I propose a variation on chess, called Shaman Chess. It is played with a standard chess set, plus two “shaman” pieces.
Shamans can only move by switching places with another piece. There are two ways to do this:
- On your turn, you may switch your shaman with any other piece you have on the board. (Optional: You may not switch with the king or queen.)
- If you capture the enemy shaman, that shaman does not leave the board. Rather, it moves to the previous location of the capturing piece.
I have two ideas for the shaman starting point:
- Standard Shaman: The shaman begins the game 2 spaces in front of its queen.
- Void Shaman: The shaman begins the game outside the board, in a space called the “void”. Each shaman has its own void space, which can only be reached by shaman switching. Other pieces may occupy the void, if the shaman switches them there. When your shaman is in the void, you may switch it with any piece you have on the board, except your king. (Optional: Queens are also exempt.) When your shaman is on the board, it may only switch with the piece which is currently in its void. But the capture rule above still applies. (Optional: Friendly captures are permitted.)
A few notes:
- In shaman chess, pawns do not promote when they reach the enemy’s back row. (Optional: Pawns may promote, but not into shamans, and not as an immediate result of switching.)
- In algebraic notation, the shaman is denoted by S.
All my life, I’ve heard that it’s important to “wash with like colors” when you’re doing laundry. You have to do the whites in one load, and everything else in another load. If you mix them up, then the colors from the colored clothing will leak on to the whites, and you’ll wind up with green underwear or something.
All my life, I’ve ignored this advice. And the colored clothing has never leaked onto the white clothing.
Is this advice out of date? Perhaps modern clothing is made from different material than it used to be. Or perhaps there’s something different about modern washing machines…
Sometimes, well-known advice isn’t worth following.
You smug-faced crowds with kindling eye
Who cheer when soldier lads march by
Sneak home and pray you’ll never know
The hell where youth and laughter go.
Looksism” (or “looks-ism”) means “judging people unfairly, based on their physical appearance and/or sex appeal.”
(Admittedly, “looksism” is kindof a cumbersome word. But I haven’t been able to think of anything better. “Appearance-ism”? “Sexiness-ism”? I’m willing to take suggestions, though.)
- When men try to date sexy girls, while ignoring plain girls who might actually have better personalities, those men are committing looksism.
- When your faith in a politician is bolstered because the politician is handsome, you are committing looksism.
- When girls hate themselves just because they’re heavier than average, they are directing looksism at themselves.
Looksism is wrong. Looksism ruins lives.
I do not mean to say that it is wrong to appreciate someone’s physical beauty or sex appeal. If you see a sexy person, and your enjoy the sexiness, that’s fine. But if you see a sexy person and then assume that they are also honest or kind, or that they would make a for a good partner in marriage, or anything else like that, then you are committing looksism. Some sexy people are honest and some sexy people are not, and you really shouldn’t assume these things based on sexiness.
Conversely, if you see an unattractive person and you’re aware of the unattractiveness, that’s fine. But if you go on to assume that this person is also lazy or stupid or anything other such thing, then you are committing looksism.
It is not looksist to think “That woman is beautiful.”
It is looksist to think “That woman is beautiful, and therefore she is a good person.” (Or “That woman is ugly, and therefore she is a bad person”)
It is also looksist to think “That woman is beautiful, and beauty is the only quality that really matters when you judge someone.”
Looksism encompasses a wide variety of unfair assumptions. Just as it is looksist to think “That woman is sexy, therefore she is a good person”, it is also looksist to think “That woman is sexy, therefore she is a shallow person.” (Sexy people have personalities too, you know.)
Of course, it’s often tricky to separate “looksism” from “justified appreciation of physical beauty.” But they are different things, nonetheless.
Looksism is often combined with sexism; women tend to face more looksist attitudes than men. But looksism can fundamentally be applied to anyone, male or female.
Looksism is wrong.
(I made errors in the first version of this post. Please see the updates below.)
The IPCC is, by far, the most prestigious scientific organization when it comes to Global Warming. I have long had faith in the IPCC, and in the idea that human-caused Global Warming is a serious problem that needs to be addressed soon.
But suddenly, I have doubts. I came across two articles recently that appear to prove that the IPCC has a terrible track record at predicting Global Warming. Namely, they claim that the IPCC has been predicted far more warming than has actually occurred. Furthermore, they claim that average global surface temperatures have scarcely risen (on average) for over 10 years. If true, these results throw the entire field of Climate Science into question.
Second graph, which deals with the 2007 AR4 report:
Important note: I don’t have reason to believe that either of these sources are especially trustworthy. But they claim to be getting their data from great sources, including the IPCC itself and the Met Office in Britain.
The big question is this: Are these graphs based on real data?
If the articles are simply making stuff up based on nothing (which certainly happens sometimes), then we have nothing to worry about. But if this is the real, actual data…then Global Warming appears to be tiny compared to what we expected.
The temperature data appears to be confirmed here, at least mostly.
One of the scientists from the DailyMail article says he was misrepresented…but his response never seems to refute the idea that the IPCC has been wrong four times in a row (95% confidence range!). He says that the “highest-response models” are “looking iffy”, which seems to indicate that, yes, errors have been made…and then he fails to address the magnitude of the errors alleged in the DailyMail article, which he is responding to.
I’ve tried searching for articles by climate scientists who refute these findings. I haven’t found much.
Michael Lemonick, a journalist, writes that surface temperatures have indeed stayed pretty steady for the last ten years. He says that although the surface temperatures haven’t been increasing, the ocean has been absorbing an unusual amount of heat. He says that the heat in the ocean will eventually return to the air around us, causing a quick increase in temperature. I can see how that might be true…but why didn’t the IPCC see this coming? The graphs above show confidence intervals for 95%. Is this ocean phenomenon really so rare? And how do you explain the IPCC being wrong 4 times in a row over several years?
I’m wary of post-hoc explanations. Perhaps the ocean argument is true, but perhaps it’s merely speculative (and wrong). Perhaps the climate scientists were simply wrong to begin with, and now they’re convincing themselves that it’s ok, because of this new development with the oceans. But if we don’t understand the oceanic absorption of heat well enough to account for the climate over a 10-year period…what else don’t we understand? I mean really, you’re not supposed to exit the 95% range four times in a row. That really indicates that the system is more complex than you realized.
Some may say that the long-term predictions of the IPCC will still come true, even though the short-term trends have failed. But how can we know? What reason do we have to trust the IPCC, considering their failures thus far?
Reuters, which I consider trustworthy, chimes in with this article: Climate scientists struggle to explain warming slowdown
There’s a response here, and a response to that response here.
Reuters dismisses the idea that the warming slowdown has been caused by a slowdown in carbon emissions, saying “Greenhouse gas emissions have hit repeated record highs with annual growth of about 3 percent in most of the decade to 2010, partly powered by rises in China and India. World emissions were 75 percent higher in 2010 than in 1970, UN data show.”
So…emissions are going up, but global warming is slowing down…and as far as I can tell, the graphs I showed earlier really did display real data, and the IPCC does in fact have a terrible track record with its predictions.
So…have we been wrong? All this time? I don’t know. If we have been wrong, three things:
- Yay! No more climate crisis!
- Oh crap, we’ve been misleading people all this time…
- We had better change some of these laws we set up!
I do not make any strong conclusions simply on the basis of these graphs. Considering the sheer weight of scientific consensus that “Global Warming is a big deal and we need to address it now”, I simply say that I have doubts about Global Warming. If I had the power to do so, I’d send out journalists and scientists to re-evaluate all the data we have, and figure out exactly what we do and don’t know, and where we have and haven’t been wrong. I wish the president or somebody would launch a serious investigation of this, and figure out exactly what is going on.
And if, in fact, we’ve been wrong all this time…we need to face that. There’s no point in ignoring reality. That’s not how science works.
Always check the data. Always admit to the truth. Even when it’s inconvenient.
Here’s another graph, from the same source as the first graph above:
Notice how the black line is higher than it was originally. Also, look at the brackets on the right side that indicate the confidence ranges of the reports. In most cases the black line still resides on the lower side of things, which indicates that the IPCC has indeed overpredicted Global Warming. But at least it’s in the ranges, instead of being below them entirely. And in the case of SAR, the black line seems to fit perfectly!
I don’t know why this graph is different from its predecessor. They’re from the same source, after all. Is this one just using a different sort of analysis, perhaps? Or has someone been sloppy?
Update 2: It seems the first graph simply drew a line between the first and last datapoints. Since 2012 was unusually cold, this brought the line lower. The second graph is more of a best-fit scenario considering all of the data, which makes the second graph more authoritative. (Climate change should always be measured according to long-term trends.) So the climate-skeptic case is weaker than I first thought when I wrote this post, but it’s still a lot stronger than I would have expected prior to seeing any of this data.
Update 3: The BBC chimes in: Climate Slowdown. It says that warming has indeed slowed down, and describes this trend as “unexplained”. It says that this new data lowers the probable short-term temperature forecast, but that the long-term forecast remains unchanged. But it’s really unclear about what counts as “short term” and “long term” in this context. The best I can figure is that “short term” runs to maybe 2100 (or maybe not as far as that), and “long term” is thousands of years. I think we can safely ignore any climate problems that won’t crop up for more than a century. After all, after a whole century has gone by, who knows what technology we might have? Carbon scrubbing could be simple, at that point.
I’m still not sure what to think about all this…
Update 4: A blog called ClimateDepot has published a long post on the (alleged) state of the science. Can this blog be trusted? I don’t know. But it links to other sources. Notably, it linked to an article where James Lovelock, a scientist, admitted that his earlier views of the climate had been “alarmist”. (Though his views had been really extreme to begin with.) More notably, Dr. Ivar Giaever, a Nobel-prize winning physicist, is mentioned as a firm skeptic of global warming. Physicist Hal Lewis felt similarly, until his death in 2011. There’s also a page on Dr. Lennart Bengtsson, formerly of the IPCC, who is also skeptical. (Many of his quotes are poorly translated, though.) Matt Ridley weighs in here.
All told, I’m still not sure what’s going on. It’s very difficult to keep track of all the different sources, and their various degrees of (possible) bias, and to adjust for degrees of certainty, and the difference between “The earth will heat up by one degree” vs. “The earth will heat up by one degree if X amount of carbon is emitted within Y amount of time.”, and to judge the accuracy of the latter statement when in fact we’ve emitted L amount of carbon within M amount of time.
It’s very confusing.
Here’s an article with plenty of graphs, describing the earth’s temperature according to various databases: Ten years of ‘accelerated global warming’ ? If this data can be trusted, it’s clear that global warming actually ended back in 1996, and the trend is actually slight cooling over the last 10 years.
We could imagine a situation in which global warming pauses for 16 years and then starts up again in earnest. But do we know that this will happen? What do we actually know, and what is speculation?
President Obama recently said that warming has accelerated over the last 10 years. If this data is correct, then Obama is utterly wrong. And if he’s utterly wrong, that demonstrates a disturbing disregard for the facts on his part.
What’s going on here? Is all this data simply wrong? Is it made up? Has it been misinterpreted somehow? Or is Anthropogenic Global Warming simply a crackpot theory, which persists despite massive contradictory evidence?
By the way, the initial graph for this post displayed confidence ranges of 90%, not 95%. I was wrong about that.
But still, I have great doubts about Anthropogenic Global Warming.
Some videos from Anthony Watt:
He posted a guest post about climate science here.
(last updated September 2nd 2013)
The Daily Show is a comedy show, but it also makes a lot of great points. The recent series about gun control and Australia was particularly informative.
(You can avoid the ads if you install Adblock Plus)
|The Daily Show with Jon Stewart||Mon – Thurs 11p / 10c|
|Gun Control Whoop-de-doo|
|The Daily Show with Jon Stewart||Mon – Thurs 11p / 10c|
|Gun Control & Political Suicide|
|The Daily Show with Jon Stewart||Mon – Thurs 11p / 10c|
|Australia & Gun Control’s Aftermath|
Notice: Christians (and other theists) who do like to have their beliefs challenged should probably not read this post.
As I mentioned in an earlier post, I was recently introduced to some Christian blogs. Today’s post is a response John C. Wright’s conversion story, which you can read here. (For background on my own views, you may browse my other posts on religion.)
I am more than a presumably rational individual, I [was] a champion of atheism who gave arguments in favor of atheism so convincing that three of my friends gave up their religious belief due to my persuasive reasoning powers, and my father stopped going to church.
Upon concluding through a torturous and decades-long and remorseless process of logic that all my fellow atheists were horribly comically wrong about every basic point of philosophy, ethics and logic, and my hated enemies the Christians were right, I wondered how this could be. The data did not match the model.
Now, the atheists I know do not tend to be “horrible and comically wrong” about “every basic point of philosophy, ethics and logic”. It seems to me that Wright has known some especially irrational atheists. (I’d list QualiaSoup as an example of a very rational atheist. There’s also Carl Sagan, among many others.)
For the first time in my life, I prayed, and said. “Dear God. There is no logical way you could possibly exist, and even if you appeared before me in the flesh, I would call it an hallucination. So I can think of no possible way, no matter what the evidence and no matter how clear it was, that you could prove your existence to me. But the Christians claim you are benevolent, and that my failure to believe in you inevitably will damn me. If, as they claim, you care whether or not I am damned, and if, as they claim, you are all wise and all powerful, you can prove to me that you exist even though I am confident such a thing is logically impossible. Thanking you in advance for your cooperation in this matter, John C. Wright.”
I decided to replicate Wright’s test. First I said the prayer almost exactly as he said it, attempting to speak to God in the same style as Wright. (I reworded things a bit to fit my views.) Then I got on my knees, closed my eyes and said another prayer, which I made up as I went along. Like Wright, I asked God to show himself to me. I’ll tell you the results at the end of this post.
Wright had a profound experience three few days after the prayer:
Three days later, with no warning, I had a heart attack, and was lying on the floor, screaming and dying.
-Then I was saved from certain death by faith-healing, after which–
-I felt the Holy Spirit enter my body, after which–
-became immediately aware of my soul, a part of myself which, until that time, I reasoned and thought did not exist-
-I was visited by the Virgin Mary, her son, and His Father-
-not to mention various other spirits and ghosts over a period of several days–
-including periods of divine ecstasy, and an awareness of the mystical oneness of the universe-
-And a week or so after that I had a religious experience where I entered the mind of God and saw the indescribable simplicity and complexity, love, humor and majesty of His thought, and I understood the joy beyond understanding and comprehended the underlying unity of all things, and the paradox of determinism and free will was made clear to me, as was the symphonic nature of prophecy. I was shown the structure of time and space.
-And then Christ in a vision told me that He would be my judge, and that God judges no man. I mentioned this event to my wife. Then about a month later, when I was reading the Bible for the first time beyond the unavoidable minimum assigned in school, I came across the passage in the book of John, a passage I had never seen before, and to which no Christian in my hearing had ever made reference, which said the same thing in the same words.
-And then I have had perhaps a dozen or two dozen prayers miraculously answered, so much so that I now regard it as a normal routine rather than some extraordinary act of faith.
Well, that’s quite an experience! The only awkward thing about it is that, overall, the evidence against the existence of the Christian God greatly outweighs the evidence for the existence of the Christian God (I’ll just call him “God” for the rest of this post). And yes, that’s still true after considering Wright’s conversion story. I’ll get to that in a bit.
Small note, Wright says:
Christ in a vision told me that He would be my judge, and that God judges no man
Isn’t Jesus just the incarnation of God? Aren’t they the same person? (Or “three persons, one god” as the vague saying goes.) So if Jesus judges people…how can it be that God does not judge people? But this is a minor point, so let’s move on.
In hindsight, if only I had not been so arrogant, I could have glanced around at the earth and sky, and seen the intricacy, wonder, and beauty of nature, regarded the unanswerable authority of the conscience within me, and known that I was a created being inside a created cosmos, not a random sandheap blown for a season into a meaningless shape by blind winds. Any child can see it, and all children do.
A few points here:
- I acknowledge the intricacy, wonder and beauty of nature. But just because nature is wonderful doesn’t mean that God designed it. (I’d also like to point out that nature is flawed: In addition to providing us with air, nature has also provided smallpox.)
- Who’s to say that the human conscience is evidence of God? Isn’t it enough to say that human beings simply observe their surroundings, and can see for themselves that some actions are good and others are bad, that some actions bring happiness and others bring sadness? Isn’t that the basis of morality?
- If we were created out of randomness, why would that imply that our lives are meaningless? Perhaps there really is a basic Meaning to the world, a basic Law of Right and Wrong, just as there is a Law of Gravity. And happily, we happen to have the basic abilities to pursue Meaning and make the world Better. So we can still potentially have meaningful lives, even if we weren’t consciously designed for that purpose.
- Even assuming that there is a loving God who created the universe, what makes Wright so sure that Christianity is the one true religion? Well, his religious experience, of course. But I’ll cover that in a bit.
So I was prepared to say adieu to logic and reason and just take things on faith, when I then found out that the only people who think you have to say adieu to logic and reason in order to take things on faith are crackpots both Christian and atheistic.
Every non-crackpot thinks faith is that on which you rely when unreasonable fears tempt you to disbelieve that to which your reason has consented. If your father says you can dive off the high dive with no risk of death, and he has never lied in the past, and your reason tells you to trust him, it is rational to take his word on faith and jump, and it is irrational to let your eyes overestimate the danger poised by the height.
I think that Wright is confusing three different definitions of the word “faith”. The definitions are:
- Belief in something
- Belief in something despite the evidence (or lack of evidence)
- Belief in something because of the evidence.
When the evidence shows you can jump off the high dive without injury, it requires Faith #3 to make the jump. When the evidence does not show that you can smoke cigarettes all your life and not increase the risk of cancer, in requires Faith #2 to keep smoking and ignore the risk.
Christian belief is largely based on Faith #2. The people who recognize this fact tend to use phrases like “I don’t need evidence; I have faith!” Then someone like Wright comes along and talks about “faith” in the sense of Faith #3, and it tends to confuse everybody. (Perhaps this is a small point, though. You may ignore it if you like.)
Wright discusses how his atheist friends responded to his conversion experience:
They reasoned as follows: “God cannot possibly exist. Therefore any evidence that you encountered that God exists must be hallucination, mis-perception, faulty memory, self-deception, coincidence, or anything else no matter how farfetched and absurd. Since any evidence that you encountered that God exists must be hallucination, mis-perception, faulty memory, self-deception, coincidence, or anything else no matter how farfetched and absurd, therefore none of your evidence proves God exists.”
I found their perfect, childlike faith touching.
No matter what they saw, no matter what they heard, no matter how the world was against them, they would go to the lions rather than look at the evidence, lest their faith in their faithlessness be shaken.
Now, as I said earlier, it appears that Wright knows some very irrational atheists. According to Wright, these atheists treat the nonexistence of God as an axiom, and dismiss all evidence in favor of God on that basis. This, of course is a terrible way to approach the subject of God.
You have to start with neutrality. Find the evidence in favor of God, and the evidence against God, and weigh them against each other. If you discover that God very likely does not exist, then you may conclude that Wright was likely hallucinating or mis-remembering or whatever. But you can’t just start with “There is no God, because I said so.” That’s just stupid.
However, this seems to be a case in which stupid logic has produced a fairly accurate result. (That can happen sometimes, by pure chance.) Because when we actually look at the evidence, we do indeed find that the concept of God simply does not fit the data.
The train of thought should begin with something like this: “If God existed, the universe would look like this. But if God did not exist, the universe would look that that.” Then you take an objective look at the universe and figure out which scenario matches up. Are we living in a God-is-real universe, or a God-is-not-real universe? Where does the evidence take us? Which side wins out, in the end?
So let’s look at this God that Wright is proposing: This God is omniscient, omnipotent, and omnibenevolent. (i.e. God is all-knowing, all-powerful, and all-loving.) If that God existed, what would we expect to see in the universe? Well obviously, we’d expect to see that nobody suffers, or at least that nobody suffers any more than they properly deserve. Suffering should either be nonexistent, or it should be proportional to personal morality. Whichever of those scenarios you choose, or even if you somehow blend them together, there should be no exceptions whatsoever to the rules. After all, this is a Perfect God. He has no limitations at all (except in the sense that he’s Perfectly Moral and thus does not commit evil.)
Now let’s look at the universe. Is there suffering? YES! There is lots of suffering. For instance, millions of people have starved to death. (All around the world, for countless centuries). Well, that’s a bit odd…
But perhaps the suffering is proportional to personal morality. Perhaps only evil people starve to death, while good people are miraculously given food (like the manna which God allegedly gave to the ancient Hebrews.) Well…no. That doesn’t fit the data either. Innocent people starve to death all the time! Especially poignant are the stories of children who live in poor countries, and there’s a famine or whatever, and the kids starve to death despite being only 5 years old, and completely innocent of any crimes. And this applies to Christian families just as much as anyone else.
Now, considering all that, does it really make sense to believe in an Omniscient, Omnipotent, Omnibenevolent God? Seriously, go look at the websites of some of those hunger charities. Find the pictures of starving children they sometimes show. Look at those children and try to reconcile the idea that there is a Perfect God somewhere who could easily provide these kids with abundant food, at no personal cost or risk to himself. And he knows about the kids, because he knows everything. And he wants to help the kids, because he’s all-loving (or at least he loves innocent people). And he has the ability to help the kids, because he’s all-powerful! And yet….somehow…he doesn’t help the kids…
It just doesn’t make sense. It makes no sense at all.
Christians, of course, try to defend their belief by making excuses for God. “It’s ok,” they say, “because the kids are going to heaven!”. First off, I’d like to have some evidence that heaven actually exists. Secondly, I’d like to point out that you would never make that excuse for anyone else. If an actual human being decided to let the child starve, when he could have easily fed the child at no cost to himself, you would call him a monster. But when God does the exact same thing, it’s ok!
Now tell me, Christians: Are you really being rational about this? Or are you just being biased?
And heck, I’ve only talked about starvation. I could easily go on and on about diseases, droughts, hurricanes, meteors, murderers, or any number of other things that have killed innocent people before. If God really existed, he could have stopped all of these…but he didn’t. You know why he didn’t? There are only two possibilities:
- There is a God, but he doesn’t have all the qualities that you attribute to him. Maybe he’s all-loving, but he’s not all-powerful. (Or whatever.) A limited God, in other words.
- There is no God. God does not exist.
In either case, Christian theology is wrong.
You can go on making excuses if you want. You can point to the experience of George Mueller, for instance. He was a devout Christian who ran orphanages. On several occasions they almost ran out of food, but they were saved by last-minute donations. Mueller thought that this was directed by God. The trouble, of course, is that plenty of other orphanages in the world really have run out of food at one time or another, or else they got hit by a tornado or a plague or something, and children died. If God helped Mueller with his orphans…why doesn’t he help all the other orphans? Or hey, here’s an idea: Maybe the last-minute donations were not directed by God. Maybe they were just the actions of good-hearted humans, who had either heard that the kids were running out of food, or they simply showed up at the right time due to coincidence. In light of all the innocents who suffer in the world, the non-God explanation makes a lot more sense to me.
Another excuse is that God works in “mysterious ways”, and therefore somehow it’s ok when he lets innocent children starve to death. I can understand how God might be mysterious, but this excuse is simply nonsense. You’re basically saying that you can’t explain the situation, but you’re sure that God is real because…well, you never really get to that part. It’s Mysterious.
Really, now. Look around you. Are we living in the God-is-real universe, or the God-is-not-real universe? Of the two, the answer is clearly the latter. (If you’d like to propose a limited God, we can have a separate discussion about that. But that’s not what Wright is proposing, so I’m mostly ignoring it for now.)
There are many parts of Christian theology that don’t make sense. But the Problem of Evil is probably the most obvious. It also helps to know that Jesus was likely a myth to begin with, and faith-healing doesn’t seem to work. (Granted, one historian and one study do not automatically settle the debate. But as far as I’ve seen, the overall evidence still leans heavily toward God-does-not-exist.) Also, it’s interesting how various people believe that they’re in direct contact with Jesus (aka God), yet somehow they disagree on what Jesus wants us to do. Are they really all talking to the same divine being? Are they talking to any divine beings?
There are so many things that just don’t add up…
I then discovered that the Christian world view makes sense of much that the atheistic or agnostic worldview cannot make sense of, and even on its own philosophical terms, is a more robust explanation of the cosmos and man’s place in it, answering many questions successfully that atheists both claim cannot be answered, and then, without admitting it, act in their lives as if the question were answered, such as how to account for the rational faculties of man, the universality of moral principles, the order of the cosmos, how best to live, etc.
The Christian worldview actually does not make sense in light of the evidence I just cited. And I don’t see what exactly atheists lack. We have plenty of plausible answers to the Big Questions. Our answers aren’t perfect, I’m sure. But that doesn’t mean that the Christians are any better.
- The cosmos as we know it was created in the Big Bang. (I don’t know why the Big Bang occurred in the first place, but it’s better to admit ignorance that to invent a baseless answer.)
- Man originally evolved from other forms of life on planet Earth. Our place (as far as I can tell), is to pursue Compassion and Wisdom, while discarding Cruelty and Ignorance. (Again, not perfect. But it’s something.)
- The rational faculties of man came about through evolution. Originally this was just a method for devising better ways to stay alive and pass on genetic code. Nowadays, we have reached such levels of intelligence that we can ignore those basic goals and pursue other goals if we want to. (In a way, we’ve gone beyond the normal process of evolution.)
- Universal moral principles exist in the same way that Gravity exists. I don’t know where they came from, but I can perceive that they are real.
- The order of the cosmos is governed by physical laws. Its meaning is governed by moral laws.
- It is best to live with compassion and wisdom. We should seek to end needless suffering and to improve human life in general.
Christianity provides other answers to these questions. And in some ways those answers are more appealing than the ones I’ve listed here. Unfortunately, Christian theology simply doesn’t fit the facts. The aesthetic appeal of that theology should not blind us to the truth.
And again, just because I don’t have a perfect explanation for everything doesn’t mean that Christianity is automatically superior. It is better to admit your ignorance than to adopt baseless answers.
One skeptic, in a bit of a lapse of his vaunted presumably rational character, told me solemnly that I could not possibly have had Jesus tell me something from a book in the Bible I had never read before. He said that I had read it afterward, and developed the previously undiscovered ability to edit and rewrite my memories, which I then used on myself, so that I only thought I remembered Jesus telling me about the nonjudgmentalism of God. The memory was created after I read the passage, and then back-dated. Then I used this power again to make myself forget that I had the power to make myself forget things.
I asked him if I also had the power to rewrite my wife’s memory, since she remembers me telling her about the passage before I read it. He then tried to cut the conversation off, while accusing me of being irrational.
At this point, everything Wright says has to be weighed against the evidence for the nonexistence of God that I’ve already cited. That means that the case for memory alteration is a lot stronger than it would be otherwise.
Memory alteration is a real thing. It’s not a point-and-click process, of course. And it’s not something that you do consciously. But unconsciously, memories can be altered in order to fit your own biases and beliefs. (I recommend a book called Mistakes were made, but not by me. It discusses self-justification and unconscious memory alteration.)
That said, the atheist here is proposing a needlessly complex theory. Here’ s a simpler one: Sometime before his deep religious experience, Wright heard about this passage in the Bible. There are over 2 billion Christians in the world, so it’s not too strange to suggest that he heard this passage from someone, at some point. (Or maybe he saw it on a poster, or whatever. Somehow he encountered this passage.) Then he forgot about it, in the perfectly normal way of forgetting. Upon converting, Wright was thinking a lot about God. He remembered this passage, though he didn’t remember who had mentioned it to him, and assumed instead that this memory was actually the Voice of God. He mentioned the passage to his wife, telling her that God had told him about it. Then he later discovered that passage in the Bible.
Notice there’s no need for memory alteration in this theory, aside from the normal sense of forgetting something, remembering it again, and mus-attributing the source. And it easily explains what happened with his wife.
Another atheist told me I induced a heart attack in myself with my previously undiscovered heart-attack inducing power. And then cured the heart pain with my previously undiscovered heart-attack-curing power. I did both things in order to convince myself falsely of a doctrine I did not believe and had no interest in believing, but, unbeknownst to myself, my secret desire to believe was so great that it overwhelmed and sanity and seized control of my subconscious biological and cardiovascular processes. When I questioned him about such things as whether he was familiar with my medical record, or when I asked to see the evidence supporting this theory, he called me names.
I’m guessing that Wright simply had a heart attack for normal reasons. Somehow or other this near-death experience caused his religious experience.
Is that a thorough explanation? No. Is it common for people suffering from heart-attacks to convert to other religions? No. But considering the evidence I cited for the non-existence of God, it’s more plausible that a normal heart attack (and subsequent near-death experience) caused the conversion, as opposed to the idea that God gave Wright a heart-attack and then revealed himself to Wright via divine power.
Also, note how Wright describes his attitude toward Christianity at the outset of the heart attack:
[Christianity was] a doctrine I did not believe and had no interest in believing
That strikes me as being quite odd, because earlier in the post Wright made another description of his pre-heart-attack feelings on Christianity:
Upon concluding through a torturous and decades-long and remorseless process of logic that all my fellow atheists were horribly comically wrong about every basic point of philosophy, ethics and logic, and my hated enemies the Christians were right, I wondered how this could be. The data did not match the model.
So, prior to the heart attack, Wright believed that the “the Christians were right” regarding “every basic point of philosophy, ethics and logic”. It sure sounds to me like he was half-converted already! If that was the case, is it really fair for him to describe Christianity as something he “had no interest in believing” at that time? I agree that he was not actually a Christian until after the heart attack, but it certainly seems plausible that he was interested in Christianity. Perhaps we could even say that he wanted to believe, despite his claim that he had “no interest” in it.
It’s something to ponder, anyway.
(No, I’m not saying that Wright probably gave himself a heart attack. But I’ll return to this point about prior-half-conversion later in the post.)
Another atheist told me that that heart failure was a coincidence, not a direct result of my prayer tempting God Almighty, and if that had not happened, something else like a car accident would have happened, and since I am irrational, I would have drawn an improper post hoc ergo propter hoc conclusion no matter what happened, on the grounds that God cannot exist no matter what the evidence says nor how obvious it is, and so anyone who draws the obvious conclusions from the evidence MUST be irrational.
I’m guessing that if Wright had not experienced near-death soon after his prayer, he would not have converted to Christianity. It’s just a coincidence that he had the heart attack soon after his prayer. (Side note: Why did God decide to wait for three days, anyway?)
And again, I don’t disbelieve in God regardless of the evidence. I disbelieve in God because of the evidence. The atheist he cites seems to be irrational.
In general, the argument that I am impeached as a witness on the grounds that my testimony did not confirm the prejudices and assumptions of a third party is not one likely to prevail in a court of law, or as a debate among sober philosophers, scientists, nor anyone trained in rigorous reasoning.
Wright, I do not impeach you as a witness because your testimony does not conform to an arbitrary belief. I impeach you as a witness because your testimony does not conform to reality, as measured by objective observation.
And so far not one atheist has approached me with a legitimate argument, such as the Problem of Pain, or the Paradox of Determinism, or any apparent inconsistencies in the Bible.
Again, Wright, you appear to have been talking to irrational atheists. But now that you’ve brought it up…how do you explain the Problem of Pain?
Actually, you don’t explain it. Not in this post, anyway.
My question for [atheists] is this: if science discovered tomorrow that the universe was half its apparent age, and estimated the stars as half their current number, would the believe in God somehow be twice as credible in your eyes?
If so, why so?
If not, then, logically, the age of the universe and the number of stars has no bearing on the credibility of belief in God or in the Incarnation.
Wright has made an error in his logic. Christian theology consists of several beliefs. Here’s a small sample:
- The universe was created by God
- The universe is less than 20,000 years old
- Jesus Christ was born of a virgin
- Jesus Christ came back from the dead
- Good Christians go to heaven after they die
If we discovered tomorrow that the universe was only 7 billion years old (instead of 14 billion), then Belief #2, listed above, would indeed become about twice as plausible than before. (It would still be ridiculously small compared to reality, but it would be less ridiculous.) But Belief #2 is only a small part of Christianity, so the plausibility of Christianity as a whole would only increase by a small amount. And thus, the belief in God would become more plausible by a small amount. A very small amount.
But yes, indeed, our data about the universe really does matter when judging whether God exists.
Again, if you are attempting to persuade me that I should not believe in unusual events or unheard-of or hard-to-believe on the grounds that no unusual nor unheard-of nor hard-to-believe events never happen, simple logic shows that this cannot be the case:
Logically, every ordinary event is unheard-of before we hear of it; and the first example of even repeated events is unusual until the second example occurs; and events are hard-to-believe when and only when our expectations and our experience does not match: therefore every novelty is as incredible as the platypus when first encountered. Therefore not only do incredible events happen, they must happen, for if they did not, the concept of credibility could not exist.
At one time, there were reports of a newly-discovered creature called a platypus. People said “That’s unheard of! It cannot exist!”. But it was later proven that the reports were true. The platypus really does exist.
Around the same time, there were reports of creatures called mermaids. People said “That’s unheard of! It cannot exist!”. It was later proven that the reports were false. Mermaids do not exist.
So yes, indeed, some things which seem impossible turn out to be true. Other such things turn out to be false. So, what about God? Is God like the platypus, or is he more like the mermaid? How would we know the difference? By checking the evidence, of course. Which I’ve already done, earlier in this post.
If, on the other hand, you are arguing that I ought not believe reports of miracles on that grounds that miracles do not exist, and that we know miracles do not exist on the grounds that no believable reports of them are heard, you are arguing in a circle.
You ought not to believe in miracles, on the basis that countless supposedly miraculous events have been better explained with non-miraculous explanations. (And by “better”, in mean that the theory better fits the evidence, overall.) If you find a specific alleged miracle in which the non-miraculous explanations make less sense, in light of all the evidence, than the miraculous explanation, then you you may believe in that specific miracle. But considering the evidence supporting the non-existence of God, it’s hard to imagine what miracle could be so convincing, and so clearly miraculous, as to be logically considered an actual miracle. (And no, you’re not allowed to jump straight from “I don’t know how this happened” to “God did it!“. You have to be more thorough than that.)
You are also implying that the human race, all of whom believe in gods, ghosts, magic and miracles of one sort or another, except for that exquisitely tiny minority of persons who are consistent atheists, just so happened to have all made the same lapse of judgment in the matter of paramount and foundational importance in their lives, and continue to do so, some of whom would go to the lions rather than reexamine the aforesaid lapse of judgment. While it is possible that everyone during the parade is out of step except the fond mother’s son in the old joke, this would seem to be as unusual, unheard-of and hard-to-believe as a Virgin birth, if not more so.
Ah, the argument from popularity. There are several responses to this.
First, Wright himself disregards this argument when it comes to most of Christian theology. It is indeed true that the vast majority of people believe in “gods, ghosts, magic and miracles of one sort or another”. But it is also true that the large majority of people disbelieve in the resurrection of Jesus Christ. They also disbelieve in the idea that faith in Christ will bring them eternal life. So I can use Wright’s logic against himself: He is implying that most of the human race, which disbelieves in the resurrection of Christ, just so happens to have all made the same lapse of judgment in a matter of paramount and foundational importance in their lives, and continue to do so, some of whom would go to the lions rather than reexamine the aforesaid lapse of judgment.
Wright takes popularity as a sign that Christianity is true, except when it comes to those areas in which Christianity is not popular…in which case popularity suddenly doesn’t matter anymore. (This would be ok, if the evidence was still in his favor overall. But it’s not.)
Second, I can use Wright’s logic against him again by citing that earlier bit about things which seem absurd but are later proven true. After all, if the vast majority of people believe in a God, then by definition atheism seems absurd to them. It’s “unheard-of”, or “unthought-of”, to their way of thinking. Thus I can write: Logically, every true idea is unthought-of before we think of it; and the first example of even “obvious” ideas is unusual until the second example occurs; and ideas are hard-to-believe when and only when our pre-existing beliefs and our experience do not match: therefore every novelty is as incredible as the “earth is round” theory when first encountered.
When Christianity seems absurd, Wright says that absurdity is no reason to dismiss it. But when atheism seems absurd (as judged by its popularity), Wright takes this as a sign that atheism is wrong. (This would be ok, if the evidence was still in his favor overall. But it’s not.)
And note how Wright uses the steadfast devotion of certain theists as implicit evidence that theism must be true:
some of [these theists] would go to the lions rather than reexamine the aforesaid lapse of judgment.
But on that note, remember how Wright himself described the irrational atheists earlier on:
No matter what they saw, no matter what they heard, no matter how the world was against them, they would go to the lions rather than look at the evidence, lest their faith in their faithlessness be shaken.
When theists are deeply devoted to their belief in God, Wright appears to take that as a sign that God is real. But when atheists are deeply devoted to their nonbelief in God, Wrights takes that as a sign that the atheists are simply being stubborn and irrational. (Though again, I agree that these particular atheists really were irrational. I’m just pointing out how Wright judges theists and atheists by different standards.)
Wright doesn’t appear to have any solid evidence to support his argument that God exists. Or rather, he doesn’t have so much evidence as to overpower all the signs that God does not exist.
“But what about his experience of God?”, you may ask. “Doesn’t that count as substantial evidence?”
Well no, for the reasons I already mentioned. But here’s one more point: If we decide to believe in God because of Wright’s testimony, we must also believe in alien abductions, due to the testimony of abductees.
There are many people who believe they were abducted by aliens, who fit Wright’s basic mold:
- Previously, they did not believe in alien abductions
- They had no history of mental illness
- Then they had an abduction experience, which they could later recall in great detail
- They formed a deep conviction that this experience was real
There are differences, of course. Alien abduction seems to start with Sleep Paralysis in most cases, and I don’t think Wright had that. It also tends to be furthered by hypnosis, which “reveals” (actually invents) further details about the experience. I don’t think Wright has ever seen a hypnotist. But still, the fact remains that people can have profound fictitious experiences if the circumstances are right.
Fundamentally, I think that’s what happened to him. Somehow, some way, the circumstances were right and he had a vivid hallucination of Jesus etc..
If that still seems far-fetched, let me remind you of two things:
- As I mentioned earlier, it appears that Wright had already half-converted before his heart attack. He had concluded that the atheists were wrong, and furthermore that the Christians were right, with regards to “every basic point of philosophy, ethics and logic”. Considering that this attitude already existed in his mind at the time of his near-death experience, doesn’t that make it plausible that he would suffer pro-Christian delusions?
- There’s a lot of evidence that the Christian God does not exist. Hence, it would seem that any experience of that God is probably an illusion. (But no, I don’t take the nonexistence of God as an axiom. Review what I said earlier.)
Of course, maybe Wright just knows something I don’t. Maybe he has some noncommunicable evidence. But I doubt it.
I honestly tried to replicate his test: I prayed for God to reveal himself to me. Three days later…nothing happened. No heart attack, no near-death experience, no faith healing, no miracles, no visitations from divine beings, no sudden sense of the oneness of the universe…nothing. Three whole days went by and nothing happened which even slightly demonstrated the existence of God. Nothing whatsoever.
Maybe God’s just biding his time for some reason. If I do have a profound God-based experience sometime soon, I’ll update this post. But I don’t think that will ever happen. (Update: It’s been 3 months now, and nothing has happened. Recently my aunt, who is a very devout Christian, prayed over me with great passion. But I still haven’t received any divine signs or visitations. I remain an atheist, and I’m comfortable with that.)
Some will say that God works in mysterious ways. They’ll say that he heard my prayer and simply decided not to answer. Or maybe he did answer, but in a way I didn’t notice or acknowledge.
But really, considering all the other arguments I’ve put forth, both in this post and in my other posts on the subject, what’s more likely? That the Christian God really exists as advertised, and all the evidence against him is somehow bunk? Or that the Christian God simply doesn’t exist in the first place?
Wright, I’m sure you had a profound experience. I haven’t been through that experience myself, so I won’t pretend to understand what it felt like. Nor will I claim that your Christian beliefs have necessarily degraded your life. For all I know, your conversion was a great change and it helped you to become a better person. I don’t pretend to know things like that, one way or the other.
All I do know is that, to the best of my judgment, the evidence against the existence of your God massively outweighs the evidence in his favor. Your testimony is not enough to outweigh all the contrary evidence. Even the collective testimony of many similar converts still pales in comparison to the anti-God evidence. (Especially when you consider all the people who have had profound experiences which led them to convert to other religions…but I digress.)
I don’t hate you. I’m not angry at you. I’m not laughing at you. I’m not even saying that you’re generally an irrational person. (In fact, you seem like a smart guy!) I’m just saying that I think you’re being irrational on this one particular issue. Your evidence is insufficient.
I remain an atheist. Specifically, a humanist.
But anyway, regardless of what you believe, I wish you well.
(Updated 28 April 2013, 31 July 2013)
I found something funny in the middle of this article:
Yanagi Ryuken, an aikido practitioner in Japan, managed to convince many people — himself among them — that he had mastered the “no-touch knockout”: an ability to vanquish his opponents without even touching them. The first of these two videos [...] shows Yanagi effortlessly thwarting dozens of his students as they appear to attack him:
In the second video, he confronts a martial artist not in on the delusion, and that second martial artist punches Yanagi in the face.
Let’s take this as a reminder that claims need to be tested in proper circumstances. It’s not enough to show that the master can prevail against his own students. We have to see how he fares against an outsider.
And now that we’ve shown that Yanagi is not a skilled as he seemed, we have to wonder: What’s going on in the first video? Ordinarily, I would say it’s simply a fake. I would say that everyone in the video is in on it; they’re all just pretending that Yanagi is amazing, so their school can get more attention or more funding or whatever.
The trouble is this: If Yanagi knew he was a fake, why did he agree to fight with an outsider in the second video? Perhaps he thought the strength of his reputation would send the opponent to the ground. Or perhaps (as the bold text states), Yanagi actually believed that he had the ability to knock people down without touching them. That is a strange idea…and somewhat frightening…
If Yanagi really thought he had mastered this technique, it’s a reminder of how people can be irrational without realizing it.
Here’s another video, which I found at this site:
Truly, the human capacity for self-deception is incredible.
Richard Dawkins, a famous atheist, recently composed some controversial tweets on his twitter feed. I learned about the tweets here.
The topic was a journalist named Mehdi Hasan. Hasan writes for the New Statesman. He is also a practicing Muslim.
Mehdi Hasan admits to believing Muhamed [sic] flew to heaven on a winged horse. And New Statesman sees fit to print him as a serious journalist.
Let’s dissect Dawkin’s assertions. (Dawkin’s beliefs are in bold, and my responses are below them.)
Mendi Hasan believes that Muhammad flew to heaven on a winged horse.
On this, we agree. Hasan really does believe that.
It is ridiculous to believe that Muhammad flew to heaven on a winged horse. This belief is not supported by the evidence.
Once again, I agree. Though I hasten to add there is nothing specifically Muslim about this problem.
- Christians: It is ridiculous to believe that Jesus rose from the dead and ascended into heaven.
- Jews: It is ridiculous to believe that the ancient Hebrews were freed from slavery in Egypt via a series of miraculous plagues.
- Hindus: It is ridiculous to believe that people are subject to a cycle of reincarnation
- Buddhists: It is ridiculous to believe that Buddha, or any of his followers, has ever displayed supernatural powers.
Ridiculous beliefs in the supernatural don’t have to involve religion at all:
- It is ridiculous to believe in ghosts
- It is ridiculous to believe in astrology
- It is ridiculous to believe in fairies
- It is ridiculous to believe in telepathy
Anyone who believes that Muhammad flew to heaven on a winged horse cannot be a serious journalist.
Or, more broadly: Anyone who believes in something ridiculous cannot be a serious journalist.
This is where we disagree.
First off, it should be obvious that this belief about Muhammad has no practical effect on Hasan’s work as a journalist. It’s not as if he’s thinking to himself “Muhammad flew to heaven on a winged horse, therefore I shouldn’t double-check my facts or quote my sources accurately.” These are two separate areas of thought.
Secondly, lots of people have done great work as journalists, despite their supernatural beliefs. Personally, I’m a big fan of Bill Moyers. Moyers believes that Jesus rose from the dead and ascended into heaven, which is ridiculous. But that doesn’t stop him from being a great journalist! He’s highly intelligent and I value his work. (Some will ask how I can remain an atheist when I openly admit that many intelligent people are theists. The answer is that the raw evidence just doesn’t add up. Also, I can name intelligent people who are atheists like myself. For instance, I.F. Stone.)
Modern journalism has lasted for a century or two, depending on how you define it. During that time, the vast majority of humans on this planet have believed in supernatural powers. Journalists, as far as I know, are no exception to the trend. And yet there’s been plenty of good journalism regardless. (There’s also been plenty of bad journalism, but in most cases I don’t think the badness is actually the result of religion or supernaturalism.)
And of course, this principle extends beyond journalism. There are plenty of plumbers, designers, architects, soldiers, writers, singers, bakers, teachers, carpenters, scientists and whatever-else who all have ridiculous beliefs regarding the supernatural, and yet they still do an excellent job when it comes to their primary profession.
Dawkin’s wrote a follow-up tweet, saying:
You’d ridicule palpably absurd beliefs of any other kind. Why make an exception for religion?
Personally, I don’t make an exception for religion. If someone believes in UFO abduction, that doesn’t necessarily mean that he’s a bad journalist. If I’m going to judge him as a journalist I’ve got to examine his work as a journalist.
For yet another example, consider Edgar Mitchell, a U.S. astronaut who was the sixth man to walk on the moon. Edgar believed in such nonsense as remote healing and alien visitation, stating that he is “90 percent sure that many of the thousands of unidentified flying objects, or UFOs, recorded since the 1940s, belong to visitors from other planets”. Here we have an example of nonsense that actually seems somewhat germane to the man’s profession: He’s a former astronaut who believes that aliens have visited our planet. And yet, despite this ridiculous belief, Mitchell was a perfectly capable astronaut. He did his job well.
Some people do make unfair exceptions for religion. But the defense of Hasan is not based on such exceptions. The defense of Hasan is based on Hasan’s actual work as a journalist.
Dawkin’s criticism is unfair.
They say that the only way to avoid offending people is to keep your mouth shut. Anything you say will be offensive to somebody, at some point.
Of course, this doesn’t mean that all statements are equal. Some statements are wise and others are foolish. Some statements are kind and others are cruel. So the speaker can’t simply dismiss all criticism by pointing out that everything offends somebody at some point.
At the same time, people should be free to make reasonable statements, even when they may cause offense.
I’ve mostly offended people by talking about religion. I’m an atheist (specifically, a Humanist), and I don’t have any supernatural beliefs. I think that most people believe in a lot of nonsense. However, I am very aware that religion has a good side. Lots of people find hope, joy, morality and community through religion. All of these are good things! I place high value on hope, joy, morality and community, despite the fact that I’m an atheist. (In fact, there is really no contradiction between atheism and goodness.)
The Christian says “Be good, because Jesus said so.”
The Humanist says “Be good, because it’s the right thing to do.”
We agree on the most important matters. The rest is just details.
So please, do not misunderstand my motives. When I criticize your religion, it’s not because I want to rob you of hope, or joy, or morality or community. I’m not trying to drag you down. I’m trying to enlighten you.
And if in fact I am foolish, if in fact there is a God and I just don’t see him for some reason, then at least I am an honest fool, a well-intentioned fool. Do not assume that I am some sort of villain who aims to insult or destroy. I am only trying to help.
I do not aim to offend. I only aim to enlighten. If the truth is offensive, then I am sorry to offend, but the truth must be told nonetheless. (Though again, there’s always the chance that I’m wrong and you have the truth.)
I am only trying to help.
The basic Rules of War, to my way of thinking:
Rule One: War must only be fought for good reasons. The essential purpose of the war must be to preserve human rights and advance the general welfare of humanity. (In World War 2, the Axis broke Rule One, but the Allies more-or-less followed it.)
Rule Two: Civilians must not be harmed. There is always the chance of accidents, and of course civilians suffer indirect harm when their loved ones take up arms and are killed on the battlefield. But as much as possible, civilians must not be harmed. And no military force should use civilians as human shields, because that seriously increases their risk of being harmed.
Rule Three: Combatants who are out of the fight must not be harmed. If a combatant surrenders, or is captured, or is wounded such that he can’t fight any longer, he must not be harmed. Such combatants may be confined, to prevent them from joining the fight again, but they may not be tortured, abused of killed.
I’ve written about this before, so I’ll just leave these links:
Heck, even Fox News quoted an ex-Bush official who admitted that many of the people held at Guantanamo are innocent: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/03/19/ex-bush-official-guantanamo-bay-innocent/
We’re abusing innocent people! And we’re ok with this??
My old essay on American corruption: http://www.sonicsuns.net/mainblog/archives/my-government-is-corrupt
As always, the best source for information on these issues is Glenn Greenwald.
An old co-worker emailed me recently. He said he had been reading this blog, and he sent me links to other blogs written by committed Christians. Apparently, my co-worker is trying to convert me. (This is ok, by itself. He has every right to make his case, and there’s always the chance that I’ve been wrong all this time.)
He mentioned these three blogs:
The last of those is the most intriguing, and it inspired this post.
Unequally Yoked is written by a woman who grew up in an atheist household. In time, she began to question her beliefs. She studied Christianity thoroughly, and eventually became a Christian. (Specifically, a Catholic.)
I’m sure many would consider this to be a great example of the power of Christianity. Surely, they would say, the evidence supporting Christianity must be really massive! After all, it converted an intelligent girl who was raised as an atheist, and who made a thorough study of the topic before converting.
The only trouble with this idea is that I have exactly the opposite story.
I was raised as a Christian. (Specifically, a Methodist.) At first my faith was superficial, but starting in 6th grade I developed a deep and abiding faith. I wanted to live my whole life in dedication to Jesus Christ. But in time, I began to question my beliefs. I studied Atheism thoroughly, and eventually I became an Atheist. (Specifically, a Humanist.)
So now we have one girl who grew up as an atheist and then converted to Christianity based on the facts, versus one guy who grew up as a Christian and then converted to Atheism based on the facts.
And here’s the tragedy: One of us is wrong.
We can’t both be right! Either there is good reason to believe in God, or else there is no good reason to believe in God. And either way, whoever is right, someone has made a massive error in judgment. Because we’re not mild in our beliefs; we don’t each think that we simply have a 51% change of being right. She believes very firmly that God exists, and I believe firmly that no God has been proven to exist (and thus that we should disbelieve in God).
And yes, I did read Mere Christianity by C.S. Lewis. It was nonsense.
This girl is clearly intelligent. So am I. (Sorry if that seems like bragging.) We’re both intelligent people. And clearly, we’ve both given this a lot of thought. But we’ve reached opposite conclusions.
And that leaves us with an obvious fact: It is possible for an intelligent person to think about an issue thoroughly, and still reach a very wrong conclusion.
And that’s just sad. Regardless of who is right or wrong (I’ll probably review these blogs later), it’s sad to know that such wrongness exists.
After all, if intelligent people can be wrong about religion, what else are they wrong about?
Gerrymandering is the practice of arranging political districts (such as congressional districts) so as to bias the results. For instance, you could have a state where 50% of people are republican and 50% are democratic, but then you could gerrymander the districts such that 60% of the elections will result in a republican victory.
There’s a simple way around this. When it’s time to change the district lines (or when X years have gone by), give everyone the opportunity to submit election maps for consideration. A nonpartisan system of rules will judge which is the best map. (In order to apply these rules, you’ll need polling data, determining not only which party people favor but also where each person lives.)
Rule #1: Every district must be contiguous. In other words, you can’t take several unconnected pieces of land and call that a “district”. This rule is already the law of the land, thanks to the courts.
Rule #2: Districts must have roughly the same population as each other. So the most populous district may not have more than (for instance) 10% more people than the least popular district.
Rule #3: The district map must lead to results that fit with the people’s overall political leanings. Conduct a virtual election, assuming everyone votes for a candidate of the party they favor most. (This is where we use the polling data.) For instance, suppose that the state is half democratic and half republican. One map runs a virtual election and finds 58% of the seats go to democrats. Another map runs a virtual election and finds that 53% of the seats go to democrats. The second map is superior, because it more closely resembles the overall feeling of the state.
Rule #4: Townsplitting is discouraged. This is used as a tiebreaker, in case several maps reach the same results in the virtual elections. The idea here is that people who live in the same town should probably be in the same district. After all, they live under the same local laws, so they’re a little more likely to have similar interests. Every map gets a townsplitting score, calculated like this: Look at every town in the state. If the town belongs to a single district, that’s worth one point. If it’s split between two districts, that’s worth two points. Three districts, three points. etc.. The map with the lowest townsplitting score is the winner.
If multiple maps tie in the virtual elections and the townsplitting scores, then the legislature can simply vote which one to adopt. This might be a chance for corruption to creep in, but by this point all the really bad maps have been removed, so it’s not a big deal.
Another method to fix gerrymandering is to use Mixed Membership Proportional representation.
This post will only make sense to ardent fans of Doctor Who. If you’re not a fan already, skip this post.
In classic Doctor Who, the Doctor was not the only Time Lord. He was merely one member of a whole Time Lord society, centered on the planet Gallifrey. This led to several characters, such as the Master, the Rani and the Meddling Monk. It also led to several storylines, such as the Doctor being put on trial. Unfortunately, this also made things hard for new viewers. Time Lords kept mucking about in each others’ business, making everything hard to understand.
When the series was rebooted in 2005, the Time Lords were gone. Aside from the Doctor himself, the entire race had perished in an offscreen Time War with the Daleks. This made things much easier on new viewers (which was especially important to do, because this was a reboot.) The series has progressed very well since then, showing that the show doesn’t need a Time Lord society in order to stay entertaining. The Master has returned a couple times, and the whole of Gallifrey returned briefly for the climactic end of David Tennant’s run, but in general the Time Lords have been swept out of the show. And it works!
Still, there are certain advantages to having a time-traveling society in the setting. Perhaps someday the concept should be revived. Let’s examine the idea.
First off, this sort of change shouldn’t be taken lightly. It should only happen if the writers feel that the benefits clearly outweigh the costs. Let’s run with this “the Doctor is the only Time Lord” concept for as long as we can before we give up on it.
Second, we shouldn’t simply bring back Gallifrey and its entire cast of characters. If we did so, we’d largely be retreading old ground. The return of Gallifrey worked well as a one-time temporary thing, but it won’t do well as a permanent change. Let Gallifrey fade away.
Still, we could have a roughly comparable society, composed either of Time Lords or simply people who know how to time-travel without being Time Lords themselves. Probably it would be some combination of the two.
How would this get started? Two obvious possibilities: First, the Doctor is married to River Song, who is a partial Time Lord herself. If the two of them had a child, that could be the start of a new society. (Yes, I know about what happened to River in her first appearance. But there are ways around that.) Second, the Doctor already has a semi-clone daughter by the name of Jenny. Perhaps she could be a part of this new society.
The great thing about time travel, of course, is that we wouldn’t necessarily need to wait around for these things to develop. Everyone could basically show up all at once, to the Doctor’s surprise.
The Doctor would still be a unique figure. He’s probably have the only TARDIS, though others would have timeships of a different design.
By the way, Jack Harkness referenced Time Agents in his original appearance. They haven’t showed up since. Perhaps that referenced could be retconned into a foreshadowing of the new Time Society? It’s a thought, anyway.
Inscribed on the tomb of an Anglican Bishop (1100 A.D) in the crypt at Westminster Abbey in London:
When I was young and free and my imagination had no limits I dreamed of changing the world.
As I grew older and wiser I discovered the world would not change, so I shortened my sights somewhat and decided to change only my country. But it, too, seemed immovable.
As I entered my twilight years, in one last desperate attempt, I sought to change only my family, those closest to me, but alas! they would have none of it.
And now as I lie on my deathbed and realize (perhaps for the first time) that if only I’d changed myself first, then by example I may have influenced my family and with their encouragement and support may have bettered my country, and who knows, I may have changed the world.
There are many ways to be detailed but not precise.
There are many ways to be precise but not accurate.
There are many ways to be accurate but not relevant.
There’s a particular type of fortune-telling that focuses on looking at tea leaves. The idea is that you can spot patterns in the leaves, and this will tell you someone’s future (or whatever). This, of course, doesn’t make any sense. As fun as it may be to look at tea leaves, the fact is that tea leaves have pretty much nothing important to tell you. (Unless you’re a botanist who literally wants to study tea leaves, I suppose.)
This sort of misguided thinking pops up all over the place. The basic idea is to look at complex data and draw irrelevant conclusions. The more complex the data is (and tea leaves do make complex patterns), the easier it is to fool yourself into thinking that it tells you something useful.
For instance, while Back to the Future was in production, someone looked at the records and found that no movie with the word “future” in the title had ever done well. He assumed that this pattern would continue, and requested that Back to the Future be renamed “Spaceman from Pluto” in order to make it sell better. Thankfully the movie’s title did not change, and it did spectacularly at the box office. The original idea that the word “future” somehow harms a movie’s chances of success had been completed unfounded. It was only coincidence that led previous movies to do poorly.
In essence, Reading the Tea Leaves means spotting patterns where none exist. You can easily think that you’re being quite clever when in fact you’re being dumb.
I am an atheist. (Specifically, a humanist.) I don’t believe in any god.
However, I do acknowledge that my knowledge is limited. Everybody’s knowledge is limited (as far as I can tell). There could be all sorts of weird things out there that I’m not aware of, including things that I’ve never even imagined. It’s possible that there really is a God out there somewhere, and I just haven’t found him yet. Maybe there are several gods. Who knows?
Maybe the Christians are right. Or the Muslims or the Hindus. Or maybe they’re all wrong, and the real truth is completely different from everybody’s expectations. (If there really is a god, I’m guessing that he fits into the “all major religions are wrong” category.)
This applies to plenty of other concepts too. Maybe there’s an afterlife, for instance, and I just haven’t discovered it yet. (Maybe we eventually create an afterlife with technology somehow.)
If I find enough evidence to prove the existence of a God, or an afterlife, or unicorns or anything else, then I will change my beliefs.
So you see, just because I’m atheist doesn’t mean that I’m not open to new ideas. And it doesn’t mean that I’m 100% certain that “this is all we’ve got”. There’s always room for new discoveries, and there’s always room for hope.
I am writing to advance an idea. For lack of a better term, I call it the Basic Guarantee: Everyone in the world should have adequate food, shelter, medicine and safety, regardless of their personal circumstances.
The food may be bland, but it will be plentiful and nutritious. The shelter may be small, but it will be sturdy and safe. Medicine will never be perfect, but a basic level of treatment should be available to all. Violence should be suppressed, so that no one needs to live in fear. These things should be available to everyone, even the very poor.
This guarantee may be achieved by any combination of governments, NGOs, religious groups, secular groups, individuals, and societal movements. I don’t know exactly how it might be done, but I’m sure that it I can be done, eventually. And I’m sure that it ought to be done.
Countless millions of innocent people have suffered over the centuries. But thanks to advances in society, law, technology and other areas, we are making progress. In 1990, 43% of the world lived in extreme poverty. Now, that figure stands at 21%. If present trends continue, extreme poverty will approach zero by 2030. Various other measures are improving too, such as child mortality rates.
With a concerted global effort, I think we could achieve this by the end of the century. And if it’s going to take longer than that, all the more reason to get started now.
Imagine it. In all the world, nobody starves to death. Nobody dies from exposure. No one is killed or disabled by a preventable disease. And the idea of war becomes unnecessary and remote.
And someday, people will look back on 2013 and wonder how we ever endured such harsh conditions.
Article 6 of the U.S. Constitution includes this passage:
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any state to the Contrary notwithstanding.
It seems odd to me that the treaties made under the constitution are apparently on equal footing with the constitution itself. Here’s my amendment:
- This Constitution shall be the supreme law of the United States, followed next by the laws which are passed by the federal government pursuant to this Constitution, and thereafter followed by the treaties which are passed by the federal government pursuant to this Constitution. The constitutions and laws of the several States shall be legally inferior to this Constitution, and they shall furthermore be legally inferior to the laws, treaties and other legal instruments of the federal government, provided that such federal instruments are exercised pursuant to this Constitution.
- If any law, treaty or other legal instrument which has legal force within the United States is in violation of this Constitution, the offending passages shall be null and void with respect to the United States. But this shall not be so construed as to allow laws, treaties, or other legal instruments to be violated due to a false claim that any such instrument is in violation of this Constitution.
- The judges of the United States, including federal judges and State judges, shall be bound by the provisions of this Constitution, notwithstanding anything in the constitution or laws of any State to the contrary.
A quote from a friend of mine:
When I was learning to fly airplanes, people kept asking me “Aren’t you scared when you fly?”
And I would think, ‘No, flying doesn’t scare me. What scares me is the thought of living a mundane life.”
Wikipedia is available in several languages. On any given article, users may add language links to a special sidebar, leading to that article’s counterpart in another language. For instance, the English article describing Africa has a language link to the French article describing Africa, and vice-versa. The one problem with this is that Wikipedia covers many languages, and it can be tedious to manually link every page on a given topic to every other corresponding page in another language. I propose an automatic system to make this easier. I call it ALLS, or Automatic Language Linking System.
First, let’s distinguish between manual language links and automatic language links. A manual link, or M-link, is typed in manually by a user. An automatic link, or A-link, is created by ALLS. A-links are only generated in response to M-links. The two sorts of links are distinctly identified for readers. For instance, M-links might be displayed normally while A-links are listed in parenthesis.
A-links are based on something called a node. A node is a special page which lists various articles that all cover the same topic in different languages. These articles are grouped into several classes: Class A, Class B, Class C, etc.. The tile of the node is a simple number, like “Node:3943″.
When 4 pages are joined through mutual M-links, a node is created automatically. For instance, suppose that the English, French, Japanese and Italian pages covering baseball are all cross-linked. English is M-linked to French, Japanese, and Italian. French is M-linked to English, Japanese, and Italian, etc.. (This requires 12 M-links overall, since links are not bidirectional.) Once this happens, ALLS creates a node and lists the four pages as Class A entries. However, a page may only belong to one node at a time. Any page which is M-linked into multiple nodes is registered as “In Conflict” by ALLS, and is not used for linking purposes.
Any page which M-links to a Class A entry on a given node is automatically listed as a Class B entry. For instance, if a German page is M-linked to the French page on baseball, the German page is listed as Class B on the node. If the German page is later M-linked to all the Class A pages, and they in turn link back to it, then the German page upgrades to Class A.
Any page which M-links to a Class B entry is automatically listed as a Class C entry, etc.. In the case of multiple classifications, the higher class wins. So a page which is M-linked to both a Class B entry and a Class A entry becomes a class B entry, by virtue of the latter M-link.
If M-links are deleted, such that the number of Class A entries drops below 4, the entire node is deleted. (You could also set this up to only require 3 Class A entries, if you wanted to be more lenient.)
Now that we have our node, we can generate A-links. For instance, you could set ALLS to “Generate A-links between all articles on a given node, provided that the article is listed as Class C or higher, but ignore all articles which belong to more than one node.” You can change these parameters as you see fit.
Of course, A-links won’t double-up with M-links. If two pages are set to be both M-linked and A-linked, only the M-link will be displayed.
Note that A-links are only generated in response to M-links, not in response to other A-links. So there’s no danger of cascading errors.
There will also be the option of manual entries that prohibit certain A-links from forming. This is another way to guard against error.
For the U.S. constitution:
- In the normal legislative process, a bill shall first be passed by majority vote in both houses of Congress, and shall then be presented to the President, and he may sign it or not sign it, as detailed elsewhere in this constitution. The President may send suggestions to Congress as to what bills ought to be passed, but this shall not be construed as formal authorization on his part, and Congress shall not be bound to obey his suggestions.
- In an alternative to the normal legislative process, the President may draft his own bill and sign it, together with an explicit Notice of Authorization. This Notice shall specify a period of time, no greater than 180 days from the date the bill was signed, during which time the signature shall have legal force. The President shall then send the bill, together with the Notice of Authorization, to both houses of Congress. If both houses of Congress pass the bill by majority vote within the allotted time, the bill shall immediately become law, without need for further approval from the President and without granting him the opportunity to issue a veto. If Congress passes the bill after the authorization has expired, or if Congress passes a modified version of the bill at any time, the signature shall be invalid for that bill, and the bill shall be presented to the President as though it were a normal bill initiated by Congress. The President may then sign or not sign this bill, as he does with other bills initiated by Congress.
- Having signed a bill and issued an attached Notice of Authorization, the President may not nullify or amend this signature or Notice, unless expressly authorized to do so by a majority vote in both houses of Congress.
- If a bill has been authorized by the President according to the provisions of this amendment, but thereafter he loses his office due to death, resignation, end of term, or any other reason, and the bill has not yet been made into law, then the authorization shall immediately expire. A temporary loss of authority, wherein the President shall remain President and some other officer shall serve as Acting President, shall not be considered as a loss of office for the purposes of this amendment.
Recently I read a book called Wrong by David H. Freedman. It’s a good book, and I recommend it. It documents how scientific research (among other things) is biased in a variety of ways. (However, just because mainstream scientific practice is often wrong does not mean that alternative ideas are any better. Most of those ideas are simply more wrong than mainstream science). I’m especially concerned about medical studies, since the wrongness of those results could end up killing people.
I propose the following reforms for all medical research, with similar reforms for other kinds of research. Funding should be awarded only to institutions which follow these rules.
First, all studies must be registered in an online database before they are conducted. The registration should describe the intent of the study, the methods that will be used, and any other relevant information.
Second, the results of all studies must be submitted to the same online database. If the researchers feel that the results are invalid for some reason, they are free to attach a note explaining why. But they may not hide the data from the public. (Why not? Because researchers are known to suppress results they don’t like.) If the study is aborted midway through, a note must be submitted explaining why. Simple silence shall not be tolerated. And if a unreasonable amount of time goes by without a proper report being made, that lab should be censured, and given less funding in the future.
Third, in general, scientists should be rewarded for practicing good science, rather than producing studies which depict particular outcomes or types of outcomes. Negative results should be given just as much respect as positive results. The media will probably pay more attention to positive results, but the scientists who produce negative results should receive payment and the respect of their peers just the same. The only factor to consider is whether the scientist has practiced good science, has he eliminated all sources of error, etc..
Fourth, scientists should be allowed to make public comments on each other’s studies, pointing out possible sources of error. In order to shield scientists from professional retribution, a system of verified anonymity may be appropriate.
Fifth, it should be standard practice for labs to be paid to replicate studies which are not yet complete. For instance, someone may conduct a study to see if broccoli can lower your cholesterol, and register that study as I just described. Then someone from another lab notices the registration and decides to run the same study at roughly the same time. (But with a totally different set of scientists and test subjects.) This too is registered. Each study would ideally have (let’s say) 3 different labs working on it simultaneously. Once that marker is reached, the study is marked as “full” in the online database, discouraging (but not prohibiting) other labs from running their own replications. In this way, every study is replicated right from the start. Each branch of replication would not necessarily use the exact same methods, but they would study the same questions. (For instance, once study might ask people how much broccoli they eat per week, while another actually feeds them a particular amount of broccoli.)
The 3 labs should be barred from discussing their results with each other, or the public, until all of them have completed their studies. (Exceptions may be made for ethical reasons, for instance when an urgently-needed lifesaving drug is on the line.) As each lab finishes its study, it should sent the results to the managers of the online database. The results should remained sealed at this point; not even the managers will read them. Once all 3 labs have submitted results, the managers should open all 3 sets of results simultaneously and publish all of them, regardless of what they say. Alongside these 3 studies, the managers should append a note with their own analysis. (For instance, “The labs disagree as to the effect of broccoli on cholesterol. No effect has been proven.”)
The replication system would discourage people from giving much weight to an errant study, since they would see contradictory studies published simultaneously. And thanks to the secrecy that comes before publishing, the labs would be unable even to bias each other. (Later replication studies would still have the problem of being biased by the past, though.)
This issue is far more important than most people realize. We simply must reform the system.
When I was in high school, I dreamed of making video games. (I still do, though that’s one dream among many.) I discovered a local independent game development group called Crossbeam Studios, and I was delighted when they let me join the team. They had no money and no particular means of getting any; they were just a group of guys who wanted to create a video game in their spare time. But we all had hopes of someday making something remarkable. The focus of our efforts was a game called “Orb”.
I sent a long email to the project leader, asking him his thoughts on Orb. I wanted to know what the core game mechanics would be, and what would make the game stand out. All I knew at the time was that the story took place in a world filled with magic, but that didn’t tell me much about the gameplay itself. I was eager to discover our plan. And I knew there had to be a plan, because I had been told several times that the other members had been brainstorming concepts for the game for over 3 years before I arrived on the scene. I sent my email, and awaited a response.
The response was disappointing, and it relied heavily on the word “maybe”. Maybe we would have a great magic system that allowed the player to mix different sorts of magic at will. Maybe there would be unique ammo for the various weapons. Maybe we would focus on exploration. I don’t remember the details really, but these were the sorts of responses I got. I realized that, despite years of brainstorming, the team had not actually decided on nearly anything.
I learned more about the game’s development history, and a pattern emerged. Several times the team had conducted a round of brainstorming, coming up with new ideas until a fairly clear picture of the game emerged. They would reach the point at which it was time to stop brainstorming and start creating….but they would fail to create. Nobody seemed to have the energy to get anything done. (I suspected that everyone was waiting for everyone else to pitch in, for the most part.) Slowly it would become obvious that nothing was being accomplished, and around that time someone would propose a massively-altering idea. (For instance, the game was going to be populated with talking animals, and then someone proposed that they switch to humans.) This would set off another round of brainstorming, probably to the relief of everyone involved. Brainstorming is often easier than creation, after all.
I had joined the group at one of these “peak” moments, when brainstorming was over and work was set to begin…and nothing really happened. In an effort to encourage activity, the leader purchased some fairly expensive software for us to use. That didn’t help much. He tried to guilt-trip us to make use of that software, but that didn’t help much either.
He devised a precise scheduling system, where development was broken up into “steps”, and each step had to be accomplished by a specific person in a specific order. In theory, this meant that everyone would know what he had to do and when he had to do it. In practice, it meant that a single person could delay the whole group. And that’s exactly what happened. Someone didn’t get his step done, for whatever reason, and the rest of us sat idly by, because it wasn’t our turn to act yet. Eventually the whole system was scrapped. And after that….well, they stopped emailing me.
I checked their website again some years later, only to find that, once again, they hadn’t really accomplished anything.
Most theists place great emphasis on a holy book (or several books). Christians, for instance, venerate the Bible. Churches have bibles available to read, and many Christians have their own bibles at home. A Christian group called the Gideons strives to make bibles available around the world. If you’ve ever checked into a hotel and found a bible in the bedside drawer, that’s because of the Gideons.
It makes me wonder: What would an atheist bible look like? More specifically, what would a humanist bible look like? (Humanism is a form of atheism which explicitly values virtue.)
My first thought is that there can never be one Humanist Bible. Christians (and other theists) believe that their holy book is divinely inspired, and thus there is no need to make changes or create variations. Humanists, on the other hand, believe that all books are written by people, and thus there is always the chance of error. If anyone wrote a Humanist Bible, it wouldn’t be a definitive work. Likely there would be changes made and updated versions produced. So you would see a “Humanist Bible, Second Edition” for instance. And if anyone attempted to write Humanist Bible, everyone else would be just as entitled to write their own bibles. So then you might see titles like “The Humanist Bible according to Bob Johnson, Third Edition”. And that’s just the way it should be; a whole mess of different bibles circulating and changing, reflecting the increasing knowledge and conscience of humanists at large.
Some will argue almost every book could qualify as a “Humanist Bible” to some degree. Since Humanists don’t recognize any book as being divinely inspired, then every book must be equal, right? Well, yes and no. Yes, all books are non-divine, and Humanists wouldn’t really object to the placement of random novels in hotel drawers. But I’m looking for something that fulfills a similar function to the Christian Bible.
The Christian Bible has several purposes. It is intended to answer basic questions about the universe and philosophy. It’s also supposed to contain many wise sayings and moral teachings. More than anything, the Bible is intended as a general guide to life. That’s why the Gideons put bibles in hotels; the idea is that any random traveler can open the bible and find some sort of guidance.
The actual Bible is a real mess, and falls short of these high ideals. There are nuggets of deep wisdom sprinkled in a sea of superstitions, falsehoods and contradictions. I think we can do better.
So what exactly would we find in Humanist bibles? Well it wouldn’t be one long anti-theist rant, if I have anything to say about it. It’s perfectly fine to point out the flaws of theism, of course. (I do it all the time!) But that can’t be the entire book. Remember, we’re supposed to be crafting a general guide to life. If we forget that, the reader is liable to finish the book and say “Ok, so there’s no logical reason to believe in God. But I still don’t know what to do with myself!”.
Humanist Bibles should consist of stories, fables, essays, quotes, parables and poems. Fictitious stories are fine, so long as they are understood to be fictitious. We should feel free to borrow liberally from old tales, if they happen to teach a valid point. I would include several stories based on Aesop’s fables, such as The Boy Who Cried Wolf. I would also include the parable of The Good Samaritan from the Christian Bible. In effect, I’d be extracting the wisdom from past traditions, religious or otherwise, and leaving behind the nonsense that traditionally goes along with them.
Tales would often be modified from their original form. In the case of the Good Samaritan, for instance, I might remove Jesus and instead cite an unnamed “Teacher” as the storyteller. (In fact, a “Teacher” character might work pretty well in general, as it would signal the reader who to focus on.)
Other tales might be modified drastically. There is one tale from the Bible where Jesus walks on water and a disciple briefly joins him, demonstrating the power of faith. I might write a story where a man thinks he can walk on water, attempts to do so, and nearly drowns. The lesson would be reversed: Instead of encouraging blind faith, my story would caution against it.
Of course, many tales (and other entries) would be invented from whole cloth. Humanist authors would be free to invent all kinds of things. You could also recount events from your own life, if you felt they demonstrated an important concept. Or perhaps you’d like to recount the events of history. For instance, you could demonstrate why Freedom of the Press is so important, by recounting the censorship efforts of a real-life despotic regime.
I suggest that most entries consist of simple language, similar to Aesop’s fables and the parables of Jesus. Simple language is easier to understand, easier to translate, and easier to memorize.
Some entries would illustrate basic moral concepts, such as honesty. Others would take a more cerebral approach, describing the basic logical underpinnings of Human Rights, for instance. Still others would simply provide encouragement for those who are in crisis. Perhaps a few would simply hold practical advice, teaching you how to save your money, or how to eat a healthier diet, or something like that.
Imagine the potential impact. Perhaps a cancer patient reads a Humanist Bible entry about hope, and her hope is renewed. Perhaps a man struggling to repair his marriage reads a passage about love. Perhaps a girl reads several humanist bibles in her youth, and develops a greater understanding of purpose and virtue.
Remember that there would be many different bibles existing at any one time, containing many different entries. Some of them would be poorly written, I’m sure. Others would be outright corrupt. But in time, the best stories would become the most popular, and together they would comprise the best bibles. (Copyright law could become an issue, so I suggest that the various humanist authors make use of Public Domain status or Creative Commons licenses. )
If you ever read something you didn’t like, or felt that something was missing, you’d be free to make your own bible! Cobble together whatever entries you enjoy, make whatever changes you find appropriate, and have it printed. Maybe pass it down to your children someday.
Some bibles would be small, containing only the very best entries, or entries about a particular topic. Other bibles would be huge, multi-volume affairs, attempting to cover as much of the human experience as possible. None of them would ever be perfect or absolute, but many of them would be a great help to people all around the globe.
I would like to see that happen.
Here’s a question: How do you decide when to eat?
Well, part of it is scheduling. Most of us eat 3 meals a day, for instance. And if you told Bob you’d meet him for lunch at 12:30 today, you’ll probably put off eating until you meet Bob.
But there’s another thing that helps you decide when to eat and how much to eat: hunger. You feel hungry, and that guides your decisions. So if you’re starving and it’s only 11:45, you might get yourself a snack even though Bob isn’t here yet. And if you feel full halfway through dinner, you may decide to stop eating and get a take-out box for the rest. Right? Of course right.
The point is that we don’t simply guess when to eat, and we don’t simply obey schedules. Whenever we need food, we feel hungry, and that guides our decisions.
Of course, some people’s sense of hunger is out of whack, either feeling hungry when they’ve eaten enough or else not feeling hungry when they really do need food. But for the purposes of this example, I’m ignoring that. The point is that there’s a difference between guesses and schedules and feelings. A feeling is a direct source of information. That’s what makes it valuable.
So, what the heck does all this have to do with emotional problems? Well, I’ll tell you: You have to learn to feel your feelings.
Sounds redundant, doesn’t it? But give it another look. If you want to find happiness, it’s vital that you understand how you really feel, and when and why. Start with the what: “What am I feeling right now?”. The what will lead you to the why, and why will lead you to good ideas on how to live.
Don’t jump to conclusions. Start by just observing your feelings, day by day. With practice, you’ll learn to feel things. You’ll have thoughts like “I’m really tense today. Why is that?” And maybe you won’t have an answer to “why”, but at least you can spend some energy relaxing so you can get rid of that tension.
Believe it or not, a lot of times people feel tense without really realizing it. Or maybe they do realize it, but they have a false idea of what the cause is or how to deal with it. Or maybe they simply deny their feelings, because those feelings don’t make sense to them.
For instance, imagine a girl who worked very hard to get into a good graduate school, and now she’s just received her acceptance letter. She should feel happy, right? She’s worked so hard for this and it’s so prestigious and it’s a great accomplishment…but maybe she doesn’t feel happy. Maybe she gets that acceptance letter and suddenly she feels like crap. And from her perspective, this doesn’t make sense! So what does she do? She denies her feelings. She pushes them aside. She puts on a face to convince others that she’s happy. Most disturbingly, she may put on a face and convince herself that she feels ok, when really she doesn’t. That sort of thing leads to all sorts of problems.
See what I mean about feelings vs. schedules and expectations? For the girl in this example, happiness is “on the schedule”, so to speak. She got accepted, so she has to feel happy. And if reality doesn’t match up with the expectations, she responds by denying reality.
To apply the metaphor, this is like someone who feels very hungry, but simply refuses to eat because it’s not technically lunchtime yet, and then she convinces herself that she’s not actually hungry anyway.
It’s not good for you.
If you want to address your feelings, you have to learn to feel them directly. Learn to sense all the little details, all the little shifts in perception. Acknowledge these feelings even when they don’t make sense, especially when they don’t make sense.
Different feelings require different responses. For the girl in our example, it’s possible that she just has a bit of cold feet, and tomorrow she’ll feel fine. On the flip side, it’s possible that she feels bad for a very serious reason. (Maybe she never wanted to go to grad school. Maybe that’s just something her mother wanted for her and now it’s hitting her that she’s only doing what her mother wants.) And if there’s a serious reason, she might want to consider big steps, such as refusing to go to grad school.
But if she isn’t aware of her feelings, she can’t acknowledge them. And if that happens, she’s in a bad spot.
And the only real way to be aware of your feelings is to feel your feelings. Don’t just guess how you feel. Don’t just figure things based on how you’re supposed to feel. The question is: How do you actually feel?
Sadly, a lot of people don’t understand happiness.
Instead of seeking out true happiness, we collect a bunch of other stuff which is only mildly related.
Some common substitutes for happiness:
- Good Grades
- Good looks
- Lots of sex
- Somebody’s approval
None of these things will guarantee happiness.
The tricky thing is that none of this stuff is automatically bad, either. If you want to make money, that’s fine! If you want to have sex, that’s fine! But you have to keep your priorities straight, and discover what really feels right and is right.
Unfortunately, a lot of people lose sight of what true happiness is, or what it feels like it. So an office drone works himself to the bone so he can get that promotion and earn more money, when he already has enough money and what he really needs is more free time, or whatever.
And the trouble is that people get confused as to what they really want, and what true happiness feels like. So somebody winds up earning a zillion bucks and buys himself a snazzy sports car, and when he gets the car he feels a sugar rush. And he thinks “I’m happy!”, but it’s not real happiness. All his personal problems are still there. He and his wife still fight all the time. His job isn’t fulfilling. Soon enough the sugar rush fades, and then how does he feel? He feels like crap, that’s what.
So what does he do, now that he feels like crap? Well he earns more money, of course! He buys himself another snazzy sports car, so he can get another sugar rush! And why? Two reasons:
- He has no idea how to deal with his other problems, and he’s probably two embarrassed to get help.
- He’s forgotten what real happiness feels like. He thinks that sugar-rush happiness is the only happiness that exists in his life, so that’s the only sort of happiness that he ever looks for!
He may shift his methods a bit. He may drift from sports cars to fancy suits to luxury yachts. He may even start abusing cocaine. Who knows? But he never feels any real satisfaction, and he never figures out what to do.
That is the sort of fate we want to avoid. Please note that while I talked about the pursuit of money in this example, the concept applies equally to lots of other things. Think of the girl who assumes that good looks will make her happy, and then when that doesn’t work, she just spends more energy on her looks.
Again, none of these things is automatically bad. But they can be bad, if they get out of control.
Different things are valuable in different circumstances. For instance, sometimes it really is important to earn more money, because then you’ll be able to afford something that really matters to you. But other times, it’s not so important.
To draw an analogy: Food is good for you. But that doesn’t mean you just eat stuff all day long!
True Happiness feels a lot better than a sugar rush. It seeps into every area of your life, fixing various flaws as it goes. And conversely, every area of your life helps you feel happier. True Happiness involves a balance of various things. It also involves virtue, which we’ll discuss later.
This is not an excuse for perfectionism, by the way. The point is not to constantly freak out, wondering if you’re truly happy or not. (Freaking out is bad for you, by the way.) The point is that, if you ever feel like crap, you should examine your priorities and make sure you’re pursuing the stuff that really matters, not some other stuff that doesn’t matter so much.
I define a word: “Fresina” (“freh-SEE-nah”)
It means the experience of feeling good about someone else’s happiness or accomplishments. It is the opposite of jealousy.
Fresina is a vital element of all good friendships and relationships.
See also: Compersion. Compersion is a type of fresina, but it only applies to romantic and sexual relationships.
The U.S. Senate currently assigns two senate seats to each state, regardless of population. Obviously, this is unfair to people who live in the more populous states. Here’s an amendment that would partially address that problem:
Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
- The Senate shall have 100 members, though occasional vacancies may occur as a result of death, resignation, expulsion or other such reasons.
- Each Senator shall represent a state, and shall be elected by the people of that state.
- The Senate seats shall be distributed among the several states according to population, using the same census which is used to distribute the seats of the House of Representatives. But each state shall have at least one senator, regardless of population.
- Senators shall be elected to terms of six years. It shall be arranged, as nearly as possible, that one-third of the senate seats face election in any given election year.
- It shall be arranged, as nearly as possible, that no state shall see more than half of its senate seats facing election in a given year. But this clause shall not affect special elections which may be convened by the government of a state in order to fill a vacancy in the senate, not shall it be affected by them.
- In the result of a vacancy in the senate, the laws of the relevant state shall determine how to proceed. They may allow for an appointment by the executive authority, or they may allow for a special election, or they may leave the seat vacant, or they may proscribe some other remedy. But the vacancy shall eventually be filled via a normal general election, once the original six year term has expired.
- Congress shall by law direct the manner by which senate seats are distributed, consistent with the provisions of this amendment.
- The Constitution currently states that no State, without its consent, shall be deprived of equal representation in the senate. To ensure compliance with this mandate, sections 1 through 7 of this amendment shall be inoperable until the following process is met: After this amendment becomes a part of the Constitution, each State legislature shall have the authority to pass a Statement of Consent, formally consenting to this amendment. Having passed such Statement in accordance with the laws and constitution of that State, the State shall enter into a Status of Consent. Having entered into such status, the State legislature shall also have the authority to pass a Statement of Non-Consent, which would nullify the State’s Status of Consent. Having nullified this status, the state legislature may renew it through another Statement of Consent. If there is ever a time at which every state is simultaneously in a valid Status of Consent, then sections 1 through 7 of this amendment shall immediately enter into force. Once this has occurred, state legislatures shall no longer have the authority to issue a Statement of Non-Consent. They may, however, participate in the normal process of constitutional amendment, as detailed elsewhere in this constitution.
- Once this amendment has entered into force under the provisions of section 8 of this amendment, there shall no longer be any special need for states to consent to constitutional amendments which may alter the makeup of the Senate, provided that such amendments are properly passed according to the processes detailed elsewhere in this constitution.
- Because a national census will be required to distribute the seats of the Senate (as detailed in section 3 of this amendment), the adoption of this amendment to the constitution, and subsequent coming into force as detailed by section 8 of this amendment, shall have no practical effect on the distribution of Senate seats, or the terms of the senators serving therein, until a census shall have intervened.
(updated 7 March 2013, 5 April 2013)
If someone says to you:
We need to cut down on governmental regulation
The proper response is not:
Yes, I agree.
And the proper response is not:
No, I disagree.
The proper response is:
Which regulations are you talking about?
It’s a big government. I’m certain that some regulations are onerous and stupid, and some regulations are helpful and wise. But many people simply choose a side, either pro-regulation or anti-regulation, as if they were choosing sports teams. Then they clamor that their side is best in all circumstances, and refuse to consider that the other side might be right once in a while.
This is a concept that applies to pretty much everything, not just governmental regulation.
If you want to be intelligent, you have to be willing to consider the details.
In the U.S. Senate, the Filibuster is an procedural move that basically allows a group of senators to stop a bill from being approved by the senate, even if that bill is supported by a majority of senators. The only way to override a filibuster is with a vote of 60 senators (out of 100 total).
This has allowed the minority republican party to block (or degrade) many important bills and confirmations.
Considering the ongoing malaise, it should be obvious that simple majority rule would be a better option.
The filibuster is not part of the constitution. It is a result of senate procedures, and the senate can potentially reform it. (Normally this would require 60 votes in order to beat the filibuster which would surely be used in defense of the filibuster, but on the first day of a new term only 51 votes would be needed. Senate democrats recently had this opportunity, but largely squandered it.)
As far as I’m concerned, you can go ahead and eliminate the filibuster entirely. Majority rule is a fine system. But there is a reasonable case for simply reforming the filibuster. Here are my thoughts on that:
The purpose of the filibuster is to allow a passionate minority the chance to make its case, both to the majority and to the public at large, that a given bill should not become law (or that a given person should not be confirmed, or whatever). Those who filibuster should have the chance to speak and persuade their fellow senators, but they should not have the ability to stall a bill indefinitely when the majority wants to approve it.
Here’s my system: Your only chance to filibuster a bill (or confirmation) is just before the final vote. In order to filibuster, you must be physically present on the floor of the senate and you must physically speak. The intention is for you to recite whatever arguments you have in opposition to this bill (or confirmation), but you have the right to say anything whatsoever, so long as you do not stop talking. When somebody is talking in this manner, only three things can stop him:
- He stops talking of his own free will
- The senate passes a cloture vote
- The senate passes a silence vote
A cloture vote ends all debate and immediately brings the bill for a vote. This requires 60 votes to pass. The cloture already exists, so this is nothing new.
A silence vote forces the current speaker to sit down and stop talking. For the first two hours of a senator’s speech, a silence vote requires 60 votes. For the next two hours after that, a silence vote only requires 55 votes. After 4 hours total, a silence vote only requires a simple majority.
Let’s look at what this means for minority parties of different sizes, assuming everyone filibusters for the maximum allowed time and assuming the senate is open 24 hours a day:
- Less than 40 senators: No filibuster. (Unchanged from current law)
- 41-45 senators: 82-90 hours, nearly 4 days.
- 46-49 senators: 164-180 hours, 7 and a half days.
In effect, a passionate minority can stall a bill (and all other business of the senate) for days. They’ll have plenty of time to make their case against the bill, both to their fellow senators and to the people at home who are watching via the TV news coverage. Those people, if sufficiently persuaded, will have the chance to call up the majority senators and demand that they change their positions. But after a maximum of nine straight days (or triple that if the senate is only open 8 hours per day), the minority party has run out of options. The vote will take place, and if the majority has been unpersuaded then the majority will rule. The minority may stall, but not block, the business of the senate.
Or you could just take the simple route and abolish the filibuster entirely.