Apologies for the lack of updates recently. Rest assured my skeptical brain has been working while the rest of me has been slightly worse than useless.
I'll be back with more regular updates now Real Life (TM) has once again deigned to allow me some spare time.
And what better way to celebrate my impending return than with the announcement of TAM (The Amazing Meeting) Australia?
The Amazing Meeting has been held since 2003 and has become the premier meeting for skeptics worldwide. Unfortunately for those of us outwith the United States it can be very expensive to attend.
Earlier this year the first international TAM took place in London and it was widely acclaimed.
And so hot off the back of that was the announcement that Australia will become a focal point for skeptics all around the world from 26-28th November next year.
It's a major coup for the Australian Skeptics and the list of skeptical attendees is already looking impressive.
The Skeptics' Guide to the Universe cast (Dr Steve Novella, Bob Novella, Jay Novella, Evan Bernstein and Rebecca Watson) had already announced they would travel to Australia next year but this will now coincide with TAM Australia.
And if that isn't exciting enough, Skeptoid's Brian Dunning and skeptical podcaster and singer George Hrab will also be making the long trip.
Oh, and a certain diminutive magician widely loved by the entire skeptical community has also said he intends to be in Sydney.
One of the greatest things about the skeptical community is how in touch the 'leaders' are with the base. I've exchanged e-mails, Facebook messages and Tweets with the biggest names and it's amazing (no pun intended) to be able to do that.
And the highlight had to be an e-mail from the man himself, James Randi. I sent him some birthday wishes last year and I was stunned to receive a message back from him.
It was short, amusing and has become my most treasured e-mail. I'll be hoping Randi has fully recovered from his recent health issues so I may shake his hand next November.
Congratulations Australian Skeptics and I can't wait to meet everyone next year.
I'll be looking for cheap tickets to Sydney every day from now on!
Showing posts with label sgu. Show all posts
Showing posts with label sgu. Show all posts
Monday, November 30, 2009
Sunday, February 1, 2009
God skepticality
The different 'varieties' of skeptic is one of the community's biggest positives, but it's also an issue that will means we can never be totally united. That's just something us skeptics need to deal with.
Thankfully there are communities (and podcasts) like the Skeptics' Guide To The Universe and The Skeptic Zone which can unite us around those things we agree on - and an excellent job they do of it.
The biggest unknown, as I see it, is the question of whether god exists or not.
I don't really care if a skeptic is an atheist, an agnostic or a theist. Some have made it known, some keep it to themselves. That's fine.
But my atheism is a big part of my skepticism - in fact it was probably the first step in my conversion from belief in faked moon landings and conspiracy theories to a fully-fledged skeptic. So, like it or not, I'll be dealing with atheism as part of nz skeptic.
That said, I wanted to share a piece I wrote for AUT's student magazine 'debate' about 18 months ago. It's a piece about that national anthem of New Zealand, a song called "God Defend New Zealand".
I think it's a good example of me using a bit of humour to make a serious point. Don't worry - I won't be regurgitating often - a new post will be up tomorrow!
God Offend New Zealand
Bertrand Russell, famous British philosopher, once wrote, "If I were granted omnipotence, and millions of years to experiment in, I should not think Man much to boast of as the final results of all my efforts".
I get up in the morning, take a long look in the mirror and find myself agreeing with Russell. Each sag of fat reinforces the fact that an allegedly benevolent being didn't exactly give me a body I should be particularly thankful for.
Now it's not simply my pudgy body that leads me to the conclusion there's no God. Years of studying science, rational and skeptical thinking, and a family who let me make up my own mind, all pointed me to the conclusion that God doesn't exist.
Instead of sitting on the fence and getting splinters in my arse and calling myself agnostic, I came out of the closet. I am an atheist.
Now before some of you send me e-mails telling me I'm going to Hell, I'd like to state I'm not anti-religion. In fact, I'm right at the front of the queue demanding people have the right to do whatever they want, whenever they want to. Where I object is when it impinges upon other people.
New Zealand is rare in that it has two National Anthems with equal standing. However both contain multiple mentions of the word 'God'. 'God Save The Queen' (from what one may ask?) and 'God Defend New Zealand' by their very titles can reduce the feelings of national pride for non-religious people.
There are people, like Elizabeth McKenzie, President of the New Zealand Association of Rationalists and Humanists, who refuse to sing because God is mentioned. What better way to fire up the All Blacks than by playing a song that may draw feelings of apathy, or even anger, from a large proportion of the crowd?
The 2006 census showed 1.297 million people (or 31 per cent of total respondents) had no religious affilliation, creating by far the largest 'religion' in New Zealand. The next biggest religions are Anglican (13 per cent) and Catholicism (12 per cent).
Given the (righteous) moves to ensure that even the smallest minority has proper representation and aren't discriminated against, isn't it rather ironic that 31 per cent of the country is ignored by the official national songs? And at the same time it can be hardly claimed that the current anthems properly represents the 124 religions in New Zealand either.
Is asking the crowd to sing the national anthem at a rugby game discriminatory?
No, it's not, because people have the ability to ignore it, stick their fingers in their ears or make up their own words. But surely there are better ways to engage the population and not leave anyone out? New Zealand has some fantastic lyricists.
Wouldn't a Finn brothers' original song, or a Hone Tuwhare poem say much more about New Zealand and its people that a 19th Century dirge that has little relevance in the 21st Century?
I'm not writing this article to convert anyone. I'm not asking anyone to give up deeply held beliefs because someone you've never met says scientific consensus suggests it's highly unlikely God exists. I'm asking you to consider whether it's fair on almost one-third of the population to continue with songs that demand a religious outlook on life.
Perhaps I'm being a bit hard on Aotearoa. We're certainly not the worst country in the world when it comes to discriminating against atheists. We're nowhere near as bad as the United States, for example.
In a February 2007 Gallup poll only 45 per cent of US respondents said they would vote for an atheist for President. This was a whole 10 points behind the next least popular group - homosexuals. I think (or at least I hope) New Zealand wouldn't have such a problem with an atheist Prime Minister.
Now I don't want to be seen to be singling out religion. My skepticism and rationality isn't confined to that one topic. I'm a firm believer in Occam's Razor (the simplest solution tends to be the best one). What's more likely? Someone turning over a page in the telephone book by psychic power or by blowing on it? A psychic getting in contact with dead people or using well-documented cold-reading techniques and probability to be reasonably accurate?
Now, before I start a rant about faked moon-landings, creationism, homeopathy and UFOs, I am going to put down my proverbial pen.
I'd like to leave the last words to the sadly missed Douglas Adams from the ever-popular 'Hitchhiker's Guide To The Galaxy.'
"I refuse to prove that I exist," says God, "for proof denies faith, and without faith I am nothing."
"But," said Man, "The Babel Fish* is a dead giveaway, isn't it? It could not have evolved by chance. It proves you exis, and so therefore, by your own arguments, you don't."
"Oh dear," says God. "I hadn't thought of that," and promptly disappears in a puff of logic.
Now, as I'm sure you'll be glad to read, I'm off to disappear in a puff of my own illogic.
*The Babel fish is an amazing species of fish that can translate any language into any other making it popular in the realms of inter-galactic hitchhiking.
Thankfully there are communities (and podcasts) like the Skeptics' Guide To The Universe and The Skeptic Zone which can unite us around those things we agree on - and an excellent job they do of it.
The biggest unknown, as I see it, is the question of whether god exists or not.
I don't really care if a skeptic is an atheist, an agnostic or a theist. Some have made it known, some keep it to themselves. That's fine.
But my atheism is a big part of my skepticism - in fact it was probably the first step in my conversion from belief in faked moon landings and conspiracy theories to a fully-fledged skeptic. So, like it or not, I'll be dealing with atheism as part of nz skeptic.
That said, I wanted to share a piece I wrote for AUT's student magazine 'debate' about 18 months ago. It's a piece about that national anthem of New Zealand, a song called "God Defend New Zealand".
I think it's a good example of me using a bit of humour to make a serious point. Don't worry - I won't be regurgitating often - a new post will be up tomorrow!
God Offend New Zealand
Bertrand Russell, famous British philosopher, once wrote, "If I were granted omnipotence, and millions of years to experiment in, I should not think Man much to boast of as the final results of all my efforts".
I get up in the morning, take a long look in the mirror and find myself agreeing with Russell. Each sag of fat reinforces the fact that an allegedly benevolent being didn't exactly give me a body I should be particularly thankful for.
Now it's not simply my pudgy body that leads me to the conclusion there's no God. Years of studying science, rational and skeptical thinking, and a family who let me make up my own mind, all pointed me to the conclusion that God doesn't exist.
Instead of sitting on the fence and getting splinters in my arse and calling myself agnostic, I came out of the closet. I am an atheist.
Now before some of you send me e-mails telling me I'm going to Hell, I'd like to state I'm not anti-religion. In fact, I'm right at the front of the queue demanding people have the right to do whatever they want, whenever they want to. Where I object is when it impinges upon other people.
New Zealand is rare in that it has two National Anthems with equal standing. However both contain multiple mentions of the word 'God'. 'God Save The Queen' (from what one may ask?) and 'God Defend New Zealand' by their very titles can reduce the feelings of national pride for non-religious people.
There are people, like Elizabeth McKenzie, President of the New Zealand Association of Rationalists and Humanists, who refuse to sing because God is mentioned. What better way to fire up the All Blacks than by playing a song that may draw feelings of apathy, or even anger, from a large proportion of the crowd?
The 2006 census showed 1.297 million people (or 31 per cent of total respondents) had no religious affilliation, creating by far the largest 'religion' in New Zealand. The next biggest religions are Anglican (13 per cent) and Catholicism (12 per cent).
Given the (righteous) moves to ensure that even the smallest minority has proper representation and aren't discriminated against, isn't it rather ironic that 31 per cent of the country is ignored by the official national songs? And at the same time it can be hardly claimed that the current anthems properly represents the 124 religions in New Zealand either.
Is asking the crowd to sing the national anthem at a rugby game discriminatory?
No, it's not, because people have the ability to ignore it, stick their fingers in their ears or make up their own words. But surely there are better ways to engage the population and not leave anyone out? New Zealand has some fantastic lyricists.
Wouldn't a Finn brothers' original song, or a Hone Tuwhare poem say much more about New Zealand and its people that a 19th Century dirge that has little relevance in the 21st Century?
I'm not writing this article to convert anyone. I'm not asking anyone to give up deeply held beliefs because someone you've never met says scientific consensus suggests it's highly unlikely God exists. I'm asking you to consider whether it's fair on almost one-third of the population to continue with songs that demand a religious outlook on life.
Perhaps I'm being a bit hard on Aotearoa. We're certainly not the worst country in the world when it comes to discriminating against atheists. We're nowhere near as bad as the United States, for example.
In a February 2007 Gallup poll only 45 per cent of US respondents said they would vote for an atheist for President. This was a whole 10 points behind the next least popular group - homosexuals. I think (or at least I hope) New Zealand wouldn't have such a problem with an atheist Prime Minister.
Now I don't want to be seen to be singling out religion. My skepticism and rationality isn't confined to that one topic. I'm a firm believer in Occam's Razor (the simplest solution tends to be the best one). What's more likely? Someone turning over a page in the telephone book by psychic power or by blowing on it? A psychic getting in contact with dead people or using well-documented cold-reading techniques and probability to be reasonably accurate?
Now, before I start a rant about faked moon-landings, creationism, homeopathy and UFOs, I am going to put down my proverbial pen.
I'd like to leave the last words to the sadly missed Douglas Adams from the ever-popular 'Hitchhiker's Guide To The Galaxy.'
"I refuse to prove that I exist," says God, "for proof denies faith, and without faith I am nothing."
"But," said Man, "The Babel Fish* is a dead giveaway, isn't it? It could not have evolved by chance. It proves you exis, and so therefore, by your own arguments, you don't."
"Oh dear," says God. "I hadn't thought of that," and promptly disappears in a puff of logic.
Now, as I'm sure you'll be glad to read, I'm off to disappear in a puff of my own illogic.
*The Babel fish is an amazing species of fish that can translate any language into any other making it popular in the realms of inter-galactic hitchhiking.
Tuesday, November 25, 2008
Gingko biloba and more about me
Despite my first two substantive posts being about aspects of complementary medicine (and more specifically extracts and supplements) this won't be the primary focus of the blog. Later today I'll post my thoughts on television show 'The Mentalist' as well as typing up something I wrote for AUT's 'debate' magazine when I was studying for a graduate diploma in journalism.
Your view of my specific brand of skepticism should be developing so, to help you along, here's some personal background related to Gingko biloba.
Based on the opening paragraph you may have deduced I'm a journalist. Well I am, of sorts. I work on a New Zealand website updating just about everything but with a focus on sports. I also write match reports and other stories for the website as well as maintaining a sports blog.
But before I landed my dream job I was a scientist, specifically a laboratory manager. I worked in the pharmaceutical industry in my native Scotland and then briefly in New Zealand before heading to the health food and supplement industry.
Without going too much into the details (which will surely, as they say, come out in the wash at some point) my experience there only increased my growing skepticism in both the efficacy and standards of manufacture of a majority of supplements.
This wasn't solely related to the single company I worked for, but based on talking with other people at industry events and my experiences in the pharmaceutical industry.
In any case, to cut a long story short, I had had enough of science as a career. I was doing very little day-to-day science, and I got to the stage where I found myself hating the fact I was working for a company which I came to believe made unethical decisions when it suited the bottom line.
So I left. I packed up and went back to university to become a journalist - and in doing so found I wasn't too bad at writing rugby and basketball match reports and being free from the daily drudgery of 'science' actually reignited the passion I first had when I was doing experiments in the school laboratory.
That said, on to Gingko biloba...
Gingko is widely sold in New Zealand, usually as a memory aide.
But the science behind Gingko isn't exactly compelling. In fact the latest information seems to show it has little efficacy.
However, instead of writing all of the details, I'm simply going to point you in the direction of Dr Steven Novella's excellent Neurologica Blog, and specifically his entry on Gingko and it's ability to help dementia. His conclusion? You'll have to click through and read it for yourself, but don't be too surprised!
At this point, it's worth saying I'm a huge fan of Dr Novella and will surely link to him in the future. He is a shining light in the skeptical community. To be honest, I don't know how he does it. He has a family and career yet still finds the time to write for a multitude of blogs and host the world's best podcast, The Skeptics' Guide To The Universe.
I hope one day I can meet Dr Novella and the rest of the skeptical rogues and pass on my gratitude for the enlightenment they provide to a huge number of people.
Back to the subject in hand. . .
My thoughts on the majority of life is that you should be able to do what you want as long as it doesn't impinge on others. If someone wants to buy a Gingko biloba supplement because they believe it helps, then that's fine. (My interest then becomes ensuring they get what they pay for and understand exactly what they're taking.)
Hopefully a few people will read and absorb the latest information on Gingko and make an informed decision as to whether to continue to take the supplement. A man can dream, can't he?
Your view of my specific brand of skepticism should be developing so, to help you along, here's some personal background related to Gingko biloba.
Based on the opening paragraph you may have deduced I'm a journalist. Well I am, of sorts. I work on a New Zealand website updating just about everything but with a focus on sports. I also write match reports and other stories for the website as well as maintaining a sports blog.
But before I landed my dream job I was a scientist, specifically a laboratory manager. I worked in the pharmaceutical industry in my native Scotland and then briefly in New Zealand before heading to the health food and supplement industry.
Without going too much into the details (which will surely, as they say, come out in the wash at some point) my experience there only increased my growing skepticism in both the efficacy and standards of manufacture of a majority of supplements.
This wasn't solely related to the single company I worked for, but based on talking with other people at industry events and my experiences in the pharmaceutical industry.
In any case, to cut a long story short, I had had enough of science as a career. I was doing very little day-to-day science, and I got to the stage where I found myself hating the fact I was working for a company which I came to believe made unethical decisions when it suited the bottom line.
So I left. I packed up and went back to university to become a journalist - and in doing so found I wasn't too bad at writing rugby and basketball match reports and being free from the daily drudgery of 'science' actually reignited the passion I first had when I was doing experiments in the school laboratory.
That said, on to Gingko biloba...
Gingko is widely sold in New Zealand, usually as a memory aide.
But the science behind Gingko isn't exactly compelling. In fact the latest information seems to show it has little efficacy.
However, instead of writing all of the details, I'm simply going to point you in the direction of Dr Steven Novella's excellent Neurologica Blog, and specifically his entry on Gingko and it's ability to help dementia. His conclusion? You'll have to click through and read it for yourself, but don't be too surprised!
At this point, it's worth saying I'm a huge fan of Dr Novella and will surely link to him in the future. He is a shining light in the skeptical community. To be honest, I don't know how he does it. He has a family and career yet still finds the time to write for a multitude of blogs and host the world's best podcast, The Skeptics' Guide To The Universe.
I hope one day I can meet Dr Novella and the rest of the skeptical rogues and pass on my gratitude for the enlightenment they provide to a huge number of people.
Back to the subject in hand. . .
My thoughts on the majority of life is that you should be able to do what you want as long as it doesn't impinge on others. If someone wants to buy a Gingko biloba supplement because they believe it helps, then that's fine. (My interest then becomes ensuring they get what they pay for and understand exactly what they're taking.)
Hopefully a few people will read and absorb the latest information on Gingko and make an informed decision as to whether to continue to take the supplement. A man can dream, can't he?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)