tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-54863943234927516652024-03-13T23:41:57.998-07:00Cooking with ParsleyParsley Victorioushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04622223789593927770noreply@blogger.comBlogger57125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5486394323492751665.post-36487208979123264312012-12-12T08:02:00.002-08:002012-12-12T08:02:51.505-08:00England and marriage equalityEngland - or possibly Britain, I'm not quite clear on that point - is working towards something that ought to be a no-brainer; the introduction of <A HREF="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-20680924">equal marriage</A>. There is, of course, opposition, mostly from the religious. This is neither unexpected nor surprising.
I have at times commented that Church and state should remain as separate as possible. I feel that this should go both ways; religion has no place in deciding the laws of government, and government has no place in deciding religious proscriptions, except obviously where such proscriptions would egregiously violate civil rights or protections.
So in terms of marriage, I feel that the government needs to work to treat all its citizens equally - thus, marriage equality - while churches ought to be allowed to discriminate. They're private institutions, and cannot be compelled to offer their services against their will. Don't want to marry gay people? Unfortunate, but I wouldn't legislate against it. I feel it's to their detriment in the long run anyway.
This all seems simple enough to me. Marriage equality is in, add a clause that you can refuse to perform the ceremonies, or refuse to allow your premises to be used for the ceremonies, and we're all done.
Right?
Nope.
It seems this is insufficient for some religious organizations - in this specific case, the Church of England and the Church of Wales.
<UL>
<LI>No religious organization or individual minister will be compelled to marry same-sex couples or permit the marriages to happen on their premises
<LI>It would be illegal for religious organizations or their ministers to marry same-sex couples unless their governing bodies have expressly opted in to provisions for doing so
<LI>The 2010 Equality Act will be amended to ensure no discrimination claim can be brought against religious organizations or individual ministers for refusing to marry a same-sex couple
<LI>The legislation explicitly states that it will be illegal for the Church of England and the Church in Wales to marry same-sex couples, and that Canon Law, which bans same-sex weddings, will continue to apply
</UL>
The first and third points, as I've outlined above, seem like all we should really need. The second and fourth seem insane.
This is also a breach of church and state separation, though in the opposite direction than we're used to. This is a government body legislating what churches can and cannot do - at the insistence of the religious. That it's aimed at individual churches, rather than church bodies, makes no difference. Do they not feel this sets a bad precedent? Since when do they want government telling their members what they can and cannot do?
The reasons for it are immediately obvious, of course. The church bodies are afraid that their more liberal congregations will decide to start performing gay weddings against the express policy of the body. They're probably correct that it would happen.
But that's an internal church matter. That's for the religious body to deal with and settle on its own terms. Expel the churches that disobey. Censure them. Have a schism. Something. But to make it <i>illegal</i> for an individual church to disobey the central body verges on the insane.
I maintain the position that I've held a long, long time now - church and state need to remain as separate as possible, and this needs to go both ways. The collective people - all of them - have needs that must be met, and the churches can do their own thing on the side. That's how it should be. Parsley Victorioushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04622223789593927770noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5486394323492751665.post-68404265851578900572012-09-11T08:02:00.002-07:002012-09-11T08:02:54.315-07:00The more I read......<A HREF="http://freethoughtblogs.com/butterfliesandwheels/2012/09/there-is-no-low-too-low/">the bigger I want to make the A+ logo I've inserted into my avatar</A>.<P>
I'll briefly re-state something I've said before; it doesn't bother me in the slightest that some people disagree with atheism+, or don't wish to use the label, or what-have-you. I disagree with most of my friends on at least one point, if not many. Disagreement is not only okay, I personally view it as absolutely necessary.<P>
But in so many of the pieces I've read from the detractors of a+ since it coalesced have not stopped with mere disagreement. Certainly I've seen a few articles posted about why someone thought the label was silly, or they didn't like it, or wouldn't be using it themselves and why they thought the rest of us shouldn't use it. Again, these are not the problem.<P>
The problem comes from the volume of posts that take this disagreement and turn it into flaming, personal attacks. Who spew bile on people they disagree with, and then try to excuse it by saying things like "if you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen". As though merely daring to post an entry on one's personal blog is an invitation to receive the most vile, hateful attacks one can imagine, and that this is how things should be.<P>
The sad thing is, this is indeed how it is at the moment. Daring to post on a topic like this is, in fact, an invitation for the trolls to seep out of the woodwork. But I disagree that this is <I>how it should be</I>. This is why, more and more, I want to be part of atheism+. I despise the rationalizations, the excuses, from people who appear to want nothing more than to vomit all over the place, particularly from those who dare call themselves rationalists.<P>
And then they have the gall to call <I>us</I> bullies? It's incredible.<P>
I refuse to associate with these people. I refuse to be part of a community whose primary method of argument is to hurl insults and hate, whether or not said insults have anything to do with the topic at hand (calling Jen a slut, for example; what does that have to do with her stand on sexism in the atheist community?). I want to be part of a community that refuses to cater to the lowest common denominator, a community which believes in basic human decency towards everyone - every person, not every idea.<P>
I want to be part of atheism+.<P>
So yes, disagree. But please, leave the infantile tactics at home.Parsley Victorioushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04622223789593927770noreply@blogger.com5tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5486394323492751665.post-11281399385278244962012-09-10T11:41:00.002-07:002012-09-10T11:41:27.760-07:00Man refused treatment in Calgary hospital for his jeweleryThe title of this post is slightly hyperbolic, but I couldn't think of a better phrasing. The <A HREF="http://www.calgaryherald.com/health/says+hospital+denied+treatment+goth+garb/7215339/story.html">actual story</A> involved a young man in a very goth-style outfit who visited a hospital in Calgary. He was asked by the admitting employee to remove his inverted cross; he agreed to tuck it away so it was no longer visible, but refused to remove it. When he did so the officer in question told him to find someone else to admit him. He did so, and the hospital in question has offered a full apology and is investigating.<P>
To this point, there's not much wrong here. It seems fairly obvious to me that refusing someone medical treatment because of something they're wearing is absurd, and that the employee should be censured for his behaviour. The rest of the hospital staff did the right thing and corrected the problem, and as noted, an investigation is pending; it must be made clear to hospital employees that this behaviour is not acceptable, which it appears they are doing. No problem; if this was all there was I certainly wouldn't be writing this post about it.<P>
The problems come in once I hit the comments on the article. I know, I know; such comment sections tend to be horrifying cesspools, better left alone, but a number of counterpoints seem to come up over and over again, and I felt it appropriate to deal with them.<P>
"its not a matter of dressing the same, its a matter of dressing in a way some might find offensive in a public setting. You have the right to dress how you like on your own time, when you are going to a public institution, perhaps some respect in dress in standard are required for the free treatment you are receiving."<P>
"He wasn't denied health care, he was told to remove his costume or to go talk to someone that would tolerate his freaky costume"<P>
"Rather than trying to make a statement. dress normal and you would not have issues."<P>
All these comments, and many other iterations of such, have the same idea in common: Fit in, look like everyone else, and you won't be discriminated against. But for a medical practitioner to behave this way because he dislikes a given symbol goes against all the ideas needed for a multicultural society to exist, especially one where human rights are held paramount. The man is a public employee; he is required to treat all Canadians equally, regardless of race, gender, orientation, and so on. If this man had refused to treat a man in a turban, would that be acceptable? If he happened to be an atheist and refused to treat someone wearing a crucifix, would that be acceptable? Of course not; the very thought is absurd. People have a right in this country to be treated equally, regardless of their attire, regardless of whether you, as an individual, think his clothing is 'silly' or 'clownish'. To state otherwise is ridiculous. Which brings me to the next theme:<P>
"22 in my peer group was marrying age and working to get a house. Not indulging fantasies and crying to daddy and demanding my story get print when someone gives me the short stick."<P>
"This smug guy that cries to the newspapera because he upset someone with his jewelry needs to rethink his life goals."<P>
"Ahhh.... Look at me, I need all your attention, ...... Yeah, sure..."<P>
There seems to be this overarching theme that this guy did all this just for the attention. Now, I don't know the man in question. Perhaps he really is indulging in attention-seeking behaviour. Perhaps he just likes the look. Perhaps something else entirely. But the same point stands; even if he is dressing like this just for attention, does it <I>matter</I>? Do attention seekers not deserve medical treatment without having to worry about what they're wearing? Should I be forced to remove a silly shirt when having my knee looked at, because the medical practitioner doesn't like it? Again, the idea seems absurd to me. He has every right to wear what he pleases, for whatever reason he pleases, and still receive the same care as anyone else, wearing anything else at all. His reasons for dressing the way he does are irrelevant.<P>
I can imagine a scenario where a Christian is asked to remove his or her cross by an admitting official. Oh, the outrage! The cries of religious persecution. The yelling about how anti-Christian society is becoming. And the thing is, in an instance like this, I'd have to agree with them on at least some of those points. A citizen should not be compelled to remove their personal items without good reason, and "I don't like that thing" is far and away from being a good reason.Parsley Victorioushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04622223789593927770noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5486394323492751665.post-3233839244022470122012-09-07T21:59:00.000-07:002012-09-07T21:59:42.881-07:00Ah. Democrats.First, I heard that the Democrats had presented a platform in which god was not mentioned. I thought this to be a good thing, as anyone reading this might expect; I think I have made my views on church/state separation abundantly clear by now.<P>
Shortly thereafter, I heard that the platform had, in this particular aspect, been rescinded by a 2/3 vote. This came as no great surprise to me, and I accepted it as part of the status quo of a society that is still changing, still evolving. No-one doubts that a large part of American society is still moderately, if not deeply, religious, and pandering to the majority will perhaps always be a part of politics. In particular, I thought, this may be a response to the Republican attacks on the lack of god in the platform; many Democrats still hold beliefs in a higher power, and would wish such a thing included. I assumed it to be a bit of political maneuvering, something that any of us who pays attention to the sphere of politics has necessarily been forced to come to grips with, no matter one's individual political ideas.<P>
This viewpoint has changed.<P>
It will surprise nobody to learn that I am an avid consumer of the Daily Show, and the Colbert Report. Indeed, as a Canadian, I rely on these two shows, the CBC, and a few others for my information on American politics. I have watched the keynote speeches of the DNC in their entirety online, but other than that I get my information from a select choice of reliable sources.<P>
As such, the Daily Show was the first I saw of what actually happened at the DNC with regards to the supposed 2/3 vote regarding the inclusion of god in the platform. And having watched the actual event, I have to say that I'm deeply disappointed in my favoured American party on this issue.<P>
The speaker who introduced the proposed amendment to the platform - I cannot recall his name - did so sincerely and legitimately. He stated, quite clearly, that the amendment was to include the mention of god - also the statement that Jerusalem was the capital of Israel - in the Democratic platform. He stated the a vote of 2/3 majority of delegates would be required to effect the change.<P>
So far, so good; I personally think the whole exercise is ridiculous, but the entire point of democracy is that my individual point of view is only one of many, and all must be taken into account. Acquiring a clear majority to amend the platform seems a worthy place to set the bar.<P>
So the voice vote was called. And it seemed to me, on listening, to be approximately 50-50.<P>
A voice vote which is approximately 50-50, it seems clear, has not achieved a 2/3 majority. Having failed to do so, the amendment fails, yes?<P>
Now, a voice vote can be ambiguous, particularly with such a large group in such a large setting. Calling a vote of delegates in such a setting, without any cleat way to maintain accuracy, seems a bit silly to me, but it was done. At this point, I think a few options present themselves as the way to move forward:<BR>
1: Accept that a 50-50 split in the voice vote is insufficient to claim a 2/3 majority, or;<BR>
2: Call for a more accurate method for counting votes.<P>
Neither of these two seemingly reasonable options were the one chosen by the supposedly honourable mayor who called the vote in the first place. Having not received the clear majority he expected, and unwilling to concede that the matter was lost, he simply and arbitrarily decided to <I>call the vote again</I>.<P>
A second time, the voice vote was ambiguous, a somewhat 50-50 split, well short of the 66-33 split needed, as per his own statement, to amend the platform. Time to declare failure and concede that the platform should not be amended? No, silly reader. Time to call the vote <I><B>yet one more time</I></B>.<P>
At which point the entire thing becomes incredible, in the sense that it loses all credibility. For, having called the redundant voice vote a third consecutive time, he received the same response; a more-or-less 50-50 split between yea and nay. It becomes yet clearer and clearer that the hoped-for 2/3 majority will not appear; that, at best, 50% of the delegates support the amendment, well short of the stated requirement.<P>
The only thing to do, then, is to unilaterally declare that the majority has been reached and the amendment passed. This actually happened.<P>
I am not disappointed in the Democrats for including a religious viewpoint in their platform. This is par for the course, and though change is coming about, a truly secular platform is well into the future yet. No, my disappointment comes from the party's own internal dishonesty. From its own supposed commitment to honouring the truth, and its failure to do so in this case, when the rules are so clearly spelled out, and the failure to meet them so blatant. It comes from their willingness to pander, in this instance, in the face of the voices of their own delegates, by the conventions they themselves have set.<P>
Were I American, I would no doubt still vote for the Democratic party. But instances like this serve only to shake my assurance that this is the party of honesty, of truth. That they cannot even abide by their own rules in the face of pressure is a strike against them. The Republicans are worse, far worse.<P>
But we can be <B>better</B>.Parsley Victorioushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04622223789593927770noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5486394323492751665.post-37552740039408773282012-09-06T05:49:00.000-07:002012-09-06T05:49:19.665-07:00The detractors of atheism+ show why it's neededI have a friend, who I met through twitter a long time ago. He's a Christian, but he's disillusioned with the church, so he started a little group of his own; he calls it <A HREF="http://weoccupyjesus.org/">Occupy Jesus</A>. The goal of his movement is to take the politics, the fearmongering, the divisiveness, basically the 'religion' out of his religion. He doesn't even include things like the supposed divinity of Jesus in his platform, nor even the idea that the man necessarily existed. His entire idea, whatever your beliefs, or lack thereof, is that we really ought to all be living by the ideals that Jesus supposedly preached.<P>
Now, he and I disagree on a lot of things, including the dubious morality of some of Jesus' supposed teachings. But his message, the one he's trying to popularize, cuts down to the deepest level of it. He's saying that whatever you believe, whoever you are, whatever you think of gods or the supernatural, the world would be a much better place if we'd all start treating each other with the respect and decency that Jesus supposedly preached.<P>
I have not joined his movement. For me, personally, the fact remains that I can do all these things without doing them in the name of Jesus, and the inclusion of that name is a barrier to me; the name of Jesus is still incredibly conflated with the supernatural, with gods, with being 'saved', with miracles, and so on down the line. So Occupy Jesus is not for me. And my friend is just fine with that. He recognizes that we share the same ideals, but have different ways of going about them.<P>
But I still think it's a great idea. He's encouraging people to be better, to themselves and to each other. If people want to do that in the name of an ancient Jewish preacher, what do I care? They're still striving to improve themselves. I applaud my friend's efforts, even though I disagree with them.<P>
All this, of course, really puts what's going on with atheism+ and its detractors right now in a certain light. Disagreeing with us is fine. As I said in a recent post, if you don't want to identify with atheism+, I certainly won't get in your face about it. You want to call yourself a secular humanist? An ethical atheist? Just a plain old atheist who happens to be into social justice? Even a member of Occupy Jesus?<P>
Dandy! No problem here. We're all striving for the same thing; the name we do it under really sort of fails to matter. I personally love the label, because it simultaneously identifies me as a nonbeliever and one who refuses to ignore social issues. It works for me.<P>
But there are those who call us divisive, or arrogant, or whiners, or flouncers, or a myriad of other things. They think the label we've chosen is an attempt to make anyone who hasn't joined up look inferior. And so, in response, they heap vitriol and bile on the proponents of this new movement; the sheer volume of this that has been sent <A HREF="http://freethoughtblogs.com/blaghag/2012/09/goodbye-for-now/"> Jen McCreight's</A> way has caused her to need a break from her blogging.<P>
And still they don't stop. A torrent of threats, insults, and other hatred flooded this woman's inbox, and now that she has responded by needing a break from the vomit being spewed at her, she's accused of being a crybaby. A whiner. A sympathy whore. Such things as "<A HREF="http://freethoughtblogs.com/almostdiamonds/2012/09/05/must-be-this-tough-to-ride/">Good, one down</A> seem to indicate that this was the goal, and that such tactics will be used against others to achieve the same effect.<P>
And these people dare to call themselves rationalists. These are the tactics of a five year old. This is not how adults get things done. This is not how civilized society behaves. Do we not deride others for using these tactics? Do we not, many of us, call the Republican party out for its use of rhetoric rather than reason? Do we not accuse the pro-life crowd of being more interested in using shocking, false pictures than in looking at reality?<P>
How can we look at women complaining about the torrents of abuse they receive, just because they're women, and respond to that by doubling down on the abuse? How can we do that and in any way honestly still call ourselves reasonable? Rational?
Again; there are those who don't like atheism+, who will never identify with this label, and that's absolutely fine. I don't identify with Occupy Jesus, either. But this abuse, this harassment, this flood of hatred is below us. As atheists, as rationalists, and as human fucking beings.<P>
Disagree with us all you like. Be vocal about it. Give your counterpoints, and your arguments. But stop with the threats, the rhetoric. It's disgusting.Parsley Victorioushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04622223789593927770noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5486394323492751665.post-15031433969450336722012-08-24T11:32:00.001-07:002012-08-24T11:32:21.426-07:00atheism+: if you're not with us, you're against usThis is not a mentality to which I can subscribe.<p>
<a href="http://freethoughtblogs.com/carrier/archives/2207/">Richard Carrier</a> has weighed in on atheism+, and though I find myself nodding my head in agreement with the majority of his post, I can't get behind the us vs. them mentality. That some atheists choose not to get on board with atheism+ does not make them our enemies. We still have more in common than we have differences. <p>
Among those who choose to eschew adding the 'plus' to their atheism will be the misogynists, the racists, the homophobic and the transphobic, the privileged with no recognition of it. <p>
But also among them will be those who think the name is dumb. Those who want to remain dictionary definition atheists. Those who identify as atheists but aren't part of the movement at all. Among others. <p>
So I disagree with Carrier when he claims, as he appears to do in one comment, that anyone not joining a+ is voting for misogynistic douchebaggery. Some of them are. But not all of them, not by a long shot. <p>
And as we go on, each side of the schism doing its own thing, I'm convinced that our side will grow. Many of those who remain as non-plus atheists will eventually be turned off by the harassment, the victim blaming, the misogyny, and will see our side for the positive, accepting force that I hope it will become. <p>
For obvious reasons I think that most of these will be women. Again, not all of them. But many. <p>
In the meantime, I intend to go on more or less as I have been. I'm well and truly on board with a+, but those who are not are not automatically my opponents. Those who show their bigotry are my opponents, whatever they call themselves, whatever movement they ascribe to. <p>
But with the advent of a+ I'm excited at the thought of being part of a community where the bigots are not tolerated, where they're shouted down instead of tacitly accepted. That's what I thought atheism would be when I began my activism, and I'm glad to be joining a movement where those ideals are not just encouraged, but explicitly stated as necessary.Parsley Victorioushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04622223789593927770noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5486394323492751665.post-32854521901678966882012-08-23T08:22:00.001-07:002012-08-23T08:23:11.227-07:00Atheism, feminism and stereotypesThere are certain stereotypes, certain words, that seem to too-often come to mind when someone mentions that they're a feminist. Feminazi. Femistasi, lately. Bitch. Cunt. Man-hater. Lots more.<P>
There are also certain words, stereotypes, that often come to mind when someone mentions that they're an atheist. Godless. Immoral. Devil-worshipper. Baby-eater. <P>
How can we possibly call ourselves rationalists when we can see the fault in the one and not the other? This is why I've had so much trouble coming to grips with the misogyny in the atheist movement. We KNOW that stereotypes are bullshit. And yet there are so many of us who hear 'feminist' and immediately think 'feminazi'? How does that work?<P>
Feminism: the doctrine advocating social, political, and all other rights of women equal to those of men. Much like in so many areas of the world we're forced to advocate for the rights and equality of atheists. <P>
That so many have trouble making this connection blows my mind. If Atheism+ is going to splinter the atheist movement, we'll only be better off for it.Parsley Victorioushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04622223789593927770noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5486394323492751665.post-40410180146387411902012-08-23T08:11:00.001-07:002012-08-23T08:11:42.188-07:00Atheism+Let's get something out of the way straight off the bat.<P>
I consider myself a feminist.<P>
A lot of people would turn away at this point. Feminism seems to have any number of stereotypes floating around it. Bitch, feminazi, slut, prude, crone, somehow all manner of bizarre and often contradictory words go floating past when feminism is mentioned.<P>
I had always thought that my movement, the atheist, the rationalists, the promoters of reason, were largely immune to this kind of stereotyping. Of course, any given group once it gets large enough is going to have its assholes; I just always thought that in our group these were a sometimes-vocal but almost irrelevant minority, to be simply ignored or shouted down when they arose.<P>
This is the definition of privilege. I do not experience sexual harassment, or discrimination based on my gender, and so it was invisible to me. But now it's coming out, and I've been shocked at the depth of the reaction.<P>
Opposition to anti-harassment policies? Victim blaming? Name calling - cunt, slut, bitch, whore, prude, ugly? <i>Rape</i> threats? <b><i>DEATH</i></b> threats?<P>
This goes on in a community dedicated to rationality?<P>
Apparently it does. And apparently it's far, far more widespread than I would ever have thought.<P>
Now that it's begun coming to light that this is as large a problem as it is, now that awareness is skyrocketing, it's become time to do something about it. And <A HREF="http://freethoughtblogs.com/blaghag/">Jen McCreight</A> has initiated just such a thing: Atheism+. Third-wave atheism. We're not just atheists; we're atheists, PLUS we're against misogyny. PLUS we're against racism. Transphobia. And so on down the line.<P>
I couldn't be more excited. This is exactly what I thought the atheist movement was in the first place. Some have claimed it's just a rebranding of secular humanism, and on the surface that seems true, but the distinctions are there. I've never really thought of myself as a humanist - even though I'm the secretary of my local humanist group, and certainly hold myself to the humanist standards. But I've always been more vocal about my nonbelief than anything; I wish my atheism to be at the forefront when self-identifying. And with the advent of atheism+, that's exactly what I can do. This may be enough to re-kindle my interest in maintaining this blog. I hope I manage to stick around this time.Parsley Victorioushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04622223789593927770noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5486394323492751665.post-55683784153177278522012-05-09T08:44:00.000-07:002012-05-09T08:44:59.070-07:00A counterpoint to Mark DriscollIn the wake of the new Avengers movie, Pastor Mark Driscoll has written a brief article suggesting that <A HREF="http://pastormark.tv/2012/05/08/maybe-everyone-who-bought-a-ticket-to-the-avengers-deep-down-really-wants-to-meet-jesus">perhaps all these superhero-loving moviegoers just want to meet Jesus</A>. His claim that people seem to crave "a half-man, half-something else superhero was coming to defeat evil liberate the oppressed and usher in a new kingdom of peace and life" is intriguing, to say the least, but I would invite him to look at it from a slightly different point of view.
<P>
Maybe everyone who claims to want to meet Jesus just really, really likes superheroes. Perhaps the need for a good story, with a villain and with one who will save us, is simply so deep in human consciousness that there are those who take it too far, and actually believe their chosen superhero exists, and is working to save them, despite the utter lack of evidence that such a thing is true.
<P>
That these movies can be interpreted in similar ways as your holy book only goes to show just how pervasive made-up stories can be.Parsley Victorioushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04622223789593927770noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5486394323492751665.post-53861718458708081192012-03-31T16:20:00.001-07:002012-03-31T16:20:53.333-07:00Open-mindednessI'm often old that I should be more open minded. I disagree, and I've been ruminating about it for a little while now.<br />
<br />
It comes most often from the new-age crowd - those that I upset in my crusade against non-science-based alternative medicine. I tell them I don't believe homeopathy works, or reiki, or acupuncture - it's hard to believe the amount of pushback I get over acupuncture - and I explain why, and I'm told that I need to be more open minded. It does come from the religious as well, though less often.<br />
<br />
I disagree. I think I'm being utterly open minded, and sometimes wonder what definition of open-minded these people are using. I contend that I'm being open minded because I'm willing to give their viewpoints a chance, I'm willing to hear their arguments, listen to whatever evidence they may have accrued, do my research, and come to my conclusion.<br />
<br />
What would closed-mindedness be like? I'd be unwilling to listen. Unwilling to consider. I would have preemptively come to my conclusion, without giving the other party the benefit of the doubt, and I would display an unwillingness to change my mind. That's closed-minded.<br />
<br />
There are those who will point out that I have, in fact, already reached a conclusion on their pet topic. And that's fair enough; in many cases, I have. But this does not stop me from being willing to reconsider. To admit the possibility that I'm wrong. To listen to what one has to say - even if it's the hundredth time I've heard those exact same arguments and could refute them in my sleep.<br />
<br />
The fact that I've done my research and reached my conclusion before you, personally, arrived on the scene does not make me closed-minded; it makes you late to the party.<br />
<br />
And even then, if you're able to provide new arguments, new evidence, some sort of proof to your claims, that overbalances the weight of evidence against you, I'll happily change my mind. I'll stand up and proclaim that I was wrong, and you were right. I'm not saying I'll do this immediately - I am, after all, a skeptic. But I'll look into your claims, view your evidence, and if the evidence winds up being in your favour - well, heck. That's what evidence is for.<br />
<br />
I fail to see where in this I can justly be accused of closed-mindedness. In fact, it seems to me that the majority of the time I'm told I need to be more open-minded, it's for one reason, and one reason alone; I have disagreed with what someone has to say. Because I'm unwilling to uncritically accept what this person believes, I must be closed-minded. I say again: I disagree. As far as I'm concerned, there's a better word than closed-minded for someone who accepts claims at face value without looking at the evidence.<br />
<br />
Gullible.Parsley Victorioushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04622223789593927770noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5486394323492751665.post-45313948110693428972011-11-13T06:19:00.000-08:002011-11-13T06:19:15.815-08:00On IndoctrinationPart of this post is inspired by my continuing journey from 'weak' atheism to 'strong' atheism, which is continuing apace as I attempt to logically justify the things I've come to believe. This will be the subject of another post, to come probably sooner rather than later.<br />
<br />
It's a fairly standard line in the skeptical community: indoctrination is bad. We give religious communities all kinds of flak for indoctrinating their children, and for good reasons, given that in the absence of evidence, or even logical sense, indoctrination is the only way that religion continues to survive.<br />
<br />
But of course, we try to be as intellectually honest as we can, and we try to avoid double standards, and so we hold ourselves to the same expectations. I see many posts by atheist parents who talk about how their children we allowed the benefit of a choice, who were given all the information, and who have, far more often than not, chosen non-belief. All this is, of course, fantastic.<br />
<br />
Recently, however, I've been wondering if 'indoctrination' is a word that applies to the teaching of atheism to children. It is, logically and scientifically, the standpoint that's most likely to be true - and I do realize that the religious will say the same thing about their viewpoint, but please bear with me.<br />
<br />
I now see the non-existence of god as a fact - I cannot justify this, but it's how I think. Given that, how is the teaching of atheism to my child indoctrination? I also intend to teach him/her that the sun is fusing hydrogen into helium, that evolution is true, and that physical activity is good for you. None of these things are viewed as indoctrination - because they're all simply, indisputably, true. It's not indoctrination to pass on facts.<br />
<br />
And lately, as far as I'm concerned, the fact is that god does not exist.<br />
<br />
This is, I realize, a risky position for me to hold. I cannot fully justify this belief. But at the same time, I cannot fully justify my believe that centaurs do not, and never have, existed. It's the outright, worldwide lack of evidence for centaurs, along with the physiological improbability of them, that causes my belief that they do not exist - and the same is true of god. There is not, nor has there ever been, a speck of credible evidence for god, and his existence would flatly contradict our entire knowledge of physics. He is, to put it shortly, so unlikely to actually exist that the probability is a number indistinguishable from zero.<br />
<br />
The gist of all this is that I plan to teach my child that he or she is growing up surrounded by people who believe a myth, as well as all the various reasons why they believe it. I intend to teach the non-existence of god with the same certainty as I will teach mathematics, physics, chemistry - and so on. As simple fact. And I do not consider this indoctrination.<br />
<br />
I'm still working through the implications of this. It's true that I'm setting myself up in a double standard - the religious consider the existence of god to be a fact in this exact same way, and I still think of that as indoctrination. The rising tide of atheism belies this point of view, however. Their certainty is based on myth and faith. Ours is based on science, evidence, and logic. It is, in short, a defensible position, where theirs is not, and it shows in the reams of people abandoning the church.<br />
<br />
This is not to say that, should my child ultimately reject this point of view and become some kind of religious fundamentalist, I would abandon them. They are, as ever, free to choose, and I do intend to present all points of view. But I intend to also teach that one point of view is fact, and the rest are myth. Should my child turn his/her back on science and embrace religious fundamentalism, it would undoubtedly cause strain on the relationship, but I would not turn my back. I do, however, consider this outcome highly unlikely, for the reasons listed above. A mind trained to accept reality as it is, and to evaluate facts and claims based on evidence, is unlikely to start to accept fairy tales on faith.<br />
<br />
I'm eager for feedback on this. Am I committing a fallacy? Would I be doing my child a disservice? Or would I merely be teaching the ability to see reality as it actually is, without unneeded religious filters? I think it's the best way to go, but outside perspective on my ideas is something that, as a free-thinking individual, I crave. Anyone?Parsley Victorioushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04622223789593927770noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5486394323492751665.post-37685188451178629362011-11-13T05:46:00.000-08:002011-11-13T05:46:47.787-08:00So it's been a while.I haven't been active, at all, for a period of a couple of months now. This is primarily because I've been working like a mad person, putting in a lot of overtime, in order to get my financial situation back in better order. The urgency of this has passed, somewhat, though I continue to put in hours trying to get out of where I am now, and into the field I -want- to be in. Which will, if I'm successful, eat up even more of my time, but I hope I can make it work.<br />
<br />
Also, my internet connectivity went through a period where it did not, for most intents and purposes, exist at all.<br />
<br />
These problems have abated somewhat, and so I make my <strike>triumphant</strike> return. I've been busy, but it's been interesting as well; I work with a guy who's one of the more devoted Christians I've ever personally met, as well as a woman who is deeply pagan, with a touch of conspiracy theorist, and the discussions have been interesting. Combined with that, one of Greta Christina's <A HREF="http://freethoughtblogs.com/greta/2011/11/08/why-i-do-what-i-do-2/">latest offerings</A> has re-inspired me; it may not seem like it at times, but we're having an effect. It's working - and everyone who contributes their voice to the atheist effort adds impact to that.<br />
<br />
My collection of atheist swag is increasing rapidly, and shortly I'll likely have a nice tattoo.<br />
<br />
But for now, the idea for my next post is already half-written in my head, and I'm rather proud of it. So why don't I hop to it?Parsley Victorioushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04622223789593927770noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5486394323492751665.post-33615036329282241352011-08-16T06:41:00.000-07:002011-08-16T06:41:50.313-07:00Religious 'morality' and selfishnessI've been pondering over this one for quite some time now, but only recently have I manged to boil the concepts down into words that make sense. It comes, as these things so often do, from a discussion I had with a Christian in real life. I find that speaking my ideas out loud, and being forced to defend them, is the best way for me to clarify and structure them when they may have previously been unformed, nebulous things, floating around unpolished in my skull.<br />
<br />
You've all seen the argument before, I'm sure; that atheists either cannot be moral without a belief in God, or that we're moral because, even though we're not aware of it, we follow God's absolute morality. Total nonsense, we're all aware, but why?<br />
<br />
The fellow I spoke to was one of those people who ask why, if I don't believe in Hell, don't I go around murdering and stealing and doing whatever I please? At the beginning of our conversation he was adamant that if he didn't believe in Hell, he'd be out doing all these things, which is terrifying. I think they do this because their cognitive dissonance about God's morality forces them to choose SOME side when pressed, and they automatically come down on the side of God. Happily, by the end of the conversation I managed to show him why, no, he wouldn't do these things, and left happier for it.<br />
<br />
And it got me thinking. How is that moral? They claim they have a handle on absolute morality, through God, but they'd be willing to commit horrible crimes without him, if there were no Hell? That's not morality. The best definition I've been able to come up with for morality is the choice not to do harm do someone, <i>because</i> of the harm it will cause. This is based on empathy, something that the majority of us have and use daily. We're able to empathize with the pain and suffering of others, and thus choose not to cause pain and suffering. But avoiding immoral acts because of the threat of punishment or the promise of reward is not a moral decision. It's a selfish one, because the decision being made is not about avoiding harm to others.<br />
<br />
It's about avoiding harm to (or gleaning reward for) <i>oneself</I>.<br />
<br />
If I really, really like stealing cars, but I keep myself from doing so because I know how negatively it will affect those I steal from, I have made a moral choice. I don't want to harm the owners of those cars. I don't want <i>them</I> to suffer.<br />
<br />
But if I really like stealing cars, and I keep myself from doing so because I think I'll go to Hell, my decision is not based on avoiding causing suffering to others. It's about avoiding causing suffering to myself. I don't want <i>myself</i> to go to Hell.<br />
<br />
Further pondering on this was spawned by a <A HREF="http://www.cracked.com/article_15759_10-things-christians-atheists-can-and-must-agree-on.html">Cracked.com</A> article I read last night. It's an older one, from 2007, and I actually quite agree with most of it. The one bit that stuck in my craw, though, was point number three, which you can find at the top of the second page. In it, the writer claims that we, even all unknowingly, behave as if there's a 'platonic model' of morality that we're following. That when we want justice, it's not because there's a 'wrong' molecule floating around, alerting us to the fact, but because we're comparing what's happened to the absolute moral model.<br />
<br />
Which is a load of bunk. We're comparing events to the morality that our society has impressed upon us, and deciding if something was immoral or not based on that. And the morals of societies, I think, are unquestionably relative. Societies will often clash on moral questions, and will sometimes live in fear and disgust at each other for their moral practices. Which, then, is the one that conforms to this 'absolute'?<br />
<br />
Why, the one I agree with, of course!<br />
<br />
Nonsense. All morality is subjective. Yes, Bible-thumpers, even yours. The Bible condones slavery. Do you? No? Then you have made a subjective moral decision.<br />
<br />
I would argue the exact opposite of this writer's point. We atheists do not, unknowingly, follow an absolute standard for morality. It's you believers who, unknowingly, make subjective moral decisions based on your ability to empathize. The basis for morality, even yours, is not based on God's word. This is obvious enough; I've already shown you one brief example of where you'll disagree with the Holy text, and there are hundreds more. You disagree with it because you're able to empathize with the theoretical victims of these Biblical crimes and punishments. You -know- somethings wrong there, because of the suffering of the people referred to, even if it's written in the Bible, even if you claim to agree with the Bible 100%.<br />
<br />
You merely haven't sorted out your cognitive dissonance yet. I'd get started on that, if I were you. Atheism is quite freeing.Parsley Victorioushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04622223789593927770noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5486394323492751665.post-50013423333230911932011-08-05T20:10:00.000-07:002011-08-05T20:10:48.418-07:00Oh, my atheist god!We've all seen it, even if it is often said in jest. "You can't say 'oh my god!' you're an atheist!". As if our disbelief in deities precludes us from using any religious language that has percolated it's way into popular vocabulary.<br />
<br />
It's a silly idea, but the more you think about it, the sillier it gets. Christians are commonly told not to take their lord's name in vein. I get chastised sometimes for exclaiming 'Jesus Christ!' when I'm surprised or startled, because it's disrespectful. If doing such a thing is indeed disrespectful... then are we not, in fact, the very people who <i>should</i> be using such exclamations? We don't believe your god even exists, let alone that he needs to be accorded respect. When I say 'Oh my god!' in a disrespectful manner, this fits in perfectly with my worldview that religious ideas are silly and should be abandoned.<br />
<br />
When you tell me that as an atheist, I'm not allowed to use such utterances, you're implying that you, as a Christian, <i>are</I> allowed to do so. And in doing so, you're disrespecting the very deity that you profess to love and worship.<br />
<br />
I say, <I>you</I>, as a believer, are the one who isn't allowed to take the lord's name in vain. Me? I disrespect gods all the time. It's kinda what I do. Makes perfect sense that I'd do so in the arena of expletives as well.Parsley Victorioushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04622223789593927770noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5486394323492751665.post-37671469163863381302011-07-26T07:10:00.000-07:002011-07-26T07:10:22.698-07:00Ah, original sin...A boy in the UK - possibly an entire class - was made to eat a piece of paper with the word 'Sorry!!' written on it, in order to <A HREF="http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/309549">apologize to God</A>.<br />
<br />
And not in a Church, either. This happened in his school.<br />
<br />
It wasn't a punishment. He hadn't done anything wrong. This is a part that really kills me about the Church. He was made to apologize to God <I>simply because he existed</I>.<br />
<br />
The claim is often made that God is love, but he's also justice. What tripe. To say that a baby, newly born and never having committed <I>any</I> act, let alone a sinful one, is culpable for Eve's original disobeying of God? That's neither love nor justice.<br />
<br />
The boy came home in tears, and now apparently refuses to sleep alone. He was also given a Bible to "make him good", when he hadn't done anything bad in the first place. What nonsense. I'm not usually one who promotes the view that religion is inherently child abuse, but I'm beginning to come around. This child came home wondering what he'd done wrong, why he'd had to say sorry. What torment to put an innocent child through, for no reason whatsoever. How disgusting.<br />
<br />
In response, assistant pastor Steve Cowie said: "We are sorry that anyone should be upset, we have no intention to upset, we do not intimidate, we do not force anyone to do anything." You don't see how telling young children that they're evil could be upsetting? That they need to apologize for something they didn't do - and need to do so by eating paper?<br />
<br />
The boy's been pulled from school, and so has at least one other student. What strikes me as frightening is that every single student wasn't pulled. A school allowing religious visits in the first place is a violation, but for the school staff to not intervene and stop this kind of madness - I don't even have the words.Parsley Victorioushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04622223789593927770noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5486394323492751665.post-64636938384574984032011-07-25T20:47:00.000-07:002011-07-25T20:47:00.987-07:00Facebook?I require more facebook friends, and such. Am I behind the times? Perhaps. I've made a Google+ account as well, but I rarely touch it yet. The same thing happened to me before - I was slow to adopt the book of faces, and even now I tend to Twitter more than anything. But I've been getting into some stuff there lately, so, add me, or something.<br />
<br />
<A HREF="http://www.facebook.com/parsleyvictorious">The face of Parsley</A>.<br />
<br />
Cheers!Parsley Victorioushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04622223789593927770noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5486394323492751665.post-84420581726481697732011-07-24T14:14:00.000-07:002011-07-24T14:14:04.818-07:00Oslo.I have seen numerous people, in the last few days, display an appalling level of outright hypocrisy. I mean direct, immediate, undeniable hypocrisy, and they have done so shamelessly.<br />
<br />
When the bomb went off in Oslo, a number of people reacted immediately, placing the blame squarely on the head of Muslim terrorists, doing so without the barest shred of information. Sadly, among these was American Atheists Inc, who have since apologized for jumping the gun.<br />
<br />
A number of those who leapt to this conclusion did so, obviously, because of their general anti-Islam sentiments. A number of them were far-right leaning Christians, denouncing Islam, mocking the way it's called 'the religion of peace' by some. The usual cry and hue went up, that Islam is a religion of terror, that Muslims are terrorists, and must be scourged from society.<br />
<br />
And then the news hit that the guy was a Christian.<br />
<br />
By the same logic, then, Christianity is a religion of destruction. This guy did what he did because of his beliefs, among them that Jesus is the messiah.<br />
<br />
But no. Outrage, that we would even suggest such a thing. He wasn't a TRUE Christian. He couldn't have been - look at what he did! No, he was just masquerading as a Christian. You can't denounce Christianity because of the actions of a few Christians. Er, I mean, pretend Christians.<br />
<br />
Well, why can't we, when you so gleefully do exactly that to Muslims? You don't get to have it both ways. No, you really don't. If you cannot judge Christianity based on the actions of a few extremists, then you equally cannot judge Islam based on a few extremists. Doing so is deeply hypocritical, and it adds a whole new level of disgusting to the typical Islamophobic sentiments I see all the time.<br />
<br />
The 'no true Scotsman' fallacy is alive and well, as we're all aware, but rarely is it trotted out in a way that's so blatantly, obviously, -wrong-.Parsley Victorioushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04622223789593927770noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5486394323492751665.post-16567413460935347682011-07-18T06:07:00.000-07:002011-07-18T06:07:27.905-07:00Omniscience and free willAmong the religious, these are two oft-made claims - that their god is omniscient, all knowing, and also that he has granted us, made in his image, free will.<br />
<br />
These two concepts are so deeply at odds that it always shocks me to see believers making use of both of them. They're mutually exclusive, on a fundamental level.<br />
<br />
If your god knows everything that has ever happened and will ever happen, that means that events will follow a predictable course. <I>We</I> may not know what this course is, but that doesn't mean that it's not pre-determined. If, thousands or millions of years ago he knew I'd be sitting here writing this, and here I am, then what choice did I have in the matter? It had to happen. I had to be here, this morning, typing away.<br />
<br />
If I had free will, then perhaps this morning I would have gone for a walk or something, and wouldn't have been sitting here typing this, at odds with God's knowledge that I would be sitting here typing. In this case, free will is real - but God had to be wrong for that to be true. I had to deviate from God's knowledge of the future - and he's therefore not omniscient.<br />
<br />
You might argue that he knew I'd try to foil his plan, and in choosing to go for a walk instead of writing, I would actually have been <I>following</I> his plan all along. That's fine - but then we're back at square one. He knew I'd decide to try and foil him, and take that walk. If he's known I would do that, and I did it, it's the same thing. I'm still following his thread - with nothing but the appearance of being able to choose.<br />
<br />
You can't have it both ways. If he's omniscient, then our lives are following a known, unchangeable thread. If we have free will, then he can't know everything. Simple logic.Parsley Victorioushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04622223789593927770noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5486394323492751665.post-80041700139051385242011-07-05T19:08:00.000-07:002011-07-05T19:08:35.646-07:00Well, that sucks.Psalm 14:1: "The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God."<br />
<br />
Matthew 5:22: "...but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire."<br />
<br />
Looks like whoever wrote Psalms is screwed.Parsley Victorioushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04622223789593927770noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5486394323492751665.post-75150043409235151582011-07-05T12:00:00.000-07:002011-07-05T12:00:52.671-07:00A Madmad or Something WorsePeter Brietbart has some pretty interesting things to say about the morality of Jesus. I've thought that Jesus, if he existed, was nothing more than a man; I've also always thought that for the time he lived in, he had a pretty decent moral message. This may still be true; he did have some good things to say. But we don't live in those times. We're more evolved now. So why are we still following the teachings of a man 2,000 years dead who failed to speak out against rape, racism, sexism, who condemns homosexuals and anyone who doesn't believe in him to eternal torture? These two videos spell it out excellently. I recommend watching them both, though I fear that those who need to take the most away from them - the dogmatic, the zealous, the devout - will either not watch them, or will close their minds entirely to what's being said.<br />
<br />
<iframe width="560" height="349" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/V_9sEhb2UzI" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe><br />
<br />
<iframe width="560" height="349" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/yzUPG_UB7CY" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>Parsley Victorioushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04622223789593927770noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5486394323492751665.post-85778333025476977092011-07-03T05:48:00.000-07:002011-07-03T05:48:36.280-07:00The weak anthropic principle and you.I got into a discussion with a <A HREF="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pandeism">pandeist</A> yesterday, my first ever. I've been fine tuning my arguments against <A HREF="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deism">deism</A> for a little bit now, and I was eager to see how they'd work out against a believer.<br />
<br />
The thing that became increasingly obvious to me as the discussion went on was that a large part of his arguments were identical in a way to those used by creationists. In his parlance, it was proof of 'purpose' in the universe rather than proof of a creator, but the argument was more or less the same; that the universe is fine tuned for life, and if cosmological constants were slightly different, life couldn't exist, and therefore it all had to be designed.<br />
<br />
We all know the arguments against this, I think; first, that the universe has the appearance of design not because it was designed for us, but because we came to be within it, and therefore we had to evolve to suit it, not the other way around. See Douglas Adams' <A HREF="http://toomanytribbles.blogspot.com/2009/03/musings-of-sentient-puddle.html">sentient puddle</A>. And secondly, that if the universe were not as it is, we wouldn't be here to see it.<br />
<br />
That second part is what I'm focusing on right now. Most often, when I point this out to those I'm debating, it's either scoffed at or ignored. Of course we wouldn't be!, they shout, What does that prove?.<br />
<br />
I think there's a nuance to the weak anthropic principle that a lot of people are missing out on. Indeed, they're quite right; it certainly doesn't prove the non-existence of a creator. What it <i>does</I> do is highlight exactly why their idea of a fine-tuned universe is <i>not</i> evidence of a creator.<br />
<br />
How's that? Well, the universe is observably suited for life. Nobody argues with this; if gravity was just a little different, planets and suns either wouldn't form, or would form immediately into black holes. If the nuclear forces were a little different, perhaps atoms as we know them wouldn't be able to exist. There's a laundry list of items like these.<br />
<br />
But what does this tell us about how the universe was created? Precisely nothing. Imagine two neighboring universes, side-by-side. They're identical in every detail, except that one had an intelligent creator, and one formed from wholly natural events. The cosmological constants happen to be the exact same, and so if you were look at these two universes billions of years into their developments, how would you be able to distinguish between the created one and the natural one?<br />
<br />
You couldn't.<br />
<br />
This is the point, I think, of the whole thing. We can't. Looking out into the depths of space, we see that the universe is suited for life, but how can we tell if it's natural or created? We can't, not just by looking at them. The argument of the fine-tuning of the universe - used by creationists and deists alike - is null. It's not evidence of anything, either way. You can go on forever about how unlikely it is that a universe would form that was exactly suited for life, and I'll keep saying the same thing. If it wasn't, we wouldn't be here to care. That we <i>are</i> here shows only that the universe exists as it does. That's all.<br />
<br />
Why, then, would one <i>not</i> believe in a creator? I've just admitted that by the fine-tuning argument, the one is exactly as likely as the other. Simply put, believing so brings nothing to the table that needs to be there. We have naturalistic hypotheses for the origin of the universe as we know it, and we're learning more every day. I see no reason to not to believe that given enough time, these hypotheses will become theories, and we'll actually know how the universe came to be. Such is the history of science; the unknown becomes known with astonishing frequency. To say 'we know how all this happened naturally... but a god kicked it all off' is unnecessary. It's redundant. It's like adding 1 + 1 + 0 to get two. The zero doesn't need to be there. Neither do gods. And given the history of the supernatural - given that every supposed instance of things existing outside of nature has been debunked - I can't see any reason to suppose that the universe has an origin outside of natural law either.<br />
<br />
Especially when natural law explains it so very, very well.Parsley Victorioushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04622223789593927770noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5486394323492751665.post-47679112302438954302011-07-02T08:32:00.000-07:002011-07-02T08:32:09.088-07:00Dogma and the socratic method.When I was but a whelp in high school, I had a fantastic teacher in one of my history classes. He was the one who first brought to my attention the <A HREF="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socratic_method">Socratic method</A>. He asked for a volunteer to help him demonstrate how it was used, and I, brash and cocky, raised my hand. The questions he posed were about bravery, and stupidity, and the thin line between the two. Every question I answered, he'd turn right around into my face, making it look like my answer was silly, or nonsensical, or contradictory to something I'd said earlier.<br />
<br />
Bring in my mid-teens at the time, of course, I was upset at being made to look foolish in front of my friends, but I've never had much of an ability to be embarrassed, so that wore off quickly. And as it did, I thought more and more about the things he'd said, and how he'd forced me to take a concept I thought I'd had totally in hand and really, deeply <i>think</i> about it, in a way I never had before. I worked on those bravery vs stupidity questions for months, working them over in my head, trying to come up with definitions that seemed to me to have the least number of logical flaws.<br />
<br />
What I didn't realize at the time, of course, was that I had taken the method and begun applying it to <i>myself</i>, holding debates in my head, playing devil's advocate, working through the flaws in my thinking and learning to truly understand the things I was thinking about rather than just knowing them.<br />
<br />
For that teacher, it was probably no more than perfectly normal day. He's probably used that demonstration dozens or hundreds of times, before and since. But if there was one teacher in time in school that I'd like to go back and thank, it'd be him, for that moment, for giving me the method I needed to learn to think critically instead of just parroting information.<br />
<br />
All of this relates very deeply with the concept of dogma, to me. In my debates with theists, I use the Socratic method constantly, throwing question after question at them, hoping that as we go around and around they'll take a moment, stop, and think about it. That they'll learn see the contradictions they're espousing, the logical errors, the circular arguments, just as I did all those years ago.<br />
<br />
But it never seems to happen.<br />
<br />
Why? If you know me, you know the answer to that: dogma. That an idea is incontrovertible. Beyond question, beyond reproach. Once an idea becomes beyond question in someone's mind, it halts all progress. The idea can no longer evolve. It doesn't matter if it's a good idea or a bad idea; the concept of evolution shouldn't be dogmatic in someone's mind anymore than the idea of god should.<br />
<br />
It feels like trying to hammer a wall down with a toothpick. An idea that's surrounded by a thick barricade of dogma is and idea that the Socratic method can't reach. It's an idea that, no matter the evidence, no matter the contradictions or the awful logic or anything else, cannot change.<br />
<br />
I've seen believers who claim to have the 'truth', and call themselves critical thinkers. This is a contradiction. If you hold an idea - any idea, any at all - to be incontrovertible, unquestionable, then you cannot think critically about it. If you are unwilling to see the flaws in your idea, then you are incapable of reconsidering or abandoning the idea when those flaws are exposed, and you will wind up going in circles, ignoring valid points, and struggling to invent absurd arguments to show that your idea has no flaws, no matter how obvious these are.<br />
<br />
In short: Dogmatic belief and critical thinking are mutually exclusive. Guess which one I think needs to go?Parsley Victorioushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04622223789593927770noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5486394323492751665.post-32322335023703200782011-06-28T17:00:00.000-07:002011-06-28T20:31:11.643-07:00A question for creationists.I'm well aware that this blog doesn't yet have a massive readership, but my view count continues to go up quasi-steadily, so I'm going to go ahead and try this and see what I get.<br />
<br />
I posed a question today to a YEC I debate with fairly often on Twitter. He gave me a brief and unsatisfying answer and then disappeared before answering my clarifying question. Life happens to us all, and I'm hoping he'll be around later to further refine his answer. Of course, at that point, I may just ask him to do so here.<br />
<br />
The following question is for those who believe in a literal Creator, be it old-Earth or young-Earth. It's for those of you that think abiogenesis is simply too improbable to be believed, and the first inklings of life must have been Created, whether or not you believe evolution took over from there.<br />
<br />
Two of my recent posts have focused on scientific findings, findings which help to erode the idea that a Creator is necessary at all. They're indirect evidence, I know, but every bit helps. I posited in one of those articles about the logical conclusion of this science, and I'm curious as to how that conclusion would affect the creationist community.<br />
<br />
Suppose that tomorrow a revolutionary scientific finding was announced. A scientist has been working in a lab for the past however-many years, and he has managed to get life to form itself. By this I mean, he set up a sterile room, filled it with water, ammonia, methane, perhaps some other simple organic chemicals, flooded it with sunlight, perhaps created artificial tides and tidal pools - in other words, simulated the Earth as we believe it was ~4.5 billion years ago. And in this mishmash of chemistry, water, and light, self-replicating molecules formed, and began spreading. He's held off announcing it, though, and he kept watching, and now, after years of study, these molecules have - all on their own, without any prompting - formed simple pseudo-cells which have begun competing with each other.<br />
<br />
In short, he's <s>created brand-new life</s> watched brand new life form, using only simple chemistry and time.<br />
<br />
The question, then, is how would this discovery affect you? Would it be a crack in your faith? After all, if it can happen over the course of a few years in a lab, certainly it must be possible over millenia on Earth. Would it destroy your faith, to prove that life literally needs no creator? Or can you think of arguments against it, arguments that you think shows that all of this doesn't prove that a creator is unnecessary?<br />
<br />
I'm genuinely curious. This experiment, of course, has not happened yet, but I'm betting that it will, and I don't think it'll be all that long. Harry Lonsdale, a very-wealthy very-atheist has just recently announced that he's going to give someone <a HREF="http://news.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/2011/06/scientist-politician-atheist-off.html?ref=hp">a rather large grant</A> to attempt this very experiment. What if they succeed? How will you react? What will you say?<br />
<br />
Are any creationists willing to play this hypothetical game with me? I'm hoping so.<br />
<br />
To all my lovely atheist readers, if you're curious about the answers to this question as well, spread the word. I know it sounds like a cheap plug, but the more creationists we can gather in here, the more answers we can get, and I'm just not that popular yet. Give me a hand, if you can!Parsley Victorioushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04622223789593927770noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5486394323492751665.post-67438966644588070042011-06-24T19:59:00.000-07:002011-06-25T05:26:30.748-07:00Way to go New York!I just got to watch live as the State of New York passed a bill granting equality to all of it's citizens. It still baffles me that equality needs to be voted on, but make no mistake; this is a good thing. It's going to be a while yet before true, actual equality is achieved, before open homosexuals no longer walk some neighborhoods in fear just for loving who they love, before being gay is just considered to be another trait of a person, like having blue eyes or brown hair.<br />
<br />
There'll be setbacks. Cases like this will come up in other states, and they'll be lost. The bigots will have their local victories. But make no mistake. Every day, in every way, they're losing ground. If we keep fighting, and keep educating, and keep showing everyone that no, being gay isn't a horrible disease, eventually we WILL win.<br />
<br />
Watching my twitter feed scroll past immediately after the successful vote, and seeing at least one or two all-caps tweets from people I like, loudly proclaiming to the world that they're going to go out and get married now, makes all the battling worthwhile.<br />
<br />
A sampling of the joy this decision has brought:<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-_v659vcNT9s/TgVWtdDasxI/AAAAAAAAACY/aXfQrL1_WqM/s1600/marriage2.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left:1em; margin-right:1em"><img border="0" height="79" width="400" src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-_v659vcNT9s/TgVWtdDasxI/AAAAAAAAACY/aXfQrL1_WqM/s400/marriage2.jpg" /></a></div><br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-g-4vg4qEA_o/TgXT8YAEjmI/AAAAAAAAACg/1zZ65b86fRY/s1600/marriage1.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left:1em; margin-right:1em"><img border="0" height="56" width="400" src="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-g-4vg4qEA_o/TgXT8YAEjmI/AAAAAAAAACg/1zZ65b86fRY/s400/marriage1.jpg" /></a></div>Parsley Victorioushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04622223789593927770noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5486394323492751665.post-73109313413696701352011-06-23T08:45:00.000-07:002011-06-23T08:45:05.366-07:00Creationism being eroded - yes, again.Yep, it's true. Another of creationism's so-called unanswerable questions has been dealt with.<br />
<br />
This one pertains to the gap between unicellular and multicelluar life. Why, they ask, are there no multicelluar organisms with very few cells? The smallest multicellular life we know of starts at about ~100 cells. You obviously can't skip straight from one cell to one hundred. If evolution was true, why this gap? How did life cross this bridge?<br />
<br />
Of course, just because there are no organisms with two or ten or whatever cells today doesn't mean there weren't in the past - the opposite is quite obviously true. But now we've got some <A HREF="http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21028184.300-lab-yeast-make-evolutionary-leap-to-multicellularity.html">compelling evidence</A> to show it.<br />
<br />
Voila. By applying pressure that selects for multicellular life - in this case centrifugal force - the single celled yeast began clumping together and forming tiny multi-celled organisms.<br />
<br />
Objections? Of course there are.<br />
<br />
Some will claim that nowhere in nature is centrifugal force going to be a selection factor. This is likely true. But nothing here indicates that the weight of the organism need be the only selection factor that would select for multicelluar arrangements. Even if it were, centrifugal force need not be the only way in which weight can be a selection factor - how about buoyancy, for starters?<br />
<br />
There are those who claim that since yeast USED to be a multicellular organism, it's simply retained the traits for being multicellular. Possibly a factor; this may help explain why the trend towards being multicellular occurred as quickly as it did. But it really doesn't matter. What this shows is that life can and does exist in small (>1 <100) groupings. It's viable. You can see that it happens. So why assume that it couldn't have happened in our deep past?<br />
<br />
Finally, why do no such organisms exist in nature today? I've never seen a scientist's answer to this question, but I have what I think is a valid hypothesis; there may be some powerful advantage once an organism reaches the ~100 cell marker that allows it to out-compete the smaller multicellular organisms, and therefore drive them to extinction. Perhaps once 100 cells or so are reached, it allows the organism to specialize it's individual cells in certain ways that give it massive advantage, or some such thing. No small multicellular organisms exist in the wild, therefore, because there's no niche for them. They came, existed, and were eliminated by more suitable organisms.<br />
<br />
It's like I love to say - unknown does not mean unknowable. As science advances, it leaves creationism - and religion as a whole - less and less of a leg to stand on. And I do so love to watch it advance.Parsley Victorioushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04622223789593927770noreply@blogger.com1