Can Torture be Justified?

Imagine that your family is being held hostage. They are hidden in a secret location inside a chamber that is slowly filling up with water, and you have somehow managed to capture one of the men responsible for their disappearance. You do know that time is of the essence, and you have very few options. In this scenario, would you resort to torture to get your information? If you did, would you feel morally justified in your actions?

We’ve all been presented with the “ticking time bomb” scenario as a way of explaining away torture. Sure, if the stakes are this high, and information is vital, any human being under duress would not hesitate to extract information from someone, even if this meant torture. However, these types of scenarios take many factors for granted that, once examine, question the assumption that we all make in this circumstance; what kind of information are we going to extract?

Let’s use the same scenario above, but let’s add more complexity. Yes, you’ve managed to capture one of the kidnapers, but how can you know what level of involvement this person has? In the perfect scenario, you know for a fact that the person in your custody knows with 100% ertainty where your family is located, but how often is this true in real life? The act of torturing someone is designed to try and get information out of a person, but there’s no indication that information told under duress is accurate or not, given the fact that you have no way of determining lies from truth. Let’s put this another way; if you were to torture a person that might or might not know where your family was located, how could you determine that the information you were given was real or fake?

If that’s not entirely clear to you, imagine a much more different scenario. One of your friends asks to borrow your car, and help him run a few errands. You take him to the hardware store, and lend him a bit of money on some supplies. He drops you home and says that he’ll bring the car back in a few days. Later that night, someone breaks into your house, kidnaps you, and brings you into a small and dark chamber. They claim that you are a conspirator in the kidnapping and torture of a mother and her two children. The interrogators are convinced that you know the whereabouts of the location they were taken to. Because they are pressed for time, they have decided to extract as much information as possible from you. They have been told that they are to torture you until you crack.

You might think that your kidnappers would be willing to believe you that you have no idea where they are being held, but they are convinced that you know something. No amount of pleading or begging makes them stop, and each hour that goes by, the interrogators get more and more desperate. The pain is so great, you would be willing to say anything to make it go away, but what can you tell them that they do not already know? In that case, you would tell them anything you thought they would want to hear. Since they alredy have made up their mind, all you need to do is tell them what they want to hear. It’s the only way to make them stop. Of course, during this entire time, all you can give them is false leads.

During the inquisition, women suspected of being witches were regularly tortured. They were made to confess that they had been practicing black magic, and there was nothing these women could say that would make these men change their mind. In the end, many of these women actually began believing that they were indeed witches. Their only option was to tell the priest exactly what they had already concluded, if only to end their misery.

Now, before you try and tell me that there is still a good chance that torture can garner information out of people, consider the idea that all of this is actually a smokescreen for the true purpose of torture. The act of torture is not primarily to gain information. It is used as psychological warfare. It is, in a sense, a deterrent against activities that the powers that be consider solicitous. It is used all over the world to ensure that the population does not revolt. This is the use that most suits torture. Information is only the secondary benefit, usually done as a way of locating and torturing other subversives.

Although the scenario I mentioned might sound as though torture is morally justifiable, in truth it represents the last in a long series of events. Was there a way of preventing this situation from evolving? Proper law enforcement and good investigative methods prevent the “doomsday” scenario from even being a possibility. The truth is that most of the time, in most of the circumstances, there is no moral authority to conduct such a violation of a person’s basic human right.

On The Legalization of Prostitution

What are you supposed to do if you are asked to chose between two evils? We like to believe that the decisions we make usually correspond to our morality, but there are often problems that arise in our modern world that have no adequate solution. In these circumstances, we must act pragmatically to ensure that the consequences of our actions do not exacerbate an already difficult situation.

If we can accept that the choices we make do not always lead to a perfect solution, than we are in the right frame of mind to discuss the issue of prostitution. As many of your readers already know, I am an anti-prohibitionist. I believe that legislation to control the individual moral choices of people is ultimately met with failure. Worst still, criminalization creates a giant black market, and the lack of oversight means that individual victims become criminals. This, of course, is an over simplification, particularly when concerning the delicate issue of sex workers. Legalization carries with it a number of issues and concerns, and the simple act of decriminalization does mean that prostitutes are no longer exploited.

In countries that have legalized it, a large portion of sex workers are foreigners. In the Netherlands, there are many reports that these workers have been trafficked, often tricked into entering the country by pimps who entice them with the prospect of other work. The fact that it is legal still does not mean that coercion is impossible, or that a black market does not exist. But the argument that this is an inevitable consequence of legalization is unclear. For instance, the current legislation makes women the easy target of pimps. Although they are no longer underground and offered protection, it does not change the fact that many of these women can be abused, and have their safety compromised. It’s precisely why many in Amsterdam are calling for legislation to ban pimping rather than prohibit prostitution. The problem is, of course, that the law already makes the exploitation of women illegal. The problem lies more in it’s enforcement rather than it’s legality.

Another argument against legalization is that it can often lead to an increase in the use of the services. If it is indeed true that legalization does not decrease human trafficking, there is the chance that demand may actually increase this type of sexual slavery. It would be foolish for me to assume that this is not a possible consequence. Many women in the sex trade have no desire to become registered, as there is still a great deal of taboo about the job. In these cases, women are still operating outside the confines and protection of police and law enforcement, and as such have none of the advantages of legalization.

Obviously, there are troubling aspects in the legalization of prostitution, but that does not mean that making it illegal is an adequate option either. The truth is that regardless of legislation, the demand for sexual services does not significantly change. We can try and make this a moral issue, and yet even people of supposed high moral character still use the services of prostitutes. In any case, a person’s private morality is not anything I believe I have the power to change, and it seems as though no institution can, religious or governmental. Considering the size and scope of both, it seems unlikely that moral and civil legislation is doomed to fail, and that worst still, well meaning laws can often exacerbate the issue. If conditions are bad in legalized countries, they are far worst in those countries that prohibit it. Drug abuse among sex workers is far higher in criminalized countries, as pimps use drugs as a way of keeping these women essentially as slaves, paying them very little and providing no protection (and often psychologically and physically abusing them).

From a pragmatic point of view, it is irresponsible to assume that the criminalization of something enhances the safety and security of the population. The fact that prostitution is rampant in both rich and poor countries, and in legal and illegal ones signifies that it is not about to go away anytime soon. I do not want to sanction whether or not this activity is acceptable. Perhaps the most difficult thing for human beings to control is their sexual impulse. This primative drive is the main reason why prostitution is such a popular business. It is unlikely that we will be able to properly control this impulse. Perhaps we have no real desire to. But just as a biological instinct can benefit us, it can also cause pain and misery.

The difficult thing to accept is that prohibition does nothing to prevent the sexual trafficking of human beings. Worst still, the enterprise becomes so profitable that the players involved have every incentive to continue to provide the service. We are therefore stuck in a no win scenario. What choice are we to make?

It’s my belief that we must first accept that human beings will not always make the right decisions about their lives, and that no amount of law will prevent them from doing so. It’s natural for society to want to protect its citizens, but the way of achieving this is not by making something illegal. Marijuana is illegal in the US, but still 1/3 of the adult population still consumes the drug. In the end, it seems that we have no control over what people choose to do with their own bodies, and why should we? Yes, there are individuals being exploited, and surely those that exploit them must be punished, but what of those that are doing this out of choice? Are we to tell them what they can and cannot do? How presumptuous to assume that anyone can know what is best for another human being. I might be repulsed by the idea of stripping (ok, maybe not that repulsed), but there is a demand for it, and making that illegal would not change the habits of its consumers. Does legalizing it make it morally acceptable? Obviously, to those that choose not to go to a strip club, the answer is obvious. But how much darker and sinister would it be if strippers faced the risk of incarceration, or if they were under the manipulation of pimps?

I do not pretend for a second that the legalization of something has no negative consequences. It’s normal to feel as though all of our options are inadequate, and that we are powerless to do anything positive in this zero sum game. Prohibitionism does not work, this at least is clear. It is my belief that we have to help people make the right decision rather than punish them for making the wrong ones. The legalization of prostitution is an effort to shed a light on a dark world. It’s true that we may not end up liking what we see, but I would hate to send these people back into the void. There are some things about human nature that take time and effort to change, and that no universal morality guides our actions. In the end, all we can hope is that by giving people the option of choice, they may make the right ones.

On Conspiracy Theories

On November 22nd, 1963, the president of the United States, John Fitzgerald Kennedy, was shot and killed during a parade in Dallas, Texas. It was a gorgeous clear day, one few expected would forever change the lives of so many Americans. Though he was rushed to the hospital, Kennedy died immediately from a fatal shot to the head, the impact of which destroyed a significant portion of his brain. Not long after the shooting, the Dallas police arrested Lee Harvey Oswald. Oswald was already known to the police as being a Cuban insurgent, as well as being the owner of a Mannlicher-Carcano Rifle (which he had purchased under the pseudonym A. Hidell). Photos were found with him holding communist literature, as well as the rifle which was used to kill Kennedy. It was also discovered that an assassination attempt had been made by Oswald on one General Edwin Walker, who survived but was wounded by bullet fragments. At the time of the attempt (April 10th) police had no leads as to the suspect, until after the assassination of Kennedy and the subsequent search of Oswald’s home.

Forensic evidence supported the conclusion by the Warren Commission (established by Johnson after the assassination) that the shots were fired from the 6th floor of the Dallas book depository, where Oswald worked. Immediately after the shooting, Oswald left the building, and was the only employee to fail the role call later that day. Officer Tippit had heard of the general description of the shooter, by an eye witness who saw Oswald shoot from the window, saw and attempted to intercept Oswald. After a brief chat, Tippit opened his door and got out of his police cruiser. Oswald grabbed the officers .38 caliber and shot him, killing the officer instantly.

Lee Harvey maintained that he was innocent, claiming to have been set up as a patsy, and that he had shot no one. The evidence strongly discredits this statement. And yet, if you were to ask the American population who killed John F. Kennedy, odds are you would get many different answers. “The CIA killed him because of the Bay of Pigs incident” or “the killer wasn’t Oswald, but rather a Soviet double Agent codenamed Alex that had assumed Oswald’s identity” or “The Mafia killed Kennedy, since Jack Ruby (Oswald’s assassin) had connections to the mob”. About 49% of Americans are convinced that Oswald was either a patsy, or was part of some larger conspiracy to assassinate the president; this, despite the mountain of credible evidence that point directly at Oswald as the sole killer. Why would anyone believe that a massive conspiracy was behind the assassination, and not one man? Why would people choose to disregard crucial evidence in favor of theories for which the evidence is both flimsy and non existent? Just why are conspiracy theories so popular in our modern culture?

It’s natural for people to be distrustful, particularly about entities that have, in the past, blatantly lied to them. This mistrust has grown in the past 50 years, as public confidence in both government institutions and corporations have eroded. The idea that Oswald did not act alone was not generally held by the public around the time of his murder. For the most part, the public trusted the Warren Commission’s findings, and the case was closed. But like any good mystery, some questions arose. Why had the government sealed some of the report (about 3%) and would not make it public record for 75 years? Why, in the famous Zapruder film, did the president’s head shoot backwards if the shots came from behind? How could Oswald have shot the president 3 times in only 9 seconds, a feat that even the top marksman of the world were not able to reproduce, this despite the fact that many have contended that had had below average marksmanship?

In actual fact, each of these questions has been answered in a satisfactory way, and each obey Occam’s Razor: that the simplest explanation is probably the right one. The head tilting back is caused by the fact that the point of entry of the bullet (in the back of the head) released very little energy. A bullet passing through a skull meets little resistance, as though passing through a honey melon. But when it leaves the skull, it carries with it much more kinetic force from the bone and brain matter that it is dragging along pushing the head back as it exits. The simple proof lies in the fact that the exit wound turns out to me much larger then the entrance one. Despite the rumors that Oswald was a poor marksman, he earned a sharpshooter qualification badge during his Marine corp. years, finishing 212 out of 250 students. The “9 seconds” theory was dismissed, as it is believed that Oswald had as much as 20 seconds with which to fire. As for the government classifying certain documents, the FBI was criticized for no having conducted a proper investigation into the possibility of a conspiracy. However, had they done so, it is likely that they would have examined the motive for murder of prominent political figures. If no conspiracy was found, it is likely that the sensitive information would have been part of the report, but judged as both irrelevant and politically incendiary.

Today’s well documented events are no different. The tragic events of September 9, 2001 World Trade Center attacks are even more scrutinized by conspiracy theorists. Even though we know a great deal as to how the terrorists planned and carried out their attacks, even though there were FBI reports that indicated the possibilities of such attacks, and even the footage of the terrorists boarding the planes is not enough to convince some CT’ers that the government was actually behind it. After all, did the government not plan on invading Iraq anyways, needing only a way to convince the population on the need for this military action? Almost half of all Americans claim that there was government involvement behind 9/11. Are they all crazy?

If the answer was “yes”, then we would be in serious trouble. Having half the population of the world’s only superpower diagnosed as insane would be a frightening prospect. Luckily, these people are not actually crazy; rather, they are simply being misguided by bad information. How does bad information, like some of the 9/11 conspiracies that exist today, persist so well?

Because we live in an age of so much information, we are constantly being bombarded on all different sides, often with bits of information that contradicts one another. Television, radio, and the internet are swimming with people offering their interpretation of the truth. It’s often difficult, or even impossible, to distinguish which side of the story is true. If we are thorough, we may try and browse different media sources and compare the information given, in an attempt to formulate the truth (not unlike trying to figure out who is right or wrong in an argument by hearing both sides impartially). Sometimes, there are odd discrepancies in stories. Most of them are ignored by us as either being mere coincidences, misprints, or sloppy reporting. Some, however, tend to focus on these seemingly unimportant bits, seeing patterns in the information that re-affirms their preconceived notions of events. These individuals are conspiracy theorists, and although most of us think they are relatively harmless, they nevertheless have a powerful influence on our culture.

The appeal of a conspiracy theory is threefold; (1) if reaffirms our belief in a particular axiom. If this axiom is that we are being visited by aliens, a conspiracy theory that pertains that Roswell New Mexico is the location of a crashed alien spaceship will support this notion. (2) Conspiracy theories make people feel as though they are part of a privileged information network. Since often CT are complex, and require much research (the selective kind of course), a person can come to believe that very few other individuals are capable of putting the pieces of the puzzle” together as elegantly as they. And finally, (3) Conspiracy theories play into the fact that we are distrustful of powerful institutions, particularly governments and major corporations. We often see the gross misconduct of public figures and CEO’s, and naturally feel that if these misdeeds get noticed, just what isn’t being witnessed?

There are examples of real conspiracies that we know about. Our degree of certainty of the completeness of our understanding of how these conspiracies occurred, and all the individuals involved, cannot always be total. We must accept that for any large conspiracy that is exposed, some individuals are sure to escape our notice, and if the facts are complicated and motivations complex, we may not be privy to the entire truth. Real conspiracies, like the Watergate scandal, have generally been exposed, and the players and perpetrators were identified, though all of the information (particularly the missing White House tapes) was never gathered. The fact remains that the motivations behind the conspiracy are known (mainly that Nixon had become extremely paranoid, and had put wiretaps in the Watergate motel to find out as much information from his democratic rivals as possible). The Watergate conspiracy itself was relatively small, and, if the security guard, one Frank Wills, had not noticed that there was adhesive tape on one of the locked doors, he would not have called the D.C. police, and the events might never have surfaced. Small conspiracies, involving only a few individuals, are usually difficult to track.

Some conspiracies are likely, although the specific motivations may not be fully known. The War in Iraq is a good example. We know, for instance, that the Secretary of Defense, Donald Rumsfeld, created a department in the Pentagon called “the office of special plans”. Their primary goal was to “uncover” evidence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, and to leave critical details out of their report to bolster support for a preemptive attack. The alleged purpose of the attack is debatable. Some contend that major corporations, such as Haliburton, would have benefited from a war in Iraq, as well as some of the major oil companies. When no WMD’s were found in Iraq (despite a massive search) the government tried to make the implication that there was a complex terrorist network supporting Al Qaeda within Iraq. No evidence of this was ever found, and the government later admitted that there was in fact no connection. Although we can probably draw a number of conclusions as to the motivations behind the war, the truth is, without proper investigation and prosecution, the war in Iraq will continue to be theorized by conspiracy enthusiasts.

It’s easier to believe in the Conspiracy you can’t prove than the one you can. Although they can often exist, the more complex and bigger a conspiracy is, the less likely it can remain unexposed. People who believe and perpetuate unproven theories are motivated by a deep level of mistrust rather than an honest attempt at impartially interpreting information. We should be weary of those who disregard evidence when it conflicts with their interpretation of the facts. As most serious scientists will tell you, when the model fails, you tend to not want to stick with it, regardless of how elegant it is. The truth is often far more inelegant, messy, and confusing. If you yourself believe in any conspiracy theory, than I strongly urge you to reconsider the evidence behind your belief, and ask yourself important questions, such as: Is there another explanation that also corresponds to the facts? Is it possible that your own prejudice and conviction may be blinding you to contradictory evidence?

The world is a confusing place. Just as many of us assume that a Godly Omnipresence dictates the daily operation of the Universe, some believe that powerful shadowy organizations secretly control our lives. Our skeptical nature should make us weary of claims that require the perfect manipulation of thousands of people, let alone billions. It is not to say that conspiracies are not real; it means that those that are usually do not appear as grandiose and huge as we would hope. We should seek truth in all its forms, even when they shatter our fantasies and hopes.

Faith Healing and the Manipulation of the Desperate

On a normal day in February. Bernadette Soubirous, a 14 year old living in the small town of Lourdes in France, was gathering firewood with her sisters near a small grotto. She became aware of a presence, and claims that a lady in a white robe with a golden rose on each foot appeared before her. Her sisters, which were present at the time, did not report seeing anything of the sort. Bernadette would return to the site another 17 times, and her visions were interpreted by the townspeople as being of divine origin. They all assumed that the woman was the Virgin Mary, and in the 157 years since her “visions”, the site has become a pilgrimage for the sick and lame looking for a miracle cure.

Every year, over 5,000,000 people visit the town, and the sight of so many ill looking and disabled people can be downright strange. There have supposedly been 67 inexplicable miracle cures since Bernadette’s visions, but in light of the droves of pious individuals making their journey to France, the numbers seem awfully low. There’s every reason to doubt the apparition story, especially since Bernadette had suffered from Cholera as a child, which seemed to have made her simple.

If these visions had occurred today, Bernadette would have been hospitalized. They may have found her to suffer from schizophrenia, or perhaps the victim of hallucinations caused by a poor diet. In any case, almost no one would have believed her sightings to be genuine. It seems, however, that she benefited from living in a much simpler time.

The droves wishing for a cure make the painful trek to Lourdes, but this is not the only example of “Faith healing”. There are many different forms in a large variety of religious denominations. Many involve the imbibing of special and sacred liquids, or the presence of holy relics. Sometimes, it is actual living human beings that are thought to channel the power of healing. These “Faith Healers” are most prevalent in America, where large numbers of indoctrinated individuals believe in their miraculous powers. Their piety and desperation reinforce one another, and the results are lucrative for those claiming to heal the sick.

In the 1980’s Peter Popoff, a German born televangelist, made millions of dollars with his supposed abilities. He seemed to be able to name people’s names, addresses, and ailments. His clientele, which was comprised of desperate and sick people, were easy prey. The powerful tradition of faith that they were a part of, which teaches them that miracles really do happen, made them prime targets for exploitation. But the technique that Popoff used was so simple, anyone could easily duplicate it, and often, they do. Popoff used a simple radio transceiver device operated by his wife, who would read out cue cards written in advance by the audience members. In 1987, he was exposed when James Randi recorded the audio he had intercepted. Although Popoff declared bankruptcy and vanished for a brief time, his ministry is still alive today. Dismantling the hopes of the faithful is much more difficult then can be imagined.

Some faith healers rely on far simpler and low tech techniques to convince the faithful that they possess supernatural abilities, and these tricks are borrowed from mentalists and psychics, who use a tool called “Cold reading” to garner information about people while giving the impression that they are in fact revealing that information themselves. Most of the time it’s the simple act of using visual clues to make observations about an individual. For instance, a person with poor physical appearance would probably suffer from a lack of self confidence. A cold reader would therefore guess that the person might have problems finding someone for a relationship or isn’t getting the promotion at work that they want. In the case of faith healers, they can make snap judgments about ailments by the site of a crutch, a wheelchair or bandages. His gullible victims are only too eager to give information about themselves if the visual clues are not present. All the faith healer needs to do then is speak loudly and suddenly, laying his hands (often on their foreheads) to send the audience member into a kind of trance. Often the exhilaration of the experience temporarily alleviates the symptoms, and this is interpreted as a cure. But once the show is over and the exhilaration fades, the symptoms return.

Some might think that a pilgrimage or dramatic laying on hands does no harm, but this is not the case at all. Often times, when these faith healers perform their “miracles”, their victims will often cease to seek proper medical treatment. One dramatic example involved a woman who had thrown off her braces and run on stage at the command of the faith healer. The woman suffered from cancer of the spine, and the next day, her backbone collapsed. She died 4 months later. Extensive investigations by doctors found that all attendees that has experienced cures during the performance often had worsened after their “cures”, due usually to the strain of the experience.

The practice of faith healing is popular precisely because of how lucrative it is. Lourdes’ tourist trap invariable provides a great deal of money for the town, and evangelical ministers often make millions of dollars going around the country collecting “donations”. The harmful effects have been heavily documented, and yet, we choose to continue to allow this fraudulent behavior. I can only assume that it is because we place a higher value of faith than we do on life. Faith healing prays on the most desperate of human emotions; the need to live a life without suffering. Their practitioners exploits the fears and hopes of our fellow man to enrich themselves. This is unacceptable, and it must be stopped.

Homeopathy; a Story of Dilution

I am often reminded that one does not win any popularity contests when attempting to shatter the delusions of others. I can certainly appreciate the fact that no one wants to believe that they might be wrong, especially if this belief represents a form of comfort. It is then that I carefully remind people that the truth is not a matter of popularity; we have plenty of examples in history of when popular beliefs have been held erroneously, often with tragic results. Perhaps, I argue, the old adage that “the truth shall set you free” applies to more then trying to avoid lying to others. Perhaps it also means that we need to stop lying to ourselves, even if we think these lies are comforting.

My particular rant, this day, concerns the rather archaic and antiquated practice known as alternative medicine. This ranges from a variety of activities from the laying on of hands to acupuncture; to the supposed healing energy of crystals and magnets, or evangelical ministers and their faith healing. They may differ in their respective rituals, but each one demonstrates a complete lack of understanding of the human body and science in general. For them to be effective, those that engage in these activities must prescribe to a particular set of beliefs; either that a human being is capable of manipulating energy with their minds (and, subsequently, that energy is somehow responsible for healing), or that a higher power has endowed an individual with miraculous powers. This is what makes these beliefs alternative, and they differ significantly from their orthodox counterparts, who use the rigorous double blind study and hard research to demonstrate their effectiveness. One does not need to believe in penicillin to benefit from its curative properties.

It is my belief that it is primarily the lack of understanding about science that allows these myths to persist. I shall therefore try in earnest to educate as many people as possible, who themselves may be unaware of how traditional medicines work.

A relative of friend, when you are troubled by some ailment, may have at some time or another suggested to you the use of some alternative medicine to treat it. Homeopathy is perhaps the most popular alternative medicine, presumably because it is easy to obtain, and because the idea of ingesting a pill or liquid is so accepted in society. Homeopathic medicine is often available in pharmacies, which seem to legitimize their use. Somewhere, in your unconscious, you may have thought to yourself: well, perhaps there is something to this homeopathic treatment. After all, science doesn’t know everything, right?

It’s true, science doesn’t know everything. Science is a process which strives to understand the natural world, and it tests the validity of any claims made. Anything that is testable is fair ground. The notions of homeopathy are themselves testable, so they are not outside of the realm of science. So, you might wonder, how does homeopathy fair in the validity of their claims? Not well at all. To understand why, let us examine what their claims are specifically.

Homeopathy works on 3 very basic principles. The first, and most basic principle, is called the proof: essentially, any substance that causes a particular effect, (a particular plant, for instance, might cause swelling when eaten) will be noted for that effect. If a patient then displays symptoms that resemble the effect of that substance (like a swollen arm), then the homeopath would recommend that the patient then ingest this material. This is the principle that “like cures like”. The colloquialism that one must fight fire with fire comes to mind. Does it really seem wise to give someone a substance that would only cause more swelling? Have no fear, for the second principle of homeopathy is that of dilution. If the same patient with the swollen arm were to consult a homeopath, he would “prescribe” the same substance as before, but greatly diluted. Just what level of dilution makes the product safe for consumption? Well, enter the third, and presumably the most ridiculous principle of all (as though the first two weren’t silly enough); the greater the dilution, the more potent the medicine.

Yes, you read right. This is not a typo or slight from the author. Homeopaths actually believe that increasing levels of dilution dramatically changes (for the better) the potency of their medicine. If you organized a party at your house, and were suddenly confronted with the crisis of your fruit punch running out, you certainly would consider watering it down to try and save the day. You would not, however, assume that somehow the punch had suddenly become more potent. If the punch contained alcohol, you would not suddenly warn everyone that the increased dilution would increase the deleterious effect of the liquor. You would certainly be considered quite the comedian for entertaining your guests with such a notion. But just how diluted can homeopathic medicine be?

On the back of most homeopathic remedies, unbeknown to most individuals, the actual potency of their medicine is printed clearly. A typical example may include caffeine (often, hilariously enough, in their sleeping pills) ranging with a concentration of 10-30X. This represents to which degree the ingredient has been diluted. This means, if we take the most modest example, that for every caffeine molecule, there are 10(power of 30) (that’s 10 billion billion billion) molecules of something else, typically either water or, in the case of pills, wax. Some are so diluted, it would take a pill the size of the solar system in order to find at least one molecule of the active ingredient.

In order to circumvent this embarrassing oversight, homeopaths claim that the molecules of the medium (in most cases, water or wax) still contain the “memory” of whatever ingredient they purport to be using. This amounts to little more then magic. If every water molecule somehow “remembered” the properties of other substances that it was once part of, then each one would certainly have the property of almost every substance known to man. Molecules are routinely recycled. Odds are you are imbibing a molecule or two that passed through the bladder of some ancient dinosaur. I would hesitate to claim that Brontosaurus urine was good for your kidneys.

The Illusion of Design

I mentioned before that many individuals believe in religion because of what they perceive to be logical reasons, and it is often based on the illusion of design, both here on earth, and in the cosmos in general. The Universe, as far as we can observe, seems to be both extremely complex and mysterious at first glance. Here on earth, the complexity of life is staggering; in a handful of dirt, there are million of organisms, some working in symbiotic co-operation while others are parasitic. All of these organisms are engaged in a struggle to survive, both with other species and members of their own group. To remain competitive, every individual organism has become an expert at exploiting a specific niche. Whether or not their strategy will continue to work is uncertain. What is known is that this constant fight for survival has many different battlegrounds, each one staggeringly beautiful and complex. It is this complexity that leads many to credit a God for its existence.

Human beings,by their very nature, are builders. Since the dawn of our species, we’ve created tools; weapons to hunt and kill our food, and clothes to keep us warm. As our race progressed, and civilizations began, we constructed ever more complex cities, bureaucracies and governments to manage them. Each new level was seen as a considerable improvement over the last one. A civilization still in the Stone Age going up against one in the Iron, or even Bronze Age didn’t stand a change of surviving. Technology was imperative for the survival of civilizations as they competed for land, resources, or even ideologies. The victors were usually the ones that were more advanced, and therefore generally more complex. Now, particularly in the West, we view technological progress as a sign of intelligence and superiority, and the complexity of modern civilization mimics some of the complexity of our biosphere. The fact that our most sophisticated technology looks downright primitive compared to the intricacy of biological life seems to lend credence to the idea that it must have been designed by an intelligence far superior to our own. In other words, the power and complexity of biological life is inferred as being the product of design from a far more complex, and infinitely more powerful entity: God

The illusion of design, for many, is a required step for the belief in a higher power. It fulfills their desperate need for the intellectual necessity of their theological axioms. The Bible, even if it is taken allegorically, still clearly implies that the universe is the product of a grand designer, no doubt the result of the simple observations of the varied  authors of the book. During their lifetime, nothing but the supernatural could explain how the Universe could have been originated, or how things would fall to the ground if thrown, and why hot things always burned. Laws were not of nature: they were of God. As science has evolved, however, the laws of the Universe have been uncovered, and appear not to require the work of a supernatural force to make them work. This is true of all the forces we know, including Evolution. Darwin’s insight shattered one of the most powerful mysteries about how the vast diversity of life originated without a designer. Everything operated as a function of selective pressure, and the only reason that human beings existed was because we exploited a particular niche, and nothing else.

The majority of Christians believe in evolution, not because of theological reasons, but rather because they understand how accurate and logical it is. They do not need the inference of a designer to justify their religious beliefs. Of course, not every religious person takes this reasonable stance. Some Christians, particularly Evangelical ones, necessitate a literal interpretation of the Bible, and in the defense of their theology, they employ the illusion of design in their creationist explanation of the universe. This “theory” has been dressed up in a cheap tuxedo and given the name “Intelligent Design”.

The idea of Intelligent Design is not especially new; most of our history we’ve been young earth creationists, believing that the earth is only a few thousand years old. We did not possess the scientific gumption to think otherwise. Besides, our respective religions discouraged the type of curiosity that might undermine the exactitude of church doctrine. As far as we were concerned, all the answers had already been discovered, and the most important thing wasn’t this world, but rather the world of the hereafter. Certainly, if you think the Universe consists of the earth, and 7 different layers or celestial object revolving around it, it’s not exactly an exciting enough place that needs much attention. But the Universe isn’t small: it’s astoundingly huge, and human curiosity is far to powerful not to want to learn more about how it all works.

Intelligent design isn’t science. It is an attempt to undermine science in favor of theological appeasement. It is irrelevant that we are inclined to believe that the elegance of nature is too incredible to be the result of only natural law; it does not change the fact that the evidence is against a grand designer. We must abandon the idea of inferring intelligence to anything that is complex or powerful without evidence. It’s true that it’s in our nature to feel that the world obeys the same rules we’ve created for ourselves, but it does not make it so.

Religion and the Need for Tradition

In today’s culture, things change rapidly. We almost seem to take it for granted that something you know today will be different tomorrow, maybe radically so. But human beings historically haven’t been accustomed to rapid changes for very long. It used to be that what your father knew, and what his father knew, wouldn’t be that different from what you did too. There were certain ways of doing things, and that’s all that you needed to be aware of. The process isn’t all that different from what happens in the rest of the animal kingdom; the young learn from imitating their parents (at least, that’s true for the higher mammals that possess lager brains and more complicated social networks). We’ve been doing it for so long that those who got the most out of it, tended to have more offspring.

In a way, this appeal to tradition isn’t something that originated only in our various cultures; there was a real need to get busy learning from your elders. Naturally, the way that most cultures developed centered around the idea that the ancient ways were always the better ways of doing things. For a long time, the West was positively mystified by the wisdom and genius of the ancients. Medieval Europe could barely build two story structures, and yet the Roman Empire had built huge temples and palaces. Compared to them, the Romans looked like they were light years ahead of them, in art, architecture, and governance. The ancient Greeks were looked on with reverence; their philosophers and thinkers were considered the leading authorities, even though they had been dead for nearly 1000 years.

In the old days, the best place for you to learn anything, to be entertained, and to be saved, was the church. Religion was your news program, your theater, and obviously, your direct line to God. And it wasn’t just yours. It was your father’s, and his father’s too, for as far back as anyone could remember. Even the priests, who knew how to read and had surely read a few books themselves, would have been totally clueless as to whether things had ever been vastly different from the way it was then. Religion was more then just a way of explaining how the world worked; it was a tradition, and like every other aspect of daily life, traditions were something important to keep, if not only for your immediate and long term survival.

Like any tradition, the way religion worked didn’t change very much with time. There was a particular way of preaching the sermons, of listening to confessions, and all the other humdrum of daily theological living. And like any tradition that exists for a very long time, it becomes particularly stylized, and very good at passing itself down. Tradition relies on mindless repetition; the more automated something can be, the better. It’s easier to pass down knowledge if it can be broken down into easy to repeat steps, especially in an age where the textbooks on how to do things aren’t very accessible, or even non-existent.

An action repeated a hundred times is something well learned. An action performed a million times, by a million people, is a tradition, and our instinctual need for tradition creates a kind of automated complacency. It’s rare that any of us actually question long standing traditions, no matter how strange they might appear to others. How many of us truly think about the origins and purpose of a Christmas tree, compared with the amount of people who buy one anyways, and put them in their home? Surely, if your neighbor began a new tradition of hanging a dead horse in front of his garage every may 14th, we would be terribly curious as to the reason why he would do such a thing. But if his father, and his grandfather, as well as yours and thousands of others were doing this for countless generation, it wouldn’t be a big deal at all. In fact, you would probably be looking forward to May 14th, having carefully picked your horse well in advance. If you think that my example may seem strange and barbaric, consider that the Vikings, every nine years, would kill and hang every kind of animal they could upside down in Pine trees around the winter solstice. The tradition of Christmas trees is at least partly influenced by this. We must remember that as time rolls on, traditions themselves become more stylized, and alter themselves according to our new needs and values.

Traditions becoming more stylized do not necessarily mean that changes happen very frequently or quickly for that matter. They require consistency above anything else, or else they run the risk of altering themselves and becoming completely unrecognizable from generation to generation, something akin to a game of telephone. The appeal of religion is rooted in the need for consistency and predictability that all traditions offer. It is far safer to go with what has been done before then to try something from scratch. Our ancestors survived for that very reason, and the desirability for such consistency is at least partly due to the major appeal of religion (especially in a world that seems to be constantly changing before out eyes).

If the stability of society lies in the creation of an institution that at least partly enforces moral behavior, religion would seem to be ideal way of ensuring moral traditions. Even though the punishment for immoral behavior may be a hypothetical punishment, the threat of hell felt very real to our ancestors (it still does for people living today). As such, the psychological tool of eternal damnation is an effective and relatively cheap way to ensure that order is maintained, particularly if your society is repressive and life is somewhat miserable.

The religions that are popular today are not vastly different from the thousands of other religions that have sprung up and disappeared over the years, except perhaps in the continuity of traditions that have been able to maintain. Although Christianity or Islam may claim that their moral guides are superior to others, the relative authoritative manuscripts they refer themselves to are not especially more sophisticated then any other ancient religion. Greek mythology is rich in moral homilies, and in some ways paint a far more accurate picture of human behavior, from vanity (with the story of Narcissus) to curiosity (Pandora’s Box). What is perhaps more unique of the “three great monotheistic religions” is the fact that their moral homilies are codified into explicit rules of living, rather then simple storytelling. Christianity became the dominant religion, unsurprisingly, after Constantine reformed the book that was later to be known as the Bible during the Council of Nicaea. His efforts transformed Christianity from cult to bureaucratic institutions, all with specified beliefs and traditions. It would be these traditions that would dictate the fate of the Western world for the next 1800 years.

The Religious Corporation: Part 2

Yesterday, I argued that the selective advantage of belief was too attractive for individuals in a community not to partake. But this advantage, as humans became more prosperous in the West, became increasingly marginal. In the 15th century, Europe began to experience new found prosperity from the most unusual source: the aftermath of the Black Death.

Over a third of the population is estimated to have been killed, but at the beginning of the 1400’s, it had tapered off. The wealth of those deceased went to surviving relatives, who suddenly found themselves with significantly more income. The population, now able to enjoy more than the daily toils of life, found solace and meaning in more than just religion. The strength of the Church was beginning to wane.

Like any modern corporation there was only one thing to do: change their marketing strategy. In order to afford to build lavish new monuments to the glory of God to impress the masses, the Church began to sell indulgences, which were tickets one had to purchase in order to pay their way our of current or future sins. They were the equivalent of “get out of jail” cards for the soul. With the invention of the Printing press in 1447 by Gutenberg, they were able to mass produce these, and as the economies of Europe flourished, so did the coffers of the Catholic Church. Although indulgences may seem to us to be useless pieces of paper, they were necessary devises for the Church to stay relevant, and more importantly, to give incentives for people to continue to believe. The Church, which had always frowned upon the idea of anything remotely close to amusing, saw its opportunity to grow from the rapidly rising bourgeoisie class. They establish for themselves a way of making money by satiating a desire they themselves had created. It’s no different from any modern corporation creating the image of success and desirability, while simultaneously offering a way to fulfill that image.

Take modern consumerism as an example. How many individuals are obsessed with the need to purchase expensive clothing? Where does this need come from? Obviously, the relative serviceability of clothing is fairly homogeneous; as long as they perform their intended function (to keep us warm), theoretically anything would suffice. But there is not much profit to be had if every article of clothing is priced similarly. As such, clothing has become a way of displaying one’s status within society, and is taken very seriously by many. This obsession, of course, can become quite costly, and since there are rival ways of displaying status, it’s in a company’s best interest to maintain our focus and attention on their product. They are lucky that society and the environment necessitates that we wear clothes, but certainly, that is not enough. They must create more of a demand if their profit margins are to remain healthy. As such, we are bombarded by advertising expressing the fact that to be beautiful, we must be beautifully clothed. Arbitrary rules of fashion are created to keep our attention focused on the matching of colors, fabrics, and designs rather then on more pressing matters. The clothing industry also utilizes our fears and insecurities about our attractiveness and acceptance as a tool against our better judgment. Should we spend money on improving our lives, or should we buy that pair of expensive shoes instead?

It would be unfair to single out the fashion industry as the only business to exploit our fears, desires, and most pressing concerns. Almost every industry does it. It’s such an effective tool, but it certainly is not a new one. The model for today’s most profitable corporations are taken directly out of the pages of religion. Consider how alike they are: both are a cooperative of like-minded individuals seeking to fulfill specific human needs and desires. Both function as tightly ordered hierarchies, with power being disseminated from the top leaders to the rank and file employees. Both utilize our fears, insecurities and desires to control the distribution of their products. A religious institution is no different from a large corporation; the difference isn’t so much the product they offer, but rather how long they’ve been doing it for.