Greg Laden has written a good post on the recent slaughter of a tiger.

That phrase is ambiguous on purpose. Tatiana the tiger killed someone, and was killed for it. It’s a tiger-eat-man-and-gets-shot-down world, eh? As Laden says:

It should always be assumed that large carnivores are deadly…. that’s why we call them l a r g e … c a r n i v o r e s…. See? Carn - i - vores = meat eater. Large meat eater. Large meat eating beast. Look out! Why do people not get this?

He goes on to question the very existence of zoos. Zoo visitors are notoriously bad at behaving themselves, often taunting the animals, trespassing and in other ways putting themselves and others in danger.

Should there be zoos, then? A couple of years back I visited what I believe is the largest zoo in Sweden as part of a course in ethology. We got to personally meet a pack of four male wolves, which was an extremely powerful experience, as well as see the “backstage” lion cage. We were told not to go too close to the bars, because although they were quite close together, lions could still fit a claw or two through them, and these captive lions have absolutely no respect for humans. That’s what happens when you try to treat large carnivores well: They see you as a bipedal snack. Wild lions at least have marginal respect for humans, because they don’t know us as well.

Let’s just say a male lion lunging at you is one of the scariest things imaginable. Even if there are thick iron bars between you and him.

One of my coursemates made the mistake of staring into the eyes of a silverback gorilla a moment too long. That also created quite a ruckus.

Anyway, apart from the large carnivores, the zoo obviously also keeps dolphins, giraffes and other animals. We were told that apart from quite a lot of research being done on site, many of the endangered animals are used for breeding. Zoos, the keepers explained, exist for conservation purposes.

I can understand that, and I don’t really see any better way. If we need to help animals to breed, then we need to keep animals in captivity in some way. The question, I suppose, is whether zoos should really be built for visitors (other than students of biology), or whether we ought to start thinking ONLY of conservation and research. Chances are the cages would then be constructed in ways better for the animals and safer for the humans. But the educational aspect and public outreach would be completely lost. Are a few maimed visitors and mad monkeys worth it?

zoo, carnivores, tigers, lions, wolves

We need to upgrade our satellites so we can receive binary data. But that should be an easy thing to do!

My significant other is currently playing the game UFO: Afterlight. It seems alright, although it’s rather silly that humans refer to their own spacecraft as ufos. Do they build them wearing blindfolds? When they board them, do they cover their eyes? “Don’t look! If we identify it, it might not be able to fly afterwards!”

And then of course there’s the quote (or paraphrase, as I can’t recall the exact wording) above. What in the world were they receiving before? Just a long series of ones? “We are receiving data from the people still on earth. It says: Daaaaaaaaaaaaah.”

What is it with script writers and their complete inability to find a grad student or two to go through the game and look for blatant scientific blunders?

gaming, science, treknobabble

Before I say anything else, I would like to point out that it is not at all weird for a Swedish person to be blogging on christmas day. The only thing special about today is that it’s a bank holiday - the actual christmas celebration took place yesterday. Which brings me to the actual topic of this post, a topic which seems to be very popular among secularist bloggers this time of year: Us godless atheists and our supposed difficulties with the holiday season.

The ridiculous figment “War on Christmas” aside, I’ve seen quite a few very snide remarks about atheists and humanists and how we obviously don’t celebrate christmas, and how we probably would like to forbid it altogether as the spoilsports we are. The fact that most of us celebrate christmas like any other person, and are not ashamed to admit this, is completely irrelevant to the people making these arguments, as they live in their own little imaginary world where atheists are all, if not the spawn of satan, then at least cousins of the grinch.

So how do I celebrate christmas? Eating with my family, like most other Swedes. Religion plays a very marginal role in Swedish christmas celebrations, mostly present in the form of music. In my family the only overtly religious tradition we follow is the lighting of the advent candles, the four candles of increasing height that can be seen at the back of the table in the picture. They’re lit sequentially on the sundays of advent, the fourth on christmas eve. But, for the most part, a regular Swedish christmas is a modernised pagan solstice feast centered on the consumption of vast amounts of a variety of seasonal food.

The crown of the “julbord” (literally “christmas table”, a seasonal variant of the smörgåsbord) is the christmas ham, a large ham which has been soaking in a solution of salt and sugar for ten days before you stick it in the oven. Then there should be meatballs, small sausages, various kinds of pickled herring, and so on ad infinitum. An interesting specialty is “dopp i grytan” (lit. “dipping in the pot”), where you take a piece of bread and soak it in a fat, salty broth and eat it with ham. Presumably back in poorer days, this was a way of making stale bread more palatable. Not all families prepare all dishes, of course, it’s all a matter of personal preference.

Then there’s obviously a lot of traditional sweets, cookies and other yummy things that should be present to make a christmas feast complete. This year I decided to make christmas sweets as a present to my family - depicted on the right is knäck, a kind of hard toffee with chopped almonds, resembling daim.

A slightly quirky component of a typical family christmas celebration is a reel of Disney cartoons shown every christmas eve at three in the afternoon. As far as I’m aware, most families with children will sit down in front of the television at this point and watch an hour of mostly the same cartoons as they saw last year, with a few changes (there’s a few perennials and then they show clips from the latest Disney movies, presumably to get us to buy them). My family still watches at least part of it, even though the youngest of my siblings is nearly 20 years old.

After the cartoons it’s time for the presents (although my family has developed the unconventional and blatantly, unabashedly materialistic habit of going christmas shopping together before the cartoons), which may be brought by Santa, or may be lying under the tree, which we decorate with most of the usual stuff.

In short, christmas in Secular Sweden is an advanced family dinner preceded by presents and disney cartoons. We celebrate not the birth of christ (which, if it happened at all, at least didn’t happen on December 25) but each other, by giving each other gifts and spending time together. It’s a time to indulge in what’s good in life, and you really don’t have to be christian to do that.

Merry Christmas everyone, and if that offends you, feel free to substitute “Christmas” with the holiday of your choice!

atheism, christmas, sweden

Visitors may have noticed that there is a Quote section in my right-hand sidebar. The quotes are picked from a few select favourites that I have now made available on a new page, the link to which can be found in the left-hand sidebar.

…oh alright, here you go.

Unfortunately I have yet to figure out how to make Blogsome include a comments section on pages that aren’t posts. It’s supposed to be possible but alas I am, apparently, an idiot. (No, you may not quote me on that.) At the very least I’m too tired to wrangle an explanation out of their forums at the moment. The good news is that I’m not an idiot, the bad news is that pages don’t have comment sections. So if you have suggestions for new quotes that I should add, please comment here instead.

Following the open threads Questions for Christians and Questions for Atheists, Hemant posted the topics What Do You Admire About Christians? and What Do You Admire About Atheists?. The results are slightly disconcerting.

Whereas at least a couple of christians posted such kind comments as “not afraid to speak what’s really on their minds”, and “they tend to be thinkers and seekers of the truth beyond religion. They are not afraid to think, discuss, and discover. They are generally open to new ideas and new ways of thinking. They are not afraid of evolving thoughts,” there wasn’t much by ways of reciprocity. Several atheists unabashedly stated that there simply isn’t anything, or stated their admiration in such a way as to distance themselves from religion in no uncertain terms (eg. “I admire the fact that most Christians are better than their religion”). If they admire a person who is a christian, it’s not because of their christianity, but other personal attributes.

And I must admit, I’m one of those many atheists who simply can’t think of anything there is to be admired about being a christian (or a person of any other faith). There are no good personality traits that seem to go hand in hand with a predisposition for religion, whereas atheists do in fact tend to be more freethinking, skeptical and rational on average (all qualities I see as positive), at least such is the experience of me and many others. Christians tend to give more to charities, on average, but the question is whether they do that because they’re good people, or because it’s something they feel is required of them because of their faith or by the church they belong to.

Of course, it’s entirely possible that this here is the very thing I should be looking for: Maybe christians are admirable because they are capable of seeing something good about atheists, whereas we can’t do the same for them? But that doesn’t ring true, given that there are so many christians who seem to entertain the hobby of gleefully reminding us that we are going to hell.

In the end, all humans must obviously be judged as individuals. There is no stereotype atheist or christian that can represent the entirety of atheism or christianity. Not all atheists are skeptical and not all christians are charitable. But how are we going to be able to conduct a constructive dialogue between atheists and liberal christians when it’s so blatantly obvious that atheists in general have no admiration or respect for the most deeply held beliefs of the other side? Are christians really able to overlook this?

atheism, christianity, religion

Bob Churchill (Popper’s Troll-man Thing), whom I first got to know through the Brights’ Forum, has landed a job as Database, IT and Website Manager for the British Humanist Association. Congratulations, and good luck working on the new website (due to be launched “early in 2008″) - we’re all very much looking forward to it…

british humanist association

For some reason I seem to be getting a steady trickle of visitors who have googled for “death”, in a variety of interesting combinations, such as:

• astrology death
• atheist freaked out about death
• bee stings death (and of course the old classic, “DEATH AND BEES“)
• biologist mysterious death (intriguing…)
• death carnival
• death stuff
• death, but you’re still here
• life at death
• post human death energy
• systematics death dawkins (…what?!)
• things to do before death (how about … everything?)
• what people see before death (again … they’re not gonna see anything afterwards!)
• “roundabout” deaths

The latest one in the line is this:

• how they treat death in sweden

To answer the question: Uh… we don’t. I think death is one of those conditions well known for being, well, incurable.

death

Continued from last night, here are some more questions asked over on Friendly Atheist. They all come from the same person, who is currently having a dialogue with some of the other commenters in that thread, and I guess the questions may have been aimed at them specifically - but I’m not letting that stop me.

1. Do you have any intention of trying to understand the opposing views and why they believe what they believe, or do you only wish to discredit them?

I’m sorry but this question sounds more like an attack than an honest inquiry. It’s sort of like asking “Have you stopped beating your wife yet?”

I have been trying to understand religious people and their beliefs since I first started thinking seriously about these questions as a young adult. I have on occasion picked up the bible and other religious texts and pored over them for a little while, but unfortunately they have a tendency to be incredibly boring, or so ludicrous that the very idea that some people take them literally offends me. So yes, I certainly have the intention of trying to understand, it just doesn’t ever happen. On some sort of emotional level I can understand the comfort of having a supreme being as your Invisible Friend, but intellectually the idea is so jarring that the profound understanding needed for actual respect lies beyond my abilities.

I presume whomever is reading this is now thinking “What, respect? Felicia doesn’t respect religious people?” Well, yes and no. I’ve said this before and I’ll say it again: There is no imperative on anyone to respect other human beings or their beliefs. The only thing we all must respect is other people’s rights. This means that I respect anyone’s right to believe whatever they want, but I actually cannot feel respect for, for instance, the belief in an intelligent designer. In return, I don’t expect anyone to respect my beliefs, but I do expect them to respect my right to possess as well as voice them.

2. What exactly is the difference between pure atheism and Humanism? Is there a difference?

Humanism is a full-fledged worldview, of which atheism is but one component. Atheism simply means that you don’t believe in any gods, and there are no implications for morality, how one should live one’s life or what other things one should or should not believe in. Humanism on the other hand implies that you have a deep respect for human rights, that you oppose all kinds of irrational beliefs including superstition and pseudoscience, and other things. I would suggest reading up on secular humanism on the internet, there are many useful resources online, just go ahead and google.

3. Why is it necessary to label the absence of belief? If you believe in nothing, does nothing need to be labeled?

There are many words that imply the absence of something. Take “hole” and “vacuum” for example. They’re all useful words that describe reality in some way. In a culture that is or has been saturated by (especially monotheistic) religion, it’s very useful to be able to describe the fact that one doesn’t believe in any gods at all. Where I live (Sweden) this isn’t really much of an issue - most people here are already non-religious and don’t feel the need to go any further than that. But the question still occurs at times, and saying “I’m an atheist” is simply just much faster and easier than saying “I don’t believe in the christian god or any other gods for that matter.”

4. There are a broad spectrum of atheists and theists alike. I’ve noticed there are some grey areas where the opposite sides overlap. Do you think it’s possible to gradually increase this area and eventually do away with the labels? Or is that too idealistic?

I doubt it. Humans like well defined groups and thinking in terms of us and them. I’m no exception, however much I would like to rise above such tribal instincts. The utopia described in the question would be easily subverted by a strong leader starting a sect, and this would definitely happen.

5. Going off of #4, do you think us moderate/liberal Christians would be more effective in the fundie circle than here? Maybe we should become members of a fundie church? It’s a very scary thought…

This is a very difficult question. I would like to think that it would be possible to subvert fundie churches from within, but I doubt it. Perhaps liberal christians might be able to “deconvert” individual members from fundamentalism/extremism, but given that these organisations are inherently authoritarian, and that their extremism is in a way the whole reason for their existence, I very much doubt that anyone will make much headway in trying to change them, from without or within.

That’s it for the time being! Again, if anyone is curious about what I think, don’t be shy, use the comment form.

atheism, secularism, humanism, worldviews

Hemant the Friendly Atheist has posted an open thread where anyone may ask questions of us atheists. I thought answering the questions that have come up so far is interesting enough that I’m going to post it here rather than in the comment thread.

Your favourite Standard Question (or statement) from a Believer? The “Atheists have killed more than Christians / Hitler was a Christian” option will not be accepted here.

Ah, but that one is classic. Another one is “If humans evolved from monkeys, why are there still monkeys?”, together with a whole bunch of other anti-evolution statements (which normally come from “Believers”). Also, “Atheists believe in nothing/anything.” Although I think calling them “favourite” is really stretching the term to the extreme…

Where can I find an atheist book, website, magazine, etc. that doesn’t mock or attack or deride religious people or beliefs, but only puts forth a positive vision of what it is to be an atheist?

I’m having some trouble answering this question. I’m not sure me and the author of this question would agree as to what constitutes mocking, attacking or deriding. Being an atheist means you don’t believe in god, and if you’re enough of an activist to actually write a book, website or mag about it, chances are you have some sort of bone to pick with religion. We are atheists for a reason, after all. And, because many religious people tend to feel that any sort of criticism of their beliefs equals mockery, derision or attacks on their person, well… you can see why it would be difficult to answer the question.

Also I must admit I haven’t read anything recently that purely focussed on the positive aspects of being an atheist - or secular humanist, as it were. Atheism isn’t a worldview and writing a whole book on a positive vision of atheism would be like writing a book on the taste of water. Water is necessary for life as well as refreshing when you’re hot and thirsty and atheism is healthy because it’s (usually) rational, but just like you can’t live on water, atheism isn’t a complete set of beliefs to live by.

As an Atheist, what is the one thing you would like Christians to understand about you?

I’m not so sure I can restrict myself to just the one thing. There are several misconceptions about my atheistic worldview that greatly annoy me and sometimes actually personally offend or wound me when thrown in my face in a direct discussion. I can think of three such things just off the top of my head.

The first is that I cannot possibly be happy if I haven’t felt the love of Jesus/Allah/Whomever. This idea that someone else has a more profound and touching emotional/spiritual life purely because they have an invisible friend is not only silly and off-putting but it also makes them seem extremely self-centered and elitist - “I know something you don’t, I feel something you won’t, I am therefore a happier and more fullfilled person than you are.” Well, here’s some news for those of you who think like this: I’m human. I have the same spectrum of emotions as other humans. I feel love and hate (very little of the latter, though), happiness and grief, same as everyone else. I know I can’t change the minds of those who are convinced that their invisible friends give them something that I don’t have, but please, at least don’t offend me by talking about it.

The second misconception is that my desire to look at the world from a rational perspective, through science, to know things about it, detracts from its mystery and hence beauty. Nothing could be more wrong. The world does in fact become more and more exciting and wonderful the more I learn about it. Since I’ve studied ecology, physiology, ethology and other areas of biology my experience of nature has expanded and deepened to the point where I get high just by sitting on a rock in a forest and looking at my surroundings. That is how intensely knowledge affects my emotions.

The third is that atheists don’t have morals. This one is absurd, and has been dealt with so extensively by others much better qualified to discuss it that me, so I’ll just leave it for now. I’ll only state that while I’m by no means a perfectly moral human who always do the right thing, I do try to always do the best I can. Why? Because I can’t not be moral. It is deeply ingrained in my person to treat others as I wish they’d treat me. Exactly why this is is a topic for books, not blog posts!

Ok, so I’ve just seen the Golden Compass and was wondering if Atheists believe that we have souls?

No. I mean, yes, there are atheists out there who do, but I don’t believe in anything supernatural whatsoever. This belief that the world is all-natural isn’t inherent in atheism, but a disbelief in everything supernatural often goes hand in hand with a disbelief in gods in particular. The soul, as most people understand it, is a non-physical entity that resides within your body but is not dependent on it. It hasn’t been detected by any standard scientific methods and because there is now ample evidence that the mind is a product of brain activity, there’s no reason to believe that the soul exists - other than comfort, of course. The lack of a soul means that death is final and irreversible, with no heaven or hell or rebirth to go on to. The perk is that while I really don’t want to die, I’m not scared of going somewhere horrible afterwards.

I will sometimes refer to the soul in a more colloquial sense as an emotional/spiritual center, just like I do with the heart at times. “I know it in my brain” just doesn’t sound as good.

How different do you believe atheists and theists are, really?

Not very. We’re the same species, our brains work the same (as far as we know - at least I’m not aware of any conclusive evidence to the contrary). Why we’re one and not the other can usually be put down very much to circumstance - what sort of people and ideas you were exposed to as a child and young adult, for instance. In the end, we all just pretty much want to live our lives, make babies, be happy. It’s when people start thinking they should interfere in how other people live their lives because their Invisible Friend told them to that things start going wrong. That’s why I’m not like most people in Sweden, who simply don’t care about religion (which is mostly present in people’s lives in the form of some crazy relative or another), but an actual secularist activist, purposefully fighting to preserve secularism and advance a naturalistic worldview.

That’s all so far. If I see any more questions on Friendly Atheist I might respond in a new post. And of course, if you have any questions about my worldview for me specifically, feel free to ask them right here!

ETA: More questions and answers here.

atheism, secularism, humanism, soul, worldviews

Svenska Hjältar (”Swedish Heroes”) is a yearly award to ten people whom in some way have proven to be heroes. This year, one of the winners is Sara Mohammad, who started and is the president of an organisation called Glöm Aldrig Pela och Fadime (”Never Forget Pela and Fadime”). Pela and Fadime were both immigrants from the middle east, and both were killed by their fathers for trying to live a normal life according to Swedish standards, rather than conforming to a lifestyle that according to the fathers would have preserved the family “honour”.

I write “honour” rather than honour because these actions are so revoltingly evil that I can barely grasp that it’s reality. That anyone could hurt and even kill their own child over something as stupid as choice of clothes or spouse is unfathomable. And it has nothing to do with honour.

Sara Mohammad, whose real name is something else, grew up in Iraq under similar conditions - beaten and threatened when refusing to marry an older man her brother had picked for her, she finally agreed, but managed to escape on the day of her wedding and eventually fled to Sweden. Here, she has devoted all her energy to helping women and men escape the same so called “honour culture” that imprisoned her and so many others. She lives in constant danger but cannot imagine doing anything differently.

To Aftonbladet she says:

The police have told me I should stay home and not attend public events, because of the threats. That makes me angry. If I stay at home and stay quiet, that’s game over. The government doesn’t really know what’s happening, they’re not doing enough. What I do has to be done.

Sara Mohammad is also a member of the Swedish Humanist Association, and in the jury as well as participating in the award ceremony on Sunday is high-profile SHA member Björn Ulvaeus.

sara mohammad, honor killing, sweden