Val: thanks for having the stones to trade barbs with me. I know we rarely agree on anything but that’s what makes things interesting. For my own part in as much as I’ll attempt to defend certain positions these positions are not necessarily ones I accept as 100% trustworthy. In the case of science, it does not have the explanatory power that some people think it does. So while I find it perhaps our most trustworthy means of acquiring a practical knowledge of physical reality I do value Scripture and a life of faith.
I wanted to respond specifically to a few of your statements:
“For example, one could spend years studying the evolutionary model, only to find, late in life, that the DNA of all nations of man can be traced to three men, 5000 years ago, and beyond that, to one female ancestor.”
You need a primer on biology I think. DNA doesn’t work this way, Val. The 3 billion base pairs of DNA definitely can be used to look in to the distant and past development of humankind taken as a whole (but not traceable to individuals per se), e.g. compare the base pairs of a European with that of an African and you can visually trace when these “two” groups were actually “one”. You get the same results when comparing Africans and Asians. Comparative analysis of DNA clearly indicates these two groups came from a shared ancestor. But, statistically speaking, if the human race began from so small a population as is implied in Genesis we most certainly would not have survived; that being, the second generation after Adam, etc. would have been forced to breed sister and brother, etc. Ever seen the movie “Deliverance”? There are hundreds of known genetic disorders. This second, then third, then fourth generation would become more and more plagued by these complications; it is statistically inescapable. Mathematically speaking your base population for humans has to be a minimum two to three thousand in size to have the necessary genetic variability. (Hutterites do not use their faith to interpret whether it is wise or not to“invite” young men to add new genetic information to their colonies. If they didn’t accept the evidence, their communities would suffer from all sorts of genetic problems.) This is all well-established science.
However, when it comes to mitochondrial DNA I think in principle it is possible to eventually trace a path to a single female (but not in the way you think); that is, sons and daughters receive mDNA from their mother; and over time the total number of unique lines of mDNA reduces, e.g. if a mother only has sons then her mDNA is not passed on because her sons are incapable of passing it on to the next generation. The mDNA line ends. In my own family circumstances, my mother’s mDNA will survive because I have a sister; however, my sister had only one son. My mother’s mDNA line is now ended. So at some point in the distant future one woman’s mDNA might be the only one left, the king of the hill if you will. But you meant to say there was “one” at the start…yeah, that’s not so likely.
“I just think that faith would be an asset to the scientist who is a Christian, that would allow him to progress rapidly BEYOND [my emphasis] his colleagues, simply by avoiding time-wasting pitfalls.”
Last time I checked both republicans and democrats were incapable of breathing water. Climate change is not a partisan issue; it’s a human one. (By the way I agree that Biden is a tool and Obama has been a huge disappointment to me.) So let’s refocus: those pitfalls you speak of are actually the absurdities I mentioned earlier. And for the record, I didn’t just cherry pick something some random “republican crank” said to score points. On the contrary, Shimkus had real potential to become significantly influential in guiding domestic energy policy in the United States (until his strange views became public). His belief God would never drown us again as per Noah’s Flood was an excellent example of the absurdity of applying literal interpretations of Scripture to answer contemporary scientific questions. The “time wasting pitfall” in this case would be having to explain to Shimkus that his religious beliefs are inappropriate given his broader responsibilities as a politician. I’m sure he’s a very nice man. But there’s a reason we separated church and state…
“I think, just as faith can help us to properly interpret scientific results, so can science help us to properly interpret faith.”
Science works on the basis of objectivity in the legal sense of the word, i.e. you go where the evidence takes you irrespective of your beliefs going in answering any question. With this in mind, give me one concrete example (just one) where faith would help as opposed to hinder the interpretation of data. In the example of mDNA above, if I had to continually disabuse my colleague of their literalist views (acquired from Genesis) as we study genetics I don’t think the enterprise would get very far. Worse still if our research was time sensitive, e.g. we had to develop a vaccine for a pandemic killing millions of people, etc. we need to be that more efficient in the use of our time. Where faith would be appropriate in this case is it might motivate the scientist to want to save lives.
“I do not find the disciplines mutually exclusive, but rather, highly complementary.”
You’d be wrong to think this IF you are a literalist. Which you are…I think. You’d be justified in thinking this way IF you are a contextualist who isn’t slavish to the idea of inerrancy. Which you are not…or at least I don’t think you are given the vast majority of your statements. I’m not saying one is better than the other. I would assert though that contextualism provides the individual adherent a lot more room wiggle room to reconcile their worldview with science is all.
“I can’t really comment on relativity and GPS, but I will say that if vaccines are best understood through an evolutionary filter, that might be a good reason to revisit the wisdom of the vaccine theory… “
Why can’t we lock down a vaccine to eradicate influenza or the common cold? Why is that our most powerful antibiotics are becoming increasingly in-efficacious? Because viruses and bacteria evolve. They change over time due to selective pressures. We can “see” this happening. So instead of using a telescope to get Church leaders to see for themselves the imperfections on the Moon I can take you to a laboratory and we can see how generations of influenza change over time. But that’d be a “pitfall” or a “dead end” I suppose to you… So why can’t we develop a vaccine for influenza? Now we can use our understanding of genetics (a huge part of Evolutionary Theory) about the recombination and mutation of genes in a virus like influenza to guess which strains of the flu will be out there this season infecting people. And statistically speaking this intervention does pay dividends because our predictions are sometimes right. But nature keeps rolling along, changing, mutating, and evolving, irrespective of human beliefs. The fact you probably won’t accept evolution is at work is proof positive for how your faith, palpable in this case, would get in the way rather than help us understand and then finally combat influenza. To believe in the efficacy of a vaccine and to be a staunch Creationist is a contradiction akin to a Christian believing in reincarnation or a pro-choice person advocating on behalf of whale that cannot speak for themselves.
“If you think that my preference for God’s laws as a guideline for scientific enquiry is ill-advised, you are absolutely free to pursue your own dead-ends; I won’t object.”
This is why I like you. You say clever things like this. Sophistry of this kind is useful for debate to obfuscate the issues. So with your leave I’ll continue to pursue “dead-ends” (the very same “dead ends” which mind you helped develop the technology you used to deliver that wonderful “dead end” epithet above).
“I am unaware of any Scripture that limits the number of stars to 200,000. I think that your source is in error. If I remember correctly, the number of stars was compared to the number of the grains of sand on the seashore, which is basically, innumerable.”
You are correct. I confused a widely held belief during the Bronze Age period with the existence of a literal reference of this belief in Scripture. Thanks for pointing that out. My errors (and all the ones you make) illustrate the wisdom behind working within a community. You vetted my assertion and I was found wanting. We make each other accountable. Now I could defend my erroneous position to my dying breath but that wouldn’t change the fact I was wrong, would it? That’s how science works. That’s why working in a community is more trustworthy than working alone to form strange hypotheses.
I’ll explain my error: there is no “total number of stars reference” in the OT. Rather, some clarification is in order: ancient astrologers had counted the total number of stars visible to the naked eye and that equaled somewhere in the 200k plus range. I think my confusion arises from reading one of Voltaire’s works. I unabashedly admit my error. Bruno still got ‘whacked’ though for the reasons stated.
“From what I can see, Rick, we are rapidly nearing the end-times and the fulfillment of all things as well as the ultimate restoration of all things. It is a truly exciting time to be alive.”
Eschatology. Gotcha. I’ll remove my science hat and put on a religious one for a moment. You might be right. There are definitely some things to be concerned about. But as Scripture says the “end” will come like a thief in the night. Perhaps some of these conspiracy peeps you like to read have something to say about this. There is a chance they are just gongs sounding off though, too. To ask a question is one thing but to answer it is quite another. I’m just not sure how I’d ever be able to tell whose ideas are trustworthy and from those that are not. All the ideas sound crazy like the chemtrails idea; it’s paranoia. You’re right that I generalized about these “theorists” but I did so not to produce a stereotype or a Straw Man. I did so because when I use generalizations I can invoke broader principles to illustrate problems with having faith in the claims of such people. Your chemtrails idea in my honest opinion is dubious. I have heard of cloud seeding and certainly crop dusters put chemicals in the air but some government conspiracy is at work? I don’t know. And absolutely planes pollute the air. It’d be nice if they didn’t. I think putting something in the water supply would be a more efficacious method of getting “stuff” in to people to be honest. If I am ever a politician and “they” let me in to their secret cabal I’ll push for the water supply approach to oppression…
“I also don’t care about anything that the Church taught at any one point. This Church (probably RC?) was just teaching doctrine, ie, a limited man’s interpretation and understanding of the written Word. Of course, his understanding was limited and inaccurate. The Church was also selling “indulgences” for cash, at that time…”
Yes we’re talking about the RC at the time of Galileo, Bruno, etc. I get the impression that you think some doctrines were developed arbitrarily rather than through a trustworthy methodology. I think you’re right, i.e. especially when you consider your cited example, e.g. indulgences. Indulgences are only supportable with the most liberal interpretation of Scripture (but you can find references to it in the OT). Yet, there are non-scriptural doctrines which I am almost certain you hold to be true as an “orthodox” believer, e.g. Trinity, Divine Maternity. Trinity is an idea grafted on to Scripture following the Council of Nicea (some 300 years after Christ). Look in to that if you haven’t already. The first reference to the word “Trinitas” doesn’t appear in any Christian based writing until Tertullian in the 2nd century. You will not find any reference to it in Paul. That I can say with absolute certainty. It can be found in the Epistle of John (it was added to this letter by the Church sometime after 335 AD).
So why believe that one doctrine is reliable but not the other? What standard do you use? Is this standard universally applicable? Or is it arbitrary, personal and changing? Again, I call your attention to how inappropriate it is to use faith to answer scientific questions. Scientific knowledge is acquired through rigorous methods of testing; the individual scientist’s intuition is important but it must be reined in by the overall process; also you have to be able to “see” a phenomenon in order to test it; moreover, the findings of science must be “repeatable”. If a research team discovers some sort of mechanism at work there will still be doubt about this mechanism’s existence until it is confirmed to exist by other research teams. If you cannot repeat the results the mechanism is considered “falsified” or non-extant. In the case of theology, you can have as many interpretations as you have people. Just consider how many Christian denominations Luther’s reformation gave birth to. I dig Luther to be sure but there were some unintended consequences of his unleashing a “priesthood of all believers” on the world. To quote Red Jacket, “Brother, you say there is but one way to worship and serve the Great Spirit; if there is but one religion, why do you white people differ so much about it? Why not all agree, as you can all read the book?” Good question, Red Jacket. I don’t know dude, I just don’t know.
So yes we could say the Church made errors. However, you yourself use the very same methods as the Church fathers used to interpret Scripture, e.g. a combination of direct interpretation and logical conjecture, etc. I might add these men were considerably more learned in either Greek or Latin than you and they worked within the context of a theological community…yet they apparently erred. Some of these Church fathers even had access to the apostles themselves. So I wonder: where these learned men of the RC failed why is it that Val would succeed? Some humility is in order.
Disagree without Being Disagreeable
When it comes to scripture I’ve typically focused on the writings of Paul (with his focus on hope and grace). Even in times of doubt, I’ve always appreciated Paul. With that said, I came across something from 1 Peter recently which I felt was so apropos given all the unfriending and disagreement and heat related to covid and mandates and convoys,, etc. etc. that’s going on.
“Finally, all of you, be like-minded, be sympathetic, love one another, be compassionate and humble. Do not repay evil with evil or insult with insult. On the contrary, repay evil with blessing, because to this you were called so that you may inherit a blessing.” (1 Peter 3: 8-9)
Disagreements are just that: differences of opinion. Nobody has perfect knowledge. But social media, with its echo chambers and recommendation engines, is making people become so impossibly entrenched that they cannot handle having their opinions challenged. Consider putting aside pride and instead love your neighbour without condition. Disagreement shouldn’t be fatal to friendship; after all, it is possible to disagree without necessarily being disagreeable.
Women Revolutionaries
Approximately every 50 years a women-led protest movement of some sort shapes and/or challenges the Western World’s society’s laws, customs, values and assumptions. For your consideration:
1789: the women of Paris march to the Palace of Versailles—armed with muskets—capturing the French King forcing him back to Paris. This is considered one of the seminal events of the French Revolution because it set the country on a path towards either a constitutional monarchy or a republic. The French Revolution’s influence on the subsequent shape of Western civilization cannot be overstated.
1830s: a women’s labour movement in New England: seamstresses are the first to launch strikes in the New World demanding improved working conditions, wages, and the right to form unions and bargain collectively. One of the larger strikes involves over 20,000 workers; this type of action eventually gives rise to an organized political left that leads to all sorts of reforms ranging from unemployment insurance to universal healthcare.
1870s: the Women’s Temperance Christian Union is established as part of an effort to reduce domestic abuse. Root beer is invented to replace the beer drank by all those unemployed men (in the hope to reduce alcohol related domestic abuse). The WTCU’s effort creates the foundation for the brief Temperance Movement of the 1920s and 30s where the consumption of alcohol is made illegal. The Temperance Movement comes to an ignominious end; however, awareness of the difficulties of mothers and women generally increases making future change (improvement) possible.
1920s: women, like Mary Wollenstonecraft, had been advocating for equal rights since at least the latter part of the 18th century. The Great War (1914-1918) unleashed a series of reform-minded forces and challenges to traditional authority. The English-speaking world is challenged by suffragettes in Canada, England, Australia, New Zealand and the United States. Suffragettes demand the right to vote in elections and hold political office. Some women, like Frances Perkins work (Secretary of Labor during Roosevelt’s first term), serve directly in government. Broadly-stated, election dynamics change because women bring different views and tolerances to political decision-making. Politicians must adapt in order to gain enough votes and supports. This gives rise to Roosevelt’s and Bennett’s “New Deal” political regime leading to the things like universal healthcare, Medicaid, and the establishment of the social safety net. These developments presage a fundamental shift in government, i.e. governments up until Franklin D. Roosevelt tended to avoid intervening directly in the economy or in the lives of citizens. Women help push democracies away from a laissez-faire (“hands off”) approach towards the liberal socialist approach used today by every major industrialized democracy in the world.
1960s: a book called The Feminine Mystique is published giving rise to second-wave feminism; women now push for pay equity, equality of opportunity in the workplace, and attitudes towards motherhood, reproductive rights, birth control, etc. all change. Women enjoy unprecedented opportunities in education and work.
2010s: Me-Too.
Interesting pattern to discern: there’s a sociology PhD in there somewhere. Anyways, what will 2060 bring? I predict women will rise up and save the planet from climate change.
A Recipe for the Destruction of Civility, Decency and Democracy
1. Give everyone a platform to say whatever, whenever (using the Internet). The playing field is levelled so boneheads and bona fide experts enjoy the same exposure.
2. Social media platforms and browser companies employ psychologists using decades of research to make their applications more engaging (so you’ll stay online longer, e.g. the attention economy). Ever see one of those fancy little red numbers on an app and you just want to click the app to get rid of the number? Yeah. That’s behaviourism. We like to “keep things clean” (curate). What’s been discovered through that research is stories that evoke hatred, anger and fear are more likely to keep you online longer. This makes these companies money because more screen time means more advertising (and potentially something sells).
3. Social media platforms and browsers all carefully curate the information you and I are exposed to. This creates “echo chambers” where you and I conduct “research” (*my eyes are rolling*) and Google returns websites that confirm what we already believed to be true. How’d Google or Facebook or whatever know what we’d like? Because all these tech companies store a digital avatar of each and every one of us and use predictive AI to send us messages in real-time that’ll jive with our beliefs.
4. The same methods used to sell me LEGO or you a shirt can be used to shape political attitudes and values. The fact that we can convince otherwise reasonable people of stupid things should prompt the public to rethink freedom of expression. This freedom emerged out of specific intellectual and historical circumstances in the 18th century (when the fastest an idea (good or bad) could get out there was a printing press or a soapbox). Now any yahoo with opposable thumbs and a smartphone can chime in how the “gov’ment” is making us infertile using covid vaccines or that liberals are eating babies as part of some satanic ritual.
Recommendation: read books, not websites. Also, genuinely think about what you think about. How do you know X? Do you really understand X? Or are you so emotionally invested in X that you’re blind to the possibility Y or Z or A is the better position to hold? The future of democracy, tolerance, civility, the political center, liberalism, etc. all hang in the balance. Ironically, I’ll use the Internet to popularize a book relevant to this topic.https://www.amazon.ca/LikeWar-Weaponization…/dp/1328695743
Sapere aude.
Capitalism Complements Science and Vice Versa
What is the future of science? Well, when Hypatia was murdered in the Library of Alexandria all those years ago, capitalism didn’t exist; there just existed competing claims to truth in the ancient world. Economics didn’t depend upon science per se. So long as people want to make money in the present they are going to use the best means of getting information and that is the scientific method (or lose to competing companies that use this method).
Greed, not truth or some poor interpretation of it, should in principle prevent science from being marginalized again in the future, e.g. no corporations who make cutting edge satellite technology are abandoning a spherical Earth model for a flat earth one. Science mixed with the profit motive is great at destroying bad ideas. Even climate change denying energy companies are costing and planning for the future effects of climate change. This should tell you something.
Debunking Astrology for Andy Gladish
“You’ll find superstition a contagious thing. Some people let it get the better of them.”—Curt Siodmak
How Do I Know What I Know?
When I was eight I watched an episode of Buck Rogers and the 25th Century. In this episode, an evil Vorvon—a ludicrous space vampire—drained the soul from its victim’s body through strategically placed pinky and forefingers. I look back and think to myself: why was I so frightened by this? I suppose it had something to do with the fact I was eight years old and struggled to distinguish between fiction and reality, and like most eight-year-olds, I didn’t have an adequately developed Baloney Detection it.
The idea of Vorvons actually existing had me wrapping a blanket around my neck for the next 20 years. I didn’t do this because at the age of 28 I actually believed space vampires existed. I did this because during some formative years I believed and, as it turns out, the long habit of thinking a thing true gives the object of that faith a superficial appearance of being right.[1] Fear, in a sense, is habit-forming. There is a surprisingly large number of habits, instead of thoughts, bouncing around our minds we think are facts.
We know (especially as adults) space vampires do not exist. Yet, I wonder: why are so many of us incapable of applying this same skepticism to all of our beliefs? Why are we selectively critical? For instance, why does Tom Cruise accept, as a Scientologist, that some ancient galactic overlord named Xenu existed while at the same time doubting the Easter Bunny exists?[2] Why is one thing trustworthy and the other ridiculous?
How do I know what I know?
For any belief to be true it must be supportable. For example, if I go to the dinner table I assume nobody will take my chair away before I sit down. Also, I assume my chair won’t break. These two simple beliefs form a chain of dependency, i.e. a chain where each link supports and confirms every other link. The links in this case are supported primarily by logic: most people I’ve met aren’t jerks and most chairs I’ve come across can bear my weight; therefore, I sit in certainty.
As useful and necessary as logic is it can be used to justify irrational things. Human beings are great at systematically creating complex systems of thinking to support nonsense. The Catholic Church, for instance, argued the surface of the moon was completely smooth like a billiard ball because no sin had ever taken place there. The earth by comparison, with its mountains, valleys, etc. and other imperfections was the product of the presence of sin. That same Church also required people believe human males had one fewer rib than females so our skeletons would match nicely with the story of Adam and Eve in Genesis.
Let’s further explore humankind’s seemingly unlimited capacity to believe in nonsense—let’s look at Western astrology.[3]
Astrology is used by approximately 10% of us as a daily guide how to live, what to decide and so on. People who believe astrology is valid make a number of unqualified assumptions.[4]
1). Astrology is an ancient science.
2). There are only five total planets in the universe.
3). The sun revolves around the Earth.
4). The Earth is flat.
5). The Earth is surrounded by a crystal sphere.
6). The Earth is at the center of the universe.
7). Stars and planets are gods orbiting around the Earth.
8). There are four “earthly” elements: air, water, fire and earth.
9). There is a fifth element called aether.
10). Stars create constellations and each constellation is associated with a planet.
So let’s take a peek and see what’s going to happen to me today. If the predictions made by my horoscope are accurate I can use this “knowledge” to enjoy some success or enjoy some other benefit. In order to do this, I need to first look up my horoscope.[5] I’m going to go to a reputable sounding website called www.astrology.com. I was born on June 16, 1971. This makes me a Gemini and my corresponding element is “air” (though I’m partial to “fire”).
Pay special attention to the nature of the claims made by the website’s authors below.
According to astrology, the “air” element signifies the following about me:
- I use my mind to make sense of my life. Who among us doesn’t do this?
- I am detached, aloof, remote and cool. Everyone possesses these qualities to varying degrees. Why would someone born on May 21st (Geminis are born between May 21st and June 21st) possess these qualities in greater amounts than, say, someone born on May 20th?
- I talk my way through feelings instead of allowing myself to fully experience emotions. This is patently absurd. If anything the opposite is true: I would like to experience emotions a lot less than I actually do.
- I am flexible, an excellent communicator, storyteller, interpreter and journalist. Well, I certainly like flattery—so sure, I am an excellent communicator, etc.
- I am curious. Curiosity is a quality shared by every human being on the planet.
Both fortune tellers and horoscope authors use a technique called “cold reading”[6] to make people believe what they’re told about the future.
Horoscope for a Gemini on August 20, 2010
From: www.astrology.com/horoscopes/gemini/daily-horoscope/today
You may not be able to rely on friends or colleagues as much as you would like today, and that could mean that you need to go it alone for a big presentation or purchase you’d rather share.
Firstly, the horoscope predicts I have either friends or colleagues. This prediction is what is called a high probability hit. Everyone has either a friend or a colleague. Thus, this is hardly revelation.
Secondly, my horoscope predicts I might need to go it alone on a big presentation or to complete a big purchase. Interestingly, at the time I wrote this article I was finishing the deck for my house and I had to fork out a couple hundred bucks for materials to complete a railing. I guess horoscopes really are quite accurate. Then again the word “might” implies I may or may not do something. So if I do what it says then the horoscope’s author can claim a “hit” and if I don’t do it then they can also claim they made a successful prediction.
Win, win.
The fundamental problem with language used by astrologers, and pseudo-scientists[7] in general, is they hide behind ambiguous terms and concepts, i.e. terms/concepts we can interpret in more than one way. Pseudo-scientists claim they “know stuff” but once you get passed appearances their talk constitutes little more than the intellectual equivalent of hand waving distracting us from thinking clearly. With thinking clearly in mind, let’s examine the foundational dependencies of astrology itself to determine whether or not there’s some validity to it.
Astrology is a science. If astrology makes accurate predictions about a person’s future then it can be considered a science.[8] But for astrology to be considered a science its claims must be capable of being falsified.[9] If we believe in the value of intellectual honesty, we cannot just accept astrology’s predictions are valid on face value. We have to test these claims whenever possible. The ability to falsify a claim is ultimately what sets apart random claims (pseudo-science) from genuine or real science. If I do not attempt to falsify or test a claim, then by implication any claim about the future made by an astrologer could be considered as valid as the next. For example, I could ask my cat to help me answer a question like “Should I start a new career?” by using the yes/no feature found on an Ouija board. If the astrologer’s technique isn’t based on something real or demonstrable, and if astrologers are just using guessing and cold-reading, then my cat’s advice is just as trustworthy as the world’s most qualified and experienced horoscopist. In short astrology does not constitute a science so much as a belief system.
There are only five planets in the universe. Unfortunately for astrology, three additional planets were found after this belief system was invented, e.g. Uranus in 1690, Neptune in 1846 and Pluto in 1930. Pluto actually was downgraded to a dwarf planet as of 2008 (and as of 2016 there’s evidence of yet another dwarf planet beyond that);[10] moreover, as of 2016 astrophysicists have discovered an additional 3,431 exo-planets orbiting distant stars. Astrology was constructed upon the idea there were only five planets in the universe; and over time our ideas, our models, have improved and changed because of the use of real science. If astrology is a real science, one assumes its practitioners would try to change its claims to account for the new understanding; however, they do not do this and instead ignore the new information and carry on as before.
An astrologer could counter with the claim distant planets do not affect our lives; rather, it’s the nearby planets we have to worry about. However, this claim begs the question: why does a star 4.6 million light years away affect our future but a shiny ball of gas 100 million light years away does not? Is it gravity? If gravity is the true factor then the earth itself—the most massive and closest object affecting people directly—should have a stronger influence on us compared to any star. Nonetheless, astrologers will invoke special pleading[11] to prove their case, i.e. they just assert near stars affect us while distant ones do not.
For example, a preacher named Harold Camping claimed back in May of 2012 that the Rapture[12] was coming and he and his followers would be saved and the rest of us would be left to experience a living hell on earth. May rolled around and the prophesied Rapture didn’t take place. Big surprise. Camping’s followers, however, invoked special pleading by insisting the prophecy had actually come true, i.e. it wasn’t a physical rapture but a spiritual one (whatever that means). They also pushed judgement day to a later date not once but twice.
So is there an empirically verifiable distance from the Earth where celestial objects no longer affect our lives? I really see no difference between believing that when Mercury is in your constellation you tend to be angrier with the belief that when the exo-planet OGLE-TR-56 is in Libra you are destined to become a shoplifter. How do you falsify or disprove these claims? How do you test it? You can’t. Again, that’s why astrology is not a science and is, arguably, just wishful thinking.
The sun revolves around the Earth. The ancients believed and taught the sun revolved around the earth. Astrology was built upon this flawed cosmology. Thanks to the work of Copernicus and Galileo (and four centuries of science and observation) we can with great confidence assert that the Earth in fact orbits the Sun.
The Earth is flat. The ancients likewise believed the earth was flat; however, people have known the Earth is in fact a sphere since at least the 4th century BCE. Astrology still operates under the assumption that the Earth is flat.
The Earth is surrounded by a crystal sphere. If by “crystal sphere” you mean an atmosphere made up of gases like nitrogen, argon, oxygen, helium, hydrogen, etc. then this assumption is valid. However, if by “crystal” you mean something transparent but solid you’re sadly mistaken. We have never had to fix the earth’s “windshield” the last time a space shuttle or satellite went up into space or returned. According to genuine atmospheric science, the atmosphere is better described as an ocean of air as opposed to a crystal sphere. Astrology still operates under the assumption there’s a crystal sphere.
The Earth is at the center of the universe. Observations have determined that the Earth is not even at the center of our solar system let alone the galaxy let alone the universe. In fact, by definition there is no center of the universe at all as defined. Since the Big Bang the universe is expanding in all directions at the same time (making locating a central locus point a moving target). Putting it bluntly the Big Bang was not a conventional explosion (like dynamite); and the universe is not expanding into anything. Space itself is literally just getting more expansive (the balloon is getting bigger). Astrology still operates under the assumption the Earth is at the center of a non-expanding universe, i.e. stars and galaxies are fixed permanently in their positions (which they are not).
Stars and planets are gods orbiting the Earth. Firstly, gravity plays a central role when it comes to planetary motion; that is, smaller objects (having less gravity) are attracted to larger objects (that have more gravity). This is a simple model and it is accurate and reflects what’s happening “out there.” Ancient astrologers didn’t have any scientific understanding of how gravity works; moreover, they assumed that gods were at work “out there” in the universe directing events. The ancients were wrong both on gravity/planetary motion and on the existence of the gods. Astrologers still factor in the will of the gods—the temperament of the individual planets—into the creation of their horoscopes.
There are four “earthly” elements: air, water, fire and earth. The Greek philosopher Aristotle supported the idea that four “earthly” elements comprised everything in existence. He even posited a fifth element called the “aether” into existence. As of 2016 there are 118 elements on the Periodic Table of Elements.
Stars create constellations and each constellation has a planet. Stars are not fixed in place like the ancients believed; rather, stars move relative to us and we move relative to them. Stars just appear to be fixed in place because of their great distance from us.[13]
The ancient were creative. They connected the stars (dots) and invented pictures in the sky reflecting their mythologies and gods.[14] The patterns we find in the sky are completely meaningless; and if we went to a different distant solar system and stood on a planet looking out into the night sky the arrangement of the stars would change; instead of seeing either the Big or Little Dipper we might make out a Small and/or Large Fork in the strange sky. Ultimately, these meaningless night time patterns—these constellations—are as meaningful, and have as much to do with shaping your destiny (if destiny itself even exists), as flecks of red paint randomly splayed on a white wall by a playing child. Nonetheless, people continue reading meaning and significance into constellations: we are wonderful story tellers; we are emotional by nature and prefer living in a world full of magic.
I’ve asked students in my classes whether they think psychics are real. Our culture seems to be friendly to paranormal claims even though there isn’t a single shred of evidence supporting the claim anyone can actually read minds, predict the future, or move objects with their minds. Yet, if we believe psychics can read minds it doesn’t matter if they actually can—our magical thinking endows these individuals with paranormal[15] power. As a civilization, and as individuals, we need to be willing to think more deeply about the things we think about. When we think clearly, we see through the magic, and finally see the world and reality as they really are (not as we want them to be).
[1] I am alluding to Thomas Paine and something he wrote in his book Common Sense in 1776: “A long habit of not thinking a thing wrong, gives it a superficial appearance of being right, and raises at first a formidable outcry in defense of custom. But the tumult soon subsides. Time makes more converts than reason.”
[2] According to Scientology the origin of all our psychological problems is the result of an alien warlord named Xenu murdering billions of his people on earth 75 million years ago. This secret wisdom is only shared with the highest level Scientology members who have to pay to progress through the various levels; it’s usually a good indicator you’re dealing with nonsense if money is being exchanged for initiation or privileges. By contrast Plato’s teacher, Socrates, never accepted any money whatsoever for teaching.
[3] Western astrology is only one of many, e.g. Burmese, Chinese, Electional, Horay, Horoscopic, Natal, Indian, Sri Lankan, Tibetan, Celtic, Judicial, Mayan astrology, etc. are all forms of astrology. This list is by no means exhaustive.
[4] All of us have to make assumptions about the world; however, there’s a difference between a qualified and unqualified assumption. When it comes to a qualified assumption we make a point of testing claims against physical reality, logic and/or experience. In the case of unqualified assumptions, the individual makes no attempt whatsoever to test a claim but support the assumption by invoking “magical reasoning”, i.e. it just works!
[5] Astrology is inconsistently applied, i.e. go to four different horoscope sites and you’ll find four different readings. There’s nothing “systematic” about astrology; it’s just one of those habits people in the West inherit and mindlessly adopt.
[6] A set of techniques used by fortune-tellers to imply they know a lot more about people than they actually do. Without prior knowledge, a practiced cold-reader can quickly obtain a great deal of information by analyzing the person’s body language, age, clothing or fashion, hairstyle, gender, sexual orientation, religion, race/ethnicity, level of education, manner of speech, place of origin, etc. Cold readings commonly employ high-probability guesses, quickly picking up on signals as to whether their guesses are in the right direction or not, then emphasizing and reinforcing chance connections and quickly moving on from missed guesses; it is key to note that people listening to a cold-reader (psychic, fortune-teller, horoscope writer) tend to ignore the many misses (errors) and a tendency to remember only the hits.
[7] Pseudo-scientists create systematic or elaborate systems of knowledge without actually proving that what they’re selling or telling us is either accurate or true. Astrologers claim our destinies are shaped by the positioning of the stars without providing anything resembling genuine proof as to why this is so. Acupuncturists and homeopaths alike argue “strategically placed needles” or “new water” can cure diseases. If this actually was the case, and acupuncture or homeopathy actually achieved these things, doesn’t it stand to reason no one would die from serious diseases? Yet, here we are, still dying despite possessing all of this mystical knowledge. This is one of the reasons why it is important for a skeptic to practice “systematic doubt.” When we doubt systematically we are less likely to make errors in our own thinking or in the thought of others.
[8] Science is defined as a systematically organized body of knowledge; it is from the Latin scienza which literally means “know”.
[9] We use the scientific method to test physical reality against beliefs; therefore, we must be capable of falsifying or disproving knowledge claims. For this reason a question like “Does God exist?” isn’t a scientific question. This is because we cannot prove or falsify it the question; moreover, we cannot falsify any of the claims made through astrology; it functions on the basis of “magic thinking” (it just works).
[10] http://www.space.com/34358-new-dwarf-planet-found-2014-uz224.html
[11] Special Pleading: a fallacious argument whereby the speaker deliberately ignores aspects that are unfavorable to their point of view.
[12] According to some Christian groups when Jesus returns all the believers will be transported directly to Heaven (so they won’t have to suffer God’s judgement on the world).
[13] The ancients did not have our knowledge about the size (or age) of the universe. They assumed stars were fixed in place because they did not appear to move. In fact all stars are moving through space, but they’re so far away we cannot easily see them move relative to one another. Think of it this way: picture yourself driving along a highway and watch how close objects appear to go by quickly while the more distant, and yet more distant, objects appear to pass by slowly. Now picture moving relative to an object that is millions of light years away. This object will not appear to move at all to us.
[14] Pareidolia is a psychological phenomenon involving a stimulus (an image or sound) wherein the mind perceives a familiar pattern of something where none actually exists, e.g. looking at randomly shaped clouds and seeing animals in them.
[15] Paranormal: denoting events or phenomenon such as telekinesis or clairvoyance that are beyond the scope of normal scientific understanding or our knowledge of the physical world as it actually exists.
In Search of Wisdom
If you seek wisdom: drop your opinions; the more a person learns about a particular topic or cherished idea the greater is their realization they never actually understood that topic or idea in the first place. The irony is those who believe so fervently in this or that idea (and refuse any correction whatsoever) actually know less about this idea than those who are skeptical.
Who was Jesus and who was Socrates?
When I was five I asked my dad, “Who was Jesus and who was Socrates?” I asked the question during a family supper. Every Sunday my mom cooked a roast and mashed potatoes. We ate alongside at an elongated and exceptionally ugly purple dinner table. At table’s end was a 14 inch black and white television (with rabbit ears for an antenna). We frequently watched the television show M.A.S.H. during suppertime. I remember the details of this particular dinner so well because an unsympathetic older brother named Billy who made fun of me for asking the question. I also remember it because dad took me to Mass for the first time the following Sunday (and for years and years of Sundays thereafter).
“Who were Jesus and Socrates?”
I’d heard both names with some frequency. My family was Catholic but my parents weren’t overtly or obviously religious. We went to Mass regularly (I’ve got the hairbrush scars on my scalp to prove it). (My dad carved, rather than brushed, his kids’ hair to make us publicly presentable.) We observed traditions like first communion, confirmation, and not eating meat on certain days. We never read the New Testament as a family. I largely read it on my own. The closest the family got to doing anything biblical together was watching the annual showing Charlton Heston’s film The Ten Commandments every Easter. As a boy I was fascinated with stories about Abraham, Noah, Daniel, and of course, Moses parting the Red Sea. With commercial breaks, the movie is just under five hours long. This is at a time when the majority of films were in the hour and 20 minute range. We’d starting watching at 8 pm and wouldn’t stop until around 1 am. I was the only person didn’t fall asleep before film’s end.
Although he wasn’t real vocal about it, dad’s faith was real enough. Yet, I can’t recall him teaching me anything about Jesus. When I asked him that question at dinner all those years ago I honestly didn’t know the answer. Who was Jesus? Who was Socrates? I’ve read a lot about Socrates in the years since asking the question. From Socrates I learned to appreciate my fundamental ignorance about basically everything and to possess a healthy appreciation for my own imperfections.
Who is Jesus, though? The first time I actually went to church I didn’t know what to expect. If I know myself at all, I think I believed church would be fun. (Why else would my brothers go?) I eventually figured out they attended church because they were required to. Mass was just something you did. And I was much too young, too unfamiliar with scripture at the age of five, to appreciate the lessons priests taught their congregations which were largely intended for an adult audience; and if I didn’t sit quite still enough, dad reminded me to sit still: he’d tap me firmly on top of my head with the tip of his fore finger sending a shudder through my body from head to toe. So, I learned to sit as far as possible away from him to avoid that agonizing finger tap. Be still, be quiet. This was the first lesson I learned about church. My question remained unanswered though—who is Jesus?
As a young boy I was taught to love God because I had to. You went to church because you had to. I have since unlearned this. If I have love for God I feel it’s for the same reason I love my three sons—I was born to do it and it makes sense somehow. God to me is goodness, truth, justice, happiness, forgiveness and promise. He is grace though I don’t deserve it. I love Him precisely because of the hope He gives me; and there’s no more sincere an emotion to experience than hope.
No matter what anybody tells you, words and ideas can change the world. We don’t read and write poetry because it’s cute. We read and write poetry because we are members of the human race. And the human race is filled with passion. The maths and sciences are noble pursuits and necessary to sustain life. But poetry, beauty, love, these are what we stay alive for.[1]
The following is a paraphrase of a poem called “O Me! O Life!” by the poet Walt Whitman:
I live a life of recurring questions,
standing with the endless lines of the faithless,
in cities filled with the foolish.
What good am I?
Answer: that you are here.
That life exists.
That you have identity and purpose.
That the powerful play of life goes on
and you might contribute a verse.
That the powerful play goes on and you may contribute a verse….
What verse will you contribute?
[1] Dead Poets Society: Final script. (n.d.). Retrieved October 13, 2021, from https://www.dailyscript.com/scripts/dead_poets_final.html.
A Perfect Blossom
Life in every breath
Nighttime: there’s a contrast—west to east—deep blue to deeper blue rippling in shimmering star-stones
….breath in every life…
Leaves speak and waver behind a warm wind.
Life in every breath
Breathe-in every life
Life in every breath
Canada 2.0: The Co-mingling of Western and Indigenous Civilizations
Please read the following with charity: difficult topics, or at least ones which at first blush appear contentious, are difficult to write about because they’re frequently misinterpreted (particularly on social media where everyone is so amped up already and easily offended). Difficult topics make demands on readers and writers alike: they require readers to be thoughtful and discerning while writers make the nuanced, plain, and the emotional, rational. I’ll do my best to communicate what I have to say:
Recently I received some much-needed clarity on something long vexing me: how do I justify spending so much time (grades one through 12) teaching mainly non-Indigenous students about Indigenous culture and history. As a classroom teacher, I’m given curricula and a professional obligation to teach it (without necessarily understanding or even accepting it). As a trained historian, and more significantly as a human being capable of empathy, I believed the merits of teaching non-Indigenous students about Indigenous worldviews important, e.g. if we want to understand others we must give them an opportunity to speak and we must genuinely listen. The importance of listening to others is self-evident. Yet, listening isn’t enough (we must become something different).
The confluence of two things recently—the first-ever Truth and Reconciliation Day and the re-reading of Rupert Ross’ Dancing with a Ghost—gave me a better appreciation for both the Day and the real reason why non-Indigenous folks should receive an education in Indigenous ways, i.e. all civilizations and cultures have merit; thus, we need to weaken the tendency some have of at times believing—explicitly sometimes, implicitly at others—that Western civilization is somehow superior to all other cultures. (Every civilization has members believing themselves at the center of the world, e.g. the word “China” literally means “Middle Kingdom between Heaven and Earth.”) There’s much that is beautiful about Western civilization’s literature, art, philosophy, music, and history. But the same is true about all of the cultures composing Canada’s panoply of First Peoples from coast to coast to coast. Canada, really, is a marriage of civilizations, a dialogue (not a monologue): and through the current dialogue on reconciliation we can appreciate all civilizations have merit and are beautiful in their own way; we understand all of Canada’s peoples have something to teach and something to learn from one another; and as we smash down old barriers to understanding we create the basis, in the co-mingling of Western and Indigenous cultures, for the emergence of a new civilization in real-time, a truly and uniquely Canadian one.
The Problem with Facebook: Virtues Becoming Vices
Everyday the provincial covid report says the same thing. i.e. 80 to 100% of new infections is of unvaccinated people. The vaccines are working (conferring resistance and reducing the spread of covid). The only path to normalcy is through a vaccine; otherwise, we’ll continue twirling down the proverbial toilet with outbreak after outbreak after outbreak.
People are correct to be cautious when using any new drug or technology. I don’t fault them for it; however, sometimes we become over-cautious because we’ve been exposed to some form of either mis- or disinformation; and if we don’t really know what we don’t know then we take arguments like the mRNA vaccine is gene-therapy at face value (which it is not) or that the Moderna vaccine makes you infertile in ten years (which is a stupid claim).
A similar lesson is learned when considering/understanding the rise in acceptance of a flat earth. Specifically, people styling themselves as skeptics challenge the “narrative” of a spherical earth; however, in so doing they end up over-questioning and thus over-correcting and rejecting something true (the earth is an oblate spheroid, we can actually see this no less and every other planet and star are likewise spherical) while embracing something false (the earth is a big plate and we should throw out everything we know about physics).
The mRNA technology is not really that new; it’s gone from concept to needle over the course of forty years. The Moderna vaccine was actually ready to go in March of 2020. There’s never been a safer vaccine technology; it’s safer than conventional vaccines (which are generally pretty safe to begin with). Conventional vaccines use some of the actual virus (living or dead) to elicit an immune response; mRNA vaccines skips a step (by not using live or dead virus) and just tells your T and B cells how to recognize those coronal projections on the covid virus and thereby prevent infection.
So where do we go for reliable information? The irony of communicating this on Facebook is not lost on me when I say don’t get it from Facebook. Go to the Health Canada site or any reputable research institute. Don’t go to YouTube. I can create a video and upload it to YouTube “proving” mermaids are real and lie about my education. Social media is literally designed to disseminate false information. Don’t trust it. Use it for cat videos and keeping in touch with loved ones. As for any other purpose, ignore it; it’s making us collectively stupider and incapable of having constructive public debates.
https://www.canada.ca/…/drugs…/vaccines/type-mrna.html
Canada Re-elects Yet Another Liberal Government: 2021
I wasn’t surprised by the results. The election was a referendum on how well the government handled Covid. The Liberal Party stuck to the science, avoided politicizing a plague, and looked after Canadians in a time of crisis. The Conservative Party remains on the outside looking in. One word sums up their situation really well: relevance. They are supposed to be the grown-up party, the reality-based one, but they continue dragging their heels on climate change. They’re also tone deaf: balancing the books is important but it’s not the only role of government (particularly during a pandemic). We aren’t Americans who have this irrational love affair with rugged individualism at any cost (which looks more and more like Social Darwinism to me). Canadians have a reasonable expectation their government can materially improve the lives of Canadians through wise policy. The Liberals will continue to win election after election after election until the Conservatives find someway to appeal to people in the middle.
Believing Brains
Given the propensity of our believing brains to cast aside reason to embrace the conspiracy du jour, I would say “facts might be stubborn things” but there’s nothing as immovable and stupid as unqualified conviction.
Random Thought
Strength emanates from either one of two places: from within (reflected in our fortitude, principles and conviction) or from the outside (reflected through faith in God and a subsequent sense of purpose and destiny).A great deal of the anomie/anxiety humanity is subject to is the result of occupying some sort of middle-kingdom where no one is sovereign—neither the self nor God.
Tolkien: Concerning Secondary Belief and Secondary Worlds
In his late teens, J. R. R. Tolkien developed his first language: Elvish.[1] He needed somewhere for Elvish to be spoken and so he created a world called Middle-earth. Throughout his 20s Tolkien invented the peoples, lands, languages and history of Middle-earth (and spent the next 65 years developing it). Thus, instead of writing The Hobbit all at once as a standalone written work, the adventures of the novel’s protagonist, a Hobbit named Bilbo Baggins, first appeared in oral form as a series of bedtime stories Tolkien told his children in the late 1920s and early 1930s. In addition to providing a place for his languages to be spoken, he created Middle-earth to give England something lacking in his opinion: a national mythology. In 1951 Tolkien explained the desire to meet this need in a letter to his editor, Milton Waldman:
[There] is far too little [heroic myths and fairy tales] in the world (accessible to me) for my appetite. I was an undergraduate before thought and experience revealed to me that these were not divergent interests—opposite poles of science and romance—but integrally related…I was from early days grieved by the poverty of my own beloved country [England]: it had no stories of its own (bound up with its tongue and soil), not of the quality that I sought, and found (as an ingredient) in legends of other lands. There was Greek, and Celtic, and [Roman], Germanic, Scandinavian, and Finnish [mythologies] (which greatly affected me); but nothing English, save impoverished chap-book stuff. Of course there was and is all the Arthurian world, but powerful as it is, it is imperfectly naturalized, associated with the soil of Britain but not with English; and does not replace what I felt to be missing.[2]
England’s stories about larger than life figures like King Arthur and Sir Lancelot were certainly mythical, but didn’t qualify as genuine myth-fantasy. Specifically, the Arthurian legends had unmistakable Christian overtones.[3] This made the tales of King Arthur and the Knights of the Round Table fundamentally familiar and part of something Tolkien called the primary world—the world Tolkien and everyone else lived in and experienced every day. For a tale to become a genuine “fairy tale” it had to be set in a secondary world (an internally consistent, imaginary world only incidentally resembling the primary one). Magic was impossible in the primary world, yet possible in the secondary. Strange creatures like orcs, elves and dragons dwelled in the secondary, but could only exist in the primary world as metaphors or in the imagination.
Thus, Tolkien drew inspiration for Middle-earth from fantastic Scandinavian, Celtic, and German myths. These myths described heroes slaying great beasts or even being turned into dragons as a result of uncontrollable greed. The fantastic events and characters of the secondary world were impossible in the primary world; however, they could and did occupy a secondary world where magic was real, gods determined the fate of peoples, and battles were fought between orc hordes and Elvish armies. Ultimately, what made the secondary world possible was something Tolkien referred to as “secondary belief”. The author, Tolkien observed, inspires secondary belief in the reader or else the story’s spell is broken. For this reason Tolkien wrote story after story (in a sense, historical accounts of Middle-earth) in an epic almost biblical style: the more comprehensive and encompassing the secondary world’s history, Tolkien reasoned, the greater the reader’s sense that what they were reading wasn’t fiction but a genuine history after all. In his essay “On Fairy Stories” (1939), Tolkien explained why fantasy, when couched inside a comprehensive historical framework, was so vital to the creation of an authentic secondary world:
Anyone inheriting the fantastic device of human language can say the [sun is green]. Many can then imagine or [even] picture it. But that is not enough…[to] make a Secondary World inside which the green sun will be credible, commanding Secondary Belief [sic] requires labour and thought, and will certainly demand a special skill, a kind of elvish craft. Few [fantasy authors] attempt such difficult tasks [like placing their characters into a fully developed history and world]. But when [fantasy is fully developed and] attempted and in any degree accomplished then we have a rare achievement of Art: indeed [what we find is] narrative art…in its primary and most potent mode.[4]
In other words, readers emerging from reading faery stories steeped in history were more inclined to believe wizards, magic, and rings of power were as real as anything extant in the primary world.
Tolkien ultimately wanted to tell the kind of stories he found fascinating and interesting as a boy; stories describing dragons, dragon sickness, epic battles and heroic deeds. Also, in the same sense something of the German (e.g. courage) and Greek (e.g. heroism) soul was exhibited through their peoples’ respective mythologies, Tolkien used Middle-earth to give voice to elements of the English spirit he felt was so deserving of expression, i.e. the importance of doing one’s duty and the eternal power of heroism as expressed through the human spirit.[5] In The Hobbit Tolkien demonstrates this spirit through in the most unlikely of creatures, not a great man, but a tiny Hobbit living in a hole in the ground.
[1] Tolkien claimed that whenever Elves spoke in his books he was merely translating Quenya into English. Tolkien went on to create a total of fifteen languages (including a second Elvish language called Sindharin).
[2] Estate, T. (n.d.). JRR Tolkien estate: The official website. Retrieved January 05, 2021, from https://www.tolkienestate.com/en/writing/letters/letter-milton-waldman.html. Tolkien’s correspondence with friends and editors survives him and was published in 1981 a book called The Letters of J. R. R. The quotation above is drawn from Letter 131.
[3] King Arthur and the Knights of the Round Table went in search of Jesus’ Holy Grail.
[4] Tolkien, J. R. (2021). Tales from the Perilous Realm. S.l.: HarperCollins, p.140.
[5] Rabbitt, G. L. (2018, May). “That Noble Northern Spirit”: J. R. R. Tolkien, The Great War, and the Germanic Heroic Tradition. Retrieved January 05, 2021, from https://collected.jcu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1088, p.11.
Peasants & Emperors 