Atheists and Skeptics Blog

2010-04-04T19:16:00.001-07:00

The inking will be done by tonight along with the unicorn, but i just couldn't wait to post.

Narwhal in Horse Costume

2010-03-08T17:26:00.000-08:00

My good friend Angela has agreed to submit a drawing for our T-shirt design. She is an expert in Photoshop and will polish her drawing with it. She did submit this as a concept. She eagerly awaits suggestions for improvement from our club member. I will be starting a post shortly on my facebook where you can submit comments or email me at terracruiser@hotmail.com

The Human Race

2010-03-06T12:01:00.001-08:00

Hey everyone,
As most of you know, our club is participating in the Human Race this year. It will be held May 8 at Spring Lake. We’re raising money for Piner High to get a new telescope. For those interested I’ve included instructions on how to register.

How to sign up for the Human Race
Go to: http://www.active.com/running/santa-rosa-ca/sonoma-county-human-race-2010
Click “Register Now”
Fill out if you want to do the 10K or the 3K
Agree to the Waiver and Continue
Fill out Personal Info
For the Non-Profit put “Piner High School”
The Price is $25 for Registering plus a $3.25 Processing fee totaling to $28.25
And you’re done.
You can register as late as May 5, by 1700.

Notes from the Secular Student Alliance Leadership Conference

2010-02-17T10:58:00.000-08:00

Succession planning: So your group can live without you by Liz Lidell
(You will graduate someday right?)
Leadership transitions are the #1 reason groups fail because
-there are no leaders to take over
-new leaders lack interest or dedication
-new leaders are overburdened
The most dangerous transitions for a group are after the first and second generations of leaders. Groups generally fail 2nd and 3rd generation. (we are getting close to this)
So where do we start?
Now! No matter what, planning ahead is the key.
General Leadership transition wisdom
-cross train, get more than one person who can do everything critical to the group
-preserve core values
-document everything from basics like passwords to the more complicated such as funding grants
-diversify leadership
-aim for leaders from different classes, viewpoints, genders, etc.
Succession planning in action
1. Identify key roles such as president, vp, treasurer, secretary, and
2. Survey the current situation and make it work (whose interested and available)
3. Directly approach potential leaders face to face if possible.
4. Nurture and train
5. Support- don’t disappear even after you leave you should be available to answer their questions.
6. Rinse and repeat

Nurture and Train
-have potential leaders shadow and assist you
-share the groups running materials
-show them where to go for help
-find out if your school offers training
-introduce them to the secular student secular alliance for support
Support
-Don’t abandon your new leaders
-give a year’s overlap before you graduate if possible
-if you can’t be around physically, leave your contact information and be responsive when they contact you
Repeat
Everyone Graduates hopefully

Become a Campus Fundraising Ninja by August Brunsman
Working nonprofit as a career
-a song usually helps unless you can’t sing
-participants that pay for an event!
-members-pay to be a voting member
-go to people who have the same values who can support you
-talk to the AS about having more events
-funding about partnering
-find organizations that don’t involve a lot of paperwork from you
-always be looking for new funding streams
-If your group can claim 501 c3 status, people want to donate to you!
Level up by Lucy Gubbins
Growing your group is finding success in the innovative, inclusive, group
-be as inclusive as possible with the secular people in your community
-not all atheists are Dawkins and Hitchens elitist’s i.e. hyper intellectuals
-your group needs to be fun, have social events, activities once a week
-cater to the majority, don’t just offer dense information
-atheists shouldn’t be like herding cats, they don’t seem to know its ok to need fellowship, to be lead a little
Advertising
Important Tactics
-they will remember their first experience with the group
-do you really want to be the Jesus is a cunt guy? Advertising your group this way makes is very exclusive.
-use positive images and phrases so that you don’t offend the religious or some of the secularist
Sign ideas
-ask a happy atheist a question
-an atheist loves you
-yes we are happy!
-can you trust an atheist?
Other fun ideas
-picture scavenger hunt
-games that build trust such as the human knot

Oh we’re secular by Evan Clark
Cooperating with religious organizations
-go to church
-go to participate
-be respectful
-reasons for doing these things are helping to remove the stigma of atheism. If you respect them and want to learn from them, they will want to learn from you. You will be able to communicate with them
-as students people view us as learning people and they are more open to you. This could help the stigma on BOTH sides.

What Atheists can learn from the LGBT movement by Greta Christina
-encourage coming out
-make it safer to come out
-need in the flesh social networks
-when we ask people to come out or to rethink their core beliefs we are asking a lot of them. This decision can alienate them from their friends and family
We should reach out to our natural allies such as the LGBT movement
Not all atheists are active in the same way
-we need diplomacy
-we need the loud militant atheist
-together we can raise visibility
-we need to continue to move the line on what is considered moderate
Don’t squabble about language
-let people use the language they are comfortable with
-need to be more inclusive, with people of color and woman. This shouldn’t be a white man’s elitist club, but that is the direction it is currently headed for.

Effective Communication Despite Disagreement by Matthew Leclair
-don’t worry too much about labels
-have your key points down but don’t be too prepared with the media, you must listen carefully to what they actually ask you because they like to ask questions that are controversial
-don’t expect others to be mart, honest or even good people
-occasionally you will find someone that you can change
-stay open and nice, try to convince them of your points, and don’t just go against them because you’re taking an opposing side.

Innovative community Service for the whole group by David Byars
-get some charity projects going such as project Linus a non-profit organization that collects blankets for those in need.
-you can be productive while socializing such as knitting
-know that people try to demonize us, by doing something like knitting you are challenging their way of thinking. “knitting is something my grandma does, atheists are going to hell but he is knitting too like grandma,”
-do not exclude people from the group even if they do not want to partake in the activities such as knitting, they can still come and socialize, by chatting or doing other things. This can help build our sense of community

Strategy and Leadership Fundamentals by Todd Stiefel presented by Greg Langer
The Fundamentals of leadership and strategy without the fundamentalism
Mission and vision
Leadership
-communicate openly and honestly
-seek new information, ask for feedback, and then make changes based on that
-tell a story of a future that resonates with the people’s hearts and minds
-balance the needs of a the moment with high-level and long-term thinking
Other leadership keys
-put the organizations gain about your personal gain
-consistently drive towards success
-leave your ego at the door
-take responsibility for failures
-give credit to others every chance you get
-thank and give sincere compliments, people want to be valued
More leadership tips
-help the team understand how they are making a difference
-provide help
-take wise risks
-delegate without abdicating (follow up)
-develop a succession plan
-have fun!
-know that it is hard for people to come to you with their problems because they are afraid of shame, do whatever you can to make that easier.
Strategy
-Mission-give your purpose and summarize what the group does and how it does it
-vision-provide an inspirational description of the future of the organization and the world
-identify the unique benefits members are seeking from the group
-situation analysis- who are your competitors and who are your allies, and what can you learn from both of them
-internal and external strengths and weaknesses of the group, always look for opportunities and threats. Think like the competition
Strategy and objectives
Strategies
-create statements of where you want to end up in the short, middle, and long term
-make them SMART Specific, Measureable, Attainable, Relevant, Time bound
-your goals must be obtainable!
In closing
-keep learning
-know that this is just scratching the surface
-apply the tips that apply knowing that all of them may not work for you
-utilize your mission, vision, values, and strategy as guides for your decisions
-accept advice from other clubs that are older than yours, stay open to their ideas, but use only what is applicable to your group, don’t let someone from the outside take over your organization.

How to sound good to the Media by Joel Guttormson
Common problems
-they ask leading questions
-you answer too quickly
-you are caught off guard by their questions
-they have a Bias (you should always know who you are dealing with if you agree to do an interview)
Examples of leading questions
-isn’t it true that atheists/secularist believe in nothing?
-since you deny god exists, why do you want to take religion away from everyone
-so do you hate Christians?
What not to say
-yeah sometimes, doesn’t everyone? (too quick)
-I don’t know I’ve never researched X (makes you look stupid)
What to say
-I don’t hate anyone, but I dislike how group X is handling this issue.
-redirect something you don’t know with I don’t know much about this issue…and then insert a talking point such as my group meets at this time and place
Things to avoid
-wordy, long winded answers
-your particular groups jargon, too many big words, try to keep it at an 8th grade level if you can
-any off color statements no matter what
-don’t be nervous
-answering hastily
-mumbling or hmmm…uhhh..well..uh
-getting flustered
Things to do
-remember to breathe and relax
-take your time answering questions
-make notes ahead of time if you are doing a phone interview or talking on the radio
-memorize several short talking points
-access your environment/interviewer
-beware of the good cop/bad cop trick
-try to get their questions ahead of time
-don’t forget to smile!

Minutes from the Monday meeting

2010-02-09T08:00:00.000-08:00

So, the Atheists and skeptics have a club on the SRJC campus, that's great you say, but what do we do at our meetings? Well, mostly we talk, handling a little bit of administrative hoo-ha and then a salon style discussion of a particular topic.

Is that not specific enough for you? Here then, is the condensed and dehydrated version of what we did on Monday, our meeting minutes:

8 February 2010 Atheists and Skeptics meeting 3-5PM:

Topic: Should churches be required to be non-profit organizations to get their tax exemption status?

3:10pm
Eric Thompson suggests more organization for the club – identifying a president, vice president, secretary, etc. in order to have more continuity within club meetings and in order for us to attend ICC meetings regularly.

A club cannot miss more than 2 ICC meetings in a row and there must be a representative there from the A&S club.

Eric attended the ICC meeting today (at noon) in Bertolini via SE entrance. There is money and resources available for more participation within the club.

All clubs must have 2 faculty for an off campus weekend event. If you go from campus to some other place, there is paperwork involved in order to prevent assault etc.

The club Bikes of Beelzebub meets on Wednesdays from 3-5. They are doing a bike ride on Friday the 19th around noon and they are heading to Sebastopol for a barbeque and back.

There is a 12:15PM talk on Atheism by Eric Thompson in Newman auditorium on February 22nd.

3:35pm
Discussion of topic continues. Should religious organizations be allowed to express political opinions, endorse political parties, etc? Should there be a distinction between what corporations can say versus what a religious institution can say about politics?

Churches and corporations financially contribute to both political parties/candidates involved in order to have the winner invested in their interests regardless of who wins.

Tangent: Can we make God choose when to give souls to humans? If we participate in cannibalism, do we get other peoples souls? Are you saving people from the suffering of hell if you baptize people and then kill them? Is this an argument for abortion and infanticide? If a person sells their soul (to the devil) or commits a sin that condemns them to hell in order for them to save multiple other souls, if this a net gain for heaven?

4:00 PM
The Human Race is a 10k marathon occurring on the 8th of May 2010. The club wants to participate in this in order to raise funds for local non-profit organizations such as the Early Learning Institute, Memorial Hospice, American Red Cross, etc. Should the club join the SSA (Secular Students Alliance)? Should we donate to The Bird Rescue Center?

There are many closeted atheists who are afraid of some kind of backlash from the rest of their community, family, etc. We are hoping to improve the image of Atheists via community involvement and charity work.

The Jesus Seminar occurs on a weekend every October. Robert Miller (“Born Divine”) attends this seminar.

The Sixth Sense

2010-02-08T22:44:00.000-08:00

We’re all familiar with the five “colloquial” physiological senses: seeing, hearing, feeling, tasting, and smelling, but every so often a shiver crawls up our back at a surprisingly accurate psychic reading, or at an astrological fortune coming true. Could it be that there is some untapped sixth sense creeping back and forth between this reality and another? What else could explain this overwhelming feeling that there is something unseen guiding those tarot cards? Can science or psychology even begin to resolve these pressing issues? Indeed, I feel that a thorough and honest examination of this supernatural “sixth sense” is one of the best ways to learn more about our psychology.

An appropriate place to begin is with a look at the five commonly known senses. At first glance these five senses seem a suitable summary of the reality, however it could be argued that these base senses are easily reducible to the interaction of complex nerve cells with varying degrees of receptivity (the photoreceptors in one’s eyes are cells receptive to the visible light spectrum while one’s skin cells are receptive to the infrared spectrum of light and various pressure specific stimuli, and furthermore one’s ear drums pick up on more subtle vibrations and pressure changes, etc.) or we might even trace such processes to a multiplicity of specific neuronal connections, thereby increasing the number of “senses” ten or a hundred fold with the inclusion of heuristics such as proprioception, or unconscious neural programs which might react to subliminal stimuli (one might call intuition). A deeper scrutiny of our brain chemistry and cell biology makes it abundantly clear that our understanding of the “five senses” is quite ambiguous. Of course, though the philosophical nature of our “senses” might be ambiguous, our understanding of human psychology and neurophysiology is surprisingly good.

So, the issue of a literal “sixth sense” is in fact a moot one, as demonstrated by the fact that depending on how you define “sense” you could arrive at just one or two, or there could be hundreds, yet there still lingers this seemingly inexplicable “feeling”. Surely we’ve all had that dream where a house is consumed by flames, and sure enough the next morning you find out that a friends garage caught fire. However, as sure as I am that we’ve probably all had that dream where the house catches fire, I’m just as sure that most of the time, nothing happens, and we go on living our lives, forgetting that dream along with the tens of thousands of other dreams we have in our lifetimes. There are nearly 7 billion people living on Earth, all of whom dream up to 2 hours every night (in which time you may have several dreams). If every person only had three dreams per night (a conservative estimate) that’s already 21 billion dreams. Fires, accidents, earthquakes, deaths of loved ones, tragedies of all kinds plague the unconscious mind and frequently occur all over the world, and so the occasional dream of such a nature coinciding with it’s respective reality is far from uncommon, and even a statistical necessity. And all of the above is without mention of our innate cognitive biases.

It’s difficult to critically examine a claim raised by a good friend who looks into your eyes with such sincerity and says, “Seriously, this person is a real deal psychic!” Why would your friend lie to you? And how could this be wrong if so many people believe in it, and have had experiences with it? Even I myself have experienced it! The issue of personal experience and anecdotal evidence is probably the most touchy, as it cuts to the deepest emotions of societal and personal connectivity, but alas, the painful reality is that our minds are quite easily deceived.

This deception of the mind is far from a malicious one, it is merely a demonstration of our evolutionary and socially adaptive nature. Numerous studies have shown how easy it is to convince yourself of an experience you didn’t actually have, or how poorly our memories recall specific details and how grossly we can distort those misremembered details (especially when recalling moments of high emotion or intensity). And unfortunately, deception doesn’t stop at mere psychological error, sometimes people are willing to deceive for their own benefit. This kind of insight into the utter fallibility of the human mind, though seemingly depressing, is highly invaluable for keeping a critical and open mind.

If you’re reading this unconvinced that your specific experience with “sixth sense” phenomenon was anything but the real deal, how might you convince someone with more than just an anecdote? Well, as a matter of fact there has been a challenge around for over forty years (specifically the James Randi Million Dollar Challenge) which has had hundreds of applicants tested for paranormal abilities. Both the claimant and testers agree upon a fair test procedure, and as of yet, not a single person has demonstrated any paranormal abilities, though many psychological rationalizations and blatant hoaxes have been exposed.

In conclusion, I must admit that I am agnostic to the idea of “sixth sense” phenomenon, but I’m agnostic in the same way that I’m agnostic about leprechauns and fairies. It’s possible that these things could exist, but there are much better explanations based on very well known, demonstrable, psychological and statistical phenomenon. And honestly, if anyone here knows someone or feels that they themselves can demonstrate psychic, telekinetic, or otherwise “sixth sense-like” abilities, the Atheists and Skeptics Club is willing to collaborate with you to legitimately examine your claims. Heck, if psychic, supernatural, or paranormal abilities are truly out there, I’d want to be the first to find them! :D

Cheers friends, and remember to stay skepticoooool. [?B^P}

Thor Olsen

P.S. I’ll leave you all with a quote from magician and mentalist Banacheck:

“I merely use the five existing senses to create an illusion of a sixth sense.”

Jonathan Haidt - Moral Psychology and Religion

2010-02-06T09:52:00.001-08:00

Before you attempt to critique religion any further, read this essay:

http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/haidt07/haidt07_index.html

I always have a hard time summarizing Haidt's work. He is an evolutionary psychologist who came up with a few hypotheses about the role of morals in religion. I am convinced of his claim that many atheist claims are straw man arguments.

1) Religion is, to its followers, a set of beliefs about the world (how it was created, etc) but instead mainly an avenue for ritual and community.

2) Fundamentalists take their sacred texts literally. There are countless counter-examples from people who, if asked, would claim they take every word of it literally.

3) Religion as an evolutionary byproduct, not an adaptation.

Number three must be the most important one. The conclusion one must glean from it is that religion was, in some way, crucial to our survival at some point in time. We are then all descended from those ancestors who had the "religious" moral structures, and have the foundations of those in our own heads as well.

'Creationism: Still Crazy After All These Years' - Eugenie Scott, AAI 2009

2009-12-04T21:43:00.000-08:00

Yay Eugenie Scott!

On Evangelical Atheism

2009-11-02T21:36:00.000-08:00

Last Wednesday the atheist and skeptics club met for its weekly meeting. This week’s topic was evangelical atheism and its justification (or lack thereof). It so happened that this week the club was stocked exclusively with heathens. (Not atypical, but somewhat disappointing.) When situations like that occur, I generally try and play theist advocate. I don’t brag about being a good “defender of the faith”, but I feel someone has to in order to keep the discussion honest. Consequently, I didn’t express my true feelings about the vital enterprise of de-converting the masses. I would like to use this forum as an opportunity to do so. By the way, it was decided at that meeting that arguments from emotion are valid so long as there isn’t a fallacious correlation. I’m going to take advantage of that as best I can.

I was raised in an Assemblies of God church. For those who aren’t familiar with the sect, I have included some key tenets:

-The Bible is literally true.
-The Earth is about 6000 years old.
-When people speak in tongues they are not mumbling nonsense, but speaking a real language.
-Geologists and astronomers are in direct opposition to God when they speak of the antiquity of the Earth.

This is what I believed. No, this is what I knew to be true. And let me assure you, I was just as intelligent, curious, thoughtful, and open-minded then as I am today. I heard the arguments for and against evolution, being a public school student and a regular church patron. The church that I attended offered classes presenting the case against the theory of evolution. I took those classes with great interest, hoping perhaps to store some gems for later school yard debates with my peers. Because of my interest I am able to recall quite clearly some of the arguments presented. Most of them were rubbish one liners such as, “Evolution says frogs turn into men, so evolution is a fairy tale for adults.” This always got a good laugh from the congregation, but a few students took it for garbage and correctly threw it away. I count myself in the latter category and was more interested in tangible evidence. When the lecturer spoke of evolution violating the second law of thermal dynamics or the genetic code being too complex to appear naturally my ears perked up.

When I offered these fallacies to my peers and teachers not a single one pointed out the error in logic. My peers, presumably because they couldn’t see it themselves, and my teachers in fear of infringing on my freedom of religion. An open and honest mind can still believe a lie if no one takes the time to point out the inconsistencies. And what chance does an open mind have when one side is willing to lie and the other unwilling to speak up?

Here’s the rub as I see it: the church thinks the stakes are high. Really high. Unfathomably high. About as tall as stakes get. On one hand you have eternal pleasure, on the other eternal suffering. What lie couldn’t be justified with stakes like that? Would you lie to a man to convince him to leave a burning building in order to save his life (assuming he wouldn’t believe the truth)? Sure, it would be the noble thing to do. How much more valuable is the immortal soul?

At the meeting this week the general consensus was that the promotion of atheism is justified when a god claim is doing real harm to a society. In my Fidei defensor persona I went as far as to say the promotion of atheism isn’t necessary as long as you can logically point out the harm and amend the religious doctrine. But I concede too much. Any faith that puts that much weight on the outcome of what one believes is a perfect impediment to intellectual honesty. Indeed, it must be. And this is why active atheism is a necessity. To preserve the honest and open minds from the tarnish of good people trying to do good things based on terrible evidence.

Lorenzo

A Little Essay On Morality and God

2009-10-15T18:54:00.000-07:00

By Eric M. Thompson
Professor of Religious Studies and Classical Hebrew
Departments of Humanities/Interdisciplinary/Religious Studies and
Modern and Classical Languages
Santa Rosa Junior College
Santa Rosa, California

Sources of Morality

My thesis is this: What we call morality is the result of evolutionary processes that find a completely satisfactory explanation in Neo-Darwinian evolution. “Morality” is essential to group survival. The evolutionary account of morality is intellectually better--better in avoiding logical fallacies and assigning, contra Occam's Razor, unnecessary causes--than any religious account. Morality does not come historically or logically from god-belief. If anything it is the other way around. Moral concepts and intuitions are logical prior, not posterior, to god-belief, and with virtual certainty historical prior as well, both at the individual level and the social level. In fact, the specific god-beliefs we are mostly familiar with are quite fantastically unhelpful for morality.

Every member of species Homo sapiens goes through a process of "enculturation" by which we are taught, and we absorb, the behavioral norms, the rights and wrongs and rationale for those rights and wrongs from our surrounding culture. Parents are only one piece of that. In this culture (I sit here in California, USA), most people go through a period where peer groups and mass media and the like are more important and influential than parents, elders, priests, pastors and rabbis (this adolescent phenomenon is not necessarily the same in all cultures). In any case, religious upbringing is part of enculturation and the over-whelming majority of all people who develop a religious zeal and devotion above that which is average for their culture, such as people who choose it as a vocation (pastor, rabbi, youth leader, imam, etc.), choose the religion of the dominant culture, and/or especially of their parents and of their early enculturation.

This is also true of dramatic “conversions.” An aside. Christian apologists often make much of the case of Paul/Saul of Tarsus, blinded by Jesus’ light on the road to Damascus. How far a leap out of his parent culture was it? One of the fun investigative exercises many a graduate student of first century religions undertakes is to identify all of the elements in Paul’s religious thought, as articulated in his letters, that are typical of his cultural environment--the Stoic elements, the Jewish elements, etc. Paul is a great example of--not an exception to--the point about the cultural locality and it’s influence on religious zeal.

Now not everybody simply lives according to this enculturation. Many people go beyond it and/or blend it and mitigate it with new material gained later in life. On the other hand, some people mechanically and unreflectively reproduce their parents' (or other elders') model in their own life without question. The biggest factor in the difference between these two modes is education, especially the upper levels. The issue is reason, the ability to think critically. Notice at this point that I reject determinism of both the nature and nurture kind. It seems very clear to me that inherited genetic factors AND socialization and cultural factors play strong roles in our temperament, tendencies, choices, all behaviors. It seems equally clear to me that individuals are capable of exercising choices and pursuing avenues of belief and behavior that go beyond, and are not merely the sum total of genes and environment.

Reason is a capacity in Homo sapiens. This capacity is different from "lower" animals in degree--perhaps we would all agree to an EXTREME degree, but nevertheless, to a degree not a KIND. Chimpanzees, bonobos, dolphins, elephants and other critters exhibit rudimentary simpler forms of morality and reasoning as humans. Homo sapiens have other capacities too that are far superior to, I think, any other species. For example, our ability to throw an object at a distant target is superior to any other mammal. We can also swim, but not nearly as well as a dolphin.

These are all capacities. Reasoning, throwing, swimming. In the words of ancient Greek philosophers, they are potentialities. Our neurological system, the size and complexity of our brains, give us the capacity to reason, our bipedal anatomy, combined with our neurological system (eye-hand-brain connections) our ability to throw. But Homo sapiens differ wildly in the degree to which they employ reason and throwing and swimming. Some people throw a ball and it never goes as far as or to precisely the place where the thrower intends. Other people can place a fastball to the millimeter point intended at 106 MPH from 90 feet away. The difference? Inherited (genetic) diversity plus, and more importantly, TRAINING: instruction, practice, guidance, weight lifting, little league . . . Same with swimming. Same with thinking critically. All (I think all) Homo sapiens have the capacity to reason and do it to some extent "naturally." So do chimpanzees, but to a much lesser extent. Like throwing, Homo sapiens will do it naturally, but unless they have guidance, instruction, and work, exert effort at practicing and improving, they will not be a starting pitcher for a championship team, nor master logic. It's the training that takes a natural ability and makes it effective and accurate and also raises it to conscious reflection.

Some people employ critical reasoning to a great extent in sifting, weighing, evaluating, choosing or rejecting the moral standards and beliefs about the world that they gained in their childhood enculturation. Some people employ reasoning, but not very much and not very well. Some people, I've met them, seem to use it hardly at all and when they do, it is a crude and blunt instrument indeed, for lack of good training. One thing that people do very readily, in forming reasoning and arguments, is reason fallaciously. The first codifier of logic, Aristotle, very well identified and described this process. The ad hominem, for example, is an argumentative mode that people resort to alot--an awful lot--even though it is completely false AS REASONING. In spite of its fallacious nature, it comes readily and naturally to Homo sapiens in a dispute. It takes training and practice to identify and avoid it in the process of forming and evaluating beliefs.

Reason is a capacity that is the result of evolution. It is, like bipedalism, loss of tail and (most) body hair, one of the characteristics of Homo sapiens’ "species-ness." However, not all Homo sapiens reason well or a lot. There are birth defects, metal illnesses, brain injuries. The same kinds of random variations in the replication process also inhibits or enhances individual Homo sapiens’ ability to throw or swim, or weave or learn and use language.

Another capacity, akin to, analogous to, nay more, a PART of reasoning is the quality called empathy. Some thinkers use "sympathy" and "empathy" synonymously, but I prefer to distinguish them. Etymologically, sympathy is "feeling with" empathy, a strong concept in my mind, is "feeling in" as in the popular idiom, "I feel your pain." We have the ability to empathize with other people. Darwin accounted for the evolution of empathy very well, and subsequent scientists have only supported and refined his argument. Sympathy and empathy support group cohesion and group survival. The survivability of any social animal, the maximizing of reproduction, and the quality of life for the group (part and parcel of reproduction-maximizing) REQUIRES a certain percentage of the group to possess and employ sympathy and empathy. It is quite easy to see how natural selection would favor empathy in a population rather than brutal selfishness. Easy. Chimpanzees and bonobos have been clearly documented to behave sympathetically and empathetically not only to each other, but for members of another species in need as well (such as a wounded bird; see De Waal’s book for observed examples). Like the great apes, Homo sapiens have the CAPACITY for sym/empathy, but individuals vary considerably about how much it is developed in them and how thoroughly they act on it. All morality comes down to this.

On a graded scale or the ways people behave morally or not, empathy is on top. On what basis? The highest empathy results in the greatest degree of survival of the species, of other species we share the planet with, and of the planet itself. I could stop at the evolutionary point of the survival of organisms to reproduce, but I might as well add on the philosophical point as well. Empathy promotes the greatest good for the greatest number, promotes happiness and well being for the greatest number, etc. Here I am adding biological evolution and cultural evolution together. God-belief is one piece of cultural evolution, but is not remotely a necessary part for morality. Extended to universal scope, empathy is a way to advance good morality for the betterment of the planet and all critters great and small on’t. The greater the empathy, the greater the survival AND the greater the quality of life. And since this life is all there is, THAT is intrinsically important. "There's no heaven or hell, brothers, only sky."

There is no need whatever, for the purpose of scientific, philosophical, or rational soundness to assert an additional cause or ground for morality than this. Contrary to the religious-apologetic argument usually dragged out on this point, there is no intellectual need for morality to be grounded in some eternal, or absolute, or transcendent source. The above concept stands on its own, is completely adequate. That is, it is practically adequate, it is philosophically adequate and it is scientifically adequate. The only deficit it has is that it is emotionally inadequate for some people. "Some" is logically correct and in formal logic may include the meaning of "most." It is demonstrably the case that it is not at all inadequate in any sense for millions of atheists, agnostics, freethinkers, and other unbelievers, not to mention adherents of beliefs we call “religions” that emphatically deny any grounding of morality in a god, even if they don’t categorically deny the existence of a god--deists (like Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Paine, George Washington), Theravada Buddhists, Jains (the Dali Lama thinks morality can and should be completely secular and human). One could then say that it is “spiritually” adequate as well.

If it is inadequate for you “Abrahamic” monotheists out there, it is for emotional, not intellectual reasons. If adding God makes it feel adequate to you, you are not alone. Feeling the need for a transcendent sky-man lawgiving source of morality, so morality can be “absolute” and “eternal” and not wishy-washy and relative, is a persistent and wide-spread human habit. I have gone round and round with so many Christians on this. "But on what basis, why reason, why empathy, what is the authority of choosing empathy . . . etc." The answer to these questions has been given above. If you don't like it don't accept it, but your not liking it or FEELING it to be inadequate is a problem with you not the concept.

Modes of Morality: a diversity scale from lowest to highest

Prelude: (to summarize and advance the above), right and wrong come from a combination of (1) culture, in which certain things develop as "right" and "wrong" for a wide variety of reasons, from the physical survival of the group which would, by common sense, preclude murder, theft and the like, to long forgotten ritualistic things like it is "wrong" for a man to wear a hat inside, or "wrong" to eat with your left hand (and these are ACTUAL moral norms for some people); and (2) reasoning and empathy on the part of individuals; and (3) a role, in terms of providing raw material at least, from genetics. All Homo sapiens actually get their morality more or less the same way and normally are well on their way to getting it before they could possibly even make sense of the concept “god.” Some of them, as part of the biggest component (#1 above, in my opinion) have God, or gods, or ancestors, or ghosts, or tree spirits, or saints and angels, as an add-on, a rationalization. The concept “right and wrong” must exist as a prerequisite before the concept “God determines right and wrong” can make any sense at all (see Nielsen).

NUMBER 1. Some people are amoral. They have no empathy at all. They have no connection to a tribe at all. They are alone, and act to feed their impulses without regard to the affect on others. They use others for their gratification. We call them sociopaths. A recent book argues that there are a lot more of them than most of us are aware of. Some of them were raised up in Christian homes. Some in Buddhist, or Islamic, or Atheist homes. The presence or absence of religion and/or moral teaching seems not to be a factor. But there are good indications that genetics is a factor. A mental disease, much in the press, that has increased incredibly in recent years is Autism. Autism is a disorder of the physical brain. It has physical causes. The basic symptom of autism is the absence of EMPATHY, that is the lack of ability to feel with, to intuit the needs, feelings, intentions and desires of OTHERS. Not all sociopaths are autistic (lest I be misunderstood), and autistics can be trained to behave in non sociopathic ways, but at the present state of our ability and knowledge they can never be "normal." (This is as I understand it, but I am certainly no expert in autism; I have students and colleagues who are autism specialists and this is what I have been told). Some sociopaths accept Jesus just before they're executed (famously Ted Bundy). Is he in heaven? I guess so, huh? If his conversion was sincere (only God knows).

NUMBER 2. Morality grounded in tribal loyalty. For some people (I know some), morality starts and ends with loyalty to a specific group. It is wrong to kill, steal from, rape, beat, cheat and lie to members but it is not wrong to do any of those things to outsiders. The Mafia, local gang-bangers, and very pointedly some evangelicals I know are examples. I've been told by a couple of evangelicals over the course of my life that it is not wrong to lie to or cheat unbelievers. Tribal, mafia stuff. God-belief clearly doesn't, with any reliability, keep people from behaving this way in terms of their moral practice. The bulk of the Hebrew Bible, what Christians call the Old Testament, is exactly here. The entirety of the book of Deuteronomy is a banner example (but the Torah as a whole pretty much falls in line). Yahweh commands his people to consign the indigenous people (“Canaanites”) --whose land has been “promised” to the chosen people--to absolute genocide (Deut 7:1-6 and many other places). Within the community of Yahweh’s chosen people--“US”--there are quite lofty ethics indeed. The poor and powerless are to be cared for (see Deut. 15), you are to love your neighbor as yourself (Lev. 19:18). A glance into the context of the immediate surrounding couple sentences shows clearly that “neighbor” in context means fellow Israelite (“your kin”--v. 17; “your people”--first half of verse 18). It does not apply to a member of a different nation (it’s hard to reconcile “genocide” and “love”, hmmm?). There are so many examples of this in the Bible it’s silly to give a random list. A full exposition would take a book. For a great example of tribal loyalty (religion-based in this case) combined with one of the most flagrant contradictions in the Bible (Yahweh commands, approves of, praises AND rewards a series of actions done by Jehu, then punishes Jehu’s great grandson for exactly the same actions by Jehu (!!!!!) --read II Kings 8-10 and Hosea 1. What does Jehu do that the Bible describes as “everything in Yahweh’s heart” (II Kings 10:30)? Get a Bible and find out the details. Yahweh’s morality makes Tony Soprano look like a “saint.”

NUMBER 3. Morality grounded in fear of punishment or hope of reward. There are three variations of this.

A. The best (least harmful) is fear of an unseen judge (like god) who will keep track and reward and punish what humans can't because no one sees the secret things you do. I know MANY Christians who operate here. I've been told and have heard in recordings of debates with Christians: "The only reason I don't kill you (because you make me so mad with your unbelief) is because God forbids murder in His Word." Well, okay but that's an immature, low level and pretty sorry excuse for a basis of morality. When you add to that that this unseen god FORGIVES all sin (except not believing, for which you go straight to hell) then it becomes very UNSTABLE as a basis for morality. God forbids murder, but if you do it and repent, he will reward your repentance with paradise. Is that a really solid way to keep murders from happening? Hmmmmm. (Did I mention that I was a Christian for 17 years, and 8 of those years I was the lead evangelist in a jail ministry outreach program?)

B. Fear of the police. I actually, on second thought, think this one might be better than A above. The police are at least tangible and don’t have loopholes, as A does, like forgiveness of sins just by confessing and repenting in the privacy of your "prayer closet" (if you're protestant) or the confessional (if your catholic). These loopholes make the whole business of god's rewards and punishments as the ground of moral behavior very shaky indeed.

C. The golden rule. This is touted as really lofty. It's not. It is ascribed to Jesus by the Gospel writers and cited as a brilliant innovation by popular culture. It's not. "Do to others what you want them to do to you" can be parsed different ways, but one way is it is just a case of fear that the way you treat others will be dished out to you--BY those others. I don't steal from you because I'm afraid you'll retaliate and steal from me. So it is a matter of practical "street smarts" to treat you in the way I want you to treat me. That way I'll be manipulating the treatment I receive. I know there are nobler ways to describe the golden rule, but my main point is this: it is common, abundantly attested, simplistic folk wisdom found in pre-Christian Buddhist, Jewish and Pagan sources. So Jesus, if he said it, was simply repeating his own folk-tradition, common sense, UNCULTURATION. It is about as profound a moral insight, and probably comes from an analogous cultural type of location as “you snooze you loose.” It's not very lofty, really, as a moral grounding. It is still founded in fear/hope of payoff. And in either case, God is utterly superfluous in the "golden rule" mode of ethics. It works exactly the same way, god or no god (god doesn't matter with reference to it). In case it is not already clear, I also want to make the general point here that the morality in the New Testament is little better in general, if better at all, than that of the Hebrew Bible. The Hebrew Bible has some examples of moral thought that stand in contrast to Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomistic History (Joshua through II Kings). I’m thinking of Job and Jonah. These exceptions only serve to prove the rule. The New Testament was shaped by a really different social context than the HB, but in the final analysis, overall, it isn’t much better, and certainly falls way short of number 4 below.

NUMBER 4. The highest and best form of morality (for specific logical reasons already given above) is EMPATHY. Empathy does no harm to others because empathy, by virtue of capacities that may be exploited and developed, got by evolution, feels the other person's pain and pleasure. One acting in empathy does not rape, murder, beat, or betray the other--any other--because one imagines how the victim would feel and one cannot abide the victim feeling such (and it works the same way in the positive). No god is needed, though we have this relentless habit of needing to ascribe to something outside ourselves what actually is entirely generated by ourselves. Empathy comes from evolution. Different people have varying degrees of it (like varying degrees of musculature for throwing), different people develop it and use it to different extents, with or without religious beliefs added on--it doesn’t seem to matter either way. Some people, by the arbitrary, mindless vicissitudes of genetic inheritance, environmental corruption, or debris falling on the head, don't have it at all.

I don't need any more than this. It is intellectually coherent, complete, satisfying, and completely useful and functional. In all these ways it is SO MUCH better, in my view, than anything religion has to offer. Going through the mental machinations that it takes to ground religion in a deity who gave us a Bible (or Qur’an, or Mahabharata, or, or, or) adds intellectual problems, incoherent tangles of contradictory and arcane stuff that we are forced to call “mystery” which actually add nothing useful at all to the enterprise. In fact, by comparison to Darwinian empathy, the actually morality of the Bible is backward and barbaric.

Afterward

Compare these two quotes:

A. “I am Yahweh your god; you will have no other gods but me . . . you will not make any image of anything . . . You will not bow down to them or serve them because I Yahweh your god am jealous . . . you must utterly destroy them . . . break down their altars, smash their pillars, hew down their sacred poles and burn their idols with fire . . . “

B. Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

A, of course, is an excerpt from the “Ten Commandments,” commandment number one, plus a little from the literary context (Deut 5:6-9; 7:2-6). B is the first--yep, number one again--on the Bill of Rights of the United States Constitution--the first self-consciously godless governmental charter document in the history of the world. If one reads around in the literary context, one finds that the godlessness of the constitution, and the non-establishment of religion’s place--first place--was a hard-fought battle and based on the premise of freedom of the individual conscience from governmental imposition of religion. This is virtually, from the Constitution’s framers’ point of view, the first principle of morality. We might call it tolerance of diversity, specifically freedom from being told what god to worship or not. The Bible’s Ten Commandments are the most fantastically, diametrically opposing moral viewpoint I can fathom. It needs pointing out sense so many claim that our society and our laws are based on the Bible generally and the Ten Commandments specifically. This claim tops my list (because the Flat-earthers and the Breatharians are pretty much non-entities in the public discourse). This tops my list of the most palpably imbecilic asserts believed by adult Homo (supposedly) sapiens who really should know better.

Further Reading

Barker, Dan. godless: How an Evangelical Preacher Became One of America’s Leading Atheists. Berkeley: Ulysses Press, 2008.

Boyer, Pascal. Religion Explained. New York: Basic Books, 2001.

Dawkins, Richard. The God Delusion. Houghton Mifflin, 2006.

Dennett, Daniel C. Breaking the Spell: Religion as a Natural Phenomenon. Viking,

2006.

De Waal, Frans. Our Inner Ape: A Leading Primatologist Explains Why We Are Who We Are. New York: Penguin, 2005.

Harris, Sam. The End of Faith: Religion, Terror, and the Future of Reason. Norton,

2004, 2005.

. Letter to a Christian Nation. Knopf. 2006.

Hirsi Ali, Ayaan. Infidel. New York, et al.: Free Press, 2007.

Hitchens, Christopher. god is not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything. New York

& Boston: Twelve Hachette Book Group, 2007.

________________. Ed. The Portable Atheist: Essential Readings for the Nonbeliever.

Philadelphia: Da Capo Press, 2007.

Ibn Waraq. Why I Am Not A Muslim. Prometheus Press, 1995.

Lodbell, William. Losing My Religion: How I Lost My Faith Reporting On Religion in America--and Found Unexpected Peace. New York: HarperCollins, 2009.

Nielsen, Kai. Ethics Without God. Revised Ed. New York: Prometheus, 1990.

Onfray, Michel. Atheist Manifesto: The Case Against Christianity, Judaism, and Islam.

Trans. Jeremy Leggatt. Original French: Editions Grasset & Fasquelle, 2005.

English Edition: New York: Arcade, 2007

Sweeney, Julia. “Letting Go of God.” Comedy Performance on CD.

Wright, Robert. The Evolution of God. New York: Little, Brown & Co. 2009.

Atheists and Skeptics Book Club!

2009-08-30T19:17:00.000-07:00

It's been quite a while since the last post, but hopefully this will soon change.

Good new and bad news: Bad news is that the podcast... is... still pending... I've got some recordings, but they're few and far between, not to mention the amount of editing I've been putting off. Ah well...

However, the good news is that there will most likely be an additional component to the club's content! That's right, we've got a BOOK CLUB in the works!

This new portion of the club will be replacing Monday club meetings with book discussions. Each week we will get together (hopefully having read the particular material to be discussed) and with the aid of a literary moderator (someone who's well versed in the the book, its history, and its contemporary importance) we will do a light-hearted analysis of the section, and discuss our opinion on what we've read.

Of course all the details have to be mulled over and a more thorough calendar will be posted below, but all in all, this should be a very enjoyable educational experience, especially considering the first book we're going to tackle! That's right: the Bible!

Hopefully this new segment will draw a good amount of attention to the club as well as some people (religious and irreligious) who are genuinely interested in learning what the Bible actually says!

Anyway, I'll be posting much more regularly now, so stay tuned for updates. Ciao!

Thor

Shifting Paradigms: A Practical Guide

2009-06-30T17:19:00.000-07:00

A claim made by many if not most pseudoscience peddlers is that the "scientific establishment" rejects their ideas on a purely ideological basis. That the evidence is on their side but scientists won't take them seriously for fear of having their world view disrupted. Any time you hear someone say, "scientists are afraid of my ideas," or, "I'm being silenced because I refuse to conform," that should seriously set off your skeptical bullshit detector. The idea that scientists are resistant to change completely flies in the face of the nature of science and is just dishonest about science's long history of doing exactly the opposite of that.

Take, for an obvious example, Albert Einstein. He was not a scientist, he was a patent clerk. He was nobody in the scientific community and his ideas stood to completely overturn the universally accepted ideas of Newtonian physics. And even then he really only met resistance until physicists like Max Planck tested his theories and found them to exactly match what was being observed. In a 1905 paper Einstein predicted the existence of the photon which was discovered later that year. In a 1918 paper he predicted that we would be able to observe the gravitational lens effect on starlight being bent around a solar eclipse which was again confirmed within a year. Wave/particle duality, the unification of matter and energy, the nature of the cosmological constant, these are not notions that come easily to anyone and letting go of Newtonian mathematical physics was probably hard because it worked so well to describe so many things. But through plain old science and experimentation Einstein's theories became almost universally accepted.

Science has no problem letting go of previously held notions for ones that explain things better as long as you have some amount of evidence. So if you're going to act like you're being bullied around or ignored (I'm looking at you Discovery Institute and NCCAM) then just try bringing something constructive to the table. If you're going to claim that you can cure something then cure it. If you're going to claim that you've stumbled upon some profound truth about the universe then demonstrate it. Science is listening and frankly all it takes to make an impact on the scientific community is one good idea.

Eric

Interesting Examination

2009-06-29T13:40:00.000-07:00

This is a very interesting examination of the "God concept"...

I highly recommend checking it out!

Thor

The Club Duke! The Cluuuuub!

2009-06-29T12:18:00.000-07:00

Unfortunately, today, Monday the 29th of June, there will be no club meeting! GASP! The abrupt cancellation is partly to get everything straightened out for the Tuesday and Wednesday Club promotion days, but mostly to get my own academic and personal priorities settled.

There are a lot of problems with this week (mainly just the cancellation and 4th of July weekend) but we shall overcome and come out next Monday EVEN BETTER THAN BEFORE!... Hopefully.... :D

Anyway, I apologize for the inconvenience and hope to see you all on Tuesday! Ciao.

Thor

Revolutions in Surgery Technology

2009-06-20T17:11:00.001-07:00

This is awesome! Can't wait till nano-machine surgery! ;D

A Calendar?

2009-06-19T22:20:00.000-07:00

Sweet. Guess how many calendars we've got now? Yup! One!

We have a calendar now, and it's very awesome, and I'll make sure to update it with all sorts of coolio events! Anyway, just another way to keep you guys up to date on what's happening with regards to the podcast and club!

Thor

Wait... What about that Podcast eh?

2009-06-19T21:44:00.000-07:00

Well... I had SAID that the first episode would be up by yesterday... but unfortunately, it seems as though I've got less ability to overcome procrastination then I thought. >.>

I'll try and get a crew rallied up to do the first episode by either the end of the weekend OR after/during the second meeting. IF it turns out I've gotta do the first episode on my own, so be it. ^_^

Anyway, I'm sure you care about all of this so much! Hopefully I'll get the podcast up soon! Ciao!

Thor

The Candy is a Lie.

2009-06-08T23:47:00.000-07:00

Just like us damn atheists eh? We do one better than stealing candy from a baby. We promise candy, THEN WE DON'T EVEN PROVIDE IT! Muhahahaha! :)

But seriously, in other news: The name of the podcast.

I merely defaulted to the name "the Atheist and SkeptiCast", but I've gotten a couple weird looks here and there. If anyone is interested in submitting a better, wittier name, please, by all means, send'm my way, via replying to this post or email, it's up to you.

You have until Thursday (the 18th) to decide! Ciao.

Thor

2009-06-07T15:16:00.000-07:00

HILARIOUS!

Trust me it's funny. T_T

God of the Old Testament?

2009-06-05T23:04:00.000-07:00

There seem to be a lot of parallels to be drawn between Mark Twain's the Mysterious Stranger, and the vindictive and callous attitude of the God of the Old Testament.

Alva Noe... more like... Alva Not convincing...?

2009-06-05T19:10:00.000-07:00

Well... he sure does give a good presentation for an intro to psychology class... but most of what he talks about is understood and rather well explained by science and does NOT require anything more than the brain. Really... this guy is not convincing at all, and I find it kind of insulting that he compares the idea that we are just our brains to the idea that we are just our souls. A ridiculous analogy. Anyway, I'm sure I'll discuss this more in the podcast and club.

Want to Survive the End of the World?

2009-06-05T15:12:00.000-07:00

"How can YOU survive the end of the world?

You are warmly invited to come and listen to the answer."

www.watchtower.org

I SO wanna go to this! >__<

The Straw Atheist

2009-06-05T01:33:00.001-07:00

Definitely going to be used at the first club meeting! XD

The Atheists and Skeptics Club

2009-06-04T19:33:00.000-07:00

If you haven't already heard, the Atheists and Skeptics Club of Santa Rosa Junior College will be meeting this Summer semester! Below is just a copy/paste of the mass email I sent out so... here it is again! :D

"Good news everybody! The atheists and skeptics of Santa Rosa Junior College are gonna be back in action this Summer! Anyone who's on or around the Santa Rosa JC campus during the allotted meeting times is invited. Pertinent information listed below:

We will be meeting 3:00pm-5:00pm on Mondays and Thursdays in Emeritus room 1518 (Room subject to drastic changes!)

The first meeting will be ON THURSDAY June 18th (this is to assure that everyone can get all their classes sorted out and whatnot) and the topic will be: Faith in Atheism. If we are lacking a good assortment of newcomers we might get a little more technical (as the veterans of the club have already discussed the above topic ad nauseam) and talk about publicity and the club's companion podcast!

Speaking of the Atheists and SkeptiCast podcast... there's gonna be one! I am officially going to attempt to record and post a podcast and I'm looking for people who might be interested in regularly co-hosting with me. The podcast will simply be an extension of, and companion to, the club meetings. I'm basically going to try and keep an online reference of the issues we will discuss each week in the club meetings, something we can use as a more readily available resource.

Contact me at AtheistSkeptic@gmail.com if you're interested or have any questions at all concerning anything really. Hope to see the ole crew soon. Ciao!"

If we don't get to the topic Faith in Atheism at the meeting we will still be discussing it in the podcast.

Well, I hope to be posting again soon, and I'll make sure the podcast is up and ready by the weekend of the 18th!

Thor

The Atheist and SkeptiCast

2009-06-04T02:44:00.000-07:00

Welcome! This is the official blog of the Atheist and SkeptiCast podcast, and the Atheists and Skeptics Club on the Santa Rosa Junior College campus.

As you may or may not have noticed, the podcast ~~isn't up and running just yet~~ IS up and running! Though the first episode isn't up it should be no later than June 18th or 19th (which is just after the first club meeting).

The podcast in general will consist of in depth discussions pertaining to the topic(s) of the club meeting(s) each week. A variety of topics are pending including (but not limited to): "What is Atheism?", Cultural Relativism, Nostradamus, the Heaven's Gates Cult, Prophesies, the Mayan Caledar, Sumarians, Hypnosis, Comparitive Myths, Psychics, Crystal Healing, Aliens (or whatever), Railians, Objectivism, New Age Stuff, Global Warming, the Educational System, "Atheism vs. Agnosticism", Media Skepticism, the Scientific Method, Gov't Conspiracies, Cults, the "Theory of the US", Zeitgeist, Mind/Body Dualism, Free Will, Breathariansm, Roller Coasters, and many more!

I'll be sure to post when the podcast is up, and if all else fails we at the Atheists and Skeptics Blog will at least be posting updates on club meetings and topics discussed. Enjoy the content, and please feel free to email us with questions, comments, and criticisms at AtheistSkeptic@gmail.com!