Morality and Ethics

Last night my friends and I were talking about ethics and morality and we sort of went in circles because we all seemed to have different ideas of what they were. Some expressed the idea that morals only come from religion so they avoided the word and used ethics instead.

Here is a concise explanation:

Morality is used to refer to what we would call moral standards and moral conduct while ethics is used to refer to the formal study of those standards and conduct. For this reason, the study of ethics is also often called "moral philosophy."

But in casual conversation the terms can be used interchangeably.

Morality:

(from the Latin moralitas "manner, character, proper behavior") is a sense of behavioral conduct that differentiates intentions, decisions, and actions between those that are good (or right) and bad (or wrong). A moral code is a system of morality (for example, according to a particular philosophy, religion, culture, etc.) and a moral is any one practice or teaching within a moral code. Immorality is the active opposition to morality, while amorality is variously defined as an unawareness of, indifference toward, or disbelief in any set of moral standards or principles.

Ethics (also known as moral philosophy) is the branch of philosophy that addresses questions about morality.
The word 'ethics' is "commonly used interchangeably with 'morality' to mean the subject matter of this study; and sometimes it is used more narrowly to mean the moral principles of a particular tradition, group, or individual."

Ethics:

Ethics, also known as moral philosophy, is a branch of philosophy that addresses questions about morality — that is, concepts such as good and evil, right and wrong, virtue and vice, justice and crime, etc.

~

But on the subject of good and evil, I think they are definitely religious terms. I try to use words that describe what I'm expressing without the unhelpful loaded concepts. I use healthy and unhealthy, positive and negative, constructive and destructive.  This reflects my worldview as a naturalist where there is no supernatural or gods running the show.

How do you get your morality? We all learn from our parents, role models and peers, but have you reevaluated your code of ethics as you've matured?

The Universe Owes Us Nothing

A friend of mine was dumped by his girlfriend recently. Several years ago I would have said, "You'll find someone. There's someone for everyone."

At a holiday party awhile ago, a cousin told us about how she wasn't able to do what she wanted to do, to take a path she had chosen for herself. A family relative who was religious said, "As one door closes, another opens. It will all work out for the best."

Today my friend Jeff realized he had forgotten something. You know how it is. You remember you forgot something, but no matter how you try to jog your memory, it's just out of reach. I used to say, "If it was important, you'll remember." As if the universe knows what's important and what's not and would never let us forget something that we'll need.

But the universe does not owe us anything, and the universe does not have agency. It's easy to fall into these comforting mindsets, but that doesn't make them real.

There isn't someone for everyone. I know people who have been alone most of their lives, or who have never really had successful relationships. It really sucks. As a friend, I want so much to find them someone, but sometimes for whatever reason, they've been alone and there's nothing they can seem to do to get themselves in a happy relationship.

Things don't always work out for the best. Sometimes it's obvious that the worst happens instead. But most times there's just no way to know if it's better or worse given a turn of events. It's another platitude that makes us feel better when we've been stung, but it's not true. Of course, in hindsight, we might try to find a way to see a silver lining on a bad event, which is good. Maybe you can learn a lesson, or find a way to turn a bad situation into something positive, or find a way to improve yourself. But believing the universe is looking out for you and making sure that every bad thing that happens to you has a silver lining is delusional. Some things are just bad all around. Should you make the best of it? Absolutely. But do you have to sugar coat it? Hell no. That wouldn't be healthy.

And if you forget something, the universe isn't making sure you'll remember it just because it was important. When you forget, sometimes it will be really important things forever irretrievable. Just look at the tragedy of Alzheimer's and dementia as an example. Or if you write something down that's important, the universe isn't keeping track of that paperwork for you if you misplace it. It could be lost forever, along with some special memento or keepsake that you lost. We like to think that if it's important information, art, music, science, etc, that it can't be lost forever. But it can and does, probably even more often than important things being saved.

I've seen people comment about this on HDC regarding events like the destruction of the Library of Alexandria. We know that thousands and thousands of books were destroyed forever in that fire. We know this partly because other books in other places refer to the destroyed ones. That priceless information can never be retrieved.

Why am I saying all this? It sounds so depressing, doesn't it? But it's not. It's just reality.

And as the wonderful Carl Sagan said, "It is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring."

So, as we get ready for the Rapture (or if you're like me, the After Rapture Parties on Sunday), let's all embrace reality. Sometimes it sucks, sometimes it hurts, but it's always completely real and honest.

And before you go giving me a hard time, let me just be clear. I am advocating pragmatism and realism. There's no need to be pessimistic, which I think is unhealthy. But in that vein, while it's helpful to have a positive attitude - I recommend it highly - it's actually delusional to be overly optimistic.

Pragmatism/Realism = Good

Optimism/Pessimism/thinking the universe is watching out for you = delusion = unhealthy.

One more thing before I go. I've found that most people are the way they are. In other words, if you're an optimist, you're probably always going to be that way. I can't really help being the way that I am, which is mostly pragmatic, with a tinge of pessimism in some circumstances and a pinch of optimism in others. I do consciously aim to be as pragmatic as possible, though, as I think being realistic is the healthiest approach to life. But I also try to have a positive outlook and perspective.

Have I gone off my medication? Does any of this make sense? I hope so! If not, send all hate mail to philosophicalmumbojumbo@bs.com :P

~

EDIT: here are some definitions to clarify:

Delusion: a mistaken or unfounded opinion or idea; a belief held in the face of evidence to the contrary, that is resistant to all reason

Optimism: a state of mind in which one always hopes or expects that something good will happen; a general disposition to expect the best in all things

Pessimism: A tendency to stress the negative or unfavorable or to take the gloomiest possible view; a general disposition to look on the dark side and to expect the worst in all things

Pragmatism: A practical, matter-of-fact way of approaching or assessing situations or of solving problems; action or policy dictated by consideration of the immediate practical consequences rather than by theory or dogma; a philosophical system stressing practical consequences and values as standards by which the validity of concepts are to be determined

Realism: An inclination toward literal truth and pragmatism; awareness or acceptance of the facts and necessities of life; a practical rather than a moral or dogmatic view of things; Naturalism

Letting the Holiday Pendulum Come to the Middle

I like things in balance. I like moderation. I don't always eat in moderation, but I understand I'd probably be happier if I did. I know we can't always be balanced, of course, but sometimes the middle ground is a nice, mellow place to be.

As you know, I don't talk about politics, but if you asked me what I am, I'd probably label myself some sort of moderate. I think both extremes are unhealthy. When you start talking about diets where something is given up, I think moderation is a much more realistic goal.

Certainly there are areas where denial of something is for the best, where something like alcohol or cigarettes are completely harmful (alcohol is not completely harmful to most people, but to someone who can't control their intake, then it is definitely a serious problem).

Anyway, what am I rambling on about? Well, I was raised in a traditional dysfunctional christian household with Santa, the Easter Bunny and the Tooth Fairy. Even after I shed the heavy dead albatross of religion and became a godless heathen, I still put up a tree, gave christmas cards and gifts, and had christmas dinners with family.

Then a couple of years ago I completely swung the other way. I ditched the tree and decorations, told people I'd rather just spend time with them during the holidays than exchange gifts or cards (thereby abandoning the stress, guilt and huge expense), and basically just went to family dinners (well, can you blame me? Good food should never be forsaken!)

But a friend's status update on Facebook a few minutes ago reminded me that maybe my little black cindered grinch heart is still beating after all. My friend merely said that he was getting ready to celebrate Festivus and I thought, "Oh, that sounds like fun. A secular celebration!" So I don't have to seem like such a scrooge. I can just say I celebrate something different.

Followup with Leah And The Case For Christ

I heard from Leah the other day! You might remember that she is my husband Butch's 18 year old cousin who asked me to watch The Case For Christ by Lee Strobel. (Initial post which started because of a Facebook exchange (discussed here)) and (Second post)

One of my friends recommended this article and podcast episode from Brian Dunning: Emergency Handbook: What to do when a friend loves woo. After reading this article I reflected on Leah, her beliefs, her lifestyle and her happiness. I had never had the intention of deconverting her, and I'm glad I replied honestly with facts to what she wanted me to watch. I think that it was a good way to handle it. But while I waited to see if Leah replied, I decided how I'd handle seeing her over the holidays. I didn't really expect to get an email reply after several days went by.

I decided to come up with one sentence to let her know that there was no pressure and we didn't have to talk about religion again if she didn't want to. I never came up with the best wording, but I was looking for a way to let her know it was water under the bridge, and that I wanted to focus on our relationship in a positive way, that was what is important to me, not our religious differences.

But she did reply. It wasn't what I expected. Somehow, she turned around what I was saying about the video to being questions I had about Christ, that I was seeking answers to. So she was seeing me as lost and confused while I see her as indoctrinated and, well, delusional. How interesting! So here is what she said:
~
Know that 1) regardless of if you were family or not, nothing you could say would change the fact that I love you. Being family is merely icing on the cake. 2) You are not at risk to "deconvert" me. I have had too much happen in my short life already to confirm what I believe to be true for you, or any one else, to ever take that away from me. The faith I have in Jesus Christ has never been stronger, and I am completely sold out and in love with Him. It would take a lot more than a lengthy email or two to even put a dent in my relationship with Christ.

Starting To See Moral Relativism As Clearly Flawed

Most people don't think much about morality, in my observation. They are given their morals from their parents, pastors, teachers, and peers, etc. They don't need to know terms like "moral relativism". I have done just fine for 41 years without ever thinking about the definition of the term.

I think even once you eschew God and the bible, unless someone challenges you, you'll still rely on your basic moral code which you got when you were younger (and probably indoctrinated). A lot of that might evolve into what "feels" like the right thing to do, more than what the bible said.

Then there are those who think about this sort of thing all the time. I'm not one of those people, normally. I don't like philosophy very much. I prefer science and testable claims to pontificating about things that can't really ever be known. But as I venture on my Quest for Knowledge, lately I've run into philosophy more often.

I've even subjected you to it, such as the whole Free Will vs Determinism argument (which I still have plans to continue).

I think we are best served with examining our ethical code and reevaluating what's in there and why. I did that some time ago with my personal Principles. It was a challenging but rewarding exercise.

Side Note: The Rationally Speaking podcast recently interviewed Joshua Knobe about his new field of Experimental Philosophy (x-phi), which was fascinating. Joshua even made them (and me) gasp with the results of one study that was very surprising! Here's a link to the episode.

The book club I'm in, as I've mentioned, is going to be reading The Moral Landscape by Sam Harris. I lost interest in our current book, so I've started in on this one and so far Sam Harris is speaking my language, that science can determine values for conscious beings.

The following excerpt from the book shows what moral relativism basically is (the woman in it is definitely a moral relativist), and why it's clearly flawed. This is an anecdotal story from Sam. But I think it's quite important to share:

Excerpt from The Moral Landscape: How Science Can Determine Human Values by Sam Harris. - Highlight Location 765-83 (chapter 1)

We already have good reason to believe that certain cultures are less suited to maximizing well-being than others. I cited the ruthless misogyny and religious bamboozlement of the Taliban as an example of a worldview that seems less than perfectly conducive to human flourishing.

Finally a Non-AA Solution To Addiction: Lifering

I don't claim to know a lot about addiction to alcohol or drugs, since I don't drink, smoke or take drugs (unless prescribed). Of course, I am addicted to coffee and caffeine... and naps. Anyway, one thing that really frustrates me as a godless heathen, is how the only game in town for people who want to overcome their addiction to alcohol or drugs is AA or NA, which are heavily religious and not really based on scientific research.

The main idea behind AA/NA is that you admit you are helpless over your addiction and must turn your life over to a higher power. If you have a problem and end up getting pulled over for drunk driving or caught with drugs, you can end up being court-mandated to go to AA/NA. So if you're an atheist you still have to go and "work the program" and give your life over and admit you are powerless. If you fight it though, the court can't force you to go to AA, because even though "it's not deemed a religion, it contains enough religious components to make coerced attendance at AA meetings a violation of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment of the constitution".

And then there are the studies done about the effectiveness of AA/NA. The results so far have been inconsistent. AA, which has been around since about 1939 (when the Alcoholics Anonymous book was published) and now has 1,867,212 members and 106,202 AA groups worldwide, still can't produce conclusive studies that show it works.

So far in the research that has been done, the participants have been self selected. So no randomized double blinded trials exist. I don't know how they would be able to do that, but certainly it shows a huge limitation that everyone is self selected. A Cochrane Review of 8 studies published between 1967 and 2005, measuring the effectiveness of AA, found "no experimental studies unequivocally demonstrated the effectiveness of AA" in treating alcoholism, based on a meta-analysis of the results of eight trials involving a total of 3,417 individuals. To determine further the effectiveness of AA, the authors suggested that more studies comparing treatment outcomes with control groups were necessary.

Also, most people who start AA drop out, 95% according to AA's own surveys. But there really hasn't been much of an alternative. Until recently.

Now there's Lifering Secular Recovery. Here are some facts about Lifering:

I Didn't Get Struck By Lightning

So I didn't get struck by lightning when I went to church this morning. But I do feel like I'm catching a cold from the exposure to all those christian strangers. I guess I've been smote by the rhinovirus of GOD!

The first thing I noticed was 2 cops directing traffic. Butch commented on taxpayer resources being used for such a purpose, but they were definitely needed. This was a big church with lots of cars. The building looks more like a school than a church, if you ask me.

Here's where we went: Chestnut Ridge Church. None of us got a good estimate of how many seats there were. It was set up like a theater with a big stage, a 6 piece pop music band, 2 giant screens where they put the words to the songs and the bible verses from the sermon, and movie theater seating. The control booth is state of the art, like you'd find for a rock concert.Free coffee was served before people went in and each seat had a cup holder like in a movie theater. There were no crosses, no crucifixes, no representations of Jesus at all, nothing that made it seem church-like. It was very casual, very relaxed.

Everyone was very pleasant and nice. We had to shake hands and everyone made eye contact. Children were all well behaved and not too many babies cried much. The TV monitors counted down to the start, then they just basically began with a rundown of the schedule, then everyone said hi to their neighbor then 3 or 4 songs which people were encouraged to sing to, with the karaoke lyrics on the screens.

People seemed to enjoy the music which was very loud. The audience had very little lighting, just enough for me to see my notebook and for people to see if they wanted to get up. But the stage had concert lighting including a smoke machine. The babies didn't seem upset by the incredibly loud music and the bass was really cranked up on the drums. People seemed to enjoy it but no one got "into the spirit" or did anything crazy, just a bit of keeping time and singing, stuff like that, maybe a bit of clapping when prompted.

We guessed the seating to be around 1500 but that's a very rough guess. It was about 85-90% full, mostly young people (teens to 30's, as a rough guess), about 99.9% white. One of my heathen friends saw one black man in African garb in the parking lot when we were going in. Other than that, I only saw white people. Then again, West Virginia is very white if I recall the statistics, so it doesn't mean too much.

What Level Of Woo Would Make Someone Undateable?

Here is a question for you. What level of woo would make someone undateable? What about unfriendable? Do you have a limit that you've drawn in your life or do you have a lot of woo woo people around you that you interact with? How do you get on with them? Do you find it difficult? Do you argue with them or are you silent about your woo disbelief?

Woo can be defined as anything supernatural, irrational or lacking in evidence. So it would include religion and any kind of pseudoscience.

On a side note, is there anything that could be defined as woo that you still believe in? If so, why?

For me, I've somehow whittled down my friend list from all woo-lovers to all skeptical atheists. I didn't do this deliberately, but I guess with my skeptical talk and constant questioning (not aggressively, but I really did question all the woo I previously embraced), my woo-loving friends all went their separate ways and avoided me within months of when my quest for knowledge began.

I didn't have many friends for awhile but then found the Morgantown Atheists where I found several people that have become good friends. Also, having HDC has let me meet new people who were rather like-minded as well.

With extended family, I still have to deal with woo, both religious and supernatural. They know Butch (my awesome husband) and I are die-hard atheists so we have come to an unspoken agreement that we don't talk about religion. Or politics just to be safe and have nice dinners together. :P

I think I'm lucky in most respects. My skeptical atheist friends keep things lively by being smart and reason-based (most of the time, we're not perfect, of course). And my extended family gives me an occasional glimpse into woo-land so I get to see what the majority of people are dealing with and believing. It's enough.

More Research and Studies To Interest You

Here are some recent studies that seemed quite interesting.

Traditional Aerobic Fitness Training Trumps Pedometer-Based Walking Programs for Health Benefits: What to do: walk around the block or work up a sweat in an aerobic workout at the gym? If you're looking for the best health benefits from an exercise program, a traditional aerobic fitness program that gets your heart pumping beats a walking program hands down. But if you want to get moving, a walking program is easier to do, it's good for you, and you're more likely to stick with it.

Wild Birds Opt for Conventional Food Over Organic: The nutritional benefits of organic food have been called into question by new research which shows wild garden birds prefer conventional seed to that which has been organically- grown. "Protein is an essential nutrient in the diet of all birds and mammals and getting enough of it -- especially in winter -- can be hard. "We showed that when given free choice, wild birds opt for the conventional food over the organic, and the most likely explanation is its higher protein content. "This study is only looking at one aspect of the organic food debate -- it does not take into account the long-term health implications of using chemical fertilisers and pesticides, or the often negative environmental impact of conventional farming; for example, other work has shown that pesticides can strongly reduce availability of seeds for birds. "But it does raise questions about the nutritional benefits of organic food and what consumers are being led to believe."

The Science of Meditation

I haven't given up on meditation. I really think it's a worthwhile endeavor, not just for me but for many or all of us. I have been struggling though. My mind is on one of those hamster wheels with a big fat rat running on it as fast as its little legs will go. Crazy thoughts, smart ideas that I will forget an instant later, ruminations of the past, all jumble together as they fly out of the wheel.

I guess you are not that interested in it because I only got one comment on my first post, Meditation for Godless Heathens. But it was a great comment, by easydoesit. It mentioned an episode of Scientific American Frontiers with Alan Alda, which was called Worried Sick. You can click the link to watch the whole episode. Robert Sapolsky was in it talking about baboons and stress, plus a bunch more research. It really enforced my desire for learning to meditate, because I suffer from PTSD and chronic anxiety, and I know it's not good for me.

PBS also has a page for that episode called Meditation 101. Here it goes over the 4 steps to meditate simply. I tried this for a couple of days and had varying success. My problem is my hamster wheel mind. So I thought I'd try some guidance. Here again I ran into the "airy-fairy" garbage I try to avoid as a skeptic.

What I'm after is medically and scientifically sound basic meditation. Yesterday I found an interesting guy, Jon Kabat-Zinn, a Professor of Medicine Emeritus and founding director of the Stress Reduction Clinic and the Center for Mindfulness in Medicine, Health Care, and Society at the University of Massachusetts Medical School. He teaches mindfulness meditation as a technique to help people cope with stress, anxiety, pain and illness.

The New Ten Commandments

Awhile ago I wrote about the 10 commandments. I then rewrote them for my personal moral code, calling them Neece's Principles. No need to have anyone commanding anyone.

Christopher Hitchens just wrote a 3 page piece for Vanity Fair about the 10 commandments titled The New Commandments. He goes through the KJV version and talks about where they are good and where they are not so good. Here is his summation:

What emerges from the first review is this: the Ten Commandments were derived from situational ethics. They show every symptom of having been man-made and improvised under pressure. They are addressed to a nomadic tribe whose main economy is primitive agriculture and whose wealth is sometimes counted in people as well as animals. They are also addressed to a group that has been promised the land and flocks of other people: the Amalekites and Midianites and others whom God orders them to kill, rape, enslave, or exterminate. And this, too, is important because at every step of their arduous journey the Israelites are reminded to keep to the laws, not because they are right but just because they will lead them to become conquerors (of, as it happens, almost the only part of the Middle East that has no oil).

So here is a rundown of how he fixes them:

• One to Three can go, "since they have nothing to do with morality and are no more than a long, rasping throat clearing by an admittedly touchy dictator. Mere fear of unseen authority is not a sound basis for ethics." (the invisible sky daddy flexes his muscles and demands worship.).


• He also says we don't have to ban sculpture and art (idols).


• Four. Gone. Pointless. (don't work on the sabbath, except black sabbath, of course!)


• Five, respect elders, sure. But also ban child abuse. What a concept! (I'd add that parents should only get respect like anyone else, when they earn it.)


• Six, taken care of by modern law. Don't murder. (Don't kill under almost all circumstances.) (although I think assisted suicide for terminally ill people should be legal)


• Seven, he seems to destroy too.  (adultery) (and yeah, what about saying rape is bad? especially pedophilia and that kind of stuff?)


• Eight, ok. This one is good. Don't steal. (stealing)


• Nine, don't lie. Also basically good. (lying about your neighbor)


• Ten, women aren't property. This one is pointless and harmful in that it makes you a sinner just from your thoughts. (don't lust after your neighbor's goods or wife)

Other evils of human society that should be denounced, according to Hitchens:

• genocide


• slavery


• rape


• child abuse


• sexual repression


• white-collar crime


• wanton destruction of the natural world


• people who talk on cell phones in restaurants (and movie theatres, or who talk on the phone or text while driving!)


• people who blow themselves up while shouting 'god is great!' (and any other kind of jihadism or crusade)


• racism


• using people as private property


• condemning people for their inborn nature (like homosexuality, etc)

And this is how he finishes:

"Be willing to renounce any god or any religion if any holy commandments should contradict any of the above. In short: Do not swallow your moral code in tablet form."

Good advice! I think I stand by the principles I came up with for myself. What are yours? Do you agree with Christopher Hitchens?

Many Americans Are Religiously Mixed Up

The Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life just released a new survey today. I've given it a quick persusal and I have to say, while some of it is interesting, most of it doesn't surprise me. Apparently large numbers of Americans engage in multiple religious practices. Stuff you'd think would cancel each other out, but they handle the cognitive dissonance without hesitation.

For example, many blend christianity with Eastern or new age philosophies such as reincarnation, astrology and the belief in spiritual energy in physical objects. Sizeable minorities in all major U.S. religious groups say they have experienced supernatural phenomena, such as being in touch with the dead or with ghosts.

A third of Americans attend different religious services. Personally I find this amazing. When I studied different religions, I lost my faith in all of them pretty quickly because they sort of canceled each other out. Instead 35% of Americans seem to handle the conflicting faiths and stories just fine.

24% of Americans and 22% of christians, specifically, believe in astrology and 15% have consulted a fortuneteller or psychic. Damn, I'm in the wrong business.

Nearly half (49%) of the public says they've had a religious or mystical experience, defined as a "moment of sudden religious insight or awakening."

This is interesting but not surprising. About 1/4 of adults express belief in tenets of certain Eastern religions: 24% believe in reincarnation, 23% believe in yoga as a spiritual practice. 26% believe in spiritual energy located in physical things such as mountains, trees or crystals and 25% believe in astrology. About 16% believe in the 'evil eye' or that certain people can curse or cast spells that cause bad things to happen to someone.

Why Does God Hate Pigs?

More to the point, why do Jews and Muslims hate pigs, since god doesn't exist. But for the sake of argument, let's look at the bible and quran to see what they say about the other white meat.

Question: Are pigs native to the Middle East, then? If no decent jew or muslim could eat them, why were they raised and by whom?

God seems quite fickle about what were were to eat:

• Adam and Eve are supposed to eat a vegan diet: Genesis 1:29: And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat.


• Noah and his sons can eat any living thing, but they have to drain the blood first: Genesis 9:2-4: And the fear of you and the dread of you shall be upon every beast of the earth, and upon every fowl of the air, upon all that moveth upon the earth, and upon all the fishes of the sea; into your hand are they delivered. Every moving thing that liveth shall be meat for you; even as the green herb have I given you all things. But flesh with the life thereof, which is the blood thereof, shall ye not eat.

That didn't last long because in Deuteronomy and Leviticus he gets into all the things that are forbidden. Here I'll highlight the references to swine.

• Leviticus 11:7: And the swine, though he divide the hoof, and be clovenfooted, yet he cheweth not the cud; he is unclean to you.


• Deuteronomy 14:8: And the swine, because it divideth the hoof, yet cheweth not the cud, it is unclean unto you: ye shall not eat of their flesh, nor touch their dead carcase.

Participate in Atheism and Secularity Research

I can't remember who twittered this yesterday, but I noticed this site: The Center for Atheist Research.

Want to help researchers learn about atheists, brights and humanists and how we think? I took the atheist survey yesterday and it was quite thorough. It took about 25 minutes at the most, and I felt like I was being counted, so to speak. As a housewife activist atheist, I really don't fit what people think "nones" are, so it's nice to share my worldview with people interested in looking at such things.

Oh, it's completely confidential. They don't take any personal information so if you're in the closet don't worry, you're secret is safe with them.

Here's what they say on their home page:

Atheists and other secularists who have a naturalistic worldview (a philosophy of life that does not involve a belief in God, higher powers, or anything supernatural) have been understudied by the social sciences.
The Center for Atheist Research was founded to address this omission, and seeks to give individuals across the religious/spiritual/secular spectrum the chance to contribute their perspective on topics within the psychology and sociology of atheism and secularity by participating in Internet-accessible academic research.

You can choose from the following current research studies:

• The Atheist Experience


• The Bright Experience


• The Secular Humanist Experience


• Your Perspective On Those Who Do Not Believe

Happy Atheists! Survey Finds We're As Happy As Nuns

I have all this information to share with you, but I haven't had a chance to organize it properly. So I've decided to kind of throw it out to you with a few notes and let you process it at your leisure, instead of wait any longer. Last month the results of a survey were released. The survey was all about the godless and it was done by Professor Luke Galen.

Luke Galen does a podcast called Reasonable Doubts with two other awesome guys, Jeremy Beahan and David Fletcher. I love this podcast and have been listening to all the past episodes to try to catch up. Just recently I listened to episode 32, Profiles of the Godless where Dr. Galen addressed CFI Michigan with his results. This was recorded back in January of this year, before his paper was published. I highly recommend listening to the podcast as it makes the data come together to make sense.

Along with the podcast, you can look at Luke Galen's pdf presentation that he used for the talk. Note: He has zero sense of color or graphic design. The charts are pretty painful to look at. But if you follow along with them while you listen to the podcast it really helps. Use eyedrops to keep your eyes from bleeding. lol

Another take on the data is presented by the Center for Inquiry. They did a press release last month and summed it up briefly. And here is a 5 page pdf of the results that won't make your eyes bleed. It's mostly text as opposed to charts.

This study was really awesome. First, it looked at nonbelievers in all their different aspects and iterations. How many of us still claim to be spiritual, etc? And the chart I found most awesome was how atheists find themselves to be relatively happy (life satisfaction, page 16 of the pdf). The interesting bit there is that people who are comfortable and rather set in their belief or nonbelief are much happier than people who doubt, like agnostics. In other words, being certain in your belief or nonbelief of god(s) helps with emotional stability.

I did come to the conclusion that I'm a bit of a statistical anomoly, though. Most atheists tend to be white men who have higher education and make good money. The only thing I have in common with them is that they have fewer children (Oh, I'm white, too. LOL) So yeah, I'm a white woman with only a bit of college, mostly self-educated, I'm not spiritual in the least (whereas most female atheists also claim to be spiritual), I'm a housewife, and I have no kids. So I guess I'm not your typical atheist.

Dr. Galen also looks into the issue of labels, which I find interesting. We have friends that call themselves Brights and avoid the A word. And I would never call myself a Bright and am proud to be called Atheist. Some people like to be called Humanist or spiritual. So he looks into that. When forced to pick just one label, a lot of people chose atheist which was interesting.

I'd love to see this go further, to ask even more questions of atheists. Maybe then it wouldn't be so hard for us to come together, to unite for common causes.

What do you think? Your thoughts are welcome, as usual. :)

Amusing Ourselves To Death

I saw this comparison of Aldous Huxley to George Orwell the other day. I thought it was extremely well done and thought you might find it insightful:

Amusing ourselves to death by Stuart McMillen - Aldous Huxley, author of "Brave New World vs. George Orwell, author of "Nineteen Eighty-Four"

My Personal 10 Commandments

Butch and I had Brent and Tim (my fellow Morgantown Atheists cohorts) over for dinner the other night. (oh, and Tim brought his standard poodle Lucy, who was highly interesting to my crazy mutts. They were in love with her sexy Frenchness!) Anyway, over pizza, Tim challenged me to come up with my own personal list of 10 Commandments. The New 10 Commandments.

First let's look at the old fashioned set that so many people want festooned on government property to hopefully force everyone to be good, obedient, god-fearing christians.

According to the bible, there are 3 sets of commandments by Moses' god. (see Wikipedia's page here)

• Exodus 20:2-17


• Exodus 34:11-27


• Deuteronomy 5:6-21

Most of these commandments are the words of an angry, jealous, childish god. They aren't helpful, moral or ethical. They don't advance us as a species. In fact they hold us back with threats and superstitions.

So here's my task, which I will gladly share with you:

What Would An Atheist Free America Be Like?

The other day Mark over at Proud Atheists posted an article titled What If All Atheists Left America? What he wrote is based on the video that he had in the post. It's very well done, in my opinion and I had to share it with you. It's 2:18 minutes long:



What is even better is if you go to youtube's page for it, in the description, the creator, ConversationWithA, lists all the sources used to put it together. Here is the list: (I've added a few notes where relevant. My notes are marked with an *)

The Burqa’s Hijab Defense

There is a lot of debate about the burqa and its links to oppression today.  To state my stance immediately, I dislike the burqa for everything—and I mean everything—that it stands for.  I however, do not say we should ban it, but complete criticism of it should be brought forth.  I have an issue with the current struggle in the debate; I can see where the anti-burqa argument is coming from…  I however, have no clue where the pro-burqa argument seems to get its legs.

For those who wear the burqa “freely” the argument amounts to it being religious tradition.  They’re not oppressed, it’s their religious tradition and heritage and they’re proud of it.  For those not wearing the burqa, the defense is the Qur’an doesn’t actually enforce the burqa (they’re not being forced to wear it, and if they are being forced to wear it—it is the culture).

These arguments aren’t compatible—they’re contradictory.  The fact that they are contradictory is a sign of oppression itself.  Why do these women think that burqas are a part of their religion if they are not?  The banning of the burqa proposal is constantly referred to as an attack on the Islam religion, and yet, at the same time the same people are arguing that the burqa has nothing to do with the Islam religion itself but with oppressive cultures…  The argument contradicts itself even.

Perhaps we should inspect why people think the burqa is commanded by their religion.  I’m sure everybody is aware of commands to lower gazes, cover private parts and so forth.  The main aspect is covering the beauty, and that the traditional khimar would be extended to cover the bosom.  The Qur’an directly calls for a hijab, as Muhammad clarified on these parts and stated their meaning as covering all but the face and hands (although hey, I for one think the face is an incredibly beautiful part of the body).

But hold on now, do not take this into thinking that the Qur’an doesn’t say that women should cover their faces.  The niqab, or burqa, has the impression of being required in a later passage.  It’s a matter of interpretation, which one is it?  Typically the one that comes later as a general rule of all religions is the one that actually matters (which brings up the question why give it in the first place if it was just going to be labeled obsolete).  Even though the niqab rule comes later sequentially in the book (Surah al-Ahzab 59 for the niqab vs Surah an-Nur  31 for the hijab), chronologically it’s argued to be actually before…  There is a bunch more evidence for that as well though.

The issue here is that the Qur’an does indeed have the burqa as a requirement, even though it is supposedly rendered obsolete.  This rendering obsolete, however, is a matter of interpretation.  Along this, there are interpretations that the clothing is not required at all but rather more suggested by the prophet Muhammad…  This is contradictory, as Muhammad’s words are law under Islam religion, especially considering Muhammad clarified the rule as opposed to creating it anyways—overall it is simply trying to explain away oppressive doctrines by applying what they think is morally right to a book that is supposed to define what morals are.

But just a second here, most conclude that the burqa is not required but the hijab is.  What is the difference?  Is the hijab so much better?  I don’t think it is at all!  Under the common interpretation, the only parts of the body left uncovered are the face and the hands…  I’m sorry if you don’t find that nearly as oppressive as I do.  For that matter, from a book ordering nearly 96% of the body to be covered, is it not safe to assume that the rest should be as well?

Let’s get back to the debate that is occurring.  It is claimed that the anti-burqa movement is simply anti-Islamic (yet again, at the same time they conclude that the Qur’an doesn’t enforce the burqa…).  Is it really so hard to see why women and people in general associate the burqa with this oppressive structure that subjugates and confines women under the name of Islam?

All I see is that they are obscuring the fact that there are indeed pervasive and sexist propaganda in the Muslim communities for favor of these burqas.  Women are murdered for it even in the Western world, and giving a blind eye to that fact is—in my opinion—a completely uncaring and wrong action to do.  Let me ask you, why it is a “choice” to choose whether or not to get murdered and not a guaranteed right.

Do you know the real problem about the burqa is?  Why do so many women hate the burqa?  Can you differentiate between two burqa wearing women, even if you knew them personally?  When women wear the burqa, in a sense, it the most perverse kind of sexual objectification… that woman, is identified by absolutely nothing other than her gender: a shapeless, faceless, nameless woman and nothing more than that at all.

Perhaps a ban is needed, maybe just a temporary one though—one that enables women to escape if they need to from their oppression.  To allow them to get their voices and give them back their right to be human.  Have no mistake, many need help, and to ignore those pleas is perhaps the worst action to do by those who are free.

Share Your Religious and Nonreligious Work Stories

Happy Sunday everyone! I'm sure you've all just gotten back from Sunday school and church! HA!

The other day a new person commented on HDC. They have recently deconverted (yay!) and shared an uncomfortable story from work:

I recently had an experience today at work which made me so angry, but valuing keeping my job, I held my tongue.

Two hasidic Jews walked into the store I worked at and they were dressed in the typical hasidic style and were carrying around a pillow with Hebrew words on it. One of them approached me and asked me if any of the employees at my store were Jewish. I inferred this to mean that they did not want to do business with a non-Jew. (Today also happens to be their Sabbath so maybe that had something to do with it). I found it inappropriate to ask for many reasons. Firstly I felt insulted that my non-Jewishness somehow taints me from a normal business interaction. 2nd it’s not my business to know my co-worker’s spirtiual beliefs if any. Naturally I wanted to tell them to shove it, but since I’m not looking to be fired, I simply replied with “I’m sorry but I don’t know specifically what my co-worker’s beliefs are”. They looked disappointed and walked away.

Has anyone ever had an uncomfortable experience in the work place regarding either co-workers or customers/clients who frustrated you with either arrogance of their religion or pushing their ideas on you?

It's a great question they ask. So I'll ask you:

• Have you had any experiences at work that were frustrating or uncomfortable regarding religion?


• Are you "out of the religious closet" at work?


• Any proselytizing at work?


• Who have you had problems with, if at all? Co-workers? Customers? Bosses?


• Have you said anything in return? If so did you get in trouble for being non-religious?


• On the other hand, have you had any good nonreligious experiences at work? Are you able to be out of the closet?