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 [...]]]> Contrary to many assumptions, evolutionary theory did not begin in 1859 with Charles Darwin and The Origin of Species. Rather, evolution-like ideas had existed since the times of the Greeks, and had been in and out of favor in the periods between ancient Greece and Victorian England. Indeed, by Darwin’s time the idea of evolution – called “descent with modification” – was not especially controversial, and several other evolutionary theories had already been proposed. Darwin may stand at the beginning of a modern tradition, but he is also the final culmination of an ancient speculation.

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)
• Liquid Glass Is Groovy! (1)

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 [...]]]> The Secular Coalition of America sent me a request a few minutes ago, asking me to write a letter to Obama about the Faith Based Initiative Program. I pretty much keep my nose out of politics, but I thought I’d pass this along because I firmly believe in the Separation of Church and State as my God Given Right!

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)
• Separation of church and State Benefits Everyone (24)

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 [...]]]> To the Freethought Society of Greater Philadelphia, don’t give up! Fight the good fight!

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? (9)
• 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 [...]]]> Cyril of Alexandria was born around 376CE and rose to power as the Pope of Alexandria during the peak of the Roman Empire’s rule there. He is credited with leading the charge against Nestorius in the First Council of Ephesus, where the divinity and caricature of Jesus Christ were debated. The Roman Catholic church eventually bestowed sainthood upon him, counting him among the ‘Church Fathers’ and ‘Doctors of the Church’, and also titling him as a Pillar of Faith and Seal of all the Fathers.

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)
• Let’s Stop Coddling The Ignorant (3)

Then I met Tim. He’s a friend of mine who is also an atheist and he encouraged Butch and I to come to a Morgantown Atheist meeting. Earlier this year we did and it was awesome! Here were people who were like us, who had similar views of the world in matters of religion as us. The next month we joined the Freethinkers Morgantown Book Club too.

One thing we wanted to do at Morgantown Atheists was to get a billboard like other cities [...]]]> Here in West Virginia, it seems like everyone must be traditionally religious. People wear crosses around their necks and churches seem to be on every corner. But there are godless people scattered about. When I first moved here I felt like I had to hide my lack of faith in the closet. It was oppressive, and still can be at gatherings or over the holidays.

Then I met Tim. He’s a friend of mine who is also an atheist and he encouraged Butch and I to come to a Morgantown Atheist meeting. Earlier this year we did and it was awesome! Here were people who were like us, who had similar views of the world in matters of religion as us. The next month we joined the Freethinkers Morgantown Book Club too.

One thing we wanted to do at Morgantown Atheists was to get a billboard like other cities across the country and around the world. We started getting a bit more organized, then found the United Coalition of Reason. They believe that local organizations who don’t even know about each other should work together, pool our resources, and reach out together to people who don’t even know the little groups exist.

Before you know it, we formed the Morgantown Coalition of Reason! That’s the Morgantown Atheists, the Morgantown Brights, the Freethinkers Morgantown Book Club* and the Morgantown Thomas Paine Society*. Now together we can do projects together and all kinds of good stuff. Since we got together, I’ve met a lot of other people from the other groups and they’re great!

So the UnitedCoR helped us get our billboard! For a month we’re going to be calling out to the godless of our area, letting them know where to find us, and that they are not alone. People of Reason, unite!

If you’re in West Virginia, you can contact the MorgantownCoR to see about joining. In fact, you can contact me, because I’m the Coordinator.

If you’re in another part of the country, think about contacting UnitedCoR to help you get organized too. United we stand. And together we can make a positive difference in our communities and around the country.

Related posts

• No related posts.

I embrace reason and a desire to understand the universe. While we certainly don’t have all of the answers, that doesn’t mean we stop asking questions. There is always something interesting to learn about.

I love asking questions. One that has puzzled me in the last year or so is why people cling to false beliefs so strongly. No matter how much I reason with a True Believer ^TM or try to educate them with facts, they just [...]]]> I think I’m beginning to understand something about believing. Over the years I’ve encountered many religious people who have tried to explain to me why I need to believe as they do, why they are right and I am a fool for not understanding that. But I don’t have faith like they do. Hell, I don’t want it. Faith, by definition is belief that is not based on proof.

I embrace reason and a desire to understand the universe. While we certainly don’t have all of the answers, that doesn’t mean we stop asking questions. There is always something interesting to learn about.

I love asking questions. One that has puzzled me in the last year or so is why people cling to false beliefs so strongly. No matter how much I reason with a True Believer ^TM or try to educate them with facts, they just dig in their heels, sit on their haunches and bray their myths and lies over and over. They block their ears, squint their eyes shut and cry out, “I can’t hear you, I won’t listen… lalalalalalalalala….”

Yesterday I found a new study on ScienceDaily titled “There Must Be a Reason: Osama, Saddam and Inferred Justification”. It was published in the most recent issue of Sociological Inquiry. It’s a study by four research institutions to understand why people kept believing that Saddam was involved in the 9/11 terrorist attacks even once it was obvious that there was no evidence supporting that claim.

But that’s not why I was so fascinated. What caught my attention was the underlying research about false beliefs.

Some people form and cling to false beliefs despite overwhelming evidence thanks to a mental phenomenon called motivated reasoning, says sociologist Steven Hoffman, visiting assistant professor at the University at Buffalo and co-author of the study. “Rather than search rationally for information that either confirms or disconfirms a particular belief, people actually seek out information that confirms what they already believe. For the most part,” says Hoffman, “people completely ignore contrary information” and are able to “develop elaborate rationalizations based on faulty information.” (Newsweek)

Now, let’s think about the belief in a god that created the world in 6 days about 6,000 to 10,000 years ago, shall we? And of course, Jesus who died on the cross to save us all from hellfire and damnation. So let’s talk a bit about motivated reasoning:

On page 2 of the paper it states: This model [motivated reasoning] envisions respondents as processing and responding to information defensively, accepting and seeking out confirming information, while ignoring, discrediting the source of, or arguing against the substance of contrary information (DiMaggio 1997; Kunda 1990; Lodge and Tabor 2000).

Motivated reasoning is a descendant of the social psychological theory of cognitive dissonance (Festinger and Carlsmith 1959; Kunda 1990), which posits an unconscious impulse to relieve cognitive tension when a respondent is presented with information that contradicts preexisting beliefs or preferences. Recent literature on motivated reasoning builds on cognitive dissonance theory to explain how citizens relieve cognitive dissonance: they avoid inconsistency, ignore challenging information altogether, discredit the information source, or argue substantively against the challenge (Jobe, Tourangeau, and Smith 1993; Lodge and Taber 2000; Westen et al. 2006).

Sound familiar?

What happens when one set of ideas (about god the father and his peace-loving hippie son Jesus) is repeated over and over to you when you are a child? You haven’t even formed your ego before age 6, and already you know about Jesus dying on the cross for you, or whatever myths your parents and religious community has brainwashed you with. When you get older and information starts to conflict with these beliefs, how do you handle it?

Cognitive Dissonance: an uncomfortable feeling caused by holding two contradictory ideas simultaneously. The “ideas” or “cognitions” in question may include attitudes and beliefs, the awareness of one’s behavior, and facts. The theory of cognitive dissonance proposes that people have a motivational drive to reduce dissonance by changing their attitudes, beliefs, and behaviors, or by justifying or rationalizing their attitudes, beliefs, and behaviors.

Of course the easiest way to deal with cognitive dissonance is to justify and rationalize your beliefs, and deny anything that might contradict them. That brings us to:
Confirmation Bias: an irrational tendency to search for, interpret or remember information in a way that confirms one’s preconceptions or working hypotheses. It is a type of cognitive bias and a systematic error of inductive reasoning.

Back to the paper (page 3): This confirmation bias means that people value evidence that confirms their previously held beliefs more highly than evidence that contradicts them, regardless of the source (DiMaggio 1997; Nickerson 1998, Wason 1968).

So how do people go about dealing with contradictory information to their beliefs? There are several options: (% is how many people in the study used the different strategies)

• Bayesian Updating: the willingness to change your mind in the face of contradictory information from a trusted source. To successfully change your opinion you need to attend to new information, remember it, and then use it in decision making. (page 7 of the study) (2.04% of respondents actually changed their mind when given contradictory information)
• Deny you ever believed the contradictory information in the first place. (page 9) (14.29% in the study simply denied that they had ever held the false belief)
• Resist the new information: (page 11)
  • Counter-argue: directly rebut the contradictory information. (12.24%)
  • Attitude Bolstering: bring facts that support your position to mind without directly refuting the contradictory information. Change the subject and justify your opinion with other reasons that seem good to you. (32.65%)
  • Selective Exposure: Ignore the contradictory information without rebutting or supporting other positions. Just say you don’t know. (6.12%)
  • Dispute Rationality: argue that opinions do not have to be grounded in facts or reasoning. (16.33%)
  • Inferred Justification: infer evidence which would support your beliefs. This is a sort of backward chain of reasoning. You start with something you believe strongly and work backward to find support for it. (14.29%) (with another 2.04% possibly also falling in this category)

So, here’s what I think. You get indoctrinated by your family, your church, your peers, your culture and your society. As a child you are a sponge for their information about everything. As you get older, perhaps you are faced with contradictory information. You are going to either attend to that new information and assimilate it after careful thought, perhaps changing your belief system in the process. Or, more likely, you’re going to resist the new information in one or more of the above listed ways.

Oh, and regarding attentiveness to the contradictory information by the study’s respondents, the researchers said,

“We found that while all of our “above average” respondents did attend to the information, a substantial minority of our less well-informed respondents—nearly one-third—ignored or refused to engage with information that challenged their political preferences, even when that information came from a source they favor. (page 16)

How many times have I had a conversation with a religious person only to have them pointedly ignore the information I have? Lots. Or when they quote from their own bible and only pick out the parts that support their set beliefs, and blatantly ignore the parts they don’t understand or don’t like? Cherry-picking, anyone?

So this is all food for thought. It at least starts us thinking why most people cling to their gods and myths like safety blankets. It certainly gives us an idea as to how they resist the facts, logic and new information they may come across in favor of their old comfortable beliefs.

Note: I need to clarify something. Belief is a powerful force in our minds that we can all fall into.  Quite some time ago I wrote about how knowledge and beliefs are stored differently in the brain. I am sure I have justified my beliefs many times in my life. You probably have as well. I think the difference is when some people are confronted with conflicting information, they attend to it, maybe do some research on it, process it, then use it to change their minds as necessary. I’ve done that many times. The more I practice re-analyzing old beliefs and getting rid of ones that have no basis in reality, or ones that don’t fit my ethics and understanding of the universe, the easier it gets. I think that’s what makes some people skeptics and atheists. It can be quite challenging.

I think there is a difference between a skeptic who is willing to look at different information and change their mind and someone who is dogmatic. That is who is addressed here.

What are your thoughts?

Related posts

• What Is Atheism To You? Conversations With Craig the Christian 1 (36)
• Atheism is the Default (46)
• Atheism at a glance- BBC Style (9)
• The Christian Questionnaire (6)
• Religion Is Evil And Contagious (0)

It started with coins in 1864, gained new legs with the motto in 1956, then made its debut on paper currency in 1957.

Isn’t is about time we think about updating our currency? And while we are at it, shouldn’t we drop this blatant violation of the first amendment? Graphic Designer, Michael Tyznik thinks so; and he’s got some neat concepts about doing it.

American banknotes are in dire need of a redesign. Even though the green color of money is deeply interwoven into the nation’s culture, the need for color differentiation between denominations has forced the inclusion of color. The recent redesign of banknotes by the Bureau of Engraving and Printing is poorly executed and aesthetically lacking. Because the coloring of the current notes is so [...]]]> Oh what a mistake it was adding ‘In God We Trust’ to the United States currency.

It started with coins in 1864, gained new legs with the motto in 1956, then made its debut on paper currency in 1957.

Isn’t is about time we think about updating our currency? And while we are at it, shouldn’t we drop this blatant violation of the first amendment? Graphic Designer, Michael Tyznik thinks so; and he’s got some neat concepts about doing it.

American banknotes are in dire need of a redesign. Even though the green color of money is deeply interwoven into the nation’s culture, the need for color differentiation between denominations has forced the inclusion of color. The recent redesign of banknotes by the Bureau of Engraving and Printing is poorly executed and aesthetically lacking. Because the coloring of the current notes is so subtle, it is still hard to differentiate between denominations by that method alone.

My proposed redesign keeps the culturally important green color of money, but introduces a brightly colored holographic strip into each denomination, making them easy to tell apart. This strip includes embossed dots for the sight-impaired as well, making currency far more accessible.

One of the most important things about America is our Bill of Rights. It is possibly the most important information any citizen can have. The design of our money currently contains semi-religious (the eye in the pyramid) and overtly religious (“In God We Trust”) symbols and text that go against the incredibly important separation of church and state implicate in the first amendment. In my redesign, these are replaced with the text of the Bill of Rights. It has been proposed that these ten amendments are in order of importance, so it is fitting that the most important rights are included on the most common banknotes.

The $1 bill lasts only 21 months before it needs to be replaced. For this reason, I propose that the $1 banknote be eliminated in favor of the current $1 coin and a new $2 coin. For this reason, Washington is depicted on the $5. I also propose the discontinuation of the penny, because it currently costs more to produce one than it is worth. This is precedented by the elimination of the half-penny in 1857, after which the smallest unit of currency, the penny, had more buying power than today’s quarter does.

Most of today’s security features could easily be incorporated into this design, and the hologram (enhanced with a microprinted guilloché pattern) would be extremely difficult to reproduce.

Tyznik’s Currency Page | Flickr Gallery | Snopes Article

Related posts

• [UPDATED] Thousands of Tax Payer Dollars to Add Engraving to Capitol Visitor Center (5)
• My Letter To President Obama (0)
• Kingsville: King of Ignorance (7)
• Your Two Cents About the Faith Based Initiative Program (0)
• Remaking America – Day One (4)

]]> http://www.heavingdeadcats.com/2009/08/06/its-time-for-some-new-currency/feed/ 15