Bret Contreras addresses bodyweight training in forthcoming book (awesome!)

Bodyweight Strength Training Anatomy — due for release in September 2013. For more, including the book’s contents, head to the Human Kinetics page for the book >>

Bret Contreras — one of the most reliable sources of strength and conditioning information on the Internet turns his attention to bodyweight strength training in his forthcoming book.

I’ve been in around every corner of the Internet in an effort to find the best sources of information on strength, conditioning and sports specific training. To my mind, Bret Contreras aka “The Glute Guy” is the best source I’ve found (bretcontreras.com).

For one, he respects good science and is able to spot nonsense and fake ‘gurus’ when he sees them. Secondly, it turns out he’s studying his PhD in Sports Science at the university I work at (AUT University in Auckland).

So it’s fair to say that I’m excited about diving into Bret’s new book — Bodyweight Strength Training Anatomy.

Readers of my previous posts on functional fitness here and here will know I am a big fan of bodyweight training done well and with good progression. Later I found out that Bret also believes that anyone embarking on a strength training programme should begin with basic bodyweight movements before loading plates to a bar. His reasoning is the same as mine — you need to establish a foundation of good form and ensure joint mobility is respected and developed early on. Bret elaborates:

“Bodyweight exercises lay the foundation for future training success, and correct performance requires a precise blend of mobility, stability and motor control”.

Bodyweight training can be progressed to challenge your muscles incrementally and therefore strength and muscle mass can be further developed. **I personally think that the one leg (‘pistol’) squat is one of the most gratifying exercises to master.**

For the past 9 months I have been loosely following Paul Wade’s Convict Conditioning advice and progressing bodyweight movements, so I know it works and it is an incredibly fulfilling way to train (I feel as if I’m ‘gaming’ the system by using the minimal amount of equipment). In fact, my home gym merely consists of a resistance band, foam roller and a 20kg kettelbell I use solely for high rep swings.

The reason I’m looking forward to Bret’s take on bodyweight training is twofold: (1) I’m intrigued by what can be achieved sans-equipment, (2) Training without equipment seems to be a forgotten art.

For all the articles and websites you’ll find on loading plates to a bar you’ll find only a few reliable sources on training without the need for plates. Those that are good stand out a mile and I’m certain Bret’s book will be a tremendous addition to the subject of bodyweight training simply because he approaches training scientifically and walks the talk.

The book is rich in illustrations and from the 8 page sample it looks eye-catching and easy to read. Check out the sample here >>

• Bret Contreras — The Glute Guy

Regression: Hamilton drops fluoride from water supply

Fluoridation has been proven time and time again to reduce public health costs and dental problems. So it is with some disgust that I stumbled upon the decision by Hamilton City Council officials to bow to a misguided minority and remove fluoride from the city’s water supply.

There are many pseudoscientific beliefs prevalent in society so I shouldn’t be surprised that the removal of fluoride from Hamilton’s water supply has happened. But I am shocked and I am perplexed. Fluoride naturally exists in water just not in adequate quantities to protect teeth from decay. And for fuck’s sake this is 2013.

So there are several things wrong Hamilton City Council’s decision:

• Firstly, pandering to a vocal minority clearly misguided and misinformed is not an example of good local governance.
• The majority of Hamilton’s residents want fluoridated water, so if we’re talking about democratic decisions, the removal of fluoride is a massive fail.
• Refusing to listen to the people who actually know what the hell they’re talking about is also a bad idea. Surely public health measures should be based on expert opinion (in this case dentists and medical professionals who are aware of the scientific evidence)?
• Most disgusting of all — the deputy mayor  of Hamilton Gordon Chesterton claims there is a “lack of clear evidence” for the benefits of fluoridation in water. Since when did Mr Chesterton become an expert in the science behind fluoridation and dentistry?

A public official, like say, a deputy mayor, has an ethical obligation to check the facts behind a policy proposal — especially one that affects the health of the people he/she is representing.

Ignorance is a poor substitute for data

Mr Chesterton’s ignorance is being used to push a political agenda and for what? To appease the whingeing from people who reject science? The dropping of fluoridation is a symptom of a greater problem: The anti-scientific intuitions popular today stemming from bad assumptions (“if it’s natural it must be good”) and poorly constructed conspiratorial musings. All of this bad thinking is inevitable in human populations which is why we need science. Turning our backs on the data (or claiming the data doesn’t exist when it does) is problematic and sad really.

“People are entitled to their opinion, just not their own facts.” – Dr Steven Novella

Ignorance is a poor platform for making decisions period — especially when it will affect the health of citizens. We are lucky to live at a time when science is answering more and more questions and solving more and more problems. We turn our backs on science based medicine at our peril.

And despite what the advocates of the fluoride removal say, the evidence is overwhelmingly clear that fluoride in water supplies is a massive public health benefit (see list below).

I think we can watch dental health deteriorate in the Hamilton region, and it probably won’t be in the people who are opposed to fluoridation. Instead, it will be people in lower socioeconomic homes who can’t afford dental care, have poor dental hygiene and have diets loaded with sugars.

A massive public policy fail

This is yet another massive public health fail. Massive. The ignorance of a few and a pompous deputy mayor who presumes far more expertise than he has will lead to suffering and more pressure on health services.

Let’s be clear about this — those opposed to health measures based on scientific medicine are the exact opposite of what they claim — they’re the ones turning back the clock on progress to a time when a person’s prospects in health, longevity and quality of life were dire.

In the event Mr Chesterton is reading this, here is the evidence you seem to have imagined doesn’t exist:

• Fluoride science
• National Fluoridation Information Service Review
• A scienceBlogs dismantling of anti-fluoridation pseudoscience

Bible in Kiwi schools? For what reason?

The Bible does have a place in New Zealand schools but it must be in a context of criticism and ethical philosophy — not for the indoctrination of minds into a narrow, dogmatic and exclusive viewpoint.

A handful of correspondents to the NZ Herald on this issue have pointed out that religious instruction should cover a range of world religions — what they believe and how their faith is practiced. This is a good platform, and one that flushes the religious fundamentalists out from behind the bushes.

Under the guise of “values education”, Christians seeking to teach the Bible in schools are primarily concerned with bringing ‘sheep’ to Jesus. This is not values education and unnecessary to lead a good moral life. This does, however fall under the category of indoctrination and does not belong in public schools.

Ethical teaching — a good idea

The teaching of ethics is an absolutely fantastic idea. In fact, I would say philosophy generally is under taught in schools and reflection on the ideas of some of the greatest thinkers throughout the ages can only enrich the lives of students who study them.

Philosophy begins where religion ends, just as by analogy chemistry begins where alchemy runs out, and astronomy takes the place of astrology.
– Christopher Hitchens, “God is Not Great”

Moral thought existed before the Bible and was even more important after because then it was possible to reflect on whether its ideas had moral weight. This basic requirement of any ideas — that they be critically analysed — was met with resistance when applied to the Bible. Those daring to question religious ideas persecuted and outright murdered by those privileged by Christian beliefs (notably the Catholic Church).

morality is Not the unique domain of religion

…religion gives people bad reasons for acting morally, where good reasons are actually available. We don’t have to believe that a deity wrote one of our books, or that Jesus was born of a virgin, to be moved to help people in need. – Sam Harris, http://www.samharris.org/

Morality is not dictated from on high. Moral progress is possible because of critical reflection on behaviour and the consequences of our actions.

Secular morality is concerned with the suffering of sentient beings out of basic empathy and compassion, not because we are commanded to. This includes the experiences of non-human animals as well. This necessarily requires the understanding of the experiences of others (the basis of empathy) and therefore the acceptance of differences.

The Bible is not a reliable manual on morality because it does not teach understanding; instead it inspires the believer to be incredibly judgemental and conceited (hey, I’m only speaking on behalf of the creator of the universe here). The Bible contains many immoral acts — some by God, others commanded by him. The Bible doesn’t mind slavery, glorifies rape and incest in places and stresses ‘obedience or else’ threats from a supposedly ‘loving’ God.

Hence, the Bible is a ‘pick and choose’ book — the choosing done on the basis of personal opinion using an obvious external; standard of morality. This makes biblical morality a perfect example of the moral relativism that is often claimed of non-religious morality (also evidenced by the fact that different denominations cannot agree on basic doctrines and interpretations).

literature and philosophy are superior to holy books

We have had to ignore the Bible on so many fronts in order to progress passed our innate petty, fearful and xenophobic traits. The following is a short list of areas where we have sought moral and human rights progress only to be confronted by religious opposition:

• The abolition of slavery
• Women’s rights and equality
• Women’s health and sexuality (and therefore the alleviation of poverty and emancipation of women from being male property)
• Progress away from racism
• Gay and lesbian rights
• Environmental concerns and conservation
• The ethical treatment of animals
• Treatment of non-believers and rival religions…

Progress in these areas requires ignoring the pronouncements of holy books. Indeed, in the case of the Bible, the above items are either not addressed or it advocates diminishing the rights of others — thereby causing more harm in the process.

In religion there is no mechanism for internal improvement of moral codes. After all, how can you improve on God? The emphasis is on inflexible rule dictation with the presumption of truth not requiring external validation. These have shown to be impediments to scientific and positive social change.

Literature is far better at approaching moral conundrums and dilemmas while philosophy enriches our moral intuitions by questioning beliefs and assessing how actions impact individuals and societies in the real world.

Religion is optional and not necessary to teach people to be virtuous and so belongs in NZ public schools without privilege; requiring the same criticism we apply to all philosophical ideas.

Next post – the finer points of morality and why religions have utterly failed us in that respect.

Further resources

• The Superiority of Secular Morality – Talk given by Matt Dillahunty of the Atheist Community of Austin
• An excellent series on morality YouTube by QualiaSoup
• Secular morality entry in Iron Chariots Wiki
• The Myth of Secular Moral Chaos – Sam Harris on the Council for Secular Humanism website

The transit of Venus is happening right now (behind them there clouds!)

I was lucky enough to see the transit of Venus this morning – right before the cloud cover finally did what it threatened to do and obscured all view (for several hours as I write from Auckland, NZ).

The clouds give us a brief view of the transit.

The next transit is in 2117 – which is why the 6 hours or so we get to see of it is actually quite cool. It doesn’t feel like a normal day, after all, it isn’t everyday people flock to their local stardome/observatory to get in on some astronomical action. But for now, with a an hour and a bit remaining, the action is decidedly subdued. Think I’ll check out the live views from the Interweb.

Historically, the transit of Venus has been of tremendous scientific value, as it gave astronomers a chance to perform observations and calculations that could confirm the inter-planetary distances (with a good degree of accuracy). In 1627 Johannes Kepler predicted there should be a transit of Venus in 1631. He died in 1630 but the accuracy of his predictions further confirmed his theories of planetary motion were accurate.

Anyway, it is 2012 and I await the parting of the clouds for even the briefest moment, to capture what people assure I will never see again, short of giant advancements in life extension technology.

More info on the Transit and why it’s a big deal:

•  http://www.transitofvenus.org/
• Nasa’s excellent informative transit page
• Thanks to the Stardome Observatory and Planetarium here in Auckland for raising awareness of this event and promoting science to the public.

Wheel clamping – cowboy justice reigns

Wheel clampers in New Zealand are cowboys allowed to operate in any manner they see fit. Something has to change before the wild west gets wilder.

The New Zealand Herald has highlighted recently a few high profile cases of people who have run into wheel clampers with obviously nothing better to do than terrorise unsuspecting motorists.

Clampers can operate anywhere at any time with no signage and they thrive on the ambiguity around parking areas – what parking is designated and what isn’t. They can make up the offense and offer no evidence/documentation. They therefore can make up the times and exploit a situation with an unwary motorist and bully them into paying exorbitant fines.

Contrast that with legitimate parking enforcement. In Auckland City (as I’m sure elsewhere in the country and the world) – parking officers are dressed in uniform, carry electronic ticketing machines which indicate the time a ticket is issued and what the offense is for. Officers take photos to confirm the vehicle and this issues another time stamp on the ticket. In a pay and display area, this is valuable.

Further, we can dispute parking tickets – there is a process in place for grievances and we still have the use of our car.

My near miss

I had a brush with wheel clamping that left me a bit stunned and a bit furious. This story does have a happy ending though (by sheer luck).

It started with a routine drive down to a local car park adjacent a roundabout here in Auckland. I have parked there for years and never had an incident. I trundled off to get coffee but thought I’d pop into the TAB to place a sports bet. Little did I know, this ticket would save my bacon.

The clampers obviously saw me then go offsite to get a coffee, which apparently is a violation because I wasn’t visiting the premises my particular car park was designated for. So my wheel was clamped and there was a sticker on my window stating why I had been clamped. Needless to say, I freaked out a bit when I saw the $150 fine on the ticket.

The clamper came over and explained I had parked in the space for the bar and the went and then went offsite. I presented my TAB ticket and asked, “isn’t the TAB part of the bar?” Luckily it was, and he removed the clamp forthwith.

It was sheer luck I parked in that car park (who honestly looks at what store it is designated for when they’re only there for 10 minutes). It was sheer luck I went to the TAB and thus had proof I had visited the bar.

There were no signs saying that there were clampers around – which I find a bit dishonest, especially for those of us who routinely use that carpark without a care.

I won’t park there again, which decreases my likelihood of visiting the stores there – clamping could therefore be bad for businesses.

Wheel clamping – at least the New Zealand version, is organised theft in many cases. Clamping itself seems a violation of private property also. Sure, parking illegally should not be let go, but exploiting vague and often non-signage is sheer dishonesty.

Answers?

Legislation is badly needed to curb cowboy wheel clampers who answer to no one. They can claim whatever they want with no supporting evidence. Their fines aren’t constrained and are often ridiculously high.

My concern is that soon an elderly person, who perhaps is unaware of some small sign indicating parking allocation is going to get shafted by one of these cowboy clampers. What if someone is unable to pay straight away? What about if the supposed “offense” happened at 11.30pm?

I suspect someone will get hurt before this is all settled by the powers that be. Clampers are in a confrontational game by nature and they don’t have public sympathy. At least parking infringement officers from Auckland Transport are doing a job that we are all aware of and there is no ambiguity (don’t park on yellow lines; don’t park longer than the allocated times etc…).

We may not like parking fines but at least in those cases we don’t feel like we’ve been “headed off at the pass” by cowboys with clamps attached to their belts.

Evidenced-based politics – imagine that!

Emotions often (lets say 99% of the time) over-rule rational thought so it is hardly surprising politics is seldom an exercise in reason. However, politicians turn their backs on reason to the detriment of all of us.

Politics is about values right? This is true – people interpret the world in different, incompatible ways and the result is a popularity contest (or a good old fashioned mud wrestle to the death).

If it is true that values tend to trump reason and evidence in political discourse, what role is there for science and reason in politics? What should the role of science and reason be in politics?

Science and reason – informed politics

One the basic tenets of the recent Reason Rally in Washington DC and a sure fire way to keep our politicians honest (which is what we all want right?) is to demand that policy be based on facts and evidence.

There is always a political dimension to science. The determination that one thing is true and something isn’t often conflicts with what group or another deems to be ‘heretical’ in some sense. This, I believe, is one of the prime reasons people tend to deny science and engage in motivated reasoning.

If a scientific finding conflicts with political mental model then which caves? Political thinking seems to emanate from the core of the human personality, probably because such thinking is very good at organising simple/complementary core ideals. It is therefore unlikely a new, conflicting idea will integrate into a person’s belief model simply.

If one doesn’t wish to look stupid then one shouldn’t say stupid things

Ultimately, a politician/party that resorts to overt irrationality in making political decisions will face a number of pressures.

Firstly, a sufficiently strident irrational viewpoint will tend to fall under the weight of evidence over time.

Secondly, in recognition of this failure to catch up with reality, external forces from media, opposition parties and voters will pile on the criticism.

The point that goes missing when debating political issues is the fact that we are not free to make up our own facts. We can have a position relative to the facts but so often political discussions descend into personal attacks, conspiracy theories and denial of sound science.

The honourable position is never to hold steadfastly onto falsehoods and spread misinformation. Instead, the courageous and honourable position is to say you’re wrong when you’re wrong and admit that you at least could be wrong. The reason it is courageous and honourable is because admitting one is wrong juts right up against the human tendency to blame, justify and explain away.

When values collide with reality

The reasonable position – update your beliefs in the face of new information – is seen as a weakness in political discussions and debates.

Intrinsically, the acquisition of beliefs is not worthy of an award. In fact, not developing beliefs is often a more honourable position.

What does it say about a person’s values and beliefs when it becomes a necessity to create alternative history, deny science and declare their own ideas as reality despite objective evidence to the contrary?

What does it say about a policy position that is based on anti-intellectual ideas?

It is unsurprising that the person who takes the reasonable position – that this is what I stand for but if new facts enter the fray I will change my mind – will not get very far in politics. This also explains in part why, at present, Republican candidates have resorted to pandering to the Conservative Christians and Mitt Romney (the least extreme of an extreme bunch of candidates) has been labelled “Moderate Mitt” (not as a term of endearment).

My next post will look at some of the research that has gone into the psychology and cognitive factors that lead people to their political persuasion.

Church makes outrageous healthcare claims, highlights need for clear thinking

Church billboards can say a variety of things, good and bad, but “Jesus heals cancer” is ridiculous. So what can we learn from this outrageous pronouncement by a Napier Church?

File this one under the ‘very odd’ category but the billboard put up by Napier’s Equippers Church has attracted a lot of attention, which I suspect is the main reason it was erected.

First I’ll say what the media should say about this issue, but lacks the balls: We know the reasons the church offers for such incredible claims are false.

The NZ Herald reported that at least one family was appalled by the billboard’s cancer claim and that the matter has been submitted to the Advertising Standards Authority.

Even Steve Novella, prominent skeptic and author of the Neurologica blog has added his weight behind the issue, essentially saying religious freedom is one thing but protecting the public from misleading health claims is another.

The trouble with outrageous claims on billboards, websites etc… is that you never know how an individual will respond to them. If one person in a hundred buys the message and forgoes proper medical treatment then we have a problem. Misinformation about medicine and health is always a bad idea for this reason.

Beware! Magical thinking lurks

Appeals to magic, and prayer is such an appeal, can be treated with extreme skepticism from the outset just as sacrificing goats should be.

It raises some important points about how we know something is true and also prompts one to ask: “Does prayer actually work?” and “Why do people make claims like this?”

The church billboard is irresponsible, as Steven Novella points out. Even if people sincerely believe they are doing the right thing by advertising such messages, the truth of the matter is their efforts can only subvert truth and cause harm.

Good questions expose pseudoscience

Belief-based ideas about what constitutes a medical treatment are simply worthless. Human cultures operated on ignorance of the facts for millennia before some bright spark said, “I wonder if any of this is true”.

Using scientific thinking, we can get to the heart of medical claims. We can ask questions like:

• What exactly was healed?
• How do you know X cured this ailment?
• How would you know if X didn’t cure it? (exposes criteria)
• What about Y? How do you know whether Y had no effect on the cure?

The Pastor admits the people who were claimed to be healed of cancer completed their medical treatments. So I ask, how does he then claim that it was Jesus that cured them? What criteria did he use to eliminate other influences, like medical scientific interventions?

Someone’s self report of what cured them of ailment X is riddled with problems and is worthless in terms of determining fact for the following reasons:

• Motivated reasoning
  Given a set of data, a person will concoct an interpretation based purely on their beliefs and worldview. Other people will construct different interpretations.
• Confirmation bias
  Given a set of data, a person will unconsciously filter out evidence that falsifies their conclusion while endorsing only that which confirms their prior beliefs (this is the default setting of the brain).

Sloppy thinking and the inadequacy of prayer

A great illustration of motivated reasoning and confirmation bias can be seen in the way that people interpret experiences, first as spiritual, then as solely in terms of their spiritual/religious beliefs.

Buddhists have experiences they interpret in Buddhist terms, Mormons in Mormon terms and so forth. Research shows conclusively that people experiencing the same stimuli inside the brain will self-report those experiences purely terms of their spiritual worldview.

Furthermore, every controlled test of prayer has been negative (shows prayer doesn’t work) and it does not matter which deity one prays to. The practice of prayer shows how motivated reasoning and confirmation bias/ad hoc reasoning work to produce and reinforce beliefs.

Scenario: Heads I win, tails I win!
For instance, if we pray to a deity with a vague request (help with our finances), this leaves the door wide open for interpretations and therefore we can never know if the prayer worked at all. If we pray for a specific goal, (say $1000 by March 3) then we run the risk of falsifying our prayer.

Confirmation bias will come to our rescue. If we find $50 on the street, hey presto – God/Jesus answered our prayer, not completely but who are we to question God? If our finances do not improve, we can reason that God heard our prayer, but God chose not to grant it because he has a plan.

Ergo – If God has a plan, and he’s going to stick to it regardless, what is the point of asking? It is this kind of not making sense that leaves us non-believers scratching our heads

Conclusion – not just a religious problem

Rightly, many people are outraged by the sheer audacity of the false claim that ‘Jesus heals cancer’. However, I suspect some of those people also believe equally ridiculous ideas about what can cure cancer.

Selective skepticism such as this is a constant reminder of why we need objective studies to confirm the reality of any treatment/modality.

Skepticism and scientific reasoning has to be applied across all healthcare claims if we truly care about doing no harm.

The fact is, cancer is not one disease but a class of diseases that emerge and behave in a wide variety of ways. For this reason, one “cure all” panacea for cancer simply holds no basis in reality.

The church has the right to make whatever claims they want on their billboards, but we too can point out that it is ridiculous and irresponsible and hopefully limit any damage such magical thinking can inspire.

Science and supernaturalism – what we can and can’t know

A recent commenter in the New Zealand Herald made the claim that science assumes naturalism and therefore it is justifiable to assume supernaturalism also. This view, though riddled with fallacies, can teach us something about the nature of science and the limits of what we can know.

This post is a critical response to David Balchin (Presbytarian Reverend) of Waihi who claims that science isn’t justified in excluding God from scientific explanations. He does this by equating the efforts of legitimate scientists (evolutionists) with those done by creationists (non-evolutionists as he calls them).

… But science has now come to be redefined as the pursuit of knowledge within a naturalistic framework only. Thus God has been, by definition precluded from scientific pursuit, something that would have staggered the first scientists… Both naturalism and the supernaturalism that undergird each definition of science are non-falsifiable faith positions committed to an understanding of mankinds origin and purpose that is simply not empirically demonstrable.

Let’s look at the features of science that are relevant in showing the above claims about science are incorrect:

1. Falsification. Evolutionists (scientists) are trying to falsify a hypothesis. Non-evolutionists (creation scientists) are cherry picking data and conclusions to support a priori commitment to their belief in God.
2. Science is a method. No “faith” position is necessary to do science.
3. It is not the fault of science that supernaturalism is precluded, it is a flaw inherent in supernatural claims. If you can’t produce a testable outcome then we by nature can’t do anything with it. No test means there is no possibility of any new knowledge.
4. False equivalence – The methods employed in legitimate science are the opposite of what creation scientists do. Science progresses with reliable, verifiable knowledge. The fruits of intelligent design pseudoscience is disinformation.

No unjustified assumptions necessary

In practice, scientists don’t operate by the naturalism/supernaturalism distinction. They simply devise a test in an attempt to understand the phenomenon in question. How does it arise? How does it operate? There is no presumption a priori of naturalism.

“Science operates without any a priori ontological commitment as to what sorts of entities exist.” -Tom Clark, Why Science Can’t Get Us To God, Naturalism.org

Science is in a word, ‘agnostic’ to untestable entities.

But doesn’t science assume methodological naturalism?

Methodological naturalism allows science to get off the ground. When scientists devise tests they proceed on the basis that effects have causes that are in principle observable and quantifiable. If they didn’t the whole exercise would be pointless. By proceeding with experiments they implicitly assume there is a point to this exercise and there will be natural, testable phenomena.

“However, this assumption of naturalism need not extend beyond an assumption of methodology. This is what separates methodological naturalism from philosophical naturalism – the former is merely a tool and makes no truth claim.” – Rational Wiki

Philosophical naturalism is a position an individual can take but, contrary to what some theists claim, it is not needed in science.

Creationists are not doing empirical tests

5. Science requires that a scientist demonstrate how the claims were arrived at. This makes the process open to others to investigate, reinforce or falsify (science is an open system).

The scientist devises a hypothesis and sets out to test it. There is no commitment to any conclusion up front and they follow the evidence where it leads.

The creation scientist already believes certain unknowable (therefore unjustifiable) supernatural propositions and sees the world through that lens. Data is filtered through that prior assumption.

Creation scientists already bring a supernatural agenda to the table and therefore engage in confirmation bias – selecting evidence to support their claims while lying, denying and rejecting that which does not. This selective reasoning is exactly what enlightenment philosophers and scientists saw as barriers to unfettered pursuit of knowledge.

Of course, the creation scientists assume more than just the claim that God is a causal agent in the universe. Some believe the Genesis account is accurate history while other theistic scientists accept an older age of the Earth, others reject all those but still claim God can perform miracles at a whim.

**This poses a problem, if science was based on the presuppositions of the scientists involved, whose presuppositions do we accept? Catholic ones? Protestant ones? Muslim ones?**

Science would not be possible if presuppositions of untestable entities and unjustified assumptions were to infiltrate the process. Again, the fact that science can be done regardless of nationality, culture and beliefs is a strength of the method.

This way we converge on strong, reliable theories rather than divergent opinions of reality as is a feature of religion.

6. Supernatural claims are either unjustified presuppositions or premature conclusions.

At the end of the day, if there is an unjustified assumption X and the claimant cannot demonstrate why he or she thinks X is true, then it can’t be put forward as science. We use Occam’s razor to eliminate such unjustified assumptions.

After all the data is in we could still say, “Well God guided that process to happen”. This explains nothing and we are left with no choice but to ignore such pronouncements on scientific grounds. People are free to believe this if they wish but it cannot pass as scientifically valid.

This economy and parsimmony of science is one of its strengths.

Conclusion

While nothing can disprove an entity whose claimed existence is outside space and time (a contradiction as the very word existence implies physical existence) this is not a fault of science but more a fault with the proposition being made.

One of the strengths of science is that we can assign justifiable certainty to propositions – we can know something about the universe. This leads to theories that in turn allows us to make predictions about future observations. If validated, these predicted observations further strengthen the theories they stem from.

Science is a method that is simply agnostic – it says nothing about untestable entities or imagined realities. It simply deals with what is – a strength that separates science from other human endeavours.

Garth George and the art of polluting reasonable discussions about society and ethics

New Zealand Herald columnist Garth George is at his vitriolic worst again. His witch hunt this time – the Green party and their “dangerous” agenda [insert gut laugh here].

It is fair to say Garth George is on a personal crusade to change New Zealand society, which he sees as sick and depraved. An outspoken critic of abortion rights (or as George puts it “murdering babies”) he has clearly left the path of sanity in his latest rant against the Green party here in New Zealand.

One commenter to this article stated that the his entire piece could have been summarised by: “I don’t like the Greens because they are anti-fundamentalist Christian”.

I would say that is true and Garth George’s diatribe highlights why some religious perspectives on morality are deeply flawed, bigoted and therefore relegated to the scrapheap of bad ideas. Take it away George:

The Greens are dangerous. They are more than a polite group of tree-huggers, slug-savers and water samplers but you rarely, if ever, hear of the more sinister planks of their policy, which are frightening to say the least to those of us who care about what really matters.

“… Frightening to say the least to those of us who care about what really matters”. Aside from noticing the extreme condescension dolled out against opponents of his views, the question is, what exactly is it that “really matters”?

George wastes no time telling us exactly what issues are most important: abortion (sanctity of life); same-sex marriage, same-sex adoption (sanctity of marriage); “an education system which teaches that homosexuality is normal”; euthanasia (right to life of every person from conception to natural death).

Where have I heard that list before? Straight out of the religious fundamentalists handbook of intolerance and bigotry.

Not even moral

As is often the case with religious intrusion into moral debate, many of the arguments Garth George advances aren’t even moral in nature. Religious moral claims tend to come with the appeal to God, which means they are arbitrary and not necessarily based on any real effects in the world.

In reality, how do we evaluate what is moral? I submit that a civil and humane society in the 21st century bases its morality on innate, hard wired concern for the suffering and welfare of sentient beings.

A moral argument, therefore, has nothing to do with morality or is immoral if:

• It is based on an appeal to authority. This is by definition a bad argument. Authorities that are the arbiters of morality can and do make immoral pronouncements. In this case morality is arbitrary and solely dependent on the wishes of the authority in question, be that God, the Bible or a national dictator.
• It is based on “thought crime”. A distinction must be made between thought (no harm to others) and actions (actual harm to others). Religious morality, based on a totalitarian impulse to control, often condemns the mere thinking of something (e.g. sex, anger).
• It condemns actions that reduce suffering or do no intrinsic harm to others. Such condemnations are immoral.
• It condemns people for who they are and not what they do. For instance, homosexuals are persecuted for being who they are. This too is without moral foundation.

The humanistic tenet that George seems incensed by is the idea that human morality ought be centered around reducing harm and suffering and maximising wellbeing.

Homosexuality
Given this, it is clear that homosexuality is not a moral issue. Sure there are people who find it repulsive but repulsion is not a sound basis for a moral argument. I find eating cat repulsive but that is not a reason for me to denounce cat eating as immoral.

Homosexuality is “normal” in the sense that there is a clear biological and neurological basis for homosexual preferences and homosexual behaviour is witnessed throughout the animal kingdom.

Gay marriage
Gay marriage is also not immoral and does not affect the “sanctity” of marriage. Again, religion poisons the argument by saying that marriage has been somehow ordained by God as the union of one women and one man. Have they not read their Bibles? The Bible contains countless examples of men with multiple wives.

From a sacred covenant to a purley a legal arrangement for tax and property purposes… The definition of a marriage has changed constantly over the ages. The modern definition of marriage that has been “sanctified” by Christians is merely the latest incarnation. Opposition to civil unions of same sex couples amounts to denying some people rights that the rest of us have purely because of who they are. Bigotry anyone?

Euthanasia
Euthanasia or physician assisted suicide is an issue that is often polluted by the Garth George and his ilk by making unjustified slippery slope arguments such as : “But if we allow voluntary euthanasia then that will lead to voluntary euthanasia and murder.” Cased closed they say. But not only is the preceeding assertion false it also denies the fact that there are certain situations where euthanasia would reduce months and possibly years of needless suffering.

Allowing horrendous suffering to continue despite no hope of improvement could be argued as positively immoral.

Polluting a legitimate ethical debate about abortion

There is an ethical debate that can be had around the issue of abortion. However, denouncing abortion as “murdering babies” is poisoning the well. No rational discussion be had thereafter, even though there are legitimate reasons for an abortion (the birth will likely result in the death of the mother, the baby or both for example).

The argument goes that even an early term foetus is a potential human being. But so is an unfertilised egg and a sperm cell. If we are concerned about potential human beings then it seems obvious we should mourn the loss of billions of sperm cells and millions of eggs.

Where personhood is granted is not a scientific question and is the subject of debate (although science can inform the debate).

I do agree, however, that abortion should be avoided where possible but it is not my place to dictate to a women what she can and can’t do with her body.

Further, Christians generally and the Catholic Church specifically increase the number of abortions by also condemning the use of contraceptives and actively discouraging sex education.

The control of sex is one area the church as had to regress from because a person’s sexual practices is none of their business. 

Overpopulation and concern for the environment

Interestingly, George is quoting a pro-life “mate” in making these comments instead of point blank making these himself. In any case, he clearly agrees with the claims of his buddy, including this doozy:

“We should recognise that the long-term objective of the Greens is to reduce the world’s population, creating a world in which nature is the dominant ‘right’ with humanity subservient to that ‘deity’.”

Here, George could well have been quoting someone from the 15th century. The concern for overpopulation and the ensuing environmental decay, pollution and pushing other species to extinction is hardly raising nature to the status of ‘deity’.

The notion that “God gave humans dominion of the Earth” is an extension of human self-importance and vanity and it has had dire consequences on our planet. Is it not morally reprehensible to act in ways that solely suits us at the expense of other forms of life?

Besides, if we accept his premise that concern for overpopulation is deifying nature we can at least say our deity actually exists.

Green supporters are guilty of labelling others as dangerous and evil (dogmatic opposition to genetic modification springs to mind) but I would hardly call their humanisitic agenda “dangerous” in the sense Garth George has. Abolishing oppression and prejudice is a sign of healthy progress in moral reasoning.

NZ election fallout – I’m not off to Australia

Social media is a buzz with people whingeing that last night’s election result has screwed the country for another 3 years. That’s fine, this is politics and everyone is entitled to their opinion. However, their reasoning seems rather strange.

Many people, jokingly or not, have said they are off to Aussie. I find this rather amusing. The reason I assume people would contemplate going to live in Australia is because economic conditions over there are much better. But then do they think a Labour-led government would do a better job improving our economy than a National one??

People voted National in droves last night, which seems to be a vote of confidence for a party that can solve economic problems. More significantly, it looks to be a vote of no confidence levelled at Labour in the economic department.

What people fail to realise is that the welfare state in New Zealand is not as “uncaring” as many begrudged Labour voters seem to think. A trip to Australia would confirm that fairly quickly. National will not ignore social problems because it is not the “Boogeyman” from the political right.

The fact is that the Australian economy is stronger than ours in New Zealand. However, a key reason why is that they have a mining industry – the very thing most left leaning supporters have opposed here in New Zealand.

If we are to have thriving social programmes, education and healthcare, more jobs, then we can’t do it without moola. None of things are going to come free.

If we want a pie that is big enough to fund the kind of social programmes that Labour and the left want it is going to require looking after the pie, expanding it and not giving so much of it away in loan and interest repayments.

National are not a party so far to the right that they resemble the US Republican party. If they were like the Republican party then I would agree that National are an uncaring party who disenfranchise the “99%”.

The claim that National will benefit only the “super-rich” is also without merit. The rich in this country, a demographic never really defined by those who demonise them, are not a majority.

Most working New Zealanders and small business owners (read: employers/job creators) realise the economic realities we live in. While we could do much more in the areas of welfare, health and education, we will need a sound economy to do anything worthwhile. This is why Labour governments do good work during our economic “up” years.

On that note, I think the Greens doing so well is a good thing. They will bring some valuable perspectives to the table, particularly around energy and the issues surrounding pollution.

It is true that our primary industries are valuable money spinners for the country but it seems to be unsustainable long-term to allow farmers a free pass in the water pollution area. Greenhouse gas policy will continue to be a hot topic. An alternative to straight market-first answers is needed on such topics.

At the end of the day politics is about values, but as a skeptic, I hope to see policies (an opposition to policies) grounded in the best data and sound logic.

Heading to Australia is great, but I wouldn’t be doing so on the basis that our country is screwed while Australia is some golden land of paradise. If you want a better standard of living here, it seems fixing the economy and balancing the books is a top priority. National is who the people chose to do this and their logic is sound given the opposition.