Part 3 (and last): From Thalidomide to Mental Enervation

All ideas carry the potential for abuse, whether they claim a supernatural component or not, and counter arguments will likely offer examples rather than a reasoned disagreement.[1]

A religious belief prohibiting blood transfusion is in my opinion a mistake. So was the use of Thalidomide to treat morning sickness. (It so happens Thalidomide was withdrawn the year before I was conceived.)

Foul! you say, Thalidomide was tragic, but science recognizes its errors and corrects them, it's built into the structure of scientific thinking (I agree). Religion, on the other hand, presumes certain truths and proceeds from there; it doesn't test and refine doctrine. (I agree[2]).

How are they the same? Because we trust the claims of both. All other things being equal, we make an informed decision based on everything we know and feel about a subject, a cognitive process involving our five senses and how we interpret them.[3]

The two types of conclusions are most assuredly different ("there is a God" v. "vibrating subatomic strings comprise all matter"), and the personalities behind them often stridently disparate, but we arrive at them using the same capacity to reason our way through a complicated landscape of ideas and sensory information.[4]

I have a scientific mind at my core, but I relish every aspect of human expression, including religious ones with which I vehemently disagree.
No other communities I know of expect members to be kind, patient, generous, peaceful, truthful, both inside and outside their community and sometimes at great personal cost, sometimes at great corporate cost, often anonymously, and few to the same degree or consistency.

Some secular communities will be some things; eg, scientists prize truth and patience, but they do not need to be kind or generous or peaceful, though there is nothing wrong if they are also those things, they're just not mandated.

On the contrary, conceit, indignation, anger, condescension, and other competitive behaviors are expected and sometimes celebrated among, for example, attorneys, business leaders, politicians, activists etc.[5]

No belief can exist without trust in our senses, the five traditional ones and an assortment of internal "quasi-senses" (which are combinations and interpretations of the five) that tell us something is right or wrong, good or bad, safe or dangerous, etc.

I don't mean this to boil down to an unhelpful conclusion that, all other things being equal, we can't ultimately know reality and so my opinion is just as valid as yours; that doesn't get us very far. But that may be where we land for now, because, all other things truly being equal, any differences between you and me would be due to unpredictable fluctuations in quantum states of the particles that make up our bodies.

I would rather that one of us be more right than the other, that some ideas be better than others, that some behaviors be more preferred than others, and for greater reason than it is the natural order of things to be thus.

That's what I'd rather, and it doesn’t matter which one of is is more right, only that one of us is, and we agree how we got there.

If you acknowledge a transcendent moral ideal, you have a foundation for developing an internally consistent framework (disregarding for the moment whether you and I agree).

If you don't acknowledge a transcendent moral ideal, your foundation is equally strong, it just supports a different sort of cognitive structure, one in which the same precepts of the transcendentalists are defined in terms of an action's or adaptation's efficacy toward a particular end.

They are different models for describing the same thing.[6]

My question: What prevents us from integrating those models?

My answer: Our unwillingness to consider, however briefly, the validity of opposing ideas, and to reconsider the validity of our own.

(A final word anticipating disagreement: Those who've comfortably settled in on either side will not be convinced. I realize that in pursuing common ground I make myself an object of ridicule by both sides; it's the inevitable end of those that seek consensus, because it is, in the end, not possible.

As an anonymous freshman peer grader wrote on one of my papers many years ago, Either I'm very bright or I don't know what the heck I'm talking about. The prof agreed. Perhaps they were right. Perhaps I don't.)

[1]
As I've said before, even if our moral sense is a byproduct of evolution, it doesn't make it any less significant; quite the contrary. If we consider all the bits and pieces that combine to make up humans the product of evolutionary happenstance, then no one piece has any more significance over any other, they are all equally significant, having served some purpose at some time and each a critical piece of the human story.

[2]
Actually, a very good case could be made that organized religion does in fact test and refine doctrine over time; I know it's not the Scientific Method, but it's an adaptation of sorts to what we learn about ourselves and our environment; for the sake of brevity, I didn't want complicate things here.

[3]
We trust that science makes wise judgments. We are certainly harming ourselves with some process or substance today that we are entirely unaware of. That is the nature of testing and implementing chemicals in our daily life without observing the affects over generations. Yes, we're assuming a certain amount of unstated risk, but we also assume the risk is outweighed by the benefit, or we wouldn't be doing it in the first place.

[4]
I do believe we often reach the wrong conclusion. There is a good reason some religions practice prayer and fasting - it makes the mind more amenable to interpreting stimuli as spiritual insight; it's little different from ingesting chemicals.

[5]
Of course I'm not saying all religious adherents follow their own tenets, only that religions make an effort to follow them. I would also argue that secular communities with similar high ideals, like soldiers, doctors, Masons, etc, are adapting conventionally religious ideals to a secular purpose. It’s no surprise warring nations claim God is on their side; the two purposes align well.

[6]
Science is rife with examples. In my own background, it was Cognitive Stratificational Linguistics (Lamb, Lockwood) v. Transformational Generative Grammar (Chomsky). Or Freud v. Jung v. Skinner etc. The power in a better model is not just how elegantly it handles all the data, but its predictive ability.

Started: 2012-04-22

Part 2: Hmmm, I like it, I'm not sure why, but it talks to me.

What is wrong with considering religion as an attribute like other human attributes? - color, height, agility, intelligence, artistic expression, language, etc (it has components that are academic, expressive, artistic, philosophical, etc).

Can we really say religion is (almost) no different than the color of our skin?[1]

I'm thinking of "religion" in this case as our the part of us that questions, speculates, provides answers, and is willing to accept something unseen as possibly true, whether that's God or the Mona Lisa's smile or subatomic strings.

If you approach it this way, you can, like I do, stand back with one hand on your chin as if at an art exhibit and say to yourself, "Hmmm, I like it, I'm not sure why, but it talks to me."

We welcome enormous variety in human behavior when it comes to food, recreation, movies, books, music, cars, the opposite sex, etc, but when it comes to religion, most of us believe there is only one correct version and the others are at best ineffective approximations, but more often counterfeits and endanger our eternal soul (if your belief presumes an eternal soul).

Or, if you are a-religious are anti-religious, you may regard them all as at best misguided, and at worst dangerous folly.

I’m not advocating that anyone discard their common sense or do dangerous things because a belief proscribes or commands them, but rather that we allow ourselves the liberty to celebrate the diversity of religious expression as we do any other type of human expression.

We criticize what we don't understand, whether it's art, faith, skepticism, sexual orientation, or another culture.

Next time: Part 3 (and probably last part): All ideas carry the potential for abuse. <- Unlike Zebra stripes, titles can change :-)


[1]
I choose skin color because unlike hair color or language or our taste in reality TV shows, we can't change or pretend to change it. I say "almost" because many folks do change their "religion," though I am referring not to formal religion alone here, but our capacity for religious expression of all types.

Started: 2012-04-22

Part 1: Like Learning You Were Adopted and Your Bio Dad is Charlie Manson

New ideas can be troubling. Especially good ones, because that means we must reconsider old ones.

The latest in this category for me? Robert Wright's discussion of Yahweh (YHWH in Judaism and "God the Father" to Christians) as an evolution of Baal worship rather than a revolution (The Evolution of God,  current audio book I'm working through).

For initiates, I'm sure this is trivial, but for me, though I was aware of the concept, the details are new.

The idea is this: The early Jews were not a conquering nation that affected a sudden change in Canaanite society with the one true God (Yahweh defeating Baal), but the Jews were actually agrarian Canaanites that developed new communities and beliefs based on their Canaanite origins (Yahweh is Baal).

(I encourage you to read it; it's fascinating. He's moving quickly; I'd like him to stay in this misty ancient place for a while, but alas, the best stories move fast.)

There is considerable - if easy to miss - evidence of polytheism in the Old Testament. Everyone is familiar with the 3rd person plural in Genesis, but there is much more.

And it's as absorbing as it is disconcerting.

Liberally educated Christians are accustomed to confronting adjustments to faith (usually science based); so you find many Christians that accept evolution, physical explanations of miracles, the documentary hypothesis, etc.

But to suggest that Yahweh is really Baal, that's like learning not only that you were adopted, but that your real father was Charles Manson.

Next time: Part 2: Religion is (almost) no different than the color of your skin.

Started: 2012-04-22

Gimme that Ol' Time Guilt Trip

When you get to the point where you can just enjoy meter and theological acrobatics despite the message, you have reached a special place.

Just where that place is, I don't precisely know, but it's a nice place, nonetheless.

Pastor Greene knows where that place is. [1]

Oliver B Greene plays Jesus like Vassar Clements plays the the fiddle, which, if you've never heard him, sounds like this .

The Gospel Hour Home is here .   My personal opinion is irrelevant to your response to Pastor Greene, but IMHO he's one parishioner shy of a full pew.

But I happen to catch him a lot because I happen to tune into WPAQMount Arie a lot. I heard a lot of preaching just like that for years, not from Pastor Kenneth Andrus, or Pastor Ed Fuller before him (they were more reserved), but mostly guest speakers during what Bethel Baptist Church called missionary conferences.[2]

An occasional good ol' bible thumping hits the spot.

Just where that spot is, I don't precisely know, but it's a nice spot, nonetheless.

Funny church sign, for no other reason than because it's funny.

[1]
They swap these messages out; you likely won’t hear the one I heard, but they're pretty interchangeable.

[2]
Missionary conferences were fund-raising events as well; Bethel Baptist Church funded dozens of missionaries as I recall. In its hey day, Bethel was located at 737 East 26th Street in Erie, PA. It's no longer there, having moved out to West 38th many years ago. I remember well, however, old pictures of old pastors going back years, to the 1800's, before Bethel Baptist Church even existed at that location, and a massive bulletin board that had dozens of pushpins clustered in Erie, PA on a world map, each with a length of yarn attached to it and stretched to a country with a picture of a missionary family.

Started 2012-04-20

My 3-Year-Old Ham, Plus a Handful of Radio Updates

A budding ham? My daughter Dee Dee, 3-1/2 years old. No, she wasn't transmitting.

 

 

 

I'm trying to figure a way to attach that mic to my dashboard. I don't want to stick Velcro to the mic. I'm thinking a small, V-shaped, metal wedge; Velcro that to the dash and clip the mic to that. In a previous post I showed the mic hung from another Bracketron bracket, but that's too precarious.

I did get my Tram dual-band 2m/70cm antenna up. It sits near the Tram scanner antenna; the coax runs 1) down the hatch rain channel (is that what you call it?), 2) to a drip loop, 3) into the cargo area, 4) through a fixed metal loop and under carpet, 5) between the seats and to the console up front. I’ve secured the coax runs to each other and a couple points in the car with black plastic zip ties.

I had to add 3' of coax, which I know leads to some signal loss, but the run is short and my needs are modest, so I'm not worried about it. Robbie at T & W Electronics in Grand Rapids spent a lot time talking to me while one of his guys created the extension for me. That is an outstanding store, if anyone in the Grand Rapids area is reading this. He says he's looking at carrying some Alincos.

He runs a repeater in town and I have it stored in my radio, though I haven't had a QSO with him yet. I'm so busy, a few minutes alone to do anything is a luxury some days. And for some reason my wife doesn't think much of radio, which I gather is common in the hobby (though I spend very little; I don't have a base stations and tower or anything like that, or go to hamventions or club meetings or train for emergencies, but I'd like to do some of those things).

I share the hookup info below because I didn't have a clue where to begin and did a lot of reading before purchased the antennas and ran the coax. It's not rocket science, but you don't know what you don't know, and when you're a beginner, you don't know anything. I still don't know much, but I make sure I know enough to do what I'm trying to do so I don't ruin my rig or look like an idiot :-) That second part is a challenge sometimes. Ask my wife.

Tram 1185 dual-band 2m/70cm ham antenna base with PL235 connector and BNC adapter, shown connected and not connected.

 

 

Magnet mount Tram 1185 antenna next to glass mount Tram 1199 all-band scanner antenna.

 

 

 

 

This picture shows the series of connectors I used to connect the Tram 1185 antenna to the Wouxun. Not ideal, could have done it a few different ways, but I like the results. The Wouxun has an SMA connector, but I wanted something I could connect and disconnect in seconds as I get in and out of the car, so I didn't want to deal with threads. The Tram ends in a PL235. I added a BNC female adapter threaded onto that. The BNC female adapter then connects to a BNC male that is always screwed on to the radio.

Of course, if I want to attach a rubber duck antenna for use outside the car, then I need to remove it all, so nothing is permanent. But this is easy enough that I'm not tempted to leave it in the car and avoid the hassle of disconnecting it.

I'd really like a permanent mobile rig that I can keep in the car and conceal. I plan to do that when I get a new car, but that won't be anytime soon. First car replacement will be for my wife (the crazy person that doesn't understand ham radios).

The 2003 Toyota Rav4 hatch/back door rain channel provides plenty of clearance to run coax from the rear of the roof to the floor of the cargo area.

 

 

 

 

In this picture, the coax coming down the rain channel is shaped into a small "U" (drip loop) before running into the back of the vehicle. It's held in place by a small, flat, strong magnet and loop of thin plastic-coated wire. It's probably strong enough to hold, but I plan to secure the wire to the magnet.

 

Ham Catalog Surgery

My HRO / Ham Radio Outlet winter catalog arrived some time back in need of some major surgery, which I provided upon arrival. The patient survived, albeit with some scarring.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Ham Radio Outlet / HRO now has a mobile app.

 Android app ; Apple app

Great start for a niche market. Looking forward to see where they take it from here.

 

Over at Herculodge , where I visit every day, there are frequent posts about "Rosebud radios," by which radiophiles mean their first radio, the one that introduced them to the hobby, the one they fell love with as a child and have since lost.[1]

This is my Rosebud radio, a JC Penney AM Table Radio and Alarm Clock Model 680-3410. It was very simple and cheap, as all radios were in my childhood home. All they were expected to do was play local stations, tell the correct time, and wake you up when you wanted to be woken up[2]. Nothing wrong with that. Most technology we rely on is just expected to be reliable.

Although this is the first radio I can remember being my own, I can't say it's a true Rosebud, because I wouldn't make the effort to buy one for sentimental reasons. However, there is one sort of like this from Kmart that sat on top of our refrigerator, and if I can find one of those, I'll share. That was a family radio, and the one that introduced me to Paul Harvey, Art Linkletter, and a daily talk show hosted by the son of a patient tended by my mother in geriatric nursing home (I don't recall his name just now).

[1]
Rumor has it that "Rosebud" was a nickname Randolph Hearst used for a certain part of his mistress's anatomy. Use your imagination. It's difficult to not think about it once the idea is planted. Then again, I can think of worse things to have stuck in your head.

[2]
Grammatical? This usage is common in my speech community. My guess is that "awakened" is more common.

Started: 2012-02-02

A True War Story You Haven't Heard

The storyteller is Doc Cotton. When he came home from the war, his mom and dad made him sleep in the barn because he would wake the house with his screaming at night.

Why he was screaming is another story that I might someday work into this one. It's too brutal for me to contemplate right now.

This is a true story, never published, but I did once get a request from a publisher to see more of my work based on it, I just never followed through.

Read Kane here

Tell me what you think about the story (you may also comment on this blog post or Facebook of course):

Started 2012-04-17

[Edit: 2012-05-02]
I've gotten considerable private feedback, but you know what surprises me the most about it? No one has said "Holy #$%, if it wasn't this that made him wake up screaming at night, what was it?"

If you could hear Jesus laugh...

(I'm still working on the WWII story. It'll be worth the wait.)

This piece is full of wine and cheer, it’s the way Jesus would laugh, or the Ghost of Christmas Present, or my Grandpa Cairns.

 

                    Gustav Holst, The Planets, Op.32 Jupiter

I didn't think Matt Cutts ever "just found out about anything," but while researching how to start an embedded video at a certain time, I found out he puts his pants one leg at a time too.

Matt Cutts: How to Start an embedded YouTube video at a certain timestamp

(Cutts is a big shot at Google; I tried actually embedding, didn’t work and ran out of time.)


Started: 2012-04-14

If you've watched enough, you've watched it all.

We need to feel self-righteous sometimes. That's why we're all pretending to be appalled at the Secret Service prostitution fiasco in Columbia.

(If you haven't heard it, you need to come out from under that rock once in a while. Washington Post, "Secret Service scandal broadens"

Was it a good idea? No. It potentially compromised the president's safety.

Was it immoral? Up to you.

Sex is part of armed service[1]. Most military men (not all) fully enjoy the company of women they otherwise have no commitment to.

Pretending it doesn't exist won't make it go away, it just makes for more family-friendly war movies (now isn't that an oxymoron). And it makes us feel superior.

Tomorrow I'm going to post a true story from a WWII vet I knew. It doesn't have any prostitutes in it, but you may like it anyway.

BTW, I'm really disgusted with the way the Left and Right are treating each other. They pounce on the most trivial matters and forgive the most egregious (like Democratic strategist Hilary Rosen's comment that Ann Romney "hasn't worked a day in her life" - I'm left to midlin' and can't fathom how that came out of the mouth of a Democrat, and I'm even more flummoxed at how liberals are all making kissy face over it; my guess is everyone is reining in personal opinion for the sake of the election, which means we're never really going to know what anyone really thinks about anything. )

Human nature is like a reality show. If you've watched enough, you've watched it all.

[1]
I use that loosely to encompass those that carry weapons as part of their job.

Started 2012-04-17