This is about a seminar given for three days in November In San Diego at The Salk Institute. Science Religion talks. You can download the entire 3 days at the link at the end of this.

This is from a portion of a talk given by Neil deGrasse Tyson. Astrophysicist and Director of the Hayden Planetarium of NY.

… I want someone to put electrodes on my head. And when I reflect on our kinship with the cosmos. When I do the calculations that show that a 15 ton meteorite that we have at the Rose Center for Earth and space. It’s an iron meteorite. When I do the calculations that shows if you take all the iron from the hemoglobin of the people in the tristate area of NY City. You can recover that much iron out of their blood and realize that the iron from that meteorite and the iron from your blood have common origin in the core of a star.

Tell me what part of my brain is lighting up? Because that excites me. That makes me want to grab people in the street and say “have you heard this”? That it is not simply as Carl Sagan says: “We are starstuff”. But there’s a more poetic and I think more accurate way to say it. It’s quite literally true that “we are stardust”. In the highest exalted way one can use that phrase.

And so “I feel” and “I use words”. I bask in the majesty of the cosmos. “I use words, Compose sentences that sound like the sentences I hear out of people who have revelations of Jesus. Who go on pilgrimages to Mecca, There is some commonality of feeling. I know it, I want someone to do that experiment. Because the day you do. If the same centers in my brain are excited by these comic thoughts as are going on in the mind of a religious person. That is something to know.That is going to be a really interesting finding.Because what that tells me as an educator is “Let me offer the Universe to the people” and they will start taking it in and they will start achieving those fellings that they had before. And I don’t care if they abandon previous feelings. I’ve got an offering that keeps growing, that keeps becoming more majestic.

The full 3 day event can be downloaded here:
http://beyondbelief2006.org/Watch/

OK so I have been listening to most of the program over the last few days. It is absolutely the very best assemblage of modern sientists skeptics and a few religious people. Make copies for yourself and listen in on what is being said by todays brightest and best.

If you’ve been indoctrinated into any particular religion. Then you know how they either beat it out of you. Or denied you your own thoughts, curiosity and expression of how you perceive the world we live in. They even continue by insisting that their opinion about science must be considered as regards the education of today’s youth.

In my mind I imagine that the religious leaders are terrified of losing ground to the true pursuit of life that is in all of us. They can’t bear the idea that something as simple as Living life on lifes terms is it’s own reward. That living according to your hearts desires is enough. That life is not to be ruled over but is to be lived in full vigor. And what scares them the most is that they are not in charge and more and more people are rejecting their rules and phony values.

Science does keep giving. It is in the nature of human kind to give. And to give such a wonderful vision of our lives is infinitely better than the visions of hell handed out by the religious.

Something’s been bothering me since I heard it on the radio on my way in to work this morning…

Host Stephanie Miller of The Stephanie Miller Show interviewed the Rev. Jesse Jackson about the call he’s making along with Rep. Maxine Waters to “ban” at least “public” use of the word “nigger” in the wake of Michael Richards’ public racist rant. Personally, I couldn’t care less if the word completely passes out of the English language; I probably find it more offensive and disgusting than a lot of my younger African-American friends who bandy it about thanks to some rap and hip-hop music; but I find the word “ban” far more disturbing. Doesn’t it mean “censor?”

As a writer, I score censorship high up on my list of threats to civil rights and freedoms, and it concerns me that banning specific words here in the US may not stop. There are already words that aren’t supposed to be spoken on radio and TV, and the ban on some of them definitely constitutes censorship in my opinion. Do we really need to go any farther with banning words? Where will we draw the line and say, “No, we’ve done enough censoring; this one will just have to stay”?

Our British commenter Old Git has been keeping us informed of efforts in the UK to outlaw speech against religion that could conceivably be considered “offensive,” a development that quite frankly worries me. Is that what’s next for the US, a banning of anti-religious or religion-critical words such as – oh, I don’t know – “fundy?” Will outlawing the public use of the n-word not also inevitably lead to outlawing the public use of words such as “Gawd” for “God,” “Jeebus” for “Jesus,” or even “MoeHammered” for “Mohammed”?

Of course, I understand that like any other civil right, an individual’s freedom of speech stops where another’s starts; as a journalism student, I heard the classic example of punishing the yelling of “fire!” in a crowded movie theatre over and over again ad nauseum. But does this apply to, as Jackson phrases it, “public discourse” as in the media?

Obviously, being able to say something doesn’t necessarily mean it should be said; my concern is with the policing of it. As individuals, we all have the right not to listen to something that offends us, so Richards’ audience reacted to his ravings in what I consider an absolutely appropriate way: they voted with their feet and walked out on his show. But I would never support an official, governmental measure of actually banning him from ever putting on a show again, or even saying the word again.

If what Jackson is suggesting is truly a boycott of programs, performers, and media that use the n-word on a regular basis, then I don’t have a problem with that. Boycotting is a time-honored way of expressing your views; I for one refuse to watch most movies that depict rape, and I decide on a case-by-case basis whether I will watch films that have a strong but not enacted rape theme. However, that’s the extent of my protest, and if others agree and join with me in it, then fine; if not, I just go on without them.

But Jackson used the word “ban” so often in his conversation with Miller that it started to send shivers down my spine, and I don’t mean pleasant ones; “banning” does not equal “boycotting” in my book – it means “forbidding.” “Censoring.” Should we start stockpiling our copies of Huckleberry Finn as a precaution?

Then again, maybe I’m making a mountain out of molehill. I don’t know; what do you think?

Everyone has bad experiences in life. It is part of being human and is pretty much unavoidable. While we wish to hold onto memories which are dear to us and give us a warm-fuzzy feeling inside, what if we could take a pill to rid ourselves of painful and traumatic memories from events we may want to erase from our memory banks. Would you take it? What would be some of the downsides of having such a drug? Potential for abuse can be expected, as with any drug, and if it got into the wrong hands, imagine the horrors that it could cause.

In my opinion, our experiences and memories of the events in our lives, whether good or bad make us who we are. On the other hand, if you have someone who experienced something that was so terrible that the memory of it is ruining his/her quality of life, wouldn’t it make sense to take advantage of such a drug? Or are humans going to far with messing with Mother Nature?

The Memory Pill

An ongoing study suggests it’s a choice that may not be so far off. The drug is called propranolol and it’s already used to treat high blood pressure. As Lesley Stahl reports, the prospect of using propranolol to modify memory has some trauma victims filled with hope, and some critics alarmed by the potential for misuse.

Considering the potential for abuse, one commenter pointed out: “Has anyone considered what criminals can do with this drug? Isn’t guilt and shame a factor in keeping some people honest and law abiding? Now if someone steals something or even MURDERS someone, All they would have to do is take a pill and not feel bad about it at all. I think it could be a great asset to some people but a very dangerous way to escape the guilt feelings that the criminal element would, and SHOULD feel.” Also, will this be good news for rapists and those who commit crime in general? Edit: To clarify, is this good news for criminals if a rape victim or victim of other violent crime takes medication that alters memory of the event. How will this drug affect prosecution of violent crime?

Gina Scaramella, executive director of the Boston Area Rape Crisis Center, sees about 400 rape cases a year and says she and her colleagues have concerns about the use of the pill. Scaramella says it’s important for women to feel in control when they are recovering from a sexual assault, and taking propranolol means giving up control over their memories. Secondly, she says, “anyone who took that medicine could be in trouble in a legal case,” since defense lawyers may say that the victim was so unstable that she needed drugs to cope, or that the propranolol may have altered her memory about the assault. Other ethicists say the pill may erase the rage that victims will need to go on and prosecute their attackers.

In the movie, Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind, after their painful break-up, the characters of Joel and Clementine used a procedure to erase their memories of each other. But real life isn’t quite as easy. Or is it. Would you want to have your painful or unpleasant memories erased from your mind?

I’m not sure why. Maybe the results of this past election have sent are homegrown variety scurrying for more hospitable climes. Maybe Canada has finally been blessed with a Benedict Arnold of their very own. Either way, it seems an unholy alliance is being struck between our portly pulpit puncher, Jerry Falwell, and his Canadian wannabe counterpart. Now, I’ve got nothing against our northern neighbors, eh, but if we could just convince our fundies that, now that us evil, Secular Progressives are in charge here, the new boomtowns springing up around that Athabasca (Oil)Sandbox are looking mighty good, we might just trigger an exodus to the Great White North.

A good stoning or two or, maybe, a few encounters with a lion here and there, should stampede that herd. From Jeremy Leaming at Americans United for the Separation…;

“The Religious Right’s obsession over same-sex marriage is no longer limited to the United States.

In the generally more liberal nation of Canada, Religious Right groups and individuals are using same-sex marriage as a means to raise money and create a religio-political movement similar to the one that cropped up in America in the early 1980s.

According to a report in The New York Times(sorry, the link led to the Times Select wall), some of those fledgling groups have even turned to one-time influential Religious Right honcho, the Rev. Jerry Falwell, to help build Canada’s Religious Right.

Charles McVety, head of “several evangelical Christian” groups and president of the Canada Christian College in Toronto has, according to The Times, asked Falwell and “other American evangelical leaders” for pointers on fomenting anger over gay marriage.

McVety’s groups and other Christian right ones are trying to pressure the Canadian Parliament to reopen debate on the 2005 law that permits gay marriage in the nation. The Times reports that issue of same-sex marriage is riling some conservative Christian groups “like never before.”

Canada’s Conservative Party is gaining traction after a long run of power by the nation’s Liberal Party. Stephen Harper, the Conservative Party’s leader, became prime minister in January 2006, ending more than a decade of control by the Liberal Party. Harper, like President George W. Bush here, is apparently set on pleasing the Religious Right element of his party. Harper is also pushing Parliament to revisit the gay marriage law.

Jonathan Malloy, a political science professor at an Ottawa university, says that the Religious Right is growing and that attacking gay marriage is a way “to organize and keep the funds going.”

Sounds a lot like what the Religious Right does in this country. Falwell and other prominent Religious Right groups and individuals have demonized gays for many years and continue to use same-sex marriage as way to fire up their base and fill their coffers.

It’s an unseemly movement and one that no nation should want to replicate. Canada needs to learn from our mistake and seal its borders against the likes of Falwell and his legions of intolerance.”

Yes, yes, I know: no one was a fly on the wall, and all we have is the story as reported — but I still find it annoying…

Suspension of Disbelief

Bob Averill’s classmates at the Art Institute of Portland had finished up their work in a character development class on November 8, and were chatting to pass the time until class was over. The discussion moved toward spirituality. Averill, a Game Art Design student and a devoted atheist—he even runs a blog called Portland Atheist—sidled over and joined the conversation. It was the last time he’d be in an Art Institute class—within two weeks, he was expelled, less than a year before he’d hoped to graduate. In the classroom that day, Averill says one young woman was talking about her belief in energy layers and astral beings. “I jokingly asked her if she believed in leprechauns. It turns out, she does. They live on another energy layer,” Averill wrote in notes to himself later that day. “In the interest of bringing my own view to the discussion, I began to ask her how she knew these things. Again I know all too well that people can be sensitive about their spiritual beliefs, so I was pretty much walking on glass as I did so.” Averill says he wasn’t trying to disprove the other student’s religious beliefs, but “to convince her not to insist that they were scientifically proven.” The student, apparently offended, complained to the teacher. Averill was called into a meeting that evening, he says, with the Art Institute’s dean of education, associate dean, and the dean of student affairs. According to Averill, he was told the meeting was “because of my altercation with [the other student].” Averill says he pointed out that he’d “only offered a different viewpoint in a discussion that [my classmate] had started.” “They didn’t respond well,” Averill told the Mercury. “Their mantra was ‘no discussing religion in school,’ which is fine except that I did not initiate the conversation, she had.” Averill was suspended for four days, until a judicial hearing with the dean of student affairs.

So, yes, I could be wrong about my first impressions. But if this turns out to be anything like my first impressions, I sincerely hope the ACLU slams some Serious Art Institute Ass…

Nice little ditty on the Richard Dawkins site called I’m an atheist, BUT… (I can only imagine what this guy has to deal with when he goes on tour):

1. I’m an atheist, but religion is here to stay. You think you can get rid of religion? Good luck to you! You want to get rid of religion? What planet are you living on? Religion is a fixture. Get over it! […]

2. I’m an atheist, but people need religion. What are you going to put in its place? How are you going to comfort the bereaved? How are you going to fill the need? […]

3. I’m an atheist, but religion is one of the glories of human culture. […]

4. I’m an atheist, but you are only preaching to the choir. What’s the point? […]

5. I’m an atheist, but I wish to dissociate myself from your intemperately strong language. […]

I think it’s pretty interesting, especially at this stage of atheism in Amerikkka, to see what the social responses might (or should) be, and how RD’s dealing with it.

President-elect of Christian Coalition resigns

ORLANDO, Fla. (AP) — The Reverend elected to take over as president of the Christian Coalition of America said he will not assume the role because of differences in philosophy. The Rev. Joel Hunter, of Longwood’s Northland, A Church Distributed, said Wednesday that the national group would not let him expand the organization’s agenda beyond opposing abortion and gay marriage. […] Four states - Georgia, Alabama, Iowa and Ohio - have decided to split from the group over concerns its changing direction on issues like the minimum wage, the environment and Internet law instead of core issues like abortion and same-sex marriage. Hunter, who was scheduled to take over the socially conservative political group Jan. 1, said he had hoped to focus on issues such as poverty and the environment. “These are issues that Jesus would want us to care about,” Hunter said. […] “They pretty much said, ‘These issues are fine, but they’re not our issues, that’s not our base,’” Hunter said.

I find the focus on gay marriage over poverty rather uncomfortable, even if one grants the abortion stuff.

But hey, as we all know, gay marriage is a sin against God, whereas poverty is just God’s way of telling you how much He loves you.

I mean, that’s, like (DUH) a no-brainer…

Well, you know…
Just for the record…

Why will you take by force what you may have quietly by love? Why will you destroy us who supply you with food? What can you get by war? We can hide our provisions and run into the woods; then you will starve for wronging your friends. Why are you jealous of us? We are unarmed, and willing to give you what you ask, if you come in a friendly manner, and not so simple as not to know that it is much better to eat good meat, sleep comfortably, live quietly with my wives and children, laugh and be merry with the English, and trade for their copper and hatchets, than to run away from them, and to lie cold in the woods, feed on acorns, roots and such trash, and be so hunted that I can neither eat nor sleep. In these wars, my men must sit up watching, and if a twig break, they all cry out “Here comes Captain Smith!” So I must end my miserable life. Take away your guns and swords, the cause of all our jealousy, or you may all die in the same manner.

– Powhatan (1607)