You Knew This Post Was Coming...

One thing that's amazing to me is how one-dimensional some people can be. Because they feel a certain way personally, they have to feel that way politically. Which brings me to abortion. I've had heated debates with many of my friends, and I always end up agreeing with them in one way and disagreeing with them in other ways. What people don't understand is how I can be opposed to abortion personally and still support pro-choice in the political realm. As a person, I probably wouldn't chose to have an abortion (and not because I'm a man, har har, you know what I mean). As a (potential) doctor, I would support my patient's right to decide what is the best choice for them. I can only give them health advice, I can't give them personal advice. Politically, I'm pro-choice, because let's face it, I'm pro-choice on everything.

(Side note: Although I am pro-choice, I also think Roe v. Wade should be repealed, because it sets a dangerous precedent of letting the federal government decide health matters. If they can decide a health procedure is legal, they maintain the right to decide which ones are illegal. I believe those issues should be left to the states.)

I could write another five pages on my views on abortion laws, but it pretty much boils down to this: I don't understand why someone feels they have to be pro-life politically just because they're pro-life personally. I'm not gay, but I still support the rights of homosexuals. I don't own a gun, but I support the rights of others to own them. I always wear my seatbelt, but I don't support seat belt laws. Why can't people distance themselves from...well...themselves?

Enough Said

Letter From Home

Close The Window

It almost goes without saying, but I feel the need to post it anyways. I am against a mandatory draft. Rumors of reinstating the draft have been floating around Bush's presidency since he invaded Iraq, and McCain has hinted at the same if he gets elected. Little known fact, but the Libertarian party has it's origins in the 70's on the basis of opposing the mandatory draft.

The implication of a mandatory draft is this: the government owns you. Until you pay your debt to your country, the government owns your life and can send you into battle if it chooses. I just don't think that's what this country is all about. As an officer in the Navy, I am told that I am fighting for freedom. As a volunteer, I am fighting for the freedom of all civilians (taxpayers, to be specific). But in a mandatory draft, people are really fighting for their own freedom. Earning it, if you will. Isn't this country is built on the idea that you are born free?

Don't get me wrong, the military has been good to me and my family. The military paid for my undergraduate education and is paying for medical school. And I do believe that people owe three years to their country. I think this country would be a much better place if everyone spent three years in the military. But it has to be voluntary. I don't want to force anyone into the military any more than I want to force anyone into college. If there were a real threat to the country, people would sign up. Just look at what happened after September 11. I personally know three people who joined the Marines for specifically that reason, ready to fight in Afghanistan. But they got pulled into a war they didn't want.

Why I'm Not A Teacher

Drew Carey, fellow Libertarian, has a series of videos at reason.tv called The Drew Carey Project. I don't agree with him on every point (yes, even Libertarians can disagree), but I encourage everyone to watch the videos, because he covers a lot of points that don't get much air time (organ transplant, traffic, gambling, etc.). I was catching up on his videos yesterday when I came across this one that made me sick to my stomach. I'll pause here while you watch the video...




::Intermission::





And THAT, my friends, is why I hate the government. And unions. And public schools (see government). Thank FSM this ultimately had a happy ending. One of the hardest Libertarian points I have to defend is the elimination of public schools. Ron Paul faced similar criticisms when he ran for president. This video pretty much sums it up. You have a school district and a teacher's union that don't give a damn about students. They just care about themselves. As Penn Says, "It's better to be uneducated than educated by your government."

"For Their Own Good"

I chose to go to college. I chose to go to medical school. I chose to join the Navy. I choose to jog regularly. I choose to lift weights. I choose to eat healthy. I choose to drink alcohol. I choose not to smoke tobacco. I choose not to smoke marijuana. These are all conscious decisions I made based on how I want to live my life. And I can understand why someone wouldn't make the same decisions as me. I don't look down on anyone who doesn't live their life the way I do. I have reasons for making my choices, and I'm sure they have reasons for making theirs.

But some people don't agree with that. Some people feel the need to impose their lifestyle decisions on others. Maybe they don't go that far. Maybe they just think that people who don't life their life a certain way are stupid, and we need to force them to change their life for their own good.

This rant comes from a conversation I had with a friend of mine. He said that if he ran the country, "no one would be allowed to weigh over 200 lbs." At that point, my Libertarian half jumped out of my body and kicked him in the crotch. But let's say for the sake of argument he has a point: "We need to protect them from themselves." Now, I do believe that obesity is a choice. With the exception of the 5% of people with a medical condition (Cushing's Disease, hypothyroidism, etc.), obese people choose to be obese. They choose not to jog, not to eat healthy, etc. I'm sure they know it's unhealthy. They know they'll live a shorter life. But they choose to live that life without jogging. With cake instead of lettuce. With television instead of dumbbells. It's their choice, and we have no right to tell them it's wrong. Hell, if I wasn't in the military, I could be a fat guy.

But the argument that we need to "fix" them doesn't go away. In every class I've taken in medical school, I'm told that obesity is an epidemic. We are told to force people to lose weight if we have to. It's for their own good. The same goes for smokers, but that's an entirely different conversation. Why do we need to save them? Let them live their lives. If an obese person makes a conscious decision to lose weight, then I will do everything within my power as a doctor to help them. Losing weight is simple; jog more, eat less. It's simple, but I know it isn't easy. They have to make the choice to change their life; I will not force it on them.

When I was arguing with my friend, the only argument he really had was that obese people are a drain on healthcare. Oh, it's an economical concern. But this may not actually be true. A recent study out of Denmark showed that obesity will cost the healthcare system less in the long run because obese people don't live as long. If we're really worried about the economy, we should be forcing people to be unhealthy. Smoke 'em if you've got 'em!

There is no reason to tell people how to live their life. Extend to them the same right to choose that you have. That is the cornerstone of Libertarianism: you have the freedom to do whatever you want, as long as you don't take that same freedom from your neighbor. "For their own good" are the four most repulsive words I can think of.

References:

1. van Baal PHM, Polder JJ, de Wit GA, Hoogenveen RT, Feenstra TL, et al. "Lifetime Medical Costs of Obesity: Prevention No Cure for Increasing Health Expenditure" PLoS Medicine 2008 5(2):29

A Moment of Recognition

I've got an idea for a post, but I want a little more time with it to get everything straight before I post it. So this is what you call a filler post. I was listening to "Red Light In My Eyes Part II" by Children of Bodom (off Something Wild), when I heard a theme I recognized. The entire song is a variation on the theme, and it is a familiar theme, but I couldn't remember where I had heard it. Then all of a sudden, it hit me. I won't give it away, see if you can recognize it:

Red Light In My Eyes Part II

Here's the answer in code (typed one row off on the keyboard):

,pxstyd trwior, gtp, s,sfrid

WT*? LM*O!

I haven't had a good Libertarian post, so it's about time I spit out some crazy politics. The survey I took yesterday got me thinking, particularly #5. I wasn't being cute with my answer, that's really how I feel. I don't believe in curses, and I don't believe in curse words. The idea that words like fuck, shit, asshole, damn, bitch, and cocksucker are somehow "bad" words is ridiculous. I can be just as vulgar and derogatory without using any of those words. They're like little summaries of what I'm actually thinking. I swear a lot (I am a sailor after all). But I know that there's a time and a place for it. I don't say "fuck" around my patients for the same reason I don't tell dead baby jokes around them. It's unprofessional, regardless of whether I use one of the seven dirty words or not.

And that type of self-censorship is fine. But I will never agree with government censorship of any kind. The FCC can go have sex with itself (to use a polite euphemism). Television is violent, vulgar, and crude. Jack Bauer can be tortured on screen, then grab a gun and shoot nine people, but he can't use these seven words. If you don't want to hear those words, if they make you cry, then by all means, change the channel. You can live in a hole with the lights off for all I care. That is the role of the person, not the government. It's the first amendment, like it or not.

I was arguing this point with a very conservative friend of mine, when he said that "freedom of speech implies freedom of listening." I think what he was trying to say is that he believes he has a right to not have to hear something if he doesn't want to. This claim is also used to stop gay marriage ("I don't want to have to see that...") or evolution ("I don't want my children learning that..."). Political groups use arguments like that to push their agendas and take the freedom of speech and expression away from people they disagree with. There couldn't be a more obvious abuse of government than that. That is exactly why we have the first amendment.

While the Profanity episode of Bullshit is great (the entire episode can be found on YouTube), I found this clip from the College episode (you can cut it out after 2:01, the rest is in the context of the whole episode). He nails it. Censorship is the job of the individual, not the government. "We don't have a fucking right NOT to be offended."

On a related note, new episodes of Bullshit start in June. I can't wait.

Survey Says...!

I had a 4-hour practice boards exam today, so I don't feel like updating with anything that requires too much thinking. Instead, I decided to take James Lipton's famous ten-question survey. Read my answers, then take it yourself, either in my comments or in your own blog.

1. What is your favorite word?

Pheochromocytoma. It's a type of adrenal gland tumor that secretes epinephrine (adrenaline). I just think it's fun to say.

2. What is your least favorite word?

Fa**ot or Ni**er

3. What turns you on?

Coffee.

4. What turns you off?

Prejudice. Racial, religious, or political. Oh, and cheap beer.

5. What is your favorite curse word?

I don't believe in curses. So I'll just say mee krob.

6. What sound or noise do you love?

This

7. What sound or noise do you hate?

The sound of Bono opening his mouth.

8. What profession other than your own would you like to attempt?

Stand-up comedian.

9. What profession would you not like to attempt?

Politics. I like my soul where it is.

10. If Heaven exists, what would you like to hear God say when you arrive at the Pearly Gates?

You were wrong. But you led a good life. Here's a whiskey sour, see you at the orgy.

John Oliver, I Want to Have Your British Children

I watched John Oliver's stand-up special, "Terrifying Times," last night. If you don't know, John Oliver is the British correspondent from The Daily Show. Now, I've been restricting my religious posts lately, but this quote was just too perfect to pass up.

"I started looking into these groups in America, campaign groups, who wanted to put stickers on the front of all school sciecne textbooks explaining that evolution is only one possible theory of life on Earth. Now while this seems like a stupid idea at first, second, and thirty-ninth glance, look at it once more. Give it that fortieth view. Because it's brilliant. Let's have stickers on the front of all books. Slap one on the Bible saying Of course, this could all be bullshit. Maybe he never died. Perhaps he opened a donkey factory. He had a clear bond with donkeys. Or slap one on the front of the theory of gravity: Look it's just one man's opinion. Maybe we can all fly! R Kelley believed it so. Why would he lie to us? What does he possibly stand to gain?"

Nothing To Sneeze At

The other day, I was studying with one of my friends, when I had one of those sneezes that dangles on the tip of your nose. You know the feeling, where you have to sneeze, but you can't get it out. When I told this to my friend, he immediately said "Look at a bright light, it will make you sneeze." Well, instead of looking at a bright light, I looked at him like he had worms crawling out his ears. What the hell is he talking about? This guy is a med student, he couldn't have just said something that ridiculous. "No, it works, trust me, try it." Even though I'm convinced that my friend is insane, I indulge him and put my face right up next to a light bulb. And guess what? Not a damn thing happened.

Then yesterday, as Sharon and I were walking out of a store and into the sun, she suddenly sneezes three times in a row. I ask if she's okay, and she replies"Yeah, that happens when you suddenly walk into a bright light." Okay, I married a crazy person. I didn't sneeze, and I saw the same light she did. But as we walk towards the car, I hear another person behind me sneeze. Is the whole world insane? When I get home, I do a PubMed search for "sneeze light." And guess what? It's a real thing. It's called the Photic Sneeze Reflex. There is no known mechanism for the reflex, but it is an actual reflex. I read other articles and find that it is genetic, following autosomal dominant inheritance. That explains why staring into the light had no effect on me, but forced Sharon to sneeze.

So why am I writing about this? Because this is what it means to be a skeptic. I hear something which seems like bullshit. Then an independent source confirms the bullshit. Then I do a search of the literature and find information that both supports the claim and accounts for my lack of personal experience. I then modify my original position of "my wife and friend are insane" to "my wife and friend have defective gene pools." This is how I approach life. When I hear about medical benefits of echinacea or statistics on health care spouted by politicians, I research it and learn the truth. The idea that someone would take at face value claims made by SCAMers and politicians is completely foreign to me. But I guess that's how these people get their power.

References:

1. Beckman L, Nordenson I. "Individual differences with respect to the sneezing reflex: an inherited physiological trait in man?" Hum Hered. 1983, 33(6):390-1
2. Peroutka SJ, Peroutka LA. "Autosomal dominant transmission of the 'photic sneeze reflex.'" N Engl J Med. Mar 1 1984, 310(9):599-600
3. "Solar Sneeze Reflex." W J Med. 1987, 146(5):20

This Blog Does Not Support Animal Cruelty

The other day, I was in caffeine-deprivation mode on my way to school, so I stopped by one of the local coffee shops to fill up. This place, Stone Creek Coffee, is like Starbucks, but more local. They have really good coffee at *relatively* decent prices, and give out free samples of whole-bean blends, so I give them my support over Starbucks. As I was drinking their coffee, I noticed that printed on their cups, is a message saying that Stone Creek Coffee is "Socially Responsible Coffee." What kind of hippie bullshit is that? They say that they are "100% certified socially responsible" because they get their coffee from "fair trade wholesalers." I think I just won buzzword bingo. I can't believe all those people who only buy 87% certified socially responsible coffee. Is there really a certification board for social responsibility? Now, I'm not saying I prefer coffee that was made in a sweatshop. I support fair trade for the same reasons I support feminists. It should be the standard, not something they need to advertise on their cups. They're patting themselves on the head for doing something they should be doing to begin with. I don't see McDonald's printing "We don't discriminate against homosexuals" on their cups. Once you start advertising your "social responsibility," you make it clear that you are doing so for selfish reasons. Besides, how socially responsible can they be when they support my drug addiction?

But I Know They Love Me...

Last year's September implosion, losing to the Cardinals in the playoffs the two years prior, losing every World Series game I've ever seen them play. Not to mention the year we had the worst record in the league. Then last night's six and a half hour marathon lost on two throwing errors in the 22nd inning. To the Rockies, of all teams. Goddamn it Padres. I don't want to make light of domestic abuse, but that's what it feels like sometimes. Because I'll stay loyal to them. No matter how many disappointments and close losses and blown saves the Padres give me, I still keep coming back. Today I'm wearing my worn-out freebie Padres cap, waiting until tonight when I can stay up until midnight again watching them play the Diamondbacks. Great pitching, and no run support, I'm sure. They abuse me, but I'll always love them.




Except for Kouzmanoff. Fuck that guy.

The Homeopathy Dilution (no, wait, make that Delusion)

Some supplemental, complementary and alternative medicines, or SCAMs for short, are based on observational science. Examples of this include gingko or ginseng. Observations were made based on people who used these natural products, and medical benefits were inferred. These observations don't always hold up in experimental science, but at least they're trying. Deep, deep down there may be some grain of science. Unfortunately, that usually isn't the case. Today, I'm talking about the dumbest of the dumb: homeopathy.

Homeopathy has a larger following in Europe than America, but is still a fairly popular SCAM. They believe that you can cure a disease by giving a drug that simulates the symptoms of that disease. If someone is suffering from, say, insomnia, they should be treated with caffeine. I won't even begin to say what's wrong with that. But here's where things start to get really crazy. Instead of giving them the drug straight, they believe a small amount of drug should be dissolved in, say, a liter of water. Then, one drop of that solution should be diluted with another liter of water. Then one drop of that solution mixed into another liter of water. This process should be repeated several times. Now, science and mathematics say that after 15 such dilutions (a standard homeopathy serial dilution), it is almost impossible to have any of the original drug actually left in the solution. You have a better chance of winning the lottery three times in a row than having just one molecule of drug in the final solution (I'll leave the mathematics to you). You essentially have pure water. However, homeopathy proponents believe that the water retains the memory, or "essence," of the drug (no, really), provided the solution is properly shaken and you are wearing the right glove (really, look it up). They also believe that this "essence" can be transported over the phone to another glass of water (I'm not kidding, that's what they believe). Needless to say, there is no science to support this claim. In fact, science pretty much proves it is impossible. This is just another newage SCAM. But, on the other hand, homeopathy cures are very good at curing one condition: dehydration.

Losing My Marbles

I know a lot of my posts lately have had (anti-)religious tones, so I'm going to make a conscious effort to break away from that. Today, I focus on evolution. I know what you're thinking. Many people see evolution as an anti-religious idea. But it really isn't, and I won't portray it as such (for religious people interested in evolution, I recommend Finding Darwin's God by Kenneth Miller, which discusses the resolution between evolution and religion). I'll leave a full discussion of evolution to the experts (see links below), but I want to highlight one issue in the evolution/intelligent design "debate" that often gets overlooked.

There is no evidence for intelligent design. Wait, let me restate that, with emphasis. There is no evidence for intelligent design. Let me elaborate exactly what I mean. The tactics of many proponents of intelligent design involve disproving the Darwinian theory of evolution. The idea is that if evolution is wrong, intelligent design is correct. But this is a false dichotomy. Is it not possible that both are wrong? Imagine a bag with a marble in it. Side A believes that the marble is blue, and Side B argues that the marble is red. Side B has come up with encyclopedias of evidence that the marble is red. Meanwhile, Side A has spent it's time trying to definitively prove that the marble cannot be red. But this tactic will never prove the marble is blue. It can still be yellow, green, etc. Side B, in arguing FOR red, is also arguing AGAINST yellow and green. Side A has no evidence FOR blue (take your time and think about this). This is how the evo/ID debate plays out. There has never been evidence put forth FOR intelligent design (blue), or AGAINST the null hypothesis (yellow or green). On the other hand, all the evidence used by evolutionary biologists is FOR evolution (red), and AGAINST the null hypothesis (yellow, green, and blue). Even if Darwinian evolution is definitively disproven, that does not, in turn, prove ID.

Evolution 101 A review of evolutionary theory and evidence intended for laypeople (podcast)
Expelled Exposed A response to Ben Stein's new movie, Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed
Pharyngula A science blog by evolutionary biologist PZ Myers

King Me!

I just got an email from last week's lecturer responding to my post. In his response, he denied all his previous logical fallacies, and instead gave me two "arguments from personal incredulity," one "moving the goalpost," a "slippery slope," a "false dichotomy," and several factual inaccuracies. He actually argued that the second law of thermodynamics proves that evolution is impossible (CLOSED SYSTEM! The entropy of a CLOSED SYSTEM increases! ΔG=ΔH-TΔS!). But that's not what this post is about.

Is there any point to arguing with someone who doesn't agree with you? I know I'm not going to change this guy's mind. And it's a one-on-one email debate right now, so no one else is listening. If I argue him, I waste my time. Hell, any reply I give now will just be a list of logical fallacies. I'm not going to win, he's not going to lose. But if I don't reply, he could see it as a sign of submission. It's like I'm arguing with a three-year-old about where clouds come from. What do you think? Is it worth it to argue?

Like "The Passion" Was All That Great...

A couple weeks ago, one of the local theaters had a sale of all their movie posters. Sharon went and bought the ones for Sweeney Todd and The Golden Compass. I was looking at The Golden Compass poster this morning, and got to thinking about the movie. His Dark Materials is one of the few (read: only) fantasy series I liked. I was so excited for the movie to come out, but I hated the way it was sabotaged by religious groups. Just because the author was an atheist and the book was critical of religion. Bill Donahue, the head of the Catholic League, called it "the most anti-Christmas movie imaginable." (although, to be fair, many religious figures vocally supported the movie) I have no idea why they picked this specific movie to sabotage. By their argument, The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy should have been boycotted as well. It was written by an atheist, and talk about a book that slaps religion in the face. Or what about the Star Trek franchise? Created by an atheist, critical of religion. The Golden Compass was a great movie with Oscar-winning graphics, and even though it did well overseas, I highly doubt the sequels will get made (especially since New Line Cinema folded). That's too bad, I would've liked to see the rest.

On a related note, Sharon and I have decided to name our first daughter Lyra.

What's in a name?

Since the last post was so dense, I'm just doing a quick post today. Actually, I'm hoping that most posts will be about this long, because the long posts take too much time to research and type. If I want to update regularly, it's going to be this type of post; just a random thought that pops into my head when I'm at my laptop.

Someone asked what the title of my blog means, so I'll just give a quick background. The name is taken from a song by Strapping Young Lad called Wrong Side. The full line is "Woke up, screaming, on the wrong side of the Zen." It is a reference to a common theme in Strapping Young Lad's work, which is prominent in their earlier album Alien. I wrote a term paper on this album in my History of Rock class a few years ago, but the major theme is that of a conflict between sanity and psychosis (Devin Townsend, the band's front man, has bipolar disorder). If you have the time, listen to Alien straight through, following along with the lyrics. Their handling of internal struggle is apparent not only in the lyrics, but in the music as well. So why did I choose that line as the title of my blog? Maybe because this blog will serve as a place for me to vent my frustration with stupid people. But really, I just think it's cool.

Does Medicine Need God?

That was the name of the lecture I went to yesterday. I went in thinking it would be a discussion on the ethics of abortion or stem-cell research or end-of-life issues. It turns out it was a more general discussion about the origin of ethics. The lecturer, a first-year med student who studied Christian apologetics (the crossover of theology and philosophy), was discussing "Do ethics (or morals) require God (or religion)?" He presented the following "proof" of God, which he said was "very convincing."

1. Objective morals exist.
2. Objective morals can not exist without the presence of God.
3. God exists.

This argument is called the Transcendental Arument of God (or TAG) and was first developed by Immanuel Kant in 1763. It is logically sound, by which I mean "If 1 and 2 are true, 3 follows." The lecture focused on proving 1 and 2 are true. Unfortunately, he did not offer a single persuasive argument for 1 or 2, so I will here argue that neither 1 nor 2 is true.

Do objective morals exist? First, the lecturer did not discuss what was meant by "objective morals." He simply used the argument that "child abuse is wrong, therefore objective morals exist." (Note: This may be an oversimplification of his position, and I may be straw manning his argument, but it is for the sake of space that I do not repeat his lecture verbatim) I agree that child abuse is wrong, but this makes all of ethics seem black and white. Defining a set of objective morals means there are two categories: right and wrong. In order for objective morals to exist, all people must agree that everything on one side is right and everything on the other side is wrong. I don't believe this is true. Ethics is full of gray areas. Imagine a train full of people is headed directly for a brick wall. Now imagine you are standing by a rail switcher which will change the course of the train and save the lives of everyone on board. Unfortunately, on this side course, a man is stuck, and if the course is changed he will be killed. Do you make the switch? People generally agree that yes, they would. Saving the train full of people is justified by the loss of one life. But now imagine the man trapped on the tracks is your son. Do you still make the switch? Imagine the train is full of 100-year olds and a pregnant woman is trapped on the side track. Or that it is a prison train, filled with rapists and murderers. Or imagine that there are five people on the train and four people trapped on the side rail. Do four deaths justify five lives?

My point is that if you ask one hundred people these questions, even one hundred of the most religious people, you will not get the same answers from everyone. Objective morals do not exist as it is defined here.

Which brings us to point 2. Here, we have two topics to discuss. First, do our morals require the existence of God? This point was discussed by the lecturer simply by cherry-picking quotes from his favorite philosophers. He then went on to attack the "atheist outlook." First of all, atheism does not profess to answer any ethical questions. Atheism is simply the answer to the question "is there a God?" The ethical set of beliefs that usually accompanies atheism is called humanism, or the belief that morals come from humans, not from a God (more on this later). He presented the typical argument that because atheists do not believe they are being judged, they can rationalize anything. He presented examples of Mao Tse-Tung, Stalin, and Hitler as atheists who rationalized their ethics (as a side note, it is generally accepted that Hitler was not an atheist, and remained a Christian up until his death). But consider this: atheists make up 10% of the U.S. population, but less than 0.1% of the prison population (though there may be confounders, such as higher education). If you define your ethics by your religion, then you say that you only believe what you do so you can get into heaven. If it were proven that God does not exist, does this mean religious people would suddenly believe murder and rape are accepted? Furthermore, I have read the Bible. It says that murder, theft, adultery, and homosexuality are unethical. It also says that eating shrimp (Leviticus 11:9-12) and wearing felt (Leviticus 19:19, Dueteronomy 22:11) are unethical. And rape can be justified, provided they are virgins and prisoners of war (Numbers 31:15-18). Is this really the basis for our ethics?

So if ethics do not come from religion, where do they come from? Simple: evolution. My favorite lecturer commented on the evolutionary argument for ethics, but it was clear that he had a rudimentary knowledge of evolution, at best. He, like many Christians, believes that evolution is a random process (for the last time, evolution is the OPPOSITE of random), and that no ethics can come from a random process. In "The God Delusion," Richard Dawkins discusses the proposed evolutionary basis for ethics:

"We now have four good Darwinian reasons for individuals to be altruistic, generous or 'moral' towards each other. First, there is the special case of genetic kinship. Second, there is reciprocation: the repayment of favours given, and the giving of favours in 'anticipation' of payback. Following on from this there is, third, the Darwinian benefit of acquiring a reputation for generosity and kindness. And fourth [. . .] there is the particular additional benefit of conspicuous generosity as a way of buying unfakeably authentic advertising." (Dawkins, 219)

Basically, ethics developed as a way of preserving our genes, or the genes of those related to us. So why, then, do we extend these good deeds to complete strangers? The answer lies in sex. The feelings associated with sex developed as a positive reinforcement for passing on our genes through reproduction. However, when I wear a condom, I am well aware that I am not going to pass my genes on, yet I feel the same positive reinforcement associated with sex. The same goes for ethics. When I help a complete stranger, I know I am not preserving my genes, and yet I feel good inside. When confronting this concept, the lecturer said he "can not believe this could be true." Therefore it's wrong, right? Or is that the argument from personal incredulity?

In conclusion, I do not believe that the existence of God is required for ethics. Many people think they get their ethics from their religion, but I believe their intuition for ethics runs deeper than their religion. It may even be the case that religion derived it's basis for ethics from this humane intuition. It's the chicken and the egg. Regardless, I don't believe that I, as an atheist, am compromised in my morals. I don't need to justify my actions by being judged by a higher power.

For more, information, visit your local library.

Bibliography

1. Dawkins, Richard. The God Delusion. Houghton Mifflin: New York. 2006
2. Hauser, M. Moral Minds: How Nature Designed our Universal Sense of Right and Wrong. Ecco: New York. 2006
3. Humanism- Wikipedia
4. Skeptics Annotated Bible
5. Transcendental Argument for the Existence of God- Wikipedia

Blogosphere, Take 2

I'm following in my brother's footsteps and creating a blog. I used to have a Livejournal account, but my updates were far and few between. And that's probably how this will turn out. I had put off starting a new blog for a long time, but something happened today that forced me to create somewhere to vent. I can't even write about it now because I'm still angry. So for now, just an introduction.

This blog will be random musings. Anything from philosophy to religion to why the Dodgers suck. To get a taste of where I'm coming from, check out the following links:

The Skeptic's Guide to the Universe

This is a weekly podcast put on by the New England Skeptical Society. It covers everything from creationism to alien abductions and is one of my favorite podcasts. I'm slowly working backwards through all 141 episodes, and I highly, HIGHLY recommend it.

Penn Says

This is a video blog put on by Penn Jillette of Penn & Teller fame. He is my idol. If you have Netflix or Youtube, look for episodes of P&T's Bullshit!. These are a prerequisite for arguing with me.

Quackwatch

Similar to The Skeptic's Guide, this is your one-stop shop for all things pseudoscience. It, too, is a prerequisite for arguing with me.

Last.fm

This is a site which keeps track of your music. Download their player and it will automatically update your profile every time you listen to a song on iTunes or WMP. It then makes recommendations, with several free music downloads.

Cectic

A skeptical comic strip. Excellent satire.

That's all for now. I'll try to update more regularly, but until then, check out the links above. Feel free to comment. It lets me know that people are listening.