Atheists and Agnostics Most Knowledgeable About Religion

I have long suspected this was true; weird but true...

The Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life released the results of their U.S. Religious Knowledge Survey:

"Atheists and agnostics, Jews and Mormons are among the highest-scoring groups on a new Pew Forum survey of religious knowledge, outperforming evangelical Protestants, mainline Protestants and Catholics on questions about the core teachings, history and leading figures of major world religions."

But why is it true?

Cultural Cognition of Risk

A post at Schneier on Security on the topic of Cultural Cognition of Risk generated some buzz this week, so of course I jumped in...

Here’s one of many online articles on the topic. Here’s the abstract and citation

“People jump from questions of fact to questions of value all the time. A lot of the debate about "what to do?" which is really a question of values and priorities gets reduced to "questions of fact".”

What's more, the debate surrounding those risks chosen to mark the boundaries of the Culture War - abortion, tobacco, free trade, gun control, global warming, war on drugs, fundamentalist religion, global war on terror, NASCAR - are subject to deliberate and sometimes very sophisticated disinformation campaigns. Ideally, the facts should be determined using the scientific method, then the culture can decide what to do about them using political methods. Regretfully, the disinformers who find the likely solutions unacceptable know that it's much more effective to attack the facts and those attempting to discern them. If you can't even decide whether there's a problem then there's no sense proceeding to talk of remedies...

"Interesting, only 97% of scientists believe in evolution yet 100% of Christians believe in God. I'm not sure what, if anything, that proves."

It proves little but may demonstrate an important difference between science and faith. There is also some issue with the definitions of the terms "scientist" and "Christian." Not all PhDs are the molecular biologists whose opinions matter when discussing evolution. Whether any Christian can demonstrate qualifications sufficient to justify a belief in God is another matter altogether.

"...the pro-tobacco lobby quietly funded a cottage industry of researchers to produce studies indicating that cigarettes were not a substantive health risk, just as the fossil fuel industries are doing with global warming."

It's worse than that. In Merchants of Doubt Naomi Oreskes and Erik M. Conway argue that Big Tobacco and Big Oil hired the very same people to orchestrate these disinformation campaigns.

"'...Big Tobacco and Big Oil hired the very same people to orchestrate these disinformation campaigns.'

1. who would YOU have hired? proven performer, or an unknown? these people are evil, not stupid.

2. who did the anti-evolutionists hire? i'm not willing to accept most of this second group as evil, and not stupid either (uneducated, yes...)"

Re Item 1: Good point. If I wanted to preserve the status quo by attacking the evidence and those who do the science (so I didn't have to solve the problem in this generation) I'd hire conservative disinformationists (but I'd ask them to cover their tracks more effectively).

Re Item 2: Biblicists are committed to a presupposition that their edition of the Good Book is literally true and inerrant. Therefore anything that conflicts with their preacher's understanding of it cannot possibly be true. Opposition to evolution is grassrooted, nonscientific, and dogmatic. There are some very smart (even highly educated) people who make a faith commitment to Bible-believing Christianity and then apply all their talents to selectively interpret, twist, and reinvent the science to fit their Iron Age Mediterranean worldview. The non-religious perceive their efforts as so much delusional flapdoodle (see Rob, September 29, 2010 5:16 AM). They need not be seen as evil, but perhaps they should be kept away from the nuclear weapons, policy decisions involving Israel and Palestine, and science text books.

"'If it was up to me I would put all deity worship books etc up on the top shelf with all the other 18+ material.'

History is replete with people who wanted to control what others learned, believed, or read because they where smarter than the ignorant masses."

I suspect the very best curative to the detrimental effects of religion would be a "World Religions - Past and Present" course taught in the public schools no later than the 10th grade. In 9th grade we should teach "Critical Thinking, Scientific Method, and the Psychology of Belief."

"If you don't trust the scientific consensus because you happen to disagree with reality, at least do yourself a favor and look at the actual data."

Won't work. Dissonant data only reinforces our commitment to an idea. Intuition fails us. Scientific exploration of the natural world is an unnatural act.

With Regard To Saddle Mounts

An unhappy cousin to see thru rifle rings is the shotgun saddle mount...

The "Saddle Mount" is sold to the hunter who wishes to attach a scope or red dot sight to his shotgun during deer season. It's a neat idea that allows the bird hunter to scope his bird gun for the annual deer hunt without having to buy a dedicated slug gun. Like a saddle rests on horse a saddle mount fits over the receiver of a shotgun. The mount is attached to the receiver of the shotgun using bolts that replace the pins that normally hold the trigger group in the bottom of the receiver.  They ought to work better than they do, but they frequently fail to deliver on the promise.

Over the years I've seen dozens of these on as many shotguns but they rarely seem to remain tight. This is more than a little predictable. They are made of the same extruded aluminum alloy as the usual see thru rifle mounts. Another wild card is that most of the shotguns to which they are attached do not have a solid connection between the barrel and the receiver. So even if the saddle mount didn't flex and shift with every shot the barrel is free to wiggle just a little with each shot. No doubt the problem is compounded by cheap scopes and hard butt plates. It is the rare slug hunter who spends more than $50 on his scope or any money at all to soften the recoil of his 12 gauge deer gun, which when loaded with slugs, kicks as much as a 375 Holland and Holland Magnum (yes, an "elephant gun").

There also seems to be a tendency on the part of the frugal deer hunter either to buy whichever brand of shotgun slugs are cheapest, or to buy only a couple packets of the very expensive premium jobs ($3-4 a shot!) but then not practice very much. Some shotguns come with two interchangeable barrels, a choked smoothbore for birds, and a shorter one - some smooth, others rifled - fitted with with open sights for deer season. There has been more than one occasion when, frustrated by loose mounts or an optic that won't hold its zero, the hunter finds he shoots better with the open iron sights.

There are some better choices for the hunter who prefers a scope or optical sight. There are shotguns with barrels that fit very closely in the receiver. There are shotguns with receivers drilled and tapped to accept a scope base. The best solution is probably those guns that allow you to attach the scope directly to the barrel. FWIW, I have also noticed that teenage girls shoot their lighter kicking 20 gauge guns better than their brothers do Dad's 12 gauge; go figure.

There is no shortcut to skill at arms, especially with slug guns. Buy rugged, simple gear and practice, practice, practice.

Cassie Runs 2/3 Of Her 8th Griak With Only Half Her Shoes

Cassie had a very interesting run Saturday at the 25th Annual Griak Invitational...

Our daughter crossed the finish right at the 27 minute mark so I expected her to be a little disappointed. She wasn't. A mud puddle plucked off her right shoe at the 2000 meter mark so she ran 4000 meters with a sock on one foot and a shoe on the other. She was actually pleased with her time under those conditions. As Cassie is a senior at Gustavus Adolphus College this was her last Griak, at least until she brings a team back someday. The 2010 Cross Country season is not over but it's been a fine eight years of watching our daughter run for Eastview and Gustavus.  Great job, Cassandra!

On The Subject Of See Thrus

Dating from a bygone era when affordable telescopic sights could not be trusted under all conditions, see thru mounts should have died when scopes became watertight, nitrogen filled, and reliable...

"See Thru" mounts are a miserable compromise that create more problems than they solve, a handicap the box or two a year rifleman inflicts upon himself.  Their high sight line make it hard to shoot comfortably and quickly with the primary sight - the scope. They prevent a proper cheek weld which slows things down and introduces parallax error by the bucketful. The further from the bore line the greater the leverage recoil applies to the base screws, mount screws, and scope which tends to loosen everything, actually increasing your chances of having a "scope problem". When a fella goes to re-tighten the screws he finds the steel screws tend to strip threads of the see thru's soft alloy extrusions.  For some reason see thrus are routinely used to hold $50 3-9x no name scopes, which introduce another set of undesirable and unpredictable variables.  Ironically, all these flaws merge to create a nasty stew thant serves to reinforce the 50 year old notion that scopes are both slow and unreliable, so a fella needs see thru mounts to have immediate access to his backup sights.


The hunter who thinks old school see thrus are the hot setup really ought to try a moderately priced scope mounted as low on the action as possible in basic Weaver bases and rings.  These days there is no variable power rifle scope worth owning that costs less than $129, the Redfield Revolution 2-7x, designed, manufactured, and serviced (if necessary) by Leupold.  He'll become much happier very quickly.