Two recent items caught my attention yesterday. The first can be seen here, where the band and their crew denied any responsibility for the stage collapse caused by a downburst during the Indiana State Fair. In effect, they said the victims were at fault and the construction of the stage was not responsible for the tragedy. I discussed this event in an earlier blog posting, considering things from a different viewpoint. It's my understanding that there's a code covering the construction of outdoor stages that, if followed, would mitigate the chances for such events as what occurred at the Indiana State Fair - but there is no substantive enforcement of that code. Hence, I suppose the construction of the stage was formally done legally, but it evidently didn't follow the (unenforced) construction code. To put the blame for the event on the fans is not entirely without some substance, but certainly it seems like a pretty weak defense that I suspect won't stand up in court. Not only is it a weak defense, but I find it personally repugnant that the band and crew have chosen to wash their hands of any responsibility for what happened.
Of course, the whole process of severe weather warnings and emergency preparedness had some serious deficiencies during the event, so Sugarland should not have to shoulder the entire burden of responsibility for the fatalities and injuries. There's plenty of folks with whom they can share that blame. But the blame game is a matter for the courts to work out. What I'm mostly concerned about is learning the lessons from this and similar recent events. If the band and crew walk away without having to accept some part of the responsibility for what happened, will any other band and crew be encouraged to take the extra effort and cost to construct an outdoor stage meeting the industry's (unenforced) code? Shouldn't there be a move in the industry to accept enforcement of this code, for the safety of those attending outdoor events?
The second news item concerns the discovery of the source for leaked documents that were confidential information regarding the misinformation campaign on global warming by the Heartland Institute, funded by the big oil companies and other right-wing "business as usual" groups/individuals. It seems that Peter Gleick, in seeking confirmation regarding the authenticity of documents he'd seen, obtained them directly from the Heartland Institute by posing in an email as one of the members of the institute's inner circle. Thus, he obtained his copies by what has to be considered as an unethical process, and the climate change deniers are all up in arms about this, howling for Gleick's blood. I certainly don't condone the unethical process by which Gleick received copies of the documents, but ...
I want to remind the climate change deniers, now in a self-righteous rage over this incident, that some of them used even less ethical methods when they hacked into the computers at the University of East Anglia's Climate Research Centre (the so-called "Climategate" affair), and obtained private emails of the scientists working at the Centre. The deniers were dismissive at the time about any concerns regarding the ethics of how the confidential emails were obtained - instead, they were howling for answers to the charges made against the scientists associated with the research. As it turned out, all of the scientists accused of wrongdoing were subjected to multiple investigations by various groups, and eventually were exonerated of any serious ethical breaches. The deniers have denied the validity of those investigations, of course! And the climate change deniers are still dismissive of any concerns about how the information leading to the "scandal" was obtained.
If the scientists associated with "climategate" were forced to answer the charges associated with revelations derived from illegally-obtained emails, then it seems to me that the Heartland Institute should be forced similarly to submit to investigations and answer to any charges derived from unethically-obtained documents. What's good for the goose should be good for the gander! If the ethics of obtaining information are irrelevant when considering the revelations in that information for one side of this controversy, then they should be equally irrelevant for the other side.
Thursday, February 23, 2012
Tuesday, February 21, 2012
Congress blocks a NOAA Climate Service
Evidently, I've been living in some sort of insulated box lately, because for some reason I was amazed to learn only today - from a colleague's tip - that Congress acted in November to prevent NOAA from establishing a climate service! The reasons given for this decision are astonishing! Almost as astonishing are some of the comments about NOAA's data following the story - one apparently popular comment was that NOAA's data are "science fiction"! On what possible basis could such a statement be made by some nonscientist? It must be the result of the colossal misinformation campaign regarding anthropogenic global climate change being conducted by such propaganda machines as the Heartland Institute - advocates of right-wing "business as usual" policies that have been instrumental in delaying any meaningful response to the potential problems associated with human-induced changes to the climate. The climate change deniers have succeeded in this delaying tactic by using cynical political machinations, instead of providing scientifically-valid research in support of their blatant and unwarranted denial of the scientific consensus on this topic.
Months ago, I was aware that the establishment of a national climate service was being proposed by NOAA management in a rare case where management apparently was acting to provide a new service that would be helpful to the nation at a time when information about climate and climate change is critical for making important national policy decisions. Apparently, our Congress critters have come under the sway of the influence peddlers seeking to maintain the status quo. The decision by NOAA management to reprogram agency funds, rather than seeking new funding for this new service meant, of course, that some other NOAA services would have to be cut back or even eliminated. While I worried about the details of how NOAA management might wish to play this zero-sum game, I still believed strongly that establishing a national climate service in NOAA was a high enough national priority to accept sacrifices in other programs in order to have this new program.
It seems that the Congress critters see it differently - even as their campaign coffers bulge with funds provided by the influence peddlers. This must be a new low in Congressional behavior - for them to imply that NOAA is some sort of political animal can only be an example of narcissistic projection of their own faults onto this highly-respected agency. The people who work in NOAA's constituent agencies (like the National Weather Service, the National Climate Data Center, Oceanic and Atmospheric Research, etc.) are human beings and have their own political views but they also have a deep commitment to serve the needs of the nation and have no significant history of letting their political opinions affect the integrity of their work in their agencies. It's outrageous to question the integrity of this service and, by implication, all of its employees. Of course, no agency is populated entirely by hard-working, ethical saints, but by far the majority of people I worked with in NOAA are quite far from the widely-accepted stereotype of the bureaucratic civil service parasite. Impugning their commitment to accurate, truthful data collection and analysis is simply an unacceptable insult to the good people I know (and the numerous good NOAA employees I don't know!)
I believe my stance regarding the administrative management of NOAA is well-known. If you're unaware of it, you can read about it here. When I worked for them, and since my retirement from NOAA, I've never hesitated to be critical of their management decisions when I felt those decisions were not supportive of the important work the agency needs to accomplish in order to provide the services mandated for NOAA. I'm certainly not a NOAA shill! I stand to gain precisely nothing from any decision by Congress regarding NOAA and its priorities. But I still know many people in NOAA who work very hard to provide accurate data and scientific analysis of those data to help the nation make decisions regarding the weather and climate. When NOAA management actually makes what I believe to be a good decision - creating a national climate service within NOAA - it's infuriating to learn that our elected representatives are blocking that decision for reasons that clearly are driven by right-wing political influence peddling!
We so much need to vote these bastards out of office! Any Congress critter who supported this decision to block the formation of NOAA's climate service has shown compelling evidence of being unfit for representing the public interest and needs to be put back on the street. They simply don't deserve the privilege of "serving" this nation!
Months ago, I was aware that the establishment of a national climate service was being proposed by NOAA management in a rare case where management apparently was acting to provide a new service that would be helpful to the nation at a time when information about climate and climate change is critical for making important national policy decisions. Apparently, our Congress critters have come under the sway of the influence peddlers seeking to maintain the status quo. The decision by NOAA management to reprogram agency funds, rather than seeking new funding for this new service meant, of course, that some other NOAA services would have to be cut back or even eliminated. While I worried about the details of how NOAA management might wish to play this zero-sum game, I still believed strongly that establishing a national climate service in NOAA was a high enough national priority to accept sacrifices in other programs in order to have this new program.
It seems that the Congress critters see it differently - even as their campaign coffers bulge with funds provided by the influence peddlers. This must be a new low in Congressional behavior - for them to imply that NOAA is some sort of political animal can only be an example of narcissistic projection of their own faults onto this highly-respected agency. The people who work in NOAA's constituent agencies (like the National Weather Service, the National Climate Data Center, Oceanic and Atmospheric Research, etc.) are human beings and have their own political views but they also have a deep commitment to serve the needs of the nation and have no significant history of letting their political opinions affect the integrity of their work in their agencies. It's outrageous to question the integrity of this service and, by implication, all of its employees. Of course, no agency is populated entirely by hard-working, ethical saints, but by far the majority of people I worked with in NOAA are quite far from the widely-accepted stereotype of the bureaucratic civil service parasite. Impugning their commitment to accurate, truthful data collection and analysis is simply an unacceptable insult to the good people I know (and the numerous good NOAA employees I don't know!)
I believe my stance regarding the administrative management of NOAA is well-known. If you're unaware of it, you can read about it here. When I worked for them, and since my retirement from NOAA, I've never hesitated to be critical of their management decisions when I felt those decisions were not supportive of the important work the agency needs to accomplish in order to provide the services mandated for NOAA. I'm certainly not a NOAA shill! I stand to gain precisely nothing from any decision by Congress regarding NOAA and its priorities. But I still know many people in NOAA who work very hard to provide accurate data and scientific analysis of those data to help the nation make decisions regarding the weather and climate. When NOAA management actually makes what I believe to be a good decision - creating a national climate service within NOAA - it's infuriating to learn that our elected representatives are blocking that decision for reasons that clearly are driven by right-wing political influence peddling!
We so much need to vote these bastards out of office! Any Congress critter who supported this decision to block the formation of NOAA's climate service has shown compelling evidence of being unfit for representing the public interest and needs to be put back on the street. They simply don't deserve the privilege of "serving" this nation!
Sunday, February 19, 2012
Theocracy means misogyny
Recently, the religious right-wing has used the hot-button issue of abortion and contraception to push forward assorted legislative efforts in several red states (including Oklahoma) designed to prohibit the use of contraception and to make all forms of abortion illegal, down to spontaneous abortions! This is a move I see as obviously motivated by those who seek to have christian theocracy in the USA. Somewhat ironically, these "christians" want to emulate the islamic way of reducing women to mere slaves of men, barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen, subject to whatever their men choose to inflict on them.
The decades since women's liberation began in the 1920s apparently have been targeted by the theocratic agenda. The hard-won gains of the women's movement are under attack, and the vehicle - the excuse - for this assault on women is religious dogma. The religious reich has employed the usual "right to life" argument to push such extreme legislation. The smokescreen is to limit the discussion by reducing it to the essentially endless "debate" regarding the arbitrary definition of when life begins, even as the real issue at stake here is whether or not women can maintain control over their own bodies. Should the government even be involved in this? I think not, but in this apparently "special" case, the religious right-wing is actually seeking government intrusion: the control of women's bodies. They seek to make any form of abortion illegal, including many methods of contraception. This intended government intrusion is another ironic situation, given the right-wing's usual insistence on reducing government control. Of course, right-wing hypocrisy includes its unswerving support of welfare for the rich, even as it seeks to eliminate welfare for the poor. It seems this contraception-abortion conflict is in some sense consistent with other forms of right-wing logical chicanery.
I suspect the catholic church has been ecstatic to find an issue (insurance coverage including contraception for employees of catholic businesses) to distract attention from the continuing appalling revelations of child abuse by their "celibate" clergy. They choose to characterize this contraception issue as "war" on the catholic church to try to galvanize the believers to support the clergy. Personally, I think there should be a war-like commitment: to an effort preventing the catholic church from trivializing the awful crimes their priesthood has perpetuated on the children who look to the priesthood for guidance and support, many of whom have gotten instead only molestation and shame in return for their trust. The priests should be figuring out how to reestablish trust in a meaningful way before they even consider such things as counseling women how to control their bodies - a task for which a celibate, wholly-male priesthood is pretty poorly-qualified except in theological "theory". Of course, 90+% of catholic women are already using some form of contraception unapproved by their church. They've already spoken on behalf of themselves by their actions. There's a war going on here - it's that being waged by the catholic church against their own women, for the terrible "sin" of seeking to control their own bodies!
It's my sincere hope that the women of America will demonstrate their concerns regarding these issues in November - in the ballot box. Supporters of religiously-motivated misogynist legislation need to be voted out of office, and not even given the nomination of their party for the November elections. It's time for women to show their real power and their determination not to surrender the hard-won gains they've achieved so far. Not all men support the subjugation of women to a "morality" that has lived on from the brutal, primitive age of scriptural times, long after it should have become mere history. Perhaps together, we can fight for women's rights against the attack by the religious right-wing.
The decades since women's liberation began in the 1920s apparently have been targeted by the theocratic agenda. The hard-won gains of the women's movement are under attack, and the vehicle - the excuse - for this assault on women is religious dogma. The religious reich has employed the usual "right to life" argument to push such extreme legislation. The smokescreen is to limit the discussion by reducing it to the essentially endless "debate" regarding the arbitrary definition of when life begins, even as the real issue at stake here is whether or not women can maintain control over their own bodies. Should the government even be involved in this? I think not, but in this apparently "special" case, the religious right-wing is actually seeking government intrusion: the control of women's bodies. They seek to make any form of abortion illegal, including many methods of contraception. This intended government intrusion is another ironic situation, given the right-wing's usual insistence on reducing government control. Of course, right-wing hypocrisy includes its unswerving support of welfare for the rich, even as it seeks to eliminate welfare for the poor. It seems this contraception-abortion conflict is in some sense consistent with other forms of right-wing logical chicanery.
I suspect the catholic church has been ecstatic to find an issue (insurance coverage including contraception for employees of catholic businesses) to distract attention from the continuing appalling revelations of child abuse by their "celibate" clergy. They choose to characterize this contraception issue as "war" on the catholic church to try to galvanize the believers to support the clergy. Personally, I think there should be a war-like commitment: to an effort preventing the catholic church from trivializing the awful crimes their priesthood has perpetuated on the children who look to the priesthood for guidance and support, many of whom have gotten instead only molestation and shame in return for their trust. The priests should be figuring out how to reestablish trust in a meaningful way before they even consider such things as counseling women how to control their bodies - a task for which a celibate, wholly-male priesthood is pretty poorly-qualified except in theological "theory". Of course, 90+% of catholic women are already using some form of contraception unapproved by their church. They've already spoken on behalf of themselves by their actions. There's a war going on here - it's that being waged by the catholic church against their own women, for the terrible "sin" of seeking to control their own bodies!
It's my sincere hope that the women of America will demonstrate their concerns regarding these issues in November - in the ballot box. Supporters of religiously-motivated misogynist legislation need to be voted out of office, and not even given the nomination of their party for the November elections. It's time for women to show their real power and their determination not to surrender the hard-won gains they've achieved so far. Not all men support the subjugation of women to a "morality" that has lived on from the brutal, primitive age of scriptural times, long after it should have become mere history. Perhaps together, we can fight for women's rights against the attack by the religious right-wing.
Saturday, February 18, 2012
Wild animal issues
Some programs recently aired about wild animals ... one on 60 Minutes about wild African species being raised for hunting in Texas, one about commercial fishing pressure (I forget the station), and one on NPR about keeping wild animals as pets. Zoos with captive wild animals have always struck me as rather sad. The animals seem either despondent or deeply traumatized by their captive condition. Modern zoos are better at this than they used to be, but wild animals in zoos have been taken from the environments where they belong and put into very different circumstances. Imagine if we were captured and put on display in some alien zoo! It's likely inappropriate to project our human feelings on animals, but watching caged animals has a very unpleasant effect on me.
The exotic African species being raised in Texas for the financial gain of the landowners via hunting permits is a troubling clash of ideals. I'm not a fan of hunting - the idea of killing animals for sport is simply absurd to me - but if it's true that these species are becoming extinct in their native habitats, this sort of "use" may be the only way to keep the species from vanishing entirely. Of course, the herds in Texas are very limited gene pools and so don't necessarily represent the best chance they would have for survival, which inevitably would be to allow them to roam free in the environment in which they evolved. What's truly sad isn't the debate about African antelopes in Texas; it's the process(es) by which these creatures are being swept from their native lands. Loss of habitat associated with the growth of human populations and their increasing impact on the land, exploitation of the land (including the native wild animals) for human gain, killing of animals for their "medicinal" value (often in folk remedies for impotence) ... all of these are manifestations of the assumption that humans are entitled to do whatever they want to other species. This is a kind of "species-ism" comparable to other prejudices we humans exhibit.
Yes, I realize that humans must kill something living in order to eat, even if someone eats no animals at all. A friend recently shared an image of wild goose carcasses pulled from a dumpster - slaughtered only for their breast meat. That's not the behavior of someone killing to survive - it's murder for greed. How many times is this sort of thoughtless act repeated around the world every day? We have domestic animals we raise for the sole purpose of providing us with meat. Is it really necessary to kill wild animals? I know that a few people in the USA have to supplement their diet with wild game, hunted legally during the appropriate season. I have no real problem with that. But when our population is allowed to grow (arguably as a result of agriculture, which can have the effect of destroying habitat, as well), and urban sprawl gobbles up more and more land, hunting pressure can become threatening to wild species. It makes no sense to me to hunt only for sport and not for survival. If it's a beautiful animal, does it make sense for us to kill it to satisfy primitive urges that have their origins in a time when we were hunter-gatherers?
Hunting has been justified also as a way to keep populations in check. Nevertheless, I think the animals would be better off if we returned their natural predators to the environment. We humans kill the trophy animals, not the sick and old and crippled and unfit. What does that do to the overall health of the prey species? I would think it provides negative selection pressure on the strongest, healthiest members of the population. But of course I'm not a wildlife ecologist, so I have to be cautious in any conclusion here.
It now is becoming apparent that commercial fishing is threatening many different wild fish species around the world. New technologies not only sweep the sea clear of target species but have the side effect of sweeping up and destroying any associated non-targeted species, as well. The commercial fishing industry seems bound and determined to put itself out of business by killing off their own livelihood in the name of big profits. I doubt it's sustainable.
Keeping wild animals as pets is generally pretty foolish. It has several problems: wild animals may attack humans even if they were hand-raised by humans, wild animals have requirements for their health and well-being that can be difficult and expensive for humans to meet, the pressure to supply pet owners with wild animal captives puts a great deal of stress on native populations, and exotic imported pet species captives can escape (or even be let go!) into the wild, where they can make it hard for the native species to survive because they have no natural predators to keep them under control. There have been attempts to make keeping wild animals as pets illegal but if there's money to be made catering to those who want to have a wild animal for a pet, the trade will continue even if it's made illegal.
I can't offer much in the way of solutions, but I feel very uncomfortable about how we behave with respect to wild animals. Wild animals have a role to play in their native ecologies that can create big problems for us when that role is not fulfilled because the animals aren't there. Like it or not, all species are in this together!
The exotic African species being raised in Texas for the financial gain of the landowners via hunting permits is a troubling clash of ideals. I'm not a fan of hunting - the idea of killing animals for sport is simply absurd to me - but if it's true that these species are becoming extinct in their native habitats, this sort of "use" may be the only way to keep the species from vanishing entirely. Of course, the herds in Texas are very limited gene pools and so don't necessarily represent the best chance they would have for survival, which inevitably would be to allow them to roam free in the environment in which they evolved. What's truly sad isn't the debate about African antelopes in Texas; it's the process(es) by which these creatures are being swept from their native lands. Loss of habitat associated with the growth of human populations and their increasing impact on the land, exploitation of the land (including the native wild animals) for human gain, killing of animals for their "medicinal" value (often in folk remedies for impotence) ... all of these are manifestations of the assumption that humans are entitled to do whatever they want to other species. This is a kind of "species-ism" comparable to other prejudices we humans exhibit.
Yes, I realize that humans must kill something living in order to eat, even if someone eats no animals at all. A friend recently shared an image of wild goose carcasses pulled from a dumpster - slaughtered only for their breast meat. That's not the behavior of someone killing to survive - it's murder for greed. How many times is this sort of thoughtless act repeated around the world every day? We have domestic animals we raise for the sole purpose of providing us with meat. Is it really necessary to kill wild animals? I know that a few people in the USA have to supplement their diet with wild game, hunted legally during the appropriate season. I have no real problem with that. But when our population is allowed to grow (arguably as a result of agriculture, which can have the effect of destroying habitat, as well), and urban sprawl gobbles up more and more land, hunting pressure can become threatening to wild species. It makes no sense to me to hunt only for sport and not for survival. If it's a beautiful animal, does it make sense for us to kill it to satisfy primitive urges that have their origins in a time when we were hunter-gatherers?
Hunting has been justified also as a way to keep populations in check. Nevertheless, I think the animals would be better off if we returned their natural predators to the environment. We humans kill the trophy animals, not the sick and old and crippled and unfit. What does that do to the overall health of the prey species? I would think it provides negative selection pressure on the strongest, healthiest members of the population. But of course I'm not a wildlife ecologist, so I have to be cautious in any conclusion here.
It now is becoming apparent that commercial fishing is threatening many different wild fish species around the world. New technologies not only sweep the sea clear of target species but have the side effect of sweeping up and destroying any associated non-targeted species, as well. The commercial fishing industry seems bound and determined to put itself out of business by killing off their own livelihood in the name of big profits. I doubt it's sustainable.
Keeping wild animals as pets is generally pretty foolish. It has several problems: wild animals may attack humans even if they were hand-raised by humans, wild animals have requirements for their health and well-being that can be difficult and expensive for humans to meet, the pressure to supply pet owners with wild animal captives puts a great deal of stress on native populations, and exotic imported pet species captives can escape (or even be let go!) into the wild, where they can make it hard for the native species to survive because they have no natural predators to keep them under control. There have been attempts to make keeping wild animals as pets illegal but if there's money to be made catering to those who want to have a wild animal for a pet, the trade will continue even if it's made illegal.
I can't offer much in the way of solutions, but I feel very uncomfortable about how we behave with respect to wild animals. Wild animals have a role to play in their native ecologies that can create big problems for us when that role is not fulfilled because the animals aren't there. Like it or not, all species are in this together!
Tuesday, February 14, 2012
An evaluation of the abrahamic god hypothesis
Sorry folks, this is going to be longer than usual. In what follows, I'm going to assume that all three major abrahamic religions (christianity, judaism, and islam) believe in what amounts to the same deity. They differ with regard to some details about prophets and other trivia, but they all buy into the basic notion of an omniscient, omnipotent, and omnibenevolent deity.
On the one hand, we have the "god hypothesis" of the believers, and on the other hand, we have the rejection of that hypothesis by atheists (of various flavors). I want first to consider the case on behalf of the god hypothesis in terms of evidence.
There are extensive accounts of god in the scriptures of these abrahamic religions. These scriptures were written many centuries ago, long before the rise of empirical science as we now know it. It's not entirely clear just who the authors of these accounts actually are and it's quite likely that they were not actual witnesses to the events in those scriptures, so their chronicles are what now would be considered hearsay. In fact, many of the characters and events within the scriptures have not been validated in the historical record, despite their obvious importance, which should have been evident at that time, if the accounts are to be believed. Within these scriptural accounts (which include outright factual errors about the world and its creation, historical errors, contradictions, and logical dilemmas of all sorts), the case is made that a supernatural deity long ago made his will known directly, at least to his chosen prophets and through them to "his" people, and who performed a variety of acts we would consider to be supernatural by today's scientific standards concerning how the natural world works. The supernatural deity has not performed similar acts since the time chronicled in scripture, nor is there any credible evidence that this deity has made his wishes known to humans, directly or indirectly, since those times. There's no scientific evidence for the efficacy of intercessory prayers. This deity has not intervened in any evident and verifiable way in the affairs of humans over the centuries since the scriptures were written, notwithstanding the claims of those who believe the deity is "on their side" in a large number of wars, often between opposing religions.
There are various other arguments alleging to rationalize the faith believers have in the deity described within those scriptural accounts. Some of them focus on arguments for the development of order out of apparent chaos, claiming that it simply couldn't have happened by chance. There had to be a "designer" to explain the complexity of the natural world, by this argument. A similar argument is based on the "beauty" of the natural world. Beauty is a concept notorious for being relative to the eye of the beholder. Both of these arguments (and any related derivatives thereof) are fallacious and depend on the scientific ignorance of believers. The fact that science as yet cannot explain many aspects of the natural world doesn't mean logically that this creates a "gap" within which a creator must be inserted. Science makes no claim to know everything, but it already has replaced many of the deity-based myths proposed in the pre-scientific era as "explanations".
So the primary case for belief in this deity is based almost totally on an uncritical acceptance of the contents of ancient documents - hearsay accounts apparently plagiarized from earlier religious myths that have precious little historical credibility - and the extremely dubious claims of latter-day charlatans.
The case on behalf of atheism is entirely a negative one: the total absence of tangible, credible evidence for the existence of a deity as described in the abrahamic religions. It's fundamentally impossible to prove a negative by logic alone - and there's no need to, since logic puts the burden of proof on the believer, not the skeptic. It's up to the believer to make a case for accepting the god hypothesis. An atheist is under no obligation to prove that god does not exist. In fact, not all atheists actually think they know for absolute certain that god doesn't exist, so asking some atheists to prove this is to require them to prove something to which they don't subscribe.
Understand that rejection of the god hypothesis is not absolute proof there is no god. Rather, it's based on the notion of the preponderance of evidence, or in this case, the absence of evidence. Rejecting the god hypothesis is simply a provisional conclusion, forced on us when faced with a gaping hole in the very places where compelling evidence to accept the god hypothesis should be found. Atheists may be able to reject the god hypothesis with extremely high confidence, but many of them are willing to acknowledge they don’t have absolute proof. To be a freethinker, one first must accept our human fallibility and the limits on what science can do. Believers are admitting straightaway they're not freethinkers, but rather are shackled by their faith to an irrational belief. The god hypothesis has no explanatory power whatsoever and can’t be validated by rational thinking in the absence of evidence.
If this hypothesized deity is omniscient, omnipotent, and omnibenevolent, then believers should be enormously advantaged in this world, and their intercessory prayers should mitigate any harm being visited on them. That this is not the case should be compellingly obvious - I don’t need to list the vast number of counterexamples. This then requires apologists to explain away the obvious failures of this aspect of the god hypothesis. There are various ways to do this but they all boil down to some form of "Our god has his own reasons and we must accept this sorrow as his will, despite the clear failure of our intercessory prayers, because we can’t possibly understand his reasons." This is nothing more than a convenient way to "save the appearances" of a failed hypothesis - a desperate attempt to explain the otherwise inexplicable contradiction of the evidence, when compared to the hypothesis. It's a rationalization that explains nothing, if by "explanation" we mean understanding the reasons for something.
What would a universe look like if there was no god? I propose that it would look exactly as it now looks! The preponderance of evidence is consistent with the rejection of the god hypothesis.
There could be another universe somewhere in which a supernatural deity intervenes in the affairs of humans on a routine basis. Presumably, in such a universe, there would be abundant, tangible evidence of the interference of said deity. One would need no faith to accept the hypothesis of the existence of this god because the evidence would be all around, all the time. Intercessory prayers would work or we'd know why not! Physical laws would be violated on a routine basis wherever and whenever the deity saw fit to interfere with those laws, and it would be clear to all that this was the result of the deity's interference, not a problem with those physical laws that necessitated revising our scientific understanding. Presumably, in such a universe, we would understand why the omnibenevolent creator did things, because he would explain things to us in terms we could understand, like any good parent would do. And the deity wouldn't use intermediaries (prophets) to relay information to all of us, so we'd all know exactly and directly what's going on and why. There would be no reason to threaten us with eternal damnation because believing in him would be a trivial issue, as we now believe in gravity. There wouldn't be thousands of different religions because it would be clear who the deity is and he would tell us clearly and directly what, if anything, he wants from us, his creations. And this deity wouldn't be so insecure as to need our worship - if we chose to venerate him for his gifts, it would be in gratitude for his kindness rather than being compelled to do so under the threat of his punishment. In such a universe, the deity would make sense and be worthy of veneration!
In our universe, the hypothesized "god" of abrahamic religion doesn't make any sense at all. This supposed deity is not substantially different from all the other mythical gods created by humans before the abrahamic revolution in the Middle East. The abrahamic deity has a number of human problems: "god" is psychotic (a paranoid schizophrenic with multiple personality disorder), vengeful, bigoted (against his own creations!), a bully and a mass murderer, unworthy of the worship of a single human being. If a deity worthy of the name "god" exists in this universe, it surely doesn't resemble the abrahamic god-figure at all!
On the one hand, we have the "god hypothesis" of the believers, and on the other hand, we have the rejection of that hypothesis by atheists (of various flavors). I want first to consider the case on behalf of the god hypothesis in terms of evidence.
There are extensive accounts of god in the scriptures of these abrahamic religions. These scriptures were written many centuries ago, long before the rise of empirical science as we now know it. It's not entirely clear just who the authors of these accounts actually are and it's quite likely that they were not actual witnesses to the events in those scriptures, so their chronicles are what now would be considered hearsay. In fact, many of the characters and events within the scriptures have not been validated in the historical record, despite their obvious importance, which should have been evident at that time, if the accounts are to be believed. Within these scriptural accounts (which include outright factual errors about the world and its creation, historical errors, contradictions, and logical dilemmas of all sorts), the case is made that a supernatural deity long ago made his will known directly, at least to his chosen prophets and through them to "his" people, and who performed a variety of acts we would consider to be supernatural by today's scientific standards concerning how the natural world works. The supernatural deity has not performed similar acts since the time chronicled in scripture, nor is there any credible evidence that this deity has made his wishes known to humans, directly or indirectly, since those times. There's no scientific evidence for the efficacy of intercessory prayers. This deity has not intervened in any evident and verifiable way in the affairs of humans over the centuries since the scriptures were written, notwithstanding the claims of those who believe the deity is "on their side" in a large number of wars, often between opposing religions.
There are various other arguments alleging to rationalize the faith believers have in the deity described within those scriptural accounts. Some of them focus on arguments for the development of order out of apparent chaos, claiming that it simply couldn't have happened by chance. There had to be a "designer" to explain the complexity of the natural world, by this argument. A similar argument is based on the "beauty" of the natural world. Beauty is a concept notorious for being relative to the eye of the beholder. Both of these arguments (and any related derivatives thereof) are fallacious and depend on the scientific ignorance of believers. The fact that science as yet cannot explain many aspects of the natural world doesn't mean logically that this creates a "gap" within which a creator must be inserted. Science makes no claim to know everything, but it already has replaced many of the deity-based myths proposed in the pre-scientific era as "explanations".
So the primary case for belief in this deity is based almost totally on an uncritical acceptance of the contents of ancient documents - hearsay accounts apparently plagiarized from earlier religious myths that have precious little historical credibility - and the extremely dubious claims of latter-day charlatans.
The case on behalf of atheism is entirely a negative one: the total absence of tangible, credible evidence for the existence of a deity as described in the abrahamic religions. It's fundamentally impossible to prove a negative by logic alone - and there's no need to, since logic puts the burden of proof on the believer, not the skeptic. It's up to the believer to make a case for accepting the god hypothesis. An atheist is under no obligation to prove that god does not exist. In fact, not all atheists actually think they know for absolute certain that god doesn't exist, so asking some atheists to prove this is to require them to prove something to which they don't subscribe.
Understand that rejection of the god hypothesis is not absolute proof there is no god. Rather, it's based on the notion of the preponderance of evidence, or in this case, the absence of evidence. Rejecting the god hypothesis is simply a provisional conclusion, forced on us when faced with a gaping hole in the very places where compelling evidence to accept the god hypothesis should be found. Atheists may be able to reject the god hypothesis with extremely high confidence, but many of them are willing to acknowledge they don’t have absolute proof. To be a freethinker, one first must accept our human fallibility and the limits on what science can do. Believers are admitting straightaway they're not freethinkers, but rather are shackled by their faith to an irrational belief. The god hypothesis has no explanatory power whatsoever and can’t be validated by rational thinking in the absence of evidence.
If this hypothesized deity is omniscient, omnipotent, and omnibenevolent, then believers should be enormously advantaged in this world, and their intercessory prayers should mitigate any harm being visited on them. That this is not the case should be compellingly obvious - I don’t need to list the vast number of counterexamples. This then requires apologists to explain away the obvious failures of this aspect of the god hypothesis. There are various ways to do this but they all boil down to some form of "Our god has his own reasons and we must accept this sorrow as his will, despite the clear failure of our intercessory prayers, because we can’t possibly understand his reasons." This is nothing more than a convenient way to "save the appearances" of a failed hypothesis - a desperate attempt to explain the otherwise inexplicable contradiction of the evidence, when compared to the hypothesis. It's a rationalization that explains nothing, if by "explanation" we mean understanding the reasons for something.
What would a universe look like if there was no god? I propose that it would look exactly as it now looks! The preponderance of evidence is consistent with the rejection of the god hypothesis.
There could be another universe somewhere in which a supernatural deity intervenes in the affairs of humans on a routine basis. Presumably, in such a universe, there would be abundant, tangible evidence of the interference of said deity. One would need no faith to accept the hypothesis of the existence of this god because the evidence would be all around, all the time. Intercessory prayers would work or we'd know why not! Physical laws would be violated on a routine basis wherever and whenever the deity saw fit to interfere with those laws, and it would be clear to all that this was the result of the deity's interference, not a problem with those physical laws that necessitated revising our scientific understanding. Presumably, in such a universe, we would understand why the omnibenevolent creator did things, because he would explain things to us in terms we could understand, like any good parent would do. And the deity wouldn't use intermediaries (prophets) to relay information to all of us, so we'd all know exactly and directly what's going on and why. There would be no reason to threaten us with eternal damnation because believing in him would be a trivial issue, as we now believe in gravity. There wouldn't be thousands of different religions because it would be clear who the deity is and he would tell us clearly and directly what, if anything, he wants from us, his creations. And this deity wouldn't be so insecure as to need our worship - if we chose to venerate him for his gifts, it would be in gratitude for his kindness rather than being compelled to do so under the threat of his punishment. In such a universe, the deity would make sense and be worthy of veneration!
In our universe, the hypothesized "god" of abrahamic religion doesn't make any sense at all. This supposed deity is not substantially different from all the other mythical gods created by humans before the abrahamic revolution in the Middle East. The abrahamic deity has a number of human problems: "god" is psychotic (a paranoid schizophrenic with multiple personality disorder), vengeful, bigoted (against his own creations!), a bully and a mass murderer, unworthy of the worship of a single human being. If a deity worthy of the name "god" exists in this universe, it surely doesn't resemble the abrahamic god-figure at all!
Sunday, February 12, 2012
The same old sad story
The news broke last night that Whitney Houston has died at the age of 48 years, a career cut short; apparently it was drug- and/or alchohol-related. This is, unfortunately, just another sad tale in what has seemed to me to be an endless series of sad tales about successful entertainers, especially those in the music business. The list is long and the names are legendary: Janis Joplin, Jimi Hendrix, Elvis Presley, John Belushi, John Candy, Jim Morrison, Len Bias, Mike Bloomfield, Lennie Bruce, Kurt Cobain, Jon Entwistle, Chris Farley, on and on and on. The news always is shocking when it breaks, but with such a long list, perhaps no one should be astounded when a popular entertainer dies under such circumstances. Being successful in the entertainment business can bring sorrow and death.
To seek fame and fortune is a component of the American dream, and the question of "Why?" is often asked when news of the untimely death of an entertainer breaks, even as they have achieved the fame and fortune they sought. They seemingly have it all, and yet throw away their talent and their life. No one becomes famous by accident, although luck clearly has a lot to do with who is selected on the path to becoming a "star". People become famous because they seek fame, with their actions along the way the reflection of a sometimes desperate compulsion for recognition. Most of us at least can understand this drive, as I suspect many of us envy the rich and famous precisely because of that public recognition and that seemingly endless wealth.
But the seemingly endless string of entertainer deaths as a result of drugs and alcohol is strong evidence that fame and fortune are not what we "ordinary" people think they are. When achieved, fame doesn't seem inevitably to bring happiness and contentment for the famous. The associated wealth can represent for some a path to a limitless drug supply with which to blot out the unhappiness they've discovered at the end of the fame rainbow. I've always loved the line from the movie Krull:
Prince Colwyn: The reward is freedom... and fame!
Torquil : Freedom? We have it! And fame? Nah. It's an empty purse. Count it, go broke. Eat it, go hungry. Seek it, go mad!
Perhaps we should be grateful when fame and fortune pass us by! They might well be the grim reaper in an attractive disguise! Are wealth and recognition such blessings we should envy those who have them? For some, they surely are not blessings - if they were, these rich, famous people wouldn't be so eager to drown themselves in drugs and alcohol. A life spent in middle class anonymity, caring for loved ones, enjoying time with friends, and trying to contribute something positive to the world into which we were born, isn't a life without meaning or happiness just because we don't receive widespread public recognition and vast financial rewards for it.
I've never had a moment's temptation to try heroin or cocaine or methamphetamine, for the simple reason that the evidence is there for anyone to see: almost no one can avoid becoming addicted to these drugs, and the reward for that addiction is degradation and death. Whitney Houston's untimely death should be a warning to those of us who feel a strong compulsion to possess fame and fortune - be careful what you wish for!
To seek fame and fortune is a component of the American dream, and the question of "Why?" is often asked when news of the untimely death of an entertainer breaks, even as they have achieved the fame and fortune they sought. They seemingly have it all, and yet throw away their talent and their life. No one becomes famous by accident, although luck clearly has a lot to do with who is selected on the path to becoming a "star". People become famous because they seek fame, with their actions along the way the reflection of a sometimes desperate compulsion for recognition. Most of us at least can understand this drive, as I suspect many of us envy the rich and famous precisely because of that public recognition and that seemingly endless wealth.
But the seemingly endless string of entertainer deaths as a result of drugs and alcohol is strong evidence that fame and fortune are not what we "ordinary" people think they are. When achieved, fame doesn't seem inevitably to bring happiness and contentment for the famous. The associated wealth can represent for some a path to a limitless drug supply with which to blot out the unhappiness they've discovered at the end of the fame rainbow. I've always loved the line from the movie Krull:
Prince Colwyn: The reward is freedom... and fame!
Torquil : Freedom? We have it! And fame? Nah. It's an empty purse. Count it, go broke. Eat it, go hungry. Seek it, go mad!
Perhaps we should be grateful when fame and fortune pass us by! They might well be the grim reaper in an attractive disguise! Are wealth and recognition such blessings we should envy those who have them? For some, they surely are not blessings - if they were, these rich, famous people wouldn't be so eager to drown themselves in drugs and alcohol. A life spent in middle class anonymity, caring for loved ones, enjoying time with friends, and trying to contribute something positive to the world into which we were born, isn't a life without meaning or happiness just because we don't receive widespread public recognition and vast financial rewards for it.
I've never had a moment's temptation to try heroin or cocaine or methamphetamine, for the simple reason that the evidence is there for anyone to see: almost no one can avoid becoming addicted to these drugs, and the reward for that addiction is degradation and death. Whitney Houston's untimely death should be a warning to those of us who feel a strong compulsion to possess fame and fortune - be careful what you wish for!
Friday, February 10, 2012
The dangers of chasing
The recent tragic and untimely death of Andy Gabrielson adds his name to the growing list of storm chasers who have died. I didn't know Andy and what I want to say herein doesn't depend on that. His loss is terrible for his friends and family, and painful to me, despite our never having met. We had two other vehicle accidents claim chasers while not actually chasing, and many of us were devastated with the suicide death of another chaser.
But Andy Gabrielson's loss underscores something I long have said about chasing ... the greatest danger to chasers has been the danger we all face whenever we get in our vehicles and set out on the road to any destination. This primary danger is not associated at all with the destination. We lose 40,000 Americans on the road every year, but somehow most of us, including chasers, drive under the assumption that it won't happen to us! The evidence is that with a population of roughly 300 million souls, the odds of dying in a motor vehicle accident in a year are 40,000/300,000,000 = 0.00013, or 1.3 chances in 10,000. Pretty low probability, right? In 2011, a terrible year for tornadoes, around 550 people died as a direct result of tornadoes. In 2011, an anomalous year for tornado fatalities, the chances of an American dying in a tornado that year were 550/300,000,000 = 0.00000183, or 1.8 chances in a million! No chasers died as a result of tornadoes in 2011, nor in any other year ... so far.
Storm chasing has been going on since the mid-1950s, although chasing has experienced surges of participation since then, and it now has many more participants than I ever imagined possible when I started chasing in 1972. 2012 is my 40th year of chasing. Some of the things I've thought about chasing have proven to be pretty much wrong. Unfortunately, my concern with the dangers of the road has proven to be justified. You don't have to be an irresponsible "yahoo" chaser to put yourself at risk. Any chaser on the road is at risk!
Many people are now doing this, and so we have the prospect of having more chasers killed as time passes. Given that there may be more than 1000 storm chasers nowadays, with an ever increasing number of "extreme" chasers who are ready to flirt with the danger of being within a tornado, it seems likely that a storm eventually will claim the life of a chaser for the first time. In my essay about chasing with responsibility and safety, I listed the primary dangers associated with chasing - in order of importance according to my essay, they are:
But Andy Gabrielson's loss underscores something I long have said about chasing ... the greatest danger to chasers has been the danger we all face whenever we get in our vehicles and set out on the road to any destination. This primary danger is not associated at all with the destination. We lose 40,000 Americans on the road every year, but somehow most of us, including chasers, drive under the assumption that it won't happen to us! The evidence is that with a population of roughly 300 million souls, the odds of dying in a motor vehicle accident in a year are 40,000/300,000,000 = 0.00013, or 1.3 chances in 10,000. Pretty low probability, right? In 2011, a terrible year for tornadoes, around 550 people died as a direct result of tornadoes. In 2011, an anomalous year for tornado fatalities, the chances of an American dying in a tornado that year were 550/300,000,000 = 0.00000183, or 1.8 chances in a million! No chasers died as a result of tornadoes in 2011, nor in any other year ... so far.
Storm chasing has been going on since the mid-1950s, although chasing has experienced surges of participation since then, and it now has many more participants than I ever imagined possible when I started chasing in 1972. 2012 is my 40th year of chasing. Some of the things I've thought about chasing have proven to be pretty much wrong. Unfortunately, my concern with the dangers of the road has proven to be justified. You don't have to be an irresponsible "yahoo" chaser to put yourself at risk. Any chaser on the road is at risk!
Many people are now doing this, and so we have the prospect of having more chasers killed as time passes. Given that there may be more than 1000 storm chasers nowadays, with an ever increasing number of "extreme" chasers who are ready to flirt with the danger of being within a tornado, it seems likely that a storm eventually will claim the life of a chaser for the first time. In my essay about chasing with responsibility and safety, I listed the primary dangers associated with chasing - in order of importance according to my essay, they are:
- Being on the road
- Lightning
- The storm
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
