The following represents the views of a single member of the SSU, and does not necessarily represent the views of the SSU as a whole.

Cross-posted from the blog Figuring Shit Out

To a lot of liberal Christians, evolution has become, dare I say, almost a point of identity. Even the Catholic Church has reaffirmed it’s view that evolution is totally compatible with faith and that Intelligent Design is a cruel sham of a belief. A lot of Atheists are keen to encourage this because anything that gets liberal Christians on our side and away from the Fundamentalists is a good thing. Unfortunately, I’m about to take a massive piss into this font of goodwill by stating that I think the belief that evolution is compatible with faith is based on a misunderstanding of evolution that is so prevalent even Atheists are guilty of perpetuating it.

The easy part of evolution to understand is the mechanistic aspect, the “how” of evolution. Mutation happens and features get evolved and some things become more popular because they lead to increased survival and this is how we have the natural world we see around us. Based on an understanding of this how, it’s perfectly plausible to then believe the why comes from God. God works through evolution and gives it a nudge once in a while at the right points. Evolution is just a cog in God’s plan. Of course, this is an unfalsifiable assertion so it falls outside of the domain of science. The scientists are happy, the liberal Christians are happy, why make so much fuss?

But to understand why evolution had the profoundly explosive effect it did on the scientific world and why Darwin was named the most influential scientist of the past millennium by Scientific American, one must move past the mechanistic understanding of evolution and understand the teleological aspect of evolution: the why of evolution.

Imagine for a second that you rolled a pair of dice a million times and noticed that they added up to 7 roughly 1/6th of the time. Why did the dice land the way it did? Why 1/6th and not some other number like 1/3rd or 1/12th? If you were wholly ignorant about probability, then you could believe that God decreed that all dice rolls should fall to his accord and the reason for 1/6th was because it was pleasing to his eye. But what probability does is it not only explains how it is 1/6th, but also to boil the why down to *shrug*, that’s just the way it is. Fundamentally, the why of it is that there is no why, not only is the why not God, it’s not anything. What probability does is explain away the why.

The real impact of evolution was not that it explained the natural world, it was that it provided science with a path to explain it away. Why do birds fly and beasts walk? Why are we the most intelligent of all the animals? Why do we love and war and yearn for the stars? *shrug*, that’s just how the world is. Evolution showed how complex forms and intelligent beings could have arisen following the same natural laws that govern how dice roll and planets move and by doing so, it not only removed the need for an intelligent creator, it removed the need for anything. Even 200 years after Darwin this is the basic point of evolution that is still misunderstood and this is why evolution is far more of a dilemma to faith than most people will admit.

It’s important to note though that this process is far from complete. Darwin only put humanity on the first step towards this understanding and in the last 200 years, scientists have been steadily working away towards this goal. Our understanding of how is still gradually improving every year but none of this could have happened unless Darwin had the stroke of insight that there could be no why.

Is it possible to believe in evolution and still in God? Sure, but It would be akin to showing how you could bend a spoon via sleight of hand and still believing that Uri Geller is bending them with his mind. If that’s the way it’s done, then he’s doing it the hard way.

In commemoration of Darwin Day, I am posting a few links to resources about evolution.

UC Berkeley’s Understanding Evolution and Understanding Science websites

Website about evolution by the National Academies

A collection of articles about evolution by New Scientist magazine

Professor Ken MIller’s website about evolution, on which he argues for theistic evolution and against intelligent design; also see Jerry Coyne’s critique of two books arguing for theistic evolution, including a book by Miller

potholer54’s Made Easy series on YouTube (he’s currently working on a more school-friendly version of the videos that removes the statements critical of religious belief)

The PBS series Evolution, with its companion website

The NOVA program “Intelligent Design on Trial” about the 2005 Dover, Pennsylvania case about intelligent design

Other NOVA programs that relate to evolution are “Alien From Earth,” about the so-called “hobbit” fossils found on the island of Flores in Indonesia; “Ape Genius,” about the similarities and differences between humans and chimpanzees; “The Four-Winged Dinosaur,” about the evolution of birds; “Lord of the Ants,” about E. O. Wilson, an expert on ants and the founder of sociobiology

Richard Dawkins’s recent award-winning series “The Genius of Charles Darwin”

Carl Sagan’s 1980 series “Cosmos“: episode 2 is about evolution and some ideas about life on other planets

If anyone else knows of good evolution resources, please post them in the comments section.

Lucy is the name given to one of the world’s most famous fossils, a 40% complete skeleton of a 3.2 million year old Australopithecus afarensis. The current Pacific Science Center exhibit of Lucy will end on March 8, and we have the remarkable opportunity to see this skeleton while it is in town. The Associated Press reports that Lucy may not be out of Africa for some time, so this may be the only time we get a chance to see Lucy.

On most days, the PSC is open from 10 – 5, and admission costs $20.75, which includes regular exhibits as well as the Lucy exhibit. However, on Thursdays, after other exhibits close, the Lucy exhibit will remain open until 9 PM, and admission to the single exhibit costs only $12.00. If you are considering whether the exhibit is worth $12.00, there are more details at the PSC website.

On Thursday, February 12, we celebrate the 200th birthday of Charles Darwin. November 24 of this year will be the 150th anniversary of the publication of On the Origin of Species. The Burke Museum, located on campus at the corner of 45th St and 15th Ave, will be hosting a celebration of Darwin’s birthday. This event is on February 12, from 6-9 PM. The following is from the Burke Museum website. All SSU members are encouraged to attend if possible as part of our Darwin Week.

Check out the January Scientific American. You can read it for free on the UW Library website. Many articles are also available from the Scientific American website.

Jan 2009 Scientific American

The following represents the views of a single member of the SSU, and does not necessarily represent the views of the SSU as a whole.

Cross-posted from the blog Figuring Shit Out

Several of the reactions to my most recent post that “No one is born atheist” contain some variant of the argument:

Since atheism is defined as the lack of belief in a god or gods, and babies are born without any supernatural beliefs or opinions whatsoever, children are clearly atheist until they engage in this ‘animistic behavior’ – 180andback

and

Atheism is simply the lack of belief in a deity, nothing more. – Zaki

Sure, if you literally break the word down into a-theism then you can interpret it to mean the lack of a belief in a God but I don’t think this is a useful way to talk about atheism.

If I made the claim that “I don’t think dinosaurs exist” then your natural first reaction might be “Well, what about all those fossils?”.

If I went on about how Satan buried those fossils as a test of my faith, you could safely label me a-dinosaur as I’ve made an active assertion about how the world could be without dinosaurs.

On the other hand, if I simply choose to ignore your question about the existence of fossils, it would be more accurate to label me as a dinosaur denier. Someone who doesn’t want to confront the issue of dinosaur existence.

Furthermore, if I had simply never even heard of dinosaurs before and had no reason to suppose their existence, then it might be accurate to label me as a dinosaur agnostic.

In each of these three cases, I don’t hold a belief that dinosaurs exist but these three lack of beliefs are of a very different nature and calling them all a-dinosaurism confuses the issue.

It is not enough to claim that gods do not exist to become atheist, you must also provide a explaination that explains the evidence for the existance of gods. Any justifiable atheism must be at least about to adequately answer the following phenomena:

• Every single day, hundreds of faith healers across the globe cause countless miracles of healing
• I had a dream about my Aunt Marge dying and when I woke up, I got a phone call that she got into a horrific car accident
• Every time I go to the 5th floor of my office, I feel incredibly sad and lost. I later found out that someone had committed suicide on that floor. I had no idea it happened but I still felt the presence of his ghost.
• My friend had a terminal cancer and the doctors told her that it was incurable but when she prayed to God, it miraculously went into remission. The doctors all said they had never seen anything like it.
• When I rub my lucky coin 3 times in a clockwise fashion, I win much more at roulette
• I can feel God guide me in my life and feel his presence in my soul. It’s impossible for such a feeling to be faked

What’s amazing about atheism is that it can adequately answer these seemingly amazing phenomena in a purely naturalistic manner. However, the answers to these questions are neither simple nor obvious. Any answer requires a great deal of sophisticated understanding of both philosophical and empirical matters and it’s the ability to answer these questions that separates genuine atheism from a simple denial of gods.

Such a confusion does atheists and atheism no favors. Because this distinction is not made clear, most of the Christians I talk to believe that atheists are God deniers. Atheists are atheists because the implications of a God existing is so morally threatening that atheists must construct a psychological shield that justifies their immorality and secularism. The idea that atheists are actually capable of answering the preceeding questions is so astounding that it’s never even considered.

Atheists need to become much more clear about what atheism is and isn’t if they want atheism to be given the respect it deserves as an intellectual position. Atheism is not simply a denial of gods. Instead, it’s an active assertion that the universe can be explained better in the absence of gods.

The following represents the views of a single member of the SSU, and does not necessarily represent the views of the SSU as a whole.

Cross-posted from the blog Figuring Shit Out

One argument I’ve been hearing about with increasing frequency from the atheist community is that “everyone is born atheist” with the implication that religion is some unwitting indoctrination forced upon children too young to object. To me, such an argument represents a shockingly naive tabula rasa view of human development and, what’s more, invalidates the significant intellectual achievements of atheism as an intellectual stance.

A far more accurate view of human development would reveal that “everyone is born animist”, that is, ascribing human like traits to naturalistic phenomena. Our propensity to find and explain patterns of behavior is a product of our deep evolutionary background and even in modern, technological society, we curse our computers as malicious and believe that we can influence the timing of traffic lights. All religion does is impose an organizational framework upon our original animist intuitions. It provides a ready explanation for what we were already pre-programmed to believe.

Only atheism seeks to directly challenge the validity of our animist intuition and promote a wholly naturalistic view of the world. As a result, atheism is a deeply counter intuitive claim and one which can only be justified by deep intellectual inquiry into rationalism, skepticism and the scientific method. The argument that “everyone is born atheist” wholly discredits the significant intellectual effort that atheists must take to reach an intellectually defensible point of view.

So let’s retire this tired old canard that “everyone is born atheist”. It’s intellectually embarrassing and gives a grossly inaccurate viewpoint to outsiders on what atheism actually is.

The following represents the views of a single member of the SSU, and does not necessarily represent the views of the SSU as a whole.

Mormonism is a man-made church.

It was created by a man, run by men (and I do mean men), and perpetuated by men. Like every other man-made organization on this planet, it has the capacity for great good. Unfortunately, it also has the capacity for great evil. Normally, the members of an organization can recognize this, and praise the good, while condemning the evil. This check on organizational power, however, doesn’t exist when those that make the decisions lay claim to divine authority – as the leaders of the Mormon church do. They demand unchallenged obedience, discourage listening to criticism (like this), and claim to have direct access to ultimate truth. The potential for harm is vast. 

Here, we see another harm passed down from the patriarchs, and one that I find particularly deplorable.

The following is a direct quote from the Young Women’s Manual, taken directly from the LDS website:

 

The following story illustrates how a young woman lost her chastity because she was not obedient to gospel principles.

Alice was thrilled to be invited to a party with all of her new friends. She knew several would be drinking, but she decided she would just say “No, thank you” if anyone offered her a drink.

At the party, several people offered her drinks. She refused the first few times, but she finally had one drink. This one drink multiplied into several. As the evening progressed, Alice lost her ability to control both her mind and her body. This loss was indeed heartbreaking because she later had to live with the reality that she had also lost her chastity.

 

Alice went to a party. She is a minor, and had significant amounts of alcohol pushed on her due to social pressure. She became so intoxicated that she was hardly conscious. What happened next is a textbook example of date rape. If a girl does not have the capacity to consent, it’s rape. So, what is the lesson is teaching?

…because she was not obedient to gospel principles.

It’s her fault. She’s the one to blame for being raped. 

This is a common message in Mormonism. Men just can’t control themselves, and are prone to extreme acts of violence such as rape – especially without being held back by their faith. Even then, they are bound to lose control, and women should expect that. They should fight back and resist, otherwise, men will just walk all over them. It’s a message that is so oppressive and degrading to both men and women that words escape me. 

This theme is reflected in the Mormon classic, the Miracle of Forgiveness by Spencer W. Kimball, a Mormon Prophet:

Also far-reaching is the effect of the loss of chastity. Once given or taken or stolen it can never be regained. Even in a forced contact such as rape or incest, the injured one is greatly outraged. If she has not cooperated and contributed to the foul deed, she is of course in a more favorable position. There is no condemnation where there is no voluntary participation. It is better to die in defending one’s virtue than to live having lost it without a struggle. (p. 196)

What would this say to a girl who has just been raped, a phsycological offense that knows no equal?

1. Once stolen, it can’t be regained. My chastity is gone. I am no longer chaste. I am a lesser person, tainted. Damaged goods. 
2. If you cooperate, it’s even worse. Did I cooperate? He said he would kill me if I didn’t, so I did. I am weak, and I allowed him to do it. I’m at least partly to blame. 
3. My virtue is inherently tied to my virginity? I’ve been raped. I’m no longer a virgin, and no longer virtuous. 
4. It is better to die in defending one’s virtue… my virtue is more valuable than my life? It’s more important that I’m chaste than alive? I could have done more, I could have resisted more. I’m to blame. My chastity is gone, and it would have be better for me to be dead than the unclean being I am now.

So paranoid of sex, these old white men in their ivory tower are, that they must condemn the victim of a rape if there was even a sliver of consent. I’m not even going to cover incest, which Kimball throws in with rape, but is even more vast and sweeping in the damage it causes.

I knew a Mormon girl who had been raped. The experience destroyed her, and shattered her confidence to the point that she became highly agoraphobic, and was loath to leave her home. She might have recovered, and someday be able to rebuild her life, even if it wasn’t completely… but for her local Mormon bishop. 

Think about it. 

If you survived a rape… if you lived… doesn’t that mean that you did not do enough to “defend your virtue?” Doesn’t the fact that you are alive mean that there was at least a little bit of consent on your part? Therefore, if you lived, you are at least partly to blame. Even if you lived somehow without any shred of consent, you may still be to blame. Were your clothes too revealing, and set off a man’s uncontrollable animal desire to rape you? Were you too flirtatious? Did you kiss him? Clearly, you must have opened the door at some point:

The victim must do all in his or her power to stop the abuse. Most often, the victim is innocent because of being disabled by fear or the power or authority of the offender. At some point in time, however, the Lord may prompt a victim to recognize a degree of responsibility for abuse. Your priesthood leader will help assess your responsibility so that, if needed, it can be addressed. Otherwise the seeds of guilt will remain and sprout into bitter fruit. Yet no matter what degree of responsibility, from absolutely none to increasing consent, the healing power of the atonement of Jesus Christ can provide a complete cure. Ensign, May, 1992 (emphasis added)

I’ve heard of something similar. During the witch-hunts, they had a test to determine if a woman was a witch. They would throw the poor woman into the water, and if she lived, she was a witch with the protection of Satan, and therefore should be burned at the stake. If she drowned, she was innocent, and her virtue is maintained.

I’m often asked why I would ever ‘attack’ religion, and why I don’t just live and let live. This is why.

It’s because 90% of Provo rapes go unreported. This might be why:

 

“She said something that blew me away. She said, ‘I should have died before I let him do that to me,’ ” Lemmon said. “I was troubled that she had to believe that.”

Lemmon read from a letter written by a BYU rape victim who shared a similar belief.

“I’m a perversion to the good saints of my church,” wrote the victim, who said she wished she were dead. Tragic thoughts like these are common among rape victims in Provo, Lemmon said.”

Deseret News: 90% of Rapes Not Reported to Police

 

This is also true across the state of Utah, which has higher rates of rape than the national average.

It’s heartbreaking. It’s enfuriating. This is the danger of unchecked dogma. This is real harm perpetrated in the name of an imagined deity. This is why I can’t, as an ethical person, just live and let live.

It’s not often I agree with him, but everything Bill O’Reilly describes in this article is precisely why I LOVE this city and state. Apparently we’re now gayer and more leftie-loony than San Francisco.