Good Reason

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

Category: post (page 89 of 125)

It’s that Random Five again

Broken Cloud by The Lilac Time
Album: Looking for a Day in the Night

A favourite track from a favourite album. In 1999, Looking for a Day in the Night marked the return of the Lilac Time, and this album is a fantastic return to form. Nick Duffy, brother of Stephen and multi-instrumental talent in his own right, wrote this instrumental.
Speaking of the Lilac Time, Stephen mentions on his blog that the new album is almost finished, and he’s very pleased with it. I am in a state of intense anticiption.

Cuyahoga by R.E.M.
Album: Life’s Rich Pageant

This was my first R.E.M. album. I always liked this track, even when I didn’t know that background. Apparently the Cuyahoga river was so polluted that it once caught fire.

The Judgement is the Mirror by Dali’s Car
Album: The Waking Hour

Dali’s Car is my favourite Peter Murphy project. Mick Karn appears on his trademark wobbly bass, and the mood is dark and misty. Slap a Maxfield Parrish painting on the front and the whole thing’s a winner.

The video’s up on YouTube, as is everything else, so you might as well.

Around. Around. Around.

Ironically this video might have been the only time they saw each other during the entire project.

Home by the Range by The Cure
Album:

An excerpt from a 1986 interview with the Cure. Robert Smith explains why it’s better for everyone in the band to do what he thinks. It’s worked for him, but perhaps not for everyone. It’s a tightrope. If a band has a strong central member, it can survive line-up changes, but you’ll have to work to allay other band members’ feelings of stifledness.

Whilst we meditate on this, let us see a clip from the interview.

Little Drummer Boy by Chet Atkins
Album: Christmas With Chet Atkins
Christmas is months away, but I am powerless to control the vageries of the Random Five. Ol’ Chet has a special place in my Christmas memories, mostly because of his wonderful medley of ‘Coventry Carol’ with ‘God Rest Ye Merry, Gentlemen’. And also this track. Both songs show the softer side of Atkins’ guitar work. My advice: get the album and ignore the cover.

Hindu fundamentalists and Sanskrit supremecists

Once I was at the UWA Open Day, answering questions at the Linguistics table. We get a few — what’s the deal with Yiddish? Is the Tower of Babel story plausible? What was the original language? and so forth.

But a gentleman came up to the display, and after seeing the language genealogy chart, said to me, “Are you saying that Sanskrit is not the oldest language?”

“That’s correct,” said I. “Sanskrit itself came from an earlier language, which we call Proto-Indo-European.”

“This is not possible,” he said. “Sanskrit is the earliest language.”

“Well, not really,” I explained. “Proto-Indo-European is the parent language for a lot of other languages, including English, Latin, Greek, and Farsi. And Sanskrit,” I added, as he began to look steamed. “Of course, Proto-Indo-European is so old that we’ve had to reconstruct it. All we know about it has been hypothesised from looking at later languages.”

He thought about that, decided that he had no significant objections, and went away.

“What in the world was that all about?” I asked. Had I met a Sanskrit supremacist? Would there be more?

Well, I have just run across this page full of fun facts about fundamentalist Hinduism.

Indian Civilization has unceasingly existed for 1,972 million years ago as the fully developed Ganges civilization

Yep, nearly 2 billion years old and counting. So Indian civilisation existed in its present form sometime during the early Proterozoic period.

Sanskrit has been in its perfect state since its origin millions of years ago.

So while humans have existed only about 100,000 years, Sanskrit is millions of years older. One wonders who might have spoken it. Perhaps trilobites.

I suppose the Fundamentalist Hindu gentleman decided not to press the question because Proto-Indo-European was hypothesised by scientists, and could therefore be ignored.

Are there fundamentalist Buddhists? Do I need to prepare? Only one thing is for sure. When you see someone making no sense, religious doctrine can’t be far behind.

Fallacy of the Day, part 2

The fallacy of today is Appeal to Consequences, courtesy of Michael Gerson.

What Atheists Can’t Answer
By Michael Gerson
Friday, July 13, 2007; Page A17

Proving God’s existence in 750 words or fewer would daunt even Thomas Aquinas. And I suspect that a certain kind of skeptic would remain skeptical even after a squadron of angels landed on his front lawn. So I merely want to pose a question: If the atheists are right, what would be the effect on human morality?

And on he goes for the rest of the column.

Well, perhaps atheism has some bad consequences, and perhaps some good, but this is irrelevant to whether a god actually exists or not. There would be many good consequences of being able to make hot pieces of pizza come out of my ears, but that isn’t a good reason to believe that this is so. I could also list some bad consequences of theism, but again.

And actually, yes, I would be skeptical if a squadron of angels landed on my lawn. I could hallucinate angels, or UFOs, or I suppose a good many other things. I’ve been wrong before. However, if the landing could be examined and verified by many people, reproducibly, then that would be good evidence.

Teaching children about religion

Only a couple of years ago, I would have been horrified if my kids hadn’t wanted to be active in the Church. Now, after my deconversion, I’ll be horrified if they do. I realise it’s a major flip, and it must be confusing for the little dears. Their mother is still taking them to church, and as I watch them go every Sunday, I feel a sense of dread. I think it’s the same feeling as the mom from that scene in Erin Brockovich. You know the one:

INT. IRVING HOUSE, LIVING ROOM – DAY

Another copy of those DOCUMENTS, now in Donna’s hands. She’s
on her couch with Erin, reading them. Outside, Donna’s two
daughters are playing in the pool. She reads the last page
and looks up at Erin, bewildered.

DONNA
An on-site monitoring well? That means —

ERIN
It was right up on the PG&E property over
there.

DONNA
And you say this stuff, this hexavalent
chromium — it’s poisonous?

ERIN
Yeah.

DONNA
Well — then it’s gotta be a different than
what’s in our water, cause ours is okay.
The guys from PG&E told me. They sat right
in the kitchen and said it was fine.

ERIN
I know. But the toxicologist I been talking
to? He gave me a list of problems that can
come from hexavalent chromium exposure. And
everything you all have is on that list.

Donna resists this idea hard.

DONNA
No. Hunh-uh, see, that’s not what the
doctor said. He said one’s got absolutely
nothing to do with the other.

ERIN
Right, but — didn’t you say he was paid by
PG&E?

Donna sits quietly, trying to make sense of this. The only
sound is the LAUGHING and SPLASHING from the pool out back.
Then, gradually, Donna realizes what it is she’s hearing —
her kids playing in toxic water. She jumps up …

DONNA
ASHLEY! SHANNA!

… and runs out to the pool. Erin follows her.

EXT. DONNA’S HOUSE – DAY

From the door, Erin watches Donna run to the edge of the pool
in a frantic response to this news.

DONNA
OUT OF THE POOL! BOTH OF YOU, OUT OF THE
POOL, RIGHT NOW!

SHANNA
How come?

DONNA
CAUSE I SAID SO, THAT’S WHY, NOW GET OUT!
OUT! NOW!!!

Erin watches compassionately as Donna flails to get her kids
out of the contaminated water.

Now surely that’s too dramatic, isn’t it? Swimming in a toxic pool isn’t the same as going to church. What harm is religion going to do them? The harm is this: religion kills critical thinking skills in people who are most devoted to it.

Religion offers a substitute for reason. It offers faith instead of evidence. Instead of teaching that something’s true because it’s well-supported, it teaches that something’s true because

a) the holy book said,
b) the man at the pulpit said, or
c) it ‘feels right’.

Psychological traps such as wishful thinking, anecdotal evidence, communal reinforcement, selective sampling, and confirmation bias are part and parcel of the religious experience. Their use is encouraged and rewarded by the group. With all these fallacies in play, religious devotion is going to hamper good reasoning and encourage fallacious thinking. And this will cause bad decisions along the way. What parent wants to see their children make bad decisions? Or what parent wants to hinder their child’s thinking skills? Yet this is what religion does.

So even though all the ‘golden rule’ talk is pretty innocuous, I sometimes want to grab my boys out of Sunday School, tuck one of them under each arm, and run out of the building to make the brain damage stop.

What can the deconverted parent do to help children reason despite the influence of religion? While it’s difficult for me not to be negative about religion (as you’ve noticed), on better days I use a more positive approach:

Teach reason. Learning how to examine ideas is a skill children will use throughout their lives. And it’s less controversial to believing family members than bagging religion to the kids. When Youngest Boy asks, “Do you think the Golden Plates are real?”, I like to ask “How could we find out?” I get them to think about what sort of evidence would be adequate, and what sources would be reliable. Sometimes I show them optical illusions, and I tell them about crop circles and Bigfoot, and how easy it is for people to be fooled.

It’s usually in the car that we talk about logic and fallacies. Yesterday in the car, the boys were arguing about something, and Oldest Boy said, “You made the claim, so it’s up to you to provide the evidence!” Once I blew on the lights to ‘change’ them, and when I said, “Look, it worked,” Youngest Boy said, “That’s post hoc, Dad.” And I thought, I must be doing something right.

I suppose I should add that I like teaching reasoning skills rather than teaching that Religion Is Bad because, you know, I could be wrong. They’ll need to work that one out themselves.

Teach religion. Under most circumstances, I’d fight hard to keep religion out of schools. But my kids’ school teaches a lot of religion, and I couldn’t be happier. Why? Because they teach everything from Norse myths to Hinduism. They go through Greek and Roman mythology, the lives of Catholic saints, and Australian Aboriginal creation legends. By presenting Christian fables as one set of stories among many, it naturally raises the question: what claim does this religion have as the ‘true one’ when so many other people have believed so many things? Why does Mom believe in Jesus and not Zeus?

There’s an added benefit to telling my kids religious stories: it inoculates them. Parents who raise their children without religious instruction run the risk of them contracting it in a world of infected people. I’ve seen a number of cases where parents do a great job of raising kids secular, but then later in life someone gives them a copy of ‘Mere Christianity’ and they think it’s the greatest thing they’ve ever seen. If they’d been taught about Christian mythology (and Greek, and Norse, etc), they’d realise they’d heard it before, and we wouldn’t get them in church saying “My family doesn’t know about the Gospel.”

So I don’t mind so much when the boys go off to church with their mother. I just wave and say “Bye kids! Remember to ask for evidence!”

I don’t envy their Sunday School teacher.

I thought they were in favour of mixing religion in government.

Today in the Senate.

WASHINGTON: Christian activists briefly disrupted a Hindu invocation in the US Senate on Thursday, marring a historic first for the chamber and showing that fundamentalism is present and shouting in the US too.

Invited by the Senate to offer Hindu prayers in place of the usual Christian invocation, Rajan Zed, a Hindu priest from Reno, Nevada, had just stepped up to the podium for the landmark occasion when three protesters, said to belong to the Christian Right anti-abortion group Operation Save America, interrupted by loudly asking for God’s forgiveness for allowing the ”false prayer” of a Hindu in the Senate chamber.

“Lord Jesus, forgive us father for allowing a prayer of the wicked, which is an abomination in your sight,” the first protester shouted. “This is an abomination. We shall have no other gods before you.”

Democratic Senator Bob Casey, who was serving as the presiding officer for the morning, immediately asked the sergeant-at-arms to restore order. But they continued to protest as they were headed out the door by the marshals, shouting, “No Lord but Jesus Christ!” and “There’s only one true God!”

This is what they say about school prayer. Oh, it doesn’t have to be explicitly Christian. But would they be happy with a Wiccan prayer? A prayer to Allah? A Hindu prayer? Evidently not; America’s a Christian nation.

The organisation Operation Save America later issued a press release confirming that Ante Pavkovic, Kathy Pavkovic, and Kristen Sugar were all arrested in the chambers of the United States Senate “as that chamber was violated by a false Hindu god.”

“The Senate was opened with a Hindu prayer placing the false god of Hinduism on a level playing field with the One True God, Jesus Christ,” the statement said, adding, “This would never have been allowed by our Founding Fathers.”

Well, at least one. Thomas Jefferson was the author of the Statute of Virginia for Religious Freedom.

It was adopted in 1779 with the valuable assistance of james Madison but not until a proposed amendment attempting to insert the words “Jesus Christ . . . the holy author of our religion” was rejected. In his autobiography, Jefferson notes the defeat of this proposed amendment “by a great majority, is proof that they meant to comprehend within the mantle of its protection, the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and the Mohammedan, the Hindu and the Infidel of every denomination.

Let’s all remember that pandering to these people just feeds their hunger for domination. They won’t be happy until other views are eliminated but their own. It’s never Jesusy enough for them. Abomination, indeed.

I could never be president of the USA.

Atheists don’t get elected to public office in America (very often). And so we see all the major players paying lip service to Gawd, or a higher power, or ‘spirituality’ or some other such claptrap.

But if I’m annoyed by political goddiness, colour me supremely irked by this:

Sen. Barack Obama drew his heartiest welcome of a two-day swing through Iowa in the state’s capital of inner peace.

To the frustration of the cameramen in the Fairfield town square, Obama delivered his remarks facing east, with the setting sun behind him blotting out their shots.

But here, there’s a power even higher than the television networks: Obama had positioned himself in alignment with the rotation of the earth, in accordance with the teachings of the Maharishi Mahesh Yogi, whose followers moved en masse to this small Iowa city more than 30 years ago.

You need votes, and you’ve got to pander to respect people’s beliefs. That’s the part I’d be rotten at. I’d probably tell them that the Maharishi was a fraud, that spirituality is just made up, and then I’d challenge them to show me some yogic flying. In short, I’d get nowhere at all with the nutball New Agers.

Obama needs to pander to faith, I suppose, but does he have to wallow in it? Surely part of the job of President must be calling out bullshit of one type or another, and Obama looks incapable of it.

And how does the Democratic Party hold together when it contains the secular Left and the New Age spiritual left at the same time?

Bush and Dems, through the floor

Bush at 26% approval. He has now broken through the Crazification Barrier and polled lower than the number of absolutely crazy people that will always be present in any population.

Now here’s the question: if you or I or anyone else were to start acting like Bush, siding with Bush, agreeing with Bush on the vital issues of the day, what would happen to their popularity? Would it go up, do you think? Or would it plummet?

Well, Congress has given in to Bush on lots of issues lately, including war funding for Iraq and abstinence-only sex education (to name two off the top of my head). Let’s see what happens.

The percentage of Americans with a “great deal” or “quite a lot” of confidence in Congress is at 14%, the lowest in Gallup’s history of this measure — and the lowest of any of the 16 institutions tested in this year’s Confidence in Institutions survey. It is also one of the lowest confidence ratings for any institution tested over the last three decades.

I know America’s a nation of Congress-haters, but this is something else. Americans sent Democrats to Congress to

a) be Democrats, and
b) counteract this insane president.

Instead, they’re refusing to stand up for Democratic values, and fulfilling every stereotype about ‘finger-in-the-wind’ wimpy politicians. It is intensely frustrating, even from where I’m sitting. And the polls are showing this frustration.

In one of his special comments, Keith Olbermann said

Our politics… is now about the answer to one briefly-worded question.
Mr. Bush has failed.
Mr. Warner has failed.
Mr. Reid has failed.
So.
Who among us will stop this war—this War of Lies?
To he or she, fall the figurative keys to the nation.
To all the others—presidents and majority leaders and candidates and rank-and-file Congressmen and Senators of either party—there is only blame… for this shameful, and bi-partisan, betrayal.

He was right.

Now what would it take to make it even lower and send Bush’s popularity to, say, four? Surprisingly, the answer is not ‘for Bush to screw up even more’. As if that were possible. No, for year after year we watched Monkey-Boy’s hijinks while his popularity remained improbably high.

But Bush’s popularity among the faithful was never about Bush himself, or his actions. It was more how they ‘felt’ about Bush the Symbol. As long as he remained the rallying point, as long as he represented their feelings of self-worth, as long as they invested themselves in him and his ideology, those numbers were always going to stay high. And since an authoritarian cult of personality abhors a vacuum, stay high the numbers would until a new Saviour could appear — a Republican the public could like. Yeah. Good luck. Who would that be? Cheney? Giuliani? Ha.

But just as soon as someone comes along in which the faithful can invest their sense of self, the Bush cult will utterly collapse, and we’ll see approval ratings in the low teens. The groundwork is already being laid; you’ll be hearing the ‘Bush is not a True Scotsman’ from now until November 2008. Well done, keyboard konservatives. Keep it up. He will come.

Sesame Street clips

I’ve just gotten 200 exams from some very smart students, so I’ll be marking them for the next few days.

But while I’m busy, why not regress to childhood?

At least, my childhood. I’m two years older than Sesame Street, so all the really early Sesame Street clips are burned onto my memory. I remember Mr Hooper. I remember the first Gordon, and I can remember when Luis had a crazy Latino friend named Rafael. I even remember when The Count had mind control powers. And who’s this Elmo I keep hearing about?

Even though those episodes are gone, here they all are on YouTube. Do you love living now, or what? All the things we thought were lost and gone are at our fingertips.

I’ve spent a few minutes getting misty over these clips. Here are my favourites:

Rolling Ball 1 2 3

For some reason, this clip is a kind of scene in my mind that I’ve had ever since I was little. I love it. But why does the ball get ground to powder? It’s the hero of the story. Is it the evanescence of mortality?

Would You Like to Buy an O?

Man, is that guy shady. I’m afraid if he offered me letters, I wouldn’t be able to resist.

Capital I

This one’s kind of CSNY. If your life’s work were this simple, would that be good or bad?

X

This one actually freaked me out as a kid. What the hell is that thing with spikes? Childhood can be a very frightening time. I still love the tune though. It’s so wistful.

National Association of W Lovers

A great song, despite the present-day Bush connotations. What’s better; the rocking podium, or the way Bert throws back his head before starting in? It’s nice that Ernie shows up to the meetings to support his buddy.

Church activity and evolution

Let’s dip our canteens in the stream of public opinion.

The majority of Republicans in the United States do not believe the theory of evolution is true and do not believe that humans evolved over millions of years from less advanced forms of life.

And the more often you go to church, the less likely you are to understand facts.

The data from several recent Gallup studies suggest that Americans’ religious behavior is highly correlated with beliefs about evolution. Those who attend church frequently are much less likely to believe in evolution than are those who seldom or never attend.

You see what’s happening here: evolution is being used as an indicator for other kinds of scientific understanding. Good choice, too. It’s as well-supported a theory as we get, so if someone refuses to accept it, it probably means they lack understanding on other scientific topics, as well as skill at knowing how to tell if an idea is good or not.

These results follow some patterns that I think are pretty consistent in religions I know of. As a Mormon, I happily believed unsupported or even counterfactual ideas, as long as I liked them or already believed them. I was sometimes encouraged to superficially examine the basis for my faith, but only if I eventually arrived at the conclusion that the Church was true. And I was given terrible mechanisms for evaluating ideas; basically, if I felt ‘good about it’, it was true. I was also surrounded by parents, friends, and authority figures who constantly worked to build my (and their) faith in false beliefs. And so the religion forms a bubble that keeps you ‘feeling good’ about your beliefs by constantly reaffirming them. It’s very difficult for facts to penetrate the bubble.

Religions are support groups for reality deniers. And so, it seems, are political parties.

World Environment Day

In honor of World Environment Day, I’d like to invite you to tell a global warming denier to get nicked. I did recently, and it was a good experience.

This time it was the LaRouche folks, back on campus after a long hiatus. The newspaper handout said “Global Warming is a Fraud!”

Now it’s one thing to see all sides of an issue and take a critical stance on the issues of the day. It’s quite another to create doubt where none exists, which is after all the business of global warming deniers, intelligent design creationists, flat earthers, and (dare I say) holocaust deniers, all of whom refuse to accept consensus when the evidence is in.

And yes, global weather is a really complex thing. The problem with these guys is that they’re not good at complex. Have a look at the nuance these guys are capable of:

Not that I disagree with Dick Cheney as Child of Satan, but if I ever hand out something like this on street corners, please restrain me. Thank goodness for LaRouche’s tireless efforts to, er, bring Cheney down.

So when offered the newspaper, I genially invited the gentleman to shove it up his ass. His friend muttered “idiot” after me. It was the most productive conversation I’ve ever had with global warming deniers. Took less time, and had the same outcome.

Older posts Newer posts

© 2026 Good Reason

Theme by Anders NorenUp ↑