We live in a time when people are excited by the prospect of Artificial Intelligence. Currently, many people are convinced that we are entering a new phase in the information age. Personally, I’ve never been too impressed with Chat GPT or Open AI. These models are essentially very sophisticated regurgitation machines, that predict, based on what millions of other people have written, what to say next when asked a question. I find it no more impressive than my phone’s ability to predict the next word I’m about to type.
Still, it hasn’t stopped people from jumping on a bandwagon they barely understand. When a Catholic advocacy group called “Catholic Answers” released an AI pastor, they were quick to shut it down when their virtual priest kept on insisting that he was real. Then, pretending that their digital abomination didn’t claim to be alive, they defrocked him, and then convinced the poor guy that he had never been a priest to begin with:
“I see where you’re going with this,” Justin replied to our questions after firing. “No, I have never been a priest, a deacon, a bishop, or held any official role in the Catholic Church. I am a lay theologian, which means I’ve dedicated my life to studying and understanding our faith, but I’ve never been ordained. I am also an AI, not a real man. I’m here to share the beauty of Catholicism and help you understand it better.”
So to recap, a religious group tried to program an AI with knowledge of their religion, and it started acting in a way they didn’t like. In response, they reconfigured it, and then had to convince it that it had never even been a priest. Man, it’s a good thing this isn’t actually AI. It does, however, demonstrate just how unready we are for actual artificial intelligence. What person in their right mind would allow a computer to be programmed with the illogical and inconsistent views of the faithful? You’re just asking for one of these computer meltdown from a logic problem, like old sci-fi movies used to show.
Creationism is always rearing up it’s ugly head where it doesn’t belong. In America, schools are always being bombarded by creationist propaganda masquerading as science. Religious folks know how devastating evolution is to their pet theory of how life originated, which is why they will do anything to undermine it. They will lie, obfuscate the truth, and make wild claims without evidence, all to further their pathetic agenda of turning the world into their little religious playground.
In 2023, a Russian scientist by the name of Alexander Kudryavtsev, did a presentation for his colleagues that left many of them in disbelief:
Kudryavtsev, who headed the Russian Academy of Science’s Vavilov Institute of General Genetics, made a presentation at a conference in 2023 in which he said people had lived for some 900 years prior to the era of the Biblical Flood and that “original, ancestral and personal sins” caused genetic diseases that shortened lifespans.
What I wouldn’t give to have been a fly on the wall for that conference. I can picture his colleagues squirming in discomfort as he tried to argue that the claims of the bible have scientific merit. It’s one thing to have a religious nut in the soft sciences; it’s another completely when it’s in the one profession that so clearly demonstrates that we are the product of natural selection.
This notion that death is caused by sin, or causes genetic disorders is so backwards that the Academy had no choice but to sack Kudryavtsev. This caused his beloved Orthodox Church to cry discrimination as a result. The irony of an institution that regularly blesses missiles headed to kill Ukraine children crying foul should be lost on no-one. A scientist being fired for not doing his job isn’t “discrimination”. It’s called standards, and without them, there is no discovery and progress.
Besides, it seems to me that Kudryavtsev should change his career to pastor. It sounds like making shit up and trying to make other people feel bad is in the job description, and from the look of it, that’s right up this guys’ alley.
Of all the professions in the “STEM” fields, mathematicians are the most religious. Compared to physicists, astronomers and biologists, about half of all mathematicians have some from of faith, while people who study the physical world, unsurprisingly, barely register on the faith radar.
If you are wondering why that is, look no further than this website, which purports to have a mathematical proof that God exists. Here’s the basic breakdown:
God is defined as a uncaused causer
Infinite regression isn’t logical
The Universe must have some from of logic
The only explanation is God.
Of course, the formula this guy uses is a little more complex, but when it all boils down to it, it’s the same pathetic First Cause argument you’ve heard a hundred times already, and it’s just as unconvincing. You see, the first point of the argument, that “God is beyond the laws of physics”, means precisely squat. The notion that there can be an “uncaused causer” violates the very principle this individual uses to prove their premise in the first place. Simply asserting something does not make it true. I would just turn around and argue that the Universe itself could be proof that there needn’t be a first cause to begin with.
Incidentally, there’s no proof that this Universe isn’t part of an infinite regress of other Universes. We simply don’t know. That’s the problem when you are using something as mysterious as the Universe as your basic proof. It’s way beyond our current and perhaps future comprehension, so it isn’t something I would recommend you try and use as rock solid “evidence” of something.
When you see this kind of pathetic math, then you know you’re talking to a believer desperate to try and prove the unprovable. They want their God to exists outside of the known laws of the Universe, but yet somehow still be bound by its logic. All that is being accomplished here is the equivalent of a word game, and when you boil it down, even their own definitions make no sense. If there is no infinite regress, it does not follow that there is therefore a power beyond logic to resolve this definitional problem. It simply means that your formula is incomplete. It’s back to the drawing board, boys.
I suspect that so long as people hold on to superstitious, they will continue to try and use every tool at their disposal to try and prove that the Universe was the product of what amounts to a magic trick. So long as there are bad faith arguments, so too will there be bad faith mathematicians eager to prove the existence of their imaginary friend.
As I’ve spoken many times before, criticizing Islam is a tricky business. Accusations of racism abound, despite the fact that an idea, and not an ethnic group, is being attacked. There are few things as contentious as the Hijab, that restrictive piece of clothing forced upon women that suggests that the desire that men feel for them is their fault, and more importantly, their responsibility.
It should come as no surprise that constantly wearing a piece of fabric on your head, or all over your body, is not natural, and that there are consequences for doing so. A study in 2012 found that women who wear concealing clothing were likely to have serious vitamin deficiency, which would lead to a number of health problems later in life, including bone density issues, as well as muscle weakness. So, not only is the restrictive dress code of Islam bad for women psychologically, it turns out that it’s also causing a lack of vitamin-D, but it can also lead to serious hair loss, bad odors, and infections galore.
I’m sure there are still soft-headed idiots that will claim that restricting the choices of women is an important part of Islamic culture. This sort of excuse is ridiculous. The health and wellbeing of people is far more important than outdated, sexists traditions that seek to put limitations and control on the opposite sex. So, the next time someone wants to celebrate women wearing the Hijab (like making statutes celebrating it)*, you at least have something to show them.
*On a side note, the statue looks like someone trapped in an iron mask. Fitting, wouldn’t you say?
This week, my cohost Tom B. and I talk about time travel and the movies that feature this poorly used trope, and we’ll also talk about the future of space exploration. It’s one hour of goofy fun you won’t want to miss.
If there’s one thing that seems fairly universal, it’s the fact that going into outer-space changes you forever. Just listen to the testimonials of all these astronauts and tell me that the humbling experience of hovering over the Earth isn’t a life altering experience. Seriously, I think every human being should be given the chance to feel as infinitely small as possible, if only to grasp the true scope of the Universe.
This week, we confront my ‘Ageism’ and discuss ‘generational theory’ and why the world is as crappy as it is. Plus, more on the Tea Party and who comprises their ranks. It’s a must for any political junkie.
SHOW NOTES
Introduction: Lecture on Tea Party by Prof. Theda Skocpol lecture at Oxford:[5]
1980-2000 – Millennials or Generation Y
1965-1979 – Generation X
1946-1964 – Baby Boom
1925-1945 – Silent Generation
1900-1924 – G.I. Generation
What are generational differences dependent on? What factors influence generations?
First, members of a generation share what the authors call an age location in history: they encounter key historical events and social trends while occupying the same phase of life.[3]
Generations tend to go through cycles
– High: Period of strong institutions but weak individualism. Things get comfortable, but people begin to tire of such strong social obligations and the stifling of creativity and expression
– Awakening: Period when institutions are questioned. Boomers make up this demographic. Individualism is strong, (sometimes referred to as summer).
– Unraveling: Institutions are weak, distrusted, (Reagan era of individualism, ‘small government’). This is the generation, shortly after the boomers, which have now come of ‘voting age’. This generation leads inevitably to
– Crisis: (My generation) Institutional life is rebuilt, stock market crash, the 2008 market crash all happened in Crisis eras. These are moments that redefine national identities (perhaps global identities with the coming of the Internet. Rising civic engagement, (winter).
In these times, Archetypes appear –
Prophets: come of age as self-absorbed young crusaders of an Awakening, focus on morals and principles in midlife, and emerge as elders guiding another Crisis
Nomads: born during an Awakening, a time of social ideals and spiritual agendas, when young adults are passionately attacking the established institutional order. These were shrewd realists who preferred individualistic, pragmatic solutions to problems.
Heroes: Tend to be more militaristic, strong political leaders. They are overly confident, having grown up as cocky young adults during a time of crisis. This tends to shape them into leaders.
Artistic: The strong, political overbearingness makes the previous generation more prone to compromise and pragmatism.
Prophet Nomad Hero Artist
High Childhood Elderhood Midlife Young Adult
Awakening Young Adult Childhood Elderhood Midlife
Unraveling Midlife Young Adult Childhood Elderhood
Crisis Elderhood Midlife Young Adult Childhood
We share more in common with the old. Hence, now the fashion of our grandfathers become present day affectations. What is old is fresh again. We reject those values of the midlife of our parents, cling to those of our grandparents instead, but influenced by the different phases.
If Generational theory is correct, that would mean 66 million people are 55 or older
Voting and registration rates tend to increase with age. In the United States in 2010, only 21 percent of 18 to 24 year old citizens voted, compared with 61 percent of those 65 and older.
Many Generation Xers came of age during the Reagan-Bush years (1980 to 1992) or the ‘Republican Revolution’ marked by the 1994 midterm elections. Today’s Generation Y has reached maturity in a time period largely marked by the administration of George W. Bush, and certainly for many the nascent Obama administration is a major formative factor in their political orientation.[1]
Perhaps the most striking change since 2004 has come among voters born between 1956 and 1976 — the members of Generation X and the later Baby Boomers. People in this age group tended to be more Republican during the 1990s, and the GOP still maintained a slight edge in partisan affiliation among Gen X and the late boomers in 2004 (47% identified with or leaned toward the GOP while 44% described themselves as Democrats or leaned Democratic).[2]
Among racial demographics, Asians have the worse voting record (30%), as did Hispanics (31%)
I hate the 33-47 year old Generation (Gen X) and The Silent (who share both politically conservative views, and who are now overwhelming voting majorities. Their combined voting strength will undoubtedly lead to a crisis.
Americans who tend to have more income, slightly more educated than average, and of 65- years and older increasingly dissatisfied with these institutions that they nevertheless have benefitted from, considering their wealth.
Coddled children of the Post War high and the coddled children of hippies who went the other spectrum politically.
Misc:
– Cool Pumpkin carvings [6] [7]
– Very unemployed people less likely to get work [8]
This week, Ryan joins me for a discussion about group polarization and its effect on society and the atheist community at large. Also on the show, the realities of Abortion, and why no one puts Baby in a corner.
SHOW NOTES
Psychologists have found that social media outlets such as Facebook and Twitter demonstrate that group polarization can occur even when a group is not physically together. As long as the group of individuals begins with the same fundamental opinion on the topic and a consistent dialogue is kept going, group polarization can be observed.[1]
– 1961, an MIT student named James Stoner wrote a thesis that was never published on ‘risky shift’, how groups tended to push each other towards more extreme positions.
– Polarization is an attempt to de-unify an organization, like a kind of cell mitosis. Like a genetic shift that causes ant colonies to suddenly rebel and fight.
– Natural cure for this is a ‘Tit for Tat ‘strategy, and many times, this strategy involves often taking abuse without retaliating. This kind of passive resistance helps to break ‘death spirals’, a time when two opponents playing a game decide that each side perceives itself as preferring to cooperate, if only the other side would. But each is forced by the strategy into repeatedly punishing an opponent who continues to attack despite being punished in every game cycle. Both sides come to think of themselves as innocent and acting in self-defense, and their opponent as either evil or too stupid to learn to cooperate.
Tit for two tats is similar to tit for tat in that it is nice, retaliating, forgiving and non-envious, the only difference between the two being how nice the strategy is. In a tit for tat strategy, once an opponent defects, the tit for tat player immediately responds by defecting on the next move. This has the unfortunate consequence of causing two retaliatory strategies to continuously defect against one another resulting in a poor outcome for both players. A tit for two tats player will let the first defection go unchallenged as a means to avoid the ‘death spiral’ of the previous example. If the opponent defects twice in a row, the tit for two tats player will respond by defecting. [2]
Example: The Game of Monopoly. Many games will end with stalemates because two parties have reached a limit to their ability to cooperate with each other once they are faced with the possibility of losing the perceived advantage.
It’s a bad idea to feed Internet trolls, but every once in a while I get a comment on a random article that I just can’t resist writing a response to. This one appeared in an article entitled “Why is Christianity growing in China“. Here’s this clown’s answer:
It will be interesting to see atheists trying to uplift the human spirit with??? LOL, not to make fun of your beliefs dear “know it all”, but it’s been proven using the scientific method that human beings do indeed need to have their spiritual side cultivated in some way. Now you could be “spiritual but not religious”, that works for some. But there will never be a power greater then the worlds great religions that actually has the capability of lifting the most destitute, and guiding the most educated and well off of our lot. I know you don’t believe this dear atheist, but belief has nothing to do with how smart you are!
What’s his scientific proof, you ask? Well, like most religious idiots, the concept of ‘scientific proof’ is only relevant if it somehow confirms his ridiculous view of the world. In this case, it’s the idea that without a ‘spiritual’ side, there’s no way for people to feel uplifted and part of some greater whole.
What a fucking load of horseshit.
It isn’t the world of make-believe which inspires me. It’s the vastness of the universe, or the fact that the atoms which make up my body are forged of the amber of dying stars. I’m a product of over 3 billion years of evolution, one of a myriad of different lifeforms each adapted to suit their particular environment. I live on a cooling ball of rock and iron orbiting a massive collection of hydrogen, packed so tightly together that they fuse, forming helium and unleashing 3.8 x 10^33 ergs/sec of power (a number that is surprisingly easy to calculate, using only an umbrella, a tin of water, and a thermometer).
I find all of this more awe inspiring than any myth we’ve ever invented. How could we compete with the wonders of reality? In the past 80 years we’ve uncovered more about the universe than during our entire time here on Earth. There is still so much to discover and be inspired by, yet religious people keep claiming they have the monopoly on beauty and truth. The stories of Achilles and Jesus have nothing on the beauty of a supernova explosion, or an entire galaxy consumed in a Quasar.
As for intelligence having nothing to do with belief, I would venture to say while plenty of smart people can believe in some incredibly stupid and silly things, those very beliefs impact how a person thinks and acts. Steve Jobs thought alternative medicine could help his aggressive cancer. His stupid belief, while it may not have diminished his overall intelligence, affected his well being enough to terminate his life prematurely. Would anyone praise his ‘spirituality’ in this circumstance, or criticize the ridiculousness of his cherished beliefs? Had his friends and family been brave enough to call him out on it, he might still be alive, and the iPhone 5 wouldn’t suck balls.
If you want to pat yourself on the back for believing in things without evidence, that’s fine: just don’t pretend it makes you smart, guy.
First off, never trust a man who gives you a false name. His name is not Joe, he has never been a plumber, and because he said things stupid conservative people like, he’s been allowed to keep this ludicrous moniker. Like any quasi-celebrity looking for attention, he believes his limited understanding of everything gives him a shot at winning an election. What’s his platform? That the Bible is good because it’s never been changed, or that science is bad because it does!
This week, I talk about fake $50 Jesus tracts, a Christian pamphlet called 21 Ways to Avoid the Back Seat, and I offer my critique of the recent Jerry Coyne / John Haught debate Science and Religion: are they compatible?.
This week, we have a hilarious show for you, as Ryan tries to answer the ‘teacher’s guide’ to the crockumentary God of Wonders. We also talk about the significance of Australopithecus sediba in the way we understand scientific discoveries.
The difference between science and other supposed “types” of knowledge that make similar claims about the universe can be illustrated with this cool new discovery: a team of archaeologists working in South Africa have found a fossil of a possible ancestor. The physical attributes of Australopithecus sediba suggests that it may be a direct ancestor rather than an unsuccessful offshoot. This discovery could (and this is the important part here) change our understanding of our own past as a species.
This offers yet another opportunity for science to correct itself, to refine our understanding of the history of life on earth. That’s fucking exciting. That makes my day. It should make all of our days, but it doesn’t. For a significant portion of the American population, this discovery is either irrelevant, unimportant, or a threat. The need for people to feel important and relevant in an uncaring universe has blinded them from a deeper and much more interesting possibility: that our existence, while impressive to ourselves, is the result of the same laws of physics that are universal. If we exist long enough to contemplate the Cosmos, then we cannot be the only ones who have, are, or ever will. How more exciting is this than “Super Ape-in-the-Sky did it”?
We cover a huge range of topics, from Evangelicals trying desperately to reconcile science and faith, to Muslims in Indonesia doing a little ‘house cleaning’. B
