the evolving mind

Sometimes having nothing to fight for is a very good thing. As this cartoon from atheistcartoons.com illustrates:

Technorati Links: atheism

I don’t think it is too much of a stretch to state outright that religions tend to promote in-group thinking and behavior. Coupled with feelings of righteousness. A natural consequence of this is . . . a heightened perception of “outgroup” members. Those others who are less good.

So this article headline came as no surprise to me: Study Links Religion and Racism

As for the science behind the finding…not bad.

A meta-analysis of 55 independent studies carried out in the United States with more than 20,000 mostly Christian participants has found that members of religious congregations tend to harbor prejudiced views of other races.

Not earth-shaking, but interesting. Noteworthy, sure. As was this related finding:

Her analysis [team leader Wendy Wood] found significantly less racism among people without strong religious beliefs. [bold added]

Man, those secular values, they are so dangerous! Not.

But the point I want to make comes as a consequence of this tidbit found deep down in the article:

“The effect is strongest in the seminary,” Wood said. Of the 55 studies, 14 dealt with highly religious populations such as frequent church attendees and seminarians. [bold added]

Seminarians are most racist of the groups studied. Hmm. There they are, spending their days with the supposedly heart-and-soul-altering teachings of their allegedly Good Book . . . and?

Exactly! There is religion AND there are all these other factors that influence morality.

Religion strikes me as a placebo treatment. When it works, it works because people think it is going to work. But does it have real value?

Technorati Links: atheism, Christianity, racism, religion

It is a drizzly, cold day in Florida today. My thoughts turn to the warmer and brighter. But the thoughts themselves aren’t that warm and bright. Nothing approaching the real thing. And it is probably a good thing.

Imagine if recollections were as vivid and pleasing as real-time experience . . . there would be a lot of people, like heroin addicts, reclining on couches and beds, lost in memory.

I have often lamented over the poor resolution of my memories. They pale considerably next to any old boring thing before me face right now. Maybe that’s a good thing.

Technorati Links: memory

[It's Saturday. To hell with science and skepticism.
I'm in a different sort of mood. And so this . . . .]

Perhaps a half-dozen times in my life I have pondered the question, “If, after I die, I could come back as any type of animal, what would I be?”

My answers have included “eagle” and “dolphin.” Funny, I never considered “centipede.” During my speed-obsessed boyhood years I may have responded “cheetah.”

It has recently dawned on me that underlying the question is a sort of global recycling notion. You spend your days in one shape and then, presto, are re-formed into another. Is Hinduism thus “the greener religion?”

There is some truth to the reincarnation-as-global-recycling idea. All large mammals such as ourselves, however, go through the crucial step of becoming microbes and worms in our first turnaround before we eventually wind up as grass then rabbits then coyotes.

Today, as I think about what I’d like to come back as, I know I wouldn’t want to be an eagle. Though flying would be a thrill, I wonder if birds find it thrilling or merely a way of getting from here to there.

Flying aside, I’m afraid I would miss having hands. What if I got the urge to read a book? Just opening it would be a difficult task with a forearm that terminates in feathers.

Furthermore, the thought of cold carrion for breakfast or fish guts for lunch doesn’t do much for my present set of taste-buds.

Then there’s the problem of celebrity. The eagle is virtual royalty in the animal kingdom. I’d hate being pursued far and wide by the National Geographic paparazzi.

In my next life I also wouldn’t want to come back as a dolphin.

Continue Reading »

Technorati Links: humor, reincarnation

Beautiful. The launch of a spacecraft over water. [photo thanks to NASA]

The root of providence is to provide. The term is a favorite among religious folk. Providence is what their god does. Provide. Their everything.

What does the space program provide? Knowledge, for sure. Technological advances that improve our limited days, yes. Ever-lasting life? No. Transportation to a supernatural realm? Naw. Some argue that space travel may one day be our ticket “out of here.” And by that they mean to another hospitable planet. This one may not remain hospitable. Not forever it won’t.

When is providing knowledge not enough? I guess the cost must be considered.

Care to explore new realms of thought and perhaps gain some knowledge at very little cost (some effort, some time, no exchange of cash)? I recommend checking out the 131st Skeptics’ Circle posted yesterday over at . . . Providentia.

I’m going to blast that way later on today.

Technorati Links: knowledge, NASA

Many people believe that a theory is all about explanation. And we can judge a theory by how much the explanation makes sense. To us. They may even use terms like rational and logical to describe the theory they prefer. And they could be spot-on, even if the theory is wrong. For if the gauge of correctness is a fit with all the other thoughts we hold, what is illogic in one mind is fully logical in another.

Evolutionary theory and Creationism are a perfect case in point.

It is for this reason that I have reservations about skeptics and atheists speaking of themselves as being more rational and reason-driven. These groups will point out the absurdities in the other position, in effect, saying, see, according to our other thoughts, these here thoughts under the spotlight just don’t fit.

What is missing from simple theorizing is the crucial component beyond mere explanation. Explanation goes only so far. A strong theory, a good theory, allows for testable predictions. And is supported by the results of those tests.

And with this additional, essential element to theories,  Bam!–suddenly evolution and Creationism are not potentially equally reasonable. One allows for testable predictions galore, and has passed thousands of such tests, the other . . . nope.

What seems rational to one mind can seem irrational to another. But put the ideas to a test, and you then have a way to objectively determine the worth of each. In a sense, by doing so you will place both minds on the same playing field.

Of course, some people will shun tests, saying that science operates under its own biased presumptions, so will yield biased results. These people are beyond hope, frankly. All you can really do is explain that a scientific test merely confirms a hypothesized pattern in nature. If you don’t believe in science you are basically refuting that there are measurable regularities in our universe. If that were the case, we could understand nothing about it. Nothing. So tell these people to go ahead and cherish their void of understanding.

Per usual, a recent news release got me started on the topic. The article: Atom Interferometer Provides Most Precise Test Yet of Einstein’s Gravitational Redshift.

The news: Einstein’s Theory of Relativity (the General form vs. the Special) has passed another test.

While airplane and rocket experiments have proved that gravity makes clocks tick more slowly — a central prediction of Albert Einstein’s general theory of relativity — a new experiment in an atom interferometer measures this slowdown 10,000 times more accurately than before, and finds it to be exactly what Einstein predicted.

The result shows once again how well Einstein’s theory describes the real world. [bold mine]

The real world.

So no, the value of Einstein’s theories is not in how far-out and mind-bending the thoughts they generate are, nor in how much they support what we want to believe. Certainly, that is some of the appeal, and yes, the on-the-frontier-element makes some theories more exciting than others. But the true gauge of theories such as Einstein’s, that which gives them real weight, are the predictions they allow us to make and test. In the case of relativity, these tests have been passed with greater and greater precision.

Technorati Links: creationism, relativity, theories

While light is not a liquid, could one say it flows? It has a speed, after all. And it can bend in heavy gravitational fields.

But what would light flow within? Time? One the peculiar things about electromagnetic radiation (photons by another name) is that though we can time light, light itself cannot be said to experience time. Relatively tells us that accelerated to the speed of light, a clock will stop ticking. At the speed of light — no time.

What does it all mean? I wish I knew.

Technorati Links: relativity

How does the saying go? . . . A technology sufficiently advanced (above some current baseline) is indistinguishable from magic. Or something.

Get a load of this near magic: ‘Perfect’ Liquid Hot Enough to Be Quark Soup

Recent analyses from the Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider (RHIC), a 2.4-mile-circumference “atom smasher” at the U.S. Department of Energy’s (DOE) Brookhaven National Laboratory, establish that collisions of gold ions traveling at nearly the speed of light have created matter at a temperature of about 4 trillion degrees Celsius — the hottest temperature ever reached in a laboratory, about 250,000 times hotter than the center of the Sun. [bold added]

Holy smokes!

Perhaps one of the things that would make a technology sufficiently advanced as to appear magical is a lack of an explanatory mechanism for the observation/event. Lacking an explanation, something just doesn’t seem natural. It’s super – natural. It’s above current understanding.

From early in the Bible to late you will find associated with the supernatural things that confound.

“Who among the gods is like you, O LORD ? Who is like you— majestic in holiness, awesome in glory, working wonders? (Exodus 15:11).

Everyone was filled with awe, and many wonders and miraculous signs were done by the apostles. (Acts 2:43)

So what does it take to transform a miraculous/supernatural event into a something religious? A crucial social element. A responsible agent from another world or with other-worldy powers. And perhaps this agent must be perceived to be related to you and/or have a vested interest in you. Maybe the agent has to be responsible for your being and/or well-being.

So what’s the difference between a scientist and a priest? The scientist revels in tests and explanations, attributing his deeds to things fully natural. The priest doesn’t. The priest speaks of a special agent — a god — from a special realm and into gaps in the known injects the work of this god. The scientist doesn’t.

Technorati Links: religion, science

Oh man. To be that guy. Or gal.

A dream of mine: to float above the Earth like that, tethered to a nearby spacecraft by a mere cable. A great, big, beautiful, blue planet before me. Home. Behind me and otherwise all around — the vastness of relatively black space.

I just went a bit breathless thinking about it.

[photo thanks to NASA]

It seems to me that much of human existence is about chasing pleasure. Or at least relative pleasure–moving away from unpleasant experiences toward more pleasant. Bored at your desk? Have another cup of coffee. Listen to some music. Home life not stimulating enough? Maybe a top-shelf home entertainment system will bring you greater pleasure. Etc.

As regular readers might guess, a recent news release of the science kind got me thinking about pleasure. Here’s the lead:

Many cancer patients in Europe are being denied access to adequate pain relief because of over-zealous regulations restricting the availability and accessibility of opioid-based drugs such as morphine. [source]

It additionally seems to me that many people have a biased view of pleasure, including relative pleasure (moving away from suffering), and when and how it’s okay to pursue it. For example: the upper-class guy who buys a powerful jet ski and spends an afternoon thrill-seeking before retiring to a bar veranda for a couple cold cocktails — perfectly acceptable. The dude in the depths of the slums taking drugs and consorting with his pals in an abandoned building — not okay.

Certainly, it’s not a simple issue. And in a well-functioning society we do need shared values. But black and white thinking about drugs, or jet skis, for that matter, is just not very enlightened. And in my estimation, not very humane, either.

Technorati Links: culture, drugs, pleasure