Richard Dawkins on Rick Perry (and the rest of the Republican Party)

[WhoWee]

Aren't you just making the point that all of this big government fear mongering is silly? As you have noted, the Federal Government plays an important role. While the proper size of the Fed government is a legitimate point of debate, the tea party would have us believe it's the spawn of satan. We've had members here who all but want to abolish the Fed.

I'm responding to a specific comment made by turbo "Republican governors like Perry are quick to bash the federal government until they want money. Perry now claims that the feds owe TX some $350M to reimburse the state for incarcerating illegal aliens."

Accordingly, what are southern border states expected to do if the federal Government doesn't secure the border? The federal Government has initiated legal action against other states that have tried to deal with the issue. You can't expect these people to be over-run, tell them the need to bare the cost and not expect a push-back.

Again, perhaps all of the southern border states should pass out one-way bus tickets to Maine?

 

[daveb]

What was he wrong about? The state doesn't mandate the teaching of creationism by it self specifically (which as the article states is against the establishment clause), but it says that other theories, besides evolution, are evaluated. Creationism, intelligent design, etc could be taught side by side at the teacher's discression.

Because creationism is not a theory, that's what's wrong about it. It cannot be tested, it makes no predictions. I suppose one could use it as a lesson in the difference between theory and speculation, but to teach both as alternate theories is absolutely wrong from a scientific standpoint, let alone from an establishment clause perspective.

 

[daveb]

Separation of church and state doesn't mean God or Creator can't be mentioned anywhere, it just means no laws based off of religion can be pushed onto the American people nor can the government stop people from practicising whatever religion they want.

SCOTUS has consistently (AFAIK) ruled that any governmental policy which is seen as supporting or endorsing any religion is counter to the Establishment Clause. It's ironic that this ruling, by its very nature, can be viewed in a certain perspective, which is the perspective of many who support such things as posting of the 10 Commandments, as prohibiting the free exercise. I do not share that perspective, but I understand it.

 

[daveb]

In view of your opinion of pandering to absurd points of view I don't suppose you could ever vote for someone who had a Mao Tse Tung or an Adolph Hitler ornament on his Christmas Tree?

WOOHOO! Godwin's Law surfaces!

 

[Ryumast3r]

In view of your opinion of pandering to absurd points of view I don't suppose you could ever vote for someone who had a Mao Tse Tung or an Adolph Hitler ornament on his Christmas Tree?

Seeing as how my friend owns a copy of Mein Kompf and the Communist Manifesto for purely academic reasons, I could totally see myself not caring whether or not they had a statue of our dear communist leader or our dear fascist Lord (Though I share an opinion much the same as the original person responded to in this post that extreme views are not really beneficial and that pandering to the extreme left would be just as bad as pandering to the extreme right). In fact, while I was in China I was going to buy a Mao Tse Tung bust made of bronze simply because they're so cheap and in practically every household... my friends also bought red books.

Articles in a house (or on a christmas tree) don't necessarily reflect the person's opinions on politics, and should be treated as just what they are: Things.

 

[talk2glenn]

If a candidate is so blinded by their ideology that they can't even accept the evidence on something as basic as evolution, and doesn't have the basic integrity to admit "I haven't studied that, I don't know", how confident can we be that their other opinions - whether it be "lower taxes" for the Republicans, or "more social services" for the Democrats, or any other topic an individual is speaking about - will not be based on blind ideology instead of reasonable evidence.

It seems to me the flaw here, vis a vis Rick Perry specifically, is your assuming a candidate who questions the theory of evolution - or at least a specific, Dawkins-esque interpretation of it - is driven ideologically and not by a knowledge or understandong of the evidence, while a candidate who accepts it is not.

This certainly does not follow, logically, and I don't know that it follows in practice, either. When Huntsman espouses his confidence in the theory, I doubt very much that he is any more objectively driven than Perry; their individual knowledge of the subjects specificities is probably more or less comparable, and they probably share the same underlying opinion on science and evolutionary theory, if you quizzed them on the specifics (did life start out simply and become more complex; do species change by genetic mutation; are changes inheritable; etcetera). In both cases, I think the candidates are asserting an ideological or personal position, not an evidenciary or scientific one.

In practice, the candidates opinion on the relative merits of a scientific theory aren't particularly relevant. Whether one believe in physics or not doesn't matter - the reality is, the world is physical, and that fact doesn't depend on individual belief (gravity couldn't care less what I think of it, if you will).

The better question is, can a candidate make an informed policy decision, given physical realities. I don't see why this isn't so in the case of Perry. What policy areas might be effected by Perry's opinions on evolution? Perhaps, broadly, the biolgical sciences, or healthcare. Is there any reason to suspect, given Perry's executive and political record, that he is not evidence-driven when making policy decisions realted to healthcare? I don't believe so. Has he ever advocated that Texans use the same flu vaccine, year over year, because influenza couldn't possibly evolve?

In my opinion, the question is purely a gotcha with no practical value in either direction. In fact, it seems pretty clear to me that Perry didn't mean evolution doesn't occur; all he meant was, in his opinion, random selection is insufficient to explain life as it exists today. This is not incompatible with the theory. Random natural selection may be a sufficient condition, to the best of our knowledge, but I don't think any biologist can objetively claim it is the only condition. Occam's razor applies - a statement on absolute randomness or order is irrelevant to the theory. This is what Perry means when he uses the word "holes". Of course, by that definition, there are holes in every physical theory; but that's the point, isn't it? This is why we have philosophy and religion. The atheists, the causal determinists, and the randomists are making the same leaps of faith as their ideological opposition.

 

[Evo]

It seems to me the flaw here,

Please edit your post to include the person you quoted.

Rick Perry flips flops, take the recent flop on gay marriage. He is dishonest, and unreliable, IMO.

 

[Evo]

It seems to me the flaw here, vis a vis Rick Perry specifically, is your assuming a candidate who questions the theory of evolution - or at least a specific, Dawkins-esque interpretation of it - is driven ideologically and not by a knowledge or understandong of the evidence, while a candidate who accepts it is not.

This certainly does not follow, logically, and I don't know that it follows in practice, either. When Huntsman espouses his confidence in the theory, I doubt very much that he is any more objectively driven than Perry; their individual knowledge of the subjects specificities is probably more or less comparable, and they probably share the same underlying opinion on science and evolutionary theory, if you quizzed them on the specifics (did life start out simply and become more complex; do species change by genetic mutation; are changes inheritable; etcetera). In both cases, I think the candidates are asserting an ideological or personal position, not an evidenciary or scientific one.

In his own words, he doesn't even know what a scientific theory is. He thinks Intelligent Design is a scientific theory!

Explain where you stand on evolution-creationism being taught in school.

I am a firm believer in intelligent design as a matter of faith and intellect, and I believe it should be presented in schools alongside the theories of evolution. The State Board of Education has been charged with the task of adopting curriculum requirements for Texas public schools and recently adopted guidelines that call for the examination of all sides of a scientific theory, which will encourage critical thinking in our students, an essential learning skill.

Scary!

http://www.gosanangelo.com/news/2010/sep/11/this-series-examines-important-issues-to-texans/

He is also apparently out of touch with how bad education is in Texas (refer to his statements in above article).

This piece from Barbara Bush tells a much different story.

Our schools are in crises:

•  We rank 36th in the nation in high school graduation rates. An estimated 3.8 million Texans do not have a high school diploma.

•  We rank 49th in verbal SAT scores, 47th in literacy and 46th in average math SAT scores.

•  We rank 33rd in the nation on teacher salaries.

•  Despite our outstanding universities and colleges, we also lag behind in several critical higher education criteria. For example, California has nine nationally recognized research institutions, New York has seven and Pennsylvania has four. With the University of Houston's recent designation by the Carnegie Foundation as a top research institution, Texas, the second largest state, has four.

In light of these statistics, can we afford to cut the number of teachers, increase class sizes, eliminate scholarships for underprivileged students and close several community colleges?

http://www.chron.com/opinion/outlook/article/We-can-t-afford-to-cut-education-1691329.php

 

[CAC1001]

Seeing as how my friend owns a copy of Mein Kompf and the Communist Manifesto for purely academic reasons, I could totally see myself not caring whether or not they had a statue of our dear communist leader or our dear fascist Lord (Though I share an opinion much the same as the original person responded to in this post that extreme views are not really beneficial and that pandering to the extreme left would be just as bad as pandering to the extreme right). In fact, while I was in China I was going to buy a Mao Tse Tung bust made of bronze simply because they're so cheap and in practically every household... my friends also bought red books.

Articles in a house (or on a christmas tree) don't necessarily reflect the person's opinions on politics, and should be treated as just what they are: Things.

If you're an ordinary citizen, sure, but a person is held to a different standard when they're the President of the United States. In this instance, it's the White House Christmas tree. Why would they have an ornament of probably the biggest mass murderer in human history on it?

That said, I do not think Barack Obama is some secret Mao-worshipping closet commie, I attribute that happening to just amateur-hour at the White House.

 

[Evo]

If you're an ordinary citizen, sure, but a person is held to a different standard when they're the President of the United States. In this instance, it's the White House Christmas tree. Why would they have an ornament of probably the biggest mass murderer in human history on it?

That said, I do not think Barack Obama is some secret Mao-worshipping closet commie, I attribute that happening to just amateur-hour at the White House.

I'm sure the ornaments were placed by clueless Whitehouse helpers. It just goes to show that you can't trust anyone. Good intentions gone terribly wrong by trusting. I would have expected some oversight.

Kind of like when Michele Obama decided to plant an organic garden in a toxic sludge pit.

 

[talk2glenn]

With all respect, Evo...

In his own words, he doesn't even know what a scientific theory is. He thinks Intelligent Design is a scientific theory!

What did he say here that was controversial? He said all sides of a scientific theory should be examined; does anyone reasonably disagree with that? This is elementary! He never calls ID a "scientific theory". ID is, quite obviously, a theory, however. It makes claims, that are theoretically and logically testable. In practice, it is not experimentally testable, but not all theories are experimental.

Let's examine his words carefully:

I am a firm believer in intelligent design as a matter of faith and intellect, and I believe it should be presented in schools alongside the theories of evolution. The State Board of Education has been charged with the task of adopting curriculum requirements for Texas public schools and recently adopted guidelines that call for the examination of all sides of a scientific theory, which will encourage critical thinking in our students, an essential learning skill.

I specifically see him label evolution a "theory". He never uses the word - scientifically or philosophically - to refer to ID. And he specifically adds that scientific theory should be examined from all sides. Indeed, he says he believes in ID, quote, "as a matter of faith..." He adds no such qualifier for his beliefs in the natural sciences, to my knowledge.

You've read things into the statement that I don't believe are explicitly there. You might be right; he may have meant that ID is a scientific theory as much as evolution is. But I don't see it, and I don't think you can say that's what he meant for a certainty.

http://www.chron.com/opinion/outlook...on-1691329.php

I don't want to drag this thread off topic, but let me just say this:

The stats you quote aren't normalized for soci-economic and demographic factors. Normalized, Texas public education is ranked slightly above average in outcomes, and significantly above average in efficiency (outcome per dollar).

Please remember that in raw outcome states, places like CT tend to do very well. This is because CT is overwhelmingly wealthy and white. Controlling for these factors is critical if one wants to draw meaningful conclusions.

 

[CAC1001]

SCOTUS has consistently (AFAIK) ruled that any governmental policy which is seen as supporting or endorsing any religion is counter to the Establishment Clause. It's ironic that this ruling, by its very nature, can be viewed in a certain perspective, which is the perspective of many who support such things as posting of the 10 Commandments, as prohibiting the free exercise. I do not share that perspective, but I understand it.

Well I think the debate there would be, "Is a statue of the 10 Commandments a governmental policy?" Because as a statue, it's not a law anyone has to abide by nor does it prevent people from practicising religion (or at least those arguments can be made). But it depends I am sure. I would think a town doing something like that for example will be viewed a lot differently than say if such a statue was proposed for a major government building in Washington, D.C., also things like Nativity scenes at Christmas and such, makes it a gray area.

WOOHOO! Godwin's Law surfaces!

Just nitpicking , but I don't know if that qualifies in this one. Godwin's Law states that in any online conversation, regardless of the topic, that if it goes on long enough, someone will eventually criticize some point made in the discussion by comparing it to the beliefs of the Nazis and/or Hitler. That didn't happen in this case. Instead, the point was just made about whether one could vote for someone who had a symbol of some crazy dictator such as Mao or Hitler on their Christmas tree.

 

[CAC1001]

I'm sure the ornaments were placed by clueless Whitehouse helpers. It just goes to show that you can't trust anyone. Good intentions gone terribly wrong by trusting. I would have expected some oversight.

That's what I mean, just a lack of oversight or something, the White House was probably going "OH HELL" when that happened.

Kind of like when Michele Obama decided to plant an organic garden in a toxic sludge pit.

LOL!

 

[Evo]

With all respect, Evo...



What did he say here that was controversial? He said all sides of a scientific theory should be examined; does anyone reasonably disagree with that? This is elementary! He never calls ID a "scientific theory". ID is, quite obviously, a theory, however. It makes claims, that are theoretically and logically testable. In practice, it is not experimentally testable, but not all theories are experimental.

Wow! Are you wrong!

Intelligent Design is not a scientific theory. You honestly don't know that?

The U.S. National Academy of Sciences has stated that "creationism, intelligent design, and other claims of supernatural intervention in the origin of life or of species are not science because they are not testable by the methods of science."[134] The U.S. National Science Teachers Association and the American Association for the Advancement of Science have termed it pseudoscience.[n 26][71][n 14] Others in the scientific community have concurred,[n 27] and some have called it junk science.[n 28][135] For a theory to qualify as scientific,[n 29][136][n 30] it is expected to be:

Consistent
Parsimonious (sparing in its proposed entities or explanations, see Occam's Razor)
Useful (describes and explains observed phenomena, and can be used predictively)
Empirically testable and falsifiable (see Falsifiability)
Based on multiple observations, often in the form of controlled, repeated experiments
Correctable and dynamic (modified in the light of observations that do not support it)
Progressive (refines previous theories)
Provisional or tentative (is open to experimental checking, and does not assert certainty)
For any theory, hypothesis or conjecture to be considered scientific, it must meet most, and ideally all, of these criteria. The fewer criteria are met, the less scientific it is; and if it meets only a few or none at all, then it cannot be treated as scientific in any meaningful sense of the word. Typical objections to defining intelligent design as science are that it lacks consistency,[137] violates the principle of parsimony,[n 31] is not scientifically useful,[n 32] is not falsifiable,[n 33] is not empirically testable,[n 34] and is not correctable, dynamic, provisional or progressive.[n 35][n 36][n 37]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_design#Defining_science

Let's examine his words carefully:

I specifically see him label evolution a "theory". He never uses the word - scientifically or philosophically - to refer to ID. And he specifically adds that scientific theory should be examined from all sides. Indeed, he says he believes in ID, quote, "as a matter of faith..." He adds no such qualifier for his beliefs in the natural sciences, to my knowledge.

He specifically said Intelligent Design", what are you reading? it's obviously not what I posted. He said

I am a firm believer in intelligent design as a matter of faith and intellect

You are intentionally trying to skew the facts. Do you think you can omit something and we won't realize what you're doing? That's not allowed here.

 

[mege]

http://www.gosanangelo.com/news/2010/sep/11/this-series-examines-important-issues-to-texans/

He is also apparently out of touch with how bad education is in Texas (refer to his statements in above article).

What statements? He admits they have a very high dropout rate and education could use improvement. Even with that: according to the NAEP site Texas is trending upward, for what it's worth, in national test scores.

In percent proficiency using the NAEP standards:
In reading - Texas students went from 29->30 in 4th grade and 26->28 in 8th grade (between 2005 and 2007)
In math - 40->40 in 4th and 31->35 in 8th (between 2005 and 2007)
They seem low, but they're definitely not the lowest in the country, and they're trending upward - even with the massive influx of immigration (while some states have regressed). As Evo pointed out in the NH-libertarianism thread, a state with higher immigration and urban centers would have a much harder challenge in social problems as well. Comparing to other southern-border states: Texas has higher scores in 2007 than CA, AZ, NM and is a push with FL.

He even admits that he's not in the curriculum process: The State Board of Education is an independently elected body that is charged with developing college- and career-ready curriculum standards for our state. As elected officials, they are accountable to their constituents for implementing curriculum standards that will ensure the best education possible for our state.

This piece from Barbara Bush tells a much different story.



http://www.chron.com/opinion/outlook/article/We-can-t-afford-to-cut-education-1691329.php

She's also advocating much more parental involvement, and realized that sometimes austerity measures are necessary - but is pleading for education to not be cut as much. And she doesn't refute that Gov. Perry has almost doubled education funding over the last decade (as is in the first article), she just says that cutting it now is unfortunate. Ultimately, her solution is more parental involvement and school pride to help out the state when it may be forced to cut funding. The title is very misleading, she really only addresses the budget issue in the introduction then goes on to talk about how the stakeholders in a child's education should be taking more action.

However, not all the challenges facing our schools are about shrinking budgets. The education of our children is a partnership — a partnership among the schools, the parents, businesses, churches and the rest of the community. - Fmr. First Lady B. Bush

Even with all of that, however, what do these test scores have to do with ID? When has Gov. Perry used this belief as a legislative tool? He says that it's the State's elected school board's job to determine the curriculum. So, applying the same logic as indicting him over his religious beliefs - couldn't one see this as evidence that he's actually willing to step aside and let the proper officials handle the problem? I think a President who's willing to ignore the constitution and the limits of his job is more dangerous than a President whom knows his limits, generally regardless of his other beliefs. I think the paradigm discussion should be on these actionable points, and track records - not hyperbolic 'what ifs' surrounding Gov. Perry's beliefs or knowledge.

-

There are two points of hypocracy that I see happening in this thread as well: I think it's a bit hypocritical that there are some in this thread that are willing to claim a technicality on Gov. Perry infering that ID=science, but yet will call evolution a fact (instead of a well-tested theory). Both inferences are incorrect when using the same definition of 'scientific theory.'
The second hypocracy is: why isn't the current President's religious beliefs being called into question? He's asserted that he's definitely a Christian, believes in god, refers to 'the Creator', but also says that he's all for 'evolution' and trusts in science ... how can he do both? Even without taking 'the creator' statement at face value, how can someone be trusted (using the logic from many in this thread) if they state one belief (christian) then state an opposing belief (evolution). This seems like a few very panderous statements, and inconsistent. Again, I'd personally rather have a sometimes not scientifically rational consistent President (that knows his limits) rather than an inconsistent one without a clear thought process as President. Which brings up the point - what leads anyone to believe, that aside from constant pandering to constituency, that President Obama is any more rational based on his mixed-bag of beliefs than a consistent-evangelical?

 

[turbo]

There are two points of hypocracy that I see happening in this thread as well: I think it's a bit hypocritical that there are some in this thread that are willing to claim a technicality on Gov. Perry infering that ID=science, but yet will call evolution a fact (instead of a well-tested theory). Both inferences are incorrect when using the same definition of 'scientific theory.'
The second hypocracy is: why isn't the current President's religious beliefs being called into question? He's asserted that he's definitely a Christian, believes in god, refers to 'the Creator', but also says that he's all for 'evolution' and trusts in science ... how can he do both? Even without taking 'the creator' statement at face value, how can someone be trusted (using the logic from many in this thread) if they state one belief (christian) then state an opposing belief (evolution). This seems like a few very panderous statements, and inconsistent. Again, I'd personally rather have a sometimes not scientifically rational consistent President (that knows his limits) rather than an inconsistent one without a clear thought process as President. Which brings up the point - what leads anyone to believe, that aside from constant pandering to constituency, that President Obama is any more rational based on his mixed-bag of beliefs than a consistent-evangelical?

Are you serious?

Personally, I would rather have have a rational president who us is well-educated and is intelligent instead of some "aw-shucks" poser-bumpkin that can gleefully posit that the universe is only 6000 years old because (s)he doesn't know any better and scientific evidence to the contrary is all false. We have a lot of politicians in the US pandering to the ignorant and uneducated, and to people who are contemptuous of education and knowledge. These people are not only dangerous to the next generation of children - they are a danger to us all.

 

[skippy1729]

Articles in a house (or on a christmas tree) don't necessarily reflect the person's opinions on politics, and should be treated as just what they are: Things.

This is in the White House! I am not suggesting that the president is a communist or a maoist. I am not even suggesting that he gave prior approval to the ornaments use. On the other hand, the decision to use it was not made by the flunky that ultimately hung it on the tree. It was inspected and approved and approved by someone with a six figure salary whose job duties include preserving the image of the country, the White House and the president. The image of perhaps the largest mass murderer of the 20th century on the White House Christmas Tree is not a "Thing", it is an abomination. The White House chief of protocol and/or other responsible partys should have been fired.

 

[mege]

Not by itself. But in conjunction with observation that's how we explain anything that we can explain. The theistic religious appeal to 'God's will' as an explanation isn't an explanation of anything. It's just some words that mean "we don't know".

So, yes, using observation and rational analysis we can explain why stealing and murder are considered wrong, why they're considered right in certain contexts, why there are theistic religions, why some people adhere to them and some people don't, and also why they're considered a bad thing by those who have no desire to revel in, or perpetuate, their ignorance.

When we evaluate any moral or esthetic consideration we're engaging in rational analysis.

Or, we can just do what God or Allah (or whatever) tells us to do via some book that we don't know who wrote, or when it was written, or why it was written. But we'll just take it at face value, because we're told that it was divinely inspired, that it's the word of God -- whatever that might mean. Is this the sort of behavior that you want to advocate? Are those who exhibit this sort of behavior, such as Perry, the sort of people that you want making decisions that will affect millions?

Maybe in general Perry will make more or less rational decisions about stuff. But (assuming he's a true believer) how do we know (if he were elected to the presidency) that he won't one day go off the deep end and push for something really seriously damaging and idiotic wrt any criterion other than that 'God told him to do it'?

Aside from that, and in general, I share Dawkins' contempt for theistic religions and the people who adhere to and advocate for them.

Wouldn't you rather have a society of people who understand the rationale underlying punitive laws against stealing and murder in terms of societal control and order rather than who simply accept it as a commandment of God or because of historical precedent?

On the bible, specifically: I think most Middle Eastern historians would disagree. It's widely used as a basis for historical understanding. The christian new testiment, also, we do know who wrote/assembled it (it's not god, the writings might as well be compared to Confucius or Plato in a contemplative manner). It's just the old testiment that Christians/Jews believe was written by god and sent down.

How can rationality say something is wrong with a moral implication? (replace steal with rape, kill, etc) I can steal, rationality tells me that. I can do it over again. I can get caught and go to jail for stealing, rationality tells me that. In general, people are deterred from stealing when the punishment is severe enough, rationality tells me that. But why do I want to reduce stealing? Rationality has a hard time telling me that, because it's not testable. My point isn't that rationality is flawed, but that it can't neccessarilly be used in 100% of circumstances. Even if using some Platonic or Legalist reasoning for a moral dilemma, where did their reasoning come from?

True, but we want to minimize that sort of behavior, not glorify it. Don't we? And wrt that I think it's important to speak out against the predominant monotheistic organized religions and people like Perry.

Again, I think that Gov. Perry is being singled out (Because of his ID belief?). President Bush, one of the more overtly religious Presidents we've had since President Carter, implemented what religious based policies? It could be argued that President Clinton did more 'for religious causes' (DOMA, DADT, etc) but yet the perception is that President Bush is some bible-banging zealot. Why is this? Where's the proof that a religiousity of a President dictates their policies or advocacy?

 

[mege]

Are you serious?

Personally, I would rather have have a rational president who us is well-educated and is intelligent instead of some "aw-shucks" poser-bumpkin that can gleefully posit that the universe is only 6000 years old because (s)he doesn't know any better and scientific evidence to the contrary is all false. We have a lot of politicians in the US pandering to the ignorant and uneducated, and to people who are contemptuous of education and knowledge. These people are not only dangerous to the next generation of children - they are a danger to us all.

Why isn't the current President called out on it then? So, just because he says he believes in evolution you give him a pass on his other, contradictory to science, religious beliefs? (which, he does refer to 'the Creator' quite a bit... is the evolution belief just a shield to make people in this forum smile?)

And my key qualifier was that the President knows his limits. Then, if the President knows his limits he can do not much harm while acting within the limits of the constitution. A President irrationally ignoring the laws of the land is ok, but a President that has a belief inconsistent with science is not? I trust Gov. Perry and his executive record (which I've not seen any religiousness) more than I trust the current shifty President.

I don't buy into religion, just as I don't buy into the zealous anti-religious hyperbole. I think it's a very, very, slippery slope to say that beliefs (even those that are wrong in the eyes of science) should be censored. I think more ignorance will happen if beliefs start getting thrown under the bus as the problems of society. Look at the leftist trend in academia - there are many accounts of Professors being denied the opportunity to pursue their opinion http://www.nas.org/polArticles.cfm?doctype_code=Article&doc_id=1955. Pre-determining what ideas are 'ok' stifles thought down the road and I think can be more dangerous than a few people believing in 'god' and acting on it in limited situations.

If the religious nature of society is declining, why are education scores and the US competitiveness declining as well? Wouldn't one expect an inverse correlation there if religiousness really did make people more ignorant? Scandanavian countries still have a state church, and they all seem to be doing pretty well education wise.

 

[D H]

Why isn't the current President called out on it then? So, just because he says he believes in evolution you give him a pass on his other, contradictory to science, religious beliefs? (which, he does refer to 'the Creator' quite a bit... is the evolution belief just a shield to make people in this forum smile?)

There's a bit of mis-logic here: Having a scientific mindset does not mandate that one be an atheist. There are plenty of scientists who hold religious beliefs. The problem is the flip side: Some religious beliefs are markedly anti-scientific and anti-intellectual.

If the religious nature of society is declining, why are education scores and the US competitiveness declining as well?

That is a non sequitur.

Wouldn't one expect an inverse correlation there if religiousness really did make people more ignorant? Scandanavian countries still have a state church, and they all seem to be doing pretty well education wise.

This is worse than a non sequitur. Finland and Sweden do not have a state church, and even though Iceland, Norway, and Denmark do, it is pretty much an in-name-only kind of thing. Religiousity in Europe is rather low, and religiousity in the Scandinavian countries is low even by European standards.

Percentage of people in European countries who "believe there is a God":

Source: The above graph is from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_Europe, which presents in graphical form survey results published in Special Eurobarometer 225 “Social values, Science & Technology”, http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/archives/ebs/ebs_225_report_en.pdf.

 

[WhoWee]

Percentage of people in European countries who "believe there is a God":

Do you know the source of the data for your post?

 

[OmCheeto]

Are you serious?

Personally, I would rather have have a rational president who us is well-educated and is intelligent instead of some "aw-shucks" poser-bumpkin that can gleefully posit that the universe is only 6000 years old because (s)he doesn't know any better and scientific evidence to the contrary is all false. We have a lot of politicians in the US pandering to the ignorant and uneducated, and to people who are contemptuous of education and knowledge. These people are not only dangerous to the next generation of children - they are a danger to us all.

I once read a paper on the internet by some professor from some religious university. I can't remember what the topic was, but he used what I thought was a most peculiar phrase; "On a secular time scale...". He was either an astronomer, climatologist, or a geologist as I recall, as his topic definitely extended beyond 6000 years.

So it strikes me that just because a person is religious, doesn't mean they automatically think that all the stars and galaxies which appear to be more than 6000 light years away are just god doodles on a giant glass orb.

[SATIRE]
Dawkins: But how do you explain those supernovas in distant galaxies?
Perry: Duh... Those are angels playing with penlights.
[/SATIRE]

 

[WhoWee]

Are you serious?

Personally, I would rather have have a rational president who us is well-educated and is intelligent instead of some "aw-shucks" poser-bumpkin that can gleefully posit that the universe is only 6000 years old because (s)he doesn't know any better and scientific evidence to the contrary is all false. We have a lot of politicians in the US pandering to the ignorant and uneducated, and to people who are contemptuous of education and knowledge. These people are not only dangerous to the next generation of children - they are a danger to us all.

How might "pandering to the ignorant and uneducated" compare with (can I start calling Dems the "Godless Dems?) the practice of registering people to vote via absentee ballot in nursing homes or busing people (who otherwise wouldn't take the initiative) to the polls for early voting? When President Obama changes his tone to gauge a response from his audience - is he also "pandering to the ignorant and uneducated"?

 

[OmCheeto]

Do you know the source of the data for your post?

I was going to ask the same thing when I saw the Balkans almost white.

France looks a little pale also. hmmm... What does the https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/fr.html":

Roman Catholic 83%-88%, Protestant 2%, Jewish 1%, Muslim 5%-10%, unaffiliated 4%

Does this mean Roman Catholics don't believe in god?

 

[D H]

Do you know the source of the data for your post?

The data are from Special Eurobarometer 225 “Social values, Science & Technology”, http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/archives/ebs/ebs_225_report_en.pdf. The graph is from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_Europe, which does faithfully represent the given data. I'll put that in the post you questioned as well.

 

[D H]

I was going to ask the same thing when I saw the Balkans almost white.

The Balkans are grey: No data.

 

[WhoWee]

The data are from Special Eurobarometer 225 “Social values, Science & Technology”, http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/archives/ebs/ebs_225_report_en.pdf. The graph is from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_Europe, which does faithfully represent the given data. I'll put that in the post you questioned as well.

Thank you, I understand the results better now - my bold.

"Four in five EU citizens have religious or spiritual beliefs. In fact, over one in two EU
citizens believe there is a God (52%) and over one in four (27%) believe there is some
sort of spirit or life force. Only 18% declares that they don’t believe that is any sort of
spirit, God or life force."

 

[D H]

France looks a little pale also. hmmm... What does the https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/fr.html":

Does this mean Roman Catholics don't believe in god?

For some, the answer is "yes". Here is what the US State Department has to say about France (http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/irf/2007/90175.htm), emphasis mine:

“Section I. Religious Demography

In accordance with its definition of separation of state and religion, the Government does not keep statistics on religious affiliation. According to a January 2007 poll, 51 percent of respondents indicate they are Catholic, even if they never attend religious services. Another 31 percent of those polled state that they have no religious affiliation. Among Catholics, only 8 percent attend Mass weekly, one third do so "occasionally," and 46 percent attend "only for baptisms, weddings, and funerals." Only 52 percent of declared Catholics believe that the existence of God is "certain or possible."”

 

[daveb]

Why is it that when talking about the shortcomings of Republicans or the Republican candidates, some (not all) PF members on the right will say, "Yes, but the Democrats and Obama...", and when talking about the shortcomings of Democrats and Obama, some (but not all) PF members on the left will say, "Yes, but the Republicans and Bush..."? Especially when the response has nothing to do with the OP or the comments made in a quoted post.

Unless, of course, one is trying to lay blame on one side or the other, then it makes sense.

It sort of reminds me of the "Ice Cream" debate in the movie "http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eW87GRmunMY"" (an awesome movie, btw).

 

[WhoWee]

Why is it that when talking about the shortcomings of Republicans or the Republican candidates, some (not all) PF members on the right will say, "Yes, but the Democrats and Obama...", and when talking about the shortcomings of Democrats and Obama, some (but not all) PF members on the left will say, "Yes, but the Republicans and Bush..."? Especially when the response has nothing to do with the OP or the comments made in a quoted post.

Unless, of course, one is trying to lay blame on one side or the other, then it makes sense.

It sort of reminds me of the "Ice Cream" debate in the movie "http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eW87GRmunMY"" (an awesome movie, btw).

My post fits your description in this exchange with turbo:

"Originally Posted by turbo
Are you serious?

Personally, I would rather have have a rational president who us is well-educated and is intelligent instead of some that can gleefully posit that the universe is only 6000 years old because (s)he doesn't know any better and scientific evidence to the contrary is all false. We have a lot of politicians in the US pandering to the ignorant and uneducated, and to people who are contemptuous of education and knowledge. These people are not only dangerous to the next generation of children - they are a danger to us all.
***
How might "pandering to the ignorant and uneducated" compare with (can I start calling Dems the "Godless Dems?) the practice of registering people to vote via absentee ballot in nursing homes or busing people (who otherwise wouldn't take the initiative) to the polls for early voting? When President Obama changes his tone to gauge a response from his audience - is he also "pandering to the ignorant and uneducated"?"

The problem daveb, is how else can you respond to such a colorful (""aw-shucks" poser-bumpkin") post?

 

[D H]

Thank you, I understand the results better now - my bold.

"Four in five EU citizens have religious or spiritual beliefs. In fact, over one in two EU
citizens believe there is a God (52%) and over one in four (27%) believe there is some
sort of spirit or life force. Only 18% declares that they don’t believe that is any sort of
spirit, God or life force."

Now look at the numbers for Scandinavia. The percentage who believe there is a God ranges from 23% in Sweden to 41% in Finland, all below the 52% average across all of Europe. The majority of Swedes and close to the majority of Danes, Norwegians, and Icelanders express the warm and fuzzy belief that "there is some sort of spirit or life force" but explicitly reject "I believe there is a God".

And now look at the response by Americans to a similar set of questions from http://www.gallup.com/poll/147887/Americans-Continue-Believe-God.aspx.
Even if you give them lots of ways to express doubt, a huge majority of Americans are "convinced God exists" (73%). Force them to choose between believing in God, believing in a universal spirit or higher power, or rejecting either notion, the vast majority (80%) chose "believe in God" and another 12% the "universal spirit" (total of the two is apparently 91% due to truncation).

 

[WhoWee]

Now look at the numbers for Scandinavia. The percentage who believe there is a God ranges from 23% in Sweden to 41% in Finland, all below the 52% average across all of Europe. The majority of Swedes and close to the majority of Danes, Norwegians, and Icelanders express the warm and fuzzy belief that "there is some sort of spirit or life force" but explicitly reject "I believe there is a God".

And now look at the response by Americans to a similar set of questions from http://www.gallup.com/poll/147887/Americans-Continue-Believe-God.aspx.
Even if you give them lots of ways to express doubt, a huge majority of Americans are "convinced God exists" (73%). Force them to choose between believing in God, believing in a universal spirit or higher power, or rejecting either notion, the vast majority (80%) chose "believe in God" and another 12% the "universal spirit" (total of the two is apparently 91% due to truncation).

Well if "a huge majority of Americans are "convinced God exists" (73%). Force them to choose between believing in God, believing in a universal spirit or higher power, or rejecting either notion, the vast majority (80%) chose "believe in God" and another 12% the "universal spirit" (total of the two is apparently 91% due to truncation)" - why wouldn't a candidate want to align themselves with the majority.

Sometimes I just don't understand the "God-less Dems"? Yes, label the last comment IMO.

 

[OmCheeto]

...Only 52 percent of declared Catholics believe that the existence of God is "certain or possible."”

That, is one of the funniest statistics I have seen in a long time. So what's with the other 48%? Are they Catholic because of the bake sales? I don't get it. That would be like being a Republican, and having only Bachmann and Palin as choices.

 

[ThomasT]

On the bible, specifically: I think most Middle Eastern historians would disagree. It's widely used as a basis for historical understanding. The christian new testiment, also, we do know who wrote/assembled it (it's not god, the writings might as well be compared to Confucius or Plato in a contemplative manner). It's just the old testiment that Christians/Jews believe was written by god and sent down.

I agree that the religious texts are used, to a certain extent and along with nonreligious artifacts and writings, as a basis for historical understanding. But, as far as I'm aware, the exact dates of original authorship as well as the identity of the original authors is still largely unknown and a matter of somewhat disputed speculations.

What we're concerned with here, wrt people like Perry, is the belief that the religious texts are 'divinely inspired', which is meaningful in terms of some sort of emotional association, but has (and can have) no basis in evidentiary fact.

These sorts of beliefs provide emotional/intellectual comfort to the believers, and an affinity for this sort of comfort is the basis of willful ignorance and closemindedness.

How can rationality say something is wrong with a moral implication? (replace steal with rape, kill, etc) I can steal, rationality tells me that. I can do it over again. I can get caught and go to jail for stealing, rationality tells me that. In general, people are deterred from stealing when the punishment is severe enough, rationality tells me that. But why do I want to reduce stealing? Rationality has a hard time telling me that, because it's not testable. My point isn't that rationality is flawed, but that it can't neccessarily be used in 100% of circumstances. Even if using some Platonic or Legalist reasoning for a moral dilemma, where did their reasoning come from?

Wanton stealing, raping, killing, extortion, etc., threaten the comfort, safety, and survival of individuals, and ultimately the survival of the group or society. Afaik, even wrt most lower animal groups/societies some sort of order is enforced for those same reasons. I'm pretty sure that wolves and apes aren't Christians, but they do have a vested interest in fostering the survival of their groups, which would certainly be threatened by too much internal conflict.

Again, I think that Gov. Perry is being singled out ...

Yes. Note the thread title. But we're also talking about the nonrationalist, even antirationalist, orientation of the theistic religious in general, and especially wrt the fundamentalist adherents to the main monotheistic religions (ie., people like Perry), and why that orientation isn't a desirable one for people (especially those in or aspiring to positions of power) to choose, and why candidates for public office who espouse that orientation shouldn't be supported.

... (Because of his ID belief?).

That, and any other nonrational, nonsensical beliefs that he might harbor due to his theistic religious orientation, which might lead to nonrational, nonsensical actions as a public official.

President Bush, one of the more overtly religious Presidents we've had since President Carter, implemented what religious based policies? It could be argued that President Clinton did more 'for religious causes' (DOMA, DADT, etc) but yet the perception is that President Bush is some bible-banging zealot. Why is this? Where's the proof that a religiousity of a President dictates their policies or advocacy?

It would be difficult if not impossible to prove it (though there are indications, eg. see Bush on his holy mission in Iraq ). But why take the chance? If a person is either a bible-thumping zealot or pandering to that segment of the population, then as far as I'm concerned they're not fit to hold public office. The danger is that they might advocate policies that are detrimental in many different ways wrt, eg., education, scientific research, preemptively invading sovereign nations, etc.

Bush is perceived as "some bible-banging zealot" because that's the image that he cultivated. Perry too. I think Dawkins correctly characterized such people as ignoramuses (at least wrt their professed Christian fundamentalist beliefs). Of course Bush and Perry aren't ignoramuses wrt many things, and they're for the most part, imo, very intelligent/cunning/clever. But if they are true fundamentalist Christians, and therefore ignoramuses wrt the set of beliefs that they hold to be of primary importance, then I don't trust them to not be ignoramuses wrt some future consideration which might unnecessarily negatively affect the lives of millions of people.

Assuming that Perry is truly a fundamentalist evangelical Christian, then his beliefs via that orientation aren't just personal beliefs to be kept personal and separate from considerations of state. To him they're the truth, and must therefore play an important role in his decision making process.

And if he isn't and is pandering to the faithful millions, then their ignorant beliefs will be playing an important role in his decision making process.

Either alternative presents a potential problem which can and should be avoided, imo.

 

[ThomasT]

That, is one of the funniest statistics I have seen in a long time. So what's with the other 48%? Are they Catholic because of the bake sales? I don't get it. That would be like being a Republican, and having only Bachmann and Palin as choices.

I grew up in a small town that had a couple of Catholic churches and associated schools. I'm pretty sure the bake sales and festivals have a lot to do with it. As well as sports, the bigness and gaudiness of the churches/cathedrals, the parades, etc. It's a social thing.

I don't understand your analogy.