Pharyngula

Pharyngula has moved to http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/

Saturday, July 30, 2005

It's easy to be an atheist in America

All you need is an IQ greater than a turnip's. Most Americans lack the qualifications, though.

Only 40 percent of Americans can name more than four of the Ten Commandments, and a scant half can cite any of the four authors of the Gospels. Twelve percent believe Joan of Arc was Noah’s wife. This failure to recall the specifics of our Christian heritage may be further evidence of our nation’s educational decline, but it probably doesn’t matter all that much in spiritual or political terms. Here is a statistic that does matter: Three quarters of Americans believe the Bible teaches that “God helps those who help themselves.” That is, three out of four Americans believe that this uber-American idea, a notion at the core of our current individualist politics and culture, which was in fact uttered by Ben Franklin, actually appears in Holy Scripture. The thing is, not only is Franklin’s wisdom not biblical; it’s counter-biblical. Few ideas could be further from the gospel message, with its radical summons to love of neighbor. On this essential matter, most Americans—most American Christians—are simply wrong, as if 75 percent of American scientists believed that Newton proved gravity causes apples to fly up.

Not that I think knowledge of Biblical minutia is particularly useful or virtuous, but it is indicative of a lack of genuine respect for their source book, and it has consequences: the use of Christian apologetics to argue for un-Christian activities.

This Christian nation also tends to make personal, as opposed to political, choices that the Bible would seem to frown upon. Despite the Sixth Commandment, we are, of course, the most violent rich nation on earth, with a murder rate four or five times that of our European peers. We have prison populations greater by a factor of six or seven than other rich nations (which at least should give us plenty of opportunity for visiting the prisoners). Having been told to turn the other cheek, we’re the only Western democracy left that executes its citizens, mostly in those states where Christianity is theoretically strongest.

It's not hard to picture George W. Bush surfing this wave of ignorance right into the White House.

Oh, and since Paul Nelson somehow finds it significant that researchers have mentioned a "Hox paradox" (never mind that they then go on to show it isn't a concern), I'll mention that this article is titled The Christian Paradox. I guess that means Christianity doesn't exist.

(via Covington)


Trackback url: http://pharyngula.org/index/trackback/2651/JgR22GiW/

Comments:
#33190: — 07/30  at  06:29 AM
Interesting article. A pity it's not the full article online, as I would very much like to read it in it's entirety.



#33191: — 07/30  at  07:24 AM
Twelve percent believe Joan of Arc was Noah’s wife.


It's interesting that these twelve percent seem to have gotten their historical and biblical knowledge from Bill and Yed's Excellent Adventure.

Mr. Ryan: Who was Joan of Arc?
Ted: Noah's wife?



#33192: — 07/30  at  07:43 AM
As a teacher I deal with hundreds of students every year. Naturally this means that I can't help but run into the eager little believer every so often, sometimes complete with John 3:16 t-shirts and a compulsion to "share their faith." Fortunately, this seldom creates a problem in class (I teach math, so religion seldom crops up; the summer session's one exception was my comment that John Napier was as proud of his "proof" that the pope was the Antichrist as of his invention of logarithms), but my office hours are more freewheeling. Only once have I been proselytized by a student who knew that "The devil can cite Scripture for his purpose" was Shakespeare rather than St. Paul or one of the evangelists.

I remain unconverted.



#33193: Matt McIrvin — 07/30  at  08:05 AM
I honestly had no idea where the aphorism "God helps those who help themselves" came from, and if someone had planted the suggestion in my head by asking a leading survey question, I might have thought it was somewhere in the Bible. I'd have known it wasn't in the Gospels, but the Bible says lots of contradictory things, so to call it counterbiblical is a bit of a stretch; that implies that the whole Bible has a coherent philosophy, which it doesn't. (And, really, you could even read the parable of the talents to say something like this.)

That said, it's true that most American Christians have no idea what's actually in the Bible. I remember reading an interesting newspaper article about that, from a nominal Christian who said that she spent most of her adult life believing that the New Testament told a coherent story of the life of Jesus in four chronological installments, until she actually read the thing.



#33195: Matt McIrvin — 07/30  at  08:13 AM
...This is particularly upsetting with regard to the Ten Commandments debates, since most of the people who speak of the Ten Commandments as the basis of law and morality don't seem to actually know what they are. I've had people lecture me about the evils of religious intolerance and then announce that we could solve the problem by getting rid of all this sectarian nonsense and just following the Ten Commandments. They'd probably be surprised to learn that the first four (at least by the traditional Protestant count of the verses) are explicitly religious instructions.



#33196: Matt McIrvin — 07/30  at  08:24 AM
...Ah, it's Bill McKibben, a man given to sweeping statements.

(He's the same guy who wrote a book called "Enough" a couple of years back announcing that we should stop developing medical technology because we have enough already and more would just dehumanize us. Lots of sick people disagreed, as I recall.)



#33197: Matt McIrvin — 07/30  at  08:29 AM
I should probably request deletion of the previous comment since I haven't actually read McKibben's book. Posting it was deeply hypocritical.



#33199: Alon Levy — 07/30  at  08:42 AM
It's easy to name the ten commandments - they're called the first, the second, the third...

Matt, even if McKibben is a nut, the numbers in the article appear credible because of Harper (unfortunately, they come without references).



#33200: Matt McIrvin — 07/30  at  09:01 AM
Yeah, he's probably right on the question of what Americans actually know about the Bible. And it's true that a lot of the stuff Jesus actually said is in stark contradiction to the pray-and-get-rich, Supply Side Jesus of so many American religious conservatives. As a non-Christian, I do think that in characterizing the Bible as a liberal book, liberal Christians sometimes underplay the alienness that you'll inevitably find in literature written so many centuries ago. But the characterization is politically useful.



#33202: — 07/30  at  09:03 AM
Damn!

And to think that I thought that Newton proved that apples falling on your head were a good reason for universal health care....


You learn something new every day!

;)



#33203: charlie wagner — 07/30  at  09:13 AM
Charlie Wagner wrote about Christians:

"You listen to his teachings, but you do not follow them. You call yourself a Christian and claim to follow the precept ‘Resist not evil: but whoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also’, but you make war on innocent women and children for the flimsiest of reasons. You call yourself a Christian and you claim to follow the example of Jesus to ‘judge not, lest ye be judged’, yet you are filled with moral indignation and self righteousness and permit envy and hate to be acted out under the guise of virtue. You believe in your heart that ‘if thou wilt be perfect, go and sell what thou hast, and give to the poor’, yet you allow children in poor countries to go to sleep hungry, perhaps to die of malnutrition while you gather up to yourself great wealth, far beyond your simple needs.”

Read "My Talk With God" at:
http://enigma.charliewagner.com



#33205: Arun — 07/30  at  10:05 AM
Speaking of paradoxes, the textbooks of special relativity talk about the twin paradox, and so it must mean Einstein was wrong! :D



#33207: Ron Sullivan — 07/30  at  10:10 AM
Matt McIrvin's right IMO about the parable of the talents, and that would apply even more closely to the parable of the steward who was dismissed. ("Take thy bond, and write "eighty'.") But the sentence, "God helps those who help themselves" just doesn't sound Biblical to me, in any of the translations I've seen.

Seriously, I've found that the music's being a bit off is generally the first clue that a quote is bogus.

As for Joan of Arc, I have to wonder if someone's leg was being pulled. The joke's older than the movie, but I'd bet a lot of people would remember it from the movie.



#33208: Alon Levy — 07/30  at  10:13 AM
As a non-Christian, I do think that in characterizing the Bible as a liberal book, liberal Christians sometimes underplay the alienness that you'll inevitably find in literature written so many centuries ago. But the characterization is politically useful.


I don't think it is. Left-wing Christians rarely care for civil rights or for civil liberties; Barry Lynn is a rare breed. And the Evangelists the Democrats will attract with a Christian campaign will turn the party right on cultural issues and erase whatever difference there is between the Democrats and the Republicans on social issues.



's avatar #33212: Hank Fox — 07/30  at  10:45 AM
I'll echo what Matt said, because I don't think it ever comes up when the "Ten Commandments are all we need" nonsense is uttered.

Four of the ten (as Matt says, by the traditional Protestant count) are sheer sectarian huckstering, and have nothing at all to do with morality.

It should go without saying that if you're gonna have ten of them to handle all human goodness, you shouldn't waste four of them on silliness.

Here are the not-too-silly ones:

Honor your mother and father.
You shall not murder.
You shall not commit adultery.
You shall not steal.
You shall not bear false witness.
You shall not covet anything that belongs to your neighbor.


Here are the ones which make no objective sense (and which are placed at the BEGINNING of the ten, rather than at the end, which means the authors and editors of the things thought these were the most immediately important):

You shall have no other gods but me.
You shall not make unto you any graven images.
You shall not take the name of the Lord your God in vain.
You shall remember the Sabbath and keep it holy.


I suggest that nice Conservative Christians replace these four useless ones with some that are more punchy and care-about-able, like maybe:

Don’t be gay.
Don’t “believe” in evolution.
Don’t be an evil librool, and don’t care about equal rights, women’s right, justice, the environment, or even honesty.
Don’t even THINK about retiring.


With maybe a bonus Eleventh Commandment, going something like:

When it comes to cars, bigger is better, and don’t sweat the gasoline.

Or maybe:

If you’re ever caught breaking any of these Commandments, rather than answer the accusation, hire Karl Rove.

(As an aside, I’ve always particularly liked the strong implication in the “no other gods but me” commandment that there are other gods.)



's avatar #33213: Raven — 07/30  at  11:05 AM
Left-wing Christians rarely care for civil rights or for civil liberties; Barry Lynn is a rare breed.


What are you talking about, Alon? There are whole denominations, such as the UCC (United Church of Christ) and the Quakers, who are committed to working for civil rights, as well as branches of other denominations, such as Episcopalians and Methodists. And it's not just lip service; the members of those denominations whom I know devote lots of time to working for justice. Where do you get the data for such a blanket assertion?



#33214: charlie wagner — 07/30  at  11:10 AM
From Moby Dick (Ahab)


"Think not is my eleventh commandment: and sleep when you can is my twelfth-" (pg 184)



#33216: — 07/30  at  11:16 AM
Alon said:
Left-wing Christians rarely care for civil rights or for civil liberties

Uh, I'm not one to defend Xianity, but can you provide some evidence for that statement? The Christian Left may not be particularly vocal or publicized, but then civil rights issues aren't exactly in the news much anyway. Civil rights movements have historically had a close alliance with Christian figures, MLK Jr. being the obvious example, Dr. Cornel West and Bishop Spong being current ones.



#33217: — 07/30  at  11:17 AM
Oh, and then there's also the liberation theologians . . .



#33218: Alon Levy — 07/30  at  11:33 AM
What are you talking about, Alon?

I'm talking mainly about the fact that in the United States, conservative Christians are more upfront about their support for theocracy than liberal Christians, but most liberal Christians aren't shining beacons of civil libertarianism. Few Christians are willing to entertain the idea that they don't have a monopoly on morality; even Martin Luther King said, "The church is the conscience of the state." The organizations that support civil liberties the most are usually secular - the ACLU and PFAW have been characterized as godless in ways that few if any other American liberal organizations have.

And although it's safe to assume liberal Christians support single-sex marriage in considerable numbers, black churches, who liberals often praise as an example of using Christianity to promote justice, are generally homophobic. This is particularly important, because the centrists and Republicans the Democratic Party can attract with a religious campaign are socially conservative or they'd vote Democratic already.



#33219: Alon Levy — 07/30  at  11:43 AM
JM, I know very well of Christians' being the backbone of the movement for equal rights for blacks. However, as these movements have become mainstream, the most pressing civil rights concerns in the United States have become equal rights for GLBTs and separation of church and state; profiling of Muslims is an important civil rights concern but is more short-term, like throwing ethnic Japanese to concentration camps in WW2 and unlike segregation or gender discrimination.

As for liberation theology, the Catholic Church has done a superb job of purging it from its ranks under the leadership of Benedict XVI and John Paul II. From what I know about it, it would have done tremendous good for the people of Latin America but for its destruction by fascist governments backed by Jimmy Carter and John Paul II.



#33220: — 07/30  at  11:44 AM
Ahh, I think Alon has found another of these USA/ Europe divides. Over here we do have many denominations of Christianity that are wishy-washy liberal lefty in outlook, and like Raven said, vocal in their attacks on war and poverty etc etc.

As for not reading the Bible, anecdotal evidence from one or two people who have visited the Midwest is that many peopel dont know the Bible. A lot of them are of Prtoestant derivation, some proud of their Scottish roots, yet their admitted lack of knowledge of the bible would have their ancestors spinning in their graves. What were the later protestant movements about again?



's avatar #33221: Raven — 07/30  at  11:50 AM
I'm talking mainly about the fact that in the United States, conservative Christians are more upfront about their support for theocracy than liberal Christians, but most liberal Christians aren't shining beacons of civil libertarianism. Few Christians are willing to entertain the idea that they don't have a monopoly on morality


Evidence, Alon. You need to show some evidence for your argument. Just making up assertions and stating them as if they were undeniable fact is a creationist tactic; it's not worthy of a scientist.

Hell, even back when I was a Catholic, my priest taught--contrary to past official doctrine--that other cultures and other religions had morality and were worthy of respect. He is certainly not the only Christian to hold that belief. And that was back in Alabama in the 1970s; there are far more progressive places in America where that is even more true.

Like JM, far be it from me to defend Christianity--but I think the radicalism of inexperience (cf. Grandin) is showing up in your arguments. Because most of what you know comes from what you read, rather than real-world experience (and I am not criticizing you for being young; you are obviously very bright, but it is structurally impossible for you to have a lot of experience at your age), you fall victim to publication bias. Because the press has succeeded in portraying conservative Christianity as the only Christianity, you mistake all Christians for conservative Christians, and make unsupported blanket assertions that slander a lot of people who have given their time, and in many cases, their lives for human rights.

Again, this is by no means to be taken as an apologia for Christianity, and I am certainly no Christian. But I am a scientist, and that means you have to go where the evidence takes you, not by what you feel is right. If you insist on publicly slandering a lot of good people I know, who happen to be liberal Christians, I am going to insist you back that up with a great deal of evidence.

So far, you have asserted:

* Left-wing Christians rarely care for civil rights or for civil liberties

* most liberal Christians aren't shining beacons of civil libertarianism

You have provided no evidence for your assertions, and you have not addressed any of the counterexamples JM and I have provided. That's how creationists, not scientists, debate. I expect better from you, Alon.



's avatar #33222: Raven — 07/30  at  11:55 AM
I wrote:

You have provided no evidence for your assertions, and you have not addressed any of the counterexamples JM and I have provided.


Obviously our posts crossed, because while I was writing this, you responded. But you responded with non sequiturs; the fact that John Paul II and Benedict XVI are throwbacks does absolutely nothing to prop up your assertion that most liberal Christians care nothing for civil rights. You have not made the connection with anything resembling evidence.



#33223: — 07/30  at  12:11 PM
Liberal congregations and the ACLU also serve very different functions. The ACLU, PFAW, etc. are attacking structured inequality on a national and legislative level. Churches, by definition (excluding the Christian Right, obviously) are local, community networks of person to person support. Both fronts are necessary.

I don't know that GLBT issues are the most pressing civil rights concern here, either. Most publicized at the moment, perhaps, but that's b/c it's being used as a political football. We have not at all solved the racial inequality issue here, despite great gains. In fact, if anything, we've merely shifted from white discrimination against blacks to discrimination against "Mexicans" - which of course includes everbuddy in Central/ South America, and importantly, it is a discrimination shared by whites and blacks.



Page 1 of 3 pages  1 2 3 >

Next entry: Smashing bugs and goosing performance

Previous entry: My heart-warming tale of self-affirmation

<< Back to main

Info

email PZ Myers
Search
Archives
UMM—America's best public liberal arts college