In this day and age

November 2, 2009 at 8:03 pm (random brain output)

Evidence for the existence of God has always been lacking. But, there was a time when it was hard to conceive of anything else but God. Some of the greatest minds the Earth has carried upon herself lived in this time. Take Isaac Newton for instance. The brilliant man that he was revealed to us the laws of gravity whose predictions were only ever so slightly outmatched by those of Albert Einstein’s theory of Relativity, centuries later. Yet he was a very religious man.  This was the 18th century. Does it still make sense to be a very religious person today, in light of what we know?

We have come so far since that time, does it still make sense to believe in a God in our day and age?  Would Newton still have been religious in a time where evolution has been shown to be the means by which all life arises and grows to reach more complex forms by totally natural means?  Surely, he would have been forced to concede that human beings are in no way separate from the animal kingdom, that what separates us so neatly from other species today is merely the fact that all the other vaguely human forms that make the chain from Man to any other species have long gone extinct. If one understands evolution correctly, one can clearly see that there is no definite moment when an individual can be called the first Man rather than anything else in the same way that you could never be  exactly sure at what exact point a few grains of salt became a pile of salt. But then, if there is no definite first Man who would be the first soul bearer? If there was a soul bearer, why would his immediate parent not be endowed with a soul himself? after all, parent and child would be so similar, the differences between them would be literally indiscernible.

Does it still make sense to believe in a God in our day and age, with the knowledge that astronomers such as Edwin Hubble, Fred Hoyle or George Gamow have provided us with? We now know how insignificantly small our planet is when compared to the vastness of our own galaxy which contains billions of star systems.  But this is only in our galaxy. There are more galaxies to be found in the cosmos, separated by vast expanses of void. We’re not talking about hundreds, neither are we counting in millions or restricting ourselves to a mere few billion, the astounding number of galaxies we do not have the privilege to call our own is well beyond the hundreds of billions figure. Carl Sagan’s famous billions & billions. Most, very probably devoid of life, but because of the sheer number of galaxies, some indubitably endowed with a life promising to be so different from our own. One just has to listen to the Carl Sagan’s exquisite monologue on The Pale Blue Dot that our planet appears to be from Saturn’s vantage point, to fully appreciate how very little of the cosmos cares for our existence. How we stand alone in the vast cold space. In Carl Sagan’s words: “on a mote of dust suspended in a sunbeam”. And to think that the Universe has fared pretty well without us for 13 billion years is yet more humbling.

Does it still make sense to believe in a God in our day and age when information is so readily available? when the geographical barriers between cultures that led us to keep other religions but our own, out of the mind, do not exist anymore? This is a time when, unless in denial, we must concede that most religions are in fact, as convincing as each other. Undoubtedly, back in the days before airplanes and the Internet, it would have been so easy for one to revel in his own religion and wave off all other religions as small insignificant cults. In the light of recent events, such as the radical Islam September 11 attacks and our own; partially driven by Christian fervour, retaliation in Afghanistan and Iraq (why Iraq?) and with globalisation in mind, it is clear that our planet is too interconnected for religions to ignore each other any longer. Christianity may have the most adherents, reaching up to 2 billion, but can it still, in our time, will itself to ignore the 4.5 billion people who don’t share that belief in the holiness of the Christ? Not to mention that these 2 billions are further divided into smaller sects such as Catholics, Protestants, Latter Day Saints, Jehova witnesses, Westboro Baptist Church…the list goes on. As we look back at the vast history and prehistory that precedes us, with the knowledge we have of past religions, prospering for a time and then fading away, becoming mythology in some cases, is it so hard to see this happening to the beliefs many hold as true today? Did the Romans and Greeks and Norse not hold on to their beliefs as strongly as modern man does cling to his Christianity, his Islam, his Hinduism? Do we learn nothing from the sudden emergence of Scientology? Are we too blind to see in the burgeoning cult, a mirror held to the monotheistic religions, as if to say: “Look at this, this very improbable fantasy tale that many people so readily dismiss today. Give it a few thousand years, and it will be treated as fact, and people will know in their heart that it is true and that everyone else is misguided. They will say to you that they don’t believe that it’s true, they KNOW that it’s true”.

So why believe in a God? is it to fulfil a need for wonder and awe? The Universe supplies enough wonder without branching into the supernatural. Just think of the awesome fact that almost every single element that constitutes your body was forged in the heart of a star so tantalizingly bigger than our own Star. Think of the dizzying fact that in order for you to exist, every single one of your ancestors, all the way down to LUCA, a few billion years ago, had to successfully survive and reproduce. The sensation that one feels when they believe they are in communion with God can easily be recreated by the sheer wonder that one feels when staring at the magnificent captures of nebulaes that Hubble has to offer. To think that these giant clouds of gas span over distances of a few hundred million years is truly a powerful idea capable of eliciting powerful emotions.

Truly, I wonder, how is it possible to believe any sort of God or Gods exists? Just think about it. If God existed but somehow disappeared tomorrow, what would actually change in the world? There would still be many good and evil deeds, lives of comfort and lives of suffering.Would anybody really notice? Probably not, nobody questioned whether God had disappeared in dire times such as the 2nd World War and its Holocaust. However bad things get, people believe, which says a lot about the irrationality of such beliefs. Would people continue praying, convinced their prayers don’t go unnoticed, even when life has treated them badly? Would anybody truly feel his disappearance? Of course they wouldn’t, because no one truly is in contact with God. Not even the Pope in Rome who clearly serves his own ridiculous Conservative views, in contradiction with the scientific knowledge which exists in our culture. So how would that “tomorrow” be perceptually different then the day before? It wouldn’t. Simply because it is “tomorrow”, always was, always will be.

Leave a Comment

Good without God is 0 ?

May 17, 2009 at 2:36 am (random brain output)
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Manchester University’s latest insights on the origins of life on Earth seem to  have prompted some of my friends to start defending their religious views even when unprovoked. This makes one wonder if they don’t feel compelled to do so just because they feel this kind of discovery poses a serious threat to their beliefs. Indeed, it does, but so does the theory of evolution and yet most people …ahem…most sensible people (the figures in the US don’t look so good) accept evolution and even will go as far as interpreting the Bible a little bit more metaphorically in order for their beliefs not to contradict Darwin’s amazing theory. But it’s true that this discovery; that life can indeed emerge spontaneously given the right ingredients in the right environment, pushes God further away from the stage. Of course, for a lot of us, there is nobody standing behind the backstage curtain. But of course, it’s hard to come to this conclusion when your parents and the local church have continually slammed God’s story into your head as a child.

It’s typical for believers to try and fill every gap there is in our scientific knowledge with God. Carl Sagan describes this progressively limited Deity as the God-of-the-gaps. The genesis of life was one of those gaps that was asking to be filled. Ever since Darwin’s theory took over Paley’s intelligent design hypothesis in the minds of people, making the mythical watchmaker a blind one, the life genesis mystery was the last place in Biology to be available to be filled with a puddle of wishful thinking. The idea was that God didn’t make every living organism, but did make the first organism so that millions of years later, with 90% of the species ever to have existed extinct, we would emerge. Well, scratch that. Confirming what most scientist believed and what, to be honest, a lot of people expected, life has be shown to be able to emerge spontaneously. Not a big surprise when Chemistry teaches that different molecules of matter interact with each other and make other molecules of matter. If you had already thrown out the idea that human being had souls, then why be surprised that life emerged from basic laws of physics and chemistry like the rest of matter?

I’ve already drifted too long from the point I was intending to make, the one I’m hinting towards in my title: the idea that without God we have no morals. Of course I’d just be tempted to point towards a country with a prominent number of atheists (like Sweden, or my own, France), but then I’d get some sort of answer in the lines of  “well, our society reflects religious morals and applies them into law”. But that’s forgetting all the farfetched laws that exist in the Bible and that nobody follows. So how do we know which laws to follow in the Bible? Do we chose which ones to follow and which ones not to? Yes. But what do we base that choice on…mmmmh…maybe some pre-existing morality inherent to us ? Well, so much for the idea that the Bible is our source of goodness. Although, to be fair, our society does very much reflect our religious heritage. How else could you explain why gay rights are still so limited, even today?

Well you may now challenge me to explain where these inherent morals come from. Simple, they evolved. In the context of evolution though, the concepts of morality come under different names. The most obvious one is altruism. The kind of altruism you find in Humans and other primates. One of my friends has suggested that chimpanzee might have God in their lives too (we just don’t know it) and that would then explain why they also appeared moral. The only useful information I get from that kind of pathetic argument is that my opponent is clutching at straws at this point. But to make him happy, I’ll point towards a dumber animal that shows a primitive form of altruism: social ants. Come to think of it, the example I’m about to use is readily applicable to most living species on Earth. A common claim is that, without moral being delivered by the divine, there is just no way we could have morals and therefore if God didn’t exist, we should be killing, stealing and generally being an ass to everyone else. In fact, evolution favors certain kinds of altruism. Take a population of animals divided into two groups, those who help each other and those who don’t (Take in account that whether they help each other or not is not a conscious choice of theirs but a product of their evolution, in this example they can’t swith). Let’s say that those animals have a capacity to remember who was helpful and who wasn’t and bear a grudge. Say that these animals become incapable to fend for themselves for whatever reason at given points in time. Altruist individuals will initially help everyone. Selfish individuals will help no one but let others help them. From a utilitarian point of view, the selfish life looks like a good life, since you do not waste energy and time on others but let others waste time and energy on you. However, as I have stated earlier, those animals have some form of memory and can bear a grudge. When an altruist discovers that his services are not being reciprocated, he will boycott helping the selfish individual in future. As a selfish individual’s entourage slowly discovers his selfishness, that individual is left with no one to support him through his hard times, neither his altruist or selfish peers will come to help. So while altruists continue getting occasional help in their hard times when they are lucky to be acquainted with other altruists, a selfish individual gets no help and therefore suffers a greater chance of dying. Thus the altruistic mode of life comes on top of selfishness, a position that is more prone to lead to death of the individual. This is but one, in a vast amount of examples in which altruism is favored. In nature, we tend to see a lot of cooperation within species and even in between species (most notably symbiosis, where two animals of different species are so bent on helping each other they evolve to become inter-dependent on each other).

So clearly, many facetes of what we call morality and what scientist interpret as altruism, empathy and the like, can be explained through our evolutionary heritage. But even without going as far as showing it in evolutionary terms, the idea that without God’s judgment we would go around killing people is slightly strange. Sure it sounds valid to many, but if you really think about it, you’re much better off coming to an agreement with someone not to try to kill him in exchange for him not trying to kill you than attempting to kill him. That way, not only are you saving time and energy and possibly your life, but you’re also saving yourself from the risk of being wounded and therefore being killed by the next freak that showed up at your doorstep or your inability to feed yourself. Clearly, if you think about it really hard, an amoral humanity where everyone went around killing each other for sport would have its population diminished by some ghastly amount. But, evolution favors genes that can be passed on successfully from generation to generation. Would the previously described scenario be an ideal one for this trend? Of course not, most people having perished under someone else’s hand, would dissapear leaving no genetic trace. But say in this horrible, horrible world, a bunch of people decide to cooperate, helping their wounded and being assured that they will get the same treatment. Because of numbers they are stronger and their individual chances of surviving are augmented. Not to mention that, being in a little community of their own, they can reproduce more easily. So while others mutually erase their genetic material from the world, the cooperating people successfully thrive and rebuild a society. Of course, this is never going to happen, because we already are the cooperating beings. And many species of animals nicely cooperate with each other regardless of whether they belong to the same family or not. Just look at those voracious lions, satisfying their hunger by eating a bunch of gazelles. It would probably be easier to just jump on another Lion and eat it, that would save an individual a lot of time. But it just doesn’t happen for all the reasons I’ve stated.

In brief, a chimpanzee doesn’t need God to be good to his peers and neither does a human being. And calling upon the 5 most horrible atheists in history is a weak argument. You’ve heard that one before haven’t you, the Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot thing…and you spend the first 5 minutes explaining that Hitler didn’t show any sign of atheism and how the people who participated in the genocide like Goebbels were religious. There’s a reason that the belt of SS soldiers said “God is with us”, it wasn’t just fancy dress. But we don’t blame Goebbels religiosity to the massacre because there is no correlation. Same with atheism, the fact that Stalin or Mao were atheist is as much to the point as the fact that they were both born in December. However, where there is correlation (and this is probably the reason why the prior shit argument even surfaced to start with) is in the massacres that are done clearly in the name of religion. The crusades is the prime example. Can we think of something more recent? Islamic terrorism. You can also bet there are a few people in Iran who are really suffering right now from “God’s moral code”. And is it moral for the Pope to promote unrealistic demands of abstinence, at the expense of people who could hardly no better, causing many preventable deaths? Which raises an interesting question for Catholics, if God’s morals are so solid and the Pope supposedly talks to God, how come some people disaprove the new Pope so much? Sounds like in fact no one is really convinced by their own stories to me or they aren’t actively trying to think about how it all doesn’t make sense. Come to think of it, the latter option is probably the most valid. However, living in denial can ever do so much…

Leave a Comment

My first flash game !

April 10, 2009 at 1:53 pm (random brain output)
Tags: , , , , , , ,

Thanks to the Kongregate tutorial, I managed to use actionscript 2.0 on flash and make a game all in a day’s work. Presenting Computer Chuck’s Escape:
http://www.kongregate.com/games/skydromakk/computer-chucks-escape

Please give me a nice rating :-)

Leave a Comment

smokers make me fume

March 19, 2009 at 1:56 am (outraged brain output)
Tags: , , , , , , , ,

This is a controversial; yet not so uncommon, opinion I’ve had for quite a while. But only recently has this issue been brought back to my attention. This issue is smoking. The event that re-ignited my fury against smokers occurred one day while I was eating a sandwich on a bench. Some middle-aged lady comes and sits next to me. There were a few unoccupied benches in the vicinity of this one but, of course, she can sit wherever she wants. What’s not okay is when she took out a cigarette and started smoking, not even bothering to ask whether I would be inconvenienced by that (to be honest I would have honestly said “yes”, however politely she would have asked). What’s worse, it is quite probable that the thought that this would inconvenience me didn’t even come into her considerations. Of course, I promptly left to finish my sandwich elsewhere. This kind of event is the reason I have no sympathy for people who complain about their smoking area in a school being reduced or who invite me to groups on facebook denominated “I bet I can find a thousand people who want smoking back in public places”. Now, to prove that I don’t just simply hate it just because I don’t smoke myself, I will admit that even though I don’t drink alcohol, I have no problem with people drinking (unless they have blatant violent tendencies when drunk). There is an obvious reason that I tolerate drinking but not smoking. Drinking only affects the health of whoever it is who drinks (you could say that this why it is still practised indoors) whereas all that are in the vicinity of smokers have to put up with cigarette smoke whose shown effect goes under the name of “Second hand smoke”. Not to mention other undesirable side effects like your clothes stinking of cigarette and the irritation it might sometime cause in one persons’ throat. Another objectionable aspect of smoking  is the asocial behaviour it sometimes provokes. Something that many smokers tend to develop as part of their addiction. Many times, I’ve been to parties where one person decides it’s time for a smoke and decides that they’re probably going to be bored out there on their own. So they get a few people to keep them company as if it was a purely normal thing to do. Well my response to the smoker’s loneliness is “tough shit”. If you really need to smoke that bad, go do it, but don’t disturb the event in progress for your own selfish gain. It’s already pretty anti-social to leave the party for a smoke, so selecting a small crew for that small expedition outside doesn’t make it any better. Especially when that behavior is repeated several times in the course of one night.

So this is basically some of the reasons that push me as far as wishing for a ban on smoking. I have a lot of friends who support this idea, but it’s safe to say that most people would just find this position shocking. Why ? why have I been branded as intolerant for that view ? Is it not true that, in addition to beeing detrimental to the user’s health, it is also detrimental to other people in that person’s close entourage? I could begin to understand it if it had a long term benefit on the user and only posed a short term problem for others. That’s why I don’t like analogies between smoking and the pollution generated by cars for example. Cars are useful. They get you to places very fast (although, I would of course encourage taking the train if possible) and the generated pollution is only but an unfortunate by-product (also, I might add, the exhaust pipe is not pointed at your face). In cigarettes, everything is an unfortunate by-product. No true beneficial purpose is served (you could argue that it provokes temporary relaxation, but at what cost ?). It is often said that if cigarettes had been invented today, they would have been made illegal because of the fact that they are substantially worse than some of the drugs that are, in fact, illegal today. Isn’t that revealing ? It’s another one of those cases where something has existed for so long in our society that is has sunk into general acceptance (this quite nicely makes reference to some of my earlier posts).

Many have argued that it would be quite foolish to make cigarettes illegal because people would still smoke, but they’d do it illegally. The thing is, if it were illegal, it wouldn’t be done out in the open but quite probably in the comfort of one’s home in total discretion. Not in my face. (Maybe a good compromise would be to make it legal to smoke in your own home, I would dread the effect on the other members of the family though).

Leave a Comment

A science geek meets one of his heroes.

March 14, 2009 at 1:33 am (My life experiences)
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Some of Durham's Humanist Society members with Richard Dawkins

Some of Durham's Humanist Society members with Richard Dawkins

It is quite interesting to look back and reflect on how short a period it was between the time I first heard about Richard Dawkins and the first time I got the honour to be in his presence. The first exposure I got from this great man was through a University friend, Laurence Dawson, who was reading his very last book, the highly controversial book “The God Delusion”.  At that time, I was quite convinced that this would be the kind of book I’d never really bother reading. I was already an atheist at the time, but I wasn’t particularly interested in atheism itself, I was just one of those people that simply couldn’t be satisfied by religious beliefs. Also, having lived in a truly secular country (France) where religious people kept to themselves (albeit the very occasion intolerant Catholic namely one who’d make uneducated remarks such as “I hate Muslims for copying everything from Christianity” and would write on her pencil case “long live God” and “long live the king” [what king ?]), I wasn’t really bothered by religion. France is one of those countries where you don’t have to fake church attendance to get into a good school, because of France’s strong stance on state/church separation (maybe there’s a correlation to be found here with the fact that France has a majority of atheists ?). I later re-discovered Richard Dawkins as an evolutionary biologist and from there, my interest in his work started to grow quite rapidly. The pivotal moment that turned me into a unconditional admirer of the Oxford Professor was when I read “The Selfish Gene”. It was such a wonderful piece of writing that it renewed my interest with the field of Evolutionary Biology. There is so much more to say about the theory of evolution than what is taught in high schools in France (although I wouldn’t be surprised if I heard that this particular chapter of biology was explored in more depth in the French educational system than it was in the UK’s or the US’s). Professor Dawkins was truly a man that knew his subject. In the midst of this newfound interest however, I also started paying more attention to his other message, the one that underlined his strong atheistic stance. At that point in time, intelligent design was creeping its way into the spotlight (and into classrooms), revealing America’s deep ignorance on so simple a theory. I was also taken by surprise by the lengths at which the Christian Union in Durham would go to be heard not only by their own adherents, but by everyone. The provocative “Know Truth” slogans seemed to multiply over a special week that apparently was set up every year. I could easily understand why some of my University friends seemed so hostile towards religion (note I say religion rather than the religious individuals themselves) and the exasperation started to grow on me too. This did eventually spur me on to read “The God Delusion” which turned out to be quite a good read (although it doesn’t beat the genius of “The Selfish Gene” in my opinion). Before Dawkins is blamed for my more radical view of religion, I’d like to point out that I was already generally more outspoken about religion before I even bought the book. It was the plain fact of living in a country where religion still meddled with other non-religious people’s lives and hearing people honestly state their opposition to gay rights that got me started (not to mention the growth of ID on the other side of the Atlantic). The book served only as an amplifier of that opposition. I’ve also read the “the Blind Watchmaker”, another great book (although “The Selfish Gene” remains THE favorite) which ultimately would become the book in my collection that would bare the signature of the author himself.

My opportunity to meet Richard Dawkins came when I joined the Durham Humanist Society. Noticing in first year that the Humanist Society was gathering dust, Laurence and I set out to create our own society, the Rationalist Society. However, to my great delight, the Humanist Society did pick up in my second year at University and I immediately joined, leaving my plans to found my own society behind. Little did I know at the time that I would have the immense pleasure to witness and be part of the creation of the National Federation of Atheist, Humanist and Secular Students Societies which emcompassed 11 societies from different Universities and that at its inauguration in London, I would meet my mentor. I obviously always clung to the hope that we would one day get Richard Dawkins to speak in Durham, but even by my most optimistic predictions, I didn’t really expect him to show up anytime soon. I obviously let out a very vocal burst of excitement when I discovered that I could be part of a trip to London that could very potentially result in seeing the legend in the flesh.There was no doubt as to whether I was going or not. I was going.

And so I went there, I met him. We were in quite a small comittee, things were quite casual. A lot of students conversed quite freely with him. I cannot boast to have said very much to him, being the shy person I am. I did manage to get him to sign my book and participate in our society picture (I got some of my words mixed up on that second request). But what’s important for me is that I got to see him and tell him how much I admired his work. And it has to be said that, for someone who is asked to sign so many books every five minutes, he’s quite a nice person. And now I get to show off my picture with Dawkins and make some of my friends jealous.

Leave a Comment

Natural Science at an anti-climax

September 2, 2008 at 11:42 pm (outraged brain output)
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

As an undying fan of science, from my childhood onwards, it breaks my heart to see how stubbornly “Intelligent Design” (‘Creationism in a cheap tuxedo’) is making its stand in the United States. Surely, after all these years of piling evidence in favour of Charles Darwin’s elegant and century old theory, there should be a massive support, if not a total one,for the theory in our modern world. And yet, the so called remaining “Superpower” (of which I am more and more embarrassed to be part of) seems to be the current bastion of “Intelligent Design”. It will come to no surprise to anyone that 90% of Americans believe in a deity. (how else would you explain that more than 40% of Americans don’t believe in Evolution AT ALL ! and that a lot of the ones left question it !).

It would be all well and good if “Intelligent Design” just kept to its domain (theology ?), but now it is attacking the US’ science classrooms. Evolution is being questioned. Now of course, the theory of Evolution is science. Therefore you would expect it to be checked and re-checked again, new evidence would be added here and there, new observations…in a sense, the theory itself evolves. But to question the theory altogether on the basis of a “theory” that has no sound scientific grounding, that is a serious insult to the concept of science itself. The theory of Evolution is a FACT. We can observe (and by observe I mean, by indirect evidence, not with our eyes) what the theory predicts. DNA clearly shows that all species have one common ancestor (often called ‘LUCA’) that was the first to carry DNA. Fossil records show different species lived at different times (such times that drastically contradict Biblical times) and seem to follow a pattern of emergence and extinction. We can sometimes find the common ancestors of some species (The famous transitional fossil of the Archaeopteryx is proof enough of the link between dinosaurs and birds).  Even in our modern societies we can observe the mutations that participate in evolution through the genetic diseases some people carry or the emergence of ever stronger and vicious bacteria and viruses.  If viruses and bacteria weren’t changing all the time, we would have eradicated the ones that cause morbidity.

The late Stephen Gould once dedicated a whole book called “Rocks of age” to the fact that religion and science were supposedly, as he called it, NOMA (Non-overlapping Magesteria).  This means that they both had their own separate bit of the world to, dare I say, explain. A typical expression of this is to say that science answers the question ‘how ?’ and religion the question ‘why ?’. In other words, religion answers question ‘why am I here ? (what is MY purpose ?)’. Clearly those are arrogant questions whose answers find disillusionment in science, even though that is not the intention of science (although it is true that science often acts as an ‘eye opener’). You’re here because Evolution amounted to you, and no, there is no damn FUCKING purpose to life. People just can’t compose with the absence of meaning of life. At best, I suggest that ‘42′ is the meaning of life, the universe and everything (or Douglas Adams’ way of showing how petty a question this is).  Now that we have found that religion answers nothing, lets come back to our NOMA. Like Richard Dawkins, the ever famous biologist and fervent atheist (writer of ‘The God delusion’ which I am currently reading), I certainly never believed that religion and science were NOMAs. If you just look at all the things that religion and science disagree about and the constant censorship that religion has tried to impose upon science, you cannot believe NOMA for one second. NOMA is obviously a non-confrontational way of attempting to reconcile religion and science (a reconciliation ordained by  scientist, Gould being an agnostic biologist). But both concepts tread on each other’s turf. Science because it can’t help it, religion because it feels threatened (rightly so for its myths are being rebuked). And now, Religion leads the ultimate assault on science. And unfortunately this time, its working well.

So goodbye to NOMA. Religion is awarely and violently stumbling over science territory. There is no reason for science to be apologetic to religion as it clearly wants to replace the more ‘theistically unpleasant bits of science’. In a word, religion wants to control the ‘why’ AND the ‘how’. although of course, Intelligent Design doesn’t give any concrete answer. Simply that GOD made it, with some hideously subjective arguments. How plainly stupid it is to say “This is so complex, it HAD to be designed !” That just clearly shows how impressionable humans are and at the same time, its an easy way to flatter ourselves, the very complicated ones. All of a sudden, a “HAD to be” is as good as the “IS” of science. and might I add that it is such an easy conclusion when you can just look around you to find self-gratification ? Any idiot can look out his window and say “its so complex and looks like a highly intricate design”. But that is so subjective. An alien life form that had a look at our society would possibly be utterly shocked at the sight of a cat, as the cat would be so utterly bizarre from its point of view as the alien life form might be to us (if indeed we have the tact to recognize that it’s even alive !). It’s a question of familiarity really.

There is also a theory including the perfect shape and constitution of a banana, designed for human consumption. It’s grotesque. I leave up to you to find it. But just to show quickly how we are not a manifestation of a designer, here are some imperfections in the human body: Our blind spot in each eye, the fact that guys have nipples, our appendix (that thing that so many people remove anyway). surely the perfect designer would not be so negligent. Furthermore, if all complexity needs a designer to account for it’s harmonious complexity, who is the designer of the most complex of these entities ? God ! who created him ? and who created the one who created him ? clearly, we would get a paradoxical line of creators creating each other. Because, saying that God is outside the Universe is a shit argument (or that he is ‘Holistic’, thus playing on words and dismissing the problem at hand).

Why should I even bother, smart people will read this and nod in agreement while a fundie will skim through it and babble something stupid and in the same breath, say something that clearly indicates he hasn’t read it through.

Most Creationist don’t know what they are talking about when they speak of evolution. Where they see a system that is pure chance and improbability, we see natural selection at hand. where they see irreducible complexity, we see different stages (While they see a whole eye formed by chance, we see the careful evolution of a photosynthetic cell into different types of eyes, with various degrees of complexity and usefulness [half an eye is better than no eye at all !]). but the fact is, totally ignoring the instructions of the secularist founding fathers, the US has become a big sectarian state. And democracy prevails in a wicked twisted way as the people are ultimately asked what they want to be taught (or brainwashed with) as though they carried the scientific knowledge. They stand on the opposite side to science. 90% of religious Americans in the US, but only 8% or the like, among the ‘elite’ scientist of the same country (all of which would never dare support ID for they are scientist 1st !).

People who don’t know science should not be trusted with science. If the people decided, the earth would still be flat and at the centre of the universe. Not because it’s true, but because it’s appealing.  It’s the narcissism of human beings that drags us towards the centre. Science pushes us off our ’superiority’ pedestal. And after all that, scientist are called the ‘arrogant lot’. I beg to differ.

But there is hope…Barack Obama, even though he has his own religious views is profoundly anti-sectarian. Is this were ID starts backing up ? After all, George Bush’s administration can easily be blamed for emphasizing religion and encouraging ID. Maybe. The fight is hardly over…

1 Comment

Guys can be feminists !

July 30, 2008 at 12:32 am (random brain output)
Tags: , , , , , , , ,

“One feature of our own society that seems decidedly anomalous is the matter of sexual advertisement. As we have seen, it is strongly to be expected on evolutionary grounds that, where the sexes differ, it should be the males that advertise and the female that are drab. Modern western man is undoubtedly exceptional in this respect. It is of course true that some men dress flamboyantly and some women dress drably, but, on average, there can be no doubt that in our society the equivalent of the peacock’s tail is exhibited by the female, not by the male.” The Selfish Gene, Richard Dawkins.

Before I start I want to make it perfectly clear that the book quoted is not about equality, it’s about evolution. I just found that this passage would be a good starting point for my defence of women. Many people think that women act a certain way because that is the way they are genetically predisposed. For some, that is the essential reason why women and men could never be equal or only equal by law but not everyday life. The thing is that assumptions like the fact that the brain has a sex, are seemingly loosing ground in favor of a stronger symmetry of the sexes. As I have always personally believed, it appears more and more strongly that the differences between men and women have more to do with society (always the same target) than genes. Different sexual organs and different sexual related hormones…this is probably where the difference stops. Brain wise, a woman and a man have the same cognitive capabilities. And the evidence is there. Women do slightly better in school than men. So why is there still an issue ? because there still exist remnants of sexism in our society. It goes to the fairly obvious discrimination at work (when they are not more or less forced to stay at home with the kids) to the most insidious thing such as gallantry. You might be surprise by the mention of gallantry. After all, isn’t it supposed to be a nice gesture towards women. Think of the implications for a second. To me it screams a blatant discrimination on the part of men. It hides the assumption that women are weak and that therefore men should assist them in life regardless of who they are, as long as they are women. But if men and women are going to be equal, this behaviour has to be eradicated. Or rather it should be replaced by unisex politeness.

While things like discrimination in the workplace are so obvious that they are constantly put to question and bound to be repaired at some point, I would like to focus on the more hidden problems, the ones that have left such a strong mark in society that most people think it normal. It has become almost like a moral obligation for women to appear as beautiful as they can to a point that is ridiculous. More and more I hear women talking about going on a diet. And they are all fine ! If their BMI was calculated they would all fit perfectly. And yet there is a desire to look like the women in the photoshoped ads who, in reality, are suffering from anorexia.  It is the equivalent with men’s need to display strength. Which guy has never heard “be a man !”? but aren’t we men to start with ? same for women: “Be more feminine !”. In our society you have to be loaded with make-up and dress ‘chic’ to be feminine and be a tough thug to be masculine. That’s bullshit! It’s obviously bullshit! thanks to that, you can be a tom boy or very effeminate and people will point it out like it’s a big deal. It has just sunk in so deep into our habits that we have forgotten that it was wrong (if indeed we ever realized).  It is important, for the sake of equality, that both sexes should find their worth in terms of intellectual criteria not beauty or strength. Not to mention that strength should have lost it’s appeal in a world govern by laws. It is not wrong for a women to wear make-up and so forth but when it used as a discriminating factor it is a problem. There is nothing wrong with women that decide to cultivate the beauty inside rather than the superficial shell outside. When I hear a guy say: “Women should wear dresses and have long hair, they shouldn’t wear jeans”, I’ll answer: “why ? because that’s less appealing to you ? well that’s YOUR problem, women in general are not forcing you to adopt a certain appearance because they like it”. There is definitely more of a pressure on women to be the ones to stand out, and that is just unfair. It should clearly be 50:50 effort. But, again, to most people, men or women, there is really no issue here. A shame, because it’s a good place to start if we want total gender equality.

I have to admit, I am not entirely satisfied by my own writings tonight, so I might change some stuff around if I can find a better way to organize my ideas. In fact, my ideas presented as thus could prove very confusing. Sorry about that…

3 Comments

Those little assumptions…

July 21, 2008 at 1:06 am (random brain output)
Tags: , , , , , , , , , ,

Here’s a little set of quotes to give you an idea of the general stuff I’m analysing:

Someone : ” So what do you think of the new teacher ?”

Me : “He’s ok”

Someone : “He’s definitely gay. He’s got a gay voice.”

Youtube comment : “Men and women cannot be equal because they are different physically. Give a boy some toys, he’ll make them wage war while a girl will organize a tea party.”

youtube comment : “…Feminist movements (Lesbian movements ?)”

Obviously, as you can anticipate, I find those kind of remarks appalling. But lets have a closer look at why people think they recognise gay people (and as a consequence may cause prejudice) through certain recurrent patterns or why men see such a biological divide between them and women. Now before you embark in the reading of my opinionated blog, take in account that I am heterosexual and I am a guy, so I am hardly defending my own interests here.

Let’s start with homosexuality. Homosexuals like men (or in the case of lesbians, they like women). To me that pretty much sums up the difference between a heterosexual and a homosexual. But a lot of people go much further than that. According to the stereotype, gay men have a peculiar voice and dress in unusual outfits and put make-up on. While this is a gross generalisation, it must be conceded that indeed there are gay people who fit that depiction. But, is it really because they are gay that they dress in that fashion ? Personally, I would be more inclined to see these characteristics as walking hand in hand rather than one being the result of the other. As I see it, a gay person, by his acceptance of his own different sexuality, already shows the courage of going against our society in which one is only really considered normal if he/she is a heterosexual (a feeling strengthened by opinion controllers such as politics and religion). I have to stress that I loath the word “normal” and that I’m a using it in a very sarcastic sense. It means nothing to me (especially in this context). Now, if this person has had the courage to drift away from society’s ’superficial’ ideal about sexuality, this person, with his new-found freedom might tune other aspects of his life accordingly. So he’ll dress exactly the way he wants, talk the way he wants and really do his own thing. Of course, he may choose to dress like you would expect him too if that is what he enjoys. Conversely, people who have extravagant personalities are not all gay, they show enough awareness of society to take their distance from it, but naturally show an interest in the opposite sex. But because gay people have a tendency for being free thinkers, both concepts seemed to be mutually attractive, that is why sometimes both will emerge quite cohesively in one individual and why other more rigid individuals will start pointing fingers. And that much liberty should not be condemned but instead admired. They are truly being themselves.  And we should all truly be ourselves. I, for one, am very faithful to my ideals and needless to say that it has attracted me a bit of hostility from others who keep themselves on the path society has laid for them. Lets put it that way, if society put both sexual tendencies on the same equal grounds (especially in the Law), there would be nothing to differentiate homosexuals from heterosexuals because a homosexual’s behaviour would not be surprisingly different from one of a heterosexual (except maybe when it would come to flirting). Another important point, homosexuality is by no means genetic like some people seem to think. Evolution-wise, homosexuality has no obvious advantage as it prevents genes being passed on to a next generation (obviously, a member of the opposite sex is needed for that). That sole sentence is enough to justify why homosexuality is not genetic. If there truly were genes for homosexuality, they would dissapear with their owner. It is often an easy way out for people to say that things are genetic. You can have enhancing factors in your genes but these can express themselves in many different ways. The interaction environment-genes is really the answer. I probably have genes that expose me to alcoholism as it runs in my family and yet I don’t even drink (at all) (and my parents hardly drink). So one person can have genes that are favourable (or deterrent) to a certain way of being, but it really is up to the developing person to become what he wants to be. The title of one of the TED talks I recently watched was “Your genes are not your fate”. I think this fits perfectly with what I’m saying here.

I run out of time each time (look at the time !)…I shall therefore post the end of this chain of though in the next article I write. So misogynists beware…because I’m extremely pro-Feminist !!!

1 Comment

Stereotypes, the ugly categorizer…

July 12, 2008 at 11:35 am (random brain output)
Tags: , , , , , , , ,

What you’ll come to learn about me if you take an interest in this blog is that I have developed a rather strong opposition to all forms of stereotyping. We are all exposed to that phenomenon and inevitably, it starts to sink in most of us. Of course, some will only mention these common stereotypes in comic form, being able to see through it’s grotesque foundations (often fear or an urge for a group of individuals to feel superior). But even so, they could see a part of truth in it. What is worse is that these stereotypes exist precisely because some people blindly believe they are true.

As an American who spent 18 years growing up in France, I have been the target of stereotyping, especially during George W. Bush’s mandate when, Americans were, all of a sudden, deemed plain stupid by a good few. Not to mention other tags like ’selfish capitalists’. Some of you might read this and think “so true”. Well, I beg to differ. Some people’s attitude towards me drastically changed when they learned I was American. Why? Now, why would they enjoy my presence before but not after I casually declared being American. Surely, my behaviour could not have so drastically changed as to fit their mental picture of the “American asshole” ? And why would they not hate me beforehand if my behaviour was supposedly already American ? That’s because I am not acting typically American. There is no such thing as acting American. I am far from daft and I’m certainly not a “selfish capitalist” (who’s kidding themselves anyway ? Capitalism thrives in the Western world). In the end, there is no possible justification for this behaviour of portraying someone by his nationality. It is just a way of creating extra controversy. As if there was not enough of it to start with.

Many of you have been witness to the video circulating on the internet, set on putting American intelligence to test. Of course, as you could expect from this piece of British humour, quite obviously supposed to be a mockery of Americans, the  ‘Americans’ fail dismally to tell how many sides a triangle has or what country starts with a ‘U’. If you’re already slightly (or strongly) convinced that Americans have empty heads than you will blindly agree with this video. Otherwise you might be sceptical and come to realise how easily misleading this video can be. How many people are actually seen to be interviewed on the video ? a few. How many people were really interviewed do you think ? A good bunch I’m guessing. Not to mention that, in a country as big as the US, it’s easy to find small secluded cities where people are culturally light because of the frail opportunities for a decent education. All in all, I strongly believe this show could be replicated in any country, may it be France or the United Kingdom, and a couple dozen light heads would stand out from amongst a good thousand interviewed. Proportions also have to be taken in account. Maybe there are much more uneducated people in the US than some country in Europe. Yet, when swung in proportions to each country’s population, is the divide really flabbergasting ? not really.

Of course, I also get some abuse from people because of being French (I live in the UK now). But, there are stereotypes that I hate much more than nationalistic ones. I am talking about those stereotypes that have lead to things such as sexism, homophobia and racism. Of course, people who bring these to the extreme obviously have big issues that disable them from thinking outwards, in the light of rationality. They look inwards, towards their own emotionally romantic driven self for the answer. The compulsion to hate, despise or lower everything that does not characterise them is strong. But most of us more clever and humble types will look very sorely towards these extremists. But at other levels, these discriminations still exist. When France had its episode of slum riots, most people saw this as a simple manifestation of those people’s natural tendency for violence. Needless to say, this assumption came from a muffled tendency for racial discrimination. Because these populations were in majority Arab, it was all to easy for them to make a connection between violence and ethnicity. If you stop to think about it, there is absolutely no connection. Violence obviously sprung from the horrid living conditions in which these people live, which again, they did not bring upon themselves but rather arose from xenophobic tendencies in the workplace and in social life. Unable to express their rage through healthy means, as the educational system in these areas receive very few or no support for improvement, the young minds of the slums have no other resort but violence. If any of us lived in the slums in these dismal conditions, let me assure you, we would have burned cars (you may dismiss this idea for yourself, after all, you have no tendency for violence. But, would your personality be the same if you had been raised in poverty ?). Even the Fox News (which spells ‘biased as Hell’) commentator who foolishly tagged these people as ‘bestial’ would change his views if he lived in slums for a couple of years. Of course, none of these people would openly declare themselves racist, but there is no other word to describe so accurately why they so easily aim their anger towards these people. This is the same behaviour that lead to the holocaust. Thankfully, France is not on the verge of an economic recession in which the scapegoat behaviour thrives. And neither is any other developed country with that exact problem.

I think that at this point, everything I could say about homophobia and sexism on the same level as my depiction of racism would be too predictable. So I shall leave it to this and next time write what I really meant to write about all along: Little assumptions that people make because of certain personality traits one has. This will include the subjects of gender differences and homosexuality. I’ll also explain how it affects me personally. Amongst other things…

Leave a Comment

An Introduction to the chaos of the mind…

July 6, 2008 at 12:18 am (random brain output)
Tags: , , , , , ,

Well, this is my first article on WordPress ! It is quite strange that after watching the final episode of Season 4 of Doctor Who, I suddenly felt compelled to set up a blog and to write down my thoughts. Now it may seem that it is not such a far fetched idea if I had derived some sort of strong emotion from the episode and need to share this with someone else than my family (none of which find sci-fi appealing). But the fact is that I don’t intend to talk about Doctor Who. It is not the aim of this blog. So this blog has arisen from a quite sudden random craving. Maybe there were subliminal messages in the episode that bolstered me into an unconscious desire to create a blog.

Or maybe it was this video I saw who’s focus was a Hillary Clinton supporter (Will Bower) who, as a consequence of Obama winning the Democrat primaries, had decided to actively discredit Obama in order for McCain to win. Are Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton so fundementally different that a Democrat should prefer to vote for a Republican instead ? I seriously don’t think so. I think this is another case of people voting with their heart rather than their brain. They are so revulsed by the idea that Clinton did not make it through that they will resign voting or worse still, vote for Republicans. Now obviously one can guess where my allegiance lies. However, when I say “worse still vote for Republicans” I meant from a logical point of view. If you have a tendency to vote Democrat, voting Republican is the worse thing you can do for the party. Equally, if you tend to vote Republican, voting Democrat is really not going to help the party. Sometimes the sudden swing of stance is justifiable. After all, you would want what you think is best for the country (or best for you, if you are selfish. We probably all are in our own ways). But, to vote completely out of whack with your ideas and ideals just to seek revenge for not getting exactly what you want is fairly damaging for your party. And quite frankly, it’s stupid. If a good portion of people act in that irrational way, the joint effort ultimetaly becomes a weight on the election and swings it one way or another.

As crazy at it may sound now, I don’t think I initially intended to write that much about the subject of the American election. This blog will not be a political one. In fact you can expect me to go on about Science much more than politics from now on. Because Science is a huge fascinating subject and I’m really far from having that enthusiasm for politics.  Like for example, I might talk about the Large Hadron Collider which will be operational in 1 day 21 hours 2 minutes and 50 seconds after I wrote this sentence. That is from http://www.lhcountdown.com/ which is the official site for the countdown. Don’t go complaining if the countdowns increments time instead of decrementing. That’s because they keep pushing the dates of the grand opening back. But seeing the scarce time left, I think this is it. Maybe next week we will find the Higgs Boson…and maybe we won’t. I won’t hide that I am quite excited and so are some of my friends. Isn’t that right Laurence ? Another reason why I just might mention science is that I am currently reading Richard Dawkins everfamous ‘The Selfish Gene’. The title might be confusing if you don’t know what it’s about. I can start by telling you that the focus is on the ‘gene’ not the ’selfish’, so now you can easily guess that Richard Dawkins is not a psychologist but rather a biologist (or more precisely a zoologist), and that his book involves the genome. Evolution is what it is all about. This book explains how species have evolved from simple replicators to the survival machines that we, and other living animals, consitute. It also goes on to explain how all intricacies and outcomes of evolution can emerge from each indivual gene’s selfish need to spread, strongly discrediting ideas like ‘group selection’ that seem now to be easy shortcuts for explaining evolution. As I have now contracted a headache from standing in front of my computer at 3 am, I shall not go into details. You will just have to read the book for yourself. It’s worth your while, I have never read a book so fast than this precise one (to the possible exception of ‘Second Foundation’ by Asimov).

So expect alot of scientific talk from this blog. I might also throw in some controversial pieces of mindflow (I just made up this word…I think) about what I think of awful stuff like Intelligent Design (well you could have predicted that much) and how I so absolutely believe in the Global Warming threat that so many people turn a deaf ear too (for those who were wondering if this interest has recently been nurtured in book form as my interest for evolution has, I shall answer that, yes, the book I was reading before Dawkin’s book is Al Gore’s ‘Earth in the balance’ [for some reason, i'm going through a non-fiction phase right now...]).

Damn, writing a bit of random prose is refreshing…

Leave a Comment