Pew, the Straight Dope and the things that people believe (revisited)

I came across a little snippet of information the other day; somewhat out of date but no less relevant for that.


In 2014 a new survey was released by Pew, an American research organisation which purports to encompass world opinion - although I, or any of my 'turtle-mates', have never received one of their questionnaires or a telephone call, which leads me to believe that they are not much interested in a penguin's opinion - that showed that the “nones” or “religiously unaffiliated” in America have become the second largest religious group in the US (22.8% of the surveyed population, jumping up from only 16% in 2007). Big deal, I hear you cry.

Well, perhaps. For those coming from a European perspective, the American obsession (among certain sections of the population) with fundamentalist Christianity has baffled observers of that most technologically advanced society for decades. How could you possibly interpret the Bible as an objective factual account of events, even if you do believe in a God? It appears that some people, mostly the younger generations, are starting to realise that slavishly following your parents' beliefs it not the only way to go. I, for one however, do not believe that those who answered 'none' have necessarily abandoned their belief in God, merely that they do not fall into the categories that Pew listed on their questionnaire, so it's too early for the skeptics or rationalists to shout 'Halleluyah; at last we see some progress'.

Now at the same time as I was reading this (well not at exactly the same time, I'm good but not that good at multi-tasking), I was catching up on some answers to questions in the 'Straight Dope', which I think that I have mentioned before somewhere in this blog. The Straight Dope is a regular question and answer section in the Chicago Reader newspaper (syndicated over a small number of different titles) which purports to be written by one Cecil Adams, surely a fiction, and which addresses, in an authoritive way, answers to questions (purportedly) asked by readers of said newspaper. Most of the questions on the website are from the first decade and a half of the current century, although it has, it is said, been 'fighting ignorance since 1973 - it's been taking longer than we thought!'

I must confess to a certain skepticism over the questions. Are they truly being asked or is it just a few journos sitting in a room thinking 'what is a good topic for today' much as I assume 'problem pages' are because I have never come across a problem like; 'My wife won't swallow my semen and yet in all the porn I have watched women seem to enjoy it?' Is there something wrong with my wife? Can I change my diet so it tastes like honey as opposed, according to her, like acrid semolina or rabbit size-glue? Would Kegel exercises make me be able to come like Peter North and thereby give her no choice?  Answer: get a life!'

Let us for a moment assume that my cynicism is unfounded; they really are genuine questions. Reading through, I pick and choose whatever takes my fancy on a particular day. Some are generally interesting and quite obviously are authortitive and as well researched as time will allow but some are inane and a cursory search on Google will find the answer to the 'specific' question. Either the US is incredibally dim or just bone-idle lazy. Given the size of some of them, I'm inclined to think that laziness and a distinct lack of inquisitiveness on the part of 'middle America' is largely to blame; Sheezus, the sheer size of some of them, makes Cozy look like a supermodel!

Anyway, I tend to disregard the more inane (or those that surely are meant to be a joke) but some of them are quite interesting in a perverse, 'let us Europeans laugh at the Americans' sort of way. For instance, 'rule of thumb'. Is this, an enquirer asked, anything to do with an old 'rule' (from English common law) which allowed men to beat their wives so long as they did so with a crop or switch which was no bigger than the width of a man's thumb? I ask you? Really? It was apparently an urban myth propogated by some feminists in the States. An even basic knowledge of the English language would tell you that many measurement were based on 'human dimensions'; thus hands for the height of horses,  cubits (from Noah's Ark) based on the length of the arm from the elbow to the tip of the middle finger and was considered the equivalent of 6 palms or 2 spans (with the latter two, I rest my case). Once measurements began to be standardised, measuring something by the length of your thumbs would be synonymous with less than accurate but good enough for a first approximation.

Perhaps, more importantly, there are number which throw doubt, in the minds of the enquirers, on well-attested theories or facts which no half-sane individual would be likely to question; the evidence so far as we can tell backs them up wholeheartedly and none of the evidence from empirical observation seems to refute them even if our theories don't quite explain everything.  No doubt, you can already guess the kinds of questions; isn't evolution refuted by the facts (what?); where is the evidence for the Big Bang (what again?); there is incontrovertible evidence of the Biblical flood, why deny it (three times, what?)

I am quite willing to believe that these are made up by quasi-members of the Skeptics Society (only the US could have a society promoting skepticism) merely to hold up such 'creationists' and 'fundamentalists' to ridicule, believing that of course their readers are all rational human beings. On the other hand, what if the questions are real? If so, be afraid people, be afraid; Obama is just a blip. It isn't only the Chinese that we have got to be worried about!