The end of the world... and I feel fine!

The end is very nigh.   May 21^st is upon us and as you've probably already heard in the news or elsewhere that means it's time for the rapture The Rapture! 




Predictions like these have a long track record of being correct, so best of luck to you come judgement and until then be vigilant for unmanned cars whizzing down the road, anyone flying up into the air, or any six-winged creatures covered in eyeballs.  If you happen to see any of these things, do leave a comment below!

PS: if you're still here on the 22^nd consider opening your home to your ex-neighbors' earth-bound pets!

50 Atheist/Agnostic Billboards Go Up In Atlanta, GA

The Freedom From Religion Foundation has really outdone themselves this time: 50 billboards!?

That first one has some local significance...

Atlantans can look out for a variety of small, colorful billboards around town, including one with particular meaning for FFRF and for Atlanta. It features actress Butterfly McQueen, who lived in Atlanta at the end of her life, and showcases her statement to the Atlanta Journal-Constitution made during the 50th anniversary year of the release of the movie, “Gone with the Wind,” in which she played the role of “Prissy.” McQueen, who rebelled her entire life against religion as she rebelled against stereotyped acting roles, said: “As my ancestors are free from slavery, I am free from the slavery of religion.”

McQueen was a Lifetime Member of the Freedom From Religion Foundation, and made an appearance at FFRF’s 1989 national convention in Atlanta, where she was named FFRF’s premiere Freethought Heroine. She died in a tragic kitchen fire in 1995.

You can find more details (and more billboards) here and here.

(photo)

If you regularly read The Friendly Atheist, you could imagine what Hemant was really thinking when he put up a baby picture, and asked for a caption and some photoshopping...

"Look at this pot, now look at me. Now look at the shoe, now back to me…"

(Caption by Carolina) 

"The most important step in preparing your infant is to brine it for 6-10 hours, 

depending on size. Give it some toys to play with, and it’ll hardly make a noise."

(Caption by Richard)

Secular Student Alliance 2010 Annual Conference

A few thoughts from the 2010 Secular Student Alliance (SSA) annual conference that took place this weekend in Columbus, OH.  All in all, a great conference from a top notch organization - one you should definitely have on your radar!

I first found out about the SSA last summer, when my wife and I joined 300+ attendees of the 2009 annual conference (including PZ Myers) on a tour of the Creation "Museum" in Kentucky (photos and commentary from that trip are in this series of posts).  Though I couldn't make the actual conference last year,  I was impressed with the organization and the work they do to meet the needs of Freethought, Rational Inquiry, Atheist, and Humanist student groups nationwide. This year, I decided to give up a few hours of thesis work and head to the conference -- here's a quick overview.

First, they had a great line up of speakers including well known bloggers like keynote speaker Greta Christina and the Friendly Atheist, Hemant Mehta.  Also on the program were various student leaders from across the U.S. sharing lessons learned from successfully starting and growing their organizations.  You can learn more about the speakers from the conference website (plus a few minutes chasing down names on the web). You can read more about the SSA, what they do, and check out their resources for students and for educators through the SSA website. Also, check out the SSA's  Facebook Page, and look for videos of the talks and other conference events on the SSA's YouTube channel.

What is the Secular Student Alliance (SSA)?

According to the "About" page on their website the purpose of the SSA is

Religious Fundamentalists vs. Religious Moderates: Tell Me Again Who's Got Their Religion Wrong?

I'm not a religious or superstitious person, but for as long as I've thought about these things I've been in awe of how people acquire and adhere to these kinds of beliefs. It gets particularly interesting when someone is confronted with evidence contrary to a belief - or contrary to the justification for adopting that belief - or when one tries to apply some of those justifications across different religions with surprisingly mixed results.

But suppose supernatural entities like ghosts or gods do exist, and that some humans have knowledge of these things. Doing a quick survey of "who believes what," one thing quickly becomes clear:

Our beliefs are too varied and contradictory 

for most people's beliefs to be correct.
Most people have it wrong.

But how can we tell who (if anyone) has the right religious/supernatural beliefs?

Stephen Prothero's book "God Is Not One", LA Times Review

There's a book review in the LA Times of Stephen Prothero's latest book God Is Not One (that's Stephen Prothero the author and professor of religion, not Donald Prothero the paleontologist who wrote this great book).

I won't be picking up the book until my thesis work gets finished, but I thought you might appreciate the reviewer's summary of religious differences that exist in the world today...

And how different are they?

Christians regard sin as the problem and see salvation as the solution. Muslims define the problem as pride that can only be conquered by submission. Buddhists seek to overcome suffering while Christians regard suffering as ennobling, which is why Christians aren't trying to achieve nirvana. Buddhists, unlike Christians, aren't looking for salvation since they don't believe in sin. Neither do Confucians. And while Jews and Muslims speak of sin, they are not all that interested in salvation from their sins.

And there's more.

Jews believe in one God, Buddhists believe in no God, Hindus believe in many gods. Christ is regarded as a God among Christians, whereas for Muslims, Muhammad is very much a man who achieved perfection as a prophet, political leader, military general and family patriarch. And when it comes to the diversity in denominations among the world's religions, Christianity is king.

Got all that?

[Hat tip to Ophelia Benson @ Butterflies and Wheels]

Steve Martin, Atheism, and The Age Of The Universe

I was going to try and somehow weave together the video below and the results of this poll mentioned over at the NCSE. But then I decided not to, knowing that you'll check them both out anyway - 'cause you're just that awesome.

The Poll Results

QUESTION: Most astronomers believe the universe formed about 13.7 billion years ago in a massive event called the Big Bang. Do you think that's about right or do think the universe was created much more recently?

Women were more likely than men to accept the 13.7-billion-year figure (64% versus 60%), Democrats more likely than independents, and independents more likely than Republicans (71%, 66%, and 44%, respectively), blacks and Latinos more likely than whites (75%, 73%, and 58%, respectively)

... and for something completely different...

The Hilariously Awesome Video

After reading this, you should donate $5-$10 to a good cause...

... and here's why.

Michael Strieb, recently diagnosed with ALS (Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis, or Lou Gehrig’s Disease), needs our help so he can to continue to communicate with his family and friends.

Here are more details, from Rebecca Watson via Skepchick blog:

... By the time he arrived at the Skepchick party at TAM 7 in Vegas last year, he was confined to a wheelchair and used a computer to do most of his communicating.

Now he’s no longer able to speak or type. He’s an incredibly intelligent and kind person, and the world is better off when he can communicate. Now you can help him!

For $3,200 he can afford an eye gaze system to communicate with his family and friends. Other skeptics are fundraising to help him out. We can totally hit that, seeing as about 10,000 of you are reading this right now. Send a few dollars their way and feel good about greatly improving the life of a fellow rational human.

If we all pitch in a few bucks, $5, $10, $20, whatever you can spare, Michael will be back in touch with his loved ones in no time. A small price for such an invaluable gift.  Details on how you can help can be found here.

For more details about Michael (or if you have problems with the online donation form) see the comments section of Rebecca's post, and this post by Phil Plait on Discover's Bad Astronomy blog.

D. J. Grothe on Skepticism, Humanism

You should find time to watch, or at least listen to the talk below. It's the keynote from the recent Northeast Conference on Science and Skepticism (NECSS) given by the president of the James Randi Educational Foundation, DJ Grothe. The talk, entitled Skepticism is a Humanism, can be viewed in full here or on vimeo.

Previously on this blog, I've talked about what skepticism is and is not, but it's worth pointing out that much of the skepticism movement is driven by humanist principles. In his talk, Grothe defined humanism as...

Humanism 
       A naturalistic (as opposed to a supernatural) ethics focused on human well being.

While this is really a definition of secular humanism, it gets the point across: humanism is a set of morals and ethics based primarily (or solely) on human welfare.  You can read more about humanism from the American Humanist Association (AHA), or on Wikipedia here, here, here and here.

Grothe also takes pains points out that he's not saying "Skepticism = Atheism" nor that "Skepticism = Secular Humanism". Instead, he asserts that skepticism is both a method of inquiry, and a social movement to apply that method of inquiry towards humanistic goals (more from Grothe on skepticism starting around 11:30, and around 22:30).  Good stuff, though I wish he would have gone further to draw distinctions between these and related terms like rational inquiry, which in my mind is the "method" part of skepticism separate from the social movement (although I'm not sure that is the commonly accepted meaning of the phrase).

Thoughts?

[Hat tip to Phil Plait via Bad Astronomy]

Skepticism and Pseudoskepticism

I spent part of my afternoon today discussing science, skepticism and rational inquiry with a few like-minded individuals, and one of the topics we touched on was the problematic association of skepticism with what I would call denialism (though I'm not sure it's the right term).  I decided to take a small break from thesis writing this evening to offer a small suggestion towards resolving this problem: call it pseudoskepticism.

Before defining the term, you might first ask what is skepticism? Most people can't precisely answer that question, so if you're like most in this regard let me offer up a few definitions.

Skepticism \ˈskep-tə-ˌsi-zəm\

• A methodology that starts from a neutral standpoint and aims to acquire certainty though scientific or logical observation. [Wikipedia]
• 1 : an attitude of doubt or a disposition to incredulity either in general or toward a particular object
  2a: the doctrine that true knowledge or knowledge in a particular area is uncertain  b: the method of suspended judgment, systematic doubt, or criticism characteristic of skeptics
  3: doubt concerning basic religious principles (as immortality, providence, and revelation)
  [Merriam-Webster's Online]
• skeptic - someone who habitually doubts accepted beliefs [wordnetweb.princeton.edu] 

Skepticism is basically a process by which one can decide whether to adopt, reject or remain neutral on a potential belief.  To give term some context, I like this line from the brief introduction to skepticism from The Skeptical Society:

The key to skepticism is to continuously and vigorously apply the methods of science to navigate the treacherous straits between “know nothing” skepticism and “anything goes” credulity.

So what is pseudoskepticism? Consider, for example, you're favorite conspiracy theorist and ask "Are they thinking skeptically?"  Based on the above definitions, it's clear the answer to that question is No".  They aren't following the evidence. Instead, I'd say such individuals are - at best - pseudoskeptics.  Without finding any dictionary definitions of the term, here's my attempt at a definition (based on one definition of the word pseudoscience):

Pseudoskepticism \ˌsü-dō-ˈskep-tə-ˌsi-zəm\

• a methodology, belief, or practice that is claimed to be skeptical, or that is made to appear to be skeptical, but which does not adhere to appropriate principles of rational or scientific inquiry.

Much as scientists freely caution against pseudoscience, true skeptics should use the term pseudoskeptic more vociferously to describe those who seem to be confused about what it means to be a skeptic, yet still claim to be on. While it certainly won't solve the problem completely, it's at least a step in the right direction.

Related Links on Skepticism

1. On Pseudo-Skepticism, by Marcello Truzzi
2. Pseudoskepticism, RationalWiki
3. A Skeptical Manifesto, by Michael Shermer (an excerpt from this book) 
4. Seven Warning Signs of Bogus Science, by Robert L. Park

Coyening a New Term: "New Creationism"

Recently, Jerry Coyne proposed a new term -- "New Creationism" -- to describe a set of commonly held natural and metaphysical beliefs: basically an acceptance of "Darwinian evolution" and simultaneous acceptance of certain beliefs about God being the creator of it all.  The term is reminiscent of Stephen Jay Gould's idea of Non-overlapping Magisteria (NOMA), although New Creationism is more specific than NOMA, having been "coyned" to...

...describe the body of thought that accepts Darwinian evolution but with the additional caveats that 1) it was all started by God, 2) had God-worshipping humans as its goal, and 3) that the evidence for all this is that life is complex, humans evolved, and the the “fine tuning” of physical constants of the universe testify to the great improbability of our being here—ergo God.

I'm not sure (yet) if I'll use the phrase, as I do like having such a nifty term to describe these or similar beliefs. Unfortunately, the part of me that likes terminology that is both broadly applicable and precise has some objections...

1. It seems too narrow in it's list of religious beliefs, which others have already mentioned, and too particular to catch on without evolving another (related) meaning. 
2. The root term "Creationism" brings to mind the kind of dogmatic science-denial found in young earth creationism, which is contrary to Jerry's new category of religious and scientific belief.
3. It isn't all that "new" (which has also been a criticism of the term "New Atheism") and  
4. just like "New Atheism" it will probably get used more as a derogatory term then as a useful characterization of human belief as plenty of "New Creationists" would probably consider it an insult to be labeled any kind of creationist.

If you're wondering why we need a new term when we've already got "intelligent design creationism" and we can make reference to Gould's NOMA, Jerry has at least a partial answer for you...

New Creationism differs from intelligent design because it rejects God’s constant intervention in the process of evolution in favor of a Big, One-Time Intervention, and because these ideas are espoused by real scientists like Kenneth Miller and Simon Conway Morris.

So what do you think? Like it? Hate it? Do we need it? Can we improve the definition? Will it catch on? Share your thoughts in the comments below.

Michael Specter on the Dangers of Science Denial

Sam Harris on Morality, Science and Religion

Update: I've appended to this post some commentary from philosopher and (ex?)scientist Massimo Pigliucci on Harris' assertions about science and morality. Follow the link below for more from Pigliucci and a link to a response from Harris. 

It's uncommon to see overt criticisms of religion (at least Christianity) in the mainstream media, so I did a bit of a double-take when I saw this CNN video piece entitled "Philosopher: Why we should ditch religion."

That philosopher is Sam Harris and if you have a few minutes to spare, you should check out the CNN video and his recent TED talk on science and morality (both embedded below).

Here's the video of his recent TED talk, entitled "Sam Harris: Science can answer moral questions."

Update:

Beauty in the natural world... according to A. Hughman

If you follow YouTube channels, I highly recommend you check out A. Hughman's Channel.  While more about atheism than science, I think most anyone would find his stuff worth watching.  Like, for example...

 He's also got a blog you might want to check out. Good stuff!

PS: There's also a version of the video above with Spanish subtitles, here.

American Evangelical Christians Fomenting Hatred Abroad?

Some stunningly bad arguments used to rationalize legislation (further) criminalizing homosexuality in Uganda.

All that bad logic aside, I find pastor Scott Lively's actions repulsive and negligent. Should he be blamed for fueling the fires of hate in Uganda?  I think so, and here's why.

Suppose I entered a crowded theater with one small exit, first yelling "Fire! The building is burning! We're all going to die!" but then saying calmly "But, please, remain seated and stay calm" once the crowd began to panic.  If someone was then trampled to death - should I be held accountable for having helped rouse the mob? I think so.

Scott Lively's relatively benign suggestions about what to do with homosexuals in no way absolves him of fueling the hatred of homosexuals in Uganda.

The Symphony of Science

Recently, I came across a website called "The Symphony of Science" by way of their youtube page. It's a pretty interesting endeavor by producer John Boswell towards an honorable goal: to "deliver scientific knowledge and philosophy in musical form."

Their latest video, The Poetry of Reality (An Anthem for Science), features a nice mix of popular skeptics and scientists - some of whom you are sure to recognize.  Check it out!

So far, they've produced a few videos and audio tracks which are available on their website (and youtube). It's not exactly the sort of music I'd expect to hit the top of the pop charts, but it's a pretty catchy way to present some (hopefully) thought provoking ideas to a wider audience.

Feel free to browse the videos and songs then share your thoughts in the comments below.

Atheist Bus Campaign Gets Animated

I have to say, it's unfortunate they included such an obvious error on this little animation. I mean, there certainly are "fortune tellers"... it's just that so far, they've failed to demonstrate any real supernatural abilities. ;)

Before you click that link above, I should warn you that the Wikipedia page on Fortune-telling is in dire need of a good "Criticisms" section.

[More details on the image at Science, Reason and Critical Thinking].

How open-minded are you?

Note: Another long-lost draft that was saved and forgotten a few months ago, only to have been recently rediscovered and deemed worthy of posting. 

Have you ever been accused of not being "open-minded", or questioned someone else's open-mindedness?  Here's a superb video I've seen a few other places on what it means to be open-minded.





The source of this video is the YouTube channel "QualiaSoup" - I highly recommend taking a look around! The channel contains a variety of other well made videos, including this one.