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:

One reason the justification of the lie cannot be a matter of the short term pleasure is that the purpose of parenting is not only or even primarily to maximize children’s happiness and minimize their suffering. A major purpose of proper parenting is to foster the child’s moral and cognitive development. Much more important than whether Santa belief is conducive to happiness in the short term is the question whether it is conducive to a child’s moral and cognitive development. (17)

How true! It’s all about raising a child to be moral and to think for themselves throughout their lives. So it isn’t just the short term gain you need to think about, but the long term consequences.

Here is where I really agree with Ernâni:

When parents tell their children about Santa Claus they encourage belief, not imagination. (17) Evidently, insofar as increased imagination is supposed to be what is gained through the Santa Claus experience, this can be much more effectively pursued by having the child pretend that Santa is real, rather than believe he is. (18)

Perhaps belief in Santa Claus is beneficial in that it fosters a “sense of magic” and “magical . . . thought” (Breen 2004). A magical occurrence, in the sense in question, would seem to be one which violates the laws of ordinary reality. Why should it be beneficial for a child to believe that there are things that work in unheard of ways? (18)

The similarity between the child’s belief in Santa and adult religious belief has been widely acknowledged. Children often think of Santa as having many of the same characteristics as God, to the extent that upon discovering the truth about Santa, some children question the existence of God as well.

The resemblance between the child’s attitude toward Santa and religious belief is only an advantage of belief if encouraging this sort of religious belief is beneficial. (20)

An excellent point! Why would any secular parent need to teach a child to believe in physics-breaking, supernatural magical beings at all? One thing I was thinking as I read this; wouldn’t it also sow a seed of doubt into that child that their parents lied to them about Santa? What else have they lied about?

If religious conviction is essentially belief in the absence of evidence, then the child’s attitude toward Santa is not religious conviction. Again, the child has ample testimonial and other evidence for the existence of Santa. (21)

A plausible inference for the child to draw from the entire experience is a certain skepticism about claims of the existence of unseen things: once bitten, twice shy. And insofar as encouraging belief in Santa encourages belief in the absence of and contrary to perceptual evidence, the supposed advantage must be weighed against the tendency of the child who discovers the truth to infer that believing in things in the absence of evidence is a hazardous affair. (21-22)

I would also like to add, many millions and millions of kids who once believed in Santa never extend the thought process to then doubt God or Jesus. They figure out that Santa is a myth but never take that lesson any further to realize God is too. So it’s not a safe bet.

Ernâni makes a great point about morality and Santa:

Although Santa is still supposed to observe whether children are naughty or nice, this activity is rarely emphasized. And, importantly, it is extremely rare for parents to follow through on the traditional threat that Santa will not give presents to naughty children. Hardly any American child in the last twenty years has found a lump of coal in his stocking from Santa Claus. This is, interestingly, one of the few aspects of the tradition that has earned the condemnation of childhood psychologists. (22)

Does the concept that Santa, who the child admires, single-mindedly fulfills that child’s wishes translate to a child being more generous themselves? I don’t think so. Neither does Ernâni:

Nothing in the experience encourages the child to give. The child’s primary role in the ritual is as recipient. Indeed, a child who might otherwise feel inclined to do a generous deed for other children is apt to think that Santa will take care of their needs. The tradition does include the cookies and milk for Santa. But this is a rather limited generosity, applying as it does only to someone who has done very nice things for the child. Nothing in the behavior points to the importance of being generous to people in general. (23)

What are the alternatives to lying to a child about Santa then, if the goal is to teach generosity?

One non-deceitful thing that might be done to encourage the child to be generous is to tell the child about the importance of generosity. One might encourage the child to give things to others. One might reward the child for doing generous things. In the right circumstances, such encouragement is known to lead to greater degrees of the tendency encouraged. Indeed, such a direct method promises a much higher likelihood of success than the roundabout method of encouraging the child to adopt Santa as a role model. (23)

What an amazing concept! Just teach a child directly without subterfuge!

Now, if the child is taught to just pretend in Santa, what do you teach that child about the beliefs of other children?

Any parent who decides not to encourage belief in Santa faces the question of how the child ought to discuss the issue with children who believe. If it is possible to teach formerly believing children the importance of discretion concerning Santa belief, then it is similarly possible to teach children who never believe the importance of discretion concerning believers. Children who are not told there is a Santa can easily be told that other children are told and that it is important not to ruin their fun by denying his existence. (24)

Ernâni then explains his main reason why it’s not good to lie to children about Santa:

The main problem with lying to children about Santa Claus is that it encourages children to lie. The encouragement happens because children inevitably discover that there is no Santa Claus. And although apparently some children at first believe that parents are similarly under the misimpression that there is a Santa Claus, eventually children discover that they have been deceived. As lately noted, when they discover the truth children are encouraged not to divulge the truth to other children and also to lie to them. Also when children discover that they have been lied to, they reasonably infer that such lying is held to be permissible by their parents and other adults whose opinion they hold in high regard. (25)

The first step involves the child’s discovery that the parent has lied. It cannot be seriously maintained that children do not discover that deceit has taken place. Children of seven or eight understand what is involved in lying. And eventually children understand that although their parents told them otherwise, the parents do not believe there is a Santa Claus. Children therefore
become aware of two facts, both of which tend to encourage the child to lie. First, their parents (and many other adults) lie. Whether children imitate Santa Claus is questionable, but they undoubtedly imitate their parents. Since they observe and are aware of their parents lying, they are more likely to lie themselves. Second, their parents (and many other adults) believe that it is morally appropriate to lie. Children notice that their parents feel no moral qualm about having deceived the children about Santa Claus. It is evident to the child that the parent believes so deceiving the child was morally appropriate. (26)

…notice that the deceit about Santa Claus is part of a larger pattern: the Easter Bunny and the Tooth Fairy, being the two main other culprits. Together with these other incidents, the child is likely to draw the inference that lying is thought to be permissible in many cases beyond the Santa Claus situation. (27)

While I think that lying is a major flaw in teaching kids about Santa, I personally feel the worst part is teaching kids that a magical being gives them presents. I think all the points Ernâni makes are extremely important, and that together they make a strong case for simply encouraging children to pretend instead of lying to them.

What do you think?

Cross-posted from Heaving Dead Cats by Neece

Related posts

• What Other Deities Were Born On Jesus’ Birthday? (1)
• Problems of Philosophy: MIT Lecture Notes Available (4)
• Why People Defend Their Dogma (0)
• The Fine Art of Baloney Detection (0)
• Religion: The Root of All Evil? (0)

Update: We had a great time at Daniel and Ivy’s. Daniel is a great BBQer and Ivy puts on a fantastic spread. Everything was delicious, the company was awesome, the conversation was interesting, and overall I think it was just wonderful. The weather was perfect too!

~

Update: The Morgantown CoR is gearing up for our worthwhile cause, the West Virginia Botanic Garden. On April 11 from 2-4pm, the WVBG is having a Volunteer Orientation. See the post for details. We’ll meet at 2pm at the park and then go directly to Daniel and Ivy’s afterward for a bit of an early meeting and BBQ!

For the Topic of the Evening, the floor is yours! We are having an Open Topic, which means you get a few minutes to talk about anything that interests you. Suggestions for your topics:

• freethought
• atheism
• philosophy
• science
• skepticism
• history

Feel free to comment and let us know what you’ll be talking about, or keep it as a surprise!

Ivy and Daniel’s place:

486 Hite St.
Morgantown, WV
It’s off of Dorsey Ave. A few blocks up from White Park and the skating rink.
A house with a blue door.

Related posts

• Monthly Meeting June 6: Founding Fathers and Great Scientists (0)
• Monthly Meeting May 2: Celebrating Reason! (0)
• Darwin’s Ventriloquists by Jonathan Marks, Ph.D. (2)
• Teaming Up, Doing Good (0)
• Boobquake: Dress Immodestly For Science April 26 (0)

Update! Boobquake results are in: Our immodest hair and cleavage did not cause any earthquakes. In fact, the mean magnitude of quakes actually went down during the experiment. Read the full results over at Blag Hag.

~

Jennifer over at Blag Hag decided to start something by asking women to dress immodestly to show that it doesn’t cause earthquakes. It was spurred on by some little Iranian man who said:

“Many women who do not dress modestly … lead young men astray, corrupt their chastity and spread adultery in society, which (consequently) increases earthquakes,” Hojatoleslam Kazem Sedighi was quoted as saying by Iranian media. Sedighi is Tehran’s acting Friday prayer leader.

Women in the Islamic Republic are required by law to cover from head to toe, but many, especially the young, ignore some of the more strict codes and wear tight coats and scarves pulled back that show much of the hair.

“What can we do to avoid being buried under the rubble?” Sedighi asked during a prayer sermon Friday. “There is no other solution but to take refuge in religion and to adapt our lives to Islam’s moral codes.”

“A divine authority told me to tell the people to make a general repentance. Why? Because calamities threaten us,” Sedighi said.

Minister of Welfare and Social Security Sadeq Mahsooli said prayers and pleas for forgiveness were the best “formulas to repel earthquakes.”

“We cannot invent a system that prevents earthquakes, but God has created this system and that is to avoid sins, to pray, to seek forgiveness, pay alms and self-sacrifice,” Mahsooli said.

So on April 26, I will show my cleavage for science. I dress for comfort, not looks, so I’m a perfect person to “tip the scales” towards total devastating earthquake on Monday April 26. This is a scientific experiment.

You can read the whole thing over at Blag Hag. She also clarifies that she’s not trying to offend anyone in a follow up.

There is a Facebook Event and you can twitter about it: #boobquake.

Here is what Jennifer says:

Sedighi claims that not dressing modestly causes earthquakes. If so, we should be able to test this claim scientifically. You all remember the homeopathy overdose?

Time for a Boobqauke.

On Monday, April 26th, I will wear the most cleavage-showing shirt I own. Yes, the one usually reserved for a night on the town. I encourage other female skeptics to join me and embrace the supposed supernatural power of their breasts. Or short shorts, if that’s your preferred form of immodesty. With the power of our scandalous bodies combined, we should surely produce an earthquake. If not, I’m sure Sedighi can come up with a rational explanation for why the ground didn’t rumble. And if we really get through to him, maybe it’ll be one involving plate tectonics.

So, who’s with me? I may be a D cup, but that will probably only produce a slight tremor on its own. If you’ll be joining me on twitter, use the tag #boobquake!

I think it would be good to post pictures to the facebook or twitter pages for scientific verification on the 26th, and to make sure to attend the event on Facebook, etc.

If you’re a skeptic woman, this is a good experiment. We’ll look for a significant increase in earthquake activity on April 26th to see if our immodesty pisses off God enough to tear the Earth apart in his jealous rage.

Again from Jennifer:

Dressing modestly won’t end earthquakes, so help out the victims of inevitable natural disasters at the Red Cross: http://www.redcross.org/

Related posts

• The Fine Art of Baloney Detection (0)
• Monthly Meeting April 11: Earth Day and Open Topic (4)
• Logical Fallacy: Correlation Does Not Imply Causation (6)
• Darwin’s Ventriloquists by Jonathan Marks, Ph.D. (2)
• Why People Defend Their Dogma (0)

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.

I look forward to the day when violence done under the influence of religious passion is considered more dishonorable, more shameful, than crimes of avarice, and is punished accordingly, and religious leaders who incite such acts are regarded with the same contempt that we reserve for bartenders who send dangerously disabled people out onto the highways.

I also look forward to the day when pastors who abuse the authority of their pulpits by misinforming their congregations about science, about public health, about global warming, about evolution must answer to the charge of dishonesty. Telling pious lies to trusting children is a form of abuse, plain and simple. If quacks and bunko artists can be convicted of fraud for selling worthless cures, why not clergy for making their living off unsupported claims of miracle cures and the efficacy of prayer?

The double standard that exempts religious activities from almost all standards of accountability should be dismantled once and for all. I don’t see bankers or stockbrokers wringing their hands because the media is biased against them; they know that their recent activities have earned them an unwanted place in the spotlight of public attention and criticism, and they get no free pass, especially given their power. Religious leaders and apologists should accept that since their institutions are so influential in American life, we have the right to hold their every move up to the light. If they detect that the media are giving them a harder time today than in the past, that is because the bias that protected religion from scrutiny is beginning to dissolve. High time.

By Daniel C. Dennett | January 12, 2010

Dennett is the Austin B. Fletcher Professor of Philosophy and Co-Director of the Center for Cognitive Studies at Tufts University. His most recent book was Breaking the Spell: Religion as a Natural Phenomenon.

A few notes by Neece*:

My first reaction is to disagree with Daniel Dennett. I think there is a definite bias towards religion in this society, which carries over into the media.

For example, watch a football game with the crybaby Tim Tebow playing. They never fail to mention how pious he is and how his parents are ministers, or some other such dreck. What the hell does that have to do with him throwing the ball down the field? Nothing. But the commentators (and whoever decides on such content) feel the need to share a heartwarming story. It’s biased. I’ve never once heard them mention godlessness in a sport, only how religious sports people are. It’s nauseating. Like that makes them better people. Watch their behavior and you’ll see they are no better than anyone else, or often they can be worse.

I agree with Mr. Dennett. It’s about damned time that we hold religious people and institutions accountable when they lie and cause hurt, either directly or indirectly through propaganda and hate-mongering.

I think indoctrinating children with religion and lies is harmful and often abusive. I have no idea how we can even tackle this though.

We also need to work harder on stopping quacks and pseudoscience proponents like Oprah, Jenny McCarthy and anyone else who lies to the public to promote their own agenda. We do so little to stop this sort of harm. So much more needs to be done to hold people who lie for a living accountable. Of course, this includes the religious, including the pope who is just as human as the rest of us, and whose lies are deadly to people in Africa and around the world.

Unfortunately it’s true that religious institutions and many religious leaders are powerful in America and around the world. Why should they be given carte blanche to do whatever they like, even if it is to molest children, or to spread hate, fear and lies, all while not paying taxes?

I wonder how much we really do scrutinize religion, the religious and their institutions, though. Not nearly enough, I’m afraid. But at least we’re getting somewhere. Now, let’s make them pay taxes. If they can bilk people of their hard earned savings while lying to them and using their pulpit for political agendas, shouldn’t they have to pay taxes too?

(*My personal opinion, not necessarily the views of Morgantown Atheists)

Related posts

• Religion of the Month Club May 22: Christianity (2)
• Atheists, It’s Time to Stand Up to Jesus (0)
• An Alternative to the Santa Lie For Secular Parents (0)
• Amusing Ourselves To Death (0)
• Advice For Freethinking Kids? (0)

By Russell Blackford and Udo Schuklenk, Comment Is Free.

Civility has its uses, but atheists should not be afraid to mock faith to undermine religious power.

Religious teachings promise us much — eternal life, spiritual salvation, moral direction, and a deeper understanding of reality. It all sounds good, but these teachings are also onerous in their demands. If they can’t deliver on what they promise, it would be well to clear that up. Put bluntly, are the teachings of any religion actually true or not? Do they have any rational support? It’s hard to see what questions could be more important.

Surely the claims of religion — of all religions — merit scrutiny from every angle, whether historical, philosophical, scientific, or any other.
Contrary to many expectations in the 1970s, or even the 1990s, religion has not faded away, even in the Western democracies, and we still see intense activism from religious lobbies. Even now, one religion or another opposes abortion rights, most contraceptive technologies, and therapeutic cloning research. Various churches and sects condemn many harmless, pleasurable sexual activities that adults can reasonably enjoy.

As a result, these are frowned upon, if not prohibited outright, in many parts of the world, indeed people lose their lives because of them. Most religious organisations reject dying patients’ requests to end their lives as they see fit. Even in relatively secular countries, such as the UK, Canada, and Australia, governments pander blatantly to Christian moral concerns as the protection of religiously motivated refusals to provide medical professional services demonstrates.

In a different world, the merits, or otherwise, of religious teachings might be discussed more dispassionately. In that world, some of us who criticise religion itself might be content to argue that the church (and the mosque, and all the other religious architecture that sprouts across the landscape) should be kept separate from the state. Unfortunately, however, we don’t live in that world.
When religion claims authority in the political sphere, it is unsurprising — and totally justifiable — that atheists and skeptics question the source of this authority. If religious organisations or their leaders claim to speak on behalf of a god, it is fair to ask whether the god concerned really makes the claims that are communicated on its behalf. Does this god even exist? Where is the evidence? And even if this being does exist, why, exactly, should its wishes be translated into law?

In many situations, it is better to be civil, as Paul Kurtz has pointed out, but satire and  mockery have traditionally had a legitimate place whenever absurd ideas are joined to power and privilege. Enlightenment thinkers such as Voltaire often used mockery to show the absurdity of  ideological stances — including religious ones — that were considered sacrosanct. Mockery is one way of saying that a view does not deserve to be taken seriously. Religious views are fair game if one can also show, on a more serious level, why the view in question does indeed not deserve serious respect.

Perhaps some rationalist or humanist organisations, such as Kurtz’s venerable Center for Inquiry, do have good reason to maintain a scholarly and dignified brand image. But there is also room for the younger, brasher atheists whom Kurtz inaccurately brands as “fundamentalists”, and, in any event, there is a world of difference between appropriate civility and keeping quiet.

In the US, unfortunately, some atheists appear to have concluded that even civil and thoughtful criticism of supposedly “moderate” religion (i.e., almost anything that does not dispute evolutionary theory) should be discouraged.

These “accommodationist” atheists tend to be focused on science advocacy, particularly the teaching of evolution in public schools. In seeking public support for their positions, they think it prudent to take the various American demographics as they are. Since they want to sell evolutionary science to very large numbers of pious Americans, the last thing they want is to see it linked with atheism.
Once you think in that way, from a kind of marketing perspective, it can take over your approach to what you think you ought to say. Sincerity goes out the window, and everything must be “framed” to please the audience. We doubt that this strategy can work.

Religion cannot be eradicated — that is not a realistic goal — but the many problems with religious dogma can and should be highlighted. As atheists, we should state clearly that no religion has any rational warrant, and that many churches and sects promote cruelty, ignorance, and civil rights abuses.

There are harmful consequences to real people in the real world if the views of churches and sects are enshrined in law or given undue social deference – the acceptance even in liberal secular societies of conscientious objection as a legitimate reason for health care professionals and even civil servants to refuse to provide professional services to certain citizens is a case in point. For these reasons it is important that we should speak out and publicly contest the special authority that is accorded, all too often, to pontiffs, imams, priests, and presbyters. Religious leaders are not our moral leaders, much as they clamour to be, and however much the politicians flatter them. These spiritual emperors have no clothes, and we shouldn’t flinch from saying so.

Found at AlterNet.

Thanks to Bill for sharing this. While I’ve been guilty of being overly accommodating regarding religion, I find myself agreeing with this argument. Sure, there’s a place and time for civility, but in general, I think this article is right. Religion should be heartily mocked for its unfulfilled, ridiculous promises and stories that people eat up like candy.

Related posts

• Advice For Freethinking Kids? (0)
• 2012 Doomsday Fast Approaches! (0)
• You Are Wrong Because: (0)
• Some Great Advice by Robert Gula (1)
• Religion: The Root of All Evil? (0)

The parents don’t want their kids to feel like freaks and also want to help them counter the exasperated ‘you don’t believe in god!’ remarks. Sam, the father, admits that it can be lonely to not believe in god sometimes. I understand. I feel that way too, although not as much as before I belonged to Morgantown Atheists.

Diane, the mother, says they are open to ideas and suggestions. She says they have friends who aren’t religious but still believe in god. It’s not the same thing.

Seeing as how only about 10% of the population would go so far as to actually use the dreaded A-word, it can be isolating to be godless in a sea of believers. As I’ve mentioned, I still keep my atheism to myself when around Butch’s family. Some of them know we’re atheists but it’s never been brought up or mentioned. This means that a huge part of what I spend my time thinking about and being an activist over can’t be talked about when I spend time with others. It’s kind of lonely, in a way.

For Sam and Diane, I suggested they join a local atheist/humanist/freethinker group to get some community support. There’s nothing like simply hanging out with like-minded people to feel more connected. In my personal experience, the benefits of belonging to a local organization are numerous. I have felt much happier since joining. Just knowing there are others who think like me is a great relief, in a way.

I know, many atheists are loners and not into joining. I used to think I was like that too. Then I realized I am just picky. I don’t want to belong to a group that has wildly different values than me. But having a coffee and talking to someone who is also a godless heathen is, well, liberating and intellectually stimulating.

I have to say something now regarding children and atheism. One of my friends, I think it was Dan, recently commented ( I can’t remember if it was here on HDC or Facebook. And I think it was Dan… or Steve. I’m sorry, my friends, I am not positive. Please feel free to correct me) about a conversation he had with his 9 year old daughter. She asked her dad about god. Dan gave a good answer about what god is, and said something along the lines of that’s how a lot of people believe. His daughter asked him what he believed, if he believed in god. Dan explained he is an atheist and that no, he doesn’t. Then he asked her what she thought about god. She said the smartest, most amazing thing, which told me he’s a wonderful dad. She said, “I think I’m too young to decide.”

What that tells me is that Dan is raising his daughter, not to be an atheist, but to think for herself. I think the most important thing you can ever do for a child is to teach them critical thinking. Let them figure things out for themselves. Let them reason and make mistakes. Teach them how to think. Not what to believe.

I’m still thinking about what to tell Sam and Diane’s kids, in how to deal with other kids who are brainwashed with religion already.

Originally I posted this on Heaving Dead Cats and got some great responses. Here are my favorites:

makarios: I’d sure want to know if my kids were saying anything negative to other kids regarding their beliefs (parent’s beliefs). Christians often “get it” if you use the example of, “Well, if Muslim kids were saying your kid’s beliefs were wrong,” or “If your kids had to recite something from the Koran every morning how would you feel?” It might make it worse or it might open up some lines of communication.

Jake M: As far as websites go, I’d highly recommend http://parentingbeyondbelief.com/blog/. It is the blog of Dale McGowan, who co-authored both “Parenting Beyond Belief” and “Raising Freethinkers”
I haven’t had a chance to actually read the books, but judging from the blog, as well as the excepts from the books which are occasionally posted, they’re probably pretty great.
Hope that helps. I know I definitely don’t have any idea how I would raise my kids to be skeptical if I had them. You don’t want to stifle their imagination, but you don’t really want them believing in things which aren’t true, either. It’s definitely a tough balancing act.

Buffy: It makes me sick how Christians like to claim they’re “persecuted” for their beliefs and that their children are teased for believing. Yet they have no qualms about harassing others for not believing, for not being in the “proper” sect, for being the “wrong” type of believer, for being LGBT (or anything else “god” doesn’t approve of) etc. Funny how it’s OK when they’re doing the harassing. And of course refusing to let them harass you is also a form of “persecution”….

Diego: Same here Buffy. Kids can be cruel, but the outrageous thing about these cases is that parents will usually encourage kids to keep “evangelizing” (this is, bullying) other kids for their lack of belief. I’d say get together with other non-believing parents (if possible) and instruct the kid how simmilar god is to Santa Claus. That’s the only solutions I can think that might be applied to several cases. Oh, and sign the kids for learn martial arts lessons. Not only in case the christian kids might want to share some christian love, but because it gives control to the person.

Johnny:

There’s nothing like simply hanging out with like-minded people to feel more connected. In my personal experience, the benefits of belonging to a local organization are numerous. I have felt much happier since joining. Just knowing there are others who think like me is a great relief, in a way.

I personally can’t say enough about this too; my wife and I spending time with some local groups has been a huge relief.

An article from earlier this year that I thought was cool: Parents Gather to Nurture Nonbelief

I’ve not read them myself, but heard from several other atheist parents that Parenting Beyond Belief and Raising Freethinkers are very good (both by Dale McGowan, and mentioned by Jake M above). Dale also has a YouTube channel: Parenting Beyond Belief.

The article Raise Critical Thinkers, Not Atheists was pretty good; and the host site, AtheistParents.org, has some other good resources.

Skepchick’s entry on ‘They Might Be Giants’ release of a kids music CD, Here Comes Science.

Rational Moms Blog

Skeptic.com’s Junior Skeptics Mix Tape, a list of songs of science and skepticism for kids. All free to download MP3s.

Do you have any suggestions, websites, or books that might help them? If you come to the December 6 meeting, bring your ideas and suggestions. We’ll be talking about it briefly then.

EDIT: If there is enough interest, we’ll have a whole meeting in January about nonbelievers raising kids to think for themselves. Let us know if that topic is interesting to you.

Related posts

• Talk To An Atheist on Atheist Hotline (0)
• Holiday Cards for Atheists and Nontheists (0)
• Atheists, It’s Time to Stand Up to Jesus (0)
• Some Great Advice by Robert Gula (1)
• Religion: The Root of All Evil? (0)

Of course the Mayans themselves didn’t survive till 2012, so maybe they aren’t the best group to ask about such things.

Recently a friend of mine mentioned the 2012 phenomenon as if it were true. Unfortunately I didn’t have the hard facts at my disposal so I told him it’s not going to happen and left it at that. But I thought I’d look up some more information so when your mother starts talking about the end of the world, you will have some facts to back you up.

Lucky for me, NASA and Wikipedia have pages to explain where the concept came from and what scientific basis there is for it (none, thank you very much).

Some people seem to love the idea of predicting cataclysmic events and the destruction of the world. Of course, since we’re still here, so far they have been wrong every time. That’s something in itself to consider.

NASA explains it all very succinctly in FAQ form:

Q: Are there any threats to the Earth in 2012? Many Internet websites say the world will end in December 2012.
A: Nothing bad will happen to the Earth in 2012. Our planet has been getting along just fine for more than 4 billion years, and credible scientists worldwide know of no threat associated with 2012.

Q: What is the origin of the prediction that the world will end in 2012?
A: The story started with claims that Nibiru, a supposed planet discovered by the Sumerians, is headed toward Earth. This catastrophe was initially predicted for May 2003, but when nothing happened the doomsday date was moved forward to December 2012. Then these two fables were linked to the end of one of the cycles in the ancient Mayan calendar at the winter solstice in 2012 — hence the predicted doomsday date of December 21, 2012.

Q: Does the Mayan calendar end in December 2012?
A: Just as the calendar you have on your kitchen wall does not cease to exist after December 31, the Mayan calendar does not cease to exist on December 21, 2012. This date is the end of the Mayan long-count period but then — just as your calendar begins again on January 1 — another long-count period begins for the Mayan calendar.

Q: Could a phenomena occur where planets align in a way that impacts Earth?
A: There are no planetary alignments in the next few decades, Earth will not cross the galactic plane in 2012, and even if these alignments were to occur, their effects on the Earth would be negligible. Each December the Earth and sun align with the approximate center of the Milky Way Galaxy but that is an annual event of no consequence.

Q: Is there a planet or brown dwarf called Nibiru or Planet X or Eris that is approaching the Earth and threatening our planet with widespread destruction?
A: Nibiru and other stories about wayward planets are an Internet hoax. There is no factual basis for these claims. If Nibiru or Planet X were real and headed for an encounter with the Earth in 2012, astronomers would have been tracking it for at least the past decade, and it would be visible by now to the naked eye. Obviously, it does not exist. Eris is real, but it is a dwarf planet similar to Pluto that will remain in the outer solar system; the closest it can come to Earth is about 4 billion miles.

Q: What is the polar shift theory? Is it true that the earth’s crust does a 180-degree rotation around the core in a matter of days if not hours?
A: A reversal in the rotation of Earth is impossible. There are slow movements of the continents (for example Antarctica was near the equator hundreds of millions of years ago), but that is irrelevant to claims of reversal of the rotational poles. However, many of the disaster websites pull a bait-and-shift to fool people. They claim a relationship between the rotation and the magnetic polarity of Earth, which does change irregularly, with a magnetic reversal taking place every 400,000 years on average. As far as we know, such a magnetic reversal doesn’t cause any harm to life on Earth. A magnetic reversal is very unlikely to happen in the next few millennia, anyway.

Q: Is the Earth in danger of being hit by a meteor in 2012?
A: The Earth has always been subject to impacts by comets and asteroids, although big hits are very rare. The last big impact was 65 million years ago, and that led to the extinction of the dinosaurs. Today NASA astronomers are carrying out a survey called the Spaceguard Survey to find any large near-Earth asteroids long before they hit. We have already determined that there are no threatening asteroids as large as the one that killed the dinosaurs. All this work is done openly with the discoveries posted every day on the NASA NEO Program Office website, so you can see for yourself that nothing is predicted to hit in 2012.

Q: How do NASA scientists feel about claims of pending doomsday?
A: For any claims of disaster or dramatic changes in 2012, where is the science? Where is the evidence? There is none, and for all the fictional assertions, whether they are made in books, movies, documentaries or over the Internet, we cannot change that simple fact. There is no credible evidence for any of the assertions made in support of unusual events taking place in December 2012.

Q: Is there a danger from giant solar storms predicted for 2012?
A: Solar activity has a regular cycle, with peaks approximately every 11 years. Near these activity peaks, solar flares can cause some interruption of satellite communications, although engineers are learning how to build electronics that are protected against most solar storms. But there is no special risk associated with 2012. The next solar maximum will occur in the 2012-2014 time frame and is predicted to be an average solar cycle, no different than previous cycles throughout history.

Addition information concerning 2012 is available on the Web, at:

• NASA Astrobiology Institute: “Nibiru and Doomsday 2012“
• Bad Astronomy: “The Planet X Saga: The Scientific Arguments in a Nutshell”
• Sky and Telescope Magazine: “2012: The Great Scare“

Also see Wikipedia or more. It seems well referenced. Even Science Daily mentions the cyclical nature of the Mayan Calendar.

December 21, 2012 is a Friday. I propose a huge “Another Unfounded Prediction Has Failed” Party for Saturday December 22, 2012. How nice that we will also be able to celebrate the Winter Solstice as well!

Originally posted by Neece at Heaving Dead Cats

Related posts

• Logical Fallacy: Correlation Does Not Imply Causation (6)
• Atheists, It’s Time to Stand Up to Jesus (0)
• You Are Wrong Because: (0)
• Some Great Advice by Robert Gula (1)
• Podcasts and Internet Radio Stations You May Enjoy (2)

Michael Shermer recently made a great companion video talking about The Baloney Detection Kit: (approx. 14 min)

Here are the 10 points from the video:

1. How reliable is the source of the claim?
2. Does the source make similar claims?
3. Have the claims been verified by somebody else?
4. Does this fit with the way the world works?
5. Has anyone tried to disprove the claim?
6. Where does the preponderance of evidence point?
7. Is the claimant playing by the rules of science?
8. Is the claimant providing positive evidence?
9. Does the new theory account for as many phenomena as the old theory?
10. Are personal beliefs driving the claim?

Science is the best tool ever devised for understanding how the world works.

Here is an excerpt from Demon-Haunted World:

Among the tools:

• Wherever possible there must be independent confirmation of the “facts.”
• Encourage substantive debate on the evidence by knowledgeable proponents of all points of view.
• Arguments from authority carry little weight — “authorities” have made mistakes in the past. They will do so again in the future. Perhaps a better way to say it is that in science there are no authorities; at most, there are experts.
• Spin more than one hypothesis. If there’s something to be explained, think of all the different ways in which it could be explained. Then think of tests by which you might systematically disprove each of the alternatives. What survives, the hypothesis that resists disproof in this Darwinian selection among “multiple working hypotheses,” has a much better chance of being the right answer than if you had simply run with the first idea that caught your fancy.*

* NOTE: This is a problem that affects jury trials. Retrospective studies show that some jurors make up their minds very early – perhaps during opening arguments – and then retain the evidence that seems to support their initial impressions and reject the contrary evidence. The method of alternative working hypotheses is not running in their heads.

• Try not to get overly attached to a hypothesis just because it’s yours. It’s only a way station in the pursuit of knowledge. Ask yourself why you like the idea. Compare it fairly with the alternatives. See if you can find reasons for rejecting it. If you don’t, others will.
• Quantify. If whatever it is you’re explaining has some measure, some numerical quantity attached to it, you’ll be much better able to discriminate among competing hypotheses. What is vague and qualitative is open to many explanations. Of course there are truths to be sought in the many qualitative issues we are obliged to confront, but finding them is more challenging.
• If there’s a chain of argument, every link in the chain must work (including the premise) — not just most of them.
• Occam’s Razor. This convenient rule-of-thumb urges us when faced with two hypotheses that explain the data equally well to choose the simpler.
• Always ask whether the hypothesis can be, at least in principle, falsified. Propositions that are untestable, unfalsifiable are not worth much. Consider the grand idea that our Universe and everything in it is just an elementary particle — an electron, say — in a much bigger Cosmos. But if we can never acquire information from outside our Universe, is not the idea incapable of disproof? You must be able to check assertions out. Inveterate skeptics must be given the chance to follow your reasoning, to duplicate your experiments and see if they get the same result.

The reliance on carefully designed and controlled experiments is key, as I tried to stress earlier. We will not learn much from mere contemplation. It is tempting to rest content with the first candidate explanation we can think of. One is much better than none. But what happens if we can invent several? How do we decide among them? We don’t. We let experiment do it. Francis Bacon provided the classic reason:

Argumentation cannot suffice for the discovery of new work, since the subtlety of Nature is greater many times than the subtlety of argument.

Another aspect to keep in mind, as talked about by Carl Sagan, are common logical fallacies, something we talk about often on Heaving Dead Cats. Here is another excerpt:

In addition to teaching us what to do when evaluating a claim to knowledge, any good baloney detection kit must also teach us what not to do. It helps us recognize the most common and perilous fallacies of logic and rhetoric. Many good examples can be found in religion and politics, because their practitioners are so often obliged to justify two contradictory propositions. Among these fallacies are:

• ad hominem – Latin for “to the man,” attacking the arguer and not the argument (e.g., The Reverend Dr. Smith is a known Biblical fundamentalist, so her objections to evolution need not be taken seriously);
• argument from authority (e.g., President Richard Nixon should be re-elected because he has a secret plan to end the war in Southeast Asia — but because it was secret, there was no way for the electorate to evaluate it on its merits; the argument amounted to trusting him because he was President: a mistake, as it turned out);
• argument from adverse consequences (e.g., A God meting out punishment and reward must exist, because if He didn’t, society would be much more lawless and dangerous — perhaps even ungovernable.* Or: The defendant in a widely publicized murder trial must be found guilty; otherwise, it will be an encouragement for other men to murder their wives);
• appeal to ignorance – the claim that whatever has not been proved false must be true, and vice versa (e.g., There is no compelling evidence that UFOs are not visiting the Earth; therefore UFOs exist — and there is intelligent life elsewhere in the Universe. Or: There may be seventy kazillion other worlds, but not one is known to have the moral advancement of the Earth, so we’re still central to the Universe.) This impatience with ambiguity can be criticized in the phrase: absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
• special pleading, often to rescue a proposition in deep rhetorical trouble (e.g., How can a merciful God condemn future generations to torment because, against orders, one woman induced one man to eat an apple? Special plead: you don’t understand the subtle Doctrine of Free Will. Or: How can there be an equally godlike Father, Son, and Holy Ghost in the same Person? Special plead: You don’t understand the Divine Mystery of the Trinity. Or: How could God permit the followers of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam — each in their own way enjoined to heroic measures of loving kindness and compassion — to have perpetrated so much cruelty for so long? Special plead: You don’t understand Free Will again. And anyway, God moves in mysterious ways.)
• begging the question, also called assuming the answer (e.g., We must institute the death penalty to discourage violent crime. But does the violent crime rate in fact fall when the death penalty is imposed? Or: The stock market fell yesterday because of a technical adjustment and profit-taking by investors — but is there any independent evidence for the causal role of “adjustment” and profit-taking; have we learned anything at all from this purported explanation?);
• observational selection, also called the enumeration of favorable circumstances, or as the philosopher Francis Bacon described it, counting the hits and forgetting the misses, (Neece calls it cherry-picking) (e.g., A state boasts of the Presidents it has produced, but is silent on its serial killers);
• statistics of small numbers - a close relative of observational selection (e.g., “They say 1 out of every 5 people is Chinese. How is this possible? I know hundreds of people, and none of them is Chinese. Yours truly.” Or: “I’ve thrown three sevens in a row. Tonight I can’t lose.”);
  misunderstanding of the nature of statistics (e.g., President Dwight Eisenhower expressing astonishment and alarm on discovering that fully half of all Americans have below average intelligence);
• inconsistency (e.g., Prudently plan for the worst of which a potential military adversary is capable, but thriftily ignore scientific projections on environmental dangers because they’re not “proved.” Or: Attribute the declining life expectancy in the former Soviet Union to the failures of communism many years ago, but never attribute the high infant mortality rate in the United States (now highest of the major industrial nations) to the failures of capitalism. Or: Consider it reasonable for the Universe to continue to exist forever into the future, but judge absurd the possibility that it has infinite duration into the past);
• non sequitur – Latin for “It doesn’t follow” (e.g., Our nation will prevail because God is great. But nearly every nation pretends this to be true; the German formulation was “Gott mit uns”). Often those falling into the non sequitur fallacy have simply failed to recognize alternative possibilities;
• post hoc, ergo propter hoc – Latin for “It happened after, so it was caused by” (e.g., Jaime Cardinal Sin, Archbishop of Manila: “I know of … a 26-year-old who looks 60 because she takes [contraceptive] pills.” Or: Before women got the vote, there were no nuclear weapons);
  meaningless question (e.g., What happens when an irresistible force meets an immovable object? But if there is such a thing as an irresistible force there can be no immovable objects, and vice versa);
• excluded middle, or false dichotomy – considering only the two extremes in a continuum of intermediate possibilities (e.g., “Sure, take his side; my husband’s perfect; I’m always wrong.” Or: “Either you love your country or you hate it.” Or: “If you’re not part of the solution, you’re part of the problem”);
• short-term vs. long-term – a subset of the excluded middle, but so important I’ve pulled it out for special attention (e.g., We can’t afford programs to feed malnourished children and educate pre-school kids. We need to urgently deal with crime on the streets. Or: Why explore space or pursue fundamental science when we have so huge a budget deficit?);
• slippery slope, related to excluded middle (e.g., If we allow abortion in the first weeks of pregnancy, it will be impossible to prevent the killing of a full-term infant. Or, conversely: If the state prohibits abortion even in the ninth month, it will soon be telling us what to do with our bodies around the time of conception);
• confusion of correlation and causation (e.g., A survey shows that more college graduates are homosexual than those with lesser education; therefore education makes people gay. Or: Andean earthquakes are correlated with closest approaches of the planet Uranus; therefore – despite the absence of any such correlation for the nearer, more massive planet Jupiter — the latter causes the former*);
• straw man – caricaturing a position to make it easier to attack (e.g., Scientists suppose that living things simply fell together by chance — a formulation that willfully ignores the central Darwinian insight, that Nature ratchets up by saving what works and discarding what doesn’t. Or – this is also a short-term/long-term fallacy — environmentalists care more for snail darters and spotted owls than they do for people);
• suppressed evidence, or half-truths (e.g., An amazingly accurate and widely quoted “prophecy” of the assassination attempt on President Reagan is shown on television; but – an important detail – was it recorded before or after the event? Or: These government abuses demand revolution, even if you can’t make an omelette without breaking some eggs. Yes, but is this likely to be a revolution in which far more people are killed than under the previous regime? What does the experience of other revolutions suggest? Are all revolutions against oppressive regimes desirable and in the interests of the people?);
• weasel words (e.g., The separation of powers of the U.S. Constitution specifies that the United States may not conduct a war without a declaration by Congress. On the other hand, Presidents are given control of foreign policy and the conduct of wars, which are potentially powerful tools for getting themselves re-elected. Presidents of either political party may therefore be tempted to arrange wars while waving the flag and calling the wars something else – “police actions,” “armed incursions,” “protective reaction strikes,” “pacification,” “safeguarding American interests,” and a wide variety of “operations,” such as “Operation Just Cause.” Euphemisms for war are one of a broad class of reinventions of language for political purposes. Talleyrand said, “An important art of politicians is to find new names for institutions which under old names have become odious to the public”).

Knowing the existence of such logical and rhetorical fallacies rounds out our toolkit. Like all tools, the baloney detection kit can be misused, applied out of context, or even employed as a rote alternative to thinking. But applied judiciously, it can make all the difference in the world — not least in evaluating our own arguments before we present them to others.

Cross-posted by Neece from Heaving Dead Cats

Related posts

• Boobquake: Dress Immodestly For Science April 26 (0)
• Podcasts and Internet Radio Stations You May Enjoy (2)
• Monthly Meeting April 11: Earth Day and Open Topic (4)
• Ideas About Atheist Groups (2)
• An Alternative to the Santa Lie For Secular Parents (0)

I really wanted to share part of chapter 17 with you. Mr. Gula lists the most important principles to be gleaned from the rest of the book. I highly recommend getting the book and reading it. It has really helped me think more logically. The other thing it’s helped me with is to realize when someone has used a logical fallacy on me. I might not remember the name, but I remember that it is nonsense. It sort of gives me a red flag when someone uses bad logic in an argument. I think that’s pretty invaluable.

So here’s the list of important principles from Robert Gula:

1. Be alert to anyone who speaks in absolutes: who uses words like all, none, no one, never, always, everyone, must, immediately, or who refers to a group of people as if all the members have identical characteristics, beliefs or attitudes.
2. Be alert to generalizations, especially ones that are unsupported or that are supported from just one or two specific, unusual or extreme examples.
3. Be alert to anyone who uses emotional language and evaluative words instead of objective, factual responses.
4. Do not confuse opinion, attitude, personal bias, speculation, personal assurance or unsupported generalization with hard, factual evidence.
5. Be sure that the issue under discussion is clear and precise, that its ramifications, complexities and goals have been identified, and that the words and concepts have been defined.
6. Be sure that the evidence is relevant to the specific topic of discussion, not to some related topic.
7. When an authority is referred to, do not automatically accept that authority unless their credentials are relevant to the issue under discussion.
8. Make sure that the conclusion follows from the evidence.
9. Be sure that you do not put others in a position where they have to make inferences, and that you are not put in a position where you have to make inferences. In other words, be sure that necessary steps are not omitted in argument. Avoid making assumptions.
10. Wherever possible, do not allow rational discussions to become heated arguments.
11. Make sure that the evidence is thorough, not selective.
12. Don’t quibble; don’t argue just for the sake of arguing.
13. Think critically. Never let a fallacy go by without making a mental note of it; even if you don’t say anything, say to yourself, “this is nonsense.”
14. Whenever you hear an argument, examine it before you accept its conclusions. As three questions:
    1. Are the statements – the premises – the points being made and used as evidence – true?
    2. Is the evidence complete? Or has the evidence been one-sided?
    3. Does the conclusion come incontrovertibly from the evidence? Or might a different conclusion just as easily have come from the evidence?
15. Finally, no matter how skilled in argument you may become, never forget the opening sentence of Poe’s “The Cask of Amontillado”:
    The thousand injuries of Fortunato I had borne as best I could, but when he ventured upon insult, I vowed revenge.
    The world does not need another smart aleck.

Related posts

• How To Argue (0)
• Taxonomy of the Logical Fallacies (0)
• Logical Fallacy: Correlation Does Not Imply Causation (6)
• Logical Fallacy: Cherry-Picking (0)
• Logical Fallacy: Appeal To Emotion (0)

Monday, October 12, 2009 at 7:30 pm in the Mountainlair Blue Ballroom.

You are invited to the 2009 Eberly College Distinguished Lecture, sponsored by the Eberly College of Arts and Sciences, in association with the Division of Sociology and Anthropology, on Monday, October 12, 2009. Dr. Jonathan Marks, professor of anthropology at the University of North Carolina-Charlotte, will be delivering a presentation entitled Darwin’s Ventriloquists, at 7:30 p.m. in the Mountainlair Blue Ballroom. There will be a reception held afterwards in the Gold Ballroom.

This event is intended as a counterpoint to last spring’s lecture by J. Philippe Rushton.

Human evolution expert Jonathan Marks, Ph.D., professor of anthropology at the University of North Carolina at Charlotte, believes today’s training of modern scientists commonly shields them from the history and politics of their work, forcing generations of evolutionary geneticists to rediscover the intimate connection between science and culture.

“What we learn from the social study of evolutionary theory is that the natural and the cultural invariably co-produce the scientific,” said Marks. “Scientific claims, however, are made with a voice of cultural authority about human diversity that are especially sensitive to cultural influences.”

He argues the biggest challenge to contemporary evolutionary theory comes not from creationists, but from biologists themselves, and thinks that evolutionary biology cannot afford to tolerate scientific racism, which is the act of justifying social inequalities between presumptively natural groups of people by recourse to science.

He is author of “Human Biodiversity” (Aldine/Transaction, 1995), and “What It Means to Be 98% Chimpanzee” (University of California Press, 2002), which received the W.W. Howells Prize in Biological Anthropology from the American Anthropological Association and the J.I. Staley Prize from the School of Advanced Research. His new book, “Why I Am Not a Scientist,” was recently published by the University of California Press.

More information available in the press release.

Related posts

• Monthly Meeting April 11: Earth Day and Open Topic (4)
• Time Travel Lecture – WVU – Sept 23 (3)
• Monthly Meeting June 6: Founding Fathers and Great Scientists (0)
• Lecture: Matters of Gravity: Einstein’s Theories of Relativity (0)
• Boobquake: Dress Immodestly For Science April 26 (0)