Religiosity and the numerous ills to society

The other day I posted this quote on Facebook and it got a lot of likes:

"Atheists are routinely asked how people will know not to rape and murder without religion telling them not to do it, especially a religion that backs up the orders with threats of hell. Believers, listen to me carefully when I say this: When you use this argument, you terrify atheists. We hear you saying that the only thing standing between you and Ted Bundy is a flimsy belief in a supernatural being made up by pre-literate people trying to figure out where the rain came from. This is not very reassuring if you’re trying to argue from a position of moral superiority."
~ Amanda Marcotte

Which of course reminded me about a lot of other things regarding morality and atheists. 
One of my favorite papers is from the Virtual World project (which lists itself also as Moses Creighton, and appears to be an educational site because of the .edu extension). They have a Jopurnal of Religion & Society.  I suggest you read Volume 7 from 2005.

To say that it shows rather interesting data is probably an understatement.  So why would the quote I posted on Facebook remind me of this paper?  Well, the ills of society that for some reason are so disproportionately high  in the US, even though we are supposedly such a religious nation are aspects of morality.  Just read the abstract (emphasis mine):

Large-scale surveys show dramatic declines in religiosity in favor of secularization in the developed democracies. Popular acceptance of evolutionary science correlates negatively with levels of religiosity, and the United States is the only prosperous nation where the majority absolutely believes in a creator and evolutionary science is unpopular. Abundant data is available on rates of societal dysfunction and health in the first world. Cross-national comparisons of highly differing rates of religiosity and societal conditions form a mass epidemiological experiment that can be used to test whether high rates of belief in and worship of a creator are necessary for high levels of social health. Data correlations show that in almost all regards the highly secular democracies consistently enjoy low rates of societal dysfunction, while pro-religious and antievolution America performs poorly.

Of course, correlation does not equal causation, but after a while, you may start to wonder.  And this isn't the only data-point to consider... For instance, this article talking about our religiously motivate prudishness also mentions a lot of dysfunction.  They also note the correlation of (emphasis mine again):

“Prudes,” they would argue, should be upheld as exemplary role models because a sexually repressive society is also a society with fewer unplanned pregnancies and fewer sexually transmitted diseases. But not only do the facts not bear that out, they also demonstrate that the exact opposite is true. Countries that embrace many of the things social conservatives detest (comprehensive sex education, pro-gay legislation, nude or topless beaches, legal or decriminalized prostitution, adult entertainment) tend to be countries that have  less sexual dysfunction than the United States, not more. And when one compares sexual attitudes in the United States to sexual attitudes in Western Europe, it becomes evident that there is a strong correlation between social conservatism and higher rates of teen pregnancy, abortion and sexually transmitted diseases.

Okay, so there is the whole societal ills thing, but what about some other measure of adherence to morality?  I think that maybe one measure could be prison populations.  What about them?  Well, generally Americans seem more inclined to believe a default position of christianity, but there was this one study that showed a much higher percentage of christians in jail than atheists.  Granted this is from 1997, and the past 15 years has changed the American landscape quite a bit.

Maybe a measure of morality that the religious would be more familiar with?  How about the so called "seven deadly sins"?  That may provide some insight?  The University of Kansas Geography department made a great info-graphic on those imaginary "sins" and how they stack up by region.  Although it would have been nice to overlay those maps with a measure of actual religiosity, however it is generally accepted that religiosity does run deeper in the southern US as supported by the Pew Forum. So AGAIN there is a correlation that is the exact opposite of what the religious claim regarding religion and morality.

Now in my opinion, I think the really telling part is that all religion does is give away a person's accountability.  Instead of someone actually internalizing their morality, they end up just following what is told to them by some authority figure with no supporting evidence.  Sound just like religion?  Of course.  Add to this the horrible morality contained in the bible and other holy books.  This is morality based on bronze-age misogynistic ignorant tribal nomads...  Seriously?

The worst part is that there are way too many people in legislative positions that think it's just fine to attempt to legislate these bronze-age misogynistic ignorant tribal morals on the rest of the population.  All in all it's abject failure, and then there is the whole problem that the people that actually believe the bullshit version of morality seem to have a problem adhering to it, while at the same time screaming about their freedoms.  And of course, they will gladly deny freedoms to groups they consider immoral just because of the same holy books, but in reality have no real bearing of morality

Well, I could go on, but I think you get the idea.  After so many correlations, I am starting to wonder if there is some causation here?  What do you think?

Still Here!

Okay, by now it's the 22nd over most of the world, and nothing special happened.  This should come as no surprise to most people, but there were a few idiots and knuckleheads that did buy into it.  We all pretty much just laughed at them.

However, what makes your apocalyptic story any different?  (I use "your" in a collective sense of humanity, not any one person in particular that may be reading this.)  As I mentioned a couple years ago:

My issue is not really religion but irrational thought and belief without evidence. Religion is just the most evident, and for some reason respected, irrational belief system on the planet. If you really analyze religion, it's all about accepting the unprovable and non-existent as a matter of course.  You would readily scoff at someone who worshiped a giant flying space pickle, so why is your particularly strange deity immune from that rational examination? Have you examined homeopathy, power balance bracelets, new age, alchemy, astrology, tarot card reading, ghosts, UFOs, paranormal, mind-reading, tea leaf reading, remote viewing, spirit guides, bigfoot, etc. and made conclusions about those things? Why not examine the rest of things you "know" in the same way?

So let's check out apocalypse.  No matter what christians may proclaim, their religion is a death cult.  Just read the drug induced last chapter of their holy book.  It's bat-shit insane doomsday prophesies.  And for some reason, we're supposed to take that crap seriously?  Even considering the fact that they have been harping on about their doomsday for centuries, and have been wrong on every single one of their predictions.  Seriously, they should be embarrassed at this point, yet they still cling to their very own apocalypse.  Which is what I find so fascinating about it.  So many christians scoffed at the 2012 nuttery.  They even scoff at the flavours of christianity that don't match up with their interpretation (or what their clergy tells them is their flavour).  Yet, they still think there is some truth in their book of fables, even though it contains one of the most disturbing and downright silly apocalypse predictions ever.

Is it any wonder that I really can't respect the intellectual integrity of someone who is religious.  Sure, they are compartmentalizing, and all those other lame excuses people put forth when you see someone who would normally be considered intelligent embrace a philosophy based on bronze aged myths, and believes in a totally unsupportable and indefensible position.  Why do we cut them so much slack?

It's a bird, it's a plane, it's a Skeptic Presentation at Yankee Skeptic!

I recently gave a presentation at the SkeptiCamp hosted by Granite State Skeptics (Dale Roy in particular), and I wrote it up for Kitty of Yankee Skeptic.  Instead of repeating what she wrote, here is a link to her site where you can read the presentation.  Enjoy.

Distrust of Science. A conservative position? Why I can't vote for these GOP retards...

So I just saw this quote from someone who is as disconnected from reality as anyone can be:

"All that stuff I was taught about evolution and embryology and the Big Bang Theory, all that is lies straight from the pit of Hell. And it’s lies to try to keep me and all the folks who were taught that from understanding that they need a savior. You see, there are a lot of scientific data that I’ve found out as a scientist that actually show that this is really a young Earth. I don’t believe that the Earth’s but about 9,000 years old. I believe it was created in six days as we know them. That’s what the Bible says."

Now normally someone having these thoughts wouldn't be a problem...  This person is Representative Paul Broun (R-GA), who is a member of the House Science, Space, and Technology Committee.  Yeah, you read that right.  This guy basically throws EVERYTHING we know about science, and throws it out the window to protect a bunch of bronze age fables.  Sorry, this is beyond retarded.  If anyone is interested in keeping the US as a technologically advanced nation, you need to vote out these fucking retards.  And yes, saying bullshit like that is a self inflicted mental retardation.

So why do these idiots say shit like this?  There has been a lot of speculation about that.  I will present you with a couple.  There is this scientific paper that states in it's abstract (PDF):

This study explores time trends in public trust in science in the United States from 1974 to 2010. More precisely, I test Mooney’s (2005) claim that conservatives in the United States have become increasingly distrustful of science. Using data from the 1974 to 2010 General Social Survey, I examine group differences in trust in science and group-specific change in these attitudes over time. Results show that group differences in trust in science are largely stable over the period, except for respondents identifying as conservative. Conservatives began the period with the highest trust in science, relative to liberals and moderates, and ended the period with the lowest. The patterns for science are also unique when compared to public trust in other secular institutions. Results show enduring differences in trust in science by social class, ethnicity, gender, church attendance, and region. I explore the implications of these findings, specifically, the potential for political divisions to emerge over the cultural authority of science and the social role of experts in the formation of public policy.

Which seems to agree with what we are seeing now, and is also the subject of this book.  And while it is a politically charged book perhaps, I think we all have seen the war waged in the past few decades.  Again, if these folks want to follow their bronze age fables, I suggest they only have access to bronze age science!  They seem to disdain that which we have worked so hard for.  Which is why as long as they take their fables as truth over reality not a single one of those fuckers will ever get my vote.  I'll vote for third party candidates before they get my vote.  I suggest you do the same.

Fuck you GOP. Just fuck you!

I present this without comment...  I don't think I can really say anything that hasn't already been said, but this just disgusts me beyond reason.  Motherfucking assholes need to get their asses beat all the way out of Washington...

Vet jobs bill fails in Senate; caught in Hill battle

Legislation to put veterans to work preserving and restoring national parks and other federal, state and local lands was defeated Wednesday afternoon when Senate Republicans successfully blocked the bill’s advance with a budgetary point of order. 

READ REST OF STORY HERE. 

GOP Oblivious to their Fucktardery

The idiots in the GOP are up to their fucktardery again... The worst part is that they can't even tell the irony of their position, even when directly confronted with the madness of their position. First I'll let the Daily Show present it to you (keep in mind, I am not a fan of Samantha Bee, but in this case, she does a great job).

The Daily Show with Jon Stewart	Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
RNC 2012 - The Road to Jeb Bush 2016 - The Republican Platform
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor & Satire Blog The Daily Show on Facebook

My apologies to folks outside the US that can't see this video.

I already wrote a way back about the idiotic idea of personhood... After all, gawd loves abortions (considering how often he causes them if you're of the mindset that imaginary things cause natural events).

I know that as long as the GOP maintains their anti-reality stance, theocratic bent, and plutocratic direction, they will never get my vote.  I have a daughter, and I prefer that when she grows up, she have control of her own reproductive rights instead of some rich, old white guy dictating how she can treat her body.  Also, their theocratic outlook is absolutely repugnant to me.  Between the First Amendment and Article VI of the Constitution, you'd think they get it, but apparently, they are as oblivious about the Constitution as they are about their statements in the video above (or the bible they cling to yet seem never to have read...).

And I also have to say that the GOP seems to have the entirely wrong idea about the Bill of Rights.  It's a bill of rights, not a bill of restrict rights.  I don't think they would like their legacy to be like the 18th Amendment. 

Politicians Have Forgotten Their Job!

The job of a politician (in general) should be:

"Represent their constituents within the confines of the Constitution."

You ask any politician what their job is, and they will insist that this is exactly what they are doing, but I contend that they are NOT.

First of all, they fail in representing their constituents.  If you observe their behaviour, you can tell that they are not representing their constituents.  They are only representing the people who actually voted for them.  In my opinion, they are being stupid in adhering to their rabid partisan ways.  Of course, the GOP has an over abundance of stupidity in their adherence to non-negotiable ideological positions.    If you actually try to represent the entire population as opposed to some loudmouthed redneck extremists, you may actually gather more votes as you run for re-election.  Of course, the politicians are too interested in pandering to the most extreme positions of their "base".  This hyper-partisan environment is doing nothing but freezing up anything from happening.  If you look at this particular congress, I bet you could easily imagine them passing a resolution opposing President Obama if he declared kittens as cute.

Secondly, and this is particularly against the GOP, they are absolutely not following the Constitution.  To most politicians, they think their job is to impose their views on the populous, without regard to the anti-establishment clause of the First Amendment.  They think that because they believe it, it's okay to impose their view, despite the freedom of religion for all citizens, even if it's not christianity.  The most important thing to remember is that freedom of religion, if it is going to apply to everyone, also requires freedom from religion. Why is that? You do not truly have the freedom to practice your religious beliefs if you are also required to adhere to any of the religious beliefs or rules of other religions.

As an obvious example, could we really say that Jews and Muslims would have freedom of religion if they were required to show same respect to images of Jesus that Christians have? Would Christians and Muslims really have freedom of their religion if they were required to wear yarmulkes? Would Christians and Jews have freedom of religion if they were required to adhere to Muslim dietary restrictions?

Simply pointing out that people have the freedom to pray however they wish is not enough. Forcing people to accept some particular idea or adhere to behavioral standards from someone else’s religion means that their religious freedom is being infringed upon.

Freedom from religion does not mean, as some mistakenly seem to claim, being free from seeing religion in society. No one has the right not to see churches, religious expression, and other examples of religious belief in our nation — and those who advocate freedom of religion do not claim otherwise.

What freedom from religion does mean, however, is the freedom from the rules and dogmas of other people’s religious beliefs so that we can be free to follow the demands of our own conscience, whether they take a religious form or not. Thus, we have both freedom of religion and freedom from religion because they are two sides of the same coin.

Interestingly, the misunderstandings here can be found in many other myths, misconceptions and misunderstandings as well. Many people don’t realize — or don’t care — that real religious liberty must exist for everyone, not just for themselves. It’s no coincidence that people who object to the principle of “freedom from religion” are adherents of religious groups whose doctrines or standards would be the ones enforced by the state.

Since they already voluntarily accept these doctrines or standards, they don’t expect to experience any conflicts with state enforcement or endorsement. What we have, then, is a failure of moral imagination: these people are unable to really imagine themselves in the shoes of religious minorities who don’t voluntarily accept these doctrines or standards and, hence, experience an infringement on their religious liberties through state enforcement or endorsement.

That, or they simply don’t care what religious minorities experience because they think they have the One True Religion. And maybe that's their point?

The GOP acting like fascists?

I spent 20 years of my life defending the Constitution, from all enemies, foreign and domestic.  One of the key things about our democracy is that it should apply to all citizens, even if you don't agree with them.  That's why I am totally disgusted by these voter ID laws.  They are willing to sacrifice the rights of hundreds of thousands (up to a million even) of the citizenry for basically a non-existent problem.

Someone may accuse me of hyperbole by accusing the GOP of being fascist, however if you look at the hallmarks of fascism throughout history, you gotta give the GOP credit.  Historically, fascist organizations are driven by a plutocratic or theocratic philosophy where they want to impose their views, values, and ideals on a population regardless of the wishes of the rest of the population.  Somehow the GOP has managed to be plutocratic AND theocratic!  Quite the accomplishment.

The main reason for my ire towards the GOP is that they are about restricting human rights in all fashions.  For a group that claims to be about less government, they sure seem intent on getting the government into your bedroom, women's uteri, and suppressing people's Constitutional right to participate in our democracy.

The Daily Show with Jon Stewart	Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
Daily Show: Democalypse 2012 - Cockblock the Vote
www.thedailyshow.com

Daily Show Full Episodes

Political Humor & Satire Blog

The Daily Show on Facebook

If you have any influence with these fascists, and yes, their behaviour deserves that label, please do what you can to further influence them to move away  from this course of action.  In Ohio, I was actually surprised to see that public embarrassment actually had an effect.  In general, these people are so insane in their beliefs that nothing manages to break through.  Sort of like creationists...  Which is actually quite a correlation...

P.S. Just so you know, I don't consider any political party innocent of wrongdoings, my particular exception is with the suppression of the people key to the democratic process.  A Constitutionally guaranteed right, that is being taken away because of a non-existent problem.

Are you an atheist?

Apparently there is an "atheist census" out there.  I encourage other atheists out there to count their numbers if they are willing to put in their information.  Keep in mind that this site does track cookies, but if you have emails that are set up to handle spam (and who doesn't in this day and age), I think it's a worthwhile effort.

After all, atheists are become something of a movement that is to be contended with.  I think these two things go together in a way.  There are events that happen where it is quite clear that atheists are not marginalized, and should be counted.  Having a census of atheists with actual data should help.

Make yourself count.

Welcome to science. You're gonna like it here

Dr. Plait posted a link to Tree Lobster's the other day (an excellent web comic I suggest you read), and in that post he linked to a very old post of his that I found particularly inspiring.  I just want to repeat it here for folks to read.  (Keep in mind, it was written in 2005, so the number of extra solar planets have now increased by a factor of 10.)  Again, I can't help but wonder why people have to turn to totally made up things in order to try to find a sense of wonder in the universe, when the universe provides so much more than even our imaginations can  provide.  There is no danger in knowing more.  However, ignorance can be incredibly costly.  Why not revel in the fact that our own cleverness has actually gotten us this far, and that it should get us further, instead of being bound by bronze age myths and a rejection of the thing that got us so far.  That is:  Science!

By the way, this speech by Dr. Plait was delivered to a group of students that were participating in a science fair.  I can only hope that other science fair students get such an inspiring message instead of being told that the pursuit of knowledge is wrong in some way.

I know a place where the Sun never sets.
 
It’s a mountain, and it’s on the Moon. It sticks up so high that even as the Moon spins, it’s in perpetual daylight. Radiation from the Sun pours down on there day and night, 24 hours a day — well, the Moon’s day is actually about 4 weeks long, so the sunlight pours down there 708 hours a day.

I know a place where the Sun never shines. It’s at the bottom of the ocean. A crack in the crust there exudes nasty chemicals and heats the water to the boiling point. This would kill a human instantly, but there are creatures there, bacteria, that thrive. They eat the sulfur from the vent, and excrete sulfuric acid.

I know a place where the temperature is 15 million degrees, and the pressure would crush you to a microscopic dot. That place is the core of the Sun.

I know a place where the magnetic fields would rip you apart, atom by atom: the surface of a neutron star, a magnetar.

I know a place where life began billions of years ago. That place is here, the Earth.

I know these places because I’m a scientist.

Science is a way of finding things out. It’s a way of testing what’s real. It’s what Richard Feynman called "A way of not fooling ourselves."

No astrologer ever predicted the existence of Uranus, Neptune, or Pluto. No modern astrologer had a clue about Sedna, a ball of ice half the size of Pluto that orbits even farther out. No astrologer predicted the more than 150 planets now known to orbit other suns.

But scientists did.

No psychic, despite their claims, has ever helped the police solve a crime. But forensic scientists have, all the time.

It wasn’t someone who practices homeopathy who found a cure for smallpox, or polio. Scientists did, medical scientists.

No creationist ever cracked the genetic code. Chemists did. Molecular biologists did.

They used physics. They used math. They used chemistry, biology, astronomy, engineering.
They used science.

These are all the things you discovered doing your projects. All the things that brought you here today.

Computers? Cell phones? Rockets to Saturn, probes to the ocean floor, PSP, gamecubes, gameboys, X-boxes? All by scientists.

Those places I talked about before? You can get to know them too. You can experience the wonder of seeing them for the first time, the thrill of discovery, the incredible, visceral feeling of doing something no one has ever done before, seen things no one has seen before, know something no one else has ever known.

No crystal balls, no tarot cards, no horoscopes. Just you, your brain, and your ability to think.


Welcome to science. You’re gonna like it here.