Friday, November 27, 2009

Zuckerman research on atheists and apostates

Phil Zuckerman is doing research on apostates.
He is seeking apostates to interview.

web site:
http://www.pitzer.edu/academics/faculty/zuckerman/

mail:  phil_zuckerman@pitzer.edu

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/apostate

 Atheism, Secularity, and Well-Being:
How the Findings of Social Science Counter Negative Stereotypes and Assumptions
By PHIL ZUCKERMAN
(Note: This is a rough DRAFT of an essay that is slated to be published in Sociology
Compass in the Fall of 2009).

EXCERPT:

Values, Beliefs, Opinions, and Worldviews

It is often assumed that someone who doesn't believe in God doesn't believe in anything, or that a person who has no religion must have no values. These assumptions are simply untrue. People can reject religion and still maintain strong beliefs. Being godless does not mean being without values. Numerous studies reveal that atheists and secular people most certainly maintain strong values, beliefs, and opinions. But more significantly, when we actually compare the values and beliefs of atheists and secular people to those of religious people, the former are markedly less nationalistic, less prejudiced, less anti-Semitic, less racist, less dogmatic, less ethnocentric, less closeminded, and less authoritarian (Greeley and Hout, 2006; Sider, 2005; Altemeyer, 2003, 2009; Jackson and Hunsberger, 1999; Wulff, 1991; Altemeyer and Hunsberger, 1992, 1997; Beit-Hallahmi, 2007; Beit-Hallahmi and Argyle, 1997; Batson et al., 1993; Argyle, 2000).

Concerning political orientations, atheist and secular people are much more likely to be registered Independent than the general American population, and they are much less likely to be right-wing, conservative, or to support the Republican party than their religious peers (Kosmin, 2008). Keysar (2007:38) reports that 50% of American atheists are Independent, 26% are Democrat, and 10% are Republican and that 43% of American agnostics are Independent, 22% are Democrat, and 15% are Republican. Greeley and Hout (2006) report that only about 21% of people claiming "no religion" voted for Republican candidates in recent elections. In the 2008 presidential election specifically, 76% of atheists and agnostics voted for Obama, and only 23% voted for McCain (Barna Survey 2008). Grupp and Newman (1973) and Nassi (1981) have found that irreligiosity is strongly and consistently correlated and with liberal, progressive, or left-wing political perspectives, and
 Gay and Ellison (1993) found that -- when compared to various religious groups -- nonreligious Americans are the most politically tolerant, supporting the extension of civil liberties to dissident groups.

As for gender equality and women's rights, atheists and secular people are quite supportive (Hayes, 1995b). Recent studies show that secular individuals are much more supportive of gender equality than religious people, less likely to endorse conservatively traditional views concerning women's roles, and when compared to various religious denominations, "Nones" possess the most egalitarian outlook of all concerning women's rights (Brinkerhoff and Mackei, 1993, 1985; Petersen and Donnenworth, 1998; Hoffman and Miller, 1997). Additional polls reveal that abortion rights are more likely to be supported by the secular than the religious (Gallup, 2006; ABC News, 2001).

Concerning the acceptance of homosexuality and support for gay rights, atheists and secular people again stand out (Linneman and Clendenen, 2009; Hayes, 1995b). When compared to the religious, nonreligious people are far more accepting of homosexuality and supportive of gay rights and gay marriage (Sherkat, Powell-Williams, and Maddox, 2007; Burdette et al., 2005; Lewis, 2003; Loftus 2001, Roof and McKinney, 1987), and are far less likely to be homophobic or harbor negative attitudes towards homosexuals (Altemeyer, 2009; Rowatt et al., 2006; Schulte and Battle, 2004; Aubyn, Maynard, and Gorsuch, 1999; VanderStoep and Green, 1988; Kunkel and Temple, 1992). According to a 2008 Pew Forum survey, 60% of religiously unaffiliated Americans support gay marriage, compared to roughly 26% of Protestants and 42% of Catholics. According to Newport (2008), 76% of Americans who never or seldom attend church consider homosexuality morally acceptable, compared to 21% of
 weekly and 43% of monthly church attenders. Additional studies consistently find that atheists and secular people tend to take a more liberal/progressive stand on a multitude of contemporary social issues (Hoffman and Miller, 1997; Hood et al., 1996; Nelson, 1988). For example, secular Americans were far less supportive of the U.S. invasion of Iraq than religious Americans (Smidt, 2005); only 38% of secular Americans favored invasion compared to 68% of Evangelical Protestants, 57% of Mainline Protestants, and 58% of Catholics, and 47% of Jews. Guth and colleagues (2005) found that only 32% of secular Americans consider the Iraq War justified, compared to 89% of Mormons, 87% of Evangelicals, 73% of Mainline Protestants, and 84% of Catholics. When it comes to the death penalty, atheists and nonreligious people are also markedly less supportive than their religious peers (Beit- Hallahmi, 2007; Gallup Poll, 2004). As for the general treatment of prisoners,
 secular people are much less supportive of retribution and are less likely to favor harsh/draconian sentencing than religious people (Grasmick et al., 1992; Blumstein and Cohen, 1980). A recent survey conducted by the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life (2009) found that secular, religiously unaffiliated Americans are the group least supportive of the governmental use of torture. Concerning doctor assisted suicide, non-church attenders are much more likely to support it than weekly church attenders (Carroll, 2007; Stark and Bainbridge, 1996), and support for stem cell research is strongest among the secular (Nisbet, 2005); a 2004 Harris Poll found that 84% of "nonreligious" Americans support stem cell research, compared to 55% of "very religious" Americans. Finally, secular people are much more likely to support the legalization of marijuana than religious people (Gallup Poll, 2005b; Hoffman and Miller, 1997).

The above information reveals that atheists and secular people have very clear and pronounced values and beliefs concerning moral, political, and social issues. As Lynn Nelson (1988:134) has concluded, religiously unaffiliated people "have as well-defined a sense of social justice as weekly churchgoers." But I would go farther. I would argue that a strong case could be made that atheists and secular people actually posses a stronger or more ethical sense of social justice than their religious peers. After all, when it comes to such issues as the governmental use of torture or the death penalty, we see that atheists and secular people are far more merciful and humane. When it comes to protecting the environment, women's rights, and gay rights, the non-religious again distinguish themselves as being the most supportive. And as stated earlier, atheists and secular people are also the least likely to harbor ethnocentric, racist, or nationalistic
 attitudes. Strange then, that so many people assume that atheists and nonreligious people lack strong values or ethical beliefs – a truly groundless and unsupportable assumption.

Wednesday, November 25, 2009

New Apple Product

Apple does it again:

Apple announced today that it has developed a breast implant that can store
and play music.  The iTit will cost from $499 to $699, depending on cup and
speaker size.  This is considered a major social breakthrough, because women
are always complaining about men staring at their breasts and not listening
to them.

Thursday, November 19, 2009

Happy Birthday Frishberg!

Unknown Frishberg!

Sunday, November 15, 2009

An Ahimsa ThanXgiving - Fast 2009

Congrats on your decision Augie.


The raising of meat, as destructive to the environment as it is, and the harm it causes to those of us who imbibe, is not disputable.

I have absolutely no problem with those who choose not to eat meat, and there are loads of reasons besides being upset with factory farming, chemicals, and colo-rectal cancer, to be vegan.

However, Humans are Omnivores by nature.  And,  "Human Nature" is precisely the reason we're collectively doomed in a very short time frame...(geologically speaking).

For me, morality is all about the way humans treat each other...far more so than how we treat traditional foodstuff...and our record of how we treat each other is far more deplorable than the fact that we raise chickens in cages so small that they cannot move out of the way of their own defecation.

I don't attribute any "moral superiority" to veganism.

If it feels right to you, do it.

I hold that our trajectory is extinction, and, while one can make less or more impact on the environment personally, I dispute it will make one day's difference in when the last of us walks the planet...

I'm more inclined, daily, to party hearty and die out and, for me, that includes meat in my diet.

There are as many reasons to be a Volunteer as there are Volunteers, and, I'll wager the same holds for vegans.  Regardless, I'll probably see more flames on this note than under the bird come Thanksgiving.

Namaste,
Frish


An Ahimsa ThanXgiving - Fast  2009

Posted by: "augie1015" augie1015@yahoo.com   augie1015

Sun Nov 15, 2009 4:44 am (PST)

An Ahimsa ThanXgiving - Fast 2009

Namaste

Oh, no! Here it comes again!
Those dreaded holidays where Vegans "waffle" (snip)

Tuesday, November 10, 2009

Some Weird News about Genetics, Intelligence and "beauty"!

Women with the largest difference of waist and hips are smarter, as are their offspring!

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7090300.stm

Even tho' men are mostly indifferent to such differences!

Which means, it shouldn't be a trait that has "legs" so to speak!

Glad to share something a bit tangential, instead of the serious stuff usually posted here!

Frish
Childfree and happier every day!

Wednesday, November 4, 2009

Just some more demographic fun...

In late August, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention announced that U.S. life expectancy had reached an all-time high, climbing to 77.9 years in 2007.

The U.S. Census Bureau projects life expectancy will exceed 79 years by the year 2015
"Retirees Hit by Longevity Risk." Reuters. Nov 21, 2008. 

Insurance mortality tables indicate that some Americans could even live until the age of 121.
"2001 Commissioners' Standard Ordinary (CSO) Mortality Table." American Academy of Actuaries. June 2002.

Frish

6-year-old girl with brain cancer hid love notes for her parents to find after her death

Holly, thanks for sharing.
http://www.neatorama.com/2009/11/04/6-year-old-girl-with-brain-cancer-hid-love-notes-for-her-parents-to-find-after-her-death/

Just a side note:

I googled the article's name, to see what I might see, and was amazed/amused/concerned about the "right hand column" purchase suggestion:

Year Old Girl

Find Low Prices and Multiple Offers
Year Old Girl
shopping.yahoo.com

Frish

Economist Cover Story - Falling Fertility

http://www.economist.com/printedition/displayStory.cfm?Story_ID=14744915

Yes, the rate at which people, worldwide, are having offspring is declining.  
Articles in the Oct 31st Economist go deeply into why this is happening.

Here's what I object to...
While forecasting anything out 40 years or more is generally suspect, in the case of demographics of humanity it is probably not that far fetched.  However, all of the charts in the article end at 2050...
as if, when population begins to level off at 9BN individuals, there is some magical occurance, and human impacts on the environment are not as great...

"The world might indeed have the right numbers to boost growth and still have too many for the environment. The right response to that, though, would be to curb pollution and try to alter the pattern of growth to make it less resource-intensive, rather than to control population directly."

Okay, so population growth is slowing.  Considerably.  However, it appears that there will be (without some horrendous "culling" thanks to (insert apocalypse de jour)) well over 6BN people on the planet from now until 100 years from now...

No indication of how we're supposed to support that many people, while we eat everything that crawls or grows, or swims or flies, and totally decimate every ecosystem...

From another article on the same topic is this gem:
"...the human race will have to rely on technology and governance to shift the world's economy towards cleaner growth.  Mankind needs to develop more and cheaper technologies that can enable people to enjoy the fruits of economic growth without destroying the planet's natural capital."

It is so easy to proclaim this, and yet, the US for example never even signed onto Kyoto Protocols and the Copenhagen session may be equally rancorous.  At least The Economist editors agree that our current course is untenable...unlike all of the Human Caused Climate Chaos deniers...or those who would deny family planning and condoms to the "third world"...

The idea of "more and cheaper" (in terms of impact on the environment) technologies flies in the face of our very human nature.

The interconnectedness and fragility of the chemistry that supports the web of life is ignored, and the results (30, 40, 60 years from now) of our deprecations have been severely discounted (even while the article mentions "consequences of global warming - water shortages, mass migration, declining food levels").

A "clean coal" commercial just aired on my television...From the unabashedly pro-coal http://www.cleancoalusa.org/docs/beyond/ 
"It's clear that meeting America's growing energy demand and keeping electricity supplies reliable and affordable will require the use of American coal. But can we use coal and meet the commitment of reducing greenhouse gas emissions in response to climate change concerns?

In a word - yes!"

The URL says it all "BEYOND" ...........belief!

Frish - child free and grateful for it!

Monday, November 2, 2009

Necrophilia - some thoughts

To Bill Handel as a commentary on his Radio Broadcast of 091030 - "Necrophilia, A Victimless Crime"...

In 1977, my last year in getting a B.A. in Anthropology - ,, I took 4 classes.  I didn't need any more for my major, just 12 units of General Education, at San Diego State University...so, when I registered I looked at the available classes and realized I could go to class on Tuesdays and Thursdays only, giving me a 4 day weekend every week!

I also realized, literally as I reviewed the board of class offerings, that I could write a paper on Necrophilia and turn it into three of the four classes!  And, so...I took:

Black English - That's what Ebonics was called back the, and my professor Shirley Weber was one of the major contributors to the academic study of how the English spoken by afro-americans was related to West Aftican syntax etc.  
For that class, I wrote a paper "The Trickster Character in Black Folklore", all about Br'er Rabbit.

Human Sexual Workshop - As the Prof said, "this is not a lab course, it is academic only"  
I wrote a paper entitled: "Cross Cultural Homosexuality".  The Prof suggested I become a sex therapist...

Sociology of Deviance - When I suggested, about three quarters of the way into the 13 week course, that the deviants we ought to be studying were Rich People, the prof blanched, broke out in a sweat, and did not have a good day...

Sociology of Death - Another fun course, I wrote a paper entitled "Necrophilia"  It was quite a scholarly treatis, and I quoted literary 
references to Necrophilia as diverse as Herodotus, who suggested that the bodies of rich Egyptians (500 BC or so) were sometimes defiled before becoming mummified...and so, the keepers of the mummification process waited 3 days so the body was really ripe...and therefore supposedly not appealing to someone interested in that...all the way to William Burroughs "Naked Lunch" that has a passage that is quite a graphic rendition of Necrophilia.

I'll always be ashamed I only got a A- on that paper, only because the prof was a former Presbyterian Preacher, and he was unable to finish reading the paper, as it made him sick.

Knowing the rules, I turned the Necro paper in to the death class for credit and the Human Sexual Workshop class and deviance class for "extra credit".

Understand, this was WAY before the internet (or Jeffrey Dahmer)...so I had to spend HOURS upon HOURS in a real library to glean nuggets of necrophilia!

Of course, I had two conclusions:
1.  To the true necrophiliac (usually found working in mortuaries, if you wanted to find one), waiting three days makes the body even more desireable.
2.  I also concluded, using all my Anthropological expertise, that Necrophilia is probably a uniquely human behavior and not much else is truly unique to us alone!

Thanks for suggesting that Necrophilia is a "victim-less crime" however, a dead body is as I understand it, is property of it's estate, so, perhaps necrophiliacs are guilty of trespassing!  (but, you are the lawyer after all, enjoy these references...)



Afterword:  There was a female student at school with whom I was more than casually familiar...She was in my first Anthro class, but changed majors to become a Biology student.  She enjoyed going to the mountains and simply sitting quietly, sniffing the wind...in order to discover dead animals...The Sexual Workshop teacher agreed that she may have been a very rare breed, a female necrophiliac!

Cheers, 
Frish

Attached is my West Hollywood Halloween Costume for 2009 (which is very much the same as it has been for almost 50 years!)