In the interest of making the reality more widely known, in this post I’d like to clarify some of the facts about homeopathy in case anyone reading this isn’t aware.  This post is not about whether it works or not (although in my opinion it is nonsense) but simply to clarify what it actually is.

1. It is not a form of conventional medicine
   Homeopathy is a form of alternative medicine and regardless of your views about alternative medicine, homeopathy is unambiguously not part of conventional western medical practice.  It is not prescribed by your doctor and is not practised at medical school.
2. It is not another word for natural remedies
   A common misconception is that the term “homeopathy” refers to any natural or alternative medicines such as various so-called natural remedies.  This is unambiguously not the case – homeopathy refers to a very specific form of alternative medicine involving highly diluted substances.  Even the NZ Council of Homeopaths makes this point clearly:”Homeopathy is not herbalism or naturopathy. While we do use many of the same natural substances homeopathic medicines are uniquely different from naturopathic products because of the way they are made.“ [Source]
3. It is based on the like-cures-like principle
   There are two key concepts that underpin homeopathy.  The first is that like cures like.  In other words if you have an itchy symptom then most likely something that causes itchiness will cure it.  If this sounds (to be kind) counter-intuitive to you then you are right to be confused – it goes against conventional scientific understanding of chemistry, biology and medicine (not to mention common sense).  Some people point to vaccines as an example of like curing like but vaccinations are about the immune system, not a direct cure.  Some modern homeopaths have drifted from this principle but most stick to it directly or indirectly.
4. It is based on high dilutions
   The second odd idea is that substances can be made more effective via a process of potentization.  This process involves dilution – not just any dilution but an insane level of dilution in many cases.  Common dilution levels include 30C, 100C or even 200C.  To understand this level of dilution we need to understand what C means:A 1C dilution requires taking one drop of a substance and adding it to 99 drops of pure water then mixing thoroughly (or succussing to use the technical term – although this involves banging/knocking it in some form).  Already this is a fairly dilute mix (your average cordial mix would be about 25 times stronger than this).  2C involves taking one drop of the 1C mixture and adding that to 99 drops of pure water.  30C means doing this process 30 times.

   So how dilute is a 30C dilution?  Well there will be one drop of original solution in every 10^60 drops of water.  10^60 drops is not an insubstantial amount of water.  In fact is it massively more water than there is in the known universe…  in other words a 30C solution means you will not have any of the original substance left.  I’ll leave you to imagine what a 200C solution means…

These four basic facts are not in contention and you’d hear roughly the same story from most homeopaths.  Take that as you will

Highlights for me:

• Freedom from class barriers is in a library
• There isn’t good or bad, there’s just stuff you don’t get
• Not having ideas, they just appear (end of video 3, start of video 4)
• “If people concentrated more on how, and never mind why, we’d be in such better shape”
• The fantastic interplay between the two – it’s the perfect melding of professional/client, husband/wife, and talker/facilitator

Enjoy

 

 

 

 

 

The idea of saying please whenever you ask for something is a fairly pointless little ritual presumably designed to distinguish demands from requests.  However “pass the salt” and “please pass the salt” are functionally the same request – the please adds nothing.  This would be fine, except that people manage to get offended or irritated when people don’t say please during a request.  So actually all please seems to add to the process is an opportunity for irritation.  I say we ditch the word please from the lexicon – it won’t be missed.

Thank you (and the related “you’re welcome”) is a slightly different concept because gratitude is a meaningful concept.  However society has rendered the concept meaningless by enforcing a compulsory thank you for anything you are given.  Thank you as an automatic response needs to be dropped so the word can regain some value.

Apologies are a different beast again.  While often said as a formality, there is something else as well.  If someone actually is insulted, something I think is strange to start with, arguing this is obviated by that person saying sorry is several orders of magnitude weirder.  There is no magic property to this word, no capacity to undo perceived wrongs, nothing changes after it is said.  I think this is another word that wouldn’t be missed.

What is interesting is that if you said out of nowhere “I think please, thank you, and sorry should be ditched” people would laugh it off as a crazy idea but I think there is a self-justification behind these concepts.  They are drilled into us as children, almost more than any other concept, to the point where they seem beyond question.  In that sense they are not much different to the concept of god – they become such a natural part of day to day life that it becomes quite unnatural to question them.  I suspect things we don’t like questioning are precisely the things we should spend the most time questioning.

Thanks for reading, I apologise for the length, and if you enjoyed it, you’re welcome.  Please comment

The problem is that in a world where you are taught to see things as absolute, the relative seems like a crazy or chaotic idea.  To someone used to the idea of absolute rules, the idea that (in principle) anything goes appears as a frightening concept.  I have a few ideas why this might be the case.

One aspect of this is that people used to rules see true freedom as scary.  This is most easily seen by how difficult people who have become institutionalised in prison find life after being released.  Blind obedience to rules is also easier than having to calculate for yourself what the best action is.  If the law says “don’t steal” then decisions about what you can take become easy.  Absent those laws it takes a lot more thought to figure out what action is preferable for you.

The problem is that for someone who has been told that rape is absolutely wrong, they don’t need a reason other than that for it to be wrong.  Therefore they view the problem as “if it wasn’t inherently wrong not to rape then why don’t we all rape?”  There are two answers to that:  either widespread rape wouldn’t actually be a problem and it would happen and no-one would care.  Or widespread rape would be a problem and people wouldn’t do it because other people would stop them via group pressure.  It is so hard to lose the “rape is bad –> so if rape wasn’t bad then lots of rape would occur –> which is bad” kind of logic.

I also think we have become so used to seeing and describing the world in terms of good and bad  that it is difficult at first to imagine a world without those concepts permeating them.  These concepts are so obviously useful as shortcuts for explaining behaviours that it is inevitable they’d show up in any system of moral decision making.  It then becomes very difficult to view the world without them.  Difficult but not impossible.

There is also the argument that moral freedom is the easy way out – it is somehow cheating.  I think I have managed to shed as much of the objective moral baggage as I can from my life and I find myself spending far more time on my moral decisions than I used to.  Because I don’t have absolute beliefs I have to actually think about my decisions and figure them out.  I wish I had the luxury of having someone else make those decisions for me but just because it would be easier doesn’t make it any more valid.  Those that think moral freedom is easy simply haven’t thought it through.

The primary (perhaps even only) argument anyone has for the objectiveness of morality is that we can list a bunch of things and agree that they are “wrong”. That isn’t good enough and anyone familiar with the scientific method (and the reasons for it) should see why immediately but for some reason in this sphere of discussion it is often overlooked.

Consider the optical illusion below.  We can all agree that squares A and B look like they are different colours but it is clearly shown that this is not the case.  In that sense our perception, despite being universally shared, is wrong.  Well actually that isn’t quite true – we all do perceive them as different colours but we are able to go beyond that and show that this perception is false – that they really are the same colour.

In fact there is no problem if everyone agrees that A&B appear to be the same colour and leave it there.  The problem appears if people were to extrapolate and say A&B are the same colour, and everyone agrees with me, so therefore it is true.  This is a classic example of the logical fallacy argumentum ad populum.

My problem is that it seems to me like everyone is doing precisely the same thing with the objectiveness of morality including people on both sides of the theistic divide.  We can all agree that killing feels wrong so therefore killing is wrong and now we have a basis for objective morality.  Except that we really don’t – because all we can say is that we all perceive certain actions to be wrong.  It simply isn’t enough to say with any form of certainty that morality does have an objective base and therefore any arguments that build on that premise are on very shaky ground.

In the Harris/Craig debate both assumed objective morality and went from there.  This made life easy for Craig because all he has to do is keep asking where it comes from – something that science, which hasn’t even got to the point of granting the premise the whole debate is based on, can’t possibly contribute.  Neither could religion but religion has a lot more space to move in these debates because “god”  isn’t bound by the same rules as science.

Another thing that bugs me is the arrogance implicit in the assumption that things that we once thought moral and now don’t (the changing moral zeitgeist argument against objective morality) is because we were wrong in the past and see things more clearly now.  Here is where the we all agree argument really falls apart.  We all agreed then, we all agree now, but those two opinions are different.  How can we possibly argue that slavery is immoral except to say “we are more moral  than people in the past”.  There is no objective basis to make this statement though except that we perceive it to be so now so they must have been wrong and we are right.

It is interesting she never uses the word “atheism” herself but she clearly doesn’t mind the term being used to describe her.

This got me curious about John Key’s religious views. A quick search around the internet revealed this interesting snippet:

He was less than upfront when quizzed about whether he believed in God on Agenda in April.

“That’s an interesting question.

“Do I believe in God? I don’t believe in life after death.”

Asked again he said: “Well I don’t believe in life after death; I don’t know.”

Asked for a third time: “Well if you’re asking me if I’m religious it depends how you define religion.

“I look at religion as doing the right thing; I don’t define that as someone that goes to church necessarily on a Sunday.

“I mean I go to church a lot with the kids, but I wouldn’t describe it as something that I … I’m not a heavy believer; my mother was Jewish which technically makes me Jewish. Yeah, I probably see it in a slightly more relaxed way.” Source

Not believing in a life after death and considering religion as “doing the right thing” suggests to me he is a non-religious person who doesn’t feel comfortable coming out and just saying so. In fact I’d suggest he represents his fellow New Zealanders rather well in that respect – it’s certainly not an unusual position.

It is an interesting sign of the times that religion seems to not play a big part in the lives of the prime ministers down under.

Going to church each week seems to be the most common and identifying feature of Christians and something most Christians would consider not only a good thing but a fundamental part of the religion.  I don’t recall reading much about this in the bible so I decided to investigate what the bible had to say about going to church, running a church or anything of that nature.

My method is very simple:  I assumed this question had been asked and subsequently answered on the web so I searched for such answers (google produced many results) and teased out the bible references from the long-winded answers and then analysed these.  While I am no doubt missing many references, presumably the clearest of these are the most commonly referred to and therefore the less obvious ones shouldn’t matter.  As always, I am no expert on the bible so I am sure if I get something wrong I will be corrected

A great number of biblical references were offered on the various websites that I looked at to support the notion of an organised church.  I noted each down and then went and read them (as well as reading surround passages for context).  I have split the most relevant into categories representing what I think they talk about and listed them below along with comments.

Organised Church

These passages are ones that directly refer to organised churches.

• Revelations 3:6
• Matthew 6:5-6
• Deuteronomy 12:11

The revelations passage says “He that hath an ear, let him hear what the spirit saith unto the churches“.  Now this could be interpreted as an indirect and vague instruction to go to an organised church but alone it is pretty weak.  I am being a bit kind with the Deuteronomy reference including it here but it talks of a place to offer sacrifices where god’s name would dwell.

Ironically the Matthew passage actually is pretty clear about not going to church.

Gatherings

These are passages that talk about gathering with other Christians

• Colossians 3:16
• Hebrews 10:23-25
• I Thessalonians 5:11
• Leviticus 23

These passages talk about the value of gathering in various contexts to pray or remember.  A modern Christian would probably want to leave Leviticus out of the picture as it also talks about animal sacrifices and really has no resemblance to modern churches at all.

Loyalty and Obeying Authority

These are passages that discuss individual responsibility.  They make sense if the concept of church is already established but add nothing to the church concept in the first place.

• Hebrews 10:23-25
• Hebrews 13:17
• I Peter 5:1-5
• Romans 13:1

I have no idea

The following were all mentioned but I can find nothing useful in them relating to organised churches.  There is talk about diversity, prayer, generosity, unity, and a bunch of other things of tangential interest but nothing that meets our requirements.

• Acts 2:42
• Acts 20:7
• Colossians 1:23
• Ephesians 4:2
• Ephesians 5:19
• Hebrews 10:29
• I Corinthians 1:9
• I Corinthians 10:16
• I Corinthians 11:25-26
• I Corinthians 12
• I Corinthians 16:2
• I Peter 4:10
• I Thessalonians 5:24
• James 2:8
• James 5:16
• Luke 4:16
• Matthew 25
• Matthew 7:6
• Matthew 9:24
• Revelations 2:10
• Revelations 3:1-5
• Romans 10:9
• Romans 12:5
• Romans 14:13
• Romans 6:3-4

Conclusion

It seems obvious to me the notion of a Christian church and regular attendance to one are not a big deal for the bible.  I acknowledge that Churches pre-dated Christianity and it could be argued that their existence, running and attendance is “a given” but that seems like a pretty weak argument given the massive prominence it plays in modern daily Christian life.

It seems to me the best that could be said of Churches is that some people decided that the best way to manage prayer and other requirements in the bible was to have an organised church and regular gatherings but unless I have missed a great deal, I don’t see the biblical requirement for churches at all.

Of course churches have their value as community centres for social and community interaction but the purpose of this post was not “are churches useful”, it was “what does the bible say about churches”.  The answer it seems is not much!

The reasons for this are interesting and have been reported in various places (newspapers, emails, radio etc) including the following:

1. To honour victims…
2. To pay tribute to the victims…
3. To pay respects to the victims…
4. To remember the victims…
5. To express solidarity with the people of Canterbury…

The first three items in that list are, in my opinion, empty concepts.  What exactly does one do to “pay respects” or to “honour” to someone?  Is the silence sufficient or do you have to think something in particular?  What is special about silence?  Why not 2 minutes of “shouting at the top of your lungs good things about the victims”?  My point here is not to belittle the deaths but rather to avoid trivialising them with empty gestures.  What do these phrases actually mean?

In a sense I think a moments silence has become like card giving for birthdays or Christmas – you do it because you are “supposed to” and feel better because you didn’t not do it.  The moments silence is much the same.

I also think many people tend to “endure” a moments silence rather than actually doing anything through it, mostly because it is such an awkward thing not to do while other people are doing it.  In that sense it is a slightly false gesture since it isn’t completely genuine anyway.

The fourth item is really only something for those close to the victims but I doubt they are in danger of forgetting any time soon, and it doesn’t require an entire nation to follow suit, and for many people it would be impossible (for example I personally didn’t know any of the victims so remembering them is a futile exercise).

The fifth item is interesting and perhaps the closest to the only possible practical outcome of this exercise, which is for those affected to feel that others know about and support them.  Of course if they haven’t figured out that the country is with them out by now, this gesture isn’t going to help.

There is nothing stopping individuals from doing all five things on that list in their own time, own way and according to their own understanding.  I don’t get why we need to grandstand it with a nation-wide gesture that most people won’t understand and are doing just because they think they shouldn’t not do it.

1. Less than 200 years ago washing hands and equipment before surgery was a laughable concept
2. Less than 100 years ago a large empire collapsed (the Ottomans)
3. Less than 60 years ago there were no satellites in space
4. Less than 60 years ago a person was hung for murder in New Zealand
5. Less than 50 years ago there had never been a successful heart transplant
6. Less than 50 years ago New Zealand used pounds and shilling

I don’t know about other people but I feel very disconnected from those events despite them being very recent history.  I suspect this disconnect is a function of the pace of technological change but regardless I find it quite fascinating.

This leaves a big gap for people to play in that science doesn’t appear to deal with.  Anything that doesn’t apparently fall into a descriptive mode becomes fair game for any other mode of discourse that feels so inclined.  Philosophy, religion, and other related modes leap to mind.  The problem that they face is that, when practiced for long enough the non-descriptive ideas they generate gain a life of their own and this is where they get given too much credit.  To take an example, let us consider the idea of an afterlife.  This idea has developed so much thought over the years that discussing it feels like a natural thing to do.  But in reality merely discussing the idea in a non-hypothetical way is already giving the idea too much credit.

I think it is important to be brutally realistic about what we really know and not to let ideas, however seemingly benign, dictate what we think.