One of my projects back in 2004 was to try making a mead. My Dad was a college Humanities teacher, and Beowulf and drunk Vikings were often topics in our house. B-{)
From my notes, I had a tough time getting the yeast to take off on this, and finally attributed it to having too low a pH. I corrected that with some calcium carbonate and it took off.
I'm drinking it now. It's a dry beverage, and apparently I was impatient when I bottled it, because there is sediment that clouds the mead after the first two glasses. It doesn't affect the taste, but having two crystal clear glasses to three cloudy ones is sort of disappointing. Lesson learned. Patience.
I'll definitely be making another batch. It tends to be more expensive to make than my usual efforts... perhaps all of $3/bottle, but well worth it. B-{)
Friday, April 07, 2006
Tuesday, April 04, 2006
Pineapple Wine
After 3 years, I've got another batch of pineapple wine churning away in the primary fermenter (7 gallon food safe plastic bucket). Like last time, the little yeasties love the juice, and foamed up strongly.
This makes a nice white wine, although I like it slightly sweet, otherwise you can't taste much pineapple. It's certainly worth making a little mess for. B-{)
This makes a nice white wine, although I like it slightly sweet, otherwise you can't taste much pineapple. It's certainly worth making a little mess for. B-{)
Monday, April 03, 2006
Tituscular Paradox
A short article I wrote on one of the most obvious Biblical errors.
Tituscular Paradox
One particular gem of an example of Biblical error is found in Titus 1:12 which follows:
Titus 1:12
Even one of their own prophets has said, "Cretans are always liars, evil brutes, lazy gluttons."
This is historically attributed to Epimenides, a Cretian philosopher from around 600 BC, and here, supposedly related by Paul to Titus in this Epistle. The problem is whether Epimenides is lying or not.
At first glance, this seems to represent a problem since if the statement that "Cretans are always liars" is true, then Epimenides, being a Cretan, would have to be lying and his statement would have to be false, leading to a paradox.
Unfortunately, if Epimenides is lying about "Cretans are always liars", there is no paradox, since this means that Cretans don't always lie, when means there is at least one Cretan out there who must tell the truth every now and then. This Cretan doesn't have to be Epimenides.
This appears to put a damper on using Titus 1:12 as an example of a Biblical error, since the only way it can become a paradox is if Epimenides is telling the truth. He could be lying with no problems.
Fortunately Paul comes to our rescue with Titus 1:13:
This testimony is true. Therefore, rebuke them sharply, so that they will be sound in the faith
If Paul is telling the truth, then we have a paradox. If Paul is lying, then how can we trust anything else he supposedly says in the Bible?
Tituscular Paradox
One particular gem of an example of Biblical error is found in Titus 1:12 which follows:
Titus 1:12
Even one of their own prophets has said, "Cretans are always liars, evil brutes, lazy gluttons."
This is historically attributed to Epimenides, a Cretian philosopher from around 600 BC, and here, supposedly related by Paul to Titus in this Epistle. The problem is whether Epimenides is lying or not.
At first glance, this seems to represent a problem since if the statement that "Cretans are always liars" is true, then Epimenides, being a Cretan, would have to be lying and his statement would have to be false, leading to a paradox.
Unfortunately, if Epimenides is lying about "Cretans are always liars", there is no paradox, since this means that Cretans don't always lie, when means there is at least one Cretan out there who must tell the truth every now and then. This Cretan doesn't have to be Epimenides.
This appears to put a damper on using Titus 1:12 as an example of a Biblical error, since the only way it can become a paradox is if Epimenides is telling the truth. He could be lying with no problems.
Fortunately Paul comes to our rescue with Titus 1:13:
This testimony is true. Therefore, rebuke them sharply, so that they will be sound in the faith
If Paul is telling the truth, then we have a paradox. If Paul is lying, then how can we trust anything else he supposedly says in the Bible?
Probability Applied to Biblical Inerrancy
This is an article that was published in the Sept/Oct. 1999 issue of "The Skeptical Review".
Every now and then, creationists and biblical apologists trot out vastly large numbers concerning the probability that atoms could join spontaneously to form life. Perhaps we could use the same mathematical tools to answer the question of Bible inerrancy. This will entail a short lesson in probability, so it is my hope that those of you with mathphobia can stick around a little longer.
Probability helps us measure "chance," as with the flip of a coin, the roll of dice, or the dealing of a poker hand. It can also be adapted to events or situations where we are willing to ascribe a numeric value as to the possibilities that an event is true or false. By definition, the probability that a specific event will happen equals the number of favorable ways divided by the number of possible ways. The probability of flipping a coin and coming up with heads is therefore 1/2 (the one favorable event, heads, divided by the two possible outcomes, heads or tails). This can be expressed as a decimal (0.5) or as a percentage (50%).
The probability of an event that is certain is 1, while the probability of an event that is impossible is 0. We can then express an estimate of an event as a percentage between 0% and 100%. If we start adding independent events, things start to get very interesting. An independent event is one in which the outcome of one event has no effect on the outcome of the other. To find the probability of a sequence of events (for example, the probability of flipping two coins and getting two heads) is found by multiplying the probability of each independent event times the probability of the other. For example, we noticed above that the chances are 1/2 of getting heads on the toss of a coin, so if two coins are simultaneously tossed, the probability of getting heads on both coins is 1/2 x 1/2 = 1/4 or one out of four. (If the two coins are tossed four times, the probability is that two heads would be obtained on at least one of the tosses.) The probability then of getting all heads with three coins is 1/2 x 1/2 x 1/2 = 1/8 or one in eight.
Now we get to the good part. If we look at each of the explanations that Bible apologists give us for the inconsistencies, interpretations of prophecies, scientific errors, mistranslations, copyist errors and others as independent events (an explanation as to whether trees were created before humans would not affect the outcome of one that explains how many women went to Jesus's tomb), and assign a numeric value as to what we feel is the probability that explanation is true, we can calculate the probability that the entire sequence of events is true, and that the Bible is indeed inerrant.
Our limits on the number we choose has to fall between 0% (after all, if it's a possibility, it must have a value greater than 0 or impossible) and 100% It obviously can't have a value of 100% unless there is absolute proof that it is true.
We can be charitable, and assign a value of near certainty that each and every one of their arguments has a probability of 99% of being the correct explanation for each inconsistency. I am choosing this value even though I realize it is extraordinarily high, mainly for simplifying calculations later on. I will be using the decimal 0.99 to refer to 99% from this point.
Recall that we can find the probability of a sequence of events merely by multiplying the probability of each event times the other. In this case, we wish to find the probability that the Bible is indeed inerrant by multiplying the probability that each explanation of the inconsistencies has a certainty of 99% (0.99) of being true.
I have no idea of the total number of inconsistencies in the Bible, but a count of those compiled by Donald Morgan in a file I found on the internet called "Biblical Inconsistencies" numbered more than 330. By multiplying the number 0.99 times itself 330 times, we come up with a probability of 3.6%, or 1 chance out of nearly 28 that the Bible is inerrant! If your math skills haven't atrophied, you might recall that taking a number times itself is the same as taking it to a certain power or exponent. For example 2 x 2 = 4 would be taking 2 to the second power or squaring it; 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 would be taking 2 to the fourth power. Many calculators have an exponent key that will enable you to try these calculations with relative ease. My calculation was entered as 0.99^330.
If there are 1000 inconsistencies in the Bible that need explanations, then we would enter 0.99^1000 and get an answer of 0.0043% or 1 chance out of 23,164 that the Bible is inerrant! Obviously, the higher the number of inconsistencies we find, the lower the probability that the Bible is indeed inerrant.
Now, I chose 0.99 to simplify the math, but if there are two or more "how-it-could-have-happened" explanations for a particular event, we might assume 100% certainty that at least one of them is correct, but the probability that one particular one (say of three choices) was correct, would have to be 33%, or 0.33. So for at least this event, we would have to multiply our series times 0.33 with drastic effect! (Mind you, the entire series wouldn't consist of 0.33 to whatever power... merely that particular event!)
Because of this, each additional conflicting how-it-could-have-happened scenario that apologists come up with shatters the probability that the Bible is inerrant. Each additional interpretation of prophecies does the same. Oddly enough, it doesn't even matter how bizarre their arguments might be! The more, the better (for us at least)!
Rational men and women are quite accustomed to uncertainty. Those proclaiming inerrancy will have to present absolute proof of each of their tales if they're to avoid the slippery slopes of probability. Without those absolute proofs, the rational person when asked "Is the Bible inerrant?" could only answer, "Probably not."
Every now and then, creationists and biblical apologists trot out vastly large numbers concerning the probability that atoms could join spontaneously to form life. Perhaps we could use the same mathematical tools to answer the question of Bible inerrancy. This will entail a short lesson in probability, so it is my hope that those of you with mathphobia can stick around a little longer.
Probability helps us measure "chance," as with the flip of a coin, the roll of dice, or the dealing of a poker hand. It can also be adapted to events or situations where we are willing to ascribe a numeric value as to the possibilities that an event is true or false. By definition, the probability that a specific event will happen equals the number of favorable ways divided by the number of possible ways. The probability of flipping a coin and coming up with heads is therefore 1/2 (the one favorable event, heads, divided by the two possible outcomes, heads or tails). This can be expressed as a decimal (0.5) or as a percentage (50%).
The probability of an event that is certain is 1, while the probability of an event that is impossible is 0. We can then express an estimate of an event as a percentage between 0% and 100%. If we start adding independent events, things start to get very interesting. An independent event is one in which the outcome of one event has no effect on the outcome of the other. To find the probability of a sequence of events (for example, the probability of flipping two coins and getting two heads) is found by multiplying the probability of each independent event times the probability of the other. For example, we noticed above that the chances are 1/2 of getting heads on the toss of a coin, so if two coins are simultaneously tossed, the probability of getting heads on both coins is 1/2 x 1/2 = 1/4 or one out of four. (If the two coins are tossed four times, the probability is that two heads would be obtained on at least one of the tosses.) The probability then of getting all heads with three coins is 1/2 x 1/2 x 1/2 = 1/8 or one in eight.
Now we get to the good part. If we look at each of the explanations that Bible apologists give us for the inconsistencies, interpretations of prophecies, scientific errors, mistranslations, copyist errors and others as independent events (an explanation as to whether trees were created before humans would not affect the outcome of one that explains how many women went to Jesus's tomb), and assign a numeric value as to what we feel is the probability that explanation is true, we can calculate the probability that the entire sequence of events is true, and that the Bible is indeed inerrant.
Our limits on the number we choose has to fall between 0% (after all, if it's a possibility, it must have a value greater than 0 or impossible) and 100% It obviously can't have a value of 100% unless there is absolute proof that it is true.
We can be charitable, and assign a value of near certainty that each and every one of their arguments has a probability of 99% of being the correct explanation for each inconsistency. I am choosing this value even though I realize it is extraordinarily high, mainly for simplifying calculations later on. I will be using the decimal 0.99 to refer to 99% from this point.
Recall that we can find the probability of a sequence of events merely by multiplying the probability of each event times the other. In this case, we wish to find the probability that the Bible is indeed inerrant by multiplying the probability that each explanation of the inconsistencies has a certainty of 99% (0.99) of being true.
I have no idea of the total number of inconsistencies in the Bible, but a count of those compiled by Donald Morgan in a file I found on the internet called "Biblical Inconsistencies" numbered more than 330. By multiplying the number 0.99 times itself 330 times, we come up with a probability of 3.6%, or 1 chance out of nearly 28 that the Bible is inerrant! If your math skills haven't atrophied, you might recall that taking a number times itself is the same as taking it to a certain power or exponent. For example 2 x 2 = 4 would be taking 2 to the second power or squaring it; 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 would be taking 2 to the fourth power. Many calculators have an exponent key that will enable you to try these calculations with relative ease. My calculation was entered as 0.99^330.
If there are 1000 inconsistencies in the Bible that need explanations, then we would enter 0.99^1000 and get an answer of 0.0043% or 1 chance out of 23,164 that the Bible is inerrant! Obviously, the higher the number of inconsistencies we find, the lower the probability that the Bible is indeed inerrant.
Now, I chose 0.99 to simplify the math, but if there are two or more "how-it-could-have-happened" explanations for a particular event, we might assume 100% certainty that at least one of them is correct, but the probability that one particular one (say of three choices) was correct, would have to be 33%, or 0.33. So for at least this event, we would have to multiply our series times 0.33 with drastic effect! (Mind you, the entire series wouldn't consist of 0.33 to whatever power... merely that particular event!)
Because of this, each additional conflicting how-it-could-have-happened scenario that apologists come up with shatters the probability that the Bible is inerrant. Each additional interpretation of prophecies does the same. Oddly enough, it doesn't even matter how bizarre their arguments might be! The more, the better (for us at least)!
Rational men and women are quite accustomed to uncertainty. Those proclaiming inerrancy will have to present absolute proof of each of their tales if they're to avoid the slippery slopes of probability. Without those absolute proofs, the rational person when asked "Is the Bible inerrant?" could only answer, "Probably not."
Belated intro
OK, I jumped right into dumping some of my efforts before explaining what my positions are. Duh. B-{)
I worry about the recent battle from the Religious Right and their attacks on science (evolution, global warming, stem cell research), and their attempts at legislating their religious beliefs into law.
Our country's founders understood the mistake that this produced and made sure church and state were in separate spheres. Witness the nastiness of the Taliban, or Afghans threatening to execute Christian converts to see why keeping religion out of law is important.
Many of these fundamentalist types make the claim that the Bible backs their position, and that it is the "Word of God" and without error. I've read the Bible. I found errors. I'll be attempting to demonstrate these errors, so that rational folks can understand that the fundamentalists don't have a leg to stand on.
I'll be posting several articles, some that I've published in the past, that I hope will demonstrate how weak the Biblical arguments are. And possibly some articles on winemaking, George Washington Inaugural Buttons, and science as well. B-{)
I worry about the recent battle from the Religious Right and their attacks on science (evolution, global warming, stem cell research), and their attempts at legislating their religious beliefs into law.
Our country's founders understood the mistake that this produced and made sure church and state were in separate spheres. Witness the nastiness of the Taliban, or Afghans threatening to execute Christian converts to see why keeping religion out of law is important.
Many of these fundamentalist types make the claim that the Bible backs their position, and that it is the "Word of God" and without error. I've read the Bible. I found errors. I'll be attempting to demonstrate these errors, so that rational folks can understand that the fundamentalists don't have a leg to stand on.
I'll be posting several articles, some that I've published in the past, that I hope will demonstrate how weak the Biblical arguments are. And possibly some articles on winemaking, George Washington Inaugural Buttons, and science as well. B-{)
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)