Pharyngula

Posted by: ardip | July 12, 2010 1:32 PM

There's something at the end that asks for email/mail addresses but I just didn't bother filling them in and it still accepted my survey

Posted by: digitallyborn | July 12, 2010 1:37 PM

I'm the guy who set up this survey. It may not survive, but I'm interested to see how it goes regardless.

Most of the survey is optional, only the first page has mandatory questions. That includes the contact information at the end.

Posted by: tdcourtney | July 12, 2010 1:39 PM

I don't like the yes/no questions. Some atheists are spiritual, some aren't. Some value ethics, others don't. We aren't that homogenized.

Posted by: digitallyborn | July 12, 2010 1:44 PM

I understand that science is not a belief. I didn't include it to indicate that it should be considered as such. I included it to gain the perspective of the people taking the survey.

I am aware of the difference between asking a question and asserting an answer. (Are you?)

Posted by: Jackal | July 12, 2010 1:46 PM

"What do atheists believe in?" is the wrong question. Atheism isn't a belief system. It's just a lack of belief in one specific concept: gods. Atheists are still atheists if they believe in angles, demons, homeopathy, and coffee enemas, so long as they do not believe in gods.

Posted by: TheRatKing | July 12, 2010 1:49 PM

Tsk, no selection for LaVeyan Satanists?

Posted by: Phodopus | July 12, 2010 1:51 PM

I agree. Many aspects of your survey will tell you mostly about prejudice because of the fuzzy or overly simplistic nature of the answers. What does believe in science mean? What is the concept of spirituality you are going for?

Posted by: andrew.david.smith | July 12, 2010 1:53 PM

Yeah I put "irrelevant" for all versions of belief in science. Science exists (and operates) regardless of peoples belief in it. On the other hand, all the other things listed ONLY exist because of belief.

Posted by: Cannabinaceae | July 12, 2010 1:54 PM

Asking an atheist if someone is spiritual is fraught.

"No spirits" implies that nobody is spiritual. Thus, no Christian or Muslim is spiritual even if they describe themselves that way. "Emotional in a flaky way" describes what I think some people are who self-identify, or are identified as, spiritual.

Many of my friends call themselves Christian and go to church regularly. Most of them I think of as actually deist or pantheist, so do they believe in some supernatural dude named "God"? Asking what "Christians believe" conflates a whole bunch of incommensurable people into one category - so should I say I don't actually know any Christians?

There is no way that the results of this poll can be useful in terms of the questions it purports to be asking.

Posted by: digitallyborn | July 12, 2010 1:55 PM

Actually ... it's interesting that many of you have indicated that atheists don't believe in science .. however, most of the people filling out the survey seem to think they do (as opposed to saying it's irrelevant as I expected).

So, while you may not think it's "correct," the answers are still meaningful.

Posted by: SamB | July 12, 2010 1:56 PM

This survey paints in too broad strokes to actually be very good.

Posted by: MoonShark | July 12, 2010 1:59 PM

I'm not giving my contact info for such a poorly-worded survey, especially not if I don't know where it's going.

Maybe bother to attach a name, affiliation, and privacy policy, eh?

Posted by: Glen Davidson | July 12, 2010 2:01 PM

I understand that science is not a belief. I didn't include it to indicate that it should be considered as such. I included it to gain the perspective of the people taking the survey.

I am aware of the difference between asking a question and asserting an answer. (Are you?)

I understand the difference between merely asking questions and asking leading questions, moron.

Do you even understand why anyone would dislike the fact that you're leading people wrongly, or do you just want to be a smart-ass dick?

Glen Davidson

Posted by: Ströh | July 12, 2010 2:06 PM

I almost claimed that atheists believe in science before I remembered that science isn't something you believe in, it's something you accept as a useful tool. I mentioned it in the comments for the spirituality question.

Actually, pure belief in science would preclude you from being an atheist - you would be a "scientistian" or something of the like.

It was the only category I distinctly put as not believing in science. For the other two I just put irrelevant.

And sure, this survey will mostly represent prejudices. But that can be useful (and very interesting) too.

Posted by: minervasp73 | July 12, 2010 2:08 PM

Irritating survey.

Posted by: Lynn Wilhelm | July 12, 2010 2:14 PM

About belief in science--
I answered "irrelevant" to all each of those. One doesn't believe, one simply accepts.
Therefore, the best answer seemed to be "irrelevant".

Posted by: omnipasje | July 12, 2010 2:16 PM

@digitallyborn
Good luck with this survey.

I think you worded the belief in science wrong.
science is not something you believe in. You either accept it or you don't.
You can't say.. well.. i don't care what they say.. i don't believe in gravity.. i'm going to fly off right now.

It won't happen no matter how hard you believe.
so my answer to that is irrelivant, as i find the "don't believe" in science just as bad.

Posted by: kalvie | July 12, 2010 2:21 PM

Hey, hey...

I have loved this blog for a long time now, but only now have I registered, just to comment on this discussion.

Some of you are being way too mean to the guy who came over and admitted he designed the survey.

You may disagree with the survey's design or even its purpose, but I don't think you should attack the designer with ad hominem meanness, especially when the hominem has appeared to comment.

Come on, play nice.

Posted by: rident | July 12, 2010 2:28 PM

Why do the choices for the first question get jumbled around when you remove "?referer=pharyngula" from the link?

Posted by: Hekuni Cat, Champion of Oriana | July 12, 2010 2:28 PM

I completed the survey but, like so many others, I thought it was poorly worded.

I agree that one doesn't believe in science, but I answered believe only because so many of these polls and surveys don't make the distinction between belief and acceptance - probably because the people who write them frequently don't understand there is a distinction.

Cannabinaceae #17:

Asking an atheist if someone is spiritual is fraught.

"No spirits" implies that nobody is spiritual. Thus, no Christian or Muslim is spiritual even if they describe themselves that way.

My thought exactly.

Posted by: Frank Lovell | July 12, 2010 2:35 PM

@DIGITALLYBORN: I took your poll. I elaborated some of my answers in the space you provided. I included my actual email address at the end. I sure hope you will share the results of the poll with us when it is finished. THANKS!!

Posted by: nezitx | July 12, 2010 2:39 PM

I must comment that the questions that bothered me the most were those regarding morality. As I explained in one of my responses:
First, there are people of any religion that value morality and those that don't.
Second, there is a full range of morality within each religion. That is, that they may have a different set of morals, but not mine. So do they value morality? Yes, but, do they value my morality, and thus seem moral to me? No. Again though, you cannot apply this to several billion people. There will be people on both ends.

Posted by: digitallyborn | July 12, 2010 2:40 PM

I worded it exactly how I intended. I don't 'believe' in science, nor do I think that science should be believed in. That wasn't the point of the question.

I admit that some of the questions are vague and over-simplify things, but to include every one of the possible answers would never be a casual survey that many people would volunteer the time to participate in.

This is just a personal experiment. There is no research project or grant or organization behind it. It was spawned with little forethought (obviously), but I still feel that the answers will give some interesting insights, even if not scientifically sound. If no other reason, I now have a list of things not to do if there is a next one.

@Glen Davidson: I apologize, I didn't intend for that to come across quite so dick-ish. I don't think I'm leading anyone.

@kalvie: Thanks for sticking up for me. :)

Regardless of how any of you feel about my exploration into my own curiosity, I appreciate you all taking the time out of your Monday to fill it out and tell me what I'm doing right and/or wrong.

If anyone would like to contact me, you can reach me at this email address: shaipeqsir@garrifulio.mailexpire.com. Don't worry, that address is temporary ... I wouldn't put my real email out there.

Posted by: Algernon, elle sans chapeau | July 12, 2010 2:40 PM

Yeah "spiritual" is tricky too. It can mean so many other things. Even though I interpreted the question as "Do Christians see themselves as spiritual, etc" I had trouble figuring out what to say. Where I live spiritual usually means one of two things. 1) Like evangelical or something it can mean one has perceives an immediate personal connection to the "spirit" and 2) It can mean one is involved in occult, aspects of spiritualism, alternative religious philosophy etc.

It's hard to say too since "spirituality" probably varies withing Christian and Muslim populations and some Agnostics will call themselves "spiritual but not religious" too.

All very confusing.

I don't consider myself spiritual. I used to say stuff like that but later I realized that if I had ever been spiritual I would probably have been religious. It was the former that was lacking in me.

But I digress.

Posted by: cdevoe | July 12, 2010 2:43 PM

I actually didn't mind the poll (with the exception of the obvious wording). I liked commenting on morality as nothing irritates me more than when christians claim I can no way make moral decisions. I would love to read the comment sections...somewhere someone is say "Damn, these atheists are complicated and meticulous!" Please share.

Posted by: pockets881 | July 12, 2010 2:45 PM

while I agree with many that I didn't like the wording of belief in science, I do believe the scientists I talk to and listen to within their field. If PZ says something about the development of zebra fish, assuming it isn't on the face insane, I tend to believe him. I am not a trained scientist, but if a vetted expert says something that I could conceivably spend 10+ years studying and focusing on to confirm, why shouldn't I listen to them and give them the benefit of doubt and believe them.

Posted by: https://me.yahoo.com/hairychris444#96384 | July 12, 2010 2:47 PM

Completed and commented, but yeah, some of the questions needed clarification (which I hope was the reason behind it).

I'd love to see what the answers that the more stoopidly religious put for atheists! :-)

Posted by: Kraid | July 12, 2010 2:55 PM

I got tripped up by the questions about spirituality, since it's such a broad term. I know Christians who I'd call spiritual in that they have literal beliefs in spirits and demons and voodoo magic. However, some of those same Christians are less spiritual in the loose sense of the word. They go to Church on Sundays and they like to have their prejudices justified by God, but they don't necessarily do a lot of introspection or soul searching (that I can tell).

The question about belief in science was tricky too, as others have mentioned. Even the question about whether "atheists believe there is no god" seemed ambiguous, because I'm not sure whether it's just casually worded or if it's driving at the difference between strong vs. weak atheism.

Posted by: rident | July 12, 2010 2:58 PM

Wait nevermind. It's with every page refresh. :D

Posted by: Kagehi | July 12, 2010 3:00 PM

Unlike andrew.david.smith, I don't presume that believers don't "believe" in science. For an atheist the concept is 'irrelevant', as he stated, but we see people "believing" in science they like, and rejecting other parts all the time. Its a core problem. Many theist can't grasp the concept that there is a difference between *trusting* that something works, and *believing* it does, or that doing the former, on the basis of a trust in the process and evidence, isn't something that can be overturned simply and easily, by just having their other cherished beliefs challenged by facts.

So, no, I don't believe for a moment that "correct" answer for the faithful, about science, is "its irrelevant". They believe in it, or at least parts of it, and only so long as it doesn't conflict with what they imagine are more "important" beliefs. For those willing to follow the evidence, the correct answer is, however, rightly, "this question is meaningless and irrelevant".

Posted by: Paul | July 12, 2010 3:03 PM

I don't consider myself spiritual. I used to say stuff like that but later I realized that if I had ever been spiritual I would probably have been religious. It was the former that was lacking in me.

+1. Although I spent several being religious but not spiritual, having no concept of lack of religion but feeling none of the spirituality that everyone else around seemed to always be basking in. Eventually I stopped torturing myself over why I was different and probably going to hell for it and just left the religion construct behind.

Posted by: foehammer | July 12, 2010 3:03 PM

I actually wasn't sure what to put for the atheists on the first page.

I ended up putting 'Don't believe' for atheists on the concept of god. The rest was 'I don't know' because I really can't represent this opinions for all atheists - you could be an atheist and believe in demons, heaven and hell, and voodoo magic. All it requires to get in the exclusive atheist club is a lack of a belief in a god or god.

Posted by: SteveM | July 12, 2010 3:04 PM

I tend to try to interpret ambiguous questions in the way that makes the most sense (to me). In particular the "Do [you] believe in science" question. While one should not "believe in" science the way one "believes in" God, I don't think it is unreasonable to interpret it as "do you put your trust in science?" (or simply "do you trust science?") And answered accordingly.

Posted by: pockets881 | July 12, 2010 3:07 PM

@digitallyborn I agree, this might be too much word parsing, but for me when I say I believe PZ it's analogous to I trust his expertise, less than I have blind faith in his stance or results. I intentionally didn't use the word faith because of it's obvious connotations.

Posted by: gussnarp | July 12, 2010 3:24 PM

@secularguy - I'm pretty much with you on "believe". I believe in science in as much as I believe that the scientific method, when properly practiced, is the best way to accurately learn about our world and our universe. That belief is founded on centuries of concrete examples of the effectiveness of science, but it doesn't mean that I don't believe it. That does not make science a "belief system", because that compound word has a whole other meaning.

On the other hand, it is reasonable to be wary of the used of words like "belief" because there is an argument used against scientists that says that science is a religion. The same argument is used against atheists, as well as the one that claims that atheism is a religion. These arguments are entirely false, but scientists and atheist are both well advised to avoid words like believe, belief, or worst of all faith in order to avoid having their statements twisted and used against them.

Posted by: markus.polvivaara | July 12, 2010 3:30 PM

I too find the wording confusing in some of the questions so I had to answer "irrelevant" to all but the god part of the atheist part. Being an atheist means nothing considering ones belief on voodoo or soul for example, even though obviously you'd be hard pressed to find a voodoo-believing atheist.

It wasn't cleat if digitallyborn meant "what most atheists believe" or "what beliefs follow from one being an atheist".

I think getting stuck in the connotations of the word believe is irrelevant considering this poll.

Posted by: Celtic_Evolution | July 12, 2010 3:32 PM

My answers, for what it's worth and for those who might be interested:

Do atheists believe there is no god?

No. An atheist sees no evidence for the existence of god. Therefor, using the principals of parsimony, asserts that god is not necessary as an explanation for any phenomenon. However an atheist does no claim to know that god does not, nor can not, exist.

Do you think atheists are spiritual?

No. Spiritual is a vague term, however in common vernacular, no, atheists put no stock in explanations that can not be tested, repeated, or falsified, as would be the common accepted definition of the "spiritual".

Do you think atheists value morality?

Yes. This is a poor question, and isn't really a yes or no answer. Morality is a function of social interaction in which both the common and individual good are served. While religion has functioned as an adequate vessel for depicting "morality", as a method of relating the concepts through story, Aesop's fables provide the same function, without the need for worship of an invisible almighty being and the threat of eternal damnation. Morality does not require religion, and in fact often suffers as a result of it.

Do you think Christians value morality?

Yes. Like the same question asked of atheists, this is a poor question with too few choices. Some christians may be immoral, and some moral. Simply being a christian does not endow one with a sense of morality, automatically. But taken as a whole, I think christians, like most people, on average value morality.

I didn't give any more detailed responses to the repeated questions for muslims and christians, other then the morality one above.

Posted by: kestrelmw | July 12, 2010 3:38 PM

Actually.. Wasn't Voodoo is African, and only took on Christian nonsense when those where adopted by slaves, who already practiced voodoo, and where exposed to the Christian mythology on top of it.

Posted by: mrgenius | July 12, 2010 3:53 PM

and this, boys and girls, can be viewed as evidence that creating a well-crafted poll is more difficult than one would think.

nonetheless, i filled it in and tried to explain why, for example, i 'accept' science instead of 'believing' science.

Posted by: Bill Dauphin, avec fromage | July 12, 2010 4:16 PM

Hmmm.... I know this isn't the popular response here, but believe in doesn't bother me: In common usage, believe and belief do not necessarily suggest anything supernatural or metaphysical. People say I believe in... to indicate their acceptance of the existence of something or the truth of a proposition, or to indicate their admiration for or advocacy of some activity or phenomonon. It does not follow that the reason for their acceptance, advocacy, or admiration is necessarily rooted in woo.

That said, there are some problems I have with the survey questions:

First, the question regarding how many atheists I know bugs me, because I assume that, given the Christ-soaked popular culture we live in (at least here in 'Merica), some unknown but nontrivial number of people I know are secretly atheists. Notwithstanding all my virtual friends here who are atheists, in meatspace I know almost nobody who's out as an atheist... but I suspect many of my liberal Democratic friends are, in their heart of hearts, atheists or agnostics or at least take a somewhat skeptical approach to religion, but don't feel at liberty to be public about that.

Next, spiritual is mildy confounding. In addition to the dichotomy between the spiritualism of the religious and that of the occultists they despise, I also know lots of people who describe themselves as spiritual in a much more secular way: Their referring to the "softer" side of life... to their inclination to prioritize emotional, empathic, artistic impulses over "hard" logic and materialism. This may seem a bit softheaded to some of you, but it's not necessarily anything to do with the supernatural, and it's not inconsistent with atheism.

Finally, of course atheists "value morality"... but I think many religious folks define the word morality so differently from secular folks that the question becomes meaningless. Ask most religious people about morality, and they'll talk about behavior (e.g., when, how, and with whom you have sex; whether and how you display your body; when and how you pray; whether your children speak to adults with appropriate formality; even what and when you eat), while secular folks will talk about principles. So I think it's something of a mug's game to compare atheists' and theists' answers about whether they (or each other) "value morality"; they're going to answer the question from such divergent starting points that they might as well be answering different questions.

Posted by: Aratina Cage | July 12, 2010 4:35 PM

Here is why I don't like the phrase "I believe in science." When someone says they "believe in God", they are making a claim that they think God is real. The sense of "believing in" something should be parallel in both sentences, but it doesn't make any sense to me to say "I believe science is real." Science isn't a being, it is an ever growing collection of human knowledge about reality. It would be like saying "I believe Christianity is real", and who doesn't? That is very different from saying, "I believe Christianity is right and that the claims it makes are true." So the author of the survey, digitallyborn, needs to recognize the multiple implied meanings the phrase "believe in" can take and rewrite the survey, particularly the big block of multiple choice on each page, so it is clear what is being asked.

Posted by: Enkidu | July 12, 2010 4:38 PM

This survey is taking a lot of shit it doesn't deserve. Sure, some questions could have been worded better. I would have asked if people "believed the scientific method is the best way to find the true nature of the universe we live in."

Compare this survey to the vast majority that try to address religion and atheism. This one includes "irrelevant" which is a great improvement in itself.

Posted by: philip.kizer | July 12, 2010 4:43 PM

There's another poll that popped up today, too, that could use some pharyngulating as part of this article:

Cleric Anwar al-Awlaki puts 'Everybody Draw Mohammed' cartoonist Molly Norris on execution hitlist

What's the best way to get information on those to PZ for putting up on its own post?

Posted by: Walton, Marquis of Carabas | July 12, 2010 5:00 PM

"I believe in science" seems to me to be a meaningless phrase, and a category error. As I understand it, science isn't a fact or a person or an ideology: rather, it's an epistemic method, i.e. a way of acquiring knowledge. In this sense, whenever we test a hypothesis against empirical evidence, and discard hypotheses that don't fit the evidence, we are doing science. It isn't something one "believes in" in that sense.

The other thing to note is that "believe" can be used in two senses. On one level, "I believe in X" can just mean "I think that X exists" or "I think that X is true". This kind of belief is just an acceptance of a state of fact, without any moral implication: in the way that I might say "I believe in penguins", or, indeed, "I believe in evolution". In both cases, I'm simply accepting a fact about reality as it is. I am not expressing a moral view as to how things should be.

But we also use the term "believe" in a different sense, to refer to a moral commitment to a particular ideology or moral philosophy or set of axioms: in the way that someone might say "I believe in socialism" or "I believe in civil liberties".

The confusing thing is that when Christians say "I believe in God", they're using "believe" in both these senses. They mean that they think God exists; but they also mean that they think God is good, and that it is morally right to obey his commands and live according to his will. These are separate ideas, and it's important to separate them out clearly. Otherwise we get is-ought confusions: such as where creationists accuse "Darwinists" of wanting to adopt evolution as a basis for morality. They fail to understand that "I believe in evolution" isn't like "I believe in God"; evolution is a descriptive theory about the nature of reality as it is, not a moral philosophy.

Posted by: Aratina Cage | July 12, 2010 5:07 PM

That would imply that I go... ah it's science, must be true! I must serve Science's will!

LOL — That made my rather dreary day a little brighter, Ol'Greg.

Posted by: Jay | July 12, 2010 5:10 PM

1) Which of the following best classifies your beliefs?
Agnostic

2) How many atheists do you know?
1-5

3) Please indicate which of the following concepts you think atheists believe:
Choices for each are: Believe, Don't believe, Irrelevant, I don't know
Don't believe - God
Don't believe - Demons
Don't believe - Spiritualism
Don't believe - Voodoo
Don't believe - Ghosts
Don't believe - Afterlife
Don't believe - Heaven/Hell
Don't believe - Reincarnation
I don't know - Destiny
Irrelevant - Science (you can't believe in scienc, but you can accept it)

4) Do atheists believe there is no god? Yes
5) Do you think atheists are spiritual? No
6) Do you think atheists value morality? Yes

Posted by: A. Noyd | July 12, 2010 5:25 PM

Walton @87

This is going on my list of useful posts to show stupid people.

Posted by: Acronym Jim | July 12, 2010 5:44 PM

Regarding morality, I think a more accurate way to phrase the question would be "are[INSERT SUBSET] moral values defined by their religious beliefs, or lack thereof?"

Fo all of the other questions, I just inserted the phrase "as a general rule" to get around the over-generalization of each group.

Posted by: subanark | July 12, 2010 5:49 PM

I'll answer these from my point of view:
1) Which of the following best classifies your beliefs? Atheist

2) How many atheists do you know?
More than 20

3) Please indicate which of the following concepts you believe:
Choices for each are: Believe, Don't believe, Irrelevant, I don't know
- God: Irrelevant, If there is a god, it doesn't interfere with our universe.
- Demons: Irrelevant, same category as god
- Spiritualism: Need more precise definition
- Voodoo: Believe People do practice voodoo, it just doesn't do much.
- Ghosts: Don't believe. The dead tend to stay quite dead
- Afterlife: Don't believe (no soul)
- Heaven/Hell: Don't believe (no soul)
- Reincarnation: Don't believe (no soul)
- Destiny: Irrelevant, I'm a determinist
- Science: Believe, have to accept some kind of evidence in order to make decisions. I define believe as accept on its own merit.

4) Do I believe there is no god? No, such question is irrelevant.
5) Am I spiritual? Need more precise definition
6) Do you think atheists value morality? I don't, but I usually lie about this, as otherwise I get demonized by the rest of society.

Posted by: Kel, The Privileged View From Nowhere | July 12, 2010 6:02 PM

Those poll questions are terrible. Atheists are defined by one quality: their non-belief in supernatural agents operating in the world. That's it. To say "what atheists believe" is going to be false no matter what because there are surely plenty of atheists out there who believe in a lot of those things but still come under the label atheist.

It's a negative word, wish people would stop trying to ascribe positive beliefs to it...

Posted by: Legion | July 12, 2010 6:03 PM

subanark:

2) How many atheists do you know?
More than 20

You lucky dog. Practically all of the atheists we know live in the intertubes, whereas out here in meatspace -- and especially in our little neck of the woods -- most atheists are still in the choir (choir = closet)

Posted by: digitallyborn | July 12, 2010 6:07 PM

@Legion: You make a good point. If there is ever to be a follow up survey, I will spent some time looking into what makes a better survey. Admittedly, I am an amateur at all of this.

I intended to leave things a bit fuzzy. The goal was to collect opinions about others. In fact, I'm more interested what religious people think about a survey like this than I am what atheists think. I'm an atheist. I hang out with atheists. I've heard everything that's been said here so far, except the "poorly written and here's why ..." comments (which are very beneficial).

I know that one of my statements was clearly defensive .. I'm talking about that "don't you?" part of my comment. You can blame that on sloppy writing, not a malicious intent. I really am surprised that more people weren't reaching for the "irrelevant" option. I put it there very deliberately and I would use it often if I were to take the survey.

As I said before, if any of you has any questions you can contact me directly at this temporary (for spam sake) email address: shaipeqsir@garrifulio.mailexpire.com

Posted by: shreddakj | July 12, 2010 6:27 PM

PZ are you going to post the results of this poll when/if they come out?

Posted by: nekura-ca | July 12, 2010 6:32 PM

Def'n:
"Belief: a psychological state in which an individual holds a proposition or premise to be true"

It does not say anything about weather the premise is true on not, nor weather the reason is based on fact, or faith. So it is perfectly acceptable to speak of "believing" a true statement for which evidence exists. It is not the same as "faith." I do not have a problem with the wording of the question. I do have a problem with people thinking "belief" is automatically "irrational trust without proof"

Posted by: kjd1005 | July 12, 2010 6:44 PM

It was not that hard people... are christians spiritual? sure most of them... are atheists spiritual? sure! most of them love a moonrise behind a mountain or a bird feeding a worm to a chick.. or a snake gulping down that same bitty bird...

that's spiritual in my book.. if you see a comet across the sky and go ehh.. I already saw a pic on facebook... well then I would say not...

Posted by: CButter | July 12, 2010 6:46 PM

nekura-ca,

Precisely. Thank you. It's saddening that religious upbringings and theological sophistry have confused the issue so successfully that even commenters on a science blog don't bother to look for consistency in their own notions of belief. When they look down their noses and declare how they're above such silly language, as in #94, then, well. The Picard would certainly know an appropriate gesture.

Posted by: CButter | July 12, 2010 6:52 PM

that's spiritual in my book..

Your book is sloppy, and the Board regrets it cannot recommend its purchase for student use at this time. Try Texas.

Posted by: Ben Goren | July 12, 2010 6:57 PM

On the whole belief thing —

If you know and / or accept something, you of necessity also believe it. I know that 2 + 2 = 4, but my knowledge also causes me to believe that 2 + 2 = 4.

In communication, one must be careful when placing limits on things. For example, it is a perfectly true statement that Baihu, my sole remaining resident deity, has three legs. However, were I to tell you, “Baihu has three legs,” you would (quite reasonably) assume that he has exactly three legs, which is not the case. He has four legs. Because he has four legs, it is also true that he has three legs, two legs, and one leg. But the conventions of language are such that stating, “Baihu has three legs,’ is interpreted as equivalent to, “Baihu has exactly three legs,” even though the two statements have very different meanings.

Therefore, while it would be true to state that I believe that 2 + 2 = 4, the statement would be deceptive.

I cannot lie. Baihu has four legs, and I know that 2 + 2 = 4.

Cheers,

b&

Posted by: dannystevens.myopenid.com | July 12, 2010 7:04 PM

@digitallyborn you have created an interesting opportunity here.

1) I would be interested to see the results, such as they are.

2) I would be interested in seeing some discussion aqbout designing version 2 poll, its aims, its wording, how to avoid push polling and the ways to ensure reasonably credible replies (within the limitations of the software).

3) Then go ahead and create version 2 and let us know about it.

Posted by: reeddlh | July 12, 2010 7:14 PM

CButter:
I agree that the "believe in evolution" distinction shouldn't really need to be made. However, as a high school teacher, as BIOTEACHER probably also is, I usually didn't have much time to answer it.

I was an English teacher, not a bio. teacher, and the question usually was presented to me in the time between classes. I teach in a 100% christian environment, but there were always those kids who were starting to form a few independent thoughts. So, for me, launching immediately into an answer that made very clear that I was placing science in its own category that didn't smack of religion, gave me an opening to explain a tiny little bit of science, and maybe keep them thinking instead of running home to tell parents that gasp! my Eng. teacher believes in evolution instead of god.

If they managed to think their way out of the intellectual quagmire of the religious soup they live in, later would be plenty of time to split hairs about the word "believe."

Posted by: Enkidu | July 12, 2010 7:16 PM

Alright, we've read all about what's wrong with this particular survey. I've found every survey that addresses this or a similar topic to have the same flaws to a greater degree. To some degree, this is bound to happen, because the English language contains words with many shades of meaning, and a few with absolutely contrary meanings! (Think cleave: join or sunder, it can mean either.)

The big problem here is the word believe. Us atheists use believe to mean "seems to be true, at least that's the way the evidence looks to me." So when a Christian says "I believe in Jesus" he means the only way know the nature of life and the universe is through Jesus. In that sense, I believe in science, as I believe that science is the only way to know the nature of life and the universe.

Posted by: McCthulhu is taking ∞ to eat all the pi | July 12, 2010 7:17 PM

I didn't bother with the survey. 'Close-enough' answers don't satisfy the way I actually think about things. 'Close-enough' answers can also be used by the pollster to yank a conclusion out of me that I don't want them to take away from it. When you go talking about misinterpretation, baby, you can count me out.

Posted by: McCthulhu is taking ∞ to eat all the pi | July 12, 2010 7:23 PM

I guess if I took the survey, I could say I believe in Voodoo. I have proof that it exists.

Posted by: NoFear | July 12, 2010 8:04 PM

@BioTeacher:

If you are a biology teacher, you should know better. "Evolution" is a fact that the "theory of natural selection" explains very well. And at this point, the theory of natural selection is so well supported that it should almost be considered fact ... though it never will be nor does it need to be. It only ever needs to be what it is ... a very well supported scientific theory which no evidence contradicts and much evidence supports.

This is what you should teach your students. Stop using the phrase "theory of evolution". Evolution is a fact. Evolution is a fact. Evolution is a fact. Sorry, but I feel I have to drill it in when even a biology teacher still says it's a theory.

Posted by: kjd1005 | July 12, 2010 8:15 PM

"Your book is sloppy,"

Bull. why let "others" define spirituality?

a turtle pooping eggs on a beach? Spiritual!!

"Try Texas." nah.. they wouldn't like it...

Posted by: Piscador | July 12, 2010 8:31 PM

@NoFear

Stop using the phrase "theory of evolution". Evolution is a fact.

Just a couple of points:

1. Stop using the phrase "theory of gravity". Gravity is a fact. Stop using the phrase "theory of relativity". Relativity is a fact. Stop using the phrase "theory of plate tectonics". Plate tectonics is a fact.

Do you see where I'm going with this? In science, the word theory has a different meaning from the the way it's used in everyday English. From the free online dictionary:

1. A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.
...
6. An assumption based on limited information or knowledge; a conjecture.

2. Evolution is a fact. The theory of evolution is not a fact. It's an explanation of how and why evolution works based on the available data and is continually being modified as we learn more about the world around us.

Posted by: Midnight Rambler | July 12, 2010 8:49 PM

Wow; I can't believe this many people took the time to answer, and apparently care about, this lousy internet poll that someone made up just for themselves. Some nitwit used to spam the comment section of a news blog I read with links to polls he set up on polldaddy to get attention, I guess he should have come here and made them about religion?

Posted by: frustum.myopenid.com | July 12, 2010 8:56 PM

God damn, pharyngulites are a whining, nit picking bunch.

Imagine the author of the survey and written a chapter for each question, exactly delineating the intent and scope of the question, offering dozens of canned response and the free form response box. Do you think this would still be some kind of definitive survey? The sampling is hardly random, and therefore hardly representative. That doesn't mean the author of the poll might learn something from it, as long as he is aware of the shortcomings (and it seems he does).

A lot of people just like to assert superiority by slagging everything they can. Ordering a pizza with you would suck hard, as you'd always be trying to "win" the ordering process.

I took the survey; it was a harmless bit of fun. Yup, I had to shoehorn some of my answers into one of the few provided options, but being able to leave a free form comment after each let me compensate for that. Really, it wasn't much of a strain. I'm guessing many people complaining here like to intentionally trip over the cracks in the sidewalks and then bitch about that too.

Posted by: CButter | July 12, 2010 9:04 PM

God damn, pharyngulites are a whining, nit picking bunch.

*Smooch* Like my fellow Hoosier Dan Quayle, I wear your scorn as a badge of honor, dear Mainstream Person.

Posted by: Philip Legge | July 12, 2010 9:12 PM

Piscador,

I see where you’re going. In a scientific context, by all means invoke the word theory, but I think in non-scientific parlance, using “theory” is often presenting a gift to the science deniers, who as a result of perhaps wilful ignorance, ideological blindness or some other educational failing do not have a clear idea that there is a separation between the set of observable, quantifiable phenomena, and the falsifiable theories that exist to explain them to greater or lesser degree.

Gravity is trivially observable if I don’t watch what I’m doing when I’m walking downstairs, whereas relativity or evolution aren’t quite so obvious in everyday life, though there are demonstrable phenomena such as gravitational lensing in the case of GR (but you need large, high-precision telescopes and measurements to find evidence supporting it), or experiments that demonstrate evolution in the lab (such as the work of Richard Lenski and Zachary Blount). In both cases, the deniers have shown their ignorance (though more comically in the latter case!) by making public their objections, which turn out to be contrary to observed reality.

It takes time to spell out these distinctions in conversation, so I can see the point of omitting the word “theory”, especially as in non-scientific language it’s synonymous with much weaker terms: compare “it’s just his [pet] theory that ...”, “there’s speculation about ...”, and “that’s just her opinion...”

Posted by: Celtic_Evolution | July 12, 2010 9:21 PM

God damn, pharyngulites are a whining, nit picking bunch.

Excuse you very much, but I hardly think you've gotten nearly enough of a sample size from this one thread and the few people arguing their position, agree or not, to make such a myopic, narrow ignorant characterization of a larger group.

"Pharyngulites" are, quite simply, people. With varying opinions. I'd think twice about making the intentional attempt at disparaging a large and diverse group with what little data you have from which you draw that conclusion.

Now if you wouldn't mind terribly getting over yourself and sticking to the points of the discussion...

Posted by: medivh | July 12, 2010 9:40 PM

2) How many atheists do you know?
None, 1-5, 6-10, 11-20, More than 20

Where's the "How should I know, I don't go pestering people about their religion if they're not pestering me" option?

On that score, I can tell you that I know many more than 20 Christians, but atheists have this habit of not proselytising.

Posted by: fernaldo | July 12, 2010 9:52 PM

Lessons Learned: There is no way to say "God damn, pharyngulites are a whining, nit picking bunch" without sounding like a nit picking whiner.

Surely, if you are a Pharyngulite, you're bound to sound like a nit picking whiner when calling Pharyngulites nit picking whiners.

Posted by: tohellwithyourturtle | July 12, 2010 10:03 PM

I love me some parentheses when I'm drinking.

Posted by: Yubal | July 12, 2010 10:06 PM

medivh #143

It said: "Please include only the people you would consider to be close friends (more than a casual acquaintance) and currently claim to be atheist."

I don't know about you, but I usually know that detail if I call a person a friend.

Posted by: tohellwithyourturtle | July 12, 2010 10:17 PM

Goodness me, someone sounds frustrated or somethin'. *Pats frustum on the head* Go off and play now,* the adults are chatting.

*I'm sure you can find an incredibly poorly designed survey to play with.

Isn't what he said exactly what you yourself doing only with added insults?
Nitpicking garbage (like this poll and the comments about it) is not being superior, it's merely experienced dumpster diving.

Posted by: tohellwithyourturtle | July 12, 2010 10:19 PM

Blockquote fail. My bad.

Posted by: tohellwithyourturtle | July 12, 2010 10:26 PM

@pyre spirit #154

The only problem with what you posted is that groups of people, no matter how loosely bonded by ideology, religion, etc., will still exhibit a tribal response to protect the groupthink that they they (however tenuously) subscribe to.

Posted by: Cath the Canberra Cook | July 12, 2010 10:31 PM

I think the nit-picking is definitely called for.

There are such things as proper research methods in social science, and principles of questionnaire design. People usually think they can do it without prior study of the principles, and they are usually dead wrong. This one's amateurish and needs revision, though not the worst I've seen.

Testing a survey out on an internet crowd like this is a pretty good way of finding the flaws in your instrument. And as we all know, not a good way of getting any useful results. Since flaws and possible fixes are the only potentially useful outcome, pick away!

Posted by: oschaefer | July 12, 2010 10:37 PM

@Kagato

There's a perfectly good word in the English language that describes exactly what you mean: sublime. Use that.

Wait, does that mean we can say atheists are subliminal?

Posted by: Algernon, elle sans chapeau | July 12, 2010 10:41 PM

nooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo!

Blockquote fail!

And that was a nice well intended answer too.

Posted by: tohellwithyourturtle | July 12, 2010 10:45 PM

nooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo!

Blockquote fail!

And that was a nice well intended answer too.

I think I hit a nerve...need a tissue?

Posted by: tohellwithyourturtle | July 12, 2010 11:24 PM

To over explain for those of who failed an accounting test, what you see as "adult" discourse (I know that you didn't say that, you tried to affirm this position with weak sarcasm) is nothing more than choosing to dig through the refuse instead of rejecting it outright and laughing at it. Hence the dumpster diving joke. What's the point? Humor? Perhaps. Intellectual masturbation? More likely. When you grow up, come have a chat.

Posted by: Celtic_Evolution | July 12, 2010 11:27 PM

but I've been reading here nearly daily for five years. My rant isn't based on this being the first example of people going out of their way to be contentedly mean to someone doing something relatively harmless. I was simply in a mood to say something today.

if you've been that regular a reader, then you should probably face two facts:

You have no excuse for making such a poor attempt at a group insult because you're feeling picked on, knowing full well that your blanket categorization is clearly erroneous, and frankly, whiny.

And, based on your OWN description, you would yourself be classified as a "pharyngulite".... you might want to chew on that a bit...

Posted by: tohellwithyourturtle | July 12, 2010 11:51 PM

f you've been that regular a reader, then you should probably face two facts:

You have no excuse for making such a poor attempt at a group insult because you're feeling picked on, knowing full well that your blanket categorization is clearly erroneous, and frankly, whiny.

And, based on your OWN description, you would yourself be classified as a "pharyngulite".... you might want to chew on that a bit...

I know this wasn't directed at me, but aren't you being the whiny bitch here? "How dare you classify me with everyone else, but aren't you the same?" Cry me a fucking river. Whiny bitch. What the fuck is wrong with you people?* Tribalism much? After years on this site, though I agree with you most of the time, I've rarely seen anybody do anything other than toe the line. What the fuck?

*Lurker and occasional commenter for years, though I tend to wonder about the commenters here as they seem to form an echo chamber.

Posted by: Kagato | July 13, 2010 12:03 AM

Tribalism much? After years on this site, though I agree with you most of the time, I've rarely seen anybody do anything other than toe the line. What the fuck?

*Lurker and occasional commenter for years, though I tend to wonder about the commenters here as they seem to form an echo chamber.

Ooh, so close. 2 more and I'd have Bingo.

Can I get a "sheeple" up in this hizzouse?

Posted by: Algernon, elle sans chapeau | July 13, 2010 12:14 AM

Oh by the way, that's what happened when I said "noooooo" actually. I'd have explained it to you when you made your nonsensical reply that you must have struck a nerve. But I thought that explaining an unclear statement might be nitpicking and I was trying to make you happy.

But yeah, a messed up blockquote tag ate my response. You're comments were too inane to have much effect on me other than to be irritated that you were trying to have an effect on me with inane comments.

Which, I think, is actually the definition of trolling.

Enjoy your lulz. You're an idiot and not worth any more wasted time on such a ridiculous topic as whether or not it's ok to criticize some one's survey.

Posted by: frustum.myopenid.com | July 13, 2010 12:17 AM

Celtic_Evolution @167 said,

if you've been that regular a reader,"

yes, I have been

You have no excuse for making such a poor attempt at a group insult because you're feeling picked on, knowing full well that your blanket categorization is clearly erroneous, and frankly, whiny.

I know you aren't stupid, but you force me to say it anyway: people make generalizations all the time, including me. Painting with the wide brush goes faster. To not do so leads to tiresome pedantry.

You assert what I said is clearly erroneous. I disagree. Smug, dismissive attitudes about defects abound long after the author stated in post #7 that the poll was something of a lark.

Also, I'm not the least bit feeling picked on, and don't know where you got that idea. It wasn't my poll.

And, based on your OWN description, you would yourself be classified as a "pharyngulite".... you might want to chew on that a bit...

Celtic_E, you say that with an air like you are revealing a concept that is going to fry a poor simpleton's brain like mine, like captain Kirk telling the robot: The next statement is true. The previous statement was false. Bzzt, bzzt, fraaap, (smoke).

I am a member of the community here. I'm also not afraid of self criticism. Sometimes I have the urge to be needlessly belittling when it doesn't in any way strengthen what I'm trying to communicate, and sometimes fail at resisting it. I consider that a defect.

That didn't take long at all to chew on.

Do you really disagree that people here cue off of PZ's style? He mocks and belittles idiots like Ken Hamm claiming that dinosaurs and humans coexisted -- great fun, I enjoy it myself. But many commenters seem to use the same approach in the discussion threads, even for relatively innocuous disagreements. If you disagree, we must be reading different editions of the website then.

Posted by: Algernon, elle sans chapeau | July 13, 2010 12:38 AM

@ frustum.myopenid.com

Wow. Confusion. I think maybe you had said you were having to sign on with different nyms so I actually thought when tohellwithyourturtle replied to my "noooo blockquote fail" post that was also you.

Since you were the one being quoted, and tohellwithyourturtle responded with "guess I struck a nerve" I thought that was also you.

Otherwise... what the hell was tohellwithyourturtle talking about? That person is actually seeming insane to me right now. Sorry for conflating you.

I actually had responded you with a kind of long post and I was sad when it disappeared.

But basically despite being snarky at the outset, I went on to reply to your next remark (although it was hours ago) just generally talking about how it can be helpful if you intend to make better surveys even just for recreation, to go ahead and enter these kinds of discussions.

What people are providing in them, despite the snark, is insight into the problems of communication and language. And that information is at the heart of gathering statistics on social stuffs.

I bet you anything if you took that survey to a vocal Christian community and asked them for feedback, while it might not be said the same way, you would find that they also interpreted questions differently amongst themselves and came up with different solutions as to how to answer the questions.

Posted by: frustum.myopenid.com | July 13, 2010 1:11 AM

Ol'Greg @177 --

I can see how you got confused; I was too after turtle replied to your failed blockquote as if it was addressed to him. No, my series of names was due to the changes in sign in requirements to comment, not some weird sockpuppetry.

Thanks for taking me seriously and spending the time, even if blockquote ate it.

I'm agree there was constructive criticism and Ricky is receptive, so that is all win. My reaction was to the needless negative crap. Ricky seems like an upstanding guy and doesn't need me to defend him, but I ranted in part for this thread, and in part for the times this goes on in other threads.

Let me restate it without the vinegar.

Pharyngula values rational beliefs and systems that support them, and I assume most of the readers here do too. When questioned about his rude tactics, PZ has explicitly stated that he uses them because mockery can be more effective sometimes, especially people who don't get the rational worldview. Everybody here is imperfect and has blind spots and is subject to making false claims. Rather than assuming the speaker is an idiot on the order of Ray Comfort, rational arguments should be the first line. Smug, belittling dismissiveness and putdowns have no place in rational arguments.

I can hear someone saying, hey fuckwit, you don't get to tell us how to comment here -- go away. But I'm not telling anyone what to do, I'm just expressing my opinion that you can skip over, mull, or reject. Just like everybody else.

Posted by: Algernon, elle sans chapeau | July 13, 2010 1:30 AM

Everybody here is imperfect and has blind spots and is subject to making false claims. Rather than assuming the speaker is an idiot on the order of Ray Comfort, rational arguments should be the first line. Smug, belittling dismissiveness and putdowns have no place in rational arguments.

I actually agree with you that the person who made the survey seems ok. I guess the only reason I was snarky with you at all is really that it seems you could have quoted or referenced some of the posts that you thought were needlessly crass.

When you just say "Pharyngula is" that includes all of us, even those of us who had been making an effort to be constructive.

Posted by: truth machine, OM | July 13, 2010 1:53 AM

kalvie: You're not off to a good start, and not only because telling people to play nice is pretentious and patronizing.

As for the poll, it might as well have asked if atheists are communists and if Christians bugger little boys.

This is just a personal experiment. There is no research project or grant or organization behind it. It was spawned with little forethought (obviously)

How very selfish of you.

but I still feel that the answers will give some interesting insights, even if not scientifically sound

If it's not scientifically sound then any "insights" are unreliable.

Posted by: Mattir-ritated | July 13, 2010 2:05 AM

If it's not scientifically sound then any "insights" are unreliable.

This is not true. The survey is akin to noodling around in the forest noticing the behavior of earwigs. It could lead to formulation of actual hypotheses and development of survey instruments with better validity. I think the time I spent taking the survey and thinking about it was probably better spent than most of the time I've spent Pharyngulating stupid godbot polls.

And why would doing a personal experiment be selfish?

Posted by: truth machine, OM | July 13, 2010 2:15 AM

This is not true.

Yes it is -- perhaps you don't understand what the word "unreliable" means. And no, the survey is not akin to that.

And why would doing a personal experiment be selfish?

What I said was selfish consisted of more than that, moron. It's the extraordinary laziness of posting a survey that "was spawned with little forethought" that is selfish.

I think the time I spent taking the survey and thinking about it was probably better spent than most of the time I've spent Pharyngulating stupid godbot polls.

Bully for you, but it would have been even better spent if the survey weren't so crappy.

Posted by: oschaefer | July 13, 2010 2:20 AM

Geez, people. Stop disagreeing about this. It's supposed to be the Pharyngula Echo Chamber, remember? You're meant to be circling the wagons! Where's your sense of herd mentality, dammit?

And while I prefer to pretty much recoil in horror at the behaviour of earwigs, I agree that considering and discussing the poll's shortcomings and limitations has hardly been a waste of time. Particularly since the creator has been taken to task over it. I don't see how discussion of terms, definitions and grey areas is ever a bad thing.

Granted, that wasn't the poll-maker's intention, but it's a decently interesting side-effect at least.

Posted by: truth machine, OM | July 13, 2010 2:34 AM

I've rarely seen anybody do anything other than toe the line.

That's a fact about you, not about us. Take a look at this thread.

Posted by: truth machine, OM | July 13, 2010 2:38 AM

I didn't say that any insights gained would be reliable or valid

Look, stupid: I wrote "If it's not scientifically sound then any "insights" are unreliable" and you wrote "This is not true".

Posted by: TheCalmOne | July 13, 2010 2:44 AM

I wouldn't want to opine overly confidently viz a viz Voodoo, but I do know a bit about its Brazilian equivalent "Candomble" (or at least the north eastern version of Candomble), and as I understand it in Bahia the Catholic faith and candomble are syncretised - i.e., there is an identity or correspondence between the two religions so that in many Brazilians' minds they are two sides of the same coin. Many Bahians would say that they believe strongly in BOTH, at the same time. So, for example, Saint Barbara is syncretised (as I remember it) with the Ioruba deity Iansa, St George with Oxossi and so on.

Posted by: oschaefer | July 13, 2010 2:50 AM

Only some strawman said it was.

Yup, you're right. I was mis-remembering a couple of posts. Should have gone back to re-read before I posted. Bah. Gotta hold myself to a higher standard...

Posted by: frustum.myopenid.com | July 13, 2010 2:52 AM

Ol'Greg @ 181 --

I guess the only reason I was snarky with you at all is really that it seems you could have quoted or referenced some of the posts that you thought were needlessly crass.

I didn't because I thought there were enough examples of people being demeaning and not being constructively critical that they could be picked out. I know that if I pointed to specific examples, it would have been inviting flamethrowers, and my aim wasn't to have a knock-down, drag-out. My objection wasn't so much towards any specific person or comment than it was the general theme of tearing people apart for sport who don't deserve it.

Posted by: truth machine, OM | July 13, 2010 3:03 AM

Yup, you're right. I was mis-remembering a couple of posts. Should have gone back to re-read before I posted. Bah. Gotta hold myself to a higher standard...

Good on you for acknowledging it. People often form an impression, based on their own biases or concerns, about what someone writes, and then replaces the actual statement with the impression in all their future thinking. A good way to avoid that is to always quote what you're responding to rather that indulging in innuendo -- although as Mattir demonstrated, some brains are so broken that even that isn't enough.

I said that any insights were basically hypotheses that would require further testing.

What you said, moron, is "This is not true" in response to my statement that insights gathered from unscientifically sound methods are unreliable, and when I slapped you for your stupid naysaying, you retreated to the contradictory claim that you didn't say that any insights gained would be reliable. And your drivel about observing earwig behavior ignores the entire point of the criticism, which is that the "behavior" being observed is the way people answer badly framed questions, making indeterminate what anyone is actually claiming when they answer the question.

Posted by: truth machine, OM | July 13, 2010 3:15 AM

Stating that organisms descended from their ancestors with minor changes to their DNA over long periods of time, with each subsequent generation was a little different from its brethren, but more different than its great-grandparents is an explanation (and a very good one at that).

No, that's a fact. The theory -- NS+RM+... -- explains the fact.

Posted by: Mattir-ritated | July 13, 2010 3:27 AM

The American Heritage definition of "insight" is

1. The capacity to discern the true nature of a situation; penetration. 2. The act or outcome of grasping the inward or hidden nature of things or of perceiving in an intuitive manner.

The author of the survey has undoubtedly learned to avoid posting polls on the internet without vetting them by an actual specialist in survey design, and I have learned never to disagree with truth machine because I am a moron.

Posted by: truth machine, OM | July 13, 2010 3:30 AM

The author of the survey has undoubtedly learned to avoid posting polls on the internet without vetting them by an actual specialist in survey design, and I have learned never to disagree with truth machine because I am a moron.

No, you're a moron because, among other things, you write stuff like that.

Posted by: Caine, ghetto féministe | July 13, 2010 3:35 AM

truth machine:

Actually no. The problem is that I made a fairly uncontroversial claim -- that insights arrived at by unscientific methods are unreliable, and Mattir foolishly wrote "This isn't true"

Yes, I understand that. Btw, Mattir is a she.

Posted by: Mattir-ritated | July 13, 2010 3:44 AM

I erred in using the phrase "isn't true."

I should have said that the survey questions and the discussion on the thread might lead to the formulation of hypotheses and thus research that could be evaluated for reliability and validity.

Posted by: truth machine, OM | July 13, 2010 3:48 AM

I erred in using the phrase "isn't true."

No, really?

I should have said that the survey questions and the discussion on the thread might lead to the formulation of hypotheses and thus research that could be evaluated for reliability and validity.

Not in response to my comment, you shouldn't have, since I said nothing to the contrary -- indeed, bowing to Mecca five times a day might lead to the formulation of hypotheses and thus research that could be evaluated for reliability and validity -- then again, it might not.

Posted by: Cath the Canberra Cook | July 13, 2010 5:46 AM

There's nitpicking and there's nastiness. I'm pro the former, not the latter. Our survey designer may have much to learn, but doesn't seem to deserve some of the opprobrium here.

Posted by: Cath the Canberra Cook | July 13, 2010 6:26 AM

John, it's not a poll. It's some young chap trying to do a survey. Not very well formulated, but mostly harmless.

Posted by: racedowling | July 13, 2010 7:29 AM

I generally dislike questions asking if one believes in science. Science does not beggar belief. At least in this instance they allowed an 'irrelevant' choice.

Posted by: Algernon, elle sans chapeau | July 13, 2010 8:49 AM

Hmmm... I *think* I get some of what happened wit tohellwithyourturtle too now.

Looking upthread thwyt lost a response to a blockquote malfunction too.

I'm guessing when I said "noo! Blockquote fail. And that was a nice well intended answer too" they thought I was talking about them.

Kind of missing the fact that it came right after a quote with no text posted by me, really, but whatever.

So they got all upset, tried to figure out who I was, and pulled something off my blog they thought would make me feel bad about myself.

Still a crappy tactic, but a bit nicer since they were reacting to an imagined slight.

And a bit nicer since I realize they weren't the ones talking about lurking, and therefore weren't tying to let me know they'd "been watching" or anything.

So thwyt, I wasn't making fun of your blockquote fail. You could have asked?

Posted by: beyondbelief007 | July 13, 2010 10:02 AM

There is only one useful question in this survey, and it is only useful if I assume the purpose.

The question (or rather a check box): Believes there is no God.

The usefuleness? How many self-identified atheists say this is untrue... as in, "No, I do not attempt to prove the negative... I just refuse to assert the positive... i.e. there is no need for the God hypothesis to explain any of the evidence.

On the flip side, how many self-identified Christians, Muslims, etc. say it is TRUE that atheists believe there is no God.

The problem for me (even as I attempt to give SOME positive angle) is that without control questions, I'm basing my thoughts here on a highly semantic argument that I have no way of teasing out of the equation. If the survey included all of the following questions/checkboxes, the combined results might be useful:

Atheists:

1. Know God does not exist.
2. Find no evidence for God in their daily lives.
3. Believe only things supported by evidence and science.
4. Believe that any supernatural entity controlling or designing our universe is extremely improbable.
5. Eat the children of other religions, to appease their Atheist Gods.
6. Live in and react to the world without assuming God exists.

Posted by: beyondbelief007 | July 13, 2010 10:42 AM

@Gravity... Teasing out the "truth propositions" behind "I don't believe in capital punishment" is fairly easy.

I don't believe it is, as asserted by some, a deterrent to further crime.
I don't believe it is a just punishment.
I don't believe it is an efficient method of handling prisoners... it does not maximize our investment in prisons as each person on death row stays there for years at a much higher cost.
I don't believe it contributes to a consistent moral philosophy.
etc.

The aggregate, summary statement "ought" to be "I don't believe any of the arguments supporting the death penalty are true or substantiated, and so am opposed to it."

Posted by: Archie | July 13, 2010 12:36 PM

The lack of clarity in the questions is typical of what I hear in conversations. So I enjoyed the practice of trying to word my comments so as to clarify my response.

Posted by: NoFear | July 13, 2010 2:43 PM

@BioTeacher & Piscador;

Evolution is a fact. Life evolves. That this happens is demonstrated by fossil records and even direct observation both in the wild and in the lab. Yes, I know that the theory of natural selection is only one of the means by which life evolves. yes, I know that artificial selection has and does play a role. There are also theories of genetic drift and genetic flow that contribute to evolution, but make no mistake, evolution is a fact. Ask Richard Dawkins and even PZ if you don't trust me on this. Evolution is a fact. There are a few complimentary theories that describe how it happens. And gravity is a fact too. And I know that neither the theory of general relativity or even Newton's "Laws" explain why massive bodies seem to attract each other, but relativity does a great job of predicting how massive bodies interact gravitationally. None of this negates the fact that massive bodies do "attract" each other. Sure, it may be that Dr. Verlinde is right. Personally I have never liked the "spooky action at a distance" either. But regardless, we would still call the phenomenon "gravity" no matter what we discover later about why gravity exists. Gravity is a fact. Relativity is one theory, but an incomplete theory because it does not explain "why". Darwin's theory was incomplete as well, though it did explain one "why" very well, he just didn't get all the "why's". Sure, relativity says massive bodies cause curves in space/time such that other bodies "fall into" the "holes" created, but says nothing as to "why" massive bodies create these "dents" in space/time (referring to the classic illustration of curved space time). The "why" of gravity is still an open question. But gravity, that thing that keeps us stuck to our planet barring any energy input to break that attraction (jumping, airplane engines, lighter than air craft which use the energy of moving air particles to counter gravity, etc.), is indeed a fact.

I stand by all that I said. I was going to be more explicit in my initial post, but I kept it short and simple giving you the benefit of the doubt, something I was not afforded.

Evolution is a fact, an observed phenomenon just like the bones of tiktalik.

Gravity is a fact. No matter what theory ends up describing the basic "why" of gravity, gravity will remain. We humans used to have a theory that light shined out from our eyes, then we found out about electromagnetic radiation and photons. And guess what, we still called it light. And light is a fact. Light exists. Just like gravity and evolution exist.

You asked about my qualifications. Nothing more than fairly well read I'm afraid, and I have seen Richard Dawkins and other prominent evolutionary biologists say/write that evolution is a fact (appeal to authority, I know ... but only after I tried to demonstrate the veracity of the claim in my own way).

The following is a quote from an article by Richard Dawkins and Jerry Coyne: http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2005/sep/01/schools.research

"The weight of the evidence has become so heavy that opposition to the fact of evolution is laughable to all who are acquainted with even a fraction of the published data. Evolution is a fact: as much a fact as plate tectonics or the heliocentric solar system."

So forward all that stuff you wrote about the "theory" of evolution to R.Dawkins, J. Coyne and even PZ. I got my facts (and theories) straight, are you really sure you do?

And your posting of the definition of a scientific theory was very unnecessary. I know damn well what a scientific theory is. Evolution does not fit. Natural selection does, as do the other theories mentioned that also help explain why evolution has and is occurring. Do you deny that evolution is occurring? Even if you thought "goddidit", which I know you don't (or do you?), you would still have to admit the fact that evolution is occurring. Your students' theory that "goddidit" is one (very poor) theory. We have mentioned the other (infinitely better) theories.

Again ... Evolution is a fact. Repeat thrice.

Posted by: https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawld5bNuIro7vBtao0nLToDjbr8Jbs2WeCI | July 13, 2010 7:21 PM

The only relevantly framed question in the survey is no. 3. There the correct answer for "God" is "don't believe", the correct answer for all the rest in no. 3 is "irrelevant". I think the problem is that "atheist" has got so much connotation to it that, actually, has nothing to do with "atheist". "Atheist" does simply mean "someone who has no belief in any god". It has nothing more to it than that.

In particular I am afraid that the difference between "athesit" and "secular humanist" has been mixed up. Often people think of an atheist as a secular humanist, implying good moral standards, a good rationalist, does not believe in anything supernatural etc. This is correct in the sense that a secular humanist is of course an atheist, but an atheist does not have to be a secular humanist, and most (I think) atheists are not. Clearly so many atheists are irrational, have bad moral values, belive in stupid supernatural things (with the only exception of gods) that the statistics for atheists is only marginally better than for the population at large.

The big problem with the survey is that it implicitly put to much into "atheist".

Posted by: John Morales | July 18, 2010 4:21 AM

[meta]

tohellwithyourturtle @232, that's just sad.

You do yourself no favour.