Atheists who believe in God

The Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life has just released the second part of their "US Religious Landscape Survey". While there is a bunch of good news (a good deal of tolerance, for one) there is one seriously odd finding: 55% of agnostics and 21% of atheists say they believe in God or a "universal spirit". Even more amazingly, fully 8% of atheists and 17% of agnostics said they were absolutely certain God existed. No, I'm not kidding. And in other news: 1 in 4 vegans eat meat, 1 in 7 pacifists are warmongers, 1 in 8 virgins have had coitus and 1 in 2 triangles are circular...

More seriously, here are the details: in question 16 of the full report (pdf) respondents were asked "What is your present religion if any?" 16.1% of the 35,556 individuals questioned replied "unaffiliated" (p. 210), that is, 5,048 (+/- 2% margin of error) individuals self-identified as either atheists, agnostics or someone who believes in "nothing in particular" (p. 177). Of the total number of respondents, 1.6% (or about 589 in absolute terms) said they were atheists, 2.4% (~853) said their were agnostic and 12.1% (~4302) said 'nothing in particular' (p. 217; note: I had to calculate the absolute Ns myself). Then, in questions 30 and 31, respondents were asked "Do you believe in God or a universal spirit?" and "How certain are you about this belief?" (p. 227-228). As I already said above, 21% of atheists (~124) and 55% of agnostics (~469) said they did so believe (p. 9) and, incredibly, 8% of atheists and 17% of agnostics said they were absolutely certain in their belief. A few more crazy statistics: 11% of atheists and 14% of agnostics say they "completely" believe in miracles while 6% of atheists and 7% of agnostics "completely" believe in angels and demons (p. 35). Perhaps most ridiculously of all: 3% of atheists said they think the Bible (or another holy book) is the literal word of God...

A couple of points: firstly, question 16 was 'What is your religion?" and question 30 was "Do you believe in a God or a universal spirit?" So some of those who self-identified as atheist or agnostic might have said yes to q. 30 due to the 'universal spirit' part and since that term is vague and left undefined, it's hard to tell what the answers mean. This explanation, however, is not the whole story: 6% of atheists and 14% of agnostics say they believe in a personal God, while 12% and 36%, respectively, believe in an "impersonal force" (p. 6). In other words, at least 6% of the self-described atheists and 14% of the self-described agnostics need a smack. Some people will no doubt think this result reflects badly on atheists: 'atheists are so silly and confused that they believe in God. Hallelujah!' Well, actually, no: this finding reflects badly on theists: an atheist, by definition, is someone who lacks a belief in God so those who self-identified as atheist and then said they believed in God aren't atheists, they're stupid or deeply confused religious people. That is, these people are theists who don't know what either atheism or agnosticism means.

I want to end on an optimistic note: one of the key findings of World Values Survey is that cultural change occurs through generational replacement, that is, the total incidence of some value or belief alters not because people change their minds, but because the incidence varies between generations and as the oldest generation dies, the total incidence changes as well. Take a simple example: if 5% of generation 1 but 15% of generation 2 believe homosexuality is an acceptable life choice, the total population's tolerance will increase as generation 1 dies and gets replaced by generation 2. (The idea is essentially the same in Max Planck's famous quote: "a new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it"). With generational replacement in mind, have a look at the following table:


Note how the proportion of people who say they're absolutely certain that a personal God exists is much lower in younger than older people: 57% of over 65's but only 45% of 18-29 year olds in the total population are certain in that way. The same pattern (with a couple of exceptions) holds for the religious sub-groups as well. In other words: young Americans are much more doubtful of God's existence. Now have a look at:

We again see the same pattern: 69% of those 65 and over, but only 45% of those between 18 and 29 say religion is very important to them. And again the pattern holds for the different affiliations: younger Americans, in other words, think religion is much less important than older Americans.

While the above data are suggestive, the first Religious Landscape Survey (pdf) contains very solid evidence generational replacement is happening. The report notes:

Important generational differences in religious affiliation are also evident. For example, one quarter of all adults under age 30 are not affiliated with any particular religion, which is more than three times the number of unaffiliated adults who are age 70 and older, and nine percentage points higher than in the overall adult population. (p. 36).

These conclusions are clearly borne out in the data:


Atheism and agnosticism is quite a bit more common among 18-29 year olds than among 65 year olds and over. Indeed, fully 25% of those in the youngest cohort are religiously unaffiliated, and the proportions follow the generational replacement pattern perfectly. The bottom line is clear: younger Americans tend to be significantly less religious than older Americans and, as time passes, the proportion unbelievers (and non-fundamentalists) should increase dramatically. Now that's good news indeed.

(I should note that in arguing generational replacement is occurring I have throughout assumed religious beliefs and values remain largely unchanged throughout people's lives. I have assumed, specifically, that younger people's relative irreligiosity is not due to their youth, that is, I have excluded a 'life stages' approach in which people become more religious as they age. This assumption, I contend, is reasonable: the World Values Survey has collected solid evidence that people's fundamental values and beliefs tend not to change after their early-20s. It's important to bear in mind nonetheless that there is room for disagreement here).

(Hat tip: Andrew Dellis).

Goodbye, George

Sad news... the great George Carlin has died. Sic transit gloria mundi.

Carlin's greatest comedy sketch (NSFW):


(Via Podblack Cat).

Ken Ham is a wackaloon

You have to love PZ Myers, even if he's sometimes a tad too militant. PZ's latest achievement is to get Ken Ham (you know, the dolt behind Answers in Genesis) to complain about PZ insulting him. PZ then gets really creative (with the help of a thesaurus, no doubt), he calls Ham an

airhead, an ass, a birdbrain, a blockhead, a bonehead, a boob, a bozo, a charlatan, a cheat, a chowderhead, a chump, a clod, a con artist, a crackpot, a crank, a crazy, a cretin, a dimwit, a dingbat, a dingleberry, a dipstick, a ditz, a dolt, a doofus, a dork, a dum-dum, a dumb-ass, a dumbo, a dummy, a dunce, a dunderhead, a fake, a fathead, a fraud, a fruitcake, a gonif, a halfwit, an idiot, an ignoramus, an imbecile, a jackass, a jerk, a jughead, a knucklehead, a kook, a lamebrain, a loon, a loony, a lummox, a meatball, a meathead, a moron, a mountebank, a nincompoop, a ninny, a nitwit, a numbnuts, a numbskull, a nut, a nutcase, a peabrain, a pinhead, a racketeer, a sap, a scam artist, a screwball, a sham, a simpleton, a snake oil salesman, a thickhead, a turkey, a twerp, a twit, a wacko, a woodenhead, and much, much worse.

Indeed. Oh, and check out the comments on PZ's post, they're just as 'direct'...

What the hell is "atheist porn"?

Back in February, I wrote a post about Greta Christina's blog (which deals with atheism, skepticism and porn) and called it (cleverly, I thought) "An atheist porn blog for the whole family...". As a result of that single post, however, I've been getting a steady stream of people finding my blog when searching for "atheism porn" or "atheist porn". (I can only imagine how disappointed they must have been landing up at a nerd-fest blog like mine). Now, don't get me wrong: I'm a pretty liberal guy and I don't object to porn or people trawling the web for it... but what the hell is atheist porn and why are people looking for it? If it's the obvious - naked atheist girls - I have a couple of questions: (1) how could you tell they weren't faking? and (2) why would it make a difference?

It seems Rule 34 is not in danger, however, witness (NSFW) Atheistporn.com ("No heaven. No hell. Just Porno")...

Beware the Believers again

Remember that glorious video, Beware the Believers? Remember all the speculation about who created it? Well, while I was away from the intertubes, there was a confession: one Michael Edmondson, an employee of Expelled's producers, has come forward. He revealed the video was originally slated for inclusion in film. That's right, it was made by the creationists... But according to an interview with Edmondson conducted by Bloggasm, the video was deliberately equivocal, allowing multiple interpretations (i.e. both pro- and anti-creationist ones) .

Anyway, it's still a glorious video. There is now even a brief sequel (embedded below, or click here).

Does science make belief in God obsolete?

While I am certainly not a fan of the Templeton Foundation, they have an interesting feature on their website, the so-called "Templeton Conversation". Basically, they get together a bunch of luminaries and pose a "big question", each then responds with a short essay and debate among the participants is also possible. The latest "big question" is "Does science make belief in God obsolete?" and it's most certainly worth checking out. Among the participants are Steven Pinker, Christopher Hitchens, Michael Shermer, Mary Midgley, Pervez Hoodbhoy and Kenneth Miller. No points for guessing who I agree with...

Video: Richard Dawkins on Bill Maher

Richard Dawkins, the evolutionary biologist, militant atheist and inspiring science advocate might not be on top of all the complexities of the philosophy of religion, but I'm certainly glad we have him. In the interview embedded below (or click here) Dawkins covers a couple of familiar points but, amusingly, also calls Francis Collins (who led the Human Genome Project and became a devout Christian after seeing a frozen waterfall [?!?]) 'not a very bright guy' and contends the new atheist movement arose because people became fed-up that fundies insisted on shoving their imaginary friends down our throats.

An interesting topic Maher asks Dawkins about is the rate at which theists have been converted to atheist as a result of reading The God Delusion. Dawkins concedes the rate isn't very high (but some people apparently were, see "Converts' Corner" at Dawkins' website) but insists he has influenced a lot of people who were previously on the fence. In fact, reading Dawkins had an impact on me too (and I was not a fence-sitter): while I had been an atheist for a long time by the time I read The God Delusion and while few of his arguments were new to me, he inspired me to get off my arse and 'come out' to my family. (Previously I had been open to all my friends and some of my family members, but kept my true views from my more conservative kin). So, at least in one case, Dawkins had an impact even on someone who considered himself a "hardcore" atheist.

101 Atheist Quotes

I just came across a very good list of 101 atheist quotes collected by The Atheist Blogger; there are several gems so check it out. My favorite (among the ones not familiar to me): "The invisible and the non-existent look very much alike." - Delos B. McKown.

There are, I should note, a number of apparent misquotes and misattributions. Mark Twain (d. 1910), for example, surely could not have known the universe was billions of years old and the quote attributed to Hobbes (assuming "Thomas Hobbs" refers to Thomas Hobbes) fails my smell test (and Google knows it not).

Hat tip: David Spurrett.

Video: Beware the Believers

The Expelled brouhaha is a gift that just keeps on giving: the latest is a glorious video satirising the movie's thesis that creationist academics are being systematically discriminated against. (Some people think the video is actually a viral ad for Expelled or an anti-atheist piece. This, however, doesn't seem to be the case - surely a clever atheist made the video. If not, the creationist crowd are enormously inept and even more comically stupid than I thought).

Anyway, the video features Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett, Sam Harris, Christopher Hitchens, Eugenie Scott, Charles Darwin, and PZ Myers rapping... As a friend is wont to say: truly we live in a golden age. (The video is embedded below, click here to go directly to YouTube).

Templeton 2008

The Templeton Prize ("For Progress Toward Research or Discoveries about Spiritual Realities") purports to be a science prize but it is nothing of the sort. The stated aim of the Templeton Foundation is to reconcile science and religion, it entirely discounts the possibility that there are serious tensions between scientific and religious views of the world. (There are also direct contradictions when religious texts are interpreted stirctly instead of metaphorically, exactly what the vast majority of religious people do). The Templeton Prize, in my (and Dawkins') view, distorts science and comes close to being a bribe for scientists to say nice things about religion.

It also thrusts manifest silliness into the public spotlight. The winner of the 2008 Templeton Prize is one Michael Heller, who has some seriously daft ideas. His musings about evolution and intelligent design are particularly annoying.

See also: Controversies at the Templeton Foundation Wikipedia article.

An early 'new atheist' piece

It is often said that the new atheist movement - Dennett, Dawkins, Harris, Hitchens and a host of others taking on religion - only came about because the atrocities of 9/11 opened a space for it by making it acceptable to question religion. While this view certainly contains several grains of truth, we shouldn't exaggerate 9/11's importance: atheism was alive in and well on September 10, 2001, even if it were far less salient.

I mention the above only because I serendipitously came across an early 'new atheist' article the other day: Natalie Angier's "Confessions of a Lonely Atheist", which was published way back in January 2001 in the New York Times Magazine. Angier (who, by the way, was interviewed on Point of Inquiry recently) covered almost exactly the same ground as later, much more famous, atheist writers. Appositely, the authors of the Bible itself wouldn't have been surprised:

What has been will be again, what has been done will be done again; there is nothing new under the sun. Is there anything of which one can say, "Look! This is something new"? It was here already, long ago; it was here before our time. There is no remembrance of men of old, and even those who are yet to come will not be remembered by those who follow.
- Ecclesiastes, 1: 9-11.

.

Freedom of expression

Note: this started its life as a Facebook note, given my recent blog policy change, I'm reposting here.

I am disgusted and extremely angry that there are people so blinded by religion, so pathetically ignorant and insecure in their opinions or their faith that they want to murder those who disagree with them. I am talking, of course, about the recently uncovered plot to murder the Danish cartoonist Kurt Westergaard who drew perhaps the most controversial Muhammad cartoon back in 2005. And what was this immensely controversial cartoon? Here it is:


Look, I understand this image "offends" people. I understand some Muslims think (without Koranic authority, I might add) that representations of the Prophet Muhammad are not allowed. I understand many Muslims feel persecuted. But none of these considerations come close to justifying censoring Westergaard, let alone killing him summarily. The cartoon - whether you agree with its implication or not - is an entirely legitimate comment on the relationship between Islam and violence. It is the sort of thing that any enlightened society would not only allow, but encourage. Freedom of speech, let's not forget, is an absolutely non-negotiable part of liberty - I direct those who disagree to ch. 2 of On Liberty by John Stuart Mill.

So what of "tolerance"? What about "respecting people's beliefs"? I think the matter is simple: people, not ideas, deserve respect. (See this wonderful Greta Christina post). And tolerance is a political not a cultural desideratum, it is the commitment not to use violence to settle intellectual disputes. It is the the idea that people are free to make up their own minds about every issue, even the big ones like religion and morality and justice. There certainly is no case that tolerance means people shouldn't disagree, or argue or criticize one another. Disagree we will, and disagree we must and disagreement must be protected: even the nasty, insulting kind of disagreements that may make us uncomfortable.

It is the following sort of mentality that we should find deeply offensive and commit ourselves to stamping out, not the scribblings of a cartoonist:

An atheist porn blog for the whole family...

Note: I wrote this back in January and posted it as a Facebook note. Given my recent blog policy change, I'm reposting here.

I recently discovered one of the single best blogs I've ever come across: Greta Christina's blog. She writes, well, about atheism and science and... porn. I don't want to gush or anything, but Christina writes beautifully, she's damn smart, always interesting, clearly very knowledgeable and gloriously passionate. Most of all... she really does have a unique voice. It's rare to come across an author (especially one who covers well-worn topics like religion / atheism) who has fresh, insightful and challenging things to say.

Anyway, I highly recommend you check out her blog and other writings. Start with the seriously fantastic "Atheism and Anger", have a look at "Are we having sex now or what?", go on to "A Self-Referential Game of Twister: What Religion Looks Like From the Outside", then learn all about the scientific method and why it's important "The Slog Through the Swamp: What Science Is, And Why It Works, And Why I Care". There is much, much more to explore too - so don't stop reading.

Being out

When I started this blog, I didn't quite know how it was going to turn out but it's certainly surprised me in some ways. In the beginning I thought I was going to blog exclusively about specific academic papers in social and evolutionary psychology but, for numerous reasons, it didn't work out that way at all. I soon realized - and admitted - that my interests cannot be contained, that I can't not blog about everything I'm interested in. I have, however, been a bit cagey about one issue: my atheism. (Yes, I am an atheist. And proud of it.) For some reason I thought that, if I discussed atheism, my blog would no longer qualify as a science blog - and I most certainly want it to be that. As a result, I would write up entries about atheistic issues and then end up posting them as Facebook notes instead of on this blog. But it occurred to me that plenty of paradigmatic science bloggers - PZ Myers comes to mind - discuss atheism/religion issues and are still regarded as science bloggers. So phooey to being cagey. Don't fear: this will always remain an academic blog. I won't ever discuss, say, my favorite Pancetta pasta recipe or drone on about my love life.

(Note the new links in my blog roll and the shiny scarlet A, right. See also Greta Christina's rationale for including the A on her blog.)