Waiting for the Ax

Ah, life in the big city.

My company is having tough times. Our market has shrunk and we are not selling as much as we once did. What's more, we have few--maybe not any--substantial prospects for generating sales in either the near-term or long-term.

Layoffs are coming. I predict it will happen Tuesday or Wednesday next week. Every group will likely be asked to identify a percentage of people to be candidates for downsizing. My guess is we will lose almost 10 percent of the company workforce.

Although I don't think my job is in jeopardy, I am certainly not "safe." Assuming I am one of the folks remaining after the layoff, I have a personal strategy for driving improvements in my area. Right now, I am documenting everything I do and thinking about the extra work I may need to take on.

If I am let go, the first thing I'll do is apply for unemployment. Then, I'll make some calls. For now, I have some other preparation work to do, but I plan to be ready next week in case I'm ushered out the door. I'll have most of the files I want saved to a flash drive; I'll also have my desktop filed cleaned out.

I remain generally optimistic about my company and about prospects for the US economy overall. I think--I hope--we are at the bottom point and expect everything to start slowly improving by August.

After-Birth Abortion and the Solomon Problem

After-birth abortions? Really?

The Coming Brouhaha
Two medical ethics philosophers have recently published a paper favoring "after-birth abortion." Allow the sense of that first sentence to kick in, and then have a read of the paper's abstract:

Abortion is largely accepted even for reasons that do not have anything to do with the fetus’ health. By showing that (1) both fetuses and newborns do not have the same moral status as actual persons, (2) the fact that both are potential persons is morally irrelevant and (3) adoption is not always in the best interest of actual people, the authors argue that what we call ‘after-birth abortion’ (killing a newborn) should be permissible in all the cases where abortion is, including cases where the newborn is not disabled.

This paper will generate lots of controversy, and I've never read anything like it. It has already attracted attention to the Journal of Medical Ethics, which has started to post defenses and reactions online.

Predictably, anti-abortion advocates see the article as proof that legitimizing pre-fetal or fetal abortion opens a society to rampant, sanctioned killings and euthanasia. Thus, our general value for human life is being diminished and we all are becoming very sad.

Atheists Will Be Blamed
While I have objections to the paper, described below, I also sense it will be used to vilify atheists.

Some people will look at atheism, materialism, secularism, and science as the sources from which such a paper could spring. Without the Christian God, they'll say, people will be killing one other and having sex with animals--and it will all be legal!

I predict this paper will henceforth come up in roughly 1 of 5 atheist conversations with believers. Over and again, we will be asked to explain why people shouldn't just kill newborns. If you don't believe in God/Jesus/Ramen, you have no basis for objecting to infanticide, they'll tell us.

If You Can Dodge a Wrench, You Can After-Abort a Newborn

So what does the paper actually say, is there any merit to it, and what's the proper response?

Briefly, the paper says the reasons one might abort a fetus hold as well for newborns up to at least a few weeks: If you can abort a fetus, you can after-abort a newborn.

The merit of the paper is in raising some important issues: personhood, rights, burden, prevailing concerns, and so on. These issues deserve to be discussed, especially in an age where high technology, long life-spans, uncertain economics have all converged. It's not an easy or straightforward matter to know what defines a person and when sociopolitical rights attach.

That said, I cannot accept the argument put forth by the authors. I think the best actions to take are to read the article and to discuss it soberly. Therefore, having read the article I want to examine the argument in the paper I object to most: that "both fetuses and newborns do not have the same moral status as actual persons." I will focus on this case in the rest of my comments, and I'll be concerned only in the matter of newborns.

Why Kill Babies? Because They Ain't People (Says the Paper)

No reason to live?

First, the authors make some careful terminological distinctions. They separate newborns from "children," who have high enough moral status to prohibit their being killed. The authors also define "after-birth abortion" apart from "euthanasia" because the best interest of the one who dies is not a factor in the case of after-birth abortion.

The authors' opening argument on the moral status of a newborn hinges on the concept of personhood:

Both a fetus and a newborn certainly are human beings and potential persons, but neither is a ‘person’ in the sense of ‘subject of a moral right to life’. We take ‘person’ to mean an individual who is capable of attributing to her own existence some (at least) basic value such that being deprived of this existence represents a loss to her. This means that many nonhuman animals and mentally retarded human individuals are persons, but that all the individuals who are not in the condition of attributing any value to their own existence are not persons. Merely being human is not in itself a reason for ascribing someone a right to life. Indeed, many humans are not considered subjects of a right to life: spare embryos where research on embryo stem cells is permitted, fetuses where abortion is permitted, criminals where capital punishment is legal. (Emphasis added)

After reading this, I had to check the journal website because I thought (I almost hoped) it was a tasteless joke. Personhood amounts to awareness that one is alive. If and until a being has the capability for such awareness, one can find sufficient cause to kill that being in clear conscience.

The "if and until" part is important, so the authors deal with it head-on:

Our point here is that, although it is hard to exactly determine when a subject starts or ceases to be a ‘person’, a necessary condition for a subject to have a right to X is that she is harmed by a decision to deprive her of X. There are many ways in which an individual can be harmed, and not all of them require that she values or is even aware of what she is deprived of. A person might be ‘harmed’ when someone steals from her the winning lottery ticket even if she will never find out that her ticket was the winning one. Or a person might be ‘harmed’ if something were done to her at the stage of fetus which affects for the worse her quality of life as a person (eg, her mother took drugs during pregnancy), even if she is not aware of it. However, in such cases we are talking about a person who is at least in the condition to value the different situation she would have found herself in if she had not been harmed. And such a condition depends on the level of her mental development, which in turn determines whether or not she is a ‘person’. (Emphasis added)

In other words, a newborn doesn't have the requisite mental capacity to know whether he or she would be not want to be killed. The authors develop this argument further:

Those who are only capable of experiencing pain and pleasure (like perhaps fetuses and certainly newborns) have a right not to be inflicted pain. If, in addition to experiencing pain and pleasure, an individual is capable of making any aims (like actual human and non-human persons), she is harmed if she is prevented from accomplishing her aims by being killed. Now, hardly can a newborn be said to have aims, as the future we imagine for it is merely a projection of our minds on its potential lives. It might start having expectations and develop a minimum level of self-awareness at a very early stage, but not in the first days or few weeks after birth. On the other hand, not only aims but also well-developed plans are concepts that certainly apply to those people (parents, siblings, society) who could be negatively or positively affected by the birth of that child. Therefore, the rights and interests of the actual people involved should represent the prevailing consideration in a decision about abortion and after-birth abortion.

I suppose we can take some solace that the authors limit permissible killing time to only a few weeks after birth! Sigh. Let's get to the conclusion of the personhood argument, where burden of the newborn on actual people (i.e., not the newborn) overrides consideration for the baby's life:

It is true that a particular moral status can be attached to a non-person by virtue of the value an actual person (eg, the mother) attributes to it. However, this ‘subjective’ account of the moral status of a newborn does not debunk our previous argument. Let us imagine that a woman is pregnant with two identical twins who are affected by genetic disorders. In order to cure one of the embryos the woman is given the option to use the other twin to develop a therapy. If she agrees, she attributes to the first embryo the status of ‘future child’ and to the other one the status of a mere means to cure the ‘future child’. However, the different moral status does not spring from the fact that the first one is a ‘person’ and the other is not, which would be nonsense, given that they are identical. Rather, the different moral statuses only depends on the particular value the woman projects on them. However, such a projection is exactly what does not occur when a newborn becomes a burden to its family. (Emphasis added)

The bolded part avove identifies the place from which a strong and sensible rebuttal can be made of the entire paper. What the bolded part reminds us is that moral value depends completely on projection. But this presents a problem to the authors' argument because the nuclear family need not have the prevailing say over the newborn's value.

The Solomon Problem
Once we ask whether a biological parent's or someone else's valuation of a newborn matters more, the baby's welfare becomes decisive.

Forgive me for bringing in the Bible here, but we have the old judgment of Solomon problem: the real mother attributes value to the baby and wants it to live. The real mother attributes moral status on the baby. The real mother, therefore, does not have to be the biological mother. Indeed, moral status can conceivably be conferred by almost anyone--a grandparent, a distant relative, a doctor, or a stranger. Many, not just the baby's family, can project value on a newborn.

If a mother or father forfeit the initial valuation of a newborn, then there would be actual people (to use the authors' expression) who could be consulted. And if the interests of actual people should prevail--as the authors argue--then certainly there are people beyond the newborn's nuclear family who have reasonable standing to advocate for the baby's moral status.

This argument overcomes the weak objection the authors make to adoption causing more psychological trauma to the mother than would after-birth abortion.

Dealing with It
I can see this paper changing the landscape of the abortion debate in the US. Many people will be rightfully repulsed with the paper's argument. Unfortunately, many will also politicize the paper and blur the distinctions it makes from abortion and euthanasia. Opponents may stifle productive and profound debate by failing to employ proper nuance toward the real and limited scope of this paper. I can see a future in which to support any form of abortion is be to be tarred as an advocate of newborn-killing.

I don't think the authors are bad people for writing this paper. In fact, I think they are brave, for I personally would fear for my safety if I were them. But ultimately their argument fails to make its case, and it will fail to make after-birth abortion more palatable. 

A free society needs to be able to deal with awful topics, and this is one of them. I hope many people read the article, understand its argument, reject that argument, and use that reasoning in productive ways for the future of the personhood debate.

Rick Santorum Is Dangerous--and Electable

For Santorum, the laws of faith and family--his laws--make freedom.

Rick Santorum seems like a front-runner. Not so presidential as Mitt Romney, Santorum nevertheless comes across as aware of and unfazed by the executive role. At one time, I thought he might be too crazy to be a serious candidate, but now I think he has a real shot at being the Republican nominee. It's going to be either Mitt or Rick, and my bet's now on Rick.

But if his views are any indication--and they may not be--Santorum is dangerous. His positions are "philosophically reasoned prejudice, based on centuries of Roman Catholic natural law." The quote comes from a recent piece on Santorum in the New York Times. From that article, we get one example of how Santorum applies natural law to his positions on social issues:

“Human beings have a purpose, or ‘end,’ a telos,” Santorum writes in his book. According to the tradition of natural law, every part of our bodies has a telos too. In the case of our genitalia, that natural end is heterosexual sex for the purpose of procreation. It follows that marriage between a man and a woman “is fundamentally natural,” Santorum writes.

Readers of this blog may hear echoes of Edward Feser, who must be positively delighted at Santorum's ascent. Readers of this blog will also know that Santorum basically makes up what the telos is. Santorum will get lots of agreement that the natural purpose of human genitalia is reproductive sex, but most thinking people will quickly realize three issues:

1. It is not a fact that the natural purpose of human genitalia is reproductive sex. Even with a nice argument, it's not a fact. Even if the Catholic Church teaches what the natural purpose is of genitalia, it's not a fact. The fact is that human genitalia serve several purposes. On the point of purposes, I can do no better than recommend you to Leah at Unequally Yoked. My take is that only belief confers purpose on anything. If you think wet is the purpose of water, then it is so.
2. The connection between reproductive sex and the social institution of marriage is arbitrary. Even if the telos of cocks, balls, and pussies was only reproductive sex--that would have no bearing on marriage. At best, it would dictate that when when people has sex they would do it heterosexually and with the intent of producing children. Beyond that dictate, anything goes.
3. Something that is "fundamentally natural" is not fundamentally good or right. Neither is something bad or wrong that is not fundamentally natural. This issue is, of course, the naturalistic fallacy.

After considering these three issues, Santorum's next statements appear ridiculous:

“The promise of natural law is that we will be the happiest, and freest, when we follow the law built into our nature as men and women. For liberals, however, nature is too confining, and thus is the enemy of freedom.” Later on, he elaborates on his jaundiced view of freedom with a quotation from Edmund Burke: “Men are qualified for civil liberty in exact proportion to their disposition to put moral chains on their appetites.”

Yet Santorum himself continues to gain support, and he cannot be dismissed. He delivers his message with a distinctly American idealism and coolness:

Santorum is not a fundamentalist frothing at the mouth, screeching out biblical commands (he cites “Divine Providence” often in his writing, but rarely turns to scripture). When liberal students booed after he expressed his views on same-sex marriage at an event in New Hampshire, he did not shout them down, but tried to engage them in a philosophical discussion.

Each point that Santorum makes follows logically from the preceding premise. Along with Catholic public intellectuals like Robert George, a political theorist at Princeton, and the political commentator and the Lutheran minister-turned-Catholic theologian Richard John Neuhaus, Santorum embodies the renaissance of Catholic natural law in American political life—and the apotheosis of its seductive effect on conservative Protestant evangelicals.

I am grateful for this NYT article. It's profile of Santorum and his views is interesting and important. But it never talks at all about Santorum's performance as a leader. I'd really like more details on his leadership and the relationship between his personal views and the diverse constituencies he must represent.

So while I agree with the NYT's conclusion that Santorum is dangerous, I think they fail to provide the most useful content to their readers. Here is how the article closes:

Natural law is a noble tradition that has shaped Western jurisprudence, but in the hands of conservative activists like Santorum it has become a dangerous cult of first principles. Santorum’s positions are perfectly logical if you accept his founding presuppositions — but, in his view, those presuppositions are not open to question. The genius of this emphasis on foundational assumptions is that if you can dismiss your opponent’s first principles, if you can accuse him of denying humanity’s “natural purpose,” you can claim to win the debate without ever considering the content of his argument.

This tactic destroys the possibility for real political dialogue, since one need only engage with those who share one’s own presuppositions. Despite Santorum’s calm debating style, his preference for home-schooling his children and rants against modern higher education suggest he has little genuine interest in open argument and free inquiry. Thomas Aquinas would not approve of such separatism: the theologian honed his most important ideas while in the thick of 13th-century heterodoxies, debating radical followers of Aristotle at the University of Paris.

The pundits are right about one thing: Santorum is the rock-ribbed anti-Romney candidate, the antidote to the bogeyman of “flip-flopping” and moderation. A half-century ago, evangelical voters worried that a Catholic president would take orders from the pope. Now they are worried instead about Romney reporting to a sinister Mormon cabal in Salt Lake City, while Santorum’s Catholicism has made him the candidate of universal “moral truth” and “divine reason:” the philosopher-king who can reclaim American liberty in the name of moral law, and package the Christian Right’s agenda in a respectable guise

If the NYT is correct, as the Republican nominee or as president Santorum may be no less a polarizing figure than President Obama. Santorum's views are parochial, if not scary. Yet he is gaining charisma where Romney is growing mold. Do not doubt that Santorum will be able to mainstream his views and gain fervent support.

And remember why the philosophical tradition of Aquinas faltered: Ockham showed it was impossible to make the leap from nature to the divine; that is that the reality of final causes was unable to be proved without revelation (He was a monk, after all). Later, the new science drawn from Bacon confirmed the superfluity of divine and supernatural explanations.

The 2012 presidential election may revive this centuries old philosophical clash. If Aquinas can be pressed into service for a modern conservatism he would not understand, Ockham can make a reluctant comeback too.

Rabbi Itzalok Predicts Week 2 NFL Winners (2011)

I predict who will win the spiritual battle.

Rabbi Itzalok huddles with the Divine One to predict the outcome of each week's National Football League games.

To make matters even more interesting, the ever-sharp Rabbi I. tests his prophetic mettle against a computer picker and a fantasy league.

Here are this week's predicted winners:

	Rabbi Itzalok	Accuscore	Pick 'em
Oak@Buf	Buf	Buf	Buf
KC@Det	Det	Det	Det
Bal@Ten	Bal	Bal	Bal
Cle@Ind	Ind	Ind	Ind
TB@Min	TB	TB	Min
Chi@NO	NO	NO	NO
Jac@NYJ	NYJ	NYJ	NYJ
Sea@Pit	Pit	Pit	Pit
Ari@Wsh	Wsh	Wsh	Wsh
GB@Car	GB	GB	GB
Dal@SF	SF	SF	Dal
Cin@Den	Cin	Den	Den
Hou@Mia	Mia	Mia	Hou
SD@NE	SD	NE	NE
Phi@Atl	Phi	Atl	Phi
StL@NYG	NYG	NYG	NYG

Bad Ratings

I'm disappointed but not shocked that Standard & Poor's decided to lower the long-term sovereign credit rating of the United States to "AA+."

In their report, S&P say:

We lowered our long-term rating on the U.S. because we believe that the prolonged controversy over raising the statutory debt ceiling and the related fiscal policy debate indicate that further near-term progress containing the growth in public spending, especially on entitlements, or on reaching an agreement on raising revenues is less likely than we previously assumed and will remain a contentious and fitful process. We also believe that the fiscal consolidation plan that Congress and the Administration agreed to this week falls short of the amount that we believe is necessary to stabilize the general government debt burden by the middle of the decade.

Our lowering of the rating was prompted by our view on the rising public debt burden and our perception of greater policymaking uncertainty, consistent with our criteria (see "Sovereign Government Rating Methodology and Assumptions," June 30, 2011, especially Paragraphs 36-41). Nevertheless, we view the U.S. federal government's other economic, external, and monetary credit attributes, which form the basis for the sovereign rating, as broadly unchanged.

We can easily unpack these paragraphs and isolate the key issues:

1. Growth in public spending, especially on entitlements, needs to be contained.
2. Revenues must be raised.
3. The recent fiscal consolidation plan is too little and too temporary.
4. U.S. policy-making needs to be less contentious, more cooperative, and more productive.

There's no indication that #4 is going to improve, which doesn't bode well for #1-#3. But over at Slate, William Saletan says that Medicare will receive cuts and taxes will go up (#1 and #2) regardless of what Democrats and Republicans say.  He thinks that creditors will force a move to the middle.

If Saletan is wrong, all three global credit rating agencies will downgrade the U.S., and that rating won't be as high as "AA+."

US Budget Deficit: I'm Emailing My Representatives Today

Why do our expenses exceed our revenues? Over the past decade or so, the main factors have been tax cuts, wars, recessions, and expanded spending for health care.

A few thoughts on President Obama's and House Speaker Boehner's separate addresses to the nation last night on the budget debate and the debt crisis:

• Obama came off much better than Boehner. The president explained the situation, summarized the main points of disagreement, advocated for the plan he wants, and exhorted Congress (Congress, not a particular party) to compromise for the greater good. Boehner, on the other hand, was eager to blame Obama and Obama alone. He appeared stern and resigned: this did not seem like a person willing to compromise. His position seemed to be that Obama either had to join him or to lump it.
• On the plans outlined by the two men: I prefer the plan described by Obama, yet I don't entirely trust the president or the Government to close tax and entitlement loopholes for "the richest Americans" and corporations. I also suspect Boehner's program would most affect and hurt America's poor and needy.
• What will happen: I have no idea. We are essentially locked into a prisoner's dilemma for gargantuan stakes. I can't see the Tea Party wing approaching anything like a compromise. Congress is so polarized right now. The whole country is. But there's also big, big money at stake for everyone. I'm at a loss to see if anyone will act rationally.
• What I'll do: I am going to email my representatives and senators. 

Some interesting graphs from the New York Times illustrate the recent history of the deficit:

The accompanying text to the graphs:

The first graph shows the difference between budget projections and budget reality. In 2001, President George W. Bush inherited a surplus, with projections by the Congressional Budget Office for ever-increasing surpluses, assuming continuation of the good economy and President Bill Clinton’s policies. But every year starting in 2002, the budget fell into deficit. In January 2009, just before President Obama took office, the budget office projected a $1.2 trillion deficit for 2009 and deficits in subsequent years, based on continuing Mr. Bush’s policies and the effects of recession. Mr. Obama’s policies in 2009 and 2010, including the stimulus package, added to the deficits in those years but are largely temporary.

The second graph shows that under Mr. Bush, tax cuts and war spending were the biggest policy drivers of the swing from projected surpluses to deficits from 2002 to 2009. Budget estimates that didn’t foresee the recessions in 2001 and in 2008 and 2009 also contributed to deficits. Mr. Obama’s policies, taken out to 2017, add to deficits, but not by nearly as much.

A few lessons can be drawn from the numbers. First, the Bush tax cuts have had a huge damaging effect. If all of them expired as scheduled at the end of 2012, future deficits would be cut by about half, to sustainable levels. Second, a healthy budget requires a healthy economy; recessions wreak havoc by reducing tax revenue. Government has to spur demand and create jobs in a deep downturn, even though doing so worsens the deficit in the short run. Third, spending cuts alone will not close the gap. The chronic revenue shortfalls from serial tax cuts are simply too deep to fill with spending cuts alone. Taxes have to go up.

In future decades, when rising health costs with an aging population hit the budget in full force, deficits are projected to be far deeper than they are now. Effective health care reform, and a willingness to pay more taxes, will be the biggest factors in controlling those deficits.

I hope our political representatives start to live in the world of reality very soon.

Where's the 'Ski?

Have you seen me?

Over at the intelligent design website Uncommon Descent, the virtual community has been universally stumped by a commenter, and now posting contributor, called MathGrrl.

She makes an eminently reasonable request of the ID proponents:

In the abstract of Specification: The Pattern That Signifies Intelligence, William Dembski asks “Can objects, even if nothing is known about how they arose, exhibit features that reliably signal the action of an intelligent cause?” Many ID proponents answer this question emphatically in the affirmative, claiming that Complex Specified Information is a metric that clearly indicates intelligent agency. As someone with a strong interest in computational biology, evolutionary algorithms, and genetic programming, this strikes me as the most readily testable claim made by ID proponents. For some time I’ve been trying to learn enough about CSI to be able to measure it objectively and to determine whether or not known evolutionary mechanisms are capable of generating it. Unfortunately, what I’ve found is quite a bit of confusion about the details of CSI, even among its strongest advocates.

My first detailed discussion was with UD regular gpuccio, in a series of four threads hosted by Mark Frank. While we didn’t come to any resolution, we did cover a number of details that might be of interest to others following the topic.

CSI came up again in a recent thread here on UD. I asked the participants there to assist me in better understanding CSI by providing a rigorous mathematical definition and showing how to calculate it for four scenarios:

1. A simple gene duplication, without subsequent modification, that increases production of a particular protein from less than X to greater than X. The specification of this scenario is “Produces at least X amount of protein Y.”
2. Tom Schneider’s ev evolves genomes using only simplified forms of known, observed evolutionary mechanisms, that meet the specification of “A nucleotide that binds to exactly N sites within the genome.” The length of the genome required to meet this specification can be quite long, depending on the value of N. (ev is particularly interesting because it is based directly on Schneider’s PhD work with real biological organisms.)
3. Tom Ray’s Tierra routinely results in digital organisms with a number of specifications. One I find interesting is “Acts as a parasite on other digital organisms in the simulation.” The length of the shortest parasite is at least 22 bytes, but takes thousands of generations to evolve.
4. The various Steiner Problem solutions from a programming challenge a few years ago have genomes that can easily be hundreds of bits. The specification for these genomes is “Computes a close approximation to the shortest connected path between a set of points.”

The ID-ers seem unable to provide MathGrrl with what should be very simple to provide. Nevertheless, the obvious question is where is the presiding ID mathematician William Dembski? His absence is now conspicuous.

I predict that he is busy furiously writing a carefully worded response to MathGrrl, in which he says she has misunderstood his work

Pay Down Debt or Build Up Savings?

From Weakonomics: In the household, you want to keep revolving credit at a minimum, and at least not exceed your savings over the long term. In other words, save enough money to cover your revolving debts, if you insist on running up the debts. This has the effect on this chart of keeping the blue line above the red. What’s good for the economy may be a greater use of debt.

I recently had the fortunate opportunity to consider whether, given a sum of money, it would be better to pay down debt or to build up savings.

Ultimately, I favored a combination approach. But the really valuable knowledge I gained by thinking about the issue was that I needed to pay more attention to my debt-to-savings ratio and to converting debt into savings.

Here’s how I rationalized the problem.

Imagine that you owe a friend 12 marbles. Because you have a limited monthly marble budget, you agree to provide at least two marbles until you have paid the debt in full.

Month number	1	2	3	4	5	6	Total
Number of marbles	2	2	2	2	2	2	12 marbles (2x6)

Now, imagine that every month your actual marble budget is three marbles. This means that you can either (1) Pay two marbles per month and save the third or (2) Pay three marbles per month until the debt is paid, after which time you begin to save at a rate of three marbles per month.

In the two scenarios, the distributions of marbles are as follows:

Option 1

Month number	1	2	3	4	5	6	Total
Number of “debt” marbles	2	2	2	2	2	2	12 marbles (2x6)
Number of saved marbles	1	1	1	1	1	1	6 marbles (1x6)
Total	3	3	3	3	3	3	18 marbles

Option 2

Month number	1	2	3	4	5	6	Total
Number of “debt” marbles	3	3	3	3	0	0	12 marbles (3x4)
Number of saved marbles	0	0	0	0	3	3	6 marbles (3x2)
Total	3	3	3	3	3	3	18 marbles

In Option 1, you manage debt payments and slowly build savings. In Option 2, you pay your debt as quickly as possible and then build savings. In neither case are you really better off at the end of six months.

But the critical difference is this: In Option 2, at the end of Month 4 you have no spare marbles. Were a new debt to arise in Month 5, you would be in trouble. You would have to borrow or dip into credit.

In Option 1, however, at the end of Month 4 you have four marbles available to deal with at least some new debt. Option 1 empowers you in a way that Option 2 doesn’t.

Option 2 depends on a rather Utopian fantasy that no new debt situation will emerge. Option 2 is a fantasy that one day you will be completely debt free.Then—and only then—will you start saving.

I think reality is actually quite different, and so Option 1 makes more practical sense. One way to think about it is that Option 1 adds one new debt to the mix: you.

So, my household plan is to establish regular monthly savings and build out the stored account (cash on hand) while paying and reducing our current debt at the levels we have been already. Instead of using “extra” money only to pay down debt, we’ll use it also to pay up out savings.

Longer term, the plan is to move certain sums into investments such as IRA accounts, mutual funds, and bonds. I’ll have to re-visit this post next year and see if anything’s come of the plan.

Or if I've lost my marbles. (Come on, that's the obligatory marble joke.)

Autistic Son, Artistic Daughter

Spring 2003: Enjoying the time with my oldest girl.

I had a strange and wonderful weekend. It began on Friday afternoon, when I learned from my wife that the doctors at Children's Hospital in Boston had diagnosed our son as autistic.

I'm still reeling from this pronouncement because I hadn't expected it. My wife and I knew our son had some language delays and rigid behaviors. We understood that he was certainly on that autism spectrum. But we never thought he would be diagnosed as actual autistic. His intellectual, social, and behavioral patterns have always seemed just slightly away from where we thought they should be. And, thanks to Early Intervention, he has made great progress in the past year. So, we were surprised.

My son is now three years old. His birthday is today. I got to spend lots of one-on-one time with him yesterday, and I watched him play at his auntie's house this evening. He's a very sweet kid. He's funny and happy and adventurous. I worry about not parenting him right, about not pushing when I should or pushing too much when I should back off. But I believe in him, and I think he'll be able to continue his growth this year. And while I would never wish for anyone to be autistic, I am glad that my son is who he is. Autistic or not, it doesn't change how I feel about him. I know we all have a long and difficult road in front of us. I completely embrace the opportunity to travel it with my son, my wife, and our family.

My oldest girl turned eight on Saturday, that is, yesterday. She's a lot like my son: intense, energetic, occasionally acting inappropriately in social settings. She's become a big reader. She reads in bed every night. My wife and I worry that she perhaps has some autism spectrum disorder that's been overlooked. My son's condition is a bit more obvious and stereotypical, but perhaps in girls the signs present differently because of different social pressures and biological tendencies.

Although I won't be surprised if my daughter is confirmed to be along the autism spectrum more than most average people, I suspect that the truth is my daughter already wants more out of her life than we can give her at home. She wants attention, she wants to sing and dance, she wants to direct and lead. She has plans and schemes, and her family can't really help her realize them. She is essentially an artist struggling to find her medium and make her style. At some point in her journey, she'll have to leave her family behind.

I have an autistic son and an artistic daughter. It's a wonder, all right. It's a wonder. Hence, the title of this post.

I Don't Believe in Bibles: The A-Bible-ist

"I don't believe in Beatles. I just believe in me. Yoko and me."

I'm probably more of an a-Bible-ist than an Atheist.

Rejecting gods, after all, is fairly trivial. The important realization is that the Bible is not authoritative as a moral, historical, or "spiritual" work. It's not a hard realization to come to, if one is willing to explore the issues honestly, but it can be a difficult realization to accept because acceptance has implications in one's views of most everything in the world, including oneself.

Those of you not from a Jewish background need to understand that the Jewish Bible is not the Christian Bible. The Jewish Bible includes the Torah, the books of the prophets, the other writings, and the Oral Torah. Christian and Islamic traditions have a different conception of the Bible's books, their order, and their significance. These latter traditions also reject the authority of Oral Torah. For modern Jews, however, Bible and Talmud emanate from the same authoritative time and space--Mount Sinai. Some others include the mystical writings of the Zohar as a third set of instructions given directly from Sinai.

I accept none of this, as I came to recognize and accept that the Bible (whether Jewish or Christian) was inconsistent, unreliable, and often contemptible. To be fair, I find there to be much beauty and wisdom in the Bible, too. Nevertheless, we as a society are ill-served by allowing the myths surrounding the Bible to stand uncorrected. The Bible isn't from God, it's not of "divine inspiration," it's neither inerrant nor infallible, and it's not a paragon of morality.

I have written before about the impossibilities in the Bible. I have talked a bit about its moral insufficiency. I have talked about textual inconsistencies. Today, I want to provide guidance for more information on the Bible's failed prophecies, scientific inaccuracies, and historical inaccuracies.

1. Failed Prophecies
First of all, as the people at TalkOrigins explain, predictions of the future can be fulfilled in many ways:

1. Retrodiction. The "prophecy" can be written or modified after the events fulfilling it have already occurred.
2. Vagueness. The prophecy can be worded in such a way that people can interpret any outcome as a fulfillment. Nostradomus's prophecies are all of this type. Vagueness works particularly well when people are religiously motivated to believe the prophecies.
3. Inevitability. The prophecy can predict something that is almost sure to happen, such as the collapse of a city. Since nothing lasts forever, the city is sure to fall someday. If it has not, it can be said that according to prophecy, it will.
4. Denial. One can claim that the fulfilling events occurred even if they have not. Or, more commonly, one can forget that the prophecy was ever made.
5. Self-fulfillment. A person can act deliberately to satisfy a known prophecy.

There are no prophecies in the Bible that cannot easily fit into one or more of those categories.

For much more on biblical prophecy failure, see Farrell Till's illuminating article, "Prophecies: Imaginary and Unfulfilled." Till is an interesting guy. He has more articles on the subject of prophecy here.

2. Scientific Inaccuracies
As religious apologists are wont to tell us, the Bible is not a science book. Of course, they immediately turn around and tell us it is a reliable source of scientific information.

Exhibit A: The Bible is not a science book, yet it is scientifically accurate. We are not aware of any scientific evidence that contradicts the Bible. We have listed statements on this page that are consistent with known scientific facts. Many of them were listed in the Bible hundreds or even thousands of years before being recorded elsewhere.

Exhibit B: Though the Bible is not a science book, when it touches on scientific matters it is either completely accurate or non-contradictory, and often demonstrates remarkable fore-knowledge. There are many scientific facts mentioned in the Bible that were not understood by man until centuries after the Bible was written.

Exhibit C: The Bible is not a science text-book. Nonetheless, whatever the Scriptures mention is always scientific. Notice these accurate Bible statements: "It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants are as grasshoppers" (Isa.40:22). This verse clearly shows that the earth is round, even though man did not "discover" this fact by himself centuries later after this was written. "He [God]...hangeth the earth upon nothing" (Job 26:7). The earth is held in orbit around the sun by the law of gravity. but it is not fastened to anything material. Notice the truth in this biblical statement: "through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen [the physical universe] were not made of things which do appear" (Heb 11:3). In plain language, this verse says that God created the physical, material, tangible, nonphysical essence--out of spirit or spirit essence.

The amazing fore-knowledge of the Bible just ain't so when examined honestly. A case in point is that "circle of the earth" bit, which refers to the horizon and not to the idea of a spherical earth. Besides, the Bible makes plenty of mistakes. For a good, albeit cursory, assessment of the Bible's scientific errors, see RationalWiki. Also see "Was the Bible's Cosmology Ahead of Its Time?"

3. Historical Inaccuracies
No one, not even me, would be surprised if we were to learn that some--many, even--named characters in the Bible corresponded to real people. In fact, I'm sure many events are based on historical happenings. Nevertheless, the Bible is inaccurate in several places. I recommend visiting The Scripture Project for a review of these.

Some notables:

• Daniel 1:1--The third year of the reign of Jehoiakim would be 606 BCE, at which time Nebuchadnezzar was not yet king of Babylon. It was 597 BCE that Nebuchadnezzar invaded Jerusalem for the first time (without actually destroying it). By that time Jehohiakim was dead and his son, Jehoiachin, was ruling. (From TSP)
• Deuteronomy 7:1--These nations [i.e., the Hittites, Girgashites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites, and Jebusites] were “greater and mightier” than the Israelites, who according to Exodus 12:37 and Numbers 1:45-46 already had numbered several million. So the region, according to the bible, must have had a population of more than twenty million! (From TSP)
• James 5:17--Three and a half years without rain? Hmm....
• Joshua 8:28--forever, huh?

What's the point? The point is that there are many other books out there, and many of them are more deserving of time, reflection, and commentary than the Bible. There's no need to fetishize one book or one narrative. Our lives and our minds are too precious and too short to be invested in the cultic outgrowths of Bibical interpretation.


As for me, I don't believe in any book. I just believe in my prerogative to read and love as many as I choose and as many as I am able.

NFL Playoff Predictions, Divisional Round

New York Jets fans will fulfill their destiny to become totally unbearable should Mark Sanchez (right) and the Jets defeat Tom Brady (left) and the AFC #1 seed New England Patriots.

Since I did so well last time (hey, I did get the Ravens and Packers calls sort of right!), here are my picks for the NFL divisional playoffs:

• Baltimore Ravens at Pittsburgh Steelers: Ravens 16, Steelers 20. This will be a physically punishing game on both sides and in all phases. I expect--but don't want---some big injuries on both sides.

• Green Bay Packers at Atlanta Falcons: Packers 24, Falcons 17. The Packers are Super Bowl bound, I believe. I hope the Falcons can pull this off because if the Patriots were to reach the SB, the Packers are the team that would concern me most. Atlanta is a great team, though, and I think they could win this game and go all the way. In fact, I'll predict here and now that the winner of this game will represent the NFC in the Super Bowl.

• Seattle Seahawks at Chicago Bears: Seahawks 10, Bears 28. No way the Seahawks win this one.

• New York Jets at New England Patriots: Jets 17, Patriots 41. I can see this being a very close game decided by the final possession or a total blowout with the Pats crushing the Jets. But I think the more likely scenario is that Belichick and Brady will deliver issue an epic beatdown of the Jets. The game may be personal to Ryan (and virile cornerback Antonio Cromartie), but it's all business to Belichick and Brady. Ryan and co. need to learn to keep their traps shut, and America will enjoy watching Rex mumble dejectedly through a teary post-game press conference.

But I'm no Jets hater. So, for all fans of the Jets and Feet-a-saurus Rex:

Onion SportsDome

NFL Playoff Predictions, Wild Card Weekend (2010 Season)

Obligatory Jim Mora "Playoffs?!?!" image.

My picks for the wild card round:

• New Orleans Saints at Seattle Seahawks: Saints 24, Seahawks 10. The Saints will play a consistent game and put it away in the 4th quarter.

• New York Jets at Indianapolis Colts: Jets 16, Colts 31. This will look like a close game until the 3rd quarter, when the Colts pull away and the Jets stay flat.

• Baltimore Ravens at Kansas City Chiefs: Ravens 23, Chiefs 20. This will be a bruising game. Flacco will keep the Ravens moving downfield for scoring opportunities.

• Green Bay Packers at Philadelphia Eagles: Packers 27, Eagles 24. A field goal at the end decides this one. Rogers and Vick will shine.

Evidently, We Don't All Want to Just Get Along

When will next time be, ya think?

This is not a political blog, although I touch on political matters from time to time. American political discourse is exceedingly ugly right now, having reached strange and disturbing proportions.

Exhibit 1: Glenn Beck of Fox News on financier George Soros.

Exhibit 2: A Google search for "Obama" on Blogger sites:

"Barack Obama Verses Israel And Uncle Sam"

"Cantor promises to check Obama on Israel"

"More evidence that Obama is in over his head in foreign policy"

"Obama's Slave Ship"

"Obama And Pelosi Sitting In A Tree..... K.I.S.S.I.N.G"

"Can Obama Do For Big Business With Social Security What Clinton Delivered For Them With "Free" Trade?"

"Obama Team's Deficit Cutting Proposal: Benefit the Few, Harm the Many"

Exhibit 3: A Google search for "Palin" on Blogger sites:

"Some good signs for Palin"

"Governor Sarah Palin’s 'America By Heart' 16-City Book Tour Schedule"

"Top Palin advisor, Randy Scheunemann, on Soros payroll"

"Is Sarah Palin Right About Inflation?"

Exhibit 4: A Google search for "Cheney" on Blogger sites:

"Thank You, Dick Cheney, For Giving Me the Proper Words #p2 Go fuck yourself"

"Dick Cheney's role in Al Qaeda's Yemeni resurgence..."

"About the guy "Big Dick" Cheney shot"

"Dick Cheney Appears 'Gaunt and Frail' at Bakersfield Business Conference — Leftists Celebrate With Death Chants"

Fortunately, not all the post titles (and not all the articles) are what many of us would call "bat-shit insane," but plenty enough are. I know well that the nature of blogging is to sensationalize one's views and reactions to the world. That Glenn Beck report, however, is scary-awful with its fear-mongering, sinister implications, and dark presentation--this is from a major news outlet! 

People seem to take their anti-whatevers (anti-Obama, anti-Republican) seriously. I don't think the trend to extremist political discourse is going to wane, at least not until a violent incident of sufficient significance can be traced back directly to this discourse. I imagine some network will get its own Scott Amedure moment someday. This event seems inevitable. The only question is whether we'll all be too far gone for it to have any cathartic effect.

My Goal's Beyond

John Milton, we all know, wrote Paradise Lost "to justify the ways of God to men." My goals in Textuality are slightly more modest than Milton's but exponentially more important: I write to explain my ideas and opinions to my children. I write to my wife, my brothers, my parents, my friends, and to anyone else who may be interested.

How many of us know what our mothers and fathers truly feel and think? How many get the chance to see the world through their eyes and approach ideas the way they do?

My goal for this blog is to make this knowledge and sight available to my loved ones, should they ever want to explore. I want them to know what I think and why. I want them to understand what I think, even if they do not agree with the thoughts. I want them to know that I think. I want them to realize that I am most comfortable writing and considering ideas.

I started Textuality in 2005, following the painful but necessary abandonment (temporary, it now seems) of my dissertation and my aspirations for doctorate in English. At that time, my aims for the blog were to to continue working, informally, in textuality:

This blog has been initiated and inaugurated to serve as a forum on textuality. Specifically, it is intended to support the analysis and understanding of current events, issues, and debates from the standpoint of textuality.

As I understand textuality, it is the quality possessed by a tangible thing of being a text. To proceed further, a text is a tangible thing – such as a piece of paper, a book, a Web page or Internet site, an onstage or onscreen performance, a painting, a sculpture, a building, a location in nature, and so on – that is understood to be or to be comprised of one or more signs. Signs may contain one or more signifying elements, but their referents are conceived of as statements of thought intended to be communicated.

I had hoped to build a site that would become the foremost authority on textuality. In practice, however, I used the blog as a diary. The personal and rather whiny nature of the blog during these early days was one reason (there were others) I took the pseudonym "Larry Tanner," a nickname someone gave me in college. Recently I have flirted with the idea of "coming out" and using my real name, but I already have other blogs under my real name. "Larry Tanner" has become like a separate identity, and I enjoy playing this role. So for now, the pseudonym stays.

Early on in the life of the blog, I seemed to lose interest. In 2006, I posted only one entry, and it was a personal disclosure:

It's almost been one year since I last posted here. Let's see: one child, two marathons, and some marital beauty and ugliness later, now I'm posting again.

I don't know why, exactly, I would even think of coming back. I'm struggling with something. I'm just not satisfied. I'm losing confidence and feel like I'm running out of time.

Hmm ... isn't this kind of what I said last year too?

The post above sounds rather bleak and self-chastising. I do that much less now, for whatever reasons. I remember some of the days of 2006. Our family was strapped for cash, stressed with the new baby, dissatisfied with my workplace, bewildered by my wife's depression, and dealing with my dislike of the wife's new church. We had issues, then, but we also had lots of happiness and love, too. In any case, I suppose my attention was best directed elsewhere than the blog.

Although I posted intermittently in 2007, the great change for Textuality came in 2008. Precipitating the change was my accepting a ghostwriting gig. As I began the gig and the writing involved, I did not foresee any shifts in my personal views but I did sense trouble between my author friend/employer and myself:

In the writing, I am finding a lot of passion and struggle in myself. It's good, I'm learning a lot and swaying between almost complete atheism and firm religious belief. It's interesting. There are just so many great perspectives available online. I am glad that I am able to be swayed. I am not an easy sway, but my openness is partly what makes it all work. Now, it could be that my author is not happy with what I have drafted. If that's the case, then we surely will not be able to work together.

Partly as a result of this gig, I took sides in the larger cultural squabbles concerning atheism and religion. I posted a big admission in November of 2008:

Do I believe in G-d? The answer is no, but it’s not an unequivocal no. It is a no of belief: I do not feel sure enough to have the scales tipped toward faith. I have little confidence that I ever will...and I am OK with this.

The character of my posts changed slowly. Throughout 2008 and into 2009, I was writing reactive stuff: I'd read an article or another blog post and then respond. I don't think I struck upon a clearer identity for Textuality until October 2009, with one post on Bob Dylan and another on the debates of atheists and religious believers.

With these essays, I brought out (at last) my full voice. I sought to make my points personal, original, unambiguous, and unfiltered. I tried to quote liberally and in context. I wanted to work through quotes slowly, patiently, and in detail. I aimed to have posts work as part of a larger, ongoing conversation between myself and the world.

In July of this year, I thought I'd exhausted my thoughts on atheism and religion. I intended to post mostly on Walt Whitman to find other topics of interest. I said then:

I have interests in addition to Atheism that deserve fuller and more sustained expression by me. I want to explore other aspects of this wonderful world, such as the poetry of its people, the conflicts of its nations and civilizations, and the endeavors of its animal inhabitants.

This statement remains true, even if I have not done as much about it (so far) as I might like. Indeed, recently I've been quite focused on topics in and around atheism and religion. Yet I've been generally pleased about the posts on the Kuzari Principle and on ultimate meaning.

One day, I hope to gather maybe 25-50 posts, organize them, and self -publish a book of the best and most enduring posts in Textuality.This book will be for the kids, mainly, not for sale or money. My focus today is on addressing topics that interest me but that also allow me to express ideas and opinions I haven't said before.

I have much, much more to write in this blog--about atheism, religion, family, aging, poetry, jokes, work, politics, and more. I anticipate the days and years ahead. Perhaps a post already written or yet to come will serve as pre-text for one or more face-to-face discussions with my children and/or with my wife.

This is a core element of my thinking: anything I write should have an application in real life. My blog life as "Larry Tanner" is a reflection and premonition of the life where I am interacting with actual human beings in real space-time. I would never want a blog that was all and only "in" the blogosphere.

I expect that if I keep up with Textuality, it will continue to morph. After all, I am still growing as an intellect and as a person, and I have much to explain and share. I cannot say whether the future will be good or bad. I hope it's more of the good, but who knows? The writing is part of what I can do. Textuality is part of my pro-activity.

How I Voted Today

The candidates for governor of Massachusetts surround TV host Jon Keller: Charlie Baker, Tim Cahill, Deval Patrick, and Jill Stein.

I like to vote early, and my ballot is officially in. This has been a high-profile and charged political season. I'm glad to see it winding down.

For Massachusetts governor, I chose Deval Patrick (D) over Charlie Baker (R). I think Patrick's become a good manager of the Commonwealth, and I think his priorities are in order. Baker's obviously a very bright guy and would make a competent governor. In the end, I felt that Patrick had done nothing to lose the chance to continue leading, and that Baker had not convinced me either that a change was direly needed or that he was the best agent for it.

The Massachusetts ballot questions are very important this year.

Question 1: Sales Tax on Alcoholic Beverages
Question 2: Comprehensive Permits for Low- or Moderate- Income Housing
Question 3: Sales and Use Tax Rates

I voted yes on Question 1, which means I want to remove the state sales tax on alcoholic beverages and alcohol where their sale or importation into the state is subject to an excise tax under state law.

Question 2 got a vote of no from me. I agree with the "against" position, which states:

This referendum would abolish the primary tool to create affordable housing in Massachusetts without providing any alternatives. Housing in Massachusetts is very expensive. We need to protect the Affordable Housing Law so that seniors and working families can afford to buy homes here. The Affordable Housing Law has created 58,000 homes across the state and is responsible for approximately 80% of new affordable housing over the past decade, outside the larger cities. Repealing this law will mean the loss of badly needed construction jobs. Thousands of homes that have already been approved for development will not be built if this law is repealed. Homes and jobs will be lost, and there will be less affordable housing for seniors and working families. A coalition of hundreds of civic, municipal, business, environmental and religious leaders, including the League of Women Voters and AARP, urge you to vote No.

I voted no on Question 3. Like many others, I feel over-taxed. However, I also appreciate the very many services that my taxes help pay for, such as Early Intervention.

I am pessimistic about how my fellow voters will go on my votes. The governor's race will be close, but I think Baker will be the winner. I predict yes on #1 will win handily. But no on #2 will probably go down, also handily. Question #3 is the really interesting one. I actually think it will be close. I'm inclined to think no on #3 will win out, but I won't be surprised with the opposite result.

What Will Happen in the MA/US Housing Market?

[A Recent "Jump" in the Housing Market]

An AP story in today's Boston.com reports: "Sales of new homes surged 27 percent last month, bouncing off the previous month's record low and blowing past expectations as government incentives and better weather boosted sales."

Not everyone views this jump as good news. One pseudonymous commenter writes:

This is a blimp [sic] on the radar cause [sic] by the government! Here are the reasons why the housing market will continue to drop:

1. Fed's 8K house credit will end in April.
2. 10% unemployment with a higher under employment rate.
3. Fed ended the purchase of 1.2 trillion dollars of mortgage backed securities.
4. Higher percentage of people underwater. This will only mean more strategic foreclosures.
5. Feds to raise interest rate in the near future.
6. Lending standards will continue to tighten especially when Feds are no longer a player in the mortgage business.
7. In today's market, the average income cannot buy the average house.
8. More ARMs will reset this year and next year.

Buying a house now is like catching a falling knife! I find it ironic that our government caused this mess by trying to legislate "affordable housing" and now trying to legislate unaffordable housing.

Let's wait and see if the predictions bear out!

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

UPDATE: Last year I posted about a prediction that came to me in the form of an email sales pitch. The emailer predicted a dramatic rise in mortgage defaults and foreclosures. Around that time, MarketWatch.com was reporting:

According to the MBA's quarterly National Delinquency Survey, 1.37% of mortgages entered the foreclosure process in the first quarter, up from 1.08% in the fourth quarter.

Total foreclosure inventory was also up, with 3.85% of all mortgages somewhere in the foreclosure process at the end of the first quarter, compared with 3.3% in the fourth quarter -- also a record jump. The delinquency rate, which includes loans that are at least one payment past due but not those in foreclosure, was a seasonally adjusted 9.12%, up from 7.88% in the fourth quarter.

The Washington-based MBA survey covers 45 million mortgages, representing between 80% and 85% of all first-lien residential mortgages outstanding in the United States.

Here is data from February 19 of this year:

The delinquency rate for mortgages on one- to four-unit residential properties was a seasonally adjusted 9.47% of all mortgages outstanding in the fourth quarter, down from 9.64% in the third quarter and up from 7.88% in the fourth quarter of 2008, according to the MBA's quarterly delinquency survey. Delinquencies include mortgages that are at least one payment or more past due but not yet in foreclosure.

Meanwhile, 1.2% of outstanding mortgages entered the foreclosure process in the fourth quarter, down from 1.42% in the third quarter and up from 1.08% in the fourth quarter of 2008.

The percentage of mortgages at some point in the foreclosure process at the end of the fourth quarter was 4.58%, up from 4.47% in the third quarter and 3.3% in the fourth quarter of 2008.

Although I think the seller inflated language a bit, I'd say the prediction was accurate, by and large.

Growing in Reason: Talking to Children About Unbelief

One thing in my life that excites me is the native intelligence of my children. For example, just this weekend my older daughter lost a tooth, her third or fourth. That night, she put her tooth under her pillow for the tooth fairy. Next morning, she found one dollar. Later on, she suggested that she thought maybe Mommy or me had been giving her money for the teeth. I told her the truth, and she seemed happy to have figured it out first.

One day, maybe soon, she'll want to talk to me about God. She'll ask why I don't believe in God. What will I tell her?

(1) "Believe in God" is the wrong expression. I believe in you. I don't believe that God exists.

(2) You've gone to temple/church/whatever. You have seen people you know and love who pray to God as if He really existed. You have been told stories that are presented as true, as if they really happened. But the fact is that no one knows whether God truly exists. The stories started a long time ago and they have undergone many changes. Many people believe the stories because they believe what they are told by others whom they love and respect. Many people like all the friends they have in the group of believers. Many people like the idea that even when they are alone, they can have someone who sees them and is interested in what they do. But what people like and what's true are not always the same thing. People may want the stories to be true, but that does not mean they are true.

(3) There are many, many religions. There are also many, many gods. Most every group that's ever been has tried to explain the world by using gods to be responsible for the things that came before. Our planet and our universe are wonderful things, and it's not easy to discover how they got to be the way they are. Every religion thinks that its god is the answer and that all the other religions are wrong.

(4) We are learning so much about the universe, the world, and humanity. We use scientific methods to help us separate what might really be true from what we think might be true. And the more we learn, the more wonderful it all seems. On the other hand, with everything we learn, it becomes less likely that God really exists. No God and no heaven, but no devil and no hell either.

(5) We have each other. We have our lives together. We have our minds. We have our dreams. All of this is real enough. We talk to each other and we talk to ourselves. We laugh and we share. We sing and we learn. Why wonder about God when our lives are already filled with wonder?

(6) You are my child and I am your father. This is always true, no matter what you or I believe about God/no-God. As we live, learn, change, and move on, we'll think many things. We'll believe many things. We'll settle matters and then later overturn them. But you are always my child and I am always your father. This is one true thing, and that's all we need to build happy lives.

If Atheism Is False, Then...

Occasionally, someone will ask me what I would do if Atheism were untrue. Frequently, what the questioner really wants to know is why I don't just play it safe (a la Pascal's Wager) by maintaining a position that asserts theistic belief but also recognizes important issues that would lead anyone to have questions or doubts. To the questioner, these issues usually include the problem of evil, the contradiction of science and religion, and the lack of direct and verifiable evidence of God's existence.

Setting aside Pascal's Wager, however, I think the original question is very interesting on its own and deserves attention. If Atheism is untrue, then theism is true. And then...

**Insert Television Dream Transition Waves Here**

(1) There exist in our world one or more gods, immortal beings able to control and transcend the laws of physics, and able to understand the thoughts of mortal beings.

(2) One or more gods is responsible for beginning of the universe, for everything in it, and for everything that happens in it.

(3) Other supernatural beings exist, although they may not be fully divine. Angels, demons, cherubs, and so on, all inhabit the world. Often, they are invisible. Ghosts, too, probably exist.

(4) Other realms exist, such as heaven and hell, and they lie beyond space and time. They exist invisible and undetectable in our world.

(5) People and perhaps other beings all contain an invisible and undetectable soul, which existed before life and exists after death.

(6) After spending a relatively very short time on Earth, every single immortal soul becomes judged by one or more gods for the actions of the human who housed that soul. The results of that judgment determine the soul's permanent residence in either heaven or hell.

(7) Human knowledge of time, space, history, medicine, law and life all become invalid because our perspective is wrong and our data leads to false conclusions.

(8) One or more human religious traditions describes the revelation of the divine to some or all humanity.

(9) Human activity and energy should be spent on an unceasing quest to establish which religious traditions, if any, express the true relationship of humanity to the deity or deities. If we people don't know how to relate properly to the divine, then our souls will perish and be punished for ever. So we need to know the right religions: we should study them all carefully and have tools to distinguish more accurate from less accurate traditions.

(10) The vast majority of humanity has already found their souls condemned eternally. Now, just stop and think for a moment about the number of human beings who have lived on this Earth and died over the past thousands and millions of years. We're talking billions upon billions of people, are we not? Reflect on what percentage of these people are now suffering in hell and what percent are playing badminton in heaven if Atheism is untrue.

I imagine that we could easily expand this list, some of the items above could be explained more or tweaked in this way or that, but the bottom line is this:

If Atheism is false and God exists (or gods do), then our world is actually nothing at all like we experience it in our daily lives or like we know it through our sciences.

Forget Pascal's Wager! People should be more concerned about the Common Sense Wager: If Atheism is false, then you (yes, you) are very probably going to spend eternity in hell!

I note with some sense of irony that #9 makes a very good reason to develop science and scientific methods. Because of scientific methods and processes we seem able to learn about the universe. We seem able to increase our knowledge in it and of it. We seem able to devise ways to overcome our natural limitations (physical, intellectual, rational) and arrive at better models of the truth of things. For these reasons, I have confidence that the Atheist conclusion is correct and the theist conclusion is incorrect. Furthermore, I see theist beliefs -- all of them -- becoming harder and harder to justify.