Here we go again, back from another too-long, unannounced absence. And this time I failed to post a blog carnival, too!

(What happened? One thing: I was sick the days before it was to be posted and hence was unable to complete the carnival post as I only received like two submissions - TWO things: I was sick and only received like two submissions and then I couldn’t get hold of Irradiatus (who’s in charge of the carnival) - THREE things… you get where this is going. A number of circumstances conspired to stop me from posting the carnival, and then I was swept up in a flurry of real life activities precluding me from feeling inclined to blog much. Although I have no qualms about leaving my personal blog unattended, I feel horribly guilty about letting the Carnival of Evolution down. I will not offer to host a carnival again anytime soon, that’s for sure. I clearly can’t be trusted.)

So, what’s up? I’m on the last leg of a course called Molecular Ecology at the moment. It’s been good fun, studying a wide range of topics from population genetics to phylogeography to the use of pheromones in agriculture. It has definitely strengthened my resolve to focus on phylgenetics/systematics and historical biogeography in the future, as nothing makes my science gland tingle like those subjects. Unfortunately, I was handed a pretty dull topic for the last project on the course, so the last week is going to be a bit of a drag.

In other news, christmas has come and gone. If anyone’s curious about how a secular Swedish christmas is celebrated, I wrote about it last year. Also, on December 28 I passed the quarter-century milestone on my life’s journey (this being a very poetic way of saying I’m 25 and hence officially old - of course, if you ask my boyfriend, I’ve always been old, but on the morn of my birthday he upgraded me from “27″ to a “million billion years”). My birthday gift was a bed, which I’m very excited about, and which should arrive in a couple of weeks. Other news on the personal front include the fact that I finally caved in and took up WoW again. At the moment, however, I’m on a forced hiatus due to lack of money… And yes, I have used up my trials, thanks for asking.

On the humanism front, the Stockholm section of the Swedish Humanist Youth Organisation now has bi-weekly meetups at a café on Söder, which is good fun. One would think there’s a risk we run out of topics to talk about, but so far that hasn’t seemed to happen. After all, it’s not like we’re forbidden to discuss things outside of humanism. (Does sex count as on or off topic?) Also on the SHYO front, I co-authored an article in response to a letter to the editor in Kristianstadsbladet. It’s about morals, Darwin and nazis. I may translate it at some point. Tobias has also commented the letter on his brand new blog Yttranden (good luck with it, Tobias!).

That’s it for now. Now we all wait with baited breath to see how long I can keep it up this time…

humanism, biology, christmas

A long time ago I told PatrikP I’d get back to his very long comment to a blog post of mine in a new blog post. Since then I’ve barely been blogging at all but now that I’m making some sort of effort at getting back into it, I’m going to make true my promise.

The patronizing attitude that just about always accompany the “enlightened” atheists’ description of believing persons (after all “even nice, intelligent christians are still, well, christians”) is both sad and not very constructive.

As an “activist atheist”, you quickly get used to the claim that atheists are arrogant. This claim comes from people who purport to know that there exists a being for which no evidence can be produced, who is all-knowing, all-powerful and who loves everyone equally and yet - depending on who you ask - is fairly likely to let me suffer in hell for all eternity, simply for being true to myself following the evidence instead of trusting in Invisible Sky-Daddy. And I’m the arrogant one?

This is (or was) a blog primarily written for humanists and atheists, so if the occasional sentence sounds patronising (matronising?) to someone who doesn’t agree with me, that’s really the way it has to be. I experience the same thing whenever talking to or reading a blog written by those who don’t share my views (and even fairly often when talking to those who do, simply because I’m young and female). In short? Suck it up, Patrik, and don’t take it personally.

Isn’t your question to Sandlund reversible? Isn’t it just as reasonable to ask a dedicated, utterly and completely convinced atheist (as yourself) the same question? How do you know that you really happen to believe in the right version of description of reality, when there are so many of them? Isn’t it problematic that you – and others who share your rigid opinions about the god-question – beyond any doubt whatsoever believe that your version of the construction and description of reality is by “empirical” definition the only corrrect one?

You assume way too much about how convinced I am that god doesn’t exist. My non-belief in god is about as strong as your non-belief in the Invisible Pink Unicorn. There might be a god, but there’s no evidence for that hypothesis, and hence I will consider it false until otherwise proven. Otherwise I’d have to believe in the existence of everything my mind could possibly come up with, since it is impossible to prove the non-existence of something.

Besides, my question to her was more specific, it was about how she knows that her version of christianity is correct. That is, I wasn’t asking her to compare her worldview’s strengths and weaknesses to everyone else’s - just the people who supposedly share the core tenets of her own, since they all use the same label.

Isn’t it also a bit arrogant to claim – or actually demand – the falsification of someone else’s conviction about the constitution of reality and at the same time deny any posibility that your own specific conviction is in any way near even the possibility of falsification – as is usually the case when the topic God is touched upon by Dawkins/Hitchens/Sturmark disciples? (Is a mind that excludes any possibilty of the falsification of its own presuppositions even close to the ideal of a humans being’s open mind being the main and most important tool for reasons’s search of a deeper and more truthful understanding of reality?)

If atheism could be falsified that would be lovely. If you think it’s arrogant to demand evidence for a positive belief, that’s really your problem, you know? I can’t help the way reality is constructed.

ETA: I’m an idiot. Of course atheism can be falsified. If god provided some nice evidence of its existance, atheism would be as falsified as they come. So far, this hasn’t happened, except according to the bible - and the Koran, and numerous other books and oral story traditions. Oddly enough, no miracles seem to happen in this modern era of communication, when it would be so easy for god to show vast numbers of primates that it really does exist… Ok now I’m rambling. The point is that the way many christians have “constructed” god, it’s impossible to falsify. It’s always one step away, hiding behind the next corner, and can never be studied in any meaningful fashion. And no, personal revelation is not meaningful, because it would rip holes in reality if everyone’s ideas about the world actually affected it…

Can one really claim intellectual consistency and honesty when one subject others’ understandings of the construction and understanding of reality to scrutinizing questioning (mainly directed at a christian perspective that there is a God who relates to people and humanity) and at the same time rebuke that the same questions can and should be asked about one’s own understandings, convictions and presuppositions? This usually seems to be the case when Dawkins/Hitchens/Sturmark disciples argue that their “empirically” defined reality is untouchably correct and all other by the same definition is false.

I’m sorry but it’s just not possible to ask the same questions about the non-existence of something as there is about the existence of something. Please tell me how we are to disprove the existence of the IPU. I’ve never heard either of the three you mention argue that our view of the world is “untouchably” correct - in fact it’s constantly revised, because, y’know, that’s what science is for. Creating a better and better model of the universe. This might mean that I have to seriously revise my understanding of reality if I happen to live in the time of a paradigm shift. Now, the only difference, I assume, between us and you, is that we’re materialists. We don’t believe anything exists outside or apart from the empirical world. This is, again, simply because we’ve seen no evidence to the contrary. Are you seriously proposing that we believe in everything we haven’t seen any evidence for?

It is a problem for the discussion that on the atheist’s side of the Swedish debate-arena today there seems to be a limited interest for important questions that connect to the way humans write, speak and relate to their inviroment and to reality. (Besides the physiological/neurological functions that cause or are caused by the human’s interaction with the enviroment that is.)

Usually there is little, if any, attention payed to for instance the understanding of human language and its functions in speech and writing, or to philosophical definitions of the realms of thinking, or to the fact that a theological question like that of theodicy cannot even be discussed outside of a theologically defined realm of thought, or to the fact that theological claims rarely claim what the regular secular Swedish atheist claim them to claim, or to the fact that there are massive amounts of thoughts by people like Kant, Kierkegaard, Sjestov, Dostojevski, Nietzsche and others that actually go into the depths of the questions concerning the constitution of human thinking about the human existential situation.

These are only a few of the questions that the average Swedish atheist of today usually don’t want to relate to, which causes a mindset about the world’s constitution that is constituated by the delusion that it isn’t a mindset but truth itself and that the own mindset is in no need of distinction or correction. The consequence usually being a complete lack on humbleness in relationship to other human beings’ understandings of reality, if their understandings are other than the atheists’ own. This in turn causes the less constructive patronizing attitude. The patronizing school of thought is quite apparent in the writings and speeches of Dawkins, Hitchens, Sturmark and their followers. It is not constructive, sad and at the same time baffling since the apparent lack of understanding of differing descriptions of reality usually comes from the ones that claim to understand the most.

Maybe it’s because I just got up but I’m afraid I simply don’t follow. All I can say is that different people come from different backgrounds and have different areas of interest and expertise. I’m just a biologist. I really don’t have time for Kant, Kierkegaard etcetera, because right now I have to give my all to resilience, and toucans.

I would like to suggest a reading of for instance Nietzsche, that deconstructed not only religion’s claims on absolute truth but also science’s absurd claims to constituate absolute truth (a short synopsis of one of his texts that relates to this topic is available in Swedish here: http://teologiforum.blogspot.com/2008/03/nietzsches-vad-betyder-asketiska-ideal.html).

Ok, I keep hearing that science has claims to absolute truth. When did “science” claim this? Seriously, Patrik, please provide me with sourced quotes.

There is no absolute truth. There’s only models of reality. Scientists who think they’re dealing with absolute truth are either religious in some way, megalomaniacs or simply poorly educated.

A more humble and less patronizing attitude toward eachother would help us all to make the world both better and more intelligble.

I’m sorry but I think your reply was every bit as arrogant as my post. And you know what? I really don’t care. We can still debate. Sure, in social interactions with people whom I know or suspect do not share my views, I’ll be a little more careful with my words, simply because I’m a tribal ape who don’t want to piss off the people I depend on. But in debates where we both know that the other thinks they’re right about something we strongly disagree with … it’s impossible not to come across to the other as arrogant, without mincing your words to such an extent that your own side will start seeing you as an appeaser.

So to those of you who think I’m too arrogant on my own blog, please grow a thicker skin or simply sod off. You could be doing something much more productive with your time than reading this god-forsaken mess! Why are you still here? Go out and enjoy the world!

And to those of you who reminded me to respond to Patrik, I’m sorry I couldn’t come up with something more profound than this. I really shouldn’t blog in the morning.

religion, science, christianity, atheism, humanism, arrogance

Is it possible to get too much of a good thing? I guess it depends on what you’re talking about. In this instance, I’m talking about my fellow board members in the Swedish Humanist Youth Organisation (Unga Humanister). Yesterday, after a seven hour board session at a café we withdrew for a while, only for a sizeable portion of us to reconvene at a later time - for six more hours of socialising.

I think this is more socialising than I have done in a year. One would think that thirteen hours in the company of the same few people should be enough, but really, I can’t wait to hang out with them again. And at least part of the reason why is our shared worldview and values. As much as I enjoy discussing god with believers, and the like, being around other humanists allows for deeper discussions about things like “what is consciousness?” simply because we accept the same premises (in this case, no soul). I’m sure this is blatantly obvious and unnecessary to state, but I do think that humanism suffers from the lack of regular social activities such as those churches provide. To be surrounded by likeminded people in a social setting allows you to relax and not feel like you have to mince your words.

The SHYO wants to provide this for humanistic youth in Sweden. It’s difficult, since we don’t have a given place to gather, but I think we can make it.

humanism, mushrooms

Tonight, the president of the Swedish Humanist Association, Christer Sturmark, will meet Ulf Ekman, the founder of a prominent evangelical, charismatic christian cult in a debate. The cult in question is called Livets Ord, lit. Word of Life. It was invented by Ulf Ekman in 1983 (the year of my birth, incidentally). Some would probably object to my calling it a cult, especially since they’ve toned down the more controversial stuff in order to be more accepted in mainstream society. But a lot of to me very scary beliefs remain; the guilt and shame complex, the idea that homosexuality is a sin, and that women should submit to their husbands (even though men and women are supposedly equal under god - how they reconcile the two is an interesting exercise in twisted “equal but different” logic).

The debate takes place in Livets Ord’s home town, Uppsala, in fact in their own buildings, and there’s likely to be a lot of cult members there. Me and a few other Humanists will attend but we’re probably most definitely going to be a minority. Those of you who know Swedish can follow the debate live from Livets Ord’s webpage. It will also be aired on SVT2 on friday at 9:30 in the morning.

livets ord, ulf ekman, christer sturmark, humanism, christianity

The president of the Swedish Humanist Association is one Christer Sturmark, a 40-something man whom the media like to point out wears a pony-tail and a gold ring in his ear, and who is often referred to (by the same media) as an old IT guru. Be that as it may, he has brought the SHA to the forefront of public debate, leading to an amazing increase in membership and resources with which to battle religious fundamentalism, pseudoscientific woo and other things humanism opposes, as well as improving our own various ceremonial services and other activities. That the SHA has Sturmark to thank for most of this, I doubt anyone would contradict.

He is not entirely uncontroversial, however, and lately there have been a few elements within the SHA spreading what can only be seen as disinformation intended to hurt his reputation, regarding his personal life. I will not dwell on the exact nature of this discussion because it’s actually rather stupid. What is interesting though is what these people, when they have met with resistance from within the association, have done. A specific question has been raised: Are we allowed to criticise The Leader? Is the SHA in actuality a sect-like organisation?

This is obviously beyond ridiculous, and here’s why:

Christer Sturmark is not Our Leader. Nor is Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, Cristopher Hitchens, Daniel Dennett, or any other prominent atheist or humanist you can think of. There are prominent thinkers within this loosely-held-together movement. There are prominent debaters, there are presidents of organisations, there are board members and there are people who are famous for other reasons who ally themselves with us (Björn Ulvaeus of ABBA fame being the obvious example in Sweden).

Many of us feel grateful to these people, for standing up for our worldview and beliefs, for taking the slings and arrows of the religious counter-attacks, and for developing and refining our worldview and the arguments for it.

But, and this is the important bit, they don’t tell us what to think or do. They don’t tell us what we believe. None of us went to a tent revival where Pastor Dawkins made us see the light and repent. There is no God and Sturmark is most definitely not his Prophet. Most atheists who were ever anything but atheists are self-converts - they thought about their worldview and realised it was wrong. Books and speeches by prominent atheists and humanists may have helped, but in the end, this is a thoroughly individualistic movement, which requires all members to make up their own minds. (In fact, the SHA has an age limit of 12, as we think it’s unethical to ally your children with a worldview organisation before they have had the chance to make up their own mind.)

Sturmark is an individual who happens to be the president of the SHA. I’m an individual who happens to be a member of the SHA. I do not think that just because he’s the president, his beliefs are more humanistic than mine, and that I ought to defer to him in everything related to our worldview. I do recognise authority where it is due, but this is not one of those cases. So yes, it is perfectly okay to criticise people like Sturmark, or for that matter the “Four Horsemen”. The fact that such criticism is often ignored, or sometimes vehemently disagreed with, does not reflect any sect-like tendencies, but rather suggests two things:

The first is that most atheists/humanists either agree with what these public faces of atheism/humanism think, or feel such a debt of gratitude that they feel obliged to defend them.

The second is that because of the very fact that these people aren’t Leaders, in the way that the Pope is the Leader of the Catholic church, there is no obligation on us (the members) to defend or denounce them.

The point here is that while for instance Ted Haggard’s behaviour was extremely important to the members of his church, because he purported to speak for a Higher Authority, such is not the case when it comes to Sturmark or other official leaders of the humanist/atheist movement. It may damage our reputation with other people outside the movement when our elected leaders make mistakes, but among us, we know that all humans are just that - human. Everyone makes mistakes, and if we made a mistake in electing a particular leader, so be it. Because we never claimed that these people are perfect representations of all it means to be a humanist, there is no need to act as though it’s the end of the world when they do something we don’t agree with - at least so long as they don’t claim to do it in the name of the movement.

My conclusion is that those within the movement who accuse us of cult-like tendencies are actually displaying the very same tendencies themselves, as they seem to suffer under the delusion that a person has to be without fault to be eligible to lead the movement!

humanism, atheism, sturmark, cults

There is a lovely interview with a member of the Swedish Humanist Association in SvD, titled “Att lämna tron var en befrielse” - “To leave faith was liberating”. Markus Anhage was formerly a very devout member of the Pentecostal church, a faith inherited from his parents.

The belief in God was as self-evident as the fil on the breakfast table. His family prayed and went to church regularly. But over Markus’ twelfth summer, something happened to his faith. He started burning, as they said in the pentecostal assembly. Every morning he got up an hour earlier to pray before he went to school. “God your will be done in heaven, your will be done in Sweden, your will be done at school. Let your kingdom come to me. Thank you Jesus for dying for me”, and so on.

Religion was everything to Markus, and consequently he was an outsider at school. The other kids bullied him and scribbled “hate god!” on his locker. But he wasn’t sad, after all, the bible said that christians should expect to be mocked for their faith. He saw the bullying as a receipt: He had the right religion.

Markus’ teenage years were mostly happy, but towards the end of high school he started experiencing doubts. How could there be so much evil in the world if God was good? He became depressed, and saw it as an attack from the devil. He refers to this time in his life as the “ambivalent” period. Eventually,

Markus heard that he could read about other religions, he would still find that christianity was the best one. For the first time in his life he read critiques of the bible, he devoured religious encyclopaediae from cover to cover, he studied philsophy and surfed muslim webpages. But instead of strengthening his faith, he lost it.

“I know that there are people, but I don’t know if there are gods. Therefore I focus on the humans. Science is limited and our intellects are limited. I have many questions and empty holes, but I don’t stick God, spirits or demons in them anymore.”

Two years ago his son was born with a heart defect, and needed a pacemaker when he was two years old. Markus couldn’t reconcile this with people’s claims of small miracles such as God helping them find an apple. He finally took the step and left his church. He describes the experience as physically liberating: It was suddenly easier to walk. No longer did he have to fear hell, no longer was he plagued by guilt over his human weaknesses. Finally, he was allowed to think for himself. But his wife is still in the church and he felt lonely. He joined the Swedish Humanist Association, looking for others like him, someone to talk to.

He points out that just like there are both wonderful and intolerant people in churches, there are both wonderful and intolerant people in non-religious groups. He wishes groups would intermingle more, instead of christians, muslims, atheists and others staying apart, refusing to communicate and try to understand each other.

To help people like himself get in touch with others in the same situation, he has started a network called Exkristen, “Ex-christian”.

Despite the very gentle tone of the article and the fact that Markus comes across as a very kind and tolerant individual who openly discusses the pain of losing his faith and how much better he feels afterwards, many of the comments to the article read as personal criticisms of his character and life choices. Especially against the choice of joining the SHA, which someone describes as a “religion devoid of feelings”. I have been subject to the same treatment when, about a year ago, I was in a similar article in the same newspaper. I was derided and accused of being a haughty and immature girl, thinking I know everything, and that “I’d probably come round as I got older”. I don’t understand why some people have trouble accepting that people might feel better without faith in an invisible friend, and why having strong opinions and a penchant for natural science translates into thinking you know everything. I don’t know any atheists personally who’d anonymously throw personal criticism in the face of religious people, but apparently the golden rule doesn’t apply if you’re religious and feel your faith’s being threatened.

It’s really depressing, especially given how few people are actually religious in Sweden. Thankfully, most of the commenters on Markus’ article seem to be nice, generous people who supports his decision and applauds him for being brave and open about it.

atheism, christianity, sweden, apostasy, ex-christian, humanism

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