The Pew Research Center recently compiled a lengthy and exhaustive study on the state of science education in the United States. The project–which sampled about 1,000 randomly selected US citizens–tackled a variety of issues in the public perception of science. Some of the results were surprising–84% of Americans think that science’s impact on society has been almost entirely positive–and some where less surprising (that is, more disheartening): fewer than half of those surveyed knew if an electron was smaller or larger than an atom. The Pew Center correlated the results with a few different factors, including education (which, not surprisingly, correlates very strongly with scientific literacy), age (the 30-49 age group was the most scientifically literate, while the 65+ age group was the least literate), and sex (on average, men know more than women). They did not, however, bother to correlate the results with religion, which would yield some interesting results, I suspect–specifically, my (perhaps unfounded) suspicion is that religiosity will correlate negatively with scientific literacy: I’d be willing to wager that the strongly religious know less about science than the irreligious. At the very least, I imagine that atheists would do better than average on a quiz like this–now, thanks to the pure awesomeness that is the Internet, we can test my hypothesis.
Since the official results have already been compiled, the Pew Center has made the original literacy quiz available on their website: you can answer the same questions that the original respondents answered, and see where you score for your gender, education, and age. The quiz is short–only 12 questions long–so I’d recommend taking it, if just for the inevitable ego boost that it will give you. If you do decide to take the quiz, post your score (as well as whether you identify as an atheist, agnostic, Christian, &c.) in the comments; let’s see if my hypothesis that atheists will do better than average–the average score overall was a bit less than 8 out of 12. I got all of them right, which means that I don’t have to commit seppuku, at least not today. How’d you do? Were there any questions that gave you pause? Anything about the results in general that you find surprising?
Loading ...
12/12 correct, 18-29 y/o male, Postgraduate studies (Masters of Philosophy)
I would have thought this was an easy general knowledge questionnaire, but I guess I’ve had shitloads of education (two undergrad degrees plus postgrad).
I’m officially a “strong agnostic”, but only because I think that an honest application of empiricism and verificationism makes the both atheist and theist philosophically untenable. That said, you could also call me a “weak” atheist and I won’t complain
12/12, 30y/o male, college dropout after 1 semester, Anti-theism
Of course the existence of a deistic god can’t be disproved. The burden of proof is on the claimant. What the hell does strong agnostic mean? Its a one or a zero. Either you think it can be known or it can’t. Strictly on/off. Quit muddying the waters.
Eric, its okay to not know about terms but the best thing to do is politely ask about it rather than presume that the person using the terms is simply being unnecessarily confusing. Here is the explanation:
A theist and an atheist make ontological claims of existence (and non-existence).
A gnostic and an agnostic make epistemological claims (i.e. of what is knowable).
One set deals with what exists, and the other set deals with what can be known. They are different.
A weak atheist does not assent to the claim “God exists”. A strong atheist says “God does not exist” (i.e. is affirmative).
A weak agnostic says “I don’t know whether god(s) exist or not”, and a strong agnostic says “Nobody can know *in principle* whether god(s) exist or not”. Again, different claims.
For more info, you might like to read about it here
http://wiki.ironchariots.org/index.php?title=Atheist_vs._agnostic
The term “strong agnostic” isn’t mentioned in that linked article. I am aware of the meanings of the terms atheist and agnostic, that’s why I asked about your use of the adjective “strong” in conjunction with “agnostic”. I think you are misusing them. As I said before, agnostic is strictly on/off. Also, an atheist doesn’t need to assert that god’s don’t exist, so, why is atheism philosophically untenable?
I would recommend reading A.J Ayer on verificationism.
It is true that a person who is agnostic in principle could also very easily say that they were an atheist in the weak sense, but if we are talking about those atheists and theists who are making the strong claim then both are a problem from an empirical perspective.
I used “strong agnostic” to mean that all metaphysical claims about any type of transcendent reality other than the natural/material world is unknowable and thus comments about such things are meaningless (or “factually insignificant”, as Ayer would say).
It’s a similar argument to the atheist argument against god, whereby the atheist says that god cannot be defined coherently and thus cannot be believed in.
I should add, I don’t think we are disagreeing. I mean, I don’t think that weak atheism is untenable. I could be described as a weak atheist.