Radio Freethinker

Vancouver's Number 1 Skeptical Podcast and Radio Show

  • Welcome to Radio Freethinker!

    Radio Freethinker is a radio show/podcast that promotes skepticism, critical thinking, and secular issues.
  • Follow Us!

  • Categories

  • Archives

Posts Tagged ‘education’

Radio Freethinker Episode 210 – Election Issues Edition

Posted by Don McLenaghen on May 7, 2013

7862981

This week:
- Masturbate-a-thon,
- Quitting Skepticism,

- The mother of all languages
, and
- BC Election 2013 – the issues,

Download the episode here!

——————————————————————————————————————–

Masturbate-a-thon

CSC_Herme_Masturbate-a-Thon_Logo_Original_for_WikiWho’d a thunk it, but May is (Inter)National Masturbation Month. A whole month dedicated to the one love you can always count on.

Find out more:

Quitting Skepticism

skepticism-from-no-apologies-allowedMore inter-skeptic warfare has created another rift in the movement. Isn’t this old news? Old fights?

Find out more:

The mother of all languages

Cavemen-SpeakingNew language modeling point a super-mother tongue for us all.

Find out more:

BC Election 2013 – the issues

dix 14BC-Liberals-Positive-Commercial-What are the issues and what do the two main parties have to say about them? We cover Education, the Economy, Healthcare and the Environment.
Find out more:

————————————————-

Skeptic Highlights

Women in Science

H.R. MacMillan Space Centre

Thursday, May 9, 7:00 pm

Finding Your Path to Engineering and Science: From Taxidermy to Robots – Maxime Chin

Maxime will share how she achieved an Animal Biology degree and a Mechanical Engineering degree and how they helped shape both her career and personal endeavours. Drawing on experiences from high school, university, co-op work placements, and as a recent UBC graduate, she will discuss how a passion for these fields can be a springboard into academics, leadership and community involvement.

Imagine no Religion 3

The annual atheist skeptic conference in Kamloops is happening this May. It features a line up of speakers including Dan Dennett, Richard Carrier, Chris DiCarlo, Taslima Nasreen and more. I encourage you to register now.

When: May 17 to 19
Where: Kamloops Coast Hotel and Convention Centre, Kamloops
Cost: $349.00
LinkEvent Link Here

Posted in Show notes | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Saturday Stub: American High Schooler’s Still Find History Boring

Posted by Ethan Clow on June 18, 2011

No, I’m not stealing an article from The Onion. Rather, I’m voicing my long standing suspicion that students who do poorly in history do so, in part, because they find history extremely boring.The reason they find it boring? It’s not challenging, its not intellectually stimulating, and it doesn’t require any critical thinking.

According to an article in the Wall Street Journal, students have failed to improve in the area of history since 2006 when the National Assessment of Educational Progress tests were issued four years ago, and now, after the 2010 test, they are still abysmally low.

Here are some shocking statistics from the article:

“Fewer than a quarter of American 12th-graders knew China was North Korea’s ally during the Korean War, and only 35% of fourth-graders knew the purpose of the Declaration of Independence”

and

“The news was even more dire in high school, where 12% of 12th-graders were proficient, unchanged since 2006. More than half of all seniors posted scores at the lowest achievement level, “below basic.” While the nation’s fourth- and eighth-graders have seen a slight uptick in scores since the exam was first administered in 1994, 12th-graders haven’t.”

I was pleasently surprised to see the scores of minority students has increased. In the fourth and eighth grades, Hispanic fourth-graders jumped to 198 last year, versus 175 in 1994, African-American eighth graders saw an improvement to 250 points from 238 in 1994. This is a very important development. Traditionally, history in American was often taught from a very biased position that gave students of white, European ancestry, a significant advantage. And when I say “significant advantage” I mean, a privileged place in history.  All the white students got to read about hero’s like George Washington and Thomas Jefferson, while black students heard about how Lincoln freed the slaves and Native American students heard about how the “Indian savages”  were conquered civilized by the colonials.

I’ve spoken in the past about the dangerous of turning historic figures into comic book hero’s.

Getting back to the Wall Street Journal article, I had some interesting conversations about this with some friends. Unlike science or math or other subjects, history is rather unique in the way you learn it. On the one hand, you have the raw knowledge of historic fact, when the war of 1812 was fought, that Lincoln was shot on April 15, 1865, and that Germany invaded Poland in 1939. On the other hand you have the critical thinking and historic analysis skill set which you use to understand the significance of historic events.

Unfortunately, the study of history is suffering. I doubt students in Canada are much better either. Sadly the teaching of history has become two segregated forms. In one form, taught at high schools, students are given a series of facts (sometimes you can only loosely attach the word ‘fact’) for which they are to regurgitate on command. The other form is taught in universities and its under siege. This form is all about establishing a method for analyzing historic fact. It’s about learning to adapt critical thinking to understand the past. As I said, this in under siege. I’ve also spoken of the ludicrousness of post-modernism, I won’t go into it here.

I wish teachers and policy makers would realize this is a problem and try to do something about it.

Posted in Blogs, Ethan's Blogs | Tagged: , , , , , , | 3 Comments »

Saturday Stub: Monkeys in Tennessee

Posted by Ethan Clow on April 9, 2011

A couple weeks ago I blogged about a new bill in Texas called HB 2454, the bill was being presented to the Texas House of Representatives by Republican State representative Bill Zedler. The bill would make it easier to teach creationism in Texas Universities by preventing “discrimination” by said universities against professors who decide to teach creationism.

Now the state of Tennessee has passed a pro-creationist bill of its own. House Bill 368 the bill requires educational authorities to

“Create an environment within public elementary and secondary schools that encourages students to explore scientific questions, learn about scientific evidence, develop critical thinking skills, and respond appropriately and respectfully to differences of opinion about controversial issues;”

Doesn’t sound so bad, but it also states that educational authorities are forbidden to

“prohibiting any teacher in a public school system of this state from helping students understand, analyze, critique, and review in an objective manner the scientific strengths and scientific weaknesses of existing scientific theories covered in the course being taught, such as evolution and global warming”

Sounds pretty anti-science, but also pretty wasteful. Does not the teaching of science on its own encourage the development of critical thinking skills? Must a seperate bill be passed to encourage such teaching?

The sponsor of HB 368, Republican Bill Dunn, claimed that teaching “intelligent design” would not be protected under this bill. However, its chief lobbyist, David Fowler of the Family Action Council of Tennessee, claimed otherwise in an article he wrote for the website Chattanoogan.


In 1925, John Washington Butler introduced the Butler Act in Tennessee that prevented the teaching of evolution. John Scopes, a biology teacher was charged under this act in what became the famous Scopes Monkey Trial, it was a profound moment in American history with long lasting repercussion in the arena of science, education and religion. HB 368 is another chapter in this long conflict between science and religion. But the language has changed. Now, fundamentalists are cloaking their attempts to stifle science with words of science. They encourage students to ” explore scientific questions, learn about scientific evidence, develop critical thinking skills and respond appropriately and respectfully to differences of opinion about controversial issues” (empathasis mine)

How should we respond to scientific questions? How should we respond to scientific evidence? Good questions, should we get angry? Should we get informed? What is the appropriate response? Who defines appropriate in this case?

Of course, they’re only differences of opinion, you say tomato, I say tomahto, right? Science is just one way of looking at the world, equally valid as, say, reading the bible? Right?

And of course, evolution is a controversial issue, right? It’s not like the vast majority of biological science is based on the theory of evolution and that every respectable and established scientific intuition in the world, relying on empirical evidence and repeated testing, hasn’t confirmed it to be one of the most consistently proven scientific tenets?

That’s what I thought.

Posted in Blogs, Ethan's Blogs | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Why Celebrate the War of 1812?

Posted by Ethan Clow on March 28, 2011

Last week on the show I rained on the parade discussed the recent announcement that the Conservative government is planning to spend $100 million on War of 1812 bicentennial. Of course in the meantime the Conservative government has fallen on a vote of no confidence and now we don’t know for sure who will be in power next year. Nevertheless, I think the discussion of celebrating the bicentennial of the War of 1812 is still worthwhile.

What will $100 million be spent on? According to the article, the commemoration will include re-enactments of famous battles, the repair of monuments and plaques, a new visitor centre at Fort York in Toronto, a documentary, a national essay-writing competition and a dedicated website.

According to spokespeople for the Conservative government, the War of 1812 is an important part of Canadian history and yet many Canadians are not informed on the history of the war.

The government is also considering how to reach out to new immigrants and make the bicentennial mean something to them. One proposal is to tell the story of 1812 using puppets accompanied by south-east Asian music. This begs the question, why do they think Asian people will be fascinated by puppets?

So is the war of 1812 important?

In 1812, America declared war on the British Empire. The reasons for war included a desire for expansion into the Northwest Territory, trade restrictions because of Britain’s ongoing war with France, impressment of American merchant sailors into the Royal Navy, British support of American Indian tribes against American expansion, and the humiliation of American honour. The main grievance being expansion into the west and impressment – which was essentially conscription into the navy, only the British would stop any ship and if it had any British citizens on it they would force them into the Navy. The problem was the British Empire didn’t recognize American citizens as non-British so they would be conscripted as well.

What makes this war important for our perspective was that the battle ground was North America with both limited and temporary invasions of Canada and the United States. From an American and Canadian point of view, it was a very important conflict, but of lesser importance to Britain as during part of the war, they were still fighting Napoleon in Europe.

How did the war go? Neither side was particularly prepared for war. The British favoured a defensive strategy since most of their forces were fighting Napoleon in Europe. America had a small army at the time (around 12,000) and tried to expand that to 30,000 which resulted in a number of poorly trained and hastily assembled forces.

On July 12, 1812, General William Hull led an invading American force of about 2500 untrained, poorly equipped militia across the Detroit River and occupied the Canadian town of Sandwich (now a neighbourhood of Windsor, Ontario)

Isaac Brock, nicknamed The Hero of Upper Canada prepared a force to meet the Americans. Because of problems he had getting militia to volunteer, he didn’t tell them they were marching to a battle. He managed around 900 militia. (although close to half deserted)

He eventually raised a force of about 1300, a combination of British forces and militia and Six Nations Warriors. (about 400 volunteers, about 7% of the eligible militia in Upper Canada.) The American forces retreated back across the Detroit River and then further abandoned the town of Detroit when Brock pursued them.

Several months later, the U.S. launched a second invasion of Canada, this time at the Niagara peninsula. On October 13, U.S. forces were again defeated at the Battle of Queenston Heights, where General Brock was killed.

After 1814, Napoleon was defeated and the British launched a series of large scale attacks on America that all ended in defeat. However by this point, most of the fighting was done on American soil or at sea.

Among other things, the war provided some cultural boons, including the American national anthem the “Star Spangled Banner” was written in response to the defence of Baltimore. It’s said that a national identity emerged in Canada, we shall see. In addition, the British realized they couldn’t defend Canada in another war, which would impact future relations.

So it’s clearly an important historical event that Canadians should be aware of and understand. But, this leads to some important questions.

Should the war be celebrated?

Should any war be celebrated? That’s more a philosophical question that can’t really be answered. However, in this case, as long as that celebration is primarily about education and not imperialism, it would seem worth it.

You have two elements to potentially celebrate. There’s the educational aspect of this war, looking back on colonial life and relations with the various Indian tribes, the cultural development of the colonies etc.

But there’s also the celebration that generally ignores the history and focuses on Imperialism and what I like to characterize as the masking of British history/culture as Canadian. What I mean by that is taking a largely British conflict and pretending it was Canadian. This is a symptom of a far larger issue in Canada where celebrating “Canadian culture” usually involves a rejection of “American culture” in favour of “British culture.”

At the time, many “Canadians” (those living in Upper Canada) were not interested in war and wanted nothing to do with it. This is an important issue but will this celebration be about education or imperialism? Or to re-phrase that, will the history get accurately portrayed or is this an excuse to get all patriotic and have a collective rah-rah?

One of the big on-going debates is how large a role the Canadian militia played in the combat. Many Canadians are under the impression that the Canadian militia accomplished an amazing feat by defeating the professional army of the United States and even burned Washington DC.

In reality, the Canadian militia was around 14,000 compared to the 50,000+ British forces. In reality, the suggestion that the Canadian militia was primarily responsible for repelling the American invasion is historic fiction.

The Militia myth was popularized by people like Egerton Ryerson (father of the Ontario school system) in 1880. He compared the Canadian militia to the Spartans fighting the Persians. Such a statement is generally considered to be ancestor worship on the part of Canadians.

The records indicated that historians of this time relied on public pronouncements from wartime officials apparently unaware that they were getting propaganda.  When you distil the war down to a very basic narrative that a colony defended by less than 2000 troops regularly defeated several American armies. Of course it sounds like a great victory for the Canadians.

Since then, several modern historians have however weighed in and stated that it was the British army which was responsible for saving the colony, not the militia.

When determining who won this war, which surely is an important issue in the bicentennial. Anti-climatically, it’s really hard to decide who actually won this war, the British had 1,600 killed in action and 3,679 wounded, another 3,321 British died from disease.

The Americans had 2,260 killed in action and 4,505 wounded.

Neither side achieved any of its objectives for the war, except, that the British succeeded in keeping the Canadian colonies. Most historians consider the war a stalemate or a very minor British victory.

However, everyone is quite in agreement who the losers were. The Native peoples in North America suffered heavy losses, lost land, influence, and any chance of an autonomous state. In both countries Natives either lost their land to settlers or were forcibly removed.

If the bicentennial accurately represents the history and shines some new attention on the myths about this war, it might be worth it. If not, and it just reinforces misconceptions, then it’s a waste of money and intellectually dishonest.

One of the lasting consequences was the creation of the Canadian militia myth, which as I’ve explained has the context of making Canadians think the militia defeated the American armies and not the British, but it also had an effect of convincing Canadians at the time and for many years after that Canada did not need a standing army.

The notion being that Canada could rely on patriotism to rally its citizens to take up arms and didn’t need to invest in any real defence forces. In reality this was a clear misunderstanding of Canadian military history. The majority of volunteers in the militia in 1812 weren’t very pleased to be fighting. The majority of Upper Canadians tried many tactics to be excused from military service.

However the notion of a willing and waiting population persisted, arguably, until after the First World War.

One of the common conceptions about the War of 1812 is that it fostered a new national identity and patriotism in Canada. Indeed, this is part of goal of the bicentennial. But did the war really have that effect?

In reality war was a freighting concept to most Canadians, few wanted anything to do with it. Because of the already existing divides in race, background, religion, distance and culture, there wasn’t much unity within the colonies at all. And during the war, these differences only intensified. There was frequent disagreement between the British soldiers and the militia, who resented each other. There was wide spread pillaging and significant tension between the white settlers and Indian fighters.

After the war, the long term economic results bread a lot of contempt and there was the frequent issue of back pay for the militia. Other disputes like war loses, pensions, land grants for veterans, American immigration, caused significant problems for the post war period.

One myth was that the new shared national identity was what led to the union of Upper and Lower Canada, in reality it was the economic bankruptcy which led to the union.

Now that I’ve sufficiently rained on that parade, I can say that I fully endorse celebrations that focus on history and encourage people to learn more about the history of the world.

Jerk

 

Sources:

The Incredible War of 1812: A Military History by Donald E. Graves

Soldiers of the King: The Upper Canadian Militia 1812 to 1815 by William Gray

Plunder, Profit, and Paroles: A social history of the war of 1812 in Upper Canada by George Sheppard

 

Posted in Blogs, Ethan's Blogs | Tagged: , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

A Saskatchewan Science Centre is Haunted?…Oops, I Mean I don’t Believe in Ghosts

Posted by Ethan Clow on November 4, 2010

It’s kind of funny to watch a media stunt backfire and an organization completely backtrack in an effort to save what little integrity they had left.  Such is the case with the Saskatchewan Science Centre.

The way it should be

October 28th, the Saskatchewan Science Centre FRESH Blog published a poor attempt to cash in on the Halloween season by suggestion the SSC was haunted. The article in question, called Ghost stories from the Science Centre has been the topic some discussion in skeptical circles recently.

The entry is chalk full of excellent demonstrations of critical thinking like this one

“there is a lot of stuff about our world that we don’t know about and don’t understand. So, who knows. Besides, who doesn’t love a good ghost story?”

The piece was a pathetically disguised attempt to draw attention to a lame publicity stunt by the science centre in time for Halloween, accompanied by fake spider webs and plastic skulls that look like they belonged in a Pirates of the Caribbean movie.

The frustrating aspect of this is that a science centre is supposed to instil an understanding of science and critical thinking in the youth. Not bore them with carnival style haunted houses. Many of the commenter’s were echoing that point on the blog post comments.

What I find amazing is how this post exemplifies all the problems with ghost stories (and coming from a Science Centre just makes it worse)

There’s the logical fallacy of Ad ignorantiam. Just because something is not known, doesn’t imply the supernatural. In this case its “science can’t explain everything so therefore ghosts are real!”

In addition to logical fallacies, there’s a huge issue with evidence. Everything the author mentions is either anecdotal (it happened to a friend who told her) It’s actually a great example of what NOT to believe. The tales that are supposed to suggest ghostly encounters sound more like mundane things like overworked employees, kids with active imaginations and faulty electronics.

Then of course there’s the lame justification for why the SSC must be haunted. The article mentions how old the building is.

Saskatchewan Science Centre

“I don’t know much about it, yet, but I do know it was built a long time ago (1914) and it used to be the powerhouse of the city. A big old industrial building? Sounds like the perfect place for a haunting.”

So okay, it’s a bad article and it shouldn’t have been written. Now is it fair to rake them over the coals for it though? Obviously they were just trying to draw people in for Halloween. The answer is yes. We must rake them over the coals because this is a Science Centre, not a Woo-Woo Centre.

Attempting to score attention by spinning ghost stories completely undermines the mission of such a facility. Teaching children science and critical thinking is their top priority. Instilling in them the ability to understand the natural world and not have to rely on superstition and magical thinking to explain the goings on of the world. In this, they have failed.

And there are so many other ways for the science centre to take advantage of the season. Do an exhibit on the science of fear, explain the evolutionary psychology behind fear. Or if you must stick with ghosts, challenge your visitors to decipher the mysteries. Teach them the critical thinking skills needed to navigate such stories and inventions.

That’s what I suggested on Radio Freethinker episode 87. Perhaps they were listening, because no sooner had we raised our hands in complaint, the Science Centre was backtracking.

In a hilariously flip-flopping post called “The Science of Ghosts” the author goes on to say

“I don’t believe in ghosts and never have, and I sure hope you don’t either.”

Really? I think my skepticism in this case is justified given what she wrote the other week. Although she does make a  point of saying

“But, I still enjoy a good ghost story… in an old building with lots of electrical inefficiencies.”

Frankly I suspect they were overwhelmed by the negative response to their dumb joke article and in an effort to overcompensate for their lack of critical thinking they go out of their way to mention some key skeptical points and players.

They link to an article by Richard Wiseman called Ghosts ‘all in the mind’ and suggests that you follow Richard Wiseman on twitter. They also link to a article by Benjamin Radford called The Shady Science of Ghost Hunting which is all about, you guessed it, ghost hunting.

Finally, to utterly crush our doubts on their skeptical cred, they post two TED Talks by Michael Shermer.

Slam dunk folks. But while this is kind of humorous, it’s also pretty sad. The fact that such a place, a science centre could totally mishandle such a basic situation leaves me wondering. It’s a fun vindication for skeptics but the problem never should have arose in the first place. Hopefully this is a lesson well learned by the SSC, do not take the intelligence of your supporters for granted. Stick to the science and leave the woo to the con artists.

Posted in Blogs, Ethan's Blogs | Tagged: , , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Creationist Clashes in British Columbia

Posted by Ethan Clow on October 29, 2010

(Cross posted on Skeptic North)

Recently a creationists, one Dr. Jonathan Sarfati, (his PhD is in chemistry) has been touring in British Columbia speaking on the subject of evolution. The title of his talk is “Evolution: The Greatest Hoax on Earth” which is his way of suggesting that he can refute the claims made by Richard Dawkins in his latest book “The Greatest Show on Earth.”

My esteemed co-hosts and I on Radio Freethinker discussed this event on our most recent episode, and my friend the Crommunist blogged about it over at Canadian Atheist.

Dr. Sarfati, the founder of Creation Ministries International is a Christian apologist who believes in the literal truth of the bible and specifically biblical creationism. For those that don’t know, creationism is the belief that life on earth arose according to the accounts in Genesis (Earth created in 7 days and 10,000 years ago) and not through the process of evolution (a billion year process of natural selection)

As far as creationists go, he has nothing new to say nor is he particularly good at delivering his message.

Why this warrants a blog post is that when skeptics in Vancouver and abroad learned that he intended to deliver his speech at the University of British Columbia as well as several other important venues across the province, many of us were concerned.  We decided it would be prudent to set up an evolution information booth at the event so that attendee’s would be able to get some actual science content instead of Christian dogma.

In Vancouver, our biggest concern was that he was speaking at a university. By nature of the university itself (dedication to research, facts, honesty, education) we felt this lent Dr. Sarfati undue credibility. You can read an article about Dr. Sarfati’s talk at UBC in the Ubyssey, the campus newspaper, although it makes no mention of the pro-evolution contingent at the lecture.

Getting a booth proved difficult. Fortunately persistence paid off and CFI Vancouver, the UBC Freethinkers and the UBC Biology department teamed up to put together some evolution literature and experts at hand to properly explain the science.

Sarfati was also doing talks in Surrey later that day but unfortunately we were unable to get an information booth for that talk. We suspect having the support of the UBC Biology department made our request more likely to be accepted at UBC, however his speaking engagement in Surrey wasn’t in a university but a private venue.

We set up our booth outside his lecture and had many people come up to us to see what we were about. It was actually quite successful, many students who didn’t have a background in science came over to us and eagerly asked questions, which our biology experts were all too happy to answer. We had several science, skeptic and evolution books which people were encouraged to leaf through and look at.

When time came for the talk we took some seats inside and took notes. However, as I mentioned, this was a farce of a lecture, even by creationist standards.

I mentioned on Radio Freethinker that Dr. Sarfati was a clown. I of course realize that’s an ad hominem but it’s very apt. He began his lecture by stating that scientists like Dawkins have different starting assumptions when it comes to biology, Dr. Sarfati has the bible, and Dawkins has Darwin. (Neglecting to mention that while Sarfati begins with the assumption that the bible is literal truth, Dawkins doesn’t believe Darwin to be gospel.)

Sarfati also has some interesting views on science itself. He suggests that it was born out Christianity, which explains why Western Christendom was so advanced. (The Dark Ages weren’t really all that dark, he assured the audience.) He further explained that believing in evolution would lead to moral bankruptcy and ultimately atheism (which was very bad)

Aside from the fact that his historical interpretation of the history of science and Christianity is completely wrong, his understanding of how science works also seems completely off base.

His evidence for why evolution can’t possibly be true is staggeringly silly. Consider his case against fossils, which can’t exist because “what happens when a fish dies? Look at your goldfish, it floats!” How could it get to the bottom of the ocean to fossilize? He questions enthusiastically. Throw out your Origin of the Species, everyone!

Of course he also argues that life is simply too irreducibly complex to happen by chance. After all, if things look designed, they must be!

He takes particular exception to the notion of life emerging from non-living components. To illustrate the absurdity of this, he asks the audience what would happen if you put a frog in a blender and added energy? He shows a slide of a blender with frog goop and says “this is what happens when you add energy, not in a million years is a frog going to hop out of that mess.”

He repeatedly hammered that evolution doesn’t “add information” it only results in life becoming more specialized and therefore couldn’t possibly be true. As most creationists do, he constructs a straw man argument and proceeds to knock it down. He really wanted us to understand that mutations are not adding information, “after all” he explains, “most mutations do stupid things like giving a bulldog a smushed nose.” And who wants a smushed nose?

When it came time to answer questions he wasn’t particularly interested in hearing counter arguments. Rather belligerently he would shout down anyone who raised a critical question. Any time a biology professor asked something he would make some comment on them indoctrinating students into atheism.

His obnoxious attitude was so aggressively aimed at the sciences that I was shocked by the way several audience members who weren’t skeptics reacted. Many cheered as Dr. Sarfati lambasted biology professors for teaching evolution and brainwashing innocent young people who come to learn about the natural world. Not only was this insulting to the professors, but several biology students found it offensive as well. There was one protracted argument between Dr. Sarfati and a student that sounded like a school yard dispute then scholarly discourse. Over the course of the question period several skeptics end up walking out in frustration. I don’t blame them, I’ve never actually seen someone so obnoxious.

His demurer didn’t improve. He would later visit the University of British Columbia’s Okanagan campus. Alas, there were more skeptics there too.

CFI Okanagan and the UBCO Skeptics also set out to ask some probing questions of Dr. Sarfati.

He was not pleased to say the least. Several skeptics in Kelowna decide to wear t-shirts saying “Creationism: a Philosophy of Ignorance.” He was further incensed when skeptics tried to ask some critical questions. Unlike in Vancouver where the audience was roughly evenly divided between skeptics and creationists, in Kelowna the skeptics were definitely in the minority. At one point a philosophy professor was even threatened with a head lock by a creationist in the audience when he pointed out some of Dr. Sarfati’s logical fallacies.

His respectability metre went down even further when he made some racially insensitive remarks following his lecture that left several CFI Okanagan members justly shocked.

Some would characterize Dr. Sarfati as the fish in the barrel. I think that’s a mistake. About 1/3rd of the audience at UBC was sympathetic to his point and more so at UBCO. Where we should be concerned is that this guy isn’t even a good speaker! His arguments by creationist standards are bad! And he’s a jerk too! The point being, if someone this poorly informed is allowed to direct the conversation on evolution in universities, skeptics may find themselves in a difficult position down the road where they occupy a small minority in lecture halls where creationism and evolution are taught as two legitimate theories of biology and any attempt to criticize this bizarre scenario results in the threat of a head lock. A head lock that encompasses all forms of rational discourse, scientific inquiry and public education.

 

Posted in Blogs, Ethan's Blogs | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment »

Are Atheists Smarter? Do they just know more?

Posted by Ethan Clow on October 7, 2010

A recent study conducted by the Pew Forum in the United States has shown that atheists and other non-believers are more knowledgeable than believers when it comes to religion. We discussed it on episode 83 of Radio Freethinker, you should listen if you haven’t, it was fun.

The study was conducted by the Pew Forum, a neat little organization that does a lot of research into the religious of the United States. Check out their actual study here. In addition, the Pew Forum released a shorter version that you can take yourself, check it out here.

The story has provoked quite a bit of discussion around the internet and it has several people asking some interesting questions. Namely, are atheists smarter than religious people? That debate is on-going, you may remember this story a while back.

I think asking whether atheists are smarter than religious people is the wrong way to approach this latest study by the Pew Forum. First, you have to define a reasonable way to measure intelligence, and of course come up with a method that accounts for all the variables that influence intelligence. A more reasonable question is not to do with intelligence but knowledge. Specifically, why do non believers know more about religions than the religious?

Before we dive into the debate, we should take a closer look at the study in question.  It was a nationwide poll conducted from May 19 through June 6, 2010, among 3,412 Americans age 18 and older, on landlines and cell phones, in English and Spanish. People were asked 32 questions on general knowledge religion, Jews, Mormons and atheists/agnostics were oversampled to allow analysis of these relatively small groups. (according to the Pew Forum website)

The groups asked questions included Atheists/Agnostics, Jewish, Mormon, White evangelical Protestant, White Catholic, White Mainline Protestant, Nothing in particular, Black protestant, and Hispanic Catholic.

The three highest were Atheists/agnostics at 20.9, Jewish at 20.5 and Mormon at 20.3 The three lowest were Hispanic Catholic at 11.6, Black Protestant at 13.4, and Nothing in Particular at 15.2

Atheists/Agnostics and Jewish scored particularly well on questions relating to world religions and religion in public life.

Mormon and white Evangelical protestants scored the best on the Bible and Christianity.

There were some shocking results as well. 45% of Catholics in the United States do not know that their church teaches that the bread and wine used in Communion do not merely symbolize but actually become the body and blood of Christ.

53% Protestants cannot correctly identify Martin Luther as the person whose writings and actions inspired the Protestant Reformation.

And only 47% Americans know that the Dalai Lama is Buddhist.

There were some interesting results when it comes to teaching religion in schools. 89% correctly know that teachers are not allowed to lead public school classes in prayer. But among the questions most often answered incorrectly is whether public school teachers are permitted to read from the Bible as an example of literature. Additionally, just 36% of the public knows that comparative religion classes may be taught in public schools. Together, this block of questions suggests that many Americans think the constitutional restrictions on religion in public schools are tighter than they really are.

So what is the major factor in religions knowledge? The survey suggests that educational attainment – how much schooling an individual has completed – is the single best predictor of religious knowledge.

College graduates get nearly eight more questions right on average than do people with a high school education or less.

Other significant factors include how much participation in religion one does. Reading scripture, attending regular religious service, discussing religion with family and friends. Also increasing knowledge is a pervious background in religious youth groups and further, those who attended private schools. Although those who attended private religious school score no better than those who attended a private nonreligious school.

When it comes to education, Jews and atheists/agnostics have high levels of educational attainment on average, which partially explains their performance on the religious knowledge survey. However, even after controlling for levels of education and other key demographic traits (race, age, gender and region), significant differences in religious knowledge persist among adherents of various faith traditions. Atheists/agnostics, Jews and Mormons still have the highest levels of religious knowledge. Why? What is it about certain religions or lack thereof that would account for knowing more?

Perhaps one answer is that some religions are inheritably more conservative when it comes to learning about other religions. And/or if people already believe their religion is right, they might not feel any need to learn about other religions. This might also be the case for one’s own religion. If they are very confident in their belief, they may not bother to read further into their own cannon. Of course, there might be a huge percentage of believers who simply phone it in. They go to church and occasionally pray but they don’t read their holy texts or engage with the material any more than they have to.

When education and other demographic traits are held equal, whites score better than minorities on the survey’s religious knowledge questions, men score somewhat better than women, and people outside the South score better than Southerners. Which would probably suggest some sort of economic and or cultural factor at play.

In addition to questions about religious knowledge, the survey included nine general knowledge questions (on history, politics, science and literature) for comparison purposes. These show, for example, that about six-in-ten Americans can name the vice president of the United States (59%) and understand that lasers do not work by focusing sound waves (60%). More than seven-in-ten (72%) correctly associate Susan B. Anthony with the movement to give women the right to vote, while just 42% know that Herman Melville was the author of the novel Moby Dick.

In addition to this study, if listeners hearken back to Episode 54, we discussed a survey by the Pew Forum on which religious group had the richest members. When I started reading their latest on knowledge, I wondered if there would be any correlation between wealth and knowledge.

If you recall, the wealthiest were Jews who had close to %46 of their members in the $100,000+ range. Followed closely by the Hindus at 43% of their members in the $100,000+ range. The religion with the highest percentage of members in the lowest income level were historically black churches.

Now the Jews and Hindu’s having the most wealthy members the study suggested it was linked with education. Which is also synced with the recent study of religious knowledge.

Interestingly enough, the study indicates that 31% of those with less than a high school education are part of a evangelical Protestant denomination. Which is interesting because white evangelical protestants were the 4th most knowledgeable group.

Catch up on what I wrote about that poll here.

Why else would Atheists know more about religion than believers? Clearly education and affluence in society plays a role. But another possibility suggested by the study is that atheists often come from religious backgrounds. For them, switching to non-belief is a long drawn out process that requires a lot of thought and scrutiny. People who are trying to understand faith and unbelief will typically dive into religious cannon to try to figure out what they really believe.

They also suggest that atheists often have strong moral convictions about their non-belief and tend to do more research to either justify or understand what they’re rejecting.

Typical of most de-religiousification, there is often a lot of learning. It doesn’t usually happen over night. Many believers might be rapidly religious to cover their own doubts. They engross themselves with all the details in a effort to sway doubts only to ultimately come to the conclusion that they are non-believers.

I’ve heard from many atheists that one of the reasons they stopped believing was because they became dissatisfied with organized religions answers to moral questions. In order to understand those answers, they most likely had to do a lot of research.

It’s a very fascinating question, and I’d love to hear some more theories.

In addition to discussing this topic on the show, I came up with 5 more difficult questions to quiz my co-hosts. Here’s what I asked, how well did you do?

1. What is the name of Job’s wife?

A: Trick question, she’s never named.

Don – wrong

Daniel – wrong

Chloe – wrong

2. In which book of the bible do the 4 horsemen of the apocalypse appear?

A: Book of Revelations

Don – wrong

Daniel – wrong

Chloe – right

3. What is the weapon most often associated with Shiva?

A: Trident

Don – wrong

Daniel -wrong

Chloe -wrong

4. Which form of Buddhism does the “Flower Sermon” associate with?

A: Zen Buddhism.

Don – wrong

Daniel  - wrong

Chloe – wrong

5.  One of the first documented instances of monotheism occurred in Egypt in the 14th century BCE, what was the name of the god they worshipped?

A: Aten

Don – right

Daniel – wrong

Chloe – wrong

Posted in Blogs, Ethan's Blogs | Tagged: , , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Teaching the Climate debate?

Posted by Don McLenaghen on July 19, 2010

We have talked on the show many times about what we call the inappropriate inclusion into the science classes ‘theories’ that are either non-scientific or proven wrong. Mostly we talk about Creationism or Intelligent <chuckle> design but we have also at times included Holocaust denial, flat earth believers, and social racism. I have recently heard of a new movement headed by climate-deniers. Those who hold to the idea any one of the ideas that a) there is no such thing as climate change; b) if there is climate change it is NOT human activities have nothing or little to do with it; c) its natural as the planet can deal with it so we should do nothing; and number who think d) its gods plan and we should help hasten the rapture/end-times.

Okay that last one is not talked about in non-theological circles much but the others are. People like myself think this is a corporatist initiative to prevent real change in our ‘energy economy’ so as to protect both the profits of business but also the lifestyle of the ‘average’ American. In a growing number of school districts (yes, only in the US but what starts south often moves north), including the infamous Texas school board; there has been a movement to ‘edit’ the science curriculum to include the ‘debate’ about climate change. I think this is equivalent to teaching the ‘debate’ about evolution and simple a way to promote political ideology as science. Others I know think it worse. People ignorant of evolution may limit our advancement but ignorance of climate change could lead to the end of civilization as we know it.  Personal, in my darkest more depressed moments, i think this may be the only way to bring about real change that many people (mostly on the left) think need to be done.

That aside, it does I think bring up an interesting point for the skeptic community. Were as there is little debate about the law of evolution (while acknowledging the mechanisms are still in much debate); does this certainty translate to the global warming? Michael Shermer, one of the biggies in the skeptic community, was a denier until only a few years ago. So, the question, should we be as active against the ‘climate change deniers’ as we are the creationist or is this a grayer area? Should we enforce ‘global warming’ while still acknowledging the mechanisms are still debatable? In many progressive science classes, not only is global warming taught but also the fact it is bad (a separate question I think) and that curtain actions (often anti-consumerist, which I would support even in the absence of climate change) to slow, stop and/or reverse the warming trend. Is this ‘environmental’ activism any different than the climate change deniers?

No answers, just a thought…what’s yours?

 http://www.publicschoolreview.com/articles/205

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/05/26/mesa-county-teachers-peti_n_590319.html

Posted in Blogs, Don's Blogs | Tagged: , , , , , | 1 Comment »

Wealth of the Religious

Posted by Ethan Clow on March 25, 2010

Last week on the show we were discussing a recent news story based on some research into which religious group has the richest members. You can read that report here.

The study in question was done out the United States has tried to determine which religious group is the most wealthy. The information was gathered from the Pew Forum for Religion and Public Life and included 14 different faiths found in North America.

When looking at the results, Hindus and Jewish people had the most members who were in the $100,000+ group, the percent was around 46%. The second wealthiest was Hinduism with around 43% in the $100,000+ group. Each religion’s members were divided into five income levels, the highest being $100,000+, the lowest being “less than $30,000. We were concerned over the possibility of some stereotyping going on.

I figured it might be prudent to take a look into just what the Pew Forum for Religion and Public Life is and does. So I checked out their website and did some sleuthing. According to their site, the Pew Foru

” conducts surveys, demographic analyses and other social science research on important aspects of religion and public life in the U.S. and around the world. It also provides a neutral venue for discussions of timely issues through roundtables and briefings.”

Although they claim to be neutral in many of the issues they present information on (abortion, gay marriage, death penalty etc) they consistently frame their approach to these topics with “what do religious people think of this controversial topic” which in my opinion may be indicative of a bias. Although in my cursory examination of their site indicates they are examining issues from a faith based mindset, they do include information on the non-religious and apparently do attempt to gain insight into what the non-religious think.

It does look like the site would prove very interesting to comb through and explore. The claims are not overtly religious and according to their organization they are a non-advocacy group.

In the story we talked about on Radio Freethinker, is actually part of a much larger study by the Pew Forum on America’s religious landscape. The study was also done in February of 2009. You can take a look at it here.

Some interesting points:

-The study is based on a sample size of 35,000 Americans.
-The study was conducted in both English and Spanish.
-For each question they asked, they asked 100 different people for each denomination. Therefore despite that Hindus make up only 0.4 percent of American society, they still asked 100 people who identified as Hindu. The same was done for Catholics, who make up 23.9 percent of the population, only 100 Catholics were asked.

One question that we had on the show was the way people were divided by faith. Fourteen faiths were represented in the original news story, the majority of them were Christian denominations, mostly Protestant, however Muslims were simply included as Muslims, same with Jewish people. Well, as we observed on the show, there are more than just Jewish people, there are orthodox Jews, Reformed Jews, and of course Muslims might be Sunni or Shia. However, when the questions on income were asked, these groups were lumped together as Jewish or Muslim. However, Protestants were divided into three groups.

When considering that Jewish people as a whole make up only 1.7 percent of the population of America, it is understandable why the study lumped all the Jewish faiths together but separated the Protestant faith into three blocks

However another question we raised on the show was the difference of culture and religion. For example, may people consider themselves to be cultural Jewish but not religious. According to the study, they based their data on what people told them. If someone said ” Catholics, for instance, are defined as all respondents who said they are Catholic, regardless of their specific beliefs and whether or not they attend Mass regularly.”

With regards to the results, Jews and Hindu’s having the most wealthy members the study suggested it was linked with education. Interestingly enough, the study indicates that 31% of those with less than a high school education are part of a evangelical Protestant denomination.

The study also suggests that religiously unaffiliated generally make up the smallest percentage of people in the lower educational levels, only 2% in the “less than a high school education” identified as atheists.

All in all the study suggests that Jews, Hindus and Buddhists are most likely to have higher degrees of education than other religious groups.

Now, we’re back to why that is.

Based on what I read of this study I don’t think stereotyping is going on. It appears that they’ve followed a relatively strict protocol for dealing with the data. We refrained from commenting on the show about what factors could influence certain religious groups to be wealthier or as the study suggests, more educated.

Perhaps a sociologist would be more qualified to interpret these results. However even a cursory understand of sociology should explain why the “poorest” religions, meaning the religions that had the most members in the lowest income bracket, $30,000 or less: were the historically black Christian churches, 47% of their members were in the $30,000 or less group. People who belong to traditionally black Christian churches were typically the target of political and economic oppression.

I would still like to see this study repeated with a few more controls. Mainly, I want to know exactly how they define a religious vs cultural Jew/Hindu/Catholic etc… I would also like to know how the different religious groups feel towards education. Are typically less educated groups happy with having a lower education? Do they desire to have more economic freedom to explore post-secondary education? I’d like to see the study done in several of the industrialized countries like Canada, the UK, France…see how it compares to the US and then more studies within the US with more defined controls and parameters.

While this has been a fascinating study to read about, it also serves as a good lesson about how deep a story goes. Often times to get the real information you have to dig deeper than the news item that appears in the newspaper. If the article references a study you should find that study and figure out if its quoted correctly. It’s also a good habit to get into as a skeptic to double check your sources. In this case, we found a document that could prove very interesting. So the rewards are often there waiting for you, with a little hard work and due diligence on the material, you could unearth some pretty amazing stuff.

Posted in Blogs, Ethan's Blogs | Tagged: , , , , | Leave a Comment »

 
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 252 other followers