Be afraid…be very afraid.

Where to begin this morning?

How about here, where ignorance and Bronze Age literature reign supreme.

Unless you’ve been living under a rock (or perhaps just engrossed in American Idol or some other diversion from ‘reality’), you’ll have heard of the new Creation Museum, which has just opened in Petersburg, Ky. The abomination of human ‘intellect’ is dedicated to the biblical view of ‘creation’; namely that god created the universe in six days (and the Earth before the Sun, as loony as that sounds) and that, wait for it, dinosaurs co-existed with human beings.

I’m not going to go into any long discussion of all of this; it doesn’t deserve it. If you believe that dinosaurs and humans were present on Noah’s Ark (or that Noah’s Ark existed at all), feel free to stop reading right now; nothing I say will convince you of your utter stupidity. Belief in biblical creation is not an ‘alternative world view’. It is an asinine ignorance, and it is insulting to those of us who devote our lives to the elucidation of what is demonstrably true.

You may not be able to understand the fact of evolution (despite the multiple converging lines of evidence), but it is fact nevertheless. The universe is not 6000 years old; for Thor’s sake, we have cave paintings that are five times older than this. Good Zeus, the Sumerians had learned to brew beer earlier than that.

If there really were a ’scientific controversy’, there would be ample scholarship, in the peer reviewed literature, supporting the falsifiable theory that the universe is 6000 years old, that all creatures, great and small, were created exactly as they appear now, that two of each creature were carried on an Ark during a world wide flood (was it freshwater or saltwater? Ether way, you kill off half of all aquatic species), from which all current creatures are descended. As you may have guessed, there is precisely zero evidence suggesting any of this. By contrast, the peer reviewed literature is jammed with evidence suggesting evolution by natural selection.

Consider how much time will be wasted and how much potential progress of human initiative and potentially life-saving discoveries will be not be made today because various people felt the need to believe a ridiculous 3000 year old story for which no evidence exists and for which there is demonstrable theoretical and physical evidence against.

Oh, and just so you’re really scared, the man with his finger on the self-destruct button, the man who controls the destiny of every single man, woman, and child on this planet, believes every word of it.

If you believe in reason, logic, and the scientific method, if you accept rational thought and empirical evidence, I urge you to fight this non-scientific trash in any way you can. Speak out; it is not ok to give faith a pass simply because it is faith. Beg, borrow, or steal (well, don’t steal) a copy of The God Delusion, The Selfish Gene, and The Blind Watchmaker by Richard Dawkins; The End of Faith and Letter to a Christian Nation by Sam Harris, Breaking the Spell and Darwin’s Dangerous Idea by Daniel Dennett, and the all-time classic, On The Origin of Species by Charles Darwin.

Above all, do not be afraid to learn; do not let dogma, in any form, patrol your existence. The code of life, and of all existence, is queerer than we can suppose, as Haldane suggested; for the sake of all of us, do your best to contribute to the decoding of even a small part of it.

I remain,

Michael

As good as it gets…

Sometimes you just have to let the idiocy speak for itself:

Ga. judge: Keep Potter books in school

LAWRENCEVILLE, Ga. – The adventures of boy wizard Harry Potter can stay in Gwinnett County school libraries, despite a mother’s objections, a judge ruled Tuesday.

Laura Mallory, who argued the popular fiction series is an attempt to indoctrinate children in witchcraft, said she still wants the best-selling books removed and may take her case to federal court.

“I maybe need a whole new case from the ground up,” said Mallory, who was not represented by an attorney at the hearing.

Superior Court Judge Ronnie Batchelor’s ruling upheld a decision by the Georgia Board of Education, which had supported local school officials.

County school board members have said the books are good tools to encourage children to read and to spark creativity and imagination.

J.K. Rowling’s Harry Potter books, published by London-based Bloomsbury Publishing PLC, tell stories of children with magic powers. They have been challenged numerous times since 2000, making them the most challenged texts of the 21st century, according to the American Library Association.

At Tuesday’s hearing, Mallory argued in part that witchcraft is a religion practiced by some people and, therefore, the books should be banned because reading them in school violates the constitutional separation of church and state.

“I have a dream that God will be welcomed back in our schools again,” Mallory said. “I think we need him.” – AP

I’m sorry, did I just read the same article as everyone else? “The books should be banned because reading them in school violates the constitutional separation of church and state” followed immediately by “I have a dream that God will be welcomed back in our schools again“

I’m not even going to waste bandwidth on this one, except to point out that even if god did exist, I wouldn’t want the perpetrator of 2 Kings 2:23-24 anywhere near my children.

God, save us from those who believe in you.

I remain,

Michael

Fundamentalist Science…Part Deux

After posting my entry “Fundamentalist Science” a few days ago, I began to think about the problem more clearly, and a discussion on the forums at richarddawkins.net inspired me to write more, so here goes.

The argument is sometimes made that science is just as faith-based as religion, since it relies upon two key axioms, or assumptions:

1. There exists an objective reality
2. Past events are predictive of future events (or, put another way, the objective reality obeys laws)

Now, it is true that using the scientific method to defend the use of these axioms in science simply begs the question. But that does not imply that science is irrevocably bound to “faith”, nor does it imply that there is any real equality between scientific knowledge and religion. If we break down these axioms, and consider how they apply to science, we begin to see that the extent to which science relies on assumption is minimal, is accepted by nearly all of us (scientific or otherwise), is necessary for progress to occur, and is in no way related to religious definitions of “faith”.

Point 2, that nature obeys laws and thus that past events are predictive of future events, is a very minor axiom, and not an issue for science, since it is covered by the doctrine of falsifiability. As long as we accept that science is in the business of making statements about probabilities, rather than absolute facts, this axiom shouldn’t bother us. At 1 atm of pressure, pure water boils at 100C; we say that this statement has a very high probability of being literally true, since it has been true in every instance thus far. This may change the next time we boil pure water, in which case the probability will shrink (though not to zero, since we still have all of that prior evidence which we cannot simply discard).

The first axiom, that there exists an objective reality, is harder to deal with. But as others have discussed, it is an axiom that is accepted by nearly everyone. We have to assume that there is an objective reality, because we would get nothing done otherwise. Of course, simply because we all accept that there is an objective reality, doesn’t imply that there really is one. But it is a necessary axiom.

That having been said, it seems to me that we have good reason to believe that there is an objective reality, since different individuals can make their own measurements of “reality” and come up with the same results. If reality were subjective, we wouldn’t expect this to be so. I think we can safely state that reality if it exists (in the sense that cars, planes, footballs, and cheese sandwiches are real), it is not subjective; I don’t know whether you see red the same way I see red, but we can assume so. In any case, it makes no difference because when asked to pick out the red crayon, we both pick the same one.

The more pressing problem, it seems to me, is proving that reality, while objective, is not also illusory. Could it be that we are simply having a collective hallucination with regards to reality? We cannot dismiss this out of hand; how would we know the difference? In this case, we cannot exclude the possibility that there is something else outside of our illusory reality that cannot be detected by our science. But if we admit this, then we must accept that our science is concerned only with the illusion itself; it doesn’t matter what is outside of this illusion, since the illusion is all that affects us. Furthermore, we know of no tool that would allow us to measure things beyond the illusion of reality; we admit that current science would be powerless in this regard, but there is certainly no reason to think that religion or anything else is any better.

So, what are we left with?

First, the doctrine of falsifiability is paramount to science, and I believe that, so long as we define science as the study of probabilities of the truth, falsifiability successfully deals with the axiom that nature exists according to laws, and thus that past events are a good indicator of the future.

The second axiom, that there exists an objective reality, cannot be dealt with in this manner, and is an assumption without evidence. But it is an assumption that we are all required to make, and which we all believe to be true. Furthermore, even if we accept that no objective reality exists, it doesn’t concern us because whatever else is beyond our reality has no effect on us.

Thus, science is (a) concerned with the truth with respect to the shared objective reality, whether illusory or real and (b) concerned with probabilities of the truth of that reality.

If the religious person is willing to subject their faith to falsifiability, then it ceases to be faith, and becomes a statement of empirical reality, subject to falsifiability like any other such statement. On the other hand, if faith is not subject to falsifiability (which is virtually always the case), then it is not comparable to science. Furthermore, whether or not there is an objective reality becomes irrelevant with respect to religious faith; science has made statements about that reality which, at the very least, appear to be true; reality may be illusory, but science has done an excellent job of describing that illusion. If you don’t believe me, then feel free to jump from a plane without a parachute. Religion has done a very poor job of describing reality, real or otherwise.

Thus, scientific axioms and religious faith cannot be equated in any real way. Science must admit that its efforts are dependent upon the axioms, and scientists must be ready to jettison their beliefs should the axioms prove false. Religion doesn’t make the same claim; faith is not subject to falsifiability, nor is there any indication that it accurately describes the objective or illusory reality.

I remain,

Michael

“But that’s not MY faith…”

In case you missed this disgusting newsbyte, let me fill you in on the details:

Joshua Royce, a 19 year old man from Texas, cooked his infant daughter in a microwave oven for 10-20 seconds on May 10; the girl is recovering in hospital from burns to the left side of her body. “What”, you might ask, “could cause someone to perform such a horrid act against an innocent child?”

Should I let you guess? Perhaps the words of the child’s mother sum it up best:

“Satan saw my husband as a threat…“

There is only one rational response to this: WTF????

It seems that Mr. Royce wanted to be a preacher. Satan, not taking kindly to this, assumed control of Mr. Royce’s faculties, and placed the small child in the microwave. Now, credit should go to Mr. Royce who claimed that “stress” made him do it. While this is certainly no excuse for his actions, it is, at the very least, rational.

On the other hand, the child’s mother, Eva Mauldin, went on to exclaim, with reference to Mr. Royce,

“He would never do anything to hurt her. He loves her.”

No, he cooked her, Ms. Mauldin.

Now, you and I may (rightly) state that this act is barbaric in the extreme; I’d wager that we’d get very little resistance from anyone. But then, this is missing the point somewhat, I think.

There is no question that the morality of those who microwave small babies in the name of “Satan” is the polar opposite of many “church folk”, who go to their respective houses of worship on Sunday (or Saturday, or whatever the supposed ‘holy’ day happens to be for the particular sect of their cult). This is, of course, highly commendable.

Of course, this overlooks one blatently obvious (I would hope) morsel of wisdom: once you state that any particular piece of Iron Age literature is “sacred”, or more than just words on a page, you have to accept that others may not interpret the sacred words in quite the same way as you. Once any sense of rational discourse about a piece of literature is called off, then all interpretations become valid. Kudos to those who don’t kill in the name of their faith; but they should remember that in demanding that we tolerate their beliefs without question, they must accord the same right to those who hold different beliefs.

Even the most staunchly religious amongst us would be, I imagine, forced to admit that religion has gotten up to some fairly terrible things these last few millenia. But it is no excuse to say “…but that’s not MY faith.” Once again, not killing in the name of god (or satan, as the case may be) is a wholly commendable virtue; even better would be actively fighting against such atrocities. But one cannot argue that their particular version of faith is any truer than someone elses version. The acceptance of belief, in the absence of evidence, means that no belief is more valid than any other. When moderate Muslims say “Islam is a religion of peace; the 9/11 hijackers were bastardizing Islam” or moderate Christians say “Jesus is love; the Inquisition was a bastardiztion of Christianity”, the atheist must simply respond “No; you all believe in the absence of evidence. If one accepts a version of faith, then one must accept them all.”

Only when religious views, like political views, views on sport, or views on gastronomy, become open to normal, mainstream, rational discourse and critique, will we be able to move beyond this. No particular version of faith has any more credence than any other. And by limiting this rational discourse, religious moderates simply hasten the development of religious fervour. If you, as a religious moderate, would like your faith to be considered different from that of your fundamentalist brethren, then subject it to the same standards to which we hold all else; be prepared to abandon it if it does not agree with what is demonstrably true.

While I am glad that certain guises of faith do not, as a defining characteristic, require baby-cooking or suicide bombing, let us not be fooled into thinking that the pestilence of a belief is commensurate with its palatability.

I remain,

Michael

You say it’s your birthday…

Here’s a seemingly simple question: how many people do you have to have in a room for the chances of any two people having the same birthday (day and month only) to be greater than 50% (that is, 1/2)? We’re not talking about any specific birthday, just any birthday. Ignore leap years and assume that births are equally distributed throughout the year (both of these enormously complicate the math required, without significantly affecting the answer). I’ve asked this question at dinner parties before, and the guesses are generally somewhere around 183, which is just greater than half of 365, the total number of days in a year.

Most people’s immediate reaction is to think the likelihood of two random people sharing the same birthday is relatively low. However, this neglects one important considerations: multiple comparisons. Let’s answer the question:

Suppose Alice and Billy are in the room together. The chance of Alice and Billy having the same birthday is 1/365. Now suppose Carol walks in. What is the chance of a match now? Most people’s intuitive reaction is to say: the chance is now 2/365 (1/365 + 1/365). Naturally, that intuition is false (or else I wouldn’t be devoting web space to the problem). Let’s break down the odds:

Alice – Billy match = 1/365
Alice – Carol match = 1/365
Billy – Carol match = 1/365

In fact, the odds are now 3/365, not 2/365. “So what?”, you say; this is still very low. While that’s true, something strange has emerged. Let’s consider adding one more person, David.

Alice – Billy match = 1/365
Alice – Carol match = 1/365
Alice – David match = 1/365
Billy – Carol match = 1/365
Billy – David match = 1/365
Carol – David match = 1/365

Total = 6/365

In fact, the probability (p) of a match between “n” people (p(n), where n is some number of people) is given by the mathematical formula:

p(n) = 1 – 365!/365^n(365-n)!

The mathematical formula itself isn’t important here. What is critical to remember is that each new person who comes in the room (next comes Eleanor, then Fred, then Gregory) is a potential match with someone, and, in fact, the later one arrives to the room, the more “chances” of a match one brings. For instance, Carol’s arrival only brought two extra chances of a match, while David brought four.

In fact, after the 23rd person enters the room, the total number of possible matches will be greater than 183/365, making the probability of a match greater than 50%. Even more striking is that if we have 100 people in the room, the chances of a birthday match are far greater than 99% (we don’t reach 100% certainty until the 366th person enters). This is shown graphically below:

The point of all this is to emphasize that we every often misinterpret probabilities of things that we intuitively think are unlikely, without giving any thought to the real likelihood of the event. Once again, our intuition deceives. If we are fooled by our intuition at this point in our history, where science, logic, probability, and reason are so widely available, imagine how easy it must have been to fool our ancient brethren, who had no access to these faculties (or who were brutally oppressed lest they criticize accepted doctrine). Food for thought, I think…

I remain,

Michael

Fundamentalist Science

If you haven’t watched James Burke’s fabulous series Connections, do yourself a favour and beg/borrow/steal a copy. As long as you can get past Burke’s wonderfully retro outfits (and the eerie opening shots of him at the World Trade Center in Episode 1), you’ll gain a tremendous insight into the process of knowledge; how it is that we came to know what we know, and how, through history, change has come about without the agents of change recognizing what they are doing. Moreover, Burke shows that the modern world is so complex (even in 1978, it appears), that no single person has the knowledge to understand more than a tiny portion of it. We all accept technology and progress, without really knowing what is going on behind the scenes. Moreover, if it all vanished tomorrow, not many of us would have the wherewithal to rebuild; could you fly a plane? Or plow a field? Or plant crops? Or defend yourself from intruders (human, bacterial, viral, or otherwise)?

The point is: each of us accepts the progress made possible through science (and manifested through technology). By extension, each of us accepts the validity of the scientific method, and that science is the best way that we know of to elucidate the physical, chemical, and biological truths about ourselves, our world, and our universe. We have, for want of a much better word, ‘faith’ in science; faith which has been earned through the demonstrable successes of science.

And yet, we now observe a rather curious response to the resurgence of strident atheism: the implication that atheism is “faith-based” and “fundamentalist” and that the scientific method cannot be used to justify the validity of science (otherwise known as the problem of induction). This so wholly misrepresents the issue that it is difficult to know where to begin.

First, I suppose, is the obvious retort that no one who actually proffers this response actually believes it to be true, which should tell you something about the veracity of their own claims to truth. If you do not believe that the scientific method provides real, tangible insights into the nature of the universe, then let me escort you to the nearest high cliff without a parachute; whether you accept Newtonian or Einsteinian gravitational theory, the fact is jumping off such a cliff will be, in all likelihood, particularly hazardous to your health. Those that doubt science, I am sure, will have no problem with this exercise since, the scientific method being fallible, we have no way of knowing whether gravity exists at all. The queue to test such thinking is, as you can imagine, currently vacant.

If you get on a plane, go to the hospital when you are seriously ill, take medication to cure what ails you, or do any number of other hum-drum things that owe their existence to science, and still claim that the scientific method is “faith-based” or unjustified, you are an unmitigated hypocrite.

All of this aside, one must recognize that the fundamental principle of science is falsifiability; science exists to disprove theories, not to prove them. Theories are formed to explain observable data and are refined (or even jettisoned altogether) if new data is contradictory. All scientists live by this creed (or at least pay lip service to it). Science is the very antithesis of faith and is only ‘fundamentalist’ if one accepts that deference to reason, logic, and falsifiability are shown to be inadequate to assess the literal nature of our existence.

I am not subject to any illusions; there may be questions that are profoundly beyond the reach of science. But in matters of physical reality, science has proven itself immensely qualified. Moreover, even if such “beyond science” domains exist, what reason do we have to surmise that religion can provide any answers at all?

I remain,

Michael

EDIT: See my follow-up post here.