CFI Vancouver Presents PZ Myers: Atheism in the Scientific Battleground

It was a big weekend for Vancouver skeptics. On Friday, July 30th, we hosted biology professor, speaker and celebrated science blogger PZ Myers. Sunday, August 1st saw us marching (“dancing” would be a more accurate term) in Vancouver’s Pride parade.

UPDATE: You can now follow me on Twitter, you lucky people!

On Friday, July 30th, CFI Vancouver was proud to host biology professor, speaker, and author of the popular science and skepticism blog Pharyngula, Dr. PZ Myers. Dr. Myers presented an hour-long discussion of the role of atheism in the scientific battleground.

As the event was hosted and organized by CFI, this is not the official writeup. Since I was on hand with my camera, I did videotape the entire presentation. Once again, however, CFI laid out all of the groundwork to make this happen, so I will not post the video online, preferring instead to send the traffic their way. I will, however, post a couple of segments and a summary of my own reactions to both the presentation, and meeting PZ himself.

Ethan Clow, head of CFI Vancouver, meets PZ Myers

The Presentation

Much has been made of Dr. Myers’ confrontational style; people seem to expect him to be a fire-breathing ogre who preaches hatred of Christians from a pulpit made of Creationist’s skulls. Having seen video of him speaking before, I went in expecting exactly what we got – an interesting, humorous, and gregarious biology professor from Minnesota. The talk took place at the University of British Columbia’s Wesbrook building, and was attended by about 300 people (CFI will have actual numbers).

The focus of the presentation was in like with Dr. Myers’ usual stance on the issue of how ashamed we should be to call ourselves atheists – we need to be visible, we need to be consistent, and we need to stand up for our principles. He started with a brief discussion of why it is impossible to ‘disprove evolution’:

I really like the Newton/Einstein example, because it’s a perfect illustration of how science is supposed to work – we adjust our models to fit the observed evidence, not chain them to our preconceived notions of how we think they should look. That’s why quantum physics is so weird – because the universe is a weird place.

He then moved on to a topic that was a bit of a sore point for me: the ‘dictionary atheist’. He describes those of us who say that atheism is merely the absence of belief in God, and nothing more. He then calls that out as a bullshit position:

My feelings were a bit hurt, because I have been advocating that exact position. However, as I was to discuss with him later, he makes an important point, which is the basic underscoring of his presentation – namely, that Atheists (note the capital A) do believe in things. We’re not Atheists by accident, or because we haven’t yet heard how awesome YahwAlladdha is, but because we reject superstition and appeals to invisible authority as a basis for building a functioning society. We believe that evidence, reason, and an abiding respect for humanity is a much higher standard to which human beings should be held than the fear of a paternal sky-genie.

I will not do a play-by-play of the entire talk, partially because I don’t really feel like transcribing the entire hour-long presentation + ensuing Q&A, and also because I think Dr. Myers’ speaking style is best captured on video. I will be pushing hard on CFI Canada to release the video in a timely manner, so please stay tuned.

The Post-Event Reception

After the talk, there was an opportunity for guests to sit down and share a beer and some appetizers with PZ. This was the part of the evening I had most looked forward to, so I bought my ticket to the reception early. I was lucky enough to get a chance to ask him about some things that have been on my mind.

Someone made cupcakes, with this special cake-topper for PZ

The so-called ‘Burqa Ban’

Regular readers will know that I have been wrestling with the issue of France, Belgium and Quebec passing law that bar women from covering their faces when interacting with government employees and while in public places. I asked PZ what he thought on the issue. He told me that while there were arguments to be made on both sides, his default position is to side with human liberty – women should be allowed to wear what they want, even if the establishment doesn’t like it.

Being a leader of the skeptic movement

I’ve always been curious to know how people like PZ, or Dawkins, or Hitchens feel about the appellation “leader of the skeptic movement.” Is there a sense of pride of being a senior statesman in a major political and social movement? Does he even consider himself a leader, or just another person with a dog (albeit a big one) in the fight? He replied that unlike any other group in history, the entire purpose of the Atheist/skeptic/humanist movement was to have no leaders (he used the phrase “Atheist Pope”). The whole point, he said, was to motivate people to think for themselves and come to their own conclusions.

His stance on ‘dictionary atheism’

Because I took it personally, I asked him about the virtue of identifying as atheists. He himself noted in his presentation that there were many people who were nihilists, believing that because there is no God, life is therefore meaningless. I suggested to him that even further, there were people who are atheists because they hate religion, or religious people, or out of rebellion against their parents… for any number of reasons that have nothing to do with skepticism. These people are covered by the label ‘atheist’ without being skeptics of any stripe. PZ replied that while those people do exist, as skeptic atheists we can drive the public perception of atheism as people who have deep beliefs that are guided by evidence, not merely a negatively-defining group.

Summarizing thoughts

I really enjoyed my night out with PZ and the Vancouver skeptics. We stayed out late drinking, shutting down both Moose’s Down Under and the Railway Club. We talked about science, atheism, politics (apparently I’m an asshole because I self-define as Libertarian :P) and a number of other topics (including the intricacies of PZ’s spam filter – one of the highlights of the night was reading an e-mail that a local kook had sent him regarding the oil spill in the Gulf). I was lucky enough to also be able to speak with Mrs. Myers (The Trophy Wife) about my own history as a religious person and how to talk to those of us we are close to who still believe.

One of the things I was most struck by was the gender ratio at the talk. There is a general view of the skeptic movement that it is predominantly white males. As a black guy, I have observed this to be the case at many of our skeptical events. However, both the talk and the reception were evenly attended (still mostly white people, but this is Canada). One attendee, when I pointed this out, said that PZ’s decidedly pro-feminist stance on issues was a factor which helped her decide to show up. Skeptics take note: if you want to balance the gender scales, reach out to women.

I am looking forward to seeing the full video available online, as it is a much higher quality than I was able to take on my little camera. As I said above, I will be pushing on whoever I need to push on to get it up and running as soon as possible. For more (and better) photos, be sure to check out Fred Bremmer’s Flickr page.

Thanks to PZ for linking to this page! Welcome to all Pharyngulites.

Vancouver Skeptics in the Pride Parade

It was a big weekend for Vancouver skeptics. On Friday, July 30th, we hosted biology professor, speaker and celebrated science blogger PZ Myers. Sunday, August 1st saw us marching (“dancing” would be a more accurate term) in Vancouver’s Pride parade.

UPDATE: You can now follow me on Twitter, you lucky people!

Yesterday, skeptics from the BC Humanist Association, the SFU Skeptics, and of course CFI Vancouver gathered at Robson and Thurlow to take part in Vancouver’s annual Pride parade. This parade is ostensibly intended for members of the gay community to stand up and be seen without fear. Over time, it has become a venue for community groups to show their solidarity with the gay community.

What were we doing there?

Humanists have long been in solidarity with the gay community. The central tenet of humanist thought is the idea that the ultimate good is for human beings to be able to determine their own lives. A corollary of that is the belief that the way to judge the morality of an action is its consequences to humankind. Demonizing homosexuals makes no sense to humanists, since being openly gay makes people happy, and hurts nobody.

In addition to our philosophical allegiance to the gay cause, humanists and skeptics see a meaningful similarity between the gay community and our struggle for mainstream acceptance. It’s barely been 31 years since the Stonewall riots, which one might call the beginning of the gay movement. In that short time, we’ve seen major social progress for gay people in North America and Europe, and we’re seeing progress in places like South America and Africa.

Atheists face similar discrimination and misunderstanding in the face of hyper-religiosity worldwide. Luckily, thanks to vocal mainstream atheists like Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, Michael Shermer, and of course PZ Myers, atheists have entered the public domain and are actively taking part in the conversation. Our presence at the Pride parade was, for us, one more step towards mainstream recognition and acceptance.

What did we do?

About 15 skeptics (sorry, I should have counted and I didn’t) met in the staging area for the parade, with bright colourful clothes, face paint, signs, banners, a recumbent bike, and a great deal of optimism and energy.

In addition to the BC Humanists and CFI banners, we carried a large banner with the now famous slogan “There’s Probably No God, Now Stop Worrying and Enjoy Your Life” from the Atheist bus campaign. The virtue of this slogan is that while it is definitely an in-your-face proclamation of our position, it is about as inoffensive and positive as any such a slogan could be.

We marched the prescribed parade route in between Worksafe BC and an anti-bullying campaign. Sadly, we were not able to march alongside the religious groups, or what I termed the Cognitive Dissonance Squad:

How did the crowd react?

Honestly, I was expecting the crowd to be either indifferent or hostile. Vancouver is a city with many faiths and many churches, and where people don’t often challenge each other’s beliefs. We were mounting a fairly aggressive and open, unashamed assertion of our position, much the way we did previously with Deepak Chopra.

Once again, however, the people of Vancouver surprised me. Far from being merely tolerant, we had an overwhelming amount of support from the crowd. Everywhere we went, we were confronted by cheering, applause, and people laughing as they read the banner, eagerly pointing it out to their friends. Many (I assume) atheists in the crowd shouted their assent, seemingly grateful that there was a group there supporting their beliefs. You can see what I mean in the following video:

The crowd shots I’ve included in that video are not cherry-picked – they are a fair representation of the entire crowd at the event. The response was unbelievably and uniformly positive. Please forgive the shaky camera work – I was dancing my skeptical ass off.

Some summarizing thoughts

What we have seen in our past forays into ‘skeptivism‘ is that people are generally receptive to new ideas. While I personally fall more on the confrontational side of the confront/accommodate debate, I recognize that a variety of methods are needed, since each individual is different. The city of Vancouver acted, to my eyes, like a group of people who were ‘closet’ atheists, and who were waiting for someone or some group to stand up and say “we’re here, we’re skeptics, get used to it.”

The past few months have seen major growth in the skeptic community here in BC, with the addition of a third Skeptics in the Pub site in Richmond, and the start of a branch of CFI in the Okanogan. We’ve picked up a great deal of steam and visibility thanks to our presence at Pride, and we hope to continue this momentum into the fall. We hope that other skeptic groups, particularly our comrades in the USA, undertake similar acts of open skeptivism, and that they receive the same positive response we enjoyed.

Thanks to PZ Myers at Pharyngula for linking to this post! Welcome to all Pharyngulites.

Movie Friday: DOUBLE RAINBOW!

Apparently this video went viral, so I’m a bit tardy to the party.

WARNING: he starts openly weeping about 1 minute in.

People often accuse skeptics and atheists of failing to recognize the beauty and majesty of the world because we break things down into their constituent pieces. While I don’t think it’s necessarily true that knowing how something works makes it less beautiful – for example I still love listening to the symphony, even though I’ve played in one for nearly 10 years – even if it did, I’d much rather be impressed by nature than… whatever this guy is. “Double rainbows” are neat, but they’re common. Rainbows are formed simply as light refracts through water vapour. Depending on the incident angle of the observer, multiple refractory patterns may appear. Once, on a plane over the Guyanese rainforest, I was lucky enough to see a FULL rainbow, which is actually a circular refractory pattern. Knowing what it was didn’t make it any less beautiful, but it prevented me from being gobsmacked by a simply-explained event.

My favourite skeptic, Neil DeGrasse Tyson (director of the Hayden Planetarium in New York) said something that reminded me of this video. At around 1:30, the narrator of the video asks a question: what does this mean? He is then reduced to tears as his drug-addled brain struggles to comprehend the meaning of a rainbow. Dr. Tyson would have said to this guy:

“Just because you can string together words in the English language and put a question mark on the end of it, that doesn’t make it a real question.”

One of the greatest things about science is that it teaches you to distinguish between meaningful (or useful) questions and those that have no value. Asking “what is the meaning of life” is an example of a question that sounds meaningful (the word “meaning” is even in the question) but it’s in fact just a bunch of words strung together. A better question might be “what is a good way to live life?” or “what do I want to get out of my life?” Asking for “the meaning” is making a fundamental assumption – that there is a meaning. A “double rainbow” doesn’t mean anything. It’s just a really cool thing.

Now this guy was clearly on drugs, and drugs open your mind up to asking speculative questions like that so I’m not going to hold it against him. The Insane Clown Posse has no such excuse:

NONE of the things mentioned in this song are miracles (except ghosts, which somehow got worked in there) – the vast majority of these things are things that have been explained decades or generations ago. If you didn’t watch the video, good instinct. Watch this one instead (it’s seriously genius):

So any time someone tries to invoke the majesty of nature as proof that God exists, direct them to this video.

“CELLS! OH MY GOD! WHAT DO THEY MEAN?“

They mean you should have paid more attention in science class.

I have a perfect face for radio!

Yesterday I was privileged to join Ethan Clow, the Vancouver chapter president of CFI Vancouver (the handsome devil you saw talking to Deepak Chopra) on his radio show “Radio Freethinker” on UBC’s campus radio. This is a weekly skeptic podcast that looks at skeptic issues in the news and discusses various salient skeptic topics. I was present as a special guest, along with Jakob Liljenwall, head of the Simon Fraser University Skeptics group.

We discussed, among other things:

  • Belgian police raiding a Catholic Church;
  • Organic pesticides being worse than synthetic for the environment;
  • The G8/G20 events; and
  • Confrontation vs. Accommodation in the skeptic movement

Of course Ethan, Jakob and I have similar views on things, but we had a fairly lively discussion nonetheless. As you listen to the podcast, you’ll immediately notice two things:

  1. Some of the things I talk about have appeared (or will appear, depending on when you’re reading this) on this blog, and
  2. There is a reason I prefer writing to speaking – I backtrack a lot while trying to explain myself.

So if you’ve ever wondered if I have a sexy voice, or you’re a friend of mine and you miss my sexy voice, give “Radio Freethinker” a listen. If the subject matter interests you, check it out Tuesdays at 3:30 on CITR 101.9 FM in Vancouver.

Movie Friday: Look Around You – Germs

Whenever I hear anyone talk about their theories for why ‘alternative medicine’ works, this is what pops into my head:

This video is from the HILARIOUS series “Look Around You”. If you’re ever bored and in need of a laugh, you should watch these.

This is what I think of whenever I hear people talk about science who don’t actually know anything about the subject. You can dress up absolute nonsense in sciency-sounding clothes, but it doesn’t mask the fact that it’s a bunch of crap.

Anyway, enjoy!

Why science is better than religion

There is a very stupid argument out there in the world of arguments. It goes something like this:

You have to believe in science, just like you have to believe in religion. Therefore, science is just another kind of religion.

On the surface, that appears to be a logical premise. It even managed to find its way into an episode of one of my favourite shows. However, that’s due to an unfortunate accident in the English language whereby “believe” has two meanings. I’m not going to go through the entire argument here, except to give a specific example. The statement “I believe in myself” means that you have confidence that you will be able to perform a task based on self-knowledge. It does not (or at least not usually) mean “I have faith that I exist as an entity” although Descartes would probably have a few things to say about that. At any rate, the word “believe” when it comes to reliance on facts and observation is quite distinct from “believe” when it comes to large, unfathomable concepts. I’ll let PZ Myers and xkcd talk about that for now, and perhaps come back to it later.

However, it doesn’t matter. Let’s, for the sake of argument, allow this line of reasoning. Let’s suspend logic in this particular case and grant that you have to believe in science in the same way you have to believe in religion (or God, or faeries, or gremlins, or whatever you believe in). Even if we make this concession, science is still far better than religion for one very important reason:

Science allows you to make predictions.

Religious belief of any kind (in Yahweh, or Zeus, or Allah who is really  just Yahweh in disguise) has its origins in looking at the world and attempting to explain what has happened. Our ancestors looked at a seemingly unimaginably complicated world and made some post-hoc rationalizations to explain things. This is entirely reasonable and there is apparently some evidence to suggest it’s hard-wired into our genes for us to perform this process. Science undeniably performs the same task – evolution is a prime example of using present-day observations to predict (post-dict?) what has happened in the past to explain the world we are in today.

However, religion stops there. Any claim that religion can make about what Yahweh/Allah/Buddha (YahwAlladdha) will or will not do is wrong as often as it is right (I’m being generous here). People who are prayed for, for example, do not consistently recover from terminal illness. Virtuous, God-fearing people still get murdered, have their houses blown over by winds, go financially bankrupt, the list goes on. Following the precepts of religion does not give you any protection against the events in life over which you cannot exert control. This phenomenon (also known in some theological circles as the Problem of Evil) is commonly explained by evoking the “Master Plan”:

God has a plan for us all. We cannot know the mind of God, as He is so far above us.

I call shenanigans. What this argument is essentially saying is that it is impossible to know with any certainty what YahwAlladdha will do. I’m going to repeat that for the sake of clarity: the Master Plan argument is a statement that nobody can know with any certainty what YahwAlladdha will do in the future. Since the Master Plan appears to all eyes to be effectively the same as random chance, in which sometimes good things happen to good people and other times they don’t, it’s not too much of a stretch to say that belief in YahwAlladdha is not useful when it comes to trying to predict the future.

If you’ve been keeping score, science and religion are tied in terms of being able to explain the past (although science is much better, we’ll round up). However, religion draws up a big goose egg when it comes to reliably predicting what will happen in the future.

So how about science? Does science do any better when it comes to making predictions? You bet your ass. The examples are legion: the moon landing, medicine, the very technology that allows you to read and me to write this stunningly brilliant post, again the list goes on. I’m going to pick one that is intuitively easy to grasp for the sake of specific illustration: the origin of lightning. There are two competing hypotheses in this example. The first is that lightning is caused by the discharge of electric potential energy borne by particles interacting in large weather systems. The second is that lightning is forged by the god Haephestus and hurled to Earth by a wrathful Zeus.  Ignoring for a moment the absurdity of the second hypothesis, let’s treat them both as equally plausible from the standpoint of a person who is naive to the evidence.

I need to back-track here for a moment to make a very important statement. That is, that science is a process. Science is not merely the facts and theories that have been generated by scientists; it is the method by which those facts and theories were developed. In that, science is a tool used to generate reliable knowledge and understanding about the world. The process involves proposing an explanation for a phenomenon and then testing that explanation while simultaneously ruling out other potential explanations. Science is the application of observation and reason to find suitable explanations for everyday events. Phrases like “scientific truth” or “science says X” are attempts to equate the process and the outcome. To someone who understands science, these statements are innocuous reference to the method behind the findings. However, to those who do not understand science, the statements are blind appeals to the authority of experts. The important thing to remember is that science is the process by which we test our understanding of the world, and allows us to distinguish and eliminate erroneous explanations.

So how does this apply to our example of lightning? Our naive individual has to decide between two competing explanations. She sees that lightning does indeed fall from the sky, which neither confirms nor denies either hypothesis (since everyone knows Zeus lives in the clouds). She observes that lightning is most often accompanied by rain and wind, two phenomena which are not explicitly within the domain of Zeus, but he could still be teased in as an explanation. She further observes that sparks, potentially a miniature form of lightning, can be generated through static electricity independently of the wrath of anything. She sees that lightning tends to strike most often at certain times of the year, independent of the actions of the people (who may or may not have done anything to provoke any wrath). She also sees that even the virtuous followers of Zeus are occasionally struck by lightning, with approximately the same frequency as the iniquitous. By this time, the Zeus hypothesis has been quite exploded. As our observer goes on to learn more about electricity, weather patterns, conductivity and other properties of matter, she will gradually come to accept the weather hypothesis as evidence-based fact.

The advantage to using this process – rather than slavishly adhering to a belief in Zeus – is that our observer can learn to predict when lightning will strike. She can also use her theory to anticipate methods of reducing the impact of lightning by building structures that ground electricity safely. If she had instead asserted that “the will of Zeus cannot be predicted“, then no such anticipatory steps could be taken. Our observer would go on worshiping Zeus until the day she is killed by a random lightning strike. It is interesting to note here that the validity of the weather hypothesis doesn’t necessarily completely rule out the Zeus hypothesis. One could argue that Zeus behaves exactly like random chance because of his ineffable will. However, if the unfathomable will of God Zeus looks exactly like random chance that can be explained and predicted through the scientific method, there is no value in adding Zeus to the equation. The point is that religious explanation that opposes scientific findings is wrong as often as it is right, and religious explanation that is in line with the science is essentially indistinguishable from science and does not contribute anything meaningful to the discussion.

I have chosen perhaps an absurd example – nobody has believed in Zeus in thousands of years. However, it should be noted that the identical line of “reasoning” is used in contemporary attempts to explain the natural world through God (specifically Yahweh). They are flimsy arguments that require you to believe (in a religious sense) in order to work. As I said previously: if you have to believe in it for it to work, it’s nothing but a placebo. True statements don’t require you to believe, they just require you to look at the data.

In order to forestall the argument that science can say nothing about moral matters whereas religion can, I will make a brief comment here (first, you should look at my previous post on this subject). Religion provides many assertions (in the form of prescripts or commandments) of what is “good.” Religious text is consistently short on justification for these assertions; the only support these texts can offer is that “God says it is so.” We are then all enjoined to believe not only in the existence of God (for which no evidence is offered) but the inerrant infallibility of the texts from which His edicts supposedly come (again, with no evidence to support this claim). Logical contemplation and observation, however, provides us with a great many moral assertions that are supported by more than hand-waving and invocations of an invisible Almighty. Many texts – from Socrates and Aristotle down through Kant, Hobbes, Mill, and Bentham up to Sartre, Pirsig, even Ayn Rand – provide us with discussions on what is moral and immoral that do not come from “God says it is so”, but descended from deontological first principles and founded in reason and observation. Religious belief fails to provide us with consistent and clear moral guidelines except insofar as it says that certain things are bad because God says they are. In this way, it fails even this exemption on moral grounds.

Even if we grant religious belief the same status as belief in the scientific method (and they are by no means the same type of belief), religious belief still fails to measure up to scientific beliefs. While both can be used to explain things that happened in the past, only the beliefs arrived by way of the scientific method can consistently provide us with the means to predict what will happen in the future. Religious invocation of a Master Plan is indistinguishable from random chance, and retards progress and understanding. Science can do as good or, more commonly, far more accurate a job at predicting events in the future and it does not need to invoke any unprovable religious concepts to do so. Science is distinct from religion and is in fact far better.

BOOBQUAKE!

Sometimes it’s hard not to laugh:

“Many women who do not dress modestly lead young men astray and spread adultery in society which increases earthquakes,” Hojjat ol-eslam Kazem Sediqi, the acting Friday prayer leader in Tehran explained.

I don’t know too many Iranian women, although I know a handful who are Persian. Don’t get me wrong – they’re all smoking hot, but how sex-crazed are men in Iran that they can’t possibly restrain themselves from humping these ladies so hard that the freaking Earth moves? I’m a big guy, as guy size goes, and I like to go at it like any red-blooded human person. At no point in my career has the fury of my genital onslaught caused tectonic plate movement. Maybe if I eat more vegetables…

This is, of course, what happens when you allow religion to run rampant, whilst simultaneously undercutting public science education and subjugating women. This isn’t some crackpot loony at an out-of-the-way mosque – this guy is a big deal in Tehran. Over in North America, we’d certainly never let that kind of idiocy pass, right? Well, except when Jerry Fallwell blamed 9/11 on tolerance of homosexuality. But that’s just one nutjob, right? One nutjob with a multi-million-person following. But anyway, that was years ago. We’ve come a long way over here! Well, except when Rush Limbaugh blamed the Iceland volcano on the health care bill.

We already know what causes volcanoes to erupt, just like we know what causes earthquakes – these forces have absolutely nothing to do with human morality. They occurred billions of years before there was any life on the planet, let alone one particular species that God apparently hates so much that he kills them with earthquakes when some of them wear tight pants. Earthquakes are caused by tectonic plate shifts along fault lines – such as the one that’s apparently right under Tehran. This of course fits right into Sediqi’s fantasy of a wrathful sex-crazed God (who uncannily resembles the wrathful, sex-crazed Sediqi…) who will, of course, cause the Earth to destroy the city because of some human fault. This is the kind of twisted self-fulfillingly prophetic non-logic that is the hallmark of religious thinking.

Thankfully, there are some people who are willing to fight this scourge, two sweater-mittens at a time. Please feel free to join her crusade, as I am sadly ill-equipped.

EDIT: Rose has suggested to me a reason why you might not want to participate in Boobquake. I don’t agree with the author, obviously, but I’m not a woman so my feelings on the subject are much less insightful. Read it, make up your own mind – is Boobquake a celebration of a woman’s freedom to dress as she want or is it another example of the liberation movement being co-opted into misogyny?

MS Patients demand access to unproven procedure

You may have heard a few months ago that an Italian scientist discovered a promising new method of treating Multiple Sclerosis (MS). It involves inflating a balloon in veins in the neck to alleviate blockages that he (Dr. Zamboni – true story) alleges contribute to the progression of MS. Anyone who has had a family member suffer from this disease knows how horrible the symptoms can be – loss of motor control, paralysis, loss of speech, dysphagia, and others. I first became aware of MS when a close family friend was diagnosed back in the early 1990s. She became wheelchair-bound, could no longer work, and her family life began to fall apart at least partially as a result of her own frustration and anger at the loss of her mobility. It was further dramatized later in one of my favourite TV shows, The West Wing.

Needless to say, MS is a terrifying disease. What makes matters worse is that both the etiology (what causes it) and a viable treatment method have yet to be found. Dr. Zamboni’s work potentially provides answers to both of these questions. It is for this reason that several patients are demanding that the federal government provide access (funding) for afflicted people to seek this treatment:

“While studies in Canada get underway, some patients are travelling overseas, paying for tests and surgery out of their own pocket. Others are lobbying for the Canadian health-care system to cover the diagnostic tests to look for blocked veins in people with MS.

I’m not even going to pretend that I know what it’s like to have a debilitating illness, or that I can do anything besides blandly sympathize with people who are suffering from MS. However, this story highlights an important and seldom-talked-about fact of health care and health policy. Patients should not be the ones calling the shots. We have grown to feel entitled to be in the driver’s seat when it comes to health. Respect for the autonomy and wishes of the patient is paramount in medical ethics, and I have no beef with that. An individual patient’s needs and wishes need to be respected. However, this does not mean that health policy should be decided by sick people.

When you’re sick, you have only one goal: getting better. Millions of years of evolution have hard-wired a strong survival instinct into all living species, and human beings are no exception. People suffering from disease and their families are willing to do just about anything for a chance at recovery, and logic plays nearly no role in the decision-making process. The problem with this is that people suspend their disbelief and are willing to jump at any chance, no matter how remote, unlikely, or unproven. This says nothing of the fact that patients are not nearly as well-informed as they think they are.

Health policy should be guided by evidence, not sentiment. The fact is that this MS procedure has not been tested for efficacy. We don’t know whether or not it actually works, we have only the case reports of one surgeon to rely on. Far be it from me to suggest that Dr. Zamboni is being dishonest, but there is a mechanism for determining “truth” in science, and it comes from systematic appraisal of facts while controlling for alternate explanations, not simply believing what somebody says. The claims about how well this surgery works need to be tested before we give it the green light. This is another reason why patients should not be making these decsions – they can’t dispassionately appraise the evidence and weigh the pros and cons. It’s all ‘pro’ – there’s a chance at life.

“So what?” you might say “anything that gives people hope is better than having no hope at all.” That sounds nice, but it’s frankly untrue. False hope is not superior to honestly confronting reality. False hope carries a double-edged sword: not only will they be devastated when the object of hope doesn’t work, but they will also be out money and time that they could have otherwise used either on efficacious treatment or something else that would enhance their quality of life (travel, time with family, etc.). While it seems draconian and heartless to make decisions without putting patient suffering first and foremost in mind, the results of this process is that the greatest good will be consistently enjoyed by the largest number of people, rather than a scattershot approach that will be wrong as often as it is right.

Not only is it wrong to give false hope, there is a significant risk associated with surgeries, especially new surgeries for which many surgeons are not well-trained. All medicine is performed with a risk/benefit calculation in mind – basically, so long as the incremental benefit justifies the increased risk then the procedure is warranted. Surgery is particularly risky because of the risks of dying on the table, complications following closing, risk of hospital-borne infection, allergies to anesthesia, and others. What makes this particular surgery even more risky is that surgeons don’t have a lot of experience performing it, so the risks of complications and fatality is even higher. Without consistently establishing the size of the procedure’s benefit, it’s completely irresponsible to give patients access to the risk.

It’s also fascinating to me that every time a health governing body decides to push through a relatively new, somewhat untested treatment (like H1N1 or HPV vaccines, to cite a recent example), there is consumer backlash in the form of “we don’t know what the long-term consequences of this thing is, so we shouldn’t do it.” However, in this case, we’re getting backlash toward the health care governing bodies in the form of “you’re not moving fast enough.”

While I deeply sympathize with anyone who has to live with any catastrophic illness, I am firm in my stance that patients should not be the ones calling the shots when it comes to policy and decision-making, especially when it comes to untested interventions. Science takes time, and we will have an answer on this issue soon. In the meantime, it helps nobody to jump at every whiff of a cure, and could end up being far more harmful than we anticipate.

CFI Debate: What’s Right and Wrong with Religion?

I had the distinct pleasure of attending an event co-sponsored by the Centre for Inquiry – a skeptical organization and Reasons to Believe – a group that promotes the harmonious co-existence of science and religion. The event took the form of two 30-minute presentations from a skeptic speaker and a believer:

  • Dr. Hugh Ross (the believer) is an astrophysicist from the California Information of Technology
  • Brian Lynchehaun (the skeptic) is completing a degree in philosophy at UBC

This was the first such event I’ve ever attended personally, but I’ve watched videos of several. The usual format is that the religionist makes a series of unfounded assertions, tortures logic and evidence to support those assertions, and spouts old and refuted theology as a conclusion. The skeptic/atheist speaker, thus completely drowned in nonsensical and illogical statements, must spend his/her valuable time refuting these statements and, as a result, has no time to present any reasonable argument of his/her own. The feckless wimp of a moderator then says something along the lines of “well we’ve heard a lot of good arguments on both sides” and opens the floor to questions. I assumed this CFI/RTB event would be much of the same.

Happily, I was only half-right, and the forces of stupid were not allowed to roll on unopposed.

I took the liberty of recording the presentations by Dr. Ross and Mr. Lynchehaun. As fair warning, Dr. Ross’ presentation is not for the faint of brain. If you are prone to headaches when exposed to assertions passed off as fact, theology substituted for logic, or self-contradiction, you should probably not watch this video. My father, who as a former priest in the Catholic church is fairly knowledgeable about church doctrine and theistic philosophy, joined me in recognizing that the theories propounded by Dr. Ross are both scientifically and theologically way off base. It might be worth watching for lulz. Also, the people sitting next to me were being jerks and laughing disruptively, so occasionally that happens.

Here’s part 1:

Part 2:

and part 3:

Like I said, it’s some pretty heady stuff. Apparently, aside from the outright lies like the proof of the existence of Adam, we are to believe that there is scientific evidence that there is a being outside of space/time (note: evidence not shown). Also, God likes to tinker with species from time to time because He apparently can’t get it quite right the first time. Additionally, the biblical writers believed simultaneously in a geocentric universe and the Big Bang – two perspectives which are directly contradictory. Ross’ explanation of the problem of evil is about the least artful I’ve ever heard – God invented evil so he could test us to make sure we can get into Heaven; why He didn’t just start humanity in Heaven is a problem best left unmentioned. This is all to say nothing of the fact that Dr. Ross has studied all the world religions, and only Christianity is the true one (again: evidence not shown).

At this point, I was dreading listening to Mr. Lynchehaun’s response – not because I was worried that his argument would be as brainless as that of Dr. Ross, but because I was worried Mr. Lynchehaun would try and address the glaring contradictions and illogic present in his counterpart’s reasoning. I was pleasantly shocked when Mr. Lynchehaun started his talk by saying ‘I’m not going to address the science – I can tell that this crowd is not amenable to another science talk.’ From there, Mr. Lynchehaun presented a coherent argument for why Christianity is not a good moral system, which was supposed to be the topic of both presentations (to Dr. Ross’ credit, astrophysics can say very little about ethics, so it wasn’t really a good idea for him to try).

Here’s part 1:

and part 2:

I disagree with Lynchehaun on a couple of points, the largest of which being that science cannot inform ethics (note: he may not have actually said this… sorry Brian :P). I guess the material sciences can’t really say anything about ethics, which may have been what he meant. However, the scientific process of testing hypotheses from reasoned first principles can be adapted to issues of morals. The point that you can’t measure good and evil with scientific scales is well taken. However, on the whole I think Lynchehaun did an admirable job of presenting a non-judgmental and inoffensive argument for why secular value judgments are not only superior to those from scripture, but are actually what’s done already even by believers. It’s crucial to note something here, and that’s the fact that Lynchehaun started his presentation by providing a definition of his first principles. He didn’t just launch in and then try to shift goalposts when confronted; he defined his terms a priori and even allowed his opposition a chance to object or refine them. That’s real debate.

After the two presentations, the participants were invited to engage in a moderated debate, in which they were allowed to address each other. I didn’t record this part (I had poor sight-lines – if CFI puts the video online I’ll link you to it later). Suffice it to say that it was essentially more of the same – Dr. Ross made assertions and wove cherry-picked sciency-sounding things in order to support his claims, while Mr. Lynchehaun sat quietly and waited until Dr. Ross stopped speaking.

The floor was then opened to questions from the audience, which is, in my mind, a complete waste of time. Dr. Ross has shown himself to be logic-proof and absolutely will not accede any points that refute his narrative of the universe. The skeptic audience members who asked their questions were not going to unseat his arguments because they are relying on logic and reason while Dr. Ross is starting from a “God is true, therefore anything else can be explained in terms of God” position. There was only one believer who got up to say something to Lynchehaun, but his “question” was just a series of faith-based platitudes about the infinite mercy of God. Lynchehaun, without missing a beat, said to the guy “this will likely come as no surprise to you, but I disagree” which got thunderous applause from the audience.

The other high point occurred when Dr. Ross explained the reason why God has not directly intervened to make the world a paradise yet – yes, in direct contradiction of both scripture and his own previous statements. See, since we know that the world is 5 billion years old, and God created the world in 6 “days” and rested on the 7th “day”, we can assume that we are still in that 7th day of rest. God isn’t dead, ‘Es just restin’.

UPDATE: I can’t believe I forgot to mention this part. Lynchehaun did take a moment to expose Dr. Ross’ weird argument about the disappearing body of Jesus. He (Lynchehaun) mentioned casually that growing up in Ireland, he was aware (although he was not personally associated with, again my apologies for not making this 100% clear, Brian) that there were great many people who were experts at making bodies disappear, and that it’s probably not as hard as Dr. Ross was making it out to be. Dr. Ross countered by saying that it’s impossible to perpetuate such a large fraud only 30 years after the event. I felt like asking him if he wanted to buy a bridge from me.

If there’s any lessons to be learned from this talk, it’s how startlingly bankrupt the argument “well some scientists believe in God” is. When you have to rape and pervert the scientific method to accommodate your belief in a supreme being, you’re betraying science. During questioning, Dr. Ross said that the way to establish the truth of scripture is to give consider the “truth” therein to always have the best possible benefit of the doubt – a complete inversion of the scientific process. If you’re willing to abandon the ideals of establishing truth through observation and reason, then you abdicate the title of ‘scientist’. Of course, this smacks of the “no true Scotsman” fallacy that Lynchehaun talked about, but it’s different in an important way. Science and belief are incompatible because the former demands a default position of skepticism, while the latter begins by assuming the truth of unprovable claims and then fits evidence to support those claims. They are polar opposites. Can scientific findings be twisted to fit religion? Absolutely. Can blind belief and faith advance the philosophy of science? God Almighty, I hope not.

=====================================================

UPDATE: PZ Myers has cross-posted this entry over at his blog, Phayngula! Hits! Oooh, sniny!

Movie Friday! – Dara O’Briain

It’s Friday. I like Fridays. Do you like Fridays?

In honour of this auspicious day, I’m going to do something different. Instead of my usual old-cranky-man ranting about this and that, I’m going to post movies that I find interesting or funny.

Today’s movie is making the rounds as a skeptic’s classic. The comedian is Dana O’Briain, who is one of the best standups I’ve heard in a while. He’s talking about a lot of the same issues I’ve been bringing up, but he’s a lot funnier than I am.

Happy Friday!