by Johanna

Check out the NEW Vlog!

I was recently reminded of one of the many reasons that I despise the indoctrination of children. I’ll be honest; there are a lot of reasons, not the least of which being that it’s the most effective way of propagating religion.  On an individual basis, I take issue with the way that indoctrination teaches the child not only what to think, but how.

A four-year-old with Catholic parents noticed my uncle’s rather impressive mustache. I think anyone would be hard pressed not to notice it. But this particular child had somehow reached the age of four without ever being introduced to the concept of facial hair, so he asked my uncle what that thing was on his face, to which he replied, quite patiently, “A mustache.” Fascinated, the boy demanded to know how it had gotten there. My uncle informed him that it grew there, expecting further questions of how such a thing was possible. Instead, the boy looked confused for a minute before comprehension dawned.

“Oh, God did it. God put it there.”

Satisfied with this answer, the boy left the room to go play with his friends and presumably go on believing that God, for whatever reason, sometimes decides to slap mustaches on old men’s faces.

My problem here is that this young boy, along with so many others like him, has been taught that curiosity is almost always met with immediate and easily-understandable answers. Why is the sky blue? Because God made it that way. Why is there thunder during lightning storms? Because God’s going bowling. Why do seagulls live by the sea? Because if they lived by the bay, they’d be bay-gulls! And, Also, because God said so.

Life is, of course, more complex than that. The sky is blue because of the way atmospheric particles scatter light. This leads to more in-depth questions, like “why do atmospheric molecules scatter the light in that way?”

To be honest, I don’t know, but I could find out if I really wanted to. I could research the question online, I could read books, I could ask a physicist.  Eventually, if I asked enough questions, I would get to a point where nobody knows the answer yet. The beautiful thing is that if I still wanted to know more, I could try to find out for myself. I could get a doctorate or two and I could start looking for the next answer down the line.

Now I, personally, might not have the time, or the drive, or the resources to get these doctorates and set forth on a quest for more clues as to the nature of the universe, but there are plenty of people who do. Without them, we as a species would make very little progress in expanding our collective knowledge about the whys and wherefores of this wonderful world. I’d argue that every major stride we’ve ever made has happened because someone asked a question and refused to accept “just because” as an answer.

So for those of you that train your children in just this kind of thinking, you’re depriving humanity of future scientists. There are a few that are curious enough to break out of this mold and refuse to accept their “just becauses,” but why not give them a head start? Why not teach them from the very beginning that there are unanswered questions out there just waiting for inquiring minds to tackle them? Why not teach them that “I don’t know” isn’t the same thing as saying “I give up”? Saying “God did it” is a cop-out. Even if you insist on believing in a god that’s ultimately responsible for the world being the way that it is now, that’s no reason to just skip to the end. If you do that, you leave out all the interesting parts of quantum mechanics and higher mathematics and anthropology and medicine and psychology and history and the life cycles of stars.

I’m not saying that this is the only way, or even the worst way, that religion damages young minds. I could go on for days about teaching children hatred and fear, or the perils of magical thinking, or discouraging questions that expose the confusing and contradictory aspects of their parent’s religions. Still, I feel that the provision of a readily-available all-purpose answer is a subtle and consistent attack on a child’s inquisitive nature that slowly and steadily erodes curiosity until almost nothing remains. It’s insidious because it’s a negative disguised as a positive. It’s discouraging inquiry by answering questions; eventually, the child is going to learn that the answer is always going to be the same. Yes, some children are able to resist, to remain curious despite all attempts to the contrary, but they seem to be the exception rather than the rule.

And even worse, children don’t hesitate to pass this onto their peers. I don’t think I could begin to count how many times my friends and classmates discouraged me from asking questions as a kid. I was ridiculed for wondering how we got here, because to them the answer was obvious. As I got older and my questions grew more complex, their insistence that it didn’t really matter became more urgent, and now it included a new aspect: It’s not our place as mere mortals to question why God would do something. In fact, I’ve been repeatedly informed, we’re probably not even capable of understanding the answer. God works in mysterious ways. Even now, the majority of religious people with whom I discuss “intelligent design” assert that it doesn’t really matter whether evolution happened or not, because either way, God was responsible. There’s no reason to wonder why he might have done things one way or another, because we probably wouldn’t understand anyway. They may be mildly curious as to whether creation was an instantaneous event or guided over billions of years, but they don’t feel it makes any difference to their lives, or their faith.

“God did it” is not how you raise scientists and innovators. This intellectual instant gratification stifles speculation, curbs creativity, and all in all makes the world a very boring place to live. What reason is there to delve into the mysteries of the universe if you know the ultimate answer is always going to be “God did it”? A world in which questions outnumber answers is a far more fascinating place, and one I think children would be better off being raised in.

Johanna is a member of CVA.  The views expressed in this posting are her own and do not necessarily represent those of Connecticut Valley Atheists or its individual members.

by mr dan

Check out the NEW Vlog!

The English language is a beautiful creature that’s a lot like an M. Night Shyamalan film.  All the material is stolen from other sources and it makes sense as long as you don’t think about it too hard.  I have a great respect for the nearly untamable beast that unites and divides this great nation. Its beautiful complexity delights and confuses the hell out of immigrants and native-born speakers alike.  Sometimes words sound like other words, or are spelled the same but have different meanings.  Sometimes things aren’t spelled the way they sound.  There are silent E’s, P’s and W’s, and unintelligible mispronunciations completely unrelated to the spelling of a word which eventually become acceptable because the president says them enough.

I submit to you an example of such a peculiar word: Theory.  This word has caused so much trouble not only to our language but to our education, our politics and our culture.  Deniers of the theory of evolution by means of natural selection never tire of pointing out that “evolution is a theory, not a fact.”  If you’re reading this then I’m guessing you already know how ridiculous that is, and how confused such a speaker must be.

The reason for this confusion is that, like many English words, theory has more than one correct definition.  Unfortunately, the two most common definitions appear to be in exact opposition to one another.  On the one hand, the scientific idea of a theory as a system of facts, ideas and principles intended to explain a problem or a phenomenon.  On the other, an abstract thought, speculation or guess.  This second definition is very colloquial and doesn’t have any use in the field of science, so when someone describes a scientific theory with the second definition, he or she is just plain wrong.

But what irks me even more than the misuse of the word is the blathering and stumbling that goes on when confronted with this accusation.  They’ll say things like, “Well, that’s because scientists use the word theory differently than regular people.”

No, it’s not. It’s because scientists are talking about science and you are talking about fantasy.  Maybe the reason we’re fighting such an uphill battle is that we’re answering the question wrong, and, in doing so, allowing an inferior definition to misuse its way to the top spot of the entry.

Here’s an answer I like much better:

“Look, we can’t disregard an overwhelming scientific consensus and set back the course of education 150 years just because you don’t know what the word theory means.”  You can then advise them to consult a dictionary and remind them to pay particular attention to the first and most important definition provided, reserving the subsequent and less technical use of the word for occasions not involving actual situations or consequences.  If they do, here is what they will find.

1 : the analysis of a set of facts in their relation to one another.  (Merriam-Webster Collegiate Dictionary)

1: a coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena. (dictionary.com)

1: a supposition or a system of ideas intended to explain something, esp. one based on general principles independent of the thing to be explained. (Oxford American Dictionary)

1:  A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena. (American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language)

Based on independent general principles.  A set of facts.  Coherent.  These aren’t words you hear the other side using, and there’s good reason.  To dismiss something as invalid because it is a theory exposes the ignorance of the speaker to those who have a clue what’s going on, but allows them to blend in among the mistaken masses.

How many other theories are generally accepted? Atomic theory.  The theory of gravity.  The theory of heliocentricism.  Cell theory. The theory of plate tectonics. The theory of acoustics.  Circuit theory.  Germ theory.  The big bang theory (okay, some of these same people haven’t caught on to that one yet either, but the facts are pretty irrefutable).

Yes, theories can turn out to be wrong, and many have (ever heard of the theory of geocentrism?).  But the fact that one particular theory may be wrong does not mean that anything labeled a theory is discredited.  And the fact that you are using one definition of a word doesn’t mean that that’s what I mean when I say it.

To fix this little lingual pandemonium, we need to stop using the inferior definition entirely. From now on, if you have an idea, say you have an idea.  If you’re talking about a hypothesis, say hypothesis.  If you’re just guessing at something, say that you’re guessing.  Guessing is a good place to start when solving a problem, but if the other side thinks that’s the best we can do then they are mistaken.

So the next time somebody says, “We shouldn’t teach evolution in the schools because its just a theory,” don’t waste your time pointing out the divide between scientific language and the language of ordinary people — you’re playing right into their hands.  Tell them that evolution is as obvious a process as gravity.  Ask them how you can doubt Darwin and still believe in earthquakes.  Ask them if they even know whether the earth goes ’round the sun, or the sun ’round the earth.  But don’t fall into their trap. Your time is more valuable than that.

mr dan is the vice president of Connecticut Valley Atheists.  The views expressed in this posting are his own and do not necessarily represent those of Connecticut Valley Atheists or its individual members.

by mr dan

Check out the NEW Vlog!

In response to the recent tragedy at SeaWorld in Florida that took the life of a whale trainer named Dawn Brancheau, who was pulled underwater by a 6-ton orca named Tilikum, The American Family Association published a blog on their website which seemed to call for Tilly and Chuck Thompson, the park’s curator of animals, to be put to death by stoning.  The editorial, written by Bryan Fischer, points out that this is not the first time this particular orca has been responsible for the death of a human being.

Even though religion claims that man has dominion over animals, while I in my atheism assert that man is one of nature’s many creatures, this incident proves that the former is not the case — and yet, it is to religion that the AFA recommends we turn for the solution.

Says the ancient civil code of Israel, “When an ox gores a man or woman to death, the ox shall be stoned, and its flesh shall not be eaten, but the owner shall not be liable.” (Exodus 21:28) [...] But, the Scripture soberly warns, if one of your animals kills a second time because you didn’t kill it after it claimed its first human victim, this time you die right along with your animal. To use the example from Exodus, if your ox kills a second time, “the ox shall be stoned, and its owner also shall be put to death.” (Exodus 21:29)

Lapidation, or death  by stoning, is among the most barbaric forms of punishment that man has ever devised.  It’s present in all Abrahamic religions and still practiced in Islam today. Jews and Christians have, for the most part, established a de facto abolition of the ritual and moved on to other forms of capital cruelty.  But, for the record, the passages remain in scripture with nothing to contradict them, and contrary to popular belief, Jesus never disavowed the practice — in fact he encouraged it.  When Jesus prevents an angry mob from stoning a prostitute, his message is that it’s not the stoning that’s wrong, but the judging of another person when you yourself have committed sins and have not repented.  Remember, it’s, “Let he who is without sin cast the first stone,” not, “Just don’t cast any stones at all.”  As Paul Begala would say, it’s the hypocrisy, stupid.

Religion seems adept at turning the rest of the world’s rational population into teachers on the schoolyard.  “No — don’t throw rocks at the other children.  That’s bad, bad — naughty!” And when we did take notice of this little blog post, most people found it a bit silly.  Fischer now claims that he never said the whale should be stoned to death, only that it should be euthanized.  He merely pointed out that the Bible calls for it to be stoned to death.  So, we’ve got to kill the whale because the Bible says so, and you made it clear that the Bible wants us to kill it by stoning it, but now you’re claiming you didn’t say the whale should be stoned to death?  Are you yourself stoned?

I have nothing in particular to add to the debate about wild animals in captivity that wouldn’t be highly tangential.  I will say that this incident proves that they cannot always be trusted to act in the best interest of the humans who handle them, or that they cannot always understand the consequences of their actions.  But let that debate roll on without me.

As far as the AFA’s assertion that the curator of animals should be put to death, I myself find that to be highly inappropriate.  This is largely because I am personally opposed to capital punishment in all forms, but I especially think that this case is not a capital one.

Is the curator guilty of negligent homicide, and should he be punished for not ensuring the safety of all park employees and visitors?  I don’t know.  I suppose that’s why we have a criminal justice system — so that plaintiffs and defendants can make their case, and a jury can decide what really happened, and whether it was avoidable, and a judge can decide what course of action should be taken.  So people like Mr Fischer and me, who aren’t intimately familiar with the fine details of the incident, don’t have to pretend we are experts in mammalian homicidal law.  So that justice can squint a little and at least pretend to be blind.  So that ignorant cave-dwellers don’t solve their grievances by gathering as many large, flat stones as they can carry.

Our goal in this society should be to embrace freedom and live out full and exciting lives, as long as we don’t throw rocks at each other.  Now run along and play nice.

mr dan is the vice president of Connecticut Valley Atheists.  The views expressed in this posting are his own and do not necessarily represent those of Connecticut Valley Atheists or its individual members.