Roger, you rascal! Isn't 1701 flaming speeches on the last one enough?

Well... I was going to watch a movie.

Hint, tho': "new agers" got the vote out for Obama in a big way.

Hear, hear,

Well said sir.

Well said indeed!

Equally important as the beliefs that would disqualify candidates are the ones that would qualify them.

For example what kind of beliefs on abortion, euthanesia, capital punishment,suicide, murder, and war do you think important people should have and what kind of logic would be helpful to settle these questions?

I rarely hear anyone share that they were a toilet cleaner in a previous lifetime...

---Well, I've been a toilet cleaner in this one, more than once. It's not that memorable a job. Who can remember cleaning a toilet 200 years ago? I don't even remember pooping a month ago. I have faith that I did.

And if a candidate counts among close friends and advisors anyone in communication with the spirit world, that person should not be elected President.

---Like Abe Lincoln, for instance. Wife Mary Todd held seances in the White House all the time, and Abe spent a lot of time jawing with his cabinet about what his dreams meant. None of them could figure out the one where he dreamed "the President has died," but you're right, this spooky stuff doesn't belong in the White House.

---Not even in the Reagan White House. Now, it's hard to say who's fibbing, but Nancy apparently did consult astrologer-psychic-spirit-guide-type Sylvia Browne all the time, and Ronnie took it all into grand consideration when he was awake and charged with world affairs. They also used Sylvia at the Pentagon for the "remote viewing" program.

---And it's hard to say how seriously the Kennedy White House -- or the rest of them -- took astrologer Jean Dixon, but she sure hung out there a bunch, waiting for JFK to get killed.

---Never mind Hitler's astrologer, tho' I think Himmler took more stock in that guy. After while somebody killed him.

---Did I tell you the one about where Hindu god-man Avatar Meher Baba delayed D-Day or something by not letting his cat out for two nights in a row? Finally, on the third night, he let it out, the British fleet managed to get out, and boy howdy did they give those Nazis hell.

---Oh! Oh! Oh! For god's sakes, the worst one of all. This isn't a whimsically true story. That insane megalomaniac Sun Myung Moon practically owns the Bush family... had himself CROWNED in a Senate ceremony a couple years back. People need to read Robert Parry, more often, and a LOT.

http://www.consortiumnews.com/2009/061609b.html

Never mind weejee boards and table-tapping and dinosaur kiddie rides, Moon says he is GOD, for chrissakes. The frigging Bush boys have been on his payroll for years.

Ebert: I have finally logged in here after 12 hours offline.

My Mac seized up. Undetermined causes.

Geniuses at Genius Bar gave me a newer one, faster, more memory. Thank God for the Apple Core Protection program. No questions, no fuss, no muss.

Still dealing with restoring back-up files: 671,000, more or less.

I see there are 222 comments here.

I don't have time to add my usual comments, but will upload a bunch of them to get the conversation rolling. What a day.

I read a little bit about the Scottish Enlightenment recently, and before that, Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance. While figures in the Scottish Enlightenment (such as David Hume) tried to separate morality from religion, a section in Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance makes the point that reason began when Greek thinkers rejected finding meaning in the actions of the gods, and instead looked for meaning here on earth. So, if we're going back to believing in superstition and a theocratic view of the world, we're basically undoing everything that has been done since Greece was the most powerful country in the land. And if, by consequence, we undo the results of the Scottish Enlightenment, which greatly influenced the Founding Fathers, then aren't we also undoing our country by destroying the idea at its foundation, which is reason?

Hi Indian HW,

I haven't seen you for a while. I was becoming concerned. Glad to see you back. I'm developing a very promising new web site that I will give you the details about when you email me at
donaldroymiller@netzero.com

Great comment. Except for two things. First of all, What the heck is "Darwinism?"

There is no such thing. Modern evolutionary theory, while based on Darwinian tenets, is much more detailed (one might say, evolved). Aside from hinging on a considerably vaster basin of evidence, it also has on its side something Darwin never heard of: DNA.

The concept of "Darwinism" is a creationist myth. What we have is simply scientific evidence.

Secondly, since when is creationism science? There is absolutely no scientific evidence to support it. More importantly, there cannot be any scientific evidence to support it, by definition. Creationism draws a conclusion based on the complexity of life ("The DNA molecule is irreducibly complex, ergo, god must have created it.") There is no scientific way to prove this. There is no lab experiment or fossil or DNA sequence that would constitute evidence for divine intervention.

That's why creationists (or IDers) don't even bother with scientific experiments.

So please, let's not call it science. Otherwise we might be tempted to call science what "The Onion" calls "the theory of Intelligent Falling" (whereby objects fall not because of gravity but because god wants them to).

And that would be the beginning of the end of civilization as we know it.

AD
Ebert: Drwinism is used as shorthand.N

That's it, my Field Museum membership is not enough as now my wife and I must take a trip to the creationist museum in Kentucky. I have yet to actually ride a dinosaur at a museum but will admit that it looks to be much more hands on than anything the Evolving Planet-one of Chicago's finest museum exhibits ever-has to offer!

Roger for Governor!

I wonder sometimes if they really believe that the truth is up for debate.

Sometime ago this past year, I read about the importance of science in modern common knowledge and how the US is severely lacking in it. Jon D. Miller, the main man of the NYT article, comments that it is a necessity to have a fundamental understanding of basic scientific facts, especially considering how the world is driven by progressive scientific endeavors.

That said, I completely agree with your opinion: Creationist and New Age supporters who refuse to engage in scientific discussion (or acknowledge fact even) should not be elected president. Like it or not, science is a core to modern economics; from biotechnology to pharmaceuticals to cosmetics, science propels so much of the world's economy today that to simply ignore is ignorant and stupid, especially for any politician of high rank.

Given how the US is still considered a front runner in world economics, US elected presidents should (in theory) be able to maintain economic status, which involves having a fundamental understanding and acknowledgment of scientific development. Like it or not, politicians must understand that science is a major driving force in the world today, and the only way to keep their represented countries afloat in economics and politics is to deal with this fact as objectively as possible.

Regarding Darwin and his critics, here's an interesting little blog by a friend of mine who is an evolutionary biologist pursuing her postdoc at University of Michigan right now. You might find it interesting especially in regards to how so many Creationist have used the incompleteness of the dinosaur fossils to fuel their argument. It may also explain why it's currently so difficult to completely refute these critics due to the constraints of hierarchical academia.

Hello Mr. Ebert,

I am shocked that you would classify such an insightful text as the I Ching with superstitious new age belief. First of all, the I Ching is ancient there is nothing "new" about it.

Second, Lao Tzu was not spreading superstion with the I Ching. He was using eloquent paradoxes to explore the mysteries of existence. I call that philosophy not superstition.

The I Ching is integral to Mahayanna Buddhism, Zen, Theravada and Taoism. All are ancient and insightful philosophies which have greatly contributed civilization.

It is late, and I am tired. I will not continue this arguement, but I would reccomend you remove the I Ching from your list of frivolous "New Age Beliefs".

Ebert: I have the hardbound book and the ancient coins, and throw them myself. But like Jung I consider it less a source of truth than a device to free my own thoughts. Apart from that, it's a whole lot of nice Thoughts for the Day, and finding a nice one is easy as shooting fish in a barrel.

Excellent article and it makes a point that others quite often miss. Belief in superstitious nonsense is quite common and not always cause for concern among politicians. How many of us, on a daily basis, rely on some embedded superstition to make a decision? Something as simple as saying, "I don't want to talk about that because it might not happen then." is common and accepted as normal.

I always wondered about Nancy Reagan’s reported reliance on astrology. Did her beliefs or advice have any bearing on her husband’s decisions as President? How many US Presidents actually spoke of superstition in a speech or address to the nation? Obviously when they reference God they are supporting one type of superstition and every President I can remember has done at least that. How many have said something about ladders, black cats, tarot cards, or used some expression based on superstition such as, "Everything comes in threes."

Small things that no one notices are indicators of the huge impact these beliefs have on everyone. Just think of all of the buildings without a 13th floor.

Thanks for the great article,
Calabogie

It is very discouraging to me that you are targeting what people believe as a factor for being president or not. The belief I am talking about is the spiritual. I'm a libertarian and a constitutionalist believing in the 1st amendment of freedom of religion and letting people believe in what they want to believe. The push for one religious identity over another is unconstitutional because it violates the 1st amendment. The use of government/taxpayer funds to promote certain beliefs is not acceptable. However it is very unethical to take someone else's belief and use it as a tool to discredit another person. I don't like Sarah Palin but its very inappropriate and dumb witted to base qualifications on what they believe. This is America where we can believe in whatever we want without using government to force us to believe in that. That is the foundation of America; religious freedom. It started with the Pilgrims fleeing the tyranny of the English because of their beliefs. The same applied to Quakers, the Amish, and other groups. This elitist attitude is a divide and conqueror technique to pin our countrymen over each other because of what they spiritually believe. As a religious skeptic I have my own opinions on organized religion and the concept of God but I don't go around saying that my viewpoint is any better than another person. It is fundamental that for ourselves to be united that we must be united in support for everyone to live and let be lived. I did not expect this from you Roger but you are entitled your own opinion and I am entitled to mine through this response as a healthy debate.

Are the tenets of any mainstream religion much better? A man in the sky judging our every action, maybe he intervenes, maybe he doesn't. Maybe you believe that he sent his son to Earth and allowed him to be killed and then resurrected him....I say no one who believes in any religion should be President.

A Jack Chick stinger? Magnificent. Exceptionally well-played, sir.

I actually have a real live Chick Tract myself, slipped through my car window by some anonymous chucklehead while I was at work. The title is "Fatal Decision", a stirring epic about a hideous bucktoothed manchild and his Hillary-esque mother, and the doctor trying to save his life. Presumably it's a Christ metaphor (because with Chick, what isn't?), but I'm not sure it makes sense, indicating that Chick is obviously on a level well beyond me. I can say for sure that the evil tattooed Mexican janitor named Brutus is supposed to be Satan, which I think is at least a hat trick on the scale of offense.

Suffice to say, this little random comic is one of my most priceless treasures.

But a person who thinks it's alright to kill people just because they are not yet born is just fine with you.

Well said, but I cannot help wondering who is left to be president other than a bunch of smart skeptics who really don't want the job? :(

I don't know if you've seen this image... I found it during the primaries, when I wanted to seriously know what they thought would have happened if a T-Rex got in the way and ate Adam or Eve. I then googled "jesus dinosaur" and found this picture which has since become an internet sensation. I have no idea where it originated (as the link is not to the source) and I really hope that this was seriously in some coloring book given to children.

Enjoy.

http://www.doobybrain.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/06/jesus-dinosaur.jpg

If you do a google image search now for "Jesus dinosaur" there are several different images people have put up.

Ebert: I was going to go with with it on the blog, but an alarm went off. The way the colors are named suggests it's a satire.

Religion, in all its forms, is pure and simple delusional nonsense, as are astrology, fortune-telling, tarot-reading, reflexology, and the belief that the universe is ruled by two gigantic invisible green dragons named Prunella and Stanley.

However, naming a few of the more tilted-gyroscope Republican politicians as shining examples of delusional thinking misses the point. The fight against irrationality should not be partisan, i.e., DEMOCRATS' irrational and delusional thinking should be repudiated, as well, in the spirit of intellectual honesty.

Republicans may deny the simple truth of Darwin, but Democrats deny the simple truth of Adam Smith. The theory of evolution is denied by one group, but the Law of Comparative Advantage (for example) is denied by the other.

Many Republicans believe in a religious ideology. Many Democrats believe in a secular ideology. Each contains the same amount of truth. We are now confronted with the ruling party's ideology, which ignores simple economics, human nature, sociology, and recently, second-grade mathematics. Republicans believe in a nonexistent God. Democrats believe in a nonfunctional system of government. Both sides are fools. Both sides are delusional.

It doesn't matter whether your God is Jehovah or Karl Marx---praying to either one is unlikely to accomplish anything. Yeeping about one side's irrationality while embracing YOUR side's irrationality is...disingenuous; intellectually dishonest. The Democrats have irrational economic beliefs that are EXACTLY as silly and misguided as Republican big-guy-in-the-sky beliefs. And on some level, they both know it.

Dear sir, I'm an ardent reader of your work, and appreciate your style.
That said, replacing ignorance with ignorance - NOT COOL; replacing ignorance with undue overconfidence - REALLY NOT COOL.
We don't need acceptance of each others' views here. We need tolerance.

I'm struck by the title ...A Superstitious Religion in Modern Times... If superstion is a belief in supernatural influences in life and nature, then isn't all religion simply a form of superstition?

As long as newspapers print horoscopes, I don't think the media will be of any help in criticizing spirit-talk.

Romney is an interesting character, but the key quote from his speech on religion given on Dec. 5, 2007 is frightening:

"Freedom requires religion just as religion requires freedom."

This is meaningless at best and a denial of the First Amendment at worst. The rest of the speech practically defines an American to be at least a theist. Contrast that with this speech from Obama.

Not to defend Intelligent Design being taught in science classrooms, where it clearly doesn't belong (though it would not be out of place in a college Theology class), but I've heard and seen children in English classes all across America being taught 'Twilight' as required reading.

Intelligent Design is closer to science than 'Twilight' is to Literature. I can't imagine a serious, enlightened conversation starting around that book. I can imagine an intelligent, though out, science based conversation starting from intelligent design. That doesn't justify its presence there, as I've found that intelligent conversation doesn't begin until the sophomore year of college for the average American.

However, it brings us to an interesting point. Socially, at what point did we decide that 'Twilight' was the standard for English. Think of the people who had to okay this. While teachers can create reading lists, kids can complain... and should, for being forced to read this.

There are so many great wonderful books out there to read. Why would you choose one so empty of substance?

If a film class showed Transformers 2 on the first day, I would walk out.

The disease of stupid is not just in science or politics, or limited to one branch of our schooling.

At least no one is trying to pass laws that pi = 3 anymore.

Although I think one might still be on the books in the midwest somewhere.

Ebert: All I can imagine is that the teachers have despaired of assigning students to read worthwhile nbooks, and are content merely that they are reading at all.

Wait a minute, communism forbids religion right? And since JFK was Catholic wouldn't that provide him with personal interest in preventing the spread of communism. You could tell in his speeches he saw communism as a monolithic threat during the cold war, even though China's communism was different from Russia's communism.

Ebert: Huh? Did only Catholics oppose communism during the Cold War?

I was really, really surprised when I realised (a few months ago) idiotic beliefs could be dangerous.
I don't remember the exact moment, but I got really scared for a few days.

Then, I realised that this was just the flipside of people being too busy to argue because they know they are right: the mew-agers/creationists/[fill in any type of people utterly convinced of something without too much proof] are just this type of people, horribly wrong.

only in America.

Yes: fundamentalist creationist nonsense is stupid and new age astrology nonsense is stupid.

No: your belief that these things are stupid does not make you smart. It also doesn't make for interesting writing.

And all of your little "if a candidate..." statements at the end of your piece are particularly boring and ufunny. Worse, your piece contributes to the belief that it's worthwhile for anyone to give a damn about what politicians think about these sorts of things. Obsessing over what some politician thinks of horoscopes and dinosaurs is a perfect way to distract yourself from thinking about issues that might actually matter.

Interestingly enough, I was watching a special on NatGeo about how in the distant past, there was more oxygen in the air, allowing for larger insects and the like at that time. The air channels in insects' bodies can only get so big before they crowd out room in the exoskeleton for actual internal organs. A higher oxygen content means those channels take longer to reach that maximum size, allowing for bigger bugs in the past.

It's rather sad to see some real science get recast into the Jack Chick fantasy up there. You've got to wonder about Noah spending all that time and space to save the dinosaurs, when the Lord would have to have known that the new world's atmosphere would just suffocate them.

So glad I got up early to post before Randy did!

Here's a question I've been struggling with:

Should a person who believes in the literal truth of the miracles attributed to Christ be President, then? I mean, actually, literally believes that:
A)Christ bodily ascended into the heavens?
B) Fed thousands by multiplying fish & loaves?
C) Removed the demons from people causing them to be cured from their fits?

We know now that:
A) Christ would have gone into outer space and would STILL not even have left our own galaxy, assuming he is traveling at the same speed as when he ascended.
B)Unless this is some kind of parlor trick (which seems unChristlike to me), this violates the laws of matter.
C) People acting like this are probably mentally ill or have epilepsy.

There are many more impossible things attributed to him that very few people bring up. Everybody just accepts these "miracles" even though they are as improbable as 6-day creation and crystal-healing.
There is ample evidence that Christ existed and that he set an example for all of us, but no rationalist can readily agree that the miracles happened as written.

President Obama is very smart and well educated. I really doubt that he has never thought about these things. He identifies himself as a Christian and attends church regularly.
If we are going to be honest, shouldn't the MSM be asking our leaders about this, too?

Brilliant. Here in England we suffer blessed few Creationist types but the New-Agers are gathering apace. The kind of people who say, "I'm not religious, just spiritual" like that means anything. Even Prince Charles signs up to the blatant nonsense that is homoeopathy (not that he's ever been the most astute of people). There seems to have been an explosion in 'alternative' (i.e. untested/untestable) treatments. I would recommend the late John Diamond's book Snake Oil for a good exposé of this charlatanry. Worst of all are the TV psychics who prey on the vulnerable and bereaved.

That comic-strip is awesome in its stupidity. The way it comes up with a pseudo-scientific explanation for the dinosaurs' eventual extinction but deals with the logistical nightmare of the Ark with a simple "God did it". God even reached down and closed the door for them! (Admittedly it must have been a pretty big door to let an Argentinosaurus in.)

Bravo, Roger. Posting your article to my Facebook page for all to read. Still shocks me how often I hear someone say "Oh, he's definitely a Scorpio" or some such nonsense. At this point, there's almost no good response to statements like that.

Try this experiment though. When someone claims to have a belief in astrology, I ask them when they were born. If they say February, I tell them "Oh, Charles Manson was born in February!" and watch them explain it away with lines like "oh, yes, I can see that, to some extent..." and then I tell them that Mother Teresa was also born in February, to which they more eagerly accept that info.

Of course, afterwards when I tell them that I was lying and don't know when these people were born, they breathe a sigh of relief and say "oh, that makes much more sense...".

One more thing:
Sarah Palin doesn't frighten me as a potential national leader because she doesn't believe in evolution. (About 40% of Americans don't believe in eolution.) She frightens me because she writes sentences like this on her Twitter page:
"Much 2 b thankful 4 as Americans,most free people on earth!More opportunity 4 happiness/health/prosperity thx to our liberating Constitution"

My students pass notes to each other that are written better.

Well put, Mr. Ebert. As one who daily saw an atheist deal Tarot cards on the bus ride home, I've known the same contradictions you have. I was therefore pleased to read you point out the fallacies even the "unreligious" employ. Where conventional religion makes them gag, they find superstition that suits them better, ala horoscopes. I find this indicative of a human tendency (if not a need) to seek simple answers, special advantage, or simply comfort. Call it Christianity or Tarot, it fills similar holes in the psyche.

Relating to your claims Creationists and New Agers shouldn't be allowed to hold the Presidency, I would one day hope to hear you comment on the more extreme branches of atheism, who call for zero tolerance for religious thought of any kind. The rationale is supposedly based of religion being a major cause of irrational behavior in society. I personally understand where they're coming from, but I find their extreme stance as ironic and unsettling as New Age. I know you identify as neither atheist or agnostic, but I take from your article you attend the same parties. :)

For context, I was once a devout Conservative/Christian, with all the Creationist baggage those labels imply.

I am so excited by this blog post because I just sent it to my Atheist, Tarot AND Rune reading Wiccan BFF. What joy was mine!!!

Wonderful piece!

I have been reading this excellent blog for some time now and this is the first time that I have felt like commenting. I do not live in America so I hope this doesn't sound too much like a stranger cutting in on a private conversation.

You say that proponents of creationism claim it should be taught in school because it is science. But this is clearly wrong, the whole point of scientific methodology is to give a measure of veracity to findings and theories in a working environment where everything can and must be questioned. With that in mind you do not start an experiment with an end theory all fleshed out, you run the experiment, collect the data and then create a theory to try and explain the results.

Even if you did start with some expectation as to what results you will get according to some preconceived world view. When it doesn't coincide with what you observe, you have no choice but to change your theory, not try and rape the data to fit your ideal world view. When trying to explain the movement of light physicists thought at first that it moved like a wave, every test and experiment seemed to prove it wonderfully, until they observed the photoelectric effect. Try as they might they couldn't make the two fit so they had to abandon a theory that proved everything but this one small phenomena, it seems a shame but they had no choice in the matter.

The creationists take data that might help their cause, ignore data and evidence that contradicts their belief (belief mind you, not scientific theory) and absolutely flat out refuse to hear other ideas. This is not science, they know in advance what is right and the hell with every thing else.

As for the explosion of new age mumbo jumbo that seems to plague mankind nowadays, well I think it is because most people simply do not know or understand enough science. When I talk to my friends (smart people, graduate students) about evolution for instance the answers I get range from ignorant to absurd ramblings. People seem to believe things like (there is a guiding hand to evolution, evolution made a mistake making humans so smart and cruel because we ruin the planet but that it will fix this mistake over time, humans will become smarter and stronger over time via evolution and so on so forth).

Listening to this you would think the x-men was a biopic.

The more a person knows about biology, physics, chemistry, medicine and math the less likely he or she is to believe that the flow of Mars affects the spiritual rise of all those born in Jupiter's shadow (or some other nonsense that sounds like that). As all-ways the answer is in education.

And I thought I was an idealist. What have truth and reality to do with politics?

Sometimes I can't beleive you have the nads to put in writing the things you do ... it's why I like you so much! When my New Age friends tell me that they were great leaders and healers in their past lives I just laugh. Why is it that not a one of them was a really good garbage man when they were walking around Atlantis?

All the myth constructs passed down though the ages are necessary for those people who must see a light at the end of their tunnel. And yet almost everyone misses - or refuses to see - the simple fact that more people have been killed on this earth in the name of someone's imaginary friend than for all other reasons combined.

The greatest irony of all? As long as there are exclusionary religions and elected leaders who follow those beliefs, there can never be world peace. Regards, Joe

Hi Roger,

Brilliantly written article, as always. I differ a bit, as you might guess, but I always enjoy reading your well-argued articles.

Ebert: Still, Bush's beliefs did have an obvious influence on him in such science-related areas as stem cell research, global warming and conservation.

You're not still defending Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) this week as Climate-gate is exploding, are you? (Phil Jones, pick up the white phone).

How about if we don't elect a candidate who is wanting to do a socialist power grab in the name of AGW as president. Or send one to Copenhagen!

I think that I'll re-post my reply to Karl yesterday on the "Social Contract" thread, about our Intelligent Design discussion, here:

If having every one of your arguments examined, held up to the light, disassembled and finally, knocked down for almost a year on the various Darwin threads isn't going to enlighten you, then I suppose nothing will.

Yeah, I know. Let me recap:

- The science is settled.
- 150 years of evidence, data, and experimentation is incontrovertible and overwhelming.
- There is a decisive consensus among the vast majority of the credible scientists worldwide.
- All published peer-reviewed articles in credible journals support the conclusion.
- All thinking people understand this.
- The dissenters, a tiny inconsequential and vocal bunch of "deniers", all have a nefarious agenda that can reasonably be identified and discounted.
- The debate is over.

Did I get that right?

Coincidentally, I am identically describing both Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) and TTOETNS / Methodological Naturalism. Imagine that. If you dissent from AGW (as I do, at least the "A"), then you are a "global-warming denier". If you dissent from TTOETNS (as I have here for a year), then you are - as Dawkins has coined - a "history denier". Nice.

But wait! There's a problem:

- There are more dissenters than are acknowledged.
- The dissenters are intimidated, ridiculed, and if need be - expelled. Orthodoxy is policed.
- Peer review is rigged, with the dissenters purposefully excluded from publishing in the key journals
- the data, while substantial and important, has holes and chains of wishful speculations which are rationalized because, well - the "evidence is overwhelming" and we know the science is true.
Coincidentally, I am - again - identically describing both AGW and TTOETNS.

Now, if you've been paying attention to the news in the last three weeks, you are aware that the credibility of AGW is deeply imperiled. I would argue that the theory is collapsing. The "inside baseball" of the AGW gate-keepers has been exposed through a release of their emails to each other. What do we see, at first glance, in those emails?

- Data fudging ("adjusted and homogenized")
- intimidation and ridicule of dissenters. In one instance, an effort to fire a journal editor who allowed a "denier" article to be published. (Richard Sternberg ring a bell here, anyone?)
- denial of inclusion of articles from dissenters in the UN report on AGW
- biased evaluation of data toward a conclusion. One emailer laments that it's inexcusable that they can't explain a cooling trend - inexcusable because they know AGW is right.

How deeply is AGW imperiled? The high priest of AGW - Phil Jones of EAU, has resigned. His co-religionist, Michael Mann of Penn State, is under investigation by his university. The bubble of AGW science is collapsing under the weight of exposure. The dissenters will have their day.

Given that, my friends here and on the Darwin threads, you need to re-examine your surety that the "science is settled" on evolution by natural selection.

The same hubris that infected AGW science is evident on Team Darwin as well. It is hubris that accounts for your guru Richard Dawkins, to simultaneously in his new book - his definitive case that evolution is true and settled - assert:

- the evidence is so overwhelming and the science so completely settled for natualistic evolution by natural selection, that to dissent is to be a "history-denier"

and make this statement:

"We don't know exactly what it looked like, but it follows from the evolutionary view that it definitely had to exist." Richard Dawkins, "The Greatest Show on Earth",

Sure. And we can't explain cooling trends for the last ten years, but we know from the AGW view that man-made global warming has to exist. Sure.

Hubris.

I, and my arguments, are not "knocked down". But, keep trying. :)

My Dear Mr. Ebert;

Clearly when it comes to belief systems politicians say whatever their constituency wants to hear. The odds that the valedictorian from Wellesley College and the editor of the Harvard Law Review are deeply religious are pretty slim yet both Clinton and Obama professed their faith during the last campaign. How much of that creationist clap trap did Yale educated Bush really believe? I say none of it. Sadly speaking the truth has very little to do with being an American politician.

From an avowed atheist: amen, Roger.

It is so refreshing to hear this coming from someone who is comfortable in his own beliefs. I wish more people could express themselves this way. I've never had a problem with faith or belief. Only when those people try to force their beliefs on others through laws and policies do I have a real problem.

After the media made a huge deal out of the Evangelicals being behind Bush's election, it seemed like all Christians became afraid to stand up and say, "Wait a minute, you people are nut jobs!" And by remaining quiet, the assumption was that ALL Christians are Creationists and Young Earthers. If only more would make it a point to say that it IS possible for a belief to be wrong.

New Agers are just as wrong, of course, and talking to either group about silly things like "facts" and "proof" and "science" will just result in a headache for you.

I don't know why our country is going backwards on this. Why it is that such a huge number of people will embrace someone as ignorant as Palin and applaud her wrongness.

I would love to see intelligence and reason win. But too many believers are forcing the false dichotomy that reason and religion are opposites.

THINK, people, don't just BELIEVE. If you believe in a god, s/he/it gave you a brain. Use it.

Roger, your logic is inconsistent. You say that a candidate has the right to "profess any faith, or none." And then single out New Age beliefs and Creationism as specifically unacceptable. So it's not okay for a candidate to consult oracles and New Age divination techniques for guidance, but talking to an invisible man in the sky in the form of prayer is okay? How are basing policies on Creationism or New Age beliefs any different from a candidate believing that destroying a microscopic cluster of undifferentiated cells is immoral because their faith's specific interpretation of an ancient text tells them so?

I think this is a great post, and I agree with your criticisms completely; however, I'm trying to understand why you didn't take them to what I, as a devout agnostic, see as their logical conclusion. Singling out two examples of empirically unsupportable beliefs as unacceptable for political candidates, while affirming their right to believe in entire memeplexes of empirically unsupportable beliefs, which will invariably shape their public policy decisions on important matters such as abortion and wars with religious fanaticism, is spurious logic at best. Please explain where you draw the line between what personal fantasies you find acceptable in people running for office and which fantasies you find too absurd.

I was fortunate enough to hear a lecture by and speak with the Brown biologist Ken Miller a few weeks ago, and I highly recommend his work to any who think Intelligent Design has any right to be taught in schools, public or otherwise. I cannot recommend enough the Nova documentary Judgment Day, which recounts the story of the infamous trial concerning the Dover, PA school board. It can be watched in full, legally, at http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/beta/evolution/intelligent-design-trial.html . Every argument for intelligent design is thoroughly and systematically routed.

Of course, Miller is also a devout Catholic.

Finally, I have been educated at Catholic schools since Kindergarten, and not once was anything other than the theory of evolution taught in biology classes. I did not even realize it was controversial until learning about the Scopes monkey trial in high school. I realize that most religious opposition to Darwinism does not stem from Catholicism, but perhaps there is something the Catholic Church can offer other faiths regarding faith and science.

Dark says:
'Hint, tho': "new agers" got the vote out for Obama in a big way'

Yep, indeed they did.

Perhaps the likes of Obama should go the UN route for religion too, since his logic is very suspect given his history with the likes of Rev Wright or his own father: 'Islam is a great religion!' and in so many words declared it equal to the USA'
The Muslims, for example are trying to make laws through the UN to make any disputes that offend religion BLASPHEMY. Right down the line in Obama's multicultural thinking.
Do it democratically; since stupid people abound, it's likely these morons will win -- just make it illegal to offend any stupid belief system. Argument over!
In some measure they've already done so in France--'ya can't say nothing bad about religion -- not just Islam ... any of 'em! No matter how asinine they are.

I agree with A.N.'s above comment that both religion and New Age beliefs are indicative of the human mind's intrinsic love of parsimony. I recently took a Bible as Literature course, and found met a fair share of twenty-somethings who had never before considered the spuriousness of such Bible stories as Noah's ark or Jonah and the Whale/Big Fish -- not because they had been raised as fundamentalists, but simple because they hadn't bothered to think about any of this stuff since they were five-year-olds in Sunday school.

I also experience a sort of mental whiplash whenever someone who appears on the outset to be perfectly sane/reasonable/intelligent casually mentions a belief in astrology. I feel tricked.

Excellent read, Roger - much here to think about. I find myself reading you to be challenged, not necessarily to be reinforced. The trip is always worth the time.

A book suggestion: Timothy Keller's "The Reason For God," if you haven't read it already. I think you would find it interesting.

Scott Collete's earlier post with a link to an image of Jesus riding a dinosaur is worth seeing. It is fine satire indeed and the ingenious work of illustrator/artist/writer Derek Chatwood. Keen readers will note that in an earlier thread on this very subject, Roger used another brilliant and humorous Chatwood image depicting Darwin and Jesus in a rumble. Chatwood's accompanying text is priceless:

Jesus Christ
Positives: Impressive stamina. Historically known for taking a beating, staying on his feet. Has history of miraculous resurrection.
Negatives: Invented Pacifism. Dangerous habit of turning the other cheek.

Charles Darwin
Positives: Invented Natural Selection. Understands what's at stake with "Survival of the Fittest".
Negatives: Theology student, nearly became an Anglican parson. Mixed feelings punching his Lord's Only Son and Savior in the face.

Catholics are not creationists. I learned about evolution in Catholic grade school. We passed around fossils. Catholicism has no problem with mainstream science. The Vatican has many scientists on its payroll.

Hello Roger . Theres a terrific book out there called " I am that " by Sri Nisargadatta. Was just wondering if you have ever read it and if so what was your opinion?

What's often the dividing line isn't so much a belief of a particular type, so much as it seems that if you're saying you're a member of a powerful organization, people think twice before being condescending, while if you believe in something that's perceived as weak or small, you're a target of derision.

Psychics make money, as do sellers of crystals and self-help books that help you help yourself, just like televangelists and megachurch owners. I imagine that demands some form of respect, especially when new age wares are peddled by famous talk show hosts, like the one you profiled recently in your column.

Christians were once hiding their faith, in fear of persecution, and they never really stopped, even when the majority holders of religions are some flavor of Christian, so there's a cornered defensiveness with many of them that I wonder hasn't been in play since Rome. Then, every Christian belief, by the reckoning of the time, was crazy, so there continues to be a "no, you don't get it, this is what I believe" style of proselytizing that I hope, some day, will finally give way to the living-by-example kind, even if that's a lot harder to pull off.

If you say you're atheist, or agnostic, or whatever else, the more specific you get in your beliefs, the less you fit into some tidy package that you can be judged by, and the more irritated people get with you. I know Christians who fall back on the general "Christian" monicker when they'd rather not bring up the particular angle they take on it, for fear of annoying people all over the map.

It's better to bow out of the belief discussion altogether unless you're willing to go into serious and respectful detail, but there are always the questions lingering in many people's minds: "what category do YOU fall into? What species of person are YOU?"

A comment about astrology.

The definition for which astrological sign you are born under is where the Sun is on that date. It is quite remarkable that the ancient Greek astronomers knew the sky so well, that on a given date, they knew exactly where in the celestial sphere the SUN was, though the glare of the Sun through the atmosphere made it impossible to see the background stars around the Sun.

Now, in the horoscopes that are in the newspaper, the dates are listed for each sign, indicating that the Sun is in those zodiacal constellations during those dates. Roger and I would then both be Gemini, since our birthdates (18th and 19th of June, respectively) fall between the dates May 21st to June 20th. And all of the other signs have similar lengths of times about a month.

Here’s the thing though: these dates are now all wrong. The Earth rotates once per day on its rotational axis. This rotational axis is tilted about 23.5 degrees away from the plane of its orbit. So, you can think of it like one of those neat string-wound gyroscopes one had as a kid, or even as a simple top. One of the things that spinning object do, with any kind of external force is acted upon them, is to precess. This means that the direction that their rotation axis points slowly moves around in a circle. This is true of the Earth, its rotation axis slowly moves about a circle. It still is tilted by 23.5 degrees relative to its orbital plane, but its axis points in a different direction. This is a steady motion that takes about 26,000 years to complete a circle.

Precession has a number of observational consequences. The most obvious is the placement of the pole star. Right now, the pole star is Polaris (The North Star), because our rotational axis point to Polaris. However, half-way through the next precession cycle it will be Vega, the brightest star of the Summer Triangle. The further consequence of this precession cycle is that the Sun makes a tour of the zodiac, so that every month corresponds to a different astrological sign every 1/12th of a precession cycle.

So, the main point I am trying to make is that since the dates given in the newspaper for when astrological signs are, are the same as when the ancient Greeks laid them out 2200years ago, this is about 1/12th of a precession cycle later. So, the Sun is NOT in the house of Gemini during May 21st to June 20th. The Sun is actually in the house of Cancer during those dates (more-or-less). So, all of modern ‘astrology’ is based on bad astronomy.

Now, I am not suggesting that we laugh and hoot and holler at those that believe in astrology, not only for its bunk insight into the human condition but also the ignorance with which the actual astronomical underpinnings are devised. I am merely suggesting that there are layers within layers that indicate astrology is for the simple-minded who think that astrology is like standing next to the stars.

Oh, and there are actually 13 constellations that lie along the zodiac (the path that the Sun makes through the celestial sphere over the course of the year). The 13th zodiacal constellation is called Orphiuchus, which lies between Scorpios and Sagittarius.

Yours in Astronomy,

Miles Blanton, PhD

Somebody said "Better the lies that exalt us, than a thousand truths." Doesn't seem to be in Wikiquote; Google Search reveals a majority for Alexander Pushkin with Anatole France also mentioned. But there you have it; somebody thinks so; and it may be that the truth in its starkness and insignificatizing is too much for most of us. The smokescreens of "faith-based" speculations may be necessary comforts, a tradeoff of mild insanity for the prevention of a greater.

Can we handle The Truth?

And where can I find an appropriate forum for thanking BeccaPiano for helping me with my own sanity, and for letting Anonymous know there are no hard feelings? (Sorry; off-topic; but it's been days and days . . .)

"New Age" or Aquarian religion is much older than Vietnam and the Beatles. The term is found in 19th century theosophy and other related movements and all throughout the early 20th century. As Wouter Hanegraaff has demonstrated, it is a secularized version of esoteric/occult religion that has periodically resurged again and again at important points in Western history. Its a misconception to see it as innately linked to the culture of the 1960's. It should also be noted that not all Creationists are Right-Wing, nor are "New Agers" associated with the political Left.

Unfortunately, Ebert assumes some sort of innate distinction between superstitious and non-superstitious forms of religion. Scholars of religion recognize this as a rhetorical tool--"superstition," like "myth" is just a term for someone else's religion that "we" happen to disagree with. Zach's post demonstrates this well. "We" have 'philosophy'--"They" have 'superstition.'

To put this in terms of Ebert's professional areas of judgment---we have "The Passion Of The Christ." They have "Clash Of The Titans" or "Black Orpheus."

Because of this, in the larger sense this column is merely political, not epistemological. It also, despite Ebert's claims to the contrary, directly challenges the explicit restriction in the U.S. Constitution against religious tests for public office. Ebert clearly understands the Constitution as a legal framework, which it is, but it is also a moral framework. For those of us who take the Constitution seriously as a moral document, the Constitution's prohibition against religious tests for public office is not merely a legal one.

I'd like to recommend a book to you -- Christopher Moore's "Lamb: The Gospel According to Biff, Christ's Childhood Pal."

It's irreverent and silly (and raunchy), yes, but it has an underlying seriousness that is what I consider to be the lasting impact of the book. In covering the years of Jesus's life that the Bible skips, it suggests how the tenets of Christianity came together by influence from many different sources (including more ancient Eastern religions). It certainly comments on the way the Bible, and Christianity at large, have come to be presented today. And it shows great respect for the idea of the Golden Rule -- which is a good plan, in my opinion, whether you're religious (any kind) or not.

I'm not a religious person at all, but appreciate the thoughtfulness, social commentary, and great humor of Moore's take on things with this story. It's one of my favorite books.

You seem to have reserved all your disdain for Republican politicians... but last time I checked, Obama is a fairly vocal Christian himself, and likes to sprinkle his speeches with Bible quotes. Christianity simply doesn't work unless you believe a supernatural God made humans in His own image, apart from the other animals, so how about pinning down Obama on his own superstitious foolishness?

What about wives of presidents? Nancy Reagan was famous for her belief in astrology. Then again, she also called herself an actress. I've seen Hellcats of the Navy. All I can say is *whew*!

I too, dream of a day when we can be certain that the future leaders of america will be nothing other than educated, priveledged and hell, since we're already assembling some bullshit fantasy checklist, why don't we go ahead and make them all white, anglo-saxon men too?

Think about what you're really saying here, the implication is that the american public should discriminate against a potential presidential candidate on nothing less than their personal religious beliefs. Personally, I'm less worried about a president who might check their horoscope while reading the morning paper than I am about one deciding to go to war with North Korea.

This kind of bigoted doomsaying is sickening and a man of your intelligence should be ashamed of himself for entertaining it.

People are free to believe whatever they want, BUT their personal beliefs should NOT be allowed to given a platform in politics.

When it comes to politics, we must use rational thinking and logic, not our emotions. Emotions can get in the way of thinking and often lead people to do irrational things.

I don't give a f--k if you believe in Jesus or Buddha, so don't tell me this nation is "under God." No, it's not. This nation is under THE CONSTITUTION and the Constitution clearly states the seperation of church and state.

For you right wing Christians, news flash-- I don't give a sh*t if you think a 12 week old baby has a soul, because this is my own goddamned body and I'll get an abortion if I need to. As my rational logic tells me, souls don't exist and you have no right to tell me otherwise.

You may find it interesting that, here in Canada, we have had a Prime Minister who was quite immersed in magic and spiritual superstition of a decidedly non-Christian sort. WIlliam Lyon Mackenzie King often consorted with his deceased mother and pets through a medium. Keep in mind that he was the longest-serving Prime Minister in our history.

Of course, all that happened long ago, when private life was much easier to keep under wraps. I can't imagine him being taken seriously today if such things were known about him.

Great post -- I agree. Believe what you want, but when you use it as a political lobbying tool and are that outspoken about it, it's obvious you're not going to keep these beliefs to yourself. It's clear that religion and state will meld....

"...being used to shoehorn it into public schools."

I don't get why ID is being forced into science classes. I believe in God, and am somewhat religous, but the lobbiers are being counter-productive. Keep it out of the science class, and put it in a philosophy class...I don't mean 10,000 year old creationism, but the idea of a creator under-pinning matter and the process of evolution itself...it's frustrating to see religous people unwilling to accept that their beliefs on God need to be in tune with reality and physical evidence (evolution), and instead discount said evidence. It's also trying to see the levels some will reach to convince themselves that the two absolutely cannot co-exist, thus writing off any talk of God, purposive animation of matter, or any metaphysics. Both camps hinder thought progress, and could use some philosophical brushing up.

Again-- I don't mean "co-exist" in a science class. Keep it scientific in there. And I don't mean "teach Biblical fundamentalism" in a philosophy class. Unfortunatly, U.S. public schools (and a surprising number of self-proclaimed intellectuals) probably won't ever give philosophy the level of prominance it deserves.

OT - I couldn't find a review of "Observe and Report." Jody Hill is a director to keep an eye on...

YouTube user AronRa a great 15 part video series explaining why Evolution is science and Creationism is not. As a whole it is as long as a 2 hour movie and should be shown in every classroom in the country:

http://www.youtube.com/user/AronRa#grid/user/126AFB53A6F002CC

It is in the specific cases of those with literal belief in the scientific truth and application of such beliefs that I raise a red flag.

Yes, yes, a thousand times yes. For the most part I have no quibble with New Age beliefs. (I don't count rolling my eyes as an actual quibble.) It often interests me to see how people apply symbolism and mythology to their daily lives, largely because I'm interested in symbolism and mythology in general. And I'm all for questioning authority. But when all of that combined leads to, say, opposing vaccines? I lose all my patience and benign interest.

In terms of electing politicians, and of the mainstream news outlets' coverage of politics and of science and of the areas where they overlap... that appears to be more complicated. So many politicians and news outlets seem to work so hard to appeal to the middle and to offend no one that nothing concrete ever really gets accomplished.

Me, I think maybe I'd be willing to vote for a Last Thursdayist as long as they were nevertheless willing to apply climatology to issues relating to the climate, molecular biology and the germ theory of disease to issues of communicable diseases, and so on. I dunno.

There is nothing wrong with religion. Personally, I would be lost without it. It's helped my moral being more than anything. There was a time when I was a teenager that was so horrible for me that I wouldn't be alive if it wasn't for this wonderful Christian therapist. No, I didn't learn anything scientific from her but she improved my way of thinking and my well-being. And, no, she didn't force her religion on me. She allowed me to find my own path. Of course, I did not believe everything she said, but I learned what I could from her.

One of the people who taught me the most about religion was a Hindu. As part of my Religion class in High School, we went to a Hindu Temple. I only heard her speak once and yet the things she said about religion are still with me to this day. One of these days I would love to find and thank her.

This is where religion belongs. It has improved my life so much. Is it the answer for everyone? Absolutely not. I just hope that people realize that religion has its place and has had a place since the beginning of man-kind and that there is no need to be hostile towards it. Everyone has their reasons for being religious or not religious. Often these reasons are so deep and personal that there is no real way to "prove" or "disprove" them. I couldn't make an atheist religious anymore than I could make a religious man an athiest, and neither should I try.

I don't think this is what you are implying, but some of the other posters have said it, and I want to say that barring a man from being President because he has some modicum of faith is wrong. Like an earlier poster said, Obama identifies as a Christian. Does that mean we should immediatly withdraw our support from him? Certainly not. A President shouldn't have to be athiest or unreligious. He simply must learn when is the time to put religion aside and concentrate on earthly matters.

Some people's zero-tolerance towards relgious thought disturbs me, because they are hostile to the one thing that has enriched my life like nothing else.

Creationism is bunk, though, and intelligent design is not a science. The comic you posted is kind of cute in an idiotic way.

Roger, I shouldn't just comment when I disagree with you.

I agree with you on New Agers. I would be hard pressed to vote for a vocal New Ager for president.

So, we agree there. :)

The real problem with the creationists is that they believe The Flintstones was a documentary.
They think Fred & Barney really worked at a gravel pit where they rode & controlled brontosauruses that scooped out rock. And had pterodactyls whose beaks were record player needles & on & on!

Good article Mr. Ebert - and a good observation. The same people that scoff at some of the baseless claims of fundamental adherents to Abrahamic religions have no qualms making decisions based on the pictures in a Tarot deck. Why is that, when they both have the same amount of evidence going for them?

I think recent generations have developed an affinity for "alternative" religion and spirituality in part as a rebellion against the often difficult values of their parents' belief systems. What's baffling to me is that it appears to be a free-for-all. If you need somethin' to believe in you can shape your belief around what fits your lifestyle, and discard of anything discomforting. There's absolutely no consideration of actual truth.

Some might say that the human need for spirituality confirms that we have an innate connection to something greater than ourselves. I suppose that's possible, but I don't understand how it justifies disposing of the need for evidence when formulating a belief system. I mean, sure, I'd love to think that when I die I'll awaken in the afterlife, king of a beautiful land where Bell's Two-Hearted Ale flows like water and all the movies are directed by Martin Scorsese. But how badly I or any number of people want something to be true has no bearing on whether or not it is (unless you are the kid from that Twilight Zone episode). Why is that something people seem so uncomfortable with?

"And if a candidate counts among close friends and advisors anyone in communication with the spirit world, that candidate should not be elected President."

I tried to read this sentence, both narrowly and figuratively, literally and figuratively, and what I think this means is anyone who has a pastor, priest, minister, rabbi, etc. as an advisor should be disqualified from serving in office since all traditional religions profess prayer to a higher power in a non-physical world. So, only an atheist, agnostic or person who believes in a higher power but does not pray has the intelligence to serve.

I am not going to say your opinion is offensive, Roger, as I am not offended. But I am troubled that you feel someone such as myself should be disqualified from service whereas my views on religion and the want to serve others (do as I would have done to me) compels me to public service. If I was a pure "social contract" follower, I could easily disgorge myself from the contract when I find others in violation of their performance under the contract. My Christianity instructs me that true service comes not from what is given to me by others. I serve because I have the capacity to love. Science has yet to provide me with an equation that can measure one human's capacity for this emotion.

Still love you, Roger.

It meant so much to me that you posted this this very morning.
I'm meeting with my chair from Andrews University this afternoon. He's a young-earth creationist. I asked him point-blank, "Don't you think there would be some evidence for that [meaning 6-day creation]?" He just told me he didn't know, and that his faith was sufficient. I should add that he teaches doctorate-level mathematics and voted for Obama. Creationism isn't confined to stupid people.

Here's what I say when I introduce natural selection:
"Every piece off evidence that has ever been discovered supports TTOETNS. No piece of evidence has ever been discovered that supports special creation."

It seems like that would be enough, doesn't it? It never is.
I read all the Jack Chick tracts compulsively, by the way. I recognized your slide as one of them from the first frame of the comic. I read them the same way I read books about circus freaks and Diane Arbus photos. Weird fascination, I guess. We were in Chicago over the weekend and a man handed me a bunch of Chick tracts in front of the old water tower.
The tracts seem to be getting even worse nowadays, actually. They have always been anti-Catholic and anti-Masonic, but now the final frames are ending with Muslims burning in hell with Darwinists and kids who read Harry Potter. I guess only American Christians are joing Chick in heaven, as nearly every other Christian in the world fully accepts evolution.

Would Jack Chick's offensive idiocy be allowed in a country that didn't have a free press? Ernst Zundel was imprisoned in Canada for denying the Holocaust. I think Chick's tract are just about as offensive as Zundel, and are definitely just as wrong.

L. Ron Hubbard was a creationist. He created his own little world and invited celebrities to visit it. At the end of the day however, they all still had to live in this one like the rest of us.

I mention him because I fell you left out Scientology among the list of new age religions. It seems that in the absence of religion people need to fill the void with something, so you have a re-awakening of old ideas and bastardized versions by deluded science fiction writers.

I can only pray that somewhere in alternate middle heaven, J.R.R. Tolkien is sending the good Dr. Asimov ,along with his companions R.A. Heinlein and dinosaur riding Jesus, on a quest to stop the nefarious plots of Lord Xenu. Together they will be forced into situational comedies where science must work hand in hand with religion to save the day. Sadly, the true meaning of their quest will be misinterpreted and lost to the masses by extensive bickering over commercial rights.

Good blog post...but I'll worry about the popularity of astrology and Tarot cards among my left-leaning friends as soon as New Age belief is being used as a litmus for Democratic candidates. The liberal base doesn't require their representatives in Washington to possess belief in (or, at the very least, respect for) New Age spirituality; the same cannot be said about the conservative base and Creationism.

Mr. Ebert,

Speaking of obnoxious new agers at dinner parties, you might like this this great beat poem by Tim Minchin, titled "Storm".

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ujUQn0HhGEk

Excellent article. I would love to see all the "woo" removed from both sides of the aisle. Hopefully people with more sense in the media start chirping louder about how crazy these beliefs are.

Keep up the great chirping yourself!

Interesting piece.

Creationism (and indeed all forms of fundamentalist Christianity or similar religions, including radical Islam) and the New Age beliefs both benefit from two contradictory impulses. And, though they contradict one another, they end up fitting together well.

I love paradoxes.

The first such impulse is the Post-Modern impulse to phrase everything as an article of belief of faith, even when the thing at issue is a fact that's subject to verification. When everything is a matter of belief or faith, reason is out the window. All the good work of the Enlightenment is out the window.

The other is the impulse to seek easy, clear, simple answers to difficult, opaque, complex questions.

Conservatives hate Post-Modernism, or at least they claim to, but they have sure have benefited from it. Conservative "thinkers" from Glenn Beck to Sarah Palin all benefit from Deconstruction as an analytical technique. Having deconstructed, however, they then proceed to fill the gap with fundamentalism of one stripe or another.

Thus the impulses, though contradictory in theory, fit together well in the real world. The consequences of this peculiar alliance are to be feared.

Creationism, and the fundamentalist Christianity that underpins it, however, is considerably better-funded than are the New Age beliefs. And I think that matters.

And, now that I think about it, the portions of Sarah Palin's book that I have read have a distinctly New Age "feel" to them. At one point she refers to meeting someone (I forget the details), and says this was either cosmic destiny or a coincidence, "and I don't believe in coincidences." Think about that statement for a moment. (Google, or the book itself, can fill in some of the details for you.)

Glenn Beck, Bill O'Reilly, Sarah Palin. New Age Post-Modernists, one and all.

-The Albany Exile

Dear Roger,

Absolutely loved your blog. I myself have an extreme problem with the whole nonsense in general that the world is split in two: right and left, and everything a progressive believes is wonderful and correct. What a load of garbage. Every issue is separate, and extremism on any side is wrong.

I had one issue with your piece though, and its a problem I have with the liberal side in general. Being against Stem Cell research, and abortion altogether (which is very much related) is not a religious issue as progressives try to trap it in. It is a scientific ethics issue. It is unethical to create human life for the sole purpose of destroying it, for the betterment of other human beings. It's one thing if stem cells are retrieved from fertility clinics, but that's hardly enough to advance the research significantly. And if stem cells are retrieved from abortion clinics, or if fetuses are grown in labs for the sole purpose of destroying them to fund research, then you are saying it is ok to grow and kill human life in order to save other humans and fund research.

That is quite the slippery slope. And that is unethical and immoral, and not because of religion (especially since the bible makes no mention of such things). And Bush (though his methods may be questionable) was right in wanting to take us away from it.

For as long as there have been intellectuals, there have been anti-intellectuals, and I find it eternally sad and shocking that during so much of human history, it's been members of the latter group running things.

I'm not much bothered by people who are sincere in their beliefs that God made the world exactly as it is, or that the Tarot will reveal one's future. It is a matter of faith. I am very bothered by people who proclaim that these things are The Truth and They Can Prove It.

Because this attitude, the idea that something which is a matter of faith can be proven true, is a hallmark of anti-intellectualism. It is nearly always accompanied by a profound distrust of intelligent people and the offspring of that intelligence - such as science.

Creationists see the "holes" in the fossil record and declare those holes to be "evidence" that evolution is Bad Science. They then tell people that they should believe something else instead, which simply isn't science at all. Their fundamental distrust of science itself leads them to miss the point that the only substitute for bad science is better science.

Those who attack Darwin by name usually can't be bothered by the fact that, for instance (and to my knowledge) Darwin never studied fossils. And any ideas about genetics came decades after he died - although dog breeding had been around for centuries, no one knew the mechanics of it. Darwin studied birds in the Galapagos Islands, and everything else came as an extention of that work. Darwin didn't do bad science; it was simply incomplete, and the best he could have done at the time. All the good science that has been done since his time has supported and refined his work, even as it may have corrected anything he may have gotten wrong.

Even Einstein himself was guilty of Bad Science: he believed in a static universe, and even made up a number to plug into equations so that they would always show a static universe. But finally he was shown overwhelming evidence that every other galaxy in the sky is moving away from ours, and at a good clip too. The universe is expanding, not static. Einstein was both intelligent and humble enough to admit his mistake. Good science won the day.

I'm putting it differently, but I agree with Roger: those who hold a fundamental distrust of intelligent people should not hold positions of leadership in our society.

While New Age and Creationism beliefs are disturbing distortions of reality, there are similar thought processes that lead to inappropriate conclusions that do not fall into these two categories, e.g., vaccination scare. I share Bill Maher's skepticism of religion, I haven't been able to figure out his nuttiness when it comes to medicine. Maybe it is because of the circles he travels in... it's a clique thing.
My son began his freshman year in September at a small college in Michigan. During orientation the dean expressed her desire to provide an education that would "teach students how to think, not what to think". This is something I hope he learns... progress is not made by going along with one's peers.

Roger, I respect your judgment and that's why this post surprises me. While I don't feel comfortable around the type of people you went after - and I'd also add people who drool over vampire movies - it's a basic fact that the Constitution says there will be no religious test. I believed that in the JFK days, and I believe that now. Let the candidates give us their beliefs, and let the electorate sort it out. (Of course, if any candidate made a decision that would support the candidate's religion or beliefs but harm the country and the Constitution, I would easily support impeachment.)

Faith: the unwavering belief with out need of proof

So i wrote this a few years ago on my blog. it was amazing ho many peope got upset.. but i keep it anyways.

here is the theory...

That if i say something is true.. and you disagree.. i can say that i have faith and then witha smug expression.. assume i have won.

So.. i have decided that there is no God.. there is actually a giant tomato. now here is my creation story.... prove it wrong....

In the beginning, before the stars and the universe, before there was air, or the earth below us, there was nothing.

From this nothing a single pod appeared and in its ultimate wisdom cast a light upon the newly forming universe, and it was good.

From within this pod a green (for that is what the colour was to be called… and note it's colour with a "u"!!) branch appeared.

The branch looked down on earth, which had suddenly appeared (don't ask, just have faith), and the branch, being all knowing and wise decided to drop 2 seeds upon it.

From these seeds two people appeared a male and female. Branch named them Bob and Sue and they lived on earth by themselves.

Sue was a pretty hot little number (well, not much to compare her with I guess), and Bob was hung like a donkey … which the branch quickly made to keep up the continuity. (and for Sue to have a reference point)

One morning, Bob dropped to his knees, and prayed to the branch…" Oh great invisible branch in the heavens; why have you only sent one man and one woman to earth and yet you've sent hundreds of other animals (I forgot that part.. just play along…suddenly there were animals.. yadda yadda yadda… remember it's faith) to this place. Variety, oh great one, Variety!"

Since the branch had not yet created language, however, this all came out as a series of grunts and unintelligible gibberish, and the branch; not having ears… ignored it.

In the mean time, Sue had found a snake, and much to the snake's distress, had mistaken it for Bob's more favorable physical feature, and was promptly using it for unspeakable acts…eeewwww. Bob found Sue doing this, and in a rage stormed off to find a lonely sheep…. Wait, wait… this is getting a little nasty… trust me this will get better…and more holy… right…

The branch, watching from above saw all the commotion and was none too pleased. With a great shudder it dropped 2 more seeds and Mary and Steve appeared.

After a few months, the wife swapping commenced and after a few generations, all us humans appeared. Now don't ask questions about timelines, or 11 fingered children with gills… have faith!

After many years, the branch decided that it wasn't happy with the way things were going on earth, so it decided to bequeath the planet with its only offspring. A seed was dropped and from it a red tomato grew. The tomato was looked upon as a savior by a small group known only as the "Italians". They worshiped the Tomato as the son of Branch and followed it about as it concocted wonderful recipes, that, though delicious, seemed to be lacking an ingredient.

One day, the governing body of the land decided that Tomato was ruining the limited menu of the people and that the world should be rid of it….so, to the horror of the Italians… they stepped on him.

The body of the splattered Tomato was carried to a mound of earth and buried by the Italians. After a few days.. a miracle. Little sprouts began to grow where the tomato had been buried, and after a few months.. little tiny tomatoes appeared! "It's a resurrection!!! Cried the people!!!"

In honor of the resurrection, the Italians began eating the new tomatos… " body of tomato… tomato juice" ceremonies turned up everywhere, and soon they were adding tomato to every dish in worship. Some even splattered tomato sauce on their shirts at each meal in honor.

Now, around the world, everyone enjoys tomatoes with their meals, and some even commemorate the sacrifices of our lord tomato by having tomato fights in the streets.

Where the licking of the begonias ( or gardenias..oops)comes in, I don't know, but that's probably just a human tradition that has nothing to do with the story of tomato… like celibacy and the Catholics.

Here is the tomatos prayer:

Our tomato that is in soup

Hollowed out, or with cheese

Thine rind is fleshy, thine sauce is messy;

On the table or spilled on a shirt

Give us this day, a piece of bread

And forgive us if thou art too green

As we forgive those who serve you too ripe

Lead us not towards other veggies,

And deliver us some ravioli

For sauce and for juicing

amen

Hey Roger,

This morning you got a tip of the hat from PZ Myers himself. He claims this article is a "good read" and I wholeheartedly agree.

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/

Great article but why was that nitwit with the video included? He went on at great length *trying* to differentiate one type of crazy delusional thinking from another. A more honest presentation would to summarize the three divisions as artificial and that all religions are the same. Human stupidity.

On the other hand; he was talking to children (wasn't he)?

And just to bring this all around to the movies, anyone who thought "What the Bleep Do We Know" is "though provoking" (and those thoughts aren't what a load of crap this is) should not be allowed to vote, much less hold office. ;>

It's been several years and I still haven't been able to clear that mess out of my mind

I agree whole-heartedly with everything you say about "New Agers." It is a shame that they also hijacked "scientific astrology" with the nonsensical mumbo-jumbo with which they now surround it.

I'm not a defender of "scientific astrology" but I'm not a debunker either. There is a huge difference between causality and correlation. Scientific astrology is not causality. If you look at a clock at 6 PM every day and you notice that you are hungry, does the clock cause the hunger? Or is it simply that the clock and your body are both running on the same rhythm?

A putative basis for original scientific astrology is actually borne out by modern research: the conditions under which infant children are raised affects their development. Imagine a tribal society in a temperate climate. In the winter everyone spends much time indoors; in the summer everyone spends much time outdoors. Infants born in the summer have different interactions with their caretakers than infants born in the winter. Might there be a statistical correlation between the time of year in which they are born and their personalities?

I have seen some correlative scientific astrological interpretations that astonished me with their accuracy. It was not the general stuff that could apply to anyone gullible enough not to notice how you could read anything into the "prediction." It hasn't made me a believer but it does leave me with an open mind.

And there is the "reincarnation" of Bryant's Thanatopsis (no memory of past lives here, it is just the dispersed molecules not the spirit).

I suppose it is going a step too far to compare the New Agers with the East Anglia climatologists, starting with a pre-determined result and then figuring out how to distort the data to find the result you want...

a favorite quote:

"sitting in church makes u a christian

sitting in the garage makes you a cadillac"

just another entry fom my blog... funny how this stuff comes around..

ok, i'm going to break some rules, and probably get into all kinds trouble, but my patience with this has run out. Hang on, here we go:

I have some personal feelings on organised religion, that i have no problem sharing, however, i also respect everyone's right to their own beliefs so long as they don't infringe on anyone else. If you believe that a giant tomato is going to suck the life out of all of us if we don't lick a gardenia 3 times a day, that's great by me, just don't hand me a flower and expect me to salivate... fair?.. good.

I do, however, have a very hard time with people who impose their beliefs on others and if those otheres don't agree, become abusive and vindictive. I have an even harder time when this happens in a family.

A very close friend of mine is trying to leave a religeous group and is having some serious trouble. Her family has been involved with this since she was born, and have had this belief run their lives forever. The problem is that my friend does not believe in the same things. The punishment for this is shunning.

Seriously, her parents appear to be willing to never speak to her again, if she doesn't belong to this group. I can't even begin to understand how any parent can shun their child because they don't believe the same things they do. I especialy can't fathom how any group can make this action manditory for their followers when said follower's child, who is a grown adult, decides to find their own path in life. I'm so disgusted i can hardly speak.

It has always struck me as a terrible thing to lose a child, and i don't think this is a novel idea to many people, or frankly species. Why on earth would any parent choose to abandon thier child due to the orders of a group of people who claim to speak for "God". Why is this always the bloody excuse for terrible actions?

Why is it that if two people don't agree on something that neither of them can prove ( ie, faith is based on unerring belief; without the need for concrete proof. And, i'm sorry, but just because the sun shines, doesn't prove anything other thah that the sun is still shining. If this is the proof of God, then i can just as easily say it's proof of the giant tomato....you can't prove me wrong, and neither can i so it's not proof; it's conjecture), one of these people must be cast off, rejected, killed, maimed, eliminated, or what ever? This has solved absolutely nothing on this planet since the dawn of time, and forgive me, but I haven't seen God come rushing down from heaven and stand next to anyone proclaiming that they know what's true, and the rest of us are damned.

Every religeous leader of every faith and every follower of every faith believes that they are right and that everyone else is wrong... therefore you're all wrong until proven right. Sorry.

The ancient Greeks believed just as strongly that Zeus and the other Gods were real, and yet we call this ancient mythology now. That "religion" is older than both Islam and Christianity, and frankly who's to say that they weren't right? Wouldn't that be funny, I'd laugh all the way to Hades.

Back to the issue at hand; how to help my friend. Here is my pledge to all of you loyal and sweet readers:

I don't care what you believe. I won't judge you for your faith or lack there of, and I don't care if your beliefs clash with my other friend's.

I only ask that you afford the same respect to me and those i am associated with.

That you never shun, hate,mock or react in violent or in appropriate manner to others who have a different vision of God that you.

That you defend their and your right believe what makes them happy as strrongly as you would ask them to defend you.

I ask that when we are all together as a group or as a pair, that you do not impose, preach or pontificate your beliefs to me or on me or my friends.

And finally, that you love your children unconditionally, and NEVER let someone else come between you and them.

Whew... ok, I'm done for now.... and you'll please excuse me as i go and lick the gardenias... the giant tomato is calling.

If you want a real scare, try Googling "Ken Ham." I grew up in a fundamentalist Christian household and saw this guy give a seminar when I was about ten years old, and even at such an early age my BS detector went off. Patton Oswalt has a joke about the first time he realized an adult didn't know what she was talking about, and that's how I felt listening to this man talk about the earth being a few thousand years old. Or how about this: rabbits' sharp teeth prove that dinosaurs were not man-eaters and lived in harmony with humans. Just completely ridiculous stuff; but the worst part was how he tried to convince all the children in attendance that anyone who tried to tell them otherwise was merely attempting to undermine their faith. He said to question your science teachers in public school by saying: "Were you there?" He seemed to think this was a very clever response to science, but even at eight years old I remember thinking: No, they weren't there, but...neither were you. It's perhaps the most inane 'argument' ever, yet he basically turned it into the catchphrase for his touring of the nation, and it even pops up on his website now -- over a decade later. Bill Maher briefly interviewed him for his documentary Religulous, but I was disappointed by the fact that his appearance was so limited. I'd like to see the full interview.

http://www.amazon.com/Dinosaurs-Eden-Biblical-Journey-Through/dp/0890513406

to quote the top review:

Finally a book about dinosaurs that doesn't rely on mubo-jumbo like: macrofossils, microfossils, trace-fossils, geochemical observations, cladistics, DNA and protein synthesizing, isotopic dating, peer reviewed journals, biostratigraphy, geochemistry, hydrogeology, paleobathymetry, paleobiogeography, paleoceanography, paleoecology, scanning electron microscopes, taxonomy, and the so called "Scientific Method."

Just the cold, hard, indisputable facts of The Bible. Which is THE WRITTEN WORD OF GOD!. The wonderful thing is that you know its 100% true because there is only one possible way of interpreting The Bible!

"Scientists" will have a hard time talking their way out of this one!

One difference between New Age nonsense and religion is that New Age idiocy is largely confined to those with money (often way too much of it). Religion, on the other hand, has adherents from all social and economic strata.

I sometimes like to argue that the modern New Age movement is all the fault of the SF Bay Area, but it is pretty clear that it draws on older tendencies to believe in things like spiritualism... and that these things share with religion many peoples' deep-rooted need to believe in something "beyond the physical world".

But I would agree that being so sure of these incorporeal things that you start determining your real-world policy on the basis of them is a good reason not to vote for someone. Our own example (over here in the UK) of what can happen when you vote in folk who feel their conscience has the force of Divine Guidance was GW's buddy the "Blessed Tony" Blair. And we know where those two got us.

Roger:
You've got the same 5 paragraphs repeated twice, starting with "My only purpose" toward the end. Seems like an editing error.

Love your work. Keep it up!

@Nadir:

Why do dangerous beliefs need to be tolerated?

"To this day, one Kennedy or another is being threatened with excommunication by one bishop or another."

I am not aware that any Kennedy has ever been threatened with excommunication by any bishop ... including Patrick Kennedy and Bishop Tobin.

Mr. Ebert - It no longer matters that you didn't care for "Xanadu".... You are alright with me. ;-)

Seriously - I will be directing many people to your post, pointing out how well thought out your points are, and how well they are delivered!

Thank you.

I'm sure you've heard of the famous theorem from mathematics which (according to the technical meaning of the word "proof" in that discipline) there always will be statements in a system which are "true" that cannot be proven "true" within that system.

In a way, this insight goes all the way back to Euclid: you start with a few postulates and the rules of logic, and then derive other statements from there.

We want our postulates to have some correlation with experience grounded in "objective" reality (i.e., someone else with the same initial conditions can reproduce the same result).

Look at your own argument about universal health care, you start with the postulate that it is "the right thing [for a civilized society] to do."

This is my favorite election campaign pic.

"Darwinism?" Surely you do not believe that "Darwinism" still exists: it died out over 100 years ago, and was replaced by evolutionary theory. Only Creationists believe there is such a thing as "Darwinism," though Richard Dawkins uses the bizarre word now and then for reasons I cannot even guess at.

I can't understand why you are picking on the New Age Nutters. Unlike creationists, I have yet to see any new age political movement, either in the form of interference in science or a profession of their rights to inject their ideas in moral debates. If you object to irrationality then you may want to broaden your ban on people who believe in God as well. God is superstition too! Otherwise I fear you are just making a very weak analogy argument.

After reading several blogs about people and their religous beliefs (especially concerning science), I have to ask: what is your official relgious position?

You are not a fundamentalist. Are you:

a)A Christian who believes in God, but that certain Biblical passages (like Genesis 1) are merely alagorical?

or

b)A Christian who doesn't believe in God, and reads the Bible only for the moral lessons it offers?

Or if it's some other choice, what it is?

There is also another belief system and system of worship/superstition that needs to be added to your list - The Invisible Hand [of the market] always is the best solution.

Your "should not" statements are, I believe, inherently flawed in the face of our electoral process. The people will elect who it is they deem best to run whatever office it is that person is running for. If they happen to be a Newager or Creationist is the result of the public electing them, not the person being elected. So instead of being so worried about what candidates believe in I would suggest instead turning the spotlight back on yourself, the voter.

At any rate, I am confused about your choice in using Creationists and Newagers as examples. Are you trying to make the case that these belief systems are less reasonable than, say, Christianity? How about Islam? Hinduism? Should we all become atheists then? Is that the "correct" belief?

Very nice Roger. I really like the way you express your views. However, I have one discrepancy with this issue and it is the term "Darwinism".

This term might be used by some as a "religious term" - I'm creationist your darwinist, and such.

I think we should focus more on Faith vs. Fact. Faith is a personal view, fact is tried and true and used to move a society forward. Education (at least public) should be fact based only, and any public official should base his decision on fact and evidence basis only. Like you, creationists not only should not be president, they should not hold ANY public office. Period.

I wonder, if creationism is a science, we should grab any holy book and tear it to pieces and rebuild it only with what is proven. Basically create more recent editions of these books, just like any science books, to see if they hold up. I think they wont.

You never see any dentist using 1st edition dentistry books printed 40 or 50 years ago. We use the latest editions, and new editions are released every 5-6 years. THIS IS SCIENCE. THIS IS EDUCATION. THIS IS WHAT MOVES US FORWARD.

I say again, people that hold us back have no place in public offices.

you seem to have repeated your conclusion (your last couple of paragraphs) through what appears to be copy-paste.

maybe there's a (humorous? satirical?) reason for doing this.. but if so, it's lost on me.

or maybe it's a typo.

thanks for the entry Roger

I wouldn't criticize the saddles too much; have you ever tried to ride a triceratops bareback? Just not practical. (Does Sarah Palin think Alley Oop was a real person?)

The GOP's hero, Ronald Reagan, is a two-fer: astrology AND creationism!

I don't think that Huckabee or Palin have disdain for Darwinism. I watched every Republican debate and I never once remember Huckabee even uncategorically renouncing darwinism and said repetively that he would never dictate what should be in an education curriculum. Whether astrology, creationism or any other belief I don't think they should be talked about among presidential candidates anymore than they should be talked about in an interview of CEO candidates. I don't believe that candidates should be excluded for having socially unacceptable beliefs when those beliefs have no policy ramifications. The menatility that they should be is what kept athiest, jews and member of non-majority religions for ages.

Candidates should be judged based 1. On their political record 2. On their ability to communicate and 3. what they promise to do in office.

I am far more concerned about for example whether or not Obama agreed with the views of the Rev. Wright which rather right or wrong would have more real-life political consequences than whether or not Huckabee believes in creationism. Besides the pragmatic reasons for not wanting to exclude candidates based on criteria that having nothing to do with policy or whether or not the candidate would be well suited for an office, talking about issues that have nothing to do with politics is poisinous and would unfairly hurt minorities. Consider for example many of the anti-mormon double stanadard that is often applied when Mormons are asked to account for the actions of their church in the way that Baptists or Catholics are generally not.

How about this for a proposition: SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE. Candidates should not be excluded from holding office because they have views that are not socially acceptable.

I don't know, I'm a little uncomfortable with this. It sounds a bit too close to saying, "Only people like me should be president".

You make a fair point about New Agers and Creationists making fun of each other. However the deeper point there is that people rarely examine their own belief system - and most people keep the beliefs they were raised with. Millions in America are raised to believe in Creationism. Most will never cast that off, but many of those people will grow up intelligent and reasonable nevertheless. It seems un-American to say those people could not make a good president.

Don't forget, many people raised atheist find any belief in an invisible deity and heaven and hell absurdly silly and incompatible with being president. I'm sure you wouldn't agree with the idea that any religious belief makes you unpresidential - what you are saying is certain religious beliefs should rule you out. Which again I'm uncomfortable with... unless those beliefs involve burning virgins inside a large wicker man.

Sure, I believe in evolution and believe it settled. However, "scientific truth" just means our current understanding of science. Until very recently I took the scientists' word on global warming as gospel too. Now, following the revelations about how dramatically the scientists have been manipulating the data, I am undecided about that. Not that it's likely that the evidence for evolution has been misudnerstood or fabricated (why?) but I'm not prepared to call someone an idiot for believing it is.

And it's interesting we always seem to aim the insults at the Christians. Creationism is a tenet of Islam too, more commonly than in Christianity, and you're pretty much ruling out a Muslim president by saying that.

On a lighter note, the scariest thing in the article: "we're edging into election season". Please, no! I haven't nearly gotten over being sick of hearing about the last one. Didn't we used to only have to tolerate these people 1 year in 4?

The problem I have with this article is the same I have with so many other similar ones... you assume your audience has the capacity for critical and rational thinking, and you assume they have at least a basic understanding of what science and the scientific method are, of what evolutionary theory is, of what a scientific theory is, and some background basics like statistics, geology, physics, etc.

The problem is that America is ignorant... and we love it.

"..., if you are open to the point of gullibility and have not an ounce of skeptical sense in you, then you cannot distingush the useful ideas from the worthless ones. If all ideas have equal validity then you are lost, because then, it seems to me, no ideas have any validity at all"
-- Carl Sagan

It seems to me that tolerance of others ideas and supernatural belief systems can be one thing in the public forum, but another all together when the irrational beliefs are part of a national leaders’ thought processes when making important decisions.

Roger,
Have you ever read the Bible?

excellent, but I'd also like to extend the should nots to senators, representatives, governors, mayors, city council, and school board members.

By S M Rana on December 3, 2009 1:16 AM
Equally important as the beliefs that would disqualify candidates are the ones that would qualify them.
For example what kind of beliefs on abortion, euthanesia, capital punishment,suicide, murder, and war do you think important people should have and what kind of logic would be helpful to settle these questions?

The logic of debating the points since there is no scientific truth to ascertain when one says "let us go to war" vs "our earth is 10,000 years old".

Besides, war, suicide, abortion, capital punishment are are used to decide whether a person should be elected or not

As someone who has some kind of strange beliefs myself, I don't think it's totally fair to place reincarnation under the same category as direct BS such as Creationism and astrology. The difference in my mind being that reincarnation (along with lots of beliefs people hold about souls and gods), though there's no evidence for it, can't be disproven either and thus it's ultimately harmless in and of itself, whereas an idea like Creationism or astrology is directly disproven by science and thus is dangerous to hold. A distinction should be made there, I think.

Belief is a fragile thing. To some extent it requires the suspension of disbelief. We view movies and are entertained. But then, the lights go up and we get to think and reflect on what we have seen.

What I would prefer in governance is not someone who has all of the answers, but someone who is willing to ponder the questions. Once someone uses authority to tell you the answers, they will eventually pervert the story to preserve their authority.

Power corrupts. It is enabled by lack of reasoning and the suspension of disbelief.

So, Roger, if someone believes in fundamentalist hokum or astrological hokum, that person shouldn't be President?
I wish that standard had been applied to Ronald Reagan. He'd have been disqualified on both counts.

Roger, you definitely need to get in touch with the skeptics guide to the universe podcast and at very least a transcript of an interview can be read. There are many groups out there that share your beliefs and we need a major celeb spokesman.
www.theskepticsguide.org

By Sandy on December 3, 2009 3:18 AM
But a person who thinks it's alright to kill people just because they are not yet born is just fine with you.

Question: how can you kill someone who hasn't been born yet?

Getting back to Roger's article, I think we should clarify between people who have an interest in New Age beliefs and people who hold those beliefs. And, even then, the danger comes when they base decisions on those beliefs. To base a decision on an irrational thought is to end up with an irrational decision. By separating morality from religion, David Hume and the rest of the Scottish Enlightenment were trying to provide a rational basis for morality, since they knew that religion depended upon unprovable belief, not provable fact. By doing so, people could continue to worship in private, but public policy could be formed independent of religious thought.

As for acceptable beliefs, I would echo former New York Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan, who said, "You are entitled to your own opinion, but you are not entitled to your own facts." [http://www.nationalreview.com/nrof_comment/comment-penny090403.asp]

I think it is shameful that people use the "science" of intelligent design to try and lend an air of credibility to unscientific beliefs based on parabolic Biblical narratives.

I also find it equally annoying when people use a poor understanding of quantum mechanics to lend credence to their New Age beliefs in works like "The Secret."

Here's a great video of James Randi debunking astrology:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Dp2Zqk8vHw

YES! Finally someone has the nerve to point out how the New Age is akin to creationism. I want to comment specifically on the tarot. Tarot is not only tarot card reading. Tarot is also a family of trick taking card games. The so called "progressive" New Age movement and psychic charlatans are stereotyping people's culture by giving false histories of these cards.
The mainstream media should start telling the WHOLE truth about these cards. Tarot cards are NOT rooted in the occult or superstition. It is a common myth that tarot cards were made to predict the future. The tarot was really made for a type of trick taking card game similar to bridge and variants of this card game are played today in countries such as France and Italy. There are some American game players who are trying to educate the general public about tarot card games but these occult stereotypes often get in the way. This is a great column but I think Ebert should have gone a little further and exposed the tarot, debunked the stereotypes and show how it was really made for game playing. For information on tarot game playing, Google "tarot card games" "french tarot" "jeu de tarot" or "tarock"

By Will O'Hargan on December 3, 2009 3:50 AM
Not to defend Intelligent Design being taught in science classrooms, where it clearly doesn't belong (though it would not be out of place in a college Theology class), but I've heard and seen children in English classes all across America being taught 'Twilight' as required reading.
Intelligent Design is closer to science than 'Twilight' is to Literature.

No, because 'Twilight' is a book and is literature even if it is bad literature.

ID is not even science, it is Creationism 2.0. There is NOTHING scientific about ID. In order for ID to qualify as a scientific theory it needs to

a. State what it is,
b. Present possible ways of testing it,
c. Present falsifiability.

Other than claiming that some things are too complex to not have been intelligently designer by a single designer at that, it fails b and c.

So, sorry, ID is not even bad science, and Mr. Ebert should have not have elevated it to that

When I tell my wife that I'm eager to visit the Creation Museum next time I find myself near the Ohio-Kentucky border she chastises me for wanting to encourage "those people" by giving them money. I point out in response that we have no problem rewarding Disney execs for the same entertainment result at their parks. However, if scientific enlightenment motivates me in any way in my choice of entertainment, my wife may have a point. Disney's attractions, after all, are often grounded slightly more in reality than are those of the Creation Museum.

So, Roger, any belief that is not yours disqualifies a president? How utterly imperialistic of you. Stick to the movie reviews, at least than you can hide your ignorance behind your extensive knowledge of films. Not that I agree with you on a lot of films, since you are one of those Hollywood syncophents first and foremost.

Creationism is a cheapening of Judaism and Christianity, just as "New Age" beliefs are mostly cheapenings of pre-Christian and Eastern religions. Being religious, as I see it, has nothing to do with taking mythology literally, or with being superstitious. True religion is the search for God. Unfortunately, both the fundamentalists and the atheists tend to cheapen the whole concept of God, referring to a "man in the sky" or some such. To quote Eknath Easwaran: "I hope you will understand that the word 'Lord' here does not refer to a white-bearded gentleman ruling from a throne somewhere between Neptune and Pluto. When I use words like 'Lord' or 'God,' I mean the very ground of existence, the most profound thing we can conceive of."

Further, I don't believe that fundamentalism has anything to do with conservative politics. I believe that almost all politicians who espouse fundamentalist beliefs are mere populists, attempting to appeal to a certain demographic. In the first half of the 20th century, most of the fundamentalist vote went to the Democrats, with Republicans not even bothering to campaign in the South. Today, the situation has switched.

Thank you, thank you, thank you Mr. Ebert!
Nice to hear the occasional voice of reason in the wilderness.

In general I agree that these beliefs you catalog are absurd, but I would be reluctant to say that anyone holding them should be disqualified from the Presidency (or any other high office for that matter). Especially with regards to the "New Age" beliefs you mention, I've met quite a few highly intelligent people who hold some of those beliefs. They could almost certainly be more than adequate Senators, for instance, and after a few terms in the Senate, why not go on to the Presidency? I bet they'd be good at it. Furthermore, I don't really think that these beliefs intersect with policy very much. There may be a few rare instances where a leader holding these views would do something odd but then, I think, people who do not hold any "unusual" views can make inexplicable decisions as well, and that's why we have checks and balances right?

Roger: Sarah Palin, Mike Huckabee are up front in their disdain for Darwinism and their embrace of one degree or another of Creationism.

Well, with all of his pardoned rapists and serial killers on the loose, let's hope Huckabee is a non-issue by now.

Roger: "In polite company where fundamentalist or New Age beliefs are expressed with confidence, you have three choices: (1) Silent agreement..."

Hold on, there. I hereby proclaim to the world that my silence does *not* automatically imply my agreement. If fact, the more silent I am (at least in a one-on-one conversation), the more you can suspect that I disagree. I wish that everybody had such an understanding with one another.

This video analysis is certainly relevant regarding the expression of religious notions.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5wV_REEdvxo

Huckabee recently asked rhetorically, "Does believing in creationism make me an ignoramus?" or words to that effect. He was trying to establish that he's a thoughtful, educated, rational, literate person who holds personal religious beliefs.

My answer to Huckabee would be "Yes, you are a willful ignoramus." How would a person answer Huckabee if he said, "I believe that Hercules actually existed and completed the seven tasks." Would you give him a pass, laugh at him, point out that he makes no sense, is wrong, or simply say that he has a right to believe anything he wants?

Contrast Huckabee's position with a person who accepts what modern science has discovered and places creation myths in their proper historical context as a part of our human past and development. We should be delighted to hear stories about Hercules and Noah and appreciate their literary content, but to regard them as literal and factual is clearly delusional.

Like you, I have noticed the tendency of progressives to gravitate to New Age superstitions. I suppose it is due to a psychological need of humans to form some sort of supernatural element in their lives. Perhaps believing in a form of "spiritual world" helps people deal with cognitive dissonance or a fundamental lack of knowledge. We don't know everything, but we want to; does this lead us to construct heuristics that allow us to make sense of mysteries?

Still, you are right on. People who refuse to accept the fact of evolution ought not to be allowed to run for office. It is not a matter of belief; gravity is also a theory, and it requires no such faith. The same goes for people who accept the lunacy of the New Age.

The cartoon of dinosaurs on the ark is at once funny and frightening. That someone is so stupid as to try to pass this off is hysterical; that someone knowlingly crafts such a lie and tries to pass it off is terrifying. What won't such a person do? And for what gain?

I think it's entirely relevant to ask anybody running for public office -- regardless of their beliefs, however mainstream or not -- whether their decisions are ruled by observable reality or belief.

Belief can be in the Laffler Curve, a score-keeping divine being who has a discernible opinion about our laws, or 10,000 year old dinosaurs. Doesn't matter. If it can't be consensually PROVEN, it has no place in the formulation of public policy, and the quicker it's rooted out, the better.

People immediately protest, "yes, but MY belief is real!" Well ... if it's a belief, I don't care. It's in contention with a lot of other beliefs.

The "law of gravity" is universally observable and provable, whereas the "law of eternal life" is not. I defy anybody to prove that eternal life after bodily death is actually real. Ya can't do it.

In terms of human psychology, Reality with a Capital R delivers a central shock: we are going to die. Nobody wants to ... and you look for the escape hatches. You go through the telephone directory and drunk dial every prophet, guru, massage therapist, psychiatrist, magician, escape artist and mercenary you can find. None of them can help! Ultimately the escape hatches are welded shut. You're going to die. That's when the final escape hatch shimmers into being in front of the true believer: I'm not REALLY going to die ... I'm going to SEEM to die, but in fact I'm going to continue living. FOREVER. On streets of gold, etc. (fill in here with your culturally-determined fantasy). Well, great. Send me a postcard.

Somebody once asked the Buddha what he thought about the continuation of life after physical death. Usually he refused to get drawn into the disucssion, but on this occasion he said it's like this: imagine a palm tree standing in the sun. Now cut down the tree. No saw it into logs. Now split the logs into kindling. Now burn the kindling in a roaring fire. Now take those ashes and disperse them in the wind. NOW: Where is the shadow of the palm tree?

That seems pretty wise to me, and accurate. If I'm going to live forever, wouldn't I have to take my entire support system with me, to continue to exist as I do now, with my treasured set of social relations, favorite foods, music, etc. (just let your mind embrace all of the support systems that make up one "person" ... we are much more an ongoing event than a fixed thing).

In my opinion, pseudo-scientific "explanations" spring from an ignorant refusal to accept the truth that in this universe, one person amounts to something -- but that something is exceedingly, vanishingly, small and brief. Enjoy it for what it is, in toto: a stunned glimpse into the unfathomable, of which really, we know so little as to be nothing.

I've had four cancer-related surgeries in the last 2.5 years, and statistically, my ultimate horizon is pretty near. I've thought a little more deeply about these questions recently. I've decided that what I do know is that life reduces to little moments, ultimately. Even if you're a rock star with groupies rushing the stage and winning lottery tickets raining down like confetti ... it has a certain duration. In retrospect, it's going to distill, like wine into port, into a cluster of a memory. "Weren't those years great?, didn't we have fun?" It becomes a thought in your mind. So you enjoy it now, moment to moment, and struggle to understand what you can and let it rest there.

To quote the cyborg at the end of Blade Runner: "Time to die! All of these memories will go away, like tears in the rain." Just so. Meanwhile, it's a great trip, and enjoy it!

But please -- fellow citizens with strongly held "certainties of belief": spare me. I'm not trying to blueprint your life, don't try to blueprint mine. You KNOW how the universe works. Great. Good for you.

Ah, the war against SOME woo. Good luck with that.

Just to be difficult, there is actually debate about the theory of gravity. Not that any of the alternatives would look any different in any normal situation (one alternative, for example, tries to avoid needing dark matter to explain the motions of stars in galaxies, but all agree in all terrestrial situations), but it would be perfectly possible for a group of people like the creationists to manufacture a controversy there. They could claim that physicists' ideas of gravity were contradictory and wrong and argue for Intelligent Falling just as consistently and persuasively as they argue for Intelligent Design now. Fortunately there's no religious stake in theories of gravity.

I think you should use the term "Strict Creationist" in your title (or maybe the term Creationist itself implies the strict variety anyway).

I've never understood why there never seems to be a middle ground acknowledged on this debate. For instance, Theistic Evolution (assertion that classical religious teachings about God are compatible with the modern scientific understanding about biological evolution) is one possible explanation for The Whole Thing.

Try this out for change (not saying it's correct by any means): If a God could create the Heavens and the Earth in six days and rest on the seventh six thousand years ago (i.e., a literal translation of Genesis 1), then don't you think it would be somehow possible that He could also create that same Earth with evidence of dinosaurs already buried far below the earth's surface? And also plant evidence of evolution on that same Earth? And start allowing things from Day 6 to actually evolve going forward? I mean, come ON, if He already did everything mentioned in Genesis then why not? Isn't this something an Omnipotent deity could do?

This is a very simple way to have Creation and Evolution co-exist without contradicting each other.

Of course simple is not what I am looking for in my theistic and intellectual journeys. And THAT is what drives me nuts about anyone that tries to break something as complex as this topic into absolutes and simple answers. Whatever happened to the curious Christian...?

Not so fast. We should not forget how greatly relieved those of us in the know were when, in the Eighties, we learned that President Reagan was listening to his wife’s astrologer rather than the Secretary of State.

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,967410,00.html

I do believe in ghosts I do believe in ghosts I do I do I do believe in ghosts.

Anybody who's lived in Saratoga County, NY, who hasn't seen a ghost isn't observant enough to be president.

My 12th grade English teacher, Mrs. Goosepimple, lived in a haunted house with her family. She told me that since she didn't believe in ghosts, they left her alone. They'd move stuff around in the refrigerator, and once left a pair of skates on the basement stairs; her hubby, who did believe in ghosts, stepped on them and landed on the basement floor with a broken ankle.

Mrs. Goosepimple was the most sexually repressed teacher I have ever noticed since reaching puberty myself. She took a nick off my grade for using the word "orgasmic" in analyzing a D.H. Lawrence short story. "You made that word up, didn't you? There is no such word."

Kinda like some here who think that Screaming Holy Rollers invented the word "Darwinist," therefore it couldn't possibly exist... not for the creatively repressed, that is.

So what we need is a president who is smart enough not to believe in certain things that do exist, but watch his step on our behalves. So far we haven't had one.

Thank you. And those who have supported and amplified your thoughts in the comments.

We know this needs to be said, and repeated, and emphasized over the internet, throughout the web, across the land, around the world, at the family dinner table and over the Christmas turkey and New Years ham - we can each choose our own distribution scheme, but lets do it.

The greatest contribution that science has given us after all of these years (at least in the way we think and view the world) is that we don't know jack.

Religion claims to know everything, which is why it was used (and is still used in some instances) to explain things that people couldn't explain through any other means.

Science claims to know nothing unless it can find proof. And oftentimes an answer to a question will lead to even more questions.

I'm not one to rule out the existence of God, though, as I once heard Issac Asimov say: "The universe is not as strange as we can imagine, it's stranger than we can imagine."

Proof: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aCQx9U6awFw

ASTROLOGY IN THE WHITE HOUSE

The May 16, 1988 TIME Magazine cover...

http://www.time.com/time/covers/0,16641,19880516,00.html

One of the single most troubling things for me about my country is that right now it is absolutely impossible for an openly atheist man or woman to be elected President. This is very depressing to me.

Roger-
you stated that Mike Huckabee thinks the world is 10,000 years old and doesn't believe in Evolution... if you go to youtube and watch his debate response to that question (or his interview with Bill Maher) you'll see he never said that.

He said "I don't know." He believes God created the world, but he doesn't know how long it took or what it looked like, so he doesn't rule out a 4.6 billion year old earth or an evolutionary process.

Excluding religion from our public discourse doesn't improve it. Any faith-based system that is repressed or destroyed, whether by logic or by force, will merely be replaced by another, whether it be string theory, angels dancing on the heads of pins, or preemptive war.

We're wired for religion and pondering the unknown, and this basic urge drives both religion and science. I can't personally see or understand "spooky action at a distance," for example, but the concept could equally apply to God or the atom. The apparatus for fully understanding either may never exist, and so what? "For now we see through a glass, darkly."

When life is reduced to only what we can prove, it becomes a tedious exercise, and a lot less fun.

I find it unbearably sad that we have to devote such time and energy in debating these children's stories. That said, we probably will continue to, since, like you said, these fairy tales have real-world implications with the ridiculous policies they lead to. Why can't we leave these entertaining narratives in the fiction pile, where they belong? Oy.

Calaboogie said: Small things that no one notices are indicators of the huge impact these beliefs have on everyone. Just think of all of the buildings without a 13th floor.

As I was being wheeled into surgery at Massachusetts General Hospital, I noticed it was O/R #50 and smartly commented in my sedated condition, "That's a lot of operating rooms." The surgeon responded, "Well, yes, but of course we don't have an O/R #13." This is at MGH, a Harvard teaching hospital and a global center for medical science. Possibly more to reassure patients, but still . . .

Knowing what a candidate thinks is important in understanding how they come to conclusions and knowing that is important given the responsibilities of the job in question. So I think it absolutely is in our best interests to get to know a candidates views on these issues. Do you want someone who thinks that The Rapture is coming any day now to be deciding long term policy? Do you want someone who makes important decisions via an astrologer to be in charge of what we will do when Country X invades Country Y which may, or may not, have nuclear weapons? Should we leave science research funding up to someone who thinks some fields of science are "evil?"

By Kevin Lewis on December 3, 2009 3:28 AM

"Religion, in all its forms, is pure and simple delusional nonsense, as are astrology, fortune-telling, tarot-reading, reflexology, and the belief that the universe is ruled by two gigantic invisible green dragons named Prunella and Stanley."

You should be thankful that Prunella and Stanley are benevolent deities and take no offense at the unenlightened.

"If you were attending a dinner party of community leaders in Dallas, Atlanta, Omaha or Colorado Springs and the conversation turned to religion, a chill might fall on the room if you confessed yourself an atheist."

As an Atlantan, I must object to this--Atlanta is, for the most part, quite a progressive and liberal city that is stuck in the middle of an alien state. I can't think of an Atlantan I know that would object to atheists or agnostics at their dinner party (I myself identify with the latter group).
Come get to know the city and visit our giant aquarium while you're at it.

I'd like to agree, but you've caught me at a bad time: I'm teaching a course called "Magic Realism in Film," and our heads are filled with alterity. As Luis Leal puts it,

"In magical realism the writer confronts reality and tries to untangle it, to discover what is mysterious in things, in life, in human acts. ... [K]ey events have no logical or psychological explanation. The magical realist does not try to copy the surrounding reality or to wound it but to seize the mystery that breathes behind things."

We've watched Twin Peaks' Agent Cooper search for suspects by throwing rocks at a bottle, Count Orlok tote his coffin like Satan's UPS guy, and Buster Keaton dream his way into a movie to solve the crime and win the girl. Saddled dinosaurs, at this point, are a mere bag of shells.

And in the spirit of complete egoism, allow me to announce that today's my birthday (53rd). My wife gave me flowers and candy and I'm cooking for the family tonight (chicken with samfaina--Catalan ratatouille). Oh, the joys of role reversal; pretty soon I'll be wearing angora like Ed Wood. Say Amen, somebody.

139 days until Ebertfest!

The more I think about it the more I'm convinced that no person who has a specific faith is qualified to lead a nation.

It's all nonsense anyway. Anyone who's even seen the trailer for "Old Dogs" knows that there is no God.

Your first few paragraphs remind me of Tim Minchin's poem, Storm. I think you'll enjoy this.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WidsgIt3lfw

Right on, Roger. I've always been a fan of your reviews and I'm filled with respect reading this blog. =) Kudos!

Mr.Kevin Lewis, your point is not valid. Darwinian theories and subsequent theories in evolutionary study have been proven and reproven. "Facts" only become facts in science if they can be proven so many times with such a great degree of of accuracy that "fact" is a usable term. Even then one has to leave enough intellectual breathing room to allow new information as we study natural law and come to further understand it. Adam Smith and unchecked Capitalism do not fall in the category of "natural law". It is a cultural theory, as flawed and ever-changing as the society that spawned it. Further, with the changes in economic and political norms, espousing a two hundred some year old sociopolitical treatise to be on par with scientific fact is just plain blind partisan ignorance. Culture, politics, economics; they will all change, hopefully though certainly not nesessarily to best suit the needs of the society. Natural law will not change. Your views seem like those of a man who doesn't believe in the need of a society at all, except as it suits him.

Mr.Kevin Lewis, your point is not valid. Darwinian theories and subsequent theories in evolutionary study have been proven and reproven. "Facts" only become facts in science if they can be proven so many times with such a great degree of of accuracy that "fact" is a usable term. Even then one has to leave enough intellectual breathing room to allow new information as we study natural law and come to further understand it. Adam Smith and unchecked Capitalism do not fall in the category of "natural law". It is a cultural theory, as flawed and ever-changing as the society that spawned it. Further, with the changes in economic and political norms, espousing a two hundred some year old sociopolitical treatise to be on par with scientific fact is just plain blind partisan ignorance. Culture, politics, economics; they will all change, hopefully though certainly not nesessarily to best suit the needs of the society. Natural law will not change. Your views seem like those of a man who doesn't believe in the need of a society at all, except as it suits him.

What ho all.

I think you missed an important distinction here. Although creationism and new age woo can be aptly compared on several levels, creationism is an element of a larger belief system that is in no way comparable to new age woo. Creationism is in fact a part of a political strategy whose goal is indeed power, and whose objective is theocracy. Moreover it is organized, coordinated and well funded. New age woo, is well... just woo.

So in that sense if it came to a choice between Shirley and Sarah I'd go with Shirley in a heart beat. (shudder)

In order to avoid the appearance of making baseless assertion, rather than spend a very long time citing numerous examples I will provide a few starting points without invoking direct links.

Google "wedge document" then pursue the antecedants of the Discovery Institute.

Look at the militaryreligiousfreedom.org web site.

Look at the swiftboating that is going on in the right wing media now concerning "climategate".

Look at The Family, a good starting point is Jeff Sharlet's book.

Look at the world wide reach and stated purposes of the Assemblies of God church and its many many incarnations.

Those sources should provide an abundance of related directions to pursue.

Cheers,

Here via Pharyngula, and now a devoted fan of your blog.

I couldn't agree more, it's unbelievable the blindness of some people, especially here in California. There is one woman who I work with who is constantly talking about how ridiculous Christianity is and how silly organized religion is. She also spends her evenings charting people's stars to predict their future. To the complaint that identical twins do not have the same future she had no reply.

By all means, let men of faith be leaders of their faith-based communities, but as they said in New York yesterday, when you walk into a house of government you should leave your bible and superstitions behind. If you can't do that, you can't lead a country whose constitution requires that of you.

Roger, I only differ in your interpretation of one of President Bush's beliefs. As long as stem cell research is an issue important to the voting base, he would oppose it. He would have supported stem cell research if the voting base wanted it, particularly if research were to lead to medical breakthroughs that would have led his wealthy base to have access when able to benefit. At that point, the script would have

Right on, Roger. I've always been a fan of your reviews and I'm filled with respect reading this blog. =) Kudos!

I'm wondering if it was your intention to repeat the last several paragraphs, verbatim, or if this was an error in the editing process?

Aside from that: well said, i've always felt a bit put off by the occasional prevalence and/or virulence of literal creationism, now commonly hiding behind the weak "intelligent design" pseudonym. And I was barely even aware of Homeopathy until seeing the debunking efforts of various skeptics and atheists (i think Penn&Teller and Richard Dawkins, though I could be remembering something wrong here).

I think a third group worth mentioning, though perhaps a bit too divergent for the purposes of your article, are the fanatic beliefs of most conspiracy theorists, from the 9/11 deniers to moon landing hoaxers and holocaust revisionists (i'd mention the O'Birthers as well but I think I caught a vague reference in your article). The 9/11 truthers, whom i've dealt with personally for several years now, are generally far-left affiliated, and the irony completely escapes them that their arguments almost perfectly parallel the arguments of creationists, from the numerous logical fallacies to the complete unwillingness to accept or account for any evidence which conflicts with their predrawn conclusions.

Does Bobby Jindal doubly unqualify then? Surely performing exorcisms can be considered to go within that special crossroads of fundamentalism and New Ageyness that we can call, in short, "Hooey". http://tiny.cc/KZOuf

[ Or "Woo", as Respectful Insolence would put it.
http://tiny.cc/tjgvz ]

It's discouraging but true that supposed progressives are equally succeptable to irrational thinking. A few days at the Huffington Post and their anti-vaccine quackery will teach you that quickly. Check amongst your local liberal activists and you'll find at least one UFO enthusiast or homeopathy sucker. Even Bill Maher, a reasonable guy on many fronts, is totally nuts when it comes to the subject of medicine. I guess denialism and superstition is an unfortunate human trait that doesn't necessarily go hand in hand with political affiliation. Let me agree for the record: whether it's religious crazy or supernatural crazy, it should disqualify you from office no matter what party you belong to. Live your life as you want to, but we should be governed by reason and law alone.

Hi Dave:

Let me take a second crack at this one:

She frightens me because she writes sentences like this on her Twitter page:

"Much 2 b thankful 4 as Americans,most free people on earth!More opportunity 4 happiness/health/prosperity thx to our liberating Constitution"

Let me guess: you were momentarily disoriented by the words of a national leader who actually likes America, and can express that. It's not something that you are used to at the moment (or for the next three years...)

Actually, President O-bow-ma is showing signs of growing in office. I actually heard some praise of America in the Afghanistan speech the other night. How much America had done for the world and not been thanked for. I'll take it, and appreciate the change for the better.

I'd say "amen", but it would be misconstrued. It's nice to see some influential cultural barometers (such as yourself) dismiss such nonsensical beliefs (both creationism and New-Age-ism). If only more public figures had the bravado to follow suit . . .

Dave Van Dyke,

I'm concerned about Sarah Palin. But not because of her atrocious use of spelling and grammar on a forum that limits posts to less than 150 characters. I am concerned about her complete lack of understanding of the Constitution, her willful ignorance, her marginalization of expert opinion in favor of "common sense," and her inability to follow a job through when the going gets a little rough. Using a Twitter like that, when it's almost purposely designed into the system, is a very low priority for me.

At least New agers (for the most part) do not try to shove their beliefs down other people's throats. They don't condemn non-believers. Nor do most (to my knowledge) deny science

Listen, nobody knows anything. What happens (if anything- beyond body decompensation etc) after we die? Do we have a consciousness/spirit/whatever that lives on?

It's unknowable. We all cling to guess-timates about this rooted in our religious/moral upbringings, our life experiences, and/or our fantasies about what makes a perfect existence.

Live and let live

I would have thought that a renown movie critic would also be versed in clasic television programs. Didn't you grow up watching The Flintstones? What more proof do you need that man rode dinosaurs?

When I first read this blog, very early in the morning, I thought: Just when did ancient beliefs become new?

According to Wikipedia New Age is considered a Western social movement so having been raised on a lot of Asian philosophies, I wonder just what does New Age mean in Asia?

Creationism seems to draw on the Bible and not all of us believe in the Bible and Genesis as a literal explanation or narrative of events, particularly if one is not Christian. This has, along with my refusal to celebrate Christmas, led some people to believe I am anti-Christian. I also do not celebrate Jewish holy days, but that hasn't made Jewish people remark that I must be anti-Semitic.

An atheist dealing Tarot cards isn't a contradiction. A Hindu or a Buddhist believing in reincarnation isn't a contradiction in that social context. I tend to think that the interpretation of reincarnation is different in the U.S. compared to India or Japan.

I don't think any nation should have a leader who believes that human beings rode dinosaurs or that he/she was some great historic leader in a previous life. But I also feel that no nation should be led by a person who believes men are superior to women or in racial superiority and there have been plenty of those.

A lot of New Age conversation at the dinner table, tends to be about the aggrandizement of the person speaking (e.g. I was Cleopatra in another life). One rarely hears that someone was a lowly serf in another life. People who are ever so interested in zodiac signs rarely really know anything about astrology beyond the sun sign (Western astrology) or the year (Chinese astrology) and tend to use it to excuse behavior or misbehavior.

These are examples of people superficially adopting things and conveniently adapting them. I say conveniently because the concept of reincarnation in Hinduism and Buddhism is part of a system of beliefs that socially works to promote checks and balances of behavior and altruistic actions and to provide hope when the true state of human life is tragedy (since we do all have to die and leave our loved ones behind).

There should be respect for other religions, but I'm not convinced that New Age beliefs are really a religion and feel most people spouting New Age beliefs are just dabblers. It's easy to make shape things to rationalize one's life. One of the last times phrenology was used, was probably in Life magazine to show the difference between the Chinese and the Japanese and to explain why the Japanese were bad (of course, post-WW II, the Communist Chinese would be bad, but that's another story).

Of course, you can't always tell a Chinese person from a Japanese person, phrenology was developed based on European physical appearances and prejudices and we as Americans shouldn't let predominately Judeo-Christian American social concepts and beliefs prevent us from respecting Asian social concepts and beliefs.

I don't know what New Age means in Asia or if or how Western concepts have a parallel effect. That would bring New Age beliefs into a more universal perspective.

Roger,
I am GREATLY offended! Right after I thanked God for the 2,194,380th day of our Earth's existence (plus or minus a few days), I received a wonderful charge of light from my Crystal of Universal Wholesomeness, empowered my chakra, and got into my car so I could get to work and read this rubbish! You've ruined my chi for the day and I'm done with you.

I completely agree. Thank you for not shying away from this topic. We need as many voices as we can find.

A.N. wrote:
...the more extreme branches of atheism, who call for zero tolerance for religious thought of any kind.

Can you name even a single atheist who calls for "zero tolerance of religious thought" - or of any kind of thought? Or of religionists speaking, or writing, or expressing themselves in any way at all? Or is your quote just another anti-atheist hyperbole, so beloved of religionists.

In fact, it is religions that are able to control freedom of expression, witness the anti-free speech laws in Europe, or the UN resolution, making it a crime to cause offense to various believers. Religionists think they have a basic, inalienable right not to be offended. They are wrong.

I am in complete agreement here. The New Agers that I know have the same certainty as a fundamentalist Creationist, and the same propensity to abuse and misrepresent science to justify whatever whim they choose to subscribe to. The vagary of quantum theory provides a frequent victim in that regard.

I also question how many New Agers really got out the vote for Obama. Again, the few that I know are perfectly fine bitching about any administration, yet seem proud to profess that they never vote, the reasons for which vary between: laziness, some quasi-Buddhist nonsense about everything is as it should be, or even the even sillier excuse that they're trying to avoid jury duty (hint: the state uses your driver's license, not your voter registration, when pulling for jury duty).

"...Kirk Cameron is playing the Village Idiot in his infamous video explaining how God shaped the banana to fit the nature of the human hand (still unreleased: his video about watermelons)."

I love you, Roger Ebert, I really do.

I think we're long past-due for an IQ and/or competency test for the presidency.

@A.N. I read a lot of Atheist blogs and books and I've never heard anyone (outside of a few communist totalitarians from the past) advocate "zero tolerance for religious thought of any kind." Do you have examples of this?

Excellent column, Roger! I think this is one of your best, saying what needs to be said.

What I want to know is when all of these scientific explanations for Creationist BS were created. There used to be a time where to be religious and scientific were not mutually exclusive. I mean, Pascal, Newton, Mendel, and Descartes were Christians. There are still many Christian scientists (the ones in lab coats, not the ones giving out pamphlets) who see no contradiction between the two.

My father is a minister. One of the members of his church was the scientist who rearranged the sugar molecule to create Splenda. He was a top scientist. But he recently quit his job and went to a seminary to train to become a minister. So obviously HE didn't see a contradiction.

It just seems like in the past 100 or so years, the supporters of Creationism have become more polemic. Now, it seems like if you want to be a conservative you have to hand in your copies of "The Origin of Species." But when did scientists (or those who pass for them) begin to do "research" on how Creationism was scientifically possible?

You know, on this whole debate, I actually support something that I heard in South Park: Science is the how, religion is the why.

Is it so inconceivable that God may have set forces in motion so that humans evolved from chimpanzees? Who is to say that all of the natural forces that dictate our universe, all of the scientific laws, and all of the processes that led to life emerging from cells to animals to men were put in place by God?

Well, that's just me.

Don't bother posting this message:

1) There are 5 paragraphs in this article that are posted twice.

2) Orangutan is misspelled.

Check out The Tao of Physics by Fritjof Capra. In it, the author draws parallels between eastern mysticism and modern physics. Should a candidate who believed in Quantum Mechanics be eligible for election? That science proposes and sometimes proves wacky theories that rival anything out of the Old Testament or The Secret.

This more or less is a second to previous comments, but...

Shouldn't any religious belief disqualify you, then? Isn't belief in resurrection and life after death just as preposterous as astrology? Walking on water? All Christians Muslims and Jews should be disqualified, then, correct?

How about this-as long as you keep it to yourself, then you're okay.

If I may answer you directly A.N, I believe you're building somewhat of a strawman when it comes to assuming that even the most fervent atheists want religious thought completely extinguished at all personal levels. There may be a few outliers, but what the majority wants is for religious thought to be extinguished from the political and public arena. Religion can remain a personal stigma, but when it comes to actually effecting public policy, we must not allow it to corrupt rational thought. I think the first thing that should be done is to deny the tax exempt status that religion has so far abused. If the religious want to continue effecting public policy, than simply tax their enterprises like any other business.

Considering how important science and technology are to the future, any aspiring political candidates should be required to pass an 8th grade level science exam. How many presidential candidates would pass one if they were suddenly quizzed? The problem is that an uninformed majority is happy to elect an equally ignorant and uniformed candidate. The thought that perhaps electing a leader who thinks rationally is unfamiliar. Meanwhile the media continue to placate the ignorant masses with soft stories and little critical thinking. Sensationalism has replaced rationality and along with it, trashed nearly all the credibility of the media. As for those speaking against irrational thinking invoked by religion, or spiritualism is labeled an elitist. Even amongst the "progressives" who refuse to think critically and accept new agey garbage, they frown upon the "arrogant" skeptics who wish to put a damper on their fantasies. Well, eternal vigilance is a commodity that should never be trumped by irrational thought.

Just out of curiosity, you say that creationist beliefs are a problem of the right and that those who support should not be elected. However, there are some democratic politicians particularly in the south who are something less than entirely dismissive of evolution most notably ex-president Jimmy Carter. Do you believe that Mr. Carter like Huckabee and Palin is an unacceptable candidate for public office?

I always find it amusing when someone things beliefs are silly, with the exception of their own (like the i-ching believer above).

Great article btw, spot on!

Roger-

I really enjoy reading your thoughts- but I have to take issue with this one. I think you're putting too much on the position of president, which, despite the repeated description "leader of the free world" is kind of an overrated position (that's a discussion for another day though).
My biggest problem is that your argument seems to rely on the idea that the president would be best if he or she were the smartest person in the country. But a good deal of our most intelligent minds would be terrible as presidents. They might lack the social skill, the ability to communicate, the personal charisma needed to persuade, the moral rectitude to make just and humane decisions, or several other qualities that are just as important in a president as super-intelligence.
In addition, I know a lot of very intelligent creationists who understand the logic in evolution, but because of family or social ties or simply the overall uncertainty of the human condition, choose to live with the belief system they grew up with and wrestle with the contradictions on a personal level. They aren't stupid or bad people because of this, just in different circumstances than you or I might be. And there's no indication that this would impact their decision making skills. The whole thing just feels mean-spirited and unhelpful to me.

I think when discussing stem cell research, it needs to be clarified by what form. The Catholic Church publicly supports adult, amniotic, and umbilical-chord stem cell research. It only opposes embryonic stem cell research, which I think is a valid stance on the edge of the protection of life argument.

I think there is a large misunderstanding out there regarding the Church's position on stem cell research from the assumption of ESCR as the exclusive form, or only effective form, of stem cell research.

If defined as a "speculative belief" in the nature of things, relgion actually becomes a form of science fiction. I don't say this disparagingly - I love science fiction. The point must be made, though, that just as science fiction originates in science, so should religion, at the least, not contradict what we already presume to be scientific fact. Given what's typically being offered out there, I know that sounds fanciful. Still, as one who firmly believes that the human spirit itself will be the new frontier of the 21st century, I can only hope that a belief system (and practice) will evolve that truly meets the needs of the time.

Nothing for me to disagree with here. If I had to pick one idea that I wish the MSM would speak out against, early and often, it's this: that America was founded on Christian principles. Not only are American founding principles not Christian in character, but Christianity is actively hostile to most of them. Fortunately, true Christians are hard to find nowadays. Most people -- even those who consider themselves strongly Christian -- are really more God-flavored humanists than Christian.

Meanwhile, Roger, I hope everything is well with you and will remain so for some time to come. The opening of your last blog entry gave me serious pause.

What ho all.

I think you missed an important distinction here. Although creationism and new age woo can be aptly compared on several levels, creationism is an element of a larger belief system that is in no way comparable to new age woo. Creationism is in fact a part of a political strategy whose goal is indeed power, and whose objective is theocracy. Moreover it is organized, coordinated and well funded. New age woo, is well... just woo.

So in that sense if it came to a choice between Shirley and Sarah I'd go with Shirley in a heart beat. (shudder)

In order to avoid the appearance of making baseless assertion, rather than spend a very long time citing numerous examples I will provide a few starting points without invoking direct links.

Google "wedge document" then pursue the antecedants of the Discovery Institute.

Look at the militaryreligiousfreedom.org web site.

Look at the swiftboating that is going on in the right wing media now concerning "climategate".

Look at The Family, a good starting point is Jeff Sharlet's book.

Look at the world wide reach and stated purposes of the Assemblies of God church and its many many incarnations.

Those sources should provide an abundance of related directions to pursue.

Cheers,

How can I say this? Would you condemn a man that would let's his mind stray to such things? If once he was a believer or is still do you condemn them to the dogs for their momentary lack of judgment?

I fully understand train of thought on this though I do wish you rephrased it differently. I believe what you mean to say is that you condemn those that have such beliefs and do not wish to consider in their ways. I do hope this is what you mean because if it were any other way I would be most disappointed.

A man's spiritual affiliations should never compromise his intellectual nature. Moralist would argue that is it does, and it will, only if you let it.

So Bush didn't swing with Darwin, but was cautiously vague about it, Obama apparently believes in God, but is cautiously vague about it. And there presidential policies couldn't be more different. So maybe Creationalists aren't that single-minded?
And is stem cell research only a matter of religious beliefs? So it is OK for someone to have an opinion about it based on their moral standards, but it "should not" be based on religious beliefs? Even if the resulting point of view is the same.

I would never be so rude as to tell a true believer that I think astrology is a bunch of hokum. Instead, I try to gently guide the conversation to other areas by pointing out fun facts about the person’s sun sign, such as: “You’re a Taurus, Pol Pot was a Taurus,”or “Wow an Aquarius, that’s Dick Cheney’s sign, too!” Here’s a handy guide so you can play at home:
Aquarius – Dick Cheney, Kim Jong Il, Sarah Palin
Pisces – Josef Mengele, Osama Bin Laden, John Wayne Gacy
Aries – Lucrecia Borgia, Pat Robertson, Lavrenty Beria
Taurus – Pol Pot, Idi Amin
Gemini – David Berkowitz, George W. Bush
Cancer – John Dillinger, Vidkun Quisling
Leo – Benito Mussolini, Coutess Bathory
Virgo – Caligula, Ed Gein, Albert DeSalvo (Boston Strangler)
Libra – Heinrich Himmler, Jesse Helms
Scorpio – Joseph Goebbels, Charles Manson
Sagittarius – Joseph Stalin, Ted Bundy
Capricorn – Hermann Goering, Rush Limbaugh

Up with an exciting debate with possibilities of switching party lines. Am I right, folks? No, no, I shake YOUR hand first.

Rather than splitting hairs about which beliefs are ridiculous, and what constitutes a sufficiently proven statement of fact, I think we would all be better off taking a cue from Nietzsche and the post-moderns in seeing that all facts are always already interpretations (including this one). I would rather see you criticizing fundamentalism in all its forms, than expressing your own scientific fundamentalism. People can be dogmatic about anything. We need leaders who are open to debate grounded not in what is purely true based on the already decided grounds of truth one side has decided upon, but on the possible consequences of our agreements or disagreements.

More people should speak out against New Age stuff. One thing that has constantly prevented me (and I imagine many others) from becoming more involved in progressive causes is that at any gathering of more than five progressives, there will be someone spouting off on some connection to fictional Native American deities, or homeopathy, or some laughable prognostication made by eastern mystics thousands of years ago, or how tea can cure AIDS and scientists are in collusion with drug companies to suppress this basic fact, or who knows what. No matter what the cause is, somebody will arrive with a VW Microbus full of bull$#!t.

James Randi should be required reading in high schools.

A very thoughtful piece, Roger, as per what I consider your usual standard.

I rub elbows with similar crowds, who've embraced the New Age, yet somehow loathe the notion of a "relationship with God." I have one, btw, and am not shaken by anything I've read above.

My favorite double standard is the rejection of the idea that the Universe could be created in 6 days, but no similar disgust with the concept of it exploding into existence within a nano-second. The second choice seems... well, a taller order. That seems like preferring the cooking methods of McDonalds over those of one of the Iron Chefs. But that's just my opinion.

What I wish you would express, Roger, are your feelings about the hereafter, from the standpoint of one who has stood at its threshold, as you have a few times recently. Has your decades of movie saturation desensitized you to a stare into the abyss?

It would be nice if the average American would look at Islamic fundamentalist beliefs, and the people trying to impose them on the entire world, and realize that maybe religion better go back to the sidelines. I personally don't care if a politician believes that Santa Claus created the world as long as they keep it to themselves, and definitely, positively do not make any political decisions based on their beliefs.

Thank you, Mr. Ebert, for a rare and refreshing burst of common sense.

As for all of you whining about your particular ox being gored, there is a simple test for what kind of beliefs are acceptable and which are not. The test is falsifiability. For any given belief to be respectable, you must attach some kind of reasonable test or evidence that would prove it false. This way other reasonable people can decide for themselves whether or not your idea makes any sense.

On the other hand, if it is impossible, even in imagination, to falsify your belief, then your belief has nothing to do with the real world.

Presidents, as leaders of a democracy, should only ever speak of beliefs that are testable.

Roger,

Whenever you or anyone else is confronted by this nonsense, just repeat the mantra:

"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."

Every new age and religious claim will fail this simple test.

The more wild the suggestion, the more evidence it requires. State that as your intractable position. :)

-Mike

There is a big difference between denying scientific facts (Creationism) and believing in supernatural ideas but generally accepting scientific facts (my impression of New Agers). You may say that you consider believing in spirit guides is denying scientific facts about the nature of death, but then I would say that believing in heaven would be just as much opposed to those facts as believing in spirit guides. And if you disqualified every candidate that believed in heaven, or that their grandmother was watching over them, then you would disqualify every single president we've had, most likely.

(note: there is some repeated text at the end of your post.)

Human beings have believed in bullshit from the earliest days. We're only now developing epistemological tools that can weed it out.

David Deutsch gave a TED Talk called "A new way to explain explanation."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VuP3NhDu6Hk

He has some good ideas on how to tell the difference between bullshit and real science.

Perhaps an epistemological tool that goes deeper than Occam's razor and the concept of falsifiability.

Right on Ebert. Very fair .Both creationists and new agers are wacky. I'm an agnostic right winger imagine that.

Reply to: So glad I got up early to post before Randy did! Dave Van Dyke

I thought the Bat-Signal would light up the night sky when Roger posted a new entry with "Creationism" and "atheism" in the first two paragraphs. Didn't happen. I guess someone forgot to pay the Gotham City electric bill.

Reply to: Here's a question I've been struggling with: Should a person who believes in the literal truth of B) Christ Fed thousands by multiplying fish & loaves?

This is the story that got me interested in Christianity's claim to Truth. Because, if you read it in the right way, it's NOT a miracle at all.

Jesus announced that he was going to be preaching all day, and a crowd came out and sat on a sloping hill so they could see him. About noon, people started leaving, saying they hadn't brought anything to eat for lunch. (I've used that excuse myself.)

Jesus said, "Don't leave yet." He got some baskets, and put the fish and loaves of bread that his disciples had brought for their lunch... into the baskets. And he said, "Watch me multiply these, so no one will miss lunch."

And then, the disciples passed the baskets through the crowd. And at the end, the baskets were full of broken pieces of bread.

It doesn't take The Mentalist to figure out what happened.

The baskets weren't full of loaves of bread. They were full of broken pieces of bread.

Just like a collection in a church, the baskets were passed through the crowd. And, yes, many people had brought along some bread for lunch. If they had any meat, they must have eaten it themselves. But, as the baskets passed, they tossed in broken pieces of bread for the hungry to eat.

Did Jesus feed thousands this way? Doubtful.

Was it a miracle? Not in any sense.

I just heard Mike Huckabee defends his action as Governor of Arkanses. Said he examined hundreds of requests for clemency, and one came from a man who, as a 16 year-old, had been convicted of burglary. The 16 year-old was sentenced to 108 years, making him ineligible for parole, and had served 11. Huckabee said that 11 years was a long sentence for a 16 year-old, and 108 years wasn't a travesty of justice, and made him eligible for parole. A pastor had written a letter, saying the young man had found Christ while in prison.

Because the "war on drugs" was fought by imposing minimum sentences for conspiracy, people who never actually sold drugs, but simply were involved in money laundering, are in prison serving long sentences for "drug conspiracy."

As much as I hate to admit it, I think Huckabee's actions were part of the reason voters in Arkansas elected him. And I would expect a liberal President like Obama to use the Presidential Pardon to reverse some of the unfair aspects of Bush's and Reagan's war on drugs.

If Christians believe in forgiveness, why are so many people in prison?

Perhaps you should add people who visit chiropractors and acupuncturists to the list of ineligibility for the oval office. And anyone who thinks the I Ching has anything to do with mathematics, binary code, the genetic code, or made any significant contribution to philosophy. Like you said, it's just a fortune telling book for the simple minded.

While we are at it someone should make sure this kid has his citizenship rights taken away before he becomes old enough to run for office:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OWCUjx4nI98

All spiritual, paranormal or abnormal experiences have to be total bunk, or else skeptics would be having them in droves. Modern science has proved that spiritual experiences take place in a certain part of the brain and therefore do not exist in the real world, much like language, mathematics, or feelings. An enlightened future for humanity would have these areas of the brain removed before birth or chopped out of the genetic code altogether for the benefit of all mankind.

Perhaps what is needed is a new form of religion, one without the prez making an oath to the Easter Bunny with his hand on The Big Book of Teen Wicca or it's more acceptable equivalent. I propose we call it the church of Fundamental Materialism, and hereby nominate you as it's pope. The oath would be administered on a stack of skeptical enquirers, so help you Darwin. You could install the Spectacular Randi as the holy inquisitor. First against the wall would be the UFO believers. Sadly we are too late to disqualify Carter and Reagan.

After a few years of weeding out those who conform to any ideas you don't like, the list of candidates eligible for the presidency should be reduced to one.

"It's curious that so many people of different camps are offended by opposing beliefs, but will accept just about anything in their own"

I'm glad that I'm not alone in feeling this way. It seems that many people tend to take their own beliefs for granted and fail to realize how outrageous they sound to a non-adherent.

Personally, as a Catholic, I feel that it'd be a bit unfair for me to criticize other people's spiritual views when I worship a Jewish carpenter whom I eat every Sunday.

Ah! So this is what you were up to! I'd seen the icons for this entry the other day under recent assets, and was immediately intrigued!

While I believe in God, it's not one based on any particular religion. Instead, I've cherry picked from several and custom-tailored a belief system for myself; for one size does not fit all.

Basically, whatever made sense to me, I kept. Whatever struck me as "WTF?" got tossed out.

I believe in evolution and that science tells the truth of it better. While at the same time, that science isn't beyond criticism either and for having blind spots of its own.

I've said it before but it's worth repeating:

There was a time when they thought it would be a good idea to treat an ear infection with radiation. Cough.

And why I tend to cherry pick from Science too. That is to say I believe "Western" science aka white men in lab coats, don't know everything either.

There's a physical world but also a metaphysical one, too. Perception is reality.

And so I play with my Tarot cards and I Ching and Runes and enjoy learning about the planets and constellations via astrology; the stories behind the science of it all. I find it more interesting when there's a story attached to "why" Mars is here and the Moon does this and etc. Way more fun!

It doesn't mean I don't believe gravity exists, though, chuckle!

So; a pinch of religion, a bit of science, stir in Luke Skywalker's "Force" and then pour - et voila!

A world where science can help build stuff that won't fall down but I can also take advantage of acupuncture if I'm feeling out of sorts.

For I have moved the slider and it's all connected. :)

Gov. Palin's views on Creationism seem to be evolving. Much as I approve of her, I would like to see those views develop and clarify. (I like to think that a person, when faced with the awesome responsibility of governing on a very public stage, can be allowed a change of mind and heart from how he or she may have believed in private.)

For instance, during her run for governor of Alaska, she stated that both evolution and creationism should be discussed in public schools. My little mind seems to believe that Gov. Palin is showing some kind of respect for the beautiful theory of evolution here, but I may be wrong. It is the case that Gov. Palin would later clarify that creationism should only be discussed, and only where communities wish it to be, and not lectured to students as factual information - which makes my little brain compute that two minus one equals one, leaving evolution as the only theory to be TAUGHT in the schools of Gov. Palin's world. (Indeed, Palin has mentioned more than once that growing up in a science teacher's home she had a strong respect for the theory of evolution and always thought that certain aspects of it were undeniable and should be taught.)

My goodness, we do think the worst of this poor, battered woman. As we did with poor Hillary. (Can you see me now rubbing my chin?)

Personally, I believe that the theory of creationism absolutely should be taught right alongside Darwinism in schools, schools that do not receive a penny of public dollars and satisfy every last letter of criteria for accreditation. I find creationism as I believe they want to teach it (They? Religious organizations, I guess.) to be full-blown poppycock. Although this agnostic is open to the idea that some sort of creator set everything in motion - everything being evolution, of course, silly.

I hope creationism is kept out of the public classrooms. I'm not appalled by students' wanting to get together on campus for prayer or religious study, as ye olde schoolhouse is where these students can easily congregate, as students are allowed to get together for a number of other legal and tasteful student functions, and as, this educator should eagerly confess, the students who are deeply involved in their religion are often the most disciplined, well-behaved students a school can be lucky to enroll. But I get a little nauseated when I walk past classroom after classroom where teachers with whom I work audaciously display their Holy Bibles as the most prominently placed objects on their desks.

Perhaps I am far too sensitive to such things, after years and years of embracing progressive politics and the liberal frame of mind.

It is, finally, the American Liberal that has, after decades of feasting on his own, of devouring and spitting out the bones of one fellow liberal after another who has wobbled nervously towards the middle and found a loving welcome there (where most of the people are, anyway), finally found the ultimate nourishment in the form of the very thing he once saw as poison: The Establishment.

The case I've stated in the past - surely unconvincingly - is that a LIBERAL should be someone who is open-minded to opposing viewpoints, and not only that but who is fully open to migrating to these other camps of thought. Some of what I think you're saying, Roger, is that many liberals are anything but.

I have long said that I am a liberal. And as such, if my overspending, undisciplined, grandly delusional America, spinning wildly off its axis and out into oblivion with every revolution of our flat Earth around the great Sun god, needs a fire-breathing conservative to get its shit together, then I'm in.

Is a pioneer woman with yesterday's values the great new thing for America? The Liberal Establishment, with their whiny and wildly exaggerated descriptions of one Sarah Palin, surely seem to be making it look exactly that way.

But hold that thought, and hold it closely ... As I near the final punctuation mark of this blathering, I find online a quote from Gov. Palin's book--

"I believe that God created us and also that He can create an evolutionary process that allows species to change and adapt."

--and I wonder, how would that differ from Pres. Obama's Christian beliefs, how would that make her unfit to lead?

Roger's essay can not be considered complete without the following prayer, here recited:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IUQcCvX2MKk

I think people are of two minds. A rational mind, and a spiritual mind. Usually for most people these are separate and there is very little overlap. Believing in religion or whatnot does not mean you can't be a very smart, rational person in other parts of your life. Having stupid beliefs does not make stupid people. I believe that any religious or pseudo-religious belief a candidate holds should not disqualify them from office.

Thank you.

Roger,

You seem to believe that there are certain beliefs that should be an automatic bar to the presidency. I wonder how this would work, exactly. How would they be chosen? Would there be a panel of scientists to decide what beliefs go on the black list? Any such list, no matter how rational in its inception, might someday have "2 + 2 = 4" listed there. Your last sentence in particular has a kind of foreboding Orwellian tint to me.

Roger, I would love to see someone of faith in office. Any faith. Christian, Jew, Moslem, or any eastern sect. A true believer.

We hold falsley that education destroys faith. Not so. Education distinguishes faith from science and gives us the tools to tell the difference.

Unfortunately, US education inculcates the belief that leaders must pay lip service to religion. No more. No less. The larger the organization, the blander, and yet stauncher, the ties to religion. Every presidential candidate must purport to pray for the country. However, their phony belief, with a nod and a wink to the intelligentsia, signifies them as a member of the proper class--the educated class that is willing to hornswoggle the masses with a pretend faith, and hornswoggle the educated with the conspiracy of being faithless.

I am tired of this class. I am tired, tired, tired of hearing about the change we were supposed to get from our Harvard lawyer in contrast to our Yale grad. Some change. 30,000 more troops in Afghanistan sounds like the same old thing to me.

At least someone of faith would be embarassed by this outright falsehood. But we don't get that. We get Clinton extending the policies of Bush, and Bush extending the same damn polices of Clinton, and now Obama.

Those of faith are of a different class. They are ostracized at dinner parties, not invited to join the good frats, and isolated in their neighborhoods. I say it's time for a real change. Let's put someone in office who has the guts to believe in something and really stand by it.

This crop of sway-in-the-wind, stand-for-nothing worthless empty suits turns us into a sad, forlorn, hopeless people. We can do better. We certainly cannot do worse, even if Palin is riding a stegosaurus around the White House on an English saddle.

Great column. Would that our leaders had your guts.

Well said. I also think it's worth noting, as Carl S. did, that New Agers tend to support some of the most dangerous false beliefs of modern times: alternative medicine "woo", in particular homeopathy and the anti-vaccine movement.

Both are instances with very real results, indeed, life and death, in which science has had its final say and somehow still remains ignored.

The real tragedy of the latter is that the movement works against the very children it aims to protect.

Anyone who thinks that there is scientific validity behind the words of Genesis has no place running our nation and potentially harming millions of childrens' perceptions of reality. The truth is far more mysterious and fascinating than the myth can ever be.

I should also mention that I am totally ok with killing babies. I hate babies. Kill them all.

Mr. Ebert, I hope that "traditional Scientific Method" means "how real science is conducted" rather than that laughable description provided in high school texts.
(One little nitpick, somehow your last few paragraphs got repeated. Intentional?)

It seems that Zach, above, is thinking of the Tao Te Ching rather than the I Ching. If this is the case, his passionate defense is quite justified. The Tao Te Ching is a book of philosophical verses, probably originally advice to the ruler of a small state though since the third century usually treated as personal, mystical teachings about a universal oneness; while the I Ching is, in fact, a divinatory manual.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their CREATOR with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
---------------

The reason rights were considered inalienable in the founding documents of this nation is because of the source they were deemed to be derived from. The state could not violate certain rights becuase the state had no authority in those areas. If instead rights are understood to be endowed by the state (since there would be no higher authority) they are not inalienable. When you eliminate the Creator, you eliminate the foundation for protecting the rights you hold dear from violation by the state. A state that can grant a right is also a state who can violate or even eliminate a right. But, alas, I suppose the men who signed their name to that statement were also unfit for governing....

Positing a Creator has historically been a pillar of thought in Western Civilization. And when you compare the track record of that civilization to others, well, you could do worse. The record of Western Civilization in itself demonstrates the that belief in a Creator is both reasonable and justifiable.

And someone who loves science as much as you would be foolish to ignore the history of formal scientific inquiry (curiously, originating in Western Civilization.) The fact that the foundational assumptions given to the institution of science were based on a theistic framework positing a Creator should give one pause before declaring that belief unreasonable and unfit for certain areas of work.

But no, you're probably right, belief in a Creator, a foundational assumption in the thought that gave us science as a formal institution and a foundation assumption that gave way to the most prosperous, free, and orderly nation the world has ever known, is probably unreasonable.

Just because you may happen to find two sets of beliefs equally absurd (because you happen not to hold them) does not mean that they are in fact philosophically equivalent, or equally philosophically rigorous and reasonable and justifiable (or unreasonable). After all, how can you be so certain that you too are not guilty of 'accepting just about anything in your own' camp of insulated ideas, some of which may very well be nonsense.

Mr. Ebert, I have always admired your liberal views on many matters, but this article borders on being bigoted. Surely one could hold Creationist or New Age beliefs personally, and not engage in policy that adversely affects the nation? There are plenty of economists Im sure who also profess some form of superstition or a New Age belief, and plenty of doctors who are Creationists, even though so much of modern science defies their beliefs. Why can't these people be evaluated on the sound basis of their actions and policies, rather than the shaky and multi-factorial basis for them or their personal ideologies, which may not affect such actions and policies?

As an aside, your view that reincarnation is a New Age belief is a shocking insult to billions of adherents of the Indian religions around the world, including myself, a Hindu. Since when has such an ancient belief ever lead to major unscientific national policy or compromised livelihoods? If this is not intolerance, I dont know what is, Mr. Ebert

I think you’re hitting on something that runs deeper than religion—either New Age or traditional—here. You say, “We can have no patience with a chief executive who professes the value of ancient superstitions in the forming of policy.” I would expand that to include a chief executive who favors any kind of heuristic or unexamined belief over deep thought and analysis in the forming of policy.

For some people, religion is a springboard to important questions about the nature of human existence and doesn’t conflict with science and reason. For some people, atheism (or lack of belief in New-Agey stuff) is a knee-jerk reaction. If the question is “why do/don’t you believe?” is there any difference between the answers “I just do” and “I just don’t?”

Which would you prefer: a deep thinker whose thought process leads him to a different idea than yours or a knee jerker whose lack of thought deposits him on your ideological doorstep? (I don’t know which I’d prefer. I’m going to have to think about it.)

BTW, I live in the San Francisco Bay Area, which is home to rationalists and not-so-rationalists. Here, you’ll find my favorite objection to numerology (its base 10 bias), my favorite bumper sticker (Honk if you understand punctuated equilibria!), and my favorite New Age service (aura photography—using technology to allow anyone to see the auras that, in the past, only a gifted few could see).

Relating to your claims Creationists and New Agers shouldn't be allowed to hold the Presidency, I would one day hope to hear you comment on the more extreme branches of atheism, who call for zero tolerance for religious thought of any kind. The rationale is supposedly based of religion being a major cause of irrational behavior in society. I personally understand where they're coming from, but I find their extreme stance as ironic and unsettling as New Age. I know you identify as neither atheist or agnostic, but I take from your article you attend the same parties. :)

Can you even point to a moderate atheist who has ever made it to any substantial elected office in the United States?

You know Roger, I want to believe you. You're making some powerful points there. But there's a problem.

In my country, one of the great leaders in our history was William Lyon Mackenzie King. He shepherded the country through WWII, served multiple terms, there were many great accomplishments.

Many years after he passed it came out that he had held seances to talk with his dead mother (as I recall the story), among other weird activities. While it was going on it was all highly secret.

Therefore I'm not completely convinced. Belief in odd causes, spending time on things most would consider wasted attention, these do not automatically disqualify people from holding a job.

Did you know that Isaac Newton studied alchemy for years, an effort that modern scientists consider, at best, pre-scientific thinking? Once again this was all hidden from the public or even his peers (by Newton himself).

Maybe my requirement is that the person be sufficiently aware of their marginal behaviours that they hide them? Proudly announcing what is likely to turn out to be stupid and embarrassing is not a success factor.

I think you’re hitting on something that runs deeper than religion—either New Age or traditional—here. You say, “We can have no patience with a chief executive who professes the value of ancient superstitions in the forming of policy.” I would expand that to include a chief executive who favors any kind of heuristic or unexamined belief over deep thought and analysis in the forming of policy.

For some people, religion is a springboard to important questions about the nature of human existence and doesn’t conflict with science and reason. For some people, atheism (or lack of belief in New-Agey stuff) is a knee-jerk reaction. If the question is “why do/don’t you believe?” is there any difference between the answers “I just do” and “I just don’t?”

Which would you prefer: a deep thinker whose thought process leads him to a different idea than yours or a knee jerker whose lack of thought deposits him on your ideological doorstep? (I don’t know which I’d prefer. I’m going to have to think about it.)

BTW, I live in the San Francisco Bay Area, which is home to rationalists and not-so-rationalists. Here, you’ll find my favorite objection to numerology (its base 10 bias), my favorite bumper sticker (Honk if you understand punctuated equilibria!), and my favorite New Age service (aura photography—using technology to allow anyone to see the auras that, in the past, only a gifted few could see).

The irony of astrology is that many go to it for dating advice when it fundamentally believes in cutting down by half those you could potentially date. (Same goes for who you are 'compatible' to be friends with.) It's an incredibly limiting way to live your life, although I lived with it in the back of my head for many years as somebody who was a little spooked by it.

I can tell you though what in the zodiac fascinated me: 12 great characters. And if you multiply those 12 by the Chinese 12, you have 144 great characters waiting to be adapted into a screenplay or story or song. If you're a writer, I recommend you read up on it, just like I recommend you read The Bible, regardless of beliefs, because you may just find compelling characters in there to draw from. (Well, obviously there is or it wouldn't con so many people...)

The draw, which is also the draw of religion, is how brilliantly thought out it is. Yes, I know they have huge flaws in logic, but so does "Lord of the Rings". The creators of new age mysticism and creationism create a world with their ideas. (Again, I see why me, as a guy into literature and movies worlds, could also be a sucker for astrology.) There's considerable intelligence put into it, even if you can poke a hole in the base of the ideas very fast. The ending of "Watchmen" basically sums up how I think religions and occults came about. That is to say, with good intentions that might help in the critical short run but mislead people ultimately.

Personally, as of today, I believe in (a little but significant bit) what Antonioni's films were all about (landscapes affecting people) but much more so I believe in psychology. Especially after seeing "Mon Oncle D'Amerique" for the first time this week.

Great post, Roger.

But more importantly, when on Earth is "All Quiet on the Western Front" going to make it on to your Great Movies list? I mean, "Blade Runner" is on your great movies list, and you didn't even give that four stars!

So if I believe in both creation and evolution what does that make me? A creavoultionist?

"In polite company where fundamentalist or New Age beliefs are expressed with confidence, you have three choices: (1) Silent agreement, (2) eagerness to contribute your own similar finding, or (3) mentally composing a new answering message for your cell phone."

I disagree. There IS a fourth option. I am frequently in situations just like the scenario listed above. My reaction? Rather than composing my new voice mail message, I tell them precisely what I think. 'No, I'm not acting just like a pisces, I'm acting just like me. Astrology is far too general and easily applicable to any given person for me to put any stock in it what so ever. And aside from that, what about more recent additions to our knowledge of the solar sytem? How does that affect astrological predictions?' Etc. Etc. Etc. And I'm not shy about professing my atheism either.

Frankly I think, polite society or not, it is very important to let people know this stuff is bunk. I TRY not to be offensive. To be as gentle as possible and to make it seem casual. No one wants to piss off their friends after all. But I, for one, am sick of tiptoe-ing around stupidity and ignorance.

I will continue to stick with option # 4, and encourage the rest of you to do so as well.

This is directed to Dave Van Dyke:

I like your post, and I agree that the Sermon on the Mount sets an example that anyone can get SOMETHING out of, but evidence is there for Christ's existence?
If there's some of which I'm ignorant than I apologize, but of the many rational and intelligent people I've asked, not one has been able to produce independent confirmation of the life of Jesus Christ.

Thanks!

I must confess, I have a particular fondness for palm reading. I place no value in its ability to determine, reveal or predict my life's course, nor in any other such nonsense. And when I meet people who go on and on about auras, chi, horoscopes, etc, I usually make my way in another direction.

However, what I shun and disdain as intellectual folly, I love as a social lubricant.

You simply can't find a better excuse to hold a stranger's hand and tell her things about herself that she will inevitably find flattering, funny, and even thought provoking.

It's just a great way to meet women.

Actually, Roger, when you say:

Palin can draw applause by affirming she doesn't believe mankind shared a common ancestor with orangutans, but Obama will prudently refrain from revealing his belief in the quite provable fact that we do.

You are giving Palin too much credit. I am quite sure she does not understand that we and orangutans have a common ancestor; that is a subtlety she does not get.

I've noticed a ton of comments here grouping Christianity and Conservatism and Secularism with Socialism.

I have studied the Bible rather thoroughly and it has defined my identity as a commie/socialist.

I was wondering why this relationship exists and how it was founded?

Roger:

I am from northern Kentucky. Last year, when we were home for Christmas, my younger brother and I paid a visit to the Creationist Museum.

My brother is a divinity student, working on his Theology PhD. at UC Berkeley. He said he wanted to visit the museum just once to observe what he called "a train wreck of the two irresistable forces of science and religion." Also, my brother told me, he was going out of curiosity. He was tired of his fellow divinity students asking him if he had been to the museum when they heard he was from Kentucky.

We paid the $27 entrance fee, and entered the museum with its animatronic cavemen cavorting with dinosaurs, and its displays providing the Creationists' attempts to explain away all the gaping holes that the Science of Evolution pokes in their arguments (i.e. the Great Flood washing the remnants of the dinosaurs deep into the earth).

My brother and I found it very hard to get through this museum without laughing out loud. We had agreed beforehand that we would reserve our comments about the exhibits until after we had left the museum, so as not to hurt the feelings of the people there who really believe in Creationism. But by the end of the visit, our heads and ribs hurt from holding our laughter in.

We felt some dismay, I admit, listening to the Creationist parents explaining to their children that these museum exhibits were the "true story" of how the Earth was created. At the same time, we felt sorry for the kids, who will probably grow up believing in this pseudo-science, and pass it on to their own kids as well.

But my brother reminded me, "Let's observe the planks in our own eyes first." We had to remember that these parents and children are inherently good people who believe in God and follow His words in their own way, even if we don't agree with their beliefs about the history of the world.

But when we came to the saddled dinosaurs (which you show in a picture above), we couldn't resist. My brother had me take his picture sitting on the saddled triceratops. He posed on the dinosaur, while waving his baseball cap in the air, the expression on his face reading "Yeee-haw!" as if he were riding the dinosaur in a rodeo. Several of the parents glared at us, knowing that we were making sport of some of their beliefs, so we quickly left. My brother later emailed the photo to his fellow divinity students.

For the record, my brother and I both believe in "Intelligent Design" -- but not the kind espoused by the Creationists. We believe that "Intelligent Design" is God's creation of the systems -- in biology, chemistry, meteorology, etc. -- that allow Life on Earth to sustain itself. And we believe that Evolution is God's ongoing experiment, taking place over billions of years, to see what new and wondrous forms of Life He can introduce into the world.

How widespread and how deep are these anti-scientific views really? For example, what does it mean when a poll says forty-plus percent of Americans believe in Creationism? Is this a deeply held belief, or just a way of responding to a pollster, a way of saying I am a religious person? Polls on religion are contradictoy: large numbers of Americans claim to be Christian, but other polls show that the majority could not identify the name of the first book of the bible, or the names of the authors of the gospels. Are many of these respondents just giving a polite/expected answer?

Similarly, most people could tell you their astrological sign, but how many of them have any real belief in astrology? Is this just something to talk about at parties?

Creationists and New Agers may appear to have more clout than they do by claiming to stand for an exaggerated number of believers.

Oh my word -- pics from a Jack Chick tract!

As my brother likes to say: "I'm a Taurus and we don't believe in astrology."

Quote...Dave Van Dyke;There is ample evidence that Christ existed and that he set an example for all of us, but no rationalist can readily agree that the miracles happened as written

There isn't as much evidence as people assume.

The God Who Wasn't There; is an excellent documentary on the topic.
This clip touches on a few of it's points.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R6THwSYY_aU

Remember too, that the Church itself has had at least three separate dogmas as to the nature of Christ. He is variously presented as 100% human, 100% God and every possible combination in between. All new mythology is open to "shaping" and Christianity was no exception. Many times the 'truth' of history was simply decided by a show of hands in the various halls of power. The real person known today as Jesus was lost to history long ago, and there is a strong case that can be made that he never existed at all but was a simple borrowing, usurping and melding of various other mythologies. Religions are full of this kind of cultural exchange. Take for example Noah's Flood. An event that Roger references in his post (with that wonderfully sad comic strip). This is something that many people believe is literally true. Yet we know the flood story was borrowed from earlier cultures. In fact, we know that most early peoples built their settlements around river deltas, suffered floods every few years, and that flood mythology was extant in almost ALL of them. 60 Minutes touched on one of these stories just a couple of weeks ago while they were reporting on a wetland in Iraq.

Frontline also had an interesting program..
From Jesus to Christ;

Yet by A. D. 200, the situation had changed. Christianity had become an institution headed by a three-rank hierarchy of bishops, priests, and deacons, who understood themselves to be the guardians of the only "true faith." The majority of churches, among which the church of Rome took a leading role, rejected all other viewpoints as heresy. Deploring the diversity of the earlier movement, Bishop Irenaeus and his followers insisted that there could be only one church, and outside of that church, he declared, "there is no salvation." Members of this church alone are orthodox (literally, "straight-thinking") Christians. And, he claimed, this church must be catholic-- that is, universal. Whoever challenged that consensus, arguing instead for other forms of Christian teaching, was declared to be a heretic, and expelled. When the orthodox gained military support, sometime after the Emperor Constantine became Christian in the fourth century, the penalty for heresy escalated.

New or Old age mythology is all based in the same corner of the human psyche. What exactly is the difference between the idea of Jesus walking on water and an Indian yogi levitating? Nothing of course. It's all mythology.

Great essay. The New Age acts like it has an alternative to mainstream religion, but in reality do most of the same things--especially imposing their beliefs on other people.

There seem to be a few "rationalists" on here decrying how fundamentalist Christians and New-Age spiritualists are closed-minded and ignorant of reality-and then they go and say that religious people "should" be barred from the presidency.

There is more to reality than the laws of science, ladies and gentlemen. You will have no more success convincing everyone of your beliefs and tenets than the people Roger is talking about will. People always have, and will continue to have, different beliefs, and as long as those beliefs aren't affecting you, they're really none of your business.

Good article, Mr. Ebert. I've always wondered: What ARE your beliefs in religion? Catholic? Athiest? Christian at all?

I'm just curious, and it would make a nice blog entry. And this isn't an attack, like "SO, what's YOUR beliefs!?"
You are a very smart man, and I wish more smart men like you would talk about faith and beliefs, or why they DON'T believe. About 98% of any discussion in America on religion and politics is profoundly shallow and over-emotional. As someone wrote recently, public dialogue has almost totally become "How DARE you say THAT!!???" ...on EVERY topic!

There's no meat, no substance, no intelligence. It's just pure emotion. Religious talk is sadly, usually shallow. Ask a religious person a tough question, and by that I mean,...NOT tough question, ha! ...and they're answer is either "Go read the Bible!" "Go read the Cathechism of the Catholic Church!" or "You don't believe in God!" or "You're going to Hell!!" That's about 90% of it!

I's love to hear what an intellectual like you, Roger, feel about spirituality, religion, your faith, etc. (Yes, in today's world of talking heads on TV yelling nothing at each other, and Reality Television, you are ABSOLUTELY an intellectual. Hell, I'M an intellectual, and I only stock tape and pencils on shelves!)

...but if you ask people whether they've had a supernatural experience, nearly all will say yes—and some of those are profound.

So how does one account for all that...really?

And if a candidate has a spirit guide, consults his or her Chart and takes more than a passing amusement in the horoscope, that candidate should not be elected President.

Too late on that one! Remember Reagan's astrologer? Donald Regan, 1988: "Virtually every major move and decision the Reagans made during my time as White House Chief of Staff was cleared in advance with a woman in San Francisco who drew up horoscopes to make certain that the planets were in a favorable alignment for the enterprise." http://www.people.com/people/archive/article/0,,20099022,00.html

It's kinda too bad that the founding fathers of the United states were a bunch of creationist Bible thumping new age hippie pot smoking Freemasons who designed and built Washington D.C. using astrology.

http://www.stariq.com/Main/Articles/P0001999.htm

Perhaps that explains why Freemasons in NASA used astrology to plan the first moon landing and still use it today. Thus even our best and brightest are a bunch of dumbasses.

I find it interesting that you don't believe those who govern should allow their metaphysical views to influence their policy decisions if they believe in a Creator (or New Age assumptions), but then you go ahead and encourage those who share your metaphysical views to allow that to influence policy because it is apparently absolutely necessary in this century (as opposed to any other century???).

You are practically saying, "As long as you agree with me, by all means apply your metaphysical views to policy. But if you disagree with me, you better still apply my metaphysical views to policy." This is nonsense. Not to mention arrogant. And here I had always heard it was Christians who try to force their views on everyone else...

On a related note, one of the reasons some people remained skeptical of Man-made Global Warming was because of their metaphysical/philosophical conclusions about a Creator. Long before the emails emerged, they posited that something fraudulent must be happening in relationship to the 'science' being conducted. The notion that man could not just impact but actually destroy life on Earth by using the very resources provided for man's benefit didn't fit with the framework that a Creator allows for. Interestingly, they have been proven to be correct. Meanwhile, what defense did your philosophy give you against such a claim (or any false 'scientific' claim), which has now been demonstrated to be false, fraudulent, and ideologically driven, for financial and authoritarian purposes? I'm afraid, and much to your dismay, belief in a Creator has been justified once again. It does provide an excellent framework and starting point to understanding both the cosmos and the world we live in.

Furthermore, do you believe all men are created equal? I know you say you do, but your words demonstrate that you do not. And even if you truly do believe all men are equal, you now have absolutely no foundational basis for holding that belief. Darwinism does not provide you with that basis; it provides you with another - survival of the fittest. Yet, even so, at what point do they become equal? Apparently not at conception in your view, even though science (the very science you do, and should, hold dear) has demonstrated that life does begin at conception. But let's go ahead and destroy that life at that embryonic stage in the name of 'science' (a perversion of such a noble word and endeavor).

Apparently you don't believe all men are equal even 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 months after conception. Tell me, what bit of 'magic' happens after birth that makes the person equal? Is there something magical in the birth canal that does it? Or better yet, what makes life before birth so unequal it can be killed and discarded without second thought? Its size, location, degree of development? Maybe eugenics wasn't such a bad idea after all, eh? I'm sure you don't believe that, but that's not the point. The point is, why shouldn't someone else?

Are people even equal at birth? How would you argue with someone who said they weren't equal? They are just matter after all, nothing more, nothing less. Perhaps they are not equal until the umbilical cord is severed? Perhaps not until they are 4 weeks old (or any other arbitrary moment after conception)? You'd have your view and they would have theirs. Survival of the fittest, I guess, and who are you to complain.
If there is no higher authority and if there is nothing behind the universe, how can you possibly even argue that we are or even ought to be equal in the first place? How could you possibly justify, reasonably and at a foundational level, governance on that basis?

You poke fun at people who put a saddle on a dinosaur while you mercilessly and with joy slaughter life after life, all in the name of 'science'. Then you callously fail to recognize or even acknowledge the moral component in a President's decision to use tax dollars to fund or not to fund the destruction of life - life your empty words say is equal. Then again, given your foundational assumptions about the cosmos, why should you be expected to recognize the moral component?

Yes, you can poke fun at a saddle on a dinosaur, while you fail to recognize you have just destroyed any basis for morality. What a fantastic joke. Great setup, even better punchline. Don't get me wrong, I'm not suggesting you don't believe in morality. I'm not suggesting you don't believe you are morally justified in your position. I'm suggesting you have no foundation to stand on, either to defend your position or condemn an opposing view. You have no ultimate basis to judge any immoral action, no matter how depraved, within the culture you wish to cultivate. It's all just purposeless matter doing what purposeless matter does. You now have your opinion and someone else has his opinion. And there is no ultimate basis on which to decide. Might makes right. Survival of the fittest.

Oh boy, you bet, that is the viewpoint I want to have governing me and my family. The only viewpoint. The only one even on the table for discussion. And as your side loves to ALWAYS declare, the debate is clearly over. Anyone who disagrees is a 'denier'. That is, until the truth is revealed...

------------
By the way, comparing a Protestant/Catholic ballot (and their differing metaphysical viewpoints) between Nixon and Kennedy is ignorant. You and I both know that is not anywhere near the equivalent, in terms of metaphysical differences, for a ballot with an atheist and a theist.

Three points:

1. In Pakistan, foreign Christians are running makeshift medical clinics to treat refugee Christians displaced by Muslim extremists. These Christians are also treating Muslims who come to them for help. Roger, should these people of great compassion, who risk their lives to help others, not be allowed to be president because they believe in God?

2. There are plenty of Christians who don't believe Earth is 6,000 years old and can reconcile the Bible with the geological record.

3. There are *rational* reasons for faith. Athetists cannot claim ownership of that word.

Have you ever seen the documentary Waiting For Nesara, or heard of the author David Icke? When you see how far into new age craziness some people can get, tarot cards and astrology will seem completely rational in comparison.

Think about this, though: if new age religious beliefs didn't ever exist, how many movies' premises would be gone along with them? Ghost, Ghostbusters, um... Just Like Heaven, and basically every "fantasy."

jk.

But really, without being taught to believe in magical worlds as kids (Santa Clause, Easter Bunny, Tooth Fairy, Dante's Nine Circles of Hell), perhaps our imaginations wouldn't fully develop as kids. I can remember my six-year-old vision of Santa's North Pole crib: I pimped it out with a double-king-sized bed for Mr. and Mrs. Clause, a nice cozy home for the reindeer, with heating and extra carrots and oats whenever they wanted; and the elves...well, let's face it they're just undocumented workers who fled from persecution in the Shire, only to find refuge in Santa's invisible fortress, living in fear of being found by the North Pole ICE, being paid next to nothing by the tyrannical (but always jolly) Santa Clause. You think the elves laugh and sing along when Santa roars that he sees them when they're sleeping? No way, man. Night vision lenses, man. What a degenerate fabricated world they live in...

I don't think we're disagreeing here: I don't have as much of an issue with political candidates believing in crazy ideas. At the end of the day many of each of our beliefs have crazy qualities to them; some are just popular so their crazinesses are forgotten.

Rather, I get very concerned, however, when the candidate *invokes* belief. Regardless of what anyone believes about the role of religion in political authority, if the candidate is invoking religion then that candidate is invoking passionate tribal sentiments.

Here is Bill Moyers slamming Karl Rove (agnostic) using Christianity to get his boss elected.

http://bit.ly/4e6cD

Regarding the difficulty of peers speaking about religion and belief, that is a different situation. It should happen, but in our society, "belief" is more of an identity and tribal affiliation than anything substantive. Even the most educated in our society are often thoroughly ignorant about their own beliefs, their own texts, and the histories of their belief systems. And in practice, most "believers" are in reality agnostics, but aren't honest with themselves about it.

Omer M

I think there needs to be a line drawn between Darwinism and Evolutionary theory. Many secularists use Darwinism as the smoking gun that God does not exisit. I've seen Atheist groups celebrate Darwin's birthday to validate their non belief. And so what is Mr. Republican going to do to win the votes of "God fearing Blue Collar American" types? Could evolution be the answer to how and not why we exist? I think Deism theology supports evolution.

There are much more frightening things about Sarah Palin and neo-conservatives than this. Frankly I wouldn't care if they didn't believe in evolution as long as they did use God's name to promote bigotry towards homosexuals and other "social deviants". I'd rather see the MSM grill them on basic civil rights issues and how "God" affects their views there.

I said this once and I'll say this again: Evolution does NOT conflict with God, Christianity, or RELIGION! Isn't that an astonishing revelation?! Why can't people understand that?

I also want to be blunt and say this: I am a proud christian who accepts evolution! I repeat: I am a proud CHRISTIAN who accepts EVOLUTION! Evolution in no way whatsoever conflicts with the word of God! That's what a lot of people do not get.

That aside, I always assumed that the New Age beliefs was only for fun, not to be taken seriously. Maybe I'm wrong?

@Kevin Lewis

Oh you are on such dangerous ground.

"Republicans may deny the simple truth of Darwin, but Democrats deny the simple truth of Adam Smith. The theory of evolution is denied by one group, but the Law of Comparative Advantage (for example) is denied by the other."

I'm sorry, but you're so wrong here. I'm neither a Democrat nor Republican (I'm not American), but it doesn't take political affiliation to spot rubbish.

First of all, the Theory of Evolution is very well documented, understood and detailed. There is a mountain of evidence that shows this mechanism at work, to deny the Theory of Evolution is to turn your back on the scientific method.

Economics on the other hand, is far from an exact science. Adam Smith was a revolutionary thinker, a genius, his book 'The Wealth of Nations' in 1776 is considered the first ever important publication directly on the subject of Economics. I'm proud that Adam Smith adorns our £20 notes here in the UK (giving poor old Edward Elgar the elbow). However, to equate his idea of "The Invisible Hand" to The Theory of Evolution is competely incorrect. Adam Smith's idea of the invisible hand has been shown to be a fundamental concept in Economics, however any Economics graduate (such as myself) will have spent several years studying where, and why, it fails to create efficient markets.

As an idea, it is inspired, and leads to a whole fascinating array of thinking and Economic Theory, as a principle to guide your policy decisions it is embarassingly obsolete. The same is true of Evolution, "Darwinism" is a remarkable theory, but definitely not the basis upon which to run a society (see "Social Darwinism").

Thusly, you are way off the mark when you equate Republican ideas on Religion, to Democrat ideas on Economics. There are a huge number of competing Economic theories, all with varying degrees of voracity, all impossible to test without actually putting them into practice. To say that the Republicans have a monopoly on "rational Economic belief" is disasterously misleading.

As an example, the Democrat healthcare reforms (an issue steeped in Economics) is seen as a step towards joining the rest of the civilized world on the topic of healthcare. This is an area of Economics where Republicans definitely do not have a monopoly on rational thinking.

I will say again, I am not a Republican or Democrat, and I am deeply critical of many Democrat Economic policies (renegotiating NAFTA, for example), I would just like to point out that you are making a horrendously false analogy.

On topic, I had no idea Roger Ebert is such a sensible chap, I applaud this article whole-heartedly. As a long time film fan (and die hard Buster Keaton fan, which I constantly come under fire for over here, supporting the yank instead of our own Charlie Chaplin. But I will not be moved, I think Buster was just the better silent comedian! Let's not mention the talkies...), I often disagree with Roger's reviews, but always enjoy reading them.

I saw an interview with FBI profilers on a season box of the TV show "Millenium". One of the men mentioned that while he was at church "fulfilling his religious duties" he was alarmed when he saw children leave the presense of their parents and exit to the restroom by themselves.

Then he said that he always comes back to the realization that everyone is basically decent. Despite everything this man has endured as a public servant, he still has a healthy mind, and a splendid attitude. I applaud him.

The Bible of Patriotism

While I agree wholeheartedly with Ebert's well-established tenets of scrupulous scientific applications to society, there’s but one thing that trumps science in America: The Constitution (and DoI).

How is Ebert wise enough to know what policies will be of ardent use to competing Americans in the near future, no matter how poorly they might have performed in the past?

Thomas Jefferson couldn't be sure himself so he gave us a little insurance policy called term limits.

Jefferson might very well have agreed with Ebert. He proposed that the costs of education were trivial to the costs of ignorance. But why doesn't Ebert acknowledge that the scientific method is applied at every election? Every newly elected official is an experiment. The Bush tax-cuts are an experiment. Doing nothing about Global Warming is an experiment. Obama's 'precautionary policy' is an experiment.

I don't like the religious view of a Creationist either but that doesn't prevent them from making beneficial policies. Who'd have ever thought a Klu Klux Klan member, on the Supreme Court? As it turned out, it was more than wonderful for every American citizen.

The Bill of Rights divorced religion from politics. In spite of this Ebert is not promoting the fullest expression of opinions. This is what Conservatives sometimes refer to as 'shredding the Constitution'. We want all opinions even if they're wrong. Otherwise, as John Stuart Mill argued, we may not fully understand the truth in "its collision with error."

Looking at Alexa, Ebert may be more influential than Stephen Colbert. What frightens me most is that this blog is cleverly masked in a 'science' category. But the message is clear: If you believe in science, don't you dare vote Republican!

People, voting for whomever you want despite their lack of the knowledge of the fact of Evolution, I think, is Jeffersonian. The Constitution, despite human fallibility, is self correcting and its checks and balances will continue to ensure a proper America for our children.

Should despair set in from time to time, perhaps remind ourselves of what Carl Sagan said regarding fallacies intertwining politics:

"...if the citizens are educated and form their own opinions, then those in power work for us...we should be teaching our children the scientific method and the reasons for a Bill of Rights. With it comes a certain decency, humility, and community spirit. In the demon-haunted world that we inhabit by virtue of being human, this may be all that stands between us and the enveloping darkness."

-Scott VanPala