Partial Transcript:

37:18 If the goal is not to score points, if the goal is actually to persuade people, if the morally superior goal is to win minds rather than just make people look stupid, then tone really does matter. Psychology has some things to say about how we should best go about trying to persuade people to really, any position, but even more specifically to a scientific position that they may otherwise feel threatened by,  or may conflict with their worldview.

38:07 It’s an empirical issue. What is likely to be persuasive or off-putting or not is a testable question. There are people right now researching how you package factual issues and seeing if that affects the rate at which people believe, disbelieve or deny them.

One of the examples of this, there is a researcher who’s name is Geoffrey Monroe from Towson University who has done some studies on peoples’ willingness to agree with belief consisting information as opposed to information that’s inconsistent with beliefs as a function of things like how the information is presented to them.

So he had a piece on Science and Religion Today where he folded this into the debate about, do you alienate people by using blunt language that offends them. The theory behind this that people don’t, as most people probably realize, they don’t simply make up their mind on the basis of factual, cognitive, cold type calculations. This is one aspect that frustrates us, is that when we are debating with somebody, it quickly becomes apparent that the facts of evolution in some cases won’t make a difference, if the person has an emotional investment.

So people hold attitudes because they are linked to aspects of your self-identity. As stated in Terror Management Theory, if you have a worldview that can be threatened, you get defensive. You circle your wagons as if attacked. In the same way, with factual issues like scientific-type things, religious people hold these as part of their broader self-identity.

So if you’re saying, “I’m a creationist”, you’re not just saying, “I favor the arguments for creation”, you’re saying, “I, as a person, my identity is as a creationist”. So if you’re attacking creationist claims, you’re attacking that person as well, their self-identity. So how do you challenge the beliefs, but don’t threaten them on a personal level?

40:14 Geoffrey Monroe did a study that is very sobering, because what he found was that, his particular study used stimuli that had to do with things like homosexuality and mental illness. He had people who thought homosexuality and mental illness were the same thing, and he had people who had the view that there’s no connection. Then he presented them both with statements that confirmed or disconfirmed that.

What he found was disturbing. People who’s views were challenged by this evidence, so believed disconfirming information, so if I thought that homosexuals have higher rates of mental illness, then I read a scientific article that said the opposite, those people tended to devalue science itself. That is, they rated lower the ability of science to answer questions like that, even beyond that, that it generalized to other issues other than the one that was challenged.

So it wasn’t even just, “this is a bad study”, or “I disagree with the conclusions” it was that “science itself cannot answer a question like this”. They become almost postmodernist. They would say, “well, you can have your science, but that doesn’t answer these questions.”

People at my university usually reserve two areas where “science can’t touch this”: religion and things like love or sexuality. They say, “Yes, you can have your data but these things are immune to faith or the wonders of the emotions, but science can’t address that.”

It seems also that a lot of pseudo-sciences tend to cluster together. You’re going to hear on a christian radio network, typically, obviously creationist stuff, but climate denialism comes in there, a lot of times there’s a lot of pseudo-science-y herbal remedies that you’ll hear late night on the christian talk shows.

It does seem to be that once you distrust one area of science, it’s not all that hard to start being more skeptical of others.

42:07 It spreads. So, what Monroe’s work is suggesting is the reason that happens is the person has some sort of cognitive dissonance. “My view is apparently disconfirmed by this study, so therefore this study cannot be valid, and studies in general probably aren’t valid.” They bring out things like, “even scientists disagree” or “facts can be twisted”.

What Monroe’s broader point to the debate of how information is presented is that often you can change that, or you can blunt that response by packaging the information in a less threatening way. That is, if somebody’s emotional factors are involved in this, if they are hurt, or if their worldview is challenged, if you present the information in a way that allows them to maintain part of their worldview, they are less likely to have that compensatory defensive response.

His argument is that you can use language that is relatively more accommodating. Like instead of saying, “we argue” that you instead frame it as, “here’s what the data says”. Or that you allow them to affirm part of their identity in another area.

So the way that some of these studies work is, let’s say you’re studying group boundaries like nationalism or patriotism. If you present the information like, write an essay on things that are good about America, and then present them with information that might be challenging, like slavery or something like that, then the person is more likely to accept that information because they’ve had the chance to affirm their broader values in a different context.

If I’m somewhere talking to a christian face to face, and we’re getting into a theological debate, I found myself instinctively but then later deliberately using a lot of morally loaded terms when talking to them. Instead of just saying, “you’re wrong on this position, that’s not the most valid argument”, you say things like, “well, I know you believe in integrity, I know you believe in worshiping god with all your heart soul,  and mind. I think integrity requires us to use the same standards to judge our own arguments that we would others.” Now what that’s doing, I’m still making a critique of their position, but I’m affirming some part of their moral identity. I’m not attacking them, “you’re a bad, ignorant person”, I’m saying “you’re a person who wants to live a life of integrity. Here’s an opportunity to have more intellectual integrity.”

45:05 The evidence suggests that if you frame a response within the person’s own worldview as much as possible, that it’s less likely to be alien to them and they can just dismiss it. For example, about the environmental movement becoming more christianized, or rather that the christian left movement, that if you package things in terminology like “creation carer” or “global warming stewardship”, that the persons are more likely to receive that rather than deny that.

The point is that if you frame an issue that is less likely to be threatening, or if you allow the person to affirm other things, like “religion is really great for you, it sounds like it’s done great things, but”, then that makes the person less likely to have a defensive response where they just say “No, I’m not going to listen”

45:54 So the question is, can we do this in a way that preserves our intellectual integrity? Do we have to lie to them, and coddle them and say, “oh this is really great” when we don’t think it is? Or can we frame things and still preserve our own beliefs?

~What follows is the RD guys hashing out their ideas and thoughts, which are interesting. They don’t really agree that it’s a good way to handle arguments with religious people, but have a listen for yourself to get their full thoughts.

What do you think? I want to mull it over some more, but I think affirming someone’s moral identity, appealing to their sense of integrity, would be a good way to go, to not alienate them. But I agree with the guys that winning a tiny little battle isn’t really that satisfying. Although part of me thinks it might help, another part thinks it might be harmful, as the guys mention how people mix pseud0-science with real science readily, which isn’t acceptable. I also don’t believe that science and religion can mix.

It’s a delicate issue. I look forward to hearing what you think about it, if you care to chime in.

Related posts

• Why People Defend Their Dogma (5)
• People Trust Peers, Not Science (4)
• More Groovy Science 5 (6)
• God Thinks Like You and He Personally Cares For You, Plus a Video To Cheer You Up (3)
• Dark Chocolate and Other Tidbits of Goodness (0)

My sister-in-law (we’ll call her Martha) has been dating this guy who we’ll call Steve. I met him the night that she and Steve were reacquainted at the high school reunion last year. It was one of those big affairs where 10 years of classes were invited. Anyway she and Steve have basically been dating ever since. She hasn’t had the best luck with guys in the past but she’s head over heels in love with him and is very happy, which is good.

The night I met Steve, I mentioned to him that I was reading a great book called Microcosm: E. Coli and the New Science of Life. It’s a fantastic book that I highly recommend. Butch was there and chimed in that it’s all about evolution, which it is, in a very cool, observable way. Steve rolled his eyes and scoffed. Scoffed! I didn’t want to get into it since we were heading home but I immediately found myself feeling cold toward him.

So, when Martha brought Steve to a family BBQ the next day I was polite but really didn’t have anything to say to him. He seemed nice enough though.

Time went on and I learned from him that he likes Sarah Palin. He thinks she’s got some good ideas. (I think I just threw up a little in my mouth there) Martha told me he’s a full on conservative republican but that they don’t talk about politics. As I do with most people, I was also refraining from political  – or religious – talk with him as well.

To this day we’ve stayed clear of those two topics. But we’ve gone out to dinner quite a few times, hung out at family gatherings, and he even invited us over to watch some MMA on a channel we don’t get next month (Woot!) He’s a genuinely nice guy. He’s not stupid by any means, can hold a conversation, has a good sense of humor, and seems to be making Martha extremely happy.

Why am I talking about this? Well, to me, Sarah Palin is a stupid, vapid pentecostal nutcase with only enough brain cells to rub together to help her wink and flap her mouth when someone pulls her puppet strings. The fact that people give her 2 seconds of their time, combined with her views on Armageddon and the end times, makes her extremely dangerous. Usually when confronted with someone who likes Palin, I run the other way.

But this time, because I wanted Martha to be happy, I got to know Steve and found that I genuinely like him. I don’t want to talk about politics or religion with him, but I like the guy.

It leads me to wonder, are the vast majority of republicans and christians more like Steve? Are they relatively nice people who are not stupid, or even smart? Good, honest people who are just misguided in politics because of how they were raised or values they got from church?

Have the vocal minority that I see on tv or the interwebs overshadowed the quiet majority that encompasses Steve? Do the vocal minority give people like him a bad name? Or is that bad reputation well earned even for Steve?

And does it matter? I mean, if people like Steve would happily vote for Palin because of her “good ideas and folksy charm” doesn’t that make him a serious part of the problem, even if he’s a relatively nice guy?

Here’s another question. Are Steve and I going about this the right way? By eschewing political and religious debates and arguments, are we missing an opportunity? I don’t think so.

Sometimes the best way is to lead by example. We each know where the other is coming from, and he’s shown me that there are nice republican christians out there, something I wasn’t too sure of before. Maybe he has learned that atheists aren’t so bad by hanging out with Butch and I. Maybe that’s better than a bunch of heated arguments pitting reason against dogma, or republican conservatism against whatever the hell I am. Those arguments would never change the other’s mind, but would certainly strain or break the friendship we’ve developed.

Your thoughts?

Related posts

• Separation of church and State Benefits Everyone (26)
• How To Talk To A True Believer About Atheism And Religion (32)
• Here We Go Again… (125)
• Getting Sick of Militant christians In My Family (15)
• A Thought Experiment With Your Religious Friends (11)

Edit: Now there’s an Atheist Solidarity website!

Here’s the description from the page:

An atheist holiday and awareness campaign. It’s a global and annual day to stand up together as one and provide support for those who struggle to be non-religious in their communities. It’s a day of celebration for those who have the freedom to be open about their beliefs while at the same time raising awareness about those who don’t have that freedom. There are many around the world who have to hide their beliefs because of social pressures, taboos, threat of violence, and even death. Everywhere there are people who have to hide out of necessity. It ultimately is a day of protest, celebration, and awareness raising.

This day will be a day where atheists around the world wear a half scarlet red, half black ribbon pinned to their shirt (the red alluding to the “scarlet A” popularized by the OUT Campaign and the black being atheism) or anything that identifies themselves as an atheist such as the “Scarlet A”. As we get more and more publicity every year it will be easier and easier for others to stand out and express themselves.

On June 21 people will be paying more attention to the repercussions that some may suffer identifying themselves as an atheist. It will be a day that when repercussions happen atheists around the globe will stand up and demand it end. On this day we’ll write letters to the media, we’ll protest, we’ll make it more well known, we’ll cast an eye on those who oppress. To be successful publicity is important. It’s a day to party and be responsible. Create awareness in clever ways. Have a party in a public place and invite the public. Run a fundraiser in the community. Do anything to get more people to see that atheists are just like everyone else. Do things to break the stereotypes people may have. Be fun and show your community what you think is important.

Ideas on ways to identity yourself on this day: wear a half scarlet red, half black ribbon, get something from http://store.richarddawkins.net/ (proceeds to go to a non-profit foundation), or from http://www.cafepress.ca/atheistday , wear a goofy costume and makeup, make signs, or anything to identify yourself as atheist.

This day belongs to everyone. No one controls it or its agenda. It will take it’s own path. Hopefully every year more and more people will celebrate this day. Feel free to use this facebook page to organize local events. Just post your location as a topic in discussions. Offer ideas. Join this group. Encourage others to join. Write about it in your blog. Promote this day everywhere.

Eventually this day could be a day were all atheists stand up in solidarity worldwide in order to help more come out to those around them. Together we can help change the world where eventually atheists everywhere can stand up fearless and celebrate our freedom every June 21. This event nicely compliments World Humanist Day. See outcampaign.org for related information.

REMEMBER that this day will only be successful if many groups participate. If you see an atheist/humanist group that isn’t participating, write a quick email encouraging them to do something that day. It only takes 5 minutes and can make a big difference!!! Contact information for groups in your area can be found at Richard Dawkins’ site here.

Also at:
youtube.com/group/solidarityday
twitter.com/SolidarityDay use #atheistsolidarityday

Related posts

• Ideas About Atheist Groups (1)
• Atheists Deserve A Community Too (19)
• Why Do Atheists Have To Rock The Boat? (22)
• Talk To An Atheist on Atheist Hotline (2)
• In Search Of Zingers (23)

Evolution in Greece

While the Greeks did not specifically refer to their concepts as “evolution”, they did have a philosophical notion of descent with modification. Several different Greek philosophers subscribed to a concept of origination, arguing that all things originated from water or air. Another common concept was the idea that all things descended from one central, guiding principle.

• Thales ( 624 – 546 BCE): asserted that all things originated from water.
• Anaximander (610 – 546 BCE): With his assertion that physical forces, rather than supernatural means, create order in the universe, Anaximander can be considered the first scientist. He is known to have conducted the earliest recorded scientific experiment. He suggested that living beings gradually developed from moisture with warmth. He also thought that the first humans were born, fully formed, from the wombs of fish, since they needed care for a long time.
• Anaximenes (585 – 528 BCE): Thought air was the principle of all things, and regarded the process as a thinning or thickening.
• Empedocles (490 – 430 BCE): Thought that the first creatures were not fully formed but consisted of unconnected limbs. He established the concept of everything in the universe being made up of four elements: fire, air, water and earth, which was the standard for the next two thousand years.
• Aristotle (384  – 322 BCE): The Great Chain of Being: He thought there was a transition between the living and the nonliving, and theorized that in all things there is a constant desire to move from the lower to the higher, finally becoming the divine.
• Lucretius (99 – 55 BCE): He was the first to suggest extinctions and that the survivors survived by “cunning or speed”.

Medieval Theories

During medieval times, the idea of evolution was quite out of fashion, since the time was dominated by the christian theory of special creation. This idea, which argued that all living things came into existence in unchanging forms due to divine will, was notably in opposition to the concept of evolution.

Medieval thinking was also, oddly enough, confused by the idea of spontaneous generation, which stated that living things can appear fully formed from inorganic matter. In this view, maggots came from rotting meat, frogs came from slime, etc. This sort of a concept prevented both genetic thinking and speculation about evolution or descent with modification. Nevertheless, a few philosophers theorized about some sort of teleological principle by which species might derive from a divine form.

James Ussher – 1581-1656

The traditional Judeo-Christian version of creationism was strongly reinforced by James Ussher, a 17th century Anglican archbishop of Armagh in Northern Ireland.  By counting the generations of the Bible and adding them to modern history, he fixed the date of creation at October 23, 4004 B.C.  During Ussher’s lifetime, debate focused only on the details of his calculations rather than on the approach.  Dr. Charles Lightfoot of Cambridge University in England had the last word.  He proclaimed that the time of creation was 9:00 A.M. on October 23, 4004 B.C.

This belief that the earth and life on it are only about 6000 years old fit neatly with the then prevalent theory of the “Great Chain of Being.”  This held that God created an infinite and continuous series of life forms, each one grading into the next, from simplest to most complex, and that all organisms, including humans, were created in their present form relatively recently and that they have remained unchanged since then.  Given these strongly held beliefs, it is not surprising that 17th and 18th century European biology consisted mainly of the description of plants and animals as they are with virtually no attempt to explain how they got to be that way.

Immanuel Kant – 1724-1804

The German philosopher Immanuel Kant developed a concept of descent that is relatively close to modern thinking; he did in a way anticipate Darwinian thinking. Based on similarities between organisms, Kant speculated that they may have come from a single ancestral source. In a thoroughly modern speculation, he mused that “an orang-outang or a chimpanzee may develop the organs which serve for walking, grasping objects, and speaking-in short, that lie may evolve the structure of man, with an organ for the use of reason, which shall gradually develop itself by social culture”.

Biological Conceptions of Evolution

The preceding discussion has focused on the philosophical components of evolutionary theory, but precursors exist for its biological aspects as well. Indeed, as mentioned above, by Darwin’s time the concept of descent with modification was hardly controversial – it was only the mechanism, the rate of modification, and the ultimate origin of life that were being debated. Darwin’s major breakthrough consisted in providing a plausible mechanism to drive change in organisms.

Carolus Linnaeus – 1707-1778

Carolus Linnaeus, or Carl Linné, is considered the father of modern taxonomy for his work in hierarchical classification of various organisms. At first, he believed in the fixed nature of species, but he was later swayed by hybridization experiments in plants, which could produce new species. However, he maintained his belief in special creation in the Garden of Eden, consistent with the Christian doctrine to which he was quite devoted. He still saw the new species created by plant hybridization to have been part of God’s plan, and never considered the idea of open-ended, undirected evolution not mediated by the divine.

The concept of genus and species was actually developed in the late 1600′s by John Ray, 1627-1705, an English naturalist and ordained minister.  However, it was Linnaeus who used this system to name us Homo sapiens (literally, “wise men”).  He also placed us in the order Primates (a larger, more inclusive category than our genus) along with all of the apes, monkeys, and prosimians.  This was very controversial at the time since it implied that people were part of nature, along with other animals and plants.  In addition, it meant that we were biologically closer to the other primates than to all other animals.

Late in the 18th century, a small number of European scientists began to quietly suggest that life forms are not fixed.  The French mathematician and naturalist, George Louis Leclerc, Comte de Buffon, 1707-1788, actually said that living things do change through time.  He speculated that this was somehow a result of influences from the environment or even chance.  He believed that the earth must be much older than 6000 years.  In 1774, in fact, he speculated that the earth must be at least 75,000 years old.  He also suggested that humans and apes are related.  Buffon was careful to hide his radical views in a limited edition 44 volume natural history book series called Histoire Naturelle (1749-1804).  By doing this, he avoided broad public criticism.

Buffon was an early advocate of the Linnaean classification system.  He was also a quiet pioneer in asserting that species can change over generations.  However, he publicly rejected the idea that species could evolve into other species.  One of his most significant contributions to the biological sciences was his insistence that natural phenomena must be explained by natural laws rather than theological doctrine.

Erasmus Darwin – 1731-1802

Charles Darwin’s grandfather Erasmus Darwin  was also a distinguished naturalist with his own intriguing ideas about evolution. While he never thought of natural selection, he did argue that all life could a have a single common ancestor, though he struggled with the concepts of a mechanism for this descent. He also discussed the effects of competition and sexual selection on possible changes in species. Like Lamarck, Erasmus Darwin subscribed to a theory stating that the use or disuse of parts could in itself make them grow or shrink, and that unconscious striving by the organism was responsible for adaptation.

Jean-Baptiste Lamarck – 1744-1829

Jean-Baptiste Lamarck’s  theory of evolution was a good try for his time, but has now been discredited by experimental evidence and the much more plausible mechanism of modification proposed by Darwin. Lamarck saw species as not being fixed and immutable, but rather in a constantly changing state. He presented a multitude of different theories that he believed combined to explain descent with modification of these changing species.

Lamarck subscribed to a number of what we now know to be false beliefs about inheritance. First, like Erasmus Darwin, he argued for strong effects of the use and disuse of parts, which he thought would make the relevant parts change size or shape in accordance with their use. Second, Lamarck believed that all organisms fundamentally wanted to adapt themselves to their environment, and so they strove to become better adapted. The belief most commonly associated with Lamarck today is his idea of the inheritance of acquired characteristics. This theory stated that an organism could pass on to its offspring any characteristics it had acquired in its lifetime. For example, if a man exercised and thus developed strong muscles, his offspring would then have strong muscles at birth.

George Cuvier - 1769-1832

Lamarck did not invent the idea of inheritance of acquired characteristics but stated it clearly and publicly in an 1809 publication entitled Philosophie Zoologique. It was relatively easy for the French scientist, George Cuvier, and other critics of Lamarck to discredit his theory.   If it was correct, the children of cowboys who have developed bowed legs as a result of a lifetime of riding horses would be born with bowed legs as well.  That, of course, does not occur.  Likewise, the children of professional weight lifters are not born with enlarged muscles.

While Lamarck’s explanation of evolution was incorrect, it is unfair to label him a bad scientist.  In fact, he was at the cutting edge of biological research for his time.  He and George Cuvier were largely responsible for making biology a distinct branch of science.

Despite his criticism of Lamarck, Cuvier did not reject the idea that there had been earlier life forms.  In fact, he was the first scientist to document extinctions of ancient animals and was an internationally respected expert on dinosaurs.  However, he rejected the idea that their existence implied that evolution had occurred — he dogmatically maintained the “fixity” of species.

Cuvier advocated the theory of catastrophism, as did most other leading scientists of his day.  This held that there have been violent and sudden natural catastrophes such as great floods and the rapid formation of major mountain chains.  Plants and animals living in those parts of the world where such events occurred were often killed off according to Cuvier.  Then new life forms moved in from other areas.  As a result, the fossil record for a region shows abrupt changes in species.  Cuvier’s explanation relied solely on scientific evidence rather than biblical interpretation.

A careful examination of European geological deposits in the early 19th century led the English lawyer and geologist, Charles Lyell, 1797-1875, to conclude that Cuvier’s catastrophism theory was wrong.  He believed that there primarily have been slower, progressive changes.  In his three volume Principles of Geology (1830-1833), Lyell documented the fact that the earth must be very old and that it has been subject to the same sort of natural processes in the past that operate today in shaping the land.  These forces include erosion, earthquakes, glacial movements, volcanoes, and even the decomposition of plants and animals.

Lyell provided conclusive evidence for the theory of uniformitarianism, which had been developed originally by the late 18th century Scottish geologist, James Hutton - 1726-1797.  This held that the natural forces now changing the shape of the earth’s surface have been operating in the past much the same way.  In other words, the present is the key to understanding the past.

This revolutionary idea was instrumental in leading Charles Darwin to his understanding of biological evolution in the 1830′s.   However, it was not until the late 19th century that most educated people in the Western world finally rejected the theory of catastrophism in favor of uniformitarianism.

Today, we know that our planet has been shaped by occasional catastrophic events, such as bombardment of large meteors, in addition to the comparatively slower natural processes suggested by uniformitarianism.   All of these events have potentially affected the rate and direction of biological evolution.

Thomas Malthus – 1766-1834

Thomas Malthus’ theory of population growth was in the end what inspired Darwin to develop the theory of natural selection. According to Malthus, populations produce many more offspring than can possibly survive on the limited resources generally available. According to Malthus, poverty, famine, and disease were natural outcomes that resulted from overpopulation. However, Malthus believed that divine forces were ultimately responsible for such outcomes, which, though natural, were designed by God.

Robert Grant – 1793-1874

He wrote Vestiges of the Natural History of Creation. It argued not only for biological evolution, but chemical and cosmological as well. It was largely scorned and was more of a philosophical work than a scientific one. But it was still very  influential on Darwin and Alfred Russell Wallace.

Charles Darwin and Alfred Russel Wallace

Charles Darwin and Alfred Russel Wallace both independently developed the idea of the mechanism of natural selection after reading Thomas Malthus’ Essay on the Principle of Population (1798). However, Darwin had been turning the problem over in his mind for some twenty years before he first published The Origin of Species. Moreover, Darwin was much more willing to explore the implications of natural selection, particularly in relation to humans, than Wallace was. In addition, Wallace was a champion of rather radical social causes and later openly embraced spiritualism – all elements that resulted in the downplay of his role in the discovery of natural selection.

While George Cuvier and Charles Lyell strongly disagreed about how the earth got to be the way it is today, they both rejected the idea of biological evolution.  However, neither man accepted a traditional biblical account of creation and a young earth.  Cuvier did not live long enough to learn about Charles Darwin’s proof of evolution, but Lyell did.  He came to accept this proof in the early 1860′s along with most leading scientists of that time.  Lyell also became a friend of Charles Darwin.

Darwin’s Early Ideas

Darwin proposed a few ideas before he came up with natural selection. One was called the Pangenetic hypothesis. It attempted to explain how acquired characteristics worked. This hypothesis proposed that cells produce small particles called pangenes or gemmules which end up in sex cells. When passed on to the offspring, the pangenes are able to exactly reproduce the organ in which they originated.

Another hypothesis by Darwin was the evolution of monads. This hypothesis stated that species adapt and old species are replaced by new ones, so the overall number of species remains the same. Monads arose by spontaneous generation and would evolve to become an ancestral species.

A modification of the monad hypothesis was that if a monad stopped producing new species it would die out.

Sources:

• Pre-Darwinian Theories
• Pre-Darwinian Theories of Evolution

Some Books:

• The Origin Of Species by Charles Darwin
• Descent of Man by Charles Darwin
• Darwiniana – Essays by Thomas Huxley
• An Essay on the Principle of Population by Thomas Malthus
• The Song of the Dodo: Island Biogeography in an Age of Extinction by David Quammen

Websites:

• Timeline of Modern Evolutionary Thought
• A History of Evolutionary Thought
• The Victorian Web: Evolution
• The Complete Works of Charles Darwin Online

Related posts

• What Are You Doing November 19? (10)
• Random Thoughts About Human Impact On Evolution (2)
• Religion is the Path of Least Resistance (2)
• Neece (1)
• More Groovy Science 2 (2)

Seriously, this country was founded on the incredibly important idea of religion and politics being separate. If you want to see a country where there is no separation, just go to Iran. I’m pretty sure they are a theocracy. Don’t hold me to that, though. My world politics skills have never been very sharp.

Anyway, I think letter writing campaigns work best when the people or organization targeted gets absolutely inundated from all over the place with the same request. Here is what the Secular Coalition for America says:

As a presidential candidate, Barack Obama promised to abide by “a few basic principles” that would protect the constitutional separation of church and state in his plan for an expanded faith based initiative program. He was specific: “First, if you get a federal grant, you can’t use that grant money to proselytize to the people you help and you can’t discriminate against them – or against the people you hire – on the basis of their religion. Second, federal dollars that go directly to churches, temples, and mosques can only be used on secular programs.”

On February 5, 2009 President Obama issued his Executive Order establishing his Faith Based Intiative program. Twelve months later at the National Prayer Breakfast, President Obama claimed that his administration had “turned the faith-based initiative around” from its misuse during the Bush administration. But it appears the only thing President Obama has changed about how millions of federal dollars are spent is that the office guiding the direct funding of houses of worship is now called the “White House Office of Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships” rather than the “Office of Faith Based and Community Initiatives.” Twelve months, Two words. That’s not a turn around, it’s a re-branding.

Go Here to Send a Letter to Obama through the Secular Coalition of America. Hey, maybe if enough of us say something it might just make a difference.The Secular Coalition for America has called for reform and oversight of the Office and the agencies that it oversees for years. Government reports and hearings have documented the constitutional problems and gross abuses rampant in this program, but a year later all Americans continue to have their federal dollars used for government-condoned religious discrimination, while reforms to prohibit proselytizing in these purportedly secular social service programs have still not been enacted.

No law is required to fix this – simply the stroke of a Presidential pen.

America’s Founding Fathers strongly believed in a clear separation between church and state. They gave us a Constitution that forbids government to support or oppose any religion, leaving Americans free to follow their own consciences when it comes to matters of faith. In the words of the First Amendment, government shall make “no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof….”

Churches and other houses of worship are free to spread their beliefs. But they are expected to raise their own funds through the voluntary contributions of the faithful. Taxation to support religion and religious endeavors was forbidden under the Founders’ constitutional framework. No American should be compelled through taxation to subsidize any religion. Twelve months, Two words.

I will resist the urge to climb up on my tallest soapbox and rail against the machine and leave you with another lolcat lolbear.

Related posts

• What’s Going On!? (0)
• Tell your Senator to Stop the Federal Funding of Religious Schools (0)
• Remaking America – Day One (4)
• My Letter To President Obama (0)
• Tell Your Representative to Stand Up For Fact-Based Education (2)

I just read an article by Staks Rosch in the Philadelphia Examiner about the FSGP and their Tree of Knowledge. It’s an evergreen tree decorated with book covers (how shocking, how impudent!) from books representing knowledge, education, science, philosophy, morality, diversity and curiosity. (I am so offended! What? No Twilight?! No Dan Brown?!) Here is a complete list of the books represented.

Staks makes some points that I really like: “[The Tree of Knowledge]  is not an attack on religion, but rather an expression of an alternative set of values (i.e. knowledge and reason).”

How horrific! Now I understand why the good christians of the area are so up in arms, vandalizing the tree and organizing call campaigns to get it removed. And why the county is bending to the will of one religion on government property. It’s just so hateful to have a tree decorated with thoughtful, intelligent books. What? Oh? It’s not threatening at all? EXACTLY! WTF!

Staks also says, “Many Christians have claimed that the inclusion of humanist values next to the Jesus Crèche is an attempt to “steal” Christmas. It seems that many Christians are of the opinion that Christians own the winter season. They do not.”

Later he says, “Atheists aren’t trying to “steal” Christmas any more than Christians stole Saturnalia… oh wait, never mind.” Again, I agree completely.

This kind of thing makes me so angry. Religious organizations bully their way into having their cake and eating it too. Politicians and the masses alike bend to that will for what reason? Why do they get to own most holidays? My sister in law is offended when I say happy holidays instead of merry christmas. It’s the classic bully at the pulpit who then cries and runs for the government to protect him when someone brings up that he’s breaking the law or that he’s being a bully.

christians and muslims don’t want to play fair. They want to win. Which is why I am an activist atheist. I don’t want to be forced to pray to a man in the sky that doesn’t exist. I am moral and ethical on my own without being forced into the barbaric false ethics of an iron aged society of goat herders from the Middle East.

I suppose here in Morgantown, if such inequities are occurring, we’ll put up an atheist/humanist display soon too. At this time, I am not aware of any. But I haven’t checked every government building lawn for crèches either.

Keep an eye out in your town. If you see religious displays on government property, take action, form a group. You can then turn it into a community of like-minded people like we’ve got here in our sleepy little town. It’s the most wonderful feeling to hang out with a bunch of freethinkers. But don’t just take things lying down. Don’t let the religious people bully us into giving up our freedoms and our constitutional rights just because we are too apathetic to make a stand for those rights.

EDIT: The Freethought Society of Greater Philadelphia has helpful hints for setting up your own Tree of Knowledge.

Related posts

• Why I Am Not A Christian (0)
• What Other Deities Were Born On Jesus’ Birthday? (10)
• The Reason I Speak Out Against Religion (20)
• Morals, Ethics and Pope Benedict Evil (13)
• How To Talk To A True Believer About Atheism And Religion (32)

History might credit him with a much darker deed though, not surprisingly one the church usually fails to mention or attempts to brush under the rug. Although not official of course, some have referred to him as the patron saint of arsonists. His leadership possibly brought about what is probably the single most destructive annihilation of knowledge in human history.

The Great Library of Alexandria is thought to have been founded around the beginning of the third century BCE. A museum, a research institute, and a library, it was the first of its kind. Besides attempting to collect all the world’s knowledge, it housed a number of esteemed scholars; and boasted the latest works in mathematics, astronomy, physics, natural sciences and other subjects. It was at the Library of Alexandria that the scientific method was first conceptualized and utilized.

There are several descriptions of the destruction of the Library of Alexandria, all from different periods in time. First in 48BCE by Julius Caesar, then by the attack of Aurelian in the third century CE, by the decree of Theopilus (Cyril’s uncle) in 391CE, by the mob incited by Cyril’s followers around 416CE, and finally by the Muslim conquests around 642CE. Its probable that all of these caused damage to the library in some form or another; but historians have been as-yet unable to say when its complete destruction came about. When it was destroyed though, one of the greatest repositories of knowledge was lost to humankind; somewhere between 600,000 and 1 million volumes of knowledge were lost, many of them forever.

The hypothesis that Cyril’s followers destroyed the library stems from stories of the murder of Hypatia. Hypatia of Alexandria was a Greek scholar who taught philosophy and astronomy at the library, as well as being a notable contributor in the field of mathematics. And a woman; something completely unheard of at the time. Hypatia came into conflict with Cyril, first because of her friendship to Orestes (the prefect of Alexandria, and stanch resistor of Cyril’s agenda for a church-ruled government); and secondly because of the church’s view of many sciences being heretical or associated with paganism. Hypatia was murdered in 415 at the hands of a Christian mob led by Cyril’s assistant, after being incited by Cyril to oppose Orestes and his allies. Without her leadership to defend the library, it was only a matter of time before Cyril was able to convince and incite his followers that the libraries association with paganism and heresies deemed it an enemy of the church and a target for destruction.

Here is an excerpt from Cosmos where Carl Sagan talks about the Library of Alexandria:

If a story has conflict (especially religious or political), with a fight, a murder, and little intrigue… You know Hollywood is going to take a crack at ruining it. And this story is no exception of course. Agora has already been released in a few locations in Europe; but oddly has no US release date. The movie sets the time in 391CE, with the main character as Hypatia; but also including Theophilus, Cyril, Orestes, and a Muslim invasion. So I would speculate that Hollywood is blending three of the destruction stories.

A last little side note: Some historians speculate that the library may have contained actual writings of Jesus (instead of all the third-hand stories). A little conspiracy theory, I know; but if Jesus existed and he did write, how different might that writing be than what the Catholic church collected and distributed?

Information pulled from here, here, here, here, here, here, and here.

Related posts

• Scientific Explanation For Supernatural Events (8)
• Conversation With Anne About Religion, Truth, Science and History (4)
• The Big Bang, Abiogenesis, and Evolution (1)
• Superstitious? It Could Be Your Lack Of Control (5)
• Sunday Looms Menacingly (10)