Grammar is going out of style. Plain and simple. I see evidence to support this fact every day, and every day it becomes increasingly depressing. I blame the internet, texting, and other instant forms of communication.
I have long been aware of the sad fact that individuals seem increasingly unable to choose the correct version of there/their/they're or make the distinction between whose and who's. I have also heard the excuses such as, "I was just typing an informal message to my friend. It's not like I'm writing a paper for my English class." I hardly think that this is a valid reason for butchering one's native language. Instead, I think that it is an embarrassingly feeble way of trying to escape the fact that one either struggles with simple grammar or is in a rush and doesn't care to proof-read what one writes.
The single most-annoying grammar error that I witness all too often is the placement of an apostrophe before the s at the end of a pluralized word. It doesn't help that English has apparently confusing rules regarding the apostrophe. The ball that belongs to Bill is "Bill's ball," but the ball that belongs to "it" is "its ball." Also, when I receive a grade of "A" in all of my classes, I receive "straight A's," but when there are two political action committees, there are "two PACs." Errors in writing are understandable, but only the first couple of times that one makes them. It is not OK to make errors when the writing will be appearing on television. When my school's basketball cheering section makes a fool of itself on ESPN by holding a sign that says Go Eagle's, I wonder if there is any hope for the English language.
After writing this post, I found an interesting article here that talks about the same topic.
I understand that there may be a grammatical error (or a few) in this post. While this is shameful, it does not invalidate my point; it simply means that I am human. Anyway, it's not like this is a paper that I am turning in to my professor or anything, so get off my back. ;-)
Thursday, March 26, 2009
Monday, March 9, 2009
At last, some good news
Studies suggest that the population of Americans that considers itself as having "no religion" is growing. That's the best news I've heard all day. I saw this discussed on NBC this evening, and I just read it again on CNN's web site.
Thursday, March 5, 2009
Freud is to Psychology as Creationism is to Biology
This is something that I have been grappling with for a while now, so if any scientists (especially psychologists) read this and want to straighten me out, that would be greatly appreciated.
As a psychology major in university, I am studying various branches of psychological investigation, from neurological to social to developmental. In every class, there is significant time dedicated to learning about Sigmund Freud.
I understand fully that Freud is a large part of the early history of psychology and that his many ideas inspired further investigation by other, more scientific, individuals. But in my classes, we don't simply give a nod to Freud's contributions. Instead, we cover his theories in depth and then conclude with, "Oh, but there isn't actually any evidence for this stuff."
How does this course of action make sense? Why bother explaining all of Freud's theories, inside and out, if the lesson that we learn from each is that science relies on evidence and that Freud's unfalsifiable claims are meaningless to modern understandings of the human mind? Couldn't we sum that up in one sentence (like I just did)?
An example of this in a child psychology class that I am currently taking is the psychological significance of women's earrings. Recent studies have found that humans respond to symmetry. We find that symmetrical faces are more attractive to us than asymmetrical faces. Earrings, then, are important as they are noticeable ornaments that increase the symmetry of the face that they are attached to. In class, we didn't talk about these recent studies, however. I had to find that information out on my own. Instead, we discussed Freud's sexist and unsubstantiated notions that women are jealous of men's genitalia. Women wear earrings, according to Freud, because they are often large phallic symbols that help the woman feel like she has male genitalia (hanging from her ears!?).
Teaching Freud in psychology classes is, to me, similar to what creationists want to do in biology classes, ie., "Teach the controversy." Neither Freudian theory nor creationism have any scientific backing, so we shouldn't teach them in science classes. But we do teach Freud in science classes, and as long as we do, we're in danger of being called hypocritical. After all, creationism was a theory about the origins of species that was around until more scientific theories from people such as Darwin were constructed. And like Freudian theory, creationism still has its followers.
I haven't looked too hard, but I don't know that many psychologists, with the possible exception of Keith E. Stanovich, have really considered the idea that teaching Freud in psychology classes is an embarrassing waste of time. I hope that creationists don't think of it and attempt to use it as an argument for "teaching the controversy."
As a psychology major in university, I am studying various branches of psychological investigation, from neurological to social to developmental. In every class, there is significant time dedicated to learning about Sigmund Freud.
I understand fully that Freud is a large part of the early history of psychology and that his many ideas inspired further investigation by other, more scientific, individuals. But in my classes, we don't simply give a nod to Freud's contributions. Instead, we cover his theories in depth and then conclude with, "Oh, but there isn't actually any evidence for this stuff."
How does this course of action make sense? Why bother explaining all of Freud's theories, inside and out, if the lesson that we learn from each is that science relies on evidence and that Freud's unfalsifiable claims are meaningless to modern understandings of the human mind? Couldn't we sum that up in one sentence (like I just did)?
An example of this in a child psychology class that I am currently taking is the psychological significance of women's earrings. Recent studies have found that humans respond to symmetry. We find that symmetrical faces are more attractive to us than asymmetrical faces. Earrings, then, are important as they are noticeable ornaments that increase the symmetry of the face that they are attached to. In class, we didn't talk about these recent studies, however. I had to find that information out on my own. Instead, we discussed Freud's sexist and unsubstantiated notions that women are jealous of men's genitalia. Women wear earrings, according to Freud, because they are often large phallic symbols that help the woman feel like she has male genitalia (hanging from her ears!?).
Teaching Freud in psychology classes is, to me, similar to what creationists want to do in biology classes, ie., "Teach the controversy." Neither Freudian theory nor creationism have any scientific backing, so we shouldn't teach them in science classes. But we do teach Freud in science classes, and as long as we do, we're in danger of being called hypocritical. After all, creationism was a theory about the origins of species that was around until more scientific theories from people such as Darwin were constructed. And like Freudian theory, creationism still has its followers.
I haven't looked too hard, but I don't know that many psychologists, with the possible exception of Keith E. Stanovich, have really considered the idea that teaching Freud in psychology classes is an embarrassing waste of time. I hope that creationists don't think of it and attempt to use it as an argument for "teaching the controversy."
Wednesday, February 25, 2009
Ash Wednesday
This is a bit late -- heck, it's a lot late -- but I wanted to share a story about Ash Wednesday.
Growing up, my family observed a few of the major Christian holidays, like Christmas and Easter, but we never got too deep into the religious meanings behind each celebration. Ash Wednesday was no exception. I knew of Ash Wednesday simply because it followed "pancake day" (Shrove Tuesday) and was therefore the first day of Lent. I didn't know where the "Ash" part came in until I went to university.
On Ash Wednesday, freshman year, I returned to the dorm building in the early afternoon to see my friend and his girlfriend leaving for lunch. On her forehead was a dirty black mark (which was actually supposed to be a cross). It was the first time I had ever seen someone with ash on their forehead for Ash Wednesday, so I thought that maybe the girlfriend had made a mess of herself in art class, or maybe it was part of a prank that her boyfriend was playing on her. Since he was with her and was not commenting on the dirty mark, I concluded that yes, it was a prank, and so I decided not to ruin it by saying anything.
I went upstairs to the common lounge and joked with a couple of people about the funny dirt mark that my friend had somehow put on his girlfriend's forehead without her noticing. At this point I was quickly educated about the significance of the mark and told to have some respect for people's beliefs. I still thought the mark was funny, but I was glad that my friends told me what it was supposed to mean, because my room mate promptly returned with the ash cross in his forehead too. If I hadn't known at that point that it was delibately placed there, I might have lost my mind.
Growing up, my family observed a few of the major Christian holidays, like Christmas and Easter, but we never got too deep into the religious meanings behind each celebration. Ash Wednesday was no exception. I knew of Ash Wednesday simply because it followed "pancake day" (Shrove Tuesday) and was therefore the first day of Lent. I didn't know where the "Ash" part came in until I went to university.
On Ash Wednesday, freshman year, I returned to the dorm building in the early afternoon to see my friend and his girlfriend leaving for lunch. On her forehead was a dirty black mark (which was actually supposed to be a cross). It was the first time I had ever seen someone with ash on their forehead for Ash Wednesday, so I thought that maybe the girlfriend had made a mess of herself in art class, or maybe it was part of a prank that her boyfriend was playing on her. Since he was with her and was not commenting on the dirty mark, I concluded that yes, it was a prank, and so I decided not to ruin it by saying anything.
I went upstairs to the common lounge and joked with a couple of people about the funny dirt mark that my friend had somehow put on his girlfriend's forehead without her noticing. At this point I was quickly educated about the significance of the mark and told to have some respect for people's beliefs. I still thought the mark was funny, but I was glad that my friends told me what it was supposed to mean, because my room mate promptly returned with the ash cross in his forehead too. If I hadn't known at that point that it was delibately placed there, I might have lost my mind.
Tom Tancredo
Before Tom Tancredo came to campus, I had heard little about him, other than that he was "nuts," and a "crazy conservative." The fact that he came to speak at my campus as part of an event hosted by a student organization known as the Youth for a Western Civilization didn't help him win any points with me, or, as it turned out, anybody else on campus outside of the 7-member group who invited him.
Tom Tancrado is perhaps best known for his stance against illegal immigration. He wants to limit legal immigration too, but for right now he's focused on getting an electric fence put up along the US-Mexico border.
He came to my campus, which is incredibly diverse, liberal, and politically active in every way imaginable, to give a speech warning about the dangers of the "cult of multiculturalism." I'll summarize his argument here, though I have heard from some more aware and watchful individuals that he stepped very carefully and toned down his rhetoric for the speech that I heard.
Tancredo believes that the United States is, since its founding, a Western nation with historically European cultural ties. That sounds fair enough so far, though if you think that the Americas still belong to the Native Americans, then we're in disagreement already. Tancredo does not stop there, however. He believes that the US has a white, Anglo-Saxon, Protestant culture, and that everyone who lives in America must therefore adhere to such values. This, to Tancredo, means speaking English, eating hot dogs, going to the barber's, and attending Sunday school (his examples, not mine). He assured us over and over that this in no way means that he is ethnocentric, xenophobic, or racist. It simply means that if you want to come to America live here, you should become a citizen, learn English, and abandon cultural ties to your former nation.
To back up his point, Tancredo cited Britain, Canada, and Belgium, where, he says, cultural clashes are threatening the otherwise functional societies in each country. In Canada, French Canadians who hold cultural ties to France are a divisive force in politics, often campaigning for Quebec's independence from Canada. In Belgium, French-speakers and Flemish-speakers clash and consider the opposing group somehow inferior. In Britain, the government, in its quest to be hyper-sensitive to the easily-offendable natures of its immigrants, is throwing its culture out of the door and inviting in Sharia Law (true story).
Tancredo sees similar problems occurring in the United States, in the forms of affirmative action, Congressional Black and Latino caucuses, predominantly Spanish-speaking US towns that fly mostly Mexican flags, and public schools that are becoming bilingual.
I'm not going to say that I agree with Tancredo, as the reasoning behind his views stem from his evangelical Protestant, anti-gay, anti-choice agenda. However, some of the arguments that he made that night, I think, do deserve at least some contemplation. While the people of Switzerland have four major languages and seem to be doing just fine, America seems to be struggling to decide what to do about the steady increase in the proportion of its population that is Spanish-speaking. Roadsigns, etc. become bilingual in certain towns and areas where it becomes a necessity, but the US, unlike most other countries, has no declared official language. Thus part of Tancredo's argument falls flat. However, I am yet to hear about a single higher-education institution in the US that is Spanish-speaking. If I'm not mistaken, anybody who speaks a language other than English is basically shut out from higher learning and most higher-income job opportunities. I'm not saying that English should be declared the official language, especially since trends suggest that Latinos will eventually become the majority ethnic group in the US, but the country needs to make a decision. If English and Spanish are to both become the official languages, then there are a number of adjustments that schools, businesses, and citizens need to make in preparation for this.
The vast majority of students who attended Tancredo's speech wore all black in protest and carried signs that said "America is multicultural" in a number of languages. After he finished discussing assimilation, one student asked Tancredo if the European explorers should have been forced to assimilate to Native American culture. This drew applause, but Tancredo calmly responded that Europeans were technologically superior, and that their culture was better adapted for further technological advances. This, not surprisingly, did not please the crowd.
I am now more familiar with Tom Tancredo, and I am more convinced that I don't like his political stances, but I do think that countries like Britain do need to stop and think about what they are allowing to happen to their countries. When cases of domestic abuse are dropped in the courts because the Islamic law that the dependent believes in allows a man to beat his wife, a country has gone too far in its efforts to be accommodating to all cultures represented within it.
Tom Tancrado is perhaps best known for his stance against illegal immigration. He wants to limit legal immigration too, but for right now he's focused on getting an electric fence put up along the US-Mexico border.
He came to my campus, which is incredibly diverse, liberal, and politically active in every way imaginable, to give a speech warning about the dangers of the "cult of multiculturalism." I'll summarize his argument here, though I have heard from some more aware and watchful individuals that he stepped very carefully and toned down his rhetoric for the speech that I heard.
Tancredo believes that the United States is, since its founding, a Western nation with historically European cultural ties. That sounds fair enough so far, though if you think that the Americas still belong to the Native Americans, then we're in disagreement already. Tancredo does not stop there, however. He believes that the US has a white, Anglo-Saxon, Protestant culture, and that everyone who lives in America must therefore adhere to such values. This, to Tancredo, means speaking English, eating hot dogs, going to the barber's, and attending Sunday school (his examples, not mine). He assured us over and over that this in no way means that he is ethnocentric, xenophobic, or racist. It simply means that if you want to come to America live here, you should become a citizen, learn English, and abandon cultural ties to your former nation.
To back up his point, Tancredo cited Britain, Canada, and Belgium, where, he says, cultural clashes are threatening the otherwise functional societies in each country. In Canada, French Canadians who hold cultural ties to France are a divisive force in politics, often campaigning for Quebec's independence from Canada. In Belgium, French-speakers and Flemish-speakers clash and consider the opposing group somehow inferior. In Britain, the government, in its quest to be hyper-sensitive to the easily-offendable natures of its immigrants, is throwing its culture out of the door and inviting in Sharia Law (true story).
Tancredo sees similar problems occurring in the United States, in the forms of affirmative action, Congressional Black and Latino caucuses, predominantly Spanish-speaking US towns that fly mostly Mexican flags, and public schools that are becoming bilingual.
I'm not going to say that I agree with Tancredo, as the reasoning behind his views stem from his evangelical Protestant, anti-gay, anti-choice agenda. However, some of the arguments that he made that night, I think, do deserve at least some contemplation. While the people of Switzerland have four major languages and seem to be doing just fine, America seems to be struggling to decide what to do about the steady increase in the proportion of its population that is Spanish-speaking. Roadsigns, etc. become bilingual in certain towns and areas where it becomes a necessity, but the US, unlike most other countries, has no declared official language. Thus part of Tancredo's argument falls flat. However, I am yet to hear about a single higher-education institution in the US that is Spanish-speaking. If I'm not mistaken, anybody who speaks a language other than English is basically shut out from higher learning and most higher-income job opportunities. I'm not saying that English should be declared the official language, especially since trends suggest that Latinos will eventually become the majority ethnic group in the US, but the country needs to make a decision. If English and Spanish are to both become the official languages, then there are a number of adjustments that schools, businesses, and citizens need to make in preparation for this.
The vast majority of students who attended Tancredo's speech wore all black in protest and carried signs that said "America is multicultural" in a number of languages. After he finished discussing assimilation, one student asked Tancredo if the European explorers should have been forced to assimilate to Native American culture. This drew applause, but Tancredo calmly responded that Europeans were technologically superior, and that their culture was better adapted for further technological advances. This, not surprisingly, did not please the crowd.
I am now more familiar with Tom Tancredo, and I am more convinced that I don't like his political stances, but I do think that countries like Britain do need to stop and think about what they are allowing to happen to their countries. When cases of domestic abuse are dropped in the courts because the Islamic law that the dependent believes in allows a man to beat his wife, a country has gone too far in its efforts to be accommodating to all cultures represented within it.
Wednesday, February 18, 2009
Thursday, February 12, 2009
Abstinence-only lady comes to campus
As part of a sexual health campaign on campus, various groups and organizations have hosted events such as "Sex Fest" and a few passion parties. In the past, we have had the Trojan bus on campus, and the GLBT student group held an event last year where the the audience was able to participate in demonstrations of various "S&M" accessories, including handcuffs and ball gags. Recently, we hosted a speaker of a different kind. Dr. Lindsay Marsh came to campus and spoke about maintaining "purity" and virginity through faith in her god.
Apparently, Miss Marsh received a revelation from her god, who told her that she was "worth the wait" and that he would guide her on the path of purity. These religious feelings are clearly an extensive part of her outlook, as demonstrated by this youtube interview. They also extend to her views on homosexuality, which she considers a "choice." She also contends that many people that she works with are former homosexuals who were "cured" through faith. For the hundredth time, I refer you to the APA's findings that homosexuality is not a "choice" or a "sickness," nor is it "curable."
Hosting this woman was an awful decision, and the campus health center later told the school newspaper that Miss Marsh expressed many views that they disagree with. It turns out that she came to speak on campus because of some pressure from "certain student organizations" who wanted to balance the safer sex discussion. No prizes for guessing which organizations.
What gets me is that the GLBTA resource center declined to comment on the content of the presentation. They should be furious. Some anesthesiologist just came on to campus and told gay people that they were sick and needed curing and the GLBTA center chose not to stand up for itself? Thankfully, most of the students who attended the event were harshly critical of Marsh's message. Campus has a significant GLBT population, and it's good to know that there are many people around who are willing to stand up for them, even if their own resource center won't
Why "Atheist"?
Today we recruited for our atheist club by setting up a table outside the school cafeteria and handing out pamphlets from the Secular Student Alliance and other sources. The club is called the "rationalists and athiests," partly because we managed to form a catchy acronym using the initials for the school and partly because we wanted to appeal to prospective members as well as catch the eye of the general campus population with the dirty word, "atheist."
We recruited a good number of people today, but I heard that a few current members are leaving the club because it seems too confrontational. They don't think that we're "pro" enough things and that instead we are just "anti" Christians, which isn't true. I'm thinking that part of it is that we are the "atheists" and not some other word that means the same thing. The connotation of the word draws frowns and disapproval from many people and a few members don't like that. But to me, that's the whole point of the club! We're here to raise awareness to the fact that atheists exist, that we're real people to, that we deserve the rights that others are afforded. Part of the problem, I think, is that there are words other than "atheist" to choose from, so people adopt them so as to not anger the delicate theists.
Skeptics, free-thinkers, humanists, agnostics, and others are, to me, closet atheists in a way. They don't say the A-word because they know that it ilicits a response from most people that is largely unfavorable. But hiding who you are is no way to get social acceptance. You have to fight for it. You have to be visible like gays and blacks were/are if you want people to confront people's silly prejudices. When people are allowed to avoid the things that scare them, they can attack straw men all day and strengthen their ignorance. But when they see you, a kind, caring, helpful, compassionate individual who gives back to his community and then they find out that you are one of those degenerate atheists, they are forced to see their error. We don't need to ease intolerant theists into accepting us, we need to treat their phobia by putting them in a box with us and giving them a panic attack until they realize that we don't actually bite.
Science: 1, Crazy Moms: 0
You may have heard of Jenny McCarthy and the hoo-hah involving vaccines and their possible link to autism. If you haven't, I'm surprised, because the whole issue snowballed out of control and became quite ridiculous, even to the point that it became part of the plot in an episode of Private Practice. Basically, the symptoms of autism (which is a genetic problem) manifest in kids chronologically after kids typically receive their MMR vaccine. Some conspiracy theory-prone moms decided that the vaccines caused the autism and went off on a crusade led by Jenny McCarthy. I'm not sure if there's a relationship to Senator McCarthy of Red Scare fame, but I see similarities.
What gets me is that even now, after the ruling came down from the court, people continue to insist a conspiracy. Somehow the evil corporations are trying to control people by retarding the development of children? Perhaps they should blame the Free Masons.
Dan Barker's visit to campus
Thanks to the dedicated efforts of a number of individuals, including our campus atheist club's president and the ever-awesome Shelley, our campus hosted Dan Barker on February 6.
Dan Barker is the president of the Freedom From Religion Foundation, an organization that takes on court cases that fight for secularism. Also, Mr. Barker was once an evangelical preacher who, he assured us, truly believed what he preached. During the event, he spoke about his journey from devotion to atheism and pitched his book, Godless: How an Evangelical Preacher Became One of America's Leading Atheists (how he became a "leading" atheist, Barker is not so sure).
Mostly, Dan Barker spoke about the famous "war on Christmas" cases involving religious symbols on public land. The FFRF became famous for attaining a permit for an atheist sign that was put up beside the nativity scene in Washington state's Legislative Building.
The event was a great experience, and afterward I had an opportunity to attend a brief reception with Dan Barker and members from the athiest club. He's a great guy, and hopefully we will invite him back to campus in the future.
Friday, January 23, 2009
"The Disclaimer" revisited... again
For a little back story, I refer you to these three posts, one, two, and three, in that order. Basically, it appears that scientists are afraid of losing their audience to the fundies and thus feel compelled to tip their hats to religion.
I first became aware of this last semester when my psychology professor stated that science is "just one lens" through which to view the world and that religion is another one. I felt that this deminished the value of the scientific process and I let him know where I stood.
Then, this semester, a different psychology professor, who, admittedly, works for the the first one, said pretty much the exact same think as part of her "disclaimer" to the class. I went to her office hours and discussed this with her, letting her know my position and what bothered me about her statements. She admitted that she had never really thought too much about it.
I was surprised that she had "never thought too much about it" but now I see that she was just being honest with me. For the class, we have two assigned readings. The first is How To Think Straight About Psychology, by Keith E. Stanovich, and the second is called Psychology: From Inquiry to Understanding, by Lilienfeld and others. As it turns out, the two books completely contradict one another. Good ol' Stanovich mocks unfalsifiable beliefs (religion inlcuded) and jokes about invisible men in his head whose existance you cannot disprove. Lilienfeld states that unfalisifiable beliefs are useless scientifically and discusses the shortcomings of proponents of ESP, astrology, and others. Then, he drops a bomb. Allow me to quote from the book:
Metaphysical Claims: The Boundaries of ScienceIt's essential to distinguish pseudoscientific claims from metaphysical claims: assertions about the world that are unfalsifiable (Popper, 1959). Metaphysical claims include assertions about the existence of God, the soul, and the afterlife. These claims differ from pseudoscientific claims in that we could never falsify them using scientific methods. (How could we design a scientific study to conclusively refute the existence of God?) They therefore fall outside the boundaries of science (Gould, 1997) because, as we've learned, falsifiability is the cornerstone of a scientific theory.This point does not mean that metaphysical claims are wrong, let alone unimportant. To the contrary, many thoughtful scholars would contend that questions concerning the existence of God are even more significant and profound than scientific questions. Moreover, regardless of our beliefs about religion, we all need to treat these questions with the profound respect that they deserve.But it's crucial to understand that there are certain questions about the world that science can--and can't--answer. Science has its limits. So it needs to respect the boundaries of religion and other metaphysical claims. Falsifiable claims fall within the province of science; unfalsifiable claims don't.
Isn't that sickening? Forget what I said in my previous post about the "self-respecting science community" not thinking that fundie views are valid, because it seems that I am wrong. There are so many things wrong with that excerpt, from the idea that it is science's job to "refute" any claim regarding the existence of something that nobody can observe (burden of proof, people!), to the idea that unfalsifiable claims have any shred of legitimacy. The rest of the chapter of the very same book isn't even sure about the latter point, as it has sections about psychics, numerologists, and fortune tellers where it points out how all three fail the falsifiability test. It even calls such unfalsifiable claims the number one "deadly sin" of pseudoscience.
I don't understand how acupuncturists can be dismissed until they come up with solid evidence, but religious claims must be given "profound respect" and left alone. I agree with Stanovich that all unfalsifiable claims are "meaningless."
Thursday, January 22, 2009
Rick Warren *almost* ruined the inauguration for me
Living in DC has many perks, and close proximity to the presidential inauguration is one of them. At 3 AM on January 20, four of my friends and I set off and walked five miles to the Washington Mall, where we stood, sat, and nearly froze to death while waiting for Obama to become president.
The near death experiences brought on by the extreme cold and the lasting muscle pains from the long walk to and from the inauguration were well worth the thrill and lasting satisfaction of being part of such a historical event. The cold I could deal with, but when Rick Warren appeared at the microphone to deliver his long-winded prayer, I almost lost my mind.
"Help us, oh God, to remember that we are Americans, united not by race or religion or blood, but to our commitment to freedom and justice for all.
...
And may we never forget that one day all nations and all people will stand accountable before you."
Infuriating. Apparently Mr. Warren has a short memory. As I stood there in the massive crowd, I felt truly embarassed that our government still feels that it is necessary to have such blatent displays of ignorance at its ceremonies. I could almost hear the scoffing and laughter coming over the ocean as European audiences ridiculed America's backward dependence on an imaginary being. The prayer was a huge victory for conservative religion, and it did a lot to taint Obama's mention of "non-believers" during his acceptance speech. Acknowledging the existence of non-belivers is a huge step in the right direction, I understand that, but it doesn't make the dispicable Rick Warren prayer any less awful.
View the full prayer here (link may be temporary)
Guess who saw a WBC protest!
That's right, the Westboro Baptist Church, the "God hates fags," Pastor Fred Phelps, family church cult came to DC over inauguration weekend and protested various embassies as well as the inauguration ceremony itself. On January 19, while driving home from working at a community service site for the Martin Luther King Jr. Day of Service, I spotted the "America is doomed" signs and accompanying church members near the British embassy. I rushed home and checked their site (link currently broken) to find that they were moving on to the Israeli embassy to protest Israel's killing of Gazan civilians. It's a short walk from where I live, so I trecked over there to take a look.
The protest was relatively peaceful with the exception of Shirley Phelps-Roper (or maybe it was one of her daughters, they look so alike!), who yelled "Thou shalt not kill! That includes you! Brutes!" in the direction of the embassy. A couple of squad cars were present at the protest location and I had an opportunity to talk with the officers who had been following the church around all day to its various protest sites. They were glad that my girlfriend and I (she came with) were not part of the church and proceded to expalin that "God and hate never appear in the same sentence" and that they were sure that the WBC must be reading the wrong Bible, because it certainly wasn't the same as the one the officers read.
Of course the Phelps family and their followers are completely nuts, but I disagree that their views are entirely illogical. If you read the Bible, the word "hate" or some variation appears in all sorts of places. The Phelps family remains a fascinating phenomenon to me and I'm glad that I was able to see them up close at long last, even though I was not allowed to talk to them for security reasons.
I'm still a little bothered by this
At the beginning of last semester, my intro psychology professor discussed the importance of science and the scientific method but then made what was, in my view, a tragic error by saying that science was just one way of viewing the world and that there are many other ways of gaining knowledge and understanding, such as through religion. This infuriated me and I emailed him to let him know that I did not think that a statement that put religion on the same plane as science belonged in a science classroom. He emailed me back and basically said that he wanted to lure the religious folks into thinking scientifically and that his "disclaimer" was an attempt to keep them from closing their minds and ignoring him for the entire semester. You can see the email I sent and the response on previous posts.
Well it's happened again. This time, my new psychology professor for Understanding Human Behavior has stated in her own "disclaimer" that there are other ways of viewing the world and that science is just one of them. She explained that some people gain understanding by blindly listening to authority (her words, not mine) and she seemed to be saying that that's ok.
I assume that my new professor's goals are the same as my old one's, but still, hearing the dislaimer for a second time from a second professor makes me very uneasy. Surely neither professor believes what they are saying. After all, they both assigned books that unapologetically defend science and mock and dismiss "folk wisdom" and "common sense" and "gut instinct" and "following authority." If there really are any fundies in my science classes, I hope that they read the assigned texts carefully, because they'll quickly realize that even if my professors do think that their views are valid, the rest of the self-respecting science community does not.
Thursday, January 15, 2009
My classes this semester are excellent
Winter break is over and the new semester at my university (and, I imagine, at most univerisities) is now in session. A lot has happened since my last blog post, so I think I'll just list them in chronological order:
At the end of last semester, I added psychology as a major. I'm now majoring in both political science and psychology, partly because I would love to work for a secular interest group in the future, and partly because I love science and want to develop skills in scientific research. I see the scientific method as the primary tool for the progression of mankind and the understanding of science and why it is the best method for gaining knowledge as the best remedy for religious beliefs.
Over winter break, I went back home and visited my family, who I hadn't been able to see all semester (even over Thanksgiving) due to travel costs and distance. This Christmas was the first time that I had the means with which to think up and buy gifts for my family entirely independently of my parents' assistance. I have a new appreciation for the act of gift giving as it appears to me that both of my parents enjoyed the gifts that I gave to them. It was truly rewarding to see them open their gifts, be genuinely surprised, and then be excited at the prospect of making full use of them. Christmas is about family and showing your appreciation for them, and this year I really lived it.
After Christmas and my dad's birthday (which, unfortunately for him, falls only a couple of days after the 25th), I traveled down to Kansas to visit my girlfriend. Prior to my visit, I'd received a few warnings from friends that Kansas would be "boring" and even "awful," partly because the georgraphy of the region is rather unexciting, but mostly because it's a red state that takes pride in its church attendance. However, my stay in the Sunflower State was incredibly enjoyable and I managed to avoid discussions of political and religious natures. One trip to Borders Books did catch my attention, however. The religion section of the store was by far the most populated with people, but what surprised me even more was the considerable size of the section that had books on witchcraft, magic spells, crystal energies, etc. Perhaps people are just confused?
My first week of classes isn't even over but I've sampled them all and I must say that I'm rather excited. I'm taking Child Psychology, Understanding Human Behavior, Drugs & Behavior, Interest Group Politics, and Intro to Political Research. The first three are psychology courses and the last two are for my political science major. I'm excited about all of them, and Political Research should be especially interesting because it is the "science" part of "political science" rather than the "political" side. Other than Interest Group Politics, the first reading assignments for each class stressed the scientific method and how evidence and research often refute "common wisdom." One of my books, How to Think Straight About Psychology, by Keith E. Stanovich, was especially damning of religion, blaming it for most if not all of the roadblocks to scientific discovery throughout history. Eventually, Mr. Stanovich stops referring to religion and instead refers to it scathingly as "folk wisdom." He repeats over and over the importance of theories being falsifiable and mockingly tells a story about little green men that live in his head but go invisible when you try to look for them. This guy is badass. I look forward to reading more of his book.
Tuesday, November 11, 2008
Anti-science philosophers
I recently attended a philosophy event on my campus called, "Rethinking the Humanity of Philosophy with Heidegger, Strauss, and Tocqueville." It sounded interesting, but I should have realized the nature of the crowd that would likely attend when I read that the speaker was a professor of philosophy at Brigham Young University.
The speaker discussed his work and explained how Alexis de Tocqueville, while not a philosopher, was often more in tune with the condition of the people of the time than either of the philosophers were, especially Heidegger. In fact, Heidegger very deliberately distanced himself from the application of philosophy to real life.
The whole talk was quite interesting despite my lack of exposure to either Strauss or Heidegger (I have read large portions of Tocqueville's Democracy in America). Then came the question and answer potion of the event. An elderly man (half the crowd was elderly despite the event being targeted at college students) raised his hand and said, I think as part of some train of thought involving Heidegger, "It's science that's the problem. We need to return to a pre-scientific age. I was at a talk and some scientists said that the big bang was the beginning of the universe. Then a Catholic boy asked, but what caused the big bang? An un-caused cause! I'm glad at least the Catholics are still thinking straight."
I was appalled. Science is the enemy? Return to an age before science? If that old man falls and breaks his hip, I promise that he will not go to the priest or the philosopher to get it fixed. I sat and thought furiously about this man's statements. Then I realized what was going on. Religious people want answers, and refuse to, or are afraid to, say "I don't know." Science doesn't know what caused the big bang, or even, to be fair, if the big bang really happened at all. All science has is evidence and the best explanation it can come up with so far to explain the evidence. Science willingly admits that it doesn't know all sorts of things, and it is the religious man who is unsatisfied by this and fills the gaps up with his god. A friend of mine echoed the old man's statements in a conversation online: "Where did the tiny ball of matter in the middle of the universe that was there before the big bang come from? The answer is, "Science doesn't know yet." Well until someone proves otherwise, I'm putting my stock in God."
This position is logically bankrupt for so many reasons, one of which is that there is no more reason to believe in big G god than there is to believe in the Norse god Odin. The fact that old philosophy man and young college girl have no problem with granting their god credit for the unexplainable, without any logical or rational reason for doing so, goes to show how deeply infected we are with religion and just how far we have to go to raise the consciousness of the educated, never mind the ignorant.
The speaker discussed his work and explained how Alexis de Tocqueville, while not a philosopher, was often more in tune with the condition of the people of the time than either of the philosophers were, especially Heidegger. In fact, Heidegger very deliberately distanced himself from the application of philosophy to real life.
The whole talk was quite interesting despite my lack of exposure to either Strauss or Heidegger (I have read large portions of Tocqueville's Democracy in America). Then came the question and answer potion of the event. An elderly man (half the crowd was elderly despite the event being targeted at college students) raised his hand and said, I think as part of some train of thought involving Heidegger, "It's science that's the problem. We need to return to a pre-scientific age. I was at a talk and some scientists said that the big bang was the beginning of the universe. Then a Catholic boy asked, but what caused the big bang? An un-caused cause! I'm glad at least the Catholics are still thinking straight."
I was appalled. Science is the enemy? Return to an age before science? If that old man falls and breaks his hip, I promise that he will not go to the priest or the philosopher to get it fixed. I sat and thought furiously about this man's statements. Then I realized what was going on. Religious people want answers, and refuse to, or are afraid to, say "I don't know." Science doesn't know what caused the big bang, or even, to be fair, if the big bang really happened at all. All science has is evidence and the best explanation it can come up with so far to explain the evidence. Science willingly admits that it doesn't know all sorts of things, and it is the religious man who is unsatisfied by this and fills the gaps up with his god. A friend of mine echoed the old man's statements in a conversation online: "Where did the tiny ball of matter in the middle of the universe that was there before the big bang come from? The answer is, "Science doesn't know yet." Well until someone proves otherwise, I'm putting my stock in God."
This position is logically bankrupt for so many reasons, one of which is that there is no more reason to believe in big G god than there is to believe in the Norse god Odin. The fact that old philosophy man and young college girl have no problem with granting their god credit for the unexplainable, without any logical or rational reason for doing so, goes to show how deeply infected we are with religion and just how far we have to go to raise the consciousness of the educated, never mind the ignorant.
An Arab and a Japanese girl walk into a bar...
Here's a funny story from my Contemporary Arab World class. My professor is Palestinian, and there is a Japanese student in my class. Both speak English as their second language and they do it quite well except when they mix up word choice, order, or tense. On Friday, the Japanese girl was presenting part of a group PowerPoint about the Prophet Muhammed's wives and the practice of polygamy in the Arab world. One of her group members took a good ten minutes to list off Muhammed's 12 wives and where and how the Prophet met them. Then the Japanese girl took over to explain polygamy's role in the modern Arab World. As an example, she presented a story about a man who, in 50 years, married and divorced 58 women (he only had a maximum of 4 wives at a time, as permitted by Islamic law). This staggering figure, as expected, prompted gasps from the audience, but what happened next was even more shocking.
The Japanese girl made a joke along the lines of, "I hope he isn't the Prophet Muhammed." What she meant to say was, "I'm glad that he wasn't the Prophet Muhammed" because if he were the prophet, then the previous speaker would have been talking all day about Muhammed's 58 wives. We all understood what she meant, and giggled at the joke. The professor however, was not laughing. "No!" she said, "there is only one Prophet Muhammed. Only one! He lived 1,400 years ago. This man is not the Prophet!" She got quite fired up and it took quite a bit of explaining to reassure her that the Japanese girl had not just blasphemed against Muhammed. It was absolutely hilarious. A non-native speaker trying to tell another non-native speaker a joke = a recipe for disaster.
The Japanese girl made a joke along the lines of, "I hope he isn't the Prophet Muhammed." What she meant to say was, "I'm glad that he wasn't the Prophet Muhammed" because if he were the prophet, then the previous speaker would have been talking all day about Muhammed's 58 wives. We all understood what she meant, and giggled at the joke. The professor however, was not laughing. "No!" she said, "there is only one Prophet Muhammed. Only one! He lived 1,400 years ago. This man is not the Prophet!" She got quite fired up and it took quite a bit of explaining to reassure her that the Japanese girl had not just blasphemed against Muhammed. It was absolutely hilarious. A non-native speaker trying to tell another non-native speaker a joke = a recipe for disaster.
Sunday, November 9, 2008
I shook PZ Myers' hand!
Last night, I journeyed to George Mason University and saw PZ Myers speak about science education and the war that religious groups are waging against science. His basic idea is that there are only a couple of groups that defend the integrity of science in the classroom (the NCSE and Americans United), and while they are doing a great job of keeping religion, creationism, intelligent design, etc. out of our classrooms, as a culture we are losing the war.
PZ argues that well-funded groups such as the Discovery Institute and Answers in Genesis are perpetuating a culture of anti-scientific, anti-intellectual, and anti-critical thought in America. And they are winning. Of all the countries surveyed, the USA has the second lowest percentage of people who believe that evolution is a valid theory.
PZ's solution is more vocal support of science and more vocal opposition to religion. When religious people spout off their ridiculous stories, they take your silence to mean that you agree with them. You need to make sure they understand that this is not the case. Religion should be laughed at whenever it comes up in conversation. Be open about your atheism.
PZ likens religion to, among other things, knitting. It is perfectly legal to knit in your own home. You can knit whatever you'd like, and you may do it alone or in knitting groups. However, your ability to knit does not make you a superior person, it does not qualify you for public office, and you cannot force others to knit with you. Knitting is a personal hobby and has no place in our legislation. A lot of people consider knitting silly, but this does not mean that they are evil people. Religion = knitting. It makes a lot of sense.
PZ argues that well-funded groups such as the Discovery Institute and Answers in Genesis are perpetuating a culture of anti-scientific, anti-intellectual, and anti-critical thought in America. And they are winning. Of all the countries surveyed, the USA has the second lowest percentage of people who believe that evolution is a valid theory.
PZ's solution is more vocal support of science and more vocal opposition to religion. When religious people spout off their ridiculous stories, they take your silence to mean that you agree with them. You need to make sure they understand that this is not the case. Religion should be laughed at whenever it comes up in conversation. Be open about your atheism.
PZ likens religion to, among other things, knitting. It is perfectly legal to knit in your own home. You can knit whatever you'd like, and you may do it alone or in knitting groups. However, your ability to knit does not make you a superior person, it does not qualify you for public office, and you cannot force others to knit with you. Knitting is a personal hobby and has no place in our legislation. A lot of people consider knitting silly, but this does not mean that they are evil people. Religion = knitting. It makes a lot of sense.
Sunday, October 26, 2008
Infiltrating The Christians 2: Dr. Hugh Ross the Creationist
At the last Christian group meeting that I attended, I witnessed Curt Harlow the apologist repeating Pascal's Wager in various forms. We all know it's a lame argument, but for some odd reason, people buy into it. At the most recent Christian group event, I was presented with a new argument, but one that was just as pathetic as the Wager.
The event this past Thursday was called, "What Darwin Didn't Know." Of course, the immediate conclusion one draws from the title is that the speaker must be a creationist who presents biological "evidence" for an intelligent designer. It turns out that such a conclusion is only half right.
When I heard about the event, I was saddened and pretty disgusted as well. The poor ol' liberal Christians are unwittingly allowing themselves to be dragged into ignorance by a far-right creationist nutcase. I decided to intervene, so I printed off 50 pamphlets explaining evolution, and stood outside the event, passing the pamphlets out to people who were attending. Get the "Evolution in a Nutshell" pamphlet here.
The promoters of Dr. Ross caught wind of my actions, and suddenly I was approached by two very creepy, very scary old men, who asked to see my pamphlet and promised me that the Doctor would disprove all of its contents. "If you want a real theory, one that can't be condensed onto a little pamphlet," said one of the men with a sneer, "you should read [insert many creationist books here]." Everyone who stopped to take one of my pamphlets was immediately pounced on by the intimidating and sinister old men and were assured that my pamphlet's contents would be blown out of the water.
It turns out that Dr. Hugh Ross, of Reasons To Believe (reasons.org), is not a biologist, he's an astronomer! And while he is definitely a creationist, his arguement was not about evolution, nor did it mention Charles Darwin one single time. Instead, the argument boiled down to, "Look how amazing space is. If the earth rotated slower, if the sun was hotter, if our moon was a different size, then life as we know it would be impossible! All these characteristics of our solar system can't have occured by chance, therefore the biblical god created it all for us."
Surely, nobody falls for this nonsense do they? Sadly, they do. Dr. Ross blinded the audience with science, presenting them with all sorts of numbers that showed the tiny probabilities that our sun would be the right temperature for us, etc., etc. Then he said, "Therefore an Intelligent Creation Agent must have been involved."
I felt misled by the title of the event, and I felt sorry for any people who were swayed by Hugh Ross's argument. Edward Current destroys the argument quite easily, as does another of the pamphlets on the site I got the evolution one from.
Check it:
The event this past Thursday was called, "What Darwin Didn't Know." Of course, the immediate conclusion one draws from the title is that the speaker must be a creationist who presents biological "evidence" for an intelligent designer. It turns out that such a conclusion is only half right.
When I heard about the event, I was saddened and pretty disgusted as well. The poor ol' liberal Christians are unwittingly allowing themselves to be dragged into ignorance by a far-right creationist nutcase. I decided to intervene, so I printed off 50 pamphlets explaining evolution, and stood outside the event, passing the pamphlets out to people who were attending. Get the "Evolution in a Nutshell" pamphlet here.
The promoters of Dr. Ross caught wind of my actions, and suddenly I was approached by two very creepy, very scary old men, who asked to see my pamphlet and promised me that the Doctor would disprove all of its contents. "If you want a real theory, one that can't be condensed onto a little pamphlet," said one of the men with a sneer, "you should read [insert many creationist books here]." Everyone who stopped to take one of my pamphlets was immediately pounced on by the intimidating and sinister old men and were assured that my pamphlet's contents would be blown out of the water.
It turns out that Dr. Hugh Ross, of Reasons To Believe (reasons.org), is not a biologist, he's an astronomer! And while he is definitely a creationist, his arguement was not about evolution, nor did it mention Charles Darwin one single time. Instead, the argument boiled down to, "Look how amazing space is. If the earth rotated slower, if the sun was hotter, if our moon was a different size, then life as we know it would be impossible! All these characteristics of our solar system can't have occured by chance, therefore the biblical god created it all for us."
Surely, nobody falls for this nonsense do they? Sadly, they do. Dr. Ross blinded the audience with science, presenting them with all sorts of numbers that showed the tiny probabilities that our sun would be the right temperature for us, etc., etc. Then he said, "Therefore an Intelligent Creation Agent must have been involved."
I felt misled by the title of the event, and I felt sorry for any people who were swayed by Hugh Ross's argument. Edward Current destroys the argument quite easily, as does another of the pamphlets on the site I got the evolution one from.
Check it:
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
