Presumptive Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton was in Springfield, Ill., Wednesday where she sought to use the symbolism of a historic landmark to draw parallels to a present-day America that is in need of repairing deepening racial and cultural divides.

The Old State Capitol — where Abraham Lincoln delivered his famous "A house divided" speech in 1858 warning against the ills of slavery and where Barack Obama launched his presidential bid in 2007 — served as the backdrop for Clinton as she spoke of how "America's long struggle with race is far from finished."

Episode 711: Hooked on Heroin

53 minutes ago

When we meet the heroin dealer called Bone, he has just shot up. He has a lot to say anyway. He tells us about his career--it pretty much tracks the evolution of drug use in America these past ten years or so. He tells us about his rough past. And he tells us about how he died a week ago. He overdosed on his own supply and his friend took his body to the emergency room, then left.

New British Prime Minister Theresa May announced six members of her Cabinet Wednesday.

Amid a sweeping crackdown on dissent in Egypt, security forces have forcibly disappeared hundreds of people since the beginning of 2015, according to a new report from Amnesty International.

It's an "unprecedented spike," the group says, with an average of three or four people disappeared every day.

The Republican Party, as it prepares for its convention next week has checked off item No. 1 on its housekeeping list — drafting a party platform. The document reflects the conservative views of its authors, many of whom are party activists. So don't look for any concessions to changing views among the broader public on key social issues.

Many public figures who took to Twitter and Facebook following the murder of five police officers in Dallas have faced public blowback and, in some cases, found their employers less than forgiving about inflammatory and sometimes hateful online comments.

As Venezuela unravels — with shortages of food and medicine, as well as runaway inflation — President Nicolas Maduro is increasingly unpopular. But he's still holding onto power.

"The truth in Venezuela is there is real hunger. We are hungry," says a man who has invited me into his house in the northwestern city of Maracaibo, but doesn't want his name used for fear of reprisals by the government.

The wiry man paces angrily as he speaks. It wasn't always this way, he says, showing how loose his pants are now.

Ask a typical teenage girl about the latest slang and girl crushes and you might get answers like "spilling the tea" and Taylor Swift. But at the Girl Up Leadership Summit in Washington, D.C., the answers were "intersectional feminism" — the idea that there's no one-size-fits-all definition of feminism — and U.N. climate chief Christiana Figueres.

Copyright 2016 NPR. To see more, visit

Arizona Hispanics Poised To Swing State Blue

4 hours ago
Copyright 2016 NPR. To see more, visit


Science Vs. Religion: A Heated Debate Fueled By Disrespect

Sep 9, 2013
Originally published on September 9, 2013 11:26 am

A few years ago, over dinner, a friend and fellow academic "came out" to me as a theist.

The conversation later struck me as quite funny. Only in my exotic academic enclave, I thought to myself, would two Americans have a conversation in which the Christian theist "came out" to the atheist Jew. In most American communities, my beliefs would be the anomalies, to be revealed selectively and with caution.

A few weeks ago, writer Virginia Heffernan made a similar confession in a post at Yahoo! News:

"At heart, I am a creationist. There, I said it. At least you, dear readers, won't now storm out of a restaurant like the last person I admitted that to. In New York City saying you're a creationist is like confessing you think Ahmadinejad has a couple of good points. Maybe I'm the only creationist I know."

The response was characterized in The New York Times as "swift and harsh." One blogger described Heffernan's post as a "spectacularly bad piece." Among the 600-plus comments on Yahoo! News were charges of being "intellectually vapid" and offering "the intellectual equivalent of a ditry [sic] bomb."

Of course, the vitriol goes both ways; it isn't just believers who sometimes face a hostile reception when they voice their beliefs. Atheists are among the most distrusted groups in America and face discrimination in various forms, some of it "overt and widespread."

Issues about science and religion have become so politicized and polarizing that it's hard to find public forums in which people with different commitments can meaningfully engage in discussion and debate. You know, respectful conversations, ones in which we interpret each other charitably and don't simply assume that those who disagree with us are foolish, immoral or just plain stupid.

I'm not arguing for a middle ground in which we all compromise. The best position isn't necessarily the one in the middle, or the one that wins by majority vote. But I do think we need a "charitable ground," if you will — some shared territory in which we recognize that other people's religious and scientific commitments can be as deeply felt and deeply reasoned as our own, and that there's value in understanding why others believe what they do.

If there is some charitable ground out there, it's a small territory with contested borders.

A few weeks ago I wrote a post here at 13.7 that asked, "Is there existential meaning beyond religion?" It linked to an article at the Boston Review titled "Can science deliver the benefits of religion?"

In the article, I summarized some ideas from psychology and cognitive science concerning the psychological bases for religious beliefs and whether scientific beliefs can provide some of the same psychological benefits typically ascribed to religion. Although it wasn't my intention to do so, I knew that I might upset some religious believers. What I didn't anticipate was uncharitable reactions from both religious believers and atheists.

On one side, some religious believers seem to have taken my article as an attempt at "a rational argument discounting a certain strain of creationism." But I don't see how my discussion of the psychological causes and consequences of religious and scientific beliefs could be taken as an argument for one belief or the other — taking it to be one suggests an antecedent assumption of hostility; that my intent was to present certain views as foolish or false.

On the other side, a comment at Jerry Coyne's blog, Why Evolution Is True, suggested that — in light of the article — I should be added to Coyne's list of "Most Annoying Accommodationists (Female Category)." The main target of Coyne's original post was Tanya Luhrmann, an anthropologist who has studied and written about supernatural beliefs. Highlighting a major offense, Coyne wrote of Luhrmann:

"What's most annoying is that she keeps her own beliefs under wraps, trying to cater to believers of all stripes while not alienating any of them."

Is it so terrible to try to be accessible to a broad audience with diverse beliefs, and to prefer not to alienate people? Is it terribly naïve of me to think that we can have real discussion about difficult issues without being dismissive of alternative positions or those who hold them?

Here are some things that I'm not saying:

All perspectives are equally valid. They certainly are not. We may not have everything figured out yet, but some perspectives are better supported by evidence and arguments than others.

It's perfectly OK for people to believe whatever they want. Most beliefs are fine. Some lead people to do unfortunate things, whether it's support female genital mutilation or dismiss climate change. Part of me thinks there's nothing wrong with any beliefs, only with particular actions. The problem is that actions and beliefs often go hand in hand.

You shouldn't try to change someone's mind when it comes to scientific or religious beliefs. When you're trying to enjoy a nice family meal with your conservative Christian in-laws and your card-carrying Skeptics Society cousins, maybe you shouldn't. It's up to you. But as far as I'm concerned, there are some contexts in which it is appropriate to aim for persuasion, provided you do so respectfully and not dogmatically.

We shouldn't engage in serious debate about personal or sensitive issues. Of course we should. But serious, constructive debate is not only consistent with a charitable and respectful attitude toward your conversant, it may require it.

Here's what I am saying:

We should engage in respectful debate and discussion. We should assume, as a default, that others hold their religious and scientific beliefs deeply, genuinely and reflectively. People rarely believe what they do because they are stupid, heartless, immoral, elitist or brainwashed. Let's find some charitable ground.

You can keep up with more of what Tania Lombrozo is thinking on Twitter: @TaniaLombrozo

Copyright 2013 NPR. To see more, visit