An unsung benefit to education is that it not only widens your career opportunities, but it also extends the reach of your funny bone. While anyone can guffaw over potty humor, for this element of life we are all familiar with, how many people can detect irony in statements about, say, subatomic particles? Only those knowledgeable enough to have expectations that can then be violated.
Consider these examples of educated humor:
[cartoon thanks to xkcd.com]
[cartoon thanks to treelobsters.com]
[by way of Jerry Coyne's blog, Why Evolution is True]
I have long suspected that much of any genetic influence on a gender gap in an academic/occupational field might be as much or more about innate interest in a type of activity as it is about innate ability. A new psychological theory (supported by some research, so it is more than idle speculation) supports that hunch.
The press release, Technical aptitude: Do women score lower because they just aren’t interested? contains these nuggets:
Smart people, researchers have found, are able to learn the requirements of any job if they are motivated to. And research shows that men and women do not differ, on average, in general intelligence.
Frank Schmidt, author of the paper outlining the theory . . .
posits that this difference stems from sex differences in interest in technical pursuits, which leads people to acquire technical experience, which in turn increases technical aptitude scores.
Excellence follows interests by way of learning experiences. Of course, culture can play a role in how a field is presented and taught,making it more interesting to one gender or another. Social factors can also determine how accessible and attractive types of learning experiences are to one sex or the other. Engineering, nursing, etc. If females are interested, they will gain experience and acquire aptitude. If males are interested, ditto. Those uninterested will not, or at least not as much.
Of course, allow me to add, “it seems” & “in general.” Greater confidence in the proposed relationship between variables awaits further research.
Preschool children with relatively poor language skills improve more if they are placed in classrooms with high-achieving students, a new study found. [source]
That’s the finding that got me thinking about football players. (Yes, the human brain tends to follow neurochemical breadcrumbs in sometimes surprising directions.) Perhaps you’ve had the same experience. You listen to an interview of some star athlete and you think, “My gosh, what version of English is he speaking?! The mangled, incomplete pronunciation, the botched grammar!”
Before I knew better, I may have blamed the individual him or herself for their poor skills with “my” language. Now I tend to view such events as a reflection of the different social environment people grow up in. We all learn to speak — which includes so much more than vocabulary — from the people around us. We acquire our verbal habits at home and from our peers. And maybe at school, too.
Because students learn from their peers as well as from their teachers, the above study and other research like it reflects the importance of our learning environment. No, in this case it doesn’t mean how many computers are in the room, but who else is in the room.
Of course, the influence goes both ways — unfortunately for those desiring simple solutions to maximizing education hours. While it may help the poorer students to be grouped with the better ones, it does no such thing for the better students (though some studies have shown that if the better students are put in tutoring-type roles, it can help them, too). So what to do? Do we maximize the learning experience of those on the low end of the educational achievement bell curve, with perhaps some cost to those at the higher end? Do we help the higher climb to even greater heights?
My own opinion is that we first focus more on the middle, making sure that helping either end of the spectrum doesn’t come at a greater, less visible cost to it. Then we consider part-time inclusion of one sub-group of same-age students with another. I think. Of course, I reserve the right to change my mind.
And as for “dumb” social environments — my use of that term in the title aims to hint at the origin of it. From the Online Etymology Dictionary:
dumb (adj.)
O.E. dumb “silent, unable to speak,” from PIE *dheubh- “confusion, stupefaction, dizziness,” from root *dheu- (1) “dust, mist, vapor, smoke,” and related notions of “defective perception or wits.”
[recycled material - a series of posts I wrote in 2009, slightly modified - links to originals below]
It is fully reasonable for skeptics to question the existence of the Loch Ness Deity. Or of a god, however clearly or poorly defined. I would argue that for a skeptic to take a hands-off approach to religion would be to fail to be consistent in their thinking and worldview.
Yesterday, after teaching a developmental psychology class, I passed by the door of the host professor (if that’s what you call them) for the Campus Crusade for Christ. Right there on my campus. On the professor’s door hung a display/holder for a bunch of brand-new pamphlets. Free for students and staff . I took one. What was I supposed to do, put blinders on and walk past it as if it didn’t exist?
As an exercise in critical thinking I’m going to go through the pamphlet, line-by-line. If I can.
Front cover (title):
“Where will you spend eternity?”
How many assumptions are inherent in that question? I find three. Let’s spell them out.
1) That there will be an eternity. It is possible that time began at the birth of our universe. We don’t know one way or the other. Before the big bang there may have been no substance and no time and space as well. To strip eternity of its essential temporal characteristic would be to speak nonsensically.
2) That there will be a “you” to persist for eternity. There is no evidence of a spirit or soul that continues to exist after death.
3) That there are a number of possible destinations for your spirit/soul to go after death. The “where” part of the question would be unnecessary if there was only one location to “spend” eternity at.
Notice that I didn’t say any of the above are untrue, just that they are assumptions:Tthey have been untested and/or lack empirical backing.
Knowing and Choosing Your Eternal Destination
Thank God, according to the Bible, not only can you know, but you can choose where you will spend eternity.
So goes the first sentence of the ATS (American Tract Society) pamphlet I pulled from a professor’s door on campus. Thank you, professor-to-remain-anonymous, for providing students with such important news. You think. I hope that students who read your literature will do so critically. In the one sentence above I spot 4 new assumptions.
Before we begin, however, I should make sure I’m using the word “assumption” correctly. According to the Encarta dictionary, an assumption is -
something that is believed to be true without proof
Looks like I’m using it right.
Previously I covered these three assumptions: that there will be an eternity, that there is a soul/spirit that continues to exist beyond death, and that there are distinct places within an eternity for a soul to go to. What fresh assumptions do you spy in the single tract sentence at the head of this post?
Continuing the numbering from the first post . . .
4) That by “God” all people know which god you are talking about. Do you mean the god of the Jews, of the Muslims, one of the Hindu gods? I do not believe that the god of the Jews and the god of the Christians and the god of the Muslims is the same god, for each of these groups speak of a god with a distinctly different message for his people and plans for them. The common habit of blaming the messengers is a nice fudge. Claiming that only your messenger got the message correct is a transparent yet fully bogus ploy. One true god? No. I see a bunch of different gods, all assumed by the people of that god to be “The One True God.”
5) That “God” needs to be thanked or that something is gained by doing this. As numerous Bible passages assert.
6) You can “know” where you will spend eternity. That is one significant stretch of the word “know.” It seems that even the supposedly singular god of the Bible didn’t know that eternity was in the plans for his people until very late in “his” book. For ancient Israelites, the reward for allegiance to their god was (long) life, prosperity, many children, and the honor of being “set to rest” with one’s esteemed ancestors. The perks for following the Bible god later evolved and blossomed into a post-death retirement package. Or punishment. Many Biblical scholars have argued that much of Jesus’ talk of the coming Kingdom was actually a veiled reference to the day Jews would take back their land from the Romans. Paul and later writers finally fully Hellenized the religion (just gave up on attaining their own kingdom?) to where ideas such as a transcendent soul and a heavenly abode became central elements.
7) You can “choose” whether you go to heaven or hell. Let’s face it, heaven and hell is what the talk of where in eternity you will go has been about. The existence of heaven and hell aside — I’m sure we’ll meet those further along in the pamphlet — even the choosing part is problematic. Among Christians themselves — believers in the same version of “God,” — there are different ideas of precisely what it means to choose. No, a person can’t just put their finger to their lips in thought for a moment, and then say “I choose heaven.” If so, they haven’t read the fine print. Their choice will determine nothing. Different Christian denominations have differing ideas about how you must choose, and what it means to choose, and how that choice will remain valid. Or not.
The Bible’s Consistent, Coherent Message
Praise be to ATS Tract Society! Next I share an entire paragraph that I was only able to find one clear-cut, new assumption in. The paragraph consists of three sentences, and like good critical thinkers, let’s break the paragraph down and examine the sentences one at a time.
Now we all believe—or at least most claim to believe—in the Bible as God’s Word.”
Shockingly accurate. Well, aside from the assumption I covered yesterday about “God” being unambiguous.
We believe in eternity and know that life is short.
Wait . . . I think I assumed that most people believe that time stretches infinitely. But maybe not. As for knowing that life is short — “finite” and “of a duration that passes too quickly for our liking” would probably be more accurate.
The Bible itself asks, “What is your life? You are a mist that appears for a little while and then vanishes” (James 4:14).
Here we hit the assumption (#8 in my ongoing tally), which hides within the introductory clause, “The Bible itself asks.” The Bible is here portrayed as containing a consistent, coherent message that could be said to speak with one voice. “A verse in the Bible asks,” sure. But the entire Bible does not ask the question.
Oops, make that two assumptions, and the second is a biggie.
Assumption #9: “THE Bible?” Actually, there are many Bibles, each version containing thousands upon thousands of differences in how they translate “God’s word.” While most of the differences are insignificant, some are not.
James 4:14 would fall into the insignificant category, as you can judge for yourself.
Why, you do not even know what will happen tomorrow. What is your life? You are a mist that appears for a little while and then vanishes. (New International Version)
Yet you do not know what your life will be like tomorrow. You are just a vapor that appears for a little while and then vanishes away. (New American Standard Bible)
You don’t know the first thing about tomorrow. You’re nothing but a wisp of fog, catching a brief bit of sun before disappearing. (Message Bible)
Etc.
Although the different translations seem to contain the same meaning for this one verse, notice that not all versions philosophically ask, “What is your life?” In terms of the ATS pamphlet quote, that bit is central.
Does the Bible ask, “What is your life?” Only if you assume that all versions say the same thing. And they don’t.
Worshipping Cherries
I enjoy the Super Bowl as much as the next guy. Or gal. But yes, it does strike me as both annoying and ludicrous when some athletes insist on pointing to the sky in thanks to their deity for allowing them to make the cherry-delicious play they just made. What’s worse is when they later bring their deity to the microphone. During an interview, the MVP of the Super Bowl said this about his performance:
“I definitely asked the Lord to help me today,” Holmes said after the game. “I asked Him, ‘Can I be the guy to win this game?’ . . . The Lord was willing to look out for me today and gave me the opportunity.”
Didn’t Santonio Holmes, and can’t legion of believers, connect the dots in their logic? Where there is a winner there are losers. By thanking your god for helping you win, you indirectly inform others that your god favored you more than he did the losers. And, of course, a god is given a nod only when the outcome is triple cherries. When a single banana peel is the outcome, funny, we never hear that “God obstructed me today.”
Just as athletes cherry-pick their experiences to give a nod to their god, Christians of all stripes will cherry-pick Bible verses to make their case. And by failing to present the full range of relevant biblical material they present a myopic picture.
And speaking of myopic, we new examine the third paragraph of the ATS tract, “Where will you spend eternity?” offered to me by the Campus Crusade for Christ organizer at my school, via a door bin. And here it is -
Many claim to believe in heaven and in hell, yet, unfortunately, show little concern over their eternal destiny. We are far more concerned about this life than the next, yet we know that eternity is endless. The Word of God describes eternity as being “for ever and ever” (Revelation 22:5).
New assumptions -
#10) That it is unfortunate people show little concern over their eternal destiny. Like refraining from using a cell phone while driving, maybe this isn’t such a bad thing.
#11) The “eternity,” as used in the Bible, means a “for ever and ever” one can abide in. Yes, there are a number of phrases in the Bible(s) that can be interpreted this way, but might have somewhat different original meanings. A keyword search of the New International Version of the Bible online, at BibleGateway.com, produces just 3 hits for “eternity.” One reads this way -
He has made everything beautiful in its time. He has also set eternity in the hearts of men; yet they cannot fathom what God has done from beginning to end. (Ecclesiastes 3:10-12)
A search of the online King James version produces just one hit for “eternity.” None of the 4 verses describes eternity as “for ever and ever.” If eternity is so central to the Christian message, why is it not more obviously present in the actual content of the Bible?
Furthermore, the NIV translation of Revelation 22:5 is worded this way -
There will be no more night. They will not need the light of a lamp or the light of the sun, for the Lord God will give them light. And they will reign for ever and ever.
The King James Version is nearly identical. In this cherry-picked verse the “for ever and ever” refers to how long a people will reign. For a cherry-picked verse in support of an eternity one might abide in, it’s half-rotten.
And so it is with much of the meaning extruded from a selection of the thousands of verses in the Bible. Change the individual cherries and the meaning will changes.
Heaven and Hell, Next Exit
Thus far in my critical analysis of the ATS Tract, Where Will You spend Your Eternity, I have encountered a full dozen assumptions. And that is after only looking over the title and three paragraphs. Will the fourth bring any new assumptions?
Just think…an eternity to be spent forever, either in the perfect paradise called heaven or in the terrible torments of hell.
One might call heaven and hell the central nutmeat of Christianity. Or the #1 sales pitch. In terms of the pamphlet and its message, heaven and hell are the two places you can choose to spend your eternity.
Assumption #13) There is a heaven.
Assumption # 14) There is a hell.
These two qualify as assumptions (or maybe presumptions would be a better word) because there is no credible evidence of the existence of either.
Just for the fun of it, let’s inquire: Is heaven a perfect paradise? Does hell provide terrible torment? We’ll examine some Bible verses to find out — for belief in such things are based upon the Bible.
Do a keyword search of “heaven” in a digital Bible of the New International Version and it will produce hundreds of hits. Mine brought up 606 different verses (good thing it wasn’t 666!). But by scanning the verses I see that in a great number of the hits the word “heaven” is used to mean one of the following: sky, clouds, atmosphere, night sky with visible stars, etc.
Now the springs of the deep and the floodgates of the heavens had been closed, and the rain had stopped falling from the sky. (Genesis 8:2)
In another number, “heaven” is the abode of God.
Whatever is needed—young bulls, rams, male lambs for burnt offerings to the God of heaven, and wheat, salt, wine and oil, as requested by the priests in Jerusalem—must be given them daily without fail. (Ezra 6:9)
Which deity are these passages referring to? The god of heaven. In the New Testament the wording is more along the lines of “Our Father in Heaven.” There are also multiple verses there about “the Kingdom of Heaven.” As for this kingdom above, it is described many ways.
Once again, the kingdom of heaven is like a net that was let down into the lake and caught all kinds of fish. (Matthew 13:47)
Evidence aside, does the above describe heaven as a perfect paradise? No, a clearly perfect paradise is simply a sales pitch.
As for “hell,” a search of a digital copy of the New International Version of the Bible produced only 14 hits. Just 14! And all were in the New Testament. Seems the idea of hell was invented relatively late in the evolution of religion.
What does the supposed singular Bible say about hell? Here’s one verse -
For if God did not spare angels when they sinned, but sent them to hell, putting them into gloomy dungeons to be held for judgment. (2 Peter 2:4)
I don’t know if I’d say that “gloomy” was equivalent to a terrible torment. Yes, a number of verses refer to hell as a place of fire. Interesting, a quick Google search led me to this description of the origin of the word:
It is, in fact, because of the way that the word “hell” is understood today that it is such an unsatisfactory translation of these original Bible words. Webster’s Third New International Dictionary, unabridged, under “Hell” says: “fr[om] . . . helan to conceal.” The word “hell” thus originally conveyed no thought of heat or torment but simply of a ‘covered over or concealed place.’ In the old English dialect the expression “helling potatoes” meant, not to roast them, but simply to place the potatoes in the ground or in a cellar. The meaning given today to the word “hell” is that portrayed in Dante’s Divine Comedy and Milton’s Paradise Lost, which meaning is completely foreign to the original definition of the word. [source]
Maybe hell is a cold, dirty place. Either way, it seems many Christians do quite a bit of fibbing about what is actually in the Bible.
God Has His Gavel Awaiting at the Gate of Death
If there is a god, is he the great arbiter of where you will go post-death? The fifth paragraph from the ATS Tract, Where Will You spend Your Eternity, reads:
Surely we’ll agree that it is just good sense to prepare for eternity now, before it is forever too late. God says, “man is destined to die once, and after that to face judgment” (Hebrews 9:27).
Actually, I, for one, don’t agree that it makes good sense to expend thought and energy on an imagined afterlife. That said, beyond repeating previously encountered assumptions #1, 2, 3, 4 & 8, we come to a new one.
Assumption #15: There is a judgment awaiting us.
Many Hindus believe that we “reap what we sow.” But rather than a distinct judgment awaiting, we are automatically reincarnated into a form befitting the behavior we display in this life.
But does “God,” as expressed in the Judeo-Christian book of his words, really say that all men and women will face judgment for their earthly behavior?
It is true that the versions of “the” Bible I consulted similarly word Hebrews 9:27 — There will be a judgment after death. However, the idea of post-death judgment and possible punishment appears sporadically and relatively late in the Bible. In the Old Testament, which also consists of what “God said” — I have been told — the vast majority of the judgment talk refers to judgment in this life and punishment to the person and his or her children/relatives/tribesmen in this life or in the life of following generations. Earthly punishment. As in these few verses (of many) -
For with fire and with his sword the LORD will execute judgment upon all men, and many will be those slain by the LORD. (Isaiah 66:16)
They are worthless, the objects of mockery; when their judgment comes, they will perish. (Jeremiah 51:18)
You will fall by the sword, and I will execute judgment on you at the borders of Israel. Then you will know that I am the LORD. (Ezekiel 11:10)
To say that God awaits people after death to judge them is to elevate a few verses in a few books of the Bible above the others — to assume they are truer than the others.
The idea of post-death judgment and reward/punishment is just one idea in the Bible.
Jesus Clearly Spelled Out How to Save Your Soul
Without even making it halfway through the Christian pamphlet (ATS Tract), “Where will you spend your eternity,” I have already crashed upon the rocks of 15 assumptions. With this post we will skip ahead to the base assumption at the bedrock of this tract’s argument. And then leave it at that. Life is too short to try to expose all the assumptions hidden within religious assertions.
And here it -
“I tell you the truth, unless a man is born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God” (John 3:3).
The next sentence nicely segues into our 16th and final assumption.
Pretty dogmatic perhaps, but these are the words of Christ Himself.
#16. Jesus gave explicit instructions on how to save your soul.
Here’s a fact for you: There are not a few but tens of thousands of Christian denominations. And what makes them different? Doctrinal differences. There are significant differences in how Christian groups interpret the supposedly clear words of their Christ. While the Bible and the purported sayings of Jesus are not completely abstract, like a verbal inkblot, neither are they clearly outlined (not to mention the inconsistencies and outright contradictions). And thus the differing meanings and messages drawn from the Christian manual of faith.
Christian evangelists – Please stop pretending that your interpretation of a book containing a veritable buffet of teachings is “the truth.”
We now end with a review of the 16 assumptions exposed.
1. That there will be an eternity.
2. That there will be a “you” to persist for eternity.
3. That there are a number of possible destinations for your spirit/soul to go after death.
4. That by “God” all people know which god you are talking about.
5. That “God” needs to be thanked or that something is gained by doing this.
6. You can “know” where you will spend eternity.
7. You can “choose” whether you go to heaven or hell.
8. The Bible contains a consistent, coherent message and could be said to speak with one voice.
9. That there is one Bible, “THE Bible.” Actually, there are many Bibles, each version containing thousands upon thousands of differences in how they translate “God’s word.”
10. That it is unfortunate people show little concern over their eternal destiny. Like refraining from using a cell phone while driving, maybe this isn’t such a bad thing.
11. Eternity is described as “for ever and ever.” Truth is, there are many phrases in the Bible(s) that can be interpreted that way, but might have somewhat different original meanings.
12. That “eternity,” as used in the Bible, means a “for ever and ever” one can abide in.
13. There is a heaven.
14. There is a hell.
15. There will be a post-death judgment.
16. That Jesus gave explicit instructions on how to save your soul.
What does the Campus Crusade for Christ offer students, in terms of educational value? Assumptions. Lots and lots of assumptions.
—
Links to original posts: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7
Geometry was my favorite subject in high school. Did I like it because I was good at it, or was I good at it because I liked it? Hmm. Seems like a relationships that may have been bi-directional. Or maybe I had something of an innate interest in geometry and the shape-relations it makes explicit (among other things), and it was my interest that caused both the enjoyment and the achievement.
Innate geometry? One thing I think is reasonable to assume is that my prior understanding and enjoyment of geometry made it much more likely I would click this ScienceDaily link:
Intuitions Regarding Geometry Are Universal, Study Suggests
I must say I applaud the use of the final two words in the headline.
Had the subject been trigonometry I may not have been drawn to it. At least not for the same reasons. “Trigonometry? Universal?! I hated trigonometry!“
Nonetheless, I did click. And I learned of research -
conducted on Amazonian Indians living in an isolated area, who had not studied geometry at school and whose language contains little geometric vocabulary. Their intuitive understanding of elementary geometric concepts was compared with that of populations who, on the contrary, had been taught geometry at school. The researchers were able to demonstrate that all human beings may have the ability of demonstrating geometric intuition.
The geometric intuitions included such things as the idea that parallel lines do not meet, even when extended.
Wow. Very interesting. Just as Chomsky and other linguists have revealed about language, it seems we don’t learn mathematics completely from scratch. Rather, we are born — to varying degrees, I’m sure — with innate “intuitions” (expectations? concepts?) we then apply and elaborate on.
My guess is that we have no such intuitions about string theory.
Recent Comments