Something that I have always found frustrating is how religious people (and people who are really into politics) are so dogmatic about their beliefs. As a skeptical atheist, I have come to realize that challenging peoples’ beliefs is usually frustrating, maddening, and completely fruitless. Well, Doctor Professor Luke Galen gave a talk recently called Terror Management: How Our Worldviews Help Us Deny Death. You can listen to the lecture through the Reasonable Doubts podcast (of which he’s a part): RD Extra: Denying Death, and you can see Dr. Galen’s slides here (pdf)

I know not all of you like to listen to podcasts. So I went through it and transcribed a good chunk of what Luke said in his lecture, the parts that I thought were most important. I have a few thoughts afterward. By the way, I missed the beginning for reasons I can’t remember (this took me a couple of days to make it all make sense) but this is a lecture about Dr. Ernest Becker and Terror Management Theory.

Partial transcript:

…This is where we get neurotic about death. It’s the ultimate inferiority complex. Our lifespan is limited. We realize we must die but in striving to overcome that, it creates more problems. We put a lot of energy into denying death.

One way to summarize Becker’s theory: It’s good to have a brain that can plan for the future and be self-aware, but the problem is that when we become scared of our own mortality it sets up a defense against that. Part of the defense involves symbols. We think symbolically and so our symbols set up a barrier. These symbols can be religious, political, symbols of our mastery over the world, symbols of making money, etc.

What Becker thought was that culture itself is a buffer against these threats to our self esteem. We set up our belief in culture and human culture really is an attempt to deal with threats to our own mortality and our self esteem. So first, what is self esteem?

Self esteem is not just a product of you, individually. What Becker thought was that self esteem was something you get a sense of only through other people. So you think of yourself as a valued person who has powers, who can act upon the world, but that is socially validated by parents, siblings, peers, a gradually expanding group of people. This gets more abstract and symbolic as the child grows up. So as a young adult you might latch onto ideologies. For many people this is religion. You join a church and get a sense of what you need to do to be good or bad from those groups too. The good thing is that these groups give you clear guidelines to derive your self esteem.

This can be positive or negative. So if you don’t get positive reinforcement, you’ll look for self esteem and validation in other ways. So this is why people join cults and gangs, etc. Read the rest of this entry »

This entry is part 11 of 12 in the series Logic and Critical Thinking

I know it’s Spring and no one wants to be thinking of christmas this time of year, but Joe sent me a paper called Ho, Ho, Hoax: The Case against Santa Claus by Ernâni Magalhães, Visiting Assistant Professor at WVU. It makes some excellent points which really got me thinking.

Before I read this paper, I thought Dale McGowan‘s take on Santa to be the best way to handle it. In a nutshell, he says Santa is a dry run for letting kids reason their way through the fact that Santa is a myth, to then figuring out that religion is mythical, as he puts it, Santa is “the ultimate dry run for a developing inquiring mind”. It makes sense in a way. But then Joe told me about his experience as a kid.

Joe really believed in Santa, the Easter Bunny, etc. Then one day a kid in the playground told him it was all a pack of lies. Joe believed him and went home crying. He was devastated. When Joe and I talked about the McGowan philosophy of Santa, I figured out that in theory it seems like a great idea, but maybe in practice it could backfire and cause a lot of unhappiness and pain for kids who don’t get to reason it out for themselves but are told by other children.

And is it necessary to lie to children about a mythical jolly old fat man? Does it increase their happiness, improve their moral fiber? Does it make them better little people, or better adults down the line? And is there an alternative to lying about Santa?

First, there are 3 alternatives, according to Ernâni:

  • Disbelief: The parent tells the child Santa Claus is not real
  • Neutrality: The parent does not inform the child one way or the other
  • Pretense: The parent invites the child to pretend there is a Santa Claus.(page 13)

…inviting to pretend there is a Santa Claus is morally superior to encouraging to believe. (14)

I never thought of this as an option, but it makes sense. You get all the good fun of Santa but you don’t get the lies and beliefs in those lies.

What about short term pleasure and pain? Here is what Ernâni has to say:

The extent to which the pleasure of children and adults justifies the Santa Claus lie depends on the amount of pleasure available from non-deceitful alternatives. The alternative that most closely replicates telling children there is a Santa Claus involves inviting children to pretend there is one. Although pretending something is real is fundamentally different from believing it is, as I have argued, many of the emotions evoked by an object believed to be real are also evoked by objects supposed to be fictional. Children and adults derive great pleasure from creatures of their imaginations, as witnessed by the large crowds at movie theaters. Children who are old enough to know she is fictional still derive great enjoyment from the pretense that Cinderella is a real person with real hopes. And, it is easy to replicate the gift-giving aspect of the Santa experience, which is surely a significant factor in the child’s enjoyment. (15-16)

Interesting and thought-provoking, don’t you think? This is even more important: Read the rest of this entry »

I have four videos to share with you, and they all have to do with Sam Harris, one of the Four Horsemen (Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, Daniel Dennett are the other three). Remember the other day I posted the actual TED talk Sam did about science and morality.

The first video is on CNN Opinion and therefore it’s just a link to its page. Sam talks to CNN (at the TED conference) about how religion discussions distract us from truly important issues. It’s almost 4 minutes long. If you go there to the page, it has a lot of what he said under the video.

Project Reason, which Sam Harris helped start, had a video contest recently. So here are the winners.

Winning Video: The Values We All Stand For

Read the rest of this entry »

As you may know, I’m the co-cat herder (co-director) of Morgantown Atheists. I’m also the coordinator for Morgantown Coalition of Reason, an umbrella organization that encompasses Morgantown Atheists and other local groups so that we can work together in the name of Reason.

The funny thing is, I’m not really a people person. Like a lot of atheists (supposedly), I’m quite an outsider, as much of a hermit as I can get away with, in fact. I have never liked going out in crowds or socializing with large groups of people.

Why am I telling you all of this? Because I have realized something that I want to share with you. Even though I’m a curmudgeonly hermit-y atheist, I love going to the 3 atheist/freethinker meetings we have every month. That’s 3 Sundays a month where I happily leave the house and go socialize with a small group of people. And I look forward to it. The one or 2 Sundays where we don’t meet I miss it.

Even people like me benefit from social community and contact. The beauty of the atheist/freethinker community is that we are relatively like-minded. We have a foundation of common ground. But we are also quite different, of course, which is good because that makes things interesting. The added bonus of freethinkers, skeptics and atheists is that we seem relatively level-headed and we argue and discuss matters with interest and fairness. No drama llama is invited! So it’s actually fun and mentally stimulating.

I think we all need some type of community, which is one thing that religion has in its favor that being a lone atheist does not.

But this is easily remedied. I thought I’d share some thoughts on how to get involved with a secular group of like-minded people. If none exist in your area, you can start one up.

Tips For Finding A Local Atheist/Humanist/Freethinker/Skeptical Community Read the rest of this entry »

Gerald found this interesting chart chock full of information. Of course, remember correlation does not necessitate causation, but it is striking how the numbers fall.

Links on the full page >> Read the rest of this entry »

Brent sent me a brochure from last year about Darwin-fest, for his 200th anniversary. This was when Morgantown Atheists was just forming and a lot of the members of that time went to a lot of these events. So this is a cyber-souvenir from 2009.

West Virginia University is celebrating the 200th birthday of Charles Darwin with DarwinFest, a series of talks and presentations examining the naturalist’s work – from his travels to his influential theory on evolution.

“Darwin: Evolutionary Science and Its Impacts on Society”; an interdisciplinary celebration involving colleges and schools across the University – will be held from February through early April. The events, which are free and open to the public, will feature leading scholars and scientists from around the world.

Darwin, who was born Feb. 12, 1809, is known as the father of evolution for his theory that all life develops through a process he called natural selection. 2009 also marks the 150th anniversary of the publication of “On the Origin of Species,” Darwin’s seminal work on the subject.

“These speakers and presenters will explain Darwin’s complex work in terms the average person will understand,” interim Provost E. Jane Martin said. “They will also show Darwin’s influence on modern life, from science and medicine to human relationships and religion.” Read the rest of this entry »

Over the past several weeks I’ve accumulated links and information from several of our members. If you have information you want to share with us, just email it to Neece or leave a comment below. I’ll do a regular roundup of links and information in the future. If it’s about science, critical thinking, books or other media, or religion and atheism, share it with us whenever you come across it.

You may have noticed the tab under the banner that says Library. That lists all the books and media we each recommend. Feel free to contribute to it. In that list you’ll find that Tim recommended a book called  Don’t Sleep, There Are Snakes: Life and Language in the Amazonian Jungle by Daniel L. Everett. Brent found an interview on Groks Science Radio Show with the author.

Daniel has three stories to share:

The first is from RadioLab. Here’s the description from the page:

Parasites: What’s gotten into you? In this hour we explore nature’s moochers – the good, the bad, and the hideous. We have stories of lethargic farmers, zombie cockroaches, and even mind-controlled humans (kinda, maybe). Could parasites be the shadowy hands that pull the strings of life?
Carl Zimmer plays defense lawyer, trying to exonerate parasites for their wrongs, while Jad and Robert argue in defense of the victims. Our producer Lulu Miller comes in to moderate a lightning round of: “Parasites: are they evil, or are they awesome?” The parasites in question are the zombie wasp, the nematode, and the lovey-dovey blood fluke.

From NPR he sends a story about throwing out the Primordial Soup theory:

Is the “primordial soup” theory — the idea that life emerged from a prebiotic broth — past its expiration date?
Biochemist Nick Lane thinks so. The University College London writer and his colleagues argue that the 81-year-old notion just doesn’t hold water.
Lane tells NPR’s Guy Raz there’s another possible explanation for the emergence of life. But before we get to that, why toss out the soup theory?
Lane says the idea of a primordial soup goes back to 1929, and great biologists like J.B.S. Haldane.

And he shares another story from NPR about “mystical” baboons: Read the rest of this entry »

This entry is part 4 of 4 in the series Science

Happy Darwin Day everyone! Today is Darwin’s birthday and in honor of him, I thought I’d post this article about Liquid Glass, which could possibly be the coolest nanotech material I’ve seen in some time. I think it’s so cool mainly because of its versatility and the fact that it’s already in use in Germany, the UK and Turkey.

Why am I talking about nanotech on Darwin’s birthday? If you think about it, without evolution, we wouldn’t be able to manipulate our world so deftly and with such finesse. About 195,000 years ago homo sapiens first appeared in the fossil record. We started leaving Africa about 70,000 years ago, and migrated as far as the Americas 14,500 years ago.

A mere 10,000 years ago, we were mostly hunter-gatherers in nomadic groups. The first proto-states were developed only 6,000 years ago. Think of that! Look how far we’ve come in such a short time!

Think of how we lived just 100 years ago in 1910.

  • By 1910 many suburban homes were wired up with power and new electronic gadgets.
  • Vacuum cleaners and washing machines had just become commercially available, though still expensive for middle class folks
  • The telephone was new, and millions of American homes were connected by manual switchboard
  • People relied on the paper for their news, but radio technology was in its infancy
  • The age of the airship was in full swing. Only 7 years previously, the Wright brothers had flown at Kitty Hawk
  • Henry Ford introduced the Model T 2 years before and sold about 10,000 of them this year
  • Advances in the use of gases meant the first electric refrigerators and air conditioning units.
  • Neon lighting was debuted in Paris
  • Inventions included: escalators, teabags, cellophane, instant coffee and disposable razor blades
  • Women still had another 3 years of corsets

Things they didn’t have in 1910: Read the rest of this entry »

We are reading  The God Virus for the book club in February. On page 18, Darrel W. Ray describes an experiment. I think I’ve heard of it before, but I thought I’d share it with you because it shows how religion attacks the critical thinking skills of the mind. As Mr. Ray says, it leaves the skill intact for other religions but disables critical thinking about one’s own religion. It really is like a virus of the mind.

Here’s the experiment as explained in the book:

You have a serious conversation with a deeply christian friend. Your friend is intelligent, well educated and knowledgeable. You agree to record the session. The topic is islam. During the session, you discuss that mohammed was a self-appointed prophet and that he claimed he talked to allah and the angels. He wrote a book that he claimed was infallible, and he flew from Jerusalem to heaven on a horse.

During the conversation, you agree that mohammed was probably delusional to think he could talk to god. You agree that the koran was clearly written by mohammed and not allah. It is ludicrous for him to claim that he is the last prophet and that all others are false. Neither you nor your friend can believe that he flew to heaven, let alone on a horse. It all sounds too crazy, and you both agree it is difficult to see how someone could believe such a religion. At the end of the conversation, you say that muslims did not choose their religion; they were born into it. Anyone who was exposed to both christianity and islam would see that christianity is the true religion. Read the rest of this entry »

The following is a question asked of Daniel Dennett, and his answer which was in the Washington Post the other day. My comments are below *.

Q: Is there widespread media bias against Christianity? Against evangelicals such as Brit Hume and Sarah Palin? Against public figures who speak openly and directly about their faith? Against people who believe as you do?

There is no media bias against Christianity. If it appears to some people that there is, it is probably because after decades of hyper-diplomacy and a generally accepted mutual understanding that religion was not to be criticized, we have finally begun breaking through that taboo and are beginning to see candid discussions of the varieties of religious folly in American life. Activities that would be condemned by all if they were not cloaked in the protective mantle of religion are beginning to be subjected to proper scrutiny.

There is still a lot to accomplish however. We need to change the prevailing assumptions in the same way that public opinion has been reversed on drunk driving. When I was young, drunk drivers tended to be excused because, after all, they were drunk! Today, happily, we hold them doubly culpable for any misdeeds they commit while under the influence. Read the rest of this entry »

SEO Powered by Platinum SEO from Techblissonline