Needing a God to Parent

A couple of weeks ago, I was having dinner with some friends before a concert and we got to talking about growing up religious and about not being religious today. It was a long conversation about all the reasons why none of us were religious (one of my favorite topics, but it is better if some present are still kind-of religious).

Anyway, at the end of it we got to talking about parent and one guy said that if he became a parent, he would have to raise his kids religious.

Our mouths dropped open; all of us wondering just how he had come to that conclusion. Finally I spoke up and asked. He said that he couldn't imagine keeping his kids in line without the threat of a God.

This represents one more fallacy in parenting without religion. What people have to understand is that children (young children) think of their parents as Gods. They don't need some other God to threaten them and in fact don't really understand that. Many psychologists think that our tendency to believe in higher beings comes from this period in our life when we see our parents as Gods - we want that continue; we want someone to be looking out for us, protecting us, and loving us.

Kids want so badly to please their parents, that you don't need any threats from some higher being to keep them in line - you are that higher being.

Radio: Is religion important when raising our children?

KNRY, a talk radio station in Monterey, CA hosts a show called Fathers are Forever and they are going to air a show tomorrow (Friday) night centered around whether or not religion is important when raising children.

This particular shows ill air from 7:00PM to 9:00PM Pacific time. You can listen to the show live here.

Dale Brown (author of Parenting Beyond Belief) and I (author of Humanism for Parents - Parenting without Religion) will represent the secular side of the discussion.

It should be a lively and interesting discussion.

Greg Epstein on Interfaith Politics

Greg Epstein, the Humanist Chaplin at Harvard, published some advice to Obama (and McCain, though he admits the Republicans wouldn't bother to listen). I like Greg and his down-to-earth, practical stance on things. He doesn't jump immediately into slamming religion, but looks at America as a melting pot, with respect to religion as well as race; and purports that humanists and atheists need to be part of that melting pot.

The article is worth a read, check it out here.

Is Obama as bad as Bush?

I was looking forward to getting the republicans out of office and to getting a democrat in who might tone down the faith-based programs and get back to basing our government and its decisions on reason and science.

Instead, the democrats must think they need to bend and become more religious to win the election. After everything Bush has done during the last two terms of service, you would think that the democrats would have a fairly easy win (at least now that Hilary isn't in the running).

Check out this article on Yahoo News about Obama and his faith program. Most disturbing of all was his emphasis on doing God's work in office:

Obama showed he was comfortable using the kind of language that is familiar in evangelical churches and Bible studies by calling his faith "a personal commitment to Christ." He said that his time as a community organizer in decimated Chicago neighborhoods, supported in part by a Catholic group, brought him to a deeper faith and also convinced him that faith is useless without works.

"While I could sit in church and pray all I want, I wouldn't be fulfilling God's will unless I went out and did the Lord's work," he declared.

I sure hope he is just using this to gain voters and that he will tone down the desire to bring religion into the government once he is elected.

Off topic - great book:The Story of Edgar Sawtelle

A friend of mine and fellow computer scientist has written one of the great American novels of 2008! It is an incredible book and one well worth checking out. Look at this quote from Stephen Kind on the book (you can find this on amazon):

Praise from Stephen King

"I flat-out loved The Story of Edgar Sawtelle, and spent twelve happy evenings immersed in the world David Wroblewski has created. As I neared the end, I kept finding excuses to put the book aside for a little, not because I didn't like it, but because I liked it too much; I didn't want it to end. Dog-lovers in particular will find themselves riveted by this story, because the canine world has never been explored with such imagination and emotional resonance. Yet in the end, this isn't a novel about dogs or heartland America--although it is a deeply American work of literature. It's a novel about the human heart, and the mysteries that live there, understood but impossible to articulate. Yet in the person of Edgar Sawtelle, a mute boy who takes three of his dogs on a brave and dangerous odyssey, Wroblewski does articulate them, and splendidly. I closed the book with that regret readers feel only after experiencing the best stories: It's over, you think, and I won't read another one this good for a long, long time.

In truth, there's never been a book quite like The Story of Edgar Sawtelle. I thought of Hamlet when I was reading it, and Watership Down, and The Night of the Hunter, and The Life of Pi--but halfway through, I put all comparisons aside and let it just be itself.

I'm pretty sure this book is going to be a bestseller, but unlike some, it deserves to be. It's also going to be the subject of a great many reading groups, and when the members take up Edgar, I think they will be apt to stick to the book and forget the neighborhood gossip.

Wonderful, mysterious, long and satisfying: readers who pick up this novel are going to enter a richer world. I envy them the trip. I don't re-read many books, because life is too short. I will be re-reading this one."

Colorado ground zero for abortionists in November

The Denver Posts published this article:

Colo. fertilized egg measure backers submit signatures

a couple of weeks ago. This is a trick by the religious right to try to ban abortion (and along with it some forms of contraception, stem cell research, and in-vitro fertilization) in Colorado by masking it as a new definition of when Human Life starts.

Now, I've had a long history of siding with some aspects of the anti-abortionists (pro-lifers) because I can't stand late-term abortions (still legal here in Colorado). Unfortunately, people are not looking at this scientifically and are instead treating it as a religious argument only.

From a scientific standpoint, there is a fairly clear definition of when life ends (when there is no longer a recognizable brain wave pattern). The start of life should be measured the same way. This happens around the 20-21 week point or about when there is "quickening" (when the mother can feel the baby moving). And, more importantly, it is something that can be measured.

If they really want a fight they might be able to win, they should start there and see if that will pass the voters. What they have here will never fly (thankfully).

Research Volunteers Needed

From Sam Harris:

We are preparing to run another fMRI study of belief and disbelief, and we need volunteers to help us refine our experimental stimuli. This promises to be the first study of religious faith at the level of the brain. By responding to the four surveys I have posted online, you can make an enormous contribution to this work.

You'll find links to these surveys on my home page.

Please answer as many of the surveys as you can. If you only have time to answer one, please choose at random (otherwise, we will have many more responses to the first than to the others).

Feel free to post this message to your blog or to forward the relevant links to your friends. I especially need Christians to respond, as one of the goals of these surveys is to design stimuli that a majority of Christians will find doctrinally sound.

I will, of course, pass along the results of this work the moment I have something to report.

Many thanks for your help.

All the best,

Sam

www.samharris.org

The Humanist Reviews: Humanism for Parents

The Humanist magazine (see May/June 08) has a review this month of my book Humanism for Parents - Parenting without Religion by Jennifer Hancock (see Sumo Girl).

It is a good review and very thorough.

if you don't get The Humanist, you should and if you do, then check out the review.

A Humanist-Life-Stories Publication?

The Humanists of Silicon Valley are sponsoring the development of a "Humanist Life Stories" book. This is akin to the Humanist Heritage effort the Humanist Society did a while back. I consider it a great idea and I hope they can pull it off. For my part, I'll be sure to submit one or two stories. If any of you are interested, let me know and I'll get you in touch with them.

We, Arthur Jackson (president) and Armineh Noravian (vice president) of the Humanist Community in Silicon Valley, California, wish to share an exciting idea with you. Our constant search for ideas to promote Humanism has led us to the realization that one important area is the manner in which Humanists deal with difficult or unusual life circumstances. We believe that sharing such experiences will provide important models of how Humanists live with life’s challenges without divine guidance.

This idea has defined one of our projects, which is to compile a series of life stories by Humanists all across the world. With this goal in mind, we would like to request your help by asking that you send us a life story that might ultimately be printed in a book, which we would like to title “Humanist Life Stories- Sharing our experiences with difficult problems”. We know that projects like this have been discussed before, but are not aware of any collections that are currently available. If you know of any, please tell us.

We believe that the outcome of such an exciting project will have a number of positive consequences, both for Humanism and all those participating in the project.

Wannabe Scholars -or- What counts as evidence?

This last week I received a book
Evidence and Paul's Journeys by Jefferson White.

Jefferson is claiming to be a scholar who has spent many years investigating how "evidence" is used by scholars, especially as it relates to Paul's Journeys. He goes through a long diatribe as an introduction extolling the failures of scholars to look at real evidence and says that instead they look at theory and ideas and then try to present it as evidence.

He goes on to give a definition of evidence that he will use for the book he has written about Paul's travels. Listen to this definition of evidence:

1. The biblical record is assumed to be true unless it can be shown to be false.

2. if a contradiction is alleged to exist between the bible record and other historical evidence, and there is a reasonable explanation to account for it, the contradiction is not proved.

in other words, the bible is assumed to be true, period. Have you ever heard such utter crap? If I were to present you (him?) with the FSM Bible and said that my evidence for it being real is its claim that it is correct and that constitutes evidence unless you can prove it false, you would call me (rightly) nuts. I've done a fair bit of research into this myself (though I wouldn't claim to be a scholar) and I know very well how much the Bible was rewritten as needed over the first three centuries and how little of it is truly original writings of the claimed author (though some of Paul's letters were). Still, to say you know about "real" evidence and then to present such a ridiculous definition is pathetic at best.

How can people be so stupid/ignorant as that? And, I'm ashamed to say, he claims to be in Computer Science; if someone in computers can't get basic logic right and thinks evidence is a completely invalid assumption, how will we ever get the general population to understand?

Back in it...

A few months ago I decided to stop blogging for a while because this blog had taken a direction that I hadn't originally intended. Mostly this was to be about spirituality within Humanism. However, as I became more and more frustrated with the direction America is taking and with the Bush administration and how there are people trying to turn us into a Theocracy, I found myself blogging against things things of for things.

That wasn't my intent, but it was a natural outcome of the environment we are in. I wanted to take some time off to reevaluate my stance and my intentions for this blog.

In the end, many of the things I have been blogging about are as or more important than the original intent of this blog. Therefore, I've decided to get back to blogging about whatever comes up that feels important (regarding Humanism and freedom of belief of course) and not worry so much about the original intent (or name) of this blog.

So, you can look forward (or not) to my ranting on various applicable topics. In the next few days (and this is one of the things that convinced me to get back in the game), I'll post on the idiocy of some wannabe scholars when it comes to evaluating the bible.

Cheers, Sean

How up-front about not being religious should we be?

I was recently at some friends house in Iowa (I live in Colorado) with my children. These friends happen to be extremely religious and my children and I aren't at all.
Through most of my life, I have tried to be very tolerant and respectful of other's beliefs and opinions. In this case, that meant at dinner, when they prayed, I would stay quiet, though not participate.

This year however, they went to hold hands prior to the prayer. I didn't think much of it and just held hands with the two people on either side of me. But, I noticed my oldest two children refused to do so and one of them gave me an odd look for the fact that I was doing it.

It made me ponder just how tolerant I should be. I've been getting less so because of the changing tide in this country, especially with the Bush Administration. But, with friends. I also noted on this trip that they were willing to give me a book on Christianity that I'm sure they hope will convert me, but I'd be uncomfortable giving them a book trying to break them of their faith.

This is certainly something each of us has to ask ourselves and for me, I've been making a concerted effort to be more upfront about me beliefs, but I also don't see a lot of gain in being argumentative just to argue or with people that aren't really open to it. I tend to be much more willing to let them know what I think without being pushy about it and while being willing to listen to them.

Ask Presidential Candidates

Over the past seven years Humanists have watched as the president and congress have repeatedly breached Thomas Jefferson's wall of separation between church and state. But now you can act to prevent a continuation of this process.

At every opportunity you have, ask the candidates pointed questions on this issue. Or call on your local media to ask such questions. Write letters to the editor expressing church-state concerns. Request that your friends ask such questions. Let's make 2008 the year we begin to set things right as we publicly hold the feet of all presidential candidates to the proverbial fire.

Here are ten questions to draw from or to modify in your own words.

1. Leaders of the religious right often say that America is a "Christian Nation." Do you agree with this statement?

2. Do you think houses of worship should be allowed to endorse political candidates and retain their tax exempt status?

3. Do you think public schools should sponsor school prayer or, as a parent, should this choice be left to me?

4. Would you support a law that mandates teaching creationism in my child's public school science classes?

5. Do you think my pharmacist should be allowed to deny me doctor-prescribed medications based on his or her religious beliefs?

6. Will you respect the rights of those in our diverse communities of faith who deem same-gender marriage to be consistent with their religious creed?

7. Should "faith-based" charities that receive public funds be allowed to discriminate against employees or applicants based on religious beliefs?

8. Do you think one's right to disbelieve in God is protected by the same laws that protect someone else's right to believe?

9. Do you think everyone's religious freedom needs to be protected by what Thomas Jefferson called "a wall of separation" between church and state?

10. What should guide our policies on public health and medical research: science or religion?

These suggested questions were developed by First Freedom First, a joint project of Americans United for Separation of Church and State and the Interfaith Alliance Foundation. First Freedom First is cosponsored by the American Humanist Association and its allies in the community of reason. So we urge you to use one or more of these questions if you attend a Town Hall meeting or another event where candidates for office will be gathering.