Ed Brayton is a freelance writer and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of 
Susan Jacoby of the Center for Inquiry has a new book, The Age of American Unreason, which argues that America is damaged not only by rampant ignorance but by a perverse pride taken in that ignorance that results from a deep strain of anti-intellectualism in our culture. In this she follows in the footsteps of Richard Hofstadter and agrees with one of the core ideas I have long argued about American culture. She has an op-ed piece in the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review that outlines some of the book's basic ideas, beginning:
Americans are in serious intellectual trouble -- in danger of losing their hard-won cultural capital to a virulent mixture of anti-intellectualism, anti-rationalism and low expectations.
I don't know that I buy her claim that today's anti-intellectualism is any worse than it has been in the past, or that it's caused by the replacement of newspaper and magazine reading by TV and video games; that strikes me as too simplistic and too neatly fitting the "paradise lost" story structure. I don't think it's necessary to argue that this tendency is any worse today than it was 50 years ago in order for it to be alarming. But she's certainly on to something when she points out that the impatience of the video age encourages more and more simplistic thinking as ideas have to be expressed in shorter and shorter segments:
No wonder negative political ads work. As video consumers become progressively more impatient with the process of acquiring information through written language, all politicians find themselves under great pressure to deliver their messages as quickly as possible -- and quickness today is much quicker than it used to be.Harvard University's Kiku Adatto found that between 1968 and 1988, the average sound bite on the news for a presidential candidate -- featuring the candidate's own voice -- dropped from 42.3 seconds to 9.8 seconds. By 2000, according to another Harvard study, the daily candidate bite was down to just 7.8 seconds.
And she's absolutely correct when she points to rampant ignorance on a wide number of subjects:
According to a 2006 survey by National Geographic-Roper, nearly half of Americans between ages 18 and 24 do not think it necessary to know the location of other countries in which important news is being made. More than a third consider it "not at all important" to know a foreign language, and only 14 percent consider it "very important."That leads us to the third and final factor behind the new American dumbness: not lack of knowledge per se but arrogance about that lack of knowledge.
The problem is not just the things we do not know (consider the one in five American adults who, according to the National Science Foundation, thinks the sun revolves around the Earth); it's the alarming number of Americans who have smugly concluded that they do not need to know such things in the first place.
Call this anti-rationalism -- a syndrome that is particularly dangerous to our public institutions and discourse. Not knowing a foreign language or the location of an important country is a manifestation of ignorance; denying that such knowledge matters is pure anti-rationalism.
But I think it goes even beyond that, and I go back again to the argument I made in my C-Span speech about the difference between mundane ignorance and virulent ignorance. Yes, this mundane ignorance is disturbing, as are the many rationalizations offered for it ("some of the dumbest people I know have PhDs but they lack common sense"), but it pales in comparison to the effects of virulent ignorance.
Far too many of those who think they're knowledgeable on some very important subjects have in fact been educated into even greater ignorance, swallowing a series of falsehoods and half-truths that make them think they know what they're talking about when they don't. Memorizing a dozen "proofs" that the earth is only a few thousand years old does not cure one's ignorance of geology, it only serves to inoculate the credulous against actual evidence.
Comments
Socrates wept.
Posted by: Theron | February 27, 2008 9:56 AM
I just wanted to note that while this may be true about video, it is not necessarily true about video games, which the current generation of young folks engage with far more often. Video games' key differentiator from other forms of electronic entertainment, is interactivity. The consumer is not passive, but active, and has to engage much more of their imagination, intellect, and even physicality than just sitting on the couch watching a sitcom. Now that most games have an online aspect as well, video games are even getting people to interact with each other directly.
Not everything new is inherently destructive to our culture and our people, just because it's new. Sometimes new is better.
Posted by: Jeff Hebert | February 27, 2008 10:03 AM
Somewhere either on sciblogs or Panda's Thumb, I saw a comment to the effect that the survey which reported that 1/5 of Americans think the sun revolves around the Earth asked that question after an hour or so of other unrelated questions, by which point most responders would have agreed that Columbus discovered electricity.
And, as a matter of basic functionalism, most Americans don't have any need or use for knowing another language.
Which is not to say that Jacoby's & Brayton's overall point is not correct, and scary.
Posted by: Pierce R. Butler | February 27, 2008 10:16 AM
I would also add that back in the early 1990s, video games helped teach me a bit of geography and history. Civilization, Nobunaga's Ambition, and Railroad Tycoon come to mind.
Posted by: Royale | February 27, 2008 10:17 AM
Going along with Jeff, I also think that video games are getting more complex, have longer storylines, and require more effort rather than being all about immediate gratification. Take World of Warcraft, for example - you could spend months playing that without running out of storyline. Even when you do run out of storyline, you're rewarded for being persistent and putting in effort, and the quick-and-easy rewards are rarely anywhere as good as the long-and difficult ones. That's one of the big complaints about games like WoW and Everquest - casual players aren't able to have rewards that are as good.
Posted by: Eric | February 27, 2008 10:27 AM
I haven't read the book (yet), and I'm not sure if Jacoby makes this point, but I suspect that one of the strongest forces in the US behind what she's calling a proudful "anti-rationalism" is religion.
If you are convinced that the entire purpose of your life, all life in general -- and even the existence of the universe -- is to recognize, know, love, trust, and obey God, then, technically speaking, no other kind of knowledge is important. Someone who loves God and is pig ignorant on virtually everything else is far, far "smarter" than someone who is highly educated and skilled on every other issue but that one. Nothing else really counts. It's the sine qua non of existence.
Talking to creationists, I've also gotten the impression that they really do think that an ordinary person with no experience or background in a field can go up against and defy experts as long as they are trying to follow and obey God. God set the universe up as a test for us. He set it up so it would be understandable to people on our level. He would not have made anything it's important to know too hard for His children to figure out on their own, without a lot of book learning.
"You can read and study your way right out of a relationship with God." Tell me you haven't heard that one. When faith is analyzed, it tends to disappear. I think that attitude is going to show its effect all the way down -- and it's not just limited to fundamentalists.
If the strongest sign that someone has matured to the highest level of wisdom is their ability to embrace faith, to "let go and let God," I would guess that that isn't going to say much about putting a lot of emphasis on education and learning.
Posted by: Sastra | February 27, 2008 10:42 AM
I'd have to agree with you that while anti-intellectualism has changed, it's not much worse than it was 50 years ago. If I had a dollar for every time I heard "Where'd ya learn that -- out of a BOOK or sumpin'?" while growing up in the late '50s, and had invested it wisely, I'd be retired today.
Posted by: Pieter B | February 27, 2008 11:00 AM
I only got about a third of the way through the article. But I'm sure the rest was just more unimportant drivel. I can state categorically that the entire premise is fallacious and without merit.
Any idea that can't be expressed simply is not a fully thought out concept. This is why the Haiku is the ultimate in poetry. Anything worth saying can be said in 17 syllables.
For more the more scientifically inclined, consider this quote from the famous mathematician, David Hilbert.
"A mathematical theory is not to be considered complete until you have made it so clear that you can explain it to the first man whom you meet on the street."
Or this quote, from perhaps the greatest mind in history, Leonardo da Vinci.
"Simplicity is the ultimate sophistication."
I mean, come on. I was watching a news report the other day about Rhode Island. How do the events of some insignificant far-off island impact my life? Will knowing what's going on there help me put food on my table? No!
That kind of knowledge is just another kind of entertainment. I'm glad you all enjoy it. But I've got more important things to do than learn useless trivia.
As the wise and ancient old proverb goes, "ignorance is bliss" and who doesn't want to be happy?
(BTW, this post is a joke, illustrating the issue in a (hopefully) funny way. That is, I'm playing around, not trolling.)
Posted by: Abby Normal | February 27, 2008 11:08 AM
Here's an appropriate quote from the founder of Protestant Christianity:
"There is on earth among all dangers no more dangerous thing than a richly endowed and adroit reason...Reason must be deluded, blinded, and destroyed. Faith must trample underfoot all reason, sense, and understanding, and whatever it sees must be put out of sight and ... know nothing but the word of God." (Martin Luther)
Posted by: Kevin C. | February 27, 2008 11:10 AM
While I completely agree with what's being said it's worth stating that its far from just a problem with the US. Here in the UK we have enough anti-intellectuals of our own (although obviously the US continues to outstrip us in the arrogance stakes).
Personally I don't blame modern technology (TV, games, internet) but the all-pervading attitude of the media who, having to earn a crust (apart from the BBC), fill the airwaves and print media with the lowest common denominator material. The people that get the most attention (don't get me started about "celebrities") are the ones people want to emulate and for them to get on in their careers its better for them to be brash and stupid than measured and smart.
Oh, and while we're at it, I heard last night that China not only has as many graduates *per year* as the UK but that in key subjects like maths and the sciences UK universities will be teaching over 50% foreign students (mostly from China and India).
We all agree there is a problem but what can any of us propose to do about it? Where are the intellectual heroes that can break through into the popular media?
Posted by: David Durant | February 27, 2008 11:14 AM
Will Rogers' famous comment is reconfirmed: "It ain't so much what he doesn't know, it's what he 'knows' that just ain't so."
Posted by: knutsondc | February 27, 2008 11:19 AM
Sastra,
You make an awful lot of assumptions about Christian faith in your post, and it appears that you really don't know much about it.
>> If you are convinced that the entire purpose of your life, all life in general -- and even the existence of the universe -- is to recognize, know, love, trust, and obey God,
True statement.
>> no other kind of knowledge is important. Someone who loves God and is pig ignorant on virtually everything else is far, far "smarter" than someone who is highly educated and skilled on every other issue but that one. Nothing else really counts. It's the sine qua non of existence.
Not true. Maybe some Christians have said that, but that demonstrates their own ignorance about their faith. The Bible says that the fear of God is the BEGINNING of knowledge. It also charges Christians to acquire knowledge and wisdom so that they can defend their faith well. Sure, not all do that, but that is a reflection of the believer, not the faith.
>> Talking to creationists, I've also gotten the impression that they really do think that an ordinary person with no experience or background in a field can go up against and defy experts as long as they are trying to follow and obey God.
Could be true for some people, but that is evidence of an arrogance on their part that they can take on knowledgeable people without knowing anything. Believing you have all the answers when you don't is the definition of stupidity in my opinion. Christians can be guilty of it, but so can atheists. Many atheists act like they have the conclusive answers on the existence of God, yet they are not willing to admit that it takes at least as much faith to believe in the unprovable proposition that there is no God as it does to believe that he exists.
>> He would not have made anything it's important to know too hard for His children to figure out on their own, without a lot of book learning.
Completely untrue. Sure, some Christians may believe that, but it is evidence of their own ignorance about their faith.
>> When faith is analyzed, it tends to disappear.
Not true. Again, atheists embrace faith just as much as theists. Atheists are in the position of proving a negative in which they believe conclusively: that God does not exist. Again, considering that is absolutely unprovable, I think that takes just as much faith as it takes to believe in God.
>> If the strongest sign that someone has matured to the highest level of wisdom is their ability to embrace faith
True statement, the Bible does say that wisdom begins with the fear of God.
Posted by: mroberts | February 27, 2008 11:21 AM
Let the Fight of the Century begin!
In this corner, mroberts!
In the other corner, a man made of straw!
Hint: Atheists are not in the position of proving God does not exist. They simply do not accept the assertion that God does exist without evidence, and that evidence never seems to come. No faith needed.
Posted by: ShavenYak | February 27, 2008 11:37 AM
mroberts, you seem to be pointing out the distinction between those who use their faith to guide their life and those who use it as a method for obtaining knowledge. If so, I can go along with that. But I do take issue with this statement:
Non-belief is the default. Choosing to believe is what requires an act of faith. It takes no act of faith to believe that that the Loch Ness monster is not real. It takes no faith to believe that people cannot change the weather with their thoughts. Likewise it does not take faith to believe there is no god. It's simply the rational position of not accepting that something is real without some sort of evidence.
Posted by: Abby Normal | February 27, 2008 11:44 AM
I'm about 1/2-way through the book. I highly recommend it, it's as good as Freethinkers, her previous book.
Jacoby does provide some additional context and evidence to her claim that ignorance is more virulent now than in the past, especially her argument that social conservatives are much more adept at filtering out arguments counter to their beliefs, where in the past, Jacoby argues they were open to counter-arguments.
We saw this in play during the Florida School Board evolution debate where even the leaders of the religious right in that state continued to filter out what a theory is continues to amaze me given the huge volume of articles published that delineated their use of the word vs. how science uses the word, even in the mass media.
Jacoby also provides anecdotal evidence in the book regarding her speaking engagements, where she receives nothing but an echo chamber while some social conservative group will arrange a competing event in the same locale in order to limit its adherents from attending her event.
The one big weakness in the book is that it leads off with Jacoby arguing about how our use of language has increased politicians' and the media talking down to citizens. While she has a point, it's a pretty minor one compared to the importance of the other topics she presents.
What I particularly enjoy about Jacoby is the ability to write highly readable essays of current topics in the light of how these topics have evolved in American life, and her ability to frame them within the ideals of America's foundational principles along with enlightenment ideals in general. Liberals are not let off the hook either, another attribute I admire in Jacoby, she doesn't frame her positions in a manner where her readers get an incomplete contextual presentation but instead she provides what I believe to be an honest rendering of past conflicts.
Posted by: Michael Heath | February 27, 2008 11:48 AM
>> Hint: Atheists are not in the position of proving God does not exist. They simply do not accept the assertion that God does exist without evidence, and that evidence never seems to come. No faith needed.
Shaven, that's convenient, you can say you believe something, but you don't have to offer proof for it. If you state there is no God, and you claim to be a rationalist, then you have to offer proof, right? Otherwise, you are simply an agnostic, no?
Posted by: ShavenYak | February 27, 2008 11:58 AM
Atheism is nothing more than the recognition that theists have failed to support their position with compelling evidence. Anyone who thinks atheism "requires faith" or that one *know* god does not exist is grossly misinformed.
Posted by: H. Humbert | February 27, 2008 12:11 PM
"And, as a matter of basic functionalism, most Americans don't have any need or use for knowing another language."
But doesn't this indicate a problem ? The fact that so few Americans travel abroad, or even have passports, may help explain that countries foreign policy.
Posted by: John Doe | February 27, 2008 12:21 PM
"Shaven, that's convenient, you can say you believe something, but you don't have to offer proof for it. If you state there is no God, and you claim to be a rationalist, then you have to offer proof, right? Otherwise, you are simply an agnostic, no?"
No. There is this concept called the burden of proof, which essentially says that it is incumbent on those making the assertive claim to provide evidence to support that claim. Thus the default position is that there is no god, the same way the default position is that there is no teapot orbiting between Earth and Mars, and no invisible pink unicorn sitting by your PC. Just because it is not possible to be totally confident about the existence, or not, of things, does not mean that the probability of those existences is 0.5
Posted by: John Doe | February 27, 2008 12:26 PM
The Ludditism and New Age-ish beliefs of Europeans is remarked upon less than the creationism and religiosity of Americans. In Europe, anti-fluoride, anti-GMO, anti-animal research, anti-vaccination sentiment (sometimes expressed in official policy) is much higher than in the US. Europeans also have more favorable views towards homeopathy. Might some of these European attitudes be founded on ignorance and irrationalism?
What about basic science knowledge - are Europeans really that superior to Americans in this regard?
Technology Review
February 21, 2007
216 Million Americans Are Scientifically Illiterate (Part I)
The good news: America's science literacy rate is up from a pathetic 10 percent in 1988. The bad news: it's still only 28 percent.
David Ewing Duncan
"One of Miller's findings that may surprise many Americans is that >>Europeans and Japanese actually rate slightly lower in science literacy.
(Emphases ">>
Also consider the prevalence of conspiracy theories in Europe and Asia, especially anti-American and anti-Semitic conspiracy theories - most notably involving 9/11.
Many Japanese believe in superstitions and pseudoscience, such as the idea that blood type is determinative of all kinds of things in a manner similar to astrology.
There is plenty of ignorance and superstition in the world. We should work on ours. But in doing so, we should not inaccurately valorize the rest of the world for not being ignorant.
Posted by: Colugo | February 27, 2008 12:30 PM
"The problem is not just the things we do not know (consider the one in five American adults who, according to the National Science Foundation, thinks the sun revolves around the Earth)"
That 1999 Gallup poll has been repeatedly cited for years to "prove" how ignorant Americans are compared to other Western countries. What is usually not mentioned is the fact that Germany and the UK performed worse. (Hat tip: The Speculist.)
Gallup.com
July 6, 1999
New Poll Gauges Americans' General Knowledge Levels
by Steve Crabtree
"about four out of five Americans (79%) correctly respond that the earth revolves around the sun, while 18% say it is the other way around. These results are comparable to those found in Germany when a similar question was asked there in 1996; in response to that poll, 74% of Germans gave the correct answer, while 16% thought the sun revolved around the earth, and 10% said they didn't know. When the question was asked in Great Britain that same year, 67% answered correctly, 19% answered incorrectly, and 14% didn't know."
The notion that Americans are pig-ignorant compared to the rest of the West is problematic - not because there are not high levels of ignorance here, but because other countries are not quite as enlightened as we imagine them to be.
Posted by: Colugo | February 27, 2008 12:41 PM
>
What a cliche crappy argument.... first, most atheists (nonbelievers) lack belief because you theists can't pony up a shred of evidence for the existence of god. Not believing in a proposition because its proponent fails the burden of proof (much less the burden of perssasion) is quite different than this positive "faith" mr. roberts projects unto nonbelievers.
"The universe was created by a 10 armed green welder with my grandma's panties on his head." What! Don't believe me? Why, that takes just as much faith and my assertion! The two states of mind are equivalent!
Next, which god? The plurality of gods created by people are often mutually exclusive. Zeus, Mithra, Shiva, ad nauseum can't all exist. Yet, according to mrroberts exceedingly stupid argument, it takes just as much faith for him not to believe in L Ron Hubbard's Thetans as to not believe in them.
Posted by: EstevanEstevan | February 27, 2008 12:41 PM
I botched an article excerpt in a post above. Let me try again.
Technology Review
February 21, 2007
216 Million Americans Are Scientifically Illiterate (Part I)
The good news: America's science literacy rate is up from a pathetic 10 percent in 1988. The bad news: it's still only 28 percent.
David Ewing Duncan
"One of Miller's findings that may surprise many Americans is that Europeans and Japanese actually rate slightly lower in science literacy. To be sure, these same populations also have a much higher percentage of people who accept evolution and other basic scientific theories. America's large population of conservative religious believers may be one reason for this discrepancy, although clearly there are hundreds of millions of people in the developed world who need education."
Posted by: Colugo | February 27, 2008 12:43 PM
Agnostic and atheist are actually listed as synonyms in the Random House dictionary and there is certainly a lot of similarity between them. However, in common usage the there are a few key differences. Using my Loch Ness example from above the views might be expressed something like this.
Loch Ness Believer: "There is a monster in Loch Ness."
Atheist & Agnostic: "How do you know?"
Loch Ness Believer: "I heard someone else say it."
Atheist & Agnostic: "That's it? Have you searched for it?"
Loch Ness Believer: "Oh yea, we've been searching for three generations. Nothing so far, but I know he's there and isn't it nice that there's some mystery in the world?"
Atheist: "I don't buy it."
Agnostic: "You may be on to something there. Keep looking and let me know if you find it."
I've also heard people, who believe there is a god but don't believe in any particular religion, refer to themselves as agnostic, the spiritual but not religious, crowd. I think it's this group in particular that separates agnostic from atheist.
Posted by: Abby Normal | February 27, 2008 12:43 PM
In case you're too lazy to read the book, watch the interview:
http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/02152008/watch2.html
Posted by: healthphysicist | February 27, 2008 12:44 PM
I really don't think it's a sign of anti-intellectualism if most Americans don't consider it that important to know another language. Most Americans probably cannot afford to do much international travel, let alone spend a sustained amount of time in a non-English speaking country that would require knowledge of the language spoken there. A person can become a PhD without knowing another language. Maybe that's unfortunate-- maybe it's better to be from a small country like Holland where you are forced by necessity to learn four or so different languages (I sometimes wish I had been, considering how painful it is to learn languages as an adult). But for Americans, it's not really a big deal.
What is a big deal is how many Americans adopt the attitude that if it's not necessary for them to know any other language, it's somehow a bad thing for people to speak other languages in their presence, or for businesses to cater to people who speak other languages. Throwing a hissy fit because businesses in Texas and southern California search for Spanish-speaking employees makes no sense whatsoever.
Posted by: Gretchen | February 27, 2008 1:43 PM
Gretchen, the prevalence of spanish speakers in the U.S. falsifies the idea that its unimportant for Americans to know another language.
Posted by: Priya Lynn | February 27, 2008 2:06 PM
Holy crap, can we have one discussion without an argument between angry atheists and some guy who doesn't know what angry atheists stand for?
I think this anti-intellectual problem is inevitable in any large civilization, the more people the worse the problem. The United States is the third most populous country in the world, and by far the most diverse. Show me a nation that has anywhere close to America's population and diversity and is some sort of Utopian intellectual paradise, and I will pack up and move there.
That being said, I sincerely hope the problem lightens up as soon as we have a Congress and administration that actually cares about education.
Posted by: Brandon | February 27, 2008 2:25 PM
mrroberts wrote:
People of faith often derive different directives from their faith, with no real way to decide who is correct, since the only ultimate arbiter is Not of This World. There are many Christians who are directly inspired by their love of God and His creation to study and learn about it as much as possible. I don't deny that.
My point was that when people start out assuming that the true value of knowledge and wisdom is "to defend their faith well," this definitely puts what's important on a hierarchy. If the entire purpose of life is, as you admit, to know God -- then when you get right down to it, everything else is just so much stamp-collecting.
This attitude can make it easier to take it easy in the intellect department. And I suspect this may be a good part of what is driving a lot of anti-intellectual attitudes in the United States. Whether these people are, in actuality, "misinterpreting their faith" says nothing about whether or not that's where they're coming from -- their faith as they interpret it.
Creationists don't say THEY have all the answers: no, only GOD has all the answers. And GOD says ... etc etc. When atheists are wrong, they can't claim that the other person really just disagrees with God. I think the ability to do this allows a lot of arrogance to pass by under the mantle of abject humility.
As for whether atheism requires as much "faith" as theism, most atheists are both atheist and agnostic. God might exist, technically, but they don't believe it does. Atheism is only my working theory, and it could of course be wrong. I can think of many things which would change my mind. That sort of provisional assumption is quite different from religious faith, where, as you put it, "the fear of God is the BEGINNING of knowledge." That seems to put the rational ability to change one's mind about God existing in the first place right out of the running.
Posted by: Sastra | February 27, 2008 2:33 PM
My favorite quote in this flavour of debate is:
"I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours." -Stephen Roberts
Of course it's an argument that neither side will ever accomplish or concede. Both sides think that the other is neglecting clear and persuasive evidence (whether maliciously or through ignorance makes no difference), and neither side will sway from what they believe is an important part of their identity.
I think that's why agnostics don't get all flustered about this debate... they don't have a horse in the race (so to speak), and whichever side wins makes little difference to how they will approach their lives.
Posted by: kate | February 27, 2008 2:33 PM
Colugo wrote:
I heartily agree -- it's very common even in the US for people to be nonreligious in the usual sense and yet exercise little to no critical skepticism in areas like alternative medicine and psychic powers. And yet, when paranormalists and pseudoscientists are questioned, they often fall back on the same sorts of "personal experience," "inner knowing," and "faith-trumps-intellect" arguments which come right out of religion.
So I would include much of this under religion,too, since it involves magical thinking and a cosmos which cares intensely about humans and their consciousness. As Isaac Asimov once wrote, "Inspect every piece of pseudoscience and you will find a security blanket, a thumb to suck, a skirt to hold. What does the scientist have to offer in exchange? Uncertainty! Insecurity!"
Posted by: Sastra | February 27, 2008 2:45 PM
"Again, atheists embrace faith just as much as theists." Bullshit! Religious tripe and propaganda. This term clearly defines lack of faith in god(s). This persons stance is it requires "faith" not to believe in any silly arguement that tumbles out of their mouths. Flat earth, UFO's, bigfoot, trolls under the bridge, or, because it's special to him, his chosen god all require faith not to believe in. This is clearly an idiotic statement.
Has any, and I do mean any actual existance of god(s) been found? Not faith, evidence. Any?
Posted by: RAM | February 27, 2008 2:49 PM
>> Atheism is nothing more than the recognition that theists have failed to support their position with compelling evidence. Anyone who thinks atheism "requires faith" or that one *know* god does not exist is grossly misinformed.
H. Humbert,
Correct me if I am wrong, but the average atheist is likely going to believe in some form of naturalistic origins for the existence of the universe, correct? Doesn't a belief in some form of naturalism require the belief that God does not exist? After all, either the universe was created through naturalistic means or divine means. If you say that the universe was created solely through naturalistic means - ie no God - then you are implicitly asserting that God does not exist. This moves the average atheist from just "I don't buy it" to "there is no God" - a belief that you cannot prove. If you cannot prove it, then you are relying on some form of faith, which is contrary to average atheist's assertion that they are pure rationalists. Am I incorrect on this?
Posted by: mroberts | February 27, 2008 2:58 PM
"Of course it's an argument that neither side will ever accomplish or concede. Both sides think that the other is neglecting clear and persuasive evidence (whether maliciously or through ignorance makes no difference), and neither side will sway from what they believe is an important part of their identity."
Kate, while your answer is at least honest, reality, not "how to live your life", IS the debate, at least for me. As noted many times before in past threads, both are completely different topics that religious people wrongly believe mean the exact same thing. They are not the same, one is knowledge and science, (proveable reality), the other is at best philosophy.
Posted by: RAM | February 27, 2008 2:59 PM
Unless they live in southern California or Texas, not really. America is a big place. A person could live their entire life in most of the country without ever encountering someone who speaks Spanish, much less needing to interact with them to the extent that they'd need to learn the language.
Posted by: Gretchen | February 27, 2008 2:59 PM
I think a problem with "is the society more ignorant now than it used to be" discussions is failure to recognize that ignorance is relative. We are all mostly ignorant - there's way too much to learn for the situation to be otherwise. The relevant question is really "do you know enough about some specific area of knowledge to function effectively within that context?". In "function ... wrt" I include having, voicing, and (most important) acting on one's opinions. My guess is that today there are many people for whom the answer is "no" even in areas in which they need to (or at least choose to) function, and that there are many more such areas today than there were a century ago.
Unfortunately, a disturbingly large fraction of the US populace seems to believe that the answer to the question is "yes" even with respect to areas of which they are quite ignorant. An example relevant to this blog is people who know nothing about evolution but act to purge it from public education. The mere fact that they know nothing about evolution is no worse than that they know nothing about waste treatment. The fact that they nonetheless try to silence those who do (a manifestation of anti-intellectualism) is a problem.
- Charles
Posted by: ctw | February 27, 2008 3:06 PM
"If you cannot prove it, then you are relying on some form of faith, which is contrary to average atheist's assertion that they are pure rationalists. Am I incorrect on this?"
Yes, you are incorrect. Totally.
Again, you fall into the position that an "unknown" requires faith, so god is the default point. Wrong. It is still unknown, to be discovered. There is nothing wrong in stating the world still has unknowns, science is dedicated to researching exactly that, which is exactly why research is so exciting to so many. If ANY evidence arises one way or the other on this point, or the so many others like it, a rational decision can then be made.
Posted by: RAM | February 27, 2008 3:09 PM
Re mroberts
Mr. mroberts claims that belief in a naturalistic beginning to the universe is tantamount to disbelief in a deity. I guess that means that scientists who believe that the evidence supporting the big bang theory of the creation of the universe is persuasive must ipso facto be atheists. Is Mr. mroberts making a claim the the first scientist to show that the General Theory of Relativity predicts a big bang, George Lemaitre, a Catholic priest, was an atheist?
Posted by: SLC | February 27, 2008 3:16 PM
I would like to suggest an analog to Godwin's Law - say, Brayton's Law - which addresses how many comments on average can be made on a Dispatches post before some presumptuous fool offers a definitive statement of what nonsensical thing(s) atheists "believe".
- Charles
Posted by: ctw | February 27, 2008 3:17 PM
Gretchen, I live in Nashville. I encounter at least one person every day who not only speaks Spanish, but has weak English skills. It's not just a Texas/S.Fl/SoCal thing. And the notion that people can live their lives without another language -- look, I can live my life without ever reading a book, but my life would be rather much more limited. The kicker is, I wouldn't realize how much more limited it is. That's why students are not like customers - they aren't always right about what it is that they need.
Posted by: Theron | February 27, 2008 3:32 PM
Kate, actually you summed up something that was one my mind as well.
>> Of course it's an argument that neither side will ever accomplish or concede. Both sides think that the other is neglecting clear and persuasive evidence (whether maliciously or through ignorance makes no difference), and neither side will sway from what they believe is an important part of their identity.
I think that's why agnostics don't get all flustered about this debate... they don't have a horse in the race (so to speak), and whichever side wins makes little difference to how they will approach their lives.
It is true that the most committed adherents from either side will never concede the argument to the other, because the issue comes down to quality of evidence. Neither side sees the evidence from the other side as adequate. However, I think you point out something very enlightening. It is the people that get all worked up over the issue that have horses in the race, so to speak. In other words, I think it is a safe assumption that the very passionate atheist, a Hitchens for example, has a little stronger belief in the non-existence of God then "I just don't buy it" or "the evidence is inadequate". Somebody that passionate has moved beyond that to a position more like "there is no God". My point is that such people should at least recognize that they are not the true rationalists so many of them claim to be because the belief in a proposition completely unprovable requires some measure of FAITH.
Posted by: mroberts | February 27, 2008 3:35 PM
uh, No. But what is wrong with naturalism. It's here, it can be seen and so far it has proven it works. What has superstition granted even one person?
I have never bought this argument. You don't move to there is no God just that their is no evidence for a God. That being said there is no such thing as a supernatural event. If God did it he had to do it in the natural world as a natural being. Hence he is subject to the scientific method.
Yes you are incorrect and for a myriad of reasons. It seems trite but nonetheless accurate to state you don't believe in Allah. Can you prove he doesn't exist? Are you relying on faith to do so? How about unicorns? Or Santa?
Same principle.
Posted by: GH | February 27, 2008 3:44 PM
From Kathleen Hall Jamieson's Everything You Think You Know About Politics--and Why You're Wrong
In other words, an ad that is critical of one's opponent, while called negative, may actually be more informative than a positive ad just about oneself. The best ads, from an information content standpoint, are contrast ads, which contrast the sponsor's and the opponent's stand on issues. But because they can be critical, can attack the opponent, they get called negative as well.
While there are scurrilous ads, eliminating all ads called negative would reduce the amount of information available to voters.
Posted by: James Hanley | February 27, 2008 4:01 PM
This goes both ways. You know how many times I've been told on that, since I revere the Bible, I must want to stone gays and teach creationism? Apparently I think all nonbelievers will burn in Hell, which really suprised me because I'm not even a Christian. Don't pretend that the prejudice lies entirely with the theists.
How about this?
Brayton's Law: As a Dispatches from the Culture Wars discussion grows longer, the probability that a pointless argument between atheists and theists in which everybody beats up a straw man and nobody convinces anybody of anything approaches one.
Of course, this law, just like Godwin's Law, is pointless, because as a discussion goes on the probability of anybody saying anything has nowhere to go but up.
Posted by: Brandon | February 27, 2008 4:04 PM
If you are convinced that the entire purpose of your life, all life in general -- and even the existence of the universe -- is to recognize, know, love, trust, and obey God, then, technically speaking, no other kind of knowledge is important.
You call that "technically speaking?" It's a complete and obvious non-sequitur. Bear in mind: a) many religious doctrines and leaders explicitly demand that their followers acquire all the knowledge, both esoteric and practical, that they can; and b) a belief that God created the Universe could easily lead to the belief that we should understand and appreciate God's creation.
Yes, there are obviously lots of really stupid religious people, who use their belief as an excuse not to admit any new ideas or facts into their heads; but there are also a lot of really intelligent, dedicated and cultured religious people. Ever heard of Jesuits? They have some really good schools. My dad went to one, and he came out of it with an education that set him up for a masters degree in PoliSci, a long and sucessful US Civil Service career, and, had he wanted it, a CIA career.
When faith is analyzed, it tends to disappear.
Weak, rigid, unadaptable faith, yes. Faith that can respond to reality, no. Again, both kinds are evident throughout history.
...the prevalence of spanish speakers in the U.S. falsifies the idea that its unimportant for Americans to know another language.
Not to mention all the opportunities, both cultural and economic, that Americans miss because they can't speak or read other languages.
PS: as for the idea that "atheists embrace faith just as much as theists," I have to say that this argument is not totally wrong, but it's mostly oversimplified. There is a difference in kind between the faith of someone who believes in something he can't prove, and that of someone who concludes (provisionally at least) that something doesn't exist because he's seen no evidence that it does. Furthermore, many theists have both kinds of faith, to the extent that they believe in God(s) but act, in their daily decisions, on the premise that their God(s) won't be relevant or evident in the specific events they will encounter. I have faith that Odin exists, and wants me to do well, but I'm not expecing him to appear and hand me extra cash.
That's all I can say about this very complex subject at this time. Short answer: there is no short answer.
Posted by: Raging Bee | February 27, 2008 4:30 PM
"Don't pretend that the prejudice lies entirely with the theists."
And don't presume to read into comments what isn't there. I absolutely agree that statements of the form "X's believe Y" typically are meaningless unless X is defined as "one who believes Y", in which case the statement is a tautology. My singling out one version was driven by context and the fact that in the case of atheists (or as I prefer, "a-theists"), assertions of what they "believe" are especially nonsensical.
- Charles
- Charles
Posted by: ctw | February 27, 2008 4:34 PM
Mroberts, I think that you had me right up until your last statement. You are trying to move the argument out of the aetheist's arena and into yours, while they are attempting to move you out of yours and into theirs (not people here, but the argument and arguers in general). You both have horses in the race and are looking for home-ground advantage (if you will pardon the continued metaphore)
I keep coming back to a comment made during the Dover trial, paraphrased: a person is asked why a pot is boiling, one replies that it is boiling because the element was turned on providing heat, which accelerate the molecules until they change state. Another replies "because I wanted tea". Both are valid answers, but they have nothing at all to do with each other and don't inform the other one jot.
Probably a bad paraphrase, but you're trying to convince the person saying that the molecules are moving rapidly that they are incorrect and only giving them "because I want tea" as a rationale, then wondering why they are looking at you funny...
(Dunno if it helps or hurts my point, but I've been a practicing Presbyterian my whole life... take that as you will.)
Posted by: kate | February 27, 2008 4:55 PM
"you theists can't pony up a shred of evidence for the existence of god.'
The fact that you are here is not evidence of something bigger than ourselves?
But back to the point of the post: Ed is right about almost all he states as far as my experience as a teacher goes. Also, I can relate to many of the comments about religion making one anti-intellectual. This happened to me. It has taken me the better part of a year to begin to get my head out of my ass and see that all knowledge is important. That is why I protest the "Science is the only way to obtain knowledge" crowd.
There is some happy medium where one can believe in God and still want to see the human race progess through science and technology. I know this has historically not happened. More religion usually equals less progress in history. But to throw out the whole spiritual realm is no good either.
But the article hear is good. This is a problem. Religion tends to exacerbate the problem at least some I would agree. Is it the only factor? I know the kids I taught and their greatest problem was not having a Dad and Mom having to work. No one was home to make them do their work. In many ways, we are inching closer to "Lord of the Flies" in that parents just cannot afford to stay home and take care of their kids. Single Mom's have almost no chance today. The ones that somehow do it are my heros.
Posted by: King of Ireland | February 27, 2008 4:55 PM
KOI: The fact that you are here is not evidence of something bigger than ourselves?
In the sense of genes/the physical reality of the universe? Yes. In terms of a supernatural creator, no.
Posted by: Sadie Morrison | February 27, 2008 5:21 PM
'In the sense of genes/the physical reality of the universe? Yes. In terms of a supernatural creator, no."
Where did it all come from?
Posted by: King of Ireland | February 27, 2008 5:28 PM
KoI: "The fact that you are here is not evidence of something bigger than ourselves?"
I don't see how it is, what is your reasoning behind this assumption? And even if our existence was evidence of "something bigger than ourselves" how would that, by itself, point to any god, let alone the xian one? Lots of things can be "bigger" than us without being divine. I'm assuming when you say "bigger" you mean greater, more powerful, etc. please correct me if I'm wrong.
Posted by: jba | February 27, 2008 5:30 PM
"I don't see how it is, what is your reasoning behind this assumption? And even if our existence was evidence of "something bigger than ourselves" how would that, by itself, point to any god, let alone the xian one? Lots of things can be "bigger" than us without being divine. I'm assuming when you say "bigger" you mean greater, more powerful, etc. please correct me if I'm wrong."
You are right about the context. If their is something bigger and it is not found in the material world then all materialist or naturalists as some call them are wrong. You all say that there is no scientific evidence for a spiritual realm and we say there is no scientific evidence that there is not one. You start you belief on one assumption we start ours on another. Neither one is provable by the strictest use of the word Science which only studies matter?
Why not bring other ways of obtaining knowledge of the scientific way cannot disprove that there is something bigger? That is if I concede that there is no evidence in nature that points to a god. Which I do not but even if I do concede this why do the "Scientists" get decide what "knowledge" is.
Posted by: King of Ireland | February 27, 2008 5:46 PM
GETTING BACK TO THE TOPIC AT HAND...
Thing is, if i want to know something, i will either reason it out or look it up. The ability to aquire knowledge is more important than the knowledge itself. Critical thinking, learning and memory methods are what we should be learning at school. Also the joy of discovery.
We are poor, not at learning facts but at teaching. Ourselves and our children, and what do we do about it. We lower the pass scores so no-one feels left-out or proclaim that ignorance is bliss.
This state was fine when life was simpler, but now every topic can be made complicated and laced with emotion and too few of us do not know how to cross those minefields.
Posted by: Richard Eis | February 27, 2008 5:50 PM
Brandon wrote:
Experience suggests that this is indeed one of the basic universal laws.
Posted by: Ed Brayton | February 27, 2008 5:57 PM
KoI: "You all say that there is no scientific evidence for a spiritual realm and we say there is no scientific evidence that there is not one. You start you belief on one assumption we start ours on another."
Except there *isn't* any evidence for a spirit realm. The fact that there isn't any against it either doesn't mean it's something that should be taken into account when learning about the physical world.
"Why not bring other ways of obtaining knowledge of the scientific way cannot disprove that there is something bigger?"
Because those other ways have yet to provide any knowledge of the physical world (again, I am making an assumption that you mean spiritual ways). They have produced a great deal of philosophy, but no evidence one way or another. And without evidence it makes no sense at all to assume something is real. I can make the same (much worn) argument that there is an invisible, intangible dragon in my apartment. There is no evidence for or against it, but there is also no reason to beleive it is true.
Posted by: jba | February 27, 2008 6:00 PM
"GETTING BACK TO THE TOPIC AT HAND'
Probably a good idea I do not want to distract from this post. Ed is right and this needs to be discussed in this country.
Posted by: King of Ireland | February 27, 2008 6:00 PM
Re the link above to a Moyers/Jacoby TV interview:
That interview was horrible and only representative of the worst aspects of the book, which just shows Moyers to be a pretty shallow liberal thinker IMHO whose merely looking for ammunition.
Jacoby addresses other topics in the book that make a case that both liberals and conservatives share some responsibility for dumbing down the culture and just like O'Leilly on the right, Moyers avoids those topics to protect his idealogical buddies.
Posted by: Michael Heath | February 27, 2008 6:16 PM
MRoberts reasoning runs as follows:
I attribute event X to cause G
You deny that G causes X
=?!=> You deny G exists
Ed Brayton: Memorizing a dozen "proofs" that the earth is only a few thousand years old does not cure one's ignorance of geology, it only serves to inoculate the credulous against actual evidence.
Neither does getting one's news from Ann Coulter and Bill O'Reilly. That's what makes what they and Fox News do so insidious. They convince ignoramuses to think of themselves as intellectuals.
Posted by: Science Avenger | February 27, 2008 6:52 PM
KOI: Where did it all come from?
There is an entire field of study dedicated to this question known as abiogenesis. The research has a long way to go, and definitive answers are not yet forthcoming, but the more research is conducted, the less need there is for supernatural explanations which cannot be backed up at all. Ever heard of the Miller-Urey experiment?
Posted by: Sadie Morrison | February 27, 2008 7:04 PM
Ed: this is a huge and important topic. Please consider more on this subject.
Sadly as others have said the comments have mostly been needlessly about atheism.
As a former teacher and coach, I've gained some scar tissue working with American students, and I have to say we have a real problem on our hands. If I were to come up with a top ten list of problems I encountered, attention spans, lack of sleep, gang presence (or real membership), threats of violence (and actual acts therof), and especially lack of parental involvement would all easily make the list. Beauracratic administration, poor teacher training... etc. all could be added. At one parent teacher evening, for an applied math class I taught to 28 kids, ONE parent showed up. I was appalled. The next few days I asked several of my kids about it--and in that rough sample found a majority with one parent or none (living with an aunt or whatever) and they were too busy to attend or flat told their child they didn't care.
Now where does "it's all religion's fault" come in on the top ten list for those kids I worked with? Very low. It is a non-issue for most of them--many aren't religous and certainly some who are were good students. Sastra may post that religion leaves our students believing that "Nothing else really counts" but faith... in my experience that was completely untrue and irrellevant to this tremendously important problem. Nor have most been brainwashed by the young earth crowd or zealous web sites. I'm not saying those topics are bad to discuss--it can be fun. But do they really cause most of the issues this thread is addressing?
We face serious issues with how we are raising our kids. While we may argue and never agree on so many topics, I believe real solutions won't be found in partizan ideology or religious/anit-religious arguments.
Posted by: Rich | February 27, 2008 8:17 PM
Hi Rich-
You raise some good points. I am also a teacher and have some of the same issues however I also have some students really brainwashed by religion also. But all in all the vast majority of students go along with religion because their parents make them although it should be said this does continue the problem into adulthood.
I would also ask the age you teach and location as when I taught the 8th grade I always had alot of parent involvement and at the HS far less.
Posted by: JimC | February 27, 2008 9:41 PM
Hitting a few random ideas from the current thread.
James Hanley: I have been involved in a lot of campaigns featuring negative ads, and I have to agree with your analysis: There is a huge difference between attacking an opponent based upon policy or personal traits (usually an addiction to corruption) rather than mindless attack ads based upon some irrelevant trait, such as receiving monsy from a particular PAC. Caliing everything "Negative" is worse than useless. In my experience, the best campaigns at dishing out negative ads tend to be those with the slimiest candidate.
As for the general issue of whether religious voters are less rational than others, I would suggest that all voters have information costs, which they may or may not overcome. At my church, for instance, everyone knows that I was a staffer for a Congressman on the Foreign Affairs Committee: Thus, they ask me my opinion on Iraq policy, or the current Turk-Kurd standoff. People who don't have such a resource turn to Rush Limbaugh or some even less reliable source, assuming they care at all. All of this is covered in any decent PolySci 101 course.
Posted by: kehrsam | February 27, 2008 9:43 PM
JimC,
I spent two years teaching 9th and 10th graders. The location was decidedly challenging with a mix of urban lower income kids along with military kids from the nearby airforce base. Turnover was 50% per year which was very detrimental--kids coming in mid semester and others leaving town, and many knowing their grades didn't matter too much if they would not be spending the whole year in state. Coaching was at various: a private high school, public school, and community college. I don't consider myself an education expert by a long shot, but the real experience taught me quite a bit.
Posted by: Rich | February 27, 2008 10:14 PM
Bah. I saw this last week and am disappointed to see it here.
Re: that National Geo survey - I went and looked at it right after I read the Jacoby piece. Interestingly enough, the internet news users did better at locating countries, which makes me wonder at how much those navel gazing elitists are really paying attention to their newspapers.
Posted by: Andrea | February 27, 2008 10:15 PM
DINGO'S LAW - The length of the discussion is DIRECTLY proportional to the probability that DingoJack will post a complete silly response. :D
Posted by: DingoJack | February 27, 2008 10:49 PM
People may believe that there is a country called "Spain" and that thier lives a ruled by a giant purple hedgehog called "Spiny Norman". The former is rational (ie informed by logic or edivence) the latter is irrational (instinctual or NOT informed by evidence or logic).
That one believes both is not evidence of stupidity, rather is an example of the fact that humans can believe in rational & irrational things at the same time. One of the wonders of human nature!
It is when the irrational crowds out and blocks the rational that bad things happen, eg Abū Ghurayb. -DJ
Posted by: DingoJack | February 27, 2008 11:15 PM
Let's say that God himself descends from Heaven right before my eyes, smacks me in the forehead with His Noodly Appendage, and says, "Here I am! I exist! Here's your proof," and proceeds to hand me a billion dollars in cash, the keys to a Ferrari, and Karl Rove's head on a platinum platter. If and ONLY if I then say, "I still don't believe in you because the prophet Dawkins said you don't exist in one of his books" then atheism becomes a matter of faith. Until then, atheism is nothing more than a null hypothesis that fails to be rejected.
A null hypothesis is not a statement of faith; it is science's way of saying, "Put your money where your mouth is."
Posted by: nighthawk808 | February 28, 2008 1:13 AM
From a logical perspective is
"I believe there is no god" = "I don't believe there is a god"?
Posted by: lauram |