A Telegraph poll of remarkable inanity

A better poll question would be, “Is the Telegraph always this horribly and incompetently written?” We could also ask, “Are Christians always this stupid?”

There was recently a public discussion between Richard Dawkins and the Archbishop of Canterbury. Look what surprised the audience and the article’s author:

There was surprise when Prof Dawkins acknowledged that he was less than 100 per cent certain of his conviction that there is no creator.

The philosopher Sir Anthony Kenny, who chaired the discussion, interjected: “Why don’t you call yourself an agnostic?” Prof Dawkins answered that he did.

An incredulous Sir Anthony replied: “You are described as the world’s most famous atheist.”

He’s a scientist. We’re never absolutely certain of anything, and one thing you’ll hear over and over from any competent scientist is that all knowledge is provisional, subject to revision if better evidence is brought to bear on it. What Dawkins said was not novel — and if anyone had actually read The God Delusion, they’d know that this explanation was right in there.

And what kind of philosopher is unaware that you can be both agnostic and atheist at the same time? I don’t have knowledge of any gods, but my knowledge of the universe and the absence of evidence from proponents of god-belief, as well as their inability to provide an adequate epistemology of belief, has convinced me that the existence of such beings is so vanishingly unlikely that I reject all gods. I will continue to do so until the believers bring out reasonable, compelling evidence for a clearly stated hypothesis. What’s so hard about that?

Unfortunately, here’s the flamingly stupid question the Telegraph chose to run instead.

Does God “clutter up” explanations of how the universe began?

Yes, there is no place for religion in science 26.69%
No, a theory of creation is compatible with the Big Bang 73.31%

I don’t give a flying fart whether a fairy tale is “compatible” with a scientific theory; that usually just means the fairy tale says nothing about the phenomenon. What matters is whether the story provides any testable evidence, and no, the Bible does not, therefore it is irrelevant.

My enemies…exposed!

My efforts to crush yet another internet poll are being opposed by JT, who is leading the rebel insurrection to put Greta Christina on top.

Sure you could argue that there is a lack of diversity in the choices, but that’s the whole point: will you submit to the soul-crushing power of the empire (of course you will! There are no such things as souls!) and be allowed to live, or follow some spunky kid into defeat and ignominy and total destruction?

You know the choices. It’s JT:


(You will forget that JT is rooting for Natalie Portman.)

Versus me:

The choice is clear. Vote Pharyngula every day. Know the thrill of unbridled power.

Another poll prompted by an incoherent old priest

The former Archbishop of Canterbury has come out to oppose gay marriage. He says he doesn’t “begrudge rights and benefits to homosexual couples”, and he also made this statement:

The state does not ‘own’ the institution of marriage. Nor does the church.

The honourable estate of matrimony precedes both the state and the church, and neither of these institutions have the right to redefine it in such a fundamental way.

So who got to define it in the first place? What makes an antique definition sacred? Why shouldn’t society adapt to reality?

And at the same time, Lord Carey calls gay marriage “cultural vandalism” and is supporting a group called the Coalition for Marriage, a new UK organization that makes the same tired old arguments.

If marriage is redefined, those who believe in traditional marriage will be sidelined. People’s careers could be harmed, couples seeking to adopt or foster could be excluded, and schools would inevitably have to teach the new definition to children. If marriage is redefined once, what is to stop it being redefined to allow polygamy?

You know, people’s careers are harmed and couples are excluded from adoption right now because of the existing anti-equality policies; the difference such a law would make is that instead of gay people being harmed, it would be bigots who would face the consequences of their beliefs. This isn’t a “save marriage” movement, it’s a “save the bigots” movement.

There’s a poll. Even if it is in that dumb rag, The Telegraph, it’s going the right way. How about pushing it further, and slapping the Telegraph around a little bit?

Should gay marriage by legalised?

Yes, everyone should have the right to get married no matter what their sexuality 81.12%
No, marriage should be between a man and a woman 18.88%

Poll on a thoroughly sensible comment

Trevor Philips made a number of people very cranky in the UK. He was commenting on a recent legal struggle, in which Catholic adoption agencies fought for the right to discriminate and refuse to allow gay couples to adopt children. There has been a ruling that adoption agencies aren’t exempt from equality laws, which of course pisses off religious bigots no end — they want to claim their superstitions are special and must be propped up by the law.

So Phillips made a simple and obvious comparison.

“You can’t say because we decide we’re different then we need a different set of laws,” he said, in comments reported by The Tablet, the Catholic newspaper.

“To me there’s nothing different in principle with a Catholic adoption agency, or indeed Methodist adoption agency, saying the rules in our community are different and therefore the law shouldn’t apply to us.

Why not then say sharia can be applied to different parts of the country? It doesn’t work.”

He compared Catholics demanding special laws for them to Muslims demanding their special laws? Harumph! Ouch! That was a cruel blow.

“It’s a strange comparison,” says one CoE spokesman.

Lawyers call it “inflammatory!”

Former Archbishop says, “Ridiculous!”

“Looks like the truth hurts,” says I.

There’s a poll, so you get to have a say, too!

Should religion have a say over public law?

No, religion should ‘stop at the door of the temple’ and give way to public law 52.66%

Yes, but as a Christian country only the Christian faith should shape the law 42.33%

All religions should have a say over public law 5.01%

The Poll of Childhood Pain

This is an awful poll: it’s trying to build a list of 15 Places Kids Should See Before 15, and here are the top 5 so far:

#1:U.S. Space and Rocket Center, AL

#2:Creation Museum, KY

#3:Smithsonian Museum of American History, DC

#4:Alabama Space and Rocket Center, AL

#5:Yellowstone Nationsl Park, WY

The Creation “Museum” was at #1 earlier, but it has begun to slide downward. How about pushing it further?

There is the problem that there are so many options that it’ll be hard to focus and knock out the Creation “Museum” — it has 700 votes already — so you might want to peruse the list and vote for any choice that has a chance at passing it by.

Poll on the bigotry of revealing Mormon theology

Ted Cox is giving a talk at UC Davis titled “How to Get into Heaven (According to Mormons)” — he’s an ex-Mormon, and is going to summarize Mormon theology. This has apparently annoyed some people. People are pre-emptively protesting that an unbeliever would actually dare to reveal the silly things a Mormon might actually believe. They’re calling it bigotry.

It is one thing for someone to talk about how he came to leave the faith but it is quite another to attack the sacred things that people hold dear. There is no point to this man’s decisions to reveal things that go on in LDS temples and that has nothing to do with his journey. I do not support people desecrating the Koran, the Torah, Rosaries, Crucifixes, or anything associated with the sacredness of the LDS temple. There is a fine line between education and disrespectful gestures done for the sake of shock value.

So there’s a poll. Have fun.

Is this event informative or offensive?

Purely informative. 54%

Purely offensive. 29%

A combination of the two. 16%

Poll harder, so religion can reassure itself of its relevance

The Baroness Warsi is visiting the Vatican. Why, is not clear: it seems to be an occasion for two devout believers to get together and congratulate each other on the fervency with which each holds their dogma. And there’s just something weird and wrong about it all.

We will be celebrating the decision Margaret Thatcher took 30 years ago to restore full diplomatic relations between our countries. The relationship between the UK and the Holy See is our oldest diplomatic relationship, first established in 1479.

Right there…Catholicism is a country? Am I the only one who finds that disturbing and weird? It’s not something to envy or aspire to: it means that it’s a theocracy.

It’s also dishonest to blithely announce that the UK and Vatican have a long relationship: it hasn’t always been smooth. People of the country of England killed each other for belonging to the country of Catholicism, and vice versa, and much of that history of a relationship has been driven by the tension between an imperialist Vatican and an independent Britain.

I will be arguing for Europe to become more confident and more comfortable in its Christianity. The point is this: the societies we live in, the cultures we have created, the values we hold and the things we fight for all stem from centuries of discussion, dissent and belief in Christianity.

Also, disbelief in Christianity…although expressing that openly could have got you burnt at the stake, once upon a time. It’s not right to insist that the history of Europe is entirely Christian, when dissent from such views was rigidly suppressed. I’d also argue that the great virtues of European culture arose more from a humanist tradition than any dogma. Art and science, engineering and industry are not religious fiefdoms.

Religion is the diaper of humanity’s childhood; it’s OK to grow out of it.

My fear today is that a militant secularisation is taking hold of our societies. We see it in any number of things: when signs of religion cannot be displayed or worn in government buildings; when states won’t fund faith schools; and where religion is sidelined, marginalised and downgraded in the public sphere.

It seems astonishing to me that those who wrote the European Constitution made no mention of God or Christianity. When I denounced this tendency two days before the Holy Father’s State Visit in September 2010, saying that government should “do God”, I received countless messages of support. The overwhelming message was: “At last someone has said it”.

Yeah, it’s always easy to suck up to the teat of comfortable superstitions, and people will always applaud you for it. It doesn’t mean you’re right.

It’s good that the European Constitution ignores gods; the American Constitution does likewise. These are concepts that are totally irrelevant and often destructive to real world understanding. And it is not militant to suggest that a government of all should avoid endorsing sectarian religion, because we know exactly where that support of specific, untestable, and nonsensical myths leads: to pointless conflict over arbitrary bits of belief. It is also telling that she wants government to fund “faith schools”—what the hell can they teach, if it’s based on faith? Reason and evidence are universal values that everyone, believer and unbeliever, should learn and can use. Teach the core of truth and reality…and yes, push superstitious dogma off to the fringes and marginalize it.

Of course there is a poll, because foolishness loves company to reassure itself that it isn’t quite as dumb as it seems. Maybe you should go over there and marginalize religion some more.

Are you worried by the threat of militant secularism in Britain?

Marginalising religion is a form of intolerance seen in totalitarian regimes 22.04%
People should worship in private and not display religious symbols in public 15.97%
People should feel proud to worship in public and display their faith 15.84%
Secularisation is not a threat to this country 46.15%

The Irish seem to have this poll well in hand

Ireland shut down their Vatican embassy; everyone says it was a cost-saving measure, but you know there had to have been some notion that this was a rebuke to the Catholic church for screwing over Ireland for so long. Now some groups want to reopen it…and so far the response is rather emphatic. I suspect you’ll make it even more emphatic.

Should Ireland reopen its Vatican embassy?

Yes 14%
No 84%
I don’t know 0%

As a native, I’m pleased to crash a Washington state poll

Good news from the Pacific Northwest: a bill to legalize same-sex marriage has passed in the state senate, it has good prospects in the house, and the governor will sign it if it lands on her desk. Expect the state to join the ranks of those that respect their citizens equally very soon now.

And then there’s a poll; a strange and revealing poll. A large number of state businesses support gay marriage, so King5 media had to ask if that’s all right with you.

More than 100 companies are supporting gay marriage in Washington. What’s your reaction?

will never buy their products again 14%
I won’t buy most products, but some I can’t live without 5%
I am more likely to buy their products 45%
It won’t change my buying habits 36%

It’s a very odd poll. The list of companies includes places like the Seattle Tattoo Expo and Seattle Gay News; I would think a lot of the people favoring gay marriage might see no need to change their buying habits, so that last category isn’t at all indicative of much of anything. The only answer that seems to have any significance is the first one — the people who won’t buy coffee or salmon from businesses that support equality are nasty creatures, but I can see reasonable arguments for all three of the other choices.