New study on atheists

[ghostexorcist]

Prof. Jerome P. Baggett, a theology teacher from Berkley, is conducting a study on atheists. I first learned about it from watching a video by the YouTuber ZomGitscriss (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fkdjOa-60cQ&feature=player_embedded). Participants are required to fill out a questionnaire, a survey, and a consent form. All three were originally available in a single file in ZomGitscriss' video description, but it became corrupted for some reason. She has posted them to Google Docs. You can access them here:

* The questionnaire - https://docs.google.com/document/pub?id=1Xst_8cD7A_FVurG2Lt2ZOgs1sqouH4UkxRBb7GXFK5 Y (The same document is tripled for some reason. Just copy it up to the point where it is says "Thanks again. Your perspective is very important to us.")

* The survey - https://docs.google.com/document/pub?id=1SinNWaQ-CuengbWTOAH2orrBvj_x7pZSqy81L4iTYCQ (the survey didn't transfer to Google Docs very good as the lines you mark with an "X" got jumbled up.)

* The consent form - https://docs.google.com/document/pub?id=1AkJGs4DfxX66rvCelRj0r69jzl3e1I4FFYdkwrm0vd o

Once you are done, email the finished documents to jbaggett@jstb.edu. I've already sent in my responses. He was nice enough to write me back and thank me for taking time to help out with the study.

[David Jamieson]

A theology teacher.... hmmn, I don't think there will be any confirmation bias there whatsoever do you?

[ghostexorcist]

Other atheists I've told about this study have had the same concerns. I'm holding my judgement until the research comes out. There have been numerous video responses on YouTube. Aron Ra (a noted atheist activist) posted his response here (http://freethoughtblogs.com/aronra/2012/08/13/academic-study-of-atheists/). I've posted my responses here (http://ghostexorcist.livejournal.com/15224.html) and here (http://ghostexorcist.livejournal.com/15375.html) (split due to size limitations). Even if the study turns out to be a dud, I still have my thoughts written down. I can give what I've written to curious family members who want to know more about my worldview.

[sanjuro_ronin]

I think that, for many believers, they have a hard time understanding atheists.
"Militant" atheists ( for lac of a better word) like Dawkins, Dennet, Hitchens, etc have made it even more difficult.
I know quite a few atheists and I have the previlage of calling some friends and they are great people BUT I do think that because of a very vocal minority, atheists get a bad rap by believers.
Sure some are very mean-spirited, closed minded, arrogant and, well, not very smart BUT so are a lot of believers, LOL !

These may simply be a study trying to bridge that gap and I know that many believers truly want to understand why some people are atheist.

[ghostexorcist]

[...]

These may simply be a study trying to bridge that gap and I know that many believers truly want to understand why some people are atheist.

That's the way I am looking at the study.

[Drake]

A theology teacher.... hmmn, I don't think there will be any confirmation bias there whatsoever do you?

Not necessarily. If he is a professor, one might think he would place the research before the bias, or at least acknowledge it during his paper. During my masters and doctorate studies, we were told not to so much shut down your biases (which is impossible), but to acknowledge them and carefully review your findings to see if you had crossed any lines inadvertently. Peer review, a standard amongst academic journals, is also very helpful for this.

Let's see what he comes up with before assuming confirmation bias. That's like confirmation bias of confirmation bias! :eek:

[David Jamieson]

well, I guess it will help people understand that they aren't atheists and actually anti-theists or anti-religious...which is what most of the flavour of "atheism" is these days anyway.

I wouldn't say Hitchens was exclusively an atheist so much as he was an anti-theist. He made the latter stronger than the former.

Dawkins more or less fits the same pair of pants as well i many ways.

[sanjuro_ronin]

well, I guess it will help people understand that they aren't atheists and actually anti-theists or anti-religious...which is what most of the flavour of "atheism" is these days anyway.

I wouldn't say Hitchens was exclusively an atheist so much as he was an anti-theist. He made the latter stronger than the former.

Dawkins more or less fits the same pair of pants as well i many ways.

Yes, I would agree with that term, anti-theist.

[Syn7]

Not necessarily. If he is a professor, one might think he would place the research before the bias, or at least acknowledge it during his paper. During my masters and doctorate studies, we were told not to so much shut down your biases (which is impossible), but to acknowledge them and carefully review your findings to see if you had crossed any lines inadvertently. Peer review, a standard amongst academic journals, is also very helpful for this.

Let's see what he comes up with before assuming confirmation bias. That's like confirmation bias of confirmation bias! :eek:

Totally agree. To assume bias in the final data is a huge bias itself.

[David Jamieson]

Totally agree. To assume bias in the final data is a huge bias itself.

The assumption isn't being drawn from the fact there is a study. The assumption is formed because the study is being done from a theological perspective.

Sometimes, it is not unwise to make such assumptions when information can be extrapolated from the event.

An uninterested and non-invested source for the study would not invite such an assumption.

[Scott R. Brown]

An uninterested and non-invested source for the study would not invite such an assumption.

Where would one find such a person?

Everyone has a personal world view that presupposes bias, it is inescapable.

I know, look for someone with lesser bias, but the determination of who has a lesser bias is also formed from a biased perspective. It is once again, inescapable.

[sanjuro_ronin]

Of course we all have biases, look at the case of Marc Hauser and what he, supposedly, did to try and validate his view/bias that morality evolved:

http://www.boston.com/whitecoatnotes/2012/09/05/harvard-professor-who-resigned-fabricated-manipulated-data-says/UvCmT8yCcmydpDoEkIRhGP/story.html

Marc Hauser, a prolific scientist and popular psychology professor who last summer resigned from Harvard University, had fabricated data, manipulated results in multiple experiments, and described how studies were conducted in factually incorrect ways, according to the findings of a federal research oversight agency posted online Wednesday.

The report provides the greatest insight yet into the problems that triggered a three-year internal university investigation that concluded in 2010 that Hauser, a star professor and public intellectual, had committed eight instances of scientific misconduct. The document, which will be published in the Federal Register Thursday, found six cases in which Hauser engaged in research misconduct in work supported by the National Institutes of Health. One paper was retracted and two were corrected, and other problems were found in unpublished work.

Although Hauser “neither admits nor denies committing research misconduct,” he does, the report states, accept that federal authorities “found evidence of research misconduct.”

According to the federal findings:

-Hauser fabricated data in a 2002 Cognition paper that was later retracted, which examined monkeys’ ability to learn patterns of syllables. He never exposed monkeys to a particular sound pattern described in the experiment, despite reporting the results in a graph.

-In two experiments, researchers measured monkeys’ responses to patterns of consonants and vowels, a process called “coding” their behavior. Hauser falsified the coding, causing the results to pass a statistical test used to ensure that a particular finding was not just a chance result. Colleagues coding the same experiments came up with different results. Hauser “acknowledged to his collaborators that he miscoded some of the trials and that the study failed to provide support for the initial hypothesis,” the report said.

-A paper examining monkeys’ abilities to learn grammatical patterns included false descriptions of how the monkeys’ behavior was coded, “leading to a false proportion or number of animals showing a favorable response,” the findings stated. In an early version of the paper, he falsely reported that all 16 monkeys responded more strongly to an ungrammatical pattern than a grammatical one. Records reviewed by investigators found that one monkey responded in the opposite way and another responded equally. Hauser claimed that the behavior was coded by three scientists, when in fact he was the only one who measured their behavior. Then, when the manuscript was revised, he provided a false numerical description of the extent of agreement among multiple observers in coding behavior, despite being the only observer. All issues were corrected before publication.

[Scott R. Brown]

Yeah....but at least science corrected itself!

Okay what about all those other studies that have been faked, or slanted due to scientists' personal bias that we don't know about...and form public policy and from which we build our personal lives around?

[Lucas]

Someone who believes in the possiblity of God(s) existance but does not believe in the existance in a definitive way due to lack of knowledge. That same person believes in the possibility of non existance of God(s), but does not believe in the non existance in a definitive way due to lack of knowledge. That is the middle ground, IMO. Neither here nor there. There is not bias agenda for an individual of that standing, they simply want to learn more through experimentation to try and gain any more possible knowledge than they currently have.

I am the One!!

http://www.asianpopcorn.com/battle_images/jet_li_the_one_06092009021043.jpg

[Scott R. Brown]

I am the One!!

YeaH.....but WHICH One?

[Lucas]

THE!!!! one. not that one or this one but THE one. THEEEE

DONT YOU FORGET IT

[Scott R. Brown]

THE!!!! one. not that one or this one but THE one. THEEEE

DONT YOU FORGET IT

I am soooooo confused!!!!!!

Which one is THE One and which one is THEEEE One?

There are too many One's to choose from!!

How can I not forget something I haven't even figured out yet?:confused:

[Drake]

The assumption isn't being drawn from the fact there is a study. The assumption is formed because the study is being done from a theological perspective.

Sometimes, it is not unwise to make such assumptions when information can be extrapolated from the event.

An uninterested and non-invested source for the study would not invite such an assumption.

I didn't read the survey. Did you? Just because a research project is being done by a religious person doesn't mean there must be bias. That's an assumption. That's like assuming a religious quantum computing scientist will attribute decoherence to "the devil's trickery"

[Lucas]

I am soooooo confused!!!!!!

Which one is THE One and which one is THEEEE One?

There are too many One's to choose from!!

How can I not forget something I haven't even figured out yet?:confused:

Wrong. There can be ONLY one. That one is me, this one, the one. Not two, not three, and definately not zero, but one. If you add three and subtract four and add one, you get one. ME. Get it?

[Scott R. Brown]

Wrong. There can be ONLY one. That one is me, this one, the one. Not two, not three, and definately not zero, but one. If you add three and subtract four and add one, you get one. ME. Get it?

I got it! You are very lonely because you all alone and probably because you do advance mathematics in your spare time!

Try doing crosswords in Starbucks, while blogging on your Apple laptop!

Free advice from The TWO.......NOT One, NOT Three, but TWO and ONLY TWO!!!

[Lucas]

Dear Two,

I do not have a source to find an apple that is large enough to stay on my lap entirely. I could perhaps put one on one of my legs. As two is your department, I hesitate to use both of my legs for this activity. Definition number 50 on the urban dictionary describes a blog as; "A slang term referring to a massive "dump" taken after a successful meal. (Big-ass-log)= Blog!", so perhaps after I eat the large apple that you can source for me, I will have plenty to blog with! Definition numer 86 describes starbucks as; "A place to take a dump when you're in the city." So apparently this would be a grand place to blog while doing a crossword puzzle.

I shall contemplate this advice.

Regards,
The One

[Lee Chiang Po]

Many years ago I bore witness to 2 different serveys concerning such. Because it would have been offensive to many people for many reasons, the surveys were actually covering a wide range of things, about 4 good pages of questions, asked in a way in a sequence that would not indicate patterns refering to a persons intellegence or religion. However as all the different information was catigorized, it gave some really strong indications. People that seek higher education tend to be slightly more intellegent than those that do not. So education and such were used to indicate the overall intellegence of each group. Not really scientific I guess. But it indicated that starting with the much lower intellegent people were not only earning lower income annually, but tended to be more religious. As they move up in intellegence to the middle ground, it was a mix. About equal in faithful and athiests. As it moved on up in intellegence religion sort of fell off considerably. So, what it indicated was the more religious you were, the dumber you had to be. And the smarter you were, the less likely you were to be religious.
The agruement as to whether or not there is a God is one that can not be decided. The only ones that would know are the ones that die and supposedly pass into the hereafter. We never hear from these people ever again, so they are not that cooperative. We will never know. So, we continue to except 10% of peoples income in the name of their Savior. We pray for their souls and teach them to put the weight of their burden upon the shoulders of this Savior. It gives them a warm and fuzzy feeling, and it makes my purse heavy with coin.

[Syn7]

Or it could mean that contact with higher education resulted in less religiosity. That does not mean that intelligence and/or knowledge has any correlation with religiosity. It could be many things.




On another note... A few coins for a warm fuzzy doesn't really sound like a bad deal to me. Regardless of the validity of these feelings in a factual historical construct.

If being a good lil rank and file christian soldier makes you happy, go for it. Just don't force your sh1t on me and we can be friends.

[Syn7]

The assumption isn't being drawn from the fact there is a study. The assumption is formed because the study is being done from a theological perspective.

You assume he cannot form an less biased study because of his profession? I say less biased instead of non biased because non biased does not exist. We all have our own perspectives, but it is possible to look outside your own perspective. It is also possible to study many perspectives in order to eliminate bias from a study, never all, but you do the best you can. Because the man is a theology professor is not enough info to assume he cannot do this.


Sometimes, it is not unwise to make such assumptions when information can be extrapolated from the event.

Yeah, there is a word for that, it's called bias. ironic since that is the word you originally chose to use.


An uninterested and non-invested source for the study would not invite such an assumption.

We all have some bias, interested or not. Why can't you just admit it was a short sighted comment? I've never seen you admit fault, this concerns me.

[Drake]

If an atheist were to conduct the survey, wouldn't it be an equally foolish assumption to think he or she would be less biased?

In the context of the afterlife, or lack thereof, EVERYONE has some sort of bias. Unless, of course, they are machines. Then, they clearly know that Brachamachina is the true and only god.

[ghostexorcist]

That's nice that people are discussing natural bias in research, but is anyone going to participate in the study? Like I said, I'm holding my judgement until the paper and or book comes out.

[poshmissy]

Hello Everyone! In my opinion, anyone whether he believes in God or doesn't believe that a God exists, they all deserve some respect for what they believe in. We have several religions in this world and each of us has own opinion on what to believe spiritually. :)

[David Jamieson]

Hello Everyone! In my opinion, anyone whether he believes in God or doesn't believe that a God exists, they all deserve some respect for what they believe in. We have several religions in this world and each of us has own opinion on what to believe spiritually. :)

I am not sure I respect what they believe in, but I respect them as human beings, see and understand they are all allowed to make their own mistakes and so long as their beliefs bring harm to no one else, it's irrelevant what they believe.

But the beliefs themselves do not require being respected if your view of them is that they are wrong or superstitious or factually unstable.

If a belief cannot be factually defended and argued for, then people should probably stop defending the indefensible and arguing the inarguable.

person a: "I believe in God"
person b: "good for you, want pizza?"

the end.