1. Christianity 'could die out within a century'

Comment #197349 by tacitus on June 21, 2008 at 8:05 pm

Bruno, the dynamics are very different in the US -- and I believe that, despite the whining of the fundies about the separation of church and state, it's that very aspect of their society that's helped keep Christianity strong in America where it's been failing in Western Europe.

However, there are signs that of the trend away from religion in beginning in the US too, just not as pronounced. I think the latest surveys show that 20% to 25% of young adults don't identify with any religion. A generation ago it was only 10% - 15%. That's quite a shift from a low baseline, and I suspect the trend will continue.

So the US may be 25-35 years behind where the UK is in regard to religious observance, but the same trend towards the secular is under way. It just might take longer to complete the process.

2. Reality wins in Texas!

Comment #189835 by tacitus on June 7, 2008 at 10:50 am

Er, in case you hadn't notice, this news is three months old! Isn't that like a web-decade or something? (Sure feels like it!) Do we really have to go that far back to get find some good news on the creationism front?

3. The Great Evangelical Decline

Comment #188727 by tacitus on June 4, 2008 at 12:27 pm

I'm amazed the article doesn't cover the main reason for the religious right's decline -- their members are dying off and their numbers are not being replenished by an influx of young people.

Surveys had repeatedly shown that, in general, once a generation reaches its twenties, they don't change their religious beliefs that much (yeah some will, but the overall numbers are remarkably steady over a generation's lifespan.

Simply put, not as many young people are buying into what the SBC and other fundamentalists are selling these days. The number of non-religious young people has risen from about 4% of their generation 40 years ago to anywhere between 15% and 20% today. No doubt the number of fundamentalists amongst the remaining believers is in decline too as America (finally) heads towards being a much more secular society.

There is still a long way to go, and the fundies will not give up without a fight, but abortion, gays and Hell simply do not scare up as many converts as they used to.

4. Record-setting Laser May Aid Searches for Earthlike Planets

Comment #175727 by tacitus on May 5, 2008 at 11:56 pm

Maybe this new technology can find the evidence needed to convince creationists they've got no arguments left.

I can't fault your optimism, but from conversations I've had on Christian message boards, I fully expect the vast majority of them not to miss a beat should news of the discovery of alien life be announced.

I even had someone tell me that if an alien spaceship landed on Earth to hand over eyewitness recordings of our history unfolding over the past few million years, he would have to believe that the aliens were lying and fabricating the evidence.

Now that's what I call faith... unfortunately.

5. Sue Blackmore debates Alister McGrath

Comment #149016 by tacitus on March 25, 2008 at 12:38 am

Sue Blackmore has long done sterling work as a skeptic investigating paranormal claims. It's news to me that she's given up the investigating, but it's clear from the bitterness in her voice on a couple of answers that she finally came to the end of her tether when dealing with those charlatans. I don't blame her one bit!

It's a shame she didn't lay into the wholly woolly McGrath, but obviously she was politely following the ground rules of the debate. All the same, McGrath got away with saying some incredibly silly things whenever his waffle actually amounted to more than nothing, which wasn't very often.

It is interesting in one way to listen to McGrath. He is the product of the type of Christianity that is thoroughly despised by American fundamentalists (perhaps as much as atheists are despised) in that they are very selective about what they take from the Bible -- using only the feel-good Jesusy (sic) stuff and relegating the rest to being merely historical background and myth.

I used to think that was a perfectly tenable position as a Christian to take (before I became an atheist) but listening to McGrath confirms what I since came to believe, that this wishy-washy type of Christianity is no more tenable or believable than straight up, hardline fundamentalism.

6. Please Call Earth. We Still Haven't Found You.

Comment #138134 by tacitus on March 4, 2008 at 1:29 am

In our case, sad to say, civilization ending in only a few decades is a distinct possibility. Why is there an upper limit of 100 million years for civilization, in general, before ending? I don't know about any particular species but dinos lived 150 million.

The limit is for how long a civilization capable of transmitting signals into space, not how long they exist altogether. But it's just a guess either way.

I would guess that the upper limit for a civilization that doesn't manage to reach the stars (i.e. remains confined within their home solar system) is likely to be just a few thousand years (10,000 is the most popular number, but that might be a bit high) since the pitfalls of resource shortages, overpopulation and high-tech weapons all need to be avoided indefinitely, which is not too likely.

However, once there is serious migration to other solar systems (assuming they are plentiful enough in the first place) then a catastrophe in one system will not be fatal to the whole species. So I think once a civilization gets past that point, then they could exist for hundreds of thousands or millions of years.

But, as I said before, the only number we have to go on so far is 70 -- the number of years we've had radio telescopes -- so the upper limit is just a finger in the air guess.

7. Please Call Earth. We Still Haven't Found You.

Comment #138129 by tacitus on March 4, 2008 at 1:14 am

What's the difference between dedicating your life searching for Jesus, and spending your life searching for aliens?

Searching for aliens is much, much cheaper, any way you look at it! (That, and there's a good chance they actually exist, of course.)

8. Please Call Earth. We Still Haven't Found You.

Comment #138077 by tacitus on March 3, 2008 at 9:30 pm

There are at least three unknowns that we have no idea of the answer to IMHO:

True, and we may not know them all for a very very long time. But given the potential impact on our civilization it is well worth the pittance we have been spending so far (and more, in my opinion)

(I'm not if favouring of advertising ourselves for lunch)

I'm afraid I have bad news for you there. Any alien civilization that is capable of detecting an accidental or deliberate broadcast from Earth *and* is able to get here, almost certainly knows we're here already (or will do once the spectral light reflected off Earth reaches them).

We, ourselves, will soon have technology capable of imaging and surveying planets up to dozens of light years away (certainly within decades). If an alien civilization is capable of traveling at a good percentage of light speed (>=10%), detecting signs of technology on planets within a few hundred light years from home should be a piece of cake.

9. Please Call Earth. We Still Haven't Found You.

Comment #137708 by tacitus on March 3, 2008 at 11:22 am

I think the main cause for pessimism concerning SETI is, if there is other intelligent life out there, they why aren't they already here (assuming the alien abductees are just nutters)?

Within 1,000 years (and possibly less) we are likely to have the means of exploring the whole galaxy within 1/2 million years--self-replicating AI spacecraft (i.e. von Neumann machines). That's a very long time in terms of human history, but a mere blink of an eye in galactic history. If ETI was commonplace one would think that at least one alien species would have managed that before now.

Alternatively, perhaps the ETIs prefer to keep an eye open for other species via mega-telescopes that scan the stars at a distance. Maybe they know that Earth has a burgeoning technological civilization but being 500 light years away are watching the Earth as it was in pre-industrialized early-1500s. If our space program (or perhaps nuclear weapons) is the trigger which warrants their visiting our planet, then we still have another 1,000 years to wait before they get here (assuming no FTL travel).

Really, we still haven't a clue what is (or isn't) out there.

10. Please Call Earth. We Still Haven't Found You.

Comment #137699 by tacitus on March 3, 2008 at 11:11 am

Fine we have listened to more then 1000 stars, our galaxy is populated with 200 to 400 BILLION planets, that means we have listened to maybe what, 0,000000003% of all the stars in this galaxy, I wouldn't draw too many conclusions from that. :-) When we starting to get up to 50% and we still haven't noticed any signals, maybe we can start drawing conclusions.

We've only looked at a few stars in targeted searches, but other programs have scanned the skies much more widely than that. Obviously you don't get the same sensitivity as in the targeted approach, but it's not accurate to say that we've only scanned a few stars.

If ETI is very rare, then we might even detect signals from other galaxies before we see anything from within the Milky Way. Yes, the signal being broadcast would have to be exponentially more powerful to be detectable from millions of light years away, but if an ETI species is all alone in their galaxy and has conquered just about every other aspect of their existence -- explored their galaxy, extended their lifespan, etc, then they may have nothing better to do that to reach out across the intergalactic gulf to find out if there is anyone else out there.

11. Please Call Earth. We Still Haven't Found You.

Comment #137680 by tacitus on March 3, 2008 at 10:41 am

The search for ET intelligence is currently more feasible than the search for ET life if you make the assumption that ETIs will somehow make their presence known via radio waves or other transmissions. Even Mars and Europa are tough to get to, and they are in our own back yard.

We can't search for ET life until we are able to start directly imaging planets in other solar systems. But we're actually not that far off, perhaps within a decade or two of being able see Earth-like planets in nearby systems. Once we can see them, we can "sniff" their atmosphere's (via spectroscopy) and see if we can detect telltale signs of life.

It is possible that within the next 30 or 40 years we will have a much better idea as to how common life is, at least in our part of the galaxy.

12. Missing link found in Sydney Harbour

Comment #130920 by tacitus on February 21, 2008 at 1:44 pm

Actually, who knows what Prof. Carter really said. Note the square brackets:

"At some stage [the algae] said: 'Let's stop making our own food. Let's take it from our host.'"

What Carter may have said is something like "At some stage [it's as if the algae] said..." or something even less confusing but more technical that the reporter removed from the piece. I would blame the reporter in this case.

13. Potentially Habitable Planets Are Common, Study Says

Comment #129235 by tacitus on February 18, 2008 at 10:12 pm

I'm all for SETI and the boost to the program the ATA will provide, but I suspect we've got a better chance of finding signs of life in other solar systems via a new generation of optical telescopes first.

Many are predicting that we will be able to directly image a nearby Earth-like planet by the year 2020. Once you can see such planets, even though they'll only be a pixel or two across in the sensors, you should be able to begin examining the make up of their atmospheres by studying their spectra. Certain chemical signatures could provide strong evidence of biological and even technological processes going on on the surface of such planets. We won't be able to see much (though we might in a few more decades) but we should have a strong indication of whether life is there or not.

The Golden Age of planetary astronomy is barely beginning. There should be some fun times ahead though we'll probably have to be patient for a little while longer!

14. Atheists An Increasingly Outspoken Minority

Comment #129195 by tacitus on February 18, 2008 at 9:02 pm

The demographics in the US certainly point to the coming secularization of America. I believe the percentage of young adults who are non-believers is pushing 20% in some surveys. That's up from only 4% four decades ago.

Given that the same surveys also show that as each generation grows older their (non-)religious view tend not to change much, America as no choice but to become less religious overall for the next couple of decades at least.

I am confident that the trend will continue, but it's still going to be a long time, if ever, before America catches up with Western Europe.

15. Study: Religion colors Americans' views of nanotechnology

Comment #128338 by tacitus on February 16, 2008 at 6:50 pm

To be fair, I still think American governmental policies regarding religion are actually progressive by European standards. What we in America would consider unthinkably theocratic--a government-sponsored church, prayer in schools, laws against blasphemy, etc.--are actually the current state of affairs in Britain.

In theory, you are correct, but in practice religion plays a much greater role in politics and government in the US than in Europe. Institutionalized religion, as in the UK, has proved much less resilient to secular forces than the more independent religions of the USA. Ironically many American right-wingers yearn to be more like the British model, not realizing that it would mean the beginning of the end of the religious right as a political force.

16. Study: Religion colors Americans' views of nanotechnology

Comment #128311 by tacitus on February 16, 2008 at 6:12 pm

Of course, it doesn't really matter if religious people object to nanotechnology, they sure aren't going to say no to it if it's going to save their lives or make their lives better in some other way.

They got all queasy over IVF when it first made an appearance and even though there are still some who oppose it, it is now deemed political suicide to come out against it. The same will happen with treatments derived from embryonic stem cells so I see no reason why nanotech will have any problems in the long run.

BTW: Some of the current religious objections to nanotechnology in the US is probably because people correlate nanodevices with the "End Times" and "The Mark of the Beast" and other such nonsense.

17. Council pays psychic for exorcism

Comment #126458 by tacitus on February 13, 2008 at 9:33 am

The sad thing is that the housing manager is probably right when he said that spending 60 quid on a "psychic" was by far the cheapest option for the council. Sometimes it's just easier to give in and give people what they want instead of having a long and protracted argument that sucks up time and resources.

A few years back some friends of my parents had a daughter who moved into a council house with her husband and their kids. They soon complained of a horrible sense of dread they got when they were in the house, strange noises and "unexplained" cold spot all around the house. After a few weeks they couldn't stand living there any more, fearing that the place was haunted by malevolent spirits, and managed to get the council to move them to a different house. I don't know the costs involved, but I'm willing to bet it cost the local taxpayers many times what it would have cost to put together a fake exorcism.

It is galling to see public funds being spent on nonsense like this, but in the end, it might well have been the right call in this case.

18. Hitchens and Boteach Debate on God

Comment #125072 by tacitus on February 10, 2008 at 10:07 pm

Wow, I've never heard a creationist claiming that Gould rejected evolution before. That was pretty brutal -- the more the Rabbi began to rant, the wilder and dumber his claims became.

And he wasn't really interested in debating the subject at hand, he spent the whole time trying to refute specific passages of Hitchens' book. And I guess we've just found another flea to add to the growing list.

19. Sharia law in UK is 'unavoidable'

Comment #123669 by tacitus on February 7, 2008 at 1:39 pm

What the ABC seems to be talking about is allowing Sharia law to be used in certain civil law proceedings as opposed to allowing it in criminal cases.

While I can't say I'm particularly enamoured by the idea, if the Orthodox Jews are already allowed set up their own civil proceedings then I don't see how Muslims can be prevented from doing so. Can't people (of all religions and none) already consent to abide by all kinds of informal and civil arbitration without the formal involvement of the British justice system? What is the track record of these Orthodox courts?

The keys to allowing any such proceedings would be that they don't contravene any aspect of British law (which should always remain paramount) and that all parties involved have agreed to participate of their own free will (which, in the case of women, I agree, might be tough to enforce).

I would, of course, prefer that no such religious courts exist at all, but we do live in a society where people are free (by and large) to make their own decisions as long as it doesn't result in some behaviour or activity that is against the law.

20. Life-Forming Chemicals Found in Distant Galaxy

Comment #114605 by tacitus on January 22, 2008 at 1:02 pm

The Original Series had an episode called "Bread and Circuses" set on an Earth-like planet where the equivalent of the Roman Empire never fell. It involved a cult who were supposedly "sun" worshippers, but it turns out at the end they are "son" worshippers -- i.e. the "Son of God". I haven't seen the episode in many years but I seem to recall that after all was revealed, the show ended with the cast all giving each other "significant looks".

A pretty heavy dose of religion if you ask me, to the point of addressing the question if the Christian God exists then will other planets have their own messiahs?

21. Life-Forming Chemicals Found in Distant Galaxy

Comment #114544 by tacitus on January 22, 2008 at 11:41 am

It would just be cool if we found some other intelligent species to cooperate with!

22. Life-Forming Chemicals Found in Distant Galaxy

Comment #114505 by tacitus on January 22, 2008 at 10:39 am

Wow! What does this do to Drakes Equation?

Probably not much. The values inserted into the equation are more likely to be influenced by what we discover about extrasolar planets in this galaxy. Once we can start "sniffing" the atmospheres of Earth-like planets (i.e. rocky worlds in the habitable zone), and we will in a decade or two, then we'll be able to start to hone in on the correct values for the equation's terms.

23. Hook, line and rapture

Comment #109264 by tacitus on January 8, 2008 at 5:09 pm

At the end of the video Condell says that Christians "can't wait to die". While I understand his point, when you look a little more closely, it doesn't really seem to be true. Christians will endure agonizing illness and even more painful treatments in an effort to remain alive. If they were all so eager to get into Heaven, why are we wasting precious health care resources on them so they can delay the inevitable?

Of course the answer is, when push comes to shove, most Christians are as reluctant to die as the rest of us. Promises of Heaven only work when their fate is inevitable. Anything short of that and they hold on to life as tenaciously as the staunchest non-believer.

24. Way of the Master Radio talks about Dawkins' Christmas Comments

Comment #100496 by tacitus on December 18, 2007 at 6:07 pm

I believe the "Way of the Master" style is supposed to appeal to teens and college students. They sometimes do a segment where they waylay some hapless kid on the street and start asking them questions about the state of their "salvation".

They start off asking questions like "Have you ever stolen anything." and "Have you ever lied to anyone." and then on to asking them what should happen to those who cheat and steal (get punished), then we move on to Hell, then finally, of course, the "free gift of salvation". It's all rather pathetic and you end up feeling really sorry for the kid who got stuck in the middle of it all.

25. Is Infant Male Circumcision An Abuse Of The Rights Of The Child?

Comment #96051 by tacitus on December 9, 2007 at 9:55 pm

The silliest argument here in the US is the one where parents say that they don't want their sons laughed at for looking different when showering or in the changing room after sports.

First, nearly half the boys born today in the USA are uncircumcised, so they are hardly likely to be alone, and anyway, from what I remember from those days, boys only obsessed about two things -- length and the amount of hair!

26. Why Science Can't Save the Republican Party

Comment #93247 by tacitus on December 2, 2007 at 1:52 pm

Excellent article, but most Republicans don't want to hear it. IVF makes a mockery of their stance on embryonic stem cell research and they can do is conveniently forget to mention it when they talk about stem cells.

27. Banishing the Green-Eyed Monster

Comment #92131 by tacitus on November 29, 2007 at 11:17 pm

Of course it's possible to love more than one person, but part of loving someone is also respecting their wishes and protecting their feelings. If a man loves two women and wishes to express his love through a sexual relationship with both of them then that he should be open with them about his wishes and give them a chance to decide if they can accept the arrangement.

If it isn't acceptable to all parties involved, then it should be a no-go.

I suspect, though, that given our nature, it will be extremely difficult for most people to go through that process without someone feeling they are being subjected to emotional blackmail ("either you do this or leave", type of thing).

28. Banishing the Green-Eyed Monster

Comment #91921 by tacitus on November 29, 2007 at 2:51 pm

why would someone suggest that people in the porn industry are the only people to have sex and love outside their marriage??? What???).

If you mean me, I wasn't suggesting that it was the only example. I simply used it as an obvious example which I suspect is familiar to many. :)

29. Banishing the Green-Eyed Monster

Comment #91914 by tacitus on November 29, 2007 at 2:46 pm

(Yuck -- I didn't see the warning about lost messages, and just lost a long one).

Anyway, I don't believe the sexual jealousy and betrayal people feel is because of some religious taboo against sex outside marriage. I think it's a consequence of the way we and our society have evolved. Most of us would claim that an equal partnership in marriage (or any long-term relationship) is the ideal, even though religions claim and evolution indicates that that is not the norm. So on what basis do we reject sexual jealousy and betrayal as valid feelings to have when someone betrays our long-term trust in them? It's in our genes. It's who we are.

Even as an atheist I see the benefit of raising kids in a stable family home where two people (gay or straight) can share the experience and share the load. While it's not for everyone, it is obviously a highly fulfilling experience to many, even if they have no religious beliefs.

So when you have committed so much time and resources to that relationship it is only natural to feel betrayed when your partner goes behind your back and cheats on you. And it's not just about the sex, there is usually the diversion of money, time, and other resources away from injured party and the family.

As for looking up to people who do not feel sexual jealousy, well, it depends. If they use that trait to leave a trail of shattered hopes and betrayals in their wake, then there's nothing to admire about them -- they simply lack any sense of empathy. I've known a couple of that type of person, and they are not people you want to trust in any form of relationship.

So while it's fine in theory, there really is no getting away from our jealousies or the emotional and physical consequences of sexual betrayal for most of us. It's simply who we are, and all the rationalisation in the world can't wish it away.

30. Banishing the Green-Eyed Monster

Comment #91904 by tacitus on November 29, 2007 at 2:25 pm

Some of the other posters here have said it's about trust.But it's only about trust if it's done behind your back and lying is involved,not when it's all out in the open.

True, but good luck in finding a partner who truly shares that ethos. Often times it's the woman who has decided to accept her dominant husband's sleeping around because she's afraid of losing him or for the sake of the kids or out of some misplaced belief of religious duty or in the belief that she can change him. That is not a healthy relationship.

I see nothing wrong if it is a relationship of equals (which any marriage should be) and both parties agree to the terms when they first entered that relationship.

(I guess those in the porn industry do this type stuff all the time, but I'm not sure too many people would be too willing to see them used as the archetype :)