Why I'd take science over religion any day

Televangelists perform seemingly modern miracles right in front of our eyes, so to speak. Advanced space telescopes look into deep space to find amazingly earth-like planets all over the galaxy.

These two are claims that profoundly engage us as humans and both compel us to make the most important of life's decisions: what to believe. What one believes greatly impacts one's behaviour and personality; basically one's worldview. But how does one decide which one is the correct fact?

Well, to avoid any conflict one may simply accept both, that some men and women can cure people with little more than prayer, and that there are indeed many other planets like ours in the Milky Way galaxy. For the curious, both these disciplines accommodate those who wish to "prove" or further investigate these "facts". For the first one, only your faith is asked of you, and the other one, science is offered as a truth-finding tool.

For intermediate truth-seekers, the televangelist asks that you call in and receive the prayer and the miracle that comes with it. While the organization responsible for the discovery of a new planet attaches an article explaining how the discovery was made. If one is still not convinced of the validity of either claim, then you are more than welcome to take the academic route. Theology is preferred for the first claim but science (and engineering) is the taken for the second claim.

In theology one is told, by authority that miracles do happen and that prayer does change the physical laws of the universe and the proof of it can be found in the authority of holy books and past philosophers (who conform to such ideas). In science however, one is taught to never accept any idea unless it has been proven independently countless times, and even then, one is taught to try as they may to disprove accepted ideas to test their strength and validity in reality.

In summary, in religion you are told to believe what you are told (and here I transcend all levels of theology to the highest authority who will basically tell you to believe what you are told), and in science you are told to go investigate it yourself and you are taught methods that will lead you to the truth of a physical reality.

For these reasons, I am obsessed with the communication of science, and I am very much against the proliferation of religion as it counteracts any progress I make in communicating methods for truth-finding.

I have made it a principle of mine to vanquish misinformation and vow everyday not to accommodate alternative means of truth-finding that are in fact false and more than likely lead to great conflicts as we do away with our desire for the honest truth, the physical reality of the universe.

So, two amazing things happen: a miracle on television with a man or woman praying, and a miracle in another solar system with a large team of scientists and engineers sciencing (sic).

Who do you choose to believe?

The Moon and the reason I was working this Christmas

KING Goodwill Zwelithini, young men coming to age, the full Moon and a great moral teacher is born. All these things have conspired to have me go to work this Christmas. 

Having the full moon this Christmas –something that has not happened since Star Wars Episode IV but more on that later- may seem like a Christmas miracle to some, but to not so to me. You see, the full moon being on the 25^th December of this year means that the First Fruits Ceremony (called “uMkhosi woSelwa”) also has to coincide with this day.

UMkhosi WoSelwa is a sacred, traditional Zulu ceremony that sees young men flock to the King’s eNyokeni Palace in kwaNongoma. Once there, over several days they perform certain sacred rituals in line with what is expected of a Zulu man. When the King announced that uMkhosi WeSolwa will be held for a few days including Christmas, I cannot say that I was overly enthused.

Contrary to what I thought I knew about the Zulu nation, a lot of their lifestyle is dependent on the night sky. Indeed on many occasions, I have witnessed the King talking about the importance of astronomy for Zulus.

King Goodwill Zwelithini kaBhekuzulu has, on these public occasions, mentioned how the positions of the stars and planets play an important role in determining when harvests are made, when certain traditional ceremonies are conducted, and the role bodies like the moon play in the history of this great nation.

Speaking of which, around this time of year in 1878/9, His Majesty King Cetshwayo kaMpande, faced with imminent war cancelled this ceremony for that year in order to prepare his men for an altercation with Her Majesty’s Army in the midst of the dawn Anglo-Zulu war.

The heavens again became important, as the King’s men defeated the greatest army in the world at the time. As spears and cow-hide shields defeated semi-automatic guns, the Moon blocked the sun, and the blood-stained battlefield of iSandlwana momentarily turned day to night; a sign to the Zulu that God was on their side.

The current king has brought back this and many other traditional Zulu ceremonies, and as per custom, uMkhosi Woselwa has to happen during the last full moon of the year. The last time we had a Christmas full moon was in 1977, the same year the first Star Wars film in the 7-piece saga was first released.

While a Christmas full moon may seem special at first, it is quite rare as it occurs once every 38 years, but so it does for every other day of every other month as Neil deGresse Tyson tweeted this week.

Anyway, I cannot really complain about my predicament, as it has prompted me to think of the science of the moon, Star Wars, Christmas, and a proud Zulu nation and their ties to the night sky that has survived to this day.

Five reasons the world lost thier minds over #HomoNaledi

After it's discovery, the newly discovered human relative has sparked interest in more than just the scientific community. Among a few controversies, it got a lot of politicians talking science and evoluton.

The short video below is packed with juicy tid-bits about the world-famous discovery made in our very backyard in a digesteable format perfect for any curious SAfrican. The video was made by the good people at SciBraai.co.za with a little help from yours truly; yup, I wrote the script!

So, go onto their website and enjoy an array of great South Africa science stories and share them with your friends!

You can follow me on Twitter: @astrosibs

On the origin of misconceptions

Here is a column article of mine that was published in the Zululand Fever newspaper last year in response to a letter from a reader who was responding to a previous opinion piece about evolution I had penned.

I think it is still relevant in light of the many misconceptions that have risen from the announcement of the newly discovered homo naledi bones at the Cradle of Humankind.

 
On the origin of misconceptions


There are many misconceptions about the sciences and I find that facts can be twisted to suit a certain group’s beliefs. But reality has this nagging tendency to not bend to the will of those who choose to misrepresent it.

I am referring to instances I am usually exposed to where some people subscribe to misconceptions disguised as scientific facts. These misconceptions, I have observed, seldom come from people who have actually read the scientific concepts they refer to and often their references are authoritative accounts from people who themselves are non-scientists.

Here I am referring to a letter published in the Zululand Fever last week (1 August 2014) in which a Mr. S. Naidoo made some categorical mistakes in his inferences about the theory of evolution. First of all, having explicitly excluded religion from the discussion, Mr. Naidoo delved into the world of science and proceeded to explain why evolutionary scientists are racist zealots.

Whilst I cannot comment much on that, I can comment on the science. For one, I cannot find any historical references where the world famous naturalist, Charles Darwin, was said to have racist intentions on voyage aboard the H.M.S. Beagle en route to the Galapagos archipelago in the 17th century.

Mr. Naidoo supports his “evolution is racist” theory with the idea that evolution infers a difference in the races, more specifically that black people are less evolved that white people. No. the scientific theory of evolution does not at all say this. Also, it is not true that the scientific theory of evolution means that one species begets another.

A common question people ask is “if we evolved from apes, why are they still around?”  That is a fair question but it is unfortunately followed by “this proves that evolution is wrong.” Evolution does not mean that “we came from monkeys”. According to the theory of evolution we share a common ancestor with our ape and monkey cousins.

A number of people are not too happy to be associated with our hominid cousins - sort of like that drunkard uncle you don’t want your friends to know about.  You cannot erase the DNA evidence that links you to such relatives just because they are always naked and they swing on trees. The ape cousins, that is. Not your uncle.

Naidoo then talks about "true science" and explains how species do not change from one to the other. And he is right, because that is not the theory of evolution. To better understand what evolution means, no one column article can do it justice, but to use an example I usually use, let us consider this gedunkanexperiment.

Imagine a herd of species of antelope on a veld. Now, if some natural barrier were to suddenly prevent the two halves of the group from meeting for several generations, each would adapt to the unique conditions on each side of the barrier, provided conditions do change respectively.

Now, if they were to somehow overcome the barrier to meet again and find that they look different, would we then have new species?

Species are defined as a group of organisms whose offspring are able to interbreed. That means that their babies can have babies. Now, let’s say that these two antelope groups try to get it on and we find that any two individuals (one male and one female from each group) are unable to interbreed; we would then say that they are now two different species.

From one species, came two. Not one species changing into another when the urge strikes it. That is not evolution. Another important aspect of Darwinism is that individuals do not choose to “evolve”, it is those individuals who happen to be best suited to survive conditions being dished out by nature that survive. This is what we call evolution by natural selection.

This information is not bound in some sacred texts hidden in some fortress under the section “Forbidden Knowledge: 300-399”, but is science that is easily available at public libraries and reputable bookstores. Just ask for the Origin of the Species by Charles Darwin and your effort at actually reading the book and enriching your mind on what evolution really is, should open your mind to reality.

I am not saying Darwinism is cast in stone as there are still gaps in the science of it. But the beauty of it is the overwhelming evidence that is written in the deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) of “non-believers” and the scientifically literate alike. On the origins of the universe; whether it was created by God or happened by accident, no-one can say for sure.

I applaud those who apply their minds in considering the question anyway instead of dogmatically sticking to one idea.

Umkhosi woMhlanga explained - Reed Dance Ceremony

The annual Reed Dance Ceremony is a Zulu event that sees tens of thousands of young Zulu virgins (maidens) flock to Nyokeni Palace in Nongoma where they deliver fragile reeds, symbolic of their precious purity, to the Zulu monarch, King Goodwill Zwelithini kaBhekuzulu.


Here is an interactive map of Nyokeni Palace which shows what happened at this year's Reed Dance Ceremony at the palace in Nongoma.


Be sure to hover over the yellow icon if you have any burning question you need answered. This is my first attempt at this kind of infographic so be kind.

We're not moving to Earth 2.0 any time soon

There has been a great furore about a new Earth (dubbed Earth 2.0) deep in outer space. People are excited about this scientific discovery but for all the wrong reasons.

Are we moving there soon?

Since the discovery, I have witnessed many an internet meme discussing the possibility of moving the human population to this new planet. Some even entertain the idea of it being a safe haven for when this planet goes to the dumps.

Our precious planet, this pale blue dot in the great vastness of the universe is precious to us. It is the only planet we currently live on, and more importantly, earth is where I keep all my stuff.

To our best scientific knowledge, planet earth is the only planet that can sustain life. For a planet to sustain life as we know it, it needs to pass some important criteria.

The planet needs to have liquid water which exists inside a very narrow range of temperature from 0°C to 100°C. A planet too close to its star will be too hot, a planet to far away from its parent star will be far too cold.

So a planet at just the right distance from its star is just right to host life as we know it. No wonder the zone where such a planet needs to exist is called the Goldilocks Zone for conditions for life that are "just right".

Like our home planet, Earth 2.0 is found to be in such a region and other analyses have found other similarities to our home planet using nothing else but thousand-four-hundred-year-old light.

Being so far away, going to the planet is out of the question. So, what is so great about an earth-like planet that is hopelessly out of our reach?

Well, it helps us edge closer to answering the question of whether we are indeed alone in the universe and to understand how this, we need to understand the process of looking for these planets in our galaxy.

Basics of planet hunting

Looking for planets in other solar systems isn't easy. No planet outside our solar system has ever been directly photographed so other means have to be used to find it.

A small telescope orbiting earth called the Kepler Space Telescope, looks toward the stars to spot the shadows of planets orbiting those stars. The task is equivalent to spotting a fly passing in front of a flood light from a few kilometres away.

In order to detect the fly, it needs to pass directly in front of the flood-light so that it is between the lamp and your line of sight and you need to be somewhat lucky to see it.

We were lucky enough to find this planet using this method and in order to understand the significance of this discovery, we need to consider another analogy.

Imagine you had to find a mango tree in a forest as the one (earth) you are currently at has been depleted of its fruit. Say, you take a few minutes look for another in the dense forest and find and another.

You would assume one of two things. Either you were very lucky to discover the only other mango tree in the dense forest or you are not so lucky and mango trees are abundant throughout the forest.

The latter would make better sense and give you hope in the abundance of more mango trees and therefore more mangos ripe for the picking.

That is the same idea we can apply in the search for another earth-like planet. The existence of this earth cousin increases the likelihood of other planets in the Goldilocks Zone which also increases the chances of the existence of life as we know it all over the galaxy.

Moral of this story

It is a good thing that people can get excited about science stories but what people discuss needs to be accurate.

'Coming out' as a Zulu atheist

I would like to tell you the story of how I came out to my family and community as an atheist. I would, more than anything, like to tell you what a difficult transition it was and how I can now put it all behind me. I would also like to tell you how accepting the Zulu culture, my culture, is of atheists and other free-thinkers.

I would love to tell you all these things, but I have learned that the truth is far from being rosy. Imagine being the only kid you know who did not believe in God when everyone you have ever known did. Now, imagine being an adult always defending what you (do not) believe in.

The trouble with telling people that I am an atheist, in isiZulu in particular does not sound as romantic as it does in English. Now, “I do not believe in God” sounds pretty straight forward to anyone who understands the language.

The same exact statement in isiZulu makes you sound like a crazy person or someone telling a sick, tasteless joke. “Angikholelwa kuNkulunkulu”, makes moderate and ‘advanced’ Chritians think you’re a lost soul or the spawn of the devil. I have even been invited to my very own exorcism by a prominent ‘prophet’ in the small suburb of eSikhawini.

While atheism may be accepted as an alternative religion in some contexts, I must stress here how the nature of atheism (opposite of theism- a belief in God or a deity) is the absence of belief in God and it is in its nature nothing else. It is as much a religion as “off” is a TV channel.
This is very hard to explain in isiZulu, not because my native tongue is backward in anyway, but because of the entrenchment of (ironically) Western religions in many of my fellow Zulus. You see, prayer and the acknowledgement of God makes up almost every family you will ever encounter in the Zulu nation.

“A family that prays together, stays together.”

There comes this Rasta-looking young man talking all this rubbish, by the grace of God, he will one day see the light and repent from his ways, they say. The irony of the statement is uncanny.

My coming out as an atheist to my family and my community has not been smooth at all. I suppose, all the years I have spent contemplating my decision, as I went on parading like a regular Christian should have prepared me for this backlash.

Church members who have looked up to me as a humble and respectful boy, can now barely spare me a second glance at the local mall. How very Christian of them. Respected former pastors today tell me how mistaken I am in my view and how I should do away with reason and replace it with unquestioning faith instead.

Some concerned Christians have even tried to gauge whichever traumatic experience in my past has led me to this path. Others are even claiming that “it is all these books you keep reading”. Perhaps I should tone it down on the Douglas Adams and company.

This makes me wonder, though. Having not been exposed to this ‘Western idea’ of atheism, would I be a devoted Christian instead? Well, even when the bible was read to me in isiZulu, I found it very hard to reason how a man could turn water into wine, how two people populated the earth, or how God created the earth only to drown almost everyone for some reason.

Now, do not get me wrong, I am not an atheist because I do not like the Christian God’s personality, or that I am not overly excited about spending three hours at church every Sunday (and falling asleep half the time); I am an atheist solely because I am sceptical of the existence of God.

How do I explain that in isiZulu so that I do not offend anyone in doing so, or make myself seem like a devil-worker?

I have not yet figured that one out.

Why a photo of cats fighting with light-sabers? Because cats don't believe in God and they are freaking awesome. I like cats better than people.