Posts
I'm going to make an effort to make my posts much shorter, so that people can actually read them.
Theists often like to claim that atheists believe in nothing greater than themselves. I believe in many things greater than myself, I simply do not believe that they care about me.
I will go on record right now saying that I am not entirely certain that there is no God, though I'm fairly confident that is the case. I am absolutely sure that no being who created a universe as massive and vast as ours cares one bit what I do and what I believe.
It appears, from observing the rest of this truly awesome (like red and yellow socks) place that, if there was a Creator, it didn't exactly design around us. We clawed our way into life and consciousness on a tiny planet that can sometimes support life on some of its surface, warmed by a tiny star, in a tiny galaxy hidden away in a corner of the universe.
That's the miracle.
Saturday, July 5, 2008
Friday, July 4, 2008
Wheatgrass Part 2
This is part two of my refutation of "40 Benefits of Wheatgrass". Each installment will include five of the claims made by one of the most popular sites promoting wheatgrass and my attempts to refute those claims.
The evidence does seem to indicate that wheatgrass can kill bacteria. That doesn't suggest that ingesting it will help your body fight bacteria, or that you'd want your body to fight bacteria better, or that it's any better to use than any other antibiotic/antibacterial substance.
Alright, let's assume that's true. Wouldn't that mean it just runs right through you with no effect?
But putting that aside, let's take a look at this Dr. Bernard Jensen. Here is his Wikipedia page, and this is a "tribute" page. Both indicate he was a chiropractor and proponent of Iridology. For those who don't know, Iridology is the "alternative medicine" style that claims you can examine the iris of a patient's eyes to determine information about a patient's systemic health.
Exactly what qualifies this guy to suggest anything related to health? He became a "doctor" at 21 upon graduating from West Coast Chiropractic College. Clearly a highly trained professional.
This sounds an awful lot like number six. I think all of my refutations still apply to this one.
I'd like to see these studies, no links are provided, but even assuming that these were legitimate studies that doesn't tell us what kinds of animals were tested and whether the same effect could be expected in humans. What works for animals doesn't always work for us. In fact, it usually doesn't. This entire claim is extremely vague.
I've yet to hear of a single farmer actually doing this, but again let's assume that it's true. Why should we assume this will work for humans? The suggestion here is that wheatgrass will cure sterility. Were that the case, you would think something like that would make the news.
6 Chlorophyll is anti-bacterial and can be used inside and outside the body as a healer.
The evidence does seem to indicate that wheatgrass can kill bacteria. That doesn't suggest that ingesting it will help your body fight bacteria, or that you'd want your body to fight bacteria better, or that it's any better to use than any other antibiotic/antibacterial substance.
7 Dr. Bernard Jensen says that it only takes minutes to digest wheatgrass juice and uses up very little body energy.
Alright, let's assume that's true. Wouldn't that mean it just runs right through you with no effect?
But putting that aside, let's take a look at this Dr. Bernard Jensen. Here is his Wikipedia page, and this is a "tribute" page. Both indicate he was a chiropractor and proponent of Iridology. For those who don't know, Iridology is the "alternative medicine" style that claims you can examine the iris of a patient's eyes to determine information about a patient's systemic health.
Exactly what qualifies this guy to suggest anything related to health? He became a "doctor" at 21 upon graduating from West Coast Chiropractic College. Clearly a highly trained professional.
8 Science has proven that chlorophyll arrests growth and development of unfriendly bacteria.
This sounds an awful lot like number six. I think all of my refutations still apply to this one.
9 Chlorophyll (wheatgrass) rebuilds the bloodstream. Studies of various animals have shown chlorophyll to be free of any toxic reaction. The red cell count was returned to normal within 4 to 5 days of the administration of chlorophyll, even in those animals which were known to be extremely anemic or low in red cell count.
I'd like to see these studies, no links are provided, but even assuming that these were legitimate studies that doesn't tell us what kinds of animals were tested and whether the same effect could be expected in humans. What works for animals doesn't always work for us. In fact, it usually doesn't. This entire claim is extremely vague.
10 Farmers in the Midwest who have sterile cows and bulls put them on wheatgrass to restore fertility. (The high magnesium content in chlorophyll builds enzymes that restore the sex hormones.)
I've yet to hear of a single farmer actually doing this, but again let's assume that it's true. Why should we assume this will work for humans? The suggestion here is that wheatgrass will cure sterility. Were that the case, you would think something like that would make the news.
Wednesday, July 2, 2008
Wheatgrass
A recent miracle supplement that you can find in any local smoothie shop is wheatgrass. Supposedly, it's very healthy. It's hard to get anyone to explain what exactly is so healthy about it, so I decided to take a look.
If you Google "wheatgrass", the first link that appears is one to Wikipedia. After that is a site called Wheatgrass Kits.com, which has a handy-dandy section called "40 Benefits of Wheat grass".
Forty is a lot, so I'll break this into several posts. Let's take a look at these claims.
Alright, nothing really wrong here. We may not know what living chlorophyll is and why it's good for us, but we can give them the benefit of the doubt that wheatgrass has a lot of it.
Hm. What is light energy? A Wikipedia search for "light energy" doesn't turn up any responses. A Google search for the term leads to articles regarding the physics of light and energy, but nothing about the term "light energy".
So the good news is that it's not poisonous. You can even stick it up your bum if you like. This doesn't mean it will do anything good for you, but it won't do anything bad.
This is absolutely true. Unfortunately, I am not a plant.
Fortunately, we have lungs to provide our brain and body tissues with oxygen. If you think you may not be getting enough oxygen, you can always buy yourself a can. Try doing some Calculus after, I'll be interested to hear how that goes for you.
If you Google "wheatgrass", the first link that appears is one to Wikipedia. After that is a site called Wheatgrass Kits.com, which has a handy-dandy section called "40 Benefits of Wheat grass".
Forty is a lot, so I'll break this into several posts. Let's take a look at these claims.
1 Wheatgrass Juice is one of the best sources of living chlorophyll available.
Alright, nothing really wrong here. We may not know what living chlorophyll is and why it's good for us, but we can give them the benefit of the doubt that wheatgrass has a lot of it.
2 Chlorophyll is the first product of light and, therefore, contains more light energy than any other element.
Hm. What is light energy? A Wikipedia search for "light energy" doesn't turn up any responses. A Google search for the term leads to articles regarding the physics of light and energy, but nothing about the term "light energy".
3 Wheatgrass juice is a crude chlorophyll and can be taken orally and as a colon implant without toxic side effects.
So the good news is that it's not poisonous. You can even stick it up your bum if you like. This doesn't mean it will do anything good for you, but it won't do anything bad.
4 Chlorophyll is the basis of all plant life.
This is absolutely true. Unfortunately, I am not a plant.
5 Wheatgrass is high in oxygen like all green plants that contain chlorophyll. The brain and all body tissues function at an optimal level in a highly-oxygenated environment.
Fortunately, we have lungs to provide our brain and body tissues with oxygen. If you think you may not be getting enough oxygen, you can always buy yourself a can. Try doing some Calculus after, I'll be interested to hear how that goes for you.
Atheists Believe In You
One of the more popular positions to take lately is embodied by author Chris Hedges in his book "I Don't Believe In Atheists".
A defense of faith, the book claims that radical atheists are just as much a threat as fundamentalists. I'll ignore that he continues to misuse the word fundamentalist (there are no atheist fundamentals, so how can you be a fundamentalist?), and instead concentrate on his argument.
His claim is that the New Atheists (specifically Christopher Hitchens, Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris) are just as bigoted as the religions they attack. Additionally, and this is where his claims get a bit strange, he seems to say that claiming religions have impeded moral progress means that there must be moral progress. He does not believe there is moral progress, as the existence of this progress would indicate a move towards a final point of total morality- a utopia. Utopian mindsets, he says, are dangerous.
First points first, he charges the New Atheists with encouraging violence against religion and trying to snuff it out entirely. In fact, only one of the mentioned authors could be interpreted to have said that and it would take a healthy dose of self-convincing to do so. Sam Harris does indicate several times in his book that our supposed "War On Terror" is really a "War On Islam", but it's not politically advantageous to say so and so we call it a War On Terror.
That certainly seems damning, but when I first heard him say that I never once thought he was encouraging anyone to hunt down Muslims. Perhaps he would have been better served to say that it's actually a war on the stubborn and violent refusal of the majority population of Muslim-dominated countries to accept and adapt to modern day society, but Sam Harris is a man who values brevity. You can see this in his "Letter To A Christian Nation".
Hedges has experience with Muslim countries, and he says that the way they're addressed in Harris's books is simply racist. Fair enough, but Hedges provides little evidence to vanquish Harris's evidence. Harris quotes dozens of surveys taken in major Muslim countries regarding the use of violence for religious purposes. The percentage of those who find it acceptable is shocking. Simply labeling those statistics as racist does not make them untrue. You must either show contradictory evidence, or show that the procedure through which the "racist" evidence was obtained was flawed. It's not racist to think that a black guy stole a car or a white guy embezzled from his company if they actually did those things. The statistics seem to indicate that the parties perceived as violent actually are violent.
To move on to the point that there has been no moral progress. That's going to be a difficult point to make. His evidence for this is that the greatest slaughters have occurred in the 20th century in both Hitler and Stalin's regimes. That is certainly true, but allow me to draw an analogy. In the past hundred years, humans have done more to pollute the planet than in the entire history of humanity previously. Does that mean, then, that there has been no environmental progress, that we have completely failed to utilize our resources with greater efficiency?
Of course not. Think back to the near death of the buffalo in America, with people shooting them for fun and leaving the carcasses behind completely unused. With that mindset and the tools of today, it would be trivial to drive entire species extinct in the span of a month. The same goes for those regimes- not that they were signs that morality hasn't progressed, but that the tools we currently have are so much more effective at what they do that previous eras could not hope to compete. Rest assured, if Alexander the Great or Genghis Khan had access to automatic weapons and gas chambers, their death tolls would have been much, much higher.
I would counter his argument by pointing out that there were only two of those slaughters, when a slaughter of that magnitude is so easily accessible to anyone with power, is proof that there is moral progress in our international society.
Similarly, his conclusion that moral progress necessitates a final Utopian point is false. Consider the mathematical example of an asymptote. An asymptote is a line on a graph that forever reaches toward a number, but never reaches it. An easier way to think about it would be to divide ten by two again and again and again. You understand that you're getting closer to zero, but you will never get there. That is progress without end.
Or, to put it more concisely by paraphrasing author and all-around awesome guy Warren Ellis:
"The world can be neither perfect nor doomed. But it can be better."
Most of these authors agree that religion isn't going anywhere. Christopher Hitchens has been quoted repeatedly saying religion will never die, "or at least not until we get over our fear of death, and of the dark, and of the unknown, and of each other." The goal of the so-called "New Atheists" isn't to banish religion to the shadows of human history, though many may believe the world would be better for the change were that goal plausible.
No, the goal is to put religion on the same footing as political beliefs. It must not be above criticism or reprisal, and it must not carry any authority simply by virtue of its self-importance. The goal is to get closer to zero. We understand we will never reach it.
There is some humor to be found in this. All of this arguing back and forth really has nothing to do with the truth of the matter. The argument is whether or not atheism or religion is healthier for society. Which one is actually the truth never enters into it.
A defense of faith, the book claims that radical atheists are just as much a threat as fundamentalists. I'll ignore that he continues to misuse the word fundamentalist (there are no atheist fundamentals, so how can you be a fundamentalist?), and instead concentrate on his argument.
His claim is that the New Atheists (specifically Christopher Hitchens, Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris) are just as bigoted as the religions they attack. Additionally, and this is where his claims get a bit strange, he seems to say that claiming religions have impeded moral progress means that there must be moral progress. He does not believe there is moral progress, as the existence of this progress would indicate a move towards a final point of total morality- a utopia. Utopian mindsets, he says, are dangerous.
First points first, he charges the New Atheists with encouraging violence against religion and trying to snuff it out entirely. In fact, only one of the mentioned authors could be interpreted to have said that and it would take a healthy dose of self-convincing to do so. Sam Harris does indicate several times in his book that our supposed "War On Terror" is really a "War On Islam", but it's not politically advantageous to say so and so we call it a War On Terror.
That certainly seems damning, but when I first heard him say that I never once thought he was encouraging anyone to hunt down Muslims. Perhaps he would have been better served to say that it's actually a war on the stubborn and violent refusal of the majority population of Muslim-dominated countries to accept and adapt to modern day society, but Sam Harris is a man who values brevity. You can see this in his "Letter To A Christian Nation".
Hedges has experience with Muslim countries, and he says that the way they're addressed in Harris's books is simply racist. Fair enough, but Hedges provides little evidence to vanquish Harris's evidence. Harris quotes dozens of surveys taken in major Muslim countries regarding the use of violence for religious purposes. The percentage of those who find it acceptable is shocking. Simply labeling those statistics as racist does not make them untrue. You must either show contradictory evidence, or show that the procedure through which the "racist" evidence was obtained was flawed. It's not racist to think that a black guy stole a car or a white guy embezzled from his company if they actually did those things. The statistics seem to indicate that the parties perceived as violent actually are violent.
To move on to the point that there has been no moral progress. That's going to be a difficult point to make. His evidence for this is that the greatest slaughters have occurred in the 20th century in both Hitler and Stalin's regimes. That is certainly true, but allow me to draw an analogy. In the past hundred years, humans have done more to pollute the planet than in the entire history of humanity previously. Does that mean, then, that there has been no environmental progress, that we have completely failed to utilize our resources with greater efficiency?
Of course not. Think back to the near death of the buffalo in America, with people shooting them for fun and leaving the carcasses behind completely unused. With that mindset and the tools of today, it would be trivial to drive entire species extinct in the span of a month. The same goes for those regimes- not that they were signs that morality hasn't progressed, but that the tools we currently have are so much more effective at what they do that previous eras could not hope to compete. Rest assured, if Alexander the Great or Genghis Khan had access to automatic weapons and gas chambers, their death tolls would have been much, much higher.
I would counter his argument by pointing out that there were only two of those slaughters, when a slaughter of that magnitude is so easily accessible to anyone with power, is proof that there is moral progress in our international society.
Similarly, his conclusion that moral progress necessitates a final Utopian point is false. Consider the mathematical example of an asymptote. An asymptote is a line on a graph that forever reaches toward a number, but never reaches it. An easier way to think about it would be to divide ten by two again and again and again. You understand that you're getting closer to zero, but you will never get there. That is progress without end.
Or, to put it more concisely by paraphrasing author and all-around awesome guy Warren Ellis:
"The world can be neither perfect nor doomed. But it can be better."
Most of these authors agree that religion isn't going anywhere. Christopher Hitchens has been quoted repeatedly saying religion will never die, "or at least not until we get over our fear of death, and of the dark, and of the unknown, and of each other." The goal of the so-called "New Atheists" isn't to banish religion to the shadows of human history, though many may believe the world would be better for the change were that goal plausible.
No, the goal is to put religion on the same footing as political beliefs. It must not be above criticism or reprisal, and it must not carry any authority simply by virtue of its self-importance. The goal is to get closer to zero. We understand we will never reach it.
There is some humor to be found in this. All of this arguing back and forth really has nothing to do with the truth of the matter. The argument is whether or not atheism or religion is healthier for society. Which one is actually the truth never enters into it.
Because it matters.
A few months ago I went to dinner with my mom and grandfather. My grandpa is slowly losing his mind to Alzheimer's, so having a conversation with him becomes more difficult as time passes. He can't even remember which entrée he wanted to order, much less follow a complicated subject. As a result, that evening's conversation was limited to my mother and I.
Clinton and Obama were, of course, still going at it then. Naturally, the subject came up. That progressed to other topics, like the Supreme Court, and eventually brought me to a rant about religion's influence on our supposedly secular society. Being me, of course, I progressed into a bit of a rant about religion itself. This prompted my mom to say to me, "You're so obsessed with this stuff."
I really didn't know what to say.
Religions claim to know a universal truth about all of reality. If ANY religion is right, we instantly know what is right, what is wrong, and everything else we need to know about life, love, morality and reality. Their claims are the most important claims that can possibly be made, and they have absolutely no justification for making them. The tragedy is that people still listen to them.
Yes, I am obsessed with this stuff. It matters. I want to know the truth about reality. I want to hear every single claim every religion makes and see if there is even the slightest kernel of truth to be found. Because it matters.
The only thing that is more mind-boggling than the prospect that any given religion might be right, and that there may be a single or many gods who are so far beyond our understanding that they created our universe, is the prospect that they are all wrong and that there is no god.
That raises so many questions. Science does its best to explain as much as possible, but we will never truly reach a complete understanding of everything in our universe. Never. The only thing we can do is try.
You are damn right I'm obsessed with this stuff. I don't understand how anyone couldn't be. What happened that made the truth of everything in the universe seem trivial? If this doesn't matter, what does?
Clinton and Obama were, of course, still going at it then. Naturally, the subject came up. That progressed to other topics, like the Supreme Court, and eventually brought me to a rant about religion's influence on our supposedly secular society. Being me, of course, I progressed into a bit of a rant about religion itself. This prompted my mom to say to me, "You're so obsessed with this stuff."
I really didn't know what to say.
Religions claim to know a universal truth about all of reality. If ANY religion is right, we instantly know what is right, what is wrong, and everything else we need to know about life, love, morality and reality. Their claims are the most important claims that can possibly be made, and they have absolutely no justification for making them. The tragedy is that people still listen to them.
Yes, I am obsessed with this stuff. It matters. I want to know the truth about reality. I want to hear every single claim every religion makes and see if there is even the slightest kernel of truth to be found. Because it matters.
The only thing that is more mind-boggling than the prospect that any given religion might be right, and that there may be a single or many gods who are so far beyond our understanding that they created our universe, is the prospect that they are all wrong and that there is no god.
That raises so many questions. Science does its best to explain as much as possible, but we will never truly reach a complete understanding of everything in our universe. Never. The only thing we can do is try.
You are damn right I'm obsessed with this stuff. I don't understand how anyone couldn't be. What happened that made the truth of everything in the universe seem trivial? If this doesn't matter, what does?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)