While the standard of quality amongst the talks was astronomically high, a few especially poignant sessions stand out in my memory; Max Wallace’s “The Delusion We Pay For: How Taxpayers Subsidise Religion.” provided an extremely illuminating overview of the way in which taxation laws and standards favor churches with tax exemption and a lack of accountability, despite the enormous income of some such institutions. This talk was so superb that the stock of Wallace’s book, The Purple Economy, promptly sold out. Disappointing for myself and others like me, as we were hoping to buy a copy and have it signed. However, I have been reliably informed by the Australian Humanists that a mail-order service for Wallace’s book will be made available to satisfy the demand.

A session which was especially moving was the speech given by Taslima Nasrin, entitled ‘My Struggle for Secularism, Human Rights, Freedom of Expression and for Women’s Freedom’. Taslima, who has several fatwas issued against her even now and was guarded by security personnel, told the heartbreaking story of how she has been exiled from her home  in Bangladesh and ejected from India. She told of how she has been physically attacked, protested and hounded out of more than one country simply for expressing her views in writing. Her talk left me close to tears and received a well deserved standing ovation.

Of course, it is impossible to forget PZ Myers. PZ’s talk ‘The Inescapable Conflict Between Science and Religion’ detailed the incompatibility of scientific thought and holding religious beliefs. He quickly dispensed with the counter-argument that many scientists are theistic by pointing out that many serial murderers are also theistic. I am simplifying his argument, of course, but the general point is that the fact that two incompatible beliefs can be held simultaneously does not make them compatible. The existence of God, he said, is a scientific, material claim and can be, has been and should be treated as such. An aside; two newly made friends and I cornered PZ at the Saturday Night Dinner and had a very rewarding conversation with him about secularism and science communication. PZ was charming, delightful and friendly.

Myself and PZ Myers!

The final day of the convention opened with Peter Singer, a philosopher whom I admire very much. I was able to speak to Professor Singer about his book, Practical Ethics on Saturday evening, after having studied his work at great length last year as part of a Moral Philosophy course. His talk entitled ‘Ethics Without Religion’, detailed the philosophical bases of morality and ethics and dispensed with the absurd idea that ‘goodness’ is a gods-given quality.

Later, the audience heard from Dan Barker, who holds the unpleasant distinction of having been an Evangelical Preacher for many years before his eventual deconversion to atheism. His talk, ‘Godless: How an Evangelical Preacher Became One of America’s Leading Atheists’ detailed his journey from up-and-coming Evangelical celebrity to Atheist activist. It was remarkable and enlightening to hear an account from ‘the other side of the fence’, especially when he explained how intense and real the feeling of the presence of God can be to some evangelicals and how convincing this had been. I had the opportunity (along with a couple of other friendly ladies and chaps) to speak to Mr. Barker after the convention and am certain to buy his book at the soonest possible convenience; the wealth of information he had to convey was, he said, much abridged in his talk.

Finally, of course, was Richard Dawkins. It will come as no surprise that Dawkins’ talk was absolutely superb, detailing the nature of evolution with obvious passion and hypothesising that religion might have come partly out of our sense of gratitude and of ‘fairness’ ‘firing in a vacuum’ in the same way that a beaver, he explained, will build a phantom dam in the absence of any logs or river to build it with. In the second part of his talk and the following Q&A, Professor Dawkins talked about the recent news regarding Mary McKillop’s sainthood, opining that it was “pure Monty Python”. The statement which resonated the most with me bears quoting in full here: “I don’t think we should go out of our way to insult Islam because it doesn’t do any good to get your head cut off, but we should always say that I may refrain from publishing a cartoon of the Prophet Mohammed, but it’s because I fear you. Don’t for one moment think it’s because I respect you.” Dawkins, too, received a standing ovation. To my delight, I was able to speak with him during Sunday lunch. I asked him about the term ‘adaptationist’, which I had heard from PZ Myers the night before. Adaptationist, Dawkins opined, “is a silly word.” He went on to say that he would “have it out” with PZ. Hopefully no arguments ensued, though I did note that he mentioned the term ‘adaptationist’ a few times during his talk.

Myself and Richard Dawkins!

My heartfelt thanks goes out to everyone who made this convention possible, including and not limited to the Atheist Foundation of Australia and Atheist Alliance International. In addition, the hard work and dedication of the volunteers who worked tirelessly to keep everything running on track, including the Young Australian Skeptics’ own Jason Ball, who is fast becoming something of a celebrity. The speakers, too, all worked for free. Special mention is deserved for Kylie Sturgess and Stuart Bechman, who MC-ed the convention throughout and kept the program running smoothly. Kylie also gave an amusing and informative talk, entitled ‘Sex and Skepticism: a Study of Belief in Australian Women’.

On the flight home from Melbourne, I felt a small amount of sadness mixed in with the elation of such a superb weekend. It isn’t fair, I thought, that Theists have a monopoly on gathering and on community. It was amazing to be in a place where one need not be worried about causing offense, a place where science was properly respected and valued. As David Nicholls, president of the AFA said, “Isn’t it a magnificent feeling to be in the majority?”. I think this feeling has given me some insight on the lure of Church community. It was wonderful to feel perfectly at home, in a place where one belongs. It is my hope that the tradition of such conventions continues, not as a parallel to Theistic sermonizing and groupthink, but as a beacon of freethought, with disagreements, demands for independent thought and rejections of dogmatic beliefs. We all came to be part of this convention by a ’spiritual quest’, as Ian Robinson put it, whose logical conclusion is Atheism.

I can safely indicate that this is an event not to be missed in the future. The opportunity to meet people, both famous and otherwise and to have discussions with them on topics of importance to secular society was amazing all on its own. Every speaker was well worth hearing, far and away exceeding expectations. There was mention of a DVD being made and I encourage any who did not attend the convention to purchase it when it is available. While I have chosen some of my personal stand-outs, I must stress that the entire panel of speakers was excellent.

The event was amazing and I will never forget it.

First off, we have a brand new law which affects the South Australian State Election (March 20, for those who didn’t know). It will be illegal to publish any materials commenting on election matters without also publishing one’s real name and post-code, once the writs have been issued. Fines of thousands of dollars are threatened for those who infringe. See In A Strange Land for the relevant section of legislation and commentary. South Australians will be unsurprised to learn that the man associated with this pernicious piece of lawmaking is apparently Mr. Michael Atkinson. In effect, this means that to comment on the election, one must necessarily expose oneself to the dangers of putting too much information on the internet, or break the law. Update: It is not clear, at this stage, whether blogs are covered by this legislation. The legislation does not specifically state that they are, but Atkinson’s comments seem to suggest as much. Electronic Frontiers Australia attempt to decipher the issue.

Update: After an almost universally negative response, Atkinson has decided to eliminate this law. Calling the backdown ‘humiliating’, he said “that’s politics in a democracy and I’ll take my lumps”. While this does not excuse the law in the first place, it does give some motivation to keep protesting regarding the issues below; sometimes things do change for the better!

We also have the current government plan to censor the internet. In brief, this involves an ISP level filter which, if implemented, would block any sites on a top-secret government blacklist. The rationale is, of course, “Won’t somebody please think of the children!” Visit NoCleanFeed to learn more and see what you can do.

Returning to Michael Atkinson, South Australians were recently delighted to discover that R18 films can no longer be displayed alongside regular films in stores. I say ‘discover’, because the law came into effect with no discussion or notification whatsoever, leaving retailers scrambling to comply. The covers of R18 films, apparently, are too offensive. This is despite the fact that many lesser rated films have more violent and provocative covers. This picture is now deemed unsavory enough to be in its own, separate section.

An issue that’s close to my heart; Australia lacks an R18 rating for video games. This means that many games are Refused Classification (summarily banned) when the Office of Film and Literature Classification deem them unsuitable for fifteen year olds (to whom our highest available rating caters). A unanimous agreement of the Attorneys General is required to amend this law, again allegedly halted by a man who is fast becoming my least favourite person in the whole world; Michael Atkinson. A government discussion paper on the matter was recently made available to the public: you can have your say here. Also, see Gamers4Croydon, the political party attempting to unseat Atkinson in Croydon, South Australia.

Atkinson also recently notoriously implied that most (all?) gamers were criminals and tricksters, saying: “”I assume the Gamers4Croydon campaign will involve criminal activities and dirty tricks, which is what I’ve come to expect from gamers.”

Finally, pornography. Specific types of pornography are being Refused Classification (effectively banned) in Australia; those which feature small-breasted women (who allegedly too closely resemble children) and those which feature female ejaculation. I know very little about this one, but please check it out here for news and commentary.

Please feel free to correct any mistakes I may have made, or add other relevant news. The question now is; what can one do? The obvious answer is vote. Any other suggestions?

“Have you ever seen this symbol on the back of your food products?”

This question heads a forwarded e-mail which concisely details the horror of the ‘Halal Foods Authority’ and their association with Australian branches of food corporations such as Cadbury. Wikipedia defines Halal as a term referring to “any object or an action which is permissible to use or engage in, according to Islamic law.” For the purposes of this article, it is used specifically regarding food and preparation procedures. The author of the e-mail does not approve of the appearance of the pictured logo, writing:

This is a Muslim Association that collects money from the Australian Food Industry for this symbol, so that Muslims will purchase the product. Yet we are told the Muslim population are only one and a half percent of Australia’s total!

The Halal Certificaiton Authority are an organization which is affiliated with the Australian Quarantine and Inspection Service. Their purpose is to certify companies as having complied with Islamic standards of food preparation and therefore permit companies to display a logo which indicates this fact. While they do charge a certification fee, the suggestion that they simply ‘sell’ the logo is false. A Halal information website states:

Procedures vary but usually include an application form, site inspection & discussion, and ongoing supervision by representatives from the certifying organisations during the production of halal products. A certification fee is charged.

Regardless, the implicit argument that since Muslims are a minority in this country, then Halal certification is wrong is a strange one. Evidently the 1.5% of Australia’s total population that desire Halal foods is an attractive market sector for Cadbury. The author seems to suggest that minority groups are insufficiently important to justify a company meeting their culinary desires, a position which I find quite absurd. Lactose intolerant citizens are also a minority, as are people who are left-handed and those who prefer organic foods. How dare Sanitarium, Officeworks and natural foods stores sell soy milk, left-handed scissors and organic food respectively!

On a recent radio talk-back show a well known  host was alerted to this practice. He hit a stone wall when trying to find out HOW MUCH money was paid to this organization and WHERE the money went.

Allegations of corruption in an organization affiliated with the Quarantine and Inspection Service and which claim to be in accordance with Federal legislation are a serious matter and genuine suspicions should be investigated promptly by the proper authorities. However, talk-radio hosts do not exemplify this category. I am unsurprised that he ‘hit a stone wall’ attempting to investigate the private financial business of this organization, and would suggest that in future concerned citizens contact the Australian Federal Police on such matters.

It was explained that by buying those marked products at least you are supporting a religion that is actively trying to destroy the Australian way of life or at the other extreme the money MAY be supporting terrorism.

This is a plain appeal to prejudice and stereotypes. It is hard to imagine a more preposterous reification than suggesting that Islam is attempting to destroy the Australian way of life. It is certainly true that the number of adherents to Islam in the ‘Western World’ is increasing, however Australian citizens are not obligated to behave in certain stereotypical ways and are protected by a right to freedom of religion. Indeed, it may even be that some Muslim citizens do dislike traditional Australian culture, but this certainly does not mean that each and every Muslim is working hard to ensure the collapse of this supposedly universally agreed ‘way of life’ and it is ridiculous to suggest such a thing.

Similarly, the knee-jerk association of Islam with terrorism is both childish and idiotic. While current high-profile terrorist groups may be Islamic, this does not mean that all Islamic groups and companies are funding terrorism. It is possible that an Islamic association may be supporting terrorism, but it is by no means an assumption one can freely make with no evidence whatsoever. It is possible that I may be funding terrorism, but it would be very strange for someone to accuse me without any evidence. This reaction is similar to seeing an Islamic person on the street, behaving perfectly innocently, and thinking “they might be a terrorist!”.

Many Australian Companies are paying this money including BEGA, CADBURY and many other well known companies.  Check before you buy AND BECOME AWARE..

DO YOU KNOW WHERE THAT MONEY IS GOING?

I fear I must answer this question with a resolute “No.” I do not. I suspect the writer of this e-mail is similarly unaware. Do I really know where my money is going when I buy anything from a major corporation? People are well within their rights to boycott any products they choose, but I sincerely hope that no rational person will cease buying Cadbury chocolate on the rationale that they have identified a desirable market and are responding to it appropriately, gaining a certification from an organization which is no more likely to be supporting terrorism than any other, despite this e-mail’s alarmist message.

“The stories of a strange creature: the Wug.

I present to you: The Wug.

Mister Wug was very sad, because he had no mouth. Therefore, he could not smile!

So, Mister Creator said: “Take this mouth!”

and then, Mister Wug smiled!”

Le test de Wug

A brief explanation of the Wug Test (via Wikipedia):

“The child is presented with some sort of pretend creature, and told, “This is a wug.” Another wug is revealed, and the researcher says, “Now there are two of them. There are two…?” Children who have successfully acquired the allomorph /z/ of the plural morpheme will respond: wugs /wʌɡz/.

Very young children are baffled by the question and are unable to answer correctly, sometimes responding with “Two wug.” Preschoolers aged 4 to 5 test best in dealing with /z/ after a voiced consonant, and generally say that there are two wugs, with a /z/; they do almost as well with the voiceless /s/. They do less well in dealing with /z/ in other environments such as after nasals, rhotics, and vowels.”

Billboard with Religious advertising in Port Adelaide

If you can’t read the billboard, it says: “Christ hath ONCE SUFFERED for SINS, the JUST for the UNJUST that HE MIGHT BRING US to GOD. Read your Bible!”

Apparently APN have no issues with this particular bit of advertising. Seems a bit inconsistent.

Leaving aside the fact that newspapers routinely sensationalise the findings of research for marketing purposes, it is common to see the nature of current research appearing in the popular media. It seems that whenever research confirming a seemingly self-evident truth is published in the mainstream media, the response (at least on Shortnews, whose forums I visit regularly) ranges from lukewarm to openly hostile.

Consider a study from my own discipline of Psychology which (at least according to the mainstream news) discovered that the mental health of a child’s father has a more profound effect than expected on the mental health of a child. A poster complains at how much money can be wasted “on things we already knew!”

The nature of these complaints generally follows the formula; “This truth was self-evident, self-evident truths do not require researching, therefore this research was a waste of money/time.” After all, if we all already knew something, why bother confirming it?

In its most basic form, this complaint fails at the first hurdle. Many preposterous hypotheses have, in the past, been accepted as ‘self-evident truth’ and then later been discovered to be totally false. The idea that the Earth is the centre of the universe comes to mind, or that it is only a few thousand years old. The temptation to crow “I knew that!” when empirical data confirms an old wives tale or traditionally accepted piece of folk wisdom is understandable, but it is important to remember the thousands of ‘truths’ that empirical research has disproved. More simply; one cannot state the factual accuracy of a maxim until it is empirically supported in some way. Yes, it does seem obvious that a father’s psychological state influences that of his children, but as an undergraduate I would be extremely disappointed to see one of my Psychology textbooks say; “The mental health of parents influences the psychological states of children because it’d have to. It’s obvious.” As indeed I would be disappointed to see any similarly banal claim in any science.

What then, can be said about hypotheses which have already received empirical support in the past? Surely it’s a waste to re-do experiments or research in the same area which supports the idea that an active lifestyle and healthy eating reduce the risk of heart disease.

Not so. As one poster rightly identifies, “without constant study we would be left in the dark.” Science is not a process in which a hypothesis which is supported is then abandoned on a shelf as unassailable truth. Indeed, such dogma is more the domain of Religion. It is important to verify and build on the findings of past research. Old ideas must be challenged and either verified and expanded or abandoned to accommodate new and more accurate ideas. Not only that, but not all studies are created equal. Flawed research methodology can lead to inaccurate results. Re-testing is extremely important to guarantee the continued veracity of scientific testimony. Some early psychometric research (IQ testing and related areas) by Stanley Porteus in South Australia allegedly discovered a lower average intelligence capability in Aboriginal children compared to white children and that an Aboriginal adult male“had the brain capacity of a 13 year old white schoolboy.” (Bin-Sallik 1990, pp. 9-11).  Subsequent research showed these findings to be spurious and the result of bad research design, but at the time (1915) policy makers claimed to have known this all along. Imagine if the complainers had stepped in then. A waste of money to do more research, we know these Aboriginal children are incapable of the same intelligence as white folks. The idea is outrageous.

So my response then, to those forum-goers who complain that research is frivolous, a waste of taxpayer money or that scientists should “do some real scientific studies” is a suggestion that they consider the way the process of science actually works. Enduring theories (like Darwin’s natural selection, an old favourite) are not made so by simply accepting the findings of one study and refusing to do any further research, but by continued research which finds the same or similar results. Furthermore, folk wisdom or ‘common knowledge’ are not true simply because “everyone knows that.” Attempting to argue any point with this shameless appeal to the authority of the majority quickly collapses, buried under the avalanche of its own stupidity. Empirical support is needed to make fact claims and continued empirical support is required to continue to make them.

References:

Bin-Sallik, M A 1990, Aboriginal Tertiary Education in Australia, how well is it serving the needs of Aborigines?, Underdale SA, South Australian College of Advanced Education.

Shortnews 2009, Study: Fathers Psychological Problems can have an Effect on Children, viewed 21 August 2009, <http://www.shortnews.com/start.cfm?id=78570>

Shortnews 2009, Study: Americans Choose Media That Reinforces Their Political View, viewed 22 August 2009, <http://www.shortnews.com/start.cfm?id=78957>

Shortnews 2009, Study: Doing Healthy Stuff Makes You Healthy, viewed 22 August 2009, <http://www.shortnews.com/start.cfm?id=79781>

In brief: the South Australian Medical Board has officially condemned ‘bogus practitioners’ for taking advantage of vulnerable people, after a baby was crushed to death by a massage table at the clinic of an alternative therapist, referred to as an unregistered massage therapist, who allegedly claimed the ability to shrink cancerous tumors with massage therapy.

The article quotes Labor MLC Ian Hunter as saying:

“For too long we’ve allowed anyone to practice in unregulated areas of health care without any real proper checks and balances… No checks . . . no safety training, no checks on occupational health and safety competency… it grieves me and it actually makes me very upset to read today, on the AdelaideNow website, that a young baby has died at the clinic of Ms Elvira Brunt, one of the persons of interest in our report.”

The alternative therapist named in the report, Elvira Brunt, is also known to have encouraged her patients to discontinue conventional medical treatment and to have demanded cash payments and refused to give receipts. The latter facts seem suspiciously like a woman avoiding leaving a ‘paper trail’ (my opinion only) and the former fact, that Brunt has encouraged her patients to stop receiving conventional treatment, may very well indicate that this is not the first death for which she is in some way responsible.

“The committee understands that such practitioners are often skilled at exploiting people’s fears and creating a sense of hope based on deception, While some . . . practitioners may be delusional – convinced they are able to cure serious medical conditions – the evidence presented to the committee suggested that others are driven by greed and, in some cases, sexual gratification.”

It is always a tragedy when a person dies as a direct or indirect result of alternative medical claims or practices. However, the contents of this report are a sobering and frank confirmation of the suspicions of many skeptics who, I’m sure, have not failed to notice the ludicrous and dangerous medical claims that alternative therapists are fraudulently making. One need only look to Dahli’s article or Richard’s article on the Mind, Body, Spirit festival to find such absurd and dangerous claims as “Helps with Cancer and AIDS!”

The untenable, galling fact is that children, babies are dying at the hands of alternative therapists. If adults must choose to become patrons of alternative medicine, so be it, I can’t and wouldn’t stop them. However, putting children at risk of death from preventable eczema or at risk of being crushed by a massage table in the clinic of a shady, unregistered massage therapist is absolutely irresponsible and wrong.

It is my hope that the Medical Board’s report precipitates much needed change in the medical regulatory field. Specifically, some prevention of making fraudulent, deceptive medical claims which have no basis in reality.

Read the rest of the newspaper article here. Lots more information.

This evening I attended a free talk hosted by the Royal Institution of Australia, entitled ‘Science Fiction to Science Fact’, the talk was given by two excellent speakers: Fred Watson, who managed to convey with humour and jubilation his passion for Astronomy and Sean Williams, my personal favourite (and deservedly so) Science Fiction author and an Adelaide resident. The talk was fantastic; enjoyable and interesting throughout. I left the venue feeling as though I had learned things and, perhaps more importantly, that the seeds of future interests had been planted.

The RiAus have another talk scheduled later this year, featuring Simon Singh, Particle Physicist and none other than the co-author of Trick Or Treatment. He will be speaking regarding risk, probability and gambling and I encourage anybody near Adelaide to attend. The event is absolutely free.

So, a little information on the RiAus, from their website:

Officially launched by HRH the Duke of Kent in October 2007 and due to open in October 2009, the Royal Institution of Australia (RiAus) will be the first international “satellite” of the world-renowned Royal Institution of Great Britain (RiGB), the flagship of science communication in the UK for over 200 years.

Housed in the iconic heritage-listed former Adelaide Stock Exchange building, the RiAus will be a dynamic, contemporary and accessible national home for science. A place for people to listen, talk and think about science in all its shapes and forms.

…Exchanging ideas and inspiration, the RiAus will be a dynamic international hub where people can listen, talk and think about science.

Delivering a vibrant program of creative and accessible science events, it will have something for everyone, including you!

The Royal Institution brings Science to the People.

The RiAus will bring the findings of Science to Society and foster informed debate in the issues raised by Science and Technology in the broad. The Institution is committed to the principle that appreciation of Science is fundamental to the culture of each citizen, taking its place together with Art, Music, Theatre and an understanding of civic responsibility.

Many Young Australian Skeptics will, naturally, be aware of the Royal Institution of Great Britain.

The aim of RiAus, to promote the public understanding of Science, is a truly noble and worthwhile one. For example, a brief but interesting segment about spirituality in tonight’s talk expressed the wonderment that scientists can feel when exploring their disciplines. As Fred remarked (paraphrased) the whimsy of Science lies in the questions we ask and the discoveries we make. I couldn’t help noting that Fred also acknowledged the fact that most Astronomers are non-theistic and, at least speaking for himself, look to the sheer size and scope of what knowledge we can gain for their daily dose of Mystery. As Sean added, it would be wrong to look into the universe as cold, emotionless robots, but a love of Science would never demand we do so!

I encourage anyone interested (and able) to attend the events that RiAus have planned. In addition, their website details some of their plans for promoting the public understanding of Science:

Building on the inspirational tradition of science events for young people at the RiGB in London, the RiAus will run a broad variety of schools activities throughout the year, both in-house and as part of an extensive outreach program.

Covering a range of topics for all ages, from primary through to year 12, the RiAus program for young people will be a brilliant opportunity for pupils to experience the wonderful world of science, technology, engineering and mathematics.

Read more…

I think it goes without saying that the more Science Education which is available to the public, and to young people especially, the less that industries like Alt-Meds, ‘Magic’ and other similar ideologies will be able to get away with purloining scientific terms to lend their ridiculous claims credibility. The real thing is so much more amazing and captivating and, in my opinion, it is truly wonderful to see an organization dedicated to making Science accessible to the public.