Sunday, December 17, 2006

30% UK University Students believe in Creationism by AC Grayling


Reason lost

The revelation that almost a third of students believe in creationism shows how the resurgence of superstitious belief is endangering the world.

August 15, 2006 12:57 PM | Printable version

An Opinionpanel Research survey conducted in July this year found that more than 30% of UK university students believe in creationism or intelligent design. This raw detail is gasp-inducing enough in its own right, as indication of the effect of the propagandised resurgence of the fairy-tales that once served mankind's intellectual infancy and are now reasserting a grip on too many. But it is even more troubling as a symptom of a wider corrosion, the spread of a more virulent cancer of unreason, which is affecting not just the mental culture of our own country but the fate of the world itself. If that last phrase seems hyperbolic, read on.

Take the local concern first, and ask what is signified by the 30% statistic at issue. From the day that the government of John Major allowed polytechnics to redescribe themselves as universities, and his and successive governments set a target of getting 50% of school leavers into higher education, but without the huge investment of resources at all levels that would make this viable, it was inevitable that standards required for entrance to degree level courses would fall. And so it has dramatically proved. At the same time standards in public examinations at the high school level have also fallen, by some measures a long way. The official line, of course, is that the latter at least is not true: but such is the way with official lines.

The combined result is that a significant proportion of university entrants today are noticeably different creatures from their average forerunners of a generation ago: quite measurably less literate, less numerate, less broadly knowledgeable, and less reflective. At the same time education has been infected by post-modern relativism and the less desirable effects of "political correctness", whose combined effect is to encourage teachers to accept, and even promote as valid alternatives, the various superstitions and antique belief-systems constituting the multiplicity of different and generally competing religions represented in our multicultural society. This has gone so far that our tax dollars are now arrogated to supporting "faith based schooling", which means the ghettoisation of intellectually defenceless children into a variety of competing superstitions, despite the stark evidence, all the way from Northern Ireland to the madrassahs of Pakistan, of what this does for the welfare of mankind.

The key to the weakening of intellectual rigour that all this represents is that enquiry is no longer premised on the requirement that belief must be proportional to carefully gathered and assessed evidence. The fact that "faith" is enough to legitimate anything from superstition to mass murder is not one whit troubling to "people of faith" themselves, most of whom disagree with the faith of most other "people of faith" (thus: a Christian does not accept Islam, and vice versa; so a Christian's claim to be certain, by faith, that his is the only true religion is rejected, on grounds of faith, by the Muslim; and so on, to the point of mutual assassination); which shows that the non-rational mindset underlying religious belief, an essentially infantile attitude of acceptance of fairy-stories, has not been affected by the best that education can offer in the way of challenging and maturing minds to think for themselves.

Example: ask a Christian why the ancient story of a deity impregnating a mortal woman who then gives birth to a heroic figure whose deeds earn him a place in heaven, is false as applied to Zeus and his many paramours (the mothers of such as Hercules, the Heavenly Twins, etc.), but true as applied to God, Mary and Jesus. Indeed ask him what is the significance of the fact that this tale is older even than Greek mythology, and commonplace in Middle Eastern mythologies generally. Why are they myths, whereas what is related in the New Testament (a set of texts carefully chosen from a larger number of competing versions some centuries after they events they allege) is not? Do not expect a rational reply; an appeal to faith will be enough, because with faith anything goes.

"With faith anything goes": here is why the claim that the resurgence of non-rational superstitious belief is a danger to the world. Fundamentalism in all the major religions (and some are fundamentalist by nature) can be and too often is politically infantilising, and in its typical radicalised forms provides utter certainty of being in the right, immunises against tolerance and pluralism, justifies the most atrocious behaviour to the apostate and the infidel, is blind to the appeals of justice let alone mercy or reason, and is intrinsically fascistic and monolithic. One does not have to look very far to find shining examples of this pretty picture in today's world, whether in the Middle East or the Bible belt of the United States. The rest of the world is caught between these two appalling instances of basically the same phenomenon, so it is perhaps no surprise, though no less regrettable, that the infection should spread from both directions.

More regrettable still, though, is the fact that the civilised quarters of the world are not taking seriously the connection between the world's current problems and failure to uphold intellectual rigour in education, and not demanding that religious belief be a private and personal matter for indulgence only in the home, accepting it in the public sphere only on an equal footing with other interest groups such as trades unions and voluntary organisations such as the Rotary Club. This is the most that a religion merits being treated as, as the following proves: if I and a few others claim to constitute a religious group based on belief in the divinity of garden gnomes, should I be entitled to public money for a school in which children can be brought up in this faith, together with a bishop's seat in parliament perhaps? Why would this be laughed out of court when belief of essentially the same intellectual value, say, Christianity, is accorded all such amenities and more?

I remind those who seek to counter with the tired old canard that Stalinism and Nazism are proof that secular arrangements are worse than religious ones, that fundamentalist religion is the same in its operation and effects as Stalinism and Nazism for the reason that they are at base the same thing, viz. monolithic ideologies. Religion is a man-made device, not least of oppression and control (the secret policeman who sees what you do even in the dark on your own), whose techniques and structures were adopted by Stalinism and Nazism, the monolithic salvation faiths of modernity, as the best teachers they could wish for. When any of these imprisoning ideologies are on the back foot and/or in the minority, they present sweet faces to those they wish to seduce: the kiss of friendship in the parish church, the summer camp for young communists in the 1930s. But give them the levers of power and they are the Taliban, the Inquisition, the Stasi.

Give them AK47s and Semtex, and some of the fanatics among them become airline bombers, mass murderers of ordinary men, women and children, and for the most contemptible of reasons.

How far are the 30% of students who believe in creationism from airline bombers? A very long way, of course; the latter are a sick and psychopathic minority only; but the point to register and take seriously is that there is nevertheless a connecting thread, which is belief in antique superstitions and the non-rational basis of the putative values they represent, values which can lead in the extreme to mass murder, as the chilling jingle reminds us: "faith is what I die for, dogma is what I kill for."

As part of the strategy for countering the pernicious effects that faith and dogma can produce, we need to return religious commitment to the private sphere, stop the folly of promoting superstitions and religious segregation in education, demand that standards of intellectual rigour be upheld at all educational levels, and find major ways of reversing the current trend of falling enrolment in science courses. The alternative is a return to the Dark Ages, the tips of whose shadows are coldly falling upon us even now.

Why do I read popular science books?

I'm interested in the truth.

For several years I have read many books on Evolution, Cosmology etc (my library). They satisfy my thirst for truth and knowledge. I annotate my books with vertical lines indicating the most interesting or significant points. Then I go on to read other related books. But a month or a year later how much do I remember of what I have read? I feel I should do more with these books to extend my understanding. And somehow communicate my understanding to others.

A couple of months ago i summarised The Periodic Table. I felt happy, even strangely elated for a few weeks even though i never got around to adding by review to Amazon.co.uk. The process of summarising gave me a deeper understanding of the subject.

  1. Why not review the significant books i've read and publish my reviews on Amazon or this blog?
  2. Why not read the bibliographies in these book and read the original scripts?
  3. Why not choose a sub topic and summarise the book and its bibliographies?

Maybe someday, even write and publish a book of my own!

I want to think more about the books i read. The process of summarising and reviewing should help. Otherwise sometimes I feel the books I read pass me by like ships passing each other in the night.

How can I communicate to others what I have read? Katie Geary, a work colleague asked me yesterday - what is "The Selfish Gene" book about? I mumbled something about evolution and genes and dont think of "selfish" in its normal meaning.

With the knowledge & understanding I have at the time I read these wonderful popular science books, how can I contribute, in even a miniscule way, to advancing science or knowledge? That seems a very grand and lofty aim. But reading the Preface to the 1989 edition of The Selfish Gene by (my all time favourite author) Richard Dawkins, gives me some hope. Richard Dawkins talks about (page ix) the Necker Cube and says:

"Rather than propose a new theory or unearth a new fact, often the most
important original contribution a scientist can make is to discover a new way of
seeing old theories or facts."

"That most toxic of ideas: national sovereignty" by AC Grayling


The Taepodong effect

What did North Korea invoke to justify its missile tests? That most toxic of ideas: national sovereignty.

July 5, 2006 03:35 PM | Printable version

North Korea defends its seven missile tests, one of them involving the Taepodong-2 long-range missile capable of reaching Alaska, by saying that its "national sovereignty" entitles it to conduct them in its national self-interest. North Korea's critics, by contrast, argue that in the arena of weapons systems with extra-territorial reach there is no right of unilateral action; international agreements, controls, treaties and responsibilities oblige countries to respect the security interests of neighbours and indeed the international community at large. Disregard of these constraints, they point out, is risky and destabilising.

The critics in question include Japan and the US. The criticism is of course correct; North Korea's behaviour is an example of immature grandstanding and nose-thumbing, wincingly obvious from the choice of date (July 4) for the tests. Japan has a valid point in objecting to North Korea's tests, not least because of North Korea's irresponsible track record in the field: in 1998 it fired a Taepodong-1 over the north of Japan, a highly provocative if not downright stupid act.

But the United States' stance is, at the least, hypocritical. What it rightly censures others for doing it wrongly does itself, and with almost total impunity. The attitude of the Bush administration to a whole raft of international institutions and measures, from the International Criminal Court to the Kyoto environment initiatives, from the United Nations to the non-proliferation treaties on nuclear weapons, is consistently negative and unilateralist. It pleads national interest and national sovereignty just as North Korea does, despite the fact that the hollowness of North Korea's appeal to the concept is proof positive that claims of national immunity from international obligations are unacceptable.

If North Korea cannot get away with the "national sovereignty" scam, and if logical consistency requires that neither can the United States, then of course nor can anyone else. It also requires that the point be taken to its more general set of conclusions, a lesson that (for example) Eurosceptics might do well to learn, and with them petty nationalists of all stamps everywhere. There are many additional reasons why nationalism is the wrong direction for human beings to go in; here the overriding point is that no nation (if, by the way, such a thing actually exists), like no individual, is an island, and promises itself nothing but trouble by trying to be one.

As always, history teaches rich lessons here. When the Eleanor Roosevelt committee was drafting the UN declaration of human rights in 1948, the Soviet representatives were emphatically concerned that nothing in the declaration should allow "interference in the internal affairs of sovereign states", which in effect meant freedom for governments to torture and murder their own citizens without anyone from outside raising complaints on human rights grounds. As it happens, the other post-war major powers (the UK, US, China and France) were not especially happy about the human rights idea either, which was then most eagerly welcomed by third-world countries and colonised peoples, who understood the opportunity it offered. As events have shown, adoption of the UN declaration in Paris in 1948 proved to be the first really major breach of the national sovereignty idea since its origin in the Treaty of Westphalia in 1648, with all its subsequent catastrophic horrors.

In fact, as international reaction to the example of North Korea's weasel appeal to national sovereignty shows (to say nothing of the US parallels) we should hope that the cluster of associated toxic ideas - "nation", "nationalism" "national identity" - is well on its way to the rubbish heap of history.

***********************
Comments


Oxford/gbr

ACGrayling:"In fact, as international reaction to the example of North Korea's weasel appeal to national sovereignty shows (to say nothing of the US parallels) we should hope that the cluster of associated toxic ideas - "nation", "nationalism" "national identity" - is well on its way to the rubbish heap of history."

Actually that shows something else - Communism is dead and in a desparate last-ditch effort to stay afloat the North Korean Communists will even try to appeal to Nationalism. It is not Nationalism that is the problem. South Korea is at least as nationalistic. It is the Communism. Alas that cluster of toxic ideas has not yet gone to the rubbish heap of history, but the good news is that it only survives in North Korea, Cuba, academia and on CiF.

Besides which nationalism has been a hugely successul ideology and whatever the downsides of nationalism, the only thing worse is a lack of nationalism. It works. The "nations" without nationalism are being swept into the rubbish heap of history. If only the Palestinians were more nationalistic in 1947! If only the Native Americans had a sense of their own national identity!



I used the phrase "bent twig" as Isaiah Berlin used it - as a metaphor for nationalism. I think nationalism was obviously effective in Europe as a legitimiser of governments, though not much any more. Has it a place in the 21st century? I stick by the description of it as being used by useless and illegitimate governments an outward and specious appearance of a mandate. As soon as the illusion is torn, they have nothing to fall back on. They compensate for internal failure with external aggression, putting nationalistic symbols such territory on a pedestal.

This is used as much by the left as the right. I agree that Maoism hasn't got much juice left in it now. Confucianism was discredited over a hundred years ago and seems unlikely to make a reappearance. Nationalism would fil the gap nicely in China. It is the only thing that fills it in N. Korea.

As for those poor buggers who lack real nationalism being screwed by history, I sadly agree. Look at the Jewish diaspora in the late 19th century - the only way to protect yourself, in law and fact, is through having a State of your own.


Your criticisms of sovereignty and nationhood would be more credible if you had a viable, proven alternative. Since you do not, you come off like a crank.

Secondly, it is not hypocrisy for a free state to attempt to prevent dictatorships from arming. It's common sense and legitimate self-defense. The U.S. hasn't used a nuclear weapon in 60 years and does not threaten to do so - North Korea fumes that it will nuke another country about every other week. Maybe you should take them at their word.

Also, how far does a Korean missile have to be capable of penetrating U.S. territory before we are permitted to be concerned? And how do you know it can only reach Alaska, and not Seattle or Chicago?



Skopje/mkd

RobSterling: I think Bush has actually raised use of nukes as a serious option in the last few weeks. Or is that just 'sabre rattling' and OK.




Cambridge/gbr

The usual half-baked drivel from the Prof. I'm at a bit of a loss as to how we can have "international obligations" without nations. It's like trying to have "interpersonal relations" without people.

And my Eurosceptic instincts suggest to me that we'll find the EU on the rubbish heap of history long before nations and national identity.




Kim is a psychopath, but he's holding the entire population of Seoul hostage, no?

I'm still unclear as to why we and you and Kazakhstan and India have the "right" to nukes but not, say, Slovenia or Northern Fredonia. Once more, Kim is a psychopath and the world should make sure all sharp objects are kept out of his reach. But all this blather about nonproliferation -per se- makes no sense coming from all of us who proliferate.






Why Ice Floats on water


Liquid News

Water has some unusual properties. It's less dense at zero degrees celsius than it is at four degrees celsius. This is because when water freezes the molecules become fixed in a crystalline lattice, and each molecule is pushed away from its neighbours. If this wasn't the case, ice would sink instead of float and seas and lakes would freeze solid.

Characteristics

An unusual feature of ice frozen at a pressure of one atmosphere is that the solid is some 8% less dense than liquid water. Water is also one of the few substances to expand when it freezes.

Ice has a density of 0.917 g/cm³ at 0 °C, whereas water has a density of 0.9998 g/cm³ at the same temperature. Liquid water is most dense, essentially 1.00 g/cm³, at 4 °C and becomes less dense as the water molecules begin to form the hexagonal crystals of ice as the temperature drops to 0 °C. (the word "crystal" derives from Greek word for frost.) This is due to hydrogen bonds forming between the water molecules, which line up molecules less efficiently (in terms of volume) when water is frozen. The result of this is that ice floats on liquid water, an important factor in Earth's climate. Density of ice increases slightly with decreasing temperature (density of ice at −180 °C (93 K) is 0.9340 g/cm³).

When ice melts, it absorbs as much heat energy (the heat of fusion) as it would take to heat an equivalent mass of water by 80 °C, while its temperature remains a constant 0 °C.