This week, I talk about fake $50 Jesus tracts, a Christian pamphlet called 21 Ways to Avoid the Back Seat, and I offer my critique of the recent Jerry Coyne / John Haught debate Science and Religion: are they compatible?.
This week, we have a hilarious show for you, as Ryan tries to answer the ‘teacher’s guide’ to the crockumentary God of Wonders. We also talk about the significance of Australopithecus sediba in the way we understand scientific discoveries.
The difference between science and other supposed “types” of knowledge that make similar claims about the universe can be illustrated with this cool new discovery: a team of archaeologists working in South Africa have found a fossil of a possible ancestor. The physical attributes of Australopithecus sediba suggests that it may be a direct ancestor rather than an unsuccessful offshoot. This discovery could (and this is the important part here) change our understanding of our own past as a species.
This offers yet another opportunity for science to correct itself, to refine our understanding of the history of life on earth. That’s fucking exciting. That makes my day. It should make all of our days, but it doesn’t. For a significant portion of the American population, this discovery is either irrelevant, unimportant, or a threat. The need for people to feel important and relevant in an uncaring universe has blinded them from a deeper and much more interesting possibility: that our existence, while impressive to ourselves, is the result of the same laws of physics that are universal. If we exist long enough to contemplate the Cosmos, then we cannot be the only ones who have, are, or ever will. How more exciting is this than “Super Ape-in-the-Sky did it”?
We cover a huge range of topics, from Evangelicals trying desperately to reconcile science and faith, to Muslims in Indonesia doing a little ‘house cleaning’. B
I’ve never understood scientists who are also believers. Sure, you can argue that science is a way of understanding the natural world, and that God (by their own definition, of course) exists outside of these laws. This is the idea that both science and faith can co-exist peacefully. You may have heard of the term NOMA (non-overlapping magisteria), first coined by Stephen J. Gould. It’s the rather incorrect assumption that somehow the two deal with entirely different realities.
Francis Collins is a head of the National Institute of Health, formerly the head of the US Human Genome Program. He’s also an evangelical Christian, convinced that there is no incompatibility between the belief in a Christian God and the Theory of Evolution. He also thinks that “angry atheists” like Steven Pinker are attempting to use the scientific theory to demonstrate its incompatibility with the notion of an all powerful creator God.
“angry atheists are out there using science as a club to to hit believers over the head.” He expressed concern that prominent researchers suggesting that one can’t believe in evolution and believe in God, may be “causing a lot of people not familiar with science to change their assessments of it.”
Yeah, don’t you hate when people “hit you over the head” with reality? How dare we reject the idea of an improvable supernatural entity that leaves no evidence of its existence? Why can’t we all believe and stop ruining their good time?
Hilariously enough, Collins has actually rejected NOMA in the past, arguing that in many cases the two do overlap. And then the man wonders why we bother fighting against his irrational ideas…
Here’s the think about evolution and God: they aren’t compatible. If you agree that evolution is true, then you admit that the process is undirected, the result of chance mutations that give their genetic carriers a greater chance to leave offspring. It’s a process of gradual change influenced by the forces of nature, not the will of a deity. Sad believers like Ken Miller attempt to explain this inconvenient fact with the childish notion that the process was “directed” in some invisible way, but this only serves to show God as an incompetent fool who leads the majority of his creation to extinction.
Evolution explains how we came to be without the need for the added hypothesis of a creator. Any scientists who truly understands evolution and who still believes in God has done so only because the two are compartmentalized. I’m sure Collins can still do good science, but he still believes in two incompatible ideas, and no amount of “comfort” with is beliefs will change reality.
How do ideas spread? Well, that’s what a team of scientists at the Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute wanted to find out. Their experiments involved using social networks to see how opinions would spread and change over time. They discovered if 10% of the “population” (defined here as those involved within the network) held strong and intractable opinions, the rest of the group would eventually follow suit in order to avoid any disagreement with the group.
While the research is admittedly preliminary, the numbers make sense to me. I’ve always believed the opinions of the majority are in fact dictated by a small group of highly influential people who have no quandary about spreading their ideas to others. It’s interesting to note the authors suggest that ideas that fail to achieve higher than 10 percent, and believers who have too little conviction were doomed to being in the margins. There’s a lesson here somewhere for us. While we hate the idea of holding any belief too firmly (even a non-belief), it is nevertheless the primary way ideas are spread.
The good news is so long as we keep talking about our non-belief, and the better we get at dismantling the claims of religious people, the closer we get to the magical “tipping” number. Hey, we already know over 10% of the population thinks this religion bullshit is a waste of time. Now these people just need to start telling others a hell of a lot more.
Here’s some cool news: scientists are a little closer to understanding how sex evolved. Apparently, the answer “because it feels fucking awesome” wasn’t good enough for a few eggheads, and they decided to try and figure out some clever experiments to test out a few theories. A group of researchers at the University of Indiana found if they manipulated the sex of the round worm Caenorhabditis elegans, those that reproduced asexually were less likely to be resilient to parasites, and therefore less likely to pass on their genes.
It may come as a shock to most of you, but the development of sex as a reproductive strategy is still a little bit of a mystery. We know it’s incredibly useful, but until now we’ve lacked solid evidence demonstrating effectively why such a survival strategy is beneficial.
Of course this doesn’t prove anything just yet; like all good science, we will need to wait and see if the experiments, once repeated, have the same outcome. Still, it’s encouraging to know we might be a lot closer to answering the mystery that is sex.
What’s more Christian than the denial of objective reality?
I talk about how humans grow and become moral through experiences of empathy. I contend it’s these “mirror neurons” behind this. We feel what others do (by virtue of how we are built), and so to be more moral and empathic, we need to ensure we are not completely separated from the process of communicating and interacting with one another. I’m talking to all of you Internet junkies out there watching this awesome video!
Welcome back to another episode of your favorite audio crack. This week, Ryan and I ask you guys whether or not atheists need to get more organized, and we also talk about the lessons of the Milgram Experiments, and finally we discuss the rise in exorcisms! If you’re a fan of the show, you’ll love the fact every show now comes with embedded notes, with links to the stories we mention on the show. Just look at the ‘lyrics’ section to find out more!
This week, Ryan and I are a little all over the place, talking about the science of Tar, how the ending to the movie Saved! wouldn’t happen in real life, and finally, we talk about whether or not taking a person’s belief away can do more harm than good. Also somewhere in there is my nonsensical rant about cars!
While dummies are still trying to refute evolution (they may as well try to disprove gravity at this point), science marches on. The latest evidence of evolution at work isn’t exactly welcoming news for us humans, however:
A strain of African mosquito that carries the deadly malaria parasite is splitting into two species faster than expected, according to a new study. The finding helps explain why the insect can survive in environments spanning from humid rainforests to arid savannas.
A speciation is occurring in Anopheles gambiae, which is not exactly good news. The mosquito is adapting to live in more arid environments, which means it puts even more humans at risk of contracting malaria. The key, according to scientists, is to understand the ecology of these mosquitos in order to develop better control and prevention methods (notice how it’s quite impossible to stop it entirely).
This is why understanding evolution is important; species are always changing and adapting, and the conditions we live in are by no means permanent. Praying to an anthropomorphic God will not save us from deadly pathogens, viruses and pest outbreaks. Even understanding the process doesn’t mean we can stop it, but it sure is better than the alternative, isn’t it?
About a year ago, I wrote an article criticizing Dr. Jeffery Long for his terribly unscientific book about NDE’s, or Near Death Experiences. Long essentially collected nearly 1,300 stories of people’s traumatic experiences, and figured the similarities must somehow mean something supernatural was going on. He even went to far as to claim this was ultimate proof there is an afterlife.
It would be too easy to point out his web surveys don’t exactly meet the rigorous standards of evidence, and all too pointless to do so. True believers want justification for their beliefs, no matter how flimsy the evidence is. Even the article I wrote on Dr. Jeffrey Long still regularly gets comments from people convinced that I’m either terribly biased or close-minded regarding the possibility of there being life after death.
A new study on the effects of death on the brain has provided further evidence only physical explanations are at work here. Dr. Lakhmir Chawla monitored the brain activity of terminally-ill patients and found that shortly before death, the brain had a huge cascade of activity, lasting from 30 seconds to almost 3 minutes.
Dr. Chawla believes this may account for the vivid experiences people often describe during NDE’s, but the problem with this study is since all the patients died, it wasn’t possible to actually interview them. Still, since the activity in the brain is so similar to that of vivid dreaming, why do we continually refuse to abandon the unsupported belief something supernatural was happening.
Hey, I would love if death wasn’t the end, just like I would love to believe I’m an invisible sex-god who can shoot laser beams out of my eyes. Unfortunately, the fact is I must accept that I’m a simple ape, whose only super power is to offend people with the terrible things that come out of my mouth.
On this week’s episode of the Good Atheist Podcast, Ryan and I discuss Stephen Hawking bitch-slapping God with his huge science penis, and we’ll be speculating on the “phenomenon” that is Glenn Beck.
Morgan Freeman is doing a series of TV shows for the Science Channel called ‘Through the Wormhole’, which discusses advances in discovery that astrobiology, string theory, quantum mechanics, and astrophysics have been making in our understanding of the universe. And while there are some signs Freeman himself isn’t exactly the most religious person in the world, he still had to pander to the religious crowd while promoting the show on NPR. Here’s what the first caller in to the radio program asked Freeman:
VINCE: My question, Mr. Freeman, is how impartial is the series overall to different views of science and religion?
Mr. FREEMAN: Well, you – I don’t think you can make a series like this and have it partial, because we have to entertain all thoughts, all of the theories around a certain subject. The whole idea is to bring in all of the different theories and thoughts. Particularly if you’re talking about something like creation, you know, you can’t just go in and say this is such and this is such and this is such. Actually, nobody knows. So we get – try to get a rounded perspective on it.
CONAN: The – having seen that episode, even if in a beta form, and I think the only parts I didn’t see were some, obviously the full narration, but there were some illustration system, some graphics that weren’t inserted as yet. But nevertheless, there were – those who take a literal reading of the Bible will not find that view even mentioned.
Mr. FREEMAN: Or very encouraging. No, no, no, they will not, but still, we have to accept that if you take the Bible literally, then the world is only about 6,000 years old. So we have to do that with care, of course, but ask the questions. So mostly what the series does is ask the questions. I don’t think it produces any answers.
CONAN: It does not come to a firm conclusion on the point, Vince, I can assure of that, without giving away the ending.
Mr. FREEMAN: Okay.
Wrap your head around the question again: how ‘impartial’ is this science series when dealing with science and religion. What? I would hope the show is partial to SCIENCE since science is real and religion is kooky garbage. It’s nice to hear Freeman say literalists are not going to be happy about the ideas discussed, but holy crap. If religious people are still stuck on garbage like the age of the earth, how are you supposed to remain ‘impartial’ as far as they’re concerned while voicing advanced theories on the nature of the universe as a whole?
