On Friday, August 7th, there's going to be a large group of people going to the Creation Mausoleum. The event is sponsored by the Secular Student Alliance, and PZ Myers is going to be one of the chaperones.
I've been debating on taking a tour for a while, and the combination of the $10 tickets and the knowledge of how limited my time will be after the twins are born brought me to the decision to join this group. If anyone else would like to go, you can register for the group rate here.
If you'd like to tag along, I've also got three seats available in my car. I won't even ask you to pay gas money. You have to pay your own entry fee, though.
I'll be wearing an armband. I'm not sure what color, yet. It depends on what I have available. I'm also intending on decorating it a little.
However, on a side note, I do expect everyone to be on their best behavior. If you attempt to cause any sort of disruption you will be asked to leave by the members of our group, and you will also have to walk home if you ride with me.
I'm not going to be able to make it to the SSA conference, later that day, but I look forward to spending time with like minded people.
July 29, 2009
Want To Meet PZ... and Me?
July 24, 2009
Atheist Analogy #4: Signs and Omens
This atheist analogy is about signs and omens. Signs and omens are similar, but omens most often "foretell" while signs are either related to past, present, or even future events.
Signs, in the supernatural sense, are often used to make the person who witnesses them more comfortable with a decision. They may have been thinking about doing something, then something occurs that is related to the idea and they take it to mean that the occurance is a sign that they should do it. It also can make them feel that a decision that they already made is the right one.
If it is something that they are thinking of doing, then most often the sign is related to their idea. For instance, I've been thinking about writing this post for a little while, and a post on Skepchick appears talking about Eclipses and Omens. Was this a supernatural sign that I should write this post?
As I said, I've been thinking about writing on this for a little while. I'm not sure of the amount of time, but it's been more than a week ago that the idea started working around in my head. Visiting quite a few skeptical blogs, and the superstitions involved with eclipses, made it much more likely that I would read something that started those thoughts to coallesce into this post.
Some may have taken it as a sign or omen that they should write the piece, but for me it was just a reminder which resulted in the post you are reading now.
In the case of a sign justifying something that has already been done, it can be almost anything. An example of this is a colleague who's church helped build a church in India. My colleague was one of those who got to travel to the country for the opening of the church, and while there he went on a "safari" with a guide who was also a member of the new church. During that time my colleague saw a black bear and a deer escape from a tiger. His interpretation of these events was that God was giving him the sign that helping build the church was the right decision.
His "reasoning" about the bear was the guide saying that he'd only seen a black bear one time in the last twenty years. The guide also gave him the "statistics" that a tiger will catch prey in one in ten attempts, but is "99% successful" once it has actually caught the prey. My question was that if it is known that the bears are in the area, and it is also known that prey sometimes escapes tigers, how is that a "sign"? Since this was in a work environment, and he sits very close to me, I kept the questions to myself.
Seeing the bear, while interesting and very cool, I'm not sure if they are as rare as the guide said. There's also some suggestion that prey escaping a tiger once attacked isn't that rare of an occurence. I also wonder if their proximity to the tiger when it ambushed the deer was a factor.
Basically, if someone wants justification for a decision any "sign" seems to fill that need.
What it comes down to is that in the case of something I've been thinking about a reminder of it, or an opportunity to do it, is most likely to cause me to go through with it. There's no need for a supernatural "sign" that I should do something.
In the case of a past action people seem to consider any "rare occurence" as a supernatural Post-it note that says, "Good job". Is their need for gratification so great that they need to interpret some event as a "sign"? For me, seeing a positive effect from my efforts is enough a reward.
Signs and omens are peoples way of trying to make predictions when they don't have the knowledge to examine the evidence. Like many superstitious beliefs, it gives them comfort to have an explanation or prediction for something that is beyond their control.
My personal philosophy is more accepting of the fact that the only actions I can control are my own. Any prediction has some degree of error, and assigning an arbitrary occurence as the prediction won't change what will happen. I also don't need to see a rare occurence to find out if a prior action was right or wrong, because the end result itself will tell me if it was.
July 21, 2009
Elephant Email
I recieved and email on my post on the Buddha and elephants story. Apparently, the link I provided got the attention of one of the admins for the site it came from. The email was very polite and quite understanding of my views.
Hi Berlzebub...
I came across your blog (http://berlzebub.blogspot.com/2008/11/elephant-apologetics.html) when I traced back the link you'd given to one of the stories we have on www.spiritual-education.org. It was the story of the blind men and the elephants and I read, with interest, your answers to the questions we asked at the end of that story.
I just wanted to drop you a line and say, first, thanks for the link. ;) and, second, I like your answers to the questions. They're refreshing and informed. To be fair, though, the story was aimed at a religious audience, so perhaps it wasn't so much an attempt at apologia, but rather a simple way (for simple folk) to try and understand that what they feel they know / see / feel isn't the end-all and be-all of "truth"... the implication being that we ought to stop trampling on one another (physically, or mentally, or emotionally) simply because of perceived differences (at least in ideas and concepts that are not subject to rational understandings and proof like love, politics, the stock market, and religion).
For what it's worth, I'd encourage you to take a look at the lesson that story was used as a way to give some support to my claim about the intended audience. Because, after all, as we say on the intro page of our site, "Our children will not be able to live in peace until a majority of the people of the world adopt an all-inclusive view of religion and spirituality. The increasing turmoil in the world demonstrates that our lives depend on a unified understanding of the concepts of God and religion that can offset the rampant brutality and devastation caused by sectarian and religious prejudice." The operative notion here is that we say people should adopt an "all-inclusive view" *of* religion, and not an all-inclusive religion.
Best regards,
[SL]
for spiritual-education.org
(Sender referred to as [SL] for privacy reasons)
I honestly didn't expect to get an email, let alone one so polite, regarding that post. The purpose of spiritual-education.org is noble, and I honestly agree with what they are working toward. If everyone would treat religion as a private matter without letting it affect their interactions with other individuals, races, religions, etc. then the world would be a better place.
The moderates of the world's religions (both the moderate religions and the moderate individuals) would most likely agree with the goals of the site. However, the hardest to reach, and the ones who get the most press, would be the fundamentalist extremists. Each one takes their theology more seriously than the moderates, and their books don't allow them to see other religions as being acceptable. Most of those religions actually see at least one other as being an enemy.
Another thing that got my attention was a similarity to something Techskeptic and I discussed on my post about "good".
"...we ought to stop trampling on one another (physically, or mentally, or emotionally) simply because of perceived differences (at least in ideas and concepts that are not subject to rational understandings and proof like love, politics, the stock market, and religion)."
If people would look at their beliefs critically, those perceived differences would be minimalized. They might even disappear altogether. Unfortunately, some have such an investment in those beliefs that questioning them never enters their minds. In some cases, having those beliefs questioned causes an irrationally defensive response. The world does seem to be very slowly moving toward the moderate scale of religious and other beliefs. Unfortunately, those beliefs are so ingrained in our cultures that it will take a great deal of time to overcome them.
Now, while I can understand why those who run the site don't see the elephant story as apologia, I would like to explain why I do.
In the story the six blind men describe the elephant as a tree trunk, a wall, a fan, a piece of rope, a spear, and a snake. Yet still in the end the audience proclaims that "All of them are right".
No they weren't. What they were touching was an elephant. Each was too lazy to examine further than the feature their hands first touched. None of them said it was an elephant, and the only animal described was a reptile (and elephants don't have scales). All in all, the parable only seemed stereotypical of the intellectual laziness of theologians in general.
I'll admit that I haven't done much studying of Buddhism, but if that is an actual parable from Buddha I'm disappointed.
July 9, 2009
Atheist Analogy #2: Morality
This atheist analogy is about "morality", or right and wrong. Different people have different views of what is moral, amoral, and immoral depending on their personal philosophy.
Where do we get our personal philosophies? The primary answer from most, I would expect, would be religious affiliation. However, it's not that simple. Society, our upbringing, friends, exposure to other religions, and even education can influence our personal philosophy. Our personal philosphy influences how we view the soul of another person.
Most of all, morality is subjective. Each person or group of people has their own views of what a moral or immoral action is. You can base your personal philosophy on objective standards, but when moral and immoral between people are subjective it renders the idea of morality as being objective useless. I can say why I consider an action amoral (i.e. actions not pertaining to morality) but it's only by my standards of morality that it is immoral. As an example, I consider drinking coffee as an amoral action, but someone who has the LDS church as primary part of their philosphy would probably consider it immoral.
It's this difference that makes it almost impossible to debate the morality of an action. In order to have a debate you have to agree on the definitions of the terms involved, and if the definitions of right and wrong cannot be agreed upon then debating whether an action is right or wrong will never be resolved.
July 7, 2009
Atheist Analogy #1: The Soul and the Afterlife
As I mentioned in the previous post BD has already done a wonderful post on What the Soul Means, but I wanted to add something to that.
When I speak of a soul I'm not talking about something supernatural. It's not an entity to itself that magically combines with our body after birth. To me the soul is a byproduct of society, consciousness, and beliefs. It influences our lives, and part of it even continues on after our demise. The soul influences the thoughts, actions, and behavior that makes us who we are. The things and people we love and hate, what we're willing to stand up for or against, who we enjoy spending time with, and even the books and music that we prefer are all influenced by it. The term "soulmate" can even be taken to mean someone who shares beliefs and/or interests.
The "good" soul is one that tries to help make the world a better place than when they came into it. They support the rights of everyone, make an effort to improve the life of the current and future generations, and understand that their actions now will influence the future. Thanks to the information age, they even have a way of sending their message to a large audience without having to spend finances on travel and publication.
Then there's the "bad" or tarnished soul. They spend their days hating those different than (or in some cases the same as) themselves and/or work to make future generations retain the same bigotry, live for themselves and not for the rest of the world or future generations, and in general try to set the world back by endorsing ideals that are detrimental to society.
Both of those lead to the afterlife. Of course, I'm not refering to a Heaven, Valhalla, or Hell (or Hel) of religous nature, but to what happens after our demise. Our actions and beliefs have an effect on those around us. Our offspring in particular are affected by our beliefs and how we've lived our lives, but also anyone who's observed us. Anyone who's had any authority over another influences how those people think and act. Someone respecting you even gives you an amount of authority over them. Particularly, it influences how they remember you and "honor your memory".
After you die they'll follow your example. The influence your actions and beliefs had on them will affect their interactions with the world around them. Perhaps they will start a charity in your honor, make donations to an existing charity, start a scholarship for students who show promise in a field that you were passionate about. Conversely, they may spend the time after you die furthering all of the things that you got wrong but now have no way of correcting since you're pushing up daisies.
Some of you reading may recognize my concept of an afterlife as a legacy. How we influence future generations is at least as important as how we influence the world around us while we're still walking on it. Once we're dead there's no way to change what we've said and done while we were alive, so don't waste the time you have.
Atheist Analogies Index
The first time I heard the term culturally Christian was from Richard Dawkins in The God Delusion. The term applies to those who grew up in a Christian environment and understand the biblical references, but who do not follow the Christian faith.
The more I thought about it, the more things that I find analogous in everyday conversation. Heaven, Hell, spirit, soul, and even God still means something to me. However, now it's as a shorthand way of speaking of something that has nothing to do with Christianity, or even anything supernatural.
Bronze Dog just did a terrific post on What the Soul Means and explained how he views it. It's very eloquently written and does a very good job of explaining how something normally viewed in a supernatural way can be used in a naturalistic definition.
So I've decided to go with my idea and start a list of atheist analogies to terms that Christians relate to. As always, my definitions and explanations only apply to myself and other atheists are welcome to give their views.
Listings:
Atheist Analogy #1: The Soul and the Afterlife
Atheist Analogy #2: Morality
Atheist Analogy #3: Religious Experience
Atheist Analogy #4: Signs and Omens
Atheist Analogy #5: Spirituality
Atheist Analogy #6: Prayer
Fiasco Finale
Someone going by Anne of GG left a comment on an old post concerning the P-Momma fiasco/boondoggle/clusterfuck/etc.
Hi Berlie,
Congrats on the twins!
Thank you. That's why I haven't responded to you sooner. Things are a bit hectic with the approaching births.
P-momma just posted some pics that lead to some albums with pics of her frolicking in the sun and water.
Which definition of "frolicking" are you using? It appears she's amusing and enjoying herself, but I don't see any where she's playing and running about happily.
Is she cured?
Lupus is treatable but not curable, at least for the time being. The primary symptoms also come and go. Like rheumatoid arthritis and other autoimmune diseases there are good days and bad days.
I don't see any protective clothing and she looks happy and very healthy. Go Here. Hope the link works.
As far as the protective clothing, I don't cover my arms and legs when the temperatures get warmer. If I'm concerned about sun damage I wear sunscreen of SPF 30 or higher.
Of course she's happy. She's spending time with her four children in a beautiful setting. I would expect that makes most parents happy.
Now, I want to ask how does a person look "very healthy"? She's standing, moving about, and smiling. If she's having a good day, as I mentioned above, she probably would look healthy to a person who's only seeing a snapshot of a split second in time. Thanks to modern medicine people with chronic diseases can function in a day to day setting, but that in no way makes them healthy.
I responded to this assuming that Anne of GG (I wonder if she has red hair?) is not a griefer or a troll. As far as I'm concerned, any further commenting on the fiasco/boondoggle/clusterfuck/etc. is beating a dead horse. I've got much larger issues to deal with, and this has become a waste of my time.
