Genius!

Facebook is a pretty popular network these days. Personally, I don't use it very often, but whenever I do log in, I usually have 10 or so invitations to various groups or events, most of which I ignore without reading. Sometimes, however, a group catches my eye as intriguing: 1,000,000 Strong for Colbert, for instance, or I bet I can Find a Million People who Dislike George Bush. I was reading through the discussion board of the latter group, chuckling to myself at all the comments, when I came across a link that I just could not pass up - a site called Kill Bush.

I imagine you can all figure out the agenda of this site without much help, but what I found really funny (besides the fact that sites like this exist) was a clever grammatical device they used in one of their stories. It's pretty apparent that whoever made the site is not exactly a grammarian, as the majority of the text is wrong in some way or another. However, a phrase that I noted immediately was the figure they cited as the number of people Bush has killed, or something like that: "tenths of millions."

This is pure genius.

I actually didn't even notice when I first read it what it actually said, until, a few sentences later, it occurred to me that the entire population of Iraq is something like 30 million. I admit I haven't been keeping up on the death tolls, but I think I would have heard about it if a third of the country had died. The author of this article has come up with a way to inflate figures without actually inflating them: use fractions that sound like big numbers. The next time I complain about my tuition bill, I'm going to say that I'm in debt by hundreths of millions of dollars. Maybe I can get a tax break that way.

Either that, or the author actually meant to say "tens of millions," and just sucks so bad at writing that he/she didn't notice that they used the wrong word. That's probably more likely.

"So what are your opinions on the assassination of Franz Ferdinand and the precipitation of World War I?"

I imagine if the Treaty of Berlin had remained inviolate ad infinitum, the entire issue might have been avoided. Alternatively, I suppose if the July Ultimatum was never sent, the fallout of the assassination, while still throwing Austria-Hungary into chaos, would have been significantly alleviated for the rest of the continent.

I never actually expected someone to respond to that question...

Well, I suppose in any case it's better than "would you believe me if I told you I was black from the waist down?"


Sometimes I wonder...what do normal people talk about?

I am an Idiot.

So apparently the Boston Red Sox won the World Series sometime over the weekend. Through an unfortunate coincidence of assignments and exams, I somehow managed, despite living in downtown Boston, to remain completely unaware of this until today. I didn't find out until I walked into my Introduction to Philosophy elective at around noon, mentally running through everything we'd learned up until now, since we were supposed to have an exam today. I entered the room, only to find it empty but for the professor, who informed me that on account of the celebration in progress downtown, the exam was cancelled. Instead of administering the test, he handed out a couple questions and told us to do them at home and email our answers to him at our leisure, as long as he gets them by Friday afternoon. So rather than taking an exam, the class gets to go celebrate with the Red Sox. Well, except for me, of course, because I still had a road to design by 4:30.

Why the hell aren't I a philosophy major??? I'm fairly certain none of my engineering professors would cancel an exam so that the students could go get drunk before noon.

Question...

A few days ago I went to the library in an effort to follow in my more philosophically-minded brother's footsteps and read The God Delusion. I am interested to see what he says, as I have heard him described, albeit hyperbolically, as the greatest thinker of our time. Unfortunately, the book was checked out, and so I settled instead for another book by Dawkins, entitled The Selfish Gene. I am probably about 3/4 of the way through it, and so far it is interesting and I have had almost no major disagreements with what he says. He focuses on evolution with respect to the genes of an individual (his catch phrase is the "survival machine", manufactured by the gene to facilitate its replication), and appears to be able to explain the theory pretty well as far as I can see. I do, however, have one big question about evolution which I have not found in his book thus far, which perhaps someone might be able to help me with. Natural selection is pretty much a universally accepted principle nowadays, and it seems perfectly sound to me - using Dawkins' language, genes which produce flawed bodies would fail to reproduce themselves and become less numerous in the gene pool, while genes producing fitter bodies would become more numerous. Eventually the unfit ones would die out completely and the species could be considered to have evolved.
The problem with this is the enormous complexity that we observe in the world. Evolution can explain species changing, but it does not seem to explain them growing more diverse. In fact, Dawkins himself points out that genes which fail to replicate themselves perfectly would become less numerous in the gene pool. Natural selection does not account for variation, it should actually eliminate it.
Suppose an animal's (say, a giraffe's) habitat is suddenly changed in such a way that only by having a long neck could it survive. We are inclined to say that the species develops and "evolves" a longer neck, but this is not how it happens. In reality, giraffes with short necks die off and giraffes with long necks live. This is the essence of natural selection. While we could say that the species "evolves" a longer neck, all that really happens is that the average neck length increased, because you killed off all the animals with short necks. The genetic makeup of a giraffe did not really evolve; that's like saying a school gets smarter when the stupid students drop out. No individual student will get smarter - it is only the average which increases. In the same way, a giraffe's neck could not get longer because giraffes with short necks died out. The giraffe could only have developed its long neck if there existed, prior to the need for a long neck, at least one individual of each sex within the population with the long neck that we see today. After the change, all the other giraffes would die and only these relatively few would be available to "rebuild" the species in their own image, namely, that long neck. But that neck would not, barring extremely fortuitous genetic mutation, be longer in the next generation than it was in the previous.
Natural selection can take advantage of an existing variation within a population to change the average genetic makeup of that population, but it cannot actually perform a feat of evolution as it is purported to have done. Proponents of evolution then seem to be left with random mutations to provide this variation which natural selection can then choose between. It is my understanding, however, before reading Dawkins' book, that mutations are incredibly rare and random occurrences which are overwhelmingly more likely to harm an animal than help it anyway, and in addition, Dawkins himself seems to say that gene mutation should decrease through evolution, as it is only genes which replicate themselves to the most reliable extent possible that persist through the ages.

Anyone care to explain this discrepancy to me? I may not have much respect for Dawkins, but too many other learned people are staunch supporters of evolution for me to dismiss it readily. I feel as though I must be missing something.

Damn It, Ray!

So I've just watched the YouTube rendition of Ray Comfort's ABC debate with a couple atheists. I'll admit I only watched part of it (I got too pissed off to finish the whole thing), but one question struck me pretty quickly: Why are the people we see arguing for Christianity on television always so stupid? I know at least a dozen people who could have done a better job than Mr. Comfort in that debate, and half of them aren't even really Christians. I should mention that I'm not too happy with the atheists either (although I think one of them was at least smarter than Ray), but the burden of proof was not on them, so all they had to do was find out how Ray screwed up... a much easier task.
What really gets me is that I think Ray started out with a good point; the idea that when we see a building, we know there was a builder - when we see a painting, we know there was a painter. And then he does something really stupid. He uses this to say that since we "prove" the existence of a painter from the existence of a painting, we can "prove" the existence of a Creator from the existence of Creation. This is where he pissed me off. The atheist on the other end of the debate made the point that we can call the builder or the painter, while we cannot call the Creator.
Almost a good point, but this doesn't really prove that the builder built this or the painter painted this. Now what Ray could have done is said that it is reasonable to believe that the painter and the builder are not lying to us, and whatever documentation exists is accurate. We therefore take it on faith that the builders and painters we call are not lying to us, and that the documentation was not forged. We cannot prove this; but it is reasonable to believe it. By the same token, you could say that it is reasonable to believe in a Creator. You could say that we take things on faith every day of our lives - why are we so opposed to taking something like the existence of God on faith? But Ray doesn't do that. He continues to pretend that he can prove scientifically the existence of God, when really it is impossible to prove almost anything at all. Scientific proofs are not about what it true anyway, they are about what it is reasonable to assume is true. If people could see this, then they could make much more intelligent arguments.
People like Ray's biggest problem in these debates is the burden of proof; if they would stop thinking of it as proof and start thinking of it as reasonable belief, maybe they'd get somewhere. Or maybe they still couldn't go anywhere with it. I don't know. They might not be smart enough to ever get anywhere. I just wish we could start finding real intellectuals to consider intellectual.

"I wanna dedicate this book to my dick"

Excuse me while I laugh hysterically.

Guilt; the Destroyer of Good Deeds

I've decided that Uriel is right after all. People, by and large, are hedonists. But I don't just mean the prostitutes and tax collectors; I also mean the lady who helps out every week at the homeless shelter, and the boy scout who helps that lady cross the street. Ask somebody who does these "good" deeds why they do them, and you will, nine times out of ten, get a response similar to "I like helping people." People who do good deeds inevitably feel good about doing them; people who do bad deeds inevitably feel guilty about doing them. This does not, of course, prove that these consequences are why people choose to do good deeds and not bad ones, but once we accumulate a certain amount of purely circumstantial evidence, it would be foolish to ignore it.
Now I'm not saying that this is necessarily a bad thing. Certainly the homeless person doesn't care why that lady helps them every week, and that lady doesn't care why the boy scout helps her across the street. Our motives do not affect the consequences of our actions upon society. I think it does, however, affect the inherent goodness of those actions. A good deed done out of fear of guilt or out of desire to feel good about doing it is no more a good deed than a criminal sentenced to community service. It has good effects; it is not a good deed. It is, in essence, hedonism. And a hedonistic act that helps society is no less hedonistic because of that.
Through mechanisms such as guilt, we are programmed to do these "good" acts not out of selflessness, but out of our own selfish desires. I'm not arguing that guilt is a bad thing - our society depends upon said mechanisms to remain stable. As the Good Reverend once said, "People without guilt are called 'criminals'." However, it seems to me that only in a world without guilt can any truly selfless act occur.

The main flaw that I see with this idea is that of the martyr; or more specifically, an atheistic one. People like the ancient Christians or the modern suicide bombers do not count, as they believed they would receive their reward in Heaven. After all, what's a crucifixion or two compared to eternal bliss? But a true atheist who sacrifices themselves without any hope of a reward, now there's a problem. By the argument this post presented, the only reason an atheist would give their own life is that they are so afraid of the guilt they'd feel otherwise that they would rather die. Which, of course, is possible, but I don't think it would be provable.
Oh well. It was kind of a depressing idea anyway.