Monthly Archives: March 2010

Atheist symbols, part one

When I finally realized I was an atheist, it was a relief. For years I had tried to figure out what my position was on God, in which I assumed I believed but could never quite accept how or why. As I began reading more about skepticism, the overlap with atheism started me considering whether in fact I simply didn’t believe in a god at all, and the more I thought about it, the more right it felt. Instead of finding a way to make my belief feel natural, I found it more natural to admit to myself that I didn’t believe at all.

I wanted to begin this blog with a certain expression of who I am, especially on subjects I planned to talk about a lot. So when I learned about The Out Campaign, I thought it was an interesting and useful way to shorthand that aspect that informs my worldview and this blog. At the time I didn’t know anything about “the new atheists” or any controversies involving Richard Dawkins; I placed the A on the blog for about the same reason that there’s cats playing videogames on the banner.

As I’ve mentioned before, I’d be considered an accommodationist by many who identify as atheist. There are situations where I don’t have a problem with the existence of religion. A lot of this has to do with my hesitancy to judge religious people who use their faith as a lifeline. For example, many chronically ill people who have nothing else in their lives hang on to their belief in Jesus as a way to cope. Some atheists would want those people to let go of that delusion and live only in reality. But unless they’re undergoing religious treatments for a real illness, or something like that, I’m apt to be happy that they have something to keep them going. Similarly, many people complained when priests were sent to Haiti after the devastating earthquake. As long as those priests came along with food, medical supplies and doctors, I didn’t have an argument with it. The people of Haiti are very religious; who am I to sit back all comfy in my first-world house and declare that their spiritual needs are irrelevant?

Some atheists are defensive because of prejudice against us. Maybe it’s 36 years of being a Jew, but I can’t manage to get overly worked up over any but the most galling instances of that. For example, when atheism keeps people from being able to be Boy Scouts, I lose all interest in that organization until they change that shit. But I do that with groups that don’t allow LGBTQ members either (again, hello, Boy Scouts!); it’s a protest against exclusion, even if I don’t happen to belong to the group being excluded. So some closed-minded believers think atheism and secularism are going to ruin this great nation of ours. Have you heard what a lot of those same people say about the Jews? Understand I’m not saying this isn’t a legitimate cause for outrage. By all means it is, when religious lunacy invades our school boards and our laws. Just for myself, I’ve been leery of organized religion for as long as I can remember, as well as learning about and watching Jewish people face homicidal bigotry; becoming an atheist simply didn’t spark any new impetus.

The Surly A, by Amy Davis Roth

I’d like to explore what it means to live my life without religion and without belief in a higher power. Am I a secular Jew? A humanist? Something else? But in the end, I’m much more fascinated by the realm of skepticism, and if I’m going to be an activist about anything, it’ll be about that. Skepticism opens debates that I find interesting, whereas I don’t really find the question of whether there’s a God to be interesting. To me, there isn’t one, so I’d rather move on to what’s happening in pseudoscience.

Richard Dawkins and/or his followers (it seems to depend entirely on your point of view) have become well known for a style of atheism some people ridiculously call “fundamentalist,” but what is simply, unapologetically, rational. It’s the in-your-face part that grates on some, and again, it’s the part that I’m less interested in pursuing, personally. (And of course to many people, something as innocuous as a “Don’t believe in God? You’re not alone” bus sign is offensive to the point of apoplexy, so “in-your-face” is highly subjective.) For a while I debated whether to keep the scarlet A, a symbol of activism that I don’t identify with, on this blog. I really questioned it when I was reading comments about the brief religious statement in Daniel Loxton’s Evolution. There was so much animosity towards that mild passage that I felt really alienated from my fellow atheists.

But the truth is, I’m thankful that there are atheist activists who are making religious people uncomfortable. I’m glad that Greta Christina, PZ Myers, and other people are waging unrelenting war on the anti-secularists and the religious lunatics. My style may never be theirs, but they and people like them will hopefully be the ones effecting change for the better. So in the end, I went back to my original reason for keeping the A, plus a little more: my respect for Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens and every single atheist tweeter and blogger who is doing the work for a cause I believe in.

There is an atheist symbol that I’ve come to identify with, which I will talk about next time in part two.

Post to Twitter Post to Delicious Post to Digg Post to Facebook Post to Reddit Post to StumbleUpon

Weekend sendoff: Judy Mikovits and bad science

No sendoff today, instead some strange news to discuss. A few days back, Data_Jack was kind enough to alert me to a new post at ERV, which briefly mentioned that Judy Mikovits will be presenting about XMRV at the AUTISMONE conference.

A little background. Mikovits is the lead researcher on the XMRV study done by the Whittemore Peterson Institute (WPI). Austimone.org lionizes the now completely discredited Andrew Wakefield, as well as the eminently irrelevant Jenny McCarthy, in their efforts to continue frightening parents with bad science about a nonexistent link between vaccines and autism. Given that the CFS-XMRV link itself is still utterly tenuous, I was somewhat alarmed to see that Mikovits has moved on to autism.

And with good reason, as it turns out. I did a little searching about XMRV and autism, and found this article from another bastion of antivax lunacy, the Huffington Post. In it, Mikovits is quoted as follows (emphasis mine):

“On that note, if I might speculate a little bit,” she said, “This might even explain why vaccines would lead to autism in some children, because these viruses live and divide and grow in lymphocytes — the immune response cells, the B and the T cells. So when you give a vaccine, you send your B and T cells in your immune system into overdrive. That’s its job. Well, if you are harboring one virus, and you replicate it a whole bunch, you’ve now broken the balance between the immune response and the virus. So you have had the underlying virus, and then amplified it with that vaccine, and then set off the disease, such that your immune system could no longer control other infections, and created an immune deficiency.”

What. The. Fuck.

What is Mikovits up to, not only cozying up to one of the largest dangers to public health — the antivax movement — but spouting their party line that has no basis in scientific fact? What respectable scientist would perpetuate this myth, even with that gutless “I’m just speculating” caveat?

Here is the abstract for her presentation:

Chronic fatigue syndrome (CFS) and autism spectrum disorder (ASD) share common clinical features including immune dysregulation, increased oxidative stress, increased expression of proinflammatory cytokines and chemokines, mitochondrial dysfunction and chronic active microbial infections suggesting an underlying immune deficiency may be involved in subgroups of CFS and ASD. We recently demonstrated the first direct isolation of an infectious gammaretrovirus, XMRV, from the blood of CFS patients. We have developed quantitative assays to detect XMRV replication and infection in cell culture. Moreover, we found evidence of XMRV infection in >85% of more than 200 CFS patients tested to date. These data implicate a role for XMRV infection in the pathogenesis of CFS. Because of the clinical similarities of CFS and ASD, we hypothesized that XMRV infection may also be detected in subgroups of ASD. This presentation will update the status of XMRV research, show evidence of XMRV infection in ASD and discuss the implications of XMRV infection in the pathogenesis of neuroimmune disease including ASD.

Funny that the abstract promises to mention “evidence of XMRV infection in ASD” while leaving out any mention of the fact that XMRV is found in a percentage of healthy controls as well. (Aside from the WPI’s study, here’s a Japanese one that discovered the same thing.) Given this, I might expect that there’s evidence of XMRV infection in people with anemia, bipolar disorder, acne, a slight cough, myopia, etc. But because CFS patients and ASD patients share some symptoms, Mikovits is presenting at an antivax autism conference on the hypothesis — I see no study listed here that will be presented — that XMRV is involved.

CFS also shares symptoms with fibromyalgia, lupus, MS, and many other illnesses. Can we expect to see Mikovits presenting at conferences for all these diseases, sharing her speculation that XMRV is involved with all of them as well? Or has she simply identified another vulnerable, gullible population on which to push her extraordinarily premature agenda?

I wrote to the WPI this week about my concerns. As of this post, I have not received a reply. At the moment, therefore, I’m not seeing anything here to be positive about. If Mikovits is so eager to connect her research to a dangerous and fallacious area of “investigation,” my already iffy feelings about the WPI and the future of XMRV and CFS have plunged even further towards total pessimism.

Post to Twitter Post to Delicious Post to Digg Post to Facebook Post to Reddit Post to StumbleUpon

A serious look at A Serious Man

(Warning: This post contains spoilers. And is long.)

I watched A Serious Man the other night before bed, which was a giant mistake because I couldn’t stop thinking about it when I was trying to sleep. It was such a classic Coen movie, old-school in the way they cast character actors with amazing faces, bodies, and voices. The movie simply wouldn’t have worked with their other technique of taking well-known actors or movie stars and forcing them into quirky, Coeny roles.

The depiction of middle-class Jewish culture and religion was incredibly evocative for me. Although I wasn’t alive during the mid-60s, when the movie is set, I identified with so much of it. Everything from the pointless boredom of learning Hebrew by rote to the mild paranoia of Jews finding anti-Semitism where there may or may not be any brought back memories of my own experiences, either ones I lived through or ones I spent hours listening to my older relatives talk about.

In addition, viewing the movie through my own secular viewfinder, I discovered a biting commentary on the faith of the Jews. I was mesmerized by the examination of the ways in which faith in Hashem can provide true support and comfort, and the ways in which it is tyrannical and causes more pain than it heals. At one point, a friend of the Job-like protagonist Larry reminds him that as Jews, they are not alone, and can turn to the stories of their people to alleviate their suffering. The woman who says this has braces on her legs, which is never explained but one could surmise that this is the way she has found to cope with her own suffering. She is sincere in her faith and truly believes that seeing the rabbi will help Larry.

As an “accommodationist” (I suppose), I am glad that some people are able to find strength and comfort in their faith. I haven’t been disabled for that long, and when I hear about people who have had CFS for 10, 20, 30 years or more, I am by no means going to be the one to poke holes in a religious faith that has sustained them for that long. But the movie certainly doesn’t leave it at that. It begins with a story, in fact, one with an ambiguous ending in which a mysterious visitor is either a dybbuk impersonating an old friend who has died, or the friend himself, actually alive. I did notice that Fyvush Finkel is credited as “Dybbuk,” but I believe the import of that story is that it doesn’t answer the question either way.

In fact none of the Jewish stories to which Larry is subjected, in hopes of improving his understanding of why so many terrible things have happened to him, have any real resolution. As he sinks further and further into a quagmire of bad luck and bad associations, he consults rabbis to seek the answer to a question we can all relate to: why are these terrible things happening to a good person? The rabbis are, frankly, hilarious. The first, an eager youngster, is full of enthusiastic hot air about how God is everywhere, his face glowing as he contemplates a banal parking lot. His words are useless to Larry, and I don’t think you have to be an atheist to see how.

The second rabbi tells another story, a fascinating tale of a Jewish dentist who discovers Hebrew characters spelling out the words “help me” inscribed on the teeth of a gentile. With the most perfect depiction of rabbinical condescension, he blows off Larry’s (and our) insistence to know the end, and the meaning, of the story. All he can offer is patronizingly wise nods of the head to Larry’s increasingly desperate desire to find answers to why God is punishing him. I was reminded strongly of the Conservative rabbi I consulted only a month or two before my wedding, on a matter I could not bring up with the Reform rabbi who was officiating. The Conservative rabbi ignored my question in order to exhort me to cancel the wedding to the love of my life because he is a gentile. I went to that rabbi for wisdom and guidance, and instead received implicit orders to marry another Jew and spawn a brood of pureblood Jewlings, which was exactly as useful as the story about the teeth.

In fact the only concrete and useful words come from the most revered rabbi, one who is so eminent and mysterious that Larry’s impassioned pleas to see him are rejected on the basis that he’s busy “thinking.” Larry’s son, who has just had his bar mitzvah, goes for his traditional meeting with the holy man, and receives a moment of bonding over Jefferson Airplane, and an appeal to “be a good boy.” And that’s it.

Larry never gets his answers, because despite the reverence towards the Jewish stories that are supposed to bolster faith, there are no answers to be found. He is tortured by the question of why he is being tortured even as he struggles to remain a good man, and he receives nothing but very sincere gibberish from the people he seeks out for help. I don’t know whether the Coens are religious or secular Jews, but either way I found a real indictment of the (religious) Jewish search for the meaning of life. We all, at one time or another, ask “why is this happening to me?” The reason Jews like Larry are tortured is because their question is slightly different: “Why is God doing this to me?” Well, how are you supposed to turn to God for comfort when he’s the one smacking you around?

I kept thinking throughout the movie that Larry’s life might be much more explicable to him if he were a secular Jew. There is a certain measure of comfort in knowing that you are doing the best you can to be a good person, and that the terrible things that happen to you, that are not triggered by actions of your own, are simply the randomness of the universe at work. There is no meaning in the fact that Larry’s car accident and that of his wife’s lover happened at the same time, but he cannot see it that way. He doesn’t feel buffeted by the indifferent cruelty of chance; he feels personally persecuted by God. At one point he cries out “I am not an evil man!” But it’s only under the thumb of a judgmental deity that this makes any difference as to how you get treated. I wanted someone to say to him “You are a good man, there is no Hashem punishing you for no reason; your efforts to be good do mean something and your troubles are nothing but terrible coincidences.” To me, this line of thinking is an enormous relief.

A Serious Man succeeds so elegantly and touchingly both at bringing to life the cadences, concerns, and fears of Jewish culture and communities, as well as sneakily exposing ways in which the Jewish religion fails so utterly at providing answers to those who seek them — even believers. If your life is about being good for God, then where is the motivation to continue being good if God decides to beat on you anyway? My heart broke repeatedly for Larry, whose morals and ethics were constantly twisted this way and that by this question, but I take comfort in knowing how many Jews have shrugged off that terrible pressure and decided to go about their lives with their own moral compass pointing to true north.

Post to Twitter Post to Delicious Post to Digg Post to Facebook Post to Reddit Post to StumbleUpon