So say a couple of articles in the Fairfax press:
MOST Australians believe in God or a similar universal spirit, but a majority also believe in miracles, heaven, life after death and angels.
The surprising findings from an Age Nielsen poll show Australia is a credulous nation, willing to mix and match religious faith with belief in other phenomena.
Although we are widely considered a secular and largely atheistic people, nearly half the population believes in psychic powers such as extrasensory perception and 41 per cent believe in astrology.
Unfortunately, I can’t find the survey, so we have to wonder about the methodological details that make all the difference in this kind of survey – just what does “belief” in astrology mean in this context?
That said, it is quite disconcerting to me what an eclectic -and frankly contradictory – mish-mash of monotheism and neo-animism seems to be so widely held. And why is there such a gender gap on these beliefs?
Robert,
I found the original poll data (as pdf) here
It’s amazing what people can believe in, and the distance between what we might think about the world and what actually is the case.
Although, at least in places where the basics of life are mostly covered (shelter, food, facilities) like Australia… You can probably believe just about anything and get along OK. So long as on the surface you look and act within the (mostly suburban and narrow) social norms.
Step outside of them, well then things change.
Seems at least some folks had a sense of humour about the poll considering the finding that %34 of non-believers think that religious texts are actually the word of God to be taken literally, for the believers anyway.
I wonder, given the gender differences, if there is anything in common with (a) belief in imaginary friends and (b) the sales of magazines with fad diets.
I also wonder whether this means the “gender gap” in belief without evidence has anything to do with any gender gaps in maths/sciences/engineering, and thus, unless you posit a continuing inferior education for females (something year 12 scores apparently belief) any difference in gender of students in the hard sciences is natural and possibly beyond redemption (pardon the pun)…
To me, it means that more males (who are seemingly less vulnerable to belief without evidence) should be raising young children, in the hope of a more rational society. Ah well, having been a single dad, and with an appropriately unsuperstitious daughter, I’ve done my bit.
Actually only %3 non-believers thought texts were word of God, but %34 believe the texts were to be taken literally – for believers apparently
Personally I think a far more interesting question is why people believe in “ordinary” things rather than why they believe in extraordinary things.
reminds of a quote from caplan about how men are more likely to think like toxicologists. the question that was polled was:
toxicologists were more likely to be worried about dosage while laypeople were more likely to be worried about exposure.
it seems we are all have our hard wired biases which might have been useful in the past but not as useful now.
Except, Dave, more men believe in UFOs then women.
But I suppose that fits in with the science theme.
I couldn’t find numbers on the gender divide for belief in astrology, but from memory, its skewed heavily towards females, and particularly well educated females.
Again, I too would blame this on the tendency for females to do soft subjects. As one of the feminine gender myself, I had to work for years to iron out my thinking, because I had been pushed into the humanities stream.
I was also concerned to realise – at one level, I already knew, just hadn’t joined dots – that major scientific theories such as evolution aren’t taught until the senior years, where Science becomes an elective subject. What this means in practice is that scientific ways of thinking aren’t taught in our schools as a mainstream topic. Further, it’s taught in classes which (although it’s increasingly not the case) are traditionally ‘male’.
What, so those of us who pursued the Humanities have crumpled thinking? Give me a break. One of the most hotly pursued subjects in my Arts degree cohort was Philosophy, where a large segment of the first-year course was Logic, and if you failed Logic you failed the subject.
Perhaps, Mehitabel, you just had bad teachers. Given your apparently unthinking acceptance both of the scornful stereotype ‘soft’ (where ‘hard’ = ‘good’: now tell me we’re not living in a culture dominated by patriarchal values) and of the implications for gender that have come to be attached to that distinction, you obviously didn’t get a good enough grounding in the humanities to learn to question the assumptions built into mainstream thinking and patterns of language use, for a start.
Anyone interested in cultural history, particularly the history of art, the history of psychology or any aspect of medieval history, needs to know a bit about astrology because it’s so central to all those things. Anyone who knows anything about it is aware of the myths and archetypes on which it draws and to which, in several cases, it contributes.
I like astrology because it’s interesting and beautiful. I don’t ‘believe’ in it. I don’t believe there was once a man called King Lear who had three daughters, either, but that doesn’t mean I don’t think it’s a brilliant play full of truths about human nature. I think this kind of survey depends entirely on how literal-minded the respondents are.
Mary Mckillop’s canonization as a result of an event that could not be explained scientifically..ergo..a miracle. Does this imply that AGW is a miracle? In the eyes of the sceptics and deniers [Abbott]?who refuse to accept the science.
Well, it was partly because I was accelerated at school – easier to do that with Humanities. Which also meant I missed clear thinking in English.
And why is ‘soft’ bad and ‘hard’ good? I value both kinds of thinking and am pleased I can use both. You’re the one putting values on the words, not me.
Look, as I said, the numbers show that women are more likely to believe in the stars then men. They also show that it’s something that increases with education. Now, you can either blame this on the education they received, or their sex. I (being non sexist, and thus believing both genders are equally capable of clear thinking, when provided with the tools to do so) blame their education.
And I’m not going by me. I’m going by my friends, who are all well educated women. A depressing number of them believe in astrology and use it to explain their relationships and guide their decision making.
As I said, I blame their education (in most cases, acquired three decades ago).
just one comment…some people may have a belief in phenomena such as telepathy and telekinesis, but instead of attributing them to hocus pocus, relate it instead to science that just hasn’t been discovered yet. I for one am an atheist, and a materialist…but don’t believe that science has discovered all there is to know about our universe, and am happy to think of the ‘what if’ approach….
PavCat, at this point you may be recalling that very interesting dissertation on astrology in Davies’ “What’s Bred In The Bone” as the Bummelzugs trundled by in the night.
Surveys like this have huge problems with reporting bias. People are far more likely to respond with what they’d like to believe, or to be thought of as believing, than what they actually believe, particularly as evinced by what they actually do.
Astrology, UFO’s, even religion – these are not things that have an impact on the _average_ Australian’s life. Furthermore, religion can encompass an incredibly broad range of beliefs, and it is my overwhelming experience that people tend to follow whatever morals appeal to them, and then twist whatever religion they like or identify with to fit those morals like a spiritual pretzel.
Religious people tend to get really het up when I mention this, but how else to explain the relativism that means passages on shellfish and sideburns get disregarded, but the gay stuff is sacrosanct for example?
Thus, I’m more interested in issues that will affect other people’s lives than shit about angels etc. Whatever gets you through the night.
mehitabel @9:
Correlation does not imply causation. There may be other factors involved that the survey did not ask about.
“And why is ’soft’ bad and ‘hard’ good? I value both kinds of thinking and am pleased I can use both. You’re the one putting values on the words, not me.”
Actually no, Mehitabel. You’re the one whose creating the connection that ‘soft’= bad and “hard’ =good. Look at your own quote below.
“Again, I too would blame this on the tendency for females to do soft subjects. As one of the feminine gender myself, I had to work for years to iron out my thinking, because I had been pushed into the humanities stream.”
Plainly you’re saying that your thinking was fuzzy because you did the soft, humanities subjects and that’s why so many women have similar faulty thinking. Through hard work you’ve now cured your soft, fuzzy thinking. I would have thought given that, you’d be able to work what you’re doing yourself.
I often find my fellow scientist (toxicologists and chemists) guilty of woolly thinking. It stems, I think, from an impatience with the literature and a refusal to read any paper more than a couple of years old (while continuing to add the older ones to the reference list!!!). The end result is the application of theory, methods, techniques where they are clearly not appropriate.
I’m often thankful that I started my tertiary studies in humanities before moving to science. Two things I learnt in the humanities faculty that have stood me in good stead in science:
always go back to the source documents – primary sources first.
always ask who, when, where, what, why and how and don’t start to put an argument together until you have answers for all of them.
As to dark matter, sometimes it seems that Physics, which grew out of philosophy, is returning to its roots.
Never mind astrology, it’s all the people believing in invisible omnipotent omniscient superheroes from outer space that I’m really concerned about. Especially when they claim these phantasms personally ordered them to stick their noses into your sex life and re-order your personal belief systems.
At least astrology, unlike say too many religions, is based on the orderly collection of empirical data from the heavens.
Just curious, does a belief in a “universal spirit” coincide with any mainstream Christian belief system or doctrine?
Sounds pretty pagan to me.
My favourite weird belief is the expanding earth.
“As to dark matter, sometimes it seems that Physics, which grew out of philosophy, is returning to its roots.”
Indeed! Why did it all come to mean whatever it does? And why is the Universe 13.7 billion years old? Because it took that long to find out?
*reflectively chews a finger of Balvenie 12 year old double wood with a pop up version of Faust open on lap.*
Correlation may not be causation, but it is a damn good piece of evidence that there is a connection. Is it just me, or is that phrase now used to airily dismiss unwelcome inferences without actually doing any work on, you know, providing countering evidence.
Well, apropos this belief business, did anyone else find the Andrew Denton interview with Richard Dawkins excrutiating?
I agree polyquats, also work in analytical science these days.
The history and philosophy of science should as important to grasp as the maths and statistics.
Which ever way you try and explain our existence, the universe, the earth, and our place in it, it’s hard not to come up with answers that seem strange or far removed from our everyday and social reality.
Though I’m sure some of my own beliefs would be considered weird by others, and vice versa, there’s plenty of room for argument, diversity and experimentation in life.
The way I see it, that is to an extent something ingrained in life, spread, diversify, adapt. Struggle.
In regard to science education and belief systems, I was most interested to find a Qld Geologists site on Biblical geography a while back.
20+ years of working in the coal mine industry and he appears to now spend a great deal of energy constructing an elaborate website arguing for a literal biblical geology, with diagrams and everything.
Here http://biblicalgeology.net/
Does seminars and apparently has been battling to get articles concerning his biblical explanations for geological formations.
?
Someone above mentioned medieval astronomy, which is ironically consistent with the fact that in modern Australia, women overwhelmingly take the easier academic track of humanities and social studies. Medieval astrology was applied astronomy, which could be mastered only after a gruelling education in mathematics, physics, and logic. Medieval astrology died with Newton.
But to be fair, the unfortunate fact of Australian women taking the easy academic track is more the case for white, middle class women. If you look inside the university maths, engineering, and biosciences lecture halls, they are equally, or at least increasingly, filled with working class and Asian female students as males.
The real elephant inside Madame Zuju’s Tarot House is that women give birth and men do not.
Sir Henry – I caught a bit of it out of the corner of my eye whilst cooking (a mans work is never.. etc etc)
I never had much time for zealots like Dawkins anyway – but now have less. I’m sure he can neither dance, laugh or tell a good story.
I’ve long ago plonked him in my database with Hamilton and Brown as “never invite to BBQ”
Where are your nice hard statistics?
“Easier” than what?
How do you know?
WTF????
Quoll @21 – A disclaimer: please note that most geologists have a much firmer grasp on science and reality than Tas Walker.
I put it to you Robert that superstition is equally distributed over the sexes but astrology in particular is marketed to women (in womens interest magazines for example) but most men are barely aware of it. If the advice given is aimed at womens concerns it just doesn’t register.
Who doesn’t know a bloke who has “lucky undies” they wear for an important game, or a lucky tie? I have a lucky spanner (13mm, rusted, chrome peeling off) I reach for when I have a stuck bolt and selection bias says it’s 100% effective!
Nabs @ #11, indeed. His take on saints in the Deptford trilogy comes from much the same intellectual place.
Ah Yes
He certainly seems exceptional
Though probably has an audience out there somewhere
Pavs, don’t even bother engaging with that trolly comment.
Indeed.
I’d also like to add most sports punditry to the pantheon of magical thinking.
Unfortunately some school teachers regard maths and sciences as “hard” (difficult) rather than “hard” (rigorous, logical).
I can’t see that humanities are either easy or illogical.
Prof Dawkins is indeed a zealot, and speaks publicly on areas he knows too little about. If he was musing, that might be entertaining: his stridency is off-putting, strangely reminiscent of a religious fanatic baying for blood.
My conclusion: fanaticism may be exhibited by religious believers, political believers, closeted scientists, etc.
Fanaticism is a condition in its own right, worthy of serious study, that can manifest in various settings but exhibits similar characteristics of thought and language.
I don’t think Richard Dawkins gives biologists a bad name, but he has set back the Cause of Fanaticism by several decades.
Fanatics tend to want the levers of public policy to be pulled in ways consistent with their ardent beliefs or ardent disbeliefs, e.g. in schools, taxation, discrimination; or in extremis by bumping off swathes of humans.
The survey Robert describes, reminds me of another described back in the 20th century. Several groups of persons were asked if they believed in God. Percentages amongst physicists, chemists, biologists etc were reported; “the responses of the philosophers could not be categorised”. That “survey” was virtually useless. Dunno about this one, but.
The people I know who are interested in astrology don’t seem to take it literally. It seems more like a tool which they use to test their current psycological/spiritual state. It’s more like thinking, ‘okay, if my chart says I need to pay more attnetion to x or y, what does that actually mean and how can I use this as a way of thinking about these issues”, rather than as a supernatural force telling them what to do.
The only person I’ve known who has takeen it literally was a male and it used to really concern me. But I suspect that many of the astrologers/tarot readers that people consult are probably excellent amateur therapists and use the cards etc, as a way of talking to people about their concerns.
No, I know. Sucked in. Tragic.
It’s my deficient education.
PC @ 7, were you lucky enough to have been taught Logic by Jack Smart? A lovely man. When I was failing at the university, I didn’t realise what an important thinker he was.
Sir Henry @ 20, I found it interesting, although not Denton’s best work. I just about choked on my sip of shiraz when Denton asked him what star sign he was.
As I said, Nabakov, going by my own experience as well – have a wide circle of female friends, well educated, who seriously discuss relationships in terms of astrology – “Well, he’s a Taurus, so….” “We really shouldn’t get on, she’s an Aries…”
With one friend, who normally wouldn’t ‘gossip’, I realised that astrology helps her say things about people she is too ‘nice’ to do normally. A lot more comfortable to say, “I think this behaviour demonstrates that she’s an Aries’ then “She’s a bitch.”
As for soft/hard thinking: yes, they both exist and they are both valid, used for different tasks and different forms of understanding. Just as I don’t think women are naturally more intuitive than men, or naturally more aware of other’s emotions but are trained to be that way, I don’t think men are inherently more rational. So when I want to analyse, I use ‘hard’ thinking (and yes, my excellent History course helped develop this, but so too did the hard work of my Science friends, who kept challenging my thinking); if I want to emphasise I use ‘soft’.
One I was trained to do, as part of my socialisation into a good wife and mother rolethe other I deliberately developed. I really can’t see the problem with that.
BTW, my History education was nearly thirty years ago and even then I noticed what a chip on their shoulder the historians had. We talked in terms of forming hypotheses, and then using the evidence to test the hypotheses. I couldn’t see why the methods and language of science should be applied to history and in my experience it just didn’t work. I felt it was dishonest; I didn’t formulate a hypothesis and then researched to see if the particular historical event conformed to it, I researched the particular historical event and then looked for patterns to form a hypothesis. And sometimes you didn’t need one at all; you were just telling a story.
I hope they’ve got over that now.
Right, so far I’ve learned from this thread that apparently I believe in UFOs, Superman not only wears underwear outside his pants but created the earth in seven days, and women give birth to elephants and mixed metaphors (kewllll!).
I’m also considering writing a poem about soft things… that kill.
Pavs: It’s hard to resist, I know. I’m trying to practise what I preach more online myself. The climate change threads here have partly been the catalyst, and also thinking that if someone spoke about something so patently insane in real life, I wouldn’t engage. Quite the opposite, I would get the hell away from them as fast as I could in case the offending remarks precipitated equally insane actions.
Oh, and of course logic is necessary in both Humanities and the Sciences. But the Humanities, by definition, deal with people and people are rarely logical. If you tried explaining the actions of Caligula, for example, using logic, you wouldn’t get far. You need the other kind of thinking, which deals with how human beings operate, to do that.
And yes, I am often distressed by the lack of clarity in thinking shown by some scientists. They’re people too.
DI(nr): no, Eddie Hughes, then still quite junior but also really good.
I missed Denton, but I’m guessing Dawkins’ star sign would be something vengeful, like Scorpio, or childishly aggressive, like Aries.
(MEHITABEL, THAT WAS A JOKE)
*Pretends she doesn’t know she’s just irritated an entire sixth (ie, two-twelfths) of LP readership — all the Scorps and Arieses*
(SO WAS THAT)
On the other hand, don’t be surprised if I’m right.
*Runs away*
*Comes back*
Mehitabel, I think you’ve missed my point about ‘hard’ and ‘soft’, which is that the very use of those to describe different ways of thinking has strong connotations to do with, variously, difficulty, rigour and masculinity. Would it make it any clearer if I gave some other examples from the language of the rampant male to demonstrate the sorts of values these terms are grounded in? ‘Rigorous logic’. ‘Seminal idea’. ‘Potent argument’. ‘Hard facts.’
Could you give me an example of when you would use ‘hard’ thining Mehitabel? And then when you would use ‘soft’ thinking? I know you say when you want to analyse, you use hard thinking – but could you be more specific by what you mean by this analysis? In what field? You slip into the binary of rational/intuitive. Could you please explain a little further? And to emphasise, for soft thinking – can you clarify by some sort of example? I would be interested to know your thoughts.
Women are cross-culturally found to be more religious. Good data in this:
http://www.isreligion.org/pdf/stark_physiology.pdf
I’ve no idea why this should be (though I’m sure it’s not gender differences in impulse control, which Stark suggests in the linked paper). It does strengthen the claims of people like Pascal Boyer and Scott Atran that belief in supernatural agency is an innate psychological bias. An intuitive model of God is a byproduct of a few intersecting cognitive skills: theory of mind, agency detection, etc. If that’s true, then individuals with attenuated “social intelligence” would be less disposed towards religion. And there are far more males than females in those parts of the cognitive spectrum.
Anyway, as an atheist and an optimist I’m not a fan of this argument myself.
Well, shouldn’t we reclaim the words, Pav?
I agree that the connotations they have been given are along the male/female divide, but if I’m going to reclaim the night, I can’t see why I shouldn’t reclaim the language as well.
I know so little about star signs (having had a science student boyfriend who wouldn’t tolerate such sloppiness….) that I wouldn’t recognise a Sagittarius if I tripped over one (although I think they may be the tall, dark and handsome ones…any of you putting your hand up??)
“If you tried explaining the actions of Caligula, for example, using logic, you wouldn’t get far.”
I dunno.
“You’re an honest man, Proculus, which means a bad Roman! Therefore, you are a traitor! Logical, hmm?”
Seems to work for the more feral elements of the politico-religious right.
Speaking as a gruntled agnostic I say steer clear of any holistic messages from anything but a non-prophet organisation.
“I never had much time for zealots like Dawkins anyway – but now have less. I’m sure he can neither dance, laugh or tell a good story.”
I dunno. I found it strangely liberating when Dawkins countered Denton’s lame-ass query about how he might define success by worriedly asking, “do you not have a dictionary? It threw Denton right off his whole “look into my eyes, look into my eyes,” thinking -person’s-Oprah schtick and left him plummeting hopelessly downwards to the inevitable, desperately-bleated nadir of, “what’s your starsign?”
I believe that Dawkins is an aficionado of the Tango FXH and frequently engages in recreational drag burlesque .
Sok, Mehitabel. I got the idea now.
Pav has some good ideas too.
Eddie was good value, too, PC – I had him in 2nd year when I eventually got that far. (His missus was seriously cute, btw – I had her in some tutorials, and lusted from afar.)
What annoyed me was that this woolly piece of work practically pushed the Copenhagen stuff off the front page.
If 6% of the cohort claim to be Jedi, that’s way above the number recorded in the last Census, despite the urban myth then circulating that if “enough” people put it down, it would be added to the list of Australian religions. I don’t think I’d trust this survey a bit.
Being a conservative evangelical, I would find it difficult to answer a question like “The Bible is to be taken literally.” If I say yes, I’m in with the Young Earthers (and presumably indicating belief in a literal Good Samaritan instead of a parabolic one). If I say no, I’m in with Joe Hockey (eeewwww!). And I think David Marr has been unforgiveably careless with language when he writes “the teachings of my religion have only one interpretation” — the actual statement was the precise “There is only one true way to interpret the teachings of my religion” — ie, it measures the concept of orthodoxy. Not uniformity, which is what Marr’s wording implies!
Patrickg @12, there are different ways that one can “explain the relativism” you mention — Anglicans can point to Article VII in this list.
Zebiddie @19: No. Most people DO think correlation implies causation, especially when research is reported in the usual careless fashion of journalists (*). One does not need to provide “countering evidence” — the need is to determine causation, which can be A–>B, B–>A, or X–>(both A and B).
(*) If systematic thinking leads to atheism, all journalists must be devout, given the way they cope with stats. (FTR, I did a BA, but it included three years of Research Methods for Psych — I have always been interested in both sciences and humanities.)
mehitabel @ 43, as a fat, bald, and probably not particularly attractive (given my advanced years) Sagittarius, I resemble that remark.
If only we’d consulted ‘Living Moon Astrology’ world leaders could have just faxed it in:
She predicts on November 17:
Like Dr Cat, I found astrology (not the women’s mag stuff) but the real stuff as per above interesting , and it’s a v. long time since I’ve looked at astrology, I just googled up ‘Living Moon’ for this thread……does the full moon bring out the loons…..yes, does the lack of sunlight effect our moods…yes, does Mercury trine Saturn/Pluto (?) mean people will have trouble communicating over the price of carbon…no….but thousands of years of looking at the stars, the planets (well, the ones they could see unaided), the moon and sun and noting down the supposed ‘effects’ and making predictions based on these – they ended up with quite a sophisticated and agreed template of predictors and depending on the interpreter, they could bung up a ‘reasonable’ narrative as per the above, based solely on a bunch of triangles and squares.
Interesting, fer sure. Have one in the White House again…not on your Nelly or Nancy.
See, nobody with a serious interest in astrology asks people for their star signs. You ask for their birthdays; if you know anything at all about astrology, you’ll be able to work it out. People think ‘astrology’ is the trash in the trash mags, but the charts are actually quite complicated, far more so than just sun signs, and are based on real constellations that you really can see.
Geoff Honnor, God knows I have been mocked before today for liking Denton and appreciating his talent; I think it must be some strange Gen X thing to trash him on autopilot. But really, what is ‘lame-ass’ about asking someone what their definition of success is? I don’t think I know two people who would give exactly the same definition of it; it means something different for everyone. Just because Dawkins’ response was rude and smart-arse doesn’t mean Denton had asked a stupid question. Asking him for his star sign after that was probably just meant to annoy him back — I can remember Denton being outrageously rude to Peter Greenaway, years ago, because he was himself clearly irritated by him.
I agree that this tactic does not work, BTW.
HARD MANLY POEM ABOUT HARD MANLY THINGS
I am a man! My mind is hard!
It’s like a brick!
My mind is hard and strong and tough
And extra thick!
“Look, as I said, the numbers show that women are more likely to believe in the stars then men. ”
And men probably spend more money (and thus take more seriously) totally pointless activities such as V8 Supercars. So it depends what kind of worthless belief you want to have a poll about. Atrology or V8 supercars, the first Australian saint, which is more useless? Discuss.
Which of course is neither here nor there, if you simply find it an interesting and not actually something to ‘believe’ in. Complicated != accurate, visibility != influence.
Unfortunately, they (we) haven’t. I had the same reaction, and that was after an original training in science!
Perhaps women are more inclined to be religious because they are more open-minded and less inclined to be rational fundamentalists. Or if we open out the definition of religion to include neo-liberal economics then men are at least as bonkers as women.
Well, no, because the more of the “system’s” complexity you understand, the more interesting and beautiful it is. When I said complicated, what I actually meant was complicated. (You may know what your sun sign is, but do you know — according to the way astrology works, and again I’m not talking about ‘belief’ but about what’s actually a very coherent theory of personality — what sign your moon is in, or what aspect it makes to your Mercury, or what your dominant element is or why you might be compatible with one person but not another? Or what real constellations the system is based on?)
Again, the analogy with King Lear; hundreds of eminent Shakespeare critics have written some brilliant, engaging, enlightening essays and books on the play without any of them feeling the need to believe it’s a true story.
Really, PC? That’s interesting coz Helen Razor recently got the sack, as far as I can tell, from the ABC for being rude to the very same.
Well, yes, but …
Oh never mind.
My son is nine years old. His continued unquestioned belief in Father Christmas is beginning to startle me. (I know it’s my fault for allowing the indocrination to occur in the first place – but I thought it harmless at the time, your honour.)
wbb, can it be possible that he is humouring you?
Besides, every child knows that if you stop believing, the loot dries up, because how could it keep coming? It’s like being Wile E. Coyote and running off the side of a cliff and staying airborne till you realise there’s nothing underneath you and then, you know, whump.
Women get held to higher std than men? I reckon so.
Robert Merkel quotes the Fairfax press:
The author of this Fairfax article has a revealing use of the word “we” here, referring to lazy assumptions that journalists make about their readers religious preferences. Talk about “credulous”.
The stats suggest that Australia has not yet gone through the formality of becoming a “secular and largely atheistic people” just yet. The ABS reports that just on 2/3 of the population denominate themselves with organized religion, overwhelmingly Christian.
Moreover societies religious professions are not just notional, going by the five digit annual sums parents are now prepared to fork out to give their children a religiously-based education. The recent growth in religious education far outstrips that of secular state schools. Religious schools now cater for approximately 1/3 of the education of NSW children.
More generally, most university educated secular intellectuals are “book-learned” and dont have a very good sense of how, and why, regular people profess the things that they believe in. Religious belief is not some alternative epistemology to science of cosmology or biology. It is generally professed as the moral component of the social contract that parents make with their ancestors (elders) and descendants (kids). It “makes us nicer than we would otherwise be” (Waugh).
Likewise superstitious beliefs (such as astrology, New Age and so on) are not generally used to make serious life choices. They are consulted in order to re-affirm choices already made, generally in the context of a conversation with a circle of girl-friends.
Women are very conservative and conformist and like to be reassured that what they are doing is in line with the cosmic consensus.
Yeah, I did once understand some of that stuff, though admittedly not all. But I found astronomy to be much more complicated, interesting and beautiful — with the added virtue of not being made up. And yes, I know the real constellations the system is based on (including Scorpius, not Scorpio!), and that there are 76 other constellations in addition, and that although my Sun sign is Leo, the Sun was actually in Cancer when I was born, due to precession of the Earth’s axis. My scientific background is in astrophysics, does it show?
I tried to trap him working that angle. But he came up clean as far as I could detect, PC. I can still remember having an argument with the kid over the side fence – he believed in Santa Claus only – and I believed in the Easter bunny only. (Or vice-versa.)
‘, did anyone else find the Andrew Denton interview with Richard Dawkins excrutiating?’
Denton was way out of his depth and wasted the interview. Dawkins was and is an interesting and important author who can communicate with the general populace, in the era of Bush Cheney and right wing wing-nuts.
I find it rather scary that the younger age groups are more likely to believe in astrology than the older ones, even though on most other aspects the trend is against superstition or flat.
I take PC’s point about finding astrology interesting without believing in it. It’s possible that some of the younger people answering can’t imagine that anyone really does believe literally that someone is arrogant because they’re an Aries or whatever, and so when they say they believe they mean “quite like observing it”. However, I dismally suspect not. I know people who use astrology to decide how they will vote, who they will date etc. If they want to spend their life with someone who’s a bad fit because of their date of birth that’s there problem, but if their decision determines who runs the country – that’s everyone’s.
What I really want to know though is the correlation between belief in astrology and disbelief in AGW. Pretty damn high I suspect.
Sure, but (a) astrology’s beauty is in its imagery and symbolism, ie on the figurative and allegorical level rather than the literal one, and (b) it’s not either/or anyway: a false dichotomy grounded in the equally false dichotomy of rational/intuitive as per Casey at #41.
Well, the people who made it up didn’t think they were making it up. I think we are all much too scornfully cavalier about other people’s beliefs (except when it’s a matter of Nancy Reagan’s astrologer, or Tony Abbott’s beliefs about women’s bodies, when it becomes important to resist for obvs reasons).
Here’s my theory about the gender differences, in that enormous* sample of 1,000: women care less than men that they might be being duped or made to look like fools, and are on the whole more likely to admit to batty beliefs, or say cheerfully ‘I don’t know’. Or ask for directions when lost, another well-documented area of marked difference between genders.
Ouch, quite right, my bad. And to think I sang in this, which is exactly what it says it is, nothing but the Greek, Latin and Indigenous names of constellations and stars, and which I think you would have really liked, especially the Malin photos which I’m told were spectacular — they were behind and above the choir, unfortunately, so we couldn’t see them. (That article is v apropos this discussion, BTW.)
I find all these stories about people actually basing decisions on astrology very depressing, I must say. I’ve got one friend who tends to over-stereotype people on the basis of their sun signs, but that’s as bad as it gets.
*sarcasm
#9 And why is ’soft’ bad and ‘hard’ good?
The hard soft divide is a partriarcal construct. Better to think of wet and dry, a matriarcial construct. And better to be a little moist and not drippy like so much belief in weird stuff.
There are no real constellations, only asterisms.
Denton interviewing Dawkins was a Zen exercise in so far it it replicated the study of nothingness. Mary Midgeley famoulsy dismissed Dawkins’ thesis of ‘the selfish gene’ as ‘biological Thatcherism’ a long time ago. He persists with his arguments despite years of humiliating intellectual losses to Midgeley which goes to his thick hide rather than the soundness of his ideas.
PC, the poll didn’t ask whether people found astrology internally coherent and entertaining. It asked whether they believe in it.
And while I’m not going to go around seeking out such people to insult, I find it very difficult to respect the intelligence and common sense of people who do express a belief in the predictive powers of such obvious BS, no matter how entertaining.
Well, I’ve met two astrologers both of whom did my birth chart. One of them made predictions for the future that turned out to be stunningly accurate. And he was the one that was more than a bit unhinged. I’ve also met a couple of astrologers who were stunningly inaccurate.
I know Tarot cards can come true, about 80%, because I read them. And I get feedback from the people I’ve read for. Unfortunately, and I’m sure some skeptic will pick logical holes in this, you don’t seem to realise the cards are coming true until they’re actually happening. Most of the people I know who can read Tarot are pretty accurate, though I’ve come across a couple who don’t have a clue, even though they think they do. I didn’t bother to tell them they were hopeless.
PS. I also believe UFOs are more likely than not, though I’ve never seen one. And I know there is an afterlife, its just nothing like the one organised religion believes in.
I don’t think I have said anywhere that it did, Robert, but I think it’s time to bail, and shift my focus to the question of whether there are any carrots in the house for Santa’s reindeer.
Paul Burns – you are a true believer!
For most of history our beliefs about the metaphysical have been very colorful. It is unsurprising that those beliefs persist in Australia – just like everywhere else.
I doubt there is a way for humans to become innately less prone to belief. And there will never be a shortage of spell-binding material – not while there’s a buck to be made from it.
Paul Burns@72
Of course there are unidentified objects in the sky. I see them on a regular basis. It’s not clear to me though why admitting to incomplete knowledge of the sky’s composition should be that remarkable or imply specific belief in alien life forms.
That said, it seems to me counter-intuitive in a universe as large and diverse as it seems to be, that this Earth would be the only place where something like life could arise and survive for the 650 million years or so that life has existed here. Somewhere apart from Earth, other life probably obtains. But is it relevant to us? Probably not. In practice, we have to behave as if this Earth and the life on it has all the significance we can ever comprehend.
The most recent peddlers of arbitrary belief systems include Ian Plimer & Andrew Bolt, of course.
Shorter Robert @ 71 I wont…but I will anyway..
If you’re game Robert, pop up your birth date and I’ll give you a mirror of your personality.
Hello from St Kilda where I’m based while on hols.
I’d like to add another angle to the discussion. My late mother was fond of explaining regrettable behaviour by my late father in terms of “It’s the New Moon” or the like. I’d be most obliged if someone could link to the recent report on findings that phases of the moon can affect people’s mental state, but the main point I want to make is that the phases of the moon are related to phenomena including the tides, and the presence or absence of moonlight at night, which clearly have been important in the evolution of life on earth, are important for the breeding and feeding behaviour of many species today, would have therefore indirectly influenced the organised behaviour of humans in hunter-gatherer cultures (for whom things like the presence or absence of moonlight and the behavioural cycles of prey species are significant), and may have had evolutionary consequences for the make-up of humans. In this case folklore about the phases of the moon might be a pre-scientific way of being onto something, rather than just unscientific.
Paul you might be able to access it through your University – here it is.
In my humble experience most major cultural paradigms have a way of assigning personality archetypes, and these are used by everyone without much thought to gauge who people are from their behaviours. The archetypes might be expressed in myths, or in atrology (middle eastern, Chinese, the Kabbala etc.) or through other interpretive systems.
The predictive aspects of such archetypal systems make no sense to me in the modern context although I can well see the logic behind them in earlier times when humans were still trying to figure out their relationship to the natural world, the meaning of the divine and how to understand their passage through life; there was a much greater blurring of what would later become the modern sciences and metaphysical thinking / religion.
Personally I find archetypes very useful, including astrology. It’s not about taking them literally, they’re simply tools for getting a handle on people.
Similarly there are lots of ‘future predicting’ systems which I think really just boil down to mechanisms for helping people (usually with some sort of dilemma) connect their intuition and logic, subconscious etc. I-Ching and Tarot, palm reading etc. I think of it as an associative process that helps you use left & right brain together. I’ve used tarot readings like that not to have a ‘prediction’ made about my future but to get a handle on my thinking – sometimes it just informs you that you’re in a very wooly-headed space. Like any metaphysical system you find those who take it perfectly literally, and others that have a much more sophisticated understanding.
For an interesting related take on the whole left-right brain / male-female & patriarchy bizzo linked to all this I recommend Leonard Shlain’s The Alphabet and the Goddess for enjoyable speculation & insights.
PN @ 78,
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/12/14/2770491.htm
Robert @ 71,
In some instances I don’t think psychic powers are that unexplainable. Clearly, we’re still far from understanding the capacity of the brain, and it does appear that certain symbols, which at least go back to medieval times (for that, we have evidence; I’m not one of those who believes everything comes from the ancient Egyptians/Sumerians etc.)can trigger predictive powers. The endless question is how accurate are they (depends on the predicter’s skill); and are they of any use? (probably not; they certainly don’t stop bad trhings from happening, or even help good things along.)
And this of course, bringsa us into the murky waters of determinbism and predestination, which, despite my experiences with the spiritual, I do find questionable.
I tend to view astrology like the Myers Briggs Type Index (MBTI) – many people like to be able to categories themselves and others by simple (and therefore incorrect) personality types that intuitively seem to make sense to them.
I suspect it’s largely an example of the fundamental attribution error, which is the tendency most people exhibit to believe that other people’s behaviour is more the result of their personality than the environment they’re in. So, Fred broke up with Mary not because of the financial strain on their relationship, but because he’s Aries and she’s a Virgo and therefore they’re incompatible. And Fred was fired not because he spent all day at work on Facebook, but because he’s an ESTJ and his boss is an INFP.
Personally, I don’t think such things tend to be fundamentally dangerous, because people interpret them consistent with their own expectations anyway. Certainly it’s less harmful than religion, which is much more prescriptive in terms of behaviour and fate.
Go on Robert. Put in your birth time as well and where you were born.
Go on.
And some people even believe the burning of fossil fuels has had a major impact on global temperatures – even though there has been no direct correlation over the last 100 or so years between the increase in atmospheric levels of carbon dioxide and temperature (note in particular dramatic cooling in the 1940s and drop since 1998).
And incredibly world leaders recently gathered in very cold Copenhagen to pretend they can someone limit any further warming to 2C.
And many educated people deny the Roman and Medieval warm periods – claiming it is warmer now than it has ever been.
What people will believe in!
Hard/Soft, pah, I only like the ‘cornflour’ disciplines: they’re hard when you hit them fast, but very soft if you slide in slowly.
And some people believe Jennifer #84 – amazing!
Oooh, Fulmicellino, my horse:
Even better, what’s your birth date Paul Norton. What time and where were you born?
What fun.
Let’s see if our gravatars and performed online identities match our charts.
Come on.
It’s the end of the year.
Enough of this po face puritanism. Let’s get all bacchanalia.
No they don’t. They just say they do.
Nice troll, Jennifer.
In any case, for Casey and Zorronsky, I have no idea exactly what hour and minute of the day I was born. I could ask my parents, I suppose.
But what would that prove. If one or both of you did a reading and came to conclusion I was an arrogant smartarse, did you come to that conclusion on the basis of the position of the sun and moon, or the ample evidence amongst my LP posts and comments?
Because I’m in an almost-on-holidays type of mood, and not otherwise ridiculously busy, I decided to do a bit of digging on the psychological research on the belief in astrology. Weirdly, there is very little. A PsychInfo search only turned up 150 articles with ‘astrology’ as a keyword, and only about half of those are in the last two decades or so.
About the only thing I saw which discussed gender specifically was a Scottish study, which remarked (in the abstract):
This is in contrast to some of the andecdata up-thread about educated women being into astrology (although admittedly the way the abstract reads is a little ambiguous, and I wasn’t so bored as to dig up the original article).
The (very small) number of papers that looked at the relationship between astrological personality characteristics and personality characteristics as measured by more conventional psychometric instruments (the NEO, EPI, MMPI were three I saw), generally reported that they didn’t find any. Not hugely surprising, I guess.
The most fun paper I found was this:
There you go – horoscopes are a tool of repression
Ha ha the humour has eliminated one personality type. But a date will be suffiscient as I use East/West Astrology.
I believe Jennifer Marohasy is a lower order troll, but I’m sceptical about the rest of this thread…
Take away an f or an s!
Just for amusement … since it is the season to be silly …
I was born in Paddington Women’s Hospital (approx 151.2245E 33.8845S, Sydney) at 12.35pm on 7 June 1958.
I had this done years ago, and apparently, like Robert, I too am a smart arse. I was told more specifically that I was Gemini with Aries-Pisces ascendent rising …
Fiuimi the horse, seeing as all you horses were born in Spring, does that mean you’re all quite similar?
This is tangential to the major discussion in this thread, but I thought I’d reply to this post by Anthony Nolan:
This is simply false. Midgeley’s objections to Dawkins’s views on the units of natural selection barely touched the substance of his views. Sure, Dawkins often writes casually and a little too exaggeratedly, but this tends to be in his work for a popular audience. In more technical work, such as The Extended Phenotype, those criticisms don’t apply. And while there are no doubt plenty of problems with Dawkins’ defence of gene selectionism, it remains a serious contender for how we should understand natural selection.
what SRK said
Zorronsky does the readings not me. But, Robert, then again what the hell. I find there be a bit of monsoon in your rather defensive statement that someone could find you arrogant and a smartarse. Water already dripping on the screen. Bit of that soft reading stuff Mehitabel was LSDing over up there. Man, give me some of that.
Anyway, my point is, it’s not what WE would come up with. WE all came up with stuff ages ago. And regardless, we find you rather bracing and we will continue to read you, facing your words with fortitude and a stiff shot of whisky under the desk at work.
It’s not about us though. It’s about how accurate or not it might be for you, see? A test, if you will.
But I understand. Go ahead. Suppress all that hormonal weather flashing across your chart. Never let it show. Its always drops of Jupiter with you lot.
Here we go Fran: Enjoy
Crusaders with a big mouth who always think they know best. Theses pooches are charismatic and are not easily intimidated. Resourceful and cunning, the Dog born Gemini can make a graveyard laugh itself to death. A maverick with a heart.
Positive Traits Negative Traits
QUICK-WITTEDNESS DUTY SELF-DECEPTION CYNICISM
DEXTERITY MORALITY GLIBNESS TACTLESSNESS
VERSATILITY HEROISM SUPERFICIALITY UNSOCIABILITY
FLEXIBILITY INTELLIGENCE INDECISIVENESS UNEASINESS
PERFORMANCE CONSTANCY INCONSTANCY SELF-RIGHTEOUSNESS
PERSPICACITY RESPECTABILITY IMPATIENCE CRITICISM
So the Gemini / Dog recognized?
Astrologist/astronomists: Let us assume that the stars which are in the ascendant in the sky do have some correlation with the characteristics you are born with and that this correlation continues throughout your life – are the same stars ascendant at the same time in both the Northern and Southern hemispheres? Or are southerners born under different stars than northerners, and therefore a totally different astrological chart is required?
And yes, the only time I had my chart done it was very convincing. But I still don’t believe it….I’d have to have my chart done ‘blind’ for this. My chart was done by my sister in law, who knows enough about me to subconsciously influence her readings (and the same concern would apply to Tarot).
As for UFOs – if it takes 10,000 years just to leave our solar system, then it’s obviously impossible for anyone to just drop in for a quick visit. Unless, of course, they use time warps or come through other dimensions or whatever. Which I’m not sure is feasible.
Having probably demonstrated pretty substantially that I know very little about astronomy and probably less about physics, I will now run away.
And probably pointless boasting about something I don’t believe in, but SOMEONE might be impressed…she said she had never seen such a beautifully balanced chart.
100 comments and none of you true believers have yet mentioned Gaia. She will be mighty pissed. Must be why there is a fuck off big cyclone traipsing across NW Australia right now. She knows – how do you think she got this far?
Most people don’t even understand that the definition of faith is the belief in something that can never be proven.
I have faith in people I trust but that is about it.
I believe I’ll have another beer.
Interesting Razor, do you have faith in your self?
Razor said:
Until you stop trusting them …
So it’s not faith but something else.
Faith is a useless concept and often positively pernicious. What people need is well-tutored insight and the capacity to distinguish those moments when a review of the insight may be apt from those that are mere red herrings.
Jennifer Marohasy wrote:
some people believe Marohasy isn’t a pathetic shill for mining company interests. They would be provably wrong. Have a merry christmas Jennifer, surely there’ll be a lump of coal under your tree this year.
Ootz – I can prove me to myself therefore I do not need faith in myself.
Fran – if I stop trusting them, then they are no longer trusted and I no longer have faith in them. I agree in general with your last paragraph.
I was going to put Jedi as my religion last Census but they canned that option after the previous Census. Some people are such spoil sports.
Razor – “I can prove me to myself therefore I do not need faith in myself.”
Does it follow then that any entity which can prove itself to itself really exists?
I believe that crunching numbers over a phrase as nebulous as ‘believe in’ isn’t going to get you any useful data, even if you do use a bigger sample than 1,000.
And I believe that the Farmhouse Brie I bought this morning for Christmas Day probably isn’t going to make it that far. Mmmmm brie.
Zorronsky, what does it say about a Taurus Snake?
I’ve maintained for a while that we should save our beliefs for utterly amazing bizarre crazy stuff, like the trinity, or talking five dimensional underpants from Saturn. Belief should take effort. What’s the point in believing in physical things like beer? It’s much easier to drink it.
Double Cancer, Scorpio Moon Wood Dragon??
Double Cancer, Scorpio Moon Wood Dragon??
The most important part of a good education is to learn logic. Epistemology should be compolsary in high school because it helps so much with clear rational thinking in all other fields. I have heard it said that belief in superstitious nonsence increases with education until post grad in the sciences when it falls sharply. This apparently is because some education makes you open to new ideas.
People need a good understanding of all the logical fallacies and an understanding of the scientific method. Nothing supernatural has ever been demonstrated in lab conditions with a peer review in case it’s been done by sharlotans.
Tarot cards etc “work” because of the confirmation bias, cold readings and broad but seemingly specialized statements.
Troll, your cult following is getting smaller since your fellow cultist Ian Plimer was exposed last week on national TV as a fraud. Your time will come soon enough.
The point is that as Richard Posner says in regard to the US our revealed preference is for a secular society. The question is who among the ranks of beleivers wants to impose their views on others in an illiberal manner.
Casey @112 & 113
I believe the word tempestuous will be in there somewhere
110 – Farm House – - no noooo – King Island Double please
You reckon????
No, I believe it. (Phw I hope I can dig myself out of this one …)
But you do give me nice qualia.
This is simply false. Midgeley’s objections to Dawkins’s views on the units of natural selection barely touched the substance of his views.
Indeed – Midegely is one of these twits who seem to have read nothing of the book but its title and assumed Dawkins was arguing that humans are genetically predisposed to be selfish. In fact the metaphor of the title refers to the book’s purpose: a defense of adopting gene selectionism in preference to the (at the time) more orthodox notion of selection at the level of the individual animal.
One oft cited example is the “altruism” of certain species of brightly coloured poisonous caterpillars. Birds can easily find ‘em; but, after biting one and finding it tastes bloody awful, they avoid the rest. This isn’t much use to the individual who got tasted but the other caterpillars live with their colourful “don’t eat me” plumage and pass on the gene for the same, despite the death of the unfortunate sibling with whom they share half their genes. This is what makes genes “selfish”: you don’t necessarily survive; they do.
Note the more complex mathematics that allow an evo-psych explanation of real altruism being selected for at the genetic level demonstrate how wrong-headed calling The Selfish Gene “thatcherite” is. Gene selectionism provides an explanation for altruism as self-sacrificing behaviours act to the “benefit” of the genes shared within populations where the behaviour occurs. If you help someone survive there’s a good probability you’re helping the genes for “helping others survive” survive, depeniding on the probability that they share some of your genes. If natural selection worked at the level of the individual, anything but actual selfishness would be selected against. I don’t entirely hold with the evo-psych theory myself; but that it derives from Dawkins’ notion of the mechanics of selection demonstrates how The Selfish Gene‘s implications about human nature are nothing like the ones people like Midgely accused the book of espousing.
“Most people don’t even understand that the definition of faith is the belief in something that can never be proven.
I have faith in people I trust but that is about it.”
I have faith in the people I trust because they’ve consistently demonstrated *in the past* that I can rely on their behaviour towards me.
My faith is that I can *continue to do so in the future*.
“Faith is a useless concept and often positively pernicious.”
I don’t think it’s useless. It’s just existential. But like all the existential emotions (anxiety, hope etc), ie. the things you feel and cogitate in the *absense* of an immediate sensory stimulus in the here and now, it’s often ripe for manipulation and persuasion. 101 for horror directors/presidential speech writers amongst many other professions.
P C the year helps but simply…
This is your proverbial snake in the grass. As snake people lean toward the prissy, Taurus in the sign is a boon to the practical..intuitive and wonderfully discreet the snake gets earthiness from Taurus.
Snakes are talented aquirers, love money, luxury and comfort, and the Taurus will keep hold of it. Hates laziness. Although seen as forbidding they can be capable of gigantic silliness, but within their close circle.
Positive traits: ardor intuition determination attractiveness industry discretion patience sagacity logic clairvoyance sensuality compassion.
Negative Traits: langour dissimulation prejudice extravagance gluttony cupidity complacency presumption jealousy exclusiveness
Well frakkly, what youse regard as tempestuous, I regard as youtubing with punch.
But happy to provide you with the qualia, regardless.
Weaver,SRK+wbb: oh good. Weaver in particular – do you think there might be a problem with the ascription of intention and purpose, that is, with the ascription of selfishness, to a gene? If not why not? A kiss is still a kiss, you must remember this:
“Genes cannot be selfish or unselfish, any more than atoms can be jealous, elephants abstract or biscuits teleological”.
Cancer/Dragons have polished tastes and are generally an artist of some sort. Their homes act as showcases for their talents. Sentimental and emotional, a tight-knit relationship and established home and children are necessary for happiness.
Positive Traits
Negative Traits
AFFECTION GOOD HEALTH MOODINESS BRAGGADOCIO
CARING PLUCK DESPONDENCY INFATUATION
IMAGINATION STRENGTH POSSESSIVENESS RIGIDITY
TENACITY SENTIMENTALITY IRRITABILITY VOLUBILITY
INSIGHT ENTHUSIASM HYPERSENSITIVITY DISSATISFACTION
CAUTION SUCCESS AVARICE MISTRUST
THE SENTIMENTAL LUMINARY
Great emotional vitality is the foundation of this astonishing character’s personality. The Cancer/Dragon is born with all of Cancer’s profound ability to feel life in every aspect. This subject is also endowed with Dragonish pluck. So we have here a forceful and dauntlessly enthusiastic character. Cancer’s eternal black moods will be lightened by the Dragon’s phoenix-like ability to rise from the ashes of his own immolation by his natural pep and vigor. Dragon’s unwieldy braggadocio will be tempered by Cancer’s good sense and dignity. Cancer/Dragon’s got just a soupcon of a twinkle in a very sensual glance. Bedroom eyes with a skylight. Cancer wants to keep this subject home. Dragon longs to race out and beat the world at any game in town. Close contact with this dynamic soulful person is always satisfying. Tender? This person invented snuggles. The sex with this charmer is not to be missed.
And I’m a Teapot.
It’s a metaphor, anthony nolan!
Must have a year.. there are too many variables for both signs without. Pav’s cat the Taurus/ Snake is a very interesting read. Try The New Astrology by Suzanne White
for the three or four pages devoted to this sign.
Casey, you asked for it!
Teapot, there is no such star sign I believe.
AN et al, possibly the rub is in the word self, somewhat related to Dr Fausttus fundamental attribution error. The self is an interesting belief, which we all adhere to somewhat. However, it is a rather difficult phenomenon to prove scientifically. Cognitive science, artificial intelligence and research in conscientiousness can attest. For some reflective festive reading can recommend Hofstadter and Dennett’s “The Mind,s I – Fantasies and Reflections on Self & Soul”.
wbb: doh! But metaphors are infamous for hiding as much as they reveal. The metaphor used by Marx of ‘class war’ to describe what he saw as the essential antagonism of proletarian/bourgeois relations hid from view for years other elements of dependency within class relations. Cosequently it was a long time before the mutuality of Northern (Centre)class relations was revealed as a pact to exploit the people and resources of the South(periphery).
BTW: I don’t think this discussion is inappropriate for the issue of the fantastic things people believe at all. If you believe that genes are selfish then you are captive to a deeply mystical idea.
So, then, given that Dawkins’ understanding of selfish seems to be something like “actually self-preserving in the long run”, why does Dawkins say selfish rather than, say, competitive? Why the value judgement inherent in the word selfish?
Zorronsky, I am over the moon and delighted with that assessment, it’s level of detail, and its astonishing accuracy.
The fact that it could double as an ad for an escort agency is of no consequence to me whatsoever.
Sorry, should read ‘research in consciousness’ of course.
Casey 132 compatible with Cancer / Tiger too i might add. *cough*!
He probably thought people could take a metaphor.
“.. if you have “selfish” genes, which only means that natural selection works at the level of the gene, if you have “selfish” genes, then, you may have altruistic individuals.” – Dawkins.
Wbb, the word ‘self-ish’ is fraught with difficulties and open to misinterpretation as it does imply an independent and self conscious entity. Bad choice of word by Dawkins me thinks.
‘real astrology’ has nothing to do with stars it is about effectively conveying the impression that you have supernatural insight. the way that readings are structured is far more interesting than astrology lore.
i would think belief in astrology is probably correlated with wanting action on climate change (not necessarily belief in AGW though).
have a read of Full Facts Book of Cold Reading. (if you don’t want to buy it you can steal it via torrent) after reading this book all the TV shows with palm readings/talking to the dead/astrology readings look scripted to manipulate people. also, if you are involved with sales or are in a position where you are worried that sales people might manipulate you this is a pretty important book to read.
AN @131 “If you believe that genes are selfish then you are captive to a deeply mystical idea.”
I am puzzled about why the same arguments, for and against, are valid in the debate on the existence of both a god and a self. So I have no problem being called a mystic, by acknowledging that any of them might or might not truly exist. It is an immense illusion to think we can grasp (measure)the enormousness of the entire universe. I mean can we ever know what is behind the event horizon of a black hole? We should not stop trying though, as long we are not getting lost in it. Dito with astrology, brie and beer.
Just on the size of the sample, 1000 is fine, if it’s a representative one, which it should be coming from Nielsen. A larger sample wouldn’t reduce the margin of sampling error much. It would be around 3% with a sample that size – so, looking at it another way, you can have 97% confidence that it’s representative of the population being sampled.
But I’m with those who think the questions are dumb.
We’d learn much more if we investigated this sort of thing qualitatively, and informed such investigations using all sorts of insights drawn from *soft* disciplines like sociology and social psychology.
/runs away
Mark, I agree with you.
Quantitative tools are pretty useless in this context, particularly for such open-ended questions.
The metaphor in Dawkins’ title is only open to misinterpretation if you fail to read the sodding book you’re bitching about, as Midgely clearly did. wbb, and, for that matter, myself, have explained what “selfish” means here – and it’s not as Mr Nolan descibes it.
the word ’self-ish’ is fraught with difficulties and open to misinterpretation as it does imply an independent and self conscious entity.
Yeah, like the selection in Natural Selection. The gradual change under environmental pressures in the nature of living organisms as those less capable of surviving long enough to produce offspring are supplanted by those more capable – described as an anthropomorphised intentional process like “selecting”? Silly old Darwin. Was he some sort of animist?
The MD’s wife thought it a good idea to pay a Feng Shui consultant to assess the Office.
They put me in charge of collating the required personal information of the various office occupants.
Ooooops. Don’t know how much it cost to get a BS report based on BS birthdates etc.
They certainly took themselves seriously.
Anyone for a Salt crystal Lamp?
To echo others, perhaps Dawkins, writing in 1976 (aged 35) didn’t think twats opiniing on the internet would completely misinterpret his ideas without actually reading his book, where his novel and strong hypothesis is explained at great length. Selfish gene is a perfectly good metaphor, useful for a book cover.
Mark at #139
and Robert at #140
Yes, that’s what I said at #110 and was trying to imply before that (with the exception of the sample size thing, about which I bow to Mark’s obviously better knowledge even if it surprises me given the number of possible answers — if the question had been ‘Do you like chocolate?’ 1000 would have seemed perfectly adequate). My dislike of the way quantitative methodology so often gets valorised and privileged over qualitative is what’s behind my irritation with this survey and the way it’s been reported, but it’s obviously also made my lucidity machine go all doolally.
Yes, in part because Denton was trying to ask about Dawkin’s views on matters irrelevant to what he’s about, evolution and public understanding of the neo-Darwinist synthesis.
http://www.abc.net.au/tv/elders/transcripts/s2757522.htm
A later dumbass question by Denton: “What do you see when you look in the mirror?”
FFS. Richard should have said: “Millions of years of evolution, can we get back to that subject please?”
Geez wilful – “twat” is quaint. I’ve read Dawkins, Stephen Jay Gould, EO Wilson, Kuhn, Feyerabend and Spencer. That list is just off the top of my head. I think Dawkins is wrong but, more importantly, he’s wrong because he became captive to some dominant ideas of his time. In Freud’s time mechanical engineering was a potent source of metaphors which is why Freud drew on pressurised plumbing to sometimes explain his understanding of the subconsious. Dawkins fell victim to a particular variant of neoliberalism.
But more later as it is clear that I need to give you time to let your own pressure valves release a little steam.
http://www.theage.com.au/national/faith-what-australians-believe-in-20091218-l5qy.html
http://www.smh.com.au/national/our-faith-today-20091218-l5w6.html
Weaver
Ahem…. from the mans pen if you please, read the last paragraph of his letter to Lyell.
http://www.darwinproject.ac.uk/entry-2931/
Theistic beliefs will never be wiped out Nick, any more than all the children in the world will stop believing in Santa Claus, the Tooth Fairy or Aesop’s fables.
Scepticism is a work in progress, from time immemorial, but perhaps more so from the age of methodological naturalism onwards.
Sounds nasty.
Not disagreeing with any of that, Peter
Just a little stunned one of the papers’ editors decided so blatantly to substitute Gen X for Baby Boomers, or vice versa, and whether or not they felt like having a quick swipe at the Greens.
Ootz@138: yep, beer and brie are always testable at the level of the sensuous self. I was raised an atheist and have no knowledge of any god(s) either doctrinally or through direct interaction. As to mysticism well, that is different. There are sublime experiences and these can be subject to an ontology and, in principle, an epistomleogy as well. But beer and brie are always reliable.
Do expand on the arguments in favour of self and god that have common ground. That is interesting.
wbb: the variant of neolib that Dawkins caught was self replicating meme called Spencerianism that the Yanks put in the drinking water at the turn of the century.
Social Darwinism treats of humans, race, society and culture. Dawkins describes genetics. Dawkins is as scathing of Social Darwinism as anybody else. You must read very old books, anthony!
Do I need to click Ootz’s link to confirm it’s about how Darwin hated the phrase “natural selection”? I’m guessing not.
… actually, having a look, it seems Darwin rather makes my point.
Peter Kemp, there’s a broader context. The series is called Elders and focuses (ideally) on ‘the person’ in general, on subjects’ life stories and personalities as well as on their work. If Dawkins didn’t wish to answer questions about himself he should have asked what kind of show it was and declined to go on it if he wasn’t prepared to co-operate with the kind of show it was.
Have you ever interviewed a difficult, abrasive, recalcitrant subject in front of a lot of people? A subject who cheerfully agreed to participate and wasn’t being asked aggressive or hostile questions but made it as difficult as possible for you anyway? I have. As experiences go, it makes you wish you were dead, but nowhere near as much as you wish your subject were.
I’ll admit that I do have a particular hangup about astrology. While I’m quite interested in systems of “weird” beliefs on an intellectual level (my own academic work touches on the history of ufos, for example), astrology leaves me cold on every level. And that’s because of my own intellectual history.
Point taken.
I absolutely would have enjoyed that! One of the highlights of my brief and not very illustrious astronomical career was observing with David Malin on the Anglo-Australian Telescope. His photos were a huge inspiration growing up.
anthony nolan@152
Richard Dawkins @richarddawkins.net
Point taken PC, but in the broader context you mention, the question “what do you see in the mirror” seems a somewhat silly way to elicit life stories and personality.
Re:
Quite a few police and DOCS workers actually, in cross examination: difficult, evasive, recalcitrant to my client’s instructions, sometimes loose with the truth. Definitely puts a client headed for jail on a downer.
PC @ 155
Or if Denton wanted to elicit those sort of answers he could have avoided asking such broad (dumbass) questions, where the only reasonable response is … ? … define your terms…
I’m a fan of Denton, but this was not one of his best. There was no flow to the conversation and RD looked as if he’d lost faith in the experience pretty early on.
True.
Heh. I meant ‘when the interview was supposed to be entertaining’, but I suppose you might argue that that’s the case here as well.
Oh indeed PC, inadvertently sometimes. A judicial officer at a dinner recently related this one:
Q: Why did you call him a spastic?
A: I wanted to call him a c… but there was a woman present.
PC, if you’re interested in a somewhat readable explanation of the reason why a sample size of a few hundred is often enough, you could try the Wikipedia’s article on Margin on error.
wbb: would like to respoond with alacrity and clarity however have had genuine encounter with Mssrs Cooper Bros and am inebriated. Prepared to offer comments on god and mysticism but not philosophy of science notwithstanding yr deeply provocative citation of Dawkins disavowing social Darwinism despite his thesis being nothing more than same.
Noone prepared to consider/debate whether the theory of anthropogenic global warming is based more on fact or faith?
PC, I think (through a haze of too much cheap red wine and Befte Barley Whine (Patent Pending)) we disagree about the Dawkins interview.
I gotta say, I generally don’t much care for Denton. He’s usually a good interviewer, but he also often irritates me. This time, I think he was outclassed.
Jennifer @ 164, I’d really like to know whether you’re a fool or a liar. Could you please enlighten me?
David, If its more fact than faith then you must have some evidence – what is your best evidence for AGW (anthropogenic global warming)?
Yes, yes Jennifer, of course every single peer reviewed journal in the fields of physics, meteorology, statistics, geology (other than Energy and Environment) has completely given way to faith. Not one of the thousands of articles published in that time in those journals providing pieces of evidence (large and small) in support of AGW had a single fact to support them.
Only the people who believe the Sun is a stony-iron meteorite,
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/05/an_astronomer_reviews_ian_plim.php
the world is ruled by giant alien lizards
http://www.davidicke.com/index.php/
when its not run by a the drug smuggling British Royal family
http://johnquiggin.com/index.php/archives/2009/12/13/la-la-la-rouche-again/
and that a gas can’t trap heat as its atoms are not in physical contact with each other
http://geoheresy.blogspot.com/2006_08_01_archive.html (last post on the page)
are actually relying on facts.
(Gotta learn how to embed links)
Jennifer @ 164,
We are still going at it regards to the collapse of the WTC. When that is over then maybe you’ll get a turn.
Trolling’s not welcome here, thanks.
If anyone wants to debate her questions they should feel free to go to Jennifer’s blog.
ETA: When I say trolling I refer to when one tries to divert the subject of a blog to another subject of the troll’s desire, in case that’s your next question.
@166 – David, please keep it civil, and stick to the issues. There’s been a bit too much sledging around here lately.
Seems pretty intuitive to me that more the ice melts, the more trolls get unfrozen.
And staggering somewhat OT here, when is someone gonna turn TH White’s short story “The Troll” into a killer creepy magic realism short film?
Cannibalistic hallucinations in a staid Edwardian-era Norwegian resort hotel. I can see the one sheet now. “Dead Snow” for grown ups.
I suppose if I sat for a long time and stared at The devil card in the Tarot …
But, would it be good for my soul?
And, in terms of weird stuff, much weirder than not believing in global warming, there’s always the hollow earth theory and/or the interior of the earth being made of ice. (If that one was true, it would of course, be melting like crazy by now. But, since the planet has not imploded, presumably its not. (There was a book years ago detailing Nazi occult beliefs which outlined both of the above theories but I forget its name. (Hope I haven’t Godwined here. Not intending to,)
David at #165, I wasn’t saying it was a good interview (not least because, like some others here, I only saw and hear scraps of it while doing something else), more saying that I thought people here were being harder on Denton than he deserved.
I’ve just gone and watched the first ten minutes and read the whole transcript, and it’s now clear to me that people have picked out the bad moments and said nothing about the vast majority of the interview, in which Denton asks questions that elicit some really interesting stuff and make a space for Dawkins to talk into, which he does very grippingly. There’s just that handful of moments when Dawkins starts squirming about being asked (in what I agree are some not very inspiring questions) to speak personally, despite the fact that he must have known that was part of the point of the show. It’s also clear that the ‘star sign’ thing was a silly throwaway joke at the end, a baiting of the eminent of the kind Denton often can’t resist and which is almost always a mistake.
It’s your use of the word ‘outclassed’ that interests me most, because it speaks to a more general and very widespread phenomenon (and I am now not talking about you here, just a general thing in the culture) whereby the an interview is, increasingly, defined as adversarial, its main object not to elicit information but to win the contest. (As with the legal system, the real object of which ought to be discovering the truth but which presents as fundamentally uninterested in it.) Young male TV journalists and middle-aged-to-elderly male radio shock jocks are the main culprits here, although certain sorts of women journalists sometimes try to emulate the aggressive-competitive style and the results are truly hideous. Journalists with no brains think ‘going in hard’ (sigh — I don’t need to gloss this, do I. Hi Casey *waves*) is some kind of indication of merit. Kerry O’Brien does it often and should know better, not least because he always gets far more interesting stuff out of people he’s not trying to score points off.
“Outclassed” was probably an unfortunate word to have chosen, PC. I wasn’t thinking of it in adversarial terms, but Denton has done much better interviews in the past (the Clive James effort being one).
I agree that bits of the interview were good, though. I was particularly struck by the way Dawkins’ face lit up when Denton asked him about the late Douglas Adams.
Now that I’ve slept off the barley whine, I’m a little bit sorry, Mark @ 171, but not very. Our Jennifer brings out the worst in me, I’m afraid, and she started it.
Casey #87:
My DOB: 5 October 1959
Time: 12 noon
Place: a hospital in Carlton, Victoria
Make of that what you will! ;0
Jennifer Marohasy, since you like coal so much I’m going to fill your Christmas stocking with it.
Is my previous comment in moderation because I’m weird stuff that you secular lefty smarties don’t believe in?
Agree about aggressive interviewing PC. It’s particularly irritating when the interviewer clearly knows very little about the topics the subject might be able to speak with deep insight and authority on; and asks questions that are weak, foolish, not up-to-date, not allowing space, etc.
He’s not everyone’s cup of tea, but I think Philip Adams on radio understands this better than most. He introduces himself and his farm into the chat a bit too often for my taste; but he does make an effort to read up, beforehand. Or his researchers do.
Why on earth the foolish, aggressive interviewers consider themselves the intellectual/political/moral equals of their subjects, is a mystery. It’s weird, and I don’t believe it!
Anna Winter wrote:
An excellent suggestion – her blog could use a few facts rather than the fanciful nonsense she re-publishes from the Heartland institute.
The internet is a wonderful place for researching crazy beliefs (Paul burns’ hollow earth, the lizard people running the world, Alex Jones and his prison planet). In fact it’s hard to keep up with the sheer amounts of crazy and often it’s also hard to distinguish parody from serious efforts. Which is a shame, because the sincere crazies are very entertaining.
Of course, there’s always the Venusians. (I gather we’re supposed to come from there.) There are hordes of them among us apparently, masquerading as humans. And small companion animals.
Hmm, Venusians!
It’ll be them spraying chemicals via contrails to sterilise the population (or tune our metal tooth fillings to government propaganda, or the vast left wing conspiracy surround climate change fraud, I can’t decide which).
First, Fumocellino, having consulted the constellations, I can see from your aspects that you are Pegasus and your name means horse.
Right, now that’s out of the way, here are a few points:
*You have a Sun in Libra, and Moon in Scorpio
(like me. Takes one to know one. This means you too have sunroof eyes, and can gain employment with an escort service should all else fall through)
*You tend to be aggressive and are often downright blasphemous.
Like Yeah.
*When crossed you wreak revenge in full measure.
Man, I seen it. I seen it all the time.
*You relish displaying your wit and knowledge and make a point of telling others of your various successes and victories.
ABSOFRAKKINLUTELY. Like, shutup.
*These shows of your achievement, however, are to your detriment because they earn you the ill will of others.
So now you see Filmicellino what can happen when you show your clevers too much. Peoples will resent you and you know that never happens when blogging generally so be carefuls.
*You lean toward the darker sides of life, and your imagination can be morbid. You are fascinated by the mysterious, malignant forces in the universe.
Yes of course, given you think I caused the Daggett thread.
*A nocturnal individual, your thoughts often turn to death, finalities, and the mysteries of life after death.
hehehehehehhe this is too funny Nortone.
*The key to a more harmonious self lies in developing optimism and recognizing the good that sexists in the world.
Um, yeah look. Im not sure what that means, the computer spat that out.
Perhaps you can explain it to ME????
Oh Farmacino, look this stuff is too funny.
Your ascendant is in Capricorn, therefore:
*You are very economical in your daily activities, and if you do not exert some control over this trait, it could appear as rather mean.
That’s the computer’s way of saying: Cough it up, tight pants.
Oh, where’s my whiskey. This will be twice as fun with a swig or two.
Speaking of Alex Jones, I recently saw a video of Viscount Monckton speaking on Alex Jones’ radio show about how the Copenhagen Conference was heralding in a “New World Order.” The people who respond particularly to this type of conspiracy theory are the creationists and fundamentalists of the USA who see the NWO as a signal of the imminent return of Jesus or the Rapture. A lot of this religious sentiment recently informed this year’s Tea Party movement, with Obama being portrayed as some type of antichrist.
I have confronted many hardline denialist trolls on various blogs and fora, and I have to conclude that denialists fall into two categories. There are those most influenced by libertarian ideology, and who regard the science of climate change as a threat to the operations of the free market (read: profits of the corporations). However, the greater bulk of denialists are conspiracy theorists who have little understanding of science in general. Many of these conspiracy theorists, when pressed, reveal their religious opposition to environmental causes generally. Quite a substantial number of them are creationists, whose “scepticism” for the science of climate change is merely an updated version of their “scepticism” for evolution.
So it’s ironic that Marohasy and others are trying to push the idea that environmentalists are motivated by some kind of religious fervour when it is quite plain that it is the denialists who are the religiously motivated ones.
The confluence of denialism and traditional religion becomes most apparent when we consider countermeasures to climate change. Al Gore and others are pointing out that the greatest way to reduce one’s carbon footprint is to limit the size of families (by raising the material standards and education of women in the Third World). Opposition to effective population control measures comes principally from the Catholic Church, and that is why environmentalists must join the battle of taking on pernicious religious beliefs.
“Jennifer @ 164, I’d really like to know whether you’re a fool or a liar. Could you please enlighten me?”
False dichotomy DI(nr).
My comments have been in moderation for over two hours, so I am going to reformat them to see if I can get a post in. Apologies if my post appears twice.
I recently saw a video of Viscount Monckton speaking on Alex Jones’ radio show about how the Copenhagen Conference was heralding in a “New World Order.” The people who respond particularly to this type of conspiracy theory are the creationists and fundamentalists of the USA who see the NWO as a signal of the imminent return of Jesus or the Rapture. From my experience denialists fall into two main categories. There are those most influenced by libertarian ideology and who regard the science of climate change as a threat to the operations of the free market (read: profits of the corporations). However, the greater bulk of denialists are conspiracy theorists who have little understanding of science in general. Many of these conspiracy theorists, when pressed, reveal their religious opposition to environmental causes generally. Quite a substantial number of them are creationists, whose “scepticism” for the science of climate change is merely an updated version of their “scepticism” for evolution. So it’s ironic that Marohasy and others are trying to push the idea that environmentalists are motivated by some kind of religious fervour when it is quite plain that it is the denialists who are the religiously motivated ones. The confluence of denialism and traditional religion becomes most apparent when we consider countermeasures to climate change. Al Gore and others are pointing out that the greatest way to reduce one’s carbon footprint is to limit the size of families (by raising the material standards and education of women in the Third World). Opposition to effective population control measures comes principally from the Catholic Church, and that is why environmentalists must join the battle of taking on pernicious religious beliefs.
“Or” is generally not exclusive, FDB, but I take your point.
…yes. “and” would be more apropos.
As an erstwhile scientist, JM doesn’t need to have the case for AGW explained to her. It’s simply the trolling technique of “explain everything behind X from first principles for me”, which stops a discussion stone dead, or so they hope.
Indeed, and I don’t think we should encourage the thread derailment by falling for the goading. Thanks!
One of the weird things I believe is that publically subsidised information obfuscators like Marohasy need to be outed, in public, wherever they rear up, with a decent helping of hostility. It’s my responsibility as a citizen to do it. It’s a responsibility I will not shirk. I will do the same for Andrew Bolt, for Ian Plimer, for anyone who parrots US manufactured garbage with a deliberate intention to mislead.
Unfortunately, do that on Ms Marohasys own blog and you find yourself banned within two posts. The rest of her pulpits (the IPA, The Land) are sadly unassailable by your ordinary git, so if what David Irving (nr) did breached the comments policy, the comments policy is in fact in breach of the social covenant we enjoy to smack idiots with facts until they are too embarrassed to show their faces in public. Marohasy is nearly there, given her penchant for banning people, we are merely twisting the knives.
Yep, it’s a weird belief.
Its a long time since I banned anyone from my weblog – or deleted a comment. But I see that the last comment I made here has been deleted.
In that comment I suggest that Feral’s appeal to what might be written in physics journals does not in itself constitute the provision of fact/evidence. Feral is merely appealing to an authority to support his belief in AGW.
Casey #186:
This probably also explains why I often link to the Hinterland Voice and Graeme Bird.
As for being economical in my daily activitiies, this could simply be the flipside of being a nocturnal person.
“Belief” / “Believe” are themselves problematic words. For instance, I “believe” in the law of gravity not only because of the little science I have learned about it in my eminently respectable textbooks, but because of the evidence of my own eyes. Therefore, I “believe” the law of gravity holds good. I also “believe” in other phemomena such as osmosis and photosynthesis, even though I can’t see these happening as clearly, because of the explanations I have read in books and the reputation of the people writing the books. It’s quite common and linguistically correct to use the word “believe” here.
But this is a completely different pancake to “believing” in God or Astrology.
I believe that Marohasy believes, sincerely & deep down, that AGW is wrong. We all have great capacity to fall victim to an ‘ism or an ideology.
It’s not worth the time trying to sway true believers. Better use of time is talking to undecideds and waverers.
I’d be inclined to agree, wbb (Marohasey will never admit she’s wrong, whatever her private thoughts), but when someone does a drive-by (as she did), they need to be ridiculed to within an inch of their lives to discourage them in the future.
I don’t agree wbb, unless by ‘wrong’ you mean “culturally offensive in its implications for my lifestyle arrangements”.
Maharosy’s objections wink at science so as to obscure the fact that she is part of a cultural war. If you read Blot’s latest piece on Avatar and the responses of his groupies you can see that very clearly.
“Blot’s latest piece on Avatar”
Deliberate typo, changing Bolt to Blot? Congratulations
If not deliberate, congratulations!
You have added o the Merriment of Christmas, Fran. Thank you!
I’ve long seen him as a Blot on the Landscape so it’s my running error, though the first time was a “freudian” accident.
Why do we even celebrate Christmas?!!? I am sick to death of people thinking they are worthy of good times and present giving whilst innocent people are dying, present tense, from our invasive culture(s) that shun all religious teachings to one side until the end of the year! Will the real people of this world please stand up!??! [Talk about the age of hypocrisy, FMD!]
Er, what? If you swim?
I mean, I think I agree with the “more obvious and less pleasant” thesis re Teh Aliens, but from whence came this 10,000 year malarky? It’ll take 70′s tech about 30.
What could be more weird than believing in the “resurrection of jesus”?
In this day and age such an absurd idea belongs in the realm of urban legends.
Well, I’m not a Xtan; I frequently make quite mocking jokes on LP about various branches of Xianity. And, in the context of a discussion of the nature of the historical Jesus, eg Renan, its a very intriguing topic/question. However, I do believe in respecting even those core religious beliefs of others I might personally find a little strange. (Not sure why you’ve thrown out this challenge on what I think is meant to be a light-hearted thread, especially at a time Xtans consider sacred. ) Just sayin’.