Overcoming Religious Indoctrination and Helping Others Do the Same

Front view of the San Juan Cathedral in San Juan. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

When a child is taught a set of beliefs and values from birth by people on which he or she is dependent for basic survival, the beliefs and values tend to endure. This appears to be the case even when the beliefs are false and the values are morally suspect. Take something like overt racism or sexism as an example. A child who is raised in an environment where racism or sexism are modeled and taught will adopt these beliefs and values at least temporarily. This should not be surprising to us, as we generally agree that hate and bigotry are learned. The young child does not know any better, and he or she has little choice other than to trust the primary caregivers.

Fortunately, the effects of such an upbringing are not necessarily permanent. With age and life experience, the individual can question aspects of his or her upbringing. Parental values can be critically examined, rejected, and replaced with healthier alternatives. And yet, this process is often lengthy, difficult, and dependent on environmental events. That is, such an individual may need prompting of some sort in order to begin such a critical examination in the first place. This is probably one of the reasons that racist beliefs tend to be a bit more difficult to maintain when one has regular contact with members of various racial groups.

How I Used to Feel During Church

Jesus entering Jerusalem on a donkey (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

When asked why I blog, I usually answer that I do it because I find that it helps me sort things out and clarify my thinking. I have written previously about how I sometimes find blogging to be almost therapeutic and that I do it primarily for myself. Having said that, I occasionally write something here that I don't want to post, something that makes me hesitate for a few days before I muster up the courage to hit the "send to blog" button. This is that sort of post.

A recent post opened up some clearly unresolved emotional crap for me, catching me by surprise. I'd like to stuff it back down wherever it came from and move on. I'm usually good at doing that. Instead, I am going to force myself to come back for more and see if I can finally put into words something that I've never been able to express.

Is it possible that there are some of us who not only realized that we do not believe in gods fairly early in life but who also had negative visceral reactions to religion that we find difficult to verbalize? Maybe our brains are wired a bit differently. Maybe we have just the right combination of personality traits and early life experiences. Maybe we're just fucked up. And maybe (gulp) I am all alone in feeling like what I am trying to describe and nobody reading these words is going to have a clue what I'm talking about.

When my family dragged me to church with them over my objections during my early to middle teenage years, what I felt inside was not just that I didn't want to be there because I'd rather be doing something else. I certainly did feel that, but there was more to it than that. And what I felt inside was not just about teenage rebellion and the distaste for being forced to do anything against my will. This was certainly part of what I was feeling too, but there was something else that is so hard to describe.

Shocked That Some Atheists Believe in Ghosts? You Shouldn't Be

Some atheists believe in ghosts. There is nothing in the definition of atheism that precludes belief in the existence of ghosts, spirits, demons, monsters, or any other entities besides gods. Atheism (i.e., the lack of belief in gods) does not say anything about the existence of ghosts, and so an atheist can indeed believe in them. How do I know that some atheists believe in ghosts? Several atheists have told me that they do indeed believe in ghosts. You can see a few examples in the comments on this post.

I do not believe in ghosts (or spirits, demons, angels, or any other supernatural entities). My reason for not believing in them is the same as my reason for not believing in gods: lack of evidence. My lack of belief in ghosts does not come from atheism; both come from skepticism. Having said that, I am not quite ready to conclude that belief in ghosts has nothing whatsoever to do with atheism. Besides skepticism, I think there might be a bit more of a connection.

PZ Myers Says it is Time to Pick a Side

"Social Justice," founded by Father Coughlin, sold on important street corners and intersections. New York City Medium: 1 negative: nitrate; 2 1/4 × 2 1/4 inches or smaller. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

In an August 15 post, "This is not an update" (Freezepage link), PZ Myers told his readers that it is "time to pick a side" and "build a better secular movement" even if he ends up being "squeezed out." He wrote this post shortly after the timeline given in the cease and desist letter from Michael Shermer's attorney expired. PZ does not appear to have complied with this letter. As of this date, the post containing the allegations against Shermer is still up on Pharyngula.

As tempting as it is to use this as an opportunity to conduct a critical examination of what PZ's side has contributed to the secular movement to date, I'm not going to do that here. Instead, I'd like to suggest that we all take a step back from picking sides for a moment and ask ourselves two questions:

1. Do I place a higher value on reason, critical thinking, and skepticism or on the interpretation of feelings as accurate indicators of truth (e.g., if I feel harassed, I was harassed), arguments from experience, and the uncritical acceptance of third wave feminist ideology?
2. When it comes to secular activism (i.e., the efforts of the secular movement), what do I see as the top priority?

How to Link to Content Without Promoting It

Links (i.e., URLs) are what makes the web great. We love them, use them regularly, and depend on them for all sorts of things. But once in a while, we run into problems with our use of links. There are two problems associated with sharing a link to a site you do not wish to promote on your blog or social media accounts (e.g., Twitter, Facebook), both of which are solvable with a little effort:

1. Sharing the link will drive traffic to the site (i.e., when someone reading your content clicks the link, it will take them to the site and boost the site's traffic).
2. Sharing the link will give the site a boost in search engine rankings.

You know that homeopathy website you like to mock? Each time you share a link to it on Twitter, you are contributing to its search engine rank. And you know that awful creationist site you like to use as an example of how evangelical fundamentalist Christianity can rot the mind? When you link to it on Facebook, you are giving it a boost in the search engines. Fortunately, it doesn't have to be this way.

Before We Make Too Much of the Intelligence and Religiosity Study

Standard deviation (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

The abstract of a meta-analysis by Zuckerman, Silberman, and Hall (2013) recently appeared online pending publication in Personality and Social Psychology Review, and it is getting quite a bit of attention in the atheist community. The title will clue you in to why it is generating so much discussion: "The relation between intelligence and religiosity: A meta-analysis and some proposed explanations." I have not had the chance to read the paper yet, and I'm cautious about making too much of it based on the summaries I have read. Still, there are a few points that should be considered when trying to understand studies of this sort:

• Studies relying on large sets of aggregate data are informative in understanding group trends but tell us next to nothing about individuals. That is, the results of such a study - no matter how big or how well done - cannot reasonably be interpreted as suggesting that a particular religious person is any less intelligent than a particular atheist.
• Intelligence, as assessed by modern intelligence tests, appears to be normally distributed throughout the population. Using the mean and standard deviation from modern IQ tests (typically 100 and 15, respectively), we can calculate the portion of the population which will obtain IQ scores in various ranges. Most people (68% to be precise) will fall within 1 standard deviation of the mean (i.e., they will have IQ scores between 85 and 115). Another way to frame this would be to point out that most people are, by definition, of average intelligence.
• Very small differences become statistically significant when the sample size gets large. This is important because these some differences, while statistically significant, are too small to have much practical importance.
• Finding a negative correlation between intelligence and religiosity is certainly interesting, but is a far cry from indicating that religious belief somehow causes people to be less intelligent.

I mention these points for two reasons. First, I am seeing quite a few atheists gloating about the results of this study, and I expect few understand the limitations. From what I have read so far, these include but are not limited to the narrow definition of intelligence used by the authors, the reliance on studies conducted in the West and emphasizing U.S. Protestants, and the inclusion of studies that have been criticized by other researchers in the data set. Second, I am seeing too many comments like, "Duh! Was there ever any doubt?" Because we are likely talking about small differences here, I'm not sure such reactions are warranted based on this one study. This stuff tends to be quite complex and far from obvious.

Shermer Sends Cease and Desist Letter to PZ

Self made Law & Order logo (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

PZ Myers received a cease and desist letter from Michael Shermer's attorney asking him to remove the post containing the accusations and issue a retraction and apology. PZ initially posted this letter at http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/files/2013/08/shermerslawyerletter.pdf but removed it soon after posting it. Not surprisingly, the letter was downloaded and is now available in many locations. It is an interesting read for those who have been following this situation. While I realize that many are trying to tune out the infighting in the atheist movement, I believe that this situation in which a prominent figure in the skeptic community is pursuing legal action against a prominent blogger for allegedly posting libelous material is relevant to many of us.

It is not yet clear whether Shermer will sue PZ for defamation; however, this seems more likely based on the letter than it did previously. Of equal interest is the question of PZ's immediate response. At the time I am writing this post, PZ has still not removed the post in question or issued a retraction. He says that he been in touch with Ken White at Popehat to arrange legal assistance for himself. This could mean that he's planning to fight, but I suppose that will be evident soon enough if the post containing the accusations against Shermer remains much longer.

Based on the relevance to the atheist movement, skeptic community, and blogging in general, this seems like one to watch closely. It could end up having far-reaching implications.

Bloggers as Journalists

journalism’s public service functions: accountability, timeliness and accessibility @melaniesill #openjournalism (Photo credit: planeta)

Comments on a recent post, the allegations PZ Myers recently posted, and Conservative Skeptic's commentary on PZ's post prompted me to write this one. However, this post is not about the latest drama in the atheist movement; it aims to explore the larger questions of whether all bloggers are necessarily functioning as journalists and if so, whether it makes sense to expect a comparable level of "journalistic integrity" from what we might expect of a print journalist. I believe these are important questions with implications for all bloggers and all blog readers.

Investigative Reporting vs. Opinion in Traditional Print Journalism

I'd like to begin by considering what we can reasonably expect from a print journalist employed by a legitimate news organization (e.g., The New York Times, The Washington Post). I think it is fair to say that we do not expect that same thing from all print journalists, even those who are all employed by the same agency. We understand that some are functioning as investigative reporters and others are serving as opinion columnists. As long as we can clearly identify which is which, we are usually comfortable applying different standards to them.

The Subject of Unanswered Prayers is One Atheists Should Bring Up More Often

A Muslim raises his hands in Takbir, marking the beginning of his prayers (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

It seems to me that the phenomenon of unanswered prayer is something atheists and skeptics do not bring up as often as we could when talking to religious believers. It is something with which every religious person has had to contend, and it can call their faith into question to some degree. Naturally, some dishonest religious people will deny unanswered prayers, claiming that every prayer they have ever offered up has been answered in some manner. But I have to think that the honest ones will not resort to such a blatant form of denial. They will likely use more subtle forms in which they try to explain away the failure. "This particular prayer might not have been answered in the way I was seeking," they might say, "but that just means that God had something else in mind for me." Mysterious ways and all that.

For most religious believers, I suspect the "power of prayer" can largely be attributed to confirmation bias. They remember the times their prayers seem to have worked far more vividly than the times prayer has failed. And they actively seek evidence to confirm their belief in prayer, even if considerable interpretation is necessary to make something fit into such an account. This gives them the sense that their prayers are answered far more than is likely to be the case.

More Internet Vigilantism as Shermer Accused of Rape

Skeptic Michael Shermer (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

PZ Myers (Pharyngula) recently published an email he allegedly received from a woman accusing Michael Shermer of raping her at a convention. PZ says that too much time has elapsed since the alleged incident for law enforcement to be a viable option. He also notes that he has "no personal, direct evidence" that the alleged incident occurred as described but says that he knows the author of the email "and she has also been vouched for by one other person I trust." Evidently, that is enough to let us bypass any sort of investigation to determine whether the allegations have merit and proceed directly to damaging Shermer's reputation. Mob justice at its finest.

Can PZ's decision to publicly disclose this information in this manner be fully separated from the ongoing conflicts some of his colleagues on Freethought Blogs have had with Shermer? Can it be fully separated from the sort of call-out culture, public shaming, and Internet vigilantism being modeled by some of these bloggers and their fans? I don't think so. It is difficult for me to imagine that someone without a history of conflict with Shermer would jump the gun like this in a public disclosure that seems calculated to harm his reputation. It is similarly difficult to imagine that PZ would have done this had the accused been someone with whom he had no prior conflict.

Divisive Bloggers at Atheist Conventions

Convention crowd - Chicago (LOC) (Photo credit: The Library of Congress)

Two of the big atheist conventions recently announced their lists of speakers: American Atheists' 40th Annual Convention and Skepticon 6. From a quick perusal of the lists, it is apparent that these conferences are selecting a different sort of speaker from those featured at TAM 2013. While many potential attendees are undoubtedly thrilled to have yet another opportunity to hear from their favorite bloggers, others are asking whether conventions interested in promoting a cohesive atheist movement might be making a mistake by selecting speakers with a reputation for being divisive within the atheist community.

Good speakers are often controversial, as they tend to be opinionated and passionate about what they do. It is difficult to imagine a good atheist speaker who will not rub some people the wrong way. Of course, we are not terribly worried about atheist speakers who rub religious people the wrong way. This is why I italicized the words "within the atheist community" in the paragraph above. The concern some have expressed with some of the speakers these conventions have selected is not that they may be seen as divisive by religious individuals but that they have been divisive among atheists

Atheists Who Pray

Jesus in Pray (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

One of the many things that leads me to think that the mainstream news media in the U.S. is essentially broken is the manner in which various news organizations seem to recycle stories. It is as if they are determined to ring as much as possible out of each story because it is far easier to do so than something like investigative reporting, which tends to be resource intensive. For an example of what I'm talking about, consider the story about how polling data indicate that some atheists report that they pray.

From what I have been able to gather, the original source of the countless articles written about praying atheists is a report by the Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life released in October of 2012. The report was covered when it first appeared, and yet, we are seeing "new" articles about this report appearing in reputable media sources as recently as June of 2013 and being distributed as recently as last week. Notice how the article which appeared in the June 24, 2013 edition of The Washington Post refers to "New research on atheists by the Pew Research Center" and then links to the October 2012 report.