Basic Primer on Science and the Scientific Process

I've already run into some pretty screwed up notions about science. I'm not saying Christians are the only ones who have them - there might be any number of people out there who don't understand the basics of the scientific process and science in general - but, so far, the ones I've found least likely to even listen to what the situation really is happen to be religious "nuts." Note that "nuts" doesn't describe all religious people, not by even a large margin. I think most church-goers are perfectly reasonable people who understand what's important in their lives, use their various religious teachings to help themselves be better people and manage to do so without forgoing independent thought.

But I get very frustrated trying to speak with people for whom facts, data and logic mean nothing. And they are the ones most vociferous that scientists want to be gods and the ones with the very least understanding of what science is.

What is science and the scientific process? Explaining observed conditions in a systematic way.

What that means is that first and last, there's data. No data, no science. Data could be observed conditions (weather, climate, astronomy, living things in the wild). Data could be the results experimentation, like noting what happens when something is fertilized or dropped from a height and dragged along a rough surface.

Why data first? Because the first step in science is trying to formulate explanations for what data you have. Each potential explanation (called hypothesis) must fit the available data. That does not mean that every data point is explained by the hypothesis, but it does mean that none of the data negates or makes the hypothesis impossible. Data that doesn't fit is not ignored but set aside to either look for other explanations (hopefully ones that mesh with the other working hypotheses) or more data that might link it all together.

The next step is to take a working hypotheses and try to validate it, show that it's the right explanation. Again, this is done through data, either more observed information or experimentation. If increasing amounts of data stop supporting the hypothesis (i.e. the data that doesn't fit starts to be significant) or if a single hard fact negates it, the hypothesis is discounted and other hypotheses are pursued.

When a sufficient quantity and quality of verifiable data supports a hypothesis, it becomes a theory. Some theories have such an overwhelming preponderance of data (and no other competing theory) that scientists stop looking for alternate explanations but seek to refine the existing theory, treating it as effectively fact, even if every aspect of it isn't yet understood. Examples of this include plate tectonics and evolution. Yet, even the strongest theories can conceivably be derailed by a single incontrovertible fact. Usually, however, well regarded and broadly accepted theories are not derailed because, to become that way, they have been picked apart, and experimented with and challenged with exceeding rigor.

What's a fact? It's an observation or an experimental result that is (a) verifiable and (b) repeatable. If Dr. Strangelove says he had a huge scientific breakthrough but no one else saw or measured it and/or no one else (preferably outside his lab) can reproduce the result, it's not a fact. Anything Dr. Strangelove postulates based on this spurious result is going to be treated very skeptically by scientists until other independently verified data is found that supports it.

A fact is not something someone wrote down in history, per se, unless there is objective evidence to support that assertion. For example, if someone in some period of time claimed there was an eclipse and astronomy calculation indicated an eclipse would have indeed happened about that time, it would be considered factual. If someone said there was huge volcanic eruption at some point in time and some particular location, but there is no evidence of it in the archaeology or geology of the area, other explanations (including an error on the part of the recorder) would be looked for. That doesn't mean it would be considered nonsense unless there were strong counterindications, but without corroborative evidence, it would be considered speculative rather than factual.

That doesn't necessarily mean that the recorder was lying. They could be describing a previously unknown phenomena in terms they understand, like Aristotle assuming previously dried up ponds could spontaneously create life when refilled with water or that heavier objects were subject to greater gravitational acceleration than lighter ones. His measurement and observational tools were insufficient to allow him to get the full story. As tools become more precise or complete and more data is gathered, science moves forward, sometimes adapting original theories to the new data, sometimes discarding it when it fails to live up to the new data.

What is NOT science?

Starting with a premise and trying to prove it's so, discarding anything that doesn't agree with the beginning premise or negates it. This is not science and scientists don't do it. Even if some scientists along the way falls into the trap of ignoring data that doesn't agree, other scientists will find out and correct the situation. That is bad science and scientists are well aware of the trust they have been given and won't knowingly condone such actions.

I have to add the irony (or more accurately the hypocrisy) that the folks mostly likely to level this accusation are usually the same ones trying to promote a "scientific theory" based on an assertion made in some religious text or another that either has no scientific basis (other than the text) or is directly negated by facts. Science comes from facts, not despite them. As soon as you've decided the answer before you've looked at the data, you are no longer doing science. Period.

Which doesn't mean you can't believe whatever you want, just think of it as miraculous or magical or whatever makes you happy. Just don't try to warp science to make it fit.

Science is not secret. There are some scientific breakthroughs and technological advances that take place behind closed doors, either for patent protection or national security (i.e. military developers), but that is far and away a small portion of science. Science is one of those places where nothing is accepted by the scientific community unit you show you work (in this case your data) and survive that data and your conclusions being challenged. There are two reasons for this: one is that science often leads to the greater good for people - understanding weather patterns or geological indications. The other is that something that can't take the rigor of scientific review is probably not true.

Note that that very openness is often a significant source of stress for scientists who, if they have a controversial finding, spend all of their time defending what are often trivial aspects or odd data points by people who have no real understanding of the science behind it.

Disproved vs. Unexplained. I spoke briefly about data that may not fit a theory not being discounted, but also not precluding a theory's veracity. In general, that data would be unexplained, like the platypus, for example, which doesn't fit neatly into the usual patterns when discussing evolution. To the best of my knowledge, no one has a definitive explanation for that, so it's unexplained, but doesn't negate the patterns of natural selection and adaptation directly observed and evaluated via genetic review.

Disproving a notion/hypothesis/theory is a completely different beast. The hard ones is when an assertion is made that is not readily proved nor disproved. Even if it seems unlikely (as the original assertion that vaccines caused autism, for example), in order to disprove the notion, a great deal of testing and observation had to take place, showing that the use of the accused element in the vaccine did not have the effect suggested as well as considerable data showing the same level of autism when using no vaccines or vaccines without it. Unfortunately, before the baseless accusation (which was part of the problem) was thoroughly disproved, so many people had already bought into it that the notion is still prevalent. And, as data was gathered, a large number of children were put at risk, were unnecessarily ill and even died as a results.

The other much easier way to disprove a theory is hard data already in hand that negates it absolutely. For example, if one's "theory" was that the earth was ten thousand years old, this could be immediately disproved since there are hard paleontological and geological and archeological data from far far before that. There are, in fact, human records that go back much further than that. Hence, disproved.

Scientists are not gods (Lord knows I don't want to be one) or all knowing. You don't have to tell us, we know that. That's WHY we insist on the rigor we do, why we check each others' work, why the data takes precedence over the most impressive reputation. We know mistakes on our part can affect many other people. We don't like being wrong, but good scientists would rather be wrong and caught than think they are right when they're not.

I can't speak for all scientists, but I don't want to take anyone's belief system away. Have at. Enjoy. Just don't call it science and don't teach it like it is in schools.

Cross posted on Gather.

Read more...

News and commentary on science

So, this is mostly a life update thing but I'm going to add some philosophical and stuff at the end for those interested enough to read all the way through.

I passed losing 100 pounds last week which puts me well over halfway to my goal. Going slower than I like, but, still, as long as I'm still moving in the right direction, it's all good. By the way, for the dieters out there, Kroger's "Slow Churned" [Light] Death By Chocolate ice cream could be the eighth deadly sin and, at only 140 calories a scoop, it's a happy indulgence. And no one's paying me to say it. It's just that damn good.

Had to replace one of my AC units, the one that we've been babying since I moved in in 2004 that goes out repeatedly and takes care of upstairs which is not only much hotter than downstairs but it's where we all are most of the time. Well it died, but at least it happened now, when we had a nice cool week and not in July. I'm hoping the much higher efficiency unit (w/ten years parts AND labor warranty) will also help with cooling bills this summer.

I was taken aback when changing my W-4 from married to single (but otherwise identical) resulted in more than an extra $120 coming out of my paycheck every week (which is why I paid into the IRS last year for the first time in decades). Ouch. Sucks to be a single parent. My hats off to any of you out there doing it on far less than I'm making. I literally have no idea how you manage it. 

Was discussing the topic of gay marriage on Gather.com (I rarely go there any more, but I have a bud who knows how to write articles that get discussions going to a frightening degree). Not going to discuss it here because I already have and, really, I didn't have many people arguing with me, not even Relax Max.

But several folks there were up in arms at the notion and after some extended hair rending and teeth gnashing over the increased moral turpitude that's crept into our society now that we can't beat blacks and our wives any more with impunity (ah, the good old days, when children had a 50% chance of living to adulthood and hygiene meant a monthly soak in a metal basin), one of them got into a long drawn-out rant against science, the kind I see once in a while among the creationist or global climate change naysayers. As I am myself, I noted that there was a level of irony in someone dissing science while using it to communicate, in this case, on the internet.

Here is his carefully quoted response to that [Note that the previous was paraphrased with almost undoubtedly some bias on my part]:

So, now science means anything that involved any sort of scientific or technological discovery to make? I am "using science" if I drive a car? Turn on a light? Flick my bic? 

 I still can't think about it without wiping tears of laughter from my eyes.

Uh, duh? Did he think that stuff grew on trees? Spontaneously fell from the sky like manna?

Now, I'm not equating religious folks with this kind of thinking - most religious people I know personally are perfectly rational reasonable thoughtful people who use religion as a guide to be better people. Can't fault that. But some of the crazies that pop up on talk radio and the internet are freaky out there.

This same guy, later on, said, "Science itself as we know it, was begun by "religious people" . . ." [guffaw, chortle]. While it was true that Christianity, at one point, was "in charge" of science, they were (a) largely basing it on Aristotle (who was not Christian but might have been a very devout pagan for all I know) and (b) did so up through the time called the Dark Ages, largely because science was stagnant in their hands. The name "Dark Ages" was not coincidental. And, while a number of scientists have been and are now devout in their respective religions, I don't think I'm really speaking out of turn when I say several of the organized religions have been basically obstructing science since the Dark Ages.

Note also, that that's just Western science. I know that, in many early civilizations like the Mayans and Babylonians, science, particularly astronomy, was closely linked with their religion. I haven't looked at the link between science and religion in the Far East Asian cultures, but I wouldn't be surprised to see something similar. (And for those who might thing Western culture dominated science in ancient times, I beg to differ).

But I have seriously digressed.

My point is that people can be awful harsh with scientists and those implementers of science, engineers, and tend to focus on the evils that have resulted. I don't want to dismiss those, of course. We're not absolved of guilt for our part in that, for what our work facilitated. But I also think that just as religion today shouldn't really be held responsible for some of the more heinous things done in the past in the name of religion (and there are ample examples), scientists might be given a little slack on the less than savory results of our work done in generations past. Not that ills done in the name of religion and murderous/unhealthy science don't go on now as well. They do.

Similarly, just as religion deserves credit for good things that are done, including a significant portion of the relief efforts in some of the more tortured parts of the globe, science deserves note for those activities on the plus side of the scale. And I think that that is often taken for granted.

Some of it is, obviously, medical, things that have transformed the health of humankind in ways that would have amazed people a couple of centuries ago (though it should be noted, again, that various cultures already appreciated some aspects of that, like hygiene, again in certain Asian cultures): vaccines (much maligned but a huge factor in reducing infant mortality and child survival rates), antibiotics, hygiene and pasteurization, analgesics, safe and sterile surgical techniques (now with anesthesia!), clean water supplies and plumbing (which doesn't get enough credit for making changes in our world). When my grandfather was a child, half his siblings didn't make it to adulthood. That wasn't unusual in his day. I can't even imagine it. Two centuries and more back, childbirth was one of the biggest killers of women; now it's far less so (in countries where women can get pre and post natal care).  Thank you, biology and medicine.

Manufacturing break-throughs, assembly lines, automation, irrigation and farm machinery have allowed drops in prices and increased affordability in a number of things that used to be in short supply and/or only available for the very rich, like clothing and various (even rare) foods, vehicles and electronics and computers. Thank you engineering.

Material sciences and organic chemistry (particularly plastics) have meant huge breakthroughs in alloys and semiconductors  and ceramics/composites and plastics from cookware to bullet-proof vests to surgical implants and fiber optics to nano technology and, again, electronics. They've enabled solar panels and computer supersystems as well as computers that fit neatly on a wrist. Are you glad you can listen to music without having to go the concern hall every time? Thank you material sciences and chemistry.

Like riding in a car rather than horse and buggy? Like having electric lights rather than relying strictly on candles? Like flying in planes? Air conditioning and central heating? Like having access to instant information (cell and internet), weather information, location information? Much of the latter relies on a huge phalanx of satellites made possible by the space programs of many different nations. Thank you, physics and, yes, rocket science and combustive chemistry.

I'm just scratching the surface here, but I don't think it would go amiss, when we start thinking nostalgically about how simple life used to be, we might want to also remember how dangerous it was, how inconvenient, how dirty (even the wealthy), how exhaustive it was for most people, how little time and money was available for luxuries of any kind.

Science and scientists are certainly not free from fault, but there's a sizable debt we all owe to their efforts. Perhaps it wouldn't be amiss to remember it once in a while.

Read more...

So, I'm Presenting Another Paper at Another Conference

Been a while (since before the divorce), but it's my favorite conference to frequent, the Sixth Conference of the International Association for the Advancement of Space Safety, this time in Montreal in May. I'd missed the last one, but I've presented at least one paper to each of the other four. And, will to this one, too.

The topic is Spaceflight vs. Human Spaceflight and I'm actually pretty excited because it's one of the subjects that gets me stoked. Too often, people talk like human spaceflight is no big deal, I mean we send satellites up all the time, even spacecraft to other planets. So, what's so special about HUMAN spaceflight?

Which is the point of my paper.   (Hint, do a search on how many unmanned spacecraft have a return element, even including suborbital hops with animals and you might get a flavor for what I'll be talking about.)

Anyway, y'all might not be interested, but I thought I'd tell you anyway, since it was a Rocket Scientist topic and I haven't written anything here in quite some time. It's also one reason why I've been too busy to troll through blogs recently or contribute.

Read more...

Trivial Status

So, I should be talking about important topics here, especially after completely letting everything lapse for MONTHS.

Not going to, though. Only noteworthy event is the tragic shooting in Connecticut that has undoubtedly been written about and lamented to damn near death. And the truth is, there's nothing I can think of to offer as corrective action or comfort. In some ways, it's like the tsunami in Japan, not that it's an act of nature, but that there's really nothing one can do to stop it. Best laid plans, high security, the utmost caution - nothing can prevent a person bent on destruction from causing it except dumb luck.

I'm for gun control (though not necessarily banning) but the OKC bombing showed definitively that guns aren't necessary. Nor are big groups combined in a conspiracy, technological expertise, huge bankrolls or, obviously, any sort of reasonable logic. Short of going into 1984 mode (and I'm not for that either), you can't keep people hell-bent on doing bad things from doing them. That's how the law works - can't lock up people based on potential crimes. They get to move first and, if they make a doozy, the most you can do is pick up the pieces.

I have opinions on attitudes and mindsets that make this worse, but really they're just speculation. And, right now, I don't have the heart to expound on them knowing there are plenty of other possibilities my speculation doesn't cover that can happen next time. Truthfully, there's plenty of injustice in the world we might have a chance of addressing when I know keeping the crazies from doing bad things is just not on the list of things I can do.

But I seriously digressed.

Instead, today I'm going into narcissistic mode, so those of you who read all the way down here in the hopes I had something useful to stay are now cued to roll your eyes and wonder if there's anything interesting going on elsewhere.

It's been over a year now, since I found out I was going to be single again (and most likely, permanently). Also been diagnosed with Type II diabetes which wasn't entirely a surprise but didn't improve my mood any.

For those that are interested (and hopefully, that's all that's left reading this), here's my current status, for good or bad.

• Kids are all happy and healthy. Several reasons for this, not the least of which is that they all have fine constitutions, but also that my ex and I have both striven to keep our relationship as friendly as possible.
• Eldest daughter is in college with a music major. Her choice, but, as I've mentioned before, she has a superlative voice. Said voice is also being recognized by more than myself. She has been successful in winning parts for everything she's auditioned for (even as a freshman), though same have been chorale parts, and she'll be opening a cabaret show with a jazz classic. So, good for her. 
• Two youngest are both in programs for special needs children and neither are really talking even now. Which is more challenging to deal with and lonelier than it might seem. Since I'm on my own dealing with them a majority of the time, it has distinct frustrations that are sometimes overwhelming. Alex, in particular, with his OCD and autistic tendencies, confounds and confuses me. However, we're also finding rhythms and routines that work for us so I'm still hopeful we'll make it work. Note, however, I am a dreamer. 
• My work is going well, keeping me busy and mostly entertained. In addition to be interesting for me, my work has also been very supportive in letting me do some of my work from home and accommodating the schedule challenges of a single mother. I seriously don't know how regular single parents with less flexibility and smaller paychecks manage it. 
• I have two cats now who have exactly the right personalities to suit me. Both are sweet, beautiful and affectionate and one is even willing to let Roxy pick him up a couple of dozen times a day without losing his temper. Which is just about perfect. 
•  I have faced my health challenges head on, given that I have responsibilities so dying is not something I'm allowed to do any time soon: I have gone on a stringent diet necessary given the state I had let myself get to. So far, I've lost more than 70 pounds since August and hope to get to my goal weight by next fall. And stay there. With any luck, that will be a considerable benefit in keeping my diabetes in check. I've also bought a Bowflex and am forcing my sedentary self to exercise for the same reason. Necessity exists.
• Diet and exercise does not make me happier. Nor is the obvious deep and abiding affection my once husband has for the woman he left me for. I don't think I still wish he loved me or even long for him. It's more like it's lowering to realize (by contrast) how very little I ever meant to him and, given that I believed no one had ever love me more, what that says on how much I have ever been loved. I'm lucky that my children are affectionate and I have an aunt and sister and several friends who clearly care about me, but most are at a distance (which I'm sure contributes to our friendly relations). Acknowledging that people who live with me (other than my children) don't care much for me is, well, painful. And, given the effort I made with my former husband, I have to admit I don't think there's anything I can do to improve that situation. I am just not loveable.
• I am trying not to be depressed - I have more than my children's future to consider, but also their current comfort - but I've not been entirely successful. In many ways, I feel like my life holds nothing but making sure my children are cared at this point forward. As a life-long romantic and writer-wannabe, the realization is unbelievable miserable. 
• Even so, on the balance, I clearly have a lot to be grateful for. I wish telling myself that forcefully was effective as a counter. Still working that particular issue. 
• I have not been able to write fiction now for more than a year. I've tried a couple of times but what I wrote was not worth hitting the save button for.  I honestly don't know, at this point, if I ever will be able to write again or if it's even worth the effort given how little interest the world has in what I've already written. I don't know if I managed to kill my ability to write when I stopped believing in magic. Maybe I just know too much about the caliber of my work to date.

I think that's about all I have going. Now you know.

Have a good holiday. Spend time with the people you love and those that love you. Time marches inexorably forward and it's easy to be distracted by trivialities and miss it.

Update: I was just looking to my pre-breakfast blood sugars (the only ones I have to take) and realized every single one in December was normal and, with the exception of one, the ones in November were pretty darn close to normal, too. So, yay me!

Read more...

Karmic Justice

I don't often pose questions in my posts. I'm more of a musing on my own sort; however, I'm curious this time as to what people think: do you think people live under some variation of karmic justice (with or without exceptions)?

It may seem an odd question, especially those of you who think I'm vehemently anti-religion. I'm not though. I've always believed in a form of karmic justice, whether I should have or not.

My own beliefs (which I am not trying to push anyone to share) encompass a belief in a benevolent but not omnipotent higher power who would prefer thinking caring independent children to mindless obedient drones and my own general appreciation for the concept of reincarnation. I do believe in karmic justice, both in that one's karma is partially determined on what you learned (and how it shaped you in previous lives) and partially on your behavior in this one.

I don't say it's absolute and don't blame every bad thing that happens on this karmic justice. I think there's a certain element of crap shoot involved and some behavioral aspects as well. Obviously, there are plenty of examples of horrible things happening to people who have never had the chance to be bad, like children, or people who are demonstrably kind and should, in theory, never be on the receiving end of bad karma. Or big natural disasters that wipe out a section of Italy or Pakistan or Japan. I don't put my version of God behind that - this planet is fraught with peril. If you live in places where disasters are just part of life (like, say, natural disaster central aka Japan), you live with the consequences. If you've been kind to children and animals all your life along with smoking three packs a day, lung cancer is not an unlikely result. And sometimes it's just the luck of the draw: a small kid with leukemia or a brain tumor or diabetes or muscular dystrophy. Reality is a harsh place.

But much of that is just reality, I think. Bad things happen that you are powerless to control (or perhaps just powerless now: 40 years of smoking won't go away overnight if you give it up at 65). That's part of life and I don't expect it to be fair.

But I do believe that what you make of the life you've been given, how you respond, what you let it turn you into, is under your control. You can't control what people do around you, but you can determine your own behavior, what you let your life make you. And, in that, I always felt we drove karmic justice.

Now, karmic justice as a notion's pretty prevalent in most religions that I know of. In some places it's the belief of some sort of resort vacation after you die where you're pampered and spoiled to make up for the struggles/temptations you went through without letting it corrupt you with the down side being if you're corrupted (by whatever that religion's definition of corruption might be), you lose it all and go straight to eternal torment. Others are similar in nature to my own (Buddhism/Hinduism, for example) where you get multiple tries make yourself a good/enlightened individual until you've finally figured it out to go to the next level.

Most religions also have elements of the "what goes around comes around" philosophy for the same life, that includes the pagan ones and the ones who can't mention heaven/hell without laughing and wiping their eyes. Reaping what you sow, getting evil you spread threefold back, etc, these are all common notions just like the Golden Rule (which is pretty much the common kernel in every religion I know about).

The problem is, at least for me, I want to believe it, and wanting something to be true does terrible things to your objectivity. I want to believe that people who are ruthless assholes end up being lonely and emotionally bereft even if they are outwardly successful. I want to believe that people who are kind and giving never end up dying alone and forgotten. I want to believe that the caliber, if not quantity of the people who love you are a reflection of your own capacity for love, for giving, for fun, and perhaps intelligence and general interesting,er, -ness.

---------The following section is optional whiny self-pity and skipping it is recommended----------------
But I don't know that it's true and now, as I slide into what is undoubtedly the second half of my life, I find my beliefs challenged: either it's not true (which is certainly possible but very depressing), I have done some pretty horrible things in my past lives that have doomed me to loneliness in this one, or I'm not nearly so nice a person as I want to think I am. I'm not sure which idea is the most tragic. 

So, given that most of my trains of thought have been leading me down the spiral to greater misery, and self-pity makes me hate myself passionately which is hardly conducive to breaking out from depression, I thought I might just be spending too much time in my own brain. 

Maybe some of you have some insight that might help me see this in a new perspective. 

Bear in mind that I do know I have a great deal to be grateful for. From a material standpoint, I'm in far better shape than many (and what challenges I do have make me wonder how single mothers working minimum wage possibly survive raising children alone). I have children with some challenges, but they are sweet, beautiful, unique and healthy. I have friends, mostly at a distance, who are the very finest people, though I wonder if distance actually helps them stay friends with me.

I know that focusing on what one doesn't have is a recipe for disaster, but, when I try to just accept my current situation as my life for my remaining few decades, it's like stepping into the abyss of despair. I'm thinking that can't be good. I had not realized how much of my life I've tolerated and swallowed and accepted the situation because I believed, in the long run, someone someday would be able to love me as myself. I don't know what to do if I have to accept that isn't true.
---------------End (no really) of whiny self-pity section. Hopefully, I'll excise it in a revision----------

So, what do you think? Do you think our fates are predetermined, solely a result of our own actions, or a combination? Do you think that, one way or another, people get what they deserve?

I could use some outside opinions.

Read more...

The Intolerance of Intolerance or Institution vs. Individual

There's an interesting conversation going on in the comments on Gather (not something I say often, by the way). Oddly enough, I'm involved in it. Now I don't want to recreate it here, but it got the part of my brain, the opinionated part, working enough to make me want to write something here in my blog. I'm sure Relax Max will be thrilled.

The article has to do with and example of intolerance in the Boy Scouts driven by Christian organizations (in this case, against gays). I noted with confusion the tendency, in largely public positions, of focusing on the importance Christ's divinity so extremely as to fail to follow Christ's teachings. Someone noted that intolerance of Christians was just as bad and another made a point that there is no inherent dichotomy between seeing Christ as divine and following his teachings.

I agree on both points; unfortunately, that's not what I was saying. And it's not that simple, as is true of so much of reality. Since people have interpreted what I say far differently than the actual words or my intent enough times that I feel compelled to explain, noting that, by explaining, I take the chance on it happening again.

To address the second point, although I absolutely agree that believing Christ divine and living his teachings are not mutually exclusive, I do think doing hateful divisive things, manipulating other for power or monetary gain, singling out groups of people to be spurned if not misused, all in the name of Christ vs. living his teachings IS inherently contradictory. Ironically, though I "see" Christians doing so in the news and organizations doing so, I do not actually believe most Christians knowingly do so. Admittedly, I'm naive. 

Then, there is the assertion (not for the first time) that I am prejudiced against Christians. I'm not. I have always admired the teachings attributed to Christ (there is debate among the far more scholarly than myself regarding whether he ever existed - I like to think he did since his teachings and behaviors were so much nicer than the behavior of his disciples who went out and passed those teachings about that it seems odd the disciples came up with it). I have never heard anything directly attributed to Christ in word or deed that I found even the slightest bit offensive. In most cases, he seemed even more pacifist, tolerant, understanding, forgiving, kind, non-judgemental, etc. than I am at my best. Divinity notwithstanding, his wisdom is sufficient to draw my admiration and wish to emulate.

It is because of this that I have been told, by every Christian I've discussed this with, that I am not a Christian, because to me, it is entirely irrelevant if he were divine or not, or even whether he existed. Because I do not accept as an absolute that Christ was divine, I am, apparently, not a Christian, even if my behavior is closer to Christ than, say, nine of ten Christians one is likely to see on TV (though I'll be the first to admit they are unlikely to be good representative of the Christian faith). I'm not saying this because I'm exceptionally good, but more because 9 out of 10 Christians promoting his faith on TV is a megalomaniacal ass. I would not be surprised if the same were true of the individuals we see footage of from other religions, like, say, Muslims. I believe that being better than TV Christians is probably also true of the vast majority of real Christians, too. I'll touch on this later.

The lessons are fantastic and I believe in them. Here's the kicker, though. Using exactly the same beliefs (basically a color-blind golden rule), I would be just at home in the Buddhist religion (which is really more a philosophy than a religion), Judaism, Islam, Hindi, Wiccan, and most pagan religions. Oh there are cultural and geographic variations, but that same Golden rule lies at the heart of the original teachings of all the big ones I know of. Interestingly enough, I'd find myself at home among agnostics and atheists, too, at least all the ones I know (who, ironically, seems to become agnostic or atheistic because of a crisis of conscience, not the other way around).

So, no, I don't object to Christians. What I object to are hateful things done in Jesus' name, or in fact, at all. It's just so ironic to me (in a bad way) to find Jesus associated with so many opinions completely counter to what he lived and preached. I hate organizations using the power of their followers and the name of their religion (and Christianity doesn't corner the market on this, nor, in fact, religious organizations) to do hateful things to others. And the acts and attitudes are what I object to, not individual people (unless, perhaps, the masterminds).Are there great things done by these or similar organizations? You bet and more power to them, but that doesn't give anyone a pass on doing something heinous. Sorry.

If a group of former rapists wanted to set up a fund to help victims of violent crime, I'd applaud it, even if I'd be careful how it was administered to preclude making more victims as a by product. If a group provides free healthcare to the poor but promotes misogyny or pickets dead soldiers with an anti-gay agenda, I can deplore one action but still appreciate the other. I'm like that.

Going back to the point that I don't think most Christians really support the more egregious intolerant or hateful stances taken by some (yes, not all) Christian organizations, if I'm railing against religious organizations that, through donations or direct propaganda, have promoted an anti-gay agenda (for example) but your church, or just you personally, don't support that thinking, rest assured, I'm not talking about you. I don't hate you.I don't even hate them so much as I hate what they're doing.

But I don't feel sorry for you either, getting lumped in with the crazies. It is, to an extent, because the more moderate and understanding voices in the Christian church are frequently silent on these controversial topics that the fringe and fanatical become the de facto representatives of their faith. I know you don't all agree with the extremes frequently taken, but a profound enough silence becomes an affirmation to any outsider who doesn't know whether all "Christians" really feel that way or not. Does being silent while others do horrible things make you a monster? No. But ask a really old German: you get branded just the same.

By the way, I could have replaced "Christians" with the names of a number of other groups or religions that have a vocal fanatic fringe.

Read more...

Freakiest "Telemarketer" Call Ever

Wah? Is it September already?

Well, never mind that. In theory, my phone and cell phone numbers are both on Federal do not call lists. Now, when this idea first came out, getting on the list made a real difference. Telemarketing calls fell to nothing and I could answer my phone with joy and some expectation that (a) there would be a person on the other end and (b) it might even be someone I wanted to talk to.

Although I reupped after five years, the effectivity of this do not call list to keep people (and machines) I don't want to talk to from calling me seem pretty nearly nil. Part of the reason for that is because I don't live isolated on a mountain and keep my money in mattress, while eating only the local fruits and berries. Because I have ANY interactions with ANY vendors, creditors, work-related venues, charities, banks, or information-related associations, ANYONE those folks associate with can apparently call me with impunity. Charities are particularly brazen and WILL NOT TAKE NO FOR AN ANSWER, don't care for excuses and will forcefully put you down for a pledge unless you threaten violence. Since one that's particularly persistent is the Trooper's Association, I think I'm right to be in fear for my life (kidding... mostly).

I don't like when my own banks and creditors call with some great new idea that will cost me more dough, but I REALLY don't like it when some completely I've-never-even-heard-of-them company calls me because, as a retired person, I want to know about the latest in walkers. Folks, I'm not even 45 yet. Which you MIGHT know if you actually had any sort of REAL BUSINESS with me.

But I digress.

Tonight, I got the weirdest one *I* personally have yet had. Naturally, it was a recording, recorded, I might add with the same over-the-top energy and volume of the most obnoxious used car salesman. And what is this enthusiastic voice after? Why "he" (I don't think I caught his name, but I'm not sure he even pitched it) wants to pray for me since I'm going through one of the toughest times of my life. He has a huge prayer group, missing only me, and he wants to pray for me with the thousands of others he prays for. All I have to do is (no, seriously), give him my credit card information so he'll have the information he needs to pray for me. I'd as soon (sooner, in fact) give that kind of information to a phone sex line. At least then I'd be entertained.

I kid you not.

Now, don't get me wrong. I have no objection to people praying for me. I appreciate it, in fact. If there are a smattering of people who pray for me in the sense that they "pray I come to my senses and accept Jesus the way they think I ought to," I know there are many others of my friends and family who wish me only well and pray to their Heavenly patron(ess)(es) for my well-being. [I have relatives who are ordained pagan priestesses, after all]. And I don't find that the slightest bit offensive. I pray to my personal view of god for those who are suffering that I care about, too, and I wouldn't do so if I thought there'd be the slightest harm to them for doing so, even if our religions are diametrically opposed. Good thoughts, like love, well, I don't think there can be too much of that going around.

However, someone concerned on my behalf and praying for well-being and someone who uses a machine to call strangers with offers to pray for them (among thousands) for a price are two completely separate things. And one smells distinctly worse than the other. And I grieve for anyone so desperate or lonely that they would think any crass creature like this would have a direct line to "God" and can get them special deals for his thousands of followers thanks to his connections. I think that's what upsets me the most, that there are people who get sucked into shit like this. It probably won't surprise you to find I'm not a big fan of televangelists, either.

Really, for someone suffering, try to find your own path to God, whoever that may be. If he/she/they exist (and I personally think he/she/they do), they're much more likely to listen to you than some stranger who doesn't even know you. Or, if you prefer, forge your own path alone if that makes you stronger.

But a yahoo like the one that had a machine call me, he's a crook, plain and simple.

Read more...