Advocating Reality

Evolution is often decried as 'theoretical' because the term 'theory' is attached to it.   Scientists use the word 'Theory' in a very different way than other people do.  It is much more similar to a mathematical 'Theorem' than it is to the traditional use of the word 'theory'. Hopefully you remember high school geometry, but in case you don't, here is a refresher on the Pythagorean Theorem: On any right triangle (a triangle with one 90 degree angle) the square of the hypotenuse is equal to the sum of the squares of the other two sides, and this is reflected in the formula a² + b² = c². No matter what, each and every right triangle abides by this theorem.  Every time it has been tested, it has given the correct result.  The theorem would be easily falsified (proven wrong) if a single right triangle was found that did not exhibit the dimensions predicted by the theorem.  Of course, this is entirely unlikely, if not impossible, so ...

When many Christians, particularly Catholics, talk about the 'Biblical Prohibitions' against masturbation and birth control, they all seem to refer to a single story in the Old Testament.  Interestingly, none of these people seem to know what the verses are referring to. Genesis 38:7-10  New International Version (NIV) 7 But Er, Judah’s firstborn, was wicked in the Lord’s sight; so the Lord put him to death. 8 Then Judah said to Onan, “Sleep with your brother’s wife and fulfill your duty to her as a brother-in-law to raise up offspring for your brother.” 9 But Onan knew that the child would not be his; so whenever he slept with his brother’s wife, he spilled his semen on the ground to keep from providing offspring for his brother. 10 What he did was wicked in the Lord’s sight; so the Lord put him to death also. Catholic.com Entry:  (Source:   http://www.catholic.com/tracts/birth-control ) "The Bible mentions at least one form of contraception specifically an...

Over the course of several years, through education, discussion and hours upon hours of deep thought, I no longer accept the traditional, mostly-absolute view of 'Free Will'. During some of my discussions, an issue kept coming up which kept me wondering about one particular aspect, though. Mainly, what does this mean for morality and law? How do we hold people 'accountable' to our societal and legal rules if they don't really have a say in their own thoughts and behavior? For the duration of this article (rant?), when I use the term 'Free Will' without qualification, I am specifically referring to the version of 'Free Will' which has been traditionally held by the majority of the populace for (probably) thousands of years. It occurs to me that the reason why we can still hold people accountable even without Free Will is because, when our brain is faced with a decision to make, it takes everything possible into account, including memories...