"Driving" Me Crazy

WARNING: This post has nothing to do with anything productive today. 

I just needed to vent and this is my only anonymous outlet for that!

The tattoo was a success, and with a week of fun with Dixie behind me, it's back to the real world.  Unfortunately, that involves my company moving to a new location outside of the city soon.

Generally, change doesn't bother me.  I like change often - I get pretty bored easily otherwise.  I also like new things!  They are shiny and clean and interesting.  HOWEVER, moving to this new location has been a nightmare for me, in more ways than one.  First, the logistics of moving an entire corporation are daunting.  Just moving my department is a daily headache of people worrying about the move and anticipating the awful things that will await them in the scary new building.  Of course, those people get into daily arguments with the people who like shiny new novelties.  These "New Building" advocates testify to the benefits of being outside of a crowded, mean, expensive city, to the dismay of the "Old Building" advocates who feel the death of the city location means the death of us all as we are hurled into obscurity.  Personally, I wish we were staying DESPITE the allure of newness purely because it requires me to learn to drive a hellish route to work every morning. 

Instead of anticipating the relaxing morning walks I will enjoy in the autumn, I spent the weekend driving in the car with Joshua attempting to map out the best route to the new location.  Usually, it takes a lot to get me wound up in the car.  I'm a pretty calm person, and I've driven with screaming babies, arguing friends and anxious family members.  Go ahead - grab the "Jesus Handle" and hit your passenger-side imaginary brake - I'm okay if you're a dramatic passenger.  AS LONG AS YOU'RE NOT JOSH. 

The first time I drove with him in the car, he was in the back seat, arguing with the front seat passenger about where we should be going while I was driving in totally unfamiliar territory to a place I had never been before.  Not five minutes out, my face was burning red and I was ready to scream or burst into tears.  Then, we get on a particularly vicious highway that I had only travelled twice in my life and he starts arguing with me over merging.  Then, he wouldn't shut up about how he was fearing for his life for the entire drive and thereafter.  Our friend drove home, and I didn't let Joshua in my car for months.  I was hurt, discouraged, distressed, agitated, humiliated, mortified... I could create and entire Thesaurus entry about that day.  He's one of the few people whose opinion matters to me, and the sudden dramatic critical attack left me permanently wounded.

So, nowadays, I try to put on my poker face in the car with him.  Really, I can literally feel my blood pressure rise as soon as I put the key into the ignition, even if we're just driving to the grocery store down the street.  95% of mistakes I have EVER made when driving are with him in the car, and I think it's because I can't avoid putting the crushing pressure on myself to be perfect in this one situation, and that, of course, makes it even more horrible because he only sees me at my worst.  *I* wouldn't believe me if I were in his shoes and heard, "Really, I'm a good driver when you're not here."  Sometimes I wonder if my subconscious is attempting to crash the car to free me from the awful situation.

I'm sure you've figured out by now that the new location REQUIRES me to drive on the vicious highway, and Joshua offered to show me how to get there.  At first, I thought that I would be better off getting lost for hours and eventually becoming familiar with the area.  Then, the side of me that I USED to think was rational said, "C'mon Sam... he usually keeps his mouth shut now, and it's been awhile since all of that.  Let's just get this over with and let him show you where to go. You're being ridiculous."  Damn side of my head POSING as rational. 

Well, after I said yes, a day prior to the test drive, Josh decides to tell me something about one of his female friends that likes him that made me pretty angry while we were in the car driving to the store.  And "Isn't It Ironic" that in the middle of the conversation my car chimed in with "You Oughta Know" from my random playlist. At least the car and radio were on my side, right? So I was already angry that I was stuck in the car with him the day before, and it seemed that every bad feeling I ever have about him is rooted in instances of me driving.  Rational Brain said, "C'mon, this is all in your irrational head." So I went ahead with the practice run.  It was awful.  The drive ended with my face burning and tears welling up in my eyes, just as our only other experience on that road had ended.  My back hurt from being so tense, and my head was pounding.  But this time, we got in the house and I couldn't stop being angry.  I told him I never wanted to drive with him in the passenger seat again (and since our only car is mine, I guess he wouldn't be going anywhere anytime soon).  He said, "Oh, come on, I thought I was good and I kept quiet.  I only felt my life was endangered twice."  He was trying to joke, but it pushed me over the edge.  I told him that it would be easier to drive if I was car jacked and someone was holding a gun to my head, which was a thought I had often during the hour commute.  I wish I could shake the anxiety I have about driving with him in the car, but I don't see that happening anytime soon, so for now I'll be getting lost solo.

I think the problem is that he has no concept of how hard I am on myself about the situation.  You know, when you are giving 100% of your attention and effort to being perfect, and you make even a small mistake, you are already being incredibly critical of yourself in your mind and someone else voicing their criticism is just "piling it on."  And now, with the pressure reinforced, I can't ever see it going well right now.  Joshua makes me HATE driving.  Good thing my car and playlists are on my side, and he's going on vacation with his friends later this week.  I plan on having a great, relaxing time driving all over the city with my radio blasting and my friendly GPS offering suggestions, but "recalculating" when I disagree and fixing my mistakes without an accusation (GPS: "Simple miscalculation... I can take care of that.  Could have even been my fault!").

Wow, I feel better.  :)

S.A.M.

I Wonder.....

Just for fun...

A coworker saw this in our local newspaper, and brought it to me with a mischevious smile, a highlighted passage, and the comment, "Hey, Samantha... another skeptic has been discovered!"

"Police found the toddler wondering alone on a sidewalk in the neighborhood."

Hope everyone "wonders" through their day today.  ;)

S.A.M.

What Would Jesus Tattoo?

Hello, strangers!  Well, that's what it feels like after being absent from here for so long!  Going to school full time while working a job that generally consumes 60 hours of my week has been a bit overwhelming.  I'm not regretting a thing, though!  It may be hard, but it's still fun.

Speaking of fun, Dixie is staying with me this weekend!  No kids, but her little sister might join us.  The highlight of the weekend should be our trip on Friday to get our very first tattoos!  We designed them together, and we'll get the same design, but in different places.  I'm a little nervous, but mostly excited.  The reason I bring it up here is that the absolute best tattoo parlor in the area is an outwardly Christian business.  Clearly, if I'm going to get artwork put on my body for the rest of my life, and on Dixie's body for that matter, I want it to be pretty amazing, and these people ARE truly amazing.  Now, they do pretty much any design, and they will be doing our completely secular designs.  But when you walk in this place, it's like walking into a church - BIG cross on the wall, tons of their own religious artwork.  I am going through with it, but with some admittedly mixed feelings.  I question whether I should be supporting a business that it outwardly religious.  I have said in the past, and still hold, that if I were to get a tattoo related to Atheism, it absolutely wouldn't happen there.  It would somehow tarnish the meaning of it.  But this tattoo is about Dixie and I, it has nothing to do with religion in one way or another, and I tend to fall back on some more Objectivist views here, I think.  They really are the best, and I'm making my choice based on their product and talent and not their religious affiliations.  Funny that I never thought of this when buying pies from the Amish...

As for school, by the way, my religious studies class on the history of Christianity is one of the most fascinating classes that I am taking!  One day, when the professor (who knows that I am an Atheist from some class discussions) asked the class of about 150 how many people have actually ever read the book of Leviticus after people seemed to be lost when she began discussing it.  I was one of five people to raise my hand.  She laughed and said, "So the ATHEIST has read more of the bible than the majority of the class and most of you said you were Christians.  What a comment on the state of religion nowadays."  It really is a little disturbing that many people devote their life to an idea that they never even attempt to fully learn.  Of course, the more you learn about the history of religion, the more ridiculous it appears to be, so maybe that's an unrealistic expectation.  Wait until we get to Joshua... Will they be surprised to find the utter violence and gore reminiscent of Americans' worst impressions of the Koran?  How many people realize that the story of Joshua in the bible is the first documented Holy War?  How do Christians who do know their stories feel about these holy Christian actions of killing scores of men women, and even innocent children as a sacrifice to God?  It will be interesting....

S.A.M.

Love In The Time of Evolution

(Giant Sphinx Moth, the Ghost Orchid's Perfect Mate)

Shreddakj’s comment on my last post really kept me thinking about our “minimum requirements,” or at least “desired qualities” we seek in a mate. I thought a lot about the people I dated in the past who all looked good on paper but made for awful partners. Do I even know what’s best for me? If not me, then would anyone have insight into what qualities make someone good for me? Am I really flying so blind?

For example, one ex I had sounded a lot like my proposed Stepford Husband. This blue-eyed, well-read, atheist, city-boy who always declared his love for me and even made dinner from time to time should have been my every-dream-come-true. The relationship just lacked some sort of chemistry that I couldn’t put my finger on and it slowly disintegrated. I simply grew apart from him with each passing day.  Then, when I considered that I am now in a happy monogamous-yet-barely-defined relationship with someone who believes in life after death, hates my favorite book, and wishes he could live out in the country where dogs run free and the milk man delivers milk in glass bottles left on your porch, well, I was at a loss. Was I just plain wrong about what I wanted? Do opposites attract? Do people change, and did *I* change?

It was when I was watching my brand new Blu-Ray of “Life” (The BBC version, of course) that I was reminded of the very unique relationships that flowers share with other types of living things. Darwin, when looking at an orchid in Madagascar with its nectar buried deep within its flower, correctly predicted that a moth with a tongue of the exact length necessary to reach that nectar would one day be discovered. He based this on a principle of co-evolution that allows different living beings to evolve together to better benefit each other. The benefit for this orchid is that its pollen is extremely likely to be shared with its own kind as the special moths take advantage (nearly exclusively) of the nectar supplies available for less competition from this very specific type of flower.

And, a more recently discovered example:

This large sphinx moth (Cocytius antaeus) has an extremely long proboscis (tongue) – here seen fully extended as it would be if the moth were sipping nectar from the bottom of a very long-tubed flower. Important pollinators, some sphinx moths have very specific relationships with the plants they pollinate. The giant sphinx, for example, is the only known pollinator of the rare and delicate ghost orchid of Florida’s swamps.

This type of species-monogamous relationship lends a very interesting benefit to both parties. I wondered if maybe the initial “ingredients” of a human relationship are less important than their ability to co-evolve into something strong and so mutually beneficial that being together and monogamous gives both partners a distinct advantage over being single or being with others.

So, how did the Ghost Orchid and the Giant Sphinx Moth choose each other? I won’t go into an explanation of natural selection, but I imagine there *were* a few initial qualities that were required. Maybe one orchid plant mutated with a slightly deeper nectar pocket, and it happened to be visited by a moth partner with a tongue just a bit longer than its relatives to take advantage of the orchid's differences. Over generations, through many tiny changes, their partnership slowly evolved into something incredibly strong and completely exclusive. But if you think about it, only two very small qualities were really necessary for this to begin.

People do evolve, and people do change. (Sorry, Dr. House, we’ll disagree about this.) People might *prefer* (and fight for) the natural safety we feel in predictable environments, but our bodies and surroundings are constantly in flux. Is it possible that in one of these ever-fluid situations we discover another being with which we share one small complimentary quality – just enough to keep us together long enough to react to each other in a way that we discover is mutually beneficial? Does the relationship grow when we change and adapt to our lives in tandem? The more I consider it, the more I really believe this is possible. I imagine that sometimes the benefits are temporary and people evolve apart as situations in life change. But maybe sometimes a foundation is established so well in thousands of tiny decisions and adjustments that the evolution of each person becomes rooted in the evolution of their partner that despite the fact that they may in some ways be as different as a flower and a moth, they have found happiness and strength for themselves in what they share.

This would also mean we might be wasting our time hoping for a pre-made ideal mate. In the beginning, the sphinx moth was not perfect for the orchid; it only offered a slightly nicer answer to a small variation in structure. It was only when they continued to adapt to each new environmental variation with each generation in each other’s favor that they became the perfect match. In other words, maybe we make our perfect match for ourselves at the same time that they are creating us.

S.A.M.

Do I Want a Stepford Husband?

One thought led to another yesterday and I found myself on Netflix watching "Stepford Wives."  Okay, so the movie itself is not that great, but it's at least thought-provoking.  (Maybe I would have enjoyed the book better...)  Anyway, I found myself daydreaming (as I did the housework) about the whole concept.  Would I want a Stepford Husband?  How would I program him?

It's a question that's surprisingly hard to answer.  I mean, let's fess up - most of us have at least considered the qualities that would make a perfect mate for ourselves, and if offered that, would we refuse?  I might not want the 50's husband, but what would constitute my ideal and could those qualities be programmed?

The first requirement I thought of for my Stepford Husband would be that he does not put his random things all over the dining room table (which is constantly a battle for me to keep clear and clutter free).  Maybe that's because I was sorting through all sorts of old mail scattered over the table at the time, but the flood gates were now open and I was "programming" my ideal man.  He would have to be intelligent and well-read.  He would at least share the rest of the housework with me too.  Oh, hell, why share?  I can program him to do anything - he can do it all, and I can focus on my career.  He would have to have the bluest blue eyes, and sing to me to make me smile.  He would love my cupcakes and cookies, and he would cook me dinner a few days a week.  He would always compliment me when we are talking to other people, and he would enjoy spending time with my friends and other couples (maybe with their own Stepford Spouses).  My Stepford Husband would surprise me with flowers or little presents from time to time.  He would give me amazing massages when I am stressed, and play the piano instead of video games.  Of course, he'd be excellent in bed!  He would have no religious views, obviously.  And.... what else?  I started to quickly run out of ideas.

"That's it?  That's really all I think it would take for a guy to be my ideal??" I thought to myself.  That may be all I would want to program, but I realized that I probably wouldn't be content without his free will.  There's no way to "program" a John Galt (or Bertrand Russell!).  Would I really enjoy the surprises and flowers if I, in a way, told him to do it?  Do I smile when I hear singing in my house now simply because I like to listen to singing, or does it only make me smile because I know that's what it's intended to do?  And who am I kidding?  I actually like watching Joshua play video games.  My favorite aspects of his personality are all related to his staunch individuality.  I even like when he takes vacations with his friends instead of me because it gives me alone time that I love so much.  I actually like spending a whole afternoon doing housework sometimes!

Soon I was wondering if I would like to be a Stepford WIFE.  What would it be like to live up to that 1950's ideal?  I'm sure that it would actually be nice to play the role for awhile.  Anyone who knows me would probably be shocked to find out that I have had this thought, but, really, I've considered it before.  I think sometimes that it would be a relief to have a very clear set of standards to live up to.  It would be nice to not have to worry about going to work and I really do feel fulfilled and proud when the house is beautiful and dinner is cooked.  It would be a new challenge for me, for sure, but part of me would really like to try.  Secretly, only when home alone, I sometimes dance around with my broom like Disney's Snow White does when she first gets to the cabin in the woods.  The dog hops around behind me like a helpful forest creature, and I blissfully sing some happy song.  For a moment, I am pure Stepford girl.

Realistically, however, I don't think I would last long without a job.  I enjoy working too much.  I like the challenges and environment.  I also like arguing too much to be so submissive!  And, really, I like to be in charge, at least of myself!  I can't rationalize spending a lot of time or money looking perfect all the time.  Most of all, I like to improve myself.  I like the process of learning, getting better at things, experimenting and exploring new possibilities.  If I was already fitting a certain standard for "perfect," there wouldn't be room for any of this.

So, as I washed the last dish, turned out the lights on the almost-immaculate rooms, and headed up to my freshly made bed, I decided that Stepford might be fun to visit, but I wouldn't want to live there.

Sam + Bertrand Russell 4EVER (heart)

As I delve into Bertrand Russell's The Problems of Philosophy, I am reminded of how I fall in love with Bertrand Russell all over again each time I read him.  I thought I'd share our (light-hearted and facetious) love story.

I first met Bertrand through our mutual friend Ayn Rand.  I love to investigate philosophers' interests and influences, and thus, we first made acquaintance.  It was a brief and casual fling - I read a few pages on general logic and left him with a pleasant and satisfied feeling in my heart.  I knew that if we happened to find each other in the same place, I'd be pleased to pass the time with him once again.

A few years later, as I eagerly devoured Richard Dawkins' The God Delusion, I was introduced to Bertrand in a new and fascinating light as I learned of his "teapot."  Over a cup of his mystical brew, he illustrated his atheism in bold and brilliant strokes.  I was dazzled and delighted; the stars that were the backdrop of his explanation of unbelief became stardust twinkling in my eyes.  I read so much, we shared so much, and I felt as if he was articulating the bleary yearnings of my young and inexperienced heart.  I learned from him; he made me laugh.  We explored passions and religions together, and came to conclusions about our reasons for not being Christians.

Sadly, however, as things often happen the the realm of love, we drifted apart.  After hashing through our shared atheism, did we really have much left in common?  I couldn't understand his devotion to mathematics.  And in the mean time some other philosophers caught my eye.  Our second matchmaker, Dawkins himself, with his Scarlet Letter, was alluring.  And his friends, the other three horsemen, were so inviting with their modern existences... Bertrand and I spent less and less time together, until it quietly became none.

I spent a year or two learning, growing, and developing on my own.  I encountered a multitude of others' ideas that served as guides to clearing the brush and beginning to build a path of ideas all my own.  With my slightly strengthened identity, I began to share my views with the world, sometimes even on my T-shirts.  While sifting through pages of websites of philosophy-themed clothes, a tiny red teapot caught my eye.  My smile brightened as memories came flooding back.  "Oh, how joyfully I shared in Bertrand's revelations then!" I thought.  The sparkle returned to my eyes, my heart fluttered.  Soon, I was wearing his celestial teapot, placed so thoughtfully between Earth and Mars, proudly over my heart as a badge of honor we both shared.  We  may not have been spending time together then, but I thought of him often.

It was only last week that I traced my fingertips over the faded screen printed mystical china piece and thought, "My friend, it has been too long..."  I pulled out my Kindle and typed his name for the first time in a long while and chose a new title: The Problems of Philosophy. It only took a page for us to pick up where we left off.  I was immediately the starry-eyed student in our private classroom, and he so eloquently lectured to my eager ears.  His writing was always so remarkably clear and crisp to me that I felt as if we were enjoying a personal lesson.  Once again, I find myself hanging on his every intriguing word, my heart leaping and falling in time with his own, enthralled and in love with my professor, Bertrand Russell.

S.A.M.

"The God Virus" Postmortum

I finished the book The God Virus and, really, it was at its best during my last post about it. I mean, overall, the book was okay, but I think it just wasn't for me. The second half of the book was all about how to deal with religious people, as if they were some dangerous foreign race. I imagine that most people out there have had exposure to religion and religious people their whole lives, even if they are an atheist now. I don't need some self-help guide explaining how to conduct myself in a religion-permeated world; I already deal with many of the issues brought up in the second half of the book on a regular basis. After the great section explaining how religious systems interrelate when sharing the same physical environment, the rest of the information was already familiar to me from reading other publications. I might recommend this to someone new to atheism or new to questioning religion even, but it seemed to be strictly written for atheists and would be most interesting to someone who is not yet well-read on the topic.

The highlight of the second half, for me, was a brief mention on the Cargo Cults of the South Pacific. They are a favorite topic of mine - just such a fascinating and telling illustration of the development of religion. Don't get too excited, though, if you also love the story of the followers of John Frum - it was only discussed for about one paragraph.

I also enjoyed the many quotes throughout the book. They make up a majority of my bookmarks.

My overall opinion: This may have been a good book, but it just wasn't right for me.

S.A.M.

Atheist Mortality

Michael Rubinkam/Associated Press

As I was checking the news this morning, I came across a story out of Pennsylvania about an elderly woman who exhumed her dead husband and twin sister and kept them on couches in her house for years.

Somehow, about two-thirds of the way through the story, the article seems to take a turn toward blaming this incident on her lack-of or weak religious belief:

"Well, I felt differently about death."

Part of her worries that after death, there's ... nothing. "Is that the grand finale?" But then she gets up at night and gazes at the stars in the sky and the deer in the fields, and she thinks, "There must be somebody who created this. It didn't come up like mushrooms."
So she is ambivalent about God and the afterlife. "I don't always go to church, but I want to believe," she said.

Dr. Helen Lavretsky, a psychiatry professor at UCLA who researches how the elderly view death and dying, said people who aren't particularly spiritual or religious often have a difficult time with death because they fear that death is truly the end.

For them, "death doesn't exist," she said. "They deny death."

Ms. Stevens, she said, "came up with a very extreme expression of it. She got her bodies back, and she felt fulfilled by having them at home. She's beating death by bringing them back."

What?? Wow. I was temporarily speechless.

That is quite a leap.

Really, isn’t it the religious people who believe that total death doesn’t exist because a spirit or soul lives on in some afterlife? Is that not pure denial of death? And, for a moment, I’m going to be truly nitpicky and say that the phrase, “because they fear that death is truly the end” really irked me. I think that death is “truly the end,” but it’s not a fear – it’s a fact in my mind. I feel like the journalist (Michael Rubinkam of the Associated Press) is implying that the sense that religious views are wrong evokes an unavoidable and deserved anxiety. It’s as if the article is saying that a nontheist SHOULD feel this way when considering death.  Also, why would it be true (as this psychiatrist professor says) that just because a person thinks that biological death is the complete experience of death, they are in denial of death?  Maybe they are simply in denial of life after death, which seems like a pretty rational denial to me.

My other concern is that this generalization was made simply because the woman took an agnostic stance. She didn’t say she was an atheist. She actually sounded like she DID have faith in some type of god despite the fact that she didn’t subscribe to a religion per se. She “wants” to believe in something spiritual, but that was not enough to convince this professor and her interviewer that the overriding reason for this was her lack of faith. I’d hate to see what she had to say about a real atheist.

Clearly, this woman has some psychological problems, but they seem to be rooted more in loneliness or social strain rather than lack of religious vigor. This woman was desperately attempting to console herself and possibly deal with the issue of her own mortality after she was left feeling alone in the world (and I think most people would feel that extreme loneliness in her situation of losing the two people she loved most in life). Her anthropomorphism of the corpses didn’t seem to approach a true delusion – she seems to understand that they are dead on some level. Death DOES seem to exist to her as a reality, contray to what the psychiatrist believes to be true of nonreligious people like her, and she is struggling with that idea and attempting in her own (misguided) way of coming to terms with that.  That fact might actually, in one small way, make her a little more sane than the person who “sees” the dead Virgin Mary visiting them or prays to and makes choices according to the divine direction of long-dead loved ones with the strong conviction that they are still alive somewhere.

This is an extremely sad story, and my heart goes out to this woman. I hope that she manages to get the help she needs to reach a sense of peace after living through the deaths of her two closest loved ones.

As for this journalist - Michael Rubinkam – I hope that at some point he learns to be a little more careful about balancing his stories. Choosing your sources wisely is part of getting the story right. His editor will certainly be getting a letter from me.

Maybe in the future I should write a little more on the subject of mortality from an atheist perspective. It’s certainly an under-discussed topic, in my opinion.

S.A.M.

United States Receives "Creation"

Great news!

But first of all, Happy 4th of July!  I hope everyone got a chance to celebrate America's Birthday (and one of the least-religiously-linked holidays we get in this country)!  I personally thanked all of the atheist, agnostic, deist and skeptical founding fathers who made this country what it is today.  I spent the day watching the History Channel's marathon of "The Story of US," which I just loved.  It's like everything I learned in one year of 7th grade civics all condensed into one day of exciting high-def viewing experiences.  Really, my biggest impression was that, in general, America is a hard-working, work-loving, opportunity-making populace, and has been that way throughout its history.  It also left me thinking, "Damn, can we get a break?!" Our current economic situation seems pretty mild compared to all of the other crisis that we have faced.  And for the Pat Robertsons of the world who really think that every hurricane is a punishment from God for recent behavior or the people who say our weather is totally wacky in ways we've never seen before due to some new global warming - watch the segment on the freaky dust storms that swept across the country.  Hurricanes look pretty normal after that.  And while I'm in this psudo-review, I'll mention that my favorite segment was the invention of the light bulb.  :)

ANYWAY, the great news!! I saw an advertisement for the "Creation" movie!  It was released a few days ago on DVD in the US.  That made me smile.

May The Fourth Be With You!

S.A.M.

Because I (Heart) Science Education

I love this! Found it on Dead-Logic.com's Blog.  Had to share, and thank Dead-Logic for sharing as well!

God Going Viral

I am about half-way through the book The God Virus by By Darrel W. Ray, Ed.D. My first reaction was that the book seemed unnecessarily stand-offish. Do I think religion is fantasy? Absolutely. However, religion is a significant and complex sociological phenomenon and shouldn’t be treated as “silly.” While I might not respect the tenets of any religion, I do respect and support the study of religion itself. I think it’s incredibly important to understand how these behaviors began and continue in order to correct for them toward a more rational society.

I initially got the impression that Ray found religious people to simply be silly, or at least the oblivious victims of a god virus. I disagree that victims are completely oblivious, and I strongly hold that maintaining a religious perspective involves conscious decisions made to that effect as much as one would continually face decisions while living life as a skeptic. Still, half-way into it, the author takes his analogy a little too far from time to time. However, I think the goldmine in the book is not his leaps to make the analogy between religion and a virus seem closer than it is, but rather his look at the propagation and history of religious development when he is momentarily free of his “virus” idea. I wonder if the analogy would have made a great introductory paragraph or chapter if left at that – it’s possible. I look forward to reading more of his real theory, free of his attention-grabbing illustration.

S.A.M.

Happy Summer Solstice!

Today is the Summer Solstice!  I'm wishing I was at Stonehenge or enjoying a "Midsummer's" night dream!
I thought I'd share a little article on the "spiritual" aspect of the day and its history!

Of course, here'a a good dose of science for you, too, courtesy of Wikipedia.

The Summer Solstice occurs exactly when the Earth's axial tilt is most inclined towards the sun at its maximum of 23° 26'. Though the Summer Solstice is an instant in time, the term is also colloquially used like Midsummer to refer to the day on which it occurs. Except in the polar regions (where daylight is continuous for half of the year), the day on which the Summer Solstice occurs is the day of the year with the longest period of daylight. Thus the seasonal significance of the Summer Solstice is in the reversal of the gradual shortening of nights and lengthening of days. The summer solstice occurs in June in the Northern Hemisphere, in December in the Southern Hemisphere.

S.A.M.

The Look of an Atheist Artist

I found this great collection of artwork on Flicker by an artist called BiSQUE.  I'm fascinated and I love it!However, I can't for the life of me find a website for this artist.  The closest I got was a mention on the blog of someone else who saw the gallery show.  Thanks to that, I can also tell you the artist is from Illinois and a mother of three.  I hope Bisque is not languishing in anonymity, and that the problem is that I am just not a great Googler.

Hope you Enjoy!  If you know more about this person, please let me know!

SAM

PS - I apologize to any readers (if there are any! haha) for my absence.  A personal health issue slowed me down significantly over the past few weeks.  Things are looking better now, though!

The Godfather III

(Yes, is is really the most disappointing of the series.)

The church has relented and will not require Joshua to have his special letter to be a Godparent.  Am I glad that his family will have their way?  Sure.  But the church really devalued itself in that decision.  What is the point of the church being involved at all?  Oh well.  There's not much more to say on this topic, I think.

S.A.M.

Forced to Choose: Science or Future With the Church

USA Today had a story this week about an Evangelical scholar who was forced out of his position with the church for posting a YouTube video about how he didn't deny evolution, and thought the church could run into trouble in the future by denying it.  Check out the story.  I'd love to show you the video but it had been taken down since he was asked to resign.  The organization that filmed it offers a more complete explanation here, and here's an excerpt of the description:

Waltke cautions, “if the data is overwhelmingly in favor of evolution, to deny that reality will make us a cult…some odd group that is not really interacting with the world. And rightly so, because we are not using our gifts and trusting God’s Providence that brought us to this point of our awareness.”
We are at a unique moment in history where “everything is coming together,” says Waltke, and conversations—like those initiated by BioLogos—are positive developments. “I see this as part of the growth of the church,” he says. “We are much more mature by this dialogue that we are having. This is how we come to the unity of the faith—by wrestling with these issues.”

The greatest thing about this in my opinion? DIALOGUE!  I heard about it on a radio talk show called Jon Grayson Overnight America.  I'll confess - I don't usually listen, but a friend texted me and told me Jon and his callers were having an incredible debate on the air about evolution. The host did a pretty good job of defending the scientific, even if he wasn't thrilled to be talking about such a serious topic on a normally "fluffy" show.  The conversation went on for almost the entire hour, and one caller -GET THIS- discussed the Creation movie!!!  That totally made my day!

S.A.M.

Atheists Plan to Arrest Pope

I know... a double dose of media postings today, but I just can't help it!  (Plus, I am "making up" for being so busy with school last week.  I had a big paper on Martin Heidegger due.)  ANYWAY.

The headlines are all over the British Media: Atheist Richard Dawkins backs campaign to arrest Pope.

Leading atheist Richard Dawkins has backed a campaign to have the Pope arrested for "crimes against humanity" when he visits the UK later this year.


Professor Dawkins said he "whole-heartedly" backed the initiative led by atheist Christopher Hitchens.

UK human rights lawyers are preparing a case to charge Pope Benedict XVI over his alleged cover-up of sexual abuse in the Catholic church.

So... Okay. Am I the only one a little fuzzy on the logistics of this?  Besides that, creating a media circus like this lacks a certain decorum that I expect from educated authors and intellectuals. I'm not defending the pope - and I totally agree that he should be held legally accountable for his part in the cover-up. I just think that there could have been more tactful ways of approaching this. This is just being perceived as an "attack" on Catholicism, or a cheap grab to get Atheists in the headlines. Sure, speak about it - even hire the lawyers. Support an international investigation. Encourage religious people to examine and police their own leaders. But just throwing the idea out there that atheists are going to form a lynch mob and march into the Vatican to put the pope in handcuffs is not good for our PR campaign.

S.A.M.

"Eavesdropping on Atheists"

This summary is not available. Please click here to view the post.

Atheism's Effect on Religion

The Guardian had an excellent column over the weekend that contemplated the effect that New Atheism might be having on religion - or at least the religious book industry. (Read it here!) The writer, Madeline Bunting, wonders if, "perhaps New Atheism's publishing success is a case of winning a battle and losing the war." While I think the article is well-done, and I think she makes some great points about both the debate and the successes of both sides, I'd like to discuss the mistakes she believes atheists often make in this "war."

The great mistake the atheists made is to claim that religion started out as a clumsy stab at science – trying to explain how the world worked – and is now clearly redundant. That misses the point entirely: religion is not about explaining how an earthquake or flood happens; rather it offers meanings for such events. When someone is killed in a car accident, western rationality is good at analysing how the brakes failed and the road curved, but has nothing to say about why, on that particular day, the brakes failed when it was you in the car: the sequence of random events that kill. This search for meaning is part of what drives the religious spirit.

It's true that we don't now (and maybe never will) have a perfect explanation for the emergence of religion in human culture. I'm having a hard time deciphering where exactly she feels the mistake is being made - on the "battlefield" (ie. as a weak point of argument against religion) or within the philosophy (ie. a flawed idea within atheism). Either way, she seems to be assuming that there IS "meaning" behind events such as your brakes failing beyond a physical explanation. To an atheist, the world is primarily explained by physics, science, etc., and any meaning is self-ascribed. If she is saying that atheism offers no "alternative" extra meaning to believers, I'm not sure that we're missing the point - it's simply non-existent in atheist philosophy. I imagine giving up faith also requires giving up that search for any supernatural meaning. Sorry, I have no atheist Splenda to offer the believers as they begin their diet.

The second mistake made by the atheists is the assumption that faith and belief are mental processes akin to opinion. Armstrong runs through the etymology to uncover original meanings: belief is a commitment not a proposition; faith, as in "I have faith in you", is an expression of confidence, not an assertion of the existence of something. Dogma is "a truth which cannot easily be put into words and which can only be fully understood through long experience" – rather like the love of a parent for their child growing into adulthood.

Here, again, I see what she is trying to get at (the distinction between belief and faith), but I'm not sure that atheists actually make that assumption. If atheists were to simply accept that faithful confidence is beyond challenge or question, there would be no point in discussing beliefs at all. I think enough people have established valid arguments for debating faith and religion that I don't have to list them here. Ms. Bunting also seems to be implying that faith is VOID of mental process, which is also not true. The bible contains a number of contradictions, and even the most pious of Christians must use their own mental process to decide how to deal with these sticky situations. Also, following her logic, people would RARELY question or change religions or religious opinions, and this is clearly not true. I can see that Armstrong is attempting to defend faith with some etymological research, but I think that despite the interesting history, he also needs to consider the reality of how people believe today and what the words "belief" and "faith" mean to people living now. After all, these are not historical atheists debating historical religious people - it's a current issue.

I am critical of some points of the New Atheism, but these points are not ones I would challenge. I'll save those points for another day. But I'm not sure I that could have let her critique fly by without, at least, a little discussion.

S.A.M.

Classes announced! History Debunked??

I registered for next semester's classes on Friday - and I can't wait for September.  I am taking a class on the history of Christianity.  This is a straight-up anthropology course so no theology.  That will be a first for me.  I spent the first 13 years of my education in private Catholic schools, so I can't wait to finally have a "religion" class without the spin.  I hope we cover EVERYTHING - rejected books of the bible, the Crusades, the politics of the early popes.  I'm hoping this class WON'T be a breeze for me, though, because it could be an excellent opportunity to toughen up my organized religion debates.

Speaking of things like the Dead Sea Scrolls, Easter was a great day for the History Channel.  I had a hard time tearing myself away for the family dinner.  I was happy to watch some educational stuff about the actual history of the bible or cathedrals instead of just "Was Jesus Real??" features. 

One show I am NOT excited about watching on the History Channel: The Real Face of Jesus.  Um... hasn't the scientific community pretty much dismissed the shroud as a medieval fraud?  I could have sworn I actually saw the story of the debunking on the History Channel.  So why would a fake shroud reveal a real face?  I'm sure the technology is cool, but why not apply it to mummies or something?  This is definetely a step backward for the History Channel in my mind.  Next step - find another ark.  :(

S.A.M.

Getting Ready for "Eostre"!!

(Art courtesy of www.thaliatook.com)

The pope is criticizing the New York Times for their coverage of the sex abuse scandal - which they are calling an Easter Week attack. (Check out some of the news coverage here.) Supposedly, the pope was personally involved in the initial decision to NOT punish the abusive priests. This seems to be the most fallible a pope has appeared to be in my lifetime, and I wonder if he WILL be pulled into a legal investigation. It poses some interesting questions that may not have been asked for hundreds of years - Can the pope go to jail? Can he testify in court? Can he be removed from office once appointed? I'll be anxious to see.

Speaking of Easter, here's a little Easter history from ReligiousTolerance.org:

The name "Easter" originated with the names of an ancient Goddess and God. The Venerable Bede, (672-735 CE.) a Christian scholar, first asserted in his book De Ratione Temporum that Easter was named after Eostre (a.k.a. Eastre). She was the Great Mother Goddess of the Saxon people in Northern Europe. Similarly, the "Teutonic dawn goddess of fertility [was] known variously as Ostare, Ostara, Ostern, Eostra, Eostre, Eostur, Eastra, Eastur, Austron and Ausos." Her name was derived from the ancient word for spring: "eastre." Similar Goddesses were known by other names in ancient cultures around the Mediterranean, and were celebrated in the springtime. Some were:

~Aphrodite from ancient Cyprus

~Ashtoreth from ancient Israel

~Astarte from ancient Greece

~Demeter from Mycenae

~Hathor from ancient Egypt

~Ishtar from Assyria

~Kali, from India

~Ostara a Norse Goddess of fertility.

An alternative explanation has been suggested. The name given by the Frankish church to Jesus' resurrection festival included the Latin word "alba" which means "white." (This was a reference to the white robes that were worn during the festival.) "Alba" also has a second meaning: "sunrise." When the name of the festival was translated into German, the "sunrise" meaning was selected in error. This became "ostern" in German. Ostern has been proposed as the origin of the word "Easter".

Knowing that many Christian holidays are pillaged from prior religions, I was still surprised to learn how directly Easter was related to goddess worship - even in name! So, maybe as I celebrate spring in my new white dress and shoes, I can join my family in actually saying that I'm celebrating Easter... or rather "Eostre" (Goddess of Spring).  Just a little spelling difference.  :)

S.A.M.

The Godfather II

Over the past week, the Godfather saga has continued.  (Okay, so that last statement makes it sound much more dramatic than it is.  Discussion of the topic takes up maybe five minutes of the time Josh and I spend together each day.  It is just a big issue in my mind.)

First, a few days ago, I was surprised when, having received no word from the priest, Josh said, "Oh, well.  If he won't give me the letter I just won't do it.  No big deal."  It was a plesant surprise for me.  I felt like he had taken a deeper look at the situation (or thought about the horror of "lying to God!") and decided that it was more important to be true to his own values and common sense than to jump through the hoops of a church in which he doesn't really believe. I thought the matter was over and done with.

Then, the priest replied. He explained that the letter was actually a certified form, and that he would try to get one for Josh - like he did before for Josh's friend's daughter's baptism. I guess I am less worked up now that I know that he was at least willing to just drop it instead of concocting a big scheme to lie to the church. Part of me wanted to call that priest up myself and ask him why HE was so willing to participate in this. Anyway, it has become a minor daily update between us and mostly an afterthought. The topic did stir the pot a little between us though. As I was drifting off to sleep last night while watching a rerun of a particularly good episode of Bones, Josh asked me why I like the show so much. I mumbled sleepily, "Bones is, like, ultra-rational and I like to hear her talk about religion and science and stuff." He said, "You can be rational and still have faith." I said something to the effect of, "Yeah, right." I was nearly asleep and only realized how awful that probably sounded to him, but I was too tired to defend myself and he was just quiet after that. At least it's out there, right?

On another note - CNN's Anderson Cooper is doing a week-long series about the Church of Scientology. Check it out! It's both well-researched and entertaining (and a little disturbing as well). I'll write more about this in the future.


S.A.M.

S.A.M. has been added to the Atheist Blogroll!

Sweet Atheist Mistress has been added to The Atheist Blogroll!  This is an awesome collection of websites - one I absolutely encourage you to explore if you enjoy intelligent talk and entertainment. You can see the blogroll in my sidebar.

The Atheist blogroll is a community building service provided free of charge to Atheist bloggers from around the world. If you would like to join, visit Mojoey at Deep Thoughts for more information.

(Thank you, Mojoey!)

S.A.M.

"A" Week on Facebook

Just a note - Atheists on Facebook are Celebrating "A" week by changing their profile pictures to the Scarlet A.  Check out the Facebook group here.  Join, change your profile picture, and find out how many atheists are really out there!  Personally, I'm going the extra mile and wearing my "Scarlet A" pin (from The Out Campaign online shop) all week.  Join me!!!

S.A.M.

A Christian Against His Own

One co-worker whom I'll refer to as Bob is a serious Christian - bible study and all.  (He's the one who told his bible group that he worked with an Atheist.)  This morning, Bob was talking about how he caused a near-riot at his bible study discussion group this weekend by suggesting a different approach to the abortion debate.  He suggested that Christians have a bad image in the media (basically that they are right-wing fundamentalists) because they try to make politicians fight their battles for them, especially when it comes to abortion.

I thought this was a rather profound observation - and very true.  I'm not so concerned about the public image of religion (and I can think of a million reasons why it COULD have a bad image), but the part about having politicians fight their battles is actually true.  Bob proposed that they let politicians deal with the law and that Christians go out personally and work at pregnancy counseling centers, with youths at risk for getting pregnant, and within their own families.  His theory is that there are a lot of people who are personally against abortion but still think that this is a personal responsibility and that legally women should have a right to choose, and the church's attitude could be keeping them away from their church community.  I thought this was a surprisingly open-minded idea coming from him.  Actually, apparently, it was a little too open-minded for his group.  He said that one woman immediately began yelling that his idea would never work and didn't he understand the importance of making their ideas the law.  Wow.  How telling.  "Our way should be the only way."  What about freedom of religion or non-religion?  What if some religions stood by the right to choose?  Bob said he just was overwhelmed with negative feedback, for simply saying that WHILE HE AGREEED WITH THEM ABOUT ABORTION, they try a different approach.  THIS is exactly why Christians are viewed as close-minded.

Not being a Christian, I just stayed out of the conversation.  Had I said anything, it would have been that I was at least proud of Bob for respecting and understanding the intent to keep church and state as separate entities.  I'm sure he wouldn't like to hear my thoughts about the rest of his group.  And it IS true that religious institutions in America have been expressing a certain political power and pressuring politicians with access to their voting block (which is led by church leaders - those that church-goers are supposed to obey and learn from.).  Maybe he should have quoted the bible - Matthew 7:1-5.

Do not judge others, then you will not be judged. The way you judge others, that is the way you will be judged. How much you give to others is how much will be given to you. `Why do you look at the spot of dust in your brother's eye? But you do not see a big stick in your own eye! Why do you say to your brother, "Let me take the dust out of your eye"? And all the time you have that stick in your own eye! You are not true to yourselves! First take the stick out of your own eye. Then you will be able to see to take the dust out of your brother's eye.

It was a bible study class, after all.

S.A.M.

To Godparent or Not to Godparent

Joshua's brother has asked him to be a godfather to his niece.  His family is Catholic, and Josh was raised Catholic, but being the black sheep of the family, he left the church and often expresses his frustration with the doctrines of organized religions.  For those of you not familiar with Catholic protocol, you must have a letter from your parish recommending you to be a godparent, otherwise known as the back-up teacher of religion in the event that parents fail to properly indoctrinate the child.  Josh's brother and sister-in-law are, I'm sure, aware of Josh's split with the church, but they see godparenting as the opportunity to establish an extra-special relationship between their daughter and her uncle.  They mentioned that they would want Josh to take care of her if something happened to them, and traditionally, in the Catholic faith, a godparent is likely to step in as guardian when a child is orphaned.  In reality this is taken care of legally in a will.

When Josh asked for my ideas about how to get this letter, I had some really mixed feelings. I teased that no matter how he got it, he would be lying to God (he believes in some sort of a supreme being).  I said it jokingly, but deep down I was probably trying to use "religion" to guilt him into doing the right (meaning consistent with his beliefs) thing.  Hey, that's what religion is for, right?  I mean, to all of the people involved, this is more of a personal honor and family tradition, but something that is blessed by the church.  To the church, this is a Catholic vow, though.  To his brother, Josh is a great person with a good and honest heart, more than worthy of caring for his daughter.  To the church, Josh is another drop-out hoodlum.  What Josh cares about is his brother and niece, and he is determined to fulfill the request.

Besides, Josh already IS a godfather to a close friend's daughter.  He is pretty sure that if he pulled it off once, he can pull it off again.  He had a past co-worker who is a priest write him the holy letter of recommendation.  I said he might as well try tracking the guy down and seeing if he was willing to write out another churchly white lie.  My other suggestion was to go to the church up the street, say he just moved, and try to join their parish.  I told him that he would have to start going to church if he did that though - at least until he got the letter.  He said it would interfere with his work schedule, which it would, but I pointed out that the church isn't going to buy that.  (Look, I'm just reminding him of the guilt that is required when dealing with the Catholic Church!)  I'm sure that Josh will find a way to get this done.  I'm proud of him that he a person of such integrity that people feel he is the best person they know to mentor their children.  I'm a little disappointed that he doesn't talk to them more about his feelings about the church and maybe look for an alternative.

I've read about "atheist Jews" who do not believe in God but still practice because they feel that the Jewish traditions connect them to their family and heritage.  I can understand that, even if it is not something in which I would personally participate.  But now I imagine that such a lifestyle must be wrought with trouble.  As long as the church is not open to the questioning of God and his role in the universe (and I have heard that, at least, the Jewish faith is more open than most to this), one is required to lie to participate.  Maybe it is an unintentional fail-safe for the church - it keeps people from slowly drifting away from the church by holding their traditions hostage.

When Dixie had her children, she invited me to come to their dedications as an honored guest.  They do not have godparents (she is not catholic, rather some denomination of Christian, so I don't believe it is required) but her children, who address me by my first name, no "Miss" or "Aunt" before it, clearly know that I am a dear friend of their mom's, someone they can look to for advice, protection, or love, and that I hold a special and unique place in their lives.  I'd like to pose this as an alternative to Josh, but he obviously already knows this and has decided to try to stick with his family's traditions.  As I've mentioned before, I put on the kid gloves when it comes to Joshua and his faith.  I'm not sure that love SHOULD be exception-making, but sometimes it is.

S.A.M.

When Bloggers Vanish - The Legend of KafirGirl

KafirGirl was one of the first bloggers I followed regularly.  I don't remember how I stumbled upon her, but it was early in her mission as a Muslim-turned-atheist to read the Quran from cover to cover and blog about it in her hilarious and still educational style.  I actually bought a Quran myself to follow along.  Her reasons?

There are so many reasons. Here are a few:

1. I’m a glutton for punishment.
2. I grew up in a Muslim household, and it’s important for me to understand how so many people (including my own family) can be duped by this religion.

3. I think Islam escapes a lot of the scrutiny that the Bible gets, and that’s really unfortunate, because it’s just as fucked up as Christianity and Judaism are.

4. I was really inspired by the guys who do The Non-Prophets podcast and The Atheist Experience TV show. (If you haven’t heard of either, definitely check them out.) These guys know the Bible better than most of the Bible thumpers who call in to the show. Know thy enemy, right? That’s what I’m trying to do. I thought I’d start with the Quran since it’s the one that hits closest to home.

I looked forward to her posts daily.  I sent a link to her page to a lot of my friends, and apparently I was not the only one because the numbers of her followers and comments boomed.  She even had her own Cafe Press site with merchandise donning her logo.  She was just nominated for a LadyBlogger award.
 
Then, suddenly, one day in February of 2009, she disappeared.  Her last interaction with the site appears to be:

Jaffar, your question is flawed. You’re assuming that someone “made” the whole universe. It’s a circular argument.

kafirgirl
February 3, 2009 at 3:55 pm

Slowly, the comments on this last post took on a worried tone. Fans began e-mailing her and checking her other known profile on Atheist Nexus (which also had also not been updated).  Some were convinced that she quit, others suggested that she could have been attacked for what she wrote.  Some simply missed her.

Of course, it's not impossible that she had some personal reason for suddenly giving it up, but if that was the case, why not take down the site all together?  I have a vague feeling that something has happened to her, but what can you do when an anonymous internet user goes missing?  What recourse does one have?

For now, I'm stuck with a desperate plea:  Does anyone know the whereabouts of KafirGirl??

S.A.M.

How to Win a Non-argument

(Art courtesy of www.BansheePubNYC.com.)

You gotta love people who just seek out arguments, attempting to provoke, instigate and incite at every turn.  Seriously, though, right?  They make us think every decision through.  What if you could just say you were an atheist and never have to consider the implications or the meaning of your non-belief?  I know I sure learned a lot about myself by being battered with the usual questions and counter-arguments.

But what about those people who practically make up arguments to have and then blindly hold their irrational ground? 

This morning, before the freaking sun even came up, a co-worker decided to offer up a somewhat-weak idea for a project.  I'm sure I had a matching somewhat-weak response as I reluctantly accepted the file at my desk.  I had a little time on my hands, so I planned to look into it anyway, but he immediately started arguing and demanding to know what was wrong with it.  This man, I think, was just upset at my initial lack of enthusiasm with his pitch and didn't even give me a chance to look into the idea.  As his voice raised and his hands started flying wildly around in the air (as if to propel his sarcastic tone), I waited patiently.  Then, I explained that I planned to look into this, give it a little more meat, then we could pursue the project.  He began yelling that I was giving him attitude, "the hand" and everything else, and that I could "stick it."  At this point, as I was sitting quietly, hands in my lap, I was amused to imagine what he must have been seeing in his mind.  I'm guessing that I resembled the traditional Banshee of Irish folklore with hair as red and wild as flames, flying over his head while shrieking so loudly that his ears bled and waving my bony hands just inches in front of his face to torment him.  He had clearly crossed his line into crazy anger - or hallucinations.  I said, "Excuse me, but I have been calm, patient, and have not moved.  You are raising your voice and you clearly have lost track of what is going on here.  I am looking into your project and I'll get back to you."  He yelled that I was putting up walls and think all of his ideas are awful and I rejected this without even looking at it.  I said, "I already told you that I accepted the idea and that I would be doing some support work to get it going.  At no point did I argue with you.  You need to leave my office, go back to your desk, and regain control of yourself and your attitude.  NOW."  He paused, maybe weighing the consequences of continuing his tirade, then stormed out, slamming my door.
 
(As a side note, no, I don't think that this is normal behavior for a working environment, but in this stressful line of work it had been protected as acceptable.  Yes, I do think this is frustrating and wish it would change, but until I actually run the entire company I can only control myself and conduct myself as an adult and professional and keep reminding the higher-ups that this is not acceptable behavior and not necessary to the creative process.  Sadly, if they ever listened, it would result in firing a majority of the staff.  Oh well.)
 
ANYWAY, the "moral" of the story is that the only way to win a non-argument is to refuse to participate at all.  Let go of caring about what they think of you and accept that your participation in this type of trap will not help the situation because they have already dismissed the chances of having any fruitful intellectual exchange.  They have already rigged the game so that they win as soon as you respond, at least in their own mind.  Be the adult and save your energy for a better forum.  The instigator will go home disappointed, knowing in the back of his mind that he lost - and made a fool of himself in the process because you called his bluff.  It also saves your own sanity.
 
S.A.M.
 
PS - This is a good strategy to keep in mind if you plan on talking to Creationists any time soon!

This is so disheartening.... (Also movie news!)

Check out this post from the blog "Small Dog. Big Stick." It is an explanation of the "true" story of creation.  If this was written by someone who truly believes it... wow.  There is no excuse to be so uneducated in this country.  I mean, this person isn't even educated in any church's (that I've heard of!) doctrine.  This is just a ridiculous, mean, mad-libs story.  Let's all hope this was just a prank.

HOWEVER, I think the chances of real sentiments such as those expressed in this letter would be greatly reduced if more people were exposed to the true stories of science, even in drama form.  ;)

Yes, Creation came.  I watched it immediately, of course!  My first impression:  What a sad tug-at-your-heartstrings story.  I was in tears at one point.  Darwin's struggle with the loss of his faith (and the loss of his daughter) was brilliantly tempered with his struggle to raise his children in a loving supportive way that was not the norm at the time.  I couldn't help but giggle at his daughter's joy when discovering a starfish - it was a portrait of a child's pure potential realized - a little girl learning. Scenes like that were set against a scene in which his doctor (which seemed to be one of the few fellow men of science whose opinion he trusted - in fact entrusted with his life) tells him his problem was a lack of faith.  I could imagine that he just had sickening feeling that he was completely alone in his struggle for his life - the he was the only one with enough of a scientific understanding of life to be responsible for his health.  Maybe he felt the guilt of taking his daughter to a doctor who was not all Darwin thought he had been.  The disappointment must have been excruciating.

In addition to the theological drama, the movie was filmed in a very compelling and haunting way.  The timeframe shifts, and you are never really certain if Anne is alive or dead, and you get the feeling that Darwin is experiencing the same incomprehension.

Really, it was an excellent true-story drama that was well-acted, well-produced and simply well-done.  I didn't find it any more controversial than an episode of House, and I really can't comprehend anymore what the problem is with releasing this movie.  It comes highly recommended by your Sweet Atheist Mistress.

S.A.M.

Progress, maybe...

I brought up the issue of the Creation movie in my Existialism class and the professor and classmates were all pretty surprised, to say the least. I told them about being able to purchase the blu-ray at Barnes&Noble, and this morning they appear to me temporarily sold out. Now, maybe they only had that one in stock, but I doubt that, and a number of people said they intended to check it out. Yay! Maybe a small victory. I have also organized two (maybe three) viewing parties. Wish me luck!

S.A.M.

Some people cry over romantic movies... I cry over scientific ones.

A while ago, a friend told me that she heard an NPR interview about a movie depicting Charles Darwin's life. I was excited, but never heard anything more. I decided to try to find out what happened and I found this.

In a nutshell, it is an article from England about how no distributor in the US would TOUCH the movie Creation, fearing controversy and backlash. Yes, the life of a 19th century naturalist is way too hot for the American public to handle. This movie, which has gotten great reviews around the world, won't ever be seen or heard about by most Americans because we are so afraid of being offended (or confronted with a view that might clash with someone's religion) that we are doing a better job of censoring ourselves than the FCC. Think about it - we live in the country where a movie showing (in gory detail) the execution of Jesus Christ or a movie about college-age kids getting naked and sleeping with each other is acceptable. However, a scientist's struggle between science and faith is supposedly something we can't handle.

This isn't some B-movie or documentary that Americans wouldn't turn out for anyway. It stars a number of actors and actresses that Americans would recognize. The trailer looks like one of those big-grossing dramas about a family facing a difficult situation. It is a TRUE STORY, too. But apparently Americans can't handle reality.

The article cites a recent poll showing that less than 40% of Americans believe that evolution is true. I blushed with embarrassment when I read that. I have to wonder if this is how the rest of the developed world sees us - as a religious country that eagerly ignores modern science and facts in favor of the beliefs of centuries ago. I was ashamed to be lumped in with this. I talked to friends (who DO accept evolution as true - they are educated, after all) who were surprised with the statistic, and generally angry about the fact that they had never even heard about this movie that they can't see.

I can't find a region 1 DVD available anywhere online, but I'm efforting a blu-ray, and I plan to have a viewing party.

And I thought that shows like House and Bones were making progress... (sigh) Clearly, I have been overly-optimistic.

S.A.M.

I was SO excited about the Census... THEN...

I did have a good reason for being so excited about a nosey multiple choice quiz about my life. This will be the first time that *I* can fill out the answers about myself personally, and I was just beaming with the possibility of checking a little box labeled "Atheist." In my mind, this was going to be a landmark year for atheists - more of us in America than ever before! Things are different than they were even 10 years ago and it has become more socially acceptable to admit to being a non-theist. I even had this hazy daydream about my ancestors looking me up on Ancestry.com 100 years in the future and smiling when they came across the first atheist in the family.

THEN, this morning, while looking for 2000's "religious views" numbers to post in this blog, I discovered that the Census does not ask for religious affiliation data citing the separation of church and state. ReligiousTolerance.org explains that the government gets their information from the ARIS study - the "American Religious Identification Survey." (When do I get THIS survey??) Still, things are hopeful for atheists. In the event that any of you are curious about the 2001 ARIS results:

14.1% do not follow any organized religion. This is an unusually rapid increase -- almost doubling -- from only 8% in 1990. There are more Americans who say they are not affiliated with any organized religion than there are Episcopalians, Methodists, and Lutherans combined.

That number rose to 15% in 2008. Admittedly, that last jump isn't quite as dramatic, but it's still moving in the right direction.

And pop-culture trends really help the cause. You know how Will & Grace made it "okay" to be gay on TV? More people than ever were exposed to gay issues in their living room -many of them people who might never have to think about those issues otherwise. Sometimes it seems hard to remember really how groundbreaking that show was. Well, now House and Bones are among the most popular prime time shows - both featuring lead characters who are declared atheists. The shows openly discuss atheist and religious issues. (These shows, in my opinion, deserve their own future blog posts...) Both Brennan and House are brilliant people at the tops of their fields which stays true to the statistical likelihood for educated people to be atheists. Somehow they solve crimes and save lives without any other-worldly help - they are "Good Without God" and not looking back. Hopefully someday it can slip my mind that these shows were groundbreaking as well. Until then, I'll keep my fingers crossed that ARIS gives me a call.

So... Nietzsche's NOT evil??

I imagine I'm not the only person out there who, for a long time, knew of the philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche but had this strange vague impression that he stood for "nothingness." I knew he said useful things such as, "That which does not kill us makes us stronger," and "God is dead." Maybe he hated women? Someone once told me that Ayn Rand studied Nietzsche and hated him. Other than that, I was just not exposed.

So, imagine my surprise when I actually studied him in a Philosophy class. I'm working my way into a Philosophy Grad program, and I've had a life-long love of philosophy, but I just never read much existentialism. I blame Kant. I attempted to read him in the budding days of my interest and was left utterly confused by his convoluted "Critique of Pure Reason" (which CLEARLY requires prerequisites). Basically, at that point, Nietzsche became one of those people who don't even believe in reality or logic.

I was lucky enough to get an Existentialism professor who had written a lot about Nietzsche and had a passion for his philosophy. His introduction to this part of our class included words such as "life-affirming" and "positive atheist." The prof went on to talk about how Nietzsche's goal was to OVERCOME Nihilism. What?? I thought he invented the stuff!

Soon, I felt like I was reading letters from a long lost friend. I felt a special bond between myself and the long-dead writer because he seemed to be writing about Atheism from my perspective. He talked about the detrimental qualities of religion, and the will to power seemed to be a poetic and genius explanation of the world as it is. Things I had often felt in my heart were suddenly appearing on these pages of 100-year-old text. For the first few weeks I wished that I could have read his work much sooner in my life. For the past few weeks, I have been thankful that we were able to "meet" when I was at a more intellectually-mature age - otherwise, the 14-year-old me might have run off to join some Nietzsche cult. Throughout the class, I learned the actual meaning of Nihilism, and Nietzsche's desire to move beyond that into a life in which one creates their own values and meaning for life. He is even an idealist at times.

We actually discussed Nietzsche's influence (and it is a huge one) on Ayn Rand, and I found myself wondering if maybe she misinterpreted some ideas that brought her to despise him. (My professor seems to think this was the case.) Hey - I can't blame her - I misinterpreted all existentialists for a long time. Their differences, at least, are far fewer than I had been lead to believe and their similarities striking.

Most of all, this was such a FUN part of the class. Yay for knowledge! :)

S.A.M.