Pink Prozac - a luscious cocktail

Book Blog

I'm starting a book blog as a way to share with family and friends books we are reading. I find myself aimlessly wondering around Borders looking for something good to read.

So, I thought this might be a good way to share what we are reading with one another. I didn't set this up to have long discussions about a certain book, however that can be fun too and I do not discourage it.

My main objective is that I want to know what YOU are reading and if you think that I might enjoy that book. Me or others that might be interested in participating.

Also, books are expensive these days and I do buy the hardbacks if I think I will like it. One thing we can also think about doing is sharing books. Saves money. You can mail a book cheap (even a hardback) just write on the package MEDIA MAIL. Ok, so we might not have time for all that but maybe if we know who might be interested we can hold on to the book for that person.

I am just starting to think about how to do this with the blog format but its easy to add books. I type in the name of the book, they are hooked up with Amazon and the book cover comes right on the page. You can then click on the book and it will take you right to that book on Amazon.com. I always buy used books there..even ones that just came out.

Make a comment about any book you are reading, that you read years ago, loved, sucked..whatever.

I want to then take that info and make categories..horror, suspense, real crime (yes, Patti thinking of you here) and then put our comments.

I think it might be fun!

There is a link to the right for the book blog on this site. Come back often to add books and see what new books are added.

Steven Pinker

I have this book sitting on my shelf that I bought over a year ago that I have yet to read. The Blank Slate by Steven Pinker. In the book Intelligent Thought he writes an essay called:

Evolution and Ethics

Pinker states that the point of his essay is that "Its true science cannot provide us with moral principles. But neither can religion."

He talks about why it seems that there is association with religion and morality. If anyone would look at history they would see that the opposite seems to happen. The bible talks of many atrocities of humans killing others in the name of God.

Pinker states "that religion has given the world stonings, witch burnings, crusades, inquisitions, holy wars. jihads, fatwas, suicide bombers, gay bashers, abortion-clinic gunmen, child molesters, and mothers who drown their sons so they can happily be reunited in heaven."

Pinker poses the question "If morality doesn't come from religion, where does it come from?"

This is an important question to me, since I have been asked some ridiculous questions from an old boss of mine. I was never shy to say that I was an agnostic or atheist, if the subject came up. It did come up a lot after I was diagnosed with breast cancer. My boss didn't say this but someone commented on how I could ever get through such a thing without God or believing in God. I guess I was put to the ultimate atheist test at that point - would I revert to praying once cancer came into my life? no.

When I was told I had cancer I was scared to death. I had to face my mortality head on at a relatively young age. I never even once thought of praying to God. I knew that in my mind it was all just a matter of whether the chemo would work, my immune system could kick in or that the cancer was not that virulent and I would survive. I put my faith in my knowledge about what decisions to make and the physicians that I picked to help me with my cancer battle.

Back to my old boss - I think he actually was a bit fascinated with me being an atheist so he would ask me some odd questions that I never encountered before. One was: How come (since you don't believe in God) that you don't go out and stab people in the back. I think he meant it figuratively, not literally. So, what was he saying here? He was wondering how I could have morals if I didn't believe in an afterlife and God. My answer was this -- I don't stab people in the back or do horrible things to others because I value human life. Thats it.

So does that mean the only reason that HE isn't doing bad things to others is because he believes he will be punished in the afterlife? Hmmm..I think that maybe I'm the better person here because I'm trying to be a moral person for the sake of it. Not because I believe I'm going to get a reward or punishment after I die.

So what does Pinker have to say on this issue?

"The theory of natural selection has no trouble explaining the evolution of moral sense. The love of one's children and other blood relatives is a direct consequence of the way evolution works. a gene that impelled an organism to help a close relative would indirectly be helping a copy of that gene sitting inside the relative, and such a gene would then spread through the population"

"So not only is Darwinism compatible with our having moral sense, it can explain why we evolved to have one."

It seems clear to me that this moral sense that we do have is part of us because we want our species to survive and carry on. It is a positive attribute. Remember learning in biology class -- Survival of the Fittest? As homo sapiens we are at the top of the latter as far as other species on this earth. We got here by generations upon generations upon generations etc... of using what best works to keep us alive and reproducing.

Intelligent Thought: Science verses the Intelligent Design Movement

Bought this book yesterday.

It is edited by John Brockman and in the introduction he tells us that -- This book - sixteen essays by leading scientists from several disciplines (Richard Dawkins and Daniel Dennett to name a few) -- is a thoughtful response to the bizarre claims made by the ID movement's advocates, whose only interest in science appears to be to replace it with beliefs consistent with those of the Middle Ages.

School districts across the country -- most notably in Kansas and later in Pennsylvania, where the anti-evolutionist tide was turned but undoubtedly not stopped -- have been besieged by demands to "teach the debate", to "present the controversy". When in actuality, there is no debate, no controversy. What there is, quite simply, is a duplicitous public relations campaign funded by Christian fundamentalist interests.

I'm still reading Monkey Girl which tells of the Pennsylvania story in depth.

Monkey Girl

I started a new book today called Monkey Girl: Evolution, Education, Religion, and The Battle For America's Soul. by Edward Humes.

On the jacket it says Told from the perspectives of all side of the battle, Monkey Girl is about what happens when science and religion collide.

I'm only on chapter three but the book is very interesting so far. I'm not all that familiar with the details of the recent wars over evolution in Dover, PA. This book takes you behind the scenes.

Some notable quotes from the book:

• "he (a religious member of the school board) fails to grasp that evolutionary theory is in no way claims that man descended from apes, but only that today's men and today's apes share a common ancestor in the distant, prehistoric past."
• "he would have explained what a hypothesis and a theory and peer review were all about; how careful observation and data collection can confirm a hypothesis sufficiently to make it a theory; and how a theory is not just a guess or speculation in the world of science, but a robust and tested explanation of natural phenomena."
• "Creationist leaders have read the same surveys as evolution proponents: poll after poll that shows belief in evolution rises with education level, while areas in the United States with the strongest commitment to creationism tend, as a whole, to have the lowest level of education. Decades of Gallop polls unwaveringly reveal a remarkable correlation between education and what Americans believe about origins.
• 65 percent of Americans who attended graduate school believe evolutionary theory is scientific and well supported by the evidence.
• 52 percent of those with bachelor's degrees accept evolution
• Only 20 percent of Americans with high school educations or less believe evolutionary theory is well supported by the facts."

good stuff so far~

There is a designer alright -- it is man

On Monday, May 14, the Future Forum hosted a debate on religion and politics between Christopher Hitchens and Marvin Olasky.

I listened to the debate and wanted to write some of Christopher Hitchens main points. He started off the debate by explaining that he uses the term anti-theism instead of atheism.

• His objection to a higher power comes from the fact that the claims being made are not true.
• Our beliefs stem from the 'infancy of our species'. 'Explanations had to be found in absense of crucial information.' (we were very ignorant about our world and universe - men wanted to come up with an explaination)
• There are those that think they can not only 'know' that God exists but can also explain to us this entity's mind and tell us its intimate and personal wishes. 'Power is given to the speaker (priests ect), he can tell you that he knows these things but not how he knows these things.'

Hitchens suggests a design alright. A design that is man made. A design by human beings themselves. He said that the belief in a higher power was designed in a time of ignorance and gave men an enormous advantage for power in the here and now. He states that its a dictatorial kind of power. One that can tell us what is right or wrong to eat (God doesn't like pork). One that can tell us not only who to have sex with but what kind of sex is allowed.

He says 'what arrogance' to make rules and say its backed up by a divine being.

Olansky took over for a time and mostly talked about Hitchen's book. Olansky tells of many good works done by those that are religious and challenges Hitchens statement that religion poisons everything.

Hitchens comes back with a good point. You don't need religious reasons to help your fellow man. Why would you need an extra reason to help others? He asked the religious..what is your agenda? Do you do what you do to be rewarded at some later time? He has more respect for those that do good things just for the fact that they do it for its own sake.

Hitchens also spoke about the fact that there are atheists out there that wish there was a god but decide that there is not enough evidence so they don't believe. He in fact states -- that he himself is glad there is no god. He is glad that he isn't under 'permanent unchangeable round the clock surveillance.'

Thanks Dad!

For sending in the mail (from Arizona) the book --  God is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything by Christopher Hitchens.

Oh yes, I saw the book while you were here, you were in the middle of reading it on the airplane ride, not finished yet but promised the book would come in the mail.

And a nice note accompanied the book " Enjoy, fellow non-believer"..love dad.

Atheist Universe

Excited! Atheist Universe: The Thinking Person's Answer to Christian Fundamentalism by David Mills, just came in the mail.

Some excerpts from the book:

I'm sure your familiar with public opinion polls which consistently show that 94 to 96 percent of all Americans believe in God. Is everyone else wrong but you?

David Mills: No. If the United States has a current population of approximately 280 million people, and if, lets say, 5 percent are atheists, that's 14 million atheists in the US alone. So, like it or not, there are plenty of us out there.

Don't you think that religion offers great comfort to people?

David Mills: Occasionally it does. But more often, religion is a source of overwhelming guilt and anxiety. You have this unbelievable nosy voyeur in the sky, allegedly watching your every move and monitoring all  your private thoughts. If God detects any 'sin' in your life, then He threatens to roast you eternally in a fiery torture chamber. This belief is hardly comforting.

How do you respond to the charge that atheism is a completely negative philosophy? We know what you're against but we don't know what you're for. Aren't you just trying to rain on someone else's parade, yet offering no alternative?

David Mills: No. I've always considered atheism to be a very positive philosophy in that, by eliminating a very burdensome obligation to appease a nonexistent God, an individual thereby gains maximum freedom to choose his own goals and ideals for a satisfying life. Atheism doesn't have any kind of stiff, ritualized credo. Your right. But that's why it's so appealing. Atheism is synonymous with freedom and freedom of thought, which, in my opinion, are highly positive and desirable.

Cool!

The author of Atheist Universe left me a comment on my blog!

I actually ordered the book from amazon before I watched his video. Can't wait to read it.

www.davidmills.net

I have to order this book!

cancer made me a shallower person..click here

Why you shouldn't read Kevin Trudeau's book.

Natural Cures “They” Don’t Want You to Know About

I came across a website called quackwatch.org while searching for some explainations to the acid/alkaline theory of disease that Kevin Trudeau talks about in his infomercial.

Its nonsense..explaination

This website also has the transcript of Kevin Trudeau's infomercial and some interesting comments... right here.

What is going on here? Why is this book on the best seller list? 

scary!