I was sent the following Washington Post tw**t, which refers to an article by Chris Mooney, an accommodationist who now works for that paper. Of course I was intrigued, so I went to both Mooney’s article and the source of that graph, an analysis of Pew-poll data and a post by Josh Rosenau, another accommodationist who works for the National Center for Science education.
But first, the tw**t and graph.
Let’s look at that graph first. Rosenau analyzed data from a 2007 Pew survey that asked Americans various questions (there’s a newer survey from 2014, but Rosenau didn’t analyze that one). The plot above comes from the answers of various religionists and nonbelievers to two questions. As Rosenau recounts:
I examined two questions. One asked people which of these statements they most agreed with:
Stricter environmental laws and regulations cost too many jobs and hurt the economy; or Stricter environmental laws and regulations are worth the cost
The other question asked people to agree or disagree with the statement:
Evolution is the best explanation for the origins of human life on earth
And a bit more about the size and color of the circles, also from Rosenau:
To get the axes, I standardized the same way Grant did, except I didn’t rescale to the 0-100 scale, since I didn’t want this to seem like a percentage when it isn’t. [He’s referring to Tobin Grant, who made a similar plot on the political views of adherents to various faiths.]
The circle sizes are scaled so that their areas are in proportion to the relative population sizes in Pew’s massive sample (nearly 36,000 people!). The circle colors match the groupings in Grant’s graphic, though I used different colors just to be difficult.
So, just looking at that figure, you see several things.
First, there’s a strong positive correlation between acceptance of human evolution and support for environmental regulation. That’s not surprising, especially if you see that the denominations at the lower left are the more literalist and fundamentalist sects, who both reject evolution and think that Earth’s fate is in God’s hands, while the denominations at upper right are largely nontheists or very liberal religionists, who both accept evolution and are concerned with the environment. Also, political conservatives tend to be of the more evangelical Christian stripe, which has adopted both anti-environmentalism and anti-evolutionism as “in-group identifiers.” Accounting for this correlation isn’t much of a problem.
Note too, as I mentioned above, that the Rightest Thinkers are the small circles at upper right, namely reform Jews (face it, they’re atheists), those of “liberal tradition” (not sure who these are), Buddhists, Quakers, atheists, agnostics, and “New Age” believers (whatever that means). In other words, those who show the least opposition to evolution and the most concern about the environment are those who either don’t believe in gods, possess a nebulous “spirituality”, or barely believe in God. In contrast, the strongest and most dogmatic believers are the biggest science denialists.
How then, can this possibly be construed as showing that faith and science are not in conflict? But never underestimate the ability of diehard accommodationists to twist any data, no matter what they be, to that end. (We see this too in the endless Templeton-funded accommodationist books and articles of Elaine Ecklund, a master at forcing all survey results into the Procrustean bed of accommodationism.)
Well, here’s what Rosenau says:
First, look at all those groups whose members support evolution. There are way more of them than there are of the creationist groups, and those circles are bigger. We need to get more of the pro-evolution religious out of the closet.
Second, look at all those religious groups whose members support climate change action. Catholics fall a bit below the zero line on average, but I have to suspect that the forthcoming papal encyclical on the environment will shake that up.
Well, that shows that some religions don’t have to be in conflict with science when it comes to evolution and climate change, but what it doesn’t show is that religion and science aren’t in conflict when it comes to Jesus’s resurrection, the existence of Heaven, or the existence of an omniscient, omnipotent, and all-loving god. And when it comes to Islam, well, the denial of human evolution by Muslims of all stripes is nearly universal.
What the plot shows to me is that the more tenaciously people hold onto their faith, the more opposed to science they are. One can tentatively conclude from the figure is that the way to get everyone to move to the upper right is to dispel their faith! Of course that’s anathema to Mooney and Rosenau, both firm believers in belief! In fact, when interviewed by Mooney for the WaPo, Rosenau basically says that he doesn’t know what these data mean:
Reached by phone Tuesday, Rosenau (whom I’ve known for a long time from the community of bloggers about science and the environment) seemed to be still trying to fully understand the implications of the figure he’d created. “People seemed to like it,” he said. “I think some people are finding hope in it” — hope, specifically, that there is a way out of seemingly unending science versus religion spats.
. . . Rosenau told me he was still trying to work that [the correlation between the two variables] out — still playing with the data and new analyses to try to understand it.
Finally, note that the black Pentecostals and black “Holiness” adherents are way down in the lower left, along with the Mormons and members of the Assembly of God. Why is that? It’s no surprise to me: American blacks have traditionally been very religious, as they are one of the most oppressed and reviled minorities in America (down there with atheists), but, unlike atheists, they also are, in general, socioeconomically deprived. The social dysfunction of many black communities has led them to cling tightly to traditional religion, for, as we know, there’s a strong negative correlation between “successful societies” and religiosity. And that belief is “traditional,” both because many blacks took their religion from the South, where they were enslaved, and because that form of belief offers the most tangible rewards in the hereafter to those who suffer in the present.
But in a remarkable display of social-justice breast-beating, Rosenau manages to blame the black religionists’ rejection of evolution on the racism of scientists!
Finally, creationism has a solid hold in African American churches. There’s important outreach to be done on that front, and it’ll have to be accompanied by an acknowledgment of racism in science, both historically and in its current practice. While science is not itself racist, and neither is evolution, both have been tainted by and abused for the benefit of racism, and the African American community has cause for its ambivalence. Those of us who love evolution, love science, and want to share that love with our brothers and sisters of all races and religions need to find better ways to bridge these gaps.
It’s just disingenuous to claim that blacks reject evolution and environmental controls because they think that science has been tainted by racism. Surely Rosenau knows better, and if he doesn’t, well, I feel sorry for him. Yes, indeed, some scientists have been racist; and eugenics as well as the Tuskegee Study were shameful episodes in the history of genetics and medicine. But if Rosenau thinks that if we scientists admit and decry that earlier racism (which we’ve done—repeatedly), then blacks will suddenly embrace evolution and become environmentalists, I’ve got a bridge in Riyadh to sell him. The way to get any hyper-religious group, black or white, to embrace these things is to get them to either give up their faith or convert to the liberal faiths (if you can call them that) at the upper right. Don’t forget Brother Tayler’s documented statement of this morning: “[Religion] even has 49 percent of Americans believing that climate change is just another inevitable sign of the End of Days.”
As for Mooney, he’s not much better. While he admits that religion has something to do with evolution denial—which is like admitting that your stomach has something to do with digestion—Mooney readily interprets this graph to show that there’s no conflict between religion and science:
In any case, while the pattern above may require more analysis, one clear punchline of the figure is that it really doesn’t make sense to say that religion is at war with science. You can say that for some people, religion is clearly linked to less science acceptance — especially on evolution. But for others, clearly, religion presents no hurdle at all.
His message here is that religion and science are not in conflict because many believers accept evolution and anthropogenic climate change. But many religions also have tenets at odds with evolution and environmentalism. Even 23% of those liberal Catholics are young-earth creationists. Just because some believers can accept science doesn’t mean that religion isn’t an obstacle to accepting environmentalism and creationism, for it clearly is. And, I guess, Mooney and Rosenau are much more concerned with these two issues than with the other byproducts of faith, including oppression of women and gays, restrictions on abortion and people’s sex lives, and so on.
Here’s a hypothetical situation. You are Gandalf, and can wave your wand to do one of two things to increase evolution acceptance and environmentalism in America:
1. Immediately acquaint all Americans with the copious evidence for evolution (say, have them read WEIT) and for human-caused climate and environment change.
or
2. Immediately make all religious belief in America vanish.
Which do you think would be more effective in promoting science acceptance?
2
Concur, since we know significantly many religionists will not change their beliefs when presented with contradictory evidence.
/@
Religion is like a Magic 8-Ball. Sometimes you can ask it a question like “Is evolution the best explanation for the origins of human life on earth” and it says “Yes!”
Therefore, there’s no necessary conflict between science and the Magic 8-Ball. For some people, it presents no hurdle at all.
Consulted my Ouija board, and it says you’re right. So obviously there’s no conflict between Ouija boards and Sastras.
#2
Ha! I was just about to mention this in a comment on the last FF post!
It perfectly addresses one of the comments on the Humanist review.
/@
I choose #2, it would result in a fair amount of #1. Plus, we’d be less subjected to the ridiculous contortions of logic from Mooney and Rosenau.
Blacks are “the most oppressed and reviled minority in America (except for atheists)”? America wouldn’t have a Black president if that were so. I think the second-most oppressed and reviled minority in America is probably Muslims or Scientologists. Maybe Jehovah’s Witnesses (who are the biggest outlier in the chart, BTW).
As for the hypothetical situation, I think the options would be roughly equally effective.
And what about the transgendered?
I think it’s risky to make statements about “the most repressed and reviled minority in America” even if — maybe especially if — relying on poll data. Polls seldom include a very wide range of groups or situations, and “repressed and reviled” is a fuzzy sort of criteria anyway.
Didn’t a recent poll on likeability find members of the Republican Tea Party at the bottom? That would seem to eliminate their own stances regarding repressing and reviling — and up go all the other candidates!
Statistically, the most reviled are Muslims, closely followed by atheists. Among the conservative/religious/GOP, the most reviled group is atheists – Muslims come in second.
You can see some data here: http://www.heatherhastie.com/america-hates-its-best-citizens-the-atheists/
The article links back to the source of the statistics if you want to explore them further.
My post only talks about religious groups, not colour or sexual identity. I’ve never come across a major survey that looks at attitudes to transgender people.
I’m not in the best place to judge what that’s like in the US. In NZ we’ve had an elected transgender MP, Georgina Beyer, and she was re-elected twice. (Then she retired.) As a teenager she worked as a rent-boy, so she didn’t have a privileged background or anything.
Either “reviled” means something significantly different in EN_US to EN_GB, or the attitude to Scientologists is really different here to America.
While frank and open contempt for the Church of Scientology is pretty widespread, and loathing for the oft-reported shenanigans of the CoS against leavers and investigators (making poor John Sweeney turn all exploding tomato! Shocking!) is a normal comment, opinions of the actual members of the church tend to start at the sort of pity one holds for someone mutilated by a horrible car crash. How seemingly normal, intelligent people can be conned into accepting something so frankly delusional raises questions of sanity and … well, what is wrong with these people?
Pity seems to be more the default reaction to CoS victims than revulsion.
The management of the CoS, on the other hand, do start on revulsion and go downhill from there.
Okay, okay, there’s too much kerfuffle about this and I’ll change the wording. What I meant was that black are perhaps the most visible, numerous, and socioeconomically deprived group in the US. Everybody’s a critic today!
You’re right about the socio-economically deprived bit, and the way education works in the US, that won’t change. Schools are funded by property taxes is my understanding, so the best areas get the best schools. Crappy inner-city slums, which a high proportion of blacks live in, have schools that can’t even afford textbooks, making it that much harder for the kids to get ahead. Many seem to think school choice will fix that, but that won’t work for kids whose parents don’t care, can’t afford to send them to better schools, or simply are too busy working in low-wage jobs that they don’t have time/energy to spend on their kids.
Our system needs improvement too, but one area where we’re better is that schools in the poorest areas get the most government funding. Schools are rated 1-10 depending on the average income of the catchment, and extra funding is allocated accordingly. Every school gets the same basic funding, but for extras, how much a school gets depends on how poor the area is, with the poorest getting the most and the wealthiest the least.
Heather, Your description of the NZ approach to school funding is such a 180 degree difference cp US political/cultural/economic POV that I’m feeling a bit woozy.
Overfund poorly-performing schools? “NONSENSE, you would be rewarding failure!” Never mind that the historical underfunding of those very school systems and communities is the root cause of their underperformance.
This ‘nonsense’ doesn’t mean these ‘over funded poor schools’ can just carry on as usual. They are subject to reviews (most schools in NZ are) and if their performance does not lift and they are watched very carefully, the heavy weights from the Education Ministry appoint a temporary manager and they may even lose the funding.
The school closes in worse case and the children are forced to educate themselves at better performing schools.
Scientologists may be the most widely ridiculed religious minority, but oppressed? That’s a stretch, since the church goes to considerable effort to recruit from the more affluent segments of society who can afford to spend tens of thousands of dollars on bogus treatments. Tom Cruise and John Travolta seem to be doing OK.
Granted, the Sea Org (the slave-labor church bureaucracy) is a different story, but they’re being oppressed by the church itself, not by society.
I’m going to be pedantic, but Gandalf didn’t have a wand; he had a staff. He was also a Maiar, not human or elf or any other fleshy being.
I lean towards #1 and view teaching as the best method. Method #2 veers too close to genocide for my taste.
Oh fiddlesticks you beat me to it – curse your superior LotR scholarship!
Gandalf was Maori? No wonder they filmed in New Zealand!
Sorry to be a pedant, but Maiar is the plural form. The singular is Maia.
And don’t forget that before being a Maia he is an Ainu.
Sorry, but it was a hypothetical, so I can give Gandalf a magic wand if I want to!
Maybe he borrowed it from Harry Potter.
Here’s an analogy:
Saying that there’s no conflict between religion and science because not all religious people reject science is like claiming that Russian roulette isn’t a cause of death because not everyone who plays dies.
(originally I had in mind those who say ISIS has nothing to with Islam because look at all the Muslims not in ISIS– but adapted it for the topic at hand)
I think #2 is the obvious answer, and probably what Jerry was going for, but it seems to me there’s an underlying assumption. Its that atheists and fundamentalists think alike and their differences come from a superficial set of beliefs. I think it possible that believers and atheists have a fundamentally different way of assessing and weighing evidence for propositions and varying ability to separate personal preferences from that assessment. So yes, if I was adopted as a baby by fundamentalists I’d be religious but I cant help but to believe I’d be just a bit less committed than many of my fellows and slightly more likely to leave the faith.
I don’t think this idea is unreasonable. There have been studies ( and I think JAC has posted about them) that show differences in thinking between democrats and republicans
2
While I’m digesting your article, I’d like to take advantage of my LotR scholarship* and point out that Gandalf wielded a staff, not a magic wand! 🙂
* Indistinguishable from, and just as useful as, scholarship in theology.
See above.
“a newer survey from 20014”
Wow!
/@
If it has to be an either/or answer then #2 is it. The religion must be removed before much of anything else can be admitted.
So the ideal situation is to have number 2 first and then bring on number one. Why waste a good read?
If religiosity wasn’t such an issue in the US, there would be no problem. As I understand it, like ours (and all other countries with non-religious education systems), American children are already taught evolution in schools. The reason the acceptance level there is so low is the nefarious influence of religion.
There are obviously many who come to recognize the validity of evolution once they’re taught about it, but those that don’t always cite scripture. Therefore it’s religion that’s the problem.
How these writers can come to any other conclusion, especially with the data right in front of them, is beyond me. They’re clearly in denial about the negative effects of religion on science acceptance because of their own religious beliefs.
You’re correct, some do get evolution in school but that is mostly just public school and lots go to private and religious schools where they get, you know what.
But the down side is that poor folks fill the public schools and as we know, most of the poor are also the most religious. I think they call this a lose/lose situation.
American children are sorta-kinda taught evolution in schools. They are often taught by someone with no biology training, sometimes taught by someone who actively rejects evolution, and it is usually treated as one small part of the overall biology class instead of as the foundational theory of the subject.
I would be willing to bet that the vast majority of American students come out of high school fairly ignorant of evolution, regardless of their religious blinders. My high school biology class had six different teachers throughout the year, using four different lesson plans, and was at best a disjointed mess (this was not the norm for classes, of course – nearly all the rest were taught by the same teacher all year). The only part of its evolution coverage that I remember now, 15 years later, was the class “debating” evolution, which ended up being me and two others on the science side vs over half the class on the god side, with the current temporary teacher sitting off to the side providing no input.
What state was this, Pali?
Wisconsin. One of the better high schools in Milwaukee, actually. As I said, my experience should hardly be counted as the norm, whether for the school I went to or the system in general – but such things happen even in good schools, and can leave a year’s worth of students ignorant.
Reblogged this on El Subversivo.
I see overwhelming evidence for evolution, and for the efficacy of vaccination; no evidence for astrology or gods and little evidence for the human-derived increase in carbon dioxide causing significant global warming compared with natural causes.
Scientific method is surely the only way to find out what really happens in nature. Science has been successful first through accurate observation leading to reliable data; second by the proposing testable theories to account for the effect of one part of the natural world on another, and finally, by testing those theories by the setting up of reproducible experiments. The ‘90%’ of scientists who say AGW is a fact and ‘the science is settled’, ‘the debate is over’ have hardly any of the first (specially the ‘reliable data’ part), one of the second and how many of the third? I only know of one.
The ranking of AGW as a science on a level with evolution combined with connecting those who are sceptical of AGW with creationists will turn out to be bad for science and for the reputation of scientists. There are a number of lists comparing good and bad science: AGW ticks most of the ‘bad science’ boxes.scientists
I look at the chart and think “I can forget about all the ones in the middle and focus on the extremes.” What I see at the bottom left are sects whose members are almost totally faith-based and Bible-believing (literal Adam & Eve, Flood, etc.), whereas at the other end are those almost totally reason-based. The Jehovah’s Witnesses are a curious outlier–relatively high on preserving the environment.
Getting to the ones in the middle, I might guess that their members on average have a much more limited view of the role of faith in their lives while at the same time being more open to taking a scientific view of Earth history. They might be likely to plead ignorance of evolutionary biology rather than outright denial; also, they might be proponents of the bankrupt claim of “useful myth” which Bertrand Russell so eloquently demolished.
In other words, they are kind of wishy-washy. They are unwilling to take responsibility for their beliefs. Still, I think they might be more likely to be turned from religion by more exposure to science.
Such a reversal can take place in someone from the low end too. It’s difficult to generalize about such conversions.
Another point worth noting about the middle: These, I think (with exception of Catholics) are the denominations that are losing membership the fastest. Just as we are losing the middle class, we are also losing those wishy-washy middle-of-the-road believers.
While of course I am kvelling at the position held by liberal Jews on that particular chart, I am also aware that many of “my people” are prominent in the sort of Armstrong/Luhrman (sp?) school of ineffable God-is-love-or-whatever fappery. And I worry that the reasonableness of the top-quintile movements lends more credibility to belief than the bottom half takes away. This despite the likelihood that the upper tier represents maybe 2%? 5%? Of the U.S. population, whereas the crackpots may be a solid majority.
Somehow I think the “little people” argument enters into the way the majority is represented and talked-to by elites, but I don’t have the energy right now to think it through (or to nail down my estimate of the rational population)!
“Rosenau basically says that he doesn’t know what these data mean:”
I will translate that for you. He has not yet found a bulletproof way that he can spin the data to show what he prefers for the outcome.
Rosenau:
“Catholics fall a bit below the zero line on average, but I have to suspect that the forthcoming papal encyclical on the environment will shake that up.”
Surely if anything shows the science/religion conflict this is it. People should believe the environmental crisis based on the scientific consensus, not on what some bloke in a dress says. If Catholics can only be trusted to follow the facts if their leaders tell them, then accommodationism is pointless; governments should insist religious leaders follow the scientific evidence for anything that is important politically. Transubstantiation they are welcome to.
“Some bloke in a dress”? Well, that’s not entirely fair.
The old tosser wears funny shoes, too.
🙂
So, let me get this straight. His evidence for lack of conflict is that, in a population where a lot more than 50% are religious, some religious groups have above average acceptance of science? If you are going to present quantitative data to make an argument, make sure you have done stats 101.
(Note that he scales on percentiles, so 0.0 in this case is the median – by definition the point at which 50% are above and 50% below.)
Posted a comment to that effect on the original site. Also pointed out that the percentile scaling also removes any quantitative info on the axes, so proximity on the scale means nothing with respect to proximity of answer. All the groups inside the small top right cluster could have >90% support for the scientific evidence and all of the groups outside <10% support, and you would still get that plot.
It is the statistics of wishful thinking. The algorithm of seeing what you want to see. The accommodationist scientific method.
Two words: cherry picking. Instead of looking at the trend of all the data, he’s just picking those bits that resonate with his views and downplaying everything else. After all, it’s easy-peasy to find some religious groups who accept scientific claims and then trumpet them as a triumphant vindication of accommodationism, especially if it means you can ignore any larger trend that makes this claim awkward at best.
It would be interesting to do the same plot without the (totally unnecessary and misleading) percentile normalisation. I can’t see an easy way to get the data, though. The page links generically to the Pew survey but not the specific data. (That, and I’m a bit too busy with the day job.)
The salient dynamic on this issue is that antievolutionists are almost exclusively Kulturkampf conservative religionists. Religions that don’t engage in Culture War thinking and/or are not linked to conservative political ideology can accept evolution and climate science without much fuss. Black churches are often in that Kulturkampf nexus, where their belief is that their religion is intrinsically not racist, and all the “science” apologetics they may get via AiG or even Discovery Institute will be constantly reiterating that evolution is both inherently racist & intrinsically atheist (which last point they can see Jerry’s arguments as completely affirming).
Focusing on the surface veneer of this demographic aspect (that antievolutionism is a religious & political crusade) misses the underlying dynamic of how antievolutionists actually construct heir arguments, which turns on 4 main factors that have nothing whatsoever to do with either their religion or their politics.
Antievolutionists (1) ignore over 90% of the available data, largely by (2) relying heavily on parasitical secondary citation (effectively allowing others to do their thinking for them), and then failing to (3) actually think through what they think happened (the Map of Time problem) regarding even the limited data they are aware of, insulated ultimately by (4) a genuine conceptual inability to think through what evidence they would ever accept that would prompt them to change their mind.
That these dynamics can operate independentlly of religion can be seen by outliers like Ian Plimer, an Australian anticreaionist who is also a flaming climate skeptic (and shows exactly the same telltale methods failures noted above that afflict the antievolutionists he so often attacks), or Freeman Dyson, politically left pro-evolution physicist who nonetheless shows these methods features in his climate skepticism (Dyson’s familiarity with ecology & the impact of CO2 on ocean chemistry appears to be negligible). It is the fauly method, not just the veneer of the belief, that has to be taken account of if the idea is to effectively deal with these issues in a political & cultural battleground.
Finally, I don’t think religious baggage is playing a particularly big role in the full tilt industrialization & consequent pollution of the officially & predominantly atheist China, as compared to the power-sharing averse control freak quality of Chinese culture generally & the adoption of Marxism as their current veneer of choice.
Obviously option 2 would be the most effective, but it also wouldn’t happen. People have an emotional commitment to their religion (if they have one)and wouldn’t be willing to give it up.
Option 1 is difficult. Studies have shown that if a person has strong views one way, being shown the evidence that the view is wrong just makes belief in the view stronger.
I’ll probably return to my accommodationist views despite reading ‘Faith versus Fact’. People are entitled to their beliefs provided that they don’t ignore facts. I’m also a consequentionalist. It’s counterproductive to put off believers by attempting to disprove religion, and at the same time convince then that evolution is true and AGW is happening. Option 1 again.
It’s the reason why I’m looking forward to Pope Francis’ encyclical on global warming. Although the conservative think tanks are trying to preempt it by claiming that he’s been misinformed by scientists surrounding him (presumably also the Jesuit astronomer priests in the Vatican Observatory).
“I’ll probably return to my accommodationist views despite reading ‘Faith versus Fact’. People are entitled to their beliefs provided that they don’t ignore facts.”
Hmm… I’m not sure that that view is accommodationist. The general refrain seems to be, “People are entitled to their beliefs even when they do ignore facts.”
/@
Sub
make all belief vanish. Most religion, especially the Abramic faiths, instill a selfishness that I find explains much of the climate denial, evolution theory denial and the dislike of environmental regs. Despite the pious prating, religion is all about getting something for ones self and screw everyone else.
a correlation that is more difficult to explain is between the acceptance of global warming and the rejection of gmos…
2. Religion is incompatible with science.
I think the problem with black communities and evolution is that preachers are generally at/near the top of the “Most learned person in the community” list. And preachers of course have a vested interest in downplaying evolution. Plus, the common view of evolution = descent from monkeys and the monkey epithet business doesn’t help either.
There’s a Swedish aphorism, Allting beror på mans referensrammar – Everything depends on one’s frames of reference. This is one of those situations that reminds me of the aphorism.
You already said something similar, but even the absolute most liberal religionist has a breaking point at which they must insert a role for some sort of god or supernatural interaction with the world. Also, that whatever this supernatural involvement is, it has humans as its special benefactor.
“one clear punchline of the figure is that it really doesn’t make sense to say that religion is at war with science. You can say that for some people, religion is clearly linked to less science acceptance — especially on evolution. But for others, clearly, religion presents no hurdle at all.”
Geez, this stuff drives me nuts. So what? For some religious people, same-sex marriage isn’t a problem; for others it’s a huge hurdle. Therefore, religion has no conflict with same-sex marriage.
That’s the same reasoning that Mooney uses. Counterexamples do not negate a trend. We are not proving some universal property here. Why do people who should know better continue to misunderstand this? Or do they just purposely ignore the idea for the sake of seeing their names in the headlines?
Or do they just purposely ignore the idea for the sake of seeing their names in the headlines?
Bingo.
I think they’re trying to frame it away from trends and influences, and towards absolutist framing (which is easier to handle). It’s hard to argue against a clear correlation between science acceptance and irreligiosity, but if you pretend your opponents think that ALL religion is ALWAYS rejecting science ALL the time, then you only need to find counterexamples and you can say, “But here, religion and science are not in conflict, so why would you say they are?”
To be (vaguely) generous, they’re probably trying to claim that, if we could make most or all religions like those exceptions, then we’d have less “conflict” between science and religion. But even this is not a decent claim, not least of all because it ignores both the huge number of other issues where science and religion conflict, and the obvious fact that the highest acceptance of science comes predominantly from the least religious groups of the lot.
Seriously, though, the fact that there are any data points below 0.5 on both axes is pretty embarrassing. And when you focus on what’s left in that one-eighth of the graph in the top-right corner, you might as well call it a ringing endorsement of atheism and agnosticism, especially considering the religious competition they’ve got up there.
By chance, 1/4 groups should be below 0.0 on both axes. The lack of off-diagonal groups is not due to chance, however. And the probability of atheist and agnostic being where they are by chance in the absence of a faith/science conflict… vanishingly small.
Sorry, that was meant to be a reply to comment #32.
“Stricter environmental laws and regulations cost too many jobs and hurt the economy; or Stricter environmental laws and regulations are worth the cost”
And someone expects to get meaningful information from asking only these two loaded questions?
What about the actual cost of environmental regulation? can we judge its value without knowing the cost? Maybe in some cases its worth it, in others not. what criteria would one use to judge.
OTOH how can one say stricter environmental laws/regs are worth the cost? What laws? what regulations? what cost?
IMO we already have good environmental laws; not so good regulations, largely because of political interference, and unknown costs. Maybe we could actually enforce the laws and regs we have that can be justified, get rid of the ones that can’t be justified and stop giving free passes to companies like wind farms that kill large numbers of supposedly protected birds.
Rosenau is indulging in pseudoscience here and should not be encouraged.
This is slightly off Topic, but well worth the time.
High School Student Exposes Jehovah’s Witnesses: “Within This Religion, Love is Conditional”
#2.
The graph, as others have pointed out, is odd and appears to be based on wishful thinking statistics – definitely not up to Edward Tufte standards.
I also find the juxtaposition of rejection of evolution and rejection of environmental regulations kind of odd, in terms of making some sort of conclusion about science and religion. Evolution is an intrinsic part of the way our natural world operates and develops over time, and although we humans can and do wipe out entire species, we don’t really change the underlying principles of evolution, nor do we alter the evolutionary events that occurred before we showed up on the scene.
Climate change forcing and environmental regulations, on the other hand, are very much human-influenced or created things. They’re also things that in turn affect humans, often disastrously now, across the globe. However, the whethers and whys of accepting or rejecting the science of climate change have very little to do with individual action and decision-making. The great majority of people represented in the unTufte graph, whether accepters or rejecters, are not going to change their behavior if doing so inconveniences them, makes their lives slightly less comfortable, or reduces their enjoyment and entertainment in any way. In my experience at least, both Pentecostals and atheists drive SUVs and rack up frequent flier miles – it doesn’t really matter what they believe about the science of climate change.
“Just because some believers can accept science doesn’t mean that religion isn’t an obstacle to accepting environmentalism and creationism, for it clearly is.”
Errrm…