Announcement: Leave of Absence

The semester is picking up for me, and since this is my senior year I have a lot on my plate. Just to give a general idea, here is my To-Do List:

• Take the General GRE and the Chemistry Subject GRE
• Apply to graduate programs that offer theoritical chemistry
• Survive the classes that keep giving me weekly assignments
• Write a 15-page paper on a modern thermodynamic topic for one of my classes
• Finish the rough-draft for the research I did this past summer
• Begin the rough-draft for the current research
• Begin concentrating on my senior thesis project

Yes, there is quite a bit. I must take a leave for awhile. Perhaps I will see everyone in a couple of weeks. I just hope the world hasn't gone to waste by then.

Peanut Butter Goes Well With Bananas

Peanut butter goes well with bananas, especially when anti-science supporters use both of them to indicate their own stupidity on a subject. First the banana could not have evolved, and now peanut butter is supposedly the new enemy of evolution.



I know plenty of smart engineers. How the hell did Chuck Missler ever get far in life with such low comprehension skills?

I Thought Only the South Published Morons

This month seems to be the month for poorly written opinion pieces at college newspapers. My school had one concerning same-sex marriage, and Ohio University had blatant racism flash their student newspaper. Now, a freshman at Yale places a foot in his mouth concerning atheism and its "lack" of morality.

He writes:

Christians and other theists have raised the objection that naturalistic materialism — the notion that only the physical world exists — can provide no foundation for morality. That’s not to say that naturalists cannot behave morally, but merely that they can have no real and consistent reason for behaving morally. As this has been a long-standing and widespread objection to naturalism, it would seem only reasonable to expect atheists to devote careful attention to the question of morality.

Atheistic philosophers have, indeed, spent time describing a naturalistic morality. Where has this kid been? How moral tendency develops as a result of our ability to possess empathy toward others. It is a natural human condition to project oneself into the situations experienced by others, because chances are we have experienced said situation. Our knowledge grew not from revelation or "magic" but by human experiences and human observation. We know stealing requires removing possession of property from one individual to another. We know rape involves sexual penetration and violence. We know the result of murder is the vanquishing of a life. We have experience and knowledge of the results and outcomes of given circumstances.

Morality is nothing more or a less than a reflection of knowledge. It is not a gene, and it is not a a deus ex machina. I find it a bit repugnant to declare that the sole reason beings are moral is due to posthumous judgment by a mythical being who supposedly walked the earth and floated into the sky or any other fancy mythology one can contrive. I act righteously because I have the ability to discern how the other individual desires to be treated. I act according to the law because that is what I accept as being a citizen of the nation. No need to call forth Jesus, Zeus, or any other deity of desire.

Concerning our ability to choose to act rightly or wrongly, the author writes:

C.S. Lewis puts the matter nicely: “If a man asks what is the point of behaving decently, it is no good replying, ‘in order to benefit society,’ for trying to benefit society, in other words being unselfish (for ‘society’ after all only means ‘other people’), is one of the things decent behaviour consists in; all you are really saying is that decent behaviour is decent behaviour.”

You are certainly free to disobey the moral tendency and do wrong and violence on to others. However, with every wrong committed a person exists who desires justice for the wrong. Hence, our morality stems from the social contract, an extension of our human empathy.

The freshmen enters into the famous is-ought paradigm: "naturalistic materialism gives no basis for this ought." Indeed, no such system has a true basis for an ought, and he is blinded to think religion does. The simple existence of a system or parameter does not necessitate the individual to follow said parameter. In the Christian tradition, no one is forced to act morally, that is there is no forced reason to commit oneself to ought statements. It is only inner volition which causes one to follow the oughts prescribed by Christianity, Judaism, or any other flavor of theism imaginable. Why limit the is-ought problem to only naturalism when it equally applies across the board? As stated previously, the individual can fall outside of the bell curve for following the natural moral tendency, but our social order determines the reaction to this individual's actions. Again, the social contract is held.

The author fails to convince the reader that morality is dependent upon God. The onus is on him to demonstrate how theism transverses the is-ought problem of philosophy. I am content with my naturalistic morality and its source, and I am content following the ought parameters established. I have no need to call forth supernatural entities to determine not to kill, to bathe every day, and to conserve energy and materials. Does the author only act morally because he is afraid of the lake of fire? What a prick to act out of fear of the unknowable and unseen and then condemn those who act due to their knowledge of the world and humanity.

Taking Second John too SRSLY

PZ Myers has an interesting account of locally owned print shops refusing service to an atheist to make an advertising poster for a convention (emphasis original):

Ironic note on the poster of Atheist Symbols for the Atheist Alliance International convention: I went to have it made today, at a local shop which specializes in posters, worked happily with the designer -- and then several hours later got a call to come back and pick my stuff up, no poster. They are Christians and cannot do it. Went to another place, same thing. It was simply a poster with symbols to vote on -- but it was for atheists. And they are Christians. One person helpfully explained that they turned down the KKK too. So sorry. But they're Christians.

Well, I'm an atheist, and I've done work for churches. I can understand not making a donation. But throwing someone out of the print shop? Comparing them with the Ku Klux Klan? Oh. Wait. They're Christians.

Let's hear it for Office Max. They were the only ones who would print it. And deal with an atheist.

Yeesh. I do not take kindly for being considered on the same footing as the Ku Klux Klan, which is a Christian white-supremacy organization.

Sounds like these shop owners and workers are taking the Second Epsitle of John too literally:

Many deceivers have gone out into the world, those who do not confess that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh; any such person is the deceiver and the antichrist! Be on your guard, so that you do not lose what we have worked for, but may receive a full reward. Everyone who does not abide in the teaching of Christ, but goes beyond it, does not have God; whoever abides in the teaching has both the Father and the Son. Do not receive into the house or welcome anyone who comes to you and does not bring this teaching; for to welcome is to participate in the evil deeds of such a person.

Oh, blessed will be the day when people stop making assumptions that atheists are evil monsters that eat babies and rape dead people.

The Freepers are Angsty at SD Mayor

Heaven-forbid an honest individual makes a stand for human rights and dignity. Pam Spaulding has a collection of comments made by Freepers (Free Republic members) concerning the recent show of support for gay rights by San Diego Mayor Jerry Sanders. Note the appeals to religion throughout the comments. I guess people will never fully understand that our laws are based on secular theories, such as social contract, as opposed to sectarian morality?

Since these comments correspond very well to recent events , I find it fitting to add this entry to my web log.

America Needs to Stand Against Heterosexual Chauvinism and Appeals to Sectarian Morality

Note: A recent opinion piece on same-sex marriage ran at my university's newspaper. Needless to say, it generated a lot of discussion. Below was my original response to the negative opinion I submitted to the editor. The newspaper ran a redacted version. I plan on expanding the following with proper citations for the science portion and an overall sense of the issue being constitutional as opposed to moral/familial. This is meant to follow-up the recent colloquial held at my university, though the discussion seemed ad hoc and too last minute to have been of any substance.

---

Denton’s recent opinion piece is a remarkable conversation starter for the new semester. It addresses some key issues concerning the GLBT movement and its impact on sexual education and social mores. However, I have to politely disagree with Denton’s presentation.

Denton writes: “No biological cause has yet been discovered to explain homosexuality”. Though no precise biological cause has been discovered per se, there has been some research done in this field since Simon LeVay’s 1991 discovery in gay men of undersized neurons in the anterior hypothalamus, the region of the brain involved with sex hormones and sexual response. For instance, in 1993 Dean Hamer of the National Cancer Institute discovered that gay brothers shared a specific region of the X chromosome (Xq28) at a higher rate than gay men with straight brothers. This study was the origin of the “gay gene”. One also cannot forget the 2005 Swedish study concerning male response to female urine versus male sweat. In gay men and straight women, the hypothalamus responds to the scent of male sweat similarly. In contrast, the hypothalamus of straight men responded to the scent of female urine.

This leads into a discussion on sexual arousal, where yet again the issue becomes murky. Research at Northwestern University indicates that women are sexually aroused by pornographic images independent of the sex and sexual orientation being presented. That is, the women in the study showed brain activity indicative of sexual arousal with images of sex between a male and a female, two females, and two males all independent of sexual orientation. In contrast, gay men showed higher brain activity to images of two males having sex but showed no arousal patterns to the other images, and straight men showed higher arousal toward lesbian sex. So in men, sexual orientation is linked to a physiological response whereas in women sexual orientation is not as easily linked.

But where does this leave us? Though Denton stressed purely genetics, researchers in developmental sciences in general have abandoned such approaches even earlier than the cited Bailey and Pillard study. For instance, consider fetal development in the womb. The sex of the baby is determined by the presence of X and Y chromosomes. However, a male and female zygote is physically indistinguishable until sex hormones activate sections of the genome for gene expression. In fetuses containing XY chromosome, male features develop, and there is no reason this development is limited to anatomical components but extends to the development of the brain of the fetus.

All it takes is a certain stress to the system and even identical twins can develop differently despite possessing the same genetic sequence. This development difference is made more obvious when one compares the weights of the twins relative to one another. One twin will be born heavier than the other, and this weight difference can be more than a pound in some cases. I challenge the reader and Denton to look into twins where one twin possesses childhood gender nonconformity (CGN). CGN has been a phenomenon of interest in child development circles, and research into it will bring new light on understanding the origin of same-sex attraction and sexual orientation.

Science aside, there are other issues addressed in Denton’s article. Certainly if same-sex attraction can be fundamentally shown without a doubt to be from natural causes then the legal battle for equal rights for members of the GLBT community would enter into the very same setting of the civil rights movement of the 1950s and 1960s. Just as a person cannot choose their ethnicity they would not be able to choose their sexual attraction and orientation. Therefore, discriminating based on sexual orientation, a natural attribute of the individual, would go against the principles of the United States Constitution by restricting their natural rights based solely on attributes uncontrollable to the individual.

At this point I cannot help but comment on one aspect of Denton’s statistics. Denton cites a CNN poll that says only 57 percent of Americans oppose gay marriage. Did he know that nearly one year after the famous Loving v. Virginia case which struck down anti-miscegenation laws that 72 percent of Americans still disapproved of interracial marriage? Did he know that it was not until 1991 that Gallup found more Americans approved of interracial marriage than disapproved? Now, nearly 50 years from that landmark case, it is still a dismal 3 in 4 Americans approve of interracial marriage. Can anyone imagine how life would be different if civil liberties were dictated strictly by the feelings of the majority instead of the philosophy of equal protection and natural rights granted by the Constitution?

I believe this debate goes beyond the science. The United States was founded by men who believed that the government should not mandate mere opinion. This is the rationale for the First Amendment which protects this very newspaper and my letter from being censored based on content alone, which protects the ability of the missionaries to speak in Free Speech Alley, and which protects everyone’s religious convictions and expressions. The government cannot mandate what we think because that is the very definition of tyranny. As well, the government cannot prefer one opinion over another by granting special privileges to some but not all. This, in my opinion, is the very heart of the GLBT rights movement.

In other words, just as the government cannot regulate what religion I choose, the government cannot regulate my sexual orientation. Just as the government cannot give special rights to religious organizations simply due to their religion, the government cannot give special rights to a sexual orientation simply due to their sexual orientation. However, this is exactly what is happening with the issue concerning marriage. Heterosexual couples are given certain privileges unobtainable to same-sex couples via the ability to obtain a marriage license. Certainly, there are bureaucratic means to obtain a number of similar privileges, such as wills to dictate property upon decease or dual adoption measures. However, such pursuits are costly and timely, require the proper documents at all times, and can be challenged in court. However, all of this is simplified with one piece of parchment which is denied based on the sex of the two applicants, and in turn their sexual orientation. How can we as citizens of America founded on the principal of equality sit back and say that this system does not discriminate or grant special privileges based on mere opinion when, by brute fact, it does?

Alexander Hamilton wrote in The Farmer Refuted: “Civil liberty, is only natural liberty, modified and secured by the sanctions of civil society”. These are the words which echo in the Constitution and in the court cases which address restrictions on our civil liberties. The very foundation of our society is our natural rights and the protection of our opinions, not of our cultural institutions as Denton believes. So I am forced to politely disagree with Denton. Gay marriage does not threaten America; however, maintaining preferential treatment to heterosexual couples does threaten the founding principles and makes a mockery of the accomplishments of our founding fathers.

David Vitter: Adulterer AND a Creationist

What is it with sexually deviant Congressmen being sympathetic with Biblical Creationism? David Vitter added an earmark that would give $100,000 to a local group of fuckwits, the Louisiana Family Forum.

We live in an ass-backwards world when genuine science requires competition to get federal funding whereas denialism simply needs a sympathetic dodo in Congress.

San Diego Mayor on Gay Marriage

Mayor Jerry Sanders of San Diego, CA shows support for gay marriage. His views are similar to mine.

Stumbling Upon Plantinga

At a local bar I conversed with an undergraduate student in philosophy at my university. She was in one of my math classes ages ago and recognized me. We discussed a plethora of topics ranging from current political affairs, the economy, and our personal philosophical outlook.

Like many of the intelligent girls I know or have conversed with it at my school, she was raised Catholic and still considers herself a practicing Catholic. When we got to the point in the conversation about our philosophical positions, she seemed a bit amazed to be conversing with a metaphysical naturalist. To her, naturalism was self-defeating.

I thought this was odd. How is naturalism self-defeating? Certainly the demand of strict empiricism as the test of demarcation of true beliefs from false constructs cannot be proven without a recourse in circularity, but this circularity is characteristic in all epistemological systems (eg. strict rationalism is unable to justify itself independent of its methodology of using reason and deductive arguments, the very composition which makes the method rational). A quality that is exhibited in all systems cannot, in and of itself, be the sole reason to dismiss one system in favor of another unless one desires to adopt global skepticism, a position which (though plausibly true) does not render itself very well in philosophical conversations.

However, this is exactly what she had in mind. As a Catholic and an intelligent young woman, she takes the theory of evolution as a valid representation of reality. However, from the precepts of the theory of evolution under naturalism (ie. unguided processes), she indicates that there is a low probability of obtaining true beliefs. This result comes from the observation that true beliefs and false beliefs can arise naturally and unguided natural selection would not differentiate between the two. So there is a probability that a false belief could arise and maintain itself as a true belief despite it being false. As false beliefs have a greater potential to arise naturally than true beliefs, the probability of a belief being true becomes low. Therefore, the belief that evolution is unguided cannot be determined as true and, under this system, contain a high probability of being false. Thus, under these conditions, naturalism is self-defeating by positioning itself as a strongly possible false belief.

As she was discussing her view, she mentioned it was not original to her. It was a reworking of Plantinga's evolutionary argument against naturalism. I have heard that Plantinga developed a rationalist argument against naturalism, but to be honest I never read in detail his argument before. Nor have I read his argument in detail upon writing this post. I do have the PDF downloaded and plan on going to the library tomorrow between classes to check out some books that discuss the argument. But if the philosophy undergraduate student portrayed the argument concisely, then I have some preliminary issues with the argumentation form.

As stated previously, the metaphysical naturalist (particularly my flavor) has a greater loyalty to empiricism over rationalism. To be concise, rationalism leads only to an operational description of reality but empirical observations are reality that, indeed, back-up and trump the previous operational descriptors. But, I digress some.

The empiricist seeks facts which play a role in transparent explanations. That is, the empiricist seeks explanatory clarity to grant us a modicum of confidence in our explanations of the world. In essence, our explanations and beliefs must be naturalized to satisfy this level of explanatory clarity and transparency. Our descriptors must also be parsimonious with respect to the given facts and intersubjective conclusions concerning these facts, or else we lose our sense of transparency. Indeed, as the history of science has shown in the fields of chemistry and physics (to name the ones I work with more closely), parsimony gives a resulting theory of reality that describes reality more closely until more data (ie more facts) are collected.

But how did this mode of thinking develop? Of course, this structure developed through evolutionary processes. In essence, whereas the argument stated denies adaptive beliefs, it is the very practice of empiricism which is adaptive. During the course of our evolutionary history we became selected out by our cognitive ability to model the world. Civilization, which relied heavily upon the development of agriculture, developed from the observations of interactions of the natural environment. We developed clothing as a response to migration into temperate zones. Our history is rich with beliefs developed via an empirical model, and it is also rich with ideas rejected due to failure to adhere to empirical observations. How is one able to determine that this is probably false if, indeed, natural selection favored the population that was able to control their environment via pragmatic methods over the population which was subdued by their environment?

Certainly, the metaphysical naturalist could be mistaken. A god could be actualized via the pursuit of science, but then this god would become naturalized, and in doing so become clearly explainable and parsimonious. These are not the characteristics of any of the revealed gods. Though one could posit a sort of god as an initiator, there is no indication that this initiator plays an overtly active role. Those who adhere to empiricism out of pragmatic reasons and the powerful ability for it to explain reality concisely, whether absolutely or close enough for conventional explanations, demand a posited god to be detectable and predictable. These criteria have not been met by the individuals possessing the positive belief in said entity.

As well, we could all be living a conscious fantasy. However, even if this were true, the rationalist is at no better a position than the empiricist, and the theist is at no better a position than the atheist. As both live in the truly-false world, like a brain in the vat, one would be unable to differentiate the true beliefs developed via supra-worldly help (ie religious revelation) from the beliefs developed by worldly methods. Ironically, this is because the supra-worldly method would be forced to intersect with a worldly entity that is affected by the aspect of being in a truly-false world. In essence, this is a more sophisticated version of the argument from conflicting revelations taken under the assumption of the being existing in a truly-false world.

So, in summary, I find the summation of Plantinga's argument lacking. It seems to assume a certain linear fashion of the development of beliefs despite the observation of various evolutionists that belief develop is non-linear. Also, it seems to fail to address adaptive beliefs that the very survival of the species hinges upon. Plantinga attempts to write-off the beauty of unguided natural selection with appeals to pure rationalism. I'll address his arguments in full at a later date, perhaps, but for now my preliminary review seems strong enough for a web log post.

The Truth

Clck here for the truth.

(Really, I just want an iPod)