Archive for Science

The God Virus: Darrel Ray talks in Birmingham

Best-selling US author Dr Darrel Ray will present a talk on his ideas related to his new book ‘The God Virus’. on Saturday 30th October from 1pm-4pm at the Moseley Community Development Trust, The Post Office Building. 149-153 Alcester Road, Moseley, Birmingham B13 8JP.

The God Virus: How Religion Infects Our Lives and Culture

A fast paced, humorous and engaging talk from this best-selling U.S. author. Darrel will explore “even the most sensitive areas of religious infection from sexual guilt to abstinence only, from the hypnotic techniques of ministers to music’s role in infection and how it all fits together”. Darrell will be signing copies of his book.

“Darrel Ray has made a marvelous contribution to our understanding of ourselves. The description of religion as a cultural virus is not new, Darrel is the first to put the virus on a slide and pull out the microscope. The God Virus goes beyond analogy, offering a fascinating and detailed look at the wiggling, maddening virus itself how it moves, how it survives, and how and why it continues to thrive.” Dale McGowan


Leave a comment »

July meeting in Shrewsbury

Welsh marches member Richard Burnham will give a talk to Shropshire Humanist group on the subject <em>Sceptics, deniers, believers and scientists – and climate change</em>.

He will talk about different understandings of the problem of man-made global warming (and other scientific questions). Is there a difference between a climatologist and an environmentalist, or between a ‘denier’ and a ‘sceptic’? What is a consensus? Do you ‘believe’ in science? He won’t be going into technical detail about global warming.

In the Hobbs Room at Shrewsbury Library (just inside the front entrance) on Tuesday July 13th. The library is close to the railway station and there is plenty of parking in the town.

Leave a comment »

Religion and science

by Tony Akkermans

Half a century ago my brother and I were waiting outside our RC church in my native Holland for the service to end.  We would pretend to have attended mass by claiming to have sat behind a pillar in the rearmost pew. We feared our parents, if not God.

For us the penny had dropped early. Religion was just silly nonsense wafted down from the dark ages. As teenagers we were increasingly amazed that adult people could be so gullible as to believe in bread turning into the body of Christ and similar voodoo rituals. Knowing that most of the village was still in the grip of medieval  superstition we realised that it would take a while for sanity to rise to the surface but  I remember us confidently predicting that in fifty years time enlightenment would have dawned.

And sure enough, in Western Europe at least, a lot of progress has been made. I recently returned to the place of hardship where we  juvenile apostates had stood and the poor old building looked distinctly sorry for itself. It’s once welcoming imposing front door was locked. Gone were the myriad of bicycles that used to be strewn about the building and hedges. An eerie silence reigned, broken only by the irreverent cawing of rooks nestling in the bell tower. But although religion is down, it certainly is not out.

As I grow older the mystery as to why people entering the 21st century are still able to believe in the concoctions served up by ancient desert tribes is ever deepening. Two thousand years ago religious belief was very understandable. Science was in its infancy and in their eagerness to understand, people were willing to jump to unsubstantiated conclusions. But time has moved on, mankind has had the benefit of Galileo, Einstein, Darwin, Attenborough and Dawkins.  By now we should have reached the point where amongst intelligent  people religion had become extinct. A relic of more ignorant times. If religion were restricted  to the uneducated, the gullible and, frankly, stupid then the conundrum could be solved. Educate the ignorant and leave the stupid with the comfort their religion might bring. But here is the dilemma:  research examining religious belief amongst scientists still reveals substantial percentages of believers.  Exact figures are hard to come by, but recent US surveys amongst university educated scientists  average a one in three for god belief.  As might be expected the percentage is lower for eminent scientists (members of the National Academy of Sciences).  A 1998 poll returned the much lower figure of 7 per cent confirming that the higher the calibre of science, the lower the belief in superstition.

A similar study amongst NAS scientists, held in 1914, produced a 28 per cent belief in God, showing that progress is being made. Improving trends or not, the fact remains that even in these modern, more enlightened times a substantial proportion of educated people retain adherence to a religion or a belief in a higher power. This is where we rationalists remain baffled.

What is it that sets us apart? It can’t be mere intelligence. I make no pretence to being particularly clever. On a good day in an IQ test I might score a point or two above the norm but Mensa are not beating a path to my brain. So why is it that I can readily see that it is unlikely that amongst the billions of galaxies in immeasurable space, little planet earth has been earmarked for special attention. That it is fanciful to believe that humans survive in an incorporeal state after death. That prayers have as much chance of being answered as a random throwing of the dice. That miracles and apparitions only happen when witnessed by peasant children. That nature red in tooth and claw is grotesquely incompatible with a benevolent creator. How come that people who are high achievers in certain intellectual tasks can come across as supremely naive in other fields? It must be because a crucial ingredient is missing. Defining this ingredient has been the subject of many learned and not so learned articles in freethought publications. I will venture my own attempt. To escape superstition the necessary mindset is rigorous scepticism. Particularly towards memes. Dawkins has defined memes as viruses of the mind. Beware of attitudes that result in turning baseball caps the wrong way round. Avoid bandwagon jumpers of all descriptions. People who readily adopt clichés. Sheep who run with crowds. The rationalist must stand alone, always prepared to examine the facts before coming to conclusions. But if the facts point to ignominious extinction, as they surely do, then for many people that is too much to take.  For the majority resignation in the face of one’s personal demise is one rational step too far. The emotions rise up to stifle the horrid thought. If science cannot console then something else must. So in the brain an attic door is kept ajar. It leads to a secret room of promising delight. No deep thought may enter here just pleasant notions of make-believe. Thus anaesthetised the religious go through life guiltily aware that hoping it is so doesn’t make it so but not having hope at all is simply unacceptable. So the most formidable opponent of rationalism is not theology but the pitiful frailty of the human condition. It takes a hardy soul who can contemplate oblivion with equanimity. So strongly held is comfort faith that when asked what they would do if scientists were to disprove a particular religious belief, nearly two-thirds (64%) of people say they would continue to hold to what their religion teaches rather than accept the contrary scientific finding, according to the results of an October 2006 Time magazine poll. What’s more, in a May 2007 Gallup poll, only 14% of those who say they do not believe in evolution cite lack of evidence as the main reason underpinning their views; more people cite their belief in Jesus (19%), God (16%) or religion generally (16%) as their reason for rejecting Darwin’s theory. This reliance on religious faith may help explain why so many people do not see science as a direct threat to religion. Only 28% of respondents in the same Time poll say that scientific advancements threaten their religious beliefs. These poll results also show that more than four-fifths of respondents (81%) say that “recent discoveries and advances” in science have not significantly impacted their religious views. In fact, 14% reply that these discoveries have actually made them more religious. Only 4% say that science has made them less religious.

All findings quoted here are US based. Faith surveys are common there. In Western Europe religion is in rapid decline. In Britain just 18% of the public say they are a practising member of an organised religion. Only 33% describe themselves as religious and  40% claim to believe in a god. The proportion of religious scientists is minuscule at less than 2%.

I have sympathy for religious people, even if scientists, who need invented crutches to cope with the vicissitudes of life. But for those who have had their education, done their thinking and in the cold light of day still come down on the side of revealed religion I can only feel contempt. The first rule of science is to look for evidence before reaching ones conclusions.  Scientists who suspend this basic rule when it comes to their religious convictions are not proper scientists but part timers at best.

Leave a comment »

Education, education, education

Take Action!

Children deserve balanced and thorough teaching on important topics like personal and social education, science, and beliefs and values. The BHA is asking you to help determine policy in these three important areas which are currently being debated.

Comments (3) »

Creationists crashing the Darwin party

Leave a comment »

Keep libel laws out of science

free debate
The use of the English libel laws to silence critical discussion of medical practice and scientific evidence discourages debate, denies the public access to the full picture and encourages use of the courts to silence critics. The British Chiropractic Association has sued Simon Singh for libel. The scientific community would have preferred that it had defended its position about chiropractic through an open discussion in the medical literature or mainstream media.

On 4th June 2009 Simon Singh announced that he was applying to appeal the judge’s recent pre-trial ruling in this case, in conjunction with the launch of this support campaign to defend the right of the public to read the views of scientists and writers.

Join the campaign! In a statement published on 4th June 2009, over 100 people from the worlds of science, journalism, publishing, comedy, literature and law have joined together to express support for Simon and call for an urgent review of English law of libel. Supporters include Stephen Fry, Lord Rees of Ludlow, Ricky Gervais, Martin Amis, James Randi, Professor Richard Dawkins, Penn & Teller and Professor Sir David King, former Chief Scientific Adviser to the UK Government.

Please help us with this campaign, sign the statement and ask everyone you know to sign it. With every additional 1000 names we will be sending the statement again to Government until there is a commitment and a timetable from the parties for the necessary legislation.

Click here to read more details of the background and the campaign to Keep Libel Laws out of Science.

Richard Burnham

Leave a comment »