Spotted in some of the local community presses:
From the Arts, Culture and Entertainment section of Our Weekly, a local newspaper targeted at the African-American community in Los Angeles:
From the ACC (A Corporation for Christ) News:
From the Education section of the L.A. Watts Times, and also the L.A. Sentinel, (Family Section, under Religion), newspapers also targeted at the Los Angeles African American community, find two more clippings. (See below, to the right and left of the text, respectively.)
Ok. I’m sorry you spilled your beverage all over your front….or unwittingly sprayed it all over your monitor! Given some of the things written here at Cosmic Variance about Religion in the past, you’re thinking either I’m going to burst into flame the moment I set foot into the place of worship, or that this is another -even more elaborate than last time- April Fool Joke perpetrated by cvj, or….. the Religious have begun to take over some of your trusted sites on the blogosphere.
None of the above is correct (as far as I know). Given the strong positions taken on Religion in some of the eloquent writings of my esteemed co-bloggers Sean and Mark, I’m *so* going to get beaten up in the playground later! I’m very much looking forward to it. We disagree, I think, on the matter of degree and emphasis -and that’s ok- but it is important to be clear on this. I’d like to say once and for all that I don’t think that Religion – in its appropriate place (e.g., not in Science class at school, masquerading as Intelligent Design) – is all bad. 
Some terrible things have been done – and continue to be done – in its name, but it is not intrinsically evil or necessarily counterproductive. While neither Sean nor Mark have used precisely those last five words (and I stress that fact), it is often the sense that is taken away -rightly or wrongly- from some of their stronger, understandably passionate, and often excellent writings on Religious matters, especially when it starts to intersect with science.
I want to say that we need not throw away the baby with the bathwater. I think that Religion can be a powerful positive organizational force in the local community, often being the only thing left for people to cling to when all else has given up or failed.
As scientists and also as non-scientists (in other words, as members of society in general), we do indeed have to be watchful that Religion is not misused. That it is not hijacked to acheive power, and to gain political advances, as is all too often done in this country. It is too easy to hide behind it, rather than present sound argument. Too easy to exploit people’s ignorance, lack of education, or insufficient grasp of the facts by appealing to religious motives to which they might more easily relate, in order to win them over to your side. We must indeed fight that whenever we can, as though our lives depend upon it, since they certainly do. Mark and Sean are two admirable soldiers in the fight, and long may they continue to ensure that the battle is joined, and fought well.
Nevertheless, I think that we must be careful not to bash Religion just for the sake of it. In fact, when opportunity arises, I think that we should use the organisational power and assets of Religion -honestly- to achieve our own ends as well, those ends being simply the teaching of the citizenry to think for themselves. To help people learn how to move forward in Society through education. From my point of view, this is simply about Science Education, and you’ve read my writings about this a lot on this blog, I hope. (See the archives, if not.)
It is simply not unworkable to promote Science and Science Education in a Religious context. It is just downright naive to think that these things are mutually exclusive. The world is just not so simple. We have to compromise. Things are never so black and white or cut and dried in almost any walk of life, for us to get to the point where we cannot -with care- find a middle ground on such important issues. I’m not advocating bringing Science into the Religion classroom any more than I would advocate bringing Religion into the Science classroom. That’s not what I’m talking about.
This polarization -war in fact- that seems so prevalent in the USA is very odd to me, (although I am aware that a lot of the recent intensity has been brought on by those who would hijack religion for other means simply going on the attack on several fronts; a defense was rightly mounted in response to this). In England, for example (at least for now….remember that whenever the USA sneezes, the UK catches cold a while later, so don’t be smug), looking at the official Religion of the state (yes, think about that for a moment…there is a state Religion. So easy to forget, fortunately, and that’s the point…), the role of Religion in your typical local village as an organisational center can be simply marvellous. Nobody troubles you to wear your belief or non-belief in God on your sleeve. It is simply your private business, about which nobody forces you to talk. In fact, people can get downright uncomfortable if the whole issue of belief gets brought up. I know a lifelong Atheist who is an extremely nice fellow, a pillar of the community in his village. He regularly does readings in church on Sunday from his personal well-worn copy of the Bible. He raises tons of money every year for the local church by having garden sales. In cased you missed it a sentence or two ago: He’s an Atheist. It’s just not a big deal. In fact, it is just irrelevant. There are lots of members of the Church of England who are just like this. I’m pretty sure that there are a lot of Church of England vicars who are like this too! It does not actually matter so much to the business of quietly getting on and serving your community.
I should note (although several will ignore this remark anyway) that I’m aware that religion in the UK is far from simple -especially in light of Northern Ireland, immigration from very diverse parts of the world, and the global political climate brought to a head in September of 2001- and I am aware that a certain degree of relative affluence, together with the quiet confidence that you are the state religion, allows for such apparent indifference to the supposed “core mission”, but I am not so sure that it should be so easily dismissed as an example from which we can learn something.
So you are probably wondering what the backstory is behind the press clippings above. (Yes, this is cvj writing, so there’s always a long backstory.) Well one day a month or two ago I was sitting in my office doing some physics (as I’ve been known to do from time to time…got to get my own jokes in before you do), when a well dressed black gentleman of about my height knocked on my door. He wanted a minute of my time. The only well-dressed people who show up in the physics department are usually the “evil” textbook sellers (more on them later), but he was not really of the right combination of age and look in the eye. So I invited him in, since I’m always happy to give a minute of my time to speak to someone from the community, whether it be the USC community or beyond.
Turned out it was beyond. He started out, rather cautiously (as though expecting me to run out of patience and throw him out at any moment) explaining that he is the pastor -Aaron Howard- of a local church, the Overcomers Church of God in Christ, in South Los Angeles and that he is trying to do something important to help the community. He is particularly interested in the younger members of the community who are growing up surrounded by the prevailing media’s negative stereotypes of what they can become (or simply a lack of positive ones). He wants to expose them to other ideas about career choices that they can make. They don’t have to become gang bangers, and drug dealers (to take two extreme, but sadly not uncommon, examples)…. at this point I chimed in with a big grin on my face, saying that they don’t have to become NBA stars or rappers either. They can become doctors, lawyers, teachers……..Scientists!
He seemed stunned that I was not only receptive to his opening gambit, I was fluent in it myself! I reached over and shook his hand and said “I write about this issue all the time! How can I help?!” (You, dear reader, know that I write about this, of course. See for example my posts entitled “Black Scientists“, “Encounters“, and “The Black Middle Classes“.)
He was delighted. He wanted to know if I would come to speak in his Church one Sunday. I said that I’d be honoured to do so. He’s setting up a series of talks and he is trying to find speakers who will come and speak. He’s calling it “The Black Intelligence Series”, and he wants me to talk about “The Scientific Mind”. He hopes I can talk about my own trajectory into science, what kind of science I do, what career opportunites there are for kids who want to do science, what the life is like, how to follow such a career path, etc, etc, etc. He’s be doing a lot of advertising to make sure that it is well attended. Hence all the press clippings.
I agreed to all of that. He said hoped he might be able to offer me an honorarium for doing it. I of course asked him to donate it to the community instead….Heck, I should be paying him for the opportunity to do this! As you might have gathered, I’m a big fan of getting out there and doing useful things, rather than just sitting around talking or writing about them. And I’ve been writing a lot about trying to reach right into the heart of the community to find the young kids (and their parents) and tell them the Good News: They’re allowed to be scientists too. It’s not just for the white kids. They really don’t know this. Somebody needs to tell them. The media sure are not.
Oh, and guess how he heard about me? Do you remember that post I wrote on this blog entitled “I’m Not Sure What This Means“, about that article that was done about me being the most cited Black Mathematician of 2005, as studied by the Journal of Blacks in Higher Education? Well, he saw the article in that journal, and thought that I would be a person to ask to talk in his church. So what was the point of the exercise? Well, had that article not been written, he might never have heard of me. So that’s one meaning that the article had, right there. That alone is probably enough of a point, I think.
So on Sunday I’m going to this church (it is actually an elementary school during the weekday). After Sunday school, they’ll have the service at 11:00am where they say some prayers, and then….. I’m the one giving the sermon. For an hour or so. With questions and answers. Wow. Come along if you like!
-cvj
April 25th, 2006 at 11:35 pm
Excellent!
I bet that as a result of your talk, at least one of the young members of your congregation will grow up to be a scientist. They might wonder how they can learn to talk like Harry Potter too.
I’m glad you’re doing this — even if the Church is an untraditional forum for math & physics.
April 25th, 2006 at 11:43 pm
One thing people often forget about religion is that ideas themselves are blameless. It’s what people take from them that has the power to hurt or heal the world.
I’m glad to hear you noticed that, professor! I’m sure those kids and their families will have a blast.
April 25th, 2006 at 11:52 pm
I’m not quite sure how “for the most part I’m pretty neutral on whether or not religion’s overall impact is good or bad” could be interpreted to imply that religion is “intrinsically evil” or “necessarily counterproductive,” unless you really wanted to find something that wasn’t there, or were just setting up a straw man.
I’ve said it countless times, without any apparent effect, but my argument with religion is that it is false, not that it is “evil.” Whether or not it’s a good idea to take advantage of false beliefs in order to advance a greater good is a stickier issue, one I try to stay away from (not with perfect success).
April 26th, 2006 at 12:17 am
Hi Sean,
I tried to put some distance between you and those words/chariacatures. Perhaps I did not do as good a job as I should have? I meant no offense…. of course. I do know that people often do -rightly or wrongly, as I’ve said- take away such an impression, and I took care to stress that you’ve not said that, and tried to stress where the real battle is being fought by you and others.
Best,
-cvj
April 26th, 2006 at 12:31 am
I wish I could attend, is it going to be on the web later, or maybe a podcast?
(not going to get into the religion thing, maybe over beers sometime…)
April 26th, 2006 at 12:31 am
Of course I’m not surprised about your decision to speak at a church. I’ve heard your stories about attending (being late!) to church with your mom. Just because you choose a church as your venue doesn’t mean you have to buy into everything they say. Besides, what a wonderful opportunity to reach a bunch of kids who are probably more interested in basketball, i-pods and girls than science.
April 26th, 2006 at 1:30 am
I’m sorry, maybe I didn’t read carefully enough…but does cvj believe that [some] religion is *true* as well as being possibly harmless? Well, it occurs to me that cvj is well within his rights to say, “none of your business”, but surely he realises that a lot of readers are asking this question. By the way, answers of the form, “yes I do, but I’m not interested in debating anything of this sort” are perfectly ok too.
April 26th, 2006 at 2:00 am
Thank you for doing this and for writing so well about it.
April 26th, 2006 at 4:50 am
When reading this, I come away with the feeling that the issue is addressed on a societal level (should religion be taught in the science classroom?) and on the community level (can it bind people together?), but not really on the personal level. Is it really good for people to believe falsehoods and to have them reinforced by a community? I am not primarily talking about the kind you mentioned where an atheist was accepted, but of the more fundamentalist kind of communities. These communities are all very nice if you share the beliefs of the group, but you cannot have too many doubts or you will be excluded not just from the group but something terrible will happen like you’ll go to hell or whatever the religion in question uses to scare people into line. Such groups literally foster a we-them way of thinking. Despite all the love and nice cozy communtiy feeling on the surface, there’s often an undercurrent of, well, something else: love thy neighbour but worship a god that will send him to hell, do not question the teachings or authority, et cetera. This whole atmosphere can be quite damaging to someone with a curious mind, especially if he or she is a child. Also, it is just plain offensive to the outsiders who supposedly deserve to be sent to hell. I really think there is too much respect for religion around. We really need to start looking at what religions actually say, rather than focusing on everyone’s right to believe what they want (obvious) which in some cases also seems to give them certain privileges over those who do not believe (not obvious). We have a responsibility to expose the naked emperor, make it clear to the people who are trapped in religion that it is okay to not believe. These communities are not always as nice and cuddly as they seem, especially if you happen to have an inquisitative personality. I am not just talking about the obvious examples such as sects.
April 26th, 2006 at 5:27 am
Clifford said “… I think that Religion can be a powerful positive organizational force in the local community, often being the only thing left for people to cling to when all else has given up or failed. …”.
Sean said “… religion … is false…”.
Sean’s statement “… religion … is false …”
cannot be studied by comparison with facts unless it is restricted to some specific set of religions with specific doctrines.
Perhaps Sean’s use of the term “religion” is restricted to the family/university religion that is the basis of Sean’s feelings and opinions. *
If it is not so restricted, it seems to me that “… religion … is false …” is itself an expression of belief based on faith and therefore is itself a form of “religion”.
On the other hand, Clifford’s statement “… Religion can be a powerful positive organizational force in the local community …”
can be studied by looking at events in human history (including very recent = current events) and evaluating them.
Clifford’s involvement in Aaron Howard’s “… “Black Intelligence Series …” about “… The Scientific Mind …” is such an event, and I hope that it is a successful one. As the TV commerial said, “A Mind is a Terrible Thing to Waste”, and I hope that the kids know that they DO have minds and that they CAN have a career in science.
Does USC physics have a program where kids can come in and learn some physics (simple labs and/or seminar-like discussion with people in the department), maybe after school or in the summer ?
Could the Overcomers Church of God in Christ, and/or other churches/organizations, jointly participate with USC physics in such a program ?
Maybe it would be a good idea to consider such things as part of a big experiment, and to reserve “judgement” about “religion” until more such experimental data is available. (i.e., maybe human “religion” has been and is itself evolving, and therefore is a work in progress, not yet in any “final” form)
Anyhow, I admire the efforts of Clifford and Aaron Howard, and I hope they are successful. To see a kid’s eyes light up upon understanding a concept is worth more than any honorarium.
Tony Smith
http://www.valdostamuseum.org/hamsmith/
* – Sean said in a comment to an earlier post “… my feelings about religion … are informed and well-considered opinions, reached after growing up in a religious family, attending a religious university, living in a religious country, and writing, speaking, and teaching extensively on issues involving religion. …”.
April 26th, 2006 at 6:43 am
I’m going to reproduce something that was posted on pharyngula, and then I’ll shut up. Prior to that, I’m saying that it behooves a physicist to seek the empirical reality and not to reside in some theoretical paradise about what they imagine religion to be, and snootily pronouncing things to be false without any clue as to what they’re talking about.
April 26th, 2006 at 7:22 am
Way to go, brother, spread the word and hope it will inspire the young upcoming generation to appreciate and not to fear science. cmj+crew
April 26th, 2006 at 7:27 am
Clifford — great post. I’m glad to see somebody at cosmicvariance realizing that a great way to get the message out is to engage the religious and help them see that in fact a full embrace of science is *not*, after all, inconsistent with any religious philosophy that isn’t atheism. (Yes, it is inconsistent with some, e.g. (obviously) creationism, but atheism isn’t the only choice.) Sean may believe that religion is false — but given that there are parts of religion that aren’t addressed or addressable by science, that’s not a completely scientific conclusion or opinion. (He is, of course, still fully entitled to that belief, and one should still recognize the great things he can say or do even if one doesn’t happen to agree with that belief! )
It doesn’t really help the cause of good science understanding all that much to conflate any given religious belief or lack thereof with good science understanding. *Yes*, most of the anti-science forces out there are religiously motivated, but I think a better way to fight that is to help especially the quiet moderate majority understand that science *isn’t* intrinsically anti-religion than to insist that the answer is undermining and getting rid of religion altogether.
I write a fair amount about this in my blog entiry on being a scientist and not an atheist.
(P.S.: is it possible for a given commenter to turn off the insta-preview in the comments? When I’m typing on my old 600MHz PIII laptop, I can type a lot faster than the preview can update itself.)
April 26th, 2006 at 7:46 am
“ideas themselves are blameless”
Cough, cough … false theories … cough … dualisms … cough … supernaturals … cough … souls … cough … religion must provide morality … cough, cough.
April 26th, 2006 at 9:35 am
Clifford/Sean,
I agree wholeheartedly that religion can has a positive social impact in the areas of social justice. One does not have to accept a belief in God or the supernatural to feel that treating all people with dignity and respect and ensuring that people have enough to eat and proper shelter and education and healthcare are worthy goals for society. I suspect that if you decouple the supernatural belief structure from the social justice imperative that there would be very little disagreement regarding the “potential” positive effects that “religion” can have in the social justice arena.
This of course begs the question is it truly religion or just fundamental morality.
Cheers,
Elliot
April 26th, 2006 at 9:56 am
Amazon link to a book.
http://www.lewrockwell.com/woods/woods40.html
Religion has trapped me, everyone! Please help meeeeeeeeeeeee!
Yes, religion is false. My physics experiments tell me so. So there!
Here’s another good book:
Another Amazon link.
April 26th, 2006 at 10:11 am
Blaming the ideas is like saying: “Guns don’t kill people — it’s those darned bullets.”
April 26th, 2006 at 10:34 am
One thought – suppose you are a minority in a field that is thought by many to be beyond the reach of the members of that minority. To what lengths would you go to reverse that perception in the minds of your fellow minority?
That you have to attend church to do this would seem to me to be one of the least of your worries.
April 26th, 2006 at 10:40 am
You know, religion really isn’t something we talk about much in the UK. And reading mostly US blogs, I had kind of forgotten that there are sensible religious folks out there. Having said that, I still feel that the emphasis on ‘revealed truth’ and faith is something that will always make me uncomfortable about religion, probably largely due to my interest in science.
Although a lot of the important content of religion is nothing the hell to do with science, science has shown the benefits of remaining uncertain and re-evaluating our ideas. As an obvious example, science cannot tell us if homosexuality is ‘good’ or ‘bad’. But that doesn’t mean that religions that proscribe against it (or think they do) shouldn’t rigorously consider whether their aversion to it is actually an issue of morality or prejudice. (Of course, liberal movements in religion are already doing this.)
April 26th, 2006 at 10:54 am
Even as a long-time atheist, I’m happy to say: well done, Clifford! Good luck on Sunday.
April 26th, 2006 at 11:07 am
Thanks for a great post Clifford – it’s awesome you’re out there in the churches talking about science and providing a positive role model. Hope the talk goes really well.
Very quickly on the religious issue. As an agnostic/atheist I can certainly sympathize with Sean’s comment about religion being false. But, I am also a person who attends church regularly (and is generally pro-certain-types-of-religion) and I do think that the intense focus on truth and falsity that comes from Mark and Sean’s scientific critique is a little besides the point.
At lot of church goers (maybe not “most”, but a lot) simply don’t care very much about the epistemology – it’s not really the point for them, and not why they are sitting in the pews. They are there for the community, for the message that Jesus (or whoever) loves them, for the coffee and donuts and the human interaction. For a million little things like that.
IMHO a BIG part of religion is in fact moral philosophy. And of course, religious people don’t agree with each other about this (compare the politics of the UCC against the Southern Baptists, for example). But then neither does anybody else. No one bases their political or moral philosophy on the “truth” of their beliefs, no one comes to their political beliefs by arguing from first principles — we all flatter ourselves that we do, but we really don’t. We pick the poetry we like, and disregard the rest. And in that sphere, I think a religious perspective can be just as meaningful (and just as meaningless) as anybody else’s opinions.
I don’t happen to believe that Jesus died for my sins, but when he talks about loving your neighbor as yourself, I find that at least as beautiful as Emily Dickinson.
April 26th, 2006 at 11:47 am
“Blaming the ideas is like saying: “Guns don’t kill people — it’s those darned bullets.”"
That isn’t the case, I think. Those ideas can be looked upon and used to create other ideas while not being used as such. But it isn’t even that they may be used to make ploughshares. They are wrong – the gun explodes if used.
April 26th, 2006 at 12:08 pm
I applaud you doing this Clifford. Nothing I’ve ever said or written is at odds with discussing the things you are discussing with a religious audience – I’m quite surprised you thought to write in your post that it might.
I am in the camp that thinks religion is a waste of time and that, in those areas where faith, belief and dogma make claims about the material world, that they face being disproved by science, as so many claims already have been. I don’t need to believe in a “higher power” to have a strong moral compass and, as we see in the millions of evangelical Christians in the U.S. who support many of the more obnoxious policies of the Bush administration, belief in a “higher power” does not necessarily result in god morals, at least as I see them.
This is entirely different from saying that one shouldn’t talk to religious people – I do it all the time – and who would be against trying to convince kids of any kind that they can be scientists?
Who would care about going to a church? We all go to weddings of good friends, which often take place in them.
April 26th, 2006 at 12:17 pm
Mark,
Thanks. I’m puzzled as to why you think that everything I wrote in the post was meant to be in opposition to your position. It is as though if I wrote somewhere later in the post that the sky is blue, it would imply that you were in opposition to that position. I find myself quite surprised by your interpretation. My remarks about things you wrote in the past -often excellent things- were quite specific. And then I moved on to frame the issues about which I wished to speak. (The playground remark was an attempt at humour.)
Cheers,
-cvj
April 26th, 2006 at 12:21 pm
I don’t think such a blanket statement. We don’t disagree greatly here – my comment is more on the tone – we can discuss this offline in any case.
Best of luck with your talk.
April 26th, 2006 at 1:30 pm
Paul Erdös used to call giving talks “preaching.”
(He had lots of other idiosyncratic terminologies as well)
So preach on preach!
April 26th, 2006 at 2:01 pm
First off, I believe helping society in this way is a good thing, regardless of the color of skin, regardless of the religion. I see no differences for a child with instilling in them, the hopes for a brighter future. Dreams of what they want to be. Make this real for them.
I withheld my comments many times. Maybe that’a good thing to some?
While I watch Sean’s post on atheistic approach, I noticed that some people were absent in the conversations, as to the opinion’s they might have. I mean, it might appeal to them not to say anything and watch from the sidelines like I did. I was always curious though, as to what they thought about religion and such, from a scientists point of view.
While subjective and opinionated each scientist could be, having considered the responsibility of stepping out front, having assumed the biographical scketch of Sean let’s say religious upbringing, what was the most appropriate course of action, now stepping on stage and speaking to society?
Deep down the mission statement seems tangible as I look over the way things are being done here in CV. Find it very useful, yet, because of the uniqueness of the individuals approaches, different, just as K.C Coles points out the relevances between, the scientific cafe and categorically not, was there such a place where there would exist no divisons in thinking? Ultimately, what was that missions statement saying? Only the best for society and from varying points of view?
This was a truly civilized/humanistic thing to do in a growing/maturing society. So again, wonderful.
April 26th, 2006 at 3:29 pm
Whether or not it’s a good idea to take advantage of false beliefs in order to advance a greater good is a stickier issue,
Sean’s point here is the conundrum, for those of us who are activists, who do not believe as so many others in our communities believe. As someone who spent decades studying the histories, philosophies, and phenomenologies of religions, i have my own views of what religion is and is not. I do however set some of that aside these days, so that i can use what know about these religions to interact with congregations, in order to increase their participation in protecting the environment of the planet. I confess that i take advantage of what i know of these mythic belief systems to tweak changes in social and civic behaviors. We cannot underestimate the sheer numbers of those who hold them (the vast majority of citizens in the US), their economic and political impacts on our world from just their day-to-day choices and behaviors. Encouraging them to care for creation, as they see it (greening congregations of faith as i see it) is a greater good in the long run. Clifford’s choice to present his talk, likewise can encourage a better future; and even if only one single person is awakened to the possibility that he or she can become a scientist, we all benefit.
April 26th, 2006 at 4:17 pm
As someone who completely disagrees with Clifford’s opinion about the pros and cons of religion (my view is far more negative) I would have no problem speaking in a church if I had anything worthwhile saying as long as they weren’t using the appearence to push some particular point of view say about the connection between science and religion (wouldn’t work with me speaking but it may in principle with Clifford) or if the church was known for explicitly pushing a view I consider completely immoral (e.g. anti-contraception or anti-abortion).
On the whole I think that the science v. religion issue is a bit of a red herring in the larger context. In a sense I disagree with Ron Knop that most of the anti-science forces out there are religiously motivated – my understanding is that the opposition say to physics from religion is pretty well negligible and most of the opposition comes from rationalists (i.e. those who over-sell the role of their logic and common sense). Obviously biology is a different matter. Overall I think religious morality is a much more powerful force for the bad than religious intrusions into science – mainly because religion actually has credibility in many people’s eyes in the former realm but not the latter.
In summary – I think the conflict between science and religion is the least of the problems with religion – though it’s natural that it’s the one that troubles honest and well-educated religious people most because for such people well backed up scientific theories are among the hardest things to disagree with.
April 26th, 2006 at 5:36 pm
my understanding is that the opposition say to physics from religion is pretty well negligible
Fundamentalist opposition to topics in physics and astronomy may not be as frequent or as fervent as their attacks on evolution, but I wouldn’t call it negligible.
April 26th, 2006 at 5:59 pm
Do you celebrate Christmas? Even as an atheist? You know that it, or its predecessors were based on “religion”. Oh, to celebrate it has now become a custom, a tradition, and has nothing to do with belief? It has nothing to do with any “greater good”? Shouldn’t we abolish this festival?
It turns out humans have artifacts that have nothing to do with facts, explanations, beliefs or the greater good. How irrational humans are!
April 26th, 2006 at 6:12 pm
Best of luck with your talk. Good on you!
–Q.
April 26th, 2006 at 6:13 pm
Don’t you mean Xmas?
April 26th, 2006 at 6:23 pm
“Yes, this is cvj writing, so there’s always a long backstory”
I hope you know that a lot of us who read you here wouldn’t want it any other way. Wonderful post.
April 27th, 2006 at 8:22 pm
[...] Actually, this year I won’t be able to see much because I promised to go with a big group to the top of Mount Wilson the fun way, which will take up most of Saturday. On Sunday, I’m doing the church sermon thing I mentioned earlier and then they are taking me to lunch and doing more Q&A, so I don’t know when I’ll make it over to UCLA that day. [...]
April 28th, 2006 at 9:27 pm
First, great story, loved it, keep up the cause. Thanks for writing about it.
Second, what is it about youngsters and religion these days? I mean, I was a teenage atheist too, but back then it was a rare thing. Sister Fraley made a fuss over me and called me the “ape man”. Nowadays it seems almost fashionable. I need a young-un to explain what’s up.
Nowadays I’m an classic intellectual agnostic, with a fair bit of theology under my belt. I have a lot of sympathy for the religious impulse, even if I fear any deity/designer would be as likely malevolent as indifferent, and most unlikely compassionate.
So given all that, I’m struck by the rise of aggressive atheism. As I wrote to PZ Myers (he ignored me), it’s a scary, nasty, harsh, cruel, relentless universe out there. What’s wrong with sheltering in a comforting story? Heck, if I could do it I probably would.
April 29th, 2006 at 10:28 am
Hope your talk goes well! I think it’s great that you’re doing this. As an astronomer and a Catholic, I’ve never seen any need for antagonism between science and religion.
And I really admire all the churches who reach out to their neighborhoods. I noticed St. John the Divine church in NYC really did a lot of this when I visited there a few years ago.
April 30th, 2006 at 4:00 am
[...] Which reminds me. Sleep. Must get up and write and give sermon tomorrow. [...]
April 30th, 2006 at 5:57 pm
Clifford said that he is “… going to this church (it is actually an elementary school during the weekday) …”.
Is the school part of the LA public school system ?
If so, has there been any controversy about use of public facilities to support religion ?
Tony Smith
http://www.valdostamuseum.org/hamsmith/
PS – I guess I should state my position for the record – I am OK with that type of church/state contract, i.e. use of state facilities during times (such as weekends) when they are not being used for their state purposes, so long as there is no discrimination among groups requesting (or bidding for) such use.
April 30th, 2006 at 10:51 pm
[...] Well, it went wonderfully. What went wonderfully? My one hour (plus) talk at a local church in the ‘hood. I mentioned the backstory in a previous post. It was quite a long day in the end. I got up at 6:00am to write my “sermon” -which involved hunting with Google images for images which would illustrate the various themes I wanted to bring out. I sketched what I wanted to say mostly in my head and on a few scraps of paper, but the idea was not to be scripted, and talk off the cuff. The scribbling was simply a means of ordering various themes. [...]
October 16th, 2006 at 8:46 pm
[...] I laughed, I’ll admit. I find his fresh-faced and cheerful style quite funny at times. But then I got thinking. I can’t decide whether I should be depressed at the potency of the stereotypes he is playing with, or just carry on giggling. For example, why did the guys who were representing the complete opposite of being nerdy (and into science, reading, and the like) have to be cast as black? Worse than that (or at least equally as bad) is that fact that not one of his friends (on the chess team, or at the Renaissance fair, or other apparently nerdy activities, is black). In fact, the only thing that the white people and the black people in the video have in common is bowling, apparently. This really does not help at all, but he’s not to shoulder the whole blame of course – he’s merely reflecting the prevailing biases of the culture at large. Images all around implicitly and sometimes explicitly tell young black kids that science is not for them. Either because they supposedly can’t do it very well, or because it is not part of their “culture”, or because it is just not “cool” (I’ve blogged about this before. See here and here for example, and the discussion that followed). So Al and his people toed the line in trying to make a funny video. Nobody is going to laugh as much if the main “cool” guys were white, or if the principal “nerd” was black. They’d just think it was unrealistic. But did it have to be so completely polarized? Could there not be one “cool” guy who was white, and one “nerd” who was black? Just in the background somewhere? Would it really have reduced the impact of the joke so much? Sigh. [...]