How much do you tell the kids?

With a couple of young kids I've found myself becoming increasingly conflicted about just how 'truthy' I am with regards to those little white lies most parents see as normal.

I'm thinking of things like Santa Claus, the Tooth Fairy and, yes, even God.

Every parent likes to think of their progeny as being intelligent and I'm no different. And with that comes the respect I have and my desire to be always honest with them and let them make their own decisions.

But it's hard. Hard because my innocent babies think the idea of Santa Claus giving them presents for being good is wonderous. And the pain of losing a teeth is overcome by the satisfaction and excitement of knowing that a coin awaits the next morning.

So what exactly should we tell our kids and what shouldn't we?

The most common way I've found of not dealing with this is deflecting the question back to the child in question.

"Does Santa exist, daddy?"

"Hmm. What do you think?"

But I can tell this is only going to get me so far. My eldest is just too inquisitive to let it stand. And they're both able to use my iMac to use the internet and I suspect it's only a matter of time before they try and find a cool Santa website and stumble on the truth.

(For what it's worth all proper parental controls are on to ensure they can't get to dodgy websites but I suspect belief in a jolly fat man with a white beard and sack of presents isn't filtered by this.)

So what do I say when my "Hmm. What do you think" is finally batted back to me with "It's a yes or no question, daddy. Does Santa exist?"

I suspect my skepticism will win through and I'll just confess. Probably out of earshot of the younger one so he can find out the truth for himself.

But is the right way to deal with it? Should I have told them the truth as soon as they understood the concept of the Tooth Fairy?

Or is little while lies to our kids acceptable? I'd be interested to hear from others what they would do, or have done, in similar circumstances.

Atheist bus campaign

I've written in the past how my particular brand of skepticism includes atheism.

I see religion as no different to any other topic - provide me with the evidence and I'll reconsider my stance.

And so on to the news. You may have already read about the decision by NZ Bus to deny the Atheist Bus Campaign advertising space on their buses.

Now to some extent I believe they are entitle to accept and reject adverts as they see fit. But frankly I just wish NZ Bus would grow a spine.

Company spokesperson Siobhan O'Donovan said a number of people found the potential advert ("There's probably no God. Now stop worrying and enjoy your life") 'distasteful or distressing'.

This just winds me up no end.

I see, read and hear things every single day of my life I find distasteful and distressing (I listen to Newstalk ZB so it's not hard). But I have the option to ignore it if I so choose.

The thing I don't understand is why that simple message is so controversial. It's not like the giant billboard of the planes flying into the Twin Towers with John Lennon's famed 'Imagine no religion' lyric which was designed to be deliberately provocative.

The only conclusion I can draw is these people's faith is on such shoddy grounds that even suggesting to them there might be no god is enough to turn them to the dark side.

Frankly I feel sorry for people who found this distressing. If someone was to put up a sign on a bus saying "Atheists are probably going to hell" then I wouldn't be distressed. I'd probably laugh.

In the meantime those things which I (and many people I know) find truly distasteful and distressing - poverty, child abuse, racism, sexism - go unaddressed.

Hey, here's a thought. Maybe NZ Bus could have taken the multiple thousands the atheists were offering to pay and given their bus drivers a raise. Might have helped with the whole poverty thing.

Skepticism can be fun

Skepticism can sometimes be a bit of a dry topic.

Good skeptical blog posts about efficacy of natural products may necessarily be hundreds (or thousands) of words long and include multiple references.

Not that that's a bad thing, of course.

But it doesn't always have to be that way. Sometimes less can say more.

And just recently I discovered a blog which does that brilliantly.

The guy's name is Crispian Jago and his blog has given me a huge number of laughs over the last few weeks.

His satire of South Park (called 'Skeptic Park' of course) is just perfect (part one, part two) and the time and effort he must have put into his Simpsons Skeptic video makes me feel way too lazy.

And I've already linked to his video showing how nonsensical homeopathy is by using his own urine as an example.

But the one which gave me the biggest laugh was his video 'The Benny Hinn Show':

Isn't it amazing how a 79 second video can entertain but also make a serious point at the same time?

I don't want to give you the wrong impression about Science, Reason and Critical Thinking because it also has some interesting, well written posts which aren't focussed on humour and there are some great videos from The Amazing Meeting in London.

So the best thing to do it head over there and subscribe to his RSS feed. I promise you won't be disappointed.

A NZ newspaper article against pseudoscience?

Apologies for the lack of updates. I get pretty severe depression and it takes it toll. Thankfully watching '30 Rock' and taking prescribed drugs helps and so I'm back on my feet. Funnily enough, I"m not taking any homeopathic remedies like these guys suggest.

And talking about homeopathy. . .

I was surprised (and delighted) to see this Guardian article on the demise of complementary medicine courses in UK universities being reprinted in today's Sunday Star Times.

Unfortunately the Sunday Star Times has often been on the wrong side of the pseudoscience debate, with past features on television psychics and the like, so it's nice to see a pro-science article featured heavily.

Hopefully this is a positive sign for the future, and BSc degrees (like I have) can once again become a bastion of science rather than pseudoscience.

But I won't hold my breath - water homeopathy solutions are available in most of the pharmacies I've visited in New Zealand. A friend was even recommended a homeopathic remedy for a broken neck (not by a pharmacist, thankfully!).

And finally, I had a recent door-knock from the local Jehovah's Witnesses. Standing with by straggly beard and Iron Maiden t-shirt I obviously looked right for saving. When I told them I was an atheist, the lead wanted to know why. So I told her. I was rather surprised when she told me a growing number of scientists agreed that the order in the world demanded a designer to explain it.

'Not any credible ones,' I suggested and politely bade them farewell.

God skepticality

The different 'varieties' of skeptic is one of the community's biggest positives, but it's also an issue that will means we can never be totally united. That's just something us skeptics need to deal with.

Thankfully there are communities (and podcasts) like the Skeptics' Guide To The Universe and The Skeptic Zone which can unite us around those things we agree on - and an excellent job they do of it.

The biggest unknown, as I see it, is the question of whether god exists or not.
I don't really care if a skeptic is an atheist, an agnostic or a theist. Some have made it known, some keep it to themselves. That's fine.

But my atheism is a big part of my skepticism - in fact it was probably the first step in my conversion from belief in faked moon landings and conspiracy theories to a fully-fledged skeptic. So, like it or not, I'll be dealing with atheism as part of nz skeptic.

That said, I wanted to share a piece I wrote for AUT's student magazine 'debate' about 18 months ago. It's a piece about that national anthem of New Zealand, a song called "God Defend New Zealand".

I think it's a good example of me using a bit of humour to make a serious point. Don't worry - I won't be regurgitating often - a new post will be up tomorrow!

God Offend New Zealand

Bertrand Russell, famous British philosopher, once wrote, "If I were granted omnipotence, and millions of years to experiment in, I should not think Man much to boast of as the final results of all my efforts".

I get up in the morning, take a long look in the mirror and find myself agreeing with Russell. Each sag of fat reinforces the fact that an allegedly benevolent being didn't exactly give me a body I should be particularly thankful for.

Now it's not simply my pudgy body that leads me to the conclusion there's no God. Years of studying science, rational and skeptical thinking, and a family who let me make up my own mind, all pointed me to the conclusion that God doesn't exist.

Instead of sitting on the fence and getting splinters in my arse and calling myself agnostic, I came out of the closet. I am an atheist.

Now before some of you send me e-mails telling me I'm going to Hell, I'd like to state I'm not anti-religion. In fact, I'm right at the front of the queue demanding people have the right to do whatever they want, whenever they want to. Where I object is when it impinges upon other people.

New Zealand is rare in that it has two National Anthems with equal standing. However both contain multiple mentions of the word 'God'. 'God Save The Queen' (from what one may ask?) and 'God Defend New Zealand' by their very titles can reduce the feelings of national pride for non-religious people.

There are people, like Elizabeth McKenzie, President of the New Zealand Association of Rationalists and Humanists, who refuse to sing because God is mentioned. What better way to fire up the All Blacks than by playing a song that may draw feelings of apathy, or even anger, from a large proportion of the crowd?

The 2006 census showed 1.297 million people (or 31 per cent of total respondents) had no religious affilliation, creating by far the largest 'religion' in New Zealand. The next biggest religions are Anglican (13 per cent) and Catholicism (12 per cent).

Given the (righteous) moves to ensure that even the smallest minority has proper representation and aren't discriminated against, isn't it rather ironic that 31 per cent of the country is ignored by the official national songs? And at the same time it can be hardly claimed that the current anthems properly represents the 124 religions in New Zealand either.

Is asking the crowd to sing the national anthem at a rugby game discriminatory?

No, it's not, because people have the ability to ignore it, stick their fingers in their ears or make up their own words. But surely there are better ways to engage the population and not leave anyone out? New Zealand has some fantastic lyricists.

Wouldn't a Finn brothers' original song, or a Hone Tuwhare poem say much more about New Zealand and its people that a 19th Century dirge that has little relevance in the 21st Century?

I'm not writing this article to convert anyone. I'm not asking anyone to give up deeply held beliefs because someone you've never met says scientific consensus suggests it's highly unlikely God exists. I'm asking you to consider whether it's fair on almost one-third of the population to continue with songs that demand a religious outlook on life.

Perhaps I'm being a bit hard on Aotearoa. We're certainly not the worst country in the world when it comes to discriminating against atheists. We're nowhere near as bad as the United States, for example.

In a February 2007 Gallup poll only 45 per cent of US respondents said they would vote for an atheist for President. This was a whole 10 points behind the next least popular group - homosexuals. I think (or at least I hope) New Zealand wouldn't have such a problem with an atheist Prime Minister.

Now I don't want to be seen to be singling out religion. My skepticism and rationality isn't confined to that one topic. I'm a firm believer in Occam's Razor (the simplest solution tends to be the best one). What's more likely? Someone turning over a page in the telephone book by psychic power or by blowing on it? A psychic getting in contact with dead people or using well-documented cold-reading techniques and probability to be reasonably accurate?

Now, before I start a rant about faked moon-landings, creationism, homeopathy and UFOs, I am going to put down my proverbial pen.

I'd like to leave the last words to the sadly missed Douglas Adams from the ever-popular 'Hitchhiker's Guide To The Galaxy.'

"I refuse to prove that I exist," says God, "for proof denies faith, and without faith I am nothing."

"But," said Man, "The Babel Fish* is a dead giveaway, isn't it? It could not have evolved by chance. It proves you exis, and so therefore, by your own arguments, you don't."

"Oh dear," says God. "I hadn't thought of that," and promptly disappears in a puff of logic.

Now, as I'm sure you'll be glad to read, I'm off to disappear in a puff of my own illogic.

*The Babel fish is an amazing species of fish that can translate any language into any other making it popular in the realms of inter-galactic hitchhiking.