The Ethical Atheist

The Bible on Women?

2008-06-20T03:04:00.003-05:00

The moderate or liberal Christians will tell you that man and woman are created equal. Of course, the fundy will tell you otherwise. He'll adhere to his good-ol' book verbatim. What does the Bible really have to say on women? Lets find out.

The tenth commandment.

Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbour's.

This is considered one of the only things in the Bible that is so profound that it had to come from God directly. Let's analyze this a bit further. Thou shalt not covet a house (property), manservant (slave, ergo property), maidservant (slave, ergo property), ox (property), ass (property), nor anything that is thy neighbour's (in the sense of property) and you should not covet his wife. Yes, ladies and gentleman, the big man's words himself put women in the same category as his husband's property. You would think that this omnipotent, omniscient God could have chosen better diction. You would think that he could have set up a better system. But alas, this is not the case. Women, you are hereby commanded to a lifetime of servitude to your husband. Why? Because God said so.

Genesis 3:16

To the woman he said,
"I will greatly increase your pains in childbearing;
with pain you will give birth to children.
Your desire will be for your husband,
and he will rule over you."

This would definitely be my favorite quote of the Bible. It gives me complete control of my woman. Yup, this would definitely have to be my favorite quote. If I were a misogynist.

Genesis 19:1-8

The two angels arrived at Sodom in the evening, and Lot was sitting in the gateway of the city. When he saw them, he got up to meet them and bowed down with his face to the ground. 2 "My lords," he said, "please turn aside to your servant's house. You can wash your feet and spend the night and then go on your way early in the morning."
"No," they answered, "we will spend the night in the square."

3 But he insisted so strongly that they did go with him and entered his house. He prepared a meal for them, baking bread without yeast, and they ate. 4 Before they had gone to bed, all the men from every part of the city of Sodom—both young and old—surrounded the house. 5 They called to Lot, "Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us so that we can have sex with them."

6 Lot went outside to meet them and shut the door behind him 7 and said, "No, my friends. Don't do this wicked thing. 8 Look, I have two daughters who have never slept with a man. Let me bring them out to you, and you can do what you like with them. But don't do anything to these men, for they have come under the protection of my roof."

The greatest part of this story is that Lot is later considered an honorable man. Man, would I love to get my morals from this book. "Here, gang-bang my woman. She's filthy because she's a woman. My, what an honorable guy am I!!"

Exodus 22:16-17

16 "If a man seduces a virgin who is not pledged to be married and sleeps with her, he must pay the bride-price, and she shall be his wife. 17 If her father absolutely refuses to give her to him, he must still pay the bride-price for virgins.

Context? Sure. The preceding verses from Exodus 22 deal with restitution for stealing or damaging someones property. Verses 16 and 17 deal with restitution for defiling one's daughter. Not to the daughter herself. Oh no. This would be far too progressive for a bigoted book such as the Bible. The daughter is, of course, the father's property! Any compensation must go to him! After all, you did defile his daughter! If you aren't going to repay him, then who would you repay?!

Leviticus 12:1-5

1 The LORD said to Moses, 2 "Say to the Israelites: 'A woman who becomes pregnant and gives birth to a son will be ceremonially unclean for seven days, just as she is unclean during her monthly period. 3 On the eighth day the boy is to be circumcised. 4 Then the woman must wait thirty-three days to be purified from her bleeding. She must not touch anything sacred or go to the sanctuary until the days of her purification are over. 5 If she gives birth to a daughter, for two weeks the woman will be unclean, as during her period. Then she must wait sixty-six days to be purified from her bleeding.

So let me get this straight. Bearing a female somehow makes you more unclean than bearing a male??

Leviticus 27:6

"And if it be from a month old even unto five years old, then thy estimation shall be of the male five shekels of silver, and for the female thy estimation shall be three shekels of silver."

Ladies, you're worth exactly 3/5 of me. This sounds vaguely familiar from American History.

Deuteronomy 21:10-13

10 When you go to war against your enemies and the LORD your God delivers them into your hands and you take captives, 11 if you notice among the captives a beautiful woman and are attracted to her, you may take her as your wife. 12 Bring her into your home and have her shave her head, trim her nails 13 and put aside the clothes she was wearing when captured. After she has lived in your house and mourned her father and mother for a full month, then you may go to her and be her husband and she shall be your wife.

Sounds like she has plenty of choice in this decision...

Deuteronomy 22:23-24

23 If a man happens to meet in a town a virgin pledged to be married and he sleeps with her, 24 you shall take both of them to the gate of that town and stone them to death—the girl because she was in a town and did not scream for help, and the man because he violated another man's wife. You must purge the evil from among you.

This passage may be superficially deceptive. It seems as though both man and woman are receiving equal punishment for their crime. But look deeper. What is the reason behind this punishment? Retribution for the adulteress' husband. The adulterer's wife is conveniently not mentioned.

Deuteronomy 22:13-21

13 If a man takes a wife and, after lying with her, dislikes her 14 and slanders her and gives her a bad name, saying, "I married this woman, but when I approached her, I did not find proof of her virginity," 15 then the girl's father and mother shall bring proof that she was a virgin to the town elders at the gate. 16 The girl's father will say to the elders, "I gave my daughter in marriage to this man, but he dislikes her. 17 Now he has slandered her and said, 'I did not find your daughter to be a virgin.' But here is the proof of my daughter's virginity." Then her parents shall display the cloth before the elders of the town, 18 and the elders shall take the man and punish him. 19 They shall fine him a hundred shekels of silver [a] and give them to the girl's father, because this man has given an Israelite virgin a bad name. She shall continue to be his wife; he must not divorce her as long as he lives.

20 If, however, the charge is true and no proof of the girl's virginity can be found, 21 she shall be brought to the door of her father's house and there the men of her town shall stone her to death. She has done a disgraceful thing in Israel by being promiscuous while still in her father's house. You must purge the evil from among you.

So if a father can't provide proof of his daughter's virginity they stone her to death? Wow, God's chosen people were brute savages. How can anyone have any respect for these people? How can anyone take seriously anything written in this book.

Deuteronomy 22:28-29

"If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, which is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found; Then the man that lay with her shall give unto the damsel's father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife...."

Well, America you heathen nation -- you're not supposed to punish the rapist, you're supposed to give him a wife!!

Judges 19:16-30

16 That evening an old man from the hill country of Ephraim, who was living in Gibeah (the men of the place were Benjamites), came in from his work in the fields. 17 When he looked and saw the traveler in the city square, the old man asked, "Where are you going? Where did you come from?"

18 He answered, "We are on our way from Bethlehem in Judah to a remote area in the hill country of Ephraim where I live. I have been to Bethlehem in Judah and now I am going to the house of the LORD. No one has taken me into his house. 19 We have both straw and fodder for our donkeys and bread and wine for ourselves your servants—me, your maidservant, and the young man with us. We don't need anything."

20 "You are welcome at my house," the old man said. "Let me supply whatever you need. Only don't spend the night in the square." 21 So he took him into his house and fed his donkeys. After they had washed their feet, they had something to eat and drink.

22 While they were enjoying themselves, some of the wicked men of the city surrounded the house. Pounding on the door, they shouted to the old man who owned the house, "Bring out the man who came to your house so we can have sex with him."

23 The owner of the house went outside and said to them, "No, my friends, don't be so vile. Since this man is my guest, don't do this disgraceful thing. 24 Look, here is my virgin daughter, and his concubine. I will bring them out to you now, and you can use them and do to them whatever you wish. But to this man, don't do such a disgraceful thing."

25 But the men would not listen to him. So the man took his concubine and sent her outside to them, and they raped her and abused her throughout the night, and at dawn they let her go. 26 At daybreak the woman went back to the house where her master was staying, fell down at the door and lay there until daylight.

27 When her master got up in the morning and opened the door of the house and stepped out to continue on his way, there lay his concubine, fallen in the doorway of the house, with her hands on the threshold. 28 He said to her, "Get up; let's go." But there was no answer. Then the man put her on his donkey and set out for home.

29 When he reached home, he took a knife and cut up his concubine, limb by limb, into twelve parts and sent them into all the areas of Israel. 30 Everyone who saw it said, "Such a thing has never been seen or done, not since the day the Israelites came up out of Egypt. Think about it! Consider it! Tell us what to do!"

What. The. Fuck?

1 Corinthians 11:3

3Now I want you to realize that the head of every man is Christ, and the head of the woman is man, and the head of Christ is God.

1 Corinthians 14:34-35

34women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the Law says. 35If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church.

Don't you dare speak in church you hag!

Ephesians 5:22-24

22Wives, submit to your husbands as to the Lord. 23For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior. 24Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything.

Timothy 2:11-15

11A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. 12I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent. 13For Adam was formed first, then Eve. 14And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner. 15But women[a] will be saved[b] through childbearing—if they continue in faith, love and holiness with propriety.

And all of this barely scratches the surface! Women, why do you permit such subjugation to continue? Why do you surrender yourself to these antiquated, perverse ideas. You are not any less than I, or any man. Rise up. Let them hear your voice. Don't defend this sick, misogynistic religion.

By the way, you can find far more atrocities in the Bible and www.skepticsannotatedbible.com.

Pro-Creationist Bill Approved by Louisiana House

2008-06-12T02:04:00.002-05:00

Unfortunately the not-so-wise house in Louisiana approved bill SB733, a pro-creationism bill. The bill is now headed to the senate for minor revisions and then will be sent to the conservative governor for approval. Barbara Forrest, and other people who are pro-good-science-education have started a group to counter these measures. Here's there take on it:

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

New group stands up for sound science education in Louisiana

LA Coalition for Science decries House support for SB 733, calls for Senate to reject bill

Baton Rouge, LA, June 11, 2008 – In response to numerous attacks on science education in the Bayou State, concerned parents, teachers and scientists are getting organized. The new group Louisiana Coalition for Science calls upon the Senate to oppose SB 733, a bill which will open the door to creationism in public schools.

Barbara Forrest, a professor of philosophy at Southeastern Louisiana University and a founding member of the Louisiana Coalition for Science (LCFS), says, "The legislature shouldn't be allowing creationists to undermine Louisiana public schools. The House of Representatives just gave the Religious Right a green light to use other people's children for their own agenda." Forrest is the author of Creationism's Trojan Horse: The Wedge of Intelligent Design and has served as an expert witness on the issue of intelligent design creationism. "The Louisiana legislature tried to force creationism into public schools in 1981, and they lost in the U. S. Supreme Court. The Discovery Institute, a national creationist organization, and the Louisiana Family Forum are using the same old tricks, but with new labels. In Kitzmiller et al. v. Dover Area School District in 2005, I showed that intelligent design was cooked up as a new name for the same old creationist arguments, and the strategy behind this bill is no different. Despite their denials, even the bill's backers know that SB 733 is a creationist bill written in creationist code language." The 1987 Supreme Court decision in Edwards v. Aguillard overturned a Louisiana law requiring teachers to "balance" the teaching of evolution with creationism. In the Kitzmiller case, a federal judge in Pennsylvania ruled that intelligent design is a form of creationism and that teaching it is an unconstitutional entanglement of religion with the state.

Patsye Peebles, a veteran biology teacher from Baton Rouge and a founding member of the Louisiana Coalition for Science, agrees that the bill should be rejected. "I was a biology teacher for 22 years, and I never needed the legislature to tell me how to present anything. This bill doesn't solve any of the problems classroom teachers face, and it will make it harder for us to keep the focus on accurate science in science classrooms. Evolution isn't scientifically controversial, and we don't need the legislature substituting its judgment for the scientists and science teachers who actually know the subject."

SB 733 lists evolution as an issue deserving of special scrutiny. Scientificorganizations, including the National Academy of Sciences, the American Institute of Biological Sciences, and the National Association of Biology Teachers have spoken out against this tactic of singling evolution out for criticism.

Betsy Irvine, a Presbyterian minister in Baton Rouge, explains, "Evolution is very strong science, and its place in science class should be uncontroversial. Many Christian traditions, including Catholicism, acknowledge the compatibility of evolution and Christian faith. It is shameful to see people sowing division on this subject. The spirit behind these attacks isn't just bad science, it's bad theology. This bill is an attack on the millions of faithful Christians who accept evolution. The best way both to protect the teaching of science in our public schools and to show respect for the religious freedom of all Louisiana residents is to unequivocally reject SB 733."

Forrest, who testified against the bill before the House Education Committee, calls upon the Senate to reject the bill. "Now that the House has passed the bill, the Senate has one more chance to do the right thing. The entire country is watching. They should reject this bill and let teachers do their jobs. This bill is being pushed by creationist groups and does nothing to help Louisiana, our teachers, or our children. It's heartbreaking to see so few people willing to stand up for Louisiana."

Forrest also commends the three legislators Rep. Patricia Haynes Smith, Rep. Jean-Paul Morrell, and Rep. Karen Carter Peterson who had the courage and integrity to speak out for the children of Louisiana by voting against the bill. "These three legislators put principle over politics. What a shame that 94 others could not do the same thing."

Louisiana Coalition for Science is a grassroots group working to protect the teaching of science in Louisiana. See http://lasciencecoalition.org.

Contacts:

Barbara Forrest barbara.forrest@gmail.com 985-974-4244

Patsye Peebles patsye.peebles@gmail.com 225-336-9023

I hope that this inane decision by the LA house is quickly rectified.

Thanks to Josh Rosenau for bringing this to my attention.

Nim Chimpsky and Animal Cruelty

2008-06-10T16:14:00.002-05:00

After reading this review of Num Chimpky: The Chimp Who Would be Human this book has moved to the top of my reading list. Essentially Nim was a chimp raised in a human household in a language-learning experiment. The cruelty he suffered due to the hubris of some is depressing. Anyway, even if I had even a little bit of free time I'd love to read this book.

It's pretty saddening to see the level of animal cruelty today and the indifference to this cruelty. In fact, just the other day my girlfriend and I were walking in the park where four jack-asses were putting weight on a turtle's shell, knocking it upside down, etc. I wish there was something that I could have done. Those people should be flogged.

My amazing girlfriend

2008-06-05T18:09:00.002-05:00

Not that this has anything to do with atheism or anything, but I just wanted anyone who comes across this site to know that I love my girlfriend. Unconditionally. She is the best thing that has ever happened to me, and has made me happier than I have ever been in my life. I love you, J!

Atheism vs Agnosticism

2008-06-01T19:32:00.000-05:00

Even among the more intelligent people in society there is a misconception about what atheism is, what agnosticism is, and what the differences between the two are. People often think about the issue as a religiosity spectrum -- atheists and theists are diametrically opposite, while agnosticism is considered to be a moderate stance somewhere in the middle. Furthermore, an atheist is often considered one who obstinately disbelieves in God. These are both particularly vexatious fallacies.

Theism deals with belief whereas gnosticism, in this context, deals with an epistemic question. These are two entirely different spheres of thought, and are not mutually exclusive. That is the central thesis of this post.

The theist believes in the claim that God exists. The atheist does not believe it. Note that no claims of knowledge have been specified. Also note, that though an atheist does not share the theist's beliefs, this does not mean he believes in the idea that God does not exist. He may very well choose to do so, but this is not a prerequisite for atheism. An atheist is literally "one without theism." Not believing in an idea is not the same thing as rejecting in an idea. It may seem that I am getting agitated over petty semantics, however such implicit fallacies are often insidiously manipulated.

Another way to put this is there are two possible claims about the existence of God:

1. God does exist.
2. God does not exists.

Also, in the context of belief, there are two possible positions to take on each of the claims above:

1. Believing the claim.
2. Not believing the claim.

A theist is one who believes in claim 1 and does not believe in claim 2. An atheist is one who does not believe in claim 1, but can take either position on claim 2.

We can look at gnosticism in a similar way. A gnostic claims absolute knowledge about the existence or nonexistence of God, whereas an agnostic does not claim such knowledge. It is my opinion anyone who claims gnosticism to such an issue is either lying or deluded. However, the lack of absolute knowledge, or perhaps even the inability to ascertain this knowledge, should not prevent scrutiny of unjustifiable beliefs.

It should now be clear that knowledge and belief are distinct from one another, ergo the terms associated with each are not mutually exclusive. We can now describe people using four phrases in respect to their ideas about God: agnostic theists, agnostic atheists, gnostic theists, and gnostic atheists. In my experience, I have never met a truly gnostic atheist.

My speculation on why the initial misconception exists will be the subject of another post.

First image from Phoenix

2008-05-26T02:02:00.003-05:00

Here is one of the first images from Phoenix showing the Martian terrain and horizon.

Way cool! More images here

The Phoenix Has Landed

2008-05-22T18:59:00.001-05:00

The Phoenix landed on Mars today. That is good news. Nasa's site lists four main goals for Phoenix:

--Determine whether Life ever arose on Mars

--Characterize the Climate of Mars

--Characterize the Geology of Mars

--Prepare for Human Exploration

Follow the mission here

Einstein on Religion: Weekly Quote

2008-05-04T11:03:00.002-05:00

I know that I said I would post a weekly science quote on Friday, but I've been very busy with finals. I apologize for the delay, but I will post the quote now.

The following is a quote about religion by Einstein. Many people often misrepresent him as a religious man -- by that I mean as a man who believed in a personal God. Even if they acknowledge that Einstein did not believe in a personal God, they often misrepresent Einstein as seeing organized religion, such as the Abrahamic religions, as a good thing. I hope to dispel both of those myths here.

When Einstein says that he was a deeply religious man, or that "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind" one must look deeper than the simple quote and read the quote in context to ascertain what he actually meant. This should help put such quotes in context:

Everything that the human race has done and thought is concerned with the satisfaction of deeply felt needs and the assuagement of pain. One has to keep this constantly in mind if one wishes to understand spiritual movements and their development. Feeling and longing are the motive force behind all human endeavor and human creation, in however exalted a guise the latter may present themselves to us. Now what are the feelings and needs that have led men to religious thought and belief in the widest sense of the words? A little consideration will suffice to show us that the most varying emotions preside over the birth of religious thought and experience. With primitive man it is above all fear that evokes religious notions - fear of hunger, wild beasts, sickness, death. Since at this stage of existence understanding of causal connections is usually poorly developed, the human mind creates illusory beings more or less analogous to itself on whose wills and actions these fearful happenings depend. Thus one tries to secure the favor of these beings by carrying out actions and offering sacrifices which, according to the tradition handed down from generation to generation, propitiate them or make them well disposed toward a mortal. In this sense I am speaking of a religion of fear. This, though not created, is in an important degree stabilized by the formation of a special priestly caste which sets itself up as a mediator between the people and the beings they fear, and erects a hegemony on this basis. In many cases a leader or ruler or a privileged class whose position rests on other factors combines priestly functions with its secular authority in order to make the latter more secure; or the political rulers and the priestly caste make common cause in their own interests.

The social impulses are another source of the crystallization of religion. Fathers and mothers and the leaders of larger human communities are mortal and fallible. The desire for guidance, love, and support prompts men to form the social or moral conception of God. This is the God of Providence, who protects, disposes, rewards, and punishes; the God who, according to the limits of the believer's outlook, loves and cherishes the life of the tribe or of the human race, or even or life itself; the comforter in sorrow and unsatisfied longing; he who preserves the souls of the dead. This is the social or moral conception of God.

The Jewish scriptures admirably illustrate the development from the religion of fear to moral religion, a development continued in the New Testament. The religions of all civilized peoples, especially the peoples of the Orient, are primarily moral religions. The development from a religion of fear to moral religion is a great step in peoples' lives. And yet, that primitive religions are based entirely on fear and the religions of civilized peoples purely on morality is a prejudice against which we must be on our guard. The truth is that all religions are a varying blend of both types, with this differentiation: that on the higher levels of social life the religion of morality predominates.

Common to all these types is the anthropomorphic character of their conception of God. In general, only individuals of exceptional endowments, and exceptionally high-minded communities, rise to any considerable extent above this level. But there is a third stage of religious experience which belongs to all of them, even though it is rarely found in a pure form: I shall call it cosmic religious feeling. It is very difficult to elucidate this feeling to anyone who is entirely without it, especially as there is no anthropomorphic conception of God corresponding to it.

The individual feels the futility of human desires and aims and the sublimity and marvelous order which reveal themselves both in nature and in the world of thought. Individual existence impresses him as a sort of prison and he wants to experience the universe as a single significant whole. The beginnings of cosmic religious feeling already appear at an early stage of development, e.g., in many of the Psalms of David and in some of the Prophets. Buddhism, as we have learned especially from the wonderful writings of Schopenhauer, contains a much stronger element of this.

The religious geniuses of all ages have been distinguished by this kind of religious feeling, which knows no dogma and no God conceived in man's image; so that there can be no church whose central teachings are based on it. Hence it is precisely among the heretics of every age that we find men who were filled with this highest kind of religious feeling and were in many cases regarded by their contemporaries as atheists, sometimes also as saints. Looked at in this light, men like Democritus, Francis of Assisi, and Spinoza are closely akin to one another.

How can cosmic religious feeling be communicated from one person to another, if it can give rise to no definite notion of a God and no theology? In my view, it is the most important function of art and science to awaken this feeling and keep it alive in those who are receptive to it.

We thus arrive at a conception of the relation of science to religion very different from the usual one. When one views the matter historically, one is inclined to look upon science and religion as irreconcilable antagonists, and for a very obvious reason. The man who is thoroughly convinced of the universal operation of the law of causation cannot for a moment entertain the idea of a being who interferes in the course of events - provided, of course, that he takes the hypothesis of causality really seriously. He has no use for the religion of fear and equally little for social or moral religion. A God who rewards and punishes is inconceivable to him for the simple reason that a man's actions are determined by necessity, external and internal, so that in God's eyes he cannot be responsible, any more than an inanimate object is responsible for the motions it undergoes. Science has therefore been charged with undermining morality, but the charge is unjust. A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties and needs; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hopes of reward after death.

It is therefore easy to see why the churches have always fought science and persecuted its devotees.On the other hand, I maintain that the cosmic religious feeling is the strongest and noblest motive for scientific research. Only those who realize the immense efforts and, above all, the devotion without which pioneer work in theoretical science cannot be achieved are able to grasp the strength of the emotion out of which alone such work, remote as it is from the immediate realities of life, can issue. What a deep conviction of the rationality of the universe and what a yearning to understand, were it but a feeble reflection of the mind revealed in this world, Kepler and Newton must have had to enable them to spend years of solitary labor in disentangling the principles of celestial mechanics! Those whose acquaintance with scientific research is derived chiefly from its practical results easily develop a completely false notion of the mentality of the men who, surrounded by a skeptical world, have shown the way to kindred spirits scattered wide through the world and through the centuries. Only one who has devoted his life to similar ends can have a vivid realization of what has inspired these men and given them the strength to remain true to their purpose in spite of countless failures. It is cosmic religious feeling that gives a man such strength. A contemporary has said, not unjustly, that in this materialistic age of ours the serious scientific workers are the only profoundly religious people.

After reading the quote by Einstein it should be clear that when Einstein says that "science without religion is lame" he means religion in the cosmic sense. Through reading his works, one can say that his "religious" experiences can be described as the deep sense of awe and wonder you get by contemplating the workings of the universe. In this sense, I am a "religious" person too. The only thing I object to in Einstein's quote is his casual use of the word "religious," as it merely equivocates things.

Root of 3

2008-05-04T10:58:00.001-05:00

I saw Harold and Kumar last night, and near the end Kumar read a poem. I must say, that is the best poem I have ever read.

I’m sure that I will always be
A lonely number like root three

The three is all that’s good and right,
Why must my three keep out of sight
Beneath the vicious square root sign,
I wish instead I were a nine

For nine could thwart this evil trick,
with just some quick arithmetic

I know I’ll never see the sun, as 1.7321
Such is my reality, a sad irrationality

When hark! What is this I see,
Another square root of a three

As quietly co-waltzing by,
Together now we multiply
To form a number we prefer,
Rejoicing as an integer

We break free from our mortal bonds
With the wave of magic wands

Our square root signs become unglued
Your love for me has been renewed

Ben Stein's Brand New Gem

2008-05-01T17:20:00.001-05:00

This is what Ben Stein has to say now:

[T]he last time any of my relatives saw scientists telling them what to do they were telling them to go to the showers to get gassed ... that was horrifying beyond words, and that’s where science -- in my opinion, this is just an opinion -- that’s where science leads you. ...Love of God and compassion and empathy leads you to a very glorious place, and science leads you to killing people.

What do you say about a man who just keeps getting stupider and stupider?

6 Teen Cheerleaders Beat Up a Girl

2008-05-01T16:40:00.002-05:00

This is a little off-topic for this blog, but this is an absolutely heinous video.

Here's what the Orlando Sentinel had to say about this:

The Polk County Sheriff's Office released videotape today of a brutal attack by six teenagers on a 16-year-old girl -- an attack that officials said the teens filmed just so they could post on the Internet.

Polk Sheriff Grady Judd called the tape and the attack, "Shocking -- I've never seen anything like it...this is outrageous behavior."

The beating took place on March 30 when the girl was lured to a Lakeland home. There, two of the attackers began yelling at the victim, and another girl began beating her and slamming her head into a wall.

The victim lost consciousness, but when she awoke, a total of six teenage girls began beating her and videotaping the attack -- all while laughing and encouraging each other, according to the sheriff's office. Meanwhile, two teen boys kept watch outside.

The victim suffered a concussion as well as damage to her left eye and left ear, and numerous bruises.

They range in age from 14 to 18 years old. They are:

Mercades Nichols, 16, of Lakeland.

Brittini Hardcastle, 17, of Lakeland.

April Cooper, 14, of Lakeland.

Cara Murphy, 16, of Lakeland.

Britney Mayes, 17, of Lakeland.

Kayla Hassell, 15, of Mulberry.

Zachary Ashley, 17, of Lakeland.

Stephen Schumaker, 18, of Lakeland.

All of the teenagers were charged with felony battery and false imprisonment. In addition, Mayes, Hardcastle, and Nichols also are charged with felony kidnapping, because officials say they forced the victim into a vehicle and drove her to another location after the attack.

Weekly Science Quote

2008-05-01T01:42:00.002-05:00

I recently bought Richard Dawkins' The Oxford Book of Modern Science Writings. Apparently the book isn't officially published until May 28th, however it wasn't that hard to get my hands on. I just had to have Barnes and Nobles order it for me.

There are some amazing quotes from scientists in that book. So from hear on out, I will be sharing some of my favorite quotes by scientists on Fridays from the book, and from any source I may read.

An Update

2008-05-01T01:37:00.003-05:00

I've been a bit quieter lately. Of course, finals are coming up. In between studying which qualitative tests can be used to distinguish between limonene and eugenol I've been running PCR in the lab. I'm working with selenoproteins, so I'll be working with a radioactive selenium isotope. For this I need to take a radiation safety course. Understandable, but that's a day gone. I also need to go to a seminar on difference gel electrophoresis. This is on the same day as my Linear Algebra test, so in between studying for what constitutes a proper n-dimensional vector space, eigenvalues and eigenvectors, and writing linear transformations in matrix form I'll be learning about difference gel electrophoresis. That said, I love working in the lab.

Anyway, this is the reason I've been relatively quiet for the past week. I'm taking summer courses, but I should be updating a lot more frequently over then.

The Scientific Theory of External Delivery (ED)

2008-04-29T14:31:00.002-05:00

This site is a great parody of intelligent design. I personally found this even funnier than the FSM site. Here's an excerpt about what exactly the scientific theory of external delivery claims.

What is External Delivery?

External delivery refers to a scientific research program as well as a community of older kids, teachers, and other adults who seek evidence of external sources of Christmas presents. The theory of external delivery holds that certain features of how Christmas presents are delivered each year are best explained by an external source, not an internal source such as your parents.

Through careful study and analysis, Sexternal delivery proponentsists are able to determine the distinct features of presents that don't come from our parents, such as those given by strangers, and then seek to find similar informational properties in Christmas presents. By applying this scientific method, older kids have identified many irrefutably external structures in Christmas presents.

Is External Delivery the same as Santa Clausism?

No. The theory of external delivery is only concerned with empirically testing whether Christmas presents are delivered by an external agent, or an internal agent such as your parents. Santa Clausism typically starts with the premise that Santa Claus is delivering presents, and then seeks to fit the evidence to that theory. The theory of external delivery has developed strictly from objective interpretations of the empirical evidence.

Do Any Older Kids Believe in ED?

Yes. While it is true that the prevailing opinion in the higher grades has traditionally been parentism, a growing number of older kids and adults are breaking away from that paradigm. More than 700 5th and 6th graders have signed our Problems with Parentism list, and more names are being added all the time. New evidence is constantly coming in that challenges the parentist model, forcing older kids to reevaluate their outdated beliefs and embrace the theory of external delivery.

Cectic.com

2008-04-23T17:24:00.002-05:00

I know I told you guys earlier that xkcd.com was my favorite comic, but I have to take that back. Cectic.com trumps it. Here's a random example from the comic:

A Letter to PZ Myers About When to Trust Authority

2008-04-21T14:08:00.001-05:00

Dr. Myers,

I would first like to say that I love your blog. I attend what is probably the most pious public university in America, and your blog is a daily source of sanity in the land of the insane.

That said, I have a question that I was hoping you could answer.

I am an undergraduate mathematics student, heavily loading myself up on biology courses for my electives. I feel in my two years at college I have learned a lot. I work in a biology lab on campus -- I have learned a lot about how science works from working there.

One thing I have come to realize is that no matter how much you personally go out and examine the evidence, you can not possibly do this for everything. There are some things which are easier than others to understand and examine for yourself, such as evolution. I see that the evidence and explanation for evolution is pervasive and accessible. It is easy to come to your own conclusion about this topic with a little help and guidance. I can not see how anyone can come to any other conclusion. Furthermore, the biology authorities are unanimous and unequivocal in their advocacy of the theory.

This is not always the case, however. For instance, with the autism/vaccine controversy you have seemingly credible sources spouting that vaccines are in fact a cause of autism. Browsing the literature I have found no correlation between vaccinations and autism, however I have certainly found articles that describe at a molecular level beyond my current comprehension how mercury is harmful to the body. I know that the amount of mercury in vaccines is in the micrograms, but I do not know what dosage will be harmful to the body. All of this makes the vaccination theory at least seem plausible. I don't agree with the vaccination theory because in studies that I have read, they found no correlation between vaccination and autism. I also don't agree with the vaccination theory because I tend to be fairly trusting of the scienceblogs community. However, the main reason that I disagree with the vaccination hypothesis is the latter -- I trust authority.

As a couple of more examples, homeopathy is all but dead in America, however in India it is far more prevalent. You have many medical authorities granting at least some degree of credibility to homeopathic medicine. I have almost no understanding of medicine -- I only don't believe in homeopathy because of what I have learned watching popular science documentaries and what I have read at scienceblogs. Again, this is simply the fact that I trust a certain authority -- not because I understand something the rest of the crowd doesn't. But the mechanism of homeopathy seems rather implausible anyway. Perhaps an example from physics will better illustrate my point.

If someone were to tell me about special relativity, general relativity, or quantum mechanics and I did not know that these theories were accepted by the scientific community, I would look at them as though they were insane. Inconstancy of time? Curving of space? An entity known as space-time? Quantum strangeness? You must be crazy. I would demand evidence before I were to give them a shred of credibility. I would want to see their experiments, and even after that I would be incredulous. I would try and poke holes in their experiments as best as I could. However, since these are accepted theories by the scientific community I do not demand the same rigor of evidence -- I accept them on the authority of science.

My question to you is, how do you know which authorities to trust? What is an acceptable level of skepticism, and what is taking it too far? As the religious right have demonstrated, parents are obviously inadequate authorities for scientific information. How do you get children to skeptically challenge what their parents say, and not raise chaos in the household?

Pale Blue Dot

2008-04-21T02:28:00.002-05:00

I am an avid reader. I read a lot of books. When I have free time from school, I like to pick up a book and read. I would like to present an excerpt from a book by Carl Sagan. Of all the words I have read in my life, none have moved me in quite the same way as what will follow. Of all the God's I can imagine, none of their greatness humbles me quite the way Sagan's words do. I encourage you to read these words. Read them carefully. Read them again and again and again, until what Sagan is trying to convey finally reaches you. It has changed the way I perceive everything.

If you look carefully at the NASA photo below, you will see a little white dot. This minute speck is Earth seen from the Voyager 1 spacecraft as it exits the solar system, nearly 4 billion miles away. The photo was taken back in 1990.

Look again at that dot. That’s here. That’s home. That’s us. On it everyone you love, everyone you know, everyone you ever heard of, every human being who ever was, lived out their lives. The aggregate of our joy and suffering, thousands of confident religions, ideologies, and economic doctrines, every hunter and forager, every hero and coward, every creator and destroyer of civilization, every king and peasant, every young couple in love, every mother and father, hopeful child, inventor and explorer, every teacher of morals, every corrupt politician, every “superstar,” every “supreme leader,” every saint and sinner in the history of our species lived there–on a mote of dust suspended in a sunbeam.

The Earth is a very small stage in a vast cosmic arena. Think of the rivers of blood spilled by all those generals and emperors so that, in glory and triumph, they could become the momentary masters of a fraction of a dot. Think of the endless cruelties visited by the inhabitants of one corner of this pixel on the scarcely distinguishable inhabitants of some other corner, how frequent their misunderstandings, how eager they are to kill one another, how fervent their hatreds.

Our posturings, our imagined self-importance, the delusion that we have some privileged position in the Universe, are challenged by this point of pale light. Our planet is a lonely speck in the great enveloping cosmic dark. In our obscurity, in all this vastness, there is no hint that help will come from elsewhere to save us from ourselves.

The Earth is the only world known so far to harbor life. There is nowhere else, at least in the near future, to which our species could migrate. Visit, yes. Settle, not yet. Like it or not, for the moment the Earth is where we make our stand.

It has been said that astronomy is a humbling and character-building experience. There is perhaps no better demonstration of the folly of human conceits than this distant image of our tiny world. To me, it underscores our responsibility to deal more kindly with one another, and to preserve and cherish the pale blue dot, the only home we’ve ever known.

That is from Sagan's Pale Blue Dot.

Expelled: A review

2008-04-19T15:06:00.003-05:00

Expelled was absolutely detestable. It is a perfidious movie that has been haphazardly thrown together. Not only is this movie a bore, it is the quintessence of hypocrisy. There is absolutely nothing good I can say about the movie. I would have gained more from watching shit putrefy. The olfactory stimulation from that would be far more intellectually satisfying than the incessant drawl of the senile narrator, or the constant visual bludgeoning from the cutaway shots interlaced throughout the entire movie.

I had originally planned on summarizing the movie, however after watching the movie it seems rather frivolous. The movie is so grossly littered with fabrications, exaggerations and distortions that it actually makes it seem like Richard Dawkins accepts the idea of intelligent design as somewhat valid. If I turned this post into a summary of the movie, I would have to turn this post into a massive rebuttal of the movie. There is already an excellent site that does that.

Essentially, Ben Stein speaks with many pro-ID charlatans and paints them as martyrs. He then talks to many venerated pro-evolution scientists and paints them as bullies. He, of course, avoids discussing the facts behind evolution and the (non-scientific) controversy this whole time. He simply singles out a few IDists, talks them up, and then claims scientists are expelling them. What he fails to point out is the reason scientists ignore IDists is because they fail to produce anything of substance.

The most egregious part of the movie, though, was the insinuation that there is an association between Darwinism and Nazism. This was a particularly specious argument, and I'm afraid that this may actually carry some weight with those uninformed about what evolution is. But all this did was really clarify that there was no objective inquiry in this movie -- simply propaganda. Save your money. Go see Forgetting Sarah Marshall instead if you want to see a movie this weekend. At least that movie has some comical value.

Bensteinian Rhapsody

2008-04-17T15:52:00.001-05:00

Thanks to John Lynch for introducing me to this:

Is this stuff real science?
Or is it just fantasy,
That belongs in a place like
Bob Jones University?
Just close your eyes,
Don’t think, just accept ID
I’m a game show host,
I don’t know biology,
But this sleazy bunch, told me so,
It could be lies, how would I know?
So long as the check clears, it doesn’t really matter to me,
To me.

Anyone? I just filmed a sham,
Put some lies into your head,
Libelled Darwin, coz’ he’s dead,
Honor, you know I once had some,
But now I’ve gone and blown it all away-
Anyone? ooooohhhhh
Was it mean to tell those lies?
You’d learn more science by watching Rocky Horror-
Anyone? Anyone? My reputations now in tatters-

Too late, my crime is done,
Dembski told me I did fine-
Behe’s squirming, (he’ll be fine),
Goodbye science lessons-you’ve got to go
Gonna leave your kids behind and hide the truth
Adolf, oooooh (a shame he wasn’t atheist)
I’ll just have to lie,
I’ll just pretend that he wasn’t Christian at all-

- guitar solo -

I’ve got a little animation of a cell,
When in haste, copy paste, yes indeed that was the plan, though-
Copyright infringement lawsuit noose is tightening on me-
Sternberg’s ethics, (they’re a shocker)
How ‘bout Crocker, (off her rocker)
And what to say of Guillermo ? Guillermo-oh-oh-oh
I’m without tenure, and nobody loves me-
He’s just a headcase, embarrassing his faculty-
Spare us the whines of this mediocrity-
Please I pray – on my soul, Will you make it so-
Guillermo! No-, we will not make it so - make it so-
Guillermo! No-, we will not make it so - make it so-
Guillermo! we will not make it so – make it so
Will not make it so- make it so
Will not make it so – make it so
No,no,no,no,no,no,no-
That Eugenie, she’s a meanie, but there’s much worse godless foe!
Beelzebub sent Dick Dawkins and his friend, PeeeeZeeee- PeeeeZeeee, PeeeeZeeeeeeee!

So you think you’ll teach children, maybe open their minds,
Study nature, alter stem cells for cures of all kinds -
Or maybe, stop Gods plan that’s HIV,
Well if I had my way, I’d close you all down out of fear!

Science it doesn’t matter,
Lets teach theology,
Just pray when cancer strikes you,
Just pray there'll come a cure from ID

I should have stuck to game shows…….

Scientologists are more disliked than atheists!!!

2008-04-16T21:06:00.002-05:00

Thanks to Matt Nisbet for pointing this out.

A recent Gallup poll shows how Americans view certain religions.

It's interesting to note that approval ratings for most of the high-ranked religions are down from 2006, whereas atheists and scientologists have not moved much. Islam declined quite a bit, though. Here's what Gallup had to say about it:

Gallup first asked Americans to rate these religious groups in this fashion in an August 2006 panel survey, and since then, there have been declines in positive ratings for many of the more favorably viewed religious groups. For example, the net positive score for Catholics was +44 in the 2006 survey, compared to the current +32. But there were also declines in the net positive scores of Jews (from +54 to +42), Baptists (from +45 to +35), and Methodists (from +50 to +45).

It is unclear why the net positive ratings for most groups have declined, unless Americans are just less positive about religion overall today than they were two years ago. Groups such as atheists and Scientologists that rated negatively in 2006 are still rated negatively today, with similar scores over time in most cases. One exception concerns Muslims, who saw their net rating tumble from -4 in 2006 to -17 in the current survey.

Goodbye Edwards Lorenz

2008-04-16T20:58:00.001-05:00

Edward Lorenz, a 90 year old meteorologist at MIT who fathered the butterfly effect and chaos theory, passed away today. Here is what the MIT press had to say about it.

Edward Lorenz, an MIT meteorologist who tried to explain why it is so hard to make good weather forecasts and wound up unleashing a scientific revolution called chaos theory, died April 16 of cancer at his home in Cambridge. He was 90.

A professor at MIT, Lorenz was the first to recognize what is now called chaotic behavior in the mathematical modeling of weather systems. In the early 1960s, Lorenz realized that small differences in a dynamic system such as the atmosphere--or a model of the atmosphere--could trigger vast and often unsuspected results.

These observations ultimately led him to formulate what became known as the butterfly effect--a term that grew out of an academic paper he presented in 1972 entitled: "Predictability: Does the Flap of a Butterfly's Wings in Brazil Set Off a Tornado in Texas?"

Lorenz's early insights marked the beginning of a new field of study that impacted not just the field of mathematics but virtually every branch of science--biological, physical and social. In meteorology, it led to the conclusion that it may be fundamentally impossible to predict weather beyond two or three weeks with a reasonable degree of accuracy.

Some scientists have since asserted that the 20th century will be remembered for three scientific revolutions--relativity, quantum mechanics and chaos.

"By showing that certain deterministic systems have formal predictability limits, Ed put the last nail in the coffin of the Cartesian universe and fomented what some have called the third scientific revolution of the 20th century, following on the heels of relativity and quantum physics," said Kerry Emanuel professor of atmospheric science at MIT. "He was also a perfect gentleman, and through his intelligence, integrity and humility set a very high standard for his and succeeding generations."

Born in 1917 in West Hartford, Conn., Lorenz received an AB in mathematics from Dartmouth College in 1938, an AM in mathematics from Harvard University in 1940, an SM in meteorology from MIT in 1943 and an ScD in meteorology from MIT in 1948. It was while serving as a weather forecaster for the U.S. Army Air Corps in World War II that he decided to do graduate work in meteorology at MIT.

"As a boy I was always interested in doing things with numbers, and was also fascinated by changes in the weather," Lorenz wrote in an autobiographical sketch.

Lorenz was a member of the staff of what was then MIT's Department of Meteorology from 1948 to 1955, when he was appointed to the faculty as an assistant professor. He was promoted to professor in 1962 and was head of the department from 1977 to 1981. He became an emeritus professor in 1987.

Lorenz, who was elected to the National Academy of Sciences in 1975, won numerous awards, honors and honorary degrees. In 1983, he and former MIT Professor Henry M. Stommel were jointly awarded the $50,000 Crafoord Prize by the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences, a prize established to recognize fields not eligible for Nobel Prizes.

In 1991, he was awarded the Kyoto Prize for basic sciences in the field of earth and planetary sciences. Lorenz was cited by the Kyoto Prize committee for establishing "the theoretical basis of weather and climate predictability, as well as the basis for computer-aided atmospheric physics and meteorology." The committee added that Lorenz "made his boldest scientific achievement in discovering 'deterministic chaos,' a principle which has profoundly influenced a wide range of basic sciences and brought about one of the most dramatic changes in mankind's view of nature since Sir Isaac Newton."

During leaves of absence from MIT, he held research or teaching positions at the Lowell Observatory in Flagstaff, Ariz.; the Department of Meteorology at the University of California at Los Angeles; the Det Norske Meteorologiske Insitutt in Oslo, Norway; and the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colo.

An avid hiker and cross-country skier, Lorenz was active up until about two weeks before his death, his family said.

Lorenz is survived by three children, Nancy, Edward and Cheryl, and four grandchildren.

A memorial service will be held at 3 p.m. Sunday, April 20, at the Swedenborg Chapel, 50 Quincy St., Cambridge. The MIT News Office will update this announcement as more details become available.

What has NPR been smoking?

2008-04-15T19:48:00.003-05:00

NPR recently did a story with a pretentious 16 year old who runs a website detailing why she's skeptical about anthropogenic global warming. Superficially, this seems like a bright young girl dissenting from the scientific consensus after objectively evaluating the evidence for herself. If this was the case, I would exuberantly commend her efforts. Skeptical inquiry, even against accepted science, is necessary for scientific progress. Alas, this is not the case.

There seems to be a more malicious undertone to this story. Has this girl honestly examined all the evidence, or has she put on blinders? It appears to be the latter. According to the story, when the girl got confused on the technical data she consulted her stepfather. Her stepfather then elucidated the data. According to the story, "when her determination sagged, [her stepfather] encouraged her." One must ask, if her stepfather is the one clarifying the data to her, what credentials does he have. The story does not say. This story seems less and less to be a story about a free-thinking teen, and more and more like a story about a girl who is being proselytized into the anti-science right-wing ideology by an overzealous stepfather.

What's even more baffling is why NPR would run this story. Am I supposed to be impressed by another teenage denialist mimicking the canard of mostly ignorant, anti-science curs? Am I supposed to rush over to her website to be stupefied by the same inane drivel I have read and heard hundreds of times? This piece is absolute rubbish. It's frivolous. The only purpose this piece might serve is to consolidate the global warming denialists. And if that is the case, one has to ask, what has NPR been smoking?

One of the injustices of this piece is that it gives the girl too much credit without challenging her. This girl may have turned around to become a budding young scientist. Instead, this sort of publicity is just motivation for her to stay the course. Her head must be inflated beyond all belief right now.

Furthermore, for the uninformed public, this may make them believe that these global warming denialists have some scientific credibility if this story is on NPR, especially if the girl goes unchallenged. If you're going to do a story on global warming do it right. If this girl is in the ring with the big boys, the kid gloves must come off. If such a story was to be run, she should have been aggressively challenged. Of course, then it would have just looked like NPR was beating up on a little girl. It's a lose-lose situation. Once again, it seems like NPR had something potent in their pipe.

Here is the most distressing paragraph from that article:

Mainstream scientists would argue that many of the issues on her Web site are red herrings or have been put to rest — and Kristen did get emails from people challenging her science. But after a few exchanges, she says, her opponents backed down. "A few of them gave up and figured they can't win against a 15-year-old," she says. Mike laughs as she says this.

The hubris of the ignorant is unmatched!

We're the ones Expelling People?

2008-04-15T17:16:00.004-05:00

The conniving liars at Expelled would have you believe the canard that it's scientists who are Expelling people, when in actuality it is quite the opposite. The NCSE just came out with their first video, showing who's really doing the expelling...

By the way, check out NCSE's webstie expelled exposed. And link to it on your own blogs if you have them!

Expelled Exposed

2008-04-15T02:17:00.002-05:00

The National Center for Science Education's site Expelled Exposed is up. This site is basically a rebuttal to the fictitious propaganda spewed by the expelled crowd.

Getting a Group on its Feet

2008-04-14T18:46:00.003-05:00

A few months ago, I started a meetup group in College Station. Now, for those of you that don't know, College Station is located in the heart of the bible belt. I would be willing to put my money that this is the most religious, conservative public university in the country. That said, our group still consists of thirty-six people. Considering our location and size, I'm pretty happy with that.

We generally get together once a month for dinner. Unfortunately, attendance to our meetups has dwindled as of late. I do not know what I can do to get it up again. A member of mine suggested doing other things than just a monthly dinner, but I have no idea how we could be active and appeal to other atheists.

Any ideas would be greatly appreciated.