Chalking one up for science vs religion

Apparently, atheists and agnostics performed very well in a survey of religious knowledge (on a par with Jews and Mormons and better than Protestants and Catholics) on questions about the core teachings, history and leading figures of major world religions. More about that here. But it wasn’t the survey I was interested in in particular rather their nice chalkboard graphic, which I’ve now adapted and sloganised.

The idea for the benzene smiley is from Tak as featured on the Reactive Reports chemistry blog.

7 thoughts on “Chalking one up for science vs religion”

  1. I can accept that. However, evolution is a special case because the explanation is based on assumptions about origins that cannot be validated through either experiment or observation; same as the creation narrative. So I would just like evolutionists to acknowledge that their explanation is still a hypothesis, not a theory.

  2. That’s not really the argument at all David. The point is that perspectives on reality that are based not on evidence but fiction have no place in discussions of reality based on evidence. Analysis of the fossil record, for instance, should not discuss Noah and the supernatural placement of artefacts deep within the ground to test our faith, while cosmological models, although far from perfect, need not turn to the concept of giant tortoises piled up one on top of another regardless of how absurd they may seem to non-cosmologists.

  3. There’s this “overvalued idea” that because religion has supposedly hampered scientific progress in the past, individuals who (by embracing creationism or intelligent design) reject evolution are likely to further impede science in the present. At the same time, there’s almost no concern about corporate influence on science education. Both medical and nutrition science education are heavily influenced by corporate entities causing incalculable damage to the public health.

  4. David: Unfortunately, the graphic paints religious experience with too broad a brush, especially in labeling all religious experience as superstition, or to indicate that science itself is free of superstitions historically. A true history of science would recognize both the contributions of religious men and the negative impact of religious institutions on science. Religious experience is universal human experience which can be studied just like science. We can learn a great deal from what human beings have held sacred. Evironmental Science, for example, might benefit from alliances with religious people who hold for the sacredness of our world. Keep up the good work you do. I really find your reports helpful and sometimes I even use them in my classes on religion.

  5. Hi David,

    Interesting post, likely to garner some comment. So: the original article wasn’t about science, and only mentioned it once, as being a part of the general knowledge questions. That’s quite a significant amount of spin to apply, don’t you think?


  6. Fabulous graphic! Way better than the fish with legs. Can it be used by others? As long as properly referenced?

Comments are closed.

If you learned something from Sciencebase, enjoyed a song, snap, or the science, please consider leaving a tip to cover costs. The site no longer runs Google ads or similar systems, so your visit is untainted.