Bob Seidensticker will be speaking at the Seattle Atheists meeting tomorrow about common Christian apologetics. He’ll be examining common arguments so we can learn their strengths and weaknesses, and be better prepared to respond in the future. It starts at 1pm and is at 2100 24th Ave. S. in Seattle, WA.
I’ve met Bob a couple times now, and he’s wonderfully eloquent – I highly recommend his talk to anyone who has the time to go. I’ll be there for sure!
I was reading Naomi Klein talking to Amy Goodman on climate change yesterday. At one point she said:”So when you go through this, you see, it challenges everything that they believe in. So they’re choosing to disbelieve it, because it’s easier to deny the science than to say, “OK, I accept that my whole worldview is going to fall apart,” that we have to have massive investments in public infrastructure, that we have to reverse free trade deals, that we have to have huge transfers of wealth from the North to the South. Imagine actually contending with that. It’s a lot easier to deny it.”It strikes me that replacing “climate change” with “Christian dogma” and the sentiment is pretty much exactly the same. As long as fundamentalist thought is easier than scientific atheism, fundamentalism will win out. Being a sceptic is a difficult life to live–always having to pay attention and think and stuff. It seems to me that is why neo-con economics, fundamentalist religiosity, and the politics of hate go along together–they all make life easier for a believer. Bringing people along means more than arguing. It takes support, community, and caring. (Not that the arguments aren’t necessary, or, under the right circumstances, fun. Just that there needs to be more).
This is more or less completely unrelated to your post, but I’ve been obsessively researching CYP2D6 deficiency for a little bit (it does things to human metabolism of various medications, and it’s a bit possible I might be deficient based on my experiences with various medicines) and I was waxing eloquent on how fascinating it was that people with eating disorders seem to have a higher prevalence of hyperexpression according to one experiment, but then I realized I’d just called it ‘cool’ and had to backtrack because no, eating disorders aren’t at all cool, not even a little bit. >.<But it’s so *interesting!*…I think I just wanted to mention this because sometimes genetics research can make you say things that sound like you’re a horrible person. Curses! (and here’s why I’m following *plant* genetics most of the time. I occasionally have trouble keeping the internal monologue internal when I’m tired.)