Main Site

This is Gem Newman's blog. Return to the main site.

Quotation

Showing posts with label words. Show all posts
Showing posts with label words. Show all posts

15 October 2016

Story Circle: Horror

This is the story of, among other things, the second most horrifying thing that has ever happened to me. It's a fun story, I promise.

But first, a preamble.

I have spent the last two days in Minneapolis for NerdCon: Stories, which was without a doubt the most wonderful failure I've ever been party to. From writing workshops to an intimate chat with Saladin Ahmed to watching Paul Sabourin lip sync a serenade to Patrick Rothfuss, I've had a truly lovely time.

As I mentioned on last month's episode of the podcast, I have obsessive compulsive disorder* (perhaps heavier on the obsessiveness than on the compulsiveness, but they go hand in glove). This makes it very difficult for me to, for example, put together a podcast segment without spending six or so hours scripting it. (And then several more hours editing it after the fact.)

Unless it is ephemeral, it must be perfect. And that's unhealthy.

I also have trouble changing plans or being spontaneous and I spend way too much time in my own head. Simply coming to a convention brings me outside of my comfort zone, but I wanted to take it one step further. To this end, I decided to take part in a storytelling event at NerdCon called Story Circle, in which attendees were invited to share a personal story on the theme of horror.

I spoke unscripted (although I couldn't stop myself from jotting down a few bullet points beforehand) and largely unrehearsed, which I found quite difficult. And rather than spending a few hours editing the audio I recorded, I present it entirely unedited (save for the addition of some lovely music by Ian James) below, which I find excruciating.

So.

This is a true story. Some things in it probably aren't exactly true, because that's not how memory works. As Dr. Steven Novella is fond of pointing out, our memories simply aren't very good. They change over time, and sometimes they are entirely fictitious.

So some of the details here are almost certainly wrong. But the broad strokes are there. (And they are, for what it's worth, corroborated by others who also possess very flawed memories. But what are you going to do?)

You can listen to my story here.


* On the subject of OCD, John Green's talk was very good. You can read it here, but I warn you that the subject matter is not light.

And here's where I must admit that in the past I have even taken episodes edited by Ian or Lauren and re-edited them before uploading because I noticed that I stammered a little too much in this sentence, or I repeated myself over there. I... I try not to do that anymore.

11 January 2016

Book Review: Winter's Tale

Yes, the ill-conceived Colin Farrell
vehicle
was also a book!
Well, I think I've finally found a book that I both enjoy and disagree with in roughly equal measure. Winter's Tale is beautiful, in a way, but it is also tedious and smug.

I assumed that my objections to the book would be limited to its religious and philosophical themes, which essentially boil down to "there is a grand architecture to the universe" and "everything happens for a reason"—views that appear (to me, at least) to be both false and problematic. The politics of the book are nebulously conservative, which (given the author's political convictions) is unsurprising, and as the tale wore on either this became more irksome or the narrative became sufficiently fragmented that I had trouble concentrating on anything else. We are, after all, talking about a book that was apparently described as "the first specifically capitalist fantasy".

Winter's Tale is evocative and lovely, but beyond that there isn't much that I find in it to recommend. Each character seems to exist either to prove a philosophical point or to avoid having a person-shaped hole in the narrative, and the characterizations are about as deep you'd find in the average political cartoon. As another reviewer pointed out, "these characters are only characters in the sense that they are people with names who conduct actions."

And, despite all that, I enjoyed it anyway. Oh well.

Final Score: ★ ★ ☆ ☆



It's important to expose ourselves to ideas that we disagree with. For an exploration of the political themes in Winter's Tale, I recommend this article from n+1:

It's one thing to understand Reaganism by reading an op-ed about the restoration of patriotism. It's another to understand Reaganism as a desire for a miraculous resurrection, mixed with adulation for the heroic dying Indian, and to apprehend some sense of how that desire and that adulation feel. Ditto for the conservative beliefs that the poor receive too much compassion and assistance, that New York intellectuals are cut off from the wider world, that people who are brave and skilled are more worthy of esteem than people who are neither. It's one thing to hear a pundit expound these views, another to experience Helprin's thunderous disdain, his contempt for stooges, expressed in eloquent terms. You can read Winter's Tale for a sense of how being a conservative feels.

15 June 2015

LUEE Episode 97: Labels

In this episode of Life, the Universe & Everything Else, Ashlyn is joined by Laura, Ian, Lauren, and Gem to discuss some of the advantages and shortcomings of using labels to describe ourselves.

Life, the Universe & Everything Else is a program promoting secular humanism and scientific skepticism that is produced by the Winnipeg Skeptics.

Links: The Power Of Categories: Invisibilia (NPR) | Ban Bossy. Encourage Girls to Lead | Let's ban 'bossy' – and not just because Sheryl Sandberg and BeyoncĂ© said so (The Guardian) | 'Ban Bossy' Campaign Misses the Mark Concerning Girls' and Women's Leadership Skills (Huffington Post) | Atheism (Wikipedia) | Agnosticism (Wikipedia) | Profiles of the Godless: Results from a Survey of the Nonreligious (Center for Inquiry) | Diagnostic attributions versus labeling: impact of Alzheimer's disease and major depression diagnoses on emotions, beliefs, and helping intentions of family members (ResearchGate) | 5 Ups and Downs of Special Education Labels (Education.com) | The Fallaway Slam Podcast (The only podcast that matters!)

Contact Us: Facebook | Twitter | Email

Listen: Direct Link | iTunes | Stitcher | RSS Feed

Note: If you're in Winnipeg for the Fringe Festival and are interested in coming out to see Of Blood and Ashes, written by Ian James and Adam Johnstone and featuring Gem Newman, we're at Venue #3 (The Playhouse Studio) at 180 Market Avenue. Here are the showtimes:

  • Thursday, 16 July 2015, 9:00 pm
  • Saturday, 18 July 2015, 5:15 pm
  • Sunday, 19 July 2015, 7:00 pm
  • Tuesday, 21 July 2015, 12:00 pm
  • Wednesday, 22 July 2015, 5:15 pm
  • Thursday, 23 July 2015, 10:30 pm
  • Saturday, 25 July 2015, 3:30 pm

03 February 2015

Ideological Boundaries

I'm writing a book. Maybe you'll read it someday. If you're at all interested, I hope that you'll have that opportunity, and I hope even more that you'll enjoy it. The process of writing it is difficult, and it's rewarding, and it's exhausting, and occasionally it's even fun.

It's a novel. And there are people in this novel—characters, I mean—with whom I don't agree. It's hard to be fair. I was never really tempted to throw up a bunch of straw soldiers that I could easily knock down, but it's still difficult to be fair when discussing philosophical or ideological positions that I don't share, especially when these elements aren't the focus of the narrative.

But it's important to be fair. There's a group of people in this book who started off as the enemies, the "big bads", the primary antagonists of the story. It was easy to outline. But as I wrote it, I realised that these people weren't people: they were one character—one guy—just repeated over and over, copied ad nauseam. No nuance, no disagreement, only a clone army, dressed differently but marching in ideological lockstep. That's dangerous, and it's boring, and it doesn't make for much of a good story.

It's not all fixed now (I haven't even completed a first draft: nothing's fixed!), but at least I'm aware of the problem. And when and if the book is published, I look forward to hearing from everyone how unfairly I have portrayed those who disagree with me.

I was thinking about all of this last night as I was polishing up a chapter that I was especially proud of, and over lunch today I happened to stumble upon this really excellent video from Hank Green, in which he discusses polarizing ideological monoculture, and the important diversity that thrives in boundary zones.

26 May 2014

LUEE Episode 81: Book Reviews (with Greta Christina!)

In this episode of Life, the Universe & Everything Else, Gem Newman, Ashlyn Noble, and Kristina Anderson review some popular science books, and are joined by Greta Christina, who tells them all about her newest book, Coming Out Atheist.

Life, the Universe & Everything Else is a program promoting secular humanism and scientific skepticism presented by the Winnipeg Skeptics and the Humanists, Atheists & Agnostics of Manitoba.

Books Reviewed: Coming Out Atheist: How to Do It, How to Help Each Other, and Why, by Greta Christina | Soundings: The Story of the Remarkable Woman Who Mapped the Ocean Floor, by Hali Felt | Bad Pharma: How Drug Companies Mislead Doctors and Harm Patients, by Ben Goldacre | Bad Pharma: What Happened Next (Free Follow-up Chapter) | The Hungry Scientist Handbook, by Patrick Buckley and Lili Binks

Other Recommendations: The Ebony Exodus Project, by Candace R.M. Gorham | Why Are You Atheists So Angry?, by Greta Christina | Bad Science: Quacks, Hacks, and Big Pharma Flacks, by Ben Goldacre | The Rocks Don't Lie, by David R. Montgomery | The Map That Changed the World, by Simon Winchester | The Rithmatist, by Brandon Sanderson | The Runelords, by David Farland | The Demon-Haunted World, by Carl Sagan | Last Chance to See, by Douglas Adams and Mark Carwardine | The Day of the Triffids, by John Wyndham | The Lathe Of Heaven, by Ursula K. Le Guin | I Am Legend, by Richard Matheson | Little Brother, by Cory Doctorow

Contact Us: Facebook | Twitter | Email

Listen: Direct Link | iTunes | Stitcher | RSS Feed

14 December 2013

Ten Books

So you know that book list everyone is talking about on Facebook these days? Well, I've been tagged several times, and I thought that it's kind of a nice idea, so here are ten books that have had a big influence on me (not thinking too hard about it).

The Hobbit, by J.R.R. Tolkien
Read to me by my fourth grade teacher (in fourth grade, to be clear), this book was the first book that actually got me interested in reading for pleasure. Of all the books I've reread, I've probably reread this the most.

The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark, by Carl Sagan
This book lays out, clearly and concisely, the process of scientific skepticism, and why it is so important. I read it five or so years ago, and wish I'd read it earlier. This is probably the first book I suggest to anyone, for pretty much any reason.

The Hitch Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy Omnibus, by Douglas Adams
Fun. It's just so much fun. I've reread each book in the series several times. I'm also very fond of the radio series (which is the original incarnation of the Hitchhiker's Guide), so if you haven't given that a listen, I recommend it highly.

Last Chance to See, by Douglas Adams and Mark Carwardine
I know Hitchhiker's Guide gets a lot of credit (and deservedly so!), but this is actually my favourite Douglas Adams book (and one of only three nonfiction books that make my list of ten). It's a very personal account of a journey that he took with conservationist Mark Carwardine to find and photograph some of the most endangered species in the world (some of which are now extinct). It's funny and sad and beautiful all at once, and written in Adams' distinct style. If you haven't read it, please do. (It was also followed up by a BBC television series of the same name a few years ago, featuring Mark Carwardine and Adams' close friend Stephen Fry. I'd also highly recommend that.)

God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything, by Christopher Hitchens
The man had his faults, but good lord, could he write! Growing up in (very secular) middle-class urban Canada, religion was always just one of those funny quirks some people had. This rather polemical work was influential in turning me from apathetic to rather hostile, where religion is concerned. I've cooled down a bit, obviously, but my renewed interest in metaphysics led me fairly quickly to the skeptical discipline.

The Gormenghast Trilogy, by Mervyn Peake
Speaking of good writing, I don't believe that I've ever encountered an author that could turn a phrase quite like Mervyn Peake. While many modern readers might find his writing rather dry and his plots plodding, Peake managed to make everything from his character names (Steerpike, Rottcodd, Lord Sepulchrave) to his descriptions of the environment unbelievably evocative. (I know I'm sort of cheating here, by posting several books in one, but they're so often grouped together, and I honestly don't remember where one ends and the next picks up.)

Baudolino, by Umberto Eco
Baudolino tells the tale of the adopted son of King Frederick Barbarossa, who is an avowed liar. Baudolino sports the ultimate unreliable narrator and, like The Name of the Rose, is chock-full of interesting religious and historical tidbits.

The Day of the Triffids, by John Wyndham
Probably my favourite (post)apocalyptic story (and I love the genre). Like Nineteen Eighty Four, The Name of the Rose, and Pride and Prejudice, this is a book that I was supposed to read in high school, didn't, and then went back and read it a few years later. And, like all of those other books, I absolutely loved it.

The Lathe Of Heaven, by Ursula K. Le Guin
Le Guin is the only female author on this list (which is an embarrassment). I read this book about ten years ago, and it helped get me out of a rut of reading exclusively cheap genre fiction. It's a very interesting book.

I Am Legend, by Richard Matheson
Quite a short book, and one that has been made into a surprising number terrible films. This story had a lot of influence in the development of the (now popular again) zombie apocalypse genre (despite the fact that it features zero zombies), and I enjoyed it very much.

And while these books didn't quite make the cut, I do highly recommend them:
The Art of War, by Sun Tzu
Little Brother, by Cory Doctorow
Flowers for Algernon, by Daniel Keyes
On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, by Charles Darwin
Fahrenheit 451, by Ray Bradbury
Dune, by Frank Herbert
The Road, by Cormac McCarthy (although I honestly think the film is just as good)
The Moon Is a Harsh Mistress, by Robert Heinlein
The Name of the Rose, by Umberto Eco
Alice's Adventures in Wonderland and Through the Looking-Glass, by Lewis Carol
Nineteen Eighty Four, by George Orwell

02 December 2013

"Infidel Atheists" Who "Celebrate Nothing"

Cross-posted from the Winnipeg Skeptics blog.

I wasn't going to bother commenting on this story, because it seemed so boring and trivial: conservative political figure makes off-the-cuff remark that betrays ignorance of minority group. My friend Donna Harris of the Humanists, Atheists & Agnostics of Manitoba has already commented on the matter, and well, and I was content to leave it at that. But I got a call this afternoon from a Winnipeg Sun reporter seeking comment, and it served to solidify my thoughts on the matter, so I figured that I might as well share them.

For context, here's what provincial Conservative Leader Brian Pallister said:

I want to wish everyone a really, really merry Christmas, happy Hanukkah, all the holidays... all you infidel atheists out there, I want to wish you the very best also. I don't know what you celebrate during the holiday season, I myself celebrate the birth of Christ, but it's your choice, and I respect your choice. If you want to celebrate nothing, and just get together with friends, that's good, too. All the best.

First of all, personally, I don't think that this is a big deal. At all. Pallister seemed to be speaking extemporaneously, and he appeared to be expressing honest goodwill to everyone.

Most of the outcry seems to centre on his use of the word "infidel", which Pallister claims is simply another innocent word for "nonbeliever". Although I would argue that "faithless" is probably a closer match etymologically, I'm content to let that pass without wasting too much time pointing out that the term is generally considered derogatory and pejorative.

What does cause me a bit of concern, on the other hand, is that Pallister seems to believe that atheists "celebrate nothing". I'm not sure quite how to make sense of this comment, for of course any given atheist might celebrate any number of things during the holidays: family, friends, the turning of the seasons, and the birthday of Sir Isaac Newton come most readily to mind. But atheism isn't a religion: there are no tenets or dogma, and atheists are not a homogenous lot.

Atheists believe and celebrate in all sorts of disparate things. An atheist might believe in Keynesian economics, or might be of the Austrian school. An atheist might follow Kant's categorical imperative, or have a more utilitarian ethic. An atheist might be a humanist, or even an Objectivist.

Atheism isn't a belief system. Asking what atheists believe or what atheists celebrate is like asking what people who don't believe in faeries or ghosts believe or celebrate. Any number of things, certainly. Not all the same things, naturally. But probably not "nothing".



Update (2 December 2013): That was quick. The new article is now available on the Sun's website. It is brief, as is to be expected, and makes a minor error or two (although I started the group, Ashlyn has been the organiser of the Winnipeg Skeptics for almost a year), but it's fine.

05 July 2013

Neuroscientist Proves Free Will!

Public domain image of neurons from Wikipedia.

Well, it's time for me to eat my hat. According to MedicalXpress:

A new theory of brain function by Peter Ulric Tse, a professor of cognitive neuroscience at Dartmouth College, suggests that free will is real and has a biophysical basis in the microscopic workings of our brain cells.

Well, I guess that's that. I guess I was wrong. I'm skeptic enough to admit that.

Tse's findings, which contradict recent claims by neuroscientists and philosophers that free will is an illusion, have theological, ethical, scientific and legal implications for human behavior, such as whether people are accountable for their decisions and actions.

Broad theological implications? You bet! I'm sure his research will be met with sighs of relief from seminary students who are struggling with theodicy.

In contrast with philosophers who use logic rather than data to argue whether mental causation or consciousness can exist...

Oooh-kay. That's enough.

The research sounds interesting, to be honest. It's always nice to nail down neurological specifics, but the way this research is being framed is more than a little disappointing. The article doesn't go into much detail, of course (it basically comes down to "buy the book"*), but none of the findings outlined seem shocking to me, and I doubt that any other determinist would feel differently. In fact, I'm sorely tempted to call out the article for knocking down straw determinists.

This gets around the standard argument against free will that is based on the impossibility of self-causation.

I have literally never heard any determinist argue that "self-causation" is impossible. Assuming everything that Tse says is correct, it does nothing to change my position on free will, because when you get down to brass tacks our positions seem to be basically identical.

My problem with the concept of "free will" as it's expressed in religious contexts is the implication that it is contra-causal. Saying that "free will is real" and that Tse has discovered its "biophysical basis" will just lead to further misunderstandings in the eyes of the public (and will presumably permit Tse to feel smugly superior to philosophers). It seems to me like Tse is trying to puff up his chest a bit and say, "Case closed!" His research seems interesting in that it nails down some specifics of self-causation in a compatibilist (causally-bound "free" will) context, but it does nothing to rescue contra-causal free will (nor do I think it's meant to).

My argument basically boils down to this: When you talk about "free will", most lay people are talking about one thing (contra-causal free will), while most philosophers and neuroscientists are talking about another (compatibilist or causally-bound "free" will). As I've argued on several occasions, I think that the former is absurd and runs contrary to the existing evidence (and this new research has nothing much to add here), while the latter is simply a rebranding of soft determinism in an attempt to rescue the language of free will (and has the unfortunate side-effect of permitting us to continue to pretend that people are morally blameworthy on some fundamental level and to deal with others punitively, rather than with compassion). And that's not okay.

Discussions of free will are rife with equivocation and confusion is to some extent inevitable. I'm happy to have a discussion on the extent to which the language of free will is useful (and in this matter, as in the matter of the Oxford comma, I do not shrink from staking out a clear position) but I wish that others would be more careful in properly defining their terms. Saying what amounts to "Those silly philosophers can't out-logic my hard data!" when you haven't done much to address the points they've actually made is unhelpful at best.

In summary, it seems to me that contra-causal free will remains unsupported by the evidence, that compatibilist or causally-bound conceptions of free will are problematic, and that the Oxford comma generally serves to increase the clarity of complex sentences.



Hat tip to Gary Barbon for the link.



* And no, I haven't read his book, so I cannot fully evaluate every argument that he makes therein. Feel free to sneeringly point this out to your heart's content. That's what the comments section is for, after all.

14 June 2013

"Everything that begins to exist..."

If you travel (or read) in atheist (or apologetic) circles, then you've probably encountered the Kalam Cosmological Argument. It goes something like this:

  1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
  2. The Universe began to exist.
  3. Therefore, the Universe had a cause.

Although it is historically linked to Islamic scholarship, it's most ardent proponent and popularizer is Christian apologist (and amateur Scott Bakula impersonator) William Lane Craig, who holds it up as unassailable proof of a Prime Mover.

This argument was brought to my attention again when I listened to a debate between Justin Shieber (one of the hosts of Reasonable Doubts, my favourite counter-apologetics podcast) and Scott Smith. Smith brought up this argument, and it was discussed briefly. Kalam is rife with problems, among them the compositional fallacy, one or more potentially unsupportable premises, and what amounts to special pleading. If you want a detailed deconstruction, I'd recommend the deconstructions of the argument on RationalWiki and Iron Chariots (we even covered it briefly on Life, the Universe & Everything Else). But as I listened to the debate, I got to thinking...

What does it mean for something to "begin to exist"?

As I thought about that some more, I got to wondering: Does anything "begin to exist", when it comes right down to it? I mean, at the level of common usage, things "come into being" all the time, from trains to mountains to people. But none of these things are created ex nihilo: they're merely examples of stuff (train parts, rocks, cells, molecules, subatomic particles) moving about. So while it makes sense to talk about these things "beginning to exist" in some sense (as we talk of the sun "rising and setting", for example), in the strictest sense I'm not sure.

I asked a physicist friend friend about this. He thought for a moment, chuckled, and said, "Maybe a photon? But not really..." And he couldn't come up with anything either. So this is something that I'm honestly wondering: Do we know of anything that can meaningfully be said to have "begun" to exist, rather than being simply an example of matter or energy changing form? Because if not, that's another significant blow to the argument. What do you think?



Addendum: On the Facebook thread, my friend Javier Hernandez has pointed out that virtual particles and perhaps even space itself may qualify as "beginning to exist":

How about the "creation" of space in our Universe. The Universe is expanding, which means that more Vacuum is being created. There does not appear to be a Energy-to-Vacuum conservation law that is being followed, so this Vacuum appears to be "coming into existence" on it's own.

I find the idea of space itself "coming into being" tough to wrestle with, since this expansion of "space" is hard to quantify in discrete units, and it's a process that is continuous, rather than instantaneous. That said, both virtual particles and perhaps space itself seem to be fair candidates for what I was looking for here. Thanks to Javier for that!

This in mind, however, neither space nor virtual particles would seem to be "caused" in the strict sense implied by Kalam, so among the examples we've been able to identify, the argument remains incredibly weak on that particular score.

14 November 2012

The Definition of "Fatwa"

This came up on a recent (mostly excellent) episode of Ask an Atheist, which featured an (entirely excellent) interview with Skepchick Heina Dadabhoy on the subject of (among other things) how Muslims are treated in the West. (Listen to it. It's seriously good. TL;DL: They aren't terrorists, and they actually are an oppressed minority.)

This is something that we get wrong all the time, and I wanted to address it really quickly. A "fatwa" isn't some sort of religious "bounty" on a person's head, the way that it is often described in the popular media by those who are too scared of people with different religious beliefs (or different skin-tones) to bother getting things right.

In Islam, a "fatwa" can be a legal ruling in sharia or simply a religious decree (similar to a "Papal bull" in Catholicism; of course Islam is decentralized, leading to various religious leaders sometimes issuing contradictory fatwas). Saying that "fatwa" means a decree for religious violence is like saying that "referendum" means voting on whether your province is going to secede from Canada; in certain rare circumstances that may be the case, but it is far from the norm.

That said, probably the most famous fatwa, that issued against Salman Rushdie by Ayatollah Khomeini, did indeed effectively put a price on Rushdie's head, which is almost certainly what led to the widespread misunderstanding of the word today.

While some fatwas do decree death, they are in the vast minority.

03 June 2012

LUEE Episode 23: Justice and Hate Crimes

Episode 23: Justice and Hate Crimes

In this episode of Life, the Universe & Everything Else, Greg Christensen, Ali Ashtari, and Jeffrey Olsson talk about Canadian hate crime legislation and freedom of thought, conscience, and expression.

Life, the Universe & Everything Else is a program promoting secular humanism and scientific skepticism presented by the Winnipeg Skeptics and the Humanists, Atheists & Agnostics of Manitoba.

Links: Bill C-10 & Minimum Sentences | Iranian Rapper Facing Death Threats | Atheist Murdered in Texas | Ernst Zundel | David Ahenakew | Summary of Hate Crime Definition | Criminal Code of Canada | Statistics on Canadian Hate Crimes | Effect of Hate Crime on Victims | References to Notable Canadian Hate Crime Convictions | Hate Crime in Canada: An Overview of Issues and Data Sources

Contact Us: Facebook | Twitter | Email

Listen: Direct Link | iTunes | RSS Feed

20 July 2011

Fake Gem Newman

The real Gem Newman wouldn't use two exclamation marks.

Someone* has set up a novelty twitter account for Fake Gem Newman. His tweets are much more insightful and amusing than mine, so I recommend following him rather than me.


* No, it's not me. I do know who it is, however.

01 April 2011

...

So, remember how Pastor Terry Jones promised not to burn the Koran? And remember how he did it anyway?

Well, here's an update from the New York Times.

Protesters angered by the burning of a Koran by a fringe American pastor in Florida mobbed offices of the United Nations in northern Afghanistan on Friday, killing ten foreign staff members and beheading two of the victims, according to an Afghan police spokesman.

This is horrific.

The attack began immediately after Friday morning prayers, the mob apparently forming as worshippers exited their mosques. Although it's only a guess, that certainly smells like incitement to me.

I think that it bears mentioning that there is a difference between explanation and exculpation. The fact that these events were directly related to Pastor Jones' actions in no way serves to excuse the insane, fanatical murderers who massacred people who were completely unrelated to the event that they were protesting.

I'm not planning to burn any holy books any time soon. I remain committed to freedom of speech, and I hope that I live to see a world in which burning your own property is not considered sufficient justification for murder.

28 March 2011

"Are You Saved? Do You Know?"

In my experience, downtown Winnipeg bus stops are usually littered in equal parts with discarded Tim Hortons cups, bottles of mouthwash, Bible tracts, and copies of The Watchtower. I have a tract here that I found at just such a bus stop, and I figured that I might as well give it a read. It's no Chick tract (although Chuck and Leighton have dissected those in the past, here and here), but it'll have to do.

Tracts are all the fun of a Jehovah's Witness, but with the portability of a sandwich wrapper. Generally speaking, they tend to assume that you're a lapsed theist of some sort, and you just need to be reminded that Jesus needs you to polish his sandals; they rarely even offer any actual rationale for believing in a deity.


Let's play along, shall we? "Er, I don't know. Whatever do you mean? Saved from what?"


Do you know that the Bible teaches that all men are born in sin, and are naturally inclined to do evil?

"Gasp! I had no idea! Plus you've backed up your assertion with evidence, straight from the Bible!"

Do you know that until you demonstrate that a deity exists and he is particularly fond of your book, appeals to the Bible will remain unpersuasive?

Do you know that the Bible teaches that God has no pleasure in the death of a sinner, and is not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to the knowledge of the truth and be saved?

"Golly gee whiz, you're kidding! God is truly merciful!"

Well, since God is purportedly omniscient, omnipotent, and omnibenevolent, he knows exactly what it would take for me to "come to the knowledge of the truth and be saved", it is within his power to convince me, and he is inclined to spare me eternal torment. Strangely, he has yet to prevent any evidence.

Strange.

Do you know that the Bible teaches that God's plan of salvation is very simple and effective?

"Just like homeopathy and the Q-Ray pendant! Cool!"

Seriously, though, one would assume that God's plan would be sensible, efficient, and efficacious; he is, after all, the supreme creator of the cosmos, who is a perfect incarnation of the appearance that a leader should have.

God's plan is simple and effective: it involves creating a race that is, after all, only human, yet holding them to an impossibly high ethical standard. After ejecting the humans from paradise for having the audacity to seek to know right from wrong, God no doubt realises his mistake and drowns just about every living being on the planet. He then lays down 613 hopelessly confused rules and regulations to a small band of desert-dwelling savages and instructs them to spread the good word by slaughtering as many of their neighbours as possible.

A few thousand years later, much to his chagrin, God notes that people are still having trouble following the rules: they're still enjoying ham and cheese sandwiches and blended fabrics and the like. Rather than simply drowning everyone again, however, he decides to wander around the desert for a bit and see if he can't talk some sense into people. Instead of creating a body the old-fashioned way (sculpting one out of dust and breathing on it), he decides to impregnate a woman without her permission (always a winning strategy). Once born, he walks around the desert for a bit, introduces his disciples to communism, and then is brutally slaughtered by the Romans and/or Jews.

But that's all part of the plan. You see, even though he makes the rules, he can't forgive people without human sacrifice. So long as you recognise that you are unworthy scum and admit that you don't deserve life, God will forgive you for the egregious sin of simply existing, and will admit you to the great amusement park in the sky—but only if you don't have any trouble believing in precisely the right version of the events described above.

Not to worry, though, because God, in his literally infinite wisdom, provided us with evidence that this is all true, in a badly-preserved, consistently mistranslated book with a decidedly provincial outlook that contradicts many major branches of scientific inquiry and endorses a moral code that would make Genghis Khan blush.

Yes, simple and effective are precisely the words that I would use to describe that plan.

Do you know that the Bible teaches a saving experience that you may know you are saved?

"That sounds great! Subjective experience is always more reliable than independently verifiable evidence!"

I've never had a "religious experience" that I can recall, but I've spoken with those who have. By and large, the feelings that they describe are similar to those that I experience when listening to power metal or watching Zach Snyder's adaptation of Watchmen (I know, I know, there's no accounting for taste). I've heard Matt Dillahunty express similar sentiments.

Personal, subjective experiences are unreliable.

Do you know that the Bible teaches that a saved person has fruits as evidence of his salvation?

"You mean that if I convert, God will give me stuff? Just like Santa? Neato!"

Presumably God will also ensure that such fruits are completely exempt from confirmation bias.

Do you know that the Bible teaches that a saved person is in danger of being deceived and of losing his salvation again?

"Gosh... Well, I'd better stop thinking critically, then; I wouldn't want to lose my way!"

The message here seems to be: once you've made up your mind, never change it.


Do you know that the Bible teaches that God has a plan by which to keep your soul?

"Great! I guess that means that I don't have to worry about it!"

As we've seen, God's plans have a marked tendency to be fairly strange—and to be incidentally beneficial to those who claim to be his messengers. Weird.

Do you know that the Bible teaches that a saved person is active, mission-minded, and in appreciation of his salvation endeavours to help others find their Saviour too?

"Wait a second... That sounds like work! You tricked me!"

Of course it does; otherwise, how would the meme propagate itself?

"Come now, and let us reason together, saith the Lord..."

Even though this Isaiah quotation is often used by disingenuous apologists, I still kind of like it. If only the writers of this pamphlet actually understood what "reason" was...

So, am I saved? Probably not. That said, I have no reason to believe that the author of this tract is, either, nor have I any reason to believe that there is anything from which salvation is necessary.

More tracts to come!

31 January 2011

Stuff I Used to Believe: The Curse of Macbeth!

Yes, yes, actors and their superstitions.

My First Folio edition of The Tragedie of Macbeth.

Want to know a good way to freak an actor out? Say "Macbeth" in a theatre.

Many theatre folk would have you believe that simply uttering the word "Macbeth" in a theatre will bring ruin and misfortune upon the production and everyone involved in it. For this reason, it is the universal norm to say "The Scottish Play" (when referencing the work) or "The Scottish King" (when referencing the character).

Brian Dunning has previously covered this topic in some detail, but I figured that I might as well add a few personal touches.

I have a minor in theatre, and have performed in several amateur and semi-professional productions around Winnipeg. I have also taught drama to children at MTYP (briefly), the University of Manitoba's Mini-U, and during a summer program with the Evergreen School Division in Gimli. While I have never performed "The Scottish Play", I do have the "Dagger Speech" memorised, as I did a three-year stint at a local dinner theatre and one of the most popular characters that I played was an old thespian well into his dotage who would soliloquise at the drop of a hat.

If you're involved in any way with theatre, you're going to have to deal with superstitions. Many of my friends are actors, and they are by-and-large good folk, but in my personal experience* they are more superstitious than most. Although I used to be somewhat superstitious myself, I was always more amused than actually concerned by the putative Macbeth "curse". But, to avoid ruffling feathers, I avoided saying "Macbeth" all the same.

One particular friend of mine (I'll call her "Beth") has related the following story to me on several occasions. Beth was performing in a play with another actor (I'll call her "Macy") who refused to respect the beliefs (and superstitions) of others. Macy would name The Scottish King at every opportunity, and when asked politely to stop, first by Beth, then by other cast members, and finally by the director, Macy responded by childishly yelling the word over and over again. But by the time the run of the show was done, Macy, Beth, and the director had each broken a leg.

I don't recall ever believing that any curse was actually responsible for the events narrated in that story, however I repeated it often enough as an interesting anecdote.

I've heard poor ticket sales, accidents, and even traffic jams blamed on the curse, when it seems to me more likely that poor acting or promotion, carelessness, poor planning, and even the vagaries of chance were responsible. But the curse makes for a convenient scapegoat.

I play a popular collectible card game from time to time, and I see this sort of childish behaviour play itself out in that arena, too. When a player loses a game, it is always because "it was a bad shuffle", or it would have taken "just one more turn" to win. I even hear players say, "My deck hates me!" Few seem ready to take responsibility for the fact that they didn't play well.

I used to tell my students that you have to respect the superstitions of others, even if you don't believe in them yourself. Today, I would rephrase that: You have to deal with the superstitions of others, even if you don't believe in them yourself. As Richard Dawkins said (although he attributes it to Johann Hari), "I respect you too much to respect your ridiculous ideas."



* Logical fallacy alert!

23 January 2011

Book Review: The Secret

Okay, so I've read Rhonda Byrne's The Secret. As you might imagine, I found myself spending a lot of time hurling epithets at the book. This review will codify those things that I said to the hardback, and will consequently contain an unusual amount of snark. You have been warned.


The Book

The Secret is quite possibly the worst book that I've ever read. And by "read", I don't simply mean "flipped through with a derisive sneer on my face": I mean "read, cover-to-cover". With a derisive sneer on my face.

So, if you're thinking of reading The Secret, don't. Read Robert Price's excellent Top Secret: The Truth Behind Today's Pop Mysticisms instead. Both books are funny books, but I find Bob Price funny in the way that Jon Stewart is funny, while Rhonda Byrne is more comparable with Steve Doocy.

My main quarrel with this blasted book is that it just goes on and on and on, saying the same thing over and over again, in hundreds of different ways. It's like reading an essay written by a tenth-grader: the font is huge, the margins are wide, and the student has repeated everything in as many ways as the human mind can conceive just to get the word-count up.

The entire book can be summed up in less than 50 words:

The universe is your friend, so if you think about something hard enough, it will happen. Why? Because of science. But sometimes it won't work. In those cases, don't blame me: blame yourself! It's your fault for not trying hard enough. Or for thinking bad thoughts. Don't do that.

While reading the book, I was struck repeatedly by Byrne's inability to distinguish metaphor from reality. Not only that, but (like most practitioners of woo) she posits a universal explanation for every complex phenomenon.

The Secret

Spoiler alert! "The Secret" is the ipse dixit "Law of Attraction" that we've already discussed. I'll let Rhonda Byrne summarise:

If you can think about what you want in your mind, and make that your dominant thought, you will it into your life. (The Secret, page 9)

For occasional commentary on Ms. Byrne's lunatic ramblings, I'll turn to Bob Price, my favourite audiobook reader, Cthulhu-enthusiast, and professor of Biblical Criticism. I'm serious: his dramatic reading of "The Dunwich Horror" is particularly superb.

But is all this a matter of shaping what happens, or what we notice? No one will deny that a fixation on a goal will alert us to opportunities and possibilities we should never otherwise have noticed. (Top Secret, page 39)

But what can "The Secret" really do for you? Can it get you happiness, wealth, and a really hot wife?

There isn't a single thing that you cannot do with this knowledge. It doesn't matter who you are or where you are, The Secret can give you whatever you want. (The Secret, page xi)

There you have it! I can't stress this enough, people. There is no such thing as hyperbole: you can have whatever you want. You want Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris to fight to the death, with Christopher Hitchens as commentator? Done. You want to see a three-way beard-off between Charles Darwin, Daniel Dennett, and Aristotle? No problem. You want Natalie Portman and Mila Kunis going at it like there's no tomorrow? I know it seems far-fetched, but this is magic we're talking about. There's nothing you can't do!

(You know what? In all honesty, I didn't really care for Black Swan.)

It is the law [of attraction] that determines the complete order in the Universe, every moment of your life, and every single thing you experience in your life. (The Secret, page 5)

So, with this "Law of Attraction" governing the whole of the known universe, you might imagine that Rhonda is a big fan of positive thinking. You wouldn't want anyone's "negative energy" gumming up the works.

In fact, Byrne calls negative thinking (or simply thinking about what you don't want) "[a]n epidemic worse than any plague that humankind has ever seen". Seriously. We're talking worse than the bubonic plague, worse than cholera, worse than polio, and worse than simple diarrhoea, which kills 2–3 million people each year.

Okay, I see her point. I find her hyperbole offensive, but I do see her point. Dwelling on negative things can be detrimental to your mental wellbeing. But you know what, Rhonda? You need to consider the potential consequences of every action that you take, positive and negative, in order to make good decisions. If you simply refuse to think about potential negative outcomes, you're likely to find yourself in deep trouble fairly quickly.

So when you are feeling bad it is communication from the Universe, and in effect it is saying, "Warning! Change thinking now. Negative frequency recording. Change frequency. Counting down to manifestation. Warning!" (The Secret, page 33)

Wow. So apparently the universe sounds like a computer from a cheap sci-fi show. Did anyone else imagine Majel Barrett-Roddenberry reading those words?

The Big Names

Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Joseph, Moses, and Jesus were not only prosperity teachers, but also millionaires themselves, with more affluent lifestyles than many present-day millionaires could conceive of. (The Secret, page 109)

Throughout the book, Rhonda Byrne lists reams and reams of famous historical people who knew "The Secret", trotting them out one by one to make her case for her. I'm reminded of Sun Myung Moon's claims that Jesus, Muhammad, Buddha, Confucius, and Marx all supported his claim to be the messiah. It's easy to claim support from the dead.

Apparently da Vinci (The Secret, page 4) was in on "The Secret". Funny: I would have thought that he could have made his ornithopter fly. I guess he just wasn't thinking at it hard enough.

The Science

Like the talking heads in the fantasy movie What the Bleep Do We Know? Team Secret capitalizes, first, on Heisenberg's uncertainty principle, trying to break down any strict cause-and-effect nexus, as if to reinstate an element of spontaneity into the fabric of existence. This indeterminacy is supposed to make miracles possible, since there would then be no ironclad "natural laws" to violate. (Top Secret, pages 27–28)

Rhonda Byrne really knows her science.

Quantum physicists tell us that the entire universe emerged from thought. (The Secret, page 15)

Really? I would like to know which quantum physicists you've been talking to, because that has the distinctive ring of something that you just made up. But alas, several pages later I discover that she's been talking to Dr. Fred Alan Wolf. Well, you can find kooks in any field, and Wolf's opinions on quantum consciousness do not by any means represent the scientific consensus on the matter.

I never studied science or physics at school, and yet when I read complex books on quantum physics I understood them perfectly because I wanted to understand them. (The Secret, page 156)

I'm reminded of the fact that, in light of a focus on self-esteem over substance, America's test scores in science and math continue to decline while students' confidence in their abilities remain high.

Bob Price's pithy reply?

This is why we don't let students grade their own papers. You don't need Heisenberg's uncertainty principle to doubt seriously whether Ms. Byrne has grasped the first thing about quantum physics—or, for that matter, any kind of physics. (Top Secret, page 26)

The Victim

The biggest problem with the Law of Attraction is the blame-the-victim in which it results. It would of course be a fallacious argument from final consequences to state that because it results in this particular negative outcome it is therefore false, but given that there is no reason to believe in the metaphysical powers of this so-called law, the negative consequences of believing it do bear mentioning, I think.

If your husband beats you, it's because you intend to be beaten: you are not concentrating enough on having a loving husband. If you are trapped under a collapsing building during an earthquake, you were somehow on the same "frequency" as the event. There are no accidents. It is all your fault.

But you can fix it. And we'll tell you how.

Bastards.

Often when people first hear this part of The Secret they recall events in history where masses of lives were lost, and they find it incomprehensible that so many people could have attracted themselves to the event. By the law of attraction, they had to be on the same frequency as the event. (The Secret, page 28)

Bob Price takes her to task.

It is because they confuse a wise rule of thumb with an overarching system of metaphysics that people like Rhonda Byrne wind up heartlessly blaming the victim. ... [Of] course she has in mind the Nazi Holocaust. Too bad those Jews didn't think happier thoughts, huh? And because they didn't, well, they asked for it! (Top Secret, pages 44–45)

And to top it all off, on the last page of the book, Rhonda writes you a moral blank cheque.

Whatever you choose is right. The power is all yours. (The Secret, page 184)

The Secret on Feelings

What if your feelings are actually communication from the Universe to let you know what you're thinking? (The Secret, page 33)

And what if the creaking in your knees is actually a communication from your neighbour reminding you to return that step-ladder you borrowed?

The Secret on Knowledge

If you do just a little research, it is going to become evident to you that anyone that ever accomplished anything, did not know how they were going to do it. They only knew they were going to do it. (The Secret, page 51)

I'm sure that this news comes as a delightful surprise to all of those aspiring medical doctors and structural engineers.

The Secret on Obesity

Whether people have been told they have a slow thyroid, a slow metabolism, or their body size is hereditary, these are all disguises for thinking "fat thoughts." If you accept any of those conditions as applicable to you, and you believe it, it must become your experience, and you will continue to attract being overweight. ... Food is not responsible for putting on weight. (The Secret, pages 58–59)

Being a dietitian, my wife was delighted to hear that Rhonda Byrne had rendered her profession obsolete.

The Secret on Time

Time is just an illusion. Einstein told us that. (The Secret, page 62)

Lunchtime doubly so.

Honestly? I wish I had the last four hours back. Also, I think that she may have misunderstood relativity.

The Secret on Money

Make it your intention to look at everything you like and say to yourself, "I can afford that. I can buy that." (The Secret, page 111)

I can totally get on-board with that. The fact that I can totally get on-board with that upsets my wife, for obvious and completely rational reasons.

The Secret on Medicine

You tell the patient that this is just as effective, and what happens is the placebo sometimes has the same effect, if not greater effect, than the medication that is supposed to be designed for that effect. They have found out that the human mind is the biggest factor in the healing arts... (The Secret, page 125)

Yeah, that happens all the time. That's called a negative trial. It happens when the medication doesn't work. Also, many doctors argue that there is no real placebo "effect". I recommend listening to episode 5 of Dr. Mark Crislip's excellent QuackCast for more details.

The Secret on Aging

Unfortunately, Western society has become fixated on age, and in reality there is no such thing. You can think your way to the perfect state of health, the perfect body, the perfect weight, and eternal youth. (The Secret, page 131)

I seem to recall that Deepak Chopra expressed a similar sentiment in his 1993 book Ageless Body, Timeless Mind: The Quantum Alternative to Growing Old, however I note that his hair is somewhat greyer of late. Strange.

The Secret on Disease
You cannot "catch" anything unless you think you can, and thinking you can is inviting it to you with your thought. (The Secret, page 132)

So the best thing that you can do is convince yourself that you are impervious to all disease. No need for vaccines, then! Good thing, too: I've heard they cause autism.*

The Secret on Science

In simple terms, all energy vibrates at a frequency. Being energy, you also vibrate at a frequency, and what determines your frequency at any time is whatever you are thinking and feeling. ... When you think about what you want, and you emit that frequency, you cause the energy of what you want to vibrate at that frequency and you bring it to You! (The Secret, pages 156–157)

I have no comment, and will only remind the reader of what Rhonda Byrne said on page 135: "Sometimes less information is better!"

The Secret on The Secret

If you are seeking an answer or guidance on something in your life, ask the question, believe you will receive, and then open this book randomly. At the exact place where the pages fall open will be the guidance and answer you are seeking. (The Secret, page 172)

Jesus. Such humility!

The Bottom Line

The Secret is a startling morass of balderdash. The words "quantum", "law", "magnetic", "frequency", and "science" come up frequently, and can apparently be used to mean whatever you want them to mean. The book is a wishy-washy, feel-good message wrapped in a loose-knit anecdote frock. (I don't even know what that means.)

One of the things that I like about Price, though, is that he doesn't lose sight of the fact that even a broken clock is right twice a day.

By now the reader may expect me to attack and deride such assurances, but I will not. This much is simply creative psychology. If repeated contemplation of a scientific formula, a historical fact, a new friend's name, or a sports score will eventually wear a groove in the gray matter of the brain, it is not hard to imagine that one's habits of expectation may be changed by the faithful repetition of an affirmation or a scriptural text. ... [I]t appears that much of New Thought's belief in visualization and manifestation does not really depend upon dubious metaphysics but may perhaps be backed up by recourse to more mundane, psychological conditions. (Top Secret, page 37)

Thinking positively may well make you happier. But again, those who propose that we can directly alter the state of the universe with our intentions seem, as Price puts it, "to confuse metaphor with metaphysics".

The Secret gets one star for being entertaining. I would have given it half a star, but I couldn't find an appropriate ASCII character.

Final Score: ★ ☆ ☆ ☆


* If you think that vaccines cause autism, fuck you. No, seriously. I reserve that sort of language only for those most deserving.