Misogyny/Sexism is a huge topic, and plays into many other, and often broader realms of human rights. In my last post, I talked primarily about Male Privilege and defined my terms for the upcoming discussion. Like Star Wars, the sequels will be better- I can spend less time focusing on definitions and more on actually discussing. This time, I'm going to take a look at the sex work industry (prostitution, stripping, phone sex, BDSM, etc.,) and how it plays (or doesn't play) into human trafficking. There will be milk and cookies later.
Sex Work is an unusual industry. Partially or completely outlawed by religious moralists centuries ago, it has continued to exist and even thrive till modern times. Prostitution is often referred to as the first profession, and it may well be the last. It's interesting that such a storied industry would be so reviled, poorly understood, and discouraged. The concerns are unsurprising- most of us were raised with them, explicitly or otherwise- and those are morality (it's wrong to visit a stripper!) and human rights (they're forced into their position and by paying for services you are furthering their misery).
As morals are individual values, they're much harder to dispense with, but we'll return to them (maybe not in this post). First, lets look at human rights, because these are serious concerns. Now, here I think it's critical to divide them into legitimate concerns and unfounded ones. The legitimate concerns are human slavery and pedophilia, where the person, usually a woman, is forced into some kind of sexual service against her will (or if she's too young to consent). The illegitimate are the reasons along the lines of "She hates her work and she can't get a better job." Sorry, but pity isn't something any whole class of people deserve (except maybe interns). Fry cooks, accountants, geologists and gaffers may all have shitty jobs they may or may not be able to get away from, but we don't pity them. And we certainly don't abstain from french fries, tax advice, mineral samples or TV shows in solidarity. They might hate their jobs, they might love their jobs, or they might be indifferent, but it doesn't automatically follow that they shouldn't be doing their jobs, or that it's any of our business.
Human trafficking is a huge concern. Lives and families are destroyed every single day by conniving slave traders duping the hopeful into selling themselves, or worse, opportune kidnappers stealing their lives without even the courteous veneer of guile. This manifests itself in modern times in various ways, but two of the most common signs are a poor command of the local language and exorbitantly low prices for a generally high-quality service or product (so that used-car dealer on the radio...). The language is important, because they may not be able to explain to their clients, or to the police, just what is happening to them. They might think it's legitimate- many are told they need to work off their debt of additional expenses incurred- oh, did I mention that many of these people buy themselves into slavery? They go to a person who is selling, say, a new life in America for a fee. They scrape and save to put this money together, and then do the deal. They aren't necessarily trusting saps, either- they're often just desperate, and the scumbags who do it for a living (a nauseatingly lucrative one) are very skilled salesmen.
It seems like there's an exception to everything I've been writing so far, and that is probably the only constant. The slave labor could be anything from prostitution to car washing, from maid-service to clerical work. And you'd never know because you don't see them, or you wouldn't be in a situation to talk to them (and even if you were, there would be a language barrier). To make matters worse, many of the activities they are being forced to do are illegal for the consumers, and make it even less likely that anyone who does spot the problem will actually alert the authorities.
With human trafficking, there are things that you can do without coming off like an arrogant prig. One is, if you suspect something fishy, call this number (There's also a lot of other info on the site regarding human trafficking). You can be anonymous if you choose. Some things to watch for, besides your Creepy sense tingling, are people who work very long hours, act strangely, or owe large debts. Boarded up windows are also a bad sign.
My biggest piece of advice here, I think, can serve to improve just about any relationship: Care. Don't pity. Don't judge. Care. Treat each other with respect, and more than just a token. If someone works for you, whether employee or freelance, waitress or accountant, stripper or landscaper, get to know them on at least a superficially personal level. Give them the dignity they deserve as a human being. You'll get better service, and hey, you might just save a life.
More to come.
Showing posts with label Religion. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Religion. Show all posts
Wednesday, January 11, 2012
Saturday, May 28, 2011
Post Apocalyptic Earth
While I thought it was great that everyone was mocking the fundies for their rapture (and if a lighthearted jab is what you're looking for, you won't find it here), gently eroding the credibility of religion one joke and party at a time, something struck me as distinctly disturbing about the group that put out the message. Clearly it's a cult of some sort, but all people thought about was the message of that cult, not the poor, broken souls within.
Let me explain something briefly. The people in cults are not the mindless zombies that are so popular in Hollywood and most other media. Cultists are very normal individuals who were vulnerable, or lost and looking for a home. That's when the cult leader swoops in, and, like a used car salesman, takes them for everything they've got. Only the cult leader doesn't just get a paycheck, at least in this instance, but dozens if not hundreds of them until the people leave, and that's made difficult by human psychology. Once you've given in to cause, it's very difficult to pull yourself out. Cognitive dissonance, as I mentioned here, comes into play, as well as the sunk cost fallacy.
The sunk cost fallacy keeps you committed to a sinking ship. A usual case goes like this: You're paying into an investment such as a mutual fund that isn't making any money, and now has a dim chance of ever paying off (similar to playing the lottery every week, but not quite). Rather than pulling out, as is the financially sound decision, you continue to pay in, in hopes that it will eventually pay off. As your hopes grow slimmer and slimmer, you continue paying in because you don't want to have paid into it for no reason, for all that money to be wasted. Or to avoid looking like an idiot for investing in the first place. In any case, the normal human reaction is to continue investing. It only seems idiotic when viewed from outside.
That's exactly what cultists do. They commit, more and more every time they donate money, time, effort, or blood to the cult. I know a woman whose daughter died because they insisted on praying for her. The reaction? Stay in the cult. She's already committed a daughter. Let her sacrifice be in vain? Never! That's the problem with cults.
So, my heart goes out to the cultists who weren't taking in the money, who weren't putting up the billboards, who weren't profiting in the endeavor because their very lives are owned by this buffoon who has been taken in by his own schtick so much that he was willing to look like an international idiot. And he's doing it again, later this year- says there was a miscalculation.
Just remember this for next time- the pastor's a joke, but the cult is no laughing matter. Then again, the Seventh Day Adventists got started the same way...
Let me explain something briefly. The people in cults are not the mindless zombies that are so popular in Hollywood and most other media. Cultists are very normal individuals who were vulnerable, or lost and looking for a home. That's when the cult leader swoops in, and, like a used car salesman, takes them for everything they've got. Only the cult leader doesn't just get a paycheck, at least in this instance, but dozens if not hundreds of them until the people leave, and that's made difficult by human psychology. Once you've given in to cause, it's very difficult to pull yourself out. Cognitive dissonance, as I mentioned here, comes into play, as well as the sunk cost fallacy.
The sunk cost fallacy keeps you committed to a sinking ship. A usual case goes like this: You're paying into an investment such as a mutual fund that isn't making any money, and now has a dim chance of ever paying off (similar to playing the lottery every week, but not quite). Rather than pulling out, as is the financially sound decision, you continue to pay in, in hopes that it will eventually pay off. As your hopes grow slimmer and slimmer, you continue paying in because you don't want to have paid into it for no reason, for all that money to be wasted. Or to avoid looking like an idiot for investing in the first place. In any case, the normal human reaction is to continue investing. It only seems idiotic when viewed from outside.
That's exactly what cultists do. They commit, more and more every time they donate money, time, effort, or blood to the cult. I know a woman whose daughter died because they insisted on praying for her. The reaction? Stay in the cult. She's already committed a daughter. Let her sacrifice be in vain? Never! That's the problem with cults.
So, my heart goes out to the cultists who weren't taking in the money, who weren't putting up the billboards, who weren't profiting in the endeavor because their very lives are owned by this buffoon who has been taken in by his own schtick so much that he was willing to look like an international idiot. And he's doing it again, later this year- says there was a miscalculation.
Just remember this for next time- the pastor's a joke, but the cult is no laughing matter. Then again, the Seventh Day Adventists got started the same way...
Monday, October 25, 2010
I love Jesus!
Yes. I said it. And, it's true (well, some Jesus. The liberal commie Jesus*). I also love Albus Dumbledore and would totally have a bromance with Batman and(or) Marcus Aurelius. How does the historicity of a character affect the emotions you have for them? If the person died before you were born, there's not much difference anyway, from a pragmatic standpoint. Oh, sure- you can say, "But he really did all these things! Isn't that dreamy?" But does that change anything? Are the struggles of Robin Hood against a corrupt government any less poignant than of George Washington risking everything to create a country dedicated to the free expression of religion? The obvious argument, "Well, Washington has a legacy. It's called America." is actually rather empty- after all, what, today, that makes up America, that directly affects your life, could honestly be attributed to him? Even the constitution has had to change a great deal in the past 200 years (17 amendments were done without any input from Washington). He's a great man, I'm told, but what if he really did pass the buck for cutting down the cherry tree? Would that make his accomplishments less? Again, I don't think so, but it's nice to believe, isn't it? That our president wouldn't lie even when he'd get in trouble for it. But does it affect our lives? I don't think it does. I don't care if Abraham Lincoln was born in a palace, a log cabin or 400 log cabins (points if you get the reference), it doesn't change how I live my life. What if it was really Garfield (James, not the fat orange tabby) that freed the slaves? Would it change your life? I might be surprised, what with the history lessons changing, but I'd still go to work the next morning, and life would continue. Slavery would not be re-established because Lincoln was discovered to have not abolished it.
Where am I going with all this? Well, to Jesus, of course. Who cares if he lived back then or not? Either He's God, and He'll make good on his word, or He won't. Regardless of your views on how inerrant the word of God is, the bible was written by men, copy-edited by men, revised and published and translated by men, each step requiring hundreds if not thousands of repeats.
To make things worse, any historical (as opposed to archaeological) evidence from that era is scarce at best- before the printing press, the written word just wasn't as common. We might think that a miracle worker would get more press, but obviously, he didn't- almost all of the evidence we have for his life comes 40 or more years after he died. The documentary "The God Who Wasn't There" lays out one side of the case very well. But there is other evidence which suggests He did exist, historically (granted, it's mostly the same evidence read in a slightly deeper voice). I personally, and most biblical scholars in general tend to find non-historic Christ a much more compelling argument- He's simply too poorly tied to any documented era- but there is plenty of legitimate, scientific wiggle room because there's not enough evidence to make a definitive call. We could get some, of course, and should always be willing to update our beliefs if more evidence comes in, but right now, I think it could still go either way.
But why does it matter? The teachings of Jesus, the life he led, the stories he told, are all good for instruction, for inspiration, even for salvation. If you really read the bible, at no point does it expect you to believe Jesus took human form- just that He was the Son of God.
What's the difference if everything recorded about Jesus came from one source or 50? Really? Despite the shame you might feel for being duped (just as I would in the case of Lincoln not presiding over the Civil War), does it change the way you're going to live your life? It's not going to change the great theologians papers. The papers of the late CS Lewis wouldn't need revision, except in one or two minor places. It would be an embarrassing blunder, but qualitatively not even a minor blow to the strength of either his arguments or his conviction. Is the story of the widow who gave her last 2 pennies any less relevant, today, because the original teller might have been some random, nameless Rabbi, perhaps inspired by god but not His son?
For more information, check out the books and documentaries by Robert Price, Richard Carrier et al.
I love Jesus. *The Jesus that believed in the redistribution of wealth, laid the groundwork for welfare, and made medical care free for everyone while still loving the essence of free market capitalism provided it was free of the stench of human greed, religious hypocrisy and self-righteousness? Yeah, that Jesus I can get behind. And for that, I don't care if he's real or not. It's more of an interesting factoid compared to the wealth of things I know about his character. Given his liberal leanings, and the Yahweh of the old testament's rather hard-line conservative ones, there's little doubt why Jesus had to die, whether it was just a story or an actual event.
PS
I realized, shortly after posting this, that while I love the character of Jesus I should be clear that I have 6 metric craploads of 100% Grade A USDA Beef with the Bible, religion, and the more fundamentalist types of Christian. This is a science blog, and I'm not trying to jump into the atheist scene- so I'll shut up.
Where am I going with all this? Well, to Jesus, of course. Who cares if he lived back then or not? Either He's God, and He'll make good on his word, or He won't. Regardless of your views on how inerrant the word of God is, the bible was written by men, copy-edited by men, revised and published and translated by men, each step requiring hundreds if not thousands of repeats.
To make things worse, any historical (as opposed to archaeological) evidence from that era is scarce at best- before the printing press, the written word just wasn't as common. We might think that a miracle worker would get more press, but obviously, he didn't- almost all of the evidence we have for his life comes 40 or more years after he died. The documentary "The God Who Wasn't There" lays out one side of the case very well. But there is other evidence which suggests He did exist, historically (granted, it's mostly the same evidence read in a slightly deeper voice). I personally, and most biblical scholars in general tend to find non-historic Christ a much more compelling argument- He's simply too poorly tied to any documented era- but there is plenty of legitimate, scientific wiggle room because there's not enough evidence to make a definitive call. We could get some, of course, and should always be willing to update our beliefs if more evidence comes in, but right now, I think it could still go either way.
But why does it matter? The teachings of Jesus, the life he led, the stories he told, are all good for instruction, for inspiration, even for salvation. If you really read the bible, at no point does it expect you to believe Jesus took human form- just that He was the Son of God.
What's the difference if everything recorded about Jesus came from one source or 50? Really? Despite the shame you might feel for being duped (just as I would in the case of Lincoln not presiding over the Civil War), does it change the way you're going to live your life? It's not going to change the great theologians papers. The papers of the late CS Lewis wouldn't need revision, except in one or two minor places. It would be an embarrassing blunder, but qualitatively not even a minor blow to the strength of either his arguments or his conviction. Is the story of the widow who gave her last 2 pennies any less relevant, today, because the original teller might have been some random, nameless Rabbi, perhaps inspired by god but not His son?
For more information, check out the books and documentaries by Robert Price, Richard Carrier et al.
I love Jesus. *The Jesus that believed in the redistribution of wealth, laid the groundwork for welfare, and made medical care free for everyone while still loving the essence of free market capitalism provided it was free of the stench of human greed, religious hypocrisy and self-righteousness? Yeah, that Jesus I can get behind. And for that, I don't care if he's real or not. It's more of an interesting factoid compared to the wealth of things I know about his character. Given his liberal leanings, and the Yahweh of the old testament's rather hard-line conservative ones, there's little doubt why Jesus had to die, whether it was just a story or an actual event.
PS
I realized, shortly after posting this, that while I love the character of Jesus I should be clear that I have 6 metric craploads of 100% Grade A USDA Beef with the Bible, religion, and the more fundamentalist types of Christian. This is a science blog, and I'm not trying to jump into the atheist scene- so I'll shut up.
Thursday, September 2, 2010
Why pundits should stick to politics.
I didn't think it was possible that I could lose any more respect for Ann Coulter. How does one reduce an absolute value below zero? I don't agree with her on a single thing, but now I've heard her views on evolution. Trick question. It raised, just a smidge, when she said, "Evolution is compatible with my religion." I actually thought, in my sleep deprived brain, "I might actually agree with Ann Coulter on something!" Then she said, "but it isn't true." This is an excerpt from a debate between she and Bill Maher. The quality is pretty bad, and granted, neither one is particularly qualified to debate THIS topic, but it bled over from some political things they talked about. And got my blood boiling at 3 in the morning. Then it got me thinking.
To sum up the clip (the interesting bits, [except for Ann's gaff about the earth being 500 billion years old] start around 2:15 or so and continue almost to the end), Bill Maher is grilling her on the differences between voodoo and Genesis. He mentions evolution, and after being given the go ahead by the mediator, they begin the talk. She wrote a book (Godless: The Church of Liberalism) that talked a lot about evolution, and so was glad to tackle this topic with Bill.
Here are the claims that she got wrong, in approximately the order they occurred.
1) The Cambrian period, where there are all sorts of fossils which don't seem to have good origins from before. A fair point, but see my next blog for a detailed examination of this topic.
2) She claims the fossil record disproves evolution, that paleontologists are the most vociferous opponents of 2b)what she continually refers to as "Darwinism".
3) She keeps claiming that Darwin's evolution cannot be disproved.
4) She claims that the death of one type of organism is not an example of evolution.
5) She cites Behe's book, Darwin's Black Box, which refers to Irreducible Complexity.
Maher gets one wrong too, to be fair, though she did most of the talking.
6) Survival of the fittest = strong survive, weak die.
But back to Coulter,
7) Evolution is based on faith.
Fortunately, she's a very educated person, and she actually has at least a working knowledge of evolution. I'm putting her gaffs down to the point that her education is focused on art and law, and that she's probably not particularly interested in the natural sciences anyway. Medicine isn't that interesting to me, either. Bill Maher gave her an out, but she wouldn't take it, so we have to assume she has never heard of Punctuated Equilibrium. In spite of writing a book which dealt heavily with evolution, and having read at least one book about it, she is unaware of the mountain of evidence for evolution.
Points 1 and 6 will be dealt with heavily in my next blog post. There's a great deal there.
2) The fossil record was a problem, for Darwin, because there hadn't been thousands of scientists digging all over the world to find it. But now, the fossil record is actually one of the best proofs of evolution- it predicts transitional fossils, long before they were found. One of the things that makes or breaks a theory is it's predictive power- the ability to add new things to scientific knowledge. If a theory explains everything and predicts nothing, it is not a theory.
2b) This is a common claim by people trying to discredit evolution, but I wonder if it's not simply because they really think evolution hasn't changed since Darwin's day?
3)Now? Well, it seems increasingly unlikely. But, in the first 50 years or so, when lots of things were questionable? Sure. A dinosaur fossil in the Precambrian fossil record. A bat giving birth to a tomato. Poorly adapted organisms flourishing to the detriment of well adapted competing organisms. Any of these would disprove evolution, though the last would be the most shocking. As for the first, there are isolated instances where the layers of sediment may actually be jumbled up, due to some kind of cataclysm. If there were no evidence of that, just a fossil of, say, a leopluradon being eaten by trilobites, then sure. Evolution is bogus- or it has a LOT of explaining to do! The thing is, scientists flourish on disproving well established theories. The fastest way to become a rock star is publish something that flies in the face of an old theory. (2b) Because of this, evolution has already been modified, refined, and perfected over the years, as thousands of contributing scientists add to the global body of human knowledge.
4) She says that if we developed an antibiotic, that kills non-bald people, we wouldn't be evolving bald people. Obviously, a trivial and far fetched example, but lets set aside the details. No, we wouldn't. But, if we exposed this antibiotic to ALL humans, the humans who were resistant (ie., bald) would survive and reproduce. That's how evolution works, and she doesn't seem to get that. Killing a bunch of people with hair is not evolution. Killing ALL people with hair could be.
5) Irreducible complexity is, well, ignorant. It doesn't take into account how brilliant nature is at co-opting. The classic example is half an eye. Totally useless. But what about an eye that sees in black and white versus one that sees in low resolution? Or one that only detects light or darkness, without an image at all? And all of these would be preferable to no eyes at all.
7) Of course it is! In the same way that typing on a computer is based on faith, that turning on a light is based on faith, and that starting your car and hurtling down the highway at 75 mph is based on faith. In each instance, there are reinforcing experiences to give you a reason to believe that your reactions will be consistent in the future. The first time you get in a car to drive, you should probably be at least a bit nervous about getting on the highway with 2 tons of steel death surrounding you- but after practice and experience, it gets easier. If we didn't see lights come on every time we hit the switch, we probably wouldn't get annoyed when it doesn't work. If that's what she means by faith, then I agree. Of course, it isn't, and I don't. She means evolution is a religion. But at what point does it become more rational to not only believe in but expect miracles, which are, by definition, supposed to be extremely rare? It is not rational to believe that we will win the lottery if we by a single ticket. In the same way, belief in miracles can not be rational. It requires emotional support, in the lottery ticket's case, desperation. In religions case, faith. In evolution's case, neither- it is through the sweat and sacrifice of scientists, exhuming the evidence from long lost graves.
Finally, I ask you, Ann Coulter, if evolution is a religion, how is it compatible with yours?
To sum up the clip (the interesting bits, [except for Ann's gaff about the earth being 500 billion years old] start around 2:15 or so and continue almost to the end), Bill Maher is grilling her on the differences between voodoo and Genesis. He mentions evolution, and after being given the go ahead by the mediator, they begin the talk. She wrote a book (Godless: The Church of Liberalism) that talked a lot about evolution, and so was glad to tackle this topic with Bill.
Here are the claims that she got wrong, in approximately the order they occurred.
1) The Cambrian period, where there are all sorts of fossils which don't seem to have good origins from before. A fair point, but see my next blog for a detailed examination of this topic.
2) She claims the fossil record disproves evolution, that paleontologists are the most vociferous opponents of 2b)what she continually refers to as "Darwinism".
3) She keeps claiming that Darwin's evolution cannot be disproved.
4) She claims that the death of one type of organism is not an example of evolution.
5) She cites Behe's book, Darwin's Black Box, which refers to Irreducible Complexity.
Maher gets one wrong too, to be fair, though she did most of the talking.
6) Survival of the fittest = strong survive, weak die.
But back to Coulter,
7) Evolution is based on faith.
Fortunately, she's a very educated person, and she actually has at least a working knowledge of evolution. I'm putting her gaffs down to the point that her education is focused on art and law, and that she's probably not particularly interested in the natural sciences anyway. Medicine isn't that interesting to me, either. Bill Maher gave her an out, but she wouldn't take it, so we have to assume she has never heard of Punctuated Equilibrium. In spite of writing a book which dealt heavily with evolution, and having read at least one book about it, she is unaware of the mountain of evidence for evolution.
Points 1 and 6 will be dealt with heavily in my next blog post. There's a great deal there.
2) The fossil record was a problem, for Darwin, because there hadn't been thousands of scientists digging all over the world to find it. But now, the fossil record is actually one of the best proofs of evolution- it predicts transitional fossils, long before they were found. One of the things that makes or breaks a theory is it's predictive power- the ability to add new things to scientific knowledge. If a theory explains everything and predicts nothing, it is not a theory.
2b) This is a common claim by people trying to discredit evolution, but I wonder if it's not simply because they really think evolution hasn't changed since Darwin's day?
3)Now? Well, it seems increasingly unlikely. But, in the first 50 years or so, when lots of things were questionable? Sure. A dinosaur fossil in the Precambrian fossil record. A bat giving birth to a tomato. Poorly adapted organisms flourishing to the detriment of well adapted competing organisms. Any of these would disprove evolution, though the last would be the most shocking. As for the first, there are isolated instances where the layers of sediment may actually be jumbled up, due to some kind of cataclysm. If there were no evidence of that, just a fossil of, say, a leopluradon being eaten by trilobites, then sure. Evolution is bogus- or it has a LOT of explaining to do! The thing is, scientists flourish on disproving well established theories. The fastest way to become a rock star is publish something that flies in the face of an old theory. (2b) Because of this, evolution has already been modified, refined, and perfected over the years, as thousands of contributing scientists add to the global body of human knowledge.
4) She says that if we developed an antibiotic, that kills non-bald people, we wouldn't be evolving bald people. Obviously, a trivial and far fetched example, but lets set aside the details. No, we wouldn't. But, if we exposed this antibiotic to ALL humans, the humans who were resistant (ie., bald) would survive and reproduce. That's how evolution works, and she doesn't seem to get that. Killing a bunch of people with hair is not evolution. Killing ALL people with hair could be.
5) Irreducible complexity is, well, ignorant. It doesn't take into account how brilliant nature is at co-opting. The classic example is half an eye. Totally useless. But what about an eye that sees in black and white versus one that sees in low resolution? Or one that only detects light or darkness, without an image at all? And all of these would be preferable to no eyes at all.
7) Of course it is! In the same way that typing on a computer is based on faith, that turning on a light is based on faith, and that starting your car and hurtling down the highway at 75 mph is based on faith. In each instance, there are reinforcing experiences to give you a reason to believe that your reactions will be consistent in the future. The first time you get in a car to drive, you should probably be at least a bit nervous about getting on the highway with 2 tons of steel death surrounding you- but after practice and experience, it gets easier. If we didn't see lights come on every time we hit the switch, we probably wouldn't get annoyed when it doesn't work. If that's what she means by faith, then I agree. Of course, it isn't, and I don't. She means evolution is a religion. But at what point does it become more rational to not only believe in but expect miracles, which are, by definition, supposed to be extremely rare? It is not rational to believe that we will win the lottery if we by a single ticket. In the same way, belief in miracles can not be rational. It requires emotional support, in the lottery ticket's case, desperation. In religions case, faith. In evolution's case, neither- it is through the sweat and sacrifice of scientists, exhuming the evidence from long lost graves.
Finally, I ask you, Ann Coulter, if evolution is a religion, how is it compatible with yours?
Wednesday, August 11, 2010
I Love You, Just Don't Hurt Me Anymore
Sorry about how long this one was in coming! There is a very good reason this blog has been neglected: Starcraft II came out. Giving credit to where it is due, this blog was inspired by Angie Jackson reading Rick Warren's "Purpose Driven Life".
One of the things that triggers a feeling of love in humans is utter dependence, a lack of control which we put in others hands, however correctly. Developmentally this is important. As children, we are totally dependent on our parents, and we put our lives in their hands (hopefully rightly!); this relationship builds up the deep, emotional bond that we generally share with them. Children who miss this opportunity, through neglect or abandonment, can often end up incapable of or having difficulty with forming deep bonds later in life. Of course, it's only one mechanism, there are other ways for love to emerge! But for today, for this post, it's one of the two I'm looking at.
A similar mechanism is found in victims of Stockholm Syndrome. The victims are said to love their captors after being shown token acts of kindness while under the threat of death or torture. The dependence is there, but more specifically, there is a threat. The survival instinct kicks in, encouraging the behavior. While the case giving it the name of Stockholm may be a misnomer, it has been shown to exist, albeit in less cinematic situations than a kidnapping gone wrong.
The two mechanisms combine, often with others, in emotionally and/or physically abusive relationships. While intellectually, the victim will know that the abuser is not treating them well, even that they should leave them, they often report a deep abiding love for the person (and probably an unhealthy amount of fear), and stay, to the discredit of themselves, society, and often the children in the family. The abuser will usually seek to limit emotional outreach, forcing the dependence, or simply withhold money, to foster the dependence. The cruelty comes naturally, and the token kindnesses are generally overblown by the victim's eager mind.
When the victim is confronted about this dissonance between behavior and rationality, they generally dissemble, or rationalize: consider the cliche, "I deserved it."
It's interesting that the times people are most inclined to pray when they are at their most desperate, when they are feeling completely powerless over the course of their life. It's at times like these when people say, "Let go and let God," or are on their knees at every opportunity (never mind those of us who were raised to be praying almost constantly, anyway). It's also interesting that life, will often, arbitrarily and without provocation, beat us down, crush our dreams, and generally do terrible things to us. It also does very kind things for us once in a while, and for the most part, we agree that life IS worth living, despite the setbacks. A religious person, convinced that God is in charge of their lives, would ascribe the random chances of life to the agent behind it; and there you have two mechanisms mentioned above- dependence and cruelty mixed with token kindness.
I think, for many people, religion is simply an abusive relationship with the universe.
One of the things that triggers a feeling of love in humans is utter dependence, a lack of control which we put in others hands, however correctly. Developmentally this is important. As children, we are totally dependent on our parents, and we put our lives in their hands (hopefully rightly!); this relationship builds up the deep, emotional bond that we generally share with them. Children who miss this opportunity, through neglect or abandonment, can often end up incapable of or having difficulty with forming deep bonds later in life. Of course, it's only one mechanism, there are other ways for love to emerge! But for today, for this post, it's one of the two I'm looking at.
A similar mechanism is found in victims of Stockholm Syndrome. The victims are said to love their captors after being shown token acts of kindness while under the threat of death or torture. The dependence is there, but more specifically, there is a threat. The survival instinct kicks in, encouraging the behavior. While the case giving it the name of Stockholm may be a misnomer, it has been shown to exist, albeit in less cinematic situations than a kidnapping gone wrong.
The two mechanisms combine, often with others, in emotionally and/or physically abusive relationships. While intellectually, the victim will know that the abuser is not treating them well, even that they should leave them, they often report a deep abiding love for the person (and probably an unhealthy amount of fear), and stay, to the discredit of themselves, society, and often the children in the family. The abuser will usually seek to limit emotional outreach, forcing the dependence, or simply withhold money, to foster the dependence. The cruelty comes naturally, and the token kindnesses are generally overblown by the victim's eager mind.
When the victim is confronted about this dissonance between behavior and rationality, they generally dissemble, or rationalize: consider the cliche, "I deserved it."
It's interesting that the times people are most inclined to pray when they are at their most desperate, when they are feeling completely powerless over the course of their life. It's at times like these when people say, "Let go and let God," or are on their knees at every opportunity (never mind those of us who were raised to be praying almost constantly, anyway). It's also interesting that life, will often, arbitrarily and without provocation, beat us down, crush our dreams, and generally do terrible things to us. It also does very kind things for us once in a while, and for the most part, we agree that life IS worth living, despite the setbacks. A religious person, convinced that God is in charge of their lives, would ascribe the random chances of life to the agent behind it; and there you have two mechanisms mentioned above- dependence and cruelty mixed with token kindness.
I think, for many people, religion is simply an abusive relationship with the universe.
Saturday, August 7, 2010
What's the harm? This is why science is important.
This is exactly the kind of thing that depresses me about humanity. To sum up:
Granted, the egregious abuse in this story may be telling of a serious mental health issue, suffered by the Trans, or even dos Santos- that's beside my point. I'm not interested in placing guilt, or even blame- the fortune teller had a job to do, the Trans had a business to run, and the victim is right to sue for damages.
What I want to examine is the kind of person that could take something like this seriously. Why would anyone even believe in a fortune teller, for one thing? For the exact same reason one believes in magnet therapy, chiropractic, homeopathy, witches, or breaking mirrors for bad luck (or glasses for good luck). Because they've been told it's true. That's all it boils down to- and society plays it off as harmless, which it is, most of the time. Most Christians I know go to doctors, and get vaccinated (even if they refuse to accept the theory of gravity).
<> There are lists of cases as long as my arm where kids are neglected to death, or even murdered, by their parents because of their ridiculous beliefs. When people take homeopathic talismans to protect them from malaria. Men in Africa sleep with virgins to be cured of AIDS (also, see the even more depressing dissenting opinion here). Vultures are hunted to near extinction for gambling on soccer. Rhinos are killed to make ineffective potions against arthritis. Tigers are killed to make manly wards.
So yes, I get upset when otherwise intelligent people ignorantly ruin our planet, kill our innocents, or spread disease needlessly, because they want to believe in superstitious drivel. < /Rant >
I feel that people believe this sort of nonsense because of the way we're wired. I'll use myself as an example, though according to studies of human beliefs, many people fall into these (and other) traps. 1.) I know that if someone tells me something confidently, I'll be inclined to believe them without trying to verify it. 2.) Similarly, if I hear something multiple times, or I read it in several places, I'll be inclined to believe it. 3.) I also know that if I already believe something, or am inclined to believe it, that I'll tend to remember the things that confirm belief.
I could go on, but let's stick with those three.
1.) Obviously, this is a terrible reason to believe something! And yet, most of us will, and salesmen and preachers alike take full advantage. There are two things I do to avoid this tendency toward blindly obeying. First, I avoid making decisions when caught up in the moment. I give myself a chance to cool off and think about my actions. Second, if I catch myself doing this, I do research to find out whether it's justified.
2.) Just because a billion people believe something, doesn't make it true. One thing that makes this one so dangerous is because of our tendency to gossip and spread rumors. When at all possible, I go directly to the source, if it's about someone, or I verify the story with multiple sources (as above, when I mentioned the dissenting opinion on the virgin cure of AIDS myth).
3.) This is also called confirmation bias, and this one can be tricky to countervail. To do so, I must, on a regular basis, actively seek out dissenting information and re-evaluate my beliefs on a given topic. For instance, after catching myself uncritically repeating the above AIDS myth, I've done some more research- and sadly, it holds up.
The dissenting story was saying that the infant rape in South Africa had nothing to do with the Virgin Cure myth- it still exists. People believe you can cure an STD by transferring it to a virgin. And that's the harm.
A COUPLE allegedly tied up and tortured a teenage employee because a Vietnamese fortune teller told them she stole from them, a Darwin court has heard.There are a few things to this story, but one that jumps out at me is regardless of how much she stole, there's no justification for being subjected to loud Lady Gaga. This is exactly my problem with non-evidence based world views: it's not the everyday people that go around doing insane things, but as long as this kind of irrational, delusional belief is encouraged, we leave ourselves open to just this kind of abuse. Those in the "psychic" industry need to be more responsible (I'm looking at you, Sylvia Browne).Nhung Tri Tran and Trien Tran pleaded guilty to assaulting Leilani dos Santos on February 17, but not guilty yesterday to threatening to kill her and depriving her of her liberty.
...a Vietnamese fortune teller told the couple the person who had stolen the handbag was close to them, and was someone they loved.
Ms Tran also allegedly told Ms dos Santos they would cut off her fingers, but they loved her and would inject her with heroin, so she would not feel it.
Ms dos Santos said Mr Tran beat her in the back with a meat cleaver, threatened her with a samurai sword and burnt her arm with a cigarette.
Ms dos Santos said the couple had a Lady Gaga CD playing loudly.
Granted, the egregious abuse in this story may be telling of a serious mental health issue, suffered by the Trans, or even dos Santos- that's beside my point. I'm not interested in placing guilt, or even blame- the fortune teller had a job to do, the Trans had a business to run, and the victim is right to sue for damages.
What I want to examine is the kind of person that could take something like this seriously. Why would anyone even believe in a fortune teller, for one thing? For the exact same reason one believes in magnet therapy, chiropractic, homeopathy, witches, or breaking mirrors for bad luck (or glasses for good luck). Because they've been told it's true. That's all it boils down to- and society plays it off as harmless, which it is, most of the time. Most Christians I know go to doctors, and get vaccinated (even if they refuse to accept the theory of gravity).
So yes, I get upset when otherwise intelligent people ignorantly ruin our planet, kill our innocents, or spread disease needlessly, because they want to believe in superstitious drivel.
I feel that people believe this sort of nonsense because of the way we're wired. I'll use myself as an example, though according to studies of human beliefs, many people fall into these (and other) traps. 1.) I know that if someone tells me something confidently, I'll be inclined to believe them without trying to verify it. 2.) Similarly, if I hear something multiple times, or I read it in several places, I'll be inclined to believe it. 3.) I also know that if I already believe something, or am inclined to believe it, that I'll tend to remember the things that confirm belief.
I could go on, but let's stick with those three.
1.) Obviously, this is a terrible reason to believe something! And yet, most of us will, and salesmen and preachers alike take full advantage. There are two things I do to avoid this tendency toward blindly obeying. First, I avoid making decisions when caught up in the moment. I give myself a chance to cool off and think about my actions. Second, if I catch myself doing this, I do research to find out whether it's justified.
2.) Just because a billion people believe something, doesn't make it true. One thing that makes this one so dangerous is because of our tendency to gossip and spread rumors. When at all possible, I go directly to the source, if it's about someone, or I verify the story with multiple sources (as above, when I mentioned the dissenting opinion on the virgin cure of AIDS myth).
3.) This is also called confirmation bias, and this one can be tricky to countervail. To do so, I must, on a regular basis, actively seek out dissenting information and re-evaluate my beliefs on a given topic. For instance, after catching myself uncritically repeating the above AIDS myth, I've done some more research- and sadly, it holds up.
The dissenting story was saying that the infant rape in South Africa had nothing to do with the Virgin Cure myth- it still exists. People believe you can cure an STD by transferring it to a virgin. And that's the harm.
Friday, August 6, 2010
Raising Kids Without God
As a single atheistic parent in the veritable buckle on the bible belt, it can be difficult. What do I do about the god thing? Well, biologically, my kids are at the age where they should, with very little reservation, believe anything they're told by an adult. That, coupled with the fact that atheism for me is a simple extension of skepticism and rationality, makes it difficult for me. On the one hand, realizing that there was no god was an incredibly liberating experience- ironically, one of the most legitimately religious experience of my life- and I'd like my children to realize that. But, the more important issue to me is thinking for oneself. As such, just like with Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, and the Tooth Fairy, I'm keeping my mouth shut, and asking questions, and encouraging the kids to ask questions. Telling them the answer is like helping them cheat on a fundamental, and incredibly easy, test in life.
What I do do, mostly out of fun, is talk about Jesus or Muhammad(PB&J) with the same reverence I discuss Thor, Ra, Zeus, and leprechauns. And for the most part, they see them as they truly are, irrelevant to our lives. That's actually all I want- I hope the time for atheism is drawing to a close. There are so many more things of far more interest out there.
The important thing is ultimately, as a human species, we've outgrown the need for religion. It's still hanging around, and probably will, realistically, for hundreds of years more. But there are better sources, now, for anything that religion can offer. Better sources for community, for morality, for indulging our musical whims, for inspiration and guidance when we go astray, and plenty of real, tangible reasons to be good. Like Sesame Street, I don't believe there's much to be learned from religion at this stage in our development. It kept us from annihilating ourselves, but we're adults now, most of us, and quite capable of taking the next step into the future together. My fear is that those who cling so strongly to the history of our species that, in fear of venturing from their caves and finding a path in this marvelous present, they will turn the world's future into their apocalypse.
In an uncharacteristically beautiful and inspired chapter, the words of Paul the Apostle resonate with me. "When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things." 1 Cor 13:11, KJV
What I do do, mostly out of fun, is talk about Jesus or Muhammad(PB&J) with the same reverence I discuss Thor, Ra, Zeus, and leprechauns. And for the most part, they see them as they truly are, irrelevant to our lives. That's actually all I want- I hope the time for atheism is drawing to a close. There are so many more things of far more interest out there.
The important thing is ultimately, as a human species, we've outgrown the need for religion. It's still hanging around, and probably will, realistically, for hundreds of years more. But there are better sources, now, for anything that religion can offer. Better sources for community, for morality, for indulging our musical whims, for inspiration and guidance when we go astray, and plenty of real, tangible reasons to be good. Like Sesame Street, I don't believe there's much to be learned from religion at this stage in our development. It kept us from annihilating ourselves, but we're adults now, most of us, and quite capable of taking the next step into the future together. My fear is that those who cling so strongly to the history of our species that, in fear of venturing from their caves and finding a path in this marvelous present, they will turn the world's future into their apocalypse.
In an uncharacteristically beautiful and inspired chapter, the words of Paul the Apostle resonate with me. "When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things." 1 Cor 13:11, KJV
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)