Figure 1: The bottom of the Indian Ocean as it actually is, showing no sign of sunken continent.

It is a lost land under the waves. It is an Atlantis of the Indian Ocean whose existence was based on science. A land whose name comes from the relentless ghost of Roman mythology and whose restless spirits still visit our mediums today… And if all that is not cool enough for you, you probably are a replicant.

The Lemuria of monkeys?

First of all, don’t be silly, lemurs are not monkeys, they are from a different sub-order of primates. The lemurs’ haunting screeches; their nocturnal habits and their large reflective eyes must have seemed haunting to the first Europeans explorer of Madagascar that name the lemurs after the lemures, malevolent specters of ancient roman superstitions.

Now endemic to Madagascar, lemurs once flourished on a much larger range, leaving a trail of fossils in Africa and India. This trail, and its conspicuous absence in Africa (at the time, no lemur fossils had been found there) and the Middle-East was, for XIXth century Phillip Sclater only explainable in one way: Madgascar and India must have been at one time linked as one, allowing for the lemurs to travel and by-pass Africa and the Middle-East as he wrote in his 1864 article:

“The anomalies of the Mammal fauna of Madagascar can best be explained by supposing that… a large continent occupied parts of the Atlantic and Indian Oceans… that this continent was broken up into islands, of which some have become amalgamated with… Africa, some… with what is now Asia; and that in Madagascar and the Mascarene Islands we have existing relics of this great continent, for which… I should propose the name Lemuria ! ”

Most surprising, perhaps is that Sclater was actually right, sort of: while India and Madagascar were indeed once part of a same continental unit, their separation was not due to a land mass sinking under the waves (in fact, mapping of the region shows no sign of such a landmass, cf. figure 1) but through plate tectonics. Despite this slight technical difficulty, this lemurian hypothesis immediately had a profound impact on the booming occultist culture of the time…

The Lemuria of psychics.

By happenstance, the time of in which Sclater advanced his hypothesis coincided with the golden age of spiritualism. The religion of spiritualism had been founded in 1840 and was enjoyed its heydays; seances were a highly successful fad among the wealthy and the like of the Fox sisters were at their peak. It is in this context that Helena Blavatsky discovered Lemuria.

Born in 1831 from an influent Russian family, in what would become Ukraine, Blavatsky established herself as a successful medium in New-York city channeling ancient spirits. Quickly, these ancient spirits, and more specifically a small group called the “ascended masters” provided Blavatsky with what would become the foundation of a new Religion: theosophy. A currency, ancestral to many new-age concept, that mixed generously pseudoscience with religions and philosophies from around the world and “revelations” straight from the spirit world.

In its somewhat complex and confusing teachings, the theosophy religion included a reference to seven “root races” that were as many steps in the biological and spiritual evolution of humanity. And, according to theosophy, Lemuria was home of the third root-race 34 millions years ago(they were roughly humanoids albeit oviparous and some of them had four arms or eyes behind the head, surprising, to say the least, in term of evolutionary science). It is worth noting that the dating of the age of the earth was still quite rudimentary and that, to Theosophist, such date put the Lemurian civilization during the Jurassic period. In this view, the fourth root race was, as one would expect, the Atlantean while the fifth root-race, most of today’s humanity, the Aryans are supposed to be a sub-tribe from the Atlanteans (the sinister connotation of the word ‘aryan’ is not an accident: the theosophists’ racial speculations were but an example of similar thoughts that were quite common in the early XXth century and the Nazis sometime described the ‘Nordic race’ as descendants of refugees from the doomed Atlantis).

The story of Lemuria and Atlantis were then picked up and greatly expanded upon by Theosphists William Scott-Elliot and Charles Wester Leadbatter whose book ‘The Lost Lemuria’  provided us with many more details. These included a surprisingly detailed map of ancient Lemuria (fig 2) either communicated by the ancient spirits of pulled ex-rectum, I could not tell.

Figure 2: The ancient world and the location of Lemuria as postulated by theosophist Charles Wester Leadbatter.

It’s around that time that Lemuria encounters yet a second geological shift: while it was initially located in the Indian Ocean, indeed, it was its very justification. The map provided by Leadbatter suggested a much more staggeringly huge land mass. Later accounts would actually focus on the Pacific locations of this continent until, in later accounts Lemuria began to be described as a purely Pacific island. Hence Lemuria shifted, smoothly, from one ocean to another over a few decades, a most impressive example of continental drift.

Lorem ipsum

And the lemuria of pop-culture.

At the same time, a Californian author wrote a story about an underground civilization that lived under the Californian mount Shasta and that was descended from Lemurian exile. Several of his concepts were later taken up by theosophist and incorporated in the growing Lemurian mythos.

More interesting, in my view, is the acknowledged influence that the theosophic theories were to have on the writing of H. P. Lovecraft. Lovecraft, never shy of a few sunken cities from long lost civilizations, such as the lost R’lyeh where “dead Cthulhu waits dreaming”, makes a few passing references to the island such as in his short story “the haunter of the dark”.

Similarly, Lemuria is mentioned several times in the adventures of Conan by Robert Howard.

From there, Lemuria propagated in pop culture. While never quite as popular as Atlantis, the similarities between the two lost continents made of Lemuria an ideal addition to any story involving Atlantis. In Marvel comics, for example, Lemuria (introduced in Sub-Mariner #9; cf. figure 3) has a long and charged history with the Atlantis of Namor the sub-mariner. Marvel’s earth also has harbors another Lemuria, populated with a group of humans mutated by aliens called deviants. Interestingly, these deviants’ religion centers around a representant of the alien that mutated them, that they call “the dreaming celestial”. I wonder if it is an allusion to Lovecraft’s R’lyeh.

Anyway, the lost continent is now very much part of pop-culture.

It is a rather surprising journey for what initially started as a theory in the field of zoology to be taken up by psychics and mediums, incorporated into a religion before becoming an item of movie serials and four-color comic books. I supposed that, if one was to apply Dawkins’ memetic theory to Lemuria, he would probably be describing the mental equivalent of a highly mutating RNA virus, a flu, shaped like a lost continent for Indy to get lost into. And that is, I think, is really fun and cool.

=======
This post, The Lost Land of Lemuria., originally appeared on She Thought on May 17, 2011.
=======

Lauri Lebo was a reporter with the York Daily Record covering the trial which took place in federal district court in Harrisburg, PA. The trial became the next landmark in a series of battles regarding the teaching of evolution and anti-evolution in public schools. It gained worldwide attention.

The events before, during and after the trial changed the lives of Cyndi and Lauri and many others involved and set a new precedent. The extremely thorough and well-written decision clearly slammed the attempts by the school board to insert their religious views into science class. But it also established Intelligent Design (ID) as creationism in new, fancy but ultimately cheap, sciencey clothing documented with “smoking gun” evidence uncovered by the stellar team of scientists and lawyers working for the plaintiffs.

Lauri left the newspaper post shortly after and wrote a book about her experience titled The Devil in Dover. This was a personal story of the gains and losses she experienced over that time: family and friendships, insights and confusion.

I first met Lauri and Cyndi at a Drinking Skeptically event I organized in early 2009 and happily our paths crossed several more times.

One Friday evening, I visited Lauri’s house off the beaten path between Harrisburg and Dover. Cyndi was relaxed on the couch perusing the Chick catalog. Chick Publications produces Creationist materials for distribution. You may have seen their most famous products – “Chick tracts” – pocket-sized 3 color comic books that warn of hellfire if you dabble in the occult, how you lose everything of value if you stray from the path that leads to Jesus and how utterly laughable it is to think we are descended from apes. One day, I found the booklet entitled “Big Daddy” (about the “silly” story of our ape-like ancestors) lying on a mailbox in downtown Harrisburg two blocks from the federal courthouse where the Kitzmiller v Dover trial took place.

I sat down and checked out the catalog and we chuckled over the propaganda machine run by the anti-evolution faction. But this was serious stuff. Even after the resounding whipping delivered to the ID proponents, they have not gone away. I was interested in hearing from Cyndi and Lauri what was new on this front and what they were doing now 5 years after the trial.

Engaged in what goes on in the world – activism and journalism

Cyndi runs a family business in Dover. She has two sons who attend Dover schools.  Now a member of the Dover school board, she has lamented to me on other occasions the terrible state of our public school funding. However, you must be the change you wish to see in the world and she has taken that to heart, trying to raise her children as critical thinkers, volunteering many hours for the local PA chapter of the ACLU and serving as a board member there as well.

Lauri has also become a very active member of the ACLU, both the local and the state chapter where she serves as a board member. She is currently still writing freelance and has another book proposal in the works. She also blogs for Religion Dispatches and is working for the Newspaper Guild as a labor organizer for freelancers.

On this point, Cyndi remarks, “The very idea of self-employment does not lend itself to organizing. I’m really curious how this plays out. I can’t figure out how it’s going to work but if does and they get paid for what they do, that’s a beautiful thing.”

Lauri comments that their main target has been the Huffington Post who does not pay their writers. “We’re getting decent attention on the Huffington Post stuff,” she says. “But it’s a big learning curve…”

Current events and politics are always a topic of conversation between these two friends. Since both are extremely well-informed citizens, I’m curious where they get their news. They admit they often trade the same story links over the Internet. Cyndi favors Truth Out, Media Matters, Religion Dispatches and AlterNet. Lauri likes Mother Jones for political news and the New York Times. She expressed dismay over some sources that are more “junk food”. “Don’t get me wrong,” she says, “I still read tons of junk food. But so much is at stake now that politician sex scandals are just not…it just seems trivial. Why am I being distracted by this? That’s the problem with [sites like] the Huffington Post. You are reading a serious story and get distracted by this thing over here.” She adds, “It’s disgusting how much space they give to [serious woo].”

Cyndi admits she still goes to the York Dispatch to get what she calls “local flavor”. She doesn’t like local TV news. “…you don’t have investigative journalism going on there so is it news or just making you aware of happenings?”

What’s the state of journalism these days? Lauri is disturbed over the latest trend of not standing up to the truth. “Everyone is afraid to speak the truth about everything because they’ll be told they are biased. That’s a terrible way to approach science coverage!”

Of Pandas and Reporters: Lauri admonishes a spectator during the trial

Her early days as a reporter at the York Daily Record introduced her to new areas of interest. She describes it: “I was assigned Gettysburg and didn’t know anything about it, nothing about the Civil War! I thought I had it down which side was blue, which was grey, that’s how stupid I was. But, I just got into it, totally obsessed with it, pulling in everything I could.”

She continues, “That’s the beauty of being a reporter. There is this cartoon of ‘How a reporter starts his day’ – it’s a dartboard that says ‘what am I an expert in?’ [with all these choices such as] ‘nuclear power’, ‘politics’, ‘civil liberties’, any of these issues. It’s so much fun, the most fun job! I miss newspaper reporting so much just because of that variety.”

So, that’s how she approached the story of the Dover school board controversy. “This one stuck more than any other issue. Once I started reading I got really curious about the science side and how cool it was. That changed me more personally than anything else I learned as a journalist.”

Getting educated

Speaking of science education of nonscientists, what was their science education like in school?

“Awful,” says Lauri, “I was horrible. I was just not interested in it. I got a ‘C’. I wasn’t interested in education at all.”

“My [biology] teacher made it difficult,” Cyndi recalls. “He was gruff man and not interesting.” And she remarked that, in her memory, he reminded her of one of the defendants on the Dover School Board.

“There was a lot of that,” Lauri adds. “I was so disconnected, for all I know I could have been taught creationism and wasn’t listening! I’m so ashamed of that.”

So what changed? Is there an event that “turns on the light bulb”? In my discussions with many people, I’ve found this light bulb moment to be common – a situation or an issue that opened a keyhole, a portal, to a new understanding of life that involved an appreciation of science and the reliability of scientific knowledge. For these two, the Dover trial was that event.

“The Dover trial was a total light bulb for me,” Lauri admits. “I loved watching animal shows, loved hiking but just didn’t think about [evolution as the underlying foundation].”

Cyndi agrees, saying, “Prior to the case, it was pretty easy to be interested in nature or astronomy.” But, the effect of the case was huge. “I don’t know how you sit in that trial day after day, listening to these experts and going through that process. I don’t know how that doesn’t affect you. I don’t know anybody that it didn’t affect.” Except, of course, those defendants who stuck to their Biblical-based beliefs. NO facts could shake their faith.

Lauri, whose father was a fundamentalist believer, was open to new information. She described looking at the world differently when she accepted the understanding of evolution. “For years I’ve fed the [backyard] birds, but I never thought about how it all worked together. I would watch my goldfinches and how they would fight and thought ‘Oh, isn’t that cute; they’re fighting.’ One day I realized there’s nothing cute about this – this is survival. If one gets more seeds, he’s going to survive. Natural selection clicked on. Once you start seeing that…it was sort of like being reborn.”

Lauri and Cyndi visit England for Charles Darwin's 200th birthday event

What’s the state of anti-evolutionists these days?

The Discovery Institute, the foremost intelligent design advocacy organization advocate “critical thinking”. But that means, Cyndi says, “allowing both sides and allowing their idea. They come from the point of view that if you can’t even discuss or allow our side, how can you critically think about it? I think they come from that martyr position.”

Lauri adds, “It plays off our notions of democracy. They are so desperately trying to get creationism into class.”

She had just finished penning an article in Scientific American that highlighted the various state legislature bills active right now and what they advocate. Regarding the motives of organizations like the Discovery Institute, she continues, “I used to be more generous – I used to believe it was solely about saving the children. There’s more to it. I’ve gotten much more cynical about their behavior. I think it’s a power thing, an ego thing. I haven’t fully wrapped my brain around it.”

“Lawmakers who are working with the Discovery Institute buy into [the Creationist agenda],” Cyndi opines. “That org had a lot of money and put a lot of time into what they do.” She fully expects this will continue regardless of their epic court defeats. “There is a certain emotional connection when you put yourself into it and get beat in a fight, ‘I’m gonna get back up and I’m coming at you.’ So maybe now with these losses, they are digging in. As long as they stay funded, they are going to continue to fight.” Cyndi’s curiosity is now aroused. We speculate about who funds such groups…

Naturally curious friends

Cyndi regards herself as a naturally curious person and that feeds her need to look at issues from all sides. Lauri, growing up in a large family, tells me she always had to defend comments at the dinner table. In addition, being a journalist was a boost to critical thinking. “As I got better as a journalist, I learned to set the strong feelings aside and hear what people have to say. I have to know enough about the issue to ask the right questions and not let [the interviewees] get away with stupid sound bites.”

“So that process helps you…” Cyndi asks.

“It does,” Lauri concedes, “…constantly sifting through the information.”

Cyndi replies, “I don’t know if I have the ability…” to which Lauri barks “Oh, yes you do! I’ve used you as a sounding board!” and I marvel at how the two friends support each other.

Participation in the Dover trial has given both women a whole new circle of acquaintances. Lauri now has lawyers, teachers, scientists and other experts to consult when she needs them. Cyndi adds that there is still a continued support network of people who were involved in the case. Before the trial, neither ever had friends who were scientists.

“Everybody told me scientists were horrible to interview,” Lauri says of her journalist colleagues, “but everyone was so freaking cool! They’d start talking and getting excited. If someone is telling me good stories, I’d get excited. Scientists are like, I’ll tell you more…”

“When we know something, we like to share it,” says Cyndi. “People like to share what they know, especially if they have a captive audience.”

“That’s true,” Lauri agrees. “People like interested people.” Lauri also says she did not run into the stereotypical scientist who spoke in impenetrable jargon. Both ladies enjoy listening to science superstars like Ken Miller talk about biology. And both express unending adulation for their dear friend, NCSE director Genie Scott.

Civil liberties – a cause worth fighting for

Finally, we move to the latest focus of their interest and talents…the fight for civil liberties. The ACLU spearheaded the legal action in Dover. Lauri and Cyndi continued their involvement and support of the organization. Lately, Cyndi has been the go-to person in the neighborhood regarding civil liberties and considers it a true exercise in critical thought.

“The ACLU is a worthy organization,” Cyndi remarks. “I would hate to see what it would be like if they were not here.”

But it is a complicated topic that people may have difficulty understanding. An example was the decision regarding the rights of the reviled Westboro Baptist Church (WBC) who protest at high profile funerals about their perceived evils of society.

“Support for the WBC…” she begins, “It’s hard to say why you support them. People don’t get that. I can’t think of too much positive to say about WBC, but you have to be able to set that aside and say, ‘what’s the price here – civil liberties.’ If free speech doesn’t apply to everyone, it doesn’t apply to anyone.”

“Too many people want to react emotionally and they can’t set those things aside,” Lauri adds and continues with an example, “The tea party has no critical thinking skills.” She explains that such groups feel any legal representation for someone accused of terrorism is traitorous, regardless of the Constitution. But, again, the ACLU fights for everyone.

“When the Westboro decision came out, Cyndi was explaining to people why free speech must be protected, even abhorrent free speech,” Lauri explains. Cyndi thinks she made some points with people, one at a time, who didn’t think holistically about it but reacted in that highly emotional way. “It was an interesting day of discussions…” From employees to hairdressers, they wanted to know she felt about it.

Both women recognize and fear that “knee-jerk” reaction to news and politics we are seeing so much of. So, in their daily lives, in talking or writing, they attempt to spread a rational view, to illuminate these complex social issues with critical thoughts from people they meet everyday to as broad an audience as they can reach.

With these two, it’s clear that unexpected small events can change the course of your career, your friends, the way you look at life and what is truly important about it.

———

Sharon Hill is a geologist in Pennsylvania who specializes in public understanding of science. She blogs at Doubtful and organizes the Keystone Society for Rational Inquiry Twitter: @idoubtit and @keystoneinquiry

=======
This post, Two Women of Dover: Taking Action for What Matters, originally appeared on She Thought on May 13, 2011.
=======

Image taken from the University of Illini Secular Student Alliance

A few weeks ago, a friend of mine, student at Mississippi State University, participated in the ‘ask an atheist day’ event on the campus. This event was created by the Illini secular student alliance and is going to be organized annually by the secular student alliance and aims at bringing awareness on the existence of atheists and helping fighting myths and stereotypes about non-believers.

This year marked the first time this event was organized on this particular campus and, while Mississippi’s reputation might have justified a bit of trepidation, it went pretty well. Why, nobody even stabbed himself!

Anyway, here are some of my friend’s reflections about this experience.

Lorem ipsum

Q- How long have you been a student on the campus and when did you join the local free thinkers association? How did you hear from it? Do you have any particular role in the association?

Well, I have been here for 3 years and I joined the group around the summer 2010. I started looking online for some likeminded individuals and eventually stumbled across the group’s message board. It was fairly inactive at the time so after a few posts to the board and a meeting or two we slowly but surely “resurrected” the group. I was eventually elected to be president of the group.

Q- So, where did you first hear about the “ask an atheist day” and what decided you to organize it on the campus?

One of our members actually brought it up in a meeting. Most, if not all of us, were unaware of this event. I was fairly excited when he took the initiative, because once he stated that he was going to do it many other members started volunteering to help out as well.

Lorem ipsum

Q- Speaking of the organization, how long were you guys meeting people? How many people did participate on your side of the tables? Did any people from you association decline to participate for whatever reason?

The table was set up and going at around 8AM I believe. I arrived at 11AM and left at 7PM. Our side of the table started off with about 3 or 4 people and as the day went on it continued to grow. We even acquired a few new members that joined us in answering questions. By the end of the day, we probably had about 10-12 members answering questions. We do have a few closeted atheists in our group, so they declined.

Q- You, yourself, are still, while not in the atheist closet, at least discreet about it. Did this cause you any hesitation when organizing this event?

A little bit. Away from my hometown, I am open with my atheism. However, since I have family on Facebook I had to keep a lookout to make sure I wasn’t tagged in any photos corresponding with the event. My family is unaware of my atheism; otherwise I am open about it to everyone else.

Lorem ipsum

Q- So, I think it is fair to say that Mississippi has a somewhat less than stellar reputation for enlightenment. Did this cause you any apprehension beforehand?

I was worried that we would be trolled heavily during the event; however once we got started we only had one guy to come up and try to run us around in circles with his circular reasoning. We recognized it fairly quickly and pointed out the flaws in his argument. He was using an “appeal to authority” to try to persuade us into becoming believers. Once he realized that his tactic wasn’t working he took the walk of shame.

Q- By your estimate, how many people did come and visit your table and what was their general attitude?

I’d say over a hundred by the end of the day. Some came and went, while others stayed and had some interesting discussions. In between classes is when we had the highest traffic, and of course towards the end of the day we had a large group surrounding our table. The majority of attitudes were that of curiosity. Living in the “Bible Belt” it’s almost unheard of to not believe in God.

We did have a few people walk by and let us know that “Jesus loves us.” We thought that was nice.

Q- What were some of the most common questions that people asked?

“Where did we come from?”

We answered by starting at the present and then rewinding, we cycled back through evolution, abiogenesis, and then cosmology. We may not know all of the process but at no point is there any reason for us to immediately jump to a supernatural step.

“What is the purpose of life?”

In general, we explained that this varied from person to person; normally we find something that we are good at or that we enjoy and use it as our “purpose”. Since there is no evidence of a supernatural creator, there is also no evidence of a supernaturally assigned purpose.

“Where do you get your morals?”

One of my favorites, I just usually pointed out how being nice to others is beneficial to society. If we were constantly at each other’s throats then progress would be hindered greatly. People usually don’t like it when someone is mean to them and when there is a mean or disruptive person in a group, that person will usually be kicked out of the group. Since the majority of people want to be accepted in society, people have grown to be nicer to each other, an evolution of understanding if you will. This then plays into decision making. Usually before we make decisions, not all of the time of course, we will weigh out the consequences. The main ideas we think about are usually a few simple questions. “Will this hurt me?” “Will this hurt anyone else?” and “Do the benefits outweigh the negative outcomes?”, then we make the decision. Basically we just tend to reason things out in my opinion.

Q- All in all, what do you think was the main impact of the event? Do you think that it will help some atheists achieve a better visibility and fight some prejudice about them?

Basically we just wanted to show the public that we aren’t bad people as a whole, that we can be good without God. I think we achieved that goal. It also gave our group some very good exposure and helped us to increase our membership because some people didn’t know that we even had a group.

Lorem ipsum

Q- So, is it fair to expect that you will organize the event again next year?

Absolutely, we’re actually planning on having more events next semester. They may not be “Ask An Atheist” day, but we really enjoyed doing this so we plan on being more involved with the public in the near future.

=======
This post, I survived ‘Ask an atheist day’ and I didn’t even get a stupid T-shirt!, originally appeared on She Thought on April 25, 2011.
=======

Its like an episode of House, without the erroneous suggestion that it might be lupus[2].

Or, maybe its like Atheism[3].

One of Atheism’s major problems is that not enough girls are showing up to their parties. Recently, there was a great deal of attention focused on the issue of sexism in Atheism after a dust-up erupted around the reporting of events during a predominantly male “women in atheism” panel. Briefly, a female audience member took vocal issue with some of the panel’s statements and left in some distress feeling that the panel’s responses to her concerns were condescending and mocking.

I’m not sure there is much to learn from this event. There is a lot to learn from the response.

A great deal of blood and tears have been spent arguing over exactly what happened. You can watch video.

What actually happened? Irrelevant.

Is Atheism sexist? Not very, but irrelevant.

Should the women have been offended? Probably, but irrelevant.

The concern over the facts of the case, as if we can sit back and adjudicate who was right and wrong, misses the point. To even debate whether the facts support the legitimacy of an emotional response to a person’s perception of events is ludicrous. The discussion has wandered from blame to self-doubt (did we do something wrong?) to self-defense (we didn’t do anything wrong).

This misses the key element for both this event and the struggles of atheism as a whole – the failure of community.

Community is not social events. Community is not the number of butts in pews. Community is asking what does your neighbor need from you.

The navel gazing response to this event contrasts sharply with my own experiences of real community. During my PhD work, my family attended Compton Heights Christian Church in St. Louis, MO. This congregation is a particularly diverse group, which occasionally resulted in emotional situations, not dissimilar from the events at this atheist meeting.

In the case of Compton Heights, the universal response to such situations was not to ask, “What does this say about us?” “Why did this happen?” “Whose fault was it?” “Is this person nuts?” “Can we just go back to what we were doing?”

Instead, the response was to ask “What does this individual need from us?” and, then, to act on that need. And, afterward, the focus remained on understanding how those needs could be met, without that individual having to experience the emotional crisis that first brought those needs to our attention.

Communities are made of individuals. As a result, the comfort of each individual is important. The needs of each individual are important. The individuality of individuals is important.

Part of the problem for women in atheism is that its not about “women” being uncomfortable in Atheism. It’s about Jane being uncomfortable in one way. And, Karen being uncomfortable in a slightly more different way. Hell, I’m slightly uncomfortable in unique ways that may not be entirely dependent on my Y chromosome and genitalia[4].

Now, ask yourself: did any of that community happen in the two months since that “women in atheism” panel?

When you can move past the fear and concern that you are being judged. When it is no longer about what can this person do for the group or what does the group do for me. When it is about what can I do for the community and what can that community do for those who need help, then you are ready to replace culturally entrenched communities like churches. If you are still having problems with the ladies after that, maybe try deodorant.

NOTES

1. Primarily caused by me not knowing what I am doing, but remaining unreasonably brave in the face of my ignorance.
2. If your vacuum cleaner is not working because it has lupus, you are beyond the help of mere mortals, my friend.
3. Big “A” Atheism – attempts at an organized community of atheists – has issues. The personal philosophy of belief – small “a” – is just fine.
4. Conference panels may not be the best way to address these concerns, unless you schedule really, really long sessions (or have vanishingly small attendance).

=======
This post, Community, originally appeared on She Thought on April 7, 2011.
=======

According to their website:

“From March 9th 2011 – April 17th 2011 our community will be one of many cities joining together for the largest and longest coordinated pro-life mobilization in history.”

40 Days for Life is a focused pro-life effort that consists of 40 days of prayer and fasting, 40 days of peaceful vigil, 40 days of community outreach. We are praying that, with God’s help, this groundbreaking effort will mark the beginning of the end of abortion in our city — and throughout the UK.

At first it seems like a harmless protest, they’re entitled to speak out about their beliefs, right? Besides, they’re not being viscious and abusive as the pro-life movement in the US is known to often be. However, as March 9th draws closer I have a cold and terrible concern that has been growing in the back of my mind. The very fact that these people are going to be on the streets with their peaceful protest brings me more fear than the idea of the violent protesters being out there in their place.

It’s all because of a conversation I had with the leader of the London branch of ’40 Days for Life’ last year. I got in touch with him after the Daily Mail ran an article about them entitled: The new abortion war; Doctors murdered… clinics firebombed. Could Britain follow in the steps of the militant U.S ‘pro-lifers’?

At the time I hadn’t known they were in the UK and it surprised me that pro-lifers were so active in this country. The title of the article had shocked me as I knew the extent of the violent ‘pro-life’ protests in the US and I couldn’t imagine such a thing coming to the UK.

The Daily Mail article reported that the British organiser of ’40 days for life’ (which is widespread in the US already) is Robert Colquhoun who is 28 and trained for the priesthood but now works in finance in the City. The Daily Mail said:

Robert paid about £280 for a ‘starter protest kit’ that he bought on the internet from 40 Days’ head office in America.

‘It’s a brilliant idea,’ he says. ‘They give you the best training I’ve ever had. It’s all online and really clever. And then they send the basic resources — the big banner and the signs — and you adapt them to the local campaign. It’s the best thing I’ve ever done in my life. We need to get the message across here.’

In return, he’s provided regular updates to the 40 Days HQ in Texas. ‘They’re very interested in how it all works in the UK and how the ­campaign’s been going in London, so we’ve been feeding all our findings back to them and they seem really pleased. The group’s grown exponentially in America, so we’re hoping it will take off here.

‘We’re hoping for at least 1,500 local volunteers by Lent. This is just the beginning — we have so much to learn from America.’

The last part of that quote scared me very much indeed as he didn’t elaborate on what he meant by ‘so much to learn from America’. Would that be how to firebomb clinics and kill people? How best to use placards with dead babies on them to shock people arriving at abortion clinics? How much did the London branch of 40 days want to learn from pro-lifers in America?

Being the proud skeptically minded person that I am, there was no way I could simply take the Daily Mail’s word as fact so I did what anyone should do, and I contacted Robert directly who very kindly answered most of the questions I had about their campaign, their aims and their beliefs.

As I have said above, I was aware of the ‘pro-life’ movement and protests in the US, but it was always something I only knew a bit about as it had never been something I had to deal with on a local level. London isn’t local for me, but it’s a bit closer than America (if that makes sense).

My knowledge of the way in which pro-lifers justify their actions wasn’t top notch and so for me, this was a great way to really understand the people behind the scary Daily Mail headline that suggested that Pro-lifer activists could already be in the UK.

What follows is my conversation with the leader of the London branch of ’40 days for life’:

Hayley: Thank you for sparing me some of your time, I appreciate you are busy with your campaign. In the Daily Mail article there is a link between breast cancer and abortion mentioned that suggests abortion can increase the risk of cancer. I was wondering where the link with breast cancer comes into play as I saw that many cancer charities deny such a link.#

I was also wondering how exactly abortion was a sin? I saw in the article “We don’t love sin, we love the sinner” but I don’t understand how abortion is a seven sin. Also, do you not feel that making abortion illegal or less accessible, girls and women will still abort in “back street abortion clinics” which can seriously harm them?

Robert: Abortion is a sin because it is the deliberate ending of the life of an unborn child. This is contrary to the will of God. Since abortion has been legalised, it has grown exponentially and has been encouraged throughout.

We encourage people of faith and conscience to pray and fast for an end to abortion. So far six women have changed their minds about having an abortion as a result of our initiative and we have helped to build a growing consciousness about the humanity of the unborn child.

Hayley: You say “Abortion is a sin because it is the deliberate ending of the life of an unborn child. This is contrary to the will of God” but does God not order people in the bible to kill children – and does he not, himself, kill children?

Whoever strikes his father or mother shall be put to death. (Exodus 21:15 NAB)

From there Elisha went up to Bethel.  While he was on his way, some small boys came out of the city and jeered at him.  “Go up baldhead,” they shouted, “go up baldhead!”  The prophet turned and saw them, and he cursed them in the name of the Lord.  Then two shebears came out of the woods and tore forty two of the children to pieces. (2 Kings 2:23-24 NAB)*

Please tell me why your God feels it is okay to murder children, but it is not okay to “murder” unborn children?

Robert: The Old Testament passages you have used are out of context from their true meaning.** The most important passage is from the Old Testament 10 commandments: You shall not kill. Abortion in fact violates all the ten commandments:

If you’ve had an abortion yourself- there is wonderful hope and healing available from this ministry that I highly recommend as truly excellent. <a link was provided via email>

Hayley: You say that six women changed their minds about having an abortion. Were they Christian? If not, do your campaigners have any right to tell other people how to live their lives? Isn’t it a bit arrogant of anyone to presume they can dictate wrong and right to another human?

Robert: Those who changed their minds were from a variety of different backgrounds. Many of them did not know that there were people who were willing to help them with many practical needs which were the primary reasons that they were having abortions. They all felt as if they had no choice but have an abortion.  We do not impose, merely propose an offer of unconditional help to those in need.

In terms of dictating right or wrong to other humans: that is what the law does by giving a list of laws by which society is governed. No laws would equal anarchy. In the case where the law in an injustice, a further difficulty arises.

Hayley: I was worried because I read in the Daily Mail article that somebody involved with 40 days in London feels that the methods used in America to campaign and target people attending abortion clinics need to be used in England too. What was meant by that? Some of the campaigning in the US is dangerous and violent and has led to murder.

Robert: The Daily Mail article was extremely misleading because only peaceful and prayerful means are used in our campaigns.

Hayley: What do your protest entail? For example, do you use graphic images on placards like in the US?

Robert: we have a prayer vigil for 12 hours a day: we have signs saying ‘pray to end abortion’ but no pictures of aborted babies as we don’t think that it is effective of pastorally effective to do that in that context.***

Hayley: Do the protesters really have the right to condemn women to a lifetime of raising a child they didn’t want? I know they may grow to love the child and that is great! However, you don’t know what led them to that clinic, what their backgrounds are, why they chose to abort the baby due to their backgrounds, positions, lifestyles. How can you be sure that you aren’t condeming a child to a terrible life?

Do you follow up with those women to ensure they are okay? Or do you just send them on their way?

Robert: We have a prayer vigil, not a protest. We don’t condemn or judge anyone, merely pray and offer help to those in need.

We offer counselling and help so they are not just sent on their way, so many have been helped thanks to our presence. To learn more about what abortion really is, visit: <link provided to me is available on request due to the graphic nature>

Hayley: But will the banning of abortion not result in women just seeking abortions elsewhere? We’ve seen that happen in the past. Backstreet abortions are dangerous and potentially fatal. Is that okay with you? That you could be condemming women to dance with death in order to live their life how they wish to live it?

Robert: We are not mainly interested in changing the law, but praying for an end to abortion.

Hayley: Do you not think that by protesting abortion you are actually infringing the human rights of the very women being labelled as ‘murderers’? I know people believe they are protecting the human rights of the unborn child and there is a lot of debate regarding the stage at which abortion becomes ‘murder’ but when is it ever okay to disregard one persons human rights for anothers? I don’t think it ever is. #

This is where the conversation ends.

The claim that six women had their minds changed by the campaigners is what worries me the most about the peaceful protests that are kicking off on March 8th. The ’40 days for life’ campaigners have no right to tell a woman what to do with her body, and they have no right to try and change a womans mind. I would also question whether they have the training or qualifications to deal with people who may be in a fragile state of mind.

I accept that the claim made by Robert is that the women in question were made aware of the fact that there were alternatives and that there was support they could get.

However, this happens anyway when you speak to your doctor about being referred for an abortion and when you visit a private abortion clinic.

A doctor is more likely to be able to give somebody access to suitable resources and the correct advice for their situation than a religious stranger on the street.

Peaceful protests or not, pushing your own beliefs onto others at a very difficult time in their lives in fundamentally wrong. Not only that though, threatening them with damnation from your god is simply cruel.

=======
This post, Conversations with a British Pro-life protester, originally appeared on She Thought on March 4, 2011.
=======

Later, in August, I received an email from the woman who had gotten the role. She had read my blog post and admitted she had had some of my same reservations. Her online bio was impressive. She seemed WAY more qualified than me. I promised I’d get back in touch to give her my thoughts after I saw the show. In January 2011, I did just that. I related to her that I was happily surprised at how the show turned out and pleased with her portrayal of the scientific/skeptical viewpoint.

We finally sat down – connected laptop to laptop – to talk about being a scientist, a skeptic, a woman and an educator.

I’m excited to introduce She Thought readers to Indre Viskontas, miracle detective.

Indre is broadly trained in psychology, specifically in cognition. She completed her undergraduate degree in Toronto, Canada and obtained her PhD in Cognitive Neuroscience from UCLA. She currently resides in San Francisco and is associated with the UCSF Memory and Aging Center. Her specialty (one of them, at least) is the neural basis of memory and creativity. An accomplished opera singer, Indre studied at the San Francisco Conservatory of Music, obtaining a Master of Music degree.

We discussed our mutual, initial concerns about the premise of the show. We had both been contacted by the show’s production company, Pilgrim Films, the same outfit that does Ghost Hunters. The show is set up with a believer – author and journalist Randall Sullivan – and a skeptic. The producers admitted it was a Mulder and Scully setup.

While I had felt the opportunity was not for me, Indre was intrigued. “I wanted to get involved in television work,” she says. “But, the more and more I got involved in the process, the more questions I had. Would this affect my reputation? Would my colleagues (in science and art) think I’m selling out? I was afraid that they would edit it in such a way to make me look bad or unintelligent. I was worried about the time away from things I was doing. And, I wasn’t sure I’d be any good at it.”

The Art of Science

Indre’s education and research had been in trying to understand our brains and how they work. She described to me her research on epilepsy patients where she participated in designing memory tests to watch the cells learn and communicate. She conducted neuroimaging work with functional MRI (magnetic resonance imaging) to infer which parts of the brain were involved with different activities.

After obtained her PhD in 2007, she relocated to San Francisco. “I wanted time to explore artistic endeavors, primarily opera singing. I enrolled in master of music program. And, I worked part time under a fellowship in neurology to studies patients who lose their ability to communicate verbally and [subsequently] develop other, artistic skills.” She is still affiliated with the UCSF Center for Aging and Memory and edits the journal Neurocase.

Correlated to her study of human memory, she has a strong appreciation and interest in the stories of others, including those who recount their miraculous experiences for Miracle Detectives. I asked her how she deals with the obvious – that people’s stories don’t qualify as solid evidence, and, that they might be less than factual. She explains: “I assume that people are telling me honestly what they remember but when there is something out of the ordinary, there are other ways in which I can corroborate the story.”

In one episode, a woman recalls her car accident that she claims was a premonition and resulted in her miraculous survival. Indre describes her interview strategy: “I look to question them in a way that gets around their telling the story in the same way they’ve told it before. They might have told this story a hundred times. When you start to ask them questions about the event – things they aren’t’ used to talking about – they may remember other aspects. From there, you can find out if what they are saying [as a whole] makes sense.”

The woman’s memory of the accident did not correspond to police reports made at the time nor with other experts opinion calling into doubt the label of “miracle”.

Being a “Skeptic”

In the intro for the show, Indre says, “Some might call me a skeptic…” But, does she call herself a “skeptic”?

She admits she did not know of the whole connected community until she started doing research for the show. Referring to the network of names and faces identified with the major skeptical organizations, she says, “I don’t have a good sense of what it means to be a Skeptic. I consider myself a scientist.”

The word “skeptic” can have a negative connotation, which is reflected in some of the comments of those who do not like the show. Indre comments that the word “skeptic” conjures the attitude that “You don’t want to find anything. You just want to say peoples’ beliefs are wrong.” But, that’s not true, she continues, “It’s, maybe, characteristic of some skeptics but not all, and certainly not true of scientists who are making a living trying to understand [the world].”

Having interacted with skeptical personalities Ben Radford, Joe Nickell, Michael Shermer and Jim Underdown for segments of Miracle Detectives, she expressed excitement to get more involved with the community.

Making a TV show

When I asked about the shooting schedule for a TV series, Indre described a grueling schedule of 12 hour days for 12 weeks.

Off camera, she spent considerable time preparing for the next episodes, doing research and contacting sources. “Yes, there were times that I wasn’t’ quite articulate on camera because I was tired,” she admits. “But, I always felt that the days went by quickly. It wasn’t a chore; I was never bored. There was so much I had to think about each day. I started taking copious notes, filling entire notebooks full of ideas and what people said, then go home and parse it.”

She continues: “It was all encompassing. I found it difficult to think of anything else. We had one day off a week. I’d have Sunday with my husband. It wasn’t easy.”

I inquired into what we might not realize about working on a television show. I found that television is a very cropped and refined end product. “For every thing that comes out in the final product,” she comments, “there are hours and hours of work that get edited out.”

Part of that work is time taken to prepare and to practice. I notice the same background work would apply to many of our life experiences.

Preparation is important, Indre stresses, because, “when the opportunity arises for you to make a point, you have that database from which you can draw.”

No matter if it’s a lecture or presentation at a meeting, her philosophy is, “You need to know a lot more than you’re ever going to say. You tell the audience 20% of what you know. In the questions and other moments you need to draw upon the other 80%. It’s true in television as well.”

Regarding practice, Indre describes how she thinks of several ways to say things in plain language prior to saying it on camera. Then, she practices saying it. Professionals do this. She related an example: “I saw the same thing on Oprah when we were on her show. As i was sitting next to her, she was practicing the pronunciation of my name. I could tell that she was a very professional media person because she knows that she could hiccup on a name so she practices it.”

Reaction from viewers

Miracle Detectives is part of the Oprah Winfrey Network (OWN). Thus, we can presume the audience demographic is primary women around 30 or older who are open to the spiritual and New Agey ideas Oprah promotes. How does one espouse a rational, scientific point of view to this audience without being tuned out?

For starters, the show’s developers cast a woman in the role of the logical investigator, and an accomplished, confident one at that.

Indre tells me that that feedback from Miracle Detective viewers is mixed. Most of the time, they find themselves siding with Randall but some admit they think about things in a way they haven’t before. The closed door may have been opened a bit. That’s encouraging! To present people with another possibility to get them thinking is an achievable and meaningful goal for skeptics.

Indre is not out to change people’s beliefs about God, but to show that there is an earthly, alternative explanation for some seemingly miraculous events.

The show’s web site allows viewers to comment on each episode. Most comments are from those of faith who have no appreciation of science as the most reliable method for understanding the world. It appears they also resent a rational viewpoint. Those people who have a complaint are more likely to comment but, at least, it is evidence that believers are being exposed to a presentation of both sides.

Unfortunately, a lot of the comments are personal.

Indre says, “It’s hard to read comments from people who are clearly not thoughtful (she’s an idiot, she’s ugly, etc.).”

Not all are so shallow, she notes, “Sometimes I have people comment on specific cases and I how I do things. What about this? How could you not find that evidence convincing? For those, I will respond.” She let’s these viewers know that they did have content that couldn’t be shown because there simply was not enough time.

She also gets labeled as the “wet blanket”.

“I’ll hear ‘You’re my miracle dream killer,’”, she comments. “I don’t want to be the Debbie Downer, as I’ve been called. I don’t think it has to be that way. When we look at these cases, it raises more questions. Is there something about this case that can illuminate something else about the way the world works? Those kinds of questions fascinate me.”

I asked, “Have you been pleased with the editing on the show?” She replied, “For the most part, I’ve been pleased. There was one episode about a medical intuitive where I felt that… they left out some critical components.” Indre clarifies it was not intentional, however. “It was not just to show the skeptic is wrong and Randall is right. Their job is to make good television.”

The intuitive claimed to see a long list of health problems in their test person, Joe, resulting in a “hit” that was impressive to Joe. However, the intuitive failed to remark on the primary ailment that affected Joe, an injured shoulder. Indre concludes the intuitive failed the test but, instead, the “hits” were emphasized in the program.

In the same episode, Indre and Randall interview remote viewer, Pam Coronado. “In the case of Pam Coronado, she described the picture for 20 minutes,” Indre explains. “They can’t show the whole thing. They just showed what sounded relevant. When you just show part of her description, things sound very specific.”

Indre had been coached on how to deal with such cold reading techniques from Skeptic Magazine’s Michael Shermer. “I had a good framework from Shermer.” But, she admits, “Looking back, I only had 2 minutes of airtime to [make my case].”

If she’d realized that, she would have done things differently. “It was me not being quite skilled enough and them having to make a story out of it.” A lesson for television is that there isn’t time to explain things in detail. So, the whole story doesn’t always get fleshed out.

Relating science to the public

Work on the show has made Indre more passionate about science education for the public. This is a core issue for me as well so we talked about why the public might not relate well to scientific findings.

The way in which the media reports science news doesn’t help. Always quick with a specific example, Indre talked about ESP studies. “Usually there is one method of study that is being applied to the phenomenon,” such as anecdotal evidence, she explains. “In ESP studies they’ll use one method of inquiry and find an effect. All of sudden they say we have to shift the paradigm!”

“As scientists,” she says, “we know that every method has its flaws so we need [lines of] converging evidence.”

That means using a host of different techniques and testing methods to point to a real effect. Yet, this important process of bolstering a claim is not what comes out in the news. Novel findings get hyped and people respond to results of just one study. She notes: “The news outlets don’t report ‘Oh, look! Ten papers used 10 methods and got the same results!’ That’s not exciting,” and concludes the public doesn’t have the patience to wait for findings to be well established, a key feature of accepting knowledge as valid.

Regarding parapsychology claims, she rejects the outcast scientist conspiracy, “If there really was solid evidence for such phenomena we’d all be studying it. It’d be fascinating. I mean, who wouldn’t want to build their career on a groundbreaking effect! Unfortunately, when you look closer, the work hasn’t been replicated by other labs, they haven’t used multiple methods and so it’s [ultimately] not that convincing.”

Future plans

“Will there be a season two of Miracle Detectives?” I ask.

“Right now the network is trying to figure out what their programing is going to be like,” Indre says, “so those decisions haven’t been made yet.”

I was interested in any other projects she had in store. As I anticipated, she has a lot of things cooking. “Ever since I started my PhD, I felt I was the kind of person who went project to project instead of having a 40-year career in one thing.”

She related to me that she is working on a proposal about art and science together in a creative non-fiction book. She tells of her collaborative work on artistic projects with artist Deborah Aschheim to display scientific information. In addition, she continues to perform in concerts and has recording projects. She even mentioned pitching an idea to another network about a potential show.

Gender issues in science and entertainment

SheThought readers are used to discussions regarding gender issues. This topic was appropriate to bring up with Indre in two contexts: science and the entertainment industry.

She admitted that the gender question triggered some strong feelings.

“I’ve working in traditionally male environments like electrophysiology and even in television,” she begins. “Sure, I have come upon gender issues where I felt that if I was man, I might have been treated differently.” Yet, she feels those situations are manageable. She explains, “Before now, I felt I could pretty much handle any gender bias that gets thrown at me. I learned how to work with difficult people.”

There is, however, one issue that provokes her. “The biggest issue facing women in science and TV is how do fit children into the equation. As I’m getting into that part of my life, it’s definitely an issue for me. I’ve never before felt quite as vulnerable as now when I’ve wondered if it’s time to start a family. It’s the first time I’ve been told outright ‘If you have a child/if you get pregnant, we will replace you’. That made me angry.”

Getting pregnant would mean taking time off but it does not mean one would be less good at doing the job. Indre told me she wonders if the attitude towards pregnancy in the entertainment industry may be specific to the situation. For example, she’s heard that some producers think pregnancy might “provide a new perspective and interest”.

She does not know if the negative view is widespread or industry-wide but thinks it deserves attention. “Both industries, science and entertainment, could be more supportive towards family decisions,” she remarked. “Unless we raise the issue and start thinking about possible solution, it’s not going to get better.”

I agree. This sentiment also rings true with promotion of any social issue including skepticism. We must raise the rational viewpoint with the public, believers and pro-paranormalists. There are other solutions out there besides the one that culture considers most compelling for the moment. Using Indre’s philosophy for discussion, we ought to figure out what we agree upon and move forward in little steps from there. Unless we start somewhere and keep the discussion going, even against criticism and biased claims, we won’t get anywhere.

Indre Viskontas is a face of new scientific skepticism. Question, push, take chances but don’t discount, don’t alienate. She readily admits it’s a fine line to walk. I’m encouraged by Miracle Detectives in their presentation of a thoughtful, intelligent skeptical personality to deliver the reasonable point of view. It’s a step in the right direction.

Miracle Detectives: http://www.oprah.com/own-miracle-detectives/miracle-detectives.html
Indre Viskontas personal site: http://www.indreviskontas.com

More of this in-depth interview with Ms. Viskontas will be featured in a future issue of Skeptical Inquirer. Subscribe today.

Sharon Hill is a geologist interested in the public understanding of science. She blogs at Doubtful and organizes the Keystone Society for Rational Inquiry
Twitter: @idoubtit http://twitter.com/idoubtit and @keystoneinquiry http://twitter.com/keystoneinquiry

=======
This post, Indre Viskontas: Scientist, Skeptic and Miracle Detective, originally appeared on She Thought on March 3, 2011.
=======

Sci-Five!

I think that there is a lot of this in the atheist/skeptic community. I don’t want to fall into the fallacy that women are more compassionate than men, but I do think that the lack of large numbers of women doesn’t help. The association of emotions with women is so strong that it seems many people are uncomfortable with thinking of emotions as important empirically, or important in comparison with logic. It’s not just men who don’t want to be seen as weak, women are also afraid of being seen as stereotypically female and not as rational as men.

Today, Hemant at The Friendly Atheist posted about a woman who, at the hands of her religious upbringing, was taught to be so ashamed of her body that she was unable to breastfeed because she was so uncomfortable with her breasts. Hemant made a real effort to give a feminist response – women have the right to choose what to do with their bodies and it’s not his place to make those decisions for someone else – but he also said “It’s ultimately her choice, but I think I’d feel more comfortable about her decision (as if it matters what I think) if there was a more scientific rationale behind it.”

I recognize in blogging you often say things off the cuff that, given a little more thought, you probably would have worded differently, but I have to say I was a bit flabbergasted that Hemant would dismiss dealing with trauma as lacking in “scientific rationale”, as though any decision made based on emotion is necessarily irrational and therefore bad. And I should say I’ve no reason to think that he wants to change the language, but I’m trying to give him the benefit of the doubt. I love Hemant, I love his blog, I can only assume the best of him, so I hope that the way he worded it wasn’t the way he meant it.

Stop Being so Illogical!

I feel like the atheist/skeptic community does a lot of dismissing of people’s feelings. It happens whenever a woman brings up feeling uncomfortable, underrepresented, or underserved by the community. It happens whenever people point out the small number of minorities, or being uncomfortable by perceived racism. There’s something about emotions that seems to really bother people. If nothing else, I think it isn’t useful to dismiss someone’s feelings as invalid, no matter how wrong you’re sure they are.  Perhaps it’s too difficult a line to walk, but treating people’s emotions as something they should be embarrassed by isn’t only cruel, it doesn’t serve any useful purpose. Ideas and behavior are things worth critiquing, but someone’s emotions cannot be invalid, you cannot argue with someone that they can’t feel something, that’s not how it works. How they respond to their feelings? Yes, that’s fair game, but that they have feelings at all isn’t something you get to say is bad.

Cheer Up Emo Kid!

I can’t help but look at the traditional associations of emotion with women and children and logic with men and be a bit bothered by all this from a feminist perspective. I don’t think it’s conscious, but it seems like because emotions are seen as girly they are also seen as unimportant and weak. And if something is logical or rational, it is manly and strong and important. It’s not limited to this community, but also a lot of my friends who are interested in film, a group that is dominated by men as well. When a movie is technically impressive, it is important, but if a movie relies on emotions, it is not. The King’s Speech shouldn’t have won the Oscar because it’s just a story about emotions, not a technical feat like Inception or The Social Network, because emotions aren’t important.  That’s why some movies go to Lifetime and some go to Spike TV.

I ultimately decided that Spock was more irrational than people because he treated the emotional experience as invalid. Although dedicated to logic, Spock never took the extra step and accepted that human emotion was rational, and existed for rational reasons, and that to dismiss it was very limiting. Ignoring the importance of emotion and emotional health isn’t actually a rational way to deal with people. To pretend that human emotions don’t matter or aren’t important, to dismiss mental health as a non-scientific reason for pursuing a course of action… it is most illogical.

=======
This post, Emotions Are Not The Enemy, originally appeared on She Thought on March 1, 2011.
=======

Today, I’ve encountered several links to this article, which talks about how Carolyn Blackmore Jessop witnessed members of the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints torturing their children.

“They spank the baby and when it cries, they hold the baby face up under the tap with running water. When they stop crying, they spank it again and the cycle is repeated until they are exhausted.”

It’s typically done by fathers and it’s called “breaking in.”

Jessop, who is from Arizona, testified about the practice during her testimony in B.C. Supreme Court.

Outside the courthouse, Jessop said water torture is common enough that there doesn’t seem any shame attached to the practice.

It is gut-wrenching to know of anyone going through the horrible things that she describes that these children have been through. In fact, stories shared by those who have left the FLDS are frequently sad and horrifying. It is tough, even for me, to read Jessop’s account without feeling my stomach churn and wanting to reach through the computer screen in a blind attempt to save a suffering infant. But something else about this article has disturbed me as well.

Jessop’s account was not really about saving tortured babies. Sure, she talked about tortured babies, but her story is one that uses tortured babies for another purpose, not really one to solve the problem. See, here’s the part of the article that most people in the blogosphere and pretty much everywhere I’ve encountered this link seem to have overlooked:

“It’s quite common,” Carolyn Blackmore Jessop told the constitutional reference case to determine whether Canada’s polygamy law is valid.

The emphasis is mine.

This account about tortured babies is being used to argue that polygamy should continue to be illegal in Canada.  I don’t want to downplay Jessop’s suffering. It certainly deserves attention and it does need people to take action, but this action is not the appropriate action. Polygamy is not what is to blame for what has happened to these children. Polygamy is not to blame for the young brides forced into marriage, either, or for the displaced boys who have been tossed out of their religious community. No, instead, the blame goes to dogma and people, mostly people.

Polyamory and Polygamy have become dirty words in our culture. It has become symbolic of something that is a distant, distorted image of what it once was and what it can be. Polyamory is alive and well in the United States and I’ve had plenty of experience with polyamorous people and have even been in polyamorous relationships, myself. I’ve seen many varieties of poly family structures and have seen what kinds of struggles those people face because their chosen love life is not what people think is ‘right.’ I’ve seen no evidence that polyamory or polygamy are, themselves, dangerous things.

In Canada, they are questioning the validity of polygamy laws with good reason. Who one marries, even if it is multiple marriages, should not be a decision restricted by law as long as each party is a consenting adult. The problems happening within the FLDS communities have nothing to do with if it is harmful to marry multiple people or not. The blame for these abuses are not something we should be carelessly tossing around. It is especially disturbing that the blame for these things has been misplaced because such misplacement keeps us from holding accountable that which is truly to blame.

=======
This post, This is NOT About Tortured Babies, originally appeared on She Thought on January 21, 2011.
=======

During our conversational meanderings, we touched on the debate between creationism[2] and evolution. We did not directly discuss the political/social issues surrounding the teaching of evolution in schools[3]. Rather, we discussed the difficulty of convincing individuals that evolution is right and creationism is wrong.

People have the annoying habit of acting on their beliefs. This leads to headaches, like the efforts to teach intelligent design in schools, which require Eugenie Scott to be awesome on a regular basis. So, if we don’t want to keep fighting efforts to force creationism into science classrooms, or have evolution taken out of them, we do need to address individual beliefs.

I am used to a scientific discussion of the creationism/evolution debate. From this standpoint, there is no debate. Evolution has all the evidence. Unfortunately, it seems that the “this is the scientific consensus, believe it, monkeys” argument stopped working in the 1960s.

My father, on the other hand, is not a professional scientist, he is a businessman. He makes a living by getting something from one person in order that he might give that something to someone else. Generally, people prefer it when you exchange something that they find equally or more useful, like money, for the item they are giving you. When one exchanges something of less value for the item being taken, we call stealing (or taxation). In my experience, people are not fond of being robbed (or taxes, on them).

Bringing this simple economic perspective to my thinking about creationist beliefs has forced me to reconsider my whimsical take on the eventual acceptance of evolution[4].

Can we reasonably expect people to give up their belief in creationism without offering something of equal or greater value in return?

From the perspective of someone ensconced in academic research, it is hard to imagine that there is a cost to denying creationism[5].

But, what if you are a creationist? Let’s say that you are a member of Biblical literalist church, one that adheres to young earth creationism. The perceived costs[6] of giving up your creationist beliefs become quite significant, such as potential alienation from family, loss of friends, damage to business contacts, exclusion from community events – essentially the destruction of your entire social network. Oh, yeah, and your previous beliefs may create the lingering fear that you are now damned for all eternity.

Would you be willing to risk all that over a point of scientific accuracy that seems to have little immediate relevance to most people?

In contrast, the immediate costs of maintaining creationist beliefs are harder to define. Creationism may completely lack evidence, and its teaching may undermine critical thinking skills. In the long-term, undermining the critical thinking skills, especially of our children, is certainly a long-term cost. Just because such a cost is unacceptable for our society does not mean that it will be so for individuals.

While we may be offering the best scientific answer to explain the diversity of our world, we are not simultaneously offering to replace what they risk losing. Some people will courageously take the leap into a more scientific worldview, but we are probably safe in assuming that those folks are the exception, not the rule.

Let’s look at the situation in reverse. What if you were asking me, a professional biologist, to give up evolution in favor of creationism? I could expect to lose the respect of my peers, maybe my current job, almost any future prospect of a quality position, and my wife would think that I am an idiot – the list goes on an on. I like to think I’m willing to change my mind in the face of the evidence, but, based only on the expected costs, the leap to creationism would require some extraordinary evidence showing greater costs of not changing my mind. I’m thinking of extraordinary evidence along the lines of a visitation from the Creator complete with a guided tour of the evolution wing of Hell with a sampler platter of the eternal tortures in store for the unrepentant. In that case, I might think about it.

Evolution wins court cases, but not hearts and minds. In considering how to change individual beliefs, being right isn’t always enough.

NOTES

1. Contrary to some opinions, this was not an example of good teaching. It was insulting to a kid who has no reason to know better and simply preaches to the choir. The enthusiastic encouragement of the PZealots is a rival for patheticness.
2. I’m going to use the word creationism throughout this post as its broad usage for a wide variety of theories that posit a deity that implemented creation of the universe through a variety of means, including intelligent design.
3. While not a professional scientist, my father is a fan of science and fully supports the teaching of science (i.e., evolution) in science classrooms.
4. You simply cannot ask me to treat a particular anniversary as especially important because it is a certain multiple of the number of fingers possessed by the modal human[7].
5. A similar argument can be applied to religion/atheism.
6. Whether the cost is actually incurred is irrelevant. The perception of cost informs the decision.
7. That’s right, the modal human. Most humans have ten fingers, but not all of them do. Why not use the average human? I suspect that the number of people with fewer than ten fingers (such as folks that work with farm equipment) is greater than those with more than ten (such as Count Rugen) skewing the mean slightly[8] below ten. While the median would certainly return the correct numerical answer, it would capture the concept less precisely.
8. Rounding is for commies.

Josh  writes regularly at The Finch & Pea or can be found reposting Skeptically Speaking show notices at @rugbyologist.

=======
This post, I’ll Trade You an Evolutionary Theory for Your Creationism, originally appeared on She Thought on January 6, 2011.
=======

photo courtesy of environmentaleconomics.wordpress.com

It is no secret that the condition of our environment has long been a popular topic in recent years. It isn’ really a new one either. Just a few decades ago we were facing the matter of acid rain, and litter scattered throughout. Several rivers, at least here in the US were considered very unclean. Smog was a big issue in many larger cities. Then governments, at least in industrialized nations, began to work to overcome some of those problems. In the US the Clean Air Act was enacted. Factories were ordered to put in scrubbers on their smoke stacks. Roadside litter clean up campaigns were implemented in communties everywhere. River and waterway clean up programs were begun to reverse the damage done to national waterways. All of those programs were proven to be successful.

Fast forward a few decades and again we are faced with some true environmental issues. We have an increasingly rising population and more nations are becoming industrialized. Issues like air quality, water quality and a growing waste stream are becoming alarmingly serious.  Global demand for the fossil fuels oil, natural gas and coal are at an all time high. In some less developed nations, the trash of richer nations ends up being literally dumped right into their front yards, which provides a toxic environment for the residents there.

Steps are again starting to take place as people recognize the problem, try to grasp the scope of it, and work to try to come up with practical solutions to reversing what we have wrought upon our planet. Recycling methods are improving all the time, companies are coming up with innovative ideas to reduce energy usage. Governments, businesses, scientists and average citizens are looking into alternative, renewable ways to use energy, and to reduce one’s footprint on the planet’s environment. Sometimes ideas to reducing pollution can be a bit different, but still beneficial to the environment. One company sells outdoor lighting designed to reduce outdoor light pollution. http://www.starrynightlights.com/

Books, videos and seminars abound about how communities and individuals can help to be better stewards of our planet. Even people of faith are getting into the game. A quick Amazon search reveals several items geared towards helping Christians, from the individual parishioner to the church congregation help be a bit greener when it comes to how we use our natural resources. Books such as Inheriting the Earth: Poor Communities and Environmental Renewal, The Care of Creation: Focusing Concern and Action and others demonstrate that even Christians are noticing the problem and wanting to do something to fix it.

The concept goes along with teaching in biblical scripture. In the book of Genesis, Adam and Eve, were given the task of caring and tending the earth. In the book of Leviticus rules about giving fields a year of rest was given. Apparently the knowledge of robbing the soil of nutrients was known in that day. The frequent pastoral references in the bible demonstrate a closeness with nature and an understanding of man’s interdependance on what the earth produced.

Then there is this. http://www.resistingthegreendragon.com, produced by Cornwall Alliance. When I first read about this at the blog site run by writer John Shore, I thought he was joking. He does tend to enjoy the satirical at times, and he does use a tongue in cheek approach with this subject, but the message Cornwall Alliance, the promoters of this DVD series, is trying to send to churches all across the US, is anything but humorous.

They are suggesting that being environmentally conscious is destroying the church, that the movement is brainwashing our children, and that is actually a form of cult like-religion designed to lure the faithful from the true way of God. They are quite willing to share all this information with you for the price of $49.99 for the 4 DVD set. For an extra $30, one can pre-order a book by a geophysicist named James Wanliss. His credentials seem interesting on paper, and he does teach in his field, at a small Presbyterian college in a small town in South Carolina. Why did the producers of this project choose a professor who isn’t an expert in geology or environmental studies to be their scientific expert, and to author a book on the subject? It is a curiosity.

Ironically Cornwall Alliance admits, at least in part that we have some real needs in the care of our planet and of the people who live upon it. They acknowledge that people need access to clean water and medical care, but it is what they reject that is bothersome. They reject climate change, they reject the need to stem the exploding growth of the world’s population. They don’t seem to be troubled by the fact that we are dependent on oil and all it produces including pollution in several forms. Silent is the mention that people in many parts of the world are living as a direct result of man’s poor stewardship when it comes to sound environmental practices, or that AIDS kills twice as many as their mentioned Malaria every year. They believe that “Environmental policies should harness human creative potential by expanding political and economic freedom, instead of imposing draconian restrictions or seeking to reduce the “human burden” on the natural world. Suppressing human liberty and productivity in the name of environmental protection is antithetical to the principles of stewardship and counterproductive to the environment.”

It almost seems that they feel it is perfectly ok to burn down rain forests and destroy eco-systems so people can grow palm oil fields. “It’s ok,” that message seems to say. “its economic freedom, who cares that in 20 years the soil that that ecosystem once sustained is all in the ocean. That’s in the future. Go burn down some more rain forest.”

The Christian in me, the human in me, the one who cares for the planet she is damned lucky to live on, is angry that such ideas are being promoted and given credence despite overwhelming evidence that things are exactly what scientists and environmentalists say they are. Being green isn’t about being in a anti-Christian cult. It is about wanting our children, our grandchildren and our great grandchildren, all the world’s children, now and in the future to have a place where they can exist and thrive. It’s about caring about the world I believe God gave me to live on and to do what I can to care for. It is about all of us trying to work together for the common good for all mankind and for all the creatures that live upon the earth. To suggest that mild, moderate or radical environmentalists are wanting anything else is quite simply, dead wrong.

=======
This post, The “Cult of Environmentalism”, originally appeared on She Thought on December 30, 2010.
=======