Back in Austin

Workout notes Rest day; stayed in Pryor, Oklahoma last night.

I won’t write much but will direct folks to blog posts that I’ve found interesting:

Iowa Caucus: Obama’s win

Many of the bloggers that I follow were pleased with the results; among them En Punto (national class racewalker), Science Avenger, and Friendly Atheist.

Not everyone is happy of course; some of the excuses made by some Clinton supporters have been very, very creative, to say the least! (If this excuse sounds strained, remember that “womyn studies” types have a very limited meme, hence they have to stretch and distort it in many, uh, interesting ways)

There is, of course, a strong Illinois connection to the campaign, as Iowa is on our western border. His volunteers in Iowa included some former colleagues in the Illinois State Senate!

Obama’s message of hope was a hit with many. Others have focused on the vanquished; some think that she is now in a “must win” situation in New Hampshire, others point toward the failed “let’s be cautious and appeal to the centrist Democrats” strategy, and others see her captive of the “old guard’s worn out “I am the leader and I don’t care if you like it or not” approach.

Only time will tell.

Personally, I think that Clinton will win a close contest in New Hampshire, but then again, I’ve consistently overestimated her political skill all year.

What is in store for Obama: almost certainly, idiotic attacks such as this. That’s from the right. On the other hand, Clinton is already attacking him on national security issues. Her credentials to do so: a bad vote on 9/11 and on the Kyl-Lieberman amendment?

Huckabee: would he be as widely accepted if he were just as devout, but a Hindu instead of a Christian?

Hat Tip: Friendly Atheist.

Funny, but these “god is on our side” tactics that the right wing has used for years against us are resented when they are used against their “chosen” candidates.

More politics One way to get rid of the effect of the Electoral College without a constitutional amendment. How? Guess a way, then go to the linked article. If nothing else, it is a fun idea.

Other topics:
The blog Three Quarks Daily is an excellent source for interesting articles. Here is one about evolution: this discusses one species (butterflies) getting another species (ants) to help raise its young.

Here is an article from the National Academy of Sciences on the ID/Creationism controversy and why evolution should be taught in public schools. Note: the pdf version of the book is free. Hat tip: Millard Fillmore’s Bathtub.

What Have You Changed Your Mind About?
Sandwalk weighs in; he offers other views. Alan Alda says he’s switched from calling himself an atheist to calling himself an agnostic, though he hasn’t really changed his outlook.

Personally, I agree with Professor Moran:

I think he’s dead wrong about the meaning of the word atheism. I think it means that you have not accepted theism and therefore you are “without a belief in God.” I see the word atheism as similar to words like “a-toothfairyism” or “a-SantaClausism.” You don’t believe in Santa Claus so you are an “a-SantaClausist.” It does not mean you are committed to the concept that there could not possibly be a Santa Claus.

It would be silly to label yourself an agnostic with respect to belief in Santa Claus. Nobody, especially Christians, goes around announcing that they are agnostic about the existence of the Greek Gods. You don’t believe in them, full stop.

There is a version of agnosticism that’s perfectly acceptable. John Wilkins, among others, promotes this definition of agnosticism. True agnostics claim that it is impossible to prove one way or the other whether God exists, just as it’s impossible to prove one way or the other whether the tooth fairly exists. All rational people are agnostics in this sense. Some of them are also atheists. Alan Alda appears to be both an atheist and an agnostic, just like Richard Dawkins. Alan Alda is a wimp for letting non-atheists redefine atheism and then abandoning his position because of that incorrect definition.

It’s not an either/or situation, in my opinion (Wilkins disagrees). You can, and should, be both an atheist and an agnostic.

(note: Dawkins uses a 7 point scale and says he is a 6.8. I am about a 6.5)

Science and Religion: are the compatible? I used to think so, but now I think not. Others agree with me.

My thoughts run something like this: accepting science means that I accept that randomness plays a role in natural selection; mutation is a stochastic process. There is no “predetermined intelligence” that drives it. Evolution depends on mutation and on mutation being fixed by some process; natural selection is one such process as is genetic drift.

Hence, there is no room for a personal deity to drive the process; humans are not special in some universal sense, though they are special to me as I am a human.

Good Spirituality Though I am secular (whether you call me an agnostic and an atheist or just an agnostic), I still believe in good “spiritual” values. Here is an example of them (a yogi discusses this).

Humor: some erotic jokes from Sexy Whispers. The first one is especially funny. Not for the prudish; one hint: it involves a podiatrist’s office and a brothel.