A right to believe?

Posted in Other Stuff with tags , , on December 23, 2009 by Peter Grant

“People have the right to believe what they want.”

I hear this all the time. It seems so unobjectionable, doesn’t it? You cannot after all force someone to believe something against their will, can you? But this is precisely why I do object.

Firstly, one should not claim a right unless that right can be taken away or limited to some degree. I might be able to force you to do or say something against your will, but I cannot force you to believe or disbelieve something.

Secondly, can anyone actually believe something just because they want to? Go on, try it. Pick some belief at random, something silly which you never really took seriously before, and will yourself to believe it…

I doubt you had any more success than I did.

What we can claim is the right to express and practice our beliefs, whatever they happen to be, to the extent that our actions do not infringe on the rights of others.

It is these other rights which concern me most. Attempts to defend a belief which cannot be limited may infringe on a few of them, for example:

Freedom of expression: False beliefs can generally only be maintained by ignorance. If someone has the “right” to believe something then that necessarily means that we must loose the right to argue with them about it.

Equality: Many beliefs are discriminatory. So often the so called “right to believe” is used to justify acts of discrimination in all their various forms.

In conclusion, We need to stop assuming we can control belief and let free expression take care of defending rational beliefs and gradually dismantling the irrational ones.

Forum discussions relating to this topic:

http://forum.skeptic.za.org/general-skepticism/belief-in-god/
http://aas.uct.ac.za/forum/viewtopic.php?t=492
http://forum.richarddawkins.net/viewtopic.php?f=20&t=103822
http://www.centerforinquiry.net/forums/viewthread/6778/

Beware the spinal trap

Posted in Other Stuff with tags , , , , on June 6, 2009 by Peter Grant

Some practitioners claim it is a cure-all but research suggests chiropractic therapy can be lethal

* Simon Singh
* The Guardian,
* Saturday April 19 2008

This is Chiropractic Awareness Week. So let’s be aware. How about some awareness that may prevent harm and help you make truly informed choices? First, you might be surprised to know that the founder of chiropractic therapy, Daniel David Palmer, wrote that, “99% of all diseases are caused by displaced vertebrae”. In the 1860s, Palmer began to develop his theory that the spine was involved in almost every illness because the spinal cord connects the brain to the rest of the body. Therefore any misalignment could cause a problem in distant parts of the body.

In fact, Palmer’s first chiropractic intervention supposedly cured a man who had been profoundly deaf for 17 years. His second treatment was equally strange, because he claimed that he treated a patient with heart trouble by correcting a displaced vertebra.

You might think that modern chiropractors restrict themselves to treating back problems, but in fact they still possess some quite wacky ideas. The fundamentalists argue that they can cure anything. And even the more moderate chiropractors have ideas above their station. The British Chiropractic Association claims that their members can help treat children with colic, sleeping and feeding problems, frequent ear infections, asthma and prolonged crying, even though there is not a jot of evidence. This organisation is the respectable face of the chiropractic profession and yet it happily promotes bogus treatments.

I can confidently label these treatments as bogus because I have co-authored a book about alternative medicine with the world’s first professor of complementary medicine, Edzard Ernst. He learned chiropractic techniques himself and used them as a doctor. This is when he began to see the need for some critical evaluation. Among other projects, he examined the evidence from 70 trials exploring the benefits of chiropractic therapy in conditions unrelated to the back. He found no evidence to suggest that chiropractors could treat any such conditions.

But what about chiropractic in the context of treating back problems? Manipulating the spine can cure some problems, but results are mixed. To be fair, conventional approaches, such as physiotherapy, also struggle to treat back problems with any consistency. Nevertheless, conventional therapy is still preferable because of the serious dangers associated with chiropractic.

In 2001, a systematic review of five studies revealed that roughly half of all chiropractic patients experience temporary adverse effects, such as pain, numbness, stiffness, dizziness and headaches. These are relatively minor effects, but the frequency is very high, and this has to be weighed against the limited benefit offered by chiropractors.

More worryingly, the hallmark technique of the chiropractor, known as high-velocity, low-amplitude thrust, carries much more significant risks. This involves pushing joints beyond their natural range of motion by applying a short, sharp force. Although this is a safe procedure for most patients, others can suffer dislocations and fractures.

Worse still, manipulation of the neck can damage the vertebral arteries, which supply blood to the brain. So-called vertebral dissection can ultimately cut off the blood supply, which in turn can lead to a stroke and even death. Because there is usually a delay between the vertebral dissection and the blockage of blood to the brain, the link between chiropractic and strokes went unnoticed for many years. Recently, however, it has been possible to identify cases where spinal manipulation has certainly been the cause of vertebral dissection.

Laurie Mathiason was a 20-year-old Canadian waitress who visited a chiropractor 21 times between 1997 and 1998 to relieve her low-back pain. On her penultimate visit she complained of stiffness in her neck. That evening she began dropping plates at the restaurant, so she returned to the chiropractor. As the chiropractor manipulated her neck, Mathiason began to cry, her eyes started to roll, she foamed at the mouth and her body began to convulse. She was rushed to hospital, slipped into a coma and died three days later. At the inquest, the coroner declared: “Laurie died of a ruptured vertebral artery, which occurred in association with a chiropractic manipulation of the neck.”

This case is not unique. In Canada alone there have been several other women who have died after receiving chiropractic therapy, and Professor Ernst has identified about 700 cases of serious complications among the medical literature. This should be a major concern for health officials, particularly as under-reporting will mean that the actual number of cases is much higher.

Bearing all of this in mind, I will leave you with one message for Chiropractic Awareness Week – if spinal manipulation were a drug with such serious adverse effects and so little demonstrable benefit, then it would almost certainly have been taken off the market.

· Simon Singh is the co-author of Trick or Treatment? Alternative Medicine on Trial
www.simonsingh.net

Looking for a sexy little atheist, who smokes weed

Posted in Other Stuff with tags , , on May 22, 2009 by Peter Grant

But I’m experiencing a surprising amount of difficulty finding her…

If you match the above description, please reply below. Even if you’re not interested in a relationship, I’d still like some confirmation that such girls at least exist.

Thanks
:)

Chill OUT Blogroll

Posted in Other Stuff with tags , , , on December 6, 2008 by Peter Grant

I joined the OUT campaign blogroll:

http://outcampaign.org/

On the site they have banners which play with the word OUT in various ways: Come OUT, Reach OUT, Speak OUT, Keep OUT and Stand OUT. There is a link to Richard Dawkins’ Introduction to The Out Campaign in which he also suggests:

Chill OUT (exhort others to do so). Atheists are not devils with horns and a tail, they are ordinary nice people. Demonstrate this by example. The nice woman next door may be an atheist. So may the doctor, librarian, computer operator, taxi driver, hairdresser, talk show host, singer, conductor, comedian. Atheists are just people with a different interpretation of cosmic origins, nothing to be alarmed about.

It is this aspect of the campaign which appeals to me most, so I have made a Chill OUT banner:

Chill OUT

If you support this sort of relaxed atheism then you are welcome to use my banner on your site:

ChillOUT

HTML:
<a target=_blank href=http://scifiwriter.wordpress.com/2008/12/06/chill-out-blogroll/><img src=http://scifiwriter.files.wordpress.com/2008/11/chillout.gif width=143 height=22 border=0 alt=ChillOUT /></a>


BBCode:
[url=http://scifiwriter.wordpress.com/2008/12/06/chill-out-blogroll/][img]http://scifiwriter.files.wordpress.com/2008/11/chillout.gif[/img][/url]

Once you have uploaded it post a comment below and I will add your site  to the Chill OUT Blogroll:

RichardDawkins.net
The Official Richard Dawkins Website
http://www.richarddawkins.net/

Why be good?

Posted in Other Stuff with tags , , , , , , on December 6, 2008 by Peter Grant

I am often asked this question by theists and I must admit that the first time I was somewhat taken aback by it. All I could respond with immediately was, “Well, I want to be good.”

It seems strange to me that anyone would want to be anything else. We all obviously know what good is, otherwise we wouldn’t have a word for it. We are quite capable of judging other’s actions as being good or bad. We write stories about gods and devils, heroes and villains. We clearly identify with those characters who are portrayed as good and despise or pity those who are portrayed as bad.

I think the desire to be good stems from self-image. The human mind is great at making models of the universe in which we live and it is with the help of these models that we we are able to predict the future, to a certain extent. The advantage of a highly complex self-model is that it helps one to predict the behaviour of others. For the model to be effective though, it has to be accurate and to incorporate the good as well as the bad. Believing bad things about one’s self is not pleasant so the obvious solution is to avoid doing bad things.

This raises the question of why do people do bad things? I think there are two possible causes. The first and most seemingly obvious is that the individual’s self-esteem is so low already that there is little point in maintaining their self-image. Those who are poor or oppressed might feel differently about theft and murder than those in more privileged positions. The second, and more subtle, is that the individual’s self-esteem is unrealistically low or high. It was long assumed that violent behaviour, for instance, was associated with low self-esteem but research shows that it may result from unearned high self-esteem:

“Violent criminals often describe themselves as superior to others”
“Playground bullies regard themselves as superior to other children; low self-esteem is found among the victims of bullies, but not among bullies themselves.”
—Baumeister, 2001

Either way, it seems the main requirement for moral behaviour is an accurate self-image, though it may help to start out with a reasonably high self-esteem as well.

So why be good? Because you have to live with yourself.

There are already some interesting comments on this blog entry here:

http://www.richarddawkins.net/forum/