Tim Minchin at Nine Lessons and Carols for Godless People

via RichardDawkins



Tim Minchin's stunning performance of his beat poem 'Storm' raised the roof in applause! Eloquently and wittily honouring reason, science and life appreciation and debunking homeopathy, psychics, alternative medicine, religion etc.

Live performance at the 9 carols for a Godless Christmas Show, 21st December 2008, Hammersmith Apollo.

I added the show to HASSERS Meetup: http://www.meetup.com/HASSERS

19. Comment #307737 by SmartLX on December 28, 2008 at 1:54 pm

"Science adjusts its views
Based on what's observed,
Faith is the denial of observation
So that belief can be preserved."

That's bumper sticker material right there, or great fodder for the side of the bus.

Heaven for the Godless?

by Charles M. Blow, NY Times

Thanks to Catalin for the link at RD.

Reposted from:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/27/opinion/27blow.html?_r=1

In June, the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life published a controversial survey in which 70 percent of Americans said that they believed religions other than theirs could lead to eternal life.

This threw evangelicals into a tizzy. After all, the Bible makes it clear that heaven is a velvet-roped V.I.P. area reserved for Christians. Jesus said so: “I am the way, the truth and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.” But the survey suggested that Americans just weren’t buying that.

The evangelicals complained that people must not have understood the question. The respondents couldn’t actually believe what they were saying, could they?

So in August, Pew asked the question again. (They released the results last week.) Sixty-five percent of respondents said — again — that other religions could lead to eternal life. But this time, to clear up any confusion, Pew asked them to specify which religions. The respondents essentially said all of them.

And they didn’t stop there. Nearly half also thought that atheists could go to heaven — dragged there kicking and screaming, no doubt — and most thought that people with no religious faith also could go.

What on earth does this mean?

One very plausible explanation is that Americans just want good things to come to good people, regardless of their faith. As Alan Segal, a professor of religion at Barnard College told me: “We are a multicultural society, and people expect this American life to continue the same way in heaven.” He explained that in our society, we meet so many good people of different faiths that it’s hard for us to imagine God letting them go to hell. In fact, in the most recent survey, Pew asked people what they thought determined whether a person would achieve eternal life. Nearly as many Christians said you could achieve eternal life by just being a good person as said that you had to believe in Jesus.

Also, many Christians apparently view their didactic text as flexible. According to Pew’s August survey, only 39 percent of Christians believe that the Bible is the literal word of God, and 18 percent think that it’s just a book written by men and not the word of God at all. In fact, on the question in the Pew survey about what it would take to achieve eternal life, only 1 percent of Christians said living life in accordance with the Bible.

Now, there remains the possibility that some of those polled may not have understood the implications of their answers. As John Green, a senior fellow at the Pew Forum, said, “The capacity of ignorance to influence survey outcomes should never be underestimated.” But I don’t think that they are ignorant about this most basic tenet of their faith. I think that they are choosing to ignore it ... for goodness sake.

Comments here.

Scientific illiteracy all the rage among the glitterati

by Independent

Thanks to EJ Ashcraft III for the link.  via Richard Dawkins
Reposted from:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/scientific-illiteracy-all-the-rage-among-the-glitterati-1212406.html

By Steve Connor, Science editor
Saturday, 27 December 2008

When it comes to science, Barack Obama is no better than many of us. Today he joins the list of shame of those in public life who made scientifically unsupportable statements in 2008.

Closer to home, Nigella Lawson and Delia Smith faltered on the science of food, while Kate Moss, Oprah Winfrey and Demi Moore all get roastings for scientific illiteracy.

The Celebrities and Science Review 2008, prepared by the group Sense About Science, identifies some of the worst examples of scientific illiteracy among those who profess to know better – including top politicians.

Mr Obama and John McCain blundered into the MMR vaccine row during their presidential campaigns. "We've seen just a skyrocketing autism rate," said President-elect Obama. "Some people are suspicious that it's connected to the vaccines. This person included. The science right now is inconclusive, but we have to research it," he said.

His words were echoed by Mr McCain. "It's indisputable that [autism] is on the rise among children, the question is what's causing it," he said. "There's strong evidence that indicates it's got to do with a preservative in the vaccines."

Exhaustive research has failed to substantiate any link to vaccines or any preservatives. The rise in autism is thought to be due to an increased awareness of the condition.

Sarah Palin, Mr McCain's running mate, waded into the mire with her dismissal of some government research projects. "Sometimes these dollars go to projects that have little or nothing to do with the public good. Things like fruit fly research in Paris, France. I kid you not," Ms Palin said. But the geneticist Ellen Solomon takes Ms Palin to task for not understanding the importance of studies into 

fruit flies, which share roughly half their genes with humans. 

 

"They have been used for more than a century to understand how genes work, which has implications in, for example, understanding the ageing process," she said.

Hollywood did not escape the critical analysis of the scientific reviewers, who lambasted Tom Cruise, for his comments on psychiatry being a crime against humanity, and Julianne Moore, who warned against using products full of unnatural chemicals.

"The real crime against humanity continues to be the enduring misery caused by the major mental illnesses across the globe, and the continuing lack of resources devoted to supporting those afflicted," said the psychiatrist Professor Simon Wessely.

In answer to Moore, the science author and chemist John Emsley said that natural chemicals are not automatically safer than man-made chemicals, which undergo rigorous testing.

"Something which is naturally sourced may well include a mixture of things that are capable of causing an adverse reaction," Dr Emsley said.

Other mentions went to the chefs Nigella Lawson, who said "mind meals" can make you feel different about life, and Delia Smith, who claimed it is possible to eliminate sugar from the diet. The dietician Catherine Collins said that Lawson's support for expensive allergy foods is a wasted opportunity and too costly for those on limited incomes, while Lisa Miles of the British Nutrition Foundation said that sugars are part of a balanced diet.

Kate Moss, Oprah Winfrey and Demi Moore all espoused the idea that you can detoxify your body with either diet (scientifically unsupportable) or, in the case of Moore, products such as "highly trained medical leeches" which make you bleed. Scientists point out that diet alone cannot remove toxins and that blood itself is not a toxin, and even if it did contain toxins, removing a little bit of it is not going to help.

But top prize went to the lifestyle guru Carole Caplin for denouncing a study showing that vitamin supplements offer little or no health benefits as "rubbish" – it is the third year on the run that she has been mentioned in the review. Science author and GP Ben Goldacre pointed out that the study Ms Caplin referred to was the most authoritative yet published. "Carole should understand that research can often produce results which challenge our preconceptions: that is why science is more interesting than just following your nose," Dr Goldacre said.

Talking sense: Two who got it right

*The writer Jilly Cooper gets nine out of ten for making a stab at why alternative treatments might work: "If you believe them, then they work." That describes the placebo effect, where a harmless but useless remedy seems to work because the patient feels as if it is working.

*The vocal coach and singer Carrie Grant is applauded for raising the profile of Crohn's disease without abusing the science. "There are so many therapies available, but none of them are going to cure you," she said.

New Humanist Advent Podcasts

• Subscribe to the New Humanist Podcast by email

• Sign up to our podcast RSS feed (follow the link for instructions and info on RSS readers)

Which scientist or philosopher would you nominate to celebrate as we currently do Jesus on Christmas Day?
Listen to my pick of the podcasts:

• Richard Dawkins on Alfred Russell Wallace
• Tim Minchin & Josie Long on Kurt Vonnegut
• Carl Sagan's wife Ann Druyan on Hippocrates, Democritus, Ibin Al Hasein??, Giordano Bruno, Edmund Halley, Michael Faraday, Charles Darwin, Nikolai Vavilov, Carl Sagan.
• Mark Steel on Jean-Paul Marat
• Stephen Fry on Robert Hooke,
  
• Robin Ince on Carl Sagan
  
• Simon Singh on Galileo
• Laurie Taylor on his father
• Marcus Brigstocke on Wally Brocker
  

All podcasts here.

Spirituality linked to brain damage

Tom Rees at BHA Science blogs about

Spirituality linked to brain damage

and concludes that brain activity changes when people undergo spiritual or religious experiences (which isn't surprising since it's the brain that generates these mental states.)

According to Tom Rees, Brick Johnstone and Bret Glass at the University of Missouri-Columbia has found that people with evidence of brain damage to their right parietal lobes score higher on a standard measure of spirituality.

What they did was to assess 26 adults with modest traumatic brain injury (they were all walking wounded, able to function in the outside world) to a battery of tests of brain function. What they were expecting to see was that brain damage in the right parietal lobe would increase spirituality, but that damage to the frontal lobe or left temporal lobe would decrease spirituality.

In fact, damage to the frontal lobe did not seem to have any effect, and although there was a slight signal with damage to the left temporal lobe, it wasn't statistically significant.

So it seems that shutting down this part of the brain seems essential for at least some aspects of religious experiences. Why this particular bit of the brain? Well, it's all to do with how we figure out where we are, and how we relate to the world around us. As Johnstone & Glass explain:

From a neuropsychological perspective, the right hemisphere allows for individuals to define themselves in relation to the immediate environment, the here-and-now. The right parietal lobe is generally associated with awareness of the self relative to other objects in space, awareness of the self as perceived by others in social situations, and the ability to critically evaluate one’s own strengths and weaknesses (such as insight). Disorders of the right hemisphere involve a diminished capacity in the ability of the self to function in the immediate environment, including difficulties localizing the body in space...

In other words, Tom Rees says "it's this bit of the brain that figures out where you are in time and space. If it breaks down, you'll experience some pretty freaky sensations - which, if you are so inclined, the rest of your brain will interpret as a religious experience."

My Christmas message? There's probably no God by Polly Toynbee (President of Brit. Humanist Assoc.)

It is neither emotionally nor spiritually deficient to reject religions that seek to infantilise us with impossible beliefs

Comments (801)

• 
• • Polly Toynbee
  • The Guardian, Tuesday 23 December 2008
  • Article history

Antidisestablishmentarianism is on the march. Which is odd, considering there is only the faintest whiff of disestablishmentarianism to fight. The Archbishop of Canterbury set this hare running with his usual confused mumbling into his beard. To disestablish the church would be "by no means the end of the world", he said bravely. He hastened to add that he did not want the church sundered from the state right now. And he would oppose "secularists [boo, hiss] trying to push religion into the private sphere". This sent the Telegraph and Mail into a spin, claiming a devilish distestablishment plot on the Labour backbenches - though they could find only three usual suspects. These MPs say the likely move to end the 1701 Act of Settlement that bars Catholics from the throne will make an established church impossible.

more ....

Center for Inquiry - Promotion

via Darwins Dagger

The Hardcore Atheist Meme

I score 24/50

Ratings
And just so you know how you fare, here’s a scale to rank yourself (adapted from Darwin’s Dagger’s suggestions):

0-10: Impressive, but not too far from agnosticism.

11-20: You are, literally, a “New Atheist.” But you now have something to strive for! Go for the full 50!

21-30: You are an atheist, but babies aren’t running away from you. Yet.

31-40: You are the 5th Horseman! Congratulations!

41-50: PZ Myers will now be taking lessons from you.

via vjack,
There is a new meme going around started by Friendly Atheist to see how hardcore an atheist one is. I'm not sure how many of the items on this list translate into being a hardcore atheist, but I'll play. The rules are simple:

Copy and paste the list below on your own site, boldfacing the things you’ve done. (Feel free to add your own elaboration and commentary to each item!)

1. Participated in the Blasphemy Challenge.
2. Met at least one of the “Four Horsemen” (Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett, Christopher Hitchens, Sam Harris) in person. - RD several times.
3. Created an atheist blog. (HASSERS & contribute to BHA Science)
4. Used the Flying Spaghetti Monster in a religious debate with someone. (with Richard Harries & Julian Baggini in December 2008)
5. Gotten offended when someone called you an agnostic.
6. Been unable to watch Growing Pains reruns because of Kirk Cameron.
7. Own more Bibles than most Christians you know.
8. Have at least one Bible with your personal annotations regarding contradictions, disturbing parts, etc.
9. Have come out as an atheist to your family. (easy - they are (almost all) agnostics & atheists)
10. Attended a campus or off-campus atheist gathering.
11. Are a member of an organized atheist/Humanist/etc. organization.
12. Had a Humanist wedding ceremony.
13. Donated money to an atheist organization.
14. Have a bookshelf dedicated solely to Richard Dawkins. (part of a bookshelf)
15. Lost the friendship of someone you know because of your non-theism.
16. Tried to argue or have a discussion with someone who stopped you on the street to proselytize.
17. Had to hide your atheist beliefs on a first date because you didn’t want to scare him/her away.
18. Own a stockpile of atheist paraphernalia (bumper stickers, buttons, shirts, etc).
19. Attended a protest that involved religion.
20. Attended an atheist conference.
21. Subscribe to Pat Condell’s YouTube channel.
22. Started an atheist group in your area or school. (HASSERS!)
23. Successfully “de-converted” someone to atheism.
24. Have already made plans to donate your body to science after you die.
25. Told someone you’re an atheist only because you wanted to see the person’s reaction.
26. Had to think twice before screaming “Oh God!” during sex. Or you said something else in its place.
27. Lost a job because of your atheism.
28. Formed a bond with someone specifically because of your mutual atheism (meeting this person at a local gathering or conference doesn’t count).
29. Have crossed “In God We Trust” off of — or put a pro-church-state-separation stamp on — dollar bills.
30. Refused to recite the Pledge of Allegiance.
31. Said “Gesundheit!” (or nothing at all) after someone sneezed because you didn’t want to say “Bless you!”
32. Have ever chosen not to clasp your hands together out of fear someone might think you’re praying.
33. Have turned on Christian TV because you need something entertaining to watch.
34. Are a 2nd or 3rd (or more) generation atheist.
35. Have “atheism” listed on your Facebook or dating profile — and not a euphemistic variant.
36. Attended an atheist’s funeral (i.e. a non-religious service).
37. Subscribe to an freethought magazine (e.g. Free Inquiry, Skeptic)
38. Have been interviewed by a reporter because of your atheism.
39. Written a letter-to-the-editor about an issue related to your non-belief in God.
40. Gave a friend or acquaintance a New Atheist book as a gift.
41. Wear pro-atheist clothing in public.
42. Have invited Mormons/Jehovah’s Witnesses into your house specifically because you wanted to argue with them.
43. Have been physically threatened (or beaten up) because you didn’t believe in God.
44. Receive Google Alerts on “atheism” (or variants).
45. Received fewer Christmas presents than expected because people assumed you didn’t celebrate it.
46. Visited The Creation Museum or saw Ben Stein’s Expelled just so you could keep tabs on the “enemy.”
47. Refuse to tell anyone what your “sign” is… because it doesn’t matter at all.
48. Are on a mailing list for a Christian organization just so you can see what they’re up to…
49. Have kept your eyes open while you watched others around you pray.
50. Avoid even Unitarian churches because they’re too close to religion for you.

Happiness spreads like the plague

• 00:01 05 December 2008 by Ewen Callaway
• For similar stories, visit the Mental Health Topic Guide

Are your friends happy? What about their friends? These people, new research suggests, will have a profound impact on your own personal satisfaction.
Like an influenza outbreak, happiness - and misery too - spread through social networks, affecting people through three degrees of separation. For instance, a happy friend of a friend of a friend increases the chances of personal happiness by about 6% (see graphic, right).
Compare that to research showing that a $5000 income bump ups the odds by just 2%, says James Fowler, a political scientist at the University of California, San Diego, who led the new study.
"Even people we don't know and have never met have bigger effect on our mood than substantial increases in income," he says.
He and colleague Nicholas Christakis, of Boston's Harvard Medical School, made the connection by mining 53,228 social connections between 5124 people who took part in a decades-long clinical study.

Emotional ripples

As part of the Framingham Heart Study, participants updated researchers on their social contacts and health status, including happiness, as measured by a standard psychological questionnaire. Many participants listed several other study participants, allowing the researchers to connect social dots.
Fowler and Christakis took a similar approach to document how obesity and cigarette smoking permeated through the same social network.
Even more than smoking and obesity, happiness spreads best at close distances, they found. A happy next-door neighbour ups the odds of person happiness by 34%, a sibling who lives within 1 mile (1.6 kilometres) by 14%, and a friend within half a mile by a whopping 42%.
The effect falls off through the network, with friends' happiness boosting the chances of personal happiness by an average of 15% and friends of friends by 10%. As with obesity and smoking, Fowler and Christakis detected no effect beyond three degrees of separation.
While there might be six degrees of separation between any two people, "there are three degrees of influence," Christakis says.
Fowler theorises that beyond three connections, a kind of social dissonance saps the transmission of behaviour, almost like a wave.
"If you drop one pebble in a pond, it will create ripples out from the pebble," he says. "That's not what's happening here. You have a whole handful of pebbles and you're throwing them in the pond at once."

Contagious feeling

In the case of happiness, dour sentiments contain its infective spread. Fowler and Christakis found that each happy contact increases a person's odds of happiness by an average of 9%, while an unhappy contact decreases those odds by 7%.
The long-time collaborators even bet over which emotion would spread more potently.
"I think that happiness is more likely to spread because here's an emotion that's about social cohesion," says Fowler. Visible and contagious happiness might have helped our ancestors maintain social cohesion.
"In this rare occasion, James was right and I was wrong," Christakis admits. "It's pleasurable to be near other happy individuals and not near other unhappy individuals."
Ruut Veenhoven, a sociologist at Erasmus University in Rotterdam, Netherlands, editor of the Journal of Happiness Studies, and curator of the World Database of Happiness agrees. "Happy people are typically more involved, are nicer to their kids and their dog, and live longer," he says.
The study, which he describes as "terribly creative", might even help people improve their daily lives. "If you want to make people happier, you know at least how it spreads."
Journal reference: BMJ (DOI: 10.1136/bmj.a2338)

If you would like to reuse any content from New Scientist, either in print or online, please contact the syndication department first for permission. New Scientist does not own rights to photos, but there are a variety of licensing options available for use of articles and graphics we own the copyright to.

Have your say

Comment title

Your name

Email

Comment

read all 9 comments

Comments 1 | 2

Newscientist---intellectual Property Rights & Domain Name ( To Ceo )

Thu Dec 04 13:46:08 GMT 2008 by Nick Hu

This comment has been found to be in breach of our terms of use and has been removed.

reply report this comment

Better At Work

Fri Dec 05 04:52:30 GMT 2008 by Steven E. Romer

I find this works at the workplace too. I read a study a few years ago where they found that humor in the workplace actually increases productivity. I cited this to other people at work who were all-business and seemed to not have a sense of humor. They lightened up after that.

This also reminds me of the saying that "what goes around comes around" because if you make others happy, then this effect should feed back on you too! Feedback effects probably magnify the effects into the numbers cited here.

reply report this comment

Spurious Correlation?

Fri Dec 05 06:10:42 GMT 2008 by Mark

I wonder if they could control anyhow for seasonal effects. There are exogenous variables causing happiness across the network. For example, if most of my friends are Democrats, they became happy all at the same time after the last presidential election not "because" of my influence, but because some external factor (Obama winning the election). Similarly, my friends are generally happier in Spring not "because" I am happy, but because days are longer and sunnier. All this would contaminate the published analysis. I wonder how serious this issue is.

reply report this comment

read all 9 comments

Comments 1 | 2

All comments should respect the New Scientist House Rules. If you think a particular comment breaks these rules then please use the "Report" link in that comment to report it to us.
If you are having a technical problem posting a comment, please contact technical support.

PRINT

SEND

Your personal happiness can be measured by your social network

Enlarge image