Looking further at the intersection of faith and science

It's interesting to see an interactive graph of the religions who do and do not state openly if evolution or the big bang is in conflict with their religion.

Here's the graph: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/max-tegmark/religion-and-science-distance-between-not-as-far-as-you-think_b_2664657.html

And here's the survey itself: http://space.mit.edu/home/tegmark/survey.html

The major denominations that state there's a conflict:
- Southern Baptist Convention
- Lutheran Church Missouri and Wisconsin Synod
- Presbyterian Church of America
- Free Methodist
- 7th Day Adventist
- Jehovah's Witnesses

The rest either pretty much openly state that there's no conflict, or have no official position posted. This surprises me. I must be missing some aspects of modern theology that allows for this coexistence. Of course, the same goes for most people. While 46% of Americans believe in a literal understanding of Genesis and a <10,000 year old Earth, only 11% of Americans belong to a denomination which openly states evolution and an old Earth are in conflict with their faith.

I don't know how Christians are able to reconcile evolution with God...

I didn't very spend much longer as a Christian after I accepted evolution. I couldn't reconcile a benevolent god using possibly one of the cruelest methods imaginable to "mold" the thinking, feeling, life forms we see today. It relies on suffering to progress. I remember the moment it hit me. I was watching a David Attenborough documentary where he explained a basic observation Darwin made that caught him on to evolution. Animals, from the fish in the sea, to the rabbits on land, to the birds in the sky, must produce many offspring. Two parent birds must produce many more offspring than just two in order to keep their numbers stable because most of their children will never make it to reproduction themselves. Most will die from the harsh competition in the environment. Not only must the siblings survive external predators, and internal diseases until then, but they must also compete against each other for food, for mates, for homes, etc., and the number of offspring needed to keep numbers stable increases exponentially the lower you are in the food chain. Just look at how many eggs that frogs, fish, and insects must produce to hold extinction at bay. How many untold numbers of their offspring must be sacrificed to keep alive the many tiers of predators above them.

How malicious is a being who creates a planet of living things who must survive by ripping other living things out of the ground, snatching them out of the sky, or hunting them and ripping the living flesh from their bones? With so many forms of energy available what kind of mind creates a planet full of things which rely on metabolic energy? I can accept the existence of the food chain in a non-theistic evolution worldview, but if the claim put forward is that this was planned, thought out, or designed, then that designer is a sinister being who is watching every one of its children rip apart one another to survive. That god is not for me.

I'll end with a Hitchens quote:

"Let's say that the consensus is that our species, being the higher primates, Homo Sapiens, has been on the planet for at least 100,000 years, maybe more. Francis Collins says maybe 100,000. Richard Dawkins thinks maybe a quarter-of-a-million. I'll take 100,000. In order to be a Christian, you have to believe that for 98,000 years, our species suffered and died, most of its children dying in childbirth, most other people having a life expectancy of about 25 years, dying of their teeth, famine, struggle, bitterness, war, suffering, misery, all of that for 98,000 years.
Heaven watches this with complete indifference. And then 2000 years ago, thinks 'That's enough of that. It's time to intervene', and the best way to do this would be by condemning someone to a human sacrifice somewhere in the less literate parts of the Middle East. Don't lets appeal to the Chinese, for example, where people can read and study evidence and have a civilization. Let's go to the desert and have another revelation there. This is nonsense. It can't be believed by a thinking person."

The Top Six Facebook Pages That Replace Science With Woo

On Facebook, I frequently see shared posts that look interesting at first sight, but after a little reading, are nothing but woo. What is "woo"?

Woo-woo (or just plain woo) refers to ideas considered irrational or based on extremely flimsy evidence or that appeal to mysterious occult forces or powers.

1. The Mind Unleashed tops the list with 6.6 million followers. It's a pseudoscientific, woo-peddling, click bait website with a propensity to misrepresent data from studies and present it as scientific fact for their own gain. On it you may find things like vaccine hysteria, food woo, including opposition to GMOs and gluten, UFOs/aliens, vibration healing, HAARP weather manipulation, chemtrails, and quantum misrepresentation.

2. Spirit Science comes in next with 5.1 million followers. Created by Jordan Pearce, the site promotes a wide range of New Age woo including but not limited to astral projection, chakras, crystal woo, orgone energy, quantum woo and sacred geometry. Watch a video of Jordan infiltrating an hospital operating room, and then complain about the lack of "healing crystals".

3. Collective Evolution with only 1.7 million followers. CE is a woo-mongering click bait website. They label themselves as an alternative news source that seeks to expand their way of "thinking" to create "big change" on the planet. On it you may find vaccine fear mongering, quantum woo, aliens, Illuminati and 9/11 conspiracies, and various types of food woo.

4. Natural News with 1.4 million followers. NaturalNews.com is an anti-science conspiracy website founded by Mike Adams which promotes numerous alternative medicines and assorted woo. The site particularly specializes in vaccine denialism, AIDS/HIV denialism, quack cancer treatments, and conspiracy theories about "Big Pharma", and modern medicine. Furthermore, Adams supports quantum woo, specifically quantum healing and quantum consciousness. Natural News advances a hard green position, even though the site also promotes global warming denialism.

5. World Truth with 1.1 million followers. It's a website run by a man named Eddie Levin, who claims to have "spent the last 32 years researching Theosophy, Freemasonry, Kabbalah, Rosicrucianism, the Bavarian Illuminati and Western Occultism". On it, you'll find things like "cleansing" diets, global warming denialism, vaccine hysteria, and most importantly, antisemitism, claiming that The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion is an authentic manual on how Jews are going to take over the world.

6. Food Babe with 950,000 followers. The usual ration of nature woo crap. She's strongly anti-GMO, anti-vaccine, pro-organic, chemophobic, the whole works. She's a raw milk advocate and a nitrite basher. She's a fan of Masaru Emoto's water woo. She's claimed that the pressurized cabins in airliners compress your internal organs, and that the cabin air can contain "up to 50% nitrogen." Essentially, she fancies herself a consumer advocate whose job it is to protect you from toxic food ingredients, with said toxicity determined by how scary or unfamiliar the name of the ingredient is. In reality she uses fear as a selling strategy. Her products mainly consist of items from companies she has a commission referral system in place with. Ms. Hari demonstrates little to no dignity or humility when challenged by experts. A National Public Radio (NPR) article on 4-December-2014 covered her irresponsible tactics and was scathing as it identified her as a fear-monger. In response, Ms. Hari has recently written an essay to portray herself as the victim of corporate shills.

A Small God.

When Carl Sagan​ spoke of people wanting their god small, I think many people misunderstood what he meant. The god people often describe is infinite, omnipotent, omnibenevolent, etc. This is a big definition for sure, but God's definition and biblical actions are oceans apart. Scientists like Sagan, who have a greater glimpse of the immensity, intricacy, and elegance of nature see this juxtaposition better than anyone.

Would the artist of auroras choose one tribe over another, destroying their enemies.
Would the creator of chromosomes command his tribe of goat herders to cut off a part of their penis?
Would the engineer of evolution care for the life being shaped by it?
Would the designer of dopamine expect moral perfection from brains awash in it?
Would the maker of molecules care about what a specie of apes in the Milky Way galaxy do in their bedrooms?
Would the author of atoms demand female virginity and obedience to their husbands??
Would the artist of auroras destroy city walls or take sides in tribal conflicts in Palestine?

The god portrayed in the old testament seems so small-minded, human-centered, and he thinks like you would expect humans at the time would. He rules like a king, which is people governed themselves. Sought progress through conquest, opposed rival tribes, and demanded women's place in society to be subservient to men. The bible reads like it was written by primitive, small-minded men, not an all-knowing, cosmic perspective divinity.

Why I changed my position on abortion

I'm going to lay out what convinced me to change my view on the legality of abortion this past year or two, both for my own clarity and the interest of others.

First, I'll do what most abortion rights advocates don't do: concede that the fetus and the mother have equal rights to autonomy. I don't believe this, but for the sake of my point, I'll let that go. However, the fetus' own autonomy is dependent upon the mother relinquishing hers, so we now have two equal, competing autonomies. What tips the balance against legal abortions, opponents would say, is that the stakes lean very far in one direction. Time-wise, the mother loses 9 months, and the fetus loses the *potential* for an entire lifetime.

To explore this, I'm going to use some analogies, or "intuition pumps" that are somewhat similar to allow our own intuition to clarify some of the murkiness of the issue. No analogy is perfect since pregnancy is unique with its mix of involuntary actions the body does, and voluntary actions that people do, but I think it clarifies nonetheless.

Suppose a man is dying, and the only way he can survive is if someone else is hooked up to him intravenously for 9 months; he must have an I.V. connect him to someone else and use their circulatory system to filter his blood. Would it be nice if someone volunteered to do this? Definitely. Does the government, another person, or even the sick man himself have the right to force someone else to relinquish their autonomy to do this? I don't think so.
Let's take it a step further and suppose that a man volunteered to be connected, but later reneges on the offer and wants to disconnect. Should the man be forced to continue being connected; abstaining from things like alcohol so his liver can filter enough for the both of them? Does he still have the right to his autonomy? Should he still have the choice to disconnect at his choosing? Yes.
I think this clarifies what many people already believe: In cases such as rape, incest, or medical peril for the mother, there should be the right to abort. I think it also points out that if abortion is legal, it should be legal at any point in the pregnancy.

Now what about the women who could have prevented this situation entirely? Let's use another analogy. Suppose a woman has a child with a rare kidney disease. Suppose the woman knew before her pregnancy that she had these genes and knew there was a decent probability the child would get it. Now at 10 years old, the doctors say the only way the child can possibly survive another year is if the mother gives up one of her kidneys.
Would a mother that deeply cares about her child do this? Of course.
But on the off chance the mother doesn't care enough to undergo the operation, should the mother be legally forced to give up one of her kidneys? No. Whether she knew this might happen years ago or just didn't think about it, her autonomy is her own just as the child has their own.
So even if a woman becomes pregnant through her own volition or carelessness, she does not concede her legal autonomy. I may, considering the details of individual cases, consider her to be morally lacking. I may be able to cite numerous reasons for an abortion to be immoral, but I can't cite a single reason to legally require someone to maintain a pregnancy.
The morality of the situation and legal responsibility of the individual are separate issues.

Remember that in a free society, we begin with all rights and freedoms, and then limit each right only when there is due cause to restrict them.

I could go on since the more I read, the more reasons I find to support abortion rights, but I think I'll stop there because that addresses the main issue I see coming from the other side.

U.S. Torture Report.

Reports like this remind me that I pledge allegiance to humanity first, and the country second. As Germany sought to commit crimes against decency and humanity, those that pledged allegiance to the Motherland, carried out those acts or looked the other way. Those that pledged allegiance to ALL humanity tried to stop it within Germany like Schindler, or left Germany like Einstein. I hope we keep our perspective on the bigger picture and seriously try to change this trend. We are a lonely speck of pale blue, united against the universe!

http://foreignpolicy.com/2014/12/09/coming-clean-with-bloodstained-hands-senate-torture-report-cia-bush-administration-obama/

The zombie apocalypse of 1814

Suppose I told you there was a zombie uprising in Kalamazoo, MI in the year 1814. A whole bunch of dead people rose from their graves and walked around in the streets, where lots of people saw them.

How do I know this? I read a report written by someone who knew all about it. It was written anonymously in the year 1874, but it greatly corroborates with another report written in 1854. Well, copied actually, but there are some unique additions as well. The horde of zombies is one of them.

But wait, although this 1854 account was also written anonymously, and doesn't mention a horde of zombies rising from the dead, it DOES mention two specific people rising from the dead:

-The pastor of John the Baptist Church
-The daughter of a man named Jacob

There is also a more prophetic account written after both of these in 1894 that says it will happen again, and the only way to survive the coming zombie apocalypse, is to believe the first one happened. Sure, no witnesses in Kalamazoo around 1814 wrote about it, but I think these other reports are enough to go on, and besides, what if it's true and zombies are coming any day now?

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Suppose I told you that several bodies of the dead rose in Jerusalem in the year 30 A.D. A whole bunch of dead people rose from their graves and walked around in the streets, where lots of people saw them.

How do I know this? I read about it in the book of Matthew 27:51-53. Matthew was written anonymously in the year 90 A.D., but it greatly corroborates with the book of Mark, written in 70 A.D. Well, copied actually, but there are some unique additions as well. The dead walking the streets is one of them.

But wait, although this 70 A.D. account (Mark) was also written anonymously, and doesn't mention dead people walking the street, it DOES mention two specific people rising from the dead:

-A rabbi named Jesus
-The daughter of a man named Jairus

There is also a more prophetic account written after both of these in 110 A.D. (the gospel of John) that says Jesus is coming back, and the only way to survive the coming apocalypse, is to believe in Jesus. Sure, no witnesses in Jerusalem around 30 A.D. wrote about it, but I think these other reports are enough to go on, and besides, what if it's true and judgement is coming any day now?