Good Reason

It's okay to be wrong. It's not okay to stay wrong.

Category: post (page 79 of 125)

What happens when you stop believing in god?

Youngest Boy asked me, “What happens when you stop believing in God?”

“Absolutely nothing!” I said. “You’re still the same person you were, and everything goes on like normal.”

And that’s one way to tell that God’s not real. If you stop believing in cars and decide to walk out in the road, reality will soon disconfirm your belief. If you disbelieve in food and water and stop eating and drinking, you die. But if you stop believing in supernatural beings… it’s amazing how irrelevant your past belief can seem, so quickly.

It’s like Philip K. Dick said:

“Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn’t go away.”

Youngest Boy thought about all this and said, “But you could not believe in atoms, and nothing would change.” He’s very smart. You have to watch yourself with this kid.

“That’s true,” I said, “With atoms, it would take a long time to notice you were wrong. You probably wouldn’t know until you tried to do some research involving atoms. Then you’d realise that people who know about atoms could predict things you couldn’t.”

But what does belief in god help you predict? You can’t work out who will be cured of illness when you pray. Most people get better with most diseases, some don’t, and some die. Then you say, well, that was god’s plan. It lends itself to loads of ex post facto rationalisation, but not prediction.

It’s not all true that nothing changes though. You are finally able to embrace reason without having to fear it. Because, post-deconversion, reason has already knocked down your rickety system. There’s no more harm it can do you. You are free.

Obama and religion

American secularists. Try bringing up god in relation to politics, and watch them bristle. And for good reason, too — did you see what the Christians did to the place once they got in power? We’ll never get our bond back.

Expect a nuclear allergic reaction from reading them this passage (and others) from Barack Obama:

And during the course of that sermon, I was introduced to someone named Jesus Christ. I learned that my sins could be redeemed and that if I placed my trust in Christ, He could set me on the path to eternal life.

Ideally, a rational thinker would be in the White House. Someone who knows how to think critically, and who knows the difference between evidence and not-evidence. (Which disqualifies Grandpa McCain.) But until that day, we’re stuck with either a politician who panders to religion, or (worse) a politician who actually believes it. Obama comes uncomfortably close to the latter.

But maybe we’re not all sunk. Consider the situation we faced over here in Australia with Kevin Rudd, leader of the center-left ALP. From the outset, he made it clear that not only was he a believer, but that he didn’t intend to abandon faith to the Right, and that his religious beliefs were going to inform his politics.

At the time, I found this inappropriate. Australia’s secular! Couldn’t we just let the right-wing have religion, and then the grown-ups can get on with the work? But of course, I voted Labor. (Well, Secular, with preferences to Labor.) And lo and behold, Labor did turf out the Liberals, and there was much rejoicing.

And then what did Rudd do when he got into office? He ratified Kyoto, he apologised to the Stolen Generation of Aboriginal Australians, and he introduced legislation to dismantle Workplace Agreements (which allow employers to pay you less than scale if you ‘agree’). He sent Navy ships to monitor Japanese whalers, for Pete’s sake! And that’s just the first 100 days. Not a bad start.

Everyone picks and chooses out of scripture. As a credit to his character, Rudd picked and chose parts of the Bible that happened to correspond to not being a moralistic cretin. The Religious Right loves Deuteronomy because that reflects what they like — especially hating on gays. Rudd’s more of a Sermon on the Mount kind of guy.

But if our starting point in this debate is supposed to be Christianity (and therefore a Christian view of morality), then my challenge to the Coalition is as follows: isn’t our preparedness to feed the hungry and give shelter to the homeless a moral value; isn’t our preparedness to respond humanely to those who seek refuge in this country from political oppression elsewhere a moral value; and is not our response to the 1.5 billion people around the world in abject poverty also a question of moral values?

Obama’s not as gung-ho on the separation of church and state as a Democrat ought to be (a bit like Rudd), but he does agree that faith has been hijacked (as does Rudd). He has reached out to non-believers. His rhetoric seems more inspirational than doctrinal. I think (or perhaps just hope) that Obama might be more a Rudd-style Christian, and less a Huckabee-style one.

I can live with that, at least until the coming Glorious Age of Rationalism bursts upon us.

More questions from the search logs

People posed questions to Google, searching for wisdom, and instead found themselves here, looking at posts that were only tangentially related. Well, now I’m answering their questions. Too bad they left in disgust before they could read these responses, but you’re in luck.

is there ever a good reason for children to work

Why, yes, there is. My boys and I have just finished cleaning up Australia. (It took a while, but now it’s done for another year.) We spent a couple of hours picking up rubbish at a public park nearby with other volunteers. The boys got to do some public service, and they now have little patience with people who litter. I also learned that every volunteer thinks they’re going to find a body in the leaves, like at the beginning of a CSI episode.

But I think the question refers to child labor. Employers would love to get their hands on children because they’re cheap, compliant, and don’t unionise. Thank goodness progressives in the last century worked to pass laws to stop the exploitation of child workers. But you’d expect the current generation of conservative vipers to wish for a return to the Gilded Age, and argue for rollbacks. And so they do.

Meet Connor. He’s a constitutional conservative, a Mormon, and is currently in training to become a member of the next generation of apologists for unreconstructed small-government conservatism. He sharpens his rhetorical chops on his blog, where you’ll sometimes find me disrupting the social fabric. And the most jaw-dropping post so far has been this one where he argues that government has no business dictating the terms of child labour, and that it should be left up to financially desperate parents and their children. Can’t see any problems coming there!

This is why I say that movement conservatism is a pathology. Allowing employers to exploit children like in the old days would cause untold problems. And what problems would it solve? The problem of not enough conservatism? It’s madness. And since no one’s going to implement their program in totality, there’s no way to show them it’s madness. They’ll always claim that their program hasn’t been followed in an ideologically pure fashion.

Have a look at the post and prepare to shake your head in amazement. This is the logical conclusion of small-government libertarianism. They really are amoral cretins.

fatherly quotes

My father had a lot of quotes, mostly because he liked to say the same things over and over. As an educator, he called it ‘reinforcement’, but as a kid I called it ‘boring’. But at least I still remember a few things he said, so maybe he was onto something.

When, as a kid, I would get my shoelaces in a knot, Dad would untie them for me, and as he did, he’d say:

If a string is in a knot,
Patience will untie it.
Patience can do anything.
Have you ever tried it?

And now I say it to my boys, and the cycle continues. Cycle of what, I won’t say.

And my favourite:

When in danger,
When in doubt,
Run in circles.
Scream and shout.

I have followed this advice many times.

does milk cause mucus
do dairy products cause mucus
does dairy cause mucous
does dairy cause mucus
milk causing mucus

How many ways can we ask this question? Can we spell ‘mucus’ any differently? What if we include the various spellings of ‘yoghourte’?

But however you ask it, the answer is still: nope, milk does not cause mucus or mucous. Here’s a recent (2005) study entitled Milk Consumption Does Not Lead to Mucus Production or Occurrence of Asthma. From the abstract:

There is a belief among some members of the public that the consumption of milk and dairy products increases the production of mucus in the respiratory system. Therefore, some who believe in this effect renounce drinking milk. According to Australian studies, subjects perceived some parameters of mucus production to change after consumption of milk and soy-based beverages, but these effects were not specific to cows’ milk because the soy-based milk drink with similar sensory characteristics produced the same changes. In individuals inoculated with the common cold virus, milk intake was not associated with increased nasal secretions, symptoms of cough, nose symptoms or congestion. Nevertheless, individuals who believe in the mucus and milk theory report more respiratory symptoms after drinking milk.

So if you believe dairy causes mucus, and if you think you’ve just drunk some, you’ll report more mucus. Even if you haven’t had any.

40 and still in grad school

Hey, that’s a bit harsh. Go somewhere else if you’re going to be like that.

Taxonomy of morality

We interrupt our normal schedule of godless religion-bashing to talk about something important: morality.

How do you know what’s moral? Why do good people differ on moral issues? When people’s ideas of morality conflict, is that because different people focus on different aspects of morality? Has anyone tried to construct a taxonomy of morality?

For the last question, yes, and here is one such attempt that I found intriguing.

Moral Foundations Theory proposes that five innate psychological systems form the foundation of “intuitive ethics.” Each culture constructs its particular morality as a set of virtues, values, and ideas based on or related to these five foundations (as well as to many other non-moral aspects of the evolved mind).

The five parameters they’ve come up with are:

  • Harm/Care
  • Fairness/Reciprocity
  • Ingroup/Loyalty
  • Authority/Respect
  • Purity/Sanctity

I’m not sure what they’re basing these groups on (I can think of better values than ‘Ingroup/Loyalty’), but if you don’t like them and you can show them some other empirically-based reason to split or lump them, they’ll change it and pay you. (What would that experiment look like?)

Where things get interesting, and where you actually get some predictive validity, is the application to politics.

The current American culture war can be seen as arising from the fact that liberals try to create a morality relying almost exclusively on the Harm/Care and Fairness/Reciprocity foundations; conservatives, especially religious conservatives, use all five foundations, including Ingroup/Loyalty, Authority/Respect, and Purity/Sanctity. In every sample we have examined (including samples in the US, UK, Europe, Latin America, and Asia), political conservatism correlates negatively with endorsement of the Harm and Fairness foundations, and positively with endorsement of the Ingroup, Authority, and Purity foundations.

At first, I didn’t like the idea that conservatives use all five parameters — what’s fair about regressive tax laws or lack of health care for the very poor? But after looking at a few cases, it seems to me that conservatives do use the first two parameters, but their ability to do so accurately is challenged by their over-reliance on bad information and emotional reasoning with respect to the other three.

Let’s try it out. Pick a political issue. My lovely and talented assistant Miss Perfect has chosen ‘immigration’.

According to this taxonomy, we should expect Liberals to be geared towards maximising fairness and minimising harm. Certainly putting children in detention camps, as Australia does, falls short of fairness and care. Conservatives would care about fairness and care, too — for themselves (they’re taking our jobs!), but their feelings about these would be mingled with ideas about Ingroup/Loyalty (They come over and don’t speak the language!) and Authority/Respect (They know they’re here illegally!).

Pornography. Our Standard Liberal (let’s call him Mr Liberal) would oppose pornography only to the extent that someone’s being harmed by it. Which is to say that for most forms of non-violent erotica involving adults, Mr L would say, “Eh.”

Mr Conservative might also oppose porn where people are being harmed, but his ideas about harm would be mingled with his ideas about purity and sanctity. He might argue that porn does harm its users, perhaps defining harm so broadly as to include everyone in a society where pornography is being made.

Gay marriage: Mr Liberal might say, “It’s not hurting anyone. And it doesn’t seem fair that gay people are being denied the right to get married, along with the insurance and inheritance perks.”

But Mr Conservative would say “It does harm the institution of marriage. And it’s defiling the Purity/Sanctity of marriage.” He’d also want to keep the gays out of the marriage club (Loyalty/Ingroup), though he’d probably keep that to himself around Mr Liberal.

Mr L and Mr C are both moral actors, but Mr Conservative defines harm in a very self-referential way. If something is good for his in-group, it’s good. Out-group? Not so much. And Mr C is more fearful. He thinks that things he doesn’t like have a magical ability to reach in and hurt him. Possibly a result of all that magic thinking he learned in church.

This taxonomy gave me some interesting thoughts to chew on. What do you think?

(h/t Jewish Atheist)

More on the Maharishi’s empire

The New York Times reports that the Transcendental Meditation folks are trying to expand into suburban neighborhoods. There’s some nice snark in the ‘background doctrines’ part of the article.

Though the movement is admired for its finances, many independent critics question its belief that large groups of people meditating or practicing yogic flying — where people meditate and hop while sitting cross-legged in the lotus position — can spread peace.

The organization cites studies that it says found that large groups of yogic fliers helped temporarily lower crime in Washington, D.C., end the cold war and briefly reduce hostilities in the Middle East.

It has also been shown that insane people who make bizarre claims has caused a temporary rise in me wanting to jack them in the gut.

Is it possible to construct any idea or belief so horrendously stupid that no one will believe it? I would try, but despair at the human condition overtakes me before I get very far.

Celebrity deconversion story

I enjoyed reading this “My Defining Moment” piece from actor and writer Ricky Gervais.

He became an atheist at age eight, over one afternoon. How smart must he be? It took me years! Sometimes I get envious of other people’s intellect.

Friday Random Five was sleeping on your shoulder

Before I hit the Random button and talk about the first five songs that come up (no cheating), a word on recent explorations into ambient IDM/downtempo/glitch.

Carbon Based Lifeforms (no ‘the’, please) are a duo from Sweden that makes music like glaciers — cool and verrry slow-moving. I’ve been checking out two of their albums: Hydroponic Garden and (the slightly better) World of Sleepers. Both guaranteed to transport you to BubbleWorld, and not to antagonise you or raise your blood pressure more than a few ticks. I’ve found that there’s a place for the Carbs, and if you try listening in the wrong place, it’s desperately boring. Get it right, and there’s nothing else quite like it. Hint: driving, bad; working or sleeping, good.

If you like CBL, there are lots of other things you might get excited about. You might try Pushing Air by Deru, still ambient but with beats and more of an edge. Somehow it feels more substantive and engaging. Nice to see that the Boards of Canada tradition of putting weird little experimental numbers between the songs is holding up.

And in other news, did you know Devo had a new song? We didn’t get the Dell ad over here, so you Americans please excuse us while we watch them work it.

Good to know they’re still out there.

And now on to the Random.

The Robots (Cha-Cha-Cha) by Señor Coconut
Album: El Baile Alemán
I’ve blogged about Señor Coconut’s work before. This track comes from his first album — Latin reworkings of Kraftwerk songs. It’s more than just concept; the songs really stand up to repeated listenings. Even newcomers to Kraftwerk would probably enjoy these. My only qualm is that El Señor doesn’t follow the chord progressions for the song exactly. I’m a purist that way. His second attempt, Yellow Fever (consisting of YMO covers), is even better. Part homage, part humour, and all Latin.

Love Street by The Doors
Album: The Best of the Doors
The Doors remind me of being a kid in Jeffrey’s house. Maybe his older brothers listened to them. For some reason, the music of the Doors is in a different place in my mind from other 60’s music, but I can’t say why. It seemed deeper somehow.

I never got the chance to hear this song until I saw the movie, which is why I associate it with Val Kilmer as Jim, slinking up to Meg Ryan’s house. Run, Meg!

Love is a Stranger (Stranger Days Mix) by Eurythmics
Album: Art of Compilation CD7
More Eurythmics this week. This time, a dance mix of this classic track.
Liberation by Pet Shop Boys
Album: Very
‘Liberation’ is a powerful choice of word — it’s tied up with struggle and emancipation. As a straight guy, our society constantly affirms my sexuality, including when my beloved and I are in public. It’s difficult for me to imagine what that situation would be like for two men in love. I’m guessing that this is the situation described in the song, which uses the word to describe the feeling of freedom and self-acceptance from being with a lover. I’ve always thought this a lovely song.

Dark Star (David Andrew Sitek Remix) by Beck
Album: The Information
I have a confession to make. I’m a bit obsessive about documenting my music-listening habits. It’s pretty easy, because iTunes keeps track of playcounts etc. for you. But if I hear a song on the radio and I have it on the computer, I have been known to notch up the playcount for it. Because it should count, dammit. So it means something if I say that the album version of “Dark Star” is currently number 15 on my list of most listened-to songs (out of 13,000).

This mix is faithful to the original, with slightly more tambourine. I thought the instrumental interlude a bit unnecessary.

Bonus sixth.

Circus Ring by Vitamin Z
Album: Rites of Passage
I always thought this album was a cut above the usual late-eighties good-looking synthpop. Probably Anne Dudley’s influence. Searching for copies of this album was always futile, and I came to hate the sight of Sharp Stone Rain in the bins under ‘V’. It never did see a US release; even Discogs.com fails to list the CD. Nowhere else but Japan, from which this recording comes.

This track has a majestic quality, but its intensity stays in control. One of their best songs.

He doesn’t believe it — he just sells it.

A story in the NYT about a church in New Mexico. There’s a hole in the floor, and the dirt therefrom is claimed to have healing properties.

[T]ens of thousands of pilgrims walk eight miles or more to the shrine on Good Friday, some bearing heavy crosses and others approaching on their knees. Scores of people visit every day the rest of the year, many hoping to cure diseases or disabilities with prayer, holy water and, most famously, the healing dirt, which visitors collect from a hole in the floor inside the church.

Visitors bring their own baggies or containers or can buy little plastic containers marked “blessed dirt” at the church’s gift shop.

Few leave without some of the reddish soil, scooped from the 18-inch-wide “posito,” or well, that is continually replenished — by a caretaker, Father Roca is quick to explain, despite rumors over the years that the pit was refilled by divine intervention.

He pointed to the small building nearby where trucked-in dirt is stored. “I even have to buy clean dirt!” he complained.

Some people take dirt away for divine luck, while those with ailments may eat it, brew it in tea or rub it on the afflicted body area.

Father Roca believes in miracles, too, but, he said, “They are the work of the Good Lord.”

I always tell people that I have no faith in the dirt, I have faith in the Lord,” he said. “But people can believe what they want.”

You know, for someone who doesn’t really believe in the dirt, he sure shovels a lot of it. But hey, why not? It brings in the customers, and the rubes can believe whatever they want. Including, apparently, that eating dirt will heal you.

If Father Roca seems like a good guy in this story, it may be because he’s not trying to fleece people with a phony dirt-replenishment miracle — he’s honest about where the dirt comes from. But if Father Roca’s up-front about the little things, he’s dead wrong about the big things. Not only is the dirt of no effect, neither is the faith. But the believing gather up the dirt anyway, despite the feeble protests of the smarter believers.

This symbolises something that’s been bugging me about liberal believers. Lots of smart people claim to believe the Bible (or choose your favourite holy book), but they argue that some of it is intended to be understood metaphorically. (Which parts? The parts that have already been falsified.) They may not even believe much of it at all. Sort of like our dirt-shoveling man — it’s not the details, it’s the big picture.

Some of these Liberal Metaphoricists choose to paper over their disbelief and participate in church anyway. Maybe they like the ‘community’ of it all, or maybe it’s habit — could be the music, who knows. In doing so, they not only dodge the difficulty of dealing with their cognitive dissonance, but they also support organisations that teach ideas they suspect to be false, to the detriment of the most faithful among their congregation. People can believe what they want, right? Everybody’s got to believe in something.

That’s the way it goes. You’re either shoveling out the dirt to the faithful, or else you’re eating it. But it’s dirt all the same. Best to sort it out and get clean.

Let the bodies hit the floor

Christian showman Benny Hinn seems to be famous mainly for making people fall over. Put it to a Drowning Pool song, and you get a quite good video, actually.

The boys asked why people were falling over, and I had to remember back to my psychology training. It’s good old participant bias: When there’s an authority figure, people tend to act in ways they think the authority figure will like. And don’t forget communal reinforcement: if the values of the group are confirmed when you roll around on the floor… well, why wouldn’t you roll around on the floor?

Or it could be Gawd.

Deconversion stories: the 2004 election

We’re knee-deep in election results these days, so I thought I’d tell about an eye-opening election result that assisted in my deconversion.

During my Utah days, I was a member of that rare but illustrious species: the Mormon Democrat. I didn’t mind being a minority; I rather liked it. Contrarian streak. Most members agreed (in theory) that liberals could be good members of the Church, but every once in a while someone would question whether liberal points of view were in fact compatible with Church teachings! It didn’t bother me too much. I figured those things weren’t the Church, just the people. One day, things might even out. They were good people.

Fast-forward to the 2004 election. Most Americans now disapprove of George W. Bush as president, but at the time, it was running half and half. That seemed strange. Having started the Iraq war, after the revelations of Abu Ghraib, the choice between Bush and NotBush seemed fairly clear and unambiguous. Not everyone would make the right choice, but didn’t the Book of Mormon say that most people would make the right choice most of the time?

Then came the results: Utah went for Bush county for county, one of only three states to do so.

Well, of course they did. Utah’s conservative, and is to this day more pro-Bush than any other state. But the election did disabuse me of one idea: that the conservatism of Utah was some kind of anomaly that would get sorted out eventually. The people of my church had gotten it wrong, and badly so. No dissenting counties? Not even Park City? A state full of people that claimed to have the Holy Spirit of God had voted for evil, and their vote was unanimous.

I can smile about it now — Utah didn’t vote the way I wanted them to, so they’re evil. But at the time, it was profoundly disappointing. They would never get it. And it changed the way I saw rank and file Mormons. They could get it wrong.

Older posts Newer posts

© 2026 Good Reason

Theme by Anders NorenUp ↑