Narcissus Should Have Had Some Swimming Lessons

The Precambrian Rabbit:

(Last time)

Apparently, JBS Haldane, an outspoken proponent of Darwin's theory of evolution, was once accused of religious zealotry in his dedication. He was told that he was unwilling to accept counter-evidence. The stories - there are multiple accounts - say that he replied, "fossilized rabbits in the Precambrian." The more I'm reading about the story, the more it seems to be... scientific folklore? The accounts range, but for our purposes, it doesn't matter. Essentially, as skeptics and free-thinkers, it's important for us to be willing to admit counter-evidence to avoid belief-fossilization. So the question was put: what is your Precambrian rabbit when it comes to religion? Is there something that could make you a believer?

And so the conversation was launched... We talked about problems of verification and direct, observable, divine intervention. Hallucination might explain any appearance of angels or apocalyptic beasts. We eventually stumbled upon the conundrum of whether or not a deity could even be trusted. Surely, any deity powerful enough to come across as a god could easily just be sufficiently more advanced than the human species. James brought up Ardra from Star Trek: the Next Generation. It would be very feasible for an alien to trick humanity in its present state into believing of its divinity. Arthur C. Clark's Third Law was referenced regularly throughout the conversation. Magic isn't always magic.

Cyrus pointed out that the appearance of a deity is entirely different than a system of belief. After all, when it comes right down to it, the possibility becomes far less mystical when we think of the fact that there are essentially three possibilities for the abiogenesis as it were: it was moved; it moved of its own natural force; a third unknown possibility. None of these possibilities jump to religion. As Charles pointed out, the belief in something that isn't explicable, immediately, by science doesn't mean that a person has adopted a belief structure - that's a very large jump.

This eventually brought us to a round robin conversation about our personal experiences that could make us question hard science - I won't go into what people said because some of the conversation ranged from somewhat to deeply personal. Not only was I asked specifically to keep some of these secret, I don't think that I could do some of these justice. I don't know if I remembered to mention this, but as far as helmets go, it's pretty compelling. As time went on, the conversation got lighter - referencing the God of Gaps, 42, and the Game of Roy.

Next Sunday:

On the 2nd of April, I was thinking that we could talk about something that touches intellect, evolution, philosophy, and possibility a person's raison d'être: let's talk about beauty. Why did our species develop it? Beyond sexual appeal - why do we find colors and patterns and various aesthetics so pleasing? Why are religious people so obsessed with using it as a reason for belief? Evolutionary aesthetics? Where do you find beauty? What do you think the reason for this is? Is there a reason?

Why Do They Keep Using Chromosomes In Advertising?

Because sex cells.

BAM.

Synopsis:

This week's discussion started off discussing the difference between Lamarckism (sorry, I believe I called it "Lamarckianism") and epigenetics -  This segued into whether or not positive experiences could potentially produce epigenetic changes. If traumatic events can change DNA coding, could positive events reverse the effects? I postulated that because so much of our evolutionary development is predicated on survival, it might stand to reason that trauma is more of a galvanizing force. This split the group a bit as it was pointed out there are plenty of people who have nurturing, caring families, and that could influence genetics. There are a great many ways that "nurture" can affect us while appearing to be our "nature". The article that I sent out about twin studies talks about this in detail. Francie pointed out that development can even be affected by prenatal events - right down things like where a fetus is in the womb.

After a while, our conversation turned to a more concise definition of epigentics - which Jayne provided us: how genetics are expressed (as in, whether they are or aren't depending on the potential for traumatic experiences blocking them.) Just as our brains produce chemicals when we are experiencing pleasure, they could potentially leave chemical signatures in our DNA. We talked a bit about the temperaments of children even before they are able to consciously manifest said personalities. Much like Darwin's finches, children's personalities can change within a generation.

This led to the point that change is demonstrably generational - particularly with things like lead poisoning. Steve brought up a study about lead, demonstrating this. Kia brought up similar points in Slow Death by Rubber Duck. Eventually, this brought Francie to a deeper realizing that adoption could cause a recursive cycle of stress hormones for several generations. This segued into The Psychopath Test (and, tangentially, So You Have Been Publicly Shamed) and whether or not we could be looking at a preponderance of psychopaths in the coming years. We batted around the possibility of this.

Eventually, we broke into neuroscience and its (lack of) funding. This brought up the fact that genetic tech - from CRISPR to the growing of organs from our own cells - is basically a slave to funding. This makes it problematic because it allows the interests of the wealthy to control any and all conversations about the direction of the advancements. There is still a lot that we don't know, even about the sequenced human genome. 

Another problem with the ability to select genetics is that it would probably pare down diversity, which is a big bonus to resisting things like the blight that is killing off the cavendish banana. Artificial selection has occurred - even in humans - going back to the Spartans. We also talked about government projects that test and potentially influence genetics. We discussed the MK Ultra experiments. After a while, we talked about the ethics of testing prisoners and whether or not that could yield results that could be parsed. This became an argument about ethics. While it was pointed out that the whole idea was to find an ethical testing method. A few other group members pointed out that because of the inherently disadvantaged position of prisoners there couldn't be any ethical way to test them. The discussion of the prison system came back to the societal expectation that pervades our "justice" system in saying that those who have done wrong deserve punishment - rehabilitation is incidental.

This came to a short discussion of pedophilia and the fact that the damning nature of even a prognosis can mean societal shame over something that a person may merely have been born with a neurological proclivity toward. Because our society has placed this in such a realm of taboo that those who admit to it may experience more shame and penalty than if they were to not seek help at all - thereby exacerbating the problem. There was a fantastic bit on NPR about this... which I cannot find... so instead, there is this.

We decided at the end of this discussion that it might be better to come back to these scientific topics in a while - we've been on them for a while.

Next Week:

Firstly, I really liked Scott's idea today: IS there anything that could make you become religious? I would assume that I was hallucinating if I saw Jesus coming down from heaven in the style of the book of Revelation. So what could make me join the ranks of the believers? Have I shored up science in my own mind to the extent that it has become a religion? How do you all feel?

Also, we're going to have our final locker/bench assembly this Saturday. If you've worked on the assembly, you should come to get a picture with the lockers. We're going to try to get a write up in the News and Record. Have a great week!

Ann also wanted to ask if anyone had interest in the TED talk in Greensboro: http://tedxgreensboro.com/

Also: 

Sorry, Francie! 

She sent me this, and I forgot all about it.

http://developingchild.harvard.edu/science/deep-dives/gene-environment-interaction/

Religious Freedom, Choice, and Children

Hey everyone!

Our topic for Sunday, the 26th, 11 am, will be religious freedom, choice, and children. We've talked about a lot about various religious mandates wherein followers are supposed breed as much as possible. The Quiverfull Christians and god's supposed first commandment to Adam and Eve exemplify this ironically evolutionary measure of success.
My question is this: if people have the freedom to choose what religion to follow and what to teach their children, where does indoctrination become abuse?
I don't know how many people in our group would say that religion should be flatly outlawed, but I doubt many of us would say that Gay Conversion Therapy is something to which parents should be allowed to subject their children. I may or may not make it to the Secular Sunday this weekend, but I thought that this would be a good topic no matter what.
Maybe, someone could take notes for this!
Let me know if you want to organize and/or take notes for this week!

Sex, Lies, Property, and SHAME!

I got a suggestion from one of our members, and I think it's a really, really good one. We've talked about evolution and brushed on the idea of sexual selection, but my Jehovah's Witness upbringing is bristling at one syllable of one word in this sentence. Any guess which one it is?

SEX.

It would be a great topic, if we can get people talking about it, to discuss the taboos, religious control, and the use of guilt to control people. Religions and their attendant belief structures are replete with crazy injunctions and shameful controls of people. The insane preoccupation with gender divides and the obsession with controlling women populate so many religious texts - WHY?

Kia is going to be grinning ear to ear for this one because she knows how uncomfortable my upbringing has made topics like this for me. Obviously, I urge all members to be cautious of everyone's feelings (except mine - I'll be fine. Just, uh, might blush a lot.)  But it should be a really good discussion!

Hope to see you there!

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!

The Fragile Religious Ego

Meeting for February the 5th:

I'd like to space out some of the objective religious text readings so that they don't get tired or boring or whatever. I was thinking that next week, we could talk about the fragile religious ego - how is it that our lack of religion is seen as antagonistic when so many of us just want to be left alone. What do we do about this? Why do people act this way? Is it like, I believe, Dawkins once so succinctly said: they're embarrassed. Stories are welcome. Examples of what we do are welcome as well.

Also, I'd like to take pictures at the next meeting - I've been meaning to do that for a while, but I keep forgetting. If you don't want pictures, please let me know.

We'll be back for locker clean up on Saturday at 9 at the IRC!

Recap from January 22nd, 2017. Preview of January 29th, 2017.

I hope that everyone's Sunday has finished out well; it was really great seeing everyone today. As per usual, we had a great meeting.

We wandered around the topic of how to engage with believers. There are implications to our interactions from the get-go, and most often these are dictated by with whom we are interacting. Many of us have family, friends, and, of course, colleagues - many of whom we may like and respect - who are believers. Even to not respond directly to questions about our beliefs can be a kind of indication. People will form their own opinions, do their own research, and sometimes that can be even more professionally or socially damaging than a simple response. In view of the weekend's events, we talked about the implications of women's right's during the Trumpidency, and this article about Mike Pence. We also talked about problems within different political movements and the difficulty of engaging people who may never ever examine their own lives or empathize with us. 

There were suggestions: letter and e-mail writing (after, of course, you calm down), empathetic engagement, logical and reasonable responses, and any number of individual ideas. As I said, we all have our own ways of talking to people who might be judging us. We talked about empathy and its power to potentially bridge the gap between us and our fellow human beings. There are places where we can meet our fellow (wo)man and talk as human beings, but it is often important to find a common ground. Everyone sees themself (not a word, I know) as reasonable. This brought up the Woebegon Effect and the fact that by incorporating our audience's (supposed?) ability to reason, we can try to make the conversation more reasonable. 

We talked about the moment where the rubber, more or less, meets the road. These words:

"Oh, are you a believer?" or something like that. It comes with its own set of expectations, its own box - so to speak, its own "us vs. them" 

How do we respond to that? Whether its "I believe in one fewer religion than you," the Thomas Paine quote, "The World is my country, all mankind are my brethren, and to do good is my religion," or (predicated on our own comfort with this) asking, "What is it that we should be afraid of?" (As, it was posited, that religions are generally based on the fear of something, whether it's hell or the void.) There are probably as many responses as their are situations - we need to know our audiences, our relationships, and ourselves. 

We also spoke about avoiding condescension that might come with a perspective that is based around empiricism - not just because it is off-putting to religious people. 22-23% of the United States do not identify with any major religion. That having been said, we are a diverse group. Organizing agnostics, atheists, and all manner of free-thinkers, has been compared to herding cats - hence the subheading(?) to the Greensboro Atheist Organization. Still, there is more that unites us than separates us, and we owe it to ourselves to act as a community.

That having been said, I was thinking that the time after next - to allow for a compilation of scriptures - it might be fun to do our first "unclouded Bible study." I think that next week, we will discuss the schizophrenic nature of the god of the Abrahamic faiths. What inconsistencies we find the most amusing, what stories we might have of trying to rectify them with family members and even ourselves, and what any of this might mean for our interactions with the world at large. I hope to see you all!