Thought of the day

Why are horror movies always so terrible? It isn’t like there is another genre which is this consistently bad.

Granted I just watched a Paranormal Activity ripoff, but the point still stands.

Fastest Boston Marathon

Geoffrey Mutai won the Boston Marathon with the fastest time ever:

Kenya’s Geoffrey Mutai won the Boston Marathon Monday in two hours three minutes and two seconds, the fastest time ever recorded over the grueling distance.

Mutai slashed almost a minute off the official world record of 2:03.59, set by Ethiopia’s Haile Gebrselassie at Berlin in 2008, but his time was not ratified as a new record because he was aided by a tailwind on a hilly course with too much downhill from start to finish.

“Boston marathon performances cannot be ratified as world records as the course does not satisfy two of the criteria for world records,” USA Track and Field told Reuters.

Whatevs. It’s still effin’ fast. And certainly faster than the 400lbs guy who completed the L.A. Marathon (which was still impressive).

Forget about the time. I’ll be happy to just run half the distance of a marathon without stopping.

Thought of the day

This is a two-fer.

First, it is ridiculously expensive to climb Mt. McKinley. Not counting personal equipment expenditures and airfare, most services come in around $6500, not to mention the 21 days of not working while on the mountain (plus buffer days for travel and rest). Between airfare, visa and passport expenses, vaccines, personal equipment, and the guide service itself, I spent significantly less on my Kilimanjaro trip.

Second,

Prayer does not work

I think the most annoying habit I witness when discussing what science has to say on a topic is that people will find the most obscure individual studies to bolster their case. That might work depending on the particular study, but it’s rare. A basic of science is that we defer to the body of evidence. That’s why we can say cigarettes cause cancer but marijuana does not (at least until the body of evidence changes). It’s also why we can say that prayer does not have healing properties. Unfortunately, it is possible to abuse the body of evidence. PZ has managed to find some kook who has done just that:

Equal healing benefit has been demonstrated whether the prayer is Hindu or Buddhist, Catholic or Protestant, Jewish or Muslim.

(Quote from the kook, not PZ.)

I suppose a big, fat “NO” across the board is equal, but that’s cheating. And if someone is willing to cheat logic once, why not do it again?

Can medical science prove the benefit of prayer to im- prove the result of an operation? I refer you to the latest Cochrane review on this topic.5 This 69-page manuscript is a meta-analysis of 10 prospective randomized studies on intercessory prayer to help the efforts of modern medicine involving over 7,000 patients. Some studies in this meta- analysis showed benefit, while others did not. The conclusion of the authors was that there is no indisputable proof that intercessory prayer lowers surgical complications or improves mortality rates.

There you go. Nope, prayer does not work. That is what the body of evidence has been telling us for years. But the guy goes on:

So, have I answered the question, “Can prayer help surgery?” While there is not conclusive scientific proof that prayer improves surgical outcomes, it certainly can help relax an anxious preoperative patient and may help enhance the relationship between patient and surgeon. A surgeon must be comfortable with prayer to offer it. Professionalism can be maintained provided the prayer is offered in a non- confrontational manner and reflects the spirituality of the patient. Surgeons who want the best for their patients need to utilize every tool available, and to quote one of my patients, “Prayer is a powerful tool.”

The kook’s patient isn’t paying attention to the science. And neither is the kook. It’s mind-boggling that someone can throw out paragraphs that argue against his position and yet make the exact opposite conclusion. That, we know, is not a testament to the power of prayer. And neither is the body of evidence. It is, however, a testament to the power of blind faith and wishful thinking.

Thought of the day

I don’t think the Republican party is even remotely serious when they talk about the economy.

Arizona: Now more embarrassing than the deep south!

America has a new laughing stock:

The state of Arizona has moved onto contentious political territory once again with the legislative passage of a bill requiring President Barack Obama and other presidential candidates to prove their U.S. citizenship before their names can appear on the state’s ballot.

With states like Arizona maybe Maine can avoid appearing on Comedy Central quite so often.

National Day of Prayer challenge tossed

In an incorrect decision, an appeals court has tossed out a previous ruling on the constitutionality of the National Day of Prayer.

A three-judge panel of the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled the Madison, Wis.-based Freedom From Religion Foundation did not have standing to sue because while they disagree with the president’s proclamation, it has not caused them any harm.

When I read the headlines about an overturned ruling, I expected some BS premise about the day being private and/or not government endorsed. But no, instead there’s this flimsy reason about standing. Apparently the government can actually endorse any religion now because no American citizen has any sort of standing to make a legal challenge.

Bizarrely, though, despite the piss-poor reason given, the justices decided to go ahead and attempt to make an argument for the constitutionality of the law. This makes no legal sense. By ruling on standing, it is only personal – not legal – interest that is motivating a continued response:

The appeals court said in an opinion written by Chief Judge Frank Easterbrook that while the National Day of Prayer proclamation speaks to all citizens, no one is obliged to pray “any more than a person would be obliged to hand over his money if the President asked all citizens to support the Red Cross or other charities.”

Except the First Amendment doesn’t establish a wall of separation between charity and state. Analogy fail, jackass.

Atheism is not normative

I don’t know how many times I need to say this: Atheism is not normative. Atheism is not normative. Atheism is not normative. Am I to the center of the Tootsie Pop yet?

PZ has a post about so-called dictionary atheists that is just inane. He uses an analogy with humans, pointing out that when we talk about humans we don’t define them merely biologically:

He also noticed that every single human being he ever met, without exception, was more than a perambulating set of chromosomes. Some were good at math and others liked to dance and others were kind and yet others liked to argue, and these were the virtues that made them good and interesting, and made them…human, in this best sense of the word. So when he praised being human, it wasn’t for the accident of their birth, it was for the qualities that made being human meaningful.

PZ is confused. There is a fundamental difference between the concept of “human” and the concept he is describing – personhood. We do define the former merely biologically. The latter, however, is far more complex. We need to all get on the same page if discussions of atheism and atheists are to ever bear any fruit.

But I can agree with some of the sentiment behind PZ’s post. He’s saying that atheists are more than people who simply lack belief in gods; atheists have come to their beliefs for a whole slew of reasons and they are composed of a wide set of values. Or at least PZ ought to be specifying “wide set”. What it seems like he’s actually doing is imposing his specific values onto what “atheism” means:

I think we sell ourselves short when we pretend atheism is an absence of values rather than a positive and powerful collection of strong modern beliefs, but also because there are distinct differences in the way atheists should think, relative to theists.

Wrong. Atheism is not a philosophy and thus does not lead a person into any one way or general way of thinking. That’s why Jerry Coyne has to always go on about accomodationists. It’s why no one is conflating Raelians with anyone who has been a part of any atheist movement. Atheist beliefs are defined by the individual atheist, not by atheism. One Pharyngula commenter makes this whole point succinctly:

“I’m an Atheist, therefore I believe…” Knowing nothing else about me, finish that sentence.

I bet I can finish that sentence for a humanist. Or a nihilist. Or a Raelian. And for myself. But I can’t finish it for any atheist I do not know.

I’ve taken the time to define atheist-related terms in the past. My post certainly was not exhaustive, only providing for broad categories, but it provides for a good starting point. Importantly, it distinguishes between what “atheism” simply is versus what something like “new atheism” is: The former is descriptive while the latter is normative. I can understand when theists confuse these categories, but PZ ought to know better.

Or maybe someone wants to tell me what Joe Blow the Atheist from Northeast Bumfuck believes. PZ thinks he can.

Thought of the day

It’s true: Of all the mysteries ever solved, not one has been because of magic.

A wise, worldly, naturalist? Sounds about right.

I’m just stealing everything from PZ today. But that’s okay because I’m a wizard and I can do what I want.