Happy Birthday, World!
According to James Ussher, the world was created on October 23, 4004 BC.
So happy 6012th birthday, world!
Happy Mole Day
As the Tree Lobsters remind us, today is Mole Day (the official site seems to be overloaded, but tehPedia isn’t). Yay!
For those who have forgotten High School chemistry, “mole” a word like “pair” or “dozen” or “score”, in that it refers to a certain number of things. But while “a dozen doughnuts” means twelve doughnuts, “a mole of doughnuts” refers to 6.02×1023 doughnuts (and, of course, a baker’s mole means 602,000,000,000,000,000,000,001 doughnuts).
6.02×1023 is known as Avogadro’s number (which is why you should celebrate Mole Day by having guacamole at lunch), which has the interesting property that that many hydrogen atoms weigh one gram. Oxygen, with 8 protons and 8 neutrons, has an atomic mass of 16 (minus some change), so a mole of oxygen weighs 16 grams.
This makes life easier for chemists. We all know that two hydrogen atoms and one oxygen atom combine to make one water molecule. And likewise, two dozen hydrogens and one dozen oxygens make a dozen water molecules. So two moles of hydrogen and a mole of oxygen make a mole of water.
So naturally, Mole Day is celebrated starting at 6:02 on 10/23 (US notation. Check with your local chemist and setting of $LC_TIME to find out when it’s celebrated in your area.
Update, Oct. 25: Alert reader Anne Wright pointed out a mistake. Fixed.
Superstition Kills
The AP has an appalling article about children in Nigeria being killed for being witches. Welcome to the thirteenth century, folks. I recommend that you think whether you want to follow that link, because if you have an ounce of compassion, you’ll be boiling mad at the monsters responsible.
And hey, guess what: it’s not just primitive tribal superstition that’s to blame: the rebranded, socially acceptable face of primitive superstition has its fingerprints all over this infanticidal fuckwaddism:
Some of the churches involved are renegade local branches of international franchises. Their parishioners take literally the Biblical exhortation, “Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live.”
There’s also money involved. Not in the sense of people being paid to kill children. It’s worse: children are being killed as a side effect of someone else trying to make a buck:
“Where little shots become big shots in a short time,” promises the Winner’s Chapel down the road.
“Pray your way to riches,” advises Embassy of Christ a few blocks away.
It’s hard for churches to carve out a congregation with so much competition. So some pastors establish their credentials by accusing children of witchcraft.
…
“Even churches who didn’t use to ‘find’ child witches are being forced into it by the competition,” said Itauma. “They are seen as spiritually powerful because they can detect witchcraft and the parents may even pay them money for an exorcism.”
This next quote I can only hope is an example of liberal media bias, the AP trying to make religion look bad:
The Nigerian church is a branch of a Californian church by the same name. But the California church says it lost touch with its Nigerian offshoots several years ago.
“I had no idea,” said church elder Carrie King by phone from Tracy, Calif. “I knew people believed in witchcraft over there but we believe in the power of prayer, not physically harming people.”
Because if that’s an honest summary of King’s position, then that means either a) she’s a wimpy superstitious moron who believes in witchcraft, but doesn’t have the balls to do anything about it, or b) she’s a stupid superstitious moron who doesn’t have a problem with people continuing to believe in magic an witchcraft because presumably they won’t do anything about it.
Even the guy trying to do something about the problem comes across as irresponsible:
But Foxcroft, the head of Stepping Stones, said if the organization was able to collect membership fees, it could also police its members better. He had already written to the organization twice to alert it to the abuse, he said. He suggested the fellowship ask members to sign forms denouncing abuse or hold meetings to educate pastors about the new child rights law in the state of Akwa Ibom, which makes it illegal to denounce children as witches. Similar laws and education were needed in other states, he said.
It’s not enough to just tell people that it’s not okay to kill witches. You need to explain that there’s no such thing as witchcraft or magic, period. No witchcraft, no witches. No witches, no need to pour acid down children’s throats or set them on fire. Or would that cramp the missionaries’ job of telling Africans about their undead Jewish zombie?
Or maybe it’s just the fact that local religious leaders are just as irresponsibly superstitious as their flock:
“Witchcraft is real,” Ukpabio insisted, before denouncing the physical abuse of children. Ukpabio says she performs non-abusive exorcisms for free and was not aware of or responsible for any misinterpretation of her materials.
“I don’t know about that,” she declared.
However, she then acknowledged that she had seen a pastor from the Apostolic Church break a girl’s jaw during an exorcism.
I can’t express how upset I am about this. It’s bad enough that this is pure medieval tripe, but that it’s church leaders who are both instigating and perpetuating this abomination.
Instead of sending Bibles to Africa, maybe these churches should be sending Monty Python DVDs. At least then they’d learn how to see whether someone is a witch, and maybe not kill any more children who weigh more than a duck.
A Well-Timed Ad
Yesterday, at work, I got an ad from IBM that said
Today’s business requires actionable insights.
Today, Slashdot is reporting that IBM and Intel executives have been arrested for insider trading.
I guess the actionable insight they had was “if we use information about the company that the public doesn’t have, we can make a killing on the stock market!”
May I also suggest “If someone orders something from you, and you take their money but don’t ship the product, you can reduce your operating costs” and “You can make a ton of money just by pointing a gun at people and taking their wallets.” No, don’t thank me. The thought of you enjoying some quality time with your cellmate Bubba is all the thanks I need.
Gay Marriage Opponent Doesn’t Know What the Harm in Gay Marriage Is, Either
This AP article recounts a revealing exchange between a California judge and a lawyer arguing that Prop 8 should be maintained:
“What is the harm to the procreation purpose you outlined of allowing same-sex couples to get married?” [Judge] Walker asked.
“My answer is, I don’t know. I don’t know,” Cooper answered.
Moments later, after assuring the judge his response did not mean Proposition 8 was doomed to be struck down, Cooper tried to clarify his position. The relevant question was not whether there is proof that same-sex unions jeopardize marriages between men and women, but whether “the state is entitled, when dealing with radical proposals to make changes to bedrock institutions such as this … to take a wait and see attitude,” he said.
…Walker pressed on, asking again for specific “adverse consequences” that could follow expanding marriage to include same-sex couples. Cooper cited a study from the Netherlands, where gay marriage is legal, showing that straight couples were increasingly opting to become domestic partners instead of getting married.
“Has that been harmful to children in the Netherlands? What is the adverse effect?” Walker asked.
Cooper said he did not have the facts at hand.
“But it is not self-evident that there is no chance of any harm, and the people of California are entitled not to take the risk,” he said.
“Since when do Constitutional rights rest on the proof of no harm?” Walker parried, adding the First Amendment right to free speech protects activities that many find offensive, “but we tolerate those in a free society.”
This buttresses something I’ve thought for some time: that the “gay marriage will undermine traditional marriage” argument is just a headline with no body, no substance behind the talking point.
The judge also has the right attitude: that when it comes to rights, the question is not “is there any reason to grant this right?” but rather “is there any reason to deny it?” (except that in the case of Proposition 8, we’re talking about taking away an existing right).
As for the decline of marriage in the Netherlands, let’s assume for the sake of argument that it’s true: that the dropping marriage rate there is directly caused by a liberal zeitgeist that makes people less likely to want to get married, while simultaneously promoting the right of gays to get married should they so choose.
So. Fewer (straight) couples are getting married. Should they be compelled to do so? Obviously not. Presumably the couples in question aren’t being harmed, or else they’d get hitched. What about harm to the children, as judge Walker asked? If there is, the gay marriage opponents might have a case. Cooper couldn’t name any. And as long as the discussion over gay marriage has been going on, if there were anything to this argument, you’d think he or his clients would know.
In short, I have yet to hear an argument against gay marriage that doesn’t boil down to “I don’t like it”. I do sympathize with this, really. But come on, rectifying inequality has got to trump “I don’t like it”.
Dinosaur Adventure Land Closed
This is old news, but alert reader Fez points out that Kent Hovind’s Backyard Swing-Set Of Delusion, Dinosaur Adventure Land, has closed its doors.
Our ability to minister as a creation theme park here in Pensacola, Florida has been recently impeded. On Thursday, July 28, 2009, a federal judge gave the United States Government permission to seize ministry property as a substitute for payment of fines (not tax related) imposed upon our founder, Dr. Kent Hovind. While we are trying to raise funds, if we fail to meet the Government’s requirements, we will have to forfeit the property. This would mean a temporary disappearance of Dinosaur Adventure Land. For information on how you can get involved, please visit:
http://www.drdino.com/legal.
If they’re “trying to raise funds”, why not raid the account in which Hovind kept the money for his $250,000 challenge. Because that money totally exists and everything, because a True Christian™ like Hovind wouldn’t lie, would he?
Kook Fight!
So, I just got back from scanning BillDo’s site, with articles like ANTI-RELIGIOUS BIAS MARKS TWO OBAMA PICKS (yes, all of his titles are in shouty-caps) and ABORTION HAUNTS PEACE PRIZE WINNER (shorter Bill: “I don’t care that my president won the Nobel Prize. He supports repealing the Hyde Amendment and is therefore Satan”).
And then this falls into my inbox:
Liberal and conservative Catholics alike would prefer not to discuss how the Catholic Church, here and abroad, functions like a liberal/left-wing political lobby.
Some pro-life Catholics are acting shocked that the Vatican warmly greeted the awarding of the Nobel Peace Prize to President Obama, who is pro-abortion. They don’t seem to understand that the Vatican and Obama agree on most major international issues. This is the untold story-how Obama and the Vatican accept major ingredients of what has been called a New World Order.
Meanwhile, why don’t we call nine-wah-wah and call the wahmbulance for the poor oppressed Mormons?:
The anti-Mormon backlash after California voters overturned gay marriage last fall is similar to the intimidation of Southern blacks during the civil rights movement, a high-ranking Mormon said Tuesday.
Elder Dallin H. Oaks referred to gay marriage as an “alleged civil right” in an address at Brigham Young University-Idaho that church officials described as a significant commentary on current threats to religious freedom.
Why yes, Elder Tool! Institutionalized segregation, Jim Crow laws, poll taxes, and lynchings are exactly like people calling you intolerant douchetards because you want to impose your superstitious bigotry on them by taking away their right to get married. Exactly like it!
But there’s one right that’ll never be taken away from you: the right to put the kettle on and make yourself a nice steaming cup of shut the fuck up.
Is it Okay to Have A Beer With Bill Maher?
On Saturday’s episode of The Non-Prophets, PZ Myers and Matt Dillahunty (and any other hosts who managed to get a word in edgewise between those two) had a discussion about Bill Maher and his frankly kooky views on medicine.
They talked about the growing atheist community, the growing skeptical community, and how we’re likely to see more people like Maher: he’s an atheist (even though he’ll tell you otherwise), but he’s obviously no skeptic, at least not with regards to medicine.
Now, one notable trait of both the atheist and skeptic communities is that we love to argue. This a feature, not a bug. And both PZ and Matt agreed that there’s no reason, if someone on “our side” says something stupid, not to call them on it.
But it seems to me that there might be a problem here, one that will become more apparent as both constituencies grow: people join atheist and skeptic groups for different reasons.
Skeptics get together because they see a lot of woo and superstitous nonsense around them, and want to figure out how to fight it. They want to figure out objective truth, and teach others to do the same.
On the other hand, people join atheist groups to get away from religion, especially in highly-religious areas like the south. That is, it’s often primarily a matter of socializing with like-minded people.
And when you tell people that they’re wrong, they tend to react negatively, unless they’re that special breed who like having it pointed out to them when they’re wrong.
Currently this isn’t a big problem, because there’s a lot of overlap between the atheist and skeptical communities. Skeptical groups get together for beer, and atheist groups have lectures. But I suspect that this will change.
If all goes well then religion will fade with time. More people will be brought up atheist by default. That is, they’ll have no particular reason to consider the existence of any gods, either because their parents talk about them, or because they’re trying to get to the bottom of this thing that so many people seem to believe. At that point, the main impetus for atheist groups will be gone: people will get together to knock back a few beers, or read books, or watch the game, and not to get away from religion. But woo and superstition will remain, and so will skeptical groups.
But at some point between now and then, there will be a time when there’s still a niche for groups for getting away from religion, but also when a significant number of people in those groups believe in weird things like astrology or homeopathy or whichever flavor of idiocy is in fashion at the time. And then the atheist groups will have to decide whether they want to be a social organization that tolerates woo, or a skeptical organization where you risk having your deeply-held opinions ridiculed.
Quick and Dirty Perl Hack: Is Foo::Bar Installed?
Every so often, I need to find out whether I have a certain Perl module installed. Usually it’s either because of a security alert, or because I’m wondering how much of a pain it would be to install some package that has Some::Obscure::Module as a prerequisite.
I don’t know how y’all do it, what with the plethora of package-management utilities out there, but one way that works for sure is simply:
perl -MSome::Module -e ''
If this command succeeds, that means Perl successfully loaded Some::Module, then executed the (empty) script, printing nothing. If Some::Module is missing, it’ll print an error message and fail.
This is short enough that it should be aliased, but I haven’t gotten around to that yet.
Some Meta-Arguments Against God, Part 3
(This was originally going to be part 4, but since today is Blasphemy Day, I figured I’d bump it up.)
Blasphemy and Heresy
If you think about it, the very notions of blasphemy and heresy are bizare.
Heresy means saying things that aren’t true, according to church authorities. Depending on which sect is in power, this might mean asserting that Jesus is divine, denying that Jesus is divine, asserting or denying that Jesus is his own father, claiming that the Bible/Koran/Vedas was/wasn’t divinely inspired, whether there’s an imam hiding at the bottom of a well, and thousands of others.
And blasphemy means saying bad things about, or denying the existence of the god(s), prophets, saints, etc. of the sect in question.
Wars have been waged over such issues. Many societies have had, or still have, prohibitions against heresy and blasphemy. Even in the US, a lot of them are still on the books, even though they’ve been struck down by the courts.
And yet, no society has a law against saying that air is heavier than lead, or that the sky is green. So what is it about blasphemous or heretical ideas that they must be kept down by force of law or arms?
The closest secular analog to blasphemy that I can think of is the law in various societies against criticizing the king. Or, these days, the dictator (of course, in more enlightened modern dictatorships, there’s no actual law against criticizing El Jefe, it’s just that everyone knows you shouldn’t do it if you don’t feel like being disappeared one night. But the effect is the same). In France, it was (and possibly still is) illegal to insult a policeman.
The obvious secular analog to heresy is holocaust denial, which is illegal in a number of countries.
It seems to me that in order to be banned by law, an idea has to be a) detrimental, and b) plausible. Note that an idea doesn’t have to be true to be banned; nor does it have to be false. It just has to be plausible. And these conditions are necessary but not sufficient: an idea like “vaccines kill more people than they save” is both detrimental and, apparently, plausible. But it isn’t banned anywhere that I know of.
Detrimental to whom? To the powers that be, of course. Whoever has influence over which laws get enacted. Laws against lèse-majesté are detrimental to kings, and kings pass them. If a king needs the church’s support for political reasons, he might pass laws against harming the church. Religious organizations create their own rules, to protect themselves and the religious leaders.
Part of the genius of the American experiment is the first amendment, which guarantees the right to express one’s opinion. The courts have interpreted this rather broadly, covering such things as pornography and non-verbal expression. Certainly no one would dream of forbidding criticism of the government. The punditocracy would be up in arms!
And this is a sign of strength: it sends the message that we’re not afraid of criticism. That you’re free to say that the US shouldn’t exist, or that Obama is the worst president ever, and we’re confident that the free marketplace of ideas will quickly dispose of such notions without there having to be any laws against them.
The existence of heresy and blasphemy, by contrast, imply weakness. If you have to forbid people from saying “there are no gods” or “you don’t need religion to live a full satisfying life”, you’re saying that you can’t rely on the marketplace of ideas to get rid of them, the way you can for “grass is red”.
I think you can see where I’m going with all this: the very notions of blasphemy and heresy exist not because the gods are harmed by being insulted, and not for the benefit of the population at large. They exist because if people were free to examine the evidence for and against gods and other supernatural propositions, they would realize that the emperor has no clothes, and that their tithe doesn’t help God, it helps the priest.
I’m not saying that this is the result of cynical manipulation by religious leaders, though in many cases it doubtless is. Rather, it’s more likely to be natural selection among memes: a group of ideas that is protected against criticism is more likely to survive and be passed on.
That’s what makes blasphemy a meta-argument against gods: if any gods existed, and were anywhere near as good and powerful as they’re supposed to be, it wouldn’t be necessary to forbid denying their existence.
(Update: fixed an obvious grammatical problem pointed out by alert reader Fez, who will burn in the fires of hell for having the insolence to criticize me.)