Last friday I attended a seminar on beekeeping, organised by Biodynamiska Föreningen (the Swedish biodynamic association) together with the Swedish Board of Agriculture. I wouldn’t have gone if the latter hadn’t been involved, given what I already know about biodynamics.

In case you’re not familiar with the term “biodynamic”, or belong to the majority of people who think it’s a synonym for “ecological” (or possibly “holistic”), let me disillusion you. Biodynamics has ecological/organic agriculture as its foundation, but adds an absolutely insane mess of superstitious nonsense gathered from the hallucinations of Rudolf Steiner.

The practitioners are extremely tacit about this, however, which is probably because biodynamics was invented as part of anthroposophy, and anthroposophers are notoriously good at hiding their religious agenda. Just like no one seems to be aware that waldorf schools are actually religious indoctrination-centres, people are equally unaware that when practicing biodynamics, you’re supposed to take the position of the planets into account when sowing. Oh, and did you know that filling the skull of a pet with pieces of oak bark and burying it in the autumn somewhere where a lot of rainwater flows past will produce a compost additive that adds calcium to the earth in ideal form?

Now, thankfully, you can’t convert anyone to anthroposophy by making sure to always plant the crops on a fruit-day (as opposed to a root-day) - there will be no essence of Steiner in the resultant bread to slowly turn people’s minds - so I’m not nearly as opposed to biodynamics as I am to waldorf schools, at least so long as no animals are involved. Treating sick animals with homeopathic remedies is arguably worse than treating humans, as it’s not voluntary and the placebo effect is out of play. What I really dislike, however, is the dishonesty in their advertising: Omitting the truth is also a kind of lie. (Illustrative of how good they are at hiding the truth is a recent article in Dagens Nyheter about ecological food, where the above mentioned biodynamic association is mentioned without so much as a hint that they’re something other than just “ecological”.)

Workers clearly not paying attention to astrology.

The beekeeping seminar wasn’t much different. There were some good talks presumably organised by the Board of Agriculture - on chemicals in agriculture, the problems associated with honeybee breeding, and on allowing bees to organise their hive the way they want - but there were also a couple of people invited to talk about “Demeter beekeeping”. Demeter is the chosen brand name for all kinds of biodynamic products.

Their talk was actually quite alright, although I can’t say they said anything particularly revolutionary. It was mostly just common sense. For instance: Bees want to swarm, so producing artificial swarms is a good way to keep them happy without losing the swarm.

The only times I could detect the biodynamic approach was some talk about how bees are the only animals that build “from heaven to earth” (which isn’t true, as bees may build from the ground up as well - and off the top of my head I can name wasps and swallows as other animals that build “downwards”), how they smell “heavenly”, and how fresh wax is “immaterial”. Also, at one point there was a rant about how “the scientists” don’t “want” to research for instance formic acid’s effect on bees because they don’t “want” to know the truth. This was immediately followed by lamenting the lack of money to research homeopathic remedies against bee diseases. It is of course unthinkable that “the scientists” might have the same monetary problems as the homeopathers…

Although at the time I was quite relieved to realise they were pretty much keeping quiet about the weirder aspects of their beekeeping, in retrospect, it annoys me. I suspect a lot of people - including the woman from the Board of Agriculture - got a very good impression of these Demeter beekeepers and the methods they represent. No one seemed to react to their mention of homeopathy, indicative of how people simply cannot get their heads around the fact that it’s been shown, over and over again, that it doesn’t work. Perhaps it’s the case that beekeepers are so distressed about the varroa invasion that at this point we’re ready to try anything.

Still, in the end me and my father came out of the seminar feeling pretty inspired, so it can’t have been all bad. Inspired to do what, exactly, I’ll come back to in future posts!

beekeeping, biodynamics, anthroposophy

There’s been some talk lately about americans believing in guardian angels. From Time:

In a poll of 1700 respondents, 55% answered affirmatively to the statement, “I was protected from harm by a guardian angel.” The responses defied standard class and denominational assumptions about religious belief; the majority held up regardless of denomination, region or education — though the figure was a little lower (37%) among respondents earning more than $150,000 a year.

/…/

Says Bader, “If you ask whether people believe in guardian angels, a lot of people will say, ’sure.’ But this is different. It’s experiential. It means that lots of Americans are having these lived supernatural experiences.”

/…/

What’s interesting about the Baylor findings on guardian angel experiences is that they cross all boundaries. They have scriptural writ (in Psalm 91 and elsewhere). They are clearly experiential. And guardian angels are a prominent part of Catholic belief that happens to float freely outside of a sacrament. The cross-spectrum legitimacy of the notion of angelic interventions may free Americans to engage in the kind of folk faith that is part of almost any religious system but is not always officially acknowledged.

I’m not going to go through all the wrong assumptions made (you can see those for yourself), but after some very little thought, one thing strikes me about this: Doesn’t anyone involved in this study realised that “I was protected from harm by a guardian angel” is a leading question (statement, in this case)?

Asking someone who believes in god “Have you ever been saved by a guardian angel” prompts them to think back on their lives and consider any potential dangerous situation that they got out of, and they’ll think, “yeah, it was probably that!”

If they had asked people whether they had at some point in their life been involved in some situation that threatened to harm them but escaped, and then asked them what they attributed this escape to, I suspect the results would have been very different. Some would still have attributed their escape to angels, but others would have turned directly to god. Yet others would thank the stars - and, I think, a sizeable portion might have been able to identify what really got them out of their pickle: Chance (luck, some would call it), their own biology (as Digital Cuttlefish points out), the aid of friends, the skills of doctors…

Polls can yield very interesting results, but don’t write off a majority of people as gullible or stupid because of a poorly worded one. (They might of course still be gullible or stupid, but this poll wouldn’t tell you.)

guardian angels, religion, polls

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

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

The Astrological Magazine sez:

We regret to announce that due to unforeseen circumstances beyond our control, the publication of The Astrological Magazine will cease with the December 2007 issue.

Any commentary is really superfluous.

(hat tip to Jesper Jerkert at the Swedish Skeptic Society)

astrology

I’ve been interested in anthroposophy since I was a kid, probably because my parents took me along to the Rudolf Steiner Seminar in Järna quite a few times. Not that they were anthroposophists - we went to look at the gardens and browse their shop of various curious paraphernalia. While anthroposophy as a religion is, to be frank, batshit crazy, there is something to be said for the aesthetics. At one point in elementary school I wrote an essay on anthroposophy, for which I interviewed a woman working in one of their shops. I remember frantically taking notes, all the while thinking, “Oh my god. This woman actually BELIEVES what she’s saying?”

Anyway, like most other people I have grown up thinking of anthroposophy as a sort of harmless hippie religion. More specifically, I never particularly minded waldorf schools, imagining that kids probably didn’t learn much but at least had a good time. It wasn’t that I took part of much waldorf propaganda, I simply never considered anthroposophy very threatening. However, lately I have begun reading a few blogs that tell a completely different story. One of them is zooey, who went to waldorf kindergarten and elementary school, and whose very personal account of these years I am reposting here. Photos by the author, edited by me.

So I found this great page that can tell you how you’re feeling at the moment. Based on your date of birth.

Just like I find it fun to occasionally read my horoscope to see what sort of generalised crap they can come up with, I dutifully filled in my date of birth. I mean, who knows, there’s biology involved, perhaps they’re on to something! Ahaha. Hahaha.

So: My eyebrows ever so slightly raised, I read a perfect description of how I’m feeling at the moment. This happens sometimes; astrologers get lucky, Biorhythms will be right sometimes too. But seriously, it was truly spot-on!

Which made it all the more hilarious when I realised I put my birthdate in wrong.

astrology, biorhythm, pseudoscience, superstition

The other night, I rewatched most of Richard Dawkins’ two-part documentary The Root of All Evil? (remember the question mark, he had to fight for it!). Overall, I liked it, but I had some criticism that I actually got the chance to deliver to him personally last year, which he then asked me to write down and send to him. That was when I first heard he was planning on a new set of documentaries. Since then, I have been eagerly waiting to see if his producers would take my critique to heart.

So, I have finally watched the long-anticipated first part of Dawkins’ new documentary, Enemies of Reason. I must say they have made a splendid job. Dawkins is quite obviously more experienced this time round - the script is better, and he is more relaxed in front of the camera. (Of course this might be related to him not having to face down Ted Haggard this time. But still.)

I would also say that the program is more well-rounded in terms of what is brought up and who’s interviewed. I especially enjoyed the interview with Derren Brown, although was slightly let down by him not doing a cold reading on Dawkins himself. That would have been a sight for sore eyes! Especially since the medium Dawkins had just visited was such a complete failure.

At one point they do a test of self-professed (what else) “dowsers”, whose task it is to find bottles of water in a double-blind test. They all fail, obviously. I have seen something similar up close when the Swedish Humanist Association arranged a test on Swedish television where a tarot expert were confronted with fifteen black boxes. In each box there was a different book. All she had to do was place the name tags for the books on the right box. We’d even been so kind as to give her a list of the books beforehand so she could prepare. Needless to say, she didn’t succeed - in fact, she didn’t get one of them right. And she did the exact same thing as the dowsers: After the initial shock, she started inventing excuses for why she hadn’t made it.

Parallels to The Root of All Evil? can be found. Dawkins explores various superstitious practices and beliefs, talks about science and reason, and finally drives the point home that in the same way as religious moderates enable and directly or indirectly protect their extremist brethren, the seemingly harmless wishy-washy spiritualist nonsense is simply a symptom of the same disease that gives rise to science-hating postmodernism, paranoid conspiracy theories and self-serving quackery.

Finally (I can hear you all thinking it!), what was my criticism and did they listen? Well, in the first series, there were several instances where science is represented with cold, hard imagery of lonely people surrounded by machines, whereas religion is represented with warm, fuzzy images of people coming together, singing and chanting. In a documentary trying to speak for science and reason, I do think we could do our best not to fall for the all-too-common prejudice that science is hard, cold and boring, and that scientists are all lonely and socially impaired. Especially since Dawkins has a way with words like no other when it comes to describing how wondrous this world really is.

And, to my great satisfaction, it actually does seem like they listened - to someone, if not me. Apart from some historical black-and-white footage of old experiments, what we get when Dawkins speaks of science is flowers, beautiful landscapes, people smiling, and so forth. Good job!

enemies of reason, root of all evil, richard dawkins, dawkins, superstition

As a testament to how lightly Swedish media take religious expressions, Dagens Nyheter (the #1 Swedish newspaper) contained a small and gently derisive notice today about the Norwegian princess Märtha Louise, who recently started a school where primarily women are taught how to listen to angels. Their homepage tells us their courses give you “tools to communicate with your angels and utilise them in your daily life”, for the modest fee of 1,500 euros per half-year.

From a certain point of view the whole concept is obviously made to be ridiculed. And refreshingly, Swedish media seem to treat the whole thing as a bit crazy. Cute, but crazy. Obviously this is because monarchy is involved - otherwise no one would have as much as arched an eyebrow.

superstition, angels, monarchy