Listening to post-NOVA comments, someone mentioned everyone has their background, inherently biased towards religion. I'm inclined to disagree as I lack such a background, as do others. Of course, that gives me a bias, but I think mine's to think critically about what I believe. One friend of mine is an atheist- never been to a church in her life. I don't believe her parents are also atheist, so I'm not sure how she reached that conclusion.
Interesting thing about young people going out and doing crazy shit- brain chemistry.
I'm going to comment back on DeWitt's comment calling Darwinism a religion. That's one of my pet peeves- Darwinism is NOT a religion; there are no prayers or anything like that to the bearded fellow, and he isn't seen as any kind of deity. Again, if you're even GOING to call me a Darwinist, call me a Wallacist because the biogeographer needs some love as well. Science education in America needs to cover this better if people make the assumption that scientific theory can be considered a religion. Doctrine ≠ religion. There's Marxism, communism, taoism, and various other -isms, but not all are religion. We as Americans seem to be fixated on these -ism things.
Personal beliefs are personal- agh. This guy again, glasses dude from my notes earlier... some of us did NOT receive a religious background when we were younger, so we're somewhat free of 'doctrination'. Evolution wasn't shocking to me, it was more like 'oh, cool!'
If I recall correctly, PZ Meyers had the same perspective that religious indoctrination is child abuse as Dawkins.
Seriously. I'm feeling left out of the having a religious bias thing. :[ Maybe I should've let the Mormons drag me away at a young age.
Oooh, writing project! Oh, on actual pap- oh, e-mail. Will do that then, since I've already got it open. Man, am I glad I blogged this so I've got names.
No comments:
Post a Comment