tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31677659064084715512024-03-20T20:12:39.633-07:00Lord Bishington's ThoughtsMy thoughts on science, philosophy, politics, religion and everything else.Lord Victor 'Bones' Bishingtonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04632294345137914846noreply@blogger.comBlogger25125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3167765906408471551.post-51171136123998475962012-03-08T19:58:00.000-08:002012-03-09T02:31:46.420-08:00How Do We Measure Gender Equality?<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
As I am sure most of you are
aware, yesterday was <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Women%27s_Day" target="_blank">International Women’s Day</a>.
This, of course, sparked a number of discussions on the necessity of feminism
in Western society. This all reminded me of a previous discussion I had with an
acquaintance over what is the best way to measure gender equality. Essentially,
it boiled down to whether we should measure equality of representation or
equality of opportunity, with my acquaintance arguing the former while I argued
the latter. I wish to articulate to you all a point that I tried to impart on
my discussion partner. This is that the equality of representation side has a
fairly large assumption built into it; namely, that men and women are actually
equal in all respects.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
Before you fly off into a tirade
about how much of a misogynist I am, hear me out. The debate over biological
gender difference is one that it still going strong; there are points made on
both sides that make it hard to come to any conclusion beyond ‘we don’t know at
the moment’. For example, testosterone has been linked to aggression in both
males and females and males have higher levels of testosterone simply due to
being male. The counterpoint to this is that it has also been found that witnessing
and emulating aggressive behaviours can increase testosterone levels. Thus, to
take a position on policy (that women and men should be equally represented in
all fields) is to run with a conclusion that has yet to be established.
Whereas, if your policy position is to remove barriers that prevent women from
access certain fields, you allow for both the possibility that men and women
are and aren’t equal.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
To demonstrate this point, let me
present a hypothetical world. In this world, there are no cultural, social or
legal barriers to either gender undertaking any task; men can be homemakers,
women can be CEO’s and no one bats at eye at either choice. Now, if men and
women have equal capabilities/preferences, we would of course see an equal
representation of both genders in all fields. However, if there are differences
between the averages of the abilities/preferences of each gender, then we would
see differences in the representation of both genders. For example, women may
actually as a matter of biology rather than culture be more nurturing on
average than males. This would lead to an overrepresentation in fields that
require a nurturing temperament (healthcare, teaching etc.). This would not be
unfair; to the contrary, it would be exactly what the individuals want of their
own accord.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
It should be noted that I am in
no way defending the status quo; there are still many barriers that prevent
women from having equal access to the same opportunities that men enjoy and we
should make every effort to see that they are eliminated. My point is more that people need to point to
these problems directly rather than point to the difference in representation
and infer that there must be a problem because of it.</div>Lord Victor 'Bones' Bishingtonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04632294345137914846noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3167765906408471551.post-47448945191607337822011-11-11T22:41:00.001-08:002011-11-12T00:14:04.748-08:00Short and Sharp: A History of Dishonesty<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
Recently I was involved in a
discussion about a claim that was made by Noam Chomsky in his Melbourne
lecture. He stated that if the US implemented a public healthcare program
similar to other first world nations, they would wipe out their yearly deficit.
After much back and forth and number crunching by the ever-patient <a href="http://thelydianmode.com/" target="_blank">Dylan Nickelson</a>, it was concluded that this claim is factually wrong. After
this, I found myself doubting some of the other claims made by Chomsky. Not
that I have outright rejected them; just that I have the feeling that if he had
made a mistake on this claim, he might be wrong on other claims too. This is
not to say that my feeling is justified or should apply in any intellectual way,
but I do think it warrants a discussion.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
It seems quite obvious where this
feeling would come from; in social settings, an individual’s past history of
honesty/dishonesty is generally a good predictor of future behaviour (well,
better than chance guessing at any rate). The issue would be whether or not
this predictive value translates into the academic world and if it does,
whether it should affect analysis of the individual’s future arguments.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
I can see two main reasons why an
individual would make either a mistaken or intentional false claim; lack of
rigorous research and agenda/ideological bias. In both cases, there appears to
be the potential for future occurrences; with lack of rigorous research, it
implies a lazy methodology and with agenda/ideological bias, it implies that
they have a reason to bend or change facts to suit their views.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
So the question then becomes ‘how
does this affect analysis of a dishonest individual’s claims?’. The most
obvious consequence may be a lower threshold for triggering investigation into
the validity of their claims. Another possibility is that less in-depth
research is required to debunk the individual’s claim; for example, if one or
two sources you consult contradict a claim made by a dishonest individual, it
is probably wrong as opposed to requiring more for a previously honest individual.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
In bringing up these reasons as
to why individuals may be dishonest and what should occur because of it, my
suggested points of view are more meant as just that; suggestions. I would
welcome input from anyone on the following two questions; does a past history
of wrong claims by an individual mean that other claims they have made are likely
wrong and in what way does this alter how we interact with their claims?</div>Lord Victor 'Bones' Bishingtonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04632294345137914846noreply@blogger.com5tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3167765906408471551.post-10855237859897997932011-09-06T15:55:00.000-07:002011-10-01T19:16:54.110-07:00Why I Care (And Why You Should Too)<div style="text-align: justify;">
I have been noticing lately that there seems to be certain social taboos around discussing certain topics. The ones I have witness most predominately are religion, politics, philosophy, morality (specifically abortion and gay marriage), medicine vs. alternative medicine and science vs. pseudoscience. On more than one occasion, I have either been told or seen someone else be told to not talk about such issues as the offended individual believed they should not be discussed in polite society. This of course doesn’t sit right with me as these are perhaps my most favourite topics to discuss (and what I write about predominately on my blog). As such, I wish to discuss this phenomenon and offer my take on the situation.</div>
<br />
<div style="text-align: justify;">
When I have probed individuals who find said topics taboo, the reasons given as to why fall into the following broad categories, to which I will give a response; </div>
<ul style="text-align: justify;">
<li>These are topics that are personal in nature;
therefore people should be free to decide for themselves what they wish to
believe</li>
</ul>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
This kind of objection has a
tinge of a superficial understanding of postmodernist ‘relative truth’ to it;
it doesn’t matter what individuals choose to believe as there is no real truth.
While, to some extent, I believe that this is the case (or more that, we will
never be able to determine what the truth is in any absolute sense), these
individuals are ignoring the impact that an individual’s beliefs have on those
around them. The decisions we make are based on what we believe; for example,
if I believe that gays do not have the right to marry, I will not vote for a
politician or party that wishes to allow gays to marry, thus affecting
homosexuals who wish to get married. As such, while our beliefs are our own,
the fact that they have an impact on those around us obligates us to ensure
that these beliefs are indeed correct (or, at the very least, defensible). This
necessitates discussions on the issues, specifically public to ensure as many
people are exposed to all the possible arguments that exist.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Symbol;"></span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Symbol;"></span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<ul>
<li>These are topics that people will never change
their opinions on</li>
</ul>
</div>
<div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
I disagree with this line of
reasoning two fold; firstly, I think that people can and do change their minds
and often do as a result of discussions of said issues. Hell, even I have changed
my mind on these issues; I used to be a pro-life, think evolution was wrong and
be against gay marriage. Now, I have the polar opposite view on these topics,
as well as minor tweaks to my other beliefs. And I would not have changed my
mind on these topics if people hadn’t challenged me and pointed out the flaws
in my thought process.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
Secondly, if you are having a
discussion with someone who states that they will never change their position
on the topic, you should bring the topic up with them even more. If you are the
type of individual who believes you can never have your mind changed, you are
by definition closed minded and need to revaluate your life. If you think you
have a perfect understanding of reality to the extent that you can’t be wrong,
and as such, do not need to discuss the issue, you are quite arrogant.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
That being said, I do believe it
is possible to reach a point where discussion of a topic between two
individuals becomes fruitless. This generally occurs when it has been
identified precisely where the point of disagreement arises, both individuals
have explained why they disagree with the opposing point of view and still
disagree (agreeing to disagree essentially). However, if the discussion has
arrived at this point, it has occurred to a sufficient level as to make the
original objection irrelevant.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
</div>
<ul>
<li><span style="font-family: Symbol;"></span>These are topics that are too serious to discuss</li>
</ul>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
This objection is often put
forward in specific social settings; i.e. Facebook, parties or anywhere where
the individual feels should be a causal environment. This objection essentially
comes down to taste; what constitutes a topic that is too serious or whether
they derive enjoyment from such discussions. I do not find these discussions to
be too serious and always enjoy them. As it is an issue of personal taste,
there really isn’t much more that can be said other than if you are the only
person who appears to find the topic too serious, exclude yourself from the
conversation rather than demand others stop for your sake alone. The same is
true for the opposite, of course; if you are the only one who wants to talk
about these issues, don’t force others to.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
</div>
<ul>
<li>These topics are unimportant to the individual
who does not wish to discuss them</li>
</ul>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
Like the previous
objection, this one comes down to a simple taste preference. However, often
people underestimate how these topics could affect them. To be fair, there are
probably some circumstances where the issue is entirely unimportant to a
person; for example, someone who is not homosexual and knows no one who is
homosexual would be understandably uninteresting in the topic of gay marriage.
However, I think situations like this are particularly rare; in that, most
beliefs have an effect on the majority of society. And even if they aren’t,
they still require the discussion to determine that they are unimportant;
effectively, a meta-discussion about whether the discussion is worth having. If
they aren’t even willing to engage in the meta-discussion because they think it
could never possibly affect them, it becomes the same as the ‘never change
opinions’ objection.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
I think after reading
this, most people should understand where I am coming from. If, however, you
feel I have missed an important reason why discussions of this nature should
not occur, please feel free to let me know (if you can; I'm unaware if a meta-discussion about a topic you find taboo would be breaking the taboo).</div>
Lord Victor 'Bones' Bishingtonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04632294345137914846noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3167765906408471551.post-43665059472112417862011-07-10T16:39:00.000-07:002011-07-10T16:39:40.241-07:00Short and Sharp - Limitiation of Liberty<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">I know I’ve been on a kind of ‘ethical bender’ of late, so I promise this will be my last post on ethics for a while (isn’t that what all addicts say?). However, I wish to have a final quick exploration of the topic of limiting the liberty of individuals in a society. I think that by being a member of society, we agree (explicitly in some cases, implicitly in most) to give up certain rights, such as the right to murder each other, for the safety and benefits that living in a society offers (yes, I am a fan Hobbes, if you can’t tell; at least in regard to social contract theory). The point of this post is to explore what constitutes the line between what can and cannot be limited by society.</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">While this is related to my last post on bone marrow donation, I’m going to use the example of vaccination to draw out the potential points of disagreement. We all (well, the significant majority) accept the limit that we cannot kill (either intentionally or through recklessness on our part). The same is true for causing harm to others that falls short of killing them (again, both intentionally and through recklessness). So, given these two fair uncontroversial points, why do we allow people, be they adults or children by the choice of their parents, to opt out of vaccination?</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">For those of you not familiar with herd immunity, this is the phenomenon where when a certain portion of the population is immune to a certain disease, their immunity acts to protect those who are not immune. The percentage of immunity required to reach this threshold varies for every contagion and is based on factors like the route of infection (airborne, food etc.) and the virulence of the pathogen. Within any given population, there are a certain proportion of individuals that, for medical reasons, cannot be given vaccinations (effectively, anyone with impaired immune functions, often due to age, genetic conditions or other factors). So, with an already reduced population to work with, allowing others to opt out of vaccinations further reduces the amount that are immunised, putting everyone at an increased risk of infection.</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">My point is not that vaccination should be mandatory (I do think that, but that is not the case I am making here), but what reasons are there that we don’t make them mandatory? I’ve heard people suggest that it is to do with liberty, but as I’ve already said, we given up liberties all the time to benefit from living in a society. Does doing something to people rather than asking them not to do something change the issue (positive vs. negative liberty)? Does removing the option to opt out change anything for people who would have chosen to be vaccinated regardless? What is the threshold for what constitutes a significant harm of an action to the public as to reduce the liberty of individuals to undertake said action?</div>Lord Victor 'Bones' Bishingtonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04632294345137914846noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3167765906408471551.post-80629314479168951832011-07-07T17:18:00.000-07:002011-07-07T19:02:54.515-07:00Is Donating Bone Marrow A Charitable Act?<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">A few weeks ago, the Australian Bone Marrow Donor Registry contacted and informed me that I have matched with a person who may require a bone marrow transplantation. I told them that I was interested and went in last week for some confirmatory testing. An interesting thing that I have noticed is that a significant number of people who I have told about this have responded with “that is so generous; I could never do that”. This is the idea that I wish to explore. I’d like to begin with an apparently unrelated hypothetical:</div><blockquote><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">A man is out for a late night walk down a country road and he notices a car stopped on the side of the road with its hazard lights on. Upon investigation, he finds a woman breathing heavily and clutching her chest. She tells him she believes she is having a heart attack. Unfortunately, neither of them have a mobile phone on them. She asks him to use her car to drive her to the hospital, as she is in too much pain to do so. The man does have a license. After a few seconds, the man says that he rather not, as the potential risk of crashing the car is too high.</div></blockquote><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">While I cannot say for certain, I think most people would find the justification for not offering help to be quite weak; no one sees driving a car as being too risky as to not offer help to someone who may die without it. To get an idea of the risk associated with driving a car, the world death rate for motor vehicle accidents is 20.8 per 100,000 people (from the Wikipedia page, which quotes WHO statistics).</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">The point of this hypothetical is to highlight a contradiction in with the way that the people who I spoke of at the beginning think about bone marrow donation. Statistically speaking, donating bone marrow is safer than driving a car. For clarification, there are two procedures used to harvest bone marrow. The first and most common is a peripheral bone marrow harvest’; this is where the donor is given a drug to stimulate their blood marrow to grow and then they give blood and the bone marrow cells are harvested (in the same way as white blood cells are harvested for donation). As such, the risk associated with donating bone marrow by this method has the similar risk to donating blood; that is, a negligible risk. When most people think of a bone marrow donation, they think of extraction from the hip bone. This requires a general anaesthetic in most cases and it is this that presents the only risk of death (in that, no deaths have ever been recorded due to the actual extraction process). However, using even the most conservative figures (i.e. the ones that show the highest mortality rate), the death rate for general anaesthesia is around 14 per 100,000 people (from <a href="http://journals.lww.com/anesthesiology/fulltext/2002/12000/anesthesia_safety__model_or_myth___a_review_of_the.38.aspx%20">this study</a>).</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">So, statistically speaking, it would be safer to give bone marrow to someone that to drive them to the hospital. However, I do not think that the people that I spoke of would change their view of not wanting to donate bone marrow because of this (I specifically did express this point to one of them and they did indeed not change their view). I am not entirely sure why. I see only minor differences in the scenarios and nothing to make them categorically different (well, as far as I can tell). So I throw it open to my highly intelligent audience; is there anything that would make not donating bone marrow more justifiable than not driving someone to a hospital?</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">[One potential criticism I could see is that I have used the world data motor vehicle accident death rates and, as such, will be much higher than any given country (for example, the death rate in Australia is around 5 per 100,000; much lower than the world figure). However, the same is true of general anaesthesia figure; the study used data from any published study (excluding only those that were not in English). As such, it would probably be much lower in any given first world country (as is the case with the death rate from motor vehicle accidents).]</div>Lord Victor 'Bones' Bishingtonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04632294345137914846noreply@blogger.com8tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3167765906408471551.post-4180196535751603442011-06-25T21:34:00.000-07:002011-06-25T22:03:13.966-07:00Short and Sharp: What if you're wrong?<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">If you are familiar with the evangelical style of Ray Comfort and Kurt Cameron, then you will be familiar with the question “what if you’re wrong?”. For those of you who are not, it is a tactic that attempts to highlight in the minds of atheists the repercussions if they are wrong about the existence of the god that Comfort and Cameron believe in (i.e. that the atheist will go to Hell). I have seen many refutations of this argument (which is essentially Pascal’s Wager), however, I am going to actually do the opposite; I think it is a valid question in certain contexts and should be answerable by any person about any belief that they hold.</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">To demonstrate why I think this is the case, I would like to modify a scenario used by Richard Carrier in his book, Sense and Goodness Without God; </div><blockquote><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">Suppose a friend told you they had purchased a new car, would you believe them? As this is a fairly unremarkable claim (many people own cars), it would require very little evidence for you to believe them, perhaps even just their word alone. However, suppose now that you were relying on this friend to drive you to a very important meeting. Would you be willing to rely on just their word or would you require more evidence now that the claim has the potential to impact upon your life? If you believe them, and they are wrong (either by lying or just being misinformed; say they thought the car would be ready for their use on that day, but it was delayed), you are now stuck without a way to get your meeting.</div></blockquote><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">The point that I am trying to drive at is that the amount of evidence needed to support a claim is not simply just how ordinary or extraordinary the claim is, but also how much of an impact the claim’s truth or falseness will have. Claims that will have very little effects require less evidence than claims that will have profound effect, all other things being equal. The way in which Comfort and Cameron use this question is still wrong; in that, they are essentially throwing in a possibility, Hell, which has such a low probability of actually existing that it isn’t worth considering. As such, the question is only valid when used in the context of known negative outcomes. However, when used in this way, it is very useful at highlighting how effects can impact upon our evidential standards.</div>Lord Victor 'Bones' Bishingtonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04632294345137914846noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3167765906408471551.post-37965075456939896052011-06-22T03:55:00.000-07:002011-06-22T04:13:16.991-07:00'Ethical' Egoists<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">While watching the season finale of Grey’s Anatomy recently, I was reminded of my general distain for ‘ethical’ egoists. These are people who believe it is okay to do what is in the best interests for themselves and their in-group (family, friends, lovers etc.), even if it leads to the otherwise preventable harm of others. As such, it is kind of a very shallow version of ethical egoism; the branch of moral philosophy that says that moral agents should act in their own self-interest. While the actual theory is a lot more detailed than my one sentence summary indicates, I still believe it has problems.</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">To demonstrate my problem with ‘ethical’ egoists, I’ll explain the scenario that occurred in the episode. Earlier in the season, Meredith had switched a placebo for an active drug in an Alzheimer’s clinical trial she was a part of. This was due to the fact that the patient who was to get the placebo was close to her. In the finale, her deception is revealed and the shit hits the fan. This is because it is a randomised clinical trial; the doctors do not get to assign who gets the active therapy and who gets the placebo. This prevents them from, either intentionally or unintentionally, giving the active treatment to patients they believe are more likely to recover anyway and skewing the results (i.e. making the treatment look better than it really is). So Meredith tampering with who gets the treatment invalidates the whole trial. Now, even after she is informed of this and how now no one will get access to the new drug (due to the trial not being able to go ahead, so it can’t be demonstrated to be effective) she still says she would do it again because it was a person who meant so much to her.</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">This sort of attitude (which is not at all uncommon) really drives me up the wall; effectively Meredith, and others in similar situations, are giving a big middle finger to everyone else just to help someone they care about. It really shows how self-centred someone is that they can’t step back and realise that while they are trying to help someone they love, so is everyone else. In the case of Meredith, she wanted to help someone she loved, but at the same time prevented hundreds of others from helping their loved ones.</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">I also ran into a similar phenomenon during an ethics class in my undergrad course; we were given the following scenario and asked whether we thought the decision in it was moral (paraphrased from memory);</div><blockquote><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">An earthquake occurs in China and buries a man’s family in rumble. In the process of digging them out, he discovers that across the road an important official and his family are buried. The man decides to stop trying to rescue his family and rescue the official and his family instead. He successfully rescues them, but his own family die in the process. When asked why he made the choice that he did, he said that by rescuing the official, he could go on to coordinate the rescue effort (by virtue of having extensive knowledge of the local area) and end up saving more people.</div></blockquote><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">Now, as a utilitarian, I said that the action was moral because it could effectively save more lives (increasing the overall well-being). Now while the majority did say they while they would have saved their family had they been in the situation but respected the man for thinking of others (a position I don’t find unacceptable), a small minority believed that he had acted immorally and should have saved his family (invoking duty to family primarily). After some discussion back and forth, I presented them with a new hypothetical to try to demonstrate the point I was trying to make;</div><blockquote><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">A serial killer has you locked in a chair. In front of you is your family in a cage, ten families you do not know in another. You are given the choice of who dies; either your family or the ten families. Which would you choose?</div></blockquote><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">I thought that this scenario was entirely black and white; that only a monster would say that it was moral to choose their family. However, I was wrong. Not only did these individuals say they would choose their families, they were defending it as the moral choice. I mean, I could understand someone saying that they aren’t strong enough to do the right thing, but to actually believe that ten other families dying so yours can survive is moral is downright insane. Could these people not understand that each of those families had people who loved them just as much as they loved their families? What makes them think that their love for their family trumps everyone else’s?</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">A bit more of a rant than usual, but there it is.</div>Lord Victor 'Bones' Bishingtonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04632294345137914846noreply@blogger.com6tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3167765906408471551.post-38225869061331796092011-06-15T18:04:00.000-07:002011-06-15T18:04:28.685-07:00Short and Sharp - Reformation of Child Molesters<!--[if gte mso 9]><xml> <o:OfficeDocumentSettings> <o:AllowPNG/> </o:OfficeDocumentSettings> </xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml> <w:WordDocument> <w:View>Normal</w:View> <w:Zoom>0</w:Zoom> <w:TrackMoves/> <w:TrackFormatting/> <w:PunctuationKerning/> <w:ValidateAgainstSchemas/> <w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>false</w:SaveIfXMLInvalid> <w:IgnoreMixedContent>false</w:IgnoreMixedContent> <w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>false</w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText> <w:DoNotPromoteQF/> <w:LidThemeOther>EN-AU</w:LidThemeOther> <w:LidThemeAsian>X-NONE</w:LidThemeAsian> <w:LidThemeComplexScript>X-NONE</w:LidThemeComplexScript> <w:Compatibility> <w:BreakWrappedTables/> <w:SnapToGridInCell/> <w:WrapTextWithPunct/> <w:UseAsianBreakRules/> <w:DontGrowAutofit/> <w:SplitPgBreakAndParaMark/> <w:EnableOpenTypeKerning/> <w:DontFlipMirrorIndents/> <w:OverrideTableStyleHps/> </w:Compatibility> <m:mathPr> <m:mathFont m:val="Cambria Math"/> <m:brkBin m:val="before"/> <m:brkBinSub m:val="--"/> <m:smallFrac m:val="off"/> <m:dispDef/> <m:lMargin m:val="0"/> <m:rMargin m:val="0"/> <m:defJc m:val="centerGroup"/> <m:wrapIndent m:val="1440"/> <m:intLim m:val="subSup"/> <m:naryLim m:val="undOvr"/> </m:mathPr></w:WordDocument> </xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml> <w:LatentStyles DefLockedState="false" DefUnhideWhenUsed="true"
DefSemiHidden="true" DefQFormat="false" DefPriority="99"
LatentStyleCount="267"> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="0" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Normal"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="heading 1"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 2"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 3"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 4"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 5"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 6"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 7"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 8"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 9"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 1"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 2"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 3"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 4"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 5"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 6"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 7"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 8"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 9"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="35" QFormat="true" Name="caption"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="10" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Title"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="1" Name="Default Paragraph Font"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="11" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Subtitle"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="22" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Strong"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="20" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Emphasis"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="59" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Table Grid"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Placeholder Text"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="1" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="No Spacing"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading Accent 1"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List Accent 1"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid Accent 1"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 1"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 1"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 1"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Revision"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="34" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="List Paragraph"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="29" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Quote"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="30" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Intense Quote"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 1"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 1"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 1"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 1"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List Accent 1"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 1"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List Accent 1"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 1"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading Accent 2"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List Accent 2"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid Accent 2"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 2"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 2"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 2"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 2"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 2"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 2"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 2"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List Accent 2"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 2"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List Accent 2"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 2"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading Accent 3"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List Accent 3"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid Accent 3"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 3"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 3"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 3"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 3"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 3"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 3"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 3"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List Accent 3"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 3"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List Accent 3"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 3"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading Accent 4"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List Accent 4"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid Accent 4"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 4"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 4"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 4"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 4"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 4"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 4"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 4"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List Accent 4"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 4"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List Accent 4"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 4"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading Accent 5"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List Accent 5"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid Accent 5"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 5"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 5"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 5"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 5"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 5"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 5"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 5"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List Accent 5"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 5"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List Accent 5"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 5"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading Accent 6"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List Accent 6"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid Accent 6"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 6"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 6"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 6"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 6"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 6"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 6"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 6"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List Accent 6"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 6"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List Accent 6"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 6"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="19" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Subtle Emphasis"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="21" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Intense Emphasis"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="31" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Subtle Reference"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="32" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Intense Reference"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="33" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Book Title"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="37" Name="Bibliography"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" QFormat="true" Name="TOC Heading"/> </w:LatentStyles> </xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 10]> <style>
/* Style Definitions */
table.MsoNormalTable
{mso-style-name:"Table Normal";
mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0;
mso-tstyle-colband-size:0;
mso-style-noshow:yes;
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-parent:"";
mso-padding-alt:0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt;
mso-para-margin-top:0cm;
mso-para-margin-right:0cm;
mso-para-margin-bottom:10.0pt;
mso-para-margin-left:0cm;
line-height:115%;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
mso-ascii-font-family:Calibri;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-hansi-font-family:Calibri;
mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-bidi-theme-font:minor-bidi;
mso-fareast-language:EN-US;}
</style> <![endif]--> <br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">This post is prompted by <a href="http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/molester-wins-right-to-work-with-kids/story-e6frf7jo-1226075932257">this story</a> (and the comment section found within). For those of you who are too lazy to click on the link, the article basically tells of a man who was convicted of indecently assaulting a 16 year old boy in 2005, and now has won through VCAT a working with children certificate because VCAT believe he no longer poses a danger to children.</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">The thing that most interests me is the response to this situation; at the time of writing this, not a single one of the 32 comments on the article was even willing to accept the possibility that this man has rehabilitated and is not a threat; every comment either explicitly or implicitly says that a person who molests a child is incapable of rehabilitating.</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">Whether or not this case is an example of reformation of a child molester (I personally think it is off the limited information available), it seems clear that the majority of individuals believe that it is impossible for a person who has sexually assaulted a child to be rehabilitated. I’m not quite sure whether it is that they think rehabilitation is actually impossible or that the cost of wrongly assessing a person as rehabilitated is too high to ever bother attempting it (a kind of ‘think of the children’ argument).</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">What do my intelligent audience think? Is it possible for a child molester to ever be rehabilitated? If so, why? If not, why not?</div>Lord Victor 'Bones' Bishingtonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04632294345137914846noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3167765906408471551.post-41877532310749334582011-05-07T18:27:00.000-07:002011-05-18T15:13:28.994-07:00Common Questions to Atheists<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">I found this list of questions on <a href="http://ladyatheist.blogspot.com/2011/05/atheist-catechism-part-one-questions.html">Lady Atheist's blog</a> that atheists are often asked. While I don’t particularly have anything original to add, I think that it is worth answering as it will demonstrate my views on a wide variety of issues.<i> </i></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><i>Q: Where do you go when you die? </i></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">A: While I wouldn’t claim to know with certainty, my view is that, upon death, we will cease to exist. From the evidence I have come across, it appears the mind is a function of the brain; so without a working brain, you will have no mind and therefore cease to exist.<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"> </i></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><i>Q: Aren't you worried that you might be wrong and you might go to hell?</i></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">A: Not at all. Hell was never something I believed in (even when I was a half-assed Christian). Do I think it is possible that I am wrong? Of course. I just don’t think the probability of me being wrong about the existence hell is high enough to worry about. Take for example the chance that I will be hit by a car tomorrow; this is a scenario which I view as quite likely to happen in comparison with Hell being real, yet I’m not worried about being hit by a car.<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"> </i></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><i>Q: How can you be moral without God?</i></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">A: How can you be moral with God? That isn’t a snide reply, but a serious question. Are you moral with God because God has defined what is good or because God is intelligent and powerful enough to determine what is good? If it is the first one, I would argue that you aren’t moral in any meaningful sense of the word. If it is the second, then you have just answered the question yourself; we can also determine what is good. We may not be able to do it as well as God could (assuming he exists), but being he isn’t putting his two-cents in on relevant issues, we are left to do it ourselves.<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"> </i></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><i>Q: You're really just angry with God.</i></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">A: Sometimes, but this is irrelevant to why I am an atheist. To be clear, it is possible to be angry at a being regardless of whether it exists or not. For example, I am often infuriated by the character of Nikki on Big Love, yet that doesn’t mean I think she really exists. I am angry at the portrayed actions of her character. This is similar to when I find aspect of God’s personality (as depicted by the Bible) to be immoral/anger-inducing. Again, this doesn’t mean I think God exists; just that I find the actions that are portrayed by his character to be immoral<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">.</i></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><i>Q: You're really just angry at the abuses of the Church.</i></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">A: Again, while I may sometimes be angry at the actions of Christians, this is irrelevant to my atheism. It may inform the actions I choose to take (e.g. opposing the homophobia of Christians directly), but it isn’t why I don’t believe in god.<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"> </i></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><i>Q: The church has been responsible for great works of art.</i></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">A: So? There is much art in other religions, so either their gods also exist or inspiration can come from any source, real or imaginary.<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"> </i></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><i>Q: How do you know the Bible isn't true?</i></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">A: In the same way you know that the Koran, the Tao Te Ching or any other religious text isn’t true; lack of supporting evidence and logical inconsistencies.<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"> </i></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><i>Q: Isn't it arrogant to presume you're right and all those Christians are wrong?</i></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">A: Why is it arrogant for me to presume I am right, yet it isn’t arrogant for Christians to presume they are right? But I fully admit I may be wrong, but I will only change my position when given a good argument and evidence that my position is wrong.<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"> </i></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><i>Q: You think you know everything, don't you? (Also: You think you have all the answers!)</i></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">A: No. Just no.<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"> </i></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><i>Q: Science can't answer everything. What about love?</i></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">A: I’m not advocating that it can. Though I do think science can explain love; interactions between memories, emotions and social situations that are governed by neurons and chemicals in our brains.<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"> </i></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><i>Q: How do you explain the human need to believe in God? God made humans different from the animals.</i></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">A: I think the ‘need’ (I use quotation marks because I don't think it is really a need) can be explained by a number of facts known about human psychology. Firstly, humans are pattern and agent seeking creatures; our minds are built for detecting patterns and, often, attributing those patterns to an animate agent. An example of this is the thought some people get that their computer intentionally crashes when they haven’t saved; they are detecting a pattern (computer crashing when they haven’t saved) and blaming their computer for it. Now, most of us would agree that this is both not a meaningful pattern (i.e. there isn’t actually a causative effect between the chance of your computer crashing and whether you have saved your work or not) or an intentional act on behalf of the computer. I think this is a similar phenomenon to how humans came to believe in god (mistakenly identifying patterns in nature and attributing them to an agent).</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">The second point I would bring up would be that this pattern seeking behaviour increases when we find ourselves in situations that are out of our control. There is a good, evolutionary reason for this; our ancestors found themselves frequently in situations that were out of their control such as attacks from predators. Now, increased pattern detection in such situations would aid in survival as these individuals could determine any activity they are engaged in that is affecting the attack rates of predators. For example, it could be noticed that if meat is left uncovered for too long, predators are more likely to attack. Thusly, this would lead to the covering of meat and decreased predator attacks as a consequence. This fact could also be used to explain another fact about our current world; the countries with the highest societal health (which is a good proxy for control over our situation) have the lowest levels of religious belief and vice versa.<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"> </i></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><i>Q: What about the miracles of the Bible?</i></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">A: What about the miracles of the Koran? The Baghavada Gita?<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"> </i></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><i>Q: [insert seemingly miraculous prayer story here]. How do you explain that?</i></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">A: I normal take a two pronged approach to such questions; firstly, unless it is an event that personally happened to individual telling me this story, the question of authenticity is one that is hard to answer. Secondly, I ask why there is the need to explain some fortunate event with references to the supernatural. An example I have had presented to me is one of a family had their unborn child diagnosed with a serious condition (unspecified as to which), the prayed and when the child was born, they had no problems whatsoever. The issue here is when you realise that most, if not all, medical tests have an error rate; that is, a percentage of test results are either false positives or false negatives. This is often quite small, but when applied to a large population size, is not an insignificant number. To demonstrate this, let’s say that the test in question had a .1% false positive rate; .1% of the time, the result indicated they had the condition tested for when they really didn’t. If this test is administered to all pregnant mothers (roughly 300,000 in 2010), then we can expect 300 false positives for 2010 alone. That is, 300 mothers will be told that their child has that condition, only to find at birth that they don’t. Not really miraculous at all.<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"> </i></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><i>Q: Christianity has been around for 2,000 years. How could it survive if it were false?</i></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">A: How has Hinduism survived for 4,000 years if it was false?<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"> </i></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><i>Q: There are millions of Christians. They can't all be wrong.</i></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">A: Yes, they can, just as the billions of Muslims and Hindus can be wrong.</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><i>Q: Nothing can exist without a creator, so the fact that things exist proves there's a God.</i></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">A: If nothing can exist without a creator, then neither can God. If things can exist without a creator, who is to say that the cosmos isn’t one of those things?<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"> </i></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><i>Q: You can't prove that God doesn't exist.</i></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">A: And you can’t prove Santa Claus doesn’t exist too. I am not an atheist because I think God has been proven not to exist, but because there is no evidence to prove that he does.<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"> </i></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><i>Q: If you're an atheist doesn't that mean that you don't believe in anything?</i></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">A: I believe in things that have evidence that prove that they exist.<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"> </i></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><i> Q: If you don't believe in God, that means you want to be God.</i></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">A: Depends what you mean by that statement; if you mean I want humans to fulfil all the functions that have normally been attributed to God (morality, purpose etc.), then yes. If you mean I want to be a dictator in the sky, then no.<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"> </i></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><i>Q: You just left the Church because you want to sin.</i></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">A: I was never really in any church.<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"> </i></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><i>Q: So then your life has no meaning?</i></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">A: Yes and no. I do not believe life has any inherit meaning. But that is different from saying it has no meaning. Life has the meaning that I (and all of us) choose to give it.</div>Lord Victor 'Bones' Bishingtonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04632294345137914846noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3167765906408471551.post-74201961645671245272011-04-03T04:33:00.000-07:002011-04-03T04:34:17.956-07:00Short and Sharp - Conformity<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">A thing that really bugs me is when people get all snooty when it comes to conformity; that if anyone does what the mainstream does, they are just a mindless sheep. Now, I won’t dispute that there are people who legitimately participate in activities they hate just because the majority it. But I believe these individuals to be a minority; most people who make are the mainstream are simply prioritizing their desires.</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">Let me explain further; in life, we have to prioritize our desires because it is impossible for us to undertake them all concurrent. Desires can mutually exclusive (i.e. wanting the security of a stable partner and wanting to experience the thrill of getting to know someone new) where as others are just temporally exclusive (i.e. they can’t be undertaken at the concurrently because they take up too much time and resources). We have to order our desires and select which are most likely to make us happy and which are most practical.</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">Conformity comes into this when you realise it too is a desire; the desire to be a part of the group. Take the following example:</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"></div><blockquote><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">Person A’s desires (ranked by preference):</div><ol><li>Person A wants to be a porn-star.</li>
<li>Person A wants to be a nurse.</li>
<li>Person A wants to conform to a group. </li>
</ol></blockquote><blockquote><blockquote><blockquote><div></div></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">Now a lot of people would say that they should just go with their most powerful desire to become a porn-star and, if they chose nursing instead, would criticize them for conforming to what society wants. But what they fail to realise is that, by becoming a nurse, they are fulfilling two lesser desires, which may be greater than their first one.</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">My point is simply this; don’t criticize the choice a person makes just because it happens to align with what mainstream society does. The desire to conform is no more rational than any other emotional desire (to be loved, to feel happy etc.).</div>Lord Victor 'Bones' Bishingtonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04632294345137914846noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3167765906408471551.post-12482148984735388482011-03-26T16:55:00.000-07:002011-12-14T18:22:02.656-08:00Short and Sharp - Basic Beliefs<div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
In the essay ‘Is Belief in God Properly Basic?’ Alvin Plantinga argues that belief in God does not require evidential proof, as it is a properly basic belief (1). By this, he means it is a belief that cannot be based on any other belief. Another example of a basic belief is our memory; the belief that I have a memory cannot be based on any other belief; it is properly basic. Plantinga contends that belief in God is the same.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
It should be noted that I agree with Plantinga’s foundationalism approach to epistemology; in that, I think that every belief we have can be boiled down to basic beliefs, which are self-evident and therefore do not require proof. For me, these basic beliefs are our senses, emotions, thoughts and memory (henceforth referred to as experiences). This is different from saying that our beliefs about our experience are properly basic; just that the experiences themselves are properly basic. This is known as basic empiricism and is discussed by Richard Carrier in his book ‘Sense and Goodness Without God: A Defence of Metaphysical Naturalism’ (2) or in this web article (3).</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
This is an important distinction to make as I believe this is primarily where Plantinga’s argument for God as a properly basic belief fails. There is a difference between experience and our interpretation of experience. Think acknowledging that you are having an experience compared to what that experience actually means. The first is undisputable; the second is quite easily disputable. To show the difference further, here are the examples that Plantinga uses to demonstrate basic beliefs:</div>
<ol>
<li><span style="font: 7pt "Times New Roman";"></span>I see a tree.</li>
<li>I had breakfast this morning.</li>
<li>That person is angry. </li>
</ol>
<div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpLast" style="text-align: justify; text-indent: -18pt;">
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
The problem is that none of these are basic beliefs; they are interpretations of experiences and, therefore, can be wrong. The tree could be a realistic fake; you could have dreamed you had breakfast this morning and mistaken it for reality; you could not understand how that person displays anger. If you construct a foundationalist epistemology that is based off incorrect basic beliefs, you’re going to be wrong a lot of the time (even by the standards of your own epistemology). </div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<b><u>References</u></b><br />
<b><u><br />
</u></b></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;">
1. Cottingham J. Western Philosophy: An Anthology. 2nd ed. Malden, Mass.: Blackwell Pub.; 2008. (Blackwell Philosophy Anthologies).</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; text-align: justify;">
2. Carrier R. Sense & Goodness Without God: A Defence of Metaphysical Naturalism. Bloomington, Indiana: AuthorHouse; 2005.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; text-align: justify;">
3. Carrier R. Defending Naturalism as a Worldview: A Rebuttal to Michael Rea's World Without Design; 2003 [27/03/2011]; Available from: <u><a href="http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/rea.html">http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/rea.html</a>.</u></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; text-align: justify;">
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>Lord Victor 'Bones' Bishingtonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04632294345137914846noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3167765906408471551.post-41689666135279497052011-02-05T17:58:00.000-08:002011-02-05T17:58:54.217-08:00Biological Immortality<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span lang="EN-US">In the February 2<sup>nd</sup>, 2010 Deakin Philosophical Society meeting, we discussed the idea that humans may one day no longer age (after watching a TED lecture on the subject by Aubrey de Grey, which can be found <a href="http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/eng/aubrey_de_grey_says_we_can_avoid_aging.html">here</a>). In the discussion the followed, there seemed to be a disagreement which, in my opinion, hinged on a fundamental misunderstanding on how each party in the discussion was defining the term ‘immortal’; one side (my side, for those of you playing at home) was using a more biological definition of immortality, the other was using what might be the more colloquial sense of the word (namely, never having to die).</span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span lang="EN-US">My take on the word immortal (at least, my usage of in during this debate) was more in line with <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biological_immortality">biological immortality</a>. The basic, one sentence summary of this concept would be where the death rate of an organism is not affected by the age of the organism. With humans (and animals in general), once adulthood is reached, the probability of an individual dying in the following year increases (that is, the older you are, the more likely you are to die). This graph from the <a href="http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/Products/E9797C4611DDD04ACA2577D600109F0E?opendocument">Australian Bureau of Statistics</a> illustrates the idea nicely:</span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;"></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span lang="EN-US"></span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEipflXCHsXYriSYYeq_JcENZCJ2fZ1m-r2MJxzvuuOOBBFEkOQbJJSAPD3KhAaFZxwNwzFWIPolj0zwqXydgj5IIZuyCap6bn01MuelJ0JwQDG2aBtXxRFQ_xMWaLlL0FMpjcdlu9ZTHb7G/s1600/Death+Rate.gif" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="226" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEipflXCHsXYriSYYeq_JcENZCJ2fZ1m-r2MJxzvuuOOBBFEkOQbJJSAPD3KhAaFZxwNwzFWIPolj0zwqXydgj5IIZuyCap6bn01MuelJ0JwQDG2aBtXxRFQ_xMWaLlL0FMpjcdlu9ZTHb7G/s320/Death+Rate.gif" width="320" /></a></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><a href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_x8pHfSkNZPg/TU3_RxL1v6I/AAAAAAAAABk/s1600/Death+Rate.gif" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"></a></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span lang="EN-US"></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span lang="EN-US"></span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span lang="EN-US">Biological immortality would be represented in a graph like this:</span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi3q6uxRQAlG78E09P7hMKeUgFRFhL9QqFR9KL6AylbSRhasaQgJC4JYj5dl2RwOpvSHSnibX8nC6DTmQS83H_qOCBmtsbSECYMG9kZueNROXqyMQJ_6rzHVll-iPJOxH2PkgMZ2vPVurDU/s1600/Death+Rate+%2528Biological+Immorality%2529.gif" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="226" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi3q6uxRQAlG78E09P7hMKeUgFRFhL9QqFR9KL6AylbSRhasaQgJC4JYj5dl2RwOpvSHSnibX8nC6DTmQS83H_qOCBmtsbSECYMG9kZueNROXqyMQJ_6rzHVll-iPJOxH2PkgMZ2vPVurDU/s320/Death+Rate+%2528Biological+Immorality%2529.gif" width="320" /></a></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span lang="EN-US"></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span lang="EN-US"></span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span lang="EN-US">That is, once adulthood was reached, the death rate would remain static (more or less). This is not to say people would not die, just that there would be no correlation between age and death rate. There would still be a correlation between life style choices and death rate (i.e. if you drink and drive, you’d have a higher probability of dying than someone who didn’t drink drive).</span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;"></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span lang="EN-US">In using ‘immortal’ in this sense, I believe it is perfectly acceptable to say that humans will one day become immortal.</span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;"></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span lang="EN-US">It should be noted that there may still be an indirect correlation between age and death rate in a biologically immortal race; it is possible that life would become mind-numbingly boring after many hundreds or thousands of years. Thus, the older people get in a biologically immortal society, the more likely they are to choose death.</span></div>Lord Victor 'Bones' Bishingtonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04632294345137914846noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3167765906408471551.post-63756233789942371782011-01-21T22:46:00.000-08:002011-01-22T03:55:41.412-08:00Being wrong for the right reasons<div align="justify">In a discussion recently with a fellow atheist, I was asked which of the two following options I would prefer; a world full of rational Christians/Muslims/Jews etc. or a world full of irrational atheists. After a brief moment of thought, I responded that I would prefer the rational religious to the irrational atheists. This perplexed my friend, who said that they would prefer the opposite. They couldn't seem to understand why, given that we are both atheists, would I choose a world where everyone is wrong (from our point of view). My response is the topic of this post.<br />
<br />
I place a higher value on the method upon which people reach their conclusion (i.e. reason, logic, evidence etc.) rather than whether the conclusions they reach are correct (or whether they match my own conclusions). This is because, if someone is at least willing to base their views off the same method as mine (or society in general), we can actually have a valid discussion of the issue. A person who rejects reasoned argument and evidence as a source of truth can’t be reasoned with.<br />
<br />
This brings us back to the original hypothetical; while the irrational atheists agree with a single conclusion I have drawn, the fact that they use an alternative method for deducing it (say blind faith; accepting a claim as true regardless of the evidence for or against it) means they are more likely to have false views in other areas (politics, science etc.). And being that the theists in this hypothetical are using reason and logic to come to their opinions, they are more likely to have better opinions in these areas. So I would much rather a world where people came to the wrong conclusion on the topic of whether a god exists or not, but were still using the preferable method of coming to other conclusions.<br />
<br />
An analogy of what I mean can be found in mathematics classes; from my experience, teachers would give marks on tests if you used the right formulas, but made an error in calculation (and therefore had the wrong answer). Some teachers would even go so far as to not give full marks for a question if working was not shown, even with the right answer. This is pretty much exactly what I mean; it is better to use the right formula, make a mistake in calculation and come to the wrong answer than to use no formula at all and get the answer right by chance. </div>Lord Victor 'Bones' Bishingtonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04632294345137914846noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3167765906408471551.post-58069785339524028612011-01-09T16:24:00.000-08:002011-01-13T03:32:05.994-08:00Intentional Utilitarianism - A New Approach?<div align="justify">For those of you who are unfamiliar with utilitarianism, it is a view of morality that holds that an action is right if it leads to an increase in wellbeing or, conversely, a decrease in suffering (Thiroux and Krasemann, 2009). Therefore, actions that are immoral are those that lead to a decrease in wellbeing or an increase in suffering. It is part of a much broader category of moral theories described as teleological or consequentialist; moral actions should be judged on their consequences (the other category being the deontological theories; moral actions should be judged by their adherence to rules i.e. the Ten Commandments). </div><p align="justify"></p><div align="justify"></div><div align="justify">One of the problems I have with utilitarianism (even though I describe myself as such) is that it seems to discount motivations that lead one to their actions. I’ll give an example of a scenario where this becomes an issue; </div><blockquote><p align="justify"><b>Scenario 1:</b> </p><p align="justify">Adam is a 22 year old who, in a fit of rage, intentionally runs over his girlfriend Eve with his car and kills her.<br /><br />Adam* is a 22 year old who, through a small mistake on his part, runs over his girlfriend Eve* with his car and kills her. </p></blockquote><div align="justify">Under utilartarianism, both of these actions are equally immoral; they both lead to the same consequence of Eve being dead. Yet, most of us would agree that there is a difference between the two (that Adam* is not as immoral as Adam). While it might be possible that our moral intuition about this is wrong (and they really are equally immoral), I think this is an case where utilitarianism fails to accurately describe what is moral.<br /></div><p align="justify">However, I believe there is a simple addendum that can be added to utiltarianism that rectifies this (and many other similar) problems; taking intentions into account. The way to do this, in my opinion, is to have a second set of consequences; the intended consequences. The intended consequences can be compared to the actual consequences to determine the morality of an action. For example, let us assign some values upon which to evaluate this previous scenario;</p><blockquote><p align="justify">Eve/Eve*’s death = -1,000</p><p align="justify">Therefore; </p><p align="justify">Adam’s actual consequences = -1,000 (he caused Eve’s death)<br />Adam’s intended consequences = -1,000 (he intended to cause Eve’s death)<br />Adam’s average consequences = (-1,000 + -1000)/2 = -1,000 </p><p align="justify">Adam*’s actual consequences = -1,000 (he caused Eve*’s death)<br />Adam*’s intended consequences = 0 (he intended no harm)<br />Adam*’s average consequences = (-1,000 + 0)/2 = -500 </p></blockquote><div align="justify">Therefore, we can say that Adam’s actions are more immoral than Adam*’s actions. It should be noted that while the numbers are just arbitarily assigned, the underlying principle still holds; if the intended consequences are moral or neutral, it lessens the immorality of the actual consequence. I’ll also now provide a example in the positive to show that it works both ways;</div><blockquote><p align="justify"><b>Scenario 2:</b> </p><p align="justify">Gill Bates gives a billion dollars to charity to help those in need and gets a tax break unintentionally.<br /><br />Gill Bates* gives a billion dollars to charity to for the expressed purpose of getting a tax break.</p></blockquote><p align="justify">Again, conventional utiliartarianism would say both Gill Bates and Gill Bates* are equally moral; in both cases the charity gets a billion dollars and they both get a tax break. Yet, most of us would say that Gill Bates is more moral. The solution, again, is to take their intentions into consideration;</p><blockquote><p align="justify">Giving a billion dollars tocharity = +500<br />A billionaire getting a tax break = -50 (that extra money he saved could have been better spent by the government/it is unlikely to increase his own well being).<br /><br />Therefore;<br /><br />Gill Bates’s actual consequences = +500 (he gave a billion dollars to charity) and -50 (he got a tax break) = +450<br />Gill Bates’s intended consequences = +500 (he intended to help those in need)<br />Gill Bates’s average consequences = (+450 + +500)/2 = +475 </p><p align="justify">Gill Bates*’s actual consequences = +500 (he gave a billion dollars to charity) and -50 (he got a tax break) = +450<br />Gill Bates*’s intended consequences = -50 (he only intended to get the tax break)<br />Gill Bates*’s average consequences = (+450 + -50)/2 = +200</p></blockquote><p align="justify">Again, it is not so much that the numbers I have used accurately reflect the proportional differences in the consequences, just that the underlying principle holds; intended consequences have some bearing on the morality of an action.<br /><br />It should be noted that this is just a rough outline of my idea. I can see many potential problems that need to be sorted out. An example being is that, in my scenarios, I assumed that actual and intended consequences are equally important (i.e. 50:50). In my opinion, it would be closer to 75:25 (in that, actual consequences are more relevent in determining morality than intended consequences). Another example is that intentions have to be conveyed by the person and, therefore, a person could lie about their intentions to seem more moral than they are (i.e. Gill Bates* could lie and say that he was really doing it for charity, when his true intentions are simply for the tax break).<br /><br />So that is my idea; feel free to rip it to shreds if you see any problems or offer any advice on improving it.<br /><br /><strong><u>UPDATED (10/01/2010)</u></strong></p><p align="justify">A fellow medical student (thanks Ben) has suggested to me a possible addition to this take on utilitarianism; taking potential consequences into account. This is most applicible to actions that do not always have consequences, such as driving while under the influence. I will again go through a scenario to demonstrate the two competing ideas (utilitarianism vs. Intentional utilitarianism);</p><blockquote><p align="justify"><b>Scenario 3:</b></p><p align="justify">Clyde drives his car sober, not causing any accidents. </p><p align="justify">Clyde* drives his car intoxicated, not causing any accidents.</p></blockquote><p align="justify">Once more, utilitarianism would have us believe that these two actions are morally equivilant; they both do not cause any suffering. Yet, we would all recognise that driving while intoxicated is clearly immoral. This can be rectified by taking potential consequences into account;</p><blockquote><p align="justify">Potential consequences of driving while intoxicated = -500<br />Potential consequences while driving sober = -10</p><p align="justify">Therefore; </p><p align="justify">Clyde’s actual consequences = 0 (he didn’t cause any suffering)<br />Clyde’s potential consequences = -10 (he drove while sober)<br />Clyde’s average consequences = (0 + -10)/2 = -5</p><p align="justify">Clyde*’s actual consequences = 0 (he didn’t cause any suffering)<br />Clyde*’s potential consequences = -1000 (he drove while intoxicated)<br />Clyde*’s average consequences = (0 + -500)/2 = -250</p></blockquote><p align="justify">One might ask why I am giving a negative value to driving while sober; the reason is that even a perfectly lucid individual who follows the road rules to the letter could still be involved in an accident (i.e. a child running out in front of their car with little warning). Therefore, one accepts a certain level of potential consequences when one gets behind the wheel of a vehicle.</p><p align="justify">It should also be noted that the relationship between the potential consequences of driving sober and intoxicated is proportional; I am assuming that driving intoxicated increases one’s potential of causing suffering by a factor of a fifty. If, in reality, it only increases it by a factor of twenty, then the average would change accordingly.</p><p align="justify">A further point to take in is how I am defining the terms; </p><p align="justify"><b>Potential consequences</b> – The predicted consequences before an action is taken. For example, Russian Roulette with a six shooter, with death being a value of -1000, would have a potential consequences value of -166.66 (-1000/6).</p><p align="justify"><b>Intended consequences</b> – The hypothetical consequences if an action goes exactly as one intends (i.e. a perfect execution of the action). </p><p align="justify">It is possible to combine all three sets of consequences; actual, intended and potential. Also, to give a more accurate representation of the completed theory (which is long way off, assuming no one can point out any critical issues as it builds), I will proportion the consequences in a 3:2:1 ratio (i.e. actual consequences are 3, potential consequences are 2, and intended consequences are 1) To demonstrate an example of this, I will revise the intitial scenario;</p><blockquote><p align="justify"></p><p align="justify"><b>Scenario 1 (revised):</b> </p><p align="justify">Adam is a 22 year old who, in a fit of rage, intentionally runs over his girlfriend Eve with his car and kills her.<br /><br />Adam* is a 22 year old who, through a small mistake on his part, runs over his girlfriend Eve* with his car and kills her.</p><p align="justify">Eve/Eve*’s death = -1,000<br />Potential consequences of intending to cause Eve/Eve*’s death = -950<br />Potential consequences of driving with no impairments = -10</p><p align="justify">Therefore;</p><p align="justify">Adam’s actual consequences = -1,000 (he caused Eve’s death)<br />Adam’s potential consequences = -950 (he intended to cause Eve’s death)<br />Adam’s intended consequences = -1,000 (he intended to cause Eve’s death)<br />Adam’s average consequences = ((-1,000 * 3) + (-950 * 2) + (-1000 * 1))/6 = -983.33 </p><p align="justify">Adam*’s actual consequences = -1,000 (he caused Eve*’s death)<br />Adam*’s potential consequences = -10 (he was driving with no impairments)<br />Adam*’s intended consequences = 0 (he intended no harm)<br />Adam*’s average consequences = ((-1,000 * 3) + (-10 *2) + (0 * 1))/2 = -503.33</p></blockquote><p align="justify">The reason I do not have the potential consequences of intending to cause Eve/Eve*’s death as the same as actually causing her death is that it is possible to fail; one could attempt to kill someone but not, therefore, due to that possibility, it is valued slightly less negatively. </p><p align="justify">Again, any criticism will be greatly appreciated. </p><p align="justify"><b><u>UPDATED (13/01/2010)</u></b></p><p align="justify">It has been pointed out by <a href="http://thelydianmode.com/">Dylan</a> that what I really mean by potential consequences is better described as a ‘recklessness index’; a measure of the risk assoicated with a particlar action leading to a particular outcome. I am choosing, however, to call it a ‘Risk Index’, as I believe this can be equally applied to both positive actions (like donating to charity) and negative actions (such as drink driving).</p><p align="justify">The Risk Index (RI) is based on another suggestion made by Dylan; Best Available Evidence (BAE). The BAE is the information an actor has available to them on how likely different outcomes are based on their actions prior to performing them (i.e. foresight). In my new equation (see below), I will express it as a percentage. So, to summarize; </p><blockquote><p align="justify">The Risk Index (RI) is the percentage chance that an action will lead to an outcome based upon the actor’s Best Available Evidence (BAE). RI is not exactly the same as BAE; RI is what a normal, rational individual would judge to be the probability based on the BAE. This seperates the possibility of a person who has the available evidence to accurately determine the RI, yet does not due to a fault on their part that a normal, rational individual would not make (i.e. not understanding the evidence well enough). </p><p align="justify">Example: a person is aware that drink driving increases the risk of crashing by twenty times, yet believes the risk of them crashing is lower because they think they are a better than average driver. The RI this person would calculate for themselves drink driving is therefore wrong as the twenty times increase figure is based upon all other things being equal (i.e. any driver that is drunk is 20 times as likely to crash than if he was sober).</p></blockquote><p align="justify">Also, upon review of the values I calculated in Scenario 1 and Scenario 1 (revised), I feel that the average consequences between the two individuals (Adam and Adam*) is too close, given their vast differences in moral responsiblity (intending to kill versus a simple mistake). As such, I am altering my equation to be as follows;</p><blockquote><p align="justify">Consequences attributable to actor = ((2 * AC) + (1 * IC))/3 * RI</p><p align="justify">Where; </p><p align="justify">AC = Actual consequences<br />IC = Intended consequences<br />RI = Risk Index</p></blockquote><p align="justify">Rather than revise the previous scenario, I will begin with two new examples, one negative and one positive;</p><blockquote><p align="justify"><strong>Scenario 4: </strong></p><p align="justify">John intentionally punches Jim in the face.<br />John*, due to waving his arms about, unintentionally punches Jim* in the face. </p><p align="justify">Where; </p><p align="justify">Jim/Jim* being punched in the face = -50<br />RI of attempting to punch someone = 95% (in this case, I am assuming that John has attempted his punch while Jim was not looking; therefore, if the scenario was different and John was aware that Jim were expecting the punch, the RI would be lower)<br />RI of waving arms about = 6% </p><p align="justify">Therefore; </p><p align="justify">John’s AC = -50 (he punched Jim in the face)<br />John’s IC = -50 (he intended to punch Jim in the face)<br />John’s RI = 95% (he attempted to punch Jim in the face)<br />Consequences attributable to John = ((2 * -50) + (1* -50))/3 * 95% = -47.5</p><p align="justify">John*’s AC = -50 (he punched Jim in the face)<br />John*’s IC = 0 (he didn’t intend to punch Jim in the face)<br />John*s RI = 6% (he was waving his arms)<br />Consequences attributable to John* = ((2 * -50) + (1 * 0))/3 * 6% = -2</p></blockquote><p align="justify">And now for the positive example (negatives are so much simpler);</p><blockquote><p align="justify"><strong>Scenario 5:</strong></p><p align="justify">Jane gives $1000 to a well-established charity organisation, and the money is put to good use.<br />Jane* gives $1000 to a newly created charity organisation, and the money is put to good use.</p><p align="justify"><strong>NOTE:</strong> the two charity organisations share the exact same goal; therefore the only variable between them is the experience that each one of them has.</p><p align="justify">Where; </p><p align="justify">The charity effectively using the $1000 = +100<br />RI of giving to a reputable charity = 98% (in that, there is a small possibility that the money will be wasted)<br />RI of giving to a newly founded charity = 75% (there is a greater chance that this charity may be ineffective, as it has yet to demonstrate it is reliable)</p><p align="justify">Therefore; </p><p align="justify">Jane’s AC = +100 (her money was effectively used by the charity)<br />Jane’s IC = +100 (she intended her money to be used effectively)<br />RI = 98% (it is a reputable charity)<br />Consquences attributable to Jane = ((2 * +100) + (1* +100))/3 * 98% = 98</p><p align="justify">Jane*’s AC = +100 (her money was effectively used by the charity)<br />Jane*’s IC = +100 (she intended her money to be used effectively)<br />RI = 75% (it is new charity)<br />Consquences attributable to Jane* = ((2 * +100) + (1* +100))/3 * 75% = 75</p></blockquote><p align="justify">The reasoning behind this is that, even though the money was effectively used by both charities, there was a greater risk in wasted money by donating to the new charity. This does not imply that donating to new charities is in any way immoral (it still has a positive figure), just that, given the potential risk associated with giving money to the new charity, it is slightly more moral to give it to the well established charity. This of course becomes null and void when the choice is between a new charity (75) and no charity at all (0).</p><p align="justify">I know I should like a broken record now but comment, criticise and otherwise make me your bitch (intellectually speaking, of course).</p><p align="justify"><u><strong>References:</strong><br /></u><br />THIROUX, J. & KRASEMANN, K. 2009. Ethics: Theory and Practise, Pearson International Education. </p>Lord Victor 'Bones' Bishingtonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04632294345137914846noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3167765906408471551.post-6395980292795275982010-12-04T15:53:00.000-08:002010-12-14T00:56:48.422-08:00An Apology and an Update<div align="justify">It appears that I have fallen behind when it comes to maintaining this blog. This is not for lack of interest, mind you; I don’t like writing unless I am sure that what I am writing is worth reading (to someone at least) and have not been feeling that spark that I usually do. Fortunately, it appears to have returned, so I figured the first place to start is to review all the books I have read since my last review (which is a lot, so they will be short and to the point).<br /><br />I have also created a ‘Top Ten Book' list and will update it when need be. This will save me from having to rank each new book I review in the review itself, thus allowing me to talk more about the book itself.<br /><br />Also added is my 'Websites Worth Visiting' list; this is most comprised of blogs that I often read and find the topics discussed to be of a high intellectual standard. I shall add to it as I come across more sites worth visiting.<br /><br />You may also notice that I have changed the format/design of my blog. Hope you don't mind the change.</div>Lord Victor 'Bones' Bishingtonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04632294345137914846noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3167765906408471551.post-22492931769150508952010-12-02T19:40:00.000-08:002010-12-14T00:57:04.830-08:00Book Review - ‘You Can Lead an Atheist to Evidence, But You Can’t Make Him Think’ by Ray Comfort<div align="justify">This book stands out from others that I have read in that it is one that I purchased expressly knowing it had a premise that I disagreed with. If anyone is familiar with Comfort, they might accuse me of intentionally picking someone who has a weak counter-position to my own. This may be true, but I first wish to acclimate myself with the ‘every man’s’ argument for Christianity. To me, this should be the one worth listening to, especially if Christianity is meant to be a belief system for everyone, not just high-end theologians with weird esoteric views of what God is and wants.<br /><br />Unfortunately, Comfort is more ‘preaching to the converted’. Many of his arguments require that you accept certain premises which he fails to prove or give valid reasons of why we might consider them. Another important point is that many of his analogies are painfully flawed. Not in the sense that the analogy doesn’t hold true when viewed in high detail (as all analogies break down when viewed under a microscope), but they often don’t even hold true on the most basic level. One of his favourite is the ‘creation is proof a creator’ argument, in which he uses the example of a painting; if you see a painting, you know there must be a painter because paintings don’t just create themselves. He then attempts to link this up to humans/the Earth/the universe; because these things exist, they must have a creator i.e. God. The problem is two-fold; firstly, we have no evidence of a natural process that can create a painting, but we have some evidence of natural processes that can create humans (evolution) and planets (stellar formation). The second problem is that he is jumping to his preconceived conclusion. The best we could say is that the universe had a cause, not that it had a creator. Using the term cause doesn’t rule out creator; it is just more inclusive of natural possibilities which we have yet to discover. Comfort instantly jumps from ‘cause’ to ‘Christian God’ (arguably because he was already at that point).<br /><br />So, would I recommend this book to others? In a roundabout way, yes I would. Not because it contains any points of intellectual value (though it is a good mental exercise to see if you can see how he is wrong), but simply because it is an insight into how fundamentalists view the world.<br /><br />1.5/10</div>Lord Victor 'Bones' Bishingtonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04632294345137914846noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3167765906408471551.post-25778719339536484582010-12-02T18:57:00.000-08:002010-12-14T01:01:28.715-08:00Another Your Say Letter... This time about gay marriage!<div align="justify">If anyone can grab a hold of the 3rd of December, 2010 copy of the Geelong Advertiser, they can read the letter to which mine is responding to (entitled 'Same-sex marriage against beliefs'). For those of you that can't, the general tone of the letter is a 'the Bible says homosexuality is wrong, I believe the Bible, therefore I win' type argument. This I couldn't let slide. Here is my response:<br /><blockquote><p>"In responding to Dennis Irvine’s letter regarding gay marriage (3/12), it is hard to believe that a person could be so disconnected from the facts.<br /><br />Firstly, a literal reading of the Biblical account of creation (i.e. Adam and Eve) has been disproven by science. The evidence shows that humans evolved from, and still are, animals.<br /><br />This does not disprove God, of course. It merely disproves that the Bible has an accurate portrayal of the origins of humanity.<br /><br />The second point worth mentioning would be that it appears that Mr. Irvine is being selective in what he takes from the Bible.<br /><br />In the same book that prohibits homosexual interactions, it also prohibits trimming the sides of one’s beard.<br /><br />I doubt Mr. Irvine would write such an impassioned objection to the ‘immorality of beard trimming’.<br /><br />The more relevant correction would be that there is no evidence that raising children in a same-sex environment is detrimental to their development.<br /><br />It appears that the more important factor is whether children are raised in a loving environment, regardless of the gender of the parents.<br /><br />Finally, it should be noted also that our society is a secular one. As such, our laws must have a reason that is not specific to religion. The justification must be relevant to all individuals, be they religious or non-religious.<br /><br />Secularity is the only way in which a society that is comprised of religious and non-religious individuals can interact without the oppression of one group or the other.<br /><br />Therefore, if you wish to argue that the law should not recognize gay marriage, a secular justification needs to be provided, not one based on personal religious beliefs."</p></blockquote><p>As always, if I get a response, I will post more details.</p></div>Lord Victor 'Bones' Bishingtonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04632294345137914846noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3167765906408471551.post-53088111874475549722010-09-23T17:42:00.000-07:002010-12-14T00:56:26.185-08:00Movie Review - Deliver Us From Evil<div align="justify"><a href="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/7/7d/Deliver_us_from_evil.jpg"><img style="MARGIN: 0px 0px 10px 10px; WIDTH: 147px; FLOAT: right; HEIGHT: 216px; CURSOR: hand" border="0" alt="" src="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/7/7d/Deliver_us_from_evil.jpg" /></a><br /></div><div align="justify">I recently watched the documentary 'Deliver Us From Evil'. Information about the movie can be found <a href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0814075/">here</a> and <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deliver_Us_from_Evil_(2006_film)">here</a>, but it tells the story of both <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oliver_O%27Grady">Oliver O'Grady</a>, a Catholic priest convicted for molesting children, and several of his victims. What first drew my attention to this movie was the fact that O'Grady is actually featured in the movie, giving his own memories, thoughts and feelings on his crimes. To sum up my overall thoughts, I consider this to be one of the most powerful documentary I have seen. Others seem to agree, as it has won several awards, though it narrowly missed out on the Oscar for Best Documentary, losing to An Inconvenient Truth. While I did enjoy Gore's movie, I don't think it is anywhere near as good as Deliver Us From Evil. But I digress; on with the review.<br /><br /><strong>NOTE: If you have not seen the film, I would recommend you stop reading now and go watch it. My review will spoil some of the aspects that, in my opinion, make it so hard-hitting.</strong></div><p align="justify"><div align="justify"></div><div align="justify"><strong></strong></div><div align="justify"></div><div align="justify">Rather than detail the content of the film (as you should all have gone and seen it before reading this section), I want to touch on what I thought was the aspect that gave it that extra something. </div><div align="justify"></div><p align="justify"><div align="justify">For me, it was the editing that made it magnificent. Throughout the first half of the movie, while not ever denying that he committed the crimes that he did, the movie does take a 'soft' approach to it; the words used to describe his actions are along the lines of 'touch', 'rub' and 'play with'. Not only that, O'Grady often expresses how shameful he felt after each act and how he swore to himself he would never do it again. These two aspects combine to make you a feel almost sympathetic towards him; rather than portraying him as a predatory monster, he is at first painted as a flawed, sick human being. </div><p align="justify"></p><div align="justify"></div><div align="justify"></div><div align="justify"></div><div align="justify">This portrait is shattered midway through the movie however. The language used in describing his acts dramatically changes, detailing how brutal they actually were. O'Grady even seems to become less ashamed of what he has done. And that is what I thought made it so powerful; the movie tricks you into feeling sympathy for him, then WHAM!, he is revealed for the monster he is really is. This made me feel terribly bad. How could I have ever been sympathetic to such a horrible human? It made me feel bad enough that I was crying significantly when Bob Jyono broke down. Then it dawned on me; that must be similar to what his victim's families felt. They let what they thought was a nice priest into their lives, only to have him molest and rape their children. </div><p align="justify"></p><div align="justify"></div><div align="justify"></div><div align="justify"></div><div align="justify">So that is my take of the movie. If you agree or disagree with my interpretation, let me know.</div><div align="justify"> </div><div align="justify">UPDATE: It seems O'Grady is in trouble <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/12/13/AR2010121302945.html">again</a>.</div>Lord Victor 'Bones' Bishingtonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04632294345137914846noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3167765906408471551.post-78421076197078853962010-05-10T03:53:00.000-07:002010-12-14T00:58:02.364-08:00My Moral Framework<div align="justify">I recently completed an assignment on my values and moral framework. As I scored fairly well (23 out of 25) and that ethics and morals are a subject that interest me, I decided to share my essay with you. Would enjoy any feedback, positive or negative.<br /><br />"1. Introduction<br /><br />An ethics and moral framework is an important component of any worldview. It enables us to make choices on how we should act and how we should interact with others (Thiroux and Krasemann, 2009). As there are many frameworks in the world, choosing one requires exploration of what each individual values and then a comparison to find a framework that incorporates those values.<br /><br />2. Personal Values<br /><br />The following are the values that I have identified as being of importance to myself. I hold each of them in the same regard.<br /><br />2.1 Truth<br /><br />Truth is a fairly expansive value. I am applying ‘truth’ to cover all types of truth; be they personal, historical, scientific or any other kind. The main reason for valuing this is that I believe that to determine the best course of action in a specific situation or the best way to live in general, an individual needs as much true information and as little false information as possible. This is demonstrated in Appendix 1; if you have incorrect information, you are more likely to draw incorrect conclusions. I have discussed this issue in regards to creationism (Appendix 2). As stated, I believe that denying evolution and promoting creationism in its place is spreading misinformation, thus promoting people to draw conclusions on other issues that could possibly be incorrect.<br /><br />2.2 Equality<br /><br />The equality I speak of is slightly different from the normal concept of equality; that all men (or people) are created equal. I do hold that everyone should be treated equally. However, there are differences, often subtle, between men and women, between people of different ethnicities and between people of different cultures and countries. The equality that I value is that an individual is judged as an individual, not by the various groupings they belong to. For example, women on average have lower physical strength than men (Martini, 2006). If a woman is applying for a job that requires physical strength, she should not be judged by her gender’s average physical strength, but by her own personal strength.<br /><br />2.3 Liberty<br /><br />Liberty is defined as the ability of an individual to act occurring to their own will (Carrier, 2005). Before including it as a value of my own, I would add a qualifier; provided their actions do not infringe on the liberty of others. Preventing an individual from infringing on the liberty of another (i.e. stopping a person from killing another) is an action I would say is permissible, as the killer is violating the liberty of the victim in the first place. An example of my value is my position on drug legalisation and use (Appendix 3). My opinion on this issue is that anyone should be allowed to consume any substance, provided they do not interfere with others while under the influence. For example, a person who drinks alcohol yet does not harm anyone while intoxicated should be allowed to continue drinking. The simple potential of alcohol contributing to violence in some individuals is not sufficient to disallow others from using it.<br /><br />2.4 Altruism<br /><br />Defined in the ethical sense, altruism is the idea that individuals should take actions that help, benefit or otherwise improve the lives of others, possibly even with detriment to one’s own life (Carrier, 2005). Altruism can be derived into two categories; reciprocal altruism and true altruism (Appendix 4). The reason I put forward that altruism is a value worth having is that the significant majority of humans want to both live and to avoid suffering (Appendix 5). Following from these observations, it could be concluded that if everyone wants to avoid suffering, it should be in our best interest to work together and consider the suffering of others as equally as our own. Example being that if you are in a well-off position in life, considering others who are not as well off and trying to help them is something you should strive to do.<br /><br />3. Framework<br /><br />The following is the framework that I found to fit best with my values. It should be noted that, as the framework was not constructed by me, it is not a perfect fit.<br /><br />3.1 Secular Humanism<br /><br />Defined simply, is a worldview that places value on the progress and betterment of human life, without having to lean on supernatural ideas (Carrier, 2005). While having specific tenets (Appendix 6), these are not rigid rules that cannot be changed but more a guide on how to live. As to what Secular Humanism is in terms of morality, I personally see it as a combinational approach between utilitarianism and virtue ethics. Why I considered Secular Humanism to be the best fit with my values is as follows.<br /><br />Truth is perhaps the most obviously compatible with Secular Humanism. Points one, two and four of Appendix 6 all demonstrate a commitment to search for truth and to always demand factual support for claims. Equality seems to conform with points five and seven; treating people equally and by their individual abilities would help to reduce inequality and the suffering caused by it. Point six seems to espouse liberty; that individuals have autonomy over their actions by making them responsible for them. Finally, altruism is demonstrated in points two, three, five and seven as they ask us to take into account the well-being of the entire human race, rather than just ourselves.<br /><br />The final critical point of why secular humanism is my framework rather than simply humanism is that secularism is what works best for everyone (Appendix 7). As stated, secularism prevents a religious majority from imposing their will, good or bad, on a minority who do not share their religious convictions. It does not suggest that people should not have religious beliefs, just that their beliefs are personal in nature and do not apply to everyone.<br /><br />4. Conclusion<br /><br />While more being a guide than a perfectly constructed moral and ethic system, secular humanism still has a lot to offer humanity. It should be noted, however, that secular humanism does not require everyone to follow its rules; just to respect the opinions of others.<br /> <br />6. Appendix<br /><br />Appendix 1<br /><br />Taken from HBS300: Ethics – Frameworks and Decisions Discussion Board: 4.1 Earthquake in China.<br /><br />“We make the best decisions we can with the limited amount of information and brain power we have at our disposal. Sometimes it turns out good (as it did in this scenario), sometimes it turns out bad.<br /><br />The only way we can make sure that our decisions go in our favour is by making sure we have as much good information and as little bad information as possible.”<br /><br />Appendix 2<br /><br />Taken from ‘Creationism and the spreading of misinformation’ (Bishop, 2010a).<br /><br />“So on one side of the coin, we have experts saying that evolution is correct. On the other side, we have ‘experts’ saying that evolution is incorrect. How is your average individual, with very little understand of how science actually works, going to be able to tell the difference between the two? From the laymen perspective, it could seem like scientists are ‘divided’ on the issue of whether evolution is right or wrong (more accurately, indicated by the evidence or not). This is possible the main reason I choose to speak out against creationism/other pseudoscientific claims whenever I get the chance; it spreads misinformation among the general population. And being most people have very little time/interest in going to check if a claim is true (assuming they would even know where to start), a fair number of individuals will accept what these groups say as truth.<br /><br />Being ignorant of a subject is bad enough, but lying to disprove it is infinitely worse.”<br /><br />Appendix 3<br /><br />Taken from HBS300: Ethics – Frameworks and Decisions Discussion Board: Drug Legalisation in Australia<br /><br />“An individual is responsible for his or her own actions, even if their actions are being influenced by other factors, in or out of their control. (example being mentally ill; even though they may not be in direct control of their actions, we still lock them up if they harm others).<br />Following from this premise, one can draw the conclusion that ingesting any substance is permissible, so long as the individual accepts responsibility for the actions they take while under the influence.<br /><br />Example being the difference between happy and angry drunks; if you know you get angry when under the thrall of alcohol, you should not drink.”<br /> <br />Appendix 4<br /><br />Taken from HBS300: Ethics – Frameworks and Decisions Discussion Board: Virtue Ethics<br /><br />“Well, I would divide altruism into two types; reciprocal altruism and true altruism. Reciprocal altruism is helping others so that they may help you at some point. True altruism would be helping others at a detriment to yourself that may never be paid back (or with no intents for it to be paid back).”<br /><br />Appendix 5<br /><br />Taken from HBS300: Ethics – Frameworks and Decisions Discussion Board: Earthquake in China<br /><br />“1. Everyone wants to live.<br />2. Everyone wants to avoid suffering.<br /><br />I perfectly understand that neither of those are entirely universal (though near enough). Also, premise 1 overrides premise 2 (i.e. ending someone’s life to prevent their suffering is not okay, unless of course they want to have their life ended).<br /><br />Yes, those two premises are my opinion. But others opinions would overrule them if I had to deal with those people (i.e. if I was in a disaster situation like the one described and someone said 'I'm in too much pain. Just leave me to die', I would consider respecting their wishes). They are just general rules I go by until presented with exceptions.”<br /><br />Appendix 6<br /><br />Taken from ‘What is Secular Humanism?’ (Stevens et al., 2010)<br /><br />“Secular Humanism is a term which has come into use in the last thirty years to describe a world view with the following elements and principles:<br /><br />• A conviction that dogmas, ideologies and traditions, whether religious, political or social, must be weighed and tested by each individual and not simply accepted on faith.<br /><br />• Commitment to the use of critical reason, factual evidence, and scientific methods of inquiry, rather than faith and mysticism, in seeking solutions to human problems and answers to important human questions.<br /><br />• A primary concern with fulfillment, growth, and creativity for both the individual and humankind in general.<br /><br />• A constant search for objective truth, with the understanding that new knowledge and experience constantly alter our imperfect perception of it.<br /><br />• A concern for this life and a commitment to making it meaningful through better understanding of ourselves, our history, our intellectual and artistic achievements, and the outlooks of those who differ from us.<br /><br />• A search for viable individual, social and political principles of ethical conduct, judging them on their ability to enhance human well-being and individual responsibility.<br /><br />• A conviction that with reason, an open marketplace of ideas, good will, and tolerance, progress can be made in building a better world for ourselves and our children.”<br /><br />Appendix 7<br /><br />Taken from ‘A Response… But No Apology’ (Bishop, 2010b)<br /><br />“Our government is secular, as stated in Section 116 of the Constitution:<br /><br />“The Commonwealth shall not make any law for establishing any religion, or for imposing any religious observance, or for prohibiting the free exercise of any religion, and no religious test shall be required as a qualification for any office or public trust under the Commonwealth.”<br /><br />This part of the constitution is incredibly important; it is what keeps the religion that is held by the majority (Christianity in Australia) from imposing its will on the minority (Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus, atheists etc.). Statistically speaking, the amount of representatives in the government would more or less reflect the averages of the population; we have a majority of politicians being Christian. If it were not for this law, there would be nothing stopping them from passing laws that restrict other religions and promote Christianity. The same goes the other way of course. In Japan, where around 65% of the population is non-religious, they are prevented from passing laws that restrict those who are religions by Article 20 of their Constitution:<br /><br />“(1) Freedom of religion is guaranteed to all.<br />(2) No religious organization shall receive any privileges from the State, nor exercise any political authority.<br />(3) No person shall be compelled to take part in any religious act, celebration, rite or practice.<br />(4) The State and its organs shall refrain from religious education or any other religious activity.”<br />This is the fairest system one can have in place, as it prevents any majority, be it religious or atheist, from imposing their views on the minority. This a major problem with any dictatorship, be it an atheist or religious one.” <br /><br />7. Bibliography<br /><br />BISHOP, J. R. 2010a. Creationism and the spreading of misinformation. Lord Bishington's Thoughts [Online]. Available from: http://lordbishington.blogspot.com/2010/03/creationism-and-spreading-of.html [Accessed 21/04/2010].<br /><br />BISHOP, J. R. 2010b. A Response... But No Apology. Lord Bishington's Thoughts [Online]. Available from: http://lordbishington.blogspot.com/2010/04/response-but-no-apology.html [Accessed 21/04/2010].<br /><br />CARRIER, R. 2005. Sense & Goodness Without God: A Defence of Metaphysical Naturalism, Bloomington, Indiana, AuthorHouse.<br /><br />MARTINI, F. H. 2006. Fundamentals of Anatomy & Physiology, USA, Benjamin Cummings.<br /><br />STEVENS, F., TABASH, E., HILL, T., SIKES, M. E. & FLYNN, T. 2010. What Is Secular Humanism? [Online]. Council for Secular Humanism. Available: http://www.secularhumanism.org/index.php?section=main&page=what [Accessed 24/04/2010].<br /><br />THIROUX, J. & KRASEMANN, K. 2009. Ethics: Theory and Practise, Pearson International Education."</div>Lord Victor 'Bones' Bishingtonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04632294345137914846noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3167765906408471551.post-82094302663979338352010-04-12T21:53:00.000-07:002010-12-14T00:58:17.799-08:00Book Review - 'The Blank Slate: The Modern Denial of Human Nature' by Steven Pinker<div align="justify">I started reading ‘The Blank Slate’ back in late February and finished it just last week. You might be thinking that it wasn’t a good book, being it took me so long to read.<br /><br />You would be wrong. If I had the time, I would have not put it down.<br /><br />This book is perhaps the best book I have read so far in my life. That might not be saying much, being I haven’t read a lot (something I plan to rectify).<br /><br />The central theme of the book is human nature and what causes it. To me, I had always thought it to be quite obvious that both our genes and environment contribute to our behaviours. However, as noted by Pinker throughout the book, many individuals fall into the false dichotomy between nature and nurture; it is either one of the other in their minds. Rooting those who fall on the side nurture is the dogma of ‘the blank slate’; the idea that, at birth, our minds are blank slates, filled by what our parents and society teach us. Following from this premise, one can conclude that the problems of society are learnt, not inherited.<br /><br />Pinker spends the first part of the book explaining the official blank slate theory and the other ideas that seem to be connected to it (the Noble Savage and the Ghost in the Machine), why they are not supported by the evidence and the current ideas that are replacing them. In the next part, he goes through why the idea has taken so long to be proven ineffective (and, in a more general way, why science and politics shouldn’t mix). In the third section, he explains the reasons why people wished the blank slate idea to be true and how to overcome their fears of the alternative. In the final two parts, he goes on to show how the current ideas of human nature can be applied to many fields, from understanding language to childrearing.<br /><br />The book has its flaws, but they are few and far between. I would recommend it to anyone, from your average lay person to anyone studying psychology, and everyone in between.<br /><br />9.5/10</div>Lord Victor 'Bones' Bishingtonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04632294345137914846noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3167765906408471551.post-32471241639229085422010-04-01T00:03:00.000-07:002010-12-15T20:06:34.410-08:00A Response... But No Apology<div align="justify">For those who did not see the opinion piece published by Peter Kavanagh in response to my letter, you can find it <a href="http://www.geelongadvertiser.com.au/article/2010/04/01/160665_opinion.html">here</a>.<br /><br />Needless to say, I still was not impressed with his superficial analysis of the issue and that he had ignored my discussion on secularism. Rather than write into the Advertiser again (that word limit is a bitch), I decided to email him directly. If you feel like doing the same, his email address is: <a href="mailto:peter.kavanagh@parliament.vic.gov.au">peter.kavanagh@parliament.vic.gov.au</a> But please, keep it civil.<br /><br />Here is my own email response:<br /><br /><blockquote><p>"Greetings,<br /><br />My name is Jason Bishop and I was the one who responded to your letter regarding atheism’s connection to the governments of Hitler, Stalin, Mao and Pot. I read your response today and felt I had to reply once more. However, given the amount of time it takes for a reply and the word constrains on letters into the Advertiser, I thought email would be the best approach.<br /><br />Hitler’s religious beliefs may not be known entirely or accurately, but he was most definitely not an atheist. He may not have believed in the Christian God, but he most certainly believed in a Creator. Unless you define atheism as ‘not believing in Christianity’, which would be ridiculous, he was not an atheist.<br /><br />While I would definitely agree that Hitler expressed mixed messages regard the Catholic and Protestant churches, this does not mean he was an atheist. The reason why this is the case is that being critical of a religious organization does not mean you are critical of the religion; just the way they practice it. I have heard and read many complaints from Baptists about how the Catholic Church has it all wrong and visa versa, with every denomination.<br /><br />Communism may have a more superficially plausible connection to atheism, yet I hope to demonstrate why it wasn’t their motivation. Most Communist regimes were based the works of Karl Marx, who wrote that religion is a tool utilized by the ruling classes whereby the masses can briefly relieve their suffering via the act of experiencing religious emotions, thus preventing them from questioning the real source of their suffering (the upper class and the economic system according to Marx). He refers specifically to religion, not a belief in God. While you may see it as splitting hairs, I do not. I know many people who dislike religion, yet still believe in a God. They see religion as a institution.<br /><br />It is true, however, that the Communist regimes of did have state supported atheism. The link though between atheism and the genocides committed is still non-existent. The logic behind this is that atheism by itself wouldn’t have lead to these atrocities. It had to be coupled with another belief system (Marxism) to lead to those outcomes. Marxism can lead to genocide, if interpreted as that all the groups he mentioned (upper class, intellectuals, religions, ethnic groups etc.) stand in the way a society in which everyone is happy. The problem isn’t that Marxism was tied to atheism; the problem is that people mindlessly followed the dogma of Marx without thinking about it. Atheism has no dogma to follow. It is a position on one question; do you believe in a god?<br /><br />The more important part of my response was the part about secularism and why it is not the same as atheism. Our government is secular, as stated in Section 116 of the Constitution: </p><blockquote>“The Commonwealth shall not make any law for establishing any religion, or for imposing any religious observance, or for prohibiting the free exercise of any religion, and no religious test shall be required as a qualification for any office or public trust under the Commonwealth.”</blockquote><p> This part of the constitution is incredibly important; it is what keeps the religion that is held by the majority (Christianity in Australia) from imposing its will on the minority (Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus, atheists etc.). Statistically speaking, the amount of representatives in the government would more or less reflect the averages of the population; we have a majority of politicians being Christian. If it were not for this law, there would be nothing stopping them from passing laws that restrict other religions and promote Christianity.<br /><br />The same goes the other way of course. In Japan, where around 65% of the population is non-religious, they are prevented from passing laws that restrict those who are religions by Article 20 of their Constitution: </p><blockquote></blockquote><blockquote></blockquote><blockquote>“(1) Freedom of religion is guaranteed to all.<br />(2) No religious organization shall receive any privileges from the State, nor exercise any political authority.<br />(3) No person shall be compelled to take part in any religious act, celebration, rite or practice.<br />(4) The State and its organs shall refrain from religious education or any other religious activity.”</blockquote><p>This is the fairest system one can have in place, as it prevents any majority, be it religious or atheist, from imposing their views on the minority. This a major problem with any dictatorship, be it an atheist or religious one.<br /><br />Thank you for your time,<br />Jason Bishop."</p></blockquote>Let me know if you think I missed anything or have incorrect information.<br /><br />Lord Bishington.</div>Lord Victor 'Bones' Bishingtonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04632294345137914846noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3167765906408471551.post-81531845165144697802010-03-20T17:46:00.000-07:002010-12-15T20:10:05.631-08:00Peter Kavanagh: Immoral Man?<div align="justify">Last night, I returned from Melbourne after having just finish my GAMSAT (went well, if you were wondering). I decided to have a read of the paper, as I do almost every day. When I reached the ‘Your Say’ section, I came across the following monstrosity of a letter:<br /><br /></div><blockquote><p align="justify">“<strong>Anti-religious calls not new.</strong><br /><br />Contrary to common presumptions, demands for anti-religious governments by atheists are nothing new.<br /><br />Such movement resulted in places like Auschwitz, the gulags of the Soviet Union, famine and extermination campaigns in China and the killing fields of Cambodia.<br /><br />Among the ideological underpinnings for these massive atheistic slaughters was surely the belief that human beings are not creations of God.<br /><br />Assumptions of intellectual superiority by atheist are not restricted to Melbourne’s recent ‘Atheist Conference’.<br /><br />I have found few atheists have even considered why, if religious convictions of others must have no influence on government policy, their own political convictions (based on anti-religious beliefs) should not also be ‘separated from the state’.<br /><br />Peter Kavanagh<br />DLP, Western Victoria”</p></blockquote><div align="justify">Suffice to say, this motivated me to write my own response (and if you feel as outraged as I do, I suggest you do the same). Here it is:<br /><br /></div><blockquote><p align="justify">“I was shocked and disgusted by the blatant dishonesty displayed by Peter Kavanagh (GA 20/3) in suggesting that the atheist worldview is responsible for the worst genocides of the last century.<br /><br />Anyone who has even a basic understanding of these horrible events could see why Mr. Kavanagh’s view is flatly wrong. For those of you who do not, here is a quick overview.<br /><br />Hitler, the main individual responsible for the Holocaust, considered himself a Catholic. He also believed that his ‘final solution’ was ‘God’s will’. He was most definitely not an atheist.<br /><br />The slaughters committed under the rule of Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot were done in the name of Communism. Their suppression of religion was based purely on the fact that religious organisations posed a political threat to their regimes, not because they didn’t have a belief in God.<br /><br />Mr. Kavanagh goes on to confuse the distinction between secular and atheist. Secular, which is what our government is, means that you do not take a side on religion in official policy. It is a private matter for each individual to decide upon for themselves, not to have dictated to them by an oppressive government.<br /><br />The ‘intellectual atheists’ Mr. Kavanagh refers to support secularism. While they would rather each individual rationally looked at the evidence and came to the same conclusion they have, they are not trying to invoke policy to make religious belief illegal.<br /><br />I demand that Mr. Kavanagh make a public apology for his misrepresentation of history. Not to me, not to atheists, not to everyone who support secularism, but to the millions of individuals who died under the dictatorships of the previously mentioned individuals. He has disgraced their memory by distorting the motivations that lead to their deaths, all to bolster his own position.<br /><br />He should be do the right thing and apologise.” </p></blockquote><div align="justify">At the time of writing, it has yet to be published, so keep a look out for it. If I get a response from Mr. Kavanagh or anyone else, I will be reproducing it here.<br /><br />Lord Bishington.</div>Lord Victor 'Bones' Bishingtonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04632294345137914846noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3167765906408471551.post-35541311151994328592010-03-06T14:05:00.000-08:002010-12-15T20:26:11.914-08:00Creationism and the spreading of misinformation<div align="justify"><span style="font-family:arial;">A few weeks ago, I attended a screening of ‘<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expelled:_No_Intelligence_Allowed">Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed</a>’ at the local Baptist church. I knew what the premise of the movie was and had heard/read various criticisms of it, but I had held off viewing the movie/forming an opinion as I wished to take my own notes and come to my own conclusions. In hindsight, I think I wasted 97 minutes of my life. It was possibly the most horrid movie I have ever seen. And no, I don’t mean just the message itself; I have seen other intelligent design/creation/anti-evolution movies that were ‘worth’ watching (The Voyage That Shook The World was bearable). It was the tactics the movie employed in delivering the message. I found this to be quite amusingly contrasted with the statement the pastor made before the movie: “This is an academic topic and to ridicule Intelligent Design advocates is dishonest to academic truth” or something of that effect. For those of you who have seen the movie, you will know what I am talking about. For those of you that haven’t, many actual scientific ideas such as the ‘<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis#Clay_theory">Clay Theory of Abiogenesis</a>’ were mocked by Stein as being science fiction, when, in reality, many tests have been done that demonstrate that it is at least a possible avenue by which life could have arose. </span><br /><br /><span style="font-family:arial;">After the movie, leaflets and books were handed out with more information about the issue. One was just a summary of the points made in the movie (didn’t really need it, as I wrote around four pages of notes while watching it), the other was a book entitled ‘Answers to the 4 Big Questions’, made by <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Answers_in_Genesis">Answers in Genesis</a>. The four ‘big questions’ they ask, and supposedly answer, are ‘Does God exist?’, “What about Evolution?’, ‘Where did the ‘races’ come from?’ and ‘Who was Cain’s wife?’. While I happen to disagree that these are the most important questions we could have answers to, that is a topic for discussion at another time. I decided to put my complaints about the questions aside and see what they had to say. I made it through three lines before putting the book down, in fear I might have a stroke. I will replicate here those three lines: </span><br /></div><div align="justify"><br /><span style="font-family:arial;"><blockquote><span style="font-family:arial;">"Once great nations are in social decline. Family breakdown and crime are increasing. An epidemic of youth suicide afflicts nations where there would seem to be everything to live for. What accounts for this?"</span></blockquote></span><span style="font-family:arial;">Literally the first sentence of the whole thing made me cringe. I mean, people could and have written entire theses, taking them up to a year to write, on the topic, debating all the factors. And yet, Answers in Genesis feels they can make a single statement on the issue and that is that. Not to mention that a lot of people feel the exact opposite. After a few minutes of not reading the book, my blood pressure had returned to normal and I decided to continue reading. I wanted to know what they thought was responsible for this (I already had an idea of what they might say, but I wanted to confirm it). And low and behold, I was right: evolution is to blame. More accurately, that we are teaching evolution to our children; that they came from ‘monkeys’. As I read on, I began to notice a common trend: just as with the introduction, wide sweeping statements were made on complex issues/ideas, usually glaringly wrong to anyone with even a mild understand of the topic in discussion. A single sentence that they made could require reading an entire book to demonstrate why it is wrong. </span><br /><br /><span style="font-family:arial;">As I have a moderate level of knowledge of arguments and tactics used by both sides in the evolution/creation debate, I recognized this ploy immediately. It is colloquially known as the ‘Gish gallop’, made famous by the creationist <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duane_Gish">Duane Gish</a>. It is where, during a debate, you make so many simple statements that are wrong and require lengthy responses that your opponent is either unable to respond to most of them or gets bogged down trying to and doesn’t get to address your actual argument as they are too busy trying to show why your points are wrong. It is even more effective when the topics being discuss are issues your target audience is more than likely not familiar with (that way, they have no means of determining the validity of what you have said, it will more than likely accept it as truth, especially if it supports their currently held worldview). While this isn’t so much of a problem in book form, as you have all the time in the world to write a counter-argument, I do think it presents a problem. </span><br /><br /><span style="font-family:arial;">As humans, we tend to accept information given to us by authority figures; our parents, teachers, preachers, politicians. Sometimes it is good to accept what an authority has to say with minimal self-investigation (i.e. asking a lawyer for legal advice), other times it is a bit murky (i.e. listening to a politician say a certain policy is ‘for the best’). As the writers of this book have science degrees, they do give off an air of authority. But when they say things like ‘mutations only lead to lose of information, not increase’, a stark contrast to what most biologists say, it does becomes questionable. It is even worse when you realize that there are <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TU-7d06HJSs&feature=related">many examples </a>of mutations that have benefited the organism and increased the information in its genome, so it seems like they are outright lying. </span><br /><br /><span style="font-family:arial;">So on one side of the coin, we have experts saying that evolution is correct. On the other side, we have ‘experts’ saying that evolution is incorrect. How is your average individual, with very little understand of how science actually works, going to be able to tell the difference between the two? From the laymen perspective, it could seem like scientists are ‘divided’ on the issue of whether evolution is right or wrong (more accurately, indicated by the evidence or not). This is possible the main reason I choose to speak out against creationism/other pseudoscientific claims whenever I get the chance; it spreads misinformation among the general population. And being most people have very little time/interest in going to check if a claim is true (assuming they would even know where to start), a fair number of individuals will accept what these groups say as truth. </span><br /><br /><span style="font-family:arial;">Being ignorant of a subject is bad enough, but lying to disprove it is infinitely worse. </span></div>Lord Victor 'Bones' Bishingtonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04632294345137914846noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3167765906408471551.post-40302354754014524082010-01-15T01:15:00.001-08:002010-12-15T20:16:10.916-08:00A compilation of my 'Your Say' letters<div align="justify"><span style="font-family:arial;">Occasionally while reading the Your Say section of my local paper, I find a letter that just gets under my skin. Usually it is some gross misrepresentation of the facts or outright lies. I figured I would make a compilation of those letters for those who either missed them or never had the opportunity to read them at all. I must point out that there is a word limit, so my responses are not as extensive as I might have liked.<br /><br />06/02/09 – This letter was in responses to one that was complaining about ‘Satanism’ being part of a human rights declaration protecting religion.<br /><br /></div><blockquote><p align="justify">“RE: Freedom of Religion (GA, 6/2). I always find it amusing when I hear or read people like Mr. Clapinski’s misguided views on Satanism.<br /><br />Before I go on, I would like to point out that I am not a Satanist, or ever have been. If questioned, I identify myself as an ‘agnostic humanist’. I just like to know about viewpoints other than my own.<br /><br />A Satanist, as it was originally envisioned by Anton LaVey, is an individual who follows a belief system that in no way involves an attack on Christian beliefs. In fact, one of the main doctrines of Satanism is tolerance (Rules 1 and 11).<br /><br />Another common misinterpretation is that Satanists actually worship Satan. In actuality, most Satanists are atheists or agnostic. The ‘Satan’ of their religion is more a symbol of their beliefs (individuality, self indulgence etc.), rather than an actual being.<br /><br />I will concede that there are some followers of Satanism, albeit, misguided ones, who think that it is the goal of their religion to undermine and destroy Christianity. But these are extremists, in the same way that Islamic terrorists use their religion to justify their actions. You wouldn’t say that Islam should be excluded from the HREOC because of the actions of a minority?<br /><br />I understand that Christians may feel a certain level of fear from Satanists, being that many of their beliefs are in direct opposition. But trying to bad mouth and exclude them from things like the HREOC will only lead to more ‘extremists’.” </p></blockquote><div align="justify">NOTE: I have since changed my how I convey my position. I now identify as atheist, not an agnostic. My views have not changed, just my interpretation of those words (thanks Non-Prophets).<br /><br />14/03/09 – This letter was in response to an individual comparing Barrack Obama to Osama bin Laden. This was just after Obama announced he was lifting the regulations Bush had put in place regarding abortion. The comparison was that Obama would be killing more people than Osama, so he would be remembered as the worst of the two.<br /><br /><blockquote>“RE: Who will leave the worse record? (GA, 14/3). I found Mr. Westaway’s comparison of U.S. President Barrack Obama to terrorist Osama bin Laden to be quite crude, and frankly, downright inaccurate.<br /><br />The topic of abortion will always be controversial, but blaming it all on Obama is unfair. The global abortion rate has been estimated at forty six million a year. However, only twenty six million are performed legally. So it appears to be quite clear that abortion will happen, regardless of its legal status.<br /><br />Even if those twenty six million abortions could be stopped by Mr. Obama changing his position (which they couldn’t, because a lot of them are European countries that the US<br />has no control over), that still does not make him solely responsible for them. The choice to have an abortion still rests with the individual, as it rightly should.<br /><br />As to Obama ‘forcing’ medical workers to provide information on abortions, regardless of conflict with their own beliefs, this is already common practise. It would be entirely unethical for a medical worker to leave out information of any kind, based on their personal beliefs. They should, and as far as I know, are required by already existing law, present patients with all their options. This allows the patient to make an informed decision based on their own beliefs, not those of the medical worker.<br /><br />I personally think the world will be a better place when Barrack is done in the oval office, so I would say Osama will be the one who leaves the worse record.” </blockquote>NOTE: After this letter and another two expressing similar sentiments, the Your Say section was full of letters for the next few weeks in dealing with the whole abortion issue.<br /><br />19/04/09 – This letter was in response to a specific letter that attacked my position directly, imply ideas along the lines of ‘repent or burn’.<br /><br /><blockquote>“In Mr. Guinane’s letter to the Your Say section (GA, 9/4), he states that individuals who support abortions are forgetting the rights of the child. I think there are a few scientific facts that he, and the public in general, should be aware of.<br /><br />Before I do though, I would like to say that I personally do not support abortion (as in, I would never suggest to a partner that they should have one). I think that people should more take care to avoid unwanted pregnancies. I do, however, respect a woman’s right to choose.<br /><br />The first fact I would like to bring up is that up until a certain time, foetuses are incapable of survival outside the womb. So, if a woman doesn’t want to have a baby, she would be forced to carry the baby to term, causing unwanted emotional and psychical problems.<br /><br />The second fact I would like to illustrate is that the subject of fetal pain is, at best, debatable. Much scientific research has been done, with the general consensus being that fetus does not develop the ability to perceive pain until near full-term. The movements of a fetus during the early periods are no more than reflex actions (i.e. a movement that is not controlled directly by the brain). Being that pain is perceived in the brain and that the connections to brain are not developed until near birth, the fetus would not be capable of feeling pain.<br /><br />The final, and I believe most important fact, is that not everyone follows your religion (which I am guessing is Christianity). Yes, from your point of view, God is the creator of all laws. But not everyone shares your view.<br /><br />My point through all of this is simple: if you don’t support abortion, don’t get one.” </blockquote>19/04/09 – Every response to the letters I and others expressing a pro-choice viewpoint was along the lines of ‘God forbids abortion’. This is why I chose to respond in this way.<br /><br /><blockquote><p>“In the letters I have written into the Addy over the past few weeks, I have avoided comment directly on religions. This is because I respect that individuals are allowed to believe whatever they want to believe. However, every letter that has been in response to mine and others who have written that women have the right to choice in having an abortion has ignore the facts and arguments we have put forward and simply return to the argument that ‘God does not want it’.<br /><br />I have had many discussions with Christians about why they believe what they do. Some have actually thought about it and even agree with me that it is impossible to tell if what they believe is right. Others, however, maintain that they are 100% right. Even I don’t claim to know for certain that my belief is perfectly accurate (that there is no god). </p><p>When I ask these ‘devout’ Christians how they know that God is real, the most common response is ‘because the bible says so’. This no more proves that Christianity is true than it proves Islam, Judaism or any other religion with a sacred text is. And even if we could somehow eliminate all the other religions from being true, there is still the issue of authenticity.<br /><br />For example, in 200 years, someone could read the Harry Potter books and decide to believe that it is based on true events. When told it was written as a fictional story, they would counter with “no, JK Rowling was really a witch writing about her own world”. When asked to prove that this is true, they could respond with “If I gave you proof, the wizards could make us all forget because they can do magic”.<br /><br />The bible doesn’t prove anything, so if you are going to believe, at least think about it rationally.” </p></blockquote>01/05/09 – This letter was in response to a letter suggesting that I enjoy the idea of ‘innocent babies dying’. I’m not entirely sure if this was actually publish or not, but I will still include it.<br /><br /><blockquote>“In Mr. Guinane’s letter (GA 1/5), he suggested that I supported abortion by supporting a woman’s right to choose and that I should further investigate the subject of fetal pain.<br /><br />Firstly, my position of not personally supporting abortion, but still believing that woman have the right to choose is because I believe that, in any free nation, we should not be able to impose personal views on others who do not share them.<br /><br />The more important point is that neither Mr Guinane nor I are female. How can we, as men, tell a woman what she can and cannot do with her own body?<br /><br />The reason I don’t support abortion personally is that, if I was in the situation of an unwanted pregnancy, I know that, given my situation in life (financial, family support etc.), I would be able to give the child a decent life.<br /><br />Secondly, my source of information regarding fetal pain is a meta-study (i.e. a review of all the other studies that had been done) conducted by the American Medical Association, entitled “<em>Fetal pain: a systematic multidisciplinary review of the evidence</em>”.<br /><br />The conclusion of this review was that fetal pain was not likely to be developed until the 29-30 week mark. Being that the current Victorian law allows abortions up until 24 weeks, this gives a five to six week margin of error.<br /><br />I would actually have to agree with Mr. Kavanagh (GA 28/4) in that, until we know for certain, pain relief should be given as a precautionary measure.<br /><br />My point, as it has always been, is that it is up to individuals to make the choice themselves.<br /><br />I would also like to add that I will no longer be responding to letters in relation to this topic, as I feel I have addressed all the relevant points.” </blockquote>As a final point, I have actually changed my views on abortion slightly. Not only do I think that it is a choice that everyone women should rightly have, I think it would be a more preferable option to adoption. My reasoning for this is that the world is beginning to overcrowd as it is. We face a future where one-child laws like China has may one day be the international standard. I would much prefer that people practise safe-sex than to have an abortion, but it is definitely the preferred option once conception has occurred (again, I still think it is a choice that we should leave up to the women involved).<br /><br />Lord Bishington. </span></div>Lord Victor 'Bones' Bishingtonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04632294345137914846noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3167765906408471551.post-25938819790408530072010-01-14T19:44:00.000-08:002010-12-15T20:24:35.362-08:00Amway: Because they won't let you do it your way<div align="justify"><span style="font-family:arial;">Before I beginning, I just want to say my inspiration for writing this entry is due to having read Russell Glasser’s excellent webpage discussing his own experiences with Amway. I highly suggest reading it if you want another perspective: <a href="http://www.apollowebworks.com/amway/amintro.html">http://www.apollowebworks.com/amway/amintro.html</a> </span><br /><span style="font-family:arial;"><br />While out the other night for a friend’s 21st, I ran into an old friend as I was leaving. Now, this wasn’t just an old acquaintance that I saw every now and then, but someone I saw at least four times a week at the height of our friendship and could talk to them about anything during those times. If asked then, I would have said they were my best friend and that we would always be best friends. Anyway, the conversation that ensued went virtually as follows:<br /><br />Me: “Hey, haven’t seen you in ages.”<br /><br />Them: “Yeah, I know. What have you been up to?”<br /><br />Me: “Just uni really. How about you?”<br /><br />Them: “Oh, just the business.”<br /><br />Me: “Oh yeah” *Awkward silence* “Anyway, I have to head off. Good seeing you.”<br /><br />You might be wondering why two individuals who were as close as we were could now be so distant. What could possibly have happened that drove us apart? If you guessed Amway, you are right (though it was an obvious guess, being that is what this blog is about).<br /><br />Before getting to how it destroyed our friendship (and other friendships of his too, from what I have heard) and why I left Amway, I will start from the beginning.<br /><br />1987: On a mid-August night, my parents lay in bed together, as husband and wife often do.<br /><br />Okay, too far back.<br /><br />2007: I had just finished high school the previous year and was just about to start at university. While I was looking forward to the new experience that university had to offer, I wasn’t overly excited about my course. Throughout high school, I didn’t really have any aspirations in life and was looking for a job just to pay the bills. I had always had an interest in computers and games, so I figured game design would be a logical choice (in hindsight, I probably should have given it a little more thought). I was also working part-time at McDonalds, a job which I had a love-hate relationship with (loved the money, hated the work). This was the time at which I was friends with the above mentioned individual, who I shall refer to as Luke to keep his identity private (for those of you who knew me during that time and know who I am speaking of, I would ask you do the same).<br /><br />Now, Luke had been telling me for awhile about the business he was starting up. For a long time, he never really went into any detail when I asked him what it was. One day, I was mentioning to him how I didn’t really want to have to work to live for the rest of my life and would rather just spend my time travelling and exploring the world (wouldn’t we all?). It was then that he suggested that I should get involved in his business. Of course, my first question was “but won’t that mean I am just working for you?”. To this he replied “no, I mean you can start your own”. This raised more questions than it really answered, so he told me I should come along to a meeting and hear all about it. Being my position in life at the time, I figured I had nothing to lose. I went with him over to a house of another ‘business owner’ Kate* (again, real name changed). It was here that they had David*, who was a lawyer and also in ‘the business’, explain it to me.<br /><br />Being that this is the part where I had ‘the business’ (this was how they referred to it, rather than Amway) explained to me, I figure it would be a good point to explain it to those of you who are unfamiliar with it.<br /><br />Amway is what is known as a Multi-Level-Marketing (MLM) business. You pay a yearly membership fee, and for that you can have access to a wide variety of products at a discounted rate (in reality, most products are more expensive than they would be retail, plus you pay for shipping). You also get a rebate of 3% every month on the products you have bought or sold to others (if you buy 100 points worth of products a month, that is). The real money (or so you are told) is in ‘sponsoring’ others to join the business. For every person you sponsor who buys and sells products, you get a cut of their rebate. So the more people you sponsor, the more money you get. Also, the more points generated in your ‘business’ (your purchases plus all those you have sponsored/who they have sponsored etc.), the larger your rebate becomes. The highest rebate attainable is 21%. If you maintain a rebate level of 21% for six months, you become what is known as a Diamond and you ‘breakaway’ from the person who sponsored you (in reality, they still get 4% of all the money that goes through your business). At the Diamond stage, it is said that individuals earn around $4000 a month. And once it gets to that stage, you just have to sit back and watch it increase.<br /><br />Sounds impressive, no? $4000 a month or more for simply getting people to join your business and helping them to get people to join theirs. It is only when you realize where that money is coming from that it starts to become a little murky. Being that the significant majority of products bought are by the ‘independent business owner’s’ (IBO’s) of Amway (in fact, selling products to people who aren’t part of Amway is discouraged), all the money comes from the IBO’s themselves. Amway is best described as a ‘zero-sum game’: when everyone in the company adds up all the money they have made and lost through the business, the total sum is zero. A better way to look at it (thanks Russell) is as a game of poker you play with your friends: you all put in $10 to start the game. Some people walk away with more than $10, others with less. The point is that you can only make money if someone else loses money. This is exactly how Amway works. All the money that those Diamonds are making is coming from those on the bottom level. Sure, those at the bottom could one day become Diamonds and make it all back, but they would be taking money from others who are now at the bottom. This becomes a problem when you realize that the population of the Earth (or more accurately, the population who are able to even join Amway) is finite. Eventually, someone will be stuck at the bottom, unable to make their own way up the ladder.<br /><br />Now as you can imagine, this wasn’t how it was presented to me. The real presentation was full of sugar-coating and sweet-talking. Add to that the extra ‘argument from authority’ given by David, who explained that he had gone over the whole business concept as a lawyer, concluding that it was both legal and moral, and I was sold. Looking back, I cringe that I accepted his conclusion simply because he was a lawyer, given that I can easily spot an argument from authority nowadays. Anyway, I was in like Flynn. I told them I wanted to join up. They were quite enthusiastic (and why wouldn’t they be? They just got another person who will make them all money). When they asked if I had anyone in mind that I could sponsor, I immediately thought of my parents. They suggest that when presenting it to them, I should avoid using the name ‘Amway’. When I asked why, they said it was because there had been some ‘negative press’ of the company a few years earlier and that my parents might remember it and reject ‘the business’ without listen to it. Being that I am openly honest with my parents about most things, I disregarded this advice and told them straight up. And being that I thought at the time that it was such a good concept, I couldn’t see why they would object to me being involved/not want to get involved themselves. Ah, to be young and naïve. When I told them, they were less than pleased that I was involved and didn’t want any part of it themselves. They didn’t, however, tell me that I should get involved; more that I should just not be disappointed if it doesn’t work out. In retrospect, I think this was the best move they could have taken, as I probably wouldn’t have listened and it would have made me more resistant to the later problems that I saw.<br /><br />Despite the cautious advice from my parents, I joined up. Within a few months, I had already sponsored two people, one of whom had sponsored another. I figured it wasn’t long until I could sit back and watch as the money came pouring in. During this time, I came to develop a deeper understanding of what ‘the business’ actually entailed. My first real objection was when I discovered that it was a zero-sum business. So I came forward to David, being he was the lawyer and I thought the person who would be able to give me the most comprehensive answer. I asked him “if everyone in the world joined up, wouldn’t the people on the bottom just be essentially giving their money to the ones on top?”. After some crafty non-answers (“not everyone is going to join up” and “the people at the top worked (*cough*) to get there”), he eventually said “sure, but isn’t that how the world works at the moment? There are people on the bottom who do all the work and those on the top who get all the money”. At first, I had to agree with him, because that is how the world works. It was only later as I was driving home that I realized the absurdity of what he had said.<br /><br />Firstly, and most simply, just because the world works like that doesn’t mean that everyone else does. I saw what he was saying as a virtual “I did it because my brother did it” type justification kids give when they misbehave. Secondly, while the world may indeed work like that, the difference is that in the real world, you can actually change your position. For example, a person from a less-than-well-off family could go to university, get a degree in business, start a company and make millions. Yes, this doesn’t happen often, but it can happen. The difference with Amway is that it can’t happen. You will always be in the position you are on the ‘chain’. Sure, you may get more people under you so you are actually making money, but they will be in the exact same position you were.<br /><br />While this should have been more than enough to get me to rethink what I was involved with, I decided that, while I thought the concept was less perfect than I thought, I would continue for the moment. It was a few weeks later that the ‘last straw’ came up. You see, Amway is very into the whole ‘motivational’ angle. While I do definitely agree that having a positive attitude when approaching a task can make you more likely to success, all other things being equal, they take that concept and run a marathon with it. To them, having a positive attitude is the ONLY thing that is required to do well in ‘the business’. Now, I didn’t really have much of a problem with this (though I did have to fake a lot of outward emotions), but it was when they took that concept that was already over-stretched and decided to try to fly to the moon with it that I had a problem. I came over to Kate’s house one day for a group meeting as I often did and she told me that they had a video to show me. I asked what it was about and she said “it is the only video I needed to see to become a Diamond”. I was intrigued until a minute into the video when the title came up: ‘The Secret’.<br /><br />Wait, <em>what</em>!?<br /><br />For those of you who are unaware, The Secret is a new-age belief that the universe rewards positive thought. Want a car? Think positively about it and you will get a car. Wait, you didn’t get a car? Well, you didn’t think positively enough obviously. Not only is this worldview tantamount to victim-blaming (all those people in third-world countries just aren’t thinking positively enough), it is downright unfounded on anything in reality. The video contains a lot of people trying to make it sound scientific by using terms like ‘quantum mechanics’, ‘energy’ and other words that have meanings that are far removed from what these people believe they mean.<br /><br />Now, I was already well-versed in what The Secret was and why it was intellectual onanism with no basis in reality. When I saw the title come up with ‘The Secret’, that was the final straw for me. I could almost describe it as having a veil lifted from my eyes. I finally saw Amway and ‘the business’ for what it really was: a scam. I left Kate’s that night knowing I would not longer be a part of such an organization. Unlike Russell, however, I chose not to take the ‘lone ranger’ approach and try to save people from Amway. I was and am convinced that, at some level, they know it is a scam, but justify it because of their own greed and poor comparisons like the one David made. I, instead, chose to just slip away. I stopped attending meetings, making excuses at first and eventually just not returning calls and messages.<br /><br />And how did this affect my friendship with Luke? Well, at first I wanted to maintain the relationship we had. But as time went on and I was missing more and more meetings, he began to pester me into coming along. We could no longer hang out without him somehow bringing up ‘the business’ in conversation. It was all he seemed to care about. I also found that he was not the same person he was before he was involved with Amway. It was from this observation and retrospective analysis of others in ‘the business’ that I came to the conclusion that the organization is more or less a cult. Not only are members told not to associate with individuals who are negative of Amway, they lose the capacity to be critical of ‘the business’, even when the flaws are literally smacking them right in the face. I’m not saying that they are unintelligent people (and research shows that most people who get involved with cults are of normal intelligence), I am simply saying that our human urges to be social, to be accepted and to have as much money/items as we can for as little work as possible can be quite overpowering; enough to disable logical thought.<br /><br />From viewing other blogs that have been critical of Amway, I am expecting at least some negative feedback from the ‘Amway drones’. Before you post saying how much money you are making in Amway/that I am a loser for not being able to make ‘the business’ work, please reread and try to absorb the message I have tried to convey. I never said that no one can make money in Amway, just that the money you make comes from those who are below you and eventually someone will be stuck at the bottom. In regards to my comments about Amway destroying relationships/that it fosters a cult mentality, take look at your friend network and whether it is predominated by other IBO's. Not everyone will see the same thing I did, but I know many out there feel the same as I do.<br /><br />Anyway, I hope you all enjoyed my story/rant on my experience with Amway.<br /><br />Lord Bishington. </span></div>Lord Victor 'Bones' Bishingtonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04632294345137914846noreply@blogger.com1