Candide

roman catholic by birth; scientific atheist by choice; sinner by merit. blogging on brains, evolution and language. gaidhlig-speaking neuroscience student at oxford. likes to Question Everything!

bluedogeyes:

Richard Dawkins: The lucky ones (via ZEN PENCILS)

Richard Dawkins (1941-) is the world’s most famous atheist, thanks to his best-selling book The God Delusion and his tireless work to promote secularism through media and public appearances.

Though he is probably more well-known today for his views on religion, Dawkins is first and foremost an evolutionary biologist.

He has dedicated his life to studying evolution and to him it must be so bleeding obvious, and so much more awe-inspiring and beautiful, that the complexity of life on Earth is thanks to Natural Selection rather than Intelligent Design.”

It’s a beautiful passage.

Who’s Afraid of Big Bad Science?: Bad Science by Ben Goldacre - A Review for the lolz

Little has changed, it seems, since Ben Goldacre’s Bad Science was published it in 2008. The Mail and The Express are still diligently working their way through the alphabet when it comes to foods they can label as causing and/or curing cancer. MRSA scandals are manufactured thicker and faster every year, hailing a resurgence of Crimean War-standard care.  And nutritionists continue to dine (and grow rich) on a healthy diet of our Britain’s body image insecurities.

Indeed Goldacre is the first to admit to the Bad Scientists that “You win” – there will always be a chunk of the population happy to feast on quack cures and dodgy diagnoses. On his blog he confesses to having lost thousands every year travelling up and down the country battling Bad Science. At the same time, ‘alternative’ practitioneers are raking it in thanks to the redoubtable efforts of your local Avon lady.

The fact is people will always distrust that which they cannot understand. Hence Goldacre is right to keep his aims modest – all he wants to do, through his blog, column and this book is help people understand how evidenced-based medicine works.

Read More

Neil De Grasse Tyson: “the universe is in us.”

From the NYT.

From the NYT.

My practice as a scientist is atheistic. That is to say, when I set up an experiment I assume that no god, angel or devil is going to interfere with its course; and this assumption has been justified by such success as I have achieved in my professional career. I should therefore be intellectually dishonest if I were not also atheistic in the affairs of the world.

JBS Haldane

facesofatheists:

Hi, my name is Rachael. I’m 17 (18 soon). My boyfriend linked me to this blog and also stole my favourite picture in his submission.
Right now I’m waiting to hear back from the universities I applied to. I’ve applied to do Physics and have 2 unconditionals (which is a relief!) The reason that I love Physics so much is because it literally does cover everything, it strives to explain everything but in a way that is logical, proven and most of all almost magical. I love to sit and think about blackholes and the concept of time.
When I have my Physics degree I’m hoping to do a postgrad in teaching. I want to teach Physics at a secondary school and spread my enthusiasm and love for Physics. I really want to inspire. Watching someone’s face light-up as you explain to them how looking at stars is technically looking back in time is just wonderful.
Feel free to send me a line at http://cabaline1.tumblr.com
=) xxx
Hello there Rachael! I remember your boyfriend’s entry and photo of the two of you. Your passion for Physics is truly inspiring. Sending encouragement your way in reaching your goals. Thank you for contributing to the blog.

facesofatheists:

Hi, my name is Rachael. I’m 17 (18 soon). My boyfriend linked me to this blog and also stole my favourite picture in his submission.

Right now I’m waiting to hear back from the universities I applied to. I’ve applied to do Physics and have 2 unconditionals (which is a relief!) The reason that I love Physics so much is because it literally does cover everything, it strives to explain everything but in a way that is logical, proven and most of all almost magical. I love to sit and think about blackholes and the concept of time.

When I have my Physics degree I’m hoping to do a postgrad in teaching. I want to teach Physics at a secondary school and spread my enthusiasm and love for Physics. I really want to inspire. Watching someone’s face light-up as you explain to them how looking at stars is technically looking back in time is just wonderful.

Feel free to send me a line at http://cabaline1.tumblr.com

=) xxx

Hello there Rachael! I remember your boyfriend’s entry and photo of the two of you. Your passion for Physics is truly inspiring. Sending encouragement your way in reaching your goals. Thank you for contributing to the blog.

Contraception is sometimes attacked as ‘unnatural’. So it is, very unnatural. The trouble is, so is the welfare state. I think that most of us believe the welfare state is highly desirable. But you cannot have an unnatural welfare state, unless you also have unnatural birth-control, otherwise the end result will be misery even greater than that which obtains in nature. The welfare state is perhaps the greatest altruistic system the animal kingdom has ever known. But any altruistic system is inherently unstable, beacuse it is open to abuse by selfish individuals, ready to exploit it. Individual humans who have more children than they are capable of rearing are probably too ignorant in most cases to be accused of conscious malevolent exploitation. Powerful institutions and leaders who deliberately encourage them to do so seem to me less free from suspicion

Richard Dawkins, The Selfish Gene, 1976 (via paleblued0t)

This is such a British quote! Of course we love Beveridge, and the NHS, and the Welfare State in Britain, but the far-right groups who condemn contraception in the US also tend to resist federal interference in state health and social policy, don’t they? 

Dawkins assumes we all find the welfare state highly desireable, but the exact people who dislike contraception, also despise the notion of the welfare state.

Boy am I glad to be British!

Creating God In Our Own Image

source:  http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/belief/2012/mar/04/jesus-liberals-conservatives 
jesus

Love thy neighbour, so long as he is not an illegal immigrant. Blessed are the poor, so long as they are deserving. And, though it may be harder for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven than to pass through the eye of a needle, multimillionaires should have no problem passing through the door of the Oval Office.

Religion and politics have always made uneasy bedfellows; yet how can Christians from all shades of the political spectrum reconcile their diverse views with the teachings of a single man?

A study led by Lee Ross of Stanford University in California has found that the Jesus of liberal Christians is very different from the one envisaged by conservatives. The researchers asked respondents to imagine what Jesus would have thought about contemporary issues such as taxation, immigration, same-sex marriage and abortion. Perhaps not surprisingly, Christian Republicans imagined a Jesus who tended to be against wealth redistribution, illegal immigrants, abortion and same-sex marriage; whereas the Jesus of Democrat-voting Christians would have had far more liberal opinions. The Bible may claim that God created man in his own image, but the study suggests man creates God in his own image.

Yet both groups recognised that their own views were not always identical to those of Jesus. The researchers divided issues into those concerned with fellowship (wealth distribution, immigration), and those concerned with morality (gay rights, abortion). Conservatives envisaged a Jesus with views close to their own on morality issues; but they recognised that the man who gave all his possessions to the poor would probably have advocated more progressive taxation policies than those of the Republican party. Conversely, liberals saw Jesus as having similar views as themselves on fellowship issues but they believed his views on gay rights would be to the right of their own.

The social psychologist Leon Festinger coined the term “cognitive dissonance” for the discomfort felt when we recognise conflict between our ideas and perceptions. He proposed that we tend to reduce conflict by altering our view of reality. This process of “dissonance reduction” (“I didn’t want that job anyway”) has been used down the centuries to reduce the conflict between a person’s religious convictions and their actions. When in the 13th century the Abbot Arnaud Amaury was asked by crusaders what do with the citizens of the town of Beziers who were a mix of both pious Christians and heretical Albigensians, he famously initiated a massacre of all the town’s inhabitants with the instructions, “Kill them all. God will know his own.” Similarly, in the 19th century, Christian slavers insisted that the enforced transport and enslavement of millions of Africans was justified because it brought God to a pagan people.

The researchers discovered that conservatives believe Jesus would have prioritised the moral issues close to their own hearts, and that disparities in wealth or the treatment of illegal immigrants wouldn’t have been high on his agenda. Liberals believed the opposite.

Ross and his colleagues suggest that dissonance reduction takes place not only within the individual, but as a collective enterprise. Preachers, politicians and co-believers tend to emphasise and de-emphasise different aspects of the Christian canon; so conservative Americans study the Old Testament with its homophobic rhetoric and eye-for-an-eye morality, whereas liberals look to the New Testament Jesus who was sympathetic to the poor and the meek.

Evangelical politics is not, of course, limited to the US. Many social conservatives in the UK align themselves with the Christian right, and MPs such as Nadine Dorries take inspiration from US campaigns against abortion or gay rights. But perhaps the most striking aspect of the study is that it turns on its head the claims by many religious politicians, such as Republican nomination candidates Rick Santorum (“I’m for income inequality”), Rick Perry (“Homosexuality is a sin”), or the UK’s Nadine Dorries (“My faith tells me who I am”), that their politics is inspired by their God. This study suggests instead that their God is inspired by their politics.

Atheists more distrusted than rapists?

“atheists are, alongside rapists, the most distrusted group of people.” Maybe in your privileged world, they are. Um, have you heard of race?

MY REPLY
There a number of independent studies that have shown this to  be true. I know it sounds surpising, but here are the links, so u can see for yourself:
Scientifc American article on a University of British Colombia study:
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=in-atheists-we-distrust
The original paper:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22059841
Here is an article on a University of Minnesota study, it states the conclusions, but I can’t find the original paper:
http://atheism.about.com/od/atheistbigotryprejudice/a/AtheitsHated.htm
I’m sorry but this isn’t my “privileged” world. These are peer-reviewed studies carried out with the highest degree of scientific and statistical reliability. Of course there ia a degree of uncertainty in the sample, but it is only small, or else the papers wouldn’t be published. If you can provide me with some studies that point to race being the greatest indicator of distrust, I would be quite happy to read them.
On another note, we must always remember that the modern USA was willing to elect an African-American president, but never an atheist one. This is just anecdotal evidence, so we can’t read to much into it, but I think it gives some backing to my point, However, as I say, better to read the studies.

Miley Cyrus Disses Jesus!

I really love this story. Miley Cyrus tweeted the famous Laurence Krauss Stardust quote that ends with ‘Forget Jesus. Stars died so you could live.” It’s a beautiful passage, but of course she was pounced on for setting a bad example(!). Remember, in America atheists are, alongside rapists, the most distrusted group of people. It takes real guts to ‘come out,’ and, even if she isn’t an atheist, even just posting a quote like that when you’re a famous celebrity is gonna get you in deep water.Miley Cyrus, I take my hat off to you! 

“Twitter may be a direct way to communicate with fan but it can also get you in hot water when you are considered a teen role model, like Miley Cyrus. The singer is getting into some scalding hot water with Christians over an image she tweeted baring quotes from a scientist. 

With millions of young, impressionable followers, Cyrus tweeted what can be construed as controversial quotes from a theoretical physicist who favors science over religion. Keep in mind that Miss Miley was raised a Christian, which turns this into Christian right wing scandal.

Cyrus tweeted quotes from Lawrence Krauss, which essentially proclaim that humans are all stardust created from atoms of many stars that exploded in the universe. Well, that’s at odds with Christian teachings that God created everything in his image and likeness. It’s certainly a controversial theory for those with Christian beliefs.

But it gets better. Or worse, depending on your personal belief system.

Krauss also says “Forget Jesus, stars died so that you could live.”

It’s truly a polarizing series of statements for Christians and people of faith and it’s already causing a stir among the Christian right wing.

Why Cyrus shared these quotes and if they reflect her personal beliefs is not immediately known.”

http://www.rationalskepticism.org/nontheism/miley-cyrus-tweets-lawrence-krauss-quote-on-starstuff-t29815.html

Quotes