Myself, I have some prep going into the mother’s day weekend, as my mom died weeks before mother’s day 2 years ago. May 2nd (the anniversary of her death)  I had a flood of Emails and Facebook posts telling me that mom was “in heaven” or that mom was “watching over me”.

I am always torn about how to respond to, or take these comments. I try my hardest to take the comments in the spirit that they are given in. I truly think that those who say such things (who should know me well enough to know that I don’t believe in heaven or that someone is capable of ‘watching over me’ after they die) still only tell me these things in an effort to try to comfort me. But on days where I feel isolated and alone most often, these comments make me feel worse.

I hate to sound selfish, but sometimes (especially when someone is trying to make ME feel better) I wish that people could put aside their own beliefs and try to make ME feel better.

Here is how I look at ‘life after death’:

Well… maybe I should back up. I think that we are all what the matter that makes us up lets us be. The matter that makes up my brain, my organs, my limbs…. If I lose use of an arm or a lung or a part of my brain I will act differently…. to varying degrees depending on how serious the injury is and what part it is.

I think that a large part of who I am is the neural pathways in my brain. And a not insignificant part of those neural pathways are make up my memory. For example: memory’s of my mom.

Lessons she has taught me, Skills she has taught me, Story’s she has told me, and the Morals she taught me; all woven in to my neural pathways and I couldn’t get rid of them even if I wanted to.

Not to mention the fact that I look so much like my mother (physical traits wise) that people mistake pictures of mom for pictures of me all the time.

The funny part of that is people mistook pictures of grandma for pictures of mom as well as pictures of great grandma for pictures of grandma. So anyone who wants to have an approximate of what I’m going to look like when I’m 70 needs only to meet my grandma.

But back to my original point. If all we are, is what we are…. if we are only what our minds and DNA says we are…. well…. I kind of get to decide how much of our mothers gets to live on.

The DNA; That me & my brother have already, it’s going to be my kids and it’s already my nieces… CHECK.

What I’m more concerned about for this mothers day is my moms memory. I mean that in an honest way. I have started making a flower bed the way she taught me to when I was about 5…. and who knows… maybe when we sell our house the new owners will keep it and that flower bed (& part of my mom) will be around for another 50 years. I am, myself, going to make an effort to learn from the lessons my mother taught me and the example she set for me. Also I am going to try to learn from her mistakes.

Most importantly (from my frame of mind right now) I’m going to try to talk about my mom and share the knowledge she has given me. If she was neural pathway pathways and created neural pathway pathways in me, and I pass on knowledge from those pathways that create new pathways in someone else… well… that’s the kind of living on I have no problem believing in.

What I would love for people to say to me instead of “your mom is in a better place” or “god needed an angel” or the thousand other cliches we have all heard already; is something personal, something unique. Tell me why I look or act like mom… Tell me a story about her… Even better, tell your kids a story about.

I may be wrong, but even if you are religious I can’t imagine anyone getting more comfort out of a trite saying than a personal story. And if you are religious and are reading this… well… try to keep in mind that your comments may be having the exact opposite effect that you intend. If you care enough about a person to send a thought to them when you know they are going through a tough time, try to care enough to not say something that will only serve to make you feel better, but them feel worse.

A little bit of background; I grew up as a fan of pro-wrestling. I loved the drama and the athleticism, I was enough of a fan that I eventually trained to be a pro-wrestler. And while my short-lived career as a pro-wrestler was very short-lived (one 4-minute match) I was involved in the community and culture of pro-wrestling for many years. As such I learned the secrets to the craft, which are not so secret anymore…

The portrayal of events in pro-wrestling being “real”, such as the matches, interviews and storylines; is what’s known as “kayfabe“. The internet has more or less facilitated exposure all of pro-wrestling secrets, including the one that it is not legitimate sporting contests, but that it is an athletic exhibition, scripted and planned out to varying degrees. These facts being general public knowledge is fairly recent, only in the last 15 years or so. Before that, learning the secrets required you to be a part of the business, where the knowledge was handed down.

In the 1980′s there was a former pro-wrestler named Jim Wilson, he started making waves in the industry when he appeared on the tv show 20/20 along with fellow wrestler Eddie Mansfield in 1984.

The two of them explained the true nature of pro-wrestling to host John Stossel and demonstrated some of the techniques, such as “blading“, which is where a wrestler deliberately cuts himself with a blade to produce blood. Yes, most of the time when you see in blood in pro-wrestling it is real.

In addition to exposing the secrets, Wilson made claims that he was blackballed from wrestling because he rejected the sexual advances of a wrestling promoter in Australia.

Soon after the appearance on 20/20 Jim made an appearance on the Morton Downey Jr. show along with several active wrestlers. He was portrayed by most of the people present as a liar and a goof.

Here he is taking about blading.

Dr. David Schultz calls him a liar saying that blading doesn’t exist, and says that he has never bladed. While that last part may be true, everyone in the wrestling business knows about blading. In fact Schultz is the one who is lying and he makes ad-hominem attacks against Wilson calling him a homosexual.

Promoter Dennis Coralluzzo then comes on and attacks him for being a “jobber” (someone in wrestling who loses a lot) and asks him “what do you have to prove”.

Manager and future promoter Paul E. Dangerously came on via the phone and also attacked Wilson saying that he is out of wrestling because he didn’t produce ratings, not because he was blackballed.

After some time talking about racism in wrestling, legendary pro-wrestling manager Capt. Lou Albano comes on and makes many of the same claims that Schultz made, specifically that blading didn’t exist.

Another outright lie.

Lou goes on to say that whenever he wrestled and got beat, he got beat by the better man, implying that the matches are legitimate contests, another lie.

Then Morton Downey asks Lou Albano point-blank;

Do you guys know who’s going to win before the match starts?

Lou’s answer was that he never knew of any pre-arrangement, that no one ever came to him.

Let me be clear, pro-wrestling has been an athletic exhibition with pre-arranged outcomes for nearly 100 years.

Mrs. Lou Albano then comes on and says that Lou often came home battered, but Wilson never claimed that injuries weren’t real, she is essentially making a red herring argument.

Downey then asks Wilson point-blank;

Did they ever ask you to win or lose a match?

Wilson’s answer;

Yes, every night.

The other wrestlers present yell at him, call him a lair, call him a piece of garbage, throw a drink in his face, all while the crowd cheers the verbal abuse Wilson endures.

The rest of the show contains much of the same. You have a studio full of current and former pro-wrestlers, a hostile crowd, all directing their vitriol at Wilson, denying his claims. Wilson is the only one on the whole program that is telling the truth. We know that now, 20+ years later. The other people on the show were “protecting the business” and did their best to discredit Wilson by calling him a homosexual, a jobber, etc. They were all involved in a conspiracy to deceive the viewing public.

Now I am not necessarily condemning them for doing this though. Part of the culture of pro-wrestling at that time was to deny the exposure and defend the business no matter what. Even for Shultz, who was no longer active in the wrestling business at this point, it will still engrained into his psyche to protect the business.

The lesson to learn here is that a skeptic keeps an open mind and follows the evidence, we don’t know when a conspiracy theory might turn out to be true.

On Tuesday, I was contacted by a producer with Radio-Canada (the French division of CBC) for an interview. They were putting together a téléjournal (television news) piece about prayer in Winnipeg City Council meetings, and were hoping for comment from the Winnipeg Skeptics. I agreed to speak with them, and also attempted to put them in contact with Jeff Olsson of the Humanists, Atheists, and Agnostics of Manitoba and Robert McGregor of the Winnipeg Secularists (who, I informed them, had put together a petition on precisely this subject).

Robert McGregor speaks to Catherine Dulude. Image from CBC. Used under fair dealing.

Winnipeg City Council generally starts the day with a prayer—see, for example, the minutes from the City Council meeting on 25 April 2012. (The minutes of all City Council meetings can be found here.)

There were several points that I stressed in the interview, which I’ll summarize here.

First of all, while the Winnipeg Skeptics has no official position with regard to any particular religious claim (except for those that relate to science, such as creationism), the organisation is supportive of secular government over sectarian government.

It is true that Canada doesn’t have a constitutional separation of church and state; indeed, while we have no official religion, our head of state is also the Supreme Governor of the Church of England. That said, the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees freedom of thought, freedom of conscience, and freedom of religion.

I have no problem with members of City Council praying privately. I would never ask a politician to “check their religion at the door”. But when religious observance is carried out by an elected body that is meant to represent the people, that religious observance is effectively being carried out on behalf of the people. Canada’s government is committed (nominally, at least) to multiculturalism and religious pluralism. It seems to me that, in such a nation, governmental entanglement with religious practice (such as prayer) should be minimized.

Even the most benign, vague, and seemingly inoffensive prayers can be divisive. A simple prayer to “God” may be offensive to a deist, who may not believe in an interventionist god, or to a Hindu, who may believe in many. Members of minority religious or cultural groups may see governmental prayer as another way in which they are marginalized.

As is to be expected, the five-minute discussion that I had with the journalist was cut down to a single soundbite—but one that accurately represented my position—while Robert McGregor was (appropriately) given a more extensive interview. I thought that the finished piece (which is a distinctly Manitoban combination of French and English) was very good, and you can view it here.

Image from CBC. Used under fair dealing.

Less good was the online article summarizing the téléjournal piece, which identified me as the organiser of the Winnipeg Secularists and seemed generally convinced that Robert and I were the same person. This has since been corrected, but until about an hour ago still listed my name as “Greg”.

If you don’t read French, feel free to have Google translate the article for you. Alternatively, there is a similar article (bereft of any reference to yours truly) on CBC. The usual caveats against reading the comments section apply, of course.

In this episode of Life, the Universe & Everything Else, Mark Forkheim concludes his discussion of life, death, and immortality with Gem Newman, Robert Shindler, and Greg Christensen.

Life, the Universe & Everything Else is a podcast celebrating science and skepticism presented by the Winnipeg Skeptics and the Humanists, Atheists, and Agnostics of Manitoba.

Links: Drinking Skeptically with the Winnipeg Skeptics | Imagine No Relgion 2 | Skepticon 4: How Should Rationalists Approach Death? | Cryonics (Wikipedia, Less Wrong, Alcor Life Extension Foundation) | Technological Singularity | Transhumanism | Technological Predictions by Ray Kurzweil | Curiosity: Can You Live Forever? | Down and Out in the Magic Kingdom | The Weekly Weinersmith, Episode 17: Dr. R. Douglas Fields and “The Other Brain”

Contact Us: Facebook | Twitter | Email

Listen: Direct Link | iTunes | RSS

In this episode of Life, the Universe & Everything Else, Mark Forkheim discusses life, death, and immortality with Gem Newman, Robert Shindler, and Greg Christensen.

Life, the Universe & Everything Else is a podcast celebrating science and skepticism presented by the Winnipeg Skeptics and the Humanists, Atheists, and Agnostics of Manitoba.

Links: Imagine No Relgion 2 | The History of Homeopathy (Text, Video) | Shoppers Drug Mart Named In $30M Lawsuit For Selling Homeopathic Product (CASS Press Release, Skeptic North) | Cold-fX (Science-Based Pharmacy, CBC Marketplace) | Exorcist Expertise Sought After Saskatoon “Possession” | Skepticon 4: How Should Rationalists Approach Death? | Gem’s Ghost Stories | Tibetan Sky Burial | Ecoburials

Contact Us: Facebook | Twitter | Email

Listen: Direct Link | iTunes | RSS

A few weeks ago, Nathan Hatton, a friend of mine from the Winnipeg Skeptics, posted a link to an Examiner.com article that discussed a Tennessee bill that aims to promote “critical thinking” with regard to evolution, global warming, and other scientific subjects that “can cause controversy”. Anyone with a passing familiarity with creationist propaganda should be able to spot the red flags a kilometre away. (This is HB 368/SB 893, which recently passed into law through the cowardly inaction of Governor Bill Haslam, in case you’re wondering.)

Image by Randall Munroe from the ever-awesome xkcd. (CC BY-NC 2.5)

Nathan quoted from the article: “Science is rigorous… Scientific theories must provide natural and testable explanations. Creationism and intelligent design provide neither.” Many of his friends were rather upset by this, as it turns out, and the comment thread began to rapidly balloon in size. At his request, I took the time to respond to several of the claims made by pro-creationist commenters.

Comments are full and unedited (I have screencaps to settle any disputes that may arise), but are in some cases rearranged slightly to allow responses to directly follow claims, making the conversation a little easier on the reader. I won’t reproduce every one of the 108 comments here, but I’ll present both sides of this argument as fairly as I can. Spelling and punctuation as in the original.

Commenter 1: wow, Nathan! There are some serious statements in there like teaching creationism is likened unto child abuse?!?! ! really? There are many scientists that have found Christianity to be the actual answer while trying to prove evolutionism. To think that teaching children to have faith in things that humans may not be able to “scientifically prove” is child abuse doesn’t leave much hope for us, does it? Sorry brother, I can’t say that I agree with that whatsoever..

Nathan: The “actual answer” to what? Whether a person is converted to Christianity, Hinduism, Islam, or any other faith while investigating evolution (I am sure that there are examples of each) is irrelevant to the point that “creationism” is not science and should not be part of a science curriculum. When it comes to the origins of species, a person does not need “faith” because it is something that we can “scientifically prove.” Evolution is one of the most robust scientific paradigms we have. I’m all for religion classes and actually feel that students should be MORE educated on religion than they are now, but the place is not in the science classroom.

Commenter 1: You don’t think there may be a small, even tiny possibility that science as we know it may actually opne day findc the truth to be that Creationism has a place? To ignore any path is to render ourselves ignorant of what it could possibly bring. We shouldn’t take anything off the table if we are truly open to whatever the truth may hold. We all know my take on faith in God, but wouldn’t it be silly to totally ignore the millions of people and artifacts that we have? Science should be embracing this to grow so we can all grow in understanding, I would think. Then again, who am I?….lol

Gem: In response to [Commenter 1]‘s early comments, I’ll quote Stephen Jay Gould, as I think that he said it best: “In science, ‘fact’ can only mean ‘confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent.’ I suppose that apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time in physics classrooms.” Scientists aren’t denying the possibility the universe may have been created, but there is overwhelming evidence in support of evolution, and a dearth of evidence to support creation. In science, we keep an open mind, but that doesn’t mean that, given our current state of knowledge, all possibilities are equally likely, or merit equal consideration.

Commenter 1: we’re debating theoretical data that, as far as we know, the government has altered so as not to alarm us of catastrophic events that have already begun to take place. This debate could easily go on forever. We’re debating theories derived from findings, whether correct or not, based on man and his/her interpretation, and limited to what we believe we can or cannot prove according the the knowledge and understanding we have as of now. Something I learned from a very wise man was this. What I learn today will be wrong tomorrow. We’re always discovering new things. The fact is, Christianity is what the new world known as the western hemisphere has derived it’s laws and foundations upon.

Commenter 2: What that very wise man was describing was science. The book on religion never changes.

Gem: I would also dispute that the laws and foundations of the western hemisphere are derived from Christianity. I would argue that instead they are founded in the European Enlightenment. Regardless, this is irrelevant. We’re talking about science, not law.

Commenter 1: That man was referring to something that had absolutely nothing to do with this topic at all. Do you seriously believe we have discovered all the secrets? That we truly understand everything? Not possible my friend. Unless you have a time machine it simply seems ridiculous to discount anything that offers us substancial information and there is an unbelievable amount of information to support faith.

Commenter 2: Now you’re describing science. If in the very minute chance that the beginning of existence is ever traced back to an omnipotent higher power, it will be science that proves it, not the bible. And it will be the working theory of evolution that gets there.

Commenter 1: and if it all points back to the Bible? what then, would your argument be?

Gem: To ask, repeatedly, if we “seriously believe we have discovered all the secrets” is a ridiculous straw-man. You are disingenuously misrepresenting our position, for no scientist or science enthusiast would propose such a thing. Instead, we recognise the limits of our understanding. We teach that which is established on a strong theoretical and empirical foundation. As we collect more data, we further fine-tune the models to ensure that they reflect reality as best we can.

Gem: You ask, “and if it all points back to the Bible? what then, would your argument be?” Then we would gladly reevaluate! Science is not ideologically dedicated to any conclusion; belief in a proposition should be proportional to the evidence that supports it. But you’re proposing contrafactuals, here—there’s no reason to believe that “it” will ever point back to the Bible.

Commenter 1: you can’t disprove it and that information has been around longer than most of the things that we can date and use as fact. it’s hypothetical to say the world has been here for millions of years, theoretical at best. Proof has not been provided except for what we can fathom.

Gem: [Commenter 1] keeps harping on about “proof”: that’s a red herring. Science doesn’t deal in proof: it deals in theory and evidence. While some scientists may use “proof” colloquially, I would refer you back to the Stephen Jay Gould quotation that I posted a few minutes ago. All conclusions are provisional.

Nathan: The thing is, no matter how much evidence is put forward for evolution, the answer will never be “revealed” to theists who refuse to look at what overwhelming evidence there is. Same as the people who say the earth is flat. Or that rabbits don’t chew cud.

Nathan: Above it should say “Or that rabbits chew cud.”

Nathan: Evolution provides models that can be tested and falsified.

Commenter 1: To return to the point that began this conversation, I think we should be worrying about much more pressing matters than whether or not faith is introduced to the science classroom as we’ve already conceited, it may well be the truth that science is looking to prove in trying to discover how we came to be who and whaty we are today

Commenter 2: But… it’s not. There’s no evidence of it. And evidence is the root of all facts, and science. So it doesn’t belong there, until there’s something that leads it in that direction. That’s like saying the flying spaghetti monster should be taught in classrooms, because you can’t prove it wrong. The flying spaghetti monster MIGHT be the answer. But is it? Well no, probably not. So science wouldn’t work with that theory.

Commenter 1: Prove to me that you love your parents…

Commenter 1: proof of what has happened, especially if it be by an all-knowing God as I and many others believe cannot be proven by a single train of thought. To discount things outside of what we know would be to prove ourselves ignorant

Gem: That old canard of “you can’t prove love” was brought up. Again, this is absurd. I could provide you with ample evidence that I love my wife, and that she loves me. If my wife had no evidence that I loved her, I would hope that she would investigate the issue, and if she discovered sufficient evidence that I had been unfaithful (for example), I would hope that she would leave me.

Commenter 1: So when science opens our eyes to understand that 2000 year old book, after having to go through the trials and failures, what then will you say?

Nathan: Right. So the next time someone gets sick, I won’t suggest anti-virals (developed with the help of evolutionary theory). I’ll kill some doves and burn them on the altar. one works just as well as the other, right?

Commenter 1: prayer heals my friend…

Commenter 1: Faith healing, not as seen on tv, but true fith healing does exist. Ahh, but it takes absolute faith

Nathan: Again, no evidence for that. And they’ve done tests.

Gem: The proposition that faith healing works (but only for those whose faith is pure!) is clearly designed to be unfalsifiable. It is therefore scientifically useless.

Commenter 1: plenty of tests that cancers have disappeared, but with no explanation. Mysteries out there that we will all be happy to see

Nathan: Even if they have disappeared with no explanation, it does not mean that prayer did it.

Commenter 1: I’ve seen and been witness to healings that couldn’t scientifically be proven

Commenter 1: Doesn’t mean that faith in God and His work didn’t heal, either, my dear friend

Nathan: healing could have come from many things. Why attribute it to the prayer?

Commenter 1: If science can’t prove or disprove yet recognizes things claimed to be of God, how can we turn our backs on that?

Commenter 1: there are holes in scienced, it was developed by humans

Nathan: Ah, the ‘God of the gaps’ argument.

Commenter 1: you can’t disprove it… nor can science prove the lack of existence of God. What we do know is there is an entire world beyond our imagination that we have no idea how to understand

Gem: [Commenter 1] asks, “If science can’t prove or disprove yet recognizes things claimed to be of God, how can we turn our backs on that?” Science cannot disprove the existence of leprechauns or pixies, either. That doesn’t somehow make them plausible or likely to exist.

Commenter 3: I have to say also that perhaps leprachauns do exist, as was said science should be testable, I am saying Creationism is. In this life there is known fact and there is faith. both are good

Gem: I see no reason to believe that faith is good or useful.

Commenter 3: creationism in true form IS scientific, has natural and testable theories

Gem: Such as?

Commenter 3: carbon dating, a man had his tooth pulled and carbon dated it. I don’t remember the exact age it dated at but it was apparently thousands of years old. There are some creatures from dinosaur age that still exist which are listed in the Bible. The Bible supports dinosaur theories. I did not see the presentation myself or I am sure I could tell you alot more

Gem: First of all, those aren’t testable claims made by a “creation theory”: they are attempts to poke holes in evolutionary theory. Even if evolution were “proven” false, it wouldn’t make Biblical creation any more plausible.

Gem: I cannot speak to your specific tooth example, but radiocarbon dating is only accurate for items that are between 150 and 50,000 years, for several different reasons (significant increases in carbon production since the industrial revolution and atmospheric nuclear testing in the 1950s, for example). There are several other types of radiometric dating, which work for various periods of time (due to the varying half-lives of the isotopes in question). These forms of radiometric dating are calibrated to each other (the isotopes used are valid for overlapping periods of time, which allows for such calibration) and to other forms of dating, such as sedimentary dating, tree-ring dating, and the known dating of archaeological objects whose provenance is well documented. They match, within known error bars. (More info here: http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CD/CD011.html)

Gem: I’m not sure how creatures from the “dinosaur age” that still exist (e.g., crocodillians?) are relevant. Evolution does not predict that all creatures from the Cretaceous period would now be extinct. Would you mind clarifying this point?

Commenter 3: I believe that Christians came to North America because they weren’t allowed to practice their religion freely at the time. Guess what? They aren’t again

Gem: No? I find that claim laughable, given the fact that 84% of Americans are Christian (2005 estimate), 73% of Canadians are Christian (2010 estimate), and 96% of Mexicans are Christian (2005 estimate).

Gem: Christians can’t practice their religion freely? Of course they can! They simply aren’t allowed to impose it on others quite so much as they used to be able to.

Commenter 3: Christians have scientifically studied the dinosaur age and is not just a fly by theorie

Gem: “It is not just a fly by theorie”? I don’t understand what you’re trying to say.

Commenter 3: for one thing it would be nice if you would give me time to respond

Commenter 3: I am done for now, look that stuff up on the computer if it interests you,

Commenter 3: and i think it was lakonian

Gem: You haven’t given me anything to look up.

Commenter 3: then go away, I can’t think anymore right now

Nathan: Well, whadda ya know, a “science versus religion debate” involving theists and methodological naturalists wasn’t put to rest once and for all on my facebook page.

I believe that the last commenter meant “Laconian”, but given that Laconia is a region of Greece, I wasn’t able to determine what argument this person was trying to make. With so little to go on, Google was unhelpful. I tried!

In this episode of Life, the Universe & Everything Else, Laura Targownik, Richelle McCullough, Laura Creek Newman, and Donna Harris discuss the rise in obesity rates and the links between weight and health.

Life, the Universe & Everything Else is a podcast celebrating science and skepticism presented by the Winnipeg Skeptics and the Humanists, Atheists, and Agnostics of Manitoba.

Links: Are Your Kids’ Snacks Full of Fruit or Sugar? | Vaccine to Prevent Heart Attacks (Vancouver Sun, European Society of Cardiology) | Obesity in Canada: Snapshot | Making the Case for Primary Prevention: An Economic Analysis of Risk Factors in Manitoba | Bariatric Surgery versus Intensive Medical Therapy in Obese Patients with Diabetes (NEJM) | Bariatric Surgery versus Conventional Medical Therapy for Type 2 Diabetes (NEJM) | Etiology and Natural History of Obesity* | Overview of Therapy for Obesity in Adults* | Definition, Epidemiology, and Etiology of Obesity in Children and Adolescents*

* Requires a subscription to UpToDate.com for full access.

Contact Us: Facebook | Twitter | Email

Listen: Direct Link | iTunes | RSS

In this episode of Life, the Universe & Everything Else, Gem Newman, Richelle McCullough, Javier Hernandez-Melgar, and Mark Forkheim discuss recent attempts to ban WiFi in several Canadian schools and the scientific merits of health claims made about WiFi, cellphones, and other sources of electromagnetic radiation.

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

News: Imagine No Religion 2 Conference | Altona Parents Protest LGBTQ Pledge (Initial Coverage, Response from Rev. Dr. Lesley Fox, Follow-up) | Catholic Teachers Urge WiFi Ban (Globe & Mail, CBC/Canadian Press) | Homeless Hotspots

Links: Illustration of the EMF Spectrum | National Cancer Institute Fact Sheet: Cell Phones and Cancer Risk | WHO Warns Cellphone Use is ‘Possibly Carcinogenic’ | The Not-So-Dangerous Truth Behind Microwaves | Elizabeth May on EFM (SkepticNorth, Winnipeg Skeptics) | Evaluating The Evidence for Cell Phones and WiFi | “Dirty Electricity” | Electrosensitivity in Sweden | Skeptics’ Guide 5×5 on WiFi | Skeptoid on Electrosensitivity | Lakehead University WiFi Ban (Ban, Repeal)

Also on this episode, the first instalment of our new segment …and That’s Why You’re Wrong. This week, we discuss the Cosmological Argument, and its increasingly popular cousin, the Kalam Cosmological Argument:

The Cosmological Argument
1. Everything has a cause.
2. A causal loop cannot exist, and a causal chain cannot be of infinite length.
3. Therefore, a First Cause must exist. (We call this cause “God”.)

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

Contact Us: Facebook | Twitter | Email

Listen: Direct Link | iTunes | RSS

Correction: On this episode I made an offhand remark about gamma radiation turning a person into a member of the X-Men. I obviously should have said a member of the Avengers (more specifically, the Incredible Hulk). I apologise in advance to any of my fellow Marvel nerds who are offended by this gross misstatement of comic book fact.

They are somewhat complicated.

I myself have been an “instrument of the machine” (and still unavoidably play some part within it), as we have each likely been in big and small ways. In recent years I have become much more conscious of the world around me, not the least of which including a burgeoning understanding of human psychology and social systems. I simultaneously feel culpable for supporting oppression as I have prior to this awareness (and do not simply absolve myself ethically), yet fully understand the deterministic nature of the universe and its impact on me.

This is to say that in a quantum mechanics kind of sense, I am merely a product of my life situation and experiences (and other “random” events). Yet, I take on the onus, not because I believe that myself or anyone else can exist outside of cause and effect by sheer will or completely self-determined moral character, but because it is practical to do so from the perspective of human experience.

It’s a practical matter.

It is practical in that it guides my thoughts and actions toward ethical self-improvement and self-awareness: a mindset of ethical responsibility. If I’m not invested in the experience of others with respect to my actions, but only the defense of my own character, then by definition defense of my character is all I will accomplish. I will not change my character, nor the experience of the other person.

It is also practical in that it offers the greatest possibility of communication and restoration. The process doesn’t need to be about figuring out who’s to blame, explaining away and justifying (rationalizing), in an effort of returning to status quo. Instead, I can take responsibility for my actions (even if I feel that there was no way I could have done differently given what I knew at that moment), have empathy for the other person’s experience with respect to my actions (regardless of my experience or good intentions), and cooperatively strategize ways of avoiding unnecessary hurt. If needed, you can explain what you’re doing and ask for reciprocation. The best way to ask for it is by simultaneously showing that you’re willing to do it. Focus your efforts on those who are willing to reciprocate because it needs to become reciprocal in the long term for progress to be sustained; It’s also part of maintaining healthy boundaries.

UR doing eet wrong!!1!

This stands in stark contrast to the now typical, violent defensiveness exemplified by people trying to externalize responsibility, defend their character (ego) and avoid any resolutions which require personal effort, self-evaluation or change. I’ve seen many people (including myself in many past and even recent occasions) react to another’s expressions of experience and feelings, with anger and dismissal. The argument is often that they could not have done any differently (which as a matter of determinism may actually be true). “I couldn’t have known that my actions would hurt you, therefore it’s not my fault, therefore I’m not a bad person, therefore you should not be feeling that way towards me” (so stop feeling that way or you’ll be to blame for this continued conflict). It is a desperate act of self-preservation driven by the conscious or subconscious idea that others are out to destroy your character. You might want to investigate your own life experience to see where this pattern has come from.

Not just for lovebirds.

It should be obvious that this relates to interpersonal relationships. These words probably conjure up thoughts of happy (or not so happy) romantically involved partners, but I want to stretch that definition a bit. As I’ve alluded to above, I view relatively simple human interactions expanding into complex social systems. The product of this effect is called an emergence. To affect the complex system you need to somehow affect the individuals and their basic interactions. I believe that this failure to resolve rather than blame is one of the basic units of interaction that create or at least support structures of oppression within society.

Fallacy? How Humerous

There is a kind of is-ought fallacy that says, “Because I will not always be able to avoid offending or hurting you, I can not be held to such a standard of behaviour. Therefore your expectations are unreasonable”. Or in other terms, “I am this way, so you ought not to ask for me to change.

Now, taking this idea of deterministic social behaviour and applying it to other people I see the enactors of oppressive behaviour in a similar light. They are absolutely the products of their situation and experiences as much as I am. That is to say that in a given snap-shot in time, they could not have been anything other than exactly what they were at that moment, given their collective experiences and situation. This is not an ideological justification that it ought to be this way, but a mechanical explanation of why it is this way. In this light I simultaneously have a kind of empathy (though more like sadness and frustration at the unfortunate reality), and yet unwaveringly denounce their actions given not only the immediate emotional pain they cause, but also for their part in the social mechanism at large.

A wrench in the gears.

I do this because I perceive myself as a potential cause that may be able to affect them. Sometimes do this by holding their feet to the fire. Other times I try to be a friend and gradually influence them. It depends an their apparent willingness to self-evaluate.

I don’t wholly demonize anyone, since it doesn’t make sense from my perspective. However, there are limits to the personal effort I’m willing to put into specific scenarios, or with specific individuals. My emotional resources are limited, as is my ability to carry out my own philosophy in this regard (though I continue to work at growing that capacity). I have very little patience when I perceive that someone is hurting someone else, either directly with words and actions, or with harmful ideologies that they are presenting as ideal or as normal (and therefore ideal: another is-ought). I am far from perfect (I hope that my ability to see this is not a surprise to anyone). More often than is likely obvious, my anger is motivated by empathy for others, though this doesn’t absolve me of responsibility for all of these actions. Let me not commit my own fallacy.

Hey, I’m a pass-a-fist!

As an aside, in a broader political sense I am also not necessarily advocating for pacifism since the collective mentality borne out of situation and experience (including systemic dogma) may be so fixed and on such a large scale as to be untouchable by any practical means of persuasion. Sometimes there are creative strategies that can be attempted beyond this point, but if the system becomes tyrannical enough, sometimes it is the only way. We who have comfortable lives can be easily prodded into gasps, jaw drops, and “oh dear”s when told about things like the Black Panthers or riots in the street and totally miss the oppression that instigated it. It wasn’t just buses and drinking fountains, nor was it MLK and his cheek-turning philosophy that did all the work (though he certainly had an impact). That’s another topic for another day.

The burden of love.

It seems to me that the most meaningful and practical understanding of reality sometimes takes a mental flexibility that stretches us beyond our original programming. I look at it as the joy of figuring things out. Actively seek out accurate observations. Be determined to build ideology that’s congruent with those observations regardless of personal cost and effort, up to your capacity. Be willing to un-learn your assumptions about your own motivations and those of the people around you. Strive to be aware of your own psychology: your automated emotional reaction to people and ideas. This can be simultaneously very difficult, but also very rewarding. Not only for you personally, but for the kind of world you will be fostering around you.

I leave you with this brilliant quip by Tim Widowfield over on Vrider:

Empathy is about seeing things from another person’s perspective, not imagining yourself in somebody else’s situation. The former is the first step to understanding others; the latter is a kind of naive narcissism that does more harm than good.

Cross-posted from Jack-in-the-Brain

In this episode of Life, the Universe & Everything Else, host Jeffrey Olsson continues his discussion with Ali Ashtari (a former Shia Muslim), Scott Carnegie (a former Mormon), and Greg Christensen (who dabbled in Christianity), talking about how leaving their faiths behind has changed their lives for the better.

Life, the Universe & Everything Else is a podcast celebrating science and skepticism presented by the Winnipeg Skeptics and the Humanist Association of Manitoba.

Links: Third Annual Cross Canada Skeptical Smackdown | Quebec Kids Cannot Opt Out of Religion Course (Redux) | Expelled Exposed | NOVA | Neil deGrasse Tyson | The Atheist Experience | Timetree | Shia Islam | Anglicanism | Mormonism | Leaving Faith Behind (Blog, Book)

Also on this episode, the second instalment of Where’s My Jetpack? This week Old Man Newman asks, “Where’s my pet dinosaur?”

Where’s My Jetpack? Links: Jack Horner: How to Hatch a Dinosaur (Wired, TED Talk, The Skeptics’ Guide to the Universe) | Woolly Mammoth to be Cloned (Discovery News, BBC, Discoblog) | Dinosaur Taxonomy

Programming Note: In the coming weeks we start releasing an episode every second Sunday. We are making the switch to a bi-weekly release model to allow our team more time to research topics and edit podcasts. This will ultimately serve to provide you, our listeners, with a higher quality listening experience!

Contact Us: Facebook | Twitter | Email

Listen: Direct Link | iTunes | RSS