So my mum found my blog a few weeks ago (Hi, mum!), and being a good Christian, expressed some concern over my turn away from god and the church.  In the latest Amazon package I got from home, there were a few additions: a book entitled The Shack, and a few printed pages from the websites http://godandscience.org and http://www.everystudent.com/features/isthere.html

I’ll review The Shack later, but I did have a look at the two sites.  Sadly, the everystudent link is pretty weak in the strength of its arguments.  Being the easiest to critique, I thought I’d offer some responses here.

   But first consider this. If a person opposes even the possibility of there being a God, then any evidence can be rationalized or explained away. It is like if someone refuses to believe that people have walked on the moon, then no amount of information is going to change their thinking. Photographs of astronauts walking on the moon, interviews with the astronauts, moon rocks...all the evidence would be worthless, because the person has already concluded that people cannot go to the moon.

A bit of a cheating, to begin with.  The author asks us to accept the premise right from the beginning.  It’s as if she realises that her arguments lack strength from the beginning.  In philosophy, the greatest burden of proof is on the person making the most ontologically positive statement.  Let me borrow an example from Wikipedia:

Statement	Burden of Proof
Elvis is alive	XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
Elvis is probably alive	XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
Elvis is possibly alive	XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
I don’t know whether Elvis is alive
Elvis is possibly dead	XX
Elvis is probably dead	XXXX
Elvis is dead	XXXXXX

The reasoning for this argument should be fairly obvious.  It’s far easier to prove than an apple exists in the fruit bowl (all you have to do is present 1 apple), than it is to prove that there are no apples in the fruit bowl (you need to present all the fruit in the bowl and eliminate each as “not an apple”).

In the case, the ontologically positive statement is that “god exists.”  Marilyn would have us begin on the same side of the fence with “God possibly exists,” rather than the opposite position.

    1. Does God exist? The complexity of our planet points to a deliberate Designer who not only created our universe, but sustains it today.

Not really.  This is another version of the famous watchmaker analogy.  If you find a watch lying on the ground, you naturally assume (because of the complexity of the device) that it was created by a watchmaker, not came together of its own accord.  Thus, the argument goes that because human beings and our planet are vastly more complex than a watch, there must be a creator to have created it.

As other have pointed out, this doesn’t answer the question; it only moves it back a level.  If we know from the sheer complexity of humans that there must be a creator, then god must be more complex than we are – so who created god?

There more to that argument on their page, but I’ll save the response to that, because the godandscience.org link presents a much stronger argument for this in the first place.

   2. Does God exist? The universe had a start - what caused it?

Marilyn’s main argument here is “The universe has not always existed. It had a start...what caused that? Scientists have no explanation for the sudden explosion of light and matter.”  This is poorly argued.  Just because science does not have an answer (I would add “yet” here, since we are currently studying this), does not mean that god did it.

   3. Does God exist? The universe operates by uniform laws of nature. Why does it?

Here, Marilyn goes into an argument from wishful thinking.  “How is it that we can identify laws of nature that never change? Why is the universe so orderly, so reliable?”  She doesn’t present an answer; we are to naturally come to the same conclusion she did.  Me, I’d rather go looking to see if I can find out why it’s so orderly and reliable.

   4. Does God exist? The DNA code informs, programs a cell's behavior.

Back to the watchmaker analogy.  See my response to point 1 above.

   5. Does God exist? We know God exists because he pursues us. He is constantly initiating and seeking for us to come to him.

Now we move into an argument from wishful thinking, and a failure of logic.  We know that god exists because he’s pursuing us?  Pursuit pre-supposes existence.  You know what?  First establish existence, then you can go into pursuit.  Her argument here that that because we focus so much on it, that’s proof that it exists.  Preposterous.

You know why we focus on it?  Because it affects us in negative ways.  Because we have people in America standing in the way of things like gay marriage, based on their understandings of religious doctrine.  Because we have paedophilic priests who use the institutions of church and religion of cover up and escape from justice.  Because we have things like women who have been raped who are then tried for the crime of being raped and are stoned to death under religious law.  Great evil is done in the name of religion.  If it were all sweetness and light, then I wouldn’t care about it.

    6. Does God exist? Unlike any other revelation of God, Jesus Christ is the clearest, most specific picture of God revealing himself to us.

Okay, here we go.  Firstly, there is no proof that a person named Jesus ever existed.  Most of the stories about him can also be found attributed to other deific figures in other religions.  Look at Krishna, from Hinduism:

• Jesus and Krishna were called both a God and the Son of God.
• Both was sent from heaven to earth in the form of a man.
• Both were called Savior, and the second person of the Trinity.
• Krishna’s adoptive human father was a carpenter.
• A spirit or ghost was their actual father.
• Krishna and Jesus were of royal descent.
• Both were visited at birth by wise men and shepherds, guided by a star.
• Angels in both cases issued a warning that the local dictator planned to kill the baby and had issued a decree for his assassination. The parents fled. Mary and Joseph stayed in Muturea; Krishna's parents stayed in Mathura.
• Both Jesus and Krishna withdrew to the wilderness as adults, and fasted.
• Both were identified as "the seed of the woman bruising the serpent's head."
• Jesus was called "the lion of the tribe of Judah." Krishna was called "the lion of the tribe of Saki."
• Both claimed: "I am the Resurrection."
• Both referred to themselves having existed before their birth on earth.
• Both were "without sin."
• Both were god-men: being considered both human and divine.
• They were both considered omniscient, omnipotent, and omnipresent.
• Both performed many miracles, including the healing of disease. One of the first miracles that both performed was to make a leper whole. Each cured "all manner of diseases."
• Both cast out indwelling demons, and raised the dead.
• Both selected disciples to spread his teachings.
• Both were meek, and merciful. Both were criticized for associating with sinners.
• Both encountered a Gentile woman at a well.
• Both celebrated a last supper. Both forgave his enemies.
• Both descended into Hell, and were resurrected. Many people witnessed their ascensions into heaven.

Given that Krishna was reportedly born around 3200ish BCE, and Jesus is traced to well, 1 CE, and that the early Christians were known to steal from other religions to spread their own (look up December 25 and the Roman Holiday Saturnalia), and it’s far more reasonable to say that details from Krishna’s life were attributed to Jesus rather than the other way around.

M and D were watching Disney/Pixar's "Up" while eating dinner when ariall and heard M call out. "Mummy!!!"

We both raced in, to find M sitting up on the back of his booster seat.

D: "Look, Mummy, at the fire..."

A: "I know, I see!"

M: "Oh my god..."

This morning, while I had my sleep-in (I get Saturdays, E gets Sundays), E interviewed our three year old, D.

1. What is something Mummy/Daddy always says to you?
   (Mummy) "Let's go to the pet shop to buy some fish?"
   (Daddy) "D, can you and pick up the toys, because it's almost bath time."
   
   This is fair enough. I get home most days just before bath time, and I'm the only who gives him his bath most of the time. Last night the toys looked like two tornadoes had run through them, but most of the time the boys have gotten home only just before me, so there's not that much to pick up.
   
   
2. What makes Mummy/Daddy happy?
   (Mummy) "Hugs & kisses."
   (Daddy) "Tickling me."
   
   
3. What makes Mummy/Daddy sad?
   (Mummy) "Hurting."
   (Daddy) "Not giving him hugs."
   
   
4. What does Mummy/Daddy make you laugh?
   (Mummy) "Tickles."
   (Daddy) "Tickling."
   
   
5. What was Mummy/Daddy like as a child?
   (Both) "I don't know."
   
   
6. How old is Mummy/Daddy?
   (Mummy) "15."
   (Daddy) "I don't know."
   
   Not sure if my wife was happy to hear that one or not...
   
   
7. How tall is Mummy/Daddy?
   (Mummy) "This tall." (He stood up.)
   (Daddy) "This big." (Standing tall is what E wrote, but when D says he's standing tall, he's usually on tip-toes.)
   
   
8. What is Mummy/Daddy's favourite thing to do?
   (Mummy) "Washing clothes."
   (Daddy) "Play with blocks."
   
   
9. If Mummy/Daddy becomes famous, what will it be for?
   
   D didn't really understand this question, so she didn't push it.
   
   
10. What is Mummy/Daddy really good at?
    (Mummy) "Hanging the clothes outside."
    (Daddy) "Sleeping."



11. What does Mummy/Daddy do when you're not here?
    (Mummy) "Come find me."
    (Daddy) "I don't know."

Because I see too few of these sorts of services offered or in the public eye in Australia:

MensLine is a dedicated service for men with relationship and family concerns.

When you feel like it's all getting too much, help is as close as the phone.

• All men, all relationships


• Counselling, information and referral


• Staffed by trained professionals


• Confidential


• Anonymous


• Australia-wide


• 24/7


• Cost of a local call (excl.mobiles)

I've often lamented the lack of visible men's support services, especially compared with abundance of women's support services. I'm glad I found this one.

In a slightly related depressing note, MISC.com.au was the first link that popped up on a google search for "men's support australia". From the first paragraph on that page:

The Men's Information and Support Centre (MISC), formerly known as the Men's Contact and Resource Centre (MCRC), assisted the South Australian community between 1982 and October 2006. Due to a decision by the State Labor Government to stop its funding, the Centre has now closed. This website is the only service that MISC is currently able to provide. Please ignore MISC's services listed on this website - they are no longer current. The other third party services listed are still in operation. MISC's former Executive Director, Mr Rodney Stanton, can be contacted on 0405 772 279.

I'll leave you to draw conclusions about government funding on this one...

Start: Sydney, Australia
Finish: Atlanta, Georgia

http://maps.google.com/maps?f=d&source=s_d&saddr=Sydney,+NSW,+Australia&daddr=Atlanta,+Georgia,+USA&geocode=&hl=en&mra=ls&sll=7.290235,-157.039155&sspn=132.112007,316.40625&ie=UTF8&ll=7.362467,-158.203125&spn=132.112007,316.40625&t=h&z=2&layer=c&pw=2

Note the following steps:

Directions to Atlanta, GA
25,848 km – about 56 days 2 hours

1. Head north on George St toward Angel Pl, go 0.4 km
   
   total 0.4 km


52. Turn right at Myilly Tce, go 0.4 km
    
    About 1 min, total 3,917 km


53. Kayak across the Pacific Ocean, go 5,404 km Entering Japan
    
    About 17 days 8 hours, total 9,321 km


54. Continue straight, go 0.9 km
    
    About 5 mins, total 9,321 km


113. Turn left, go 0.4 km
     
     About 5 mins, total 10,759 km


114. Kayak across the Pacific Ocean, go 6,243 km Entering United States (Hawaii)
     
     About 20 days 0 hours, total 17,001 km


115. Turn right at Kalakaua Ave, go 0.5 km
     
     About 2 mins, total 17,002 km


128. Turn right at Turtle Bay Hilton, go 0.2 km
     
     total 17,075 km


129. Kayak across the Pacific Ocean, go 4,436 km Entering Washington
     
     About 14 days 5 hours, total 21,511 km


130. Sharp right at N Northlake Way, go 1.9 km
     
     About 3 mins, total 21,513 km


147. Turn right at Edgewood Ave SE, go 0.5 km
     
     About 1 min, total 25,848 km
     
     Atlanta, GA‎

No earth-shattering revelations tonight, just a father's pride.

I have two sons, D (who is 3 ½ ), and M (who is 1 ½). D has always been an early talker, and now Michael is showing signs of being the same. For all that he's a carbon copy of me in appearance (down to the same birthmarks), D has always been Mummy's boy. M, on the other hand, bears no strong resemblance to me, but he's a lot closer to me emotionally. I'm not sure how much of that is because he can't claim his mum's attention as much when he has to compete with his brother, and how much of it is a natural inclination, but I don't care. He's Daddy's boy and I'm not going to look that gift horse in the mouth. Usually dads have to wait a lot longer to be looked up to by their sons (or so I hear).

Back to M. For the first year of his life, he rarely said the word "Mummy." It's not that he couldn't or didn't know how, he just simply refused to say it. He took to "Daddy" right away. I used to get a little smile when E would try to get him to say "Mummy" and he'd just ignore her. Then she'd prompt him to say "Daddy" and he'd say it back and then look at me. It was one of those cute things that made us smile at him and call him a cheeky bugger. We knew he'd come around eventually. And for the record, he has.

But last night, as we were putting the boys to bed, Daddy scored another one. :) I had gone outside for some reason (probably to chuck something in the rubbish bin). Apparently, that's when M decided to construct his first sentence. He walked around his room, then looked up at his mum and asked "Where Daddy?"

That's my boy!

Very quick update: We went out this morning, a bunch of my work mates and I, and shot the hell out of each other with paintballs fired at high velocity.

I didn't come out of it too bad, and I've counted least 20 welts on me. That was helped by the fact that I had the best frakking gun money could hire, which gave me an extra 10 metres of range over most of the other players. I mitigated this by volunteering to wear the bright orange flouro vest which designated me as a general. Turns out the generals could only be killed with a direct hit below the knees. Once my team (aka my guards) all died, I did a runner for the opposite end of the field -- figuring (a) a moving target is harder to hit, and (b) it's even harder still to hit a moving target below the knees. I almost made it, too...


One of my mates brought a video camera with a snake-like telescopic aperture, which he duct-taped to his helmet, giving us a good helmet-cam video. I'm looking forward to seeing the footage.

By the end of the day, I'd been hit so many times that I no longer cared that much. So when the free-for-all happened at the end, I simply walked out like the Terminator and started picking people off. :) Got a few good head shots, and since my gun (modelled after the Heckler & Koch MP5) could fire off 8 rounds per second, I rarely hit anyone just once. Photos will follow, and video will come once I get a copy of the video.

Cross Posted from: http://patchwolf.com/2009/02/20/evangelical-atheismevangelical-atheism/

Last week my wife ariall (who is a theist) challenged me with this question: Why this sudden obsession with atheism? Okay, she didn't use those words, but her message was clear, as was the reason she asked. I do have a tendency to "adopt a cause" and do it passionately for a while before it fades into the background -- like a favoured t-shirt than eventually gets tucked into the back of the wardrobe to be pulled out when convenient.

Another part of the thrust of her question was "Why do you have to raise this issue? How have you been disadvantaged by being an atheist?" Keep in mind, dear reader, that I live in Australia, which is nowhere nearly so dominated by religion-in-politics (a very deadly combination). Coming from the United States as I do, I argued that even if religion wasn't front-and-centre in the political scene, it must be one of the silent ever-present factors determining which politicians actually get elected. In this, I was happy to be shown wrong. Bob Hawke, Prime Minister of Australia from 1983 to 1991, was an agnostic. Bill Hayden, Governor-general from 1989 to 1996, was an atheist (although in my defense, the G-G is not popularly elected, but appointed by the PM, meaning that in this case, the atheist was appointed by the agnostic).

So why then, did I feel the need to make such a big deal about atheism? It would be easy to dismiss this as a "shut up, that's why" argument -- designed to do nothing but stop the discussion there -- but E- isn't the kind of person to make those arguments. I think her question was more one of trying to understand where I'm coming from and so it warranted further thought.

The question germinated in the back of my head all week long, and I turned my motivations over in my head, examining them from all angles. I read, and thought, and read some more. Why did I care so much about atheism and religion, when it had so little immediate effect on my life?

I've come up with a few answers:

It does have an immediate effect in my life. Particularly when it comes to familial relationships. My family are all devout Southern Baptists (except my brother, who rebelled and became a Presbyterian). They have no knowledge of my atheism (although my brother may have a clue, and has said he's deeply concerned), and they probably still think of me as Christian. This isn't a huge deal, since they remain state-side, but it's a deception, and it means that when we do talk, it has to be about non-religious topics. When you consider the fact that I'm a liberal and my family are conservatives, it doesn't leave us with much to talk about.

E-'s parents definitely think of me as a Christian, and here the impact is much more immediate. Instead of being 26,112 km (according to google maps, who prefer kayaks to aeroplanes) away, E's parents live a whole 3 km away. We see them on a regular basis, and this includes a bunch of their religious functions -- they are largely social events, but the Christian trappings make me feel uncomfortable. At Easter, the traditional greeting is "Christ is risen," to which you are expected to respond "Truly he is risen." I cannot, because that would be an affirmation of something I do not believe.

I know for a fact that if I "came out" to them as an atheist, it would strain relationships all around -- between them and me, and E would be caught in the middle as they'd approach her about me. That's not something I'm willing to do, so my little charade continues for now.

But it's going to come out one day. I will not lie to my children about my beliefs. And they will probably ask around about the same time that they start going to scripture classes (another post on this for another time). Once they ask, it will almost certainly come out somehow.

It's late here, so I'll post some of my other thoughts on the matter tomorrow.

(Cross-posted from http://patchwolf.com/2009/02/12/atheism_as_a_social_movement/)

My better half (E) and I were watching an old episode of BattleStar Galactica the other day, when Brother Cavil was counselling Chief Tyrol. We paused the episode and had a long discussion about religion and atheism in the context of our lives.

To make this part brief, I can be described as an atheist -- I believe that the only definition of god that fits is "the Universe as god." If it has a consciousness, it's so far beyond our comprehension and we are so far beneath its notice as to make the question of religion moot. It's not going to intercede on your behalf, and you certainly don't pray to it. Any afterlife (as part of the universe) will not be in any form that we recognise or imagine now. E has described herself to me as a Christian -- her faith is personal, while her membership in her church is social.

One of the comments I made was something along the lines of "atheism now is where homosexuals were a few years ago." E's reply was "That's ridiculous; no one's getting beaten to death because they're an atheist." And she's right. That wasn't where my main argument meant to go. But I think my comment is also right; it just needed clarification.

And it's here, in Greta Christina's article 10 Myths and Truths About Atheists that I found the same argument, only worded much better than I could put it. It neatly sums up what I meant:

6. Atheists are just being trendy.

Yes, atheism is everywhere now. In bookstores, on the news, in the blogosphere. Just like gay people were in the early '90s. African Americans in the late '50s. Women in the early '70s. There's a point in any major social movement when it reaches critical mass. It gathers adherents and sympathizers, who become more visible and vocal ... a process that's self-perpetuating.

The movement picks up steam. It can no longer be ignored. At which point the mass media has a collective "WTF?" freakout. Who are these atheists (gays, African Americans, women), and where did they come from all of a sudden? Like we haven't been here all along.

Does that make atheism trivial? A fad, something people do to be cool? Of course not. No more than being queer is. Coming out as atheist is often a big deal. It can mean losing friends, being cut off from family. It can mean getting threatened by neighbors or kicked out of school, losing job opportunities or custody of your kids. And it often means a major upheaval in how you see yourself and your life. People don't do this to be trendy. People do it to be true to themselves.

The rest of the article can be read here: http://www.alternet.org/story/126118/10_myths_and_truths_about_atheists_/?page=entire
Greta Christina's blog can be found here: http://gretachristina.typepad.com/

So, I've finally taken the plunge and set up WordPress on my main domain. Don't panic; I'm not leaving LJ -- there's too much community here for me to leave. But I will start posting on my domain's blog. Whether this will be in addition to or separate from my LJ is still to be determined; I suspect it will be a combination of the two.

Why? A few reasons -- one, I found I haven't read my friends page in such a very long time, and it doesn't look like that situation's going to change any time soon. Two, I view LJ more as a social networking site than a blogging platform. Blogging is about me and my thoughts, and I want to keep those separate from my social networking side (not that I have been a stellar success in that side of it for a long time...). Three, I like being in total control of my toys... and I can only do that with a software package completely under my control. Fourth -- and this is total vanity here -- at LJ I'm one voice in 18.3 million. At my own domain, I'm the only voice.

So. Short story, I'm not leaving LJ. I'm just... expanding. If you want to follow along, you can find me at http://patchwolf.com/. I've enabled OpenID on my blog, so you can even comment by logging into your LJ account.

See you there?