Anti-intellectual video shown in an institute of learning

This video was shown in the Student Life Center at the University of Waterloo (the showing was put on by the Muslim Student Association, for Islam Awareness Week):

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6427602102763665672&ei=orBYS_O_KIKurQKdntidCg

I wrote an article for the Imprint in response, which can be viewed here:

http://imprint.uwaterloo.ca/2010/jan/22/opinion/anti-intellectual-video-shown-institute-learning/

Bizarre Comment on Diet

I was watching a video on the "Top Ten Worst Foods". The video was okay for the most part. I would have preferred, of course, some citations and more in-depth explanations, but most of the content was fairly uncontroversial and well done for a short amateur internet video.

While watching, I scrolled down to see if there was a description with some sources, when I came across a lone comment by one "Shipton". I almost started laughing reading the comment. It must be one of the most bizarre comments I have read in a while.

I am used to normal, weird internet comments where the commenter is clearly an ignoramous and/or conspiracy theorist. However, I have never seen someone comment with such a strange mix of presumed authority, ignorance, conspiracy theory thinking, and blatantly incorrect facts.

First off, fat isn\'t[sic] bad for you. [...] [F]at - especially from animal sources - was the product by which our ancestors were able to stay alive and is one of the healthiest things we can eat today.

It starts off with a true statement - fat isn't (necessarily) bad for you. There are plenty of very good fats - avocados and many nuts and seeds have good fats. However, there are also many bad fats (trans fats and saturated fats, which we hear so much about). The type of fat is generally more important than the amount. The claim that fat especially from animal sources is "one of the healthiest things we can eat today" is definitely false, though. Animal sources are full of trans and saturated fats. In moderation, many animal sources of fat aren't bad. However, to claim that animal sources of fat are the best sources of fat is blatantly false. The commenter does not differentiate between types of fat, and yet seems to think that since some aren't bad, all of them must not be bad. (For more information about fats, check out this link)

[T]hat \"2400mg\" daily maximum [for sodium] is an arbitrary number the government pulled out of nowhere; in Canada it\'s closer to 4300, and still an arbitrary number.

This is just bizarre. A quick fact check would show that, actually, the "Tolerable Upper Intake Levels" given by Health Canada is 2300mg. The adequate intakes vary from person to person (given gender, age, etc.) from between 1000mg to 1500mg. The idea that the government just pulled these numbers "out of nowhere" is really strange, given that 1) there is an enormous amount of independent research that goes into forming these guidelines and 2) the government does not in any way profit by having unhealthy citizens.

Bacon is a superfood. You keep going on about fat and calories; how many people actually get fat eating animal fat? They don\'t. They get fat from sugar.

Yes, that is a claim that bacon is a "superfood". You can pause here to laugh.

The rest of this segment is ambiguous, given that it can be interpreted (as I did in my first reading) as claiming that none of the fat in our diets would come from animal fat if we ate animal fat, but dietary fat does come from sugar (which contains no fat). I will assume the commenter meant the slightly more coherent interpretation, "how many people actually become obese eating animal fat?", and "They become fat because of sugar". Of course both fats and simple carbohydrates (i.e. sugar) both can contribute to obesity when eaten out of proportion. It is not sugar alone that can make one gain weight.

Much of the rest of the lengthy comment is made of unsubstantiated claims. Perhaps my favourite part of the comment:

As far as all this calorie counting goes, good to see you\'re part of the brainwashed nutritional sheep who control their weight via starvation. Enjoy your cancer and heart disease.

Do some research rather than regurgitating the overarching, forcefed government diabtribe.

(Note: The video just basically says that foods with high calories and little nutritional value are not good, and in no way advises starving yourself). I am used to reading people make huge claims about diet which aren't supported by the evidence, and I am used to people claiming there is a giant government conspiracy, but I have never seen these two appear together in quite this way. Is it just me, or is this a very strange case of conspiracy theory and ignorance?

"The New Atheism and the Old Church: A failing apologetics" Lecture

I recently attended a lecture, "The New Atheism and the Old Church: A failing apologetics" by Peter Erb, which is the first in a three-lecture mini-course offered by Saint Jerome's University (an on-campus religious university affiliated with the University of Waterloo). From the description, I was expecting a moderate religious look at the "new" atheism, our increasingly secular world, and what moderate religious folks could learn from these.

I was very disapointed.

The use of the term "new atheism" seemed to just be a buzz word used to draw interest and make the lecture seem relevant. The lecture spent all of about 5 minutes talking about the new atheism. In this time, all that was said was that the "four horsemen" (Harris, Hitchens, Dawkins and Dennett) are - without any explanation of why this was judged to be the case - arrogant, shallow and not worth reading.

The lecture's thesis was as follows: The new atheism isn't anything new, and actually comes directly out of Christianity. However, this thesis seemed more like a pretense set up in order to talk about the real meat of the lecture: old Catholic art.

The basic structure of the lecture was showing how, throughout the years, various revolutions occurred within theology and the arts which showed a growing gap in people's minds between the natural and the supernatural. People (well, European Christians) became more focused on the natural world, the subjective, and on the human sphere. This led, naturally, to people questioning whether the natural world could stand alone - perhaps God just set the world in motion (deism). But then we've seperated God out even more, and we could ask why believe that it was even God that set things in motion.

The historical analysis was, I think, very shoddy. The focus was narrow (on Christian developments in the medieval period). This misses the many atheists and deists that predate Christianity, and whose philosophy greatly influenced Christianity. The historical arguments were incredibly weak - at one point Erb claimed that Galileo was a big factor in the subjective revolution, since by looking through the telescope and seeing what was "out there", he was subjectively observing the universe, turning the focus on subjectivity (if this sounds nonsensical, don't be worried that you aren't getting it - it didn't make any more sense in the context of the lecture).

I found it rather silly that Erb seemed to think that the fact that the new atheism isn't new is a way of criticizing the new atheism - those who are identified as the "new atheists" are well aware that there is nothing new about what they are saying.

So, I left the lecture quite disapointed. I had received a lecture about some old art, a tiny bit of theology, and some bad historical analysis. Other then disapointment, I felt another emotion. I was actually a little bit sad for the attendees and the lecturer. The audience was overwhelmingly older, Catholic people (when I arrived for the lecture, I initially thought I must be in the wrong place. There was a sea of gray hair, and - I don't say this as a jest - I thought I had mistakenly walked into a room running an event for seniors). I got the general feel throughout the lecture and during some of the questions that Erb and his audience were really trying to make sense out of a world that was no longer as traditional as the one they are comfortable with, a world to which their Catholicism seems increasingly irrelevant. Perhaps I was reading more into the situation than was actually there, but I still couldn't help feeling a bit bad for them.

Needless to say, I did not find the lecture particularly insightful or illuminating, and I don't plan on attending the next one.