Je suis pas Charlie

I am an ass. And damn proud of it too.

--Charlie

I am not Charlie. Charlie is an ass. But I am Charlie's brother; I love Charlie and believe that even though he is an ass, he deserves to live a life free from fear. It doesn't matter that Charlie makes fun of things you hold dear.

They were human. Just like you. Each of the cartoonists at Charlie Hebdo was a human; with a life; and a family and friends. You killed Charlie, you bastards! I feel angry. I am furious. You behaved like a two-year-old throwing a tantrum. "You don't hit!" I tell my kids. You don't kill, I tell the adults. WTF!?! I shouldn't have to tell you that. I don't even have words for this.

Words are just that, words. They may hurt, but they don't kill. Drawings are just another form of words. Words that are blasphemous to one may not be to another. Given the vast variety of religions and gods that are held in belief by the human population on this planet, the list of blasphemies that could be uttered is very long indeed. And it is not possible to circumlocute around all of them. We, as a species need to develop a thicker skin; be slower to take offense, even when offense was inteded.

The artists of Charlie Hebdo are magnificent at what they do. They poke fun at everything. Nothing is sacred. In fact if it *is* sacred to someone, they will likely poke fun at it just because it is. This is why I say they are asses. I commonly refer to Richard Dawkins as an ass as well. Sometimes it takes an ass to get the point across because all of us pansies are carefully tiptoeing around, too afraid to offend. So I stand up for Charlie Hebdo and their right to be a collective ass.

I am a pacifist. I do not believe that killing of another human is ever justified. Let me make that clear. Killing is always the wrong answer, even if the other person is an ass.

To Believe is to Believe

No amount of belief will make something a fact.

--James Randi

Human brains are hard-wired to make connections and form conclusions that become beliefs. The weird thing is that we don't really get to choose what we believe; well, not so much as a conscious decision as choosing what to wear each day. Indirectly, it does seem that we can open our minds to new information, causing internal conflict which may or may not get resolved as a change in belief.

Take, for instance the 2013 case of Republican Senator Rob Portman's views on gay marriage. As a Republican, he was obligated to tow the line on defence of 'traditional' marriage. His personal views on the matter were likely in line with the party views as well. His world gets shaken up when his son reveals he is gay. Two years of cognitive dissonance and then the Senator announces that he supports gay marriage. This could have played out in a number of ways. Some people disown children that lead lives that are different than their own. Others attempt to ignore the elephant in the room and pretend that their own reality is the one true reality. But Senator Portman's stance on gay marriage changed. He said, "Ultimately, for me, it came down to the Bible's overarching themes of love and compassion and my belief that we are all children of God." The fact of the matter is that we are all humans, whether or not you believe that we are children of any god. We should treat our fellow humans with respect and allow them every right that we would like to enjoy ourselves. You know, the Golden Rule (and the Silver Rule too.)

But sometimes it is hard to see the end game because of our own blindness. What blinds us? Belief. Belief is an irrational mess of neural connections in the brain that causes a person to link some concept with the notion of truth. It is the neural equivalent of a logical identity. It does not require any proof; it just IS. We fill our brains with these beliefs with one informing and changing the next, the whole of which becomes the basis for our world view. The world view filters and influences every new concept and event that enters the brain. These new filtered thoughts then affect our world view; sometimes reinforcing it, sometimes tearing it down for realignment. But it all boils down to the fact that our brains are squishy and fuzzy when it comes to logic and rationality; these two concepts rarely have much sway when we are encountering new ideas. Mostly we believe what we believe because we believe what we believe. People with degrees in this field call this confirmation bias.

So you see, to believe is to believe; it has nothing to do with facts, logic, rational conclusions, or reality. But just because you believe something does not make it a fact.

Once I understood the concept of confirmation bias, I was able to start to see instances where my own beliefs were influencing me, causing me to reject logical or otherwise rational thought because it did not mesh with my current belief system. And then as you know it all fell apart (i.e. my religious foundations crumbled) and I had to start questioning all my beliefs to see if they were founded in reality or if they were floating, supporting themselves by the power of confirmation bias. But I am in a better place now, mentally. I don't have to juggle so many things and my shelf, the things I have questions about, is much less about god and religion and more about life, the universe, and everything. This is not to say that I have conquered confirmation bias; that is not possible. My brain is still every bit as irrational and squishy as it ever was, but now I am much more open to the idea that my belief system might be systemically wrong. Maybe now, you might say that I have to take the periodic effort to prune my belief garden, looking for un-rooted beliefs and moving them over to the unfounded idea museum where live the invisible pink unicorn, Santa Claus, fairies, and yes, all the gods.

Thinking outside of the box

I recently attempted to engage in civil discussion about the Ordain Women (OW) movement in a forum. How did that go, you ask? Not so well. I mean I am pretty it was a waste of time and effort because everything I said fell on deaf ears. It turns out that there are some topics in Mormonism that are taboo to the point of anathema. Literally. There is a woman professor at this very moment under 'investigation' at BYU-Idaho for expressing her personal opinion on her Facebook page. A former student read her remarks and anonymously turned her in to the honor code office. Now has to talk with her bishop, department head, maybe the dean, and who knows what after that to see if she is aligned with the school honor code and church views. Yikes. If she is found to not align with the honor code and church views, her job could be terminated. Anathema.

This is how Mormonism forces people to tow the party line. You agree with us or you get kicked out (and by inference go to Hell.) Some topics are worse than others, but any outspoken idea that does not fit within the correlated doctrine of the church can put you on the outside. OW is one of those ideas. And really it is not so far fetched. Other Christian churches have allowed women (or gasp! homosexuals) become ministers or pastors holding the priesthood. But not Mormonism. It is still waiting for God to reveal to its privileged, white, male, prejudiced leadership that this is the right thing to do. But this won't happen any time soon because the patriarchy must protect its position of power. Don't even mention that SO many women could be wonderful bishops or other leaders. So many are willing and able. The church is overlooking half of its adult population for positions of service just because they are female.

[ It turns out that your experience will widely vary from ward to ward, stake to stake. The ward I am currently in, though not exactly active, has a very understanding bishop, who really is Christ-like and loving. He knows who I am and what I believe (or don't, as the case may be) and all he asks is, "Is there anything I can do for you or your family?" Awesome. Now if all wards and stakes in the church could be so inclusive. ]

Another form of sanction besides excommunication is revocation of a temple recommend. One of the questions is: "Do you support, affiliate with, or agree with any group or individual whose teachings or practices are contrary to or oppose those accepted by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints?" So agreeing with OW at this point in time is technically in violation of the questions asked to get a temple recommend. Apparently I am not worthy.

There is so much vitriol on Facebook and other social media sites against any pro-OW discussion. Only in private circles does any reasonable discussion take place. The funniest thing about this is that the people who are so anti-OW would likely about face if the prophet came out tomorrow and announced that women are now eligible for the priesthood. But until that happens, the topic is not up for discussion. Shut it down.

But who am I to talk? I opened my mind to discussion and new ideas and completely lost my faith. So maybe it is better to shut it down and push out the riffraff.

Freezing Roasted Coffee Beans

I have searched high and low for reliable information about storing coffee beans post roast. This is a time when the highly volatile compounds in the coffee quickly oxidize and otherwise change into not-so-tasty compounds. If you are anything like me, your coffee consumption cannot keep up with drinking 12oz or 16oz of freshly roasted coffee beans each day. And I don't have the tools/time/sanction/desire to roast beans daily at home. So unless I can retrofit my car to roast beans to perfection using engine heat during the commute and then grind and brew the coffee at work, I am having a hard time coming up with ideas on how I can get that fresh-roasted flavor using beans that are not actually freshly roasted. Maybe I need to think outside the box a little more.

This is the scheme I have come up with:

1. Buy a pound of fresh-roasted coffee
2. Split the coffee into daily portions in small canning jars (4oz)
3. Put the jars in the freezer
4. Pull the the jars out one-by-one on the day of use
5. Grind the coffee beans
6. Brew the coffee
7. Enjoy the nearly fresh-roasted quality of coffee for up to 3 weeks past roasting time.

So far (I am at the beginning of the third week of my first trial using this method,) I have found the coffee stored in this manner to be nearly as good as fresh-roasted coffee. Not exactly the same, but light years beyond roasted beans merely stored in a sealed can on the shelf. It is not bitter. I can drink it straight up or mix it with milk or soy milk without the need to add lots of sugar or milkfat to cut the bitter.

Prior to this set up, I was freezing a week's worth of beans in a jar. Monday was pretty good, Tuesday was tolerable, Wednesday was not so hot, Thursday and Friday were not good at all. Week one was better than week two and so on. So I can attest to freezing having some deleterious effect on the beans. Since I am not opening, closing, exposing frozen beans to moisture and/or air, the quality seems to hold fairly well. I have not done side-by-side blind samples with fresh beans or anything like that, because I am almost certain I would be able to tell the difference. Especially by Friday of week three. But like I said at the top, I do not drink enough coffee each day to be able to buy fresh-roasted beans every day, so this is a compromise between quality and economy. And I think it is a fairly good solution for the time being.

My dream coffee machine would take in beans for a single use. It would roast them, grind them, and then brew them according to my desires that day. Why doesn't my dream coffee machine exist yet? Somebody get on that!

Church and Community

Every one of them needs three things: a friend, a responsibility, and nurturing with the good word of God.

--Gordon B. Hinckley

Gordon B. Hinckley was speaking about how to turn 'converts' into 'members' of the LDS church when he said this line. But I think he probably meant it applied to all members of the church, new or old. Community is a very important part of a person's conversion into Mormonism. Or really, any organization. People like to feel loved, safe, and similar to those around them. It forms a virtual security blanket that they can hold on to.

When I say people need community, some need it more than others. I feel much less need for community than many people I know. In fact, I would be completely content with one or two close friends. Beyond that, I just don't have the capacity for community. So I never fit into that part of church.

I had many responsibilities in the church when I was active, but honestly, I don't think this really helped or hurt my relationship with the church and gospel. I think this is the reciprocation of community; serving others. Okay, I admit it, I was always terrible at home teaching. :) But I did enjoy the opportunity to actually serve the families I was assigned to. Or others. Service is really one of the parts of church that I have no qualms with. I even told my bishop that I am willing to serve.

I really don't know where the nurturing part comes in. I mean after going to church for 30+ years I was to the point that the lessons I was hearing were so boring and old that I was not getting any new nourishment. It is like eating oatmeal three meals a day for a year; it may be good at the start, but it gets old. And ultimately, you need something else besides oatmeal. I went and found something else to nourish me. The only problem was that it turned out to be very incompatible with the church's teachings. Not only was it incompatible, but it felt better; it made more sense and required my brain to jump through fewer hoops to feel at peace. A whole new world was opened up to me when this box opened. I drank deeply from the firehose of 'the best books' but I admit that by this time I was really no longer learning by faith.

These three things probably would keep many of the new converts active. Was I was doomed from the start to fall away from the church because the three things that everyone needs just were not what I needed? Ho hum.

Beyond Mere Replication

We have the power to defy the selfish genes of our birth and, if necessary, the selfish memes of our indoctrination.

--Richard Dawkins, The Selfish Gene

By nature, all organisms will tend to look out for their own (genes) best interest. That is what The Selfish Gene is all about. It is not about a gene that makes organisms selfish, but rather how the genes will ultimately program organisms to better replicate themselves. Not that genes have that kind of foresight, but it is more of a trial and error, feedback-reinforced cycle that we call natural selection. Basically, genes that fail to propagate to the next generation will not be seen again. Replicate or die.

In many cases this causes the organisms themselves to behave in rather selfish manners. This includes humans. But as humans, we are among the few species that might possibly rise above this selfish gene-level programming to be better individuals and better as a whole.

"I'm gonna tell Dad." "I share no kinship with that individual!"

--SMBC episode 3101 by Zach Weiner

Life as a 'higher' organism, whatever that may mean, implies to me that our concern should be more than just what our genetics would dictate. In the cited SMBC episode, the mother says that she has no kinship with her child's father. While she has no kinship with the father, she has a vested interest in keeping him around so he can contribute energy in ensuring success of THEIR offspring. But maybe it rings more true in this comic strip because the mother now has a cloned daughter that carries 100% of her DNA, so there is not as much need for the sexually produced daughter that only carries 50% of her DNA. We don't currently have a way for people to clone themselves commercially, so our most selfish of desires (to live forever, either ourselves or through our DNA legacy) cannot be fulfilled quite yet. But I digress....

Our legacy is carried on through our offspring which each carry 50% of our DNA. Because the portion carried may overlap, there is no way to guarantee that all of our DNA is copied into our children, but obviously the more kids we have the higher the probability that we have not missed any of our DNA. But what I would like to argue is that it is not just our kids that carry our DNA. Each of our parents shares half our DNA. And our aunts and uncles share a quarter, as do our grandparents and grandchildren. Our first cousins share one-eighth of our DNA. Or wait, they share 99.99% of our DNA. What am I thinking?!? We are all HUMAN, which means we all share 99.99% of our DNA. Hell, we share 99.5% of our DNA with chimpanzees, and we don't even count them as humans. What I am trying to get at here is that we have moved the US and THEM line too far up the tree. If we push it back just to the point that separates us from the rest of Mammalia, then that leaves a big US. Like almost seven billion of us. Say it again.... There are almost seven billion of *us*. You and I are one kind. You and I may not have the same mother, but we are siblings. Nearly identical in every way except those that don't count (hair color, skin color, eye color, height, weight, strength, etc.)

This is our chance to take that step, to learn ourselves what it means to be inclusive, to teach our kids to love humankind, each and every one. There is no reason for killing. There is not reason for violence. There is no reason for hurt. Realization of who we are (NOT sons and daughters of a vengeful god), brother, sister, mother, father, all of the same family, can lead to a world of peace, a world where we can grow and become much more than mere replication could have ever imagined.

In Science We Trust

How can you trust quantum mechanics, if you haven’t done the requisite experiments yourself? ... Or how can you trust that the government isn’t putting mind-control drugs into the fruit you buy in the supermarket, etc. etc.

--Scott Aaronson

Along these lines, how can we know that God exists? Or Santa, or the Easter Bunny, or the Tooth Fairy. If you were anything like me, you figured out that the latter three were stories that your parents told you when you were young because they were part of your culture. You may have asked the right questions to figure it out or maybe a friend or sibling dropped the bomb and your world kind of unraveled for a bit. You may have needed to push a little farther to see exactly how much of your life up to that point was merely a lie.


When all your friends at school forsake Santa, the first is seen as the smartest of the bunch because he or she figured it out. Yet when someone forsakes God, it is a different story altogether. Anathema. Dissociation of friends and family. What is the difference here? Is it that God really exists and Santa doesn't? How can one make that claim? Scott Aaronson hit on the answer that sounds reasonable to me:

So we’re extremely lucky that science hit on a solution to these problems—the only workable solution, really—back in the 17th century. The solution is to open up every question to scrutiny, discussion, and challenge by any interested person. Assertions gain credibility by surviving public criticism—and that’s just as true in math as it is in experimental sciences. I believe many theorems even though I haven’t checked the proofs myself, because I know that if there were an error, then someone else could’ve made a name for themselves by finding it.

I didn't figure out that God was no different than the Santa Claus, but why? Because everyone else around me believed in God too. Maybe they were Catholic or Presbyterian instead of Mormon, but it's the same God. I didn't figure it out so soon because early on, all my elders believed in God (but not Santa Claus) so it was acceptable (and somewhat expected) for me to believe. If I had been born in Iran, I would no doubt have believed the good word of Islam (one variety or another).

If you move a continent or two over, you will find that their God may not by your God. Since both are making the claim that they are the one and only true God (I mean really, who wants to worship a God that says other gods are cool too), at maximum, only one of them can be true. It is still possible that neither are true. If we take all the gods of humankind and sit them in a room with each other, then use this idea that only one of a pair of them can be true until we have reduced the room to only one god, which god would that be? Then we take it a step further and invite someone into the room that does not recognize that god as his or her God and suddenly there are no gods in the room. Just like with science, we crowd source the best solution by having all interested parties attempt to debunk and find holes in theories, we have used the people from all over the world to show that none of the gods are the one and only true God. What are we left with then? Teapots, flying high in orbit, painted with invisible unicorns.

What are we really left with if nobody can really show that any supernatural power exists? Nature. How do we explain nature? Science. How can we trust in science? Test it again and again. Poke holes in it and disprove it where possible. Every time we tear down a theory or hypothesis, we count down one fewer thing that might be true. As each theory and hypothesis is confirmed by another test, we put one more nail in the coffin of the gods. Because the theories are repeatable and not merely the 'revealed truth' from god, others can experiment and show that they are real. No religion can do the same for their gods or beliefs.

Thus, in science we trust.

Q.E.D.