Slashdot Mirror


In America, 46% of People Hold a Creationist View of Human Origins

An anonymous reader writes "The latest Gallup poll is out, and it finds that 46% of Americans hold the view that God created humans in their present form within the last 10,000 years. According to Gallup, the percentage who hold this view has remained unchanged since 1982, when they first started asking the question. Roughly 33% of Americans believe in divinely guided evolution, and 15% believe that humans evolved without any supernatural help."

56 of 1,359 comments (clear)

  1. Really? by Frosty+Piss · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Thereâ(TM)s a big difference between what people tell pollsters because they think thatâ(TM)s what they *should* say, verses what they actually do or believe. For example most people say they go to church on a regular basis, yet other polls say church attendance is down, and the truth is that most people sleep in on Sunday. Most Americans say they are Christians because they think itâ(TM)s the âoerightâ thing to say, but most probably canâ(TM)t accurately quote a single significant paragraph of the Bible, new or old, nor articulate any significant bible theory. The truth is that most people are basically agnostic.

    --
    If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
    1. Re:Really? by ClioCJS · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Kinda sounds like No-True-Scotsman logic to me.

      --
      -Clio
      Karma: Bad (mostly from not giving a fuck)
      Blog: http://clintjcl.wordpress.com
    2. Re:Really? by Mr+Thinly+Sliced · · Score: 5, Insightful

      There's a big difference between what people tell pollsters because they think that's what they *should* say, verses what they actually do or believe

      Even assuming what you say is true, it's still a pretty strong reflection on how screwed up your society is that people are coerced into espousing a particular worldview due to pressure.

      Land of the free indeed.....

    3. Re:Really? by mcmonkey · · Score: 5, Interesting

      You're not making me feel better. I don't know if there is a big difference between 'most people don't believe in evolution' and 'most people think they should say they don't believe in evolution.'

      Actually, I'd say the later is worse. Whether you think we're here as a result of evolution or creation, you're not going anywhere without thinking for yourself. Someone who examines the evidence and concludes creation is most probable is (IMNSHO) mistaken, but can be reasoned with. Someone who believes in evolution just because that's what they've been told is lost.

    4. Re:Really? by Kenja · · Score: 5, Funny

      My complaint is there there's never a place on the forms to mark that I believe in the theory that life started when Neil deGrasse Tyson traveled back in time to ejaculate into the primordial ooze.

      --

      "Have you ever thought about just turning off the TV, sitting down with your kids, and hitting them?"
    5. Re:Really? by Stellian · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Religions have doctrines that you follow or you only 'religious' in name only.

      Frankly, my dear, I don't give a damn if these people firmly believe life on earth is less than 10.000 years old, or they are just saying that because they heard it in bible class. The fact is these morons vote, and they are ruining things for the rest of us.

    6. Re:Really? by Barsteward · · Score: 4, Interesting
      --
      "The hands that help are better far than lips that pray." - Robert Ingersoll (1833-1899)
    7. Re:Really? by bitt3n · · Score: 5, Funny

      Religions have doctrines that you follow or you only 'religious' in name only.

      Frankly, my dear, I don't give a damn if these people firmly believe life on earth is less than 10.000 years old, or they are just saying that because they heard it in bible class. The fact is these morons vote, and they are ruining things for the rest of us.

      if life began less than 10.000 years ago (and frankly I'm skeptical of such a precise estimate), how are they even old enough to vote?

    8. Re:Really? by lgw · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Wow, 8 AC responses to the question so far. You should get a /. achievement for that or something.

      It does amaze me how many people believe "anyone who disagrees with me is just to stupid to vote". Yeah, here's the thing: if we did have a dictatorship, you wouldn't get to be El Presidente for Life, the guy who disagress with you on everything would get the job. Stupid people voting beats stupid people in tyrannical control any day!

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    9. Re:Really? by erroneus · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I'll insert myself here by saying "YES."

      It's bad enough that these businesses in the US exist to collect donations which go to pay for their land, buildings and the ridiculously high salaries of priests, preachers, pastors or whatever they want to me called and do it all tax-free because it's "religion." But they go on to insult the whole educational process in every way possible by asserting things without evidence or experiment or verification of any kind. Some people even get real PhD's in this crap.

      A PhD in ancient Greek or Roman or other mythologies is "okay" but to declare a difference between that and "religious studies" is simply ridiculous and I demand an explanation of the fundamental difference between "mythology" and "religion." You have to realize that today's "religion" will be tomorrow's mythology right? Just as today's mythology was yesterday's religion?

    10. Re:Really? by TubeSteak · · Score: 4, Insightful

      If I remember correctly, escaping the dictatorial rule of people with your point of view was one of the primary reasons this country was founded.

      People left England because of religious oppression.... Then you know what they did?
      They set up their own theocratic territories which doubled down on the behaviors they had left England to escape.

      To think that you know the "truth" about religion and everyone that disagrees with you is a moron pretty much makes you worse than most of those you despise.

      Science isn't about Truths, it's about facts and (adequately) predictive models that explain those facts.
      It's not bigoted to call someone a moron because they believe something that's factually wrong.

      --
      [Fuck Beta]
      o0t!
    11. Re:Really? by TheGratefulNet · · Score: 4, Insightful

      being an athiest (or better yet, simply rejecting the bullshit that religion tries to force on us) means you are able to THINK on your own and not be swayed by fear of authority figures.

      yes, I do think that makes better voters. I think religion, in today's world, is a form of mental disorder.

      --

      --
      "It is now safe to switch off your computer."
    12. Re:Really? by wootest · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Science can't disprove God for the same reason that God can't be proven, but it can remove many of the rationalizations that supports the concept of God in the first place. What's left is something very implausible that you deliberately have to take on faith. The constant droning about imaginary tea cups in orbit (or not) around the moon are attempts to demonstrate why the same arguments wouldn't fly with anyone if you just changed the case from religion to something else that can't be proven. Without historical and cultural context, there's no reason to believe anything on the same premises other than simply wanting something to be true.

    13. Re:Really? by profplump · · Score: 4, Insightful

      If you define god to be unobservable then it doesn't really matter if god exists or not.

    14. Re:Really? by Mitreya · · Score: 4, Insightful

      being an athiest (or better yet, simply rejecting the bullshit that religion tries to force on us)

      I think those are the same thing (atheist/rejecting religion). You are strategically excluding Agnosticism, i.e. people who try to remain neutral/skeptical rather than get into the religion war on either side.

      I think religion, in today's world, is a form of mental disorder.

      That's not better than a position of a raving religious zealot. The only difference is that you sound like a raving anti-religious zealot. You know, many religious people are quite sane and do not believe that religious beliefs should be imposed on others or involved politics. Hopefully, you are aware of this.

    15. Re:Really? by DaveAtFraud · · Score: 5, Informative

      I'll insert myself here by saying "YES."

      It's bad enough that these businesses in the US exist to collect donations which go to pay for their land, buildings and the ridiculously high salaries of priests, preachers, pastors or whatever they want to me called and do it all tax-free because it's "religion." But they go on to insult the whole educational process in every way possible by asserting things without evidence or experiment or verification of any kind. Some people even get real PhD's in this crap.

      "The profession of shaman has many advantages. It offers high status with a safe livelihood free of work in the dreary, sweaty sense. In most societies it offers legal privileges and immunities not granted to other men. But it is hard to see how a man who has been given a mandate from on High to spread tidings of joy to all mankind can be seriously interested in taking up a collection to pay his salary; it causes one to suspect that the shaman is on the moral level of any other con man. But it is a lovely work if you can stomach it." [Lazarus Long, _Time enough for Love_, by Robert Heinlein]

      A PhD in ancient Greek or Roman or other mythologies is "okay" but to declare a difference between that and "religious studies" is simply ridiculous and I demand an explanation of the fundamental difference between "mythology" and "religion." You have to realize that today's "religion" will be tomorrow's mythology right? Just as today's mythology was yesterday's religion?

      Simple. Religion is what you believe; myths are what others believe or with another Heinlein quote:

      One man's religion is another man's belly laugh. [Robert Heinlein]
       

      --
      They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither safety nor liberty.
      Ben
    16. Re:Really? by Mr2cents · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I'm not an atheist because I can disprove the existence of God(s). I'm an atheist because I don't believe any of the claims theists have ever made. Your failure to understand atheism is the problem, not my disbelief.

      --
      "It's too bad that stupidity isn't painful." - Anton LaVey
    17. Re:Really? by butalearner · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Got a time machine then? I mean, I'm no YECer myself believing more in Theistic Evolution (evolution as God's engineering methodology, as opposed to Intelligent Design, I'm a software designer myself and I know very little intelligence goes into anybody's design), but even I have to admit that absent a written historical record from 11,000 years ago, I can't actively disprove YEC. I'm pretty sure we have good evidence that is far older than that; BUT absent a time machine, I can't rule out that evidence being created as is 10,000 years ago.

      By the same token, there are many other religions in the world whose ideas directly conflict with yours (and have precisely the same amount of evidence: an old book purported to be nonfiction and a group of people that have practiced that religion for a long time), so you can't rule them out either. So what made you choose this particular belief? Clearly you already do some mental gymnastics to sidestep at least some of the obvious physical impossibilities (shoehorning the overwhelmingly probable concept of evolution into a belief system that traditionally includes nothing like it), so why bother holding to the rest?

      Personally, I considered myself a Christian some time ago, but I started over when I realized how many modifications I was making to make it work scientifically, along with the realization that, had I been born to one of the other 67% of people in the world who have different beliefs, I also would have started out believing something different.

      Also, I think explanations like god-guided evolution are evidence of the phenomenon that was posted earlier this week on Slashdot: scientific literacy doesn't help people approach the world more scientifically, it just makes them try to use that knowledge to justify (or fit that knowledge into) their existing world view.

    18. Re:Really? by SpryGuy · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Yeah, but that level of cognative dissonance typically leads to compartmentalization... holding two contradictory beliefs in your head at the same time.

      To go back on topic (with the grandparent or whoever, I'm not going to count how many far back in the stack it is, forgive me :-), I think it IS scary that these people vote, and I DO think that atheists and agnostics are better voters in that they're clearly (on average, not in every instance) more rational and knowledgable.

      That nearly 50% of the American Public believes in creationism is really scary, a sign of a failure of our education system, and a scary foot-note to that same population's voting patterns (voting on myth and belief, not on fact).

      --

      - Spryguy
      There are three kinds of people in this world: those that can count and those that can't
    19. Re:Really? by wasabii · · Score: 4, Informative

      Most of us are agnostic atheists. Including Dawkins, Hitchens, and the rest. You may have missed that.

      a-theist means without God. One who does not accept that God exists is an atheist. One does not need to also hold the positive belief that God does not exist.

    20. Re:Really? by Mr2cents · · Score: 4, Informative

      The whole idea of atheist - agnostic - theist is quite simplistic. We are dealing with two orthogonal concepts: on one hand there is agnostic versus gnostic, and on the other hand there is atheist versus theist. Gnotics know, agnostics don't. Theists believe, where atheists do not. I don't believe in a god because there is no reason to. I'm agnostic because I don't have knowledge about its existence. In theory, you can be an agnostic theist or an agnostic atheist. Or you can be a gnostic theist or a gnostic atheist.
      In respect of a general concept of a god, I'm agnostic, although the general concept of a god is so vague that it doesn't really matter much. If you believe in a god but admit you don't know anything about god, that's a rather moot point to make.
      If on the other hand you arrive with a bible, I can be rather certain that it's all made up. Just take a look at all the mythologies, and that christian one doesn't really stand out. There are simpler explanations to why it came to be, and it has to do with unevolved people living in a world they don't understand, making up stories as they go.

      --
      "It's too bad that stupidity isn't painful." - Anton LaVey
    21. Re:Really? by alendit · · Score: 4, Insightful

      There is no evidence for the existence of god, point. There doesn't have to be an evidence for non-existence of something to rationally assume it doesn't exist. See Russel's teapot.

    22. Re:Really? by kwark · · Score: 4, Insightful

      So what else about religions shouldn't be taken literaly?

    23. Re:Really? by arth1 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Hitler

      Would this be the Hitler who sent soldiers to war with the slogan "Gott mit uns"? The same one who said "Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord"?

      Or perhaps he wasn't a True Scotsman?

    24. Re:Really? by jeffasselin · · Score: 5, Insightful

      You don't need science to disprove god - logic is sufficient.

      --
      If he explores all forms and substances Straight homeward to their symbol-essences; He shall not die.
    25. Re:Really? by samoanbiscuit · · Score: 4, Interesting
      Here's the key quote from that passage:

      American atheists and agnostics tend to be people who grew up in a religious tradition and consciously gave it up, often after a great deal of reflection and study, said Alan Cooperman, associate director for research at the Pew Forum. "These are people who thought a lot about religion," he said. "They're not indifferent. They care about it."

      I don't know, nor care about how knowledgeable you are about your own personal sky fairy, but generally, atheists have followed the narrative of being raised in a religion and then giving it up. Most religious people belong to their religions by an accident of birth (or politics in some cases), and there was no great reflection of the whys and wherefores of their religion. Because you believe in something through sheer cultural inertia does not make you more knowledgeable, in fact the opposite.

    26. Re:Really? by tolkienfan · · Score: 4, Interesting

      "science can't disprove God..."
      This is basically the "absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence" claim.
      Actually, Victor J Stenger makes the very convincing case that absence of evidence can indeed be evidence of absence when such evidence should be abundant but isn't, and that this really is the case with the deist gods, such as the Christian God.
      I wholeheartedly recommend him: a very good read.

    27. Re:Really? by Sperbels · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I really wish more people understood exactly what Atheism means. Atheism is not a lack of belief like most think, but rather a belief that there is no god.

      Um no. Atheism is a lack of belief in god. Christians simply cannot tell the difference between a lack of believing and a belief there is no god.

  2. Who answers these polls? by h4rr4r · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Who actually answers these polls?
    I bet even in 1982 it was mostly old people.

    1. Re:Who answers these polls? by skovnymfe · · Score: 5, Informative

      Results are based on telephone interviews conducted May 3-6, 2012 with a random sample of –1,024—adults, aged 18+, living in all 50 U.S. states and the District of Columbia.

      It's the very first line of the report. http://www.gallup.com/file/poll/155006/Creationism_120601.pdf

    2. Re:Who answers these polls? by Blahah · · Score: 5, Insightful

      That doesn't tell you much about the demographics involved.

      Those 1,024 adults could have been somewhat self-selected. What kind of person answers the telephone without first confirming who the call is from, then proceeds to answer a bunch of inane questions? A person stupid enough to believe in creationism, that's who.

  3. Some have a more nuanced view by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    It doesn't have to be either "take the Bible literally" or "science and evolution".

    Some are perfectly fine with believing the science and the process of evolution, but also see religion as a framework of stories. Someone once said, "The Bible says what God did; science explains how He did it."

  4. Evolution as a Creation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

    What if you believe in evolution as a divine creation?

  5. Re:Until you can prove them wrong by h4rr4r · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Sure it is.

    Who created the devine creator?

    In fact the idea of a devine creator is 2x as silly, since it requires that the devine creator was created and from nothing.

  6. Re:Until you can prove them wrong by doconnor · · Score: 5, Interesting

    There is no evidence to support the idea of a divine creator. There is a growing body of evidence that the Universe could have been created from nothing (aka a quantum vacuum).

  7. Ah, Recursionism by Tablizer · · Score: 5, Funny

    A devoted Recursionist, I see

  8. Re:in other words, 46% of americans are dumb by Nadaka · · Score: 5, Insightful

    They are not dumb. They are victims of an virulently infectious and devastating mental illness (faith). They can't really help it and they should not be insulted for it any more than a kid with polio should be insulted about being in a wheel chair.

  9. Re:Until you can prove them wrong by swished7 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    The idea of a divine creator is no sillier than the idea of creation from nothing.

    I'm tempted to agree with that statement. The problem I have with religious belief systems is when questioning the system is forbidden. A (good) scientist is willing to change his theory to suit his observations. Non-religious types "mock" those who are so attached to what they've been told to believe they can't accept new information.

  10. The reason Christianity has this problem. by Zombie+Ryushu · · Score: 5, Insightful

    You'd think this is actually just the ignorance of 'Dumb Americans.' That isn't so. The reason is evolution is a deal breaker due to the structure of the Christian religion.

    Kalinka told me the following.

    It doesn't have anything to say about the existence or non-existence of any gods. It is a problem with the way the Mythos of Christianity works in particular.

    The Mythos of Christianity absolutely depends on a a literal understanding of Genesis. In Judaism, Genesis can be metaphor, it changes nothing. But the Sacrifice of Jesus is contingent on an event called the fall of man, where Eve and Adam ate the fruit from the tree of knowledge, angering Yahweh (God) and damning all Humans to Hell save for a few Jewish Prophets and anyone who accepts Jesus as the Savior.

    The fall of man is considered the *Primary Sin* which sends us to Hell. (The main Reason.)

    If The Book of Genesis is metaphorical, then Jesus died for nothing because no fall of man ever occurred for Yahweh to have a reason to send us to Hell to begin with. Ergo, Christianity is collapses because Saint Paul was a liar.

    This is why Christians have a problem with Evolution and Jews do not.

    The real reason that this doctrine that Paul created was put into place was to exclude the Jews from Salvation.

    He didn't for see the evolution problem. That came along later.

    If the Garden of Eden never happened, the fall never happened. then there would be no need for the death of Jesus Christ. Which means that Christianity was wrong all along. Biological evolution collapses a core foundation of Christianity.

    1. Re:The reason Christianity has this problem. by hoppo · · Score: 4, Informative

      Catholic dogma treats the book of Genesis as an allegorical work.

    2. Re:The reason Christianity has this problem. by JoshuaZ · · Score: 5, Informative

      For a while I thought this, but then I was pointed out that Muslims have very low acceptance rates of evolution even though Islam doesn't need the details of a creation story in any deep theological way. http://scienceblogs.com/dispatches/2009/02/21/acceptance-of-evolution-by-var/. This may be due in part to the general more reactionary and hyper-religious aspects of Islam currently having more sway than in much of Christianity, but at least on its surface this suggests that whatever causes high rates of creationism in Christianity may be more subtle.

    3. Re:The reason Christianity has this problem. by HuguesT · · Score: 5, Informative

      The book of Genesis is definitely considered allegorical by most Christians, including the Pope. However most Christians also believe that left to themselves, humans quickly descent into sin, and from there war, pestilence, famine and whatnot. Jesus saves us not because he died on the cross, that is just a spectacular example of incomprehensible self-sacrifice. He saves us because if you believe in him, then you will not descend into sin, simply because by loving your neighbor, war, famine, whatnot becomes quickly impossible.

      Anyway, even if the garden of Eden never happened, Christianity does not collapse. Christianity is a faith, it can explain away anything.

      As Gandhi said, I love your Christ but I don't love your Christians.

  11. Re:Until you can prove them wrong by Joce640k · · Score: 5, Interesting

    A single photon with a frequency of 10^98Hz has enough energy to create all the matter in the universe.

    Photons are popping in and out of the quantum soup all the time.

    --
    No sig today...
  12. Re:in other words, 46% of americans are dumb by hey! · · Score: 5, Insightful

    in other words, 46% of americans are dumb

    If by "dumb" you mean "below median intelligence", that's approximately correct.

    --
    Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
  13. There's some degree of conflict by JoshuaZ · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Gallup and a few others have consistently gotten numbers between 40-48% for this data, but for reasons I don't fully understand, CBS polls on the same issue get slightly higher results. They get routinely in the 50-55% range http://www.cbsnews.com/2100-500160_162-965223.html. I'm not sure why this discrepancy exists, but it isn't a single yearly issue and it doesn't seem to be connected to how the questions are phrased, which suggests there's some more subtle issue going on.

    The data for both this years Gallup poll and previous years does show some fairly predictable patterns. For example, by most of the previous polls, around 60% of Republicans are Young Earth Creationists while a little under 40% of Democrats are Young Earth Creationists. http://www.gallup.com/poll/108226/Republicans-Democrats-Differ-Creationism.aspx. This should not however be taken as general evidence that Republicans or conservatives are dumb or uneducated. The GSS as part of their regular survey does a set about general science knowledge, and that data suggests that when not asking questions about evolution or age of the Earth, progressives and conservatives look very similar, and there's some evidence that the people with the least science knowledge are self-identified moderates http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/gnxp/2011/03/the-republican-fluency-with-science/ although exactly what is going on is not clear. http://religionsetspolitics.blogspot.com/2011/04/political-affiliation-and-scientific.html. This is part of a general trend which suggests that moderates in the US are often not very well informed.

    Also, while Gallup says that the fraction of people who reject evolution has stayed roughly constant, there's a potentially more interesting trend in the data, over the last 30 years there's been a steady increase in people who say that evolution occurred with God taking no part in the process. http://www.gallup.com/poll/108226/Republicans-Democrats-Differ-Creationism.aspx. Most of that is movement not from the strict creationists but from a reduction in the size of the group that thinks that evolution happened with God guiding it. This may reflect the general decline of the moderately religious, especially so called "mainline Protestants" or it may be due to other effects such as general increases in partisanship.

  14. So, slightly less than half the population... by ebunga · · Score: 5, Funny

    Slightly less than half the population has below average intelligence.

  15. homework... by Thud457 · · Score: 4, Funny

    More telling, religions don't deal with formal proofs and require that you show your work.

    --

    the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff

  16. Why I don't believe the poll by Sloppy · · Score: 5, Funny

    As an American, I prefer to ignore your statistic for so many of us being creationists, and I am not interested in your so-called evidence that the figure is correct. The number just feels wrong, therefore it must be a lie. My gut tells me there aren't nearly that many creationists around here, because neither I nor the people I know, are anything like that!

    Furthermore, I don't understand how many people could be creationists, so that's another argument that not nearly many of them could be.

    Finally, your poll is biased and invalid, because .. because .. I want it to be.

    --
    As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
  17. Re:Until you can prove them wrong by HuguesT · · Score: 4, Funny

    In the beginning was very low entropy and a lot of energy. Then it went downhill from there.

  18. Re:Until you can prove them wrong by Dahamma · · Score: 4, Insightful

    If I'm wrong, I loose nothing. If I'm right, you lose everything.

    So, you believe in God "just in case"? At least have a backbone about it, that's the worst reason you can have. At least those with *faith* are at about a level 5 of human motivation ("finding a higher purpose"), you haven't even climbed past level 1 ("survival").

  19. Re:Why by Overzeetop · · Score: 4, Insightful

    46% of the US population rejects the entire foundation of modern life (science), and you wonder why it's news for nerds? It shows exactly how small a space the technologically literate occupy in this world.

    --
    Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
  20. Re:Until you can prove them wrong by mspohr · · Score: 4, Funny

    "It's turtles all the way down."

    --
    I don't read your sig. Why are you reading mine?
  21. Re:Until you can prove them wrong by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Not that it matters, but your logic is flawed anyway. The definition of a divine creator is an entity that just is and was never created. Since such a creator would have created even time itself, it is nonsensical to ask who created the creator since that would imply that time existed before creation.

    I think the problem is in the inability of religious people to come to terms with the fact that adding a "creator" into the equation only complicates things, it doesn't simplify them. Arguing against the notion of the relatively simple entity that was the primordial universe just springing up into existence, with the idea that universe was created by another entity "just existing", only much more complex, capable of human-like mental processes combined with vast knowledge and abilities, seems somewhat redundant and ridiculous to me. Ultimately, you are facing an even more difficult question.

    --
    Ezekiel 23:20
  22. Re:in other words, 46% of americans are dumb by Nadaka · · Score: 5, Insightful

    No.

    The minister who believes all gays should be jailed believes that because his faith in his religion demands that he condemn homosexuality.

    Where do your morals come from?

    Do they have an objective rational basis?

    Or do you believe them because someone or something you are not permitted to question told you to believe them?

    Morality dictated by authority is not moral. It is just as likely to be abhorrent as it is to be good. It is arbitrary. It is the exact same thing if it causes you to believe as the minister you mention, or to respect your parents, to not eat pork, to not kill, or blow up airplanes.

    My morality is a superior morality. It is formed from an objective rational basis. Justice, liberty and equality are not well served by irrational thought based on the crumbling edifice of religions built on a mountain of skulls.

    Why do I say that faith is a mental illness? Because it is. It behaves exactly like a virus The mechanism of infection takes over the mental machinery of the host and modifies it to ensure that it propagates throughout the population, just as an organic virus infects a cell and takes over its genetic machinery to propagate itself. The faithful are strongly compelled to spread their faith to others.

    Faith itself is belief in the absence of reason, belief in the face of contradiction. It makes it easier for someone to believe in things that are objectively and morally wrong. And these sometimes malevolent and violent memes follow in the wake of faith like secondary infections follow the compromised immune system of an HIV victim. These memes con often not be separated from the basis of faith and they form a complementary complex that further spreads the infection (often by eliminating the uninfected or those infected by a competing vector by violent force).

    I used to be very religious. I was a fundamentalist christian once. The more I learned about God, the happier I became to realize that he was nothing more the dark specter of a fevered mind.

  23. Re:Why by 140Mandak262Jamuna · · Score: 4, Informative

    Evolutionists reject what is essentially the Prime Directive of Biology: Life cannot come from nonlife.

    Science is finding it increasingly difficult to draw the line between life and non-life. Viruses have just DNA replication ability without anything else needed for life. They borrow these from others. People were arguing whether viruses are alive or not. Now prions are basically chemicals (mis folded amino acids) with replication ability without DNA, not even the single stranded version of DNA called RNA. In fact there is a such a gradual chain of things linking life with non-life, it is not impossible to construct a sequence of events where life could emerge from non-life.

    --
    sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
  24. I've never had a problem with... by Genda · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Spiritual people. There is something absolutely amazing about life and death. One minute a person is there and then suddenly, all that remains is a husk. Yes, I understand fully the mechanics of the process, right down to the baryons. That doesn't change the fact that in my experience, something profound and ineffable has vanished from my perception, my grasp, and has left the world that I can comprehend.

    None of this is an excuse for willful ignorance and stupid, stubborn, hubris. No matter how hard I believe, the world will not stop. If it did, the thin skin of the planet would tear free from the mantle and continents would slide over one another. Life on the planet would evaporate in a magmatic cataclism that would make the eruption of Mt. St. Helens look like a popcorn fart in a hurricane. If there is a creator, I'm guessing she doesn't go around suspending physics to mess with the creation. Just a guess (having created a few virtual worlds of my own, I'm supposing we're well past the beta.) Our world is chock full of mythologies. Its a human penchant to come up with stories to explain what we don't understand. Its also a penchant to attempt to describe nature and observe its inner workings. Folks who have at an early age divorced themselves from reality are missing something. We live in a truly remarkable universe. Even more disconcerting is that some people who choose to ignore reality seem to treat reality as though it bends to their opinions. The harsh conservative element in our government seems to have faith that a government that gives all its money away to the wealthy and takes no taxes can work and its people (at least the ones that matter) can thrive. This is the danger of faith based thinking, policy, society. The belief is more important than the fact, and those who have faith in driving straight on a crooked road endanger themselves and all others on the road.

    A wise person surrenders to reality that which is real, and leaves that which untestable, unexplainable, or just humanly ineffable to faith. In these people I have no problem, I find myself among them. I simply know where to draw the line, and as our science improves, so the line moves.