Asimov on Anti-Intellectualism

“Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.'”
― Isaac Asimov

            I read this quote a short while ago and it struck a chord with me. I have personally encountered this mentality before and have found it to be wholly frustrating. But beyond my personal interactions this also exists on a broader scale, as demonstrated by young-earth creationists, climate-change deniers, homeopathy patients.

            It cannot be overstated how important the freedom of thought and speech we hold is. It is truly the hallmark of an enlightened society in that it allows all ideas to be shared openly. This freedom does not mean, however, that all ideas are equal, and this is a very important point to make note of. I would think it should be obvious but for many it is not. Thinking it to be true does not make it so and opinions can be wrong; it just means you are entitled to be wrong. Another important point is that freedom of speech also allows all ideas to be openly critiqued. This may be a pain for those in the ‘anti-intellectual’ camp, as they seem to get grouchy when their ideas are torn apart. Some may even view it as a personal attack.

            What’s interesting about those who hold this freedom to mean that their ideas born of ignorance are valuable is that it undermines one of the major values of the freedom in the first place. The sharing of ideas is valuable, on a large scale, because it allows a selection process to take place wherein the best ideas are kept and the rest discarded. A society that keeps stronger ideas (by which I mean ones that promote positive circumstances and represent reality well) will be better off in the long run. By holding on to ignorance the guilty individuals slow this selection process and impede societal progress. It also creates a political climate in which rhetoric is more valuable than fact.

            In short: it’s not a personal attack when your ideas are critiqued, it’s a good thing.

UFO Sighting in St. John's!

            For those who haven’t heard, last week there was a strange sighting in the sky above Signal Hill here in St. John’s. A girl, named Kayla, called into an open line radio show to report that she had seen three lights flying in a fashion that no plane could emulate and then suddenly disappeared. The call soon elicited a response; another man called in and spoke of strange lights above his cabin near Bonavista Bay that he claims could not have been a plane. Story was then picked up by VOCM (who, irritatingly, seem not to have a story archive) and was discussed on a popular radio station.
            I find this story fascinating, but not for the reason you may expect on the surface. You see I know Kayla personally, though she does not go by that name, and her call was a hoax. So what was interesting? Well the response of course. The purpose was to elicit the exact response it got; namely, it was to get people to call in and support it without it ever being true.
            This story demonstrates a terrible flaw in the media, and should highlight the need for scepticism. A news organization picked up the story without any investigation into the legitimacy of Kayla’s claims. It should be noted that while the news does not make any false claims, as it merely reports Kayla’s call, it nonetheless spreads the lie rather efficiently. The media, as a group of businesses, are motivated by a profit. While a desire to keep a reputation as a valuable source acts to keep these companies honest, a desire for profit leads them to feed on the passions, legitimate or not, of the public.

Many believers out there love to see media report on such issues. It lends a sense of legitimacy to their shaky claims. While I proudly wear the badge of scepticism today, I used to be a steadfast believer. I would read every book of sightings I could get my hands on and reports like this would really excite me. Ever hoping for that evidence that could shed light on the phenomena, I went deeper into the rabbit hole. This is highlighted by one of the comments left on the VOCM article by a user named ‘Believer’. It ran:

“Given the current social and economic climates, the sighting makes total sense. When are people going to start being so ignorant and start believing in this phenomenon? We have never been alone!”

 First of all I’d like to ask the rhetorical question: What does this even mean?

What do social and economic situations have to with flying saucers? Regardless, it is clear that this individual was very excited about this and, despite it not being grounded in truth, it will lead to an even deeper held belief.

Sexism in Frats

It is really disappointing that this day and age misogyny is still so prevalent. I wish I could claim I was only referring to the more subtle aspect of sexism, such as the double shift or the glass ceiling, which is bad enough. Unfortunately I am referring to blatant, in your face, efforts to treat women like shit.

            This is an article in the Huffington Post about a website called UniLad. This is supposedly a website and magazine that acts as a guide to ‘getting laid’ for university boys (I refuse to use any term that may suggest maturity here). Recently the website post an article called “Sexual Mathematics” in which it is stated: "85% of rape cases go unreported…. That seems to be fairly good odds.” When I read this I was at a loss for words. How disgusting could these children be? Surely they wouldn’t condone rape? Well, as the HuffPost piece says, the article ended with: "Uni Lad does not condone rape without saying 'surprise'."
            And this is not the only instance of this I have seen recently. Not too long ago I was linked to this blog, which posts an email that was circulating around a university fraternity. In the email the author requests a “weekly gullet report” which seems to be a “who slept with who” gossip report to figure out which girls ‘put-out’. He then goes on to suggest a ‘creed’ that he and his brothers should live by which is prefaced with: “Note: I will refer to females as “targets”. They aren’t actual people like us men. Consequently, giving them a certain name or distinction is pointless.” The rest of the email goes on to list some slang terms and some rules for those that would follow this disgusting mentality. Some other gems from the email (to further highlight the point) include: “Non-consent and rape are two different things. There is a fine line, so make sure not to cross it” and “Don’t fuck middle-eastern targets. Exhibit some patriotism and have some pride. You want your cock smelling like falafel? Filth.”
            One point I’d like to make about both of these is that they seem to be masquerading as humour, at least within their target subculture. While I need not state that there is nothing funny about these to an ethical audience, there are select audiences out there who will find this funny. There are two major issues with this portrayed as humour: 1) humour is less likely to come under critical analysis by the audience and thus is largely overlooked rather than attacked, and 2) humour can be a powerful tool for persuasion.
            Another interesting thing to note about this is the source from which they both came, namely, universities. A university, in an ideal world, should be a place for progressive and positive ideas. I guess in a real world they come with some social garbage too. Part of this may be due to the age of the boys. A peak in the sex drive paired with a new found independence can lead to a desire to sleep with multiple partners. I suspect, however, that a lot of it has to do with the nature of fraternities. Cramming a bunch of people into rather tight living quarters and you will see them bond to some degree. This is exaggerated when you consider that the individuals in question are young, many just leaving their parents homes, and then they are thrust into new surroundings. But what do they bond over?  Well the one thing they have in common of course: being male.
            Our societies’ idea of masculinity has some largely negative aspects associated with it. The emphasis on action may belittle the need for rational thought for example. The biggest example is the need for men to legitimize themselves by having sex with women. We’ll call it the ‘stud mentality’. This can quickly become exaggerated due to the aforementioned sexual peak.

So what do you get when you cram a bunch of sexually active boys together with nothing in common other than their societies’ ‘stud mentality’? Well I think we have seen the result.

*Important note: action is being taken in both cases. The world is not hopeless.

Swedish Law and Transgender Rights

            Recently I was linked to a video that I wish to share with you. I felt I should share it for two main reasons. One is that it features a complete abuse of human rights and the internet should be blowing all kinds of whistles about the topic. The other is more personal. Up until recently I had no idea what transgendered meant. My only vague ideas on the topic surrounded those who dressed in clothes deemed appropriate for the opposite sex. My eyes and mind have since been opened but only through exposure did this happen. So I present this video such that others may begin to be exposed as well. The video, shot in front of the Swedish parliament, features a transgendered person explaining some related laws of his country. When I heard it I nearly retched. So without further ado:

 

            I didn’t think I’d ever have to state this but forced sterilization is atrocious, akin to lobotomies which we have long given up. We have no right to invade the bodies of our fellow humans for any reason outside of aiding them. Such a drastic, and permanent, change could very well have long term negative on mental health as well as the more obvious effect of preventing the individual from having a biological family. Most first world countries have given up the practice of sterilization mostly due its ties to eugenics. Eugenics may be seen, in short summary, as selective breeding (or related practices) for the weeding out of unwanted traits or peoples. Most countries got the hint that this was wrong after world war two.

            I want to stress the importance of proper representation here as well. Not only is it in the individual’s best interest to be treated in a manner according to who they are (I think this goes without saying) but in the countries best interest as well. For a government to make informed decisions they need to know who their citizens are. Any law that would prevent the flow of accurate data to a government inhibits proper decision making.

            The good news is this: the majority of representatives in the Swedish government seem to agree that the law is outdated and needs to be tossed. The bad news is that it is somehow being blocked by a small conservative party. I will admit I do not know how they are blocking it, unfamiliar with their system as I am. There is something you can do however. Visit http://www.allout.org/en/actions/stop_forced_sterilization and sign the petition. A little international pressure might help persuade the government to change.

            I do not understand the bigotry towards transgender individuals. Homophobia relies on the Bible for support and racism can at least be partially attributed to differing cultural values but there seems be nothing to stand on for transphobia (I believe this is the correct term).  When I first met a transgendered man I was worried that I would offend them accidentally due to my lack of knowledge on the subject. I can only remark now that my fears were unfounded. I found it remarkably easy to switch which pronouns I use and my mental schema for gender has now switched to allow for much more then our society’s out of date male-female dichotomy. So, to all the cis-gendered (or gener-normative) people reading this I hope you have opened your minds a little. To any transgendered person who read this I only ask that if you are offended by anything I say please tell me and understand that it is due to ignorance of the matter and not bigotry.

Objective Morality

Lately I have been thinking about a TED talk I had watched a year or two ago given by Sam Harris, so this morning I went back and watched it. In his talk Mr. Harris argues that science can help us determine what is morally or ethically sound. He uses the analogy of good health to show that science can, and has, produced results in a field which can be very nebulous.

Now before you scoff at the idea I wish to compare this to a similar occurrence in our scientific journey: the origins of both the universe and life. For the majority of our species history every culture had its own origin story. There are some parallels between many of these stories, but each had its own twist and everyone thought they were right. I’m sure each culture was aware that others had different stories but they assumed they had the right of it and thought nothing more. Then, during the Renaissance, people began observing our world looking for clues. Thanks to individuals like Darwin we now have a good idea of where we came from and while there are many questions left unanswered we are moving in the right direction. I see no reason that, as we advance the fields of psychology and neuroscience, that we may not eventually tell a similar story with our ethics.

Here is the video:

Imagine that world. Imagine making your decisions having some measure of what good and harm it will do. To not have to use your instinct to decide if that lie is truly white. A measure that would help determine if a war is justified or merely a money grab. The benefits would be enormous. We, as a species, could finally agree on what is right and wrong.

There is a danger in this as well; for not everyone enjoys being told that what they ‘know’ to be true is actually wrong. This is demonstrated by the creationists who still exist, happy in their ignorance of known facts. The risk that such individuals would exist in the moral sphere is great as it is an aspect of oneself that many hold onto tightly. Imagine being told that one’s freedom is not as valuable as social order, being presented with facts that demonstrate this and a meaningful objective way. Would you be quick to give up such a dearly held value? While my gut tells me that this would not happen to a value such as freedom, the risk for controversy in the transition is still great. I, nonetheless, think this is a worthy venture and look forward to seeing what may come.

Why I am an Atheist

Lately I have been reading the entries of the fine folks at Freethought Blogs , in particular that of PZ Myers. There have been a number of reader submitted essays posted on Pharyngula in which the authors detail why they are an atheist. Excluding a couple notable trends, the variety was interesting and they make for excellent reading, I’d suggest checking them out. They inspired me to right my own essay on the subject and I thought it would make for an excellent introductory post. It is in two parts, the former of which is the narrative of how it happened and the latter is why I find it so important. I begin with the narrative because it details some of the finer points in my belief system and acts as a sort of pseudo-biography for at least some the important aspects of me.

In my early to mid teenage years I used to be quite the Christian. While church attendance wasn’t quite weekly my attendance at our church’s youth group was, and I even had my first job as the church’s janitor. The church, in retrospect, was fairly liberal and I had the idea of Jesus as a nice fellow who helped those who needed it most and spoke out against those that harmed or oppressed others. These were ideas that I could, and still can, get behind. I was perfectly happy with my beliefs and, since taking the bible literally wasn’t an idea that was presented very strongly, never once bothered to question what I was being told. I never would have stopped to think if my minister had not announced he was gay.

As long as I have understood what homosexuality is I have recognized that homophobia is a crock of shit. If all people we to be considered equal why were homosexuals bad? What is it about this kind of love that made it bad but all other types of love good? So I was shocked, not at the announcement, but at the backlash. Members of this church that had help teach me love and tolerance were suddenly not showing these traits themselves. While I had not attended the meeting myself I was later told that some had gone so far to label the minister a demon. This caused me to stop and think hard. What I came to realize was that the church, as an organization, was getting things wrong. They missed the memo about loving everyone. I decided to follow, not the church, but merely Jesus. So it came to be that I labelled myself non-denominational.

This was an important first step. No longer did I have an authority figure telling me what to think, I had to do all the thinking myself. I don’t know how long I spent in this state but I can recall missing the community that had once existed happily in that church. I think the general dissatisfaction of belief without the added benefits of the community is what lead me to stop and think again. I came to ask the question, “do I really think of Jesus as the Messiah? Did he really die to save us from sinning?” The answer came quickly as a firm no. Suddenly Jesus was just a guy who had some cool ideas about dealing with others. The question “is there a God?” was something that was tougher however. So then I labelled myself a deist.

Deism sat well with me for a fairly long time. I could not conceive of a universe that was not created without intention. The universe’s majesty, something I still fully appreciate today, was just beginning to be revealed to me through high school science classes and it was mind-boggling. In effect, I was suffering from what Dawkins called the “argument from personal incredulity”. Stated simply it is: “I cannot comprehend how this could happen without God so there must be one.” This of course is not a very good method of creating any belief system and it eventually came under attack from my more rational side. The question of evidence was raised. What evidence did I have for God? The complex systems I saw were not evidence for anything other the how amazing the universe is. That was my way into agnosticism.

For a long time I held that agnosticism was the most proper belief. Since it is impossible to prove or disprove the existence of a god then it is simply best to claim no knowledge of the subject. In many ways I can still sympathize with this idea but later, as I came to desire a career in science, I began to refine my thoughts. I learned of concepts like Occam’s razor and asked myself questions such as, “Why do I claim no knowledge of a god and will not say there is none yet I am perfectly fine saying that of unicorns?” The end result of this line of reasoning was atheism. There is no evidence therefore I state it does not exist.

The last nails driven into this coffin came from my on-going study of psychology. As I learned of concepts like confirmation bias and saw the results of studies on listening to authority figures I realized, with horror, that I had once been guilty of all of these to an alarming degree. The church which I had trusted and my own precious mind had conspired to imprison my thoughts. If I had not grown up with the ideas that society had given me about religion I never would have adopted one as an adult. They preyed on me as a child before I could rationalize anything properly.

This leads me to the second part of the essay, why I think atheism is important. I am still guilty of these phenomena, and many like it, as is every reader whose eyes grace this page. We, as biological entities whose thoughts are the product of a physical brain, are flawed creatures. We have evolved to think heuristically, take mental short cuts if you will. We can’t always bother to solve all our own problems so we trust authority figures. We look for information that confirms our already existing beliefs to reduce cognitive dissonance and promote self confidence. If I am deciding what I want to eat for lunch, this is a fine way to decide, it wastes no time. If I am deciding whether to condemn a man for loving another man or give up ten percent of my earnings to a man in a robe I would consider it terrible to rely on these defaults in the thought process. Rational thinking is important when the consequences are important and it is far too easy to slip into biased thinking without realizing it.

 Virtually every religion, for all the variance among them, teaches that faith is a positive trait. In fact, they all rely on this teaching. Faith, in this context, may be defined as belief without evidence or proof. This means that virtually every religion teaches that it is not only ok but it is admirable to believe something for no rational reason. And to go further they teach that this is fine even when it is important enough to affect one’s entire world view. Teaching irrationality is wrong. Many of the horrors committed by our species could be stopped if those committing them stopped to think and act rationally. It is important to note that a complete eradication of irrationality is neither possible nor desirable. Despite this I believe it important to teach others that careful thought before rash action leads to a better world.

Atheism, in contrast, breeds scepticism. It leads to the questioning of concepts and a culling of the bad ideas from out society’s consciousness. It leads to an atmosphere in which my neighbour is comfortable telling me I am wrong and willing to do so in a fair way, an atmosphere in which I can do the same for him. I am an atheist not only because of the lack of evidence for god(s) but also because I want us, as a species, to learn to think in a healthier and more productive way.