An old joke (presumably told by heavy drinkers?) is that an alcoholic is “someone who drinks more than his doctor.”

So, in this article by Erin Anderssen in The Globe and Mail, placed (incorrectly, I’d argue) in the “Science” section:

In Rorschach ink-blot studies, for instance, believers tended to see images that weren’t there and non-believers tended to miss images that were present.

So, by this definition, the classification of a religionist versus an atheist is the religiosity of the psychologist?  I mean, we’re talking about Rorschach blots.  Gah.

That is one of the least-absurd parts of the article.

Why am I linking to a worthless article?  As a case study of how ridiculous most journalistic coverage of religious opinion is.  Basically, there are two articles one finds:

1) “Quote quote inference quote quote unfounded inference quote quote zOMG God exists!!1!”

2) “Quote quote inference quote quote unfounded inference quote quote zOMFSM God doesn’t exist!!1!”

I’m not going to belabor my views on the issue of religious belief.  Any reasonably-regular reader will know them already.  My stance, briefly, is that all people are fucking useless morons and should be avoided whenever possible.

Fri, 07 May 2010 16:35:57 +0000
Under Uncategorized
Comments feed | Trackback
Log in