I have long expressed that empathy is a key factor in a person’s morality. Empathy is a state that the human brain evolved a capacity for. Guilt is another. Our social upbringing also comes into play, but only because an ability to experiences these things first evolved within the brain.

Gregg100 sent me a link to an article that tells of a recent study on this subject. I’ve pulled out a few statements that summarize the main points of the article but I recommend you read the whole thing so you know the specifics and the limitations to how far the study extends.

Damage to the part of the brain that controls social emotions changes the way people respond to thorny moral problems, demonstrating the role of empathy and other feelings in life-or-death decisions.

“Part of our moral behavior is grounded … in a specific part of our brains,” said Dr. Antonio Damasio, one of the study’s lead authors and director of the Brain and Creativity Institute at USC.

The ventromedial prefrontal cortex processes feelings of empathy, shame, compassion and guilt. Damage to this part of the brain, which occupies a small region in the forehead, causes a diminished capacity for social emotions but leaves logical reasoning intact.

Researchers found no difference among groups in their responses to scenarios with no moral content, such as turning a tractor left to harvest turnips.

This study is not in isolation. Without even looking for them I come across studies with similar or related conclusions quite regularly. The conclusions have perspective-altering implications that might challenge the way religious believers expect their god to hold people accountable for their “sins.” Or the way societies deal with criminals. Such implications and how we should deal with them are complicated. But I think this is an extremely important area to learn more about if we are ever going to understand human nature and hope for a more peaceful world.

What is my take on this? Anyone can make an accusation like the one the gay prostitute has made. So far the prostitute has not revealed his alleged evidence (email) and until he does I consider it a non-story…at least I did until Haggard admitted to getting a massage and then buying meth from the guy (which he says he immediately threw away, overcoming the temptation).

As a respectable pastor, you don’t suddenly get tempted to buy meth out of no where. Other events lead to the purchase of meth. Unless he was a druggie before he became a pastor. Then the story makes an ounce of sense.

Does anyone know Haggard? Does his conversion story include salvation from drugs?

I quoted two AgnosticMom readers who contributed to the discussion about death in the comments section. Since it would have broken the flow of the article to name them, I wanted to acknowledge Jen and Hifi in this blog entry and thank them for their insight.

To begin reading HNN from the beginning, click here (and make sure you subscribe if you haven’t already!).

One of the other regular columnists, Doug Thomas wrote an article on ethics called, The Evolution Of Kindness, that is another version of the arguments I have been making about morality (no, Hifi, I have not had time to respond to your last three or so comments. I hope to get to them soon). Thomas uses slightly different wording than I do, words like “love” and “kindness” which he lifted from Bertrand Russell, where I prefer to use words like “empathy.”

But utlimately Thomas is making the same claim I made: that evolution provided us with some helpful characteristics in addition to some hurtful ones. We can use another of our evolved traits, rational thought, to choose the helpful characteristics (love, kindness, empathy) in our dealings with others. Here is a quote:

How do humanists explain their need or desire to perform charitable acts? Oh, of course, there is the pragmatic argument — what goes around comes around — a kind of “What’s in it for me?” approach. However, that does not explain the altruism performed without thoughts of pay back that I notice among my fellow humanists. I think it goes beyond a secular belief in “karma.”

Go enjoy some time with other humanists reading this week’s HNN. Feel free to start a discussion on one of the article topics in my comment area.

Note to the fans of my “Leaving The Church” series. I am glad that a number of you have been enjoying it and have expressed anticipation of part 3. Please be patient as I have a few topics to work on first. It’ll come, I promise.

Are you wondering why?

It’s not because this local Mesa blogger is obtaining new writing opportunities.
It’s not because of any activist involvement on my part.
It’s not about my agnostic/secular viewpoints at all.

It is because I use an ottoman for a coffee table.

That’s right. You heard me. Trinity has been calling herself famous because the Tribune has an interest in coffee tables, especially our ottoman-coffee table. They’re so interested that they interviewed me on the phone, came to my home, and took 50 pictures.

“Well, right now my kids are playing poker on it,” says Noell Hyman, a Mesa mother of three, before she reminds her chidlren to wipe their hands before continuing the game.

The sand-colored ottoman in the Hymans’ living room is upholstered in microfiber, a highly stain- and kid-resistant material. Which is good for days like today, or other days when 3-year-old Aiden plays marbles on the ottoman while eating Oreos.

“Stains wash off really well,” says Hyman.

When Blake, 8, Trinity, 6, and Aiden aren’t playing games on the ottoman, it can easily be transformed into a more adult version of a coffee table by placing a tray on top to hold drinks or hors d’oeuvres when Hyman and her husband, Israel, have company.

The couple purchased the ottoman after they had kids, fearing that a coffee table made of wood or another harder materiral would pose a danger for toddling youngsters.

“I didn’t want my kids falling on hard corners of a wood coffee table when they were learning to walk,” says Hyman.

But she said she was surprised at how versatile the ottoman turned out to be. Now, Hyman says her favorite part about the piece is its addition to family movie night.

“We can pull it right up to the couch, so a few of us can snuggle and stretch out like it’s a bed.”

Did I really call it a couch? Ahem, it’s a sofa.

Note: If any of you live in the East Valley of Phoenix, you can find this article on page H4, the At Home section of the May 20th (Saturday) paper.

Well, it’s not dear little ME making this connection. It is the Vatican’s astronomer!

The Northstate Science blog led me to this one. According to a news article in Scostman.com, this is what Guy Consolmagno, who works in an Arizona Vatican Conservatory, had to say about Creationism and Paganism:

“Religion needs science to keep it away from superstition and keep it close to reality, to protect it from creationism, which at the end of the day is a kind of paganism – it’s turning God into a nature god.

Hmmm . . .

So do you think that if reason and science-minded people everywhere began associating creationism to paganism, (kind of like Christmas and Easter) we might finally make a step forward in mainstream acceptance of Evolution?

Probably not. But it sure is funny.

Those pagan creationists . . .

I have to wonder what kind of outcome this will have. Often non-religiously led biblical studies actually de-convert the religious and I heard some callers on a talk radio show both lamenting and rejoicing at the fact.

Of course, that usually happens at the university level, where students are ready to leave the nest. I see this less likely to happen at a high school level. Especially in Georgia.

Either way, you can bet the motivation behind the legislation was to strengthen religion in our country, not to deconvert the religious. I am less concerned about the fact that students will learn about the Bible (it was the New Testament itself that handed me my very first instance of doubt some eight years ago when I embarked on a re-read of the book). Knowledge of biblical stories will help students understand much of the world’s literature.

I am more concerned about the fact that Christians are becoming so bold as to enact the law in the first place; that they passed the law with no discussion, with 50-1 votes for it in the senate and 151-7 in the house.

What are your thoughts?

The government succombed to intense pressure from westerners to free Abdul Rahman in spite of angry demands from Muslim clerics and citizens to execute him. For the Afghan government, it came down to politics: which action would do the least harm to them?

A reactionary take on this situation from our secular stance would be to blame religion. Indeed, religion is at the heart of the situation, but if it were really the sole cause, billions of people all around the world would be facing execution since many change religions every day.

Talk show host Dennis Prager made an interesting distinction with regard to this situation. I think he was partially correct. Prager played an audio clip of Rahman’s father. It was not the government, nor the clerics, who identified Rahman as having broken the law by converting. It was Rahman’s family. His parents, ex-wife, and children turned him in.

On the audio clip, Rahman’s father made a comment about honor and how his son had shamed his family and is now worthless to them.

Prager then made the assertion that the current event is a result of a culture who values honor more than morality. Think about it.

Prager is mostly correct. There are numerous instances where parents in a society that upholds family or parental honor as the highest value abuse their children when they feel shamed. In fact, it even happens in the U.S. among some families. In our case, we refer to it as ego and narcissism, rather than honor.

The weakness in Prager’s argument is that there are many Asian countries that uphold honor as their highest value. While we do see some abuse as a result, we don’t see them acting as a country with the level of violence and intolerance that we are seeing from many of the Islamic countries.

Is it the combination of honor and monotheistic religion? I specify monotheism because there is a level of tolerance for other gods among polytheistic cultures that does not exist within monotheistic ones. Honor combined with monotheistic religion is a part of it, but still not the complete story.

It is too easy for us secularists to blame religion for problems. As I have stated before, I do not believe religion is the “root of all evil.” Religious abuse is the symptom of some humans’ need to wield power and authority of others. Religion is also a handy tool for manipulation. Where humans have less desire to control others, religion is less harmful. Among people who have a stronger desire to control others, it becomes dangerous.

There is one more element that is older than Islam, separate from honor, and distinct from the thirst to control others. It is violence. It was the already existent violence among much of the mideast that put commands of violence into the Koran. It was the already existent violence among them that enabled them to accept the writings of the Koran with its commands to kill non-muslims and apostates.

Put all four elements together and we have the volatile situation we see today.

The problem in Afghanistan is a combination of (1) an excessive valuing of honor; (2) fundamental monotheistic religion; (3) a human desire to control others; (4) a culture that accepts and uses violence.

It looks amazing. It is professional, easy to use, and the colors are great. The layout and design are wonderful. The site definitely lives up to the high quality of the articles (if I may say so, myself).

If you only have a minute, just take a quick look. But when you have time, sit down and enjoy. I especially liked the articles in this week’s edition. Even if it isn’t my week for an article.

There were a few positive letters about AgnosticMom, though. A couple of those letter writers had names we often see here on this blog. Thanks, you guys!

Among numerous areas, I am mostly concerned about a (1) watering-down of science in lower level education (the infiltration of Intelligent Design being a symptom), (2) drops in the number of students in higher education science majors, (3) the current political climate which is stifling scientific input, and (4) increased competition from Asian countries who are advancing at a time when we are declining.

There are numerous reasons for our downward trend. Some of it has to do with political priorities run amok. Some of it is a disdain for science and the Religious Right’s new influential voice in the United States. Much of it has to do with the media’s tendency to create enormous hype based on one study. Their headlines announce definitive results when the data is actually preliminary.

To exacerbate the problems, Americans who don’t know the Scientific Method fall for the misleading news headlines. Later on, conflicting results from another study discourages them. They come to the conclusion that scientific results are inconsistent and untrustworthy. This has all contributed to an overall disinterest in the field that is necessary for our continued existence.

Let me start with a most scandalous scenario that highlights political corruption of science.

Last month, NASA public affairs officer, George Deutsch, resigned because of accusations that he was filtering information from NASA. He blocked reporters’ efforts to interview NASA’s top climate scientist whose findings contradict the policies of the Bush Administration. If you are wondering if Deutsch is a presidential appointee, you are correct. He is an appointee confirmed to have lied on his resume about graduating from Texas A&M.

We’ve heard numerous stories of this religious administration ignoring scientists whose findings don’t support conservative policy. This shouldn’t be a complete surprise.

In another effort to influence science, Deutsch was filtering scientific information by requiring NASA’s Web Designer to add the word, “theory,” to all mentions of the Big Bang. While it is, indeed, a theory, it is so in the sense that scientists use the word, not in the sense that non-scientists use it. Deutsch’s insistence on adding this word to the work of scientist is only an effort to cast doubt on scientific findings.

Here is an interesting excerpt from an article in the Florida Sun Sentinel regarding a hearing before Congress. I am sorry it is no longer available on the website:

The debate began three weeks ago after NASA climatologist James Hansen accused a political appointee in the office of public affairs of muzzling his views on global warming because they conflicted with those of the Bush administration.

Career public-affairs officers in the agency have since stated that interviews were denied to news organizations deemed too “liberal” and pressure was applied to hold down the number of news releases on earth science.

“It is entirely appropriate for the administration to announce or espouse whatever political views they have,” Griffin said. “It is not appropriate for scientists at an executing federal executive agency to be required to adjust, skew, alter or frame the tone of their scientific work to fit any particular political agenda.”

U.S. Rep. Bart Gordon, D-Tenn., expressed concern about the issue during his opening remarks Thursday.

“It [the Hansen situation] has become apparent that it isn’t isolated,” Gordon said. “I’m afraid this censorship permeates this entire administration, NASA being no exception.”

He is correct. The disgraces reaches past NASA according the the censured Hansen:

Hansen did however sympathize with the plight of scientists working at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).

“My colleagues at NOAA have told me their problems are worse,” he said. “They have to have a listener on the phone every time they talk to the press to examine what they are saying. This seems more like something Nazi Germany or Soviet Russia would do.”

The question is, is it a crisis when the ruling political party of non-scientists censure the work of real scientists because it may sway the public opinion of their policy? Absolutely.

Let’s move on to Education. Here are some statistics and a summary from an article in Reader’s Digest called Losing the Global Edge:

* Several of our key agencies for scientific research and development will face a retirement crisis within the next ten years.

* Less than 6% of our high school seniors plan to pursue engineering degrees, down 36% from a decade ago.

* In 2000, 56% of China’s undergraduate degrees were in the hard sciences; in the United States, the figure was 17%.

* China will likely produce six times the number of engineers next year than we will graduate, according to Mike Gibbons of the American Society for Engineering Education. Japan, with half our population, has minted twice as many in recent years.

There are many more unnerving developments, and they add up to this: As other countries create the learning centers and jobs to hang on to their best and brightest, the United States is losing a dependable pipeline of talent. Moreover, we are doing remarkably little to educate and train a next generation of scientists and engineers.

An article called Our Looming Science Crisis, from The American Enterprise Online, explains the crisis from a business standpoint:

As Craig Barrett, Intel’s CEO, put it, “We still do a very, very poor job of educating our kids” in science and math. In a comparison of high school graduates in the world’s top 25 countries, “an American kid is, on average, near the bottom 10 percent.”

The trouble begins in high school, or earlier, but it is showing up dramatically now in America’s high-tech universities and businesses. According to a 2004 National Science Foundation study, fewer U.S. undergraduates were enrolled in math and engineering courses in 2000-02 than in the mid 1980s. In 1975, South Korea and Taiwan had just two science and engineering degree earners per 100 college-age citizens; in 2000, that number was 11. In the U.S., the ratio has languished–just 6 percent in 2000.

Without foreign enrollment, the U.S. figures would be far worse. The majority of recipients of doctoral degrees in mathematics, computer science, and engineering at American universities today are not U.S. citizens.

In the past, the U.S. has benefited from these foreign graduates, since many have chosen to stay here, joining American companies or starting their own. But now, as prosperity increases back home, many are returning. It’s hardly surprising that American high-tech firms are looking abroad for research and development.

If a lack of interest in the vital field of science weren’t enough, educator and scientist, Lynn Margulis, describes a serious problem with the actual textbooks available to schools. In American Scientist Online, Lynn describes how the profit-based business of creating textbooks hijacks the books’ actual educational value:

Science for schools is written, controlled and produced by publishers whose goal is to sell materials in huge quantities to avoid sales taxes. Qualified scientists and teachers are not paid for comprehensibility, accuracy or logic, but rather bribed to rapidly approve “content” that no one understands. Such beleaguered experts rush to meet publishers’ deadlines for “up-to-date” consumer products that quickly earn money. To maximize profit, books, digital media, supplies, even equipment are planned to be obsolete within the academic year.

Ron sent me a link to a fabulous article on Panda’s Thumb. Professor Herbert Kroemer, who won the 2000 Nobel Prize for Physics, has activated himself in what I call the War On Science. He warns that Intelligent Design’s attacks on Evolution are actually “attacks on science itself — all of science.”

Biological evolution is not the only concept in conflict with such a literal interpretation of the bible; other areas of science, like geophysics and astrophysics, come right behind. Indeed, many of the attackers of biological evolution attack those scientific disciplines as well. But these disciplines do not exist in isolation; they are areas where the recognized laws of physics are rigorously applied to the specific problems of the field. To attack them is an attack on physics itself, and with it an attack on the Galilean idea that the laws of science must be based on actual observation of the facts rather than on scriptural traditions: We are literally back to the spirit of the early-17th century attacks on Galileo.

Professor Kroemer got his inspiration from physicist Marshall Berman who had an essay published by the American Physical Society:

Our nation is paying a heavy price for having failed to teach students critical thinking skills, reasoning, and good science for several generations. The consequences are an appalling science illiteracy among most Americans. In a recent survey (NSF, 2000), about half the respondents did not know:

* The earliest humans did not live at the same time as dinosaurs.
* It takes Earth one year to go around the Sun.
* Electrons are smaller than atoms.
* Antibiotics do not kill viruses.

Dr. Jon Miller, Northwestern University Medical School in Chicago, studies American views on and knowledge of science. His data reveal some major gaps in basic knowledge. American adults in general do not understand what molecules are. Fewer than a third can identify DNA as a key to heredity. Only about 10 percent know what radiation is. One adult American in five thinks the Sun revolves around the Earth (Dean, C., 2005).

Going back to the words of warning from Kroemer, I’d like to end my post with his admonition, and my own plea with AgnosticMom readers to get engaged:

Attacks on science are of concern not just to scientists; they threaten the continued prosperity and security of our entire nation in a world where we increasingly have to compete with other nations that have developed strong science-based technologies in areas that were once unchallenged domains of the United States. If we wish to continue to prosper in this environment we need, first and foremost, a work force that is highly educated in science, and capable of mastering advancing technologies based on continuing advances in science. The United States public education system below the university level has never put a sufficiently high value on science to permit filling this need with US-born individuals alone, but we were always able to fill the shortfall with immigrants. Attacks on science, if not rejected by the American public, will further reduce the already-too-low percentage of US citizens who opt for a science-oriented education, and at the same time they will reduce the attractiveness to foreign citizens of coming to the United States for an education or a career in science and in technologies based on continuing advances in science.

So, what role will you play in the War On Science? What will you do to fight it?

Here is a portion of the apology letter Pat sent to the son of Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, which I copied from a news article in the Jerusalem Post:

“My zeal, my love of Israel and my concern for the future safety of your nation led me to make remarks which I can now view in retrospect as inappropriate and insensitive in light of the national grief experienced because of your father’s illness.

“I ask your forgiveness, and the forgiveness of the people of Israel for saying what was clearly insensitive at the time.”

After all the ludicrous statements Pat has strewn, what compelled this sudden humility? Pat was part of a $50 million project to construct a Christian Heritage Center in Galilee, often referred to as a Christian amusement park. After Pat blamed Sharon’s stroke on God’s punishment for withdrawing from Gaza, the Tourism Ministry in Israel announced it would not allow Pat on the project.

I guess if you hit Pat where it hurts, you can squeeze a drop of humility out of him. Still, I wouldn’t call it complete humility. He and his spokespeople blame the news media for taking his statements out of context, and not reporting his statements of concern for Sharon.

Hmm, I seem to remember reading those statements. It didn’t take away from the fact that Pat likes to think he knows the mind of God, and will condemn others in His name.

He even said members of the school board lied to hide their religious motives.

This will hopefully set a precedent for others who are trying similar schemes of religious infiltration with anti-science agendas. Kansas is among those on the side of ineptitude. This doesn’t surprise me. I finished my last two and a half years of high school in a Kansas public school, and remember well my surprise, when a few different teachers proclaimed their belief in Jesus during class time.

The Discovery Institute, the monster driving the ID machinery, reacted with the expected spin. Their comments are entertaining, so check it out.

I have found that evolution doesn’t “make sense” to a high percentage of Americans. I will give two reasons for this: biblical beliefs of creationism have put blinders on many Americans, so that their minds are not open to understanding evolution; and our educators have failed. When people give reasons for evolution not making sense, it is often apparent, by what they say, that they don’t understand how it works.

When I was religious, I would not admit that much of creationism, and the Adam and Eve story, was confusing. Once I really learned about evolution, the puzzle pieces found their place.

If you don’t understand evolution, if it does not make sense to you, get educated! America cannot afford to continue falling behind on matters of science and education.