tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-56669435617244589522024-03-08T05:32:32.762-05:00Need for CognitionMusings on motherhood, parenting, breastfeeding, and less controversial topics such as religion and politics, from (what I hope is) a rational point of view.Christyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05853508885914782784noreply@blogger.comBlogger78125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5666943561724458952.post-11817901079155704532011-04-15T13:30:00.004-05:002011-04-15T13:37:48.217-05:00International Ask an Atheist DayI know this event was aimed at campus freethought groups, but I figured why not do my part. I'm a big believer in normalizing mistrusted fringe groups by as many people as possible being public about it. Works for nursing in public, works for atheism!<br /><br />So I printed out a couple <a href="http://www.secularstudents.org/askanatheistday/stickerrequest">stickers </a>to wear, and I changed my Facebook profile picture to the sticker and put up a status welcoming questions.<br /><br />I was very disappointed with the non-reactions to my stickers. I wore them at the YM<span style="font-weight:bold;">C</span>A, but no one asked me any questions. Facebook didn't yield much more. My best friend asked me if I think people are intrinsically good or bad (short answer: yes), and we had a bit of a conversation with another friend who jumped in and confirmed she was an atheist. So it was cool to realize that other friend was a non-believer. And another freethinking friend said she liked my picture.<br /><br />And that was it.<br /><br />Well, wearing the sticker did have one big effect: I was exceedingly polite all day. I'm naturally very friendly and courteous, but I was certainly more aware than usual of trying to project a positive image. Perhaps we should all wear nametags identifying our cherished group memberships - as representatives we would probably all be nicer to each other!Christyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05853508885914782784noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5666943561724458952.post-35766371989685738852011-04-07T09:37:00.003-05:002011-04-07T10:52:44.869-05:00Speaking of eating placentas . . .When some folks I know started talking about having their babies' placentas made into pills so the mother could ingest them, I asked the obvious question - why would you want to do that?<br /><br />Answers were passionate and certain, full of bare assertion and lacking all but the slightest actual justification: <br /><br />"prevents post partum depression and helps with milk production!"<br /><br />"give you back your energy too"<br /><br />"all the hormones that your body needs...its like your own specialized concoction of vitamins and hormones that are made especially for you"<br /><br />"I think that every mammal eats the placenta after birth... the placenta holds all the vitamins that the... body is depleted of during pregnancy, so it makes sense to put those back into the body after birth"<br /><br />One person linked to a blog post that had this citation:<br /><br />"181 out of 210 women who were given dried placenta to increase milk supply had positive results and saw an increase in their milk supply.<br />Placenta as a Lactagogon; Gynaecologia 138: 617-627, 1954"<br /><br />Now, first let me say, if you would like to consume your baby's placenta on the off chance it will do you good, I suppose you should go for it. I don't see much harm. If it does nothing, you'll lose some money to a professional encapsulator. Of course safe handling is important, just like with raw beef or chicken or whatever. But really, whatever floats your boat.<br /><br />I'll also grant that it's possible that placentophagy could have some benefits. It's not completely ridiculous, the way homeopathy is. It's at least feasible that recouping iron and hormones could be beneficial.<br /><br />But here's my problem - this is at best a hypothesis. It's testable, but hasn't really been tested (as far as I can tell, that study didn't use a control group, and the sample is small to boot). It's a pretty big leap from "animals do this" and "it contains hormones" to "ingesting dried placenta prevents depression and low milk supply."<br /><br />And why are people so eager to make that leap? Because it's "natural." You won't see this wide-eyed credulity when it comes to vaccines, for damn sure. People who avoid ingesting acetaminophen or corn syrup jump at the chance to chow down on placenta, because that's what sheep do. It just doesn't make sense to me. And I'm worried about the general mentality because it leads to distrust of science-based medicine and encourages faith in altmed woo.Christyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05853508885914782784noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5666943561724458952.post-58039153060703709992011-03-27T12:02:00.001-05:002011-03-27T19:48:07.907-05:00I've got my conclusion, now where's some evidence for it?This seems to be the way our brains naturally work. If we didn't model the world with a mental construct resistant to change, we probably wouldn't have survived very well. But science and rationality are all about minimizing the effect of this tendency, and I would hope that's something we aspire to.<br /><br />Of course, we see this faulty arrangement very blatantly in Creationism. Step 1: Assume God created the world as told in Genesis. Step 2: find evidence that appears to support this conclusion.<br /><br />But I see this all too often in the alternative parenting world. Step 1: Assume breastfeeding is totally sufficient and perfect. Step 2: find some way to twist or ignore evidence that babies might need Vitamin D supplementation.<br /><br />Most recently, I'm seeing some troubling tendencies from Nancy Mohrbacher, the author of the new reference book used by LLL Leaders. She has come out against swaddling. And she hasn't done it in a terribly thoughtful way, laying out what the benefits are or were perceived to be, and comparing new information that may advise caution or revision of our use of swaddling. Nope. Swaddling is Evil seems to be the message, and she is willing to be disingenuous in supporting this conclusion. In her <a href="http://www.nancymohrbacher.com/blog/2010/12/3/rethinking-swaddling.html">initial post</a>, she notes that "While swaddling may be helpful when used occasionally, routine swaddling during the first months associated with greater risk of . . . SIDS in prone sleeping positions." <br /><br />Now, in my experience, most people do not understand the word "prone," mistaking it to mean "lying down." It actually means lying face down (supine refers to lying face up.) So I find this misleading, possibly intentionally. And of course, we already know that sleeping face down is a huge risk factor for SIDS. Telling people they shouldn't swaddle their prone-sleeping infants is like telling people to buckle up when they drive drunk. <br /><br />This really irritates me because maybe swaddling is something we should rethink, but if you try to manipulate me with misleading statements, it's just going to make me want to discount everything you say. And more generally, I think a balanced, empathetic approach that allows for the feelings and beliefs of the community before demonstrating something that is incompatible with some of those beliefs is going to bear more fruit than this underhanded style.Christyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05853508885914782784noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5666943561724458952.post-25731523501371033332011-03-24T13:49:00.003-05:002011-03-24T14:08:38.217-05:00Unconditional ParentingI really do pride myself on being open-minded. I try to be a true skeptic - willing to accept new evidence even if it overturns my beliefs.<br /><br />I found just such an opportunity when some friends started discussing <a href="http://www.alfiekohn.org/index.php">Alfie Kohn</a>. At first I was very dismissive. When people objected to time outs as "love withdrawal," I scoffed. I wasn't withdrawing love, I was separating an out of control kid from society until she could be civil and safe again. But, since I'm intrigued by ideas that challenge my beliefs, I started reading some of Kohn's articles online. Then I bought his book <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Unconditional-Parenting-Moving-Rewards-Punishments/dp/0743487486/ref=ntt_at_ep_dpt_1">Unconditional Parenting</a>. And it totally transformed the way I see parenting.<br /><br />The thing I most appreciated was his use of actual research to bolster his suggestions. And perhaps the fact that his suggestions often seem more like questions. Just questions I never thought to ask before, such as, "Is training a child to comply compatible with helping her become a fulfilled, happy, confident person?"<br /><br />The other essential ingredient for me was a clear statement that this is not mere permissiveness. I've seen way too many advocates of "gentle discipline" whose children were unholy monsters, dangerous to themselves and others.<br /><br />For me, Unconditional Parenting can be boiled down to two ideas. First, my children deserve to feel that they are loved unconditionally, just for being them. It's not enough that I <span style="font-style:italic;">do </span>love them unconditionally, but that they <span style="font-style:italic;">perceive </span>that I love them unconditionally. Second, children should be respected as people. They aren't just robots that emit certain behaviors when certain input is received. They are human beings with internal lives of thought and emotion. And I need to keep that internal life in mind when their behavior conflicts with my desires, not just run roughshod over them for my convenience.<br /><br />There are a lot of details that go along with those basic ideas. Some of them are quite important and challenging, such as the damage praise can do to the development of a confident and engaged person. But quite early in my reading I zeroed in on the underlying philosophies above, and they are becoming my touchstone as I try to react with unconditional love, and still keep appropriate limits, in day to day life.Christyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05853508885914782784noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5666943561724458952.post-86760360172304329692011-03-17T18:01:00.003-05:002011-03-17T18:16:15.949-05:00Scene from an Acupuncturist's<span style="font-weight:bold;">Patient</span>: So, I've never done this before. Can you tell me how this goes?<br /><br /><span style="font-weight:bold;">Acupuncturist</span>: Well, first I clear an hour for your appointment. We spend a lot of time sitting and discussing your problems, your life, and what you're looking for in treatment. I try not to talk too much, but just to listen to you.<br /><br />Then I have you get comfortable and completely relaxed in our treatment room. It is decorated in a serene theme, and has scented candles and soft, tranquil music. You lie down on our padded table and close your eyes.<br /><br />In my practice, I focus on respecting you as a complete person. I don't treat you like a broken machine with one part that needs fixing; rather, I concentrate on supporting your total wellness, including mental and emotional health.<br /><br />I provide caring, supportive human touch in a professional context that is all about you and what feels good for your body.<br /><br />Oh, and I also stick needles in you.<br /><br /><span style="font-weight:bold;">Patient</span>: Maybe we could just skip that last part?Christyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05853508885914782784noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5666943561724458952.post-7927047993624323562011-03-16T08:06:00.003-05:002011-03-16T11:58:02.079-05:00My take on Worthless WomenSingle Dad Laughing has a thought-provoking post called <a href="http://www.danoah.com/2010/10/worthless-women-and-men-who-make-them.html">Worthless women and the men who make them</a>. His premise is that men should take some responsibility for creating self-loathing in women when they ogle perfect specimens of beauty.<br /><br />It's an interesting read. But I think the article itself suffers from chauvinism. Women are positioned as helpless victims of men's actions. Our self-definition rests entirely on the regard of men. It doesn't ring true. <br /><br />I don't really think the problem is that men like to look at hot women. That's normal, and in the right context is OK. I think the problem is our entire societal attitude towards women. Instead of valuing beauty as one of many desirable traits, we tend to value women primarily (or even only) for sexual attractiveness.<br /><br />How many times have you seen people write or talk about being disgusted by someone's appearance - not because they were filthy or covered with running sores, but because they were fat, or wrinkly, or had a big nose or crooked teeth? And how many times are such comments directed at women, versus men?<br /><br />There is an underlying notion that we women <span style="font-style:italic;">owe </span>it to others to be attractive. Thus you get women apologizing for their flaws, often by pre-emptively insulting themselves. "My hair is a mess today." "I'm way too fat, I'm disgusting." "I don't wave anymore because of this jiggly triceps, ha ha!"<br /><br />We also get people saying, "I don't want to see that!" or complaining that fat people (especially women) make them physically ill. We get jokes about "butterface girls" - everything is beautiful but her face. (Also, have you noticed that fat women in movies are often depicted not only as comical and repulsive, but as hypersexual and in constant pursuit of unwilling men? What's up with that?) <br /><br />When did "not sexually attractive" become a synonym for "offensive?" What's it to you if someone (who probably has no interest in dating you, by the way) has acne or cellulite or crow's feet? Why do we take it as a given that all people, but especially women, should be judged on their attractiveness?<br /><br />Is it possible we could start valuing people for other qualities, while still enjoying the sight of a beautiful person? I think this might be yet another area where women deserve to share in what men already have. Men are surely judged by looks and sexual attractiveness to some degree, but I'd say usually we judge men by what they do, what they think, and what they produce, and way down the list is attractiveness. Women seem primarily judged by sexual attractiveness, then perhaps how well they take care of other people, and quite a bit down the list is what they do, what they think, and what they produce. And neither sex seems particularly valued for kindness and compassion.<br /><br />I don't think we need to make average women feel more "worthy," meaning "pretty." We need to upend our definition of "worth."Christyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05853508885914782784noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5666943561724458952.post-70555213502678244752011-03-10T16:32:00.009-05:002011-03-10T18:37:54.309-05:00Quick and Easy Guide to Spotting Altmed BunkImmersed in the world of breastfeeding and attachment parenting as I am, I am unfortunately bombarded with loads of alternative medicine hogwash. As I dutifully (and usually futilely) research and dissect the latest advice from someone's naturopath, or the information they got from their chiropractor, I have noticed certain signs that will cause my bullshit meter to bury the needle. What follows isn't a detailed discussion of why altmed practices are unscientific, or how to decide if a research study is reliable, or a treatise on the philosophy of science. It's just a quick and dirty list of features that anti-scientific quackery tends to share.<br /><br />1. <span style="font-weight:bold;">Most of the hits on Google are sites that promote or sell the product in question.</span> Typical site names are phlebotinum.com, phlebotinum-advisory-group.net, drlaceyunderall.net, yournaturalhealth.com, and so on. Many strive to look like health information sites, but if they have only good things to say, and an easy link to purchase the product, you can bet it's just a commercial site shilling. If you get a high proportion of hits like Webmd, Mayo Clinic, National Institutes of Health, and maybe stuff like CNN or ABC stories, it has a much greater chance of being a real thing. <br /><br />2. <span style="font-weight:bold;">The remedy is promoted as a solution for vague and ubiquitous maladies.</span> Usual suspects are fatigue, insomnia, body aches, headache, mood problems, low sex drive, weight gain, nausea, and constipation. Now these can be real symptoms of real problems. But when you see a product promoted as solving a long laundry list of these issues, it's time to raise an eyebrow. These symptoms are typically experienced by most people at least some of the time, especially in a culture plagued by poor diet, low rates of exercise, too little sleep, social isolation, and chronic stress.<br /><br />Most of these symptoms are self-limiting, or can be alleviated by lifestyle change. But most people don't relish a prescription of "eat plenty of fruits and vegetables, exercise regularly, and get 8 hours of sleep a night." Lifestyle changes are difficult to initiate, harder to maintain, and are frankly a total drag. But give us a pill, a cream, or someone waving their hands over us once a week, and we perk right up - seems easy!<br /><br />3. <span style="font-weight:bold;">Self-diagnosis is encouraged. </span> Whether it's checking off the laundry list of vague symptoms, or buying a test kit you can do at home, do-it-yourself is the name of the game for quacks. And if you did get tests at the doctor's office, they encourage re-interpretation. Doctor says your thyroid levels are fine? Well check your number against this web site's "more accurate" scale. Doctor says your hormone levels are healthy? Take a saliva test to find out more!<br /><br />4. <span style="font-weight:bold;">Remedy is promoted by an actress of fading fame.</span> E.g., <a href="http://www.jennymccarthybodycount.com/Jenny_McCarthy_Body_Count/Home.html">Jenny McCarthy</a> and <a href="http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/07-08-15/">Suzanne Somers</a>.<br /><br />5. <span style="font-weight:bold;">Proponents laud how natural the remedy is, and decry the toxins in the environment and/or conventional medicines.</span> Arsenic is as natural as it gets - it's an element! Hemlock is a plant (make sure you get organically grown). Meanwhile insulin for diabetics is synthetic. Using "natural" as a synonym for "good" doesn't make sense. (Also look for the keyword "allopathic" to describe conventional medicine.)<br /><br />6. <span style="font-weight:bold;">Relies on testimonials, anecdotal evidence, appeals to authority.</span> Approaches that work don't need this type of weak support, because they have strong scientific evidence - the kind that attempts to sweep away all the human foibles that can prevent us from seeing what's really happening, and determine if an intervention has a real effect.<br /><br />7. <span style="font-weight:bold;">Provides citations as though they refer to peer-reviewed scientific journals, but the cited material is actually a book, presentation, or web site of an individual proponent of the remedy.</span> It doesn't matter how many letters are after your name - just because you say it doesn't make it reliable. Publication in a respected journal indicates your claims have been examined and probed for mistakes and found robust. Publication on a website means you successfully Googled GoDaddy.<br /><br />8. <span style="font-weight:bold;">Users respond to skeptical inquiry and questioning of the evidence by saying, "I KNOW this works - it worked for me." </span> When the people trying to sell you on something have no clue about placebo effect, confirmation bias, coincidence, self-limiting conditions, and general methods for removing human perceptual bias, you can dismiss pretty much everything they say.<br /><br />9. <span style="font-weight:bold;">Praises or demonizes according to fad.</span> Acai berries are magically delicious, but <s>VDTs</s>, <s>power lines</s>, <s>electrical transformers</s>, <s>cell phones</s>, Wifi is evil.<br /><br />10. <span style="font-weight:bold;">Invokes the <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ctEDHm0OKms">Pentaverate</a>.</span> Promoters wave away criticism as the result of wide-reaching conspiracies involving doctors, pharmaceutical companies, the CDC, and other entities.<br /><br />11. <span style="font-weight:bold;">The remedy is said to have no possible side effects or risks. </span> Generally if something can have an effect, it can have a side effect. If it can change your body in some way, that change might turn out badly for you. Even such benign and universally prescribed practices as exercise and high fiber diets have risks and side effects.<br /><br />12. <a href="http://www.newsweek.com/2009/05/29/live-your-best-life-ever.html">Oprah</a>.Christyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05853508885914782784noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5666943561724458952.post-26467458781312357502011-03-07T14:53:00.003-05:002011-03-07T14:56:35.186-05:00The Constitution doesn't apply to pregnant people in FloridaI . . . just don't know what to say. As a civil libertarian, birth choice activist, and abortion rights supporter, I don't know if I'm more stunned or furious about a Florida court's <a href="http://www.aclu.org/blog/reproductive-freedom/court-forces-bed-rest-pregnant-woman">unlawful imprisonment of a woman</a> and removal of her right to refuse medical interventions, all in the name of protecting her fetus (by means that aren't even supported by evidence)!Christyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05853508885914782784noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5666943561724458952.post-79670602544019094892011-03-04T18:41:00.004-05:002011-03-04T18:54:27.214-05:00Arguments for the Existence of Cthulhu IV<a href="http://www.peterkreeft.com/topics-more/20_arguments-gods-existence.htm#4">The Argument from Degrees of Evil</a><br /><br />We notice that things around us vary. Some things are "more X" or "less X." And sometimes X has a source, and something closer to the source of X is thereby made "more X."<br /><br />We see that instability, chaos, and suffering are all "more evil" than their alternatives.<br /><br />But if these degrees of evil pertain to being and being is caused in finite creatures, then there must exist a "worst," a source and real standard of all the evils that we recognize belong to us as beings.<br /><br />This absolutely evil being—the "Being of all beings," "the Evil of all evils"—is Cthulhu.<br /><br />(Ow, my brain hurts. Was that some rambling paraphrase of St. Anselm or something? I'm astounded even True Believers could find this logic convincing.)Christyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05853508885914782784noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5666943561724458952.post-16503639013081793162011-01-26T19:06:00.006-05:002011-01-26T19:21:56.653-05:00Arguments for the Existence of Cthulhu III<span style="font-weight:bold;"><a href="http://www.peterkreeft.com/topics-more/20_arguments-gods-existence.htm#3">The Argument from Time and Contingency</a></span><br /><br />(The closest this comes to making me believe in a god is it makes me say, "Christ, this argument is a mess," but here's my attempt to disentangle the active premises in a coherent manner.)<br /><ul><li>If an entity has the possibility of not existing, then in an infinite time, it must realize this state of non-being. <br /><li>There has been an infinite period of time,* and the universe still exists.<br /><li>Therefore there must be an entity that does not have the possibility of not existing, from which the universe derives its longevity.<br /><li>Such a being is called a necessary being. <br /><li>This necessary being is Cthulhu.<br /></ul> This jibes well with scripture: "That is not dead which can eternal lie. And with strange aeons even death may die." - Nec. 3:16.<br /><br />*remember folks, we're not discussing the validity of the logic, or the accuracy of the premises, just seeing if the arguments as given can equally apply to Cthulhu as to Yahweh.Christyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05853508885914782784noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5666943561724458952.post-75942104936894038382011-01-25T16:45:00.004-05:002011-01-26T19:22:30.109-05:00Arguments for the Existence of Cthulhu, Part Two<span style="font-weight:bold;">The Argument from Efficient Causality</span><br /><br />Everything that exists does so due to some cause. The only thing that might conceivably exist without a cause is a supernatural being which is self-existent. Therefore, Cthulhu must exist: an uncaused being who could move to cause the universe.<br /><br />(I apologize/say "you're welcome" for trimming <a href="http://www.peterkreeft.com/topics-more/20_arguments-gods-existence.htm">these arguments</a> of their excess curlicues of language and making them slightly more coherent. I suspect part of the apologist's tactic is to give people a headache, making them give up and assume he must know better than they do.)Christyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05853508885914782784noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5666943561724458952.post-55455969707502648382011-01-25T12:18:00.003-05:002011-01-26T19:22:42.369-05:00Arguments for the Existence of Cthulhu, Part One<a href="http://friendlyatheist.com/2011/01/25/32948/">The Friendly Atheist </a>provides an apologetics <a href="http://www.peterkreeft.com/topics-more/20_arguments-gods-existence.htm">link </a>that would be funny if it wasn't so pathetic. Let's see if I can use all the arguments to "prove" the existence of Cthulhu.<br /><br /><span style="font-weight:bold;">The Argument from Change</span><br /><br />We can see that things change. And in order to change, they must have some outside force act on them. A seed cannot grow into a plant without soil, water, and sun acting on it. A planet cannot move without the gravitational force of other objects affecting it. And each item that changes things is itself acted on, ad infinitum.<br /><br />Since the universe is full of constant change, and is itself changing, it must therefore have something external acting on it. This being, outside space and time, is Cthulhu, who lies dreaming in the inky void.Christyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05853508885914782784noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5666943561724458952.post-4848196149510841272011-01-11T09:34:00.003-05:002011-01-11T10:43:16.525-05:00The Argument from PlacentaLast week I heard the dumbest Christian apologetic I've ever encountered. I'll just let that sink in for a moment . . .<br /><br />Ravi Zacharias was being interviewed on the Christian radio station. The interviewer mentioned a talk by Dawkins and (IIRC) Lawrence Krauss. Krauss had said that arguments against homosexuality are claimed to be based on the Bible, but that's inconsistent when the same Christians don't advocate other biblical imperatives like stoning disobedient children. The interviewer wanted to know Zacharias's answer to this.<br /><br />His response was in two parts. First, he failed to address the question as such, and used a lot of meandering words to say, "Times have changed since the Bible was written." Yes, that doesn't address why we would retain some prohibitions and not others, and it's theologically problematic when Yahweh is supposed to be unchanging, but that's not even the dumbest part.<br /><br />His second "argument" was to reference a story told by Dawkins about a chef cooking and serving a human placenta. He made sure to include gross and shocking details, and then said, "Is that the kind of world you want to live in?"<br /><br />This is the level of discourse on the ground. All those snooty theologians who complain that atheists don't address deep theological theory need to realize that "the great apologist of our time,"* when confronted with a thorny question, replies, "But, but, but, LOOK OVER THERE - people are eating <span style="font-style:italic;">placenta </span>- EWWWW! Therefore, Christianity."<br /><br />(For the record, Dawkins recounts the <a href="http://books.google.com/books?id=nBRYZtOuqZcC&pg=PA35&lpg=PA35&dq=dawkins+placenta&source=bl&ots=M1NWzVseEA&sig=frkvQ9KVPhv4DB8DVfM-zlrcA2s&hl=en&ei=PmonTZS_C4PGlQfkwvGnAQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CBMQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=dawkins%20placenta&f=false">placenta story</a> in A Devil's Chaplain, where it's clear it wasn't necessarily atheists doing this, and he doesn't endorse it in any way. It was an example in his discussion of stem cell research and how we decide what is ethical and what isn't.)<br /><br />*a quote from Chuck Colson, via <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ravi_Zacharias">Wikipedia</a>Christyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05853508885914782784noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5666943561724458952.post-91523492490183892542011-01-02T10:14:00.004-05:002011-01-02T10:37:34.062-05:00Catholicism Exit Interview<a href="http://friendlyatheist.com/2011/01/01/what-would-you-say-in-a-church-exit-interview/">The Friendly Atheist </a> links to an article about taking a marketing research approach to plummeting attendance at mass. Seven "starter questions" are outlined in the article. Here are my answers.<br /><br /><span style="font-weight:bold;">Why have you stopped attending Sunday Mass regularly?</span><br />When I stopped going to the Catholic Church I was a teenager - it would have been around 1989 I guess. It's difficult to recall the specific chain of events and thoughts. But generally speaking, I would say that the attitude towards women in the church, the colossally silly ban on birth control, and the whole top-down, "you need this old guy to talk to God for you" structure drove me to explore other options.<br /><br />More importantly though, apprehending the mere possibility of questioning church teachings led me eventually to atheism. Like many people, I just kind of assumed what I taught was The Way Things Are, and that other religions were different and wrong. Once I opened the door to scrutinizing church teaching, a giant vista of skepticism opened up, and I couldn't go back to complacent belief - in anything.<br /><br /><span style="font-weight:bold;">Are there any changes your parish might make that would prompt you to return?</span><br />Sure - just drop all supernatural dogma, apologize extravagantly for the abuse scandals, give all conspicuous riches to worthy causes, and start functioning as a social support group much like Ethical Culture. Can you get right on that please?<br /><br /><span style="font-weight:bold;">Are there any doctrinal issues that trouble you?</span><br /><br />Yes. Everything.<br /><br /><span style="font-weight:bold;">Does your pastor or anyone on the parish staff know you by name?</span><br /><br />No, but they might once I get off my duff and send that letter of defection!<br /><br /><span style="font-weight:bold;">Are you in a mixed-religion marriage?</span><br /><br />Yes. I'm an agnostic, atheist, secular Buddhist, non-practicing naturalistic pantheist. He's an apatheist/post-theist. <br /><br /><span style="font-weight:bold;">Do your children go to church?</span><br /><br />Not yet. I'm too lazy to take them to the UU congregation. If they get invitations to visit friends' churches, once they are old enough to comprehend instead of simply absorbing, they will be allowed to go.<br /><br /><span style="font-weight:bold;">Did you ever really consider yourself to be a member of a parish community?</span><br /><br />I guess. My hometown had both kinds of people: Irish Catholics and Italian Catholics. Again, Catholicism was just what you did, like going to school or shopping at the grocery store. I remember going to youth group activities and confirmation class. But weirdly Catholicism was so pervasive, it became like wallpaper. And as I said, once I realized that it wasn't a given of the universe, it evaporated quite quickly for me.Christyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05853508885914782784noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5666943561724458952.post-7771458194599677662010-12-11T15:00:00.003-05:002010-12-14T18:03:43.134-05:00Stupid prayersBy Googling "stupid prayer requests," I discovered Kim Kardashian used to pray for smaller breasts. Actually, this is more understandable than people praying for lost keys or lotto jackpots - especially since she was 11 and being teased. Still, is this something The Grand Master of the Universe is going to tend to?Christyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05853508885914782784noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5666943561724458952.post-89762484267342164582010-12-11T14:56:00.003-05:002011-03-04T18:55:48.254-05:00"You know it's a myth."I certainly think religious folk get overly hysterical about atheist billboards and bus signs. However, I do think AA's new sign is kind of jerkish. It's rude and obnoxious to tell people you know what they're thinking better than they do. Which do you find more annoying, someone who says, "Jesus is Lord," or someone who says to you, "You know Jesus is the one true God in your heart, you're just denying it."Christyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05853508885914782784noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5666943561724458952.post-22163039493089249702010-12-02T14:20:00.005-05:002011-03-04T18:57:04.310-05:00A little project - "Please pray"I'm going to start collecting some prayer requests. <br /><br />Asking an omniscient god for stuff makes no sense. Especially when it's Yahweh, who is pretty tetchy about puny humans thinking they know anything better than he does (see his response to Job, e.g.). But when this is pointed out in debate, apologists tend to respond that prayer isn't for asking for stuff, it's all about giving thanks, or just checking in with your buddy Jesus, or something. It's all related to the objection that atheists never pick on sophisticated versions of Christianity, just the comically backwards beliefs that a very small, benighted group of people hold.<br /><br />Well, here's some evidence that lots of believers (many of them in the mainstream) believe in asking god for stuff:<br /><br />Currently circulating on Facebook: <blockquote>We are asking everyone to say a prayer for "Darkhorse" 3rd Battalion, 5th Marines and their families. They are fighting it out in Afghanistan and have lost 9 Marines in 4 days. Please re-post this. IT WOULD BE NICE TO SEE IT ON EVERYONE'S PAGE!! Even if it's only for an hour. Come on......people show your support.</blockquote><br />A quick Google search turned up <a href="http://pleaseprayfor.org/">pleaseprayfor.org</a>, where you can ask people to pray for everything from healing children with brain cancer to helping you win online sweepstakes!<br /><br /><a href="http://www.answersingenesis.org/prayer/">Answers in Genesis</a> is doing a radio upgrade, and they ask, "Please pray for no installation problems, improved reception and clarity." They have a whole page devoted to constantly updated prayer requests, and a page where you can pledge: <blockquote>Believing that Prayer is our most strategic weapon in waging the war against compromise, I make a commitment to lift up the rebuilding of biblical foundations in our church and culture. I will pray throughout the day as God brings Answers in Genesis to mind and fast once a month, asking God to glorify His name in the specific requests relayed to me. This commitment is for one year.</blockquote>And you give your digital signature and e-mail address to seal the deal. Nifty!Christyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05853508885914782784noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5666943561724458952.post-41291346267603915912010-11-29T13:16:00.003-05:002010-11-29T13:21:24.044-05:00In which a goddess bestows a parking spotOver the weekend I hit Target. It was MOBBED, but I happened to get the primo parking space, right in the first spot next to the doors. On my way out, I saw a car approaching that aisle, and it slowed down to let me cross. I decided to be nice and point out where I was about to pull out. As I gestured ostentatiously at my fantastic space, I realized the driver was a friend of mine!<br /><br />Divine intervention? Some people might really think so (see previous post), but it was actually just a combination of dumb luck and my own awesomeness.Christyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05853508885914782784noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5666943561724458952.post-88261513485440413782010-11-23T10:12:00.006-05:002010-11-23T15:51:18.795-05:00Package-deal SkepticismIn the crunchy mothering world, I run into this odd phenomenon. Women get involved in some aspect of mothering that is counter-cultural: extended breastfeeding or natural childbirth for instance - practices that are actually supported by evidence or are merely matters of personal preference. By engaging in this "weird" behavior, they find themselves battling against social norms and doctors' expectations. They find support in a group of like-minded people, and get used to filtering, altering, or outright rejecting advice from uninitiated people, from mothers in law to pediatricians.<br /><br />Now, it can be perfectly rational to take uninformed advice with a grain of salt. And sadly even experts can be terribly uninformed about, say, breastfeeding. Doctors don't get a lot of training in this area, and often even well-read laypeople will be more up to date on the research than medical professionals.<br /><br />The problem is, many people seem built not to question everything, but to act more like they're choosing between competing clubs. So many women just seem to see it as a choice between boilerplate belief systems, rather than an investigation into the truth. Either you eat processed factory farmed foods, have an intervention-heavy birth in a hospital, feed your baby formula, vaccinate them, and keep them in a car seat or crib 24/7, OR you eat organic whole foods, have a homebirth, nurse your child until <span style="font-style:italic;">they </span>decide to stop, skip vaccinations in favor of homeopathic remedies, and wear them and cosleep with them.<br /><br />The choice to reject medical authorities on one subject (which may make sense) tends to lead to rejection of all scientific authority and adoption of crunchy-culture alternatives, even in cases like homeopathy, when it is completely stupid.Christyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05853508885914782784noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5666943561724458952.post-64635254068808310092010-11-21T13:19:00.003-05:002010-11-23T15:49:53.207-05:00"Jesus and Mary, please help me win a million dollars!"We watch The Amazing Race, and one of my favorite things is to choose teams to root for, and against. Usually it's the teams that are horrible to each other that I like to wish disaster on. But in the most recent episode, I realized that Gary and Mallory were running way behind, and I really didn't care. I would have felt bad if the doctors or the home shopping gals got chopped, and Gary and Mallory share a lot of their positive qualities - almost always being upbeat, interested in their surroundings, and friendly. So why didn't I care whether they won or lost?<br /><br />Well, one factor is that Mallory has a really offensive habit. She's a wealthy, privileged beauty queen in a reality show race to win a million dollars, and she's constantly praying for help. I know, I know, she's not really thinking about the theological implications, and her invocations probably don't mean much more than when I say, "Oh my god." But truly, it is somewhere between tacky and horrific to pray to Jesus to help you win a million dollars. Especially when He doesn't seem to interested in preventing babies from being born with cleft palates, or cerebral palsy, or Spinal Muscular Atrophy, or scores of other horrible problems.<br /><br />I'm sure it's very comforting to feel that the creator of the universe is your personal buddy looking out for you. It probably helps people stay calm and get through difficult days, even if "difficult" is just a frantic high stress day, with no life and death issues. But the implications of Jesus caring enough to find you a good parking spot, but leaving millions of innocent children in unimaginable suffering are truly monstrous.Christyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05853508885914782784noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5666943561724458952.post-12846742813477471992010-11-19T14:18:00.006-05:002011-03-15T20:29:15.708-05:00The morality of using FacebookSo a New Jersey pastor has told married church officials <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/11/17/rev-cedric-miller-tells-m_n_784872.html">they must delete their Facebook accounts</a>, because Facebook breaks up marriages.<br /><br />He's concerned because he's seen many people re-connect with exes on Facebook, start flirting, and wind up having an affair.<br /><br />I can actually see what he's saying - I have heard enough stories from my own circles about such issues, even if it only ever gets to flirting. Facebook makes it easier to get back in touch with old loves. Getting back in touch with old loves can be dangerous to your marriage. It's not really Facebook's fault - it's just that Facebook is an easier and more available method of chatting with old flames than periodic high school reunions and whatnot.<br /><br />But I think it's interesting that this is a big problem among churchgoers, seemingly as much as the general populace. Because I think this kind of thing stems from a failure to give some sober thought to your morality and where your limits are. And of course, ex-religious atheists tend to examine these moral issues much more than many religious people.<br /><br />Most people are religious without much inquiry. As products of our culture they probably hold enlightenment ideals and interpret their faith to be consistent with them. They go to church, but only on occasion. They have vague notions of God's rules, heaven, and hell, but don't seem to examine their beliefs. <br /><br />IMHO, it goes hand in hand with this fuzzy notion of religion that people don't sit down and think about their marital obligations, and whether one has a duty to stop short of flirting, the appearance of impropriety, or just actual intercourse. <br /><br />I also think religious people may fall into a trap made of their own piousness. "I'm a good person," they think. "I can go to lunch with Mr. Wonderful and I'm not doing anything wrong. I can control myself." I personally have a much more practical approach - stop before you get to a point where you might get carried away. Well before. It's all too easy to rationalize, rationalize, rationalize . . . then "lose control" and do something you regret. Or at least that you'll tell yourself afterward that you never planned to do.Christyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05853508885914782784noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5666943561724458952.post-39292334307768983132010-11-17T08:48:00.004-05:002010-11-17T11:32:55.353-05:00Woo creeps in everywhereSometimes it's so frustrating being a skeptic among a sea of the credulous. People don't understand why you have a problem with irrational garbage, because they don't examine it themselves.<br /><br />We decided to hook Kitty up with a therapist to help her deal with some anxiety. No big problem, it just seems like her worries are making it hard for her to enjoy life fully, and I'd rather help her change her thinking now, than let her negative thought patterns get entrenched. So I asked my therapist (see above, re: entrenched negativity) for a recommendation. She only knew of one person who was good and took our insurance.<br /><br />So I perused this lady's website. Cognitive Behavioral Therapy . . . good, good. Integrated approach . . . OK. EFT, which uses meridian tapping to relieve depression and anxiety - WHOA NELLY! <br /><br />I'd never heard of EFT, but that description set off all my pseudoscience alarm bells. I looked it up, and sure enough, it's a load of codswallop about manipulating your "energy fields." It is, of course, untestable and unfalsifiable.<br /><br />So now <span style="font-style:italic;">my </span>anxiety levels were up. How to proceed? It's possible this person is relatively competent and would teach my kid CBT techniques, and all would be well. Also, no one claims that EFT fails to alleviate anxiety - it's just that it appears to be a combination of placebo effect and distraction. Would it be acceptable for her to teach my child this technique, if it helped her?<br /><br />I finally decided no, it would not be acceptable. I'm not having someone indoctrinate my impressionable 7yo with magical thinking, even if it might confer some benefit. I decided to call my therapist back and use someone in her practice, paying the out-of-network price. It's worth it.<br /><br />The scary thing is, you don't necessarily know if your health care provider is infected with woo-think. Not all of them will be kind enough to advertise it on page 1. Naturally, I'll be chatting with this new therapist to suss things out.<br /><br />But sadly, I think sometimes you have to put up with creduloids. Actually, that name is a bit unfair. Most people are largely rational, with odd pockets of irrational beliefs. Probably that first therapist could have helped my daughter with proven, reasonable methods. And I could have discussed that I didn't want EFT used, I suppose. But that's a hard conversation, isn't it? "I'd like to hire you for your expertise . . . except this one thing you believe is total garbage, so don't use it." Ironically, she's probably used to and totally unoffended by people saying, "Don't use EFT, because we're Christians and it's against our beliefs."Christyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05853508885914782784noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5666943561724458952.post-86217904944332384452010-01-06T16:10:00.003-05:002011-03-04T18:58:26.417-05:00Harnessing SantaKitty has had such a ball being in on the big secret of Santa, I can't help but think it will contribute to her being a religious skeptic. Her personality is definitely oriented toward wanting to be right, in the know, and a keeper of knowledge. She adores being proven right when we disagree about something. And recently I had to pull her aside several times at a friend's party because she kept interrupting his Grandpa's magic show, yelling, "I know that's just a trick," and such. (A good opportunity for discussing the intersection of politeness and skepticism!)<br /><br />So many people seem to think they are special, in on a secret, especially wise, or gifted because of their religious beliefs. I'm glad my daughter has a foundation for feeling these (admittedly sometimes venal) emotions as inspired by knowledge about the natural world, skepticism, and inquiry.Christyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05853508885914782784noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5666943561724458952.post-86751319136818574382009-12-17T12:51:00.002-05:002009-12-17T13:03:47.714-05:00What "I Ought To" Really MeansI'm working on Chapter 5 of Mere Christianity, and it occurred to me that Lewis is mistaken about the uniqueness of what he terms Moral Law. He notes that there is often an impulse that we ought to do good, even when we don't want to. And from that he deduces that this impulse, unlike all other impulses, must be a natural law implanted by a supernatural mind. Aside from being a humongous leap, stealthily importing a lot of assumptions not made explicit, this ignores the simple explanation of cost-benefit analysis and the difficulty of delaying gratification.<br /><br />When we say, "I really ought to . . . " whether it regards going to the gym, giving to a charity, or abstaining from an extramarital affair, aren't we really saying, "I highly value an overarching or future benefit that requires this action, but there are powerful immediate benefits to not taking this action." The struggle isn't the result of a fallen nature battling with a God-given Moral Law, but simply the difficulty of turning down present goodies to obtain future ones. Remaining on the couch, keeping all your money to buy fun stuff for you, or having that smoking hot infatuation sex will all feel really good in the short term, or when we only focus on our immediate desires. But we are also aware of the wider picture, in which other (selfish!) motivations require that we do the opposite.<br /><br />I just don't see why this has to rise to the level of the supernatural. Unless you are steeped in a Christian culture already. In Lewis's case, I suspect not only did he work out the "logical" steps to his conclusion AFTER coming to it, but that Christian moral teachings influenced how he looked at the issues. It might not occur to a person schooled in the Ten Commandments that adultery actually has some benefits - we all know adultery is wrong, <span style="font-style:italic;">wrong</span>, WRONG!!!<br /><br />While Lewis is really good at couching his arguments in convincing-sounding analogies, I think he fails at both perspective and imagination.Christyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05853508885914782784noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5666943561724458952.post-54521099334954657762009-12-10T15:23:00.003-05:002011-03-04T18:59:55.472-05:00Mere Christianity - Not Impressed So FarI'm on Chapter 4. I'm continuing even though Lewis has instructed me to stop reading. (He says anyone who doesn't agree with his first argument should give it up.)<br /><br />It boils down to this: because most people feel some sense of fairness and overarching morality (not only "I don't want you to do that" but "You shouldn't do that - it's wrong."), that means there must be an immaterial Lawgiver who put a sense of Moral Law in each of us. I think all of this is perfectly explicable by evolution and socialization. And supported by the indications we see that other animals have "moral codes," such as "Don't eat before the higher-ranked wolves" or "Don't have sex with anyone but the Alpha chimp, unless you can be really sneaky about it" (guilt!).<br /><br />He also completely overlooks the selfish value of benefiting society. He starts well, saying, "[Human beings] see that you cannot have any real safety or happiness except in a society where every one plays fair," But three sentences later has completely forgotten this concept, and says it's silly to say it's good to benefit society, because wanting to benefit society is unselfish, so it's just begging the question. Except he started the conversation with an admission that helping society helps the individual!<br /><br />He also misses the fact that human behavior all takes place in roughly the same environment, and this was probably even truer when evolutionary pressures were at their greatest, so it's not a supernatural-level surprise that we are hard-wired and socialized via long tradition to adopt similar cooperative behaviors. It becomes a (granted, complex) series of "if-then" statements: If no one in a clan can trust each other, they fail to cooperate and all die; If most people in a clan feel significant psychological pressure to be trustworthy, they can cooperate and survive.<br /><br />If Lewis considered engineering, one wonders if he would find an extra-universal entity that bestows the Law of Design. "Look, all people throughout history have made boats that displace more water than that equal to their weight. Clearly this means there is a God of Boat Design!"Christyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05853508885914782784noreply@blogger.com0