When science and religion collide who sets curriculum?

[Schneibster]

Atheism is a religion like abstinence is a sex position.

Totally stealing that!

[Schneibster]

Getting back to topic

Should the government be allowed to tell americans that their religion is wrong? Even if the science is demonstrably true?

If religion wants to keep lying the government has no business telling it it can't, but it also has no business teaching false religion full of lies in school. The government is not responsible for supporting the lies religionists choose to tell their children. If the religionists are worried about it they should make their religions stop lying.

[Stubby]

Atheism is a religion like abstinence is a sex position.

Totally stealing that!

Full attribution goes to Bill Maher or his writers.

I was wondering about the Gallup surveys that were cited. I went to the link but didnot find an obvious methodology statement.
Makes me suspect of the scope.

This is for their last survey.

Survey Methods

Results for this USA Today/Gallup poll are based on telephone interviews conducted May 10-13, 2012, with a random sample of 1,012 adults, aged 18 and older, living in all 50 U.S. states and the District of Columbia.

For results based on the total sample of national adults, one can say with 95% confidence that the maximum margin of sampling error is ±4 percentage points.

Interviews are conducted with respondents on landline telephones and cellular phones, with interviews conducted in Spanish for respondents who are primarily Spanish-speaking. Each sample includes a minimum quota of 400 cell phone respondents and 600 landline respondents per 1,000 national adults, with additional minimum quotas among landline respondents by region. Landline telephone numbers are chosen at random among listed telephone numbers. Cell phone numbers are selected using random-digit-dial methods. Landline respondents are chosen at random within each household on the basis of which member had the most recent birthday.

Samples are weighted by gender, age, race, Hispanic ethnicity, education, region, adults in the household, and phone status (cell phone only/landline only/both, cell phone mostly, and having an unlisted landline number). Demographic weighting targets are based on the March 2011 Current Population Survey figures for the aged 18 and older non-institutionalized population living in U.S. telephone households. All reported margins of sampling error include the computed design effects for weighting and sample design.

In addition to sampling error, question wording and practical difficulties in conducting surveys can introduce error or bias into the findings of public opinion polls.

Thanks.
Do you see any issue with question wording and practicial difficulties possibly introducing error or bias? How about that 60% of the survey was done via landline. What demographic group is primarily represented in landlines? How about the "weighting"? How is this done and on what basis? What is the methodology for that?

There real question is: do you have an issue what the wording etc.? For me, Gallup is a respectable polling organization.
I think you would have to talk to them directly for that information.
Do you have difficulty believing so many americans believe that Adam & Eve and Noah and the Ark to be actual historical events?

[Schneibster]

Do you have difficulty believing so many americans believe that Adam & Eve and Noah and the Ark to be actual historical events?

I have none, especially after finding a majority of climate deniers and evolution deniers on the fusion web site. The US has gone insane. Nearly half of us are psychotics who believe their imaginary friends in the sky are giving them instructions. And of those half think he/she/it told them to hate black people. And all of them think gay sex is icky.

[Stubby]

Another source for the literal belief in god

http://www.pewforum.org/2008/06/01/chap ... practices/

Scroll down to the section labeled 'SCRIPTURE'

[ladajo]

Do you have difficulty believing so many americans believe that Adam & Eve and Noah and the Ark to be actual historical events?

Well, I would say they are two different categories.

Adam & Eve, at best, is mythology.

Noah and the Ark, at best, may be based in actual events, that then took on Mythological portense. It would not be the first time that an actual event was co-opted, embelished, re-conceptualized for utility in another context. Read much history lately? One of my Russian friends likes to borrow a quote, "In history, if you take away all the lies and half-truths, you will more than likely be left with no history."

I don't know many folks that categorically state Adam & Eve are the no shit. Most I know say more or less it is mythology, some may say that it is based in truth, but re-interpreted.

I can say for sure that I have met very few folks in my life full on believing Adam & Eve.

As far as wording for questions in surveys like this. They are fraught with danger of un-intended bias. You know not what hidden buttons you are pushing or providing an indvertant limitation on scop that then lends to a "cornered subject" who answers out of context, intentionally or not.

Something as simple as asking, "Do you believe in Adam & Eve" is not going to give a fair shake on answers, as it is a complex interpretation for most. This type of survey question is best done in a facilitated interview by a professional. And then, one would need to do an independent analysis of all the surveys, probably using a grounded theory approach, which in turn would require having a clear research purpose, objectives and questions before any interveiws took place. Another methodology would be to "go native", and embed researchers in diverse demographic groups to observe and record any events related to the topic at hand. The after data collection, and large scale analytical event would need to take place, with follow on findings.

My understanding of Gallup is that they are provided research questions by a sponsor, and then go out and do the mechanics. I am not so sure they do any real qualitative work. More so just a numbers factory. Unfortunately, a lot of folks view them as a full on studies institute. Which they are assuredly not.

So, in short. You can pay Gullap do run a random survey of 1000 adults asking, "Do you like pizza?". Then you can take the quantitative data (yes, no, not sure) and run your own analysis and say pretty much any qualitative finding you want twisted around what ever qualitative point helps make your case, such as demographics.

The bottom line: It is total bullshit to run a quantitative survey on a qualitative topic. Yes, Gallup is reputable for what they do. But you don't actually understand what it is that they do.

[Schneibster]

Do you have difficulty believing so many americans believe that Adam & Eve and Noah and the Ark to be actual historical events?

Well, I would say they are two different categories.

Adam & Eve, at best, is mythology.

Noah and the Ark, at best, may be based in actual events, that then took on Mythological portense. It would not be the first time that an actual event was co-opted, embelished, re-conceptualized for utility in another context. Read much history lately? One of my Russian friends likes to borrow a quote, "In history, if you take away all the lies and half-truths, you will more than likely be left with no history."

I don't know many folks that categorically state Adam & Eve are the no shit. Most I know say more or less it is mythology, some may say that it is based in truth, but re-interpreted.

I can say for sure that I have met very few folks in my life full on believing Adam & Eve.

This surprises me.

Here's a question: if Adam and Eve can be mythology, why not the rest? That doesn't make it bad, or despicable, or even wrong, if it's interpreted for the lessons it means to teach- and if the content of some of those lessons is found to be inappropriate in a modern society. The Dead Sea Scrolls prove that quite a bit of material has already been edited.

What's wrong with going ahead, and admitting evolution is reality, and abiogenesis is reality, and the universe came to be by the processes current cosmology is confirming to ever-more impressive degrees of accuracy, and that if there's any super being it's rather a representation of all we should be and could be if we were perfect, than any real personality. You can still strive for that perfection. I never criticize anyone who strives for perfection; I criticize those who claim to have found it. Accept all your religion as noumena, in your mind, not phenomena, in reality, and stop denying science's precise and accurate description of reality based on these things of the mind.

There is a place for your religion; it expresses deep emotional needs for at least half of all people. They don't care if it's real; they care if it tells them the truth about their emotions, and you will never hear me deny that it does. OTOH, you'll also hear me deny it's real all the time. The difference is, what's real isn't always what feels right, and in fact what's real can cause you to give up hope. And hope, no matter how fragile, no matter how forlorn, should never be given up. That's a truth that religion tells that science cannot.

We'll also need to take the stuff about sex out, except for kids and animals.

And the stuff about burning people alive for wearing cotton and wool together (yes really).

[paperburn1]

Could all this be attributed to the need to belong. Abraham Maslow suggested that the need to belong was a major source of human motivation. He thought that it was one of 8 basic needs,In the past belonging to a group was essential to survival. People hunted and cooked in groups. Belonging to a group allowed tribe members to share the workload and protect each other. Not only were they trying to ensure their own survival, but all members of their tribe were invested in each other's outcomes because each member played an important role in the group. More recently in Western society, this is not necessarily the case. Most people no longer belong to tribes, but they still protect those in their groups and still have a desire to belong in groups. Looking at groups in general, visual cues to establish identity prevail. Bikers look like bikers, cowboys look like cowboy even though the need to dress in that fashion is no longer necessary. Gays have several distinct looks . The list goes on and on, hipsters yuppies even groups with no outward identity still tend to gather together. The true lone wolf does not exist in any society by definition.

[Schneibster]

Could all this be attributed to the need to belong.

I think so. I think there is a pretty clear evolutionary psychology case for it, in fact. It goes back a long way, too; chimps, gorillas, and orangutans form tribes, in the case of chimps, our closest living relatives, extra-familial. Many monkeys do likewise, and even exchange guard duty when they're at a known resource, turn and turn about, like water or a tree full of fruit, where predators might likewise gather. So there's plenty of source for such instincts.

More recently in Western society, this is not necessarily the case. Most people no longer belong to tribes, but they still protect those in their groups and still have a desire to belong in groups. Looking at groups in general, visual cues to establish identity prevail. Bikers look like bikers, cowboys look like cowboy even though the need to dress in that fashion is no longer necessary. Gays have several distinct looks . The list goes on and on, hipsters yuppies even groups with no outward identity still tend to gather together. The true lone wolf does not exist in any society by definition.

Most people belong to many groups. Companies, at least good ones, are groups. Families are groups. Most US citizens belong to at least one of each.

This doesn't, however, justify lying to them about reality.

It's time to admit science is right.

[Stubby]

Could all this be attributed to the need to belong. Abraham Maslow suggested that the need to belong was a major source of human motivation. He thought that it was one of 8 basic needs,In the past belonging to a group was essential to survival. People hunted and cooked in groups. Belonging to a group allowed tribe members to share the workload and protect each other. Not only were they trying to ensure their own survival, but all members of their tribe were invested in each other's outcomes because each member played an important role in the group. More recently in Western society, this is not necessarily the case. Most people no longer belong to tribes, but they still protect those in their groups and still have a desire to belong in groups. Looking at groups in general, visual cues to establish identity prevail. Bikers look like bikers, cowboys look like cowboy even though the need to dress in that fashion is no longer necessary. Gays have several distinct looks . The list goes on and on, hipsters yuppies even groups with no outward identity still tend to gather together. The true lone wolf does not exist in any society by definition.

And fear of the unknown.

[Schneibster]

Could all this be attributed to the need to belong. Abraham Maslow suggested that the need to belong was a major source of human motivation. He thought that it was one of 8 basic needs,In the past belonging to a group was essential to survival. People hunted and cooked in groups. Belonging to a group allowed tribe members to share the workload and protect each other. Not only were they trying to ensure their own survival, but all members of their tribe were invested in each other's outcomes because each member played an important role in the group. More recently in Western society, this is not necessarily the case. Most people no longer belong to tribes, but they still protect those in their groups and still have a desire to belong in groups. Looking at groups in general, visual cues to establish identity prevail. Bikers look like bikers, cowboys look like cowboy even though the need to dress in that fashion is no longer necessary. Gays have several distinct looks . The list goes on and on, hipsters yuppies even groups with no outward identity still tend to gather together. The true lone wolf does not exist in any society by definition.

And fear of the unknown.

The religion memeplex uses all sorts of nasty ovipositors. Go check out Sphex wasps for the sort of thing I'm talking about. Or watch any of the Alien movies. For example the altruism trick. Psychologically, it's nuclear weapons. Really nasty stuff. Emotional blackmail on an industrial basis. Then there's the sex trick, long noted. Then the curiosity trick. Plenty more too.

It needs to have all its claws clipped off and be domesticated, not to mention house trained. Since it's now to be a domesticated species we can eliminate all its nasty ovipositors and claws and stuff and just pass it along to our children in church on weekends, paid for by tithes. With no more of these lies that the fundies all insist on. Make sure the kids know, just like with Santa Claus. When they're little, it's OK to tell them about Santa Claus but it's not really all that good an idea to let them go to school believing it.

[Diogenes]

Apathetic or militant Atheism inspires no great passion to attack an invading religion. Such will be utterly helpless, ergo such will be converted or eradicated.

European ennui towards Christianity is slowly being transformed into European acceptance and dominance by Islam.

So militant atheists aren't zealots?
I think you're discounting the mechanisms by which people become atheists or agnostics.

Not zealots in the crusading sense. Oh, they'll run their mouths a lot, and maybe carry protest signs, but will they form into battalions and charge the Islamists with their swords? Not a chance.

The Muslims WILL use swords if it comes to that. The atheists will cower in whatever nooks and crannies they can find and bemoan the fact that people can't be rational.

[GIThruster]

While that's true, I think Teahive's point that it is the atheists who are always picking the disputes is correct. They instigate the debates. They call people names and ridicule their beliefs. They press for removal of any semblance of faith in American society. They press to tear down the Christmas trees and take "In God We Trust" off our currency. Atheists are extremely aggressive when they feel there will be no consequences for being petulant, or obnoxious. It's only when they need to act like real men they suddenly go silent.

[ladajo]

Atheists and foxholes comes to mind.

In any event. To each his own, as long as he does not screw with others in pursuit of his own.

[Teahive]

Not zealots in the crusading sense. Oh, they'll run their mouths a lot, and maybe carry protest signs, but will they form into battalions and charge the Islamists with their swords? Not a chance.

Resistance doesn't need a common religion. Just a common enemy.

While that's true, I think Teahive's point that it is the atheists who are always picking the disputes is correct.

That's not my point. Please don't present it as such.