When in Rome, do as the Romans do. Or at least, keep quiet about your opinions on their stupid customs. Is there really a point to visiting the blogs of those who disagree with you and telling them they’re wrong?

Via Friendly Atheist I found this post on an astrology blog. It’s an astrological analysis of an author who committed suicide. I must admit I haven’t heard of him before and hence I’m not particularly affected by his death. The astrology post conjures up no feelings in me beyond the usual vague disdain for nonsense.

There are a couple of critical comments on the blog though. One guy says:

Perhaps your head is up Uranus, If you think that the stars had anything to do with this sad situation. I prefer the condolences thanks, not some arcane w@nkery that makes you feel better about yourself.

He probably feels a bit more strongly about this author’s death than I do, which is fair enough really. But one of the astrology-fans replied with this:

I find it highly amusing that people who don’t ‘believe’ in astrology came by to read this post after a couple critics “dissed” it. Isn’t that like looking at pictures of a naked woman and then being offended that she is naked?

And that, I find to be an insightful comment.

See, I don’t think enroaching on other people’s territory and telling them they’re wrong is a good idea. Unless they’re directly harming people, I think it’s respectless to bring our protests not just to their doorstep but into their homes. When I’m in a church, I don’t start arguing with the priest about god’s existence - I’m on his territory (or hers, as the case may be). I think that when I’m invited somewhere, it sort of goes without saying that I should apply at least a little bit of “when in Rome”-thinking. And of course the reverse applies as well. Let’s say a religious person is invited to a debate with atheists. It would be respectless of that person to start trying to practise laying-of-hands on the disbelievers, or even trying to bless the audience.

This obviously doesn’t mean I immediately respect people’s opinions the moment I in some way find myself on their home turf. Nor do I expect them to respect mine. But going to an astrology blog, or a religious forum, or whatever, and starting to argue with them… it rings of “if I don’t like this one particular thing, no one else should be allowed to like it either”. It’s like wanting to forbid sex and violence on TV because you’re too lazy to change the channel. Not exactly like that, but a bit.

In short I really don’t see the point in going to astrology-nut territory and saying astrology is nutty. No one there’s going to agree, and a fair few are going to be offended, and you have accomplished nothing but making yourself look like a spoil-sport. When a person of faith comes over to an atheist blog and starts going on about being offended, a very common response is: “This is an atheist blog! No one forced you to read it. Go somewhere else if you don’t want to be offended.”

And the same really should go for us. I for one very rarely read religious, superstitious or pseudoscientific blogs. They’re not written for me and I know I’ll just end up annoyed or even offended. So why would I expose myself to it?

Now of course, when religious, superstitious or pseudoscientific nonsense is peddled to the general public through for instance mainstream media, we should be there, screaming at the top of our lungs arguing reasonably in a calm voice. But if we truly believe in every person’s right to believe whatever the hell they want to believe, why don’t we just - as a general rule - simply leave them to it, as long as they’re doing it in their own homes, churches or blogs?

superstition, astrology, religion, respect

For those of you who don’t follow Greta Christina’s Blog (although I don’t understand why you wouldn’t, considering its excellent and original mixture of atheism and sex), at least go read her latest post: In Defense of Atheist Blogging:

Among many theistic commenters, there seems to be an odd expectation that every single post I write about religion should address every single aspect of religion that exists, or has ever existed. When I write about X, it’s pointed out that I didn’t write about Y; when I write about Y, I’m scolded for not writing about Z. (Or about X, for that matter.)

While I personally haven’t experienced that particular form of bizarre argument, I do recognise the following:

When atheist bloggers write about extreme, hard-core, fundamentalist- type religions, we get scolded for picking easy targets, and we almost inevitably have it pointed out to us (as if we didn’t know) that “not all religion is like that.”

But when we criticize progressive religions, we get scolded for being mean and divisive and going after people who should be our allies.

What’s more: When we criticize the overall concept of religion in general, we’re accused of over- generalizing, of not understanding the rich variety of religious belief and thought.

But when we criticize one particular form or aspect of religion, we somehow, once again, get accused of over- generalizing — of not seeing that the one form or aspect we’re talking about today doesn’t apply to every form or aspect of religion that exists or has ever existed.

So what on Earth are we supposed to do?

One point that I would like to make in addition to Greta’s fine post is that even though many atheists will happily argue with believers, I suspect that this is not the reason why most of us writes. There may of course be as many reasons for blogging as there are bloggers, but one thing that I think most atheists know is that you can’t convert another person to your own beliefs. You can try to make them convert themselves by encouraging them to think in a different way, but there’s very few religious people that are actually open to considering your actual arguments (and yes, I’m aware that religious people would probably say the same of us, even though I’d contend that allegation).

So why write? I think a large part of it is to compose our own thoughts and arguments into more cogent forms. Another is to connect with other likeminded people and share ideas, experiences and arguments with them. And a third is to reach those who have yet to decide what they think, or who are wavering in whatever belief they previously held and are exploring the options.

At least that’s what I think. I may of course be wrong, but so far I don’t think I’ve encountered any atheists, bloggers or no, that were actually out to convince religious people they were wrong. The arguments are not made for the sake of our opponents, but for those who are watching.

religion, science, atheism, blogging

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

The university college previously in charge of the education of most (?) of Sweden’s elementary and high school teachers was merged into Stockholm University a while ago. I think the change was welcomed by most people, since the aforementioned university college was notoriously bad at its task. Now, however, anthroposophers and waldorf-cultists have been given reason to whine a bit. Which is obviously a reason to celebrate, if you prefer scientific truth to superstition.

Stockholm University has decided to cancel the four-year programme for waldorf teachers, which has been conducted in affiliation with the Rudolf Steiner school. The natural science faculty has expressed itself in no uncertain terms through deacon Stefan Nordlund, who according to Dagens Nyheter said this (my translation):

Some of the course literature isn’t just unscientific. It’s also dangerous and teaches faults that are worse than gibberish. We’re supported in our opinion by the humanities/social science faculty.

It’s always refreshing when sane people tell it like it is. In Sweden, the prevailing opinion of waldorf schools is that they’re nice cute places where kids get to paint, dance and play flute a lot instead of being forced to learn multiplication by rote. Not even the minister of education seems entirely aware of the crazy religious ideology running those schools - in a discussion with Christer Sturmark (president of the Swedish Humanist Association) on television he said that he wouldn’t like to entirely forbid religious independent schools as that might affect waldorf schools. As if that’s a bad thing. He, like most of everyone else, seems to think that waldorf is entirely benign.

Wet-on-wet painting cannot possibly harm our children!

anthroposophy, waldorf

Last night I attended a release party celebrating Hitchens’ “God is not great” being released in Swedish, with the title “Du store Gud?”, by Fri Tanke Förlag (Freethought Publishing). There was a discussion between Elisabeth Sandlund, the editor of a christian newspaper and Åke Ortmark, a prominent journalist who was recently elected onto the board of the Swedish Humanist Association (which I guess makes us colleagues). The editor, an obviously intelligent lady with a lot of what I’d have to call spunk, had been atheist for a long time but met god at the confirmation of her handicapped daughter.

All in all it was a fun, friendly discussion. She wasn’t a creationist and I think ethically she and I would agree on most things - although she’s against euthanasia and thinks that diagnosing handicaps in the womb and preventing these fetuses from growing is a slippery slope. We shouldn’t give the scientists free reins, she opined, forgetting that it’s not the knowledge that’s dangerous, but the application. She also made a few other slightly baffling comments; for instance she was under the impression that scientists are pursuing a final answer and would be happy the day we know everything there is to know. During my turn to speak in the discussion afterwards I pointed out that the very jobs of scientists depend on there being more questions to ask.

I also asked her a question that seemed to piss her off, as she didn’t answer and instead made herself seem like an idiot. She had been lamenting the misuse of christianity during the crusades and in catholic countries outlawing homosexuality and the like. I asked her if it isn’t a little problematic to believe that her version of christianity is the right one, when these other christians believe just as fervently as she does that they’re doing the right thing. Huffily, she said that by that logic, all atheists like Stalin.

Yeah, I have no idea how she made that connection. The old “atheism led to the Holocaust/gulags/whatever” fallacy has been debunked ad nauseam, but in this case it’s not even applicable. I wasn’t saying that her personal faith was responsible for crimes against humanity, or that she’s in any way connected to these, I was asking how she knows that she really happens to believe in the right version of christianity, when there’s so many of them. Perhaps I phrased the question poorly, though. I am, after all, only human. Unfortunately she rushed off afterwards, panting “I have to get home to my handicapped child!” (she referred to her daughter often, and it irked me. Clearly she thinks she’s special because her daughter has a mental handicap. I have nothing but contempt for people who use their handicapped children as arguments in a debate, it’s so obviously fishing for sympathy), so there wasn’t time to resolve the matter.

Other than this, nothing out of the ordinary was said. Ortmark failed to answer a question from a christian about objective morality, probably because he as a Humanist doesn’t believe in any such thing and hence didn’t even understand the question. Sandlund repeated the old fallacy that Swedish ethics = Christian ethics, and failed to answer all the questions that normally lead people to reject god, such as the problem of theodicy, and complacently stated that she’s happy to hand over those problems to God, and that in fact, she feels it strengthens her faith that she doesn’t know everything. A lovely bit of rationalising - “This is a problem that might dent my faith. Therefore, I must believe it strengthens my faith.”

In short, the message to take home was that even nice, intelligent christians are still, well, christians. They still have an imaginary friend and they still believe in miracles, contrary to all evidence.

christianity, humanism, åke ortmark

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

Welcome to Life Before Death and the latest edition of Carnival of the Godless! I’m your hostess, Felicia, and originally I had big plans on making this carnival something … speshul. Then I realised that nothing I could possibly come up with would in any way add to the quality of the many, many posts submitted, which is why I’ve simply elected to let them present themselves with representative (or sometimes not so representative) quotes. So, without further ado:

HankFox.com: The Good Stuff - “I don’t know a single atheist, I’m not sure I’ve even MET one, who hated humanity, or wanted anything bad to happen to anybody.”
Also at HankFox.com: The Brassican Heresy and Atheist Questions.

The View from Here: Benny Hinn - What a Friend He Has in Jesus - “Despite the overwhelming evidence that Hinn is the lowest form of con man, exploiting the emotional and spiritual needs of the desperate, viewers, many of whom can ill afford it, will no doubt continue to donate millions of dollars annually in the hope of realizing some small improvement in their lives.”

The Barefoot Bum: Fine Tuning - “In short, the Fine Tuning argument is speculative, probabilistically meaningless, and, even if true, doesn’t establish anything interesting. I think it’s safe to say that, after Pascal’s Wager, it’s the second worst apologetic ever.”

Epsilon Clue: Where Are all the Reflective Christians? - “These people do believe in a magic man in the sky who helps them find their car keys /…/ So why aren’t the intelligent, reflective Christians telling them they’re full of shit?”

defryer.com: The Multiple Stages of Faith - “‘Faithlessness’ as a definition of the absence faith is really only used in a religious context since no one really knows or cares about our extent of faith in any other context. No one is ostracized (except possibly on a local level) for their lack of faith in government or purity of food or future direction of the stock market.”

Greta Christina: On Illness, Bodies, and This Weird Free Will Thing - “If there is no God and no soul, and everything we are is comprised of physical things and the relationships between physical things… then when you change those physical things, the self changes as well. Our selves are not in our own hands nearly as much as we like to think.”
Also from Greta Christina: The Meaning of Death, Part 3 of Many: Fear, Grief, and Actually Experiencing Your Emotions

A Swedish American in Sweden: Sweden Separates the Church and State - “I don’t buy creationism, and I don’t think it’s necessarily a subject that should be taught in public schools. At the same time though skeptical of the complete banning of a subject or idea.”

Rational Apologetics: God is Evil - “God doesn’t care if we’re good or not — he only cares if we stroke his ego.”
Also at Rational Apologetics: The Elijah Challenge

The Skwib: The Lost PowerPoint Slides (Wacky Ancient Greek Atheist Edition) - “soul is just an exceedingly fine and spherical kind of atom - or perhaps superstition - in any case, it’s not that different from a goat.”

Surgeonsblog: Funnyman - “The mind reels. It’s like walking into a crime scene, wading through body parts, and, because the perpetrator wrote “Hah hah” in blood on the wall, saying he must have a humorous streak.”

Wild Philosophy: My Favorite Moral Bible Passages - “To summarize, morality requires that we beat our children, control our women, or burn, stone, or sell them, execute homosexuals, cast the sick out of our society to fend for themselves, and completely and utterly destroy any society with which we are at war (except for their virgin girl children, whom we are free to rape). Truly, God is great, and will reward us with many slaves if we keep His ways!”

Free Thinking Joy: Religion is mental horror vacui - “Whereas religions must fill the mental vacuum at any price, using gods and other stuffing material, science just tries to construct useful theories that grow into the empty space, but never filling it completely.”

Alexander the Atheist: Zeus Endorsement - “Rather than engage in voter fraud to ensure a win for Zeus I have decided, instead, to officially endorse him as my candidate of choice for the Coolest Fabricated Deity in an attempt to stem the tide of this Odin fanaticism.”
Also from Alexander: End Times: 2,000 Years and Counting

Skeptic’s Play: The moutnain theologians - “Soon he realizes that the mountain goes much higher, but the path is poorly marked and obscured in fog. He points it out to the theologians, but they cannot see the markings.”

Fannie’s Room: Blasphemy! (Part I) - “I think the idea that God is some sort of male being is a quaint man-made idea.”

ShakaOfEarth: ‘Earth Worship’ on the rise among evangelical youth - “Wouldn’t a smart parent allow their child to explore all the different faiths? Oh wait, Evangelical like to brainwash their kids and hate anything that even looks like it might allow their offspring to learn about reality.”

Bay of Fundie: Fundie Atheists - “For all practical purposes, God does not exist. If there is not now nor has there ever been any evidence for a god, then in practical, real-world terms, it is identical to making the statement that a god does not exist.”

Atheist Revolution: “In God We Trust” Must Go - “How do you suppose American Christians would feel about using currency on which “Allahu Akbar” (Allah is the greatest) was printed? How about “We Believe in Evolution,” “Secular Democracy,” or a similar slogan?”

Rational Responders: How to Respond to a Superlicious Christian - “As much as I hate to be the bearer of bad news, if you believe something without sufficient evidence, you are irrational.”

Atheist Ethicist: Hope - “Actually, I do grow warm and fuzzy in a blanket of science. Well, warm, at least.”

Homo Academicus: This Atheist - “…she is always asking me about my opinions or beliefs on all sorts of things, trying to see how far my atheism goes. I thought I’d save some time and just compile it all here.”

Long Live the Village Green: Upon the rack of this tough world… - “Before he died, I thanked my dad for being the best dad I could ever hope for. I told him how much I appreciated all the gifts he gave me: love for theatre and all the arts, for science and philosophy, for literature and history, for books and book collecting, and for Shakespeare!”

The Gaytheist Agenda: “Why do Atheists Hate America” - “…without faith and Christianity “America as we know it” would cease to exist. Of course to an extent that second part is true. Just imagine how much bigotry and oppression we could dispense with by eradicating Christianity alone.”

And finally, my own entry here at LBD: On Happiness: “The difference between atheists and religious people is that atheists are aware that our personal happiness is entirely up to ourselves and not some imaginary friend.”

carnival of the godless, atheism, religion, science

I’m cranky today. The reason is most likely a relapse into SAD, which I tend to suffer bouts of every winter. In light of this, one would assume today isn’t the best of days to write about happiness, but bear with me (and please excuse the somewhat rambling nature of this post).

Often in discussions about the relative virtues of atheism and religion, personal happiness is brought up. We atheists are told we cannot possibly be happy, or at least not as happy as christians/muslims/jews/whatevers. Because we don’t have god in our life. Immediately, atheists snap back that we are indeed happy, in fact we couldn’t be happier. We’re so happy, happy, happy that it’s a wonder we don’t explode. It’s like we forget, in our eagerness to prove to the religious that one can lead a fulfilling existence even lacking god, that happiness isn’t the standard human condition.

Am I basically happy with my life? Oh, yes. I have a lot to be very happy about, like my wonderful family, my amazing boyfriend, and biology. But am I happy all the time? Oh hell no. Are you?

Seriously. If anyone can honestly answer that they’re happy every minute of every day - because they feel god’s love or because they’re looking forward to the UFO coming to take them to Paradise Planet or whatever - I would have to question their sanity. Feelings of happiness and discontent is the mechanism by which our brains reward good behaviour and punish doing things that are bad for us. If we were perpetually happy, we would cease working toward a better life for ourselves and our loved ones. The human mind is a problem-solving tool, and it needs motivation.

That is not to say that depression is a good thing. If you’re always feeling like life is pointless, there is something wrong, and you should seek help. But my point here is that there is nothing wrong with admitting that you’re not always happy. In fact, I think it’s a problem for many that they feel unable to open up and admit to themselves and to others that they are not happy with something, be it their entire lives or just that horrible purple shirt their spouse insists on wearing to a nervous family dinner. And keeping those feelings bottled up, pretending that everything is perfectly fine when it’s not, is just about the worst thing you can do for your long-term happiness.

In the end, I think most people enjoy similar levels of happiness and unhappiness. Regardless of your circumstances your brain will still reward you with happy feelings when something good happens, and punish or motivate you with bad feelings when you need to do something to change your situation. The difference between atheists and religious people is that atheists are aware that our personal happiness is entirely up to ourselves and not some imaginary friend. We know that when bad things happen, it’s due to circumstances, enemies, or bad choices and that we are the only ones who can do something about it. And conversely, we also know that when good things happen, it’s due to circumstance, or our own actions, or the good will of other human beings. We never worry about being punished for faltering in our faith, and we never let some sky-god take credit when we have every right to be proud of ourselves or grateful to those around us.

As for my own current crankiness, I know most of it has got nothing to do with anything outside my own head. It’s an african mammal’s unfortunate reaction to lack of sunlight (and, well, exercise). If my brain were designed, I’d blame the designer, but as it is, all I can do is ride it out, and try to remember to eat properly and not snap at people too much.

atheism, happiness, religion, depression

For those who think that Sweden being one of the most secular countries in the world means that it’s free of religious nutjobs, think again. Daniel Ocampo Daza reports from a lecture at Uppsala University instigated by Credo, an evangelical christian student organisation:

The speaker Anders Gärdeborn brought up little else but the same ridiculous arguments, misconceptions and misinterpretations, exaggerations, faulty logic and outright lies that you’ve heard over and over, just as I suspected knew. Gärdeborn comes from the fundamentalist and literalistic organization Genesis which claims to “work for a christian view of the sciences and for the biblical view to be heard in the schools and society“. The biblical view being that god created earth its creatures and all of the universe in 6 days.

/…/

As my professor pointed out to me as we were talking prior to the presentation: would the university allow for an astrologer or a holocaust-denialist to come and give a lecture at the university’s facilities unquestioned? Most certainly not. But under the banner of not discriminating against the christian students I guess it is entirely possible, which is telling of why we’re still dealing with this particular brand of counterscientific trash at this level.

science, biology, evolution, creationism

I’m sure a lot of you have seen the news earlier this month of female muslim med students in the UK not wanting to have to bare their arms, even though hygiene rules state that doctors have to be bare below the elbow. Now a female muslim was denied a job at McDonald’s in Angered (Sweden) for the same reason, and she’s taking it to the Ombudsman against Ethnic Discrimination.

She says, “Alla ska ha samma möjligheter till ett arbete. Det här är diskriminering och det är inget man ska hålla käft om” - “Everyone should have the same possibilities to get a job. This is discrimination and it’s nothing you should shut up about.”

Frankly, this is ridiculous.

It’s one thing if people don’t want to comply with arbitrary dress codes. They can bring it up with their employer and try to explain why their religious dress is important to them. But this is about hygiene. It is something that affects other people. Freedom of religion is and should be a human right, but only so long as it doesn’t harm other people. Freedom of religion should not be possible to invoke to cut off the foreskins on male babies, or deny your child a life-saving blood transfusion - and the same goes for med students who don’t want to show their arms. Religion simply doesn’t come into it.

Unfortunately there appears to be a previous case where a female muslim dentist was allowed to wear longer sleeves than the dress code prescribes, so this girl might actually win. Ugh.

islam, muslims, hygiene, freedom of religion