Special Pleading

And since it is Sunday . . .

I was reading a retrospective on the life and work of Freeman Dyson, the mathematician, scientist, and visionary, and the author dropped this beauty:

“He saw religion as a way of grappling with questions beyond the scope of science, such as the meaning and purpose of life, ethics, and human consciousness.”

There is so much to unpack here! First, religions do not “grapple with questions.” They create ad hoc answers off the tops of their heads. If they can find any support for their answers in scripture, they will quote that, but that is not the same as a scientific citation.

As for being “beyond the scope of science” the meaning and purpose of life is beyond the scope of science because they are entirely made up and therefore lacking in any reality to study scientifically. When people use the phrase “the meaning of life” they really mean “the meaning of human life” because nobody would give a damn if it were the meaning of the lives of amoebae we were talking about. And, this is a form of special pleading as it is a claim that human life is just so damned special, it must have a meaning. And any such meaning would have to come from outside us, otherwise it would just be a social construct (sneer, sneer). And, if it came from outside us, it would have to come from some source, say . . . a god! The exact same can be said about our “purpose,” something else coming from outside (Is that you, God?).

Does anyone claim that ethics are anything but social constructed? (There is even the subtopic of “legal ethics!” Just ask Rudy Giuliani about that.)

And I can’t find any traction for the concept that we will never answer the riddle of consciousness scientifically. We have been only studying it scientifically for a few decades and it is a difficult issue. Philosophers have been considering it for much longer but they got nowhere as they had almost no real data to discuss. If we think science will not help us understand consciousness, why on Earth would we expect religion to figure it out? Religions were not created to answer questions.

So, this statement, if anchored in Dyson’s writings, is another indication that our religious cultures have a real grip on our thinking.

Dyson himself wasn’t above writing nonsense, for example consider the quote from one of his books “Science has as many competing styles as painting or poetry. The diversity of science also finds a parallel in the diversity of religion.” The first sentence seems true, the second seems bizarre. The diversity of science is created by the diversity of knowledge that stems from it. If the quantity of knowledge were miniscule then we would only have a few “scientists.” But because the knowledge acquired is so vast, we have biologists, chemists, physicists, cosmologists, botanists, etc. Even experts in these fields cannot handle all of the knowledge contained, so there are specialties within those specialties: in physics there are particle physicists, nuclear physicists, quantum physicists, medical physicists, molecular physicists, cosmological physicists, etc. And none of them knows what the others do.

Religious diversity stems from what? Clearly geographical isolation is part of the cause. In western religion, it seems that schism is a hobby practiced by theologians in great quantity.

Some religions seem to have been created as way to become rich (Scientology), others based upon nebulous beliefs that are hard, if not impossible, to substantiate.

Stating that religion and science are both diverse is not a common attribute based upon the same bases. Baseball sabermetrics are incredibly diverse but no one is comparing them to science or religion. The science-religion axis is a hot bed of special pleading, both ways it seems.

Did You See How Old We Really Are?

You may not have noticed, but a paper was just published that extends to age of the universe from the oft-quoted 13-8 billion years to 26.7 billion years. (And I am feeling every year of it!)

Any confusion here is compounded by the oft-stated statistic of 13.8 billion years being stated as a fact, when it is not. That stat should always be preceded by “according to the best theory available. . . .” It was and is a prediction made by a theory, the so-called Big Bang Theory (BBT).

The “new” prediction involves the BBT also, but folds in what has come to be called the tired light hypothesis. And to explain I need to provide a little background.

Back in the 1920’s most, if not all, physicists believed that the Milky Way galaxy was the entire universe. Then Edwin Hubble, an astronomer, determined that the so-called fuzzy “nebulae” we could see with our telescopes (fuzzy, so not stars) were so far away as to be outside of the our galaxy and thus the other galaxies were discovered.

We now know that there are more other galaxies in the “universe” than there are stars in our galaxy!

Part of Hubble’s research showed that “red-shifts” occurred and that the farther away these galaxies were, the greater their red-shifts. Now, redshifts are the shifting of lights toward the red end of the electromagnetic spectrum. Since most of the universe is hydrogen and hydrogen only emits four visible light colors (along with a bunch of invisible “colors”), we have measured exactly the colors of light that hydrogen emits but from far away stars and galaxies, often enough these colors are shifted toward the red end of the rainbow.

Hubble’s data showed that the farther away the source was, the greater the amount of red-shifting. The theoretical response was to interpret this as a manifestation of the Doppler Effect, you know that when a train is moving toward you, the pitch of the sound goes up, and when it passes, the pitch goes down. The movement of the sound source affects the pitch, aka frequency, of the sound. Since so many stellar sources are red-shifted, it must mean they are moving away from us and the only reason so many would be moving away is because the universe itself is expanding. The theoreticians went farther though and it wasn’t the case that the objects in the universe were just moving away from one another, but that space itself was expanding, carrying all objects with it.

I have always found this idea bizarre because I never thought of space as a thing that could expand, but the concept got theoretical support from all corners, and the “expansion of space-time” is now a cornerstone of cosmology.

There is only one problem. Hubble was wrong . . . and even he admitted it. More extensive studies show that that relationship Hubble found is not in evidence. So, the “idea that launched a 1000 theories” turned out to not be right. The theories that supported the expansion of space-time were all theories based upon space being “empty” and light traveling through it. We now know that “empty space” does not seem to exist and even the emptiest of spaces, intergalactic space, is awash with neutrinos, light, plasma, even atoms, etc.

A theory was advanced that claimed that the red-shifts were not caused by the Doppler Effect, but by light losing energy as it travels. (The frequency of light is directly proportional to its energy and inversely proportional to its wavelength, so if it loses energy its frequency drops and its wavelength stretches and longer wavelengths means redder lights.) This theory was disparaged by the true believers in an expanding universe by calling it the “tired light theory,” but whereas space-time expansion has no direct support, the tired light theory does. And it was by adding a soupçon of tired light to the BBT that the new age of the universe was calculated.

To get direct support for the interaction of light with plasmas causing a red-shift, you need look no further than our own Sun. The outer surface of the Sun is called the corona and the solar surface below it lingers at about 10,000 degrees Fahrenheit, while the thin corona can get as hot as 2 million degrees. While the corona is a layer of plasma, it is clear that light from below somehow loses energy to that plasma, leaving the light with less energy, a lower frequency, and longer, aka redder, wavelengths.

Intergalactic and interstellar space is full of plasma, although not enough (yet) to account for all of the red-shifts, but certainly a substantial part of them.

All of the theoretical support for the expansion of space-time is based upon theories that claim space is empty, so light has nothing to interact with (and make it tired) and the only force in play of any magnitude is gravity. Actual evidence shows that plasmas and the electromagnetic forces they bring into play, while smaller, are not insignificant.

The “tired light theory” received no support because of scientists favoring the BBT supporting theories which now turn out to be based upon false assumptions. It is never a good thing when scientists cling to theories and ignore, or worse, massage away, real data.

Now, what do you think are the consequences of the BBT theory going away? We still have many ideas as to what causes red-shifting, some of which have experimental/observational support which the expansion of space-time does not.

In fact, if one gives up on the falsely founded belief in an expanding space-time, one is left with an infinite universe which had no beginning and will have no end. This is not to the liking of scientists who harbor religious or spiritual beliefs because the universe having a beginning and an end aligns with religious thinking much better and an infinite universe would conflict with those religious beliefs, thus undermining some of those religion’s foundations.

We have come a long way. Back in the 1920’s Einstein pooh-poohed the idea of an expanding universe as he was convinced the universe was static. One hundred years later, cosmologists are still clinging to their nascent theories of an expanding universe, when more than a few contradictions have arisen. (Just one counter fact is all that is needed to bring a theory down.)

To point out just one, the BBT is founded on the expansion of space-time, but the numbers didn’t add up. In order for the bits we can see now to have gotten to where they are, some parts of the early universe must have been speeding above the speed of light which still seems to be a no-no, so, an ad hoc patch was created: cosmic inflation. The patch being that at the beginning of the expansion of the universe and even before, the rate of early expansion was accelerated mightily by a phenomenon called “cosmic inflation.” The only reason this was invented was to make the BBT not violate the laws of physics. No observations have been made to support such a thing existing, no mechanism for its action has been proposed. It only exists to make the theory hold together. I call such things magic. And “inflation” is not the only magical thing invented to save the BBT. There is also dark matter and dark energy, the existences of which are being stated as if they were factual. These concepts were proposed decades ago and still there is no observational or experimental confirmation of their existence. Their only reason for their being is to make the BBT work. Such “magical” patches are a sure sign a theory is about to collapse.

Bitching and Moaning

Yesterday I had just gotten back from walking the dog and found myself bitching about how steamy the weather was, The day before was our first 90°F high temperature day, and then we got some thunderstorms. Today’s high is expected to be in the high 80s and then the next day in the mid 70’s.

Yes, I am aware that the South, Southwest, and Northeast are experiencing oven-roasted chicken temperatures. The day before yesterday I noticed a golf tournament being played with a “Feels Like” temperature of 106°F in Minnesota, of all places (yes, I know they get some hot weather up there).

When we moved from Northern California to Chicago, IL all of our friends asked “Do you know what the weather is like there?” and our stock answer was “we are betting on climate change.” Well, it has changed. The Chicago winters are much warmer and the Chicago summers are much cooler. We have had daily highs mostly in the high 70’s, of late breaking into the 80’s.

But human beings are adaptable. We can whine and cry about anything. So, while the desert Southwest is experiencing 100°F to 110°F temperatures (and higher) I can bitch and moan about the 80–some odd temperatures we are getting. Go figure.

What is alarming about the temperature trends globally, is estimates that show all of the renewable energy sources being brought on line are going to be swallowed up by new air conditioning demands and traditional energy sources (coal, gas, oil) aren’t going to be displaced much, which means . . . even higher temperatures.

If you have never heard of positive feedback loops, you might want to look them up.

Oh, and the GOP has plans to demolish all of the federal environmental efforts the next time they come to power. Hoping they will come to their senses before they come to their power again is a false hope. We need to deny them any power they seek. We also need to put the Dems feet to the fire on these issue. If insufficient responses are had, I say “replace them all.”

It’s a Start

I mentioned I might want to write an atheist’s handbook. A quick survey of Amazon.com offerings shows many books in this vein, but few of them (none I could see) are taking my tack: how to be a good atheist. So, like Boy/Girl Scout manuals, the focus is not on the history of atheism, or the politics of atheism (although they will get mentioned), this will be about being a good atheist.

As with all my writing projects, I make a list of topics I might include and then I pick one that might get my juices going and begin. Below is an excerpt of my first draft for your perusal. I do have a question: am I wasting my time (and yours) or should I keep going?

PS Those of you who offered suggestions may notice them in this segment.

* * * *

An Excerpt from . . . The Atheist’s Handbook
<sub> AKA How to Be a Good Atheist

Questions Atheists Get Asked

Atheists are often asked questions, questions which to us seem strange but the questioner often comes from a community in which atheists are about as common as outer space aliens, so be gentle.

Here are some common questions you may encounter and helpful answers you might want to use.

Do Atheists worship Satan?
No, we worship no gods, especially not demi-gods created by gods we are unconvinced are real in the first place.

Can atheism answer the “Big Questions”?
No, but neither can anyone else. Often these questions, for example, “Why is there something rather than nothing?” and “Where did we come from?” and “How did we get here?” plus “Are we alone in the Universe?” are inventions of bright people who know there are no answers to such questions (yet), but they can foster stimulating discussions. More often, though, we are asked these by theists who think their religions can answer these questions. But just because they offer answers to such questions doesn’t make them right.

For example, they might answer “How did we get here?” with “God created you.” But I might answer that “the Whifflegump created you.” How do you tell which of our answers is valid? A theist might respond with “There is no such thing as a Whifflegump, you just made that up.” to which I can answer “There is no such thing as God, you just made that up.” How do you tell which of our answers is valid?

What happens after death for atheists?
Nothing. Life goes on, but it no longer involves us. I especially like to refer to the time before they were born by asking “Do you recall what it was like before you were born?” And when they look puzzled or answer “no,” I continue “It is just like that.”

Do atheists have a code word or special handshake?
No, but maybe we should. I will ask the Council to look into it.

Why do atheists hate God?
Atheists do not hate any god, as an atheist cannot hate that which is non existent. Well we could try, but why would we? Atheists do hate things that the religious do in the name of their gods, horrible, detestable things. But the gods themselves? Hating imaginary beings is a recipe for a stay in a mental health facility.

Do atheists eat babies?
This is such an insulting question that I am inclined to respond with jokes and insults, but often these are Christians who have been told these lies and they may not understand the nuances of such responses. (Early Christians were accused of cannibalism because they “ate the body and drank the blood of Christ” in a ritual. So, they may be a little sensitive. But these very same people claim that “the Jews” killed Christ, when Jesus and his followers were all practicing Jews and the people who actually killed Jesus were Roman pagans, at least according to their own scriptures. From this we can conclude that they do not think clearly about such issues.)

The suggested response is to be mildly to aggressively outraged. Mild outrage might be expressed as being offended. Aggressive outrage might be along the lines of “Who told you this lie? Was it your pastor? I will contact my lawyer and we will sue him for defamation of character.”

Where do atheists worship?
“By their questions, ye shall know them.” (Atheist’s Credo)

Obviously this is a stupid question, but pointing that out is not winning a point. People are theists for one reason: to feel special. To point out that they ask stupid questions would clash with that belief and you would lose their attention.

So, you might ask “worship what?” Or more simply state, “we don’t worship.”

Do you atheists know you are going to Hell?
Yes, this is another insulting question, but again, nothing is probably to be gained by being snarky or cheeky.

One common response is “We don’t believe in the existence of Hell.” If you are feeling feisty, you might say “Going to Hell is something only Christians and Muslims do and since we are neither, we don’t ever go there.”

Again, for the umpteenth time, these people are told these silly things and their faith actively discourages critical thinking, so they are hardly to blame for what they have been taught.

If Atheists aren’t evil, why do polls show that no one would vote for one in a U.S. presidential election?
Well, they are right about the polls. People are more likely to vote for a terrorist than an atheist. But that tells us about what they have been taught, not what we are.

The U.S. Constitution forbids “religious tests” for office, so they can’t ask you straight out about your “religion,” but the do and they will, so it is probably not a good idea to run for president if you are an atheist. Donald Trump did, but he avoided the trap by lying through his teeth all the way into office and we can’t recommend that.

This, of course, is another common cognitive fallacy, called the Bandwagon Fallacy (also, Argument from Common Sense, Argumentum ad Populum): the fallacy of arguing that because “everyone,” “the people,” or “a majority” (or someone in power who has widespread backing) supposedly thinks or does something, it must therefore be true and right. But since theists are actively discouraged from thinking critically, we expect them to display many of these common cognitive fallacies.

Why are Atheists constantly trying to undermine my faith?
This question commonly crops up on Internet forums in which atheists are asked “gotcha” questions. The questioners are virtue signally to others as a “defender of the faith” by doing so (we guess).

Our recommended response is “Atheists do not proselytize.” (Atheist’s Credo) and we might add “But we do answer questions . . . and you did ask this question on a forum for atheists, . . . so . . .”

Note—There is no “Council” or Atheist’s Credo . . . yet . . . and I may continue referring to it, even if it does not exist.

Priceless!

Republicans are fond of using psychological projection, accusing others of doing what they are doing. It is a common practice as it defangs any accusation coming back upon them.

Consider the following cartoon.

It accuses the Dems of psychological projection, and in itself is an example of GOP psychological projection. Amazing.

The Atheist’s Handbook

I made yet another reference to “The Atheist’s Handbook” in a snarky reply to a theist. This gave me the idea that someone needed to write such a thing, so it sounding like fun, I began.

I do need help, however. What items would you expect to see in the Table of Contents of that book? What points would you like to be made in that book? All contributions will be acknowledged (let me know if you do not want your name to appear).

I have done some searches and there are all kinds of books incorporating similar themes. Most seem to diatribes against religion, whilst others are trying to explain atheism, but I am thinking more along the lines of the Boy Scout’s Handbooks, focusing on how to be a good atheist. Lots of how to’s and not so much “fuck the theists” screeds.

They Don’t Care and Can’t Even Spell Shame

When Donald Trump was elected president, my partner said that we can only hope that “they,” meaning the GOP, overplay the hand they were dealt. Well, they did do that, and instead of retreating or projecting remorse or feeling shame, they have doubled down.

The Heritage Foundation, “the notorious rightwing, climate-denying think tank,” has let it be known that they have created a plan, called Project 2025, to gut all of the federal government’s environmental protection infrastructures. This, apparently, is only for the benefit of fossil fuel sellers, all claims of ideological purity being obviously false. (They claim they are motivated to “restore self-governance to the American people” as if you or I individually can do anything about climate change, or oil spills, or. . . . They are against all collective action via government, because it is the remaining power that can resist the greed of major corporations and filthy rich people.)

This is also not a cry for small government because Republicans want to expand government intrusion all over the place, especially when it comes to reproductive rights, including giving the government the right to require school children to drop their pants/skirts to prove their sex.

This shows that they cannot overplay their hand internally, so we must make it obvious for them. They have no shame, no sense of responsibility to the whole, and for the religiously minded, they have no souls (stewardship is for losers, they are telling us).

Anyone who votes for Republicans, now that they have revealed their plans, is stating they don’t give a flying fuck for the rest of us, they want the greedy capitalists to become even wealthier and that is a goal they share with the greedy capitalists.

We need to teach them the shame of their actions.

Postscript In politics we are told to “follow the money.” This “project” was funded to the tune of $22 million, but the donors weren’t listed. Of course, the Heritage Foundation is very close to Charles Koch, the remaining Koch brother, and he has been laundering money for conservative causes for decades, so I think it is safe to assume the “usual sources.”

Stupid Questions from Quora—A Follow-up

Yesterday I posted a wide range of clearly stupid questions I encountered just yesterday morning on the Quora website. And, of course, the hits just keep coming. One of the first questions cued up for me this morning is below. (If you are wondering why such a demeaning question wasn’t removed by moderators, Quora fired all of its moderators and uses only an “AI” and I doubt, seriously whether it is an AI and not just a series of ordinary text filters.)

* * * * *

Here is the question:

Do atheists eat their own children?

You probably recognize that I have a cartoon mind and answers immediately started popping up, so. . . .

A: Dude, way cheaper than beef. Have you been to a supermarket lately?

A: The Atheist Religion doesn’t allow the cooking of children unless a prescribed recipe is used. See the Atheist Handbook, page 156.

A: That’s disgusting! We only eat Catholic babies.

A: Of course not. We do not want to get between Catholic priests and their natural prey.

A: Not unless we can find an atheist butcher to certify that they are disease free.

A: It only takes a few moments dwelling upon their future car insurance demands, college tuition, etc. to put me into a killing rage. I try to make sure I wait until the beginning of the next tax year so I don’t lose a deduction for that year.

Well, any good answers come to your mind?

Stupid Questions from Quora

Quora is a question and answer website. When I was a classroom teacher I often said “There are no stupid questions.” I stand corrected.

The below were collected in just one morning. I tended to focus on the theistic and science questions, but there were many, many more.

* * * * *

What is the definition of atheism? Are there any atheists who believe in God but don’t like him/her for whatever reason? If so, why would they still be called “atheists”? What would their alternative term be then?

If the moon landing was not a hoax, how does the moon landing explain how the astronauts on the Saturn rocket were able to survive 7-10 days without water, even though a human can only survive 7-9 days without drinking water? Isn’t that suspicious?

How do you clear the mind of an atheist, agnostic, or ignorant to believe in one god?

What do atheists think created the planet, humans and life in general?

Atheists, how can you explain the existence of the soul without a belief in an afterlife?

If God does not exist, how do atheists explain the fact that God flooded the world for a good reason?

Can an atheist run for President of the United States of America?

Do you need to believe in spirituality in order to understand it, or is it something that can be logically explained?

Why have atheists chosen to see themselves as merely intelligent animals?

I’m not convinced any non-theistic worldview is true because non-theists haven’t provided any evidence. I can’t make myself believe something without evidence, so can any non-theist please provide evidence that any non-theistic worldview is true?

Did you evolve from a monkey?

What are the consequences of refusing to surrender your life to God?

Is believing in evolutionism a requirement to be an atheist?

What would be the first thing humans would use electricity-transporting technology for if it were possible?

Did barefooting exist at Jesus’s time?

Is it ethical for atheists to work in law enforcement, given that they don’t believe in any divine authority or ultimate justice?

If God doesn’t exist then why is it that only humans, the only beings touched by sin, can choose to be homosexual? Animals don’t choose to be homosexual as God forbade homosexuality, this is proof of Atheism’s immorality!

Why do atheists immediately deny the evidence you give them?

Atheists, have you ever considered why you exist at all?

Do atheists even have a purpose in life if not to serve God?

How do I create and publish my own Bible version?

How long would it take to reach another star system from Earth without stopping at any planets?

Do you think that “science is proving God’s existence” is a valid statement?

Atheists, imagine you are on a plane with a Christian baby and the oxygen drops to 0% but only one oxygen mask drops. Would you use it for yourself or save the Christian baby?

How can an atheist be sure that anything has a creator?

When atheists abandon atheism, how do other atheists punish them?

How long can a universe exist without a beginning or an end?

* * * * *

There is only one comment that seems appropriate . . . OMG!

Postscript There is another category . . . of questions that have brilliant snarky answers that I might highlight in the future. Here is an example:

Q: Would the United States of America go bankrupt if it adopted a universal healthcare system?
A: No. They’d save so much fucking money, that they could afford to educate their children properly.

AI in the Classroom

As a teacher of some 40 years, I am still attuned to happenings in American classrooms. And those whipping up a frenzy about the impact of artificial intelligences have not skipped over classroom teachers. They end up asking a lot of hypothetical questions, such as “”What happens when students submit perfect essays for grades, generated by AIs? etc.

To cut to the chase, I don’t see how AIs are going to help those students on test days, but just looking at the AI written essays issue, there is a lack of perspective here. The perspective that is lacking is that students using AIs for writing assignments probably will not know enough about the topic or writing to know whether the AI pumped out a good essay or, as we have seen, a steaming mess of bullshit.

I remember reading some essay assignments given to college freshmen and experiencing déjà vu. I ended up reading, it seemed, the same paper three times. Perplexed, I set those three aside for scrutiny. The three papers were from three students who huddled together in class. Apparently, I found out, one of them actually wrote a paper, adequate in quality, topic, etc. and the other two were allowed to copy it. Since these papers were hand written one strangeness was thus accounted for. One of the copies was written on ruled binder paper but the text only went two-thirds of the way down the pages. The original was written on wide-lined paper, the copy on narrow-lined paper, and when the copier got to the end of a page of the original, he started a new page, too, even to the point of hyphenating a word that continued on the next page! Sophisticated cheaters they were not.

In another case I had a student submit a paper that was clearly Xeroxed, with a slip of paper with his name on it on top of the original author’s name. The outline of the paper slip was clear in the copy. (The handwriting was clearly not of the student who submitted the paper.)

AI written papers are a temptation, I am sure, but temptations to cheat abound. When the Internet was newish, the fear was of students finding papers online and just printing it out. Before that, fraternities kept archives of high scoring papers for “brothers” to access when needed.

And, in reality and for example, I have a number of eBay searches that run continuously, sending me an email when a search item “hits.” One of those is for a Jack Taylor suit. Mr. Taylor was a haberdasher of repute in Hollywood but is now dead and the problem I have with vintage suits is they were not often targeted toward 6´3˝, 280 pound men, so they are hard to find in my size. Well, today, a Jack Taylor sport coat was found, not to my liking but the “suggestions” for things I might also be interested in involved three suits made by Ann Taylor. Ms. Taylor shares the same last name as Jack Taylor but designs exclusively for women.

Before I start shaking in my boots about artificial intelligence I will be shaking in my boots regarding a lack of normal intelligence. Clearly this is apparent in American politics, no? The Don Trumps and Marge Taylors have pushed the likes of long serving Texas Representative Louie Gohmert off the stupid radar. He might not even be in the top 10 anymore, even having massive stupidities in his catalog of statements.

Postscript I was in grad school when handheld electronic calculators started to become available (and the good ones were way expensive). This started off a debate of whether such should be allowed to be used in chemistry classrooms. After years of debate, we decided they were just tools and worked to show how to use them effectively. I suggest AIs may turn out to be the same.