The decline of religion

There is a post making the blogging rounds about the decline of religion and rise of non-belief amongst the younger generations. It has some interesting facts:

  • The number of secular student groups is growing rapidly.
  •   The more that people stand up and are vocal about their unbelief, the more it encourages others to do the same. As [Adam] Lee notes, “psychological experiments [find] that it’s much easier to resist peer pressure if you have even one other person standing with you.) Student activists like the ones I’ve mentioned are no longer just scattered voices in the crowd; they’re the leading edge of a wave.”
  • Atheism increases with each new generation in America.

There are links embedded within that writing. Go to the original link to see them.

The fact is, more and more people are declaring their lack of religion or even outright atheism as the years march on and younger generations come of age. This has been a distinct trend since the end of WW2: each generation of young people has more nonbelievers than the previous generation of young people. Currently we have 25-30% of people in their 20’s declaring they have no religion, a number that is four times higher than for any other period.

The originator of this blogging meme, Adam Lee, has a good idea why we’re seeing this decline in religious affiliation:

I’d love to say that we atheists did it all ourselves; I’d love to be able to say that our dazzling wit and slashing rhetorical attacks are persuading people to abandon organized religion in droves. But the truth is that the churches’ wounds are largely self-inflicted. By obstinately clinging to prejudices that the rest of society is moving beyond, they’re in the process of making themselves irrelevant. In fact, there are indications that it’s a vicious circle: as churches become less tolerant and more conservative, their younger and more progressive members depart, which makes their average membership still more conservative, which accelerates the progressive exodus still further, and so on.

I am more willing to give some of the credit to the Gnu Atheists. It isn’t that we’ve turned so many people to atheism – these numbers primarily reflect a lack of religious affiliation, not atheism – but modern atheists have helped to create an environment where it is okay to criticize religion more openly. Part of that has been due to the writings of people like Richard Dawkins and PZ Myers, but an even bigger part has to do with the rise of the Internet. Atheists don’t tend to get together very easily. We have no unifying philosophy or normative claims, so it makes things difficult. But with the Internet, it’s a matter of a simple click to a website. This has given us more of a voice, and it has made people realize there are more of us than they thought. That not only gets people thinking – I remember as a kid at a Catholic school being astonished to hear atheists even existed – but it brings more people out of the atheist closet. After all, nothing attracts a crowd like a crowd of people.

A distorted image of the police?

Apparently the Swiss and German have organized Christian police associations. They recently sent off a complaint to video game makers, signaling out one specific developer, The Darkness II:

The groups expressed concern that minors and young people were playing violent games and forming an unreasonable hatred of the police through a distorted image of who they were and what they did. They objected to financial gain through what they called “idealized violence” and called for publishers and politicians to pull out of the business in an attempt to prevent real world violence, particularly towards police officers.

“What a man soweth, that shall he also reap!” read the letter, quoting Galatians 6:7 from the Bible and adding an exclamation point for emphasis.

There are a number of ways game makers, specifically the makers of The Darkness II (2K), could counter this claim. They could point out that there is no evidence that video games make young people hate the police or turn to violence. They could also point out that shows like Cops do a heck of a job of painting police as perfect angels who virtually always catch the criminal (because we know there certainly are no fat cops out there who can easily be out run). They could even point out that while no one should hate the police, officers are human and they do make mistakes; we should always have an eye on them. But none of these tactics constitute real slap-downs. And, after all, with such a silly, paternalistic organization whining about such a silly non-issue, shouldn’t there be a discussion-ending rebuke? Something that ought to really embarrass the whiners? I think so, and that’s why I am so satisfied with their response:

“There are no police officers in the game,” replied 2K.

Health care vs health care systems

When I say the U.S. has an awful health care system, one of the most common rebuttals is to point out all our great technology. Why, anybody in the world would prefer to have a major medical procedure done in an American setting versus just about any other location. That’s true enough. Our technology is fantastic, and even though our educational system leaves much to be desired, we do have many great doctors, both those bred at home as well as those who come from abroad. But that isn’t what I mean when I talk about our health care system. I’m talking about the way we deliver care, the type of care available to the average citizen, and the cost of that care. Our technology may be wonderful, but that doesn’t mean anything if it costs us exorbitant sums to get it to the average person. Take a look at these two charts:

Of the Western nations surveyed, we spend more than anyone else. Yet in terms of efficiency, we’re ranked 17 out of 19. That’s pitiful.

via PZ.

Even more abuse of science

Roxeanne de Luca is an annoying little creature. Without even being a creationist or a Christian she manages to engage in their style of argumentation: Make a positive claim, but pretend like the burden of proof is on the opposition. Even more annoying, she attempts to claim the mantle of science (in fields in which she has no significant experience), even though the specific topic will be a subjective one that cannot be defined scientifically. I’ve written about her antics in the past.

What I’ve also written about in the past is the abuse of science. People will commonly read a study which supports something they believe, but then they will inappropriately extrapolate the evidence. For instance, Christian and other far right bigots will find studies which show that it is categorically better for children to have two parents rather than just one parent. They will then extrapolate that gay parents aren’t good for children. That is wildly inappropriate and an obvious abuse of the far more limited evidence.

But this post is about another favorite topic of the far right: abstinence. They have this cockamamie idea that teenagers can be widely prevented from having sex with each other, therefore it’s okay to keep them ignorant about birth control. We’ve been seeing the deadly effects of this thinking in Africa and to a lesser extent South America thanks to the Catholic Church concerning condoms. Unfortunately, Roxeanne reflects this sort of backward thinking. Responding to a CNN article about the worth of casual sex, she says this:

Later in the CNN article, we are told – brace yourselves, conservatives, this is a shocker – that ‘protection’ is not all its is said to be: “[T]he rate of increased use of a condom does not seem great enough to offset the higher risks of infection.”

The above quote actually has nothing to do with the effectiveness of condoms. What it is saying, just after the article points out that increased sexual partners means increased STD risk, is that more people are using condoms, but they are not using them at a high enough rate in order to combat the frequency of infection. Roxeanne not only got this one dead wrong, but she did some very minor quote-mining. Here is the full excerpt:

“The more partners an individual has,” according to “Sex in America,” “the more likely he or she is to have sex with people who themselves have many partners, the more likely he or she is to have sex with virtual strangers, the more likely she or he is to have been under the influence of drugs or alcohol during some sexual encounters, and while it is more likely that a condom was used, the rate of increased use of a condom does not seem great enough to offset the higher risks of infection.”

The obvious solution here is to encourage greater condom use while educating teens and others about their effectiveness. Abstinence is not the answer, nor has it ever been effective on a large social scale.

As I’ve mentioned in the past, I work with troubled teens. It isn’t uncommon that some of them will have kids of their own – sometimes multiple kids – even though they may only be Freshmen or Sophomores in high school. One of the reasons for this is their ignorance about condom usage. During an educational group not too long ago they were being told about the need for such protection and their reactions were along the lines of, “Oh, I never knew that. I’ll start using condoms more often now.” I actually doubt many of them will unless forced by their partner, but the fact that they genuinely didn’t have this basic knowledge is indicative of the need for broad-based educational programs and protection promotion. No one can stop kids from having sex, but we can stop them from being ignorant.

But back to Roxeanne’s inappropriate and embarrassing extrapolation. The article clearly states that the increased rate of condom use is not high enough to combat the higher risks of infection. In other words, while condoms are effective when used properly, they are not being used frequently enough. More common usage can dramatically cut down on the rates of infection, but this will only be achieved through education and safe-sex promotion. At no point is it said that condom protection “is not all its (sic) is said to be”. No one doubts the effectiveness of condoms. The problem is with the effectiveness of educational campaigns and the spread of needed knowledge. People like Roxeanne who, in a willing abuse of science, put out misleading and false information are part of the problem; their promotion of ignorance contributes to increased rates of infection and even death.

More abuse of science

It’s a common tactic for anti-gay bigots to distort science. One of their favorites ways to do so is to find studies which are limited in their scope to ‘traditional’ families, but then they take a wrecking ball to the science by pretending that they’re looking at something comparative. I documented one bigot who did just that.

But that isn’t their only tactic. So long as they can distort a scientific study in some way, they will. Take this instance of an anti-gay bigot from the Congressional hearings on the repeal of DADT.

This is common not only of Christians, but much of the conservative movement. So long as a citation is being made, they think they’ve proven their case. Who cares if their source actually contradicts what they have to say?

Bring on the danger

No more than a couple of weeks ago I found myself atop a 30 foot train trestle in a nearby town. It’s a popular spot for summer time lake jumping, but this day it had no visitors but myself and two friends. Unbeknownst to us, you see, a late afternoon thunderstorm was making its way across the region. In fact, as we followed the train tracks to the bridge, the wind began to whip up, the darkened clouds racing overhead. We knew rain was certainly on the way, probably a bit more. But we didn’t drive all that way for nothing.

Just as we set foot on the trestle, the clouds began to open. A rumble of thunder could be heard in the distance. But as three brash, young men, we accepted the challenge. After all, a 30 foot jump is no small fall, but in a thunder storm? Who could pass up the thrill? Not us.

And so one by one, we took the plunge, one of us (read: me) occasionally yelling “Boat!” as the others, no longer able to change their trajectory, jumped. And again and again we jumped. It was a complete blast, a small tempt of fate on an otherwise lazy summer day. I would do it again, always with the back-of-the-mind hope that future generations will continue the tradition. But who knows. With all these hyper-safe playgrounds we’ve been creating, that sort of courage may be on short supply:

“Children need to encounter risks and overcome fears on the playground,” said Ellen Sandseter, a professor of psychology at Queen Maud University in Norway. “I think monkey bars and tall slides are great. As playgrounds become more and more boring, these are some of the few features that still can give children thrilling experiences with heights and high speed.”

After observing children on playgrounds in Norway, England and Australia, Dr. Sandseter identified six categories of risky play: exploring heights, experiencing high speed, handling dangerous tools, being near dangerous elements (like water or fire), rough-and-tumble play (like wrestling), and wandering alone away from adult supervision. The most common is climbing heights.

“Climbing equipment needs to be high enough, or else it will be too boring in the long run,” Dr. Sandseter said. “Children approach thrills and risks in a progressive manner, and very few children would try to climb to the highest point for the first time they climb. The best thing is to let children encounter these challenges from an early age, and they will then progressively learn to master them through their play over the years.”

I happen to be just old enough to remember mildly dangerous playgrounds. It took me some time, but I would always build up to the more daring feats, progressively conquering each section and level of the park. It looks like research confirms that many other children also do this.

The first thing that went through my head, though, when reading about this was the landing areas. I remember wood chips and maybe some rubber always softening my landings. It seems to make sense and intuition says that will make things safer, but in a similar vain to what Michael Hartwell has said about driving, that may not be the case:

“There is no clear evidence that playground safety measures have lowered the average risk on playgrounds,” said David Ball, a professor of risk management at Middlesex University in London. He noted that the risk of some injuries, like long fractures of the arm, actually increased after the introduction of softer surfaces on playgrounds in Britain and Australia.

“This sounds counterintuitive, but it shouldn’t, because it is a common phenomenon,” Dr. Ball said. “If children and parents believe they are in an environment which is safer than it actually is, they will take more risks. An argument against softer surfacing is that children think it is safe, but because they don’t understand its properties, they overrate its performance.”

I would like to see statistics that divide between rubber and other materials such as wood chips, but I’m not familiar enough with the subject area to know if those exist. It is interesting, however, that kids are willing to take such risks. I think this all points to a deeper desire to explore, to make the world a little dangerous. That’s one of the things that’s exciting about life.

Still, sometimes there’s nothing quite like being 10 feet off the ground, as a new generation was discovering the other afternoon at Fort Tryon Park. A soft rubber surface carpeted the pavement, but the jungle gym of Mr. Stern’s youth was still there. It was the prime destination for many children, including those who’d never seen one before, like Nayelis Serrano, a 10-year-old from the South Bronx who was visiting her cousin.

When she got halfway up, at the third level of bars, she paused, as if that was high enough. Then, after a consultation with her mother, she continued to the top, the fifth level, and descended to recount her triumph.

“I was scared at first,” she explained. “But my mother said if you don’t try, you’ll never know if you could do it. So I took a chance and kept going. At the top I felt very proud.” As she headed back for another climb, her mother, Orkidia Rojas, looked on from a bench and considered the pros and cons of this unfamiliar equipment.

“It’s fun,” she said. “I’d like to see it in our playground. Why not? It’s kind of dangerous, I know, but if you just think about danger you’re never going to get ahead in life.”

California to teach gay history

Gov. Jerry Brown has signed into law a bill requiring California to teach gay history to its students:

“History should be honest,” Brown, a Democrat serving his second stint as California governor, said in a written statement released by his office.

The measure won final passage from the state legislature earlier this month when it passed on a 49-25 party-line vote, with Democrats in favor and Republicans opposed.

“This bill revises existing laws that prohibit discrimination in education and ensures that the important contributions of Americans from all backgrounds and walks of life are included in our history books,” Brown said. “It represents an important step forward for our state.

The law also requires that public schools teach the contributions of Pacific Islanders and the disabled.

California already mandates that schools include historical accomplishments by Native Americans, African Americans, Mexican Americans, Asian Americans and European Americans.

Of course, probably everyone who voted for it did so out of as much of an agenda as those who voted against it. One group wants to help minorities rise up while the other is fearful that their kids might catch gay. Or something like that. Either way, I don’t think those should be the biggest concerns here for either side. Instead, I think what matters is, is this good history? And will this distract from broader themes that ought to be basic knowledge for every American?

What I have often found in my work as well as general interaction with teenagers and kids is that there is a surprising level of ignorance about history. I don’t mean the sort of ignorance currently popular amongst the Bachmanns and Palins of the world. I mean the sort of ignorance that is indicative of a complete lack of familiarity with the subject. And this extends beyond anecdote. Polls of adults and tests of students show we don’t know as much as we should.

So the issue here, I think, is how much can we include in these lessons? I don’t think adding the accomplishments of Harvey Milk to the curriculum is going to take away from talking about bigger historical issues like Reconstruction or the Great Depression, but it is worth considering what is worthy of required inclusion. As interesting as so many historical issues may be, the fact is there is a time limit to these lessons and priorities need to be set. I do support this law, but I do so with some caution.

Your feminism has nothing to do with my atheism

To top things off in the elevator non-incident that feminists and PZ Myers blew out of proportion, PZ has said this:

Comments closed here, because I’ve put up with enough of the hysterical delusions of people offended by calm, nuanced, proportionate statements. It’s like the responses to those mild bus signs like “You can be good without god” that leave some people profoundly and irrationally upset. We’ve now found an analog: “guys, don’t do that.”

Nobody was offended by proportionate statements, you pissant little liar. They were offended that you and your ilk called every member of a diverse group sexist, misogynistic, and women-haters. I thought lying was below Myers, but when it comes to upping his cred amongst feminists, nothing is below him.

Oh, and drawing an analogy between atheist signs and this non-incident? Aside from the fact that Myers and others have already lied and acted like it has been “teh menz” who have made this into a big deal, feminism has nothing to do with atheism. Nothing. I’m tired of him thinking he can associate the two subjects. But then, this borders on philosophy. And as we’ve seen, Myers is to philosophy as creationists are to science.

The elevator thing again?

PZ has insisted on rehashing the elevator incident one more time. Now he has two more things to be wrong about:

Let’s stop the shouting that Richard Dawkins is some kind of raving misogynist. What’s happened here is that he is at some remove from all of the details, and this issue got blown up by lunatics who felt their manhood threatened and who exaggerated the situation to an absurd degree. I think he is wrong, but what he was arguing against was a cartoon of feminism which far too many people have been peddling on the blogs.

No one is about to doubt the intelligence of PZ Myers, but to be such a condescending little prick to someone like Richard Dawkins is risible. Dawkins is not “at some remove” from anything. He had access to the video. He used details provided in that video when he wrote about it. If he’s short on any detail it’s only insofar as everyone else who wasn’t on that elevator is short on detail. Including PZ.

The second place where PZ is wrong is where he pretends that it’s been those who disagree with Rebecca Watson that have been blowing this out of proportion. Go take a look at the comments on all the blogs, including Pharyngula. It hasn’t been the dissent that started drawing connections with rape and deep-seated misogyny. No, what has happened here is that everyone except caricature feminists has been saying that the elevator guy made a bad move, he should have been paying better attention, but we don’t know what his intentions were. It would be no surprise if he hoped for something sexual, but all he did was ask Watson for coffee in his room, which was in the general direction they were already heading. As Dawkins said, “zero bad” happened here.

What I find really interesting about this is PZ’s defense of Dawkins. If any non-celebrity male said the exact same thing, there would be zero defense from PZ. And he knows it. If anything, he would join in the chorus of feminists who portray those who disagree with the Designated Feminist Position as women haters who are against first and second wave feminism. As I’ve said elsewhere, it is that sort of reaction – and we all know it’s a common one – that leads to Internet feminists being seen as caricatures. This isn’t some big crazy patriarchal conspiracy. (No, really, I swear. It isn’t my penis talking.) Overreacting to minor situations (or even non-situations, as is the case here) is why so many third wave feminists get portrayed as cartoons.

You can’t blame this one on men.

Why I am happy Casey Anthony was found not guilty

I told myself I wouldn’t get involved in this Casey Anthony business. And I was pretty successful for quite some time. It wasn’t until just a few weeks ago that I knew she was on trial for killing her daughter. And even then it was an accident for me to find that out. But I told myself no!, no more! (Chew on that punctuation.) The only reason the national media cares is because she’s young, pretty, and white. Far more horrible trials happen all the time and they don’t get a tenth of the coverage. Goodness forbid Anthony was wealthy, too. But then the deluge of Facebook status updates actually got me interested. I’m a little embarrassed.

What caught my eye was an update that questioned why people should be upset about this. After all, the case was almost all circumstantial. Take a look at the evidence. Sure, this blog is hardly a court of law, but from what the general public can know, that looks like a weak case. The prosecution couldn’t even discern the way in which Caylee died. We can all convict the mother in our minds, but the evidence just wasn’t there.

But that isn’t why I’m happy she was found not guilty. I’m pleased with the verdict because she didn’t take the stand. As I always say, don’t talk to the cops. That includes talking on the stand – unless advised by a lawyer. Anthony and her legal team recognized that the prosecution was weak, so it wasn’t necessary to defend herself personally.

On the other hand, I am also pleased with the counts on which she was found guilty. In each case she talked to the police. If she was dumb enough to do that, especially with such transparent lies, she deserved to be found guilty. The jury made the right decision because Anthony made the wrong ones.