Atheists are a dying breed?

This article by Ed West so obviously misrepresents facts or plainly makes them up. His article really has two fundamental points that have to be true in order for his original point to be correct. Atheists have to have low birth rates, which statistics seem to support, but also it has to be shown that atheists, for the most part, only come from atheist parents. That key second point is casually thrown in the article at the end like everyone should know that it is inherently true. There is no source, not even a bad one. One study of American religiosity found that of all the switching of religions that American's do (and it is quite a lot), about 27% of it is to the "no religion" category. The total population that is raised non religious is only about 3%. So, if atheists really were a dying breed you would have to expect that almost no religious raised children become atheists, and that is just clearly not true.

If West's argument was correct you would also expect that those who identify with no religion would be an ever decreasing number in absolute terms. Not only has that number increased in Canada, but it has done so by 43% from 1991 to 2001. If his argument had even a morsel of truth in it that number would have to be 0% or even lower.

Always remember to check that all pillars of an argument have evidence behind them before buying into the argument as a whole. This writer clearly forgot to.

Politics And Skepticism

Skepticism is considered by many a primarily scientific pursuit, not useful in everyday private or public life. While skepticism is generally more easily applied to science and its properly controlled procedures than to the chaotic world we live in, it is still vital to a functioning society that we don't let irrationality take over the public sphere. Skepticism can, and should, be applied to our political beliefs and attitudes.

Before delving deeper into how I believe skepticism should be applied to political thought, I must acknowledge that certain parts of our political opinions are moral or ethical questions and therefore can not be directly taken from facts. One recent example is whether it is morally right to deficit spend in order to improve our current situation at the cost of further generations having to pay it back.

Any question that is primarily moral or ethical cannot be judged in a solely skeptical way, however, proposed outcomes can be judged skeptically. If I make it my goal to lower carbon emissions, I can judge how effective potential methods are at reaching this goal. A skeptical look at evidence can also be used to determine the costs of moral political decisions. For instance, one could point out that absolute free speech can lead to hate crime.

The health care debate that is currently raging on in the U.S. can be much better understood by separating these two distinctive thought processes. The differences between democrats and republicans (in a general way) can better be understood by looking at the moral basis for their opinion rather than by looking at the facts. Republicans, in general, believe that individuals should be responsible for their own healthcare even if it doesn't always lead to the "best" results, whereas Democrats generally believe that society has a duty to look after the health and wellbeing of all its citizens. The problem with the debate that is going on is that it is centred on facts and not the moral, or ethical, values that are the primary reason for the differences.

If there was a fundamental agreement among Americans that society should look after the health and wellbeing of its members, then the focus goes back to skepticism. Comparing all the different countries that have this as there mandated goal gives a good skeptical starting point at how to best achieve these goals.

In order to increase the levels of skepticism within politics, we have to differentiate between moral opinions and reasoned opinions so that we can effectively debate important issues within our political landscape.