When Something’s Important to You…

This is Abbie.  She is the only living thing I’ve ever risked my life for.

In January, 2010, the family and I were walking Abbie along a path near Wichita’s Exploration Place (not far from where this picture was taken).  The Arkansas (that’s “Ar-Kan-Sas” not “Ar-Kan-Saw”) River flows right through the museum’s back yard.  It was a rather cold January, so the river was frozen about fifty feet out on either side, the river flowing unobstructed otherwise.

Along the sheet of ice sat hundreds of geese.  Abbie loves to chase geese.  I convinced my wife that it would be okay if Abbie ran out onto the ice to chase the geese. I figured she would run out along the ice, scare away the geese, probably fall in, then get out and she’d go home wet and cold – but she’d be okay.

Sadly, she only did most of this.

After scaring off the geese, Abbie jumped off the edge of the ice and into the water.  She then swam back to the edge, put her two front paws up on the ice…and just stopped…

We all rushed down to the shore and spent a few minutes trying to coerce her to pull herself up on the ice. “Come on, Abbie! You can do it!” We threw sticks to her in hopes she would try to get them. But, our efforts were futile…she simply wouldn’t budge.

I handed my phone and keys to my wife and made my way slowly out onto the ice.  I knew there was no way I could make it all the way to her, but I thought perhaps getting a little closer would help motivate her to move.

I made it about halfway to her as the ice crackled underneath my feet.  I looked down and saw a line where the current rolled underneath the shelf of ice.

Committed to going no further, I knelt and called to Abbie…who was still just sitting there staring at me.

After a few moments of this, it became apparent that what we were doing simply wasn’t going to work. At that point…Abbie started to panic.  She started howling and flailing her paws around.

All I remember about my thought process at this point was, “Well, time to go get this dog.”

The next thing I knew – I was taking that next step along the ice.  The ice gave way, sending me straight down into the freezing water.  The current underneath swept away one of my sandals (yes…I wear sandals…all the time…it’s the only advice I take from “What Would Jesus Do?”) and I found myself barefoot on the rocks with freezing water up to my chest.

Starting at this point, I can only assign logic in retrospect.  I don’t remember anything about what was going through my mind.  I know that I jumped backwards first using my elbow, wrist and back to break through the ice behind me.  I jumped up and sat on the ice to make sure it could support my weight…then slid back in the water.

I broke through around ten feet of ice to get to Abbie.  I shoved her up on the ice two or three times before it finally supported her weight.  As she ran back to get hugs from my wife and girls, I heard clapping from the crowd that had formed along the walkway nearby.   I pulled myself up on the ice and ambled back to dry land.

While most of the crowd went about their business, a boy who couldn’t have been more than 16 years old made his way down to the shore.  He was your typical emo fare…bangs that covered the side of his face, baggy black clothes, lots of bracelets and clutching a skateboard.

He said it was one of the coolest things he’d ever seen.  He went on to say that he’d called his friend who was on his way with a ladder to help.  He asked if I needed anything…

I was so cold, I could barely talk.  I remember muttering that I just needed a blanket or a towel…but I was okay and just wanted to get home.

Soaking wet, I made my way back to the car with the family and Abbie. Looking down, I noticed my arm was bleeding from my elbow all the way down to my hand.  I didn’t care…because I couldn’t feel it.

For all that she’d been through – Abbie was none the worse for wear.  After a warm shower and a few bandages…I was on the road to recovery as well.  It was at least a day or two before all the feeling came back to my hand…and the cuts went away after a week or so.

I don’t feel that I did anything extraordinary.  In fact, I think that 99% of the pet owners out there would have done the same thing. I would love to hear from others who’ve been confronted by seemingly harrowing positions and found themselves acting beyond their own expectations. Leave your stories below.

 

Recommended Reading/Viewing for the Godless

This is a post I’ve wanted to do for some time.  I finally decided to do it after seeing a co-worker the other day with a copy of “On the Origin of Species”.  I expressed to her that it is, in my opinion, one of the most important sets of ideas ever put to paper.

There are lots of resources out there for people who want to understand the world from a scientific point of view.  Of course, there aren’t really books on “how to be a better atheist” – because such a subject would be pointless as there are no rules to being a “good atheist”.  Also, if you have faith there is a god, reading a book or watching a video isn’t likely to change that – just as reading a book on religion won’t change my mind.

These books and videos give a good narrative on how the world actually works (from a scientific point of view).  They explain the things that were once chalked up to religion and the supernatural.  They also look at the negative impact religion has on our species and our future.

Of course, these only scratch the surface.  Feel free to post your own suggestions in the comment section…

Videos

Richard Dawkins: Growing Up in the Universe

This series of lectures from 1991 provide a fantastic look at the development of life on earth.  It answers many of the questions we are asked about evolution (Why are there still monkeys? Why does everything seem so well-designed? What about organs of irreducible complexity?).  Dawkins simplifies evolution…and makes it accessible.  As a warning, though – the videos are very “British 1991”.  In fact, in America, it may seem like it was recorded some time in the mid-eighties.  Still, the science is strong…and it’s not nearly as old as some of the stuff other people use to get answers about life on earth.

Phil Plait: Don’t Be a Dick Speech

This one is for anyone who thinks that being brash and confrontational with theists helps the atheist cause.  It doesn’t – it just pisses people off and it makes you seem arrogant.  I will probably catch flack for this, but I believe it’s important to always be the better person.  While some religious people can be very “in your face” about their views…I feel it’s better to take the high road.  Be peaceful with people of opposing viewpoints.  I may think that people who don’t agree with the concept of evolution are stupid and delusional…but telling them that isn’t going to change their mind. This doesn’t mean you can’t be passionate or open or expressive about your views…just don’t be a dick about them!  We’ve dealt with the religious being dicks about their point of view for centuries…it pisses us off.  We must be better than that…

Sam Harris: Science can answer moral questions

As I’ve mentioned in previous posts, I consider morality to be somewhat of an illusion.  There are no hard-fast rules…killing someone is wrong, but killing someone who poses an imminent threat to you or your loved ones is not.  Because of this sliding scale, I can’t imagine that we’ll ever fully apply science to questions of morality.  Harris’ argument is not about deciding what’s right and wrong, but more about applying what we know in science to determine what is best for humankind as a whole.

Penn & Teller: Bullshit!

Bullshit is probably the best show out there for skeptics…points are argued passionately, charlatans are called out for ripping people off, and the record is set at least somewhat straight on myths like astrology and religion and exorcisms.  If you haven’t checked it out – you can NetFlix several of the seasons.  Now, I should point out that these videos go against the “don’t be a dick” rule…

Symphony of Science

I nice diversion…it’s music created by putting the greatest scientific voices through an auto-tuner.  You get passionate music that explains the concepts of science.

Books

Probably no surprises here…these books are all well-known – I put them in my order of preference.

Also, full disclosure – I am not much of a reader, so I listened to the audio recordings of these books – when I say ‘read’ – I actually mean ‘listened to’.

Sam Harris: The End of Faith

This is my favorite among the books I’ve read about atheism.  I like his writing style.  This book looks at religion from the standpoint of reason and morality and takes a critical look at the negative impact religion has on the planet.  His followup Letter to a Christian Nation is also a great read and I anxiously await his latest book about the science of morality.

Charles Darwin: On the Origin of Species

I remember reading about this book in school and thinking that the entire book was about lizards on the Galapagos Islands.  There is so much to this book.  Not only do you get to see the very beginning of the concept of evolution, you get to see the struggle Charles Darwin had with setting what he was raised to believe aside in favor of what he observed.  There are so many times in this book where Darwin says, if XYZ were not true, this theory simply won’t work…but, here’s what I observed…and why that points directly at XYZ.  He opened the door for explaining the diversity of life on earth using logic and reason.  I see this book and the research that followed it as the beginning of the end for theism…it’s just sad that it has not come to pass as it should.

Richard Dawkins: The God Delusion

While Dawkins does look at morality and reason, The God Delusion is more from a scientific point of view.  He explains the origins of life according to Darwinian evolution and some of the evidence to support it.   He uses science to explain the things that have always been chalked up to the supernatural.  I was an atheist before I read the book, so I don’t know what sort of impact it would have if I was not.  I can say that the book made me feel more comfortable with not believing there’s a god.

Carl Sagan: Pale Blue Dot

Pale Blue Dot is a look at the future of space travel for humans.  It’s also a critical look at ourselves as a species.  Sagan’s science is intertwined with his opinions on space travel, the possibility of life elsewhere and how we go about determining our place in the universe.  I love that much of the audio book is read by Sagan himself…his voice carries the gentle passion of a man who truly believes in the human spirit.

Christopher Hitchens: God is Not Great How Religion Poisons Everything

Hitchens is among the greatest writers of our time…and it’s nice to see that he’s on our side.  He’s sharp, blunt and eloquent all at the same time.  This book is probably harshest of the books I’ve read about atheism.   He holds nothing back…and that is admirable.  I put it this far down on the list simply because I feel his writing style may be off-putting to those who are on the fence about atheism.  If you are already an atheist…perhaps this book should be closer to the top.

Stephen Hawking & Leonard Mlodinov: The Grand Design

Hawking does a top-notch job of making the latest theories of the universe easy to understand.  While it does not come right out and say that there is no god, it points out the many reasons that the system that created the universe works better without a conscience.

Michael Shermer: Why People Believe Weird Things

This book opens the door to explaining why people think the way they do. It looks at the reasons behind some of the myths that permeate our lives on a day-to-day basis – but doesn’t touch much on religion as a whole.  Weird Things is more of a manual on skepticism than atheism, but I found it to be worth the time.

The Bible

I’m up in the air on this one…many atheists like to read the bible to “know thy enemy” – but I don’t think that referencing the bible goes very far in arguing our case.  You will not see the bible the way theists see the bible.  The bible is low-hanging (forbidden) fruit…pointing out that the stuff in the bible is just plain silly (it is) is insulting and embarrassing to those who hold the bible dear.  While those who follow science welcome questioning inconsistencies, theists do not.  Besides, there are so many iterations of the bible…are you going to study them all? How about the Qu’ran? There are too many religious texts out there…bogging your mind down with what’s in them uses up valuable brain space that could be used for facts…

In lieu of reading the actual bible…I recommend instead reading:

C.J. Werleman: God Hates You, Hate Him Back (no audio book…gotta do this one the old-fashioned way)

In this book, Werleman takes a humorous, yet scathing look through the bible.  The entire bible isn’t there…but enough of it is.  It’s sort of like reading the bible with the guys from MST3K sitting next to you.  Theists will say that the book just picks and chooses what it wants to portray from the bible without telling the “whole story” – to that I say…tough shit.  Most theists simply pick and choose the parts of the bible they want to follow…so…why can’t we? 🙂  The book isn’t perfect…my copy is riddled with spelling and grammatical errors which hopefully will be fixed in future editions.

————-

Again, this is by no means supposed to be a complete list…just a look at some of my favorite things I’ve read and watched that have made me more comfortable and confident in my beliefs.  Feel free to leave your suggestions below.

//jb//

Logic…a Prehistory…

I got into a discussion a few posts back where a commenter (who operates the “Unworthy, Yet Redeemed” blog here: http://sabepashubbo.wordpress.com/) and I were both using what we referred to as “logic”.  I thought it would be appropriate to define logic, at least as I see it.

Logic and science must minimize subjectivity.  Of course, logic does differ from person to person and can, in a sense, be inherently subjective.  Logic is also open to a certain level of variance depending on circumstances and/or viewpoints. 

Take the Tyrannosaurus Rex, for example.   

When the T. Rex was first discovered, logic (based upon the size of the bones and teeth along with the intentions of the scientist) dictated that T. Rex stood upright and was a hunter whose massive jaws made up for his small arms. 

This is logical and it makes sense – in fact, I would hazard that most people learned about this in grade school.  

However, it is also safe to say that the logic was at least partially influenced by the initial preconception that the dinosaur was enormous with huge teeth and should therefore be considered a predator.  Evidence is then skewed to fit this preconception. In some cases, the result is correct.  In this case, it may not be.

Scientists today now apply a different type of logic, saying that T. Rex’s bone structure points to more of a hunched over stance.  Under the new logic, the T. Rex was likely a scavenger – like a vulture – unable to run the distances needed to tire out or catch up with prey. 

Again, both lines of logic are sound…and both have copious arguments to back them up.  But, which one should the scientific community embrace? 

We will likely never know exactly which of these is absolutely correct because we can never go back and see what they do.  Of course, it’s possible that neither is true…that the T. Rex stood and acted in a manner that was against the scant information we can gain from mere fossils. 

My take on this? We should look at the most objectively logical take on the subject. This would be the second scenario.  The first logical stream is, at least in my opinion, subjected to the discoverer’s “jump to conclusion” (big dinosaur + big teeth = bad-ass dinosaur)…this preconception may have tainted the logic used when constructing the initial hypothesis. (ie: logic was twisted to fit the notion that this dinosaur was a bad-ass).

The second logical stream is not as subjective, because the researchers were not out to disprove the initial conception – they simply thought the evidence warranted review.  In reviewing the evidence for what it was, they were able to formulate the second hypothesis about the way the T. Rex conducted itself. 

The more objective the approach, the more credence the logic should be granted.  The T. Rex idea also conveys another great point about the beauty of science.  The scientific body of knowledge is constantly growing and changing.  Every experiment changes at least something that we know about the world.  Science is critical of itself in a way that religion will never be. Science is the never-ending pursuit of truth, while religion is in constant defiance of it.

The blogger took exception to my concept of logic and the scientific method because I believe science should dismiss outright any possibility of a divine being.  This is not entirely true. I would be open to any objective proof that there is a God or any sort of divine consciousness, but there simply isn’t any.   The only reason to consider the idea of a divine being is because we were taught that one exists (most of us were not taught that one “might” exist).  God is a preconception – and injecting any preconception into a hypothesis goes against scientific method. 

//jb//