There is an interesting blog post on Huffington Post entitled “Why Evangelicals Are Fooled Into Accepting Pseudoscience.”
Widespread rejection of human-induced climate change by evangelical Christians, of the sort we have seen recently from Rick Perry and others, is a bit of a puzzler. There is no obvious reason why evangelical faith commitments should motivate the faithful to reject climate science.
I’ve never understood the Christian anti-science thing. Is seems way harder to deny science and evolution and all that than to just believe that evolution is part of God’s plan. I had some hopes for the creation care people—if you think God created people and animals and the environment, shouldn’t you work to preserve it all—but that idea hasn’t really seemed to take off.
The post even includes a shout-out to our local Discovery Institute:
The rhetorical strategy employed by the Discovery Institute does a great disservice to American evangelicals who, understandably, are drawn to faith-friendly discussions of science. In their eagerness to dismantle scientific objections to intelligent design the Discovery Institute drives yet another wedge between evangelicals and the scientific community, making it harder for religious believers to distinguish science from pseudoscience, in particular, and real knowledge claims from fake ones in general.
Fascinating—and frustrating—stuff.
Religion is at its most comforting when it reassures you that you’re doing everything right, and to change anything would be wrong.
Well the Bible never said anything about science, so it can’t be real.
Is it too simplistic to say that Evangelicals are being manipulated by big business? From the outside it seems obvious: the richest members if our society can’t elect leaders with only their votes. There are simply too few rich guys to make a real dent in any election. So they look for a voting base, one that is undereducated, easily manipulated and firm in their beliefs. Evangelicals fit the bill and believe the lies they are being fed. The saddest part is that they don’t realize that the interests they are fighting for aren’t their own.
@2 – I once got caught up in an argument with a street preacher, despite my better judgement, and at one point he told me that the Bible was the only standard of truth, and that if science ever came up with anything that contradicted the Bible, that meant the science was a lie.
Explaining anything to those trained to be simple minded is almost impossible.
Would this be the same HuffPo that routinely publishes psuedoscience in its medical section? Stuff like vaccine alarmism and homeopathy? That HuffPo?
Also the same HuffPo that uses ridiculous words like “Frankenfood?”
It’s my belief that many of them are being disingenuous. It’s not that they don’t believe in climate change, it’s that they don’t care one way or the other. Their religion tells them that when things get too shitty on earth, Jesus is going to come back and take them all to heaven. So why would they lift a finger to stop something that isn’t going to have any consequences for them? Hell, some of them might even believe in climate change and think it’s great – one step closer to the end times! And people who don’t believe in the Jesus Safety Net are unbelievers and sinners anyway, so who gives a shit about them?
So, why are so many people who write for/read the Huff post falling for pseudoscience. That blog has more woo-woo on it than WorldNet Daily.
Falsifiability appears to be upsetting for individuals who have based their belief system on literal translations. I’ve thought that much of the beauty of science comes from the fact that it can yield data that can falsify its own idea.
For some individuals fundamentalist literalistic interpretation of scripture is comforting, perhaps even stabilizing, with its fixed rules of “don’ts” and unquestioned doctrines. Life for those individuals may seem simplified, but to others it appears anti-intelectual and legalistic. Science being designed, framed, through the scientific method to be testable against the empirical world and its tentative conclusions, its falsifiability is a foe that challenges the nature of living an unquestioning life. And some consider unquestioning certainty as evidence of devoutness, superior spiritual essence, and moral superiority.
It is also important to remember that many Christians believe that life will begin after their death. Their faith believes in a “new heaven and a new earth” and saving this one doesn’t always enter into their thinking. Although I know those who describe themselves as evangelical and are very concerned with the environment and think that Perry wouldn’t know a message of Christ from the sound of his of his bowels passing gas. Those same people are also pro-equality and pro-healthcare, so they don’t figure into the description of an evangelical Christian that most people know.
Just my $0.02.
HA: “Perry wouldn’t know a message of Christ from the sound of his bowels passing gas.”
kim in portland, you’re good people.
Huffpo has been once of the chief soapboxes for the anti-science anti-vaxers.
Critical thinking is unnatural and it is hard, and people have to be trained how to do it. How many thousands of years did our species exist before we finally got around to codifying the scientific method? Our society fails many, many people by not ensuring that they get this training.
Also, I’ll take that two cents to the bank, Kim, good stuff.
My understanding of the evangelical resistance to evolution has to do with what happens if there was no Adam and Eve.
The entire mythology of Christianity is predicated on the notion of Original Sin. We are all tainted with the sin of Adam and Eve. Christ also came to Earth to redeem us of that sin. If there was no Adam and Eve, the central dogmas of Christianity fall over, especially for the kinds of people who have no truck with words like “metaphor” and “allegory”.
@8, as an atheist, a rationalist and a scientist I can tell you you are absolutely mistaken if what you are implying is that intelligence is correlated to race (gee, I wonder which one would be the lesser race?). If you aren’t saying that, I apologize profusely for the misunderstanding, but to be clear: There is no biological definition of the word “race”. Race is a cultural construct. There is absolutely no such thing as a “black” race or an “asian” race that can be defined in biology. Intelligence tests have been shown to be culturally dependant and those studying race used self-reported races for subjects, which is ridiculous on its face, on top of using racial classifications (black, white, asian etc.) that have absolutely no scientific meaning. No study has ever shown that biological factors that correlate to ethnic originl also correlate to intelligence, as much as the so-called “racial realists” (aka racists) would wish it to be so. Again, I apologize if I’ve misread your comment, but I wanted to clarify that issue.
Like the saying goes, you can fix ignorance but you can’t fix stupid.
It isn’t just that religious people have trained themselves to believe things for which no evidence exists; all people, religious and non-religious alike, are vulnerable to the temptations of wishful thinking. And it is far more pleasant to believe that our civilization is not marching inexorably towards a doomed future on a planet that will no longer support human life.
Hey Lynx, your point on race reminds me of the great snl sketch between Garrett Morris & Julian Bond:
Julian Bond: Here are some questions that have appeared on recent I.Q. tests. Number one: “You have been invited over for cocktails by the officer of your trust fund. Cocktails begin at 4:30, but you must make an appearance at a 6:00 formal dinner at the Yacht Club. What do you do about dress?
A. Wear your blue-striped seersucker suit to cocktails and change into your tuxedo in the bathroom, apologizing to your host for the inconvenience.
B. Wear your tuxedo to cocktails, apologizing to your host for wearing a dinner jacket before 6:00 PM.
C. Walk to the subway at Columbus Circle and take the “A” Train uptown.”
The final punchline is priceless:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N8QEIaATP…
Hey anonymous. Not sure if you knew this, but you cant just pick and choose studies and then correlate them with each other and call that proof. Partcularly when the one holding them all together is from research dating back to 1986.
And, 14 is right. There is no biological basis for race, only a cultural one. Any google search on the topic will yield mountains of studies verifying that. And I can assure you they are more current than 1986.
@17, you have yet to contradict my statement, which is that no study has correlated biological factors that correlate well to “race” to intelligence.
Black is not a race. White is not a race. Asian is not a race. I defy you to find me a paper that profiles the genetic profile of “black people” as opposed to “white people”. In Africa there are people in neighboring tribes a few kilometers apart who are as different as a Spaniard is to a Swede. There are eskimos who are genetically more closely related to “white” people from Finland than to other eskimos. There are many “black” people in America for whom a blood test would reveal that they have genetics that trace them more to northern Europe than to Africa, and yet they are classified as blacks. Race is useful for sociology, and much smaller ethnic divisions can be useful for medicine, but they simply are not correlated to intelligence when accounting for cultural factors.
@18, great sketch, with a great message. Whenever you see someone seriously advocating the superiority of a given race (or gender), you’ll “coincidentally” find that the one doing the advocating just happens to be in the supposed “better” group.
Oh, and before our unregistered troll rolls this one out… The Bell Curve is *not* a reliable study for the purposes of Lynx’s argument.
@14 – I’m convinced that in a few years, if it hasn’t happened, conservative Christians will realize that there’s nothing in evolution counter to their theology. Evolution still provides as much of a mechanism for hereditary sin as creation does (I mean, it makes as much or as little sense with evolution as it does with creation, it just doesn’t necessarily start with Adam and Eve). The only thing that might have to change is their understanding of the Bible, but they will probably adjust to literalism being the ‘intentions’ of the writers, so that the literal truth of Genesis is that it is mythology. That’s just my prediction.
Also, not that this is the right place to get into it, but science doesn’t really work according to falsifiability. It’s a pretty naive and heroic mythology of science (Karl Popper’s the big hero here) but when you look at actual scientific practice, or the history and sociology of science, or how articles are published and ideas are disseminated, you’ll find that science moves forward through much more complicated means than simple falsification.
To the unregistered comment-bomber, it might be marginally entertaining to bring up those papers and actually see if you have read and understood them (which I doubt), but sadly I lack the time.
Given the absracts, none of them actually show what I have requested, which is genetic definition of the races you claim actually exist. That certain alleles cluster in some population is undoubtedly true, but this does not render the existence of “white” and “black” a scientifically relevant classification. Please provide robust evidence that the generally understood racial classification has a clear reflection in genetic profiles. If it does, there really should be a wealth of information out there. In fact I’ll make it easier. Go to pubmed once you’ve done the search, click on the review button (on your right). If the generally understood classification of race can be clearly demonstrated in a well defined genetic context, then there should be a good review that compiles the evidence thereof.
I’ll check in again tomorrow to see if you’ve actually found anything.
Sorry but it’s not just christians who don’t accept human influences in climate change and the evidence beyond the last 100 years doesn’t help the Al Gorians either, which is why many of us non/anti-christians started doubting in the first place. It was the global temperature graph that showed global temperatures released by the same scientists that gave us the whole picture, it was also the simple fact that goalposts keep getting shifted (oooh, I’m so mean using a turn about here).
The creationists can’t debate against is using science, of course not, because to them the prehistoric measurements are all made up. But the world is much older than a few thousand years, and looking back further … it’s been much warmer and much colder throughout time. But here’s the problem with the new aged environuts, the ones that hijacked the real environmentalism movement, your equating things as an absolute (like how christians do) is thankfully hurting your case, so keep it up. You made a doubter out of me, and you’re making doubters of a lot of people every day, because you do something science is not suppose to do, you play favorites. So keep up the great work, keep pretending you actually care about the environment, while some us who do care about the environment are praying for human extinction to come sooner, which is all humans can effect.
This is really simple; there’s no need to write paragraphs. The creationists believe that the world was created approximately 5,800 years ago, within 6 days, by God. God is the creator; humans don’t create anything, including climate change. And no, they’re not going to change that belief, and no, they’re not going to listen to science or reason of anything else.
@42: Are you talking about how temperatures have been higher in the past few hundred thousand years?
It’s not T(t) that’s making us worried. It’s dT/dt.
http://itgrunts.com/2011/09/23/lhc-updat…
Anselm of Canterbury Ontological argument
Descartes: Medithationes..
@46: If you actually knew anything about how evolution works, you wouldn’t be pushing this bullshit.
It is generally understood that roughly 60,000 years ago, the first successful exodus from East Africa took place, beginning the allopatric division of humanity. Thus, at 60,000 years before the present, there were no races, as far as we know; all humans were in the same greater population; as such, intelligence and other attributes must have been fairly constant (barring minor variation) among all groups. 60,000 years is an awfully short time in evolutionary chronology.
In order for differences to arise in such a short time period, there must be very strong evolutionary pressures selecting for such differences. Traits that grant a clear physiological advantage in the new environment will arise, and did in the case of humans; as some humans migrated further north, for example, they gradually evolved larger noses (which allowed the body to better warm and moisten cold dry air), more and longer hair (allowing the body to better trap heat), and less-pigmented skin (making the carriers of this trait less susceptible to rickets). The divergence of such traits is clear, but there is nothing to suggest that intelligence would be more or less selected for in various locales. What evolutionary pressures could there possibly have been causing Australoids, Caucasians, Mongoloids, and Negroids to end up with substantially different levels of intelligence?
Humans everywhere fill pretty much the same ecological niche, and have diverged from each other only within the last hundred thousand years or so. Don’t try to play your little games with a bio major, bitch.
@42 Actually, yes, the graph mysteriously vanished and now all I can get from anywhere is the 200 year graphs …. which is not a whole picture. However one of my biggest points is that nature’s disasters that effect large areas have always been a huge benefit to the world over all, so worrying about any changes (if we do in fact make such changes) isn’t going to be negative by default. Even without a hand controlling the development of the world, things do find a place in it, a purpose … perhaps ours is to be the new dinosaur …. Many people don’t even want to admit we are not the fittest species alive, there are many more that can survive in much worse climates. We are likely just a passing fancy of the planet, and just now found a place to exist, to reshape the world itself and help test the truly superior species. Of course I am taking a philosophical perspective here, but there is one fact: We are a danger to ourselves, not the rest of the life on here. We cannot destroy the planet, or make it uninhabitable, all we can do is alter what lives will thrive.
The one true solution would be to decrease OUR population, but no one wants to look at that. We will produce waste, that’s not the issue, it’s how much we produce. Everything we do produce as waste is also produced by another naturally occurring form or method. The only ways to reduce our waste globally is also impossible because of our population level. Solar energy would be great, but there’s no way it will ever be able to produce the energy load needed for even the lights of every person in a city. We have to bite the bullet, control our breeding or have it controlled for us.
Gah, I mean @48
@49,50: Okay, what the living fuck?
I post a refutation of Alleged‘s argument against racial uniformity of intelligence in humans, and you give me a screed about overpopulation and global warming? And it’s a pretty batshit screed too, as far as screeds go!
Or did you mean to reply to my post regarding climate change at #45? In which case:
Aw, it doesn’t know calculus!
Actually, yeah, I screwed up the numbers … twice in a row … sue me. 😉 The original article was focusing on “global warming” … I posed a unique but highly valid and more accurate reasoning as well as *gasp* a partial solution! Go figure I actually thought about a solution, even a partial one, instead of just hating something. I know it’s a foreign concept, perhaps alien to many, but it’s more than anyone has had in a long time (20+ years from my recollection).
@52: You said that natural disasters that affect a wide area have ALWAYS been beneficial to the planet.
One, what defines benefit or detriment to the planet? Two, how did the Late Heavy Bombardment benefit the planet?
I mean, controlling our population IS something we need to do. But I have a hard time taking your good idea seriously when it’s surrounded by such ridiculous bullshit.
49
“We are likely just a passing fancy of the planet, and just now found a place to exist, to reshape the world itself and help test the truly superior species”
So you’re a Creationist, too. Grats on being nearly the dumbest poster on the slog.
@55 Why is it whenever someone seeks a purpose to our existence they are lumped together with religious nuts like creationists or environmentalists?
“Why is it whenever someone seeks a purpose to our existence they are lumped together with religious nuts like creationists or environmentalists?”
Because teleology is a form of religion.
57 Teleology is form of thinking. (Nicolai Hartmann, Teleological thinking)
(Sorry, I didnt want to be wiseacre but its important log. cat. )