Archive for the ‘Science’ Category

Where do atheists come from?

Saturday, March 6th, 2010

New Scientist magazine has an article by Lois Lee and Stephen Bullivant, Where do atheists come from?, that’s worth a look.

HERE’s a fact to flatter the unbelievers among you: the bright young things at the University of Oxford are among the most godless groups ever studied in the UK. Of 728 students surveyed in 2007, 48.9 per cent claimed not to believe in any god, with 49.6 per cent claiming no religious affiliation. And while a very small number of Britons typically label themselves as “atheist” or “agnostic” (most surveys put it at about 5 per cent), an astonishing 57.3 per cent of the Oxford sample did.

This may come as no surprise. After all, atheism is the natural stance of the educated and the informed, is it not? It is only to be expected that Oxford students should be wise to what their own professor Richard Dawkins calls “self-indulgent, thought-denying skyhookery” – and others call “faith”. The old Enlightenment caricature, it seems, is true after all: where Reason reigns, God retires.

There’s been a lot written lately about a faith-biased “god gene‘ that predisposes man to believe in a “higher power.”

Rubbish. IMHO: Fear spawns superstition and superstition renders the masses controllable by religious elites. But that’s a book and not a blog post. The writers* of the New Scientist article suggest:

What we need now is a scientific study not of the theistic, but the atheistic mind. We need to discover why some people do not “get” the supernatural agency many cognitive scientists argue comes automatically to our brains. Is this capacity non-existent in the non-religious, or is it rerouted, undermined or overwritten – and under what conditions?

+++++++

* Lois Lee is a PhD student at the University of Cambridge and founder-director of the Non-religion and Secularity Research Network (NSRN). Stephen Bullivant is a research fellow at St Mary’s University College, Twickenham, and Wolfson College, University of Oxford

Richard Dawkins on militant atheism

Thursday, March 4th, 2010

Richard Dawkins urges all atheists to openly state their position — and to fight the incursion of the church into politics and science. A fiery, funny, powerful talk
(video: TED: Ideas Worth Spreading)

Here’s why you should make time to listen to Richard Dawkins.

Overtime turns to atheism

Sunday, February 28th, 2010

Overtime With Bill Maher – Atheism (video: Overtime With Bill Maher)

When asked about a visit by the leaders of a coalition of non-believing organizations to the Obama White House (see earlier post on the paranoid ravings of Bishop Council Nedd), comedian and atheist Adam Carolla launches — surprise! — into comedy schtick. Bill Maher thankfully, given the hysterical overreaction of the wingnuts and the religious reich to the atheist’s visit, redirects the conversation back to the statistical dominance of superstitionism over reason and the need for nonbelievers to come out of the closet and take a stand against what we don’t believe in and for our Constitutional right to to choose not to believe.

Sorry, cupcakes. There’s absolutely no proof of a religious gene (or even a phenotype), and any religious impulse to please an invisible deity is clearly nothing more than panic when it comes to not knowing the currently unknown. Smart people no longer see the hands of the gods in solar eclipses, because we know what causes solar eclipses. If there is, and I believe there is, an impulse to do good, take a bow, folks. You’ve evolved, because it’s just smarter to treat each other well and to make an attempt to get along with each other. And, bonus points to those who are motivated by something other than fear of the post-life consequences of not adhering to some man-made-up dogma.

It’s precious when conservative political writer Reihan Salam suggests that opposing currently accepted scientific principles (which are unceasingly fluid because science is rooted in skepticism) is a form of skepticism and not motivated by superstition once again rearing its ugly head. Skepticism is therefore a good thing when the faithful practice it on non-believers and science, but not vice versa.

Salam also advises non-believers and scientists — over 93% of whom do not believe there is an invisible guy in the sky toiling effortlessly away, simultaneously reading and evaluating the thoughts of every being in the universe, tossing curiosities like “the virgin birth” in man’s face with a hearty “trust me, I’m God,” and then sending the bad dudes and dudettes (including non-believers) packing to a post-life vacation in Hades for all eternity and without the possibility of 72 drop-dead gorgeous virgins on standby — to tolerate the intolerant.

As for the call for “humility” on the part of non-believers: Oh. Fucking. Please! Let’s all humbly tolerate the lifestyle choices of the faithful — no matter how freaky their beliefs — in the name of tolerance? I don’t think so. There’s no way we should tolerate a messiah who shows up on the side of a grilled cheese sandwich, let alone one who says withholding medical attention from your children when they’re dying or who says raping kids is cool — but only if you’re a priest. And, in fact, let’s fact-check the holy fuck out of the gods who say give all your money and grains and goats and first borns to the already rich guys through whom I’m delivering my sacred and irrefutable word … or else.

(tip: Norm Jensen, OneGoodMove)

Absolutely brilliant

Friday, December 18th, 2009

Symphony of Science – ‘We Are All Connected’ – Carl Sagan, Richard Feynman, Neil deGrasse Tyson and Bill Nye (video: melodysheep at YouTube)

Fifty-six newspapers, one editorial

Monday, December 7th, 2009

091207_banner_425

Today 56 newspapers in 45 countries take the unprecedented step of speaking with one voice through a common editorial (montage: The Guardian)

As a conference on climate change convenes in Copenhagen today, 56 newspapers from 47 countries in 20 languages are simultaneously publishing the same editorial. The eminent biologist, author, lecturer and non-believer, Professor Richard Dawkins has the background:

Today, 56 newspapers from 47 countries, in 20 languages, are simultaneously printing a shared editorial about climate change. Whatever you think about global warming and whether humans are responsible, I think we have to salute this remarkable feat of international cooperation. Here is an account, by a Guardian journalist, of the difficult process of getting the joint editorial together.

The list of participating newspapers can be found here

The initiative for this unprecedented and heroically difficult undertaking came from the Guardian. It is noticeable that the only other paper in the British Isles to join is the Irish Times. Even more noticeable is the almost total lack of support in the United States: only the Miami Herald and one Spanish language paper, El Nuevo Herald. Joiners in continental Europe include papers in Germany, Poland, Slovenia, Denmark, Norway, France, Italy, Spain, Holland, Greece and Portugal. Joiners in Asia include papers in China, Taiwan, Korea, Vietnam, Brunei, Indonesia, Cambodia, India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Dubai, Lebanon, Qatar, Israel and Turkey. Nothing from Australia or New Zealand, apparently, and only five from Latin America

From The Guardian:

Copenhagen climate change conference: ‘Fourteen days to seal history’s judgment on this generation’

Today 56 newspapers in 45 countries take the unprecedented step of speaking with one voice through a common editorial. We do so because humanity faces a profound emergency.

Unless we combine to take decisive action, climate change will ravage our planet, and with it our prosperity and security. The dangers have been becoming apparent for a generation. Now the facts have started to speak: 11 of the past 14 years have been the warmest on record, the Arctic ice-cap is melting and last year’s inflamed oil and food prices provide a foretaste of future havoc. In scientific journals the question is no longer whether humans are to blame, but how little time we have got left to limit the damage. Yet so far the world’s response has been feeble and half-hearted.

Climate change has been caused over centuries, has consequences that will endure for all time and our prospects of taming it will be determined in the next 14 days. We call on the representatives of the 192 countries gathered in Copenhagen not to hesitate, not to fall into dispute, not to blame each other but to seize opportunity from the greatest modern failure of politics. This should not be a fight between the rich world and the poor world, or between east and west.

Climate change affects everyone, and must be solved by everyone.

The science is complex but the facts are clear.

Read the rest of the editorial at the link.