Indiana mom freaks out about harmless fundraiser

I just saw this on the news at the airport, and I knew I had to look it up. An Indiana mom is upset at a fundraiser the Elwood school system has been using for the last 15 years. What could this evil fundraiser be? The middle school sex-a-thon? A baby eating contest? Selling the souls of students for charity?

Nope, it’s a silly matchmaking survey.

I laughed when I saw this story because my Indiana middle school and high school did this same exact fundraiser. The questions were horrible things like “How often do you play videogames?” and “Do you like reading books for fun?” We’d then see if any of our best friends made the top ten, giggle, and then forget about it a day later.

But this mom is concerned because it’s obviously a survey that promotes underaged sex and teen pregnancy. Are you kidding me? It’s a totally optional for charity and for fun. Of course, fun leads to sex. No fun allowed.

Anyway, the idea that middle schoolers still see each other as having cooties is ridiculous. I had classmates who were dating in he 4th grade. Wake up, mom. If you’re concerned with your child’s sexuality, teach them sex ed. Don’t ban everything that may vaguely be associated with relationships.

Guest post: Evils of constructive empiricism

This is a Guest Post by Frank Bellamy, a reader and content manager for the eMpirical, the newsletter for the Secular Student Alliance. He recently wrote an interesting article on why Humanists should not deliver invocations, but today he’s going to talk a bit about philosophy. So, discuss your hearts out while I’m away!

Evils of constructive empiricism

Philosophers routinely entertain and foster ideas which are not only stupid, but also an affront to science: dualism, intelligent design, qualia, the list goes on. Another item on that list that I have only recently discovered is constructive empiricism. That phrase may sound harmless enough, after all, scientists like empirical evidence, and being constructive is good, right? It’s anything but harmless when one looks at its meaning. According to the Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy, “the constructive empiricist holds that science aims at truth about observable aspects of the world, but that science does not aim at truth about unobservable aspects.” In other words, science gives us no reason for thinking that the unobservable constructs posited by scientific theories actually exist.

A few concrete examples may be useful here. According to the constructive empiricist, we have no good reason to think that atoms exist. After all, no one has ever seen, heard, felt, tasted, or smelled an atom. Atoms may be a useful computational tool for determining what will happen when we mix two substances together, but that is not a reason for attributing actual existence to them. Scientists may even believe that atoms exist, but if they do they go beyond what the evidence warrants.

Evolutionary biologists are in equal trouble. Since we can’t actually observe history, we have no reason for believing historical claims. The idea that humans and chimpanzees share a common ancestor more recently than humans and cats may be useful for explaining and predicting various features of the genomes, morphology, or cognitive capacities of these species, but that is not a reason for thinking that any of these species share common ancestors, or indeed that they even have ancestors at all.

To use a more every day example, I have a theory that Jen believes that the christian god does not exist. This theory may be useful in predicting what sorts of things Jen will write on her blog in the future. It allows me to predict, for example, that the next time Jen writes about some amazing new scientific discovery, she will explain it in naturalistic rather than theological terms. But according to the constructive empiricist, that is no reason for thinking that Jen actually has such a belief. Since I can’t directly observe any of Jens beliefs, I am completely unwarranted in believing that she has beliefs at all. So much for theory of mind being a positive aspect of human cognition.

Lets set aside the fact that constructive empiricism entails that scientists are liars and consider its practical implications for science. A scientist who believes in constructive empiricism doesn’t have to waste time considering such irrelevant questions as whether his pet theory is true or not, or how it relates to other theories in other parts of science. All that matters is whether his pet theory can account for the available data.

One implication of this is that it completely undermines the motivation most scientists have for doing science in the first place. Scientists don’t just want equations and models that predict data, we want to understand whatever phenomenon we have chosen to study. We want to know what’s actually going on in the world. We want to know how what we’re doing relates to other parts of science. If constructive empiricism is true, then we are deluding ourselves. Science isn’t in the business of telling us how things really are.

Another implication of constructive empiricism is that it doesn’t really matter how well theories in different domains of science match up with each other. If we explain the movement of objects on earth in terms of forces and masses, and the movement of objects in the sky in terms of Ptolemy’s spheres, so long as we can predict the data that’s ok. If we have physically, neurally, or evolutionarily implausible theories of human cognition, that’s ok, so long as we can predict the behavioral data. If scientists were to truly adopt this view, it would change the face of science forever, and not for the better.

And why would I, a grad student with many other non-philosophical demands on his time be worrying about constructive empiricists you may wonder? It’s because I’ve recently discovered that my adviser is one. Frack me.

Christian concert for a public school?

I was listening to the radio on my way to the airport this morning, mainly to have some noise on to keep me awake. I was vaguely listening to some commercial about a benefit concert being held at West Lafayette High School, when a clip from the musical group was played:

“Jesus, help me see the morning light…”

Then I started paying a lot more attention.

Apparently the concert was to raise money for Haiti and for local student athletes in the Lafayette area. They would also be presenting an award to the student who was named athlete of the year.

…Am I the only person that finds this a bit inappropriate?

I think some schools have special rules where outside groups can rent their space, religious or not (correct me if I’m wrong). If this was just some outside group having a concert, it wouldn’t bug me. But it seems like the public school system itself is sponsoring and organizing this. It’s not just a band that happens to be Christian – they also chose to publicize it using a blatantly religious gospel soundbite.

What about the non-Christian students and student athletes? I was a student athlete – Captain of our golf team – and I would have felt extremely awkward if our award ceremony had been full of gospel music. It’s simply inappropriate for a public school.

Am I overreacting? Was I just especially cranky at 6:30 in the morning? Should we not care since it’s for a good cause, or should the high school had found a more appropriate, secular band?

Edit: Finally got some real Internet, and it turns out it’s for Purdue students. False alarm. Thank you stupid uninformative commercial.

Send an Atheist to Church: Final results

The results are in! During our Send an Atheist to Church event, the Society of Non-Theists at Purdue University raised…

$362.95 for Food Finders Food Bank!

That is so amazing! I wasn’t sure if we’d even raise $100, but we blew past that goal!

And for those of you who are wondering about the more competitive side of the event, here are the donation results per denomination:
The Episcopalians had the highest amount, just barely beating the Baptists by six cents! Representatives from both of those denominations stopped by and made big donations, which helped put them in the lead. $37.34 was also donated to just a general fund that didn’t represent a specific denomination – some people didn’t want to send us to any religious service, haha. I guess the Episcopalians and Baptists will have a lot of atheists coming their way soon…

Thanks so much to everyone who donated and to everyone who helped organize the event. I would call this a huge success!

I’m just a stupid undergrad, apparently

I stopped by our Send an Atheist to Church event between my classes to see how it was going. A professor (I won’t say from which department, don’t want to identify him) was debating with club members working the table. He had initiated the discussion, and I wasn’t paying much attention until the topic turned to evolution.

It was a bit odd. He mostly accepted evolution, but believed that Intelligent Design was a better explanation for what guided the process. He argued that atheist philosophers and scientists outright rejected ID, and it never gets a chance to be debated or discussed.

(Not exact quotes, but fairly darn close)

Me: That’s because ID isn’t scientific.
Him: Yes it is.
Me: No it isn’t. Name one testable prediction for ID.
Him: Well there a many, but the complexity of structures like flagella.
Me: First of all, it has been explained numerous times by numerous people how the flagella could evolve in a stepwise natural fashion. Second of all, that’s not a way to support or falsify ID. It would falsify evolution, but that doesn’t mean God is the answer.
Him: Well all the great scientists were religious. Newton’s religion helped him figure out physics.
Me: …You can be religious and be a scientist. That doesn’t mean your religious beliefs are correct too.
Him: Well, how about Francis Collins? He was the head of the Human Genome Project and is the head of NIH.
Me: That’s just argument from authority. He’s brilliant at genetics, but that doesn’t mean he knows everything about evolution.
Him: Are you head of the NIH?
Me: No, but I study genetics and evolution.
Him: Do you have a PhD?
Me: I’m going to start working toward my PhD in the fall, maybe you’ll listen to me in five years.

Seriously, how demeaning. Yep, I’m just a dumb undergrad. Obviously I have no say on anything because I don’t have a PhD and I’m not the head of NIH, even though evolution is an easy enough concept for teenagers to understand.

I was pretty much done with him at that point. He may as well have said “little girl, go back to your corner and shut up.” What a disrespectful way to treat a student, especially when you are the one who has no idea what he’s talking about.

I would be sorry for anyone who was in this guy’s class. Disagree with him? Nope, you’re just dumb and immature. Come back when you have more letters after your name.

I'm just a stupid undergrad, apparently

I stopped by our Send an Atheist to Church event between my classes to see how it was going. A professor (I won’t say from which department, don’t want to identify him) was debating with club members working the table. He had initiated the discussion, and I wasn’t paying much attention until the topic turned to evolution.

It was a bit odd. He mostly accepted evolution, but believed that Intelligent Design was a better explanation for what guided the process. He argued that atheist philosophers and scientists outright rejected ID, and it never gets a chance to be debated or discussed.

(Not exact quotes, but fairly darn close)

Me: That’s because ID isn’t scientific.
Him: Yes it is.
Me: No it isn’t. Name one testable prediction for ID.
Him: Well there a many, but the complexity of structures like flagella.
Me: First of all, it has been explained numerous times by numerous people how the flagella could evolve in a stepwise natural fashion. Second of all, that’s not a way to support or falsify ID. It would falsify evolution, but that doesn’t mean God is the answer.
Him: Well all the great scientists were religious. Newton’s religion helped him figure out physics.
Me: …You can be religious and be a scientist. That doesn’t mean your religious beliefs are correct too.
Him: Well, how about Francis Collins? He was the head of the Human Genome Project and is the head of NIH.
Me: That’s just argument from authority. He’s brilliant at genetics, but that doesn’t mean he knows everything about evolution.
Him: Are you head of the NIH?
Me: No, but I study genetics and evolution.
Him: Do you have a PhD?
Me: I’m going to start working toward my PhD in the fall, maybe you’ll listen to me in five years.

Seriously, how demeaning. Yep, I’m just a dumb undergrad. Obviously I have no say on anything because I don’t have a PhD and I’m not the head of NIH, even though evolution is an easy enough concept for teenagers to understand.

I was pretty much done with him at that point. He may as well have said “little girl, go back to your corner and shut up.” What a disrespectful way to treat a student, especially when you are the one who has no idea what he’s talking about.

I would be sorry for anyone who was in this guy’s class. Disagree with him? Nope, you’re just dumb and immature. Come back when you have more letters after your name.

Send an Atheist to Church: Preliminary results

About a week ago I mentioned how the Society of Non-Theists would be holding a Send an Atheist to Church event. Yesterday was our first day, and we exceeded expectations! We raised about 140 dollars, and the Exponent (local student newspaper) wrote up a nice article about us:

Non-Theists attend religious services to benefit food bank

By Katy Adams, Staff Reporter

Publication Date: 02/19/2010

“Save a soul, put food in a bowl” and “Donate to charity and spare our souls” are two slogans that the Purdue Society of Non-Theists is using to raise money for charity.

From 9 a.m. until 4:30 p.m. today, the Society of Non-Theists will raise money for Food Finders Food Bank of Tippecanoe County, which they hope will help to raise awareness of the club.

The idea for the fundraiser, called “Send an Atheist to Church,” was based off Hemant Mehta, an atheist who sold himself on eBay to attend any church service at $10 an hour. The winning bid, $504, went to a non-profit charity, and Mehta wrote a book on the experience titled, “I Sold My Soul on eBay.”

The fundraiser has set out paper cups to collect donations. The cups are labeled with different religions or denominations, including cups for Buddhists, Methodists, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints and a cup for general donations. A donor can donate to a specific religion, hoping that religion get closer to “winning.” All profits go to the charity and each domination will have society members attending their services.

As of Thursday, the Methodist church had the most donations.

Monya Anderson, a senior in the College of Liberal Arts and treasurer for the organization said that the club raised $135.31 for the Food Finders Food Bank on Thursday, and that the fundraiser has given them a chance to learn about other denominations and religions.

“It brings a lot of discussion (when people visit the table) … (we) met a lot of people, (had) varied reactions,” she said.

Kimberly Tricoche, a senior in the College of Liberal Arts, visited the table because of the signs. She said that the organization’s efforts are creative and are helping a good cause.

“They are saying they are open to going to other churches. It’s a creative idea to send themselves to church (for charity),” she said.

Elizabeth Almada, a junior in the College of Education, disagreed, saying that the list is discriminatory to others faiths, as the only non-Christian religions named on the cups are Judaism and Buddhism. She said that as a campus event, it should be campus-wide, with one for each denomination.

“I’m all for donation, but it seems like a battle of the churches, kind of shows who cares and who doesn’t,” she said. “‘Come to my church. We raise the most money.’”

Anderson said the organization e-mailed different people, but some didn’t respond or weren’t interested. She said that the organization will continue to do the fundraiser in the future, either every semester or every year, to continue to raise money.

(I’m pretty sure the Baptists and Mormons are winning, maybe they weren’t when she interviewed everyone)

I’m always happy when our events get covered by the news, but it’s even more awesome in this situation. Hopefully even more people will stop by our table today and we can raise even more money. I wasn’t even sure if we’d make 100 dollars, so I’m already elated.I was stuck on an airplane for most of yesterdays event, but the members who were at the table tried to fill me in on how it went. They said the most common remark was “Where are the Catholics?!” We tried so hard to get the Catholic church on campus to agree, but they kept being noncommittal and referring us to other people – thankfully most people understood that situation. Maybe now that they see how successful our event was, they’ll join us for next year.

We also had questions like the young lady in the article, about why there were so many Christian groups. Short answer: Purdue has a lot more Christians. We asked the Islamic Center and they declined (though they were very polite and nice). Someone from the Muslim student association came by later in the day and told us to sign them up, so at least we have them now! The Hindu student association never replied. Other than those groups, there aren’t really that many clubs or places of worship for non-Christian faiths. Someone asked about Taoism and Deism – show us where we can actually physically go, and we’ll go there!

And one of the funnier responses through the day was actually from random atheists who walked by, not theists. We got a couple of glares from (presumably) theists, but atheists would stop and be offended. They thought we were a religious group trying to force atheists to go to church, not an atheist group being a little silly! Once we explained the situation, they would laugh about it. I think that illustrates the religious environment at Purdue – it is totally normal, common really, for religious people to go around trying to save us heathens in public.

I’ll let you know how today goes!

Non-theist labels vs age

One of my readers asked if I would look and see if there was any correlation with age and the types of non-theist labels my readers used. Here you go (click it for a larger image):Sample size:
<20 = 68
21-25 = 139
26-30 = 103
31-35 = 54
36 – 45 = 61
46< = 42

I’m not sure the best way to test for statistical significance, and I’m too tired from my trip to figure it out, so let’s just look at some general trends.

First, it seems like young non-theists use more labels than older non-theists. They had the highest percent of responders for every single term. One hypothesis as to why could be that young non-theists are still trying to figure out which labels best describe them, so a lot apply right now. It could also be that a lot of these terms have just recently become popular labels, and older non-theists don’t identify with them.

The most glaring difference that I see is that young people love to be silly and call themselves Pastafarians. Oh, and that pretty much everyone hates the term Bright equally. No big surprise with either of those.

I’m not sure if I feel safe to make any more interpretations without some stats. Any older readers want to throw in their two cents?

Harvard update

I thought I’d give you guys a quick update about my trip to Harvard. First of all, my flight was…eventful. We were supposed to land in Boston at 4:20, but their airport was closed because of the snow. Instead we had to land in Providence, RI. It took over an hour to deplane since everyone was landing there and they were understaffed. I smartly grabbed a quick dinner, and then we reboarded at 7:20. …We didn’t take off until 10:20 because a plane was stalled on Boston’s runway and no one could land. Yep, I got to sit on a plane for three hours. Fun stuff. Everyone was getting so cranky that they started giving us free alcohol, but at that point I just kind of went to sleep.

Other than that, Harvard was wonderful. The campus was absolutely beautiful. All of the winding old streets were a bit insane – how did it take so long for people to build cities on grids? The department was housed in the same building as the natural history museum, which was equally amazing from the short peak I got. Exhibits on global warming and evolution, shiny rocks and skeletons and every taxidermy animal you can think of!

More importantly, the people were great. I met with faculty and current grad students from 10 until 6. Everyone was intelligent (obviously) and super nice – they totally defied the stuffy Harvard stereotype. I learned all about the department, life as a grad student, living in Boston. Don’t want to say anything more than that before I visit my other potential schools, though. Sorry! (Though as a fun side note, I met the professor who did the study that was in Nature recently on how running barefoot actually causes less stress and injuries – you may have seen it around the internet. He was wonderful!)

My potential advisor and her husband (another professor in the department) took me out to a very nice restaurant for dinner. Our conversation was everything you shouldn’t talk about at dinner – sex, politics, and religion. They were really interested in what it was like being an evolutionary biologist and an atheist in Indiana (I included the Society in my resume, and they gave me major kudos for it). Long story short: I think I will be much more comfortable living in the east coast. Perk: No longer have to totally freak out about the professor finding my blog, since she’d probably agree with what I’m saying. Downside: What the heck will I blog about if I’m living in Liberal Land?

The flight back was kind of uneventful, except for Random Talkative Older Guy who talked to me the whole first flight (only 45 minutes, thankfully). Usually I don’t mind chatting with strangers, but I was just so exhausted that morning. He was nice though, and surprisingly very pro science and evolution. He was joking about how he’d keep an eye on me for when I’m presenting my awesome research on tv – maybe one day!

(Oh, and since people were asking, yes, I’m pretty much in. Just going to come down to me saying yes or no!)