Need for Cognition

Mere Christianity - Not Impressed So Far

noreply@blogger.com (Cogito) — Thu, 10 Dec 2009 20:23:00 +0000

I'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.)

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!).

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!

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.

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!"

Talking About Death

noreply@blogger.com (Cogito) — Fri, 04 Dec 2009 17:41:00 +0000

Humanist Homeschool Mom has a post referring to her article, "Mommy, what happens after I die?" It prompted me to compile some of my favorite bits & pieces about a naturalistic approach to death.

First, the quote I commented with: ""I do not fear death. I had been dead for billions and billions of years before I was born and had not suffered the slightest inconvenience from it," traditionally attributed to Mark Twain.

Then there's this lovely bit by Aaron Freeman, which can be heard at http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4675953.

You want a physicist to speak at your funeral. You want the physicist to talk to your grieving family about the conservation of energy, so they will understand that your energy has not died. You want the physicist to remind your sobbing mother about the first law of thermodynamics; that no energy gets created in the universe, and none is destroyed. You want your mother to know that all your energy, every vibration, every Btu of heat, every wave of every particle that was her beloved child remains with her in this world. You want the physicist to tell your weeping father that amid energies of the cosmos, you gave as good as you got.

And at one point you'd hope that the physicist would step down from the pulpit and walk to your brokenhearted spouse there in the pew and tell him that all the photons that ever bounced off your face, all the particles whose paths were interrupted by your smile, by the touch of your hair, hundreds of trillions of particles, have raced off like children, their ways forever changed by you. And as your widow rocks in the arms of a loving family, may the physicist let her know that all the photons that bounced from you were gathered in the particle detectors that are her eyes, that those photons created within her constellations of electromagnetically charged neurons whose energy will go on forever.

And the physicist will remind the congregation of how much of all our energy is given off as heat. There may be a few fanning themselves with their programs as he says it. And he will tell them that the warmth that flowed through you in life is still here, still part of all that we are, even as we who mourn continue the heat of our own lives.

And you'll want the physicist to explain to those who loved you that they need not have faith; indeed, they should not have faith. Let them know that they can measure, that scientists have measured precisely the conservation of energy and found it accurate, verifiable and consistent across space and time. You can hope your family will examine the evidence and satisfy themselves that the science is sound and that they'll be comforted to know your energy's still around. According to the law of the conservation of energy, not a bit of you is gone; you're just less orderly. Amen.

Finally, there's a nice scene in the movie Houseboat, with Cary Grant and Sophia Loren, that expresses the same kind of sentiment. The widower explains to his grieving son that nothing is ever really destroyed or gone, only changed in form.

Do you have Krismas in France? Kriiiiiismaaassss!

noreply@blogger.com (Cogito) — Thu, 03 Dec 2009 17:10:00 +0000

Maybe Ricky's mom was actually asking a coherent question there!

Well, probably not, since Krismas was named only a few years ago. But I kind of like the idea. It's what we've been celebrating lo these many years - a Christmas-type celebration without any religious belief.

It seems a little blasphemous at first, but heck, Christmas is just a hijack of pagan solstice festivals, grafted on to the birth of Jesus.

So Merry Krismas, in addition to Solstice and Humanlight!

Drop-side cribs too dangerous

noreply@blogger.com (Cogito) — Thu, 26 Nov 2009 15:26:00 +0000

The ASTM is issuing new (voluntary) guidelines for manufacturers that exclude drop-side cribs. Toys R Us will no longer sell drop-side cribs. About.com has a good article outlining all the issues.

We have a drop-side crib (which is not recalled), and I gave it a good once-over to assure myself that it is safe. We seem to be fine (metal hardware, no indication a gap could form), but I think when we are done, we will junk this crib, rather than re-selling it. Drop-sides are particularly hazardous when purchased second-hand, as it increases the risk of the crib being put together wrong or with missing parts.

Scary stuff! But I am thankful we live in a world where such marginal risks are a big deal, since we have conquered so many risks that once killed babies and children.

The Catholic Church hypocritical? Nah, couldn't be!

noreply@blogger.com (Cogito) — Wed, 25 Nov 2009 00:22:00 +0000

So the Catholic Church is having a snit fit at Washington D.C., threatening to withdraw social service programs that help thousands of people. Why? Because D.C. is considering a non-discrimination ordinance that would require the church to provide equal benefits to gay and straight married couples. "Oh noez," says the church, "this might force us to ~~participate in~~ ~~publicly support~~ um, be vaguely associated with gay marriage, which is totally against our precepts!"

But the church has evidently been providing employee benefits to spouses of straight people who have divorced and remarried all along. Divorce and remarriage is supposedly just as much of a sin as homosexuality. Why the difference? Gee, could it be that the Catholic Church is run by a bunch of bigoted idiots who are mortally terrified of teh gay?

How to be a good Christian man

noreply@blogger.com (Cogito) — Wed, 18 Nov 2009 23:34:00 +0000

According to Steven L. Anderson, "real Christian men" can't sit down to pee. He has this bizarre rant about the bible demanding that men stand up to pee, because it uses "those that pisseth against the wall" as an occasional epithet referring to men.

He details how no man in Germany stands to pee (I'll give you a moment to drag your eyebrows back down from your hairline here), and he's seen signs in private homes and public restrooms that say "No Standing to Pee." This is obviously a sign of the apocalypse. He's fighting it, though. The next time he goes to Germany, he declares he Shall Never Sit to Pee!

Aside from the question of his ah, factual accuracy here, something really strikes me. He boldly states that the way to show you are a Real True Christian is to ignore societal rules and your host's gentle request, and be a rude, self-centered, splashing-on-the-tile boor. Yep, that's about my impression of Christianity in America.

Another reason why proselytizing sucks

noreply@blogger.com (Cogito) — Wed, 18 Nov 2009 21:12:00 +0000

I've mused about the psychological underpinnings of witnessing before. But recently I had a personal experience that made me think about it in a slightly different light.

We have a Nursing Nina toy - a stuffed cat with three kittens, with magnets that let the kittens "latch on" to the mother cat's nipples. It's totally adorable and funny. I had been meaning to share it with my friend who was coming over for a visit, since I thought she would get a kick out of it and, frankly, I wanted to show it off.

The morning of the visit, she called to apologize for being late. One of their dogs had attacked one of their kittens that morning, and she had rushed the broken and bleeding little thing to the vet, only to have it expire in the car. After we got off the phone, and my mind had turned to humdrum house stuff as I tidied up, I came upon Nursing Nina and my first thought was of how cool it is. Then I checked myself and realized of course I'd better put it away to avoid rubbing salt in my friend's wounds.

I think hard-sell witnessers are in part like kids wanting to show of their cool toys, without any regard to the interests or feelings of the people they're showing them to. Even if their intentions are good, there's an underlying self-centeredness that's really off-putting.

Religious Education, Day One

noreply@blogger.com (Cogito) — Mon, 16 Nov 2009 16:50:00 +0000

Cat really loved the RE class at the Unitarian Fellowship. She got to do CRAFTS! That would win her over even at the International Broccoli Tasting Festival.

I'm told they heard the story of The Blind Men and the Elephant, and did crafts, played with puppets, and had a snack. Sounds good to me. I went to the service and found it a bit boring, but I do find the idea of a supportive community somewhat attractive.

We will definitely try it again. No Jesus, no proselytizing for any one point of view - they surely do use a grab bag approach, referencing many different traditions (I noted Jewish, Wiccan, Native American, Buddhist, and Christian references) as sources of ideas, rather than dogma.

Doing something to help

noreply@blogger.com (Cogito) — Fri, 13 Nov 2009 14:42:00 +0000

One of the sucky things about being an atheist is you don't get to feel like you're helping people as often as theists do. For them, hearing about someone's tragedy or difficulty triggers an instant response: "I'll pray for you." Now, a lot of people will do something substantive in addition, but there is a certain danger of complacency in believing that mumbling to your invisible omnipotent friend can have an effect in the real world.

Luckily, just telling someone you're thinking of them, sympathizing, and pulling for them does offer some real solace. So in that respect, whether you say, "I'm praying for you," or "I'm thinking of you," or "Damn, that totally sucks," or "I'll sacrifice an unblemished calf for you," the person hearing it does get some help.

Lately though, I've been lucky enough to be able to help for real: babysitting a friend's daughter for day after the friend's mother died unexpectedly and she had to deal with the logistics of death as well as the emotional load; taking dinner to a friend from my moms' group who almost had to be hospitalized for depression last week, and having her over today so she's out of the house and not isolated.

As hard as it can be (that was one looooong playdate, let me tell you), it feels good to do something substantive to help. And I like to think that my humanism inspires me to do so in two ways: valuing other people, and realizing that there are no magic words that will change their situation.

Santa, the Tooth Fairy, and God

noreply@blogger.com (Cogito) — Fri, 13 Nov 2009 00:39:00 +0000

It was a big freethought day for Cat. First, she watched Bill Nye in class, which is unrelated to the theme of this post, but is cool.

Then evidently she got into a discussion with a classmate about Santa. She won't admit that she told them Santa isn't real - she says she can't remember how it came up - but I have my suspicions. The thing she wanted to tell me was that someone said, "If you don't believe in Santa, you don't believe in God."

I asked what she thought about that, and she paused and said, "I think if you don't believe in Godmother you don't believe in God." "Who is Godmother?" I asked. She said, "I think it must be God's wife." "That makes sense," I responded. Hey, it makes as much sense as Jesus, right?

So finally, she lost a tooth today. So I was jokingly talking about how the tooth fairy couldn't leave her any money until the lights were out and stuff. And then she brought up everything all balled up together in a knot of anxious confusion: "I just hate all made up things!" She said she didn't like made up things that aren't real, and that people write books about them to make people think they're real (I had to agree), and she knows that Santa and the Tooth Fairy and "all the other made up things" (*coughGodcough*) are NOT real, and she doesn't like reading books about made up things.

So I said, "Like Junie B. Jones?" And she had to admit that she liked Junie B. a lot, even though she is made up. Pretty soon we were laughing about how fun it is to pretend Santa is real and wrap up presents for Daddy with a tag that says, "From Santa." And along the way I assured her that she can change her mind about these kinds of things as often as she wants, and it's good to think about them and look at the evidence and try to come to your own conclusions. (Thank you, Dale McGowan!)

I feel glad and proud and anxious and concerned, but most of all I feel ever so grateful that I started researching this freethought parenting thing when I did!

Yay, critical thinking!

noreply@blogger.com (Cogito) — Thu, 12 Nov 2009 01:39:00 +0000

I was proud of Catherine today. She and Eliza just got flu shots, and we were watching Sid the Science Kid on vaccines and how germs get passed along. She asked me about how we get sick from germs, and I described the usual ways. Later in the day she asked, "So, who was the first person to get sick?" What an awesome demonstration of thinking something through!

I tried to explain from an evolutionary standpoint, which is a little complex for her to digest at this point. But the important thing is she was praised for thinking of a great question, and reassured that I would at least try to explain answers to her.

Our religious education schism

noreply@blogger.com (Cogito) — Wed, 11 Nov 2009 12:42:00 +0000

OK, my husband and I are not in a schism. But there are high emotions behind our discussion and negotiation of this subject. One of us wants to begin formal religious education for Catherine at a local church, while the other is not in favor of it.

The funny thing is, we are both atheists.

I think Cat could use some knowledge and grounding in major religions, and that the local Unitarian fellowship (OK maybe it's not, strictly speaking, a church) seems like a great place for it. From my research it seems they don't indoctrinate, except in thoughtful, liberal, caring approaches to life that I agree with. They don't have Big Truths they hammer into the kids' heads like Catholicism. Instead they encourage inquiry and reflection in a personal search for meaning.

From my husband's point of view, there is still danger. Six year olds are consummate conformists, and he suggests that whoever is teaching the classes will have a personal religious belief that they can't help inject in some way. Also, there will be the peer pressure of the other students, most of whom probably believe in some god or other.

Our compromise is this: I care more than he does, so I will take her and we will observe what happens. If, as I suspect, she merely comes home saying we need to cut our carbon footprint, or talking about an ethical dilemma they discussed openly, it won't be a problem. If she starts to spout off about how Jesus is the one true savior, I'll be the first one to yank her from class.

Here's the thing though - if we had to sit down and have a serious discussion about this, negotiate our position, and deal with deep-seated feelings from childhood regarding religious education, what the hell do people in mixed marriages do? How can you overcome an atheist/believer or Jewish/Christian divide?

Discussing Salvation with my Evangelical Friend

noreply@blogger.com (Cogito) — Tue, 10 Nov 2009 16:17:00 +0000

She and I are ever so carefully dipping our toes in the pool of religious discussion. Thankfully, we are both at pains not to insult each other, and that includes her making sure I know she is not trying to recruit me.

But I'm concerned that it's not a fair "fight." When I asked her why, if God is all-loving and Jesus died for the sins of the world, salvation wouldn't be universal, she had to ask a church person, who directed her to read Mere Christianity. Of which I have read a little, and she has read none. And that led me to mention an issue with Lewis's allegory in The Lion, The Witch, and the Wardrobe - that his inclusion of a "deep, old magic" is an implicit admission that it doesn't make sense for a fully sufficient omnimax God to have to sacrifice himself.

Well, she was pretty quiet, and I got the distinct impression that the heathen nonbeliever over here has researched and thought about these questions a lot more than the devoted Christian who goes to Bible study regularly. I'm actually a little worried that I might deconvert her, which would be great in some ways, but would also throw her life into absolute upheaval.

I guess I shouldn't be surprised, but I was because in general this woman is extremely bright, inquisitive, and thoughtful. I just forgot that religious memes tend to cordon off certain areas from inquiry, regardless of how intelligent and skeptical someone is in other areas.

I will proceed, carefully and lovingly, to exchange information on the topic.

Abstinence till marriage sex education

noreply@blogger.com (Cogito) — Fri, 06 Nov 2009 17:44:00 +0000

I'd noticed in our school district's literature that part of the health curriculum standards is to teach children to abstain from sex until marriage. This is one of the dumbest things I've ever heard, not to mention insulting and morally confusing, considering that about 95% of Americans have premarital sex, and this has held true since the 50s. Also, of course, gays and lesbians get the fuzzy end of the lollipop under this scheme. So much for diversity and tolerance!

Now, thanks to my reading of Raising Freethinkers, I realize that this educational standard is one set by the federal government as a requirement for getting DOE money. Thanks, federal government, for sticking your nose into my bedroom. I'm sure all so-called conservatives think it's great, too!

At least now I know it's futile to mention it at the school board level, so I won't be wasting my time.

I'm attempting to plant the seeds of sassy rebellion in the kids, but as noted in my last post, the time is clearly not ripe. And maybe it never will be. Quite possibly my weirdness (liberal, atheist, lactivist, civil libertarian, hippy-ish type smack dab in the middle of a land filled with SUVs sporting "W" stickers) will be an unending source of eye-rolling mortification to one or both girls. I will have to remember to let them have their own opinions.

Daughter's religion: Ceremonial Deism

noreply@blogger.com (Cogito) — Mon, 19 Oct 2009 22:20:00 +0000

Catherine is in Girl Scouts, and we've discussed the Promise, which in part reads, "I will try to serve God* . . ." That asterisk is in the GSA original, by the way - and it is one reason I'm ever so glad to have only girls. The GSA doesn't discriminate, and they specifically allow for substitution of whatever word works for you there.

So I told Catherine, since we aren't religious and her dad and I don't believe in any gods, maybe she would like to substitute another word there. She told me she does believe in God. So I asked gently what "god" meant to her. She said, "It doesn't mean anything. I mean, it means something, but it doesn't really mean anything." Perhaps someday she'll be a Supreme Court Justice!

Seriously, I'm fine with her just going with the flow for now. She's 6! And I figure I'm better off letting her explore her own ideas than coming down on her just like a fundamentalist Christian would on his kid for doubting the family's beliefs.

Zombie Blog!

noreply@blogger.com (Cogito) — Fri, 16 Oct 2009 23:57:00 +0000

It's been dead for over a year, but what the hell. Let's say cosmic radiation or overbooking in Hell has inspired a return!

Actually, it's more a confluence of life settling down (past year: surgeries! disease! insane levels of volunteer commitments! a toddler!), and a couple occurrences in Catherine's life.

She is now 6. The other day I turned down a request of hers, and she started whining, "Whyyyyyyyyy?" I answered, tongue slightly in cheek, "Because I said so." She immediately answered, "That doesn't make any sense!" I think we're doing something right!

The other thing is Girl Scouts and God, but I'll leave that for the next post - I've got to go bake two dozen chocolate chip cookies and prepare to teach two classes for a workshop tomorrow.

My evangelical friend

noreply@blogger.com (Cogito) — Thu, 28 Aug 2008 20:36:00 +0000

Nope, this isn't some joke. I met someone who I really like - she has a similar personality and a lot of the same interests. Her approach to parenting is very similar to mine. She doesn't suffer fools gladly and has a wry sense of humor. And the other day we were chatting, and she mentioned that she wouldn't ever go to a church that allowed women to be pastors, because it's unbiblical. Needless to say, my jaw dropped. Luckily it was a phone conversation.

The thing that allows us to remain friends (at least so far) is that she makes such judgments about her own life, allowing others to make their own decisions without harassment. She also knows that I'm an atheist, and does not seem fazed. There has been only one reference to this between us. We work in a volunteer organization and wanted to use space at a church for meetings. She wanted my opinion, as a non-Christian, of the proposal letter for this, to be careful she wasn't tainting our secular organization with sectarian bias.

In short, she is cool.

Do I, when I reflect upon it, think it's kind of weird that my down-to-earth, sensible buddy believes in a magical sky spirit that doesn't want women to preach? Of course. No doubt she's a little concerned that such a nice person as I may be unsaved and condemned to hell. But weirdly, it hasn't wrecked our relationship, because we seem to agree to interact on this temporal plane and leave the supernatural out of our interactions.

I wish more people (on both sides) could be like this.

No Possum Zone Exposed as Hypocrisy Zone

noreply@blogger.com (Cogito) — Fri, 22 Aug 2008 12:22:00 +0000

Normally I wouldn't share personal information about people they might find embarrassing. However, there are exceptions when said people boast of their alleged holiness, AND publicly accuse others of impropriety.

So here's the scoop: Tom and Nancy have been smugly accusing PMomma of perversion, immorality, and general sinfulness, while constantly citing their own moral superiority.

But it turns out that they're not so pure after all. Never mind that they had premarital sex, with the baby being born about four months after their wedding. Most of us in the reality-based community don't find that distasteful, though it does expose some hypocrisy. What is troubling is that evidently Nancy has at least once called the police because Tom was violent toward her, (and with her talk of submission one wonders how often he could beat her without her calling for help). They have also apparently been evading paying taxes. Yes, clearly they are a model of Christian morality. (N.B. these tidbits are care of Nancy's sister, erstwhile friend of PMomma, circa 2001. Tom admits to fornication, and implicitly admits the other actions by saying he has been forgiven "about those things.")

But really, there's something else that bothers me. They were pointed to PMomma by an old friend of hers who turned on her and clearly has been stalking her blog looking for revenge. This friend had once been very close and had access to private documents of PMomma's. She betrayed this trust and shared these documents with Tom and Nancy, and they happily complied in the betrayal and splashed private information on the web in an attempt to "get" PMomma. They are so contemptible.

Ezzo - Feeding Philosophies

noreply@blogger.com (Cogito) — Mon, 18 Aug 2008 11:05:00 +0000

Miss Scarlet: Why?!
Wadsworth: To create confusion!
Mrs. Peacock: It worked.

- Clue

Earlier we saw that Babywise attempts to reduce the large array of real parenting options to two polar opposites: Babywise, or anything-goes. As Ezzo embarks on a discussion of feeding babies, he switches to the opposite approach. He flails around wildly in an attempt to make feeding babies seem ridiculously complex and confusing. He works hard to manufacture bewilderment among readers, so the author can then offer a seemingly sensible, clear solution.

"Demand-feeding. Hyperscheduling. Cry feeding. Breastfeeding and bottle. . . . why all the confusion? One reason might be the overabundance of parenting theories. With so many options it is no wonder parents get confused."

It goes on like that, with Ezzo reaching for odd, academic-sounding terms and italicizing them to emphasize their strangeness: demand-feed, demand schedule, self-regulating schedule, natural feeding, hyperscheduling, rigid feeding, cry feeding, responsive feeding, bottle-feeding. Seriously, he italicizes "bottle-feeding" like it's an exotic foreign term. He wraps up the obfuscation triumphantly: "Who can decipher all the terms and techniques?" No one, when you describe them Gary.

I Googled these supposed terms of art. The results were not surprising. "Demand feeding" and "Cue feeding" are treated as synonyms - they are two ways to refer to the same practice. A search for "rigid feeding" turned up some articles about whether to demand feed or feed by a schedule, but the term "rigid feeding" as a separate philosophical approach did not appear. All the other terms failed to return any references to them as feeding philosophies, except in articles quoting Ezzo himself.

Here's the bottom line: the first choice in infant feeding is whether you will nurse exclusively or use formula. The second choice is whether you will feed on demand (looking for baby's hunger cues and responding), or feed the baby on an imposed schedule. And that's pretty much it for choosing between feeding philosophies. Everything else is a lot of sound and fury, signifying nothing. And I trust you remember who tells a tale like that.

So why the huge effort to create confusion? It’s simple – the smoke and mirrors are meant to create the illusion that Ezzo’s approach is a sane middle ground. In reality, Babywise is well known as the most rigid, schedule-driven advice around. To dodge this criticism, Ezzo must create a fantasy landscape of crazy, diverse feeding philosophies in which to situate his approach as a sensible compromise.

It seems I’ve written at least a post’s worth on the very first page of this chapter. I think I’ll save the rest for another post. There’s an awful lot of trickery to unpack in this chapter!

Ominous signs

noreply@blogger.com (Cogito) — Mon, 11 Aug 2008 00:32:00 +0000

Hmm. Last night I dreamed that one of the kids got some new sneakers, and I came slowly to realize that they were evil, and were allowing the devil to possess us. Or something - you know how dream logic works. The weird thing was I started as my normal skeptical self, and got enough evidence to change my worldview on the whole supernatural issue. In the dream I was not only scared because, yanno, The Devil, but freaked out because my universe had been turned upside down. It was really nice to wake up to the real world!

Then today as I returned home from the grocery store, about eight huge crows took flight from my front yard. Is eight an evil number? It might have been more, but it was definitely less than 666.

I'm lucky I'm a rational person. I got a laugh out of this stuff. I know of people who would have taken such events as deadly serious signs of haunting, psychic powers, or demonic possession.

Ezzo Chapter One, Redux

noreply@blogger.com (Cogito) — Sat, 02 Aug 2008 14:12:00 +0000

OK, having dealt with the obvious flawed premises, logical fallacies, and internal contradictions, I promised to unpack the subtext of this chapter as well. Let me start by simply laying out relevant quotes, and see if you follow these to the same conclusion I did.

"The husband-wife union is not just a good first step toward child-rearing. It is a necessary one. Too often, parents lose sight of this fact, getting lost in a parenting wonderland of photos, footsteps, and first words."

"Marriage is unique - totally without parallel. It transcends all other relationships."

"Where the marriage is intact, keeping this relationship a priority is your starting point for successful parenting."

"Too often when a child enters a family, parents leave their first love: each other. The spotlight shifts to illuminate the children, and the marriage gets lost in space."

"Date your spouse. . . . Continue those loving gestures you enjoyed before the baby came along."

See where I'm going with this? And don't for a minute think that Ezzo is concerned equally with each spouse's happiness. It seems very clear to me that these are exhortations to a new mother not to focus too much attention on her new baby, but to make sure she keeps her husband satisfied. See: (emphasis added in all quotes below)

"With child-centered or mother-centered parenting, parents intensely pursue the child's happiness." Seriously, he just throws "mother-centered" parenting in as an equivalent of child-centered parenting, without explanation.

"When you become a mother, you do not stop being a daughter, a sister, a friend, or a wife. Those relationships, which were important before the baby, still must be maintained."

"Date your spouse . . . The baby will not suffer separation anxiety from one night without mom."

"If you buy a special something for baby, select a little gift for your mate as well." Who generally buys items for the baby? Yeah, Mom. Or maybe I should call her Wife.

Oh, and I almost forgot this bizarre statement: "Since infants are entirely dependent on parental care, their dependency creates for new parents a heightened gratification." What the hell? I can only guess, but this seems to be another jab at mothers being "overly involved" with baby care (i.e., taking appropriate care of a newborn), as though properly responding to an infant indicates some pathological need on the part of the mother. If someone can explain this non sequitur, please enlighten me.

I'll just quote here the marginal notes I made when I twigged to all this: "OMG! This is written by a man who feared/resented having his boobies/mother figure taken away. What a weak, fearful, grasping man."

Really. This book seems to have been written by a man so insecure, immature, and petty that he is jealous when his wife buys a present for their baby. So sad. And sadder still that he has conned thousands of people into following his, "NO, I want to be the baby!!!" philosophy, under the guise of responsible parenting.

Am I alone on this fence about PZ Myers?

noreply@blogger.com (Cogito) — Fri, 25 Jul 2008 00:21:00 +0000

In case you haven't heard the howling, PZ Myers has created the greatest stir of his career by soliciting a consecrated host to desecrate.

Now, I agree with every criticism of the Catholic church he makes in that post. I sympathize with his combined puzzlement and contempt for a group of people who somehow believe that the all-powerful creator of the universe becomes a wafer and can thereby be hurt by a puny human being. And by the way, the wafer is literally and truly the body of Christ, semi-human flesh, but it has no features of human flesh. They just know that it is, because, well, it just is.

To anyone outside the fold, this is patent insanity. Even to this confirmed Catholic (I suppose they still count me among their rolls, in fact), looking at it with fresh eyes, it is loopy beyond description. Furthermore, the history of pogroms inspired by fabricated cases of host desecration shows that this is not a silly benign belief, but can easily become full-on homicidal insanity. As do the death threats Myers has received.

So yes, let us skewer these stupid, benighted, harmful, ridiculous beliefs. Let us laugh at the overly earnest "defenders" of Christ's vulnerable flesh. Let us challenge the assertions made by these people and vociferously point out that their claims are contradicted by all evidence.

But, I do think that stealing a consecrated communion wafer is, well, dickish. And probably technically illegal. It seems to me overly inflammatory, and therefore counterproductive. Most people who are cheering PZ on are already on his side in this. People who might be convinceable that Catholicism is crazy bunk, but are not yet convinced, are more likely to be put off by something so intentionally rude. And as we've seen, believers are driven batshit crazy by it.

Actually, though, that brings me back to thinking maybe this was a good thing in that it exposed how dangerously out of their minds many true believers are.

***

By the bye, many critics called PZ out for not targeting the Koran. They imply he is a coward to spit in the eye of the relatively peaceful (i.e., only threatening death, rather than following through) Catholics, while carefully giving Muslims a free pass.

Now PZ himself was not involved, but I'd like to point out that when the Danish Mohammed cartoon debacle occurred, one of the very few publications to reprint the offending cartoons was Free Inquiry, a secular humanist magazine. When it comes to boldly facing up to would-be theocratic thugs, atheists are one of your best bets. Probably because, as PZ points out, we don't request a general "hands off" rule regarding beliefs in order to shelter our own. When you submit your own beliefs to rigorous criticism, you become free to stand up against the faulty beliefs of others.

So, here I am on my fence. Part of me says, "Yeah, go PZ!" and part of me cringes, and part of me raises her eyebrows and says, "Well regardless, the reaction is very illuminating," and I just can't come down anywhere solid. Am I the only person not successfully polarized by this scenario?

Babywise, Chapter One: Your Baby Needs a Family

noreply@blogger.com (Cogito) — Tue, 22 Jul 2008 18:10:00 +0000

First, let me note that Ezzo uses two "examples" of children raised in different ways. I put examples in quotes because they are not real children, just made up characters crafted to support Ezzo's views. Chelsea has the perfect parents according to Ezzo - married, committed, and bound and determined to be her authority figures, not her friends. Marisa, meanwhile, is apparently the daughter of unmarried lesbian democrats who crave her constant approval and dare not thwart her. Got it? Let's proceed.

Ezzo starts by painting all other parenting approaches as ineffectual, naive, and downright stupid: "You think [these parents] are too sweet. Too kind. They all have the best of intentions. If wishes and dreams were bright lights and lollipops, every day would be bliss. But there's much more to parenting than just high hopes."

He then goes on to lay down the prerequisite to parenthood: good old Judeo-Christian marriage. "The husband-wife union is not just a good first step towards child-rearing. It is a necessary one." OK, pretty clear - traditional marriage is absolutely indispensable to good parenting. Except two sentences later, when he tells single parents they can use his method too. OK - marriage is completely vital, except it's not really. I didn't expect things to go off the rails this quickly.

Credit where credit is due, I can see a lot of wisdom in promoting a solid pair-bond in parents to make kids feel secure and prevent excessive anxiety. A stable home is important to kids - not the most profound revelation, but at least he's getting that part right.

Then he says, "To be a good mom or dad, all you need is to continue as before." Seems like he is echoing a sentiment that seems prevalent in our culture - having a baby shouldn't cause even a ripple in your life. Anything a baby does to disrupt your sleep, your schedule, or your leisure time is a problem to be fixed. This is confirmed when he trots "Marisa" out as a bad example. He describes her parents making room for her needs in their lives (not going out for a few months because she doesn't do well with sitters, and not force-feeding her a food she rejects) summing up with, "Welcome to the circus." Yes, these parents have done two things to accommodate their baby - mass chaos will surely ensue!

I'm coming to see that Gary Ezzo is extremely fond of the False Dilemma fallacy. In fact, it appears to be the foundation of all his parenting advice. Follow Babywise, and your child will be secure, cooperative, kind, good, charitable, honest, honorable and respectful. She will be "a joy to have around." Fail to follow Babywise, and instead follow your instincts or "the La Leche League attachment-parenting style" and your parenting will be "disabling . . . emotionally crippling . . . devastating." You will be catering to your child's every whim, making her totally self-centered and selfish for the rest of her life.

Clearly Ezzo is unfamiliar with the actual tenets of attachment parenting, which emphasizes loving guidance, including using authority and behavior modification techniques. Surely there are parents out there who ascribe to a passive, lazy approach, or who consider their little darling a creative genius not to be squelched with the slightest redirection. But these have nothing to do with attachment parenting. More to the point, wherever attachment parenting falls on the continuum, it is patently true that there is a continuum of parenting choices ranging from the very permissive to the very authoritarian. There are a lot of points on the continuum between Ezzo and utter permissiveness, but he refuses to acknowledge them.

All in all, this first chapter paints a picture of an author terrified of losing control. The implication is that one must keep utter mastery of children, from the moment of their birth, or all will be lost and the child will be unruly, selfish, and miserable forever. To him, placing an infant at the center of attention and care in a family, even for a few weeks or months, is a recipe for disaster, never mind how utterly dependent newborns are.

There is another subtext to this chapter, but I'll leave it for a separate post, as this is quite long enough already.

Ezzo ahoy!

noreply@blogger.com (Cogito) — Fri, 18 Jul 2008 17:51:00 +0000

I've obtained a copy of Babywise at the consignment store, and I'm reading the Preface. So far I'm seeing two themes. First, the focus is on results, results, results. And for them "results" means the baby sleeping all night long without any parental intervention, and the mother being well rested. No mention so far of meeting baby's needs, fostering empathy and closeness, or listening to one's mothering instincts. The other focus is on how they are right and everyone else is wrong. La Leche League gets called out specifically, and the tone seems to be, "Go ahead, look at what those other methods get you" - any mother who is stressed or tired, and any child that has any behavioral hiccup must be the result of inferior baby training methods.

For me, the biggest problem will probably be differences in basic assumptions. They assume that babies should sleep all night without any intervention, and that tired parents are the greatest problem to be avoided. I assume that babies are primates who are wired to need parental intervention quite often when young, and that this intervention brings benefits. It also becomes less frequent, on average, as the baby matures, and the key at the beginning is finding strategies to deal with the need for intervention, rather than trying to extinguish the baby's calls for help.

We'll see - I imagine that there will be a substantial amount of advice that I find perfectly reasonable (for instance, I believe the Ezzos promote a pattern of sleep-wake-eat rather than eat-sleep-wake, which coincidentally seems to serve my baby well). But in a way that may make the poor advice more dangerous.

Chapter 1 will be dissected soon . . .

A housekeeping joke

noreply@blogger.com (Cogito) — Sat, 28 Jun 2008 14:27:00 +0000

I've decided to Do The Right Thing and read Babywise before commenting on it. It'll be painful, but I'd like to be able to address it head on, not simply based on excerpts and accounts of failure to thrive cases.

So, for today, I have a joke.

Q: How dirty does a toilet have to be for a man to clean it?
A: Dirty enough that a woman tells him to clean it.

Seriously, this was inspired by my own experience, which was echoed again and again in the comments at Ask Moxie regarding the splitting of household chores. Most people seem able to divide the tangible tasks fairly equitably. However, several women mentioned that they hate having to be the one to coordinate everything. I call it being the general of the household. A poster there called it having to be the Great Oz.

The point is, lots of women wind up de facto coordinator of all household tasks, from diapering the baby to planning the finances. In our house, my husband is willing to do pretty much any task I ask him to do. However, I have to ask him to do it right then - saying, "Can you do X by the end of the month" gets decidedly mixed results. And if I don't ask, it doesn't matter how filthy the house is, he will drift into the study and play computer games until he is summoned to do an assigned task. The other problem I have is that he will do it, but he often makes it very clear that he's not happy that I asked him to do it, sighing or rolling his eyes like a damned teenager. In his view, this is acceptable, as long as he complies with the request, since I couldn't possibly expect him to like doing it. Suffice it to say, I disagree.

So what's the answer? Can we great and powerful wizards of the home at least delegate some of the task delegation? Is is possible to say, "Honey, from now on, you're in charge of noticing when the bathroom needs cleaning"? I don't know. Maybe I'll try it and let you know how it works out.

(For the record, my husband does have regular chores that are all his, like doing our laundry every Sunday, and he's pretty good about doing it without reminding.)