Okay, I don’t work for NASA [photo courtesy of], but sometimes I feel I’ve been transported into a semi-alien future.
Consider this photo -
That’s the inside of an “air-bus” I rode from a most southern U.S. state to a most northern. In 2.5 hours. On each seat-back is a sort of window to another world. And you can choose what world you want to view.
That’s nuts. Which isn’t to say I’m against it. Just that . . . well, it only makes full sense if you’ve grown accustomed to it. I hope I never grow fully accustomed to it.
With these perceptions am I showing my age? Would a twenty-something be as likely to feel like a Jetson when standing miles deep in the forest and making a phone call to a friend at a beach two continents away?
Actually, that I am against! Call me a cusp-hippy, but using a cell phone in that setting completely violates the high virtue of “Be(ing) Here Now.”
Anyway. Technology. Love it, leave it. Appreciate it, but don’t let it control you.
Amen. Now go in peace electronics.
[recycled post - first appeared here]
The past few years have seen the release of a number of controversial books about religion (such as Sam Harris’ The End of Faith, Daniel Dennet’s Breaking the Spell, and Richard Dawkin’s The God Delusion). Thanks to these books — books I may not wholly agree with — my thinking has been stimulated. I have come to view religion as something that provides both a personal and a social raison d’être. A reason for being.
On the personal level, religious beliefs and practices can provide meaning, with reasons why and how to live. A personal raison d’être consists of those aspirations and relationships that give life meaning, as well as the activities that generate feelings of awe and/or immersion in something greater. On this level, religion is frequently referred to as spirituality. Many a person will say, I’m not into organized religion, but I am a spiritual person.
Established religions can and do provide ready-made blueprints for personal reasons for being. The personal and the social overlap significantly, but to differing degrees among individuals and cultures. In our highly individualistic culture, believers need not be one-brand shoppers. Rather, beneath the single roof provided by the label “religion,” there are whole aisles dedicated to differing types of belief. Seekers will pick and choose to suit their needs. Sometimes they grab items from separate aisles that don’t necessarily go together: a pint of Jesus, a gallon of Buddha, a quart of Deepak Chopra.
As for this individual, my own raison d’être could be summarized as “to love and to learn.” I don’t need religions in general, or Biblical teachings specifically, to motivate nor guide me in either pursuit. In fact, I believe Bible-based religions might limit how and what I learn and possibly impede to whom I extend a loving intention.
As for the personal raison d’être of my associates and community members: so long as they are not hurting themselves nor harming others, it’s none of my business. That said, if I am dragged or invited into a discussion about values or claims to truth, I’m not going to pretend I concur, nor apportion someone’s values or claims greater respect simply due to the tradition or language their raison d’être may be steeped in.
Much is made of a line between science and religion. To me, a better line to draw is that between public and private. A personal reason for being is necessarily a private thing.
Social reasons for being are another matter, and I will be addressing those in part III of this three-part post.
Tags: atheism, Christianity, humanism, religion
I’m not in Florida presently. No palm trees here. Instead, there are lots of ravines with cold brooks and streams running through them. In the floodplains by the river there are acres upon acres of tall corn.
Tomorrow I go hiking. Up a ridge. Haven’t done that in years. The highest elevation in Florida is 345 feet. Here you climb and dip more than that just to make a run to the local convenience store.
As your location on the planet and the geography changes, so too does the weather, the flora, and the fauna. Which I find fascinating.
Tags: personal, photography, wildlife
[recycled post - first appeared here]
Some people argue that religion has done bad things, and then fail to acknowledge any good. Other people claim that religion does good things, and then either ignore the bad or attribute it to political, economic, or other factors. Neither group is acting fairly. And both are at least partly mistaken.
Consider this country’s civil rights movement. It is claimed that religion helped push progress along. And although it is true that church groups marched, and from numerous pulpits the message for change was broadcast, Christianity — our nation’s dominant religion — had nothing to do with it. Why? Because groups such as the Ku Klux Klan used their own version of Christianity and Bible passages to resist the very same progress.
Apologists might insist that the KKK distorted the real message of Jesus, while those in favor of civil rights had the correct understanding. The real message? Certainly the historical figure of Jesus made a number of pro-social statements about loving thy neighbor and honoring the meek. But equally essential components of his teaching included the exhortation that judgment, justice and reward awaited in the afterlife, that people must acknowledge his divinity and follow him or hellfire awaited, and that individuals were either for him or against him. Furthermore, there are at least half a dozen verses in the New Testament that unambiguously support inequality (i.e., 1 Peter 2:18 — Slaves, submit yourselves to your masters with all respect, not only to those who are good and considerate, but also to those who are harsh.)
Would you say that the person who inspired those ideas was suited to lead an important social movement today? I wouldn’t.
What is true Christianity? This is a nearly absurd question. Both Jesus and Christianity are largely what have been made of them. An honest reading of the Bible, extra-canonical gospels, and scholarly works about the origin and evolution of the early Christian churches makes that eminently clear.
It wasn’t Christianity itself — the religion — that played a pivotal role in the civil rights movement. Rather, it was the set of values that individuals and groups held and acted upon. Jewish and Buddhist individuals and groups also protested and marched, as did countless other uncategorized people. To understand what was really at work, we must look beyond labels.
Tags: atheism, Christianity, morality
Love this comic [by way of Pharyngula].
[source]
Though I might insert the word strongly into “still believe in God.” For skepticism should infuse doubt when called for, but doesn’t necessitate a specific conclusion. In my opinion.
What’s your opinion?
Tags: atheism, belief, critical thinking
[Recycled-post, I'm in traveling mode. First appeared here.]
Do herbal remedies work? Some may. But we don’t know until we test them. And in Little Or No Evidence That Herbal Remedies Relieve Menopausal Symptoms I read about tests conducted, and the lack thereof, on a few.
The lead string of words, however, momentarily perplexed me.
There is no strong evidence either way for several herbal remedies . . .
To me, the idea that evidence can go “either way” is fundamentally mistaken. It can also perpetuate a misunderstanding of science and what we call the burden of proof.
In a very important sense, when conducting scientific research the possible results are not either 1) evidence pointing one way — in the affirmative, or 2) evidence pointing the other way — in the negative.
Research results, verses evidence, may be used to argue the negative. “Herbal remedy X doesn’t work.” But in the strict sense, the evidence itself will always be some degree of affirmative down to null.
For herbal remedies, either there is evidence a particular one works or no evidence it works. “No evidence it works” is not the same as “evidence it doesn’t work.”
Evidence doesn’t go both ways. Sure, results can lead to opposite conclusions. But evidence isn’t bi-sensational.
As for the herbal remedies in question (black cohosh, evening primrose oil, red clover) for treating menopause, I would have worded summarizing thoughts this way: There is little convincing evidence x, y & z work.
It may seem like splitting hairs, but that is what scientific minds do. Again, you cannot test if a herbal remedy doesn’t work. You can only test if it does work. With null results, you can then conclude it doesn’t. The more null results, and the more unequivocal the results, the more confidently you can conclude it doesn’t work.
On the other hand, the default position of whether a herbal remedy works should not be “probably” or even “possibly.” The default position is “don’t know.” And it stays “don’t know” until tests are performed. From there we go to degrees of certainty in our conclusion of “works” or “doesn’t.”
—
Update: I forgot to come back to the “burden of proof” point. To those unfamiliar with the concept, it is a logical principle that for any claim it is up to the claimant to provide evidence for their belief. The burden is not on others to disprove it. We don’t assume something is true because no one has bothered to attempt to disprove it or succeeded at disproving. Strictly speaking, we believe something is likely to be true because affirming evidence has been provided.
