It occasionally happens that I go to some site for a quick update on something seen on TV or mentioned in a conversation, and I realize after a while that I've just spent 7 to 8 hours straight following an interminable chain of links from site to site trying to make sense of the mess. The latest example of this for me was last Friday (Winter Solstice 2012) when I wanted to know what the "Georgia Guidestones" are, and ended up sometime Saturday bewildered by the insanity that is conspiracytheory.org and its obsessions.
To save y'all a similar experience their premise is that The Illuminati (an outgrowth of the Freemasons and the Templars, etc.) are behind The New World Order (via Skull & Bones) seeking to establish a technocracy/oligarchy using the "science" of Darwinism (aka evolution and Malthusian dialectic).
And just tonight I came across an article in Cell Biology about how to deal with science denial with special concern to not just condemn the deniers as ignorant. (The key is to realize that they are not necessarily ignorant, but are reacting from a position of personal fear and emotional/social convictions.)
This has given me some personal insights on how to deal with some folks I cannot just ignore (i.e. family, good friends, co-workers). I'm going to write about some points I'm going to try.
First, I will want to draw a distinction between science as an epistemological means of learning, and its handmaiden of application, technology. The method of science is a logical framework used in many fields of endeavor. In the scientific method, facts (in the form of observed phenomena) are examined and related to each other to form a hypothesis. The hypothesis is used to generate predictions, and more observations are gathered to test those predictions (experiments.) This framework is similar to the philosophical method of dialectic, which is used to extend and explore the moral and metaphysical questions of philosophy.
Science makes no particular claims of being infallible or of possessing any particular Truth. Anyone truly versed in the scientific method knows this and can cope with the paradigm shifts that sweep through fields of scientific inquiry every so often. Once a collection of hypotheses gather a large body of evidence, the collected framework may obtain the status of "laws" or theories. This is in contrast to the fields of religion and morality, which have an extremely poor record of dealing with contrary evidence.
One of the most significant organizing paradigms of modern science is the concept of evolution -- which is nothing more than a statement that future conditions come about as a result of changes in previous conditions. That is, there is a cause and effect relationship between conditions yesterday and conditions today. The theoretical framework has a host of attendant mechanisms as to what these causes are, giving rise to the "Theory of Evolution" that is so upsetting to the conservative mindset.
One must draw a distinction between the theory of evolution as a scientific paradigm, and the (deliberate) confusion between the process of natural selection and the phrase "survival of the fittest." The process of natural selection is totally value neutral, there is no consciousness determining what is good or bad in terms of the changes that occur by natural processes. The "fitness" is determined simply by whether or not the changed processes still work or are more efficient than the previous form of the processes; if the new form of the process is less efficient or adversely changes the continuation of the process, it simply will not replace the previous process nor will it continue to exist in parallel with the previous process. The political concept of "Social Darwinism" is not the same as the natural process of evolution.
As a brief digression, I would examine the historical development of this confusion. Charles Darwin did not propound "Evolution" as a complete theory in his seminal work "On The Origin Of Species". It was based on previous work by others, and was refined by many others after him. The reason that Darwin get the credit is that he proposed the mechanism of natural selection in combination with random changes (mutations) in biological organisms as the best explanation for how new species arise from previous species. This synthesis was not possible until genetics and biochemistry showed the mechanisms of mutation; the geological effects of population isolation were observed and formalized; and the process of natural selection was hypothesized and confirmed. It became controversial when non-scientists seized on Aldous Huxley's (unfortunate) use of the phrase "survival of the fittest" in Huxley's promotion of Darwin's theoretical framework.
This phraseology had its antecedents in Malthus and other political and social theorists. Additionally it is apparently close to a Masonic concept of "becoming" which refers to a moral progression of Man towards his destiny of apotheosis and union with the divine. (N.B. I am not a mason although I'm familiar with much Hermetic and occult thought -- my personal belief system is not currently consistent with their membership requirements. I cannot accept or profess a belief in a Great Architect.) William Jennings Bryant used much of this imagery in his prosecution of Richard Scopes in the "Monkey Trial" of the Tennessee's anti-evolution teaching laws.
Clearing out the emotional cruft of the conflation of the scientific mechanism of evolution -- the best organizing principle of modern biological disciplines -- and the morally repugnant concept of "Social Darwinism" which is blamed for the perceived moral and social degeneration -- that seems to be the inevitable result of failing to learn from history -- may allow one to change an argument from a position of "I'm an Evangelical, I can't believe in Evolution" to one of "How may I reconcile evolution with being an Evangelical?"
Evolution is not, however, the only example of science denial currently facing the world. The "anti-vaccination" problem, and the global climate change deniers are two other controversies currently in the American social consciousness. Both of these, as well as the anti-evolution controversy, actually use a misapplication of the methods of science to create a strong "pseudoscience" to support themselves. They misapply the scientific method primarily by excluding from their hypotheses and conclusions any data that doesn't conform to their pre-supposed theories.
The internet, in the form of the World Wide Web and Social media, make this all too easy. I, personally, have seen this happen in the "unfriending" on Facebook by individuals when I throw grit in the workings of their minds by pointing out contradictions. It is all too easy for these people to elect only to read sites and pages and messages that support only the information they want to believe. There is a deep connection between science and faith, in that they rest ultimately on a premise that what we perceive with our senses represents an underlying "objective" reality. This is an debate for philosophy, and therefore not exactly the domain of science qua science. (The "Philosophy Of Science" is another whole realm of inquiry!) However, the scientific method cannot properly use belief as a filter for the data it examines in evaluating the correctness of a theoretical framework.
In my excursion down the rabbit hole of the internets I was struck by the observation that many of the conspiracy theories that I saw on this trip were easily refutable by methods and information that I knew by the time I graduated from my North Carolina High School in 1971 -- not to mention the continuing advance of observed phenomena since then. (One particular strawman for the New World Order technocracy is their postulate that "Science" will become the only government approved source of information. It is already too late for that in that the internet and WWW provide instant access to all kind of "unauthorized" information. Attempts to suppress information at the level required for a NWO regime to succeed is no longer possible. Witness the failures of the "Great Firewall" of China and the attempts by Iran and North Korea, among others, to prevent access to information they deem dangerous. [Well, N. Korea succeeds better than most simply through the lack of access to any network connections.])
So the answer to science denial is simple -- more real information and education in the scientific method. Just as the answer for hateful and ignorant speech is simply more correcting speech. This very weblog is engaged in that "culture war" by making some of that speech. I invite brave readers to become fellow warriors by engaging in the ongoing discussions that are taking place.
Tuesday, December 25, 2012
Saturday, December 15, 2012
We are losing the "War On Drugs"
The United States of America is losing the so-called "War On Drugs."
It is a modern-day echo of the Prohibition Era, when the US tried to ban alcoholic beverages and instead created a permanent criminal class.To be sure, there was "Organized Crime" prior to Prohibition, but they didn't become Big Business until the opportunities of transporting and providing alcohol to the millions of Americans who didn't believe in Prohibition came along.
The first indicator of the failure of ProhibitionII is in the costs associated with it. There is a clock that shows some of these costs at http://www.drugsense.org but even it can't tell the whole story. What it shows are the declared direct costs to the Federal and State governments for this war. It does not show the collateral costs in terms of lives and extra bureaucracy that are required to support the effort. Also not included are the costs to the Defense Department and Department of Homeland Security for equipment and personnel that support this war in addition to their "regular" tasks.
Almost all sectors of the economy are struggling with the results of the Great Recession, except the unrecorded Organized crime sector. The indications are that they have slowed only a little.
There is an easy way to cripple Organized Crime, cut the addiction rates, dramatically lower the number of deaths, and provide a huge economic windfall of income.
Legalize the recreational use of most of the banned drugs -- but require all providers and users to pay the governments for the privilege. Many states regulate alcoholic beverages this way, requiring strict licensing for sales and distribution, or even running the retail outlets themselves. Do not allow the criminal entrepreneurs to simply "go legal" and to keep getting their cut, instead ensure that new people and businesses get first chance at the new opportunities. The information on those who are already involved are mostly available to existing law enforcement agencies (even if not acted upon for "lack of evidence" that would hold up in court.)
Let the new commerce use the law enforcement indications "taint" an applicant and require a 1 year waiting period before granting any "tainted" applicant a license.
This frees up much of the excess expenses used the the current enforcement -- no new licensee checkups would require the use of SWAT teams or excessive force to keep track of their compliance. The new taxes collected would fund the enforcement with much left over to fund treatment programs for the users who are found to be overusing the drugs. (Modern computer systems would be able to track usage and find the excess users, who would most likely be illegally re-distributing the drugs.)
Medical costs for handling overdose or poisoning cases would drop since the drugs would be of uniform quality and purity. Care should be taken to see that the legal distribution channels cost less than any surviving illegal channels. Privacy policies would be established to keep user identities safer then currently is the case.
Real drug education would occur in the schools to frankly explain the effect of the drugs and explaining that their use is available but discouraged for economic and mental health reasons.
Marijuana would be a special case. There is less inherent danger in marijuana -- it does create a psychological dependence, but not a known physical addiction. It is currently a "gateway" drug simply because the dealers have a major incentive to push other drugs on their clients. Experience in California and Spain and The Netherlands have shown that casual marijuana users do not go on to harder drugs on their own. Marijuana should probably be treated less strictly than most drugs in the same way beer and wine are treated less strictly than "hard liquor." It would also be safer, in that there would be no contamination of the reefer with agents like PCP or Ketamine.
Finally, not all currently illegal recreational drugs would necessarily become available to all. Certain drugs would still be more restricted or even be unavailable without special need being established. For example: Ecstasy is popular, but until it is better studied and relatively safe usage level are established it might not be freely available. Also, the "date rape" drugs have no legitimate use at present and could remain banned.
Decriminalisation and regulation of the "hard" recreational drugs would have many benefits and put much of organized crime right out of business. It would provide opportunities for new businesses and new revenue streams for the governments, and would result in less human suffering.
Think about it.
It is a modern-day echo of the Prohibition Era, when the US tried to ban alcoholic beverages and instead created a permanent criminal class.To be sure, there was "Organized Crime" prior to Prohibition, but they didn't become Big Business until the opportunities of transporting and providing alcohol to the millions of Americans who didn't believe in Prohibition came along.
The first indicator of the failure of ProhibitionII is in the costs associated with it. There is a clock that shows some of these costs at http://www.drugsense.org but even it can't tell the whole story. What it shows are the declared direct costs to the Federal and State governments for this war. It does not show the collateral costs in terms of lives and extra bureaucracy that are required to support the effort. Also not included are the costs to the Defense Department and Department of Homeland Security for equipment and personnel that support this war in addition to their "regular" tasks.
Almost all sectors of the economy are struggling with the results of the Great Recession, except the unrecorded Organized crime sector. The indications are that they have slowed only a little.
There is an easy way to cripple Organized Crime, cut the addiction rates, dramatically lower the number of deaths, and provide a huge economic windfall of income.
Legalize the recreational use of most of the banned drugs -- but require all providers and users to pay the governments for the privilege. Many states regulate alcoholic beverages this way, requiring strict licensing for sales and distribution, or even running the retail outlets themselves. Do not allow the criminal entrepreneurs to simply "go legal" and to keep getting their cut, instead ensure that new people and businesses get first chance at the new opportunities. The information on those who are already involved are mostly available to existing law enforcement agencies (even if not acted upon for "lack of evidence" that would hold up in court.)
Let the new commerce use the law enforcement indications "taint" an applicant and require a 1 year waiting period before granting any "tainted" applicant a license.
This frees up much of the excess expenses used the the current enforcement -- no new licensee checkups would require the use of SWAT teams or excessive force to keep track of their compliance. The new taxes collected would fund the enforcement with much left over to fund treatment programs for the users who are found to be overusing the drugs. (Modern computer systems would be able to track usage and find the excess users, who would most likely be illegally re-distributing the drugs.)
Medical costs for handling overdose or poisoning cases would drop since the drugs would be of uniform quality and purity. Care should be taken to see that the legal distribution channels cost less than any surviving illegal channels. Privacy policies would be established to keep user identities safer then currently is the case.
Real drug education would occur in the schools to frankly explain the effect of the drugs and explaining that their use is available but discouraged for economic and mental health reasons.
Marijuana would be a special case. There is less inherent danger in marijuana -- it does create a psychological dependence, but not a known physical addiction. It is currently a "gateway" drug simply because the dealers have a major incentive to push other drugs on their clients. Experience in California and Spain and The Netherlands have shown that casual marijuana users do not go on to harder drugs on their own. Marijuana should probably be treated less strictly than most drugs in the same way beer and wine are treated less strictly than "hard liquor." It would also be safer, in that there would be no contamination of the reefer with agents like PCP or Ketamine.
Finally, not all currently illegal recreational drugs would necessarily become available to all. Certain drugs would still be more restricted or even be unavailable without special need being established. For example: Ecstasy is popular, but until it is better studied and relatively safe usage level are established it might not be freely available. Also, the "date rape" drugs have no legitimate use at present and could remain banned.
Decriminalisation and regulation of the "hard" recreational drugs would have many benefits and put much of organized crime right out of business. It would provide opportunities for new businesses and new revenue streams for the governments, and would result in less human suffering.
Think about it.
Saturday, December 1, 2012
A Rationale for Spirituality
Religions pretend to care for the spiritual needs of the human family. What they really do is channel and control the energy and actions of their adherents for the accumulation of power over them, and usually to the aggrandizement of some ulterior motive of the institutionalized church. This is effected through the manipulation of the myths and superstitions of the culture by claiming to speak for “god” in all matters of spiritual endeavor. The rational mind is naturally suspicious of this effort and often finds an atheist position that rejects spirituality and religious talk.
My problem with the “hard core” atheist position is that it often rejects the notion of spirituality as part of the human experience, replacing it with a notion of neurobiology and mental discipline. I contend that there is a “spiritual” dimension to the human experience, and its care should be part of the rational life.
So, what is this “spirituality” of which I speak? The best definition I can come up with is that it is the sense of the numinous. I don't mean only some mystical sort of “divine presence” or “wonder and awe” that are the stock in trade of many spiritual hucksters, but a sensible human perception of an inherent “rightness” of some situations and events. The sense of the numinous includes, but is not limited to, these “divine presences” and wonderful times, and also the sense of beauty and rightness that we feel on seeing scenes and situations that make us aware of our connectedness to each other and the universe.
There are clear scientific studies that show that humans are equipped to have this sense. Trans-cranial Magnetic Stimulation (TMS) can induce the sensation in experimental situations. Certain drugs are also known to induce the sensation as part of their effects. History records many disciplines and methods that may induce it. There is a vast body of art and history that speaks to a universal sense of beauty and wonderment. And I hope that most readers here will have a knowledge of the sensation of rightness that is the surest guide to maximal happiness for the greatest number of people – a principle that is nearly universally recognized as the basis of morals and ethics.
The neurobiological model of the brain minimizes the concept of mind and focuses instead on the nerves and chemical signals, explaining this sense as a merely physical reaction to stimulus and neurochemical release in the flesh. I wonder, however, why these circuits and reactions evolved and remain part of the human body. The science is clear, the sensation and brain circuitry arose via the evolutionary mechanisms of random mutation and genetic serendipity. But what life advantage do they give so that the process of natural selection keeps it in the mix?
We need to examine what happens if this mechanism is eliminated. There are not any studies I am aware of that specifically call out this sense, but I would expect that its lack leads to a severe anti-social personality (because there is no sense of connectedness to other humans) that doesn't reproduce effectively. The genetics of socio-pathology are being studied, and I am willing to predict that some of the causes to be found will include loss of the sense of the numinous.
Given, now, that we have a sense to guide and evaluate “spiritual” situations, what do we do with this knowledge? I, and many of the folks that I feel spiritually kindred to, actively use this sense in our everyday lives to inform and guide our behavior and plans. Some seek the spiritual within the structures of traditional religions and seek to reform religion to be more compassionate and supportive. Others seek practices and solace in non-religious manners, picking and choosing from a wide variety of cultures and traditions. Still others choose to label it as something other than spiritual and construct a lifestyle that affords them a satisfying experience.
I would like to see all good folk recognize this sense and accept the “numinous” label as something distinct from “religious” or “spiritual.” This would allow everyone, religious, spiritual and atheist, to see the basic rightness of the results of this sense and apply this sense in the living of their lives.
My problem with the “hard core” atheist position is that it often rejects the notion of spirituality as part of the human experience, replacing it with a notion of neurobiology and mental discipline. I contend that there is a “spiritual” dimension to the human experience, and its care should be part of the rational life.
So, what is this “spirituality” of which I speak? The best definition I can come up with is that it is the sense of the numinous. I don't mean only some mystical sort of “divine presence” or “wonder and awe” that are the stock in trade of many spiritual hucksters, but a sensible human perception of an inherent “rightness” of some situations and events. The sense of the numinous includes, but is not limited to, these “divine presences” and wonderful times, and also the sense of beauty and rightness that we feel on seeing scenes and situations that make us aware of our connectedness to each other and the universe.
There are clear scientific studies that show that humans are equipped to have this sense. Trans-cranial Magnetic Stimulation (TMS) can induce the sensation in experimental situations. Certain drugs are also known to induce the sensation as part of their effects. History records many disciplines and methods that may induce it. There is a vast body of art and history that speaks to a universal sense of beauty and wonderment. And I hope that most readers here will have a knowledge of the sensation of rightness that is the surest guide to maximal happiness for the greatest number of people – a principle that is nearly universally recognized as the basis of morals and ethics.
The neurobiological model of the brain minimizes the concept of mind and focuses instead on the nerves and chemical signals, explaining this sense as a merely physical reaction to stimulus and neurochemical release in the flesh. I wonder, however, why these circuits and reactions evolved and remain part of the human body. The science is clear, the sensation and brain circuitry arose via the evolutionary mechanisms of random mutation and genetic serendipity. But what life advantage do they give so that the process of natural selection keeps it in the mix?
We need to examine what happens if this mechanism is eliminated. There are not any studies I am aware of that specifically call out this sense, but I would expect that its lack leads to a severe anti-social personality (because there is no sense of connectedness to other humans) that doesn't reproduce effectively. The genetics of socio-pathology are being studied, and I am willing to predict that some of the causes to be found will include loss of the sense of the numinous.
Given, now, that we have a sense to guide and evaluate “spiritual” situations, what do we do with this knowledge? I, and many of the folks that I feel spiritually kindred to, actively use this sense in our everyday lives to inform and guide our behavior and plans. Some seek the spiritual within the structures of traditional religions and seek to reform religion to be more compassionate and supportive. Others seek practices and solace in non-religious manners, picking and choosing from a wide variety of cultures and traditions. Still others choose to label it as something other than spiritual and construct a lifestyle that affords them a satisfying experience.
I would like to see all good folk recognize this sense and accept the “numinous” label as something distinct from “religious” or “spiritual.” This would allow everyone, religious, spiritual and atheist, to see the basic rightness of the results of this sense and apply this sense in the living of their lives.
Saturday, October 20, 2012
Momma Sang Tenor
Daddy sang bass (Momma sang tenor)
Me and Lil brother would join right in there
Singin' seems to help the troubled soul
--Daddy Sang Bass, Carl Perkins, 1968
--recorded by Johnny Cash, 1969
Saturday, September 29, 2012
Eulogy for a Transgender Woman
She was born August 20, 1948.
Thought to be a boy with hypospadias (uretheral defect) was given the name Harry Stinson Finnegan in honor of an uncle. She was tiny, only 5 pounds but not premature. Didn't grow very much either; it was safer to keep her on a pillow rather than in your arms. Other than size, development seemed pretty well normal, sat up, rolled over, walked, talked, etc. at age appropriate times. Just very tiny. The Doctors at John Hopkins didn't say much to the family, but had their suspicions about why HF was so small.
At age 4, they finally did a laparotomy to see what she had inside. Surprise: Uterus and Fallopian tubes, matched with undescended testicles. She was a "pseudo-hermaphrodite" and given a diagnosis of Turner's Syndrome. But she had been raised up to that time as a boy, but was physiologically clearly a girl. So what to do now?
Enter Dr. Frank Money (yes, that Frank Money) a young phychiatrist at Johns Hopkins who was asked for his advice on how to handle the situation. Also, finally the parents were told what was happening and given a choice in the matter. All agreed that she should be a little girl. Dr. Money advised that the upbringing as a bay should be suppressed, and immediately all girly approaches should be applied. This was 1951 after all, and there was no real data on what to do.
The family was advised to move to a different school district, the older brothers and sister were instructed on how to deal with their new sister, and the parents were told to be stern about enforcing a girl's lifestyle on young Harriet Sue. Sue (not Harry anymore) was encouraged to forget/suppress her memories of being a little boy, even if it confused her badly for a while. No more pretend shaving with Daddy, no more hunting games with the brothers, no more cowboys and indians or Daniel Boone hats. Instead there were lots of dolls and makeup and cooking lessons with Mom. And weekly therapy sessions with Dr. Money and the residents at JHU. Still, what to do about her size? Female hormones had been discovered and were applied with vigor, resulting in a major growth spurt that did catch up a great deal of the height; she would be a midget, but not a really small one.
First day of school came, and the bus driver told her to fetch her older sister for school, until older sister explained that Sue really was the one going to first day of elementary school. Fortunately, the bus driver took a liking to Sue and protected and nurtured Sue during bus rides. Most of the kids at school thought her size was cute and liked her, so there wasn't much bullying in elementary school. Sue seemingly settled into being a little girl with few problems.
Then came junior high school, and the family moved back to Baltimore proper for a number of reasons. The brothers and sisters were almost done with High School and no one remembered that there had been a Harry Finnegan. In junior high and high school, the bullying wasn't about being transgendered, but about size and religion (christian in a predominantly Jewish school.) However, Sue never took to liking boys, she was most assuredly a lesbian tomboy. She graduated High School in 1966.
Two weeks after graduation, Mom and Dad separated and divorced. They had stuck together "for the kids" and now the strain was too great. Sue was tossed back and forth between the households a few times, and finally moved to Ocean City, MD with her mother. Thus began her love affair with beach town life. They moved to Carolina Beach, NC and Mom re-married. Sue was pretty much on her own and Fell into (and eventually out of) alcohol and drugs. She worked in Momma's restaurants and developed excellent cooking skills. Step-dad Charles and the police eventually decided that she needed a change of scenery for her to get her life back in order. (Can anyone say "witness protection programs"?) She moved to Durham, NC (three hours inland) and became a Councillor at Goodwill Industries as well as a sort of client of Goodwill.
She also got religion. Rev. Johnny Godair of the United Pentecostal Church invited her to services a few times, and eventually hooked her into the community. Playing guitar at services, teaching Sunday School, and following all the cult-like rules made here feel as if she belonged finally. She started dating men to find more acceptance, and suppressed her sexuality. Still, her inherent intelligence and liberal mindset didn't quite jibe with the Pentecostals. At one point she moved back to Baltimore to be near her Dad and siblings. The Pentecostals there rejected her and Dad made her actually read and study the Bible for herself. De-conditioned from the Pentecostals, she studied Dianic Wicca, and resumed a lesbian lifestyle. She had romances with various politicians and finally had a lover. She had developed an ultra-butch role, and became a white leather lesbian.
At this point in her life, I met her at a lesbian/mixed bar in Washington DC, as well as the DC Eagle, while I was exploring my leather fetish lifestyle. Just casual acquaintances, we passed each other occasionally. (Well, she did send one of my lovers home in his own handcuffs one evening when he expressed an opinion that "women don't deserve to wear leather" in her presence. She had no idea he and I were an "item" at the time.) Unfortunately, tragedy struck her life, when a trio of psychotic leather lesbians abducted and murdered her partner. She got revenge, but then had to move again for her own safety. Back to Durham.
It was now 1977. Back in Durham, she took a job at Duke Medical Center as a bookkeeper for one of the research programs. She also had a vaginal reconstruction (finally!) and they did the genetic testing to confirm the Turner's Syndrome diagnosis. She was a mosaic, XO/XY', (the Y' being a partially deleted X.) The folks in Physiology taught her to program computers and she learned C and the UNIX operating system. I was working two buildings over in Allergy and Immunology doing systems programming and administration for a variety of small computers in the Med Center. My father was at Duke Computer Science and I was helping him with his research system. I also go an account on the Duke CS UNIX system. Still, it took an intervention by one of my brothers to introduce Sue and I finally and formally.
In 1978, the social climate was cooler again, and after meeting, Sue and I dated to provide social cover for our gayness. We became best friends. After a few incidents that really cemented the friendship (I had a bout of meningitis and her dog had some emergencies) I moved in with her Halloween of 1979. We mutually decided that being best friends was an excellent basis for long-term cohabitation, and decided to get married in December. We planned for a July 1980 wedding and family and friends started planning. But fate intervened; her mother decided that her biological father was going to "do right" by her daughter, and created a furor. To short-circuit anymore fighting, we told folks to meet us at the magistrate's office in Durham on Wednesday noon, January 11, 1980. Her Mother and Step-father, my parents, her would-=have-been maid of honor (my brother's wife) and my best friend, gathered and had a wonderful civil ceremony. This was civil mainly because one of the parishioners at the Episcopal church in Durham impressed on the minister there that a religious ceremony would be a "travesty" and he found some excuse to deny the ceremony. (Now, thirty-three years later, St. Phillips is a major sponsor of the NC pride festival, but it was too late.)
By this time we had discovered and joined the Unitarian-Universalist congregation in Durham, and were active in the CUUPS chapter. I wrote a song for the chapter and at spring equinox 1981 I premiered the song at a public handfasting ritual for Sue and I. (My parents attended, her Mom declined.) The years passed quietly, we acquired dogs, cars, and a house (thanks to my father.) We loved, lived, laughed and cried together, fought and made up, and had occasional flings with same-sex lovers on the side.
The reactions of various folks varied through the years. Many of our LGBT friends understood the situation and remained friends, others thought we were "playing both sides" and rejected us. "Straight" society mostly ignored us, and some (the Pentecostals) thought we were "saved". We were not shy or concealing about our situation, and educated quite a number of folks about gayness and transgenderdness. We went out to bars, both straight and gay, and loved to sing karaoke to each other whenever and wherever we could.
In 1994, we had a car crash that gave Sue a major concussion. In the aftermath of that, she went through a phase of memory problems, and it took several years of therapy and majik to heal.. During this therapy, she recovered her "lost years" of being raised a little boy and finally overcame her internal transphobia. Dr. Money (remember him?) did some followup interviews and ultimately apologized to Sue for not knowing enough in 1951 to properly handle the case. (He had, by this time also learned lots from some of his other celebrated cases.)
In 2004, Sue suffered a hemorrhagic stroke. It was relatively minor, and mostly affected a speech center (she lost the ability to use pronouns for a few months.) But it was a harbinger of things to come. In 2009 she suffered more strokes. Again, they affected her intellect and personality more than her body. She went back to being Roman Catholic and got a strong angry bent. We went back to the Episcopal church to satisfy her needs for ritual and ceremony. I dealt with her abuse, and ended up accused of abusing her at one point. (My first encounter with the NC penal system.) It all got cleared up and dismissed, but she lost her privilege to own guns. In 2010, more strokes ended up with her in a nursing home, and a ward of the state. Wells Fargo "hooked" us with a deceptive second mortgage on our fully paid-for house (2004), and I ended up homeless, living out of my car with the dog. We had already become familiar with the Urban Ministries Community Cafe Soup Kitchen as a result of me becoming disabled in 2005 and losing my job. It took Social Security 5 years to get my disability approved.
The nursing home tried valiantly but Sue was a very difficult patient and refused to cooperate. She developed major bed sores and in July 2011, succumbed to toxic shock and pneumonia. I was at the Duke ED when they brought her in, and she was mostly comatose and barely responsive. I said a few word, kissed her, and then she went into her final coma. Next afternoon, she was gone. A heartbreaking end to 31.5 years of marriage.
If I didn't have friends willing to live with me. I would have died myself within a month. But I've persevered with a lot of help. It is now a little more than a year later, and the pain of losing Sue is still strong for me and the folks who knew her best. But it is time to tell her story. Index patient HF in the 1965 Textbook of Obstetrics and Gynecology is dead. Long Live Sue.
Thought to be a boy with hypospadias (uretheral defect) was given the name Harry Stinson Finnegan in honor of an uncle. She was tiny, only 5 pounds but not premature. Didn't grow very much either; it was safer to keep her on a pillow rather than in your arms. Other than size, development seemed pretty well normal, sat up, rolled over, walked, talked, etc. at age appropriate times. Just very tiny. The Doctors at John Hopkins didn't say much to the family, but had their suspicions about why HF was so small.
At age 4, they finally did a laparotomy to see what she had inside. Surprise: Uterus and Fallopian tubes, matched with undescended testicles. She was a "pseudo-hermaphrodite" and given a diagnosis of Turner's Syndrome. But she had been raised up to that time as a boy, but was physiologically clearly a girl. So what to do now?
Enter Dr. Frank Money (yes, that Frank Money) a young phychiatrist at Johns Hopkins who was asked for his advice on how to handle the situation. Also, finally the parents were told what was happening and given a choice in the matter. All agreed that she should be a little girl. Dr. Money advised that the upbringing as a bay should be suppressed, and immediately all girly approaches should be applied. This was 1951 after all, and there was no real data on what to do.
The family was advised to move to a different school district, the older brothers and sister were instructed on how to deal with their new sister, and the parents were told to be stern about enforcing a girl's lifestyle on young Harriet Sue. Sue (not Harry anymore) was encouraged to forget/suppress her memories of being a little boy, even if it confused her badly for a while. No more pretend shaving with Daddy, no more hunting games with the brothers, no more cowboys and indians or Daniel Boone hats. Instead there were lots of dolls and makeup and cooking lessons with Mom. And weekly therapy sessions with Dr. Money and the residents at JHU. Still, what to do about her size? Female hormones had been discovered and were applied with vigor, resulting in a major growth spurt that did catch up a great deal of the height; she would be a midget, but not a really small one.
First day of school came, and the bus driver told her to fetch her older sister for school, until older sister explained that Sue really was the one going to first day of elementary school. Fortunately, the bus driver took a liking to Sue and protected and nurtured Sue during bus rides. Most of the kids at school thought her size was cute and liked her, so there wasn't much bullying in elementary school. Sue seemingly settled into being a little girl with few problems.
Then came junior high school, and the family moved back to Baltimore proper for a number of reasons. The brothers and sisters were almost done with High School and no one remembered that there had been a Harry Finnegan. In junior high and high school, the bullying wasn't about being transgendered, but about size and religion (christian in a predominantly Jewish school.) However, Sue never took to liking boys, she was most assuredly a lesbian tomboy. She graduated High School in 1966.
Two weeks after graduation, Mom and Dad separated and divorced. They had stuck together "for the kids" and now the strain was too great. Sue was tossed back and forth between the households a few times, and finally moved to Ocean City, MD with her mother. Thus began her love affair with beach town life. They moved to Carolina Beach, NC and Mom re-married. Sue was pretty much on her own and Fell into (and eventually out of) alcohol and drugs. She worked in Momma's restaurants and developed excellent cooking skills. Step-dad Charles and the police eventually decided that she needed a change of scenery for her to get her life back in order. (Can anyone say "witness protection programs"?) She moved to Durham, NC (three hours inland) and became a Councillor at Goodwill Industries as well as a sort of client of Goodwill.
She also got religion. Rev. Johnny Godair of the United Pentecostal Church invited her to services a few times, and eventually hooked her into the community. Playing guitar at services, teaching Sunday School, and following all the cult-like rules made here feel as if she belonged finally. She started dating men to find more acceptance, and suppressed her sexuality. Still, her inherent intelligence and liberal mindset didn't quite jibe with the Pentecostals. At one point she moved back to Baltimore to be near her Dad and siblings. The Pentecostals there rejected her and Dad made her actually read and study the Bible for herself. De-conditioned from the Pentecostals, she studied Dianic Wicca, and resumed a lesbian lifestyle. She had romances with various politicians and finally had a lover. She had developed an ultra-butch role, and became a white leather lesbian.
At this point in her life, I met her at a lesbian/mixed bar in Washington DC, as well as the DC Eagle, while I was exploring my leather fetish lifestyle. Just casual acquaintances, we passed each other occasionally. (Well, she did send one of my lovers home in his own handcuffs one evening when he expressed an opinion that "women don't deserve to wear leather" in her presence. She had no idea he and I were an "item" at the time.) Unfortunately, tragedy struck her life, when a trio of psychotic leather lesbians abducted and murdered her partner. She got revenge, but then had to move again for her own safety. Back to Durham.
It was now 1977. Back in Durham, she took a job at Duke Medical Center as a bookkeeper for one of the research programs. She also had a vaginal reconstruction (finally!) and they did the genetic testing to confirm the Turner's Syndrome diagnosis. She was a mosaic, XO/XY', (the Y' being a partially deleted X.) The folks in Physiology taught her to program computers and she learned C and the UNIX operating system. I was working two buildings over in Allergy and Immunology doing systems programming and administration for a variety of small computers in the Med Center. My father was at Duke Computer Science and I was helping him with his research system. I also go an account on the Duke CS UNIX system. Still, it took an intervention by one of my brothers to introduce Sue and I finally and formally.
In 1978, the social climate was cooler again, and after meeting, Sue and I dated to provide social cover for our gayness. We became best friends. After a few incidents that really cemented the friendship (I had a bout of meningitis and her dog had some emergencies) I moved in with her Halloween of 1979. We mutually decided that being best friends was an excellent basis for long-term cohabitation, and decided to get married in December. We planned for a July 1980 wedding and family and friends started planning. But fate intervened; her mother decided that her biological father was going to "do right" by her daughter, and created a furor. To short-circuit anymore fighting, we told folks to meet us at the magistrate's office in Durham on Wednesday noon, January 11, 1980. Her Mother and Step-father, my parents, her would-=have-been maid of honor (my brother's wife) and my best friend, gathered and had a wonderful civil ceremony. This was civil mainly because one of the parishioners at the Episcopal church in Durham impressed on the minister there that a religious ceremony would be a "travesty" and he found some excuse to deny the ceremony. (Now, thirty-three years later, St. Phillips is a major sponsor of the NC pride festival, but it was too late.)
By this time we had discovered and joined the Unitarian-Universalist congregation in Durham, and were active in the CUUPS chapter. I wrote a song for the chapter and at spring equinox 1981 I premiered the song at a public handfasting ritual for Sue and I. (My parents attended, her Mom declined.) The years passed quietly, we acquired dogs, cars, and a house (thanks to my father.) We loved, lived, laughed and cried together, fought and made up, and had occasional flings with same-sex lovers on the side.
The reactions of various folks varied through the years. Many of our LGBT friends understood the situation and remained friends, others thought we were "playing both sides" and rejected us. "Straight" society mostly ignored us, and some (the Pentecostals) thought we were "saved". We were not shy or concealing about our situation, and educated quite a number of folks about gayness and transgenderdness. We went out to bars, both straight and gay, and loved to sing karaoke to each other whenever and wherever we could.
In 1994, we had a car crash that gave Sue a major concussion. In the aftermath of that, she went through a phase of memory problems, and it took several years of therapy and majik to heal.. During this therapy, she recovered her "lost years" of being raised a little boy and finally overcame her internal transphobia. Dr. Money (remember him?) did some followup interviews and ultimately apologized to Sue for not knowing enough in 1951 to properly handle the case. (He had, by this time also learned lots from some of his other celebrated cases.)
In 2004, Sue suffered a hemorrhagic stroke. It was relatively minor, and mostly affected a speech center (she lost the ability to use pronouns for a few months.) But it was a harbinger of things to come. In 2009 she suffered more strokes. Again, they affected her intellect and personality more than her body. She went back to being Roman Catholic and got a strong angry bent. We went back to the Episcopal church to satisfy her needs for ritual and ceremony. I dealt with her abuse, and ended up accused of abusing her at one point. (My first encounter with the NC penal system.) It all got cleared up and dismissed, but she lost her privilege to own guns. In 2010, more strokes ended up with her in a nursing home, and a ward of the state. Wells Fargo "hooked" us with a deceptive second mortgage on our fully paid-for house (2004), and I ended up homeless, living out of my car with the dog. We had already become familiar with the Urban Ministries Community Cafe Soup Kitchen as a result of me becoming disabled in 2005 and losing my job. It took Social Security 5 years to get my disability approved.
The nursing home tried valiantly but Sue was a very difficult patient and refused to cooperate. She developed major bed sores and in July 2011, succumbed to toxic shock and pneumonia. I was at the Duke ED when they brought her in, and she was mostly comatose and barely responsive. I said a few word, kissed her, and then she went into her final coma. Next afternoon, she was gone. A heartbreaking end to 31.5 years of marriage.
If I didn't have friends willing to live with me. I would have died myself within a month. But I've persevered with a lot of help. It is now a little more than a year later, and the pain of losing Sue is still strong for me and the folks who knew her best. But it is time to tell her story. Index patient HF in the 1965 Textbook of Obstetrics and Gynecology is dead. Long Live Sue.
Friday, July 20, 2012
Vaccination Myths Debunked
Whooping Cough, or Pertussis, is making a comeback big time.
Why?
Because people are being misled by the anti-vaccination lobby and not getting the medical treatments that can easily, and safely, prevent a wide number of communicable diseases.
1. Vaccines do not contain dangerous mercury: Since 2002, thimerosol is no longer used as a preservative in childhood vaccines. Furthermore, there are NO valid scientific studies that support the linkage of thimerosol and autism (the one previous study was withdrawn due to proved fraud by the authors.) Then there is the fact that thimerosol, while containing a mercury atom in the molecule, is not the same as free metallic mercury such as appears in fish and shellfish. One would get more dangerous mercury from one tuna fish sandwich and from all the recommended vaccines.
2. Vaccines are safer than they used to be: Some older vaccines were made with attenuated whole virus particles, and occasionally could cause low-grade infections in some individuals. Modern vaccines are more often made now with only protein extracts of viruses that contain only the parts necessary to induce the immune system to recognize the virus and to cause it to generate antibodies to the virus.
3, Vaccines cause less side effect than they used to: As medical technology has advanced, vaccines are cleaner and more specific in their effects, due to more precise control over the production and purification of the antibody-inducing proteins used.
4. Vaccines work: The currently available vaccines work well against their targets and confer specific immunity to a variety of highly communicable diseases. The recent outbreak of epidemics of Whooping Cough in the USA show this clearly. Where folks are up-to-date on their vaccinations, or get the vaccine as soon as possible, the rate of Pertussis is low; where folks are not vaccinated, the rates are higher.
5. Vaccinations are NOT linked to the increasing incidence of Autism Spectrum Disorders: The ONE study that claimed to show a linkage between vaccination and autism has been withdrawn because it was discovered that the researcher fraudulently invented the statistics used and presented. Independent analysis of the original data, and numerous other studies looking for such a linkage can find no correlations in the data. Additionally, other research is indicating that autism is much more likely to be caused by other factors, such as obesity, water and air pollution, and genetic factors. To repeat: there is no indication that vaccination causes or is linked to autism.
For a very small number of people, with certain specific conditions, vaccination may not be recommended. And an exceeding small number of folks may get other reactions from vaccinations. For most average infants, children and adults, vaccination is safe and effective.
Getting vaccinated as recommended is the socially responsible thing to do; it protects you, it protects your children, it protects the community, and it protects the nation and the world.
Why?
Because people are being misled by the anti-vaccination lobby and not getting the medical treatments that can easily, and safely, prevent a wide number of communicable diseases.
1. Vaccines do not contain dangerous mercury: Since 2002, thimerosol is no longer used as a preservative in childhood vaccines. Furthermore, there are NO valid scientific studies that support the linkage of thimerosol and autism (the one previous study was withdrawn due to proved fraud by the authors.) Then there is the fact that thimerosol, while containing a mercury atom in the molecule, is not the same as free metallic mercury such as appears in fish and shellfish. One would get more dangerous mercury from one tuna fish sandwich and from all the recommended vaccines.
2. Vaccines are safer than they used to be: Some older vaccines were made with attenuated whole virus particles, and occasionally could cause low-grade infections in some individuals. Modern vaccines are more often made now with only protein extracts of viruses that contain only the parts necessary to induce the immune system to recognize the virus and to cause it to generate antibodies to the virus.
3, Vaccines cause less side effect than they used to: As medical technology has advanced, vaccines are cleaner and more specific in their effects, due to more precise control over the production and purification of the antibody-inducing proteins used.
4. Vaccines work: The currently available vaccines work well against their targets and confer specific immunity to a variety of highly communicable diseases. The recent outbreak of epidemics of Whooping Cough in the USA show this clearly. Where folks are up-to-date on their vaccinations, or get the vaccine as soon as possible, the rate of Pertussis is low; where folks are not vaccinated, the rates are higher.
5. Vaccinations are NOT linked to the increasing incidence of Autism Spectrum Disorders: The ONE study that claimed to show a linkage between vaccination and autism has been withdrawn because it was discovered that the researcher fraudulently invented the statistics used and presented. Independent analysis of the original data, and numerous other studies looking for such a linkage can find no correlations in the data. Additionally, other research is indicating that autism is much more likely to be caused by other factors, such as obesity, water and air pollution, and genetic factors. To repeat: there is no indication that vaccination causes or is linked to autism.
For a very small number of people, with certain specific conditions, vaccination may not be recommended. And an exceeding small number of folks may get other reactions from vaccinations. For most average infants, children and adults, vaccination is safe and effective.
Getting vaccinated as recommended is the socially responsible thing to do; it protects you, it protects your children, it protects the community, and it protects the nation and the world.
Thursday, July 5, 2012
In praise of the light bulb
Electricity is not a recent phenomenon to humankind. The ancient Greeks knew about it and essentially named it. They didn't know what caused it, but they clearly recognized it.
During the Renaissance and since, with the development of the modern scientific method, the mechanics or rules of how it operates began to be recognized, and many of the famous names of electricity studied it. Volta, Ampere, Ohm, Faraday, Weber, etc. This first phase culminated with James Clerk-Maxwell developing the equations and formulating the mathematical basis of electromagnetic theory.
The second phase of advancement in electric theory came with the rise of particle physics and the development of quantum theory. This elucidated the actual mechanisms and causes of electricity, magnetism, and atomic phenomena. The original work on mathematical formalism for electricity has become the basis of quantum theory, relativity (Einstein won his Nobel Prize for work on the photovoltaic effect) and lead to recent developments leading toward a Theory Of Everything.
But all this theoretical work would be for naught were it not for the work of Thomas Edison in making electricity the most commonly used physical theory in the world today. And this huge use of electricity would not have happened except for the development of the humble incandescent light bulb. The whole electricity infrastructure underlying industrial society is a direct result of wanting to use and enjoy the light bulb.
The history of the development of industrial infrastructure is easily found by reading from Wikipedia, but the impetus and impelling factor in extending electric power to everywhere in the developed world is that folks want light.
The light bulb, since its invention, rapidly settled into its most common form: the incandescent tungsten filament in a glass enclosure. It stayed that way for decades without much fundamental change in the technology. As high tech developed, the original low technology was always present right alongside. Can you imagine them building the Large Hadron Collider without having light bulbs around to illuminated to construction and operation?
Even now, you are reading this blog (in all probability) somewhere where there are light bulbs providing illumination. Most likely, the basic technology behind the light bulb is providing the screen on which these words are being displayed.
But now the simple incandescent light bulb is in danger of extinction. This is because the basic incandescent process is too inefficient, converting only about 9 percent of the power consumed into desired light. the rest of the power is consumed in resistance to current flow and the production of waste heat.
The short-term successor to the incandescent bulb is the fluorescent bulb. However, it has to be short term for a variety of reasons. The chemicals involved in the fluorescent effect are toxic and will have long-term affects on the environment if they are not quickly replaced with less adverse alternatives. (It is worth noting that the fluorescent technology still uses heat producing filaments and plasma production in generating light.)
The longer term replacement is, it seems, the Light Emitting Diode (LED) technology, which efficiently produces photons with very little waste heat. The main disadvantage of LED technology is that current means of production involve low efficiency methods and more toxic chemicals. There are changes in the production technology coming along that may sufficiently mitigate these environmentally-unfriendly affects.
However, if the environmental disadvantages cannot be overcome, the earth may be better served by returning to the incandescent filament. This is maligned as a more primitive situation, but be aware that the emotionally loaded word "primitive" is used deliberately to discourage such a development.
I'm certainly committed to progress, but not at the expense of the survivability of the human species and the planet. Those who are pushing the fluorescent bulbs, and the LEDs don't seem to be thinking far enough ahead to see that these technologies may be ultimately non-sustainable. We must place our safety and survival ahead of convenience and progress simply for the sake of change.
In this position, I part ways with the ideologies of the left-wing and right-wing paradigm. I risk getting labeled as a "crazy environmentalist" and being dismissed as a "fringe" ideologue. However, the "Principle of Enlightened Self-Interest" is, so far, the only means I have found to maximize and identify the "best" results for all concerned. Until everyone actually realizes this, the earth and all its life will remain at risk. It takes quite a bit of self-discipline to keep this methodology in focus, and I often fail; however, it is truly worth the effort.
So, honor the simple light bulb and realize that we may not have seen its demise after all.
During the Renaissance and since, with the development of the modern scientific method, the mechanics or rules of how it operates began to be recognized, and many of the famous names of electricity studied it. Volta, Ampere, Ohm, Faraday, Weber, etc. This first phase culminated with James Clerk-Maxwell developing the equations and formulating the mathematical basis of electromagnetic theory.
The second phase of advancement in electric theory came with the rise of particle physics and the development of quantum theory. This elucidated the actual mechanisms and causes of electricity, magnetism, and atomic phenomena. The original work on mathematical formalism for electricity has become the basis of quantum theory, relativity (Einstein won his Nobel Prize for work on the photovoltaic effect) and lead to recent developments leading toward a Theory Of Everything.
But all this theoretical work would be for naught were it not for the work of Thomas Edison in making electricity the most commonly used physical theory in the world today. And this huge use of electricity would not have happened except for the development of the humble incandescent light bulb. The whole electricity infrastructure underlying industrial society is a direct result of wanting to use and enjoy the light bulb.
The history of the development of industrial infrastructure is easily found by reading from Wikipedia, but the impetus and impelling factor in extending electric power to everywhere in the developed world is that folks want light.
The light bulb, since its invention, rapidly settled into its most common form: the incandescent tungsten filament in a glass enclosure. It stayed that way for decades without much fundamental change in the technology. As high tech developed, the original low technology was always present right alongside. Can you imagine them building the Large Hadron Collider without having light bulbs around to illuminated to construction and operation?
Even now, you are reading this blog (in all probability) somewhere where there are light bulbs providing illumination. Most likely, the basic technology behind the light bulb is providing the screen on which these words are being displayed.
But now the simple incandescent light bulb is in danger of extinction. This is because the basic incandescent process is too inefficient, converting only about 9 percent of the power consumed into desired light. the rest of the power is consumed in resistance to current flow and the production of waste heat.
The short-term successor to the incandescent bulb is the fluorescent bulb. However, it has to be short term for a variety of reasons. The chemicals involved in the fluorescent effect are toxic and will have long-term affects on the environment if they are not quickly replaced with less adverse alternatives. (It is worth noting that the fluorescent technology still uses heat producing filaments and plasma production in generating light.)
The longer term replacement is, it seems, the Light Emitting Diode (LED) technology, which efficiently produces photons with very little waste heat. The main disadvantage of LED technology is that current means of production involve low efficiency methods and more toxic chemicals. There are changes in the production technology coming along that may sufficiently mitigate these environmentally-unfriendly affects.
However, if the environmental disadvantages cannot be overcome, the earth may be better served by returning to the incandescent filament. This is maligned as a more primitive situation, but be aware that the emotionally loaded word "primitive" is used deliberately to discourage such a development.
I'm certainly committed to progress, but not at the expense of the survivability of the human species and the planet. Those who are pushing the fluorescent bulbs, and the LEDs don't seem to be thinking far enough ahead to see that these technologies may be ultimately non-sustainable. We must place our safety and survival ahead of convenience and progress simply for the sake of change.
In this position, I part ways with the ideologies of the left-wing and right-wing paradigm. I risk getting labeled as a "crazy environmentalist" and being dismissed as a "fringe" ideologue. However, the "Principle of Enlightened Self-Interest" is, so far, the only means I have found to maximize and identify the "best" results for all concerned. Until everyone actually realizes this, the earth and all its life will remain at risk. It takes quite a bit of self-discipline to keep this methodology in focus, and I often fail; however, it is truly worth the effort.
So, honor the simple light bulb and realize that we may not have seen its demise after all.
Wednesday, July 4, 2012
About the age of the Earth
I was on the bus yesterday and a little kid was running around with a toy T.Rex dinosaur. A couple of folks across the aisle then got into a discussion about dinosaurs, and about how early humans dealt with them!
Excuse me? There is no overlap between the time of the dinosaurs (ending about 145 million years ago) and the early humans (beginning about 2.3 million years ago with the rise of the genus Homo.) Humans have never been around true dinosaurs, despite religious claims to the contrary.
The problem, of course, is that quite a few religious traditions are supporting the false belief that the Earth is no more than 10,000 years old (some even hold that it is only 6,000 or so years old.) The best estimates of geological science is that the planet is around 4 billion years old, plus or minus 200 million years.
The evidence for the age of the earth is quite abundant, and can be observed and comprehended easily if one cares to look. The oldest continental rock formations are dated by measuring the mineral contents and comparing the elemental isotopes that are present. Owing to the way that radioactive decay works on isotopic composition, and knowing about how long it takes for radioactive decay to take place, rather accurate estimates of the age of rocks can be made. It turns out that the oldest rocks we can find are just short of 3.9 billion years old since they cooled and settled down.
Other estimates of the vast reaches of geologic time can be seen in the various layers of rocks (and their changes) that can be seen in mountains and canyons around the world. Each separate layer can also be placed in time by measuring its isotopic composition.
So, how can folks justify ignoring the geologic evidence and preserve their beliefs in a young Earth?
First of all, they just deny the validity of the science that measures the time. This denial is just plain ignorance an unreasonable prejudice. Then they try to apply false history to try and explain the rock layers and other evidence as the result of the Flood of Noah as "revealed" in the Bible; or the misinterpret the evidence as representing events as occurring at the same time as other events. (Such as dinosaur tracks and human footprints occurring together. Those are not human footprints.)
The most outrageous claim, however, is the belief that the Earth was created old! That is, the creator made things to look as if they were 4 billion years old, but only about 10,000 years ago. I'm sorry, but I can't accept this or give it any credence. It would mean that the creator is downright malicious and deceitful -- not a pair of traits that I find worthy of honoring.
Those who don't yet know me well should be aware that, while I'm not an atheist, I do require that my religion conform to reason and evidence. So, I reject any claims of "young-earth creationism" as being ridiculous and false. The reasonable alternative is to accept the evidence of the scientific method as true, and to realize that works by and for humans are not infallible truth. So the various religious scriptures are just stories that explained the observed world in terms comprehensible to the people of the time they were written and developed.
Welcome to a world of reason and sense. Enjoy the journey.
Excuse me? There is no overlap between the time of the dinosaurs (ending about 145 million years ago) and the early humans (beginning about 2.3 million years ago with the rise of the genus Homo.) Humans have never been around true dinosaurs, despite religious claims to the contrary.
The problem, of course, is that quite a few religious traditions are supporting the false belief that the Earth is no more than 10,000 years old (some even hold that it is only 6,000 or so years old.) The best estimates of geological science is that the planet is around 4 billion years old, plus or minus 200 million years.
The evidence for the age of the earth is quite abundant, and can be observed and comprehended easily if one cares to look. The oldest continental rock formations are dated by measuring the mineral contents and comparing the elemental isotopes that are present. Owing to the way that radioactive decay works on isotopic composition, and knowing about how long it takes for radioactive decay to take place, rather accurate estimates of the age of rocks can be made. It turns out that the oldest rocks we can find are just short of 3.9 billion years old since they cooled and settled down.
Other estimates of the vast reaches of geologic time can be seen in the various layers of rocks (and their changes) that can be seen in mountains and canyons around the world. Each separate layer can also be placed in time by measuring its isotopic composition.
So, how can folks justify ignoring the geologic evidence and preserve their beliefs in a young Earth?
First of all, they just deny the validity of the science that measures the time. This denial is just plain ignorance an unreasonable prejudice. Then they try to apply false history to try and explain the rock layers and other evidence as the result of the Flood of Noah as "revealed" in the Bible; or the misinterpret the evidence as representing events as occurring at the same time as other events. (Such as dinosaur tracks and human footprints occurring together. Those are not human footprints.)
The most outrageous claim, however, is the belief that the Earth was created old! That is, the creator made things to look as if they were 4 billion years old, but only about 10,000 years ago. I'm sorry, but I can't accept this or give it any credence. It would mean that the creator is downright malicious and deceitful -- not a pair of traits that I find worthy of honoring.
Those who don't yet know me well should be aware that, while I'm not an atheist, I do require that my religion conform to reason and evidence. So, I reject any claims of "young-earth creationism" as being ridiculous and false. The reasonable alternative is to accept the evidence of the scientific method as true, and to realize that works by and for humans are not infallible truth. So the various religious scriptures are just stories that explained the observed world in terms comprehensible to the people of the time they were written and developed.
Welcome to a world of reason and sense. Enjoy the journey.
Wednesday, June 27, 2012
Why the Boy Scouts are without Honor
Long before the issue of "gayness" could raide its head in my dealings with the Boy Scouts, they lost my respect and support.
Back in the day (circa 1967) I joined the Boy Scouts. I was fun, it was a social interaction, it was guidance and a "moral" teaching group. I was not an outstanding member; I didn't want to be a leader, I didn't expect it to be a lifelong involvement. I did complete several merit badge projects, but that was soon seen as a futile activity. The problem was that they deliberately discouraged independent and critical thinking. The whole aim, it seemed, was to identify a few select individuals to mark as leaders, and train the rest to support them and not to rock the boat.
From a young age, I was encouraged to question things, to think for myself and to find out the "whys" of a situation. The answer "just because" was unacceptable and was a mark of intellectual sloth. My parents spent a great deal of time explaining why the rules were the way they were, and clearly identified the occasional "because" as a sign of injustice and as something that might have to be endured and targeted for change in the future.
To many, this sort of an attitude is clearly at odds with the BSA politik. The leadership was not equipped to handle such discussions.
It was while working on one of the "Citizenship" badges that I came to a head for me. At this point I don't recall exactly how the religious issues came into focus, but the historical prejudices that supported segregation, and the nascent civil right movement that was bringing integration to the area collided head-on in my project. It was Durham, NC in 1967; the schools had been forced into integration the year before I moved there, and having always attended integrated schoold in New York where I came from, I did not comprehend or support the lingering racism of the time.
The report I had to prepare came at the issue from a very different perspective than that held by the scout review board at the church it was affiliated with. For a variety of reasons, my report was ruled "unacceptable" for getting the merit badge. I appealed to the district xouncil and demanded to know why it was unacceptable. As it turned out, the politics of the situation were such that the district was *not* going to reverse the church's decision.
The accuality of the politics only became apparent to me years later -- after I had left the church and scouts far behind -- but at the time it forced me to the decision to part ways with BSA forever. I won't name names or give more specifics -- some of the involved are still around and most regret their positions at the time -- but the politics of the BSA is still following the mold of that time. There was never an apology, never an admission that, even maybe, there might be merit in my arguments.
The BSA finally did integrate, grudgingly, but without apology. They are still dealing with the current "gay" situation in the same manner, and without honor. Some day they might open their eyes and see that the times are changing, but they wont apologize if they do change.
Back in the day (circa 1967) I joined the Boy Scouts. I was fun, it was a social interaction, it was guidance and a "moral" teaching group. I was not an outstanding member; I didn't want to be a leader, I didn't expect it to be a lifelong involvement. I did complete several merit badge projects, but that was soon seen as a futile activity. The problem was that they deliberately discouraged independent and critical thinking. The whole aim, it seemed, was to identify a few select individuals to mark as leaders, and train the rest to support them and not to rock the boat.
From a young age, I was encouraged to question things, to think for myself and to find out the "whys" of a situation. The answer "just because" was unacceptable and was a mark of intellectual sloth. My parents spent a great deal of time explaining why the rules were the way they were, and clearly identified the occasional "because" as a sign of injustice and as something that might have to be endured and targeted for change in the future.
To many, this sort of an attitude is clearly at odds with the BSA politik. The leadership was not equipped to handle such discussions.
It was while working on one of the "Citizenship" badges that I came to a head for me. At this point I don't recall exactly how the religious issues came into focus, but the historical prejudices that supported segregation, and the nascent civil right movement that was bringing integration to the area collided head-on in my project. It was Durham, NC in 1967; the schools had been forced into integration the year before I moved there, and having always attended integrated schoold in New York where I came from, I did not comprehend or support the lingering racism of the time.
The report I had to prepare came at the issue from a very different perspective than that held by the scout review board at the church it was affiliated with. For a variety of reasons, my report was ruled "unacceptable" for getting the merit badge. I appealed to the district xouncil and demanded to know why it was unacceptable. As it turned out, the politics of the situation were such that the district was *not* going to reverse the church's decision.
The accuality of the politics only became apparent to me years later -- after I had left the church and scouts far behind -- but at the time it forced me to the decision to part ways with BSA forever. I won't name names or give more specifics -- some of the involved are still around and most regret their positions at the time -- but the politics of the BSA is still following the mold of that time. There was never an apology, never an admission that, even maybe, there might be merit in my arguments.
The BSA finally did integrate, grudgingly, but without apology. They are still dealing with the current "gay" situation in the same manner, and without honor. Some day they might open their eyes and see that the times are changing, but they wont apologize if they do change.
Monday, June 18, 2012
Internet freedom and media consolidation
No doubt about it: the Entertainment/Industrial Complex is here, and it seeks to control the information you see.
In the manner of the Military/Industrial Complex -- the small group of companies that provide the majority of the military infrastructure to the government -- there is an Entertainment/Industrial Complex that owns and controls the overwhelming majority of the services that provide entertainment to the American consumer.
This is practically all of the music, television, news, internet, newspapers, and magazines that are available. The connections between these media giants are concealed under a web of names, interlocking directorships and relationships to the corporate controllers of the American economy.
Historically, America enjoyed a diverse and independent, and competitive environment of information providers. Every community had its own competitive and independent group of newspapers, radio and TV stations, movie theatres, and music companies. There was a real choice and variety in sources. As recently as the 1960's the major markets had lots of independent providers, and a healthy diversity of opinions and policies. Now, however, we are faced with a limited set of choices and a severely limited set of policies and points of view.
This consolidation becomes obvious when one looks at the limited points of view provided for our perusal. Unpopular opinions, especially diverse political or social viewpoints, have a hard time getting attention. Independent music, movies and television programming are forced to conform and join one conglomerate or the other in order to have a chance to appear in the market.
As an example let me demonstrate with some history of the markets for karaoke song tracks: Prior to 1995, I knew of about 20 domestic licensees of English language karaoke CDs. There were multiple choices available since the original songs were provided on a non-exclusive basis from a relatively large number of music companies or from the artists themselves. Since 2003, however, the number of domestic US producers of karaoke tracks can be counted on one's fingers. (Off the top of my head I can think of only 5. There are probably a few more, but many of the older companies are no longer around.) Additionally, while there are karaoke producers overseas, they are no longer legally available to the US market as a result of the power of the music labels' contractual conditions which restrict the use of the copyrights they control.
This is but one example, drawn from a field I happen to follow with a personal interest. My readings on the 'net lead me to observe that similar limitations are found in the domestic US popular music distribution, movie distribution, television distribution, and news sources.
This consolidation has a consequence of begetting a linkage with the polarization of political discourse happening recently. With only a limited number of outlets, with a limited number of biased policies, non-aligned opinions and events that don't fit in with the approved agendas get lost in the outer darkness.
The World Wide Internet provides a less controlled market, and it gives us the means to see the diversity of opinions that exist outside of US control. So far, the worldwide reach of the internet based information providers gives the digitally-enabled information consumer a distinct advantage in the effort to have a broad-based picture of current events. Unfortunately, I fear that the US internet is moving toward a situation similar to that seen in China -- an state-run firewall that attempts to restrict what is available to a pre-approved set of information that meets the agendas of the controllers. The only difference is that here it will be a corporate oligarchy that controls it, preserving an appearance that it is not as oppressive as the state doing the censorship. (I know, this sounds like a conspiracy/crackpot theory, and I hope that the situation can be changed by asserting our individual powers and rights to self-determination. Examine the fallout of the "Citizens United" situation for the basis of this fear.)
Already, the FBI is complaining that they fear losing the ability to track the sources of internet traffic due to advancing technology. The major internet service providers in the US are fighting for the ability to control of the traffic they carry by favoring those sources that are willing to pay a premium for the use of their bandwidth (this is the "net neutrality" fight.) The United Nations International Telecommunications Union (UN/ITU) is seeking to gain control of the Internet names and numbers infrastructure, away from its US-centric, freedom favoring, pro net neutrality foundation (ICANN) to a group controlled by member states such as China, Russia, Saudi Arabia, and others who are opposed to net neutrality and unrestricted use (ITU).
As always, it is a question of those who have the gold making the rules. Be aware that these fights are shaping your future.
In the manner of the Military/Industrial Complex -- the small group of companies that provide the majority of the military infrastructure to the government -- there is an Entertainment/Industrial Complex that owns and controls the overwhelming majority of the services that provide entertainment to the American consumer.
This is practically all of the music, television, news, internet, newspapers, and magazines that are available. The connections between these media giants are concealed under a web of names, interlocking directorships and relationships to the corporate controllers of the American economy.
Historically, America enjoyed a diverse and independent, and competitive environment of information providers. Every community had its own competitive and independent group of newspapers, radio and TV stations, movie theatres, and music companies. There was a real choice and variety in sources. As recently as the 1960's the major markets had lots of independent providers, and a healthy diversity of opinions and policies. Now, however, we are faced with a limited set of choices and a severely limited set of policies and points of view.
This consolidation becomes obvious when one looks at the limited points of view provided for our perusal. Unpopular opinions, especially diverse political or social viewpoints, have a hard time getting attention. Independent music, movies and television programming are forced to conform and join one conglomerate or the other in order to have a chance to appear in the market.
As an example let me demonstrate with some history of the markets for karaoke song tracks: Prior to 1995, I knew of about 20 domestic licensees of English language karaoke CDs. There were multiple choices available since the original songs were provided on a non-exclusive basis from a relatively large number of music companies or from the artists themselves. Since 2003, however, the number of domestic US producers of karaoke tracks can be counted on one's fingers. (Off the top of my head I can think of only 5. There are probably a few more, but many of the older companies are no longer around.) Additionally, while there are karaoke producers overseas, they are no longer legally available to the US market as a result of the power of the music labels' contractual conditions which restrict the use of the copyrights they control.
This is but one example, drawn from a field I happen to follow with a personal interest. My readings on the 'net lead me to observe that similar limitations are found in the domestic US popular music distribution, movie distribution, television distribution, and news sources.
This consolidation has a consequence of begetting a linkage with the polarization of political discourse happening recently. With only a limited number of outlets, with a limited number of biased policies, non-aligned opinions and events that don't fit in with the approved agendas get lost in the outer darkness.
The World Wide Internet provides a less controlled market, and it gives us the means to see the diversity of opinions that exist outside of US control. So far, the worldwide reach of the internet based information providers gives the digitally-enabled information consumer a distinct advantage in the effort to have a broad-based picture of current events. Unfortunately, I fear that the US internet is moving toward a situation similar to that seen in China -- an state-run firewall that attempts to restrict what is available to a pre-approved set of information that meets the agendas of the controllers. The only difference is that here it will be a corporate oligarchy that controls it, preserving an appearance that it is not as oppressive as the state doing the censorship. (I know, this sounds like a conspiracy/crackpot theory, and I hope that the situation can be changed by asserting our individual powers and rights to self-determination. Examine the fallout of the "Citizens United" situation for the basis of this fear.)
Already, the FBI is complaining that they fear losing the ability to track the sources of internet traffic due to advancing technology. The major internet service providers in the US are fighting for the ability to control of the traffic they carry by favoring those sources that are willing to pay a premium for the use of their bandwidth (this is the "net neutrality" fight.) The United Nations International Telecommunications Union (UN/ITU) is seeking to gain control of the Internet names and numbers infrastructure, away from its US-centric, freedom favoring, pro net neutrality foundation (ICANN) to a group controlled by member states such as China, Russia, Saudi Arabia, and others who are opposed to net neutrality and unrestricted use (ITU).
As always, it is a question of those who have the gold making the rules. Be aware that these fights are shaping your future.
Anonymity and the public internets
There is a pervasive myth that the public Internets provide anonymous access. This implication of an ability to say anything you want without being able to be identified causes some people to do and say things they wouldn't otherwise. The current situation is such that this isn't really true, but the future is upon us.
The Internet, that collection of autonomous networks using the IP protocols, is not, and never was, a place that one could just hook up a computer and go without having to ask permission. The requirement that each machine has to have a unique numerical ID number in order to communicate with any other machine means that there is a traceable means of finding the source of the traffic. There are some anonymous nets out there, via The Onion Router (TOR) and similar methods, but even there, there are certain vulnerabilities that can reveal the real IP address of the source in some cases. Additionally, somewhere on the other side of TOR, there is a real IP address that the machine has to use before it gets into the cloud.
A little history may be in order. The original ARPAnet, from whence sprang the Internet, was strictly regulated. Sites had to have a reason to get a connection, and the rules required some rather tight controls on the users who were to have the privilege to use the net. (I almost got to use ARPAnet, a site I was associated with was due to get an ARPAnet IMP just about the time it morphed into the Internet; subsequently that site was one of the early additions to the public internet and I was an early participant in that.) Even so, the machines and users were enumerable and recorded.
As the internets grew, each additional machine and its administrators signed contracts and authorizations that provided a traceable authority structure. Even today, one doesn't just get on the net without someone accepting a delegation of authority to ensure that the rules will be observed. That someone may take a great deal of risk -- such as in the case of "free Wi-fi" in a restaurant or bar -- but there is a delegation of authority on record for all the connections. For another example, I am sitting here at home connected to Google Blogger using an IP connection. I have a contract with the Internet Service Provider who gives me the IP address, and they keep track of the amount of traffic I use; they also have logs that show each time my modem connects and gets the IP address. They may not know exactly where I am physically, but they know how to get in touch if they need to do so.
If one were to egregiously break the law (for example post "child pornography") the state could exert its authority and catch up with the perps eventually. The perps could use an anonymizing service to hide in the "Dark Net" but they had better be damn careful to not let any clues leak that would let the authorities make a connection to their real IP. It is more a matter of there being too much information to sift through that keeps the authorities from spending the resources to find the perps.
The current version of IP addresses (IPV4) is limited to a single 32-bit number, providing over 4 trillion possible addresses. This seemed to be big enough back in the 1970s, but here we are in 2012 and the IPV4 address space is exhausted. There are stopgap methods in use that allow the continued growth of IPV4 addresses; right here at my place there are 10 devices sharing the one IP address given to me (and I could actually have several million addresses in my private space, but it would not be efficient or fast.) This gives some inkling of the vastness of the numbers.
The next generation of IP addresses (IPV6) expands the size of the number to 128-bits (about 3.4 x 10 to the 28) and the whole of the IPV4 address space is adsorbed into it. This amplifies the problem the authorities face in having too much information -- the FBI and the UN/ITU are whining already. They are, however, insisting that method have to be developed to assist them in their attempts to keep up with the technology. In many places the state will seek to control the deployment in such a manner so that they can preserve (an illusion of) control.
I wish them the best of luck in their efforts, they need all the help they can get.
The Internet, that collection of autonomous networks using the IP protocols, is not, and never was, a place that one could just hook up a computer and go without having to ask permission. The requirement that each machine has to have a unique numerical ID number in order to communicate with any other machine means that there is a traceable means of finding the source of the traffic. There are some anonymous nets out there, via The Onion Router (TOR) and similar methods, but even there, there are certain vulnerabilities that can reveal the real IP address of the source in some cases. Additionally, somewhere on the other side of TOR, there is a real IP address that the machine has to use before it gets into the cloud.
A little history may be in order. The original ARPAnet, from whence sprang the Internet, was strictly regulated. Sites had to have a reason to get a connection, and the rules required some rather tight controls on the users who were to have the privilege to use the net. (I almost got to use ARPAnet, a site I was associated with was due to get an ARPAnet IMP just about the time it morphed into the Internet; subsequently that site was one of the early additions to the public internet and I was an early participant in that.) Even so, the machines and users were enumerable and recorded.
As the internets grew, each additional machine and its administrators signed contracts and authorizations that provided a traceable authority structure. Even today, one doesn't just get on the net without someone accepting a delegation of authority to ensure that the rules will be observed. That someone may take a great deal of risk -- such as in the case of "free Wi-fi" in a restaurant or bar -- but there is a delegation of authority on record for all the connections. For another example, I am sitting here at home connected to Google Blogger using an IP connection. I have a contract with the Internet Service Provider who gives me the IP address, and they keep track of the amount of traffic I use; they also have logs that show each time my modem connects and gets the IP address. They may not know exactly where I am physically, but they know how to get in touch if they need to do so.
If one were to egregiously break the law (for example post "child pornography") the state could exert its authority and catch up with the perps eventually. The perps could use an anonymizing service to hide in the "Dark Net" but they had better be damn careful to not let any clues leak that would let the authorities make a connection to their real IP. It is more a matter of there being too much information to sift through that keeps the authorities from spending the resources to find the perps.
The current version of IP addresses (IPV4) is limited to a single 32-bit number, providing over 4 trillion possible addresses. This seemed to be big enough back in the 1970s, but here we are in 2012 and the IPV4 address space is exhausted. There are stopgap methods in use that allow the continued growth of IPV4 addresses; right here at my place there are 10 devices sharing the one IP address given to me (and I could actually have several million addresses in my private space, but it would not be efficient or fast.) This gives some inkling of the vastness of the numbers.
The next generation of IP addresses (IPV6) expands the size of the number to 128-bits (about 3.4 x 10 to the 28) and the whole of the IPV4 address space is adsorbed into it. This amplifies the problem the authorities face in having too much information -- the FBI and the UN/ITU are whining already. They are, however, insisting that method have to be developed to assist them in their attempts to keep up with the technology. In many places the state will seek to control the deployment in such a manner so that they can preserve (an illusion of) control.
I wish them the best of luck in their efforts, they need all the help they can get.
Sunday, June 17, 2012
Is the USA becoming a "police state"?
In the follow-on to the Occupy movement, the draconian rules laid on by the Charlotte, NC City Council in advance of the Democratic National Convention, and a variety of other reports passing by on the various social media streams, some folks are claiming that the USA is becoming a "police state."
This claim, to me, is putting the cart before the horse. While there are disturbing trends toward excessive use of force by the state in response to low level disobedience, what is happening is not yet to the level of a real police state.
History reveals that there is a periodic pattern in USA history that moves from tolerance of dissent to intolerance and overreaction. Following the Civil War there was a period of intolerance, during World War II it got intolerant, in 1968 the reaction of the Chicago police was extreme, and the NYPD is, at the moment, overstepping its proper authority.
I submit, however, that these abuses do not rise to the level that would define a real police state. Look at Iran, China, Nazi-era Germany, any any other example that is held up as a police state. The statistics simply don't support a conclusion that the USA is approaching that level.
The "average" citizen is still allowed to exercise the right to speak out and carry on their activities and associations without a certainty of being punished for those activities. There may be paranoia that notes are being taken and lists are being made (with some justification!) but the vast numbers of Americans can carry on without the trepidation of certain retaliation.
I am encouraged, for example, by the reaction of the Ninth(?) Circuit Court in the suit challenging some of the provisions of last year's NDAA. (The NDAA is one of those annual traditions that Congress and the White House have developed in the 20th century.) Sure, the repressive possibility of detaining civilians by the military is there, but the courts are telling the government that they can't be quite so caviler about it. This is merely the latest posturing that the government has issued claiming such powers. I feel pretty sure, though, that if the government were to attempt to actually use these claimed powers on a widespread basis, the attempt would backfire and cause a second revolution that would reassert the rights reserved to the people.
This is (another) one of the situations in which the American experiment in government is required to maintain a careful balance between itself and the people that is laid out in the Constitution and subsequent laws and court decisions. (A notable other example is the tension between religion and the government.)
There are abuses, to be sure, but we need to take a longer term view and act to maintain those balances.
This claim, to me, is putting the cart before the horse. While there are disturbing trends toward excessive use of force by the state in response to low level disobedience, what is happening is not yet to the level of a real police state.
History reveals that there is a periodic pattern in USA history that moves from tolerance of dissent to intolerance and overreaction. Following the Civil War there was a period of intolerance, during World War II it got intolerant, in 1968 the reaction of the Chicago police was extreme, and the NYPD is, at the moment, overstepping its proper authority.
I submit, however, that these abuses do not rise to the level that would define a real police state. Look at Iran, China, Nazi-era Germany, any any other example that is held up as a police state. The statistics simply don't support a conclusion that the USA is approaching that level.
The "average" citizen is still allowed to exercise the right to speak out and carry on their activities and associations without a certainty of being punished for those activities. There may be paranoia that notes are being taken and lists are being made (with some justification!) but the vast numbers of Americans can carry on without the trepidation of certain retaliation.
I am encouraged, for example, by the reaction of the Ninth(?) Circuit Court in the suit challenging some of the provisions of last year's NDAA. (The NDAA is one of those annual traditions that Congress and the White House have developed in the 20th century.) Sure, the repressive possibility of detaining civilians by the military is there, but the courts are telling the government that they can't be quite so caviler about it. This is merely the latest posturing that the government has issued claiming such powers. I feel pretty sure, though, that if the government were to attempt to actually use these claimed powers on a widespread basis, the attempt would backfire and cause a second revolution that would reassert the rights reserved to the people.
This is (another) one of the situations in which the American experiment in government is required to maintain a careful balance between itself and the people that is laid out in the Constitution and subsequent laws and court decisions. (A notable other example is the tension between religion and the government.)
There are abuses, to be sure, but we need to take a longer term view and act to maintain those balances.
Religion, Science and the nature of faith
Don Lemon of CNN interviewed Jay Bakker on the proof of God. I don't like web videos, so I haven't seen the interview, but the usual Facebook mish-mosh of replies consists of the usual Christian parroting their religious teachings; the atheists condemning the fairy tales; and a smattering of liberal religious voices calling for respectful dialogue.
My take is that there is a fundamental misunderstanding of the nature of "proof" and the meaning of faith.
Science is a method of using rules of logic and deduction and induction, applied to observed facts, yielding testable hypotheses and theories. When these rules are properly applied and confirmed using a method of "proof" the results may be used to further construct theories and more science.
Religion, using philosophical methods of argument, deals with emotional feelings to construct a structure that seeks to explain the world in an emotionally comforting manner. Religion, particularly, seeks to deal with the philosophical questions of origins, moral rightness, and the question of death of self.
These two definitions should not be terribly strange to the intellectually curious. They are not exact, but outline the broad strokes of each realm of inquiry. Each realm claims to deal with self-evident truths based on the observations made by the human mind. Science, on one hand, self-limits its claims of application, while religion, on the other hand, claims authority of all of human experience. This, obviously, sets up a conflict between the two.
Step back a bit, though, and notice that they are both claiming to be based in observations made by the human mind.
I'm not going to get involved in the philosophical history that makes the observations of our minds highly suspect. (See Philosophy, especially the deconstructionism of Hume and others, for more on that.)
I would prefer to concentrate on an observation that both realms of endeavor depend on that article known as "faith."
Religion revels in its dependence on the concept. One doesn't need to seek further for explanations because the premises of their authority are "givens" and should be accepted on faith. Most religions reward their followers who accept this faith uncritically with promises of ultimate rewards at the end. There are some religions, however, that encourage followers to examine their faith in the light of reason, all the while encouraging them that to correct conclusions will be rewarded in the end. In this situation, "atheism" becomes a religion, in that it encourages the practitioners to see that there is an "end" that is illusory and this belief -- that there is nothing, rather than something good -- has become and article of "faith"
Science disclaims the authority which the radical atheists thrust upon it, and self-limits itself to explaining the observed phenomena in a consistent manner. But is should be noted carefully that a lot of the basic observational data, the postulates, that science relies on are still accepted as true without further evidence, as a matter of definition.
I contend that this is no less "faith" than religion's basic postulates.
Both sides are aghast as such a characterization, yet both appeal to "self-evident truths" as their foundations. To me it has become a matter of quibbling, in much the same manner that major Christian schisms are the result of quibbling about the translation of particular words in ancient discussions.
A rapprochement between religion and science can come, without "accommodationism" by recognizing that the realms of endeavor are deliberately non-overlapping, but ultimately based on "faith" in their foundations.
My take is that there is a fundamental misunderstanding of the nature of "proof" and the meaning of faith.
Science is a method of using rules of logic and deduction and induction, applied to observed facts, yielding testable hypotheses and theories. When these rules are properly applied and confirmed using a method of "proof" the results may be used to further construct theories and more science.
Religion, using philosophical methods of argument, deals with emotional feelings to construct a structure that seeks to explain the world in an emotionally comforting manner. Religion, particularly, seeks to deal with the philosophical questions of origins, moral rightness, and the question of death of self.
These two definitions should not be terribly strange to the intellectually curious. They are not exact, but outline the broad strokes of each realm of inquiry. Each realm claims to deal with self-evident truths based on the observations made by the human mind. Science, on one hand, self-limits its claims of application, while religion, on the other hand, claims authority of all of human experience. This, obviously, sets up a conflict between the two.
Step back a bit, though, and notice that they are both claiming to be based in observations made by the human mind.
I'm not going to get involved in the philosophical history that makes the observations of our minds highly suspect. (See Philosophy, especially the deconstructionism of Hume and others, for more on that.)
I would prefer to concentrate on an observation that both realms of endeavor depend on that article known as "faith."
Religion revels in its dependence on the concept. One doesn't need to seek further for explanations because the premises of their authority are "givens" and should be accepted on faith. Most religions reward their followers who accept this faith uncritically with promises of ultimate rewards at the end. There are some religions, however, that encourage followers to examine their faith in the light of reason, all the while encouraging them that to correct conclusions will be rewarded in the end. In this situation, "atheism" becomes a religion, in that it encourages the practitioners to see that there is an "end" that is illusory and this belief -- that there is nothing, rather than something good -- has become and article of "faith"
Science disclaims the authority which the radical atheists thrust upon it, and self-limits itself to explaining the observed phenomena in a consistent manner. But is should be noted carefully that a lot of the basic observational data, the postulates, that science relies on are still accepted as true without further evidence, as a matter of definition.
I contend that this is no less "faith" than religion's basic postulates.
Both sides are aghast as such a characterization, yet both appeal to "self-evident truths" as their foundations. To me it has become a matter of quibbling, in much the same manner that major Christian schisms are the result of quibbling about the translation of particular words in ancient discussions.
A rapprochement between religion and science can come, without "accommodationism" by recognizing that the realms of endeavor are deliberately non-overlapping, but ultimately based on "faith" in their foundations.
Saturday, June 16, 2012
The US First Amendment and Religious Sensibilities
I'm going to open with some observations on the First Amendment to the US Constitution with regards to some folks religious sensibilities.
Recently, the Franklin County, North Carolina Commissioners, in a rare show of legal sensibility, decided to remove any formal prayer from the high school graduation ceremony. (see NBC 17 coverage) In the ensuing discussions, I found myself face to face with a real NC Tea Party supporter. I will admit I got fed up too easily and let my frustration show, but it did impel me to start this blog.
The First Amendment states. among other things: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;..."
It seems simple enough, no particular religion can be preferred by the government as a policy. Not Christianity (in any of its multitude forms), nor Jewishness, nor Islam, nor Hindu, nor paganism, nor atheism, nor any other religion may be preferred. Furthermore, Article VI requires: "but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States." Clearly, the Founders had concerns about the topic.
The history of the state religions of Europe and the rest of the world, as available to the Founders, showed that such entanglements caused discrimination and tyrannical suppression of the out groups and minorities. They did not want the new nation to fall into a similar trap, nor did they wish to have religions impose or influence the new nation. (Start reading at Wikipedia for a good overview.)
It seems, however, that the intellectually lazy American Christians I was dealing with, think that they deserve a privileged position and that their religion is somehow an exception to the notion. This brought me up against (once again) the claims of "historian" David Barton (see at Wikipedia for a beginning). The clueless devotees of Barton's distorted claims of America's Founders' Christianity are falling into the whole religious trap of thoughtlessly accepting the doctrines of their religious leaders.
At this juncture, I must point out that I am not an atheist. What I am will show up elsewhere, but I carefully accept the label of being a religious person. My personal religion is informed by reason and a requirement that I be able to defend my positions in a reasoned discussion. (Unfortunately, I don't suffer fools gladly. If I lead them to the facts and they can't think for themselves, I'm too likely to make a cutting remark and sign off from the debate.) I also strive to speak carefully and avoid in initial encounters the trap of stereotyping people by any of the usual categories.
I am actually somewhat sympathetic to the Christian's claims of being suppressed, but in order to not suppress others, one has to accept some constraints on personal behaviour in order to participate in the benefits of society. One may not slander, incite violence, nor may one shout "fire" in a crowded, non-burning theatre. One may also not suppress other's religious or non-religious preferment. The precious American freedoms are not a license to anarchy, and these limits are applied to the government itself as well. One consequence is that the state, in any of its compelling roles, is not allowed to promote religious practices.
It would be expected, by a reasonable understanding of this principle, that religious institutions are also required to limit their speech accordingly. The rules that the government applies to the tax-exemptions granted to organized religious institutions carefully follow this principle. They may speak freely about the issues and doctrines they feel compelled to follow, but to preserve their exemptions, they are not allowed to advocate or direct their adherents to act in a religiously dictated manner. The state is not allowed to direct that religious practices include required acknowledgements of its power. (Of course, religious organizations may voluntarily pray for or acknowledge the state or its officers.)
There is a fine balance involved here, and it has lasted fairly intact for 230 years or so. There are some lapses that have and continue to occur, but so far we are persisting in our experiment.
Recently, the Franklin County, North Carolina Commissioners, in a rare show of legal sensibility, decided to remove any formal prayer from the high school graduation ceremony. (see NBC 17 coverage) In the ensuing discussions, I found myself face to face with a real NC Tea Party supporter. I will admit I got fed up too easily and let my frustration show, but it did impel me to start this blog.
The First Amendment states. among other things: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;..."
It seems simple enough, no particular religion can be preferred by the government as a policy. Not Christianity (in any of its multitude forms), nor Jewishness, nor Islam, nor Hindu, nor paganism, nor atheism, nor any other religion may be preferred. Furthermore, Article VI requires: "but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States." Clearly, the Founders had concerns about the topic.
The history of the state religions of Europe and the rest of the world, as available to the Founders, showed that such entanglements caused discrimination and tyrannical suppression of the out groups and minorities. They did not want the new nation to fall into a similar trap, nor did they wish to have religions impose or influence the new nation. (Start reading at Wikipedia for a good overview.)
It seems, however, that the intellectually lazy American Christians I was dealing with, think that they deserve a privileged position and that their religion is somehow an exception to the notion. This brought me up against (once again) the claims of "historian" David Barton (see at Wikipedia for a beginning). The clueless devotees of Barton's distorted claims of America's Founders' Christianity are falling into the whole religious trap of thoughtlessly accepting the doctrines of their religious leaders.
At this juncture, I must point out that I am not an atheist. What I am will show up elsewhere, but I carefully accept the label of being a religious person. My personal religion is informed by reason and a requirement that I be able to defend my positions in a reasoned discussion. (Unfortunately, I don't suffer fools gladly. If I lead them to the facts and they can't think for themselves, I'm too likely to make a cutting remark and sign off from the debate.) I also strive to speak carefully and avoid in initial encounters the trap of stereotyping people by any of the usual categories.
I am actually somewhat sympathetic to the Christian's claims of being suppressed, but in order to not suppress others, one has to accept some constraints on personal behaviour in order to participate in the benefits of society. One may not slander, incite violence, nor may one shout "fire" in a crowded, non-burning theatre. One may also not suppress other's religious or non-religious preferment. The precious American freedoms are not a license to anarchy, and these limits are applied to the government itself as well. One consequence is that the state, in any of its compelling roles, is not allowed to promote religious practices.
It would be expected, by a reasonable understanding of this principle, that religious institutions are also required to limit their speech accordingly. The rules that the government applies to the tax-exemptions granted to organized religious institutions carefully follow this principle. They may speak freely about the issues and doctrines they feel compelled to follow, but to preserve their exemptions, they are not allowed to advocate or direct their adherents to act in a religiously dictated manner. The state is not allowed to direct that religious practices include required acknowledgements of its power. (Of course, religious organizations may voluntarily pray for or acknowledge the state or its officers.)
There is a fine balance involved here, and it has lasted fairly intact for 230 years or so. There are some lapses that have and continue to occur, but so far we are persisting in our experiment.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)