From ai815@freenet.carleton.caThu Feb 29 18:30:14 1996 Date: Wed, 28 Feb 1996 23:00:10 -0500 From: Greg Erwin To: 72724.3223@compuserve.com, depearce@lexmark.com, chazlett@infinet.com Subject: February 1996 Nullifidian ############################################################ ############################################################ ______ / / / / / /__ __ / / ) (__ / / (__(__ __ |\ ( ) ) / / | \ | / / . _/_ . __ / . __ __ | \ | / / / / ) / ) / / ) __ ) / ) ) \| (__(__(___(__(__(___(__(__(__(__(__(__/ (__ =========================================================== *The*E-Zine*of*Atheistic*Secular*Humanism*and*Freethought** =========================================================== now available at http://infoweb.magi.com/~godfree/ ############################################################ ##### Volume III, Number 2 ##### ################### ISSN 1201-0111 ####################### ####################### FEB 1996 ########################### nullifidian, n. & a. (Person) having no religious faith or belief. [f. med. L _nullifidius_ f. L _nullus_ none + _fides_ faith; see -IAN] Concise Oxford Dictionary The purpose of this magazine is to provide a source of articles dealing with many aspects of humanism. We are ATHEISTIC as we do not believe in the actual existence of any supernatural beings or any transcendental reality. We are SECULAR because the evidence of history and the daily horrors in the news show the pernicious and destructive consequences of allowing religions to be involved with politics or government. We are HUMANISTS and we focus on what is good for humanity, in the real world. We will not be put off with offers of pie in the sky, bye and bye. ============================================================ TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. The term "nullifidian" in the history of the English language. 2. The Sound of Craziness ========================== //*BEGINNING OF ARTICLE*// ========================== Today's Vocabulary Words: Solifidian Nullfidian The Term "nullifidian" in the history of the English Language nullifidian: [person] having no religious faith. A sceptic in matters of religion. Examples from history: To be plain, I am a Nullifidian and there are many of our secte. --Bullein, _A Dialogue against the feuer pestilence_ 1596 Cecilia was no longer the eternal cherub, but...a pink and white nullifidian. --George Eliot _Middlemarch_ 19th cent. The Atheisticall Nullifidian nothing regarded the assoyling of ecclesiastical controversies. --Gillfries _A dispute against the English-popish ceremonies obtruded upon the Church of Scotland_ 1637 Sure to be so a Solifidean is to be a nullifidean. --John Howe _Blessedness of the righteous_ 1668 A Solifidean Christian is a Nullifidean Pagan. --Feltham _Resolves, divine, moral, political_ So you see, we mockers and blasphemers have been assoyling ecclesiastical controversies for centuries now. Of course, we intend to keep it up. As one example, the search for uses of "nullifidian" throughout the history of the English language, which nearly ruined my eyes, and required me to stand in the middle of the research section of the Ottawa public library with a magnifying glass pressed up against one eye, moving back and forth, attempting to focus on the pages of the _Oxford English Dictionary In Print So Tiny It Will Make You Blind_ without getting dizzy and losing my lunch, brought up the word Solifidian. A solifidian, for those of you who haven't consulted the _OEDIPSTIWMYB_ recently, is one who believes in justification by faith alone. The _OEDIPSTIWMYB_ mentions a lot of controversy about being a solifidian; apparently (one might get the impression) the only thing that people discussed and wrote books about in the 17th century. Obviously, priests, and others dependant on the coffers of religion and the pockets of believers, saw the dangers in relying too heavily on faith, or insisting that it was the only thing that mattered, as the flock might then neglect such standard tenets of religion as throwing pence into the collection plate; supporting your local parson; buying hymnbooks, staying awake during sermons; inviting the parson to dinner; paying the parson his salary; and making sure there was enough coin left over for the bishops, archbishops, and sundry deacons, elders, churchwardens, beadles, and a good supply of tights and pretty robes for the altar boys. Naturally, with Christians hurling such abuse at each other, saying that a solifidean christian is the same as a nullifidian pagan, those who really were nullifidians ("there are many of our secte") couldn't understand a word of it and tended to assoyl such ecclesiastical controversies. Who wouldn't? Nowadays, we have all become secular humanists, and many of us are atheistic secular humanists, just like the solifidians say. Dog knows, many of us do not seem to wish to admit it. I think it is clear and uncontroversial that we are all, at least, "sceptics in matters of religion," and if not, we should be. So, whether you have no religious faith at all, or whether you fall under the category of sceptic, the nullifidian umbrella is accomodating enough to cover us all. The greatest benefit of being a nullifidian (greater than avoiding trinitarian math, and transubstantialist chemistry) is that when some nasty solifidian tells you that humanism is just another religion, you can now: first, confuse him by calling him a solifidian, preferably in some obscure theolgical manner, such as, "The parameters of your solifidian theology make irrelevant such vast areas of standard Christian praxis that I scarcely know where to begin to assoyl your epistemology"; and then, loftily reply that, as a nullifidian, you, *by definition*, have no religious faith, refer him to the dictionary, and leave quickly. Make sure it's the _OEDIPSTIWMYB_, that way, his eyes will be so strained, he'll be out of commission for days, and unable to argue back. If you're really lucky he won't be able to find a magnifying glass and will be permanently damaged, and if he attempts to lift it, he may require hospitalization. ==================== //*END OF ARTICLE*// ==================== "We tend to scoff at the beliefs of the ancients. But we can't scoff at them personally, to their faces, and this is what annoys me." [Jack Handey] ========================== //*BEGINNING OF ARTICLE*// ========================== ================== ||END OF ARTICLE|| ================== "The time appears to me to have come when it is the duty of all to make their dissent from religion known." [John Stuart Mill] ========================== //*BEGINNING OF ARTICLE*// ========================== The Sound of Craziness In a discussion the other day, about Prof. Mack's endorsement of UFO abductees' experiences, (at a CSICOP conference) "Carole G. Stock" said: but despite his ability to speak glibly in a confrontational audience situation (you can imagine what the people there made of his notions) he has that sound of craziness in his voice. I know that's not very objective, but I think people will know what I mean. Well, I know exactly what she meant. And I think that being able to spot 'that sound of craziness,' is a damned handy talent. I think that most of us can, but most of us also have difficulty in expressing exactly what components make up that sound. And sometimes we don't have confidence in our judgments. Or we are afraid of sounding dogmatic, closeminded, bigoted; horrors! all the things we are used to accusing the "other side" of being. Surely that can't be us? Well, let's get specific. We will enumerate the features of that 'sound of craziness' and provide examples. What we will have at the end is a diagnostic tool. I won't even aim at 100% accuracy...first of all, no one would admit that it is possible, secondly, it is not really necessary. Many topics are not that vital, and many more topics are not vital to you, personally. By applying this handy diagnostic tool, you can determine whether the person speaking or writing on a subject you care about, and perhaps are not too familiar with, is likely to be purveying reason or nonsense. You should be able to assign a presentation a fairly accurate location on the scale from total nonsense to total rationality. You can then decide whether it is worthwhile to continue further. Furthermore, we may note that some things which are totally reasonable, don't necessarily work out. In the early stages of a diagnosis, before there is much information, a large number of possibilities are quite reasonable and many paths of investigation may be legitimately pursued. However, a fruitful path of investigation consistently yields new information and suggests new tests, as it gets closer and closer to the truth. As in the game of "Hot and Cold" you played as a child, you get warmer and warmer as you get closer to the goal. This should result in eliminating some paths of investigation. The first sign of craziness is the refusal to eliminate a path of investigation despite the fact that you don't get "warmer" by pursuing it. People do that when they are driven by a preconception rather than by a search for the truth. If you start by assuming what is true, rather than searching for what is true, you will often end up ignoring all evidence which contradicts what you are trying to prove. Anyone who persists in an area of research despite consistent and obvious failure to prove a hypothesis, and in the face of convincing negative evidence, probably sounds "crazy." We can't go on calling this condition "craziness." It is not what most people mean by insanity; many of the people with this problem are perfectly competent in other areas and have well-paid jobs, raise healthy families, and have no trouble dealing with everyday reality. I think that the problem is not caused by a misfunction of the human thinking apparatus (not crazy), nor by a subnormal brain, (not stupid) but is akin to a built-in design problem, analogous to optical illusions. _______ /| /| Necker cube. / | / | /__|___/ | Which face is | |___|__| closest to you? | / | / |/ | / |______|/ There is nothing wrong with the eyes or brain of someone who cannot decide which face of a Necker cube is "up," it is the way our vision system is built. Likewise, at the beginning of things (say 40 to 80 thousand years ago) it is reasonable to equate these two propositions: 1) It got cloudy, and then it rained...so, clouds cause rain; 2) I said a prayer, and then it got cloudy and rained...so, prayers cause clouds and rain. We may consider this problem to be an "ideational illusion." That is, a process that fairly frequently leads us to a correct conclusion, but in certain areas, under certain conditions, leads us astray. The process herein being codified is post hoc ergo propter hoc, when one thing happens after another, we assume that it happened because of the first thing. Note that this is true often enough that it is one of the main ways we form working hypotheses, and probably has produced an awful lot of "true" theories. How can we tell the difference between the following situations: it is often cloudy without being followed by rain, and people often pray without causing clouds and rain? Why is it unremarkable to accept that a new species of large mammal was found in Vietnam a few years ago, or that coelacanths turned out not to be extinct, but extremely unlikely that missing link Abominable Snowman type semi-human creatures walk the wilderness areas of Tibet, Nepal and the Pacific Northwest, or dinosaurs still wander through Za‹re? Why is it reasonable for scientists to spend radiotelescope time in searching the cosmos for radiowaves broadcast by possible ETs, while unreasonable to think that UFOs are sneaking through our skies and abducting people for some kinds of experiments? How can you tell if the person pushing a theory on your TV, or in a magazine article, is a brilliant theoretician, years ahead of her time, or a crank, spouting the same old nonsense? These are the questions we wish to answer. Lack of Context I think that the basic flaw, the basic ideational flaw, is a lack of context. If the speaker, or writer, severs the topic from all surrounding context, beware. When talking about the relation between miracles and facts, Robert G. Ingersoll said: "A fact will fit every other fact in the Universe, because it is the product of all other facts. A lie will fit nothing except another lie made for the express purpose of fitting it." All of our theories, every one of our hypotheses is subject to being tested against everything else that is known. If it is true, if it is, indeed, a fact, if it is a description of how the real world works, other facts will confirm it and reveal new facets of truth, new parts of the whole. Testing a theory against the facts is never a bad idea. If someone objects to doubt or inquiry, it is an indication that the idea is an ideational illusion. Someone who is not flawed will welcome this examination. Indeed, in the purest expression of such a search for truth: science; paths of investigation are suggested. A person who forthrightly states the predictions that his theory makes, and ways to test them, will not have that sound of craziness. One who not only does not make the suggestion, but who spends a lot of time rejecting disconfirmations, explaining them away, will. Context is the sum total of all the other facts in the universe. Even as recently as 200 years ago, there were far fewer things known for sure than there are now. In that emptiness, in such a vacuum of knowledge, there are not too many facts around to contradict proposed explanations. In the late 18th century, there wasn't really much known to contradict the theory of animal magnetism and magnetic fluid, (but Benjamin Franklin's investigations showed that disconfirmation was actually quite simple) there wasn't too much known about sedimentation rates, nothing about radioactive decay, DNA, even the simple facts of narrative history for non-European culture were not widely known, let alone the cultural possibilities revealed by anthropological investigations of thousands of new societies. Therefore, most explanations, no matter how unlikely, were unlikely to collide with a fact which directly contradicted them. Most people relied on tradition and authority to establish what they would accept, and were content to reject everything outside of it. In the last two centuries, however, there has been an explosion of knowledge, including knowledge about the basic nature of the universe and the earth, their origins, histories and likely futures. We possess an immense amount of data, basic facts which have been confirmed by many independent investigators. Any new theory must not contradict these 'known for sure' facts. A recent instance was the "cold fusion" controversy. Fusion, in itself, is perfectly compatible with what is known about the way the universe works. However, every known instance of it occurs at extrememly high temperatures, and in conditions that are not normally encountered in our everyday lives: in stars or during hydrogen bomb explosions. Assuming you are not an expert in nuclear physics, and wished to evaluate the claims of cold fusion, what could you do? You should know that there is a lot of energy involved in getting the thing started: this is supplied by the heat and pressure in stars or by the fission trigger in bombs. The lack of this is suspicious in cold fusion. Chemical reactions just do not seem powerful enough to get fusion going. You can ask yourself, if it were all that easy, why wasn't it occurring in some natural setting? Following the reports, it soon became clear that the proponents of cold fusion did not accept any criticism of what they had done, nobody else could duplicate what they claimed, and their claims did not fit with reality. "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away". --Philip K. Dick Something real does not require "belief." Real things inspire "belief" because they don't "go away." Unreal things demand "faith," because, unless you are fooling yourself, they are not there. It is not necessary to believe in order to see a sunrise, or to freeze water, or to turn on a light bulb. It is necessary to have faith in order to pretend to yourself that your cold went away due to prayer, that dew on a statue is tears, that a temporary remission is a cure, or that the random occurrence of events represents a divine plan. Belief is finding what isn't there. Faith is fooling yourself about it. Faith is refusing to investigate, and bragging about it. Why? Isaac Asimov, (as usual) [in "Knock Plastic," an essay in the collection _Science, Numbers, and I] has written exactly on this topic. What he proposed is that there are six "security beliefs" that are so comforting to people that they will believe in them with minimal evidence. And, on the obverse, even with strong evidence against them, they will not abandon that belief. The security beliefs are: o There exist supernatural forces that can be cajoled or forced into protecting mankind. o There is no such thing, really, as death. o There is some purpose to the Universe. o Individuals have special powers that will enable them to get something for nothing. o You are better than the next fellow. o If anything goes wrong, it's not one's own fault. Every security belief fits under one of these headers. But it is easy to see how these operate in local circumstances: smokers dismiss the evidence of the harmfulness of smoking. people skip safety checks, or don't use safety equipment, "just this once." dieters feel that "this one doesn't count." The security beliefs often provide the motivating force behind ideational illusions. People who want to get something for nothing are more easily sucked into belief in cold fusion. Whether it is aliens in spaceships, or angels in the clouds, the idea is that of beings with powers greater than ours who control our fates and thus, give purpose to everything, whether the purpose is sinister or benign. If what the fellow is spouting obviously serves one of these security beliefs, be deeply suspicious. Isn't that the fallacy, "Consider the source?" Why yes, it is. This is not a course in ideal logic, and I never promised 100% certainty. Only faith can get you that, and you get it by learning to ignore reality. If you learn to ignore the facts, you will never be proven wrong. All I ever promised was a diagnostic tool that will let you separate the likely to be worth pursuing from the not worth pursuing. It will keep you from wasting your valuable time. Ideally, one should not consider the source. A statement should be considered in its pristine state, alone and untainted by its origins. In the real world, of course, we do consider the source of loan applications, job enquiries, and other requests. If a friend has not returned the last two tapes she borrowed and asks to borrow another, what do you do? If Pat Robertson assures you Jesus is coming, so he needs money, what do you do? A small caveat here, many people suffer illusions on only certain topics, and are trustworthy in other areas. You will soon get to know which areas touch on that individual's security needs and which are safe. I am sure that there are thousands of christians who have perfectly good recipes for apple pie, UFO abductees who are reliable auto mechanics, and committed Mormons who are perfectly reliable construction engineers. The capacity of the human mind to compartmentalize its thinking is truly amazing. The capacity to refuse to connect two different areas is also astonishing. Analogies Our reasoning process is like the process of trying to fit a curve to a set of points. The points represent known facts, the curve represents predictions about other known facts, (they had better turn up on the curve). When there are few points known, many possible curves will fit, the more points that are established, the fewer curves that will fit. Someone with an ideational impairment is like unto one who has drawn a curve between two points. When reality turns up a number of points that do not fit on the curve, he states that you are mistaken if you think his curve was on the simple xy plane: it goes through hyperspace! Or a wormhole. That is, he brings in inspiration and miracles, if he is religious, or conspiracies, and paranormal powers, if not. Most of us have a built-in detector as to what is "reasonable" and what is not. If you are unfamiliar with a field, you can study the basics in a library, you can search out the common wisdom in magazines and newspaper articles, and form a valid opinion. Demand for Perfection One of the tactics of those proposing irrational viewpoints is to demand the impossible of their opponents. Theists, who cannot demonstrate the existence of their god, demand that their opponents prove that a god doesn't exist. Those who are satisfied with the status quo demand that reformers prove that their changes will be perfectly safe, that they will change everything for the better, and have no negative consequences. They both ignore the simple truth that the current system is not perfect, either. In the real world, nothing is perfect, nothing is completely separate from its conceptual neighbor. Such demands are evidence either of deliberate obfuscation, or of confused thinking. In general, the person making a claim has the burden of proof. You do not have to prove that alien spaceships do not exist, they have to prove that they do. This technique applies to any field. The American Dietary Association gives a list of Ten Red Flags to spot exactly what we're talking about, but in the field of nutrition: The 10 Red Flags of Junk Science are: 1. Recommendations that promise a quick fix. 2. Dire warnings of danger from a single product or regimen. 3. Claims that sound too good to be true. 4. Simplistic conclusions drawn from a complex study. 5. Recommendations based on a single study. 6. Dramatic statements that are refuted by reputable scientific organizations. 7. Lists of "good" and "bad" foods. 8. Recommendations made to help sell a product. 9. Recommendations based on studies published without peer review. 10. Recommendations from studies that ignore differences among individuals or groups. Other simple red flags, in any field, are: Reliance on out of date material. If nothing cited has a recent date, it is likely because newer information has demonstrated the falsity of the claim. Quoting out of context. If you check a citation and find that it has been selectively edited so as to change the meaning of what the original author meant to say, this is evidence of a fundamental dishonesty. Neologisms There is a fine line between scientific precision, jargon, gobbledygook and neologisms. If you have read this far, you probably have an intuitive sense of what the differences are. Going down the ladder, a good scientist will state when a word is being used in a special way, and give a precise definition and then stick to it. When a physicist uses the terms "work," "energy," or "mass," it is in a precise way. A bad journalist or popularizer, or a science groupie, who hopes to look good, will lace his writing with many scientific jargon terms, often used incorrectly or to no point, to make what is written look impressive. The bureaucrat creates new polysyllabic terms to make uninteresting detail sound impressive. Calling calling garbage collection "solid waste management" or labelling talking to workers "management-employee interpersonal interfacing" is not pseudo-science, merely pretentious. Scientology is full of terms like thetan, clear, and dianetics; the Urantia Book contains terms like Jesusonian, and absonity (and thousands of others). If the terms seem pointless, confusing, aren't in the dictionary, and aren't even well defined or consistently used by the writer: red flag. Conspiracies and Galileo. The quickest way to get a Nobel Prize, lasting fame, and lifelong riches would be to overturn a well established scientific theory. All it takes is evidence. Nearly all scientists are committed to the truth, and would welcome such a discovery. The conservatism of scientists (in the area of science) comes from seeing hasty claims refuted over and over, and watching people, deluded by wishful thinking, make the same claims year after year. There is no conspiracy against this sort of thing; everything, to the contrary, is set up to encourage it. They laughed at Galileo, they also laughed and continue to laugh at Bozo the Clown. Sturgeon's Law states that 90% of everything is crap. The chances of you missing out on your one chance at happiness, wealth and eternal peace, by not paying attention to the person who strikes you as "crazy" are very slim. If he has some evidence, or if she can demonstrate the efficacy of her theory, you will have a chance to check it out, the next time around. You have a perfect right to devote your finite resources to the things you find interesting and amusing. Use this handy conceptual device to dismiss nonsense, and save yourself time and aggravation. It's not as if the kooks don't have hundreds of groups working on proving their theories. If there is anything to it, someone else will turn it up. ========================================================== || END OF TEXTS || ========================================================== There is no charge for receiving this, and there is no charge for distributing copies to any electronic medium. Nor is there a restriction on printing a copy for use in discussion. You may not charge to do so, and you may not do so without attributing it to the proper author and source. If you would like to support our efforts, and help us acquire better equipment to bring you more and better articles, you may send money to Greg Erwin at: 100, Terrasse Eardley Aylmer, Qc J9H 6B5 CANADA. Donations to the Humanist Association of Canada are tax deductible from Canadian income. Articles will be welcomed and very likely used IF: ( they are emailed to: ((ai815@FreeNet.Carleton.CA; or, godfree@magi.com), or sent on diskette to me at the above Aylmer address in any format that an IBM copy of WordPerfect can read; ) and they don't require huge amounts of editing; and I like them. I will gladly reprint articles from your magazine, local group's newsletter, or original material. There are currently about 140 subscribers, plus each issue is posted in some newsgroups and is archived as noted elsewhere. If you wish to receive a subscription, email a simple request to either address, with a clear request for a subscription. It will be assumed that the "Reply to:" address is where it is to be sent. If you are a humanist, atheist, or freethought orgnaization, or your web page has a bunch of links or pictures, articles or programs likely to be of interest to humanists send me your URL. Likewise, I hope that all nullifidians will place a link to http://infoweb.magi.com/~godfree/index.html somewhere on the page. We will automate this process as soon as we know how. Yes, please DO make copies! (*) Please DO send copies of The Nullifidian to anyone who might be interested. The only limitations are: At least clearly indicate the source, and how to subscribe. You do NOT have permission to copy this document for commercial purposes. The contents of this document are copyright (c) 1996, Greg Erwin (insofar as possible) and are on deposit at the National Library of Canada You may find back issues in any place that archives alt.atheism. Currently, all back issues are posted at the Humanist Association of Ottawa's area on the National Capital Freenet. telnet to 134.117.1.22, and enter at the "Your choice==>" prompt. ARCHIVES Arrangements have been made with etext at umich. ftp to etext.umich.edu directory Nullifidian or lucifers-echo. For America On-Line subscribers: To access the Freethought Forum on America Online enter keyword "Capital", scroll down until you find Freethought Forum, double click and you're there. Double click "Files & Truth Seeker Articles" and scroll until you find Nullifidian files. Double click the file name and a window will open giving you the opportunity to display a description of the file or download the file. And thanks to the people at the _Truth Seeker_, who edited, formatted and uploaded the articles to the aol area. /=\_/=\/=\_/=\/=\_/=\/=\_/=\/=\_/=\/=\_/=\/=\_/=\/=\_/=\/=\ Shameless advertising and crass commercialism: \_/=\/=\_/=\/=\_/=\/=\_/=\/=\_/=\/=\_/=\/=\_/=\/=\_/=\/=\_/ Atheistic self-stick Avery(tm) address labels. Consisting of 210 different quotes, 30 per page, each label 2 5/8" x 1". This leaves three 49 character lines available for your own address, phone number, email, fax or whatever. Each sheet is US$2, the entire set of 7 for US$13; 2 sets for US$20. Indicate quantity desired. Print address clearly, exactly as desired. Order from address in examples below. Laser printed, 8 pt Arial, with occasional flourishes. [NOT ACTUAL SIZE] <-------------------2 5/8"----------------------> _________________________________________________ |"Reality is that which, when you stop believing |/\ |in it, doesn't go away." [Philip K. Dick] | | |Greg Erwin 100 Terrasse Eardley | 1" |Aylmer, Qc J9H 6B5 Canada | | | email: ai815@FreeNet.Carleton.CA | | |________________________________________________|\/ _________________________________________________ |"...and when you tell me that your deity made | |you in his own image, I reply that he must be | |very ugly." [Victor Hugo, writing to clergy] | |Greg Erwin 100 Terrasse Eardley | |Aylmer, Qc J9H 6B5 Canada Ph: (613) 954-6128 | | email: ai815@FreeNet.Carleton.CA | |________________________________________________| Other quotes in between the articles are usually part of the label quote file. Occasionally I throw in one that is too long for a label, but which should be shared. Once again: ISSN: 1201-0111 The Nullifidian Volume Three, Number 2: FEBRUARY 1996 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- The problem with religions that have all the answers is that they don't let you ask the questions. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Once again, you can now find me at: http://infoweb.magi.com/~godfree/index.html there is an ftp link there to an archive with all of the back issues available. (*) There is no footnote, and certainly not an endnote. - fin - -- --Cogito, ergo atheos sum. Greg Erwin, Vice President, I godfree@magi.com Humanist Association Of Canada believe ai815@Freenet.Carleton.ca http://infoweb.magi.com/~godfree/ I am an "Thought is not a management function." --John Ralston Saul atheist.