Dr. Broun actually. That's part of what makes this so appalling, the man both studied science as an undergrad AND graduated medical school, and still has this little understanding of the subject.
It's not just understanding. If you watch the video of his remarks he thinks everything he was taught is a conspiracy against his faith. It's not his ability to understand, its his animosity against science.
Third: The data points seem selective. bLatch's comment made me look for some Middle Eastern nations, but for "Western Asia" there was only Turkey and Cyprus, the most heavily Europeanized. And for other non-European countries there was no India, no China, no Mexico, no Brazil, not even Canada - just Japan. To be clear, I'm not accusing this Piro fellow of cherry-picking intentionally; I suspect the data simply weren't available. But we're not getting the whole picture. We're seeing a trend line for Europe.
For those interested, Canada is pretty much right over where the Finland dot is. (if it were on the graph, that is)
Take note that his denomination matters. The Catholic Church's official stance is "yeah, evolution happened", and this man is a Baptist, who also believes the Catholics are damned.
Intelligent people live in Georgia. I used to live there. However they are drowned out by a bunch of people who are overly religious. It is my personal belief that people that are religious aren't any more intelligent than those that are not.....but rather they are in a state of intentional ignorance which infuriates me to no end. I am thankful to have moved away from those kinds of areas.
Those are two necessary skills in politics, and also why Republicans and Traditional Democrats tended to be more successful getting legislation passed and people elected.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Ambition must be made to counteract ambition.
Individualities may form communities, but it is institutions alone that can create a nation.
Nothing succeeds like the appearance of success.
Here is my principle: Taxes shall be levied according to ability to pay. That is the only American principle.
Those are two necessary skills in politics, and also why Republicans and Traditional Democrats tended to be more successful getting legislation passed and people elected.
Actually one reason is because they get the religious vote. A LOT of voters vote for religious reasons. Thats why we've never had a non-christian president ...ever. The second you say "btw I don't follow Jesus" you loose a good 40% of your voters. More if you live in southern states.
Actually one reason is because they get the religious vote. A LOT of voters vote for religious reasons. Thats why we've never had a non-christian president ...ever. The second you say "btw I don't follow Jesus" you loose a good 40% of your voters. More if you live in southern states.
You're introducing a constraint that applies equally to both parties, and thus does not speak to CM's hypothesis about why one party succeeds at something the other doesn't.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
Intelligent people live in Georgia. I used to live there. However they are drowned out by a bunch of people who are overly religious. It is my personal belief that people that are religious aren't any more intelligent than those that are not.....but rather they are in a state of intentional ignorance which infuriates me to no end. I am thankful to have moved away from those kinds of areas.
I've never been to Georgia. I have been to Tennessee for a religious convention, and some of the stuff they pushed was anti-science. A lot of it was great, the people were friendly, and I managed to get into one humanitarian project while I was there, but there was this big push on speakers and merchandise that is very much stereotypical religious right, like this congressman in the video.
One of my physics professors in college was very religious. Muslim actually. He'd tell us stories sometimes about a djinn that visited his house. He'd start his semesters off with a talk about his views which were rather intelligent design. But he was always specific to describe his religious beliefs, his spiritual beliefs, as the motivator to commit himself to his research, to look deeper into physical phenomena. And to be open to whatever he'd find. His spiritual beliefs and his beliefs in science addressed very separate issues for him. And he was very respected. He was making trips to Geneva right until his kidneys gave out.
I think this current strain of science vs religion is about being contrary. It's in your face for the sake of in-your-face-beingness. It's great for arguments on the Internet. When you get enough followers in it, it's a great group cohesion for us-against-the-world mentality. And when you meet someone that's so used to arguing with like-minded individuals, it's easy and more convincing to catch them off guard with a viewpoint they're not ready to defend. At least here in NY it's difficult to find a Biblical fundamentalist who has a medical degree.
I think this current strain of science vs religion is about being contrary. It's in your face for the sake of in-your-face-beingness.
I think it's also a part of a larger trend of anti-intellectualism that's been growing since at least the mid-20th century, probably since earlier. The idea that you don't have to be beholden to facts or evidence or consensus reality, just reject that reality and substitute your own.
I mean, look at how many people sneer at "experts" when those experts hold views contrary to theirs.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Do I Contradict Myself? Very Well Then I Contradict Myself.
I think it's also a part of a larger trend of anti-intellectualism that's been growing since at least the mid-20th century, probably since earlier. The idea that you don't have to be beholden to facts or evidence or consensus reality, just reject that reality and substitute your own.
I mean, look at how many people sneer at "experts" when those experts hold views contrary to theirs.
You're introducing a constraint that applies equally to both parties, and thus does not speak to CM's hypothesis about why one party succeeds at something the other doesn't.
not exactly. I'm saying anyone that goes out and says they aren't christian is very close to committing political suicide in America. Very very very very few politicians are NOT christians. I don't think we have any Islamic ones in major political positions. House of Representatives would be the best bet because its so locally voted on. Its the easiest to get independents and alternative types of candidates into the higher bits of our government.
I think it's also a part of a larger trend of anti-intellectualism that's been growing since at least the mid-20th century, probably since earlier.
I'm reminded of the Isaac Azimov quote, "Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.'"
Really, it's a natural if unfortunate byproduct of ignorant people being unable or unwilling to understand the actual experts, and as such dismissing them rather than admitting that there are things they don't know, or that things they don't personally like are true. Which is fine on a personal level, since freedom means other people get to believe/say things you disagree with, but when it comes to people claiming some kind of scientific accuracy on patent nonsense (such as with Broun and the young Earth thing), it gets downright absurd and shouldn't be given the time of day when compared to actual science.
Take note that his denomination matters. The Catholic Church's official stance is "yeah, evolution happened", and this man is a Baptist, who also believes the Catholics are damned.
Thats actually not correct -- The Catholic Church's official position is that you can believe whatever you want about evolution, it's not a matter of The Faith.
I think it's also a part of a larger trend of anti-intellectualism that's been growing since at least the mid-20th century, probably since earlier. The idea that you don't have to be beholden to facts or evidence or consensus reality, just reject that reality and substitute your own.
I mean, look at how many people sneer at "experts" when those experts hold views contrary to theirs.
At the risk that this discussion may be moving into dangerous waters - you hit the nail on the head.
We're bringing up huge numbers of children so as to hold as their very highest ideal the rejection of physical evidence when it contradicts received wisdom - that their religion is the most important thing in their life, and that if their religion says the earth is 6,000 years old, ignore the physical evidence to the contrary. Just disregard it.
If this was just academic, I wouldn't care. But it isn't. Time and again we've had evidence of impending disaster with enough time to do something about it, but someone stood to make some money if we didn't act, and they've been able to exploit that to make a buck. Evolution doesn't happen; buy our pesticides! Evolution doesn't happen; load up on antibiotics for minor illnesses! Global warming doesn't happen, don't invest in sustainable energy, buy our oil! Fracking is perfectly safe, buy our natural gas! Wildlife diversity is unimportant; drill baby drill!
They get away with it because we as a culture systematically prepare huge numbers of our children to accept authority over the evidence of their eyes and minds.
(Also for an array of other causes, don't take me to be making the mistake of thinking that all our problems come from one pithy statement, but this is part of it)
Thats actually not correct -- The Catholic Church's official position is that you can believe whatever you want about evolution, it's not a matter of The Faith.
Sort of yes, sort of no. Pope John Paul II did say that it was scientific fact and called for theologians to properly understand the theory so that they could understand its religious implications, so the position that the Catholic Church holds evolution to be true is defensible. However, you're correct that unlike with matters of faith, they would have no difficulty abandoning it, and you aren't being a bad Catholic if you apply a healthy skepticism to it.
Yeah, and this applies to Democrats as well as Republicans. So it doesn't explain away CM's claim which was about Republicans specifically.
Honestly, do we have evidence for CM's claim? Yoru's claim might be lateral, but it at least looks true.
I don't see any particularly good reason to accept a claim that Republicans are better at getting policies enacted than the most recent incarnation of the Democratic Party - I see a single anecdote that the last two years of Congress have consciously blocked the president's policies, but that's not exactly a trend, it's a political strategy by a relatively unified party, and the same would be true of a Republican president with an obstructionist Democratic congress.
At most you could say that since George W. Bush was able to get more things done in the face of a Democratic Congress than Barack Obama is in the face of a Republican Congress, there's a genuine difference to be explained. But I'm not at all sure that the assertion is true, and even if it is the simplest way to explain it would be that the Democrats chose not to be as obstructionist for whatever reason, not that excessive religiosity is the difference.
Atheism is the only world view brasen enough to think it can be a spokesperson for science.
By this I can only assume you mean the New Atheist movement? To be fair, I don't see it that way. It's not that atheists are attempting to don the mantle of "official spokesperson" for Science. And I don't think that "brazen" applies for simply accepting nothing less than hard proof and data over blind faith.
It might appear that way because atheists tend to give science its proper due. Believers shy away from scientific discovery as long as possible, until denying the obvious becomes untenable. At that point, they usually appropriate the findings of science to promote their own beliefs.
I always thought Farscape was about Phillip Fry finding himself on a spaceship with Delenn, Ivanova, Worf, and an unholy cross between ALF and Zachary Smith.
Actually one reason is because they get the religious vote. A LOT of voters vote for religious reasons. Thats why we've never had a non-christian president ...ever. The second you say "btw I don't follow Jesus" you loose a good 40% of your voters. More if you live in southern states.
I think that's starting to change. This is a good example. And personally, I hope that one day in the future, long after his second term has come and gone, Barack Obama will be the first US president to publicly reject god. Not being conspiratorial, I've got zero data to back that up. Just a bit of wishful atheist thinking on my part.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I always thought Farscape was about Phillip Fry finding himself on a spaceship with Delenn, Ivanova, Worf, and an unholy cross between ALF and Zachary Smith.
Yeah, and this applies to Democrats as well as Republicans. So it doesn't explain away CM's claim which was about Republicans specifically.
I should have been more specific. The republican vote rides more heavily on religion than the democratic vote does. However both do find it hard to become a politician in higher government positions without having christianity on their resume. So I was saying it applys to both but Republicans more so.
I think that's starting to change. This is a good example. And personally, I hope that one day in the future, long after his second term has come and gone, Barack Obama will be the first US president to publicly reject god. Not being conspiratorial, I've got zero data to back that up. Just a bit of wishful atheist thinking on my part.
I personally don't care about the politicans religious affiilation so long as its not affecting their rational mind like the representative that is the centeral spark of this thread. In fact I would much rather there be a higher diversity in both the general population as well as our government of multiple cultures and religions. Atheists of course more than welcome but rational theists as well.
I do feel that we are as a country drifting from this heavy religion base to a more skeptical more rational state of mind. This is one reason for the high gear shift to the more extreme right that has occured with the Republican party (and what spawned the Tea party). The far right is trying to hit the breaks and swing the country back to the right as a huge anti-progressive movement.
Right now the country is divided heavily and as much as some people blame it on obama its actually more than that. Half of America is willing and ready to make some changes and enter a new era of America while the other half desperatly clings to the older ways. I cannot yet say which is the correct choice but history has shown that progression always wins in the end.
Though to clarify for those that may misinterpret my statement as being a pro-communist/socialist/marxist/crazytown big government takeover opinion its not. I mean things like Equal marital rights for Homosexual same sex partners, abortion and healthcare. These coupled with a decreasing number of religiously swayed individuals as voters. More and more "religious" people are becoming more and more liberal. So currently we are split between these two groups of people and I'm assuming some kinda snapping point will occur probably within the next 4-6 years that will mark a huge social change in the general American culture.
It's not just understanding. If you watch the video of his remarks he thinks everything he was taught is a conspiracy against his faith. It's not his ability to understand, its his animosity against science.
His personal beliefs and his personal directions as a congressman believe scientific studies are "lies from the pit of hell".
For those interested, Canada is pretty much right over where the Finland dot is. (if it were on the graph, that is)
Yeeaah. I don't care how hard you work for that title, there's a certain point at which I'm no longer gonna let you have it.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
Want to see me in action? Check out my stream! Currently broadcasting Boros Burn in Standard. Full archive available.
Want to play better magic? Come join us at diestoremoval.com
Intelligent people live in Georgia. I used to live there. However they are drowned out by a bunch of people who are overly religious. It is my personal belief that people that are religious aren't any more intelligent than those that are not.....but rather they are in a state of intentional ignorance which infuriates me to no end. I am thankful to have moved away from those kinds of areas.
1. Speaking
2. Organizational
Those are two necessary skills in politics, and also why Republicans and Traditional Democrats tended to be more successful getting legislation passed and people elected.
Ambition must be made to counteract ambition.
Individualities may form communities, but it is institutions alone that can create a nation.
Nothing succeeds like the appearance of success.
Here is my principle: Taxes shall be levied according to ability to pay. That is the only American principle.
Actually one reason is because they get the religious vote. A LOT of voters vote for religious reasons. Thats why we've never had a non-christian president ...ever. The second you say "btw I don't follow Jesus" you loose a good 40% of your voters. More if you live in southern states.
You're introducing a constraint that applies equally to both parties, and thus does not speak to CM's hypothesis about why one party succeeds at something the other doesn't.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
I've never been to Georgia. I have been to Tennessee for a religious convention, and some of the stuff they pushed was anti-science. A lot of it was great, the people were friendly, and I managed to get into one humanitarian project while I was there, but there was this big push on speakers and merchandise that is very much stereotypical religious right, like this congressman in the video.
One of my physics professors in college was very religious. Muslim actually. He'd tell us stories sometimes about a djinn that visited his house. He'd start his semesters off with a talk about his views which were rather intelligent design. But he was always specific to describe his religious beliefs, his spiritual beliefs, as the motivator to commit himself to his research, to look deeper into physical phenomena. And to be open to whatever he'd find. His spiritual beliefs and his beliefs in science addressed very separate issues for him. And he was very respected. He was making trips to Geneva right until his kidneys gave out.
I think this current strain of science vs religion is about being contrary. It's in your face for the sake of in-your-face-beingness. It's great for arguments on the Internet. When you get enough followers in it, it's a great group cohesion for us-against-the-world mentality. And when you meet someone that's so used to arguing with like-minded individuals, it's easy and more convincing to catch them off guard with a viewpoint they're not ready to defend. At least here in NY it's difficult to find a Biblical fundamentalist who has a medical degree.
I think it's also a part of a larger trend of anti-intellectualism that's been growing since at least the mid-20th century, probably since earlier. The idea that you don't have to be beholden to facts or evidence or consensus reality, just reject that reality and substitute your own.
I mean, look at how many people sneer at "experts" when those experts hold views contrary to theirs.
Very Well Then I Contradict Myself.
Ehhh, I'm too cool for school, uh?
not exactly. I'm saying anyone that goes out and says they aren't christian is very close to committing political suicide in America. Very very very very few politicians are NOT christians. I don't think we have any Islamic ones in major political positions. House of Representatives would be the best bet because its so locally voted on. Its the easiest to get independents and alternative types of candidates into the higher bits of our government.
I'm reminded of the Isaac Azimov quote, "Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.'"
Really, it's a natural if unfortunate byproduct of ignorant people being unable or unwilling to understand the actual experts, and as such dismissing them rather than admitting that there are things they don't know, or that things they don't personally like are true. Which is fine on a personal level, since freedom means other people get to believe/say things you disagree with, but when it comes to people claiming some kind of scientific accuracy on patent nonsense (such as with Broun and the young Earth thing), it gets downright absurd and shouldn't be given the time of day when compared to actual science.
Thats actually not correct -- The Catholic Church's official position is that you can believe whatever you want about evolution, it's not a matter of The Faith.
At the risk that this discussion may be moving into dangerous waters - you hit the nail on the head.
We're bringing up huge numbers of children so as to hold as their very highest ideal the rejection of physical evidence when it contradicts received wisdom - that their religion is the most important thing in their life, and that if their religion says the earth is 6,000 years old, ignore the physical evidence to the contrary. Just disregard it.
If this was just academic, I wouldn't care. But it isn't. Time and again we've had evidence of impending disaster with enough time to do something about it, but someone stood to make some money if we didn't act, and they've been able to exploit that to make a buck. Evolution doesn't happen; buy our pesticides! Evolution doesn't happen; load up on antibiotics for minor illnesses! Global warming doesn't happen, don't invest in sustainable energy, buy our oil! Fracking is perfectly safe, buy our natural gas! Wildlife diversity is unimportant; drill baby drill!
They get away with it because we as a culture systematically prepare huge numbers of our children to accept authority over the evidence of their eyes and minds.
(Also for an array of other causes, don't take me to be making the mistake of thinking that all our problems come from one pithy statement, but this is part of it)
Sort of yes, sort of no. Pope John Paul II did say that it was scientific fact and called for theologians to properly understand the theory so that they could understand its religious implications, so the position that the Catholic Church holds evolution to be true is defensible. However, you're correct that unlike with matters of faith, they would have no difficulty abandoning it, and you aren't being a bad Catholic if you apply a healthy skepticism to it.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
Honestly, do we have evidence for CM's claim? Yoru's claim might be lateral, but it at least looks true.
I don't see any particularly good reason to accept a claim that Republicans are better at getting policies enacted than the most recent incarnation of the Democratic Party - I see a single anecdote that the last two years of Congress have consciously blocked the president's policies, but that's not exactly a trend, it's a political strategy by a relatively unified party, and the same would be true of a Republican president with an obstructionist Democratic congress.
At most you could say that since George W. Bush was able to get more things done in the face of a Democratic Congress than Barack Obama is in the face of a Republican Congress, there's a genuine difference to be explained. But I'm not at all sure that the assertion is true, and even if it is the simplest way to explain it would be that the Democrats chose not to be as obstructionist for whatever reason, not that excessive religiosity is the difference.
By this I can only assume you mean the New Atheist movement? To be fair, I don't see it that way. It's not that atheists are attempting to don the mantle of "official spokesperson" for Science. And I don't think that "brazen" applies for simply accepting nothing less than hard proof and data over blind faith.
It might appear that way because atheists tend to give science its proper due. Believers shy away from scientific discovery as long as possible, until denying the obvious becomes untenable. At that point, they usually appropriate the findings of science to promote their own beliefs.
$.02
I think that's starting to change. This is a good example. And personally, I hope that one day in the future, long after his second term has come and gone, Barack Obama will be the first US president to publicly reject god. Not being conspiratorial, I've got zero data to back that up. Just a bit of wishful atheist thinking on my part.
I should have been more specific. The republican vote rides more heavily on religion than the democratic vote does. However both do find it hard to become a politician in higher government positions without having christianity on their resume. So I was saying it applys to both but Republicans more so.
I personally don't care about the politicans religious affiilation so long as its not affecting their rational mind like the representative that is the centeral spark of this thread. In fact I would much rather there be a higher diversity in both the general population as well as our government of multiple cultures and religions. Atheists of course more than welcome but rational theists as well.
I do feel that we are as a country drifting from this heavy religion base to a more skeptical more rational state of mind. This is one reason for the high gear shift to the more extreme right that has occured with the Republican party (and what spawned the Tea party). The far right is trying to hit the breaks and swing the country back to the right as a huge anti-progressive movement.
Right now the country is divided heavily and as much as some people blame it on obama its actually more than that. Half of America is willing and ready to make some changes and enter a new era of America while the other half desperatly clings to the older ways. I cannot yet say which is the correct choice but history has shown that progression always wins in the end.
Though to clarify for those that may misinterpret my statement as being a pro-communist/socialist/marxist/crazytown big government takeover opinion its not. I mean things like Equal marital rights for Homosexual same sex partners, abortion and healthcare. These coupled with a decreasing number of religiously swayed individuals as voters. More and more "religious" people are becoming more and more liberal. So currently we are split between these two groups of people and I'm assuming some kinda snapping point will occur probably within the next 4-6 years that will mark a huge social change in the general American culture.
XKCD 4ever