EVIDENCE OF ABSENCE - AGAIN

Last time I left out the math in a sketch of a proof for the fact that absence of evidence is evidence of absence. See that blog. Here is the math and remember, evidence and proof are two different concepts.

Defintions: A is evidence of B if and only if (iff) Prob(B/A) > Prob(B/not A).
Denote absence of evidence by a = not A and absence by b = not B.

Prob(B/A) > Prob(B/not A) iff 1 - Prob( not B/A) > 1- Prob(not B/not A) iff

Prob(not B/A) <>Prob(not B/ not not A)

iff Prob(b/a) > Prob (b/ not a). QED

JULY 4 SPOKANE ARRESTS

On the police tape of the anarchist uprising in the park we hear policemen wishing they could punch out the protesters. At least, that is one impression a person could get. Why doesn't the city aggressively pursue this little detail ? If after a public investigation the police are cleared, good. But if they are truly expressing public contempt for the protesters and a wish to do them harm outside the law, fire them. We do not want a city police force of this type.

I do not think it tolerable to trust the a Chief of Police to see that the force be limited to men and women who understand the rights we are all entitled to. And Mayor Verner is not much help with her remark that she believes the police acted properly on that infamous day. I choose to believe she knows better and is speaking in a political survival mode. I could be wrong and it could be worse.

An ombudsman is not the answer. An elected or randomly selected independent committee of citizens is required to run the police department. Instead of a chief there would be an executive director of the committee.

It seems that whenever I complain about an Islamic driven ideology that supports the killing of any person who offends the ideology with such things as disrespectful cartoons, movies, books, or just plain dissent, I get the same response. First, any concrete example is met with the claim that this is not true Islam, no matter what the perpetrators claim. Secondly, I am reminded by my betters of some example from the myriad of historical examples where one religion or another has called for a massacre of innocents.

I don't really care what is true Islam and what is not when a Muslim says that Allah commands that he kill me, for whatever reason. And please, what do past religious slaughters have to do with me. If there are religious cults other than Islam currently issuing death threats, I say deal with them. But I haven't read of any.

I know there are millions of Muslims who do not support the radicals. But it is their duty to more forcefully speak out against them. Please!

RPS BOSSES CUT CANDY HUT

It will be a sad day June 1 when the long time kiosk tenant Candy Hut departs Spokane' s River Park Square. I have been getting my weekly sweet and sour sucker ration there for quite some time. Also, I always look forward to my short chats with the friendly and efficient candy girl Sandi, who will now be out of a job. I don't know all the politics but it seems the Hut is just too middle class for management and RPS wants to better serve their upper class clientele by going with a more tony tenant. I suppose that the millionaires in the condos across the road would rather not mingle with any more of the hoi polloi than absolutely necessary

It's about time for some random thoughts on those contenders for this country's top job: Obama, McCain, and the Clintons. The Clintons? Yes, no one should doubt we are looking at the possibility of a co-presidency at least as entangled as Bush/Cheney, even if in a different way.

First, note all are senators, a fact that serves to save each since senators don't usually win. So that's sort of a plus and a minus. Another plus and minus factor is Obama's inexperience. A new face picks up points in tough times. But his enemies are on to something if they can paint him as a naive child in the manner of Stevenson and McGovern

It gives a little insight to remember Hillary worked on two of the most unsuccessful campaigns in history, that of Goldwater and of McGovern. I believe that that and the fact that Bill and her were under such vicious personal attacks from the right while in office have been enough to turn her into such a frantic figure. She reeks of panic and behaves like a cornered junk yard dog.

I still believe what I said over a year ago. McCain is the most dangerous man in America. I say this because many citizens see him as the embodiment of the American Ideal: war hero, straight shooter, reliable pal. jovial maverick, strict with the wrong doer. All of this is a self constructed pile of bull and has been proven as such in a recent book, but who reads. I see McCain potentially to be as dangerous as Hitler was, even though they are very different from each other. But Germany of the twenties and thirties was also quite different from the present America. I'm afraid McCain fits America in the same dangerous way Hitler fit Germany.

I find Obama fascinating. I knew nothing about him before this campaign. He is unique in the way he calls for radical change yet has hopes of developing a coalition. His overall rationality and his equanimity in the face of the gutter tactics hurled his way are two attractive traits.

It bothers me that all three profess to believe in God. And though I don't believe that Hillary or Bill really do, that still is not enough for them to win me over. It scares the hell out of me to know that McCain's admiral dad prayed on his knees every night and morning for at least one hour. What's that about the acorn not falling far from the tree?

I've had a lot of personal experience with dementia and I can tell you it doesn't happen overnight. McCain shows tendencies. And what about this: Say, McCain begins to show obvious signs of further derangement during the campaign. Would Bush persuade Congress to postpone the election until the Republicans could drum up a mentally fit candidate? It may start as a short delay and then drift into what we see Mobuto pulling off. I know, it sounds farfetched to me too. But Gore Vidal is going around talking about some such scenario. He sees a motive in the fear Cheney and gang have that they may end up in the hoosegow if the Republicans don't win.

CARPETBAGGER ALERT!

Pennsylvania carpetbaggers have landed in Spokane. They actually landed a few years ago, to begin their work of rounding up acolytes, but now they are about to go public in a major way. The mother ship is called the The Community Environmental Legal Defense Fund (celdf.org) and is based in Pennsylvania.

These folks consider the federal constitution to be archaic and want to do something about it. Spokane has been singled out as their next big step after several successes in smaller ponds. They want to eventually court test the notion that "home rule" city charters rule over federal and state laws. And for reasons only their inner circle knows Spokane has been chosen as a likely guinea pig. .

It is ironic that lawyers are behind this movement. Usually a Tim Eyman type suffices. And by the way, much of what is wrong about Eyman's onslaught lurks here. It appears that celdf has lost some environmental cases and concluded that the "law" was just not on their side, nor were lawmakers. What to do? Hey, dynamite the law and rewrite the Constitution to give rights to nature, among other things.


The ongoing strategy is not shabby. First, indoctrination camps - called Democracy Schools - are held. From these camps there comes the "demand" from the students to do something about evil corporations and their supporting laws. Surprise, surprise! At the present time a Spokane Board has been formed to come up with a list of amendments, or maybe a proposal for a whole new charter. The cheerleaders on the Board and many of those on the sidelines are quite enthused about buying this pig in a poke. Or if it's not a pig in a poke, are they not simply puppets fronting for a preconceived set of amendments?

By the way, who is on this Board? Not independent citizens but representatives from organizations such as churches (churches?), labor unions, neighborhood councils, the ACLU , PJALS, and so forth. Not a very democratic list. Of course, a carrot is being held out to these groups in the form of the idea that here's your chance to get all grievances taken care in one revolutionary swoop, without the messy technique of each having to lobby, campaign, or sue. Whoever controls the charter controls the city.

Much of the celdf strategy is meant to give a grass roots appearance to the process. But face it, the agenda has been set. Stay tuned. This is only an alert. There is much more to come.

ABSENCE OF EVIDENCE
IS
EVIDENCE OF ABSENCE

Let's start with what we mean by evidence. Evidence is that event of discovery which increases one's degree of belief in a second event. Now, note that this increase can vary from one hard to perceive to a maximum and that the original and resulting degrees of belief can be expressed as probabilities. Example: We take the probability of a Sasquatch as zero until a friend who we trust tell us he has seen one. We now think there is a small chance they do exist. We have uncovered evidence in this friend's testimony.

Now, consider absence of evidence as the negation or complement of that evidence; and consider absence as the negative of what we have evidence for. From these definitions and a little reasoning, remembering a negative of a negative is a positive, we are led to the conclusion of the title. For the mathematically inclined, the use of elementary probablility and algebra makes the reasoning easier. Check out http:oyhus.no/AbsenceOfEvidence.html.


Let me throw out here another example of nonsensical use of the language. A "mirror image" is not the same as a copy. Just look in the mirror; your right hand is the mirror image's left hand. There are real needs to deal with mirror images of one kind of another, so let's get it right. And remember, there is no proof in the pudding; the proof of the pudding is in the eating of the pudding.

VOTE THE LESSER

Ralph Nader got a lot of mileage out of his "evil of the two lessers" quip in the 2000 run for President. This was, of course, because of the tired old complaint that we are always being forced to vote for the lesser of two evils, as though that was a bad thing.

But wait a minute. That is precisely the proper stance to take when choosing between two candidates or among many candidates. That is, if we insist on using a voting system at all. It's like this, one should first ascertain they are all evil. This won't be too hard, you'll find. And by evil here is clearly meant unworthy, unqualified, or in some way unfit to hold the office. This initial effort might place a considerable burden on the voter in that one must learn all there is to know about the duties and the potential of the office and also read or listen to a all the candidate has had to say on any matter pertaining to these duties and potentials. And a good study of history wouldn't hurt either If the voter is diligent in these studies I am sure he will find all candidates unfit and he can begin the hard work of judging the least fit, the next least fit and so on. Unfortunately, I believe I am only talking about an ideal here, as the voters and pundits I observe seldom work this hard at selecting their politicians. But we all can learn.

Looking at it a different way, it is essential we do not vote for the most dangerous candidate, and so must above all ferret out the degree of danger each candidate represents. Moving up through the list we naturally arrive at the least dangerous. And then he or she is the least evil and our rational choice.

CAN WE SKIP THE PRAYER?

Prayer is a tool for brainwashing that is second to none. No one is expected by the
faithful to pray only once. Whenever we want something we are expected to pray for it. Whenever we like what happens we are expected to give a prayer of thanks. No, we are not supposed to ask why things happen. We are to accept the nonsense that someone named God is responsible for all good things. And if I repeat enough prayers, as I did in my naive youth, I'm apt to believe there is such a thing as God - a sort of self hypnosis. But I say count me out..

City of Spokane Reorganization

Spokane's political structure has recently been changed after what was perceived by many as a disastrous crash of the the city manager form. It was said that the new strong mayor system would be more more accountable.But believe me, in a few years a similar crisis will develop, and a cry will go out for another system. There are only three or four forms of city government now in use throughout the country and two of these will have already been used by Spokane. So it can not hurt to have another option
.
I propose a radical reorganization. The new system would eliminate the growing influence of monied interests, empower more citizens, and be more efficient. And if the basic philosophy of this new system should take hold and expand, the city government as we have thought of it could disappear. A good thing. What follows is an outline. The actual transition would take place in stages and after much public negotiation among the citizens

This proposal would put into practice some ideas developed by the Australian philosopher John Burnheim in his book Is Democracy Possible? The first of his two key ideas is to set the basic units of governance into functional units rather than geographical units. The second is to select those who set the policy of these basic units by lot from a population who have an actual interest or stake in the function rather than simply being interested. The upshot of this would be governance by negotiation among representatives of a class of stake holders rather than governance by an unstable collection of power seekers. Burnheim calls this system demarchy.


Spokan' is usually thought of as being run by a council and a mayor. The council serves as a legislative and quasi-judicial body and the mayor heads up an executive branch as he oversees the police, public works, and so forth. Anyway, this is the view which gets our attention because the mayor and council members are the only elected "city" officials.. Though, remember that district 81 school board members are elected. This education system is independent of what we think of as the city government but education is certainly a local public good as important as our streets, parks and public safety. So right away we have an example of Burnheim's functional unit, though still suffering somewhat from electoral politics and without as much autonomy as possible, being beholden in several areas to Olympia and even the federal government... But do you see? We have no need for a mayor or council to meddle with the school district .

And furthermore, there are many other people, though all unelected, making decisions on our public life, under varying degrees of review by the elected officials. First, we have a partially independent park board with a budget as a fixed percentage of the overall budget; and periodically, calls are made to change this board from an appointed body to an elected body. Then we have the planning commission and library board. In fact, there are over twenty city boards and commissions. Members of these sometimes shadowy bodies are appointed by the mayor and council from a pool of volunteers

Now, why do we have these boards and commissions? It is because the elected officials do not have the expertise or time to make all the required decisions on their own. No one council member or the mayor can have at the ready the same knowledge of facts and conditions as a planning commission member and a park board member and a human rights commission member and a police commission member and a library board member and on and on. Such true generalists are just too few and far between, and precious few if any of those that do exist are being elected. Perhaps we can do away with the need for such pretenders.

Where shall we start? Let's try the police department and consider a public safety board to oversee the running of the police department -- no Mayor or city Council. I believe the ideal here would be to parallel the public education sector, A law or constitutional amendment would be passed in Olympia placing an obligation on the state to provide public safety for city residents. Of course, like with the education system, the money provided would be far short of what is needed and the board would need to ask the public to vote on regular and special levies. But short of that ideal, let us say we simply cut the police department out from under the mayor and council and place it under the governance of a police board. On the board there could be a judge, a defense attorney, a local activist with a history of being affected by crime, three citizens from a area of high crime, and two citizens from an area of moderate crime. This board would be the sole local policy making body as to the city's police department. They would be selected by lot from a list of volunteers in such a way as to be a representative cross section of those with the most material interest in the operation of the police.

DOWN WITH THE PEOPLE

The will of the people is often claimed as a political consideration. The meaning of this will of the people expression requires a closer look to see of it makes sense on its face. And the same can be said about a government by the people or for the people. I don't believe these notions exist in the sense we are expected to believe they do; it is not reasonable to imagine any group having a will, a wish or a desire, excepting quite rare circumstances. In what follows I hope to give am understanding as to how attributions of such notions to the "people" are misleading..

It has become a widespread practice to use nonsensical statements such as butchered aphorisms and incorrect words to express underlying ideas only partly or incorrectly understood by the writer or (more usually) the speaker. A common example of this is when one needs to say "Time will tell," and they actually say "The proof is in the pudding." This latter piece of nonsense is clearly a misstatement of the old remark " The proof of the pudding is in the eating." Sometimes a feeble defense is made that we are simply dealing here with a contraction of the correct statement. I don't think so. Anyway, the ubiquitous use of "people" in political discourse could be said to fall into this general category of misuse. But the consequences of such sloppy thinking in the arena of politics are much more serious than in our everyday life.

Let us start with two clear thinking and independent citizens picked at random in my city or yours and consider this small collection as the people. Now, as these two look out upon the vast range of those possible changes to their life and its enjoyment which lie within the power of the state to effect, just what are their shared wills? Note that as they each become more particular, at some point it is almost certain they will not share wills; but if their will is general enough, they are quite likely to share it. Though I dislike slowing matters down here with too many obvious examples, let's consider this. In the former instance above, each could wish a different type of park in their shared neighborhood. In the latter instance, each could wish for a park. Beginning to see the picture?

We do have the experience of things like mass hysteria, mass hypnotism, and phenomena bordering on these. Think of crowds at sporting events and prayer meetings. But we can come back to these at the end and see how they fit in.

Now, even in the provision of a quite general public good, our two citizens may go their separate ways as the options for details of its delivery are brought to light, But perhaps they won't. So let us say that here with just two persons we could have an unlikely example of a people sharing a will. But now let us begin to add citizens at random to our band. Look at a group of three, four, and on and on. Is the likelihood of a common will getting greater? Clearly not. Experience tells us that as the numbers grow, differences spring up. As we reach a decent sized citizenry the only chance we seem to be left with is for some such thing as a common will to live - and we know that even that is not universal. You name it: liberty, wealth, health, or whatever. Not everyone of a decent sized population wills it, so there is no will of the people in the sense of unanimity Hence, such sentiments are a very poor foundation upon which to lay a theory of governance. Of course, an immediate objection is to assert that it is not unanimity but overwhelming majority that is being referred to. But what is overwhelming? Exactly. An issue which can not be resolved with any certainty.

Some say democracy as majority rule is a bully boy system. And by talking a lot about we the people and government by the people and for the people the bullies can pull the wool over our eyes. Those rule who have the money, the power, the chicanery, or whatever it takes at the time. Do they make the dissenters suffer as much as they could? Not usually. But only because they don't welcome a fight to the death. They might lose. Anyway, that is one view.

Another more temperate view is that it is a harmless game where we all agree with the rule that a majority of some sort rules. We make our play, and if we come up short in the voting, we pull ourselves together until the next election and act as good citizens because "the people" have spoken. This is justified as a tit for tat system. The outs suffer along for a time and then they become the ins. This system more or less defines the political process as being run by two less than zealous groups, swinging back and forth over a number of years between basically moderate candidates.

In neither of the above two views can it be said the people are represented because, as was shown above our experience tells us there no such thing as a single will of the people. But there is a further sense in which the notion of people does mischief.

In practice the people are always the British, the Cubans, the American people. There are boundaries. But many problems are global and so a government by the people and for the people can be conceived coherently only as government by all existing human beings in the long term interests of the human race and the world that it dominates. A clearly out of reach goal.

So, as sad as it might make us, we must find a way to leave this mode of thought, a mode which tempts us to set our reason aside and give credence to those in politics who speak of such things as the people. Let us leave such expressions to those who characterize mobs and others in mass frenzies.

endnote: A closely related problem is the loose way in which people of cities and nations are said to have one character or another.

NOT THE SEASON FOR ATHEISTS?

Here is a column I submitted to the Faith and Values page of the Spokesman. It was in response to the October guest column of a retired theology professor. I got the cold shoulder, even though I had been encouraged earlier to submit something from the atheist perspective. Is this the wrong season for diverse views?

In last month's column, Professor Howard Redmond reported that he and his Christian brethren are apt to leave out the subject of human suffering or, "natural evil," as they sit over coffee and donuts to explore the basic tenets of their theology. It is interesting to read such a confession. Though I do not believe that human suffering can be confined to disappointment and aimlessness, as he seems to say. And also, I would rather see Redmond and others state flat out their tacit assumption that God exists before they go on to discuss evil and so forth. It would show a more proper humility in the face of such a momentous question. As while it might seem redundant to some, readers like me are offended by the implication that we need to share this belief in order to be brought into the discussion But that won't stop me. To my mind, God is a fiction , the implications of which I find frightening and disturbing.

According to Redmond, "If we disobey or ignore him (our heavenly father), there are consequences we bring upon ourselves. But he always wishes our good." Consequences? Does he mean punishments? I could take it that way. Or if he is including good consequences, what is the point?. I'll bet that at the least he does not have in mind as a consequence anything which I might put on my list to Santa. So here I am, both ignoring and disobeying an omnipotent and omniscient tyrant - real, in the eyes of many. Shouldn't I be shaking in my boots, in case the faithful feel God needs help in meting out proper consequences?

The entire argument, used by Reynolds, that " In all things God works for good" is total malarkey on its face. It says that God allows evil so that some good will come in the future - hooray for God's providence. But without these evils permitted by God there would surely be much more good. Isn't that obvious? The unreasonable desire for faith in such a chimera as God blinds one to what should be crystal clear.

Evil is here to stay though it certainly should not be welcome. And in fact, belief in God has contributed more than its share to the total supply. But since there is no credible evidence supporting the argument for the existence of either a good God, an evil God, or any kind of God in between, it does not seem likely that he has anything to do with it, and hence there should be no real problem of God permitting evil. So why are these theologians giving themselves such a headache over the matter? Oh, that's right, they're theologians Astrologers get tangled up in the same way.

One issue that does give me pause is the huge number of humans that profess to believe in a God and his prophets. And when I see included in this number people I love or respect, the mystery for me deepens. That's when I like to recall the words of the great French mathematician LaPlace: "The mind has its illusions as the sense of sight; and in the same manner that sense of feeling corrects the latter, reflection and calculation correct the former." And it seems when an emotional payoff is added to the mental illusion it is extra hard to right the ship. But I have hope that in time more of the world will dig down and begin the required reflection and calculation

Finally, the authoritarian overtones contained in the references by Reynolds to a heavenly father and his children are disturbing. He asserts correctly that love can not be commanded - even by his God. But what about commanding belief in the absence of evidence? Should not our reason be free from commandments just as our love is? After all, if something appears false the best and most natural thing we can do is to acknowledge the fact, while of course leaving ourselves open to rational rebuttal or contrary evidence .

How has mankind lasted this long? We have proven ignorant enough to believe the most outlandish propositions; such as, the sun revolves around the earth, sex has nothing to do with birth, the meek shall inherit the earth, gods exist, and chiropractors can improve our overall health. And all this as so-called rational beings. But this is not the worst of it. We are consensually dictated to by unqualified strong men, many drugged, drunk, or half crazy. Not only are we ruled by such people. We have those just like them tending to our medical, dental, legal, engineering, and accounting needs. For spiritual needs, we turn to sexual deviates. Isn't this all enough to inspire a mass suicide. Apparently not, since we are still here and these curses seem to be in a roughly steady state.

There is one flaw though that is not in a steady st ate and combined with the above propensity for stupidity should shortly prove fatal. That flaw is our need to fight, evolving into a need for bigger and bigger wars. And the bitter thing is that there will be no one on this planet left to say, they did it to themselves.

CELL PHONE KILLS MUSING

See that girl coming out of the movie with a cell phone on her ear? What do you suppose she might be doing if she had no cell phone? Possible she and people like her would be musing; thai is, pondering or in deep thought. And that would be good. But one does not ponder well while talking on a cell phone. Hence, the world is being denied billions of hours of musings by the ubiquitous cell phone. That is not good. Einstein is said to have been a prolific muser. And many examples of genius such as songs and plays have been written in one's head while musing. Lyrics to Midnight Sun were written that way on a drive in a California desert. If Shakespeare had had a cell phone we may not have heard of Hamlet.

Of course, you might say these people dashing around or lolling in public while talking on their cell phones are brainstorming, a very popular way of "creating" in this day and age. But I have heard many of these "conversation" from one end and that does not seem to be the rule.

It is hard to see how to stop this plague, this ongoing idea dearth, but we may at least be able to plan for coping with the dire results. That is, if we can find time off from our cell phones to muse on it.

SACCO & VANZETTI COMMEMORATION

Remember that 80 years ago today Nicola Sacco and Bartolomeo Vanzetti, two immigrant anarchists who loved the America of Thomas Jefferson and Thomas Paine, were unjustly executed by the state of Massachusetts. I am nearly certain they were both innocent. But the ideals and opinions of those who say that they were do not fall upon the guilt of the two anarchists, though those ideals and opinions do soar upon the fact of their innocence. It is in this circumstance that one can see the rot of which we must rid this country.

The judge, the jury, the prosecutor, and much of the public wanted to see these two draft-dodging, Italian immigrant, atheistic anarchists slain - evidence and justice be damned. And this is what they got, in the hope that the execution would send a warning to all such men and women, and so save the country for the "good" people. Well, two years later the capitalist economy came crashing down, and not much later we were plunged into a horrific war, neither the doings of anarchists or immigrants, but of the capitalists themselves.

IRONY OF OUR AGE - PART I

The most brilliant men and women who were ever born are now with us. They comprehend the most complex material facts of the universe. Their individual brains are full to capacity and so they must work in teams, further multiplying their brilliance. Yet, we have a much larger horde of the dumbest bastards who were ever born and raised running rampant and threatening our existence. What a tragedy!

It is not simply pathetic education, though there's plenty of that. The American southern black was educated in sub par schools for years, yet he was smart enough to know it and to do something about it. The modern moron does not want to know the truth. He is too busy with booze, drugs, sex, religion, mindless travel, kissing his boss's butt, gaming, gambling, and making money - all things which take no serious thinking.

This trend was underway, as I see it, soon after the traumatic last world war, which was also not far from the end of a terrible economic depression. Brains were affected. We can see evidence for this in the political victories of DDE, first over Robert Taft and then over Adlai Stevenson. I'm not even saying here that Eisenhower was a bad President, but he was much dumber than his opponents. And many, many American voters admired that.

How is being deliberately dumb harmful? I'll let you know in part II.

I see that the current slant on the Spokane anarchists in the park dust up is that the police were protecting protesters from flag loving citizens. Weren't those thugs who threatened the protesters breaking the law?. What does our Chief of Police say about that? Why did the police not arrest the vigilantes, or at least take their pictures ? And it is disturbing that there have been so many letters to the Spokesman supporting such vigilante actions.

Two of the most shameful events in the history of this state were massacres of protesters carried out by vigilantes with tacit support of the police, one in Everett in 1916 and one in Centralia in 1919. Those particular incidents were a long time ago, but recall the citizen violence carried out during the more recent civil rights movement. . Let us not return to those days of lynch mobs and the abandonment of legal protection for those we don't like.

Please, Mayor Hession, get your police force under control and adopt a policy that requires everyone on the force to understand and support the principles of people like Thomas Jefferson and Thomas Paine, two men without whom there would be no Independence Day

ATHEISM AT LAST?

Can it be true? Are we finally to embark along a path leading to the time when a significant majority of the world outgrows religion? Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins, and Christopher Hitchens are three bright and articulate writers who hope so and are doing their part to help. And they are not alone. Check out the upcoming (September) atheist conference in Washington D.C..

God Is Not Great, by Hitchens, is the latest of these books to get to the public. Harris wrote A Letter to a Christian Nation and Dawkins gave us The God Delusion. These are said by most reviewers to be a delight to read, proving that arguments from evidence do not have to be dry. It is amazing to me that three such books have arrived on the best selling scene over such a short time..

Let's skip the excellent credentials of the three writers. You can look them up. But each work establishes its own validity; a different kettle of fish, you’ll notice, from so much writing of the religious, which must resort to the authority of a god or prophet. Harris, Hitchens and Dawkins rely on neither prophets nor gods, nor do they claim to be such. They simply have well-trained and keen minds, capable of finding truth where it exists. And they certainly convince me that there is no such thing as God.

But can they and their followers convince enough people so we finally have a world where there is no God? History does not hold out promise. Various regimes have tried over many years to stamp out religion and so far have failed. There is no doubt there is a mysterious universality of religious feeling, or at least a susceptibility to it's blandishments. But of course, that is no proof of a religion's validity. There are a number of theories as to the source of these puzzling "irrational" feelings and as to why they are defended with such passion.

The Stanford mathematician Keith Devlin offers, in a different context, one interesting speculation as to the source of this passion. Devlin is a regular contributor to NPR and on one of his shows he discussed a certain probability problem with a counter-intuitive correct answer . It is called the Monty Hall problem (see wickepedia) Many listeners were so sure their incorrect answer was correct they become quite angry with Devlin for demonstrating otherwise. He pondered this response, since it was so contrary to that of his students when he corrected their papers. Here's what he came up with.

Devlin posits that we have two reasoning processes. One he calls our everyday reasoning, and it has been "a highly successful survival strategy throughout evolutionary history, and today, is to base decisions on the immediate past and on the evidence immediately at hand." And though it rarely serves us well in this day and age, we are stuck with it. The other reasoning is that which we need for numerical calculations and to rigorously examine evidence, rather than to make unreliable snap judgments which would have been in the interest of our physical survival some thousands of years ago. But the first type of reasoning, Devlin asserts, while not often arriving at truth is a tremendous source of pride to us and its abandonment instinctively seen as a threat. So in a sense it seems a matter of life and death that we are right when relying on it. He feels that the Monty Hall problem is phrased so that this reliance on it is triggered. Is the same thing going on with religious beliefs?

A slew of other theories as to why religious feelings are so universal is presented by Paul Gabels in his recent book on the persistence of religion in Russia. Again they are mostly based on natural selection. But the bottom line is this: I am not going to believe something for which there is no evidence and is contrary to reason. Others are going to defend such beliefs, based on feelings and natural impulses. And if we don't kill one another, or others, over the dispute, what's the problem? But if we do, something must be done.

Concise General Statement and Solution of Monty Hall Problem

Two required math facts: For any integer n > 2, (n-1)/n > 1/n; The probability (Pr) of either event A or event B is the sum of Pr(A) and Pr(B) and equals 1, provided that Pr (A and B) = 0 and the two events exhaust the universe of events under consideration

Let there be n > 2 rooms, one which contains a car, all others being empty. If using a prescribed method of selection you pick the room with the car, you win the car. Here is the method: You pick one of the n rooms at random; i.e. with probability 1/n. Then (n-2) empty rooms are removed from the drawing and you are left with the option of selecting one of the two remaining rooms. Now, if you want to have the best chance of winning the car, do you keep your first selection or switch? That is the problem.

Solution: Since the car is certainly in one and only one of the rooms, the two probabilities are 1/n and 1-1/n = (n-1) /n. So our math facts say to switch and also that you increase your chances (n-1) times by doing so. The original Monty Hall problem was for n=3 and had several mentions of goats and doors.

The two current writers to whom everyone should be paying the most attention are Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins. Superstition has hampered human progress for thousands of years but it is only now that it directly threatens the survival of the human race. Yes, I mean it! And Harris and Dawkins are two of of a too small band of rationalists who have the nerve to speak to the problem without apology and with readily accessible works.

A scary side note to the above is a study in the current issue of Sceptic. Researchers suggest that superstition may be inherent and heritable. So we may be doomed by this path in any case. Right now I don't want to accept that.