it the Conservative Party. What the Tea Party used to be, in a few words, was a protest against taxation and the waste of tax dollars perpetrated by a bloated government. This was a cause that could be supported by liberals and conservatives alike. Unfortunately, the media got ahold of it and things started to change. As soon as people started to take notice, three coinciding forces started to grow. Political heavyweights, hungry for attention and popular support, sensed a niche that they could fill. At the same time, the popularity of the movement inspired others to franchise the cause and hold protests in their local areas. Meanwhile, the media found a compelling story in highlighting the movement's more controversial fringe players; the ultra-conservatives.

These three forces collided with great momentum and it transformed the Tea Party fairly quickly from a valid complaint into a mesmerizing sideshow. With the ultra-conservatives suddenly getting more exposure than the movement's creators, the moderates were alienated from their own cause and they gradually abandoned the Tea Party. Without a central voice loud enough to reach the media's dodgy attention, the governance of the Tea Party was co-opted by fake grassroots organizations, backed by real money from existing political parties. When the voice rose again, it had changed.

Now the original members of the Tea Party movement are warning Occupy Wall Street: Don't let what happened to us happen to you.

All of the pieces are in the right place. Occupy Wall Street started off like an art project put on by bored Burners returning from Black Rock. While the heart of their complaint can be found in the country's wealth inequality, observers can't help but detect a far-left slant to the cause. The first videos of the protest's clash with police gave it more of a hippie feel than a frustrated America feel. Cries to clean up the protest's image with polo shirts and khakis helped a small bit, but after three weeks, there was no central list of demands or a plan to enact them. Meanwhile, other cities across the country were holding their own rallies and protests. The protesters urged patience as they harnessed the lumbering power of democracy to devise a list of goals for their creation. Unfortunately, public opinion moves faster than democracy. As the labor unions joined forces with the protesters on its 20th day, the media blinked its groggy eyes and started to awaken.

A blog entry from the Washington Post appeared to be quite excited about the movement, but I caught something strange about it. A link, contextualized as a "full list of the protesters demands," directed me to a forum post, with the demands of a single, misguided person listed for the world to read in the voice of the supposed "99%" Some of the demands: free college, open immigration, complete debt abolishment, and nuclear power plant dismantlement. If you were a serious protester, concerned about not only your image, but an avenue of success, these would not be your demands. In fact, I could imagine you as that guy reaching out and screaming, "Nooooo," as your friend thinks, "Hmm, what's this button do?" and pushes it.

Occupy Wall Street, the bomb is ticking.

Occupy Wall Street is the Twilight of Protests

2011-10-01T01:38:00.000-04:00

Every day, I don’t know if I am going to wake up to learn that my rights are being whittled away or if the efforts of some recalcitrant voices have won a stay on the ever-encroaching forces of subjugation. I celebrate every victory, but I wonder if that only makes me downplay every loss. I root for the people, I believe in the distribution of power, and it cuts me deeply when that power is focused back at us from where it has coalesced. Mostly, though, I reflect on how generous those with power are to let us believe we can still make a difference.

On Friday, I woke up and visited the Occupy Wall St. protest on its 13th day of action. I listened to many speeches and joined their march on the NYPD headquarters. I think everyone supports what these protesters are standing up for. It’s hard to find a soul who wants MORE corruption and severe inequality. I don’t think they lack for sympathy or moral support. The sheer diversity of the protest grounds tells you all you need to know: everyone is at least a little pissed off. Everyone agrees that change would be good.

Friday was the day a hoax about Radiohead making an appearance caused the camp’s numbers to swell. The ones making speeches did little to throw a blanket over the hype, but a roaming sign-holder gave off another sentiment. The sign told everyone who came for the band to go home. It illustrated one divide amongst the congregated diversity. Some welcomed awareness in any form, while others were fighting for something real, something uncorrupted by celebrity or gimmick. Something naive.

The same criticism is on everyone’s tongue; the protest lacks cohesion. It is leaderless by self-attested virtue and the movement means different things to different people. The labor unions showed up and talked about worker’s rights. Speeches were made about police brutality, minority discrimination, and just plain old love and beauty. It was a protest so nebulous that anyone with any beef could have tagged along and felt right at home. Some say this is its strength. Some say otherwise.

Every revolutionary dreams of the day when he is in charge. In its current state, Occupy Wall Street is the Twilight of protests; so vacuous and ill-defined that anyone can see themselves as its leading face.

What is a protest, anyways? Are we merely raising our hand and declaring our displeasure with something? If so, mission accomplished. Or, do we want to enact change? I would hope so. If that is indeed the case, we must answer two very important questions:

1) What is the exact change that we want to enact?

2) What action will realistically lead to that change?

Neither of these questions have been answered, so while the protest grows in numbers, several very bad things are likely to happen. First, the movement risks being co-opted by any one of the various causes that have joined up in “solidarity” (the Friday word of the day) with the original movement or by an outside party. Let’s not forget how the tea party protests were co-opted by conservatives. Feel-good, symbolic protests are fodder for the greater game at hand. Hell, even larger, more successful protests can end ugly if they are not driven by a plan. Just ask Egypt’s military when they plan on giving up the power they happened to walk into. They’ll answer, “Not until the people get their shit together.”

Second, whatever optimism this protest is drumming up is empty without a plan of action. Establishing that plan of action is also the first moment of truth that this movement will face. Throughout history, different parties have never had trouble seeing eye to eye on what was wrong. The issue that causes the divide is the plan for how to enact the change. Once the goal and methods are set, then Occupy Wall St will see how many allies and fans it has. I think too many people are afraid of pushing this issue.

Third, without a plan of action, people will simply get bored. The young ones will look around the camp and see wonky vets three times their age, brain-fried hippies and anarchist punks and then they will look at themselves and ask, “is this really who I am?” Sure, there will always be a core group of die-hards, but as the New York City winter sets in, they’ll be driven to enduring some very harsh weather and they will either be forced to take decisive action or their membership will wither away.

There is another school of thought that laughs at this incessant need to devise a plan, as if there is a method to certain madness. “Don’t let the media tell us that we need a cohesive message,” one speaker said, “that’s their job.” What? Clearly this speaker took no responsibility in making sure their message was understood. See the result? To the guy with the sign telling me to leave “his” protest because I wasn’t legit enough... To the guy who mocked me for being skeptical about a movement with no course of action...

It’s democracy we want, right? Well let me be heard. I want what you want: a revolution. I just want it driven by people who know what they’re doing.

At the protest, a sign read: Dissent Is Patriotic

Shouldn't this work both ways? Shouldn't I be allowed to criticize the movement that I want very much to succeed?

Anderson Cooper's Reddit Jailbait Hit Piece

2011-09-30T13:23:00.001-04:00

Having the fortune of actually knowing a lot about the subject of internet speech and site management, I found myself flaring up with anger many times while watching this segment. I guess while Anderson Cooper isn't saving children in the streets of Haiti, he's busy being a lazy sensationalist journalist. Oh wait.

In the video, Anderson Cooper and his panel of know-nothings make the following arguments: reddit is in the wrong for allowing stuff like pictures of scantly clad teens and photos of dead bodies to be posted on their site. One panelist thinks it is a borderline first amendment issue that jailbait is allowed. The suggestion is made that reddit is implicitly encouraging its users to post pictures without permission from their owners. Very little is mentioned about the entirety of reddit, which is a phenomenal site for many reasons and a tremendous force for good. It is said that reddit is wrong to call themselves a haven for free speech.

Let me get a couple things out of the way:

1) I am not advocating the posting of jailbait or pictures of dead bodies.

2) Saying that something is borderline is like saying that you know it's not a crime, but you're going to do your damnedest to make it seem like a crime.

Okay, let's get down to it.

Welcome to the internet. Welcome to the human fucking race. Half-naked teens and pictures of dead babies have been around for ages. At least reddit hasn't built its reputation on such things like other sites have. Before reddit, there was 4chan (still is, actually). Before 4chan, there was Rotten. Waking up in 2011 to these things existing on the internet is the equivalent to being born yesterday. I want to see a segment decrying Motherless, which is a far worse offender. Is it wrong to allow such things to be posted on your site? It's certainly not illegal, so leave your opinions at home where you left your dignity. You know what I do when I see a web page that shows things I'm not interested in? I leave. Aiming an entire hit piece at a site because a couple sections (out of THOUSANDS) are offensive is ratings pandering and it is not good journalism.

Here's a very important piece of legal information that I would expect two legal contributors to know about: a website that allows unmoderated user contributions and does not actually host any of the posted media cannot be held responsible for the actions of its users. I know this because I've been running forums for over a decade, so believe me when I say that I am very intimate with what can and cannot be done on the internet. reddit never asserts that they do not have control over their posters; they simply do not interfere with site activity as a matter of policy because of the equilibrium that they've established. Erik Martin's quote about the site being a platform and not an editorial site should be all someone needs to hear in order to nod their head and back off. The fact that one panelist admitted to never having heard of reddit before was telling; one wonders if he knows anything about the social side of the internet at all. He knows not of what he speaks.

If Anderson Cooper suggests that these pictures are being stolen from someone's Facebook page, shouldn't the target be Facebook? Of course not, this is a hit piece! Cooper also brings up reddit's claims to do good, as if it is ironic that they also allow jailbait photos. The editor responsible for his words has his priorities dead wrong. There is a reason why the first amendment is the first point on the Bill of Rights. It is the most important aspect of a democracy and it should be immutable. Being one of the world's largest platforms for unhindered free speech is the single most important contribution reddit makes to the online community. Challenging the pillar of free speech because some folks are offended only speaks to how far the media has fallen. It speaks to the fear in everyone's eyes. It is cowardly and cheap. This, and I haven't even begun to mention all of the various good deeds that reddit and its community inspires.

Yes, a community full of mouth-breathing perverts has the ability to do great things when they're motivated! If you know what the phrases "random acts of pizza" or "today you, tomorrow me" mean, then you're probably already aware of some of the good things that go on in the vastly more popular areas of reddit proper. Great amounts of donations are raised by the reddit community when disasters happen. Down and out users are helped every day by random strangers. There is a suicide watch subreddit. There are subreddits devoted to the spread of education, the promotion of science, and the influence of human rights. Sure, there is porn and gore, too, but does that make it a bad place? I should know better than most that these things are not indicative of bad people. In the early 2000's, I raised a community from a few thousand perverts looking for naked pictures into what its users considered to be the best place on the internet to have a civilized discussion at the time. "Come for the porn, stay for the conversation" was the motto. Shame on anyone who would discount the whole thing because they were offended by only a small bit of it.

The Bliss of Incidental Existence

2011-09-28T13:13:00.000-04:00

The mystery of how the universe came into existence is being answered today by physicists using mathematical theories and measurements from highly advanced equipment. When a believer says that we can’t know how it happened, I can point to a number of different theories and say, “We have some pretty plausible ideas and none of them require a god to work.” However, to someone who knows to look a bit deeper, an explanation for the origin of existence isn’t wholly satisfying. We still lack a satisfying answer to the question of why the laws of physics are as they are, thus allowing our world to exist as it is in the first place. If any values within the physical laws were any different, our universe would be much weirder and it’s almost certain that we wouldn’t exist.

The following is pure imagination on my part, but it is something that I’ve been wanting to enunciate for months. It is more philosophical and contemplative than it is observational. Please let it entertain you, but don’t feel like I am trying to assert anything about reality.

Physics, the rules of the universe, are not fine-tuned. The fact that we exist is not proof of intention by a creator, nor is it necessarily random luck. We have the vantage point of being able to contemplate our own place in the world, but that only leads us to vainly assume that we are the reason that existence exists. Consider the following scenario:

Outside of what we consider to be existence, or perhaps on a basic layer of it, lay the seeds for new universes. The word seed is not to be taken literally, but imagine this layer to be an as yet undefined furnace for creation’s variables. The values that we identify as “physical constants” are not constant here until a universe springs into existence from the seed. The physical constants are given near-random values within each new universe, as they are determined by the purely coincidental starting position of the new universe.

Universe 1: The laws of physics are slightly different from those in our reality. Let’s say the force of gravity isn’t as strong. The big bang happens, but stars fail to form, so no heavy elements get created. As a result, no planets or life can occur. By rule, no sentient being can exist within this reality and thus there is nobody here to conclude that this world was made for them.

Universe 2: The laws of physics are the same as those in our reality. The big bang happens, stars form, die and explode. They scatter their heavy elements, which coalesce into planets and other cosmic bodies. Organic compounds find their way to planets, life begins on one or a few of them and after 3 billion more years, sentient life arises. These sentient beings look at their reality and come up with ways to explain it. They conclude that the world was created to house them in it.

Universe 3: The laws of physics are slightly different from those in our reality. The big bang happens, but maybe it takes stars a little longer to form. Their explosive power is limited and only half of the elements in our reality are possible in this one. Still, planets form and organic compounds take the improbable route to eventually become sentient beings. These beings look at themselves and see a long, unlikely history of nature and conclude that their world was created to have them in it.

Universe n + 1: The laws of physics are completely random here and the effects are impossible to describe with only words created in our own universe.

From this model, we see that many universes can be spun off of the same thread, each one different, each one just as likely. The only difference is the incidental values of the physical constants, which then result in different-looking realities. Sometimes matter never forms, sometimes it forms too densely, sometimes it creates intelligence. Of course, in every instance of intelligence, the initial reaction of an individual is to assume they were put there for a reason.

It seems almost a trick, you know, to be able to contemplate our existence only to realize that there is no real purpose for any of it. We’re just here because our universe was created with just the right variables to make us so. And here we are, alone on this rock, hurtling through empty space. But, hey, we have these nifty things called serotonin receptors. Let’s go see what we can do with ‘em.

False Arguments for Atheism

2011-09-27T16:28:00.002-04:00

When I am asked why I am an atheist, I simply respond that it is because there is no god in which to believe. It’s really that simple. Many fellow atheists have some relatively elaborate stories about how they came to their disbelief and also some justifications for why they maintain their position, but what more is needed after you’ve realized that there is no higher power on which to rely? This question has prompted me to look into the arguments and support for atheism that many give. I wanted to critique how others are defending the position, to make sure that it does not become another fad that people accept for superficial reasons.

Here are the most popular superficial arguments that I’ve heard atheists give for their lack of belief:

1. God is terrible.

The most common reason that newly-announced atheists give for their deconversion is the realization that their god is an asshole. Okay, that’s true, but it doesn’t do anything to disprove god’s existence. If this is the sole basis for your disbelief, my suggestion would be to instantly separate yourself from theological discussions entirely. The material that you should be digesting right now should be scientific in nature, preferably from the fields of either physics or psychology. Learn how to the world and individual brains work. Understand the mechanics behind belief and answer some of the questions you once thought only god could answer.

I’ve had too many born-again Christians tell me how they used to be in my shoes, but then they saw the light. From my perspective, I would need to suffer some severe mental incapacity in order to end up like them. The reason why I think the way I do is because my position is backed up by logic and moderate knowledge of many different areas of science, sociology and philosophical theory. I assume that these so-called former atheists did not really have the same background that I do. Instead, I heavily suspect that their previous disbelief had more emotion behind it. After all, most argue that I must hate god, which is probably what they went through before they were born-again.

2. Disbelief makes you happier than faith.

I can’t argue against the claim that most religions are mentally unhealthy. I’ll even throw my hat into the ring if someone wants a good explanation for why rationality could lead to a happier existence. But if you’re trying to sway believers away from their faith by using your relative happiness as a lure, I have a bone to pick. We are surrounded by trendy spirituality and pseudo-sciences shrouded by the optimism they portend. The last thing the rationalist movement needs is to be hijacked by this desire to simply feel good.

In truth, there is no guarantee that leaving faith behind will make someone happier. Faith provides a huge amount of comfort that many people simply are not mentally agile enough to deal without. That doesn’t mean that atheism is only for smart people, though. If we are going to evangelize disbelief, let’s at least be completely honest that all we’re saying is that god doesn’t exist. We’re not trying to sell happiness or enlightenment; that comes through a different avenue and should be a different pursuit all together.

3. The world would be a better place if there was no religion.

Aside from the obvious logical fallacy that a positive result does not infer a true belief, this kind of reasoning is also fairly naive. The world is a nasty place even when you discount the harm that religion has done to it. Religion, at times, is just a scapegoat and motivational factor for a greater motive. Case in point: An FBI interrogator described the structure of Al Qaeda by citing that the high-level officers he interrogated were politically motivated while the low-level grunts justified their actions with religion. This illustrates a grim truth about the world we live in: ideology is a tool, not a goal.

Get rid of religion and it will merely be replaced with another motivation. It is no more effective than attacking a symptom instead of the source. Most times, the evil is just a case of one entity acting in its own self-interest. Corporations are the finest example of this. As human animals, we are capable of terrible things and religion is just fodder for our desires and aspirations. I think the only way to make the world a better place is to personally empower everyone with education and self-confidence, but that’s just as plausible as getting rid of religion.

Finding Peace In Touristland

2011-09-24T14:42:00.000-04:00

I recently returned from a 23-day trip through Europe with my girlfriend. At times, it was downright hectic; we visited 8 cities, only stopping for a few days in each, and sometimes dividing our time between two accommodations in the same city. Those accommodations were on the cheap side, with hostels and AirBnB stays mixed in with budget hotels. On top of that, the places we went to were hardly off the beaten path: Berlin, Prague, Munich, Paris, Barcelona, Cannes, Florence and Rome, in that order. Admittedly, had I gone alone, I would have done things a bit differently, but you have to make compromises when you're in a relationship, right? With so much moving around and so many sites to see, we found very little time to slow down. This made me supremely grateful to find a few spots along our route that embodied pure bliss. I'd like to share some with you now.

Soviet War Memorial, Berlin

Secluded within the large Treptower Park of former East Berlin, the huge Soviet War Memorial is well out of the way of most tourist routes. If you're staying in Kreuzberg, it is within walking distance, but admittedly at the very edge of that. Walled in by a thick perimeter of trees, there is no undesired ambiance here. The statues, reliefs and architecture tell a story with grandeur and magnificence, but there is something else going on that makes this such an awesome visit. Museums, galleries and gardens try very hard to obtain the same sense of stillness, but I've never felt it like I did here. "I feel so peaceful here," I said to my girlfriend, "I could stay here forever." The brevity of our visit made this an almost tragic moment, as I could imagine myself sitting for hours, dreaming and writing. Alas, the rain began and hurried us off back to our busy adventure.

Mar Bella, Barcelona

As soon as we confirmed that we were going to visit Barcelona, I looked up the beaches to see if they were any good. One pulsed like a soul beacon, tugging me chest-first in rag doll fashion toward the promise of serenity. Mar Bella is Barcelona's nude beach. To most, this conjures the image of leather-skinned octogenarians with genitals like grotesque door knockers, but one detail reassured me that this would be different: there is a young crowd at this one. Despite only being in Barcelona for three days, I was adamant about relaxing at the beach for two of them and I am so happy that I did. I would not say that I am a naturist or nudist, but I often feel like the societal requirement of clothing is stifling. To feel the sun, the breeze and the eyes of a few girls that weren't my girlfriend on me was nurturing. I won't deny the sexual undertones that we Americans drag with us when we visit a place where nudity is commonplace, but the place was full of wandering eyes, creating a fun tension that was there when you wanted it, but simple to ignore when you closed your eyes and let the warmth envelope you.

Galleria dell'Accademia, Florence

Everyone has their own opinion of art, and I consider myself hard to please. The Galleria dell'Accademia in Florence is famous for currently housing Michelangelo's David, but, like the Mona Lisa, its reputation precedes it and while it is a beautiful sculpture, it is no more amazing in person than any of the many other statues in this gallery. Rather, the one piece of art here that struck me the most, the work that still nags at me weeks after my visit, was the one that didn't exist anymore. The gallery's Lorenzo Bartolini exhibit is a must-see for any fan of sculpture. I spent a good amount of time admiring each one for the detail, but my emotions were not stirred until I saw the picture on the wall of one piece that had deteriorated long ago. Bartolini's sculpture of the soldier Pyrrhus throwing the child Astyanax from the walls of Troy while the mother looks on helplessly now only exists in sketches and period photographs. The dehumanizing fashion in which Pyrrhus is flinging Astyanax amplifies the tragedy, while the absence of the piece itself creates a saddening void. In a corner of the crowded room, occupied by nothing to attract the roaming tourists, I felt like I had experienced something very private and profound.

In Defense of Materialism

2011-09-23T11:34:00.002-04:00

I’m trying to get a handle on why so many people insist that it is ignorant and short-sighted to declare for materialism. In his review of Richard Dawkins’ new book, The Magic of Reality, The Independent’s Colin Tudge opens with a line that includes the phrase, “...old-fashioned, Thomas Gradgrind-style materialism...” It is as if materialism has fallen in with the wrong crowd of curmudgeony empiricists, and this alone is enough to invalid it in the eyes of critics. Comments on this blog also follow suit by insinuating that materialism denotes a lack of open-mindedness, as if wild, unchecked speculation is a virtue within serious debate about reality.

Materialism cuts out from the equation a very huge chunk of philosophical pondering. By someone stating that there is only matter and that all phenomenon arise from the interactions of matter, spiritualists and theists are left with only one thing to say: “There is no way to be to sure!” In other words, please leave a little crack in your worldview for the possibility that you are wrong. Fair enough, but what does science have to say? Ah ha! Therein lies the problem with considering spirituality: scientific inquiry, the best method we have for determining if something is true, only works from a materialistic premise.

The best arguments for dualism rely on three pillars: ignoring the perfectly plausible materialistic explanation for the same phenomenon, unfalsifiable statements that make Occam’s mouth water, and using the premise to prove the point (circular reasoning). Somehow, this form of speculation is being glorified as “enlightened,” despite the fact that there are absolutely no standards for it beyond what “makes sense” to the individual doing the pondering.

The embrace of dualism represents an avant-garde approach to a subject better left to the staunch nerds who know it best. To criticize someone as closed-minded for refusing to consider gibberish in place of discipline is a jester’s prank. Imagination is a valuable tool, but only for inspiration to test new ideas. If a conclusion still requires imagination, the matter is far from concluded.

The stance of materialism is a cautious one. There is no overzealous claim to knowledge undiscovered. The argument that materialism denies many potential explanations is true, but that is only because those explanations don’t hold under scrutiny. The worth of a philosophy is not in its potential for amazement, but in its adherence to rigorous observation. As our observational abilities continue to expand, old axioms are destroyed and the trend is always toward the establishment of a purely physical universe. Even when new discoveries are made that unhinge previous scientific explanations, it only serves us to go deeper into materialistic explanation.

Frameworks of Faith and Rationality

2011-09-19T20:48:00.001-04:00

Faith is seen by the faithful as a powerful transformative force. “Open your heart to faith,” they say, “and you will know God’s love.” Further, they see faith as a method through which we all can learn the Truth of the world. I disagree. I contend that faith has a prerequisite of a properly malleable mind in order to take hold, making it not a force but a side-effect. I also contend that the same mind that meets the prerequisites for faith is unable to properly determine truth from falsehood.

I’ve had many people insist to me that my methods for determining reality are too rigid to deal with supposed Truths that exist outside of scientific thinking. In other words, I am blind to the Truths of faith. This is the crux of any moderately informed argument about spirituality and faith: a materialist insists that the only truths we can know are those we can scientifically observe while the faithful are sure that they are privy to information that science cannot detect, but is real none the less. I hope to demonstrate why all information taken on faith is equally suspect.

We are individually born with tendencies toward either curiosity or acceptance, and our upbringing works even further toward shaping how we interact with the world. As we are raised from infants to adults, we are each taught various ways to make sense of the world around us. Some are taught to question everything, while others are taught that faith and obedience are virtues. In some circles, logic and critical thinking is something to be proud of, while other circles see logical thinking as a tool of evil. There are examples at every point along the scale of differing weight given to reason and faith, even where both are equally, paradoxically, emphasized. Obviously, there are other factors at play, but it all gradually forges our framework with which we analyze information to determine if it is true.

Two people, with different thought frameworks, given the same information, will come to two different conclusions about the veracity of the information. Temporary influences such as emotions, drugs and mental health also mingle with the framework to affect the mind’s acceptance of an idea. Thus, it is a mind’s conditioning that makes it tend toward faith. It is not the faith that changes the mind. If a mind’s framework is configured to throw out baseless or emotional claims, the act of “giving faith a chance” must be preceded by a proper “softening.” An unmanipulated framework of purely rational tendencies would find it impossible to entertain the concept of faith.

Currently, in the town of Kingaroy, Australia, a couple claiming to be the incarnations of Jesus Christ and Mary Magdalene have bought up land and are persuading their followers to do the same. While the obvious delusions of this couple are amusing, it is their followers that interest me more. I’m sure that the people who have been debating against me lately will join me in agreement that Jesus 2.0 is not who he says he is. With this much to unite us, we must ask what makes it possible for 30-40 people to actually buy into their story enough to devote their life and money to such an obvious falsity.

We can write off their followers as exceptionally gullible people, or desperate and lonely people, or mentally damaged, but that would be dismissing the question far too quickly. These people are individually capable of acquiring enough money to purchase large swaths of land, so we must give them a little bit more respect. The sheer number of them should also rule out individually localized factors like mental illness and depression. Something very general and very common is happening here.

What is most likely is that all of these followers were raised in homes that preached faith over reason. A great portion of the Earth’s population is raised in this fashion and it results in reduced critical thinking in individuals and entire communities. Without a proper framework to determine basic truths from flights of fancy and instead with a proclivity to accept wild claims told to them by charismatic speakers, these people have fallen for a trap they seem to have been bred for.

How could this have been prevented? How could Follower #36 have instead decided that Jesus 2.0 is full of shit? No spells were cast. There is no Satan to deceive him. It all revolves around his framework for dealing with charismatic speakers who talk about various messiahs and such. Have faith and listen to your heart, his framework tells him, because that’s all he knows how to do. And thus the same type of framework that brought him to Christianity also brought him astray of it.

I accept that this example is hypothetical thinking on my part, but the framework remains the key for understanding why some people accept what they are told as truth while others suspend their beliefs until sufficient evidence is provided. Even things that are nigh universally accepted as false can be believed with the right (or wrong, I guess) framework of thought. A consequence of this logic is that the precedent of ardent belief is not sufficient enough to label something as true. Once again, we find ourselves with no better way to determine truth than with the scientific method and no better way to analyze the things we are told than with skepticism.

I Can't Give God A Chance

2011-09-18T13:15:00.000-04:00

Occasionally, I get fan mail. On the most recent occasion, I received a kind plea from a young Catholic to give god a chance. He was very honest with his beliefs and what he understood about reality, so I felt like I needed to show him a bit of respect by taking everything he had to say as seriously as I could. What resulted was over 4200 words of me trying my best to explain to him why I don't believe in his god and why it simply is not possible for someone who doesn't believe (in the way that I don't) to consciously give it a chance. Below is his quoted e-mail (emphasis is his), followed by my response.

hello andrew, my name is Kael_____________. i am 17 years old and live in _________, Autstralia.
i really liked your piece SO, YOU WANT ME TO BELIEVE IN YOUR GOD?...it pointed out to me a lot of concerns obviously felt by many non-christians. i myself am a christian and attend church regularly. you are very right. it is so hard for us to convince a logical and intelligent person such as yourself that God exists. i understand that you do have an open mind and i really respect that.
I also have a relatively open mind so please read what i have to say before dismissing. i think youd be very interested.
i am a hypocrite
do not take christians to be perfect
God knows i am not perfect. i sin every single day i assure you. the world’s view of Christianity can be obscured by the narcissism and self-righteousness that a lot of “CHRISTIANS” are exhibiting these days. so please don’t let these posers and self-righteous street corner preachers affect your view of God, his son and true eternal LOVE.
it is hard for me to give you evidence that supports our creator’s existence. it is silly of me to simply tell you about my amazing life changing experience with God. i was never a drug addict turned Baptist or anything mind blowing like that. i have been raised a catholic although my family were not even truly Christian themselves. when i came to my new high school, i started to learn what true Catholicism and Christianity was all about. i have been in love with God passionately since. and i do not wish to have it any other way.
but youre right, were going on about it the wrong way. how might i give you evidence of an invisible yet infinitely powerful being?
i cant really other than ask you questions that you may be asking your self already anyway prior to your posts. how did the world get here? how can the big bang occur from a singularity, without explaining where that matter came from?

but my true effort is this. please accept my challenge. it should not be too strenuous or evangelistic.
try talking to God each day for a week
i know that you probably don’t believe in him, but you seem to be very open minded and id hope that you can take this seriously and place a little bit of hope in the exercise. i doubt God’s voice will resound in your ears, as i have never experienced anything similar. but ask him questions and look throughout the week for answers and signs that will show you his word.
he will show you. but dont expect the mountains to part for you. God answers me in small details like something someone may mention in passing that i just know is sent by God or things that i see and just cannot describe or explain.
ONE EXAMPLE IS: today i was looking for some good jokes for my radio show which i co-host with a girl from my school. while looking i found a link to your blog and for some reason i clicked on it and read your article. i know now God pulled me towards this to try and get you to talk to him. i do not beleive this was a coincidence and have never done anything like this before. but i know God has told me to do so. so just look for small signs and gut feelings telling you to do something.

so please accept this challenge and let me know how it goes. i hope God will reveal the wonders that he reveals to myself and others like me. if you have any christian friends and you have any questions or you just want to talk to them about your experiences, i hope that you do and get a lot out of it.

'im sorry if i come across self righteous at all. not by my actions will i enter his kingdom. only through what god has done, do i feel whole again after being broken.

one major point i want to press is that there are alot of questions you may be wondering.
if God is so powerful and loving, how come there is so much pain in the world?
God made the world beautiful and perfect, but from man’s first sin, we had uncovered evil and committed ourselves to an eternity of sin. throughout the bible a son was prophesied for centuries, and about 2000 years ago he was born. Jesus christ was born to die. to die for me and to die for you. in this beautiful sacrifice, we were given a second chance.

the pain in the world is a consequence of man’s sin, not God’s failure to love, but ours.

so anyway, please let this week be a good effort and may it be the evidence youre looking for. it would not a be a faith unless it required faith so there is no clear cut evidence i can give you except your own experience. so please take this challenge seriously. i am not selling you the product before you know about it and i hope that this will be different tactic to those conmen selling false beliefs. God is real and loves us all unconditionally. i pray that the challenge shows you this.
God bless you Andrew, even if i haven’t made it clear.
please please try it. you dont have to buy it, have a free sample and see the evidence for yourself
-Kael ________

Hello Kael, and thank you for the long heart-felt message. Because you gave a lot of effort in writing me, I wanted to make sure it was returned in kind, though I must warn you that I get a bit wordy. I’ll try to respond to your words in the order that they appear in your correspondence. Keep in mind, however, that what you sent me was quite provocative, and so I must also take the time to explain to you what I think when I read your words. Maybe I can help you understand a little more about where I am coming from.

I want to start out by saying that belief is not a choice. I believe things that occur to me and I don’t believe in just the same way. We can refer to beliefs as the sum of all our personal knowledge, focused through the lens of our personal biases. Therefore, in order to make me believe something that I currently do not believe, I must first consider it as a type of knowledge and then I must accept it through the filter of my current biases.

I thank you for recognizing that I have an open mind. It is open to considering new ideas and new ways to look at things, but not so open that any idea can waltz right in and take up residence. I think a better way to put it is that my mind has a foyer that any idea can enter for consideration, but only the best ideas may progress further into the inner sanctum. I want to say now that I have previously considered the essence of your challenge, but my knowledge of psychology precluded any actual beliefs that you might have hoped would come of it. More on that later.

You’re at a very formative age; about the same age when I started thinking about the world and how god fit into it. The most poignant thought I had at the time was this: there are thousands of religions in the world and every religion has different interpretations. Every single interpretation claims that it is the right one. We can use simple deduction to realize this means that either there is one true way to worship god and an infinite wrong ways, or simply everyone is wrong.

I am assuming you’ll claim that your belief is the true one, but so will the next person of a different faith. And they’ll have just as much fervor as you. They’ll have stories and justifications and miracles and scripture, too. But neither of you will have any other way to assert any truth over another, unless your ultimate proof is whoever wins in a fight. Obviously, the one represented by the true god is the one who defeats the other, right? I’m not saying this is what you personally believe, but it is certainly the legacy of the Catholic Church.

My logic at your age had me pretty convinced that the world in its entirety had no clue what god was or what it was about. And neither did I. It led me to think about why religion existed in the first place, so I really thought about how it worked and why it needed to be centralized and organized. As they say: follow the money. Religious leaders make a lot of money, as do political leaders who use religion in their platform. Religion, called the opiate of the masses, is a tool to stop people from asking questions. Why did X happen? God wanted it to, duh! It is a justification for wars and conquest, where old rich men send out young poor men to die for them in the hopes of gaining more land or power. This god figure is a symbol of the subjugation of people en masse.

When you tell me that you sin every day, I see a very pitiable person. This mythological father figure has told you that your natural manner is bad. You think that you sin, which makes you feel guilt, which makes you more obedient. You are being bent to the will of the church, which is an organization run by wealthy men, who run the faith like a business. They sell you guilt-remover to cure the guilt they slapped on you in the first place.

One thing you may learn in life is that getting into financial debt is horrible. Take it from me; you do NOT want to get into debt. The last time I looked, Australians on average spend more money than they make. I’m bringing this up because being in debt has a lot of parallels to the guilt that belief imposes on you. Being in debt means that you have to constantly make money in any fashion that you can muster. Because you owe some bank more money than you own, it means that you never get to experience your entire paycheck. It means that you are tied down to a job that you might hate and it means that you can’t take risks to fulfill your dreams. Debt, it has been said, is just another form of slavery.

When you are devoted to Jesus or god, every part of what you do is tied to them. Either you feel guilty for masturbating, lying or being mean, or you attribute your successes and happiness to them and not yourself. Something that we humanists really like about our way of life is that we recognize that we are in control. We are responsible for our failures as much as our successes – entirely. And it makes all of them that much more enriching. Attributing your success to god is like owing half your paycheck to a bank. Feeling like you must work off this original sin is like having to repay someone else’s debt.

Avoiding financial debt was the single best thing I have done for myself, as it now allows me the freedom to do with my life whatever I please, whenever I please. Exercising that freedom is sweet and fulfilling. I urge you to avoid falling in love with your cage.

When Christians mention their god’s love, I can’t help but wonder what exactly that is. They don’t define it beyond using the word love, which by itself has a plethora of different uses and meanings. Does god love you the way a girl loves cute kittens? Does god love you in a way a man loves his car? Do you understand what I am getting at? You use the word, love, but you don’t define it. All Christians do is go on and on about how great it is. Leaving things vacuous and open to interpretation is deceptive. If you want me to take this “love” seriously, I’m going to need you to define it as specifically as possible. Otherwise, you might as well be suffering from Stockholm syndrome for all I know.

If, by love, you mean the love of a father for his children, then I must disagree with you that your god’s love is very desirable. As taken with the debt example above, it resembles an abusive relationship in which guilt is used to convince someone that they are unworthy, yet somehow fortunate enough to receive the love of someone so much more powerful. Religious nuts of all kind use their god’s love in this way; they even falsely label it as “unconditional.” But it is quite conditional; supposedly if you die without god in your heart, you go to hell, or at least do not get the same privileges as the devout. Those are conditions if I ever saw them. They are also veiled threats.

But the voracity of religious claims is beside the point. I maintain that no god even exists. You claim that you can sense him or talk to him, but Sam Harris has a great argument for this. Imagine a man who says he is in communication with god through his hair dryer. Even the most gullible would see that there is something wrong with this picture. I don’t see, however, how the addition of the hairdryer to this situation is what makes it crazy. Still, you need something to explain how it is that you’re supposedly communicating with a god, when, to the best of your knowledge, you are not crazy. Am I right?

The one assumption about me that you got wrong is that I am interested in finding god. My challenge for evidence is there as an argument in disguise. You know as well as I that no real evidence exists for god. You’ve admitted that much. You also know that as soon as you provide something that you claim to be evidence, it has the potential to be disproven. A believer is forced to be nebulous in their descriptions of god, lest someone point out how exactly wrong they are. I would hope that this is the single most poignant way to introduce doubt into a believer’s mind, but too many people actually take pride in the fact that their belief defies logic. This is mind-boggling.

I forgive you your lack of knowledge about the recent developments in answering questions like how the universe began. I must tell you, however, that physicists have come up with a few different mathematically valid explanations, each of which do not involve a deity for creation. If you’re interested, I think the most digestible one is a lecture by Lawrence Krauss called A Universe From Nothing. Google it up; it is an hour long and very enlightening.

Thus we run into the main problem with using god to explain things that we don’t understand yet. Throughout history, every physical phenomenon that we have discovered that was originally attributed to god has turned out to be, through scientific inquiry, not god. Such arguments are called “god of the gaps.” If you have a mystery and solve it with “god,” you’re doing two VERY BAD things. First, you’re setting yourself up for disappointment. You’re defining the realm of god and thus allowing him to be disproved. Naughty. Second, you’re stifling intellectual curiosity. If all you do is say that god did it, where is the intelligence in that? What effort does it take for you to look at a problem or a question and just throw up your arms and say it was god’s will? I’m sorry, but fuck that. Real justice is done when things are investigated to their fullest extent so that a REAL answer can be given in the place of some imaginary force.

Your challenge is honorable, but it is impossible to accept. Asking a god for answers or signs is a silly endeavor. What do you think a shaman sees when he looks at the bones that he has scattered before him? What do you think an haruspex sees when he has examined an animal’s entrails upon an altar? If you believe in Christianity, then you also believe that these pagan rituals hold no magic or supernatural power. In other words, the shaman and haruspex are being fooled by their own minds into thinking that a sign is there when there is actually nothing. And so are you. So is everyone. Humans see patterns everywhere, and their brains’ natural processes draw those patterns. Psychologists have documented these pattern-seeking tendencies, so it is my suggestion that you educate yourself about them. The process of looking for signs that you described to me is textbook confirmation bias.

You know how you can go for a while without noticing something, but as soon as someone points it out to you, you see it everywhere? As a resident of New York City, I have noticed there are signs placed on hundreds of buildings around the city that tell people that there is a nuclear fallout shelter in the basement. These signs have been around for about 50 years now, but I’ve met life-long New Yorkers who have never noticed them. Once I point the signs out to them, they come back and tell me that they see them everywhere now. This little example is just one of many ways in which our brains filter the immense amount of information that we encounter and call to our attention the things that we have recently thought about. Psychologists call this the availability heuristic.

The confirmation bias works like this: A few months ago, a video made the rounds on the internet of a fishing boat that got its net tangled with a sperm whale. The video begins with the crew trying to untangle the whale while it tries to pull itself free. Eventually, the whale is freed and the crew celebrates. The rest of the video has clips of the whale breaching and crashing into the water on several occasions, as well as performing a few tail slaps. The crew see this incredible display of beauty and claim that the whale is celebrating its freedom, thanking them by giving them a great show. Nearly every internet viewer of this video is lured into thinking the same thing, that the whale is leaping from the water with joy. But all of this is false. If they had bothered to do some research, they would have known that breaching is a whale’s way of establishing territorial dominance. It is a sign of aggression. So what is happening here? Everyone saw what they wanted to see in the situation, but never bothered to discover what it is what they were actually observing.

Combine my last two paragraphs together and you get this: If you look for god everywhere, of COURSE you’re going to find him; you’ll find him even when he isn’t there. The example of you finding my blog is a great example of the confirmation bias. My blog gets lots of hits, so what makes yours a sign from god? I put a lot of work into making sure people stumble into my corner of the internet, so why don’t I get the credit for bringing you there instead of god? Heck, part of what I get paid to do in my professional life is driving people to sites. If every one of them thought that their coming to a site that I wanted them to go to was a sign from god, you might as well consider me one of his agents.

Your challenge is mentally unhealthy for me to consider. What you’re asking me to do is voluntarily induce insanity in myself. You’re asking me to denounce the explanations I know for the mental phenomenon that are responsible for belief and instead believe that they are not psychological flaws but in fact doorways to a spiritual link with god. As I said before, belief is not a choice. You’re going to have to give me more reason to believe and that reason has to transcend what I already consider knowledge in that area. I can go about doing what you asked of me, but it will be done with a higher understanding of what I am doing, thus dispelling any “proof” I happen across. In a way, that already happens.

Being who I am, I think about the concept of “seeing god” in things all the time. Sometimes things happen where I have to stop and think, “If I believed in god, that would trip me the fuck out.” But I don’t believe in god, so I see things for what they are: opportunities and random happenstances that I put myself in position to experience. And you know what? These things happen all the time. We seem fascinated by “rare” coincidences and nifty revelations (like today, I just randomly stumbled on to an awesome photo opportunity at sunset), but we fail to honestly analyze how common they really are.

I’m not sure if you’re too familiar with the American sport of baseball, but it is a game of rare probabilities. A good buddy of mine is a baseball fan who tries very hard to catch balls that fly off of the field and into the stands. He is either incredibly good at this or incredibly lucky, depending on how you want to look at him. Or, you can take your route, and conclude that god surrounds him. On one occasion, my friend has managed to catch three errant foul balls deflected into the seats in a row. He could easily say, “Wow, God is really working on my side,” but he doesn’t. He’s an atheist. One of his favorite sayings is, “luck is the residue of design,” and in his role, where it seems he is the luckiest person on the planet, his fortune really just comes from a huge amount of preparation and even more perseverance. To conclude that god is trying to talk to you through everyday things is a little vain. On a related note, the notion that god helps those who help themselves is asinine, inserting god into places where he isn’t necessary.

The world is an amazing place, but I don’t need to believe that some higher power created it to enjoy living in it. In fact, some (including me) would say that the idea that this reality self-assembled makes it even more amazing. Discovering the mechanisms through which it assembles itself is fascinating, intuitive and inspiring. Simply stopping all of that to conclude that god simply willed it is intellectually destructive. We have to look past that lazy idea.

I challenge you to educate yourself about psychology and to learn why we think the way we do. I challenge you to learn about evolution and how we retain many animalistic survival traits and vestigial parts and formations from our prehistoric cousins. I challenge you to learn about physics, cosmology and chemistry, to discover how the world functions, how it came into existence, and how real scientific inquiry is carried out.

When you explain to me about why there is pain in the world, it sounds a lot like Greek mythology, where the gods punished people for silly things that wouldn’t make anyone bat an eye these days. Why do you listen to these stories and actually believe that you are part of some modern drama of godly jealousness? The idea that YOU are responsible for the error of someone else is … ancient. Morals have advanced far enough these days so that we no longer allow scapegoats, trial by combat, or whipping boys. The sentiments portrayed in the Bible are barbaric and outdated. The world doesn’t work like that today.

While I’m on the subject about the world moving on from the standards of the Bible, it is worth noting that another key moment in my life that led me away from the belief in a god was a class I took in college; Modern Jewish History. This class simply told the history of the Jewish people through the last couple thousand years. Figuring prominently in their history was the Catholic Church, the source of most of their oppression. It was interesting to note the evolution of the Catholic Church’s stance on Jews and various social customs throughout the centuries. More interesting, though, was what drove that evolution.

The Church, seen as an authority, with the Pope speaking with god’s voice, should, in theory, dictate and precipitate any changes to biblical law and Church outlook. That was not the case. Throughout history, the Church has been forced to change its stance on various issues (the persecution of the Jews, Galileo, evolution, etc.) based on public outcry. This is to say that the general public is more up to date with morality than the Church itself.

Most of the laws that you read in your Bible are glossed over and ignored by nearly everyone who follows them. Who decides what is worth listening to and what is garbage? Once again, it is not the church but the people. This gives us a very good indicator to where morality truly comes from. Morality evolves with society, politics, technology, and knowledge. There is no precedent in the Bible for the moral code that we now have today. Instead, it is a collage with both suggestions from the Bible and new ones that society comes up with on their own (and attribute them to the Bible, for good measure). This is because the Bible is not a collection of god’s morals, but man’s morals from thousands of years ago. Some of those morals have stuck around, but most have fallen out of style. The book itself is a collection of legends from iron-age illiterate nomads. It is a piece of history, but it should have no place within modernity.

I don’t wonder about god. The concept of god is not a factor in my life. I don’t wonder why there is so much pain in the world. I accept the pain as a fact of reality because I know how humans work, how reality works and I know why you think you’re following the right god when there are people who live about an hour’s drive from you who think you’re going to hell. You’re not going to hell. Neither am I. Nor is anyone. And nobody is going to heaven either. None of that exists. Your soul does not exist because your mind is a manifestation of your brain. Your evidence, your experiences, all have good explanations for why you feel so strongly about them despite the fact that they don’t represent reality. If you are interested, you can start by reading my blog post entitled “Why You Are Wrong” to get a feel for the many different ways in which your brain glitches out when you experience things. You might also want to pick up either of Michael Shermer’s books on believing strange things. His latest is “The Believing Brain.”

If you were to say that most people seem to believe in something, and that the majority seems to be keyed into this concept that something greater than them exists, and that billions of people can’t be wrong together, I would respond like so: Before these current gods were worshipped, there were other gods, and others before them. Every new generation of gods seems to hold the same purpose: to explain why things beyond our control happen and to explain why we are here, and this was done in the fashion of the time, using the environment that the believers knew best. This seems to me like a broken record, like we have retained the same flaws throughout history. And indeed we have; our shared DNA is practically the same as the humans who lived 30,000 years before us. We all have the natural proclivity for curiosity, but only as much sense as it takes to interpret what our own eyes can see. The problem is that we’ve been asking the wrong questions. Before we ask “why,” we must ask “how.” Before we assume there is a purpose, we must understand how our world works.

I believe that the best antidote for silly beliefs is empathy for things both living and not. You may claim that the world suffers because some mythological figure once sought knowledge from the gods, but, to paraphrase a line from Tim Minchin (also an Aussie), it’s quite pretentious to think that god lets people starve by the millions every year while he is intently interested in curing the vision problems of some middle class white bitch who sucks up to him. Learn to see the world through other peoples’ eyes and minds. Understand what it means to take another perspective. Imagine our world as if it were a nature film narrated by David Attenborough. See the diversity and understand that everyone has a good story and nobody seems to agree. Look at the Earth through the eyes of the planet Jupiter. Look at our solar system through the eyes of the Andromeda galaxy. What are we to these celestial bodies? Nothing. What influence does our spiritual plight have on the universe at large? None at all. Who are we to the passage of time? Hardly a blink.

I am writing this to you from the city of Rome, and within Rome sits Vatican City, seat of the Catholic Church. Within this city are amazing feats of architecture and I recognize with it what a powerful influence the idea of god is to humans. It would seem that god is everywhere here. But humans, not god, built all these churches and basilicas. Humans put god here, not the other way around. We have such incredible potential when we are organized and motivated. Imagine what we can accomplish if we could motivate ourselves toward building a better world and furthering secular education instead of distracting ourselves and devoting our best efforts to pleasing a deity who will, in a few thousand years, be as obsolete as Zeus and Venus are today. If we took all of the passion that went into Saint Peter’s Basilica and the Sistine Chapel and focused it into education, medicine, technology and human rights, imagine what we could accomplish. We wouldn’t need great cathedrals to enthrall us because we would each be as grand. If we instead contribute to the collective knowledge of the human race, expanding on things that are real and consequential, we can contribute to the world, as it will be for the millennia hence.

-Andrew

The Simplest Hiccup Cure Ever

2011-09-16T22:05:00.003-04:00

This hiccup cure is simple, fast, and requires no props, ingredients or skills.

Inhale and keep your chest inflated as long as you can while keeping your windpipe open and expanded.

When you can’t hold the breath any longer, keep your windpipe open, exhale completely and then repeat the process. Your hiccups should be gone after 2-3 exhales. If a hiccup interrupts this process, just start over. The key is in keeping your windpipe open for an extended period of time.

There is no technique to master, it is simply slow breaths with unrestricted airflow. I’ve posted this here because the current top search result for hiccup cure is too complicated to understand. Please let me know if you try it and tell me how it works out.

Reality is Objective

2011-09-10T11:16:00.002-04:00

If reality were subjective, meaning that it was different for everyone, then debating it would be unnecessary. It would mean that the things that are true for me are not true for you, and vice versa. It would make it impossible for you to tell me that I am wrong and also impossible for me to do the same to you. It would mean that there is no one single reality, but in fact about 7 billion realities that each have their own truths. New age spiritualists might embrace this way of thinking, but the religious crowd definitely does not. Neither does the rationalist crowd, which makes the following statement a direct challenge to religions of all types.

Religion relies on a shared, objective reality because, without such a framework, it would be impossible to educate people about the "Truth." The spread of religion would be in vain. Likewise, rationalists simply deduce a shared objective reality because the conclusion of subjective realities would lead to paradoxes of juxtaposed scientific findings, and also because solipsism is a masturbatory exercise.

Now we must tackle the task of determining what this shared objective reality is; what are its rules, what are its truths? Asking "why" would be a silly endeavor without first knowing exactly "what" it is we are dealing with. In fact, if you are of the opinion (as I am) that we are in a predicament these days with regards to clashing views of reality, it is precisely because we tried to answer the "why" before we understood the "what."

Let's define reality as the realm of fact upon which we can make statements that are true. For instance, we can make the following statement: the Earth is spheroid in shape. This is clearly a statement that can either be true or false, and in this case it is true. We know it is true because we can measure it in many different ways; the length of shadows at various points along its surface, the shadow the Earth poses on the Moon, the view from satellites in orbit, the horizon, etc. Theists propose the following statement: a supreme being, called god, exists. This statement can have only one of two possible answers: true or false. The question is of how to measure it.

The problem now is that in order to measure for a god so that this claim can be validated, the god must be defined in such a way that a definitive ruling can be made. Theists are not willing to do this. They claim exemption to the rule of reality, pleading that a statement can be true, even if it cannot be verified in any way. This kind of thinking is lacking in any kind of rigor. Anything can be supposed in the place of god and it will thus have the same qualifications.

Using this model of deduction, there are two possible problems; either a statement is impossible to verify (such as the god proposition) or it is too complicated to verify (such as suppositions on the origin of interpersonal love). The difference between these two is that for the first, an answer can never be reached, for the second, an answer CAN be reached, it just needs a little time for the right techniques and technologies to be developed. For these, it is better to lean towards verifiable statements and hold off on claiming any more than that.

For statements that are impossible to verify, from a rationalist standpoint, they are better off not even being made. Because they cannot be verified, it is impossible to assert one statement over a similar-but-conflicting one. All unverifiable statements are equally worthless in rational debate, reasoned thinking, explanatory review, and strategy.

This all brings us back to objective reality and how we all live within it, sharing experiences with things that exist for everyone. How, then, do we explain things that a single person experiences while nobody else does? How do we explain deeply personal beliefs which cannot be verified using the deductive model of truth when the possessor insists upon their validity? Nobody wants to hear the answer.

The answer is that such experiences are only useful in understanding the world within the context of neurological phenomenon, not reflections of reality. That's just a roundabout way of saying that they're all in your head. To push the boundary of influence of these personal experiences beyond your own brain, you are forced to make a statement about shared reality; one that can be verified. One that can be falsified. And you will have to live with the answer that measurement produces.

So, You Want Me To Believe In Your God?

2011-09-09T08:38:00.000-04:00

Understand this: you must give me evidence and allow me to scrutinize it.

You are just a barker at a street market standing before a booth with no products in sight. When I ask to inspect what you are selling, you tell me that I must buy it before I can see. You make the choice seem so simple, but what do I know? You're just a salesman. I never trust salesmen. To make matters more complicated, you are just one of many salesmen, standing before equally empty booths, every one claiming that I must purchase the goods before I can see them.

You have no way of showing me WHY I should buy your goods over the others besides talk talk talk. You have no way of showing me why I should buy anything at all besides veiled threats that I will regret it if I don't.

You know that if you provide what I ask for (evidence of any kind), it will be insufficient in convincing me. You are caught in a logical loop: belief is a personal endeavor, which makes universal evidence insufficient in explaining what you're selling. As a result, you are forced to play the same game as everyone else; veiled threats and vague assertions of glory in exchange for servitude.

You say that because I am skeptical, I must not know love. The god you are selling doesn't have a monopoly on love. Others sell it, too. So, you can say that I don't know what love is, but you will have to define it so that I can be sure that I am comparing apples to apples when I look at other religions. You also know that you can't define love because that would make it easier to scrutinize. That's the game we're playing here. If what your religion requires is blind faith, you have to provide some FIRM way of convincing my blind ass to stumble in your direction instead of another.

And, you know, me demanding evidence of you is also for your benefit. Let me explain:

You are asking me to make two choices: 1) to believe and 2) to believe YOU. Even if you are sincere in what you are trying to convey to me, you have to be smart enough to understand that a fraud can play the same game as you, especially if all you have are words. You have to be pragmatic enough to understand that your mere urgency to save my soul is not sufficient. You have to know that you are using the same toolset as thieves and conmen. You have to set yourself apart from them. With evidence.

Now, where is this evidence that I have been asking for?

In Search of Elegance

2011-08-10T17:36:00.002-04:00

What is elegance and why is it important that our ideas have it? Elegance is a combination of utter simplicity and undeniable efficacy. An elegant idea is one that creates the fewest number of assumptions, is driven by a simple mechanism, works in every instance you apply it to, and makes accurate predictions that were not apparent before. The theory of evolution through natural selection is an elegant idea; the only assumption it begins with is that resources are limited, the mechanism that drives it is the competition between genes, and the truth of its history and future is undeniable. Our ideas must be elegant because if one contains too many assumptions or is driven by too complex of a mechanism, it probably also lacks efficacy and is not a good way to describe the phenomenon it was created to describe.

In the field of mathematics, Mandelbrot’s fractal equations provide a good model for how elegant ideas manifest themselves in the real world. If you’ve ever seen a piece of fractal art, it is a wonder of infinite complexity; the closer you look at every curve and crest, infinitely more detail is revealed. When you step back far enough, the larger picture that you see often resembles the minute section you were just observing. But the mechanism that created this wonderfully detailed and visually stunning piece is but a simple, self-referencing algebraic equation. Every line and curve within it was drawn by the same instruction. So it goes with reality’s driving laws; Einstein’s General Theory of Relativity is but a set of equations, but in their simplicity, they have perfectly predicted the behavior of the universe’s forces before we even had the ability to measure them.

It is with elegance in mind that we look for solutions to the current questions. The one that summons the most debate is that of the creation of the universe. To say that a deity created everything is not an elegant solution; it creates too many assumptions, including that of an infinitely complex mechanism believed to be a sentient creator’s will. Such an idea is a curiosity blocker; it answers the question without much insight and acts to preclude any further questions. One should ask of a theist, “Do you propose that we stop trying to figure this out if that’s the answer to believe?”

Scientific observation began with things that were apparent to our eyes. It eventually progressed to the microscopic world that can be seen through a series of simple lenses. The electron microscope followed, and now we’re discovering the particles that make up the particles that make up the particles… each level elegantly described by simple ideas. Is there any reason to believe there is an end to it? Curiosity blockers have no place in the discussion of ideas until elegance has its final say. The questions deserve to be answered with the best effort we can give them.

Rationality Through Meditation

2011-08-06T03:29:00.003-04:00

Meditation is often packaged up with so much nonsense metaphysics, religious baggage, and spiritual glitter that it is tough to take seriously. Sam Harris, a renown skeptic, is a proponent and practitioner of meditation, but even he is honest in acknowledging the ridiculous fanfare that accompanies it. Where should a level-headed, rational-thinking intellectual start on their path to discovering the realities and benefits behind meditation? That’s what I was wondering when I showed up for a group discussion on the matter. I came away with some very enticing points.

The definition of meditation can be distilled in many ways, but it mostly comes down to focus. All agree that the practice is difficult in its beginnings, but over time, one becomes better at letting their thoughts bead and roll off the surface of their consciousness, rather than soak in. Weatherproofing for the mind. The efforts of this exercise, which takes less than an hour a day, are realized in the brain, where structural changes can occur, to the effect of lowering anxiety and even increased sustained focus during involved tasks.

But the most compelling benefit of meditation for me would have to be its potential for promoting rational thought. You must be curious how I could see meditation, a junkyard magnet for woo-woo bullshit, as a gateway to rationality when the vast majority of its spokesmen seem to lack that very trait. Expectations go a long way in shaping our subjective worlds. You don’t need to buy into the concept of transcendence to empty your mind. Just like peyote may be used by shaman and laymen alike, you get out of meditation what you make sense of. It won’t turn a guru into a skeptic and it won’t turn a skeptic into a yuppie.

The process of meditation takes many forms. Let’s just talk about breathing and thoughts. As you fill your lungs and focus on the sensation of the air tickling the outer rims of your nostrils, thoughts may enter your mind, but they are not welcome now. You shoo them out and bid them to return later whilst every breath sweeps the dirt from the surfaces of your mind’s machinery. Eventually, you become more at ease and your mind hums with the white noise of a silenced motor. Now when thoughts occur, you experience them briefly, and then let them dissolve. You label them. “That is a thought.” And watch them slide away, never hearing or caring if they make a noise when they reach the bottom of the abyss.

Emotional attachment is somewhat of a sweet dessert. Its taste is teasing; it urges you to let it linger on your tongue so that every grain of sugar can melt before you swallow it down. We grow up leaving room after every meal for the emotions, skipping the steak, savoring the ice cream. Even when it gives us brain freeze or a tooth ache, the taste was worth it. And our sticky fingers hold on to thoughts and refuse to let them go. Meditation can be our diet plan.

We live our lives so full of thoughts and emotions, that the concept of being empty makes us shy away. We think of someone whose mind is empty and we imagine a shell of a person, a brick wall, a void of a soul. Nothingness is not a bad thing, though. It is a template that all clear thinking with no preconceptions must be done from.

Ideas and thoughts are like possessions to us; they evoke feelings when they are considered that make us favor them over others, often to the detriment of reason. Part of the effects of meditation is the ability to recognize thoughts apart from the feelings that they evoke. We can observe our thoughts as data or evidence rather than reflections of ourselves. That data can be used in a rational evaluation, but it is only as strong as the reality it represents. Let go of the need to have your self imprinted on the ideas you express or consider, because when you meditate, you cast them aside all the same. One way to do this is to imagine the idea as a nondescript object on the other side of the room rather than a treasure nestled within the vault of your heart.

More important than separating your thoughts from the feelings that accompany them is the recognition of the feelings you have in the first place. Identifying your emotions in meditation can help you recognize when they are affecting your normal thoughts. While emotion is necessary for things like empathy, we must recognize that it only works against us in rational thought. And sometimes, we must admit, emotion makes a mess of everything.

The saying goes that pain is real, but suffering is optional. And it is the suffering, with enough practice, that we can detach and discard from our experience. But while we can free ourselves from suffering, we should also be wary of soaking in only our positive emotions. I think the dessert metaphor can be extended to diabetes at this point. Nobody trusts someone who only sees sunshine.

The goal of rationality through meditation is to ultimately reduce our intrinsic bias when considering ideas, and we do this by isolating thoughts from the attachments and emotions that come with them. As you have seen, however, the whole process can potentially envelope and change vital aspects of what we consider to be our identities. Who wants to detach from their emotions and ideas? They’re what make us... us. But is that really who we are? In keeping with the spirit of detachment, we cannot be afraid to have our values change. I can imagine that if we look back and realize that the change happened, we’d be more afraid of returning than continuing on.

Playing Card Game: Moving Target

2011-07-30T02:43:00.019-04:00

Introducing: Moving Target! It is an original card game using a deck of regular playing cards. It is satisfyingly strategic, simple to grasp and quick to play. Grab a friend and a deck of cards and go try it now! Then, come back and give me your feedback.

MOVING TARGET RULES

Players: 2-3

Playing Area:
The playing area is a 5x5 grid, similar to a BINGO card, with each cell in the grid large enough for one playing card. This grid does not need to be drawn, as it is small enough to be imagined.

Setup:
Each player is dealt 10 cards from the deck face down. (7 cards each if there are 3 players)
Players are allowed to look at their cards.
A single card is dealt from the top of the deck and placed face up in the center cell of the playing grid.

Play:
Each player takes their turn placing any card from their hand face-up onto an unoccupied cell on the playing grid.

The card must be placed in a cell adjacent to another card. (left, right, top, bottom)
The card must either share a suit or value with all adjacent cards that it is placed next to.
Cards cannot be placed outside of the playing grid.

If a player is unable to place a card due to the above restrictions, they must draw a card from the deck into their hand - until they draw one that can be placed – and place it on the grid.

A player can only draw up to 3 cards during one turn.
If the player has drawn 3 cards and still has no moves to make, they forfeit their turn.

There must never be more than 12 cards on the playing grid, so once a player places the 13^th card, they must remove any card of their choice from the grid and place it in the discard pile.

They must place a card before removing one.
They cannot remove the card they just placed during that turn.
TIP: Players should make an announcement when there are 12 cards on the playing grid, so that everyone knows that they must now remove a card during their turn.
TIP: If your opponent tries to take their turn before you've removed a card, they must take back their card and you can counter by taking away their move.

If the draw deck runs out of cards, reshuffle the discard pile and use it as the new draw deck.

Winning:
The first player to empty their hand wins the game, however, the last card that they place MUST be placed adjacent to a card with the same value. If their final card only matches the suit of its adjacent card(s), they must draw another card from the deck and wait another turn.

TIP: Draw the replacement card before you remove a card from the grid to make the most strategic decision.

Photos:
Here are some pictures of a game I played with a friend in Central Park.

Notes:
Moving Target is strategic enough to where the right decisions can turn the favor of a game around, but the game is still quick enough where luck can carry someone through a round. Because of this, I recommend playing a best-of-7 set.
Wild cards make the game too easy to be competitive.
There is an incredibly small chance of the grid becoming deadlocked. In this case, a draw is declared and the whole game is reshuffled.

Strategy:
If you don't play the game with much strategy, it can go really fast and you'll be left wondering if you played the cards or if the cards played you. The most important task is to limit the number of moves available.

Stagger the cards. Cards in a straight line allow plenty of moves, but cards in a zig-zag shape require specific matches to fill in the blanks.
Avoid unblocking moves when you remove cards.
Pay attention to the cards your opponent removes. They may be clearing a path for their own.
Use the sides and corners of the grid to limit the potential of the cards you place.

Moving Target is an original card game that uses a standard deck of playing cards. It was developed by Andrew Gonsalves. All rights to its name and rules belong to Andrew Gonsalves. You must obtain permission from Andrew before using these rules for commercial use.

Politics, Secular Humanist Style

2011-07-28T16:34:00.000-04:00

What economic and political policy best fits a secular humanist worldview?

I favor the idea of an open welfare state. I use the term almost sarcastically because I do not think a government should be characterized negatively based on its concern for its citizens. My main focus when considering possible methods of government is the happiness and health of all people, not just the most advantageous of the lot. I believe that if you look out for your neighbor’s well being, then yours in turn will improve. I also believe that individualism, while a comforting notion, breeds dishonesty that only oversight can protect against. Allow me to build my case.

The one constant that is undeniable in all of us is our nature; the behavioral tendencies that we gravitate toward without a conscious effort to act differently. This nature informs our actions, thoughts, decisions and beliefs in subtle ways; ways that are undetectable many times because one aspect of our very nature is to convince ourselves that we are right. We are speeding freight trains of thought and intention, stopping only for our scheduled destinations.

Knowing the power that our nature has must drive us to learn as much as we can about it. This goes beyond philosophy. Instead of modeling outcomes in our head where everything tells us what we want to hear, we must use experiments, data and evidence to inform our knowledge. To illustrate what this means in terms of behavior and governance, let’s focus on the idiom of “the invisible hand.” A favorite concept amongst fiscal conservatives, the existence of an invisible hand implies that humans, making the most economically rational decisions for themselves, may occasionally make mistakes, but the market as a whole will balance itself without oversight.

In concept, the idea fits nicely with our Just World illusions. But humans simply do not make rational decisions. In fact, when dealing with currency, our rationality rapidly deteriorates. Behavioral economics experiments have demonstrated that rationality is just a facet of a larger illusion. We build our world for rationality, sell products and services with rational upsides and downsides, and then blame meddling overseers when irrational people irresponsibly tempt fates that tease their chaotic nature.

Most importantly, everyone is sold into a culture that purports opportunity for success, but nobody is ever really given full access to the reality that accurately represents their investment. When they complain, they are called lazy, defeatist and irresponsible, and their claims of oppression are masked by the noise-cancelling earphones of a fully-entertained society whose fortunate ones have no reason to doubt that the system invariably works.

Is this active oppression or something more subtle? I believe that the free market is an idea that has been enshrined within our culture with no more evidence to bear it than the other gods we worship. As with a clumsy king, we blame all else but the body that is at fault. When we see ourselves as autonomous individuals in competition with our peers, we fail to see how their success benefits our selves. To improve our economic framework, we must stop blaming its failed practitioners and instead treat another’s failure as a failure of our own.

I’m aware of the fallacy of the greater good. I do not presume to tell others that they must adopt policies simply because it is better for them. I merely want to illustrate the equally fallible claim of self-regulation. The self is too manipulative to be trusted. It is the self that must be abated to understand the worth of cooperation.

Rather than distrusting the self, individualists distrust authorities, and with good reason. There are plenty of examples throughout history where the “greater good” was twisted into a special kind of evil. It has evolved into hypersensitivity toward any collective, but that is essentially a slippery slope argument that fails to consider an essential part of the humanist philosophy; openness. In an exclusive society, corrupt authorities perpetrate atrocities. However, as we’ve seen in Norway recently, in open societies, it is corrupt individuals who commit the atrocities.

An ideal government is one that is open: open to all people and to change. Though that statement may sound as anti-conservative as they come, it’s really just a lesson learned from reality. The world is changing. Technology has shaped new ways of thinking about old problems. Advancing human rights and new forms of communication create situations where previously reasonable rules now appear draconian. Because of the natural tendency for governments to become more corrupt over time, it is not enough that things be enacted for the greater good. Policies must be transparent to scrutiny with their endorsers, records, and documented effects freely available for the public to see.

So what of my assertion that improving the life of your neighbor will improve your own? From a purely biological standpoint, one of the clearest reasons for the success of mammalian species in balance with their heavy cost in sustenance and reproduction is their talent for cooperation. Is this a clear link to happiness? No, but to deny that the removal of individual hardship through cooperation improves happiness would be intellectually dishonest. Creatures and humans alike, with less time devoted to pure survival, find time for leisure and self-enrichment. Though it may be true that solitary mammals exist, they do not thrive and their numbers are contingent on the scarcity of food and shelter available to them. In a world of scarcity, cutthroat competition is a must.

But we live in a world of abundance. We have technology to increase the efficiency of our crops. We can stretch our space and our resources beyond our previous limitations. We are not constrained by the economic inhibitors that our ancestors were. We live in a new world and thus can afford to try a new configuration for society.

In the end, who will pay for it all? Who will pay for the people who won’t pay for themselves? I’m no policy maker and I’m certainly no economist. These are the principles that I value, though. I would be one of those citizens willing to give half of my paycheck to the government if I knew it was being spent wisely, if I knew it would come back to me in turn. Can it happen in reality? That’s another discussion entirely.

Google Plus Second Impressions (and Etiquette)

2011-07-23T19:52:00.009-04:00

I've been playing with Google+ for a few weeks now and I've gotten to really understand how its feature set conducts the participation of its users. In my first impressions, I mused at how it potentially takes over the need for Facebook, Twitter and Tumblr, but after more use, I have to say that Twitter is in the most danger here. Many may think that the 140 character limit was the key to Twitter's success, but it may actually be the dynamic of asymmetrical sharing that kept it appealing in contrast with Facebook. While Twitter's 140 characters are easy to digest when what you want to say is short, longer messages become unreadable drivel, fodder for a generation raised on text messages and bad grammar. Google+ is the grown-up's Twitter.

On Google+, not only can you follow whomever you want, you can divide your sharing between the circles that you've divvied everyone into so that the loose acquaintances don't have to know about the hamburger you ordered and your family doesn't have to read about how you scored on your date. Further, your freethinker friends don’t have to slog through your photography updates to get at some discussion material. And this all takes place in full sentences and paragraphs (if you're lucky).

Following conversations on Google+ is also far beyond the capabilities of Twitter, with Facebook-style commenting. Twitter may have recently improved the "threading" of discussions, but it is still deathly confusing to follow back-and-forth chatter. Because G+'s advantage, it is also easier to find others with similar interests to you, allowing you to follow them, or vice versa. If you’re vigilant about creating neatly defined circles, you can potentially curate your own communities in which the topics up for discussion are always interesting.

The only features that Twitter has that Google+ does not are hashtags and trending topics, both of which are useless when used en masse. Hashtags have a dual use in Twitter; to label your post so that readers can understand the context, and to join in a popular conversation. With Google+, since you have a large amount of space to use, contextual shorthand isn't needed. And let's face it, hashtag conversations are absolutely cumbersome and downright frivolous when they get popular, making it no big loss. Trending topics are equally useless, especially since it is likely that all of the ones that show up are irrelevant to your interests.

Twitter is now technically obsolete. We just need to wait for the user base to move over.

Ultimately, Google+ is more about sharing than social networking. In its public channels, it is a platform built for content and discussions, not personal drivel. In your personal channels, it is anything you want it to be. But in order to reap the benefits of this flexibility, you have to be disciplined with how you use it.

I'd like to share how I've been using Google+, to give you an idea of how it can work for you. It just so happens that rationalists and skeptics have a huge contingency there already, so finding people to follow and, in turn, to follow me, has not been difficult. As of this writing, I have just over 800 followers, which is more than my blog, Facebook and Twitter subscribers combined. And I did that in just a few days. This is simply an example of how fertile Google+ is when it comes to making connections with people who share the same interests. My goal is to start interesting discussions and share thoughtful ideas. Maybe after a while people will start to recognize me as a real contributor to the community, eh?

I first follow the known authorities in my topic of choice. Then I participate in the discussions that they begin. When I see others contributing thoughtfully, I will add them to a circle created just for that kind of topic. With luck, they’ll follow me in return. My stream, in the meantime, is filled with many different contributions, most of which are actually interesting to me. Sure, there are some people who post their check-ins publicly or talk about their cats, but the signal-to-noise ratio is surprisingly high. It should improve as people learn how to use this new tool.

I have some etiquette tips for everyone out there:

• Do not make check-in posts public unless it is at some venue where you absolutely must announce your presence to a large amount of people. You should have a circle of people who are potentially interested in knowing your whereabouts - post it to that.

• Try to make your public posts interesting for strangers. When you get involved in communities, expect people to follow you if you contribute thoughtful ideas. You don't want them to regret following you.

• This isn't Twitter. Circles allow you to share your many facets with only the people who care about them. I know you’re used to throwing everything out there and making people just deal with stuff that they’re not interested in because, damn it, you just wanna share it. Your experience will improve if you improve the experience of others.

• Currently, the two largest groups I see on G+ has been photographers and freethinkers. If you’re either one, get your butt on there! If you’re not, well, you have the opportunity to make a name for yourself on a new platform; being an early adopter to a potential new center of your community has many advantages. Use the tools at your disposal wisely.

• You might be compelled to treat Google+ like it is your second Facebook account. Don't. Not yet. While it resembles Facebook aesthetically, it works differently on a fundamental level. This goes for sharing personal information and photos. Once you share something, it is out there, beyond your control unless you explicitly disable resharing for that item.

A Critique on a Possibilian.

2011-07-19T12:36:00.000-04:00

I've been thinking about Dr. David Eagleman's premise of being a "possibilian." He claims that the debate between there being a god and no god is a false dichotomy and that the real answer could be somewhere in the middle. The most benefit of the doubt I can give him is that he's simply trying to cow the people who are drunk off their own fantasies and hunches that there could be something out there. My take on the situation is that we should be giving absolutely no credence to the concept of a higher intelligence, creator or deity until someone actually comes up with some actual evidence instead of the same old baseless delusions we've been hit over the head with for centuries. The only cause to humor the possibility of such a flighty concept is a political one; to not piss people off.

Dr. Eagleman's book SUM, which contains descriptions of various afterlives and the lessons each teaches us, is full of imagination; it is a fine example of what we can come up with when we let our minds run wild. But just because it piques our fancy does not mean the ideas within it have any possibility of being real.

It is true that we do not yet know everything about the world. It is also true that it takes imagination to consider new ideas to test in the realm of science. It's also true that the outright claim of there being no god is quite presumptuous. But I am going to hold tight to that presumption anyways, knowing full well all of the unproved possibilities that I am denying without evidence against them, and wait for someone to prove me wrong. And while all the "possibilians" waste their time concocting ideas that assume a higher being (because Dr. Eagleman told us it was OK!) simply because it hasn't been proved wrong, I'll be over here in the corner that's making progress because we're not distracted by such self-serving vacancies.

Thankful

2011-07-16T17:16:00.000-04:00

In fantasy fiction, we are often confronted with worlds where history extends for thousands of years without so much of an advancement in technology, politics or philosophy. Obviously, the reason for this is because history in fiction is but a narrative tool, however it also makes a lot of sense when you consider the aspects of fantasy that do not appear in our own world. If we lived in a world where our problems could be solved by magic, prayer, or a convenient deus ex machina; if we lived in a world where we saw first-hand indisputable evidence of miracles that implied an intelligence beyond ourselves, then we would simply be convinced of our world's indiscriminate physics. There would be no way to study the behavior of matter that could easily be manipulated by gods that we knew to exist. The explanation for why things are would be right there in front of our face with no reason to question it. So we should be thankful that there is no god and there is no such thing as magic and that our wills cannot bend reality. Elsewise, there would be no inner search for what is right and no progress to be made in a world that exists exactly as its god created it.

Google+ First Impressions

2011-07-01T21:13:00.014-04:00

Google+ is Google's brand new social networking service and it neatly fills a niche left wide open by Facebook for too long. The service is only a few days old and invitations have been disabled for now, but I managed to get in before the cutoff. I've been poking around and getting the hang of it. If you're on the outside looking in, or are not quite sure what to make of it yet, I'll try to explain how it works in practical terms:

Google+ works like a mix of Facebook, Twitter and, to a lesser extent, Tumblr. But it also incorporates a few invaluable ideas that fuze all 3 together and improve on them simultaneously. To start, it looks and works a lot like Facebook and Twitter; it has a wall/stream that shows you all the updates from the people you are friends with/follow. You post status updates that can contain a link or a picture, or a video or a location. You have a profile that divulges intimate details about you, too. The difference is that on Google+, you get to decide who can see what with a precision that you cannot find with Facebook and certainly not Twitter.

Circles are the stand-out feature for Google+; they are, perhaps, the main reason someone would give for making the switch from Facebook. First, you don't "befriend" people on Google+ and wait for them to approve your request, you simply find them and add them to a circle. The circle can be of anyone you choose. Google provides some initial examples of circles: Friends, Family, Acquaintances, and Following. You can create your own with, for example, only the people who you meet for dinner every Sunday evening. Then, when you want to share something, you get to choose which circles get to see it. Though others don't need to approve being in your circles, they will have to add you to their own circles in order to actually see what you share. Additionally, members of your circles do not know which circles you've assigned them to, only that you have assigned them to one.

I have a friend who is a minor celebrity of the kid-friendly type, but who also has an... interesting personal life. For him, Facebook is a no-go because he very clearly does not want to mix these two lives. He doesn't want friends from different circles seeing things that weren't meant for them. On Facebook, a friend of his wants to post an inappropriate reply to a post he made, every one of his friends gets to see it. That won't be the case with Google+, because he can keep all of his fans up to date with his celebrity status, while also entertaining his more private interests without anyone knowing.

That's the story from the perspective of a broadcaster. From a reader's perspective, you can choose to follow anyone you want, just like on Twitter, but you will only see items that the person chooses to share publicly, unless they have added you to one of their circles with which they share more private information.

One less vital, though quite fun, feature that Facebook has also been missing that Google+ has added is group video chat. This manifests itself as "Hangouts" on Google+ and it works similar to the rest of the sharing functionality; you announce that you are hanging out and you choose specific circles that will get the notification and the notification only lasts as long as you're in the Hangout interface. Only members of the circles that you've shared it with can join in the chat. Quality-wise, the video and audio seem to be lacking, but it is serviceable. Google's first order of business should be to make the interface a little more capable, followed by introducing sound filtering similar to how Skype works to prevent mic feedback loops.

For those especially concerned about the information they are showing, Google+ allows you to view your own profile as if you were someone else. You can either choose to mimic an anonymous visitor or you can look at your profile through the eyes of one of your friends. This allows you to carefully calibrate your sharing preferences so that you don't share too much, but you still make sure that the right people see what you want them to.

Some would say that the most important feature that Google brings to the table is Google Takeout; their interface that allows users to completely remove their data from the network. In contrast, Facebook doesn't delete your info when you leave, they store it. Google says that if you click a button, it will delete all of your Google+ data. I will admit to being a bit skeptical about this. It's hard to believe that clicking that button will reach into their backups and remove your information, too. Still, Google makes a bold claim about you owning your own data, so if this feature doesn't work in the absolute they describe, it would be a bold face lie that they can't wiggle out of with creative wording. In other words, they're sticking out their necks by making the claim that it will truly delete all of your data. If this is ever found to be a false claim, I wouldn't be surprised if it resulted in a major backlash of distrust.

I mentioned that there are some elements of Tumblr within Google+, but they're subtle. I suppose the most notable similarity is the allowed length of status updates. You can write long messages without needing to chop words or letters out in order to convey your thoughts.

Currently, Google+ is missing the event scheduling functionality that is quite useful on Facebook, but seeing as Google simultaneously launched a new look for their Calendar service that matches the Google+ scheme, I'm pretty sure that is coming down the pipe.

Our social internet lives are fragmented amongst sites that fill different niches in desired forms of communication. I, for one, am glad that there is finally a service that combines most of them. When I look at Google+'s suite of features as a whole, I can see a lot of potential for my own use in promoting this blog and my other writing. Live video chat sessions, anyone? Barring any revelation of unforeseen loopholes in privacy similar to the open door that brought Google Buzz down, I will be rooting for Google+ to take over in place of Facebook.

(Hey, if you're on Google+, you can add me to your circles. Here's my profile.)

Who Defines Atheism?

2011-06-14T17:28:00.002-04:00

Before we begin, let’s see what a few dictionaries have to say about atheism:

Merriam-Webster:

a : a disbelief in the existence of deity b : the doctrine that there is no deity

Oxford English Dictionary:

Disbelief in, or denial of, the existence of a god.

Google:

The doctrine or belief that there is no God

Wiktionary:

1. The rejection of belief that any deities exist.
2. the absence of belief in the existence of any deities.
3. The stance that deities do not exist (gnostic atheism).

Wikipedia:

Atheism is, in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of deities. In a narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities. Most inclusively, atheism is simply the absence of belief that any deities exist.

If you were paying close attention, you would notice that there are some very different definitions given to a single -ism. Classic authoritative sources (the OED, and M-W, for example) define atheism as an active position, a worldview, a doctrine. Meanwhile, more democratic dictionaries loosen it up a bit, allowing a more passive interpretation where atheism is simply the absence of believe, a state of being. I suppose the difference between the two types of definitions is the same difference in how the common public perceives atheism versus how the rationalist community does.

From the disagreement arises a few questions, one of which is: Who gets to define atheism; the believers or the people that it actually describes? It may not have occurred to you just yet that this is a rather big deal, but imagine having a word that you identify with being defined by someone who despises its very meaning. Would we allow the term “Asian” to be redefined to insinuate that, in addition to being from the continent of Asia, an Asian is also Buddhist? No. But you can imagine an ignorant authority might do that if their only exposure to Asians were with those who were also Buddhist.

From its Greek roots, atheism simply means “without god,” so how did the notion of a doctrine sneak in? As an atheist, I’m not aware of any doctrine or teaching that comes with such a status. In fact, a simple Google search for “atheist doctrine” reveals sarcastic levity and downright antagonism toward atheism. This is not evidence of a word given a fair chance to define itself. I would argue that the authorities in charge of defining the word for the purpose of modern dictionary publication had a negative view of it, regardless of the neutral definition it originally had.

The definition that most rationalists (whose majority happens to be atheist) use to define atheism is this: the absence of belief in a god or gods.

Not only is this definition a passive, inclusive label, it means exactly what its etymology implies. It has no negative connotation and can be applied to many groups. If we mean to be more accurate, we must either use modifiers or other words with more specific meanings. Atheism was never meant to be defined as a belief; it is simply a state that we find ourselves in when the concept of god means little or nothing to us.

A believer sees “atheism” as pertaining to a specific group of people who keep trying to kill Christmas and take the mention of “God” off of their currency, but atheism is really just an all-inclusive term for many different groups of people. Yes, those who actively claim that there is no god are atheists. But that label is not what signifies their disbelief. There are gnostic atheists and agnostic atheists. There are militant atheists and hard atheists. There are anti-theists and nihilists. If you were to claim that there is an atheist doctrine, you would first have to decide if you are referring to Humanism, Buddhism, “Atheism 3.0,” or some other set of beliefs that just happens to preclude the existence of god. There are too many to list.

To give an example of why who decides on the definition of this word is important, I would like to call attention to my previous blog post where I asserted in the first line that we are all born atheists. From the rationalist perspective, this is a perfectly acceptable and neutral statement as a tabula rasa fits nicely into the rational atheism spectrum. No knowledge, thus no knowledge of god, thus no belief in god. However, if you subscribe to the authoritative dictionary definition of atheism, then the statement becomes quite menacing and presumptuous. This caused a bit of a misunderstanding that you can read in the comments section that later carried into email and is the motivation for this post.

If people are intimidated by others throwing around big words that mean nothing to their ears, imagine what is going through their heads when we use words they think they already know the definition for, but are misinformed about. It reminds me of a similar problem we have with “theory.” Just because the dim public recognizes a theory as more of a hunch than a fact doesn’t mean that when a scientist uses the word it still means what the public think it does. While words themselves lack the ability to change the reality they describe, they certainly cause a lot of PR problems.

The Redoubt of Hard Atheism

2011-06-09T16:52:00.002-04:00

We're all born atheists, and then most of us are indoctrinated into the belief of our parents or community. With the right circumstances, some of us will escape the grasp of religion and perhaps even recognize ourselves as atheists. Occasionally, some of us return to religion; a lot of the time, our faith returns even stronger than before. Then, when those "born again" religious individuals speak with atheists about their views, they often use phrases like, "I once thought the same way you did." I just wanted to take a few minutes to talk about what exactly that means.

This is entirely unscientific, but here's the abstract from my anecdotal data: Out of those who have "relapsed" into religion, most are the ones who quit religion because they had a personal problem with the idea of god. If you hear the stories of their past atheism, they usually involve anger toward god. Life was hard, nothing ever worked out, a grudge developed and they "quit" god. Then, of course, something happened and they found the light. Now their belief is stronger than ever.

The problem with these "former atheist" stories is that they are in no way representative of the way I think. Any former atheist trying to win credibility in a debate by saying they once thought the same way I do is probably missing a few points from my philosophy. Am I saying that my reasoning against the existence of god is impervious to change? Not at all. I just severely doubt that the same things that convinced a born-again are the same things that could convince me.

There are many paths you can take towards non-belief. You can simply be raised without belief, or you can later reject the belief that was instilled within you as a child. The rejection itself can take a few forms. Since belief is said to be a relationship with god, one can possibly feel mistreated because they are not getting what they expected out of the relationship. In my case, I used critical thinking and logic to deduce that not only did god not exist, but the whole concept was completely man-made and self-serving. Seems like a harder nut to crack than a simple angry grudge, eh?

As human animals, we are most vulnerable to influence when our emotions are high or when we are under a high amount of stress. It makes sense that many "seeing the light" events people have told me about involve moments of intense physical or emotional stress. One of the more obvious stories I've heard was from a former classmate who told me that Jesus was revealed to him while he was working on the deck of a Navy aircraft carrier. It was overwhelmingly hot and he fainted as a result. Meanwhile, my own sister's story of conversion began when she joined a support group for familial abuse. Mind you, my sister was never abused, but she has always played the victim, and evangelical church support groups are known for planting ideas.

The crux of my position is the knowledge of my vulnerabilities. I know that I am nothing but a human animal. I know that I have tendencies toward self-serving beliefs. My personal philosophy has very few elements that involve self-fulfillment because, well, that's not how the universe works. The world doesn't exist to make me happy, so I am instantly skeptical of any philosophy that purports a benevolent force that suspiciously wants the best for me. There is no anger or emotion in my disbelief. There is no god to be angry at. The logic is quite simple: given that humans are unreliable in accurately perceiving reality without a scientific method, there is no scientific evidence for a god's existence, yet plenty of evidence that the concept of god is man-made. If a born-again had honestly once thought the same way I do now, I would be suspicious of some serious mental illness.

Find The Future, A Night At The Library

2011-05-23T13:26:00.002-04:00

On Friday night, I took part in my first Alternate Reality Game (ARG). It was called Find The Future and it was played by 500 people, all locked inside the New York Public Library for an entire night (8pm to 6am). The experience alone was pretty damn awesome, but I am more interested in the game that was played. ARG’s are a relatively new and undisciplined concept, and experiencing one first-hand was very educational. Typically, ARG’s have a goal beyond the final achievement; in this case, the goal was to teach players about great moments in history so that they can then turn around and be inspired to influence the future. Did the game do its job? Well, let’s take a closer look.

The night began with famed game guru Jane McGonigal explaining to the 500 players all gathered in the gigantic reading room what was going on. Our mission was to have collectively written a 600-page book by the end of the night. We had a website and a smart phone app to help us out as we scoured the exhibition areas of the library, looking for 100 famous artifacts and the stories they told. Along with each artifact was a writing prompt inspiring the players to reflect on ideas of their own that fit into the significance of the history they were observing. Alternating between running around the huge library in small teams and sitting down to write, it was our aim as a collective group to cover all 100 topics and create enough content by the time the sun came up.

I don’t think I could have asked for a more unique all-nighter. There were a few other details about the night that made it more than just a scavenger hunt crossed with a writing group. It all began a few months ago: The application process for being invited to this game consisted of a twitter-esque prompt; in 140 characters or less, we were to explain what, by the year 2021, we would be the first person to accomplish. We were to be as creative and ambitious as possible. There was also extra space for us to expand on our answer, in case 140 characters couldn’t tell the whole story. The organizers selected players by the creativity and vision they displayed in their submissions, but that wasn’t the only thing the application was used for.

Throughout the night, groups of players were taken on tours of “the stacks” - the library’s massive archive of books that runs 7 stories below the floor of the football field-sized reading room and out under Bryant Park, which lays directly behind the building. The public is normally not allowed into the stacks, and to be honest there isn’t much to them besides an endless aisle of steel bookshelves, but two pieces of the game were hidden down there, giving players an incentive to take the tour.

One piece of the game to be found in the stacks was a postcard (well, 500 of them), which had a personalized “message from the future” hand-written (by the organizers) on it. The message was about how the scenario we had written about in our application would (hopefully) play out. It was a nice touch. Each of us had to take one and then deliver it to the person it was addressed to. With everyone scattered throughout the library all night, this was a challenge, and ultimately one of the more chaotic aspects of the game. (By 5 am, there were still people who had not received theirs.) Still, it allowed people to make connections with others who weren’t already working directly with them. The other piece of the game hidden in the stacks was a coded message, a phrase that was to act as a rallying cry for anyone silly enough to remember it. But to understand the process of figuring that puzzle out, you must learn more about the main game itself.

Using the smart phone app as their main tool, squads of players roamed around exhibition areas and scanned QR codes that were taped next to displays. In some nod to the “alternate” reality we were supposed to be experiencing, the app took about a minute to “power up” after coming into “contact” with the artifacts. Thankfully, we found an exploit; this annoying delay was circumvented by closing the app and re-opening it, thus allowing us to quickly scan many items without much reflection. We had to progressively unlock tiers of artifacts in order to know which ones to hunt for, but this was as simple as finding one artifact from each tier. Finding the artifacts themselves wasn’t hard, as we knew what rooms to look for them in. If there was ever any difficulty associated with finding something, it was usually due to poor planning on the organizer side than lack of skill from the player.

Each artifact was “infused” with special powers that you, in turn, absorbed when you scanned its QR code. However, for as much thought that was put into these powers and the technological mechanics that went into figuring them into the game, they had absolutely no effect on how we experienced the game. This was the first real head-scratcher of the game. Why put something in if it didn’t matter to the outcome?

Next, back at the reading room, we looked at the artifacts we had just scanned on the game’s website, and began writing as a team on the prompts that each one provided. An added incentive to urgent gameplay was the fact that certain stories had to be done before certain deadlines. This ensured that we couldn’t spend too much time doing one thing, as we always had to get back to doing another. Unfortunately, the website wasn’t as reliable as it should have been. There were times when we’d come back from scavenging to find that none of our progress had been recorded on the site. This would have crippled our night, but there was another little work-around that trivialized the game even further; we discovered that you could unlock the artifacts directly on the website without even scanning them in.

From there, it was simply a game of “find the prompt that you feel like writing about” and the book was finished by 4:30 am. That coded message in the stacks I mentioned earlier was really the only aspect of the game resembling a puzzle and it was the most ignored aspect, too. Some pieces of paper were found in the stacks, each with a symbol (to represent each of the aforementioned frivolous powers) and a single syllable of a word. One of the organizers was wandering around with the papers in her hand, so when she mentioned their origin, I immediately asked to see them. I spread them out on a table, but could not see much sense in them at first. Then I looked at the “VIP” badge that I was given (as was everyone) when the game began; it had the ten symbols visible on one side. From there it was as simple as organizing the papers with their symbols in the same order as the badge. Their corresponding syllables came out to: ve ni mus vi di mus ___ rum scrip sit. We were missing the seventh symbol, but the rest was easy: venimus vidimus librum scripsit - Latin for we came, we saw, we wrote a book. (Note: Yes, I am taking most of the credit for figuring this out.)

The game could be declared a success if your only measurement was the book that was produced, which will be kept in the library’s archives forever. But lost on the way to the goal was the part where we actually learned about the past and made a difference in the future. How interesting was the book? Without an editor or a filter, how good could the words of 500 sleep-deprived people be? This game coincided with the Library’s 100th anniversary and was used to drum up some publicity, but it felt like there was a lot of missing nuance to it. Maybe some deadlines were missed and the scope was pulled back. Maybe we have a lot more to learn about ARGs that even the experts don’t know.

I will say this: put into the framework of a game, the act of writing a book (even if we each only contributed a couple pages) was enjoyable and inspiring. I don’t know if the motivation was very efficient, as the game itself took months to plan and by itself probably had more than 600 pages of copy and documentation to accompany it. Even though the loopholes found in the game allowed us to skip most of the mechanics and trivialize the game, we were all able to meet new people and share an experience that nobody else will ever have. That is, running around the Library at 3 in the morning, hopped up on Red Bull and coffee.

Artificial Intelligence and Rationalism

2011-05-15T20:49:00.002-04:00

You may not be aware of this, but there is actually an organization that is working to protect mankind from a self-aware artificial intelligence (AI) that will be infinitely more intelligent than we are, and thus a huge threat to our existence. It is called the Singularity Institute and they are taking donations. When I first heard about this effort, I wondered if it was real, and when I then heard that their main group of benefactors come from the rationalist community, I was flabbergasted. Artificial Intelligence is a field where huge leaps of innovation are sure to be made in the future, but the highly specific worry of a self-improving AI that can potentially destroy our civilization is straight out of science fiction. The fact that otherwise rational and intelligent people are putting their money into this cause is more than a little disheartening.

It’s a great topic to muse about, though. Nearly all of us have read stories or seen movies about robots and computers that think thousands of steps ahead of us, which end up making decisions for us and controlling our actions to their own benefit. We all have had our imaginations seeded with this idea and so it is not easy to stop ourselves and think, “but then again, this is all speculation.” The line of thought usually goes as follows: if we can build a self-improving AI, then it is then possible for the AI to continually improve. Given enough processing power and memory, an AI could potentially raise itself up to the same level of intelligence that we have and then go even further. Once the AI is so far beyond our intelligence, it would then be able to manipulate us in ways we cannot even predict. This is the fear. This is the fiction.

From a rational perspective, there are so many things wrong with this idea, that it makes it almost too easy to pick apart. The most basic of these being the fact that we have never witnessed a greater intelligence, therefore we have no evidence that one’s existence is possible. Not only is the possibility of greater intelligence pure speculation, but the capabilities, intentions, and logical conclusions that a super-intelligent AI might reach are also pure speculation. I called it a specific worry because, given the nature of reality to manifest itself in particularly novel ways, we somehow think that we’ll give birth to Skynet by accident. Allow me to call it the “god program.” Its powers are mythical; they demand respect in so far as we can imagine them being beyond our grasp. From an investment standpoint, it seems like a poor way to spend time, money and effort.

I’m not saying that it is impossible for a higher level of intelligence to exist, I’m only saying that there is no precedent for it. Anyone familiar with the chaos that pervades the happenstances within reality would find it a far better cause to, say, come up with a survival plan in the case that Yellowstone blows its top, or a giant meteor crashes into the Earth. You know, let’s worry about things that have happened many times before and are almost certain to happen again. The risk of a malicious AI that we cannot control can be filed away next to the Extraterrestrial Diplomacy Initiative and the time travel survival kit.

Let’s play the game though. Let’s assume that computer development and brain research will continue on its path. We will become more capable with each passing year until, eventually, we can both model every neuron within our brains and conduct them, like a symphony, within a computer model and thus create an intelligence equal to ours. Then, given the predicted improvements in computer processing power, this artificial brain will race ahead, leaving our sad monkey brains in the evolutionary dust. It will find the best ways to learn and it will mold itself into a beast of a thinking machine. Of course, even laying out this path brings to mind a hundred logical gaps that I’m ignoring. For one example: much of human progress is made through experimentation within reality, but a computer is only able to work with known models that are programmed into it. Without inputs and outputs that would allow the computer to interact with the world on the same level of intricacy that we do, it would have no way of learning any more than its own pre-programmed environment.

For an intelligence to outwit us, it must first know us. And not just one of us; as many profiles as can be assimilated. It must be able to observe us on a macro scale, and then, here’s the crux, experiment on us. It simply does not follow that an AI can self-improve within a vacuum. It’s predicted that computers will have the same processing power as a human brain by the year 2029, but power is useless without discipline and focus. While all the great minds are busy writing papers about what intelligence is or may be, it all amounts to mental bukkake for all of its practical use.

We can dig ourselves even deeper down the rabbit hole if we’d like. We can assume a computer can not only be smarter than us, but also more capable, as a foregone conclusion. But once we do, we start to realize that our speculative reality has an innumerable amount of dependencies. Who is to say that tactile robotics will progress at the same pace? What if politics end up ruining the progress? So many things would have to go according to plan. The complexity needed to replicate human intelligence, while somewhat plausible (only because we have convinced ourselves on arbitrary evidence that it can be achieved), requires us to develop in 20 or 50 years what 3 billion years of evolutionary trial and error has granted us through a highly random and improbable path.

Our intelligence is more than just our brain structure; our bodies themselves and our individual origins shape how we interact with the world. While in no way do I believe in some unreproducible spirit that drives us, I feel that even our ideas of what a perfect artificial intelligence are will run into far more barriers as we progress than we can now anticipate. But then again, that is speculation on my part, just as the whole notion is to begin with.

Rational Charity

2011-05-14T03:03:00.003-04:00

Big givers make the news. We all know about how generous Bill Gates has been, and if you’ve been keeping up with this blog, you probably know of a few more generous faces whose individual donations amount to more money than most of us will ever earn in a lifetime. But, by far, the bulk of all money given to charities is in the form of many smaller gifts sent by people of average wealth. People give for a number of reasons, too. It’s not always about helping a cause; some people donate to impress their boss, while others give because they want to leave a legacy behind. More still just give because someone held out their bucket and asked. Charity is not always a rational endeavor in which a giver seeks to do the most good with their money.

For those of us who are concerned about our money going to the best charities, the site Charity Navigator is globally accepted place to turn. There you will find ratings and statistics about charities, but is that all there is to the story? Some factors can’t be defined by mere numbers. Take, for instance, the case of the Play Pumps. These were a seemingly ingenious fusion of two unlikely items; a playground wheel that children spin around and a water pump. The idea was to have children play on the wheel, which would generate the pressure necessary to pump water in African villages where electricity was unable to do the job. The invention stirred up an astounding amount of charity support and play pumps were installed at will. Nobody saw the potential shortcomings.

The Guardian newspaper reported in 2009 that children would need to play with the pump for 27 hours a day in order to pump enough water to meet daily needs. Allow me say that, as a kid, the playground wheel was fun, but it wasn’t THAT fun. I’m sure the poor children felt the same way, and while the pumps were effective while they were playing, no child can play all of the time. So, when the children weren’t playing, it was left to the women to spin the wheel to pump water. Not only was it tough and potentially humiliating, the wheel took considerably more effort to get water flowing than the old hand pumps, which in some cases had been removed when the play pumps were installed. Now tell me what number can warn you about those consequences.

Enter: Give Well, an organization devoted to finding the best charities, using a much more involved approach than sorting out financials. Their methodologies bring to light a number of crucial angles that charities SHOULD be graded on, but aren’t. Aimed at donors who are really concerned with the effectiveness of their dollar, Give Well has chosen a handful of stand-out all-star charities that surpass the norm of standard aid organizations. Some of their reasoning in choosing the best charities may surprise you and even make you arch your brow, but you cannot deny the final result: if you give to one of their recommended charities, your money will do more good than harm with a guaranteed efficiency that you can’t get by giving elsewhere.

Giving aid is much more than throwing money at a problem. In fact, sometimes throwing money at a problem can only make it worse. Picture disaster areas like Haiti, with only one working airport and badly maintained roads. How many organizations can operate in that area before it becomes a clusterfuck? Give Well advises against donating to disaster relief. From a purely rational standpoint, there is no guarantee that you will be contributing to the benefit of the situation. Sometimes more aid is not needed, just smarter aid.

Just like disaster areas can suffer from too much generosity, so can the typical siphons of everyday charitable efforts. When a charity’s aim is too narrow, it can miss the big picture. Much like the play pump story, there are unseen effects of giving too much. Entire communities in Africa have forgotten how to farm because their food has been given to them for the last two generations. They now suffer from an unsustainable lack of cultural work ethic that comes with having your basic life needs donated to you without any effort on your part. It is important to know, when you give to a charity, how exactly they deliver their aid and what the potential long-term effects are.

Then what happens when a charity receives more money than it has the capacity to utilize? Many organizations are sitting on a mountain of cash and make no effort to inform their potential donors of their financial situation. A good charity will either have a plan for utilizing excess cash or will only ask for what it needs. This is one of the angles from which Give Well peers into the guts of an operation and their recommendation only comes when there is a clear sense of responsibility.

There are many different types of charities performing different types of deeds, so who actually thinks it makes sense to rate them all by the same metrics? It’s important to take a charity within the context of its mission. A charity that provides logistics management for a group of clinics doesn’t feed a starving child or teach people to read or even vaccinate a baby, but it allows health care to work with amazing efficiency, which, in turn, becomes a far more effective investment in saving lives than simply buying more supplies. You wouldn’t be able to figure that out if Give Well didn’t take the time to uncover it. Village Reach, their most highly recommended charity, provides those logistics.

The hottest form of charity these days is microfinance, but, surprisingly (or not?), Give Well doesn’t recommend it. You can probably guess that there are more factors in play than giving a simple interest-free loan to some poor entrepreneur that may or may not be paid back, but by offering up a pay-back rate as a success statistic, sites like Kiva.org are only obfuscating the real measure of success. In truth, when you provide a loan through a micro-finance site, you are just giving money to an intermediary which then loans the money to the poor, high-risk client at interest rates around 35% (on the year). On top of that, you don’t get a tax break for any of your generosity. The pay-back rate, as well, is a bit of behind-the-scenes magic, as loan recipients are often hassled to repay, even if their investment goal failed. The more telling metric for success in microfinance would probably be the drop-out rate, which is the amount of users who used the service only once, due to its hassle. That figure is well above 50%.

Giving to those less fortunate comes naturally many of us, but the effort necessary to find the best way to invest in our fellow man evades nearly everyone. Give Well doesn’t recommend the ONLY worthwhile charities, nor do they spend much time pointing out the bad ones. Their efforts go into picking out the best ponies for the race; the ones that are the sure bets. That’s extremely valuable when we care not only about doing good, but also making a real, measurable difference. It also serves as a lesson that information can be misleading, and there are far more facets to the simple act of giving than just good intentions.

The Demon Has Left The Body

2011-05-02T00:37:00.002-04:00

You’ve taken one man and you put him in front of you.
And you put him in the newspaper for every day.
With something to focus on, with something to look at.
It’s interesting!
And they make him very very very exciting.
A devil of every type in description.
Everyone’s nightmares.
Everyone’s boogeyman…

Everyone’s boogeyman

Exorcize by Seabound

Let's cheer the killing of the man who hasn't figured into politics for seven years now. We call him a mastermind, but he is best known for catching us with our pants down. A one-hit wonder. We sing for his demise but the artifacts of our obsession with him will linger: the Patriot Act, the TSA, the DHS, and the military budget. Only after the security theatre act is dropped will I believe this is anything more than barbarism. A good ol' public lynching.

That boogeyman was getting old, anyways. We need a new one now. Someone to dress up like a fine little devil. Let's deify a new evil. Let's make him sharp this time and let's give him a voice. We're too smart to be fooled by a VHS recording, give us someone we can really fear. Maybe then we'll trust you to make the decisions that are best for us. And we'll thank you for helping us sleep. Counting those sheep jumping over the barb-wire fence.

Understanding Self-Help

2011-04-27T14:46:00.002-04:00

I recently found myself in a discussion with a friend when I rattled off a few examples of bullshit that I don’t respect, Deepak Chopra being one of them. My friend was quick to pounce on this example, as she herself had been influenced by Chopra to make changes in her life that resulted in a positive outcome for her. And that’s great; it’s always good when peoples’ lives improve, no matter what the motivating factor is. Chopra, though, shouldn’t get all of the credit for the turnaround, I argued. Self-help is a seedy minefield of sketchy advice and complete bullshit. There are many good ideas to be had when browsing through that section of the bookstore, but there is also enough woo-woo to make a skeptic’s eyes detach from their optic nerve from rolling too much.

The problem is not simply bad advice, though that can pop up from time to time if an author is a complete bullshit artist. For example, the book Rich Dad, Poor Dad offers some ethically questionable strategies for gaining insider information. Though the book’s premise is positive (financial independence), the author himself is not an investor, just a motivational speaker and following some of his strategies could land you in jail. Obviously, these kinds of blaring oversights are rare, but bad advice can appear in more subtle forms. The widely accepted method of raising children has evolved greatly over the past centuries, from what would now be considered child abuse (early 1900’s advice: the less contact with your child, the better) to unhealthy coddling, all thanks to authors giving advice based on anecdotes and hunches instead of science.

More annoying and potentially dangerous than blatantly bad advice is the coupling of good advice or intentions with completely bizarre spiritual claims about how the universe works. The popular video What The Bleep Do We Know tells its viewers to ask the universe for something and the universe will deliver it. Do people realize that the same group that produced the video also believe that the spirit of a 35,000 year old warrior named Ramtha inhabits the body of a middle-aged woman? Not exactly the best people to be taking advice from. The video combines sensible and competent descriptions of quantum mechanics with absolutely batshit crazy extrapolations for how those same quantum mechanics allow you to affect the universe with the power of your will alone. The same principles described in What The Bleep Do We Know are found in the bestselling book The Secret and its sequel The Power.

Deepak Chopra’s own “teachings” are not much different than those of The Secret. He has a gift for constructing luxuriously worded sentences that impress his followers, but have absolutely no meaning whatsoever. His methods of inducing confusion by talking over the heads of his audience do three things for him: they give him the appearance of a guru whose knowledge is far beyond comprehension, they give his audience a vague understanding of his meaning, allowing them to see whatever they want to see in his words, and they allow him to make up arguments out of thin air due to the lack of standard definition to the terms he uses. If he were a magician, his tricks would be distraction and optical illusions.

That, of course, does not mean that he doesn’t have anything useful to say. But advice is not a universal truth and just because someone gives you a tip that works for you doesn’t mean that their tip works for everyone, and it doesn’t mean that their other tips will work for you, nor does it mean that the other things they have to say about other subjects are valid as well.

Let’s look at self-help advice through a practical view. Here’s a bestselling tip we’re going to analyze: in order to get what you want, you must first relinquish your attachment to the outcome. How does it work? Somehow, the universe will get you what you want, as long as you don’t try too hard. Not only is this tip quite vague, it seems to lend itself to our basic tendency to find patterns and likenesses in everything. It is basically saying, “It will not happen exactly how you imagine it in your head, but something similar will come along and you’ll be just as happy with it.” From an advice standpoint, that is quite a practical thing to say, but to insinuate that the universe has your back is absolutely asinine.

Now let’s get a little deeper. The above tidbit of advice is called by Deepak Chopra “The Law of Detachment.” Now, if we were to take him literally, it would mean that this law is just as immutable as a law of nature. However, just off the top of my head, I can come up with a few general examples of when this and Chopra’s other “laws” fail to enforce themselves. These new age “gurus” preach about positive thinking, but no amount of positive thinking is going to save a starving child or a target of violent prejudice. In essence, these universal laws are reserved for only those already fortunate to have enough money to be able to afford the book and enough time and education to read it in the first place. Let’s also not forget the people who succeeded in life by relentlessly pursuing their passions and goals. I know a few. Law? Bullshit.

Self-help only seems to work because the population that benefits from it is a self-selected sample. Those who are already successful don’t need self-help. Those who haven’t been helped by self-help books don’t purchase them. Those who can’t benefit from it are besieged by far more pressing issues than picking up a book from Barnes and Noble. Meanwhile, the superfluous ideas that people get from self-help books distract them from the real world. The same people who buy into new-age philosophical bullshit shoveled out by these books are the same type of people (statistically, these traits are highly correlated) who think homeopathy works (hint: it doesn’t) and who think vaccines are more dangerous than helpful (they aren’t).

From one perspective, self-help is all about getting the most out of your potential as a human. From another, it’s an epidemic of sheer stupidity that ignores the gravity of the decisions we make. It is an exercise in mental masturbation where we tell ourselves that the universe takes care of us and we forget that it should be the other way around. While these self-help gurus want you to make your life better, they possess no real knowledge of any spiritual realm or laws. The advice they give you may very well address your personal problems, but it can also make you blind to all the others.

An Overview of Moral Evolution

2011-04-22T15:26:00.003-04:00

Morality: Principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behavior.

A very disturbing argument was made to me yesterday regarding the origin of morality. Morals, it was stated, are passed down through authority. I don’t believe I’ve been so repulsed by an argument in a while. And thus, we shall commence with the demolition of this sad idea. Morality comes about through its own evolution; it is derived out of common sense and communal experience. Authority has nothing to do with it. In fact, morality enforced by authority is not moral at all, as it is coerced, like a lie said under threat of torture.

Let us not mistake laws for morality. Let us also not mistake our governmental laws with religious laws. Most laws are meant to maintain structure in society and have very little to do with morality. Laws that do concern morality, in modern liberal societies, are usually focused around preventing absolute degradation (stealing, raping, killing) and are rarely concerned with petty moral issues (expression, manners, personal domain). However, when laws do enforce petty issues (prohibition, anyone?), they are perpetually challenged and breached by people who know fully well that they will be punished if caught. Why? Because to enforce such standards of behavior is not moral at all. And that is how we know law to be separate from morality; law itself can be immoral.

This is not to say that anyone breaking a law is just or moral in doing so. That’s just another reason why laws have little to do with morality. Breaking laws is more about evolving morality than defining it. To clarify how morality is affected by evolution, we have to think about how a moral code is formed from scratch. Take the Internet for example. Twenty years ago, this new form of communication started to get popular and we realized that the world was changing. The Internet was a lawless state and it took the government years to understand it enough to establish rules. The creators of the Internet did not issue any decrees beyond establishing the standards of infrastructure. Netiquette, as the basic code of Internet morality was called at the time, was mostly a democratic undertaking.

Today, there are laws that govern the Internet, but they either steer clear of morality or get trampled on and decried when they get too close. Morality has become the domain of the individual community, not the net at large. There are different variations (species, if you will) of moral codes that you will encounter depending on the site you visit. Individuals are able to choose which community’s guidelines best fit their desires and, in doing so, cast their vote for the survival of their chosen set of morals. In this way, morals are memetic; they undergo their own evolution over time. A thousand years from now, our current morals may seem barbaric to those of that time.

Religious laws are different from governmental laws in that they are considered to be immutable, which causes a bit of a dilemma when people consider them to be unjust. More on that in a moment. Another huge difference between common law and religious laws is that common law provides a baseline of morality, an absolute low point under which we will not tolerate. Only when one drops so far below the norm will they be punished. Religious laws, on the other hand, demand ideal behavior at all times, threatening absolutely grave and horrible punishment at the slightest mistake.

And once again, what does one do when they feel that a religious law is too strict to be practical? They ignore it. Why? Because, morality is more about common sense than it is about following directions. Christians, for example, choose entire swaths of biblical law to ignore. Depending on the denomination, you could be observing one law in the bible while ignoring the one that comes right after or before it. The bible tells you that it is OK to keep slaves, to rape, to sacrifice your children, but you find the thought of all that to be reprehensible. Moreover, you are willing to ignore the passage that tells you that all laws are immutable and still in effect because that, too, is unfathomable. Congratulations, you are more moral than the bible. And you now know where your morals come from; your gut feelings of how people should be treated. Not the authority of a supreme being.

Because morals undergo their own evolution, they will change over time. This illustrates how morals transcribed into holy books over a thousand years ago appear so archaic and are very unjust to us today. It is why immutable morals are impossible to maintain. It is why absolute authority is an ignorant position for anyone, even the supposed creator of the universe, to hold.

It is important to point out, once again, how morals and laws are separate. Laws do come from authority, but as the definition above states, morality is the distinction between right and wrong. When enforcing a law leads to being unnecessarily cruel or restrictive, people tend to decide for themselves that the law is immoral. This may cause the law to be repealed. In this way, morality determines laws, not the other way around.

Not only are laws and morality separate, it is dangerous to equate them or to have them define the same limits of behavior. In the case of biblical laws, which set the bar unattainably high, we are made to feel guilty with every slip-up. But guilt loses its novelty when it is applied too often. When we become accustomed to guilt, it no longer works as a prevention device. Guilt then becomes a solvent and the mental barriers keeping us from being even less moral begin to break down. While that sounds like a slippery slope argument, it is well documented in behavioral economics studies that people become less moral when they mentally detach from the effects of their actions.

How would you feel if your friends were only nice to you because their parents would beat them if they weren’t? You might not even call them your friends, knowing this. The idea that authority dictates morality under threat of force is just as uncomfortable a thought. I’m nice to people, not because I would get beaten up otherwise, but because I like how they treat me when I am. The key lessons here are that positive reinforcement is more influential in determining positive morals than punishment and anything done under coercion is neither positive or moral. Also, morals are more than just what you shouldn’t do; they are also about what you should do. And you should do it because you like it, not because it’s bad that you don’t.

Game of Thrones, Episode 1 Review

2011-04-19T15:00:00.002-04:00

Last year, my dad insisted that I read A Game of Thrones, a task that I considered more an obligation to a parent than a personal pleasure. As the chapters progressed, though, I found myself fully engrossed in what I would eventually consider to be one of the best fiction books I’ve read. I’ve since read the following two books in the series and I am halfway through the fourth, pacing myself as I await the release of the fifth book this summer. In any case, given my enthusiasm for this story, you could imagine my excitement when it was announced that HBO was turning the first book into a TV series. Talk about geeking out. I have been following the production for months now and have finally watched the first episode.

I tried to watch the show from two perspectives; one of a fanboy who knows the story by heart and one of a newcomer who knows nothing about any of the characters or even the lands that they inhabit. Other fictional properties have the luxury of being so ubiquitous that even people who have never seen to read them can recognize them. For instance, I know a lot about Harry Potter despite never reading any of the books. George R R Martin’s world of Westeros, however, is more of a well-kept secret. There are no neologisms or memes to be spread because the books shy so far away from the novelty of classic fantasy that they may as well be filed under “period drama” instead.

Indeed, the things that make the books so compelling are the political struggles between families and individuals and the absolutely brutal treatment of the characters that the reader loves. Unique storytelling in that fashion is exactly what people flock to premium television channels for these days, but one thing that the books do best, conveying the thoughts of characters through internal dialogue, is incredibly difficult to do on the small screen, with only an hour to cram so much into.

The vast lands of Westeros and Essos aren’t the only epic things about the Song of Ice and Fire series. The immense list of integral characters is both robust and complicated. As a fanboy, this calls for a lot of “ohh! I know who that is!” moments, but it also means that fully realized characters will be introduced to the television audience without their full histories, which makes their motives and mannerisms all the more understandable.

One other problem with adapting a novel to an episodic television series is that of episode cohesion. Typically, each individual episode within a series will have a single unifying theme that ties it all together and provides a frame for the events within it. Novels are not written with this in mind, which means that a faithful adaptation may struggle to provide enough structure within each episode to keep the viewer’s attention. It is with this point that I begin to reference the actual show that I watched and what I thought about it.

Knowing full well, from early reviews, that the show does its best to stay faithful to the novel, it is easy to recognize that some very important interactions and character building moments are being glossed over in a sort of compulsory fashion. I can imagine a conversation about it afterwards between a casual viewer and a die-hard geek, where the geek rolls his eyes and says, “Well, ACTUALLY, they mentioned that earlier in the episode, but I guess you weren’t paying attention.” Therein lies the crux of adaptations. Do we service the fans or do we do what’s right for the medium? Episode 1 is pure fan service.

And what service it is! Naked breasts everywhere! Even on very important characters. I’m no prude, but I felt that this cheapened the appeal of the show and took valuable screen time away from the infinitely more important story. In early press releases were comments about how the show had enough sex and violence to appease the audience, which, as an eager audience member, I felt insulted by. I don’t watch a show for breasts and beheadings; I want to be treated to writing and directing talent. I didn’t read A Game of Thrones with one hand on my dick. If your show needs the more carnal elements in order to float, then I would rethink your strategy.

It’s spoiler time, so unless you know what is going on, I would suggest skipping to the final paragraph!

Everything was clearly rushed and shoehorned into an hour's time. If I were to put my own stamp on the storytelling, I would have cut out the prelude scene and I would have taken more artistic liberties with streamlining the story around the events and characters that moved the story forward. Some characters were mishandled and showed up without the pretense they needed. For example, Jorah Mormont's introduction to Danaerys was unconvincing and simplified. "Hello, I'm your knight." "Oh great, I guess I will trust you now." No, that won't work on TV. We needed to see some serious fealty swearing going on.

Similarly, the way the episode ends is shocking, but not nearly as much as it should have been. Basically, we end the hour with 3 characters whom nobody really cares about yet because of their lack of depth, and then are forced to witness something that should be really impactful, but comes off as a mere cliffhanger. Cersei and Jaime, well, the audience knows they're naughty because they act like pricks, but unless you were paying extra close attention to their earlier scene, (which you probably weren't if you are new) then you might be more confused than intrigued by the fact that they're fucking. Then there's Bran. Adorable, yes, but not nearly as strong a character as he needed to be in order for us to feel sympathy.

Tyrion and Arya, two of the more enjoyable characters in the books, were introduced to the TV audience as nuisances. I absolutely abhorred the tack of turning Arya into nothing more than a bratty child. Part of her appeal in the books is that she has her own intelligence and imagination, but is thoroughly misunderstood. Her brief appearances in the show establish her as nothing more than a troublemaker. Tyrion's introduction, it seemed, was just a ploy to get breasts on the screen. What a mistreatment! While he has a moment with Jon that is quite satisfying, the audience’s first impression of him, I felt, should have been one of sympathy, not revulsion.

From too much carnality to too little; the Dothraki wedding lacked the real brutality that I was expecting. I hate to be so nitpicky, but you could totally tell the men were "fucking" the women while fully clothed around their vital parts. That made it so cartoonish and PG-13 to me. While the production quality had been so impressive up to that point, it suddenly felt like an extremely cheap B-movie. I suppose it is a given that barbarian scenes are inherently corny, but I was taken aback by this oversight.

But hey, I enjoyed the show none the less. Viserys and Dani's interactions were much better than I had hoped for. Sean Bean is great as the only sane man in a room full of crazies. And its only the beginning. It wasn't as good as some of the other premium channel stuff that's out there, but I won't write the series off based on one episode. I will be watching the next episode, and the next after that. After all, my favorite upcoming scenes, if done well, will make for some of the most compelling television we’ve ever seen.

Metabolizing Love

2011-04-15T16:46:00.000-04:00

Does having a scientific view of mental processes sap all of the romance out of love? Movies and books have always tried to convince us that love is a profoundly human phenomenon and it is exactly what prevents us from being scientifically defined and packaged. When we’re being oppressed by some advanced, emotionless alien race that sees us as mindless biological wind-up toys, BAM! The human spirit comes to the rescue and we show them passion that supposedly cannot be defined in scientific terms. When a robot tries to be a human, it is always love that they try hardest to understand. We like that these sensations are intangible, nebulous and full of mystery. When someone comes along and starts putting love and passion into clinical language that you only hear in a laboratory, we say, “Stop! Get your geeky hands off love!”

Love is... love is... oh, forget it. If I try to define love, you’ll just deny it. No, love is too grand to be defined by a mere sentence, isn’t it? That’s the way we like it. But if you take the view that our perception is merely a cocktail of chemicals sloshing around in our brains, punch drunk love is merely an indulgence of the right compounds, brought on by sips of laughter and gulps of expectation. We’ve all got our favorite recipe, but that’s about as unique as love gets. And that doesn’t mean love is any less enchanting.

When I see a hot girl looking at me, I certainly don’t think, “My dopamine levels are peaking!” I think, “Oh shit, she’s beautiful!” Likewise, with more intense feelings, I am not shrinking back in a paranoid cave within my mind and going, “It’s only chemistry, it isn’t true love!” I’m living it up! Maybe, upon reflection, I look back and think about the neurological processes that just occurred in my brain, but even that line of thinking is one of fascination.

You can’t take the romance out of love because romance is an integral component of love. Love isn’t a joke that you can kill by explaining it. If things are genuine (or at least appear to be) then there is no diminishing its power. However, therein lies love’s telling truth. Love can be faked or mistaken, which belies its psycho-behavioral roots. If love were this ethereal, spiritual thing, I think it would result in a lot fewer false positives.

While we cannot pin down love to its exact chemical components at this moment, it does not mean that it cannot be done in the future. As it stands, we are actually quite far away from such a breakthrough in our knowledge. The point is not to look at our limitations now and assume that we’ve come as far as we ever will. Nothing is safe from knowledge. One day, we will learn what makes love work, in a mechanical sense. And people will still fall in love after that because regardless of all the cold, unfeeling molecular processes involved, it still feels damn good.

Hey, it could happen.

2011-04-13T15:44:00.001-04:00

Ok, let me get this straight. You concede that scientists might be on to something when they describe the Big Bang and evolution. Yet, you think that God had some part in it all. That means:

You believe that 13.75 billion years ago, god set the universe in motion. He arranged all of the atoms in the perfect state so that about 9 billion years later, in the midst of a vast chaotic landscape, the Earth, one of more than a trillion mid-sized planets in a random corner of the universe, would be created within a violent cloud and, after another 3.5 billion years of biological evolution, plate tectonics and mass extinctions, human beings would appear and work to acquire enough collective knowledge to eventually acknowledge his existence? Meanwhile, God, surveying this massive universe that he’s created, looks down at this planet (that accounts for 0.00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000003% of the total volume of his entire creation) and decides to take a vested interest in each of the 7 billion humans who happen to be alive at the time? Oh, and he requires that each of these humans pay homage to him and restrict their daily behaviors and natural inclinations to his bidding.

Right.

"Science Can't Explain That"

2011-04-12T09:47:00.003-04:00

When we apply the phrase “science can’t explain that” to any concept, (for example, what we perceive to be the supernatural) it represents a combination of laziness and pride. The idea that science can’t be used to explain something is a sign that an idea is in its dieing throes and requires one last ditch defense before it is completely exposed for what it is. We must build a barrier of enforced ignorance around it. We must say, “No, science cannot touch this. It has been encroaching for a while now and it doesn’t belong here. We’ve seen science do its thing. Fire was once a gift to us. Life was once the kiss of the gods. Now it’s all just a chemical soup. No, you cannot have my supernatural.”

We then pledge to simply stop learning; to stop asking questions. After all, science only gives us more questions, but our explanation of what’s supernatural is simple and easy. It just is. It is everything we cannot know. In that way, we can mystify and glorify it. We can bond with it because we can personify it. It loves us and supports us. If we were to expose it as a latent chemical reaction within our brains, all of that magic would be lost. Why, we would be nothing but mistaken, flawed beings. And this cannot be so.

One binding characteristic of a supernatural thought is that everyone’s idea of it is unique. Because it cannot be measured or confirmed, it becomes an idea that people develop for themselves within their own mind. And this is where the term “binding” is used quite astutely. An idea is a possession and any attempt to dispel it is akin to theft. It’s quite threatening to be told that you’re wrong about an entire segment of your reality; one that you filled in the blanks yourself. And to be wrong also means that there are some genuine questions that remain to be answered with rigorous adhesion to discipline.

Why can’t we just say it can’t be explained and move on? Because we’d be wrong. We’d be lazy and prideful and wrong.

Follow-up Note: Some of my readers and friends have been saying that I'm wrong, but I want examples of where I am wrong. If you were to say that science can't explain love, I would reply, "If I could give you a combination of artificial memories and conducive chemicals in your brain that would alter how you feel about someone, to the effect of love, then would you believe me?" You might reply, "But science can't do that." And I would then say, "No, not yet, but there is no law of physics that says it can't in the future." And that's the point. No, we don't have all the answers at our fingertips, nor do we have all the means to the answers at our fingertips, but to flat out say that we never will... is absurd.

6 Subtly Subversive Bible Verses

2011-04-07T12:51:00.000-04:00

We know that the bible contains sex and violence. It condones slavery and rape. It has arbitrary rules for trivial offenses. It is a minefield of despicable values that believers cherry-pick their favorite verses from in order to cast it in a healthy light. But do the believers realize that Matthew 5:17 keeps all of the Old Testament laws (including shellfish being an abomination, as well as wearing cloth of different types) intact while Luke 16:17 basically says that all biblical laws are immutable? Probably not. But these are quite obvious problems that Christians have to shovel away. I'm actually more amused by the subtle jabs that are contained within the bible. Here are my favorites:

Genesis 4:16

And Cain went out from the presence of the LORD, and dwelt in the land of Nod, on the east of Eden.

This passage establishes that god is not omnipresent. It's simple; if you can be out of the presence of the lord, then there exists parts of the world where he does not cover. More than anything, it sheds light on the old ways of thinking where gods were locational presences. It establishes the Abrahamic faiths to be just as trivial as the ancient gods of the sea and mountains and forests and what have you.

1 Corinthians 5:12

What business is it of mine to judge those outside the church? Are you not to judge those inside?

While many Christians are of the live-and-let-live variety, it is important to point this value out. Nearly every time I speak with a Christian, my lack of faith is judged. They think that I must have sorrow in my heart, or else I would not reject their god. They think I am a pitiful person in the inside and I am just waiting to be saved. How demeaning and intellectually dishonest.

1 Corinthians 11:14

Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him?

The popular depiction of Jesus is that of a white man with a beard and long hair. Is it that readers skip over this passage or do they completely fail to make the connection? I would not call this a contradiction so much as a scab on the surface of a so-called perfect faith.

1 Corinthians 13:11

When I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I put childish ways behind me.

Funny, this is what rationalists think when they look at how believers behave. The belief in some invisible father figure who watches over you, waiting for you to fuck up so that he can punish you is quite a childish sentiment indeed.

Galatians 5:2

Mark my words! I, Paul, tell you that if you let yourselves be circumcised, Christ will be of no value to you at all.

I figure this is quite poignant in America these days. Though circumcision is on the decline, it is still very much the norm in this country. That means that Christian families hold on to it as a tradition of normality. Little do they realize that they are separating themselves from their supposed savior.

Ecclesiastes 3:19

For what happens to the sons of men also happens to animals; one thing befalls them: as one dies, so dies the other. Surely, they all have one breath; man has no advantage over animals, for all is vanity.

This is the most subtle verse of all. Many believers subscribe to the chain of being in which Man is placed along a hierarchy where god is at the top and animals are below. This is where the revulsion comes from when someone suggests that we "evolved from monkeys." We couldn't have come from lowly, filthy animals! Well, here it is, right there in the good book; we are no better. Have some humility.

Running From Grace

2011-04-03T19:16:00.001-04:00

A friend of mine has been putting together little "mix tapes" with music to fit various moods. Being a lover of many types of music, I can totally appreciate this. In fact, his initiative has inspired me to do this in my own style. Instead of compiling a mix to sustain a certain mood or energy, I've decided to instead take the listener on a little musical journey.

Running From Grace

The music I've selected is, above all, very atmospheric. When you listen, it takes you to another world. We begin the journey in the clouds, with beauty and intrigue. Slowly, we descend to the open air, with heavy beats weighing us down. Eventually we reach the high skyscrapers and the industrial layer of civilization laid out across the surface. And then, we are under, diving deeper and grasping on to the last thread of serenity before the chaos of Earth's core envelopes us. And where do we end? Oblivion. Dancing the entire time.

Playlist:

Conjure One - Redemption
Delerium - Incantation
Synaesthesia - Andromedia
Pro>Tech - Erotic Ontology
Equinox - Nova Man (remix)
Front Line Assembly - Synthetic Forms
The Alpha Conspiracy - Wishing Never
The Retrosic - Bomb
Reaper - Weltfremd
Combichrist - Without Emotions

Running Time: 62 min. 31 sec.

Download it here.

And please, let me know what you think.

Fallout Shelter Interview

2011-03-30T14:26:00.001-04:00

I was recently interviewed by the New York Post for a little fluff piece about fallout shelters. The reporter and I walked around the neighborhood that I work in until we found a sign. She then filmed me photographing the sign, as well as walking to and away from the camera. There was a brief interview and she ended up only using two lines from it, filling the rest of the piece with random people on the street. I also see that she managed to find some of the fallout shelters that I pointed her toward.

Check it out and tell me what you think:

As a bonus, here is an article that I was briefly questioned for over email. Hardly any of the information I gave ended up in the article, but they were kind enough to give me a link buried within the article.

Impostor Atheists

2011-03-28T15:50:00.002-04:00

Most believers who talk to me always mention that they used to be an atheist, too. Then, of course, they saw the light. “I used to think the same way you do,” they would say. I doubt that. If they did, they wouldn’t be so caught up in the mysticism of the things they “can’t explain.” Most of these discussions reveal that these believers did not have a logical understanding of god’s lack of existence. Rather, they had an emotional grudge against him. Emotions are no way of proving anything, and so it is quite understandable that their supposed atheism, based on a fickle attitude toward a mythical character, gave way to the equally emotional position of belief.

“I hated the idea of god and I refused to believe that he could let the world work like this. Then something happened to me and it opened up my eyes.” A typical story. Solid atheism is not a gut feeling or a denial. By definition, atheism is just a lack of belief in a god, but are you rely denying a god’s existence if you’re offended by its notion? No, that is another argument; that of moral superiority. To really be an atheist, you must go beyond how you feel about a situation and found your disbelief on your knowledge.

It would seem like the killer argument: I was once one of you, but I saw how wrong I was! After all, it is a tale most atheists tell themselves. However, I have yet to hear a single “former atheist” cite logical reasoning and lack of evidence as their foundation for their previous disbelief. Even impostor atheists like S. E. Cupp could not rationalize their god away. It is the kiss of death.

“I totally get your logic and I agree with you, but faith isn’t about logic.” So true. So true. But here is where the real understanding of atheism comes in. If belief is not about logic, then it is subjective. But if your subjective reality does not match the reality that others see, then you are most likely perceiving things incorrectly. When logic no longer makes sense in your world, your world no longer makes sense to anyone else. You become an island of unique faith in a world of opposing ideas. It’s true that most of the world believes in god, but everyone believes differently. While you may find yourself in a community of like-believers, it makes no difference on the global stage.

If your emotions are so sacred and personal, why is it that I can give you a pill or a shot to change them? If you are the embodiment of your soul, how come I can prevent the two sides of your brain from talking to each other and turn you into two completely different people? If half of your brain is an atheist, do you still go to heaven? If your religious experiences are divine in origin, how come I can induce them manually by changing the balance of chemicals in your brain or affecting the magnetic fields around your head?

If I were to have a religious experience as described by the converted, the first thing I would do is not trust myself. I simply would not believe what I just saw. I would ask other people if they saw the same thing. I would think about all of the memories, feelings and fears stored in my brain and consider how they might have fired all at the same time. I would be wary of over-writing my initial memory of the event with new, made-up memories. I simply would not believe it. Why? Because YOU are always the weakest link to reality.

Now, a friend of mine brings up a valid point: if emotions are nothing but chemicals within your brain, so is your knowledge. If one can’t be trusted, how can the other? The main difference between emotions and knowledge is that knowledge is shared. If I want to ensure that I know something, I need only check it against a reference or two. Or three. Emotions are different for everyone. Nobody reacts the same way to the same stimulation.

Using emotions to describe your reality is pure folly. Your feelings on whether god exists or doesn’t exist have no bearing on the actual situation. If god existed, your hate for him wouldn’t affect a thing. And since he doesn’t exist, no amount of love for him will ever pop him into being. I learned that lesson when I gave up trying to stop time like that girl in Out Of This World. The difference between atheism and impostor atheism is the difference between logic and fallacy, reason and whimsy.

Fallout Shelters of New York City (UPDATE)

2011-03-20T00:23:00.000-04:00

I would like to call your attention to a blog post I made a year ago in which I shared the pictures from the urban exploring I've done in NYC. You see, I love collecting pictures of all the fallout shelter signs I come across. Nobody notices them until you point them out, but they are everywhere. They were placed in the early 1960's around the time of the Cuban Missile Crisis and have since lost their significance, but they remain posted on countless buildings throughout the country.

Recently, with the earthquake in Japan stirring up nuclear meltdown scares, a lot of people have been interested in fallout shelters and Google searches have increased tremendously. I thought I would take this opportunity to update my old post with a new batch of photos. In fact, earlier I went exploring Harlem and Morningside Heights and ended up finding 11 more signs.

Meanwhile, I have been asked by several students and journalists if they could use my photos and data for their projects and articles. I'm quite honored by this consideration, so I feel doubly motivated to keep working on this little hobby of mine.

The Unreported

2011-03-15T09:20:00.002-04:00

My favorite intellectual concept is that of missing history. Most stories that we know about the world are fairly two-dimensional. We learn understandable causes to simple effects. Normally newspapers and history books leave out the uninteresting tidbits because they are assumed to have no effect on the story. Other times, entire chunks of the story are left out so that the narrative can resonate with an intended tone. And because we are always missing details, our perception is often skewed.

Last Monday, I found myself at a debate in which six physicists traded knowledge and opinion about string theory and other unified theories. I’ll save the details for another blog post, but the thing I want to share the most is a question that I had as I was leaving the venue. Neil deGrasse Tyson, the moderator of the debate, asked a simple question of one of the panelists: “It took one man (Einstein) four years to develop the general theory of relativity, but tens of thousands of people have been working on the string theory for over 20 years and still have not been able to prove it. Should we start looking in another direction at this point?” From this statement, I quickly came up with my own question: How many physicists had been working on the same principle with Einstein at the time?

This is one of those unanswerable questions of knowledge that was never reported and never will be. I mean, it sounds quite impressive to pin it all on one man, and Einstein WAS quite a genius, but the stories would sooner have us think that he came up with the idea in a vacuum instead of during collaboration. Today, even though we have thousands of physicists working on a problem, one person will get credit for the breakthrough that happens next. Reading the history of scientific discoveries in Bill Bryson’s A Short History of Nearly Everything, you begin to realize that accomplishment (and by extension much of history) is merely a narrative crafted by the victorious.

The most confounding and motivating unreported gap in history is the fossil record. Simply put, there have been billions of animal species on this planet, entire branches off the tree of life, that we will never know existed because they left no evidence. Soft-bodied creatures of mystery. The process of fossilization is, well, difficult. You have to die in the right conditions, and then your corpse has to have the luck to be kept intact for millions of years until mineral deposits replace your skeleton. With all the tumult that the Earth goes through, we’re asking for some extreme luck. Not to mention, your fossil has to end up in a place that a human will actually look. Millions of years later, we’re left with a sparse collection of ancient life in comparison to the immense range of species that we currently live with. It is likely that we’ve uncovered less than 0.1% of the total species that have ever lived.

Sometimes the unreported is not in the gaps, but hidden behind the partial truths. Politicians and businessmen are masters at telling only half the truth, if any part of it at all. The newsmen are right there with them. With all the honors that were bestowed upon Pat Tillman by conservatives upon his death, would you ever know that he was an atheist? Statistics are often used to back the narrative, even if they don’t really prove a thing. For instance, demographics can be too general and are often influenced by many factors. Often, quantities are used when rates are more honest, and vice versa. The greater point is that with everything you read and everything you are told, the best question you can ever ask is, “What am I not hearing?”

This Week In No God

2011-03-14T16:03:00.000-04:00

After struggling for a while to come up with a new topic that I had enough ammunition to go off on, I've decided to write a journal-type entry. Now, a lot of my friends like to chide me about how I constantly buzz around the topic of there being no god and it has become somewhat of an easy joke to make. I don't mind it much, but it wouldn't hurt to be known for something other than writing a blog about how there is no god. Besides, I often wonder why I continue to look for things to write about on the subject. It's not like I'm trying to squeeze out the last bit of doubt out of a paper-thin toothpaste tube. That shit is empty.

I feel that at this point, if you were to read my blog in its entirety, you would be left with hardly any arguments unaddressed. I may not change a believer into a non-believer (as stated before, this is not my intent), but I think that if someone were to have an argument for god or against atheism, somewhere in my blog is a post that refutes it or at least dismisses it (if you think you have one I skipped, post it here and I'll slap it right back at you). I guess what I'm trying to say is that I think I've exhausted that topic.

What's next for Don't Feed The Animals? I'm a lover of many things and my personal life is always busy, so I may start to fill these pages with more intimate tidbits. I've posted plenty of personal things in the past, and even made posts saying that I'll be doing it even more, but I've always had a problem sharing myself. My friends and family (and maybe even my employer) all read this blog and I worry about revealing the wrong things to the wrong people. I am a man of many facets and not all of them wholesome.

This may just become "Andrew: The Blog" which might be fine to read. But maybe not. I enjoy having readers who read me because I write on a subject, not on myself, so I don't want to let anyone down. I constantly remind myself of an Eleanor Roosevelt quote: “Great minds discuss ideas; Average minds discuss events; Small minds discuss people.” With it, I try to focus on ideas far more than other things.

I do find it quite ironic, though, that as I write out this post about not being able to think of things to write about, I start getting ideas....

Evacuating My Soul

2011-03-07T11:10:00.002-05:00

The concept of a soul is one of the most persistent ideas throughout the history of religion and mythology, and it continues today as both a safety blanket and cattle prod for believers of all types. A soul is such a fundamental concept that it is easy for even atheists to find themselves thinking in terms of its existence. Death, for instance, is hard to imagine without putting yourself in the shoes of your ghost, looking down at the scene after you’ve passed. We also cannot help but care about our lasting reputation, even though we will not be around to hear the praises or curses. The soul is a vehicle for our worries and wishes, and it is both disappointing and comforting to know that it doesn’t exist.

Modern knowledge of how the brain works effectively fractures the standard model of what a soul is. If drugs can change how you think and how you feel, then who are you really? If you could split your brain in two and have one half believe in god and the other half be an atheist, which side truly represents your soul? Does half of your soul go to hell? If you can neurologically induce an out-of-body experience, is it any evidence of an eternal soul? Those who venture an answer do so without any facts to back their reasoning.

Many believers believe because they are afraid of what it means to be wrong. What if you won’t be reunited with all of your dead relatives when you die? What if all the questions you have about your life will go unanswered? What if you never get to watch your children grow up? What if everything you’re doing to make your dead parents proud will never be known to them? What if all the rituals you’ve devoted yourself to were just to keep you busy?

I can’t count how many times I’ve heard my aunt claim that my dead grandmother was watching when the family was gathered for some event. She’d see a butterfly or the sun peeking from behind the clouds and say it was a sign. When I was young, I had a nanny that we called Grandma Lucille. She made me want to be a good kid and when she died, I would feel weird because I thought she was watching me while I masturbated and shaking her head in disappointment. Granted, it didn’t stop me.

There are moments when I forget that I don’t believe in souls. They are too enticing to give up sometimes; I consider it a guilty pleasure to let my imagination explore all of the things I will learn as my eternal soul drifts about the world for billions of years after I die. I’ll get to see the human race either solve its problems of overpopulation and pollution or be overtaken by them. What drama! I’ll get to see how evolution treats all of our most familiar species, even us. I’ll get to see the amazing technology that we can’t comprehend even now. I’ll get to see the end of the solar system and the heat death of the universe.

But, of course I’m getting ahead of myself. My life will end when my brain stops working. My conscience will fade out and it will never return. I won’t be around to see myself lying there dead, or to witness the drama (or lack thereof) unfolding about the massive hole I left in the world. I won’t have any feelings about what killed me and I won’t get to live again, just as I have never lived before. All the knowledge I gain and kind deeds I perform will have no currency because there will be nothing for me. There won’t even be a moment where I realize that I’m dead.

Struttin' My Stuff

2011-02-27T22:16:00.002-05:00

I’ve labeled myself in my circle of writer friends as the guy who writes things that offend people. In fact, it’s quite a cause for inside jokes when I write something that’s actually not offensive. Meanwhile, my girlfriend knows that I’m a really sweet guy under all of this and wonders why I have to put up such a nasty facade. Then, there are the comments from people who think my message would be better served with a helping of compassion. They think that if I conveyed my points with more courtesy, it would make them more likely to be heard. These are nice sentiments and all, but I don’t write to convert people.

I’m aware that sounds odd coming from me. Most of my articles about atheism and skepticism are written in a persuasive manner, talking directly to readers who disagree with me. But I know as well as anyone that a mind cannot be changed by a mere tactical nuke of logic. If I based my success or enjoyment of writing on the number of people I’ve deconverted, I would have quit a long time ago or at least changed my tactics. Neither is my blog a place where I get off on bashing others for their life choices. Sure, I’ve said some pretty strong things about believers of various types, but I believe these words are well earned by the damage these people do to society (for example, creationists).

The constant battle I fight against religion and, in general, the belief in god, is not about ego or my own personal judgement of the people who find themselves on the wrong side of the argument. It is about the struggle we must all go through in order to realize the truth of things. If a creationist were to credulously perform an about-face on their beliefs as a result of my arguments, I would not get a shred of satisfaction from it. After all, the same credulity lead them to believe the Earth was created in 7 days to begin with. It would be like pushing open a saloon door; by the time you were through, it would be swinging back in the other direction.

My own atheism comes as a result of years of learning about the world and struggling with multiple issues that never sat right. Nobody walked up to me and told me that there was no god and I suddenly became a minister of the Flying Spaghetti Monster. What a sorry group we would be if that were so for all of us. No, atheism is earned against a variety of struggles; more than any blog can represent. What I do here is illustrate each of those struggles and my triumph over them.

My passion for learning about reality and realizing its implications often manifests itself as a stampede of the toughest love imaginable for the people who hold their blind faith so truly. That’s why its offensive. In basketball, we dunk a ball with emphasis to rub in not only our athletic prowess, but the other team’s inept defense. When it comes to logic, atheists are the slam dunk champions. Don’t like being posterized? Get off the court.

My articles are only as effective as the doubt that already exists in my readers’ minds. I’ll admit that I love to debate commenters when they pop up, but I see it as putting on an exhibition when I’ve already skated away with the gold.

Laws of Mediocrity

2011-02-21T14:03:00.000-05:00

Everyone always wants to remind me that I can’t know everything, like I don’t know that already. They want me to know that there are things that are impossible to know and also that the things I do know can obscure the things that lay beyond them. And I know that all the same. When I celebrate what I have learn by sharing it with others, they try to make me doubt, like I never did. It irritates me because they don’t know that there are a few general rules that reality follows. I suppose I must spell them out now. I call them Andrew’s Laws of Mediocrity. They explain why it is OK to be quite certain, cocksure even, of various aspects of reality:

1. Law of Boring Physics: There is no such thing as energy that you can feel, but not quantifiably measure. There are no such things as chi, auras, spirits, or souls. Unfortunately, people will insist that they exist long after all the physical and mental effects that each is supposedly responsible for is rightly attributed to mere chemistry, paranoia or evolutionary adaptation.

2. Law of No Purpose: There will never be a scientific discovery that reveals any sort of planning performed on the quantum or readily observable plane by non-natural life in which an entity exists or an event happens for the sole purpose and intention of whatever comes after it. One cannot derive intrinsic meaning by observation from a single perspective.

3. Law of Apathy: One’s will alone is not nearly enough to alter reality. Reality doesn’t care how you feel about it. Regardless of if you were around to perceive it or not, reality would behave the same way it always does. The only thing you can change with your thoughts is your mind.

There you have it. Reality always follows these rules and any ideas you have that conflict with them are doomed to fail when you test them.

Moving In Winter

2011-02-14T23:36:00.002-05:00

My sinuses were raw like a rug burn and I couldn’t stand another night at the YMCA. My new apartment was waiting and I saw no reason why I shouldn’t move right in that very night. I packed a change of clothes, some toiletries and a towel, leaving the rest of my belongings with my new roommate in his superheated, tiny rented room. The effort of lugging my deflated air mattress with me through the freezing winter night warmed me in my thin summer clothes.

I sat forward in my seat through every stop on the subway, counting the stations remaining, fighting sleep and reassuring myself that the call to ConEd two days before had done its job. Then, with a few full breaths for motivation, I scaled the stairs with my bags in tow until I found the door that accepted my key into its lock.

The apartment was as cold as it was dark, but a single flip of the light switch would… wait… no. Shit. There was no power.

I locked the door behind me and shuffled into what would eventually be my bedroom. I dropped my things to the floor and toggled the light switch there a few times. More deep breaths propelled me from room to room, as I begged for the electricity to flow. Nothing.

It wasn’t until I had staggered back to my bedroom that I began to worry about the heat. The radiator pipes echoed hollow and dead as I turned the valve as far as it would go in either direction. Stepping close to the window and peering out, I spotted a bank’s signpost with the temperature blinking between flashes of the time… 10:46 pm… 8 degrees.

Fuck.

I didn’t know how to make this work. Without power, I couldn’t inflate my mattress and its tarp-like plastic made neither a comfortable bed nor a warm blanket. My towel was large, but not long enough to cover me, nor thick enough to have any sort of padding effect. Only then did I realize I had forgotten my pillow as I tried to adjust against the hard wooden floor. Shivering and forcing my eyes closed, I tried to focus on the whispering of the cars rushing by on the Major Deegan Expressway directly below my window. But I was only fooling myself by trying.

Hours of struggle had me weak, but all the more angry and resolute. An idea came to me and I pushed my deflated mattress to the side and stood. Stalking into the bathroom, I leaned into the shower and turned the hot water on. Within a minute, I could feel the warm redemption starting to fill the tiny room through the overhead nozzle. I immediately stripped off my clothes and stepped into the tub.

And just as soon, the hot gave out and I was sprayed with a mocking torrent of ice water. I aired out my lungs in a scream of fury and frustration and closed the pipes as tight as I could. Watching my disbelieving breaths puff from my shaking lips, I broke down into tears. I thought of my family back in LA, in a land that never gets cold, in a house where heat was usually expelled. I thought about the 180 lonely blocks I was from my only friend in this brand new city. I thought about my job and my car and all the other things I left behind to follow a dream… and I hugged myself tight, sobbing loudly.

Then I thought about my music. I thought about how I loved to sing and dance and let out all of my frustrations. So I reached for my towel with shaking hands and dried myself off. I pulled my clothes back on and I untangled my headphones. I turned on my MP3 player and began to move. And as I moved, my blood started flowing and my body warmed up. My mouth begrudged a smile and I danced. I did it until the sun lit the hills of Riverdale just off in the distance, until sweat cooled on my forehead and a new day began.

The Sin of Willful Ignorance

2011-01-30T21:24:00.001-05:00

Recently, I have had the displeasure of witnessing a rash of creationists refer to evolution in terms of monkeys and how we supposedly come from them. Aside from the fact that they are technically incorrect to insinuate that we come from monkeys (we come from a common ancestor, of course) what irks me the most is the disdain they show for the notion. So much is said with a question. "You probably believe that we all came from monkeys, don't you?" Evidently, the notion of evolution's absurdity to them is eclipsed only by the disgusting idea that we would be related in any way to a dirty primate. They should know this sensation better in terms of their faith; it is the sin of pride.

Aside from their faith, I think there are two things keeping creationists from acknowledging the evidence for evolution: First is the fact that they have not observed macroevolution and second is the displeasing idea that we are, in fact, animals. We can point to adaptation, the DNA family tree and even observe speciation, but it takes such an immense amount of time for one animal to turn into a completely different kind of animal that we may never witness macroevolution first hand. Still, the thing that bothers me the most is that people discount the truth of an idea simply because it makes them uncomfortable.

We are related to monkeys. There is no disputing it. What? Did you think we weren't animals? Did you think we somehow shared the same skeletal structure, DNA structure, internal organs, feeding habits, and biological processes as animals and weren't related? Willful ignorance is the worst kind.

Intellectually, if you understood how evolution worked and were only hung up on the macroevolution bit, the solution would be so close that you could realize it with just a little thought exercise. Unfortunately, nobody lets themselves get that far because of how revolted they are at the notion that they could be cousins to primates. Biblical thinking relies on an established order of being, where humans are higher on the ladder than other animals. More pride.

My girlfriend tells me I shouldn't call people stupid just because they have different beliefs than me, but creationists willingly cast aside intelligence in favor of a fairytale. What's worse: getting an F on a test and knowing you need to improve or getting an F and thinking its an A+? They're idiots. All of them.

An Exhausting Exchange

2011-01-27T20:40:00.000-05:00

It all started with another insane Facebook update from my sister. For those of you confused by its formatting, it is a conversation between her and god:

M_____: God-Be still and know that I AM GOD. M_____-but God, being still doesn't define anything! God-no M_____, you being still and allowing ME to be who I AM defines ME, I AM GOD.

I promised my family that I wouldn't bother her any more regarding her religion, but the crazy in this one was too much. I had to reply:

Andrew: On the off-chance that there is no god, wouldn't it be better to be active and hedge your bets? Surely, a benevolent god would not blame you for working hard to help yourself. And if it turns out that god is just a voice in your head all along, well, at least you got up and did something instead of waiting around for something to happen to you.

Not surprisingly, my sister replied with more inane god stuff.

M_____: lol. thank you for your input brother. I know beyond a shadow of a doubt that God is real and He loves you and me very very very much. God helps those who can't help themselves, He meets us right where we're at. For me He meets me where I keep trying to do things in my own power and wisdom and I keep failing miserably. Gods ways are perfect and just and they always work out for the good of those who love Him. When I rely on God and He comes through everytime.

I decided to pose a question to her, hoping that she would consider what exactly it was she was doing:

Andrew: Do you think that if you stopped praising god, your life would be stuck in the gutter?

To my bewilderment, she actually decided to take it to heart:

M_____: good q brother, I don't think stuck in a gutter would even begin to describe it but I was trying to think what I would be feeling if I stopped praising God. I couldn't even imagine my life without God, Andrew. Good q though

She's opened the door to admitting that her belief is a crutch, but will she put herself in another pair of shoes to realize it fully?

Andrew: I ask because there are tons of people who get along just fine without all that extra god stuff. If I were in your situation, I would ask myself, "Why do I need it while everybody else does just fine without it?"

At this point, a friend of my sister decides to poke her head into the conversation:

Irene: Been enjoying the interaction between you two...appearances are always decieving looks like everyone is doing just great but are they? Every human being has an empty void/ a space within them that they know must be filled, but with what, ...with whom? Is it me, myself, & I, is it happiness, no more loneliness, people, peace...the quest is found in God not things, not sex, marriage, drugs, people, money, power, cars, tho nice to have, they still leave you kind of empty.You can deny the void inside you all you want, but its there. God put it there to fill you with Himself & love.We are all different individuals but intrinsically we all have the same need, a Savior. I like your straight up honesty!!

It irks me when people say that non-believers have some sort of void in them. What a pompous way to live your life.

Andrew: Irene, thank you, but it is presumptuous to say that we all need a savior. If there exists a void in me, then I fill it with learning about the world I live in, and it fills just fine. To assume that I need a savior is to state in bold print that you have never met me. Sure, I've gone through rough patches - that's just part of having a conscious brain. But I've climbed out of mine on my own. I make my own decisions, I motivate myself, I teach myself. If someone wants to swoop in and claim to be my savior, I'd laugh in his face. Please understand that your religion is for you. I'm merely asking my sister if she has bothered to really think about her belief in the context of great and varied humanity. There are over 2000 gods that people worship. The way I see it, there's a simpler way to go about life.

My sister finally chimes in:

M_____: I see Andrew, yeah that makes sence but I know that I am not fine without God. I would not have been able to get through several situations without the Love of God and His unconditional love. I know I haven't kept you informed of all thats been happening but I tell you now that I would not be alive and here and happy today without having a personal relationship with my Savior. As for everyone else I can't speak for them.

She's close... close. But then:

Irene: Andrew all humanity needs a savior, we just don't recognize the need to believe in that one thing that is greater than ourselves in every way. Yeah people have chosen 2000 other gods and eventually some find the one true and living God that fills the void within each of us. Even professed, staunch atheists have found Him in their quest for truth. Nah, this is not about religion, there enough religious zealots out there. I despise religiosity! I'll butt out now...I believe all roads in life, sets of circumstances, relationships will eventually lead us to God. It took me 32 years walking that road but I finally found the ultimate peace,happiness, & fulfillment the world always promised but never produced. Thnx for letting me share a little.

I realize that Christianity doesn't have the monopoly on peace and happiness, so what would happen if this was pointed out to a true believer?

Andrew: Irene, hypothetical: If I used the same language that you do, using words like "peace" and "happiness" and "fulfillment" but attributed it to, say, Hinduism, would you think I was lying or delusional? Would you think I was mistaken? Or would you accept that, hey, maybe this person has found the same thing I have while following a different god? I ask because it seems from the other words you use that you think that your god is the one true one, but I wonder what authority or evidence you have to back up that claim. If it is something you just know, what makes you a better judge than anyone else on the matter? I just don't think it's right to say that your god is the one true one... there's gotta be some circumstantial evidence to back it up. EVERYONE thinks their god is the one true one, or else they wouldn't believe in it. Once again, I think there's a simpler answer to it all.

Can you hear the sound of the wind blowing through an empty skull?

Irene: ok, if there's a simpler answer to it all, what's your interpretation of it? Response to question: I would think you are misled in your beliefs. Wouldn't call you a liar or say you're delusional tho. Why worship a stone or statue and say "this is my god." Christianity is not a man-made religion like all the other 2000 gods out there.True Christianity is based on the Bible, the spoken & written Word of God.Not enough space in this little fb box to break down circumstantial evidence for you. You search it out, you find out for yourself. Fact is Eastern religions have borrowed phrases&words like happiness, peace, wholeness, etc from Christianity & Christian traditions for centuries. My standard is the Word of God, the Bible,the Scriptures not whether or not the lines have been blurred between truth & error through their eclectic nature.Eastern religions are counterfeits.I believe Jesus is the Son of God, they believe he's an enlightened teacher. I believe our salvation was purchased by the blood of Jesus they believe in the process of integration, my focus is Christ-centered, theirs is man centered. I believe that power comes through Christ, they believe it comes through themselves. I believe in God's wisdom, they believe in their own...Are you Hindu?

And then I dropped the bomb:

Andrew: Irene, I am an atheist and it is because I pay attention to religion and apply critical thinking to it that I will never believe. You claim that eastern religions borrow from Christianity, but it is Christianity that is the newcomer here. Hinduism, for instance, predates Christianity by more than 1000 years. How can one be counterfeit if they came before? Furthermore, what makes the bible the word of god? I can write a few phrases on a napkin and raise a child to think that is the word of god, too. Jesus is a generally good moral figure, but the bible is filled with atrocities and despicable acts by god. Yet, Jesus and god are the same, so what does that ultimately make him? What power are you speaking of that comes through Christ? Are you willing to demonstrate it? If all you have to show for your belief is a heightened state of self-esteem, I can point you in the direction of several drugs and mental conditions that supply the same. If one claims that god does good things in their life, then whence comes the good in the lives of non-believers? Let's be frank here, you mince words when you say you would call someone misled, but you wouldn't call them delusional. You really have no authority to say either way. I mean, within Christianity, there are hundreds of ways to interpret the bible - what makes yours the right one? How can you say that over someone with just as much fervor?

When I was younger, I had a little revelation of logic. I realized that the world is full of religions; some more alike than others, but ultimately different ones. The catch is that each one needs to be THE ONE or else it wouldn't be necessary for its believers to follow it. So it comes to this: either one specific variety of one specific religion is THE ONE... or none of them are. Which do you think is more likely? What religion do you think you would be if you were born in the middle east? What religion do you think you would be if the vikings had successfully taken over Europe? Believers like to ask atheists, "Well what if you're wrong?" Well, what if YOU'RE wrong?

As it is, you can show me no empirical evidence that god exists. Perhaps an anecdote or two, sure, but how reliable is the human psyche to trust in such a matter? Remember, there are billions of people who swear to their last breath that you're the wrong one.

The key to this all is perspective and I think that many believers lack the ability to think through the minds of people who disagree with them. I consider this to be one of my favorite traits. Using it is how I came to be an atheist... and a pretty happy one at that.

Thanks for reading.

Not long after I wrote that, the air was sucked out of the room by the gaping void of another believer's intellect butting in:

Tiffany: Very interesting topic-converstation. To say that God doesn't help or that you don't need Him to get by is something that will one day soon change for you. Tell me, how do you know the wind exists?

One day, my friend you will have to bow before a God that gave you several chances, like now and confess that He is God. You may not believe now that God could even love a human being like you or that you can rely on yourself to do things, ...but we will be praying for you. To not tell you that God loves you would not be right. I am a firm believer that when anyone states that they are atheist, it is because they don't want to give God a chance... That's what born again Christians have said and done....then one day.....they decided to make the best choice ever. You will see. God Bless You, brother.See More

I'm hoping to put an end to this soon:

Andrew: Tiffany: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind#Cause This is grade school science class stuff. Shouldn't you know this already?

But you bring up a good topic here. Why SHOULD we bow down before god? What has he done? According to the bible, he's... a despicable character. Judging by what he does to people during times of war and famine, I would consider it a completely immoral act to praise such a terrible being. I would feel sickened to be on the good side of such a vile creature. Now, you can believe that an atheist does not want to give god a chance, but many atheists are former believers. Many HAVE tried. At what point do you stop trying and realize that god has nothing for you? Why tempt me with something I have no need of? Once again, this is all about perspective. Try to see the world through another's eyes and you will see parts of your world that make no sense at all.

Nothing Else Matters

2011-01-22T22:49:00.002-05:00

Follow the logic and you end up at a simple conclusion: there is no purpose in why we’re here. We are the result of a universe set in motion; an afterthought 14 billion years in the making. Our lives... hell, our entire species’ existence, inhabits naught but a sliver of time’s whole. We are insignificant. Nothing we do in our lifetime will ever have enough impact to be felt longer than it takes the sun to die. (And don’t get semantic on me, I’m trying to be poetic here.) So why do we do anything at all? What drives us on when there is no intrinsic motor?

I see this question in many forms. Piers Morgan asked it of Ricky Gervais, I’ve been asked it many times, and most believers think of it the instant they realize that the lack of a god means the lack of a purpose. Without a finish line to run to, how do you know which direction to run? Why do anything when it does not matter? The asker will aim their question down the bridge of their nose. To them, there is no point without purpose. I would like to disagree.

Much like a star is a giant elemental factory that creates heavy elements and radiates heat, we are factories of another type. We generate pleasure. We can make pleasure for ourselves and for others, we can take it all the same. Much of what we do, or feel we ought to do, is guided by the pleasure it bring us. For many, we need no more motivation to do something than the good feeling we get out of it.

When I say pleasure, I don’t mean just sexual pleasure. There is, of course, the pleasure we feel when devouring a nice meal, or the pleasure we feel when we look at ourselves in the mirror and like what we see. Then there is the less-obvious pleasure of helping others and receiving their appreciation. Further obscured is the pleasure of living in a world where there is less hurting than before because we did something... anything to improve it. Pleasure comes from everywhere and we grab for it any way we can.

There are ways of life that shun pleasure and make you feel guilty for feeling it, but for what? When you know there is no god or afterlife, it makes all of that self-inflicted misery seem quite silly. We have, on average, 80 revolutions around the sun to experience life and the first quarter of those are usually spent figuring out what the hell we want to do with the rest. For many, the last quarter can be plagued by nagging problems. Who knows what perils exist in the middle. That is all to say that we don’t have the time to beat ourselves up when there is no shortage of things willing to do the job for us.

Is a Kindle better than a book?

2011-01-15T14:24:00.001-05:00

I like looking at my bookshelf. It's not very grand... in fact I gave away most of my books over a year and a half ago when I moved between apartments. However, the accumulation of knowledge is signified by the rows of vertical spines, each varying in height, width and color. Each one means so much and they add an air of intellectualism to my otherwise bacheloresque studio apartment. A physical book has long stood for the thirst for knowledge and there is even a little prestige to it; my friend whose family owns a rare book store can attest to that. So you can understand why I scoffed at the idea of an Amazon Kindle or similar ebook reader whenever I saw them.

My dad had the same opinion. His library is much larger than mine and he a more prolific reader than I. But we have a funny tradition in my family. Typically for Christmas or his birthday, my mom will buy the latest gadget on the market for my dad... and he'll hate it. She'll return it and then the next year buy it again for him and he'll love it. Well, a while ago, my mom bought Dad a Kindle. He was skeptical, as predicted. He didn't send it back, but it collected dust for a while, waiting for him to get curious.

One day, while talking to my dad on the phone, he brought up the subject of his Kindle. Apparently, he couldn't get enough of it. Where he used to read a book every month or so, he was now reading one a week. He found that it significantly improved the book reading experience for him; it had him really enjoying not only the books he read but the process of reading them and purchasing them. I was still skeptical.

But Christmas was approaching. While we are not in any way Christians, we still celebrate the holiday with a gathering of family, a tree, decorations, and piles of wrapped gifts to be opened in the morning. So this last Christmas had me peeling away the wrapping paper that covered a brand new Kindle, but I found myself more curious now as my dad's enthusiasm for it had absorbed into me in the earlier months. I dove right in and started playing.

That is not my hand...

A Kindle is better than a physical book in many ways, equal in others, and inferior in none. The most important part, the readable surface, is just like a piece of paper with ink on it. It isn't like a computer monitor or phone that uses light to project an image; it is more similar to a calculator or digital watch, but with much higher detail.

The second most important part is the reading experience. This is where the Kindle completely revolutionizes the act of reading for me. I like to read in many different positions because my body does not like to sit still for very long. As it happens, some of the most comfortable positions for me to sit in are some of the worst to read a physical book in. The act of reading one side of a page, then the other, and turning the page... these are things many consider to be part of the pleasure of reading. A Kindle will make you realize just how tedious that all was. Now you can read in any position and all you need to do is click a button that rests on either side of the device to move the pages forward. It's fucking wonderful.

The list continues; the Kindle is lighter than any book, is one device for 3000 books, and allows you to bookmark, highlight and write notes. You even get to see the lines that other readers found inspiring. The battery life is nigh eternal and it even has an experimental web browser. I love reading again.

As I look at my bookshelf, I start to realize how little use I get out of it. Each book is read and then placed there to sit. They accumulate and mesh together to tell a story; a story about me, the reader. When people visit, they look through my books and tell me how they admire the fact that I have a certain book, or the fact that I readily display the hentai that I bought in Japan for all to see. When I'm writing, I may pick up one or two of my favorites to reference, but in the end, most of them are just vanity plates.

I've been published!

2011-01-12T14:04:00.000-05:00

Glamour, Feb 2011.

A Skeptic's Dilemma

2011-01-07T00:05:00.002-05:00

I often find myself wondering why I do things like tell people that acupuncture, chiropractic and homeopathy are pure bullshit. I’m usually telling this to someone who has perceived some benefit from it and thus believes that these scams actually work. They’ve probably heard the criticisms before, too, and claim that the “so-called experts” are wrong all the time. They might even have an expert of their own to back up their story. So if it “works”, why bother debunking it? If it makes them happy, why try to shake that up? Sounds like a dick move, right? Like stomping through a little girl’s tea party and screaming, “none of your friends are real!” Well, the difference is that we’re adults, not little children. Because of this, we’re not pouring invisible tea out of an empty pot. There are lives and money involved. There is law, taxes, education and culture all caught up in the crossfire between scientific truth and wishful superstition. It’s important that we all get it right.

First, let me say that we’re supposed to be better than this by now. People are smarter, they go to school longer, they have instant access to a wealth of information, and the benefits of the system that got us here, science, are readily available for all to appreciate. There is no reason to not trust science as a reliable and proven method of finding truth. Furthermore, we should all be versed in the lessons of critical thinking that escaped the generations before us. Remember when people thought that gods were needed to drag the sun across the sky? Remember when people actually thought that blowing tobacco smoke up someone’s ass could save them from drowning? We don’t think like that anymore because we know how to test our assumptions to find the real cause or cure.

And because we’ve learned how to test things properly, we can now state quite confidently that homeopathy, vitamin therapy, acupuncture, crystal healing, chiropractic and other crazy alternative medicines do not work as they are claimed to by their practitioners. “But it worked for me!” one might claim. Yes, and why do you think people once danced for rain? Because it worked for them, too. Then, if the alternative medicine wasn’t the cure, what really worked? The answer can be complicated, which is exactly why people would rather claim that the correlation was the cause.

A girl once talked about a friend of hers to me. “She is a very negative person, is bi-polar and always has health problems. If you’re not positive about life, your health will suffer because your mind and body are linked.” Really, now? Could it not be the other way around? Couldn’t constant health problems somehow cause someone to be a chronic sourpuss? Or how about this novel idea: maybe her bi-polar disorder and her health problems are two different issues happening at the same time? The truth isn’t difficult, but sometimes people go out of their way to avoid it in favor of something conventional and compact. Because the truth is not elegantly structured with the traditional cause/effect that we look for, we make up our own without much care for reality.

Let’s look at her claim through another pair of goggles. If your mind and body are linked, how come there are happy people with shitty health and unhappy people with good health? Doesn’t it smack of a confirmation bias to look at an anecdotal example and draw a conclusion from that?

The placebo effect is the driving force behind nearly all alternative medicine. I recently found myself in a debate across a table from two fairly intelligent women. They wholeheartedly believed in the power of acupuncture and the effective ingredient, they claimed, was the participant’s belief that it would work. “But don’t you see that you are just describing the placebo effect?” I asked. These smart women might have thought the placebo effect was relegated to just sugar pills and that the world of traditional Chinese medicine was somehow something else. The placebo effect covers any perceived effect of a treatment that is otherwise ineffective. Did you know there is such a thing has placebo surgery? Tiny needles aint got shit on a scalpel.

The good news is that the placebo effect still works even when you know it is a placebo. A recent scientific study can be thanked for that one. This means that even when a grumpy ol’ skeptic completely debunks your claim that Echinacea helps you recover from a cold faster, it’ll still have whatever positive effect it might have had before you ever doubted it.

“Oh, I definitely think there is something more to reality that science can’t detect.”

I love this statement because it is incredibly revealing. It shows how little people have bothered to look into how the world around them works. Listen, if the world as it appears to your naked eyes is not enough to satisfy you, look at it through a microscope or a telescope. Don’t make up some unfalisifiable bullshit about there being “something more” when you haven’t even started to grasp the boundaries of what there actually is.

So back to the dilemma of bursting someone’s bubble when they’re happy in their own little world. This isn’t about getting off while pissing on someone’s parade. There is a lot at stake when it comes to what people regard as worthwhile medicine. Consider two treatments for a hypothetical deadly condition; one is painful to experience, but certain to help while the other is soothing and enjoyable, but no more effective than a placebo. Would you take the hard road to a recovery or would you risk your life and hope that your happy thoughts are enough to do the job? I don’t mean to discredit the happy thoughts, but it should be noted that people do get better on their own without treatment regardless of their state of mind. However, when it comes to providing a choice to people who do want to fight their condition, that softball option is often touted as being just as effective, if not more, than the harder, better method. This will inevitably lead someone to make the wrong choice because they were misled.

Now, before you start to defend the actions of the quacks who “merely want to help people,” realize that there is a lot of money to be made from bullshit. Think about the latest craze in footwear; shoes that tone your muscles as you walk. These things sell fast, but there is not an ounce of research to support their claims. That’s exactly why New Balance is being sued and other lawsuits are to follow. Nobody looks for proof; they just look for promise.

Another fine example can be found around the wrists and necks of athletes. Titanium, copper and holograms! All thought to have magical strengthening, cleansing, and balancing powers! Everyone who wears them swears by it, but not a single shred of scientific evidence can be found to back it up. Now, even if you think science can’t measure everything, surely you can understand how it is the perfect tool to judge such a remarkable claim as this. All we’d need is a study to measure the physical strength of a population of individuals before and after wearing these pieces of jewelry. Mix in a control where the bracelet is made out of aluminum or something et voila! Well, don’t even bother because instead of performing those studies, the companies that sell that shit wont bother either. Instead, they hide behind the effects of their own deception, stating, “our proof is with the millions of happy customers who swear by our products.”

Bullshit should be an illicit business, but too many people accept it as is. The people who peddle it don’t care if it really works, they care only that the people who buy it think it does. That much is easy because once people pick a pony, they’ll ride it to the finish. At the end, nobody will have learned anything because skepticism isn’t sexy and it won’t make you feel great while losing weight. So why do I feel the need to tell you you’re wrong? Because I can’t stand it when good people give away their money to swindlers. If you buy into one scam, you’ll buy into another. That’s why the highest correlate to trusting homeopathy is being anti-vaccine. The fewer people who believe in that crap, the more reasonable everything else will be. The sooner people plug into reality, the more we can invest in proven methods of research, the better it will be for all of us.

All The Lovely Comments

2010-12-19T21:29:00.000-05:00

Ricky Gervais recently wrote a lovely essay about why he is an atheist. It was published on a Wall Street Journal blog and incited over 600 comments (at the time of this writing) from a variety of readers. Some were also atheists praising the piece, while some were believers with a bone to pick. I had a fun time picking through the comments to find my favorites.

Dennis Stillings wrote:

Relying on science is selling your soul pretty cheap. A friend of mine, a prominent sociologist, required the good science seal of approval on all of his non-trivial beliefs. He died a very bitter man.
One cannot deny the existence of God no more than one can prove it. What we can do is say that we don’t have a concept of God that we can believe in—and relying on the human brain and its reason is a pathetic strategy. Be scientific. Strive to obtain as clear a view of the world and of human nature. Then, from that, contemplate what God might be like. Atheists actually are quite medieval; i.e., they start with their concept of God and then try to fit the data, and voila! It doesn’t work. They are like conventional theologians this way

When I die, will people think I am bitter just because I don't believe in god? Or will I actually be bitter because believers made my life hell? I've got a better question. Is an unnecessary god a god at all? I like how this guy thinks that the thinking process for atheists is that simplistic. It sheds a lot of light on how people argue; they imagine their opposition as impotent. Surely, these are merely mice distracted by a strong-smelling cheese!

cp wrote:

you rationalize all you want, but death will make a punk out of you
in that time you will look for him.
the human mind cannot rationalizing being alone forever,
and that is the sum of all fear in death.
if there is no god then you are truly alone
this logic cannot be mollified.
that is why atheists become more irrational over time.
at the kitchen table he knew God,
and apparently, in an instant Bob became God
we all know that there is a God
we are in mortal fear, though, at who the being might actually turn out to be.

This is the kind if person who I feel sorry for. This is the kind of person I would try to deconvert out of pure empathy. It's OK, dude! People get really worked up over their existence and, by extension, the need for there to be a god. I'm not sure how you'd go about raising a child to be OK with the fact that he's just another human on a planet of 6 billion, hidden in a remote galaxy in an unremarkable section of the universe, but its clear that some people have been deceived into believing they're more important than they really are. I'd hate to see the curtain come down on that one.

Intelligent Design wrote:

It is very easy for people to reject the notion of GOD specially when they are very successful financially. It is very sad when they even reject the notion of a creator leaving everything on random choice. But yet those same people usually are quick to name someone a genius for creating something like a pencil. Go figure.

Ok, I understand that not everyone is gifted with the ability to write a complete coherent paragraph. These guys have so much to say that they don't even bother transitioning between points. The thought process goes on in their heads but it never reaches their fingers. Even so, being poor isn't a good argument for god existing.

Alphred P. Sloan wrote:

I find it interesting that those who live in the apparent absence of the experience of God try to convince me that He doesn’t exist.
Ricky, one person that believes in one God isn’t almost as atheistic as you, they are a believer in God. How does science disprove spiritual matters? Answer me that.

I love the argument that faith is some higher state of awareness because it totally negates all of the "pompous, arrogant atheist" crap. Fine, I'll give you your cup-and-string telephone to god if I can have my humility back. Ok, now that that transaction is complete, where is your proof in spiritual matters?

Holli wrote:

God is the unknown. Do any of us believe the unknown does not exist? We all have a relationship with God.

This person's way of proving god exists is to redefine a word. Ooo ooo let me try. God is yogurt! I ate god today. It had berries in it. If god is the unknown, why call it god? We already have a word for it that people already use; the unknown.

Tom wrote:

God exists, whether or not His creation believes that He does.

Science actually proves God exists in its inability to explain creation according to any evolutionary premise. For support of this claim, please consider the number of times evolution’s premise has actually changed, and consider the number of simple scientific explanations it cannot provide … whereas creation according to the Bible is unchanged.

This guy thinks he's got it, except that he doesn't. Evolution doesn't explain creation and never has. We do have a few plausible scientific theories for creation though. And evolution's premise changing? What? I don't think it has, but maybe he's saying something bigger about science. The best I can do to understand that statement is to explain that science works BECAUSE it keeps changing. Because it improves on the previous explanation. If you want to believe a story that hasn't changed in the last 2000 years despite everything we've learned to the contrary, you're disastrously, willfully ignorant.

Anonymous 2 wrote:

Consider arriving at consciousness inside a concrete cell. Your senses would be limited to experiences within the concrete cell - the realm of science. The fact that science can not exist to explain the existence of consciousness beyond the concrete cell logically leads to the conclusion that science can not be used as a tool to conclusively establish the existence or non-existence of some external consciousness. Akin to using a yardstick to measure temperature.

Leave it to the new-agers to up the crazy one more notch. They think there is some extra intangible essence and lack completely the means to define it. Oh, well that would be scientific so we can't have that.

Chris Traglia wrote:

Anyone who believes in evolution has more faith than any born-again Christian.

Until you witness the supernatural change that can only happen to a person who accepts Jesus Christ as their personal Lord and Saviour, you cannot truly believe there is a God.

Eternity. Please consider what is at stake if you were possibly wrong about all of this.

The Bible says “if you truly seek God you will find Him”

So, what this guy is saying is that my faith outshines his. He should be envious.

Political Identities

2010-12-09T17:43:00.002-05:00

Finding a balance of what I believe as my political identity is always tough. It is the one aspect of myself that I acknowledge I do not know enough about to be sure. I once thought I was a Libertarian; absolute personal sovereignty is an intoxicating ideal, but the closer I look at it the more it seems like an immature fantasy. There is a reality that seems determined to fray the hard borders we like to declare around our neat and tidy political philosophies. Though I consider myself to be liberal, I am against a nanny state. While I support the right to bear arms, I am not a centrist, an anarchist or a conservative. I’ve never even fired a gun. Politics are nuanced ideals that take ages to refine and I am still working on mine.

I liked classical Liberalism because it was nice and clean: minimal government allowing private enterprise and the spirit of competition to optimize society. It seemed like there was evidence for this all around. When I heard that the only medical procedures to go down in price over the last couple decades were cosmetic surgeries that were not subsidized or regulated, it seemed to make so much sense; competition made them better and more affordable. Logically, then, competition must be good. And the other thing that classical Liberalism protects you against, dreaded socialism, obviously leads you down a slippery slope, the road to serfdom.

Then, I thought, what happens when other things go unregulated or when industries are in charge of regulating themselves? Disaster. The banking industry, the energy industry, the telecommunications industry and many more; all either unregulated or regulated by organizations staffed by their own members. And they are horrible for consumers and the environment. Frankly, anyone who thinks they’ll find salvation in the hands of executives who work only toward a bottom line is foolish.

But is the answer more regulation? Is it oversight and restrictions? Sometimes the most effective means are the least appealing. While one may look at Japan or China or Sweden or Germany and marvel at how they do some things better than the US, but you’d also have to take into consideration the differences in culture. Japan may have a lower corruption rate because their ancient culture is based on communal honor, not because of any written laws. Sweden may have more happiness because it is more homogeneous, not because it has progressive social policies. China may be overtaking us in technology and industry, but does that mean the only way we can compete is to shrug off human rights and become a nationalist regime?

For some people, like me, politics are very personal. Though I am not very nationalist, in fact I hate the idea that somehow my country is better than yours because I live in it and you don’t, I want to be a part of a country that tries hard to be good by its citizens. I want to be proud of my country for what it does, not because I was lucky enough to be born in it. As stated before, some countries to some things better than others, so there is no true measure of what makes one greater than the other. All that matters to me is that my tax money goes to a good cause.

A lot of people look at politics in terms of national competition. I’ve heard people lamenting that China is probably loving all of the WikiLeaks releases, as they make the US look terrible on the global stage. For this reason, they hate WikiLeaks. For me, I don’t care whose reputation the cables damage or whose plans they interrupt; information so revealing of evil is necessary for the citizens of the world to know about. If foreign relationships are damaged and prevent deals from being brokered, I’m totally willing to live with that.

The United States has been responsible for many deeds both good and evil, and I’m not sure how I feel about it. This is because I don’t know what information to trust. Taking, for example, Chile, 1973, where the elected president Salvador Allende was overthrown in a coup d’etat sponsored by the CIA and replaced by General Augusto Pinochet. Allende was seen as a threat to American economics because he represented socialism. He nationalized many US-owned mines and other resources. He worked up large deficits and though his popularity and the love of his people grew, the rich hated him because he was ruining them. In the end, he was brutally overthrown and the rich got their way. The story has been spun as a win for democracy, but it was really a win for capitalism. And this is where we start to really see the cracks.

So the moral question is asked: Sure, heavily impacting American economics and the lives of the rich is a bad thing, but is it worth the deaths of thousands of people and repression of millions more to correct it? When someone asks me to recognize all the lives lost that made it possible for me to enjoy my 100% beef hamburger in my Upper East Side apartment, they don’t usually realize how many lives that really is. It wasn’t just the American Revolution or the Civil War or any of the World Wars. Innocent people, communists and socialists, but human lives none the less, somehow had to die in order for me to look out my window of my overpriced shoebox apartment at the domed roof of the parking garage that graces 64th street and feel proud that I live in the greatest country on Earth.

So I’ve learned that there are two worlds; that of the rich and that of the common man. And the rich always win. It doesn’t matter what kind of government or economic system; there is always a ruling class with privileges and luxury and they will always act to maintain their status and secure against its failing. This means two things for anyone thinking about politics. First, one must consider how much power they have over their situation; is it enough that caring will change anything? Second, what is the most feasible way to accomplish your personal goals, given the constraints of reality?

That is all to say that no matter what your politics are, and no matter what those of your debate opponent are, some things will never change enough to please either of you.

What The Liberals Need

2010-11-23T15:01:00.000-05:00

I think the majority of us appreciate the importance of freedom of speech and human rights, among other sensible ideas. We see a lot of current and potential problems with today's world and a lot of it comes from the people in charge who don't really listen to their constituents. Lobbyists have more sway than congressional districts. The TSA can arbitrarily increase airport security without passing a law. Net neutrality is threatening to slip through our fingers. Clearly, there are louder voices that are closer to the authorities than the individual citizens of this country.

When we protest and petition, it never seems like enough. The truth is that we're all too busy to go out and march. The truth is that we are waiting for someone with a loud voice to come and speak for us. But nobody worthy is stepping up.

There are loud voices, of course, but do we really expect a ranting representative to be taken seriously? Our heroes are humble and reluctant comedians. Few have the audacity to think they speak for the moderate, rational, intelligent masses and if they do, they're usually a bit too audacious.

The conservatives have Sarah Palin who, while completely moronic, has managed to garner the support of a large chunk of the American population. She holds no office, but she is a threat. And when she speaks, people listen. However mangled a premise she runs on, you cannot deny that she has made a difference in American politics.

And there is no reason why someone from the "sanity" camp can't do the same. Why don't we have that para-official figurehead who fights for our causes? Why don't we get that one person who speaks our minds, who actually has the time and passion to devote to leadership? Sure, there are Senators and Representatives who we support, but they are part of the system and bound by politics that make their jobs difficult. Congress is rigged to prevent revolution.

If we want change, I think we have to start outside of the system. We have to find someone who not only speaks for us, but is able to be taken seriously by our opposition. We need to throw our support behind a single figure and let them speak for us. If we no longer feel that our government is by the people, for the people, let's find an authority who is.

I'm not dreaming that this person will overtake the government or somehow incite sweeping changes. All I really want is my voice to be heard, and I'm sure you do too. I want to put someone up in front of the lawmakers and have them know that this person speaks with the authority of millions of sensible people, not just a cult following. We've tried gimmicks like political parties, but effort is what holds us back; the idea that whatever we do is just a drop in the bucket kills our drive to put something together. So we need a leader.

Who? I don't know. I can fantasize during my morning shower about being the one, but nobody knows me. Is there someone out there who is worthy of our support? Do we want them to be our voice?

What's the Point?

2010-11-14T13:18:00.001-05:00

One of the more incredulous questions that atheists get when believers challenge them about their lack of belief is, “What’s the point of living when there is no god or afterlife?” It’s a valid question; one that scares the crap out of people who have basically lived their whole lives thinking that they’re only in transition. They’ve also been conditioned with the conventional wisdom that ultimatums keep people in line. That’s why people are good, they think; they don’t want to go to hell so they treat each other nicely.

But what if people were predisposed to get along anyways? What if we were born into this world ready to make nice? That notion already pushes against many believers’ ideas. Otherwise, atheists wouldn’t be the single least trusted demographic in the United States. It’s clear that there are some wild misconceptions about atheism and its inherent motivations. There is a perceived void of morality and intention that scares those who are mislead about where morality comes from. So let’s set it straight.

Human society has progressively gotten “nicer” over the millennia. What used to be a world of warring tribes has turned into a global nation of mostly amiable relationships. If we were to look for possible causes that correlate with this increase in cooperation, two stand out: religion and knowledge. It’s natural that practitioners of today’s religions see their beliefs as better than those who came before, otherwise they wouldn’t believe them. That doesn’t prove the slightest bit of causation, though. If we wanted to examine a religion for its positive effect on society, the first of many places we would look is its holy scripture. We would look for clues that coincide with today’s modern values; not only ones that support what we consider to be good things, but denounce what is blatantly bad.

The holy books of the who most prominent religions on today’s stage, the Bible (both testaments) and the Qur’an, both fail this test. They are laden with the support of modernly detestable behavior like human sacrifice, slavery, rape, anti-intellectualism, and the repression of women as second class citizens. Though believers are quick to point out that their holy books also contain very benevolent sentiments, we are forced to acknowledge that there is an external influence that determines which verses are good and which are bad. That influence would be knowledge.

As we’ve charged through the centuries, humans have accumulated vast amounts of information about the world. What began as a single spark has spread to become a vast luminescence in comparison. Everywhere knowledge spreads, humans become a little more civil. To illustrate this on a small level, believers don’t understand atheists, which translates into fear and hate toward them. These two sentiments are considered bad and they are also marked by the lack of knowledge. As an atheist, I think if a believer were to understand me more, their sentiments would be downgraded to perhaps a mild annoyance.

With every advancement of human knowledge, especially about things like psychology and sociology, comes the realization that we’re not all that different and there is nothing inherently bad about skin color, sexuality, or differences in beliefs. I remember learning about the history of Judaism and the Catholic church, noting every time when a hard line Catholic stance against Judaism was rescinded because public sentiment about the Jews didn’t reflect what the church thought about them. Furthermore, the church has had to account for advances in knowledge, backing down over time on its stances on heliocentrism and evolution. It has been religion that has been forced to adjust to knowledge, not the other way around. Thus, I can safely claim that my morality is drawn from learning about the world, not belief in a higher power.

This all brings us back to the original question. What’s the point? Why live life, moral or not, when there is no reward at the end, your consciousness simply shuts down and you’ll be forgotten in 50 years? The question, asked in such a manner, insinuates that we should just kill ourselves. But I don’t want to kill myself. Evolution has prepared me with a sense of self-preservation that I find difficult to ignore. While that sounds quite droll, it is the truth for all of us. Indeed, it is a very desperate or resigned person who willingly ends their own life. So, while we’re here, we might as well enjoy it.

Studies on the causes of happiness (for an example, check out Daniel Gilbert’s Stumbling to Happiness or Jonathan Haidt’s The Happiness Hypothesis) tell us various ways to obtain satisfaction with our lives. The most effective means do not involve taking advantage of others, but actually cooperation with them. We’re moral because it makes for a better life and this is the only life we have. We give to get. Unfortunately, many people don’t understand happiness and they look for it in the entirely wrong manner. That’s just something we have to live with though. Most of us get it.

For an average bloke, life is not very complicated. You live to sustain yourself and your family and you seek out happiness along the way. The reward is the satisfaction and friendship of those around you and of your tiny accomplishments. Who needs the empty promises of an imaginary deity when you can experience true bliss within your lifetime? Some of us, though, aim for a little more lasting impact. It would be nice to be remembered for centuries after our deaths for all the good we did for the world. We would not be around to see how we helped, but we’d hopefully fade out with a smile on our face.

Let Me Tell You About Art

2010-11-03T08:00:00.005-04:00

Last year, I went to Portugal to visit a friend and explore a little bit of the world. This friend of mine is an artist who works at an art gallery, so she took the opportunity to bring me there and show me around. The exhibition at her gallery was, well, interesting. I guess that's the word you use when you don't have anything particularly positive to say about it, but aren't put off either. There were pieces on the walls and even a room devoted to a video projected on to a screen of hanging rods. I couldn't say I thought it was cool, but I didn't let on any boredom.

The real tour didn't begin until my friend took me into her boss's office. All along the walls were works of tremendous quality and size. Some were hanging, some were leaning, but the quality was self-evident in all of them. She rattled off the worth of some as I looked them over with appreciation; fifteen thousand euros, twenty-five...

Then I found one that really made me smile. It was obviously the work of a four year old.

"Aww! That's so sweet. He took a drawing that his daughter made, framed it and put it up amongst all the other artists," I mused.

Confused, she looked to see which one I was referring to.

"Actually," she corrected me, "that's a Picasso. And its worth two hundred and fifteen thousand euros."

Later, when my friend was visiting me in New York, we paid a visit to the MOMA. I pretended not to look completely unstimulated as we strolled through the collection, but I found myself losing control of my demeanor as the day went on. First there was a small bed drenched in paint, then there was a white canvas painted white, this was followed by a totally black canvas. I had had enough, so I spoke up.

"This isn't art. This is conceptual bullshit. If this guy can get a black canvas into the MOMA, why can't I?"

She explained to me that art doesn't always speak for itself. Sometimes you need to understand the artist or the era to realize why a piece is important enough to make it on to the wall.

"Sure, historical importance may be worthy of display at a museum, but don't expect me to be musing over the genius behind this lazy crap. What does that say about art if a black canvas is given such high esteem? I think this guy just got lucky with the right delusional sucker to look at his work and gush about it." I had clearly lost control of my amiable facade.

But who was I to say anything? Here were thousands of people who pay good money every day to pace through the galleries filled with canvases that displayed nothing but dots, squares, circles, splotches, lines or empty space. There was something I was not getting.

Now we have the latest saga in my rejection of conceptual, subjective art. What is this love affair with Johnny Cash's cover of Nine Inch Nails' Hurt? Let me rephrase that. I understand why people like it. And everyone likes it. Some even say that it is better than the original. Trent Reznor himself even thinks so! Cash has essentially repurposed Reznor's angsty masterpiece and turned it into a song about regret. That doesn't make it a good song, though. Sure, it's Johnny Cash, and he's a legend, but I've never liked a song just because of the singer.

Johnny Cash's rendition of Hurt is boring and awkward. His voice is old and to hear it rattle off the lyrics that I am used to hearing from a desperate self-loathing Reznor, in a clunky adaptation with its own inflection, conjures up memories of how Julia Child's voice got creepier and creepier as she aged. The video for the song, which is also cited as brilliantly emotional, just turns me off completely because Cash is such a bad actor in it.

I don't give anyone the benefit of the doubt when it comes to art and I don't believe that an artist's previous work or life need be taken into account when appreciating a single solitary piece. I might understand if a song is part of an ensemble or a concept album, but a single must be a single on its own right. As must any work of art.

My argument is that 90% of the appreciation felt for many pieces is totally arbitrary. 10% is based on the actual aesthetic while the rest is all about someone creating an interpretation in their head. As the past beneficiary of such generous donation of emotional resources (what I mean is that someone has praised my half-assed work as brilliant and I felt absolutely dumbfounded) I can't stand it when people get undue credit for minimal or subpar effort. It's like the artist spits on a canvas and the audience does the rest of the work by building the story and meaning. Pat your fucking self on the back for liking it, not the artist.

The worst part is that when someone builds this arbitrary concept of the art in their head, they share it with others and it becomes memetic. Like a lone spectator staring into empty space who soon gathers a crowd looking to see what he does (or doesn't), one person's grand interpretation of bad art becomes the art itself. People would rather connect with each other by sharing the ridiculous interpretations of shoddy art than to stand apart and call it what it is. Crap.

Point of Curiosity

2010-11-02T12:06:00.003-04:00

If there was one thing that I am simultaneously proud and ashamed of, it would be the fact that I never put any serious effort into college. As a result, I’ve dropped out multiple times and have thus put a lot of effort into educating myself on my own. I’ve been praised for taking this route, as many people see school as a meat grinder that pumps out organized humanity into neat streams of simple-thinking drones. I’m not sure that’s really the issue, though, as there are plenty of people who take college as a good opportunity to differentiate themselves. I feel that had I been able to pay attention in class I would have been one of those people. There is something to be said, though, about being almost entirely self-taught.

I study on my own now and I only dream of going to college. I can’t afford to do so now because I absolutely refuse to put myself in debt. I’ve saved up for maybe a year or two at a good school, but certainly not 8. But what do I study now? The works of people who did go to school. I find myself longing to be part of their ranks. I honestly feel like I have the brain and the wit to carve my own path through academics, to one day be the author that people like me are reading.

They’ve told me that you don’t need to be a student to study. You don’t need to be a professor to write papers. You don’t need a grant to do research. But it helps. It helps to be immersed in a culture where your only priority is knowledge. I work a full-time job that exhausts my mental energy, but I can easily see myself energized by a good research puzzle if I only had the time. Besides, my learning only tells me the results of research, not necessarily how to do it. I can synthesize lessons in my head, but I absolutely envy those experienced enough to coax the nuances of the lesson from all the raw data that exists in the world.

Part of the problem with me and school was that I never knew what I wanted to do. I started off taking a large amount of psychology classes because I wanted to be a psychiatrist or a neuroscientist, or so I thought. I still do, to a degree. But the works of people like Dan Ariely and Steven Levitt have convinced me that there are more exciting things to be found in a field that many people never considered as exciting in the least; economics. Levitt describes economics as a great set of tools to finding answers to many things, but the problem is the lack of interesting questions. Reading works like Freakonomics and Predictably Irrational, however, tells me that all the questions that I always imagined but never thought to actually ask are really what the field is looking for.

One question that drives many of my curiosities (and my desire to spread knowledge) is that of the proliferation of information. How does information travel? While the Internet has made it possible for more people to get the same information, it doesn’t seem to be as effective as it could be. And while we can easily think up our intuitive explanations for this in our heads and call it a day, we have no actual research to tell us the truth. As Levitt and Ariely have taught me, those intuitive answers are not always right. I would love to be the one to write the book that finally settles the matter.

Levitt did something similar with one of his first papers. Everyone “knows” that more police officers lead to less crime, but it had never really been empirically proven. It could have been explained the other way, with more police being hired in response to increased crime. What Levitt did was find statistics that established a test condition that was not in reaction to any threat of crime: election bumps. It seemed simple, but nobody had thought of it before. It might have been too simple of a question for many to bother with, or it might have been that nobody had bothered to question conventional wisdom.

And conventional wisdom needs to be questioned. When the crime rate dropped dramatically across the United States in the early 90’s, people were quick to explain it with the answers that seemed most intuitive to them, but the fact was that in all their conjectures they missed the most important factor. Sure, police forces increased and the sale of crack became less profitable, but these things only accounted for a small part of the crime decrease. When the question came to Levitt, he applied his unique inquiries to the problem and came up with an answer nobody wanted to hear: Roe v. Wade. And it fit. With abortion legal, all the babies that would have been born to unwanting and poor mothers were not around to contribute to crime. Who knew?

So that’s where I’m at right now; eager to ask the simple questions that nobody has any real answers to. For my particular question, I think the knowledge of how information spreads is incredibly valuable if we want to promote education and to get people on the right side of a ballot. All I need is a way to study it.

Titanium / Hologram Bracelets and Necklaces are a Scam

2010-11-01T17:21:00.000-04:00

A few months ago, I visited the climbing wall at my gym, as I do a few times each week. That day, a nice fellow named Jorge (not his real name) was there. Jorge is a very athletic adventurer who pops in from time to time to practice. This time, he had with him a titanium bracelet that he claimed gave him energy and strength. The other climber present that day, Lindsey (also not his real name), was asking him how it works.

"I don't know, I just know that when I put it on, I feel stronger and faster," Jorge said.

Lindsey is a physicist so we exchanged knowing glances while working with Jorge to see how we could test his bracelet to see if it really had the effects he claimed.

"It was developed by athletes, for athletes," Jorge claimed.

"Yes, but remember that athletes are easily some of the most superstitious people," Lindsey interjected.

We decided to make Jorge climb a difficult route twice; once with the bracelet, once without. If the bracelet did as he said it would, he should be able to scale the difficult route with relative ease. We picked one that was less about technique and heavily favored strength for the first test. Funny enough, he struggled with the bracelet.

"Why am I having so much trouble?" he asked the ceiling.

Lindsey and I shared a chuckle, but encouraged him to keep trying. After struggling for 15 minutes or so, Jorge was lowered to the ground and shrugged at us incredulously. After a brief rest, we chose another route for the second test and Jorge took off his bracelet. He wet up with ease.

Now, our test was nowhere near scientific. In fact, I will go so far as to say that it proved nothing for either side. But I hope it planted a seed of doubt in Jorge's mind. I would hate to see him go off and encourage others to spend their money on things that don't really work. And they don't. Even the people who sell them know they don't.

Watch the following clip as it demonstrates a sales pitch for a bracelet that features holograms that supposedly send out "frequencies" to improve balance and posture. Without the bracelet, the salesman asks the customer to stand on one foot as he presses down on his arm to cause him to lose balance. The experiment is repeated with the bracelet in the customer's hand and this time he does not lose balance. This might seem like an open and shut case to anyone who wants such a simple and cheap device to have such remarkable effects. "Sold!" you might say. However, when we look closer, we see that the salesman actually pushes the customer in different directions for each test. See for yourself:

These bracelets and necklaces that go for obscene amounts of money (I saw some at the NBA store that go for $80) are absolutely useless. There is no real science behind them and there is no real evidence either. These and many other miracle devices and cures are complete bullshit. I realize that it would be totally cool if they worked, but we need to think about this stuff in practical terms. Or, as xkcd puts it, the economical argument. If this stuff really worked the miracles it did, why do we not see it being put to use in high grade industrial applications?

Review: The Grand Design

2010-10-29T08:00:00.074-04:00

Stephen Hawking's new book is very short and dense, but I was both encouraged and frustrated after reading it. I am determined to make this review equally short and dense, so let's begin with the good. The book itself represents a major publication from a man known by many people and it is his declaration during these times of controversy that there is no need to use god to explain our existence. Though the details that he gets into are tough to understand for anyone who is not already familiar with the terms of physics, most anyone is likely to have at least one friend who can understand what is going on enough to explain it to them. The point is that this information is out there in a format that is more likely to get people thinking than an hour-long lecture given a year ago hosted on YouTube by an obscure scientist.

With that said, the inner skeptic in me is not impressed. Hawking prepares us by introducing what's called the M-theory and proceeds to obscure it by saying that even physicists don't completely understand it. While the book spends a lot of time covering established knowledge, the explanations are not quite intuitive. For instance, I realize that it is impossible to imagine what 11 dimensions might look like, but it would not hurt to bring me into the loop on what each one represents. This way, I don't come away thinking that it is just an arbitrary number that was put into place so that things make sense. To put it another way: are these 11 dimensions testable or do they only exist because the idea wouldn't work any other way? I thought the Wikipedia article on M-theory explained it better than the book itself. We're left to take Hawking's word for it that all of this fits together somehow.

I don't pretend to know too much about physics and I certainly don't know more than Stephen Hawking, but as a reader, I constantly have arguments with the author (in my head, of course) about the salience of their arguments. Hawking, for instance, tells us that a sign that a theory is weak can be identified when the theory is constantly adjusted with provisions to accommodate new information that conflicts with it. Now, this might be the most bone-headed thing I can possibly say, but I'll say it anyways: when Hawking explains that the number of dimensions supported by string theory had to be expanded to accommodate this new M-theory, that sounded to me an awful lot like the special pleading he was warning about earlier. Even if it isn't the same thing (I'd love for someone to explain it to me), he wasn't careful about avoiding that association.

The book ends rather abruptly, with all the new exciting stuff packed into the last chapter. When I put down the book, I did not feel anything more than preached to. While I felt that there were some important things that Hawking touched on, I don't think he took the time to make them sound like I could understand them anywhere near as good as he does. I realize quantum physics and string theory are not particularly digestible, but I find it hard to believe that they defy description. Even some colorful storytelling might have sufficed.

So there we have it. A plausible explanation for how the universe could have come into existence on its own. The book took all the excitement out of that statement by not even trusting the reader to understand the core principles of the theory it uses to come to this conclusion. The line that the media pandered around, about lighting the blue touch paper, was quite melodramatic when compared to the tone of the rest of the book. I would have loved to see such colorful description when reading about dimensions and quantum possibilities, but that remains an opportunity lost.

Suspicions and Speed Reading

2010-10-28T08:00:00.001-04:00

I have never felt ashamed for being such a slow reader. I like to actually understand what I’m reading. I always suspected that so called “speed reading” would result in loss of comprehension, but I never heard any voices saying so. It has occurred to me that most people live in a position where they merely receive information from various sources, but they never challenge it. This is because they rarely hear others around them challenging information. All any crazy idea needs is enough people supporting it to drown out someone’s inner suspicions.

Growing up, I don’t recall ever hearing a single word of suspicion about the efficacy of speed reading, chiropractic, acupuncture, aromatherapy or other sensational practices. Though I never personally experienced them, I went through life believing that they were normal, effective and valid things. Now the internet has come along and changed everything for me.

They’re all bunk. They don’t work. It’s a scam. Now, someone has to speak up and be that voice of reason. People need to hear a voice of dissension. They need to learn that their suspicions are worth exploring.

A Few Words On Existence

2010-10-27T15:49:00.000-04:00

When someone suggested that we evolved a conscience for a reason, I replied…

...

You’re looking at things backwards. Just because we are here does not belie a purpose. When you start the break on a game of pool, the resulting position of the balls on the table is not meaningful. Their position is simply the result of many collisions chained together. So too is our existence. You might counter this by saying, “There is no way we can be this complex and still be the result of random chance.” Well, that would also be the wrong way to look at it. The universe is such that there are infinite possibilities, infinite futures and pasts. That might sound like science fiction, but read a little about quantum physics. Our existence is indeed infinitely rare, but at the same time 100% certain.

Douglas Adams put this rather well: Imagine a puddle waking up one morning and thinking, ‘This is an interesting world I find myself in, an interesting hole I find myself in, fits me rather neatly, doesn’t it? In fact it fits me staggeringly well, must have been made to have me in it!’

We exist because these are the only circumstances under which we can exist. We would never wake up to find ourselves in a universe that can’t support us and then think, “We were created for nothing? That’s nonsensical!”

...

It has been tough trying to find the right words to explain existence in. I can't impart the last several years of book reading into a single blog post, but I might attempt. Modern physics establishes the following idea: Because the laws of the universe are what they are, we can extrapolate what the universe looked like at its beginning and how it came to be as it is now. That's where we come up with the big bang and the subsequent nebulae and stars that begat heavy elements that eventually turned into us. But it gets a bit more surreal when you consider the most recent findings. We know how to credibly explain the "something from nothing" problem that doubters frequently cite. The simple explanation is that universes are created all the time, but I'm not here to give a science lesson.

The goal is actually to find an elegant way of detaching our existence from the faulty premise that we somehow have a purpose or that our existence has intrinsic meaning. To belabor Douglas Adams' excellent analogy, a puddle can naturally only exist in an indentation on the ground. Thus, if you woke up as a self-aware puddle, you would have little choice but to determine that your universe was fine-tuned for your existence. As a human observer of this puddle, you would know better. Looking at the indentation on the ground, you would know that years of wear and use had warped the ground to the point where it was fit to house such a puddle. Indeed, there was no intent or purpose for the puddle, but it managed to come into existence anyways. And, it having a self-serving mentality, might surmise that it was put on this land to splash pedestrians when a car tire came speeding through.

The goal is not to be so bemused by our complexity or capability. To put it in perspective, if we were to meet another intelligent race of more capability, we would cease to be so proud of our own. I suppose the key for any honest evaluation is to step outside of the situation and look at it with different variables. Alas, this is the universe we live in. We have no commonly shareable way to experience living in any other, thus we have no way to practically dispel any myths about what makes this one so mystical. Though I am loathe to use this utterly bland turn of phrase, I think it works for this situation: it is what it is.

The Balance of Charity

2010-10-15T15:57:00.002-04:00

Speaking with several conservatives lately, I often get incredulous looks when I stand by their insinuation that yes, the poor should be taken care of at the expense of the rich. My reasoning is simple: improved living conditions for all makes everyone’s lives better. But I will admit that there is a problem with unlimited charity. The answer is not to react in the completely opposite direction of Libertarianism, but to find a balance between supporting the poor and getting them to support themselves.

I’m starting to believe that charity and financial support should be earned, at least a little. Our problem is not giving too much, but giving too often. Giving seems to be the default reaction, but it is not the best course of action. In African countries where humanitarian gifts have been shipping in for decades, the population has adapted to their unearned fortune by abandoning trades that produce necessities. They don’t know how to work or farm, yet they expect to be taken care of. I’ve read stories about African communities where men with absolutely nothing refuse to work. The lower class in America is becoming much the same.

Though I do not agree with letting people with nothing suffer, it is self-defeating to give aid for long periods of time without expecting the recipient to fend for themselves at some point. There are so many adverse effects. It creates resentment from those who are supporting the ones who are freeloading. It devalues the skills necessary to escape poverty. It creates a sense of entitlement across an entire population without any education of the real economics behind their survival.

On the other hand, it is not beneficial to society to let people languish in destitution, even if they refuse to do work for themselves. People, unlike corporations, do not go away when they are broke. They stay and they continue to drain on the resources of society. I’d like to think that there are realistic ways to fix these problems. One solution would be to require a high standard of proof of effort for continued aid. Another solution would be to reduce the amount of aid given and to replace the deficit with training.

It is not sufficient to turn a cold shoulder to a man who won’t help himself. Capitalism/Free Market arguments are too selfish and too extreme. The same principles of economics that predict that a man will make the most efficient decisions for himself given his choices also predict that he will accept any and all give-outs to no end. Charities and welfare are too giving. Society must be designed to encourage everyone to contribute.

A lot of my reading into the field of behavioral economics lays out a clear picture that humans are irrational, even when they think they are most rational. Thus, basing social policies on the principles of traditional economics is an unwise and disingenuous proposition. I might go so far as to say that the notion of the free market solving social issues is one of the most half-cocked inanities that has permeated our culture. The search for a single unifying principle for how the world should run is a fool’s venture. Let’s try to work a little balance into our world.

Islam is Not a Religion of Peace

2010-10-07T22:10:00.001-04:00

On Wednesday night, I attended the Intelligence Squared debate of the motion Islam is a Religion of Peace. For those of you not familiar with Intelligence Squared, it is a series of debates, Oxford style, that involves audience through voting before and after to determine which side swayed the most voters in their favor. Speaking for the motion was Zeba Kahn, an American writer and community leader, and Maajid Nawaz, a former militant Muslim leader now reformed. Speaking against the motion was Ayaan Hirsi Ali, a popular author and political refugee who fled the influence of Islam twice, and Douglas Murray, a British author and journalist with a quick wit. At the beginning of the debate, the audience voted 41% in favor of the motion, 25% against, with the remaining 34% undecided.

My own opinion of the matter is that all religions are wrong and Islam is one of the worst. I don’t speak that much about it because too many others say the same things I would, and from much higher pedestals. At the debate, I noticed many Arabic and Persian attendees, still it surprised me that the motion had the majority of the decided votes. Perhaps the first indicator of the night’s momentum was felt as the crowd arrived and their possessions were screened through a metal detector and thorough bag search. Before I arrived, I was considering the case of Lars Vilks, the Swedish artist who was attacked during a lecture, and had a small bit of hesitation realizing that a suicidal extremist would want to destroy both sides of the debate.

My resolution to attend was rewarded when I saw Sam Harris walk down the stairs from the entrance to the reception area. I waited a short while before going over to shake his hand like a rabid fanboy. Oh, and I have a thing for Indian girls.

The debate opened with Zeba Kahn detailing the soft and cuddly Islam that she grew up with. Her parents encouraged culturally diverse education and her community in the Midwest was happily adapted to many Western values. The problem, she said, is not Islam, but politics. This immediately reminded me of a quote by Gandhi: “Those who say religion has nothing to do with politics do not know what religion is.” Ayaan Hirsi Ali all but called Zeba a naive little girl with her opening statement. Indeed, when you have had to escape your former religion, not once but twice, by moving across the globe, you know what a religion is capable of and what it drives people to do.

Maajid Nawaz plied the mentally confusing tactic of redefining the debate to how we should view Islam. He claimed that to define Islam by the actions of its fundamentalist, you would essentially be agreeing with Osama Bin Laden. A vote for the motion, he said, was a vote for peace. Douglas Murray laughed off this absurd plea by stating, quite rightly, that this was a debate about facts, not ideals. Neither side could deny that there are bad Muslims, so the debate should have been about the essentials of Islam and how they influence people to act.

Another point brought up by the opposition was the two factors that define Islam: absolutism and victimhood. The scripture commands a believer to never question the tenets of Islam, which means that all positive effects of the belief on a community are attributed to Islam, while all negative effects are thus caused by external factors. Introspection is a key social component to living harmoniously within a diverse world, but Islam blatantly throws that out.

Nawaz kept claiming that the scriptures need to be taken in their proper context. He saw the terrible acts of Mohammad as relative to their time; a normal thing expected of men back then. To relate to this claim, I want to mention the time that I was once rebuked for mentioning that Theodore Roosevelt supported eugenics. The person doing the rebuking claimed that presentism, the method of analysis in which a person applies modern values to historical situations, was a fallacy and that we should not judge history based on new advances in civil rights. This may be a good point, if not for the fact that Muhammad is revered and idolized and Islam asks of its followers to keep to his many examples. Muhammad may have been just a man of his time, but he is not a man of our time and he has no place in it.

One could argue, as the supporters absolutely did, that the scriptures are up to interpretation and a violent verse can be ignored if it is not flush with today’s society. Zeba Kahn responded to the reading of one violent verse with her own reading of a soft and fluffy verse. Then it was revealed by Ali that the fluffy verse actually had a trailer that excluded all infidels. Context indeed!

The decision of who speaks for Islam was a recurring theme. Kahn and Nawaz cited the many Muslims who speak out against their extremist counterparts, but who is to say that a middle class Muslim American who calls for peace is a truer voice of Islam than a middle class Muslim American who tries to blow up Times Square? They both pray and they both believe they are right. They just choose to follow different verses of the same book. The most potent punch of the night came from Douglas Murray, who pointed out that the true voices of Islam, the clerics who teach the masses, all refused to be a part of the debate. For whatever reason they refused, it looks very bad. A religion that cannot handle criticism cannot know peace.

There was a time when the Islamic world was the leader in secular studies. How did this come about and why did it change? Well, before it was believed that nobody could speak for god except the prophet so, awaiting Mohammad’s return, the Muslims turned to secularism. If you look up pictures of Afghanistan in the 60’s and 70’s, it will break your heart to see how for it has fallen. The fall came in the form of Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini and the Islamic Revolution. Showing how tightly religion and politics are tied together, the Ayatollah used religion to inspire a population to overthrow a secular monarchy and replace it with a theocracy.

A very testy moment came when Ayaan Hirsi Ali insinuated that the soft and cuddly Muslims were not true Muslims. This caused a bit of a reaction from the crowd as well as a heated response from Kahn. It was a key part of the support’s game plan to associate a hard line interpretation of Islam with the same mindset as Bin Laden, but they used the same vocabulary. Everyone wants to “bring Islam back to its fundamentals.” Ali’s point was twofold; not only do both extremist and cuddly Muslims want to reclaim Islam, but that it was the cuddly ones who lack integrity with their reading of the Qur’an. Atheists like to chide the religious people who quote their holy books when they say something nice, but never when it says something bad. At least the hard line fundamentalists dive in head first and live it up.

Ali had another inciting remark when she stated that the sooner Islam accepted its flaws, “the sooner I can get rid of my bodyguard.” It seemed almost naive to be debating that Islam is a religion of peace when the person you are speaking to is being hunted down by Islam itself. Death for apostasy is not something you can file under political grievances, Kahn. When asked why moderate Muslims were not doing more to speak out, the support’s argument only served to prove the opposition’s point; every one's afraid of being killed.

On the subject of Islam’s treatment of women, Ali struck another nerve as she listed the reasons why women had a lower literacy rate than men. Females are pulled out of school as soon as they hit puberty because their families are afraid they will end up having sex. They value a woman’s hymen over her education and independence. This is not a fundamentalist phenomenon either; it is a problem that affects entire populations in the Middle East.

The only time I disagreed with the opposition was when both agreed that Islam could one day become a religion of peace. I think the root of the religion belies any eventual reform. There will always be a resurgence of fundamentalists and there will always be individual interpretations. The strongest point the support could muster is socioeconomic status as the motivation for terrorism, but even that point couldn’t hold up against the evidence of middle class American Muslims attempting to blow up crowds and synagogues. Any way you look at it, Islam is rotten.

The closing tally of voters saw 36% still in favor of the motion, 55% against, and only 9% undecided. I would consider this to be an absolute demolition and I completely agree with the results. The debate will be broadcast on Bloomberg TV, Monday night at 9pm. Maybe you'll see me in the crowd.

Bite-sized Blogging

2010-09-30T12:45:00.000-04:00

It should be apparent that I have slowed down on my posting. This is not for lack of ideas, but for lack of time. Fear not, I will continue to post here and I hope to pick up the pace by the end of the year, but this blog is reserved for article-length ideas. I have many smaller ideas throughout the day that I would like to write about, but I don't necessarily have the content to fill a huge DFTA post with. This is where my new Tumblr blog comes in.

My Tumblr Blog

I'll be straight with you. September has been busy as hell and October is going to be busier. November, however, will be nice and quiet. In the meantime, check out my Tumblr because I'll be adding almost-daily comments about society, philosophy and such. My goal with it is to be an anti blog. That is, instead of ruminating about my thoughts on the issue, I'd like to make simple (yet subtly complicated) statements and have you, the reader, do all the rumination. Hope you enjoy it.

What's the Use of Philosophy?

2010-09-17T12:00:00.001-04:00

Not too long ago, I was sent a link to an essay written by Ayn Rand titled “Philosophy: Who Needs It?” Reading over the essay helped me understand why I think philosophy is, for the large part, useless. The key to my reasoning is intellectual honesty and my lack of trust in everyone else to have it. Rand says, more or less, that philosophy exists apart from science to explain what science does not, which I totally disagree with. Classical philosophy is that unnecessary slimy film that settles over the clean surface of the scientifically revealed world, warping its color and texture. If I were to accept Rand's justification for philosophy, I would be lead to believe (as many are) that there is meaning to be found where none actually exists.

Philosophy my be responsible for many idioms and aphorisms that more or less describe what we call "human nature" but they do not describe the universe and objective reality better than science does. Philosophy is aesthetics. Science is structure. Ask "why" something happened is like fucking a duck's vagina - many paths leading to nowhere. Those who influence the world learn that something can happen and how it does. They need not concern themselves with why because they provide the reason when they need to. And any reason will do. This is all to say that philosophy will change with society. The only constants are the physical laws in effect and the human nature that will not change no matter how aware we are of it.

How should people approach the subject of philosophy? By skipping over it completely and going straight to science. An example of this lies in the essential conundrum introduced through ethical dilemmas. There are no easy answers with many of the questions that I wrote about in my last entry. Even if you were a hard-line individualist, you would have found your views challenged if you were intellectually honest enough to consider the effects of rampant individual sovereignty on the lives of others. Philosophy can't answer those questions any better than flipping a coin does. However, when we look at empirical data on the effect of choices, we come up with better ways to calibrate our world. If we know we have a much higher chance of being happy when we submit our decisions to an authority, what is the use of philosophy?

Can we empirically know everything? Another philosophical question. The answer isn't important. The only thing that is important is the fact that the world will never work in such a way where philosophy matters more than a toke from a bong. Meanwhile, class warfare is a reality that nobody will ever outlive. This means that those who get this will find ways to engineer the world to take advantage of "human nature." To sum it up: we should seek knowledge, not interpretation.

Bioethics: A Crash Course

2010-09-11T17:44:00.000-04:00

Last night I attended a lecture on bioethics. Coming into it, I had my doubts about the topic, but this was mainly because I knew so little about it. I suppose I figured that it was just sensitivity training for the new age, but I was quickly drawn in to the conundrum that the lecture presented. In actuality, I learned, the field of bioethics presents some incredibly complicated scenarios for which there are no easy answers. In fact, due to the subjective nature of societal ethics, it would seem that there are no right answers, nor really wrong ones either. Furthermore, combined with what I know about behavioral economics and the science of decision making, the best approach I could reason for many of these questions leads to conclusions that are unsettling in appearance, but practical in application.

In our fiercely independent individualist society, the questions posed at the turn of the previous century in the realm of bioethics seem like no-brainers. Who would dream of neutering individuals if they were deemed imbecilic? The fear, at the time, was that these mentally unfit individuals would breed and contaminate society. Eugenics was a popular idea at the time, even endorsed by President Theodore Roosevelt, and laws that called for the neutering of unfit individuals (repeat criminals and mentally deficient people) were adopted by many states. The practice continued up until 1979. Nowadays, we gasp in horror at the thought of such a thing happening. Who has that kind of authority?

The questions don’t get any easier to answer. In liberal society, we fiercely defend an individual’s control over their personal domain, but at what point does one man’s domain affect another, and at what point does a child’s domain separate from its parent’s? Why do we allow male circumcision, but not female circumcision? What makes abortion legal, but culling your born children murder? As genetic engineering becomes a possibility, is it ethical to manufacture your perfect child? What is perfect? There are no easy answers.

One case that is particularly striking is that of a deaf couple with one child who is also deaf. Their goal is to have another child, and they want to give that child the best chance they can to also be born deaf. The reason for this is because they want the child to grow up in their deaf society. Now, if one views deafness as a defect, we might consider these parents to be quite sick in the head. However, it is clear that these parents embrace their condition and want the same for their child. Is it right for them to determine the outcome of their child’s life to the extent that they have a life-changing disability? Does the fact that they do it before conception change anything? Everyone has a different answer.

How about obvious genetic diseases? Is it right for parents to cull out possibilities of conditions that will impede their child’s ability to have a normal, healthy life? One community of potential genetic disease carriers (the name of the disease escapes me, but it is a very select population) is fighting to prevent gene mappers from identifying the gene that causes their disease. It is one that strikes people down in their middle age quite swiftly and traumatically, so why would you want to prevent people from knowing they are a carrier? There are obvious social stigmas associated with diseases as grave as this one. Why, with people now privy to such information, it would affect one’s ability to live a normal life (up until the point that the disease kicks in, at least). And believe me, most people just want to be normal.

From a business perspective, if you knew your chances of getting a genetic disease was low, you might skimp on the amount of insurance you buy whereas someone who was high risk would purchase more. But that skews the balance of how insurance is supposed to work. Insurance is a pooled risk venture, but if only the high risk people bought insurance, the whole system would fail. These are only some of the problems introduced by learning about your genetic makeup. As the future approaches and times change, we will be forced to adapt to the new knowledge and how it affects old business. Once again, there are no easy answers.

As I listened to the lecture, I was constantly stumped by the compelling questions that could go either way, depending on if you listened to the individual or their society. One audience member asked the speaker what the purpose of ethics was. This was the question that had been brewing in my own head. I was searching for answers, but I did not know what approach to take. All the speaker could do was acknowledge that ethics lead to wildly inconsistent conclusions. There is no hard and fast rule when it comes to these decisions. This did not satisfy me.

The last response from the audience for the night was the one that really set off a spark for me. It was from a fellow behavioral economics buff who cited a study where parents who had to decide to euthanize their child experienced more grief than when the doctor made the decision for them. Everything started falling into place inside my head. The answers were not nice.

Individualism is a pillar of Western society; we make our own damn decisions. We don’t consider overpopulation. We don’t consider welfare. We don’t think of our neighbors. We rarely think of the environment. We just do what makes us happy. There are countries around the world where things are different; people submit many daily decisions to the will of the state. Chinese parents cannot grow their family to their heart’s desire. They do so to their state’s desire. We over here in the West see that as (to put it lightly) a huge bummer. Still, they may be onto something.

Taking into consideration the level of grief experienced when one makes their own decisions, we might find it more emotionally economical to have the decision made for us by some authority. However, the freedom to make that choice is exactly what we hold dear in our society. So we are left with the true question: will we ever forfeit our ability to choose, knowing that we may very well be happier that way?

I Know There Is No God

2010-09-07T22:52:00.003-04:00

The title of this piece is sure to draw some ire from nearly everyone. There are believers who flat out disagree with me and then there are agnostics and atheists who say that there is no way to know. Well, I know there is no god. And I hate to have it sound so condescending, but that’s what the following wall of text is for. I’m going to explain why it is OK to honestly say that you KNOW that there is no god. I’ve purposefully stirred up the hornet nest on Reddit and have received over 250 criticisms, conjectures and attacks regarding this and I have this to say in response: relax! I’m going to try to address every major concern here.

I know there is no god, just as you know there are no fairies and no pot of gold at the end of a rainbow. The only thing substantiating the god idea is the fact that more people believe it than the fairy story. If I were to say that I know there are no fairies, there would be no argument. Most would agree. Nobody would whip out their overinflated love for epistemology to strike the notion down. So what about the idea of god makes people so righteous about the semantics of knowledge? You’d think these atheists were just agnostics the way they defend god’s right to be considered despite claiming to not believe in it.

I see most atheists as timid creatures, bound by a code of honor that restrains them. Some call it the scientific method, some call it logic, but they apply it far more liberally than they should. I love the scientific method more than most but I have to agree with the quacks on this one; it can’t be used to explain everything. The most frequent response to my claim is that you cannot disprove something that doesn’t exist. So true. But if it doesn’t exist for me to disprove it, can I not say that I know it does not exist?

Of course not. This is where the philosophy jocks step in. Supposedly, if I claim that I know something that cannot be proven, I am no better than a fundamentalist. Ahh, this is where I apply a little misdirection. If I can prove, instead, that the idea of god is a man-made notion, would that not relieve me of the burden of disproving a negative? I sure think so. And before you tell me that a god may exist that has not yet been dreamed of by man, might I remind you about the fairies?

The key to knowing that god does not exist is to acknowledge that he was invented by man to explain the mystery of life and existence. He is no longer necessary, though, as we have learned enough to understand our place in the world with our own knowledge. (Our place, if you’re wondering, is without purpose or meaning. Yay, nihilism!) Though there is much that we do not know, the idea that what we do know is never enough to make a certain claim is such patent bullshit. I have no interest in jerking off to a philosophy text.

The knowledge that there is no god is a priori. Epistemological philosophy is such that if you apply it haphazardly like a jackass, you end up in a loop where you can never truly know anything. The moment that you appeal to this mindfuck of a philosophy, you’re lost. The very statement “you can’t prove it/anything decisively” sets off a shock wave of logical consequences. If the certainty with which I know gods non-existence to be true is useless, what good is anything else you or I consider to be knowledge? You cannot function in life if you honestly think this is a valid way to look at the world. Imagine opening your eyes after a night’s sleep and not being certain about anything. You wouldn’t be able to move if you required “absolute” knowledge to act. Thus, by epistemological definition, getting out of bed in the morning is an act of faith. What mental masturbation!

For every posturing pseudo-philosopher, there seems to be a large space between certainty and absolute knowledge that I simply don't respect. I think that certainty covers the gap quite well and classical philosophers tend to agree with me. Philosophy hacks have put guard rails along the edge though, creating conjectures that make it "theoretically" impossible to know things. They're mad.

Why is what I’m saying any different than a fundamentalist claiming that they “know” god exists? This is the question that the Knights of the Holy Scientific Method like to pose. As if by making a statement that supposedly cannot be falsified, we fall to corruption. Like the paragraphs above demonstrate, life is full of unfalsifiable knowledge, stuff that you just KNOW, and the fact that it cannot be proven either way doesn’t make it less true or useful. Again, we make super-special considerations when it comes to this damned “god” idea. We apply levels of logic that we otherwise wouldn’t have. It reminds me of the fact that South Park once depicted the prophet Mohammad in an episode without controversy, but now that the world is hypersensitive to it, they censored the most recent appearance of the prophet. Same situation, different rules.

Carl Sagan once said, "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence." Indeed, this is a true statement and it has been used to refute my claim, but I am not using only god's lack of evidence as evidence to support my statement.

Next comes the most amusing argument: you cannot use knowledge of the physical world to disprove something that exists beyond it. Well, what would be the purpose of declaring the existence of a metaphysical god if it could not affect the laws of physics? A god who is 100% ineffective is just as good as a god who is 100% nonexistent. The only way to ever have evidence of god (a useful one at least) is to have physical effects that can be attributed to it. In the past, we’ve been fooled into believing what we see is the hand of god at work, but we’ve grown out of that.

We humans have a history of speaking before we have all the facts. Why, at a few points in the last 200 years it was declared that we had learned everything there is to know about the world, only to find how wrong we were. You might think this would prevent me from making further definite claims, but I’m not going there. Every scientific discovery of knowledge has further marginalized the necessity of god. That is the trend and it will continue. We can now trace nearly every question we had 2000 years ago to areas of science that we have even a small amount of knowledge in. Any new gods or metaphysical philosophies that we invent are merely there to ask the new questions that further developments will surely shed light on.

Douglas Adams once said:

I don’t accept the currently fashionable assertion that any view is automatically as worthy of respect as any equal and opposite view. My view is that the moon is made of rock. If someone says to me “Well, you haven’t been there, have you? You haven’t seen it for yourself, so my view that it is made of Norwegian Beaver Cheese is equally valid” - then I can’t even be bothered to argue. There is such a thing as the burden of proof, and in the case of god, as in the case of the composition of the moon, this has shifted radically. God used to be the best explanation we’d got, and we’ve now got vastly better ones. God is no longer an explanation of anything, but has instead become something that would itself need an insurmountable amount of explaining. So I don’t think that being convinced that there is no god is as irrational or arrogant a point of view as belief that there is. I don’t think the matter calls for even-handedness at all.

This quote sums up a large portion of my argument. Why give the idea of god as fair a shake as the idea of fairies?