Friday, September 19, 2008 | Reason : In the News | print version

Print | Comments |

Look Who's Irrational Now

by Mollie Ziegler Hemingway, Wall Street Journal

Wall Street Journal, Opinion

"You can't be a rational person six days of the week and put on a suit and make rational decisions and go to work and, on one day of the week, go to a building and think you're drinking the blood of a 2,000-year-old space god," comedian and atheist Bill Maher said earlier this year on "Late Night With Conan O'Brien."

On the "Saturday Night Live" season debut last week, homeschooling families were portrayed as fundamentalists with bad haircuts who fear biology. Actor Matt Damon recently disparaged Sarah Palin by referring to a transparently fake email that claimed she believed that dinosaurs were Satan's lizards. And according to prominent atheists like Richard Dawkins, traditional religious belief is "dangerously irrational." From Hollywood to the academy, nonbelievers are convinced that a decline in traditional religious belief would lead to a smarter, more scientifically literate and even more civilized populace.

The reality is that the New Atheist campaign, by discouraging religion, won't create a new group of intelligent, skeptical, enlightened beings. Far from it: It might actually encourage new levels of mass superstition. And that's not a conclusion to take on faith -- it's what the empirical data tell us.

"What Americans Really Believe," a comprehensive new study released by Baylor University yesterday, shows that traditional Christian religion greatly decreases belief in everything from the efficacy of palm readers to the usefulness of astrology. It also shows that the irreligious and the members of more liberal Protestant denominations, far from being resistant to superstition, tend to be much more likely to believe in the paranormal and in pseudoscience than evangelical Christians.

The Gallup Organization, under contract to Baylor's Institute for Studies of Religion, asked American adults a series of questions to gauge credulity. Do dreams foretell the future? Did ancient advanced civilizations such as Atlantis exist? Can places be haunted? Is it possible to communicate with the dead? Will creatures like Bigfoot and the Loch Ness Monster someday be discovered by science?

The answers were added up to create an index of belief in occult and the paranormal. While 31% of people who never worship expressed strong belief in these things, only 8% of people who attend a house of worship more than once a week did.

Even among Christians, there were disparities. While 36% of those belonging to the United Church of Christ, Sen. Barack Obama's former denomination, expressed strong beliefs in the paranormal, only 14% of those belonging to the Assemblies of God, Sarah Palin's former denomination, did. In fact, the more traditional and evangelical the respondent, the less likely he was to believe in, for instance, the possibility of communicating with people who are dead.

This is not a new finding. In his 1983 book "The Whys of a Philosophical Scrivener," skeptic and science writer Martin Gardner cited the decline of traditional religious belief among the better educated as one of the causes for an increase in pseudoscience, cults and superstition. He referenced a 1980 study published in the magazine Skeptical Inquirer that showed irreligious college students to be by far the most likely to embrace paranormal beliefs, while born-again Christian college students were the least likely.

Surprisingly, while increased church attendance and membership in a conservative denomination has a powerful negative effect on paranormal beliefs, higher education doesn't. Two years ago two professors published another study in Skeptical Inquirer showing that, while less than one-quarter of college freshmen surveyed expressed a general belief in such superstitions as ghosts, psychic healing, haunted houses, demonic possession, clairvoyance and witches, the figure jumped to 31% of college seniors and 34% of graduate students.

We can't even count on self-described atheists to be strict rationalists. According to the Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life's monumental "U.S. Religious Landscape Survey" that was issued in June, 21% of self-proclaimed atheists believe in either a personal God or an impersonal force. Ten percent of atheists pray at least weekly and 12% believe in heaven.

On Oct. 3, Mr. Maher debuts "Religulous," his documentary that attacks religious belief. He talks to Hasidic scholars, Jews for Jesus, Muslims, polygamists, Satanists, creationists, and even Rael -- prophet of the Raelians -- before telling viewers: "The plain fact is religion must die for man to live."

But it turns out that the late-night comic is no icon of rationality himself. In fact, he is a fervent advocate of pseudoscience. The night before his performance on Conan O'Brien, Mr. Maher told David Letterman -- a quintuple bypass survivor -- to stop taking the pills that his doctor had prescribed for him. He proudly stated that he didn't accept Western medicine. On his HBO show in 2005, Mr. Maher said: "I don't believe in vaccination. . . . Another theory that I think is flawed, that we go by the Louis Pasteur [germ] theory." He has told CNN's Larry King that he won't take aspirin because he believes it is lethal and that he doesn't even believe the Salk vaccine eradicated polio.

Anti-religionists such as Mr. Maher bring to mind the assertion of G.K. Chesterton's Father Brown character that all atheists, secularists, humanists and rationalists are susceptible to superstition: "It's the first effect of not believing in God that you lose your common sense, and can't see things as they are."

Ms. Hemingway is a writer in Washington.

Posted: Friday, September 19, 2008 | Permalink

Comments 1 - 50 of 143 | | View Alternate Comment Thread

Reload Comments | Back to Top | Page Numbers

1. Comment #250452 by RichardPrins on September 19, 2008 at 5:52 pm

Other Comments by RichardPrins

2. Comment #250460 by robotaholic on September 19, 2008 at 6:02 pm

If you finally convince children that scooby doo is not real, that doesn't necessarily innoculate them against believing in casper the friendly ghost-

?

Other Comments by robotaholic

3. Comment #250462 by mordacious1 on September 19, 2008 at 6:04 pm

"21% of self-proclaimed atheists believe in either a personal God or an impersonal force. Ten percent of atheists pray at least weekly and 12% believe in heaven."

WTF?

Other Comments by mordacious1

4. Comment #250465 by Laurie Fraser on September 19, 2008 at 6:07 pm

Idiotic. Where do they get these writers, and why on earth would you feed them anyway?

Edit: Mord, they're talking about American atheists. Apparently it's OK for you guys to believe while you're disbelieving.

Other Comments by Laurie Fraser

5. Comment #250468 by Ed-words on September 19, 2008 at 6:10 pm

This writer has cherry-picked an atheist(Bill
Maher)

who ,IF TRUE, holds some irrational beliefs BUT

1. This does not weaken his arguments against religion.

2. He does not represent the majority
of atheists who try to base ALL their
beliefs on reason

Other Comments by Ed-words

6. Comment #250470 by s.k.graham on September 19, 2008 at 6:12 pm

Let's see... If a major component of your particular brand of superstition is the existence of a jealous omnipotent god who will burn you for eternity for believing in any other superstitious belief, is it any wonder that you reject all or most other superstitious beliefs?

And just why is it that belief in christian mythology does not count as belief in the "occult" or "paranormal". Superstition is superstition. How is christian superstition any better than non-christian superstition?

Other Comments by s.k.graham

7. Comment #250472 by quantum_flux on September 19, 2008 at 6:16 pm

How about simple experiment (psuedoscience coming from a misunderstanding of quantum mechanics):

If you roll a dice, and don't look at the result, does that mean the result is in all possible states until you look at it?

(you better say no, the observer has no part in the result of the observed dice roll on the classical level! There is nothing mystical about it unless it is a quantum particle, and even then there is still nothing mystical about it. The uncertainty principle of momentum and position, and the resulting diffraction patterns of wave particles comes from interference by the instrument used for measuring it, that's all.)

Other Comments by quantum_flux

8. Comment #250474 by Apathy personified on September 19, 2008 at 6:20 pm

21% of self-proclaimed atheists believe in either a personal God or an impersonal force. Ten percent of atheists pray at least weekly and 12% believe in heaven.

Like Mordy, I'm stunned by this - They are clearly not atheists if they believe in a god. Not believing in god is kinda what we do.

I want to know what definition of 'atheist' they are using - Cause i don't think it's one i'd use.

Other Comments by Apathy personified

9. Comment #250476 by memphis matt on September 19, 2008 at 6:27 pm

wow. what an impressive exercise in logical fallacy

Other Comments by memphis matt

10. Comment #250479 by wouldbesakota on September 19, 2008 at 6:34 pm

The definition of an atheist is someone who does NOT believe in God- obviously, some people are not going by this. Jeez, the ignorant masses- makes me cringe to be American sometimes. Interestingly, California, a blue state, is like 47th in education, but at least we DONT teach creationism because of the supposed seperation between church and state.

Although, creationism should be taught in the sense that students should know what is and what is says but not be told "this is true", but when presented with the facts, evolution just blows it out of the water.

But just because religion SEEMS to have a lower number of believers in the psychic, "supernatural", clairvoyance etc, but doesn't religion count among among supernatural beliefs to begin with? It just so happens, that most people (the religious) do not believe in other supernatural explanations due to loyalty to their own irrational belief- so of course, several non-religous will seek OTHER irrational beliefs.

And anyway- why is religion suddenly a better supernatural, irrational, riduculous belief than the psychic etc. ?

Other Comments by wouldbesakota

11. Comment #250484 by j.mills on September 19, 2008 at 6:47 pm

Ya, as others point out, if you believe in gods you're not an atheist, however you label yourself. Reminds me of a meat promotion that gleefully reported a study of 'vegetarians' that found that some of them ate meat. All it showed was that some meat-eaters had lied.

Likewise the figures here, if correct, only show that some theists don't understand the word 'atheist'.

Meanwhile, we know that far from religion reducing superstition, 100% of theists are superstitious. (Less if you allow for the lying atheists among them.)

But even if the hypothesis presented were correct, what of it? Who goes to war over horoscopes? Who mutilates their child's penis because they think the pyramids were built by Atlanteans? Unfounded beliefs are dangerous, but there are degrees and religions are at the high end.

Other Comments by j.mills

12. Comment #250486 by capsomere on September 19, 2008 at 6:47 pm

"...shows that traditional Christian religion greatly decreases belief in everything from the efficacy of palm readers to the usefulness of astrology. It also shows that the irreligious and the members of more liberal Protestant denominations, far from being resistant to superstition, tend to be much more likely to believe in the paranormal and in pseudoscience than evangelical Christians."

Comparing a belief in Santa Claus to a belief in the Easter Bunny or the Tooth Fairy doesn't really prove any credibility in the rational superiority department.

Oh, check out the link to the Baylor study and scroll to the bottom of the page:

"The Baylor Religion Survey was funded by the John M. Templeton Foundation, and will be repeated every two years"

Enough said...

Other Comments by capsomere

13. Comment #250488 by Paine on September 19, 2008 at 6:49 pm

The survey should have been limited to people who speak English and could understand the words on the questionnaires.

Other Comments by Paine

14. Comment #250491 by Don_Quix on September 19, 2008 at 6:55 pm

These must be relatives of the warm-and-fuzzy touchy-feely people who don't believe in a personal God, Jesus, or the afterlife, but still insist on calling themselves Christians.

"It's the first effect of not believing in God that you lose your common sense, and can't see things as they are."

No, I'm afraid it is exactly the opposite in both cases.

Also, Mollie Ziegler Hemingway can suck it. Seriously. Where do they find these knucklehead writers?

Other Comments by Don_Quix

15. Comment #250492 by Laurie Fraser on September 19, 2008 at 6:55 pm

Comment #250479 by wouldbesakota

Well, mate, with all this cultural relativism around, perhaps we need a kind of comparitive lexicography of atheism, just so everyone knows where he stands. For instance:

Absolutist atheist: There is no reality outside the physically explainable.

Hard-line atheist: Shit, I don't even believe in my own mother!

Anglican atheist: I pretend to believe in god.

American atheist: I only believe in god on Sundays, and when I sing the national anthem.

etc etc - I'm sure others can do better.

Other Comments by Laurie Fraser

16. Comment #250493 by Paine on September 19, 2008 at 6:55 pm

In fact, the more traditional and evangelical the respondent, the less likely he was to believe in, for instance, the possibility of communicating with people who are dead.

That's like saying slave-owners are less likely to believe in segregation.

Other Comments by Paine

17. Comment #250495 by Enlightenme.. on September 19, 2008 at 6:58 pm

I have a confession, back in the day, when I still believed in 'some force, or power bigger than us', and the possible existence of the Yeti, visitors from outer space and the Loch Ness monster, I used to go with some friends to the quarterly psychic fairs to buy some crystals, josticks and whalesong cd's, and get a Tarot reading.

But none of that lead me to think that I should have any right to dictate whether a woman should have the right to an abortion, whether from convenience or from having been a victim of rape.

Other Comments by Enlightenme..

18. Comment #250498 by Layla Nasreddin on September 19, 2008 at 7:05 pm

Hey, I recognize the author's name! She's a regular on the blog getreligion.org (you can guess the position it takes on religion, but it's useful as a window as to stories and issues religious people may find important). Know the enemy, or some such.

Bio: http://www.getreligion.org/?p=1214

Other Comments by Layla Nasreddin

19. Comment #250501 by Don_Quix on September 19, 2008 at 7:10 pm

Bio: http://www.getreligion.org/?p=1214

Wow. Nice picture. Looks like it came straight off a 14 year-old goth girl's MySpace page. Anne Rice much?

Other Comments by Don_Quix

20. Comment #250504 by thewhitepearl on September 19, 2008 at 7:20 pm

Don't really have to say anything about that except:

ignoratio elenchi

Logical fallacy i.e see article by mollie ziegler hemingway.

What a ninny pinny-too much stupidity in one day gives me the colly wobbles.

edit for clarity

Other Comments by thewhitepearl

21. Comment #250506 by chuckgoecke on September 19, 2008 at 7:28 pm

Hmm... Baylor University A Baptist University that recently canned its President for being too Non-religious. Their Religious Studies Department must be a doozy. I've raised some hackles here defending Maher, or his medical views. If he really did say all the things Hemingway attributes to him, shame on him. I think he's just playing his part, to be the extremist. I think one can make something of a case that every aspect of the sterile world we live in has not served us all that well. His complaints against the medical establishment are political and economic, not scientific. Bill probably lacks the technical background to sort out the truth about modern medicine, but he has the sense to know that we shouldn't believe all the experts when they say we all should take these little blue pills or that.

I think that the Pew study shows that a significant percentage of people don't know what they know, are too illiterate, or have a spouse that does the thinking for them, sadly. And then there are those that just like to jack with the pollsters.

Other Comments by chuckgoecke

22. Comment #250507 by donaldito on September 19, 2008 at 7:29 pm

Just like Time magazine's article on the poll, this article is EXTREMELY misleading right out of the gate. I believe the first sentence in the Time article ays "55% of ALL Americans believe blah blah..." Then in the next sentence it admits that the poll was of a whopping 1700 people. Of course makes no mention of the fact that people who are more apt to answer "yes" were more apt to bother responding at all. Useless.

Other Comments by donaldito

23. Comment #250509 by Laurie Fraser on September 19, 2008 at 7:33 pm

OT - the LHC is down. http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/09/20/2369794.htm

Other Comments by Laurie Fraser

24. Comment #250511 by prolibertas on September 19, 2008 at 7:36 pm

It may be true that when many people stop believing one irrational thing, they just take up another irrational thing- what else would you expect if the reason they believed in the first place was because they 'wanted' to believe it. What people and even societies want to believe can change over time. Look at New Agers: many don't disbelieve traditional religion because its evidence doesn't stand up. Many disbelieve it just because they don't like it.

Where I thought the writer first went wrong was saying that the 'new atheist campaign' was JUST about discouraging religion. I thought it was also about encouraging science and reason. If the world turns to paranormal superstition, it won't be because of the 'new atheism'.

But where the writer totally loses respectability is the part about 21% of atheists believing in a personal God and so on... surely the writer sees that this is probably due to people misunderstanding the question? It's a flat out contradiction. How can anyone take it seriously?

Other Comments by prolibertas

25. Comment #250512 by thewhitepearl on September 19, 2008 at 7:39 pm

Laurie,

OT? Any way, yeah I read about that last night on yahoo. Bastards.

Other Comments by thewhitepearl

26. Comment #250513 by Laurie Fraser on September 19, 2008 at 7:48 pm

Off topic, wp. Well, I'm in the antipodes; takes a while for news to travel around the world :) When they say the magnets had overheated, it probably means they went up to 2.5 degrees K.

Other Comments by Laurie Fraser

27. Comment #250514 by Elles on September 19, 2008 at 7:51 pm

Yesterday in my humanities class we were talking about how the Catholic tradition of bread and wine comes from the Bible with Jesus drinking wine and eating bread at the Last Supper or something. One girl said "Now that can't be right because I don't see any bread or wine in all the paintings."

The professor looked at her strange and said "now what makes you think that a painting has anything truthful about anything that really happened?"

She admitted to being into all that "Knight's Templar" and DaVinci Code stuff.

"You've gotta take that stuff with a grain of salt, you know" the professor replied.

"Well I take the Bible with a grain of salt."

A quote from House ran through my head, "you are the most naive atheist I've ever met!"

Here's my concession: Just because you lack one irrational belief doesn't make you a rational person.

""What Americans Really Believe," a comprehensive new study released by Baylor University yesterday, shows that traditional Christian religion greatly decreases belief in everything from the efficacy of palm readers to the usefulness of astrology."

*takes deep breath*

Okay... here goes...

Christians tend to not buy into palm readers and astrology because their Bible tells them not to. Damned wise thing for the Bible to say, but that doesn't make them rational.

The point of rationality is that you use good reasoning. Authority (of the Bible) doesn't count. "Sky-faery told me that astrology doesn't work" isn't good reasoning. "Astrologers fail at producing carefully conducted controlled scientific studies showing they're correct" is good reasoning.

A good point that ought to be made, though, is that in promoting Atheism we oughtn't forget that the most important thing is to promote a reason-based understanding of the world.

Other Comments by Elles

28. Comment #250515 by trevok on September 19, 2008 at 7:56 pm

When is the last time a palm reader who believes in bigfoot killed someone over their beliefs?

Other Comments by trevok

29. Comment #250516 by mandydax on September 19, 2008 at 7:57 pm

"You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means." -- Inigo Montoya

Other Comments by mandydax

30. Comment #250517 by theonlybap on September 19, 2008 at 8:00 pm

This is incredibly dumb.

First of all, I think the "new atheist" campaign rather encourages rationality than discourages religion. Religion is just one facet of irrationality.

So if the "new atheists" get what they want, a population of rational thinkers, pseudo-science and mysticism, as well as religion, should disappear. Anyway, I'd rather have a population of people who think Bigfoot exists than a religious population. I don't think belief in Bigfoot is that dangerous to humanity (maybe things that look like Bigfoot, though).

And I don't get the terminology of "New Atheists"... how are "new" atheists any different than "old" atheists? An atheist is an atheist (unless your one of the 21% of atheists who believes in god...).

Other Comments by theonlybap

31. Comment #250518 by Laurie Fraser on September 19, 2008 at 8:02 pm

Comment #250514 by Elles

Good point. Anyone can be an atheist; I can simply "choose" to be one, without applying any critical thinking skills to the question. That makes me a naive atheist, and one whose opinions should be ignored, just as we would ignore the ideas of anyone who was a catholic because it "ran in the family", so to speak.

trevok - also a good point. Superstition, whilst being dangerous to the mind of its believer, is not necessarily dangerous to others until they want to shove it down your throat at the point of a gun. (No need to reply, Fanusi.)

Other Comments by Laurie Fraser

32. Comment #250519 by WilliamP on September 19, 2008 at 8:08 pm

Well, this is a mess. The "New Atheists" are creating irrationality by fighting "dangerously irrational" religion.
First of all, the essay is equivocal. Notice how the "dangerous" irrationality of religion becomes the same thing as (non-dangerous?) pseudoscience. All irrationality ends up being the same, whether you believe in Allah or Bigfoot.
I've never heard of anyone blowing himself up for Bigfoot, nor have I heard of anyone campaigning to teach children that aliens built the pyramids. The comparison doesn't hold because athiests don't like religion for reasons other than its irrationality alone.

And apparently, being religious is supposed to make one less irrational. I guess this is because having one irrational belief in god makes one less likely hold several irrational beliefs? Who cares? They're both irrational. It just happens that one of those irrational beliefs pre-programs people to reject others.
I doubt many atheists out there care about the level of irrationality as much as they do about the effects of particular irrational beliefs. I sure don't.
And I also don't care what Bill Mahr thinks about medicine. It has nothing to do with his rational belief that there is no god.

Other Comments by WilliamP

33. Comment #250521 by ggab7768 on September 19, 2008 at 8:12 pm

Look, I answered the questionaire from baylor that way as a joke.
I remember Bigfoot was reading over my shoulder and said "You're not actually sending that in are you?" and I said "Yeah, trust me, it'll be funny."

Other Comments by ggab7768

34. Comment #250524 by Count von Count on September 19, 2008 at 8:43 pm

...traditional Christian religion greatly decreases belief in everything from the efficacy of palm readers to the usefulness of astrology.

What if they looked at this in reverse? Does faith in palm reading decrease belief in Christianity? All this study seems to show is that most people only have so much crazy to spread around. If you increase your crazy, irrational, and wrong belief in Christianity, it decreases your faith in other crazy, irrational, and wrong beliefs. So what?

Other Comments by Count von Count

35. Comment #250525 by phasmagigas on September 19, 2008 at 8:45 pm

Far from it: It might actually encourage new levels of mass superstition. And that's not a conclusion to take on faith -- it's what the empirical data tell us.

so pretty much they substitute one set of nonsense for another, i suppose some individuals have a nonsense quota and fill it variously with magic, gods, esp, sylvia browne, voodoo, whatever nonsense takes their fancy and makes them feel special.

Other Comments by phasmagigas

36. Comment #250526 by jt512 on September 19, 2008 at 8:47 pm

Viewed differently, the same statistics suggest that belief in astrology and palm reading greatly reduces traditional Christian religion. If it's a choice, I'll take the astrologers. At least they're not trying to take over the world.

Other Comments by jt512

37. Comment #250527 by Hellene on September 19, 2008 at 8:50 pm

I'm sorry... I can't remember... Didn't Reagan have an astrologer?

Other Comments by Hellene

38. Comment #250530 by justaperson on September 19, 2008 at 8:54 pm

Garbage. Utter garbage. Never trust any surveys sponsored by Baylor Religion dept. ggab7768 makes a good point. People make up stuff just to throw a monkey wrench in the works. And while I am disappointed to learn of Maher's beliefs about medical science, WilliamP astutely notes that this doesn't invalidate his arguments against religion. The whole thrust of the article--that religion is better at squelching superstition than atheism--rests on the shakiest of grounds. After all, they are just replacing other superstitions with another, badder one. I'm against all superstition and supernatural belief, which includes theism. What's this bozo trying to prove, anyway?

Other Comments by justaperson

39. Comment #250531 by robotaholic on September 19, 2008 at 8:59 pm

27. Comment #250514 by Elles on September 19, 2008 at 7:51 pm

&

36. Comment #250526 by jt512 on September 19, 2008 at 8:47 pm

That was perfect-

Other Comments by robotaholic

40. Comment #250541 by Spinoza on September 19, 2008 at 9:56 pm

a decline in traditional religious belief would lead to a smarter, more scientifically literate and even more civilized populace.

No one said that. Any atheist that says THAT is a fucking idiot.

Other Comments by Spinoza

41. Comment #250547 by root2squared on September 19, 2008 at 10:15 pm

a comprehensive new study released by Baylor University yesterday, shows that traditional Christian religion greatly decreases belief in everything from the efficacy of palm readers to the usefulness of astrology. It also shows that the irreligious and the members of more liberal Protestant denominations, far from being resistant to superstition, tend to be much more likely to believe in the paranormal and in pseudoscience than evangelical Christians.

That's a nice advert for Christianity.

We will fuck you up so badly, that there will be virtually no chance of astrology, Islam, scientology et.al fucking up your life.

Other Comments by root2squared

42. Comment #250550 by Janus on September 19, 2008 at 10:34 pm

No one said that. Any atheist that says THAT is a fucking idiot.

Well, I say it. All other things being equal, that's pretty much what would happen. Traditional religion is an impediment to scientific literacy and critical thinking. Remove that impediment and there's a good chance that a good fraction of the population will become more rational than they used to be.

The article points out that 31% of "people who never worship" nevertheless hold irrational beliefs. This might seem like a lot, until you remember that precisely 100% of "people who worship" hold irrational beliefs. A 69% decrease in irrationality is a pretty encouraging number.

Other Comments by Janus

43. Comment #250551 by Rational_Skeptic on September 19, 2008 at 10:35 pm

Sam Harris has a good take on this
survey here.

EDIT: sorry, having trouble with the exact URL - Harris' article is linked from his homepage if you want to look it up. I'm tired and I've got a glorious 7-hour hike in a temperate rainforest planned for the morning. Better get my rest!

Other Comments by Rational_Skeptic

44. Comment #250552 by mordacious1 on September 19, 2008 at 10:39 pm

I think it is the other way around,

A more scientifically literate and more civilized populace would lead to a decline in traditional religious belief. But I don't think that by losing one's traditional religion, you would necessarily become more rational. You might believe in some new-age stuff instead.

Other Comments by mordacious1

45. Comment #250555 by Janus on September 19, 2008 at 10:44 pm

I think it works both ways. :) And what would work even better would be to teach critical thinking, and to create a societal climate in which critical thinking is seen as virtuous.

By the way, I didn't say that becoming an atheist necessarily means that you become a rationalist. It does remove a major roadblock in the way of one's path to reason, however.

Other Comments by Janus

46. Comment #250556 by Diacanu on September 19, 2008 at 10:53 pm

I came to atheism through rationalism, because rationalism was the ONLY thing I've ever tried that gave me ANY sorts of answers about life.

We have to beat home to people that that the warm fuzzies of religion don't answer ANYTHING in ANY meaningful way.

But, it's hard because that truth claim unvarnished pisses people off, because people think there's so much "meaning", in warm fuzzies.

Warm fuzzies are for sunsets, fucking, and biting into a chocolate chip cookie, they're not the correct toolset for grasping the workings of the universe.

Other Comments by Diacanu

47. Comment #250561 by Barry Pearson on September 19, 2008 at 11:13 pm

The reality is that the New Atheist campaign, by discouraging religion, won't create a new group of intelligent, skeptical, enlightened beings. Far from it: It might actually encourage new levels of mass superstition.

It isn't clear that this will be "cause and effect". But it is certainly the case that high levels of superstition of various kinds can exist in secualr, and largely irreligious, societies.

A Eurobarometer survey in 2005 revealed for Europe as a whole:

"I believe there is a God": 52%
"I believe there is some sort of spirit or life force": 27%
"I don't believe there is any sort of spirit, God or life force": 18%

The same survey for the UK revealed:

"I believe there is a God": 38%
"I believe there is some sort of spirit or life force": 40%
"I don't believe there is any sort of spirit, God or life force": 20%

So disbelief in gods doesn't mean no belief in "some sort of spirit or life force".

Other Comments by Barry Pearson

48. Comment #250562 by Diacanu on September 19, 2008 at 11:19 pm

Someone has to ask those Deistic "life force", people "for all the good that watered down flavor of God does, why bother believing in it?".

The answers you probably get would amount to "I just do, so there!", or "life is too complex, blah, blah...".

But, at least it would get them thinking.

Other Comments by Diacanu

49. Comment #250563 by aznxscorpion517 on September 19, 2008 at 11:22 pm

WTF. What is this person pulling out of their ass?
What drivel.

More of that atheists believe in personal god crap. That's a freaking oxymoron. It doesn't make any sense. How can people not know what "atheist" literally means?

Other Comments by aznxscorpion517

50. Comment #250564 by somersetsimon on September 19, 2008 at 11:25 pm