Google has launched Ngram viewer, a tool which lets you compare phrases appearing across the entire corpus of Google books (click the image below to see the graph in full).
Compare “science” against “religion” in books written between 1800 and 2008. The results are interesting – see how science begins to overtake religion in books written during WWII and onwards. The demise of faith after mass human tragedy and huge advances in medicine and warfare, perhaps?
Filed under: Religion | Tags: creationism, creationists, darwin, evolution, general synod, god, new scientist, Religion
The bicentenary of Charles Darwin has provided an excuse for scientists to continue to eviscerate creationists. You can understand their insecurity; who knows what might come crawling out of the religious woodwork after a fundamental base of the evolutionary theory was proved a tad inaccurate.
New Scientist barely veils its contempt for creationists, who hold that the Earth was created in 7 days. You might associate the 7 days theory with a certain pitbull almost-Vice President but the insanity of teaching creationism in the classroom has even affected some in the UK.
How much has religion affected our views of scientific theory? Enough that New Scientist can’t dismiss its concerns altogether. With embryonic research and the Human Genome Project throwing up all sorts of new possibilities – to the point of deciding your child’s genetic fate – the public have begun to take on board the morals of the Church, albeit in a less extreme way.
In a serendipitous – even fateful – coincidence, the birthday celebrations coincide with the Church of England’s biggest gathering of woolly episcopal beards of the year. Yes, it’s the General Synod this week.
But before anyone gets carried away by their fears that the Church might reeeeaally directly affect major policy decisions regarding research, let’s have a look at what they’re debating.
So far, lots of old men finally decided that letting women help run the Church might not be so terrifying after all – but that it’s best to put it off for another 5 years. And that councils are charging churches too much money for water. And that’s about it so far.
Darwin – 1, God – 0.
Filed under: Religion | Tags: advertising standards authority, ariane sherine, asa, atheist bus campaign, christian party, Religion
Q. What makes a misleading advert?
A. A claim without substantive proof.
So says the Advertising Standards Authority’s guide to making-your-own advert. Fair enough, says Ariane Sherine, founder of the now notorious media exercise that is the atheist bus campaign. What started out as a campaign to emblazon THERE IS NO GOD on London’s buses suddenly had to be downgraded to…
Probably? Probably no God? There you are, bowling along happily thinking there’s no greater purpose and suddenly even your own team is doubtful. Probably is for namby pamby agnostics.
Defy God on a daily basis if you will, but the ASA are immovable.
Except…
Suddenly we’ve moved from probables to definitives. This is the response banner from the Christian party but how, exactly, did that one sneak past the censors? Clause 3.1 of the ASA code says:
Before distributing or submitting a marketing communication for publication, marketers must hold documentary evidence to prove all claims, whether direct or implied, that are capable of objective substantiation.
Relevant evidence should be sent without delay if requested by the ASA or CAP.
Alright, so it’s not capable of objective substantiation. But what about:
8.1 Marketers may give a view about any matter, including the qualities or desirability of their products, provided it is clear that they are expressing their own opinion rather than stating a fact. Assertions that go beyond subjective opinions are subject to 3.1 above (also see 12.1 below).
If ASA are hanging onto objective proof of God’s existence, there’s a good 1 billion people who might like to know – and that’s just the Christians.
Or else, it’s a case of bias and overt political correctness towards religious groups. Not merely the Christian Party but the Trinitarian Bible bashers Society and the Russian Orthodox Church have come up with equally strident slogans.
Complaints were made about the atheist bus campaign even after the insertion of ‘probably’ but, in a nod to sanity, the ASA ruled that the slogan was obviously an opinion, rather than misleading ‘fact’. In keeping with the rules, the statement ‘there is probably no God’ is not conveyed as a generally-held opinion. But still, 150 Christians were unhappy and would have strangled this debate on its inception – before going to make a more definitive and therefore misleading claim themselves: There is a God, BELIEVE.
The nature of blind faith is such that partial belief in God is impossible. The Christian groups can do nothing but state definitively that there is a God. For those with faith, the bus campaign can make no difference to their belief. But engaging in this sort of petty nitpicking and astonishing hypocrisy only serves to alienate the population from the righteous vs heathens attitude exuded by so many religious groups.
Adherents of ‘inter-faith’ dialogue (or non faith, as the case may be) might suggest that petty arguments can only promote discord. But when religious groups resort to petty measures, before themselves taking an intensely hypocritical line, then surely they should be subject to the same treatment.
Note: They really do think atheists are heathens. They said so.
