Evolution, religion, and why it’s not just about lack of scientific reasoning ability

Jul 31, 2018

By Jamie Jensen and Seth Bybee

Why reject evolution?

Humans have long wondered and debated the scientific and theological explanations for our world and the life upon it. Scriptural accounts describe the creation as a series of events by a creator resulting in earth’s current diversity (including humans), whereas, science suggests descent with modification from a common ancestor over long periods of time (evolution), resulting in the vast diversity we see today (again, including humans).

Despite overwhelming evidence for evolution, a large portion of the US (and the world) continues to reject the theory. The question becomes why, in the face of so much convincing evidence, do people still not accept evolution as a process that occurs to shape the existence of life on this planet?

Hypotheses about causes of rejection

The research literature demonstrates that religion is a major barrier to the acceptance of the theory of evolution. What is it exactly about ‘religious’ individuals that causes rejection of scientific evidence?

Continue reading by clicking the name of the source below.

24 comments on “Evolution, religion, and why it’s not just about lack of scientific reasoning ability

  • Confidence in God-did-it spoon-fed mytholgy, requires so much less time, effort, education, and understanding, than scientific study or research, so it will always be the first choice of the brain-lazy and the posing know-it-all!



    Report abuse

  • This is essentially the same question as how can Trump behave abominably all the time and still not lose his support. Because logic and reason don’t factor in any more. Only blind partisanship and religious fervour.



    Report abuse

  • There are four articles related to this topic. This article http://blogs.biomedcentral.com/on-biology/2018/07/24/evolution-religion-and-why-its-not-just-about-lack-of-scientific-reasoning-ability/
    plus, http://science.sciencemag.org/content/360/6392/943 https://evolution-outreach.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12052-015-0051-6 https://evolution-outreach.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12052-018-0076-8
    A good reading of all should give Richard Dawkins cause for thought regarding his approach to “Anti religious” proselytizing and the effect this has on spreading the good word of science and evolutionary theory to a certain of those of a religious intuition, the very people we are all trying to “convert”. Dawkins has an atheistic intuition, that’s cool, I’m almost there too, but any view outside of naturalistic explanations is simply a philosophical position. Perhaps, rather than put people off by outright attacking their religious intuitions and sensibilities, Dawkins should simply stick with explaining the errancy of religious claims to naturalistic explanations and hopefully they’ll eventually “see the light” on what’s REALLY important…….knowing and understanding this world.



    Report abuse

  • I’m not convinced that even the simple illustrations of evolution which we find so attractive can be grasped by anything like a majority of people.

    Of course nobody understands how god did it either, but then they don’t have to…



    Report abuse

  • John #3
    Aug 6, 2018 at 10:35 am

    @ 3rd link -Acceptance of evolutionary theory varies widely and is often associated with religious background.

    Being indoctrinated to accept views on “faith” (ie. belief without evidence or proof), is the very opposite to critical scientific reasoning which starts with evidence. It should be obvious that those who have been indoctrinated as core beliefs that ancient texts are literally true, do not use scientific methodology, or at best, use it in a strictly compartmentalised form separate from their religious thinking.

    Some have suggested there exists an additional relationship between scientific reasoning ability and the acceptance of evolutionary theory.

    That would only be the case if the individuals had also been made familiar with the evidence on which the reasoning is based.

    In this study, we used structural equation modeling to test whether scientific reasoning ability predicts religiosity, acceptance of creationist views, or acceptance of evolution.

    We found that while religiosity positively predicts the acceptance of creationist views and negatively predicts the acceptance of evolution,

    That would be the case of biblical literalists and fundamentalists.

    There are also compartmentalised fudgists who believe in the pseudo-science of “theistic evolution” which they have accepted by faith, and not by scientific study or reasoning.

    scientific reasoning ability does not predict religiosity, acceptance of creationist views,

    I’m not sure what this means!
    Scientific reasoning can certainly conclude and predict that fundamentalist indoctrination, can lead individuals to blindly accept creationist stories and then concoct elaborate mental gymnastics to try to make these look reasonable or credible.

    If it is saying that scientific reasoning does not lead the individual to religiosity or acceptance of creationist views, then that would be so.

    or acceptance of evolutionary theory.

    Scientific reasoning only leads to an understanding of evolution, if it is associated with the study of the evidence of evolutionary biology.
    Any reasoning without an evidence base, is hypothetical pie in the sky.
    It is quite possible to study some other scientific field, and be totally ignorant of biology.

    Perhaps, rather than put people off by outright attacking their religious intuitions and sensibilities,
    Dawkins should simply stick with explaining the errancy of religious claims to naturalistic explanations and hopefully they’ll eventually “see the light” on what’s REALLY important…….knowing and understanding this world.

    Dawkins DOES simply stick with explaining the errancy of religious claims to naturalistic explanations!
    The problem is that the indoctrinated religious, regard any criticism of their faith-based beliefs or actions, as an attack on their intuitions and sensibilities. A view which is constantly drummed into them by preachers!



    Report abuse

  • So let’s see:

    Religion provides people with a) a sense of ‘purpose’ b) the prospect of a (happy) ‘after-life’ with the chance of ‘meeting up’ with deceased family members, and c) the awareness that humans are ‘special’ to the ‘god’ who created them.

    Whereas Evolution provides a) none of the above and b) the awareness that humans are merely an ‘accident’ of nature whose closest cousins are the chimpanzees!

    Seems like a no-brainer as far as what the majority of vaguely uninterested people would choose to believe given the two choices above!



    Report abuse

  • Erol,

    My kids lapped up the second option. But then they cultivated interior worlds of the mind that they could use like petty gods to create things entirely of their own in the real world. Coward or adventurer? Make people scared and you manufacture cowards.

    P.S. Meeting family members was a mid Victorian conceit. The pot needed sweetening as the truth actually dawned…



    Report abuse

  • John,

    Broadly yes but there is much more to explain, without proselytising (which would be disastrous). I want the accounts of mutuality and its biological roots, which Dawkins was far too coy about before.

    Only evidence and full encouragement to think for themselves.

    One thing I am proud of is the fact that religious fundamentalists produce 95% fundementalist kids. Less dogmatic religions, lesser proportions of that faith. Atheist parents produce the most variegated kids. Respecting kids by equipping them for real autonomy comes first. They’ll get to where the evidence leads by and by.



    Report abuse

  • Erol #6
    Aug 6, 2018 at 3:15 pm

    So let’s see:

    Religion provides people with a) a sense of ‘purpose’

    For those child-like individuals who need to be spoon-fed and manipulated by parent figures, because they cannot or will not, work out their own purposes, objectives and responsibilities.

    b) the prospect of a (happy) ‘after-life’ with the chance of ‘meeting up’ with deceased family members,

    For those who like imaginary future fantasies, rather than making the most of the one and only life they actually have to live.

    and c) the awareness that humans are ‘special’ to the ‘god’ who created them.

    and c) the flattering delusion that humans are ‘special’ to the ‘god-delusion’ in their heads which they have been told created them by magic.

    Whereas Evolution provides a) none of the above

    But does give a deep understanding of the place of humans in the ecosystem of a living planet, our life-support systems, and our interactive and biological relationship with all the other life on Earth.

    and b) the awareness that humans are merely an ‘accident’ of nature

    In a very tiny corner of a vast Solar-System, in a vast galaxy, in a vast universe, during a very short period of astronomical and geological time, so there is absolutely no basis for having a bloated self-centred ego, or pretending to be a main feature of that universe!

    whose closest cousins are the chimpanzees!

    With our closest living cousins Bonobos, Chimpanzees and Orangutans, in that order, – followed by the other primates and mammals, although earlier we shared Earth with other hominids who have now gone extinct.

    We may also go extinct in the not too distant future, if we don’t collectively get a grip on understanding and respecting, the working mechanisms of the planet, and how its climate and its life evolves.



    Report abuse

  • It’s a virus, and whilst there might be a few ‘Sheldon Coopers’ who are smart enough to be immune to it even if their parents are incurably infected, it’s like children who are fed a high fat and sugar diet, or even meat, which is hard to forgo if you’re bought up as a meat eater. So much harder to lose weight or become vegan if you were a fat meat eating child. I’m impressed by the 70YO atheists, who only after a lifetime of swallowing BS now realise it for what it truly is. Extra impressive because as the end is drawing near, and the only reason people want to believe in religions is because they are afraid of dying, it usually makes people more vulnerable to religious hogwash.



    Report abuse

  • Alan@ #9

    Each of your responses are entirely valid and are as expected from someone who thinks rationally.

    Unfortunately people who follow a religion do so because they are emotionally frail and need the comfort that religion provides – so never mind about logical thought! One of the main reasons that we are doing so little to combat climate change (and I think it’s probably too late anyway now to avoid disaster in the coming years) is that these same people don’t believe that ‘God’ would allow any climate calamity to occur. We’re already protected by the Almighty, so it won’t happen!

    Incidentally I wasn’t aware that Bonobos had taken on the mantle of closest primate to humans over that of chimps. But here’s a relevant link:



    Report abuse

  • Alan#5
    Not sure I can compete with you extensive commentaries on this site (don’t you have a life?) but….
    -yes indeed, “Dawkins DOES often stick with explaining the errancy of religious claims to naturalistic explanations!” but methinks he does more than “simply”. I think his perfect world would be a complete absence of the naturalistic phenomenon we know as religion, I suspect one might as well hope for an absence of many of our naturalistic human qualities that come with self awareness and existential angst. I look forward to a full and complete naturalistic explanation of this phenomenon of religion from the social and natural sciences with a little help from philosophers in just the same way as they are working on the question of consciousness itself. The studies quoted indicate that “world view” (religious, political etc) trumps facts and Scientific Reasoning Ability (SRA), this is itself likely a naturalistic phenomenon as much as is Evolution. I think a focus on explaining Evolution as a naturalistic phenomenon, while leaving one’s philosophical disposition aside, is more likely to create an impact than all the pushback Dawkins gets. I’m just being a pragmatist about the pedagogy of science in general and evolution in particular, but of course Dawkins is also a keen political animal as well as an excellent science teacher. I think these studies indicate clearly why Dawkins’ political instincts (God bless them lol) get in the way of his pedagogical instincts. I say, get people accepting the validity of naturalistic explanations in our present world rather than ramming home the “certainty” of one’s personal philosophy regarding the “non-natural”. Sometimes I just think Dawkins needs to decide what path he is on and if he wants to be all political then leave science and science education out of it. Religion is such an amorphous, movable, ill defined mass, I’d just get on with the good news of what is compellingly interesting and get this across. Here’s a quote from this article…. http://inters.org/Dawkins-Collins-Cray-Science
    TIME: Professor Dawkins, if one truly understands science, is God then a delusion, as your book title suggests?
    DAWKINS: The question of whether there exists a supernatural creator, a God, is one of the most important that we have to answer. I think that it is a scientific question. My answer is no.” ??? BY DEFINITION, “God” is supernatural, science does natural. Good luck with attempting to get a natural “explanation” of God, even more luck with attempting to “prove” a negative. Regarding the “Non-natural”, I believe there are three INTUITIONS, a) Scientific/naturalistic b) Supernatural c) Philosophical. Is this intuition a result of the way our individual brains are hard wired (nature) or the result of our experiences (nurture)? I don’t know, most likely somewhere in between.



    Report abuse

  • In case that link doesn’t work, here it is again http://inters.org/Dawkins-Collins-Cray-Science I had to laugh upon re-reading the Dawkins quote. “My answer is no”. Is he saying that “No, God doesn’t exist” or “No, God is not a delusion”? Personally I wonder if there is a more “God obsessed” person than Dawkins. I think he doesn’t actually have a problem with “God”, but REALLY just has a problem with the naturalistic claims of that socio-cultural-political phenomenon that we know as “Religion”.



    Report abuse

  • John #12
    Aug 8, 2018 at 8:51 am
    Alan#5
    Not sure I can compete with you extensive commentaries on this site
    (don’t you have a life?)

    I simply have a computer running and look in regularly for breaks from other activities.

    I think his perfect world would be a complete absence of the naturalistic phenomenon we know as religion,

    I don’t think Richard is into absolutes or “perfection”, but an absence of childhood indoctrination, and and the absence of unevidenced ritual; abuses with religious dogmatic requirements, would be a great improvement in many cultures.

    I suspect one might as well hope for an absence of many of our naturalistic human qualities that come with self awareness and existential angst.

    Not really. As I explained in this other discussion:

    https://www.richarddawkins.net/2018/08/jewish-child-muslim-child-christian-child/#li-comment-233222

    The educational development to rationality in the maturity of the FORMAL OPERATIONAL STAGE OF HUMAN MENTAL DEVELOPMENT, would allow people to grow into adults with a clear understanding of the material world, and dispense without a lot of superstitious nonsense. and religious abuses.
    Many of the more extreme religions and cults, actively retard this development process in children, when given the opportunity tio do so!

    I look forward to a full and complete naturalistic explanation of this phenomenon of religion from the social and natural sciences with a little help from philosophers in just the same way as they are working on the question of consciousness itself.

    I think you are looking to the wrong people! Only philosophers who are well versed in neuroscience, mental development, anthropology and psychology, are likely to competently offer explanations of these issues.

    Good luck with attempting to get a natural “explanation” of God,

    The “God-Delusion”, is a natural explanation of human beliefs in gods.

    even more luck with attempting to “prove” a negative.

    There is no need to “prove negatives! The multitude of contradictory god claims from the numerous religions past and present, combined with the lack of supporting evidence for any of them means that, “What can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.

    Regarding the “Non-natural”,

    Everything in the Universe is “natural” We simply separate man-made and “natural” as a convenient description in conversations, about structures arising from human activities and those formed in other ways.

    I believe there are three INTUITIONS, a) Scientific/naturalistic b) Supernatural c) Philosophical.

    Science: is the objective study of reality.

    Supernatural: is mumbo-jumbo, deception, delusion, and mythology.

    Philosophical: was once what science is today, but when “Natural Philosophy” was moved over to science departments, the remaining antiquated, long-refuted or clarified, mistaken, or fallacious, philosophical arguments, were often taken up and resurrected by the purveyors of mumbo-jumbo, religion, and quackery, who pose as “philosophers” in attempts to add status to their claims.

    Is this intuition a result of the way our individual brains are hard wired (nature) or the result of our experiences (nurture)?

    There is certainly some hard-wiring and some learned social programming.
    The human brain is a composite, incorporating the brains of earlier evolutionary ancestors – with their instincts potentially operational.

    https://www.le.ac.uk/users/rjm1/etutor/resources/brain/brain4brains.html

    Our Four Brains

    I don’t know, most likely somewhere in between.

    It is indeed a combination of hard-wiring, rewiring during development, and the flexibility of a programmable / re-programmable system.



    Report abuse

  • John #13
    Aug 8, 2018 at 9:12 am

    @your link – Roman Catholicism’s Christoph Cardinal Schönborn has dubbed the most fervent of faith-challenging scientists followers of “scientism” or “evolutionism,”

    The Catholic Church is well versed in invented mumbo-jumbo and misleading definitions of words, for the purpose of side-tracking issues.

    One fairly recent semantic shuffle, on is their cherry picking of bits of science to claim to “believe in evolution”, – contrary to the earlier teaching of the self professed “infallible”, Pope Pius IX .

    Their theistic version (which offers no explanation of how this process of evolution by god-did-it, works), is of course “theistic evolution”, which bears no relationship to, and is incompatible with, the working processes of Scientific Neo-Darwinian biological evolution, or cosmological evolution.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Church_and_evolution#Pope_Pius_IX

    Converging evidence from many studies in the physical and biological sciences furnishes mounting support for some theory of evolution to account for the development and diversification of life on earth, while controversy continues over the pace and mechanisms of evolution.

    The Church’s stance is that any such gradual appearance must have been guided in some way by God, but the Church has thus far declined to define in what way that may be. Commentators tend to interpret the Church’s position in the way most favorable to their own arguments.

    since they hope science, beyond being a measure, can replace religion as a worldview and a touchstone.

    There are no questions that “must be assigned to philosophy and which themselves lead beyond the realms of science”, – however much Catholic bishops may wish their claims to be beyond the reach of investigative science!

    Science has already replaced religion as THE explanation of the workings of the world. It’s just that the indoctrinated god-deluded are in denial of this.

    Genesis as an explanation of the Earth and the Universe, is laughable, and the various more recent fudged pseudoscience composites , are nearly as lame!

    ID was a concocted US invention, to con the scientifically uneducated, when the credibility of earlier claims was an embarrassment even to believers.



    Report abuse

  • John

    I think he doesn’t actually have a problem with “God”,

    The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully.
    The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully. (p. 31 of the hardcover edition and p. 51 of the paperback edition; see also: Dan Barker, God: The Most Unpleasant Character in All Fiction, foreword by Richard Dawkins, 2016)

    It’s safe to conclude that Richard does have a serious problem with God. He also has a serious problem with religion.



    Report abuse

  • Laurie #15, “The God of the Old Testament is …….”. Dawkins has a serious problem with the socio-cultural-political naturalistic phenomenon of religious Gods but he clearly gives much more thought to the concept of “God” than most. Good luck to him. Alan #14, I think that Dawkins straddles two world’s and it would be great if he was more clear about which path he wanted to pursue. 1) Scientist/evolution educator…….excellent but who cares what his philosophical belief is about the Non-natural? (Didn’t he work this intuition out as a teenage school student, years before he studied evolutionary biology? It’s just his world view) It is clear that evolution is our “best natural explanation” for what we observe in the biological world and is very compelling, so just get on with educating and communicating naturalism. 2) Political/social commentator and advocate. Just tell everyone that his philosophical position regarding the “Non-natural” is that he is scientistic/naturalistic/materialistic/atheistic whatever and that is his source code and then away you go. Dragging scientific naturalism/evolution into his socio-cultural-political battles (without clearly defining his philosophical position regarding the Non-natural) just damages all his good work as a science/evolution educator/communicator and the reason for this is clearly explained in all the links I inserted in my first “Reply” above. “World View” (religious or not etc) is likely a naturalistic phenomenon of our brain’s nature/nurture and always trumps a) facts b) Scientific Reasoning Ability (RSA). It happened to Richard Dawkins just like it happens to all of us, when it comes to the “Non-natural” we have one of three (naturalistic) intuitions and there’s nothing going to “prove” for or against that.



    Report abuse

  • John #17
    Aug 8, 2018 at 1:54 pm

    Alan #14, I think that Dawkins straddles two world’s and it would be great if he was more clear about which path he wanted to pursue. 1) Scientist/evolution educator…….

    The role of a teacher of evolutionary biology (which is the central core of biology, social structures, genetic and modern medicine) is being obstructed in many parts of the world by the know-it-all creationists who are fixated with ancient mythology!

    excellent but who cares what his philosophical belief is about the Non-natural?

    The whole of the universe is “natural”! The non-natural, is actually a natural feature of imagined images in brains.

    The person involved, has an image of their version of reality, but on many occasions this is shown to be false when subjected to scientific testing and evidence based analysis.

    Dragging scientific naturalism/evolution into his socio-cultural-political battles

    The socio-cultral battles ARE about teaching the science which science deniers in politics and some churches seek to obstruct. In some places it is impossible to teach honest science without taking on the challenges from the uneducated, and deluded opinionated ignorant.

    (without clearly defining his philosophical position regarding the Non-natural) just damages all his good work as a science/evolution educator/communicator

    I would have thought Richard Dawkins had written more than enough books, to clearly define his position on beliefs in “unnatural events”!

    There is no credible evidence of unnatural event s happening – on stories and conspiracy theories about them.

    BTW: All “intuitions” are not equal! Those supported by real world evidence, trump those which are fanciful notions in someone’s head!



    Report abuse

  • “World View” (religious or not etc) is likely a naturalistic phenomenon of our brain’s nature/nurture and always trumps a) facts b) Scientific Reasoning Ability (RSA)” (?????)

    Unless nurtured differently so it doesn’t trump facts!!!!

    Don’t understand how you can have nurture and use the word “always” in the same sentence in the way meant here???



    Report abuse

  • John #17
    Aug 8, 2018 at 1:54 pm

    I inserted in my first “Reply” above. “World View” (religious or not etc)
    is likely a naturalistic phenomenon of our brain’s nature/nurture
    and always trumps
    a) facts
    b) Scientific Reasoning Ability

    As long ago as 1976, Richard Dawkins explained the cultural transmission of non-factual fanciful notions, which believers think trump facts.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Memetics

    In his book The Selfish Gene (1976), the evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins used the term meme to describe a unit of human cultural transmission analogous to the gene, arguing that replication also happens in culture, albeit in a different sense.
    Bella Hiscock outlined a similar hypothesis in 1975,[5] which Dawkins referenced. Cultural evolution itself is a much older topic, with a history that dates back at least as far as Darwin’s era.

    Dawkins (1976) proposed that the meme is a unit of information residing in the brain and is the mutating replicator in human cultural evolution.

    b) World View” is likely a naturalistic phenomenon of our brain’s nature/nurture
    and always trumps . . . . . . . Scientific Reasoning Ability

    That is only partially true in the immature, and in those who have not used evidence based scientific reasoning ability to construct their world-view in the first place.

    Once people mature into adults capable of reasoning and using scientific methodology to build, and up-date, their “world-views”, it becomes progressively less likely that some primordial instinctive irrationality or childhood indoctrination, will override the evidence and reasoned picture.

    That is why a large majority of top scientists are atheists!

    It is a false equivalence, to pretend that world-views based on “faith” (belief without evidence or proof) and memetically transmitted, have the same standards of credibility, as scientific views based on evidence, and which have been independently confirmed multiple times by reputable scientific establishments.



    Report abuse

  • Olgun #19, granted “always”, like “never”, is a dangerous word to use, particularly in the wonderful world of science/naturalism/philosophy. Probably best to leave that to the politicians (and religious?), practical people who must get things done and prefer that the “truth” of uncertainty doesn’t get in the way of energising people to action. If you do a page search for “likely” you will see that I use this word a lot, it’s likely a more appropriate word to use in this context. What forms our individual world views is clearly a complex matter, I would think nurture is manifestly a big component, but more and more it appears that studies indicate how we also seem to be hard wired at a deep lower brain level to our world views, I would put this down to the genetic source code of our brains which likely gets back to evolution, indeed evolutionary psychology. It’s a complicated mix that appears to get back to the good old nature/nurture argument. So yes, nurture can work on the genetically evolved template but I still sense that we are each individually evolved to our core world view, which I characterise above as a) naturalistic b) philosophical c) religious. All of this is a personal conjecture and not so important here. My main point is that it is clear that we each have an intuitive source code and these studies I cited above should give pause for those who want to educate about science/naturalism/evolution yet at the same time want to bang up against everyone else’s intuitive source code. Sounds like a good definition of “counter productive” to me. I’m just thinking pragmatically about a person who is an excellent science educator who also desires to be a political animal.



    Report abuse

  • John #21
    Aug 9, 2018 at 4:19 am

    I would think nurture is manifestly a big component, but more and more it appears that studies indicate how we also seem to be hard wired at a deep lower brain level to our world views, I would put this down to the genetic source code of our brains which likely gets back to evolution, indeed evolutionary psychology. It’s a complicated mix that appears to get back to the good old nature/nurture argument. So yes, nurture can work on the genetically evolved template but I still sense that we are each individually evolved to our core world view,

    You are basically correct here, but what you are discussing is the foundations of core views which are established during mental development.

    https://www.verywellmind.com/piagets-stages-of-cognitive-development-2795457

    Sensorimotor stage: birth to 2 years
    Preoperational stage: ages 2 to 7
    Concrete operational stage: ages 7 to 11
    Formal operational stage: ages 12 and up

    That is why it is important to fight for proper evidence based education, and restrict the delusional closed minds from the blocking the learning of future generations by indoctrinating them to reject evidence-based rational thinking, and the investigative and confirming scientific processes, for establishing objectively how the world, and its life, (including human life) works.

    The indoctrinators want to keep children from fact-based education and implant mind-blocking against critical thinking and scientific learning, questioning and up-dating beliefs, (the “sin” of doubt), so they can substitute spoon-fed superstitions during the formative years of early childhood and mentally enslave the individuals.
    This is to encourage the rejecting of education, specialist teaching, and academic learning, so as to exclusively instil trust in “badge goodness” of cult members, and the pronouncements of preachers, quacks, charlatans, fraudsters, propagandists, and conspiracy theorists!
    (Often with deceptively constructed pseudoscience, and fallacious pseudo-logic, claiming to debunk valid research results and well established scientific or historical information.)

    It is a standard ploy, to attack science, and then play the martyr when countered by a decisive put-down, exposing their ignorance and propensity for parroting nonsense from deceivers! – Followed by claiming to be “offended” by being told they are wrong!

    God delusions do not want their host mind-slaves looking critically at the programming which maintains the god-delusion memes’ existence, dominance, and transmission!



    Report abuse

  • Olgun #19
    Aug 8, 2018 at 3:35 pm

    Unless nurtured differently so it doesn’t trump facts!!!!

    The indoctrinated preconceptions trump facts in minds where “faith” is upheld as the ultimate status and goal of thinking!

    The more absurd the belief, the stronger the demonstration of “faith” in believing it!

    The more recent guidelines from some churches, recognise the existence of science, but then fudge the issues to incorporate their superstitions!

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exorcism_in_the_Catholic_Church#When_an_exorcism_is_needed

    According to the Vatican guidelines issued in 1999, “the person who claims to be possessed must be evaluated by doctors to rule out a mental or physical illness.”[6] Most reported cases do not require an exorcism because twentieth-century Catholic officials regard genuine demonic possession as an extremely rare phenomenon that is easily confounded with natural mental disturbances.
    Despite that fact, every diocese is required to have at least one priest that is an exorcist, or is trained to perform exorcisms (17).
    As the demand for exorcisms has increased over the past few decades, the number of trained exorcists has also risen.




    Report abuse

  • John #21
    Aug 9, 2018 at 4:19 am

    I cited above should give pause for those who want to educate about science/naturalism/evolution yet at the same time want to bang up against everyone else’s intuitive source code.

    Who is this “everyone else” with anti-science, anti-reason, source code indoctrinated into them?
    In well educated countries around half the population has shaken off the mental bonds of religious dogmas, and are quite capable of considering up-dating views in the light of new evidence.

    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/mar/21/christianity-non-christian-europe-young-people-survey-religion

    ‘Christianity as default is gone’: the rise of a non-Christian Europe
    Figures show a majority of young adults in 12 countries have no faith, with Czechs least religious

    The survey of 16- to 29-year-olds found the Czech Republic is the least religious country in Europe, with 91% of that age group saying they have no religious affiliation.
    Between 70% and 80% of young adults in Estonia, Sweden and the Netherlands also categorise themselves as non-religious.

    70% of young people in the UK identify with no religion

    Sounds like a good definition of “counter productive” to me.
    I’m just thinking pragmatically about a person who is an excellent science educator who also desires to be a political animal.

    I think you miss the point that it is America and the indoctrinated older generation, who are out of step with the modern educated world!

    Let me assure you as an ex-chair of a board of school governors, and as someone who has done a lot of work at various levels in education, that organising education at school level, regional, or state level, is a political activity, which if done well, will provided teachers with training and facilities, and children with a valuable set of skills, social skills, and aptitudes for life, in the modern world!
    Science is as much about teamwork and networked teams, as it is about individual research.
    Philosophy and politics is not something on another planet, remote from human cultures! They are both central and integral to setting up policies, resources and operational systems, to get a competent job of education done.



    Report abuse

Leave a Reply

View our comment policy.