40% Of Americans, Majority Of Republicans, Reject Evolution
This is rather… disheartening to say the least.
My neighbor brought up evolution once, said that if evolution was real he could “fuck a monkey and make a human”. Perhaps no one believes it because no one understands it? Yet at the same time that doesn’t seem likely either, I was in seventh grade when I discovered you can’t fuck monkeys and make humans, if not earlier than that. I vote school kids should read Michael Crichton novels.
Michael Crichton might not be a better source of science education, given his climate change denialism.
I’ve read State of Fear and it didn’t change my opinion on climate change. Of course I can’t expect that for everyone else, but I was thinking more along the lines of books like Next.
Many middle schoolers and even high schoolers aren’t as fortunate to receive proper science education. Many do not accept evolution because they do not understand it; they may get more information from their churches and the popular media than they do from their science teachers. Thus we end up with persisting misconceptions about evolution, genetics, and climate change as people become more entrenched in their beliefs when exposed to new information. The poll itself repeatedly and incorrectly refers to creationism as an equivalent theory, rather than as an untested hypothesis. This is a failure of the scientific community; we even end up with relatively educated people who believe it’s possible to clone dinosaurs from fossilized DNA.
Absence of evidence is evidence of absence.
—Carl SaganLove the above quote!
Except Carl Sagan said, “Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.”
Sagan was best described as an agnostic, stating, “An atheist would have to know a lot more than I know.”
(via flapjackstate)
Re: science, fantasy, and cognitive bias
I think I’m the only one who finds this depressing. ‘A £10 prize for the child who can disprove the existence of the mythical unicorn’? But… but… I mean, personally I believe childhood should be a time of innocence and enthusiasm. The fact that the innocence and enthusiasm has to end at a certain more ‘worldly’ age just shows what an awful world we live in, but I digress. Kids should play act and make up fairytales rather than competing over money to see who can think most like a ‘rational’ adult. And the ‘imagine there’s no heaven…and no religion too’ chant just seems like a way of injecting beliefs straight into children’s brains, just like religious camps. Kids should imagine and dream and believe, and childhood seems like the only time in life where those beliefs are enjoyed for themselves rather than pompously being forced on other people. ‘Sceptical thinking’ is the scourge of the earth. Adults think sceptically when they say ‘yeah, I know poverty and environmental destruction is bad but we can’t really change it and anyway X Factor is on g2g!!’
So yeah, clever guy, Richard Dawkins. Watch out to see if this doesn’t become just as indoctrinating as the christian camps. I hate arrogant humanity.
This is almost as bad as that awful, awful, fucking I-want-to-go-die-in-a-ditch-please-just-kill-me-right-now-no-really-you-think-I’m-joking ITV Junior Apprentice, with sixteen year olds eagerly learning how best to screw everyone else over and get as much for themselves as possible.
Unicorns and fairytales are fed to kids just as condos and cubicles are fed to adults. How many parents dream of a carefree existence and push their own nostalgic childhoods on their kids? How many parents will teach their kids to believe in Santa Clause, for example? Conform to whatever standards we judge “good girls and boys” by, and you too can partake in wasteful consumerism! None of this reflects freedom of thought, which the atheist camp is probably meant to inspire. The monetary reward seems like a misstep, though the camp likely doesn’t intend to force evolution upon anyone. The purpose is to present and discuss the evidence for evolution to encourage critical thinking (which is so, so lacking). Many adults dismiss the evidence without examination, and kids grow up sharing those biases. Instead, campers can evaluate each piece of evidence to determine whether they accept it, and they can develop their own questions and hypotheses regarding the remaining gaps in evolutionary theory. Kids should be taught to question their realities, for example, what Santa and Disney teach us. Only then can their minds truly run free, and science is a perfect field for imaginative thinkers. Exploring the complexity of life in the context of evolutionary theory opens up so many more interesting questions. Who else could therapeutically clone human organs from stem cells?
Richard Dawkins launches children’s summer camp for atheists
The five-day camp, based in Somerset, promises to be ‘beyond belief’ - the event’s motto - and will rival traditional faith-based breaks run by the Scouts and church groups. Richard Dawkins is subsidising the camp which will offer children aged eight to 17 the chance to sing along to John Lennon’s Imagine and have lessons in evolution.
As well as traditional camp pursuits such as trekking and tug-of-war attendees will be given lessons in moral philosophy and evolutionary biology as well as debating otherworldly activities such as crop circles and telepathy.
There will even be a £10 prize for the child who can disprove the existence of the mythical unicorn.
And instead of finishing up the day with a toasted marshmallow and round of Kim-bi-ya budding atheists will belt out ‘Imagine there’s no heaven…and no religion too.’
Dawkins said the camp was designed to ‘encourage children to think for themselves sceptically and rationally.’
The event has been held in America for 13 years and was set up in the UK by Samantha Stein, a postgraduate psychology student from London.
The 23-year-old said the 24 places available were now taken and she hoped to expand next year after receiving hundreds more inquiries.
She said the camp, to be held from July 27 to July 31, was not intended to convert children but to introduce them to a different way of thinking.
Camp atheist: Children will debunk crop circles and sing John Lennon
‘It is not about changing what they think, but the way that they think.
‘There is very little that attacks religion, we are not a rival to religious camps.
‘We exist as a secular alternative open to children from parents of all faiths and none.’
The theme of the camp is evolution, to coincide with the Darwin 200th anniversary celebrations this year.
The programme includes canoeing, drama, nature walks, singing and swimming.
There will also be philosophical and scientific discussion for children who will be taught about evolution and that ethical behaviour is not dependent on religious belief and doctrines.
Christian organisations which run summer camps include the Church Pastoral Aid Society, an evangelical group which operates 100 holiday schemes ‘giving young people a chance to meet Jesus Christ’.
I WANT TO GO TO THIS.
I hope any kids I may [n]ever have don’t inherit my social anxiety, so I can send them off to this.
Re: backwards science
It’s interesting to me that most of the science majors that I’ve encountered are more interested in findings and facts whereas the philosophy majors that I know are more educated in the scientific method. Perhaps it would be better if the two groups knew a little more about each other’s fields of interest.
However I take issue with “Many atheists will smugly declare their worldviews to be the most educated and most likely, yet science and probability can do nothing to refute non-material existence.” For many atheists, it’s not about refuting or disproving religion, but showing that it’s senseless to talk about nonmaterial things. I have never refuted the existence of Zeus, but I have no evidence in favor of Zeus’ existence therefore I simply don’t consider it beyond that. Furthermore, if one is a Logical Positivist it is literally meaningless to talk about things that can’t be verified. This goes beyond science and into metaphysical, ethical and aesthetic claims. If it is the case that science can’t refute religion, it is because religion is based on an epistemic infinite regress: it purposefully makes itself unprovable, though this has the unintended effect of making it senseless.
Many atheists do claim that scientific evidence makes God obsolete:
Science has negated the need for a creator or religiously prescribed morality, but it’s my understanding that most religious leaders and biblical scholars interpret the Bible figuratively, not literally (the Ichthys above is a symbol of Christianity, not creationism). Actually, polls show that congregations are often far more conservative than clergy, and this reflects not only a failure of American science education, but a failure of religious education as well. Young Earth Creationism seems largely an American belief not shared in other developed countries. It makes sense for atheists to attack creationism, or religiously imposed moral judgments, but not faith in general. I have frequently seen atheists refer to the “probability” or “likelihood” that they are correct, and that is a fundamental misunderstanding of science.
I agree, however, that many atheists, including myself, are so for just the reasons you describe. If God is unknowable, then of what use is God? I’m not so sure that discussions of God are meaningless, though. God, whether real or not, has a very real impact in that belief in God causes both negative and positive consequences. This makes God very different from Zeus or the invisible gardener. It’s not enough to say God can’t be verified and is thus pointless when an overwhelming majority of the population believes in God and acts according to God’s perceived will. Instead, it’s important to discuss the proper role for God (who exists at least in people’s minds) in society: in churches and private lives as opposed to public policy.
(via thankgodimanatheist)
lolz
God Hates Nerds
via Gizmodo:
It seems that the members of the Topeka, Kansas-based Westboro Baptist Church aren’t very happy about the San Diego Comic-Con. According to them, it’s a gathering of lost souls who are obsessively worshipping false idols like Batman.
Members of the church intend on staging a 45-minute protest during one of the least busy days of the convention in order to get everyone back on the right track.
Re: intolerant atheism, religious conditioning, and ego
I agree that non-believers shouldn’t hate on believers, or vice-versa. Personally, I always make the distinction between criticizing an idea (okay) and criticizing a person ( not okay.)
Having said that, I really don’t see many “intolerant atheists.” I’ve been in atheist student groups, almost all of my good friends are non-religious, and almost all of the students in my major are atheists too. Yet nearly all of us still respect religious people because those believers are our relatives, friends, coworkers, classmates, significant others, neighbors… tumblr followers, and so on. I don’t have statistics to show that X% of atheists are tolerant, but neither does the OP.
The damage is done by people repeatedly putting those ideas into action, enforcing the outcome of their beliefs on others. They’ve given us plenty of reason to become intolerant, though I agree that many atheists remain tolerant. I also feel that hate is too strong; it’s more like extreme annoyance and irritation. My religious relatives and acquaintances don’t deserve a tolerance pass if they try to impose religious morality with their votes or continue to impede scientific progress.
(via caraobrien)
People take on beliefs as a conscious choice. This is unlike characteristics we are born with. Thus, people should be held to ridicule when such a conscious choice is absurd. By keeping to ourselves, we welcome the breeding of such absurd beliefs. So then we can only blame ourselves when we turn to see absurdity all about us, spread to places we never imagined.
We can’t forget that our behavior is based on beliefs. So as absurd beliefs spread, so spreads absurd behavior. And absurd behavior is not what moves us forward.
Hmm…I’m not sure beliefs are conscious choices. Certainly many of them are, but being exposed to an idea with positive and negative reinforcement causes a sort of Pavlovian association in the human mind. For instance, being beaten when you deny the concept of god and rewarded when you sing his praises often leads to an almost psychotic devotion to the deity in question- look no further than the American south for evidence and examples of this.
Still, minds can be changed and I agree wholeheartedly that rational behavior should be society’s go-to for what we consider the ‘norm’, and absurd or irrational behavior should be fought (I don’t mean with force, however, simply with questions, ideas and education).
Alright, people keep reblogging this and basically challenging me to prove that atheists are intolerant, kinda hijacking my post and deciding that because their experiences don’t match my own, I must be wrong.
I wrote that post as a response to atheists who have blatantly said (AND I QUOTE), “I hate Christians.” This has been said to me face-to-face in conversation, and the original post was a response to that personal experience, not a challenge to all atheists to prove themselves to be tolerant. So yeah, there are atheists who hate Christians, and I definitely believe that there are atheists out there who will discriminate against Christians. That was the point of my original post.
Honestly, I think it’s kind of sad that so many atheists/agnostics aren’t even willing to acknowledge that hatred and hostility towards religion does exist. Just because the vast majority of atheists are tolerant, that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t acknowledge that there is intolerance of religion, and that needs to stop.
(via caraobrien)
Honestly, at some point you should acknowledge that your initial post sparked a discussion between other tumblr members about their own atheism, and that your words were forgotten long ago. They didn’t even appear in this reblog, though a link credits you for providing that inspiration. Maybe your original post did mean that those very few atheists shouldn’t hate Christians. And you’ve admitted that we should question religion and its impacts. This thread explored why intolerance has now been focused on the people practicing the religion and not just on the religion itself.
On jonathan-cunningham’s comment: the installation of religion isn’t usually a conscious choice, but the retention of it certainly is. Questions, ideas, and education are really what atheists seem to be about. I’ve questioned Christian friends, more out of curiosity than instigation, about why they chose to believe. What did their faith mean to them, and what did it offer them? I was genuinely surprised when they didn’t have an answer and had never even thought about it. I’m with infohedon on this; at least those people should be ridiculed.
Re: intolerant atheism
I agree that non-believers shouldn’t hate on believers, or vice-versa. Personally, I always make the distinction between criticizing an idea (okay) and criticizing a person ( not okay.)
Having said that, I really don’t see many “intolerant atheists.” I’ve been in atheist student groups, almost all of my good friends are non-religious, and almost all of the students in my major are atheists too. Yet nearly all of us still respect religious people because those believers are our relatives, friends, coworkers, classmates, significant others, neighbors… tumblr followers, and so on. I don’t have statistics to show that X% of atheists are tolerant, but neither does the OP.
The damage is done by people repeatedly putting those ideas into action, enforcing the outcome of their beliefs on others. They’ve given us plenty of reason to become intolerant, though I agree that many atheists remain tolerant. I also feel that hate is too strong; it’s more like extreme annoyance and irritation. My religious relatives and acquaintances don’t deserve a tolerance pass if they try to impose religious morality with their votes or continue to impede scientific progress.
I’m really sick of fellow agnostics/atheists hating on others because of their religious beliefs.
Enough already. Hating someone because of their religion is no different than others hating you because of your lack of faith.
I know I’m probably going to get a “religion is the root of all evil!” response. Fuck that. INTOLERANCE is what’s wrong with the world. Have some respect for your fellow human beings and stop being a jerk.
And I’m really sick of fellow liberals/progressives waving the intolerance flag and thinking we can live in some magical world where every conflicting view is acceptable. Religion has real effects on society, it’s not “whatever floats your boat,” and we don’t have to respect people who encourage or allow these things to happen.
We don’t even need to discuss crazy fringe fundamentalists who blow people up or don’t give their kids medicine; much of the damage is caused by religious moderates. The majority of Americans do not support the legalization of gay marriage. Hrm, why would that be? We still do not have equality for gays and women in one of our most industrialized societies. Many of the posts crossing my dash are related to abortion. Ever since Roe v. Wade (nearly 40 years ago), we’ve still had to fight vigorously and relentlessly to protect that right. Why, in 2010, are we still fucking talking about abortion?
I do disagree with fellow atheists who claim that religion is the root of all evil. Wars would still be fought for resources and power without religion. Wanton environmental destruction would still occur. I do get frustrated when fellow atheists misunderstand the limitations of science and use phrases like “statistical probability” when discussing God’s existence (Science 101: science says nothing about the presence/absence of God). However, science can disprove religious stories, such as creationism. Why must we still debate about evolution? It only serves to dumb us down and inhibit progress when evolution is constantly called into question by people with zero evidence against it. Darwin deniers also dispute the evidence for climate change and hold back medical advances in stem cells.
Sure, there are probably religious people out there who are totally open to gay marriage and equality, sex education, challenging traditional gender roles, evolution, abortion, stem cell research, environmental protection, etc., but they’d be in the minority. The rest of the religious believers have held back society long enough with their views, and willful ignorance should no longer be tolerated.
Re: God, hope, and ego
Why are there god/gods?
Hope.
People need hope, and “god” most easily equates to the ultimate and an ever constant source of hope throughout an entire person’s life. We are often taught to draw hope from externals, and unfortunately to really acquire actual happiness, we have to draw hope and happiness from the internal, rather than the externals….gods, relationships, and friends. We need to create the idea that is “god as hope” as ourselves, become our own god, value ourselves higher than any other outside factor of contentedness. We are our own best friends, and will be for a longer time than we’ll ever know any god or any other person or external in our entire lifetime. We are the ONLY person we’ll ever know throughout the course of this adventure. Love and worship yourself as you deserve to be regarded in your own eyes with the highest esteem given to any source in your world, you ARE your world.
I find the most positive discussion point of the social dilemma that are the fundamental quagmires of our culture such as religion, gender roles, nationalism, ecological waste, classism, etc. is that these are ALL fundamentals that we are NOT born with in this country or any, and not only can they be unlearned at some point in one’s life through self reflection, but they can also be unraveled via the fabric of the social consciousness becoming more self aware generation after generation. Just as these principles, (That I view as illogical and harshly self constraining or bigoting.) can be bred and woven into a country’s social consciousness, they can be bred out with free knowledge and open discussion points as seen here, and hopefully also brought into the outer world offline in tandem to create actual social evolution.
We ARE evolving socially. The cloud of ignorant fear is dissipating through our own choices….slowly, but surely.
Gods exist because ancient peoples wanted to understand, just as we still do today. Without the tools of exploration and scientific inquiry, they developed the most plausible explanations for the world around them.
The Bible, for example, presents a world that makes sense within the context of ancient understanding. The sky appears as a blue dome, and occasionally water falls out of it, so there must be a sea in the sky. A firmament holds it back, which the sun and stars appear within. Travel was limited, so any extended trek inevitably led to water. We see what humans can know and cause, so there must be some greater human-like being who knows and causes everything. The rest of the Bible is mostly philosophical, dealing with human relationships between each other and with God.
Why do gods still exist today? Probably for that same philosophical guidance. Is that hope, and if so, hope for what? I sure could use some hope in an afterlife, but what else? I reject the idea that hope and happiness must come from inside, rather than externals. What is inside without externals? If anything, wouldn’t it have to come from something spiritual?
If I defined my own happiness according to accomplishment of my own listed goals, how would I be able to measure achievement without external approval? Maybe I want an awesome job, but someone else will have to evaluate whether my skills are useful. I could be self-employed, but then the clients would have to make that determination. To finish this gd grad program, my advisor and committee members must validate my work. Then there’s romantic love…no comment. I suppose I could create some art for my own satisfaction, but where could I draw inspiration from? Everything we know comes from outside ourselves.
It’s good to recognize, though, that our “social quagmires” are also external and could possibly be unestablished through generations. I’m glad you’re so optimistic.
Re: Agnosticism v. Atheism
Can we at least all agree that both make more sense than religion?
I’d agree with the premise of being agnostic as having the sensibility of not being able to quantify something unquantifiable, but why is agnosticism considered a non belief and atheism which presents the staunch belief…..of NO belief in higher powers, umm….a “belief”..???
Agnosticism isn’t a belief, because it doesn’t represent confidence in something beyond the limits of proof. We can’t “quantify something unquantifiable”—that’s as close to fact as we can get. On the surface, agnosticism doesn’t say much (thanks for the help in my search for answers), but such a statement raises some profound philosophical questions. If we can’t measure the volume of God in a beaker or the mass of God on our most precise scales…then what is God?
Nothing, atheists (including myself) would say. Is no belief a belief? It’s often stated that the burden of proof lies with the believers, but that’s a cop-out. We can demonstrate nonexistence of material things the same way we demonstrate existence. For example, I can say with near certainty that there isn’t a million dollars in my bank account or that the person I love is not currently lying in my bed. We can say that the flood never happened and that genesis is a crock, but we can’t say with any similar certainty that anything intangible, such as God, does not exist. To claim that sort of certainty would be to express a deeply held belief.
Are Agnostics also agnostic about Thor? Freya? Quetzalcoatl? Kokopelli? Unicorns? Pixies? Casper the friendly ghost?
(I wonder how many unfollows will result from this…)
This presents a common misconception about agnosticism, which is probably the most intellectually honest philosophy. It is a weak view in practice, but is most consistent with the scientific method: God is unknown and unknowable. Our empirical ways of knowing are limited to the material world, and thus science says nothing about the spiritual world. Agnostics would have to be agnostic about anything non-material: ghosts, yes; unicorns, no. It makes sense to extend this view and think that an unknowable god is practically equivalent to a non-existent god. But atheism is a belief; agnosticism is not. To think otherwise is intellectually lazy.
I identify as an atheist, or rather an agnostic atheist: I don’t believe in God, but it’s impossible to state that God does not exist as fact.
At least, agnostic atheism has been the logical endpoint for me. There is a subtle separation between those who think atheism is a belief or not. Agnostics are right in stating that God is unknown and unknowable; scientific inquiry is limited to the material world. However, agnosticism is a weak philosophy. An unknowable God is about as useful as a non-existent God. But that’s a choice that requires thought: I believe that God does not exist. “Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.” I’ll give you that one, Carl Sagan, in a discussion of phenomena outside the realm of matter and energy. However, Rumsfeld was way off applying that quote to WMDs. Those are indeed physical, measurable, and thus falsifiable.
The Geographic Concentrations of Religious Belief Should Give Pause
Despite the geographic concentrations of religion, this does not cause believers to step back. Does the kind of God you believe in really have anything to do with your religion’s merits? Or is this an example of a localized bandwagon fallacy?
Bandwagon fallacy=exactly what it sounds like. While religious folks may claim that “the best, deepest faith requires men and women to be incredulous and inquiring,” the available evidence suggests that most respond otherwise.
