ريتشارد دوكنز's Blog, page 434

State Question 790: Voters say public money can’t be used for religious purposes

Oklahoma voters rejected a state question that would have removed the restriction on using public money for religious purposes Tuesday when they voted down State Question 790.

It would not have superseded the establishment clause in the U.S. Constitution.

Advertisements touting the measure said it would do things such as protect prayer at football games, display the Ten Commandments, and continue faith-based partnerships.

Continue reading by clicking the name of the source below.

Trump’s election marks the end of any serious hope of limiting climate change to 2 degrees

By David Roberts

The nations of the world have agreed that allowing global average temperature to rise more than 2 degrees from preindustrial levels would be a disaster — that 2 degrees should be avoided at all costs, and that prudence suggests aiming for closer to 1.5 degrees.

Those targets, agreed upon in December in Paris, are now almost certainly out of reach. The fight to prevent dangerous climate change was lost last night with the election of Donald Trump.

I’m seeing a lot of whistling past the graveyard about this. “The main forces determining emission levels of heat-trapping carbon dioxide will be just as much out of President Trump’s hands as they were out of President Obama’s,” writes New York Times columnist Andy Revkin. There’s only so much damage Trump can do, right? This is bigger than him. Right?

Sorry, but I don’t think so.

Continue reading by clicking the name of the source below.

The Question Christians Must Now Ask Themselves

By Nicholas Little

If you didn’t wake up today with a slew of questions running through your mind, it can only be because you didn’t sleep last night. People of all political persuasions and philosophical bents across  the world are asking themselves “What now?” But the group for whom the biggest question must loom is America’s Christian leaders.

Christianity is still dominant in the United States, despite the rapid and continuing growth of the “nones.” Over 70% of Americans identify as some form of Christian. And Christian denominations, through their leaders, are heavily involved in American politics. In this election, despite IRS regulations strictly forbidding such activity on pain of losing tax exempt status, many churches vociferously backed Donald Trump. And this morning those leaders, in particular those in the Evangelical movement, were smiling cheek to cheek at their success.

For the Evangelicals, last night was indeed a stunning success. Abortion will be further restricted, quite possibly to the point of outright criminalization. The Johnson Amendment, that aforementioned IRS regulation which forbids endorsement of candidates, will likely be repealed. Religious schools will likely see fewer barriers to state funding, and, with the appointment of new Supreme Court justices, the country could see dramatically reduced protection against majoritarian religion controlling the public sphere.

Continue reading by clicking the name of the source below.

Dealt a body blow, atheists and humanists regroup

By Kimberly Winston

(RNS) For the last decade, atheists, humanists and others secularists have worked hard to organize a “secular vote” that would counter the political clout of the religious right.

President-elect Donald J. Trump’s victory dealt that movement a body blow when he garnered 81 percent of the white evangelical vote and 60 percent of the white Catholic vote. Mormons, too, voted overwhelmingly for Trump.

Despite Trump’s not being a particularly religious person, his platform was seen as anti-secular in many atheist and humanist circles. He said he would appoint religiously conservative Supreme Court justices, ban Muslim immigrants, favor Christianity and repeal the Johnson Amendment, which prohibits certain tax-exempt organizations from endorsing political candidates — issues antithetical to organized atheism and humanism.

Continue reading by clicking the name of the source below.

Question of the Week – 11/16/16

The differences between the goals of the secular movement and the incoming Trump administration are many, and they are serious. This question is in two parts: What do you think will be the most important issue for secular organizations to challenge the new administration on, and — this might be tough — is there any issue on which President Trump and the secular movement can find common ground?

Our favorite answer wins a copy of A Brief Candle in the Dark by Richard Dawkins (no repeat winners).

And please don’t forget to send in your submissions for Question of the Week! You can suggest a question by emailing us at QotW@richarddawkins.net. Please remember this is for “Question of the Week” suggestions only, and answers to the Question of the Week should be submitted through the comments section on the Question of the Week page  Thank you!

Coming Out Atheist, pg 64

“About 5-15% of all Americans are atheists or other nonbelievers. Those numbers are even higher in many other parts of the world; In some countries, it’s as high as 65%, and possibly even 85%. That’s according to fairly conservative estimates, and the fact that many nonbelievers are uncomfortable saying so – even to themselves. And those numbers are on the rise. So the chances that you’re only the atheist in your neck of the woods are pretty darned small. The chances are excellent that other folks are out there, not far from you, wondering the same things you’re wondering , and feeling just as alone as you are. So check out the organization in the resource guide that sponsor local communities, and ask for information about how to start an atheist group. Or heck – just go to Meetup.com, and hit ‘Start group.'”

–Greta Christina, Coming Out Atheist, pg 64

Post-Election Healing: An Atheist’s Perspective

By Herb Silverman

This presidential campaign has been the most divisive and hate-filled in my lifetime, and I am both shocked and disappointed by the outcome. However, here are a few thoughts on turning some campaign lemons into lemonade as we move forward.

Continue reading by clicking the name of the source below.

Richard Dawkins and Other Prominent Scientists React to Trump’s Win

By Andrea Gawrylewski

This week the U.S. elected businessman and reality TV star Donald Trump as its 45th president. As Scientific American has reported in the run-up to the election, Trump’s views on science, health and medicine appear unformed at best, ignorant and destructive at worst. To get an idea of what top minds in science, health and research are thinking, we reached out to Scientific American‘s Board of Advisers to get their quick-fire reactions to the election outcome. The excerpts, some of them edited for length, appear below.

Continue reading by clicking the name of the source below.

Why You Don’t Have Much Neanderthal DNA in Your Genome

By Stephen Yin

Neanderthals and modern humans diverged from a common ancestor about half a million years ago. Living in colder climes in Eurasia, Neanderthals evolved barrel chests, large skulls and strong hands. In Africa, modern humans acquired shorter faces, a prominent chin and slender limbs. Then, roughly 50,000 years ago, the two species encountered one another and interbred, as modern humans spread out of Africa.

The legacy of this interbreeding has been the subject of much scientific inquiry in the past few years. Today, up to 4 percent of the genes of non-Africans are Neanderthal in origin.. These may have influenced a diverse range of traits, including keratin production, disease risk and the propensity to sneeze after eating dark chocolate. Where did all the other Neanderthal DNA go? Why did a Neanderthal-human hybrid not prevail?

Two recent studies converge on an explanation. They suggest the answer comes down to different population sizes between Neanderthals and modern humans, and this principle of population genetics: In small populations, natural selection is less effective.

Continue reading by clicking the name of the source below.

Can Quantum Physics Explain Consciousness?

By Jennier Ouellette

The mere mention of “quantum consciousness” makes most physicists cringe, as the phrase seems to evoke the vague, insipid musings of a New Age guru. But if a new hypothesis proves to be correct, quantum effects might indeed play some role in human cognition. Matthew Fisher, a physicist at the University of California, Santa Barbara, raised eyebrows late last year when he published a paper in Annals of Physics proposing that the nuclear spins of phosphorus atoms could serve as rudimentary “qubits” in the brain—which would essentially enable the brain to function like a quantum computer.

As recently as 10 years ago, Fisher’s hypothesis would have been dismissed by many as nonsense. Physicists have been burned by this sort of thing before, most notably in 1989, when Roger Penrose proposed that mysterious protein structures called “microtubules” played a role in human consciousness by exploiting quantum effects. Few researchers believe such a hypothesis plausible. Patricia Churchland, a neurophilosopher at the University of California, San Diego, memorably opined that one might as well invoke “pixie dust in the synapses” to explain human cognition.

Fisher’s hypothesis faces the same daunting obstacle that has plagued microtubules: a phenomenon called quantum decoherence. To build an operating quantum computer, you need to connect qubits—quantum bits of information—in a process called entanglement. But entangled qubits exist in a fragile state. They must be carefully shielded from any noise in the surrounding environment. Just one photon bumping into your qubit would be enough to make the entire system “decohere,” destroying the entanglement and wiping out the quantum properties of the system. It’s challenging enough to do quantum processing in a carefully controlled laboratory environment, never mind the warm, wet, complicated mess that is human biology, where maintaining coherence for sufficiently long periods of time is well nigh impossible.

Continue reading by clicking the name of the source below.