More fossils

Al Denelsbeck

Just a quick one here. When my brother came to visit for the second time, he brought with him some of his fossil finds from central New York, ones with really intricate detail. We didn’t have the time to tackle detailed photos while he was here, so he left them with me for the time being, and I finally got the chance to feature them, with both still photos and video, which shows the contours better as the piece rotates around.

[The background noise was too horrendous to use on-camera audio, and even the voiceover had a bit too much noise creeping in from other things happening in the office. I cleaned it the best I could, but it sounds a little overcompressed and thumpy at times, and I apologize.]

And now, a closer look at some of the details.

detail image of trilobite tail shield
This is the tail shield of the small, distinct trilobite tail shield, with different lighting. You can see along the right side the change in shape and textures, likely indicating that we’re now seeing the bottom layer of the shield, the underside seen from the top. You can also see how the top layer has eroded away. The entire shield is 18mm wide.

Some of the accompanying shellfish:

scallop-like fossil showing actual shell
This is the largest of the scallop (or scallop-like) impressions near the above trilobite, and you can see that portions of the actual shell, unless I’m mistaken, are intact around the edges.

More impressions from the same piece of shale:

scallop-like fossils in same layer
These are quite small, and I didn’t realize myself how many there were clustered together until I got the lighting on them at this angle. Again, there may be meters of shale layers, thousands of years of deposits, with only a few centimeters at best that are abundant with fossils – it’s all down to the right conditions, which aren’t common at all.

larger trilobite fossil showing distinct layers
Nice look at the layers of one of the larger specimens, with some textures thrown in. The layers of the trilobite’s shell are roughly 2mm thick.

back of fossil trilobite showing more layers and distinct colors
This is a closeup of the back of the largest and most detailed fossil. Lots going on in there, and sorely tempting to try and open up to see even more within, though the chances of damaging and fragmenting it are quite high. Like I said, my brother can tackle it if he wants to – I ain’t doing it.

And finally,

tight closeup of eye of trilobite fossil, with very distinct layers and color changes
This is the eye of the largest, showing the very distinct color change from within the eye, or at least under the molted exoskeleton, but given that none of the surrounding rock shows this color, I’m inclined to believed this is a whole specimen and you’re seeing the fossilized remains of its internal structure, with the exoskeleton around the outside edges of the frame like a cutaway drawing. This eye is 8mm across.

By the way, while it’s easy to believe that the upper surface of the sphere of the compound eye has broken away, leaving this flattened spherical shape, looking at other examples supports the idea that the eyes were actually shaped like this, flattened on top while maintaining a more laterally-oriented field of view. From this, I would surmise that there weren’t that many predators approaching from above, but listening to the uneducated is pretty stupid, really. While we’re at it though, notice how few facets to the compound eyes there are, as compared to most insects today, sporting magnitudes more, and closer together, while being far smaller than this. Of course, I’m trying to determine details of anatomy from a mineral replica of the original, without that education, so, again, heed me not. I’m just here to show you want it looks like, not inform you about it. Sheesh.

Our ignorance made it plausible

Al Denelsbeck

That’s a new phrase in my critical-thinking arsenal now. By itself, it seems counterintuitive, but that’s really the point. Let me explain.

A century or so ago, as telescopes got better and we began to understand more about our closest stellar neighbor Mars, we realized that it was not too much smaller than Earth and not too far away, and surmised that, given these conditions and the abundance of life on Earth, that Mars might possibly have similar conditions; ergo, there might be life on Mars as well. Couple this with the observation of ‘channels’ or ‘canals’ from some astronomers, and the idea of Martians took hold, first as speculative science, then in the fictional literature (such as The War of the Worlds,) and soon crossing over into real-world claims of alien encounters. The same was said, in a manner, about Venus, perpetually shrouded in clouds that prevent any view of the surface. Initially proposed to be water vapor like our own planet, some speculated that Venus was a steamy, swampy planet, with plenty of liquid water that helps catalyze chemicals and thus can promote the development of life.

Both of these were dead wrong, enormously so. The canals on Mars didn’t exist, and Mars has been too dry for millennia to harbor any life. Venus, meanwhile, didn’t have water vapor, but carbon dioxide instead, creating temperatures incredibly inhospitable to life. The idea of either of these planets possibly fostering life came only because we didn’t know the actual conditions, and were speculating instead. Now, how firmly these were speculated, the degree of probability that was given to these nonexistent conditions, was certainly varied, with astronomers and/or planetary biologists being the least convinced, yet there are still papers from several decades ago that proposed manners of ‘terraforming’ should these speculations prove true.

The same thing might presently be said about our search for life on other stellar bodies – moons within this solar system, from the majority of scientists addressing the idea, but any close stars from those that search for radio signals or biological clues within exoplanet atmospheres. Again, liquid water is considered key, and to have that you need certain temperatures and pressures, otherwise water is ice or vapor and not at all conducive to catalyzing elements.

However, we don’t know how life actually arose here on Earth. We think we’re close, but as yet, we haven’t been able to duplicate it ourselves, nor have we seen it occur spontaneously. Given that it occurred billions of years ago in conditions we can only infer from the traces left behind, as well as our knowledge of free elements within the solar system, we may be missing an awful lot. The more specific the conditions, the lower the likelihood of them occurring elsewhere. We’re really only dealing in guesswork right now.

We frequently say, “It’s possible,” about any number of subjects, but really, there are two distinct meanings of the phrase, and they don’t go together well. The first is simply an admission that we don’t know, and cannot therefore prove that something is impossible. We usually use this in casual statements, like if Bobby really likes us or the new restaurant is open late – essentially, it’s a worthless answer. But the second usage is more scientific: we say something is possible because we’ve seen it occur before and thus believe it can again, or at the very least (like, again, life on other planets,) we believe that we know the conditions necessary. This is more along the lines of probability, and can often be expressed mathematically, like a 1-in-20 chance of occurring. This is the only use that has any real value.

You may see these get intertwined in some discussions, too. If asked whether someone thinks the existence of a god is possible, the first meaning is generally sought after – we can’t, after all, prove that it’s impossible. But then, any “possible” admission is taken to mean that there is a real probability that a god can exist, which isn’t actually the case – we have no examples, no conditions, and no criteria for such thing, making the probability a solid zero – sorry, but that’s the way it works. People will jump back and forth across this line as it suits them, to get to the answer that they want to hear.

Note, too, that we cannot prove that anything is impossible, only that we haven’t seen it yet, but this is only our ignorance. Many, many things are almost certainly impossible – they would have to be if there are any laws of physics in the first place.

“Is the pea under the second cup?”

“Possibly.”

Actually, no – it either is, or it isn’t. Not knowing specifically doesn’t change that in the slightest. The only accurate answer is, “I don’t know.”

We’re a funny species, though – we’re loathe to admit ignorance, even when it’s a perfectly plausible state, and in many cases the only state we could possibly possess, heh! We think we should have answers, so we weigh options, and when that doesn’t help, we guess, almost always biased by what we want to believe is the case. Not only is this of no use whatsoever, it promotes false confidence, especially to others, and begins this snowball of influence that can only be stopped by thinking clearly and critically about the subject at hand. I don’t need to point out how few people spend any time doing this.

Sure, in most cases it’s trivial – maybe Bobby really does like us, maybe not, we’ll find out eventually regardless of guesses. But in some cases it’s a really bad trait that might be seriously detrimental. Going back to extra-terrestrial life for a moment, we have this overriding idea that such life will be ‘like us’ to one degree or another – if intelligent, it’s likely to be much more intelligent (to have solved all the issues about travel and contact that we haven’t yet,) and thus wise and peaceful and ethical. The probability of being like us, however, is abysmally low, so low as to be unworthy of more than a moment’s consideration. We humans developed in a complicated world full of variables, constantly influenced by other species and adapted strictly to the environment we were within – these conditions aren’t going to perfectly repeat themselves, anywhere. Or at least, this has the highest probability, by a very wide margin.

Which means we have no idea what extra-terrestrial life would be like. Which is fine, from a passive observation standpoint. It’s becomes more of an issue when we talk about actively trying to contact it – the likelihood of it being incredibly dangerous to us is unknown. Should we be betting on something that we have no knowledge of whatsoever? People well-versed in firearms have a saying: “All guns are loaded until you’ve unloaded them,” meaning you always assume the worst so you’re not being careless. This is a recognition of both ignorance and consequences – if we’re going to be wrong, better to be wrong on the safe side.

Overall, we would probably do much better if we got into the habit of recognizing our ignorance where it occurs, and not trying to hide it or imagine that it’s different. “I don’t know,” is a perfectly acceptable answer, one that we should never be ashamed of, and being aware that the gulf of the unknown may hold anything can at least make us less rash in what we assume about it, no matter where it occurs.

* * *

Believe me, I am well aware of the number of people who would read all that above and somehow get to, “Ha! If we don’t know, then you can’t fault me for believing in [insert subject of choice]!” Which is, of course, exactly that bias of desire thing that I mentioned, because if we don’t know, then there are no sides to take, not even tentative conclusions to come to.

Unless there are some probabilities that we can resort to. Viewing the existence of any subject as either ‘yes’ or ‘no’ gives this false idea of a 50/50 chance, but it’s hardly safe or accurate to say that there’s an even chance about the existence of gnomes or bamfercrots*, one of which has to exist if you’re really bad about understanding probability. Sometimes, applying a little logic can help quite a lot – or we can simply refer to the null hypothesis, assuming that it doesn’t exist until there’s solid evidence that it does. Which will be accurate far more often than not.

* Yes, I made that word up – see?

Living in the past IV

Al Denelsbeck

juvenile eastern/black rat snake Pantherophis alleghaniensis coiled in small tree
Another from 2010, I was delighted to find this itty-bitty black rat snake (though I suppose it’s properly eastern rat snake, even though we should have used up the ‘eastern’ modifier by now, but Pantherophis alleghaniensis to be technical) when it was crawling across the near-vertical surface of a tree in the backyard – I mistook it for a bicycle chain for a moment. I admit this is a semi-staged photo, because I captured the snake and set it loose in a better background where I could work with it easier and thus get a better angle. What shows distinctly, at least to me, is the harsh lighting – note the sharp shadow to the right. This was before a whole lot of experiments and design changes in light softeners and diffusers before arriving at the macro lighting rig that I currently use, which may yet again be modified this winter.

If you go to the original post, you’ll see that it was identified by a different scientific name. This is because it changed in the intervening 12 years, multiple times actually, as species relations and distinctions get refined. It was, in fact, stumbling upon one of the new names for this very species that started me checking on some of those that I didn’t photograph too often, which eventually became checking damn near all of them before posting, after I suddenly discovered that they’d done it for one of my regular subjects a few years before, without even telling me. Rude. In my Sibley Guide to Birds are numerous red asterisks that I’ve placed alongside species names that aren’t current anymore. Meanwhile, the eastern rat snake is even under refinement right now, as biologists discuss how many subspecies there really are…

But anyway, I consider this a dynamic pose with an inkling of scale if you’re paying attention, and a good illustration of their coloration at this age. The light angle eliminating the shadow from the supra-orbital ridge (the ‘eyebrow’) makes the snake look quite surprised, which isn’t ideal, part of the reason I’ve done so much work on lighting over the years.

Visibly different, part 49

Al Denelsbeck

newly hatched Chinese mantids Tenodera sinensis on ootheca egg sac
This image comes from 2011, when I happened upon the egg sac/ootheca of a Chinese mantis (Tenodera sinensis) sporting the newly-hatched young in a local park. The darkness of their eyes, I was later to determine, showed that they’d hatched out within the past several hours, and their proximity to the egg sac indicated that it was probably within the past 3 or so. I considered myself quite lucky to get these, especially this pose, but vowed that I would be doing better as soon as I could.

Mantids only have one hatching season per year, at least in this climate, and it would take knowing where the egg sacs were ahead of time to closely observe them in the spring. Over a period of years, I learned that they typically waited for sunny, warm days and emerged in the morning, though apparently not too early, but beyond that it was a tossup – I’ve seen them hatching in March through May, so even pinning down a particular timeframe to begin close observations was tricky, because even I have a life. I made it a point to collect egg sacs when I could, as well as noting the locations of any found on the property, to increase the chances of catching this as it occurred. And for real detail, this would take a serious macro lens with a tripod and flash, so access would have to be reasonably ideal.

Funny, then, that some of the best shots obtained were from another egg case that I stumbled upon as it was in the process of hatching, right off the back fence, and not one of the many that I’d collected or marked.

Chinese mantis Tenodera sinensis emerging from egg case ootheca among earlier hatchlings
It took nine years, this image having been captured in 2020, but by that time I had video capabilities and could do this right. I was also remarkably lucky in that this ootheca was a little below eye level in a decent opening on an azalea bush, making it easy to place the tripod and not requiring video lights; in other cases, like the one from this past summer, the angle for a good view would mean working flat on the ground and moving other branches out of the way, as well as making supplemental light mandatory. All that, while trying not to disturb the newborns.

Not so lucky were a lot of the mantid’s siblings, at least one seen here: something, perhaps wind gusts, had caused the demise of many immediately after emergence, and their carcasses were tangled around the egg case.

Notable differences between the two situations? Not a whole lot, equipment-wise. The earlier image was with the Sigma 24-135 with an extension tube for macro work, before I made an adapter to use the Mamiya 80mm macro, and shot freehand. The latter was with the reversed (failed) Sigma 28-105, possibly with an extension, as well as the Sunpak macro rig, and a tripod. Being home helped, because I had access to everything I own rather than just what I was carrying at the time. Overall, however, I credit the resolve to capture specifically this subject, which meant that I was prepared to take full advantage when I found them.

All that said, I figure I should tackle another aspect of my resolve to get specific images, since it’s directly related: the actual production of the ootheca.

female Chinese mantis Tenodera sinensis almost finished producing egg sac ootheca in longneedle pine tree
This image dates from 1999, shot on slide film, and represents the first time that I captured a mantis actually producing the egg sac. It was mostly finished by this time, and it made me vow to get this in better detail, preferably from the start and certainly with a better view. So how did that resolve turn out?

.

.

.

It didn’t. In 23 years, with careful observation of the mantids that I purposefully established in the yard, as well as being out in other likely locations at likely times, I haven’t seen this happening, or even caught it soon afterwards – not once. Draw your own conclusions from that as you may, but I wanted to make it clear that resolve isn’t always enough.

Living in the past III

Al Denelsbeck

unidentified amphipods gathering around floating snail shell in aquarium
Today we have an image posted in 2010, the first of the ‘Just Because’ images back when I suspected that it might become an ongoing thing (present count is 50 such posts.) However, it’s even older than that, coming from my saltwater aquarium in Florida back in 2004. My memories of exploring, collecting, and observing in Florida are very distinct, more distinct and certainly fonder than my memories of the first job when moving back into North Carolina afterward, so it’s hard to believe that they’re in that order, and that this was nineteen years ago. The calendar of memory is a funny thing.

What we see here are ‘scuds,’ or to be more precise, amphipods, though the term is broad and encompasses thousands of species – I can’t get any closer than that. Call them water lice if you like, though they’re harmless and non-parasitic, generally either scavengers or trash-eaters. I collected them with the seaweed, rocks, and shells that populated the aquarium, serving as food for the other species therein, but here they’re gathering on and about a snail shell small enough to float with a little air bubble trapped within – it probably measured less than 10mm wide. I have distinct memories of lifting clumps of seaweed, or really any interesting find, from the water while snorkeling and suddenly having a mass of these crawling across my hands, as the emergence into air caused them to bail free from the surfaces they’d been clinging to and try to regain the water – creepy-feeling, yet harmless. But seeing them using the shell in this manner when it floated close to the aquarium glass begged the macro shot, producing a unique perspective – I was lucky that the walls of the snail shell were so thin that light passed easily, since getting the strobe aimed into the opening otherwise would have been far more challenging.

That don’t work

Al Denelsbeck

We have some funny trends in our media – books, films, TV shows, and so on; these trends are, in a way, a self-perpetuating culture of ‘expectations,’ clichés and tropes that are used because they’ve been overused, and so we begin to think they’re correct. Many of them get addressed – the affect of gunshots, the idea that using a defibrillator on a ‘flat-lined’ patient will do a damn thing, the repeatedly-disproven canard that torture will produce dependable info – but there’s one that I’ve seen very often that I’ve also never seen rebutted, and it sorely needs it. I was reminded of this by Terry Pratchett, who was pretty good about catching silly clichés but actually uses this one too often. In short, it’s the wise (generally old) mentor that never answers, “Why?”

You’ve seen it. Mr Miyagi never telling Daniel why he has to paint the house in an awkward manner. Obi Wan Kenobi being cryptic. Countless characters saying, “Never touch the red button,” or whatever. The message is, if it’s important information, you should never have to explain what it is or why it’s important. Never question wisdom – just obey blindly.

Bringing it to attention like this makes us recognize that it’s a bad practice, and obviously a bad practice, for numerous reasons. Sure, sometimes it’s a plot device – the one told to simply obey, doesn’t, and learns the hard way that they should’ve, which in and of itself is a stupid lesson too.

Let’s start with, refusing to answer isn’t reassuring to anyone, kids or adults. You know who quickly figures out that we don’t answer because we probably don’t actually have a good answer? Damn near everyone. We’re inviting them to use their imagination, and chances are what they come up with isn’t the slightest bit accurate. Will they imagine that we’re hiding something interesting? Will they imagine that we’re just too stupid to know? Will their curiosity provoke them into trying to find out, or trying to prove us wrong? (Again, plot device, which is only useful in stories, not real life.) Or will they simply assume that there is no good reason, and ignore our advice? None of these are useful. And seriously, what kind of idiot would bet on their student learning their lesson by disobeying, especially with any kind of serious consequences in the mix?

Not to mention that blind obedience is an incredibly bad practice. Sure, we want people to obey us, because we’re smart – but we’re also teaching them to obey everyone, or everyone who seems to have some form of authority, and it takes no effort to produce examples that no one should be trusting. Blind faith, and even trust, are really bad traits. We might have trust in something because it’s shown to be dependable, which works pretty often, but it can easily be misplaced – think of the person who routinely speeds through a school zone because of their experience with a lack of police, or no kids running into the road. Hell, around here there’s a vicious trend of people blindly stepping out from a storefront into a parking lot, because they trust all drivers to be paying attention. You know, just like they themselves are…

We all know examples of people who really want blind obedience too, because it’s easy to manipulate others when they possess this – you’re on an atheist blog, I’ll let you do the math here, but it occurs in much broader areas than that, too. Why would we encourage this?

Most especially, if we have someone who’s asking why, who’s actively seeking information or a better understanding of a subject, we should be rewarding that. These are the people who learn, who have active minds that are trying to grasp things better. If nothing else, it proves that they’re paying attention. But by all means, we should never cut off the quest for more knowledge. The smartest people I’ve known are/were all polymaths whose curiosity led them down diverse paths that nevertheless gave them a better grasp of things overall, and the differing perspectives were nearly always beneficial. Learning something by rote, by merely repeating what we’ve been told, is only good for continuing to repeat – not for advancing. To advance, we have to wonder why.

Additionally, by engaging with someone asking questions, we have the opportunity to discover that there are misconceptions or misunderstandings lying beneath the knowledge that they have, that we might never have stumbled upon by being terse or dismissive. We also have the ability to discover that our own explanations or instructions were lacking in some manner, perhaps because we assumed a certain level of knowledge, or simply because we skipped over something crucial. I always encourage my students to ask questions for just this reason, but also because there’s a high probability that they’re not the only ones who have the same question. Their lack of hesitation to throw out questions is helpful to those within earshot who have greater difficulty with this, too shy to speak up, often thinking that it’s their fault that they fail to understand. We should never try to teach someone to keep their mouth shut.

Answer the questions. Give the reasons. Provide the explanations. If absolutely nothing else, it establishes that we really do know what we’re talking about, but most times it’s far more useful than that. And remember that anyone who doesn’t, probably isn’t very wise in the first place – they certainly don’t want others to be.

Living in the past II

Al Denelsbeck

black racer Coluber constrictor with eastern garter snake Thamnophis sirtalis sirtalis prey
Once again, our selection hails from 2009*, but this is likely the last from that year, since my posts were initially quite thin, and most of the images smaller. I happened upon this little scene entirely by paying attention to my hearing, catching the rustle near my feet and pausing to see what made it. This is a black racer (Coluber constrictor,) either northern or southern subspecies, having just captured an eastern garter snake (Thamnophis sirtalis sirtalis.) Racers are nonvenomous, so the garter is quite likely still alive here. It’s the only time I’ve gotten a photo like this, and it’s possible that I was the cause – well, of course I was the cause of the photo being taken, but I mean my passage along the path in the woods might have spooked the garter snake towards the racer, or at least drawn attention to itself. I would have liked to have watched the aftermath, but as the image suggests, I barely had a view as it was and the racer could easily slip out of sight. I elected not to disturb it any more than necessary, especially since I needed the flash to get any shots at all.

I’m always on the lookout for behavioral images of this nature, and rarely see such, probably because most species are aware of me before I’m aware of them, and this halts their stalking and puts them on alert at the least. Many species are vulnerable when eating, and a snake trying to down another snake is going to take a bit of time, so they’re more likely to avoid a meal if it means they might become a meal. And seriously, do you want to surreptitiously stalk a snake? I’ve tried that – the snake had more awareness and patience.

* Initially, I identified this as a northern black racer, though at this point I don’t think it can be differentiated – the range overlaps with the southern variant and they have no outwardly visible difference. Basically, it matters more to them than to us, but simply identifying it as a black racer suffices.

Living in the past I

Al Denelsbeck

I noticed in passing that the post count was at 2,470 at the end of last month, which meant that I could reach 2,500 posts at the end of the year – if I did better than I have been. I wasn’t worried about it – I’d prefer to post regarding content rather than arbitrary numbers – but then this afternoon I realized how I could meet this goal and have a bit of content in the winter dead season, and so we have a new topic, appropriately numbered with Roman numerals because it’s clarssy (and stupid.) This means we’ll take a look at images from past posts that I feel like revisiting, which does not inflate the uploaded images artificially nor require scanning or editing or any of that yaya. Almost effortless. What’s not to like?

multiple exposure of starfield showing rotation
I’m thinking I’ll do this in chronological order, so we’re going way back to the early days with the second post, since the first had no images. What you see here is a slide (well, the digital scan of one,) and this was done in-camera, a multiple exposure because film cameras can do that, of the starfield overhead one night. I’m not absolutely sure of the intervals but I think they’re 45 seconds apart. Worse, I’m not sure exactly where I was aiming or even what lens was used, so I can’t tell you which stars these are. Which is unfortunate, because right there in the center is something else, a singular point that was either captured in just one of the exposures, or wasn’t moving with the stars.

The possibility exists that this was a geostationary satellite, always over one point on the Earth so it was keeping pace and rotating with the planet (while the stars weren’t.) Or it might have been only a momentary light without moving much – or simply a schmutz on the film. I don’t know – I’ve reviewed the starfields in Stellarium countless times since then, trying to pin down where I was aimed, and never yet plotted it. However, you can get a rough estimate of the distance to the plane of the ecliptic because of the flattening curves: they become straight on the plane, essentially straight out from the ‘waist’ of the Earth. But I would think a geosat would have to be there too, and this is not – it’s some degree North of that.

So the mystery lives on. But the image is still pretty slick, and surprisingly colorful, so we’ll concentrate on that.

“Mean?” Please.

Al Denelsbeck

It’s been a while since I’ve tackled a post of this nature (instead of a post of nature,) and I’m out of practice, I think. More, my reading and web surfing hasn’t been related to this as much anymore, so I’m not inspired to address such topics anywhere near as much. But in light of recent developments (as well as re-reading Richard Dawkins’ The god Delusion,) I think it’s worth a post.

Outspoken atheists are very often considered a bit, “mean,” and numerous critiques of their publications, editorials, or talks revolve around the tone, far more than the content – offering a reasoned rebuttal of the points doesn’t occur very often. The implication is that religious folk are just sitting here minding their own business when they’ve been savagely attacked, belittled, and bullied, just for their beliefs. Which, naturally, deserve respect.

You know what’s coming, of course, but I want to highlight that, even when most of us recognize the failures and weaknesses of religion, we’re still influenced by the cultural emphasis on it, to the point where we tend to be a lot more wishy-washy in our response to it than is warranted. I don’t think this is doing us – or anyone, really – any favors.

We’ll start with the whole ‘tone’ thing, because it not only shouldn’t ever be an issue, it’s also manipulative; we need to recognize this and, really, call it out frequently. This isn’t nursery school – no one has a right, or should even have an expectation, of not getting their feelings hurt. The vast majority of us heard far worse in high school, and we have R-rated movies and murder podcasts and political campaigns and all that jazz – no one is a stranger to ‘bad tone.’ Hang around a construction site for an hour sometime. Quite frankly, nearly every example of atheist or secular editorials is far milder in tone than is warranted, when we consider what’s being addressed (which we’ll get into in detail shortly,) so we need to recognize this as sidetracking, at the very least, and not be swayed by it. Actually, it’s preferable to highlight this as the crass tactic that it is.

I’ve addressed the ‘respect’ thing before and won’t reiterate those points, I’ll just offer the reminder that respect is earned, and earned for providing benefit or accomplishing something worthy – not because anyone has declared themselves in possession of a label. While anyone may have the privilege to choose some standpoint or hold some opinion – indeed, we couldn’t take this away even if we were so inclined – this has nothing to do with whether it’s respectable or not. I am 100% supportive of free speech and of maintaining this privilege even in the face of today’s hypersensitive cultural fads, the modern-day witch hunts for those that do not hew tight enough to the ‘Woke’ standards – but I am also 100% supportive of responding to any given free speech with the countering opinion, if warranted, that one has their head up their ass. Respect, and its necessary sister Disrespect, are both functional aspects of defining how beneficial our culture should be – but only when they’re wielded with that function in mind.

I’ll sidetrack just slightly here for a related aspect, because too often people cannot see the difference. Censorship, one of the primary tools of cancel culture, is not merely a stronger version of disagreement; bluntly, it’s the admission that you can’t actually make your case convincingly and have to resort to force. Moreover, it never works. What we’re after is changing peoples’ mind towards a more beneficial standpoint, which censorship is incapable of, and might actually work in exactly the opposite manner, breeding resentment among those so censored and thus strengthening their resolve. If we’re confident that we have a better standpoint, then we should be able to demonstrate this with open exchange.

Which brings us back around to the atheist/secular treatment of religion. Let’s keep it in perspective. No concept of supernaturality, of deities, of extra-physical realms of existence, of even souls or karmic vessels, has the slightest empirical evidence to support it. Nothing. There is no method to differentiate any popular religion from the volumes of mythology that our history and literature is chock full of. No form of scripture comes even remotely close to the millions of interlocking bits of evidence we have of the age of the Earth, the development of life, the nature of the universe, or even accurate portrayals of human nature – some (most) of the stories are so ludicrous that they defy adequate adjectives. No examples of supernatural knowledge exist, no predictions of coming events, nothing to even promote humans towards improvements; for every example of beneficial guidance, there are at least as many recommendations and examples of emotional, reactive, and outright reprehensible actions. The bare fact that countless atrocities, throughout history and now, are directly intertwined with religious fervor is plain evidence that it doesn’t work, but the exhortations of sexist, bigoted, and exclusionary behavior are, by themselves, enough reason to discard any suggestion that this is useful guidance. In the US, the vast majority of prejudicial laws, passed or proposed, are religiously motivated.

This is not news to those of us that choose to engage. But we tend to minimize, even subconsciously, the vast extent of the issues – solely because we’re conforming to a culture that has embraced this stupidity. The culture isn’t what we should be focused upon; the stupidity is.

It goes much further than that, though. Despite this plethora of nonsense, it takes no effort whatsoever to find some religious pundit spouting judgment, abuse, and hatred, whether it be against gays, unwed mothers, teachers of evolution, or those politicians that don’t lick the pundits’ asses; somehow, not even the moderate religious ever speak out about the ‘tone’ there. There is no accurate tally on how many followers of this loving, just god (their words, not mine) were absolutely delighted to hear about a mass shooting in a gay nightclub, but enough of them certainly weren’t shy about spouting this in public, were they? Just about any natural disaster is pounced on by countless self-appointed fosters of ‘good’ behavior as evidence that their god is a nasty little fuck regarding his creation, and the assertions that misfortune is direct evidence of god’s displeasure are exceedingly rampant. Not only are they not ashamed of this hatred and animosity, they promote it in others and use it to solicit donations. Well, that’s sure a great way to build a better society…

Even those that don’t publicly denounce the various immoral behaviors that earn their ire are complicit in promoting legislation (no doubt with church donations solicited under the guise of providing benefit) to force everyone to conform to their bronze-age ideas of ‘good.’ There is no benefit to be found here, no respect, no love for fellow human beings, no humble servitude, not even the bare recognition that their god already has the whole system under control. Religion is, and has always been, a power play, a method of influencing (if not outright enforcing) the self-proclaimed authority of the religious leaders themselves. It might be strictly local, it might even be with the conviction that this is wise and just and benevolent, but it remains firmly intertwined with classism and influence and, “I know what’s right.” We’ve been conditioned for centuries to, “have faith,” and, “trust in god’s word,” and, “you can’t be good without religion,” that we rarely ever consider that none of it can be supported even remotely as well as any sixth-grade science project. We let this horseshit go on because almost everyone before us did, and it’s now part of our ‘society.’

Lest you think I’m being hyperbolic, dismissive of those religious figures who really are just interested in promoting good behavior, I’ve met plenty – including my own father, who performed guest sermons for his churches whenever possible. I’ve no doubt that many – perhaps most, perhaps not – aren’t on a power trip, desiring to be held as an authority; yet they still seem to believe that their ideology is valuable and beneficial, with no way of demonstrating how or why. And this is still lacking in focus a little. We have standards for college professors, electricians, mechanics, doctors, and so on, well beyond their mere desire or ‘calling’ to provide a service; when we need guidance or expertise, we look for people who have a supportable understanding of the subject at hand. We would be rightfully dismissive of a biologist that failed to understand (or “believe in”) how a cell functioned. But when it comes to religion, there is no background, no support, no facts whatsoever. Even the most ardent and active theologians are mostly unknown by the majority of preachers, as well as being dismissed out-of-hand by followers of other faiths. Religious people tend not to recognize this, but most of the world considers them mistaken (since no religion holds a majority of followers within the world’s population,) and worse, there’s absolutely nothing that they could offer to support their views; it makes no difference who I’m referring to. Religion is nothing but a personal opinion. Which makes it remarkably useless to base any decisions on whatsoever.

Which leads us to, There is nothing ‘mean’ about being dismissive of religion. It does not belong in the same conversation as any science, as politics, as medicine, or really, as any public forum – full stop. No one brings up their hobbies, their pets, their childhood stories in such cases, all of which have more factual support than any religion worldwide. The cheesiest teenage comedy movie hews closer to reality than the best examples of religious scripture (and is it even logical to select only the ‘best’ within the morass of outright goofy stories within scripture?) We need to be perfectly comfortable with cutting this off the moment it appears, telling people that it doesn’t belong, and maintaining that we have had countless methods of determining useful information for centuries now, that work and show measurable results.

This is the point: society is not about ‘majority opinion’ (otherwise known as ‘mob rule’) – it is about benefit and improvement. A grocery store that only carried one brand, one flavor, one variety of anything isn’t very functional, yet we’re allowing that same kind of bullshit to take place, in far too many circumstances, with much more important decisions. Call it out. Never hesitate to treat this as the ancient superstitious mythology that it is, and most especially, as a personal opinion that has no useful function. We’ve let this go on for far too long, to obvious detriment.

But, some caveats. Doing this usefully, and not antagonistically, is better of course, and by far the approach should be to denigrate the ideas, not the people – people are always a mixture of good and bad, wise and stupid, beneficial and detrimental, and don’t deserve being lumped into any given category, so we should always stick to the ideology. Being very matter-of-fact can be remarkably disarming; simply saying, “We’re not discussing religion, we’re discussing science,” is enough of a reminder that any religion is only one among many, as well as establishing boundaries (that should never have been loosened in the first place, and still remain in numerous European countries at least.) Or simply pointing out, “That’s simply your religion,” as a reminder that our culture is made up of plenty, while, “I’m sure god can speak for himself if he finds it that important,” is snarky but humbling. “Do you have anything that’s relevant to this conversation?” is also sharp, but makes the point of not even considering religion a factor. “What studies are you basing this on?” and, “Can you back this up with figures?” are both effective in directing attention towards goals. And these aren’t even being mean, just practical.

We see what happens when we don’t, when we allow religious folk to set their preferred standards of ‘decorum’ and what’s appropriate – this country is backsliding rapidly right now, and we’re letting it happen in the guise of being polite and non-confrontational, of yielding to a perceived majority as if religious people could agree on three things amongst themselves, or simply because we have the impression that we ‘shouldn’t make waves.’ But you’ll notice that the religious don’t seem to be following those rules, and an awful lot of our politicians are sucking up to them because they’re making the most noise.

I can imagine the rejoinders from some religious folk right now: “Well, that’s not all religious people – they don’t speak for me.” But you’re not speaking for you either; if the rabid fundamentalists are the public face of religion, the biggest influence on politics and policies and so on, whose fault is that? If we consider the actions within our society from the standpoint that they were coming from some other religion, especially one with standpoints or morals or consequences that we don’t like, and realize how badly that would suck, well, now we understand why restrictions against such things were put in place very early on in the creation of our political system – you know, the ones that are now largely ignored. While religions are ostensibly for everyone, to bring benefit to humankind overall, you wouldn’t be able to tell that from most of the practitioners, the ones that view everything from the ‘us’ and ‘them’ standpoint. “It’s okay if it’s ‘us’ but not okay if it’s ‘them,” isn’t a useful policy – it’s not a policy at all, but tribalism, as nonsensical as fretting about sports rivalries. No one in this country should have to be reminded that religion has no place in politics – no personal decisions do, no matter how much of a majority holds them – yet we’ve let this happen. Who’s going to fix it now? Should we wait for god to do it? Feel free to ask that of the millions of ‘god-loved’ people who have died in religious conflicts, but you may have a hard time getting an answer…

So yeah, speak up, speak out, make our voices heard. It would be a long time before we got to be as mean as some of the religious folk have been, or really, as they are right now.

Nein, November

Al Denelsbeck

Hah, get it? Because ‘November’ actually means, ‘Ninth Month,’ since it used to be, until Julius Caesar introduced a new, slightly more accurate calendar and had to add two months to it so that Groundhogs Day would keep falling in February, and he liked the summer so he put the extra months in the middle and named them after himself and his Shetland pony Augustus.

Okay, that’s not entirely accurate, and we’re going pretty far afield for the post title, so let’s just enjoy the end-of-month abstract.

bare stump in shallow water of Jordan Lake at sunset
It’s not hard for scholars of this blog to figure out when or where this was taken, and believe me, I enjoyed typing, “scholars of this blog,” as if decades from now literati will be discussing the nuances of the circumstances in which I’ll say, “fuck.” The Girlfriend will tell you, “Any chance he gets,” so that’s out of the way. All that aside, we have some colors and a really boring silhouetted stick, but it was what I had on hand since Jordan Lake is thin on wrecked fishing trawlers or semi-submerged church steeples. Seriously. Still, for being shot blind with the camera held down near my ankles, it framed up nice, once I got rid of the distinct tilt because, for some reason, the camera body feels ‘level’ when it’s far from it, horizontal or vertical. And here you were hoping for an un-edited photo at the close of the month. Too bad.

1 … 69 70 71 72 73 … 318