Volcanos

I used to think Mount Fuji was about the most beautiful volcano on the planet.

Then I saw this picture of Mount Mayon on the isle of Luzon in the Philippines.

Is Everyone Religious?

This essay was sparked by a post on Ex-Army entitled Everybody's Religious. Normally, I would have just posted a short comment but Google's gstatic is screwed up again so I was unable to. That gave me some more time to think about the question.

So, is everybody really religious? More importantly, am I religious? The more I thought about it, the more I realized the answer to that question really depends on how I define "religion". The definition I have used for decades is a positive one:

A thing is a religion if it asserts the existance of at least one of:

1. the divine or
2. an afterlife.

That seems pretty simple and straight-forward to me.

• Christianity is a religion because it asserts there is a god (or gods, depending on how you count them) and it asserts the existence of an afterlife (resurrection).
• Islam is a religion because asserts the existence of a single god and it asserts the existence of an afterlife (resurrection).
• Hinduism is a religion because asserts the existence of a pantheon of gods (in some versions this is conceived of as a single god) and it asserts the existence of an afterlife (reincarnation).

Since either one of the above characteristics is sufficient to to make a religion I can add to the list:

• Theravada Buddhism is a religion because it asserts the existence of an afterlife (reincarnation) but not the existence of the divine.
• Sadducee Judiasm is a religion because it asserts the existence of a single god but rejects the existence of an afterlife.

There is a whole lot of human group behavior that does not fit the definition of religion above. For example, line dancing does not assert the existence of the divine nor of an afterlife so it is not a religion. Still, it seems to me that my definition is a pretty generous interpretation of the concept of "religion".

So, am I religious? So far, I find the evidence for the divine and the afterlife is insufficient to non-existent so, according to my definition above, I am not. However, there is a second, even more liberal, definition I infer from some of the half-baked arguments I've read over the years. I call this a negative definition because it does not require any positive assertions:

A thing is a religion of it takes a position on the existence of at least one of:

1. the divine or
2. the afterlife.

Using that definition atheism and agnosticism are "religions" (though I think line dancing is still exempt). Both take a position on the existence of the divine: Atheists do not believe it exists. Agnostics say it is impossible to know. A definition of religion that includes atheist and agnostics as "religious" strikes me as woolgathering but it does seem to summarize the arguments from the everybody-is-religious positions I've read.

I am sure there are more combinations of criteria regarding what constitutes a religion. In fact, each of us can define it pretty much anyway we want. So, unless all parties can agree on what a religion is, there is no possibility of rational discourse on the subject.

The pedant and the priest have always been the most expert of logicians -- and the most diligent disseminators of nonsense and worse. The liberation of the human mind has never been furthered by dunderheads; it has been furthered by gay* fellows who heaved dead cats into sanctuaries and then went roistering down the highways of the world, proving to all men that doubt, after all, was safe -- that the god in the sanctuary was finite in his power and hence a fraud. One horse-laugh is worth ten thousand syllogisms. It is not only more effective; it is also vastly more intelligent.
-- H L Mencken, in The American Mercury, January, 1924

---

*Though the term "gay" was already being used to describe a homosexual male by the 1930s, I am pretty sure Mencken was using it the sense of " having or showing a merry, lively mood."

More on the Evil Spielberg

Yet another (faked) example of the evil that is Steven Spielberg. This time he killed The Last Unicorn.

The NSA Really is Watching Us.

By now I doubt anyone is really surprised at this.

The ultimate goal of the NSA is total population control

H/T to David Codrea.

Spielberg and the Triceratops

When I first saw this on Fakebook I was genuinely puzzled that anyone over the age of seven did not know that the Ceratopsians went extinct about 65 million years ago. Then I remembered that Genesis 1:23-27 claims that man and the "beasts of the earth" were created on the sixth day and there are people who believe that is literally true. It started to make a perverse kind of sense.

Every time I think I finally see the bottom of the pit of human ignorance, someone rises to the occasion and proves that it goes even deeper.

Anti-Hunting Activists Up In Arms Over Photo Of Steven Spielberg Next To ‘Poor Dead Animal’

Immumeracy in New Jersey

According to a recent "report" broadcast by 101.5 FM to the people of New Jersey using statistics from the Violence Policy Center (VPC), "New Jersey has a gun ownership rate of about 11 percent, and a gun death rate of about 5 1/2 percent, and that is very low,"

Low?

According to Census Bureau estimates , the 2013 population of New Jersey is 8,899,339. Using the VPC figures of an 11% gun ownership rate that equates to 978,927 firearms in the state. Using the figure of "5 1/2 percent" for "gun death" rates that comes out to 489,464 deaths or about 5,500 per 100,000 persons! Even Chicago or Washington DC cannot equal that on their most murderous weekends! It may be possible that Ms. Rand quoted the figure in error or maybe she simply lied. However, why didn't at least one person at the radio station pick up a calculator and check that figure?

I cannot give much credence to someone who is that ignorant of simple, grammar school arithmetic.

H/T to David Codrea and JPFO.

Every 823 Years my Ass.

I've seen this meme is circulating a lot on the Internet. It's bullshit. The fact is that the first three days of any month with 31 days will repeat five times within the month. That means any 31-day month* that starts on a Friday will have five Fridays, five Saturdays and five Sundays. You don't have to wait 823 years for it to happen again, the next occurrence after August of 2014 will be in May of 2015.

* January, March, May, July, August, October and December

Take a Bite out of Malaria

A synthetic sex ratio distortion system for the control of the human malaria mosquito

Behind that pompous sounding title is a pretty clever idea: Use genetic modification to cause the endonuclease I-PpoI to carve up the X chromsome in the male Anopheles mosquito the female of which is the vector for malaria.

Because just indiscriminatly tearing up the X chromosome would kill the mosquito, the researchers genetically modified the enzyme so it is only expressed during spermatogenesis and has a short half-life. Mow a male with the allele would be otherwise healthy but produce little to no viable X-bearing sperm. The goal is not to kill the mosquito but to cause the males to father fewer female offspring. The implications for the anopheles population are obvious.

A precursor to this is the "sterile insect technique" used since since the sixties to eradicate screwfly populations. Large numbers of male screwflies were artificially sterilized and released. The females they mated with produced sterile eggs. The advantage of genetic modification is that it is self perpetuating. Successive generations would carry the modified allele and some males in every generation would produce (mostly) only male offspring.

It may be true that "nature will find a way" and, if attempted, this GMO approach might fail. That doesn't stop it from being a clever idea.

Happy Independence Day!

I live in a jurisdiction where fireworks of all kinds are banned (except for the usual suspects) so here is a brief video on making fireworks from steel wool and copper wire.

Blogger usually chops off part of a embedded video so: link to original.

What the Heck is a Parabarbarian Anyway?

I get that question occasionally. I usually just ignore it but I must be in an explaining mood.

Many years ago I read an essay by John W. Campbell who was then the editor of Astounding/Analog magazine. In it he discussed the difference between various perceptions of how human groups are organized and managed or ruled. Basically what Campbell did was to describe human society -- just a bigger group -- in terms of three different but commonly understood ideals.

I found this link which purports to be a faithful copy of the original. I cannot vouch for the accuracy but it does match my memories -- such as they are at my age.

Anyways, here are Campbell's divisions. The explanations are my summaries and any way they may differ from Campbell's original intent is my fault.

• The Barbarian: Does not respond to social control or law in any manner other than might-makes-right. Allegiance is usually to a strong leader who achieved his position by soundly defeating the competition.
• The Tribesman: Responds to custom and social pressure. Allegiance is to the tribal group and to its customs. Often this is expressed as allegiance to a tribal or religious leader.
• The Citizen: Responds to authority and generally does as he is told. Usually because he believe that it is a citizen's duty to obey the law. Allegiance is to the nation and its dominant culture.

Bear in mind that the above are ideals and, as such, are standards of conduct or virtue to which an individual might aspire. The above three are pretty much platonic in that purity and reality is almost always messier. A real world individuals may be a barbarian with regard to X, a tribesman with regard to Y and a citizen with regard to Z. Nevertheless, the categories have proved useful to me in understanding why people do or believe some of the things they do. I am an INTP personality type and I used the categories to help clarify my thinking (or belief if you prefer) on various issues where answers are more than just a result of reducing data. They helped me construct a mental framework that cut through a lot of the bullshit.

Somewhere along the line I decided that I wanted a new category that better described my unique combination of the three facets. Eventually, I borrowed a label -- I have no idea where I first saw it -- filed off the serial numbers and applied it to myself. I give you the final bullet point:

• The Parabarbarian: Respects the law if and only if he considers that law as valid, productive, efficient and effective. He has no automatic respect for institutions and is suspicious of anything other than results. He has a sense of social responsibility but without the burden of cultural loyalty. He sees culture as a social tool and society as a mutually agreeable but otherwise arbitrary arrangement among individual members of a group.

Now you know.

07/04/2014 -- "Obeys the law..." -> "Respects the law..."