Scared Science: belief and bias

~Tom Paine's Ghost is happy to present a guest post by Mieka Jensen.

Scared Science: belief and bias

One version of a famous story goes, Darwin recanted on his deathbed. Refuting his own theory of evolution and asking God for a pardon. For many this comes as a slap in the face, like telling Harvard you’re going to get your masters degree online instead. While that account is hotly debated, denied by his own children, if anyone were going to recant it probably would have been Darwin. Just for the irony. He was surrounded by a scientific community, his father and grandfather were doctors, and was raised as a Unitarian, which is what cause many to think Elizabeht Ried (aka Lady Hope) made the whole thing up.  

Should he have recanted on his deathbed, it was almost as if he knew that someday his name would be a flashpoint for the divide between secularism and Christianity and he wanted to complicate the issue. Needless to say, even a whisper of a rumor that it happened was enough for scientists who followed him to follow his supposed suit.

The trend continues even among scientists today. Professor and scientist Antony Flew, a lifelong proponent of atheism, announced he had switched to deism in 2004, six short years before his death. Other examples tell similar stories. Apparently old age brings its own doubts – or faiths – to the forefront, even within the scientific community.

Science has long been the bastion of factual evidence and practical atheism, at least in the minds of nonprofessionals. Actually, scientists lean slightly more toward deism than atheism, with studies showing that as many as 66 percent of scientists admit in believing in some sort of god. Doctors and other higher education professionals follow suit.

Similar studies have shown that, far from stepping away from their faith as long supposed, college students tend to stick with their religious affiliations in greater numbers than their unschooled peers. This may be the result of the confirmation theory, which suggests that the knowledge education gives deists also provides them with more tools to ignore evidence against god or create an even greater number of excuses for god and the afterlife.

Perhaps unsurprisingly, larger numbers of natural scientists working in biology, chemistry, and physics, tend to stick to their atheist guns, while social scientists tend to favor a master-design theory in greater numbers. This leads to several disturbing questions for the scientific community. If so many scientists are believers in a god, how does this influence their work? Are they tempted to fudge details or slant findings to support their own worldview? What avenues of study may be ignored?

Peer pressure also plays a role. Naturally opened-minded, perhaps scientists are swayed into agreeing with beliefs their colleagues hold while reserving private doubts themselves, making it difficult to count on the accuracy of any study. Politics and government laws may also encourage one point of view over another, especially when it comes to handing out grants.

In a worst-case scenario this leads to an arms race, where two divergent groups of scientists run toward evidence (or theories) that support their own worldview rather than favoring the truth. But in the best cases, scientists put their personal beliefs on hold when it comes to examining the evidence and considering alternative theories. After all, for every Darwin and Flew, there is a Stephen Hawking who states, "Science makes God unnecessary."

Meika Jensen is a west coast freelance writer who is currently beleaguered by the prospect of applying to Berkeley graduate school in the next few years to study the development of communications. With a diverse array of interests and an insatiable appetite for magazines, she is always happy to write a post or just talk one over. Follow her on Twitter: @MeikaJensen."

Matthew 25 Network

A women's right to abort pregnancy is a fundamental right. I support this fundamental right! I will be voting NO on Colorado's Amendment 48! Amendment 48 is an attempt to change the legal definition of a person.

I must preface my next thoughts by acknowledging that I am about to be guilty of engaging in a series of broad generalizations, so that I might make a point. Even if you find these generalizations to be disagreeable, I ask that you please continue reading. I have encountered many pro-lifers who are close-minded hypocrites that lack the ability of consideration and simply regurgitate religious teachings "without flinching." Many pro-lifers that sound the murder drum and make a stance of supporting the UNBORN, are often the same people that do nothing to support those BORN into challenging situations themselves and do not support legislation that would help families in challenging situations (i.e. the same people that vote republican). That being said, I have struggled to find many exceptions, let alone a massive movement of exception. The exceptions have now stepped forward.

At a time when America is increasingly polarized on so many issues such as this, and a great majority of American citizens choose to either strictly adhere to party lines or to ignore politics altogether, I have discovered a political action committee that is a breath of fresh air. Check out this group's stance on abortion and more importantly the manner in which they are approaching their cause at the link above.

Before you judge this group, I urge you to PLEASE rise above the talking points of pro-life and pro-choice, regardless of your stance, and make a genuine effort to employ reasoning. Please hear this group out by visiting their website at the Matthew 25 Network and learn more about them! They are a pro-life, pro-Obama committee that understands that overturning Roe vs Wade would be very dangerous and that the legal status of abortions would not impact abortion rates. This committee is backing Barack Obama because of his policies that will provide support for women and families, provide affordable healthcare for every American and help the impoverished (i.e. policies that will encourage alternatives to abortions in a non-invasive way that preserves a women's right to choose)!

I commend this group for their efforts, their cause and their couragesness. Regardless of their personal religious beliefs, this group is stepping up to help their brothers and sisters, their neighbors, their country. This is an independent political action committee that will be "targeting Christian voters on Christian radio stations with a Christian message." While I may not agree with this group from a religious standpoint, I have a great respect for the manner in which they are approaching their cause. Most importantly, this group understands that Barack Obama is the best choice for America. For the sake of America's future, may the Matthew 25 Network convince many in their target audience of this same conclusion.

I don't know... you don't know... and no man or woman who is, was, or ever will be knows.

President George W. Bush has said that the United States is engaged in a battle between good and evil. Many faithful people have agreed. My question is; how can the battle end without massive bloodshed? Only when we collectively realize that the real battle is not between good and evil, but between reason and irrationality. The end to this battle starts in United States by having reasonable discussions with our fellow Americans. The only sustainable manner in which to secure and defend the United States is to raise generations of rational citizens who value logic above emotion in the face of adversity.

When enemies in a conflict are painted as inhuman evil doers it lets a warrior feel less about killing them. In order to acquire more resources and therefore more power, empires need warriors that won't have psychological qualms with killing people. Portraying enemies as pure evil helps deal with these qualms. Terrorists attacks and retaliatory military responses are the violent manifestation of the "battle between god and evil." The men that committed both suicide and mass homicide on September 11th 2001 were poisoned by the delusion that they would be rewarded in the afterlife with their scriptural promises of virgins in heaven because, in their eyes, their deaths were honorable as they were carrying out jihad against the infidel. A Christian warrior in the Middle East in 2008 filled with the idea that his or her actions there will be rewarded in the afterlife is affected by the same delusion.

Thomas Paine was mocked by his contemporaries and later called a “dirty little atheist” by Theodore Roosevelt (I tend to like Teddy in general, but I think he got this one wrong). The fact is that Thomas Paine was not an atheist. None of the founding fathers were. They like many Renaissance people before them knew that certainty marks the beginning of the end of empires. They were deists who derive the existence and nature of God from reason, and refuted claims of supernatural events such as those described in the scripture of all holy books. They did not set out to found an American Empire, but rather a new order of the ages. "Novus Ordo Seclorum" as is enunciated in the great seal of the United States. A new world order in which freedom and equality are the foundation of a government empowered by the people, not nobility and not theocracy. Certainty comes from dogma and many churches survive and thrive among generations of other dying cultural trends because of the ease and comfort it gives the faithful. There is no need to think about issues if what is right and wrong has already been decided for you by a church. Certainty is what blinds fanatics. Certainty let the middle ages hinder centuries of scientific progress. Certainty put Galileo in house arrest. Certainty burned nearly all of Gregor Mendel's scientific works. Certainty caused the Holocaust.

In 2008 Americans need to choose knowledge over certainty more than ever. As we watch our sea levels rise, our population outpace our food production, and our children go on 21st century holy wars, we stand at a tipping point between a sustainable future and a self-fulfilling prophecy of anthropogenic end-times.

As a American who has watched the debate set aflame between atheists and the faithful during the past decade I have to agree with Bill Maher more than I do Richard Dawkins (as much as that pains me as a scientist). When the idea of "God" can have as many different meanings as there are sentient beings on earth then it is pointless to go on a secular crusade against that amorphous blob, that continuum of changing perceptions. It is much more effective to attack the root of self righteousness. It is more effective to tackle certainty. To introduce skepticism. The most glistening example I can think of from recoded history is the story of Johannes Kepler. From faithful follower of the gospels of Christ to someone who saw the imperfections in the heavens and was able to explain them with a scientific theory. These should be the bedtime stories we read our children. The stories of discovery. Certainty precludes hope from earthly life, while the unknown provides an infinity of potential discoveries. Skepticism and doubt are prerequisites for freedom, without these tools freedom is just another word.