April 20, 2005
Missed Opportunity for Pope Clinton
Given the news media's focus on the Catholic church's "missed opportunity" for a progressive pope, which Wizbang sagely predicted yesterday, this story is quite funny.
While much of the world awaits smoke-signals from the Vatican cardinals selecting a new pope, New York Rep. Peter King joked Tuesday about a dark horse candidate for the vacant position: Hillary Rodham Clinton.King, a sometimes maverick within his own Republican Party, praised and poked fun at New York's junior senator when they both appeared at a breakfast of construction union officials.
"Maybe we can elect Hillary Clinton pope. God knows what she's running for," joked King, to roars from the crowd.
Hillary responded by denying that she was considering running for president and was instead focused on her upcoming 2006 Senate run, but if elected would be taking the name "Pope Progressivo." Meanwhile in a campaign email, she used the mention of the "right-wing Catholic attack-machine" to appeal for more funds.
(Check out the Hillary Watch catagory for more stuff Hillary Clinton has been up to.)
Posted by illuminaria at 03:29 PM | Comments (0)
April 14, 2005
Who Said Religion and Science Were Contradictory?
Check out this story.
Students re-enact Red Sea crossing -- with wineStudent engineers sent their gadgets whirring, spinning and buzzing across a pool of water Wednesday in a competition to re-enact the biblical Jewish crossing of the Red Sea and pour a ceremonial glass of wine -- all without anyone touching anything.
The Technion, Israel's leading technical university, hosted the tongue-in-cheek competition with real prizes, a way of tickling the imaginations of budding engineers while providing a laugh or two along the way.
Sounds like fun. Goodness knows engineering like to do quirky things, like the concrete canoe contest and such.
The special contraptions had to cross a three-meter (10-foot) distance with pool of water representing the Red Sea in the middle, pour wine into a glass and place it on the far side.
But come on guys! I’m pretty sure the Red Sea was wider than 10 feet.
Posted by illuminaria at 07:54 PM | Comments (0)
April 12, 2005
The Death-Camp of Religious Tolerance
Yesterday at Wizbang, Jay Tea wrote an uninformed, but somewhat funny piece on the Mormon practice on baptizing the dead. It’s prompted a somewhat hysterical discussion between all sorts of people, from suprised Mormons to lapsed Catholics to offended Jews.
It’s kind of interesting to see such a generally conservative bunch of folks that are typically dismissive of the PC culture all getting so offended because so-and-so is being “intolerant.” It reminds me of this South Park episode.
In that vein, here are the Death-Camp Of Religious Tolerance rules
1. No one is allowed to pray for, baptize posthumously, say a Mass for, or otherwise do anything religious for anyone without the express permission of the person, or if they are dead, their entire family.
2. No one is allowed to politely ask someone to not pray for, baptize posthumously, say a Mass for, or otherwise do anything religious for them or a deceased family member.
3. No one is allowed to say that any part of anyone else’s religion is wrong or by publicly asserting that an opposing doctrine is true, imply that any part of anyone else’s religion is wrong.
4. No one is allowed to say that anyone else is going to hell, or going to be reincarnated as a bug for that matter.
5. No one is allowed to try to convert someone else, no matter how inauspiciously.
6. No one is allowed to tell anyone that they don’t want to convert into their religion because they think it is wrong.
7. No one is allowed to criticize any act, no matter how despicable, if it was motivated in any way by religion, unless that religion is unpopular in the current culture.
8. No one is allowed to make a joke about anyone else’s religion.
9. No one that considers themselves to be “______” is allowed to say another person or group is not “______”, no matter how different their beliefs are.
10. No one is allowed to point out inconsistencies in anyone else’s religion unless that religion is currently unpopular in the current culture.
11. No one is allowed to criticize the actions of any religious group that has experienced persecution, especially if that criticism is directed towards a direct descendant of someone who directly experienced that persecution.
Yes, mein Führer. Ve are making the prisoners make macaroni pictures that illustrate [people from different religions in heaven holding hands and singing.]
(Note: I'm an ex-Mormon, current Christian, for those who are interested.)
In a similar vein, Mormons will be sure to enjoy this post. I just laughed more than I did all last week.
Update: Poor Jay Tea finally got sick of the topic. I don't blame him, things were getting pretty hysterical. It's amazing how defensive people get when you talk about religion (and yes, this includes you, athiests.)
Posted by illuminaria at 06:36 PM | Comments (3)
April 06, 2005
Clinton and Kerry Have Got Religion
An article in the Village Voice last Friday talks about a bill co-sponsored by Hillary Clinton and John Kerry called the Workplace Religious Freedom Act.
The bill actually isn’t new; it was first introduced in 1996 by Kerry and Clinton has supported it for three sessions. Recently, though, support from Democrats has fallen off as groups like the ACLU and the National Women's Law Center have come out against it. What are they so upset about? Abortion of course. They say that it would allow pharmacists and other medical personnel to refuse to provide services relating to abortion and prescriptions for birth control and abortion products. Obviously the government and employers should be forcing people to go against their moral convictions so that no one is inconvenienced.
The interesting part of the article was describing the different ways that Kerry and Clinton are going about their continued support.
Kerry… has positively crowed about the bill, perhaps because he learned the value of the values vote when his own presidential bid sank last year. On March 17, he stood shoulder to shoulder with one of his most hard-right colleagues, Rick Santorum, to introduce the act, hailing it as a defense of religious liberty. "Our nation was founded on freedom of religion," Kerry said at a Capitol Hill press conference, "and it should be clear in our laws that no American should ever have to choose between keeping a job and keeping faith with their cherished religious beliefs." ... Clinton's office has been notably quiet about her involvement, perhaps indicating that any credit she hopes to get for pushing the bill would come not from the larger public, but from the kind of select religious interests she's been courting lately as she lays the groundwork for a possible White House run in 2008. Her office says the senator will work to fine-tune the bill as it moves to the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions, where she sits.
That just goes to show that Clinton is a better strategist than Kerry, which is why she is actually someone to look out for in 2008.
Hat-tip to Wallo World.
(Check out the Hillary Watch catagory for more stuff Hillary Clinton has been up to.)
Posted by illuminaria at 03:54 PM | Comments (0)
March 22, 2005
Changes in Mormon Attitudes Towards Evolution
Yesterday an article by razib on Gene Expression discussed Mormons and their changing views towards evolution. Being a former Mormon myself, I found it quite interesting.
Ronald L. Numbers in The Creationists recounts that 'In 1935 only 36 percent of the students at the Mormon's Brighman Young University denied that humans have been "created in a process of evolution from lower forms." By 1973 the figure had risen sharply to 81....' The results at BYU might be due to decreased sample biasing as the student body increased in size, but, I think there is a real sociological process going on here: between 1930 and 1970 Mormons became, more or less, part of the American mainstream.1 And, to some extent they identified sociologically with conservative Protestants, who have been at the forefront of the "War against Evolution" since the rise of Darwinism in the United States.
This brings up an interesting point. Mormons may now identify sociologically with conservative Protestants, but this was not always the case. At the beginning, Mormonism was very different from Christianity and proud of the fact. It had kind of a “frontier” feel, and was all about adopting doctrines that made more sense to the spirit of American individuality. (For instance, the doctrine that gods were once men and men can become gods, the rejection of the classical concept of the Trinity as “not making sense,” etc.) Over the years Mormonism has become more of a mainstream religion in order to get along with the world. This might explain why Mormons were once more accepting of evolution than they are now, wheras the attitudes of other Christians has not changed much over the years.
I think the attitude toward evolution among the Mormon laity is a reflection of sociological forces buffetting them in the sea of American culture in which their peculiar beliefs have no great impact. Many of my classmates in high school were Mormon, and when I discussed evolutionary theory with them I would generally encounter less hostility than from my evangelical peers, but overall they were "unbelievers." But, when I pressed them for theological or doctrinal justification for their position they could not produce anything, in contrast with evangelicals who often encountered Creationists literature at their church and so were ready with prefab talking points intelligible in their literalist worldview. My Mormon friends often ended up somewhat confused as to why they rejected evolutionary theory in the context of their religion, but I think the reality that my inquiries were exposing was that the Latter Day Saints are far more affected by the zeitgeist than they themselves are aware of.This is I think part of a greater process of the canalization of various religious sects and denominations into a few broad rivers of practice and outlook in the United States. Because most Mormons have placed themselves within the "religious conservative" camp they have absorbed some talking points reflexively without further reflection as to whether it is truly in keeping with their explicitly stated religious beliefs. Over time I would not be surprised if the Creationist bent of the some of the laity percolates upward toward the Church Hierarchy (generally drawn from successful businessmen)
I do think, however, that the author shows some misunderstanding of these points.
In my experience many Mormons seem to live with the contradictory opinions that they are really Christians and people who claim that they aren’t don’t really understand that the differences between Mormons and the rest of Christianity are not all that great; but on the other hand believe that they are the only ones who really even come close to understanding the truth. Obviously the latter opinion is not at all unique among religious people, but combined with the former it creates this sort of a “I’m not going to let you into my club, but you’re mean for not letting me into your club” attitude. There certainly are more liberal-minded Mormons (in the classical sense of the word) who apply critical thinking and consideration to ideas outside of their religion (my family was like that.) However, I think while your typical Mormon may seem to the outside world to be similar to other Christians, they are not jumping on the cultural bandwagon because they simply see their ideas as superior. The fact that his Mormon friends couldn't come up with much justification of their opinions reflects this unwillingness to consider anything beyond what they are told at church.
In fact, typically I think changes come from the top down, as the church leadership tries to make itself more acceptable to the mainstream culture in order to attract members. The rejection of polygamy and inclusion of blacks in the priesthood reflect this. It’s true that there were plenty “regular” Mormons were in favor of these changes, but the main source of change came from the top. Observe, for instance, that typical Mormons view themselves as being quite set apart from the rest of the Christian world in doctrine (and indeed are), but if you ever see any of those Mormon commercials, they are very much about appealing to the religious mainstream.
Of course this is all the opinion of someone who hasn’t been particularly connected to Mormonism for the past seven years. (I'm sure my brother or Dad will be emailing me.) As my family often tells me, I don’t “really know what’s going on” anymore, plus I was young when absorbing all this. On the other hand, some distance from an issue provides some insight, and I do think that my youthful experiences are especially useful for absorbing the culture, which is what we’re really talking about here.
Posted by illuminaria at 04:03 PM | Comments (0)
March 17, 2005
Genetic Influences on Religiousness
Today Michael Williams had an entry about an article regarding a twin study that found that genes are responsible for about 40% of the variability in the religiousness of a person in adulthood, but are less important in childhood. I was interested to see what scale they were using in measuring religiousness. Obviously this could mean many things. They could be asking about belief in God or how much people go to church or whether they think they are spiritual, however that is defined, and so on. I went and looked the study up on my university’s electronic database (sorry, I can’t link to it) and it seems that the study asked nine questions of the subjects:
The first assessed external aspects of religiousness (the four items of attending religious services, discussing religious teachings, observing religious holidays, and membership in youth/study groups) that might be most susceptible to environmental influence; the second reflected internal aspects of religiousness (the five items of seeking help through prayer, reading scripture, deciding moral actions, having a friend with similar beliefs, and importance of faith) that may be most susceptible to heritable influence.
Obviously then, we are measuring certain aspects of religiousness, but these aren’t addressing particular religions or particular points that some religions would see as more important than these questions. For instance, I would be interested to see an analysis like this that compares different genetic and environmental effects among Christians and Muslims. The study admits that this is only one way to measure religiousness.
The concept of religiousness as defined in this study also deserves comment, as religiousness can be defined in many ways. While our measure formed one coherent scale, we lack the means to make the distinction between the different types of religiousness seen in the literature (e.g. intrinsic, extrinsic, quest), except for the rational parsing of items into internal and external aspects of religiousness.
I was interested to see that the study did a separate analysis on the internal and external questions.
Also, the analysis split up the influencing factors into genetic, shared environmental influences (which would include experiences with family, church, school, most influences in the womb, etc.), and non-shared environmental influences (which would include experiences not shared by twins, like different friends, along with everything else, like non-genetic personality traits and free-will, as well as error). Subjects answered the questions both with respect to themselves currently, and how they felt they were in childhood.
They also say
The assumption underlying twin models is that MZ twins share 100% of their genes while DZ twins share only 50%.
This means that the actual percentage of genetic material shared by the DZ twins introduces some error.
The paper makes some other conclusions that are interesting.
In fact, the heritability and shared environmental estimates for internal religiousness could be equated across the two ratings [retrospective and current] without significant loss in model fit, but they could not be equated for external ratings. These findings suggest that the increase in heritability in overall religiousness may reflect the increasing importance of individual dispositional factors and the decreasing importance of external forces.
This conclusion is pretty intuitive. Part of growing up is internalizing your values and opinions, such that it’s really you making your decisions rather than your family or culture.
This is something that parents really have to consider in regards to their children. They can teach them their religion and values, but ultimately the child is going to make a choice on their own. So many times people make the mistake of thinking that the behavior of a teenager or adult is completely dependant on how they were raised, but this isn't the case.
Twins were also asked to rate their parents religiousness.
The presence of a high correlation between parents for religiousness was consistent with the presence of high assortative mating for the trait.
Basically, then, people are more likely to be married to those who are similarly religious, which isn't a suprise.
There are some other interesting conclusions that can be drawn from looking at the internal vs. external data.
In adulthood, external religiousness is more affected by genetics than internal religiousness. This seems to fit with the theory that certain personality traits that are expressed more externally, such as the ability to get along with others, are what are accounting for the genetic factor in religiousness. In childhood, external religiousness is more affected by the shared environment than internal religiousness, whereas the effect is reversed in adulthood. This seems to fit with the theory that family environment is somewhat better at shaping behaviors than thoughts in a child, but will have more effect on the grown child’s thoughts than their behaviors (although the effect will be lessened overall). The effects of the un-shared environment remain pretty stable across childhood and adulthood and between internal and external religiousness.
There’s lots of good future work that could be done with sort of analysis. The subjects involved were all men from the same region who were the same age. Comparing people of different gender, religion, age, and culture would be a good idea. Age would be a particularly interesting variable to study. It may be that genetics is more important in your 30's, but it's effects lessen somewhat by age. I also wonder if there would be any difference in the effects of genetics and environment among a very religious group and a group that is not religious. Perhaps genetics pays a larger role in determining how religious a person is, but environment or other factors is more important in determining if a person is religious at all.
I find this study, and the one I talked about a few days ago on the issue of genetic effects on sexuality to be quite fascinating. As a Christian I believe that ultimately decisions are based on free will. I think this is a belief many people share. Every decision, though, is going to be influenced by some combination of genetic and environmental factors and it’s helpful to learn more about what they are. For instance, alcoholism has some strong genetic connections and knowing about them enables people who are predisposed to alcoholism to make decisions to lessen that risk. For instance, if I have no alcoholism in my family, I might choose to drink socially, but if I do, I might choose to not drink at all.
Future Pundit, who has a very interesting site by the way, also has an entry up on this. Uncorrelated does too, which is another site I ran across today. The blogosphere is cool like that.
Update: Gene Expression has more.
Posted by illuminaria at 03:16 PM | Comments (1)