Not charities

This. Is. Infuriating. If you follow the link, you'll see that Bono's "charity" collected $15M to help starving African children but only distributed 185K. The lion's share of the money it collected was for the executives and employees and the charities, not the cause for which donors gave the money. To make things worse, this "charity" tried to entice donors to help out by handing out $15 bags containing Starbucks coffee and designer water bottles. This should be criminal. It happens in charities small and large. Not all charities, but many of them. And how did it ever get to be acceptable that in order to convince me to give money to a charity, that that charity should first give something to me? Classic case: Girl Scout cookies. If you are approached to give to most internet causes, you are asked to decide what GIFT you'd like as part of the deal. Coffee mug? T-Shirt? Musical CD? I understand Robert Cialdini's finding that reciprocation is a great way to manipulate a potential donor:

Reciprocation. People are more willing to comply with requests (for favors, services, information, concessions, etc.) from those who have provided such things first. For example, according to the American Disabled Veterans organization, mailing out a simple appeal for donations produces an 18% success rate; but, enclosing a small gift–personalized address labels–boosts the success rate to 35%

On the other hand, how refreshing it is (in the rare cases) where you are convinced to give to a charity simply because it seems to be doing a good job, and where there's nothing in it for you (other than the fact that you are displaying to others that you are a generous person). Maybe there is no such thing as altruism . . .

Continue ReadingNot charities

Exploring reasonable doubts by listening to “Reasonable Doubts” podcasts

If you are interested in hearing well-considered podcasts putting religious claims under the microscope, here's a good source: Reasonable Doubts. The site is a labor of love by the following three individuals:

JEREMY BEAHAN is an Adjunct Professor teaching classes on: Philosophy, World Religions, Biblical Literature, Aesthetics, and Critical Thinking through FSU. LUKE GALEN is an Associate Professor of Psychology at Grand Valley State University. He teaches classes on: the Psychology of Religion, Controversial Issues in Psychology, and Human Sexuality. DAVID FLETCHER is the founder and former chair of CFI Aquinas College. He is an English and Speech teacher as well as an adjunct professor of Mythology.
What distinguishes this site from many other skeptic/freethinker sites is that the authors offer dozens of carefully-reasoned podcasts putting specific religious claims under the microscope. There is no ranting or bloviating here; the tone is academic and the presentations are clear. Listeners will come away with thorough understandings of the topics addressed:
What distinguishes us from many other skeptical podcasts is our special focus on counter-apologetics. We provide detailed counter-points to the fallacious logic and blatant misinformation used by religious apologists when attempting to discredit skepticism and provide rational arguments for their dogmas. We also defend the sufficiency of reason, science and naturalistic philosophies to provide a satisfactory and morally compelling understanding of the cosmos, human nature, art and culture.
For example, in the podcast titled "Which Jesus?" (a presentation originally given at CFI), Jeremy Beahan discusses the many contradictions within the Gospel narratives. The lecture includes a powerpoint (see a sample slide below, setting out difference in the Christmas narrative): I also listened to a second podcast discussing Ernest Becker's work, leading to the modern theory of "terror management theory" (TMT) (this is a topic that fascinates me). Becker's general idea is that we are electric meat with large brains that can project into the future by generating "what if" hypotheticals. This makes us self-aware, but also tends to create a mind-body dualism riddled with anxiety--we deeply worry about death. Because we face our inexorable deaths, a paradox is created: we put lots of energy into denying death. We spin elaborate defenses through our symbolic systems (religion, capitalism, political). Becker argues that these defense symbols constitute buffers to our self-esteem, and we can only read self-esteem through our interactions with others. We latch onto group-based symbolic ideologies such as religions that offer simple steps to fend off death in order to enhance our self-esteem. All of our cultural strivings are to achieve a "heroic" feeling (even by serving a powerful Being, or by joining into warmongering) and a system of ready-made ethics for being a "hero" and "transcending death." Cultural striving = immortality striving. I was here and I mattered. But any threat to these immortality strivings threaten believers. Therefore, being presented with a contrary world view (e.g., atheism) is inevitably threatening to our self-esteem and our mortality. Converting others to one's own world view is a way to enhance one's own world view. If one can't convert others they still might be able to convince others to downplay their differences in public ((or even destroying others). About 20 years ago, many social scientists began testing these theories, with notable success (Judges reminded of their deaths set prostitution bond of $455; control judges--not reminded of their deaths--set bonds of $50). Reminders of death profoundly affect our behavior (e.g., 9/11 was a profound reminder of our impending deaths that dramatically kicked up our embrace of religion and patriotism--it urged people of all political persuasions to embrace others like themselves and to embrace more simplistic beliefs than before). Some of these experiments are described in this excellent lecture (I also described some of them in my previous posts on "Terror Management Theory). Beahan highly recommended viewing a documentary exploring Becker's ideas: "Flight From Death." Here is the menu of podcasts currently offered by Reasonable Doubts. I highly recommend a visit.

Continue ReadingExploring reasonable doubts by listening to “Reasonable Doubts” podcasts

Stories stick, while data is discounted

Over at Andy Goodman's Free Range Journal, we hear more evidence that "Stories stick," while "data is discounted." At this site we quite often see this problem in some of our comments. Someone who was taught a Bible story at a young age will ignore great quantities of statistical data in order to save the (Bible) story. The scientific story of evolution all-too-often wins when pitted against Adam and Eve. Even though natural selection offers an elegant story, it is not as available to many people as the bible story against which it competes. Then there's no contest between the scientific data versus the Bible story. Perhaps scientists need to develop better story frames if we are to have any chance against Adam and Eve. Same issue with Sarah Palin, who offers simple stories that stick with her followers. What chance does a statistics-wielding politician have against such simple stories as "Drill Baby Drill" or "America is the World's Greatest Country"? In this earlier post, I pointed out the correlation between innumeracy and rejection of the scientific theory of evolution.

Continue ReadingStories stick, while data is discounted

The other things Adam Smith believed

I keep reading inane statements about how the world will simply take care of itself if only we get rid of government. Here is merely the latest example. I'd like to counter this tidal wave of free market fundamentalism with the following quotes by the man the free market fundamentalists put on their pedestal: Adam Smith

"Sympathy . . . cannot, in any sense, be regarded as a selfish principle." “[These laws come] from an order of men, whose interest is never exactly the same of the public, who have generally an interest to deceive and even to oppress the public, and who accordingly have, upon many occasions, both deceived and oppressed it”. "Civil government, so far as it is instituted for the security of property, is in reality instituted for the defense of the rich against the poor, or of those who have some property against those who have none at all." "All for ourselves, and nothing for other people, seems, in every age of the world, to have been the vile maxim of the masters of mankind." "How selfish soever man may be supposed, there are evidently some principles in his nature which interest him in the fortune of others, and render their happiness necessary to him, though he derives nothing from it except the pleasure of seeing it." "This disposition to admire, and almost to worship, the rich and the powerful . . . is, at the same time, the greatest and most universal cause of the corruption of our moral sentiments." "Wherever there is great property there is great inequality. The affluence of the rich supposes the indigence of the many." People of the same trade seldom meet together but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in some diversion to raise prices. "The subjects of every state ought to contribute towards the support of the government, as nearly as possible, in proportion to their respective abilities; that is, in proportion to the revenue which they respectively enjoy under the protection of the state." "Every tax, however, is, to the person who pays it, a badge, not of slavery, but of liberty." “Of the origin of Ambition and the distinction of Ranks”, e.g. “It is because mankind are disposed to sympathize more entirely with our joy than with our sorrow that we make parade of our riches and conceal our poverty. … [I]t is chiefly from this regard to the sentiments of mankind, that we pursue riches and avoid poverty.”
See also, this post discussing Frans De Waal's criticism of free market fundamentalism.

Continue ReadingThe other things Adam Smith believed