Dispatches from the World of the Undergrad

Is It Bad That I'm Not Patriotic?

2011-11-11T23:28:00.000+11:00

This being Remembrance Day in this part of the world, I’ve been thinking about the response people have to days such as this, as well as the similar days of Australia Day and ANZAC Day. Especially on the war memorial days, there is a groundswell of patriotism and national pride. For me this is not the case. I think that Australia Day is nothing more than a day for glorifying the very worst of Australia, as I have said before. Remembrance and ANZAC days are well intentioned and seek to honour the soldiers who were thrown into the wars of the past. I don’t think that honouring those who fought is a bad thing, but what does worry me is the concept of irrational patriotism.

The concept of patriotism and national pride really doesn’t gel with me anymore. It just doesn’t make any sense to me to be proud of the place where you were born. You had nothing to do with it! The place of your birth is the result of the actions of your parents and the passage of history. It makes no sense to be proud of the accident of your birth, at a particular location between what are essentially arbitrary subdivisions of land. That is the key point I think. Countries and the borders between them are not absolute. They don’t exist in any physical sense other than the fact that we all agree that they are there. Borders and countries change time all the time and in order to be patriotic you have to ignore this fact and pretend that countries have always existed and will always exist in the state they are now. This is simply not the case and to think so flies in the face of reality and reason.

Probably the most extreme form of irrational patriotism lies in the concept of American exceptionalism. This is the idea that there is something innately special, exceptional even, about America when compared to all the other countries in the world. This idea seems to go hand in hand with the idea that America is god’s chosen land and that America has been preordained to lead the world. The current evidence would indicate that this theory is coming unstuck, but it is still necessary for any potential political/presidential candidate to swear that they believe that America is the greatest country in the world despite a lack of any real evidence to support their claims (And despite their crippled banking system, horrendous healthcare, ultra-polarised politics and the imminent overtaking of their economy by China).

So patriotism is irrational, but is it dangerous? I think, when it flies in the face of evidence, it can be. Patriotism can lead to nationalism, which is unquestionably a bad thing. Nationalistic sentiment leads to xenophobia, racism and has a symbiotic relationship with ignorance that serves to stoke the fires of prejudice. A warped irrational patriotism is contributing to the current abhorrent political discourse regarding asylum seekers.

For me patriotism is unnecessary and can lead to you being blinded to the faults of your country and they way it behaves. What is far better to have is an allegiance to a set of basic principles, such as the ideas of equality and basic human rights for all. This then allows you to be critical of your own country and any other that violates those principles.

Choice is Irrelevant. It Still Isn't Wrong.

2011-05-17T18:03:00.000+10:00

The recent debate in Australia surrounding marriage equality has left me increasingly frustrated (but at least I don't live in America, where this kind of sledgehammer-subtle garbage is considered serious material). The apparent lack of desire of the supposedly mainstream left party of this country, Labor, to support a progressive and visionary policy such as equal marriage rights for homosexual couples is still staggering to me. I get involved with discussions on this issue at relatively regular intervals as it is one in which I feel there is without doubt only one ethical option (equality regardless of sexual preference) and that without people being engaged and challenged on it, then that outcome may be delayed or prevented all together. These discussions can be equal parts fruitful and frustrating, depending on the age and political bent of the other parties, but in a recent one, the issue of 'choice' entered the fray and it occurred to me that much of the homosexuality argument misses the point and that we have been overlooking a potential tool in combating bigotry and anti-homosexual rhetoric.

In any argument or discussion (although they usually do degenerate to argument) with anyone who does not believe that homosexuality is 'right', a common point that will be raised is the issue of 'choice' and that homosexuals choose to be gay (the obvious riposte would be to ask, 'Ok, when did you choose to be heterosexual?') . This argument is generally used by those whose motivation for fighting gay rights is religious and is employed to try and extricate themselves from a self-dug theological hole that goes something like this:

God created the universe and everyone in it. He is all-powerful and therefore created it exactly as he wanted it. But homosexuality is evil and wrong, because god says so.

The problem with this, as I'm sure you've noticed, is that if god created everything as he wanted it, but doesn't like homosexuals, then why did he make them? Why even make up the concept of homosexuality itself? The answer to any even remotely unbiased observer is that clearly god did not do any such creation and that homosexuality is a trait inherent in us and many, many species due to our evolutionary history. But for the religious evangelical, they have to jump through hoops to make it all fit, saying god is all-powerful but people can still go against his will and break the rules, making god angry. While we do not know exactly what causes a person to be homosexual, there is evidence of both genetic and maternal environmental factors, with studies showing alleles of particular genes associated with homosexuality increase fertility in their heterosexual relatives, showing a potential genetic cause and also evolutionary mechanism for the survival of the homosexual trait throughout evolution (another supposed problem with the idea homosexuality evolved, usually thrown in by the anti-gay ideologues). Other studies also show genetic components to homosexuality. It is clear that stating that homosexuality is a choice flies in the face of biology and of the evidence from the animal kingdom. One further question remains however: why is choice an issue?

This question struck me rather abruptly. I had always spent my time arguing about this issue by making the above arguments about biology and had never stopped to question whether homosexuality being a choice matters ethically, just supposing for the moment that that is true. After thinking about it, it becomes clear that it really makes no difference to the ethics of the situation whatsoever. So what if people choose to be homosexual, the acts themselves do not change and they are no less acceptable simply because the people partaking in them chose to do so. Just because I wouldn't choose to do something, does not mean that because other people do they are wrong. There are many instances of situations where more than one option is ethical, life is not necessarily a case of good and bad. The choosing of homosexuality (continuing the assumption that it is a choice for now) is not an unethical one, it is neither wrong nor disgusting. It is simply the situation of two people consenting to be intimate with each other, emotionally and/or sexually and is no different to two heterosexual people doing the same thing. Choice doesn't change the fact that the act still isn't wrong.

The choice argument has been blindsided so much by trying to find scientific examples to refute the claim, that we have completely missed the logical holes in the argument. There has been no justification offered as to why choosing to be homosexual is wrong and none come to mind that have any intellectual rigour. An evangelical will offer up that it disobeys god or that he has forbidden it (the verse usually cited to support this is one line and shares a book of the bible, Leviticus, with pronouncements about how crustaceans are evil, just to put it into context), but this is such a feeble argument that it is barely even worth acknowledging. The days of relying on the bible for social rules and to define what is 'right' are well and truly behind us. The bible has been shown time and again to be wanting in the areas of facts and consistency with reality and ethics lie not in an outdated, misogynistic, bigoted old book, but with us and the modern principles of secular society. Scientifically and philosophically there is no defense of the claim that homosexuality is a choice and is therefore wrong. For one, it is clear that it is not a conscious decision on the part of the individual and, even if it were a choice, it simply doesn't matter. Homosexuality is not wrong.

Take Your Xenophobic National Pride...

2011-01-31T17:57:00.000+11:00

I am going to say up front that I do not give a rats about Australia Day and the associated sentiment and activities. This has always been the case and probably will continue to be so into the future. I see Australia Day as the most pointless of all our public holidays (including Melbourne Cup day and that's for a horse race). I know that it is supposedly commemorating the landing of the First Fleet and all that, but it is not doing that anymore. It has deteriorated into a meaningless, driveling celebration of everything that we shouldn't be celebrating. Case in point, I received this text message on Tuesday (the day before Australia Day 2011):

Walk naked for Australia Day! You may not realise that its a sin for a male muslim to see a woman naked other than his wife, & if he does he must commit suicide. So on Wed @ 1pm AEST all Australian women are asked to walk out of their houses completely naked to help weed out any neighbourhood terrorists. Circling the block for 1hr is recommended for this anti-terrorist effort. All patriotic men are to position themselves in lawn chairs in the front yard to prove they are not a muslim terrorist. Since islam also doesnt approve of alcohol a cold 6 pack at your side is further proof of your patriotism! It is also your patriotic duty to circulate and this & inform others. If you dont you will be aiding and abetting terrorist activity.

To say that I am disgusted by this text message is to deeply understate my feelings. Ignoring the terrible grammar and syntax and the extraordinary sexism (also whether or not the claims are true) contained in the message, let's skip to the basic premise. Essentially, this message is saying it is acceptable to attempt to kill (albeit indirectly) a segment of the population of Australia simply because they are different to you. On the day that we are supposed to be celebrating everything that makes Australia great. Pathetic. These people (the person who sent me the message will not be disclosed here) probably think that they are being 'true Aussies' by defending what they hold to be the 'proper' Australian way. But this position is ignorant and trying to hold on to something that does not exist. This persona that Australia (or a subset) has acquired (invented even) for itself- based essentially on being a walking occa stereotype and deciding that white, Anglo-Saxon people are the 'true' Australians- ignores the fact that every large growth in the Australian population has been based largely on immigration of people from non-Anglo backgrounds. Our history is built off of the back of such immigrants and includes the histories of the very people who seek to now attack the current generation of immigrants (imagine them as a Today Tonight anti-asian crusade in human form). This kind of attitude is a very worrying part of modern day Australia and is potentially very dangerous.

The supposedly modern Australia prides itself on the concept of a fair go, yet it seems this right applies only to those of the same colour and origin as ourselves. It is a common occurrence to hear, quite casually, people state that all 'Lebbo's' are trouble or the rants stating that all those who follow Islam are terrorists and should be weeded out and removed, or worse, as that delightful text message suggests. I do not approve of the teachings of Islam. I think it is perhaps the most backwards religion in regards to basic human rights and actively promotes the idea of women as being inferior, second-class citizens, forcing them into blind servitude. But I do not condone the ideas encapsulated by this text message. Any individual person has a right to believe what ever they want or to follow whichever religion they prefer (or to abstain from all of them if they so wish). When attacking a concept such as Islam, it is very important to attack the ideas, not the people who believe them. Yes it is true that many terrorists are motivated to perpetrate their violent acts by things that Islam tells them, but it is a complete non-sequitur that all those who follow Islam are terrorists, recent events at Coptic Christmas services in Egypt bear this out beautifully. It is also a fallacy to assume all terrorists are motivated by a belief in Islam. Anarchists carried out a concerted parcel bombing campaign late last year. These attitudes have crept, however untrue they may be, into the psyche of Australia, albeit for the majority in the white, low to middle class segments of the population, the segment previously known as John Howard's 'battlers'. These opinions are driven by nothing more than ignorance and fear, fanned by shameless, populist politicians and their rhetoric, think Tony Abbott and his cry of 'Stop the Boats!' (I still get flashes of Helen Lovejoy of The Simpsons and her passionate plea to 'please think of the children' every time I hear that. They're on about the same intellectual level). We live in a globalised world, one in which concepts of nationality and origin are becoming increasingly fluid and yet we seem to trying to take our stance back to the 1950's, turning away boat people or incarcerating them indefinitely (despite the fact that we wouldn't do this to the exact same asylum seeker if they came by plane). Do we really want to go back to an era akin to the 'White Australia' policy, one in which minorities are victimised simply for being in the minority? Do we really want to effectively segregate whole segments of our population based on ethnicity or religion? Do we really want to make ourselves as bad as the places from which many, if not all, of these people have fled? Because that is where we are heading.

The attitude of Anglo's VS The Rest is taking Australia backwards in more ways than we can imagine. We are already seen by many of our regional neighbours as the 'rednecks' of Asia and we are not helping our cause by endorsing or promoting ideas and policies that would make the Deep South of the US Civil War-era stop and have a real good think. If you want to be a 'true' Australian you must bring your attitude up to speed with life in the 21st century. Like it or not, the world has changed, largely for the better. We live in deeply prosperous times, with the worst most of us have to complain about being the weather or bank fees or something equally trivial. We have ample food, clean water and a democratically elected government. That puts us ahead of literally billions of people throughout the world. We must make our attitudes and policies equally ahead of the game however, if history is to look back on our generation with a positive light. We do nothing but a disservice to ourselves and our future by denying immigrants and new Australians their rights and their chance to live their lives, not to mention how much of a failure we are in the eyes of the rest of the democratic world. The concept of an Australian as a white Christian who spends all summer drinking beer and watching cricket is now more of a fiction that it ever was. A real Australian is white, black, blonde, red, brown, Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Atheist and more besides. Australia Day should be used to celebrate that, if it is going to celebrate anything. As Telstra taught us, all those years ago: We are one, but we are many.

So take your xenophobic national pride and bring it into the real world. If you can't do this, perhaps you should take the advice of your bumper sticker and find somewhere else to live. We don't want you here. Oh, and please don't send me another one of your heinous text messages. Ever.

Atheism and Agnosticism

2011-01-24T12:47:00.000+11:00

As anyone who has spoken to me or read any of the posts here would realise, I am an atheist. Stone cold. Up until very recently I thought that this was all there was to it and that the concepts of atheism and agnosticism were fundamentally separate, even conflicting, concepts. Once again, however, my preconceptions are being pressured into being adjusted, due largely to a greater, more nuanced understanding of what agnosticism really is.

Before discussing the relation between the two concepts of atheism and agnosticism, it is important to define what the two concepts actually are. So let's start with what atheism is. The word atheism can be broken down into two parts: 'a' and 'theism'. Theism, as defined by the Oxford English Dictionary, is 'belief in the existence of a god or gods, specifically of a creator who intervenes in the universe' and a theist is essentially someone who believes in a god that is active in our universe. Anyone who follows one of the traditional monotheistic religions (Catholicism, Judaism, etc) is a theist. The prefix 'a' denotes 'not or without', therefore the combination of 'a' and 'theism' found in the word atheism denotes the concept of being without a belief in god or gods and is derived from the Greek atheos, a combination of 'a' (without) and 'theos' (god). The above is a rather verbose way of saying that atheism is a lack of a belief in an interventionist god (a capital 'G' god), however most people who self-describe as atheists will extend this concept to also being a disbelief in any god, so that it includes concepts such as deism (I would put myself in this category). Atheism is about what you believe. So that's atheism, but what is agnosticism? I can tell you that what most people, especially many who describe themselves as such, think agnosticism is, is actually not correct.

The concept of agnosticism is almost as old as the concepts of theism and atheism that it critiques, however the word itself was coined in the 1800's by Thomas H Huxley (Darwin's Bulldog). Huxley defined it as the following:

Agnosticism is not a creed but a method, the essence of which lies in the vigorous application of a single principle... Positively the principle may be expressed as in matters of intellect, do not pretend conclusions are certain that are not demonstrated or demonstrable.

Essentially, Huxley is saying that we should not put forward, as absolute assertions, conclusions that cannot be justified with evidence. This concept is clearly explained with some of his further writing:

This principle may be stated in various ways, but they all amount to this: that it is wrong for a man to say he is certain of the objective truth of a proposition unless he can produce evidence which logically justifies that certainty.

Agnosticism is essentially saying that we cannot know, with anything approaching absolute certainty, the absolute answer to questions of the nature of existence and how this relates to the presence or absence of a god. The key point to take here is that agnosticism is talking about what we can know.

So, we have established what the concepts of atheism and agnosticism are talking about (belief and knowing respectively). Now it's time to address the key misunderstanding about what being an agnostic really is. Many people choose to describe themselves as agnostics, rather than atheists, when they disbelieve in a monotheism. I think this is in part to avoid questions or arguments that surround atheism, but that this also occurs due to the false idea that agnosticism is the middle ground between atheism and theism. This idea is something which I thought correct until very recently, but it is in fact false. People who describe themselves as agnostics are very often misunderstanding what agnosticism means. It actually does not describe what you believe to be true, it describes what you know to be true. It is perfectly acceptable to say you are an agnostic, because you don't know for certain (no one does) whether there is a god, but without adding the caveat of what you believe, the statement is meaningless. When you are an agnostic, you are one of two things. You are either an agnostic-atheist or an agnostic-theist, because you don't know for certain, but you still will have a belief.

This for me, up until recently, was not something I understood or accepted. I always saw agnostics as holding a kind of wishy-washy position, not willing to commit either way. After following a link to this cartoon, I was trawling through some of the comments, many of which contained the same attitude I held at the time, basically agnostic-bashing. The twelfth comment came from Dr Steven Novella (of Skeptic's Guide fame) and gave some sensible input to the comments and had the affect of completely changing my outlook on agnosticism. Rather than paraphrasing, I will include the comment in full:

The above comments are attacking a straw man- if you are going to comment on agnosticism you should have at least a vague sense of what agnostics actually profess. There is a very reasonable philosophical reason to self-identify as an agnostic- because the notion of a deity, as often expressed, is outside the reach of empiricism. "Agnosticism" is simply a recognition of that philosophical fact. You can still be an atheist, in the sense that you do not believe in any deity, because there are many good philosophical reasons not to. But there is nothing cowardly or lazy about understanding the relevant philosophy. Dismissing agnosticism is intellectually lazy and calling agnostics cowards is the cheap path to a false sense of superiority.

That one comment sums up both my previous, knee-jerk ideas of agnosticism and also the position I now hold. I now happily describe myself as an agnostic-atheist, rather than simply as an atheist. I do not believe in a god for a number of reasons, however there is no way I could ever be absolutely certain of this belief and therefore I must also describe myself as being agnostic, to not do so would be intellectually disingenuous. The two concepts are complementary. To borrow a phrase, atheism lies on the axis of belief, while agnosticism lies on the axis of knowledge. The two are related, but separate.

In conclusion, atheism and agnosticism are not conflicting concepts, but rather the two combine to create a nuanced, intellectually rigorous philosophy regarding the nature of reality and the existence of a god. Atheism alone is a position that cannot be defended, due to the implication that you have absolutely objective information regarding the nature of reality, the 'God's eye view' mentioned in the previous post regarding scientism. Agnosticism alone is a relatively meaningless statement on its own, as it tells us something we all know is true anyway; that we cannot know absolutely either way regarding the presence of god. In short, if an atheist wishes to be intellectually strong and correct, they must give a nod to the uncertainty present in reality that is the result of our position within, rather than outside, the universe. There is nothing wrong with being an agnostic-atheist.

Testing Preconceptions, Nonsense On Stilts and the Power of Logic

2011-01-18T18:31:00.000+11:00

I've just finished reading Prof. Massimo Pigliucci's new book Nonsense on Stilts: How to Tell Science from Bunk (a christmas present bought by someone who undoubtably knows me all too well). As the title suggests, the book looks at the differences between what we can call science and what we cannot, examines concepts related to the rational treatment of ideas and contains two wonderful debunkings of creationism (via the Dover trial in the USA) and astrology (by showing very clearly and simply that its logical framework is deeply flawed and also that it doesn't even work in practice), as examples of areas which are clearly pseudoscientific in nature (as well as a fantastic treatment of the absurdity of much of postmodernism). I found the book both extremely interesting, but also intellectually stimulating and at times challenging. It is always interesting to examine how one reacts when one's beliefs or preconceptions are being challenged. This happened for me at various stages during the reading of this book, however it is on one area in particular that I have been compelled to write about.

During one chapter of the book, Prof. Pigliucci, whilst talking about whether a field can be truly classed as a science or whether a specific question can be considered scientific, brings up the idea of 'scientism' and critiques it whole-heartedly. In a nutshell, scientism is the idea (belief even) that science can answer every single question regarding the universe and the nature of reality that we could possibly wish to ask and that science is able to transcend our subjective, human-based view of the world and give us a 'God's eye view' of the universe. One example he uses of a scientistic assertion is that made by Richard Dawkins in The God Delusion (a book which I freely admit made concrete many of my atheistic tendencies and ideas), in which he claims science (as a concept) can not only address, but absolutely disprove any kind of claim about God. Pigliucci argues that this in itself is not a scientific concept, because it assumes the above idea of science as a 'God's eye view' of reality. While Dawkins' assertion may be appealing to someone who has a leaning to being atheistic (someone such as yours truly), intellectually it doesn't quite pass the test. In practise, such a view of reality, independent of our innate 'humanness' is not possible, for the simple fact that we are humans and must view the world and the universe at large through the lens this situation creates. This is not to say that science cannot examine the claims of religions and, where appropriate, debunk them, but these need to be specific claims (such as creationism and the concept of the monotheistic, interventionist gods of Christianity, Islam, etc), rather than the more ephemeral notions of whether there is a spiritual side to life simply because these claims are not scientific and therefore cannot be directly tested in a scientific way. Science can disprove the monotheistic religions very easily, chiefly because these institutions make very specific claims about the nature of reality, which, as a result, can be tested using science (claims such as creationism or many regarding homosexuality being prime examples). The basic idea I am trying to get across here is the concept that scientism says that science alone is all that is needed to solve the riddles of the universe, but in reality a more nuanced approach is required. Using science to disprove empirically the notion of a God (not that of the monotheistic religions, which certainly does not exist), is not so easy; disproving a God on a logical basis is a very different matter and is the domain of the philosophers.

The acquisition of nuance is a key part of developing a more sophisticated worldview and philosophy. It is a long process and requires you to be willing to have your preconceived notions attacked and challenged, even changed at times. This is all part of being a skeptic; accepting new evidence, even if it contradicts what you previously believed. The above mentioned example of scientism is an example of just such a change happening to me. I have always been interested in philosophy, mainly in its discussions surrounding morality and ethics, but not really with regard to what it can have to say about the nature of reality and in responding to non-scientific claims. I had simply assumed, with very little conscious thought, that science could answer any question posed. It's now pretty clear that this is simply not true. Some questions simply cannot be answered by science, due to their not being scientific in nature. Do not mistake my meaning however. I am not saying that these questions are beyond answering one way or the other, far from it (I am absolutely not a postmodern relativist). What I am saying is that there are some things that we have to try to answer using logical, rather than empirical, techniques and methods. Many claims do not lend themselves to being examined using the necessary empiricism of science, but there is nothing stopping us from examining them logically and these explanations can be just as satisfactory. The classic example can be found in the problem of the first cause, the so called cosmological argument. This idea goes back to thinkers such as Plato, Aristotle and St. Thomas Aquinas and is basically stated that everything we see and understand has a cause outside of itself, therefore the universe likewise has a cause outside of itself. This seems fairly reasonable at face value. The problem comes when many use this idea as an argument for God, stating that God is the uncaused first cause of our universe (i.e. he created it). Empirically there is no way to test this. We, even with science (the best method we have for testing reality), cannot look outside our universe, indeed we can't even adequately describe or conceive of what such a place would be like (just try it, I dare you. You won't get far). We therefore must look at this claim using logic. The idea of God as a cause for the universe does not explain anything. It simply pushes the problem of causality back on position. Assume God did create the universe, then who/what created God? You're back very quickly to square one. Therefore, applying Occam's razor, we should conclude that this is an unsatisfactory explanation, doesn't explain anything and should therefore look to alternative explanations or admit that there is no explanation at this time.

Through reading and thinking about Nonsense on Stilts, it has become clear to me that an arrogant assertion that science can answer every question imaginable is a naive idea, lacking in nuance and without a sound logical footing, although I will state that I am still unquestionably an atheist. Science is our only sound method for examining empirical claims about our universe, however it cannot answer every question. For those questions, we need to make use of philosophy and the concepts of logic and critical thinking. Using this combined approach, seeking to avoid, wherever possible, scientistic pronouncements, we can gain a greater understanding of our reality and avoid being taken in by nonsense on stilts.

Social Control Vital to Moderating Religion

2010-12-17T10:52:00.004+11:00

Last night I saw the new movie Agora, which details the story and downfall of the Alexandrian philosopher Hypatia, who died in the year 415. Hypatia lived during the period in Alexandria's history when the Roman Empire was approaching its downfall, coinciding with the time in which the previous minority of christians was starting to gain in numbers and influence. Hypatia was, by all accounts, an accomplished academic in fields including mathematics, philosophy and astronomy. The film is an impressive piece, albeit a little depressing, but it is about only one aspect of the film that I am wanting to write about. The christians, as their numbers and confidence grew, started to take control of the city. In many cases this control was established (and maintained) through the use of violence against those who were seen as unworthy or not christian enough, namely the pagans and Jews (This violence could have included the knowledge destroying and ignorant crime of ransacking the ancient Library of Alexandria). The pagans and Jews were by no means guiltless in the violence, however the widespread christian practise of active removal of the competition (by nay means necessary) was certainly occurring. Hypatia was very close to the prefect of the city, Orestes, who had been a former pupil of hers. The bishop of the city, Cyril, was a far more hard-line cleric (what would probably today be called an extremist), than the moderate christianity of the prefect. Cyril and his followers did not approve of the influence Hypatia (let us not forget the fundamentalist christian attitude to women) and the city's christians took it upon themselves to do something about it.

Hypatia was not a christian, rather she came from the traditions of paganism and was possibly atheistic. With the rise of christianity in Alexandria, this was seen as a problem, especially in light of the influence she had over the city's prefect and much of the population too. One day, believed to be in March 415, Hypatia was taken from her chariot by a christian mob, stripped naked and dragged through the streets. She was then skinned alive and her body burned, simply because she disagreed with the religious zealots of the time (It is worth noting the film takes a different approach to portraying her actual death, presumably because skinning alive was a little too gruesome). Perhaps the most depressing aspect of all this, is the fact that 1600 years later, as we come to the end of 2010, these battles are still being fought. The religious zealots may have changed locations, but the fight is the same. Extremists view those outside their own narrow sphere as being unworthy or infidels and they act accordingly, attempting to silence them or, in the worst case scenario, exterminated. You need look no further than the current problems with Israel and Palestine or Islam with everyone else. My pessimistic outlook on this topic is that this problem will always be present (despite the promise of every Miss Universe to bring world peace). As long as religion exists, there will always be those who take it to the extreme and are completely intolerant of others. Therefore we have an important job to perform, as members of our secular society.

The film Agora highlights an important consequence of unchecked religion. Such a religion is free to do whatever they desire, to anyone they wish. When an argument is had, regarding the horrors perpetrated by those of religious faith, such as what was done to Hypatia, the counter-argument that is proffered is often that religion is no longer like this, that it is now much more moderate. This may be true, by and large, but the implication is that the religions have improved themselves over time, gradually becoming more nuanced over time. This is simply not the case. These same religions claim they give society its morals and ethics, that without them we would simply be a sinful mess. That argument is absurd and has been debunked many times before. What is clear, however, is that society plays a vital role in moderating the actions and doctrines of religion. Only with the input and force of public action and that of the secular authority can religion be controlled and forced to be moderate. Those countries that do not have such control, largely the current islamic states, have large problems with extremists and fundamentalists seeking to control the population through any means necessary. If we want secular nations to remain that way and if we wish for religion to remain moderate (and for freedom of religion to exist), then society and its population must exercise its control and force the fundamentalists to be more moderate, if they wish to remain part of society. If we don't, then the potential for the return of theocracy in the west is real, especially in light of the rise of the religious right in America. John Lennon asked us to imagine no religion, but the best we can aim for is to keep it in check.

Science Literacy is Vital

2010-07-15T15:40:00.001+10:00

Last night I was watching Embarrassing Bodies on Channel 9 and for the most part it was an interesting, albeit lightweight look at some of the less traumatic or glamourous, yet nonetheless important conditions that normal people deal with everyday. That was at least until late in the program, when the doctors were dealing with a young girl with an horrendous case of verucas that was quite breath-taking to behold. Verucas are essentially warts on the soles of the feet, caused by a viral infection. The majority of us pick up this virus on numerous occasions and it causes no real harm, apart from the occasional wart. For this girl however, it caused severe infection and large growths on her feet. This is extremely worrying as her body is clearly not clearing what should be a relatively minor problem. Following tests, it was discovered that the girl is lacking in a type of immune cell, called a CD4 T cell, a cell responsible for coordinating and directing elements of the adaptive immune response. It is here that I started to have problems with the program. The voiceover told us that the girl was missing 'essential antibodies' meaning that she couldn't respond to the virus correctly. This voiceover lady missed one key point: CELLS ARE NOT ANTIBODIES! T cells are cells, antibodies are proteins. They are very different things that perform very different functions.

This incredible error on the part of a supposedly medical television show, with researchers and resources, got me thinking about the wider issue of scientific literacy in the general public. If a well-sourced show such as that could still manage to throw out misinformation such as that above, then what hope does the general public have, given that they often rely on such programs for their knowledge? Just in my own, anecdotal experience I have found that the majority of people in the population do not know some of the most basic medical knowledge, things as basic as what blood is made of or what cancer actually is. This anecdote is also borne out repeatedly by surveys of public understanding and attitudes towards science. Case in point is this survey from 2009. There were a number of questions however this one stands out for me: Only 59% of adults know that the earliest humans and dinosaurs did not live at the same time. WHAT? Admittedly this survey was done in the USA and was only a phone poll but the result is part of a disturbing body of evidence that suggests that people just don't know enough about science. This is a serious problem for us as a population, for two key reasons.

The first of these reasons is that scientific progress will define our future. Our ability to develop technologies and medical treatments will decide how we progress, even how long we are able to survive, both as individuals and as a species. In order for the vital research in all areas of science to continue, it must be able to receive funding from, in large part, the government. We must have a pro-science government, but if the population does not have basic literacy in science and does not understand the importance of science, then they are unlikely to use their vote in a manner that promotes scientific progress. This could be very damaging to our ability to perform research and forge new and more thorough understanding.

Secondly, as skeptics we spend large amounts of our time debunking and arguing with people promoting a wide variety of pseudosciences, everything from homeopathy to acupuncture to the latest ridiculousness of Power Balance (which, incidentally, The Age dealt with extremely well a couple of weeks ago). As self-trained skeptics, our radars go off, once we hear the claims of these proponents and we can react accordingly by asking for evidence or debunking myths surrounding them. For the majority of people, however, this is not their response. As human beings, we are conditioned to believe what we are told or what we hear from others and a lack of prior, correct knowledge means that we can fall into traps when snake oil salesmen are out peddling their wares.

I think that both of these problems, the potential stunting of scientific research and the tendency for people to fall for pseudoscience, could in part be overcome by improving the public's awareness and basic knowledge of science. By showing people how important science is, we can ensure that they vote in ways that encourage the advancement of science (and not for people like our own Steve Fielding, who incidentally is in danger of losing his place at this years election). That being said, the acknowledgement of the importance of science is already fairly high, even in that bastion of irrational thought and policy, the USA, with the above survey indicating that 4 in 5 people there believe science is at least 'very important'. This is good, but it can always be improved. Good science education could improve the acceptance of science but could also act to reduce the popularity of pseudoscience. I think that a large amount of the acceptance of these ridiculous remedies and ideas is due to a simple lack of knowledge of the actual workings of the human body and the world at large. The body is amazing and incredibly complex and it is easy to see why the layperson can be overwhelmed by it all (I'm a student of the subject and I still don't get it half the time!), but we could so easily improve the knowledge of the general public simply by improving the curriculum at a school level. Health classes in high school are, for the most part, a complete waste of time, but it needn't be so. This is the ideal forum for getting some basic information about the basic workings and functions of the body and to dispel some misinformation too.

Scientific literacy has been a difficult issue since the term was first coined in the 1950's and will probably continue to be so for the foreseeable future. Some of the biggest problems with pseudoscience and our future can only be tackled with science and better education of the layperson. With this improved education, it could be possible to ensure proper support of scientific research but also could help tackle the pseudoscience we struggle with everyday. As the cliche goes, knowledge is power and by empowering the layperson with scientific knowledge, we could hopefully start to make some inroad

Two Years On. Some Things Stay the Same, Some Things Change

2010-07-09T15:42:00.003+10:00

This time of year is a sad one for my family. July 7 is my late grandfather’s birthday and this Sunday marks two years since the death of my mum after an accident at home. It has been a tumultuous two years to say the least. When something like that happens, it throws your entire world upside down and inside out. In the space of hours, you go from having the support and nurturing influence of your parent, to having that ripped away from you and you’re left in a vacuum, unsure what happens next. The vacuum is eventually filled, at least partially; when family and friends come to your side and give you support and things settle into a new form of ‘normal’. From there, things progress in unpredictable and unexpected ways from there.

People often talk about the five stages of grief and how you go through all of them at some stage. I have no idea how true that actually is (it seems a bit bullshit to me, to say that all those stages happen sequentially in exactly the same way for everyone) but it has been interesting, in a morbid kind of way, to see how the different members of my family (and also myself) have dealt with the loss. For me, it took a long time for her death to sink in. I think this was in large part due to the timing. In July 2008, I was smack in the middle of year twelve and had a huge amount of work going on through my studies. Add to this all the work and things I then had to do around the organisational side of life for my brother and I, just so that we could keep afloat and it is easy to see why I had other things to focus on and not a lot of opportunity for thought and acknowledgement of the events. I don’t think that this was a bad thing. The rest if my year twelve lying ahead of me, along with my desire to do as well as I possibly could at the end of the year, meant that I had a target in the future to aim at, something to keep me motivated, on the ball if you like.

In November of that year, once I finished exams and my brother flew out to Germany on a two-month exchange trip, I had a lot more time for myself and, more frighteningly, more time to think. I think it was at this time that I had to start to come to terms more with what happened and it was an incredibly difficult thing to do. For the first time in my life, I started to think about what I really believed about life and, more importantly, death and the consequences of these ideas. I suppose I had always been atheistic in my viewpoint, but it was at this time that I first really acknowledged it consciously. For me, an acknowledgement of how life simply is what it is, that no higher power causes the good or bad events in our lives and that once we die, we are truly gone forever, gave me comfort and allowed me to accept her death for what it was; an accident, tragic but not a punishment or part of some horrid ‘grand plan’. It is deeply saddening to lose a loved one, but the loss and acceptance of it does not diminish what was there before, in fact it really does the opposite. Life and love are no less beautiful, nor the people less wonderful, simply because we all, one day, must say goodbye. The time I had with my mum becomes more precious because it was cut so short. Would I like more time? Absolutely, but life doesn’t work like that. I think here I mess up the ‘5 stages’. I don’t recall ever trying to bargain more time (bargaining, you’ll recall, is supposed to be step 3), perhaps because I knew that it was impossible and you don’t get second chances, but then again I don’t know that the thought processes were that clear or coherent.

I found myself acknowledging that life is short, precious and fragile, but that this is okay. Reality is what it is and we can’t change it. For others in my family, the approach has been very different. I won’t go into the specifics here but it has been fascinating to watch and more than a little frustrating at times. I have had the feeling on a number of occasions that I have been the only person willing to fight through and look to move on with my life in the best way I can. I don’t blame people for struggling to come to terms with what happened; it was a very traumatic event, but I can’t help being bothered by the tendency for people to be constantly looking into the rear-vision mirror, rather than at where they are now and where they are going. The clichéd metaphor I use is that if you don’t look where you are going, then that is when you crash into the tree in front of you. There is nothing wrong with looking back and remembering; if you don’t let yourself do that then you do nothing but make yourself feel worse. What I won’t let myself do is play the ‘what if?’ game. I miss my mum everyday, but I do not wish to go back and change the past. This may seem difficult to believe but I wouldn’t change what happened now. I have learnt so much about my family, my friends and myself. I have discovered that I am capable of far more than I ever thought possible. My life has changed immeasurably, in some ways good, some bad but I wouldn’t change it now. I refuse to hit that tree.

So, what have I learned in the last two years? Firstly, life can be hard. It throws challenge after challenge at you and it won’t let up. The second thing I learnt is that I wouldn’t have life any other way. Life is not supposed to be easy or fair, it simply is what it is. If we are willing to accept it as such it is easier to deal with sadness and trauma and we can see the silver lining to reality and the events that take place there. Finally, I have learnt that life is precious. The life we live can be cut short at any time and then we are gone forever. This fact depresses many people and they simply choose to ignore or deny it as a way of coping with it. But for me this is one of the single most important parts of life. Like it or not we all die. There is literally nothing you can do about it, but this does not make life any less worthwhile, memorable or breath taking. Embrace it, because its all you got!

I believe that when I die I shall rot, and nothing of my ego will survive. I am not young, and I love life. But I should scorn to shiver with terror at the thought of annihilation. Happiness is none the less true happiness because it must come to an end, nor do thought and love lose their value because they are not everlasting. Many a man has borne himself proudly on the scaffold: surely the same pride should teach us to think truly about man's place in the world.

Bertrand Russell

Secular or Theocratic Government...?

2010-07-02T18:44:00.003+10:00

The Australian people now have a real choice come the federal election later this year. Do we vote for our new Prime Minister Julia Gillard, a woman devoted to secular government or do we vote for the staunchly Catholic Tony Abbott (aka the 'Mad Monk'), a man with a penchant for calling to God on political issues and preaching to the masses on moral ones? For me, the choice is clear (if voting on this issue alone). Vote 1 J. Gillard.

Julia Gillard's appointment to Prime Minister, as many people are probably aware, is historic as she is the first woman to hold the post in this country. It is historic for other reasons too, however. Julia Gillard is possibly the first fully open atheist or agnostic to hold the position. When she was sworn in last week, she chose to take a secular oath of office, instead of the religious alternative (ie to swear to God) and holds steadfastly to her reasoned position, rather than submit to the default expectation that to be a vote-winner you must be religious, as our previous PM Kevin Rudd was (a man with a habit of making sure he was seen in not one, but two churches every Sunday morning). This for me is fantastic. We are long overdue for a woman to be leading this country. For far too long this country has been run as a boy's club, but we now have two female premiers (in Queensland and New South Wales) and a female PM. Add to this that she is not a blind-faith, dyed-in-the-wool believer and how can you not like that? What will be interesting for me, is how the election this year will play out. I don't see our opposition party (a party with the delightfully misplaced moniker 'Liberal') running a campaign against her secular nature, despite their being led by the Mad Monk, as I don't think the majority of people in our truly secular country would stand for such a thing, after all, this isn't America. But the voters who will decide this election could make decisions based on the religious differences of the two potential leaders.

Tony Abbott has a history of sticking his nose into business that is not his; Remember girls, your virginity is a 'precious gift'. Now, Tony is absolutely entitled to his opinions on any matter he wishes to take an opinion on, however not everyone needs to know it all the freaking time. When they are issues that affect the running of the country, fine, voice those opinions, but when the issues are personal ones, such as sexual activity, virginity and homosexuality, Tony, indeed all politicians, should keep their opinions out of the public domain of politics. Tony says his beliefs will 'guide' his decisions, as would be expected, but when the beliefs are so warped and conservative you do need to be a little concerned. Julia Gillard, in contrast, is a woman, described as atheist or agnostic depending on which piece you read, who is devoted to maintaining the secular state of our nation, committed to use reason and evidence to dictate policy and not by calling to her bossy, imaginary friend in the sky.

I do not agree with all of Julia Gillard's policies, however I feel she is a better leader than the man she deposed and is a far superior choice than her direct opponent, a man who's victory would result in my crying myself to sleep every night for a month. She will be getting my vote, as she is the lesser of two evils policy wise, deserves a chance to prove herself over a longer time frame than the months left before our imminent election and is committed to reason, secular government and the separation of church and state.

Forget Soylent Green, This is a Far Cooler Way to Recycle

2010-06-19T10:35:00.003+10:00

There is perhaps no part of modern society more steeped in tradition than the rituals and processes of dealing with death and a dead body. When people ask you what you would like to happen after you die, they are expecting one of only two options: you will be either buried or cremated. It is simply assumed that these are the only two options available to you for the disposal of your body or the body of a loved one. But this is no longer true. The ridiculous process of cryonics has been an option for years for people with far more money than sense, but there are now some realistic alternatives to traditional burial and cremation that could be a final chance for you to give back to the world in some way.

The shift in the population has been towards cremation and away from burial, due in part to shortages of land in many countries. 75% of people are cremated in the UK, 35% in the USA and similar figures in other countries as well. This has allowed less land use, but it does have some serious drawbacks that go with it. A single cremation will produce around 150kg of carbon dioxide, with approximately 100kg of this gas coming from the coffin and body (the rest from the fuel for the fire). Along with this there are emissions of other chemicals, including a large amount of mercury, which comes from the fillings in your teeth. So cremation is positive in that it saves us space in a world where space is at an ever increasing premium, but it produces a large amount of emissions compared to what you would expect. What are the alternatives then for someone who doesn't want to be shoved underground in a box, but also doesn't want to make unnecessary emissions too? There are a couple of alternatives that are starting to appear that give you another option.

The first of these comes from a company based in Glasgow in the UK, called Resomation. They have developed a technique that produces 66kg of carbon dioxide, rather than the 150kg of traditional cremation. The process is pretty simple really. You take a body and dissolve it, at 180 degrees Celcius, in sodium hydroxide. A steam boiler provides the heat and that's al there is to it. At the end of it, you get a bag of ash-like particles, pretty much identical to the ashes from a cremation. This process, by all accounts works the way it is claimed to and is legal in five US states, with the company and a number of environmental groups pushing for more widespread acceptance of the technology as a genuine alternative to a cremation. Another emerging technology is being pushed by the company Cryomation and, if it proves a viable option, has the potential to decrease emissions even further than dissolving the body does. Cryomation's technology involves freeze-drying the body and then processing it. The body is frozen at -196 degrees Celsius by liquid nitrogen. The next step, once the body is brittle, is to break it into a powder, with the removal of any metal still present (from joint replacements and the like). Once this is completed, the remains are then dried and sterilised. The whole process produces just 50kg of carbon dioxide, with all of these emissions made by the procedures and not actually by the body. At this point it is possible to box up the remains as you would following a cremation, however there is one very intriguing alternative available to the traditional urn of ashes on the shelf when using this technology. The freeze dried powder is perfectly capable of being composted and, wait for it, used as a fertiliser. With this technology we have the potential to put the remains of our bodies to use. This, for me at least, is fantastic. The remains of our bodies are pretty much useless (ones the organs have been taken out anyway) and if there is someway to put them to use I think we definitely should explore it and use it if we can.

With these technologies, viable alternatives to burial and cremation that improve upon the negative aspects of both of the incumbent procedures. The process of dissolving bodies creates less emissions than cremation and takes less space, if the resulting powder is buried, than a full burial would. If the widespread use of freeze-drying takes place, the emissions are reduced further still and we have the ability to use the resulting powder for good, as a fertiliser for crops, potentially helping the lives of others. For me, there is no ethical problem here. If the technologies work in the way we are told they do, then they should be available and encouraged. The only problem I see, is one of public perception. Ian Hanson, a forensic archeologist at Bournemouth University summed it up in a New Scientist piece,

...but is our society ready for our mortal remains to be utilised as fertiliser, or harrowed into crop fields?

I hope one day they will be.

The Origins of Life Are Awesome

2010-06-04T13:20:00.003+10:00

I find biology to be fantastic. It may be a very nerdy thing to admit, but I don't care. One aspect of it that I find particularly fascinating is the area of research that deals with the origins of biology itself. How did life start from the non-living material on our early planet? And 'God did it' is not a legitimate footing to do science on. Neither, as far as I am concerned is the idea of panspermia, the theory that seeds of life exist all over the universe and were simply brought to Earth at some time by an asteroid (or aliens if you are a little more wacky). Panspermia is a terrible explanation, as all it serves to do is push the problem back the one step, from beginning on Earth to beginning somewhere else. It doesn't solve how life began; it pretends the problem is solved by pushing it away. So, what are the legitimate, physical explanations being explored currently? What are the unquestionably incredible ways in which we could have got here? To find out, we have to go back literally billions of years.

There is no one accepted explanation for the origins of life, however there are multiple plausible explanations of how it could have gone. One theory involves the replication of crystals within a clay matrix, a replication process that could have lead to independent, self-replicating molecules similar to RNA and DNA. I like this idea, because of its relative simplicity, but it seems to be falling by the wayside as other ideas come to the fore and gather some evidence. One of the biggest problems with the iconic 'primordial soup' idea (that life emerged from a 'soup' of basic chemicals in the oceans) has been the fact that the chemicals and the molecular machinery required for replication would be too dilute to react in the widespread manner needed to concentrate the chemicals and facilitate the beginnings of life. This problem could, it seems, be circumvented, if a new research study is to be believed. This study, from the Ludwig Maximilian University in Germany, has shown that it is possible for DNA to replicate, independently, in conditions that replicate those in deep-sea vents. The uneven distribution of heat in a vent would create a convection current inside the pores of the rock of said vent. Double-stranded DNA in the pore would be split into its single-strand derivatives on the hotter side of the pore, then these strands would be carried by the current into the cooler area of the pore, where polymerases could attach the new nucleotides to the strand, thereby creating a new copy of the original. This convection and replication causes a concentrating of DNA in the bottom of the pore, fulfilling one of the requirements for life- available replication materials. Other research into lipids could supplement this process also, by providing a way in which this concentrated DNA could move and interact with other strands, which could provide recombination and variation, another requirement for life. In 2009, Harvard University researchers found that lipids in convection currents form membranes, similar to, but a little simpler than, the membranes of living cells. These membranes could potentially trap the DNA strands and transport them to other areas, where they can potentially interact with other molecules, increasing diversity. This new research shows how life could have begun, all on its own, in the harshest conditions you could imagine for life, back when our planet was little more than half a billion years old. Some older, iconic research perhaps shows the beginnings of a different element of life- the vitally important proteins.

You, along with every living thing you can imagine, are little more than a bag of proteins. These diverse chemicals contribute to your physical form, in muscles and the like, but also regulate and take part in every cellular process of your body. Whether it be as a chemical messenger in the endocrine (hormonal) system, an enzyme in your digestive tract or a neurotransmitter conducting a signal, all of these processes use proteins to do the job. Put simply, you need proteins for life, so naturally how proteins could have come together in the early Earth is of great importance when investigating the origins of life. As far back as the 1950's we have seen experiments investigating this process. Stanley Miller was investigating the effect of lightening on the early Earth atmosphere by creating electrical discharges in his lab and firing them at a mixture of hydrogen, methane, water vapour and ammonia (a combination designed to mimic the early atmosphere). To his amazement, within a period of days a large fraction (around 15%) of the carbon in his setup had been converted into amino acids, the monomer constituents of proteins. We now believe that the early atmosphere was not as rich in some of the chemicals used, hydrogen in particular, which could alter the results, however this experiment showed a proof of concept: that it was possible to create the necessary molecules for life through non-biological processes.

There is not enough space here (or time) to go through the theories and experiments exploring the emergence of all the main molecules of biology (and that would become a little tedious too) but there is time for one more. A strategy used by many a creationist attempting to sound scientific, is to state the fact that DNA needs proteins to be replicated and used, but you need DNA to make proteins. Essentially they are trying to use a 'chicken and egg' approach here. But they are making a false dichotomy. There is another alternative when discussing which came first- RNA. Biology uses RNA for a number of jobs, including as a messenger for DNA and for protein synthesis. Many viruses use RNA as their genetic material, rather than DNA, so RNA is capable of carrying genetic information for an organism. Another interesting characteristic of RNA is that it has the ability to self-catalyse. This is very important to its use as an origin of life. DNA can be replicated but only if proteins are used to catalyse the reactions involved, such as the unwinding of the DNA helix, the addition of bases, etc. RNA can do this to itself, hence it does not need proteins to help in its replication. This allows it to reproduce and concentrate on its own, all that is required is the initial formation of the very first molecules to start the process off, which, given the environment that this would have been occurring in, is not that far fetched of an idea.

The origins of life are still unquestionably shrouded in mystery, but it will not always be so. The history of our biology is slowly opening up to us, giving away its secrets bit by bit. With each experiment we uncover more information about what the conditions early life had to withstand were like and about what the processes that could have gone into life may have been. Like any good science, it will be a slow process but I think we will get there eventually. I don't know which of the theories will prove to be the right one, most probably a combination of many of them as the majority are not mutually exclusive. It is a complicated, often confusing concept, but it is such things that yield the biggest rewards when they are solved. This is a very exciting part of biology. We all like to know who we are, where we came from. This is about as fundamental and as far back in history as that tale could go. It's fantastic and I hope I'm still around when we work it out.

An Inherently Good Humanity: A Fallacy, but with a Silver Lining

2010-05-28T14:46:00.005+10:00

It has been about a month since my last post here and I have found it increasingly frustrating that I haven't been able to find time to write. Finally I have a free hour to put some thoughts down and I hope they can become a little more regular again.

In 2007, as part of my english studies at school, I read Elie Wiesel's amazing book Night. For those who are unaware, Wiesel is a holocaust survivor who went through the worst of the worst of the Nazi concentration camps. His book is semi-autobiographical, a mix of his own experiences and those of others during the war. It is a very dark, even depressing book- as would be expected I suppose, given the subject matter- and it had a very strong impact on me at the time. I remember having to write my essay, the topic being something along the lines that 'humanity and the idea of good died in the fires of Auschwitz' and my piece was very pessimistic. I concluded that humanity was simply evil, that the world was a place of hate, violence and injustice. Looking back at it now, I see that the book and its depressing tone, did influence the ideas in the piece, however most of the subject matter came from my stereotypical teenage angst, nothing more, nothing less. I realise now that reality is a little more nuanced than that. I find it interesting, however, that many otherwise sensible, adult people a convinced that the opposite is true, that human beings are all inherently good, that bad things people do are corruptions of the true nature of humanity. This is as extreme a position as the other end of the spectrum, the absurd idea that I held that all humanity is inherently bad. It is something I have been pondering for a while and I think it is worth exploring here.

I find that the most annoying proponent of this cheesy, feel-good philosophy is the Dalai Lama. He makes pronouncements all the time about this subject. My girlfriend,as a joke, bought me a desk calendar, filled with "words of wisdom" from the Lama and sometimes it really hits a nerve with me, because it seems so infantile. It is such an oversimplified philosophy, it lacks the depth and intellectual rigour of even the most basic of real philosophy. Penn Jillette described it as a 'Hallmark card' philosophy, which I think fits perfectly with the simplified nature of his platitudes. Prime example, I found this quote whilst doing a quick search on Dalai Lama quotes

I believe that, fundamentally, human nature is positive, gentle; therefore, the non-violent way is the human way

Now, I do not see anything wrong with trying to encourage people to not use violence to solve problems, but that human nature is gentle, I think is a bit of a stretch. Human nature is not fundamentally gentle, it is not fundamentally good. Human nature is fundamentally one thing and one thing only: human. We are fallible beings, prone to our physical and mental weaknesses as much as the next creature or species. We are the victims of our genetics and our evolutionary history. We are certainly not inherently bad, but neither are we inherently good. It is unhelpful (and a denial of human nature) to say that any negative thing humans do, or any situation that is negative, is a bastardisation of how we are 'supposed' to be. If you are caught in a negative situation, if bad things are happening to you, it is partially your fault, because obviously you aren't behaving in a way 'true' to your nature. This is absurd. Human beings have the potential to be good or bad or both. We are the product of our genetics and our environment.

Richard Dawkins' book The Selfish Gene turned my view of life and biology on its head. The idea that we are simply vehicles for the replication of the genes we carry is one that I find strangely appealing. It describes eloquently the concepts of genetics and the deterministic nature of our genes. These genes play a huge role in defining not only our physical forms but also our mental state and behaviour. They are not inherently good or bad, they just are. We as organisms are exactly the same. Genes in one environment, in one organism can be beneficial, in another they can be deleterious. In exactly the same way, human beings under one set of pressures can behave in good ways, under different pressures they will behave less so. It is a mistake to collectively pigeonhole ourselves into being one thing, when we are really a spectrum of things all at once. We have the potential to develop into good people or into bad people. Neither of these are determined by some ethereal quality of human existence, but rather the outcomes are determined by our genetic starting point and how the environment we developed in affected us. We are both good and bad, moral and immoral, ethical and unethical. We have the potential to do great good and also great evil. One is no more inherent than any other. So what is the silver lining I mentioned in the title? It is nothing more than a very simple fact, a realisation if you like: if we are not inherently good or bad, it is up to us. We can decide the way in which we want to direct our lives and the society at large. As a result, we do have the responsibility to stop evil from being perpetrated, however we also have the pleasure of being able to do good, simply because we want to. How can that not be a silver lining?

Atheism Needs to Lighten Up

2010-04-26T11:01:00.004+10:00

I've been on a bit of a hiatus from blogging in the last couple of weeks (university studies have an unfortunate habit of taking up huge amounts of your time) but have managed to find some time to get this piece written and posted today (it will also probably be up on the Young Australian Skeptics site soon too). Hopefully I can get back to my regular Friday posts this week too.

I am most definitely an atheist. As far as I am concerned, there is not one piece of logical or empirical evidence that can show me any good reason to believe in God, apart from fear of the unknown, or a total lack of curiosity about the world and the universe at large. I think that atheism is a perfectly reasonable, conscientious worldview, one re-enforced by a rational mindset. I do my fair share of defending the position and also of attacking the religious institutions when needed, especially in the light of the recent atheist convention here in Melbourne, but I wonder if, sometimes, atheism as a whole comes off as being too serious? On many occasions, the position is seen as the nay-sayer, telling people what they cannot have from religion, how their beliefs are lacking in intelligence, logic, etc. I think this is a necessary thing to do, to hold religion to account for their claims and crimes but there are limits. There is no question we need our Richard Dawkins' and our Christopher Hitchens' (both of whom I admit, unashamedly to admire), they fill a vital role in the movement, but we do not all need to be like them. We will do ourselves and the atheism viewpoint a massive favour if we realise this.

What I am suggesting is very simple. Atheism needs to lighten up. We spend far too much time being negative about churches and the religious and not enough time being positive about what we believe. This is a shame, as I feel this can turn a large number of people away from examining their preconceptions about religion and God. Not everyone responds well to intellectual criticism of their belief system. People, both intelligent and not so, are very good at rationalising things which they have come to believe for non-rational reasons. As a result, showing them how intellectually silly their particular religion is simply causes them to hold on tighter to that religion. Atheism has plenty to offer emotionally in its own right, without needing to belittle religion to show people. I think that there needs to be a more concerted effort to highlight this fact and I am going to start it right here, by detailing the things that I feel are positives coming from, or associated with, atheism.

I have often had discussions with people who tell me that, because I see no need for the spiritual or supernatural in my life, I am somehow missing out on something, some deeper part of life (although these seem people often seem incapable of actually defining what this something actually is). For me, the reverse is absolutely true. If we have to assume that the beauty around us falls back on some supernatural system as its origin, that is unquestionably less wondrous than its existing independent from any such thing. For this complex, wondrous universe to be here all on its own is a far more awe-inspiring thing. Why should we be surprised that the supernatural could do something like create this? Where is the uplifting in that? The idea that the physical, purely inert matter of the universe could come together in such a way as to make the living beings of the Earth, beings as complex as ourselves, is so amazing, so fantastic, that for me it completely trumps any awe I could feel for a creator. Again, why would this be amazing? If God is all-powerful, then tell me how his creation is awe-inspiring. He could do anything, anything, he wanted. If that's the case, then why is Earth so impressive? The absence of this creator makes life so much more special, so much more valuable, because this planet could be it, there may not be another chance for life to exist when it is no longer here on Earth. Godless biology is amazing biology, because it has to survive on its own. It has had to do it since the beginning, from the first replicators and single-celled creatures, and will continue to do so for as long as life exists.

So, atheism gives us a heightened appreciation of biology and all the life forms of the world, but what can it give us for our own lives? As individuals, how can atheism enrich our lives? Well, it depends on which atheist you ask, but for me there are a few tangible things that atheism gives that other things do not. For me, atheism is the embodiment of embracing reality. It shows you how precious this small epoch of cognition we all have really is. Depending on gender, we all get on average about 80 years to do our thing (assuming you are a lucky one, born in a first world country) and an acknowledgement of the fact that you don't get any more after that is important and opens you up to appreciate the full beauty of the world and your life, as it is, without a supernatural overlord. The human condition is unique, as far as we know, and should be acknowledged as such in its own right. It is fragile and can be over in less time than we can comprehend. Atheism adds a level of urgency to life that is otherwise lacking. It forces me to do the best I can this time around, because there simply is no other time to get it right. I can only be judged or forgiven in this world and that is fine with me. Life is no less remarkable because of this, in fact the reverse is true. Atheism informs my moral decision-making, making me more aware of the importance of making this life of mine and, perhaps more importantly, the lives of others better, instead of simply sitting back and saying that we all get what we deserve, good or bad, afterwards. There is no afterwards; The urgency is palpable for me and makes life all the more thrilling.

I have stated that I admire Dawkins and Hitchens and this is true. Intellectually they are definitely idols of mine, however I do not agree with everything they think. I prefer to look to other combatants of religion, those who are willing to fly the flag and take on religions, but who choose to focus on the positive alternative, rather than always on the negatives of the religions. For me the prime example is Penn Jillette, of Bullshit fame. His show has, on a number of occasions, attacked the religious institutions and claims of the religious, mercilessly on most occasions, but Jillette focuses on atheism in his writings, rather than always being on the attack. His piece, There is No God, written for NPR's This I Believe series, is, as far I am concerned, exactly what atheism should be. The piece is linked to above and I encourage you all to read it all. I will use the final lines here- yes I know I have used them before- as I feel they are exactly why atheism can argue from a positive position, about what it has to offer, rather than having to rely on debunking and critiques. This is everything atheism gives me and it is enough, because it really is everything.

Believing there is no God gives me more room for belief in family, people, love, truth, beauty, sex, Jell-o, and all the other things I can prove and that make this life the best life I will ever have.

Life is everything we have and could ever hope to have. It truly is the greatest gift you could ever hope to receive and being willing to embrace it for what it is, temporary and fragile, does not make it any less special; it really does the opposite. Atheism enriches your understanding and appreciation of the natural universe and the life contained within it. It highlights the precious nature of our lives, as individuals and as societies and gives an urgency to everything we do and try to achieve in life. Atheism can stand on its own two feet when justifying itself. We need to acknowledge this and not be content to simply be attacking others to strengthen our views. The old, corny, sporting cliche actually fits quite nicely here, so I shall conclude with it- Offense thrills the crowd, defense wins championships. Our offense is firing nicely, but an acknowledgement of our what our defense has to offer is long overdue.

Genesis: Ridiculous, with a side order of Misogyny

2010-04-09T16:27:00.004+10:00

Having spent the weekend surrounded by the faithful celebrating the return of ZOMBIE JESUS, including these crazies from right here in Victoria, Australia, I've been thinking about the ridiculousness of the majority of the claims made by the mainstream religions. I have had the most exposure to the absurdity of the followers of Jesus Christ, however all organised faiths have their own particular brand of stupid which they cling to. For me the stupidest of them all (apart from the idea of a possibly fictitious, probably schizophrenic young man being killed and then rising from the dead again, as a sacrifice to a god, in order to atone for the sins of humanity, which the god created in the first place. The maturity of this idea is perhaps best illustrated by this simple image) is undoubtably the ability many faiths have to hold onto the literal interpretation of the Genesis account of creation. This has got to be close to the biggest case of history denial imaginable, perhaps less heinous than the reprehensible Holocaust deniers, but equally absurd. How you can so easily ignore the empirical and logical problems inherent in this creation story, it really is nothing more than a story, boggles the mind. So let's have a look at how ludicrous the Genesis story of creation really is, piece by piece, blow by blow.

Starting at the very beginning, lets look at Genesis 1, taken directly from the The Illustrated New English Bible, a bible that gives you your dose of ridiculous in text and full colour (I also have, for some inexplicable reason, an illustrated children's bible in my house. If God does exist, I'm surprised they haven't burst into flames, what with all the heathen behaviour and thought going on). This first, relatively light, introduction to the crazy of the bible, gives a detailed account of how the world supposedly came into being. It starts with the creation of the Earth, although it seems there is already something there before God creates it, which seems a little odd, or perhaps God forgot that he had already started doing some of his creation before he recounted his story to we puny humans. Water also already exists, with a "mighty wind" sweeping its surface. Seems a little strange how water can be present before it was created but then these first verses not making sense means they fit in perfectly with the rest of the text. First on God's cosmic to-do list was to shed some light on the situation, uttering those ethereal, oft quoted words 'Let there be light'. A sensible idea I feel and God clearly thought so too because, not only did he create light once (and rather arrogantly declare it to be 'good'), he did it twice! In Genesis 1:14-19 God creates the 'greater' and 'lesser' lights; the Sun and Moon for those of you playing at home, in addition to the light he has already created. Amazingly God seems unaware that his lesser light is actually just a reflection of the greater one. Funny how such a knowledgeable being could be so ignorant of his own creation. The most glaring mistake in Genesis 1 is clearly the creation of all animals within a day or so of each other. On Day 5 of God's epic working bee, he creates all the birds and all the "great sea monsters" (apparently God has some problems with fish, see Leviticus where he warns us all how evil seafood is). This apparently makes him very tired and he has to have a rest until day 6, when he adds to the burgeoning zoo, creating 'cattle, reptiles and wild animals' to go along with the birds and aqueous monsters. Strangely God neglected to create insects, bacteria and a veritable ark of other beasties. Next came his supposedly crowning achievement, the creation of man and woman, giving them dominion over all the rest of his lands and creatures. This is patently false and has created dangerous consequences in our society. This supposed dominion leads many to decide that we can simply do whatever we like to our planet and all its diversity because God said it was ours to break. You don't have to be a genius to see how much damage that can do. Interestingly, in Genesis 1 man and woman are created at the same time, but the story is changed in the very next verse.

In Genesis 2, a different, somewhat contradictory version of the supposedly same creation story is given. In this one, man is created out of the dust (many apologists attempt to use this as an accurate description of the as yet unproved clay matrix origin of replicators, a ridiculous notion, even for them), essentially as God's gardener and woman is not created until later, after all the plants and other animals. Here she is made out of the rib of man (he is not, as of yet, named) and God takes her back to man, essentially saying "Here you go buddy! A new toy". Not surprisingly man throws his little hands in the air and is quite happy to accept his new partner (it sure beat his other, New Zealand-style option), but this is a dark narrative, one that makes me very uncomfortable. This little section of the Bible has caused so many problems for women in the attitudes which they have to come up against. This verse has undertones of inferiority of women, in that they are created from man and therefore cannot exist without man and they should hence do what they are told by men. Simply ridiculous. Add to this implicit inferiority, the obvious misogyny of Genesis 3 and there really is no defense for this horrid book. For those of you who do not know their Bible front to back, Genesis 3 is the part of the story where an evil talking snake convinces a naked woman to eat a piece of fruit, fruit endowed with knowledge of good and evil, which she has been forbidden to eat by a crazy sky-based tyrant. Sounds perfectly sensible, right? Biblical literalists would have us use this story as a moral framework for society, but I am pretty sure we don't want to do that. These verses, apart from sounding like a story dreamed up on a particularly strong acid trip, advocates the subjugation of women, as punishment for disobeying God's orders, God telling woman that her husband shall be her 'master'. This is a book many tell us is a superior moral talisman. I do not understand at all. Neither do I understand how otherwise intelligent, strong women continue to adhere to such a faith, when it clearly says that they are second class citizens, to the point where woman does not get to choose her name, but rather man names her Eve. God also tells her that he will intensify her 'labour' and 'groaning', presumably meaning child-birth, giving an early insight into the rampant sadism of the deity in the Bible.

Following on from these three verses, Genesis also deals in murder, with Cain and Abel, fanciful boats and giant floods (another example of sadism and over-reaction) and a tedious list of begats, which are used by fundamentalists to calculate the age of the Earth to less than 10,000 years. Some have even gone to the level where they are willing, with a completely straight face, to tell us that the Earth was created on a Thursday, ignoring the fact that the concept of days is entirely dependent on there being an Earth to calculate them. Genesis is a ridiculous story when viewed as metaphorical. It is laughable when argued that it is literal fact. It gets every imaginable detail wrong. All its information could easily have been known by its ancient writers, without the intervention of a God, in fact God doesn't seem to contribute anything above what was known by the puny humans at the time (bacteria, accurate astronomy and quantum physics are all absent). It advocates the subjugation of human beings as a whole before a tyrannical, petulant child of a ruler and, with far greater consequences, teaches the oppression of women by telling us that they are dependent on man to survive and are inherently bad and untrustworthy, all of which is total rubbish. I had planned to go through more of the Genesis stories, but my brain is starting to hurt from all the stupid and hatred, so I will finish with a quote from Penn Jillette, in his antagonistic and fantastic show Bullshit,

Whatever you do, don't read the Bible for a moral code. It advocates prejudice, cruelty, superstition and murder. Read it because we need more atheists and nothing will get you there quicker than readin' the damn Bible

It is NOT our Planet

2010-04-01T19:24:00.002+11:00

The recent debacle surrounding the attempted listing of bluefin tuna, Thunnus thynnus, as an endangered species whose trade is restricted, hopefully enabling its eventual recovery as a species, has highlighted for me a major problem inherent in the attitudes of many individuals, groups and governments within our society. Human beings have created for themselves the belief that we are the central piece of the puzzle, that we have dominion over the Earth and can therefore do what we like with it. This is certainly a belief held by many of certain religious beliefs, especially those who adhere to faiths who are heavy on 'end time' philosophy and prophecy. I do not for a second claim that this problem- and it is definitely a problem- is caused by religion as humans are more than arrogant enough to come up with this one all on their own. It is an example of human arrogance that will turn around and bite us, if we aren't careful. The big fish are just the beginning of the problems, as we shall see.

The bluefin tuna is so close to collapse that it may already be too late, so 175 countries involved with the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (Cites) gathered in Doha to attempt to temporarily halt trade in the prized fish (single specimens can fetch upwards of $90,000). Well, almost all the countries did. Both the US and the European delegations were absolutely in favour of the listing of this remarkable species, as was the scientific evidence. Two independent commissions, as well as a special UN board, all recommended to list the species as its levels are now just 15% of what they have historically been. Despite all this, Japan managed to sabotage the moves, lobbying enough of the fishing nations (and others over whom they have some clout) to vote it down. Many, including myself, would see this as another massive strike against the Japanese attitude towards our seas and their life, but it is more than that. This is a win for greed and gluttony over common sense and science. The Japanese wish to continue trading in the bluefin, fishing it to death in the process, simply to continue to meet the demands of the sushi and sashimi restaurants, both there and around the world. We are going to destroy a beautiful marine species, drastically altering the ecosystems that it participates in, simply because we think that it tastes nice. We clearly have serious problems! These fish are not ours to destroy. I do not wish to sound like a rabid environmentalist here, but this is a shining example of the problems involved with letting politicians decide what action to take. If these actions were simply motivated by the science (also the economic factors should point to a ban. Destroying the thing you need for money is not a smart move) there could be no question that the bluefin should be on the list, but the political lobbying of Japan, driven by the twisted idea that the world is simply our plaything, to do with as we please, has stopped this from happening. If this attitude is allowed to continue it will cause more damage than wiping out our fish stocks.

Anthropocentrism is a dangerous ideology as it clouds your ability to critically judge situations, examining them solely from how it effects humans and disregarding the impact on the rest of nature. This attitude is seen in many of the actions both of individuals and companies when having to make decisions regarding the environment. Economic considerations are held above all else in the decision-making process. Well what about the environmental ones? Alternative energies are always held up as being economically prohibitive, yet these are essential, necessary processes required for the long term sustainability and survival of our species and, more importantly, the planet. All that is required to make these technologies economically viable is investment to get them started and long term they will pay for themselves, in money and in other ways. Perhaps this is the problem. Pay-off is always measured in dollars in our world, everything else tends to be waved away as a 'warm-fuzzy' and not as important. I am most definitely not a communist, I am not advocating the removal of the capitalist system, that would be stupid and would achieve exactly nothing anyway. What I am saying is that somehow we have to find a way to make working for the environment, not for money, as an attractive thing for its own sake, not simply for money or to look good. If we fail to grasp the concept that, while it may be our home, this planet is not our planet alone. We have to understand that anthropocentrism is an outdated, dangerous, unscientific notion that must be gotten away from. If we fail to do this then we will have to watch many more species go the way of the bluefin, possibly even ourselves.

Militant? I don't think so.

2010-03-26T22:14:00.003+11:00

I am sure that in a number of the posts on this blog I come off as being one of those supposedly 'militant' atheists. This is a term which annoys myself and many others like me. It is most often spouted as a derogatory term by those with whom we have disagreements (often thrown in with 'close-minded' or 'pig-headed') and is an unfair, misleading term. I believe that the term comes from the fact that many people do not like seeing non-believers defending their ideas and also that this defense often takes the shape of attacks on mainstream religions. To call atheists militant is simply ridiculous. Militants come from warped, dogmatic ideologies, from religions and absolutist political mantras. Atheism is simply, in general, the refutation of these things, an unwillingness to simply take the supposedly sacred as gospel. The supposed militant actions are anything but.

I fail to see why we as a society can abide pretty much anyone who defends their world view, happy to let them say their piece even if we do not agree with them. Even with opposing religions, society is happy to indulge in bizarre (often dangerous) forms of cultural relativism, letting these groups tell us all that their mutually exclusive claims are all correct. Yet when atheists pipe up, telling the world why they do not believe, why the religions of the world are unnecessary, man-made constructions people get all hot under the collar. We have helpful people like Andrew Bolt and Barney Zwartz, who have both, in various pieces, apparently sought to slander atheists and their activities, rather than simply report on the recent Atheist Convention in Melbourne (of which I was a proud attendee). There is a mental bias in our society, one which seems to make it impossible to make negative comments about religion without it being controversial or racist or attacked as intolerant. Atheists are just as entitled to defend their position as anyone else. It is a necessary byproduct of this defense that the toes of some religions are going to be stepped on. There is nothing wrong with this. Religion is not a sacred cow. It is an idea like any other and should be subject to criticism. When you make claims, largely unfounded, about how the world should be run and how the people in said world should live their lives, you deserve to be called on them, corrected and admonished if need be.

Militant atheism is an absolute joke. To be called militant simply for standing up for what you believe in is not only a ridiculously small minded position but also deeply insulting. Are we expected to only defend ourselves some of the time in order to not be considered militant? Should we only say that some gods are absurd and leave other, equally absurd ones alone? It is ridiculous. Atheists are no more strident, no more militant than anyone else who has a defined world view. I will finish with this quote, partially because I think it sums up why I fight against religion and also partially because it brings some order to the chaotic stream of consciousness this post has become. It is from William Archer, a 17th century writer (and clearly very brave man to attack religion in such a way at that time in history) and goes as follows

" I suggest that the anthropomorphic god-idea is not a harmless infirmity of human thought, but a very noxious fallacy, which is largely responsible for the calamities the world is at present enduring"

Blasphemy Is No Crime

2010-03-19T09:11:00.002+11:00

In the eyes of many of religious ilk, I am undoubtably a blasphemer. Not only do I not believe in God, but I am also willing to speak my mind about the negativity present in all religion. Many generally liberal religiously inclined people don't give a rat's about the fact that I and many others, critique or poke fun at religion, but there are those who most definitely do. Wars are raged over the web between people like PZ Myers and (insert Young Earth Creationist looney here), between people not afraid to challenge ideas of religion and faith and those who seek to quiet them. The blasphemers are not only correct, but have every right to comment on religion. Nothing is above criticism and nothing has more desperately needed criticism throughout history than religion. Sometimes criticism is negative and it is this outcome which causes many fanatics to get angry, claiming that they are being vilified. We have this wall in our brains in our culture at present, which causes many to simply accept religion, that we can't criticise it because someone might be offended, that because that religion is responsible for someone's imaginary friend, we cannot highlight the inherent absurdities within it. Religion is just an idea, like any other in our society and should be open to the exact same criticism as any other idea. With the current rise of supposedly 'new' atheism (although atheism is at least as old as religion) we are finally seeing a more widespread refusal to simply sit idly by, people are finally ceasing to give religion the free ride it has so far enjoyed.

But this rise could be under threat. In Ireland, there are now anti-blasphemy laws, passed by government and in full effect since January. Rightly, secular groups were up in arms throughout the country, but the vote passed, due in no small part I am sure to the extremely religious environment in that country. The laws may appear to be a toothless tiger however. Immediately following the law coming into force in January, Atheist Ireland published a volume of blasphemous quotes. There is yet to be any action regarding punishment for their actions and the government of Ireland announced on Monday that a referendum would be held to decide whether the law would be kept in the country's constitution. One can only hope that the result is a resounding no. We do not expect this kind of thing to happen in our supposedly modern Western society, but it is always a very real possibility. Regardless of whether or not the irish law is repealed, it sets a dangerous example. The fact that such a law could be introduced in the twenty-first century beggars belief. Do we not still hold the concepts of personal liberty and freedom of expression to be the ultimate in human rights? With blasphemy laws in place, the answer is clearly no. Blasphemy laws seek to control the expression of ideas, specifically be restricting those which promote secularism and criticise religious models of society. They do not protect the people, but rather they seek to protect an idea from criticism, something that is unacceptable in our modern, supposedly church-state separate society. The vast, vast majority of religious critics do not attack the individual believer (and neither should they), but seek to attack the religion and the problems it causes in society. For example, I have previously criticised both the Roman Catholic church and Islam on this blog, but I choose not to attack individual believers. People have the right to believe whatever they like, but that does not mean that I do not have the right to highlight moral deficiencies within the foundations of that belief system. I have problems with Roman Catholicism and Islam, not individual Catholics or Muslims.

Blasphemy is a crime that has no victim (you can't blaspheme something that doesn't exist) and yet Ireland has instituted laws that can punish you for this non-existent crime, but a far more troubling anti-blasphemy campaign can be found in United Nations Resolution 62/154. This is a non-binding resolution (at least it is at the moment), aimed at quieting those who speak out against religion, in particular Islam. Not surprisingly it has been spearheaded by the Organisation of the Islamic Conference and contains many worrying turns of phrase. The bill is purported to be an extra piece of legislation that protects those of religious faith from being vilified, however in reality it is designed to prevent criticism of the faith itself. This blasphemy resolution is a thinly veiled attempt to drive the thin end of the wedge into our criticism of religion, possibly using it as a starting point to build more binding pieces of legislation on top of and is reprehensible in its obvious pandering to Islamic fundamentalism. Prime examples are the following:

5. Also expresses its deep concern that Islam is frequently and wrongly associated with human rights violations and terrorism;

I'm sorry but those claims are made for a reason. Many Islamic fundamentalists do commit acts of terrorism, motivated by the twisted notions of their zealous faith. Many Islamic countries are notorious for their inability to observe the most basic of human rights. Pakistan, one of the countries that pushed this resolution, in the very same weeks when this resolution was being discussed, made an agreement with the local Taliban in the Swat Valley to close girls schools and allow the enforcement of Sharia Law. Right there we see a perfect example of violation of the most basic of human rights by an Islamic state: the right to education and the right to live without fear of persecution. This resolution contains phrases stating the acceptance of education for all, yet its proponents directly and obviously contradict this same value, once again placing women below men, not worthy of education. This is reprehensible and a bill of human rights supported such an administration cannot be taken seriously in any shape or form.

The second point that I find troubling in this resolution is point number nine:

9. Stresses the need to effectively combat defamation of all religions and incitement to religious hatred, against Islam and Muslims in particular;

I agree completely with the 'incitement to religious hatred' bit. No person should be allowed to incite others to commit real, physical crimes against those of religious faith. That is reprehensible on a human level, not just a religious one. What is a problem is the wording of the remainder of the point. 'Defamation of all religions' is a very non-committal term and could be used to justify any number of anti-secular actions. Who decides what is defamation? Is it criticising the Catholic church for its handling of the endless sexual abuse scandals? Is it criticising the actions of Evangelicals who spread falsehoods about the origins of the world around us? Is it simply any form of criticism which could make a religion look 'bad'? But I don't think it is 'all religions' the writers of this resolution are really worrying about. If they were serious about ensuring the prevention of defamation of all religions, why add the five words? 'Islam and Muslims in particular' throws off the thin veil of this resolution and highlights its true objective- to ensure a starting point for the fight to prevent any criticism of Islamic doctrine or of Islamic states.

Some may say that I am taking a very pessimistic reading of this situation (and I really hope that I am too) but nevertheless I feel it is a realistic threat that this UN resolution and indeed also the Irish blasphemy laws are a dangerous starting point, one which could lead to widespread restriction of ideas of morals and ethics (a society based on religion is not an ethical one). Blasphemy is not a crime for the obvious reason that there is no God, however it goes deeper than that. A blasphemy law restricts people,as they are forced to self-censor, even before they actually say or write anything and leads to the suppression of free thinking minds, minds which have built our modern world and will continue to do so, provided they are not restricted by absurdities like these blasphemy laws.

It's All About the Brain

2010-03-13T10:04:00.001+11:00

We are often told that the brain is the most complicated organ in the human body, that its functions and activities are shrouded in mystery. This is certainly true. We really don't know about a lot of the things the brain does or how it does them. There has been and continues to be, extensive research carried out in the area, so our understanding regarding these mysteries is gradually increasing. There is one area however, where some say we will never be able to find the answer, that it is simply too mysterious for us to fathom in any meaningful way. This area is that of consciousness and of where our minds come from. Many argue that this concept is so amazing, so unbelievable that there must be some form of mystical explanation for it, that to suppose that such a thing could arise simply from our physical brains and nothing else is too difficult to be believed. I would argue that this is a ridiculous position, argued from a position of incredulity, rather than from an objective, evidence based viewpoint.

The idea that our brains determine our personalities, thoughts and, by extension, our consciousness, has been bubbling along for centuries, however probably the first tangible example of how changes to the brain could impact human behaviour and mental state occured in September 1848 in America. A railroad foreman by the name of Phineas Gage, responsible for setting charges to blow away rocks for the laying of tracks, incorrectly packed a charge and it exploded. This blew a large metal rod, more than an inch in diameter, straight through Gage's head, causing large-scale damage, particularly to his frontal lobes. Gage survived the trauma and went on to recover, however his mental state was altered after his accident. Details of this change differ depending on which account you read, however it is generally agreed that he appeared to become far more aggressive than he had been before the accident, along with a number of other psychological changes, to the point where some acquaintances of Gage commented that he was 'no longer Gage' following the accident. Gage's incident highlighted the links between mind and brain and showed, possibly for the first time, how injury to the brain could alter the mental state of an individual. It forced a paradigm shift whereby people started to have to except that the physical brain was at partly responsible for determining our mental state and therefore who we are. Our personalities are rooted in our wiring, not in the ether, as some would have us believe.

Despite the evidence we have that the mind and consciousness come from our physical brain, many groups and individuals, very often associated with pseudoscientific ideas or principles, tell us that they either know which metaphysical substance or concept causes consciousness or simply tell us that it isn't possible to know. In doing some reading for this piece I came across this website, which really illustrates my point quite nicely. Somehow he has managed to get the domain consciousness.com, meaning it's one of the first bunch of results when you do a search. The sites author has a theory of consciousness built on his idea of Aziums and Spinaziums. From what I can gather from his website, his theory comes from the fact that when you spin around in circles and get dizzy the room spins. As far as bizarre pseudoscience goes this is up there at the top of the weird list, way out beyond what can be reasonably claimed, however there are others too. Some claim that our brains are simply antennae, picking up on a universal 'consciousness field' while others simply dogmatically state that there must be a nonphysical explanation to our minds. These proponents tend to be of a religious ilk, those who are hooked on the idea of a soul as part of our explanation of who we are. The physical explanation doesn't have all the answers either, however the pieces of tangible evidence we do have point towards a physical reason for our minds.

There are a number of pieces of evidence that can show us the physical nature of our minds. Look back at Phineas Gage and the changes in his state and behaviour after his accident as a prime example. Starve the brain of oxygen and you gradually lose consciousness and die. Biochemically, if an individual is missing an enzyme from the purine salvage pathway (purine is a type of chemical used in two of the bases of our DNA), used to recycle some of the degraded nucleotides of our bodies there can be severe consequences on their mental state. The enzyme in question is Hypoxanthine-guanine phosphoribosyltransferase (HGPRT for short) and its deficiency causes Lesch-Nyhan Syndrome. The brain is dependent on this enzyme for the synthesise of a number of crucial intermediates in the synthesis of nucleotides. This deficiency causes symptoms that will manifest by the time the child turns 3 years old, with patients rarely living into their twenties. The reason for this markedly reduced life span has multiple causes. Patients develop severe gout (the only symptom that can be treated in any way), along with mental retardation, are extremely hostile and prone to self-mutilation and coordination problems. These are severe changes in mental state, completely untreatable with our current abilities, caused by changes in the physical nature of the brain. These bring into stark contrast the fact that our brains determine us, that changes to this physical, delicate organ will alter how we behave and think, changing who we are in the process.

It cannot be argued that a physical explanation for consciousness has all the answers, at this stage, however it is starting to shape up as the best explanation for our minds. Changes to the brain and its chemistry can greatly alter our mental state and who we are as a result. The evidence is not taking us into a metaphysical explanation, but rather, as with most things, away from it. Our brains determine our thoughts, actions and values. We depend on it for life and mind. It is the most vital organ for our bodies, but also for our minds. Those who propose spiritual and metaphysical explanations for our minds are either religiously motivated, trying to sell something or have a total inability to think critically in any way at all. We are physical beings, living in a physical world; our consciousness is rooted in the same place.

Creationist Crazies on Campus

2010-03-10T15:14:00.002+11:00

(Although I have moved to posting my regular pieces on Fridays (due to university and work commitments) I simply had to voice my anger about this one before then.)

Yesterday, a dark cloud blew over the tertiary education institutes of this country. Religious groups were handing out copies of Charles Darwin's timeless biological piece On the Origin of Species, but with the 'special' introduction written by Ray Comfort. I am a student at Monash University's Clayton campus, where 'Monash Life' was responsible for this horrific undertaking, seeking to spread falsehoods and outright lies to the naive public, but it was not limited to this institute. The book was being used as propaganda by a number of groups at a number of campuses including University of Melbourne and QUT at the very least. For those of you unaware of who this man is, Ray Comfort is one of the worst of the worst of America's evangelical history deniers, a loud, proud (yet thoroughly ignorant) Young Earth Creationist. He has written a 49-page introduction to what he has called a '150th Anniversary Edition'. This is the first thing that I find insulting about this book. His 'anniversary edition' does nothing except attempt to defame and smear the history of one of history's most significant men and to discredit a scientific fact that is simply irrefutable. Comfort attempts to both discredit evolution and also to convert the reader to Comfort's evangelical nonsense. He trundles out all the usual lumbering creationist arguments, top of the list being the attempts to equate Evolution with Social Darwinism, something which is never proposed by people who actually understand what evolution truly is (he also tells us again that atheists have no morals, a falsehood that never seems to go away). His other main arguments seem to be that individual scientists, many not actually biologists or actual experts in the field, don't agree with evolution and that evolution has bad consequences. He doesn't seem to realise that just because a scientist disagrees with a theory does not make that theory wrong. Scientists, like other people, have opinions and some of these opinions are held despite a lack of, or contradiction to, evidence. The opinions of individual scientists do not impact on the veracity of the theory. What matters is that the evidence points us in no direction other than that of the fact that we evolved, like the rest of the natural world.

Comfort also tries to discredit evolution by telling us that 'bad' people have believed in it. I'm sure he is correct in the assertion that some nasty types do think evolution is true , but, once again, this does not impact on the theory itself (in much the same way that Stalin's atheism does not prove atheists are immoral. He was simply a person with twisted morals who just happened to be an atheist as well). He trots out the usual argument that, shock horror!, Hitler believed in evolution. So what? It doesn't prove anything. Yet the argument Comfort uses to support his assertion regarding Hitler's views undermines his own point. He states that Hitler believed in a hierarchy of races, with Nordic people being at the top and the hated Jews at the bottom, just above the apes. This isn't evolution. This is a ridiculous, twisted bastardisation of evolution. It is social Darwinism at best and at worst... I'm not even sure what. Evolutionary theory shows us that the arbitrary lines between races is not really there at all. We all come from the same ancestors, primates who came out of Africa eons ago and colonised the globe. The differences between peoples is superficial, the result of living in different environments the last few thousands of years. This is an out-and-out straw man argument. It is creating a supposedly negative aspect of what he is arguing against and then shooting down the arguments he creates. This whole introduction is full of these ridiculous arguments, all of which are old, stale and make no blows on the theory itself. Actually, this isn't fair on Mr Comfort. The whole introduction isn't like that, some parts get worse.

The latter part of this introduction is dedicated to telling us all about how God is a far better answer to the mysteries of the world. Not only that, but it goes into laborious detail about the nature of God and his judgements. I find these assertions insulting, not only because they are so patently divorced from reality and clearly wrong, but also because they have nothing to do with what he is supposed to be writing about- evolution. I an swallow his crap regarding evolution because at least he is writing about the topic at hand, even if he does get it totally wrong. Once he starts getting into the nature of God, that's it, Game Over. He outs himself as what he really is, an evangelical, religious nut, seeking to convert others to his prejudiced, intolerant, ignorant faith. He is supposedly trying to critique evolution but has written a propaganda piece for evangelical Christianity.

Origin of Species is an important piece in the history of science, a book that should be treated with respect. This does not mean that it is above criticism, far from it, but it should come from scientific understanding, not religious dogmatic assertion and prosletysing, which is what this absurd introduction boils down to at the end of the day. Comfort is seeking to discredit evolution by pulling out all the usual, already discredited creationist arguments attempting to fan a controversy that doesn't exist in the real world, only in his own mind. He twists words, makes ad hominem attacks on Darwin (once again not making a dent on the theory because his character is irrelevant to the veracity of his work) and tries to convert the unknowing, exposing his religious quackery in the process.

A Call To Arms

2010-03-05T10:00:00.005+11:00

There is something happening amongst the supposedly liberal left. We seem incapable or unwilling to defend what we believe when it is attacked. And it is being attacked. Liberal democracy is the greatest gift we have. The ability to decide whom we think is best to run our countries and then also be able to actually vote for and support that person, without fear of persecution or death, is a momentous thing. Very few people in the world have such a gift. And yet we seem to do very little apart from take this gift entirely for granted. It is the relative comfort of our lives that feeds into this. We have never known any different, or at least very few of us have. We live our comfortable western lives, oblivious to how it could be any other way. But it can and is in many places around the world.

We have the ability to live our lives how we choose, not how someone else decides for us, as is the case for many in the Islamic world. The concept of liberal democracy is foreign to many in this area of the world, an area where the rule of Allah is considered the only source of morality and therefore the only possible basis for a system of government. This is clearly not true. For one, those nations which are not under Islamic law tend to be the most prosperous and peaceful, even though they are seen as 'infidel' nations. You need look no further than to countries like Holland and the like to see how secularism is a far more appropriate and effective method of societal control. In an islamic state, all human concepts are beneath that of Allah's, therefore Allah's book is the only source needed for governmental decision-making: If its allowed in the book we can do it, if not then it is forbidden. This simple fact has lead to the supposedly great Islamic states lagging behind the infidel West in just about every measure you can imagine. Personal freedom is impinged upon by the strict enforcement of doctrine, forbidding homosexuality, adultery and sex before marriage among others. Many Islamic nations refuse to acknowledge the fact that rape can still happen inside marriage (according to their religion it is the wife's responsibility to provide sex to her husband, so how can it possibly be rape?) and, perhaps even worse, is the fact that many of these states still see the rape as the fault of the victim; she either dressed inappropriately or wasn't pious enough in her beliefs. A woman who is raped in such a country is instantly an outcast, shunned by society and unable to gain the support she needs in such an horrific period of her life. In many cases, the woman may even be murdered by a male of her family, for the crime of having been raped and, as a result, bringing dishonour on the family name. Such honour killings are supported by many in Islamic states, either explicitly or implicitly, a reprehensible fact, but a fact none the less. These are the states, or fanatical groups, who wish to attack the West, bringing their twisted values with them, imposing them on the rest of us, people who have never done anything to antagonise them apart from ignoring their imaginary bully in the sky. A world run by Allah is one of anger, pain and suffering, of oppression, hatred and ignorance. It is a world where all those who disagree with you are infidels, deserving of nothing more than death in this world and punishment in the next. This is dangerous, and also an incredibly stupid position; and it is made stupid by the simple fact of Islam's own theology.

For a religion that incessantly seeks to attack and punish those who do not believe or do not follow doctrine, probably more than any other, Islam is unquestionably also one of the most deterministic. Allah has made the entire universe and everything in it. He has full control, over both the universe and all of its inhabitants. He decide what happens, when it happens and to who. There is nothing we can do to oppose Allah's will. He is the ultimate Big Brother. This leads us to the fact that Allah decides who goes to heaven and who to hell. He predetermines who will be rewarded and who will be punished, even before these people have committed the deeds. Through Islam's own doctrines, we see that Allah is creating people, simply to watch them burn in the fires of eternal damnation. There are two massive red flags thrown up at this point. The first is that this theology makes punishing infidels on Earth pointless; if they are infidels, then Allah has willed it to be so. It is also unnecessary to punish infidels on Earth for another reason; They're going to be punished forever in the afterlife and I don't think whatever piddling little punish you dish out really compares. So Islam's own doctrines undermine their punishing of infidels by the simple nature of their deterministic religion, but what is the second point raised by such doctrine. It is as simple an objection to a world run by Allah's will as you could find. Do we really want to base our morality, our whole societal system on the teachings of such a twisted idea of right and wrong. How is it moral to create beings, simply to watch them burn? I'm reminded of a paragraph in Terry Pratchett's book Unseen Academicals, in which the character of the Patrician, Lord Vetinari, who stated, most poignantly,

"If there is any kind of supreme being, I told myself, it is up to all of us to become his moral superior."

No god is a basis for a good, even adequate, moral system for life or government, but Islam especially so. God can never be a basis for society to build on, it must be people and their actions that define what is right and what is wrong. For decades the West has been fairly good at understanding this, yet in recent times we have found our secular values being eroded by the religious zealots of many faiths.

Islam is a backward, oppressive religion, one which subjugates the rights of women and all those it disagrees with, it creates divisions within society by setting up 'out' groups, unworthy of being part of society. It undermines the whole concept of secular, liberal democracy, something which is completely unacceptable. This attack is coming from others too. The religious right is pushing a moral-policing of society which is absurd and out of line with reality and undermines the concepts of freedom and choice of actions. The Liberal Left is very good at attacking and combating this kind of attack, but has been useless in defending the democratic values we hold dear from the subversive nature of Islam. Why? The Left has been undermined by concepts of multiculturalism. In some forms multiculturalism is a very good, necessary thing (the ability to not be attacked for who you are or what country you come from is a very good thing!) but, when left unchecked, multiculturalism can lead to relativism, a very bad thing. It is patently clear that Liberal Democracy is a far superior form of government and societal control than a theocracy, based on the will of a dogmatic, ridiculous and dangerous ideology. We have to defend the superiority of liberal values, of freedom of choice, expression and values. I think the left has been slow to do this for a number of reasons, one of which is this kind of defense must be carefully done, lest it be seen as racist or xenophobic. But it can and must be mounted. It can be done without being racist or exclusive. If you critique the religion, attacking it, rather than the individual, you are not being intolerant, but rather highlighting the deficiencies and outright flaws in any system based on these precepts, regardless of which religion it is. So this is a call to arms for all you liberals out there. It isn't enough to just say "Oh well, I'm liberal, so I don't think you're right" and just leaving it at that. We need to be more active in our defense of our democracies, our liberal values. People must be free to believe what they wish, including those seen as infidels by some. Extremism must be counted, regardless of what form it comes in, otherwise countries can change in a very short period of time. And you don't know what you got 'til it's gone.

Why Is Liberal Politics So Difficult?

2010-02-21T16:15:00.003+11:00

I have very liberal values, as you may have guessed as a result of my previous posts and I find it distressing when I see the difficulties genuinely liberal politicians have in making any headway with regard to reforms or even in making it to government. Why is it so hard for a liberally minded person to have an impact? It is something I have tried to think about and come to a conclusion about and this is what I have come up with so far.

There are, I feel, two key reasons as to why conservatives have a far easier run when it comes to governing. The first is that a conservative candidate is, generally, very certain in and dogmatic about what they believe. A conservative candidate is quite often also a devout candidate, one whose political outlook is defined by their religious belief, regardless of how appropriate that relationship is. Conservative candidates have the advantage of being able to say "This is true because I believe it" whereas liberal candidates are more open to the idea that they may be wrong, willing to submit themselves to the rigours of testing or re-thinking their position. I understand that this is a large generalisation, however I think it is a fitting enough one. Liberal politicians, by the simple fact of being a liberal, cannot simply make sweeping declarations about topics, they must concern themselves with the details before making declarations. When you have to concern yourself with the details (something that I think is vital for actually understanding and making sensible decisions about topics) you make yourself vulnerable to your opposition, who will attack you for seeming indecisive , particularly if you are seen to change your mind. It is something I truly cannot understand about the population; why it is seen as such a negative for a politician to change his mind when they encounter new evidence. I would much rather that than to have a leader who is simply a dogmatic ideologue, unwilling to change their mind regardless of the consequences. But we have had to endure- and continue to endure- more than a few of the latter types of politician, which leads neatly into the second reason conservatives have an easier time of it in government.

Conservative politicians have the edge in one very important area of politics. They have an almost exclusive monopoly on crazy. Think about it. Who are some of the craziest politicians in the western world? Bet this woman was one of the first you thought of when you read that. Sarah Palin is the classic example of the crazy ideologue and also the best example of the advantage conservatives have in politics. She is willing to say anything if she thinks it will support her cause, regardless of whether it is actually true. She has done this on a number of occasions, from the 2008 presidential campaign (citing all of Obama's 'terrorist buddies') to healthcare reform (helpfully telling Americans that Obama's reforms would create 'death panels' deciding who lived and died, which is nothing more than a bare-faced lie). A crazy ideologue is impossible to beat down, because they don't care what they do to win. They know (despite evidence to the contrary) that they are right and therefore their desired end justifies their twisted means. Liberals, or at least a vast, vast majority of them, simply cannot take this reprehensible approach and their political fortunes suffer as a result. In many arguments it is the craziest of the combatants who eventually wins, because they refuse to succumb to any level of evidence or logical argument. Liberals lack that crazy element in most occasions, preferring to actually look for and tell the truth, rather than to simply do anything to win. If you don't have your integrity, then you don't have anything and being the one to shout the loudest does not make you any more correct.

Liberal politicians struggle in government because they are not as willing to simply make statements of 'fact' that are simply not true, a trait which tends to be limited to conservative crazies. By making sure of the details and information, liberal candidates can make more informed, well-judged decisions about topics if given the chance, but the attacks from conservative opponents, basically for not being willing to make an ideologically based, dogmatic decision. This, I would argue, is exactly what we all should want out of our leaders; someone who will examine the evidence before making a decision, rather than someone willing to default back to a conservative political or religious dogma. Seems obvious to me.

Thinking About Thinking (and what it means for the criminal underbelly)

2010-02-15T15:17:00.001+11:00

I’ve been thinking about thinking of late. For almost as long as I can remember, thoughts have puzzled me immensely. We talk all the time about conscious thoughts and actions but what does that really mean, deep down? How much control do we have over our own thoughts? We all have moments when we say or do something and then wonder what made us say or do something that stupid, so to what extent are we truly responsible for what we think and do? The answer is not really definitive and the implications, depending on what the answer is eventually found to be, could be massive, both for us as individuals and also for society at large, particularly in the areas of law enforcement and criminal justice.

I remember the moment I came to the realisation that I didn’t consciously decide what I think before I think it. It is a strange moment and then an even stranger thing to try and describe, but an albeit necessary part, I feel, to understanding who we are and how our brains work. We have the honour of being, as far as we know, the only truly self-aware, sentient and conscious beings, yet we are not always in full control. Our brains have a knack for dong things on their own, often with us simply being dragged along behind. Decision-making is a very interesting example of this. This is generally considered a conscious action. We decide what to do, therefore we have control, but this isn’t the case. Research has shown that our brain makes the decision before our conscious self ‘decides’ what to do. The neural impulses that come from these decisions are already being sent when the conscious brain is still ‘deciding’ what to do and, as a result, if the impulses that result from a decision are being sent before our conscious self realises, we clearly do not have as much control over our decisions as we thought. This point cannot be emphasised enough– our brains are making supposedly conscious decisions and acting on them before we are even aware that this is happening. This relatively simple fact has huge ramifications for the human race. As individuals, it throws the whole question of free will and control into doubt but as a population the implications are even greater, particularly in the area of criminal justice. The whole of the justice system rests on the idea that human beings are wholly responsible for their actions and therefore can be held accountable for said actions and punished or rewarded accordingly. But can we still regard this as true? If it can be shown that humans are not necessarily in total control, then it can be easily argued that punishment is not necessarily appropriate, that something more along the lines of retraining could be more in order. Determinism is something that most people rail against, particularly the religious, but what we wish to be true does not have an influence on what is actually true. I am the first to admit that I would much prefer the idea of free will, but I have acknowledge that the evidence does not nail it down. My genes make me predisposed to a huge variety of physical and psychological behaviours and conditions, in many cases being the direct cause. When it cannot be denied that genes and unconscious behaviours play such huge roles in decision making, how can we convict and punish, with such certainty of culpability, human behaviour? I am by no means arguing that we should abandon the criminal justice system (I don’t think that would end well for anyone) but it should be reassessed in light of what science is showing us about human behaviour. There is no doubt that those who commit violent or dangerous acts need to be removed from society, in some way, for the safety of the rest of the population, but I feel that the way this is done must be reviewed using scientific processes rather than traditional values or methods; just because something is the way it has ‘always been’ does not mean that it is correct or the best way to do it.

Science is showing us that the concept of conscious decision-making is a more difficult one to understand than first thought. Our brains are making decisions before we are even aware they are happening, resulting in impulses being sent as a result of decisions, even before our conscious brain thinks it has made its choice. As a result of this information, it is clear we are not in as much control as we have been led to believe, casting doubt on the fairness and legitimacy of criminal justice and punishment. Determinism throws up huge societal controversies and problems, but they are problems which we should be properly investigating and examining, rather than being happy to stick with the status quo, regardless of whether we like it or not. We must not be so conceited as to believe that because we like the idea of free will, it necessarily follows that it must be true. The universe doesn’t give a rats proverbial about what we wish to be true.

Your Inner Virus

2010-02-08T09:43:00.007+11:00

Our DNA is what makes us who we are. Every body knows the incredible effects of genetics and what having or not having an individual gene can do to our heath (genetic predisposition has been discovered or proposed for diseases/conditions/states as far reaching and diverse as heart disease, cancer, homosexuality and obesity, to name but a few). An acceptance of DNA as the building blocks of human beings is essential to understanding who we are as a species and also in understanding from where we have come. But how much of our DNA is really ours? To what degree can we say our genes are really our own? It turns out, not as much as you would think or perhaps like. A number of outside elements contribute hugely to our genetics and therefore who we are. Let's explore a few of the leading influences on your DNA.

The first and perhaps most obvious influence on our genetic make-up is our heritage. The ancestors of the human race have left their mark on our genes, a mark that allows us to trace our evolutionary route through history and also to see our place amongst, rather than above, the animals of the world. This mark is seen through the vestigial features of our body, features such as the appendix, coccyx and a vestigial function of our erector pili (the muscles that make our body hair stand up in certain situations). These and other examples provide excellent evidence for evolution (as we can see relatives in nature with functional versions of all these features), but also highlight our genetic heritage. It would be impossible for these parts of our anatomy to exist without genes being present to cause them. These genes are the genes of our ancestors, the species' which fill the gap from us, back through the eons that life has existed on Earth, back to the very beginning. These genes cause human embryos to grow full coats of hair, only to shed them again before birth and huge percentages of our genetic code are identical to both our near relatives-the chimpanzees, gibbons and the rest of the apes- and our more distant relatives such as the rest of mammalia and even wider to the other classes of animals. Our DNA is not solely ours; the animals of the past have decided it.

Animals of the past have shaped who we are, but there is an equal, if not greater, force. This force is not a living one, however it is as close as you can come without being alive: Viruses. The mapping of the human genome showed us that around 9% of our genome is made up of viral DNA, with a further 34% being comprised of retrotransposons, sections of virus-like DNA, almost certainly derived from viruses, whose sole function is to make copies of themselves (a very virus-like property). This is a very large percentage of our DNA, especially considering the fact that our approximately 20,000 genes occupy only 1.5% of our genome. The big question has been, since the mapping of the human genome, how did all this viral DNA get there? The answer is fairly simple. When a retrovirus infects a cell it does so in a very particular way, a method which deserves explaining in order for us to better understand how so much viral DNA could enter our genome. Retroviruses are an RNA virus, that is a virus whose genetic code is single-stranded RNA, rather than double-stranded DNA like our own. Once inside a cell, a retrovirus uses specialised enzymes and the genetic instructions it possesses in its single RNA strand, to create a length of double-stranded DNA, which it then incorporates into the host DNA. This allows it to hijack the reproductive and manufacturing processes of the host cell, essential to the reproduction of the virus as it cannot do so on its own (hence why viruses are not classified as living). When a virus performs this procedure, it usually results in just the host cell being infected, however there is a special situation where this viral DNA can be passed on to the hosts descendants. If a retrovirus infects a blood cell, it cannot pass onto a descendant of that animal, but have the retrovirus infect a germ cell and you have a whole different story. Germ cells are the beginnings of sperm and eggs. If a virus infects a germ cell and this cell happens to be the one that is involved in fertilisation, then that viruses genetic information is passed on, along with that of the parent. It is this hijacking of the reproductive process that is the most likely explanation for how so much viral DNA can be in our genome, but how it got there is only half as interesting as what it does after that.

DNA gives our body its orders, it is the instruction manual if you will, so it follows that any changes to the code can change the orders the body receives. This is exactly what we find with the viral component of our own genetic make-up. The vast majority these segments have either a negative effect on the recipient, resulting in their being selected against in the struggle for survival or have no measurable effect on the host at all. In rare cases however, the viral DNA segment can produce a positive result, giving the host an advantage in the battle for life and for reproduction. Despite the fact that these segments come from another being, the universality of the genetic code means it can be used by any organism, provided it is in the right place, in the right kind of cell. There are multiple examples within our own bodies. A locus on chromosome seven contains a gene called syncytin-1. This gene codes for a protein initially used in the viral envelope, but in humans is essential for proper function of the placenta. The gene is also regulated by factors from two different retroviruses. Amongst many other possible functions, these viral elements are also implicated in human embryological development and stopping the function of these segments and the similar retrotransposons, halts mouse embryo development.

Human beings all possess essentially the same genetic code, however it is much less human than they would believe. Large segments of our DNA comes from other species throughout our evolutionary history, leaving an indelible trail for us to follow, further segments come from the non-living viruses. These segments are the result of highly specialised viruses infecting human germ cells, the cells responsible for our reproduction. Once incorporated into our genome, these elements can have a huge impact on the function of the individual human body and the evolution of the species as a whole. In most modern situations, viruses are cast as the enemy, but in reality, they are as much a part of us as they are our opponent.

Baptists Awaiting God's Response

2010-02-03T21:31:00.007+11:00

No doubt most, if not all, of you have heard the story in the last week or so out of Haiti, regarding the arrest of 10 people for attempting to take a group of children across the border into the Dominican Republic. This group, consisting of 5 women and 5 men, are all in Haiti for the New Life Children's Refuge, a Baptist group dedicated to helping children in need. This would seem to be an admirable cause, an example of people using their religious faith to do good, rather than justify evil or prejudice. But the problem was that they did a terrible job of what they were trying to do. They failed to even get the correct paper work to allow them to take the 33 children out of the country and, even worse, didn't bother to check that the orphans they were taking actually were orphans. More than 20 of the children this group claimed were orphans have already been reunited with parents and family in Haiti. It has also come to light that 20 of the children were handed over from one village after the Baptists made promises about better lives , despite the group claiming that all children came from orphanages or distant relatives. I have no doubt that these people were, in all likelihood, well-intentioned (Haiti's prime minister isn't so generous, labeling the group "kidnappers") but seem to have been ignorant of the fact that everyone has to follow the procedures and rules, even those who believe they are being guided by God, otherwise real child smugglers will be able to take advantage and children will suffer as a result. Blinded by the idea that they were doing God's work, this group have decided that they can take the law into their own hands and effectively kidnap a busload of children. I don't care why you do it, you just can't kidnap kids!

Since their being charged with child abduction and criminal conspiracy, the group has told the world that they have faith that it will work itself out, that they "...trust in God" and expect "God's work' to be done i.e. that they will be freed from prison. There are a few flaws in that mindset that I have to point out. The first is the assumption that what they were doing was right in the first place. It clearly wasn't. They by-passed procedure and lied when they got caught (forgetting some of their own god-given rules along the way). Add to this the second, bigger problem with their attitude and it is clear they have some problems. This second problem is more of a logical problem with their rationilisation of their actions than anything else. Like many religious workers, they assume that god is on their side and that any obstacle in their path is getting in the way of gods work. This is an incredibly arrogant viewpoint ( "I'm doing God's work, therefore I am right and everything else isn't") and is completely inconsistent theologically. Most Baptists take a literal, inerrant view of the bible (that is, the literal, correct word of God), resulting in the conclusion that God is responsible for everything that exists and everything that happens to those existing things. Therefore both the good and the bad are god's fault and it follows that whether these missionaries succeed or are convicted it is still god's work. To assume that god only has an influence in getting the people out of the situation and not in getting them into it in the first place is absurd. What could possibly get in the way of a plan devised by the ultimate power in the universe? The clue is the 'ultimate' bit. If he is ultimate then nothing is more powerful and everything that happens is his responsibility, good or bad.

This group was, as far as I can see, not involved in child-smuggling operations, but rather well-intentioned and undoubtably misguided by the delusion of doing "God's work". To take 33 children, without proper permission or paperwork, in a chaotic situation like the one in Haiti is inexcusable and the authorities are right to stop them and make them accountable for their actions. These people have attempted to jump the cue under the deluded notion that it is them, and only them, who is doing gods work. Their excuses have changed as the evidence has highlighted their lies and stretching of the truth, their blind faith has made them unable to see the obvious problems in their actions and the complete illogicality of their justifications. Good intentions are not enough on their own. They must lead to good consequences too.

Opposites Attract, Except When it Comes to Religion

2010-02-03T15:31:00.002+11:00

The diversity of religions is a testament to two things; the first is that the supposed holy texts these religions are based on are so vague and ambiguous that they can be used to support any claim or belief you like, the second is that it is a shining example of the difference of personalities present in the human race. You can find just about any kind of religious interpretation you want to fill a spiritual hole, if you are so inclined. It makes me think though. Lots of people convert between the various faiths (some of them even escape completely from the whole creepy sideshow), all of whom are based on the same book, just with a slightly different bent on what it means. How do you possibly decide between them?

Obviously, when it comes to reasons for believing in one religion over another, one of the biggest factors is childhood and the religion of your parents. People very really get too far away from the religion of their predecessors. This is very sad, as it shows the degree of indoctrination present in any organised religion, however moderate. The other factor, which I think influences the choice of religion in most people, has more to do with them and their personalities than any divinity on the part of the religion (although that doesn't stop said religion from claiming it). People are drawn, in the case of religion as with all things, to what they enjoy and what confirms and supports their already formed opinions and worldview. We are all naturally drawn to what makes us feel good, regardless of the the truth or correct way, just look at situations involving alcohol and smoking. The divinity of religions play no part in the matter. We find the religion that focuses on the things we like or agree with and ignore the rest. Those who are naturally conservative are drawn to conservative religious doctrine (often with serious consequences on society for the rest of us) and a friend of mine who is liberal and has that 'free-spirit' bent are now attending a church that seems to be modeled more on a hippy commune than on the Bible. I don't begrudge this in any way; if you have to buy into the whole church and god thing then of course you should choose the one you like ( I think you're better off away from the whole thing, but that's a different argument), it just highlights the fact that none of these religions can claim to be the 'true' word of god. These religions are nothing more than a physical embodiment of the differing philosophies of the human history and of the human race.

The myriad of religions throughout the world are a testament to how ambiguous the supposedly unquestionable holy texts really are, highlight nothing more than the fact that human beings very rarely agree on anything and show us that human beings have the egotistical habit of seeking out what reinforces what they have already decided, rather than looking for the truth. As far as I am concerned, their is no divinity in religious belief, just a multitude of hollow promises and hypocrisy. The only rational, ethical decision is to ignore the whole lot of them and embrace a godless, fantastic reality.

Those Evil Homosexuals and Their Plans to Ruin the World.

2010-01-30T18:49:00.002+11:00

In Australia, like most countries, we have politicians, even whole political parties, whose platform is one of family/ family values. What these candidates really mean is that they are campaigning for 'traditional' values, something which never really existed anyway if you actually look into it, usually one man, one woman, 2 children, stereotypical families, the kinds you only really see in advertisements. In Australia, the most prominent of this breed of politician is Senator Steve Fielding, of the Family First Party, but we shall return to him later.
What has always puzzled me is one of the things most 'family' parties have in common, throughout the world. In almost all cases they either implicitly or explicitly denounce or frown upon homosexuality. These individuals and organisations speak against homosexuality and gay marriage regularly, usually saying it will undermine heterosexual marriage and therefore the whole of society will crumble to the ground, in some kind of fiery apocalypse-type event, or some such thing. But this is a complete non-sequitur. Ignoring the fact that societal and therefore religious marriage is a fairly late comer in terms of the life-span to date of our species and also ignoring the fact that it is an artificial construct anyway, I don't really think many homosexuals give a rats about other peoples heterosexual marriage, any more than anyone else. They are quite content with living their own lives, not everybody else's, something the 'family' candidates could learn from. Also, I don't believe most moderate heterosexual people really care about homosexual marriage all that much. It just isn't a massive issue when you look at the big picture. We are talking about two consenting adults, who care for each other, in private, doing things that impact in NO way on you or I. How is it any different for two men/women than for a heterosexual couple? More to the point, why don't 'family' candidates see this very obvious point? What is so scary about a homosexual that they can destroy the whole fabric of family life and values?

The answer is a simple one, when you think about it. The vast majority of 'family' candidates have another thing in common: Conservative Christianity. There are no cases I could find of a 'family' politician being a liberal or atheist, however a 30 second google search finds such groups as Christian Life Advisor and Focus On the Family, the later declaring that marriage is "... in crisis" because of high divorce rates and campaigns for same-sex marriage or unions. The fear and loathing of homosexuality in 'family' politicians comes not from a desire to aid families, but rather from a religious dogma, based on a ridiculous passage in Leviticus and the hysteria around it. It presupposes an assumption of absolute moral superiority onto the argument ("I'm right because my book says so and my book is the ultimate source of moral guidance"), despite a total lack of evidence for support of the argument or its source, namely the book of fairy stories. Our Senator Fielding is, among other things, a former, but not totally reformed, flat-earther, a young-Earth creationist- that special breed of Christian who believes that the world was created 6000 years ago, despite the fact that the entire Sumerian civilization predates this time- and an increasingly annoying moral policeman on every topic from binge-drinking to climate change and everything in between. His party is anti-abortion, to the point where they wish to have a blanket ban on all abortions for any reason or at any stage, anti-euthanasia, linking this bizarrely with all suicides and clearly lacks an understanding of cloning and embryonic stem cell research, stating, on a policy page that there have never been any cures found through this research and that researchers are creating embryos with the soul purpose of 'destroying the embryos for research'. The fact that a large number of these embryos are IVF rejects or left-overs doesn't seem to register with them, but then they are trying demonise the topic so why would it? A key statement lies on this page, where it is stated that families rise out of heterosexual relationships. Rubbish. Families rise out of whoever is making them, whether they be blood relatives, friends, male, female, parents, grandparents or a mix of all of the above. This idea of a heterosexual-only family world is absurd, out-dated, blinkered and just plain wrong. Sexuality has no bearing on the quality of parenting skills. Good parents are so because they have empathy, love and compassion, regardless of whether they are male or female or their partner is a man or a woman.

Family politicians are holding onto a conservative, out-dated religious dogma, that just doesn't stand up to any critical or rational examination. Homosexuality is not a threat to families or their values. These opinions are driven by the fact that same-sex relationships are not permitted in the great fairy's magic book and therefore can't be allowed. These candidates are driving a conservative religious position, hidden behind a modern, feel-good image. Don't be fooled my friends.

A Change of Pace

2010-01-27T14:05:00.003+11:00

Normally my entries here involve me getting up on my soapbox about something or responding to something erroneous written somewhere else, but today I thought I would mix it up a little bit. The book I am currently reading is The Portable Atheist, a compilation of atheist and agnostic works from throughout history, with introductions by Christopher Hitchens. The book is fascinating and provocative (and has earned me a few strange looks from people who I later found out to be devout Christians) and has provided me with the chance to discover and read authors I would never have been able to otherwise. One such example is Omar Khayyam. Omar was born in 1048 in what is now Iran. Although he spent much of his time writing odes to women and wine (two of his favourite past-times), he also made genuine contributions to mathematics and astronomy. He also produced a long, poetic piece viciously satirising religion and its proponents, suspicious that their main goal was to use their piety to wrest control of the population. The following is an excerpt from this piece, taken from the version printed in the Portable Atheist:

And do you think that unto such as you,

A maggot-minded, starved, fanatic crew

God gave the Secret and denied it me?-

Well, well, what matters it! believe that too.

Old Khayyam, say you, is a debauchee;

If only you were half as good as he!

He sins no sins but gentle drunkenness,

Great-hearted mirth, and kind adultery.

But yours the cold heart, and the murderous tongue,

The wintry soul that hates to hear a song,

The close-shut fist, the mean and measuring eye,

And all the little poisoned ways of wrong.

So I be written in the Book of Love,

I have no care about the book above;

Erase my name, or write it, as you please-

So I be written in the Book of Love.

God: A Diminishing Force

2010-01-25T14:43:00.002+11:00

Many people who believe in god say that it enriches their lives in some large, albeit slightly intangible, way. It is a strange idea. Most of these people, of those I have seen or spoken to, believe in the traditional, interventionist Christian God, in one form or another. This God, we are led to believe, gives them the strength to perform important tasks or win certain competitions, presumably by giving them some sort of power boost or sapping their opponents, neither of which seems very fair for the opposition, most of whom probably believe in the same God. I can partially understand why ordinary people can find comfort in thinking their is someone guiding their actions, although why giving over a fair chunk of the control over your life is comforting I'm not sure. What is far more bizarre and, if I am perfectly honest, incredibly irritating, is the Christian athlete. Whether it is giving the sign of the cross every time they score, helpful soccer players like Kaka proselytising from their uniforms or spouting about how grateful they are that God helped them win the NBA Playoffs/Superbowl/Generic Sporting championship. There are a couple of different reasons I get annoyed by all this. The first is with people who behave like Kaka does, spouting their faith from the field with messages on their clothes or accessories. If you want to believe all the fairy stories then by all means, but can you please keep it away from the sporting field? I go to watch you score goals and win, not to have your faith smacked in my face all the time. Your job is to play sport, not preach. In my work as a lifeguard I don't argue with my coworkers and customers about why I don't believe and why I think religious belief is an unnecessary mistake. It is neither the time nor the place for that kind of thing and would detract from my work. In short, focus on what you're doing!

The other kind of Christian athlete is the one who does not wear symbols onto the pitch but credits the mythical man up stairs with giving them their victories. Now this I do not understand at all. By saying that God gave you the win, you are basically saying that without his influence, you couldn't have won, that without God rigging the dice, you aren't good enough. This is so counter to the whole concept of sport. The whole idea is that YOU do the training, YOU do the gut-wrenching running, YOU practice for hours at a time, everyday of the year, all so that YOU can out-run, out-shoot and out-last your opponent. When you win at anything, their are only two reasons why; either you were good enough to do it or your opponent was not good enough to win. That's it. If you think God helps you, then you are deluded. Why would he single you and/or your team out for special treatment, ahead of the tens or hundreds of others? Why are you so special? Why would God possibly care about which team of essentially identical teams wins a particular event? What could that possibly contribute to his supposed 'grand plan'? And yet we see this ridiculous belief all the time. NBA champions credit their victory to 'Gods hand' guiding their shots, gridiron champions thank God for giving them the strength to work together for the season. I'm sorry guys but God had nothing to do with it, mainly because he doesn't exist. You won the event by working hard, playing well and having the element of randomness fall your way in that particular game. Individual/ team skill is what causes you to win, not the 'power of the Lord'. Why you would want to believe that your own skill didn't do it for you is beyond me.

I find this attitude completely bizarre and a little disturbing. The idea that God has to give you a boost to do things well is unnecessary and gives the impression of some self-esteem problems in the mix too. You don't need God to win a basketball game and the belief that you do diminishes your own achievements and those of your teammates. Perhaps the Gospel of the Flying Spaghetti Monster got it right on this one. It recommends staying away from Christian athletes on the grounds that they are just too stupid and dangerous to deal with.

Sainthood: I have my Doubts

2010-01-14T08:40:00.004+11:00

As an Australian, it has been impossible of late to escape the Catholic church's free advertising in this country, given by a credulous free media, concerning the imminent canonisation of Sister Mary Mackillop. I have no problem with the Catholic church honouring those they see as upholding their principles, as a private institution they have every right to do so, but what makes me uneasy is what has to happen in order for the sainthood to occur, namely the verification of two miracles. These miracles, in order to be verified by the church, must be proven to have occurred after the sainthood candidate's death and also to have been caused by their divine intervention. In addition to this, it must be possible to disprove any other explanation of how the person involved was cured of their ailment. It is this necessity to hunt for miracles that makes me very uneasy. The simple fact is that there is no concrete, unbiased evidence for any miracle. Why? Because the people searching for miracles, while well-meaning, are biased by the fact that they already believe in miracles and secondly by the fact that they are leading a campaign for sainthood, which cannot occur without finding some. This bias can lead to retrofitting of information or data to say that it has occurred, when there could be a myriad of other, unexamined explanations for the situation. Such an example lies here, in the case of burns victim Sophie Delezio. Her father is a devout Catholic and prayed to Mary Mackillop during the young girl's life-saving treatment. He believes that the fact that Sophie survived is proof of a miracle, caused by Mary's intervention. I would argue that Sophie's survival and recovery was caused by the incredible medical technology we possess and the well honed skills of the doctors and nurses who treated her, but this religious ideology skews the response to one of wish-thinking, of having to believe in a divine intervention, rather than in a solely human one. I have no doubt that this family is very sincere in their belief and does not mean any insult by it, but I do consider this need for divinity on high to have played a part in this situation to be diminishing the roles of the men and women who actually did save the life of this little girl.

That claim has never been recognised as a miracle by the church (rightly in my opinion) and I do not think most people would be aware that such a claim has even been made. What has been a far bigger story has been the recognition of Mary's second miracle, the final hurdle that must be overcome before canonisation can occur. An Australian grandmother claims her inoperable lung cancer was cured, not by medicine, but rather by pray to Mary Mackillop and through the wearing of a fragment of Mary's clothing at all times. Although this fragment should be a warning bell. This fragment could not possibly be verified as belonging to Mary and also has a picture of Mary on it. The picture is the one that has been in all the papers and news bulletins, a young, angelic looking nun. The real Mary Mackillop was not such a figure. I am sure she would forgive my saying that she was not a classically beautiful woman, physically at least. She was a tough, grizzled figure, hardened by the harshness of her life. But this image is not what a saint is supposed to be. They are supposed to be, by definition, saintly. Their appearance should simultaneously show their piety but also serve to invoke religious feelings in the population and serve to make the faith enticing. The image of a hardened, weather-beaten nun is not going to achieve this, hence we get the photoshopped homogenised picture all the media have run.

Doctors told this woman that she had only months to live, yet the story goes that 10 months later scans showed the cancer had gone. The soul evidence that has been used to corroborate this miracle has been that the woman in question says she prayed to Mary Mackillop and that the cancer went away. The simple fact is that that is not enough to prove anything. Can you imagine if the same standard of evidence was used in a court of law? It would be laughed out of the room. Cancers can go away or into remission without outside influences, it is rare but it does happen. Just because something is rare doesn't mean it has to be miraculous and to simply say that because the cancer went away that a dead nun caused it to go away is a complete non sequitur. There is just no evidence.

There is no scientific evidence for the intercession of Mary Mackillop in the recovery of this grandmother (or in the other 'confirmed' Mackillop miracle, another cancer recovery story), which should be enough to discredit them on its own, but it turns out that not even all the religious groups involved agree with this canonisation, as this article shows. While the bishops alternative is that God himself intervened, he raises a good point. How can you prove that Mary intervened in these cases? You can't and he also argues that there is no evidence in the Bible that departed saints pray for or have any interest in or influence over those still living. Not only does this canonisation not stand up on scientific grounds but it also doesn't stand up under the very religious framework used to justify the whole process. I have no doubt that Mary Mackillop was a remarkable woman, one who devoted her life to the poor and disadvantaged and railed against the male culture present in the hierarchy of the church (which resulted in her excommunication for a period of her life) all things which can be commended, by the religious and irreligious alike, but to try and add to that a false sainthood, based on anecdotal evidence and religious ideology is unnecessary and insults the memory of a dignified woman.

Skepticism: Misunderstood

2010-01-02T19:49:00.002+11:00

As well as being an atheist, I consider myself a skeptically minded person. Most people understand the concept of being an atheist (it's pretty simple really) but skepticism is widely misunderstood. People hear the word 'skeptic' and negative connotations instantly spring to mind. They think this means the person is an instant naysayer, that they don't believe in anything, that they are nit-picky and incredibly annoying. The problem they have is that they are confusing a skeptic with a cynic. A cynic doesn't believe something because he doesn't want to or he is prejudiced. A skeptic is completely different to the cynic. A skeptic will believe anything, with just one condition: Evidence. All I ask you to do is have evidence for your claims before you expect me to believe them. A skeptical mind uses rational thinking to evaluate the universe and the claims made by its inhabitants, always seeking out the evidence for arguments before deciding which is the correct explanation. Some who fit the bill for skeptics would call themselves 'free thinkers' but they are basically the same thing. Rationalism fits too. In short a skeptic is someone who uses their brain to decide something, rather than their gut.

Some people have negative feelings for skeptics due to not knowing the difference between them and cynics, but others know what skeptics are, or at least think they do and they don't like it. These people tend to be of the evangelical faiths and dislike skepticism because they see it as being filled with dreaded atheists, But this shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone. Atheists do not believe in god because of a lack of evidence for said deity. Skeptics do not believe in any phenomena without sufficient evidence. Any similarities? That being said, it isn't necessary for a skeptic to be an atheist. There are numerous people who identify as skeptics who also have faith in a god of some sorts, although most of these people tend to be deists rather than theists (of the evangelical persuasion for example). This is probably because you need more evidence for a theistic, interventionist god, as opposed to one who just stuck the jump-leads on at the start and has since buggered off to do something else with her/his/its time. What I find difficult to understand about this skeptic-religious position is the apparent compartmentalising of parts of their lives, particularly for people who are scientists who have faith in god too. How you are able to demand the ultimate standard of proof in one part of your life (science) and then be happy to take the word of a book of fairy stories (religion) whose only evidence is that the book itself says the book is true (ask a god-botherer how they know the bible is the true word of god or fact and they will invariably say because 'the bible is true because the bible is true' getting very quickly to a circular argument. I find it difficult to comprehend how you can so openly have such a double-standard and not be wise to it or have it eventually change you.

So, skepticism is a positive tool for you to use in your daily life, as well as for the 'big' questions of existence and reality. It allows you to use rational thought, rather than emotion, to evaluate claims, leaving you less likely to be fleeced by con men or women and tuned to the wonderful reality of life. For most, including myself, the use of rational thinking also leads you to the world of atheism, as you use your tools to evaluate the claims of religions, comparing them to the alternative, scientific evidence, but atheism is not a condition of skepticism. All you need is your own brain and the ability to use it.

Humanity's Suppressed Nature

2009-12-27T20:11:00.002+11:00

I find it odd, just how much time humanity spends attempting to suppress its own tendencies and nature. We hear constantly about how many very human traits are considered wrong by some, how many people try to deny human nature. It is a never ending struggle on the part of the people fighting this battle (hereafter referred to as nature-deniers). This is because they are fighting for the wrong team. Attempting to deny human nature is not going to stop it being human nature and their attacks are ridiculous to me. Human beings are exactly that, human, faults and weaknesses included.

So who are the chief nature-deniers? In some respects pretty much everyone is at some stage in their life. We try to stop ourselves from being angry or sad with quick-fixes rather than letting things take their course, but this is a prime example of our built in faults, the desire for an easy option. And who steps up to the proverbial plate to take advantage of this tendency to quick-fixes, in the process seeking to deny human natures most basic instincts? Correct, it's religion, possibly the biggest contributers to this problem. Take a very quick look at what all the main religions outlaw, or have done in the past. Top of the list is homosexuality. Religious attitudes are finally beginning to soften on this, however they have been in so small way responsible for some of the most heinous, counterproductive attitudes to homosexuality throughout history. They are seeking to eradicate something that cannot be eradicated. Those who are homosexual cannot change who they are, they didn't have a choice in it in the first place. Branding it a sin does nothing but create unnecessary guilt in those who participate and bigoted, knee-jerk attitudes in those who do follow the doctrine (just think the good old Fred Phelps of Westboro Baptist Church/God Hates Fags fame and his detestable attitude and website). But these nature-deniers do not stop at homosexuality. In fact, just about anything to do with sex is either not talked about, taboo or outright condemned. Sex before marriage, masturbation, adultery and others top off the list depending on which religion you want to look at. Add to that the imposition of celibacy in some cases and it is very easy to make the case for how religion is attempting to deny the undeniable. Sex is part of life (although that should be obvious to you, as you exist as the result of it) and part of human nature. There is nothing wrong with sex, nothing sinful about consensual adults enjoying each other and the capabilities of their bodies. Denying sex is simply an act of repression and repressed sexuality leads to unnecessary internal conflict, anguish and, in extreme cases, detestable crimes committed against innocent victims.

Nature-deniers don't just attempt to tell us all that sex is bad (their argument generally being either just that sex is bad or because the 'big guy' and his book say so). They also tell us that lying and cheating are not part of human nature, without any justification. The Dalai Lama loves this one, it forms a cornerstone of his Hallmark-Card-style kitsch philosophy of eternal love and world peace, although his contribution to achieving this goal are small/undetectable at this stage ( Sometimes I swear he is really just a Miss Universe in disguise). Lying and cheating are parts of human beings and nature as a whole. People lie and cheat. It is unpleasant, but that is the way it is. Children should definitely be taught that this is bad, but to say it is not part of human nature is an absurd, supreme act of nature-denial. Like the denial of sex, these denials of our innate ability to keep a straight face do nothing to stop them. All these denials do is make people feel bad about themselves unnecessarily and sell books for the people who spout them. Denying lying does nothing to stop the lying or help the lied-to. The Lama is flogging his books.

People are people. I know it seems a ridiculously obvious thing to say, but obviously we seem to be missing this important point. We have flaws, some big, some small, some sexual, some not. Denying they are part of who we are is like denying reality itself and does nothing to serve humanity in anyway at all. It causes anguish in the victims of the denial, it creates prejudice, it causes repression of self and ultimately leads to a lack of understanding about the world and our place in it. Denying human nature is simply wrong and should be condemned for its lack of effort in actually understanding the facts of what we humans are: animals.

The Great Beyond

2009-12-21T14:15:00.003+11:00

One word, when used in a conversation, can almost always get the response of an awkward silence- death. It scares the willies out of just about everyone, but why? Why does death have to be such a taboo? It really puzzles me, so I'm gonna try and write about what I think on the subject and I apologise in advance if this becomes meandering or difficult to follow at any point along the way.

People get very awkward, they go a little bit funny when you mention the 'd' word. It really puzzles me as to why they have such a bad feeling about it. There is no way of avoiding the concept, despite what some new-age thinkers would have you believe. Everyone who has gone before you has lived and died. You will do just the same, at some stage or another. You may find this a depressing idea, perhaps this is why you don't like talking about it, because you are uncomfortable talking about what you know will happen despite your best intentions. I feel that this is the wrong way of looking at the situation. Yes, the fact that you will die is not the greatest outcome, but it could be worse. You might not have been at all. In the immortal words of Monty Python's ethereal work, Always Look On the Bright Side of Life: "You've come from nothin', you're goin' back to nothin'. What 'ave you lost? Nothin'!". By ignoring death, you ignore part of life, perhaps the most important part, the fact that life is precious. You only have a few decades to do your thing before it's over again, so don't waste time. Sure death comes at the end of it, but that just adds to how special it is.

I think another big problem people have with death and, as a result, why people have a problem with talking about it, is that it is the ultimate unknown. It isn't death that scares most people, but rather what comes after death. People don't know whether they get another chance at life after this one. I'm almost certain that you don't, it seems physically impossible for our consciousness to survive the death of our brains. If you're not sure about something, you are naturally wary of it, sometimes to the point of fear. This is what happens with death. But it isn't necessary. Death is a perfectly natural process that should not hold fear. It highlights how very ordinary human beings are. The process of death and the aftermath is fascinating. Within weeks of being placed in the ground the human body is liquefying, as the enzymes and bacteria in our body move from digesting our food to digesting us, resulting in gas build up that can cause the body to rupture and split. This may sound gross to you, but for me it is important to understand that their nothing special about us. We are the same as the rest of the animals and if we can accept that fact, we can accept our own mortality as something we can't avoid. This fact does not diminish human existence, it adds to it. Death comes to us all and is the ultimate game over. Regardless of what religion tells you, there is no do-over. We only get one credit for this one.

This may come off as not being very cheery, that it is actually going to make you more depressed than when you started out, but it shouldn't really. I will finish with part of a quote from the incredible Bertrand Russell, as I feel it really sums up my viewpoint on death and life:

Happiness is none the less true happiness because it must come to an end, nor do thought and love lose their value because they are not everlasting.

This made me sad

2009-12-17T21:34:00.001+11:00

This is just a small post, prompted by a short snippet I heard on ABC News Radio this afternoon. A young, muslim woman in the UK had her veil forcefully removed in public by a strange man. The first thing that must be said is that whoever perpetrated this is an ignorant, xenophobic fool, insensitive to the beliefs of this young woman and patently ignorant of the concept of freedom of religion. What made me sad about this piece was hearing this young, obviously intelligent woman speak to the reporter. She was rightly upset and angry with the attack, but her umbrage came, not from the mans ignoring of freedom of religion but rather because her veil was part of her. Her exact phrasing included giving her her 'identity'. That one line is what made me instantly feel deeply sad. I am sure she finds comfort in her beliefs regarding her god and the veil, however it paints a very different picture for me. To think that her identity comes from something that functions to hide who she really is from the world, is mind-blowing. To have your whole self vested in a piece of cloth, simply because an old book tells you that you should is a very negative way to live your life. What happens to individuality? What happens to identity beyond what you believe regarding god? This worries me, for reasons I can't fully articulate, but for your whole identity to originate from such an oppressive thing as a hijab, can only be a negative thing for a healthy, balanced sense of self. At least I think so anyway. Thoughts?

Uganda and "aggravated homosexuality"

2009-12-10T23:41:00.005+11:00

When you think of enlightened, 21st century thought, the first country that you think of is unlikely to be Uganda. Even when taking this into account, the proposed laws regarding homosexuality currently before the Ugandan parliament beggar belief. This legislation would put more power into the laws regarding homosexuality, already a crime in Uganda, some versions of the bill even going so far as to make it a capital offense (that's right, punishable by death), although the final version voted on by the parliament is unlikely to contain this provision. Crimes could include 'aiding and abetting homosexuality', so allowing homosexuality to occur without reporting it and an act of 'aggravated homosexuality' (defined as either homosexual rape or living with HIV/AIDS), which could attract the capital punishment. By making having HIV a crime, you are going to make fighting this disease impossible. To quote Elizabeth Mataka, who is the UN's special envoy for HIV/AIDS in Africa, "Who will go to HIV testing if he knows that he will suffer the death sentence? The law will drive them away from seeking counseling and testing services". Even reporters talking to homosexuals to write an article could be locked up for 5 years as a result. Even Ugandan expatriates would not be immune from this legislation, with provisions for extradition of those who engage in homosexual acts overseas (although I would sincerely hope that no country would grant such a request). At present only terrorists and state traitors are extradited to Uganda. Are they really saying homosexuality is a crime equivalently evil to blowing up a building or a plane, killing innocent people? Concerns regarding this bill have been raised, not only by activists for homosexual rights, but also by legal experts, who claim it sets a dangerous precedent. To quote Sylvia Tamale, dean of law at Uganda's Makerere University, "You may think that this bill targets only homosexual individuals...If passed into law, it will stifle the space of civil society. The bill also undermines the role of the media to report freely. We are all potential victims of this bill". This bill is a dangerous precedent for the people of Uganda, people who have already endured suffering so great that we can only begin to imagine it. It is a step towards the restriction of civil liberties. If you can legislate against a section of society based solely on what their sexual preference is, a preference that they have no say in, what can't you legislate against. I do not like to be alarmist when discussing issues like this, but this is an alarming first move, not just for the homosexual community, but for all people.

Attitudes and legislation like this do not come out of nowhere, they do not just materialise on their own, they have to have been inspired from somewhere. There could be a number of different contributors to such a piece of homophobia and backward-mindedness. First cabs off the rank are two men from that good old evangelical heartland, the United States of America. These men are Scott Lively and Rick Warren. I will start with Mr Lively. Lively is a conservative preacher, author of a book believed to have sparked some of the hysteria that has led to this bill, The Pink Swastika. This description of this book has got to be the most absurd, conspiratorial drivel I have ever seen. The book, co-written by Kevin Abrams, details his theory of rampant homosexuality in the Third Reich (despite their rampant discrimination against and killing of homosexuals during world war two) and how this links to a homosexual plot for world domination (I swear I am not making this stuff up). Mr Lively actually believes homosexuality and its associated campaigns are a dastardly plot for control of the modern world. I think, perhaps their may be a screw loose their, or, to quote the enigmatic Rimmer of Red Dwarf fame, "I don't think he had one screw fully tightened". These kinds of medieval attitudes drive me to the point where I want to hit my head through a brick wall. They are so totally ignorant of what the science tells us about what it means to be homosexual and how it occurs and also so blinded by a religious dogma that they cannot see the wood for the trees: It is no more a gay persons fault that they are gay than it is your fault that you are not gay.

Next up is Mr Rick Warren, another preacher who has also published his incredibly ignorant and backward views regarding homosexuality. Warren impact on this situation is perhaps a little more grave than Mr Lively however. Warren has strong ties to Ugandan minister, Martin Ssempa, one of the bills most devout supporters, a man who also has a thing for burning condoms. He has launched and spearheaded previous campaigns against homosexuals, whom he was paranoid were 'infiltrating Uganda', apparently undermining it from the inside. Warren has issued a number of statements distancing himself from the situation, stating that it was not his place to comment on such matters. But Warren has influence in the corridors of power, counting the country's first lady as a friend ( a women who is also close to Mr Ssempa) among many others. His views have the power to manipulate policy, his book has deeply influenced this bill. He is trying to distance himself from a despicable situation, one which he is partly responsible for. Another american figure in this situation is Richard Cohen, a man who claims to be a religious 'healer' of homosexuality. His writings have been described as inspirational by the bills advocates, despite the fact that what he proposes to be able to do, to 'fix homosexuality with faith, is unsubstantiated garbage.

Two further complications to this situation are the difficulties of educating and changing engrained prejudice in such a large population and also the impact of religious faith. Nearly 42% of Ugandans are Roman Catholics ( a church which does not have a good track record when dealing with homosexuality) and a further 12% are Islamic, who also do not have an acceptable record of good behaviour towards gays and lesbians. Bizarre sects are also common, including the Movement for the Restoration of the Ten Commandments of God, a breakaway in which sex was forbidden, talking discouraged (for fear of breaking the ninth commandment regarding bearing false witness) and the use of soap is not allowed, to which I have no explanation. This group was rather short lived and ended in a group suicide/ mass murder after failed doomsday prophecies, however it is an environment brimming with such extreme ideas and viewpoints. The Church of Uganda, an anglican diocese, is also deeply opposed to the ordaining of gay priests. Thankfully the international response, by and large, has been one of condemnation, with prominent figures like UK Prime Minister Gordon Brown publicly criticising the bill and countries like Sweden announcing they will reduce their contribution to aid work as a result, although that is always an interesting move as you are really punishing the people of the country rather than the government responsible.

Like so many situations and countries before now, this bill is being pushed by a deeply troubling attitude, fostered by medieval viewpoints from both inside and outside of Uganda. This bill is a reprehensible attack on human rights and civil liberties. To punish someone for something they have no control over, their sexuality, is the crime, not the fact that one man has the hots for another. This attitude belongs in the past, consigned to the same bin as witch-burnings and the Inquisition. It has no place in the modern world. People are people, this bill is prosecuting a moral difference that doesn't exist and should be smashed for the ignorant thing it is.

Whatever happened to H1N1?

2009-12-07T22:59:00.004+11:00

Everyone will remember the massive media coverage earlier in the year of the rapid spread of the H1N1 swine flu virus (thermal scanners and such), but there is little to no coverage of the diseases progress now. This is a little worrying. The virus is still working away, doing its thing, in various parts of the world, changing gradually by random mutation as it progresses. Throughout a number of countries Tamiflu-resistant strains of the flu are appearing, albeit in small numbers for now. There have also now been a number of confirmed cases of Tamiflu-resistant strains being passed from one person to another (see this article from the TIME website), which shows the more dangerous mutations of this virus have the potential to spread and do real damage. Thankfully the response from governments and the World Health Organisation to this pandemic has been exceptional. Many individuals accused authorities of over-reacting to the threat, but the authorities are stuck in a no-win situation in this case. If you mobilise all your resources and head off a disease before it takes hold, critics say "It wasn't that bad because it didn't materialise into a big problem". On the other hand, if they don't mobilise their resources and take a wait-and-see approach and then a serious pandemic does occur, these same critics will be crying foul because governments did nothing. I'm not saying the response was perfect and above criticism, but we have to realise that without any response the disease is free to essentially do whatever it likes, potentially killing many more people than it otherwise has. To see a cool interactive map of the spread of the disease, follow this link from the BBC.

People have a tendency to become blase about things like this. We are over-confident about our own personal ability to deal with the disease, but also about how it will impact the less fortunate or more at risk members of the population. This has been the problem with getting enough people vaccinated against the virus. People hear in news reports that it is generally mild and a few days rest will sort you out, which in most cases is correct, but the herd immunity that a vaccine can give is vital in protecting the sick, old or other vulnerable groups such as pregnant women. You may not be likely to suffer severe complications from this virus, but chances are similar for many other conditions you are vaccinated against. But for those who come into contact with you who have compromised or weak immune systems, your immunity to the virus and hence your inability to pass it on, may be the difference between life and death for them. That is the most important reason for vaccination and it is pretty much our only highly effective way to get on top of and eventually stop an infectious disease. It is as simple as that.

So, to finish this off, I will ask those of you reading this who are in contact with at risk people or are one yourself, go get vaccinated. The vaccine is perfectly safe. In more than three million doses in Australia only 654 suspected side-effect cases have been reported, many of which are correlation, not causation events. And these side-effects have been mild in any case. Things such as nausea and headaches topped the list of complaints, things that can occur on their own anyway. Of six anaphylaxis cases reported, four were determined to be caused by other, unrelated causes. In short, the vaccine is PERFECTLY SAFE (you can't stress that enough). So go and get it if you are in a risky environment. You could save grandmas life, your own or even someone who you didn't even realise you'd met.

This is why Sex Ed is important (and the Catholic Church need a good smack!)

2009-11-23T16:42:00.007+11:00

Everyone I know has sat through an awkward class (or sequence of classes) at school. The one where the teacher bumbles along, being either a little embarrassed by the subject matter or just not any good at teaching it. The subject is, of course, sexual education, that most difficult of themes to effectively teach or learn. This may seem a little bit of an odd thing for me to be writing about, but my desire to make this post was created by my reading three separate articles, two from the last couple of weeks and one from March 2008 (linked to here, here and here). Each on its own would cause me to be worried or shocked, but together they are very alarming.

The first article (from 2008) comes from the BBC under the headline 'STDs rife among US teenage girls' and details a survey completed by the CDC (Centre for Disease Control) in the United States that found that one in four teenage girls in the US have a sexually transmitted disease. ONE IN FOUR, and these girls were only aged between 14 and 19. The prevalence among african-american women was much higher, almost at 50%. The most common disease (at 18% of those surveyed) was the human papilloma virus (HPV, the one with the vaccine now) but chlamydia, herpes and trichomoniasis were also present in various amounts. That is a lot of potentially dangerous disease. HPV can cause cervical cancer and some of the others can make women infertile, without them even knowing that they had the disease. The second article (and the third) were published on TIME magazines website, reporting on data, again for the USA, from 2008 that showed a new record for cases of sexually transmitted disease, with chlamydia winning the dubious honour of being number one with 1.2 million new cases, building on the previous record of 1.1 million the year before. The increase is attributed by experts to be due to better screening for the condition, however that number is still very high. Alarmingly, the dangerous disease syphilis is on the increase again, despite its nearly being eliminated in the 1990's. 13,500 new cases were reported of the most contagious form of the disease, up from just over 11,000 in 2007. The authorities believe that this increase does not represent improved testing but rather an actual increase in the amount of the disease. The disease is on the rise in both gay men and heterosexuals and is a serious health risk as it has the potential to be fatal if left untreated. Estimates put the number of new cases for all sexually transmitted diseases at 19 million per year, with HPV being the most common (estimated at 6.2 million new cases annually). Add to that 1.6 million cases of herpes and 56,000 of the virus that needs on introduction, HIV and it is clear that STD's are still a serious problem.

The final piece of news blew my mind. The headline says it all- 'AIDS Leading Cause of Death in Women'. I couldn't believe it, but it seems to be true. A World Health Organisation study has found that the leading cause of death worldwide for women aged between 15 and 44. And what do we think the leading risk factor is? The answer is an obvious one really. Unsafe sex. One in five deaths in women in this age group are directly related to unsafe sex, with the report saying "Women who do not know how to protect themselves from such infections, or who are unable to do so, face increased risks of death or illness...So do those who cannot protect themselves from unwanted pregnancy or control their fertility because of lack of access to contraception". In short, young women are dying all around the world from a preventable disease due to a lack of education about or a lack of availability of contraceptives. The blame does not lie with the women involved, the majority of these deaths occur in areas of the world where education is relatively poor and religious positions on contraceptives such as condoms hold sway. These women have been denied the ability to understand and also the power to make their own decisions, either due to a misogynistic cultural mindset, where she has no choice due the process consisting solely of the man deciding he wants sex and that she should oblige him, or a lack of education about the strategies for contraception and also the tools available to her. Large numbers of people scream about solving the HIV/AIDS in Africa through vaccines and such, however this is really papering over the cracks. In order to solve the problem there must be a mindset switch. The only way to beat this disease is through the emancipation of women, by giving them the power to say 'no' when they need to and by giving them the power that comes from something as simple as knowing ow to use a condom. That is, of course, a difficult task and I would not know where to begin to make a start, changing the nature of entire cultures would be a huge challenge, but without it, anything else is a band-aid solution. But not all these deaths occurred in the third-world nations of the globe. Some of these deaths occurred in England, America, Australia, etc, some of the most affluent nations in the world. How can this happen? Obviously there will always be people who take risks regardless of the consequences (drink-drivers and smokers spring instantly to mind), however the education around these issues is not good enough. Sex Ed classes are an after-thought in P.E classes, full of awkward presentations or projects full of giggling and posturing, with very little of the important messages getting across. Teenagers need to be adequately educated on how to use contraceptives and, perhaps more importantly, how to bring up the subject with a partner or persuade a reluctant person to use them. Rolling one onto a banana in P.E is not good enough to do this. Furthermore, I believe more detail regarding the consequences of not using contraceptives needs to be emphasised. Most classes use pregnancy and HIV/AIDS as an example and everyone goes 'Oh yes, how bad' and then class moves on. Tell kids about what actually happens with AIDS (how you become susceptible to just about every bug or virus under the sun, resulting in cancers, infections and an agonising death), how chlamydia can cause serious complications in pregnancy or that half of all children born to women with chlamydia will also have the condition or perhaps how if a pregnant woman contracts herpes it could result (albeit rarely) in a fatal infection of her child. Seriously. And yet the Catholic Church still drags its feet behind condom use and promotes abstinence as the only solution. Yes, abstinence can help stop the spread of STDs, no contraceptive proponent denies this fact, however it is simply not practical in all circumstances. Women who lack control cannot use abstinence to protect themselves and young people exploring their sexual awakenings cannot do so with abstinence and they do not want to. There must be an alternative strategy to becoming a monk or a nun.

STDs are still a huge, huge problem in the modern world, regardless of what we would think about our modern strategies or improvements. People are still dying in large numbers and having their health affected in their millions. AIDS kills more women than any other condition or disease (no matter how many times I see that it still stuns me) and yet we drag our feet on education and empowering the vulnerable or at risk. Promoting abstinence, while well meant, is not practical because for the majority of people this is not a desired part of their lifestyle (a perfectly defendable position from my point of view). The number of people at risk will increase with the population increase and the problem will get worse with it. The emancipation of women and the poor or disadvantaged is the only way that this and other health problems can be solved. This is a problem we can beat, but we need to start doing something meaningful and effective now.

Irresponsible Claims of Chiropractors

2009-11-20T13:36:00.004+11:00

Whilst I was at the gym on Wednesday afternoon, I noticed there were advertising brochures for the local chiropractor (Belgrave chiropractor for those interested) sitting in the brochure stand. I had seen these before but two caught my eye this time. One was titled 'Children' the other 'Paediatric Specialist Service at Belgrave Chiropractic'. I have some very big problems with this. The first is that adult chiropractic has limited benefits for actual spinal problems, the second is that they are manipulating children's spines, spines which are not even fully formed, but what annoys me just as much is what is being claimed can be treated by chiropractic procedures. Chiropractic treatment involves correcting subluxations (you never hear that word outside of chiropractic material. Funny about that) in the vertebrae that chiropractors say cause 'interference' in the nervous system. It is then further claimed that these interferences cause a massive variety of conditions or illnesses. These conditions include, but are not limited to, recurrent ear and throat infections, asthma, attention deficit, problems with digestion, developmental delay, immune deficiency and behaviour problems. And because all these things are caused by subluxation, chiropractors claim that they can heal these ailments with their treatment. Firstly, you should be skeptical of any one treatment that claims to fix so many different and varied conditions. The second reason you should be skeptical of all these claims is that there is not one shred of evidence that anything that chiropractors claim regarding these childhood conditions is true or that subluxations are in any way related to the conditions. There is just no biological plausibility behind the idea that conditions like asthma or ADHD could be caused by spinal misalignment. From the brochures, I found the website said to contain the 'scientific references' relating to the claims being made, wellnesspractices.com. Unfortunately they don't seem to grasp the concept of science, because this websites own introduction runs as follows:

We are dedicated to producing the most effective Chiropractic patient education materials ever seen.Over the last four years we have been researching and combining the talents of specialist writers, educators, marketing strategists and designers to ensure we meet this objective.

Funny, I thought the job of a scientific research facility was to do unbiased research, but apparently it's alright to go in with something that you want to prove and hunt around until you find something. NO IT'S NOT! They are not doing science. These people are as bad as the Intelligent Design 'Discovery Institute' that seeks to prove creationism. What they are doing is taking their conclusion, that chiropractic works, and retrofitting any information they can get to fit this conclusion. The sites reference list is impressive, only problem is that it is full of rubbish. The majority of the references have been funded by chiropractors or chiropractic associations (vested interest much!) and a large number of the others don't actually have much or anything to do with chiropractors or their treatment. This is not only misleading, it is dangerous. Chiropractic treatment can cause serious damage if a mistake is made and these practitioners are preying on the worries of parents (the brochure recommends newborns get assessed by a chiropractor (they say 'Doctor of chiropractic' however they are not doctors. They've given themselves that title). NEWBORNS!! Are they serious? They are recommending chiropractic manipulations for a baby or toddlers, people who are by definition, in the infancy of development. This is absolutely reprehensible.

In short, chiropractic treatment makes claims that are totally unsubstantiated by evidence, to treat conditions that are not involved with the vertebrae and are advocating the use of manipulations on the young, under-developed spines of young children. They are preying on the insecurities of parents and potentially doing harm to children directly, by damaging their spines, or indirectly by possibly delaying proper medical diagnosis and treatment of genuine illnesses by genuine treatments. The governing bodies of chiropractors in a number of countries have removed the above claims from their information and have told practitioners to stop claiming they can cure patients of these conditions. Apparently they missed the memo.

US Health: Setbacks for Science and Abortion Rights

2009-11-16T13:10:00.006+11:00

At the moment, the biggest story coming out of the United States is health care reform. This story has been bubbling along for months now (with such intellectuals as Sarah Palin telling the public that her autistic son would be put to death if similar reforms had been in place when he was born in 2008), but it has started to hit the press overseas of late because of two amendments that were tacked on before the bill passed the House. The first add on is an amendment that has been backed by heavyweights including former Democrat presidential candidate John Kerry (he's the guy who lost to George W Bush in his second election) and the late Democrat Ted Kennedy, among others, but was dropped quickly from the bill shortly after being introduced. The amendment makes provisions for health insurance schemes to cover spiritual or faith-based medical treatments (although you would have to stretch to call them a 'medical' treatment). Basically this amendment would allow the coverage of prayer healing as part of health insurance and interestingly all the politicians who are supporting this piece are all from areas of the US where Christian Scientists (who are the biggest proponents of prayer healing and in fact say that all diseases are caused by god and in order to be true to god we should ignore conventional treatments and just pray for a recovery) are present in large numbers, which could indicate that this is really just a way to protect the practices of religiously motivated quackery. You could also, perhaps, look on this as a state endorsement of a religious viewpoint, something that is unconstitutional in the United States. For some people, this is the biggest problem with the bill; that government is overstepping the church-state boundary. For me, it is the quite obvious fact that prayer healing doesn't work! Regardless of your religious ideology, it should be clear that to forgo tried and tested scientific remedies in favour of prayer is ludicrous. Controlled study after controlled study have shown that there is no benefit from intercessory prayer (that is prayer made by someone on behalf of someone else i.e. a sick relative). A two minute search on Google and you can find a number of studies that show no effect. The conclusion of one such study, investigating the effect of intercessory prayer on recovery from coronary artery bypass graft surgery, is as follows " Intercessory prayer itself had no effect on complication-free recovery from CABG..." and this was a well thought out, well controlled trial. Mortality and complication rates were the same in all groups of the study and there was no benefit that could be assigned to any prayer. The conclusion is an obvious one; intercessory prayer is doesn't work and therefore should not be subsidised healthcare. Simple as that.

The second amendment added is the Stupak amendment and is far more problematic than possibility of state-funded prayer healing. In short, the Stupak amendment is selling out abortion rights in order to pass the health care reform bill. The amendment (which has already passed as part of the House bill) states that no insurance fund being subsidised by these reforms can cover medical abortions, even if the funds it uses to do this are not from the government. Basically, if insurance companies want to compete on the market they can no longer provide cover to women for abortions, because if they do, they are ineligible for government funding/ subsidies. The pro-life movement is hailing this as a massive victory, painting the Democrat administration as almost conspiratorial in their plans regarding abortion, one organisation quoted as saying that the government "spent months concealing and misrepresenting provisions that would directly fund abortions through a government plan, and subsidize premiums for private abortion plans". Rightly, the pro-choice movement is up in arms about this provision, as it is a major setback for the rights of women, many of whom require abortions for legitimate physical and psychological reasons. Some people have suggested that insurance providers could offer extra cover to women, that would include some coverage for an abortion, but this is a bit silly. No woman goes out planning to get pregnant and have an abortion. They are unexpected events and people don't plan for them in that way. The simple fact is that abortion is a genuine medical procedure and as such should be covered in a medical insurance plan. A particular religious or political dogma should not interfere with the science. Jehovah's Witnesses object to blood transfusions on the grounds that blood is sacred (and to the frustration of numerous doctors who see otherwise savable patients die needlessly). That's fine. If they want to believe that to the detriment of their own health then by all means, but it should remain within their own circle. The same is true with abortions. If you are Catholic (or whatever religion you wish to substitute here) and do not believe in the abortions then you are entitled to that belief. What you are not entitled to do is to force that ideology onto other people, especially where health and medicine are concerned. Imagine the outcry from these same activists if a powerful Jehovah's Witnesses lobby muscled in amendments removing blood transfusions (every bit as much of a medical treatment as abortion) from coverage by medical/ health insurance. There would (rightly) be absolute outrage. Thankfully I don't think we have to worry about that possibility any time soon. The Jehovah's seem more interested in converting the Western world one house at a time (thankfully I have a fairly large dog who can stand at the front door and watch them as they give me their sales pitch. They seem less likely to want to come inside then, for some reason).

The comparison does illustrate a point though. Abortion is a medical procedure, a vital procedure, that can benefit the physical and mental health of thousands of women in the United States and around the world and could be put out of reach for many of these women if not covered by their health insurance. The pro-life campaigners, like most who campaign on a 'traditional values' platform, are holding onto a moral position that has had its time and has been passed by science and medicine a long time ago. The Stupak amendment is a gross violation of the rights of women and should never have been allowed to be part of the health care reforms. These reforms are definitely needed, but not at this cost. All I can think of is thank goodness I do not live in the United States of America. The greatest country in the world? Not even close.

The Greatest Show on Earth

2009-11-04T21:46:00.002+11:00

A couple of days ago I started reading Richard Dawkins' new book The Greatest Show on Earth, having just finished reading Christopher Hitchens' God Is Not Great (yes that is just how cool I am). Dawkins' new book details the evidence for evolution and explains the incredible power it has to give us understanding of the world around us. The early chapters (I'm only about 100 pages in) are devoted to explaining the background of the theory (in elaborate, but easy to understand detail) and make the book and the science behind it very accessible. I am, like most people who have taken the time to try and actually understand the theory, of the firm opinion that evolution is true and the evidence backs me up and if you are a person who does not believe in evolution (and are still persuaded by the ridiculously wrong statement made by evolution deniers that humans evolved from monkeys) I will recommend for the second time on this blog to PLEASE read Professor Dawkins' new book.

The book has really made clear to me how awe inspiring the concept really is. That everything around us that is alive, that provides the life and colour we see in the world could have come about all by itself is mind-blowing (and this fact is probably the reason it took us so long to work it out. Oh and also the fact that religion and its dogma have had a ridiculous strangle hold on the world). But it really is true and for me that makes it all the more impressive. The conventional idea of a god is an impressive guy, if he exists at all, but to say that an all-powerful being made everything takes some of the shine and the beauty out of it. If he is all-powerful and can do anything then why should we be impressed that he could make so many different animals and plants? He wouldn't even have had to make any effort. But flip over to the evolutionary (correct) explanation and it is a completely different story. There is an incredible sense of majesty in nature to be seen in the fact that nature is self-creating and self-modifying. It is far more ingenious and elaborate and exciting than any creationist explanation could ever be. Snakes are, for me at least, a prime example. Which explanation is more exciting, more amazing? That the traits of the modern snake have evolved, purely by random mutations, to create what we see today over millions of years or that god has been rolling bits of clay between his hands like any 5 year old in kindergarten art class? It is an easy question for me. Score one to science.

None of this proves evolution right or creationism wrong (beauty of an answer in no way reflects on how true it is) but the differences go beyond that. The simple fact is that the theory of evolution (or more accurately put, fact) is based upon literally mountains of empirical evidence and all creation stories are based on the second hand, ancient hearsay of one or another dogmatic religious texts. Which one should you trust? I will tell you this much; empirical evidence works for everything else in our world, why would it break down in the case of evolution?

A final point I would like to make is that people often claim that atheists or skeptics or non-believers ( I love that term when the religious use it. They disbelieve in almost as many religions as atheists. We just disbelieve in one more) cannot possibly see any beauty in the world, to quote a recent conversation, that we are 'missing out on something'. For me this is just plain ridiculous. I instantly rile at this idea and have constantly tried to find the perfect way to respond to it. The best I can find to articulate my feelings is that the fact that everything we see around us can occur all on its own, without any magical incantations or interventions is just so mind-bogglingly amazing that it overwhelms any possible wonder at a magical reason (which as I mentioned earlier seems kind of silly anyway. Why would you be surprised or inspired by magic making something magical?). There is a grandeur in this view of life (Richard Dawkins' words, not my own) and it is something that can only be appreciated fully when one is willing to let oneself be happy with reality. To quote my all time favourite author, the immortal Douglas Adams-

"Isn't it enough to see that the garden is beautiful, without having to believe there are fairies at the bottom?"

What do you believe?

2009-11-02T19:01:00.003+11:00

I've been thinking something for a while now and have decided to put it to page now. I often wonder what people actually believe about the world and whether they even know themselves. I often think about what I personally believe about the world (and all things metaphysical), questioning and reexamining my opinions. I consider this to be my mantra, if you like. I believe in the process of reasoning and rationalism and am quite happy to adjust my position as time changes. In short, I think about what I think and believe. This process has lead me to the conclusion that there is no god (both the traditional religious monotheistic ones or the deistic, ether-permeating kind) and that the world around us can be explained by purely natural means and processes. I believe that human beings are part of the animal kingdom, having evolved from the same distant ancestors as the rest of the life-forms on our little speck of a planet, in our dot of a solar system, in the vastness of the galaxy and the ridiculous enormity of the universe at large. I do believe that human beings do, however, have an obligation to the world and the other organisms because of our higher level of intelligence and ability to seriously alter the Earth for good or bad. That obligation means getting ourselves into gear and doing something sensible and meaningful about our climate, beyond activist sloganeering and corporate and governmental nay-saying, neither of which achieves ANYTHING.

I think that being a 'citizen of the world' (cliche I know) really is important. I make the effort to see what is going on outside my little bubble of the world and it really isn't very hard. I spend a half hour most nights watching the news and I listen to a number of different podcasts relating to a few different areas of life. My favourites include the Skeptics Guide to the Universe, hosted by the amazingly smart Steven Novella, the online magazine Slate's daily podcast that covers a wide range of topics and also Reasonable Doubts, a podcast by a group of atheists, coming out of America's bible belt and promoting the use of skepticism and critical thinking when dealing with religion. These let me hear a wide range of information about events and happenings in the world and also the opinions of experts involved. It takes very little effort to do this. I listen to them when I'm in transit to or from university (sitting in traffic gives you a lot of time to listen to things!) and when I can't sleep at night. I love understanding things and finding out about the things (good and bad) that happen each day and by giving myself a couple of hours each day to watching and listening to things about life, I am able to do this. If a teenager like me can do it, anyone can take an interest in the world. It isn't that hard people.

But what about everyone else? What is important to you, beyond the obvious of family and friends? For me it is all about making the world we live in a better place because, as a materialist atheist, I believe that what we see is what we get and, as a result we have to do the very best we can now. I am also interested in what people believe. What do you believe constitutes right and wrong? How much of religion and the supernatural do people (intelligent people) really buy into? I think, personally, that the majority of people don't really buy all the god stuff (and they certainly don't live like they do) but are too scared to say that they are the dreaded 'atheist' or lesser agnostic, because of the false stereotype that surrounds the word. Also, what do people believe, if not the creation stories, about how the world and us came to be? If you are reading this, leave a comment. I am genuinely interested in this topic and what people believe, because the world we perceive is greatly influenced by our belief system.

DNA: The Double Helix that Destroys Creationism

2009-10-27T19:24:00.002+11:00

I believe that DNA has got to be one of the greatest discoveries in the history of science, due in part to the incredible beauty of its mechanisms and also because of the incredible ability it has to explain both the world around us and also how the the world around us came to be. It also serves another, perhaps more important purpose in that it provides more evidence that hits at the heart of creationism and at the same time highlighting the explanatory power of evolution.

There are a multitude of different things involved with DNA that highlight evolution and hit at creationism, but I am only going to go into two of them here. The first is that DNA, while it's primary function is to contain the genes that code for proteins and hence 'tell' the body what to do , is actually full of rubbish DNA. A huge portion of the human genome (and others) is full of junk, obsolete sequences left over from older times. These sequences are obsolete in ourselves, but may not always have been so. These were most likely active genes in our ancestors throughout evolutionary history, that have gradually switched off over the ensuing eons, as evolution has progressed. The fact that DNA contains pieces that don't do anything gives a big whack to creationism ( why would an intelligent designer include in his design a huge amount of surplus DNA that isn't necessary?) but it provides another source of evidence for evolution. It shows once again how species are linked together, how genetic information is common throughout species and shows how gene expression can change with evolution (or actually cause it).

The second part of DNA that I think torpedoes the creation argument is a little more involved. They are called transposable elements and are pretty cool. These short segments (short relative to the size of the genome. The actual size varies) are able to cut themselves out of the DNA sequence and then insert into a new location. The mechanisms are varied and a little complex, so I won't go into them here (I have to know them for exams however), but basically a transposable element can insert itself anywhere in a genome. A huge amount of the human genome is made up of these elements and, as a result, the potential for mutation is high. It is not difficult to imagine how sections of DNA being able to move themselves about the genome could lead to some changes (and this isn't even taking into account the potential for viruses from the environment to also incorporate into our DNA) and potentially problems. Transposable elements can insert in the middle of a gene sequence, severely altering the expression of this gene. This can result in either the protein not being expressed or the product produced being different in shape and configuration to the original, rendering it useless. A large number of genetic conditions can be caused by transposable elements, with the potential to cause a large degree of suffering. If an intelligent designer created us as the pinnacle of life and in his image, why would he (she, it, whatever floats your boat) include a massive amount of DNA that could potentially cause mutations and problems for his 'divine' creation? Seems kind of a waste of time and effort to me.

If there is an intelligent designer, he is clearly not very good at his job. He has created a genome that is far too long to achieve all it needs to and has included in said genome a large amount of segments that can move themselves around, potentially playing havoc with gene expression. The alternative- and correct- interpretation is that these show the evidence of evolutionary change ( in genes that are present but no longer used) and a method by which mutations occur, the very stuff that evolution is able to select by.

Score one for science.

Body and Soul gets an epic FAIL

2009-10-25T09:49:00.003+11:00

I got up this morning and was slowly working my way through the Sunday paper (the Herald Sun as it happens) and came to the Body+Soul section. It started badly, with a full page fluff piece about Miranda Kerr's diet (a load of rubbish based on blood group, but maybe I can attack that one at a later date) and deteriorated further when I reached the page headed HEALTH DEBATE (page 18 for anyone playing along at home). Each week, a medical doctor and a naturopath answer the same medical question, usually with very different responses. The doctor is none other than Dr Cindy Pan (yeah, the woman from the milk ads), the naturopath is Leah Hechtman. Normally I will just skim read this section as I flick through the paper, sometimes thinking that the naturopath hasn't really got it right. Today, however, I couldn't do that. The question they answered was this: Is vaccinating your children always a good thing?. Dr Pan answered the question simply and succinctly, basing her answers on scientific and medical information. She explained the benefits of herd immunity, possibly the most important part of a vaccination program. If a sufficiently large proportion of the population is vaccinated against a disease, the entire population (herd) will have immunity to the condition because the disease no longer has enough susceptible vehicles (people) to act through. She also outlines that the side effects are usually so minor as to be treated with paracetamol and that severe complications, such as extreme allergic reactions, are very, very rare. Go Dr Pan!

Our naturopath friend, the erstwhile Leah Hechtman, does none of these things. Instead she talks about some information that could sound plausible to the lay-person, but could easily have been pulled from any anti-vaccination propaganda page. She states that it is better to wiat until the immune system is mature so that it can "...process the vaccine". I am not even sure where she got this information from but I have never come across it before. She seems to have pulled this little gem out herself. It is essential to vaccinate children against childhood diseases, diseases that could be potentially fatal to them or their young friends. Waiting until the immune system is 'mature' could lead to the children dying before they are able to get the vaccine.
Her next little gem: "Preservatives used in vaccines previously included mercury but have now switched to aluminium. Both are toxic". She has combined two half-truths hear, but that doesn't mean that her underlying implication is true. Vaccines have contained mercury and aluminium and both can be toxic in certain situations and concentrations. That is the key. Certain situations and concentrations. The levels of these two metals in vaccines is very small, well below the determined safe levels of exposure and as a result do not pose a health risk (the child would have to have an unbelievable number of vaccines in a very, very short time period to suffer any kind of poisoning reaction). Also, chemicals of all sorts behave very differently depending on the molecules or compounds they are part of. Mercury can be dangerous, but that is only in certain forms, other forms (like those in vaccines) are harmless. A classic example of this change in behaviour is found in chlorine. On its own, chlorine is a powerful killer. It is used in pools to kill bacteria and the gas is highly toxic if inhaled (just ask the troops on the battle fronts of world war one). In my work as pool duty manager, when we have to handle chlorine we have to suit up in goggles, gloves, boots, apron and respirator even before we open the containers of chlorine. But combine this undoubtably nasty chemical with sodium (which incidentally will combust spontaneously in air, another example of a change in properties) and you get sodium chloride, NaCl. TABLE SALT! The properties of a chemical depend on what it is bonded to and the environment it is in. There is no absolute that says a certain chemical will always do the same thing in all scenarios.

Ms Hechtman then spouts (no, regurgitates) some more unsubstantiated rubbish about the MMR (Measles, mumps, rubella) vaccine: "Combination vaccines such as MMR... are believed to do the most harm". There is no evidence that vaccines like these cause any harm at all. Best guess is that this supposed harm is based on the bogus link between autism and the MMR vaccine (all of which was the result of one, just one, terrible study of just 12 children, which cherry-picked results and has been discredited and contradicted hundreds of times before). Her final point I'm going to have a go at is that MMR "... injects three live viruses into a child...". For god sake, no it doesn't! There are a number of ways vaccines work to produce an immune response and prepare a body for a real infection, but that is not one of them. In some cases, the antigens used to create this response are proteins that infected cells will present when the disease/infection is in them. Another way is by injecting an inactivated form of the virus, one that is unable to reproduce itself and therefore cannot infect the recipient but will still allow the body to recognise an intruder and respond accordingly.

The immune system is an incredible feat of nature, but like everything, it has its limitations. Vaccines allow us, as a 'herd', to overcome some of these limitations. The benefits of this medical technology are enormous and far outweigh the small risks associated with it. I will finish with Dr Cindy Pan's opening to her answer because it sums it up very nicely:

"It's always a good idea to vaccinate your children, since this will protect them from contracting a range of infectious diseases which could be potentially fatal or debilitating"

The Most Annoying Thing about Arguing with Creationists (well one of the things)

2009-10-22T10:10:00.002+11:00

As part of my degree we have to study animal taxonomy and evolution. I also have an interest in evolution away from my compulsory work at university. Like most people involved in the study or research of biology, I am of the opinion that evolution is as close to scientific fact as it is possible to get. The elegant simplicity that underlies the principles behind it as well as its ability to explain the past and, more importantly, to predict what should be seen and found in the future, fills me with amazement every time I think about it. The evidence in favour of evolution is overwhelming (if you are a skeptic regarding evolution please, please read Richard Dawkins' excellent new book The Greatest Show on Earth) and should never be underestimated. A lot of creationists, arguing that creationism (like Christopher Hitchens I prefer to call it what it really is rather than their pseudoscientific term Intelligent Design) should be taught in science classes along side evolution, argue that the evidence for evolution isn't there, that it is incomplete and doesn't explain everything. A favourite line is that there are no transitional fossils, which would link the species together and provide evidence for evolution. The simple fact, that they seem to miss, is that EVERY fossil is a transitional fossil, every fossil shows links to where it has come from in its evolution and also to where it was heading, every fossil is a link between other fossils.

This example of a misunderstanding of what the evidence is really saying, highlights the biggest problem with arguing with a lot of creationists (I am by no means suggesting this applies to all creation proponents, in fact I'm certain it does not). The fact is that many don't actually understand what the theory of evolution is actually proposing or what the evidence for the theory really is. I had a discussion with a creationist friend a few weeks ago and he was extremely passionate in his defense of creationism and equally so in his attack on evolution. I have no problem with people defending creationism or religious versions of how the world came to be, but he then trotted out the fairness in science stuff and said that creationism should be taught in biology with evolution, because evolution doesn't have 'all the answers' so religion should be allowed to fill in the gaps. This is an absurd position and belies a lack of understanding as to what science actually is and how it progresses. Creationism (or any religious dogma) cannot be taught as science for the simple reason that it is not science. Science starts with observation, builds a hypothesis and then tests that hypothesis to see if it holds true and, if not, finds ways to adjust and retest, in the hope of finding the correct explanation and draw conclusions about the phenomena being studied. The basic concept is one of testing ideas to see which one is correct and progress knowledge as a result. Creationism decides BEFOREHAND what the conclusion is going to be (that there is an intelligent designer behind all life on Earth) and then seeks out evidence to support this conclusion, in the process cherry-picking findings and information, in many cases also blatantly misrepresenting the evidence. This methodology is totally backwards with how science works and my creationist friend didn't seem to realise this fact, despite my persistence (and considerable frustration).

If I don't understand a topic I won't get into an argument or discussion about it and talk as if I knew all the information. Proponents of the creationist theory seem to not be bothered by this though, in fact my friend actually said at one stage "...I'm not a fan of biology, which means i dont have much knowledge of the topic". I almost needed to sit down for a second when I read that. How can you argue passionately against something when you don't even know what it is about? There is nothing wrong with critiquing evolutionary theory, that has been happening for the last 150 years since Darwin published his work and is the only way the theory can progress, but if you are going to critique it you must have at least a basic grasp on what the theory is actually attempting to explain. Simply trying to use your religious alternative as a critique doesn't cut it. To examine a scientific theory you must use scientific methods and "God did it" is just about as unscientific as it gets.

The First Dispatch

2009-10-21T18:35:00.003+11:00

As with most new blogs, this post will probably not have much of an audience (or any) but everyone has to start somewhere. I'm starting this pretty much because I have wanted to for a long time, but have never gotten around to it. Now I've gotten around to it and am planning to post at least 1-2 times a week, excluding uni exam periods when I cannot make any promises regarding the regularity of my 'dispatches'. I plan on using this blog to bring to light science-related news that is important or fun that you might not have heard of (and more importantly give the quote 'youth' perspective on it) and also to promote the ideas of science, skepticism and using rational thinking to evaluate the world around us.

If you would like to get to know me a little more, here is a little bit of info that I think gives you the important points.
1. I am studying Biomedical Science and Science (double degree) at Monash University in Melbourne, Australia, with a plan to take majors in genetics and immunology.
2. I have a love of classic comedy, especially the works of Monty Python, Ronnie Barker and shows such as MASH, Blackadder, Porridge and Red Dwarf.
3. I believe that the truth is vital. The scientific method is very important and that the progress of science is essential for the human race going forward if the quality of life is to be not only maintained,but improved.
4. My intellectual heroes include a number of people, but especially are Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens and a lesser known, but equally influential man by the name of Steven Novella (president of the New England Skeptical Society, see ).
5. My philosophy (as cliche as it is) is that life is there to be lived and that you should make it worthwhile, in some way, whatever that means. For me, that means trying to make at least part of the world, or someones life, a bit better in some way.

So that's me, this is the beginning and if you read this and think it's worth the bother, pass it on, if not, you can probably keep it to yourself.