More whining about the New Atheists

This is my response to an article by David Penberthy ranting about New Atheists over at Punch:

David Penberthy, join the long queue of kneejerk castigation Alex Stewart for his video. Oh that’s right, if an atheist publicly (it’s youtube, you have to actively click ‘play’; don’t watch it if you don’t want to - same goes for Human Centipede) says anything about their world view, they are obnoxious, arrogant, fanatical New Atheist. Why “New”? Are the proper atheists those that stay in the closet? Newsflash: flamboyant atheism has been around for several millennia, it’s not a new phenomenon.

Is Stewart mocking the beliefs of others? Sure, in the same way that satirists mock any belief to hilight silly aspects of those beliefs. Is it taking freedom of speech too far, as it is hurtful to others? I understand that Andrews burning these particular books plays on their symbolism to others; but it was not a pointless act of trying to inflame a group (this would be trolling), he had a point to make. That’s a distinct difference with the Florida pastor who wanted to burn korans just to get back at muslims for, well who knows what grievances he had; that was geared to incite anger.

As PZ Myers points out: “Religious artifacts? These were not the Buddhas of Bamyan — it was a pair of books you can buy cheaply at your local bookstore.” This is the point, they are objects which are easily reproduced, there is nothing special about their creation. The special character is imbued by the owner. Some people think a little cracker is mystical, most people know it’s not. Some people think crop circles are mystical, most people know they aren’t.

Isn’t it funny how those people who proclaim themselves to be spiritual, to be in touch with the intangible and non-physical, are the ones that seem so desperately hooked up about the holiness of physical objects. Burn your own copy of Origin of Species, and we’d all just think you’re wasting your money, because the idea is untouchable. If you truly have solid faith and your god is the biggest silverback of all deities, then these little criticisms should not affect you. Why is it that the more loony the beliefs are, the more aggressive people get when they are attacked (just see how Scientology deals with critics)?

That’s the thing about “freedom of religion”: you can believe what you want, as long as I don’t have to believe it as well. We can even tell each other all about our beliefs; being annoying is not a crime, yet.

If we need to be careful to never knowingly do or say things publicly that could offend the honest beliefs of another group, then we must immediately curtail our teaching of evolution, old earth geology, much of astronomy and physics. We must immediately stop people climbing Uluru and pissing on it (actually, that’s not a bad thing), as well as hand back most aboriginal artifacts and relics to their communities. We must not criticise shariah law. We must hide our sexuality. We must stop eating any animal products. We must stop laughing at Trekkies.

There are, however, things people shout from the rooftops, which are much more destructive to society: Anti-vaxination, Global Warming Denialism, Creationism, etc. It’s apparently acceptable to be as anti-science as possible, to insult the very foundations of our standard of living (indeed these people are dragged out by the media as a ‘balanced viewpoint’) yet if we criticise irrational beliefs that are maintained due to tradition or comfort, then we are obnoxious.

I understand that for many people religion is comforting: someone always cares about them, loved ones aren’t gone after they die, there’s an automatic purpose in life, etc. I accept that some people require these certainties to make it through life, but they are nonetheless a cop out from maturing and figuring it out yourself.

To paraphrase Matin Luther King: “First, I must confess that over the past few years I have been gravely disappointed with the religious and non-religious moderate. I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the freethinker's great stumbling block in his stride toward freedom is not the fundamentalist, but the moderate, who is more devoted to “order” than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says: “I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I cannot agree with your methods of direct action”; who paternalistically believes he can set the timetable for another man’s freedom or the best method to demand freedom; who lives by a mythical concept of time and appropriateness; who constantly advises the freethinker or rebel to wait for a “more convenient season” or find a "kinder" way to behave. Shallow understanding from people of good will is more frustrating than absolute misunderstanding from people of ill will. Lukewarm acceptance is much more bewildering than outright rejection.” (hat tip to Aquaria)

We live in a society that thrives because of the scientific method, and no matter what the mealy mouthed ‘moderates’ tell you, this is incompatible with most of what makes up a religion: faith and belief in the supernatural.

The pictures BP doesn't want you to see

These pictures of effects of BP's Gulf Oil Gusher are not for the faint hearted. And some people still say humans are not a force of nature.

Top Predators Through Time

Hey, check out my foray into overacting: http://museumvictoria.com.au/bigkills

If it's not quite clear, this is meant to promote a tag-team talk by myself and two other palaeos about the evolution of aquatic apex predators over the past half a billion years.

Now I just need to write the talk....

Blinded by Science?

I find Victoria Attorney-General Rob Hulls' comment on the wrongful rape conviction of Farah Jama, which apparently was based purely on DNA 'evidence', interesting:

"This case is a wake up call for everyone involved in the criminal justice system not to be blinded by science and the so-called ‘CSI effect’"

I fully agree with the 'CSI effect' - the portrayals of who the criminal system works are science fiction bordering on fantasy. And I'm skeptical of the assertion that people know the difference between reality and a TV show; consciously that may be so, but it's the kind of beliefs that are imprinted subcosciously that

However, the part about not being 'blinded by the science' was what really got me. How can you be blinded by science? The scientific method is the best system of investigation that we know of to minimise human bias and error. It's exactly the ignorance of science that caused the problem. The people in charge didn't understand the fallibility of DNA evidence (I'll give them the benefit of the doubt that they didn't do it deliberately). Only with a populace who fully understands science and trusts it can better decisions be made.

The Climate Needs A Nicotine Patch

Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) denial is frequently likened to the denial of the link between smoking and cancer. It's mostly the fact that in both cases very large industrial interests are behind the FUD that's being spread to discredit the science in the public's view. But it occurred to me that there is another similarity: the incapability of people affected by either issue to understand the subtle, yet inexorable changes that are being brought about.

Young smoker: "I've been smoking for years and I don't feel any different - I reckon I even feel better than I did last year. Smoking helps me feel good, I couldn't cope with the stress if I didn't have a ciggie. Nicotine patches? They don't help me pick up on a Saturday night. Those specialists are all non-smokers and just want to stop me from having a good time. Nanny state! "

Older smoker: "OK, so I'm a smoker and I've got emphesemia, but correlation doesn't equate to causation!"

Now substitute appropriately with the AGW denial catch phrases:

AGW denier: "We've been burning carbon for years and the weather's no different - I reckon it even feels cooler this year than last year. Burning fossil fuels is essential to advance society, we'd all still be in the Dark Ages without fossil fuels. Solar energy? That doesn't work at night. Those commie liberal scientists just want to shut down capitalism. One World Government!"

"OK, so often CO2 and climate change follow the same pattern, but correlation doesn't equate to causation!"

I could keep going, but I think you get the idea.

Science Week Comedy!

I've been roped into taking part in this year's Science Week comedy event. Again. For the third time.

I guess the stage lights just love me.

Should be good, even though I was skeptical at first about the new format. It will be held this Friday (14 August), 8:30pm, at the BMW Edge in Federation Square (Melbourne, that is) and it's a 'walk thu' kind of event, meaning that audience can just come and go. So we gotta be REALLY funny.

Three scientists from Museum Victoria will present a 'quirky' science fact or story, and the three comedians and the MC will take that ball and run with it like someone from Ministry of Silly Walks. Plus they will be in appropriate costumes. Can't wait to see what costume the girl who's covering my topic will wear - I'm expecting and 8-legged sumo outfit. Not telling what animal it is though.

Pet Peeve of the Day

People who get on the train and then pause just inside the door to find a good seat.

Just get in and let others in as well! They just stand there blocking the way while they decide where the best seat is. Who cares. Just grab any seat! Almost all of them look like they've been sitting at a desk all day as well, so why not stand for a while?!?

Pet Peeve of the Day

Those mobile-phone-bluetooth-in-ear-thingies.

No, I don't care what they're really called; they give me the shits! Yeah, I know, they're practical, you get your hands free, you're always connected, blah blah blah. To me they just classify you as either pretentious and wanting to look professional and important; or you are so afraid of not being constantly reachable that even just having your mobile in your pocket is to far away.

Can you say "Borg"?

And what about the extra battery consumption? Must be a whole power plant worth each day.

Less cancer risk? You'll probably get an ear infection from stopping fresh air getting to it all day.

Skeptic or Conspiracy Theorist?

Couldn't let this Peak Oil skeptic go without a comment. I'll repost it here, most of it should make sense even without the actual article:

This Engdahl instantly lost all credibility by stating that geology textbooks claim that petroleum comes from dinosaur remains. I have a phD in Geology and Palaeontology and I know for a fact that not a single scientific publication claims such an origin. For petroleum the source organic matter comes from marine algae and plankton trapped in carbonaceous sediments. Coal comes from terrestrial plant remains. Animals do not constitute a big enough biomass to make any contribution.

As for deep oil? Physics and chemistry both show that carbonaceous material of organic origin subjected to some heat and pressure at depth will reorganise to form the complex molecules found in petroleum. But if it goes too deep (i.e. the depth where deep oil should come from), the cemical bonds start getting increasingly cracked, and the resulting molecules get smaller and simpler until eventually all thats left are gases such as methane. finally all you get is graphite or maybe diamond, the only stable form of carbon at great depth. And no, you can't bring these materials up the other way and expect the process to reverse.

'Primorial' gives the impression that it's of similar composition as the material that gave rise to life. But after billions of years underground it would have been extensively altered to mineral form.

Another problem is presented by the view that reservoirs are continuously replenished from depth. If the rate is sufficient to keep up with our rate of extraction, then in the past we should have been drowning in tar pits, which occur where petroleum seeps through cracks in the cap rock above the reservoir. Over time this will happen due to tectonic activity, and bacteria can't decompose all of it if it bubbles out too fast. If the rate is slow enough that it doesn't cover the earth's surface, then it has no impact on replenishing reservoirs on human time-scales.

Many of the Russian wells with oil shows are still no convincingly proven to not simply recycled the drilling oil.

The Ghawar field certainly has a source rock, the Tuwaiq Mountain Formation, which under different circumstances may not have produced a super-field, but because of the unique tectonic history and structure of the Arabian Peninsula, the circumstances created an extremely efficient system.

And Engdahl is trying to have it both ways. He asserts there's a conspiracy by the oil industry to not explore according to deep oil hypothesis (it's not a theory - look up the scientific definition of 'theory') so they can have huge profit margins, but on the other hand the Middle East was invaded because there's no more oil to be found. The oil exploration industry is composed of hundreds of independent smaller companies that all want to hit pay dirt. If there is the slightest inkling that deep oil would give one of them a better chance than all the others, they would jump on it without hesitation. Finding the first super-field in almost half a century would have greater appeal than trying to raise profits on ever diminishing reserves.

Wegener? yeah there is generally some inertia before a paradigm shift, but that's what science is about, accepting the best explanation for ALL observations, even if it totally invalidates your past career."

Who are these people?

Just attended a talk by Tim Flannery last night and a group of kids from the LaRouche Youth Movement made themselves known. These people seriously seem to believe that the whole issue of Climate Change is nothing other than a conspiracy to facilitate eugenics. What?!? I mean creationists boggle the mind with their bizarre logic, buy these LYM members were a whole different kind of loony. They seriously reckon that we should be allowed to, nay, encouraged to increase the human population indefinitely. Even if we could create enough energy and food in a sustainable way - where would everyone fit? No, space isn't a solution, considering we can't even get anyone back to the moon for a brief visit.

Wow, the human mind never ceases to amaze. Such highs and lows within a single room.

Welcome to me

Just trying it out. But I guess everyone says that the first time. And I'm at work, so I shouldn't even be writing this. Or this. Or this for that matter.

Ah, it's just getting worse.

I plan to write about how such a f**ked up world can still be so much more beautiful than most people recognise. That's nice. I like that.

Years ago our local cinema was showing a double feature: 'The Green Mile' followed by 'American Beauty'. At the time the message of the former seemed to be that the world was inherently evil, and there's nothing we can do about it. The latter seemed to insist that if we just look past the trivial irritations of our lives, we will see a beautiful world. As Ricky puts it: "And that's the day I knew there was this entire life behind things, and this incredibly benevolent force, that wanted me to know there was no reason to be afraid, ever... Sometimes there's so much beauty in the world I feel like I can't take it, like my heart's going to cave in."

In these time when everyone's afraid of terrorism, our countries' responses to terrorism, climate change, Peak Oil, more reality TV, Serenity not doing well at the boxoffice, and whatever else, I tend to take comfort in the latter view.