Evangelicals surprising view of science and what it may mean

[guillaumeb]

From the article:

Ask fans of New Atheist scientists Richard Dawkins or Sam Harris what religious Americans think of science and there’s a good chance you’d get something to the effect of “religious people hate science.”
Yet what do we actually know about what religious Americans think about science, particularly evangelicals, who are often the implicit or explicit focus of such discussions?
Not much, it turns out.

To read more:

http://religionnews.com/2018/01/02/evangelicals-surprising-view-of-science-and-what-it-may-mean/

I realize that a more nuanced view of this topic might conflict with the way some prefer to dismiss theists, but in the interest of informed dialogue, I suggest reading the article.

[PragmaticDem]

1. I don't know any religious people in real life that hates science.

[guillaumeb]

3. I do not either.

But certain people love to frame religion and science as incompatible. To do this, of course, they must reject the validity of the non-overlapping magisteria argument in favor of an insistence that faith must adhere to scientific methods of proof.

[trotsky]

6. Guillaumeb has given us another straw man, I'm afraid.

He's quite adept at dispatching them, though.

[guillaumeb]

8. The actual straw man is in your rely #4.

Where you explained how theists really feel about science.

Belief perseverance is an interesting thing, is it not.

[yallerdawg]

2. This is a bit more nuanced than what is insisted by many to be true.

For example, our interviews and survey data show that, when it comes to issues like the origins of the universe and life, religious Americans appear rather flexible in their willingness to say that different origin narratives could be true as long as they leave room for God’s role in the world, even if this role is part of their personal and private interpretation of that origin narrative.

[guillaumeb]

5. Perhaps some suffer from an allergy to nuance.

This expresses a very common view:

As one evangelical we talked to said, “Science is fantastic and I thank God for this. … It isn’t as if He didn’t want us to find out about His incredible creation.”

[trotsky]

4. No, they don't generally hate science.

They love science that gives them neat stuff.

They just hate the science that disproves any specific religious beliefs they might have.

Other believers simply declare that their beliefs can't be questioned by science - that's how they deal with their hate.

[guillaumeb]

7. Possibly you read a different article?

As one evangelical we talked to said, “Science is fantastic and I thank God for this. … It isn’t as if He didn’t want us to find out about His incredible creation.”

says nothing about what you claim as you apparently decided to speak for theists when you wrote:

They just hate the science that disproves any specific religious beliefs they might have.

[trotsky]

20. Nope.

Nothing you posted contradicts what I said though.

Try again.

[Igel]

46. I think if you look closely

you'll find that the vast majority of 'people of faith' tend to be more flexible than absolutist. Science says X and gives them evidence, some will balk but most say, "Okay."

"Hate" is not the right word here. "Indifference" is. Even most absolutists deal with contrary evidence with disdain. Few rise to the level of hate. Unless, as one fundie put it, "hate" just means "love less by comparison." He was stuck with Jesus' "hate mother and father" line and couldn't deal with Jesus as a human engaged in hyperbole for rhetorical effect but instead had to take it literally. Meaning, in other words, he had to redefine the word.

I personally like the one study that said 80% of people were in favor of labelling food containing DNA, and 84% wanted GMO foods labeled. I've had kids who had biology the previous year comment on how glad they were that their HFC was GMO free and didn't contain modified DNA. Because, they said when asked, normal things like HFC and water naturally contain DNA. (??)

But I've run into kids who relish red shift and deep-time cosmology, and then turn around and say God created the Earth in 7 days. They know there's a conflict, but don't really much care about it.

[trotsky]

47. Could very well be.

I don't think you understand the creationist movement if you don't think "hate" is an accurate word though.

They believe evolution is a lie planted by Satan to sway souls away from god and to hell.

THEY ACTUALLY BELIEVE THAT.

Do you understand?

[AJT]

51. and fossils were planted to test Christian's faith.

[trotsky]

53. Absolutely! n/t

[guillaumeb]

11. Welcome to DU, and this discussion.

I am a believer, and I believe that "created in the image and likeness" refers to intelligence and not 2 legs and an upright posture.

[guillaumeb]

17. The Franken threads are a bit heated at this point.

But yes, I agree that DU is a very good spot for politics and other topics.

[Permanut]

10. Obfuscation..

Scheitle and Ecklund state clearly that evangelicals are a subset of "Religious Americans", but the differences are blurred. It could be easily shown that evangelicals ARE "...hostile toward, disinterested in or pessimistic about science."

"We need to attack the false foundation of autonomous human reasoning that leads to evolution and millions of years, and proclaim that God's revealed Word is authoritative and its history of the world is foundational to Christian morality and the gospel of Jesus Christ."
- Ken Ham


Read more: https://www.christianquotes.info/quotes-by-author/ken-ham-quotes/#ixzz538vQFwga

Just in case it's necessary to add, evolutionary theory is actually based on science.

[guillaumeb]

12. If Ken Ham did not exist,

it would be necessary for some non-theists to invent him.

[trotsky]

23. But he DOES exist.

And he hates science.

And there are millions of Americans who join him in that hate.

I realize those are data points that you desperately wish didn't exist, but they do indeed.

[Mariana]

44. Not really. He has plenty of clones. nt.

[ExciteBike66]

13. Great news about American evangelicals...

now what about all those other religious folks out there who would kill you if you said they descended from apes?

[guillaumeb]

15. A bit hyperbolic. eom

[ExciteBike66]

16. Never heard of ISIS, huh?

[guillaumeb]

18. Have you ever heard of the over 1 billion Muslims who are not ISIS members?

I do not judge all US citizens by the example of Trump.

[ExciteBike66]

22. But you understand that a study about the scientific acceptance of American evangelicals

only tells a small part of the story, right?

It is the exact same concept as your comment about how most Muslims are not ISIS.

[Permanut]

26. Deflection..

There is nothing in ExciteBike66's question about non violent Muslims.

[Bradshaw3]

19. Lot of hypocrisy here in addition to faulty premises

For those who don't like being painted with a broad brush, it's funny that your sentence attacks those who disagree with you, as does the first sentence of the opinion piece:
"fans of New Atheist scientists Richard Dawkins or Sam Harris what religious Americans think of science and there’s a good chance you’d get something to the effect of “religious people hate science.”

So we can't handle nuance and we believe all religious people hate science. Not a good beginning for a discussion supposedly calling for informed dialogue.

And, yes I did read the article. So not all religious people are against science? Think we knew that already. Maher in his doc interviews Francis Collins of the genome project, among many other examples I could give.

So what else did we learn from this article? My big takeaway was that evangelicals are ok with science - as long as it fits in with their beliefs: "for evangelicals in particular, interest in science increases when they can see it connecting to concerns informed by their faith".

Then there is the data that showed that 60 percent of evangelicals believe “scientists should be open to considering miracles in their theories and explanations.” Therein is the problem, and it's not just because that is the majority of evangelicals who say that. Science does not have to take any beliefs, supernatural or otherwise, into consideration. You have a theory, it is tested through repeatable, measurable and observable experiments, and is proven or not.

People are free to believe whatever they want, but science and religious beliefs are not equal and are not compatible, until they are proven otherwise, which as much as some may hope and believe, hasn't been shown in any way, shape or form. This article I guess was intended to show the zealot atheists that not all religious people are rubes (which I don't think most feel that way anyway) but ended up making the same mistake of many others in trying to give credence to a proposition that oil and water can mix.

[guillaumeb]

24. A miracle is another word for an unexplained phenomenon.

And as the NOMA explanation admits, religion and science deal with 2 separate areas. One requires faith, the other demands proof.

[Bradshaw3]

28. No it's not

If someone believes something is a miracle, then they believe it was done supernaturally. It isn't unexplained to them; they have their explanation. That is not how science works. Rather than trying semantic tricks, try debating points and stop painting with a broad brush (especially when making the charge so often).

[guillaumeb]

31. I gave a definition for miracle.

As to broad brush painting, I see repeated attempts by some non-theists to define religion and belief.

[Igel]

48. Yes, and you're correct.

But I'll define "correct" to mean "in error", so my statement is in no way misleading.

/snark

Your definition of miracle isn't the one usually held, so when people ask scientists to allow room for "miracles" and you redefine it to "people ask scientists to allow room for unexplained phenomena" you've basically made the exchange meaningless because, duh, scientists are ecstatic when they run into something unexplained. Just look at the glee when something comes along that says that the Standard Model might be right, and both the joy and discomfort when LIGO seems to confirm Gen relativity, making quantum gravity a bit harder to buy and a GUT harder to achieve.

Yet the religious folk clearly intend their utterance to have meaning, which is something that is explicitly preternatural.

[Bradshaw3]

54. So your claim to being a victim of broad brush painting is rendered invalid

By doing the same. And no you didn't just give a definition of a miracle. Once again, equating supernatural explanations of phenomena with scientific explanations is wrong.

[ExciteBike66]

34. I would be interested to see how many American evangelicals subscribe to NOMA...

Any idea if this has ever been surveyed?

[guillaumeb]

38. I have no idea.

But I agree that it would make for interesting surveys, one for theists and one for non-theists.

[ExciteBike66]

41. My guess is that more non-theists agree with NOMA

since they don't believe in a god at all, it would be tough for "him" to act in the physical world.

[Igel]

49. I think it would be a pointless survey.

Rather like asking what they think about the implication of any claimed link between the name of the deity Krsna and the Russian word cheresnya 'cherry'.

First you'd have to explain it, then you'd have to check for understanding and perhaps re-explain it. Then you'd ask what they thought, based entirely on what you just told them.

Non-theists are, at least for older non-theists, are either more often called upon to justify their lack of belief or disbelief or more likely to undertake this explication for their own benefit, esp. if they're in or have been in college.

[Mariana]

63. That is not the way those evangelicals are using the word.

They're using the real definition, i.e. "a surprising and welcome event that is not explicable by natural or scientific laws and is therefore considered to be the work of a divine agency"

[trotsky]

27. An excellent response to guillaumeb.

I'm sure he will engage your points honestly and earnestly.

[Cuthbert Allgood]

21. For somebody who wants to be the tone police in this group, you sure come out swinging.

How about you be the change you want to see?

[guillaumeb]

25. Did this article challenge your thinking?

Yallerdawg has one on religious feeling that you might like.

[Cuthbert Allgood]

37. You really try hard to avoid the actual point. Why do you come out swinging?

How come you lecture others on their tone and then do what you did at the end of the OP?

[guillaumeb]

39. Define the lecture, and what you see as my point.

[Cuthbert Allgood]

42. "a more nuanced view of this topic might conflict with the way some prefer to dismiss theists"

How about the way you dismiss atheists? How about the way you refuse to let atheists define themselves and, instead, continue to use a definition that you have been informed is incorrect and offensive?

You can't both be the tone police and then be shitty in tone.

[guillaumeb]

52. Numerous posts here have attempted to define Christians,

and what Christians must believe.

I do not dismiss atheism, but I do take issue with the obvious condescension in many of the posts in this group by atheists. There is a difference.

[Cuthbert Allgood]

55. Stay on topic. Why do you want others to have a better tone but you don't do it yourself?

You came out swinging in the OP. You have yet to address that. YOUR tone. Don't bring up other people. Discuss YOUR tone in YOUR OP.

[guillaumeb]

57. I see nothing wrong with my tone.

And I feel that nuance is indeed missing from many of the posts here.

[Cuthbert Allgood]

58. Then stop telling others to change their tone.

You are as guilty for the state of dialogue in this group as anyone else. Until you realize that, nothing will change.

[guillaumeb]

59. An interesting attempt at blaming others.

I do not refer to atheists as simplistic, or unrealistic, or the many insults routinely used in posts here.

[Cuthbert Allgood]

60. An interesting attempt at avoiding your own culpability

I realize it's hard to do, but sometimes the first step is to look in the mirror. Not surprising that you see no fault in your own actions, but you may want to look closer. Whataboutism isn't very becoming.

[trotsky]

62. "Numerous posts here have attempted to define Christians, and what Christians must believe."

Link to these numerous posts. Provide evidence of your claim.

[guillaumeb]

64. The evidence is abundant, if one wishes to see it.

So, with that in mind,................

[trotsky]

65. LINK TO THE POSTS THAT PROVE YOUR CLAIM.

You pull this bullshit on EVERYONE and you think you get to operate under your own special rules.

Fuck that.

PROVE YOUR CLAIM.

[guillaumeb]

66. I have read many claims from non-theists.

And, as you have reminded me when asked to prove your own claims, do some research.

[trotsky]

67. LINK TO THE POSTS THAT PROVE YOUR CLAIM.

I will not stop pointing out your hypocrisy.

You don't get to make up shit to malign people you hate.

LINK TO THE POSTS.

[guillaumeb]

68. Strong charges.

Follow your own advice to me. As a star member, you have the ability.

[trotsky]

69. LINK TO THE POSTS THAT PROVE YOUR CLAIM. n/t

[trotsky]

70. LINK TO THE POSTS THAT PROVE YOUR CLAIM. n/t

[trotsky]

72. LINK TO THE POSTS THAT PROVE YOUR CLAIM. n/t

[MineralMan]

29. And yet, Ken Ham:

https://creationmuseum.org/

I looked at the article. A majority of evangelicals isn't supportive of this. In fact, a majority thinks otherwise. See below:

We asked our survey respondents how they personally view the relationship between religion and science. Rather than saying that the two are in conflict, evangelicals were the most likely to say that they view religion and science as having a collaborative relationship in which the two spheres support each other (48 percent of evangelicals) or that religion and science are each independent and refer to different aspects of reality (21 percent of evangelicals).

And then, there's Ken Ham and his Creation Museum, which sticks its finger in the eye of science and attracts visitor after visitor.

The article doesn't convince. Not at all.

[guillaumeb]

33. Perhaps you are unconvinced.

Perhaps you need to remain unconvinced.

[MineralMan]

35. ...

Only one reply to you in a subthread from now on, Guillaume. That's it.

[Girard442]

30. Here's the problem: influential Evangelicals are hostile to any science that threatens their views.

Maybe the Evangelical man and woman on the street aren't so intense about it, but -- when push comes to shove, they support the Falwells and Grahams and Hams, and those are the people who drive public policy. I don't doubt that in 1930's Germany, it wouldn't be hard to find Germans who thought persecution of Jews wasn't a really great idea, but so what? The Holocaust still happened.

[thbobby]

32. Evangelicals are like gay muslims

Or old men. Or people named Bob (me). Most of them are decent and intelligent. Hard to believe, but some people named Bob are assholes. Doesn't mean the majority of us are. Evangelicals I have known are good caring people. And not opposed to science.

[guillaumeb]

36. True.

Personally, I try to not judge people named Bob simply because they are named Bob.

[Cuthbert Allgood]

40. Not surprising

The survey asked theists if they thought the two were in conflict. Doesn't answer if it actually is. The first discussion seemed to be a creationist viewpoint and how god is revealing his creation through science. There is some conflict there.

And not a huge fan of Religion News.

[Act_of_Reparation]

43. This does not tell us what Evangelicals think of science.

It tells us what Evangelicals think of what Evangelicals think of as science.

[Cartoonist]

45. The religious people who hate science

The religious people who don't hate science are my friends. The problem is with those who hate it and are shaping public policy based on their religion.

I'm shocked at you, Guillaume. How can you come to DU and defend these cretins? Even though the article notes that some evangelicals oppose certain aspects of science, we are to forgive them because they are theists, and not all theists are bad?

I am tolerant of religion to the point it makes laws against my freedom and the welfare of the planet. I will attack bad theists here and bad politicians elsewhere on DU. I am sick of you defending these people because they are theists. Theism is at the root of their malevolence.

[guillaumeb]

56. I am not defending any view point.

Simply providing what I feel is some necessary nuance.

Your final statement is opinion.

[Igel]

50. I don't know how they define "evangelical."

I've known a lot of anti-science religious non-evangelicals. More than evangelicals, to be honest.

And among many evangelicals, I don't know what they think of as science.

Or that they're in any way fundamentally different than non-evangelicals who are anti-vaxxers or believe that GMO or glyphosate are going to destroy the world. Everybody comes up with reasons for what they believe about science. Often, they're reasons of convenience. And often that reason of convenience is "Because God says so" (or at least the guy who stood up and said God says so, given the generally abysmal state of bible and creedal ignorance among the "Jesus is my boyfriend" crowd).

In other words, I don't know how much to trust the data. That's the thing about large scale surveys. There's a trade off between precision and detail in understanding the data and making sure the data set is comprehensive and large enough to make distinctions significant.

[Mariana]

71. They probably ask the respondents, "Are you an evangelical?"

Or some variation of that question. And you do have an excellent point. If someone considers bullshit like "Intelligent Design" to be science, of course they're going to say they're in favor of science.

[RelativelyJones]

61. Not buying it.

"But any attempt to connect scientific and religious communities, including the evangelical community, will be more productive if it begins by shedding the stereotypes presented by the loudest voices in society, and also understanding those communities’ core interests and worldviews."

That's a bit like saying that Galileo should have better understood the Pope's core interests and worldviews if he wanted to be more productive, evidence be damned. I understand being respectful to people's beliefs, but it is very dangerous to say there is an ounce of validity to the idea that the earth is 6000 years old. That should be confronted directly because it will be impressed upon young minds.