Conversely (does linking count as advertising?) to the size of the problem, the steps to solving it can be begun in a very small way on a daily basis.  It begins with how we speak and respond to overblown rhetoric.  It also involves our attitude towards how others speak to us and about things that are important to us.  Let me give you a personal and very recent example.  Facebook, is a great place for social networking, but it can be full of pitfalls when one have a wide variety of friends and family members on it.  My paternal Grandmother is on my page and has one of her own.  She is an Evangelical Christian and I am an Atheist (et. all applicable labels) I shared a comment about resurrection that was to occur on Sat. the 3rd of April that started off sounding religious, but was really about Dr. Who.  (because I am a major geek for the Doctor)  She had a reply, but promptly removed it once she noticed the joke and the thread about it because she is not a Whovian it was not immediately apparent.  Her page posted a comment questioning whether or not Atheists could get home owners coverage for ‘acts of God’ my response was simply “Country and State Farm say yes” with a wink and a smile.  We have continued with these back and forth barbs on occasion, but we also are sure to reassert that we love each-other on a regular enough basis.  She also managed remind me at our recent family reunion just how funny she is on a totally different subject.   While we have both gone out of our way to ensure that the light manner is fairly clear, we also both make the choice not to take these things personally or as insults, because everyone has that choice.

Sometimes it can be more serious.  Talking with an African-American co-worker I asked her how she handled the result of racial slurs with her children because my light skin ensured this was not part of my childhood.  Her statement was simple and something I had already applied to my life: “I asked my boys is that who you think you are?”  and she further stated (more or less) “When you make sure children know who they are, they can easily deflect names”.  Because it was something I felt was out of my reach I almost gave the game away to others; but at the end of the day, it is every persons’ responsibility to define himself or herself therefore, we can also decide how to respond to someone else and not let them drive our responses.

Now, don’t get me wrong, I believe that language is very important and the words we use can have an impact.  If ever there was a doubt one only needs to look at those who either murder doctors for performing abortions or terrorize scientists for doing lab tests, to see that language can be used to create an atmosphere that leads to such unacceptable acts.  Furthermore, the moral cowardice that prevents strong and quick responses to these behaviors by more people in leadership further fuels the idea that these acts are acceptable.  Our elected leader can not even have a joint press conference to stand together against violence and these are supposed to be the best of us.

While it would be easy to blame the right side of the aisle right now, and believe me I would not claim they are innocent, we can not forget that the left side was pretty silent when liberals were calling Bush Hitler.  This is just not useful behavior, no matter what one will recognize as his failings, or Obama’s for that matter, this type of over the type, too often used comparison only serves to water down our debate and hid the actual issues that caused the anger.

This is why it is more important than ever that every person takes time to think before speaking and breathe before reacting (which is not the same as responding).  We can make an impact by both changing how we enter into debates, including the language we use, and by choosing not to react to incendiary language.  We may even decide sometimes it is better to just walk away.  We can stand up to those ‘on our side’, whichever side of you that is, of the debate when they are not debating issues, but are engaging in ad hominem attacks.  We can continue to insert the call for calm fact based debate into conversations and look to see the value in both arguments when we see it getting out of control.

There will always be those who choose to live in an echo chamber, but we do not have to use that as an excuse to set up our own or write them off as unreachable, people can surprise you when you least expect it.  At the end of the day it is about remembering that people are usually acting on the belief that they are doing the right thing and there are things, somewhere, on which we can agree; which is a starting point for working out our differences.

Nature rarer uses yellow
Than another hue;
Saves she all of that for sunsets,–
Prodigal of blue,

Spending scarlet like a woman,
Yellow she affords
Only scantly and selectly,
Like a lover’s words.

Ignoring the sexism in the spending phrase, this is one of the most succinct explanations of what makes this simple color so extraordinary.  It also has sensual notes, bittersweet longing, economy and a list of the primary colors.  It is simple and complex at the same time-everything art should be!  This is by far one of the most amazing poems I’ve ever read.

The other part about her work I love is her skepticism, even about her own skepticism.  She did not seem to take anything for granite.  While she did spend a great deal of time writing about death and the ‘after life’ that does not make her work dark or negative.  Many of us think about these things on a regular basis, she happened to have the skill to write poetry about it.

The other reason for me sharing this blog is to encourage the reading of poetry which too often seems to be forgotten.   For me art is a time capsule and interpretation brought together to help us better understand our past and present.  I will close with another poem that is fun to contemplate, especially for us freethinkers that are not fans of ‘the after life’ (sorry Prince, I haven’t gone that crazy yet)

I never felt at Home-Below–
And in the Handsome Skies
I shall not feel at Home-I know-
I don’t like Paradise-Because it’s Sunday-all the time-
And Recess-never comes-
And Eden’ll be so lonesome
Bright Wednesday Afternoons-If God could make a visit-
Or ever took a Nap-
So not to see us-but they say
Himself-a Telescope Perennial beholds us-
Myself would run away
From Him-and Holy Ghost-and All-
But there’s the “Judgement Day”!

While living in CA I found more of the similar comic book friends, but still resisted, then I met someone. He has a huge comic book collection, loves SciFi, but doesn’t do dressing up for things if it’s not Halloween. I started reading some graphic novels and I was off. Next it was “Good Omens” (Best. Book. Ever!) then everything else available by Gaimen and Pratchett. There was no way to know where this would lead.

Then, one day, I came home and he was watching something I didn’t recognize. It seemed pretty physically intensive with a great deal of running. After over-hearing a few episodes I asked – “Is the world always ending with these people” and “Pretty much” was the reply. I’m still not sure why I decided to watch that first episode, but once I did it completed the toppling of my pretentious dropping me into the pool of geekdom.

I’ve never been happier and never looked back. While it is sad to see how much I missed (This excludes Star Wars, sorry, it is not something I miss at all, on accident) I’m glad to have to opportunity to join this league of wonderful people and great ideas.

Then there is the Westboro Baptist “church” picketing of schools and funerals.  This makes it very difficult indeed.  While I feel that freedom of speech is one of our most important rights to exercise and makes us stronger and freer, I’m not unfeeling enough to not have a gut reaction to such monstrous behavior.

What can the answer be?  Speak louder!  Impressed does not cover how I felt about those who prevented a protest of a funeral in Louisiana.   Then there was the Dio Funeral.  He had both a private and public funeral from his gracious family.  The link is to a rather long article, but there are also photos and videos for those interested.  It may be worth the scroll to find out how gnomes, Thor and Muslim hell were evoked by one person.  Schools kids have also shown they are more than able to speak back to these fools.

These are the reasons why I consider Atheist only a part of who I am, and it is often not the most important part.  If it were Atheists behaving like these WB”C”  poor excuses for people, then I would stand with Christians, Muslims, Pagans, Humanists, et al. to protest them too.  Being a person, at the end of the day (even the middle and beginning), who cares about other people is the most important part of who I am.  That and, super awesome, but mostly the caring thing.

So, maybe my title was misleading.  Maybe it only feels like these two sides are opposing, but they are actually mirror images.

Oh, and the master of tag lines apparently.  Bonus!

If you were brave enough to read the entire entry, while not being responsible for blogging about it, either you love the subject or deserve a medal.  This is a big subject, but the title of the book from which the excerpt comes says a great deal “Science Of Legal Method“, by Ernest Bruncken.

Now for my brief observations.  (It’s in outline formish, I promise)

1.  Similar types of thinking are required for both.

a.  Research is the best first step once the question is posed.

b.  Analysis of the situation and *acceptance of the results should be dispassionate.

c.  Post review can determine factors could have changed the outcome.

*Unless the results of (c) could change (b) which may lead to retrying.

d.  The focus is on disproving the assumption.

e.  Results can be overturned many years later as civilization changes.

For those of you who are more visual here is a lovely flow chart for the scientific method and, you may want to increase the window view for this one, the  more complex legal flow chart.

2.  The legal system does have some special features.

a.  A much more narrow focus, which affects the way in which questions are posed and answered.

b. For every hypothesis there is an opposing one and both are constructed to convince a third party.

c.  There is room for variation from typical rules and the final determination is, quite literally, opinion* and almost always has parts that can be argued against.

*It does still require supporting evidence.

d.  There are a great variety of reasons that an actual test of the hypothesis may never occur.

At the end of the day, the important focus is for the law to use scientific thinking, even if the specific method does not work well for it.  This is a lesson that can serve in many aspects of our lives.

Next time …

Maybe some fiction or ideas about hyperbole either could contain some silly literary references like this one did.

This time I’m keeping it a secret (even from myself)

*stage whisper* mysterious

Ta-Da.  Promise kept.

I’m guessing (nay hoping!) that you fine readers came here expecting a bit more so I’ll use the rest of this blog post to explain my reasons for the religious side of this conclusion. Please correct me if I’m wrong about the idea that those reading this already accept that we do not live outside of science’s reach.  That’s fair enough, isn’t it?

First is the most obvious evidence that we live inside religion’s sphere of influence – labels: Atheist, Free-thinker, Agnostic, Skeptic, and many more indicate that religion still influences our lives.  It’s been said many times, (Often by Sam Harris or those re-iterating his position) “No one wastes their time being an opponent of astrology”.  I would argue a bit with this sentence, but I am the skeptical (read: often contrary) type, so we will just accept this generalization for the sake of keeping this blog’s length under control.  Please feel free to expound in the comments about this point.

But, what about religious types of thinking?  Reading Discover magazine increased my interest of the idea that science can occasionally behave in the same way as religion. Cosmology, a very difficult field full of theory where solid evidence is not currently available, can lead down this path.

*Not being a scientist I’m not arguing the information, just the way it is used. Much of science has more or less conceded to the idea of Dark Matter because it neatly explains things within our accepted laws of physics. Challenging such ideas (obviously within the framework of the scientific method) is one of the most important parts of science. Validated dissension by a qualified member of the scientific community should be welcomed and explored, even if it means questioning the idea of constant universal laws.

When science stops questioning it risks falling into the world of magical thinking where some cows are sacred because they have been around so long, not because the are demonstratively true.

Just one more time, before my thoughts about the ways we think about science can be taken too far out of context – I majored in Theatre, a group that can not make a proper people circle. This is strictly a social comment. (take that lawyerly types-full disclosure)

I’m still trying to understand this mental dual that happens behind our eyes and between our ears.  We need to trust in order to survive and we need to be skeptical in order to survive. Finding a balance is key. For now, using a structure like the scientific method can help us decide when it is time to do which. It will remain a lifelong goal in our ever evolving world.

How is a basic version of the scientific method responsible for our laws?

There are many labels that I accept willingly and enthusiastically:  Mom, Wife, Feminist, Atheist, Cook, Friend, Skeptic, Liberal, Civil rights defender, Girl, Sister, plus many others; and the order changes constantly.  The reason the list is important is because no single name can speak for all of who I (or you) happen to be at any given moment.  While labels are often considered a bane, I find them useful.  These titles remind me that it is not what others say of me, but how I choose to define myself that matters.

For the purpose of this blog I will begin by assuming that the reason that brought (and hopefully kept) you here is the skeptic or atheist part.  The task now is for me to clearly define why these labels are important enough to read about them.

I’ll begin with a question that most Atheists et. all get “Why do you get together based on nothing but non-belief in deities.” (This is the technical version of the question)  The short answer is, we don’t.  It is simply a label that lets us know we have one thing in common.  Getting together is because of other things we have in common, for example skeptic is an additional label that further defines many deity free folks.  With fellow skeptics I enjoy healthy debate or information about newly debunked conspiracy theories or any other thing we happen to look and say “Really?”  B-N Free attracted my attention because we are a family in central IL with very few parenting resources that speak to our need to keep magical thinking in the worlds created by people like Douglas Adams, not in our parenting style.  We have found great people with experience and hoping or soon to have similar experiences that have been a great help to us.

The reasons why are really simple, we live in a religious world and sometimes we need to escape, but we don’t have a TARDIS readily available.

Next month…

The difference between living without Religion and Living without Science.  Stay tuned.