So it turns out that those with strong religious beliefs worry less than those without. According to New Scientist, researchers in Toronto ran test on college students and found that

“The students with strong religious beliefs…exhibited less ACC activation [anxiety] than students with less fervent beliefs.” and that “Even after accounting for self-esteem, intelligence and other personality traits, Inzlicht’s team found that religious devotion predicted volunteers’ ACC activity [anxiety levels on the tests administered].” The article also notes that ” A previous study that used similar methods found that politically conservative Americans exhibit less ACC activation than liberals.”

None of that comes as any real surprise to me. I bet if you tested my 5-year-old cousin, she’d have incredibly low anxiety levels as well - because she doesn’t know any better. She has a limited understanding of the world around her, and she is incapable of really grasping the concepts that would lead to real concern on her part. To her, the world is a small, simple place where things either go her way or she pouts.

I know it sounds like I just described Rush Limbaugh and his army of ditto-heads, but that’s only because the parallels are so obvious. I’ve long maintained that religion is a mental crutch - people use it to stand when the strength of their ideas or beliefs aren’t strong enough to stand on their own - and contrary to what you might think, I don’t hate religious people.

I’ve always understood why people choose to be religious, because I’ve often wished that I could be. I would love to just “know” that everything is going to be alright in the end. I would love the sense of security that comes with “knowing” that some higher power was watching and caring about the outcome of my life. Unfortunately, I can’t lie to myself like that.

No one is watching over us, and no one cares, and it’s a terrifying thought. If you don’t know that, then you’re deluding yourself. I guess that’s why they say ignorance is bliss.

I found a article on Fox news about the recent discovery that our galaxy, the Milky Way, is significantly larger then scientists had previously though. While I find this quite interesting I was disappointed by one small part of the article:

“Scientists mapped the Milky Way in a more detailed, three-dimensional way and found that it’s 15 percent larger in breadth. More important, it’s denser, with 50 percent more mass, which is like weight.” Emphasis mine.

Like weight? Really? Now I know this may be nit-picking and is a small distinction but as anyone who has taken a basic high school science class knows, mass and weight are not the same thing. I understand that they are similar, and the units of measurement have the same names, but there is a major difference.  The point of journalism is to educate the populace, not misinform them. All it would take is a few more words, to not only give an accurate description of this amazing discovery but, to potentially enlighten a few people as to the difference between mass and weight.

”… mass, which is the amount of material in an object.”

Four more words, that’s all it would take. And I doubt anyone who can’t understand that would be reading an article on this subject.

Or, maybe our galaxy just needs to hit the gym.

it wasn’t until I was surfing Wikipedia this evening that I realized how timely our brief back-and-forth regarding evolution was. Today happens to be the 83rd anniversary of the sentencing Scopes Monkey Trial.

I find it disheartening that 83 years later some people insist on trying to push religion in public schools while vilifying the progress of science. How anyone could read the transcripts of that trial, in which Clarence Darrow literally crushes William Jennings Bryan with his own words, and still argue for the concept of creationism to be taught as fact just staggers me.

Edit: It’s probably not a coincidence that Slate ran this article earlier this afternoon, which raises an interesting point I had never considered.