Atheist tornado survivor refuses to thank the lord

If you’re a nonbeliever, I’d be surprised if you haven’t heard about this. On the Cable News Network (CNN), correspondent Wolf Blitzer asked an Oklahoma tornado survivor if she thanked the Lord for helping her from her house just before the twister struck. You can see the video at PuffHo, which also recounts the interview:

“We’re happy you’re here. You guys did a great job,” Blitzer said to Rebecca Vitsmun, who escaped from her house with her 19-month-old son right before the twister tore through it. “You’ve gotta thank the Lord, right? Do you thank the Lord for that split-second decision?”

Vitsmun hesitates for a moment and smiles. “I — I’m actually an atheist,” she said, laughing off the awkward moment.

“You are. All right. But you made the right call,” Blitzer said.

“We are here, and I don’t blame anyone for thanking the Lord,” Vitsmun said.

In Oklahoma! What better sign of the increasing nonbelief in the U.S., and of people’s willingness to go public with it? Kudos to Vitsmun, and a warning to newspeople: don’t assume everyone believes in God.

What would really have been nice is if Vitsmun had replied, “What? You mean the Lord who killed those twenty-odd people?”

h/t: Alberto

Soul song week: 4. You’re All I Need to Get By

There are many great soul duets, but to my mind this is the best.  It’s Marvin Gaye and Tammi Terrell with their classic rendition of “You’re all I need to get by,” (1968), a song written by Nickolas Ashford and Valeree Simpson, themselves a singing duo.  It’s simply the most soulful of the Motown duets, and by that I mean there’s a lot of emotion in the voices.

Both Gaye and Terrell died young. Gaye was killed by his own father a day before he turned 45. Terrell (see below) was, when she recorded this song, already ill from the brain tumor that would kill her at age 24.

Wikipedia notes about this song:

. . . it became one of the few Motown recordings of the 1960s that was not recorded with the familiar “Motown sound“. Instead, “You’re All I Need to Get By” had a more soulful and gospel-oriented theme surrounding it, that was influenced by the writers, who also sing background vocals on the recording, sharing vocals in a church choir in New York. The lead vocals were recorded separately by the two singers and combined during the mixing process, reportedly to cut studio time, and give time for Terrell, who was using a wheelchair, to recover from surgery to repair the malignant brain tumor that would ultimately cause her death in 1970.

Gaye and Terrell did several nice songs together; my second favorite is “Ain’t nothing like the real thing” (1968), which you can hear here. It was also written by Ashford and Simpson.

Oy, is it hot!

Yesterday was the first 80º (F) day in New York (that’s 26.7º C for you pedantic purists), and reader Tom sent a picture of his cat’s reaction to the unseasonable weather.

The moggie’s name is Catman.

Two math posers

Poser #1: Yesterday a colleague from another school asked me how to test whether hummingbirds would visit two related species of flowers nonrandomly, that is, whether the flowers were reproductively isolated because the hummingbird (which pollinates as it sips nectar) prefers one over the other. He proposed an experiment in which he would put two individual plants of each species in a four-plant array, and then watch which ones the hummingbirds visited.  His initial supposition was that if there were no reproductive isolation (that is, the species are equivalently attractive to the bird), any two bird visits would result in the flowers being of different species 50% of the time. As he said,

“All else being equal, you’d expect a bird that’s falling from the sky (telling itself, ‘I am GOING to pick two random flowers’) the thing should visit two A’s 25% of the time, two B’s 25% of the time, and 50% of the time it should visit one of each species.

Again, it SHOULD pick two DIFFERENT species 50% of the time if it somehow chose them simultaneously.”

But then he realized that that wasn’t right. He asked me what the answer was, and, after about 5 minutes of thought, it came to me, and it’s obvious if you think about it.

This is equivalent to putting two black balls and two white balls in an urn, and then picking two balls. What are the chances that you’d pick two balls of different color?

It’s not 50%.  And the true answer doesn’t matter whether you draw the balls successively, or grab two balls at once.

What’s the answer? (It’s the same as if the department has four new graduate students: two males and two females, and asks you to put two of them in a vacant, two-person office. What are the chances they’d be of opposite sex if you choose randomly?

Explain your answers below.

And this real-world biological problem brought to mind a very famous hypothetical problem:

Poser #2. This is the most counterintuitive probability poser I know: the famous “Monty Hall” problem, about which my pal Jason Rosenhouse wrote a whole book. It’s based on the old television game show, “Let’s Make a Deal,”hosted by Monty Hall, which gave contestants a choice like the one described below.

Here’s the deal: You are shown three doors. Behind one of them is a fabulous prize, like a car or a vacation. Behind the other two are trivial prizes, say pillows.  You choose a door.  The host, who knows what’s behind every door, then opens one of the doors you didn’t choose, revealing a pillow.  He then asks you, “Do you want to switch doors now?” That is, he’s saying you can stick with the door you originally chose, or switch to the other, unopened one. Whatever you decide to do, you get what’s behind the door you stick with at the end.

The question: should you switch doors? The intuitive answer is “no, it doesn’t matter: the chance I’ll choose the one with the prize is 50% whether I switch or not.”

That’s the wrong answer. It does matter.

I’m sure some of you know the answer, but wait a while before you explain it in the comments.  For those who can’t wait, the explanation is here.

 

 

Squirrel update

Although the gray squirrels (Sciurus carolinenesis) that I’m feeding have failed to nest on my windowsill, they regularly visit me, and I leave them a buffet of peanuts and sunflower seeds several times per day. There are two animals, I believe of opposite sex.

Their behavior is invariant in some ways. They always take the peanuts first, usually running away with them, almost certainly to hide or bury them.  Then they return and eat the sunflower seeds on the spot, at a rate of about 3 seconds/seed. Occasionally, as in the picture below (taken this morning), they’ll eat a peanut on the spot, but they always discard the red, papery coating around the nut.

This one is a female, as you can tell by her swollen teats. I’m a bit worried about her apparent loss of fur, and hope it isn’t something like mange.

They have learned two new behaviors. The first is to take more than one peanut in their mouth at a time when absconding with them. After seeing them learn how to hold two nuts, I’ve observed them putting three in their little mouths, though that’s hard to do. They don’t  have cheek pouches.

Too, the female has learned to scratch on the windowsill of my office to get food. I don’t feed them on my office windowsill, since I can’t open the window, but leave the food on the windowsill in the lab. Nevertheless, the female will, several times a day, lie on her belly on my office windowsill and scratch vigorously at my screen, making an ungodly racket. (It took me a while to discover what the noise was.) She has learned to do this only on the single windowsill by my desk, as she used to scratch at the other two windows in my office.

When she does this, I walk into the lab and put out more peanuts and sunflower seeds. Often she scampers there to meet me, even though it’s only a ten-second walk.

Don’t underestimate the intelligence of rodents, particularly ones that are hungry!

USA Today reports on Ball State creationism class

Just a quickie: Seth Slabaugh’s piece on Eric Hedin’s shameful class in creationism and Christian proselytizing at Ball State University, published yesterday in the Muncie (Indiana) Star Press, has been picked up and reprinted—at least online—by USA Today, the country’s most widely-read newspaper.

I suspect Ball State is getting a wee bit nervous about the publicity now. Granted, their instinct is to cover their tuchus, cater to the religious and conservative majority of Indiana, and hope that it all blows over, but they’re starting to look like Dayton, Tennessee during the Scopes Trial. It annoys me when universities take action only to avoid unfavorable publicity rather than to do what’s right.  Had Hedin’s chairman Thomas Robertson not blown me off when I emailed him, assuring me that the Jesus-infused course was “quite appropriate” as a venue for discussing science and religion, BSU would not be facing this kind of flak.  Robertson and his colleagues who defend Hedin don’t have the slightest idea what it means to “challenge students’ ideas and beliefs.”

Local paper reports on Ball State creationism class; Ball State weasels, citizens support teaching creationism

Yesterday’s Star Press, the local paper of Muncie Indiana, where Ball State University (BSU) resides, reports on the case of Eric Hedin, the professor who is teaching Christianity and creationism in his science class (see here,here,and here for my previous posts on this issue).  A few days ago reporter Seth Slabaugh interviewed me for the paper, and I told him why I thought Hedin’s course should either be eliminated or somehow changed to a philosophy course—without the Christian proselytizing.

Slabaugh’s piece, “BSU prof accused of preaching Christianity,” is fair, but shows that the University, rather than being genuinely concerned about religion masquerading as science, is simply going through the motions of having an “investigation.” Or so I interpret.

Neither Hedin nor his chairman were willing to be interviewed, but Slabaugh talked to the provost. What he got is this:

Hedin and department chair Tom Robertson declined to comment to The Star Press.

But Provost Terry King, a chemical engineer and the university’s chief academic officer, said, “Faculty own the curriculum. In large part, it’s a faculty matter. But we have to ensure that our teaching is appropriate. All I have so far is a complaint from an outside person. We have not had any internal complaints. But we do take this very seriously and will look into it.”

He added that the class is an elective course and not part of the core curriculum.

The Freedom from Religion Foundation (FFRF), which made the official complaint to BSU, is not an outside person. Further, the original complaint that I investigated emanated from an anonymous student, who, sadly, reneged on his/her promise to become part of the FFRF’s complaint.  (I can understand this in view of what happened to Jessica Alquist.) This student was constrained to take Hedin’s course because there were few options for a required science class in the Honors Program. And there are the three notes on Rate Your Professor site taking issue with Hedin’s Christian proselytizing.  What more do you need?

Well, how about the syllabus for Hedin’s science class? I’ll simply repost the reading list for Hedin’s course, which appears to go under two names with slightly different lists. This is the reading list for the Honors course that fulfills BSU’s science requirement for students in the Honors program,  “HONORS 296, Sec. 001, Symposium in the Physical Sciences: “The Boundaries of Science”

PARTIAL BIBLIOGRAPHY

Behe, Michael, “Darwin’s Black Box” (1998).

Brush, Nigel, “The Limitations of Scientific Truth.  Why Science Can’t Answer Life’s Ultimate Questions,” (2005).

Collins, Francis, “The Language of God, A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief,” (2007).

Consolmagno, Guy, “God’s Mechanics,” (2008).

Davies, Paul, “The Goldilocks Enigma: Why is the Universe Just Right for Life?” (2006).

Davies, Paul, “The Mind of God.  The Scientific Basis for a Rational World”, 1992.

Davies, Paul, “The 5^th Miracle” (1999).

Dembski, William A. “Intelligent Design as a Theory of Information”

Dubay, Thomas, “The Evidential Power of Beauty.  Science and Theology Meet”, 1999.

Flew, Antony, “There is a God: How the World’s Most Notorious Atheist Changed His Mind,” (2008).

Gange, Robert  “Origins and Destiny” (1985). Online: http://www.ccel.us/gange.toc.html

Giberson, Karl W. and Collins, Francis S. “The Language of Science and Faith: Straight Answers to Genuine Questions,” (2011).

Gingerich, Owen, “God’s Universe” (2006).

Gonzalez, Guillermo  “The Privileged Planet”  (2004).

Lennox, John, “God’s Undertaker: Has Science Buried God?” (2007).

Lennox, John, “God and Stephen Hawking: Whose Design is it Anyway?” (2011).

Lewis, C. S., “Miracles,” (1947).

Malone, John, “Unsolved Mysteries of Science,” (2001).

Meyer, Stephen C., “The Origin of Biological Information and the Higher Taxonomic Categories”, Proc. of the Biological Society of Washington, 117, 213 (2004).

Meyer, Stephen C., “Signature in the Cell: DNA and the Evidence for Intelligent Design” (2010)

Penfield, Wilder, “The Mystery of the Mind” (1975).

Penrose, Roger, “The Road to Reality: A Complete Guide to the Laws of the Universe”, (2005).

Polkinghorne, John  and Beale, Nicholas, “Questions of Truth: Fifty-one Responses to Questions About God, Science, and Belief,” (2009).

Quastler, Henry “The Emergence of Biological Organization” (1964).

Ross, Hugh  “The Creator and the Cosmos”  (2001).

Ross, Hugh  “Why the Universe is the Way it is” (2008).

http://www.reasons.org (Extensive materials on reasons for faith and science).

Ross and Rana, “Origins of Life” (2004).

Schroeder, Gerald L., “The Hidden Face of God.  Science Reveals the Ultimate Truth”, 2001.

Seeds, Michael A., “Astronomy:  The Solar System and Beyond”, 3^rd Ed. (2003).

Spetner, Lee, “Not by Chance” (1996).

Strobel, Lee, “The Case for a Creator.  A Journalist Investigates Scientific Evidence that Points Toward God”, 2004.

Von Baeyer, Hans Christian, “Information: The New Language of Science,” (2003).

How much real science do you see in there? I see a lot of apologetics (really? C. S. Lewis in a required science course?), a lot of intelligent design (Dembski, Behe, Meyer), some old-earth creationism (Hugh Ross, for crying out loud!), and not one reading that questions whether science gives evidence for God. It’s not that those readings don’t exist, for I could easily suggest pieces by Steve Weinberg, Sean Carroll, or Victor Stenger, all physicists who take the non-goddy side. No, this is a reading list confected by a man who wants his students to believe in Jesus. And remember, this is the one class students in that program can take to learn about science. What a joke! And the Provost defends it as a faculty matter (Hedin’s chairman already emailed me that he saw no problems with this course, and that it had been approved by the higher-ups.)

Here’s the syllabus for Hedin’s alternative course, Astronomy 151 (in the Department of Physics and Astronomy): “The Boundaries of Science”.  The joke continues (click to enlarge)

I am quoted, since I was interviewed:

“All the books are by creationists, IDers (intelligent designers), or people who try to show that science gives evidence for God,” evolutionary biologist Jerry Coyne, a professor at the University of Chicago, told The Star Press, referring to the bibliography for Hedin’s course. “There are no straight science books.”It appears Hedin “presents a non-view of science in a science class,” said Coyne, author of the book “Why Evolution is True.” “The students are being duped. It’s straight theology with no alternatives. It’s a straight Christian intelligent design/creationist view of the world, which is wrong. It’s not science. It’s not that it’s not science, it’s science that has been discredited. It’s like saying the Holocaust didn’t happen.”

But Hedin’s colleagues rush to his defense.  As the paper reports:

Ronald Kaitchuck, a professor in BSU’s department of physics and astronomy, finds it hard to believe that Hedin teaches strict creationism.

He suspects Hedin is “asking people to think a little broader, outside the box, which causes controversy. It’s funny.”

Yeah, right.  If he’s asking them to think more broadly, how about making them read something that really challenges their views, like essays by Stenger, Weinberg, or Sean Carroll? Earth to Kaitchuck: these students are undoubtedly largely Christian to begin with. It’s not “thinking outside the box” to make them read about how Christianity comports with science.

Ruth Howes, a retired professor from the department who now lives in Santa Fe, said, “The people I know in the department are very straightforward thinkers. I don’t think they mean to preach to anybody, except possibly F = ma (one of Newton’s laws of motion).”

Hedin replaced Howes when she retired.

Your head is in the sand, Dr. Howes.  Of course Hedin preaches to his students—they say so!

“It is the university’s job to help students understand viewpoints that differ from their own,” Howes said. “Students are not expected to totally agree with these viewpoints, but they are expected to understand them. I think that is probably what professor Hedin is trying to do, and I would expect the university to back this effort thoroughly. For example, if I were teaching a class on Islam, I would not expect students to convert to Islam, but I would expect them to understand the basic tenants that Muslims believe.”

This is again a blinkered view, and garbled as well.  If the university wants to help students understand viewpoints that differ from their own, how about presenting them with straight naturalistic evolution, which only 16% of Americans accept? And what about the view that the universe gives evidence against a god, a view espoused by the physicists I’ve named above.  Finally, I expect that Dr. Howe might object a wee bit if someone teaching a class on Islam urged the students to accept the tenets of Islam, don burquas, or engage in jihad—the equivalent of what Hedin is doing.  All three of these statements bespeak a profound misunderstanding of what it means to “challenge students’ views”, and neglect the fact that this is being done in a science class. What science, exactly, do students learn in that class?

There are 9 readers’ comments at the end, and although there are some benighted people like these, there is also some pushback.

Ball State University’s defense of Hedin so far, and the presence of Hedin’s course in the syllabus, is an embarrassment.  There is simply no excuse for teaching C. S. Lewis, intelligent design, and old-earth creationism in a science class.  Again, “academic freedom” is no the license to teach what you bloody well want in a state university course.  If you defend this course by Hedin, then you’re defending the ability of a university to allow students to satisfy their science requirement with a course on astrology or alchemy.

Give up the course, BSU, or you’re going to look ridiculous.

Soul song week: 3. “Heat Wave” and “Nowhere to Run”

Yes, everyone loved the Supremes, but for sheer soul power emanating from an all-girl groups—”girl groups” were what they were called in the Sixties—you can’t beat Martha and the Vandellas. The powerful voice of Martha Reeves really drips “soul”—which I suppose I define as powerful emotion expressed in rhythm and blues songs—more than did, say, the croonings of Diana Ross, good as they were.

Let’s leave aside the overrated “Dancing in the Streets”—the group’s signature song—and listen to my two favorites.

I can’t find a creditable live version of “Heat Wave,” so you’ll have to do with a lip-synched one (the full name of the song is “[Love is like a] Heat Wave”).  Never mind; it’ll still make you want to get up and dance. The song came from the the fantastic Motown composing trio of brothers Eddie and Brian Holland and Lamont Dozier, known to all Motown aficionados as “Holland/Dozier/Holland.” Have a look at their Wikipedia page: they wrote more great soul songs than anyone ever.  Yet who remembers their names?

Here’s Joan Osborne’s rocking version from the great documentary “Standing in the Shadows of Motown” (yes, the white guitar player was an original Funk Brother, Joe Messina). Note, too, that Osborne doesn’t change the original very much. You don’t mess with a Motown song.

The intro to this video is a bit weird, but one benefit is that it introduces the original Motown session musicians before the song proper begins at 0:53. Benny Benjamin, the drummer, was quite important in creating the distinctive Motown sound, but, really, none of these guys got near the credit they deserve. Sure, Smokey Robinson, Stevie Wonder, and Holland/Dozier/Holland wrote the songs, but the session musicians really transmogrified them into classic tunes (see here for a description of their innovations).

Linda Rondstadt did a good cover of the song in 1975, which you can find here on YouTube. Despite the great guitar solo, I give Joan Osborne’s version the edge, though neither compares to the original.

If you want to understand Benny Benjamin’s contribution to Motown, listen to the opening drumbeat of my favorite M & the V song, “Nowhere to Run” (1965) which instantly identifies the song.  His backing through the rest of the song is impeccable. This was also written by Holland/Dozier/Holland. It’s a haunting song, and, as Wikipedia notes,

Holand-Dozier-Holland and the Funk Brothers band gave the song a large, hard-driving instrumentation sound similar of the sound of prior “Dancing In The Street” with snow chains used as percussion alongside the tambourine and drums.

Snow chains!

Finally, a neglected M & the V song is “Come and get these memories” (1963), which you can hear here. It, too, was written by Holland/Dozier/Holland.

Supreme Court to rule on First Amendment case of prayers in town meetings

The New York Times reports that the U.S. Supreme Court agreed today to rule on a case in which a town (Greece, New York) mandated the saying of prayers before every town meeting (a town assembly dealing with local governance). As the Times reports;

For more than a decade starting in 1999, the town board began its public meetings with a prayer from a “chaplain of the month.” Town officials said that members of all faiths and atheists were welcome to give the opening prayer.

In practice, the federal appeals court in New York said, almost all of the chaplains were Christian.

“A substantial majority of the prayers in the record contained uniquely Christian language,” Judge Guido Calabresi wrote for a unanimous three-judge panel of the court, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. “Roughly two-thirds contained references to ‘Jesus Christ,’ ‘Jesus,’ ‘Your Son,’ or the ‘Holy Spirit.’”

Two town residents sued, saying the prayers ran afoul of the First Amendment’s prohibition of the government establishment of religion. The appeals court agreed. “The town’s prayer practice must be viewed as an endorsement of a particular religious viewpoint,” Judge Calabresi wrote.

In 1983, in Marsh v. Chambers, the Supreme Court upheld the Nebraska Legislature’s practice of opening its legislative sessions with an invocation from a paid Presbyterian minister, saying that such ceremonies were “deeply embedded in the history and tradition of this country.”

This case seems like a loser to me; I’m pretty sure the Supreme Court (whose conservative members are not only in a majority, but who are religious) will overturn the lower court decision, allowing prayers. What they may do is simply specify that the prayers need not be Christian prayers, in which case Greece will simply have some watered-down invocations to the deity that don’t mention Jesus. Otherwise that opens the possibility for—God forbid—Jewish or Muslim prayers.

In reality, what the Supreme Court should do is simply get rid of the prayers, which violate the First Amendment. “Historical precedent” of having legislative prayers is no excuse for their continuance, and should be overturned. After all, you can’t begin the school day with prayers, and legislators, like schoolchildren, are a captive audience.  The “tradition” defense has always mystified me.

Legislators’ insistence on public and “official” prayer, as opposed to private worship, has always mystified me.  Every legislator can pray on his or her own.  This is merely an attempt to try to force religion into the government.  The harm done thereby is twofold: it starts us down the slippery slope to a theocracy, and it dispossesses those who aren’t either Christian or are believers. There is no upside to these prayers—none.  Prayer as a part of governmental business should be eliminated everywhere in this country.

Nevertheless, even Congress has an official chaplain who opens each session of the House of Representatives with a prayer. It’s not likely that Scalia, Thomas, Roberts, and Alito will affirm the lower court decision. They’ll just allow non-secular prayer, which is still a violation of the Constitution.

Where the conflict really lies

UPDATE:  An alert reader has informed me that the Edge site also contains a “debate” (well, really more of a conversation) between Angier and David Sloan Wilson, which you can find here. Wilson doesn’t seem to care whether religion is true or false, maintaining that the only thing a scientist should care about is whether it originated because it inspired good behavior (e.g., whether it evolved by group selection).  That’s a curiously blinkered view, because a). that question cannot be decided since the origins of religion are lost in the irrecoverable past, and b). the question at issue is whether religion is a good or bad thing now.  And for a scientist, it should also matter whether religious claims are true. It’s interesting that truth seems to matter more to the science journalist than to the scientist!

_______________

Posting is going to slow down here as I’m busy writing a book, but, like Maru, I do my best.  From time to time I’ll put up stuff that I encounter while writing, and the title of today’s “sermon” comes from a book (note—don’t waste your money) in which Alvin Plantinga notes that the real conflict isn’t between Darwinism (i.e., modern evolutionary theory) and religion, but between Darwinism and naturalism.  That comes from Plantinga’s crazy idea that evolution could never have given humans the ability to discern things (like the fact of evolution) as true, because evolution only vouchsafes us behaviors that maximize our reproductive success. He posits, instead, that the ability of humans to discern truth comes from a sensus divinitatis installed by God.  That, of course, gives us reason to trust our senses, not only about evolution but (of course!) about the reality and salvific properties of Jesus. The problems with this idea are too obvious to discuss.

But I digress.  Here’s where the real conflict lies.  This is a short excerpt from the best and funniest essay ever written on the incompatibility of science and religion: “My God problem,” by science writer Natalie Angier. In just a few pages she does more than anyone else ever has to puncture the pretensions of people like Nick Matzke, Kenneth Miller, Chris Mooney, the National Center for Science Education (NCSE), the AAAS’s DoSER program, and every accommodationist who pretends that there’s no conflict between science and faith.

I’ve recommended Angier’s essay before, but if you haven’t read it, go do so now (it’s on the Edge site).

Here’s the big conflict:

So why is it that most scientists avoid criticizing religion even as they decry the supernatural mind-set? For starters, some researchers are themselves traditionally devout, keeping a kosher kitchen or taking Communion each Sunday. I admit I’m surprised whenever I encounter a religious scientist. How can a bench-hazed Ph. D., who might in an afternoon deftly purée a colleague’s PowerPoint presentation on the nematode genome into so much fish chow, then go home, read in a two-thousand-year-old chronicle, riddled with internal contradictions, of a meta-Nobel discovery like “Resurrection from the Dead,” and say, gee, that sounds convincing? Doesn’t the good doctor wonder what the control group looked like?

. . . I recognize that science doesn’t have all the answers and doesn’t pretend to, and that’s one of the things I love about it. But it has a pretty good notion of what’s probable or possible, and virgin births and carpenter rebirths just aren’t on the list. Is there a divine intelligence, separate from the universe but somehow in charge of the universe, either in its inception or in twiddling its parameters? No evidence. Is the universe itself God? Is the universe aware of itself? We’re here. We’re aware. Does that make us God? Will my daughter have to attend a Quaker Friends school now?

I don’t believe in life after death, but I’d like to believe in life before death. I’d like to think that one of these days we’ll leave superstition and delusional thinking and Jerry Falwell behind. Scientists would like that, too. But for now, they like their grants even more.

And I love this bit, clearly aimed at every mealymouthed accommodationist in America:

No, most scientists are not interested in taking on any of the mighty cornerstones of Christianity. They complain about irrational thinking, they despise creationist “science,” they roll their eyes over America’s infatuation with astrology, telekinesis, spoon bending, reincarnation, and UFOs, but toward the bulk of the magic acts that have won the imprimatur of inclusion in the Bible, they are tolerant, respectful, big of tent. Indeed, many are quick to point out that the Catholic Church has endorsed the theory of evolution and that it sees no conflict between a belief in God and the divinity of Jesus and the notion of evolution by natural selection. If the pope is buying it, the reason for most Americans’ resistance to evolution must have less to do with religion than with a lousy advertising campaign.

So, on the issue of mainstream monotheistic religions and the irrationality behind many of religion’s core tenets, scientists often set aside their skewers, their snark, and their impatient demand for proof, and instead don the calming cardigan of a a kiddie-show host on public television. They reassure the public that religion and science are not at odds with one another, but rather that they represent separate “magisteria,” in the words of the formerly alive and even more formerly scrappy Stephen Jay Gould. Nobody is going to ask people to give up their faith, their belief in an everlasting soul accompanied by an immortal memory of every soccer game their kids won, every moment they spent playing fetch with the dog. Nobody is going to mock you for your religious beliefs. Well, we might if you base your life decisions on the advice of a Ouija board; but if you want to believe that someday you’ll be seated at a celestial banquet with your long-dead father to your right and Jane Austen to your left-and that she’ll want to talk to you for another hundred million years or more—that’s your private reliquary, and we’re not here to jimmy the lock.

Consider the very different treatments accorded two questions presented to Cornell University’s “Ask an Astronomer” Web site. To the query, “Do most astronomers believe in God, based on the available evidence?” the astronomer Dave Rothstein replies that, in his opinion, “modern science leaves plenty of room for the existence of God . . . places where people who do believe in God can fit their beliefs in the scientific framework without creating any contradictions.” He cites the Big Bang as offering solace to those who want to believe in a Genesis equivalent and the probabilistic realms of quantum mechanics as raising the possibility of “God intervening every time a measurement occurs” before concluding that, ultimately, science can never prove or disprove the existence of a god, and religious belief doesn’t—and shouldn’t—”have anything to do with scientific reasoning.”

How much less velveteen is the response to the reader asking whether astronomers believe in astrology. “No, astronomers do not believe in astrology,” snarls Dave Kornreich. “It is considered to be a ludicrous scam. There is no evidence that it works, and plenty of evidence to the contrary.” Dr. Kornreich ends his dismissal with the assertion that in science “one does not need a reason not to believe in something.” Skepticism is “the default position” and “one requires proof if one is to be convinced of something’s existence.”

In other words, for horoscope fans, the burden of proof is entirely on them, the poor gullible gits; while for the multitudes who believe that, in one way or another, a divine intelligence guides the path of every leaping lepton, there is no demand for evidence, no skepticism to surmount, no need to worry. You, the religious believer, may well find subtle support for your faith in recent discoveries—that is, if you’re willing to upgrade your metaphors and definitions as the latest data demand, seek out new niches of ignorance or ambiguity to fill with the goose down of faith, and accept that, certain passages of the Old Testament notwithstanding, the world is very old, not everything in nature was made in a week, and (can you turn up the mike here, please?) Evolution Happens.

The difference in the way the Cornell site treats religion and astrology underscores the respect that religion gets in America compared to other systems of delusional thought. Astrology and homeopathy bad; resurrection and virgin births okay.

I believe this essay was first published in, of all places, The American Scholar, but I may be wrong.  You may recall that it was Angier’s laudatory review of Sam Harris’s The End of Faith that marked the beginning of public acceptance of New Atheism in the U. S.