It's been two years.

I just realized today that it's been two years since I dropped my wife off at the San Francisco International Airport for her trip to Korea.  It was the last time we touched.

Yes, she left after our anniversary celebration, and was gone for Christmas, but was supposed to come back before New Years.  But the airline offered her a good deal if they let them bump her a week, so she took that.

I was fine with being here on my own for Christmas.  I had this new game, "Portal" that I wanted to play with, and I was in the middle of building a new workbench in my woodshop.  I was actually looking forward to being a bachelor for a couple of weeks.  And Won wanted to visit a friend of hers from high school, an old classmate who had contracted cancer.

It's amazing how quickly everything can change.

The first half of 2010 was terrible.  I don't even remember much of what I actually did at that time.  I spent our anniversary in November of last year saying "goodbye" to Won, for a week.  Allowing the emotions to roll through me.

This year our anniversary went relatively unremarked.  It didn't hurt (well, not much) to think about it.  Still, it's an important date, one of 3 that will make me remember Won.  Her birthday on June 13, our anniversary on November 23, and her death on January 2nd.  I'm thinking that I will hold either her birthday or our anniversary as an official remembrance of us, but haven't decided which as yet.

I've said it before, in my blog and in other places...

We are all living together here in the same pond.  Our actions and words make ripples that are felt by, and influence those around us, who in turn cause ripples that are felt by and influence others. People who never know us directly will feel this influence.

It is not that important to make a big ripple, or wave, while we are here. What is important is the joy of splashing around.

Even if you never knew my wife, you feel her influence, through my words.

I'm doing much better this year.  There is still some pain, there most likely always will be.  But I've discovered joy again, and love.

Don't be afraid to gamble with your heart.  And hold on tight to those you love.

Read More...

Summary only...

Abortion vs. Personhood

Sometimes I read about atheists who wish to ban abortion. A few have even given their support for a Personhood amendment.
And I have to wonder - have they thought this through?
I will be the first to admit that a fertilized ovum is "human". But then, so are my skin cells. The real argument is over what is a "person". I'll get to that.

First, let's discuss how we all came to be. (And for you biologists out there, feel free to correct this poor electrical engineer! I'm sure I screwed up something!)

Fertilization is the fusion of gametes, (sperm and ovum) to form a zygote. The zygote goes through "cleavage" (cell division) to form a Blastula. After about 5 or 6 divisions it is called a Morula, at which point it starts to form a hollow ball of cells around a center of liquid. Once the ball is formed it is called a blastocyst. The inner cell mass of this ball starts to form structures that will later define the fetus.

Up to this point, the blastocyst has not adhered to the uterine wall - when it does, it is called implantation. At implantation the cells are called an embryo until about the 8th week, when it is then called a fetus. Implantation happens between 6-12 days after fertilization.

I won't go into the development of a fetus here.

A baby is what we call a human that has been born. Newborn is the designation of a human from birth to several weeks old, and infant is the designation usually given from one month to 12 months.

Now let's review miscarriage.

Miscarriage (also known as "spontanious abortion") is actually very common in humans. Especially before implantation of the blastocyst. There is only a very narrow window of opportunity for the blastocyst to implant, and this window can be affected by various things.

The problem at this stage is that the blastocyst is about 32 cells in size, and if a miscarriage happens it often seems just like a woman's normal menstrual flow. Sometimes it is thought to be a little heavy, but not always.

No one seems to know the exact rate of miscarriage in humans because it is difficult to identify when it happens.  Depending on who you ask, or which study you read, miscarriage rates are said to be anywhere between 30-50% of all fertilized ovum. (Wikipedia, New England Journal of Medicine, WebMD, University of Ottawa, MedicineNet)

Most miscarriages happen in the first trimester. Miscarriage is less likely to happen in the second trimester or later, and is usually due to problems with the uterus, umbilical cord, or placenta.

What makes miscarriage MORE likely?

There are things that a woman (and even the father) can do to increase the likelihood of miscarriage.

Older parents are likely to miscarry due to poor genetics. Smoking increases the likelihood of miscarriage - even if only the father smokes!  Drug use is also an increased risk (but we knew that, right?) Antidepressants can cause a failure to implant.

IUDs, which mostly prevent pregnancy by preventing fertilization also prevent blastocysts from implanting in the uterine wall. Also in some few cases the combined oral contraceptive pill (the most common birth control pill) will cause the blastocyst to fail to implant.
There are studies that show a correlation between exercise and an increased risk of miscarriage in the first trimester, with more and heavier exercise leading to greatly increased chance of miscarriage.

There are correlations between caffeine use and miscarriage, and stress and miscarriage too.

So what happens if we define a fertilized ovum to be a person?

There is no argument that a baby is a person. Personhood is usually granted after birth. (Although this isn't always true. In some countries it has been common to not officially acknowledge or even name a baby until a year after birth - due to high rates of infant mortality.)

But what if we grant a fertilized ovum the same rights to personhood that you and I reading this text on a screen enjoy?

If a mother spontaneously aborts, or miscarries, we will need to determine to what degree the mother (and perhaps even the father) is culpable for the death of that "person" in a similar manner that we now do with born persons.

In the death of a non-born person, we must ask:

• Was the woman sexually active, and not using any form of birth control that prevented fertilization?
  • If so, was she living a lifestyle that is risky to the unborn?

Depending on how these questions are answered, the woman may be guilty of manslaughter, or negligent homicide. There are already cases of women charged with drug trafficking and child neglect due to their use of illegal drugs during pregnancy.

• What if the woman willfully consumes caffeine during pregnancy, in the hopes of triggering a miscarriage? Or joins a cross-country track team for the same reason?

There are cases where women have been charged with murder for attempting to end their unborn child's life. Whether the method of murder is a pellet gun or a 10 mile run might not matter.  (Wikipedia)

Obviously, if a fertilized ovum is the same as a person, AND it deserves the protection of the State, then some restrictions must be placed upon women of child-bearing years.

These restrictions might include:

1. No high-stress jobs. (Sorry about your dreams of becoming a District Attorney!)
2. No sports. (Perhaps women athletes could guarantee that they are not sexually active?)
3. No using the Birth Control Pill or IUDs. (Spermicide and condoms should be fine.)
4. Frequent pregnancy testing. (If you don't know you are pregnant, how can you protect your baby?)

I'm sure other protections may occur to the reader.

Roe V. Wade

So why is Abortion legal? Why did Roe V. Wade make it legal?

One of my religious acquaintances told me that Roe V. Wade was decided in order to allow woman to "avoid the consequences of sex".

In reality, Roe V. Wade is a privacy issue. It's about personal liberty. The restrictions that I enumerated above are invasions into a woman's liberty and privacy. They are a form of tyranny.

A family with two children may decide that "2 is enough" and then use birth control methods to prevent future pregnancy. But not all birth control methods are 100% effective, so it is still possible for the woman to become pregnant again.

Perhaps such a pregnancy will endanger her health, perhaps it will kill her. Or maybe the family is on the financial edge and cannot afford another baby - maybe it cannot even afford a full term pregnancy.

Roe V. Wade recognizes that the mother may decide to have an abortion. The decision made by the Supreme Court recognized that it is her private right to make such a decision. The court also decided that it was better that the mother do it safely, instead of using a risky method.

And risky methods of abortion abound. Ask any woman who remembers what abortions were like before 1973.Women died.

But the State also recognizes that it has a responsibility toward the unborn too. This is why Roe V. Wade talks about the viability of a fetus. If the fetus is viable, it is right to protect it. Viability could be as early as 24 weeks with artificial support.

At 24 weeks the pregnancy is obvious and miscarriage is unlikely to occur.

Last thought: In-Vitro Fertilization

"In vitro" means "within glass" and refers to the fertilization of ovum outside the mother's body as a treatment for infertility.

Usually several embryos are cultured before being transferred back to the mother. This is done because some embryos are not as viable as others (the best are chosen for transfer back) and because not all embryos will implant in the mother. Usually only 2 or 3 embryos are transferred back to the mother, with others held back until it is known that implantation occurs.

Usually there are several embryos that are left over from the process. These can be cryopreserved, but are often discarded - usually by the decision of the family.
If every embryo is a person, deserving of full rights of personhood, then IVF will need to change dramatically, or be made unlawful.

So, where are you in the debate on abortion?

Read More...

Summary only...

"God did it!" - This is a dishonest answer

When I engage in debate online with Christians, I am frequently asked about the origins of everything.

This comes down to the question of, "Where did life come from?"  or "Where did the universe come from?"  

I am somewhat familiar with studies in astrophysics and evolutionary biology where the origns of life and the universe are studied. But those are not my fields of expertise, so I don't pretend to use a study for an answer. There is a better answer.

"I don't know"

That's an honest answer isn't it? It is also a scientific answer. It's an answer that invites inquiry, it's an answer that excites scientists.

"I don't know, but let's see if we can find out" is the start of most rational, scientific investigations. It is the beginning of a journey, and no one knows how long, or how far, this journey will take us.

Let's compare "I don't know" to the other common response, "God did it".

First, you must realize that "God did it" is assumed without evidence. There is no proof that "God did it", there is no way to know, for sure. So saying that "God did it" is inherently dishonest, because it is assuming a fact that you cannot know.
"God did it" shuts down inquiry. It stifles investigation and it discourages scientific exploration. It encourages us to be satisfied with the way things are now, it blocks us from attempting to imagine that things could be any better.

By saying that "God did it" the speaker is in fact saying that he or she isn't interested in learning anything further. The speaker is just fine with his or her present level of knowledge, and is comfortable in their ignorance. Saying that "God did it" is a cop-out.

Here is what we do know.

Science has, so far, never needed a supernatural explanation for any piece of acquired knowledge. Radios, Televisions, GPS systems, spaceships, immunizations, and photosynthesis all work just fine without needing the supernatural to function.

Everything that we currently know came about without the requirement of the supernatural. It is reasonable, in fact probable, to assume that everything we will eventually learn will be based upon natural, as opposed to supernatural, processes.

When someone tells you that "God did it", ask them - "How do you know?" When they ask you where everything came from say, "I don't know" - that's the honest truth.

Read More...

Summary only...

Why would a Christian like Vasko Kohlmayer have to lie to make his point?

From what I can tell Vasko Kohlmayer is an American naturalized citizen from Russia who writes a column called "Higher Things" on Christian topics in the Washington Times - the paper owned by Unification Church leader Sun Myung Moon.  His byline says he's writing from Moscow.

From the start, the truth is looking pretty weak here. The Washington Times is known for a euphemism called "Prudenizing", a dishonest writing practice. Why would a good Christian want to associate themselves with an organization known for dishonesty?  

In his first article, "Atheism versus God: How did the universe begin?", Vasko says the following:

Most of those who don't believe in God say that the Big Bang was a chance event. In other words, the great explosion that brought the universe into being was a cosmic fluke.

... Because we know very well that explosions do not happen of themselves.

And yet many atheists make precisely this kind of claim. They say that the greatest of all explosions just happened. On this view, the universe just popped into existence spontaneously.

...

Common sense and experience tell us that the world does not work like this. Things just do not pop into being. Even children know this. If someone would claim spontaneous creation in connection with any other event, we would immediately think he has lost his senses.

But this is not the worst of it. The atheist claim also directly contradicts the most fundamental assumptions and observations of science. This is paradoxical, since most people of atheist persuasion say that they have arrived at their position on the basis of science and reason.

The problem is, however, that in all of its history science has never observed or documented a single uncaused event.

Everything that science has observed so far – whether on this planet or in the universe at large – has been subject to the cause-effect relationship.

There are two bits here that are problematic.  I thought that Vasko was merely ignorant of the facts, and pointed out to him in a comment where he was incorrect:  For example, science knows about many uncaused events.  Anyone who has taken intermediate physics or chemistry knows about virtual particles, brownian motion, and the decay of radioactive material, where events happen without cause all the time.

But his statement about what atheists believe needed serious correcting, so I wrote:

(Quoting Vasko's article: "Most of those who don't believe in God say that the Big Bang was a chance event.")

This statement is incorrect. Some do say it was chance (for example, perhaps it was a quantum event that cascaded into macro space.) But most atheists that I know say, "I don't know what caused the Big Bang."

"I don't know." That's an honest answer isn't it? It does not presume an answer. It invites further scientific inquiry. It asks us to engage, to create hypothesis and to test them. It deals with reality.

"God did it" is inherently a dishonest answer. You don't know that a deity created the Big Bang. There is no evidence for this - indeed, no evidence for any God or gods.

"God did it" is an answer that actively stifles investigation by assuming an answer. If the answer exists, then who will look for it? A thousand years ago Christians took a dim view of those people who actively investigated where a priest said "God did it." These people were called "Heretics". Some were put to death. The modern version of "God did it" is still reprehensible in that it stifles free inquiry.

This is self-evident.  By saying that a god did something unprovable, you are assuming something that you cannot know.  By calling this a "truth", you are in fact being dishonest.  I had thought that Vasko was merely ignorant of this, and tried to show why it is incorrect.

In Vasko's original article, he also says:

There are those who claim that to believe in God is not only unscientific, but also absurd.

This is certainly not the case. To the contrary, it is the denial of God's existence that contradicts both science and common sense.

...

It is only reasonable and logical to assume that the universe – just like everything else – had to have a cause. Judging by the staggering vastness, complexity and beauty of the universe, the cause that brought it forth must have been immensely powerful, superbly wise and exquisitely imaginative.

Such characteristics are normally associated with an entity we term God.

To believe in God – the transcendent cause of the universe – is thus neither illogical nor absurd. Not to believe in him is both.

Unbelief will remain to be logically and scientifically untenable until it can be demonstrated that it is possible for an uncaused event to occur.

So in the first bit, Vasko makes the assertion that science and common sense support the existence of God, and in the second bit he supports this assertion by reiterating that uncaused events do not happen - which we already know to be a false premise through scientific observation.  Since the article is built on a false premise, the entire article fails in its purpose to prove God.  

I hoped he would learn from this.  Instead, he needed to protect himself, and to do so he needed a strawman to attack.

He chose to build that strawman out of my words.

In his next article, "Atheist, there is no such thing", Vasko said that he argued for a "transcendent cause – God – which brought the universe into being", and that his "exasperated" "unbelieving readers" "had to plead ignorance when it comes to the universe's origin.  Yes, we were "exasperated", because pleading ignorance is honest, while asserting something that you cannot know to be true is inherently dishonest.

And here is what Vasko said about me:

One reader who goes by the name Calladus wrote: "[M]ost atheists that I know say, 'I don't know what caused the Big Bang.' I don't know. That's an honest answer, isn't it?"

The commenter is right: It is honest to admit our ignorance. His admission is also instructive because it contains a revealing inconsistency.

According to the dictionary, an atheist is “one who denies the existence of a deity.” Despite the fact that Calladus claims to be to be such a person, he also confesses he doesn't know what brought the universe into existence.

But if he does not know that, he must also concede it is at least possible the universe was brought forth by a transcendent cause.

What this means is that Calladus does not know – and cannot know – for sure whether or not God exists.

I cannot believe that he is so muddle-headed to make this mistake.  This is a freshman - level logic mistake.  Did he even try to google his argument to examine it for weakness?  Because I admit to not knowing, I must "concede" that it is possible for God to exist.  Yes, I will do that readily right now.  It is completely possible for a god to exist that brought the universe into existance last week Thursday.  It is completely possible that the universe was created by the Flying Spaghetti Monster, or the Invisible Pink Unicorn.

But no one argues that this is true because these positions lack evidence.  The lack of evidence is not a reason to start asserting that your particular favorite flavor of God exists.  In fact, we can argue these positions without the need for a God.  We could argue that Markovians created the Universe.  Or we could argue that a natural process that we currently don't know about or understand created the Universe.  If we are wrong about this, we will discover our error during the investigation.  This is how science works.

Out of all of these positions, only one invites further scientific inquiry.  The rest all give a "just so" answer that stifles inquiry.  In other words, only one answer is open-minded and scientific.  Many explanations are "possible" - there are an infinity of "possible" explanations.  Instead of investigating them all, science investigates the probable explanations first.

Vasko also quotes one dictionary definition of atheist.  Why?  I'm not sure, but I have noticed this is a tactic used by many Christians (notably Ray Comfort) in order to "prove" that there is no such thing as an atheist.  The definition given says an atheist is: "a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings."  Let's break that down a little.

The first part of the definition "someone who denies a supreme being (God)" assumes that a God exists.  This definition assumes facts not in evidence, and is somewhat flawed due to that.  But by using the word "disbelieve" the definition is redeemed somewhat since the verb usage of "disbelieve" is to "have no belief."  

It is true that some atheists beleive that no gods exist.  This is a form of "strong atheism".  I, on the other hand, merely lack a belief in Gods, because of the overwhelming lack of evidence.  By choosing such an easy definition, Vasko has made me into straw man, that he knocks down by saying, "If he wanted to be precise in his use of terminology, Calladus would call himself an agnostic. This term more accurately captures his “I don't know” admission."

This of course, confuses terminology and mixes apples with oranges.  Atheism and Agnosticism are two different things.  Atheism deals with belief, agnosticism deals with knowledge.  If you are are a person who is theistic, you have a belief that a god exists.  Someone who is a-theist does not have a belief that a god exists ("a" is the negation of "theism")  A person who is gnostic knows that a god exists.  Someone who is a-gnostic does not know that a god exists. (again, "a" is a negation).

There is a responsibility for people who claim to be an authority on a subject.  A person making such a claim must actually be an authority!  By confusing atheism and agnosticism, by taking a lack of evidence as evidence, and by making a straw man out of my words, Vasko has demonstrated that he is in no way familiar with the arguments of atheism.  From this position, anything he writes without first understanding the other side of the argument is intellectually dishonest.

When corrected in his mistakes, instead of acknowledging the correction Vasko "doubled down" and compounded his error.  This shows him to be uninterested - at best - or idiotically stupid at worst.

And by applying a dictionary definition to me, without ever bothering to ask me what I believe, Vasko has actually lied about what I believe.  This is beyond intellectual dishonesty, it shows him to be nothing more than a liar.  

But why would a Christian have to lie to make his point?

Read More...

Summary only...