Conservation of Energy and the soul

It seems I've been wrong for a while and my professors were misleading me. The Law of Conservation of Energy is apparently not universal! It seems that Catholics have figured this out but science education has left it out. Here are the relevant passages from the Catholic point of view (emphasis added):

At the same time we must not forget the hypothetical character of the conditions postulated, and the limitations in its application to particular concrete problems. Bearing this in mind, even if there occurs some novel experience, as, e.g., the fact that radium seemed capable of sustaining itself at a higher temperature than surrounding objects and of emitting a constant supply of heat without any observable dimination of its own store of energy, science does not therefore immediately abandon its fundamental principle. Instead, it rightly seeks for some hypothesis by which this apparently rebellious fact can be reconciled with so widely ranging a general law—as, for example, the hypothesis that this eccentric substance possesses a peculiar power of constantly collecting energy from the neighbouring ether and then dispensing it in the form of heat; or, that the high complexity of the molecular constitution of radium enables it, while slowly breaking down into simpler substances, to continue expending itself in heat for an extraordinarily long time. Such an exception, however, is a useful reminder of the unwarranted rashness of those who, ignoring the true character and limitations of the law, would, in virtue of its alleged universal supremacy, rule out of existence, whether in living beings or in the universe as a whole, every agent or agency which may condition, control, or modify in any way the working of the law in the concrete.

This is then used in the end to answer how the soul can be external, move objects (hands, feet etc) and do no work:

III. This brings us to the central crux of the subject. If the soul, or mind, or any of its activities, causesor modifies the movement of any particle of matter, then it seems to have produced an effect equivalent to that of a material agent, to have performed "work", and thereby to have augmented or diminished the previously existing quantity of energy in the area within which the disturbance took place. The vital question then arises: Can this real influence of the soul, or of its activities, on matter be squared with the law of conservation? At all events, if it cannot, then so much the worse for the law. The law is a generalization from experience. If its present formulation conflicts with any established fact, we may not deny the fact; we must instead reformulate the law in more qualified terms. If our experience of radium seems to contradict the law of conservation, we are not at liberty to deny the existence of radium, or the fact that it emits heat. We must either give up the universality of the law, or devise some hypothesis by which the law and the new fact may be reconciled. Now we are certain that volition and thought do modify the working of some material agents. Consequently, we must devise some hypothesis by which this fact may be reconciled with the law, or else alter the expression of the law.

So because "we" don't understand radium, humans must be different and so the law is not a law!

The whole argument (read it all if you don't believe me) hinges on the fact that there are exceptions to the law so a soul and other metaphysical things can exist since they law is incomplete. Moreover it says that second law of thermodynamics: "presents us with the materials for a very powerful argument against that theory".

Since we now know (the article is cited as being from 1909!!!) that radium does change, it is just nuclear, not electrical and energy is strictly conserved in this and all other cases and we know that the second law does not in any way contract the second law of thermodynamics can we now in 2011 deny the existence of a soul or other "objects" that do work but don't add energy to the system? Seems like a good bet.

Discriminating jobs

There is a court case coming where they will try and decide if it is constitutional for a marriage commissioner to denial service to a gay couple based on his/her religious belief. This is an interesting case for many reasons.

In the end civil marriage is a bunch of paper work before the government. After all, people will sign a legal contract about their possessions and (financial) obligations and the state will confer special status for visitation and other things. The state will not see if they love each other or ask them to swear to a deity. So the marriage commissioner is a specialized notary. This is the same as how a pharmacist is a knowledgeable pill dispenser who's only use above a machine is the (valuable!) ability to ask how the medication may be affected by other medication (I don't mean to trivialize what they do that last part is very hard and very important). Thus is you don't want to do your job you should not have it.

Your job is not a right. A person who's religion says they can't serve women cannot be in the service sector (except maybe at male only places like a penis surgeon). If there are aspects of a job a person doesn't like or cannot do because of their conscious/religion then you shouldn't do that job. A person have every right to object (and you should) but then they shouldn't be in that job. People can't get paid for not doing their work.

For instance. I don't agree with the death penalty and I have sever problems (moral/ethical/"religious") with the idea of killing anyone. Thus it does not make sense for me to join the army! It is not discrimination to fire someone who does not do their job.

The whole problem is centered on the point: What does freedom OF religion mean. It means that you are free to exercise your religion without government interference. The question is to whether that freedom is universal or only private. Our supreme court has not followed a single consistent stance and has thus made a mess of things (like with carrying a long sharp dagger in public because of your "faith"). Hopefully the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal in Regina will be able to set out a consistent and thoughtful definition of freedom of religion as being private (and not above the right getting what you pay an employee for) for other courts to follow.

Besides it can't be that bad since "there are no atheists in fox holes"* and a lot of them must be Christian/Jews/Muslims who must obey the very clear commandment: Thou shall not kill! They seem to have no problem with that one!

*PS: There are plenty of atheists in fox holes serving their country bravely (I know some personally) and the statement is only uttered here to show the ridiculousness of the idea of forgoing some of a job due to religious belief.

Why I look forward to the 25th of Dec

No, it is not because of Santa. It's not even because of presents (I generally don't receive anything on the 25th which is what I was always used to as we spent most of our xmas in NY when I was young and so only opened the gifts under the tree when we got back around Dec 27th). It's not because people are happy or anything thing like that. It's because I know that it symbolizes an end to the xmas songs in stores! I don't hate them, but when they are on all the time, over and over the same songs it is quite annoying. As we live in a climate where there I can't take my children outside for long at all going to a mall lets them walk around a new place for a while. So doing that with a variety of music instead of xmas songs is something I look forward too.

Right now I have a wonderful life! I love my job and everyone is healthy so everyday for me is great making the need for a holiday counterproductive since it takes me away from my normal which, again, is wonderful! But I can feel for those who spend 40 hours a week doing something they don't love and all the associated time and so need a day to celebrate something. They need this friday off. I on the other hand will wait until it is summer for a worthy day to take off.

The Rabbi, the plane and the swine flu

This is hilarious! But then you know that since they use the word "mystic".

Why didn't they think of this sooner!! In fact we should condemn them for not flying over Africa and curing malaria and AIDS. How dare they not use their "mystic" prayers and powers to stop childhood cancer. How dare they withhold such power and force families to suffer.

On a serious note, it's nice to know rabbi's fall prey to media hype as much as anybody, it makes them seem human as in without divine knowledge ;-)

Religions ugliest/craziest side

I've maintained the position that religion is primarily driven by people seeking power. They use their "religious teachings" to gain political power (of course Machiavelli wrote about this at some length). The "teachings" gain momentum based on a combination of people's education, gullibility or desire to believe in some "cause" for their troubles and economic situation. (In rich countries it seems it is primarily based on the desire to believe in some "cause" for their troubles which are usual very simple such as they spend all there time in front of the TV so they have no friends and thus no joy).

In Africa the "teachings" haven't changed much since the 16th century. As seen by this incident where a children's aid conference was distributed by "150 members of the Christian witch-hunter Helen Ukpabio’s Liberty Gospel Church reportedly overpowered the non-combative participants, invading the conference and subjecting attendees to threats, violence and physical attacks." (emphasis added). Video

Modern day western religious people may scoff at witches and witch burnings/huntings as unenlightened. I find that odd since the core of their religion is at least a millennium (for Muslims, 1400 years for Christians and around 2400 for Jews) older!! It's like someone who started smoking cigarettes, moved to cigars and then changed their mind that cigars are unhealthy and unrefined so they went back to cigarettes... they are still smoking!

At least this puts things in perspective. When a redneck want to put the 10 commandment on a courthouse lawn at least he's not stringing people up calling them a witch and burning them to death.

My first view of an ignorance cult

Well it's close. I recently listened to the podcast of cbc ideas:

Wendell Berry

In the year 2,000, Wendell Berry published a surprising book called "Life Is A Miracle: An Essay Against Modern Superstition." The superstition the book denounces is the belief that science will one day give us a complete account of things. Science is admirable, Wendell Berry says, but it can only be deployed wisely when we recognize the limits to our knowledge. In this episode, Wendell Berry unfolds his philosophy.

Right click to Download Wendell Berry

Mr Berry has some complicated ideas. His ideas are not obviously wrong and he has many good points. But fast forwarding to around 22 minutes you can here his "view" on science in which a summation by the author contends that we can't know everything. He basis this especially on his view of science but he takes agribusiness as science. That's quite a large mistake. But moreover he seems to misunderstand fundamental aspects of science. The most obvious is the use of the generalization in science. Science is reductionist mostly due to practicality (big problems are too big so you solve them as modules). That said when you put the pieces together you get a pretty good picture, even if you don't have every piece.

Now the problem he states is that generality leads to problems since people/places etc are specific not general. This is correct. This is a problem with the application since clear you can't apply the generality to individuality all the time. Of course science gets more refined and more and more the generality gets fine grained and can then be used for the individual. For instance think of all the successes it took to get to targeted antibiotics.

The most shocking part is his constant implication that we or scientists should not ask/research certain questions because of "human dignity." This argument is despicable but may sound nice if left unexamined.

People tend to like this statement because they are nostalgic for the past thinking that it was better in some way (respect for their religion, dominance for their religion/culture, appearance of safety etc...). Let's not digress to much but better is subjective and every animal is healthier when younger so of course there is a bias. So let's just define better as less harm to people who are close to use, thus better means less sickness, shorter and milder illnesses less death etc. By all these measures we are better off. FAR better off. A simple measure (and I would say the most important) is the infant mortality rate (because what is worse than losing your child). In the last century it has gone down tenfold! Before that it was much higher, estimated at 30-40%!!

So why are things better? Well there isn't more religion, natural herbs or people sticking needles into your "pressure points" so that's probably not it. It is likely science. Challenging the current views to see what is really going on lead us to the truth which then let use devise measures to cure or prevent problems. Take for instance sickness. This used to be caused by demons/spirits etc. Aside from the most fanatical religious believers, most religious people have given up this view since that view has only cured people in books were as medicine has cured the people around you.

Berry's point that it is an infringement on a person's dignity to know everything about them is ludicrous. By not looking at all the nooks and crannies we would resign future people to live in their misery or worse. Babies don't care about their dignity they want to survive. Our responsibility to them should not be set aside to let "nature" takes it course of that course is inhumane. It would be a dereliction of our duties as the capable generation, for instance, to let a child be born and suffer with a painful debilitating disease or condition because we never bothered to look at more details of genetic. The same logic thus extends to all humans and animals in our care. Not researching answers is for some people's dogmatic view is unacceptable.

First they came first for the mathematics, And I didn’t speak up because I didn't understand it;
And then they came for the physical science, And I didn’t speak up because I didn't like it;
And then they came for the scientists, And I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a scientist;
And then... I got sick ... And by that time there was no one left who understood what to do.

His most ironic statements are about how people now use scientific term sin their everyday parlance despite not understanding them. Quite ironic for someone who's confused science for agribusiness. In my view he is the standard elder who looks back with nostalgia and criticizes anyone who does things differently. Of course I'm generalizing his nuanced points, but if he can do that about the entirety of science (and it's generalities) why can't I do it about the small set of his ideas.
decencies, and human dignity

My first shave with a straight razor

Spending loads of money on razors that only last a few shaves for myself has always been a sore spot. Moreover the bladed would get jammed since my hair is rather thick so I though instead of going to n-blades what about going to 1? But I had no idea where to buy one. Finally the (common) store personal edge sells them. Seeing as they are quite difficult to shave with I started with a practice blade.

The practice blade is what you see in stores. It is a double edged rectangle with an odd pattern in the middle. You brake it in have and slide it into place on your razor older. The technique is the the same as a real straight blade but without the sharpening and preparing etc.

My first shave with it was less than great. The blade is shape especially for the skin but doesn't seem to be sharp w.r.t. my beard. It still pulled and scraped. So I didn't cut myself much (only once really) but it wasn't great. Since that I've only shave once more and learnt two things: make sure the part of your face your shaving is very warm and don't do it when your not completely awake yet. Hopefully I can get better with the technique and then try the real blade without massively scarring my face. The idea is that if it is really really sharp it will be easier to shave once I can avoid cutting the skin.

Canada's science minister unqualified

Recently I learned some rather distrurbing news about our countries science and technology minister: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20090317.wgoodyear16/BNStory/National/home

Here is my letter to him (his email goodyg@parl.gc.ca):

Hello,
As someone who has now stepped into the public service I'm am sure you love your country. Thus I ask you to resign your portfolio as Science and Technology. I think it send the wrong message to our children, other countries investors and the scientific community at large. I fully support your right to your opinions but since you do not have any training in biology and cannot admit science is not a belief you are not right for this portfolio.

I would also strongly encourage you to try and suggest someone with academic science training (maybe a BS.c). This way Canada can avoid any blemishes as the US has suffered over the last 8 years with regards to science and the Conservative party can distance itself from any perception of being antagonistic towards science. This would be a benefit to Canada and the Conservative party of Canada. I'm sure you will do the right thing.
Thank you,
Dr Edward Ackad
Postdoctoral researcher
University of Ottawa

Quebec's new All religions course

When Quebec eliminated Catholic and protestant schools in favor of secular language segregated schools it was left with the problem of "religious instruction." In my year, gearing up to the change, I was given the choice of a religion course (most Catholicism) and a morals course. The morals class filled up and the rest had to continue to take the religion course. Since then Quebec has been working hard to secularize.

To that end it has come up with a world religions course, which is mandatory (the religion one was too). The objections are (basically) that the parents have no choice and that children will see all religions as mythology because they are all presented in a similar way. I don't think I need to say much about that, but think of the converse problem: what is to stop parents from unfairly imprinting their child with a single religion? Some may say this is the parents right. I agree, but it is not an absolute right in my view. Why?

Forget religion specifically. Views can be hurtful and outdated. Racism is a good example. Does a parent have the right to pass on racist beliefs to their child? I'd say no because what is forgotten in this type of argument are the rights of the child. The child has the right to be informed and later on with that information he will make up his mind (and there is nothing we can do to stop that). Thus what is important is presenting the facts correctly.

Educating a child about other religions is no different. The child has the right to information. If you decide to send your child to public school (this is the decision people are forgetting when they say it should be the parents who decide: This group mainly) you are accepting they will be taught PUBLIC values. In a multicultural society, religion is pluralistic and thus must be taught this way. If parents don't like it they need to make the decision to take the child out of public school which is entirely in their power.

Incidentally, the list of 10 reasons (in French) the CLE group gives for why they dislike the course are 10 reasons to like it if your of a different mind and remember children have rights too. (It is quite astonishing to see the lack of respect these people have for the decision making powers of the children and adolescents despite plenty of evidence children can out think adults if given training such as in chess.)

The Canadian budget vs the US

In my view, one of the primary goals of the federal government is scientific research funding. It should be clear that progress in science is directly related to economic progress (for instance Saudi has plenty of oil and still a crappy economy because it can't have science). This is why it is astonishing to find out that while the US has put $15 billion MORE into science funding agencies, the Canadian government has CUT millions. That's right in the wake of an economic disaster they are decreasing funding for science.

This is quite disappointing especially for someone in my position who will be looking for permanent positions. Already Canada has been well behind the US in science funding (odd, I know, considering the animosity in the US towards science). Now NSERC, the primary science funding agency, will have to cut grants, scholarships and fellowships. At least I'm lucky enough to be a US citizen so I can skip out to a country that is at least willing to pay me (at least hypotheticaly :)

Atheist bus campaign and biased news

I just watched a report on Global news show 16:9 called divine debate and wow. Firstly they are really biased or I'm insane. The reporting was terrible and they seem to reporting on a debate which isn't happening. The atheist bus campaign was designed to offend people, but even if it was, free speech doesn't mean silencing voices you don't like. All in all it is a terrible segment with little content and much hype. Asking a rabi if he is ok with the add simply so you can say Muslim's, Christians and Jews are against it is pathetic and not the point. It would be like asking vegans and vegitarians if they find hamburger adds offensive so you could say at least they agree...

I guess I can take consolation in the fact that they aren't likely to survive the year. I stopped reading and watching anything they made after lead story one Sunday night was (I id you ont I couldn't make this up): "A priest in Thrios-Rivier claims to do exorcism and says they are like the movie." That's not even gossip! At least the stuff about celeberties is real (presumably). I for one wn't miss their ... "news."

Understanding Catholics and antisemitism

I used to jokingly say the current pope is a secret atheist and is deliberately trying to sabotage the Catholic church. What other reason could someone give to explain all of his baffling screwup vying for market share in the world of religions?

I think the recent episode with the Gas-chamber denying bishop's un-excommunication is telling. I now think he is not a sabotaging atheist, but he simply actually believes in what he is doing (kinda like how Dion thought he won the Liberal nomination because everyone thought he was the best candidate). He thinks he's infallible so he doesn't seem to understand that some people will disagree. Either way, he's great for anyone who want a more secular world.

On another note, Catholics now (and for at least 10 years) have Deacons! An interesting development huh!

Itanian gastronomic racism (hilarious!!)

This is a hilarious story out of Italy. Basically they are banning new "foreign" food places in different cities. Is there any wonder Italy is still a developing nation if they constantly change federal governments (60ish in 60 years) and legislating against foreign food joints is what tops thei agenda?

Then again apparently the native Italian's are lazy (emphasis added):

Davide Boni, a councillor in Milan for the Northern League, which also opposes the building of mosques in Italian cities, said that kebab shop owners were prepared to work long hours, which was unfair competition.

Wow, if you think so much of your countrymen why bother saving the culture at all. But if your not going to read the full story let me at least show you the punch line:

There is confusion, however, over what is meant by ethnic. Mr Di Grazia said that French restaurants would be allowed. He was unsure, though, about Sicilian cuisine. It is influenced by Arab cooking.

LOL!!! That's a funny meatball!!

Non-religious (funny) crazy at UofO

It has been my contention that faith (belief without reason) is the primary problem of religion and other faith derived philosophies. At the university of Ottawa a non-eligious episode has been going on that is worth reading (partly because it is very funny unless you stop and consider the serious mental help this person needs).

I will give a brief introduction to the situation but feel free to skip it and read the quote below (it's long but funny, emphasis is added by myself). A professor at UofO apparently "cracked" at some point and stopped teaching physics and started teaching activism. From all accounts he is quite charismatic. In the fourth year quantum mechanics course he took attendance as the only requirment to obtain an A+ grade and spent the class time ranting about political and conspiratoral issues. The students (one of which is where I got this information) complained to the adminstration that they were not beaing tought anything about physics and that asking the proefessor for homeowrk and lectures resulting in him saying they were brainwashed and shouldn't have to be slaves to "the system." Recently the prof was barred from the University campus and having any graduate students as well as teaching (he was tenured so couldn't just be dismissed). Before that, he "mentored" a student: Mark Kelly. This student in his last year of undergraduate physics became increasingly distruptive. He demanded that the other professors not give the students tests and assignments stating they were some type of indoctrination. This came to a head when he submitted his proposal for his fourth year project. The project is available here. I wouldn't suggest readng it all but looking at the plots and highlighted section you can see the crap he was peddling. So, as can be reasonable expected, when it was submitted the committed told him to go back and do something that was more more physics oriented. After giving him three tries and him submitting the same thing he failed the project.

He was then convinced that this was due to "the man trying to keep him down" and "surpressing acedmeic freedom." He has graffitteed the UofO buildings (and been arrested), barrged in on meeting and into peoples offices to state they won't hear him out (despite the fact he never made an appointment or tried to). He recently became the first student forcably deregistered by the university. He was banned from campus. The university then agreed to let him complete the courses he was missing to graduate, but he could only be at the university campus for classes. He currently continues to frequent the University on different occasions to start trouble: example.

He is a master at playing the victim. when you watch the video or read the email he wrote below you really think they are out to get him. That said, no one at the department supports him, especially the students. He barraged them during the year with emails about how they were being mindless drones by attending and doing homework!

On Oct 21st 2008, Marc Kelly, an upper year physics student, was abruptly deregistered by the University of Ottawa administration when they discovered the true nature of his research. Marc fearfully hid his discoveries from everybody, while he worked hard to find a way to explain it all clearly, but now he has been banished by the administration, and sees no other way but to tell his story to the whole University of Ottawa community. As a young student, Marc interrupted his studies temporarily when he was recruited by the Canadian Government's Defense Research & Development as part of the Network Information Operations team, where he conducted high security research to defend against enemy infiltration of military communication networks [1][2]. When he returned to the University, he began using his new knowledge of communication network theory to understand the inner mechanisms and true function of the educational institution that so fascinated him."A communication network is characterized as consisting of interconnected individuals who are linked by patterned communication flows", he remembered reading [3].

A University, he soon could see, was simply a large machine to control a population's cognitive abilities, according to the patterns of information flowing between each and every one of the human beings, and permeating the whole of the community.It was a mini-society, a tiny-civilization. And at the core of its educational mission were the students, members of the Federation, brought in from all over the world, and promised to receive The Degree and live forever happily.But one day while performing some mathematical analysis, Marc discovered the truth, the terrible truth transmitted to him by a member of the administration: students are in reality slaves and in terrible torment. Just when he planned to make the announcement to the Chair and to the Dean, Marc learned that they already knew about the inhumane practice: the control over the communication flow had been seized by the administration to maintain the average intelligence of the student population at a sub-threshold level, permitting them to be used, unaware, as mere components in a grand geopolitical scheme.The University, Marc had come to believe, was an Indoctrination Machine.

Thanks to the skills he acquired while working for the Government, Marc immediately knew what needed to done: he had to convince the others to help him hijack the communication network, revolt against the corrupt administration, and regain control of the institution that had become so dear to him. But when he first infiltrated the communication network and sent out the message, Marc discovered a second, more terrible truth: the students had all been indoctrinated and transformed into servants of the administration!

In order to free the student population from the torments of graded assignments, multiple-choice examinations and mindless regurgitation, Marc began questioning and challenging the decisions made by the administration. But when it became known that he did not believe in the Syllabus, his nomination to the Senate Appeals Committee was blocked, and he was placed under constant surveillance by the University Police, who hired student spies to report on his activities and tell everyone that he suffered from mental instabilities. Then one day while video recording inside the Governance Facility, during the Senate meeting, Marc was suddenly apprehended by the State Police, who had been instructed by the administration to come find him, arrest and banish him. Marc shouted about democracy and transparency, but his words barely disrupted the members of the committee.

No longer allowed to set foot on campus, Marc then saw another way: he had to run for President of the Student Federation. The only way to stop the Indoctrination Machine, he quickly understood, was to teach the students how to take control over the information flow. He needed to shift the power away from the administration and to give it back to the student population. Only if students were free to speak out and disagree with the decisions of those controling the University could there be true democracy. But then one day while giving a public presentation, the State Police came back to get him.

They detained him in jail (where Marc pondered deeply about the University) then they released him without extra conditions -- they knew they had been used by the administration to suppress freedom of expression. Marc is now returning to McDonald Hall Auditorium, where he will continue his presentation in front of the University of Ottawa community.

He will speak out against the corrupt administration in order to defend education. Will the Rock administration call on the State Police to come and stop him? Or will he save the student population from the torments of grades and examinations?Come out and see what the fate of Marc Kelly will be. You can all be a part of this story.

---------------

[1] Marc Kelly, Maria A. Gorlatova, and Peter C. Mason. (2006) "Can a Wormhole Attacker Evade Detection?", Defence R&D Canada - Ottawa, TN 2006-203 (CLASSIFIED: Available upon request from Defence R&D Canada with proper security clearance) .

[2] Gorlatova, Maria A.; Kelly, Marc; Liscano, Ramiro; Mason, Peter C. (2007) "Enhancing frequency-based wormhole attack detection with novel jitter waveforms", SecureComm 2007: Third International Conference on Security and Privacy in Communications Networks, V 17-21, pages 304 - 309. http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/Xplore/login.jsp?url=/iel5/4543879/4550291/04550348.pdf?temp=x

[3] Rogers, E. M. (1986). Communication Technology: The New Media in Society. New York: Free Press.

There are some interesting tells in the piece. The reference to "State police" I find the most telling. The other is how he figured this out either by: doing some mathematical analysis (of a fourth year undergrad, lol) and/or it was 'transmitted' to him by a member of the administration. So either he had someone on the inside (of the corrupt machine) or his equations told him this (lol, man that makes me giddy).

The sad part is this kid is clearly unstable and needs help. To make it worse he has a child and wife. It is too bad he couldn't pick a legitimate cause, since the crazy amount of energy (and tuition money) he has spent could have gone a long way to actual areas of need. So despite what is written in some news papers, this is not supression of acedemic freedom but the brainwashing of a student who now spends all him time trying to overthrow a University. If only someone would tell him about the Congo, Sudan, Iraq, Afganistan, Sri Lanka, Colombia etc...

Religiogenisis

Let me start by defining an acedemic term for doublethink that is more specific: cognitive dissidence (CD). In modern acedemic speak this was a term first used to describe the mental state of a doom-sayer the day after dooms-day. This person would be in a state of cognitive dissidence since his core internal beliefs were at odds with the real world (this is the difference from doublethink since doublethink can be two abstract ideas which are in contradiction). The person has predicted dooms-day on Dec 31, 1999 and it is now say 2pm on Jan 1. Another example is the cognitive dissidence a child experiences when they are abused by a parent: their biology gives them the belief there parent loves them but the facts are that the parent is hurting them.

One more clarification. Faith, as I will use it, is a belief based on nothing. Any belief has its roots in experience, reason or biological mechanisms but faith has none. It is a groundless assertion.

Ok now I need to briefly state my theory of religiogenisis.
Assert: All animals needs beliefs to survive (the sun will rise, the prey will run away, water is found there etc).
1) Humans pick one or more faith statements which satisfy their needs, hopes and desires.
2) Infer a system of behavior and beliefs from the faith statements.
3) (optional but common) Add ceremonies.

Example: Faith statement: The Montreal Canadians are the best hockey team. Ergo, all other teams are worse. Every game dress up and eat chips. CD example: we lost the big game. Solution: the ref was bought, this player was injured etc..

Ok, now the problem with this structure is that while the religion may end up being the same the reasons people join them are personal. The relative importance of the reasons one chose their faith statements is crucial.

One other key point before I continue: most religious people know very little about their faith (and not much about the ensuing religion). There are things like acedemic Anglicanism etc which are attempts to have intellectually rigorous philosophical constructs for the religion but they are only really for smart people to fool themselves. The average religious person simply repeats steps 2 and 3 at different times in their lives because of CD (like a child dies, tsunami etc). But unless something changes their reasons for the faith, the core remains. I've found most people of the same religion have very different #1's and what is "academically" accepted as #1 for the faiths is very often not what the sheep (in the non derogatory Christian sense) think.

If one wants to change a persona's mind about their faith/religion I have some thoughts based on the aforementioned hypothesis. I think discussing peoples religion is pointless since it is the effect and pointing out contradictions merely makes CD in the religious part and they will change their version or interpretation. Thus it's like trying to say what a cloud looks like. If you can challenge their faith statement(s) then you have some chance but this is hard and dangerous. These are very precious beliefs and most people become withdrawn or very defensive if you go near there. So one way if you are talking with a very smart and emotionally stable person is to get to the faith statement and get them to admit it is faith. That's usually a strong enough perturbation for most to redo #1 and a person like this may be able to reach atheism, breaking free of dogma and allowing themselves freedom of thought.

Proroguing parlamaent

Both sides have complained about things being undemocratic. Yet the decision is left to an unelected person who is our HEAD OF STATE! The idea of our system being democratic is thus purely moot. The fact that the decision was made by an unelected person is by definition undemocratic regardless of which way she decides. It seems Canadians are finally taking at better look at the system to which they are subscribed and not everything is sure of what they voted for. Hopefully this little exercise will inform more people of our system and maybe even precipitate the elimination of our undemocratic head of state.

Thoughts on the current Canadian political switch

I think the mistake the Conservatives are espousing is that people vote for a government or prime minister directly. In fact, they vote for a representative and the government is formed from the party with the most representatives or in combination with another party to make the most. The idea that a coalition is a subversion of democracy is a lie since we don't vote for the prime minister directly (as the US votes for the president). IF the leader of the liberal party in May(?) turned out to be a non-elected person, then that would be a better case.

I don't have strong feelings for either/any party, but I do find the current situation interesting. The best point was that if we had proportional representation we'd have had this situation anyways so it is, in that sense, democratic. On the sad side, we will likely get a cap-and-trade system instead of a carbon tax which was my preference.

See the problem is only one vote. That is ambiguous and open to interpretation. Did the majority vote against Harper, for continuation in the current turmoil etc. Having had the lowest turnout in an election in a long time can anyone say they have real democratic legitimacy when the population doesn't vote.

(Conservative) Policy you support but think you don't

A short while ago the Conservative party of Canada held a policy convention. The resolutions passed by the conventions are non-binding but are strong signals to the Conservative leadership of what the base wants. Tow policies were (briefly) covered during the news coverage I saw. The first was an abortion issue. Ok, that will never die. The second though is a policy EVERYONE should support, but from the sounds of it everyone but the most savvy political and policy wonks don't.

The second resolution was basically that human rights tribunals not be allowed to hear free speech cases. That sounds awful! Why wouldn't they want human right tribunals (presumably a good thing) to hear free speech issues (a fundamental human right)? The key is in the title: Tribunal or Commission (not court).

We have hate laws and they are a criminal offense (not that they are used, luckily). The rules of the court are over 800 years old and in most people's mind work pretty damn well (needing only tweaks). To alleviate some of the burden on the courts for lesser infractions such as housing discrimination or employer discrimination the tribunals and commissions were formed. These are NOT courts. The usual rules of evidence do not apply. I won't go over all the specifics but a few points will illustrate the difference.

Say I decide to sue you in court for something. If I lose I have to pay your legal fees and both of us are accorded equal privileges by the government for our arguments. In these human rights tribunals (or commissions) the government on behalf of the plaintiff gathers testimony and decides whether to move forward. So it is not the plaintiff and the defendant with a judge it is the government prosecuting the defendant on behalf of the plaintiff. Regardless of outcome the plaintiff pays nothing (the tax payer foots the bill) AND the fee incurred by the defendant (days of work lost, lawyer etc) are NOT reimbursed. Thus the resources of the government are used to prosecute a citizen and damages done to the innocent are NOT repaid. Obviously the state could simply bleed a person dry by always summing them to miss work by dragging on a case.

One more point about these tribunals. One of the punishments they can enforce is a public apology! Our murders are not even subject to that and imagine how insincere and ridiculous that would be on a free speech case!

That's the whole point. These tribunals have recently taken (although latter dropped unfortunately) free speech and freedom of the press complaints. In the freedom of the press case was Macleans magazine and the plaintiffs wanted an unedited multi page rebuttal article (link to opinion) because they felt insulted! The very notion that the resources of the government should be used to attack another citizen without renumeration if they are found innocent is unacceptable in a liberal democracy. If I say something that is hate speech or illegal for some reason I should be taken to a court and evidence presented against me allowing for me to defend myself. I should not be subject to a government sponsored witch hunt where I can only lose (money at least and possible more). Thus I submit that the policy that was put out by the conservatives may sound wrong, it is cleary something everyone should support to protect our fundamental freedoms.

Israel and the US

I've always been curious as to why the US government was so involved in Israel? Surely there are worse conflicts in the world involving child solders etc, so why Israel? At first I thought it had something to do with oil since they were in the middle east, but clearly that can't be since there Israel position makes things worse for them. So there doesn't seem to be economic reasons so naturally I figured it was then a religious thing. But finally I see that's not really it, especially since the Christians want to convert them and aren't that sympathetic (they didn't intervene during the holocaust and the Catholic Church was mute).

No the reason, it turns out is practical now a days. Jews retire in Florida and Florida is a big swing state. Florida can often be the key to the election. Thus to win the White House you have to support Israel.

Meditation and "inner peace"

I think I've finally understood what people mean when they talk about gaining inner peace or being in a meditative state. Unfortunately it really doesn't seem to be more than having most of your processing being done in the right hemisphere. The left hemisphere is all about the now and it is where one has a very well defined definition of where 'you' end. The right hemisphere is the non-singular input of all your senses, hence it is the 'one-with-the-universe' feeling. This is probably because you are not processing the information relative to your self identity (likes, dislikes etc).

I don't know for sure that I have ever been in the state they describe but I've never found it hard to be in the 'sensory-state' were you are just right-brain processing (or it feels like that). It's usually what I do to fall asleep. Well I'm sure "serious" mediators will say I haven't and without an fMRI I can't disagree. but if I am right it is a nice feeling but it definitely isn't what I would call bliss. It's a fun state, but I wouldn't want to live there. If you spend your whole life there (say you could do it) then you'd never live. It's literally like being in a vegetative state. Well if that's people's idea of a life goal it ain't for me!

Almost seeing truth

This was, I thought, a very nice and honest discussion by the Reverend. Two things pop up from this talk. The first is that he (and others like him) have at least acknowledged the big problems of a benevolent God. I was actually touched by his sincerity and thoughtfulness. There was an amount of honestly and intellectual rigor I am unaccustomed to hearing from religious people on religion. I can say I do feel for him and his problem. He really wants to believe, but the cognitive dissidence has clearly become disturbing to him and I feel empathy for his "loss" (loss in the sense of the loss of simple unthinking faith of a child in God).

Secondly, though, I found it intellectually interesting that he only makes the case for a God to believe in and worship. For instance, he could have concluded that there is a god who is very evil and once in a while induces some massive suffering on the world. Secondly, he could have postulated no god. At the end he comes very close, but never says it when he talks about a god which is simply the universe plus some supernatural stuff. I have always said atheism is not for everyone. It is harder than religious believe but it it intellectually honest. Still, I feel for him, the blissful ignorance of unthinking faith, once gone is almost impossible to restore.

Consumed in work

I was working on improving pieces of my code that does analysis one my data. I wanted to look up the function that takes the complex value of a number called cabs to see its specifics. I went to google and without thinking about it searched for cabs... I was completely oblivious to the fact that cabs is a common word! I was soo engrossed in my worked I didn't read cabs I was reading Complex abs (abs= shorthand for absolute value). Talk about tunnel vision.

From authority to reason: Francis Bacon

Learning about the the "Birth of the modern mind" was very interesting since in many ways this journey paralleled my own journey from theism to atheism, or more accurately from faith to reason. There were a few things that particularly struck me. The most astounding of which is how many modern people who discuss philosophy and science seem to have missed most or all of what Francis Bacon said with regard to authoritative knowledge (scripture) and what we now call science. This quote, even alone does the idea some justice:

"Men have sought to make a world from their own conception and to draw from their own minds all the material which they employed, but if, instead of doing so, they had consulted experience and observation, they would have the facts and not opinions to reason about, and might have ultimately arrived at the knowledge of the laws which govern the material world."

He made the clear distinction between real knowledge and authoritatively dictated opinions. Today it is more obvious that authority is not a guarantee of wisdom (quote the Catholic church's view that the sexual abuse of children isn't really harmful to them!!!). But in the context of his world this was a great leap forward and some of the "great" philosophers still missed his point.

That brings me to the other notable item: the arguments these guys are making must be taken in context. Many times I hear people bring up various arguments made by some of the post-Renaissance philosophers as if it is a complete argument. Many well versed scientific naturalists see them as almost trivially silly. The problem is the arguments are out of context. It is hard, in a modern discussion with intelligent people, to bring up these arguments if the context is not clear to all. For instance when people talk about the fact that we are resigned to understand things in context of our cultural upbringing and thus cannot know "real" truth because it is tainted, they clearly do not understand how theories are built in modern science. they are referring to unnatural (natural being science) philosophical models. This is because the distinction between the physical universe and the perceived human world (the world filtered through the lens of your brain) are often still confused, even all these years after Plato.

Another common example is Pascal's wager. This often misunderstood piece of nonsense cannot be rehashed now a days in modestly educated settings. The wager, simply put says one is better of believing in a god since if then you either get infinite rewards if one exists or nothing if one doesn't, but if one doesn't believe one gets damnation or nothing so it is better to believe. While there are many logical fallacies here (if there are more gods others may get angry, god may not reward fake practitioners etc, just think of the same decision but where the god will punish the faithful... it's fun) he wrote it because he said he could not trust reason! So he was trying to give an argument, but not appealing to the readers reason. I know, I don't know what that means but it is emblematic, as I see it, of the modern philosophers who still think science can't know things or post-Renaissance philosophers who had mental brakes. He should just have said, atheism is hard, I believe in Christian god (he rejected the Muslim and Jewish god's as less likely than the Christian god). Then at least your faith rests on nothing so it can't be challenged by reality or reason.

Barak Obama's faith finding, silver lining?

Of course I want a secular president. An atheist preferably, but I'm content with a religious person who is secular. Barak Obama meets this criteria pretty well, but I was disappointed to hear that he will continue and expand(!) Bush's Faith based initiatives. I can see politically this is a good tactic but clearly it is bad secularism. Ok, that's my idealist rant, now let's get practicle.

This will help him win the white house so that is good since McCain has been a disappoinment since around 2006. Also Obama has put a clear caviate:

Obama does not support requiring religious tests for recipients of aid nor using federal money to proselytize, according to a campaign fact sheet. He also only supports letting religious institutions hire and fire based on faith in the non-taxpayer funded portions of their activities, said a senior adviser to the campaign, who spoke on condition of anonymity to more freely describe the new policy.

In one sense that isn't bad since, as we all know, the US is great for law suits. Anyone terminated due to their faith would get to sue and make headlines about how intolerant one of the religions was. Still I find this a small concillation to the departure from secularism. It has completely muted any excitement I had for his candidancy. If he will compromise on something as basic as secularism, he can't get my support (although he may get my vote since I vote in NY and I haven't read much about the libertarian candidate).

Question Dr Eddie

Often I get asked similar questions about my beliefs/worldview so I've decided to make this post to clear up my views.

1) Do I want everyone to be an atheist?
Simply put, it doesn't matter. While I am more comfortable knowing the people around me aren't acting to please imaginary people or whims, the fact that people have faith (Faith: belief without reason. Faith can never be shown to be wrong since it isn't based on anything) isn't the critical condition I am concerned with. What I am concerned with is whether people can think critically and objectively. While having faith can cloud people's critical thinking, it is not always the case. Therefore, I'd like everyone to be faithless, i.e. completely open minded since any of their beliefs can be shown/reasoned to be false. Most importantly, not all atheists are faithless, since some believe in esp, fortune telling etc despite the evidence.

2) Can science help the "human condition"?
Firstly, the "human condition" is what unnatural philosophers (theologians, marvelists or other non-reality based philosophers) use to describe the misery of human existance or the suffering humans experience and it is of great concern to their work. This question can be answered in a few ways depending on the stability of the person who's suffering one wants to alleviate.

Let's start with the barely stable people. If we define suffering as mental anguish caused by lack of food or resources, science already has. We have created more food than ever before but people keep procreating exponentially. We have also solved that, but it is a choice. So the "human condition" has been solved in this case. If the problem is more existential (like the desire for transcendence) we now can cultivate magic mushrooms and they can transcend whenever they want. Similarly any existential problem is a chemical imbalance in the brain and can thus be fixed by the insertion of the appropriate chemical. (This probably seems incredibly arrogant but recall mythical experiences have been duplicated many ways using these drugs and targeted brain activation so even if it is "real" it can be duplicated and people will feel better.)

For the more stable people the answer is more interesting. Science humbles us by showing us we live no where in particular in a vast and uncaring universe. We are a tiny blip in the cosmic story not even likely worthy, so far, of a mention as long as "harmless." But our very current existance is a testament to our ancestors, inventiveness, cunning and perseverance. We are the last of all the hominid species on earth and have populated every corner of the globe! Science shows us how interrelated we all are, both environmentally and genetically. Most importantly it explains (to different degrees as time goes by) WHY we have these conditions. Science has started to answer question such as what is happiness and what is consciousness. While there is still much to learn, I fail to see how one cannot be comforted to know the following:
i) In the future more will be known giving us more control over ourselves,
ii) Our problems/imperfections had their place and where beneficial at one time,
iii) Our behavior and responses are tied meaning we can modify ourselves as desired.
While some may squawk at the futurisms, looking back 50-100 years at what was known about the brain compared with today and look at the impact we are having just with the relatively new treatments. In the end science offers the golden promise: Your children will be healthier than you. After millions of years of trial and error we now can actually save our children (pre-industrial societies had an 80% mortality rate for children under 5).

3) Without God there is no purpose?
In an absolute sense this is true. A god gives a useful yard stick for evil/perfection/purpose/etc. The very definition of the word pupose changes meaning without a god. Since there is no absolute human standard, purpose becomes subjective. I feel this is incredibly liberating. The answer to what is the meaning of life is then: whatever you want it to be! One is free to make it your children, your pets, your world or even your thoughts! Your life is an open ended journey, not a destination. Now those who like being told what to do will not like this and will therefore be more inclided to religion or other faith system.

4) Why get up if there is no god and no afterlife?
Simple, this is all you have so make the most of it. The big secret is simple: life has no inherent meaning. Life, like a blank piece of paper is what you make of it. The fact that has no inherit purpose is liberating, although I'll admit it may be too imposing for many since it takes a strong will to make one's own destiny and not just follow the other sheep. Since there is no afterlife, life itself has infinite value since it is irreplaceable (this is why killing for atheists is a definite no no) and must be savored as if it were the last piece of cake in existance! There are no seconds so make the most of it.

Tradition: the last refuge of the defeated

In Ontario there is a debate about whether the Lord' prayer should continue to be said at the start of every legislature session. But of course the the only arguement for keeping it is tradition. It seems clear to myself (and probably and intellectually honest person) that tradition is not a reason but an excuse.

Clearly if tradition was a sound logical argument, women shouldn't vote, homosexuality should be illegal, anal sex (between any two adults, straight or otherwise) should be illegal, slave ownership should be legal and oh yeah we should still be in a Monarchy!

The simplest argument is imagine a company had a morning Scientology seance (or whatever they do). Now imagine in this company 70% of the people where scientologists so if anyone of the other 30% backs out they get noticed and will clearly be noted. Would it be ok if the company had a tradition of this practice (1 year, 5 years, 100 years)? No.

It's kinda odd that the moral absolutists (religious people) become relativists when the principle of fairness is against them. The truth is very simple. Tradition is a way for the people with power to argue against the people who have reason(s). In the end, appeals to the tradition arguments are only there to protect those in power and deny fairness to everyone else.

My early thoughts on Christ

I remember when I was in grade 7 I had what I though was an insightful question. My religion teacher did not think so and did not like the question very much. We had learned (the later to be falsified) stuff about the "noble savage" native Americans. I asked if the natives were acting Christian would they have to be converted? He said, of course, yes.

I though this was odd since if you acted Christian would it matter if the belief system had the right name. Well now I know the answer is OF COURSE! This was an early episode of the start my questioning religion. What a world view that it needs to be correctly named or else it is invalid.

Of course in the name of a "loving" (as all religions refer to themselves) world view it doesn't make sense but in terms of a political tool it makes perfect sense. If more people agree with the superstition it gives the leaders more power (see 2003 Iraq war). I mean if someone came up to you and said I worship a guy who says his mother was a virgin, you'd have a god laugh if you weren't familiar with Jeudeo-Christian mythology. But if many people believe it, it can become a death sentence to disbelieve it (see the various inquisitions). But not everyone has the mental stamina to always question and think for themselves. Remember it is Christians who call themselves sheep!

Free will: what an undemocratic idea

To start, most people have differing definitions or inconsistent definitions of free will, so let start on the same foot and give a better (but not perfect) definition. Free will: decisions taken by the conscious part of the brain. (The "flaw" in the definition is I'm not sure how perfect the division of the unconscious and conscious mind is, but it's good enough for our purposes.) So free will would mean that decisions (or at least some of them) are done exclusively in the conscious part of the mind (here mind and brain are exact synomimes and if you don't know that this post is too far ahead).

Next, a few facts. Most of the brain's resources are devoted to the unconscious brain. The conscious brain is easily turned off without any harm to the person (sleep). So your consciousness is a subprocess of the unconscious brain. (Think about all the activities you perform unconsciously: driving, walking, eating etc. In fact in things like sports and driving you perform best when you are in the zone which is when you are doing them unconsciously).

So, if decisions reside in the conscious part of the brain you will be using less of your brain for that decision. More over, if you have free will and decisions are made in your conscious part of your brain the minority of neurons are having a say over the majority! The biggest, fastest and most complex part of your brain would be wasted.

That is a reasoned arguement. You may not like it, but it is still very likely true. If you dare, and don't hold free will in too high regard that you are willing to question it read about these new finding.

10 questions Christians can't explain and force them into odd thinking

You should only watch this if you are questioning, if you don't want to question your beliefs DON'T WATCH THIS. These questions demonstrate how if Christians think about their beliefs, their religion falls part. The simplest question: Why doesn't god EVER heal amputees? If he's curing cancers, and saving lives why can't he EVER heal a single amputee? This is an especially poignant question to the neo-con religious right people who think fighting for the US is the will of god and not only their politicians.

Atheist vs Religious

I'm not against religious people, just against dogma and irrationality. I had started to writeup a post about the fundamental differences between religious people and atheists but I came across this youtube video that does a very good job.

The premise is simple, with rationality you can think and come up with better answers than without thinking. The video doesn't talk much about the negative consequences of prayer which I think is often overlooked. The majority of people's prayers are for themselves or their kin (some are for others). A daily prayer therefore means someone spends a part of everyday asking for their life to get better. They have no real motivation to make it better just to pray harder. But I believe people are free to do what they want so long as it's not hurting others.

What I always found funny is how if you question any of the magic stories that are part of that persons faith they will defend them but quickly dismiss similar or even more plausible stories from other religions. This is why teaching all (or at least many) religions to children is a great way to sow the seeds of doubt and rationality since they start understanding what a story is (as opposed to a historic event).

In the end I just wish people could understand two very simple parts of the difference. The first is that only atheists can truly love and care for other selflessly since they don't believe in a Santa Clause god watching their actions forcing them to behave. The second is that life for an atheist has infinite value since it is all you have. If you believe you will live on in a better place for an eternity then 80 years here is quite irrelevant. So maybe religious people could try the opposite of Pascal's wager and live as if there isn't a god and if one (or many) pops up at least you were yourself.

"Mother Teresa" and Opus Dei

I saw the Da Vinci Code and was not impressed (the idea of facts changing faith is far to idealistic for me), but of late I've learned a little more about Opus Dei. There self mutilation is not Hollywood fiction but sanctioned Catholic practice! On top of that I knew "Mother Teresa" liked to watch people suffer (her houses for the poor were places of suffering, not medical clinics where people could get help) but I didn't know she was an Opus Dei member! On top of that, you'd think they'd hide that (like the truth of the "miracle" that got her canonized) but they don't! They admit it!!

The Catholics and the Nazi's

The biggest and most egregious claim people losing a discussion about religion, faith or god make is that atheists in the past have committed massive horrors. They especially cite the Nazi's. This claim is completely historically inaccurate to anyone who knows even a bit of real history. I can make my arguement and state the facts (Catholics were KEY not only to Hitler gaining power but keeping it and justifying the holocaust), but it is better if someone of more repute does it. The Washington Post has a great guest article about this and how the current Pope is washing over this and has started on the path backwards (from the Second Vatican Council).

Two sayings come to mind. "Those Who Forget History Are Doomed to Repeat It" and "Judge not lest the be judged." The Nazi's were not atheists, but it is interesting that it is mostly christians who say that.

The Pope makes it too easy

He seems to have a knack for hilarious irony (such as condemning homosexuals and dressing like a "queen"), but in his homely in Washington he makes it even easier. He says things like, "the victims [of sexual abuse by the clergy] need loving pastoral attention." Ouch! But that's all too easy. Here is a much more interesting parallel.

Reading about the psychology of terrorists there was an interesting parallel I notice with priests. Many of the young boys who grow up to be suicide bombers are in all boy schools, with almost no female contact at all. If they have female contact they can't see the women let alone develop a normal relationship. When they go on their final missions they almost all have their genitals wrapped very carefully in cloth. When asked about this (not asking Achmed the terrorist, see youtube, but asking failed bombers) they clearly state this is so they can have the ability to enjoy their virgins! Clearly part of the cause of becoming a suicide bomber is the anguish of not being able to perform fundamental biological urges.

Now priest have this problem, but to a lesser degree. I'm not saying priests are terrorists! I'm simply showing that there is a common thread due to the suppression of strong biological urges with is undoubtedly unhealthy. The point is that both religions use the suppression of biological urges to control and contort the view of these poor people. They are nothing more than conditioned pawns of some very uncivilized people.

Clearly the combination of suppression of deep biological urges, constant training including special emphasis on not reasoning but simply believing is a major cause of terrorism and to a lesser extent unethical behavior (both the pedophiles and especially the priests and bishops who hid these monsters form authorities and allowed them to reoffend). Is faith worth it?

Modern segregationists

Unlike the violent black white segregationists of past todays modern segregationist is slightly more tolerant. They believe segregation is ok, so long as it is optional. The best example is the Ontario Liberal government and specifically Education Minister Kathleen Wynne and Premier Dalton McGuinty. In there modern segregationist view it is ok to segregate Catholics into separate schools so long as the Catholics are allowed out and no other faith is allowed in. The justification is simple: tradition. Wonder how that would have went over in the black white segregation debate? Think I'm exaggerating? Here is a direct quote of Wynne's speech to the Catholic trustees' and principals' AGM:

Catholic system is here to stay

Thursday, 20 March 2008

Written by Michael Swan, The Catholic Register,

TORONTO - Ontario Education Minister Kathleen Wynne put a positive spin on the bitter debate over confessional education during the fall election campaign in a speech to Catholic teachers at their annual union meeting in Toronto March 9.

In the end voters rejected Conservative proposals to expand public education to include Jewish, Muslim and Christian schools and affirmed the existing publicly funded system in Ontario which covers secular and Catholic school boards, she said.

“It’s the most inclusive system in the world,” Wynne told about 600 delegates to the Ontario English Catholic Teachers’ Association annual general meeting. “We have to model that pluralistic system for the world.”

The election “reinforced public support for the current publicly funded system,” she told The Catholic Register. No amount of public debate over whether it’s fair to fund Catholic schools but not Jewish and Muslim schools would cause a Liberal government to re-examine current funding for Catholic schools as the only publicly funded separate system, she said.

“It’s the system that we inherited,” said Wynne.

Guess Ontarians should've known we've elected a government that is committed to inequality and Catholic privilege. After all they never took an oath to serve all Ontarians.

But best of all, this logic implies that if you inherited a slave it was ok!!

Why is Jesus so lazy or god so mean?

I like Easter, it is such an odd holiday even compared with most Christian things. Why? Because it says a lot about how Christians view the "world" in a very subtle way. I asked this question of my priest many years ago and got a very odd look: Why did it take Jesus three days to get resurrected? Now put aside modern knowledge about the universe and think about this as if it were real. Why would an all-power god who sent his son to die for man's sins wait three days? What was the hold up?

This says even when god is executing his very own plan he is non-responsive. What could be the hold up? There can't be something keeping him so he must have wanted it that way especially since Jesus wasn't healing himself since he shows everyone his wounds afterwards. The only lesson I can see is: god uses people as pawns.

I guess it is possible (in the story world) that Jesus just kept hitting the "snooze" button on his resurrection, after all it took him 30 years to start his divine preaching. And what's with the bunnies? Is that a hint to where Jesus was for the three days?