Apparently, such logical errors are not the result of a general cognitive deficit. If that were the case, these same individuals would scarcely be able to dress themselves, and the streets of America would be awash in men and women, only partially clad in their Sunday best, lost en route to the local mega-church. No, if there is a pathology afoot, it is one that selectively diminishes capacity for critical thought in very specific areas - a not very likely prospect.

It could, as has been argued, be a simple matter of willful stupidity - a striving to maintain the bliss of enduring ignorance through acts of self-deception. In fact, Larry Moran, at Sandwalk, has posted a piece with the provocative title “Do Fundamentalist Christians Actively Resist Learning?” This post reiterates the point that there is an inverse correlation between educational attainment and religious fundamentalism, and goes on to puzzle over the “remarkable” phenomenon that a “significant percentage of fundamentalist Protestants can go to college and still reject the basic scientific fact that humans evolved.”

As we’ve seen time and time again on the blogs (and elsewhere), the Christian fundamentalists have erected very strong barriers against learning. It really doesn’t matter how much they are exposed to rational thinking and basic scientific evidence. They still refuse to listen.

But, is it really that fundamentalist Christians are averse to scholarship or somehow unable to comprehend scientific concepts? While that may feed into our idealized view of nontheists as the exclusive members of the community of reason, I don’t think this premise holds up under scrutiny. Too many fundamentalist Christians exhibit other signs of intelligence for this to be the case. And it would be naive to view all Christian theology as simplistic and childish; in fact, Christian apologists have jumped through astoundingly complex theological hoops to support their core beliefs in the face of what others might consider daunting and compelling contrary evidence.

Instead, I suspect that education is not always able to overcome preposterous and unsubstantiated beliefs as a consequence of faith. That is, faith, elevated to the status of virtue. Sola fide, the road to God’s grace. The sort of faith, the defense of which becomes a matter of preserving one’s very soul. Once faith is framed as more virtuous than materialistic scientific evidence, it is no longer amenable to argument, and the glossolalic apples are unable to communicate with the jargon-speaking oranges.

But, of course, faith is not a virtue. To a scientist, faith - holding to views that are unsupported by evidence - is a cardinal sin. And it is this, rather than the content of specific factual disagreements, that warrants our consideration. Faith is anathema to critical thinking, and has fallen into well-deserved disrepute in most spheres of our existence. But when the magisteria of science encroaches into a believer’s essential biblical worldview, faith is touted as the salvation of mankind and presidential candidates.

Rather than framing religious believers - even those holding fundamentalist, literalist views - as incapable of rational thought and as being willfully resistant to enlightenment, we should seek to understand the roots of this faith, and what attributes might make some more susceptible to its grip than others. At the very least, perhaps we can encourage this faith to be relegated to its rightful place, at the alter of the primum movens.

As Richard Dawkins has said:

The meme for blind faith secures its own perpetuation by the simple unconscious expedient of discouraging rational inquiry.

Amen.

Of course, I’m not referring to any sort of natal astrology where the vagaries of celestial mechanics and planetary alignment provide a fate map for our lives. No, this birth effect is more substantial and less susceptible to refutation than any zodiac prediction.

As much as we may value free will (or the illusion thereof), and although history shows us that individuals can overcome their circumstances and upbringing to spectacular and lasting effect, we cannot disregard the influences that shape our destinies. Were we to calculate the coefficient of determination we would undoubtedly find that our fates are inextricably linked with the situation of our birth. This is not to say that our fates are predetermined, only that they are heavily influenced by factors beyond our control.

What sorts of factors could exert such influence? Here are some representative examples, placed into categories that are admittedly overlapping and interconnected.

• Inborn: Genetic and epigenetic factors that affect our physical appearance, stature, superficial ethnic identification, intelligence, behavioral tendencies, gender, disease susceptibility, lifespan
• Familial: One or two parent household, number of siblings and relative birth order, household income and wealth, parental educational attainment, parenting style, frequency and scope of travel, presence or absence of extended family, language spoken at home, educational opportunities
• Societal: Poverty, life expectancy and infant mortality rates, civil unrest, crime rate, public health infrastructure, civil liberties, urbanization, class boundaries, racial and ethnic discrimination
• Political: Democratic/autocratic/theocratic government, state of war, monetary and fiscal policy, trade policy
• Geographic: Climate, proximity to other countries, ease of travel/commerce, arability, environmental pollution

In addition, there are obvious temporal factors interacting with all of the above such that one’s future is largely dependent on the time in which they were born.

Let’s examine a hypothetical case where an individual of modest intelligence and average stature is born to a wealthy, patrician, Christian family in which several generations have held political office and, as a consequence, gained access to powerful global business and political interests. This family lives in a democratic nation at a time where the dominant culture values populism, religious faith, and celebrity over accomplishment, intelligence, and vision. In a tragic convergence of circumstance, this person is elected president of the United States of America. In another time and in another place, this same person might have been killed by a swarm of bees while trying to draw honey out of an active hive with a short stick.

All of which brings me back to my motive for writing this post. Patriotism is too often an excuse to unite within artificial borders to perpetuate an “us versus them” mentality. While it has utility in bringing people together for self-defense, to build a sense of community, and to instill pride, it can also lead to jingoism.

Recognizing that altering the circumstances under which others are born may be a useful paradigm for informing foreign policy, we should strive to take actions that will provide opportunities regardless of the time or place of one’s birth. If we fully appreciate both the sources of our good fortune and the challenges faced by others, perhaps we will be better able to use this knowledge to take actions that will have a positive impact on people’s lives.

When asked to state a religious affiliation, they’ll mumble that they’re Catholics or Lutherans or whatever, but they are humanists at heart, whether they know it or not, because their positions on all issues that matter are thoroughly secular, and not in the least based on the advice of whatever clergy they nominally follow. They don’t give a hoot about their church’s position on, say, birth control, and when they vote in elections, they vote on grounds that have nothing to do with religion. They are modern grown-ups except that they don’t publicly acknowledge the fact.

This stunted development is, to Coon, an apparent consequence of the lack of respect accorded admitted humanists. Therefore, it follows that continued efforts to ensure the separation of religion and government and to protect the rights on nonbelievers will eventually overcome the pervasive bigotry against nontheists and ready society for a wave of outted humanists, walking out of their walk-ins, emerging in the splendor of the humanist garments once kept in a dim corner, behind an old scouting uniform and a pair of unworn cycling shorts purchased with the best of intentions.

Buttressing the wall separating religion and government is important, as is ending discrimination against atheists, which is too easily accepted by otherwise thoughtful and tolerant members of our society. But, is the failure of humanism to gain traction attributable to its negative associations, or to the failure of the humanist movement to define and promote it as a worldview distinct from a generic secularism or atheism? I suspect it is the latter. And, further, I suspect that continued focus on such issues as the rights of nontheists and the separation of religion and government tend to blur the distinction between humanist organizations and others with a similar focus.

More distressing than the notion that promoting tolerance for the non-religious is the magic elixir that will bring humanism to the fore is the last paragraph in Coon’s essay, in which he expresses the need for solid humanist role models.

Jimmy Carter’s speech in Cuba could have been written by a humanist, and if he weren’t a committed Christian maybe someone could get to him. I really don’t know where to look at this point, but somewhere, there must be quite a few individuals who are both humanists at heart and recognized role models for important sectors of our nation; we ought to seek them out and encourage them to go public.

So, the best example of a humanist is a man as well known for his devout Christian faith as for his many good deeds. This is absurd. In framing the issue this way, “humanist” is relegated to service as an adjective as easily applied to liberal people of faith as to progressive atheists. It is a big tent, indeed, that such thoughts erect, but one that renders the idea of organized humanism or a distinctly humanist worldview irrelevant.

As has been routinely noted here and elsewhere, secular humanists share many (perhaps most) of their values with liberal adherents of various religious faiths, and with those who hold an essentially deistic view of the universe. Focusing on our commonalities is healthy and productive (the overlap of our magisteria, as it were, is substantial). But, unless humanist identity has a more precise meaning - as in “progressive atheism” or “ethical atheism” - its utility is lost.

Either we need some new thinking, or a new label. Not long ago, humanists bemoaned the frequency with which adjectival modifiers were attached to the label, as in “secular humanist” or “religious humanist” or “Jewish humanist.” Perhaps the march of modernity has relegated the word “humanist” itself to the status of modifier.

More on humanist / atheist identity in an upcoming post.

For those seeking a secular alternative to the Pagan-influenced holiday called Christmas, or who think the winter solstice comes just a few days too early, or who are looking for an alternative to Saturnalia without all of that Greco-Roman mythological baggage, there is Human Light, celebrated on (or, apparently, about) 23 December.

In Western societies, late December is a season of good cheer and a time for gatherings of friends and families. During the winter holiday season, where the word “holiday” has taken on a more secular meaning, many events are observed. This tradition of celebrations, however, is grounded in supernatural religious beliefs that many people in modern society cannot accept. HumanLight presents an alternative reason to celebrate: a Humanist’s vision of a good future. It is a future in which all people can identify with each other, behave with the highest moral standards, and work together toward a happy, just and peaceful world.

Seneca the Younger could not have said it better (although taking “a better supper and throwing off the toga” is an invitation more enticing than any I’ve received to a humanist or atheist event).

In its Atoms and Eden section, Salon has published The Atheist Delusion, in which the theologian John Haught plumbs the depths of his ignorance to explain why science and God are not at odds and why Richard Dawkins and the “new atheists” lead lives bereft of meaning and hope, naively shun a fool’s paradise and fail to appreciate the value of maintaining faith in imaginary deities. This article is laid waste at Black Sun Journal in a post entitled “John Haught’s Cliche-ridden Caricature of Atheism.”

The more things change, the more they stay the same. Theology cannot survive without attacking science. Theology cannot survive without fabrication, equivocation, and appealing to a fundamentally sentimental anthropomorphization of God and the universe. How it would (the thought is delicious!) terrify Haught if he were to realize that his God exists not only in the form of man, but is also a product of him.

Yet another debate rages between those in the freethought movement who favor either tolerance or resistance. In this case, the discussion centers on the softer, tolerant approach taken by Hemant Mehta and a group of his commenters at Friendly Atheist and the more direct, actively resistant approach promoted by Brian Sapient at Rational Response Squad here and here). As I mentioned in a previous post on this subject:

Balancing resistance and tolerance is not easy. Too much tolerance – to the point of being softheaded – endangers important civil liberties. Too much resistance – to the point of militancy – places a wedge between nontheists and liberal religious observers, deists, and others who are sympathetic to the humanist worldview but shun the label, and foments attacks by those who most fervently disagree with, or are most threatened by, a secular, rational outlook. A proper balance between resistance and tolerance will foster a robust defense against the intrusion of religious ideology into our society.

While tending to err on the side of tolerance, I must admit that Sapient is on target when he discusses the relative failure of the humanist movement, which holds tenaciously to its model of inoffensive, positive engagement, and has yet to find an effective voice or any substantial traction in the new media.

For a comparison as to how “passive atheism” doesn’t attract people like “aggressive atheism” does look towards the Humanist Vision challenge. A project that we were happy to support and put an equal amount of effort in to as compared to our Blasphemy Challenge. A project that I’d consider a failure in comparison and I know the reasons why, do you? Humanist vision: 6 responses . Blasphemy Challenge 1,444 responses, and there were about another 700 that have been removed for a multitude of reasons that are not relevant to the current discussion.

The limits of our tolerance of religious intrusion into all spheres of public life are nicely discussed at Atheist Revolution.

Given the massive influence religion has on politics and the degree to which it repeatedly leads politicians to make horribly destructive decisions (e.g., denying global warming, preventing stem cell research, launching preemptive wars to fulfill end-times prophecy, etc.), I simply do not have the luxury of ignoring it. Given the frequent intrusions by believers into my personal domain, I have little opportunity to ignore it. Instead, I must work to defend reason and oppose religious extremism.

In his typically eloquent yet acerbic fashion, Christopher Hitchens, writing in Slate, makes the useful distinction between unconstitutional religious tests as a prerequisite for holding public office and consideration of a candidate’s religious views.

Isn’t it amazing how self-pitying and self-aggrandizing the religious freaks in this country are? It’s not enough that they can make straight-faced professions of “faith” at election times and impose their language on everything from the Pledge of Allegiance to the currency. It’s not enough that they can claim tax exemption and even subsidy for anything “faith-based.” It’s that when they are even slightly criticized for their absurd opinions, they can squeal as if being martyred and act as if they are truly being persecuted.

At Framing Science, Matthew Nisbet has posted a Call for Scientists to Join with Religious Leaders in working productively to address global climate change.

Following the lead of older avant-garde communicators such as Carl Sagan, Neil deGrasse Tyson and EO Wilson, Donner is one of many among a new generation of scientists who recognize that a paradigm shift is needed for engaging the public. Part of this new paradigm involves collaboration with religious leaders in framing shared common values rather than engaging in a campaign of attacks and insults.

Clearly, nontheists must be willing to build coalitions with religious groups on issues of common concern. This has been done in the past, to positive effect, in such areas as civil rights, reproductive freedom, and even in supporting the separation of religion and government. If we are to foster progressive change, freethinkers can’t afford to act like a single-interest group; we must place greater emphasis on results than on doctrinal purity.

The structure the atheists placed in the park features on two sides a dramatic image of the sun shining between the twin towers of the World Trade Center, framed by the words “Imagine No Religion.” The image of the towers is meant to convey that without religion the towers would still be standing, said Dennis P. Himes, a Vernon resident and coordinator for Connecticut Valley Atheists. On the third side, facing the town hall, is information about the winter solstice.

This particular graphic is also promoted at RichardDawkins.net, and is presented as a clever commentary on the perils of religious belief. The imagery is certainly dramatic and thought-provoking, but is this simply another case of throwing the baby Jesus out with the baptismal bathwater?

The argument that society would be better off without religion is one that is viscerally satisfying to atheists. But it is a mistake to rely on a straw man argument to suggest that religious belief is inherently evil (or at least moreso than would be a universal secularism). This fallacy is nicely debunked at Atheist Ethicist, where Alonzo Fyfe fantasizes about the concilatory and explanatory speech that might allow this pitiful demonstration to have a more substantive effect on public discourse about the role of religion and government. This proposed speech reads, in part:

When given an opportunity to put up a holiday display in front of town hall, we decided to put up a sign that showed the World Trade Center towers as they were before 9/11, with the words: “Imagine: No Religion.” That sign was an insult to anybody who accepts some religion, but who would never participate in or condone an act such as 9/11. We were wrong to put up that message, and we apologize for doing so.

Two wrongs do not make a right. We are forced to endure a barrage of writers and speakers who hold up Stalin and Mao Tse Tung and say, in effect, “Imagine: No Atheism.” As if we are somehow personally responsible for crimes committed by other atheists. Crimes we did not commit and do not condone.

That makes us angry. We were not there. We had nothing to do with those events. Yet, we are being held accountable for them.

In a previous post on this subject, Fyfe noted:

My criticism of this sign is not that it is unkind. My criticism is that the claim it makes is untrue - that the inference it draws is sophistry motivated by a desire to condemn the innocent. It also portrays and promotes a set of values that I think we would be better off inhibiting rather than encouraging - the claim that we should value a good sound byte, a verbal jab aiming to inflict pain, over truth and reason. I think that the world has suffered enough from that type of attitude.

Did religion (or the exploitation of religious fervor) enable the tragic events of 9/11? Almost certainly. But to assert that, in essence, to rid the world of religion would make us automatically safer is to strain credulity.

I think the broader campaigns have a much better chance at being successful and should be supported by those under that umbrella. Why dice it up and risk alienating those in the vicinity of your camp?

The problem with coming out as an atheist, though, is that it is uninformative - expressing the rejection of theistic belief tells nothing of one’s values. Declaring oneself a humanist, at least, provides a bit more specificity, and the atheism becomes incidental to a worldview of which nontheism is but one (albeit central) part.

I’m not one to encourage division among the ranks of freethinkers, and I certainly don’t think we’ve reached the size where we can afford the luxury of a schism, but promoting humanist identity seems  a worthwhile goal. The trick will be to distinguish humanism from atheism in the minds of the general public, which largely views the terms as synonymous. For that reason,  I hope that humanists will explain their worldview as “progressive atheism” so that it is clear that, yes, humanists are atheists, but that humanists have a distinct worldview that is not universally shared among all those who have rejected supernaturalism.

Bountiful immediate rewards of consumptive lifestyles can easily override distant adverse effects, especially if slowly cumulative. Many of those effects are often unanticipated and, to make matters worse, some are irreversible. The incentive systems of business organisations are strongly oriented toward practices that bring profits in the short term. Intense competition for natural resources and a good share of the market in the global marketplace create further pressure to do whatever is needed to succeed. To ensure their political survival, politicians cater to parochial interests and lobby for local projects that are not always environmentally friendly. The media tend to focus on crises of the day rather than on policy initiatives designed to avert future trouble.

This issue is exacerbated by deliberate attempts to divert the public’s attention. Characterizing environmental activists and regulatory authorities as having questionable motives, as being somehow opposed to personal liberty and the entrepreneurial spirit, or as creating pretexts for a renewed colonialism, rationalize harmful practices. In some instances, collectively detrimental practices are made to seem righteous, as in when developing nations seek exemption from environmental standards due to the comparatively high contribution of wealthy nations, while wealthy nations resisted any agreement that would place them at a competitive disadvantage. Moral self-sanctions are also reduced by cloaking harmful activities in the type of Orwellian doublespeak that gave rise to the Bush administrations “Clear Skies” and “Healthy Forests” initiatives. And scientists are disparaged as a self-appointed elite prone to tantrums when not given their due.

A major focus of Bandura’s paper was on the short shrift given the issue of over-population.

Social, economic, political, and religious justifications are offered for the seemingly paradoxical practice of raising birthrates in the midst of an escalating global population that already exceeds the planet’s carrying capacity.

However, in some quarters and media accounts, which thrive on controversy, the emerging alarm over the rise in heat-trapping emissions is peculiarly disembodied from the growing multitude of consumers as a problem requiring attention. More people consuming more resources, produce more environmental damage, and generate more greenhouse gas emissions. This relation underscores the influential role played by population growth in climate change.

This looming Malthusian crisis is largely ignored as a contributing factor to global climate change and environmental degradation, even though “to construe ecological woes as due to consumption and dismiss the number of consumers as of minor consequence overtaxes credibility.” Political pressures on both the left and right contribute to this situation, where the root cause of our looming environmental catastrophe is patently ignored. Conservative religious opposition to family planning (e.g. contraception, sex education, and abortion), and fear of being adjudged guilty by association with otherwise liberal environmental activists largely removes the right from the debate, while the specter of immigration control and concomitant accusations of racism render the issue too hot for organizations on the political left.

If we are to preserve a habitable planet it will not be by token gestures and schemes for buying one’s way out of wasteful and polluting practices. Rather, it will be by major lifestyle changes with commitment to shared values linked to incentive systems that make environmentally responsible behaviour normative and personally worthy. A sustainable future is not achievable while disregarding the key contributors to ecological degradation – population growth and high consumptive lifestyles.

The full-text of Bandura’s paper (in PDF format) is available here. A Science Daily story on this paper is available here. Well worth reading. The ravenous bugblatter beast is afoot.

A tip of the hat to The Situationist for bringing this to light.

My interest in this topic was reignited by a recent post at Daylight Atheism, which argued that a nascent secular community had already begun to grow, as evidenced by the existence of local atheist and humanist groups, secular organizations focused on service and education (such as Camp Quest and the Carl Sagan Academy), books on nonreligious parenting, and well-attended freethought conferences. This subject received additional attention in a recent Time magazine story titled “Sunday School for Atheists,” describing classes conducted by the Humanist Community of Palo Alto. Still more examples of successful humanistic communities are to be found in Ethical Culture, Unitarian Universalism, Humanistic Judaism, although these quasi-religious organizations may be uncomfortably similar to conventional churches for some nontheists.

While such progress is evident, so too is the fact that we live in a society where mega-churches are ubiquitous while freethought groups are a barely recognized presence, and brick-and-mortar secular community centers are rare, indeed. The reasons for this seeming failure to establish flourishing secular communities, despite the significant minority of American sympathetic to our worldview, are manifold.

First, conventional atheist and humanist groups tend to have a limited self-perception and a myopic vision for the future. Many local groups gather infrequently, lack diversity, and focus on intellectual discussion, criticism of religion, and political activism. While these are all good and valuable activities, their community-building utility is limited (witness any of the several hundred local gatherings in library meeting rooms, coffee shops and homes, frequented by highly educated, older, and predominantly white men, and seldom drawing more than a few dozen attendees). Little effort is made to more fully engage their members and guests on a social level, to appeal to students and families, or to reach out by engaging in charitable or service projects.

Second, although online communities (in various discussion forums, the blogosphere, social networking sites, and even in the virtual world of Second Life) are another outlet for forging secular communities and are inherently valuable to their participants, these lack the richness and human contact of a truly robust local community. Notably, though, these virtual groups are far better at reaching out to diverse members, with less stratification by age, gender, geography and education than is seen in many real-life groups, although, again, these tend to focus on discussion and debate or criticism of religious dogma.

Third, there exist many secular special interest groups, including scientific and technical societies, music and art foundations, museums, book clubs, sewing circles, etc. Although these afford opportunities for forming social relationships with other secularists, such organizations are clearly be unable to focus on a broad array of secular interests. And, an attempt to create a more broadly focused yet generically secular organization may result in one too amenable to arrogation by religious, new-age, or other non-humanistic elements.

Lastly, atheism is a poor basis for organizing communities, having as its only common denominator the rejection of theistic religion. Those secular communities that do manage to thrive in this relatively hostile cultural environment tend to focus on a positive, unifying philosophy. Humanism (aka progressive atheism) is such a philosophy, and offers enough distinct, positive guiding principles to provide the foundation for a viable community. Rather than existing to support an atheistic worldview, a successful center would merely be compatible with it (in the same way that humanism is consistent with, but not synonymous with, atheism).

Therefore, I would like to venture onto what is undoubtedly well-trodden ground and propose that serious consideration be given to developing a network of true humanist communities across the nation. Once seeded with enthusiastic supporters and an adequate treasury, these could be allowed to develop organically and independently, so that the best practices can be shared, and an optimal humanist community model evolved.

Some attributes of a successful community-building endeavor might include:

• Strategic Plan: A well-articulated strategic plan setting forth a clear vision of what a successful community would look like and a plan to realize that vision is an essential component in building a humanist community, especially if the enterprise is intended to operate on a scale not customarily seen in local humanist groups. As part of the vision-setting process, organizers would set forth the mission and bylaws of the organization, which should serve to ensure a focus that is consistent with humanist ideals.
• Marketing: An appropriate branding and marketing strategy is essential to building recognition, ensuring visibility, and conveying an appropriate image to the public. This would include a comprehensive and well-integrated internet presence.
• Facility: A building could serve as a central meeting place for existing atheist, humanist, or skeptical groups, as a venue for special events and social gatherings, as an educational facility, and as a statement in the greater community that we exist and are here to stay. The thought of raising funds for a building may seem a daunting task, but one need only look in their own neighborhood to see the frequency with which this feat is accomplished by religious sects large and small.
• Curriculum: To attract a diverse range of members, including families and students, it is important to offer the type of ethical training for which people often look to churches, and to provide age-appropriate training in critical thinking, logic, history, sociology and philosophy.
• Programs: Because not all humanists are interested in lectures, it is important to offer a variety of programs spanning interests that include the humanities, arts, and science, as well as more conventional lectures and discussions on topics philosophical and political.
• Outreach: Charitable and service projects provide members an opportunity to demonstrate the positive aspects of humanism through deed rather than thought, and play a significant role in improving public perceptions of atheists and humanists.
• Social: While many people have other outlets for social interaction, some will welcome the opportunity to form new friendships, and to develop meaningful new modes of seasonal and lifecycle celebration. Informal networks, discussion groups, and special interest groups and outings can all be readily facilitated, and will encourage stronger ties among community members.
• Celebrations: To offer a complete array of services, each community should have a relationship with a certified secular celebrant or officiant who is able to preside at weddings, naming ceremonies, funerals, and other lifecycle events. Ideally, this individual could serve as an ethical leader to the community, as an ambassador to the local community, and as the coordinator for secular holiday celebrations.

Although the prime motivation for forming new secular communities is to provide a mechanism to bring together those already acknowledged as atheists, humanists, freethinkers, brights, or skeptics, if this can be done in a way that is unthreatening to those harboring religious attachment, members of liberal religious congregations might be enticed to join. In this way, and by providing a means to organize and increase the visibility of the freethought community, this project would be synergistic with other aspects of the freethought movement.

Many social theorists (e.g., Wallace 1966) doubted that modernity could combine religious traditions with the overpowering impersonal features of our time: scientific research, humanistic education, high-technology multinational capitalism, bureaucratic organizational life, and so on. Reacting on the basis of a functional definition of religion, religion appeared to these theorists denuded of almost all the functions it had previously appeared to perform. In this view, religion harked back to some prior level of human evolution and was now uselessly appended to the modern cultural repertoire.

That secularization has not swept religious fundamentalism out of American society is both disappointing and puzzling, and has given rise to no small amount of hand-wringing, tooth-gnashing and navel-gazing.

Some contemporary views of secularization hold that if only we could overcome early-life religious indoctrination, nontheism would prevail (or at least grow in acceptance and prominence). Some, like Richard Dawkins, are persuaded that encouraging children to believe in patently false ideas or to accept the possibility of eternal damnation for comparatively trivial breaches of archaic tribal law, is a form of child abuse, and that it would be far preferable to permit children to defer religious identification until later in life. But a solid educational grounding in science may be inadequate to overcome pervasive religiosity in adulthood.

Prompted by the recent publication of an international assessment of science competency among students in 40 countries, the British Humanist Association has posted a sort of meta-analysis correlating science education and the frequency of prayer. The ostensible goal of this exercise was to determine whether there was evidence that science education could inoculate against religious belief. Sadly, it did not.

On the basis of this evidence, at least, it seems that science education has no direct effect on the intensity of religious belief.

Although science education may be insufficient to influence religious behavior, so too is early religious socialization. A small longitudinal study published in the Journal of Personality found that adolescent personality appears to shape late-life religiousness, independent of early religious socialization.

Although neither the BHA analysis nor the personality study can be considered definitive, such data tends to suggest that, like personality, religious tendencies have a basis in culture, environment, situation and genetics. Overcoming the pervasive influence of irrationality, faith and fundamentalism is unlikely to be accomplished by a singular focus on science education, nor is its demise likely to be hastened by the preponderance of eloquent anti-religious diatribes now lining bookstore shelves. Instead, we might do well to develop comprehensive strategies that will increase the likelihood of continued societal evolution toward a more humanistic model.

Given the many urgent scientific and technological challenges facing America and the rest of the world, the increasing need for accurate scientific information in political decision making, and the vital role scientific innovation plays in spurring economic growth and competitiveness, we call for a public debate in which the U.S. presidential candidates share their views on the issues of The Environment, Health and Medicine, and Science and Technology Policy.

Science Debate 2008 is a grassroots initiative spearheaded by a growing number of scientists and other concerned citizens. The signatories to our “Call for a Presidential Debate on Science & Technology” include Nobel laureates and other leading scientists, presidents of universities, congresspersons of both major political parties, business leaders, religious leaders, former presidential science advisors, the editors of America’s major science journals, writers, and the current and several past presidents of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, among many others.

It may be wishful thinking, but how cool would it be if we could witness some intelligent discourse on these critical issues instead of mindless babbling about whether or not Mormonism is Christian, and whether Jesus and Satan shared common parentage.