The Chapin Skeptic

The end of the world is coming and I am having a blast!

2011-05-19T20:47:00.000-07:00

Completely unrelated to whatever crazy old Harold Camping might be thinking or doing is the fact that, for the last few months I have been having and continue to have one of the best times of my life.

And I want the party to go on!

But not cranky old Harold Camping. A retired civil engineer (I can't believe we share the same profession!) he has been spreading the word around the world that the end is to come on Saturday, May 21st. Two days from now.

And he has billboards in such places as Israel, Jordan, Lebanon and Iran! If anything, you have to admire his tenacity.

But he is not trustworthy. His prophecies have backfired on him at least once before, as he had already predicted the end of the world would be on September 6th, 1994. Either he was wrong or I am now living in the Matrix and have not noticed it.

His calculations for claiming the end of the world are downright ridiculous. First, he seems to assume the world is 6,000 years old, as fundamental christians like to believe. Then he places the year of the (non-existent) Flood as 4990 b.c.e and he adds 7000 years (because the bible says somewhere that 1000 years is like a day). Then he does some other cockamanied calculations to arrive at the May 21st. date. When asked, he says that on that day, at 6 in the evening there will be a huge earthquake. Where? Everywhere!

That is why it shames me to know he is an engineer. You would think a member of our time honored profession would know that it cannot be 6 pm everywhere in the world at the same time. It is all nonsense and a lot of crap.

Of course, people like me have been having a blast with the whole thing. Many other predictions of the end of the world have come and gone and nothing has happened, which causes even some christian church officials to denounce doom-sayers like Camping "because they give the church a black eye" when the alleged prophecy fails to happen.

Camping and his cohorts are up for another great disappointment, like the Millerite thing back in 1844. Unfortunately it seems that, like when other prophecies failed, their faith may be somehow reinforced and they will come up with all sorts of explanations as to why the Rapture failed to happen. Unless, of course, there is some "Kool Aid" involved and they are no longer around to explain themselves. We will see... on Sunday.

In the meantime - party on!

Share on Facebook

Little man, great man

2011-05-03T20:28:00.001-07:00

Sai Baba - I got this image from another blog - sorry!

Last week a couple of interesting things happened.

First the little man, Sathya Sai Baba died, at age 84. He missed the mark by 12 years, since he had prophesied his death would occur at age 96, after which 8 years more would elapse before he would reincarnate.

I guess his miscalculation may mean he will not reincarnate. He may have missed the Reincarnation Express.

As mentioned before, Sai Baba was little - he was only about 1.57 meters tall. He became known as an avatar right in the middle of the peace and love era, the end of the sixties and the beginning of the seventies, when his afro look and his orange gowns blended well with the prevailing fashion and the rise of popularity of those oriental/indian beliefs in reincarnation and karma. Sai Baba seems to have been a skilled conjurer (watch this YouTube video) and he had a very long career (more than sixty years) in which he amassed a large fortune, which is now up for grabs.

No saint but just another merchant of faith, a pedophile and, possibly, a murderer. Little man, indeed.

John Paul II with Bill Clinton in 1993. Image from Wikimedia Commons.

On to the great man.

During the weekend, John Paul II was beatified. Sainthood claims aside I recently heard that how great a man you are depends on how big a void you leave when you go. It seems to me that, for better or for worse, Karol Wojtyla left a huge void indeed.

He presided over a momentous time in the history of Humanity, the fall of the Soviet Union and the establishment of free market and liberty over many formerly occupied countries. And to many, there is little doubt that he was one of the architects of that fall.

He also painted a good face on a decrepit institution. His many travels around the world and his skillful use of the media made him a familiar and welcome face in every home. While remaning a stern critic of other religions (he shared the same belief Pope Ratzinger proclaims, that the Catholic Faith is "superior") he did indeed approach other religious leaders and was the first Pope to visit a mosque and a sinagogue.

Of course, the reign of JPII is tainted by his dogmatism, his sponsorship of very conservative factions like the Opus Dei and his poor handling of the sex abuse scandals that rocked the whole Catholic institution from 2002 on. For that, he will always be criticized.

A saint? Depends on what you call sainthood. From the religious perspective, sainthood claims for the late pope hinge on the testimony of a lonely nun (is there any other kind?), Sister Marie Simon-Pierre, who claims her prayers to the late John Paul resulted in a miraculous cure from Parkinson's disease. While it remains to see if she really remains cured (she is not dead yet, so she has not lived a full disease-free life) and there are doubts about her mysterious and sudden "cure" the Vatican or, rather, Pope Ratzinger, fast-tracked the process so John Paul II could be quickly added to the already crowded catholic pantheon of saints.

But a great man? Basis my previous definition, definitely. He left his mark in both the secular as well as the religious arena, which cannot be ignored. He is missed by more than a few and that, too, cannot be ignored.

Share on Facebook

And the catholics are pissed because?

2011-02-22T16:49:00.000-08:00

Image via http://www.wtsp.com. Click this link to see the video at wtsp.com.

A few days ago I got an e-mail complaining about this ad and I watched it. The e-mail was petitioning me to go somewhere and sign up against the commercial because it "denigrated" the eucharist.

As long as you don't watch the commercial you might think that is true.

I grew up as a catholic so I understand some hints that are there in the commercial, for all to see except maybe for those dyed-in-the-wool catholicts who feel offended by this rather insipid depiction of religion. The "pastor" is called "pastor", not "father" as would be the case if this were a catholic priest. The church is a traditional protestant church - no mistaking that agriculture. Catholics do not keep files of new parishioners as if they were "applicants" for a job. And the flock is, well, very "diverse" - you see a hare krishna and an amish, a jew and a southern baptist... not very catholic.

And so on and so forth...

Religion is like that. People get so charged up with their own points of view that they lose sight of the bigger picture. There is no acceptance of other ways, my way is always the right way and dogma is king.

So, even though no mention is made, either explicit or implicit, that this is a catholic church, catholics get pissed. And again, I ask why?

See the commercial and judge for yourself. And also read this interesting commentary.

Share on Facebook

A different point of view

2011-01-25T19:05:00.001-08:00

Image from Amazon.

In a previous post (Another one bites the dust! May 6,2009) I told the story of father Alberto Cutié, who was caught red-handed kissing and caressing his girlfriend.

Now married, separated from the Catholic Church and a newly ordained priest in the Episcopal Church, father Alberto is back in the spotlight with his second book which, according to all accounts, is not kind on his former church.

As far as I can tell from watching interviews made promoting his book, father Alberto is accusing the church of nothing less than what I always said it suffers: Hipocrisy. It seems father Alberto's sin was not to have an affair but, rather, to be caught. He mentions how if the church got rid of all the priests and bishops involved in "inapropiate" relationships with both men and women, it would be so crippled it could not function anymore. And how many priests have deserted because of their inability to keep their vows.

Interestingly, during the last couple of weeks I had a couple of conversations with friends on related issues. One, with a former priest, who was a very good friend of mine in college. He told me how he was offered a parrish that he did not accept because the diocesis would not remove the other priest assigned to that place, who had a live-in girlfriend. And we talked about the monsignor who had a daughter with his housekeeper.

Later, during the weekend, I talked to another friend who also graduated from the same Jesuit school I did. He told me he had four classmates who had gone on to priesthood after high school. Of the four, only one remains an active priest.

In reality, I still like father Alberto, for his honesty. He was honest enough to leave the church and he is honest now to tell the truth about his dilemma. And he highlights what I already said is the problem: it's not the priests, it is the system. A corrupt and archaic institution still trying to make people into what they are not.

One of the many reasons I left all that make believe world behind.

Share on Facebook

Environmentalists and "tree-huggers"

2010-06-28T18:21:00.000-07:00

Wind Turbine. Image from Wikipedia Commons.

A few days ago I wrote about my experiences with Big Oil. Little did I know that I would manage to upset a friend who posted a comment, which I am reproducing here:

"Tree-hugers huh? Don't you think that is a little harsh? Idealists are idiots until their ideas take momentum, after that they are known as visionaries. Not before.

Alternative energy doesn't work? Hell, that's were we will agree to disagree (being a wind turbine engineer and all).

Oil is only the cheapest ECONOMIC source of energ: it is dirty, chemically dangerous, prone to explosion, and its biggest charge is to the enviroment it is IRREPARABLY destroying. Plus, it is not renewable.

I don't want to live as if I were the last generation to use the earth, and I don't even have kids like you do.

Anyway, as I said, this is a point were we will have to agree to disagree.

I have a TREMENDOUS respect for you, and it is only such respect that allows me to retort; I know you are a rational person who will not corner me to the ground just because I think differently about a subject.

In any case, the best of lucks in your new endevours. All the best to you and your family. ^__^

Cheers,

-Arc"

I also have Arc in the highest of regards and this comment provides a footing to talk about some ideas I have been juggling in my head.

First, the use of the words "tree-hugger" is not casual - it is deliberate. I am certainly not very diplomatic when I am dealing with prejudiced or dishonest people and I find a lot of those in the "green" movement.

Before going any further, I am all for preserving the environment, as much as it is possible to reconcile such preservation with the needed economic development for poor people/countries. I think all life is precious and while I cannot accept the killing of one more marine mammal, for instance, I also think the life of some members of a rather abundant species of two-legged land mammals is also important to preserve.

However, the tree-huggers I am refering to are people who use the banner of the green movement in order to further their perverse agendas, which seemingly do not include the well being of many of those two-legged land mammals. I do not really understand what those agendas may be, if they exist at all: it seems to me that many of these infamous characters are in the game only for personal gain.

And they are dishonest. I was outraged last year when a well known (in my country) catholic bishop called a press conference in order to present his findings after conducting some water analysis in the neighborhood of a gold mine. He accused the mining company of poisoning the river with "heavy metals". What heavy metals? Aluminum, magnesium and silicon... some of the most abundant materials in the Earth's crust.

So, I stand by my use of the word tree hugger. I am an environmentalist, an advocate of conservancy, not of poverty and famine for those who could use a good job in a gold mine - as long as the mine complies with good environmental practices. But the tree huggers will have none of that and they want all those jobs to go away.

As for renewable energy, I am all for developing renewable and alternate energy sources. However, I don't think they are all quite ready for prime time.

My good friend Arc says he is a wind turbine engineer. Nice job. I like wind turbines. They are one of the most mature technologies for renewable/alternate energy around. Unfortunately, they have two shortcomings:

1) Mostly, they are not good for providing base energy as the wind does not always blow the same when you need it and 2) They are not that reliable as yet.

I tried to indicate that alternate energy would come into its own sometime later this century. Wind power is a good example. There is already work underway to make wind turbines more reliable, going to direct drive and avoiding those pesky, difficult to maintain gearboxes. Yes, Big Oil will suffer at not being able to sell lubricants to the wind turbines anymore (with direct drive) but I, for one, aplaud the idea as the gearbox is the weakest link in a power system comprising wind turbines.

And, I have to say, wind power is also attacked by the green movement. Migrating birds are killed by the spinning blades and pressure differentials between one side of the turbine and the other kills bats. I sympathize with the birds and the bats but I also believe that good locations can be found for those needed wind farms where they will make the least damage to the flying fauna.

Not that all of them will be spared. But you have to give some to get some, right? Which, would bring me back to the gold mine...

So, friend Arc. we do not disagree at all. We are in violent agreement. But it is all a matter of balancing the pros and the cons and coming up with the best solution for all - marine mammals, flying fauna and those insipid two-legged land dwellers that tree-huggers don't seem to consider worthy of conservation.

Share on Facebook

The end of an era (for me...)

2010-06-23T12:41:00.000-07:00

This is me, about 20 years ago, a talk to customers. My bosses, in the background, watching...

Yesterday, after 20.6 years of working with Big Oil, my employment came to an end.

20.6 years is a lot. I always ask my kids if they remember seeing me working for another employer. Your personality becomes entangled with the company's and friends and family think of you when they see the company logo and viceversa... sometimes I think I have a star already engraved on my forehead!

I remember 20-something years when I was in need of a job and looked in many places... the story itself of how I began working with Big Oil is interesting. But in that time, with my youth ideals still fresh I used to think I would not work with the brewery or the distillery - I do not agree with the excess in drinking that these companies seem to promote. I didn't want to work for Big Tobacco either, even though they called... I think it is inmoral to help produce a product that causes disease and death. But Big Oil, even though twenty years ago did not have the greenest image did not look bad to me. Besides, I always sold lubricants, even then. No one seems to notice but, who can live without lubricants? (Even reproduction would be difficult...)

Anyway, Big Oil hired me at the toughest time in my life, recently married and with a child on the way. Watching shop windows full of baby clothes and stuff I could not buy. And, in time, it gave me enough to raise and educate my children, feed and clothe them, a good life - all these, things for which I am very grateful.

Besides, Big Oil gave me the opportunity to learn to manage a business with other people's money. I made mistakes that cost the company mone. They told me "don't do it again" and I moved on. I learned so many things... I don't think many people (certainly no more than 10) in Guatemala know so much about lubricants as I do. And I met many important poeple, some of which are now offering me employment... And I knew so many places, in Guatemala and elsewhere in the world, that I would have never visited if it were not for the job. All of which has enriched my life in a wonderful way.

I cannot neglect mentioning also the opportunity to work with so many talented colleagues and some extraordinary bosses ( I always think of Ralph when I think of good bosses). Many friends, many colleagues, many customers and acquaintances, relationships that I hope will be able to continue even though I am no longer with the company.

A great experience. I would not change those 20.6 years for anything. And I defend Big Oil. It is true that BP has messed with the industry's image with this big screw-up in the Gulf but the industry, generally speaking, is not irresponsible, in spite of how much the tree-huggers may crow.

And there is much to say about our dependence from oil. A few weeks ago, a local columnist was making an apology of alternative energy. Everything fine and dandy except it does not work. Yet. The cheapest source of energy available to us at the moment is oil and that will not change in the next 20 years. Maybe in 50.

In the meantime, all the best successes to my friends and colleagues working for Big Oil. And to Big Oil, as well, because success for the companies carries with it success for their employees.

Share on Facebook

The Titanic chore of thinking critically

2010-04-27T21:33:00.000-07:00

R.M.S. Titanic. Image from Wikipedia Commons.

This morning I was browsing through TLT magazine and I found a great column on Titanic which clearly illustrates one of the critical thinking processes involved in solving problems by attacking root causes.

If asked why Titanic sank, most people would say it was because it hit an iceberg. However, that was not the real cause of the sinking, as demonstrated by this interesting article. Titanic sank because of defective rivets.

How come? What do rivets have to do with large chunks of ice?

In order to find out what the real cause of an event is, you need to ask why over and over. That is a technique we use frequently at work when conducting investigations of loss incidents. For example, if an employee crashes the company car, we ask why? Maybe the guy hit the car in front when the other driver suddendly stopped. Why? Because he was not following at the right distance. Of course. Be more careful next time.

Most people would stop investigating at this stage. And conclude that in order not to crash you have to follow the car in front at a larger distance. However, that may not have been the root cause of the accident.

If we ask why a second time we might begin to find interesting things. For instance, if the second answer is "I didn't know I had to follow at such and such distance" we may begin inquiring into training. Other possible answers might lead to fatigue, poor eyesight, etc. In all those causes, the solution needed to prevent a repeat accident would be different - training, journey planning, eye testing, etc.

Going back to Titanic, I found most interesting that the old ship can still teach us new lessons. In this case, when asking why the ship sank after hitting the ice, the answer is that it developed a large leak that flooded too many watertight compartments. Going further into the why asking questions and combining this technique with recent research, it was found that rivets used in the bow and stern of the ship were not steel but iron and they were of substandard quality. It turns out that Harland & Wolff probably knew about the poor quality of the rivets but used them anyway - a typical case of "nothing bad has happened before so I keep on doing it". In the end it all came down to a case of trying to manage through difficult financial and logistical conditions.

That is what critical thinking leads to. In order to prevent a repeat disaster, ships had to be built with steel, not iron, rivets. Had rivets in the bow of the Titanic been steel, we might today have a Titanic museum.

So, it was not the route, the decision to turn the engines, etc. what sank the mighty ship. And the way through to that knowledge was pure critical thinking and root cause analysis.

More information on Titanic can be found here linked from the Harland & Wolff website

Share on Facebook

The Skeptic

2010-02-17T18:13:00.000-08:00

The child was restless... he was not naughty, just curious and inquisitve. Fascinated by the world around him, he constantly asked his father, who was a very wise man, he thought. Soon the father reached the limits of his wisdom while the child went on with his fantasies of space travel and life in distant worlds, all made possible by the incredible and continuous advancement of science.

An avid reader, he quickly went through the family library and went on to his school's library. The librarian, who was the typical grumpy old woman, scolded him. "You cannot take home a new book every day and return it the next morning and still have time to do your homework" she said. The boy, no longer a child, just looked at her perplexed and left, with a new book under his arm.

As an adolescent he was already disenchanted with religion and wanted nothing to do with it even while attending a catholic school. Still a believer, though...

The boy discovered music. And the Beatles. 10 years after the original beatlemania, he learned every single song the Beatles had performed and that way, he finally finished learning the english his school had failed to teach him.

Reading in english, he discovered Asimov, Clarke, Heinlein, Van Vogt and Herbert. The universe would never be the same and the world would never seem so large anymore. And the good doctor taught him many wonderful things while at the same time, engineering school taught him physics and quantum mechanics. And he marveled at how the world was such a strange and fascinating place.

When finishing university, the young man had a brief affair with religion. In the middle of it he married and had children. And the enthusiasm for religion quickly died as the obligations of tending to a growing family needs and a demanding job kept his mind busy with many things other than God.

And one day he realized he didn't think of God anymore. And nothing had happened. Through his efforts he was still successful and happy, with a loving wife and two wonderful children who fulfilled all his emotional needs.

The man finally gave himself permission not to believe. And he was happier than ever. Liberated. A true skeptic.

Share on Facebook

Beware skeptics - don't be an ass

2010-01-05T21:41:00.000-08:00

Unfortunately, the situation artfully illustrated by Scott Addams above happens all too often. I can be as obnoxious as that or more but, slowly and painfully, I have learned to avoid the awkward feeling of turning someone off as Dilbert is doing and keeping relationships at a diplomatic level.

One of the things many "new" skeptics do not realize is that it does not do any good to argue with a true believer or a faith motivated person. In the situation above, if Dilbert's date were, say, a UFO fanatic, Dilbert would have two options:

a) Stop considering any further dates with this person; after all, she will not change her ways and she will consider it a personal project to bring Dilbert into the UFO community; or,

b) Be non-committal and avoid the subject. While it may be difficult to maneuver around things that may be important to the other person, it can be done on a short term relationship or on a day-to-day basis with work colleagues and customers. Not recommended for close friends or spouses, though...

I had a situation like this the other day, albeit not on a date. I happened to casually discuss the subject of evolution vs creationism with a work colleague who attends a fundamentalist church. My intention was purely scientific: I wanted to find out what they thought at her church. She ran off on a long string of nonsense about evolution being "only a theory" and how monkeys are not becoming people. So I thanked her for enlightening me and left it at that without any comment on my side.

If I had starting arguing the case with her it would have been the end of a diplomatic relationship (no friendship with that lady, no way! I choose my friends) that has worked since I realized she attends that particular merchant of faith's church. And it would have gotten me nowhere as she would only have confirmed in her mind that I am headed straight for hell.

Which is not true, since there is no hell. But that is another story. Enjoy Dilbert!

Share on Facebook

A happy non-denominational and politically correct holiday greeting

2009-12-28T13:20:00.000-08:00

Please accept with no obligation, expressed or implied, my best wishes for an environmentally conscious, socially responsible, low stress, non addictive, gender neutral, celebration of the inter solstice holiday, practiced within the most enjoyable traditions of the religious persuasions of your choice, or secular practices of your choice, with respect for the religious/secular persuasions and/or traditions of others, or their choice not to practice religious or secular traditions at all.

I also wish you a fiscally successful, personally fulfilling and medically uncomplicated recognition of the onset of the generally accepted calendar year 2009, but not without due respect for the calendars of choice of other cultures whose contributions to society have helped make Earth great and without regard to the race, creed, color, age, physical ability, religious faith or sexual preference of the wishee.

By accepting this greeting, you are accepting these terms:

a. This greeting is subject to clarification or withdrawal.

b. It is freely transferable with no alteration to the original greeting.

c. It implies no promise by the wisher to actually implement any of the wishes for herself/himself or others, is void where prohibited by law, and is revocable at the sole discretion of the wisher.

d. This wish is warranted to perform as expected within the usual application of good tidings for a period of one year, or until the issuance of a subsequent holiday greeting, whichever comes first, and warranty is limited to replacement of this wish or issuance of a new wish at the sole discretion of the wisher.

So, enjoy your holidays... or not!

Share on Facebook

Lewis' trilemma

2009-11-08T06:46:00.000-08:00

C. S. Lewis. From Wikipedia

I recently wrote in my blog in spanish (El Chapín Escéptico) about the stupidity of creationism against evolutionism. I expected a lot of hate mail which (unfortunately?) did not materialize. I did get a comment from a christian reader recommending me to read C.S. Lewis' Mere Christianity.

I did research the author and found this argument of his which does not make much sense to me. It is called "Lewis' Trilemma" although Lewis wasn't really the first to postulate it. It is often summarized as "Lunatic, Liar, Lord" and here is an early version:

"Christ either deceived mankind by conscious fraud, or He was Himself deluded and self-deceived, or He was Divine. There is no getting out of this trilemma. It is inexorable." ("Rabbi" John Duncan, 1796-1870).

The logical structure is as follows:

(P) Jesus claimed to be God

(Q) One of the following must be true:

Lunatic: Jesus was not God but believed he was

Liar: Jesus did not believe he was God but spoke as if he did

Lord: Jesus was God

(C) From these premises it is argued that: if Jesus was not God, he was either not great or not moral.

(Just for fun, a fourth L has been proposed, Legend, by, amongst others, my favorite bible geed, Bart Ehrman).

So far so good. Although it may be argued that there is a straw man or a false premise embedded in this argument (did Jesus really claim to be God? Did he exist at all?) the argument looks good so far.

What I utterly fail to see is where this proves that Jesus was divine, which seems to be Lewis' point. In his words:

"I am trying here to prevent anyone saying the really foolish thing that people often say about Him: I’m ready to accept Jesus as a great moral teacher, but I don’t accept his claim to be God. That is the one thing we must not say. A man who was merely a man and said the sort of things Jesus said would not be a great moral teacher. He would either be a lunatic — on the level with the man who says he is a poached egg — or else he would be the Devil of Hell. You must make your choice. Either this man was, and is, the Son of God, or else a madman or something worse. You can shut him up for a fool, you can spit at him and kill him as a demon or you can fall at his feet and call him Lord and God, but let us not come with any patronising nonsense about his being a great human teacher. He has not left that open to us. He did not intend to. ... Now it seems to me obvious that He was neither a lunatic nor a fiend: and consequently, however strange or terrifying or unlikely it may seem, I have to accept the view that He was and is God." (Lewis, C.S., Mere Christianity, London: Collins, 1952, p54-56).

There is a "leap of faith" that does not come from logic in this argument and there is not a shred of evidence. If this is the kind of apology for religion that I am being directed to read, I think I will be quite safe if I skip it and read Richard Dawkins' latest book instead!

Share on Facebook

Nacho Libre

2009-08-16T18:48:00.000-07:00

Image from Amazon

My friend Arc does movie reviews. He is the expert on this topic but I am taking a page from his book today to comment on Nacho Libre.

Nacho Libre is one of those movies you either have or love. Fans of Jack Black love it, others just despise it. Whatever the reason, if you like it because it made you laugh or hate it because of the slapstick comedic style, this movie will cause a reaction on you.

However, my reflection today deals with the prevalent mood of the movie. Nacho is a monk who has always been under the boot (or, rather, sandal) of the superiors in his monastery. Cruelty can be perceived in the lack of will of the monks and padres to improve the living conditions of the children (and monks and nuns) living under their care.

Nacho is the unlikely hero, the underdog, who through living his dream of becoming a luchador manages to bring some joy (and food) to the orphans, who prove to be his strong allies.

Nacho's love interest, the lovely nun played by Ana de la Reguera is another victim of this cruel system; she seems to be interested in a life outside of her little cell but is too afraid to try. In the end, Nacho does not get the girl which seems to have pissed everyone off (the viewers, of course) but just goes on to show the stronghold and fear the church can muster.

Fear of what I would ask? Nacho is always afraid his secret identity will be revealed and when it is discovered, he leaves before risking the consequences.

Nacho's sidekick, Esqueleto, is both providing the comic realief and the food for thought. When asked if he is a believer he responds "I only believe in science!"

Which is very ironic because obviously Esqueleto is uneducated. Which makes you wonder if the intention was to show how even uneducated, simple minds like Esqueleto's should reject the charade being played by organized religion. Nacho and sister Encarnación have no choice, they were indoctrinated from an early age but Esqueleto is a free agent and has a mind of his own.

As we all should have.

Share on Facebook

Reader's comments - WWJD

2009-08-13T19:52:00.000-07:00

My friend Francisco wanted to comment but his comment was too long, so he e-mailed it to me. Here is his comment.

In reading the blog “WWJD or Shakespeare”, I found it certainly amusing –as the blogger said it -, interesting, and maybe worth it to write about it; not with the purpose to oppose those ideas; but to expose and brainstorm other ones that shed some light toward the ultimate goal of a common agreement to the Truth. Please note that my native language is not the English; so, please accept my sincere apologies for not using the adequate terms as my inner self understands it. In the “physical world” we are situated in, the reality we perceive, the events, at least according to the Newtonian description of the universe, and later the Theory of Relativity, – another completely different story would be according to the Quantum Mechanics - is a succession, a series, of individual events that takes you to a particular one that usually is the result of a n-variables. To gain understanding of a situation or a problem, one should assign values to one variable while leaving the other variables constant. So, refering to the passage in the gospel of Matthew 15: 21 and on, the woman from Canaan, it should be analyzed from different points of view; then, decide if “it is not good behavior”; or maybe that is not the issue at hand; or maybe the teaching is a different matter. To understand what really was going on in this part, we could analyze it from the social, political, economic, spiritual, moral, philosofical, teological, religious, even personal – what means to me –, etc. point of view. As a matter of fact, the Catholic Church teaches one can distinguish between two senses of Scripture: the literal and the spiritual. The spiritual is even further divided into the allegorical, moral, and anagogical senses. The moral sense should lead us to act justly; hence, the related passage was written for our instruction as well. The anagogical sense can view realities and events in terms of their eternal significance, so it is its applicability (1). One thing the reader of the gospel according to Matthew should know is that Matthew – or whoever did it - wrote the gospel for the Jewish people of that time, centering the attention on the elite, in terms they could relate and understand the proper way of the “good news”. In other words, the audience was very well verse in the Scriptures, customs, and values fostered throughout many centuries; and the things familiar to the Jewish people were challenged and radically changed. Politically, they were subjugated and slaved by the Roman imperial power that imposed the corrupt government authorities; they wanted a change. Religiously, they were guided by an authority sect that believed to be the cleanest one and “maestros” with strict adherence to Torah, God’s laws, and Moses’ rules to the point they regarded the rest – outside of the Pharisee sect – unclean people and punish them for their transgression; thus, forgetting the true meaning and intention of the Law and rules. Spiritually, the Jewish people, in general, in the region of Canaan were dead. They knew about the Scriptures, the expected Messiah, etc; nevertheless, they were still influenced by years of slavery and captivity from Babylonia. They’ve had physically returned to the land, but remained spiritually slave. In the other hand, the Canaanites were counted among the gentiles whom failed to recognize the Only One and True God as opposed to the Israelites acknowledgement of this key principle; hence, the favor of God’s will. Without this understanding there is a risk of missing the point and can prompt the reaction such as the blogger’s, especially taking in consideration the mind set of our western culture of our epoch. The passage of the Canaanite’s woman faith set the stage, as it is in many other opportunities of Jesus’s ministry, and anticipates the mission to the Gentiles: The Plan is not exclusive for the Jews, but it is extended to all the humanity. The Canaanite woman obtained the healing for her daughter by becoming a believer and by the virtue of her strong faith. Maybe the teaching is that we may have relaxed what God expect from us in our lives - and from the entire humankind - by contrasting the view on the dead-letter of the Law and the New Covenant. The instruction is to have faith and it is valid now and then. Indeed the Shakespeare’s sonnet is beautiful, but I’m still asking myself as to why the reference or comparison to the theme. Is it because ii is more likeable than the other literature? I can see that Shakespeare has the ability to exalt and compare the beauty of the Creation with words that comes from its inner self. And, I’m pretty sure the priest failed to convey the proper message to some of the audience that left the feeling of having to endure the mass; but this is different subject. Nonetheless, the Word did not go empty since we are still blogging about it. That’s good!

(1) Catechism of the Catholic Church

Share on Facebook

Who, me? I don't have a problem with the pope!

2009-08-11T19:07:00.000-07:00
Some days ago I was told (she said he said, that kind of stuff) that a friend thought that I had an issue with the pope.

The comment made me laugh but, thinking it over, it is a serious matter.

Probably this friend saw my blog post titled "Condones para el papa" (Condoms for the pope) in which I criticized the pope's statements during that recent, infamous trip to Africa. And this will show the difference between debating a person's ideas and attacking the person.

When ideas are debated, arguments must be used to show the falsehood or impropriety of someone's statetements. Using personal attacks (ad hominem) is not proof that said ideas are wrong.

For instance, if someone comented on this note saying that I am a hard core atheist and that is why I don't like the pope, he would be mounting a personal attack and not debating the correctness of my ideas. I always try to make clear, when criticizing someone's ideas, that it is the ideas I debate, not the person.

In the case of pope Ratzinger, I really sympathize with him. Joseph Ratzinger is a man who has found himself in a difficult situation for which he was not the best equipped person. While the previous pope, Karol Wojtyla better known as John Paul II, had the opportunity to polish his diplomatic skills fighting communism in his native Poland, pope Ratzinger is an academic, who would be content teaching at a university or writing theological treatises on the catholic church doctrine, which is his specialty. Being the head of the church has put him on the spotlight and his tendency to openly speak his mind on catholic dogma issues has gotten him into problems like the one that caused my criticism.

So, trying to prove an idea wrong by using personal attacks is what is called an ad hominem fallacy.

I don't have a problem with pope Ratzinger. I have a problem with his ideas.

This is a free translation of my post yesterday at El Chapín Escéptico (in spanish). I thought it fit well with The Chapin Skeptic.

Share on Facebook

WWJD or Shakespeare??

2009-08-05T20:23:00.000-07:00
Blogging is a funny thing. Sometimes what you first think of is not what you eventually post. Sometimes the topic takes you elsewhere. And sometimes you change your mind before you even post.

And then sometimes you just can't make up your mind.

Today I had to endure mass. No need to explain why, I tried to get in late but was actually on time and it took 50 minutes, which was long for a weekday mass. The priest's homily upset me. He was commenting on the gospel reading (Matthew 15 - 21 and on, the woman from Canaan) and of course he embellished the story by making it appear as a lesson on perseverance. For some reason that I cannot fathom, You Must Persevere When Asking Things Of God.

That is not what the gospel says. If anything, those people asking themselves all the time what would Jesus do (WWJD) should realize this is not good behavior.

Jesus did not want to help the canaanite woman because she was not jew. (No, I am not going to quote scripture here - read the passage elsewhere as I have placed a link to it above). Of course, in light of the mindset of jewish Jesus and his jewish disciples, he was not doing anything wrong - the gospel was to be preached to the jew people, not to the outsiders, who were not "worthy".

That was OK for the jews at that time in that place. It would be bigotry today. So if you are asking yourself WWJD, he would show you how to be racist and intolerant.

Anyway, on the way home my daughter asked me for help doing homework, she had to paraphrase one of Shakespeare's sonnets. I never studied english literature (didn't have to... I studied spanish and latin american literature...) so I have never really read Shakespeare in the original english.

And it made up for my 50 minutes at church. And I will quote Shakespeare here for your enjoyment. What a beautiful little poem of love!

SONNET 18
Shall I compare thee to a summer's day?
Thou art more lovely and more temperate:
Rough winds do shake the darling buds of May,
And summer's lease hath all too short a date:
Sometime too hot the eye of heaven shines,
And often is his gold complexion dimm'd;
And every fair from fair sometime declines,
By chance or nature's changing course untrimm'd;
But thy eternal summer shall not fade
Nor lose possession of that fair thou owest;
Nor shall Death brag thou wander'st in his shade,
When in eternal lines to time thou growest:
So long as men can breathe or eyes can see,
So long lives this and this gives life to thee

Share on Facebook

2012 and the end of the world

2009-08-03T07:54:00.000-07:00
This morning I was listening to the NPR news and they mentioned the Mayas and 2012 and the end of the world

I do have a comment to make about that:

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz...

...Sorry, where was I?

Mr. Deity is back...! and He is watching me!

2009-07-12T20:46:00.000-07:00

I have made a momentous decision today: I am officially shifting my allegiance from the mighty Flying Spaghetti Monster to Mr. Deity.
After all, he is the Deity...
Mr. Deity came upon us via the glorious service that we mortals denominate YouTube. His Word spread far and wide about two years ago with a series of memorable and wise short Videos each containing about 5 minutes of His Allmightiness. I learned much of the world we live in and how we came to be by watching His Performances. That was Season One.
Illumination came upon Crackle, a service owned by Sony, whereupon they were bestowed the opportunity to collaborate with the production of 10 more short Stories. Hence, Season Two of Mr. Deity came to pass.
Alas, Crackle has abandoned the Path and Mr. Deity is now requesting our help by donating via PayPal to his Noble Cause. I wonder, if Mormons tithe 10% of their earnings, how come we of other Non-Faiths cannot come with some help for our very own Deity?
In answer to our prayers and counting on our good Intentions, Mr. Deity is back in all His Allmightiness and Wit on Season Three. He comes to us with all of his good Allies that we have come to know and love: Larry, his faithful assistant, Jesse (or Jesus, depending on the time of the day) and the always beautiful Lucy(fer).
As a member of His Flock, I vow to watch his Videos as they come out, PayPal some monies but not much, and never leave Him any voice mail by never praying to Him. I am very happy he will not turn on his Omniscience and leave me alone and never worry about me!
So, come see the light. Check out Mr. Deity, donate and purchase His Merchandise. I never did like all that old pirate stuff and the global warming and all so I am much more comfortable with Mr. Deity. And I know He Will Read my blog since he is now following it in Facebook's Networked Blogs... Could I be more Honored?
After all, he is the Deity... and he is on iTunes as well. What more can you pray for?

A reluctant atheist?

2009-06-30T21:53:00.000-07:00

I recently went to the cinema to watch Angels and demons. I enjoyed reading the book, which was a fantastic thriller, and enjoyed the movie, which is no less of a thriller than the book.
Cinematic emotions aside, I found it intriguing when Tom Hanks' character, Robert Langdon, gets asked by a priest "Do you believe in God, Mr. Langdon?"
His very diplomatic answer was "I am an academic... My mind tells me that I will never understand God." The priest then asks "And what does your heart say?" to which Langdon responds "My heart tells me I am not meant to...
In these days of personal domestic turmoil, my Angels and demons is stashed in a box out of reach so I could not inmmediately reference the dialog. But it seems that Langdon never uttered those words. Rather, it was CERN's scientist Vittoria Vetra who has a similar dialog in the book as you can see in this link. According to this article, Dan Brown is a believer which may be the reason his "atheist" characters are so reluctant to admit their lack of belief.
What Brown and the author of the article I am linking do not realize is that non-believers are many and are everywhere. As Richard Dawkins indicates in his http://www.outcampaign.org/ site "... atheists come in all shapes, sizes, colours and personalities. We are labourers and professionals. We are mothers, fathers, sons, daughters, sisters, brothers and grandparents. We are human (we are primates) and we are good friends and good citizens. We are good people who have no need to cling to the supernatural."
Given the current state of affairs, I can understand why so many atheists can be so reluctant to admit their non-belief. We are demonized every week in church by the priesthoood and are, very unjustly, blamed for the crime and evil in our world.
Nothing could be further from the truth. If anything, religion may be the real culprit.
I place a strong emphasis on good friends, good citizens and good people. And it looks like popular media is now begining to portrait atheists in a more favorable manner - check the popular TV series House and Bones, where the main characters are very strong atheists.
Like the Gay movement did many years ago, non-believers need to begin working on our image to change the perception that we eat babies for breakfast. We are good people. And we are many.
Join the Out Campaign. Or, if you are a believer, don't hold it against us.

Star Trek Rocks!

2009-05-12T20:53:00.000-07:00
Although I am very aware that many of my friends in Guatemala are engaged with other concerns, I could not delay posting my thoughts on this latest installment of the Star Trek franchise, which I finally got to watch last night.

And it was AWESOME!

During the week I read Phil Plait's review of the movie and, after watching the movie, I do see Phil's points. Being a skeptic by nature it is sometimes difficult to suspend disbelief but this movie made it easy: it was so engaging it was difficult not to follow...

And (spoiler alert!) the "parallel timeline" premise in the movie was, I think, a stroke of genius by the writers! Not only it allowed the movie to break away from established canon in an unprecedented and fully trekkie-acceptable manner but it also left the door open for more non-canon trek movies where further exploits of Kirk, Spock and the gang can be explored in a whole new universe.

The full 126 minutos of this movie are trekkie-candy. I got to see (more spoilers ahead!) how Kirk beat the infamous Kobayashi Maru test, which as I told my wife during the movie, every trekkie knows he passed by cheating... And, yes! there is a bikini-clad green girl!

Go see the movie! And check this fun review!

New look for the Chapin Skeptic

2009-05-10T23:19:00.000-07:00

Thanks to my good friends Adelou and Guillermo I have changed today the look of The Chapin Skeptic. The new layout allows for wider images and videos and (I think) looks cool as well. The picture above was sourced from the Wikipedia Commons and depicts, among other things, the Horse Head Nebula, which features prominently in one of good doctor Asimov's Foundation books.
Hope you like it.

Another one bites the dust!

2009-05-06T18:51:00.000-07:00

Father Alberto Cutié from Hispanic on line
It was inevitable. Young, dashing, handsome father Alberto Cutié became a celebrity hosting his talk shows on Telemundo and EWTN, where he intelligently discussed everyday issues and gave catholic advice. He is perhaps the best known priest in Latin America and many tourists, myself included, have attended mass in Miami Beach at his charming little church. Newsweek dubbed him "father Oprah" which he preferred to "father Springer" and "father Cristino" (after Cristina Saralegui, another well known latin talk show hostess).

Just two days ago, pictures surfaced showing father Alberto kissing and getting his hand under the lower backside of his female companion's bathing suit. Bid scandal ensued. The paparazzi who took the pictures shopped them around, apparently asking as much as US$700,000, which apparently no one gave him. Finally he sold them to the mexican magazine TVNotas, which apparently is publishing them tomorrow, Thursday.

Unlike so many other priests involved in scandal, Father Alberto is too high profile not to punish. He has been removed from his parish and taken out of his church-sponsored media activities in radio and TV, as well as print.

His website http://www.padrealberto.net/ is featuring a public apology to all his fans. All other content has been removed.

I always liked father Alberto even if I did not agree with his catholic views. It is hard not to sympathize now, as so many of his parishioners have indicated. After all, he is just a man.

The point is, who is the culprit? Dogmatic catholics will indicate the man is the culprit. I submit that, with so many examples and cases of priest-related scandals, what is at fault is the system.

Celibacy is too much to ask of a young, healthy, personable and good looking celebrity priest. As I discussed with a friend today, a man like that does not find it difficult to get female companionship. I guess being a priest doesn't make it much harder.

Is obedience more important than chastity?

2009-04-23T18:28:00.000-07:00

Picture from the Telegraph. Follow this link to read the article.

Is obedience more important than chastity? Ask Fernando Lugo, former priest and catholic bishop and, now, president of Paraguay.

Father Lugo has caused quite a stir, both in Paraguay and elsewhere, when in the last two weeks three women came forward claiming he had fathered their children. First one was Viviana Carrillo, 26, who got father Lugo to acknowledge the claim. Apparently she was 16 when the relationship started. Her son is two. (There are unconfirmed reports that she has moved in with the president). Then it was the turn for Benigna Leguizamón, who was 17 when she started working at the bishop's house and allegedly gave birth to Lugo's child, who is now 6. I can't help but notice that, because of their ages, father Lugo was carrying on with Benigna and Viviana at the same time. Both Benigna and Viviana requested parental support for their children.

As if that was not enough, just this week another woman showed up with a child. This time it was Damiana Morán. Unlike the other two, Damiana was not father Lugo's parishioner but a church activist and she was claims to have been dazzled by the bishop's personality and charm. Her son is a year and half old. Also, unlike the other two, she has no monetary claims on the president.

While the whole bruhaha does not seem to be harming father Lugo politically, since Paraguay is a very conservative and macho country, his opposition is latching on to the scandal to try to get some mileage for their cause. Even one of the cabinet ministers, Mrs. Gloria Rubin, who is the minister for women (an interesting title) is claiming she and her ministry will stand behind any other women who has any further paternity claims.

And rumour is, there will be more. This week, bishop Rogelio Livieres indicated that, as early as 2004, the church was aware of father Lugo's dalliances as two women presented written complaints to Monsignor Antonio Lucibello, the papal Nuncio in Paraguay. Apparently, this complaint prompted father Lugo's resignation from his post. As is usual in these cases, the priesthood quickly swept the trash under the rug and kept mum about the whole deal, as the offender was safely out of the way.

The Roman and Apostholic Catholic Church does not need any more scandals. Unfortunately for them, none from Pope Ratzinger down seems to notice or care. And father Lugo could easily have avoided this ordeal had he chosen to break both his obedience and chastity vows. It turns out that he was only delinquent on the chastity, as he obeyed his superior, the Pope, while committing the deed: he did not use a condom.

What is man?

2009-04-21T21:54:00.000-07:00

Picture from SFbook.com. Posted under fair use policy. No rights implied or assumed.

The three laws of robotics:
1. A robot may not injure a human being, or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm.
2. A robot must obey the orders given it by human beings except where such orders would conflict with the First Law.
3. A robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Laws.
Isaac Asimov. Runaround (Astounding Science Fiction, March 1942)

In Bicentennial Man (the story, not the Robin Williams movie which is a poor adaptation of the good doctor's work), Dr. Asimov tells the story of Andrew, an NDR series robot who struggles to become human and finally accomplishes it. Bicentennial Man is yet another fantastic tour de force by Dr. Asimov, a fantastic insight into what means to be human... even though the story is about a robot.

I found today another robot story that explores the meaning of being a man. Article of faith, by Mike Resnick (Baen's Universe, october 2008 and EP193 of Escape pod) goes into the tricky question of whether a robot has a soul. (Article of faith, by the way, is a 2009 Hugo Nominee. If you don't know what an Hugo award is, there is always Google...)

Regardless of whether a soul is an attribute of either man or machine, both Dr. Asimov and Mr. Resnick have hit the nail on the head: being man is not about shape or origin but about the ability to think and reason. Both Andrew (Bicentennial Man) and Jackson (Article of faith) while made of metal and with plenty of bolts and nuts, thought like a man and struggled to find their place in the universe; in both cases, that quest ultimately meant their demise: by choice, in the case of Andrew and by violence, in the case of Jackson.

Who knows if we will ever be able to generate artificial intelligence so capable that it may struggle with these deep questions. But science fiction is always at hand, to prod us into thinking and speculating on the possibilities.

And I just heard someone saying that impossible just means I don't know how to do it...

We are in good company

2009-04-18T21:46:00.000-07:00
I got a link to the list of the 50 most brilliant atheists of all time. I recommend to read the list, it is a fascinating read. And interesting to know that we share our non belief with such distinguished people like
Stephen Hawkins
Steve Wozniak
Warren Buffet
Katherine Hepburn
Jodie Foster
PZ Myers
Richard Dawkins
Richard Leaky
Sigmund Freud
... and 41 others
Years ago, I used to think that if almost everyone believed in God, God's existence must be real. Now that I know better I realize that this line of thought is an argument "ad populom" or, in other words, a generalization.
Truth is not a popularity contest but the concordance between our judgement and the facts; actually, as we all know, truth can be very painful and unconfortable...

Rick Wagoner leaves GM and everyone beats on a dead horse

2009-04-01T21:13:00.000-07:00

Image found at Poynography

After several years at the helm of GM, Rick Wagoner has resigned. Under duress.

Of course, who can say no to the US president?

I remember when Wagoner was appointed to the top job at GM. All my favorite car magazine's writers were excited that he apointed a "car guy", Bob Lutz, to be his second in command and he would have GM build some exciting new products instead of just hulking SUVs and pick-ups.

(We car guys don't like SUVs... got it? But we don't hate them like infamous green eco-histerical Arianna Huffington).

Unfortunately, after that, GM missed all the market trends - cross-overs, hybrids... forgot about cars... A car company that does not make cars? Hum... funny.

Car guys or not, we have all known about GM's woes for a long time. The pensions were choking the company, the UAW was strangling it and it's dependence (same as Ford's and Chrysler's) on SUVs and pick-up trucks was a big sword dangling over poor Rick's head. Tough decisions had to be taken which were never really addressed and this latest crisis is nothing else than the chronicle of an announced death.

Yes, there was poor product planning but I get really upset when I read opinions like this . GM's downfall was in the making for more than 20 years and it might not have happened if there had been no crisis. This lady, Maureen Dowd is taking Huffington's side by proclaiming that SUVs are the reason for this latest tragedy at GM.

In her words "...Wagoner stuck to gas-guzzling pickups and S.U.V.’s long after it was clear that higher gas prices meant he should vary the fleet with more fuel-efficient vehicles..."

Dear Maureen, it takes years to develop new cars. It only took one year for gasoline to skyrocket and fall again. The reason GM failed was lack of foresight, if you will. But GM built what the american public wanted: large trucks and SUVs. Now that gasoline is cheap again, you yourself admit that small car inventories are piling up.

Ariana and Maureen should develop some critical thinking skills in addition to getting a nice new shining crystal ball. Rick Wagoner's ball malfunctioned and now he is out of a job.

To add insult to injury, Rick is stepping down and Fritz Henderson will be appointed to be the new CEO. Funny. Fritz was always Rick's choice and will continue to do more of the same.

Yes, everyone agrees that Rick's tenure was a huge failure. But one thing he did as asked: SUVs and pick-up trucks.

Give people what they want. You will be punished. And everyone will beat on your old, dead carcass.

The road is more important than the destination

2009-03-27T16:49:00.001-07:00
I love TED. It is one of the more intellectualy stimulating sites I have ever seen and I would love to attend one of their conferences. Anyone has a couple of thousands dollars, sitting somewhere unused and idle...?

Anyway, today I was cleaning my Gmail account, which is an exercise in futility and I remembered wanting to watch this talk. Of course, I am biased due to the fact that I do love watching the Mythbusters and Adam Savage is in this talk.

And the good thing about TED is that anything in there makes you think. Adam's performance reminded me that the road may be more important than the destination. Don't you sometimes feel like "what now" when you finally achieve something? Wasn't it fun just to keep on trying or working to achieve that?

A good lesson for life. If like me you are skeptical of after-life myths, then life is the road and there is really no destination. Poor religious people who waste their lives in their kantian search for duty and virtue, not enjoying everything the world has to offer just because there will be a reward at the end... and at the end they never knew they were wrong and there was nothing...

But... listen to Adam talk. And enjoy his quest! In this case, the quest is definitely funnier and more entertaining than the goal!

It is not easy to fool a skeptic

2009-03-22T21:26:00.000-07:00

Picture from http://www.genpets.com/

A few months ago I got an e-mail about this new product: genpets.

Below the usual mass of e-mail addresses for all the people this message had come from and forwarded to (why is it that people don't clean up their spam to protect their friends' privacy?) was this text from the (possible) first person to send the message (freely translated from said message):

"Just when we thought we had seen it all this news come in. One more company playing God and playing with lives at their will. PLEASE!!! DO NOT BUY THEM OR WE WILL BE ENCOURAGING THEIR MASS PRODUCTION... AND TAKING AWAY FROM OUR CHILDREN THE VALUE OF LIFE. Out there there are enough fully natural pets waiting to be adopted and capable of transmiting love and encouraging real emotions."

I don't know what's God got to do with all this or how buying an "artificial pet" takes from children the "value of life" (whatever that means) neither do I understand what is that issue with "real emotions". But the main issue here is that this lady (yes, it was a woman) took the ad and website at face value.

For me, getting this message was like reading in the newspaper that we had landed on Pluto... it does not make sense that we get to Pluto when we haven't even reached Mars, which is closer. Genetic engineering has not reached the point where a new species can be "created". Even though there is a website of the company that allegedly manufactures this pets, the whole thing seemd to me like a hoax; a very elaborate one, at that, but a hoax nonetheless. However, the long chain of forwards and the comments tells me that many people took this joke seriously.

Last week I remembered this incident and I googled "genpets". And it was not really a hoax. Everything relates to an artistic creation. It turns out that genpets are a creation of canadian artist Adam Brandejs. Although Mr. Brandejs indicates in his website that he is certainly concerned about the direction genetic engineering might take, he is also clear to point out that genpets are painted silicon sculptures, with electronic circuitry added that mimic breathing and movement.

This e-mail came in my inbox on December 1st, 2008 and at that time the genpets issue was completely debunked. The New York Times made a mention about them on June 24th, 2006 with a link to the "Museum of Hoaxes".

So... artwork or hoax, the truth is that genpets do not exist as anything else than an anymated sculpture. The reaction they caused reminds me of the mass panic caused by Orson Welles' radio broadcast of "The war of the worlds" in the 30s. Even though several times during the broadcast an announcement was made indicating that the transmission was only a play, many people were really convinced that a martian invasion was in progress. More recently, the famous crop circles have feed the fantasy of many UFO aficionados, in spite of the fact that in several instances, the authors of the circles have come forward and demonstrated the techniques used to fool the town while they were sleeping.

When people wants to believe nonsense and quit thinking and analyzing it is imposible to reason with them. Doubt does not represent anything else than the process of thinking and weighing the evidence that is presented. As Carl Sagan used to say "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence". An e-mail message does not qualify as extraordinary evidence.

Nor does a professionaly developed website.

Note: this is a first! This post is being published today in english AND spanish in both my blogs, www.thechapinskeptic.info and www.elchapinesceptico.info. Hopefully there will be more simultaneous postings!

Deepak Chopra is full of crap

2009-03-19T22:20:00.000-07:00

Deepak Chopra. Picture from Wikipedia Commons

"To say that Nature displays intelligence doesn't make you a Christian fundamentalist. Einstein said as much, and a fascinating theory called the anthropic principle has been seriously considered by Stephen Hawking, among others."
Deepak Chopra.

"The anthropic principle is NOT about nature displaying intelligence. Don't use straw man arguments on me!"
The Chapin Skeptic.

I didn't say it first. In her fantastic 2006 monologue Letting go of God , Julia Sweeney explains her disappointment when she first goes after Chopra's ramblings about conciousness and quantum mechanics and later, after studying quantum mechanics she realizes that Chopra's elucubrations are highly improbable and she yells "Deepak Chopra is full of shit!"

And I have to agree. Reading Chopra's Wikipedia entry, he is an advocate, among other things, of something he calls quantum healing which somehow relates to healing through positive thoughts and quantum mechanics is thrown into the mix for good measure... I sure understand why miss Sweeney was so disappointed...

I tried to listen to an audio version of one of his books. No, scratch that, I listened to the full fracking thing! At that time I was halfway between agnosticism and supersticion so I was interested and even then, it seemed like a lot of nonsense. Basically, he was saying that in order to achieve something you somehow have to wait for it to show up or materialize or something. There wasn't any piece of usable advice I could find. It was all about sitting back, waiting and having faith.

Well, faith just doesn't work for me. Never has, never will. I believe in the results of hard work and knowledge plus training intelligently applied.

So, I concur, Julia. He is indeed full of crap.

Crap makes you money though... I may be missing some important source of revenue. Hmmm...

Listen to Julia. She is fantastic in that monologue!

Blogging is hard work but is not purgatory

2009-03-07T18:05:00.000-08:00

Dante's Purgatory, by Dore
Image from Wikipedia Commons

Last week my friend MY challenged me to write a blog post on the abolishment of purgatory by the Catholic Church. The group where we were in was all but convinced that the new catholic doctrine does not include purgatory anymore.
I never believed in purgatory anyway, not even when I still was a practicing catholic but I did think that it was a good opportunity for some fun research and a nice write up on how old square Pope Ratzinger had, incredibly, shown some good sense abolishing a doctrine that is antiquated, to say the least.
Alas, blogging is hard work. For me it usually involves research as I do not believe in just writing from what I heard. And, frack! Purgatory is still on!
There seems to have been a misinterpretation of the news by (no surprises here!) overzealous reporters looking for a catchy headline. In April 2007, the Catholic Church International Theological Comission revealed its findings on "limbo" and Pope Ratzinger gave his blessing on them. As per prevailing catholic doctrine, unbaptized babies who die cannot go to heaven but instead stay in "limbo", which is a "place" where they can enjoy happiness and contentment but without the direct presence of God.
According to all the sources I found on line (you can do a google search for "purgatory pope Benedict XVI" and will get the same answer), the veredict of the ITC was (quote) "...after extensive theological research, the commission has reported that there is a possibility that these unbaptized babies can go to heaven. They agree with past findings that there is no definite answer to this question in religious documents. However, they have found that there is enough evidence to revise the official Roman Catholic Church opinion."
Later Pope Ratzinger indicated that this limbo thing was a "theological hypothesis" (???) and not catholic dogma. Reporters then capitalized on a perceived relationship between "limbo" and "purgatory" and this is where confusion seems to have arisen.
Pope Ratzinger later indicated in many words that I really do not want to reproduce here, that Purgatory is actually the experience of meeting Jesuschrist and being absolved of all sins by this experience. He agrees, then, with Pope John Paul II in that Purgatory is not a metaphysical place but "a condition of existence".
In short MY, no warranty and no money back! Sorry about that!

Susie Neunmalklug explains evolution

2009-03-04T20:16:00.000-08:00
One of my Facebook friends posted this wonderful video. I am looking for more videos of this adorable little girl - her name Neunmalklug means nine times smart and she says it's not an exaggeration! I agree! Enjoy!

It is hard to be a skeptic

2009-03-03T19:54:00.000-08:00

For 40-something years, I lived in the clutches of religion and supersticion. Some of the members of my family are extremely religious/supersticious and I was under that influence; for instance, I would not walk under a ladder or between a light pole and its tensioning wire because the ladder, wall and floor or the pole, floor and wire form a triangle... and you are not supposed to walk through a triangle, it somehow "distorts" your aura or something. I actually felt my aura "around me" and would feel extremely uneasy if I accidentally walked through any such triangle.

But the worst part of all was THE BOOK: dog-eared, stained, its pages almost loose, we had read it over and over. THE BOOK was "Self-Mastery and Fate With the Cycles of Life", one of the essential books of the rosicrucian's library. This book was written by H. Spencer Lewis, ostensibly the founder of the Rosicrucian order in San Jose, CA, and our family lived by it.

Very succintly, THE BOOK states that there are several time cycles in our lives: daily, yearly and an overarching one that goes in seven year intervals over your whole life. For instance, in the daily cycle there are seven periods in the day, each one aproximately 3 hours and 26 minutes (frack, I forget so many things and not this one!); the first one starts at midnight and lasts until 3:26 am; second one ending at 6:52, etc. These seven periods, each identified with a letter from A to G would alternate during the week, so that, for instance, Monday morning it would be E (6:52 to 10:17 am) and Tuesday, E would be at night (from 8:34 pm to midnight) and so on. (Again, I forget many things but those seem to be etched in my memory). The yearly cycle had 42 days and started on your birthday... I never really got around to the life-cycle, I think it was seven years long. So complicated.

All these timeframes had definite properties and there were things you should not do and things that were bound to be successful if started at the right time.

We lived our lives by this schedule. I got marrried in April (it was difficult to figure out the right month, what with my girlfriend and I having different yearly cycles since we did not share the same birthday) and on a Saturday evening (because it was B, a good time to get married - don't do it on E!). I tried to schedule my customer appointments according to these rules and it was a nightmare.

A good example of confirmation bias. Now that I look back on the whole thing I can remember things that went bad because they were started "at a bad time" as we used to say but so many things we tried to get well done and we did them at "a good time" never came to fruition. Of course, I remember the bad ones and not the good ones that never happened.

I got accepted into the rosicrucian order. I was told it was an accomplishment as I had been "spiritually" examined and found worthy.

I also got into the Self Realization Fellowship. I still have my credential somewhere.

This was part of the baggage that I got rid of when I convinced myself (or rather, gave myself permission) to stop believing in the supernatural. And this is one of the reasons why I say becoming an agnostic has been such a liberating experience. Not only am I guilt free (I am only human after all) but I am also freer with my time... now I have time to do many things at any moment I please.

Anyway, it is hard to be skeptic. It was difficult to convince myself that it was OK to meet people on Friday evening or Sunday afternoon. It was so difficult to stop my "aura" from tangling on those damn light poles! It took me a while and I may still not be "baggage free" as I sometimes catch myself exclaiming the G word or wondering if I should get out of the sidewalk to avoid that triangular configuration ahead.

But... practice makes perfect, they say. And I am happier now than I ever was before. Being a skeptic is hard but is worth it. Try it.

Physics of the impossible

2009-03-01T09:35:00.000-08:00
"Not only is the universe stranger than we imagine, it is stranger than we can imagine. "
Sir Arthur Eddington, English astronomer (1882 - 1944)

Dr. Michio Kaku - Image from Wikipedia Commons

I recently finished listening to the audiobook version of Dr. Michio Kaku's fantastic "Physics of the impossible" and I was fascinated by Dr. Kaku's lucid embrace of possibilities. Practically anything we have seen in our beloved science fiction universe may be possible.

Dr. Kaku's book is an excelent reminder that skeptics should not be dogmatic. Although many of the things discussed in the book seem extremely far-fetched (teleportation and time travel come to mind), Dr. Kaku actually shows how, given the right knowledge, technology and access to the right quantity of energy we could achieve these feats.

Dr. Kaku classifies all these current impossible dreams into a three level hierarchy (please note I am paraphrasing the author and I hope I get it right):
Class I Impossibilities: Technologies that may become possible in the near future, meaning some decades to a century. We understand the physics involved but further technological development and experimentation are required before these achievements are practical. Examples are invisibility, anti-matter engines (Star Trek anyone?) and even some forms of telepathy or mind reading.
Class II Impossibilites: These are technologies that may take some centuries to millenia to achieve. They are perceived by physicists as possible but require additional knowledge/breakthroughs in fundamental physics or vast amounts of energy, the kind we currently do not have access to or really know how to harness. Examples of this category are faster-than-light travel, time travel and entering parallel universes.
Class III Impossibilities: These are the "true impossibilities": the things that violate currently known laws of physics. As per Dr. Kaku's thinking, they either are really impossible or we have to fully re-write our textbooks with new discoveries in order to make them possible. Amazingly enough, Dr. Kaku only finds two of these "impossibilities": perpetual motion and precognition.
Michio Kaku is a brilliant and amazing man: he built an atom smasher in his garage as a teenager for a high school science project. I fully respect his opinions and all this discussion convinces me that a dogmatic stance is not proper for a skeptic.
As I mentioned in my other blog (spanish required) being a skeptic does not mean complete disbelief in everything or just being stubborn. Being skeptic means that critical thinking is being applied to the evidence on hand. No evidence, no acceptance. A skeptic does not accept "faith" as evidence, since "faith" only really means someone else told us to believe something. And, not being dogmatic, a skeptic is perfectly willing to change his/her mind if new evidence surfaces which may corroborate, enhance or contradict previous knowledge.
Reading "Physics of the impossible" was a powerful reminder that the universe is a much stranger place than we usually perceive and that there is still much to learn. I highly recommend you read the book and check Dr. Kaku's work, especially the article referenced above.

A few thoughts on free will

2009-02-22T18:05:00.000-08:00
My mind ran away last Sunday morning, again, while trying NOT to listen to the priest during his weekly rambling-paraphrasing-scolding which may take all of 20 minutes during mass. And my thoughts were revolving around free will.

The concept of free will is very dear to us and I have already written about it here in regards to religion. This Sunday morning, my musings were a little deeper: I am convinced that, as many of my atheist friends contend, an omniscient all-powerful and benevolent God is fully incompatible with human free will.

Consider this: I am free to "sin" or not to "sin". God has no power over my free will (or chooses not to exert it? not really clear). So, leaving aside that probable breach of God's all-mightiness, God allows me to sin all I want.

However, this presents me with two conclusions that are incompatible with all of God's usual attributes. If I am "free to sin" and God will not interfere with my choices either a) he is not omniscient and did not know I would sin or b) he is not benevolent at all, since he knows I will sind and be condemned but did not create me in such a I way that I would choose not to sin.

This is the kind of internal logical inconsistencies religious dogmas are full of. Maybe I am too simplistic but I just don't buy these illogical beliefs.

I would love to hear a religious apologist try to refute my argument. My feeling is that they would choose the cheap and easy way out: God's purposes are beyond human comprehension.

And that may be true for I do not understand. I am only human.

Does my cat really want to kill me?

2009-02-17T19:49:00.000-08:00

According to this test I ran, my cat is figuring out ways to get me to meet my maker (whoever or whatever that is...) Being the egocentrical foolish cat lover I am I had interpreted all those signs of cat-plotting as genuine signs of affection or at least, acceptance of a helpful human who dutifully feeds and pets a deserving feline.

This got me thinking into these conspiracy theorists. You can have all these little, sometimes meaningless signs that, as a whole, can lead you down a completely wrong path.

A friend of mine believes in the Iluminati. He says that there is a global hidden government that, in true puppet master fashion, "manipulates" elections, orchestrates wars and directs world economy. If asked why Obama was elected or why we are currently in the beginning of a serious recession, he will answer that it serves the Illuminatti's purposes. Of course, those "purposes" being as sinister as can be expected from such a secret society, are not easily understood by us, common people.

I wish there were a global government. It would make life so much more easier, without the Castros, the Chavezes and the Ahmadinejads... or at least keeping them in line.

There is more than a little paranoia in the conspiracy theory mindset. It may be a result of our evolutionary path: more intelligence begets more mental instability. In any case, many of the conspiracy theorists see the same things we critical thinkers see and interpret them on a completely different light.

My cat is not plotting to kill me. In her small, limited conscience, there is room for dreams of rodent-catching, eating and my obligation to pet her as often as she wants to. After that is off to sleeping it off on the hood of my car (it is warm and cozy, isn't it?) and not much else... Killing me is definitely not in her agenda. Believing that would make me one of these crazy conspiracy theorists.

Now, that cat over there at my friend's house... he may be subject to the Illuminati's cat-mind control...

And... more about Coffee?

2009-02-09T17:31:00.000-08:00
Yesterday when I was doing a little bit of research on my coffee piece, I came accross an interesting tidbit: Coffee was banned until...

Let's back up.

Coffee was discovered in Ethiopia, after shepherds noticed their goats and sheep getting all wired up after eating these red berries... After that, it spread rapidly through the arabic world.

Coffee was introduced in Europe through the venetian trade; the venetians had a lot of contact with the north of Africa and they brought coffee up north. But, apparently, coffee failed to gain traction with the europeans until after Pope Clement VIII declared it "a christian beverage" in 1600, taking away the blemish of being a "heretic muslim" concoction.

Isn't it amazing?

Thinking critically about... coffee?

2009-02-08T10:57:00.000-08:00

Picture from Wikipedia Commons. Follow links below to see the article on Coffee.

This morning I resisted being rushed. For one reason or other we were late for church and I just stayed behind, finishing my freshly brewed cup of coffee. And enjoying it a lot more than listening to the priest paraphrase the current gospell reading.

Coffee cannot be rushed. It is to be savored and enjoyed. You can't leave it aside and keep on drinking: it has to be hot. All this got me thinking...

Coffee is a vice and an addiction. I find it helps me awaken in the morning, not being a morning person, and also keeps me productive in the early hours of the afternoon, when sleepiness creeps in after lunch. According to Wikipedia caffeine content in my cup of java may be in the range of 200-230 mg, which is enough for me to have addiction and withdrawal symptons. (Granted, these are only anecdotically recorded but...)

Coffee is an acquired taste. I drink coffee since I was very young (less than 5 probably) and I cannot get rid of it... On the other hand, my children were not accustomed to coffee when they were growing up and now that they are teenagers, they have little or no affection for my favorite concoction. Many of my friends who are not coffee drinkers (actually one of then is a coffee-t-totaler) did not get used to it when they were young and they find it distasteful.

Coffee is a social ritual. It is customary to offer coffee to visitors and talk about having a cup of coffee with friends in order to get together and socialize. In fact, I have used just that excuse to meet some fellow bloggers.

Coffee must be drunk hot. I keep remembering how Arthur C. Clarke used to have his space-faring characters complain about "tepid coffee". It makes perfect sense to me. As a result of my work, I know that 60-65 °C is about as hot as can be handled with your bare hands; above that, you tend to get first degree burns. However, for whatever reason, my mouth is able to handle higher temperatures, probably as high as 75°C and I have my coffee usually at a warm 60-65°C, which (I know) my hands cannot handle. In a spaceship you do not need the whole 15.6 psi of atmospheric pressure (sorry, I have never learned the kg per square centimeter units) since 80% of that is contributed by nitrogen and you can get by with 7-8 psi of an oxygen-rich atmosphere. At that low pressure you would not be able to heat coffee to the full 70-75°C without boiling it and you would have to drink it at 40°C or so... distastefully tepid. That is why in a normal atmosphere you should not neglect your cup of steaming java for long.

And coffee is such an important part of the world economy. The ups and downs of the market affect the livelihood of millions of people accross the world, especially in developing countries like mine, which is one of the top ten producers in the world (again, according to Wikipedia).
So coffee is a very important part of my life and that of many others.

A good subject to think about, in critical terms.

25 random things about me

2009-01-31T19:27:00.000-08:00

I got tagged by one of my Facebook friends and tasked with writing this list. I thought I might just as well post it here - it is an interesting exercise in introspection and critical (self) thinking. I recommend you do the same - it is not as difficult as it sounds. Here they go:

1. I like cats since I was a small kid. I have "quality time" with my cat every day I am not traveling.

2. To my knowledge I am the first person from Latin America to have passed the STLE Certified Lubrication Specialist. That was in 1997.

3. I like to play the guitar. Not that I still play it... but I like it. I have an Applause which is a poor man's Ovation - sweet!

4. I snore. My wife pokes me on occasion to stop me when I am snoring too loud.

5. I am a Cancer. Not that it means anything... but I am a Cancer. I kind of like the little crab.

6. My first dog was a chihuahua. I don't own dogs anymore but my wife does.

7. My wife is a Leo. My mother is a Cancer and my father was a Leo. Is that a coincidence?

8. I don't drink because after the third or fourth drink I look drunk. I am not drunk but I look every bit the part.

9. When I was a small kid my hero was Captain James T. Kirk. I was in love with Yeoman Janice. She was cute.

10. Before having brothers I had an imaginary friend.

11. My earliest memory is from before I was 3. Look at the picture in my father's blog elsewhere on my profile.

12. I miss my father every day since he died.

13. A very close relative of mine is gay so I have been to all-men-gay parties. They are, well, gay!

14. I sell lubricants. Few of my customers know I am an electrical engineer! I've never worked as an electrical engineer!

15. My mother wanted me to be a doctor (MD). Fortunately, one of my brothers did become a doctor!

16. The first car I wanted to own was a 1965 nightmist blue Mustang Convertible. I was 4.

17. My first car was a 1966 nightmist blue Mustang Coupe, with a 289 V8 engine. I was 22. That car was a pain in the butt but I loved every minute of owning it.

18. I changed my Mustang for a Toyota Corolla. My girlfriend (now my wife) never got over it. She liked the 'stang.

19. I speak german. Or at least I used to...

20. Few of my skeptically minded Facebook friends in the US, UK and Australia realize my native tongue is spanish. Surprise!

21. I learned english by listening to the Beatles and learning EVERY song. Try me!

22. My daughter loves the Beatles' music. She has hijacked my CDs. Luckily, they were ripped before and now reside in my Ipod.

23. I don't listen to music in my Ipod. I listen to audiobooks and podcasts. I do have a lot of music in it though.

24. I used to be very catholic. My wife still is. That is why I go to church every Sunday.

25. The prettiest woman I have seen on screen (and in Playboy) is Stella Stevens. I am a big fan. She doesn't know...

(And this is to show that these are random thoughts as Stella comes after the church thing - no relationship!)

Skeptics should not be dogmatic

2009-01-20T20:59:00.000-08:00
I have been listening to this wonderful Podcast "Escape Pod" (www.escapepod.org) which features a short science fiction story every week or so. They also have "flash" episodes which are even shorter stories, typically 5 to 7 minutes in length. It is a must listen for us, Sci-Fi geek/trekkies/fans.

One of the latest "flash" episodes, "Standards" by the (recently) late Richard K. Lyon gives us skeptics a tongue-in-cheek lesson in healthy skepticism. I suggest you listen to the episode but, without spoiling the fun, it deals with rejection of a scientific paper due to its implausibility even though the author is out there (and can be seen through the windows) demonstrating the very facts that the paper is about!

To listen to this short story is, as I mentioned, hilarious, but it brings home a very serious lesson: We, as skeptics, shoud not be dogmatic and must keep an open mind. Everything may be possible and we should, at least, examine the evidence before declaring a fraud. But we cannot just deny what we think is impossible adopting this very dogmatic posture we so strongly criticize in the fundies (as regards to religion) and the Stanton Friedmans (as regards to UFOs) and so on and so forth.

Skepticism means applying critical thinking to the evidence and weighing the pros and cons in order to reach a conclusion. Skeptics have to be inquisitive, curious and open-minded. Applying the scientific method is the way to the truth for a real skeptic and evidence (or lack of it) will determine whether a given phenomenom exists or not.

Skepticism is not disbelief. In reality, skepticism is not related to belief. The concept of belief implies acceptance of facts based on faith and faith has no place in the scientific method. Acceptance of facts, basis the evidence, is what substitutes belief for a skeptic. And this acceptance (or lack of it) will be subject to change as new evidence surfaces.

And this is the whole point of this posting. A dogmatic posture is not amenable to change; by definition it is fixed and cannot be changed. And a true skeptic will always be willing to change his/her mind as long as the evidence is there.

A fallacious appeal to authority

2009-01-09T20:53:00.000-08:00
Our esteemed James Randi is said to always answer when someone introduces himself as an skeptic "I doubt that". I was reminded of that answer a couple of days ago when Facebook indicated the birthday of a new skeptic friend, who writes an interesting blog, in spanish. I wrote on his wall saying "Although I doubt it is your birthday, given the lack of evidence (I haven't seen your birth certificate) congratulations are not wasted so happy birthday!".

I didn't really expect a direct reply but he wrote back thanking me and asking me to forgo evidence and accept his falacious authority.

It was good and clean fun between skeptics but it illustrates what critical thinking is. Why should I believe it was Antonio's birthday? Because he says so? Granted, you might say that the biggest authority on all things Antonio is himself. However, people have been known to lie about their birthday and it really does not prove that such and such a day is my birthday just because I say so. (Especially if I am proven to celebrate my birthday more than once a year or on different dates every year).

This is the "appeal to authority" fallacy - just because someone says it, it does not mean it is true. There most be independent proof or corroboration.Especially when the person stating the fact is talking about something outside of their normal field of expertise - being an authority in comedy or nudism (Jenny McCarthy?) does not make you an expert on public health (vaccination and autism?)

So, don't believe everything you hear and say. Even if it is in the Bible, it does not mean it is true because it is written in the Bible. (Hear that Corny?) There must be a way to independently prove the point or we will be no better than those who believe vaccination is bad because Jenny McCarthy says so.

And everyone is always trying to have us believe claims basis an appeal to authority - just watch informmercials or Larry King Live and have fun debunking all those claims!

Happy new year to all!

Am I doing the Lord's work? or the Law of Unintended Consequences

2008-12-31T09:03:00.000-08:00
The other day, D.J. Grothe, who evidently was spending a nice vacation with his beau, Thomas, in Mexico, posted an interesting tale of trying to do good and ending up with a big mess - a nice example of the Law of Unintended Consequences. For those not having access to D.J.'s Facebook, he and Thomas tried to feed some dogs and ended up causing a horrible dogfight, where one of the canines was probably killed by the others over the food that was offered.

Not in the same vein but also an example of unintended consequences, I got a nice e-mail from one of my readers/friends just yesterday.

My friend tells me that my blog as well as the links posted in it have helped him sort out his doubts and beliefs and now, as a rational christian, he is more secure of his faith in God. He says he has run the full gamut from believer to agnostic and is now safe and happy on his christian belief.

Well, I am puzzled but, truthfully, very happy for my friend.

As I have matured as a skeptic and agnostic, I have learned not to pick fights over religion or belief. I am "embedded" in a very conservative, catholic family and it is to my advantage not to get into arguments one way or another. If anything, seeing my (mostly political) family attend their various religious rituals and functions has pushed me further into agnosticism and I flirt with atheism all the time but I don't quarrel with their beliefs.

In fact, as I have mentioned before, I don't have a problem with people being religious. Organized religion tends to piss me off but people attending religious services and having their particular sets of beliefs, well, you can chalk that one up to freedom of speech, which I am 100% for.

And having read Dawkins and Harris, I have consciously decided not to be a militant atheist.

My initial purpose in writing this blog was to try and organize my ideas and philosophy into one coherent body. All the crazy things spinning in my head had to be given some kind of structure and the blog has helped me do that. In fact, going back over the initial postings, I see how my perspective has changed.

I continue to have fun with pastafarianism and will go on making fun of mormon's underwear or catholicism ritual cannibalism, not forgetting Corny's absolutely idiotic rantings. But I have come to feel secure in my ideas and content with other's beliefs... as long as they don't try to infringe on my personal space.

So, again, I was puzzled by my friend's e-mails but very happy that I was able to help. There is no doubt in my mind that the pursuit of happiness is one noble goal and part of that happiness is being secure and safe in your beliefs. If my writings help one way or another, well then, the golden rule is in action! And friends are always a blessing, however you want to interpret the word.

Thanks Ed!

Found this today. Check it out!

2008-12-28T18:46:00.000-08:00

Happy holidays... or not!

2008-12-25T12:16:00.000-08:00
To all of my readers, not many but very good and nice all of them, I wish to send a politically-correct, non-denominational and fully refundable holiday season greeting!

If you celebrate the year-end holidays and consider a new year to begin in only 6 more days, I wish you a happy holiday season and a wonderful and successfull 2009!

If you do not celebrate any holidays, I want to wish you continued success in your daily activities and I hope you enjoy your regular, work and/or personal, day!

To all, thanks for reading my ramblings and I look forward to your support and feedback!

And for my fellow pastafarians, here's a nice pic I lifted from my friend's Daily Profaner. Hope she doesn't mind!

Majel Barrett-Roddenberry 1932-2008

2008-12-18T19:34:00.000-08:00

Majel Barrett as number one in "The Cage" with Gene Roddenberry. Image courtesy of www.ex-astris-scientia.org

"Warning! Damage to warp core. Containment failure in ten minutes"

Whenever that was heard in Star Trek, that was the voice of Majel Barrett-Roddenberry. She voiced the computers in all the Star Trek spinoffs after The Next Generation. As Gene Roddenberry's widow, she carried on with the Star Trek franchise and, like Roddenberry, became an icon for us Star Trek fans.

Mrs. Barrett-Roddenberry will still be voicing the computer in the upcoming Star Trek XI. She will be missed.

A homage video is already loaded in You Tube. See below.

Stanton Friedman is a great ufologist

2008-12-17T18:56:00.000-08:00

When I was a teenager, our local ufologist had a radio show that I listened to every night. Many years after that show ended its run I have found that events he described as very mysterious were easily (or sometimes not so easily) explained.

For instance, he referred (in the 1970s) to the De Havilland Comet crashes. The De Havilland Comet was a revolutionary aircraft at the beginning of the 1950s, ushering in the era of jet travel for the masses. Unfortunately, the design was flawed and after some cycles of take off and landing, the hulls suffered from fatigue and the planes began to desintegrate in midair. It took the De Havilland company a serious amount of research work to figure out what the problem was in order to correct it.

This guy I am telling you about (and I am keeping his name in reserve, just to protect the guilty) showcased the Comet crashes as "unexplained" and probably the work of "hostile aliens" or other paranormal events. And this was 15-20 years after the crashes were explained.

My childhood ufologist is out there. Still believes in Velikovsky and Berlitz. (yawn)

So, this guy Stanton Friedman is the greatest ufologist now in existence.

Friedman apparently made his fame with the claimed Roswell UFO crash. I sincerely accept the explanation of a crashed aerostatic balloon covered with foil but Friedman and his friends have taken the case to an incredible level of conspiracy and government cover-ups. He has, apparently, also written and researched the alleged Betty and Barney Hill alien abduction, a story that has so many holes in it you could drive a truck through.

He is another irretrievably lost soul.

My buddy Brian Dunning, of Skeptoid fame, mentioned in his Facebook status that Friedman had made an attack on him via the Paranormal Podcast. (No, I refuse to link to such places from here. Google it.) So I went on iTunes and downloaded the relevant episode. And yes, indeed, Friedman makes fun of the Skeptoid episode about Betty and Barney. He also denigrates SETI which is a serious scientific effort and insists on government interests in keeping UFOs a secret.

When people believe and don't want to stop believing they will just close their minds and not listen to any reason. For instance, when Friedman was talking about government conspiracies I was thinking that you might kind of believe that the US government can keep a secret but what about other governments? It shows that Friedman was born in the US and has no idea how inept most if not all other governments are since the alleged UFO phenomenom is not unique to north american skies.

People like Friedman make it look like the Earth is the crossroads of the Universe. That is extremely unlikely. The energy expenditure required for interestellar travel makes the possibility of such long distance travel very unlikely. The energy required to travel to Alpha Centauri alone is 100 times the current energy output of the whole planet!

According to some estimates we are a Type 0.7 civilization, where a Type 1 civilization would be one that is able to harvest the entire energy available to a planet. Obviously, a race capable of interestellar travel would have to be a Type 2 - able to harvest the entire energy available to a solar system.

Interstellar travel would be cool. But it seems that we are far from attaining it and, while not impossible, it does no seem likely that our little blue planet is the crossroads of the universe Friedman and other wackos would make us believe.

Dream on!

The Lord's prayer - can a skeptic relate to it?

2008-12-14T10:48:00.000-08:00
As almost every Sunday I went with my wife to church today. (My kid has asked me why I do it and my response, Sheldon's style is "unavoidable social convention". Especially with the wife.) And, as almost every Sunday my mind wandered from the inane rantings of our priest to more interesting topics - in this case the Lord's prayer.

As per previous posting, I have felt comfort in reciting the Lord's prayer. I am what you would call a tooth-fairy agnostic, so the comfort does not come out of belief but rather out of the familiarity and past associations with the words in this particular prayer. I have always liked it. And here is why I still like it.

"Our father who art in heaven hallowed be thy name..."

One who knows cannot help but feel wonder and awe when looking up to the night sky. Our small blue orb is insignificant in comparison to the marvelous objects out there, which come in all sizes and shapes. From the mighty Beltegeuse and Antares to our humble moon, going through all kinds of novae, super novae, black holes, quasars, neutron stars, gamma ray bursts, spiral galaxies, globular clusters... we are really nothing when compared to the vastness of the Universe. That is the reason Herr Doktor Einstein talked about God in the context of Nature and the powers behind the Universe. It was not the Jew God he was talking about, it was Nature as God. Hallowed be thy name indeed.

"Thy Kingdom come thy will be done on Earth as it is in Heaven..."

Herr Doktor Einstein struggled with the non-deterministic nature of the Universe until his final days and this struggle left us wonderful anecdotes of his discussions with Niels Bohr, the father of quantum mechanics. We know that, at the subatomic level, there is nothing truly determined and we can only discuss probabilities. However, at larger scale, the Universe does seem to have rules and regulations, a kind of trascendental orderliness. (Hence the teleological argument). Would it not be wonderful to translate that order to our daily existence?

Consider the collision between two galaxies. It takes many millions of years but casualties... are few and far between. Gravity forces stars to move to other orbits and get out of the way. Even if two stars were to collide, it would not necessarily be their end... there might be a new, larger, brighter star being formed out of this collosal merger. At the end, the two galaxies merge into one, single, larger, mightier entity. Peacefully.

Consider a collision between two of our nation/states. Lots of people die and most of the time there is no merger of equals - one may end up opressing the other or both countries/states come out of the struggle with huge losses, both economical and in terms of human capital.

On Earth as it is in Heaven indeed.

"Give us this day our daily bread..."

What could be more basic than asking for our daily sustenance? Our body needs energy to move, breath, reproduce! Food is the source of that energy, herein symbolized by bread. Indeed, we need our daily bread.

"Forgive us our trespasses as we forgive those who trespass against us..."

Ah, the golden rule! How can we live without it! The golden rule must be golden because it is a basic tenet of our life in the community - we have to respect each other and abide by a set of rules designed to make our communal life bearable and free of conflict. This is not an aspirational goal, it is a basic requirement of societal life. Do unto others as you wish to be done unto. Indeed!

"And lead us not into temptation but deliver us from evil..."

As I always tell my friends, those things in life that are nice or tasty or pleasurable are usually "sinful", unlawful or harmful to our health. So, a basic precaution of mankind is to stay away from those "temptations", not to mention evil which is to be avoided at all cost. Common sense, to remind ourselves of that in our daily prayers. Indeed!

"For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever and ever."

The closing is a reminder of the religious nature of the prayer. Nothing to say on the skeptic side but I would side with Herr Doktor Einstein and bow to the wonder of the Universe. For ever and ever is a little more than the Universe will last but from our limited perspective, the couple hundred billion years more the Universe will be around does look like "for ever and ever".

A long time indeed. Time enough to reflect on how this prayer brings out the common sense and realization of the things man really needs.

Note: I found Wikipedia's article to be extremely informative on the Lord's Prayer. Make sure to check it out.

Magic? or science?

2008-12-10T10:42:00.000-08:00

Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.
Arthur C. Clarke, "Profiles of The Future", 1961 (Clarke's third law)
The video above shows an aluminum foil "boat" misteriously floating in the air. Magic? Supernatural powers? NO! The glass container is filled, at the beginning, with a gas that is denser than air and sufficiently dense to make the "boat" float. Check the Popular Science article here.
As Mr. Clarke indicated, any event whose explanation requires more knowledge than what we posses looks to us like magic. Imagine a Cro-Magnon or a Neanderthal coming into one of our houses! He would be scared to death by seeing our mysterious powers of producing light by pinching the wall (I doubt they would notice the switch and that still would be magical) - communicating at a distance just by talking into our hand (cell phones are so small that they would not recognize their significance) - being able to summon mysterious spirits and even dead people into a strange looking box (TV!) - things that are everyday events to us would be definitely magical and miraculous to a caveman.
So, next time you come up with something that looks mysterious, magical or miraculous consider the more practical possibility that there is a rational and scientifically sound explanation for that event. Solids can turn into liquids just by shaking (thixotropy) - strange shapes need not be miraculous representations of deity but rather our mind trying to find patterns into everything we see - an evolutionary advantage that works to the critical thinker's disadvantage...

Fun letters to God. I love this!

2008-11-19T09:36:00.000-08:00
Facebook has many good things going for it, one of which is the sharing of news items by my friends. One of such items was this "letters to God collection" , which I found refreshing, funny and insightful.

This letter appears in this blog FUnlimited which seems to specialize in funny stuff found on the internet and the letters are shown as actual pictures of the children's writing, which is also refreshing. You are welcome to check the actual posting.

I loved several of the notes. Here are the ones that caught my attention:

"You don't have to worry about me. I always look both ways. Dean"

Looks like we could advise our good friend Cornswalled NOT to look both ways before crossing the street but, of course, Dean is more sensible.

"Dear God, if you watch in Church on Sunday I will show you my new Shoes. Mickey D."

God must be appreciative of new apparel, especially if worn to church. Mickey must be a tidy young person.

"Dear-God-if-we-come-back-as-something-please-don't-let-me-be-Jennifer-Horton-because-I-hate-her. Denise"
"Dear God I bet it is very hard for you to love all of everybody in the whole world. There are only 4 people in our family and I can never do it. Nan"

Denise and Nan are very candid. They know we just can't love everyone. Wise insight.

"Dear God, If you give me genie lamp like Alladin I will give you anything you want except my money or my chess set. Raphael".

Of course. Some things are just not negotiable.

"Dear God, Thank you for the baby brother but what I prayed for was a puppy. Joyce."

At her young age Joyce is now learning the real power of prayer.

"Dear God, I went to this wedding and they kissed right in church. Is that OK? Neil."

Is this Cornswalled's child? What do these parents tell their kids? I feel sorry for Neil's outlook on sexuality. Hope God answers that kissing is OK, no matter where.

"Dear God. Are you really invisible or is that just a trick. Lucy"

Dear Lucy, I believe it is just a trick.

"We read Thos. Edison made light. But in Sun. School they said you did it. So I bet he stoled your Idea. Sincerely, Donna".

Donna is already suffering an early conflict between science and religion. Hope science wins.

"Dear God Maybe Cain and Abel would not kill each so much if they had their own rooms. It works with my brother. Larry".

Larry, I couldn't have said it better. Nothing makes peace better that having your own stuff. Well put.

Cornswalled, stupidity, hipocrisy and other sins

2008-11-06T13:28:00.000-08:00
A few weeks ago I got notice of this blog www.cornswalled.com, via the SGU podcast. Of course, I went to check out the site and was surprised at the depth of ignorance and stupidity it reflects. This guy, Alexander Cornswalled, bills himself as a "conservative christian" and rants against science, education and whatever is not written in the bible.

(Whenever I think about these people who take the bible as a literal guide to life I wonder if they go to the bathroom; the bible never mentions Jesus or his disciples taking any kind of biological break).

I find a lot of problems with these fundamentalists, or "fundies" as a fellow blogger calls them. Whenever you read Cornswalled, you can feel the bile, the rage and the hate for anyone who does not share the same fundie values. It is all negative. Disease is punishment from God. Modern medicine is against God's will. And I, in his eyes, am a willing member of Satan's army. It does not matter that I do not believe in Satan, he will say I follow his dictum if he gets to read this.

I do not have anything against people having religious beliefs and faith. The fact that I do not share those beliefs does not prevent me from seeing good things belief has made in others, rescuing them from the depths of alcoholism or drug addiction and turning them into upstanding members of our community. Maybe that is what they needed and I am fortunate enough not to need any kind of religious crutches to behave and be an upstanding member of society. But, having said that, I truly do not want to be a member of any cult, religion or group that believes they are the only possesors of the truth and who believe in a God that is so full of hate and rage that will eternally punish the 95% of humanity that do not share the same fundie belief.

If God exists, he would not be so unfair, even if he cared...

And as I have told people who are very close to me, Jesus is said to have preached love. Love thy neighbor, love thy brother. And we are all brothers, coming from a few common ancestors, as much as Cornswalled and his brethren want to deny it. (No, it was not only two). Why not follow that good advice? When you see these fundies talk and read their writings, they are preaching hate: hate for the unbeliever, the gay, the muslim, the Obamas, anyone and everyone who does not conform.

(Reminds me of the Pocahontas movie song: ..."you think the only people who are people are the people who look and think like you...")

And that, in my book, is not christian charity. It is plain hipocrisy.

Seti or Weti?

2008-10-29T21:56:00.000-07:00

This picture posted at http://media.ebaumsworld.com/picture/vampdyer/YouAreHereGalaxy.jpg

Today I listed to one of my favorite podcasts, Astronomy Cast episode 110 "The search for extraterrestrial intelligence" where good buddy Fraser Cain and the lovely Pamela Gay (yes, I am a fan of Pamela's) talk about Seti (the Search for extraterrestrial intelligence) and the possibility of finding extraterrestrial life via catching their "stray" radio or tv broadcasts.

Seti has been going on since the 60s and still has not shown any "alien" signals. That does not mean they are not there as every good skeptic knows that "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" but its apparent lack of success has not necessarily contributed to being a well funded endeavour, which I think is a shame.

Success or lack of it aside, the idea of extraterrestrial life is most intriguing. Basis the premise that the Universe is a very large place and that Earth is basically insignificant against the gigantic backdrop of what we know exists, extraterrestrial life looks like a logical conclusion - if life happened on Earth it must have happened elsewhere, once we also accept the fact that there may be nothing particularly especial about Earth, the sun and the human race in general. Life may be rare but that doesn't necessarily make it unique.

But if life is not unique to Earth, does that mean we will meet an extraterrestrial civilization? No one really knows as the progression of events leading to contact between two separate civilizations may indeed make such contact very improbable if not impossible:
Right conditions for life must exist
Life must arise and evolve
Evolution must lead to intelligence
Intelligent life forms must develop technology
This tecnology must allow for interstellar travel or communication of some sort
The communication capability must exist for a finite amount of time
Each one of the above must be a very low probability event. These probabilities, taken together, offer an insight into a possible number of "communicative" civilizations. Dr. Frank Drake developed Drake's equation, in 1961 (read more about it at the Seti website). As solved by Frank Drake himself, the equation yields a number of 10,000 "communicative" civilizations in our galaxy.
The last term in Drake's equation refers to the lifetime of this "communicative" civilization. I haven't heard or read anything about this particular term but I have indeed thought about it.
Our sun seems to be a third generation star as it contains a lot of heavy elements (heavier than iron) same as the solar system. Without these elements, life as we know it could not have evolved.
Considering that the lifetime of a star like the sun may be 8 to 10 billion years, we seem to be indeed early in the "history" of the universe. That would present an argument for saying that we may be among the first technologically capable civilizations in the galaxy and that we may be, eventually, the first or one of the first to venture out into the unknown.
On the other hand, there was a huge meteor impact on Earth about 65 million years ago, that nearly wiped out all life on the planet and led to the disappearance of the dinosaurs or at least that is the generally accepted view. But I keep wondering if species of dinosaurs like velociraptor could not have evolved into sentient, intelligent beings much like humans but with a 65 million year head start?
Actually there is a Star Trek Voyager episode which depicts descendants of dinosaurs that escaped destruction on Earth and now living on the Delta quadrant of our Galaxy, wherever that is (Season 3 episode 23 "Distant Origin") . Obviously this is highly especulative but so is Star Trek. These intelligent reptiles are the kind of advanced civilization that a 65 million head start on us would lead to.
So, if that 5-6 mile piece of space junk had not hit, we might all be dinosaurs roaming the skies. And if other civilizations had that same kind of a head start, we are late to the party. Probably too late.
After all this ranting, what is it going to be? Seti... or should we wait and see? That is what WETI stands for, Waiting for Extra Terrestrial Intelligence to arrive.
Me, I am sitting back and relaxing waiting to see if our velociraptor cousins show up. Good piece of advice from Pamela.
Listen to the podcast. You will be enlightened while being entertained.

Why skeptics like science fiction?

2008-10-13T20:30:00.000-07:00

I have been following the skeptical movement for about two years now and I feel very identified with it because I have always been a skeptic at heart. And I feel more and more a part of this way of thinking when I realize that my passion for science fiction is shared with so many of my skeptical colleagues.

Maybe skeptics like science fiction because many of the best and best known SF writers of the 20th century were also skeptics. Arthur C. Clark lets readers clearly see his agnosticism/atheism; Isaac Asimov defends science and the scientific outlook in both his fiction and non-fiction writings; he was the original skeptic. And you can feel the skepticism in Heinlein's and Van Vogt's work. While you are at it, don't forget Gene Roddenberry and his Opus Magnum, Star Trek.

So, many good SF writers were (or probably were) skeptics. But what about our own mindset when we read (or watch) science fiction? Interestingly, us SF fans classify these works of art into "good SF" and "bad SF". How come? Most SF requires some suspension of disbelief in order to be enjoyed. Yeah, yeah, Dr. Krauss, I understand that beaming someone using a Star-Trek-type transporter would require so much information storage as to make it unpractical... but watching the special effects of Captain Kirk being "beamed up" and "down" does get us thinking how good a change to our daily conmute that would be and wouldn't it be good to have one of those at home. On the whole, Star Trek is regarded as good science fiction, warp drive non-withstanding. On the other hand I personally consider Star Wars a very low grade SF work... although many of my skeptically minded friends like the movies. What is the difference?

For me at least, the difference is that, while Star Trek at least tries to base some of the stories on some kind of science, Star Wars does not. When Captain Janeway asks for a "tachion beam", we already know that time disturbances are somehow linked to these "tachions" which, maybe, will now be discovered by the LHC. But "the Force" is so "mystical" and "religious" that I am personally turned off by it. It is like the Matrix - they do things that are impossible, only you know that "in the Matrix" they can be explained by manipulation of the "reality-producing" algorithms while there is no good explanation of how "the Force" works short of being a deist and considering a mysterious spiritual bonding of every atom of the universe... a concept I really shy away from.

So that most be the reason why Asimov and Clarke are considered among the top SF writers of the last century - two authors who consistently used good science and reasonable extrapolations of current knowledge throughout their stories, while some other writers (and I don't read them, so I don't want to name them) might best be classified as fantasy rather than SF authors.

And there is the "in-between" category. For instance, I am currently listening to J. C. Hutchins "7th. Son" trilogy. J.C.'s story has a wonderful flow that really grabs you and forces you to listen forsaking TV, sleep, sex and meals... well, maybe only TV. But I find that the need of suspension of disbelief is, at times, a little too much. For instance, J.C. postulates the existence of the mysterious "Aurora" aircraft and then narrates that it takes an Aurora 20 minutes from Virginia to the middle of Texas. OK, I think, maybe fly over Virginia and into Texas in 20 minutes... but landings and take-offs would easily consume an additional 10 minutes each considering the extreme heights at which such an aircraft would have to operate. And then you have the refueling problem (no refuelings occur...) and the Auroras, in the novel, seem to be kind of a flying 4X4, able to take off and land in almost any strip. It really strains my skepticism until I remind myself that "7th. Son" is a thriller more than a SF novel.

Maybe that is the reason I, as a skeptic, like SF. It flexes my critical thinking muscles and forces me to look beyond and try to see these things really happening... are they at all possible? If most of them are, in light of our current knowledge and a reasonable extrapolation into the future, then you are reading good SF.
J.C. Hutchins novel is available at Podiobooks.com. While you are there, be sure to check Mur Lafferty's excellent "Playing for keeps", which is now also in print and available at Amazon.com. I highly recommend both even if they are not all that "believable" but they are definitely enjoyable. Image above was found in this excellent blog, Trevize's computer.

It is a shame the LHC will not be operational until next year...

2008-10-12T18:57:00.000-07:00

Need I say more?

Just for fun...

LHC: End of the world postponed?

2008-10-04T19:04:00.000-07:00

Of course I do not believe that the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) will cause the end of the world! But since the chicken-Littles of the world have been crying wolf... I thought I would have a little laugh at their expense.

What is the Large Hadron Collider? Simply put, it is the largest particle accelerator ever built (actually, the largest atom-smasher) and it will allow us to peer into the very fabric of the universe and re-create conditions that were only present a few nanoseconds after the Big Bang. If you don't know what a particle accelerator is and what it is used for, go check wikipedia, which also has a nice article on the LHC.

Now, seriously, we science fans are more than a little disappointed. The LHC (see news here) was initially turned on on September 1oth. A good day for science! The giant magnet was powered on and protons were spun around the 27 km circunference successfully. Unfortunately on September 19th, a failure in two of the magnets used to accelerate and confine the proton beam caused a helium leak. Helium is used as a coolant, the LHC magnets being kept at an extremely low temperature of 1.9 K - that is more than 270°C below cero!

Imagine the challenges of operating equipment at such extreme temperatures! Science fans have been further disappointed by the fact that the LHC is now only slated to be re-started in the early spring of 2009 - which for me means march or april.

There have been all sorts of reactions from the fans of the LHC protesting such a lengthy repair. But the challenge is to bring the failed section up to room temperature: from 1.9 K to 300 K it may take several weeks, in order to avoid any damage during heat up. And once the repairs are conducted, it will then take some more time to cool down everything to operating temperature - not to mention the planned winter shut down, which is closing fast!

In any case, 2009 should be the year when the LHC will make headlines (at least in the media outlets that we, science fans, read) and who knows, maybe string theory will get confirmation... or not!

Six degrees and Facebook

2008-09-25T21:06:00.000-07:00

This morning I requested a friend who Facebook kept suggesting to me. It turns out my new friend is a nice young lady studying biology at Carnegie Mellon. She is very much into the skeptic movement, from what I have seen and she sent me the address to her blog. So, naturally, I checked it out...

And she is funny! She blogs about a variety of subjects but manages to post a lot of humor (at least for my skeptical mind it sounds like humor). So I am having a blast reading her and I hope you will as well.

There is a theory that all humans are connected by six or less people. I am skeptical of that claim but I really do enjoy meeting new people on these social networking sites and every once in a while a real gem of a new friend comes along, courtesy of Facebook. So I guess I should give in when Facebook insists someone is my friend for more than three days or so...

In case you are wondering, the above picture I found in her blog, where she indicates the provenance.
Thanks for the friendship Shalini!

Debate about evolution?

2008-09-20T22:03:00.000-07:00

I am continually amazed at the sheer stupidity of this issue. Now that Governor Palin (AK) has been nominated as the vp candidate for the Republican party, there are news again of a supposed debate between evolution and creationism.
Now children, repeat after me: "There is no debate. Evolution happened." Write 5000 times until it gets through your thick skull!
Problem is people seem not to know what a theory is. Pres. Bush's statement "it is only a theory" shows ignorance. A theory is a hypothesis that has been backed up by evidence and makes usable predictions about the real world. If I have a 10 pound weight on my right hand and I let go, it will fall to the ground. That is what the "Theory of Gravity" predicts. And it happens. It is not "only a theory".
Now, a gentleman by the name of Bobby Henderson wrote a letter to the Kansas Board of Education several years ago when the board tried to introduce creationism in school. Ah, sorry, not creationism, "Intelligent Design". Same difference. Bobby regaled the board with another option to teach in school, the theory that the world was created by the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
And pastafarianism, which is the devotion (I will not say religion) to the Flying Spaghetti Monster has spread. I feel myself touched by His Noodly Appendage as I am writing this lines...
A strange belief? Not less strange than many of the stories found on the Bible, the Qur'an and the Book of Mormon.
And we are all pretty sure the Book of Mormon was made up by crackpot Joseph Smith...
Anyway, read all you want about His Pastaness at http://www.venganza.org/

We have not sunk into a black hole... yet!

2008-09-10T18:24:00.000-07:00
Today is a day to remember in history. The Large Hadron Collider has been successfuly tested at 10 am this morning, Geneva time. The test was a success!

Although no particle collisions are scheduled to occur before October 21st, I am very skeptical that the disasters heralded by the usual loud-mouthed Chicken Little types will occur. The most talked about disaster these poor souls have been cackling about is the supposed creation of black holes that would in an instant swallow the Earth whole, taking us all into oblivion.

I guess they will say this can still happen since no particles are colliding as yet. But I would prefer to wait until October 21st before crying foul. Until then, I am not really holding my breath. The LHC is a wonderful new instrument for probing into the mysteries of the universe and all I am looking forward to is the news of more fascinating discoveries in the years to come.

If you want to learn about the best and worse case scenarios, there is a very nice article in the Wired magazine website. Enjoy!

God must be a robot...

2008-09-08T18:58:00.000-07:00

I am a devoted reader of Popular Science and found this very interesting article. Since I have been reading about the Singularity (check elsewhere in my blog) I find these ideas a natural progression.

In short, once the Singularity is achieved and very advanced computers help design even more advanced and intelligent computers, progress would be so fast that time between computer generations could be shortened to a few days. The end of the line is for human beings to live forever, having uploaded their conscience into a mechanical brain... and an eternally repairable body.

So, this NASA exobiologist thinks there is a better than 50/50 chance that some of the alien races that may be out there are not biological anymore, but completely mechanical. And again, it would be the logical and natural conclusion to the series of events started by the Singularity.

So, future of humanity is robothood (will we call it robotkind instead of mankind?) And since, if there is a God, He is supposed to have created us in his likeness and we have not finished evolving, it only follows that God is a robot!

How about that for a slippery slope?

The strange dichotomy of death and religion

2008-08-31T11:50:00.000-07:00
I am thoroughly convinced that one of the main reasons for the existence of religion is the fact that we all die. Man has, from the very dawn of self-awareness, struggled with the reality of this fact, that we live for a short time and then die and are never seen or heard of again.

Jay Novella mentioned last week in the SGU podcast (remembering Perry De Angelis) that "death makes no sense and it is a loss". I agree, man has tried to make sense of death from the beginning and tried to find ways to cope with the loss and, there you have it, religion tries to make sense of it and tries to find ways to alleviate the loss.

Not very succesfully.

The strange dichotomy I am refering to in the title to this post, is the effect of death on the religious. I cannot understand why, if death is a transition to a "better place", if the deceased is going "to face God" and be "in his presence" (which I imagine would be wonderful if only God really existed), why then religious people react to the loss of a loved one with such intense grief? And believe me, I think agnostics and non-religious people, like myself, cope better with the loss than the religious.

I have seen the two attitudes from very close quarters. I lost my father last November, and believe me, the pain is still there and at the moment of his death, though I knew it was coming, the grief was unbearable. But, I have to accept, my dear old man is no more and I have to learn to live with that fact and console myself with my fond memories of him and the love that we shared in the family for him and he for us. And with time, acceptance sets in and peace returns.

But the religious... what a way to grieve! I have seen depression, loss of apetite, desire to also die, complete desperation. Do they not believe that their loved one is in heaven, happily playing the harp or something? Do they not rejoice at the thought of the deceased suffering no more and leaving his/her mortal attachments for an eternal life of bliss?

I don't understand.

In the Arabian Nights tales, there is one that mentions that humans should actually party, dance and rejoice when a loved one dies, for he/she was God's property and that property has gone back to his/her actual owner. From this side of the fence, that attitude makes so much more sense.

Strange things of life in this world...

Did you know the earth is flat?

2008-08-22T21:20:00.000-07:00

Yes, it is flat... or at least so maintains the Flat Earth Society. I browsed through their claims and found them interesting. They say that

The Earth is flat
Most of it is water - held in place by ice walls
Gravity is really acceleration - the Earth accelerates upward and that gives us the illusion of gravity

And most interestingly, they say that if Earth were round, people standing on the south pole would fall off!!!

I don't know if they really believe all of this nonsense is true or if they are only having fun at the expense of gullible people. Anyway, check their claims and see if they convince you. They didn't convince me.

And I still don't understand what Rasputin has to do with all of it...

By the way, researching this piece, I found this fantastic piece of art, by a gentleman called George Grie. You can use it as wallpaper.

THIS IS OUTRAGEOUS: The Archdiocese of Mexico recomends women how to dress and behave to avoid sexual aggression!

2008-08-16T18:03:00.000-07:00

Jamie Lynn did not follow the advice of Father Román...

I believe the priesthood has overdone it. I stumbled upon this news (in spanish here) and felt outraged. An excerpt follows, freely translated by yours truly:

"The Archdiocese of Mexico has published some 'advice' for young women to avoid being the victims of sexual attacks... 'do not use provocative clothing'; 'avoid being alone with a man, even if he is an acquaintance...'; 'avoid suggestive conversation...'

"When we exhibit our body without modesty we are prostituting it because we cause in others feelings they have no right to unless it is our desire to become public property, that is, we get mentally prostituted*. That's what pornography is, a mental prostitution..."

"The human body is simply beautiful, it is God's work... Art has glorified and sublimated it in search of a merely esthetical feeling...

"Some of our young women, well educated in the value of modesty, feel uncomfortable with clothing that shows their bodies. We see them modestly pulling down their short shirts, their skirts and covering their cleavage with a sweater..."

*my emphasis

Looking back at my previous post on personal responsibility, I believe this is another wrong direction religion can take us. It is not the rapist's fault - she was "unmodest" and "provocative" or "suggestive". This "advice" also makes the priesthood thinking visible, they insist on demeaning women by making them guilty of the aggression they suffer because "it is her fault" or "she was looking for it".

It is time to stop the bullshit and the nonsense. Everyone has to be accountable for their actions. End of the story. Nothing less will do.

Note: I tried looking at the source in the Archdiocese of Mexico's website, http://www.desdelafe.com.mx, as advertised in these news and in the Google search. The website was apparently down, probably because of the (just) indignation at this stupidity. However, I was able to ascertain that the note was published on August 10th, 2008, by priest Sergio G. Román del Real. The article might have been pulled by the Archdiocese which is now trying to distance itself from the writings of "father" Román. Check this additional note here (in spanish)

And now there is a book on the Merchants of Faith!

2008-08-13T20:37:00.000-07:00

The book is called "How to get rich as a Televangelist or Faith Healer" (Bill Wilson, Paladin Press 2008) and in it he is exposing the tricks of the trade commonly used by these con artists (Benny Hinn, Kenneth Copeland, Pat Robertson, even our very own local boy Cash Luna) to get the faithful to "believe" but, more importantly, "to give" until it hurts (the faithful, of course, not them).

I have not read the book but you can check out the contents here. I did listen to an interview with Bill Wilson on the Infidel Guy show and it really was a paradox, wanting to laugh out loud and at the same time feeling the frustration of knowing that people are being so blatantly misled and conned into giving away their hard earned cash.

Consider this typical ploy of the faith healer (and these fraudsters love "to heal"): after carefully screening the "heal-ees", they are told to sit in a very special chair the pastor has for them. The chair, of course, is a wheel chair. They are then wheeled into the stage (notice that they did not come with "their" wheel chair, it was already prepared for the poor suckers) and the "faith healer" says something like "In the name of Jesus, get up from that chair and RUN!". And people do run and the audience explodes. Of course, you see a guy get wheeled in and then you watch the guy get up and run, you assume he has been "healed" and can now walk. But, who said he couldn't walk in the first place?

In the interview, Wilson also mentions the exposé by James Randi of Peter Popoff. Randi showed up at the Tonight Show with Johnny Carson (he and Carson were very good friends) and told him "Johnny, we learned something interesting about God. He broadcasts in 49 MHz and he speaks with Peter Popoff's wife's voice!". Turns out Randi went to one of Popoff functions and took a radio scanner with him; Poppof was being told by his wife over a wireless link about the audience and their ailments, looking at cards the attendants had filled as they came in. Check the YouTube video here. It is very educational.

Anyway, this is a follow up to my previous posting on the Merchants of Faith. Get the book, I will - 166 pages of fun reading will go by in a couple of sittings at the throne and, who knows, maybe I have another career left in me yet!

And now on to... rising fuel prices?

2008-08-04T19:33:00.000-07:00
Yeah, another subject worthy of critical thinking - don't you think?

I recently submitted what you would call an op-ed to a local newspaper, on the subject of rising prices at the pump. It has not been published yet, which is why I will not reproduce it here but it seems to have generated a bit of controversy among the editorial staff.

Reason for the controversy is the fact that I do indeed work for an oil company and even though I have nothing to do with fuels or fuels marketing, my article was apparently seen by some as "loaded".

Why loaded?

Maybe my big mistake was indicating that oil companies are not "greedy". That must be a capital sin in the world of these newspaper editors, who are always looking for "the angle" and "who to blame". (Everyone's to blame except for me - I guess).

But the truth is, oil companies are not greedy. At least, not in the traditional sense of the word. Let me explain.

Greed is a human emotion. If you have ever worked in a large corporation, you know that the full range of human emotions applied to the corporate "mind" is utterly meaningless. Yes, big companies (big oil, indeed) can be ruthless but it is not out of "greed" or "hate" or because there is an inherent "evil" within. It is just that they represent two main interests: one, the shareholders', who are always trying to get more for their investment and will flee at the first sign of trouble and two, the managers and corporate directors, who operate under the pressure of these shareholders and have what I think is a very myopic and shortsighted outlook, namely, the results for the year have to be good so that we can be well evaluated this year and we will hold the stock price high. Unfortunately, this thinking leads to decisions that are difficult to understand from a distance and may look "ruthless" and "greedy" to outsiders.

In any case, that is as far as "corporate emotions" go. As for the perceived "greed", well, there is none. Oil is expensive and will become more expensive simply because there is not much of it left and it will be exhausted at some time in the future. That is a fundamental fact of life and it means that we will have to pay more and more at the pump.

The times of cheap oil are past. Any new development is so outrageously expensive that most people cannot get their mind around the numbers involved. Big oil is investing as fast as it can just to keep up and they are getting behind.

The point I was trying to make in the article, which seems to be over the head of these editors, is that high oil prices may actually be good. And many people seem to agree with me. Yes, in the short term we all hurt. But if oil is inexpensive, why bother with hybrid and electric cars, biofuels, solar and wind energy? Everything else is so expensive at the moment that we all just go for the cheap option, our good old trusty petroleum derivative of choice. But make that old friend disappear and the s**t will hit the fan if we don't develop alternatives. Think about this in a post-petroleum world:

Flying to your favorite vacation spot - oh wait, the plane does burn kerosene, right? (That's Av-Jet for you perfectionists!)
Wearing the latest fashion Oakley sunglasses - hey, hold it. Doesn't plastic resin come from petroleum?
Let us have some good old fashioned Corn Flakes... oops, forgot that agricultural equipment runs on diesel fuel (petroleum based), the flakes themselves are cooked using heat from steam generated by an oil-fired boiler... where did oil go?
Our lives are inextricably intertwined with petroleum products and we are not aware of that. We need to start looking at the options NOW and high prices at the pump will prod us in the right direction.

Anyway, we will all be much more fit and healthy in the post-petroleum world. Walking or bicycling to work is going to do wonders for our figure.

This does not need any comments

2008-08-02T16:13:00.001-07:00
I found these two images today in Pharyngula (thanks PZ!):

A little problem: most of the people above were not atheists. See a fascinating discussion of the topic here. Anyway, these gentlemen did not believe in the judeo-christian god and I can relate to them on those terms (Who are they? check the link above!)

There was someone who created the following retort:

I guess we all know who these idiots (sorry, geniuses) are.

Anyway, just a little bit of fun. This got me a nice new link for my blog, which I am posting today, on the right column.

I just joined Facebook

2008-07-31T20:43:00.000-07:00
I joined Facebook yesterday and it's awesome! I was already on Hi5, joined MySpace but I found Facebook different in a good, better way. It looks like it is more conducive to networking than the other sites... call me biased if you want but I would like to know what other people think?

I am an admirer of Dr. Pamela Gay

2008-07-30T10:28:00.000-07:00
I just started listening to the "Slacker Astronomy" podcast and was pleasently surprised to find out that Pamela Gay (the Doctor) is on it. I am working my way up through the podcasts so I don't know if she still participates in the podcast but I am a faithful listener of Astronomycast and I have to say that Dr. Gay combines a sexy feminine voice with wonderful inteligence and knowledge - to me that combination is irresistible. I still don't know much about her looks, she doesn't seem to like to post pictures of herself, which I can relate to. Here is one, from her webpage at Star Stryder:

Swoopy says Pamela is hot. I believe most everything Swoopy says but this wonderful inteligent and educated woman does not need Swoopy's endorsement to gain my wholehearted admiration. I will make sure my daughter knows about her so that she can see a good example of a woman making her mark in a male dominated world (the world of astronomy, that is...)

Pamela rocks!

Yes, weather made a big mess but what about religion?

2008-07-29T08:34:00.000-07:00
Last week Thursday I went out of town for the day and coming back to the office in the afternoon was impossible because of extraordinary rain that caused mudslides and all sorts of catastrophic events, reducing inbound traffic into the city to a slow crawl.

Weather can turn our best plans into a big mess but what about the mess religion is making with people's minds?

That same Thursday morning, before weather wreaked havoc with my agenda, I was talking to a gentleman who was showing me and my colleague around in the facility that we were visiting (a government entity). The guy was very nice and accommodating to our requests and while my colleague took notes I engaged him in conversation, since I was not really busy.

We started talking politics (who doesn't these days?) and since he told me he personally knew the guy who lost the election in the last poll, I asked him if he regretted having voted for the winning candidate, whose government after six months is a big disappointment to his voters. His answer, while candid and honest, was a big disappointment to me.

He said something like "look, I am a christian and I believe in the Word and I read the Bible, and the Bible says that at the end of times there will be violence and evil and those are the signs we are reading in the world all around us these days. So, it doesn't really matter if we vote for one candidate or another, the end result is going to be pretty much the same and Jesus is the only one who is going to make it better when he comes back in all his glory..."

So, if we pollute our environment and kill each other it does not matter because "it is written". And, exonerating ourselves of any personal responsibility, "God will, in the end, make it better".

Sorry, I can't deal with that.

We are responsible for our actions and we are the ones who have to take action and be accountable in order to improve our world and clean up our messes.

I understand now better Mr. Harris' and Mr. Dawkins' fierce opposition to religion. I am inclined to agree.

The life of a religious skeptic

2008-07-23T19:49:00.000-07:00
I guess doubt has always been in me. I got a flashback of my early years doubt (a flashback that has lasted for three days) from a recent conversation with my son. He was telling me about his skepticism of religion and I remembered how at his age I was not only skeptical of religion, I was very much against it. I sat in the back of the chapel in school every week during our obligatory weekly mass and cavorted with the other skeptics, agnostics and the occasional evangelical christian who was stuck in a catholic school with the rest of us.

These days I consider myself an agnostic though if you question me hard enough you might think I am a hard core atheist. But it was not always like that... or was it?

As a young boy I got through the usual cathecism classes and the first communion preparation and all that. I do remember vividly how I always thought how come those wonderful miracles you read about in the Bible were never around for me to see. Why did they happen in ancient times and not in modern times, when I could be around to see them? Seas parting, walls crumbling, huge floods and thunder and big voices coming from the clouds. It would have been great to witness such an event. Why did they not happen anymore?

My conversation with my boy echoed those same memories. Everything came back, together with the lingering doubt, a doubt that grew given the spectacular lack of evidence of any divine entity.

It was a long process that took 40-plus years. I have reflected before on how difficult it is to renounce your belief when you are indoctrinated (oh yes Mr. Dawkins, you are right!) from such a young age. Or is it not renounce your belief but rather accept your lack of?

As a child I could not do it. Parental wisdom and indoctrination prevailed. As a young adult, I got carried away by my friends and the vision of a pretty young girl (who is now my wife) into a "conversion" to the "new man" and a renewed encounter with catholicism, which lasted all of 4 or 5 years. Even in the deep side of my encounter with faith I doubted - I remember clearly thinking if this was all really worth it as I was being asked for sacrifices I really did not want to make. And the truth is I never got around to making those sacrifices. (So much for conversion to the "new man"). But I did get involved and it took me a long time to get out of the mess I got myself into.

For some people belief or disbelief is just not important. For others, like me, it is of the utmost importance. My son seems to be on the last group. My advice to him and others like him is that anything that you settle on (either belief or lack of) must come from a strong reflection and the conviction of one's own ideas. No one should impose them on you - and definitely, juvenile indoctrination should not be allowed

About the Singularity...

2008-07-08T13:12:00.000-07:00

The best answer to the question "Will computers ever be as smart as humans?" is probably "Yes, but only briefly"

Can you upload your conscience?

2008-07-07T22:12:00.000-07:00
and have you heard about the singularity? An interesting concept.

The long and the short of the singularity is that, according to some forward thinking individuals (some of whom may be a little too optimistic) the current advances in microprocessor technology and the accompanying software will lead to an "explosion" of technological advance in the very near future. In other words, since Moore's law of microprocessor power has ruled the world of technology for the last 30 years or so, the rate at which computer power is increasing is exponential. Then, there will be a moment in time, very soon, when computers become so powerful that they can bring about the next generation of computers and the interval between successive generations will shrink from years to months to weeks to days...

At that moment, this technological "Big Bang" (hence, the singularity) will allow us to de-compile, so to speak, our consciences by fully understanding how the brain works. Then, we will be able to "move" our conscience from our soft and fragile bodies into the sturdy framework of silicon and titanium ... and then live forever, moving from mechanical body to mechanical body ad infinitum. And we will become inmortal.

Sounds good? There are opinions for and against the whole idea, the singularity and the posibility of inmmortality. Some people believe that the singularity is a pipe dream. Others acknolewdge the possibility but the idea of "uploading" your conscience into another medium, outside of your brain is more often than not rejected.

And, I think, with good reason. Consider your motivations and your desires. How much of that is due to "software" in your brain and the neural connections in that maze of neural connections, developed during your 10, 20, 30, etc. years of life and how much is related to your hormonal level, pain, exposure to light... disease...

Critics of the singularity consider the idea of likening the uploading of our consciousness to a data download as an extreme simplification. We may be more than the sum of our brains - we are corporeal beings who suffer hunger and pain and sexual desire. Would those be uploaded as well? How do you enjoy your favorite dessert when you have become a titanium bodied, silicon brained artificial lifeform?

Would you give that up?

Here is Ray Kurzweil, who is the leading proponent of the Singularity, at Stanford University during the Singularity Summit in May 2006. You can also search for Mr. Kurzweil's provocative thoughts at TED. Further reading about the singularity at IEEE's Spectrum magazine for June 2008. Enjoy and prepare to be uploaded!

Good Sci-Fi is about people

2008-06-17T06:56:00.000-07:00

I am a big fan of Star Trek. All my friends and family know (and sometimes shake their head in annoyment or puzzlement). And I have a friend who has the whole collection of ST Voyager DVDs, so I am screening right now through season 6.

Season 5 had a nice surprise for me. Episode 22 "Someone to watch over me" is a jewel and a shining example of what good Sci-Fi is all about. In this episode (spoiler alert!) Seven of Nine is encouraged by the Doctor to date and the whole episode is a delightful insight into what a normal human activity looks like to a human child raised by aliens. There is even a cliche right at the end where Seven finds out that the Doctor made a wager with Tom over her and she is infuriated, in typical movie female fashion, betraying her robotic Borg ways.

What this show had was a wonderful example of what good doctor Asimov indicated as the fascination of Sci-Fi. It is not the gadgets or the special effects; it is about people, only that we are seeing them in an extrapolation of our current life and we get to wonder how people will react when they are in this extraordinary environment. And not surprisingly, the extrapolation will tell us that people are people are people.

I remember that my father-in-law strongly criticized my liking Star Trek because "he wouldn't like to live in that world". Guess what: people would still be people. And a good science fiction story will always try to reach into the human side and indicate to the audience how human traits will remain, in spite of any technology you may care to throw upon us.

Picture above is, of course, Jeri Ryan in her Seven of Nine regalia. Talk about a good incentive to watch Voyager...

The Merchants of Faith

2008-06-14T07:54:00.000-07:00
"Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful."
Lucius Annaeus Seneca, 4BC - 65 AD - Roman stoic philosopher

This week I ran into an old college colleague at an airport. We started talking about the price of gas, which is a very current topic, went on to traffic patterns and ended up discussing the antics of one of our most popular exports to the world and whom I call #1 merchant of faith in our country.

This friend filled me in on another little scam of this scoundrel. It turns out that he organizes youth in small groups he calls "cells". When he shows up at one of these saturday evening meetings, he tells the youngsters, especially if they are mostly girls, that in order to prove their faith, they have to "donate" something that they really value. Family heirlooms have been lost this way: grandma's old earrings, mom's engagement ring, things like those. We couldn't help but wonder what happens to these pieces of jewelry at the end of the saturday evening meeting? Do the pastor and his wife check the spoils of the day? Do the pastor's daughters now wear grandma's earrings?

And this is not the first time I heard about these scams. An acquaintance claims she was coerced out of a pearl necklace she later saw hanging from the neck of this very same preacher's wife at a social event. She went over to the woman and demanded her necklace back. Good for her!

This is what upsets me royally about these charlatans. They claim to be inspired by God, yet they will not stop requesting their faithful to tithe. And they keep looking for ways to go above and beyond the customary "10 percent". Isn't God supposed to be uninterested in money? Aren't the "real riches" to be found in heaven and not in earth?

Regardless of whether there is a heaven or not, the problem with these greedy scoundrels is that they are benefitting from the gullibility of their faithful and taking unfair advantage of them, to their personal benefit. At the end of last year, U. S. Senator Chuck Grassley started an investigation into the finances of six large ministeries. The reason behind this investigation was not related to faith or anything divine. It related to very mundane things:
Personal use of church aircraft (for vacation, not for preaching)
Real state purchases (for living, not for worship)
Furniture purchases (for household use, not church)
Purchase of luxury vehicles (Rolls Royce and Bentley)
Jewelry received as Donations (sounds familiar?)
Need I say more?
So... these are the rulers for whom the belief of the common man that religion is "true" is "useful". Words of a wise man.

Entropy and the arrow of time

2008-05-26T16:16:00.000-07:00

Curiously enough, after writing about entropy and the human race, I found a very nice article, recently published also, about entropy in Scientific American.

You can check the whole text here. I hope you enjoy it

Entropy and the fate of the human race

2008-05-20T22:00:00.000-07:00
This is not an upbeat posting, so if you are trying to cheer up go look somewhere else.

It is not that I am depressed or that I am a pessimist, which I don't think I am but lately I have started to think of the very few chances of success humanity has at the moment. With the latest sharp increases in the price of oil and the scarcity of some food supplies, people in the poorest countries, like Haiti, have started to rebel.

Hunger will make that to you. Especially if it is not only you but your children who are hungry.

A consequence of the second law of thermodynamics is the continuous increase in entropy. Entropy could be defined (loosely) as a measure of disorganization, randomness.

You might say that humanity is increasing in entropy. Disorganization is increasing - randomness is sure to follow and with it, lawlessness.

I believe that the root cause of our economic problems is that there are too many people. Humanity has reached a point where it infests the Earth like a cancer or a fungus that will just not quit. Cancer is very successful at reproducing - and then when the host is killed, cancer cells die as well. Humanity's success as a species may very well be its undoing.

I am not saying that humanity is a cancer infesting the earth, just making an analogy. But the problem in reality is the tremendous amount of people. As more and more bodies compete for the available resources, trouble is sure to follow. And resources are definitely limited, as the current crisis is clearly demonstrating.

I was telling a friend that the only logical outcome and the best solution is a little (or a large) simplification. In chess, when you start playing, you have too many pieces on the board and, eventually, if you want to be able to really play your opponent, you have to engage in a little give-and-take, a quid-pro-quo that will move some of the pieces (both your adversary's and yours) off the board, offering a relief from congestion. We, as a species, surely need some relief from congestion. Imagine how much better the world would be if population were half, a third, a tenth of what it is now...

Successful players can limit the give and take and keep it balanced. My only hope is that as humanity engages in this simplification, which I think is inevitable, some of us will manage to remain and show their descendants how to be better men and women that what we are today. Hopefully the survivors will learn from the experience and avoid future disasters.

And that is an optimistic wish.

Pangea Day is a success and Cameron Diaz is in it!

2008-05-12T13:51:00.000-07:00

Pangea day, May 10th. A big success and a star studded event. Cameron Díaz (picture above) and other celebrities participated and the event was held in the spirit of brotherhood, that what happens in one corner of the Earth affects us all.

The Los Angeles Times has an excellent article here. I recommend you check it out.

The main activity leading to Pangea Day (check my previous posting on the subject) was the production of a number of videos and movies. These can be watched at the Pangea Day website. Highly recommended.

Free will and religion

2008-05-08T21:11:00.000-07:00

This week I listened to Dr. Ginger Campbell's episode of her "Books and ideas" podcast on free will. In it she refers to a book on the subject of free will and makes some interesting reflections, such as the fact that we may do what we want but we cannot will what we want - meaning that while we may act on our desires and impulses, such desires may not be under our control.

As an example, some months ago I was discussing with a colleague if she had gotten married of her own free will and she responded she did, no one forced her. I then questioned why she had gotten married. She said because she fell in love. I kept asking her why until she really got upset but my point was, she got married because she fell in love and because once you are in love you are supposed to get married. That is really an expectation set by your upbringing, society, whatever. I questioned her on why do you have to get married. That really upset her and I abandoned my line of questioning but the episode clearly illustrates what Dr. Campbell was mentioning: while my friend did willingly get married, getting married was not a decision she took, she was compelled by tradition or social convention to do so.

So what does religion have to do with all this? Very simple, religion is thrust upon us most of the time. We do not chose our religion, most of us are born in it. And then moving away from it is a really difficult process, that many people just never undertake. Of those who stay in the religion of their parents, many are not really deeply convinced believers, even if they think they are. They go through the motions and attend church because that is what they are supposed to do; they believe in God and have faith and pray, because that is what you do, what your parents did and your grandparents before them.

My contention is that many people just do not have any choice but to be religious and "believe". Most people never question religiosity, they just practice their "faith" and never apply any critical thinking to their "beliefs" which should rather be called "traditions".

That is the reason why Dr. Richard Dawkins says that forcing religion on children amounts to child abuse. Children have really no way to defend themselves from this imposition and they grow up in the tradition of going to church and "believing". And then, they may be hooked for life.

Never for one moment do these people get an opportunity to exercise "free will" and apply their critical thinking skills to the subject of faith and religion. They think they want to believe, they think they want to have faith but the whole thing has been thrust onto them.

Having been in the grips of religion for over 40 years, I understand how difficult it is to say "I will not believe anymore" and how this can bring you into serious problem with your loved ones, who are still in the tradition and dare not think about not believing.

But you can. And how liberating it is.

And now it is 16 years the good doctor is gone...

2008-04-07T21:03:00.000-07:00

16 years ago yesterday, on April 6th, 1992, the good doctor, Isaac Asimov passed away. All of us who learned to love his writing and teachings (with Carl Sagan, Dr. Asimov was a great educator for science) were baffled at the news; like Arthur C. Clarke, I genuinely thought Isaac Asimov would live forever. Now I know I was not wrong, as he lives on in his legacy.

And what a legacy! 500 plus books! The man could write and talk on the phone at the same time and he was an accomplished typist. He used one of those old IBM electric typewriters (he died in 1992, almost pre-internet) with the letters on a sphere and he kept breaking the return spring until he had IBM equip one of the typewriters with a heavy duty return spring that would hold up to his furious typing. He did not bother feeding single sheets into the typewriter, he used a continuous paper, like the ones used later in computer printers.

Unlike Clarke and Heinlein, Asimov did not meddle with genetics in his stories. His thing was robots. Isaac Asimov created the famous three laws of robotics, to wit:

A robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm.

A robot must obey orders given it by human beings except where such orders would conflict with the First Law.

A robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Law.
Later, one of Asimov's robots comes to the realization that there is a "zeroth" law: that a robot must protect humanity and avoid humanity to come to harm through inaction. This law would turn out to have precedence over the other three and allowed the good doctor to spin fantastic tales of human evolution arising from the heroic robot realizing the power of the "zeroth" law.

(Interestingly, the three laws of robotics are an excellent ethical guide... better than "the good book"...)

Dr. Asimov was an accomplished skeptic. In his book "The Roving Mind", he wrote:

"Don't you believe in flying saucers, they ask me? Don't you believe in telepathy? — in ancient astronauts? — in the Bermuda triangle? — in life after death?

No, I reply. No, no, no, no, and again no.

One person recently, goaded into desperation by the litany of unrelieved negation, burst out 'Don't you believe in anything?'

'Yes', I said. 'I believe in evidence. I believe in observation, measurement, and reasoning, confirmed by independent observers. I'll believe anything, no matter how wild and ridiculous, if there is evidence for it. The wilder and more ridiculous something is, however, the firmer and more solid the evidence will have to be."

And what a great lesson.

(Image above is from Wikipedia. In the words of the author: "I, Rowena Morrill, license this image under the GFDL, with an Invariant Section consisting of the words 'Rowena Morrill'. I am the creator of this derivative work, based on an original work of which I am the creator.")

On Arthur C. Clarke's death and the ethics of genetic engineering

2008-04-05T09:15:00.000-07:00
One of the big three science fiction master writers (and one of my four favorite authors, the others being Isaac Asimov, of course, Robert A. Heinlein and A.E. Van Vogt), Arthur C. Clarke has passed away at the age of 90, in Sri Lanka, formerly Ceylon.

A lot was written about Clarke's life and works and I will not repeat it here. There is an excellent article in space.com that can be looked up and it is one of the best I read before writing this post. What I want to do to honor Clarke's memory is add my recollections of how I came to know his works and add an interesting train of thought related to my first read.

I remember first reading Clarke's articles in the Reader's Digest, 40-something years ago. He wrote for the RD occasionally and I read the spanish translations. Then, when I was in school, one of my friends who also liked to read, recommended Rendezvous with Rama. I was enthralled wth the story. I even started making my own translation into spanish but I gave up... it was too much to write. I eventually got the spanish version (with a much poorer translation than my own) for my father to read. To this day, it is one of my favorite science fiction stories and I read all the sequels.

In Rama, Clarke introduced me to the concept of artificially made lifeforms. In the novel, there are beings which he names biots (obviously a contraption of biological robots) which behave as very specialized robots but are living entities, purposefully created for a specific job: surveillance, cleaning, repair and maintenance, etc. These entities appear as Rama which is a large spaceship, approaches the sun and everything inside it thaws and returns to life; the biots then perform all sort of housekeeping duties for the ship.

At that time I was 15 or 16 and the concept was fascinating. Years later I read another excellent work of science fiction, Friday, by Robert A. Heinlein and in it, Heinlein did go overboard with the idea of artificial beings. Friday, Heinlein's heroin, is an AP (artificial person): a genetically enhanced and designed human being born out of an artificial womb and raised in an institution.

Clarke and then Heinlein introduced me to the concept of the ethical challenges of creating artificial life. In Clarke's case, biots are made whenever Rama requires maintenance. As soon as their duty is completed, they are destroyed and their components recycled. One wonders if this would be an ethical treatment of living beings but at least biots appear to have very limited consciousceness and they are driven by their specific purpose. But then Heinlein brings up the ethical challenge of stepping up the bar and tinkering with human (and other species) DNA. In the novel, Friday is a stunningly fast, strong, intelligent and beautiful woman; she is also deeply traumatized by her upbringing and the fact that she is discriminated for being artificial. In the end she conquers her demons and lives out her life as a normal human being but she is also surrounded by living artifacts, which are also artificial beings made out of (mostly) human DNA but are not human in shape. While reading the novel, you get a glimpse at the bitterness one of these beings would posses, being of above average human intelligence but also being specifically built in size and shape to perform a specific function (like one of Clarke's biots): crane operator (with five arms and enhanced telescopic eyesight) or whatever else might be necessary.

Clarke, like other SF Masters, introduced us to many of the mysteries and challenges humanity faces going forward and I am thankful to him and all the others for that. By expanding our imagination, we may be able to prepare for the ethical dilemmas we will, no doubt, face in the coming years. Already there is someone marketing an hypoallergenic cat and who knows what else is on the pipeline. I am not against this type of development but the understanding of the ethics involved is crucial for our survival as a morally upstanding species.

Pharyngula

2008-04-04T07:54:00.000-07:00
P Z Myers is a college professor who publishes this fantastic blog Pharyngula. I don't know how I missed posting it in my favorite links

Check it out. Check out the "Expelled!" posting. It is hilarious

Long hiatus in posting... and then Holy Week!

2008-03-24T11:37:00.000-07:00
It has been a few weeks since my last posting but, truthfully, I have been rather busy and no special issues have attracted my skeptical eye.

And then comes Holy Week.

So many things to be skeptical about. The very existence of Jesus as a true historical figure is in doubt and then, in my country, we have all this big celebration and ritual - which is now more teatrical than ritual.

Let me explain.

In Guatemala, as in no other place in the world (yes, not even Seville, in Spain), catholics have a very deeply ingrained custom of taking their figures of Jesus and the Virgin Mary on procession all over the place. Now, catholic processions are common everywhere, but not in the scale we do it in Guatemala. I was looking at one of the larger ones and it is being carried by 116 men! The whole thing must weigh at least 3 tons! A picture follows, to give you an idea.

Is it belief that takes people to the street and makes them carry these heavy loads on their shoulder, risking their very own physical integrity? There are so many issues we can discuss about these rituals - like atonement by pain and suffering, "veneration" (the Church's term) or "adoration" (my term) of these Jesus and Virgin Mary figures, the catholic cult of the Virgin Mary, etc, etc.

I guess I will tackle these issues in further postings. In the meantime, let us be skeptical.

How can God allow these things to happen

2008-02-09T20:05:00.000-08:00
I was browsing today through TED's videos and came back to one of my favorites. Reverend Tom Honey, an anglican priest, is seen in this video pondering how a mighty and kind God could have allowed a terrible event like the asian tsunami of 2004 to happen. Very much like it has happened to me, Rev. Honey finds that he cannot reconcile the existence of God and this event. He then acknowledges his ignorance - declares himself agnostic as to this big why.

I am posting the link to the video here for you to see. A highly recommended and powerful presentation, like most of TED's.

Skepticism - is it global?

2008-02-02T17:59:00.000-08:00

Browsing through the fora* of the Skeptics Guide to the Universe, I found someone is using a Frappr map of the SGU listeners, which I am showing above. Interestingly, most of the listeners are bunched together in North America and not surprisingly, most of them in the U.S. A couple show up in Mexico and south of there, I seem to be the only one! There are other bunches in Europe and elsewhere.

Arguably, the SGU is one of the most influential podcasts on skepticism and there are tens of thousands of downloads every week. It is in english, which should help people understand it. However, maybe because of iTunes' preference for the US and other first world countries, it is not being widely listened outside of North America.

So I began to wonder if skepticism is a regional phenomenom, in North America and some english speaking countries. It would make sense that in Latin America, with the historical influence of the Catholic Church and, now, the rising influence of the protestant religions, skeptics have not found a foothold as yet. Clearly, we have to do something.

There are only a few skeptic societies in LA. There is one in Colombia and apparently there is one in Costa Rica. I haven't found others and I think we should find and contact these fellow free thinkers in order to make the movement grow.

So, any fellow latin american skeptics, leave your comments. Contact me. Let us get together so that we can promote the advancement of science, education and critical thinking. Our countries are in bad need of educated people.
*Footnote: Fora is the plural for forum. Forum-s is not correct in latin. Sorry about that.

Is the Bible the Good Book?

2008-01-21T17:30:00.000-08:00
Today I was trying to get up to date with one of my favorite podcasts, Skepticality. I was listening to episode 67, where Swoopy interviews Michael Adelson. From the show's very notes "Mr. Adelson had the good fortune to study with the late Rabbi Sherwin Wine. Rabbi Wine founded Humanistic Judaism, a secular movement which provides atheistic and agnostic Jews around the world with a means for organization, mobilization, and a sense of community."

I found the interview very interesting especially because Mr. Adelson speaks about what Humanistic Judaism means and how they treat the Tora and the Bible. They regard the Tora, for instance, with the utmost respect and admiration, recognizing the cultural significance it holds for Jews. However, they don't lose sight of the fact that the Tora is a book, meaning that they feel free to agree with parts of it, admire parts of it and reject the parts that do not seem good.

These words resonated with me. I feel the same about the Bible. There are parts that are nice, parts that are admirable and some that are, well, not good. (How about Lot giving his young daughters away to an angry mob to be ravished? is that good and moral behaviour?) And one of the wonderful things I have experienced in the last year or so as an agnostic is the freedom to feel and judge these things in their proper, humanistic and historical context. Yes, some of the 10 commandments are good rules for social behaviour. But as Reggie Finley (the Infidel Guy) says, the commandment about not lusting for your neighbor's wife is just not fair to our human nature. I may not be able to avoid lusting for my neighbor's wife, teacher, colleague, friend, whoever, if I see her and I find her desirable. That is only human and we should not punish ourselves for that. (Now, acting on that lust is a completely different thing altogether but that is neither here nor now.)

There is no denying the large influence of Christianity and the Bible in our western civilization, as I have said before. We must acknowledge it and embrace it. It is here and it is part of our way of life and values, even for skeptics, agnostics and atheists. But the Bible is a book, written by humans, with all the errors and inconsistencies that come with human nature. Some of it is fiction, some romance, some poetry and some symbolic, almost none of it is a historical account.

As free thinkers, it is our duty to let people know that they can also embrace the freedom of being religion-free. I do not advocate Richard Dawkin's , Christopher Hitchens' or even Sam Harris' activism but I do believe everyone has an opinion to voice and defend. And ideas to get respect for while respecting others' own ideas.

Name change

2008-01-18T18:07:00.000-08:00
As of today, I am changing my blog's name to thechapinskeptic. I have reserved the domain name www.thechapinskeptic.info and the forwarding will be ready very soon.

This reflects my intention to pursue more skeptical issues and my desire to correspond with a larger audience of skeptics.

I will try to let everyone I know has read my blog know that the address has changed.

Astrology as a consequence of antropocentric thinking

2008-01-02T12:42:00.000-08:00
astrologia
astrology
antropocentrismo
antropocéntrico
antropocentric
escepticismo
skepticism

Last evening, we were laughing and discussing CBS' new show, The Big Bang Theory. I believe Sheldon's retort to Penny about her being a virgo (or whatever sign she indicated) is going to become a classic. She says (quote) "I am a virgo, which probably tells you more about me than you need to know" and he responds "yes, it tells me that you are part of a group of deluded people who think that the position of arbitrary sets of constellations in the sky, relative to the sun at the moment of their birth has influence on their life events" (or something like that). Of course, Penny being blond, she doesn't understand and Leonard saves the moment by saying "we thought you were a water sign".

Jokes aside, this exchange shows the lack of intellectual depth of many current adepts to astrology. And it got me thinking that the reason some people may have thought that the stars had any bearing or effect on their destiny was the thinking (wrong, of course) that the whole universe was created for the benefit of man. Thank religion for that.

This antropocentric view of the world is no longer sustainable in view of our current knowledge of the universe. How can we justify being we so important the whole firmament will align itself this way or that for our benefit?

I will agree that this carachterization I am making of astrology is a reductio ad absurdum. But isn't the whole deal an absurdity?

Is religion born of man's fear of death?

2008-01-01T09:42:00.000-08:00
muerte
religión
escepticismo
vida+eterna
death
religion
skepticism
eternal+life

It has been about 40 days of my father's death and I have missed him every single one. In my view of the world, my father's existence has ended; he is gone forever and I will never see him again. That neither makes the pain of my loss worse or unbearable for me; death is a natural part of life and is what makes life so precious and valuable. Nor would christianity's promise of eternal life make it easier. I still would not get to talk to him on the phone or hug him when I visit.

I was thinking about this last night at New Year's Eve mass. (I continue to go to mass for my wife's sake and because I enjoy the community interaction). Everytime I hear priests and preachers talk, they mention eternal life and the bliss of enjoying heaven and it seems to me that men are driven to believe in God simply because they are afraid of dying.

This fear of dying coupled with the usual promise of "eternal life" that religions offer, drives people to believe in christianity, judaism, islamism, budism, whatever. The hope of trascending our short stay in this world plus the promise of a better life if you behave, especially if your current life is not as nice as you would like, is a powerful magnet to faith.

And this magnet may have been one of the reasons for christianity's success against competing creeds, way back then. At the beginning of christianity, many religions offered eternal life but price of admission was steep and usually reserved for the rich. Then come these christians saying that Jesus offers eternal life for everyone in exchange for just belief. It must have been very tempting compared to what the competition offered - pay and eternal life or believe in Christ and eternal life. The choice is obvious. Then all others followed suit. Eternal life is cheap now, even if your church requires tithing. But then, churches now offer you wealth and health in exchange for your monthly dues and the whole thing seems only fair.

I had a "near death" experience a couple of years ago. I choked and lost conciousness for a few seconds. It was a very disconcerting experience to regain the use of my senses and wonder "where am I and who am I?". But after that wore off, I realized I had no memory of what had happened. I was walking and coughing one moment and the next I was looking at my wife's worried face. But after that, I reflected on one very important thing: I didn't feel anything! I could have died and never notice. Death would not have been painful and it would have been very quick.

I agree that there most be very painful ways to die. But the moment of death itself is like falling asleep at night. One moment you are looking at your book in your hands, the next moment you wake up wondering why you did not turn off the light on the nightstand. Only when you die you don't awaken, obviously. But, as I have told my friends and family, nothing to be afraid of.

Enjoy life while you can and try to leave this a better world when you check out.

Evo - Devo? What is that

2007-12-08T10:08:00.000-08:00
I just found a new podcast at Scientific American and one of the first episodes deals with Evolution and genes. The Sciam podcasts are fantastic and highly recommended for all who enjoy science. Here is the Evo-Devo video

Asok is dead!

2007-12-07T16:16:00.000-08:00
I have terrible news for Asok's coworkers and all interns suffering unspeakable evil in the corporate world: Asok died bravely testing his company's latest project.

This is how the news are broken to Asok coworkers:

If you want to know about the unfortunate series of events leading up to Asok's sad demise, check http://www.dilbert.com/, click on the "read past strips" tab and check the 3 or 4 days leading up to Asok's final journey!

I think I will log into Second Life again and look for Scott Adams avatar to kick his ass around the block! Poor Asok!

On the subject of Humility Part 2

2007-11-27T10:24:00.000-08:00
The recent events of my father's death have made me reconsider the subject of humility. How arrogant of the human species to believe ourselves superior to nature and yet, death is inevitable and we cannot do anything against it - neither can we abate other forces of nature (hurricanes, earthquakes...)
On a more mundane level, how we approach our fellow human beings is a matter of special consideration. I saw my brother last week show a complete lack of humility when dealing with people at the funeral and it reminded me of how Benjamin Franklin approached the subject. You see, Ben Franklin was not an aristocrat; he was a tradesman, a man of the people, used to hard manual labor. He started working at 12 as an apprentice at his brother's printing shop and from those humble beginnings he rose to world class diplomat, inventor extraordinary and statesman. He, however, felt he did not quite fit in with the rest of the aristocracy he frequented in the last half of his life and made a list of the virtues a gentleman should have.
The list itself is worthy of serious consideration, as is Franklin's method to practice the virtues. As he was told that he sometimes came across as too pedantic and arrogant, he added humility to his list of "gentlemanly virtues". In his words, while he did not think he ever achieved the virtue itself, he made a passable impression of it (which, to me, is a sign he did become humble).
Humility is the one virtue that you lose the moment you realize you have gained it. It is an elusive shadow of a virtue but one worth pursuing, for it greatly helps to allay the roadblocks in the difficult landscape of interpersonal relationships

The skeptic likes religion

2007-11-24T18:43:00.000-08:00
My father passed away last Thursday. It was a very sad event when he kind of slowly slipped away. I knew it was coming but it was devastating anyway.
We went to the funeral parlor, where they prepared my father's body and then they showed it to us. I felt the impact of the sad event returning and then my wife asked for us to pray. We held our hands together and she then began to recite the Lord's prayer.
As much as I hold myself not to be a believer anymore, the reciting of the familiar words felt very comforting and reassuring. I don't know if it was because of the feelings I associate with the prayer (community, belonging, love) or because I felt comfort in engaging in a familiar activity when presented with an out of the ordinary and tragic situation. But my sadness abated for a while and I felt tranquility and resignation.
Religion may have a role to play in our society. It does not work for all of us or at least, not all the time, but I cannot deny that at least part of our value system derives from religious teachings and many people may need the sense of community and belonging that comes with church attendance and religious rituals.

On the subject of Humility - part 1

2007-11-05T11:56:00.000-08:00
A friend just gave me this information which looks interesting though I have to say I have not checked it for accuracy. It is about Warren Buffet

TALK ABOUT HUMILITY
There was a one hour interview on CNBC with Warren Buffet, the second richest man who has donated $31 billion to charity.Here are some very interesting aspects of his life:
He bought his first share of stock at age 11 and he now regrets that he started too late!
He bought a small farm at age 14 with savings from delivering newspapers.
He still lives in the same, small 3-bedroom house in midtown Omaha, that he bo ught after he got married 50 years ago. He says that he has everything he needs in that house. His house does not have a wall or a fence.
He drives his own car everywhere and does not have a driver or security people around him.
He never travels by private jet, although he owns the world's largest private jet company.
His company, Berkshire Hathaway, owns 63 companies.He writes only one letter each year to the CEOs of these companies, giving them goals for the year.. He never holds meetings or calls them on a regular basis. He has given his CEO's only two rules. Rule number 1: Do not lose any of your shareholder's money. Rule number 2: Do not forget rule number 1.
He does not socialize with the high society crowd. His pastime after he gets home is to make himself some popcorn and watch television.
Bill Gates, the world's richest man, met him for the first time only 5 years ago. Bill Gates did not think he had anything in common with Warren Buffet. So, he had scheduled his meeting only for half hour. But when Gates met him, the meeting lasted for ten hours and Bill Gates became a devotee of Warren Buffet.
Warren Buffet does not carry a cell phone, nor has a computer on his desk. His advice to young people: 'Stay away from credit cards and invest in yourself and remember:
A. Money doesn't create man, but it is the man who created money.
B. Live your life as simple as you are.
C. Don't do what others say. Just listen to them, but do what makes you feel good.
D. Don't go on brand name. Wear those things in which you feel comfortable.
E. Don't waste your money on unnecessary things. Spend on those who really are in need.
F. After all, it's your life. Why give others the chance to rule your life?'!?!?
And now that I was turned on to it, I will get back with Humility part 2 - sometime later...

Magical underwear and other mormon myths

2007-11-02T15:08:00.001-07:00
Did you know that male mormons have to use a special undergarment with signs over each of their breasts, the navel and one of the knees? And this garment is supposed to "protect" them while being worn, thus fitting the description of a "magically" endowed underwear.

Evidence that this magical undergarment works as "protection": none that I know of. By the way, you can get your mormon underwear by buying it from the mormon church, the only approved supplier of magical undergarments.

Did you know that mormons believe that some jewish people were taken from ancient Judea into the American continent (the US, obviously, since Joseph Smith was born there) and they multiplied and flourished, eventually becoming two tribes, one good and one evil; the evil tribe destroyed the good tribe and were "punished" by having their skin colored in a darker color?

Evidence that this is how the Americas were populated: none. DNA studies conducted on amerindian tribes from Alaska to the Patagonia indicate that the human race colonized the American continent some 15,000 or so years ago, by crossing over from Asia over a land bridge on the Bering Strait. Mormon apologists indicate that DNA science is very new and, with further developments, their hypothesis will be confirmed. I remain very skeptical of the whole story but I am convinced that Joseph Smith did not like black or american native people.

Did you know that Joseph Smith eventually got married to more than 30 women? As the first Prophet of the mormon church, Smith had "divine" revelations that he could be married to more than one woman, as some of the characters in the Old Testament (see Solomon, David, Abraham...) The mormon church allowed and encouraged polygamy until Utah tried to become a state and they had to draft a state constitution banning polygamy, in order to be accepted into the Union. The mormon church holds, however, that if a man marries a woman and she dies, after which he re-marries, when he dies and "goes to heaven" he will be married to both women in the afterlife so that polygamy is legal in the mormon heaven.

Evidence that Smith had "divine" revelations on this and other issues: See DNA evidence above - the whole story about the jews being transplanted into the Americas was a "divine" revelation.

A skeptical view of peak oil

2007-10-30T17:42:00.000-07:00

Learn more about Peak Oil at Energy and Capital.

Since posting my very own Peak Oil Clock, I have been mulling over this Peak Oil concept. Since I do work for an oil company, I knew about the concept but it seems to me that there are conflicting and vested interests in determining when Peak Oil Production will be reached. According to the clock above, it is less than 3 years away. Other predictions take Peak Oil to 2015 and beyond. It depends obviously on who you ask. Oil companies are not interested in discussing a short-term Peak Oil because it would affect their stock price - even though price of oil after Peak Oil is reached will definitely begin to rise sharply. Governments of oil producing companies (why is it that oil is found in troublesome spots like Nigeria and Venezuela?) are not interested in discussing the issue although I suspect Mr. Chavez may want to say that Peak Oil has been reached already as he wants the price of oil to rise to $120 per barrel.

And it will rise. But, very important to understand the debate, is to look at past estimates of our oil reserves. According to Wikipedia, here are the estimates of world reserves during the course of the 20th century:

- In 1874 the state geologist of Pennsylvania believed that all the oil would be gone by 1878
- In 1920 the U. S. Geological Survey estimated 60 billion barrels as the world reserve
- In 1950, estimates were raised to 600 billion barrels. Note that some barrels of the original 60 had already been consumed.
- In 1970 we were looking at 1500 billion barrels
- The same USGS estimated in 1994 2400 billion barrels and in 2000 revised the estimation to 3000 billion barrels

Where are those barrels coming from? They are not being produced but better estimates and better extraction technology (as well as rising prices) are allowing more and more oil to be recovered from places that were previously inaccessible and uneconomical to produce from.

Dave O'Reilly, Chairman of Chevron Corporation, indicated in a speech at the 26th annual Oil and Money Conference in London, that Peak Oil would more resemble a plateau than a peak. It seems to me that he is on to something, as there is a lot of investment going into increasing production, what with oil at $90 per barrel more and more locations where previously oil companies did not feel inclined to give a second glance at are now being actively worked on. The oil containing sands in Canada and Colorado are one example - this oil would have been uneconomical to recover at $40 or $50 a barrel but with current prices, it begins to look like a good opportunity.

And the side of consumption needs to be looked at. Although we are now using more fuel efficient vehicles, oil consumption continues to rise, with China and India leading the way. These countries are both motivating international oil companies to look for new sources of oil as well as sending their own national oil companies to look for sources of crude abroad. An example is the newly formed alliance between China and Venezuela and the (unsuccessful) attempts of China to buy out other oil companies such as Unocal.

When discussing Peak Oil, these factors have to be taken into account and as one of our known skeptical thinkers, Brian Dunning, likes to say: "Be skeptical".

TED: 10 ways the world could end

2007-10-29T21:34:00.000-07:00
Stephen Petranek delivers an incredibly humorous presentation on 10 ways the world could suddenly come to an end. He delivers them in a "top ten" format and although, obviously, all of them spell tragedy for mankind, you can't avoid the feeling that this is tongue-in-cheek, even when you are seriously pondering all of them as the presentation ends. This is a video that can be watched online, downloaded to your desktop or imported into iTunes and viewed via your iPod. Choose your weapon. Click on the TED logo to watch or download the video. While at the TED site check the other interesting and intellectual talks on the TED website. There are fantastic presentations there, like Chris Bangle on cars as an artistic expression or Ngozi Okonjo-Iweala talking about how foreign help can really help Africa (a powerful presentation by an impressive woman) or Jane Goodall reflecting on what differentiates us from apes (she seems to imply that apes are the better man). This excellent site is great nourishment for your intellect. I am hooked on the TED talks and keep coming back to the site for more. I hope you will feel the same.

The world is not enough

2007-10-29T14:10:00.000-07:00

No, it is not a James Bond movie, it is a report by the UN on the world resources. Again, as with the Peak Oil Clock, I am skeptical of the conclusions but they are scary, nonetheless. I guess we have to start educating our children on how better to support our activities leaving a very light footprint on this world, which we only have one, anyway...

Check out the article on the Scientific American Website. Picture is linked to the SCIAM website as well - it is not mine! Click on the red Earth picture above to go to the Sciam Website and read the full article!

Misquoting Jesus: how scribes altered scriptures and how readers may never know

2007-10-28T19:51:00.000-07:00
This is a highly recommended series of videos of a lecture by Dr. Bart Ehrman, who is a bible scholar and teologist. I highly recommend you look at the whole series and you will seriously doubt the claim that the bible has any "divine" inspiration.

Work Peak Oil Clock - be very afraid!

2007-10-28T19:30:00.000-07:00
This is really amazing. I am skeptical of the time left for Peak Oil (a subject of much debate) but the consumption numbers you can trust.
Something to think about, no doubt...

Learn more about Peak Oil at Energy and Capital.

Pangea Day

2007-09-15T17:52:00.000-07:00
The goal of uniting the world's peoples is always a worthy one. This organization is trying to make us see the world through each other's eyes:

www.pangeaday.org

See the YouTube video here:

If you are into making videos, contribute. If not, watch the results. I bet it is going to be interesting

Perry DeAngelis - 8/22/1963 – 8/19/2007

2007-08-26T20:44:00.000-07:00

I found out today, to my surprise and sorrow, that Perry de Angelis passed away last Sunday. Perry was one of the founders of the New England Skeptical Society (www.theness.com) and one of the hosts of one of my favorite podcasts, The Skeptics guide to the Universe (www.theskepticsguide.org).
Perry will be missed by all the fans of the SGU and the skeptical community. Farewell Perry, you will live on in our memories.

Changing pace - Che Guevara was a murderer

2007-07-15T12:27:00.000-07:00
Yesterday, Luis Figueroa wrote a column in Prensa Libre about the Che Guevara. He explains how the image of this bloody revolutionary has been idealized and how people now don't really know that he was a cold blooded murderer and a hard line marxist who helped Fidel send Cuba's economy down the drain. Then there are comments on his blog by someone who says he doesn't understand how there is so much stupidity in the world that Luis could write something like that about such a wonderful place like Cuba.
I wonder who the stupid people are, those who see and don't want to understand or those who expose the truth. If Cuba is such a wonderful place why are people going out of Cuba? and not out of the US and other neighboring countries INTO Cuba? For that matter, even though Russia is now a non-communist country, how come there are so many russian women offering to get married to foreigners in order to get out of Russia? The legacy of the communist system is apparently too strong and difficult to get rid of.
I have mixed feelings about Cuba because I see that the strong points of the communist system are education and health care - those seem to work alright in Cuba. However, the price to pay for that is freedom and I don't know that people want to trade their freedom (of speech, of movement) for good health, good education, no work and long lines for a few scraps of bread. I don't know. I would rather keep our imperfect system than go to that totalitarian system; the cost in human suffering is, I believe, too steep for us to pay. Even the Chinese, who live now in a quasi-capitalist country, have to pay their new found wealth with heavy control from the government in terms of information (the internet is forbidden in China, basicaly) and they still suffer from the consequences of the "one child per family" policy, that led to uncounted abortions and murders of new born and stilborn babies. And that price, in terms of human suffering, I believe is unpayable.
Luis' blog is available at http://luisfi61.blogspot.com

Holy Communion or Ritualistic Cannibalism?

2007-07-06T14:41:00.000-07:00
It is interesting to see the things we have been thought to believe. According to catholic dogma, during consecration bread and wine are transformed into the flesh and blood of Jesus himself. Then we are expected to eat this flesh and drink this blood, for purposes that really escape my memory but are supposed to get us to achieve communion with Jesus.
In antiquity, people believed that if they killed their enemies and ate their flesh, they would attain some of their good attributes (bravery, courage, whatever). This belief seems to have rubbed off onto early christianity, as we are expected to eat of Jesus' flesh, not to acquire his divine attributes (wouldn't that be a supreme arrogance?) but to achieve communion with him, to be closer to him, I guess.
Well, I agree I could not be any closer to my food; it really is in me. What happens when I am done with my food, however, I would not wish to my closest friends so I still wonder why we would want Jesus to suffer that ignominy. When I want to be close to my wife, I get physically close or intellectually close, as in a very deep conversation; I still have not had any desire of eating her flesh to be closer and I hope I do not get that urge. I don't think I would get any closer and then, the closeness would only be temporal as the flesh makes its way through my digestive system and then goes away... for good. Maybe that is why we have to commune every week or, in the case of very devout catholics and priests, every day.
Of course, this is assuming the bread and wine are really transformed into the flesh and blood of the Son of God. In reality, it really tastes like a rather insipid and carboard-like bread and a rather cheap wine so that the ritual is only that, a going through the motions in order to mimic the real thing. Which does not get me any closer to Jesus.

The Chapin Skeptic

The end of the world is coming and I am having a blast!

Little man, great man

And the catholics are pissed because?

A different point of view

Environmentalists and "tree-huggers"

The end of an era (for me...)

The Titanic chore of thinking critically

The Skeptic

Beware skeptics - don't be an ass

A happy non-denominational and politically correct holiday greeting

Lewis' trilemma

Nacho Libre

More reader comments: problems with the pope

Reader's comments - WWJD

Who, me? I don't have a problem with the pope!

WWJD or Shakespeare??

2012 and the end of the world

Mr. Deity is back...! and He is watching me!

A reluctant atheist?

Star Trek Rocks!

New look for the Chapin Skeptic

Another one bites the dust!

Is obedience more important than chastity?

What is man?

We are in good company

Rick Wagoner leaves GM and everyone beats on a dead horse

The road is more important than the destination

It is not easy to fool a skeptic

Deepak Chopra is full of crap

Blogging is hard work but is not purgatory

Susie Neunmalklug explains evolution

It is hard to be a skeptic

Physics of the impossible

A few thoughts on free will

Does my cat really want to kill me?

And... more about Coffee?

Thinking critically about... coffee?

25 random things about me

Skeptics should not be dogmatic

A fallacious appeal to authority

Am I doing the Lord's work? or the Law of Unintended Consequences

Found this today. Check it out!

Happy holidays... or not!

Majel Barrett-Roddenberry 1932-2008

Stanton Friedman is a great ufologist

The Lord's prayer - can a skeptic relate to it?

Magic? or science?

Fun letters to God. I love this!

Cornswalled, stupidity, hipocrisy and other sins

Seti or Weti?

Why skeptics like science fiction?

It is a shame the LHC will not be operational until next year...

LHC: End of the world postponed?

Six degrees and Facebook

Debate about evolution?

We have not sunk into a black hole... yet!

God must be a robot...

The strange dichotomy of death and religion

Did you know the earth is flat?

THIS IS OUTRAGEOUS: The Archdiocese of Mexico recomends women how to dress and behave to avoid sexual aggression!

And now there is a book on the Merchants of Faith!

And now on to... rising fuel prices?

This does not need any comments

I just joined Facebook

I am an admirer of Dr. Pamela Gay

Yes, weather made a big mess but what about religion?

The life of a religious skeptic

About the Singularity...

Can you upload your conscience?

Good Sci-Fi is about people

The Merchants of Faith

Entropy and the arrow of time

Entropy and the fate of the human race

Pangea Day is a success and Cameron Diaz is in it!

Free will and religion

And now it is 16 years the good doctor is gone...

On Arthur C. Clarke's death and the ethics of genetic engineering

Pharyngula

Long hiatus in posting... and then Holy Week!