Ravings of a Classical Scientist

Conservation of Energy and the soul

2011-07-11T15:40:00.003-04:00

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

2010-05-13T10:11:00.003-04:00

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

2009-12-24T16:13:00.002-05:00

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

2009-08-14T11:12:00.002-04:00

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

2009-08-05T22:31:00.003-04:00

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

2009-07-23T22:40:00.003-04:00

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

2009-05-07T18:32:00.003-04:00

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

2009-03-17T14:13:00.001-04:00

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

2009-02-17T00:03:00.004-05:00

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

2009-02-16T23:25:00.002-05:00

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

2009-02-16T15:57:00.003-05:00

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

2009-02-15T14:58:00.003-05:00

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!!)

2009-02-10T16:51:00.003-05:00

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

2009-02-01T12:00:00.004-05:00

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

2008-12-15T22:18:00.002-05:00

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

2008-12-04T12:53:00.002-05:00

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

2008-12-02T14:49:00.002-05:00

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

2008-11-23T10:30:00.003-05:00

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

2008-10-14T20:14:00.002-04:00

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"

2008-07-25T15:04:00.002-04:00

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

2008-07-20T17:23:00.003-04:00

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

2008-07-10T12:17:00.002-04:00

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

2008-07-08T18:03:00.003-04:00

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?

2008-07-08T17:45:00.002-04:00

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

2008-07-07T20:58:00.004-04:00

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

2008-05-30T22:43:00.003-04:00

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

2008-05-30T22:19:00.003-04:00

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

2008-05-08T10:35:00.002-04:00

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

2008-05-06T22:16:00.003-04:00

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

2008-05-06T21:52:00.002-04:00

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

2008-04-19T09:10:00.002-04:00

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

2008-04-19T07:35:00.002-04:00

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

2008-04-18T08:20:00.002-04:00

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

2008-04-16T08:44:00.003-04:00

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?

2008-03-23T14:01:00.004-04:00

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?

A grand Saudi experiment

2008-03-20T19:03:00.002-04:00

In this news post at sciam a really interesting project in Saudi Arabia is going to take place. The Saudi king is endowing a brand new university (King Abdullah University of Science and Technology or KAUST) with $10 billion dollars. But not only that, he is barring the moral police and allowing all the western freedoms on campus (women and men will both be admitted and share classrooms and (on campus) women can drive a car and may even be allowed to dress as non-ninjas. Also, the university is suppose to be completely autonomous with no government intervention. I think this is an experiment since for one thing in a theocracy how can some people be happy with all these restrictive laws but then fine to leave this university alone? Not to mention there is nothing more anti-religious than science. Of course the university is primarily focused on technology, not real basic science so that will help. But I wonder how many students from non-arab countries will want to go to a university in the heart of Saudi Arabia and more importantly how many professors. If this is successful, and the trend spills over to other wealthy arab countries in 20 years with a well educated based of people the culture war in these countries would make America's pale by comparison. This will be a grand experiment (although I wouldn't go for fear of what happens when your off campus) to *watch*.

Noah's Arc: The story of mass murder you gotta love?

2008-03-12T09:24:00.002-04:00

When people talk about the story (as opposed to what really happened) of Noah's Arc I can't help but wonder how this story of mass devastation and murder is a children's story. The flood not only killed adults ("the wicked") bu what about new born babies, puppies and other completely innocent people! You would think an all powerful all knowing god would be a little more surgical! So god kills every smiley happy baby, every little boy skipping stones on a pond and every little girl picking flowers in order to kill a few "wicked" adults. How people can celebrate this story I have not idea, it's simply sick.

The problem with economics

2008-02-24T10:41:00.002-05:00

Economics was a subject I knew almost nothing about but as I near my leaving of graduate school into the "real" world I figured I should broaden my horizons and people are often talking about economics. So I did some learning.
One of the most shocking things I learned was that most economists went into the field to try and improve the situation of their fellow man. There motivation was to understand the economy and find ways to have it keep growing and benefit everyone, a much nobler cause then I had anticipated. But the road to hell is paved with good intentions and we can still see some of the problems that the field faces since it purports to be able to tell you how money will flow and since most human endevours are tied to wealth has lead to many problems (such as the introduction of manditory child labor in France). Even today we have people on TV and radio talking about trade deficits as if we still need to acquire all the bullion in the world.

But in the end what is going on and more importantly is what they say useful (it is interesting that almost every show with integrity has programs with a few economist who sit around and proclaim that was they do is a prescience and should be taken with a cup of salt). Firstly it has been realized that one of the most useful aspects of a market economy is that under normal circumstances price is optimized meaning the price someone is willing to pay vs the price someone can charge is very rapidly found (a failing of other planned economic systems). But this happens at the lowest level of interaction and so is very hard to come up with a model since the causes are as complicated as human decisions get. Economists tend to look mostly at macro numbers and then try and predict what will happen. It is not clear that is approach cannot work but I have some idea why currently it can't.

Classic economic arguments are primarily first-order arguments and it very much depends on the economist as to what the first-order interaction is. The entire argument is based on a single train of reasoning. this is due to the immense complexity of the problem and is understandable and physics does much the same thing. One (there are many) difference seems to be that wrong ideas keep getting recycled but not modified or refined as in physics, such as supply-side economics.

While modern economics tries to use a mesh of different models they are still very crude and have little of explaining past data let alone making an accurate prediction. Then their is the emphasis placed on them. In the old dark days people would throw chicken bones, sacrifice product or talk to their imaginary friend (many still do) for predictions. While are models are slightly better when they make a forcast and people think of it as science, the field capable of wiping out the plague, polio and going to the moon, self-for filling prophecies become the issue since saying everything is ok and therefore pushing people to spend will actually make it ok and vice versa! So what do we do? We are years away from passable models. Ask them to lie?

When industry fights for your rights

2008-02-15T15:52:00.002-05:00

Often people think it is big business who is trying to take away your rights to make profit. this is often due to a misunderstanding of the situation. In fact as a good example we can see that it is an industry lobby group that is pushing for "better" copyright reform in Canada to avoid the crazy MPAA crap that is plaguing the US. Capitalism at it's heart needs freedom so that people are able to be creative and purchase or enjoy what they desire. Go big business!!

Coming soon: Personal Religiogenisis

2008-02-03T12:33:00.000-05:00

My interest in the mythologies of the various religions has been waining for sometime especially since applying logic to these constructs doesn't really change anyone's mind on the issue and there is only so much bad fiction I can deal with (let's face it our fiction writers today are far better than these old holy authors, just look at how much funnier Scientology is). Also, I have started noticing patterns and asking a more fundamental question a friend brought up: what makes someone desire/need religion or faith? This, to me, has become a more important point since all religions are easily discredited using logic and intellectually honest reasoning, but this won't change minds. The core question is: Why people want to give up reason and reality? The hope is that answering this means people may be able to figure out how to satisfy that need with positive worldviews.

This has lead me to my Religiogenesis hypothesis (although current testing has been positive). The name is a node to Greg Egan's Orphanogenesis, since I'm trying to explain how personal religions are generated. By personal I mean the religion the individual subscribes to, not the pseudoacedemnic version purported by the people at the top of the establishment. For instance most Christians know nothing of the Christian faith so commenting on Catholicism is pointless since why they claim they may be Catholic they don't really know what that means and don't necessarily believe all of it. What I am talking about is the version that resides in people's heads.

But this much bigger than standard religions but deals with the entire set of religions using (as you would expect from me) a clear definition of a religion which is very broad. It will also highlight key aspects of how strict scientific naturalism/atheism/humanism is fundamentally different from religious belief. This has many implications both for politics and everyday life as I'm sure will be clear. I look forward to your comments!

Thought crimes in Canada!?!

2008-01-23T23:49:00.000-05:00

This pains me but I knew it was coming. This is clearly a thoughtcrime and quite disturbing, but then what do you expect in Canada home of the not-so-free! Lets face it, most have not read the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. So lets post a VERY important part:

1. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society. (source)

Who gets to decide what is justifiable!?! The government!! That's not a freedom that a privilege given by a dictatorial authority! It really is completely ridiculous but then our charter even gives the source of its nonsense in the preamble:

Whereas Canada is founded upon principles that recognize the supremacy of God and the rule of law:

Canada is therefore founded on the supremacy of an evil fictional character and the rules made up by our politicians, since that's the rule of law since our rights are actually privileges. COuldn't we put it more succinctly:

Whereas Canada is founded upon principles that recognize the supremacy of Dracula and the decries of its politicians:

1. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject whatever limitations the government decides.

There at least now it's honest. Well I hope I'm allowed the be thankful I am a US citizen with real rights and happy that even under Bush's ruining of the rule of law in the US I'm freer in the US!!

Here is Ezra laying it out! It's awesome and is my definition of a patriot.

Mexicans vs Candian Native Americans: what am I missing?

2008-01-22T15:48:00.000-05:00

I was listening to the recent interview of Paul Martin by Steve Paikin when two important numbers were thrown out. The first was there are roughly a million aboriginals in Canada. The second was that the Kelowna accord was priced at $5 billion dollars (that an additional $5000 per aboriginal on top of the $6300 per aboriginal or $6.3 billion allocated in 2007 for Native affairs, see here) . Martin was stating that the aboriginals live in third world conditions.

Now as I though about the situation the parallels with Mexicans (or more generally central Americans) became apparent to me. Both live in 3rd world conditions and have little employment opportunity in their "homeland." So why is it Mexicans risk their lives to go to the US or Canada illegally, work crazy hours for crappy wages and send most of their money home to their family where as the aboriginals who have the right to work in Canada don't? As citizen they can get better education for them and their children than the Mexicans, healthcare since they are citizens andbetter jobs since they don't have to take illegal jobs. The aboriginals have what the rest of the poor world want, access to Canada and US jobs.

I guess one possibility is this isn't working for most immigrants who come here and spend most of their salary on remittance, which would beg the question why they stay or new immigrants continue to try to come in? Or maybe giving someone fish instead of teaching them to fish and letting them fish doesn't work. Am I missing some huge piece of the puzzle here?

The Jewish revelation and the Christian retractment

2008-01-14T04:10:00.000-05:00

I've learned a little about the transition from Hebrews to Jews, specifically the Jewish revelation and it astounds me. While this happened in around 1000 B.C. for the enlightenment in the area (such as Babylon) the Jewish revelation really is far backwards and contorted "thinking."

So what is it? No it's not really monotheism. In a nutshell: You are Jewish if you have faith in Yehwah. On the surface this seems like monotheism is their revelation but I assure you it is not that simple. Before the Jews upto the dawn of civilization each city (which were very much like the Greek city-states) had a local deity. The deity was tied to the land the people were from so your god= your land (or "country"). When attacking another city the victors would often carry off the deity statues and paraphernalia of the conquered city as a trophy since they defeated the land and deity (they were one). Fast forward 2000+ years and the Hebrews face the problem of their leaders being deported to Babylon and so the people are separate. How can they remain the same people if they are no longer in geographic connection? Well, they say that Hebrews can be Jews as long as they believe in Yehwah even in other lands. But the other deities rule those other lands? So then Yehwah is the only god the others are local powers or something lesser or simply impostors. But the real kicker is the they take the tradition of the local deities being involved in human affairs and being right besides them (think of the deities as rationalizations of natural things they don't understand) and moved to the supernatural. This is where god gains his supernatural credentials, from the Jews. He is now outside of this world so he can't be stolen or captured by invading armies as is the case with other local deities.

This solves a lot of the political and defeatist problem the Hebrews were having (they were always losing to various other civilizations) since they could be defeated as Hebrews but not as Jews. But the price they paid is pretty astounding even for the time. They were forced the live with the inherit contradiction of a supernatural god who affects the natural but can't be affected by it (captured) and can through worship, sacrifice etc. Local deities clearly are in the lives of the people who worship them since it is the natural world around them so it is analogous to say the land provides them with the resources and production or to say the deity blesses them with resources and production. They Jews are forced to this difficult mental gymnastics of a supernatural god and clearly this didn't catch on well and is especially ironic that now to be Jewish you need to be born of a Jew so it went from land to creed to genes.

What is even sillier is the Christians then go (in one sense) backwards to making their deity earthly again by having a human version/component/avatar to their god. This makes the connection to the natural world stronger than the Jews and is more similar to the ancient local gods. The silly part is they have both a natural god (Jesus) and a supernatural and impersonal (god) and a supernatural and personal (holy spirit)!

So the way I see it while Judaism started around 3000 years ago it took 1300 years to sell the silly idea of the supernatural (something external from the natural as opposed to natural but powerful gods like Zeus and Thor) and the idea has clearly peaked and is loosing ground, but it may be another 1000 years before it is in the minority. What an oddity that after 1700 years of the silly supernatural contradiction, we are trying to move back to the local deities (now called countries or even just sports teams) since it makes more sense than the "revelation". Now that we have science to explain the natural world we can once again move to the natural world but this time without the "colorful" but wrong explanations for phenomenon (like lightning).

I love this pope! He's hysterical!!

2008-01-07T15:51:00.000-05:00

No I'm serious. I've often said as a scientific naturalist who would like people to critically exam their faith at best but at the least confine the fighting amongst religions, this pope is a "god send" (lol). He has restored interfaith tension, made the biggest Christian church sillier than ever and he constantly makes a fool of himself. (This is important since when religions aren't at odds they attack homosexuals and secular society and we have progress to be made so it is helpful when they are distracted). Recently here is how he plans to get ride of pedophilia in the priesthood (thanks Ron for the info):

Pope Benedict XVI has instructed Roman Catholics to pray “in perpetuity” to cleanse the Church of paedophile clergy. All dioceses, parishes, monasteries, convents and seminaries will be expected to organise continuous daily prayers to express penitence and to purify the clergy.
Vatican officials said that every parish or institution should designate a person or group each day to conduct continuous prayers for the Church to rid itself of the scandal of sexual abuse by clergy. Alternatively, churches in the same diocese could share the duty. Prayer would take place in one parish for 24 hours, then move to another.
Vatican watchers said that there was no known precedent for global prayer on a specific issue of this kind. There are about one billion Roman Catholics worldwide. (source)

Now I'm not surprised since the level of cognitive dissidence it must take to be pope must be truly phenomenal. To spend so many days convincing yourself of these lies and then telling others about them claiming they are true, that can't be easy (but at least you get to live in a palace).

What's more on the same site I found a list of the top 20 offenses to religion. I was disappointed to see that South Park was not included and Life of Brian was so low, but they are really funny and insightful. These are the growing pains of the modern world shedding off it's past (religion) and while the past will always be with us, it's influence will degenerate.

Happiness

2007-12-30T03:46:00.000-05:00

A long while ago I realized the three things in a "job" I would need to be happy: enough money to eat whatever I want (smoked salmon, orange bell peppers etc), a flexible schedule and most importantly challenging work. This is why academics is perfect for me and I can do my 50-90 hour work weeks and feel great! Now on top of this criteria I had come up with some other conditions about my work: short commute and I must have a "boss" I respect (another reason to stay in academics). The commute part is very important to me since I very much dislike commuting in general but the cost of living near work can sometimes be very high. It turns out my experience was correct though and is now scientifically verified: long commutes are a good way for unhappiness as you can see in this interview (link near the bottom of the page).

It turns out (and there are other articles in sciam and sciammind about this) that it is the small everyday things that will make or break your happiness. If there are plenty of little things in the day you get to do that you like, you'll be happy even if you never take a dream vacation to some poor beach country. Good thing too since I dislike most traveling, Id rather take the dog for a run in the park and then spend the money on a good book. What I have never understood is how people can do 2 hours of commute a day (1 hour each way), which was the average in the suburb which I grew up in, since you are only awake 16 hours and need 8 hours to work, 2 hours to eat leaving only about 6 hours of effective "free" time. Two hours is 33% of that! No wonder people feel rushed and that's not counting the decompression time after the travel. But then humans are not usually rational and so they never think about these things. Plus there is one major caveat: happiness is largely "programmed." Most people are born with a certain innate "happiness" and only fluctuate marginally around it, although even an initially happy person can eventually be worn down by things.

Thompson on Bhutto and hypocrisy

2007-12-29T02:11:00.000-05:00

When I heard what Thompson said about Bhutto's assasination, i couldn't help but notice the hypocrisy of most of his party in this. Here' the quote:
"I think the fact that a secular woman had a chance of ascending to power in Pakistan again as prime minister probably drove the more looney of them to do something like that -- that in of itself. Plus the fact that this reminds us that this is part of a much greater picture - this is a war that we are engaged in and it is an international conflict...Pakistan and other parts of the world are part of this and they are under attack."

Yet in the US his party (and the Dems to some degree, especially of late) constantly tout their religiosity! We want other countries (especially Muslim countries) to have secular progressive leaders and at home Mike Huckabee is competing with Romney to be the "Christian" candidate! Thompson is not Ron Paul with a true understanding of church-state separation and so it is just hypocrisy, but I do wonder if in Muslim countries they hope for a president who is a secularist instead of a Christian in the US?

Why celebrate?

2007-12-28T14:36:00.001-05:00

Most people celebrate things having to do with their religion, monetary status, relationship and rarely achievement. As an acedemic celebrating monetary success would be silly and I certainly have no desire to celebrate religious events (although I don't mind attending to see friends and relatives). My wife and I rarely celebrate our relationship on marked days (V-day or anniversaries) , most evident since we passed our 10 year anniversary and neither of us noticed until 2 days later. We prefer to celebrate when the mood strikes.

But what we do celebrate is achievement. In fact I've developed a rather odd celebration for my minor but satisfying achievements: giving the dog a treat. It seems odd, but to keep her in good health she rarely gets soft treats, but when I get a program working, find a code bug and fix it or make a small discovery the first thing I do is excite the dog and give her a treat. Often this will be followed by a celebration with my wife. It may seem odd but when you succeed you tend to want to share your success and the simplest way to start, for me, is to make the dog ecstatic!

Qualifications for president and evolution

2007-12-22T11:33:00.001-05:00

People have a right to believe whatever nonsense they wish, but the idea of electing representatives means the electorate must decide who is qualified to lead them (since we no longer believe in divine right in the modern world). But when candidates today say they "don't believe in evolution" they should be disqualified by the electorate. The reason is not due to them violating church-state separation or not having attained a sufficient level of knowledge to function in the real world (since they have being that all main candidates are wealthy and successful in their own rights), it is due to there lack of reason and disjoint views from reality coupled with being the Commander-in-Chief.

Evolution has more evidence than any political or economic situation will ever have and if they cannot accept the facts with such overwhelming evidence it is worrying what will happen in situations with much less evidence. We have seen first hand what happens when a belief is touted as fact (WMD's in Iraq for instance) and a president who cannot either admit he does not know enough about biology to comment or make an informed decision but rather takes the word of religious officials is a liability for the country.

MPI and lapack

2007-12-21T19:01:00.000-05:00

I've been upgrading my code to use mpi and since I use lapack in C for the diagonalization and some other procedures I needed to make a doublecomplex type for mpi and I didn't find anyone else who has posted this. It's not hard but when you are starting out with mpi one less thing to worry about is nice so I'll post the relevant few lines.

MPI_Datatype MPI_DOUBLE_COMPLEX;
MPI_Type_contiguous(2, MPI_DOUBLE, &MPI_DOUBLE_COMPLEX);
MPI_Type_commit(&MPI_DOUBLE_COMPLEX);
MPI_Type_free(&MPI_DOUBLE_COMPLEX);

This works by making MPI_DOUBLE_COMPLEX from two contiguous doubles since doublecomplex is a struct with two doubles r and i.

Useful baby tips

2007-11-19T12:29:00.000-05:00

Here are a few peals of wisdom I've pickup. Firstly for newborns at least, Huggies are far superior to pampers. They hold a lot more liquid with the only draw back it will be hard to know the baby went since they work so well. Secondly girls can also project urine. Thirdly, on a liquid diet the manure is very liquidly and can become projectile so be careful when you pull the baby slightly upwards since you may be pointing a loaded weapon :-) Fourthly, there may be an item you like from one playpen but your model doesn't come with it, well at Graco at least you can order replacement parts for any playpen. So if you want a wind up mobile but a different model you can order any part as a replacement for a very small fee!! This is much better than rotating the mobile yourself!! Lastly, let your instincts do their work . No matter what happens you need only stare at the baby for a few seconds and you will know what to do and have the patience to do it. This is not magic merely genetic programing. So when she wakes you and you are grouchy and tired one look will cure it all and then you can enjoy it!

Failure of the new religious fevor

2007-11-05T15:19:00.000-05:00

While the current issue of The Economists makes some good points about the rise of religion, I disagree with the forecasts. In this article they are forecasting that the role of religion will continue to increase. While this is somewhat true I think the authors have missed two important points: the increased diversity of religions, even within the larger ones and the patience for such solutions.

Firstly religions are mostly in a free market and so they are forced to compete with each other. this is not new but the amount of competition is clearly at an all time high since information has never flowed so easily. This means that while the percentage of people with some religion/spirituality will probably remain roughly constant or with a slow decline to to more information about alternatives to superstitious world views, but the overall infulence will decrease because we will no longer have a single voice for the large chunk of religious people. For instance in the US the religious voice of the protestants was largely the religious voice in the early 20th century. Now that group has been subdivided many times and continues to subdivide. Similarly if the number of Muslims increase this does not mean you simply have more people wanting sharia law or something since there are many competing forms of Islam including secular Islam. In this sense there is a big divide and conquer scheme amidst. Religions continue to compete for followers and change to attract the largest market share and so the religious voice becomes an incoherent chorus, losing its power.

The other thing to note is that people will abandon ways that do not work. While many places are trying to return to religion for various reasons in the end when they lack medical care and economic opportunities for their children due to spending much time on religion and not science I doubt many will continue with such a lost cause. Currently it may seem like a good idea to fight for your place in the world using religion instead of science, but business doesn't work so well with religion and so it will again fail (one need only look at most Muslim countries economies and compare them to secular Turkey or precivil war Lebanon). As science continues to move ahead and provide cures, preventive treatments and economic opportunity religious people will realize the only one's with opportunity are the one's preaching the religions and abandon it for a more private faith and secular public life. I don't give the current large religious uprising (meaning religion in government and public life) more than 20 years in North America, but the middle east I think it will continue to increase for about 50 years until the oil is scarce and water is more valuable and there troubles are truly huge and their religion and so utterly failed them. I think it will end like in Dune. The Muad'hib has died, we are just waiting for the Preacher's message to take solid root. But the largest religious deconversion I predict for South America as their economies continue to grow. We'll see!

But I'm not saying religion/spirituality will disappear (I'm not that much of an optimist), merely that it's relevance will go back to pre-1960's level in public life.

Merissa is coming!

2007-10-04T10:15:00.000-04:00

Well the water broke last night and contractions are going on! We are just waiting for them to get closer together before we go to the hospital. It could still be a while (12-18 hours at most)... but at least she is coming!!

Faith, religion and politics

2007-10-03T22:39:00.000-04:00

I've been reading the Dune series and I'm a 1/3 through Children of Dune and I must say I'm starting to understand faith, religion and political power via faith. Now I know what faith means academically but looking back I also know I've never had faith (faith: belief not grounded in any reason or justification). Even when I was younger and a Christian/Diest/theist I didn't have faith i had belief that my elders knew more than me ergo I believed what they did. This didn't last long after puberty though especially growing up with very intelligent friends who challenged me. Also, I am a hyper-rational person and not prone to emotional (false)-reasoning making it very hard for me to ever take a leap of faith since my mind quickly kills the cognitive dissidence and I'm left reasonable/faithless. So having never really had faith I never understood its power! Not to mention the intricacies of how you can weave it into a religion giving birth to serious political power.

Through the rise and fall of the Muad'dib I can understand how the people around him modify their beliefs to what their faith, owning idea but granting the power. An example is how a modern preacher starts a church and turns it into a mega-church and congregation. They do so by tailoring the message to the existing faith of an audience, given them a place to put their beliefs in exchange for (varying degrees) their reason. Having substituted their reason for a justification for their faith allows the preacher to mold them anyway they desire, i.e. giving him true power (people to command)!

The hitch is people have the faith first but this seems to be a rather common human attribute, to which I am the exception not the rule. Why? I don't know. Maybe it's simply the "heard looking for an alpha" gone amok, there are perfect parallels between the two. What I do know is the important implication: you cannot restore reason by rational arguments against the religion since it was sold to a willing buyer and so is not the source of the irrationality. For myself, this explain most of the discussions on the subject I've had, how you can win the debate over and over and change nothing.

A good (atheist) friend remark how sad it was that I needed a sci-fi book(s) to understand faith and religion so completely, but its like trying to get a dog to be interested in abstinence teaching, very unnatural. I probably would have got the idea from Life of Brian but it was just too funny (Biggus Dickus...lol). My brain seems to lack the faith module. Part o it must be because those who have impressed me intellectually have all used rational arguments and since you can't rational argument faith I'm never even had a tingle of interest. But then I've never experienced being shot so I'm fine with leaving some things in life untried.

Funny religion

2007-09-15T17:13:00.001-04:00

Some may read this story and think it is very funny that a god (Ram) had an army of monkeys build a bridge. But then there is a bridge-like structure there. How many silly things do Christians, Muslims, Jews and others believe in that there is absolutely no evidence for (like a certain arc story)? Who can help but laugh at the idea of a lion who hasn't eaten in 39 days sitting peacefully next to a rabbit, or a T-Rex depending on how silly you feel. Where ever there is faith there will be silly stories.

Things are very good, it's just you

2007-09-13T01:21:00.000-04:00

As I've been saying to doom sayers and those who think ho terrible things are, they are just pessimists. A recent large survey by McCleans showed that Candian's (like American and other rich counties) are very happy! Most people, 60% don't think god has anything to do with their happiness and making over $40000 per year was highly correlated with being happy. Just to show that "old wisdom" is sometimes not very wise. Atheists are just as happy as believers. Canadians have a positive outlook on life and our future, much different from the past. This is why when people claim how terrible the world is it clearly is them. Things in the past were pitiful, dirty, more unfair and much poorer than today. Those nostalgics are clearly the product of faulty memory, today is great and most Canadians agree. So join the party, you only live once (even theists, believe it or not)!

Feeling cynical

2007-09-07T00:03:00.000-04:00

It used to encourage me when politicians would speak about the lack of people with math/science skills since I knew I'd then be one of these coveted few. Now that it is time to graduate and look for an acedemic position one can only look around and say: OH that's why there aren't many people with these skills, there are almost no acedemic jobs! Obviously you can't give a professorship to every Ph.D, but it shouldn't look like it is more probable to win the lottery than a tenure track position. Yes, I do have a very coveted degree (or will have soon), but it seems like a very sick joke to learn all this very interesting physics and how to investigate fundamental questions about the universe and not use it or use it for non-academics. I know it can apply and the methods are applicable to almost any field but it's like learning all about detailed chemistry of taste to become wine taster.

Now there is nothing wrong with using the degree for other things and making more money, but when you always hear about the "brain drain" or "lack of skilled" it can only make you cynical when you are looking for a position. (Note: if it turns out I find a great position I may change my opinion depending on how hard it was :)

Smart man's burden

2007-09-02T11:02:00.000-04:00

Now I am not the smartest person I know but I clearly am well above average and this leads me to some guilt.

As I view the evolution of humans it seems to me that societal and cultural evolution happens in discrete steps brought on by the best of us. Revolutions need their very bright and charismatic leaders, innovations need their geniuses. Now that our population has reached such large numbers the number of people capable of these things increases. Most migrate to the rich world leaving the poorer countries devoid of these people to live a better life for them and their families.

Then there is me. I come from a middle class family were I had many advantages most don't. I had parents who were involved with my education and provided with sufficient resources and opportunities to nurture my curiosity. After all that I started asking and being interested in the most fundamental of questions (knowing I'm an atheist these are non-superstitious questions obviously) and so I am completing my Ph.D in physics. But here is where I start to feel some guilt. There are many problems in our world such as malaria, cancer, global climate change etc that I could work on. I could help these efforts and I feel some guilt in not being fully interested. It's not that I don't want to save people (this is the source of the guilt) it's that the problems that need to be solved to do this aren't as interesting as the physics ones. In one sense I feel I should try and be like Dr. Borlaug (unarguably the greatest human who's ever lived).

To put this in perspective imagine if all the brilliance that went into string theory or into high temperature superconductors went into malaria or cancer! But I guess you just have to live with the guilt since if there is little interest and only motivation you'll go nowhere fast... at least that's what I keep telling myself.

Future issues

2007-08-04T00:47:00.000-04:00

There are a few topics today which I think will go away in th near (50 years) future that I think are worth mentioning.
Firstly blindness and deafness. This are already being treated (especially deafness) and with stem cell research it is unlikely that these affliction will last long. Already there is "push back" form the deaf community who feel they are distinct and stuff. I have nothing against that, but I would never force someone to be deaf so that they can still have a community. The only draw back is that seeing eye dogs will become a thing of the past and this will ruin my argument for brining my dog place (well seeing eye dogs are allowed so you can't deny me for sanitation reasons).

Secondly organism meat. Growing a whole chicken or cow to eat just a few parts is rather inefficient. The muscle part (which is what we eat) has been grown synthetically already and will eventually be cost effective since there is much less input since you spend all your energy/money on product. It is entirely ethical since there is no organism, only tissue. This will put an end to cattle ranching and feed lots but I think will also have an unintended consequence: wheat prices will plummet. This will mean poor people in Africa etc will not be able to make a living off of wheat since 70% of N.A. wheat is used for livestock, it will flood the market. This will be a huge boon to the planets food productivity, but an economic disaster for some.

Homosexuality. Firstly let me state flat out, I have nothing against it at all. I just think it is clear it won't likely be around the first world for long. It is likely that it is an interaction with mother's brain in the womb, but whatever is the 'cause' it will eventually be discovered. Once it is that will leave the possibility of both stopping or creating a homosexual child. The vast majority of people will opt for the former, I don't think out of hate or anything but it is simply human nature (mostly because we are designed to want grandkids). This will mean either some people will have to make homosexual children, leave it to chance or become extinct (for a great take on this see Greg Egan's Cocoon).

Maybe I'm looking to far, but then again I remember heating things up on a stove (!?!) and I had a pen pal... lol a pen pal!

Blissful chicken

2007-08-04T00:40:00.001-04:00

Sorry this ain't a recipe. It is cruel to have chicken's in cages. But that's because the chickens are fearful and caged. So what if there was a type a chicken that had a brain abnormality such that it was constantly euphoric. What do I mean? Well think of a chicken constantly in a state like being high. So what if you GM modified the chickens to be blissful so even in a cage they were happy? They'd be happier than the other chickens and not worried about the slaughter house. Or you could simply have retarded chickens. The only problems (I think) stem from the fact a a euphoric organism has no reason to do anything (that's why we aren't always happy) so it may not eat so you may have to have it euphoric while it's not eating or if it's too retarded it may not think to eat.

Seems like a solution (unless you believe in bla bla "playing god" or bla bla brain is not mind in which case you shouldn't be on this blog).

Silly environmental stuff

2007-08-04T00:09:00.000-04:00

To start I have nothing against environmental science, it's the environmental religion I oppose. I've been marking some environmental papers and Man have I come across some rather silly remarks that I thought I'd share.
-Cities are lonely(!?!) I can't begin to fathom this one...
-Our technology has made us slaves working too much. This is nonsense. A few centuries ago most people were farmers, a 7 day workweek job! Maybe in the 1950's, but compared to today, we work less (remember we passed legislation to make sure we don't work more that 44 hours)
-Having animals as pets is immoral (animal liberation people). This is soo silly. If there is one thing most of us with pets are guilty of is caring too much for the pet and not enough for other humans. Most of us send our dogs for spa's, medical care and lavish meals, treats and affection on them. It is a sad fact that my dog (and almost all dogs I know) have better lives than most poor people in the whole world!
-Human's have lost "something" by living in cities away from nature. Nature is very nice to visit, but I wouldn't want to live there. It's damp, dirty full of bugs and poisonous lizards and cold. If our ancestors could live like us they would in a heart beat. This is probably a deeper problem that fundamentalist environmentalists pray on (if I were to wager it would have something to do with most people not completing projects only pieces of projects and so missing the satisfaction of whole job well done). But I can agree that we lost predators, diseases (yes some people still live in nature and die from it, see Africa/Asia/S.America) and high infant mortality.

There are problem with our way of living, it is clearly too destructive to be sustainable, but that does not justify misusing science and tricking people. But it is unacceptable for us to move backwards (no one will give up our quality of life and especially our infant mortality), so help push forward. Saying the earth is a sacret place to be revered etc only cheapens the arguement (and is simple to refute since 5 mass extinctions have happened and more will happen unless humans stop them). Economics is the management of finite resources and the earth must not be viewed as a reservoir but a finite resource. That's how to find solutions. For example, it cost a certain amount to dump waste in a sanitary landfill (which isn't as bad as fundamentalist environmentalists would have you think) but not into a river or the air. Clearly it should cost giving an incentive to not do it! All that is required is a denial of the equality argument (all people should have equal access to all consumer goods) and some stuff will become more expensive but then less people will use it. If the cost is reflective of the damage to a resource then yes some poor people won't be able to afford some stuff because now it costs more (see why we need to throw away the equality argument) due to pollution laws but that's how demand/damage is kept low.

To say we are "removed" from nature and then deny human nature to consume, collect and modify their environment is a logical fallacy.

Canada Free Press, Jul 26/07

2007-07-31T00:21:00.000-04:00

The article below was pulled the editor of the Canadian Free press (a practicing Catholic) but it is really good and worth having out there. It is honest and so hard-hitting. To bad the Canadian Free press pulled it. But by the magic of the Internet it is revived! Great work Mr. Reid!!

God, religion, punishment

Throwing bad policy after bad policy

By Gary Reid

Thursday, July 26, 2007

What do these things have in common?

The earth is but 6,000 years old and Noah took pairs of dinosaurs on board the Ark along with other animals. God is punishing the United Kingdom with floods because Britons tolerate homosexuality. God punished the United States the same way for the same reason through Hurricane Katrina. God commands you to kill your children if they talk back to you. God commands you to kill unbelievers. The Catholic Church is the one true church.

If you are a rationale person, you would have to say that the commonality in all these religious contentions is that they are simply rubbish.

Yet, more than 30 million Americans who call themselves Evangelical Christians buy into the 6,000 year-old earth belief and teach this to their children (rent the HBO-produced video, You have a friend in God, to see this in action).

The British Anglican Bishops, who apparently have greater insight into the mind of God, recently revealed the true reason for floods. However, they failed to explain God’s promise to Noah not to use floods again whenever he decided the human herd needed culling. And with respect to Katrina, we all remember the exhortations of the late Reverend Gerry Falwell on this subject.

Deuteronomy, the fifth book of Moses, and, lest we forget, the holy word of God, informs Jews of proper child rearing techniques (beating and killing). Apparently, given the three millennia survival of Judaism, Jews thought God was just kidding, or simply didn’t understand teenagers, and decided to skip over that chapter and opt for common sense.

Unfortunately, we have become all too familiar with that other book of divinely-inspired homicide, the Koran, and its prescription for the disposition of unbelievers. Finally, Pope Benedict, as unbiased an observer of religiosity as one could find, recently ticked off the world’s Protestants by reasserting the primacy of the Catholic Church.

That last one is a bit more thorny than the others because each of the faiths, and all of their sects, claim to be the one true religion. They can’t all be right.

Generally, we consider religion to be a private matter and in their homes or in the confines of their churches, mosques, tabernacles, gospel halls, kingdom halls, synagogues and temples, if these religious folks want to cling to these strange beliefs, who cares? It is only when they spill into the outside world through attempts at censorship and outright murder that we start to ask ourselves do we really need pay such deference to religions as we seem to?

I raise this in the context of the unwise election platform of the Ontario Progressive Conservative Party. Its leader, John Tory, claims that by funding faith-based schools we will be inviting into the mainstream some 53,000 students now being privately taught in the beliefs of their faiths. He makes it sound as if Ontario’s public policy has excluded them.

They have always been welcome in the public school system and they are outside of it because their parents decided to separate them so that they will not be contaminated by the teaching of other knowledge that does not square with the holy books (try squaring the book of Darwin with the book of Genesis).

What Tory does not highlight is the thousands of additional students whose parents will place them in faith-based schools once public funding becomes available. It’s not just 53,000 students.

Tory recently announced his intention of hiring former premier, Bill Davis, to study the implications of funding faith-based schools. Some have condemned this move, pointing out that Davis is the person responsible for getting us into this problem by providing full funding for a Catholic school system. It has been likened to hiring the fox to reorganize the chickens.

I hope Davis never gets the appointment, because the PCs deserve to lose the election on this issue. However, I would hope, if it does come to pass, Davis will have had sufficient time to reflect on the damage he inflicted in Ontario, that he will have the courage to face the fact he did the wrong thing, and the fortitude to correct his mistake by recommending one public system, uncontaminated by any particular religious dogma.

Davis used to say, puckishly, that he was just a B student in law school. So was I, as a matter of fact. But this B student is left wondering why Davis, and now Tory, did not or do not try to square the book of education with the book of religion. Education is all about opening young minds to the possibilities in the wonders of knowledge yet to be discovered. Religion is dedicated to closing off such enquiry and shunning new knowledge that conflicts with religious convention.

Why should the public be asked to fund the closing of young minds? Why would that be in the public interest?

Gary Reid is a freelance writer and a public affairs consultant.

Worse today nonsense

2007-07-19T19:44:00.000-04:00

One thing that bothers me and nags at me to respond is the claim that things in the past were better. There is almost nothing about the past that was better than it is today. There are only two things that may have been better: the tax rate (and that's recent past) and your health and love. I assume people say such silly things because when you "look back" you tend to see yourself in better shape, in more passionate love and in less quarrels with your family and friends. But to project this onto the past is absolutely bonkers.

What I am raving about is when people make claims that society is crumbling, or crime/war/etc wasn't this bad in the past. So lets think about that for a minute. A few millenia ago, most people did not last to see their 5th birthday and if they did would not live much past 40! These people lived very hard lives without "weekends" or vacations and often rationing food. In some ancient cultures there was some justice but nothing of note until the Magna Carta (which is still not the case some societies today). The idea of a fulfilling relationship was also non-existent even for many of the wealthy. To top it off, these people were powerless to help their dying children because they lacked the basic knowledge of medicine.

Therefore when someone claims (like many new agers) that these people had hidden knowledge we lack what can you do but laugh. These poor people could not save their children from dying from a simple infection. I cannot imagine a single person from the past who would not trade places with any of us (1st world countries of course) since we live in more luxury and safety than even the kings of old.

Then there are the people who claim that the more immediate past was better. This is either self-delusion or they miss religion's dominance. The latter I can at least sympathize with since as more people become educated and taught to think they are not likely to be convinced about
"ancient wisdom". But if this is what they miss they should simply state it instead of statements about the crime rate. Which brings me to the deluded bunch. Our crime rate is at an all time low and keeps going down to the point that we need to look at national or international news to hear about the extraordinary crimes. The world is richer (although the gap is worse since some countries still toil in ancient type conditions) and safer than it has even been. There are less mass wars (which claim many more lives than current conflicts) and less international hostility.

It's too bad people don't realize the fantastic times we live in thanks to science and reason, they are really missing out.

The Iraq war: a lesson for scientists and smart people

2007-07-18T17:36:00.000-04:00

Evnen with far superior man/fire power and the intention to overthrow a brutal dictator the US lost the war, but won the battle. Most agree this is because they did not win the "hearts and minds" of th population. This is a good analogy for the evolution propaganda (it's not a debate, if you believe it is go directly to school, do not pass go) since although we have the very best army of facts and evidence it doesn't guarantee victory. Unfortunately we are pitted against a clever amorphous insurgency of irrational dogma that is appealing to some who lack proper education or simply desire power for themselves over others. Because these ideas and perpetrators can hide in the amongst the population we must battle them tactfully to win them over for all our sakes. In my opinion this requires outreach. We must go into the trenches and weed out these ideas and expose "righteous" claims as false, harmful and simply a power play. Many people's view changes when they realize their child's life could be endangered by such ideas.

As an example for the science (not Iraq part), the belief in creationism implies that vaccines are useless since it is god's will to give the virus and that no virus can evolve to jump the species barrier. Also many drugs are made by evolving bacteria to manufacture the drug. Most people are not religious enough to stake their child's life on their superstitions and so see a doctor not priest or imam when they get sick. Not teaching evolution needlessly delays progress on cures due to the social and economic problems that our society incurs, but to win the hearts and minds we must build and understanding and relationship with them to win them over.

What the bleep are people thinking!?!

2007-07-13T00:15:00.000-04:00

For a CFI event I watched What the bleep do we know in order to give smart non-scientists tools to debate the pseudoscience of this type. But I had no idea a "movie" could be that painful.It wasn't so much that the acting was poor and the dialog unnatural, but the intermix of "experts" and story was cinematic garbage and very irritating. It was very hard to watch. I get get some pointers about how to make nonsense sound reasonable (which I use when I take a more outragous position than the person I'm debating with, like they say there is a god and so I claim there are 3.1415 gods :-)

The movie debunks itself and to make it more authentic it should have cation when people where talking advertising their book since the whole thing was really an 1:45 minute infomercial about pseudoscience books (except for David Albert who is a really intelligent guy and who's book Quantum Mechanics and Experience is really a very good science read). If these people could really change reality why would they still be crackpots on an infomercial? Why wouldn't they just prove what they can do and walk on water or crack 128-bit encryption. The funniest disprove of the whole thing was if someone could will things, by shear belief, to happen wouldn't
Iraq be a stable democracy (maybe th quantum effects get washed away by a nearby crucifix).

While the whole things is a shell of truth over a hard core of lies plenty of people buy it. I guess the appropriate saying is: "A fool and his money are soon parted."

The Great Candian Charter of Rights...

2007-05-26T02:14:00.000-04:00

doesn't contain the right to council. Although we are used to hearing, "if you cannot afford one one will be provided for you..." when we watch law and order, the Canadian system isn't the same. Since we essentially an elected monarchy (once elected we are ruled over, not governed) it is not surprising to myself how this court case was decided. As I have learned form separate schools, our Charter is a mish-mash of stuff as opposed to the American Bill of Rights and Constitution which is based on principles (for better or worse). This will hopefully wake up Canadians to a simple and startling fact: Our American cousins have more rights than we do!

The oddest thing about this is that all Canadians have the right to health care, but not legal council. What does that say about your society when you will pay the medical bills but not the legal bills. To me it says we have a system that is not meant to be rattled. Long live the king....

Maybe there is a god...

2007-05-21T11:17:00.000-04:00

There are some very convincing arguments as to why Google is god. It's not only funny but has a huge amount of truth. Google, in every respect that is measurable about god, is god. This new Googlism is very similar to the flying spaghetti monster used to normally to counter usual religious arguments by "comical similarity." Googlism is exactly the same but quite stronger since most of us know Google exists! I'm betting other rationalists are just tired of the intellectual arguments that don't convince most people and are long winded. I've found that working on the separate schools issue it is much more effective to have a simple and short counter argument rather than a drawn out explanation about their logical fallacy. The hate mail is really funny!

Jesus proves god!?!

2007-05-20T02:00:00.000-04:00

I was watching this and there was a funny point the religious guys made. Doesn't the existence of Jesus prove god? Wouldn't that imply that the existence of any Greek character would prove Zeus, the minotaur etc? Does the ruins of Troy that we found mean Apollo is real? Cool! I want a minotaur!

Republican's praising Regan

2007-05-18T19:17:00.000-04:00

If you are like me and think the reverence for Ronald Regan is at a fevered pitch I have a simple solution. Remind them about the immigrant amnesty. It's one of his few actually smart policies and it will brake most Republican's brains (like asking a creationist how you get a population from two humans without inbreeding).

Cultural relativism and why the middle east won't modernize soon

2007-05-15T10:34:00.000-04:00

Firstly let me say I believe all humans have the right to freedom of conscious, freedom of speach, assembly, association etc. But when I say I am to some extent a cultural relativist, what I mean is practically I don't think every human who is given these freedoms will understand them or want them. This is a pretty well know result in behavioral science: animals will trade freedom for security. Therefore this is the default mode for humans. To have a society that is free, we must understand what Jefferson said:He who trades liberty for security deserves neither and will lose both. But this is for a civilized human, that is to say a human animal plus years of conditioning in civilized society. One cannot make a civilized person from a jungle boy (to use an extreme example). (Note: by civilized I mean any civilization where the society values freedoms which could be tribal or modern). Humans will almost always default to their upbringing and so giving a person who has lived under an unfree rule (such as Saudi Arabia) will instinctively cower at the choices and possibilities of western culture. This is not genetic since all humans will fear the vast openness of space when in a space suit on a space walk and can only overcome it with training. Also a Saudi child raised in the western world with civilized freedoms will be perfectly capable of valuing and using his freedoms. So while i firmly believe all humans deserve civilized freedoms I don't think they are all ready for it and so the transition for the older people must be slow.

What is an interesting aspect of this is how globalization has changed the field. Some people are naturally rebellious and intelligent and want these freedoms. In years past that meant a fight for social revolution, today that often means immigration. Why fight your government and lead people to freedom which is very hard and dangerous when you can hop on a plane to the western world and live how you want? The Iranian communities in Canada are a great example. The vast majority are highly educated successful professionals. These would be leaders in their country for change but instead the western world offers them the freedom and live style they crave without the danger of social revolution. I'd chose that! What this says to me is places like the middle east and Africa are in a terrible place since the people that would be great leaders are being bought by the west. The west skims the top of the country and leaves the rest making it hard to change the countries ways. But it would be inhuman to let the people waste a way and suffer under a society that does not give them the freedom they deserve.

There must be more to this life => pity?

2007-05-04T01:02:00.000-04:00

When I hear the phase; "There must be more to this life," uttered I can't help but feel pity for that person. To be so cynical about the laughter of children or music is saddening. To me, it is hard to imagine not deriving pleasure from this world: the spring blossoming, the silly things animals do, the shared laughter with friends and loved ones, the childish awe of discovery, the joy of literature etc. Not enjoying these things I guess would makes life seem like a waste. But why it really saddens me is these people tend to put faith in some eternal afterlife, thereby deteriorating the value of a single couple of decades.

I really should not argue with these people about the silliness of an afterlife or how an afterlife devalues life. I really should instead find out if this person is lonely and in need of attention and maybe find some ways of helping, because missing out on this life is a real waste.

Tired an irritable

2007-05-03T01:15:00.000-04:00

Normally when I take the subway I am listening t a podcast or contemplating things and so people are just dynamic obstacles. But the last few days I've had very little sleep trying to complete the paper asap and boy am I irritable. I actually notice people and it bugs me when they don't move onto the subway fast enough (you know that waddle morons do when they pass through the doors takings as much time to get out of the way of everyone else as possible) or people stop walking for no apparent reason in the middle of nowhere. It's been a while since I took note of people and I don't like them one bit ;-) I guess with more sleep these things don't reach my perception but with my irritability at max I remember the incidents. I wonder if that's why most people are so touchy and miserable, lack of sleep.

It is too bad I find people (in general) so uninteresting. I guess it's mostly habit of doing something else when I'm out and about (reading,listening or thinking) rather than just actively perceiving. Then there's the training form dog walking and learning how to make people feel uncomfortable enough not to pet the dog or say too much to me. It not that I'm antisocial, but how interested can I be in,"your dogs so cute and well behaved." Thanks, and you appear to have eyes and are capable of vocalizations! ... man I just going off tonight... maybe I need some of that sleep stuff...

"I love crowds, but hate people, isn't it ironic?" -Randle

Army officer bashing/minsunderstanding atheism/patriotism

2007-04-30T01:36:00.000-04:00

So the story is this army guy tells a lie for the Bush administration. Apparently he is a Christian. So when he starts being questioned about his lie (a specially non Christian action) he gets defensive and:

Kauzlarich, now a battalion commanding officer at Fort Riley in Kansas, further suggested the Tillman family's unhappiness with the findings of past investigations might be because of the absence of a Christian faith in their lives.

In an interview with ESPN.com, Kauzlarich said: "When you die, I mean, there is supposedly a better life, right? Well, if you are an atheist and you don't believe in anything, if you die, what is there to go to? Nothing. You are worm dirt. So for their son to die for nothing, and now he is no more — that is pretty hard to get your head around that. So I don't know how an atheist thinks. I can only imagine that that would be pretty tough."

Asked by ESPN.com whether the Tillmans' religious beliefs are a factor in the ongoing investigation, Kauzlarich said, "I think so. There is not a whole lot of trust in the system or faith in the system [by the Tillmans]. So that is my personal opinion, knowing what I know." source

It always bugs me when people make incorrect statements, but this one is a common one, and I gather Kauzlarich isn't much of a mind (or a good Christian for that matter). If you don't believe in an afterlife your life is much more valuable! Humans don't really value microseconds since they pass rather quickly, but what is your 80 earth years compared to all eternity? (I wonder if a lying Christian is "gooder" than a truthful atheist...)

But more importantly the fact that he says good Christians would have more faith in government I think is very insightful to a large chunk (perhaps the 30% or so who still think Bush i doing a great job) think are "good" Americans: Government = my Christian faith = good. This isn't just a problem for atheists, but is also a problem for other faiths and Christians who can read the newspaper and make small inferences about cause and effect! Since Bush is in office for another 1.5 years, I think the bets thing to hope for is the amount of atheism towards Government religion goes up too (and if real atheism goes up too, I'll welcome my new intellectually honest brethren).

Great progress ending injustice

2007-04-14T19:27:00.000-04:00

Well the one school system campaign has hit a fevered pitch and it is looking great! So far six school boards have adopted one school system motions and the issue is catching on. Reporters have been asking the political heads questions and editorials have been blasting there responses. It's pretty easy once you know even a little about the situation (public Catholic schools are inherently discriminatory and privilege a single faith above all others and the duplication costs us hundreds of millions of dollars per year etc...). Our newspaper writings have become much more frequent since the newspapers are finding there is a huge audience for this topic and even radio shows have taken it on!

Even better, one of the important pieces to solve this problem has fallen into place: The Ontario Green Party has announced their education policy includes a move to one secular* school system! This means we have the Tories who say that the system is unfair so well give money to the rich people who send their children to private religious schools, the Liberals and the NDP who simply ignore the UN rulings, obvious facts and common sense defending the status quo and the Greens who have a policy that is fiscally responsible, fair, and will end this discrimination! Even if they don't win they have raised the issue and something must be done.

*by Secular, I mean: Secularity (adjective form secular) is the state of being separate from organized religion.

Update: Explosive Revelations about Homosexual Teachers in Canadian Catholic Schools
Why do I care? I certainly have nothing against homosexuals. It's because this leaves two great possibilities. The first is that these teachers are fired a move that shows how unjust the PUBLIC Catholic system is (a corporation can't fore a person for being gay but the government can?!?, but I would feel bad about the teacher's job loss). Or they will do nothing which (wrongly) would erode the stanch defenders of the system's will and improve on the homophobia in the system. Boy what timing!!

Being a dad and life changes

2007-04-14T19:13:00.000-04:00

I am incredibly excited about being a dad and I can't wait to meet my little one (I often bug Bonnie about why it's taking so long). Oddly (or I think it is odd), I'm not at all nervous about it. Maybe it's because I grew up in a close family and I was the oldest so I know about what to expect. I think my primary concerns lay with after graduation. Looking for a post doc isn't like looking for a job, it's like looking for a long lost relative. The space of possibilities isn't very big but it is dizzyingly complex since it depends on area of work, geography and grant situation of your prospective employer. So it may be that I'm just too concentrated on uprooting my Toronto life and moving to another place for a two year post doc that has over shadowed my baby worries. With the baby I know what to expect, but with starting a (temporary) life somewhere else I don't. Hopefully the Calgary conference in June will let me narrow down my choices and make things a little more predictable.

As for the responsibility I am also not worried since I did all the worrying for my dog. See I was reluctant to get a dog (despite loving doggies) because of the responsibility. I was doing my research at home and some days spent it reading and working in my underwear. A dog would need to be walked, played with etc and since Bonnie didn't work at home a lot of it would be on me. Finally we got Emily after I accepted I would take on this responsibility, and I took it seriously. She is now far beyond the perfect dog and is my buddy. To the point where I lobby city hall to allow dogs on outdoor patios so we can eat out with her in the summer. now a dog is not a child but it's not the work that was ever the issue it was the responsibility which was my initial reluctance when Bonnie brought it up. But now having accepted it I have only enthusiasm!
Stay tuned to fined out if it is a Merrisa or an Alexander!

Old religious indoctrination

2007-04-09T12:04:00.000-04:00

It's amusing and annoying when older people find out my wife is pregnant. Most ask a similar question: are you going to get married now? Considering I'm wearing an atheist button on my coat and they know what I think about religion, I can't help but wonder how much social conditioning from TV and society they must have undergone. It's like they have been ingrained with the idea once you get pregnant you get married. Some even suggested we go to a civil ceremony. I guess it is from an age when ceremony was big. If I am by myself it is funnier since people then ask what if your wife wants to get wed? HA!! They don't know her very well! If she wanted to get married we'd not have lasted this long (going on 10 years). We've been together longer than most married couples and still like spending time together so from our perspective the world clearly has it wrong! Imagine after 10 years going out together and laughing, joking and having a great time all while doing something completely mundane like groceries! So my usual quip is, "don't fix what ain't broken."

Then of course there are some who think we would start attending church!?! As if my atheism is a "phase." Such arrogance, but then it been years of social conditioning to make these people think this way so I guess you can't blame them, they don't know any better. Luckily I learned a valuable lesson when I was young: If everyone else was jumping off a bridge, would you?

Catagories of philosophy and religion

2007-03-22T00:02:00.000-04:00

I've noticed (and had my observation confirmed by many others now) that philosophies fall in to two main catagories: personal and universal. The personal philosophy is all about the human experience and deals with humans in the abstract but is intimately tied to humans. We'll come back to this one. The other type is (what I'll call) universal meaning it tries to tell us about the real universe (what is still true when we are dead or before we are born). Universal philosophy seems to fall into three subcategories: naturalistic philosophy, theology type and abstract.

Naturalistic is grounded in science and materialism and deals with the ethics and repercussions of science and technology (like chimera research). It seeks to guide and refute or reinforce the conclusions science has made. A truly interesting and useful field.

Theology type is not grounded in materialism and takes a starting assumption that is chosen for tradition or interest. The most common is plain theology which is simply the philosophy of materialism minus anything that contradicts the starting assumption of "there is a god" or "there is such thing as absolute good" etc... While sometimes this can be fun to do (for instance assume the Marvel universe is real and ponder the superhero registration act as in the Marvel Civil War) ultimately it is an acedemic endeavor since it is fantasy. Basing an entire philosophy or world view on an indiscriminate starting assumption is just silly (it is unfortunate many people realize this in the Marvel example but not the god example.

Lastly there is abstract philosophy. This is philosophy for the sake of philosophy and ponders such questions such as what is justice or purpose. Practitioners construct definitions of objects and try and make logical relations between them. If that sounds like something else you are correct: mathematics. In fact it is nothing but mathematics except it uses a very inefficient mode of communication. Structures in abstract philosophy must be isomorphic (the same) to mathematical structures to be logical. So while this may provide an interesting way of understanding group theory or something else it cannot show anything new about the universe. Sometime people confuse this structure and try and talk about justice or purpose in the real of abstract philosophy (at least in discussions I've had). This is a terrible mistake since these words bear no definition outside of personal philosophy.

Religion is nothing more than a theology type philosophy which it too bad since natural philosophy has made the world so much better, theology type practitioners seem bent on blowing it up.

In terms of personal philosophy's I would say this is where religion must go. Religion must say it does not talk about physical truth but personal truth such as love thy neighbor or giving is a great joy (I know these don't stem from religion they stem from biology, but it's something they can still use). I'm sure they exist, although I've not met any so I'll call it philisophical religion. The idea is the same as the Simpsons episode were Lisa discovers Jeremiah Springfield was a fraud. She realize it is the message that is important, no the messenger. We have a saying don't shoot the messenger but perhaps we need one that says "don't deify the messenger." This type of philosophical religion (were god is equatable to an imaginary friend) has the added advantage that people will need to think for themselves since they have to interpret the"holy books" as (they were meant) allegorically. Any other type of religion is contrary to natural philosophy, dangerous and constantly on the defensive since it won't be able to defend it's ridiculous claims against rational thought.

Reading between the lines

2007-03-16T00:33:00.000-04:00

It was revealed last week that while Newt Gingrich was leading the charge to have Clinton impeached he had an extramarital affair. Why do I bring this up, because for one thing he admitted to it (everyone thinks it is because he may make a run for the republican nomination) and look at him. Do you think someone would voluntarily sleep with him? It seems to me it must have been with a prostitute.

It is also interesting that these moral "warriors" are just hypocrites. Look and affair is between the adults who participate and no one else's business but when you go around preaching you're morally superior it becomes a public issue.

Electrical brain signal's challenged

2007-03-11T01:06:00.000-05:00

A group of physicists is claiming that neurons transfer sound waves (solitons) to be specific and not electrical impulses. This would be really neat since the conditions for a soliton to propagate are very sensitive and so it may be able to disrupt brain activity by targeting the conditions of the cell. I would think this is quite a finding since current explanation is very different. I guess that would mean that the fields we use to interact with the brain don't interact with the signal but its medium.

Tax reform

2007-03-08T23:37:00.000-05:00

If you've spent some time with me discussing Canadian politics, tax reform has come up. This is obviously a terrible interesting subject to most (:-), but is very important. So when the mayors started the One Cent Now campaign I was overjoyed! I don't think it is enough and still think a portion of the income tax should come to cities would also be nice it has stirred debate and that's really what matters. There is also talk about stopping the downloading of services from the provincial government. I'd prefer having the GTA become a province and take over all the services and get the income tax. But either way this should start something historic in Canada, a change from an arguarian tax structure to a urban one. Twenty years to late, but better late than never!

Mr Diety

2007-03-07T23:03:00.000-05:00

This is really worth watching (or listening to). It is really funny and witty. Let me know what you think!

Superman Vs Jesus

2007-03-07T00:14:00.000-05:00

Both had their fathers send them to earth. Both were given superhuman abilities. The problem is Superman is completely selfless as compared to Jesus. Jesus heals some people who he comes across. Superman actively goes out and helps everyone he can. Jesus constantly tries to make people worship him and his dad, where as Superman specifically does not want praise and even avoids it. If I'm going to look up to a fictional character I think I'll pick Superman.

Obama vs Clinton

2007-03-06T23:41:00.000-05:00

The problem I see about this is all everyone talks about is black this and woman that... I have no idea what the chief policy differences are except Iraq, and there isn't much on that either. Then again it is soo in advance since the election is a year and a half away who needs policy. Personally I don't like either since they constantly talk the religion crap way too much.

UK brainwashing

2007-03-06T23:11:00.000-05:00

I have been watching Red Dwarf and The office (UK) in my spare time over the last few months and listening to The Naked Scientists' podcast all have one thing in common: a lot of talk about curry dishes. This has brained washed me to start desiring curry a lot more and I have been making an average of 2-3 curry meals a week. I guess this is one of the few areas where I am highly suggestible. I love spicy food and the curry is such a nice constant spice. I also love sushi with the Wahhabi, but I can't afford that often and I'm too lazy to make it. I still have to try a vindaloos and a tandoori.

Does anyone know of any other famous spicy foods? (I already eat a lot of Mexican food).

Priest's sex abuse victims

2007-02-28T21:47:00.000-05:00

It is completely ridiculous that abuse victims of the Catholic church get accused of extorting money!! These were not adults who were abused but children! It is an unforgivable act to abuse a child but covering it up or belittle these people's pain.

This came from watching the fifth estate about the Catholic London diocese. I hope they go bankrupt like the San Diago one! Any institution who protects pedophiles deserves its fate. Such activity cannot be justified and the idea that the rest of parish shouldn't have to suffer is bunk. If you support an institution you are partially responsible for it.

The arogance of scientists is sometimes a virtue

2007-02-23T00:14:00.000-05:00

It is often said that scientists are arrogant elitists which is sometimes true more often it is confidence mistaken for arrogance. But when one thinks of how science works this can be a major asset. When some scientists challenge current theories with new ones they are met (rightfully so) by a huge wave of skepticism. The confidence or even arrogance of the scientists is needed to continue to build the case against such opposition. It is a travesty that the general public does not understand the peer review process and the difficulty in establishing alternative theories. One day when I get involved in school curriculum I will bring it up.

Published

2007-02-22T00:18:00.000-05:00

I finally got published in Physical Review A with a thank you to Igor for all his help. Now I have one in each of the journals that are popular in my field I feel better. I'm almost ready to start writing the next one... I'm just not looking forward to the writing ;-)

Hope in Europe

2007-02-18T12:54:00.000-05:00

While deluded German chancelor Merkel tries to push a EU constitution with a strong declaration of the special place of Jeudeo-Christianity in the founding and current day root of values there is still hope. It seems that a large and broad coalition of secularists (which includes religious and non-religious since secular means for NO government religion not a ban on religion as the ignorant and malicious would have you think).
Quote:

The centerpiece of the Vision is the "Brussels Declaration," a one-page restatement of our common values, the liberal values of individual freedom, democracy and the rule of law on which modern European civilization is based. They are not the values of a single culture or tradition but are our shared values, the values that enable Europeans of all backgrounds, cultures and traditions to live together in peace and harmony.

The Brussels Declaration is the outcome of an unprecedented Europe-wide collaboration between academics, politicians, writers, community leaders and both secular and religious non-governmental organizations. It has already been endorsed by hundreds of European leaders including dozens of members of parliament.

It is always encouraging for me to see a backlash of reason against idiotic politicians. This is especially true when I see religious people fighting this fight since they understand the only way to guarantee religious freedom is by secularism. There are enough theocratic states in the past and present to know it only hurts everyone. I hope the EU will come to it's senses and adopt a secular and therefore fair constitution.

More details on openmp

2007-02-11T14:55:00.000-05:00

There are a few little things I've learned that I want to share in hopes others using the openmp will not spend the 6 hours "debugging" the same types of mistakes I did.
(This is meant to clear up some stuff that I found unclear on other pages but is in no way complete).

The first thing to try is compiling without openmp (usually by not including the -openmp flag) and see if there are any normal mistakes. If the code is mistakeless (no hanging parenthesis or undeclared variables) then it is still compilable without openmp it will just run as a serial program.

The next thing is that directs for improving loops is incredibly sensitive and they really mean the loop must be on the very line. For instance
#pragma omp parallel for private(i)
norm =1; for(i=0 ;i <N ; i++) {...}

gave me errors of: syntax error before '{' token but on a line that was 10 or so lines preceding this code. That took me a long time to figure out. It doesn't complain about the code itself but says there are errors in parenthesis in preceding lines (at least that's what happened for me). But just putting the norm = 1; before the #pragma directive it all works. Putting parenthesis encapsulating the for loop also seem to be a source of error. So it wants
#pragma omp parallel for private(i)
for(i=0 ;i <N ; i++) {...}
NOT
#pragma omp parallel for private(i)
{for(i=0 ;i <N ; i++) {...} }

Also there seems to be no reason to do everything under a giant #pragma omp parallel code segment with subsections for #pragma omp for or #pragma omp sections. In fact it seems much easier to do it in small forks. As in having a segment:
...
#pragma omp parallel sections
{
#pragma omp section
{ code; code(A,B); etc... }
#pragma omp section
{ code; code(B,A); etc... }
}
...
printf(...); other regular code...
...
#pragma omp parallel for schedule(static) private (i,j)
for(i=0 ;i <N ; i++) {...}

Well I hope this save someone time and effort.

Threading a scientific program

2007-02-10T03:08:00.000-05:00

I wanted one of my codes to have a section where it would diagonalize 4 different matrices at the same time (since this is my bottleneck) and the computers that I'm running on (sharcnet) are mostly quad processors. I looked in to MPI and it's apparent processing and it is hard!! It is clearly not meant for what I wanted to do. I have a code that executes in serial and at a bottleneck point I wanted it to do many things on different CPU's. Then I found openMP. This was what I wanted, a way to parallelize a section of my code without a complete rewrite! I found the SECTIONS and SECTION commands especially easy. For instance say you have 2 matrices A and B and you want to do something to them with the function diag(). In a normal C code you'd have
...
diag(A); //long wait
diag(B); //also long wait
...

With openmp you can fork this section of the code with
#pragma omp parallel sections
{ }
This created an area that is forked and then joined at the end. So once this region finishes executing it goes back to serial-type execution. In the SECTIONS part you now (optimally) make a number of SECTIONs that equals the number of processors (not rquired but makes sense) and each section will execute on a different CPU at the same time but once the SECTIONS section ends it's regular execution again. So for matrices A and B you'd have
...
#pragma omp parallel sections
{
#pragma omp section
{ diag(A)}

#pragma omp section
{ diag(B)}
}
... //this will be normal C or C++ code. There is plenty more but I don't need it right now so that's all I know. I can say this is defiantly easier than using MPI send/receive! Some good sites are AMD's short one and a more complete one here. Hope this helps someone but leave me some CPU's please. ;-)

Devil's in the details

2007-02-08T01:11:00.000-05:00

When I started joining in and participating in humanist and atheist groups I really thought they would be a very mono-philosophical group. Boy was I wrong! When you get a group of people together who's one thing in common is the desire to analyze and question everything you get a very diverse spectrum of opinions. There seem to be a few scales though that help to measure (at least for myself) the differences.

The first is how scientific. This includes aversion to academic learning (the "I know a lot and I didn't need university" people, which is fine but they clearly have a chip about it) and scientific literacy. The other is upbringing and tradition which includes age. The latter is usually a good tell in how far these people are willing to "push" their views into society (not onto individuals) by making their voices heard along side the religious. The placement on this two-dimensional grid gives some idea where people will answer some of our communities vexing question such as: is humanism a religion?

I find a lot of these arguments pointless since they usually come down to the definition of some word. In fact I've found this to be a great niche for myself. As a board member of the Humanist Association of Toronto (HAT) I've enjoyed clarifying the debate by narrowing it onto the actual core question and then proposing my answer to that question. Even if other disagree with my answer they at the very least speak then only about the actual core question not side bars or irrelevant tangents. Oddly though I've also learned that as a general rule some "discussions" at meetings are actually intended simply as an airing of grievances. I've found many times people will first spill out a bunch of emotive statements in a discussion who's only purpose is to unencumber themselves of the grievance. I find it is best to let people get it out but that they should only be allowed a single turn and it becomes time to step in once and refocus once people seem to have exhausted the general feeling and before it becomes impolite and personal. It does seem to me that a strong group can dispatch of many ill feelings by a short airing in the form of a discussion as long as it is terminated quickly.

In my short time with these organizations I have definitely learned that there are many types of atheists and some are not on par with me. For instance brutal Buddists or "spiritualists" are not really people I have much in common with. They are still religious except of rigid dogma they have fluid dogma. This is in some ways worse since if you say nothing you can't ever be wrong but it means you stand probably change with the times (i.e. no stonings). But there are a few commonalities between all the non-spiritual atheists that I've noticed. The first is that we are a very positive bunch. It seems most if not all of us are optimists by nature. Secondly it is a community that is will to debate ANYTHING!! This has its ups and downs but is only a positive since you can walk away from any discussion based on interest and you can start any discussion. This makes the community vibrant and always interesting since we are always on the edge of the marketplace of ideas and always willing to contemplate new problems.

Freewill and milestones

2007-02-06T00:20:00.000-05:00

It's often fun to reminisce about milestones in one's life like when one left dogma, when one accepted facts over personal opinion and I think freewill is my most recent one. I haven't thought about freewill for a while (3+ years) with my last thoughts on the subject being "I don't know" since the question is really asking if the universe is deterministic or probabilistic fundamentally. Since there have been no conclusive experiments I could find no other alternative. In the last few years I've been reading eh Scientific American Mind magazine and learning bits and pieces about the current state of neurology and a crucial piece of information came my way. But before I reveal it I want to say why the Scientific American Mind magazine was important (it's kinda embarrassing).

While I always thought of chemistry and biology as "physics too large to compute" fields the mind/brain (if you think they are separate your on the wrong blog) was still a thing of mystery (not in the religious person's sense but in the Sherlock Homes sense as in I haven't thought about it enough or read enough). The magazine forced me to deal with my machinery in a very critical and scientific matter making clear this was a physical system (albeit a complicated one). See I think I still had some lingering Christianity buried in there and it is weird to describe. It wasn't a coherent set of beliefs but a kinda remnant feeling of the way things "are." Like a prefeeling that there was a "mind" in the brain but when I thought about it, poof it was gone! I would describe it as a place surrounded by scientific logical knowledge (from the magazine) about how the brain works that I simply hadn't accessed and updated. It's gone now, but I wonder what else is in there.

Anyways the important piece of information I needed to make my call on the freewill bit was whether mechanisms in the brain that did processing were small enough for quantum effects to be felt. The answer is a resounding no. All components of the brain are very large compared with quantum dimensions making quantum effects negligible, too small to allow for "internally random" thoughts (that's my definition of freewill). So reality does not seem to accommodate the idea of freewill so as the ether it must be abandoned until other evidence to the contrary is shown.

All-knowing God and freewill

2007-02-04T11:58:00.000-05:00

At the gym yesterday I got into a discussion with a Muslim (accidentally) and I asked if Allah is all-knowing then how can he have freewill? To me it seems like the logical implication of an all-knowing god is that he knows all and so he will know every decision you make and so you can't surprise him or he wouldn't be all-knowing. Therefore an all-knowing god implies no free will.

Review of my Creative ZEN M Vision

2007-02-02T16:13:00.000-05:00

I decided to go with the creative Zen (60GB) rather than the video ipod and I don't regret it at all!! I chose it for two main reasons and I have been very happy with that choice.

The first reason was I saw both of the players side-by-side and compared the video screens. The Zen is much brighter with much more vibrant colors.

The second reason was much more technical: the ZEN is much more compatible with regular codecs! It would b really annoying to have to convert every movie and TV show into the right format (and very time consuming). The ZEN has the most popular codecs and so most files and can transfered with any conversion! If you want to save space you can convert any video into 320x240 (the res of the screen) to save space, but with 60GB this hasn't been a problem.

The software is also really good with some extras and a built in microhone. I thought that would be useless but I really like being able to quickly record something (someone's email, notes or reminders) at the touch of a button. That brings me to another likable feature, a programmable button. You can assign it as you like and easily change it. The ZEN also has great battery life and for $25 you can buy a usb to 120V plug and connect it anywhere. It also as a syn for cameras so you don't need to buy a bigger memory card, you just plug your ZEN to you camera (no computer) and download the pics. The photo cart has also been really neat since I now carry my entire digital photo collection in my pocket! No need for bulky albums and you can even make custom slide shows.

The ZENcasts (same as podcasts) are neat but I don't like the fact that the software doesn't directly let you chose to listen to the zencast's as mp3's only. When the podcasts (mp3 files on the HDD) are transfered to the player it encodes some graphics (mostly name of the show and some info like guests names and topics). This is a neat feature but I'd like to be able to turn it off (you can just let the sync program be aware of your podcast folder and it will transfer them as mp3's but that's a hassle).

The battery like is awesome and is actually up to specs, another reason I went with the ZEN despite it's size. It may be a little bigger than the ipod but it is already so small it makes no difference to me. The main qualm is the difficulty in finding accessories. I'd like to get a rubber or plastic cover but can't find any (by passively looking).

I bought it for two main uses: I wanted to listen to podcasts while walking the dog and to occupy me when I am someplace I can't read but am board (shopping for clothing with the misses, after a long day on the bus/subway or waiting for bureaucrats). I have found it useful for even more things and would defiantly recommend it.

Great News!!!

2007-02-02T13:47:00.000-05:00

Well I have been mute for a while for reasons I will post later but for now the big announcement is that my wife is pregnant!! The due date is Oct 4th (very close to a good friends bday :) I am thinking of recording a WAV file near her uterus and trying to see if I can find the signal of the baby's heartbeat. It seems like a cool first peek!

Appeal for claims of religious dicrimination

2007-01-04T19:27:00.000-05:00

An Ottawa-area reporter is doing a story on separate (publicly-funded Catholic) schools and would like to talk to some Ottawa-area non-Catholic parents who, like me, had their children turned away when they tried to enroll them in their local separate school.

In my case, I attempted to enroll my children in our local separate school to escape an extreme overcrowding situation at my local public school that saw JK-aged children bussed well out of town to an under-utilized public school (90 minutes a day on the bus for a two and a half hour school day). I ended up paying over $1700 per month for two years to escape that situation by enrolling my two children in a private school. My Catholic neighbors, of course, had to do no such thing. By virtue of their faith alone, a faith they often have no demonstrable commitment to apart from enrolling their children in the separate school system, they always have a publicly-funded alternative that teaches the provincial curriculum. Adding irony to the story is the fact that I am a Church-going Christian and, to my knowledge, none of my neighbors are. Ontario Catholics bear no greater tax burden than anyone else and, as a group, have no disadvantage that might warrant their preferential treatment. If the discrimination had been based on race or ethnicity, it would have been no more reprehensible and would have stung no less.

I know that several years ago, when the Ottawa public board was not offering JK and the separate board was, many parents applied to enroll their children in the separate board JK program, but were turned away because they were not Catholic. I suspect that during that time, hundreds if not thousands of children were turned away. My suspicion is that for most parents in public schools, Catholic schools only become an option where they clearly offer better service in a given area, or any service at all.

If you or any parents you know have experienced such rejection and are willing to talk about it, please email me at leonard@OneSchoolSystem.org with your contact information (phone number and area of the city you are from).

Thank you,
Leonard Baak
leonard@OneSchoolSystem.org

Harper playing with science

2007-01-03T01:16:00.000-05:00

Harper is playing a dangerous game with the future of our most promising medical technologies by appointing a board of religious people who think that life begins at conception to come up with regulations governing fertility treatments and other stuff related to embryos. It's fine to believe what you want but the government cannot afford more importance to to theoretical lives of embryos than to suffering humans! If it is against your beliefs don't use it, I'd even help you fight the government for your right to not get treatment! But don't condemn other to suffer because of your beliefs!

This board is a recipe for disaster since government regulation is all that is needed to derail the research. What is more, it isn't like these regulations are going to matter since if they push research to another country they will eventually come here but we will have to wait longer for the stupid regulations to change, not to mention the economic loss of having the research done in Canada. I get shudders when I think that the government may decide who is allowed to get fertility treatments in the future!

I'm still thinking of ways to fight this so if you have any ideas let me know.

McGuinty won't fight religious discrimination

2006-12-21T12:00:00.000-05:00

Once more for the record here it is! McGuinty clearly stating religious discrimination is something he will not champion a fight against. How honorable. Education premier... I doubt history will speak of him like that!

Dangerous religion

2006-12-16T19:03:00.000-05:00

This is a poem I found here by Ingrid Saber:

These leeches are trained to distort your good mind
With god myths and guilt trips and traps of that kind.
From pulpits they worm their way into your head
Depositing eggs of self-doubt and self-dread.
They work on your children, the little girls most
By age 6 or 7 we'll have them, they boast.
And tell you on TV, distrust your own sense
While crowned and shielded at your great expense.
So guard what they covet. Protect yourself well
They're in a position to make your life hell.

Other's misery

2006-12-13T19:29:00.000-05:00

It's not unkind to laugh at anothers misery in doing harm so it is fine to laugh at this. The great news is that they know we are out there and coming for them. The greater news is they are so dogmatic they can't even be practical enough to band together to same their discriminatory and unChristian system.

My presentation on Bill 107

2006-12-06T02:01:00.000-05:00

The presentation can be found on Hansard or below. Skip to the interruptions by Mr. Zimmer (Lib). Did I nail him?

The Chair: Is Graham Lawson here? Mr. Lawson is not here, so I want to call Edward Ackad.

Mr. Zimmer: Chair, just because we have some time here, can we have a two- or three-minute adjournment, the mid-morning, post-breakfast adjournment?

Mr. Kormos: It's the middle-aged male syndrome, isn't it, Mr. Zimmer?

The Chair: We'll break for about a five-minute recess.

The committee recessed from 1039 to 1049.

EDWARD ACKAD

The Chair: Welcome back to the committee. The next presenter is Mr. Edward Ackad. Good morning, sir. You have 20 minutes. You may start.

Mr. Edward Ackad: Good day to the committee. Thank you for receiving me. My name is Edward Ackad and I am here to urge you to do the right thing and stand up for the principles of equality and justice by including in Bill 107 a repeal of section 19 of the Ontario Human Rights Code.

I'll give a quote from the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops: "Religious discrimination is an offence against the dignity of the human person; a contradiction to the sincere respect which is owed to other faiths, and an offence against charity."

Section 19 of the Ontario Human Rights Code voids equal treatment before the law and is contrary to the very intent of the law. The source of this is subsections 93(1) to (4) of the Canadian Constitution, which enshrined Ontario's religious discrimination in 1867. It is time to change that.

The injustices and human rights violations that must be addressed:

(1) The separate school system can discriminate admission to their publicly funded institutions based on the student's religion up to grade 9. This is an absolute right.

(2) The separate school system can hire or fire teachers based on their adherence to the Catholic faith. This is the subject of a brand new human rights court challenge based on a teacher from Toronto and Ottawa.

(3) People of all or no faiths must subsidize the school teachings of the Roman Catholic Church. The funding formula pays for children on a per capita basis with some modifications for geography and other situations, but not including their religion.

(4) Canada's credibility on human rights issues at the UN is compromised because of Ontario's separate school system. We have twice been found in violation, in 1999 and 2005. In 2005, we were condemned because we didn't do anything about it.

Lastly, probably most disturbingly, the constitutional protection for this injustice may no longer exist, and no one has looked into this.

I will quote from a report of the special joint committee to amend section 93 of the Constitution Act, 1867, concerning the Quebec school system. Some expert witnesses expressed the opinion that Roman Catholic and Protestant denominational school boards and schools would be declared unconstitutional once the amendment was made, unless section 33 of the Canadian charter was invoked. In support of their arguments, the witnesses referred to recent court decisions holding that, without the denominational education guarantees in section 93, publicly funded Roman Catholic schools in Ontario would be unconstitutional because such schools would contravene the Canadian charter's freedom of religion and equality guarantees. These injustices will not be addressed in any way with the proposed Bill 107, and the religious discrimination against 66% of Ontario's population will continue.

Common excuses for inaction: The Constitution obliges Ontario to fund these schools. This I hear a lot. While section 93 of the Canadian Constitution does oblige Ontario to provide Catholic schools --

Mr. Zimmer: On a point of order, Mr. Chair: With due respect, I thought the gist of the submissions was to be on the provisions of Bill 107 and whether that bill should go ahead or not go ahead, rather than -- I say this with the greatest of respect -- a submission regarding a particular complaint under the act.

Mr. Kormos: Chair, to that point.

Mr. Zimmer: I would be quite interested in hearing the comments of the witness on what he thinks of Bill 107 as a vehicle to resolve these kinds of issues that he's raised.

Mr. Kormos: No, I'm sorry. You don't get to pick and choose, Mr. Zimmer. At debate are amendments to the Ontario Human Rights Code. While I quite frankly do not share this presenter's views on this issue -- again, this is bizarre. This goes from wacky to wackier. First you impose time allocation, and now you're trying to shut down people who come here who maybe express an opinion -- and I don't know whether you agree with it or not; that's your business. I'm not afraid of this man's point of view. We're discussing the Ontario Human Rights Code. Is he talking about particular sections of Bill 107 as they relate to the structure of the commission? No. But he's certainly talking about the application of the Human Rights Code from his point of view. Damn it, he has a right to be here. Let him talk. Why are you trying to muzzle people?

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Kormos.

You may continue.

Mr. Ackad: Thank you. To address that, I again ask for an amendment to repeal section 19 specifically.

The Constitution obliges Ontario to fund these schools. While section 93 of the Constitution does oblige Ontario to provide Catholic schools, other provinces have amended the Constitution to abolish this requirement -- Quebec and Newfoundland, for instance -- through a bilateral agreement with the federal government. So it's possible.

The second argument I hear is that it has been like this since Confederation. This is the tradition argument. By this reasoning, women would not have the right to vote.

Third, Catholics pay for the system themselves, so why should we mind? This is an outright lie. The funding formula, as an example given, does not have a section that allocates money based on school support, making the school support relevant only to the election of school trustees. So everybody pays for the system.

Other motivation: We talk about the e"ducation Premier." It was found by the UN Human Rights Committee that the current system is incredibly wasteful. I will quote from the decision of the human rights committee in 1998: "According to counsel, the additional costs to maintain the separate system next to the public system have been calculated as amounting to $200 million a year for secondary schools alone." As you'll see, my estimate brings that total today to $463 million per year. This is probably the biggest amount of government waste in the system.

I submit to you that the only way a society can be multicultural is to treat all people equally. In terms of religion, this requires that the government be religiously neutral. The only way for our education system to do this is either to fund all religions or none. Funding all religions would be disastrously expensive and would let the provincial government decide what constitutes a religion, and can never be fair due to the population and economic disparities in different religious communities. Also, Newfoundland has tried this experiment and abandoned it. Let us not make the same mistake.

Ontario must follow Quebec and Newfoundland and adopt a one-school-system policy where all Ontarians can send their children, regardless of their religion. Religion is a personal matter and should be left to the parents and/or community of the child. History has shown us that government involvement in religion hurts both.

The government of Ontario must stand up and end this injustice for all Canadians and set an example to the world on human rights issues. Canadians pride themselves on being a world leader in human rights. Let's make that true.

The Chair: Thank you very much. We have about four minutes each, if there are any comments.We'll begin with the government side.

Mr. Zimmer: I understand your concerns on the school funding issue. What I was trying to get to in my earlier comments was, what do you think of Bill 107, as it's drafted, as a vehicle that would enhance the protection of human rights in Ontario?

Mr. Ackad: Considering that 66% of the Ontario population is paying for a system they cannot use, and are discriminated against using it, with section 19 not repealed in these amendments, it's incomplete and should not go forward. This is a huge injustice, and to put forward a human rights bill which does not correct this injustice is incomplete.

The Chair: Mrs. Elliott.

Mrs. Elliott: I don't have any questions. I'd just like to thank you very much for taking the time to present to us today, Mr. Ackad.

1100

Mr. Ackad: Thank you.

The Chair: Mr. Kormos?

Mr. Kormos: You display an ability to stay on message that many experienced politicians haven't acquired after 10, 15 and 20 years. Good for you. It's an admirable trait when you're promoting a particular theme.

Look, I understand the argument. There's a community out there. Heck, I think people with similar views managed to get into the pit bull hearings -- didn't they, Mr. Zimmer? -- and talk about the same issue.

But look, I hear you. I have no doubt that there are people who agree with you; I don't. Quite frankly, I believe the existence of the so-called Catholic system, the publicly funded Catholic system -- and it was publicly funded well within my lifetime; I remember New Democrats playing a leading role in the Conservative government of the day in acquiring full funding for the Catholic system -- to be a historical anomaly that nonetheless enriches our publicly funded educational community.

So you and I disagree; that's clear. But I say welcome to the committee, and I thank you very much for taking the time, effort and energy to come here. Once again, excellent spin skills. Staying on point in response to Mr. Zimmer was a model.

The Chair: Thank you very much.