Obstinate and oblivious

This past weekend, I was feebly confronted by a Canadian creationist, David Buckna, with a list of his objections to evolution. I spent a fair amount of time trying to hammer him with the answers, and the most remarkable thing was that every time we’d start digging into a topic, he’d suddenly change subjects to another item on his list, and then, later, he’d switch back to the original topic at the very beginning of his harangue, as if I’d never said anything. And now he’s pestering me in email, sending me more quotes (that’s all he’s got — no thoughts, just quotes) and rehashing pointlessly the same things I explained to him before.

I thought of him when someone sent me a link to Dare2Share Ministries. It’s an evangelical site that supposedly teaches you how to argue with people of different beliefs. I believe I may have run into some of their zombies before.

Take, for instance, the section on how to convert Erin the Evolutionist. The first part is a section describing what Erin believes about evolution, god, the trinity, Jesus, the bible, the afterlife, and salvation — and oh, wondrous world, it actually gets it right. Erin thinks the Bible is a collection of myths, and doesn’t believe in any of those other things.

Then the second part is supposed to be about how a good Christian would handle each of those topics in a conversation, and there’s where it all goes wrong. Every entry on god, Jesus, etc. simply cites the Bible’s claims. That’s it. Somehow, they nominally recognize that we don’t accept the authority of the Bible, but their bot-like brains can only react with Bible verses. This isn’t a tactical guide to openly discussing ideas, it’s a regurgitation game that can only produce more mindless Bucknas.

And then they have suggestions for ideas to break through those Evolutionists sciencey minds.

For example, the earth is the perfect distance from the sun. If it were just a few miles closer, we’d all burn up. A few miles further out, and we’d all freeze to death!

They also suggest trying “Paschal’s [sic] Wager” on ’em. Or this:

If they ask questions like: “how do you know which God?” — focus on the claims of Christ as being the only way and his proving it by coming back from the dead.

I’m not impressed. Anyone following the suggestions at Dare2Share is simply going to flop there looking dead stupid. Is this a sneaky game by some clever atheist trying to sabotage evangelicals?

I guess fish don’t count

I do experiments on fish. I’ve killed tens of thousands of embryos, but, you know, I take care to minimize pain, and do it for a purpose that can’t be achieved any other way; I also have to answer to committees that enforce ethical conduct in animal care and use.

No such rules apply if you are a Christian priest.

Well, yesterday’s sermon was a big hit! We had a mass execution of 200 feeder fish that I pulled out of a fish tank and then threw all over the floor. The kids were in shock and then started to pic them up and put them back into the fish tank. Obviously, most of them died in the effort…the point however was made that they cared ore about .15 cent feeder fish then they do about their friends dying w/o Christ.

Damned straight. I certainly hope more people care about living creatures than they do about what weird religious sect their friends have adopted.

I am also not surprised that kids are shocked to discover their priest has such a callous disregard for life — I hope it was the first step in freeing some of their minds from the embrace of the Christian death cult.

There is no case for Hell

I cannot imagine being Ross Douthat. There’s just something so bizarre and twisted in his brain that I cannot empathize at all with his point of view — it’s a brain in which all the proteins have been crosslinked by the fixative of religion. Now he’s arguing that Hell must exist.

As our lives have grown longer and more comfortable, our sense of outrage at human suffering — its scope, and its apparent randomness — has grown sharper as well. The argument that a good deity couldn’t have made a world so rife with cruelty is a staple of atheist polemic, and every natural disaster inspires a round of soul-searching over how to reconcile with God’s omnipotence with human anguish.

These debates ensure that earthly infernos get all the press.

Wait. There might be another factor here, you know. How many unearthly infernos have occurred, and how would we get news about them? Douthat is unhappy that all we hear about is mere “ordinary” infernos like the Holocaust and disasters in Haiti, and we’re all worked up about those, but hey, what about the Queekwan Rebellion on Fomalhaut VII, or the outcome of the theological debate on the nature of ectoplasmosis in Heaven’s sixth ward? Why aren’t the newspapers making a big deal about those catastrophes, huh?

This is just weird enough to discombobulate me already, but where he loses me is where he thinks the omission of supernatural news from beyond is a very bad thing.

Doing away with hell, then, is a natural way for pastors and theologians to make their God seem more humane. The problem is that this move also threatens to make human life less fully human.

So we’re less human because we care far more about real human catastrophes than we do about lobstermen in outer space or archangel celebrity gossip? This does not follow. This does not make sense.

There’s also a peculiarly inverted perspective on the issue. Douthat argues that Hell must exist because we wish it to exist, to create a particular desirable environment to shape humanity’s moral development.

As Anthony Esolen writes, in the introduction to his translation of Dante’s “Inferno,” the idea of hell is crucial to Western humanism. It’s a way of asserting that “things have meaning” — that earthly life is more than just a series of unimportant events, and that “the use of one man’s free will, at one moment, can mean life or death … salvation or damnation.”

No, no, no. This is so backwards. That he wishes something to be so does not mean it must exist; it is so primitively theological to argue that “X exists because it should” rather than “X exists because there is evidence for it”. But worse, there it is again, the diminution of the real for the fantasies of his poor imagination.

The birth of my children was not an unimportant event to me. It is not humanism to look down on a wonderful, human event like two people joining together to produce a child and declare it meaningless unless we’re also dwelling on an existential horror invented by self-serving priestly parasites. I could see important choices on the horizon, real-world responsibilities and actions, that would make a huge difference in the lives of myself, my wife, and my kids, and I don’t need imaginary goads to motivate me.

So confused is Douthat about what is real and imaginary that he chooses to end his little essay with a ‘difficult’ theological question that is…well, you have to see it to believe it.

Is Gandhi in hell? It’s a question that should puncture religious chauvinism and unsettle fundamentalists of every stripe. But there’s a question that should be asked in turn: Is Tony Soprano really in heaven?

No. Not only does heaven not exist, but Tony Soprano is a fictional character who did not really exist in the first place.

Also, about Gandhi? He’s dead. He has ceased to exist. He’s not anywhere anymore.

These are not difficult questions, unless your brain has been addled by religious damage.

The Republican solution

Oh, my. The situation is dire. Texas is in big trouble.

TO ALL TO WHOM THESE PRESENTS SHALL COME:

WHEREAS, the state of Texas is in the midst of an exceptional drought, with some parts of the state receiving no significant rainfall for almost three months, matching rainfall deficit records dating back to the 1930s; and

WHEREAS, a combination of higher than normal temperatures, low precipitation and low relative humidity has caused an extreme fire danger over most of the State, sparking more than 8,000 wildfires which have cost several lives, engulfed more than 1.8 million acres of land and destroyed almost 400 homes, causing me to issue an ongoing disaster declaration since December of last year; and

WHEREAS, these dire conditions have caused agricultural crops to fail, lake and reservoir levels to fall and cattle and livestock to struggle under intense stress, imposing a tremendous financial and emotional toll on our land and our people; and

WHEREAS, throughout our history, both as a state and as individuals, Texans have been strengthened, assured and lifted up through prayer; it seems right and fitting that the people of Texas should join together in prayer to humbly seek an end to this devastating drought and these dangerous wildfires;

Texans, you have my sympathy. But don’t worry! You have a dynamic governor and a responsive legislature that will do everything it can to aid drought-stricken farmers and parched cities. They will provide the Republican solution.

NOW, THEREFORE, I, RICK PERRY, Governor of Texas, under the authority vested in me by the Constitution and Statutes of the State of Texas, do hereby proclaim the three-day period from Friday, April 22, 2011, to Sunday, April 24, 2011, as Days of Prayer for Rain in the State of Texas. I urge Texans of all faiths and traditions to offer prayers on that day for the healing of our land, the rebuilding of our communities and the restoration of our normal way of life.

IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, I have hereunto signed my name and have officially caused the Seal of State to be affixed at my Office in the City of Austin, Texas, this the 21st day of April, 2011.

Isn’t that helpful?

Feeding the fame whore a little more

Scott Adams once again demonstrates his pointy-headed stupidity with an appallingly irrational rationalization of his sock puppetry. He’s got some new excuses, I will give him that.

Guess what, he may have been naughty, but at least he’s not a mass murderer.

On the scale of immoral behavior, where genocide is at the top, and wearing Spanx is near the bottom, posting comments under an alias to clear up harmful misconceptions is about one level worse than Spanx.

Great. So if ever I’m caught kicking a puppy or lying on the internet, all I need to do is explain that I didn’t kill six million Jews, so you can all forgive me. Of course, I don’t think anyone accused Adams of genocide or suggested that he needed to be locked up for life like a Hannibal Lecter, so that’s all rather irrelevant.

His other excuse is that he needed to create a sock puppet to correct misinformation about himself.

The messenger with a strong self-interest is automatically non-credible, and should be. There are some types of information that can only be communicated by an unbiased messenger. And the most unbiased messenger in the world is one that is imaginary, such as my invisible friend, PlannedChaos.

There is no such thing as an unbiased messenger, but we can still value independent input. The problem with a sock puppet is that it is an effort to create an illusion of independence and less bias, but we know it isn’t — that is, we know it if we’re a little smarter than Scott Adams. PlannedChaos, his pseudonym, is even less trustworthy and credible than Scott Adams himself because PlannedChaos has the same biases as Scott Adams, but is unconstrained by the consequences to his reputation.

Not that Adams seems particularly concerned about his reputation anyway—I think he has fully embraced his inner douchebag and is now simply happy to get people to look at him.

Why sockpuppetry is stupid

Because when you’re exposed, you look like an even more gargantuan idiot and pathetic narcissist. Scott Adams, creator of Dilbert, has been discovered to have tried to pad his reputation with a fake ID … he’s used the pseudonym “PlannedChaos” to go around the web praising Scott Adams as a “certified genius”.

You know, it’s a good rule of thumb that if you have to announce that you’re a genius, you aren’t a genius.

I’ve been remarking on Adams’ stupidity for years. He’s a creationist apologist who doesn’t understand science, and the kind of insipid apologist for religion who thinks Pascal’s wager is a good argument. It’s no surprise that he had to cobble up imaginary sycophants to make himself look good.

And then, of course, there’s the classic, standard Adams riposte whenever he’s exposed as a fool. Sure, he said something stupid, he’ll say, but he did it because he’s funny and you are even dumber for taking him seriously. It’s no surprise that that is his response now.

I’m sorry I peed in your cesspool. For what it’s worth, the smart people were on to me after the first post. That made it funnier.

That schtick wore out ages ago.

Can prayer help surgery?

The American Journal of Surgery has published a transcript of a presidential address titled, “Can prayer help surgery?“, and my first thought was that that was absolutely brilliant — some guy was roped into giving a big speech at a convention, and he picked a topic where he could stand up, say “NO,” and sit back down again. If he wanted to wax eloquent, maybe he could add a “Don’t be silly” to his one word address.

But a reader sent me a copy of this paper, and I was wrong. The author spent four pages saying “Yes”. It flies off to cloud cuckoo land in the very first sentence, which compares prayer to “chemotherapy and radiation as adjuvant therapies to surgery, working synergistically to cure cancers”, and then justifies it by pointing out that patients do internet searches for alternatives to surgery, and prayer is a popular result. So, right there in the first paragraph, we get the Argument from Extravagant Assertion and the Argument from Google. It’s not a good start.

This was given at a professional conference, though, so he has to talk about the data, and this is where it starts getting funny. He explains that there sure have been a lot of prayer studies lately, 855 in the past 15 years, and with 46 prospective randomized series in the Cochrane database, which he summarizes succinctly:

Equal healing benefit has been demonstrated whether the prayer is Hindu or Buddhist, Catholic or Protestant, Jewish or Muslim.

That’s the way to spin the data into something positive. Unfortunately, this is the happy peak of his foray into actually looking at the data, putting a cheerful universalist twist on the actual results, which he later grudgingly admits are non-existent. When they all show no benefit, that is equal benefit, after all.

Can medical science prove the benefit of prayer to im- prove the result of an operation? I refer you to the latest Cochrane review on this topic.5 This 69-page manuscript is a meta-analysis of 10 prospective randomized studies on intercessory prayer to help the efforts of modern medicine involving over 7,000 patients. Some studies in this meta- analysis showed benefit, while others did not. The conclusion of the authors was that there is no indisputable proof that intercessory prayer lowers surgical complications or improves mortality rates.

That’s the point where he should have stopped and stood down. The science has answered his question, and the answer is no. Unfortunately, this admission is at the top of page two, and he’s going to go on and on. He rants that the studies all basically suck — there can’t be good controls, people would pray for themselves, they didn’t check how devout the prayers were, and of course, that most excellent catch-all refutation, “What happens when the outcome being prayed for is not in accord with the will of God?”

The paper can be summarized so far as an argument that prayer helps because there have been a lot of studies on it, and those studies all show equal benefit, but that benefit is zero, and the studies are all bad science. How can his thesis be saved? Oh, I know: needs more anecdotes.

There is no indisputable proof that prayer can aid in healing. Those who believe do so by faith alone. I’ve seen the power of prayer work together with surgery many times firsthand. An example of this was witnessing my father-in-law miraculously survive an aortic arch dissection, outliving his surgeon by 20 years.

Wait, what? The family prayed, a skilled surgeon saved the patient, so prayer works? And also, from this one story, shouldn’t we just as reasonably conclude that prayer kills surgeons?

The rest of the paper is empty noise about how many patients want to pray and how it makes them feel better emotionally, and how the author is wonderfully open and supportive in praying with his patients. Meandering over the field of anecdote and citing his patients’ wishful thinking does not rescue his premise from the pit of rejection, I’m afraid; the only accurate answer to the question of whether prayer helps in surgery is “No, but people like to think it does.” It certainly doesn’t justify the author’s conclusion.

So, have I answered the question, “Can prayer help surgery?” While there is not conclusive scientific proof that prayer improves surgical outcomes, it certainly can help
relax an anxious preoperative patient and may help enhance the relationship between patient and surgeon. A surgeon must be comfortable with prayer to offer it. Professionalism can be maintained provided the prayer is offered in a non- confrontational manner and reflects the spirituality of the patient. Surgeons who want the best for their patients need to utilize every tool available, and to quote one of my patients, “Prayer is a powerful tool.”

Nah. Let me add a better quote: “The author is a powerful fool.” If he actually escaped unscathed from this address without being splattered by flung rubber chicken and puddin’ cups, my opinion of surgeons will be shattered.

Schroder DM (2011) Presidential Address: Can prayer help surgery? The American Journal of Surgery 201:275-278

The Brits are going to be insufferable for a while

I can tell. It’s coming. A royal heir has gotten engaged to some young woman, and there will be one of those royal weddings, and the sentimental argle-bargle in the British media will soar to new heights of fatuousness. I’ll miss most of it, fortunately, but I pity everyone in the United Kingdom who’s going to have to suffer with the royal romanticism for a while.

At least this time the Telegraph has set the bar for stupidity abysmally low, and I have no idea how anyone else willl sink lower (the fun will be in the trying, I’m sure). Someone has found a jelly bean that looks like Kate Middleton.

i-9ce032d9f7c7219968e7e07cb9936811-middleton_bean.jpeg

I don’t know what this means. Even the candy-making machines in jelly bean factories are infatuated with tabloid press stories about the imminent wedding, and are pressing their obsessions into sugar and gelatin? Kate’s visage is so potent that speckles and spots are spontaneously rejiggering themselves to conform? Or, perhaps, credulous idiots are rife in both the public and tabloid editorial rooms?

I suggest that The Telegraph document this novel property of random dots and send a reporter/photographer to the nearest sewage treatment plant and gaze adoringly into the feculent froth until more detailed images of connubial Windsorness bubble to the surface.

So that’s what they mean by the “War on Poverty”

Minnesota is leading the way. Our Rethuglicans have figured out how to end poverty: by making it illegal to have money if you’re poor? Wait, that makes no sense.

Minnesota Republicans are pushing legislation that would make it a crime for people on public assistance to have more $20 in cash in their pockets any given month.

Lest you think our most contemptible lawmakers have no heart at all, consider that this is the generous version of their earlier plan.

This represents a change from their initial proposal, which banned them from having any money at all.

I’m not sure what they’re thinking. If they’re so poor, the only way they could have any money is if they stole it from a rich guy? Or something? Maybe they’re just setting up a perfect Catch 22: now the police can roust someone who looks poor, and if they’ve got no money, send them to jail for vagrancy; if they’ve got more than $20, arrest them for possession of illegal currency.

Some people don’t believe me. Here’s the link to the proposed legislation. They want to give all benefits via a debit card so they can restrict and monitor purchases. And if this is their sole source of income, that means they’re only allowed a cash allowance of $20/month. Control, control, control.

Section 1. [256.9870] ELECTRONIC BENEFIT TRANSFER DEBIT CARD.
Subdivision 1. Electronic benefit transfer or EBT debit card. (a) Electronic
benefit transfer (EBT) debit cardholders in the general assistance program and the
Minnesota supplemental aid program under chapter 256D and programs under chapter
256J are prohibited from withdrawing cash from an automatic teller machine or receiving
cash from vendors with the EBT debit card. The EBT debit card may only be used as a debit card.
(b) Beginning July 1, 2011, cash benefits for programs listed under paragraph (a)
must be issued on a separate EBT card with the head of household’s name printed on the
card. The card must also state that “It is unlawful to use this card to purchase tobacco
products or alcoholic beverages.” This card must be issued within 30 calendar days of
an eligibility determination. During the initial 30 calendar days of eligibility, a recipient
may have cash benefits issued on an EBT card without the recipient’s name printed on the
card. This card may be the same card on which food support is issued and does not need
to meet the requirements of this section.
(c) Notwithstanding paragraph (a), EBT cardholders may opt to have up to $20
per month accessible via automatic teller machine or receive up to $20 cash back from a vendor.

I hope these people aren’t your friends

Japan has a tragic and devastating earthquake. American responses follow a range of attitudes. One that is normal and appropriate is sympathy and outreach by donations to organizations like the Red Cross; if you’re in that group, good for you, congratulations on being a human being.

Another response that is far too typical is for people to drop to their knees and start praying to their fairy-tale magic man in the sky, being about as ineffectual as is possible while still feeling smug about it. That’s human too, it’s just dumb. You don’t get congratulations for being a stupid human being, but at least you don’t make me want to disown the human race.

And then there’s a third reaction. I was sent a collage of messages posted on Facebook in the last day or so, and these make me ashamed to share a culture with these wretched people.

I may be about to ruin your morning. Don’t click on this compilation of facebook entries unless you’re one of those cynical people who already has low expectation of the worst of Americans.

And…the story from Japan has just gotten worse. There was an explosion at a nuclear power plant last night.