Pew Study: 25% unaffiliated

There's a secular trend toward secularism. Each study shows a greater proportion of the population is made of atheist, agnostics, and the unaffiliated. A recent Pew study of peopled aged 18 to 29 found that:

One in four American millennials — which it defined as those who were born after 1980 and came of age around the millennium -- are not affiliated with any faith tradition, Pew found. They characterize their religion as "atheist," "agnostic" or "nothing in particular."
That compares to fewer than one in five Generation Xers — Americans born from 1965 to 1980 — who were unaffiliated with a religion when they were in their late teens and early 20s.
Just 13 percent of American baby boomers — those born from 1946 to 1964 — were unaffiliated with any religious tradition when they were young adults, according to Pew.

I am pleased with the increases in atheists but I have mixed feelings about the growth in the "unaffiliated." I like that they are moving away from organized religion, but that does not mean that they are free of nonsense. They likely are switching to new-age beliefs various other "spiritual but not religious" things. This will mean that religions will have less influence, and no single form of woo will become dominant. However, it does mean there is more out there to deal with.

---

And now for a tangent: I don't like the term "millenials." Apparently, "generation kickass" was already in use for people born from 1870 to 1885. Though I must admit, it's better than "generation Y," which is derivative and uninspired. Here's a list of cultural generations of western society from Wikipedia: "Lost Generation • Interbellum Generation • Greatest Generation • Silent Generation • Baby Boom Generation • Generation X • Generation Y • Generation Z". Can you spot where someone stopped trying?

Family Guy: "Extra-Large Medium"

List night was yet another reminder of why Family Guy is one of the best shows on television. Lois visits a psychic who tells her everything she wants to hear. When Brian sees how Lois has fallen into the psychic's trap, he demonstrates to her that even an idiot like Peter can duplicate anything that a psychic can do. But, much like real life, Peter mistakes his own trickery with actual psychic abilities and puts on a show of his amazing powers.

Brian has had some problems with woo in the past. He's had acupuncture and said some credulous things in the past, but overall he might be the best rationalist character on television. The only rival I can think of is House, but as far as I know, House never attended Brown.

Sez LOLcat, DethCat iz fail

The Brown Daily Herald published my second column today: A skeptic's response to Oscar the Cat. I do have to admit that I'm disappointed that my suggested title, "Sez LOLcat, DethCat iz fail," was replaced with the one you see. If I had known that I would have suggested another title. The other week, the BDH published an entirely credulous article on Oscar the cat, who made headlines in 2007 for supposedly being able to predict the deaths of patients in a nursing home. Unfortunately, the Brown professor who brought this story to the world has failed to provide evidence for his claims. My column criticizes the BDH for running something so poorly researched and explaining why you should be skeptical that there is any real effect going on.

I had mixed feelings when House had an episode on a similar cat. I was glad that they offered a valid explanation for the cat's supposed abilities rather than saying that the animal has anything supernatural going on. However, as I say in the column, "Before even bothering to speculate on the cause of Oscar’s ability, we should first know whether the effect is real[.]" It is ridiculous to bother coming up with an explanation for something that doesn't need explaining.

In addition to the change in title, I am also very disappointed that my favorite sentence in the whole column was changed. I was discussing what happened in 2007, when a slew of articles were published around the world that bought into the claims about Oscar. My original sentence was, "At best, the article might contain some token skepticism in an attempt to show balance—the false proxy of objectivity." At the very least, the jab of balance got in there.