The Power of Metaphor, or, Don't Blame Santa

Before I begin, I ought to warn you that there is no real conclusion or argument to be found in this entry; it is rather intended as a collection of musings hoped to inform but primarily provoke further thought. Most of what is contained herein is part of an ongoing internal discussion I'm holding with myself, and this forms something of an update as to the point that that debate has reached. So open your mind, and read on.

I have made mention before of my status as a pagan atheist. It's not just an incidental matter for me, either; while I don't believe the Gods or spirits are actual entities capable of any kind of interaction with this world, I believe they are powerful and practically useful metaphors for a great deal of human life. The Gods we choose for ourselves - if choose them we do - represent those principles which are most important to us. For this reason I tend more toward the Northern European pantheon, in particular the Norse Gods. If I had a Sabbath like the Christian Sunday or Jewish Friday, it would be Wednesday, named for Odin, a.k.a. Woden (Woden's Daeg -> Wednesday) - for he is the figure with whom I most identify.

He is the symbol for wisdom, courage, and honour - among many other things. He is also seen as the guardian of travellers, much as the Christian Saint Christopher. All of these themes are ones which ring true with me: I aspire to be wise, courageous and honourable above all else; I can think of no qualities I would rather possess. There is also an emphasis on respect and reverence for nature in the Northern European religions, which it won't surprise you to find has particular resonance with me.

So why, you might ask, don't I just identify with those qualities directly instead of expressing them through the language of mythology and religious faith? It is a good question, and one which I have asked myself on many an occasion. I think the answer, as far as I can fathom it, lies in what I refer to as the "power of metaphor"; that is, the linguistic and emotional force that can be expressed only in terms of phenomena that transcend the physical, evidential world. Humanity is known for being a fickle race, and a claimed devotion to an abstract concept such as justice seems to hold less force, somehow, than a claimed devotion to a deity personifying that concept. It is an appeal to the eternal nature of these ideals as opposed to the sometimes-fleeting nature of humanity's adherence to them.

Another example of this that I recently found out about (thanks to my friend the Nietzschean feminist) is Laveyan satanism, which again is essentially an atheist religion. The ideals it favours are individualism, a realistic approach to humanity's darker impulses and an acceptance of these drives as an inevitable an essential component of understanding what it is to be human. There is also a strong element of anarchism, a rebelliousness and hostility toward authority that is reflected in few other mythologies. But it is atheist - and specifically non-Christian, a claim which cannot be made by theistic Satanism - because it entails a commitment to these ideals only, not a belief in a literal Satan or lesser demons. There is much in LaVeyan Satanism which rings true with me and values which are shared by the pagan faith.

On a tangentally-related topic, I also want to address the topic of Santa Claus - not as a metaphor, but as a belief tantamount to religion but treated as a socially-acceptable falsehood. This line of thought comes from listening to my backlog of Point of Inquiry podcasts, specifically the interview with Todd C. Riniolo. He noted an objection to the widely-used argument in sceptical circles that it is little wonder that people are credulous in adulthood when they are raised to believe in Santa Claus as children. It is rarely used as a forceful argument, usually instead forming a arbitrary comment; but nonetheless is worth addressing. Riniolo's objection is that there is simply no proof that belief in Santa during childhood leads to credulity in adulthood. Indeed, he argues, the "debunking" of Santa constitutes many a child's first truly sceptical activity.

I thought this was a very interesting point, and it contributed to an ongoing internal debate I've been conducting with regards to how best to raise a child in the sceptical mindset. It hasn't helped me make up my mind on the subject, but has made a significant contribution to the complexity of the issue. Is it wrong to lie to one's children in this regard, or is it a valuable experience that teaches them that deception (harmless or otherwise) is everywhere and that nobody is to be trusted implicitly? On a personal note, I think I "grew out of" notions like God and spiritualism around the same time as I did the notion of Santa. I don't recall being annoyed at the deception, either; at some point it just became a childish absurdity and I scoffed at my parents for persisting in the charade.

So would it be better or worse to deny one's child this experience? Should we rather explain as best we can the lessons that would be learned through it, rather than perpetuate the white lies? At the very least, it seems that the lies do less harm than one might think.

A New Hope?

I was among the many millions of people who tuned in yesterday to witness the historic inauguration of the 44th president of the U.S.A.. It was as superb a speech as I had come to expect from Obama, and it was nice to see and hear true oratory art return to what is arguably the highest public office in the world.

But of course it is the content of the speech that truly matters, and here again he did not disappoint. Again he made history (to the best of my knowledge) by becoming the first president to acknowledge the existence and importance of atheists and agnostics in their inaugural speech. Even better than this, however, was the promise that science would be restored to its rightful place; the scientific community had been given promises along those lines throughout the campaign - and it was truly gratifying to see it given such prominence.

The overwhelming theme of the speech, however, had a distinct secular humanist feel, one of shared responsibility and a positive belief in society's ability to effect change.

The future looks, despite the present dark, a lot brighter than it has for some time. Thank you to every American who chose hope over fear.

Stop worrying?

The biggest news in the athiest/sceptical sphere at the moment is probably the "atheist bus campaign" - by which I mean that it is the story that has garnered the most attention among the news/opinion sources I read on a regular basis.

When I first got wind of the idea a little while ago, I greeted it with mirth and interest; I thought it was about time we had some secular, atheist or agnostic messages out in the "real world". It would help stimulate debate, and perhaps make people realise that they're not alone in feeling detached from religion (a feeling I'm sure is more prevalent than generally believed).

Now that the campaign has well and truly taken off (last I heard they had exceeded their target by a staggering £75,000 or so), it's even turning up in the "Politics" section of my RSS feeds - at Liberal Conspiracy and even a spoof by the great Beau Bo D'Or.

Of course, being sceptics, there has been little agreement on whether the slogan that had been settled upon was the right one to use. The first objections centered around the use of the word "probably", and this choice may or may not have been down to advertising regulations not allowing more assertive statements. Others have claimed it's too patronising and will not achieve what it aims to.

The most interesting objections come from an authoritative source, Tracy King at Skepchick.org, who expands on her initial misgivings in this comment. As someone who not only works in marketing, but was also a one-time Christian, her opinion is a very well-informed one on this matter. For her, the slogan not only doesn't cut it, but is actually counter-productive. Sadly, I'm inclined to agree.

The question that needs to be asked when designing this sort of thing has to be about what the effect of the advert is intended to be. As far as I can tell, the motivation behind this one is to get people thinking, talking, and questioning religion, and also to put a friendly face on the alternatives - in this case, humanism. So will the chosen slogan have the intended effect? The general consensus among those discussing it seems to be "no". The thread on the UK-Skeptics Forum has now turned mostly toward what the slogan should be.

I have no experience as a slogan-writer so can do little to offer alternatives; but as far as concepts go, I'd prefer one that didn't evoke "God" at all. I feel that a campaign simply promoting rational, free, and intelligent debate would be more beneficial. The biggest problem faced in this regard is how best to word it so that average people will actually look at it and think.

I don't know how far along the process is as far as the advertising is concerned, but if it's at all possible, those organising the campaign should rethink the slogan in consultation with marketing advisers. The amount of money they have raised is a mandate to take it seriously and do the best job they possibly can.

Away Turf

One of the more commented posts here recently was Home Turf, in which I inveighed at some length regarding the logically necessary divide between science and religion. Religion is fine, I concluded, as long as it remains in the private sphere.

My good friend Von made a comment which brought to attention something which was left unsaid (though perhaps implied) in my original rant - why religion is actually OK at all.

There is no doubt in my mind whatsoever that religion has played a positive role in a great many lives. The advantages it brings are almost too numerous to list, but here's a cursory top-of-the-head job: removes/reduces fear of death; provides consolation after a loss; creates a sense of wonder; absolves from guilt; "explains" everything; provides cast-iron moral code; binds communities together... I could go on, but I won't.

These are the things which should be celebrated about religion; but they should not be considered - as they so often are - the sole domain thereof. As an atheist, I am truly and profoundly insulted when people argue that atheism means amorality; I don't fear death because all evidence suggests that it is the absence of experience, and it is thus senseless to fear it; and a sense of wonder is certainly no stranger to me - nature in all its complex splendour is quite amazing enough without having to resort to supernature.

But isn't it more interesting (and fruitful) to discuss these issues, like the true value of religion and the role it might, should, does - or not - play in society? Rather than obsessing over complete and eternal non-starters like the verifiability of deities? Religious-types: stop offering proof. Scientific-types: stop demanding it.

The first step in looking for meaningful answers is to ask meaningful questions.

Dear YouTube...

Please stop censoring freedom of expression.

Either: reinstate fsmdude's account and his videos which offend only those who have some wacky beliefs in regard to a biscuit...

Or: define yourselves officially as a Catholic website for only Catholic-friendly videos, and I can begin looking for alternative video-hosting websites to frequent.

Thank you.

[Via here and here. (PZ, naturally)]

UPDATE: fsmdude is now back online. Thank you, YouTube. Now don't do it again.

On a personal note, the dissertation is handed in and the Masters degree is officially over and done with. Posting to this blog should slowly start getting back to normal now. Thanks for your patience.

Faith in Science

This morning I was catching up on my podcasts when I heard something familiar said about the divide between religion and scepticism in society. The point wasn't laboured, but I felt the need to explore it myself - so here I am.

It regards the public campaign for critical thinking, and the criticism of this from the religious camp. Their argument is that atheist pots are simply calling the theist kettles black when they criticise them for preaching their dogma. Isn't scepticism just another dogma spread by its adherents in the same way as religion?

Well, no. While the public presentation and the processes of dissemination can seem similar, the point which is being missed by the theist side of this argument is that what sceptics and critical thinking proponents are advancing is basically the opposite of dogma. What we are advocating is not faith - it is the absence of faith, the end of reliance upon faith. It is simply a questioning mindset, a process of reasonable doubt rather than a set of unquestioning and unquestionable beliefs.

Science is not being held up as the source of all knowledge and wisdom in the same way that sacred texts are by their adherents. The most important difference, overlooked by the aforementioned critics, is that self-doubt is built in to the scientific outlook; this is forbidden - or at least frowned upon - in religion. At its most basic, to promote the sceptical cause is to promote the freedom of inquiry; to call this "just another faith" is to completely misunderstand and misrepresent that view.

Anarchy!

I've decided I need to blog more about political matters, if for no other reason than to keep my interest in that area alive. I mean, it was half of my undergraduate degree - I don't want to have wasted all that time. There's plenty of scope for it from a sceptical viewpoint, too: commentary on current legislation, criticism (or indeed praise) of particular politicians or parties for the quality of critical thinking they display; for this particular entry, I want to dispel a myth that has grown in the public consciousness. As you may have guessed from the title, my topic today is anarchism.

I don't think I need to go into an awful lot of detail as to the nature of the myth I'm attempting to dispel - it's a fairly familiar one after all. It is the view that anarchy is synonymous with chaos and disorder, and most usually associates it with civil disobedience and a refusal to recognise any form of authority whatsoever. There are many reasons for this portrayal, not least among them being the agenda of the ruling and elite classes. Obviously anarchism is a clear threat to their privileged position.

The other main reason behind the public misunderstanding of anarchism is its glamourisation in pop culture, such as the punk rock movement exemplified by the Sex Pistols. This really solidified the perception of anarchism as an extremist, disruptive and anti-progressive view; it also added touches of anti-intellectualism. All of this, ironically enough, has served only to marginalise and anathematise the idea, which was very much the purpose of the elitist agenda.

So how should it be perceived? Well if you know me at all by now, you'll know where I'm going to start: the word itself. The Greek word "Arkhos" means chief or ruler, and of course the "an-" prefix denotes a negative. It is simply the view of a society with no leader, no chieftain - no head (hence the term "acephalous"). This is not to say that there is no organisation or law in such a society - nor indeed that it would be primitivist and anti-progressive. In academic circles, the term "anarchism" is usually taken to refer to an anti-statist position, and "anarchist" to one who wishes to see the apparatus of state-governed society dissolved.

All very well, you might say - but what do they seek to put in its place? This is where the most surprises lie for those whose grasp of anarchy is simply an acceptance of the popular, chaotic image: they don't expect the anarchist to propose anything beyond the destruction of the state machinery. As a matter of fact, there are a great number of differing views within anarchism over exactly what form society should take.

Much of this disagreement stems from the level of authority of which the anarchist wishes to rid society - if it is simply centralised national government, then there are many options for organising people on a local level. If, however, they wish to enshrine the individual as the sole source of authority of every kind, then the result is inevitably the kind of chaos generally associated with the word. Clearly the more productive views are toward the former end of the spectrum, and there are many reasons why the latter would not work - or even be true anarchism.

There is much to be said in favour of an anarchist society; greater liberty being the most obvious and enticing. It is quite easy to conceive of a world in which people are able to function as a cohesive society governed not by elevated officials but by general consent. There is no reason why such a society would be amoral, as the popular depiction would have us believe - any more than would be true of an atheistic society. Indeed, there is an understandable trend toward atheism in anarchist thought.

The biggest problem for anarchism as a political ideal, however, is that it really is an ideal. It relies far too heavily upon goodwill and co-operation if it is to function at all well, and it is clear to anyone with even the most basic understanding of human nature that it simply would not work - the strong and unprincipled would rise to the top and exploit their natural position of power. I once wrote an essay on anarchism, and the quote I used to summarise at the end was this, from Andrew Vincent's Modern Political Ideologies:

Apart from some of the more rigid and strange absurdities of individualist anarchists, the communist, collectivist and mutualist anarchists express a millennial vision of what we would really like to be in our better moments, but which we know is relatively hopeless.

Just bear this in mind when you next hear the term "anarchist". In the true sense of the word, an anarchist is not a terrorist or someone bent on sowing chaos, but rather an idealist with a Utopian vision for society that will never be realised.

"Deep Esteem"

Oh those crazy Catholics and their inability to feel the slightest bit of cognitive dissonance. It takes a special kind of mind to continue spouting this kind of nonsense.

Yes, this is about the "news" that Britain's top Catholic, Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O'Connor, has called on religious believers to be more tolerant of atheists and other non-believers. Here's the BBC article. I agree with him on a couple of points - that "proper talk about God is always difficult", and that "God is not a 'fact in the world'". It's an issue of faith, not of reason.

This, to me, is the desperate act of someone who realises that reason is winning. The only way religion can survive is by retreating to its last stronghold where nobody can touch them - faith. It denies any kind of logic, proof, or sense - in fact, anything we routinely use to gather information about the world in which we live.

The real cognitive dissonance, however, comes when you come back from examining the implications of what he said to the words themselves. The first phrase of the BBC article:

The Archbishop of Westminster has urged Christians to treat atheists and agnostics with "deep esteem".

Right.

Anyone else recalling the special places in their crazy Catholic afterlife reserved for unbelievers, particularly those who are outspoken as such? Lakes of fire wasn't it? Something like that anyway. Not exactly places in which one might comfortably feel accepted and treated with anything remotely resembling "deep esteem".

The Daily Mash says it better than I.

Chickens and Eggs

For one reason or another, there's a theme recurring in my thoughts today. It began on the bus ride to university, when I was contemplating the philosophy of language (as I am wont to do of a morning); one of the most interesting questions I've come across is where it meets the philosophy of mind. The question in its basic form is this:

Did our language evolve to reflect our concept of mind, or did our concept of mind grow out of the inaccuracies in our language?

The idea here is the possibility that phrases like "I have a body" mislead people into separating their identity from their physical presence - seeing one's body as a possession rather than as the root of the "self". The question here is asking whether this subtle nuance of the language grew out of our natural perception that we inhabit (rather than are) our bodies, or whether this perception itself came out of our habit of speaking this way. I'm inclined to say the former, but it's still a very interesting and thought-provoking question.

The second part of this continuing "Chicken and Egg" theme came when overhearing a conversation in the library about religion and morality. Someone was reporting someone else as saying that most contemporary morality originally comes from religion. They weren't drawing conclusions from this - just stating a fairly widely-held and generally uncontroversial view.

But it got me thinking: why would we assume this to be true, just because many of the laws of today's society (against murder, as a classic example) are also present in religion, which predates modern law? Do we not even think to consider what predates religion? This relates to Euthyphro's Dilemma, which asks:

Is something right because the God(s) approve of it, or do the God(s) approve of it because it is right?

I love Socrates. I think it's fairly clear to anyone who thinks objectively about these things that religious morality grew out of social morality - rules for living together harmoniously. Modern law then grew out of the influence of religious morality. It's generally a harmless mistake to fail to look beyond the initial cause to the root which gave rise to it, but in some insane rare cases, people are actually arguing that (for instance) atheists should be exempt from human rights, because morality comes from God. I'm not going to go into it here, but it may well come up in the future.

And on a final, frivolous note - the egg came first. Dinosaur eggs, anyone? Fish eggs? If you were to ask which came first, the chicken or the chicken egg, then the question might be a bit more interesting. But I'm just a pedant like that.

UPDATE: As regards the first question of language and the perception of the mind, there's been some research on it done recently. It would appear that there is evidence to support the idea that our language does in fact influence our understanding of things such as what it is to be alive. Via ScienceDaily.

The Problem of Agnosticism

It's one of my rant-button topics. If someone equates agnosticism with "sitting on the fence" or generally with being indecisive, there's around an 80% chance they'll be receiving one of my carefully-restrained rants.

Etymology's always a fun place to start, so let's look at the word itself: "a-" is a negation (as in atheist), and "gnostic" pertains to knowledge. In its usual context, it's a belief that there can be no true knowledge of the supernatural. Agnosticism stands distinct from atheism and theism, not as a compromise between the two. Its adherents (for the most part anyway) have just as strong beliefs as the other two camps, but their PR is sadly lacking.

I do, however, think it's a mistake to paint them as three distinct viewpoints on the one subject - I consider myself both an agnostic and an atheist. How do I pull off this amazing feat? Well, I started as an agnostic, certain in my belief that regardless of if there was a god or gods of any sort, there could never be any convincing proof one way or the other. Then I became an atheist, swayed in the main part by the argument of necessity - it is not necessary to posit the existence of a supernatural, omni-everything being - Occam's Razor and all that jazz.

That didn't erase my agnosticism, however - I didn't hop from one camp to the other, because these things are rarely that clear-cut. As an agnostic, I still believe there could never be any convincing proof one way or the other; and yet I think that the atheist position is the far far more likely of the main two.

Do we need an "out" campaign for agnostics now? Probably not. Just a bit more education about what it means would be nice.

Addendum...

Further to my last post on awareness campaigns, I have a couple of things to add.

Firstly, I forgot to mention one of the other major issues that is doing well with a new awareness campaign - the "Anonymous" campaign against the Church of nucking futs $cientology. Ever since the Tom Cruise video was released, suppressed and re-released, we've seen a competent campaign against the Co$ by an organisation that doesn't technically exist. As this has made the national news, it's been brought into the public consciousness and made people ask "what is scientology? I thought it was just another harmless religion." I'm watching the campaign with much interest, and vastly enjoying the free spread of information and education about this dangerous cult.

Secondly, I'd like to follow up my comments on the campaign to get atheists to "out" themselves, à la 1980s homosexuals. There's a whole website dedicated to this campaign, and here's my big neon virtua-finger pointing at it:

Take a look, out yourself, spread the word.

Awareness campaigns

In an effort to kick-start my brain out of holiday mode and back into activity, I present a few of my thoughts on awareness campaigns - something that's been brewing in my mind for a while now.

I think it started during Breast Cancer Awareness Month last year, when I noticed an application on FaceBook which allowed users to display pink ribbons on their profiles (which is, of course, the symbol of breast cancer awareness). There were no donations going on that I could see - it was simply a picture of a pink ribbon, to "raise awareness". I'm all for raising awareness, particularly about important health issues such as breast cancer. But my problem with this particular campaign is twofold.

Firstly, the very fact that all you need is a pink ribbon to show support for this cause (and when was the last time someone asked what it meant to wear one?) surely demonstrates that awareness is pretty damned high. Second, it's not an information campaign any more; it's lost whatever substance it had, and is now more of a fashion statement than a part of a serious educational campaign. This is related to my first point because I think this is what will inevitably happen when an awareness campaign succeeds in its goal.

For the record, when I have the money to spare (which isn't often, being a poor penniless student), I'll donate to these causes. I'll also attempt to educate myself about them. But I won't simply display their symbol to "raise awareness" about something that no longer needs it.

So I'd like to take this opportunity to mention a couple of things awareness of which I feel needs to be raised. Firstly, female genital mutilation, or female circumcision. This WHO fact sheet covers most of what you need to know about this issue, and it's quite amazing that it's only now filtering into the public consciousness. I myself only became aware of this horrific practice in the last couple of months, and I can confidently describe myself as better-informed than the vast majority of the public. If anything could do with an awareness campaign, it's this - though I am fairly certain it would never take off, as it predominantly affects African and Middle-Eastern countries.

Also, and closer to home, I'd like to see an atheism awareness campaign - which is actually seemingly close to becoming a reality. As has been pointed out in various blogs, podcasts, articles and interviews, there are certain parallels between atheism now and homosexuality in the 1980s. There are a lot of atheists out there who either don't know that they are, or are reluctant to admit it due to the social repercussions. I'm very pleased to be able to consider myself a part of the burgeoning "out-of-the-closet" atheist community, to which the internet has been a huge help. We need people to feel comfortable admitting their atheism, and an educational campaign about what exactly atheism (or secularism, humanism, whatever) means.

So please, let's have some awareness campaigns for things that need awareness. Don't ignore old issues like cancer, of course, but don't get caught up in the fashion of simply promoting awareness of issues that no longer need it.

The Pagan Atheist

I mentioned early-on in this blog that I might one day address my own personal beliefs, and this is where I'll be doing so. It's only after reading this post at Skepchick that I really feel like I've got it straight in my own head; in it, Judaism is discussed as being both a religion and a culture. It seems clear that people are able to be part of the latter without accepting even the most core tenets of the former, thus making it possible to have a secular Jew, or Jewish atheist, without contradiction. It's all about heritage.

So it is with me. I define myself as pagan (or sometimes heathen because I like the word), but don't believe there are supreme supernatural entities interfering with life on earth. I don't believe in an afterlife, or reincarnation, or precognition. I don't attend any sort of temple, and don't recognise the authority of any high priests or priestesses. I don't indulge in arcane rites, dance around a fire skyclad, or trust a deity to cure my ills.

So what is paganism to me? Well, as I alluded to above, I immerse myself in the culture of paganism - the history of the pagan people, the mythology, the values. In particular, those of the Scandinavian cultures; something that goes sadly unnoticed by most of my fellow Britons is just how much of a role the "North-men" have played in our island's history. Most will not, for instance, know that the Norman invasion of 1066 (as in the battle of Hastings) was carried out not by the French but by Scandinavian people who had settled in what is now northern France.

I wear a Mjollnir (Thor's Hammer) pendant at all times, I read the ancient Icelandic sagas (e.g. Njalssaga, Volsungasaga), and I'm educating myself wherever possible about all aspects of the culture. I find their values to be the closest to my own, and one of the most important things in the world to me is a sense of honour - something largely seen as an anachronism in today's society. It's one of those subjects on which I'm liable to talk for hours.

I became pagan as an anti-conformist teenager thing, I'll admit. I was educated to the age of 11 in what was (though not explicitly advertised as such) a Church of England primary school, with hymns in assemblies and subtle indoctrination. I never believed a word of it, probably because the questioning and sceptical mindset of my parents informed my own; it's hardly surprising that I went looking for alternatives as soon as I was able. I ate up every scrap of information I could on Britain's and Europe's pre-Christian culture, and even today I never miss an opportunity to remind people what our Christian holidays are based on and why. It probably annoys those closest to me, but they put up with it bless them.

So this is me. The pagan atheist, the atheistic pagan, the secular pagan, the pagan humanist - whatever you want to call it. It's a cultural thing.

A Call To Arms?

Upon reading through my RSS feed as I am wont to do of a morning, I happened across a post at The Frame Problem. It concerns the apparent silence on the part of other atheist bloggers regarding the Church of Industrial-Strength Crazy Scientology. Some of the big names in atheist blogging are accused of "letting the bully win", sort of an "evil triumphs when good men do nothing" deal.

While I concede the point to some degree (you don't often hear about the Co$ on many mainstream atheist blogs), I wouldn't call it a silence - in fact, the only reason I myself don't blog more often on the matter is because it gets so much coverage elsewhere. Doing a quick search in my news aggregator, I'm presented with a few examples of blogs which regularly mention the Co$: The Rogues' Gallery, the blog of The Skeptic's Guide To The Universe, has 2 posts in the last 4 days; Skepchick and The Angry Skeptics are two others that deal with the subject.

Maybe the campaign of Anonymous, and the misdeeds of $cientology in general, should be getting more attention in the more visible atheist blogs. But I'd hardly say there was a silence on the subject.

What's in a name?

As someone to whom etymology is endlessly fascinating, I've often wondered at the misnomers inherent in the distinction between "astronomy" and "astrology". I understand it's a leftover from the times when astrology really was the "authority" on the stars, but I think it's doing a great disservice to the hugely successful science that studies the cosmos. What these people do is so far beyond "naming the stars" it's untrue.

If such things were possible, I'd suggest swapping the names around - the study of the stars should be known as such, and the nature of the pursuit which is hardly more than naming them likewise should be reflected in its title. I can't help but think it's giving them undeserved legitimacy to refer to their delusions as an "-ology", a study. Not that astrology is alone in this, of course.

Is it just me, or does this hint at the possibility of a wider "reclamation" campaign in scepticism and science? Already we have Professor Ken Miller arguing for science to reclaim the "design" terminology so widely used by proponents of creationism. One might be forgiven for thinking these to be relatively trivial matters; certainly a scientific mind would not usually consider the terminology to be a defining characteristic of whatever pursuit might be in question, but rather the methods, aims and results. However, this overlooks the increasingly important question of public perception.

One of the greatest challenges for science and scepticism is essentially public relations. Richard Dawkins is a very well-known proponent of atheism and science (and rightly so, he doesn't hold the Charles Simonyi Chair for the Public Understanding of Science for nothing); but despite his great successes like the bestselling The God Delusion, he is sometimes - perhaps typically - seen as a negative force, only denying what others believe and attacking sources of comfort. As legitimate as this endeavour may be, it doesn't help the general public's perception of science and scepticism.

Of course, we're up against some pretty stiff competition in this area - religions and other delusions like astrology have been practicing manipulation on an enormous scale for thousands of years. Reason is still a bit of a newcomer in this field. I think one of the first steps we need to take in this pursuit is to counter some of the tactics of the opposition - particularly their clever use of misleading language. This is why I'm in favour of Ken Miller's stance, and also why I cringe every time I consider the meaning of the word "astrology", and the use to which it is put.

An Atheist's Creed

Courtesy of PZ Myers, here's a nice little piece which seeks to state all that's positive about atheism, in the face of blatant ignorance of those who believe it's an empty nihilistic view:

An atheist's creed

I believe in time,
matter, and energy,
which make up the whole of the world.

I believe in reason, evidence and the human mind,
the only tools we have;
they are the product of natural forces
in a majestic but impersonal universe,
grander and richer than we can imagine,
a source of endless opportunities for discovery.

I believe in the power of doubt;
I do not seek out reassurances,
but embrace the question,
and strive to challenge my own beliefs.

I accept human mortality.

We have but one life,
brief and full of struggle,
leavened with love and community,
learning and exploration,
beauty and the creation of
new life, new art, and new ideas.

I rejoice in this life that I have,
and in the grandeur of a world that preceded me,
and an earth that will abide without me.

Hopefully I'll write some content for my blog sometime soon, when the Master's degree isn't hogging all my free time.

Good, ripe hypocrisy

As always, there are few places which will yield more juicy hypocrisy than the United States' government. The latest idiocy of theirs is to give into demands from the Christian Right (shocker) that the words "In God We Trust" are given greater prominence on commemorative presidential coins. Story here.

Overlooking (with some difficulty) how mind-numbingly trivial this issue is, can we please take a moment to remember one of the things that makes the constitution of the United States truly great? A little something known as separation of church and state. Because of this, state schools are not allowed to hold prayer sessions and the like - a wonderful notion and one which always makes me feel good when ruled upon sensibly by the Supreme Court.

But why, I ask you, are the words "In God We Trust" on its currency? Never mind the petty bickering over commemorative coins - why are they on the money people actually use? Why by Odin's beard are they the national motto, as declared by Congress in 1956? And please don't get me started on the horrific "Pledge of Allegiance". Are these things not clearly unconstitutional?

I think maybe PZ Myers has the answer, in his closing remark of the blog post that alerted me to this stupidity:

They're all demented fuckwits.

TheirSpace

No longer are atheists permitted to communicate with each other in great numbers on "social networking" site MySpace. After repeated lobbying from Christian groups, it seems MySpace has deleted the Atheist and Agnostic Group - because the poor believers find it offensive.

I'm having a hard time not simply swearing my fingers off at this point, so to save you from such an embarrassing display, I'll shoot some links at you instead:

The discussion on Richard Dawkins' website.

The account of Brian Pesta, group founder.

The New Humanist breaks the story.

I'm considering how to respond to this; I am sorely tempted to delete my account (I never use it anyway) - but this would have to be done in such a way as to send a message about why I was doing so. If MySpace is attempting to become a home to intolerant religious nutjobs, I say let them have their site.

Just another reason to hate Rupert the Bloody and boycott everything he owns.

A world without wonder

"For me, it is better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring."
-- Carl Sagan

I've always been someone who wanted the truth. Something my friends learn early on is that if there's something bad going on, I want to know about it - don't lie to me to save my feelings or anything like that. I'd rather be miserable knowing the truth than blissfully ignorant. This is probably why I'm a sceptic and an agnostic rather than a believer in any non-evidence-based world view. Many of those who do choose a religious basis for their life (or have one thrust upon them, for that matter) see non-theism as an empty way of life, devoid of spirituality and any sense of wonder.

Now watch this:

All we need to do for a sense of wonder is look at the world and the universe around us - how can you fail to be amazed at the astounding things you can find there? Ask any atheist if their life is empty and meaningless because of their "lack of faith", and they'll tell you it most certainly is not. A great example is Phil Plait, an astronomer and writer who maintains a blog which is simply bursting with enthusiasm and wonder every time a new image is brought back from Mercury or some galaxies out in the Black are doing something wacky.

And you don't even need to look that far for wonders - right here on our Pale Blue Dot, we've got wonders aplenty. See if you can spot the octopus in this here picture:

Not quite sure? Watch this video. This octopus features at the end of the presentation, which is well worth watching. [hat-tip]

As for the claim that atheists lack any sort of spiritualism, I direct your attention to SpiritualAtheism.org, though to be fair it defines "spiritual atheism" in a different way to that which I would use. It seems to be describing more of a pantheism, a way of seeing "God" as a personification of the universe. A more helpful place to look for a definition of "spiritual atheism" as I understand it (a humanist or naturalist outlook) is this article from American Chronicle:

"...most theists are under the impression that atheism is an immoral doctrine that robs life of its meaning and purpose. Hopefully, someone will take up the challenge and eloquently refute this belief. In the meantime, it is my fervent hope that our children’s children inherent a world free from superstition, fear, guilt, arrogance and sin, and that we all learn to embrace a new, spiritual atheism that espouses love and tolerance toward each other, and awe and humility in the face of an endlessly wondrous, but godless, universe."