Credit to...

...comment if you know - I couldn't find the name of the original cartoonist.

Another SMBC

These are so good... who can resist?

Did Jesus Exist or Not?

I think I've posted this before. If so, sorry, not sorry - it's worth seeing twice - credit to the ingenious Zach Weinersmith at SMBC:

You Tell 'Em Betty!

Summary for August 20th - Family Lies

August 20th Summary:

Today, we discussed what the best course of action is with Other People's Children and religious beliefs. Is it better to tell kids, "look, mom and dad are fine, but their belief that a talking snake brought death into the world, is probably bupkiss," or is there a better course of action? A good few of us agreed that lying to a kid is flat out wrong, even if that means that embellishing, dissembling, or just saying, "ask you parents," at certain junctures. The breaking point being, as Ann pointed out, how much involvement does a person want to have in the lives of their grandchildren (or nieces, nephews, children, etc.) James M. explained that the idea of Santa Claus is as real as a belief in, well, say, Jesus, which is a great segue for when the child might be ready to tackle a bigger question. Someone pointed out the fabulous exchange from Terry Pratchett's Hogfather that you can read here. (For those of you who care, and aren't familiar, Death always speaks in caps in the Discworld novels.)

I segued this to Chuck Palahniuk's Rant, where he explains the evolution of our lying to children - from Santa to the Tooth Fairy.

Suzy brought us back to the original topic of what to say to children about things like death. Death, after all, may be the most difficult reality for anyone to swallow, let alone children. James G. said that it's a good idea to undermine the propaganda that has been fed to these kids. Forest picked up the point and said that encouraging curiosity is important for children, and everyone seemed to echo that one of the things that separates us from our religious family members and friends is that we don't proselytize, and we don't want to become intellectually lazy.

Ann brought up the fact that it can be difficult to talk to children about death, but that in cases where they are likely to bring it up - specifically the death of pets, perhaps older people - is that it is an end to their suffering and that we don't want them to hurt anymore. She told us about a dog named Nibbles, at which point I stopped taking notes and covered Kia's ears. Also, I thought, initially, that the dog's name was Nipples. I feel it is a bit of a depressing, perhaps nihilistic outlook on things, but the idea of a rest or not having to worry about anything anymore doesn't sound so bad for a description of the Hereafter, as it were. A few people thought that that might not be appropriate for children, as it might result in the deaths any curious children who might be afflicted with ennui. Others said that this might be a case of Darwinism at work. That sounds worse than it did at the time. Ehhhhhh... right, then.

James G. asked, at that point, how many kids generally ask about death? A few people echoed Ann's earlier point that it can come up, and that some kids can force your proverbial hand because they are pretty inquisitive. There were some conflicting points of view as to how directly to answer Other People's Children when it comes to the Big Questions. You can be banned pretty easily from that kid's life.

Gina (I think) asked about whether or not teaching children about the Truth of the Idea of, for instance, Santa Claus really works. Forest continued this by saying that it can blur a line of mass belief where there are people who believe in religion as literal truth. There can be analogs that work to uproot some of the propaganda. For instance, Kia talked about her somewhat young aunt scaring her half to death with Freddy Kruger when she was little, and her parents having to sacrifice the attachment between her behavior and Santa Claus in order to demonstrate that neither Freddy nor Saint Nick were real.

We got into a bit of a discussion about our reactions to our own deconversions - Forest related the very sad story of his father's death, and how, being raised as a Methodist, the opportunity of being able to essentially meet his father in heaven was held out to him. Eventually, it pitted his own logic and reason against the very real desire to see his father. He was, understandably, very angry to have been fed this kind of propaganda for so long. Ann, echoed by many others, pointed out that this sort of teaching was tantamount to child abuse. James M. told us about the tension in his own daughter's life between her spending summers with her grandmother where she is expected to say grace, etc. and how she has learned to "wear the jacket" so-to-speak. Human beings are adaptable, and children can learn to culturally code-switch like this.

Kia then started in on indoctrination, and the prevalence of internet posts about how the hijab is often pointed out as "a choice" when the young women are indoctrinated from a young age to believe that people who do not wear them are bad people. We talked about where indoctrination has influenced a person to the point where the choice isn't really theirs. Suzy brought up that we were headed in the direction of one of our more well trodden topics: free will. Michael brought up that religious indoctrination can permeate into nearly every aspect of a culture - causing people to absorb it, even if they are of a more secular bend. (Sorry, Mike, if that's a misquote - my notes got a bit spotty there). Gina brought up the "just in casers" who will tow the line in their society because they have been brought up that way. James M. pointed out that there's a cultural zeitgeist that influences people and how furious he was when he broke free of it, "making deacons cry." (I remember the phrasing because, for some reason, it made me think of Prince's "When Doves Cry."

Michael said that he felt sorry for the people still being fooled and fooling themselves. James G. related the anger he felt with people for being stupid. I said that it just made me really sad - when I realized that the fairy tales that I had been told were just that, it seemed like a great big loss. Ann explained that a good bit of your reaction to this can be influenced by the age at which you come to grips with it. It's important to empathize with people who are "coming out" and to try to think of what you might have wanted to hear when you had just lost, perhaps, the biggest source of false comfort. Forest explained that it can be easy to empathize with people who deconverted because many of us used to "be" them. Joe told us about a pastor who basically told him that he should more or less "fake it till you make it." If you act faithful, eventually you will be blessed with faith. He did not find this to be true.

James M. echoed Gandhi's liking of Christ but fearing the Christians - so many Christians assume that atheism is synonymous with Satanism. Jon responded to this by saying that this is because there simply is not much information about atheism out there if a person isn't already at least somewhat willing to look for it. Forest explained that it can be pretty much impossible to have a discussion about morality with someone who believes that morality can only come from god because their logic is completely circular. James G. responded that the morality can be seen as something independent and real because it relies on a social contract. Something that is the best for the most people. Suzy said that humanity is divided on a lot of controversial subjects and that religion can suck people in by pretending to have answers. Forest agreed, saying that it is simply easier for most people to feel that things are settled. People will feel unsettled without an answer. James M. said that there are times when it is simply worth it to "have the conversation" because there are some people whom you care about enough and respect enough that you would want them to do the same for you. Forest counterpointed, saying that those conversations can be the worst because those cuts can become the most personal and the deepest. Suzy said that it's important to hold ourselves to not being intellectually lazy in situations like this. Gina said that with that type of personal conversation, it is going to depend a lot on the person. Michael pointed out that the vast majority of believers are not terribly firm believers - Chreasters to insert a term. But James then pointed out that these are also people who vote, so they cannot simply be ignored. Ann explained that the very people who push her on atheism with moral vitriol are the people who also tear her apart because she loves them - it makes it difficult to speak up.

James M. said - in a bit of a round about way - that it's brave to do so anyway. Suzy pointed out that there is a time and a place to do this and to not do this. James responded that we can engage and disengage to fit said situations.

I talked about a favorite topic of mine, The Precambrian Rabbit and how it can help to set up some ground rules to discussions - or even decide whether or not it's worth it to have a conversation like that. Jon asked when we have these discussions and if it causes anyone to actually hold back. Ann said that she sometimes holds back because she loves the people with whom she has the conversations and that outside of their beliefs, they are good people. Forest brought up the idea of the partitioning of the human brain, allowing people to act in ways that are completely incongruent with their purported beliefs. To wit, he brought up this TED talk, about a Westboro baptist church member who left. Essentially, that a person can be capable of spewing the worst kind of hatred in certain situations but believe that they are doing it for the right reasons and turn around and do good things for - what they see - as the exact same reason. There is a fundamental disconnect between those two parts of their brain.

Ann pointed out that our group has a definite liberal bend to it, but that it is not necessarily a liberal group. Jon explained that atheism is not necessarily a political ideology. Indeed, Joe brought up David Silverman. We talked about the nuances of human interaction and how important it is to remember, as I would put it (not as I said it during the meeting), Even Hitler had a dog - which is a phrase you often hear in writer's workshops in response to characters who are evil and completely one sided in that way. Mike finished off the discussion by explaining that people are referring to the nighttime statue protest in Charlottesville as Citronella Nacht.

---

We actually changed tracks and continued talking about something different: James G. asked us about our reaction to the guy who hit the Ten Commandments in Little Rock, Arkansas, when compared with the destruction of the Confederate statutes in Durham. Is it better to civilly disobedient or follow due process? I have more notes on this, but the topic was unrelated. I can, perhaps, post them later on our website. (Check it out below, if you haven't before - www.jovialitybeforemortality.org)
ALSO: If I misquoted you, misinterpreted what you said, or missed it entirely, I'm sorry! You are all wonderful people, and I hope to see you all -

Next time:

We haven't had a topic-less Sunday in a little while. This coming Sunday, the 27th, I think would be a good time for that. If you have any interest in topics for future Sundays, be sure to submit them!

Have a great week!

The New Atheism

We're having a discussion this Sunday about what has become known as "New Atheism." It's a sort of virulent anti-theist movement within atheism. Basically, it weighs the question, "is it safe for anyone to be religious?" on the side of "No."

The rationale for either side is, I would say, more nuanced than this, but relatively clear:

Yes - live and let live. What difference does it make if my neighbor believes in Mohammed, Jesus, Ganesha, or, for the sake of argument, Zeus? By being overly confrontational, atheists do themselves no favors, instead coming of as cantankerous in some cases and bigoted in others. Other arguments on this side include, the safety of atheists themselves, a logical perspective about the fact that anti-theism almost begins to dictate a lot about a person's life by that which they do not believe, the possibility that it shows a lack of empathy for religious people, etc. To wit, if you care about someone, it might not be seen that way if your response to their one hope is to take it away. You catch more flies with honey than vinegar - and arguing is only going to reinforce people's strongly held beliefs. Not only this, but many of the "new atheists" that are in the public eye have been criticized as misogynistic, ethnocentric, and even worshipers of the State. (See Sam Harris vs. Noam Chomsky) Excuse me, if I left any arguments against "new atheism" out.

No - they cannot let us live and let live, so why should we ever be okay with another person being religious. Basically, this stems from the idea that religious thought, while possibly an inexorable part of our cognitive function (the proclivity to Believe), should be repressed because it causes so many problems in society. Even if radicalized religious people are fewer in number than those who are not, say, willing to hoist a weapon for the cause, the un-radicalized portions of churches, mosques, temples, etc. do more than enough damage in a passive sense - and rationalize it on religious grounds. In a world where every single US President who has ever been elected has had to at least pay lip service to the christian church, it is the responsibility of atheists to be anti-theist. Many new atheists have caught flack as ethnocentrists or even racists because of their stances, particularly, against Islam. Some have tried to defend this by saying that they are against all religions equally, but because 1) Islam has come up in the news so much they have had more opportunity to talk about it 2) the verses of the Koran are more bellicose than those of the New Testament or have caused more harm recently than other religions. Excuse me if I left out an arguments for the new atheism.

Cognitive Biases - Beware!

http://bigthink.com/robby-berman/a-chart-of-brain-busting-cognitive-biases-hang-it-on-your-wall