Unknown's avatar

About Richard Bowker

Author of the Portal series, the Last P.I. series, and other novels

How religious are scientists?

In response to my post on whether an atheist could be elected president, reader Jeff points to a Pew poll surveying the level of religiosity shown be members of the American Association for the Advancement of Science.  This study showed that these scientists were about an order of magnitude less religious than the general American public:

[T]he poll of scientists finds that four-in-ten scientists (41%) say they do not believe in God or a higher power, while the poll of the public finds that only 4% of Americans share this view.

The writeup of the poll mentions that this study more or less agrees with the results of similar polls:

The recent survey of scientists tracks fairly closely with earlier polls that gauged scientists’ views on religion. The first of these was conducted in 1914 by Swiss-American psychologist James Leuba, who surveyed about 1,000 scientists in the United States to ask them about their views on God. Leuba found the scientific community equally divided, with 42% saying that they believed in a personal God and the same number saying they did not.

More than 80 years later, Edward Larson, a historian of science then teaching at the University of Georgia, recreated Leuba’s survey, asking the same number of scientists the exact same questions. To the surprise of many, Larson’s 1996 poll came up with similar results, finding that 40% of scientists believed in a personal God, while 45% said they did not. Other surveys of scientists have yielded roughly similar results.

The writeup doesn’t mention that Leuba did another study in 1914 of the level of belief of “greater scientists,” identified as such in the publication American Men of Science.  For these guys, the level of disbelief was somewhat higher — about 53%.  He replicated the study in 1933, at which point disbelief had risen to 68%.  In 1998 Larson tried to replicate these studies by sending a questionnaire to members of the National Academy of Sciences, which is an elected body of distinguished scientists; the authors believe this sample was probably more selective than Leuba’s samples.  For NAS members in 1998, the rate of disbelief was 72%.  The level of actual personal belief had declined from 27% to 7% (the remainder are agnostics).  The authors write:

As we compiled our findings, the NAS issued a booklet encouraging the teaching of evolution in public schools, an ongoing source of friction between the scientific community and some conservative Christians in the United States. The booklet assures readers, “Whether God exists or not is a question about which science is neutral”. NAS president Bruce Alberts said: “There are many very outstanding members of this academy who are very religious people, people who believe in evolution, many of them biologists.” Our survey suggests otherwise.

So, let’s consider samples of 500 people:

1 out of 500 members of Congress doesn’t believe in God.

20 out of 500 people in the general American public don’t believe.

205 out of 500 regular ol’ scientists don’t believe.

360 out of 500 distinguished scientists don’t believe.

I don’t have anything deep to say here; I just wanted to point out the gap between the religious beliefs of elite scientists and those of the general public — and the chasm between their beliefs and those of members of Congress.

Rule 5: Outline

Continuing with our rules for writing:

Imagine that you’re about to start on a long car trip — one that might take you a year or more.  It’s dark out.  You have only a vague idea what your destination is, or how to get there.  What should you do?

  • Turn on your headlights so you can see the next hundred yards or so, and hit the accelerator. Or:
  • Write yourself some directions before you even get into the car.

Rule 5 says you should write yourself some directions.  I’m sure some writers can keep entire plots and all their characters in their heads, either because they’re really smart or their novels are really simple.  Or the plots and characters just work themselves out as the novel progresses, and there are a minimum of dead ends or wrong turns along the way.

None of those characterizations applies to me.  I have started adding some review quotes to the descriptions of my novels hidden under “Books” at the top of this blog.  It’s surprising to me how many times reviewers point out the twists and turns of my plots, even for novels that I don’t recall as being especially complicated.  But even if you don’t have to carefully plant clues or plan out multiple plot twists, you’re going to have lots of things happening in your 80,000+ words, and it’s helpful to figure out as much of that action ahead of time as you can.

There are two problems with writing an outline for a novel:

  • You won’t get it right.  What works in an outline won’t necessarily work in a novel.  Characters turn out differently; scenes suddenly pop into your head that demand to be included.  (Again, maybe some writers can get the outline completely right; that ain’t me.)
  • You’ll get bored.  You didn’t get into this business to write outlines.  At some point you’re going to need to put the outline aside and start doing with what you really want to be doing.

Still, you’re better off with an incomplete, inaccurate outline than none at all.  What I’ve typically done is something like this:

  • Take notes about plot elements and characters until that becomes boring.
  • Start an outline, and keep fleshing it out until that gets boring.  (It has to take me from beginning to end; it’s the level of detail in between that’s at issue.)
  • Start writing the novel, keeping the outline at hand to make sure I don’t leave out anything important.  I’ll occasionally add to the outline if I get a bright idea for later in the novel while I’m working on an early chapter.

I write the outline as a narrative of the events, just like a novel — this helps maintain my interest. Some of the sentences in the outline may even end up in the novel.  Typically the outline ends up being between 20 and 30 pages.  At that point, I’ve had it; I’ve got to get to “Call me Ishmael.”

Update: MaryA, who apparently never forgets anything, let me know that I cribbed the idea of writing as driving in the dark with your headlights on from E.L. Doctorow, who had a slightly different point to make:

It’s like driving a car at night. You never see further than your headlights, but you can make the whole trip that way.

He also had this to say:

Planning to write is not writing. Outlining …researching …talking to people about what you’re doing, none of that is writing. Writing is writing.

Clearly he is a believer in Rule 0.

Could an atheist be elected president?

The Ides of March is not a great movie, but it has its moments of liberal porn, where we see presidential candidate George Clooney saying things that we wish liberal candidates knew how to say.  Here is how he responds in a debate to his opponent’s charge that he isn’t a practicing Christian:

I’m not a Christian. I’m not an Atheist. I’m not Jewish. I’m not Muslim. My religion, what I believe in, is called the Constitution of United States of America.

(This is a rehearsed talking point — we see his aide Ryan Gosling reciting it during a sound check before the debate.)

Good enough, I suppose.  But could a presidential really get away with not being a Christian — or worse, being a self-proclaimed atheist?  I mentioned in a comment that Richard Dawkins believes we should judge candidates on their religious beliefs, like the bizarre mythology of Mormonism.  But of course this isn’t likely to happen.  Evangelicals may grumble about Romney, but the mainstream media — and liberals — will both sing from the same hymnal: a person’s religious beliefs are a private matter.  Even if those private beliefs are arrant nonsense.  But what about a candidate’s lack of religious beliefs?

Of course, the problem isn’t likely to come up, because virtually every American politician professes some level of religious belief.  Wikipedia’s interesting article about Discrimination against atheists notes that only one member of Congress — Pete Stark of California — has “come out” as a nonbeliever.  Since the percentage of nonbelievers in Congress is far below that of comparably educated groups, these politicians are probably either self-selecting (atheists don’t even bother going into politics) or lying about their beliefs.

With good reason.  This article states that 52% of Americans wouldn’t vote for a well-qualified atheist to be president — more than those who wouldn’t vote for a Muslim.  The study reported on here puts the number at 45%.  According to the study, atheists are considered about as trustworthy as rapists. Interestingly, atheists also tend to trust religious people more than other atheists.  One of the comments on the article sums up the problem nicely (the spelling is in the original):

The reason people won’t trust an athiest is plain and simple: Athiests have no moral foundation for what they believe in because they do not believe in anything. How can you have faith in someone who has no faith to stand for.

Better to believe in the truth of the Book of Mormon than to believe in science.

As great, if not greater than…

In the Boston Globe today, we have this sentence, in an article about the dangers facing America after the Cold War:

Nonetheless, more than two-thirds of the members of the Council on Foreign Relations–as good a cross-section of the foreign-policy brain trust as there is–said in a 2009 Pew Survey that the world today was as dangerous, or even more so, than during the Cold War.

Is it just me, or does that sentence go off the rails at the end?  The “or even more so” seems to cause the author to completely forget where he was going.  He wants to say something like “as dangerous as, or even more dangerous than, it was during the Cold War.”  But maybe that was just too simple.

The second “as” in constructions like this seems to disappear more often than it shows up nowadays, leaving us with sentences that just don’t parse.  This sentence was a little complex; I have noticed the problem in constructions as simple as, if not simpler than: “…as great, if not greater than, Larry Bird.”

I’m too young to feel like a curmudgeon.

The article, by the way, is fairly interesting, making the case that the world is safer than we think, while the foreign policy establishment, and all the political candidates, hugely overestimate the threats out there.  It doesn’t mention Pinker’s The Better Angels of Our Nature, but it should.

Baseball notes

You can’t blame me for yesterday’s debacle. Nor Bobby Valentine. I like the Times headline: “Two late touchdowns lift Yankees in Boston”. ESPN tells me this is the second time in MLB history that a team has led by nine runs, and then lost by six or more. Go Sox!

Dice-K Matsusaka, Red Sox nation turns its lonely eyes to you.

From the vantage point of my hotel treadmill this morning, where I saw it about six times, no way was that a swing on the last pitch of Humber’s perfect game. I don’t think the batter would have been safe at first if he had bothered to run instead of arguing with the umpire, but it would have been awesome if the perfect game was lost on a strikeout with two outs in the ninth. Awesome for collectors of baseball oddities, not for Mr. Humber.

Was I the only one who expected more than 200 ex-Red Sox at Fenway on Friday? I wish I knew what percentage this represents. Did people have to pay their way to Boston? Get their own hotel rooms?

This is the first post I’ve composed on my iPad. The interface isn’t too bad.

Joe Hurley explains why he became a priest

In this scene from Pontiff, Father Joe Hurley explains to Lieutenant Kathleen Morelli, a lapsed and very suspicious Catholic, why he became a priest. They have teamed up to try to track down a possible threat to the Pope when he visits Boston, and are driving back from interviewing someone who might have information about the threat.

This is something of an antidote to the theology I talked about in this post.

**********************

Morelli glanced over at him. She was beginning to think she had misjudged him, somehow. Priests weren’t all alike, she supposed, but still… “So what’s your story, Father?” she asked. “How did you end up—you know—”

“Trapped in Holy Orders?” Hurley suggested. “Doing a thirteenth-century job in the twenty-first century? It’s strange how often I’m called upon to defend my career choice.” He paused, as if considering how much to give back in return for her life story. “Well, to begin with,” he said, “I was raised in what I’d call a relaxed Catholic family. Nothing like yours—which probably says a lot about how to bring up your kids if you want them to be religious. Anyway, we went to Mass on Sundays, but if we skipped it was no big deal, and we didn’t bother with much else. I was mostly a jock growing up—football meant a lot more to me than God. I was a star in high school, got an athletic scholarship to Boston College, and then things sort of went downhill. I had some injuries, and maybe I wasn’t quite as good as I thought I was, so I spent most of my varsity career as third-string quarterback, getting ready for an opportunity that never actually came.

“But looking back, that was all to the good. Gave me a chance to think, to focus on the big picture. And the big picture, much to my surprise, didn’t include football. I had pretty much decided in my senior year that I wanted to enter the seminary, and then I just had to put up with people—including my family—trying to talk me out of it.”

“But why?” Morelli persisted. “Why become a priest? I just don’t get why anyone would want to do that nowadays.”

“Exactly what my family and friends said—and even quite a few of the priests I talked to. I felt like a freak. Perfect strangers would hear about my decision and feel compelled to come up to me and tell me I was making a big mistake. And this was at a Catholic college, right? So I’m a weak person and eventually I caved in. I graduated and I went to work on Wall Street for a few years—and, you know, I wasn’t bad at it. I made a pot of money and my bosses told me I had a great future and I thought about applying to business school. I left religion for Sundays. All my friends breathed easier, as if they’d saved me from becoming a Moonie.

“And it didn’t take. I just couldn’t get the priesthood out of my mind. Now you can keep asking me why, just like my family and friends, and I could give you answers that have to do with helping people and making a difference, but they wouldn’t be the real story, because my reasons are beyond logic, beyond rational explanation. They call it a vocation—a calling. God called me. I have no idea why He called me instead of my roommate or the middle linebacker on the football team or that kid in Economics class who actually looked like a priest; but He did. I’m as sure of it as I’m sure I’m sitting in this car. So eventually I gave up trying to please everyone else and trying to kid myself, and I did what I knew I had to do. And here I am.”

Morelli took the Brighton exit off the Turnpike, and she made her way toward Hurley’s apartment. What about sex? she wanted to ask him—wasn’t that all anyone really wanted to know about a priest?—but she didn’t. He still made her uncomfortable—even more so now, after she had heard his story, and she knew he wasn’t some mama’s boy who had been saying the rosary since he was three and never had a thought of living in the real world. He wasn’t in the priesthood, apparently, to hide from life, or because he had some big problem to work out. He was just like everyone else—except he had chosen to be different.

She decided to ask about something else. “So, with this calling of yours—does that mean you agree with all the Church’s teachings? I’m really not trying to be obnoxious about this, Father. I just don’t know how it works. I’m only used to one way of looking at things—my father’s way.”

“First,” Hurley said, “if you don’t call me Joe, I’m going to jump out of the car.”

“Okay. Joe.”

“Thank you. Second, you don’t check your brain or your conscience when you enter the seminary. At least, I didn’t. This may sound stupid—all right, I know it’ll sound stupid—but I think of it like being on a football team. You may not agree with the play the coach is calling, but he’s the coach, and you know that the only way you can win is through discipline and sticking together. If you worry about why he’s doing what he’s doing, you’re going to mess up. His job is to call the plays, and your job is to execute them.”

“But football is about winning,” she pointed out. “Religion isn’t about winning, it’s about the truth.”

Hurley shook his head. “Religion isn’t about anything,” he responded. “It is. Religion is the sport, the gridiron, the reason you’re out there wearing pads and helmets and cleats and having three-hundred-pound men hurling you to the ground. It isn’t about whether the coach calls a draw play when you think you should be running a play action. It isn’t about punting instead of going for it on fourth down. Those are just… details. It’s a mistake to get lost in the details.”

“That is totally sick, Joe. Those ‘details’ ruin people’s lives, if they can’t get access to birth control or a legal abortion.”

“What I mean is, yeah, they’re important, but we shouldn’t confuse them with the game—with religion itself, I mean. Um, I think my metaphor has gotten out of control.”

Morelli looked over at him, and he was grinning sheepishly, and she found herself grinning back, something she never expected to be doing when arguing religion with a priest.

She parked in a handicapped space near Hurley’s apartment building. Time to call it a night.

“So, what’s next?” he asked.

“Well, I’d say we still need to track down Bandini, if we can.”

“How—the phone number?”

“That’s a start. We can trace it. I’ll let you know what we come up with.”

“Thanks. I appreciate it,” Hurley said. He reached over and touched her arm. “And I appreciate your telling me about yourself, Kathleen. Seriously. I hope you don’t consider me the enemy. I don’t want to be your enemy.”

Morelli could feel herself blushing. Her Jeep seemed far too small all of a sudden. Hurley seemed to realize his mistake, because he retreated immediately, smiling nervously, in perhaps his own version of a blush.

“Of course you’re not my enemy,” she said. “But that doesn’t mean the Church doesn’t have a lot to answer for. Anyway, I hate football.”

“Maybe that’s because you haven’t played enough of it.” He opened his door. “Goodnight, Kathleen.”

“Good night, Joe.”

Assumptions

My birthday is August 15, which happens to be the Feast of the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary — a holy day of obligation in the Catholic church.  So, the two days of the year when I got presents — Christmas and my birthday — I also had to go to church.  It was a tradeoff I was willing to make — not that I had any choice.

Of course, when you’re young you just accept your religious beliefs.  I remember learning the distinction between the Ascension and the Assumption.  Jesus ascended to heaven of His own power; Mary was assumed into heaven by God.  Got it.

I can also recall being impressed that the proclamation of the Assumption as a dogma of the Church was an example of the pope (in this case, Pius XII) speaking ex cathedra — that is, infallibly.  Here is the declaration:

By the authority of our Lord Jesus Christ, of the Blessed Apostles Peter and Paul, and by our own authority, we pronounce, declare, and define it to be a divinely revealed dogma: that the Immaculate Mother of God, the ever Virgin Mary, having completed the course of her earthly life, was assumed body and soul into heavenly glory.

Most Protestants don’t believe in the Assumption because it has no Biblical basis.  Actually, it has no basis in historical fact whatsoever. The Catholic Encyclopedia says the first mention of the corporeal assumption of Mary into heaven showed up in treatise in the fourth or fifth century A.D.  So how does it become an infallibly pronounced belief of the universal Church?

This is a prime example of the Church considering its teaching authority to be as important a source of belief as the Bible.  People have believed in the Assumption down through the ages, and so finally the Pope asserted that it is true, and that faithful Catholics must believe that it is true.

My very fine commenter Stan asked me if I think religions are insane.  Of course not.  But they are fundamentally irrational, and this is an example.  Theologians wouldn’t see it that way, I suppose; they have scoured the Bible and the writings of the Church fathers to come up with texts that could be construed to support the dogma.  But the dogma is based purely on belief and tradition — not reason, not evidence.  Here, from Wikipedia, is the kind of “reasoning” the Pope uses:

Explaining these words of Sacred Scripture: “Who is this that comes up from the desert, flowing with delights, leaning upon her beloved?” [Song of Songs 8:5] and applying them in a kind of accommodated sense to the Blessed Virgin, [Saint Bonaventure] reasons thus: “From this we can see that she is there bodily…her blessedness would not have been complete unless she were there as a person. The soul is not a person, but the soul, joined to the body, is a person. It is manifest that she is there in soul and in body. Otherwise she would not possess her complete beatitude. …

Huh?  Atheists are often chided because they take on fundamentalists rather than sophisticated theologians with their nuanced beliefs.  Catholic theologians aren’t stupid; Pope Pius XII wasn’t stupid.  But anytime I dip into Catholic theology I find stuff like this, which seems to have nothing to do with any reality that I understand.

Rule 37: Use names that don’t confuse your reader

You’ll notice that I have skipped ahead from Rule 0.  Like NCIS Special Agent Gibbs, I won’t dole these rules out in numerical order. The numbering should reflect the rule’s overall importance, I guess.

I was reminded of this rule when I was rereading Senator and I noticed that I had one character named Danny and another character named Denny.  Why did I do that?  Danny is a major character — the Senator’s brother; Denny is a staffer who appears in a couple of minor scenes.  The chance that the reader will be confused is slim; but still, that’s the sort of thing a writer should avoid.

You don’t want to risk confusion with last names either.  A rule of thumb is to avoid having two characters whose last name starts with the same letter: Maloney and Mackey, for example.  That’s hard to manage in a novel with a large cast, but you can vary the number of syllables and the vowel sounds: Maloney and Meade, let’s say.

Another subrule is to be careful if you refer to a character in a lot of different ways: Katherine and Kate and Mrs. O’Connor, for example.  You sometimes need to do that in dialog or when you’re using multiple points of view, but it can be troublesome for the reader.  Think of those Russian novels where a character is Vladimir Vladimirovich in one scene and Volodya in the next; this problem crops up in Summit.

A couple of related rules, which don’t merit a number:

Don’t end a character’s name with an “s” — this gets awkward if you have to use the possessive.  Senator O’Connor’s ex-law partner is named Roger Simmons.  Again, why did I do that?  Now I have to write a phrase like “Simmons’s wife,” which sounds awful, or recast the sentence to avoid the possessive.  In this case, it’s a first person narrative, so the senator always refers to him as “Roger,” which mitigates the damage.

Don’t use an ethnic name unless the ethnic identity is part of the characterization. The reader is going to expect that. The police lieutenant in Pontiff is named Kathleen Morelli.  The fact that she has an Irish first name and an Italian last name has some significance to who she is, and I have to draw that out at some point in the novel.  Senator Jim O’Connor’s Irishness is a part of his identity, although I think the publisher made too much of it with the bleeding shamrock on the book’s cover.

A big problem with names (at least for me) is that a character’s name quickly become deeply entwined in his or her characterization, and if I finally notice a problem — like the final “s” in Roger’s name — it’s hard for me to do anything about it.  He just feels too much like a “Simmons” to me.  Which is odd, because “Roger Simmons” is an utterly bland name.  It’s not like Pecksniff or Gradgrind or a hundred others out of Dickens.  Of course, Roger Simmons is an utterly bland character compared to anyone in a Dickens novel.  But he’s my character, and that’s his name.