Posts
As an atheist (and as what in todays terms would be an exceptionally globally gifted youngster who was radically advanced 5 grades and still ended up bored) home schooling is something I've considered for my little girl, currently 2 1/2. In our former home of Lexington, KY the top rated pre-school in the city was a secular one. The closest thing to that which we've found in Jackson, MS is the public school Montessori, which she'll be entering next fall.
Since my spouse is Episcopalian, my daughter is already exposed to imaginary friends, so atheism isn't a strong motivator for me when it comes to considering home schooling. I'm much more worried about her intelligence. It's too early to tell if she'll inherit my global gifts, but at 2 1/2 she's probably averaging 6-10 words per sentence, often ranging up into 15-20 word sentences with grammatically correct conditional clauses.
Exceptionally gifted children don't really need school to learn. (When asked how I managed to get a 31 composite on the ACT at the age of 11 I always answered, "I read science fiction.") As a former college instructor with an extensive liberal arts background, I wouldn't worry so much about providing my daughter with sufficient academic preparation for college. (Although MOST of the resources that I skimmed in thinking about this are Christian-centric.)
In some of the studies that I've been reading lately it looks like structured radical advancement has the most benefits for really smart kids, and most of that benefit seems to come from the social opportunities of interacting with people on your own level of thinking. (As one researcher put it, no one expects to mainstream a child with an IQ of 40, why should we assume that a child with an IQ of 160 should be mainstreamed?) Public schools are, as vjack says (http://www.atheistrev.com/2009/03/atheist-homeschooling.html), centers for social instruction, but that doesn't ALWAYS mean that the social aspects are beneficial (although those aspects certainly CAN be in some, perhaps most, cases).
My own daughter is extremely social. She stayed at home the first few months after we moved to Mississippi, but kept asking to go to daycare (which she'd done before I retired). She simply finds being around lots of other children absolutely fascinating. She emotionally craves that contact. At this point, for my daughter, home schooling isn't currently an option. As a rationalist, of course, new evidence can always lead to change.
I think that the real question for atheists when it comes to home schooling is, "What causes more damage? Socializing with children who are very, very different (either in intelligence or in world view), or having very limited socializing until the dangerous late-teens?" I have trouble believing that any child who is too far off the "norm" can emerge unscathed from childhood, and I think that all parents should navigate their individual courses based on the circumstances that confront them. (Duh!)
Showing posts with label atheist. Show all posts
Showing posts with label atheist. Show all posts
Monday, March 9, 2009
Tuesday, March 3, 2009
Words versus violence
I've never been a violent man. As a little Pompotini there were a few acts of discreet violence, but always in defense of someone else. I never had to physically protect myself because I always found that threats and intimidation were sufficient to forestall actual violence. (Which causes me to question some of the extremes that school systems these days go to in order to stop threats of violence. But I digress.
After growing from a Pompotini into a Pompotous, I've engaged in violence twice: once in taking a knife away from a rather rude man trying to rob it by pointing at my throat, once in response to a muscle-bound teenager who thought to beat the crap out of me for working at a place he'd been fired from. In both cases my assailants fled the scene in distress, and I was not actually hurt, but the feelings engendered by the violence, the fear, the breakdown of coherent consciousness when staring at a butcher knife in the hands of someone screaming at me, those impressions remain with me.
I could have killed them rather than driven them away with few hurts to anything other than their pride -- but I am not a violent man, although I capable of using it in its minimum forms when necessary. Had I not thought myself capable of inflicting harm under certain circumstances I would never have joined the armed forces of the US in my youth.
I have been the target of words and the target of blows and knife thrusts, and it still amazes me that there are people who equate words with violence. In graduate school I ran across a woman who, when I asked her if she would rather be called a "bitch" or shot in the face with a .45 caliber pistol, replied, "I don't know, words hurt for so long." This linking of words with violence has a following of sorts in the business world as well, particularly with sexual harassment consultants. In the latter case this is, perhaps, a case of frantically reaching for an argument that will be explain the seriousness of sexual harassment to the kind of microcephalic morons who might commit it, but I think not.
Take, for example, section 295A of the Indian Penal Code: Whoever, with deliberate and malicious intention of outraging the religious feelings of any class of citizens of India, by words, either spoken or written, or by signs or by visible representations or otherwise, insults or attempts to insult the religion or the religious beliefs of that class, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.
Pardon me, but the politicians that passed this, and the theists who utilize it, are lame fuckwits. 295a IPC assumes that words are dangerous. There are very, very few cases where I'll agree that words are dangerous, and they all involve violence in some form or another. Saying that you are a fuckwit with a ridiculous imaginary friend -- does that break any of your bones? Ignite your possessions and turn them to ash? In any way resemble stereo wire connected to your alternated, twisted and run into your gas tank?
No. There is a qualitative difference between words and violence. Words directly leading to real harm -- such as Manson telling his followers to kill someone, or shouting "Fire" in a crowded theater, thereby being sure to cause a few injuries in the attempts to exit the building, are few and far between, and certainly don't include things like making fun of some made-up characters in a book.
It is not words that are dangerous, it is power: the power to get someone to murder for you, the power to manipulate people into acts of violence upon themselves, the power to terrify a subordinate into putting up with sexual advances. You have little choice in how your body will deal with a bullet to the head, your mind has much choice in how to deal with someone calling you a name. When power and circumstances take away your choice, that is when speech is dangerous and calls for censure.
So for all those religionists out there who cry out at the horrors of saying, "Hey, you're an irrational idiot about this whole religion thing, aren't you?" I say, "Shove it." If a Christian burns down your Christian church (which is almost certainly the most likely church burning in the US), then you are the victim of violence and should be entitled to justice. If a teenager in a car shouts, "There is no God, chill the fuck out!" as he drives past your church, you have no cause for complaint.
,
After growing from a Pompotini into a Pompotous, I've engaged in violence twice: once in taking a knife away from a rather rude man trying to rob it by pointing at my throat, once in response to a muscle-bound teenager who thought to beat the crap out of me for working at a place he'd been fired from. In both cases my assailants fled the scene in distress, and I was not actually hurt, but the feelings engendered by the violence, the fear, the breakdown of coherent consciousness when staring at a butcher knife in the hands of someone screaming at me, those impressions remain with me.
I could have killed them rather than driven them away with few hurts to anything other than their pride -- but I am not a violent man, although I capable of using it in its minimum forms when necessary. Had I not thought myself capable of inflicting harm under certain circumstances I would never have joined the armed forces of the US in my youth.
I have been the target of words and the target of blows and knife thrusts, and it still amazes me that there are people who equate words with violence. In graduate school I ran across a woman who, when I asked her if she would rather be called a "bitch" or shot in the face with a .45 caliber pistol, replied, "I don't know, words hurt for so long." This linking of words with violence has a following of sorts in the business world as well, particularly with sexual harassment consultants. In the latter case this is, perhaps, a case of frantically reaching for an argument that will be explain the seriousness of sexual harassment to the kind of microcephalic morons who might commit it, but I think not.
Take, for example, section 295A of the Indian Penal Code: Whoever, with deliberate and malicious intention of outraging the religious feelings of any class of citizens of India, by words, either spoken or written, or by signs or by visible representations or otherwise, insults or attempts to insult the religion or the religious beliefs of that class, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.
Pardon me, but the politicians that passed this, and the theists who utilize it, are lame fuckwits. 295a IPC assumes that words are dangerous. There are very, very few cases where I'll agree that words are dangerous, and they all involve violence in some form or another. Saying that you are a fuckwit with a ridiculous imaginary friend -- does that break any of your bones? Ignite your possessions and turn them to ash? In any way resemble stereo wire connected to your alternated, twisted and run into your gas tank?
No. There is a qualitative difference between words and violence. Words directly leading to real harm -- such as Manson telling his followers to kill someone, or shouting "Fire" in a crowded theater, thereby being sure to cause a few injuries in the attempts to exit the building, are few and far between, and certainly don't include things like making fun of some made-up characters in a book.
It is not words that are dangerous, it is power: the power to get someone to murder for you, the power to manipulate people into acts of violence upon themselves, the power to terrify a subordinate into putting up with sexual advances. You have little choice in how your body will deal with a bullet to the head, your mind has much choice in how to deal with someone calling you a name. When power and circumstances take away your choice, that is when speech is dangerous and calls for censure.
So for all those religionists out there who cry out at the horrors of saying, "Hey, you're an irrational idiot about this whole religion thing, aren't you?" I say, "Shove it." If a Christian burns down your Christian church (which is almost certainly the most likely church burning in the US), then you are the victim of violence and should be entitled to justice. If a teenager in a car shouts, "There is no God, chill the fuck out!" as he drives past your church, you have no cause for complaint.
,
Monday, March 2, 2009
Barbarians
My heart goes out to my Indian friends. Apparently it is a crime to tell the truth about religions in India. This article in the Independent gives sufficient explanation and information for further pursuit of the situation: http://tinyurl.com/bny9ma
Who knew that such a disgusting law existed in India? Not I. But the law isn't the extent of the shamefulness in this case, apparently some barbaric Muslims blocked roads and attacked policeman in response to the reprinting of the article by Johann Hari. And why did these ridiculous people turn to violence? Because someone wrote a few words about someone long dead? Allah, like all other god(s)ess(es) is, of course, completely fictional, but if he weren't, if he were real, wouldn't you think that his Prophet on Earth could stand up to a little name calling? Five year olds stand being called names on the playground every day, but this Prophet fellow gets his nose out of joint to the point of violence over nothing but words? And accurate words at that? My, my, what a baby. And what a stupid bunch of followers this baby must have if violence is their answer to speech.
We have our own barbarians here in America, primarily of the Christian stripe. For the most part our religious violence is sly, hidden and isolated, and our govenrment organs, particularly the police, are fiercely protective of their theoretical monopoly on large scale violence. So we export most of the violence. (Hi, Iraq! How ya' doin'?)
Barbarians. So many, many barbarians. To Johann Hari, and, more importantly, to Ravindra Kumar and Anand Sinha I send my respect and my sympathy and my admiration. Good luck, and thank you for your actions. The world needs more people like you.
Who knew that such a disgusting law existed in India? Not I. But the law isn't the extent of the shamefulness in this case, apparently some barbaric Muslims blocked roads and attacked policeman in response to the reprinting of the article by Johann Hari. And why did these ridiculous people turn to violence? Because someone wrote a few words about someone long dead? Allah, like all other god(s)ess(es) is, of course, completely fictional, but if he weren't, if he were real, wouldn't you think that his Prophet on Earth could stand up to a little name calling? Five year olds stand being called names on the playground every day, but this Prophet fellow gets his nose out of joint to the point of violence over nothing but words? And accurate words at that? My, my, what a baby. And what a stupid bunch of followers this baby must have if violence is their answer to speech.
We have our own barbarians here in America, primarily of the Christian stripe. For the most part our religious violence is sly, hidden and isolated, and our govenrment organs, particularly the police, are fiercely protective of their theoretical monopoly on large scale violence. So we export most of the violence. (Hi, Iraq! How ya' doin'?)
Barbarians. So many, many barbarians. To Johann Hari, and, more importantly, to Ravindra Kumar and Anand Sinha I send my respect and my sympathy and my admiration. Good luck, and thank you for your actions. The world needs more people like you.
Thursday, February 5, 2009
Joe the Plumber, Yahweh the Mechanic
In a recent radio ad for an oil change store in Jackson, Mississippi, all doubt about where to go for a lube job was wiped away by a bit of name dropping: this place uses "God" to check out your car when you come in.
Yes, that's right, G-d, the big Yahweh himself is making the switch from carpentry to auto mechanics. Now they didn't get into whether G-d was a salaried employee or whether he gets overtime as an hourly employee, but who needs a 27-point safety inspection when G-d is on the job to change your oil, lube your joints and ensure that your tires are inflated to the proper level for both safety and gas mileage? I mean, having a mechanic whose skill is divinely inspired, rather than the result of training and experience, just HAS to extend the life of your car.
Unless, of course, G-d has decided to take you into his bosom, in which case you're fucked, he'll probably cut your brake lines. And you'll have deserved it.
Yes, that's right, G-d, the big Yahweh himself is making the switch from carpentry to auto mechanics. Now they didn't get into whether G-d was a salaried employee or whether he gets overtime as an hourly employee, but who needs a 27-point safety inspection when G-d is on the job to change your oil, lube your joints and ensure that your tires are inflated to the proper level for both safety and gas mileage? I mean, having a mechanic whose skill is divinely inspired, rather than the result of training and experience, just HAS to extend the life of your car.
Unless, of course, G-d has decided to take you into his bosom, in which case you're fucked, he'll probably cut your brake lines. And you'll have deserved it.
Sunday, August 24, 2008
Gods for atheists
There ARE indeed gods that atheists can get behind. Kipling wrote about them.
Unfortunately, those kinds of gods aren't terribly discriminate, and many of we sons of Martha will shoulder the price, too.
Unfortunately, those kinds of gods aren't terribly discriminate, and many of we sons of Martha will shoulder the price, too.
Wednesday, August 20, 2008
AGR+ Militant Atheism
The Pompotous of love is married to a wonderful, intelligent, kind, patient woman. Who is a Christian of sorts, an Episcopalian to be precise, but not one of the "let's go to church because that's where the money and status congregate" types of Episcopalians I knew as a young Pompotous. She does indeed believe in some sort of supernatural something or other.
Everybody has AGR. This religious belief of hers (along with her perpetual optimism about what she can actually accomplish in a limited amount of time) rank as her high points of AGR.
But over the years of our interactions I've think I've identified some things that may be the roots of the "militant atheism" moniker that has been the topic of discussion lately. (Various blogs have touched it, the most excellent vjack's is always a good place to go.)
Here's the thing: for those of us steeped in the humanities, you go off and do history and historiography and philosophy and cognitive science and phenomenology and psychology and so on and so forth, each discipline taking itself as the lens through which the entire world can be viewed, and if you are interested in consciousness, one of the things that you eventually come across is that sanity is primarily a socially defined construct.
Yeah, yeah, almost everything is a socially defined construct, got it, when does the interesting part come in?
Well, we have all these social constructs that point out what is right and what is wrong, what is "other" and bad, what is acceptable and what isn't. (Think of homosexuality being in the DSM until what, '73? Or putting "God" into the Pledge of Allegiance in the 1950's to distinguish the US from "godless" communism. The various ways various groups (Irish, Italians, Jews) have been integrated into American society over time.) The more complicated a society is, the larger it is, the more communication and interactions between people, the more stress will be placed on competing social constructs.
As a professional interaction experience designer, additional interactions complicate things almost exponentially. If you lived in a primitive village and never knew what happened 1/2 a mile beyond the boundaries of the village the simplistic "everything not mandatory is forbidden" (with, of course, memetic variations) might be workable enough. But an empire has to be more flexible. ("Forgive him Caesar- he is a barbarian and thinks that the customs of his tribe are the laws of nature," as Shaw wrote.)
Reason and the scientific method provide us with the tools to examine social constructs as objectively as humanly possible. Most people cannot use those tools. Some of them can only use those tools in limited areas (think so-called "scientists" who claim the scientific method should only be used in the job or in the lab, not in real life, where faith should prevail).
But enough people have been exposed to the scientific method and the fruits of scientific discovery to see, hey, it works! Like the cartoon, only some really fringe anti-evolutionist cases are going to take the antibiotic that worked 20 years ago instead of the one designed to combat the evolved form of the infection.
So when an atheist steps up and says, "Keep your baseless historico-social construct out of my life" what we're really saying is, "You have high AGR -- you have a disconnect with reality." If you believe in something without evidence to back up your beliefs you are, in point of fact, insane.
If some politician started making decisions based on World of Warcraft lore and trying to make policy based on Horde versus Alliance affiliation, that politician would be widely viewed as insane. But from the Pompotous's viewpoint, a politician standing up and talking about faith being a deciding factor in decisions is much the same as yelling, "Horde rules!" during a senate debate. It reveals a disconnect with reality, it reveals high AGR.
My wife knows I think she is insane. But she knows that I admit my own insanity -- everybody has AGR to a greater or lesser extent.
Religion and faith play by different rules. A religionist looks at somebody else who is a different religion and they are wrong or heretics or apostate or whatever, and you may kill them or torture them or pray for them or whatever, but the other whackos are playing at a similar level of AGR.
I've seen several atheists use the argument that religionists are atheists to every god except their own and that's just not true. A religionist's denial of other gods is not based on reason and evidence and all those other good things, it is based on faith and thus isn't atheism. Religion is not rational. That doesn't mean that any specific theist is dangerous -- not all crazy people are dangerous -- but it does mean that every specific theist is irrational on the subject of religion.
Any atheistic declaration is an attack on the theists sanity in a "you people aren't connected to reality" way. That's the attack. That's the "militant" position. It's not comparing apples to apples in a communal way of "mine is better," it's saying, "all of your apples have the same existence in reality as the 'tea' my 2-year old daughter pores for me out of her empty play teapot."
Atheism based in rationality and the scientific method is utterly at odds with religionists about how reality is determined. That is a deep conflict. Imagine someone made it to 40 still believing that Santa Claus personally put his presents under the tree after coming through the chimney -- wouldn't an anti-Clausian's attempt to persuade the poor fool of reality be seen as an attack upon his world?
Everybody has AGR. This religious belief of hers (along with her perpetual optimism about what she can actually accomplish in a limited amount of time) rank as her high points of AGR.
But over the years of our interactions I've think I've identified some things that may be the roots of the "militant atheism" moniker that has been the topic of discussion lately. (Various blogs have touched it, the most excellent vjack's is always a good place to go.)
Here's the thing: for those of us steeped in the humanities, you go off and do history and historiography and philosophy and cognitive science and phenomenology and psychology and so on and so forth, each discipline taking itself as the lens through which the entire world can be viewed, and if you are interested in consciousness, one of the things that you eventually come across is that sanity is primarily a socially defined construct.
Yeah, yeah, almost everything is a socially defined construct, got it, when does the interesting part come in?
Well, we have all these social constructs that point out what is right and what is wrong, what is "other" and bad, what is acceptable and what isn't. (Think of homosexuality being in the DSM until what, '73? Or putting "God" into the Pledge of Allegiance in the 1950's to distinguish the US from "godless" communism. The various ways various groups (Irish, Italians, Jews) have been integrated into American society over time.) The more complicated a society is, the larger it is, the more communication and interactions between people, the more stress will be placed on competing social constructs.
As a professional interaction experience designer, additional interactions complicate things almost exponentially. If you lived in a primitive village and never knew what happened 1/2 a mile beyond the boundaries of the village the simplistic "everything not mandatory is forbidden" (with, of course, memetic variations) might be workable enough. But an empire has to be more flexible. ("Forgive him Caesar- he is a barbarian and thinks that the customs of his tribe are the laws of nature," as Shaw wrote.)
Reason and the scientific method provide us with the tools to examine social constructs as objectively as humanly possible. Most people cannot use those tools. Some of them can only use those tools in limited areas (think so-called "scientists" who claim the scientific method should only be used in the job or in the lab, not in real life, where faith
But enough people have been exposed to the scientific method and the fruits of scientific discovery to see, hey, it works! Like the cartoon, only some really fringe anti-evolutionist cases are going to take the antibiotic that worked 20 years ago instead of the one designed to combat the evolved form of the infection.
So when an atheist steps up and says, "Keep your baseless historico-social construct out of my life" what we're really saying is, "You have high AGR -- you have a disconnect with reality." If you believe in something without evidence to back up your beliefs you are, in point of fact, insane.
If some politician started making decisions based on World of Warcraft lore and trying to make policy based on Horde versus Alliance affiliation, that politician would be widely viewed as insane. But from the Pompotous's viewpoint, a politician standing up and talking about faith being a deciding factor in decisions is much the same as yelling, "Horde rules!" during a senate debate. It reveals a disconnect with reality, it reveals high AGR.
My wife knows I think she is insane. But she knows that I admit my own insanity -- everybody has AGR to a greater or lesser extent.
Religion and faith play by different rules. A religionist looks at somebody else who is a different religion and they are wrong or heretics or apostate or whatever, and you may kill them or torture them or pray for them or whatever, but the other whackos are playing at a similar level of AGR.
I've seen several atheists use the argument that religionists are atheists to every god except their own and that's just not true. A religionist's denial of other gods is not based on reason and evidence and all those other good things, it is based on faith and thus isn't atheism. Religion is not rational. That doesn't mean that any specific theist is dangerous -- not all crazy people are dangerous -- but it does mean that every specific theist is irrational on the subject of religion.
Any atheistic declaration is an attack on the theists sanity in a "you people aren't connected to reality" way. That's the attack. That's the "militant" position. It's not comparing apples to apples in a communal way of "mine is better," it's saying, "all of your apples have the same existence in reality as the 'tea' my 2-year old daughter pores for me out of her empty play teapot."
Atheism based in rationality and the scientific method is utterly at odds with religionists about how reality is determined. That is a deep conflict. Imagine someone made it to 40 still believing that Santa Claus personally put his presents under the tree after coming through the chimney -- wouldn't an anti-Clausian's attempt to persuade the poor fool of reality be seen as an attack upon his world?
AGR+ Gay Marriage
The Pompotous touched earlier on the issue of gay marriage in a rather rough sort of rant. Over at Pharyngula a similar topic showed up while PZ was on a trip (the problem is we exist). And there were a few comments made about the appropriateness of a "gay" issue being on a science and atheism blog.
"Science" isn't a collection of facts and hierarchies of description. (I'm sure all of you can sympathize with the "it's JUST a theory!" crap the vomit-bags shout about evolution. Yeah, so is gravity, dimwit, how about stepping off a tall building?)
Science is about reasoning and investigating and continuing to explore the universe to reduce our inherent attenuated grasp of reality. It is a wonderful thing. The people who are "against" homosexuality suffer from AGR. Most of them (if not almost all) base their arguments on religious prejudices.
The exact same reasoning methods that demonstrate atheism to be the lowest AGR viewpoint on religion also demonstrate that gender discrimination in marriage contracts is a high AGR viewpoint, and as such should be opposed by atheists and scientists.
"Science" isn't a collection of facts and hierarchies of description. (I'm sure all of you can sympathize with the "it's JUST a theory!" crap the vomit-bags shout about evolution. Yeah, so is gravity, dimwit, how about stepping off a tall building?)
Science is about reasoning and investigating and continuing to explore the universe to reduce our inherent attenuated grasp of reality. It is a wonderful thing. The people who are "against" homosexuality suffer from AGR. Most of them (if not almost all) base their arguments on religious prejudices.
The exact same reasoning methods that demonstrate atheism to be the lowest AGR viewpoint on religion also demonstrate that gender discrimination in marriage contracts is a high AGR viewpoint, and as such should be opposed by atheists and scientists.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)