God...didn't create the Earth?

Happy Halloween everyone! I thought I'd celebrate our favorite "evil pagan holiday" by ticking off some of the more pious out there in the blogosphere. This is actually older news from near the beginning of the month, but it was still an interesting read.

Here's the story.

Apparently some academic who studies the Old Testament...she's a scholar and all...is saying that the Bible was mistranslated.

In studying the original Hebrew text and given the proper context, she claims that the actual wording of "in the beginning God created the Heaven and the Earth" should actually be "in the beginning God separated the Heaven and the Earth".

In other words, God created animals and people and plants...life...but not the Earth. The Earth was already there.

Now I don't personally believe either of those for my own reasons. My take on this is that it won't make any difference whatsoever.

People believe what they want to believe. Unless you were forced to face a contradiction in such a way that there was absolutely no way on Earth you could continue to believe what you want to believe, you will find a reason, no matter how absurd, to cling to that which you hold true. There are people who claim to be good Christians who also believe in killing medical doctors. All life is sacred unless it tastes good on the dinner plate. Love thy neighbor as long as he isn't gay. And plenty of others hold the opposite view while claiming to be good Christians, and both sides will use the Bible to justify and rationalize their beliefs.

When there's that much leeway with interpretation, especially using a document that has been translated and retranslated and edited so many times in hundreds of years that the abstractions allow you to justify just about whatever you want to do, I'm thinking it's not quite so useful.

Now this scholar is claiming something that should gain attention from any Bible-loving community. This is something questioning the very foundation of the interpretation of the Bible, and it's not coming from a rabid atheist like Richard Dawkins. This is from one of the flock. An educated academic.

Outside of this Telegraph article I've heard nothing about this.

Which is a real shame. I've often questioned things like, outside the Bible, what third-party proof is there of Jesus and the miracles he performed? Or any of the miracles in the Old Testament? The Romans weren't slouches in keeping records during the Empire. Surely a guy going around creating wine from water and performing healing ceremonies with magic, especially when it was using a deity other than those blessed by the Emperor, would have third-party accounts recorded. So why do most of my questions end up being referred back to the Bible?

Anyway, I thought this was an interesting tidbit in the news that will no doubt flutter away with nary a blip on the radar. I'm willing to bet that asking the local preachers in my area if they've heard about it a few weeks from now, any little blurb, will elicit blank looks. If you're a news junkie or trivia buff, or interested in such matters at all, maybe my small readership could try it out as an experiment in their area! I'd love to hear the results!

Until next time, Happy Samhain!

The Flu Shot and the Dystonia Cheerleader

It seems that everyone has heard "something" about the cheerleader that had a flu shot then developed a case of dystonia, where her walk and speech patterns are totally screwed up but are normal while running or walking backwards.

It's screwy. It's tragic. It's fascinating. And it's perfect fodder for a group of zealots looking for poster child candidates, namely the antivaxxer's.

I had certainly heard about it. "One in a million reaction." "Something about having the flu shot and getting it." "The flu shot apparently triggered it."

I haven't made it part of my own agenda to follow up on the story; it was just another tidbit that floated by my consciousness and the collective consciousness of just about everyone I know in the area.

Thankfully I outsourced such critical followup to Steve Novella of the Skeptic's Guide to the Universe. He had a blog post that as I read through it I found myself stopping to realize that, yes, he has some really good points...such as, nowhere has it every actually been shown that there was a link between the shot and the dystonia. The illness she suffered that was believed to trigger the dystonia was never proven to even be the flu, and even if it was, was it the strain that she was injected with for her shot? For that matter, was the dystonia actually a verified diagnosis?

In fact, in Steve's blog post he points out evidence that she doesn't actually have dystonia but rather a psychological affliction.

In other words this woman had a very bad thing happen to her and now she's being used to exploit another group's cause through half-truths and distortions. At this point in the game she may have no choice but to rationalize the possible truth away and it's in her best interest to not reveal whether there exists the possibility that the condition isn't flu-vaccine-induced.

H1N1 Flu Vaccine Nonsense

I work in a place with a large population of people who have the opportunity-for free-to get the H1N1 flu shot. I was saddened and downright appalled at the amount of ignorance and sheer stupidity being spread about getting the shot.

Like the stupid email scams that keep showing up every few months in my inbox as forwards, these rumors and mistruths are still being spread by the legions of ignorati. The CDC recommends that 80% of our population get vaccinated from the flu. A whopping 40% actually do. (citation)

"The flu shot can make me sick!"
No, the flu shot is a dead virus. It stimulates an immune reaction from the body, but it's dead. It won't make you sick.

"There's mercury in the shot! It'll poison you! It causes Autism!"
No, that ingredient was removed decades ago. And yet autism rates continued to climb. There no mercury in the shot.

The definition of Autism has been expanded so more people are now being diagnosed with Autism (you have any idea how recently Aspergers, part of the spectrum of Autism, was officially made a disorder? Not long ago at all...1992!

Not that a little thing like facts will ever shut some idiot with a platform from decrying the same bull@#$ over and over, the same lies and distortions that will end up killing people. If people actually looked into the background on that flake they might not be so ready to believe what she's spouting.

Worse, there's a concept of herd immunity. Basically there are some people that can't get the shot because of allergy or health reasons. So they rely on you not getting the disease to keep them healthy. People in the US buying the anti-vax rhetoric end up acting as carriers to spread the disease to others.

And it's silly to think that there are children who could die from this simply because you can't be bothered to get a simple shot.

Anyway there are plenty of intelligent skeptics that are rallying to debunk the crap that anti-vaccination nuts are spreading.

http://www.immunizenc.com/FluFactsMyths.htm

http://richarddawkins.net/article,4465,An-Open-Letter-to-Bill-Maher-on-Vaccinations,Michael-Shermer

http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/?p=2116

http://www.antivaxxers.com/

http://www.theness.com/neurologicablog/?p=444

http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/?p=851

Check those links out. No doubt there's always going to be reasons that the fringe will feel justified in perpetuating their anti-science theories, no matter what they're told, but if you're an otherwise reasonable person sitting on the fence after hearing some nonsense about how the shot will end up killing mankind, read those links. They should address your questions nicely. There's no reason to stand by and let others end up suffering because you couldn't be bothered to do something relatively simple.

On Religion: Questions and Doublethink

I apologize in advance that this is a rather rambling bit. This chronicles a line of thought I was having one morning as I was pondering an idea. I think it's a fair question. Some might find it offensive. Others may think they have an answer. I've yet to hear an answer that truly answers the questions posed. But if you'd like you can leave comments. Maybe it'll give you something to think about. Maybe you believe in something contrary and are comfortable with what I perceive to be holes in reasoning. This isn't meant to change minds.

It was just something I was thinking about in the car one morning. Stuck in construction. So here it is.
*******
I was listening to a podcast that tends to be a bit on the offensive side when a question occurred to me. See, this particular podcast has a bit where the host has a conversation with Satan. The host was talking to him this time because in real life his father was in the hospital and he wanted to make sure there wasn't going to be any funny business by the Prince of Darkness. One comment made by Satan was that the host of the podcast didn't have a soul, so there wasn't really anything he had to offer.

That's when I began to wonder, why is it that Satan is portrayed as doing what he does?

Why does he take souls to Hell? I mean, is it like currency or something?

Is this supposed to be like spitting at God?

But...if God is almighty, he could wash it all away on a whim. I don't get it. It's not raising a fist of defiance at God since He's allowing it to happen. He coudl stop it at any time. It's not an annoyance.

And why would Satan keep doing this for eternity? Doesn't it get repetitive?

It seems as if Satan is providing quite a service, actually, as a boogeyman in stories told to children by religious parents. Behave, or you'll go to Hell! Behave, or Satan will take your soul!

It occurred to me that if Satan wanted to really get more souls, he should make some kind of resort down there in the underworld. Grant wishes. Let me win the lottery. I'll have more than a little loyalty for someone that makes my every financial stress evaporate. I mean, what's with the torture thing? I have never run across any explanation for why Satan has this infatuation with pain and misery. Especially for eternity. What's the deal with that?

It's not like he's trapped in Hell if he keeps supposedly coming to Earth to mess with humans. He could really just chill out for awhile at the Mall of America. I hear it's a fun place to visit.

I guess I don't understand what motivates him to do the whole taking souls thing.

Some had told me before that his motivations can't be discerned, like God's motivations and behaviors can't be understood by mere humans. I don't buy it. It's too convenient to say that; it's a brushoff. Why should humans love or swear loyalty to a being they can't hope to understand.

Also, if you can't hope to understand the motivations behind the behavior, that implies to me that the behavior doesn't follow any rules. It does what it does just...because. That means it's not intrinsically good or bad. It just is. So why is Satan evil, or God good, for that matter? Just because we define it that way? God is good simply because by definition what He does is good.

Why?

Under explanations that follow a rational way of living the act of murder is wrong, bad, because it acts in a way that does not respect an individual. It harms a collective group or community. It makes someone dangerous, and their behavior could mean that if Peter killed Bob without justification then Peter may kill me next. It's not because murder itself is intrinsically bad. We kill living beings all the time, telling ourselves that in that case it's okay because they're lower on the food chain, or it was an accident, or any of a number of reasons. There's always a reason that it's okay to eat that cheeseburger and it doesn't count as ending a life, or we can live with ourselves after we walk away from an accident that claimed someone else's life.

Under religion, it's just bad. There is no reason why other than we arbitrarily say so.

I find this to be a form of confusing doublethink. Maybe others don't. It's just one of a number of questions I've had that I think are quite reasonable but most Christians tend to eventually write off as "it's just the way it is," unable to provide a logical, reasoned answer. Something about that just doesn't sit right with me.

Would You Wear a Murderer's Sweater?

There's a number of oddball weird things that are just kind of "neat" about people. Things like, have you ever stood in a doorway and tried raising your arms against the doorjambs? You stand there, holding your arms upwards against the frame, knowing that it won't work. Keep trying and keep trying for about a minute to move your arms upwards against these immovable objects. Then relax, and your arms will rise on their own. Weird, huh?

Or the phenomena for amputees where they feel "phantom limbs" in place of their lost limbs, feeling sensations and pain where there's obviously nothing there.

I was listening to an old podcast of the Skeptics Guide to the Universe and they interviewed author Bruce Hood about his book Supersense. I of course haven't read the book, I put it into my Amazon list of things I'd like to read, but this was about some points he brought up that got me to thinking about some odd phenomena about people.

I might be paraphrasing a bit here, but the gist was thus: he said that one of the things he does is go in to a lecture with an old secondhand sweater. He asks the people who would be willing to wear it. Most people raise their hand. He offers them twenty bucks to put it on and even more are willing. Then he says that the sweater belonged to a serial killer, like Dahmer. Instantly hands all shoot down. Why?

He said the fascinating part to him was that it happened almost immediately, before there was any rational thought behind it. We seem to be hard-wired to think that we'll become "tainted" by association, as if somehow that sweater will impart some essence of a murder or dysfunction into us by just touching it.

Would you be willing to have an organ implanted in you if it came from a murderer? There are many people who seem to think that this will impart some part of the donor's personality. There are people who will freak out at the thought of a heart from a murderer being put into them, despite the fact that it's just a heart. No neurological tissue whatsoever, no rational reason to not do it, especially when you are in the market for a heart.

Why do we have these reactions? Or more interesting to me, what happens when you don't do the "norm"?

My wife has accused me of playing the Asperger's card too often, but I think that rewiring in the head does have some interesting side effects such as the fact that when he was talking about the sweater experiment I never thought that I wouldn't do it. Especially for twenty bucks. No second thoughts that I detected in my flow of thoughts; he did say that sometimes people will profess to still go with the "rational" reasoning but brain scans show that there's still a conflict, however momentary.

I'm not entirely off the scale though. I looked online at the table of contents. One of the bits from the book asked the question, to paraphrase, "If I offered to switch your ring or childhood toy still in your possession with an exact duplicate, would you do it?" There's no reason, rationally, not to do it if it is a precise duplicate. The thing is we have some kind of emotional attachment to sentimentality. It's not the same thing that was with us at the ceremony or during our childhood memories. We always know it's a duplicate.

But then I think this has already been philosophically dealt with when talking about the fictitious Star Trek transporter; you're broken down into an energy stream and reconstructed on the other side, your destination. Is that a duplicate of yourself? Or is it the actual you? You ceased to exist for a few moments; are you dead? In between? Is a frequent transporter traveler a copy of a copy of a copy, with the previous versions being killed?

Some things have neat scientific explanations, like the arms rising on their own experiment. Others aren't quite explained, like people's seemingly hardwired reaction towards wearing the murderer's sweater (or reaction to people who would still do it). Still other "neat" things are thought experiments that may not have a straightforward answer outside of philosophy like the transporter question.

Any thoughts on these phenomena? Or do you have some random curiosities that you puzzle over?

Atheism and the Banana

One of the stupidest anti-atheism bits I had run across in my years came from Kirk Cameron and his buddy Ray Comfort and their viral video about the Atheist's Nightmare: THE BANANA!

They give such wonderful tidbits about the pulltab God placed so conveniently on the banana, as well as the fact that the shape happens to fit so well into our hands and it has it's own packaging.

For me it's funny because it's so hilariously ignorant. In case you didn't know, the Cavendish banana (the kind you normally find in the grocery store) is absolutely nothing like the wild banana. It was genetically engineered the old fashioned way by humans: selective breeding. Check it out here.

Of course it didn't take long for atheists to reply with those pesky facts. There's a YouTube video highlighting their ignorance on the topic.

I'll also point out that if you do research on the Cavendish, they're genetically all the same. There's a disease spreading that threatens the existence of that type of banana and those bugnuts may soon get a lesson in evolution since the Cavendish can't evolve a resistance to the disease...the solution seems to involve creating a slightly different hybrid banana with a slightly different taste and texture. Enjoy the atheist's nightmare while you can, folks...

Lesson: if you're going to take on a controversial topic, make sure you do your homework. Especially if you're going to look as stupid as these two clowns when talking about God's creation: a fruit that has a documented history of domestication by humans.

Water on the Moon!

Phil Plait, the Bad Astronomer, has a wonderful writeup on the discovery of water on the moon! Take a look here!

What I loved about the post is that he went into detail about how it was found so that non-scientists can understand it. So many laypersons assume that because we don't have someone up there walking around with a sponge that it's impossible to find something like water on another body in space. They don't actually want to do any of the mental legwork to understand what's happening, but they're often quick to denounce it.

Well the post from Phil explains how it's found.

Science is a wonderful tool. Through empirical evidence we're finding more and more understanding of our universe and the wonders within it, from Gamma Ray Bursts that could fry life on the planet to the background radiation from the birth of our universe to the theory that we're actually comprised of tiny loops of energy.

Thanks Phil!