Is Atheism Rational?

Is atheism rational? That's the question a religious friend asked me recently. He did it by emailing me a rather long and dreary document which purported to demonstrate that atheism actually isn't rational. He asked me to post it here on my blog. My blog is intended for my own thoughts and commentary, not religious propaganda, but I will post it here (at least parts of it) but will also provide commentary on why most of it isn't true or is at least misleading.

The document started with some quotes. The first one was this: "When a man ceases to believe in God he does not believe in nothing, he believes almost in anything. - G.K. Chesterton".

Many quotes are very clever and often even true, but a quote by itself is worthless when trying to establish the truth of anything. I cannot imagine any way that this one could be justified. There is a strong link between atheism and skepticism and in my experience atheists tend to have far less belief in controversial topics than religious people. So the truth is the exact opposite of what the quote implies.

So that wasn't a good start and the other quotes included weren't much better, but lets move on to the real content of the document.

It started with this: "If there is a God, why are there atheists? Why do people call themselves atheists? What makes atheism so fashionable these days? There was a time when the numbers of atheists were few and fleeting but today atheism is massively popular in terms of media attention and book sales."

Is this the most blatant case of "begging the question" ever? This treatise claims to show atheism is irrational and it's first statement is that god exists. Yeah sure, if god exists I guess atheism is irrational but that's just the point: does god exist? The evidence indicates the answer is "no".

So starting with such a ridiculously obvious case of a logical fallacy did not bode well for the rest of the document but I did persist (as much to see what other fallacies would be forthcoming as anything else).

The next significant point was made like this: "Atheism is an interesting subject for study. Why are the atheists so passionate and obsessed with the non-being of God? Why do many of them devote a lifetime of religious zeal and commitment to the ideals of atheism?".

I agree that atheists have become far more prominent recently but many of the passionate arguments are simply as a result of attacks by believers. Look at what I am writing now as an example. I didn't start the debate, I simply responded to an ill considered attack by my religious opponent. Another point is that religious belief causes a huge amount of trouble in the modern world so many people (me included) feel it's our obligation to fight against it. When I see the evil and stupidity that religion causes I feel quite justified in becoming passionate about opposing it.

So moving on, the next point was this: "Atheism does not rest on a proven belief but rather on the unsupported assumption that there is no God..."

It seems to me that this is a straw man argument (I knew I'd see more logical fallacies). There may be some atheists who just assume there is no god but I don't know any. All the atheists I know and all those I have read about don't think that at all. Instead, they require objective evidence to believe anything and see insufficient evidence to support god. There's no objection to the actual idea of god, just the rejection of his existence based on current evidence.

Just to reinforce the incorrect assumption there is this: "Who is an atheist? An atheist is one who rejects any belief in God."

If you are going to get something wrong I guess you might as well get it wrong over and over. It doesn't seem to matter how many times believers' false ideas are corrected they continue to use them. One characteristic I have noted in believers is the failure to learn from their mistakes. That is very evident here.

Next there's a quote from Robert Blatchford, a British atheist: "I claim that the heavenly Father is a myth; that in the face of a knowledge of life and the world, we cannot reasonably believe in Him. There is no heavenly Father watching tenderly over us, His children. He is the baseless shadow of a wistful human dream. I do not believe in a God. The belief in a God is still generally accepted. ... But, in the light of scientific discoveries and demonstrations, such a belief is unfounded and utterly untenable today."

I think that statement actually sums up many atheists' thoughts quite well. But notice that it doesn't say the idea of god is rejected a priori, it says that the evidence isn't there so the god story should be rejected. Implied but not stated is the additional idea that, should the evidence change in future, then the conclusion that god doesn't exist might also change.

The next statement is also interesting: "Atheism as we know it in the West is not merely lack of belief in, but rather an attack on God; only where God has been seen as real and personal can much energy be generated in the cause of rebellion against Him." (attributed to an American theologian).

Notice the disingenuous trick here where lack of belief is used as evidence for the existence of god? I'm afraid this is the level of debate many theologians resort to. The fact is that atheists don't believe in a god but their rebellion is against religion, not god. Religion exists whether god does or not so again this line of reasoning is totally bogus.

Next comes this: "Another way of putting it is: an atheist is someone who, after studying Philosophy, Theology, History, Religion, Psychology, Biology, Archaeology, Anthropology, Sociology, etc., and searching every space of the universe, thinks he has found conclusive evidence that God does not exist. He has inspected the heavenly throne and found it to be empty!"

I'm sorry to have to have to say it again but this is a straw man argument. Atheists don't think they have conclusive proof there is no god, they think there is insufficient evidence to believe that one exists. If a religious person didn't believe in the tooth fairy would we criticise them because haven't looked for her in every possible location? No. It's up to the person making the claim of the existence of something to show the evidence, not for non-believers to prove the negative.

While we are on the subject of straw man arguments, what about the next section which tries to present the "dogma" of atheism...

The first claimed point of dogma is that "There is no God." This is no more a point of dogma than claiming that there is no Loch Ness monster is a point of dogma. If I was shown evidence for either a god or the monster I would then believe. It's not dogma, it's just common sense.

The next is more interesting. It's that "There is no objective Truth." At this point we get into philosophical musings about the nature of reality and (importantly) the meanings of the words used in the question. What exactly is an objective Truth? (note the upper case letter on that word, usually a sign they mean anything but the truth!). I'm not going to attempt to answer the question here but it's a separate philosophical point from the existence of god anyway.

The same criticism applies to the next point: "There is no ground for Reason." What this means would depend on individual interpretations of the question in a similar way to the question above so further discussion is rather pointless.

The next three are more interesting: "There is no absolute Morals." and "There is no ultimate Value." and "There is no ultimate Meaning."

Obviously the author is implying that a supernatural entity is required to provide these absolutes. That depends partly on your definitions but it's also possible for them to arise through natural means. Humans do have common moral beliefs because these naturally arise in a social species. They aren't technically absolute but they are universal (except in exceptional, generally psychologically disturbed individuals). A similar argument can apply to value and meaning.

But even if you don't accept the argument about absolute morals it still doesn't affect the validity of atheism because the possible lack of absolute morals in atheism is a value judgement and cannot be used as an argument for or against it's inherent truth. Also it should be noted that absolute morals arising from god can only be supported if you think god exists. So an argument which requires a god to exist can hardly be used as an argument that a god exists. That's real circular logic!

I have a bit more acceptance of the next point: "There is no eternal Hope." (again note the use of capitals implying a particular variant of the word "hope").

Sure, I agree, there is no eternal hope. I assume here that eternal hope means the wish for a permanent state of life after death. Atheists think we die and that's the end. They also think the Universe itself will eventually run out of energy. There is no eternal hope and that's a fact which arises from modern physics. But should we believe in a myth which does provide eternal hope when it's clearly untrue?

Unfortunately after agreeing on that point I disagree with the next. It's that: "Every religion has its apostles and prophets, and atheism is no exception. Its high priests, preachers, and prophets are all actively preaching the faith of atheism in every country around the world." It then goes on to talk about the person every religious fanatic loves to hate: Richard Dawkins!

Since a religion (by the most widely accepted definition) is belief in a supernatural entity and atheism is the lack of belief in that same thing it's bizarre that atheism should be labelled a religion. Still, it doesn't matter how often you point this out, they still keep making the claim. It's also odd that, since these people are religious themselves, they should use the idea of atheism as being a religion as a point against it!

There's pages of more irrelevant philosophical discussion which really adds nothing to the argument so I'll skip it here. Maybe the next interesting point is criticism of Richard Dawkins (again) because he criticises religion without (allegedly) understanding the subject. I think there is some validity in this argument but why not say specifically what Dawkins has said which they disagree with? That rarely seems to happen, maybe because, despite his lack of formal expertise in the area, Dawkins makes some very good points which are hard to refute.

The next points I want to discuss are where the author picks out some arguments which he attributes to atheists in general...

First: "The existence of God is incompatible with the existence of evil". I don't think this is a commonly held belief. It's true that it's difficult to reconcile an omnipotent, omniscient, good god with the existence of evil but the argument probably shouldn't be taken any further. If any atheist has stated that it should then I think he's wrong, but that doesn't make atheism wrong.

Next: "God is a projection of man’s imagination (Feuerbach)." I would tend to agree, except I would change it to "the concept of god" because god himself probably doesn't exist.

Then: "Since God cannot be scientifically demonstrated, God cannot exist (Flew)." This is an interesting one. In many ways I would agree because there's really nothing else we claim the existence of yet cannot demonstrate scientifically. But the word "cannot" is probably ill advised. Maybe I would re-word this as "if god cannot be proven scientifically then its reasonable to conclude that he doesn't exist."

And: "People believe in God because they are culturally conditioned (Freud)." There's no doubt that this is part of the explanation. After all, people believe in specific gods depending on the country they were born in. But I dont think it's the whole story because there does seem to be a more innate tendency to believe in supernatural entities.

And: "The idea of God is nonsensical like the idea of square-circles (Matson)." This seems like a rather weak argument and I don't know anyone who currently believes it. As I have said many times: the objection is that there is no credible evidence supporting god, not that god can't exist based on any logical or philosophical argument.

And: "If God made the world who made God? (Russell)". This does seem like a good point to me. The usual excuse is that god has existed forever. If he did then what was he doing before he created the universe? Another excuse is that god exists "outside time" but no one seems to be able to explain exactly what this means and most theologies seem to involve god acting in a way where he is constrained by time (7 day creation, etc).

Finally: "Since there is no evidence of God’s existence, God does not exist (Kaufmann)." I don't know anyone who would put it quite like that. What I (and every other atheist I know) would say is that there is no evidence for god's existence therefore we conclude that he doesn't exists unless further evidence becomes available. Note that there's nothing absolute about that but it's the way almost all atheists think. Saying that atheism involves absolute rejection of god is a straw man.

The final section claims that atheism is an unsatisfying or even a painful belief. For some people that's possibly true but all indicators of happiness and other factors indicate little difference between believers and non-believers. So even this last objection can be consigned to the rubbish bin along with all the rest.

So there is no case against atheism. If believers want to discredit atheism all they need to do is find evidence that their god exists. But that evidence doesn't exist yet and I suspect it never will.

2010-07-29

Religion
Rating 4
ID 1209

Apple and BP

I'm often accused of being an Apple fanboy. Hey, let's face it, by any reasonable definition I am an Apple fanboy. I do tend to defend Apple against attacks which are often based on ignorance and lack of understanding of the issues. Look at the latest attack against the iPhone 4 aerial as an example. Sure, there is a real issue there, but it only significantly affects a minority of users, it does affect other phones to a certain extent (maybe not as much as the iPhone because the case is also the aerial), and the iPhone still has an extremely high approval rating amongst users.

On the other hand Apple did handle the situation rather badly. But they aren't the only ones to suffer from this modern problem of "corporate arrogance". The best recent example of an even bigger PR disaster is, of course, BP.

I have seen reports that the CEO is about to resign and will receive a payout of something like NZ$25 million as he leaves. You can see why he gets paid the big dollars though: he did handle BP's exploration and the resulting problems brilliantly, didn't he? Yes, I'm being sarcastic there because he clearly revealed himself as a gross incompetent in every way imaginable. Maybe the company thought it was worth the millions just to get rid of him.

Of course there's a very good chance that whoever replaces him will be just as bad, and possibly even worse. Why? Because to be a corporate leader you generally have to be immoral, incompetent, and lacking in imagination.

I'm not saying every business leader has these attributes, but it does seem to be a common personality profile. I don't think Steve Jobs quite fits this profile, for example. Sure, he mismanaged the iPhone problem and you can't exactly take everything he says at face value, but he certainly doesn't lack imagination and I think he genuinely cares about producing beautiful and innovative devices (perhaps a bit too much some times).

Also on the subject of Apple: I don't necessarily like it much as a company (their legal department and other corporate sections don't inspire me to admiration) but I do love their products. I will be getting an iPhone 4 when my current plan expires because I know it has flaws (like every product) but it's still the best phone available overall.

Maybe people have higher expectations of Apple than they do of other companies. I'm sure this is true in fact and I can't imagination half the fuss being made of a similar flaw being found in any other company's product. But that's not necessarily unfair because Apple does rely on its prestigious reputation and I think it's fair to expect more from them.

I'm sure Apple will continue to create great products in the future but they do need to avoid indulging in too much corporate arrogance.

2010-07-27

Computers
Rating 3
ID 1208

Do the Science

Many people treat the real world as if it was really simple. They think that what has been accepted as true in the past or is accepted by a large number of people must be true. They think that what seems obvious intuitively must be true. Or they think that something must be true simply because it's taken seriously by people with the same beliefs as they have (sometimes referred to as people they can trust).

All of these factors are an obvious source of false beliefs in the area of politics and religion and I don't think I really need to demonstrate this with examples. But what about more subtle things? One of the aspects of psychology which I found fascinating (I majored in psych - along with computer science - when I was at university) was the amazing subtlety required to allow for human biases and behaviours when designing experiments to study social phenomena.

Recently I have heard of a few examples where subtle behaviours have lead to interesting, counter-intuitive results in studies of human behaviours.

Here's an example: which is safer, riding with a cycle helmet on or without one? It has been shown that, while many helmets don't offer a huge amount of protection, they are still a lot better than nothing. So the answer would obviously be that it's safer to ride with a helmet on, right? Wrong! According to at least one study you are more likely to be injured or killed when wearing a helmet. How can that be? Apparently it's because people wearing helmets feel safer and take more risks. Also car drivers tend to treat cyclists with helmets with less care than those without. So if you do crash the helmet will help but without one you are less likely to crash. Isn't that interesting!

Here's a similar example: which season is the most dangerous for driving? Most people say winter because the roads are more slippery, visibility is reduced, and the general conditions are much more difficult. But the answer is summer. More people drive in summer, but more importantly, people take more risks because they feel safer. When the road is icy or visibility is reduced by a rain storm it's actually safer because people are far more cautious.

So by now you are probably getting the hang of this. Often the obvious answer is wrong because many of these phenomena are controlled by people's behaviours which depends on perception rather than reality. So let's try one more. If you are going to spend time in the sun should you use sunblock?

Most people would say yes, although some would say no because they think sunblocks contain dangerous chemicals. I'll provide another clue here: the chemicals haven't been shown to be dangerous so that logic fails. But if you took notice of the previous examples you might reach another conclusion: that using sunblock is dangerous because it gives people a false sense of security and they therefore spend more time in the sun.

Combine this with two other factors. First, most people don't use enough sunblock; and second, they misinterpret the SPF number. Doubling the number does not double the effectiveness.

So people who use sunblock get more skin problems because they don't use enough, misinterpret the protection it would offer even if they did use enough, and spend more time in the sun as a result. Interestingly, there is no well established link between the most serious form of skin cancer (melanoma) and sun exposure anyway. In fact there are some indicators that some sun exposure might help prevent some cancer, possibly through vitamin D production!

So the real world is very complex. There is no easy way to establish truth through intuition. In real life many factors are at work and all of those need to be taken into account before a real conclusion can be formed. And even then that conclusion should be provisional. The best way to establish what's really happening is to test the phenomena using a controlled experiment.

The whole mechanism sounds very much like something we already know about doesn't it? It sounds like empiricism and the scientific method. So the next time someone tells you they believe in god because it says so in a book, or they think right wing politics works because a blogger says so, or that global warming is false because humans could never influence the climate of the whole planet, just remember they are being pathetically naive. To really understand what's going on in the world you need to transcend simplistic notions like that and do the science!

2010-07-21

Science
Rating 3
ID 1207

Catholic Cult

I read recently that Pope Benedict is creating a new Vatican office to combat secularisation and what he refers to as an "eclipse of the sense of God." It's specifically intended to counter the rise of secularism and, no doubt, the new atheists have had a lot to do with this effort.

There's a well known quote - I can't remember who by right now - that says "the best protection against Christianity is to read the Bible." If that doesn't show you what a pile of crap it is then nothing will! There's another relevant quote too. That is that Christianity is a great thing, except for the Christians. I paraphrased both of those quotes but the essential meaning is unchanged.

So these two quotes are saying that Christianity is it's own worst enemy and there does seem to be a lot of truth in that. Look at the history of the Catholic Church (I agree that other churches are almost as bad but because the story is about the Pope I will concentrate on Catholicism here) and it's clear that many of the senior members of the church certainly haven't demonstrated great moral leadership.

Sexual abuse of children and genocide in Rwanda are the two most prominent recent examples of their evil actions (yes, I think the word evil is OK to use here even though I deny the existence of an ultimate source of morality). The actions of these people should be enough to persuade anyone to abandon the church!

And read the Bible. I mean read what it actually says, not the silly fantasy that most Christians believe (that means both Testaments - even though they are contradictory - because Jesus said the old stuff still applies). It's full of disgusting moral values, self-contradictory stories, clear fiction, and childish nonsense. Anyone who thinks that's suitable as the basis for your whole world view really is living in a fantasy world!

So the poor old Pope is beginning to panic a bit now that people can see through the ridiculous facade which is the Catholic church. I suspect his actions will be counter-productive though. All he will do is draw more attention to the increasing opposition to his evil empire of ignorance and superstition. It's hard to be too sympathetic to his plight though, especially when you read about the nuns (yes, I said nuns) who directly participated in mass murder in Rwanda. And let's not even get started on the sexual abuse thing which just seems to get worse and worse.

Don't think that I hate Catholics, or the Pope, or God, or even the church, based on my ranting above. I recognise that Catholicism has some good points. It does provide some charitable and social services, but we must look at the value of any institution in balance: does the good outweigh the bad? In this case I think it clearly doesn't.

The Pope can try to regain the former power and glory of the church as much as he wants but he's doomed. You can't stop an idea whose time has come and you can't save an idea whose time has run out. I think that in this century the church will become a distant memory and a fringe cult for the majority of the western world (it will take a bit longer for the poor suckers in the third world to escape from its tyranny).

The Catholic church is probably the most evil institution which has ever existed (if you don't believe this then please leave a comment and I'll give you a partial list of their atrocities). The sooner it's consigned to the rubbish heap of silly and corrupt ideas the better. I can only hope that other, similar beliefs like Islam swiftly follow it into oblivion!

2010-07-20

Religion
Rating 4
ID 1206

One Truth

I've heard the Dalai Lama described as the world's most revered religious leader. And who could possibly say anything bad about him? He's such a nice, genuine person - just the opposite of many other religious leaders (I wouldn't like to pick out any in particular here but the Pope would have to be amongst the most despised).

So sure he's a nice guy, but he does talk a load of crap some times. As a spiritual leader he can hardly escape having to deal with crap because that's what spirituality is all about, but at least he's always positive and yes, nice, when he says this stuff.

One of his most well known catch phrases is this: "Many Faiths One Truth". By this he means that all religions are different manifestations of one underlying spiritual truth but, of course, I totally disagree with this and would like to offer an alternative interpretation. My interpretation is that yes, there are many faiths, but none of them have anything to do with the truth. The real truth comes from science and serious philosophy, not religion and superstition.

So there are many faiths and one truth but what the religious people don't understand is that the one truth has nothing to do with the many faiths.

Sure I agree, there are some interesting ideas and some valuable philosophy in most religions - especially Buddhism - but there's a lot of crap there too and its just too hard to find the good stuff amongst the bad.

The Dalai Lama was just trying to be inclusive (and nice) with the "Many Faiths One Truth" idea and some other more reasonable and tolerant religious leaders have said similar things, but it really doesn't help the credibility of spirituality because by saying all religions are right all they're really saying is that they are also all wrong, and if they represent the same truth in such different ways that sort of negates any unique values they might have.

But there's another way to look at it too. If you accept religion is just fantasy then it all makes sense. One fiction (or fantasy or myth if you prefer) doesn't usually rely on other fictions being untrue. For example, the Lord of the Rings doesn't tell you to ignore The Chronicles of Narnia. But can these be seen as representing some sort of underlying truth? I don't think so. They represent interesting ideas but that doesn't equate to truth.

Maybe the biggest problem with the whole area is the loose meaning which is used for the concept of "truth". Maybe spiritual or religious truth is a bit like the truth in the novel 1984. In that the Ministry of Truth dealt with propaganda (in other words lies). If we look at religious truth in a similar way then it does make more sense: truth is the mythology that a particular belief system wants it's followers to accept - usually on faith.

If a more rigorous definition of truth is applied: maybe something like "a set of well accepted facts which are supported by objective evidence and reasoning" then the claim that all religions represent the same underlying truth just becomes obviously false.

So in summary, I don't want the Dalai Lama to stop doing what he's doing now because the world would be a lesser place if he wasn't here, but I do think he should stop using the word truth in that context or perhaps make it clear that the type of truth he's referring to isn't the same truth we would mean in other circumstances.

2010-07-15

Skepticism
Rating 3
ID 1205

One Day With the iPad

I have used my new iPad (the top model with the 3G cell network and 64 G of storage) for one day now. So what are my conclusions so far? First, it's too early to tell for sure. Of course when you get a new toy it seems great to start with but that doesn't necessarily mean it will be useful long term.

My initial impressions and the general feel are great. Operation is very fast and fluid. The visual effects are beautiful and the user interface is intuitive. It's a real Apple device: carefully designed and with great attention to detail. This makes it more than just a "big iPod Touch". It's more like a totally new and different type of device.

One thing I tried to do on the iPhone was write blog entries and other text. But it just didn't work because the screen was too small and the keyboard was too unreliable (or at least my typing on it was). I'm writing this on the iPad in Pages and it is a much better experience. I can type here almost as well as I can type on my laptop using both hands and multiple fingers instead of the single finger typing I use on the iPhone. I do have to say that after a while you can enter text quite well on the phone too but I could never use it for more than just short notes.

I mentioned I am using Pages. It isn't included with the iPad so I had to buy it from the app store. In fact I have already "invested" quite a lot at the app store - including Keynote and Numbers as well as Pages. I also got the Time magazine app (which is free) and bought one issue of the magazine to test the experience reading that sort of material as well. If you buy an iPad you should set aside a budget for apps. I would suggest about 50 to 100 dollars (New Zealand).

I started by copying over all my apps for the iPhone but since then I decided to only install iPad apps. I did this for two reasons: first, because the iPhone apps don't look very good scaled up to fit on the bigger screen; and second, because I want to try out different programs which are more suited to what the iPad can do.

Of course I'm not certain what the iPad will be used for yet. I thought it would be a book reader and a web browser but Its starting to look like it might be a useful substitute for my laptop for simpler tasks. I have used Numbers to look at existing spreadsheets and Keynote to view presentations and they have both worked well. But I'm not sure how well they would work for creating new content yet.

Some of the iPhone apps work the same on the iPad, except it's not the same because the extra speed and extra screen size transforms them. One which is particularly impressive is the astronomy program "Sky Voyager". I am looking forward to having iOS 4 on the iPad though because multitasking for viewing the sky maps and taking notes would be useful for astronomy.

I will use the iPad for another week and write another blog entry then. At that time I should be able to report about how usable the book reading experience is.

2010-07-14

Computers
Rating 1
ID 1204

Atheist Dogma?

Supporters of religion seem to be getting a bit desperate. If you take religion seriously you must already be accustomed to using half truths, biased information, and invalid arguments to support your cause so I guess using the same tactics against the new atheists should not be a surprise to anyone.

It's difficult to say what's the cause and what's the effect in this phenomenon. Anyone who can't think logically is much more likely to follow a religion but anyone who wants to continue to follow a religion can't afford to think logically. So which comes first: the superstitious beliefs or the illogical way of reasoning? It's impossible to say but I guess each reinforces the other.

Anyway, getting back to the argument against atheists. Often it comes down to the obviously silly accusation that atheism is just another religion. The degree of validity of this claim obviously depends on the definition you use for the word "religion" but the definition which best fits into this argument is the one which defines religion as a belief system involving a supernatural entity.

It should be obvious that atheism isn't a religion by this definition because it specifically rejects the supernatural (or at least it rejects things which are unsupported by facts, the supernatural being the most prominent example).

But there are other definitions too. The other one I found in the Oxford English Dictionary is "a pursuit or interest to which someone ascribes supreme importance". I'm not sure how this would fit in with the argument against atheism because refusing to believe in something which has no supporting evidence could hardly be classified as of supreme importance.

Actually, now that I consider the point again I think maybe there is a certain amount of truth there. Many of the new atheists do take their opposition to religion very seriously and to some of them it does attain supreme importance, at least it seems that way if you look at their public activities.

But if a religion is just something that is taken extremely seriously then few people would have serious objections to it. The reason people do object to it is because real religion is based on unthinking dogma, superstition and ignorance, yet is still taken extremely seriously. I don't think atheism can really be said to be based on dogma.

Or can it? At the recent Gods and Politics conference in Copenhagen the Atheist Alliance formulated an atheistic declaration on religion in public life which included statements such as "We assert the need for a society based on democracy, human rights and the rule of law. History has shown that the most successful societies are the most secular" and "We submit that public policy should be informed by evidence and reason, not by dogma".

Is this atheist dogma? Atheism's critics will no doubt suggest it is but I think they will be again guilty of being mislead by superficial similarities and failing to see the deeper truth. This "dogma" was formulated as a way of summarising the ideals which are the result of careful philosophical and scientific consideration. Religion does things the opposite way around: it takes the dogma found in its holy texts and that becomes its ideal. So again, really, there is little similarity between the two approaches.

I would also hope that the atheist declaration would be used for guidance only and failing to follow it would not be considered "heretical" as long as a reasonable justification could be provided. But if that's the case I can see little point in having it at all.

Most atheists are "free thinkers". They tend to have few assumed premises and fewer restrictions than other groups. That means that it's harder for atheist to work as a group compared with the more tightly controlled organisations like most churches. For example, there is a split regarding whether overt criticism of religion is a better approach than the more traditional compromise which often resulted in a refusal to criticise religion at all. Organising atheists is often compared to herding cats!

Having a set of principles might remove one of atheism's great strengths (freedom from dogma) so I'm not convinced it's a good idea. Looking through the full list (which is here). I can't see anything much beyond common sense anyway, so what's really the point?

2010-07-05

Religion
Rating 3
ID 1203

Cart Before the Horse

We seem to have the cart before the horse. That's an old proverb. In fact after researching it I can inform you that it dates back at least 2100 years to the time of Cicero (106 BC - 43 BC). Given that long history of recognising that things are often the opposite way around to what they should be you would think that we would know by now that it's something to be avoided!

At this point you are probably wondering what I'm ranting on about this time. Well it's our economic system again. You see I just listened to a couple of podcasts from NPR (National Public Radio in the US) and at least one of the guests recognised, as I do, that we've got things badly mixed up.

We've created a system which has taken control of the people its supposed to be benefitting. Businesses, and especially big corporations, have become out of control, self propagating entities which are greater than any one person. The speaker pointed out how pointless it was to demand the resignation (or assassination!) of the CEO of BP for example, because BP, as a large corporation, runs independently of its supposed masters.

It's like a monster which has been created and now is out of control. It would make little difference who was in charge because the behaviour of the monster cannot be changed. And as I have said in past posts, other corporations are no different really. Any big oil company could have created the same disaster. It's just that BP was unlucky this time.

So now people are subservient to the corporations. And governments do what is best for the corporations instead of using the corporation to achieve the best outcome for the majority of people. Even the people who do benefit from a corporation's success lose in the end because the financial gain is achieved at the expense of social justice, the environment, and other factors which are unsustainable in the long term.

The current "golden period" that most of the western world has enjoyed for many years is achieved through exploitation. Significantly through exploitation of natural resources, but also through exploitation of people. For example, we only have cheap consumer electronics because people in China live on a close to subsistence income. And we enjoy our extravagant lifestyles through excessive consumption of fossil fuels.

I'm the first to admit that I'm as guilty as most because technology is an important part of my life and I'm as happy as anyone else to enjoy cheap iPhones, laptops, stereo and audio equipment, etc. But that doesn't change the essential truth of the problem.

There's no easy answer because the big corporations have so much control over the leadership of the world's most powerful countries that they can't easily be managed through government regulation. It's abundantly clear that has happened with BP and the other oil companies and that's why we now have the Gulf disaster.

What makes it worse is that it seems that every day ordinary people are controlled more and more by government regulation while at the same time regulation of the entities doing the real damage is loosened. The NPR guest gave an interesting example.

He described how energy exploration companies are using a technique called hydraulic fracturing, or "fracking" to collect gas and oil. The process involves pumping millions of gallons of often unidentified chemicals into the ground and these cause a lot of harm to people living in the area, including medical effects and water from their taps which will burn! But there are no regulations to cover this activity because the companies successfully lobbied the politicians so they could be exempt from them.

And why are these chemicals which are harming people unidentified? Because the corporations hide behind commercial sensitivity. They say they want to maintain the secrets of the chemicals they have developed, and apparently it's OK to not tell people what's being used to poison them.

But an individual throwing a small item into a river (say an old car battery) which would cause much less potential harm would be prosecuted if he was caught. Is that fair? Of course not, because most laws are specifically designed to protect the corporations and punish the people.

So our whole civilisation - the economic system, the political system, and the law - is designed to protect these big companies and many people recognise this. The ones that do often say the system has given us the standard of living we have today. That is partly true but it's also given us huge problems, not the least of which is global warming. And it's not just coincidental that a lot of the corporate world denies the truth of climate change, peak oil, etc.

So this whole post sounds like one huge conspiracy theory and I guess it is (however remember that not all conspiracies are untrue, although most of them are). It's not a conspiracy created by a group of people though, it's one which naturally arises out of a system which started out being much more under control. Unfortunately it has got beyond the point where we can control it any more. The cart really is before the horse!

2010-06-30

Comments
Rating 4
ID 1202

Predicting the Future

What do people think will happen in the future? It's an interesting question for two reasons: first because it can reveal genuine predictions (crowd sourcing often works); and second, because it says a lot about the people being asked whether they are right or wrong.

The Pew Research Center recently ran a survey of this subject in the USA and the results were quite intriguing. Here are a few predictions and some of my comments about each one...

First, the big picture. The survey showed overall optimism but it was well down since the last time the survey was done in 1999. The subjects were all Americans and it's easy to see why they would be less optimistic since then. They were the victims of the 9/11 terrorist attacks, they are still involved in two rather unsuccessful wars which drag on and on, their economy is a mess, they are losing their place as the world's most important power, they were struck by the financial crisis, and then there's the oil spill. Who wouldn't be a bit less optimistic?

A significant proportion fear a major conflict before 2050. 58% think there will be another world war and 53% expect a terrorist attack against the US using a nuclear weapon. Both of those things are entirely possible, I would agree. Of course it depends on what your definition of a "world war" is but the rise of fundamentalism, especially in Islamic countries, has got to be a bad sign.

There is further pessimism around energy supplies. 72% think the world will be hit with a major energy crisis in the next 40 years. Again this is self evident to most. Oil is increasingly difficult to extract and coal has major disadvantages associated with pollution (including greenhouse gases) so that will surely be an issue.

But about the same number think our future energy will come from new sources. They think oil, gas and coal will reduce in importance. Whether these new sources are widely used after the crisis or whether they will negate the crisis isn't clear. Most alternative sources aren't suitable for large scale implementation. I guess the best hope is for a major breakthrough in nuclear fusion or in much more efficient solar sources.

On a related topic, there was reasonable acceptance of global warming. 66% say the Earth will definitely or probably get warmer, but it seems to be more of a political idea than a scientific one because it's correlated with the person's political views: less than half of Republicans agreed but over 80% of Democrats did.

There were some interesting thoughts on future technology too. 71% think cancer will be cured by 2050. I think this might be optimistic because "cancer" covers such a wide range of diseases with different treatments and causes. I would expect that new technology will greatly increase the effectiveness of cancer treatment but saying it will be entirely cured is unrealistic.

Just over half think ordinary people will travel in space. That sort of depends on what you mean by "ordinary people" of course. Civilians and non-specialists can already do this but it is expensive. How much does the price need to reduce by and how little preparation will be necessary before space travel can said to be available to "ordinary people"?

And 42% say that it will be possible to tell what people are thinking using brain scans. There is already some progress on this using FMRI but again it comes down to definitions: how accurate and specific does the scan need to be? It's almost certain this technology will allow the general type of thought to be scanned but the exact details will certainly be much more difficult.

What about social issues? Almost 90% think a woman will be elected president by 2050. It has already happened in almost every other western democracy so surely it will happen in the US soon as well. All I can say is that I hope it isn't Sarah Palin! What credibility would the idea of women in leadership have after that!

86% think people will work into their 70s before retiring. That also seems likely based on work trends and constantly extending life spans. Maybe by that time the working week will be reduced to 20 or 30 hours and the general conditions of work will be much better than today. There's no reason they shouldn't be.

OK finally the big one. 41% say Jesus Christ will return within the next 40 years. That's not surprising because many Americans have totally nutty religious beliefs. Interestingly though more than that think he definitely won't return. Maybe they are finally sick of waiting and have given up on the idea!

So overall the predictions are fairly reasonable (apart from the silliness about Jesus). People seem to think that we are in for some considerable difficulty but that it will be overcome, mostly through the application of science and technology. I just wish more people would consider this fact when voting on issues related to funding of universities and other research organisations!

2010-06-25

News
Rating 3
ID 1201

Worst Practice

If you have read this blog much in the past you will be aware that, amongst the many professions modern society has, I have a particular dislike for managers. I don't know, maybe I just don't get it, or maybe I have trouble accepting authority, or maybe I'm just one of those mavericks who always wants to do my own thing, but it seems to me that they are amongst the lowest forms of life on Earth.

Why do I say this? Because they represent one of the few job types which are actually worse than nothing. There are a few others I would include in the same general category: corporate lawyers (a truly evil profession), public relations experts (yes, also evil), CEOs of large global corporations (have I used the word evil too much?). To be fair, I guess there are a few people in those positions which are OK, and I should also emphasise it's not the person I'm criticising - it's the job, but in general I think that's a fair appraisal.

So getting back to managers. I would like to name a few attributes I have found which I particularly object to. First of all, they are almost universally lazy. I don't necessarily mean that they do nothing or don't "work" long hours, what I mean is they make no real effort to do what their job should really be.

A classic example of this is the rather silly idea of "best practice". Best practice seems to be a simplified "paint by numbers" approach to management. Someone comes up with some general rules which might work sometimes then these are decreed to be "best practice" by some ill-defined authority, then all the manager has to do is force the people who do the real work to follow these guidelines and he has done his job.

The manager achieves two major wins by doing this: first, he fixes a problem (or more likely creates a new one) without thinking because he uses best practice instead; and second, he diverts attention from himself when things go wrong (and they usually will) because he has followed best practice and what else could he be expected to do?

The problem is that the real world isn't that simple. Every situation is different and by just simplistically following some simple principles created by someone else, no matter how authoritative that person might be, nothing is ever likely to be improved.

If you want to see a classic case of the failure of best practice try using some big corporations support systems. You'll most likely get an understaffed foreign helpdesk of minimally trained individuals who usually clear the call after the person seeking help gives up in frustration! I'm sure it's not just me who has this problem because almost everyone I talk to has experienced it.

So implementing Indian (or other countries with cheap labour) help desks is considered best practice by many companies. Actually from a business perspective it's probably a good idea because it doesn't cost much to set up and most people will resort to on-line discussion forums and other sources to try to solve the problem instead.

Best practice is a bad idea in my opinion. I have no objection to the idea of "recommended ideas which have worked quite well in the past" which is what we should be working with instead. There's certainly no harm in taking notice of what others have already tried instead of "re-inventing the wheel" but labelling something as "best practice" makes it sound like the solution has been found and no further effort is required.

There's another point too. Is it best practice to follow best practice? If it is, how do we know this is true (it seems rather circular) and if it isn't why are we doing it?

I recently had a discussion with a manager where we were trying to establish a way to support some computer users and he said he wanted to use best practice. I offered a few suggestions of what might work based on the actual facts of the specific situation and he got rather upset and said "no, we have to use the helpdesk". If he wanted to do that why not say so instead of using a management buzz-word?

It just shows how different my thinking is to a manager's (I accept that not all of them work this way but it does seem quite common). I look at the requirements and the resources available and come up with some solutions, the manager just recalls a solution he might have heard in a management course or a business magazine. There's no real analysis and thought involved at all.

I work with many different types of people and the one class I find universally uninspiring are managers. As a group they are just uniformly mediocre. As I said above, their space in the universe could be filled with a vacuum and everyone would benefit. Unfortunately it's the managers who make most of the decisions in this world (including those relating to hiring more managers) but I know who will be first against the wall when the revolution comes!

Note that I don't really think there will be a revolution and I don't condone violence against managers. This is just a phrase (from Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy) originally used to describe the fate of the corporate management of the "Sirius Cybernetics Corp" and it seemed appropriate!

2010-06-18

Comments
Rating 5
ID 1200

Intelligently Designed?

A lot of my work involves designing and creating database systems, web sites, and basic applications. Another part of it involves using (and helping my clients use) programs, web sites, and databases. One of the things that often surprises me is what a terrible job a lot of the "full time professionals" do when they are doing similar things to what I am doing as a part time programmer.

The best systems I have designed have resulted from a collaboration. In fact, they have gone beyond that and have become a synergy. I do the technical work and most of the design work but the feature set I create and the user interface I build are the result of my ideas and experience as an IT professional and my clients' ideas as users.

When I use a lot of database systems and web sites I often wonder whether the designer has ever had to use their own system. And if they have used it perhaps they coped OK because they were just so familiar with it but have they asked a non-expert to use it and watched what happens?

The same applies to many widely used programs. I wonder whether the programming team responsible for Microsoft Word, for example, have ever used it much and whether they have watched other people try to use it.

Either they have never done this or they have but have ignored the obvious conclusion any reasonable person would reach in that situation. What is that conclusion? It's that Word isn't designed to be used as a word processor. In fact, many people would say it isn't designed at all!

If there was a biological analogy it would be that it is the result of evolution rather than intelligent design! Like biological organisms Word does work but only because various features have been hacked around with, pushed into service in areas they were never really designed for, and added on to while maintaining the old functionality for compatibility purposes.

This is not a good way to create a living thing and it's not a good way to create a program either. It's easy to tell when you use a modern word processor like Apple's Pages that it is more the result of intelligent design, although (like any program which has been around for a few years) there is some evolution there too.

Looking at it more generally that is a major difference between Apple and Microsoft. Apple isn't afraid to start again and build things in a better way but Microsoft is so intent on maintaining backward compatibility that all they do is throw another layer on top of an already unstable structure making it even more ugly.

Of course Apple's approach does have its problems. Switching to a whole new hardware architecture (which Apple has done three times: from 6502 to 68K, then to PowerPC, then to Intel) and completely changing the operating system (from Apple II and III to classic Mac OS then to Mac OS X) does create problems in accessing old data. I have many files created in programs like Word Perfect, MacDraw and HyperCard that are very difficult (but not impossible) to access on my current Mac.

I can see a similar phenomenon in Apple's recent successful products, especially those in areas where Microsoft and other companies have failed. The iPhone was intelligently designed instead of just being hacked together like a Windows Mobile phone would be. iOS (the new name for the operating system Apple use on their mobile devices) is designed for mobile touch screen devices - it's not just a layer thrown on top of the already clunky Windows platform like Microsoft's efforts.

The same applies to the iPad. Other companies have made tablets but they have just been smaller laptops with less features. Apple designed theirs completely from the start for the functions it was supposed to perform. That's why they were wildly successful when Microsoft and its partners failed.

Of course Apple isn't the only company following this strategy. Google is doing something similar with its Android devices but it doesn't quite have the same style as Apple. But in the longer term it might turn out that Google becomes the supplier of the OS for devices which are "good enough" just like Microsoft is today.

I said at the start that my best projects were a synergy between me and my clients. Apple is lucky because they don't seem to have to rely on that so much. Steve Jobs seems to have such a good understanding of what people really want that most of the time he gets it right.

That's what makes him the world's number 1 CEO, I guess. Now I'm not a big enough Apple fanboy to say Jobs is God - but he is the intelligent designer!

2010-06-14

Computers
Rating 3
ID 1199

The Mighty Have Fallen

BP is one of the world's biggest corporations yet several commentators are now saying it could be soon bankrupt after the debacle of the oil leak in the Gulf. How can this happen? How can just one mistake cause the whole mighty edifice to crumble? It's simple really: the whole corporate system is totally corrupt (according to multiple meanings of the word) and it doesn't take much for that corruption to lead to catastrophic failure.

The banks which have recently failed in the US and Europe were just as corrupt (probably more so) but they were saved by government hand outs. I'm not sure whether BP will get similar charity because the disaster and most of the financial activity is happening in the US and BP is a British based company. I suspect the Americans would be more generous if BP was American but there's no way to know for sure.

So what do I mean when I say BP is corrupt? Well first I have got to say that I have no reason to think that it's any more corrupt than other companies of a similar size. Basically most companies become successful by using dirty tricks, corrupt business deals, and barely legal political persuasion (effectively bribes) so it's probably more through bad luck than anything else that it's BP which has lost out in this particular case.

After reading through the reports on what has caused this and other disasters it seems to stem back to the one factor which above all is essential for successful business: greed. BP have systematically taken shortcuts to minimise costs on several projects. These have been allowed by the agencies who should be checking that the safeguards are in place because of political interference or pure incompetence. And many people have died as a result. But BP's profits have steadily increased and what else matters to the corporations?

Yes, this is really another anti-capitalism, anti-free market, anti-corporate rant! I don't apologise for that because I think corporations are responsible for most of the problems we have in the world today. I also recognise that corporations often efficiently produce the goods and services the modern world wants so the question naturally becomes: is there a reasonable alternative?

I commented in another blog entry ("Too Big to Fail?" on 2010-06-01) that I think there should be an upper limit on how big companies can get. If they can't get too big to fail then bail outs won't be necessary. And if there are many smaller companies instead of a few big ones then there will be more competition and less repression of new ideas.

As I have said many times before I have no trust in the free market and competition is often not the best answer. But realistically we aren't going to abandon capitalism any time soon so the next best thing is to optimise the way it works.

Abandoning the corporate model seems like a good first step. Smaller companies would not be bribing political leaders like the big ones do now. There would be more competition amongst smaller companies. And there might be a slight reduction in efficiency but I think that would lead to greater employment and an overall increase in standards for most people. It might even lead to a reversal of the recent trend of the rich-poor gap increasing.

I think there is growing support for tough action against corporations. I have seen several articles in reasonably mainstream sources calling for severe action against BP. The proposals include:

1. Make BP pay and pay and pay (raise their federal civil liability limit to $10 billion).
2. Void all its government contracts (already being considered).
3. Kill the company (America already shuts down rogue companies).
4. Boycott BP, far and wide (a consumer rebellion against BP brands).
5. Throw the executives in jail (for involuntary manslaughter of the 11 workers).
6. Execute CEO Tony Hayward (they do it in China, so why not?).

These may seem rather extreme (and some of them are!) but the EPA was already deciding whether to declare BP ineligible for US government contracts because of four separate cases of criminal conduct in the past decade (yes, that's criminal conduct, not just poor decisions or dodgy accounting).

The problem is that, as I said above, BP has got into this situation as much through simple bad luck as anything else. I have no doubt that many other companies take just as many shortcuts and are just as evil as BP but maybe this is an opportunity to make an example of one to act as a warning to others.

One thing seems clear to me: after the numerous corporate debacles recently I think most people can now see that the world of big business is nothing to admire and aspire to joining. Unless, that is, you are a true capitalist and death, destruction and total lack of morality is just the price you are prepared to pay for more profit.

2010-06-11

News
Rating 4
ID 1198

Shallow Technology

I've recently read a few commentaries regarding the topic of whether the internet is making us stupid. Sometimes the issue is expressed using exactly those words and other times slightly less extreme claims are made, such as the internet reduces our attention span, or makes us multitask too much, or makes us more shallow.

The argument applies to other technologies as well, for example texting on cell phones is a favourite target for people who claim that technology makes us less literate, and of course for years there have been numerous arguments against TV as a source of entertainment and information.

I like to be on the cutting edge of new technologies so I would be expected to be affected by this more than most - so is it true? In a way yes, it is, and in others it isn't (there's a typical, frivolous answer for you).

For example, I know I multitask a lot more now and recent studies have shown fairly clearly that people don't multitask well - and yes, that applies to men and women equally! But the multitasking I do is in situations where it is appropriate.

I listen to podcasts while I'm driving. Actually I'm not sure that is a good example because other research indicates that reduces my safety as a driver! So let's try this instead: I listen to podcasts while I'm walking from one location at work to another, while I'm doing household tasks, mowing the lawn, etc. They seem like times when multitasking is a good thing.

And I surf the web a lot when I'm watching TV. That's usually because most TV is barely worthy of my full attention because most of it has been dumbed down so much that half my attention is all it deserves. Of course, the surfing is often related to what's on TV. For example I often announce various "fascinating" trivia about a movie my family is watching because I'm also on the IMDB web site.

New internet services seem to be emphasising short chunks of information rather than in-depth analysis. Twitter is the most obvious example of this but RSS feeds, news aggregators, web headline summaries, Facebook, and other technologies do the same thing. I use a social networking program (currently Socialite - a brilliant program) to accumulate all of these streams of information into one place. Sometimes reading the headline is all I need but for some summaries I just click and read the details in my web browser (Safari 5 - the world's best web browser - has a useful "reader" feature which makes this easy).

So the "shallow" information sources are a great way to sort through the trending subjects and get an overview of general news and the deeper analysis is only a click away. It's really no different from reading an old-fashioned (paper) newspaper where I might read the headline and one sentence summary of most stories and only read the whole article for stuff that particularly interests me.

The advantage of the internet is that the information can easily be aggregated from numerous sources which gives me a far less biased and more general view of the news. I feed general news from the New Zealand Herald, the ODT (our local paper), the BBC, the Guardian, the New York Times, MSNBC and Fox News for example. Without the internet no one could source that sort of variety of news practically.

So it seems to me that the internet isn't making me stupid at all - it's making me far better informed in the breadth, depth, variety, and in the objectivity of the news I read. Of course I could equally easily just choose sources that fit my political biases and many people do, but you can't blame the technology for people who are determined to remain ignorant.

The final step for me will be the iPad (I don't have one yet but should get one soon) because it will make accessing these sources as easy as carrying a book or newspaper. Actually it will be a lot easier because books and newspapers aren't easy to handle in many cases. And I hope the iPad will be a sufficiently good experience that I will use it to read fiction as well. Maybe that will be the next step in my road to a paperless life (I'm already well progressed down that path).

Actually, I just noticed that I blogged about a very similar topic almost exactly two years ago (on 2008-06-10 in a post titled "Making Us Stupid?"). It's interesting to see how things have changed (although the basic principles have stayed the same). If technology is making us stupid it's doing it far more now than it was then and the trend is accelerating, so it does seem a bit pointless complaining, doesn't it.

2010-06-09

Computers
Rating 1
ID 1197

Unholy War

I have read a few commentaries recently on what seems to be a trending topic: is there a war between science and religion? (sometimes called the "unholy war") Alternatively there is the related topic of whether science and religion are compatible or whether they can co-exist or even whether religion can be proved by science.

Like a lot of subjects of this sort it does partly depend on how you define your terms. When we say science do we include philosophy or non-empirical social science, and how much support is necessary before it can be claimed as real support? There are several well known scientists who claim to have relatively bizarre religious beliefs but few of those actually use science to support them. Also there will always be a few crazies in every group, even amongst scientists.

And when we say religion do we mean a specific religion, such as Christianity (which is often what people are implying) or are we talking about a more generic concept of religion? Must the religion encompass the supernatural or is it reasonable to resort to vague (and in my opinion meaningless) concepts like "the Universe is God"?

If we take the most general case all we are saying is that some people involved in some moderately well recognised areas of study think there is some reason to believe in phenomenon which they describe in a vague way as "spiritual".

If we take the most specific case then it is well accepted that physics, chemistry and biology fully support the literal meaning of the Old Testament.

The first case is ridiculous because it's so non-specific that it is totally meaningless. It's like a pithy quote I heard recently: make god into everything and he becomes nothing. But it's impossible to accept the second case as well because only the truly nutty lunatic fringe would even pretend that real hard science supports a literal interpretation of Christian mythology.

So if the idea of compatibility or support has any meaning at all then the best interpretation must lie somewhere between these two extremes. Does that make sense?

I don't think so. The basic methodology of the two subjects seems incompatible to me. Science proceeds on extreme skepticism and by using the absolute minimum number of pre-conditions possible. Religion is quite the opposite: it has the pre-condition that certain facts are true: a certain god does exist for example.

I know it's impossible to not have some premises in any formal system of knowledge but it seems to me that science uses far fewer and more logical premises than religion does. And even if you want to debate that then the two are still different enough that they can't be compatible.

This dichotomy is reinforced every time I see someone try to use science to support religion. It doesn't matter how intelligent the person is, the end result is universally pathetic. The person not only lacks logic and facts to an extent that they would be laughed at if they tried to publish their thesis in a scientific journal, they often lack credibility to the extent that even an untrained person can see how ridiculous their assertions are.

Sometimes the most effective technique is to try to misuse complex scientific terms in an attempt to confuse the listener. Quantum theory is a favourite subject for this. Many people will hear a complex argument using uncertainty, wave particle duality and other difficult to understand physics concepts and assume the speaker knows what they are talking about. But even someone with a fairly informal knowledge of the area (like myself) can see it is pure nonsense.

I have blogged before (in an entry titled "Brilliant Stupidity" on 2009-09-22) about Francis Collins, who has done brilliant work in the past yet makes himself look like a fool when he starts trying to justify his religious beliefs. More recently I have read similarly silly stuff from Dinesh D'Souza and Gerald Schroeder (a physicist and Biblical scholar who teaches at the College of Jewish Studies in Jerusalem).

I'm not saying it's not worth listening to anyone who thinks they can support religion through science. Who knows, maybe one day they will genuinely come up with something new which has some actual validity. But so far I have been disappointed every time.

It's not that I go out of my way to ridicule the idea. I genuinely find it fascinating when science indicates that something new and mysterious might be happening that we don't understand. I have discussed the fine-tuned universe and the anthropic principle in this blog before and I find these genuinely intriguing but I don't think they prove a god exists and they certainly don't have the least impact om the argument over the existence of the Christians' god - he really is irrelevant to the subject.

2010-06-06

Religion
Rating 4
ID 1196

Too Big to Fail?

I have heard a lot recently about private companies which are too big to fail. In many cases these have had to be rescued by governments because if they had failed it would have caused significant problems for the country's economy as a whole. The banks in America are an obvious example but there have been many instances in other countries as well.

Maybe the biggest problem with this was that many of the rescued corporations just continued on as if nothing had happened. They seemed to believe that they deserved to be rescued through corporate welfare although I'm sure in many cases the same people would be totally against welfare for individuals. So they continued paying their senior managers huge salaries even though they had been shown to be both incompetent and corrupt. Is this really the way that capitalism is supposed to work?

I heard the answer to this problem on a recent podcast. If the problem is that some corporations are too big to fail then just stop them from getting too big. The free market is supposed to work on a system where failure is OK. It's through the failure of organisations which don't compete well and the survival of those who do that things improve. So if there are organisations which cannot fail then the system itself fails.

I should say at this point that I'm not a great supporter of free markets or pure capitalism but I am realistic enough to realise we don't have any great alternatives and that the status quo isn't going to change in the near future. But if we are going to use this economic model let's make sure it works.

There are plenty of cases where single big corporations have been broken up into smaller ones. In the US a major example would be Bell phone company. Similar things have happened elsewhere, especially when previous government monopolies have been turned into private companies. So we know that breaking up big organisations works and I think we should do more of it.

If there were 10 small banks for every one large one currently then having some of them fail wouldn't have been a total disaster to the economy as a whole. Maybe governments would have needed to help out people who invested with those banks but they could have helped with that by seizing the assets of the managers and shareholders of the failed bank. That sort of result would encourage the management of banks still in existence to be more careful too!

Maybe another problem is that the US is too influential in the world economy. It's like the "too big" problem also extends to countries. In some ways it helps with Europe being more like a single economic block and China becoming more influential but somehow I think these facts don't really change the underlying problem.

With the US being so influential and US politics being controlled by corporate interests (whether the Democrats or Republicans are theoretically in charge) there is unlikely to be any real change for the better in the foreseeable future. So I guess we should just get used to corporate incompetence to continue to be rewarded.

2010-06-01

Comments
Rating 3
ID 1195

Playing God

There has been a lot of controversy and excitement recently over the development of a "synthetic genome" by Craig Venter's group of researchers. Many people seem outraged that they have dared to "play god". They say that as if it's a bad thing but I would say that's what science is all about.

Of course I don't mean that literally because there is no good reason to think there is a god but what I do mean is that science should try to gain the abilities that are traditionally associated with gods. On the other hand, some of the actions attributed to gods in the past may not be what we should strive for: death, destruction, and immature behaviour are some of the negative aspects of gods. I'm thinking more of the more positive god-like attributes such as creativity.

So what has Venter's group actually achieved? Well there is a lot of misinformation and flashy headlines going around which I think are very misleading. Basically they have succeeded in developing the first living cell which is controlled entirely by synthetic DNA. The DNA was created by machine from a computer program and injected into an already living cell from a different species.

All of the machinery of the cell already existed but the new DNA will cause that cell to replicate and those cells will have been "created" by the synthetic DNA. From what I understand most of the DNA is a sequence from an existing species (a different one from the cell) but that has been modified and the researchers can create any DNA sequence they want.

So what's the point? Is this some sort of Frankenstein-like act entirely designed to show how clever the scientists are and to create a potential risk with no hope of a positive outcome?

Of course not. All science is good and this would be even if had no practical purpose. But the ability to create a living cell with a DNA sequence specified by machine is potentially revolutionary. For a start it can be used to decide which parts of the sequence code for what because sections can be removed or changed easily. So it will lead to a much better understanding of how DNA sequences are translated into working proteins and how these function in biological processes.

And it means that entirely new life forms will be able to be created which might solve many of the greatest problems we have today: problems like energy generation and making spare body parts and designing new medical processes.

Naturally there have been many groups who are worried about the future of this technology. I call it the "Frankenstein syndrome". People naturally assume that technologies they don't understand and which seem to be "unnatural" must be dangerous. I agree that any technology can be dangerous and biological engineering certainly needs to be used carefully, but the potential advantages are so huge that it should take far more than just a vague general concern about genetic manipulation to halt the research.

It would be interesting to know if some of the objectors would change their mind if the technology was about to develop a cure for a disease they were likely to die from, for example. That might not be the case directly but in the long term it is likely to be true. Eventually most people will get a disease which this technology could fix. The problem is that the time gap between initial research and practical applications can be quite long and most people don't cope well with any process which takes longer than a few months.

Maybe if scientists were really playing god they could do the whole job in 7 days (including the well earned rest at the end) but their abilities aren't quite that divine just yet!

2010-05-28

Science
Rating 2
ID 1194

Really, Really Sick

I have varying reactions to the people I debate controversial topics (especially religion) with. Sometimes I feel contempt because I realise they are deliberately lying to support a view they know is untrue, sometimes I feel annoyance because I think the person isn't making the effort to inform themselves about a subject, and sometimes I feel sympathy because I realise someone has completely lost touch with reality and their delusions have reached the point of being a genuine psychological problem.

You guessed it. Recently I have debated someone who, in my opinion, really needs help from a professional. His beliefs are so deluded, so sick, and so sad, that it's not just a matter of him being ignorant, or misinformed, or intolerant - he is genuinely psychologically damaged. Whether these problems lead him to the particular beliefs he now has or whether the problem occurred as result of these beliefs I'm not sure.

I should say at this point that I'm not a professional psychologist or psychiatrist. I do have an undergrad degree in psychology but I'm not pretending that makes me qualified to make a diagnosis - that's why I suggested he get professional help. Maybe that would reveal there is no problem but I don't think so.

I want to share some of the emails we have exchanged recently to show the thought processes he (and many other extreme conservative Christians) have. I don't usually do this without permission but I'm only using representative parts and there will be no way to know who they other person is, so here it is...

Here's his opening paragraph which was supposed to answer the question of why god allows bad things to happen to good people (you know, the old classic question): "you are not innocent owen, nor am i, nor is anyone. its not the case that you have sinned, you have never done anything but sin. you are a self righteous, arrogant, abomination."

Many people would find that rather insulting. Calling someone an "abomination" seems rather extreme! But you can see where this sort of thing is heading - it explains any evil act this particular god commits because we are unworthy of fair treatment. One thing bothers me though (and should worry my opponent too): why did his god create such abominations? Couldn't he do any better?

Making people feel inferior and unworthy is a classic control technique. Slaves are taught they are only allowed to exist because of the generosity of their masters. It's obvious to me why Christianity encourages this sort of attitude - it's a form of mind control.

In answer to why his god's love is expressed in such odd ways (death, suffering, disease, war, famine, etc) he replied with this: "gee... again you rant with no understanding at all, you still cant understand that this is a true Love God offers."

So his god's true love consists of suffering and death. Gee, thanks.

He continues: "The fact is that owen you dont deserve you next breath, and it is by Gods grace that he allows you another day as you live in rebellion to him constantly. those people God killed were just like you owen, murderers, fornicators, adulterers, liers, theives, sexual abominations in His sight..." [By the way, please excuse the fact that this person is barely literate]

So I don't deserve to live according to his god. That seems a bit harsh. Why create humans if they don't deserve to live? And I can assure you that I am not a murderer, fornicator, adulterer, liar, or a thief. And I don't think I'm a "sexual abomination" either, whatever that is. But you can see how this is starting to demonstrate a psychotic tendency because having such strong revulsion for your fellow humans (and yourself) isn't healthy.

But now the real truth behind the rant is revealed: "living and rebeling against Him and everything God has said since the beginning. Hating God in their hearts, pushing Him from their thoughts (even willing to deny His exsistance (hint,hint)). God has and is just in His actions, the fact is you deserve the same!! and the fact that He doesnt kill you owen does not make God unjust for killing people in times past, God hates sin and in early times he punished it severly because it literally shettered the chance of our survival. diseases are the result of our own filthiness and sin" [Oh no, "literally shettered" - that sounds bad!]

Wow! Just wow. It just gets sicker and sicker. But you can see why the church has encouraged this way of thinking. It's all about discouraging rebellion against the authority of the church (they say it's against god, of course). How sad and disgusting is that? You can see why I feel a bit sorry for this church's victims.

There's more of the same (which I won't torture you with), then later he goes on to this: "You are so influenced by the world you live in owen, someone tells you what to wear, what to drive, what is cool, where to go, how to act."

I've never met this person in real life and there's no way he could possibly know these things and they are completely untrue. Everyone is influenced by the society they live in to some extent but I have a reputation of being a "free spirit" and not someone who blindly follows trends. And anyway, I would rather be influenced by the world I live in than by a fantasy world which doesn't exist.

The rant continues: "Media tells you how to relate to fellow man, adultery, fornication, lies, coveteousness, blasphemy, pridefulness, deceitfuless, slanderous, gossip are just some of the lies we love to hear. you fall right into the lie owen and love it and you do not even know it. you are just the result of your society and what it has sold you. A fish does not know it is wet..........."

Again with the fornication! I have no idea why he would think I am unusually interested in that particular sin, or any of the others (apart from blasphemy, of course). I actually try to avoid most of the sins mentioned in the Bible because they are basic rules for living which work in human societies. I don't follow them because they are in the Bible of course, I avoid them because they make sense and they are part of many cultures and philosophies and they certainly didn't originate in Christianity.

Finally, he gives one last piece of advice: "repent."

Does he really think I would submit to the disgusting, despicable abomination of a religion (see I can use those words too) he follows? Even if I thought his sick, childish god existed I would never submit to him. Some things are right and some things are just wrong. What this guy believes is as wrong as anything can be.

2010-05-22

Religion
Rating 5
ID 1193

Marcus Aurelius

I'm currently involved in a minor debate with a Christian regarding the behaviour of his god. I found a web site which listed all the millions of people the traditional Christian god has killed (at least according to the Old Testament) and, when it's seen in the context of the population of the world at the time, I would say he is the worst mass murderer of all time.

My opponent countered by saying that the general level of theological analysis at the site was rather poor, which is true to some extent, but these stories are either true or they aren't! Well, of course, most of them are complete fantasy, as is his god, but he has to believe them because he (foolishly) thinks the Bible is inerrant.

So why would anyone worship a god who consistently demonstrates jealousy, inconsistency, murderous rage, and childish petulance? He's a pathetic god and totally unworthy of anyone's respect. Anyone who worshipped such a god out of fear is no better than the type of person who followed Hitler or Stalin because they were scared of them! In fact they're a lot worse because the certainty of punishment as a result of defying Stalin is far greater than defying this pathetic god. When was the last time he actually smote anyone anyway!

I found a quote today which summarises the advice I would give to anyone who wants guidance on the best way to live his life. It equally applies to people who don't think a god exists and to those who think one does. It doesn't apply to those who blindly accept the idiotic dogma of a fundamentalist church however.

The quote is from Roman Emperor, Marcus Aurelius, who advised: "Live a good life. If there are gods and they are just, then they will not care how devout you have been, but will welcome you based on the virtues you have lived by. If there are gods, but unjust, then you should not want to worship them. If there are no gods, then you will be gone, but will have lived a noble life that will live on in the memories of your loved ones."

Of course there is one huge hole in this particular philosophy. That is who decides what a "good life" actually is? Is it one based on charity, or hard work, or piety, or hedonism? To different people all of these would seem like the best way to achieve a "good life".

My answer to this objection is that most people know what a good life actually is and they would probably agree with a high degree of consistency, even across cultures, if external influences such as religious and political propaganda was kept to a minimum.

The principles of a good life would be to have fun, to be creative, to help your friends and family, and to contribute to society as a whole. Sure there are sociopaths and other deviants who wouldn't follow these ideals and there are people who have been so warped by their politics or religion that they might disagree, but I think the basic ideas still apply.

If there really is a god out there who demands unspeaking obedience and an arbitrary obligation to abandon what people naturally know is right, then that god really isn't worth taking too much notice of. The blind fools who take their god's warped message so seriously that they kill out of obedience to him really would be a lot better off to listen to Marcus Aurelius. Ignore religion and do what you know is really right.

In the unlikely event that there really is a god I know one thing with virtual certainty: he bears no similarity whatsoever to the pitifully childish ideas associated with the world's major religions. The real god would feel very sad that the inventors of those religions got it so wrong. And I'm sure he would appreciate those who follow Marcus Aurelius' ideas far more than those invented by a committee of the early church founders of whatever organised religion you might choose.

2010-05-17

Religion
Rating 4
ID 1192

Flush Flash

The battle between Apple and Adobe over Flash continues. Apple won't allow Flash onto its devices such as the iPod, iPhone and iPad (although it does work on the Mac) and Adobe claim it's a widely used technology which Apple gadget users should have access to. So who is right? Actually both are right and both are wrong.

I am a web developer myself (amongst many other things) but I have never felt the need to use Flash in my web sites and web-based databases. One of the reasons for that is that Flash is usually used in situations where it shouldn't be: as a container for video or for annoying animations for example. Another reason is that it's just so inefficient, buggy and unreliable.

I know Flash developers who have commented about the numerous workarounds necessary to make their Flash apps work. I also know that I can tell when my laptop is running Flash without even looking because it starts getting hotter! And if my web browser crashes for any reason you can almost guarantee Flash is involved somewhere! I know the Mac version is worse than the PC version but the situation is only slightly better there.

So it would be nice if I could avoid Flash, On the other hand it is a very widely used technology and, although it's generally accepted that it isn't a good technology, it is one which is important - at least until HTML5 becomes a viable alternative.

So should Apple stop its users from using Flash by banning it on their devices? As I implied above, the answer can be yes or no. Apple make no secret that their devices are a closed, tightly controlled environment and they reserve the right to ban inferior applications and technologies (like Flash certainly is). But you could also say that they should be more pragmatic and allow Flash to exist until it's no longer necessary.

But will it ever become unnecessary if there is no pressure from companies like Apple to reduce its use? Maybe not. There are plenty of other poor but functional technologies out there enjoying great popularity - Microsoft Office would be number one! Maybe Apple are indulging in some of their famous "social engineering" and using their influence to try to make the Internet a better place for everyone.

That's a very arrogant attitude but they've done it before and it has resulted in a positive outcome for its users in the end (admittedly after some initial anguish). Apple eliminated floppy disks, serial ports, and modems from their computers years before the PC world did. And the eradication of those technologies has been good for everyone. We now have flash drives, USB and Firewire, and broadband instead.

I'm not saying those changes wouldn't have happened anyway - after all, Apple only have a small share of the desktop market - but it surely influenced the speed of the change.

I do find one claim Apple have made to be somewhat odd though. Steve jobs has derided Flash on the basis it is proprietary technology. Considering Apple are the "kings" of the closed system that is somewhat hypocritical. Or maybe it isn't. Having a closed device which utilises standards and doesn't affect other technologies is one thing but Adobe have created something with Flash that affects everyone who uses the Web. It's a far more basic part of the Internet infrastructure than a device like the iPhone.

So Flash is the sort of technology which should be open. In fact it has probably got to the point where even opening it as open source wouldn't help because I suspect it would need to be rewritten completely to make it reliable and fast enough for use on modern devices. And if you're going to start again wouldn't it be better to start with HTML5 instead?

So while I agree Apple's "bully tactics" are a bit extreme I think they're doing the right thing for the long term good of the Internet. Whether they're doing that for self-centered or altruistic reasons doesn't really matter. It's time to flush Flash!

2010-05-14

Computers
Rating 2
ID 1191

Attack the Action

I was recently involved in an email conversation with a conservative, fundamentalist Christian (well against someone like that it was, somewhat inevitably, more an argument than a conversation) where I defended the sort of groups they traditionally attack. Specifically this time it was the opponents of Israel in Lebanon. My opposition basically claimed Israel had no blame at all for the conflict there and that all the blame should be placed on Lebanon.

It's ridiculous of course, because no conflict is ever 100% caused by one side. There is always blame on both sides and no group ever acts with total morality - not even Israel!

I concluded my email by saying that I despise fundamentalist Muslims but that I equally despise fundamentalists of other types, such as fundamentalist Christians. I realised after sending the email that I had more-or-less said I hated him because that's effectively what saying I despise fundies really means.

And I realised that wasn't really what I meant. I don't hate him at all and I don't hate any other fundies (of any type) I have met. I do hate the belief system they have but that's a totally different thing. It's a basic law of fair debating: attack the idea not the person. Attacking the person generally equates to an ad hominem attack and, although I think it's OK to point out a person's past history of fake beliefs or other relevant attributes, that should not be a major part of a debate. The facts are what really matter.

Actually I'll take the idea even further. Its best not to attack what people believe but what they do. If someone has silly beliefs but still acts like a moral person then they are still a good person. There are several church groups who do good charitable work. Sure they have silly beliefs but they act positively and that's more important.

Unfortunately there is often a link between silly beliefs and behaving badly. Surprisingly (perhaps) many fundamentalist Christians actually don't follow the traditional interpretation of Jesus' teaching very well. They aren't very charitable, or forgiving, or understanding. So I might dislike them for that but in some ways it's not their fault. They are trapped by their silly beliefs so again it gets back to despising the idea rather than the person.

Maybe it's too easy to find a belief system to explain anyone's bad behaviour but I've never met anyone yet who is genuinely inherently evil. Maybe I've just been lucky!

2010-05-12

Comments
Rating 3
ID 1190