Kevin writes about The Probability of God by Stephan D. Unwin.#

If John Derbyshire picked a difficult task (attempting to explain the "World's Greatest Unsolved Math Problem") then Stephen Unwin has chose a Herculean one. Unwin, a physicist and risk management consultant and author of The Probability of God, set as his objective "to calculate the numerical probability that God exists." Not satisfied with that task he also hopes to "determine the relationship between this probability and the notion of religious faith." To attempt to accomplish all this in less than 250 pages is no mean feat.

The method that is used and the logic behind it very fascinating, I can't wait to read the book myself. Here's a particularly interesting discussion:

Without spoiling the conclusion, I can tell you that Unwin places the probability that God exists north of the 50% he started with. The end result is that Unwin thinks that belief in God is an eminently reasonable position given the evidence. To further reinforce this view, he takes a look at Pascal's Wager and probabilistic decision theory in light of both his newfound probability and the logic of math. Unwin uses this as a stepping-stone to a discussion on faith itself. He ponders the definition of faith. Is faith a leap in the dark from the end of logic and rationality to a belief in God? Is it simply an extension of ones rational belief? It is a complicated issue and Unwin provides a fascinating discussion. In the end, he compares faith and reason as complimentary but not wholly separate things:

faith reflects an experiential belief rather than a reasoned belief in a mundane proposition of statistics, logic, or concrete fact. Perhaps probability can be viewed as a snapshot taken in the cold light of logic, whereas faith is more like the exhilaration of experiencing great music. Yet, as we discussed, faith can be attached to the proposition with which the more conventional meaning of "true" (or "false") can be associated.

Unwin uses a formula to explain: Belief in God = the probability of God + Faith in God. He asserts that a proper balance is necessary for faith to have meaning. If faith simply picks up the tab for whatever reason can't cover then the more you know the less faith you have. This would put reason at odds with faith and vice versa.

This is a very interesting idea to me, similar to the distinction between art and artifact. When meaning and rationality enter into the discussion of something or the merit of it, does that destroy the potential for it to have "true" meaning? Does art not for art's sake insist that the work is not true art? I think of this meaning and purpose behind an artifact as orthogonal to using rationality to make decisions of belief.

By asserting that there is some greater principle of truth or merit does that remove the personal touch, the love and deep meaning of something? Or is it the other way around - and the eternal truth inherent in something is the only real way to appreciate life, rather than following your own personal opinion or experience? And lastly, isn't the belief that logic can solve and resolve your problems are similar kind of belief as belief in God?

Tangential to this is the question of whether belief in God is really something to be concerned about, I defer to Real Live Preacher:

I learned that it doesn't matter in the least that I be convinced of God's existence. Whether or not God exists is none of my business, really. What do I know of existence? I don't even know how the VCR works.

What does matter is whether or not I am faithful. I think faithful is a hell of a good word. It still has some of its original shine. It still calls us to action.

Betsy Devine writes up a great Irish joke. (Pro Irish.)#

Matt Stoller covers the first BOPNews "Blog Burst" on the Internet, Media, and Politics...#

Mary at The Left Coaster frames the transformation as David vs. Goliath.

A democracy relies on an educated populous that understands the issues. Once again the internet has overcome the tyranny of the traditional media which has basically abandoned the role of educating the public in order to entertain the crowd. Fortunately, the internet provides an enormous library for people with the world's media online and available for all to see. And blogs help organize and prioritize the news for their readers. Blogs and other internet forums are used to educate and motivate people. Unlike TV, the web participant is more likely to be get active rather than being just being couch potato consumers of entertainment fed by the media moguls.

Dimmy Karras is weary of claiming that blogs are great social force because of the 'echo chamber' effect.

In short, I don't think many conservatives stumble across Atrios or Daily Kos and decide George Bush is a bad president after all. By the same token, I doubt anyone with a liberal bent feels a change of heart after reading Andrew Sullivan or InstaPundit. People seem to select blogs to read (or to harass) based on what they already believe. Rather than opening our minds, I think the blogosphere may be hardening people's positions and making them less receptive to (not to mention respectful of) the other side.

The Internet offers an incredible breadth of information to anyone with a computer and a web connection. At the same time, though, it offers incredible depth of coverage of any number of narrow interest areas in ways that cater to specific worldviews.

I've talked about this before with Richard. And I just had another thought - so maybe the Internet and blogs are not perfect for creating dissent and changing minds. They still connect people who do agree so they can organize amongst themselves and give their agenda some backing. Like anything, Blogs have good and bad points.

Speaking of Richard, he links to Roger Ebert on film appreciation.#

Roger Ebert: "If you understand why "Kill Bill" is a good movie and "The Texas Chainsaw Massacre" is not, and "Bad Santa" is a good movie and "The Cat in the Hat" is not, then you have freed yourself from the belief that a movie's quality is determined by its subject matter. You instinctively understand that a movie is not about what it is about, but about how it is about it."

It is not what you look like, it's who you look like.

Jim Moore writes about the Dean campaign in response to Andrew Grumet's comments about how it deeply effects the donor.#

The donor feels empowered, the keeping score at both the individual and the group level is public and audited. He would like to discover other ways of being empowered that are more wallet-friendly, but he gets the importance of the Dean campaign's use of giving to build the community. Of course the same is true for MoveOn.org.

The really important element in this election is how to empower people to be a part of the political process, and how to do it soon. I like to think of the "political behavioral ecology:" Certain behaviors and self-understandings become more commonplace across the societal landscape (like, two to three million people become political donors for the first time). Large numbers of individuals become more deeply empowered--because they are knowledgable, linked with others, and feel their power. The flora and fauna of the political landscape becomes replete with a robust, empowered and diverse mix of beings.

Dean Esmay writes about Third Parties of Politics.#

Parliamentary systems, like the ones they have in places like Canada, Australia, or the UK, seem more "democratic" because they have more political parites. But what really happens in those countries? Usually there are two big parties anyway. In fact, it always seems to come down to a fundamental split of "Labour vs. Tories," no matter how you slice it. It always amounts to the "don't change much of anything" party vs. the "let's change as much as we can!" party. Plus a bunch of tiny outlying parties who exert some influence but have no hope of ever claiming the majority. So what they wind up doing is forming a coalition with one of the two major parties.

Mind you, it is very tempting to say that "honest politics would have no parties." But that's a naive and shallow view. Truth is, when you get a lot of people together to try to reach consensus, they are GOING to line up along certain basic lines: "tax the rich more" vs. "tax the rich less" or "aggressive foreign policy" vs. "mild-mannered foreign policy." Or, to put it more dramatically: "Execute everyone who breaks any law" vs. "Let is all hang out." Bottom line is, it always winds up lining up along similar "conservative/liberal" lines, no matter how you slice it.

TO Talk of Many Things links to the Third Party WatchBlog on the other side.

The winning candidate never represents a majority decision of the people anymore. A plutocracy is a government run by the wealthy. An oligarchy is a government run by a small number of the population. Given that our government's officials are elected by a minority of adults in the country, and their decisions are bought and sold through compromise of wealthy special interest lobbyists and donors as a few hours spent watching C-Span makes evident, we have a plutocratic oligarchy, not a democracy. We talk democracy to get votes, but, make no mistake; our government's decisions and lawmaking are based on plutocratic lobbyists representing an oligarchy of corporate, business and wealthy individual's interests.

Jay Rosen interviews Rodney Benson about how to improve American Journalism by comparing it with its French counterpart.#

The French show that a journalism of ideas doesn't have to be boring, in fact, the opposite! To my mind, tabloid-format newspapers like Le Monde and Libération mix genres that for too long have been kept distinct in the United States — the elite daily papers like the New York Times versus the best of the alternative weeklies like the Village Voice or the LA Weekly. Efforts by the Tribune Co. and Gannett to launch their own urban weeklies suggest an interest in new formats, but it's unlikely that these ventures will break down this traditional separation between general news dailies and cultural news weeklies.

What I'm suggesting is that the U.S. mainstream press be more open to radically transforming its approach to design and story format. Why not publish more interview transcripts? Or run a guest commentary right alongside the related news article? Times editor Abe Rosenthal once said of Le Monde, "It's the best something in the world, but whatever it is, it's not a real newspaper." That's absurd. French journalists are very open to learning what they can from their American counterparts. American journalists ought to be able to open their minds as well to completely different ways of writing and presenting the news.

Dean Esmay on Feminism.#

"Feminism is a radical notion that women are people too."

So, let's remind these chicks [who reject feminism] of their fundamental flaw. If you reject feminism, it must mean you don't think you're a person.

Funny, my great-grandmother, my grandmother, and my mother all rejected feminism. Yet, for some odd reason, they were strong, independen, willful women who were utterly in control of their own lives and destinies. I guess it must logically follow that they all viewed themselves as non-persons, right? After all, before Betty Friedanm and NOW, women simply weren't treated as persons.

Hope replies to a comment I made about our inability to choose leaders we desire.#

Nonsense. "Campaigns and the political process" cater to what we the people have communicated is, collectively, meaningful to us. An averaged-out message, yes, but that's what democracy gets you: more or less what most people usually want, most of the time. And while they certainly exploit the vacuum created by voter apathy, no one forced people to stop voting.

[...]

There are people in this country who get candidates (and even leaders) that they really like. There may not be that many of them, in relative terms. But I guarantee they get off their asses and do more about it than you do.

The world is run by those who show up.

I respond at the Rhythm Track.

Amy Skurt has a great blog! Oh man.#

I contemplate, hair hanging in face, the fact that I am almost 27 which is damn close to 30 which seems damn fucking old. And I think about how I'm in school and the last guy I broke up with who could never commit to me is now completely comitted to some really ugly lame girl and I feel the exact same as I did when I was 22 or 18. It's like my life is always the same. Like I'm getting older, but not wiser. Somehow time has passed but nothing has changed. Somehow I am stuck in a loop. I think it's time to change. I think it's time to grow up, but I'm not going to dress older. That's for damn sure. I guess, I just have to act better and take more responsibility for my actions. Pull it together. Study more. I should stop talking so much and try to listen more. When I ask my friends for advice because they know what's best for me maybe I should take it. I'm going to stop dating losers. In fact, next time I go out with a guy it's going to be because I asked him out. Fuck. Yeah.

Sometimes you get to a point where you realize that there are many things your life that you don't like AND that you can do something about it. I imagine other people are like this, but for me it takes me quite sometime before I get enough motivation to want to make a difference. I 'deal' for a while and then I hit the high watermark and need a change.

I recently went through a change... and it worked out horribly. But I believe in the process.

And I can't wait for more from Amy!

Carly warns the Deannies about what might happen if he really gets elected.#

The supporters though -- I'm more concerned about them, to be honest. So, Dean has jumpstarted this entire generation of people. And to be perfectly straightforward, it's not so much a generation as just a group, because the people I know that are involved with the Dean campaign range from my grandparents' age to people who can't even vote. But basically, it's mostly a group of people who haven't been involved before and feel inspired by Dean's candidacy. I think they're slightly misguided and delusional (and no, I don't have a lot of rational reasoning behind why Dean supporters irritate me, so don't ask), but what Dean's done is respectable.

These, unfortunately, are also the kind of people who have no real basis in political realities, I don't think. They see and like Dean, get hyper involved with his campaign, but I think those are the volunteers that are kept on the "shiny, happy!" side of campaigns as opposed to the "smoky, back room deal" side. Which happens. I don't care who you are and what kind of campaign you like to believe you're running -- to be successful takes brandy and cigars. So they believe that they've gotten this great guy, this messiah of the Democratic party, elected.

[...]

What happens to all of that enthusiasm, then? I honestly don't believe that the Deannies could survive it at this point. I think once they were let down by the good doctor, many of them would leave the political process behind feeling disillusioned and betrayed. Which is, y'know, not what I want but perhaps the price that must be paid by those who meddle in affairs that they don't completely grasp.

Mayer Spivack begins his new weblog on a General Theory of Violence.#

Our society displays intense interest in violence. We are simultaneously fearful of and fascinated with violence of all kinds. It is our entertainment, our terror, and far too often our pain or death. Despite our interest in violence prevention and control, despite many programs that attempt to teach non-violent alternatives to children and adults, we do not understand our own violence at all. Perhaps we are afraid to understand the roots and causes of violence. To deeply understand violence we must examine some of the most unpleasant experiences in our own personal backgrounds, and even less pleasant, examine our own responses to these mostly early experiences.

These papers address our violence blind-spot. I wish to know why and how violence develops in individuals, how it is nurtured, and taught in our society. How and why violence emerges from within individuals who have been previously believed to be 'nice people, good with kids, and nice neighbors'?

Leslie asked questions about relationships yesterday.#

I've just had the worst day that I can remember in a long time. I was going out with a wonderful girl for quite sometime and we were stricken with difficulties. The core of the difficulties was my inability to tell her how I felt about her and my idiotic belief that I should 'protect' her from things I didn't think she'd understand rather than tell her the truth. I mostly scared of rejection and didn't want to put my feelings out in the open in case she didn't feel the same (or if her feelings wouldn't last.)

But, I realized that I cared too much about her to not let her know and I had to give her everything I had to give if I wanted to make it work. Sadly, she says it was too late - we'd been on a break for a while but still spoke every day and hung out a lot, and my feelings never changed. (And I was under the impression hers did not either.) She said that a few weeks ago she'd gotten over me and was now caring deeply (bordering love? I don't know) about someone else.

My initial fears about telling her how I felt came true, she didn't feel them back and didn't want me. I left her house crying earlier today. I can't really remember the last time I cried... I think it was 7 or 8 years ago when my dog died in my arms. It was the most pathetic and horrible experience I've had in a long time. I wish it was all some test on her part to see if I really cared, that she would have come chasing after me as I left. But no, I'm dead to her apparently and I'm not to speak to her.

So! I've been thinking about romantic relationships a lot and have some thoughts for Leslie:

Why do relationships end? People hurt each other and don't want to spend their time with someone who hurts them. This handles cases like lying and cheating (a betrayal of trust is harm), negligence (refusing to give your hand in help is cruel), and growing apart. Growing apart is framed as being hurt by the attachment your partner has to temporal things about you - rather than the essence of you.

Are you supposed to go into every relationship thinking that it's going to last forever? I'm very conflicted on this. On one hand I say yes - if you think otherwise then it is like saying that your relationship is inherently flawed or meaningless. (If you define meaning that way.) But on the other hand, by accepting the impermanence of a relationship you are freer to love in the present, rather than preparing for the future. But how does this enter in marriage? That's supposed to be forever. I don't know.

I feel like a baby and like I'm suggesting she has an obligation to accept my love. She is her own person and can make her own decisions. But I'm still upset. I'm trying to cheer myself up by framing this as "If you love someone, let them go, if they come back they're truly yours" scenario, but I'm very afraid she won't come back.

So... boo hoo I'm a sad teenager. I'm supposed to be consoled by the idea that there's plenty of fish in the sea and I don't really love her. But right now I can't believe that. There may be other people out there whom I could enjoy, but Krystal is unique. And love, as RLP writes, is something you do, not something you feel. And I will keep actively loving.

Back to regularly scheduled uneducated political punditry...

An interesting blog survey released its results.#

Keola Donaghy wonders if someone at the Berkman Thursday meetings has an iSight. I do not have an iSight but would be willing to use one for the benefit of society at large if you'd like to donate one. :)#

Christopher Lydon interviews Music For America.#

Music for America is a phenomenon to notice, improvising its own path into the Internet Age. I hear it as "MeetUp, the Musical" with a young dancing pulse. Or a sort of soundtrack to Jim Moore's Second Superpower. The idea of Music for America crystallized, as the Second Superpower did, around the worldwide protests last February 15 before the preemptive smashing of Baghdad. "The amazing thing was that we didn't make a dent in the media at the time," said one of the MFA originals Franz Hartl, at the left, in conversation. "There was non-coverage of the millions of people around the world who said: this is going to be a mistake." So they are back to haunt the people who ignored them. "The idea of relying on the media to broadcast a message for you was not working any more," Hartl said. "We had to look for alternatives... We're trying to look at what comes after protest."

They talk about why blogs and the blogging-infused style of communication and organization is important. The core values being independence, participation, and ease. Rather than being broadcast at and commanded by campaign managers on high what to do, the flyweight organizations surrounding bloggers relinquish control to the people and encourage each and every person to participate. They make the revealing statement that you "no longer have to be an activist to be active."

Dan and Franz also discuss the 'youth vote' and the false categorizations that are tools only useful by media corporations and institutions that seek to control and abuse our efforts and knowledge. People are sculptures, not caricatures as Stirling Newberry would say.

A final point that I'm glad they mentioned was the blogs encourage you to become informed. Rather than having the "trust us, we know best and are reliable" attitude of the old media, blogs are upfront: "I may not know everything, but this is what I think after reading these things and here's way - make your own decision."

Throughout history, public organizations have been moving towards a truer notion of liberty and more involvement of citizens through empowerment and equal standing. Blogs - or rather getting rid of the old system - are a key component in keeping this progress alive and well.

Josh Koenig, one of the founders of Music for America, writes about the failings of Television and the future of communication.#

Over the past 25 years we've watched history play out as our own personal dinner theater while our own civic culture steadily whithered. We watched thousands of people swarm gleefully over the Berlin wall. We watched thousands of bombs fall on Iraq. We watched a contract with America and a President squirming under prurient investigations. We watched shark attacks, child abductions, the rise and fall of internet billionaires -- we watched, we watched, we watched.

But the age of the spectator has an end. The television consensus of non-participation was shattered on September 11th 2001, something we could simply not just watch. Though most Americans experienced the event through live news reports and satellite broadcasts, our personal networks connected us directly, viscerally. Much as most New Yorkers knew someone who passed through the World Trade Center on a regular basis, most Americans knew someone who lived in New York City.

And the hunger to connect, to experience first-hand, to participate was given new urgency.