climate change continues to bite in australia

The latest information continues to confirm the predictions of climate change models.

2005 was the hottest year on record across Australia, and the five year period 2003-2007 was also the hottest on record (Annual Australian Climate Statement 2007). The worst affected areas are in the southeast where both population and agriculture are greatest.

Graph by Aust Bureau of Meteorology

Much of eastern Australia remains in drought. Recent rainfalls have been slightly above average, but over the last 5 years rainfall has been low. But the biggest problem, as predicted by climate change models, is that the patterns of rain are changing.

• Some relatively unpopulated parts of northwestern Australia are receiving above average rain.
• However the southeast, including the Murray Darling River basin which produces 40% of Australia's agricultural production and 70% of its irrigated agriculture, has experienced its lowest rainfall on record overall (ABARE Outlook 2008).
  
• Streamflows in the Murray Darling remain very low, with the current drought the worst on record. 2006 had the lowest inflows on record, and while 2007/08 was "only" the sixth lowest, June 2008 was the lowest monthly flow on record (ABC News, Adelaide Now, MDBC).
• The river supplied the lowest volume of water ever to irrigated agriculture in the 2007/08 year (ABARE Outlook 2008).

It seems that climate change scepticism is increasing along with the temperatures, mostly based, as far as I can see, on isolated statistics, for example, that the hottest year on record was a decade ago in 1998, and it has been cooler since. The above facts seem to present difficulties to this scepticism, at least for us here in Australia. The worldwide data has been examined by Australia's premier scientific body, the CSIRO, which has concluded:

"1998 was the warmest year on record in the last 150 years. Although the eight years since then have not been warmer than 1998, they do include the globe’s second, third, fourth, fifth, sixth and seventh warmest years on record. The planet is not cooling."

Graph by CSIRO.

But in the end, we should base our conclusions on the full worldwide data set and the best expert opinion, which is summed up in the climate models and their predictions. I outlined this evidence in maybe, just maybe, we're starting to get this right.

evidence against jesus, or for him?

Evidence that Jesus did, or did not, exist, is hot news and much debated. (See a summary of the views of scholars at are the stories about jesus true?.) Now a new discovery, or at least recognition of the possible importance of an old discovery, has opened up debate again.

A metre high stone tablet with ink writing (not engraving) was found near the Dead Sea a decade ago, but was only examined by scholars a few years ago. It has been dated to the century before Jesus. Critical portions of the text are now indecipherable, or at least problematic, but scholars and others are beginning to draw conclusions anyway.

The section that is exciting some sceptical scholars has been interpreted to say: "In three days you shall live, I, Gabriel, command you.", with a reference in the next line to a "a prince of princes". The argument is that this is a reference to a Messiah who rises from the dead, with the follow-up claim that the early Christians stole their central story.

The response from other scholars has been to be more cautious (for example). The text isn't as clear as has been claimed (you can see a translation of the text at reply #3 here), and the tablet can be used to support the truth of the Jesus story as well as to dispute it. Here are three ways of looking at it:

1. As noted above, the sceptics argue that the stories of Jesus rising from the dead are myths, taken from a similar source as the story of the tablet.
2. Alternatively, scholars have long argued that much of Jesus' teachings and actions, which may seem original to us, were actually based on current Jewish culture and understanding, but modified or presented in new ways. This find would then simply confirm that the resurrection of a murdered Messiah was not foreign to Jewish thought.
3. One could perhaps argue that this was a genuine prophecy, though I doubt any scholar would support that idea!

The slightly disturbing thing is that in the end, everyone will pretty much feel confirmed in their previously held views. There is such an enormous gap between those who believe Jesus never existed and those who believe in him that evidence cannot close the gap. In the middle, as I mentioned in my previous post the more sober scholars believe Jesus existed, but cannot demonstrate that all the stories are true. That remains a matter of faith - or of disbelief. 

perfumes, organic chemicals and other nasties

When they decided to replace the carpet in our office a few years ago, we had no idea how much of an effect it would have. I am not normally affected by chemicals, but the solvents in the adhesives (I think) gave me headaches and a heavy head for days, and stank to high heaven for weeks and weeks. One of my colleagues was pregnant, and we all wondered what the chemicals might be doing to the baby, but he was OK.

We who live in so-called advanced western societies seem to be increasingly affected by chemicals - not just the well known asthma or allergies to pollens, but all sorts of odd and debilitating sensitivities to chemicals like volatile organic compounds, solvents, adhesives, petrol, perfumes and deodorisers, and food additives. Some say as many as 15% of the population have adverse health impacts from these chemicals.

Those affected can have their lives seriously curtailed, and sometimes made a real misery. Here are some effects I have observed in others:

• re-carpeting an office (not the one mentioned above) left a worker so sensitised that several years later they were still unable to visit that office for very long;
• application of a sealant to a concrete driveway left a neighbour with a bedroom window close to the drive unable to sleep in the bedroom for four months;
• chemicals used in modern car interiors make it impossible for some people to travel in them without being adversely affected;
• use of chemical air fresheners in motels and hotels make them hazardous for some visitors;
• some washing powders and fabric softeners are perfumed, causing significant irritation and inability to sleep, for some;
• perfumes and after-shaves can cause some people to react, and have to move out of the room.

Medical science so far understands little about these sensitivities, and "cures" are a long way off. Those of us who are not affected need to become more aware of these problems and more sensitive to the distress of others. And it is easy to help:

• Do you really have to wear after-shave and perfume? Could you at least wear less, and choose a less perfumed brand?
• It is easy to find "green" and non-allergenic washing powders.
• If smokers don't smoke in confined spaces such as motel rooms, managers have less need to use chemical air fresheners.
• It would be wonderful if the manufacturing and building industries could develop and use less intrusive and unhealthy solvents, adhesives and chemicals generally.

Read more about Fragrances and Chemical Sensitivities, Allergies to Perfumes (people's stories) and Multiple Chemical Sensitivities. Anyone have their own story to tell?

San Antonio river walk

Rivers in urban areas take a hammering - they are straightened and concreted, trees are removed from their banks, pollutants from roads muddy their waters. It is very hard to retain a natural environment.

But urban rivers can at least be treated as assets for the benefit of residents and visitors. I doubt many cities have done this as well as San Antonio in Texas.

Descend a few steps from the searing heat of the streets and you enter a magical world of water, trees, and cool pathways. Cafes and bars line the banks, tourist barges glide along the water and under bridges, pathways and steps beckon you on.

we may be fat, but we still live a long time!

Just over a week ago I reported that Australians are now the fattest nation, with the percentage of overweight and obese people now exceeding the percentages in the US.

But then comes another report that shows that Aussies now have the second longest life expectancy worldwide, after Japan.

Apparently our mortality rates from cancer, heart disease, stroke and injury have been dropping, more than compensating (in statistical terms) for the unhealthy effects of obesity.

The only downside to the report is that the life expectancy of indigenous Australians is a huge 17 years less.

it's time for some mondegreens!

For those who don't know, mondegreens are words of songs that have been heard wrongly, but the result is better or funnier than the original. The term came from an old Scottish ballad which apparently tells how:

"They have slain the Earl O'Murray, And Lady Mondegreen." The real words are: "They have slain the Earl O'Murray, And laid him on the green."

Here are a few classic mondegreens from popular songs:

"Since she put me down there's been owls pukin' in my bed" (the Beach Boys "Help Me Rhonda") Actual lyric: "Since she put me down I've been out doing in my head."

"The girl with colitis goes by." (The Beatles "Lucy in the Sky With Diamonds") Actual lyric: "The girl with kaleidoscope eyes."

"There's a bathroom on the right." (Creedence Clearwater Revival "Bad Moon Rising") Actual lyric: "There's a bad moon on the rise."

"Everybody in a wholesale frock, dance to the jailhouse rock" (Elvis "Jailhouse Rock") Actual lyric: "Everybody in the whole cell block, dance to the jailhouse rock

"The ants are my friends, they're blowing in the wind" (Bob Dylan "Blowing in the wind") Actual lyric: "The answer my friend is blowing in the wind"

"Every time you go away you take a piece of meat with you" (Paul Young "Every time you go away") Actual lyric: "Every time you go away you take a piece of me with you"

Check out more mondegreens here, here and here, and get the background at Wikipedia.

we didn't really want to win this one

Australians are very competitive when it comes to sport, and most other things. But here's one world championship we didn't want.

The Sydney Morning Herald reports that Australia now has an estimated 26% of its adult population classed as obese, the highest rate in the world, and 1% more than the USA.

Oh the shame of it!

More seriously, the overweight epidemic is expected to cost money in increased hospital admissions for treatment for strokes and heart attacks and surgery for overloaded knees, with consequent increases in the mortality rates.

car dependence

I'm writing this from Houston, Texas. I've only been here for two days so far, but first impressions are that the land is flat, the weather is hot - and the city is highly dependent on the car. There is very little public transport outside the city centre, the suburbs are well spread out, and getting anywhere from where we are staying in the suburbs requires a car. You see few pedestrians in the suburbs.

I don't travel overseas all that much, but last year I spent a week in the east end of London, where the population density is high, there were crowds of pedestrians, public transport has its problems but can get you anywhere pretty quickly, and there is a tax to deter cars from entering the inner city.

So I thought I'd check out how London and Houston compare to Sydney in term of car usage and population density. The classic graph for this is shown by Wikipedia:

I was pleased to see that all three cities appeared on the graph, and my observations confirmed. Houston has the lowest population density of the cities shown and by far the highest petrol consumption. It is an oil city, but you can't help feeling it will suffer the most when the oil prices rise even higher, and eventually the oil runs out. Reduced private transport will be inconvenient in London, but will make life very difficult in Sydney and almost impossible in Houston.

We need to be planning cities differently, I reckon.

out of hatred & violence - a true story

Stephen Lungu was born in Salisbury, Rhodesia (now Harare in Zimbabwe) in the last days of the white minority rule. His teenage mother left her arranged marriage to a much older man and abandoned Stephen, aged three, and his younger brother and sister to the reluctant care of an aunt.

For the next few years, Stephen experienced abuse and hard times in orphanages and with relatives. He began staying out at nights and drifted into life on the streets, sleeping under bridges, scavenging food from the rubbish bins of well-off whites, and stealing when he could.

Once, when Stephen was in his early teens, he met his mother again, and tried to kill her, but missed with his knife. In despair, he fled and tried to hang himself.

Stephen joined other friends to form an urban gang, the Black Shadows. They combined criminal activity, mostly robbery at knifepoint, with violence and thuggery.

By now it was the late 1950s, and the movement to achieve black majority government in Rhodesia was attractive to young blacks. Members of the Black Shadows, including Stephen, were recruited into the liberation struggle, indoctrinated and trained.

Soon he was joining in a welter of revolutionary activities - petrol bomb attacks in parks, beer gardens, churches, political meetings and even on police cars. Then, aged just 16, Stephen joined a group of a dozen heading for the local shopping centre to petrol bomb a bank. But on their way they came across a christian mission in a large circus tent.

Stephen's hatred of the white man's religion welled up and he hastily arranged a plan to spread out around the outside of the tent, and mount a coordinated petrol bomb attack.

But before they carried out the plan, the group went inside to check it all out. They were about to leave when a pretty young black girl began to speak. Intrigued, Stephen listened as the girl, from Soweto in South Africa, told of her life and her faith in Jesus. Deep inside he felt a yearning for something better than the dirty life he was living.

Then the preacher got up and talked of violence and death, sin and forgiveness, despair and hope. Stephen wanted to talk to him, and moved to the front of the tent. Then violence erupted as petrol bombs were thrown and people fled. In the midst of the violence, Stephen and the preacher talked.

Stephen could not believe his life had any hope, even with Jesus. But the preacher listened to Stephen's story with compassion, then told him his own story, of abandonment at birth, a similar sense of despair, and the hope and purpose he now knew.

This was exactly what Stephen needed, and he left the tent that night, creeping through the darkness outside where the chaos was being dispelled by the riot squad, with a new faith in Jesus and a sense of hope and peace he had never known before.

Stephen learnt to read, married and had children and became a christian evangelist. Now in his sixties, he is the head of Africa Enterprise, a large mission, reconciliation and social welfare organisation that operates throughout the continent.

Read Stephen Lungu's story in a little more detail, or read about Africa Enterprise.

exercise makes you happier, smarter, and .......

Photo: Morguefile

Most of us want to be happy. Most of us want to be smart. But probably most of us don't want to exercise all that much, or else we just don't have time. I have some good news and some bad news .....

the good news .....

A new book, "SPARK: The Revolutionary New Science of Exercise and the Brain" by John Ratey MD, outlines a whole range of benefits of exercise:

• It makes you happy - it affects the brain in a similar way to anti-depressants.
• It reduces stress and ameliorates the effects of stress by purging brain toxins and building up antioxidants.
• It improves our brain, increasing intelligence and improving memory.
• It reduces the likelihood of responding to threatening situations aggressively.
• It can help fight addictions - e.g. it reduces the desire to smoke.
• And of course, exercise is good for health and fitness.
  

and the "bad" news ....

These beneficial outcomes require at least a 30 minute walk 5 times a week. Better is to make that an energetic walk, or to include some short intervals of sprinting. But even a little is better than none.

Read the article by Simon Usborne which was reprinted in the Sydney Morning Herald recently, or read further information on what makes people happy and do we REALLY know how to be happy.

evidence to make you think?

Earlier this year I posted a couple of times (here and here) on an apparent healing miracle after a cardiologist prayed for an apparently dead man. I researched the matter as thoroughly as I could, and found responses to the story fell into three distinct types:

1. The press generally just reported the story without comment, treating it as if it was true, but just another news story.
2. Believers accepted it immediately as genuine and a confirmation of their faith, and so rejoiced.
3. Non-believers were sceptical, if not scornful. Miracles just don't happen, and here's another example of the gullible being duped.

So I posted the story on an atheist website, to test the response. Not surprisingly, they were sceptical, if not scornful. Many offered explanations as to how a natural medical event could be so misinterpreted. Many of their suggestions were contrary to the evidence, but when I pointed this out, people just shifted ground. And when I asked if anyone wanted to work with me to try to verify or refute the story, no-one was interested.

So I wondered, atheists say their belief is evidence-based, but how much do they really base their views on evidence? How much do christians? Which comes first, the belief or the evidence? If you discount evidence before you look at it, is that "evidence-based"?

What would it take to cause you to reconsider your beliefs? Or me?

Then I found another story, about two New Zealanders, Grant Stubbs and Owen Wilson, flying in a microlight plane which ran out of fuel and the engine stopped with no clear landing place in sight. They knew that most people who crash in a microlight plane die, so while one tried to coax the plane over a ridge in hope of finding a spot to land, the other prayed. Over the hill they found a grass landing strip they didn't know existed.

Sceptics will say that the strip was there all along, they were just lucky, and prayer had nothing to do with it. And maybe they are right. I certainly wouldn't claim this as a miracle, more as a funny story. But don't tell that to Grant and Owen, because when they came to rest on the airstrip, right in front of their eyes was a sign which said "Jesus is Lord".

If it happened to you, would that be enough to make you think? Or just laugh? Or both?

rising petrol prices - the hype and the facts

Photo: Morguefile

Australia is currently experiencing lively debate, and quite a lot of hype, about rising petrol costs. Petrol has approximately doubled in price in the past decade, with steep rises recently. Politicians are rushing to find ways to alleviate pressures on "working families", with the Opposition proposing to reduce fuel excise by 5c a litre.

How bad is the situation really?

the costs of running a car

NRMA (National Roads & Motorists Association) information and data (for 2007) indicate that:

• the annual cost of running a car, including depreciation, fuel, consumables and maintenance can vary from about $6,000 (for a light car) to over $20,000 (for a large 4WD), and is about $14,000 for the average "family car";
• there is significant variation between different vehicles in the same class - for most classes, the annual cost of the most expensive car is about double that of the most efficient;
• these costs have increased about 40% in 5 years;
• these costs are made up of depreciation over 5 years (49%), petrol (17%) and other costs (34%).

putting it in perspective

Quick calculations show that:

• if petrol prices double from 2007 levels, the annual cost of running a car will increase about 13% or $1,800 for the average family car;
• a 5c per litre reduction in fuel excise will save on average about $80 annually (0.6%);
• much greater savings could be gained by delaying the purchase of a new car, buying a smaller car, or choosing a more efficient car overall (not just fuel efficiency) - for example, buying a medium sized car instead of a large sedan or a 4WD could save about $1,500 annually, purchasing a small car instead of a medium car could save about $3,000 annually, and purchasing a more efficient car in any class could save similar amounts;
• as petrol prices rise, a hybrid car may pay for its increased initial cost in about 6 years.

Thus we can conclude that:

1. Most motorists can significantly reduce their car running costs, even with rising petrol prices, next time they purchase a car, if they choose carefully.
2. The fuel excise reduction is little more than political tokenism, especially since the Government is already making tax cuts that will return greater amounts to families.

While rising petrol prices are causing problems for some poorer families, the real problems are finding alternatives for petrol, and how much we'll have to change the way we live and build our cities - but that's another story!

ethics - when freedom & responsibility clash

These past few days in Australia we've seen an interesting and difficult ethical issue unfold, as two different ethical values come into conflict.

artistic freedom

Bill Henson is an eminent Australian photographer. I first came across his photos of urban areas at night - everyday and not particularly "beautiful" subjects, but the use of light and dark made them extremely interesting and evocative. But when I went to an exhibition of his work a year or two ago, I found that the majority of his work were photographs of people - people in crowds, ordinary people, and studies of children and adolescents. The way the photos were lit, the repetition of the same subject in many different views, and their age, made many of the photographs slightly disturbing or edgy, and his work has sometimes been controversial.

But this week a new exhibition of Henson's work opened in Sydney, and when it was found to include photographs of nude adolescents, some of them "explicit" (as the euphemism goes), a complaint was made, police took possession of the offending photos, and were considering charges for indecency relating to under age children (although legal advice suggests prosecution would be unsuccessful).

Many people applauded the police action, but others were upset at the censorship, saying that the photographs were not pornographic, and artistic freedom allows artists to push the boundaries.

child protection

On the other hand, Australia, like many other countries, has significantly tightened child protection laws in the past decade or so. Although not always successful, some attempts have been made to limit child access to the internet, penalise creators and viewers of child pornography, and reduce risks to children in other situations by requiring those who work with children to undergo police checks, giving clear and stringent guidelines to how teachers, doctors and others deal with children in their care, and placing age limits on some activities.

All of this can be seen as inconvenient, an insult and a curtailment of civil liberties, but most people believe it is worthwhile to reduce the sexual abuse and exploitation of children.

the two values collide

In this case, child protection laws have collided with the artistic freedom.

Defenders of Henson's work say that, compared to the sexualisation of children and teenagers through mass media, especially music videos and fashion, these photographs are benign. But it seems to me there are two separate issues here.

1. What is the effect of these photos on viewers? I don't think many people think Henson's work is pornographic in this sense, and few would want to ban them on these grounds.
2. Have children been exploited? This seems to be the key question. Some art forms are created by the imagination of the artist (e.g. painting, literature), but photography and film also require a subject. Even if we would allow a similar photograph of a 20 year old, should we allow a 13 year old to model, has he or she the maturity to make the choice? Thus economist Clive Hamilton, formerly executive director of the Australia Institute think tank, said: "I think the way childhood has been sexualised so heavily, particularly over the last 10 or 15 years, has inevitably changed the way we see children in their naked form. I've argued that previously when perhaps it was a more innocent age, then artistic representations of children, as is the case with the Bill Henson exhibition, wouldn't have provided difficulty. But in an age where children have been so heavily sexualised by commercial organisations and by the wider culture and where there's so much more alarm about paedophilia then I think the presentation of a 12-year-old girl, for instance, naked to the public, really has quite a different impact and raises new concerns. And I argue that she, the girl, the model, could not possibly understand the implications of being presented naked to the world, even though the presentation is very aestheticised and that therefore she could not give informed consent."

I think it is a great pity that Henson's work has been stigmatised in this way, and if there is a way to amend the law to allow adequate child protection without catching his photographs in the net, then perhaps it should be done. But as it stands, it may be that artists and patrons need to willingly show restraint (e.g. not putting the photos on the internet) for the sake of continued protection of children. Sometimes freedom has to be curtailed for the sake of another principle. It's unclear whether this is one such time, but maybe it is.

same as it ever was, same as it ever was

When Indonesia declared its independence from Holland in 1949, the Dutch insisted that West Papua not become part of Indonesia as the Papuans were Melanesian and predominantly Christian, while the Indonesians were Malay and predominantly Muslim. So the Dutch remained in the territory, preparing the people for independence.

In 1961 a West Papuan Council was elected, a flag was designed and a national anthem composed. Indonesia invaded and the United Nations intervened to prevent war. But these were also Cold War days. The Soviets had brokered an arms deal with Indonesia and so America, trumped the Soviets by brokering a comparable arms deal and secretly offering to help Indonesia secure control of West Papua.

In New York in August 1962, the US, on behalf of Indonesia, brokered an agreement with the Netherlands by which the territory's administration would be transferred to a UN temporary authority until 1 May 1963. Control of West Papua would then be handed over to Indonesia on the understanding that a plebiscite would be held before the end of 1969 allowing the Papuans to vote for or against separation from Indonesia. Thus the Indonesians had six years to win the hearts and minds of the Papuans.

On 1 May 1963, upon assuming administrative control of West Papua, Indonesia disbanded the elected West Papuan Council, burned West Papuan flags and banned the West Papuan national anthem. An era of colonisation, violent repression, exploitation, murder, racism and human rights abuses at the hands of the corrupt Indonesian military had begun. The plebiscite, an "Act of Free Choice", was totally rigged and West Papua (Irian Jaya) was formally annexed by Indonesia on 17 September 1969.

The intensity of repression has escalated dramatically since Indonesia lost control of East Timor in 1999. In addition, the Islamic revival of the past two decades has added a religious dimension to the Papuans' plight, with Islamists pursuing its full Islamisation. The Laskar Jihad has been set up in West Papua since 2000 and when the jihad in the Moluccas ended, the out-of-work jihadists flooded into West Papua. The Papuans will soon be a minority in their own land.

It is all so clearly wrong, a betrayal by the west as we move less powerful people around like pieces on a chessboard, and leave defenseless people at the mercy of rapacious invaders. Yet how can we complain about Indonesia's genocidal behaviour? After all, we did much the same to the indigenous people in both Australia and the US - and millennia before, it happened in the UK as well, several times.

"And you may ask yourself - well...how did I get here?
Same as it ever was...same as it ever was..."
Talking Heads

Yet somehow, we must do something. Read more ...

Based on info compiled by APN.

is faith the opposite of reason?

You'd certainly think so if you read what modern militant atheists are saying. Take these examples ....

• "Faith: Insubstantial, irrational belief..... Belief not supported by evidence or reason, but assumption alone..... Irrational belief in something despite all evidence to the contrary." (Contributors to Urban Dictionary)
• "'faith', which is the irrational acceptance of things in the absence of, or even counter to, credible evidence and reason" (post on Machines Like Us)
• "Faith is a non-rational belief in some proposition. A non-rational belief is one that is contrary to the sum of the evidence for that belief." The Skeptic's Dictionary
• "I think that faith is, in principle, in conflict with reason" Sam Harris on beliefnet.

But is this what believers mean by faith? It doesn't seem so ....

• The Oxford Dictionary defines faith as: "complete trust or confidence; strong belief in a religion". There is nothing in that to exclude reason as a basis for faith. It is true that some dictionaries say "without proof" or even "without evidence", but clearly these are secondary parts of the definition.
• The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy makes this dual nature of faith quite clear: "Religious faith is of two kinds: evidence-sensitive and evidence-insensitive. The former views faith as closely coordinated with demonstrable truths; the latter more strictly as an act of the will of the religious believer alone."
• If it were true that faith was always opposed to reason, then it would appear impossible for believers to be scientists or philosophers. But eminent philosophers Alvin Plantinga and Anthony Flew, writer CS Lewis, and scientists John Polkinghorne and Francis Collins are all both reasonable and believers. Collins says: "Faith is reason plus revelation".
• The view that faith is opposed to reason also ignores the fact that philosophers have long discussed logical arguments that attempt to establish, or at least support the idea, that God exists (e.g. the cosmological argument and, the design argument).

It seems to me that believers use faith in two ways:

1. When considering whether to believe, or to continue to believe in the face of challenges, believers will typically consider both reason and spiritual/emotional factors. Many believers will refer to the many established arguments, from Jesus and history, personal experience, human reason & morality and the universe, although often in a rudimentary form. Having decided what seems most reasonable, even though it is not provable, believers use faith to make the jump to a commitment. The balance between reason and faith will vary, but surely almost all use both. (For my personal summary, see ibelieve.)
2. But having resolved the question of what they believe is true, believers will then try to live a life of day-to-day faith (=trust) in God or in Jesus (or in some other spiritual leader), not dissimilar to how, once a human relationship such as marriage is established, the people trust each other.

So for most believers, certainly thoughtful believers, faith is used alongside reason, not instead of it. The two are complementary, not competitive.

And I can't see how it is much different for atheists, or for all of us in other parts of life. Very little in life is provable (even science has varying degrees of "provability", all short of mathematical proof), and yet we all have to make choices, which we make on the best information we have. Faced with similar evidence to believers, atheists make the choice not to commit to belief, or even to actively commit to disbelief. They too make some sort of jump from uncertainty to choice.

So why do militant atheists characterise the interaction between faith and reason in such a black and white way? Well there is no doubt it makes arguing easier. Their opponents can be dismissed and scorned as irrational and delusional, and their fellow disbelievers can feel superior. Whether this is a deliberate tactic or based on genuine belief is beyond my knowing.

But I do know this attitude is a discussion killer, which is a real pity. And for me at least, it makes it much less likely I could ever become an atheist, for by this tactic they show how little they understand of my thinking, and so their arguments so often miss the mark completely. I would think the tactic also successfully insulates them from theistic arguments.

In the end, it is all a victory for non-reason.

get your priorities right!

Wearing of seatbelts is compulsory for all passengers in a car in Australia.

Recently, it was reported a man was arrested for driving with a 5 year old child not belted in. However he had put a 30-pack of beer next to the child in a belt.

are some things REALLY right and wrong?

Stephen Pinker is an experimental psychologist at Harvard who has researched and written on language and mind, and has written a number of newspaper articles on ethics, including The Moral Instinct, published in the New York Times earlier this year.

In this article he discusses:

1. Whether someone who achieves a lot for the disadvantaged in the world (e.g. Bill Gates) is more admirable than someone whose personal motivation is "good" (like Mother Theresa). This is a question of utilitarian ethics vs personal ethics.
2. Whether it is morally justified to sacrifice one innocent person to save a number of equally innocent people. Studies show that most people think it is in some circumstances, but not in others.
3. Addressing the dilemma of where our moral sense comes from (see my previous blog, selfish genes?), Pinker supports the idea that it is innate, a genetic result of evolution. He describes five ethical "themes" that are found in societies around the world: avoiding harm, fairness, community (or group loyalty), authority and purity.
4. He argues that variations in ethics around the world can be explained the different emphases given to these different aspects of morality - for example, some Middle Eastern cultures place greater weight on the community/family aspects, which western people can see as threatening the fairness aspects.
5. He discusses how altruistic behaviour can, in the long run, result from mutual benefit - societies may find that if individuals help each other, both gain.
6. Finally, Pinker addresses the question of whether ethical behaviour can be considered objectively right or wrong. He mentions moral realism (the view that ethical truths are a feature of the universe just as mathematical truths are), but doesn't offer any conclusion.

I have no problems believing that the ethical behaviour sanctioned by different societies may have evolutionary origins, though I can't help feeling that many of the evolutionary explanations offered to explain different types of altruistic behaviour are mere surmise, based on the assumption that natural selection has produced the behaviours rather than any evidence.

But it seems to me that Pinker's analysis leaves the most important questions unanswered, for example:

• Why should I follow an ethical injunction if it doesn't suit me?
• Are some things (e.g. pedophilia, rape, murder, treachery, genocide) really wrong, or do we just feel that they are?
• If a society evolves an ethic that we find repugnant - e.g. the anti-Semitism of the Nazis, terrorism, or treachery (as occurred in an Irian Jayan tribal group reported by Don Richardson in Peace Child) - does that make that ethic "right", for them at least?

It still seems to me that evolutionary psychology and sociology explain lots of things about ethics very well, except for many of the things we most deeply hold to.

no dark sarcasm in the classroom

Photo: Morguefile

Dr Martin Seligman is one of the gurus of positive psychology, the study of what makes people happy, and what doesn't. Currently he's in Australia conducting research, and an article of his in the Sydney Morning Herald is illuminating.

He starts with the following points:

• When surveyed, people want their children to be happy, or, as Seligman sums it up, have wellbeing. But when asked what they want their children to learn at school, their answers can be summed up as "accomplishment" - to learn discipline, to achieve. he comments that the two lists are totally different.
• He then points out, what is well known, that accomplishment doesn't lead to wellbeing. After all "almost everything is better now than it was 50 years ago: there is about three times more buying power, houses are much bigger, there are many more cars, and clothes are more attractive. .... there is more education, more music, more women's rights, less racism, less pollution, fewer tyrants, more entertainment, more books, and fewer soldiers dying on the battlefield." Despite this, Australians are no happier than they used to be, and there is greater incidence of depression and suicide.
• So something is wrong with our thinking, and our education.

Seligman offers evidence that happiness can be taught and learned, and that happier people perform better in life. And he is teaching it, in a program aimed at both teachers and pupils at the prestigious Geelong Grammar school. He thinks all schools should teach and apply the principles.

Studies show that we can be happier if we aim for three things:

• positive emotion through pleasurable experiences,
• more important is to be "engaged" or well occupied with things that interest us, especially our work, and
• most important is building our lives around something that is meaningful, a cause we believe is more important than ourselves.

It is therefore no wonder that people who are generous and forgiving, people with good relationships (especially a good marriage), people happy in their work but not driven by it, people who do voluntary work, and people with a religious faith, tend to be happier than people who seek self-gratification through material wealth.

Read more about what makes people happy and do we REALLY know how to be happy? in an earlier blog.

breath

Tim Winton is perhaps "Australia's favourite novelist", and he is certainly mine. His latest novel, "Breath", his first for seven years, has just been released.

The reviews are very positive. The Sydney Morning Herald's chief book reviewer says it "may prove to be the best thing Tim Winton has done." He concludes his review: "Winton explores themes that preoccupied many great writers of the past .... though ... Winton articulates his concerns in an almost unsullied Australian vernacular. His skill, control and eloquence are impressive."

I look forward to reading it.

curiouser and curiouser!

Our universe is very curious at the very big scale and the very small. I have already commented on the very small - quantum physics. Now Astronomy magazine reports on two interesting observations at the cosmic scale.

black hole bounced

The General Theory of Relativity predicts that when two black holes merge within a galaxy, gravitational waves rush out of the galaxy at the speed of light. Following Newton's second law, this effectively propels the black hole in the opposite direction, sometimes fast enough to eject it from the galaxy completely.

The magazine reports that a team from the Max Planck Institute for Extraterrestrial Physics has observed a black hole with a mass of several hundred million of our suns moving at a speed of 2650 km/sec (more than 9 million km/hr) and completely leaving the galaxy.

looking way back in time

Images of nine ultradense galaxies, 11 billion years ago. Photo: NASA (Hubble telescope)

The universe is believed to be about 14 billion years old. It has expanded fast since the start of the big bang, and earth is now an enormous distance from "the other side" of the universe. So far, in fact, that it is believed that some parts of the universe are so far away and rushing away from us so fast that light from them can never reach us. We cannot see anything that may be beyond this "event horizon".

Almost as far away are galaxies whose light has taken billions of years to reach us. We effectively see them (only in the Hubble telescope and one or two others!) as they were billions of years ago.

Scientists have recently observed several such galaxies 11 billion light years away, and thus seen as they were very early in the universe's life - after only 3 billion years. Astronomy reports that they found that these galaxies had a similar number of stars to our galaxy but are only a fraction of the size. This was unexpected, and would require them to have expanded rapidly in the time since then to look like the galaxies we are more familiar with.

Truly, the more we learn, the more curious it all gets.