Skip to content

Author Archive for Tom

Second to last post

Published

by

on July 2, 2009

.

This is more of a status report than anything.

I'm busy in the throes of finishing my PhD and going through the logistics of moving and starting a postdoc. So, don't expect to see anything here for a few months.

The next post that you see should be the announcement of my new blog! In the meanwhile, you can find me commenting at some of the blogs in my blogroll.

Best,
Tom

Second to last post

Published

by

on July 2, 2009

.

This is more of a status report than anything.

I'm busy in the throes of finishing my PhD and going through the logistics of moving and starting a postdoc. So, don't expect to see anything here for a few months.

The next post that you see should be the announcement of my new blog! In the meanwhile, you can find me commenting at some of the blogs in my blogroll.

Best,
Tom

Too Twitterpated

Published

by

on December 22, 2008

.

Does anybody else see how Mike Wilson's response in an emergency is lacking? How about helping the others on the plane escape? If you were still so into to the technology and the need to communicate, knowing these might be your last words, wouldn't it be better to instead say "Honey, I love you." or something more meaningful?

Glad he didn't make money on the interviews at CNN and Fox, at least.

Too Twitterpated

Published

by

on December 22, 2008

.

Does anybody else see how Mike Wilson's response in an emergency is lacking? How about helping the others on the plane escape? If you were still so into to the technology and the need to communicate, knowing these might be your last words, wouldn't it be better to instead say "Honey, I love you." or something more meaningful?

Glad he didn't make money on the interviews at CNN and Fox, at least.

Reason’s Greetings?

Published

by

on December 8, 2008

.

I think the sign posted by the Freedom From Religion Foundation at the Legislative Building in Olympia, Washington crossed the line. The sign projects several offensive claims. It says, "At this season of the winter solstice may reason prevail. There are no gods, no devils, no angels, no heaven or hell. There is only our natural world. Religion is but myth and superstition that hardens hearts and enslaves minds."

I have no problem with the contents of this message myself, and believe it to be entirely accurate. The FFRF also have several other signs that I have been in support of, and even others in this holiday season that seem compelling without being overtly offensive, such as "Reason's Greetings".

What I take issue with here is the audacity of this sign posted where the Nativity is displayed. The mission of the FFRF is to keep the state and religion separate. Wonderful! So, in the holiday season there two options: 1) Nix nativity scenes, or 2) allow them as long as you also get to voice every other opinion. Option 2 seems to be the stance from the Washington Governor, which allows for an infinite number of displays.

What FFRF did, however, was not done in a spirit of peace and good will. An atheistic sign in such a spirit could have said "Happy winter's solstice" and had a subscript saying that the sign was sponsored by the FFRF. It could have been slightly more daring with something like "What is the reason for your winter's solstice celebration this season?" It could have even been something with the message "Oh, and remember the atheists this season who have no icons to display."

Instead, it was offensive because it stated in absolute terms that there is no God, no angels, and no reason for sacred hoopla. It was pompous and ignorant -- two characteristics I learned to loathe during the Bush administration. It is elitist to state outright that your opinion is better than anyone else's. The best we can do in claiming that there is no God is to say that there is no evidence, but we can't show that the supernatural is not there, much as they can't show that it is there. It comes down to opinion on both sides. It's hurtful to ridicule someone else's religious and cultural heritage in such a manner.

Dan Barker of FFRF says (from here) "It's not that we are trying to coerce anyone; in a way our sign is a signal of protest," Barker said. "If there can be a Nativity scene saying that we are all going to hell if we don't bow down to Jesus, we should be at the table to share our views....On that Nativity scene, there is this threat of internal violence if we don't submit to that master. Hate speech goes both ways."

With such a statement, Barker admits to using hateful tactics. He counters his hateful interpretation of the Nativity with a hateful poster. C'mon! When has denigrating religious symbols ever been productive?

You can argue that the Nativity is a part of Christianity, and that many Christians believe non-Christians are going to hell, but it's a plastic baby Jesus and posterboard of a manger displayed next to animatronic'ed Santa and Rudolph, next to a Frosty the Snowman balloon. If you want to say that the scene is asking us to bow before Jesus or go to hell, then the scene is also asking us to be sure and leave cookies out for Santa and to believe that Frosty's cap is magic.

Nativity scenes are not asking for non-believers to bow down. They are expressions of religious faith where the believers ask for tolerance from non-believers. Indeed, they have a lot of gall to presume that their expressions simply are tolerated and are in no way offensive. They tend to follow Bart Simpson's thoughts of Christmas -- "Christmas is a time when people of all religions come together to worship Jesus Christ." However, to fight that mentality through condescension and mockery is not going to do us atheists any favors.

Reason’s Greetings?

Published

by

on December 8, 2008

.

I think the sign posted by the Freedom From Religion Foundation at the Legislative Building in Olympia, Washington crossed the line. The sign projects several offensive claims. It says, "At this season of the winter solstice may reason prevail. There are no gods, no devils, no angels, no heaven or hell. There is only our natural world. Religion is but myth and superstition that hardens hearts and enslaves minds."

I have no problem with the contents of this message myself, and believe it to be entirely accurate. The FFRF also have several other signs that I have been in support of, and even others in this holiday season that seem compelling without being overtly offensive, such as "Reason's Greetings".

What I take issue with here is the audacity of this sign posted where the Nativity is displayed. The mission of the FFRF is to keep the state and religion separate. Wonderful! So, in the holiday season there two options: 1) Nix nativity scenes, or 2) allow them as long as you also get to voice every other opinion. Option 2 seems to be the stance from the Washington Governor, which allows for an infinite number of displays.

What FFRF did, however, was not done in a spirit of peace and good will. An atheistic sign in such a spirit could have said "Happy winter's solstice" and had a subscript saying that the sign was sponsored by the FFRF. It could have been slightly more daring with something like "What is the reason for your winter's solstice celebration this season?" It could have even been something with the message "Oh, and remember the atheists this season who have no icons to display."

Instead, it was offensive because it stated in absolute terms that there is no God, no angels, and no reason for sacred hoopla. It was pompous and ignorant -- two characteristics I learned to loathe during the Bush administration. It is elitist to state outright that your opinion is better than anyone else's. The best we can do in claiming that there is no God is to say that there is no evidence, but we can't show that the supernatural is not there, much as they can't show that it is there. It comes down to opinion on both sides. It's hurtful to ridicule someone else's religious and cultural heritage in such a manner.

Dan Barker of FFRF says (from here) "It's not that we are trying to coerce anyone; in a way our sign is a signal of protest," Barker said. "If there can be a Nativity scene saying that we are all going to hell if we don't bow down to Jesus, we should be at the table to share our views....On that Nativity scene, there is this threat of internal violence if we don't submit to that master. Hate speech goes both ways."

With such a statement, Barker admits to using hateful tactics. He counters his hateful interpretation of the Nativity with a hateful poster. C'mon! When has denigrating religious symbols ever been productive?

You can argue that the Nativity is a part of Christianity, and that many Christians believe non-Christians are going to hell, but it's a plastic baby Jesus and posterboard of a manger displayed next to animatronic'ed Santa and Rudolph, next to a Frosty the Snowman balloon. If you want to say that the scene is asking us to bow before Jesus or go to hell, then the scene is also asking us to be sure and leave cookies out for Santa and to believe that Frosty's cap is magic.

Nativity scenes are not asking for non-believers to bow down. They are expressions of religious faith where the believers ask for tolerance from non-believers. Indeed, they have a lot of gall to presume that their expressions simply are tolerated and are in no way offensive. They tend to follow Bart Simpson's thoughts of Christmas -- "Christmas is a time when people of all religions come together to worship Jesus Christ." However, to fight that mentality through condescension and mockery is not going to do us atheists any favors.

Hulk theology

Published

by

on November 14, 2008

.

I'm way too removed from the pop culture scene that I only heard yesterday about Nick Hogan's car crash over a year ago and the Hulk family shenanigans surrounding it. In the leaked phone call between the Hulk and Nick while he was in prison, the Hulk says, "Well, I don't know what kind of person John was or what he did to get himself into this situation. I know he was pretty aggressive. He used to yell at people and he used to do stuff. But for some reason, man, God laid some heavy sh*t on that kid, man, I don't know what he was into...."

The Hulk says on Larry King Live that he told his son this to reach out to his son and give him solace -- blaming the victim, instead of having his son take on the guilt of having done something perhaps even worse than actually kill his best friend. Obviously, the worst sh*t that John Graziano was into was hanging with the Hogans.

But let's say regardless of the pressure or motives behind this statement that it exemplifies part of Hulk's theology. Assuming a God, is there any way to prove Hulk wrong? Many Christians would say, "That is not my God." But when theology involves a personal God, and encourages subjective interpretations that can not be discredited or disproved, what happens to absolute truth, which is supposed to come with religion?

As an atheist, I am asked by Christians "on what basis" can I substantiate my morality, ideology, and my will to live. The implication is that we all need God's grace to get it right. The golden rule is obviously too far fetched for me to exhibit on my own without Jesus tugging on my heart or to remember the words of my parents in how to share, or to modify my behavior when a kid said, "Ouch! You're not playing nice!" My basis is my interpretation of how the world operates and how I ought and want to behave given that interpretation. It's an ongoing thing. I study nature and work together with others using language and behavior to devise collective norms and laws. So, yes, it's relative, just like the basis of one's Christianity.

I find the premise that religion offers absolute/universal truth alarming because it never actually delivers it. See here for a fun read. Toward the end of the article, when it addresses evidence of absolute truth, it makes the following claims:

The first evidence for the existence of absolute truth is seen in our conscience. Our conscience tells us that the world should be a “certain way,” that some things are “right” and some are “wrong.”

The second evidence for the existence of absolute truth is seen in science. Science is simply the pursuit of knowledge. It is the study of what we know and the quest to know more. Therefore, all scientific study must by necessity be founded upon the belief that there are objective realities that exist in the world. Without absolutes, what would there be to scientifically study?

The third evidence for the existence of absolute truth / universal truth is the existence of religion. All the religions of the world are an attempt to give meaning and definition to life. They are born out of the fact that mankind desires something more than simply existing.

Points one is an example of relativism.

The first problem with point two is that objective realities may themselves be part of dynamic, random processes. Furthermore, much of science is not proven, but built on theory, which might eventually be shown to be incorrect. The second problem with employing #2, from a theological perspective, is that this does not differ from some forms of deism and materialism.

Point three shows, as with Hulk's theology, that the strivings for finding meaning in various life events is a natural human condition, but because everyone has their own theology, the splinters of various belief indicate that the only absolute is subjectivity.

Hulk theology

Published

by

on November 14, 2008

.

I'm way too removed from the pop culture scene that I only heard yesterday about Nick Hogan's car crash over a year ago and the Hulk family shenanigans surrounding it. In the leaked phone call between the Hulk and Nick while he was in prison, the Hulk says, "Well, I don't know what kind of person John was or what he did to get himself into this situation. I know he was pretty aggressive. He used to yell at people and he used to do stuff. But for some reason, man, God laid some heavy sh*t on that kid, man, I don't know what he was into...."

The Hulk says on Larry King Live that he told his son this to reach out to his son and give him solace -- blaming the victim, instead of having his son take on the guilt of having done something perhaps even worse than actually kill his best friend. Obviously, the worst sh*t that John Graziano was into was hanging with the Hogans.

But let's say regardless of the pressure or motives behind this statement that it exemplifies part of Hulk's theology. Assuming a God, is there any way to prove Hulk wrong? Many Christians would say, "That is not my God." But when theology involves a personal God, and encourages subjective interpretations that can not be discredited or disproved, what happens to absolute truth, which is supposed to come with religion?

As an atheist, I am asked by Christians "on what basis" can I substantiate my morality, ideology, and my will to live. The implication is that we all need God's grace to get it right. The golden rule is obviously too far fetched for me to exhibit on my own without Jesus tugging on my heart or to remember the words of my parents in how to share, or to modify my behavior when a kid said, "Ouch! You're not playing nice!" My basis is my interpretation of how the world operates and how I ought and want to behave given that interpretation. It's an ongoing thing. I study nature and work together with others using language and behavior to devise collective norms and laws. So, yes, it's relative, just like the basis of one's Christianity.

I find the premise that religion offers absolute/universal truth alarming because it never actually delivers it. See here for a fun read. Toward the end of the article, when it addresses evidence of absolute truth, it makes the following claims:

The first evidence for the existence of absolute truth is seen in our conscience. Our conscience tells us that the world should be a “certain way,” that some things are “right” and some are “wrong.”

The second evidence for the existence of absolute truth is seen in science. Science is simply the pursuit of knowledge. It is the study of what we know and the quest to know more. Therefore, all scientific study must by necessity be founded upon the belief that there are objective realities that exist in the world. Without absolutes, what would there be to scientifically study?

The third evidence for the existence of absolute truth / universal truth is the existence of religion. All the religions of the world are an attempt to give meaning and definition to life. They are born out of the fact that mankind desires something more than simply existing.

Points one is an example of relativism.

The first problem with point two is that objective realities may themselves be part of dynamic, random processes. Furthermore, much of science is not proven, but built on theory, which might eventually be shown to be incorrect. The second problem with employing #2, from a theological perspective, is that this does not differ from some forms of deism and materialism.

Point three shows, as with Hulk's theology, that the strivings for finding meaning in various life events is a natural human condition, but because everyone has their own theology, the splinters of various belief indicate that the only absolute is subjectivity.

I hope you find religion

Published

by

on November 11, 2008

.

I called my mother a day after the election and this was the beginning of our conversation.

Mom: How are you?

Me: All right. Happy about the election.

Mom: I bet you are. I just hope you find religion.

Me: What do you mean by that?

Mom: Just mark my words.

Me: What?

Mom: Just remember this moment.

Me: Mmmm... Okay, but I still don't know what you mean.

Mom: This election. These wars. This financial crisis. Global warming. This crazy world. I just don't know....

Finally, I understood. The end times. My mother, like many fundamentalists, looks forward to the second coming of Christ, but she's horribly scared of herself, her kids, and her grandchildren living through the apocalyptic horrors that preclude it. In fact, despite the imaginings some outsiders have that fundamentalists have a drive to bring on Armaggedon, there are fundies who believe that we should avoid the end times, delaying the 2nd coming as much as possible to save more souls.

There is a Sodom and Gomorrah feel to it. In that story, God told Abraham that he was going to obliterate the city. Abraham first asked God, "If there are 50 souls that are good, will you avoid destroying it?" God said, "Sure". But then Abraham thought a little more realistically. "What about 45? No wait. Let's say 40.... Mmmm....How about 10?" God agreed to not destroying the city if 10 good people were found. Fact was, it was just Lot and his daughters (and for a moment his wife) who were the only good ones that escaped before God's cleansing. (Of course, "good" is a bit relative as it seems okay for Lot to have offered up his fine virgin daughters to be raped by the town instead of his male angel visitors (Genesis 19), but I digress...)

Point is, like Abraham's affection and concern for Sodom and Gomorrah, so too do a lot of Christians have concern for themselves, their children, and their children's children, and others would-be-saved, and for all of them to avoid living through the perilous end times. Think about the benefits of delaying the 2nd coming. Imagine the social network in heaven of spending a few years with some 14th generational grandchild or having someone come up to you and say, "I'm here in heaven today because you saved Joe and Joe saved Jane and Jane saved Billy...."

Those who are religious desire to make heaven on earth, but they also have the impression that without God's grace, which too many of us will be without, evil will overtake the world. When there is nothing more anybody can do to save souls, this will usher in the 2nd coming. Hopefully those in Christ will be raptured to avoid evil unhindered by God's grace, but there is a sadness to that. It's the melancholy that comes with the recognition that there are no more souls that can be saved -- not even some of our friends and children.

For my mother, while I'm still alive and this world keeps ticking, there is hope that I'll be saved. For whatever reasons, she believes John McCain can keep this ol' world from getting tired before Barack Obama can. Her vote for McCain to avoid fear cast against my vote for Obama in hope. Simple really. We each want a happy life for us and our kids. Nobody wants to see us self destruct. We're just not fully agreed on how we can accomplish this.

I hope you find religion

Published

by

on November 11, 2008

.

I called my mother a day after the election and this was the beginning of our conversation.

Mom: How are you?

Me: All right. Happy about the election.

Mom: I bet you are. I just hope you find religion.

Me: What do you mean by that?

Mom: Just mark my words.

Me: What?

Mom: Just remember this moment.

Me: Mmmm... Okay, but I still don't know what you mean.

Mom: This election. These wars. This financial crisis. Global warming. This crazy world. I just don't know....

Finally, I understood. The end times. My mother, like many fundamentalists, looks forward to the second coming of Christ, but she's horribly scared of herself, her kids, and her grandchildren living through the apocalyptic horrors that preclude it. In fact, despite the imaginings some outsiders have that fundamentalists have a drive to bring on Armaggedon, there are fundies who believe that we should avoid the end times, delaying the 2nd coming as much as possible to save more souls.

There is a Sodom and Gomorrah feel to it. In that story, God told Abraham that he was going to obliterate the city. Abraham first asked God, "If there are 50 souls that are good, will you avoid destroying it?" God said, "Sure". But then Abraham thought a little more realistically. "What about 45? No wait. Let's say 40.... Mmmm....How about 10?" God agreed to not destroying the city if 10 good people were found. Fact was, it was just Lot and his daughters (and for a moment his wife) who were the only good ones that escaped before God's cleansing. (Of course, "good" is a bit relative as it seems okay for Lot to have offered up his fine virgin daughters to be raped by the town instead of his male angel visitors (Genesis 19), but I digress...)

Point is, like Abraham's affection and concern for Sodom and Gomorrah, so too do a lot of Christians have concern for themselves, their children, and their children's children, and others would-be-saved, and for all of them to avoid living through the perilous end times. Think about the benefits of delaying the 2nd coming. Imagine the social network in heaven of spending a few years with some 14th generational grandchild or having someone come up to you and say, "I'm here in heaven today because you saved Joe and Joe saved Jane and Jane saved Billy...."

Those who are religious desire to make heaven on earth, but they also have the impression that without God's grace, which too many of us will be without, evil will overtake the world. When there is nothing more anybody can do to save souls, this will usher in the 2nd coming. Hopefully those in Christ will be raptured to avoid evil unhindered by God's grace, but there is a sadness to that. It's the melancholy that comes with the recognition that there are no more souls that can be saved -- not even some of our friends and children.

For my mother, while I'm still alive and this world keeps ticking, there is hope that I'll be saved. For whatever reasons, she believes John McCain can keep this ol' world from getting tired before Barack Obama can. Her vote for McCain to avoid fear cast against my vote for Obama in hope. Simple really. We each want a happy life for us and our kids. Nobody wants to see us self destruct. We're just not fully agreed on how we can accomplish this.

Blog plug: Atheist Ethicist

Published

by

on November 10, 2008

.

The Atheist Ethicist presents a daily, long-winded, but interesting essay. Alonzo Fyfe, the author, presents compelling arguments and fodder for a number of topics centered around defining atheism, and how atheists can make the world a better place.

Blog plug: Atheist Ethicist

Published

by

on November 10, 2008

.

The Atheist Ethicist presents a daily, long-winded, but interesting essay. Alonzo Fyfe, the author, presents compelling arguments and fodder for a number of topics centered around defining atheism, and how atheists can make the world a better place.

I vant to share my blood

Published

by

on October 29, 2008

.

It is easy to assume that sucking another creature's life's blood is the simplest way to obtain necessary nutrients. Problem is, most creatures don't like their blood being sucked, but moreover, as anyone doing mass spectrometry on serum will tell you, blood is around 95% water. The remaining 5% contains proteins and amino acids, electrolytes, and virtually no fat. The New York Times has this interesting piece on bloodsuckers. Because blood is really a poor diet and mostly water, bats quickly expel it through urination. If they do not feed within 60 hours, they will die. Since they pretty much feed at night, they must feed at least every other night. But what if they don't?

Vampire bats exhibit reciprocal altruism. The successful hunters will share some of their blood with the unsuccessful ones. There seems to be the recognition (at least behaviorally) that bats in need today may be the successful hunters tomorrow, when the successful ones today might become the needy.

For more info, check
http://www.bio.davidson.edu/people/vecase/Behavior/Spring2002/perry/altruism.html and http://courses.washington.edu/ccab/Wilkinson%20on%20vampire%20bats%20(small)%20-%20Sci%20Amer%201990.pdf

I vant to share my blood

Published

by

on October 29, 2008

.

It is easy to assume that sucking another creature's life's blood is the simplest way to obtain necessary nutrients. Problem is, most creatures don't like their blood being sucked, but moreover, as anyone doing mass spectrometry on serum will tell you, blood is around 95% water. The remaining 5% contains proteins and amino acids, electrolytes, and virtually no fat. The New York Times has this interesting piece on bloodsuckers. Because blood is really a poor diet and mostly water, bats quickly expel it through urination. If they do not feed within 60 hours, they will die. Since they pretty much feed at night, they must feed at least every other night. But what if they don't?

Vampire bats exhibit reciprocal altruism. The successful hunters will share some of their blood with the unsuccessful ones. There seems to be the recognition (at least behaviorally) that bats in need today may be the successful hunters tomorrow, when the successful ones today might become the needy.

For more info, check
http://www.bio.davidson.edu/people/vecase/Behavior/Spring2002/perry/altruism.html and http://courses.washington.edu/ccab/Wilkinson%20on%20vampire%20bats%20(small)%20-%20Sci%20Amer%201990.pdf

First she was just cute

Published

by

on October 26, 2008

.

... but now I'm scared. What an idiot.

First she was just cute

Published

by

on October 26, 2008

.

... but now I'm scared. What an idiot.