Christian divorce rates higher than that of atheists, agnostics: study

Recently released statistics of the frequency of divorce in various religious groups show some interesting findings. Notably, the incidence of divorce in atheist and agnostic marriages was lower than any religious group studied.

Author Donald Hughes states, "In the churches, people have a superstitious view that Christianity will keep them from divorce, but they are subject to the same problems as everyone else, and they include a lack of relationship skills. ...Just being born again is not a rabbit's foot."

I find it interesting that for all the flak non-religious people take for having lesser morals, it is the religious marriage that seems most likely to fail.

"These findings confirm what I have been saying these last five years. Since Atheist ethics are of a higher caliber than religious morals, it stands to reason that our families would be dedicated more to each other than to some invisible monitor in the sky. With Atheism, women and men are equally responsible for a healthy marriage. There is no room in Atheist ethics for the type of 'submissive' nonsense preached by Baptists and other Christian and/or Jewish groups. Atheists reject, and rightly so, the primitive patriarchal attitudes so prevalent in many religions with respect to marriage," Ron Barrier of American Atheists said of the findings.

The most alarming quotation from the article? David Popenoe, claiming that the findings must be wrong because "...Christians follow biblical models of the family, making a bond that 'the secular world doesn't have...It just stands to reason that the bond of religion is protective of marriage, and I believe it is.'"

That's right, David. The statistics must be wrong because they don't line up with your religious beliefs. Riiiiiight.

Catholic mother responds to atheist son

Wow... I never knew that Christmas was all about getting presents from Jesus. I also find it funny how the mom uses going to church every day as a punishment or remedy for the problem of her son thinking for himself.

Happy Zombie Jesus Day, Everyone!

New discoveries show areas of brain responsible for religion

CNN recently reported scientific discoveries that demonstrate certain areas of the brain are responsible for human religion.

It's an interesting article. The author's attempt at witty humour leaves me a little miffed, however:

"Today, scientific images can track our thoughts on God, but it would take a long leap of faith to identify why we think of God in the first place."

I don't think it would be that much of a leap at all. To understand why we believe in God (or in fact any religion), we need to ask ourselves not why we believe in such things, but what survival value a brain that is prone to such beliefs would have had in the wild?

The natural world is filled with all sorts of patterns, and organisms able to perceive and respond well to those patterns would conceivably do better than those which did not. Heavy rains leading to a flood; prolonged sun exposure leading to burnt skin; loud, low growls signalling the approach of a predator--all of these things are naturally occurring patterns that it would be beneficial to recognize. Of course, it's not necessary to have conscious pattern recognition. A species need only develop instinctual, genetic responses to the patterns around them to gain an advantage.

It follows then, that our highly developed human brain should be quite sophisticated indeed when it comes to recognizing patterns. It is our ability to understand and process patterns that gives us our unique ability to simulate and plan for the future. Unfortunately, when making decisions about patterns, there's always a potential for error. Religion is just such an error--it's an example of the human mind identifying a pattern that doesn't exist. Case in point: creationism. Since everything we see around us has an ultimate cause or creator (clay pots, houses, automobiles, computers, etc.), we assume that the universe itself must have had a creator as well. Even if we don't spend much time consciously considering it (as I would suggest is the case with most religious people) the belief that there is some type of creating force behind the universe almost "naturally" flows out of our everyday experience.

So, we believe in God because our brains are hard-wired to search for patterns and to explain them, and "God" is a convenient label our brains can use to explain the origin of the things around us that would seem to go otherwise unexplained. I wouldn't be surprised if, in the future, we find that the areas of the brain responsible for religious belief are also linked with instinctive pattern recognition.

Did the Red Sea Part? No Evidence, Archaeologists Say

The New York Times reported this week that it is unlikely that Moses ever parted the Red Sea. In this article, Egyptian archaeologist Zahi Hawass leads reporters through the remains of a recently discovered military fort in the area, and states that there is no evidence of the Exodus, the 40 years of wandering, or the parting of the sea. My favourite quote by the scientist:

"If they get upset, I don’t care. This is my career as an archaeologist. I should tell them the truth. If the people are upset, that is not my problem.”

A Scientist Who Believes

In this article on CNN, Dr. Francis Collins, a microbiologist and director of the Human Genome Project, explains how he can be both a scientist and a believer in the Christian God. He argues that science isn't able to answer questions like "what is the meaning of life," or "what happens after we die?" In searching for answers to these questions, Collins converted to Christianity.

Strangely enough though, Collins seems to refute his own argument in the following quotation:
"Faith is reason plus revelation, and the revelation part requires one to think with the spirit as well as with the mind. You have to hear the music, not just read the notes on the page. Ultimately, a leap of faith is required."

Basically what Collins is saying, then, is that it is in fact not possible to make a scientific, rational decision that the Christian God exists. Instead, the decision must be made in the face of a complete lack of evidence (hence the required "leap of faith"). The scientific method is concerned with the observation of evidence, and faith is belief in spite of (or because of) a lack of evidence. Otherwise it wouldn't be called faith. As we can see then, Collins made an unscientific decision to convert to Christianity. He admits as much himself.

In one of the comments that follows, Alan Goldstein says it best:

"As is typical of believers, Collins was looking for answers, and when he didn't find them (or more likely didn't care for the answers he found), he turned to superstition. For example, what is the meaning of life? Science would say "Life has no meaning, other than the meaning we give to it." I think this is a wonderful answer, and immensely preferable to, life exists because god was bored. And that our sole purpose for existence is to please god enough, so that we may enter heaven and sing his praises for all eternity."

It's really unfortunate that a man who holds such a prestigious position would abandon the rational morals of his profession because he did not care for the answers they provided, however stark and rigorous they may be. What a loss.

Oh well. To make you feel better, here's a graph showing who killed the largest number of people in the Bible.

Why are Geeks Often Atheists?

A recent post on shuzak.com examines why a large percentage of the "geeks" who frequent the Internet describe themselves as atheists. While it's not a scientific study, it's thought-provoking nonetheless.

Science and Art

Today I was sitting in my biology class learning about the endocrine system, when I realized how beautiful the world is.

I realize that not everybody would find a lecture on the differences between protein- and lipid-based hormones in the human body to be a thing of beauty, but before you write me off as a total science geek, let me explain myself.

First of all, the new book I'm reading must have a lot to do with it. I've never been one to take a side in the art versus science debate, and Richard Dawkins is only giving me even more reason to sit on the fence. Science is art, and can be just as beautiful as the most profound poetry or sculpture.

So what? What's the big deal? Well, what I realized in my class today was just how beautiful and noble the pursuit of knowledge through science really is. Of course, I've always loved science and have long been in awe of the great strides forward it's achieved, but it hasn't been until recently that I've noticed just how mysterious can be, and how much passion it can evoke. I've always thought science was one thing, and art was another. I would read science books to learn more about the world, and would then read poetry, view paintings, or listen to music to understand how we humans relate to that world. But now I've found that science itself can evoke those same emotions as art.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that, until today, art satisfied my desire for a certain feeling, and science satisfied my desire for a different feeling. They were both equally valid but were distinct, separate things, concerned with different ideals. In many ways that still holds true for me, but today I experienced science's ability to ask the same kinds of questions and address the same themes as art.

As my teacher was explaining the different cellular pathways different types of hormones take in the body, I was hit with a huge feeling of awe and wonder. How great it is that life is here on earth, with all of these marvellous ways of propagating itself, all these wondrous ways of being alive. Even more wondrous though, is the fact that it once wasn't here at all! That all of these things have evolved over billions of years of slow, methodical advance is one of the most beautiful, most poignant thoughts I've ever had.

That's it! That's why we're here, because billions of years ago a chemical reaction found out how to make copies of itself, and those copies slowly became more and more complex. And now we have all the life we see here on earth as the end result of that one little primordial replicator. Isn't that amazing? I sure think it is! In the same way singing Mozart's Requiem in concert yesterday made me appreciate the great achievements humanity is capable of, science has instilled in me an appreciation for the great achievements of life itself.

I know none of this is a new idea; I've felt similarly on several occasions. But there's something a little different this time. I guess I'm starting to realize that humanity, indeed all life, is the most beautiful work of art ever made, and that's something that will get me out of bed with a big smile on my face every morning.

NEWSWEEK: 91% of Americans believe in God, only 3% atheist

A belief in God and an identification with an organized religion are widespread throughout the country, according to the latest NEWSWEEK poll. Nine in 10 (91 percent) of American adults say they believe in God and almost as many (87 percent) say they identify with a specific religion. Christians far outnumber members of any other faith in the country, with 82 percent of the poll’s respondents identifying themselves as such. Another 5 percent say they follow a non-Christian faith, such as Judaism or Islam. Nearly half (48 percent) of the public rejects the scientific theory of evolution; one-third (34 percent) of college graduates say they accept the Biblical account of creation as fact. Seventy-three percent of Evangelical Protestants say they believe that God created humans in their present form within the last 10,000 years; 39 percent of non-Evangelical Protestants and 41 percent of Catholics agree with that view.

Although one in ten (10 percent) of Americans identify themselves as having "no religion," only six percent said they don’t believe in a God at all. Just 3 percent of the public self-identifies as atheist, suggesting that the term may carry some stigma. Still, the poll suggests that the public’s tolerance of this small minority has increased in recent years. Nearly half (47 percent) of the respondents felt the country is more accepting of atheists today that it used to be and slightly more (49 percent) reported personally knowing an atheist. Those numbers are higher among respondents under 30 years old, 62 percent of whom report knowing an atheist (compared to just 43 percent of those 50 and older). Sixty-one percent of the under-30 cohort view society as more accepting of atheists (compared to 40 percent of the Americans 50 and older).

Still, it is unlikely that a political candidate would serve him or herself well by declaring their atheism. Six in ten (62 percent) registered voters say they would not vote for a candidate who is an atheist. Majorities of each major party — 78 percent of Repulicans and 60 percent of Democrats — rule out such an option. Just under half (45 percent) of registered independents would not vote for an atheist. Still more than a third (36 percent) of Americans think the influence of organized religion on American politics has increased in recent years. But the public is still split over whether religion has too much (32 percent) or too little (31 percent) influence on American politics. Democrats tend to fall in the "too much" camp (42 percent of them, as opposed to 29 percent who see too little influence) as Republicans take the opposite view (42 percent too little; 14 percent too much). In the poll, 68 percent of respondents said they believed someone could be moral and an atheist, compared to 26 percent who said it was not possible.

The NEWSWEEK poll also asked respondents about recent developments in national politics. This week the Senate joined the U.S. House of Representatives in passing legislation along party lines that included a "goal" for troop withdrawal by next March. A majority (57 percent) of Americans support the legislation. The president’s approval ratings remain at just 33 percent, up just three points from his all-time low in the NEWSWEEK poll earlier this month. Two-thirds (66 percent) of the respondents were dissatisfied with the direction the country is headed in and Bush’s rating for his handling of the war in Iraq (28 percent) continues to be lower than his handling of terrorism (45 percent) and the economy (41 percent).

Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards, who recently announced that his wife's cancer has returned, is a popular figure, with 41 percent of Americans saying they have a generally favorable view of him (27 percent have an unfavorable view). And most (56 percent) think the former senator should remain in the race despite his wife's medical situation. Very few (12 percent) suspect that he is using Elizabeth’s illness to his political advantage. Seventy-two percent feel that staying in the race was something the Edwards family genuinely saw as the right thing to do and half (51 percent) think it will put Edwards more in touch with the concerns of average Americans (41 percent don’t). Indeed, just 11 percent of Americans think his wife’s health would be enough of a distraction to keep Edwards from his duties were he to be elected next year (64 percent think her illness would be at least "somewhat" distracting).

The poll also found limited voter demand for former Vice President Al Gore to toss his hat into the ring. Despite a spate of publicity around his involvement in the Academy Award-winning documentary "An Inconvenient Truth," only a third (33 percent) of registered voters want to see him run again while a majority (56 percent) would not. Still, about half (49 percent) say there is at least some chance they would vote for Gore if he were on the ballot next year (a quarter, 24 percent, say there would be a "good chance" he would get their vote). Nearly half of registered Democrats (47 percent) want him to run, 39 percent do not and 14 percent are undecided.

The NEWSWEEK Poll, conducted March 28-March 29, has a margin of error of plus or minus 4 percentage points for questions based on all registered voters and plus or minus 6 percentage points for results based on registered Republicans and Republican leaners. In conducting the poll, Princeton Survey Research Associates International interviewed 1,004 adults aged 18 and older.