Geoff Arnold's Blog

Yesterday evening I completed my trifecta of PZ events by attending the meeting of the Seattle Skeptics (otherwise known as the Society for Sensible Explanations). PZ Myers was the guest speaker, and after we’d socialized and eaten he educated us about the evolution of eyes. Rather than trying to summarize, I’ll point you at the posts by PZ himself and PvM (at Panda’s Thumb). Hopefully PZ will post the slides to his site; I definitely want to get another look at some of the diagrams, and to check out the links he mentioned.
The Seattle Skeptics seem like a nice bunch; I think I’ll get involved.

During the Q&A at Pacific Science Center on Monday, someone asked PZ to recommend a good children’s book on atheism. At the time, the best that PZ could suggest was that someone needed to write such a book; there was then a brief discussion of books on evolutionary science for kids. I didn’t have anything to offer: I dimly remembered a book by the philosopher Michael Martin called “The Big Domino In The Sky”, but that was about it. The subject came up again last night (E.coli for kids?), and so I decided to do a little digging.
Prometheus Books has published a number of children’s books on humanism, origins, evolution, and skeptical thinking. They include:

• “Humanism, What’s That?: A Book for Curious Kids” by Helen Bennett
• “The Tree Of Life: The Wonders Of Evolution” by Ellen Jackson
• “Born With a Bang: The Universe Tells Our Cosmic Story” and “From Lava to Life: The Universe Tells Our Earth’s Story” by Jennifer Morgan
• “Maybe Yes, Maybe No: A Guide for Young Skeptics” and “Just Pretend: A Freethought Book for Children” by Dan Barker

I have no idea how good these are, in part because such books often attract contrarian reviews at Amazon. It does appear, however, that there’s an opportunity for someone to come up with a children’s (or “young adult”) book on atheism: what it is, what it isn’t, an account of the natural origins of supernatural beliefs, how to respond to some of the common arguments against atheism, and a resource guide. Any volunteers? And any other suggestions and recommendations? (For or against!)

There was a pretty good turnout for PZ‘s talk last night at the Pacific Science Center, and a significant proportion of the attendees (including yours truly) continued the discussion over beer at McMenamins.
I hadn’t realized this until a UW grad student pointed it out to me, but PZ’s talk was sponsored in part by the Forum on Science Ethics and Policy, which hosted the session by Nisbet and Mooney last October. The similarity and difference was striking. Both PZ and Nisbet/Mooney argue that scientists need to change the way they behave in public in order to communicate more effectively. The difference was that Nisbet/Mooney want scientists to deliberately frame the issues to achieve a particular effect, while PZ simply wants them to drop the mask of cool, cautious, measured objectivity and be themselves: let the excited, passionate, human side of science come through. Drop the weasel words. Be advocates. Be positive. And focus on the beauty of science, of the sheer delight in solving elegant puzzles and discovering the extraordinary. Forget about importance. (I’m reading Carl Zimmer‘s “Microcosm” right now, and the highest accolade that he bestows on experimental work is “beautiful”.)
During Q&A, I asked PZ what he thought had changed over the last 15 years, from the days when discussions of atheism and creationism were largely confined to alt.atheism and talk.origins on the Usenet. He gave the “endogenous” answer – a bunch of atheists got uppity, and eventually broke through into the cultural mainstream. Obviously that’s a part of it, but I strongly believe that we were reacting to a bunch of “exogenous” changes: a significant rise in fundamental religionist activity which provoked our responses. Everything from creationists in schools, to ten commandments in courthouses, to pharmacists refusing to fill prescriptions, to religious takeovers of military institutions, to Terry Schiavo. Yes, of course some of it had been going on for years – battles over prayers and “moments of silence” at school events, abortion rights, and so forth – and some of the increase might simply be explained by greater media attention (what happens in Kansas doesn’t stay there any more). But I’m convinced that there was a shift. Some of it was a consequence of the cynical exploitation of religious groups by the Gingrich and Rove Republicans. 9/11 undoubtedly had an effect.
The bottom line is, I think, that there was a great deal of stuff for atheists to get angry about. I’ve written about this before, in my review of Hitchens’ “God Is Not Great”. I wrote then:

But suppose that an old friend came to me and asked, “Why are you so fired up about atheism and religion these days? I remember you 15 years ago, and back then you were posting on alt.atheism, and having fun roasting creationists on talk.origins, and reading books on the philosophy of religion. But you didn’t talk – and write – about it all the time, and you certainly didn’t publically define yourself by your disbelief. So what happened?”
Instead of trying to explain all of my reasons, I think I’d simply give them Hitchens’ new book and say, “Read this. He puts it better than I ever could. I merely experience the occasional (but increasingly frequent) feelings of frustration, impatience, outrage, and even anger. Hitchens is an unequalled exponent of the art of the rant: he says what I feel, with passion, intensity and wit.”

Indeed.

This is going to be fun….
On Monday, PZ Myers (Pharyngula) is going to be speaking at the Pacific Science Center. Then on Tuesday, Carl Zimmer – author of “Microcosm: E. coli and the New Science of Life” – is at Town Hall Seattle. And finally on Friday the Seattle Skeptics have organized “An Evening with PZ Myers” – skeptical socializing, followed by dinner. (RSVP required.)
I’m still wrestling with one little problem, however: how do I get Carl Zimmer to autograph my Kindle edition of “Microcosm”?