Found this interesting article, on CNN today, about some researchers who have categorized atheists into six different types: Behold the 6 Type of Atheists. I am a 1, 2, and 4 atheist, apparently. What type are you?
Archive for the ‘Science’ Category
Posted by Clamence/The Chaplain on July 19, 2013
Posted by Paulo on August 14, 2012
Neil deGrasse Tyson is an astrophysicist, so he knows what he’s talking about. Just watch the video, it’s pretty funny too. I love this guy…
Posted by Ann on October 9, 2011
Lately I’ve been following recent discoveries in the science news more than in the past. And I’ve realized, as I attempt to talk with other people about the stuff I find interesting, there is very little interest in science in general in our wider society. I am boring, and yet, to myself, this stuff is fascinating! Where is this disconnect coming from, this shrugging off disinterest at best, antagonism at worst, toward the best method in our possession as humans for gaining an understanding of our world?
Our brains are extremely belief sensitive, and this knowledge draws me to science in a way I can’t explain. Imagine what it is like to become a person that is not only skeptical about the world around them but about their own ideas, so that they understand the illogic that makes themselves them, or me me. I question myself on my views, such as with my views about racism, sexism, homophobia–am I seeing these things clearly enough or too clearly? It is easy to see a boogie man where there is none. But I have to say, even atheists, although logical, from my observation frequently are not logical enough when it comes to themselves–which makes me wonder about me. I think it is sometimes easier to see outside of ourselves more clearly than we see ourselves. People are emotional. We tie our thoughts into our emotions, especially those strong chemical emotions based in our memories. Am I missing something, I ask myself, some truth about myself?
I read an article in Shermer’s eSkeptic periodical today that grabbed my interest (as much as his stuff does!): Denialist Demagogues and the Threat to Science. The article is a review of a book by James L. Powell on the general reaction to the science of climate change called The Inquisition of Climate Change. Frightening how adamantly people deny climate change is a reality. It’s not even an area for debate in the scientific world, even conservative scientists knowing it is real. But scientists are painted as left-wing liberal conspirators, driven by a desire for riches and pushing a liberal agenda. This despite most scientists being too interested in their science to give much attention to politics at all, almost across the board. Scientists simply aren’t interested in politics. There are no riches to be found in science, except metaphorically speaking in reference to knowledge. But interestingly, there is a disparity in pay for the science professions when compared to those of the people who attack science with their rhetoric the most vocally, such as businessmen and politicians. Most scientists spend 5-7 years in grad school only to make teacher’s salaries or receive fragile “soft money” grants to do their research; lucky if they are one of the few to get a six figure salary as they near their retirement as scientists. What scientists as a whole do pursue is the truth, but people cannot sift through their own perceptions based in belief to understand this concept. They can only understand scientists as they understand themselves. Their minds are clouded by their own perceptions. So all kinds of ulterior or manipulative motives, often their own, are ascribed to scientists.
Knowing fundamentalism well, I personally think some of these people probably think Satan is at work in science, with His Satanic hands over those of the scientists. Donald Prothero, the geologist reviewing Powell’s book, quotes Powell regarding this conservative belief that scientists have an agenda and support “belief” in something–such as an anti-God agenda or an agenda to destroy America as we know it:
Scientists…show no evidence of being more interested in politics or ideology than the average American. Does it make sense to believe that tens of thousands of scientists would be so deeply and secretly committed to bringing down capitalism and the American way of life that they would spend years beyond their undergraduate degrees working to receive master’s and PhD degrees, then go to work in a government laboratory or university, plying the deep oceans, forbidding deserts, icy poles, and torrid jungles, all for far less money than they could have made in industry, all the while biding their time like a Russian sleeper agent in an old spy novel? Scientists tend to be independent and resist authority. That is why you are apt to find them in the laboratory or in the field, as far as possible from the prying eyes of a supervisor. Anyone who believes he could organize thousands of scientists into a conspiracy has never attended a single faculty meeting.
Powell’s main point is that the current right-wing attack on climate science is very similar to how the Inquisition threatened Galileo because he spoke truth to power. Ironically, Rick Perry even managed to further emphasize his ignorance of science when in a recent debate he said he admired Galileo and how he “was outvoted for a while.” Bad analogy, Rick! If Perry actually knew any science, he would realize that Galileo was championing an unpopular scientific idea (heliocentric solar system) that was “outvoted” by the conservative power of that time, the Catholic Church and the Inquisition. Eventually, scientific truth won out, not the political delusions of the conservatives.
What’s crazy is these climate change scientists receive death threats, with one climate change scientist finding a dead animal lying on his doorstep. A dead animal. For some reason I don’t think it was intended to be interpreted like a rat gift from a cat… As though these scientists are some kind of activists. Maybe they are? Activists for the truth. Check out these articles on the death threats received by climate scientists, so intimidating they have begun to disguise their identities from the public!:
Sometimes I think we live in a world of apes with the ability to speak, and we call ourselves humans, but we are really just another kind of ape that has gone insane and is now aware of our existence and mortality…but we are still just animals mainly acting on instinct…and we must destroy any perceived threats to our manufactured reality and identities.
Science is not a belief, no more than atheism is a belief in nothing. But people insist on this because they MUST fit science and atheism into their own box. It is how they are able to integrate it into their belief systems. Why do I personally love science? Because, I can’t get outside of my perception, but science brings me closest to seeing through the fog of human bias. As Prothero writes:
There may be biases in our perceptions, and we may want to find data that fits our preconceptions about the world, but if science is done properly, we get a real answer, often one we did not expect. That’s the true test of when science is giving us a reality check: when it tells us something we do not want to hear, but is inescapable if one follows the scientific method and analyzes the data honestly.
Thomas Henry Huxley said it best over 150 years ago: “Sit down before fact as a little child, be prepared to give up every preconceived notion, follow humbly wherever and to whatever abysses nature leads, or you shall learn nothing.”
Posted by Ann on March 12, 2011
My father is a charismatic preacher. He has an ability to convince people to trust him implicitly. Maybe my years of interacting with him contributed to my desire to research the operations of the brain, to study the science of psychology. Much of what he says doesn’t make practical sense. Yet his ideas were pushed on me as truth. I was ordered to follow his rules (and my mother’s) based in these ideas in order to live in his home as a child, as are most children living under the rule of parents. At the same time, something always seemed off, not only about my parent’s fundamentalism, but also their perception of the world. Read the rest of this entry »
Posted by Clamence/The Chaplain on January 10, 2011
Scientific American has some excerpts from a new comic book titled Evolution: The Story of Life on Earth. Guess what I’ll be buying for my kids soon. You can see several pages of the book in this article: “Getting a Leg Up on Evolution–the Comic Book Version.”
Posted by Ann on November 21, 2010
Just finished my Sunday morning devotional reading. If you’d like to share in my reading, and maybe fellowship by adding some comments below, read this good article by a physicist. It thoroughly examines the difference between realists and idealists–Realism and Religion: A Physicist Examines the Basis for Belief. A good summarizing quote from the article:
One of the myths of popular culture is the claim that “Nothing is impossible.” Nothing can be farther from the truth. Modern physics clearly enables us to know what actions are possible and what are impossible.
In the article, Rothman answers the following questions:
1) What should a scientist think about religion and God?
2) Is there a relationship between belief in religion and the paranormal?
3) Just how far should a skeptic go in challenging the belief systems of the world?
4) What is the basis for our belief in anything?
In general, Rothman provides a solid explanation, based in science, for why paranormal experience, including ESP communication with God through prayer, have no basis in physics. In other words, we CAN say that some things simply ARE impossible. This is realistic. Of course, theoretically God could exist, but we know from the laws of physics our brains are not capable of receiving his alien transmissions…
The beliefs of the majority of idealists are unfalsifiable. Creationism, as we realists know, is impossible. Yet many idealists still steadfastly believe creationism is true despite the evidence supporting evolution–for idealists, anything is possible. Rothman writes,
In particular, theories based on religion (such as creationism) are unfalsifiable. As an example, suppose you object to creationism on the grounds that the fossil record (dated by radioactivity) shows that animals lived on earth millions of years ago. The creationist replies by saying God changed the decay rates of the radioactive isotopes about 8,000 years ago so that it merely appears as though the fossil is millions of years old. In actuality, the creationists say, God put the fossils there less than 10,000 years ago, for reasons known only to the creator. Whatever evidence you bring up to falsify the theory, the creationists claim God planted it there for His own mysterious purposes. These shifting and changeable ad-hoc assumptions make it possible to prove anything you want and so make creationism an unfalsifiable theory.
Posted by Ann on October 29, 2010
Realizing this blog is in danger of becoming too funny (wink), here’s a portion of an interview with Richard Dawkins published in this week’s edition of Skeptic Magazine. Below is an excerpt in which he discusses his book River Out of Eden. Dawkins addresses how humans are irrational in their belief all things have been put on this earth to benefit humanity (rather, God-believing humanity since atheists are just animals); in their belief the world revolves around them. Read the rest of this entry »
Posted by Ann on September 5, 2010
A couple of days ago I had my first discussion on Facebook with “liberal Christians” about their religious beliefs. Somehow I had developed a belief that liberal Christians would actually be able to see through the irrationality of fundamentalism in a way fundamentalists can’t. Read the rest of this entry »
Posted by Ann on August 20, 2010
“Feminism was established to allow unattractive women easier access to the mainstream.” –Rush Limbaugh, notorious misogynist and ugly man
Do we argue that racism and oppression in the world is a reality? Why is it that sexism and misogyny in our society is ignored and treated as a myth? Reminds me of religious belief and the way people who hold strong belief in general blatantly ignore any evidence that doesn’t support their belief system. Read the rest of this entry »
Posted by Paulo on April 8, 2010
Yet another missing link has been found. This is the latest one in dozens found within the last few years. How many more “missing links” have to be found before people like Wendy Wright admit they exist?
But people like her will never admit these are in fact missing links. They will just say, “Oh, those aren’t missing links, they are just extinct ape species that somewhat resemble humans more than other apes, but they are not humans.”
Posted by Paulo on March 29, 2010
Every once in a while, for some reason, my mother forwards me these newsletters from missionaries she knows. One such letter came in my inbox today. It was about a pilot who went to Haiti to help with the relief effort right after the big earthquake struck earlier this year. Now, the letter is somewhat private and it explicitly requests on the bottom not to pass it around without permission, so unfortunately I cannot show you the letter, but I will permit myself to quote you some of the things that were in it. Read the rest of this entry »
Posted by Clamence/The Chaplain on January 4, 2010
Ok, so maybe the title of this post is a wee bit misleading. The scientific study this article describes does not focus specifically on Christianity or even on religion. Still, it made me think about my youth in Christian circles, and the ridiculously obvious hypocrisy I witnessed that most others seemed blinded to. I have always chalked up this Christian hypocrisy to the fact that the ideal Christian life — as described by Paul: one with no lust, and bereft of many other normal and natural human desires and needs — is simply impossible to achieve. Thus, Christians had no option but to ignore this fact, pretending that they were achieving and living that life. But, if this research is correct, perhaps much of this rampant condemnation and hypocrisy in Christians circles is simply due to the side affects of having power. This would certainly explain why the staff, faculty, and students with the most power at my MK boarding school tended to be the biggest hypocrites and fell the hardest when their hypocrisy was revealed.