On proof, models, theories, math and morons

As pointed out in 'The Atheist Dilemma' (Part 1, 2) the atheist must wage an incessant rearguard action against the armies of ignorance which now appear to outnumber the cognoscenti by 10 to one or more. As much as we try to impart critical knowledge about basic facts to do with the scientific or empirical process, there are dozens who actively seek to obscure it. Part of this ability to obscure is not due to any inherent substance they bring to the issue, but because computer and the internet now permit even the ignorant to search at will by googling and make it appear as if they know something - when they don't know squat.

Some of these deliberately confuse proof with evidence (just as I noted in my earlier blog piece how opinion is taken for evidence) and also models with theories, and mathematical techniques with empirical methods. All of this is done to browbeat even more ignorant followers into thinking their "guru" knows what he's talking about.

But let's look deeper, beginning with what we mean by "proof".

First, in the strict scientific sense, we don't mean using the same methods as mathematicians- say to prove the Pythagorean theorem! As anyone who does scientific research knows, it is quite impossible to "prove" a particular solution to a scientific problem to be "true" (that is, true for all times and conditions). Solutions of scientific problems are instead assessed for adequacy, that is, in respect to the extent to which the researcher's stated aims have been carried out.

Two categories of criteria are those related to argument and to the evidence presented. To judge adequacy then, we look for the strength and consistency of logical/mathematical arguments, and the goodness of fit of the data in a given context. By "goodness of fit" I mean that two different datasets on comparison are either strongly correlated or anti-correlated. As an example, the rate of growth of tree rings is strongly correlated to the level of activity of a particular sunspot cycle. There is agreement and an excellent "goodness of fit".

All such determinations of adequacy perform the same function for scientific research that quality control does for industry. Most importantly, no determination of adequacy can be rendered until and unless the research is published in a refereed journal. If I am asked to invest mental and emotional energy in some extraordinary (e.g. “supernatural”) claim or other, then what exactly are the rational criteria of adequacy by which I can judge that claim?

Can it be set against original and actual scientific hypotheses? Can it admit the basis of numerous empirical tests- and moreover- can it be susceptible to any form of prediction?

If the answer is ‘No’, then we cannot place it into any scientific context. It will then have to be admitted that “faith” be enjoined to embrace or accept it, since no scientific rationale will permit true scientific inquiry. Since there are no genuine objects of scientific inquiry.

Of course, different theories of science represent different levels of abstraction: quantum theory is at a higher level than general relativity, and general relativity is at a higher level than Newton's theory of gravitation. But-- and here is the key point-- the limits of validity for each theory are ultimately founded in measurements, specifically through careful experiments carried out to test predictions.

It is this testing of reality which provides a coherent basis for scientific claims, and which bestows on science a legitimacy founded in reality rather than wish fulfillment fantasies. This is a basis, moreover, for which theological claims have no counterpart, despite that fact that theologians have often tried to make their claims sound like proven theories.

Let's use an example to illustrate: Which theory, Brans-Dicke or Einstein's General theory - predicts the solar oblation better in order to decide the superior theory of gravity?

Each begins with a hypothesis (call it 'X'), that: "If the solar oblation is less than +/- (x) then Einstein's theory is the default." (Note the oblation is the ratio of the solar polar to equatorial diameter)

As I noted the process earlier:

You have preliminary information (say from earlier research efforts) that leads to some hypothesis 'X'. You then continue the process, gathering more data, and accessory information which leads to some predictive result which tests a particular hypothesis- call it:

X' = x (n+1) = x + P(x)

where x(n +1) denotes an improvement via iteration, with P(x) the predictive confirmation (of x(n +1) from x) that allows it. Later, more refined data become available, such that:

x(n + 2) = x(n + 1) + P'(x + 1)

and so on, and so on and so forth.

Here, P'(x + 1) denotes the most recent and enhanced measurement of the oblateness.

Now, what if at these stage of testing we have:

x(n + 2) = x(n + 1) + P'(x + 1) + E(x + 1)

where E(x + 1) is an ERROR term.

In this process of falsification either one of two things will be true:

E(x+ 1) > > P'(x + 1) (call this E(e'))

I.e. the magnitude of the error term is drastically larger than the prediction value.

Or:

E(x+ 1) < < P'(x + 1) (call this E(e"))

I.e. the magnitude of the error term is drastically smaller than the predicted value.

Brans-Dicke theory then only trumps Einstein's if the relative error magnitudes are such that:

[E(e') + E{e")]/2 < e[P' (x + 1)]

where e[P' (x + 1)] is the error associated with Einstein's prediction.

It is for reasons like this that we need mathematics to show what is going on. We do not require mathematics to "baffle" anyone or to "win arguments" since"all logical efforts etc. have failed" etc.. Hardly! All that's happened is that sundry people, pastors, fundies are too stupid to process them - when the arguments clearly follow a logical trajectory. These morons wouldn't get the arguments if they were signed, sealed and uniformly delivered in single syllables - never mind the math (which they are clearly too innumerate to grasp).

The other role of mathematics is to describe the theory or hypothesis behind a model so it can be quantified in ways that enable measurements. Words alone are inadequate to the task. For example, the hypothesis that certain solar flares are triggered by "double layers" opens itself to test (or falsification) if one realizes that a loss cone is typically associated with a double layer. We define what's called the “loss cone angle”:

sin (THETA)_L = ± [B_min/ B_max]^1/2

where B_min is the minimum magnetic field strength or induction at the apex, say, of a loop magnetic mirror system. Then B_max represents the maximum value, usually at the loop ends or "foot points" as they are called. A special condition obtains which applies to the angle - for which the electrons will be TRAPPED, provided:

THETA (min) > (THETA)_L

Thus, THETA (min) = (THETA)_L

is said to be the "loss cone" of the system or machine.Now, the criterion for the hydrodynamic loss cone instability requires that the particular condition for the ratio of untrapped to trapped particles:

n/ n_o > 2 OMEGA e / (pi) w_p = 0.1

where OMEGA_e is the electron cyclotron frequency, and w_p is the electron plasma frequency.If such a condition were to apply, say to a solar coronal loop, it could elicit an "inverse population" in the transverse velocities (e.g. v_perp) for electrons in the loop. If the loss cone instability specified by the preceding condition then occurs in electrostatic waves near the upper hybrid frequency, we can get an anisotropic distribution of the electrons in velocity space. This can give rise to an electron particle beam.More importantly, energy to support the beam - and perhaps trigger a flare.

Now, it is important to note that neither Einstein's general theory or Brans-Dicke's are MODELS. A model is not a theory, but (generally) a mathematically described translation of what a hypothesis ought to look like in the real world. For example, Figure 1 depicts the model for a sunspot in which dynamo action by a Hall electric field generated the rotary motion and outward current density.

At this stage NO predictions have been made based on the model! It is up to the model proposer to put it in a form which can allow test, say maybe by showing how the rotary velocity (around the periphery) can be measured and how large it must be to attain the objective, e.g. of a large current density (J) directed outwards.

Now, in terms of evolution, it is not a "model" but a full theory since it has already met a number of its predictions and passed them, as well as other tests for falsification. For example, the theory of evolution as it applies to the elements of common descent, predicts humans and chimpanzees ought to have very nearly the same cytochrome-c protein sequence. This has been found to be the case. It also predicts that the two ape chromosomes designated 2p and 2q ought to be fused in the human to be one: designated '2'.

The theory of evolution has also predicted the full evolutionary development of foraminfera and this is validated. Finally, it predicts that a species - say the German cockroach - subjected to a mutagen like deildrin, will acquire resistance and thereby increase its fitness to the level that it effectively becomes a new, resistant species. (See chart in Fig. 2 showing how the successive generations of fitness are tabulated)

We note here that two quantitative measures for success of natural selection are the fitness (w) and the selective value (s): These can be measured on either absolute or relative scales, but are related algebraically on the latter by:

w = 1 – s, or

s = 1 – w

In natural selection there is a genetic "favoritism", as it were, for certain species' traits or characteristics to be passed on or selected out of a group of competing traits in the gene pool. In more technical terms, preferential alleles[1] appear by virtue of their relative increase in gene frequency. In the case of this cockroach, the favored genotype is DD, the less favored are Dd, and dd. The table shows how DD outpaces dd and Dd in fitness and hence how natural selection works.

What natural selection does is to consolidate and direct particular random mutations into a more stable, adaptative adjustment. This is exactly what was illustrated above in the case of the hypothetical cockroach resistance to dieldrin. Without natural selection, very few living organisms could persist over time as recognizable species.

The exceptionally rapid development of the neocortex in Man is also an example of natural selection. By implication, human survival, in competition with large carnivores, was favored by the preferential development of the neocortex. This development permitted abstract conceptualization, enabling weapons to be fashioned as well as sophisticated language for communication and communal organization against larger predators.

As for "proving" or "disproving" God - no scientists in his right mind claims any such thing. The point eluding ardent fundies given to confusing their followers (more than enlightening them) is that science cannot possibly refute “divine existence” because it cannot hold it as a legitimate hypothesis in the first place.

Unless one can forge or articulate a working hypothesis, one can’t have “refutation”, now or ever. “Divine creation” can’t be a valid hypothesis since it is contingent on a putative non-physical agent - undetectable by any scientific means. Even the Big Bang’s relic radiation can be detected as the isotropic cosmic microwave background – but the same can’t be said for the “divine”.

So it's like trying to prove the existence of "XCMNMYTET".

This means that the Jewish concept of Yahweh (‘YHWH’) , the Muslim concept of Allah, the Hindu concept of Brahmin and the Christian concept of the Trinity all stand in the same conceptual relation. From an informational point of view, none can be selected as "true" to the exclusion of the others.

To put it another way, all god-concepts are ultimately relative *– depending entirely on which subjective tract or “sacred book” its adherents embrace.Is "God" based on the deist (“create it and leave it be”) model? The pantheist (“all is God”) model? The personal but "infinite" Christian model? The Christian Trinity? The Hindu impersonal model? Until this is resolved in a uniform, operational sense – skeptics and scientists are justified in taking any uses of the G-word with the proverbial grain of salt. Just like the subjective works of “revelation” (often re-translated, mistranslated and bowdlerized) that gave birth to them.

If religionists are going to spout on their blogs about science, and write about "models", "theories", proof, and mathematics - they at least owe it to their followers to get basic definitions correct. If they refuse to do that they only reveal themselves as non-serious clowns and morons. More invested in entertaining their minions than informing and educating them (never mind how well they copy and paste from Google!)



[1] By which I mean one of the more adaptive forms of a single gene, hence favored to multiply at greater rates in the gene pool.

* I do not include the Old Testament "creator" god (demiurgos) as a proper god-concept for reasons given in my comment following the blog 'Beyond Absolutism and Relativism'

Atheists and Death: Not what you assume!

It is an unfortunate fact that many Christians perceive atheists through myopic lenses which depict something more in line with a caricature in their own mind, than reality. Such is the case with how atheists view death. The standard spiel here, mainly from fundy Christians, is that the atheist sees it wholly as the end of the line, physical body dies...and finito! Not so fast!

In an event not widely circulated, one of England's most outspoken atheists, Sir A. J. Ayer wrote of his own "near death" experience in The London Sunday Times in December, 1988. Ayer admitted to some "mystification" about his experience, and wasn't prepared to say either:i) it proved a bona fide religious sort of afterlife exists OR ii) It proved a deity existed. But then Ayer was always a cautious fellow as he consistently emphasized the verification principle for claims in his books, articles.


As Ayer related in his Sunday Times account:

"The experience weakened my conviction that death would be the end of me, though I continue to hope it will be.. However, one should note that just as there can be godless life, so also can there be a godless afterlife."


He later described beholding a "red light" which he subjectively construed to be the "supreme law of the universe", though he insisted this was only his "feeling". No where at no point in the Sunday Times account did he mention "God" or a literal "supreme Being", and certainly NO personal entity of the Christian mold. Nor did he bestow any firm conviction on ANYTHING he experienced. Nor did he tie his "supreme law" to a deity.

What exactly was Ayer asserting?

Based on his other writings I am convinced Ayer offered one possible hypothesis for his NDE as there actually being life after death. But note his key words:

"just as there can be godless life, so also can there be a godless afterlife."


In other words, he possibly accepted life could continue, but again -godless as life before death is godless. How can life exist after death if there is no God?

As I made clear in earlier blogs, the error of many religious critics of atheism is they read it only one way. Their brains are too uninformed to process nuance or differences. For example, they insist atheism is based on one hardcore form of Materialism, which grants nothing real other than the hard physical. However, there are actually a number of different forms of Materialism including:

- Physicalist Materialism (everything in the cosmos has a physical nature)

- Epiphenomenalist Materialism (non-physical processes occur contingent on physical origins, organs, etc.)

- Panpsychic Materialism (attributes a mental character to physical entities)

- Emergent Materialism (can attribute vitalist forces to physical nature)

- Dialectical Materialism (mental processes evolve from physical ones)

If Ayer was a Panpsychic Materialist (after his experience) then it is perfectly logical and consistent he'd allow for a "life after death" but with reservations. What are they?

First, as he indicated, no "God" exists. Godless afterlife just like Godless life.

Second, no "soul" exists. What we are talking about is the conscious essence of a human, which is associated with what we call "B-waves". These are a form of quantum-scale wave but with conscious properties. (Discussed at length in the last chapter of physicist David Bohm's book: Wholeness and the Implicate Order). Bohm's essential point is that these elusive B-waves are associated with human consciousness, and because these B-waves can survive death (they are immaterial waves, after all) so can consciousness.

Take neuronal assemblies (which make up discrete regions in the brain) and note that uncertainty principle limitations applied to calcium ion capture near synapses shows they (calcium ions) must be represented by a probability function. (This function may be described from quantum mechanics). E.g. PSI(X,Y,Z, t) in conventional space-time form.

Thus brain dynamics and function is contingent upon the neuron and its connections to synapses. Thus we want networks that invoke the above PSI function and Pauli spin operators as effective gates. (For the Pauli spin operators as matrices, see Fig. 1)

Consider a sub-complex of 1,000 neurons. Labeled A1, A2..........A_n.

Application of the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle to Ca+2 ions (at body temperature) discloses the associated wave packet dimension increases to many times the size of the ion itself. Any classical Newtonian trajectory is therefore inapplicable and irrelevant. (See also, 'Mind, Matter and Quantum Mechanics', by Henry Stapp).

Thus we can represent the ion uptake superposition as a separate contributor to the aggregate (sub-complex) or neuronal assembly: PSI (A1....A_n) + PSI(Ca+2) in other words, a superposition of wave functions, with each wave function consisting of a wave packet and each wave packet consisting of DE BROGLIE WAVES. The preceding formulation, based on standard interpretation of quantum mechanics, discloses that a non-local aspect of brain function is possible.

Since quantum superpositions can also link fields, e.g. electrical in the brain, then it is possible for these fields to also exist outside the brain's immediate physical dominion. Now, as a field basis for brain phenomena we can refer to the paper, 'Soliton Model Of Einstein’s Nadelstrahlung in Real Physical Maxwell Waves', Nuovo Cimento, Vol. 35, No. 8, 1982.

Let an assembly of neurons (A_n) then be described by a P-wave packet (pilot wave packet comprised of an ensemble of de Broglie waves or B-waves)

A_n = @exp [iS/ h-bar]

where @ is the vector density and S a common phase for the P-waves. Then the assembly A_n moves with a group velocity v = df/(d(1/L) where f is the group frequency and L the wavelength. A_n must also satisfy:

[A_n - (m^2 c^2/ h-bar^2) A_n = 0

(REM: h-bar = h/ 2 pi, where h is Planck’s constant or ~ 6.62 x 10^-34 J-s)

One solution of the preceding can be shown to be:

A_n (b) = @ exp[2 pi (1i) [ft – (x/L) + theta]]

where f is frequency, t is time, L is wavelength and x is position in direction of wave propagation. Theta is the phase angle. (For generality, one can assume theta = 2 pi) These vector waves would have a superluminal velocity. But to put it in terms more apropos of David Bohm's Stochastic QM concept - we instead say that the waves interconnect with particles at a higher dimensional level.

The point? At death, these p-wave packets can escape their associated particles, and act like very finely scaled EM waves. The waves also exhibit a similar form to propagating electro-magnetic waves, e.g.

E(x, t) = E_o exp [i(kx – wt]) (j)

B(x,t) = B_o exp [i(kx – wt]) (k)

j, k directional unit vectors. or, re-writing the factor of the electric, magnetic amplitudes, E_o, B_o (since: exp (ix) = cos (x)- i sin(x)):

E (x,t) = E_o cos (kx – wt) – i[sin (kx – wt)] (j)

B(x,t) = B_o cos (kx – wt) – i[sin (kx – wt)] (k)

where k = 2 pi/ L is wave number vector, x is displacement in wave propagation, w is angular frequency (w = 2 pi f), t is time. This shows that consciousness can feasibly be embodied in B-, P-wave packets and act like a transmitted electro-magnetic wave. (For details on how the field equations of electro-magnetic theory can be directly linked to QM and possible residual consciousness, see: Stochastic Interpretations of Nonrelativistic Quantum Theory, by B.H. Lavenda and E. Santamato, in International Journal of Theoretical Physics, Vol. 23, No. 7, 1984, pp. 601-60)

What would such consciousness be like? Well, it would be absent of any ego, personality or individuality. Indeed, some would perhaps not even regard it as consciousness because of the nonlocal aspect. Perhaps the only thing one would be aware of is that one "is". One could perhaps say, "I am" but in a most diffuse, and amorphous sense. Make no mistake here that none of this is to be confused with any Christian form or account of an afterlife, since there'd be no personality!

Thus, the impersonal quantum post-life consciousness is predicated entirely on physical assumptions, so there is no "supernatural" component.Finally, let me again emphasize the highly speculative nature of all this. Also, to add that my own (current) conviction - in the absence of the evidence or proof for the physical reality of de Broglie waves- is that we simply cease to exist at all at death.

But this is based on my being a hardcore physicalist-Materialist, and only about one in three atheists are. It would be a grievous error to generalize my particular point of view as applying to all atheists. And Sir Ayer is an excellent case in point.

Beyond Absolutism and Relativism

The tragedy of the human brain inheres in its pretensions to a level of discerning knowledge and insight simply not available, given its inherent defects and limitations. Chief among these is the brain's tri-partite architecture. Specifically, the (most ancient) paleocortex sits evolutionarily beneath the more evolved mesocortex and neocortex, the latter of which crafts concepts and language. One clever person has compared this brain structure to a car design welding a Lamborghini to a Model T Ford chassis, with a 1957 Chevy engine to power the Lamborghini. If an automotive engineer can conceive of such a hybrid beast, I'd be interested to know exactly how he thinks it would run.

Given the preceding brain structural defect, there is much evidence that the aggregate of human behavior will get progressively worse as the complexity inherent in technological and globalized societies increases, but brain evolution is unable to keep pace with it. Basically, we are a species with the capability of making nuclear weapons and intercontinental missiles – but with Cro-Magnon brains – and a swatch of reptilian tendencies.

An additional problem, which as been pointed out by philosophers like Jacob Needleman (Why Can't We Be Good?) as well as neuro-scientists like Robert Ornstein (The Evolution of Consciousness) is that the emotional circuits are largely isolate from key brain regions, including in the neocortex. This leads to immense disconnects - say between moral-ethical behavior and intelligence. For example, author Michael Shermer ((The Science of Good and Evil, p. 74) has noted that most of the high ranking Nazis had IQs over 128.

The dearth of Nazi emotions (to promote empathy) was probably a partial contributor to their "final solution" and implementing the Jewish Holocaust that killed 6 million. Jews became merely like lower rung animals to them, so slaughtering them like "rats" became no obstacle. (Indeed, in many of the early Nazi propaganda films, rats were shown in alternating scenes with Jews - to attempt to force subconsciously connections in viewers. Much like a notorious ad from Republicans - in the 2002 mid-terms- quickly flashed the word 'RATS' into the image of selected Democrats.).

However, this was only one part of the genocide equation. The other part was described by Jacob Bronowski when he visited Auschwitz and pointed to the gas chambers, in the BBC documentary The Ascent of Man and the book by the same name. As he put it (p.235):

"This was not done by gas. It was done by arrogance. It was done by dogma. It was done by ignorance. When people believe they have absolute knowledge with no test in reality, this is how they behave."

And of course, the Christian Inquisition as he notes, was no different. Heretics, atheists ...anyone not kowtowing to the then Church's dogmas could be burnt at the stake or tortured...because the Church held supreme absolute authority- and no one was permitted to question it.

Because of this, Bronowski is painfully aware of what he calls the "principle of tolerance" - which he ties to the principle of Uncertainty in physics. As he puts it (p. 232):

"The Principle of Uncertainty or, in my phrase the Principle of Tolerance, fixed once and for all the realization that all knowledge is limited."

Because knowledge is limited, and further - the human brain is limited in its processing of it, then no absolutist propositions to do with morality or ethics can be entertained.

To show that absolutism is a myth that can't work, one may begin by showing that truth statements cannot be inherently complete, non-contradictory or binding forever. I will not go over all this again, but point the interested reader to two of my previous blog essays:

'Truth, Existence Claims and God Talk'

Part I:

http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2010/01/truth-existence-claims-and-god-talk.html

Part II:

http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2010/01/truth-existence-claims-and-god-talk_18.html


This also means no complete or absolutist morality or absolutist ethics can be formulated precisely because the cognitive apparatus to validate such simply isn't there (go back to the tri-partite brain and its defects).

Let's take some examples to see:

For example, the biblical literalist may insist the 5th commandment is absolute: 'Thou shalt not kill" (N.B. many fundies refer to this as the 6th). But clearly in practice this is impossible.

Accepted violation (1): An intruder enters a home with a weapon and is about to threaten or kill one's wife and children. The home owner, however, has his .44 Magnum nearby the bedstand.

Now, under any absolutist dictum there is no way any killing can be permitted. The most the homeowner is allowed is maybe to shoot the intruder in the knee and phone the cops. But how many will actually do this? I warrant not one in a million. If they have a weapon they will shoot to kill.

Further, the LAW in most states allows lethal force in such circumstances (such as the 'make my day' law here in Colo.) and few religions would protest. Thus, the commandment cannot be absolute. ANY exception, no matter how finely drawn, eradicates the absolute nature of the ethic. You can't have an "absolute" morality and also exceptions to it, it's that simple.

Accepted violation (2): An invading country crosses its neighbor's border and begins raping, plundering and klling its citizens. The invaded nation has every right to fight back and kill in turn.

Or, as in the case of World War (II) - multiple nations in one alliance are entitled to stop the Hitlerian-Nazi threat of world domination- by invading and bombing (killing) in the German homeland.

NO Christians I know - even hardcore bible punchers- dispute this exception to the rule. BUT - if there is such exception, then there is no absolute moral prohibition.

Accepted violation (3): A serial killer, who has slaughtered over 100 women is finally electrocuted by "Old Sparky". In this case- Ted Bundy's end was decided by the state of Florida. Just before his end the fundamentalist Pastor James Dobson assisted him in "finding Jesus" - but at NO time did Dobson tell the state that there was an absolute moral prohibition against killing Bundy!

These three examples disclose that there can be NO absolutist proposition forbidding killing of other humans, since three exceptions are already allowed. Once there's ANY exception, the proscription ceases to be absolute, and there is no "absolute moral truth" underpinning it. There is rather an expedient moral truth used when convenient to do so!

Now, if such exceptions can occur in one moral realm (for one "commandment") they can occur for all the others.

Nor are biblical examples any use!

For instance, 2 Kings 2, 23:24 allows children to be slain by wild animals if they insult their elders (in this case a "prophet"). Well, good luck on that, elders! I daresay that if some young sprats were to taunt you with "Baldy!" and you set your three pitbulls loose on them - citing this Kings text, no cop or judge or jury in the world would accept it, and you'd likely do time.

Thus, the bible is not offering any kind of absolutist moral teaching here! It is regurgitating the bloodthirsty thoughts of the vengeful moron that wrote it - who is saddled with a deformed brain.

Again:

By Deut. 22:22 both John Edwards and his former girl (Riele Hunter)would have to be stoned to death. The bible fails here by flouting the absolutist code for 'No killing' (in the 10 commandments) and even worse, allowing it for adultery.

Again:

By Deut. 21: 18-21 any insolent son would have to be taken to the outskirts of a city by his parents who'd let the elders stone him to death.

This too is nuts, and no biblical literalist in his right mind would accept it. Hence, the bible cannot be an arbiter of moral authority, far less absolute authority.

Now, can relativism work instead? NO, it can't. If pure moral relativism were the law of the land one would have nearly as much chaos in ethics if absolutists were permitted to run hog wild and impose their beliefs willy nilly.

Much relativism today emerges from Derridian deconstruction, following the principles of Jacques Derrida.

My personal introduction to Derridian madness was incepted and initiated by having to argue with deconstructionists - on the AOL forums , ca. 1993- who claimed "No REAL Humans were killed at Hiroshima and Nagasaki" only "mental constructions of humans, since the A-bomb was a mental construction of a real bomb". Of course, if NO real humans were killed and they view even an A-bomb as an abstraction, they'd have no qualms about carrying out any kind of killing themselves! Indeed, they'd regard any bombs or other weapons they use as "mental constructions"!

This sort of (literally) insane moral "argument" paves the way to moral chaos and insanity since it seeks to conflate automatically what is in the (Derridian's) head with the outside world- thereby trivializing the latter as mere "epiphenomena". People then cease to be authentic beings and emerge more as virtual-digital avatars - to be wiped out as if from a mouse click. At least one serial killer, I believe the "Green River killer", actually invoked Derridianism as an excuse if memory serves.

Nor can we allow cultural moral relativists to have their way. Just because wives who stray are permitted to be severely beaten (and sometimes killed) in Brazil doesn't mean we allow it in the U.S. Merely because young girls are subjected to clitorodectomy in parts of sub-Sahara Africa doesn't mean we permit it here. And merely beause "common law" marriage is the norm or standard in much of the West Indies, doesn't mean it can become the moral norm in the U.S.

So, if neither absolutism or moral relativism is the answer, then what is? Author Michael Shermer (op. cit., p. 168) gives what is perhaps the best solution to the conundrum of ethics:

"moral provisionalism" or what I would call: "ethical incrementalism"

As Shermer notes (ibid.):

"Provisional ethics provides a reasonable middle ground between absolute and moral relative systems. Provisional moral principles are applicable to most people, for most circumstances, for most of the time - yet flexible enough to account for the wide diversity of human behavior"

Further, for my ethical incrementalism, I would allow increasing moral oversight when EVIDENCE warrants it.

Let's look at illustrations:

1) Abortion:

According to ethical incrementalism abortion cannot be ethical in ALL circumstances for all conditions. Thus, since Sagan and Druyan have noted that fetal brain waves appear past 6 months, NO abortions should normally be allowed in the third trimester. The only (provisional) exceptions would be: a) the health of the mother (e.g. if she were to have the child she'd die), or b) case of incest or rape - wherein having the child would create extreme mental trauma for the victim. (By that I mean possible psychosis or severe depression, including attempted suicide).

2) War:

In the judicious application of ethical incrementalism, NO war would be permitted in the U.S.A. unless an actual DECLARATION of WAR by congress is made. This would give congress the opportunity to exercise its constitutional rights, and impart moral and ethical authority in rendering a war truly just. In this light, we'd have no more Vietnams, Iraqs, Afghanistans or other adventures...finagled outside the parameters of congressional validation. For too long too many wars have been waged through the back door as it were, at great financial and moral cost to the U.S. The Iraq invasion, for example, never would have been allowed had an actual declaration of war been demanded by congress....as opposed to just meekly rolling over for Dubya.

3) Teen sexual behavior:

In the domain of ethical incrementalism, teens are warned that actual intercourse outside of a stable permanent relationship is ethically, morally toxic. As a midway position, however, teens are allowed - as former Surgeon General Jocelyn Elder suggested- to obtain sexual relief via self-stimulation. This balance would immediately stop the increasing rates of teen pregnancy, though likely not without the benefit of a good sex ed. course, which must also include removing the stigma attached (by teen culture) to masturbation.

These are just a few examples, and many more might be cited or found. The point is that there is a middle way, and ethically conscientious humans ought to seek to pursue it - as opposed to pretensions to either a facile absolutism or equally facile relativism.

OPINION & EVIDENCE: The ATHEIST DILEMMA (2)

Fig. 1: Schrodinger's cat in an insulated box with inlet pipe for cyanide gas IF a radioactive isotope triggers release of a cyanide pellet in a separate tank (not shown). According to quantm mechanics the cat can only be described as "50% live, 50% dead" until one actually observes inside the box.

Let's consider two hypotheses, and their relative merit: the hypothesis that the dinosaurs were wiped out (along with 75% of other species) 65 million years ago by the impact of a comet or asteroid, and the hypothesis of "cold fusion" (that nuclear fusion can occur in a test tube at room temperature).

In the case of the first hypothesis, one begins by noting that at the layer in question (of the fossil finds) one detects abnormally high readings of Iridium - consistent with extra-terrestrial objects (asteroids, meteoroids, comets) but not terrestrial. Indeed, it is impossible to put forth a natural, prosaic hypotheses (Earth-centered) to explain the high levels of Iridium detected at those layers. These facts, along with others (topography of the Gulf of Mexico as an impact crater, computer models showing effects of nuclear-winter type effects of vast dust blanket in atmosphere) lead to a very high degree of quality assurance for the hypothesis - say 8.5 out of a possible 10.

By contrast to the case of confirmed Iridium findings by different groups, the original cold fusion claims of Pons et al, suffered from being non-reproducible. In addition, results very similar to theirs were found - if the content of helium in the atmosphere was not taken into account in the error treatment. When it was, the heat quantity evolved from the "reaction" became significantly less than the heat energy (enthalpy) of the solution. Taken in concert, these indicate a much lower degree of "QA" and hence reliability than the dinosaur-comet hypothesis, say 1.2 out of 10.

3. What's an Atheist To Do?

So, what exactly can the scientifically literate Atheist do, beseiged as s/he is by a tidal wave of scientific ignorance in the larger society? The first and most obvious thing is to use education as much as possible - both to raise the level of scientific literacy of fellow atheists, and to raise that of people in the larger society. This means, of course, that one must first be prepared to read widely and discriminately. In as much as a great deal of debate focusses on the issue of origins, a good starting point is Evolution and Cosmology. (If I may, I can also heartily recommend my book: The Atheist's Handbook to Modern Materialism, which delves into the full spectrum of scientific concepts and issues - from stellar evolution and cosmology to natural selection, radio-isotope dating and chaos (non-linear dynamics))

Sources of information can be found easily: for example, on this blog - with its dozens of resident files - many of which include references in the above areas for further reading. Also, one can access vast sources of current information through the InterNet, specifically its newsgroups (sci.phys. research, astronomy).

My personal preference is for the many video courses now available from MIT, Yale University and the University of California- Berkeley.

For MIT video courses:

http://ocw.mit.edu/OcwWeb/web/courses/av/index.htm

And Biology and Physics are the two most rewarding courses here, in terms of the present context for discussion.

For Yale:

http://oyc.yale.edu/

(Note: courses in The Old and New Testament also available here, as well as Physics, Biology. Both OT and NT courses show how very wrong biblical inerrancy is and why it can lead so many to false conclusions about the bible)

For UC Berkeley:

http://webcast.berkeley.edu/courses.php

Again, the focus is on astronomy and biology.


The process of bringing educational resources to others is beneficial to all atheists, as well as lay people. That's one major reason why this blog contains not only a lot of articles on physics (especially areas not generally taught at universities at the undergrad levels) but also blogs to do with dialectic or argumentative encounters. (Including with religionists like my brother!)

Beyond the world of cyberspace, the active atheist should not ignore accessing the mainstream press whenever possible. Often, provided arguments are coherent and rationally framed, one's letter can be published in entirety. This was often the case when I lived in the Baltimore-DC area. Now, it is more convenient to write articles as part of the Freethinkers columns in the local Indy paper (though these are always limited to 550 words). But they serve as a useful means to whet an intellectual curiosity, then to learn more.

What about the twin specters of cultural prejudice and emotional reaction(to atheist articles - as in Edwin Chong's reply to my FT piece)? Unfortunately, it's often not possible to predict the venue wherein these will manifest. My own attitude has been to accept cultural prejudice as a "given", the price of being an atheist in a god-obsessed society. There is little probability this will change until more atheist memes (informational counterparts of genes) take hold in a hostile culture. Or, until the educational system changes enough to value critical thinking (now viewed as a subversive activity) over rote memorization.

Emotional reactions are another matter. My policy, and that of many atheists I know, is simply to "pull the plug" on any debate in which the (religious) opponent becomes hysterical or over-emotional. This is usually revealed when there is resort to ad hominem attacks - as in name calling, or invoking the old "hellfire" and "damnation" routine. Whenever these surface, the atheist can be reasonably certain his (religious) opponent is bereft of solid arguments and there is no point to continuing the discourse. Why waste energy on expending intellectual resources on one who cannot appreciate them? (Though - in the case of blogs - a small advantage does accrue in terms of revealing arguments to other atheists, or imparting information in the course of arguments.)

It would also seem to be counterproductive to continue a discussion when one's opponent is much less informed, say about Evolution, the Big Bang, or whatever. In this case, sound rational argument is opposing the irrational (or pure subjective opinions without basis) and the rational will always appear to "lose", since as one wit (I believe Isaac Asimov) once pointed out.."there are invariably more irrational statements that can plausibly be made, than rational ones to countermand them - since rational statements are delimited by specific evidence available and laws of logic". In other words, when one is at liberty to say whatever he wishes - without constraint or cross checks - he will appeal to the broad masses who "think" (similarly) without constraint - or information! (Often, and perversely, if he can add humor he will reinforce his irrational case! - the "Limbaugh Effect")

What about the limiting effect of Godel's Incompleteness Theorem(s), which have been alluded to in a number of previous blogs? Godel's Theorem, as it is called, can be crudely paraphrased by stating that all formal, logical systems - consisting of a set of axioms or propositions, will inevitably possess one or more statements (axioms, propositions) which contradict others within the same system. The presence of contradictory statements or axioms indicates that the system is "incomplete", i.e. does not embody all the axioms needed to logically describe the system.

A simple example will suffice. Let x,y and z all be integers belonging to a set S. None of these members can be equal to the other. The system of "axioms" for their algebra is given as:

1) x + y + z = 1

2) y - z = 0

3) x + y = 1


On inspection it is seen that all of the system axioms cannot be correct. Given the conditions, at least two of them are contradictory. For example, to satisfy (2): y = 1, and z = 1. To satisfy (3):x = 0, y = 1, and there is contradiction since z = y = 1 (which also yields 2 for statement (1), instead of 1.) To satisfy (1): x = 2, y = -1, z = 0, which also satisfies (3), but not (2). In fact, no set of non-equal integers will satisfy (1) - (3) simultaneously. Hence, the system of axioms is incomplete.

More elaborate systems can include logical propositions, say in Boolean form. Scientific disciplines are subject to Godel's theorem - to the extent they represent systems of axioms. Fortunately, however, there is no science that rests exclusively on logical propositions or axioms - since ultimately ALL must be subject to experimental test, else they are jettisoned. This is a key point of which all atheist debaters should be aware, and one which scientific detractors often overlook - focused as they are on science's logical arguments. Indeed, at least one group of important experimental results - to do with electron diffraction - violates the cherished either/or code of classical logic. While classical logic dictates that one electron must pass through either slit A OR slit B, the actual experiment can show that a given electron will pass through BOTH slits simultaneously!


The example of the "Schrodinger Cat", in regard to the Principle of Superposition of States, is even more dramatic. In the experimental setup - first envisioned by Erwin Schrodinger in a thought experiment --a cat is placed in a box with a contraption from which a cyanide capsule is released when a certain isotope decays (the latter is governed by probabilistic laws). The simple setup is depicted in Fig. 1, with the cyanide capsule release tube leading into an airtight compartment. At the instant of correct isotope decay, the compartment opens and the capsule jettisoned to kill the cat. (This is not being "nice" to animals, but don't blame me - blame Schrodinger!)

Classical logic demands that that the cat in the enclosed box is either A) alive, or B) dead, at any given time. However, a multitude of quantum mechanical results disclose the cat will always be in a superposition of states (50% dead, 50% alive) until it is actually observed! This violates common sense, and logic, but not quantum mechanics - which is the most comprehensive and accurately validated physical theory ever formulated.(For an excellent, readable presentation see: Consciousness and the Cat in The Quantum Self, by Danah Zohar, Wm. Morrow & Co. New York, 1990, p. 38).


The point of all this, to atheists, is not to allow oneself to be swayed by religious skeptics' reasoning that science is also forever circumscribed by Godel's theorem. One must always factor in the crucial element of empirical test, as the quantum mechanical examples demonstrate. In the end, distasteful as it may seem - classical logic, "common sense" and even Godel's theorem must defer to the measured experimental results! What will "displace" these results, to refine the theory - or to upend it altogether? The answer is better experimental results - e.g. to a much higher precision, preferably coupled with more extensive confirmations. This is what one means by saying that science advances by "successive approximations". This is a totally alien concept to the absolutist who simply can't grasp not arriving at total, final and absolute truth all at once!

Finally, what is the scientifically literate atheist to do when confronted by a religionist who employs the "equalization" gambit? That is, equating science to a "belief system" in the same category as any religion? I have found the best strategy is to assemble a set of ready-made examples which resoundingly refute this absurd proposition. That is, provide concrete examples of scientific validation which shows convincingly that no "belief" is involved. Among my favorites:

a) Using the equations of celestial mechanics I can tell a religionist exactly where in the sky he will find Jupiter, or Saturn, or Mars or Venus in 6 months, a year or two years. (Same principle that was used to predict the recent impact of Comet Shoemaker-Levy 9 with Jupiter). The repeated fulfillment of the predictions shows clearly it is not a matter of "belief".

b) Set up an LC, or LCR tuning circuit, using an inductor or particular value L (henries or micro-henries), a capacitor C (farads, micro-farads) and resistor R(ohms). The frequency can be computed from the these, e.g. for an LC tuning circuit:

f = 1/ 2p(LC)^1/2

Then, use it to tune in a radio station at the same exact frequency already calculated. This can be done a number of times with a number of different (L,C, R) combinations - showing that the station tuned in is not a matter of "belief" - but sound application of electronic principles to arrive at a prediction.

c) Point out the nature of quantum "tunneling" and how it arises from the quantum theory; in this case a low energy particle is able to "tunnel" through a thickness (x/X) of a high potential energy (V) "barrier" with a finite probability: P.

This "tunnelling" is the basis of the tunnel diode, used in solid state electronics. Remind the religionist that each time s/he turns on VCR or TV or compact disc player they are unequivocally validating the tunnelling effect, and showing at the same time it is not a matter of belief.

d) Ask the religionist if he seriously thinks it is "belief" which gets the Space Shuttle into a particular orbit, for a given mission - say to repair the Hubble Space Telescope, or retrieve a Canadian satellite, in a totally different orbit. Odds are your believer will be tightlipped because s/he hasn't clue one as to how it comes about!

There are many other examples, of course, but these are among the most effective that I've found. Maybe the interested (and ambitious!) reader can compile a set of his or her own.

4. CONCLUSION


The trends of the past quarter century would appear to indicate that we can expect a further retreat from numeracy as well as literacy in the U.S., continued falling SAT scores, lower science enrollments, further proliferation of magical thinking and increased difficulty in distinguishing opinion from evidence. Cumulatively, this does not bode well for the atheist - who relies on science and rationaltiy to justify his position to others. Not to put too fine a point on it - it seems clear that an enhanced inclination toward cultural and political conservatism - combined with the above - will conspire to make life increasingly difficult for atheists in the U.S. (at least those bold enough to declare or reveal themselves).

While there appears little that atheists can do (other than move to another country) to combat the growing cultural imperialism and prejudice toward unbelievers, there is much that can be done in their own locations, and in cyberspace. The thrust in these areas is, clearly, to promote as rational and scientifically literate a formulation (and justification) of atheism, as is within the capabilities of the particular atheist. It is hoped that the suggestions given herein will assist in that objective.

To that end, I hope this two-part blog has made a further contribution in that direction!

OPINION & EVIDENCE: THE ATHEIST DILEMMA: (1)

Increasing numbers of undergraduate college students are unable to distinguish evidence from opinion (Science, Vol. 266, p. 846) Since this is likely to hold to an even greater degree in the general population - by virtue of having far less exposure to science, at a lower level - one may rightly question how the atheist - who relies extensively on scientific information and evidence, can cope. How, indeed, can the atheist successfully present his position, if his most important ally - scientific evidence - cannot be distinguished from subjective opinion by the rank and file of his countrymen? This is the atheist dilemma which I examine in this article.

1. Opinion and Evidence:

Ask anyone who has ever engaged in debate, and they will quickly point to three crucial conditions that must be fulfilled in order to be perceived as "winning" the debate: 1- Access to an extensive base of information or evidence that is readily recalled; 2- Ability to know which precise subset of information to deploy to attack or rebut the opponent; and 3- a knowledgeable audience that can appreciate the evidence - as evidence, marshalled in support of a position or argument.

The third is often forgotten, but is certainly as critical to success as the others. Indeed, one can be the most knowledgeable person on the face of the planet - with an uncanny ability to deploy information exactly when needed - but fail because his (or her) audience does not recognize the evidence or information for what it is, but rather misinterprets it as "opinion". With such misinterpretation comes the homogenizing effect which treats all arguments as exactly equal, and "relative". Everything thereby becomes reduced to "point of view" and whatever information or evidence that was summoned, evaporates as a puff of smoke - making no impact at all.

Enter now the atheist, with an arsenal of scientific evidence to support his positions on evolution, the physical origin of the cosmos, as well as deficiencies in human brain architecture (including the fact that the temporal lobes are complicit in religious "visions"). Where does he stand in a culture in which belief consistently prevails over rational argument and evidence? The sad truth is that he is in much the same position as the debater who possesses awesome information, but has an audience largely comprised of the ill-informed, semi-educated, semi-literate.

FACT: Average SAT scores have dropped nearly 75 points since 1960 (even factoring in corrections for the new format used since the mid-90s).

FACT: The average American now reads fewer than two books a year. (Non-fiction)

FACT: The average IQ (Intelligence Quotient) for Americans has dropped an average of 10 points over the past twenty-five years.

FACT: Since 1960, high school elective science courses (Physics, Chemistry, Biology) have diminished as non-academic courses (e.g. "Speech", "Drama") have proliferated.

FACT: In recent science competency tests - among 15 nations, the U.S. placed lower than 12th, behind nations such as Thailand and Singapore.

FACT: Increasing numbers of college science undergraduates cannot distinguish evidence from opinion. In survey, nearly one third don't recognize the Sun as a star.

FACT: Nearly 1 out of 3 Americans is now classified as functionally illiterate.

The cumulative impact of the above, is a nation growing more ignorant and less intelligent by the year. A nation - indeed a culture, growing perilously more gullible as it becomes less able to distinguish myth from reality; scientific fact from subjective opinion., belief from reasoning. Although the USA has always been suspicious of the intellectual - ridiculing "eggheads" and their ilk, this mistrust has now become downright malignant with widespread denigration of those who dare to show any intellectual ability above the "average". Anti-intellectual epithets such as "nerd", "dork" and "geek" continue to be used with increasing frequency - especially in high schools, as the pop culture intensifies its war against the mind and the rationality it should stand for. Genuine critical thought has become a subversive activity. At the same time, credibility is heaped upon any idea so long as someone mouths it - irrespective of the weight of evidence.

To fix perspectives, on a typical talk or interview program one is likely to find a holocaust detractor mixing it up with one who has LIVED through a Nazi concentration camp and seen the first hand the horrors at Bergen-Belsen, Dachau or Auschwitz. Or, an evolutionary biologist who has studied the genetic and fossil evidence for decades paired opposite a creationist, relying only on a mistranslated, text-mutilated bible written by pre-scientific agrarian nomads. In each case, both sides are given equal prominence, equal air time - and equal deference by the interviewer, thereby obscuring the substantial disparity of evidence and legitimacy that exists between them. Indeed, the points of specious view upheld by holocaust detractor and creationist should never even be dignified by having them appear at the same time with the one possessing facts, or historical records. It is an outrage to truth and to intellectual honesty and integrity.

At this point, of course, the soft-minded and soft-hearted objector will protest that "free speech" would be violated if the above position were encouraged. This is arrant claptrap and rubbish. "Free speech" that artificially awards gravitas- by placing both on an equal footing, or that promotes the fantasy over reality - by placing them on an equal scale - is no "free speech" at all, but a misbegotten counterfeit that is incapable of recognizing neither truth nor lies. It is not surprising that in such an atmosphere of mutated "objectivity" - eroded to the point that "noise" overwhelms signal, all manner of aberrant and unfounded belief can flourish.

2. The Predicament of the Atheist in a Scientifically Illiterate Society

I now consider the formidable predicament of the atheist who finds him/herself in a scientifically illiterate society - one in which the majority of inhabitants are incapable of distinguishing evidence from opinion, or beliefs from empirical principles or laws The atheist himself is assumed not to have arrived at atheism through unthinking belief but rather through a process of critical thinking skills and moreover - to have at least a foundation of scientific literacy (i.e. possess a basic familiarity with the principles of evolution, including mutation and natural selection - as well as basic genetics, and a basic understanding of the cosmic scene: stellar evolution and Big Bang - including the red shift of galaxies, 2.7 K background radiation and other evidence for). This literacy need not have been achieved through any formal education, but rather through a wide and critical reading of relevant material. Or by taking online video courses, such as MIT's, or packaged courses (e.g. in Climate Science) as offered by The Teaching Company.

There are three main difficulties that the scientifically literate atheist faces: 1- cultural prejudice, 2 -emotional reaction, and 3- misunderstanding based on scientific ignorance. In each case, the primary effect is to marginalize the atheist and render him an "outsider" or "deviant" - someone apart from the "mainstream" and the alleged "normality" that it represents. The secondary effect is to somehow dilute or denigrate the scientific foundation upon which atheism rests (more specifically the materialist emphasis of empirical/theoretical science).

By cultural prejudice, I mean a pervasive atmosphere of hostility that is taken as "natural" in a country regarded as "under God", or some facsimile thereof. Atheism is looked upon as a major defect of some sort, not too far removed from having Leprosy and AIDS together, but in a social context. The mainstream media often play into this narrow mindset by either misrepresenting the atheist position - if they give it any attention at all - or casting it as an extremist, irrational position, occupying the left end of a "belief spectrum" to the fundamentalist's right. (See, e.g. the issue of U.S. News & World Report (December, 1991).

This cultural prejudice is further reinforced by the mistaken notion (and illogic) that because an atheist disbelieves in a deity, s/he cannot have any ethics and will therefore subscribe to the "anything goes" school or morality. This, despite the fact that there are numerous texts and articles in circulation disclosing that atheism is predicated upon a pragmatic, materialist ethic, based upon enlightened self-interest rather than superstition. (See, e.g. Ethics Without God, by Kaj Neilsson, Prometheus Books, Buffalo, NY, 1991).

Finally, cultural prejudice is exacerbated by many atheists' natural reluctance to state their positions - whether in personal interactions (with co-workers or family members), or in the press. These atheists, recognizing the inevitable stigma of non-belief in a god-obsessed nation, prefer to keep their atheism to themselves rather than expose themselves to possible attack in a society that places a premium upon belief ("faith") over reason. Unfortunately, this silence has the negative effect of sustaining the mainstream's perceptions that atheism is a fringe position. The latest Pew religious research surveys show, however, that up to 10% of the U.S. population may be atheists, or 30 million. However, most use deflector euphemistic equivalents like "freethinker", "Bright", "eupraxopher", or "naturalist". (The last two are due to Paul Kurtz).

Emotional reaction is defined as an unthinking reflex action, in response to an atheist's arguments or position. The immediate effect is usually an ad hominem attack upon the person, with no consideration whatever of the substance of his or her arguments. Most of these ad hominems undercut the atheist's morality (assuming that the atheist is lacking) but some are especially vicious and invoke "Satan" in way or another. Of course, these are the equivalents of "drive-bys" and have no intellectual merit at all - being used mostly by the bottom rung of uneducated fundies.

The purpose, in effect, is to quash all arguments - since the attacker is well aware that s/he lacks the basis in either logic or information to counter them. Hence, screaming or epithets or some other emotional or hysterical threat ("You'll be damned to hell", "You're a pawn of Satan!") will be substituted for discourse in order to short circuit meaningful exchange.

Perhaps the most intractable and maddening of all the predicaments faced by atheists is that which arises from a misunderstanding based on fundamental ignorance of modern science. To the informed and scientifically literate atheist, his predicament often resembles trying to "shovel water uphill" - except the "water" is now a tide of ignorance. This ignorance embraces a number of facets: inability to distinguish evidence from opinion, inability to extrapolate from data to predictions, inability to distinguish suspect data (in experiments) from scientifically accepted data, inability to take into account differences in the degree of empirical validity for different scientific disciplines, inability to distinguish the normal QA (quality assurance) criteria of scientific hypotheses and models (as well as evidence) from issues of "proof" or "disproof" and inability to discriminate the term "theory" from speculation.

Thus do the entrenched ignorant put down Evolution as "just a theory" - when in fact a theory is the highest scientific formulation possible- for which confirmed predictions have actually been made.

Let's consider specific examples of each of these in turn. In the case of Evolution, for example, the religious believer is often under the illusion that it is only "a theory" and hasn't been "proven". He is generally totally unaware of the amassed genetic evidence - in terms of transpositions of amino acids in complex molecules, or specific proteins in haemoglobin, nor is he even remotely aware than an entire fossil record has been assembled for the marine organism foraminifera. He's also likely blissfully unaware of one the most powerful demonstrations of the validity of human evolution: Yunis and Prakash paper disclosing the chromosomal connections of humans to chimps( Science, Vol. 215, p. 1525, 'The Origin of Man: A Chromosomal Pictorial Legacy') Yunis and Prakash showed that the human chromosome designated '2' was the result of the telomeric fusion of the two ape chromosomes, 2p and 2q. The effect also saw the reduction from 24 chromosome pairs in apes, to 23 pairs in humans.

Worse, the ID-er or creationist misinterprets specific disagreements over a particular aspect of evolution (by evolutionary biologists) for a fundamental deficiency that s/he believe nullifies the whole. Further, s/he does not comprehend that it is not a simple question of "proof" or "disproof" (since very few sceintfic laws are even regarded as "proven" in an absolute sense for all time) but rather the quality of the evidence itself. In the case of Evolution, the quality of the evidence is extremely high - particularly in its genetic aspect. Thus, with high probability - say 99.5%, one can rightly regard Evolution as close to "fact" as one can reasonably get.

Similar ignorance emerges when creationists attempt to critique the Big Bang theory. They''re unaware that it's possible to employ the laws of thermodynamics to go "backwards" in time (in a kind of reverse film loop) to obtain the properties of the very early universe! One finds on doing this that the physical characteristics (density, temperature, etc.) are fully consistent with a fireball of immense temperature - what we call the "Big Bang". In other words, the present (2.7 K) signature radiation can be extrapolated backward in time to arrive at the Big Bang! (For those interested in the details of this, please see The First Three Minutes, by Stephen Weinberg, Basic Books, New York, 1977. Though somewhat dated, it still represents the most understandable presentation of how physics can be used to obtain the Big Bang, starting from the Penzias & Wilson data).

The data are scientifically acceptable (high degree of quality, reliability) precisely because a significant number of succeeding, independent measurements have disclosed the blackbody nature of the radiation, legitimizing its use for the extrapolation techniques just described. Further, the results are fully consistent with other independent data and measurements such as the neutron/proton ratios in relation to temperatures.(See, e.g. Introduction to Cosmology, J.V. Narlikar, Cambridge University Press, p. 147, 1993).

Once again, the scientifically illiterate err grievously in their penchant to "throw the baby out with the bath water". The Big Bang, therefore, is not merely "theory" or "opinion" but confirmed fact, to as high a percentage of probability as Evolution, if not more. What disagreements and problems there are - in terms of early inflation, or specific values of neutron/proton ratios at the early stages, are minor details which - in fact - have been resolved through the use of sophisticated refinements to the basic theory .

The inability to distinguish degrees of empirical validity among the various scientific disciplines is also a major failing of the scientifically illiterate. For example, among those with even a basic acquaintance of science, it is a "given" that one cannot demand the same degree of empirical accountability and predictive accuracy for celestial mechanics (e.g. the prediction of the planet Jupiter's position in two hundred years) as for climatology. In short, it is just -plain wrongheaded to hold the climatologist to the same exacting standards as the celestial mechanist - since climatology and meteorology are subject to many large scale stochastic processes. Thus forecast variability, including more errors in computer modeling, are to be expected. But one must not use such inevitable errors or predictive shortfalls to attempt to write off, say, global warming as a "hoax".

Lastly, we come to the issue of "proof" and "disproof", wherein one sees the spectacle of vast multitudes of laymen laboring under an outdated misconception. In point of fact, there are relatively few things which can be "proven" in science - for all times and conditions. This is because scientific models are based on a limited set of laws, each of which has a particular domain of applicability. Hence, Newton's laws of gravitation work fine in the environs of earth but fail when we look at the whole galaxy. Coulomb's law (of electro-statics) works fine within a particular scale of charge separation but fails beyond this, since the electrostatic force falls off as the inverse square of the distance. Thus, at very large distances it is negligible.

Rather than the naive concepts of "proof" and "disproof" it makes more sense to apply quality assurance (QA) criteria to the evidence available for particular hypotheses. Thus, it is more practical to consider criteria of adequacy, and whether data meet these criteria. In this way, the relative merit of a scientific finding can be adduced based on standards similar to those employed in industrial quality control. If certain minimal criteria or standards are not met, then the finding is regarded with skepticism or rejected outright.

(To be continued)

Has the Universe a purpose?

From earliest times both philosophers and theologians have debated the question of whether the universe has a purpose.

Those who saw some divine purpose invariably believed the cosmos had to have been “created”. Most of these creationists appealed to a subjectively perceived evidence of “design” in the universe as an argument for the existence of a special divine creator. William Paley (1743- 1805), for example, drew attention to the complexity of structures occurring in both astronomy and biology, arguing that they could not possibly be a product of blind chance.

In this respect, he may be said to be the father of intelligent design (ID) – now making the rounds as the latest manifestation of the belief that some kind of “irreducible complexity” is embedded in physical- biological reality that dictates one must invoke an external, “intelligent designer”.

The viewpoint of Science in general, and modern physics in particular, is totally opposed to this. This opposition has arisen not merely from logical arguments, but from experiments and observations in quantum mechanics, statistical mechanics and cosmology. In the light of these advances, Paley’s (not to mention ID’s) deficiencies are now evident.

Both physicists and biologists, for example, now recognize many systems in which order and complex activity can emerge spontaneously. In this article, I show how such recognition leads the dispassionate observer to dispense with any notion of cosmic purpose that transcends mere existence in its own right.

A biological example, based on in-vitro experimental studies of cancer tumors, is the individual tumor cell.[1] The cell appears as a fluctuation, able to develop by replication. A cosmological example is the instantaneous formation of the universe by a possible quantum fluctuation[2] that arises when one treats the conformal part of space-time as a quantum variable.

A more prosaic example is the aurora, such as the author observed near Chena Hot Springs, Alaska in March of 2005. This particular aurora displayed two perfectly symmetrical parallel green “tubes”, arcing from north to south horizon. Did an intelligent designer craft two natural fluorescent tubes in the sky? Not at all. The inimitable procession to order (observed over two hours) was dictated by the (pre-existing) presence of the auroral oval around the pole and the polar electro-jet, after impinging electrons from the solar wind began to decelerate into the oval and form currents in sheets. These were then shaped by the ambient magnetic field of Earth into the two parallel tubes visible near Chena.


What do the above examples disclose? Basically, that William Paley’s famously naïve argument: “A watch must always have a Watchmaker, so also the universe must have a Maker or Creator.” is flawed and outdated.

The analogy is flawed, first, because the universe is not a mechanical contrivance like a watch. Apart from the fact that – for the most part (certain limited domains in celestial mechanics excepted) the ‘clockwork universe’ was dispelled when quantum theory emerged. Unfortunately, while the practicing physicist has long since had to adopt an indeterminate, non-mechanistic world view (e.g. guided by the experimental results from quantum physics), the same cannot be said for non-physicists, including theologians, philosophers and multitudes of laypersons.

These groups continue to labor under erroneous assumptions of causality and “order” generated almost exclusively by an ignorance of modern physics. For example, an ignorance of the fact that simultaneous measurements at the atomic level are fundamentally indeterminate. Technically, for one of the most common forms of the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, this may be expressed (in terms of position x, the Planck constant h and momentum p = mv):

[x, p] = -i h/ 2 pi

In term's of Bohr's (Complementarity) Principle, the variables x (position) and p(momentum) are regarded as "mutually interfering observables". This is why only one can be obtained to precision, while you lose the other. In another sense, one can think of approaching a particle in such way (or with such apparatus) that it suddenly gets 'wavy'. At a particular stage of resolution, as the late David Bohm noted, the particle aspect vanishes and you apprehend a wave. But during some interim threshold one can regard it as a wavicle. Of course, if Heisenberg's principle didn't apply - meaning we could know both the position and momentum to the same degree of accuracy, then: [x, p] = 0 such that x*p – p*x = 0 spells out non-interference.

In cosmological terms, the whole concept of “order” has been relegated to a minor and tiny niche of the extant cosmos. For example, the recent balloon-borne Boomerang and MAXIMA UV measurements to do with Type I a supernovae, have disclosed a cosmic content:[3]

7% - ordinary visible matter
93% - dark component, of which:

- 70% is DARK (vacuum) energy and

- 23% is dark matter

In effect, 93% of the universe can’t even be assessed for “order” since it can’t be seen. In the case of dark matter, one can only discern its presence indirectly by the visible effects on neighboring matter. In the case of dark energy, the underlying physical basis isn’t even known – though we know the result is an increase in the acceleration of the universe (arising from a cosmic repulsion attributed to dark energy).

This is all critical, since in the past apologists of teleologism (the belief that purpose and design are part of nature) have cited a perceived “orderliness” as a revelation for the “handiwork” of an intelligent Mind, or Creator. Alas, this falls through the cracks if most of the universe is disorderly, or dark-energy-matter. Indeed, by current assessment – and discounting plasma abundance, one may reckon that even rudimentary order is evident in barely 0.00001% of the cosmos. And this can all be explained or accounted for by appeal to scientific reasoning or hypotheses. For example, the nebular hypothesis, whereby the original solar nebula progressively collapsed under the force of gravitational attraction, can account for the formation of the solar system.

Another point missed by these apologists is that there has always been a profound confusion between the principles of sufficient reason and causation. According to the former: “Nothing happens without a sufficient reason”. As Mario Bunge has observed[1]:

“Giving reasons is no longer regarded as assigning causes. In Science, it means to combine particular propositions about facts with hypotheses, laws, axioms and definitions. In general, there is no correspondence between sufficient reason and causation.”

As an example, let's say I fire electrons from a special "electron gun" at a screen bearing two holes some distance away. At first glance, one might reasonably conclude that the electron motion is singular and follows one unique path. That is, that each fired electron traverses a single, predictable path, following stages 1, 2, 3 and so on, toward the screen. This is a reasonable, common-sense sort of expectation but alas, all wrong! The problem is that common sense is useless in the domain of quantum mechanics.

According to the most widely accepted interpretation of quantum theory[1] , the instant the electron leaves the "gun" it takes a large number of differing paths to reach the screen. Each path differs only in phase, and has the same amplitude as each of its counterparts, so there is no preference. How does the electron differ from the apple? It takes all paths to the screen, the apple takes only one (at a time) to the wall. And the electron exhibits phases (as a wave) while the apple doesn't. The electron's wave function can be expressed:

U = U (1) + U (2) + U(3) + . . . . . . U (N)

Here the total wave function for the electron is on the left hand side of the equation, while its resolved wave amplitude states (superposition of states) is on the right-hand side. If they are energy states, they would correspond to all possible electron energies from the lowest (1) to the highest or Nth state (N). There is absolutely no way of knowing which single state the electron has until it reaches the screen and an observation is made, say with one or other special detector (D). This is illustrated in Fig. 1, with each number denoting a given electron state and path.

Prior to reaching the screen the electron exists in a superposition of states or "wave packets". Is this description statistical, or individual? This depends. The wave function has a clear statistical meaning when applied to a vast number of electrons. But it can also describe a single electron as well.[1] In the example just cited, all the energy states refer to the same electron. However, if all electrons are identical, the statistical and individual descriptions coincide.

Germane to the point made earlier, i.e. that there is no correspondence between sufficient reason and causation, one finds that in a large number of cases, the approaching electron goes through both holes in the screen – not just one. This is totally counterintuitive to one steeped in the traditions of Newtonian or classical mechanics. For example, if a baseball were hurled at a wall with two six inch diameter apertures near to each other – it would go through one or the other – but not both! Of course, the electron deviates from such classical behavior precisely because of its wave nature – as demonstrated in the famous Davisson-Germer experiment that verified that particles exhibit wave properties.

The point emphasized here is that this deviation means that in specific spheres (mainly in science, specifically in modern physics) conventional logic and thinking are of little or no use. A number of researchers, authors, for example Hilary Putnam, have argued that the distributive law of classical logic is not universally valid[6] Much of his reasoning (which is beyond the scope of this article) has to do with the peculiar nature of Hilbert spaces that are part and parcel of the underpinning of quantum mechanics.

Interestingly, it is this very indeterminacy that also resides at the core of many quantum bootstrap models, allowing for the spontaneous inception of the cosmos. People have serious problems with such models and ways of thinking because: a) they fail to appreciate the lack of correspondence between sufficient reason and causation, and b) they fail to understand that causality predicated on classical logic is no longer applicable to many areas of modern physics.

While further conceptual/conceptual development remains (the work of science is never final) it is clear that any postulated purpose in the cosmos can already be regarded as a redundant anachronism. If the cosmos can “bootstrap” itself into existence via quantum fluctuation, and acquire “order” (even in highly limited domains) via the implicit laws of statistical and thermal-quantum physics – then it has no need of a “creator” (or “designer”) and no purpose other than to exist. No extraneous being is necessary to ensure its continued stability or existence. More bluntly, the addition of such a being doesn’t advance the quality of our research, or improve our predictions by the most remote decimal place. Hence, to all accounts such a being (or purpose) is totally superfluous.

Thus do humans, as generic offshoots of the cosmos, have any purpose other than to be. If they seek an additional purpose, they must craft and forge this subjectively of their own accord – rather than looking for it on high.

Does this imply that the concept of “God” is outright useless, null and void? Not at all. It merely requires that we re-think the concept so that it is consistent with the absence of higher or extraneous purpose. As Bernard d’Espagnat notes [7]:

“The archaic notion that is conveyed by the words ‘Lord’ and ‘Almighty’ will presumably never recover its full efficiency for lulling the ontological qualms of mankind. For a religious mind, turning towards being should therefore become a subtler endeavor than the mere acceptance of the heavenly will stated in the Bible, formulated by the priests, and exhibited by miracles.”

Finally, the abolition of extraneous higher purpose should not incur any psychic loss for humanity. As Marilyn French has aptly observed:

“It is a loss of dignity to define humanity as a race defined to please a higher Being, rather than as a race whose only end is to please itself. The ‘gift’ of purpose to the human race is thus very expensive: one can fulfill one’s God-given purpose only by sacrificing felicity while one is alive.”

[1] Garay, R.P. and Levefer, R.: 1978, Theoretical Biology, 417, p. 73.

[2] Padmanabhan, T. 1983, ‘Universe Before Planck Time – A Quantum Gravity Model, in Physical Review D, Vol. 28, No. 4, p. 756..

[3] See: Physics Today, July, 2000, page 17.

[4] Bunge, Mario: 1979, Causality and Modern Science, Dover Publications, p. 231.

[5] Due to Richard Feynman. See, Herbert, N.: (1985), Quantum Reality - Beyond the New Physics, Doubleday, New York, pp. 115-117.

[6] Putnam, H., ‘Is Logic Empirical?’ in R. Cohen and M. P. Wartofski (eds.), Boston Studies in The Philosophy of Science 5 (Dordrecht, Holland: D. Reidel, 1968). Reprinted as ‘The Logic of Quantum Mechanics’ in H. Putnam, Mathematics, Matter and Method, Cambridge University Press (1976).

[7] d’Espagnat, B. 1983, In Search of Reality, Springer-Verlag, New York, p. 158.

Edwin K.P. Chong's Delusions (II)

Original article as it appeared in the newspaper - as a Freethought Advertisement. (Note header: 'This montly article is underwritten by the Freethinkers of Colorado Springs 'etc.)

Chong’s attempted debunking article next tries to take me to task for the use of the term “infectious”

He blabs:

“Again, we see the introduction of a derogative word, 'infectious'.

However, this professed academic (in a Mathematics Dept. no less) seems oblivious to the most remote clues for sourcing and citations! Had he the least bit of awareness on these matters, he’d have quickly ascertained that NONE of the claimed memetic (mind virus) attributes he assigns:

1) Performance value
2) Propagation Value
3) Infectious vale

Originated with me. They were ascribed and defined by biochemist Jacque Monod (referenced in the original paragraph of my piece) in his book, ‘Chance and Necessity’ (Chapter Nine: The Kingdom and the Darkness). I will give Chong a break on this since the direct citation in the original article was omitted by the newspaper's editors and not reinstated by the Freethinkers. (Though he ought to have at least consulted the index of Monod's monograph, given I referred to it, to ensure the attributes given were genuinely mine)

Chong goes on:

“Looking down the list of attributes to be used to assess the 'infectious power' of the faith meme, we see the next fallacy, notably in item 2. Notice his examples for the 'means employed' in the spreading of faith: 'beheading' and 'burning'. This is a clear case of propaganda by associating faith groups with offensive acts.”

Again, given a 550 word limit, those examples – while admittedly extreme – were most efficient in underscoring the point given limited space. However, as Scott Bidstrup references, a much vaster and more ubiquitous mechanism is FEAR.

Bidstrup again:

“Yes, good old fashioned "hell-fire and damnation." Of course it has its greatest effect on the ignorant and superstitious, but it can be an effective motivator even among the learned when it synergizes well with other mind games, such as the burning of bridges and the induction of dissociation.

It would appear that this conflicts directly with the sweet, likable persona of the first mind game. It actually doesn't; they work well together as a carrot and stick. Even a casual reading of the New Testament will uncover plenty of examples of this mind game. Damnation, judgment, punishment for sin, blasphemy, etc., all are based on the fear mind game, and are so commonly employed by evangelicals they've become a stereotype.”

Thus, while “offensive acts” may not be 100% apropos, offensive manipulation of thought via fear, certainly qualifies as mental terror. And again, we see this used again and again by the likes of Pastor Mike.

Chong continues:

“Several fallacies are involved here. First, this is an ad hominem attack on people of faith. Second, this argument involves hasty generalization; burning of heretics by Christians is surely an exception to the means of 'propagating' Christianity. Third, this accusation involves an appeal to fear (argumentum ad baculum). Fourth, the attack commits the fallacy of guilt by association.”

Now, let’s dispel each. First there is no "ad hominem attack on people of faith”- only an association of meme -mind virus attribute (by way of example) to those who actually practice the atrocities. In any case, the prof misuses ad hominem here, since it is taken to mean (in logical circles) an attack on a PERSON- specific! Thus, if I said that: “Pastor Mike is a tyrant and bully who would beat up anyone who disagrees with him” – THAT is an ad hominem. Or, if I wrote that: “Edwin Chong is a weenie sycophant of the Christian Right” – THAT would be an ad hominem. But not strictly in the generic reference I made – which again, was a limited example never intended to be all-inclusive.

Thus, “hasty generalization” also falls by the wayside since examples mean narrow illustrations from a subset of actions associated with the category. No one in their right mind takes an example as a generalization for the WHOLE category. If I say that split personality is one example of psychosis, I am surely not saying that ALL psychoses are manifested by split personality!

The “appeal to fear” claim is also bogus, since there is NO appeal. A putative example (especially given in the context of limited space –but for which high impact impressions may be desired) cannot be rightly called an appeal to fear. If I am writing about the dangers of psychosis and cite split personality – possibly resulting from childhood sexual abuse, that is not an “appeal to fear”. It is a specific example of how a particular manifestation of psychosis (split personality) may arise.

The fourth critique also fails in similar vein, since there is no “guilt by association”. Indeed, NO Christian with a grain of sense asserts or even accepts that “beheading” was ever a part of Christian behavior (Burning was, as for heretics during the Inquisition). However, it remains part of the Islamic “solution” for infidels (e.g. atheists, or other non-Muslim religious believers) as Howard Bloom points out in his book The Lucifer Principle.

Thus, Chong is guilty of overt Christian chauvinism in projecting said example solely onto Christians, when – in fact- it was a generic RELIGIOUS example applicable to Islam in particular (but to Christianity during the Inquisition in burning heretics – though I hasten to add here that the Inquisition STILL exists in the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith).

Chong then bloviates:

“Specifically, (he) constructs a 'straw man', a supposed proponent of faith who rejects all rational scrutiny, resorting instead to characterizing rational scrutiny as 'emanating from Satan'. This is clearly a false characterization of faith-based traditions as a whole”

Actually, all Chong would need to do to ascertain I’ve constructed no “straw man” is to check out my brother’s blog (“Pastor Mike’s Blog") and see how he consistently paints all rational arguments – given to defend everything from abortion to non-absolutist ethics - as “Satanic” in origin. Or painting those who use such arguments as “brothers of Satan” or “coming from Satan”. Indeed, more than once he’s painted me as “an agent of Satan”.

Only one exception disproves the rule, maestro, and throws your strawmen onto the logical bonfire it deserves.

We also know that rather than being “false characterizations” of faith based traditions, they are fully implicit in them. As Professor of Philosophy Daniel Dennett observes (p. 349, Darwin’s Dangerous Idea):

“The meme for faith discourages the exercise of the sort of critical judgment that might decide the idea of faith was – all things considered- a dangerous idea”

As we know, critical judgment is part and parcel of what a rational mind is able to do. Going back now to one of the mechanisms to sow insidious memes, Scott Bidstrup invoked verbicide (Part I) or the deliberate distortion or destruction of the meaning of words so that they have a different meaning to the believer than the non-believer.

I also used examples of how good ol’ Pastor Mikey invokes this tactic all the time. I believe he changes the meaning of defined words so often now that he doesn’t even realize when it happens! So when he writes that “atheism is a religion” he really believes it is, destroying all concepts of the meaning of religion in the process.

The point is that any group that distorts verbal meanings (and thereby thought) has to be anti-rational and hence (since most faith based religions do this)it can’t be a false characterization.

Indifferent to how supercilious his whole critique is by now- Chong cites my sentence:

“Having debated Christian ministers (in Barbados) I can attest to encounters with the faith meme."

Then blathers:

“Here, an appeal is made to his alleged authority on the subject. He also provides personal testimonial support. These are common propagandist interjections.”


And this is total nonsense. First, no “authority” is being appealed to, I’ve merely cited my own experience in which I engaged “assorted Xtian ministers” in debate. This is to establish the parameters of my EXPERIENCE, not authority – since any half -aware person would discern I never mentioned Islamic clerics, Rabbis, or Buddhist monks. Thus, to claim an “authority” to pinpoint all religious memes, I’d have to have claimed exposure to the whole gamut of religions via representatives in debates. Which I didn’t – it was only a limited subset – but sufficient to reference the extent of my experience.

Thus, the only interjection here is one of Christian chauvinism in Chong’s own mind. As for propaganda, he clearly doesn’t know the meaning of the term, or if he does – isn’t attentive in his use of it.

Chong then whines:

“Here again we see multiple cases of fallacious and propagandist devices. He continues to construct his straw man, uses ad hominem attacks, and poisons the well by calling his opponent’s views 'delusions'”

after I recalled a Minister's question directed at me in one debate – in which he asked if I was “possessed by Lucifer

Again, total gibberish. "Straw man" - not, since the incident did occur and moreover can be seen in almost any reference Pastor Mike makes to atheists, or to me on his pathetic blog(which sometimes reads more like a Beavis and Butthead cartoon strip). Again, having referred to me as an agent or ally of “Satan” numerous times. This is therefore not “poisoning the well”.

However, if Chong really suspects that my then debate opponent – who asked if I was “possessed” – isn’t under any delusion, then HE (Chong) surely is! Big time!

Chong then pulls up another of my remarks:

“In each instance, of course, what we behold is the operation of a mind virus that has efficiently parasitized a brain.”

And squawks:

“This claim is made without support whatsoever.”

Actually it fully was. The support was in reference to this segment of my piece noting:

-one opponent who actually asked the audience: ‘How can we be certain that he isn’t possessed by Lucifer and doing Lucifer’s bidding? I am supposed to be here to debate a human lecturer – but of course I can have no chance against an agent of Satan.’

- Another warned the audience that he could not 'be responsible for their immortal souls’ if they listened to me.

Of course, though anecdotal this does qualify as support. It is Chong’s choice not to accept it- and it certainly does qualify as a mind virus parasitizing the respective brains, as illustrated by Dennett (ibid.,), Bloom (The Lucifer Principle :'One Man’s God is Another Man’s Devil', p. 73), and Scott Bidstrup’s The Mind Virus, highlighting malevolent meme mechanisms such as verbicide and fear(Part I). Thus Chong’s assertion that my illustrations even suggest the ignoratio elenchi fallacy is pure balderdash. This prof would do better to explore his own brain workings, and ascertain that his own temporal lobes haven’t been compromised – before he next delves into the logical fallacies lexicon to pick and choose what confections he will use to attack Materialists, realists and others who have a broad (as opposed to parochial) appreciation of memetics.

Chong ends his miasma of misinformation, misinterpretation and misconstrued fallacies with the following:

“(His) article began with what appeared to be a goal to describe memes and their relation to faith. But, in the end, what have we learned from the article about memetic models of faith and its spreading? Not much, I’m afraid. It is evident that Stahl’s article is not meant to be expository at all – it is propagandist in nature, employing a myriad of tactics in achieving a specific agenda of public persuasion. I should stress that I take issue not with the idea of a meme per se, but with Stahl’s use of the idea as a pseudo-technical prop to support an anti-faith program.”


And by this time one wonders what this prof is using for insight, brains or acumen. Again, the expository nature of the piece would have been clear- even given its abbreviated form (550 words) to anyone who’s read Dennett’s books, or Dawkins, or Monod’s or Bloom’s repudiation of “ravenous religious memes” in The Lucifer Principle. However, since this prof – like Pastor Mike – has probably only scoured the bible, it isn’t surprising his intellectual purview for the meme is so limited, and so pathetic. It’s not in his interest to expand it further, so he excludes other aspects. He's the embodiment of Dennett's victim of the faith meme who eschews internal inquiry since "the meme discourages the exercise of the sort of critical judgment that might show faith is a dangerous idea".

“Pseudo-technical prop to support an anti-faith program”? Hardly – not if one reads Howard Bloom’s account of how Islamic fundamentalism is festering and spreading its tentacles worldwide – with aspirations to dominate the whole planet!

What will be interesting in the future, in terms of the religious mind virus denialists like Chong and Pastor Mike, is to see how the final battle of faiths plays out between their pet mind virus imbued in a militant, conquering fundie Christianity and the “ravenous memes of Islam”. If we’re lucky, maybe both will get rid of each other and we’ll have two less to worry about.