by Damon Martin

In today's America, I could easily say I was a Catholic, a Baptist, a Mormon, or a Muslim and likely get less criticism and hatred spewed at me than simply saying I don't believe in any god or book that talks about a god. It's for that reason that today I 'come out of the closet' and proudly say that I'm an atheist. I won't apologize for that and hopefully more atheists will do the same.

At the University of Kansas recently, a group of students launched a campaign called 'We Are Atheists' modeled after the famous 'It Gets Better' campaign focused around gays and lesbians.

The 'We Are Atheists' ideal is simply a way for more non-believers to come out and not be afraid to speak about their lack of belief in a god, or their belief in science or evolution, or whatever it is that brought them to decree that they are an atheist.

Co-founder Amanda Brown put together a five-minute video that's being circulated around YouTube speaking about why she is an atheist and encouraging others to speak out as well.



It's a similar ideal to that of famed evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins who started the 'Out Campaign' a few years ago. Dawkins created the movement with the exact same thought in mind:

Atheism is almost like a dirty word in American culture. A Pew Research Center survey conducted in May 2011 asked voters what potential traits would sway them negatively away from a political candidate. 7% said that a political candidate being a woman could sway them away, 33 % said a candidate being gay could push their vote the other way, while 46% said that a candidate who had an extra marital affair wouldn't get their vote. As for atheists, well a whopping 61% said that that was a negative trait that would keep them from receiving a vote.

The fact is, not believing in god scares the general public because believing in god, any god, is something that's so widely accepted, that society by default dictates that you have to believe in something to be accepted. It's not enough that the Bible, Koran, or any other religious texts all disagree on where the world came from or how to get to heaven, that ultimately religious folks all believe in some magical spaceman in the sky – believing in anything rather than nothing is preferential when it comes to creating camaraderie.

The fact is I'm an atheist. I don't believe in a higher deity, I don't believe in the Bible, the Koran, the Book of Mormon or any other religious text. I went to church as a kid and I thought I believed in god the same as everyone else around me. I had an aunt and uncle that took me to church with them and I felt accepted, and I felt like this was what I was supposed to do.

As time went on however, I realized that I never felt a 'divine presence' and when I read the Bible cover to cover, it literally scared the hell out of me. How could a god that was supposed to be so loving and forgiving be so selfish as to ask you to literally love him above everything else? How could this same god kill, murder, and have horrible acts done in his name on page after page after page?

I always joke with people that the easiest way to make an atheist is to have them read the Bible, but the reality is that it was a shock of reality for me as much as reading any book about science or even Charles Darwin's Origin of Species. There is however just as much wonder and amazing things in science as there will ever be in a book like the Bible, conversely there's a lot less rape, murder, and genocide in a science text than a book talking about god.



I do have morals and none of them are based on the Ten Commandments or other religious beliefs that have been passed along. I know I shouldn't kill a person because it's simply wrong, not because god told me it was wrong.

With the holiday season just around the corner, I'm sure to have friends ask me about how I'll celebrate Christmas, and I usually respond with the same thing every year: “It's a day off from work.” But pushed deeper, I'll happily explain that I don't celebrate Christmas the same way that I don't celebrate Easter or any other religious holiday.

Sure, Christmas is more about gift giving and seeing family now than anything to do with the supposed birth of Christ, but it's something I'd rather not acknowledge and that's my choice. The same way I don't expect all of my friends to read the God Delusion by Richard Dawkins, or follow the speeches given by Christopher Hitchens.

The fact is I'm an atheist and that doesn't make me any better or worse of a person than anybody reading this article. But I refuse to be afraid to talk about why I don't believe a god exists the same way so many Christians happily thank god when something good goes right in their life.

If that makes me a lightning rod for criticism, so be it. I know I'm not alone and I'm happy to stand up and make the statement.

I am an atheist.

by Bob Suicide

It's a mantra that's been around for as long as I can remember: "Be nice to the geek in class because, one day, they'll be rich/own the company you work for/rule the world.” Harassed and ostracized by those in the more popular crowds, us geeks served as a cautionary tale; Don't let your bullying go too far because you'll pay for it later when the geeks inherit the earth.

And inherit the earth we have. But not quite in the glorious way we imagined.

Geek-tastic movies filled with superheroes and heroines have topped the box office, our conventions are over-flowing with fans, and everyone on the street collects and wears the geek-chic swag. We've ignited a mainstream love for comics and sci-fi, and helped line the coffers of the major comic book houses and movie studios along the way. But we’ve also done something a little more important; we’ve inspired a new generation of scientists, mathematicians, astronomers, and archaeologists.

And while Hollywood is able to market "geek" to the masses, the scientific community is also learning how to market both natural and social sciences to a public that is generally very wary of the S-word (“science” is literally a word meaning "knowledge" –– but somehow that’s threatening).



Most recently, a group of gamers are being heralded as saviors by the scientific community thanks to a protein folding game posted on Fold.it. The Foldit puzzle was created to add a third dimension that a microscope slide couldn't provide. Targeting a monomeric protease enzyme, a cutting agent in the complex molecular tailoring of retroviruses (including HIV), Foldit allowed gamers to use their honed-by-Tetris spacial skills to create a 3D image of the protein molecule. As a result, scientists can better understand the molecule's structure, how it causes many diseases (including HIV), and how to create drugs to properly inhibit these proteins.

While much of the press is spinning it as though "mere gamers" were able to solve a complex puzzle (in just 10 days!) which had previously stymied scientists for year, I like to think of it a different way. This "citizen scientist" movement is a brilliant symbiotic relationship that should be nurtured. In the case of this specific Foldit puzzle, scientists needed spatial reasoning from a human that a computer alone couldn't provide. Meanwhile gamers love exciting challenges that provide more of a sense of accomplishment than a spot on a leader board. Indeed the players of Foldit appear to share my sentiment. The final piece of the protein puzzle was solved by someone with the user name "mimi" who wrote an email to MSNBC in support of the game,

"The game is not only an interesting intellectual challenge,” notes mimi, “but it also provides a unique society of players driven by both individual and team rivalry with an overall purpose of improving the game and the results achieved."

This is people coming together to advance science and, in turn, to advance humanity. It isn't just a one-off project either. There's a deep and exciting "citizen science" movement making the rounds and there are other scientific puzzles that need our particular brand of geeky help. Here’s just a couple of examples:



Ancient Lives

This puzzle game works to decipher the Oxyrhynchus Papyri discovered in 1896. Due to the nature of papyrus and the age of the documents, mostly fragments have been found. Piecing the fragments back together then deciphering their contents would be a monumental task for even the most skilled team of researchers –– that's where the game comes in. Linguistically inclined geeks can identify Greek symbols using a keyboard.



Galaxy Zoo

If first-person shooters are more your style, you can play Galaxy Zoo and hunt for Supernovae. When presented with three images -- new, reference, and the subtraction --the gamer determines whether they've found a white-hot supernova in their cross hairs.

***

While public interest in our geek culture might wane, this surge in popularity is providing lasting contributions to the scientific community. So let's get over our hang-ups, and try to encourage it wherever we see it, even if it appears kind of "off" or "fad-ish." Interest is interest. And maybe the next time you see someone taking a child's DS away in favor of more so-called “worthy” pursuits, let ‘em know their child's interest in gaming might be the key to curing cancer or unlocking the connection between quantum mechanics and general relativity. Essentially we need to spread the word that it’s OK to let little tikes "game on."



***

Related Posts
Confessions Of A Hardcore Gamer: The Rise of My Nightmares –– That I’ll Be Petting Kinect Puppies Long After Sega's Zombie Horde Goes To Ground
Women Prefer Gaming To Sex – But There's a Frigging Difference Between Fragging and Farmville
Damn You Zuckerberg!
You Might Be A Nerd If…
Confessions of a Shy Gamer
Red or Blue, Wonder Woman's Boots Were Made For Walking
The Geek's Guide to Getting Down Vol. 1 (A Brief Introduction)
The Geek's Guide to Getting Down Vol. 2: Fragging and Other Group Activities
The Geek's Guide to Getting Down Vol. 3: Co-Op Mode
The Geek's Guide to Getting Down Vol. 4: The Blue Pill Or The Red Pill
The Geek's Guide to Getting Down Vol. 5: Experiencing Pon Farr? Bring deodorant

by Damon Martin

Recent discoveries by scientists studying meteorites may very well prove everyone on Earth evolved from alien life forms.

Technically, extraterrestrial building blocks to be exact.

Several scientists studying meteorite fragments have discovered they contain the building blocks of DNA, strengthening previous theories that life on Earth may have been spawned from materials landing here from space. According to findings by scientists, meteorites that have landed on Earth contain all the necessary elements to create DNA.

While studies in the past have shown meteorites that carried nucleobases, key ingredients in DNA, it's been difficult to prove whether the material actually came from space or was a bi-product of the area where the meteorite landed on Earth.

Scientists working on 12 different samples of meteorites found amino acids, an essential component of DNA, but had to study and conduct experiments to prove that these particular amino acids were formed in space and not on Earth.


Space.com explains:

These particular studies were done on a meteorite found in the Sudan, which was created after two asteroids collided in space. Normally a high impact collision like the one that created this particular meteorite would have created temperatures too high for any amino acids to survive, but the studies done on these particular samples prove otherwise.



Essentially because amino acids did survive on these particular meteorite samples, it gives credence to the idea that life may exist on other planets or that life on Earth itself resulted from this type of occurrence happening millions of years ago.

Scientists are now studying the idea that amino acids could be created in space by gas reactions at much hotter temperatures instead of in cooler atmospheric climates, with water being essential to the process. Experiments are ongoing to try and recreate the same scenario on Earth.

While these theories are exactly that –– theories –– scientists are working on trying to prove the building blocks of life could have been created and formed in a very different way than previously believed, and that life on Earth could have been alien all along.

by Keith Daniels

Moving into academia after a career in the field of "taking your clothes off on the internet" can be tricky, however tattoos might actually have an upside professionally. A 2010 study published in the journal Psychological Reports found that college instructors with visible tattoos are perceived more positively by undergraduate students.


[Leiko in Lesson Plan]

Participants found the tattooed instructor more motivating and were more likely to recommend him or her to other students. Oddly enough, students also felt that a professor with barbed-wire or cross tattoos was more imaginative. The effects of nautical stars or totally sweet tribals were not studied.

Hat-tip: NCBI ROFL.

by Keith Daniels

The Bible is often presented by believers as a monolithic creation, as if it descended from Heaven whole, perfect, and in King James' English. The truth, as in so many things, is so much more complicated and interesting. The text of the Hebrew Tanakh which became what Christians dismissively call the "Old Testament" began as an oral tradition that was eventually written down in Hebrew and Aramaic by unknown scribes over hundreds of years in what's called "abjad" script - a system of writing in which only the consonants are set down and the reader is intended to fill in the vowels. These individual writings were eventually collected into a generally accepted canon by around 400 BCE and finally codified at a later but unknown date, probably by 100 CE.

And that's just the "Old Testament".

Similarly, the New Testament is a disparate collection of texts from numerous and mostly unknown authors - despite traditional ascriptions - writing from between around 50 to 200 CE. None of the books of the New Testament were written during the lifetime of a historical Jesus. And according to the Catholic Encyclopedia, the popular conception of one singular ancient council of the Church that decided what books were in and what were out is inaccurate:

That Tridentine Council didn't happen until 1545, at which point the 27 books we now know as the New Testament were finally confirmed. There are other books, though. Among them are texts which describe teachings of Christ that the modern Christian religion would find awkward to say the least, like the Gospel of Mary, which rejects the traditional depiction of Mary Magdalene as a prostitute, argues for female leadership in the church, and depicts Jesus as a Buddha-like philosopher urging his followers to find salvation in their own minds.

There is a theory that books like the Gospel of Mary were rejected from the New Testament by the male hierarchy of the early church who sought to cement their own dominance. Many of these books were deemed heretical and only existed in the references of their orthodox condemnations until the rediscovery of caches like Nag Hammadhi.

Similarly, the Dead Sea Scrolls demonstrated that the Hebrew Bible in its early incarnations was much more varied before its codification than had been supposed. What if the early Jews or the scholars who translated their writings also omitted any subjects which might have been politically inconvenient? What if, for example, God - Yahweh - once had a wife?

Well, University of Exeter senior Theology and Religion lecturer Francesca Stavrakopoulou believes just that.

Stavrakopoulou isn't the first to make this claim, and other religious scholars agree with her. J. Edward Wright, president of both The Arizona Center for Judaic Studies and The Albright Institute for Archaeological Research says:

Hat tip: RichardDawkins.net Happy birthday, Mr. Dawkins!

by Greg Palast

I need to speak to you, not as a reporter, but in my former capacity as lead investigator in several government nuclear plant fraud and racketeering investigations.

I don’t know the law in Japan, so I can’t tell you if Tokyo Electric Power Co (TEPCO) can plead insanity to the homicides about to happen.

But what will Obama plead? The Administration, just months ago, asked Congress to provide a $4 billion loan guarantee for two new nuclear reactors to be built and operated on the Gulf Coast of Texas — by Tokyo Electric Power and local partners. As if the Gulf hasn’t suffered enough.

Here are the facts about Tokyo Electric and the industry you haven’t heard on CNN:

The failure of emergency systems at Japan’s nuclear plants comes as no surprise to those of us who have worked in the field.

Nuclear plants the world over must be certified for what is called “SQ” or “Seismic Qualification.” That is, the owners swear that all components are designed for the maximum conceivable shaking event, be it from an earthquake or an exploding Christmas card from Al Qaeda.

The most inexpensive way to meet your SQ is to lie. The industry does it all the time. The government team I worked with caught them once, in 1988, at the Shoreham plant in New York. Correcting the SQ problem at Shoreham would have cost a cool billion, so engineers were told to change the tests from ‘failed’ to ‘passed.’



The company that put in the false safety report? Stone & Webster, now the nuclear unit of Shaw Construction which will work with Tokyo Electric to build the Texas plant, Lord help us.

There’s more.

Last night I heard CNN reporters repeat the official line that the tsunami disabled the pumps needed to cool the reactors, implying that water unexpectedly got into the diesel generators that run the pumps.

These safety back-up systems are the ‘EDGs’ in nuke-speak: Emergency Diesel Generators. That they didn’t work in an emergency is like a fire department telling us they couldn’t save a building because “it was on fire.”

What dim bulbs designed this system? One of the reactors dancing with death at Fukushima Station 1 was built by Toshiba. Toshiba was also an architect of the emergency diesel system.

Now be afraid. Obama’s $4 billion bail-out-in-the-making is called the South Texas Project. It’s been sold as a red-white-and-blue way to make power domestically with a reactor from Westinghouse, a great American brand. However, the reactor will be made substantially in Japan by the company that bought the US brand name, Westinghouse — Toshiba.

I once had a Toshiba computer. I only had to send it in once for warranty work. However, it’s kind of hard to mail back a reactor with the warranty slip inside the box if the fuel rods are melted and sinking halfway to the earth’s core.

TEPCO and Toshiba don’t know what my son learned in 8th grade science class: tsunamis follow Pacific Rim earthquakes. So these companies are real stupid, eh? Maybe. More likely is that the diesels and related systems wouldn’t have worked on a fine, dry afternoon.

Back in the day, when we checked the emergency back-up diesels in America, a mind-blowing number flunked. At the New York nuke, for example, the builders swore under oath that their three diesel engines were ready for an emergency. They’d been tested. The tests were faked, the diesels run for just a short time at low speed. When the diesels were put through a real test under emergency-like conditions, the crankshaft on the first one snapped in about an hour, then the second and third. We nicknamed the diesels, “Snap, Crackle and Pop.”

(Note: Moments after I wrote that sentence, word came that two of three diesels failed at the Tokai Station as well.)

In the US, we supposedly fixed our diesels after much complaining by the industry. But in Japan, no one tells Tokyo Electric to do anything the Emperor of Electricity doesn’t want to do.

I get lots of confidential notes from nuclear industry insiders. One engineer, a big name in the field, is especially concerned that Obama waved the come-hither check to Toshiba and Tokyo Electric to lure them to America. The US has a long history of whistleblowers willing to put themselves on the line to save the public. In our racketeering case in New York, the government only found out about the seismic test fraud because two courageous engineers, Gordon Dick and John Daly, gave our team the documentary evidence.

In Japan, it’s simply not done. The culture does not allow the salary-men, who work all their their lives for one company, to drop the dime.

Not that US law is a wondrous shield: both engineers in the New York case were fired and blacklisted by the industry. Nevertheless, the government (local, state, federal) brought civil racketeering charges against the builders. The jury didn’t buy the corporation’s excuses and, in the end, the plant was, thankfully, dismantled.

Am I on some kind of xenophobic anti-Nippon crusade? No. In fact, I’m far more frightened by the American operators in the South Texas nuclear project, especially Shaw. Stone & Webster, now the Shaw nuclear division, was also the firm that conspired to fake the EDG tests in New York. (The company’s other exploits have been exposed by their former consultant, John Perkins, in his book, Confessions of an Economic Hit Man.)

If the planet wants to shiver, consider this: Toshiba and Shaw have recently signed a deal to become world-wide partners in the construction of nuclear stations.

The other characters involved at the South Texas Plant that Obama is backing should also give you the willies. But as I’m in the middle of investigating the American partners, I’ll save that for another day.

So, if we turned to America’s own nuclear contractors, would we be safe? Well, two of the melting Japanese reactors, including the one whose building blew sky high, were built by General Electric of the Good Old US of A.

After Texas, you’re next. The Obama Administration is planning a total of $56 billion in loans for nuclear reactors all over America.

And now, the homicides:

CNN is only interested in body counts, how many workers burnt by radiation, swept away or lost in the explosion. These plants are now releasing radioactive steam into the atmosphere. Be skeptical about the statements that the “levels are not dangerous.” These are the same people who said these meltdowns could never happen. Over years, not days, there may be a thousand people, two thousand, ten thousand who will suffer from cancers induced by this radiation.

In my New York investigation, I had the unhappy job of totaling up post-meltdown “morbidity” rates for the county government. It would be irresponsible for me to estimate the number of cancer deaths that will occur from these releases without further information; but it is just plain criminal for the Tokyo Electric shoguns to say that these releases are not dangerous. Indeed, the fact that residents near the Japanese nuclear plants were not issued iodine pills to keep at the ready shows TEPCO doesn’t care who lives and who dies whether in Japan or the USA. The carcinogenic isotopes that are released at Fukushima are already floating to Seattle with effects we simply cannot measure.

Heaven help us. Because Obama won’t.

***

Greg Palast is the co-author of Democracy and Regulation, the United Nations ILO guide for public service regulators, with Jerrold Oppenheim and Theo MacGregor. Palast has advised regulators in 26 states and in 12 nations on the regulation of the utility industry.

Palast, whose reports can be seen on BBC Television Newsnight, is a Puffin Foundation Writing Fellow for investigative reporting. Visit GregPalast.com for more info.

by Keith Daniels

Today is π day, 3/14, as we reckon dates in the US. On an even geekier level, using the European method of writing the day and then the month (e.g. 14/3), today is, as noted by Bad Astronomy’s Phil Plait, “the sum of 3 consecutive primes (43+47+53), and also of 5 consecutive primes (11+13+17+19+23+29+31).”

Today would have also been Albert Einstein’s 132nd birthday. By coincidence, Pi figures prominently in Einstein’s field equations, “10 equations in Albert Einstein’s general theory of relativity which describe the fundamental interaction of gravitation as a result of spacetime being curved by matter and energy.” Heavy stuff, that, but Einstein’s theories are the foundation of the scientific knowledge that has allowed the development of GPS systems (the effects of the satellites’ movement relative to observers on Earth must be accounted for), the gravitational microlensing that allows astronomers to see otherwise unobservably faint or distant objects, and, ahem, nuclear power — amongst many other wonders. Science is badass.



With Japan and nuclear power very much in our minds this week, it’s worth noting what Einstein considered the, “one great mistake in my life… when I signed the letter to President Roosevelt recommending that atom bombs be made..”

Unfortunately, the one quote most people remember of Einstein’s, if they know any at all, came from one of his letters in which he said, “I, at any rate, am convinced that He does not throw dice.” This is usually paraphrased as, “God does not play dice,” and taken to indicate that the famous genius held some sort of belief in a God who ordered the universe. This attribution became famous even during Einstein’s own life, causing him to respond publicly, “It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it.”

Image courtesy of thisisnotporn.net/

by Damon Martin

According to the Republicans if you’re following Big Bird, you’re following a leftist liberal who will walk you straight into an abortion clinic while asking for government handouts.

Okay, yes that’s a bit extreme, but Republicans have once again set their sites on cutting spending within the government, while looking in all the wrong places. Much like the Republican House of Representatives before them, the newest legislature has again targeted the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB) for elimination, proposing to cut all funds supplied by the Federal Government.



The GOP led House released a budget aimed at slashing Federal spending by $100 billion in 2011, while eliminating funds for programs like the CPB, which in turns trickles down to agencies like National Public Radio (NPR) and Public Broadcasting Service (PBS), not to mention cutting funding for the Environmental Protection Agency.

Among other things, NPR is a news agency that provides programming available to over 32 million listeners throughout the United States, and has been voted the most trusted news source in America. Created as an unbiased news vehicle, NPR has provided coverage of major news events for over 40 years, and continues to provide programming to stations all across America.

While Republicans have long targeted the CPB in their budget cuts, recent efforts have intensified after NPR employee Juan Willaims was fired from the company after making controversial remarks while appearing on Fox News. Williams was in a discussion about Muslims and said that when he sees Muslims on a plane “I get worried. I get nervous.”

The comments resulted in Williams’ dismissal from NPR. Soon after, Republican Mike Huckabee called for the government to cut funding to the NPR because “NPR has discredited itself as a forum for free speech and a protection of the First Amendment rights of all and has solidified itself as the purveyor of politically correct pabulum and protector of views that lean left.”

Huckabee went on to say that he “will no longer accept interview requests from NPR as long as they are going to practice a form of censorship, and since NPR is funded with public funds, it is a form of censorship.”

Following his dismissal from NPR, Williams went on to sign a $2 million dollar deal with Fox News. Huckabee meanwhile continues his campaign to make NPR’s federal funding disappear.

Organizations around the United States, aware of the GOP’s plan to eliminate funding for public broadcasting, immediately started to get people to sign petitions in support of National Public Radio and Public Broadcasting Service. MoveOn.org collected more than 400,000 signatures in a matter of days, which they presented to the government on behalf of those supporting the continued work of NPR and PBS.

To drill down exactly what the funding does, it’s easier to understand when talking at the human level as we did with Jennifer Ferro, General Manager for KCRW in Los Angeles, whose station is funded in part by money given to the CPB.

“Federal funding is one of three main funding sources for KCRW and all other public radio stations. The sources are: membership, underwriting (corporate and other business sponsors) and the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. CPB funding amounts to 9% of our operating budget — $1.2 million a year,” Ferro explained.

“If we were to lose this source we would have to make up $1 million dollars each year from somewhere. This is a lot of money and, if not found, would result in a paring back of our operations. At KCRW we make programming and also invest in the infrastructure to distribute the programming (over the air, in the digital space like mobile apps and web streams, and in person.)”

In a time in which many American companies are in decline or starting over from scratch, stations like KCRW are actually expanding and creating new jobs. Something that is aided with the money given to them through the Federal funding of the CPB. If that goes away, Ferro says, so do opportunities to expand.

“KCRW is in a growth phase. We’re investing more in creating new programming and finding new voices to feature. To lose $1 million each year from our operating budget means putting all that innovation and programming on hold as well as reducing the amount of stuff we do each day,” Ferro said.

“The reason this threat is different is that it has two life forces. One of them is political, no doubt, and is making NPR a target. The other force is deficit reduction. Even though CPB funding makes up .0001% of the federal budget, many programs will have to justify why they should keep their funding.”

President Obama did support the groups in his budget released on Monday, in which funding to the CPB included $445 million in general programming grants from 2012 to 2014, up from $430 million in 2011. but the Republicans have continued to push forward their spending curve, and on Tuesday reports surfaced that the President may go as far as vetoing the GOP budget if need be.

It appears for now that the CPB is safe, but that doesn’t mean Republicans won’t once again target the funding for proposed cuts. Missed in much of their budget – and Obama’s for that matter – are areas of massive (0ver) spending, which can more easily be trimmed.

How about starting with the budget for defense, which will actually increase by 1.5% under Obama’s new budget. Should we really be increasing funds for defense, when we already spend 5 times more on it than any other country in the world? By the way, the reporting and analysis on the budget comes courtesy of the NPR.

by Damon Martin

During the holiday season, atheists in America and Canada are letting everyone know they are still good without God. The message has been spread across buses and billboards throughout North America to send an alternative message during this normally oversaturated time of religious rejoice.

Groups like Secular Samaritan, American Humanist Association, and the Centre for Inquiry are responsible for the Christmas time ad buys. The gospel they’re trying to spread with these billboards is that goodness and morality are not in the exclusive domain of those that believe in a higher power.

Several secular and Atheist groups have done similar campaigns around the holidays before, with many Christians, especially in America, claiming such groups are declaring “War on Christmas.”



[Tekky Suicide in Steals Christmas]

One of the most prominent advertisements that set off such alarms this year was a billboard bought by the American Atheists on the New Jersey side of the Lincoln Tunnel just outside of New York City. The billboard says: “You know it’s a myth. This season celebrate reason.” The Catholic League promptly responded with a billboard of their own on the New York side of the Lincoln Tunnel stating: “You know it’s real. This season celebrate Jesus.”

The Centre for Inquiry in Canada has purchased bus ads and transit signs that state: “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.” Below this headline the group lists religious figures like Jesus Christ and Allah, mythical creatures like Bigfoot, leprechauns, and the tooth fairy, and practices such as prayer, astrology and ESP. The group will also be holding in-person educational events featuring expert speakers.

Meanwhile back in the United States, the Secular Samaritans, have purchased ads on buses servicing the campus of the University of Illinois that promote a particularly powerful message. The ads feature public figures such as Bill Gates. The slogan that runs alongside an image of the Microsoft founder says: “Second richest person in the world. Donated over $26 billion to charity. Bill Gates is good without God.” However it’s been reported that some religious folks in Illinois are outraged that the bus ads are allowed to run, regardless of the overwhelmingly positive message.

However such prejudice against the secular community is not uncommon. A poll done in 2006 by the University of Minnesota revealed that over 47% of people surveyed would disapprove of a family member marrying an atheist. Nearly 40% of people interviewed listed atheists as people they would identify with the least to share a vision of American society. Others interviewed saw atheists as “amoral” or involved in criminal behavior or drugs.

Given the religious community’s poor view of non-believers, it’s especially ironic that atheists and agnostics were shown to be the most knowledgeable about religion in a recent Pew Research Center poll. The results of a test which asked Americans what they knew about religion, were somewhat staggering – especially to those who profess to know better. Out of 32 questions posed, on average 16 correct answers were given. Atheists and agnostics scored the highest, just over half of the Catholics knew why they took communion, while Bible-belt Southerners scored the lowest of any identified group.

Some would argue that the billboards and ads are somehow combative and that atheists are trying to take away the religious aspects of the season. Atheists (myself included) are just following the lead of free thinkers like Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens and Sam Harris that say we shouldn’t be afraid to talk about our non-belief, even at this time of year. In the end, campaigns or not, atheists will continue to not believe in God, we will continue to believe in science, and, BTW, no one is declaring war. Well, unless you’re Daniel Baldwin.

***

If you’re an atheist and want to find like-minded souls, you might want to join SuicideGirls’ Atheist Group (for members only).

Further reading: The Evolution of Religion, Why Women Are Bound to Religion: An Evolutionary Perspective, and Filtering the Truth: Religion – Friend or Foe?.

by Damon Martin

Remember the name GFAJ-1 because it may be the organism that changes how we perceive and define life on Earth and eventually in space.

Today, NASA held a press conference announcing the findings of a team led by Felisa Wolfe-Simon, an astrobiologist at the U.S. Geological Survey. The researchers discovered a bacteria originally found at Mono Lake, CA that is able to sustain, grow and reproduce using the element arsenic.





The reason for the scientists’ excitement is because up until now we thought all life was based on the building block elements of carbon, hydrogen, nitrogen, oxygen, phosphorus, and sulfur. In cells, phosphorus is considered essential for life. Arsenic on the other hand has always been considered poisonous. Its make-up is similar that of phosphorus, but it was thought to be universally toxic when it takes the place of the element in biomolecules.

However, researchers took bacteria discovered at the arsenic-laden Mono Lake and experimented by replacing their phosphorus rich diet with an arsenic rich one instead. Over time, they eventually replaced phosphorus completely with arsenic, and the cells continued to grow and reproduce. This finding could potentially change the way scientists view chemistry and life forever.

“The definition of life has just expanded,” said Ed Weiler, NASA’s associate administrator for the Science Mission Directorate. “As we pursue our efforts to seek signs of life in the solar system, we have to think more broadly, more diversely and consider life as we do not know it.”

Four years ago, Wolfe-Simon had proposed that some organisms may be able to survive or even thrive off of an arsenic rich diet, and now she has proven her theory. Along with several other scientists, Wolfe-Simon used mass spectroscopy, radioactive labeling, and X-ray fluorescence to prove and confirm that the bacteria was indeed using arsenic at the biomolecular level instead of phosphorus to grow and reproduce.

Scientists had previously seen microorganisms breathe arsenic, but this is the first discovery of an organism that can actually reproduce using the chemical. The findings could lead scientists down entirely new avenues never before explored as to how life can be created and sustained on this planet and others throughout the universe.

“We know that some microbes can breathe arsenic, but what we’ve found is a microbe doing something new. Building parts of itself out of arsenic,” said Wolfe-Simon. “If something here on Earth can do something so unexpected, what else can life do that we haven’t seen yet?”

Of course there are scientists that are skeptical about the newly discovered. Some scientists argue that while in the lab a microorganism may be able to survive with little phosphorus, the complete replacement of the element with arsenic is still under question. They’ve also brought up the issue of the survivability of the bacteria outside of the controlled conditions of the science lab.

Still, the discovery was intriguing enough to prompt NASA to hold a much-anticipated press conference this morning. And the government body stands behind Wolfe-Simon and her team. Indeed, science may have just been turned on its theoretical head.

“If this result is true, we’ve got to go back and rewrite a lot of chemistry,” said Steven Brenner, an astrobiologist at the Foundation for Applied Molecular Evolution.

NASA believes the findings announced today could be crucial in future scientific exploration into how Earth evolved, biochemistry, organic chemistry and yes, even life on other planets.

by Damon Martin

Alone in the Universe? Still Not Sure

A few weeks ago, scientists discovered what was thought to be a habitable planet called Gliese 581-g, which had all the characteristics of a world that could create and contain life as we know it on Earth anyways. The “Goldilocks” planet was found to be in a zone not too close to its sun (ie. not too hot) and not too far away (ie. too cold), in the sweet spot in between where an atmosphere could form and life could grow.

Not so fast.

Shortly after a team of scientists led by Stephen Vogt of the University of California, Santa-Cruz made the announcement about the discovery of Gliese 581-g, a Swiss team, lead by Francisco Pepe of the Geneva Observatory, who were independently doing their own study, claimed that the evidence was inconclusive and that they could find no trace of the new planet.

Pepe’s team had researched the same area for several years and discovered only four planets orbiting the Red Dwarf star known as Gliese 581, and say there’s no evidence of a fifth such habitable planet.

Vogt stands by his results however, which combined data collected by his team with the findings of the Swiss scientists. In a recent interview, Vogt went on the record as saying: “As the Swiss group has our data, I am also wondering why they have not already combined all the data together into a more complete analysis themselves.”

The scientific community can apparently jab and get catty with one another like Angelina and Sammi from Jersey Shore. Needless to say, it may be years or even decades before there’s definitive proof of either team’s findings. With the system sitting at 20 light years away, current technology means it would take anything sent from earth over a thousand years to reach Gliese 581, so let the debate continue…



[Danielle in SG11]

Furthest Reported Galaxy Discovered

Images received from the Hubble Telescope recently have led scientists to believe that they may have discovered a galaxy far, far away, but it’s not something from a Star Wars movie. No, this galaxy sits a whopping 13.071 billion light years away, and the light emitted from the system just reached Earth. The galaxy is believed to be from a part of the universe created only 700 million years after the Big Bang. In astronomy terms, it’s like a football season.

Scientists agree that many of the original parts of the universe are probably long gone, or have been absorbed into other areas, but this newest discovery gives a brief glimpse into the beginnings of where this whole thing started. The catchy name given to the new galaxy is UDFy-38135539. It was discovered when the Hubble Telescope recently underwent an upgrade. Scientists are excited about this find because it gives a view into the time period in our universe’s history when stars were first created.

During this time, the universe underwent what scientists call “reionization.” This is a process by which hydrogen atoms were broken apart into electrons and protons, which it’s theorized was caused by ultra violet light emitted from the first stars. More investigation is underway which will be helped along when a more powerful Hubble telescope is launched in 2014.



[Danielle in SG11]

Two Star Systems Could Change Theories Forever

The birth, life and death of planets is a scientific wonder that’s been theorized and studied pretty much since man first looked up. A new discovery by astronomers at Tennessee State University, which came while they were studying a planet currently residing in what is known as a binary system (two stars in close proximity to each other), may have turned the universe on its head (metaphorically of course).

Previous theories about planets created in a single star system say, essentially, that they were brought together by a snowball effect (or what scientists call “accretion”). Basically, a new star in the universe is surrounded by dust and particles, and after a cooling period these pieces start forming together into what will eventually become a planet’s core. With the gravitational pull from the star in tow, the planet will continue to grow, collect and form.

According to this generally accepted hypothesis, planets can’t be created in binary systems because the tug and pull from two stars wouldn’t allow them to form. If a planet has been able to survive birth in a binary system, generally the new planet is expelled outward from that system due to the gravitational pull from the two separate stars. However, the discovery of a planet called Inrakluk is changing opinions, since it is thought to be a planet created and thriving in a binary star system.

Why is this so important? Well, according to Dr. Matthew Muterspaugh, one of the scientists working on the project, the discovery gives a new insight into the origin of planets and how they are created, putting a fresh spin on pretty much the entire universe.

by Nixon

It’s been a while since I posted a Tin Foil Hat Report, but this is a good one. It comes right in the middle of my reading UFOs: Generals, Pilots and Government Officials Go On the Record, which Fractal Suicide kindly sent me the other week. Hence I’m primed and ready with my tin foil hat – especially in light of the slew of recently reported alien-related developments.





[London in Space]

First up, it seems that Aliens are fucking with our nukes! On Monday, Sept 27th, a special panel moderated by Ufologist Robert Hastings (author of UFOs and Nukes: Extraordinary Encounters at Nuclear Weapons Sites) was held for the benefit of press and members of Congress at the National Press Club in Washington, DC.

According to a press release promoting the event, the panel featured one current and six former U.S. Air Force officers who were “involved in UFO incidents at nuclear missile sites near Malmstrom, F.E. Warren, and Walker AFBs, as well as the nuclear weapons depot at RAF Bentwaters.” Additionally, Hastings revealed that a total of 120 former or retired military personnel have gone on record stating that UFOs are compromising our nuclear facilities (although, it seems, rather than being in preparation for an invasion, the alien tampering might be a polite bid to keep us from blowing ourselves to smithereens).

This is certainly not the first time that US military personnel have come forward to attempt to break the taboo surrounding the serious discusion of UFOs. We will see if the press continues to studiously ignore the mounting evidence, as they did with the release of the COMEDA report.

Considering everything I’ve read on the subject, it actually doesn’t seem very alarming, although the US might finally have to follow in the footsteps of a number of other countries, most notably France and Great Britain, and admit that yes, Virginia, there are flying saucers. In all the case files I’ve read, a UFO has never fired on a civilian or military craft even when fired upon.

So, buck up, little earthlings. Maybe they’re on our side after all.

For any of you who would like to see the actual National Press Club event, CNN provided live coverage, which is available on YouTube:



In the days surrounding the National Press Club disclosures, a flurry of rumors hit the web suggesting that the UN was on the verge of naming Malaysian astrophysicist Mazlan Othman as the United Nation’s space ambassador for extraterrestrial contact and director of the UN’s Office for Outer Space Affairs. Sadly, this came as news to Othman herself, and seems to be a case of internet science fiction. I can find no mention of the ambassadorship after BoingBoing debunked the rumor.

And that would seem to be that. A few ripples in the media, a few internet rumors, but no sea change in the way that UFO reports are viewed or handled here in the US.

UFOs, however, don’t seem to care one way or the other. In China, where eight major UFO sightings since June have caused a stir, Baotou airport was forced to shut down for several hours on October 5th due to a UFO hovering above the airport. Several good quality photos and videos have been released of the Chinese UFO, which looks distinctly like a flying saucer. This comes after a July flyover of Xiaoshan airport, which caused a similar shutdown, though this event was eventually blamed on a secret military test flight.

Meanwhile, back on home soil, a daytime sighting in New York caused a bit of a stir on October 13th. While the FAA denied that flight delays were related to the shiny object in the sky, usually unflappable New Yorkers gathered to snap pictures and video as the object hovered above the intersection of 23rd St. and Eighth Ave.

Fact or fiction, collective hallucination or government conspiracy, I suspect that the end of the UFO mystery is fast approaching. With a decent camera and video recorder in almost every pocket at all times, and the ability for individuals to disseminate information worldwide almost instantly, the evidence should eventually reach a critical mass one way or the other. There is even a free iPhone app to track and report sightings worldwide in realtime.

Not much longer now, my tinfoil hat compadres. Not much longer at all.

Further reading: UFOs: Generals, Pilots and Government Officials Go On the Record by Leslie Kean.

by Damon Martin

Scientists from the University of California Santa-Cruz and the Carnegie Institute of Washington have announced the discovery of a planet a scant 20 light years away from Earth that could theoretically be habitable since it has all the characteristics of a planet that could support life.

Gliese 581-g is the latest planet discovered by scientists studying the Red Dwarf star called Gliese 581, which resides in the Libra constellation. The team’s findings were strong enough for them to declare the new planet livable by Earth standards. As many scientists state when dealing with extraterrestrial life, where there is water there could be life. Gliese 581-g has all of the necessary factors to create and sustain water, as well as an atmosphere similar to what we have on Earth.

Professor Stephen Vogt, a member of the team that discovered Gliese 581-g, admits that they don’t know for sure if the planet currently has any life forms growing or living on the surface, but he is confident enough to make a very educated guess going as far as saying, “that chances for life on this planet are 100 percent.”

Gliese 581-g falls into the rare category of what scientists refer to as a “Goldilocks” planet. Yes, the same Goldilocks from the Three Bears story – the term is used to describe a planet that is not too hot or too cold, but just right. Orbiting just 14 million miles from its sun, Gliese 581-g circles the Red Dwarf star every 37 days, but due to the much lower heat output of the Red Dwarf as opposed to the Sun, it’s estimated the temperature on the planet ranges between -25 degrees to 160 degrees Fahrenheit.

The discovery of this new planet of course also raises several philosophical questions, especially regarding “intelligent design” and the idea that Earth is a special planet based on its habitable conditions. If Gliese 581-g is indeed a livable planet, then the unique nature of Earth isn’t nearly as unique. It’s always been somewhat arrogant to believe that Earth was the lone life-sustaining planet in a universe filled with millions upon millions of stars with planets circling them.



[Vanessa in Fell To Earth]

Does this mean that E.T. is going to land on Earth tomorrow? Probably not. But famed cosmologist Stephen Hawking believes that aliens would almost have to exist based on the sheer number of planets and stars existing in the universe. “To my mathematical brain, the numbers alone make thinking about aliens perfectly rational,” Hawking said during a recent documentary on The Discovery Channel. “The real challenge is to work out what aliens might actually be like.”

Hawking also warns that although the curiosity about life on other planets intrigues many people, the reality of the situation may be much different: “If aliens ever visit us, I think the outcome would be much as when Christopher Columbus first landed in America, which didn’t turn out very well for the Native Americans.”

Gliese-581 g is a significant scientific discovery, but it’ll likely be beyond our lifetimes before we figure out exactly what is able to live, or is living there. And since Gliese-581 is over 20 light years away for earth, with current space technology it’d take over a thousand years for us to travel there. So will first contact with Gliese-581 g’s possible residents be more “Close Encounters of the Third Kind” then “Independence Day”? It’ll likely be generations before we have a definitive answer.

As we celebrate the 200th birthday of the godfather of evolution, Charles Darwin, mankind still looks to religion for answers that his theories have tangibly brought fourth. Statistically speaking however, womankind is even more likely to believe and pass on religious dogma, which presents a logical dichotomy given that they're the gender most oppressed by their faith.

Following on from her previous article on The Evolution of Religion, R. Elisabeth Cornwell explores the evolutionary reasons why women endure and pass on the bondage of belief.



Why Women Are Bound to Religion: An Evolutionary Perspective

R. Elisabeth Cornwell, PhD

Religion has both revered and reviled women, exalting their fertility and fearing their sexuality. While religions throughout history have mutated, gone extinct, and propagated -- the position of women within their ever expanding reach has usually fared poorly. Yet, women are far more likely to be religious, attend religious services, and inculcate their children with their beliefs*. Why are women so willing to give in to religious dogma and subject themselves to the degradations often inflicted upon them? This is a fascinating question, and is especially perplexing when you consider the great strides toward equality women have gained in the West. Yet, without women passing on faith, belief, and dogma, religion could not survive through the generations.

The answers we seek shall neither come easily nor be all-encompassing. As with all things psychological, we must account for individual differences, culture, family, friends, media and politics. However, we can begin to unravel the mystery of why women willingly submit to male domination through religious hierarchies by examining our most evolved psychological adaptations. While it is not possible to cover all the details necessary to treat such a vast and complicated subject, I hope to tease you into considering ideas that challenge long-held assumptions.

Sexual Selection: Why Men and Women Differ

In case it has escaped your notice (or fallen foul of your political sensibilities), men and women differ. In terms of our physical differences, women on average are smaller, weaker, more gracile, and distribute fat differently. There are a number of physical secondary sexual characteristics, that is, characteristics that are not necessary for reproduction but differ between the sexes, some of which are obvious such as more muscular development in men and exaggerated breast development in women**. Other characteristics are more subtle; For example, women have fuller lips, larger eyes, and smaller chins on average than men. These characteristics are mediated by hormones, largely testosterone, estrogen, and progesterone.

But the physical characteristics we can see are not the only differences that come about because of hormones. Our brains are awash in hormones throughout our fetal development, during our childhood, and then the familiar (some might say ominous) surge during adolescence. As adults, our hormones still continue to affect us and as we age, the waning of hormones affects us as well.

It is because of hormones that male and female brains differ. While there is no evidence for differences in intelligence (as was believed in the nineteenth century and on into the twentieth - women were not even allowed to vote until 1920!), to deny that differences exist is simply wishful thinking. Evolution cares nothing for either misogyny or feminism; it cares not for what is moral or immoral, just or unjust: without caring at all, it builds survival machines to carry genes into the next generation.

But what has this to do with religious beliefs among women? Quite a bit actually. When we look at some of the behavioral and psychological differences between women and men, we can glimpse some of the adaptations necessary for our ancestors' survival. What makes humans human is our large brains, and in order for our brains to develop, evolution had to 'intervene'; Ancestral women had to develop a wider pelvis to allow the large head of a newborn through the birth canal. Another way to facilitate and accommodate big brains was to give birth to premature infants. This is why human neonates are so helpless compared to all other primates.

As hominid brains grew in size and complexity, so too did the need for extended childhood, late-onset reproduction, and extended life-span. The vulnerability of infants and children would have led our ancestral females to select mates who were more likely to stay around, as well as to rely heavily on support from the group. Women would have relied on close female relatives to provide both emotional and practical support. Males within the group would have provided protein and defense against invading males. It was not only a woman's individual survival that was dependent on the group, but more importantly it was essential to the survival of her offspring. In other words, the future of her genes.

With this in mind, we can begin to understand why it is so essential for women to fit into their social group. Exclusion would have meant extinction since those women who could not live in accord with the other members of their group would have had fewer or no descendants. Thus, the evolutionary pressures that shaped the need to live in harmony with the group pressed more strongly on women than on men. This is not to suggest that there were not strong evolutionary pressure for males, too, to conform, indeed there were. However, males who risked upsetting the status quo and did so successfully would have gained an advantage in their own reproductive success. Females who tried the same would not.

Before going on, I need to go touch on a rather obvious but extremely important element of male/female differences: unequal reproductive success. This simply means that men are capable of producing a far greater range of offspring than women. Reproductive success of the average male equals that of the average female. But the most successful male is far more successful than the least successful male, and than any female. Males can hold harems (which means that some males never reproduce at all). Females cannot hold harems - or at least there would be no point in their doing so. Sperm is cheap, wombs are costly and gestation time consuming. Women are limited in the number of offspring they can produce, while men, feasibly, could sire thousands of infants if only they could find willing partners. Thus, where women tend to range between 0 and 5 offspring, men can range from 0 to double digits (and beyond!). This very simple fact makes it far more advantageous for men to risk everything, including social exclusion and death, if there is a chance they can gain sexual access to a substantial number of women. However, women gain very little by risking it all, since they cannot increase their ability to have more offspring by increasing their number of sexual partners. Women therefore would have been under much stronger evolutionary pressures to 'play it safe' and remain with the status quo. Let the man take the risks, and if he succeeds choose him as a sexual partner.

Religion and Cultural Norms

It is not my purpose here to discuss the relationship between religion and culture, but I will suggest that, for as long as written history has existed, cities, states, and empires have enlisted the help of religious leaders, and religious leaders have relied on the protection of the state. This is true of all the major religions of today, with no exception.

Religion is a human invention, the gods and goddesses that have come and gone during our short history have all displayed the best and (more often) worst human traits. They fell in love, jealousy was common, revenge, anger and trickery prevailed, the struggle for power was universal, and all could be brought to folly and woe due to excessive hubris, greed, and lust. Soap operas pale in comparison! What concerns me, though, is that religion reflected the culture of the times - and, for better or worse, the religions most prominent today are all rather ancient beasts that grew out of a time when women were subservient to men, and often considered as property to be bartered, battered, and controlled.

So we are back to our original question: Why do women today continue to fall victim to an archaic system of beliefs that foster misogynistic behavior? Why are women even more likely to be religious than men? The simple answer is that it is safe. Please don't take this as a slight against women -- it isn't. Male/female differences exist, but I'm certainly not suggesting that risk taking is a better option than playing it safe. After all, women are less likely than men to die doing incredibly stupid things (check out the Darwin Awards it is nearly exclusively male 'winners'). But the fact that women are less likely to push the status quo for fear of social exclusion and even retribution makes a lot of evolutionary sense.

I acknowledge that some women have in fact taken extraordinary risks and have paid the ultimate price. And I am not saying that the majority of men will risk everything in order to achieve a particular goal. But we are looking at general trends, and men overall take more risks.

Religion and Kinship

Religion creates the illusion of kinship, and kinship is crucial to a woman's reproductive success. Even today, single mothers (and fathers) who receive support from family often avoid many of the pitfalls that single parents without support endure. Family support reduces stress through emotional support as well as practical support, and throughout the last 100,000 years would have been a critical factor in raising an infant to reach reproductive age.

The instant support group that religious institutions offer remains today. Churches, synagogues, temples, mosques offer immediate female fictive kin (assumed family). Raising a child, with or without a partner, is a difficult and daunting task. Women, especially new mothers, seek out other women for advice, encouragement, and support. Certainly, women who were raised with a religious upbringing would be more likely to become dependent on these intimate social relationships with other women. This inter-dependency taps into deep psychological needs, and being excluded from it would trigger a very primal fear response.

In order for women to abandon religion and its securities, there needs to be something tangible to replace the support that it offers. This is especially true in small and/or insular communities where one could face being shunned by family and friends. And in some parts of the world, abandonment of belief would bring a death sentence to be carried out by family members. Women traditionally have had the strongest ties to family compared to men: thus breaking those ties will be more difficult and more psychologically painful. While nobody has done a specific study of atheism and women, it is easy to guess that those women who have been raised in more traditional religious homes, with family and religion closely tied together, are most likely to fear of rejection and isolation if they announce their lack of faith. Some manage to break through, but not without significant loss. Ayaan Hirsi Ali's book, Infidel, shows the strength and courage it takes to leave one's faith and family. The psychologist Jill Myton also reveals not only her own struggles against religious indoctrination, but also documents the struggles of others who left one of the most secretive and exclusive religious cults in the West (see interview).

Humans have the capacity to show great strength, courage and integrity. Sometimes we need just a little push, to encourage us to question those ideas and long-held beliefs we hold most dearly. It is threatening to question not only our own beliefs, but those of our family and friends. We feel safe, even in falsehoods, as long as others believe the same. In order for women to move on from the archaic falsehoods of religion, dialogs need to be opened and our most intimate fears revealed. Women can abandon the tyranny of religion, but it will take courage - the same sort of courage that won women the right to vote, the right to work, and the right to steer their own destiny.


*Sources:

1. The Harris Poll: The Religious and Other Beliefs of Americans 2003.
2. Argyle & Beit-Hallahmi (1975). The social psychology of religion. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.
3. Francis & Wilcox (1996) Religion and Gender Orientation. Personality and Individual Differences, 20, 119-121.

**Other mammals do not display exaggerated breast development, and it is not necessary for lactation.


Special thanks to Andy Thomson for sharing ideas about this topic.

R. Elisabeth Cornwell is an Assistant Professor of Research at the University of Colorado at Colorado Springs. Her research includes work in the area of hormones, pheromones, and sexual selection in humans. Her most recent paper can be found in Animal Behavior, regarding evidence in support of various theories of mate selection in humans. Most recently her work has involved differences between theist and atheists on a variety of psychological profiles.

At SuicideGirls our mission is to challenge stereotypical ideas (both physical and philosophical) forced on us by society, to encourage free-thinking, and to champion an alternative spirit. In the pursuit of this goal, one of the most hotly debated topics on the Newswire has been that of religion, which is the source of some the most regimented and intransigent examples of human thought found today. We therefore sought the opinion of some highly advanced free-thinkers on the subject. Here, in a special report for SuicideGirls, R. Elisabeth Cornwell, PhD and J. Anderson Thomson, MD, who work alongside Richard Dawkins in support of his Foundation For Reason & Science, share their thoughts on the possible roots of religion from an evolutionary perspective.

The Evolution of Religion

R. Elisabeth Cornwell, PhD and J. Anderson Thomson, MD



The Human Niche

Humans, like all other living beings, are a product of four billion years of evolutionary processes. We have been shaped and pounded by the rhythms of our planet's geology and climate as well by the continual interplay among biological organisms. You exist because eons of your ancestors, from bacteria to primates, struggled and reproduced successfully. The genes that reside in each and every one of us are the ones that helped our ancestors not only to survive, but to out-reproduce their competitors. And as improbable as it might seem, you are here through the success of billions and billions of generations.

Every living species on the planet -- from cabbages to whales -- has gone through this process, and evolved to fit a particular niche. Our human niche just happens to have emphasized brains over brawn, which has given us language, creativity, curiosity, and the most complicated social system of any species. However, our incredibly powerful brain is locked in a continual battle between reason and ancestral fears. This conflict helps us understand why religion has held such a grip on humanity and why reason must still fight to be heard.

Our ability to solve complex cognitive problems evolved over our long, tenuous, evolutionary history. Many adaptations that squeezed through the sieve of environmental constraints have led up to more and more complex brains. This culminated in fine-tuned software for negotiating the competitive social hierarchies that have been a crucial aspect to primate, especially human, evolution. We humans evolved the uniquely complex communication system that is language, and it in turn drove the evolution of more and more complex social interactions.

Adaptations: Designs for Success

But we are getting ahead of ourselves: we need to consider a host of adaptations that have brought us to where we are today. Adaptations are the physical and behavioral characteristics that equip a species to survive in its own particular way. The human way being as unique and complex as it is, untangling concepts of culture, including religion, is not an easy undertaking and we are only in our infancy in exploring our evolutionary roots. One way to think about these peculiarly human adaptations is as a series of software and hardware upgrades, each dependent on the other.

A common fallacy hoisted up by creationists (including 'intelligent design' sophists) is that adaptations can't work until every part is finished and in place: they ask questions like, "What good is half an eye?" The biologist Richard Dawkins has devoted more than one book to answering questions of that kind. Darwin's theory of natural selection uncovered the mystery of how the tiniest of incremental adaptations over vast amounts of time could lead to the evolution of something as complex and sophisticated as an eye or language [*1]. The mutually supportive development of computer software and hardware echoes how adaptations have built up over time, but orders of magnitude faster. Your laptop is a supercomputer by yesterday's standards, which can dance circles around the giant computers of living memory. Through small incremental steps in both hardware and software, computing technology has advanced beyond the dreams of only a few generations ago (if you doubt this, watch an old rerun of Star Trek and wonder at the huge banks of on-board computers). Of course, the mutations and adaptations witnessed by the computing industry were actually designed by intelligent beings who had specific goals in mind. Biological adaptations, by contrast, were driven by the blind and often cruel hand of natural selection. Evolution has only one goal: successful replication.

In humans, the trajectory that took us from bacteria to fish to reptiles to mammals including primates has left an indelible mark. An interesting and fun read on our unique evolutionary pathway is Your Inner Fish by Neil Shubin. Shubin suggests that when we take a look at how our bodies are put together, an intelligent designer becomes ever more implausible -- there are too many flaws, too many 'patches' that don't quite work right, but good enough to squeak by. The mind is no different: we are a product of millions of tiny adaptations -- and with no one in charge to make certain they all run smoothly and correctly in conjunction -- we end up with all sorts of psychological hiccups. Religion is one of them.

Tool Making: Goals and Process

Early in our hominid past, Homo hablis -- 'handy man' -- developed the ability to make tools. Such a skill required them to plan ahead, to learn from mistakes, as well as to learn from other individuals, perhaps in 'master-apprentice' relationships. Psychologically this might have been the seed from which grew our need to see purpose in not only man-made things but all things -- tools and weapons were made for a purpose, so why not stars and rivers too? Those hominids who became slightly more proficient at tool-making, planning and orienting toward goals would have been more successful, left more descendants -- and those successful individuals became our ancestors. Through tiny mutations, both physical and psychological, our ancestors became more adept at these skills. Adaptations necessary for advanced tool-making and use would have driven the psychological need to see purpose. Picking up a piece of flint, your ancestor would have needed the skill to determine if it possessed the qualities necessary to produce a cutting tool or spear head -- and that skill is the direct result of a purpose driven mind. We will get back to the critical importance of purpose in a moment.

Theory of Mind

The ability to build tools in order to achieve an end goal is only one adaptation that might have predisposed us to cultural and religious beliefs. After all, chimps are capable of making-tools, learning from other chimps, and employ goal-directed behavior. A significant adaptation that guided the course of human evolution has been our capacity to view the world through the eyes of another -- known as 'theory of mind'. This ability, which allows us to attribute mental states such as beliefs and desires to others, and intentions that differ from our own [*2], is so complex, it does not fully develop in children until around the age of four [*3]. While some scientists argue that our closest cousins, the chimpanzees, possess some abilities to perceive the intentions of others -- it is humans who have honed this ability to a fine art.

What does this have to do with religion? As our ancestors developed a sensitivity to the thoughts of others as an aid to second-guessing their outward and visible behavior, they would have started to see an intelligent creative force wherever they looked. An individual watching another chip away at a flint would attribute to him a purpose, similar to his own when he created a tool. So too would he assume that lightning, rain, the sun, the stars, the moon must have had some sort of purposeful creative force behind them. Here lie the very deepest roots of our religious beliefs.

Kinship

One of the most important contributions to evolutionary science was kin selection as proposed by William D. Hamilton [*4]. His theory, which was steeped in complex mathematical equations, was brought to life in Richard Dawkins' ground-breaking book The Selfish Gene. Hamilton proposed that, while passing on our genes directly to our offspring is one way of ensuring our reproductive success, helping those individuals who are closely related to us, even at our own expense, could also ensure the survival of our genes -- more specifically the genes for helping. Any social species where relatives are likely to live in the same troop, band, or flock, would have evolved adaptations to recognize kin, assess their relatedness, and assist those who were most related. This is probably why you are more likely to donate a kidney to your sister than to your third cousin.

While all animals that live in social groups may have varying strategies to recognize and reward kinship, humans are unique in that language has allowed the development of fictive kin. Shepherds have long manipulated the concept of fictive kin within their flocks. When spring arrives and lambing begins, both ewes and lambs die. If the ewe dies, the orphaned lamb will die too unless a ewe is found who will suckle her. However, it is not in the best interest of the ewe to suckle an unrelated lamb, so shepherds have learned that by skinning the ewe's dead offspring and placing it on the orphaned lamb the ewe could be fooled into thinking that the lamb was hers. In other words, she was manipulated into accepting fictive kin.

Kinship recognition in humans comes about in two ways. The primary method is extremely archaic. We simply recognize those individuals who eat with us, share the same sleeping quarters, and provide us with food and comfort as our kin. However, with the advent of language, definitions of kinship became more complex. All cultures throughout the world name and track kinship. As our ancestors formed larger and larger groups, keeping track of kin through verbal definitions of kinship became more and more important (this helps to explain ancestor worship). But this also opened the door to creating fictive kin -- that is, giving kin names to individuals who were not closely related. This would have been extremely useful for group cohesion, especially in times of war [*5].

With the onset of agriculture, land ownership, and accumulated wealth, our ancestors began to aggregate in large, permanent settlements. The birth of villages, towns and cities, brought together masses of unrelated individuals. As these settlements grew and expanded, tribal wars over territory would have been inevitable. In a small group where everyone was closely related, sacrificing one's life in defense of close kin would have benefitted one's own genes. However, in large groups where most people were not close kin, how could leaders convince warriors to die for people who were unrelated? Language acts like the lamb's skin and tricks our minds into attributing kinship where none exists by using kin terms such as 'brother', 'father', 'sister', and 'mother'[*6]. In order to keep a small nation together, fictive kin would have been essential. It is not without reason that even today the military strives to create a sense of 'brotherhood' among soldiers. While language would have provided the platform on which to construct fictive kin, it would have been ritualized ceremonies that solidified it. Next time you attend a baptism, note the ritualization of a child being accepted into 'God's family'.

The Conflict Between Archaic Minds and Reason

Very late in our journey to modern humans, we evolved the ability to think abstractly. We could not write this article without the ability to abstract and reason, and you could not comprehend it without these abilities either. To think in such a fashion is apparently unique to humans, and even then not everyone is able. Pre-adolescent children simply do not have the brain configuration to do so. The brain configuration of a pre-adolescent child is far different from the one she will possess as an adult. It takes about 12 years or so for the frontal lobes to develop fully after reaching puberty [*7]. Our frontal lobes are key to social behavior, abstract thinking, planning and solving complex problems. Humans have evolved the most elaborate set of frontal lobes on the planet -- it is our evolutionary niche.

But highly developed frontal lobes came late into the game, and they have to compete with the archaic brain that was the engine behind our evolutionary success. Just as Shubin argues that our bodies are more like bits and bobs from a rummage sale that have been shoe-horned together and sort of work...the brain too is made up of parts that are often in conflict because they have different jobs and priorities.

Let's call our frontal lobes the 'smart-self' and the more archaic part of our brain the 'primal-self'. Our smart-selves know that over-eating and under-exercising is bad for us, leading to heart disease, diabetes, and a shorter life-span. But our primal-selves are still primed for the risk of starvation, thus it simply cannot understand why the smart-self would deny you a nice Big Mac with a large order of fries and a chocolate shake. It throws fits as you drive by those Golden Arches, and causes your brain to send messages that scream 'STOP or we could die!’. The smart-brain is just not designed to prevent the primal brain from taking over because the abundance of food most of us are surrounded by is a fairly new development in human history. Perhaps given another few thousand years, those individuals with the will-power to resist all that tasty fat, protein, sugar and salt will out-reproduce those that don't.

The point is, that there is an instant conflict between what we know is good for us and what we feel we want -- and we often fall victim to our more primal needs even when we know they are harmful.

Religion As The Ultimate Big Mac

Religion's success is undeniable. It is in every culture, and in every corner of the world. We spend billions and billions of dollars on building monuments to it, supporting it, and of course proselytizing on behalf of our own favored brand of it. Individuals give up sex and eschew family and friends for religion. Beyond that, we sacrifice time and effort to its rituals, and indoctrinate our children and grandchildren to do the same. We are even willing to kill for it.

Modern science, particularly modern biology, has given us the freedom to shuck off the idea that our existence and the existence of the universe requires an intelligent being. In fact, as Richard Dawkins pointed out in The God Delusion, invoking an intelligent being doesn't explain anything -- it just pushes the question back to 'Who designed the designer?' Despite the illogic of believing that some great being in the heavens, capable of creating not only the laws of physics, the principles of evolution, and the vastness of time also cares a great deal about whether or not you use your left hand to clean up after defecating, eat a cracker while sinless, or not mix cheese with chicken, we still seem to sup it up like mother's milk.

The reason religion is so successful is that it taps into our primal-brains in much the same way that a Big Mac does -- only more so. Religion gained its foothold by hijacking the need to give purpose at a time when humans had only their imagination -- as opposed to the evidence and reason that we have today -- to fathom their world. Spirits and demons were the explanation for illnesses that we now know are caused by bacterial diseases and genetic disorders. The whims of the gods were why earthquakes, volcanos, floods and droughts occurred. Our ancestors were driven to sacrifice everything from goats to one another to satisfy those gods.

Along with the need to attribute purpose, our faculty to intuit the intent of others spills over into a predilection for determining the intentions of gods and goddesses (or spirits, demons, and angels). Of course the major problem has been that we can never quite agree among ourselves about god's intentions, which often ends in unfortunate violent discussions. Our evolved proclivity for aggression feeds into that as well. We justify our prejudices, hatred, murders, and war by attributing our own biases to a god. As long as we kill in god's name, we are doing good.

Our primal-brains that keep track of kin can be easily hijacked through language and rituals, which is why religion uses terms such as 'god the father', 'Mary the mother of heaven', 'brother', and 'sister'. Rituals reinforce fictitious kin through feasts, worship, and ceremonies such as marriages and funerals. Despite our smart-brains being able to recognize the difference between real kin and not, those ties created within religious organizations bind tightly. Leaving the faith one was born into would certainly have led our ancestors to being shunned if not worse. In Islam, the punishment for apostasy is death. And in Western cultures, it is not uncommon to hear of individuals whose families and friends have turned their backs because they have disavowed their religious beliefs.

The fear of losing family and friends is a powerful force for keeping people in tow. It is far easier to ignore the evidence that there is no god than to give up the love and friendship of a community. Our survival depends much more on being part of a community, even in today's modern world, than on abandoning religion. Psychological studies strongly suggest that our social network, that is family and friends, are essential to personal happiness. For our ancestors it was more than that, it was necessary for our very survival itself. Exclusion would have meant death, and our primal-brains have not forgotten. We did not evolve to be solitary creatures, nor to be independent of social support. Religion has, for better or worse, always offered a ready social network, an entire (fictive) extended family. Our primal brains are designed to not only strive to maintain close family and social relationships, but when coupled with the attribution of our own primal fears to the mind of god along with our tendency for aggression, we are more than willing to commit the most heinous acts to protect our fictive kin and beliefs.

Of course there are other factors that contribute to this tangled web, such as the desire for power, land, wealth, and, where men are concerned, access to females for reproduction. All of these extant drives ingrained in the human psyche have also been justified through religion. No matter how terrible the deed, by attributing to god our own fears and hatreds -- anything could be justified. Religion and gods were extremely useful to the ruthless and power-hungry.

The Battle For Reason

Our archaic brains, which served us so well during our evolutionary past, now threaten our very existence. While our smart-brains have given us modern technology and science and the privilege of understanding not only ourselves but our universe, our primal brains are stuck in the stone-age. Reason must always fight our tendencies to give way to superstitions and fears. This is especially true when we have the capability to destroy not only ourselves, but our planet.

Much of the world's population still believe in a god forged out of the fears of a desert people and, worse, fully believe not only that their view of god and his wishes are right, but that those who disagree must be converted or face eternal torment (sometimes even offering some help to get there). The primal fears instilled by religious fever act as impenetrable walls to reason. According to a recent Gallup poll, 66% of the US population agrees strongly with the statement 'God created human beings pretty much in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years'. Given the overwhelming amount of scientific evidence to the contrary, such obstinate belief should frighten any reasonable thinking person. It also is testimony to the wealthy and powerful religious organizations who spend billions of dollars on public relations, creating controversies where none exist and spewing lies about the evidence for evolution [*8]. But none of this would be possible without our brains being ready and available to take in the message they are delivering. It is easy enough for atheists and humanists to chuckle at the credulity of believers, but we do so at our own peril.

Religion needs to be taken seriously. Understanding its roots, how it can seize command of our psychology and take control of our culture, may well be one of the most important endeavors we pursue. For even with all our grand technology, modern medical advances, and volumes of knowledge, if we do not stop our archaic past from overriding our modern reason we are surely doomed.


For further information on this on this topic:

We Few, We Happy Few, We Band of Brothers (parts 1-3) -- J. Anderson Thomson

Why They Kill -- J. Anderson Thomson

Why We Believe In Gods -- J. Anderson Thomson

Religion Explained by Pascal Boyer

Kluge: The Haphazard Construction of the Human Mind by Gary Marcus

Please visit RichardDawkins.net for more discussions, articles, and videos concerning religion in the modern world.


Notes:

*1. For more on this matter read Richard Dawkins' Climbing Mount Improbable.

*2. Premack, D. G & Woodruff, G. (1978). Does the chimpanzee have a theory of mind? Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 1, 515-526.

*3. Lewis C & Osborne A. (1990). Three-year-olds' problems with false belief: conceptual deficit or linguistic artifact? Child Development 61(5):1514-9.

*4. Hamilton, W.D. (1964). The genetical evolution of social behaviour I and II -- Journal of Theoretical Biology 7: 1-16 and 17-52.

*5. Thomson, J.A. (2007). We Few, We Happy Few, We Band of Brothers -- AAI 2007 conference in Washington, D.C.

*6. For example, in English the word 'King' is thought to be derived from the Old English word cynn, which means family or race.

*7. For more on this matter read Barbara Strauch's The Primal Teen: What the New Discoveries about the Teenage Brain Tell Us about Our Kids.

*8. Forrest, B & Gross, P (2004). Creationism's Trojan Horse: The wedge of intelligent design.


R. Elisabeth Cornwell is an Assistant Professor of Research at the University of Colorado at Colorado Springs. Her research includes work in the area of hormones, pheromones, and sexual selection in humans. Her most recent paper can be found in Animal Behavior, regarding evidence in support of various theories of mate selection in humans. Most recently her work has involved differences between theist and atheists on a variety of psychological profiles.

J. Anderson (Andy) Thomson received his B.A. from Duke University and his M.D. from the University of Virginia. His academic publications address PTSD, suicide terrorism, narcissistic personality disorder, religious identity, religious belief, and evolutionary theories of depression. He has done international conflict resolution work in Latvia, Estonia, Turkey, the Republic of Georgia, South Ossetia, and Kuwait. Currently he is a staff psychiatrist at the University of Virginia Counseling and Psychological Services, and at the University's Institute of Law, Psychiatry, and Public Policy. He maintains a private practice in adult general psychiatry and forensic psychiatry, and is a trustee with the Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science.

SuicideGirls would like to thank Richard Dawkins for facilitating this article.

Looking over some of the comments to my last piece for Suicide Girls, I think I figured out the root of a lot of the confusion I’ve created here. When I write about religion and the religious point of view, it seems like a lot of readers assume I’m including Buddhism in that category. I don’t. Even though books on Buddhism, including my own, are usually shoved into the back corner in the religion section, Buddhism is something very distinct from religion.

When you say that, people usually respond with, “OK, then Buddhism is a form of spirituality.” Spirituality is seen as something better than religion. It exists outside the constraints of the organized formality of religious institutions. It’s a personal relationship with your spiritual nature.

Which is fine. But Buddhism is not a form of spirituality.

The history of philosophy throughout the world has been a struggle between two basic fundamental systems -- idealism and materialism. Spirituality is a kind of idealism. It takes the view that the spiritual world, the world of ideas, imagination, and mental formations is the true reality. Matter is secondary at best or sometimes even regarded as non-existent. We are spirits trapped inside bodies made of gross matter -- some bodies are a lot more gross than others -- and the way to happiness is to get free of this material world and its miseries. In many Eastern philosophies we are told, “I am not this body. I am the spiritual soul within.” This is not the Buddhist viewpoint. But I’ll get to that in a bit.

Materialism on the other hand sees matter as primary and spirit as either non-existent or, at least, negligible. What we perceive as our soul, we are told, is just the workings of a highly complex biological machine. We’re all just animals. The more radical materialists go on to assert that the only way to be happy is to get as much money, sex, and power as possible. There is no soul. There is no afterlife. There is no God.

Buddha explored both of these ideas and found both of them lacking. He was born a prince and spent the first part of his life dedicated to the practical study of materialism. He had everything he could possibly want -- money, hot babes, power. But they didn’t satisfy him. So he set off to see if happiness could be found in the opposite direction. He dedicated himself to various spiritual practices and achieved their highest goals. He got a massive spiritual high, but in the process he nearly destroyed his body. That wasn’t what he wanted. It wasn’t until he rejected both extremes and found the Middle Way that he began to teach the philosophy that now bears his name.

Buddhism starts from the basic premise that neither materialism nor idealism is correct. The Heart Sutra says, “Form is Emptiness, Emptiness is Form.” In other words, matter is the immaterial, the immaterial is matter. With apologies to Sting, we are not spirits in the material world. Rather, the experiential, internal, subjective, spiritual side of our day-to-day existence and the hard, external, objective, material world we inhabit are one and the same. This is a very radical idea. Even today, 2500 years after Gotama first put forth this notion, few people can accept it. Even those who call themselves Buddhists all too often believe that it’s a form of spirituality.

While it’s not spirituality, Buddhism is not materialism either. Buddhism is realism. There's a tendency for contemporary people to assume that realism is the same as materialism. When they use the word “reality” it most often refers to the material world as explained to us by science. But that's not what Buddhists mean by "reality." The materialistic point of view is also just a concept.

Now, matter is obviously real. But the trouble is that our understanding of what matter is may not be correct. Most of us believe that matter exists first and because of its existence sense stimulation occurs. Both idealists and materialists tend to conceive it this way. The computer in front of you is made of matter and it’s real. So is your forehead. When you bang your forehead on the computer it hurts. The subjective experience of pain is the result of the objective collision of material forehead with material computer. Buddhist philosophers like Dogen, Nagarjuna and Buddha himself turn this around and place sense stimulation first. Because our senses are stimulated in certain ways, we assume matter exists. It is a completely different way of conceptualizing the world from what we’re used to.

Science happens to be a very good way to look at the material side of reality, so we need to accept science (legit science, anyway). But Dogen, the guy who founded the school of Buddhism in which I study and practice, said that the universe in all directions is just a tiny fragment of reality.

That doesn’t mean that the material world is here and somewhere out in the vastness of space is another even bigger universe made of something else. Dogen was talking about our real day-to-day experience. The material component of our experience forms just one small part of our existence.

Furthermore we never experience mind separate from body or vice-versa. The idea that one side is true while the other is false doesn’t fit our real experience.

We constantly swing back and forth between materialism and idealism. When materialism doesn’t satisfy, we try idealism, when idealism lets us down, we swing back to materialism. As a culture we can see this happening right now. A century ago it seemed like materialism might one day solve all the problems of mankind. But, in spite of the fact that most of the poorest among us enjoy wealth and comfort our ancestors couldn’t have dreamed of, materialism has failed to fulfill many of our most basic needs. So we, as a culture have started to drift back towards spirituality in the hopes that it might solve our troubles and bring us the fulfillment we seek. What we’ve forgotten as a culture is that spirituality already let us down. That’s why we became so materialistic in the fist place.

A lot of people look to Buddhism as a spiritual answer to our materialistic woes. But if Buddhism is just another form of spirituality, it’s as worthless as any other religion. We need something different.

Every other religion, philosophy, addiction or any other method for dealing with what life throws at us that I’ve encountered says, “You feel unfulfilled? OK. Try this. It will fulfill you.” Materialism works for a time. But once you buy something the thrill of buying it is gone and you want to buy something else. Spirituality can give you a great big high. But there’s always a comedown.

Buddhism doesn’t promise to fulfill our desires. Instead it says, “You feel unfulfilled? That’s OK. That’s normal. Everybody feels unfulfilled. You will always feel unfulfilled. There is no problem with feeling unfulfilled. In fact, if you learn to see it the right way, that very lack of fulfillment is the greatest thing you can ever experience.” This is the realistic outlook.

Brad Warner is the author of Hardcore Zen and Sit Down and Shut Up! and the forthcoming Zen Wrapped in Karma Dipped in Chocolate. He maintains a blog about Buddhist stuff and a MySpace page too.

Plus he also has a spiffy newly revamped YouTube Channel.

If you're in Southern California and you want to try some Zazen for yourself, he has a group that meets every Saturday in Santa Monica.

Buy the new CD by his band Zero Defex at CD Baby now!

While sitting in JFK last month reading Green Hermeticism, a book inspired by the eponymous conferences held by the Suluk Academy on alchemy and ecology, I was struck by a quote from the German Romantic philosopher Novalis, translated "the sciences must all be made poetic." I sympathize. Despite the generally laughable efforts of creation "scientists," we (not to be too West-normative) seem to frame faith and science not as complements but as combatants. Rationalists and nonbelievers feel like Romans watching barbarians approach intent on sacking our institutions and libraries; the religious feel that their concerns are ignored in favor of the sweeping indoctrination necessary for our liberal, humanistic society. This image of Christ and Darwin fighting bareknuckled in a steel cage is, of course, oversimplified and polarized in a way to appeal to the idiots on either side. The complex relationship between Faith and Science isn’t inherently a conflict, and its substance isn’t all evolution and fluff.

There are a great many areas of fascinating and unusual intersections between the natural sciences and spiritual belief; the "Law of Attraction" popularized in The Secret claims provenance in quantum mechanics, specifically the (heavily disputed) interpretation that the observer’s consciousness causes wave function collapse. ("What the hell are you talking about, Fluxy?"). Does human (or other) consciousness affect the universe in a demonstrable physical way or is it just pseudoscientific rubbish? Beats me, but all my attempts to materialize a ziti pizza whilst writing this article have failed. I call bullshit!

The Bahá'í, Faith teaches that science and faith are harmonious, with ‘Abdu'l-Bahá writing that

Philosopher Karl Popper rejected classical empiricism, the idea that theories can be "proven" through observations of the natural world, in favor of a standard of falsifiability. A scientific theory can’t be confirmed, only proven false or found to "correspond with the facts." I tend to view the world in a manner similar to this: a collection of plausible explanations and non-falsifiable theories rather than a world ordered by Cartesian rationality or by the hand of deity. As such, I have a hard time grokking the die-hard atheists or the true believers; I apply Fluxy’s Razor to everything.

So, back to Green Hermeticism. The authors argue that the beginnings of the Enlightenment occurred as a battle between non-dualist Rosicrucians and dualist Cartesians. Isaac Newton wrote more about alchemy than about physics, but eventually the worldview we’ve come to associate with him won out. Later, Romanticism and its affection for the natural world were crushed by Industry and the inevitable clash between capitalist and Marxist ideologies. So homeboys suggest that we revive our sleeping hermetic tradition and take the Gaia hypothesis to the next level; that we create a joyous spiritual ecology that recognizes that we are part of, not separate from, "Nature."

Nature: It’s not just national parks anymore!

This isn’t really new. The movement called "deep ecology" has argued essentially the same thing for years, albeit from a less alchemical angle. But consider this:

Not to be too much of a frou-frou new age hippie ("too late!" you say), but to me, there’s something worthwhile to such a worldview, and not just in the Fluxy’s Razor sense. We are part of the vast biological system that is this planet. Some people wonder if we’re the cancer afflicting Gaia, but being the happy-go-lucky optimist that y’all have come to know and love and loathe, I suspect that perhaps we are her brain. If we can accept that spirituality has a healing effect when used judiciously and graciously, then why not act as the soul of that which has come to be called creation? I’m not talking about communing with your crystal dolphin inner child in the name of the great mother goddess (although if that blows your skirt up, by all means, go for it.) No gods necessary, but perhaps a little faith in ourselves and our ability to change and to heal our world. Without that, we’re stuck in fatalism and in death.

In 1982, stood before the Nobel assembly and spoke of the soul of Latin America:

García Márquez was speaking of the ability of humanity to triumph over tyranny and disaster, but this optimism applies just as powerfully to the world in which we live, so long as we use all the tools available to us, be they "Religion" or "Science." Science informs us, and spirit (whatever that may mean to you) inspires us.

Nothing is written. Everything is permissible, possible, and alive. So now, my chilluns, go out and change the world.

Flux got really drunk and started writing a leftist spiritual manifesto that revolves around hilarious, tongue-in-cheek pantheism a few weeks ago. She promises that this article isn’t an attempt to fish for prospective book deals. She swears.

Maybe it’s because I’ve been watching too much VH1, but when during the course of my scanning the Internet for the latest news I come across a paragraph like:

I immediately think to myself “What, did Paris Hilton name a drunken elephant ‘Mohammed’ or something?”

But no, the death threats in question are being made against an actual bitch, an 8-year-old Maltese dog named “Trouble”. While the urge to kill a small yappy dog with a penchant for biting people may be understandable, Trouble is not your average canine. Up until recently, Trouble was the pet of Leona Helmsley, the controversial New York City hotel mogul and philanthropist. While Leona earned the nickname “The Queen of Mean” for how poorly she treated her employees, and claimed that “only the little people pay taxes” before serving 18 months in prison for tax evasion, she spent the last decade attempting to rehabilitate her public persona by donating large amounts of her fortune to charity. She also spent a lot of time pampering her faithful canine companion Trouble.

After Leona died in August, all three of those aspects of her personality were on display when her will was made public. While she donated the bulk of her $4 billion fortune to a charitable trust, she left $12 million to Trouble to pay for her upkeep while leaving two of her grandchildren nothing.

If $12 million seems like an excessive amount of cash to set aside for the upkeep of a dog, remember when I said she was not your average canine? Providing Trouble with the medical care, grooming, security and chef-prepared meals she’s accustomed to costs $300,000 a year. Of course, with this inheritance came death and kidnapping threats, so recently Trouble was flown via private jet down to Florida under an assumed name, because of course nobody would want to kill that other small yappy dog who enjoys gourmet meals, private jets and biting people.

One reason that Trouble may be inspiring death threats is that once she dies, all of the cash that remains in her name gets donated to the Helmsley charitable trust. So if the concept of snuffing out a small, mean, pampered yappy dog wasn’t appealing enough, now you can do it for charity!

While the “kill one small yappy dog, send seven human kids to Columbia University for a year” equation may appeal to class warriors, a recent scientific study shows that it might be a better investment to send seven chimpanzees to college instead.

Researchers at Japan’s Kyoto University conducted a memory test that pitted five-year-old chimps against university students. Both the monkeys and the undergrads were presented with a touch screen, on which a random sequence of numbers one through nine were briefly displayed in random locations and then replaced with blank white squares. The subjects then had to touch the squares in ascending numerical order. All of the young chimps turned out to be both faster and more accurate at recalling the number patterns than the humans, even when the numbers were displayed on screen for as little as 210 milliseconds, a speed too fast for the human or chimp eye to scan across the entire screen.

The researchers think this indicates that young chimps have a photographic memory, and theorize that once early humans developed language they lost the need for such sharp short-term memory skills, causing those skills to decline below chimp level.

Or as lead researcher Dr. Tetsuro Matsuzawa phrased it:

Spoken like someone who hasn’t seen a Planet Of The Apes movie, or read the pilot script for the gripping legal drama I’m currently pitching to various TV executives, "Mr. Bubbles: Chimpanzee At Law".

While human beings may have lost the short-term memory race to chimpanzees, we still have at least one thing that sets us apart as a species from other primates: a seemingly unquenchable desire to get high. Although if young chimpanzees were exposed to a lack of parental supervision, cheap drugs and an Intro To Philosophy class that they might catch up to college students in that department as well.

While personally I’m a bit of a fuddy duddy when it comes to drug use, I’m fascinated by the lengths that people can and will go to in order to get a buzz. I’m sure that one of the reasons that privatized space exploration hasn’t been much of a success is that space dust doesn’t get you high. If Neil Armstrong’s first words from the Moon had been “That’s one small step for man…wow, I’m seeing such fucked up colors, dude!”, by now a small army of tech-savvy stoners would have slipped the surly bonds of Earth and colonized the fuck out of our solar system.

Alas, the urge to self-medicate remains terrestrial, and while that avoids things like belts of deadly radiation and the icy, airless void of space, the quest for new and novel methods of altering one’s state of consciousness is not without peril.

For example, the Kansas City Police Department recently announced that they’d arrested a local man on, among other things, one count of possessing drug paraphernalia.

That “drug paraphernalia” was a live poisonous toad.

According to police, the man allegedly planned to frighten or anger the toad, harvest the poison the toad would then secrete, then smoke the poison in order to get high on the supposedly psychotropic chemicals the poison contains. Kansas City police and health officials expressed concern that this was part of a new epidemic of “toad smoking”, a new variation on “toad licking” that was corrupting our nation’s youth, or at least freaking out our nation’s toads:

Of course, being the semi-responsible quasi-journalist that I am, I had to at least pretend to do some research into this new “toad smoking” craze, especially since the same article contained a similar warning about the hoax drug “Jenkem”. I was worried that typing “toad licking” into a search engine would dredge up the type of brain-scarring, savage internet weirdness that normally only results from searching for “anime porn” or “pandas are dicks”, but apparently there’s actually been a decent amount of actual scientific research into psychedelic toads. While there’s apparently a consensus that “toad licking” is an urban myth (since by the time you licked enough toads to get you high, the poison would have already sickened or killed you), the mind-altering aspects of certain toad poisons are unclear, as is the safety and effectiveness of smoking the poison as opposed to licking it.

Of course, even if toad secretions didn’t get you high and would probably kill you if you tried to smoke it, thanks to the magic of the internet, there’d still be a bunch of morons who’d try. Or as one Kansas City health official phrases it:

Wow, the Internet can provide me with porn and kill off gullible kids? Is there no end to the awesomeness that is the misinformation superhighway?