The Gender Genie. This is cool. It analyses your writing and predicts the writer's gender. It seems I mostly write like a boy.

Hamas and Islamic Jihad officials declare cease-fire over, announces Haaretz. In typical Palestinian fashion, they shift the blame away from themselves. A Hamas spokesman says, ""The assassination of Abu Shanab... means that the Zionist enemy has assassinated the truce." I can only hope that something different is in store so we're not faced with another 3 years or longer of re-runs.

Hasidic Rebel added me to his blogroll. Thanks for the link! I'm sure there is more I could do to attract readers, but it seems like so much work...

At least 18 dead in Jerusalem blast. As frustrating, heart breaking, and shocking as this is, it is hardly surprising. There is no way this is going to end while the deeply ingrained hate exists amongst the Palestinians and fanatical Islam maintains its hold there. However, Abbas reportedly said that he has "given [his] instructions to the security minister to launch an investigation." I'm certain he will discover the root causes.

Some guy named James Randi, a self-described "bright" critical thinker has written a commentary blasting religion in favour of "materialism". I'm always intrigued when I first see such articles, thinking that I am about to find a rational critique of religion. I'm always disappointed. The writers' usual flaw is a shallow understanding and literalist interpretation of the bible together with a science vs. religion stance. Randi makes the same mistake.

His major arguments against religion are: 1) the stories are fantastic and impossible to prove, 2) materialism is the simplest explanation of the world as we see it and is verifiable, 3) religion is evil and behind most of the world's violence, wars, etc, 4) if God does exist and man has faith in Him, his free will doesn't exist. I find all these arguments unsatisfying (and I have no faith). Let's tackle them one at a time from a Jewish perspective.

1) The Bible is fantastic and could not have happened. Some of Randi's examples show he's coming from a Christian background, but he does mention some stories from the Torah as well. In Jewish thought, there is no demand on the believer to take the stories literally. Of course there are Jewish fundamentalists who think differently, but they are not mainstream. However, Randi cannot accept this viewpoint as it would destroy most of his thesis. If you see the Bible in a non-literalistic light, you see that it's not a historically accurate document and, therefore, does not contradict science.

The Bible has never struck me as a history book. It's primarily a book of morality and values - things that science cannot always discover. Look at the book of Genesis, for example. The stories of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob and their families contain many timeless values concerning family and relationships.

When it comes to Biblical interpretation, I will have to defer to over 2000 years of tradition and discussion amongst sages much smarter than me or Randi.

2) Materialism is the simplest explanation of the universe. I suppose that's one explanation. From what little cutting edge science I follow, I wonder how he explains scientists' inability to explain the behaviours they are seeing at the sub-atomic level. Perhaps they will figure those out in time, but more mysteries may reveal themselves. Ockham's razor may in fact cut along other lines. If you consider the odds of life forming on its own, they are extreme. Scientists still can't explain how proteins spontaneously form amino acids. Some say this points to a creator.

3) Religion is the root of all evil. Right. Hitler and Stalin were fundamentalist Christians.

4) Free will. This is a huge theological discussion... All I can say is that having parents that set rules for me didn't take away my free will.

The search continues for a strong argument for a completely rational approach to life.

There's nothing that ends a vacation like going back to work.

Why does the media report stories as if yesterday never happened? This CNN story reports that Saudi clerics "condemn terrorists." A careful reading reveals they are only condemning terrorists within Saudi Arabia...

Terrorism, "is an act of sabotage, and an absolute aberration. (Those behind recent attacks and plots) shouldn't have been moved by corrupt statements and slogans that cause division and corrupt the nation," the statement said, adding that justifications for violence have "no religious grounds."

(my emphasis)

I am sure that come Friday they will be preaching the usual stuff about destroying the Jews and whomever else is on their shit list. Is this an example of un-biased reporting? Just the facts? Would making reference to past examples of Saudi clergy doing the exact opposite of this condemnation be wrong somehow?

Cool. Michael Crichton's Timeline novel is turned into a movie. It was an entertaining read and it just screamed, "motion picture material!" throughout. I have a soft spot for medieval stories even though I know next to nothing about that historical period.

Back from Israel and mostly over the jet lag. Remarkably uninspired to write anything in my blog, though. I'm heading back to work tomorrow and past experience hints that may mean the end of my blogging. I hope not, though.

I found a book titled For Those Who Can't Believe : Overcoming the Obstacles to Faith by Harold M. Schulweis. Promising title, but disappointing content so far. It seems he wrote it with the assumption that the reader believes in God and the divinity of the Bible and is simply disillusioned with mainstream Judaism because he never received decent answers to his childhood questions. It does a good job of illustrating the richness and complexity of Jewish faith and tradition, but it knocks down few important obstacles for me. The search continues.

Wow. Battlefield Earth is a really bad movie.