Let's Talk About Evolution!

Today's Meeting (February 5th)

I'm glad that I took notes today because we covered a lot of ground. I really appreciate all of the comments, stories, opinions, quips, and everything else that people brought with them to this. Special shout out to Mike for taking pictures today. We can use those for our website and meet up group. Thanks!

We kicked off today by discussing individual stories of encounters like the one I just mentioned. A few members talked about specific interactions, ranging from bizarre to almost comically tragic. We talked about religion is infused into culture and identity in such a way that it can even be a public health hazard. This turned to the fact that as absurd as a religious belief might be, calling attention to its absurdity is not always the best way to get people to think about their beliefs - it puts them on the defensive. But people get defensive anyway - to the point that Americans have imagined a War on Christmas, a holiday around which federal calendars are structured. As children learn religious mores by rote, they are taught never to question these things. Many of our members have first hand experience in this sort of quashing of dissent. We also talked about empathizing with people who feel this way because many - not all - of them are merely doing what they see as being in our best interest. That having been said, this sort of thinking takes on an entirely different dynamic when those same people begin to influence public policy.

Another thing to think about in regards to the fragile religious ego is the fact that being overly defensive of one's religion may be the reason for, aside from Judaism, the survival of a good many contemporary religions. Suzy mentioned that people feeling offended by this sort of thing might be almost analogous to the way that rational people might see Holocaust Denial - a core moral base attacked as faulty. Anne pointed out that many religious people might see questioning their own beliefs as akin to questioning the color green - they just are what they are; they just exist. This isn't as, Francie pointed out, relegated to nominal Christians/Chreasters but even afflicts divinity students from programs as prestigious as Duke! We talked about how many people invest cultural identity into god as a parent figure and are probably afraid of the very idea that they could be wrong on such a fundamental level. They fear the removal of a support system, the inherent questions about mortality, and - in some religions - the confrontation of an absence of heavenly hope.

Additionally, Mike pointed out that some churches actually target specific demographics and people who might be easily converted. Even more sinister than that, there are parasitic preachers who prey on people fiscally. Peter Popoff and Ernest Angley were brought up, along with their rather insane breed of charlatanism - countered in some part by the people like the Amazing Randy.

This segued more comfortably into various SNL sketches like Church Lady. Bill then asked us to view the Budweiser Superbowl Commercial and applaud - a popular idea. ...and to cheer for the Patriots - not quite such a popular idea.

We then talked about the oldest religions. Google told us that Hinduism is probably the oldest religion. It surprised me that no one mentioned that Scientology is actually the oldest religion because it has existed prehistorically since the alien warlord, Xenu, chained thetans to volcanoes while detonating atomic bombs above them. Ha ha ha ha... Sorry... Couldn't resist.

We talked about how our language can shape understanding and discourse beyond what is simply said: using language from less than benevolent forces in our society plays into their games. The Sapir/Wharf hypothesis looks at the relationship between linguistics and neurology - right down to infiltrating the way that we talk about our bodies developing vs. being created. Steve recounted a former friend becoming infuriated at the idea that human beings weren't "created." Even the word "atheist" is a reaction to other people's belief structures. Shawn pointed out that "belief" and "acceptance" are great ways of bringing up the difference between concepts of god or gravity. You can either accept gravity or not, but not only is indifferent to your stance on it, as Neil Degrasse Tyson has pointed out - Science is true whether you believe it or not. We revisited some of the bias against the south that even makes appearances in our meetings - sorry, I know that I've been guilty of this. The conversation circled around to the divide being more of a rural vs. urban conflict, something that has made itself known in spades this election season.

This sort of segued into deconversion stories and how many of us either never were raised in terribly religious families or came to understand the truth about religion on our own - Steve beat me to the punch in bringing up that Douglas Adams already confronted the answer to the ultimate question: 42.

February 12th's Meeting: Evolution!

Let's talk about evolution! This will be a somewhat scientific/philosophical topic, and we can discuss the implications of evolution upon religion, the mainstream religious rejection --> acceptance of the theory, and the historical controversies surrounding it. I'd also like to talk about common religious arguments against evolution and why they are completely and totally ridiculous! I will also be posting the Survey Monkey link on the website and in this e-mail at some point this week.

Hope to see you all next time!