Brave Humans

Here is an alternative direction for US global engagement put forward by John Feffer at Foreign Policy In Focus (FPIF), Institute for Policy Studies.

FPIF is promoting a ‘Just Security’ program that calls for:

* A reduction of $213 billion in U.S. military spending, or one-third of the total “defense” budget.
* Dramatic cuts in U.S. and Russian nuclear arsenals as a first step toward nuclear disarmament.
* An international process under the auspices of the UN to secure a viable peace between Israel and Palestine.
* A global carbon fee to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and generate funds to help countries transition to sustainable sources of energy.
* A large-scale, global plan to train four million new health workers.

This program is based on the following Seven Principles:

1. The US must advance rather than undermine international mechanisms and institutions. We should move from a unipolar system presided over by the United States to a secure, multipolar system that is held in place by a latticework of international institutions and laws.

2. We must support the rule of law, not the rule of the jungle. The United States should spend less time talking about the rule of law and more time practicing the rule of law—by upholding international agreements such as the Geneva Conventions, ratifying the core labor standards of the International Labor Organization, and supporting new international institutions such as the International Criminal Court.

3. We must lead by example, not by force. The United States is No. 1 in several dubious categories—most powerful nuclear arsenal, largest greenhouse gas emitter, leading arms exporter—so if we want to change the world we have to start by changing ourselves.

4. Global problems call for global solutions, but one size does not fit all. The world is a varied place and what works in one place for one problem may not work the same elsewhere.

5. We should support just policies abroad because they also encourage just policies at home. Global inequality, unregulated arms sales, and weakened international agreements and institutions are not just foreign policy issues. They have tremendous impact on the U.S. economy and the security of the population.

6. We need more public involvement in global affairs not less. We can’t leave it to the experts to solve the world’s problems because, in many cases, the experts got us into the jam in the first place. As those who live in this country, we must use democratic means to close the gap between what the polls say and what our leaders are doing.

7. Security is not just about the military. When we speak of security, we are talking about freedom from military conflicts and terrorist attacks. But we also believe that security involves access to sufficient food and shelter, good health care and good jobs, a clean environment and well-functioning, accountable political structures.

Foreign Policy in Focus is critical of both Republican and Democrat approaches to global engagement.

As this approach looks excellent to me, I thought it would be interesting to discover the perspectives of those of you with different view points.

FPIF website = http://www.fpif.org/

On June 8th I was listening to an NPR program called Science Friday. First let me say that this is one of my favorite programs. I LIKE these guys and what they do.

This is why I wanted to scream just a bit on this particular Friday. The subject was global warming in general and its current impact on Alaska in particular. The context was a live panel discussion of some pretty impressive sounding science types with expertise in Alaska. Short story: If you don’t think global warming is real or a problem, come on up north and watch Alaska melt. Seriously.

OK, so I’m listening and (hopefully) learning, and they open the show up for call-in questions. Here’s where the problem starts.

A guy calls in and raises the following question:

Note: This is a paraphrase of the exact question and responses. Here’s the link to the 2-hour broadcast. I originally heard this in my car and I couldn’t bring myself to sit through the entire thing until I heard this question and responses to quote so I’m going on my memory.

Question:
We know based on the available evidence that significant climate change has occurred several times throughout the history of the planet. The forces and factors involved here are hugely powerful and complex and our understanding of them is limited. Given this, has anyone given serious thought to the idea that efforts to stop it or slow it down may be the wrong way to address the problem? Can humans legitimately do anything to significantly alter this process, or should we be focusing our efforts on adapting to the change more than fighting it?

As I understand his point, this guy is saying that the problem is real, BUT that all the efforts to “stop” global warming may be futile and we need to adapt rather than fight. Until we have an answer to this question, it seems we’re quite possibly spending time and resources in the wrong places.

Look, I think this is a great question. The possible implications are scary, humbling, and profoundly politically difficult, but the stakes are very high here. We need to get this one right.

Hearing this question reminded me of a related story of the melting of the last glacier in Germany and the efforts to stave off the inevitable for as long as possible.

So I waited to hear the answer from a sample of folks who are professionally obligated to either a) answer the question if they believe they have a valid response or b) state flat out that they don’t know and discuss the issues raised in the question to the best of their current ability. This is what scientists do. It’s why we pay them and should listen to them.

So what happened? When faced with this potentially explosive and foundational question, these folks responded like politicians: They completely ignored it. Their responses were all some variation on yes, climate change is powerful and that’s why we need to start dealing with it now. This response makes me suspect that they really don’t know, or they do and the answers are scarier than they want to own up to.

I understand why they did this. Most or all of the panel members were Alaskans, and this issue hits very close to home. Saying that there’s a good chance that there’s not much we can do except metaphorically move to higher ground would be painful and likely seen as defeatist. It also seems like the decision has already been made, possibly independent of the evidence. See this ad to “fight global warming” . But scientists get paid to give us the data that exist and their best interpretation of it. When they act like politicians and ignore the scary stuff or tell us what we want to hear, we all lose.

Be Brave. Be Truthful.
-Grant

OK, nothing about politics or religion from me today. I like to write about whatever strikes me, and this week it was an article on CNN.com about different parenting styles. (This also fits neatly with Father’s Day, so there you go.)

The article basically says that fathers and mothers parent differently. Big surprise. Anyone who has had a mother and father or observed a mother and father has noticed this. In general, the article suggests that fathers are more likely to let their children take risks, are less interested in details, and don’t necessarily see frustration as negative.

Now, the article didn’t seem to be based on research but rather on gender generalizations. I know families where the parents function in reversed roles (based on the criteria in the article). I think the important point to remember, however, is that parents can be different, and that’s a good thing.

That said, in my house, the roles are actually quite typical. We sometimes identify things by, “That’s your mom’s thing,” or “That’s Daddy’s thing.” We went to an amusement park this week, and I couldn’t watch my daughter go on the “flying swings.” I had to turn my back, all the while imagining that the swings would become unattached and crash. My husband just watched, narrating the ride for me. “She has a big smile on her face.” “Now she has her eyes closed like a dog hanging its head out the window of a moving car.” “The ride is over; you can turn around now.”

My daughter would never ride a roller coaster if it were up to me (I’m not getting on one), and she LOVES them. She’d also not learn to play the guitar without formal lessons. Her dad presented her with a guitar for Christmas, and, when she’s in the mood, he gives her a lesson.

On the other hand, left to my husband’s devices, she wouldn’t have dance or swim lessons, both of which she loves. She wouldn’t do messy “science” experiments, have walkie-talkies, or play in the mud. (Remind me to tell you the infamous “shoe-in-the-mud” story sometime.)

I think it’s beneficial for children to be exposed to different care-taking styles, no matter who the significant adults are in their lives. My husband and I share an overarching philosophy about raising children, but it allows for our own individuality. My daughter couldn’t wait for summer vacation to start; she has a list of things to do with her dad over the next few months. One is: stay up all night and watch movies. That’s definitely a dad thing here; my alarm goes off at 5 am and I’m useless by 10 pm. So they can camp on the living room floor while I sleep upstairs with the cats. A good deal for all…

Be brave. Be human.
Susan

This one is in part a response to Susan’s post Now Talk, but I can’t blame it all on her. In any event, here’s the connection.

I read the excerpt from Gore’s book that was printed in time magazine, and was impressed. OK, I’m a Democrat, and completely under-whelmed by my current choice of Presidential candidates, but that’s my bias, not my point. Here it is: As I read the Time piece on Gore, I had two almost simultaneous thoughts: 1) This seems like a smart and capable guy who could get things done for the country and maybe the world.

So far you’re thinking standard Dem blah blah. OK, fine. Replace Gore with a name and face that YOU think has some guts and ideas and let’s go on to my next thought. 2) I don’t want him/her/whoever to run for President because I think he will be more effective as a private citizen.

Let me run that past you again because it’s the core of this post. I read about a public figure whose ideas and intellect seemed powerful and interesting to me and my next thought was that I don’t want him to waste his time being President of the United States.

Now, if this sounds perfectly reasonable to you, then my apologies for wasting your time. But it was an absolutely new, and very frightening thought for me. The really scary part was that it ambushed me over my coffee and English muffin. Up until this point in my life I has sincerely believed that the U.S. government was fundamentally sound and that all we needed to do is put our best people in elected office, and as a country we could solve any problem that came our way. Not without a great number of screw-ups, but in the end we’d end up better than we started. Honest. Call me Pollyanna or just plain stupid, but I thought it would work. I guess not any more.

At some real level I guess I now see our government as generally an obstacle to positive change. I think we have now become one of those sad countries where the government is simply a cross to be born and paid for, but generally ignored when real work needs to be done.

You go choose who you want. I’m going to read Gore’s book. I may even see if I can do some work for him, as long as he doesn’t seek high U.S. political office. I don’t have that kind of time and effort to waste.

Be Human. I’m going on vacation. I’ll work on the brave part.

The controversial No Child Left Behind Act has been around for five years now and is up for renewal. States have been charged with ensuring students’ math and reading proficiencies as measured by standardized tests; schools can be sanctioned for not meeting the goal.

Results are mixed. For instance, in Mississippi, 89% of fourth graders passed the state reading test in 2005. In Massachusetts, on the other hand, only 50% of fourth grade students passed. Seems like Mississippi is really onto something here…but then we look further…

Expectations vary greatly from state to state. Passing scores in one state are failing scores in another. Not only does this result in inconsistencies, but it seriously misrepresents achievement.

States set their own standards, so results vary wildly. It makes no sense to me, despite the obvious nod to “states’ rights.” The federal government imposes specific requirements on participants, but then it lets the states measure how well they’ve fulfilled the requirements. So what happens? I see a few scenarios, but I’m sure there are more:

• Some will just do their best to go along with what the federal government says.
• Some will be afraid of how negative outcomes will affect their states financially, so they will do whatever it takes to look good…including devising low expectations that are achievable and affordable.
• Some will not care what the federal government said because they’re already concerned with improving their educational systems. They will attack the problem in a way they think will solve it best, regardless of a timeline.

It’s conceivable, therefore, that states can be penalized for taking a thorough, thoughtful approach; others who have less substantial programs will be, if not rewarded, at least left alone. And, as often happens in education, the real losers will be students.

Be brave. Be human.
Susan

There’s something I’ve wondered about on and off for a while, but Brian’s line in Burden of Proof got me thinking of it again:

“If you count “spiritual” it encompasses about 70% of all scientists.”

I used to assume that “spiritual” meant “religious,” but then I got out into the great big world and people weren’t using those words synonymously. I can’t, however, quite grasp what people mean by it.

I’m now concluding that it means different things to different people. For instance, I heard a local production of “Our Town” referred to as a “spiritual experience.” I never would have thought of that myself. Today on NPR I heard classical music described as “spiritual.” I know of someone, who, although not affiliated with any particular faith, is often described as “spiritual.”

I’m not interested in a dictionary definition. I want to understand how it’s used in everyday language. So help me out here: if this is a word that has meaning for you, how do you use it? In what context? How would you define it? I know this isn’t a controversial, hard-hitting topic, but words are fascinating, and they have power. We assume we understand each other’s words, but consequences often indicate that we don’t.

Be brave. Be human.
Susan

A recent issue of time magazine has an excerpt from Al Gore’s new book, “The Assault on Reason.” Judging by the excerpt, Gore has many thought-provoking things to say.

Look, I know it’s Al Gore…the vice-presidency, the run for president, “An Inconvenient Truth.” It seems people either like him or not, believe him or not…but c’mon, give it a chance.

I’ve been trying to choose one topic on which to focus, and I can’t decide. So here’s what I’m going to do…I’ll throw out a few of Gore’s ideas for you…see what you think of them…then we’ll talk…

1. “It is too easy—and too partisan—to simply place the blame [for what’s wrong in our country] on the policies of President George W. Bush. We are all responsible for the decisions our country makes. We have a Congress. We have an independent judiciary. We have checks and balances. We are a nation of laws. We have free speech. We have a free press. Have they all failed us? Why has America’s public discourse become less focused and clear, less reasoned?”

2. “At first I thought the exhaustive, nonstop coverage of the O.J. Simpson trial was just an unfortunate excess—an unwelcome departure from the normal good sense and judgment of our television news media. Now we know that it was merely an early example of a new pattern of serial obsessions that periodically take over the airwaves for weeks at a time: the Michael Jackson trial and the Robert Blake trial, the Laci Peterson tragedy and the Chandra Levy tragedy, Britney and KFed, Lindsay and Paris and Nicole.

While American television watchers were collectively devoting 100 million hours of their lives each week to these and other similar stories, our nation was in the process of more quietly making what future historians will certainly describe as a series of catastrophically mistaken decisions on issues of war and peace, the global climate and human survival, freedom and barbarity, justice and fairness.”

3. “Many Americans now feel that our government is unresponsive and that no one in power listens to or cares what they think. They feel disconnected from democracy. They feel that one vote makes no difference, and that they, as individuals, have no practical means of participating in America’s self-government. Unfortunately, they are not entirely wrong. Voters are often viewed mainly as targets for easy manipulation by those seeking their “consent” to exercise power. By using focus groups and elaborate polling techniques, those who design these messages are able to derive the only information they’re interested in receiving from citizens—feedback useful in fine-tuning their efforts at manipulation. Over time, the lack of authenticity becomes obvious and takes its toll in the form of cynicism and alienation. And the more Americans disconnect from the democratic process, the less legitimate it becomes.”

4. “But the Internet must be developed and protected, in the same way we develop and protect markets—through the establishment of fair rules of engagement and the exercise of the rule of law. The same ferocity that our Founders devoted to protect the freedom and independence of the press is now appropriate for our defense of the freedom of the Internet. The stakes are the same: the survival of our Republic. We must ensure that the Internet remains open and accessible to all citizens without any limitation on the ability of individuals to choose the content they wish regardless of the Internet service provider they use to connect to the Web. We cannot take this future for granted. We must be prepared to fight for it, because of the threat of corporate consolidation and control over the Internet marketplace of ideas.”

You see my problem? Any of these issues could make an interesting discussion. Let’s see who out there is more decisive than I am. Take your pick…now, discuss.

Be brave. Be human. Be more decisive than I am…
Susan

Early in my career I taught physics and astronomy at a private religious college in the heart of the Bible belt. I often found myself teaching students who were creationists. As a result there were times when I would find myself using terms such as “billions of years ago” or “over many millennia” to young men and women who believed in their hearts that the world is only 6000 years old.

In my first year one student confronted me on what I was teaching. Out of class the student would challenge me with evidence for a young earth, and he had it in spades. He described “polonium halos,” formed in granite via radioactive decay, as an indication that earth must have formed in less than a minute. He introduced me to “canopy theory” to account for the global flood, the idea being that shell of ice encompassing the earth provided the source for 40 days and nights of rain. This particular student was no slack. He was intelligent, curious and motivated. He asked good questions, and in the end did quite well. He also adamantly believed that the universe was created in six 24-hour days.

He is not alone. Studies have shown that about 18% of Americans believe the Biblical description of creation to be literally true. This is vastly higher than in any other industrialized country. America is one of only two countries where a belief in creationism is prominent. The other country is Turkey, where Muslim creationism is widely accepted.

This week marks the grand opening of the Creation Museum. This tweny-seven million dollar museum is established by Answers in Genesis to promote scientific creationism. The museum shows that the earth is 6000 years old, that dinosaurs rode with Noah on the Ark, and that everything from fossils to the grand canyon to plate tectonics are the result of the Biblical flood.

Given such absurdity it is easy to disregard this effort as simple-minded stupidity. It isn’t. My creationist student was neither ignorant nor stupid, and there are quite a few creation scientists with legitimate degrees (even Ph.Ds) from accredited universities. They are vastly outnumbered by traditional scientists who consider creation science to be pseudo-science at best, but that does not make the degrees of creationists any less valid.

Creationism is not simple-minded ignorance. It is a sophisticated resurrection of medieval science, where scientific evidence is accepted so long as it agrees with their forgone conclusions. Their website summarizes it clearly:

The Bible is true. No doubt about it! Paul explains God’s authoritative Word, and everyone who rejects His history-including six-day creation and Noah’s Flood-is ‘willfully’ ignorant.

Any scientific evidence or conclusion which contradicts a literal Biblical interpretation is heresy.

Contrary to the common view, the medieval Church was not opposed to the study of science. It actually encouraged science in many ways. Science (then known as natural philosophy) was taught in Church-controlled universities, and was seen as an essential area of study. Scientists even enjoyed significant intellectual freedom, so long as their conclusions did not contradict Church teachings. Such heresy would earn you excommunication, or worse.

Galileo is the best known example of this. A devout Catholic, Galileo studied everything from the motion of pendulums to ebb and flow of tides. He discovered moons around Jupiter and craters on the moon. However Galileo crossed the line when he asserted that the earth moved around the sun. Church doctrine held that the earth was fixed at the center of the universe. For example, 1 Chronicles 16:30 states “…The world is firmly established; it cannot be moved.” To claim otherwise was heresy.

In Galileo’s time heliocentrism was viewed in much the same light as evolution is today. Most scholars of the day saw Galileo’s findings to be an elegant proof of heliocentrism. At the same time much of the general population felt it defied common sense. For example, Martin Luther ridiculed the idea, saying “The fool wants to turn the whole art of astronomy upside-down. However, as Holy Scripture tells us, so did Joshua bid the sun to stand still and not the earth.”

In the end, the Church lost its battle against heliocentrism. Because science isn’t driven by popularity or religious dogma. Science is driven by evidence. Creationism is not science. It is a theological perversion of science into Christianity’s version of Sharia Law. Either you accept their version of Biblical truth, or you are a heretic. Scientific evidence to the contrary be damned.

Only about 40% of Americans accept evolution as a scientific fact. This is the lowest percentage of any industrialized nation. This lack of acceptance is driven in large part by creationists and supporters of intelligent design, who have convinced the general public that evolution is a speculative theory supported by tenuous evidence.

But the blame cannot be placed entirely on creationists. As scientists we have failed to convey a better understanding of evolution and the evidence which supports it. That can only change if we are willing to confront questions head on.

So I’m putting out a call to anyone who wants to discuss evolution. If you think evolution is largely unsubstantiated and want more evidence, just ask for it. If you are a creationist who feels your theory is better, make your case.

Be Brave. Be Human. Think.

A US public High School student was recently arrested and charged with disorderly conduct. His crime was a violent, rambling, and poorly written essay completed as part of a creative writing exercise in his English class. It is quite clear from the essay, which is now available several places on the net including here, that Mr. Lee has little future as a writer, and low regard for his English teacher, his school, and much of the world in general.

I’m not going to discuss the essay here. You can see for yourself that it’s crap of the lowest order. Lee has been characterized as a “straight A” or “Honors student” in many reports. This was clearly done to show that this is not a “troubled student”, but after reading the essay, I’m left wonder what level of work a kid in his school has to do to fail.

In any event, my main concern here is the arrest. According to the published reports, Lee was charged with Disorderly Conduct, based on the fact that his writing “disturbed an individual”. That individual was the English teacher who read the essay. Upon reading it, she was understandably alarmed and brought the essay to the attention of the school administrators. Upon considering the essay themselves, the administrators decided to alert the police, who then decided to arrest Lee.

Upon his arrest, Mr. Lee was barred from the school and was told by the Marines that his accepted and impending enlistment was now cancelled due to the charges against him. He has since been allowed back in school, but the Marines have dropped him entirely.

I am not defending Mr. Lee’s essay in any way. In my opinion he clearly intended to shock and disturb his teacher. Nor do I question her reaction. I to would have alerted school officials after reading it. Those officials in turn, were right to closely examine both the essay and their possible responses.

But here’s where I think the train went off the rails. They did not contact the kid’s parents. Instead they went straight to the cops. Why NOT talk to Lee’s parents or even to Lee himself? Why jump straight to the police? If this kid has no record of disturbed or disturbing behavior, and is a generally good student, why NOT try and speak to him and his family?

This incident occurred in the week directly following the Virginia Tech shootings and it’s a virtual (and quite understandable) certainty that folks at Lee’s school were jumpy and reacted to his essay with V-Tech in mind. Lee’s father stated this connection outright after the arrest. However, how does an essay, written as a school assignment and handed in privately to a teacher constitute a crime? Yes, it was vile. Yes, officials at the school have both the right and responsibility to be concerned, but where is the crime here? How is this not a straightforward example of police-state style censorship? If the law was correctly applied, it is clearly a bad law.

Finally, even if Lee’s arrest can be condoned as a legal and appropriate response to his actions, what are the likely results of his arrest? If he is unstable and prone to violence, what are his likely actions now that he’s out on bail? How might he feel about the folks at school who just got him thrown out of school, thrown out of the Marines and arrested?

What concerns me about this series of events are the civil liberties issues and the blind-scared thoughtlessness that was exhibited by both the school and the local cops. First, the arrest was simply unwarranted and consistent with police state-style censorship. Second, it was just a dumb thing to do that increases the chances of a violent and tragic retaliation should that idea be floating around Lee’s head in the first place. Everybody loses.

Be Brave. Be thoughtful. Be human.
-Grant

Recently Nightline held a “debate” on the existence of God. The debate was initiated by Kirk Cameron and Ray Comfort, who claimed to be able to prove through science alone (without any appeal to faith or the Bible) that God exists. Representing the opposing team were Brian Sapient and Kelly of the Rational Response Squad. True to expectation, what ABC touted as a meeting of minds played out as Philosophy 101.

Ray Comfort initiated the debate with the “watchmaker” argument: watches are complex. We know that watches are made by watchmakers. Animals are complex, therefore animals must have a creator (i.e. God). Figuring he had won the debate, he went on to argue that evolution is absurd because a can of cola does not begin as a primordial pool of fizzy liquid around which a thin shell of aluminum forms over millions of years. Never mind the fact that evolution only addresses living things that can reproduce. Finally, Comfort closed discussing how God gave us our morality in the form of 10 commandments, punishment in the form of hell, and how Jesus is the only way to avoid hell. QED.

As a rebuttal, Brian and Kelly could have simply stated that Comfort’s first point was not science, but rather the philosophical argument from design, which has several counters, not the least of which is that watches do not breed. Likewise for Comfort’s soda can argument. They could have also mentioned that Comfort’s closing argument was simply a statement of Biblical faith, which Comfort had agreed not to invoke prior to the debate. QED.

Instead, Brian and Kelly spent most of their time pointing out that the Bible was irrational. Kelly went so far as to invoke Hitler, arguing that as a Catholic Hitler escaped hell, while the non-believing Jews he killed were all condemned. This of course meant that Kelly automatically lost the debate via Godwin’s Law.

In the end, neither side presented their case well, nor did they provide good counterpoints to the other side. Given that far greater minds on both sides of the fence have wrestled with this debate, I’m not surprised at the outcome. Watching the debate however reminded me of how most people fundamentally misunderstand science.

Cameron and Comfort claimed to have scientific proof of God. What they don’t seem to understand is that making such a claim reduces God to a physical process. If you say scientifically that God is light, then God travels at 186,000 miles per second in a vacuum. If God is love, then God is a chemically driven process within our brains. If God created the universe, then God is the big bang. If God can be described by science, then God is reduced to fundamental physics. Science assumes a materialist paradigm and describes physical processes of cause and effect.

Of course few believers constrain God to the physical plane. Most Christians, for example, seem to adhere to a form of Cartesian Dualism, where the mind or soul is separate from the physical processes of our bodies and is capable of controlling our physical behavior. God, likewise exists outside the physical universe, but is able to intercede on physical processes. Such an assertion is completely unscientific. This is not to say theological dualism is necessarily invalid, but simply that dualism lies outside the boundaries of science. If God exists outside the physical universe, then God cannot be described or proven by the scientific method. Unfortunately many believers assume that science stands in opposition to faith because it only considers the physical. Many like to frame them in opposition. Either believe in evolution, or believe in God, as if those are the only choices.

Atheists often make the same mistake about science. Asked why they don’t accept the idea of God, most atheists will simply state that they see no evidence of God. The implication being that if God existed there would be some scientific evidence. Of course most atheists would reject a physical God. The idea that God is the energy of which we are all made is not the God in which they don’t believe. What most atheists reject is the concept of dualism. Their worldview is materialist, hence that which falls outside of scientific investigation simply doesn’t exist. Since science also adopts a materialist paradigm it is impossible for science to prove atheism wrong. What few atheists admit is that science also cannot prove dualism wrong. God could have created the universe yesterday, and science would have no way of knowing.

Neither side can claim science as proof, despite what both sides often claim.

As a result, debating the existence or non-existence of God becomes a fool’s game, because neither side agrees on what constitutes the burden of proof. Read any Christian apologetics and the argument goes: It is reasonable to assume God exists. From this assumption we can show that God must exist. The burden of proof that God doesn’t exist therefore falls upon the atheists. Read any atheist apologetics and you find the same argument: it is reasonable to assume God does not exist. From this assumption we can show that God doesn’t exist. The burden of proof that God exists therefore falls upon the believers. In the course of debates both sides present themselves as being reasonable and open to persuasion. In truth, however, the constraints each side places on what constitutes proof makes such persuasion impossible.

After all, for that which is true no proof is required. For that which is false no proof exists.