If Only It Were True

I live under a (nice mossy) rock, so I am pretty slow to hear about things that are all the rage. During the Superbowl, we were at a restaurant with TVs. (Unfortunately I saw a bit of Half Time and have had Madonna singing "Like a Prayer" in my head ever since... gah!)

Anyway, I saw a commercial for something called Sensa, a weight loss product that you sprinkle on your food. I noticed in the ad they didn't explain at all, so I wrote it down and looked it up later.

Now, the reason I'm writing this article is not necessarily to debunk Sensa exactly, but to talk about what went on in my head as I read their site. I am happy to call myself a skeptic, and I try to use critical thinking and reasoning whenever I can.

So first I went to the site that was in the ad: Sensa.com. The site has an embedded video with an anecdotal story from a TV personality, they offer a free trial, there are shiny pictures of people eating healthy foods, a seriously simplistic explanation of how it works, and several big red buttons to click to try it for free*.

There are a number of logical fallacies, your classic marketing, strewn about. But in the midst of the typical BS, there is a clinical study that is mentioned over and over. A few places scattered about different sites claim that the study was peer-reviewed (by the Endocrine Society?) but there is no mention of that paper on that site, and apparently that journal says they never did the peer review. I also read that the journal that apparently reviewed the study is partly run by Alan Hirsch, the creator of Sensa. Another red flag. So take all of that with a grain of salt!

So here are the findings: 100 control people did not use the Tastants. 1,436 men and women did. The control group lost an average of 2 lbs. The people in the treatment group lost an average of 30.5 lbs in 6 months, which was nearly 15% of their body weight.

This is really important. The participants were not required to change their normal diet or exercise. Also, they were told to stay on whatever diet they were on before they started.

Now, I had read the front of their site, and I found myself believing it. I noticed that I really wanted it to be true, it was all so shiny and wonderful, and there was a study, so it must be real!

Last year I lost 45 lbs through a radical diet plan (eat less, eat healthier and move a lot more.) But I was often hungry, and am even now for large parts of every day, which totally sucks. So I was thinking, I don't need to lose any more weight, but if this could help me feel full, I'd be so happy! And my husband Butch is still trying to lose weight. It could help him too!

I thought it was fascinating that I took everything at face value at first and believed the hype, the surface marketing. When I started reading other things that were red flags, I noticed that I tried to rationalize them! We all do this, I am pretty sure. You'd have to be a Vulcan to not rationalize something that you really wish were true.

The difference is, I didn't just order the stuff and disregard the red flags. I looked deeper and put my Critical Thinking cap back on.

The Most Precious Thing

For my book club, and for Carl Sagan Day - November 9th - I am reading The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark by Carl Sagan (kindle edition).

This is one of those books that I never knew about when it came out. Once I became a skeptic several years ago, I just never had a chance to read it. It's one of those books that every skeptic should read, really, so it's about time.

I want to share it with you as I read it. Just the really wonderful bits that are too good to keep to myself.

"My parents were not scientists. They knew almost nothing about science. But in introducing me simultaneously to skepticism and to wonder, they taught me the two uneasily cohabiting modes of thought that are central to the scientific method."  (pg xiii)

This, to me is the greatest gift you can give to someone. The gift of genuine wonder and skepticism. The whole world becomes amazing as it can only do with science. And skepticism helps you avoid falling into delusion as well as to help avoid being duped and scammed.

"All our science, measured against reality, is primitive and childlike - and yet it is the most precious thing we have." Albert Einstein (pg 2)

Bach Flower Remedies

Recently we adopted my neighbor's Blue Heeler. We named her Tyche (tie-kee) after the Greek goddess of luck and prosperity since she's now the luckiest dog alive. The neighbors just called her Baby Girl, they never really named her.

To make a long story short, she was left outside 24/7/365 in the rain/heat/freezing cold, to be neglected and lonely. She's the sweetest dog, so loving and smart. The neighbors had her for a year outside, so she's 2 now and has never been housetrained. She's had to fight for every scrap of food. So she's a bit of a handful.

For the past couple of months, she had been escaping her chain and visiting in the mornings. I would go outside and play with her with my other two dogs. They all got along very well. I have  a chocolate lab mix (Koku) and a Siberian Husky (Stazi). Stazi is a very dominant alpha dog. When Tyche came over, she was submissive and my dogs played very well with her.

So here's what's so interesting. When the boy said I could finally have Tyche, he just let her loose. I had no leash so I coaxed her to our yard. And instantly she was ferocious, and so was Stazi! How did they know that she was suddenly part of the family?

Now, she's not fixed (we're going to have that taken care of in a couple of weeks), so that might be part of the problem. But it's been very stressful. We're working on potty training. But Tyche's aggressiveness with Stazi is a real issue. Stazi didn't really fight back at first, and ended up with a big scratch on her ear. The last time Tyche got in Stazi's face, Stazi fought back and it was pretty scary.

Why am I telling you all of this? Well, I made a comment about Stazi's scratched ear on Facebook and I was told by someone to get Bach Flower Pet Rescue Remedy to fix the problem completely. Apparently it had been a "lifesaver" to this person with her 3 cats during a cross-country move.

This got my hackles up because I have a "no woo" policy on Facebook (and in person). But I know the woman meant well so I thanked her for the advice and said I'd rather have a science-based solution to my problem. I did not try to change her mind, I simply said thanks and I might look into it, but that I wasn't interested if it wasn't science-based.

She and her boyfriend then gave me a hard time. This is what their argument boiled down to:

•  Herbs were the only medicine until people started making synthetic ones (Appeal to Tradition, I think*)


• Some vets in the American Veterinary Medical Assoc. apparently recommend Rescue Remedy (Appeal to Authority, probably a small minority who never read the actual studies)


• I can complain to a shrink if I won't take BFRs (Bach Flower Remedies) and they can give me something to calm me - science based (as if that's evil or I should be ashamed of a chemical imbalance in my brain!?) 

Wishful Thinking

As an atheist and a skeptic, I am often accused of being cynical, of denying everything. Of course, that's not true at all. I simply require evidence and think that faith is meaningless. If you need faith to believe something, then right there you know it's most likely nonsense.

Quite a few things are up in the air in my life. A lot of irons are in the fire right now. On top of that, I have been feeling under the weather (a cold or bad allergies, I can't tell).

Here's how I know I'm not a cynic or denier. I wish, truly wish, that prayer and magical thinking worked. I wish I had someone looking out for me, a supernatural benevolent being that has my best interests in mind. I wish karma were real. I wish the supernatural existed and that the world is as magical as people claim. I wish I had healing energy that I could tap into from a loving source that would heal me of my cold.

I wish the Secret were true so that I could just say positive affirmations and make everything work out in my favor. Wouldn't it be awesome, if justice existed outside of what we create for ourselves?

I wish I could just pray or meditate or do something to have some control in my life. How cool would it be if people who work harder, and did things for the common good actually fared better? I wish good and moral people were rewarded and bad or immoral people weren't. Imagine that!

Instead, I have to do my best, then just wait with everything out of my control, to see where it all lands. Just like everyone else. The difference is I have no delusions that I have control or someone watching out for me. So when everything settles, I won't be under a false belief that I had something to do with it. I don't have to create a story for why a supreme being treated me as it did.

I know we're on our own. Reality is cold. But at least it's real. I'd rather see things as they really are, not how I wish them to be.

Agnostic Atheist Skeptic

Recently, I wrote about Richard Dawkin's handy Spectrum of Theistic Probability. I found it useful to help me figure out what kind of atheist I am. (I rate myself as a 6.9 De Facto Atheist). I also find it helpful to understand where someone is coming from if they call themselves a 1 or a 7, because that means they "know" the unknowable and unprovable.

But last night I was reading over my notes of the first half  of The Believing Brain by Michael Shermer, before going to the second half. I wanted to share one bit with you from page 176:

Of course, no one is agnostic behaviorally. When we act in the world, we act as if there is a God or as if there is no God, so by default we must make a choice, if not intellectually then at least behaviorally. To this extent, I assume that there is no God and I live my life accordingly, which makes me an atheist. In other words, agnosticism is an intellectual position, a statement about the existence or nonexistence of the deity and our ability to know it with certainty, whereas atheism is a behavioral position, a statement about what assumptions we make  about the world in which we behave.

... I prefer [Skeptic] as my label. A skeptic simply does not believe a knowledge claim until sufficient evidence is presented to reject the null hypothesis (that a knowledge claim is not true until proven otherwise). I do not know that there is no God, but I do not believe in God, and have good reasons to think that the concept of God is socially and psychologically constructed.

That makes perfect sense to me. The thing about calling yourself an atheist is you're just saying one very specific thing; that you don't believe in god/gods. It's a negative statement that doesn't say much at all, really. It's helpful, but only to a point. And what other concept is defined by what you don't believe? I don't believe in leprechauns, so does that make me Aleprechaunistic?

I think that I have been slowly getting away from labeling myself as atheist first,  more to calling myself a skeptic first. I prefer it for the same reasons that Shermer does. It says that I highly value critical thinking, science and reason. It says what matters to me and how I approach the world.

Of course, people abuse the term all the time, mainly through ignorance. But if simply defined as Michael does above, then it's accurately saying a lot.

I know some of you don't like labels at all. But labels are how we understand things. For example, I labeled the drink I had this morning as coffee. It conveys information that can be useful. And for beliefs it says something about where I'm coming from. I label myself a humanist, which says a lot to someone, as does labeling myself a Formula One fan, etc. It can be very positive and shouldn't be shunned completely. It's just helpful information.

So, how do you identify yourself? Is there an order (as I find I have now) of how you want to be known, or how you see yourself?

EDIT: After the first several comments, I just want to add that I am happy to call myself an atheist. And I think atheists need to own the word just like people who are homosexual now proudly own "gay". Atheist Pride! Hey, most of us became atheists through tough critical thinking, reasoning and logic. We worked hard to get where we are. Of course, you could say the same for skeptics, which I'm also proud to call myself.

So don't think I'm encouraging you to walk on eggshells and use skeptic over atheist. Use them both! I like how MJ in the comments below said they use atheist out in the world and skeptic in the atheist movement. I have been doing something similar. I use the term that is most appropriate to the situation. Sometimes I feel they are all necessary and I call myself (deep breath) an atheist/skeptic/freethinker/humanist.

Also, I wanted this post to be short and sweet and focus mainly on the terms. But in the comments you've been right to point out that it really matters on the definition of God(s) being referred to. Are we talking about Yahweh/Allah/Jehovah? If you look just to the bible, he's been refuted. Are you talking about a deist sort of god? No, he can't be refuted because evidence of that god would be indistinguishable from natural events. Of course, when you talk to religious people, most are so wishy-washy, and move the goalposts as if they were seaweed at the edge of the sea at high tide, that I'm exhausted just thinking about it. But awesome atheists like Christopher Hitchens have thoughtfully torn down such fallacious arguments time and again.

So own the word atheist and skeptic, too!

The Secret To Teen Power is Harmful Bullshit

Awhile ago my friend's daughter turned 21 and received a copy of The Secret to Teen Power by Paul Harrington. While I'll leave it to you to mull over giving a teen book to someone turning 21, it was not well received. Of course, having written a previous article titled The Law of Attraction - And The Secret - Are Bullshit, I was keen to see how ‘insightful and helpful’ this new book was. My friend was kind enough to send it to me. It's taken me a year to get up the energy to even look at this piece of work.

My first surprise was that it wasn't written by Rhonda Byrne, who wrote The Secret. The guy who wrote this bunch of drivel is an employee for Byrne, although in the acknowledgments he says she is his best friend and mentor as well.

Let's cut to the chase of this book, which is #6 in teen health/mental health on Amazon. The reviews are mostly glowing. The ones I read were of parents and people who gave the book to kids, which I find disturbing.

Here is exactly what the Secret is: (pg 5-6)

According to science, there are certain laws that govern the Universe. There's the law of gravity - whatever goes up must come down. And there's Einstein's law of relativity - everything in the Universe is made of energy. And then there's "string theory" - everything in the Universe vibrates, everything has its own vibe. But the most powerful law in the entire Universe is ... the law of attraction. THE SECRET is the law of attraction. Everything that happens in your life all comes down to attraction. You attract all the stuff that happens to you,  every last little thing, no matter whether it's totally awesome or truly awful, it's all about you. And you do it with the power of your thoughts. Whatever you think about, that's what goes down, that's what happens.

OMFSM! My brain exploded! My BS meter overloaded. And I only got to page 6! Not only is this bullshit, it's Harmful Bullshit. We need some sanity! On the book’s page on Amazon, this is the first (most excellent) review, which sums up some of my thoughts:

The Results Are In

Hello! Remember 2 weeks ago I did Another Prayer Experiment?

If you recall:

• I prayed to the Abrahamic god for Butch to have his job situation improve (a promotion that was promised over a year ago to come through but didn't)¹


• I prayed to my computer, Einstein for my friend Jeff to sell an item for exactly $850 that he had purchased in a box lot for $5.  ²


• I also "prayed" (or had a talk with) myself to encourage myself to get off the weight loss plateau I had been on for about a week, to lose another pound.

The time frame was 13 days from when I prayed till May 1st. I didn't want it to be open ended because then there's no control in the experiment and it's too easy to post hoc rationalize some kind of false result, which I think is very common with prayers.

Drum roll, please!

• Butch didn't get his promotion. There was absolutely nothing that improved at his work, in fact his job satisfaction is still really low.


• Jeff didn't sell anything for $850. He didn't sell anything even marginally close to this amount.


• I lost a pound! In fact I lost 1.5 pounds!³

So, prayer to the Abrahamic god is just as effective as prayer to my computer at ZERO percent. Meaning completely INeffective. Although I would say in future studies both would be as good as chance.

But having a heart to heart with yourself and then taking action is, according to these results, quite effective! In fact, with this preliminary study, it was 100% effective. Of course, this was really a pilot study, so if you want to run the experiment yourself we can pool the data and come to better conclusions.

1. The chances of this promotion happening without something drastically changing were basically nil. I didn't tell Butch what I was doing in advance.


2. The chances of Jeff selling an item for exactly $850 that he had bought in a box lot were extremely slim, but not impossible. I didn't tell him the prayer in advance.


3. The chances of me increasing my exercise, reducing my caloric intake, and getting off the plateau I was on were fair, but not guaranteed by any means. I had a really hard time losing the pound! Full Disclosure: Unfortunately, I went to a potluck on Sunday, May 1st. I woke up Monday morning, after the experiment was over, 2 lbs heavier. Sigh!

Do We Choose To Not Believe?

A couple of weeks ago I wrote Spot On!, which was about Alise Wright's list of assumptions for Christians not to make about Atheists. I thought they were excellent.

There was one little thing that she said though, that has spurred a follow up post on her own blog, about Free Will and Faith. She said,

Most atheists who have “deconverted” from a religious background have studied it and other religions thoroughly before choosing not to believe.

Mikespeir, in the comments, called attention to this:

If I have any reservations at all about this, it’s that “choosing not to believe” hung off the end there. I never chose not to believe. Once I realized I didn’t believe anymore I chose not to keep practicing the Christian religion. That was the choice involved.

I agree with Mike. I never chose not to believe.

Of course, I agree with Alise that we seem to have some say in our actions. We choose to read certain books/information (the bible¹ and/or Dawkins), attend different events (either church or TAM²), and we choose the people we associate with.

I have to throw in here, that this assumes that we have free will. I have learned in the past year that we most likely don't. We are determined by a myriad of previous factors. But I won't get into that here. 

Spectrum of Theistic Probability

Recently on my FB page, I mentioned that I guess I'm an agnostic atheist. I really don't like the term though, but out of that short scale, it's the best fit for me. I was then told about Richard Dawkin's Spectrum of Theistic Probability which I had never heard of, since I haven't read The God Delusion yet.

This scale is really interesting so I thought I'd share it with you in case you live under a rock like I do. Dawkins says that the existence of God is a scientific hypothesis. Is it? I thought a hypothesis was an idea that could be tested. How can we test for a god? Anyway, here is a spectrum of probabilities between two extremes of certainty which are represented by seven milestones along the way.

Here are the seven milestones.

1. Strong theist. 100 per cent probability of God. In the words of C.G. Jung: "I do not believe, I know."


2. De facto theist. Very high probability but short of 100 per cent. "I cannot know for certain, but I strongly believe in God and live my life on the assumption that he is there."


3. Agnostic leaning towards theism. Higher than 50 per cent but not very high. Technically agnostic but leaning towards theism. "I am very uncertain, but I am inclined to believe in God."


4. Completely impartial agnostic. Exactly 50 per cent.  "God's existence and non-existence are exactly equiprobable."


5. Agnostic leaning towards atheism. Lower than 50 per cent but not very low. Technically agnostic but leaning towards atheism. "I do not know whether God exists but I'm inclined to be skeptical."


6. De facto atheist. Very low probability, but short of zero.  "I cannot know for certain but I think God is very improbable, and I live my life on the assumption that he is not there."


7. Strong atheist. "I know there is no God, with the same conviction as Jung 'knows' there is one."

I think, like Dawkins, if you are an atheist who values evidence, you would avoid labeling yourself a 7. Dawkins considers himself to be a 6 and I am comfortable with calling myself a De facto atheist as well.

Because, after all, I am an atheist based on lack of evidence of gods. If there were verifiable, repeatable evidence from a god (and I could prove it wasn't hallucinations, delusions, insanity, etc), and everyone saw God, well, it would have to be pretty substantial, but if there were extraordinary evidence that was repeatable and verifiable, then I guess I'd have to change my mind.

Where do you fall on the scale? Why? And what would it take for you to change your mind?

Exploring the Historicity of the Bible and Jesus

I think I met Nicholas Bruzzese on Facebook, but now I can't remember. Not that it matters as much as the fact that I now call him a friend. Awhile ago he and his friends down in Melbourne Australia started a podcast called The Skeptic's Testament. As you know, I have a thing for podcasts because I can do mundane tasks while learning about new things from interesting people.

And Nicholas and his friends are very interesting. They tackle the bible from a scholarly perspective and I always learn something from every episode.

One thing that seems to be a big controversy is the historicity of Jesus. Did he exist? Before I heard the Skeptic's Testament, I had met another biblical scholar who told me that the consensus among the people who study biblical history is that he did. But he never really explained.

I used to believe that Jesus didn't exist. I know a lot of atheists hold to this belief, and while I don't have the tools to prove them wrong, when it comes to issues that I am not an expert in (most things, actually) I look to see what the consensus is, as that's a pretty good starting point. What do most experts say? We all have to do this in different areas of our lives. That's the nature of being interdependent as social creatures. I defer to my husband when it comes to cars and mechanical things, I listen to my doctor (and maybe get a second opinion) because she knows more than me about the human body, etc. We get to stand on the shoulders of giants.

So after listening to all of the episodes of The Skeptic's Testament, I asked Nicholas if he would mind answering some questions about this issue that is so contentious among atheists, yet pretty much agreed upon by scholars. The following are my initial questions and Nicholas' answers. This is part 1 of 2.

Q: Please introduce yourself. What are your credentials in talking about the bible?

Even though I grew up a Christian attending Church with my grandma as a youngster, it wasn’t until my teens that I began to take religion seriously, which began my fundamental literal approach to the Bible. If nothing else all that Bible reading and apologetic research built endurance. I am half way through a formal degree in Divinity, so in other words I haven’t any credentials worth talking about. Some may find it strange, an atheist taking ministry courses which are a part of MDiv, the only two points I will make about this are many of these subjects are interesting in their own right and many would be utterly surprised at just how skeptical such a course can be. It is so rigid in its skepticism, the disconnect we see between pastor and parishioner on biblical fundamentals, such as ‘who are the authors of the four canonical Gospels’ becomes bewilderingly odd. So I hope to bridge the gap among atheists and Christians alike.

Q: In conversations and in listening to your podcast, I've learned that you agree with the critical scholarly consensus that Jesus existed. Can you explain?

Why Do Some People Resist Science?

My friend Gerald shared this article with my group yesterday and I thought you'd find it interesting. For those of us who love science and see it as an invaluable tool to help us understand the universe, people who reject science (usually selectively since they still drive cars, take medication and talk on their cell phones, of course) are baffling. It's easy to dismiss them as stupid, but Paul Bloom and Deena Skolnick Weisberg at Yale University have a different hypothesis.

The paper was originally published in Science in 2007, but there is a great version on the Edge.

Here are several excerpts of the Edge article:

It is no secret that many American adults reject some scientific ideas. In a 2005 Pew Trust poll, for instance, 42% of respondents said that they believed that humans and other animals have existed in their present form since the beginning of time. A substantial minority of Americans, then, deny that evolution has even taken place, making them more radical than "Intelligent Design" theorists, who deny only that natural selection can explain complex design. But evolution is not the only domain in which people reject science: Many believe in the efficacy of unproven medical interventions, the mystical nature of out-of-body experiences, the existence of supernatural entities such as ghosts and fairies, and the legitimacy of astrology, ESP, and divination. ...

... While cultural factors are plainly relevant, American adults' resistance to scientific ideas reflects universal facts about what children know and how children learn. If this is right, then resistance to science cannot be simply addressed through more education; something different is needed.

... The main source of resistance to scientific ideas concerns what children know prior to their exposure to science. The last several decades of developmental psychology has made it abundantly clear that humans do not start off as "blank slates." Rather, even one year-olds possess a rich understanding of both the physical world (a "naïve physics") and the social world (a "naïve psychology"). ...

... These intuitions give children a head start when it comes to understanding and learning about objects and people. But these intuitions also sometimes clash with scientific discoveries about the nature of the world, making certain scientific facts difficult to learn. As Susan Carey once put it, the problem with teaching science to children is "not what the student lacks, but what the student has, namely alternative conceptual frameworks for understanding the phenomena covered by the theories we are trying to teach."

... In some cases, there is such resistance to science education that it never entirely sticks, and foundational biases persist into adulthood. ...

Next Month I'm 'Overdosing'

On February 5 at 5:23 pm in Morgantown, WV, I am going to 'overdose', along with a group of my WV Skeptics friends, on homeopathy. I found a supplier who can get me a bottle of 200c! I don't even know what it's supposed to 'treat'. It doesn't matter. I mean, how strong is that?! 200c? Holy moses, I'll be dead in an instant! Or will I? There'll be video so you'll have to stay tuned to see if I live to blog another day.

My group, WV Skeptics, has joined the 10:23 Campaign, a global protest against alternative therapies like homeopathy. We think doctors and pharmacists should sell medical treatments that actually work.

Here is our press release. We sent it out to all the local media. So far I don't think anyone has picked up the story:

Consumers in the United States stage homeopathic 'overdose'

Consumer rights activists across America have today announced their intention to take a mass homeopathic 'overdose' next month, as part of a major global protest against the alternative remedies.

Protestors in Morgantown, WV will swallow huge ‘doses’ of homeopathic pills and preparations at 5:23pm on February 5th 2011, in a bid to raise public awareness of the fact that homeopathic 'remedies' are ineffective - putting pressure on pharmacists and healthcare providers to ensure that products sold as medical treatments actually work.

Timothy Nelms, MD, spokesman for the group, said: “Most people aren't aware that homeopathic pills are not 'herbal' or 'natural' – even homeopaths agree the pills actually contain nothing but sugar and water.

It is fraudulent for anyone to claim there are active ingredients in these preparations. My recommendation is the use of the best current, scientific, evidence-based approach to illness - homeopathy fails to meet this standard.”

The demonstration is being organized by WV Skeptics [1] as part of the 10:23 Campaign [2] - a global protest against the homeopathic remedies originating in the United Kingdom. Similar events will be taking place in dozens of countries around the world, with protests announced in Germany, Hungary, Australia and Canada.

What's Your 'Favorite' Pseudoscience?

First, what is pseudoscience? Pseudoscience: a claim, belief, or practice which is presented as scientific, but which does not adhere to a valid scientific methodology, lacks supporting evidence or plausibility, cannot be reliably tested, or otherwise lacks scientific status. Pseudoscience Hallmarks:

• Experimental results are not reproducible or able to be verified by others, sometimes through lack of openness of data


• Lack of effective controls (not properly randomized or double blinded, as the case may be)


• The scientific method has not been rigorously adhered to


• Not falsifiable (the result can not be disproved)


• Not testable


• Often overturns established science and proven laws of nature


• Vague scientific claims, often lack specific measurements


• Failure to define the operational terms so that others can independently measure or test them


• Failure to use Occam's Razor (the explanation that requires the fewest possible additional assumptions is usually the most accurate)


• Technical jargon or obscure language meant to confuse and sound like an authority in science


• Lack of boundary conditions (real science specifies limits where the predicted phenomena do and do not apply)


• Heavy reliance on testimonial and anecdotal evidence or personal experience


• Argument from ignorance (just because a claim hasn't been proven false, they say it must be true)


• Selection Bias (cherry picking the results to only use the hits and suppress the misses)


• Evades peer review before publicizing results

A Disconnect

I noticed something a few minutes ago that I'd like to share with you. Now I know this might seem extremely obvious, but I just got a real glimpse of the cavernous disconnect between how atheists and believers see God and the universe.

As you know, I am a skeptical atheist. I feel that science is the best way for us to understand the universe. It's not perfect but it's the best tool we have. And it's self-correcting, which is quite necessary since humans do science and we make mistakes and have biases, etc. One of the main reasons I am an atheist is that there is no evidence of any gods. In fact, there is zero evidence in all the universe of anything supernatural. It's that simple.

I have noticed in talking to religious people that they come at things from a very different perspective, worlds apart from where atheists are. From what I gather, they see God as Love. They rely heavily on Confirmation Bias so that everything that is good goes in the God column and everything that is bad goes into the Free Will/God works in mysterious ways column. It's very simplistic. And the system reinforces itself all the time. And it's based on emotions and feelings and faith, not on reason. So it feels good.

People who are religious and/or superstitious come from the worldview that there is a supernatural component to the world. Using confirmation bias as well as not understanding that improbable things happen every day all over the world (it's just statistics - not my strong point, so feel free to comment with more information on this), they believe they see evidence of the supernatural in their lives. Somehow they even extrapolate this to include something that there is also no evidence for, an afterlife, the continuation of consciousness after death. (at this point, we can't prove or disprove the afterlife since we can't test for it, but so far there's no good evidence for it) (edit: the burden of proof is on the believers to prove that there is an afterlife, since you can't prove a negative.)

Of course, this is faulty reasoning, but it's understandable how most people would fall into this trap.

Atheists read holy books in their entirety and see the god of these books as hateful, cruel, jealous and very much made in man's image.

Religious people read the parts of their holy books that give them the message they are looking for, then carefully interpret that into what they want it to say. This is classic Cherry-Picking.

When atheists and scientists don't understand something, we try to find a way to figure it out. We investigate, explore, observe, experiment. We understand our perceptions and memories are faulty so we look for answers to our questions through these methods.

When believers don't understand something they cop out and just say, "well then God did it." They aren't curious in this area. This is devastatingly limiting to the advancement of our species, science and our understanding of the world.

These are just a few glaring examples. What other ways do religious people and atheists have wildly opposing worldviews?

The Jesus Horus Link Revisited For Christmas

Quite awhile ago, I shared some information I had found through American Atheists. It was titled What Other Deities Were Born On Jesus' Birthday? I realized after I published it that it might not have been sourced well, but I left it up because it's an example of how even skeptics and atheists trying to disseminate good information can make mistakes. I fell into the trap of an Appeal to Authority when I wrote it. The original information came from American Atheists, and why wouldn't they always be accurate, right? Well, even people or organizations with the best intentions are human and make mistakes.

I listened to The Skeptic's Testament yesterday and they talked about the Jesus/Horus link and myths borrowing from each other in general. I transcribed that part of the podcast for you (the whole episode is great, so if you can, give it a listen):

The Jesus Horus Link is complete rubbish made up by the movie Zeitgeist. Brian Dunning explains in Skeptoid Episode 196 why it's just fabricated conspiracy mongering.

The following is from The Skeptic's Testament, episode 24:

3:27: With the work of people like Robert Price, which many skeptics have read, they

unjustly make the case that all of the Jesus traditions were borrowed from previous sources. Price doesn't even argue that.

It is incorrect to say that one borrowed from the other. Christianity borrowed from Hinduism or Mithraism or vice versa, simply because the nature of history as a forensic science cannot say anything other than that one came after the other.

To establish sharing like that, or borrowing, and taking, would require something very astounding, something that doesn't fossilize. It would require something that history has never dished up to us before.

This is one example of what we're up against.

Firstly, you would have to establish a trade route between the two factions. Then one would have to show that they swapped stories about their holy men, and furthermore, one party or both went home, conflated the information he just learned about the other faction's holy man or men, and then spread that in the community, only about their own holy men.

Homeopathic 'Overdosers' Announce Global Challenge

Consumer rights activists worldwide are being challenged to participate in a global 'overdose' on homeopathic pills, in order to raise public awareness that the remedies are in fact worthless.

The '10:23 Challenge', scheduled to culminate worldwide in February 2011, is a follow-up to the protest staged by the 10:23 Campaign in the UK, which saw almost 400 demonstrators take to the streets across UK to voice their concern at the sales of the pills in leading pharmacy 'Boots', and the support for such 'remedies' on the NHS.

Michael Marshall of the 10:23 Campaign explained the plans for 2011: "This year has been a great year in the UK for raising awareness of homeopathy – with doctors, pharmacists, politicians and – above all – members of the public speaking out against this discredited 'treatment'.

"However, the case against homeopathy extends far beyond the UK - all around the world, people are being told that homeopathy is a valid form of treatment, and often with tragic consequences. It's a global problem, and it requires global action.

"This is why we're announcing the 10:23 Challenge for 2011 - we want to show global unity by gathering protesters from more than 10 countries, and more than 23 cities. Our aim is to have more than 1023 activists publicly gathering over the weekend of 5th-6th February, to make a statement: Homeopathy - There's Nothing In It.

“Of course, safety is our number one concern – not all homeopathy is prepared as honestly and cleanly as the manufacturers state, and can include real ingredients which could be potentially dangerous. With this in mind we urge anyone wishing to get involved to prepare their own homeopathic remedies, or contact the 10:23 Campaign for more information (contact@1023.org.uk)”.

Resisting Woo

As you know, I've been an atheist for about 10 years or so, and a skeptic for about 2 or 3 years. While I found it easy to give up religion (in fact it was a relief once I realized I wasn't going to literally be struck by lightning for calling myself an atheist), I found it took longer to realize I needed to be skeptical about other things as well.

The hardest thing for me to give up was superstition. Deep down, I was afraid something bad would happen if I didn't knock on wood when I said certain things, or that I would be jinxed if I said something positive at the wrong time. It was crazy! I finally had to just force myself to do a basic experiment. I made myself not do the superstitious action and waited to see if there were negative consequences. Rinse, Repeat, Repeat, Repeat. Look at the results. Shabam, no ill effects!

I still have the urge to knock on wood though. But I never do anymore. Thank g... Science!

It's funny how ingrained  superstitions are. I recently messed up my neck and back. Instead of going to the doctor I tried everything I could think of to fix it myself. It only got worse. I finally went today and will start physical therapy on Monday along with some mild medications.

Why was it so hard to go, though? Why did I wait 3 weeks, in which I was completely miserable? Ok, so I have an irrational fear of doctors and dentists. That's probably a big part of it. But also because I thought I could do it on my own. When I started thinking about turning to woo, I realized I was really desperate and finally went to the doctor. That's progress, isn't it? Three years ago I definitely would have been popping every supplement I could think of and going to a chiropractor, or even an acupuncturist.

Thanks to all the skeptics in my life, I now know about the lack of scientific evidence of those practices. Now, knowing that acupuncture is equivalent to a placebo isn't good enough for me. I'd rather just go straight for real medicine, based on real scientific evidence.

Happy Carl Sagan Day!

Today is Carl Sagan's birthday! He was born November 9, 1934. Over the past several months, my wonderful husband Butch and I watched the Cosmos series on Netflix instant view. I never saw them when I was a kid, and I never even knew about Carl Sagan until I was an adult. When I was in school I loved science but didn't think it was anything I could pursue.

In the last couple of years I've discovered the world of citizen science. And I've also discovered skepticism and, as you know, many wonderful podcasts that have inspired me with talk of great men like Carl Sagan. If I had to choose, astronomy is not the most interesting subject to me, but the Cosmos is wonderful. And Carl Sagan made everything fascinating. Watching Cosmos recently, I was filled with so much inspiration and wonder about the universe and our humble, small place in it. Cosmos has been seen by a billion people in sixty countries, according to the Carl Sagan Portal. What a legacy!

The 11th episode of Cosmos, The Persistence of Memory, is probably my favorite, even though I found them all to be excellent and still relevant today.  Here is the episode in 6 parts. If you can, watch the whole series. You'll be glad you did! See below for some quotes from this awesome man that is such a wonderful inspiration.

Part 1


Part 2

Tips For A Skeptical Outlook

Here are a few points on how to have a skeptical outlook. These come from The Skeptic's Guide to the Universe. They're just snippets from some of their older episodes that I thought were worth sharing.

To avoid the ego blow of admitting you were wrong, adopt this point of view:

"My opinions are dependent upon the existing evidence. I could be wrong. If new evidence comes out I'll happily change my opinion to correspond to it."
~
Later, they sum it up a bit differently:

Practice science and skepticism: Attach yourself to the process, not the conclusion. The process has to be valid, has to be scientific, has to be legitimate. Don't be emotionally invested in the conclusion. As long as the process is valid, it leads wherever it leads.

That means if new information comes up, or if someone shows that a different logic is more appropriate, then you can happily change your conclusion because you have no attachment to it.

It's just that you have to get the process right.

That's science in a nutshell. Science is a process. It's about the process, not about the conclusion.

Pseudoscience begins with the conclusion, then they pervert the process. They warp the process to continue to match their forgone conclusion. It can seem very logical and reasonable. It's still not science.
~

This applies to all areas of thought, from science and pseudoscience to religion, politics and just the world in general. If you're attached to your beliefs and ideas, that's dogma. The secret is to be attached to the truth and let it take you where it leads, and always be open to change your mind if new and compelling evidence comes to light.

In this way, learning new things is a wonderful adventure, it's fun and exciting. When you're close-minded and set on your narrow world view, you then have to lie to yourself and others to make your limiting belief make sense to you. You have to close out the real world to keep the little bubble of dogma around you intact. It's not very much fun. You're constantly threatened by new facts and information that threaten you.

Then again, a lot of us have Sacred Cows. A sacred cow is some area in your life that can't be criticized. It could be a person, an institution, a belief, an area of belief, or a custom.

What are your Sacred Cows? Why have you made them immune to criticism? What would help you to hold them up to the light of reason?

Evaluating Scientific Studies

One thing we all have to do as skeptics is see what other people are saying or studying and evaluate it to see if it stands up. No one person can do all the research needed in even just one subject. Lots of scientists and people need to contribute to science in many different ways. There's a system set up where studies are peer reviewed. Science involves lots of people, so it's not perfect but it is self-correcting and it's by far the best way to go about understanding and learning about the universe.

Never rely on one scientist. That would be an appeal to authority. It's not to say you can't look to a scientist and value his work, but it should be peer reviewed and replicated by others as well. Scientists really do need to stand on the shoulders of giants, and to have other scientists stand next to them.

The other day I was listening to an older episode of The Skeptic's Guide to the Universe: Episode 123 and Dr. Steven Novella was talking about this subject, regarding fringe science. It was interesting enough that I transcribed part of the episode to share with you. You can extrapolate this information when reading about studies done especially in the paranormal/fringe areas.

First he was talking about how scientists have to study scientific literature. As skeptics we also have to at least have a grasp on how things work. Also he explains where skeptics come in. Here's what he said:

39:35 You have to develop the ability and the skill to interpret the literature, even if you're not doing research in that area. What scientific skeptics are trying to do is provide the kind of peer review and critical analysis that typically happens in mainstream science, and apply that to more of these fringe areas because mainstream scientists are ignoring it, out of hand, usually.

A few minutes later, Dr. Novella was talking about science that claimed to verify the supernatural (psychic dogs and other phenomena. Listen to the whole episode for the complete story).
44:47 In order for science to be compelling enough to establish a new phenomenon in science, we need to see a few things, all at the same time:

1. Science that has good methodology, where any artifacts are weeded out.


2. Results that are statistically significant.


3. Replication, so we know it's not just one lab or one scientist.


4. An effect size that is above noise.

That doesn't even include a mechanism which would be the icing on the cake.