A commentary on the Rice/Templeton religion/science survey

[longship]

Yale neurologist and Skeptics Guide to the Universe host Dr. Steve Novella blogged about this survey today on his Neurologica Blog.

New Science and Religion Survey

Steve expresses fairly accurately my position with regard to religion and science.

Here's the summary of the survey results:

50 percent of evangelicals believe that science and religion can work together, compared to 38 percent of Americans.
18 percent of scientists attended weekly religious services, compared with 20 percent of the general U.S. population;
15 percent of scientists consider themselves very religious (versus 19 percent of the general U.S. population);
13.5 percent of scientists read religious texts weekly (compared with 17 percent of the U.S. population)
19 percent of scientists pray several times a day (versus 26 percent of the U.S. population).
Nearly 60 percent of evangelical Protestants and 38 percent of all surveyed believe “scientists should be open to considering miracles in their theories or explanations.”
27 percent of Americans feel that science and religion are in conflict. Of those who feel science and religion are in conflict, 52 percent sided with religion.
48 percent of evangelicals believe that science and religion can work in collaboration.
22 percent of scientists think most religious people are hostile to science.
Nearly 20 percent of the general population think religious people are hostile to science.
Nearly 22 percent of the general population think scientists are hostile to religion.
Nearly 36 percent of scientists have no doubt about God’s existence.

He quotes one of the authors, Elaine Howard Ecklund:

“This is a hopeful message for science policymakers and educators, because the two groups don’t have to approach religion with an attitude of combat. Rather, they should approach it with collaboration in mind.”

Here is a excerpt of Dr. Novella's commentary:

I guess I’m in the “entrenched” camp because I don’t see things that way. At the very least, more context is needed. Here is the most problematic result, “Nearly 60 percent of evangelical Protestants and 38 percent of all surveyed believe ‘scientists should be open to considering miracles in their theories or explanations.’” It seems likely that the greater desire for science and religion to work together on the part of evangelicals stems from this belief – that science should be used to confirm their religious beliefs.

This notion stems from a fundamental misunderstanding of how science works. Science cannot consider miracles – because by definition miracles are not falsifiable. They are not subject to hypothesis testing, and so don’t meet the first criterion of science. Science is like a structure build brick-by-brick. Each brick has to sit on top of bricks below it. You cannot have structures floating in mid air, but that is what a “miracle” is.

This is not “hostility” (which seems to be a premise of the survey). Rather, it is simply internally consistent philosophy. Science must follow methodological naturalism. Even if you accept the maximally non-hostile doctrine formulated by Stephen J. Gould of non-overlapping magisteria (NOMA), which postulates that science and religion are both legitimate but completely separate intellectual pursuits, there cannot be any mixing. (How valuable religion is as an intellectual pursuit is a separate question.)

Science and religion are, in fact, in conflict. They conflict every time someone imposes their religious faith onto others by using it as a justification for fudging or suppressing science. The teaching of creationism in public schools is the most obvious example.

(more at link)

As always with Neurologica, the comments can be interesting.

I thought the Religion Group would find this interesting for discussion.

on edit: fixed link to Blog

[rug]

1. There doesn't appear to be that wide a gap in most categories.

[hrmjustin]

2. I noticed that as well.

[longship]

3. Do you mean other than religious attempts to redefine science?

That's a pretty damned large gap right there. And they are, and have been for years, using legislative fiat to impose these changes on everybody else. This is why I take a strong position against NOMA, Stephen J. Gould's non-overlapping magisteria description of science and religion. The religious claim overlap all the time. And they put their cries of overlap into action to increase that overlap. And that is happening all over the country. (Ref: NCSE)

In my opinion, people who claim there is no war between science and religion have some splainin' to do. Hint: it's not the scientists who are fighting. (Mostly they don't care about religion, and those who do don't see a need for war.)

As long as religious people tread on science turf, the war will exist, whether people will admit it or not.

I hope this clarifies my position.

[rug]

8. That's not one of the findings; it's Novella's take on the research.

In fact, the data contradicts his, and your, opinion.

HOUSTON – (Feb. 16, 2014) – The public’s view that science and religion can’t work in collaboration is a misconception that stunts progress, according to a new survey of more than 10,000 Americans, scientists and evangelical Protestants. The study by Rice University also found that scientists and the general public are surprisingly similar in their religious practices.

http://news.rice.edu/2014/02/16/misconceptions-of-science-and-religion-found-in-new-study-2/

[longship]

11. Well, the NCSE disagrees with the findings, too.

The issue is not whether or not people think that there is a conflict. The issue is if there is indeed any conflict. Scientists would prefer NOMA to be a real deal. But those paying attention know that this is not true. Science is embattled by religion right now and it is happening all over the USA.

Apparently, the survey polled people's opinions, not the reality. By itself, that doesn't bother me. It is what I would expect from Templeton Foundation funding. Not all their funded research is bad. But it generally supports their narrative that science and religion are cool with one another. However, the number of horrible, anti-science legislative and school board actions in the USA clearly falsifies this narrative, and this survey's conclusions.

The NCSE keeps track of this stuff.

As always.

[rug]

12. Their objection appears to be focused more on literal creationism rather than religion per se.

http://ncse.com/religion

Thanks for the link. I'll read more.

[longship]

13. Well, since creationism (and Intelligent Design) are religious at their core...

this speaks directly to the science and religion discussion.

But Eugenie Scott, who has headed the NCSE for over three decades frames things in scientific terms and does not confront religion, by choice. She recently retired, but I have no doubt the new director will adopt the same tact. I think that is a good idea. Eugenie was a class act at NCSE. She never gave her opponents much red meat to chew on.

However, the NCSE has also cooperated in many court cases on creationism, including ID, and has consistently argued that they are religious ideas, and not scientific ones. By the way, I think science has won every single case in court on this issue, all on First Amendment religious establishment grounds. So NCSE does say this is a religious issue.

Thanks for the discussion, rug.

[rug]

14. No it doesn't. Even quantitively, literal creationists are a small part of the religious landscape.

That's like describing human beings by examining the Isles of Langerhans.

[longship]

15. My concern is effects, not the specific numbers.

I am not sure about how small are the literalists as a faction. I guess I haven't seen the numbers recently. A couple decades ago it was between 25% and 30% of the population. I may be wrong about that, but that's what I remember.

Maybe somebody could point to some recent and reliable numbers on this.


In fact, if anything, that makes it worse, since they are having a huge, disproportional effect on policy and science education in the USA. Poll after poll consistently show how few people in the USA accept the science. It's consistently less than 50% for evolution. This is a battle which we've been fighting for decades. Sure, it goes up and down, but science is in a decidedly embattled position right now, almost all from religious ideology, especially biology and cosmology. (Less so for climate change, but I suspect that the fundamentalists are wholly against that, too, along with the libertarians.)

Again, rug, I don't doubt your opinions here. Maybe we're talking past each other a bit. I am focussing on effects of religion on science (especially education) and you seem to be focussing on the numbers. I acknowledge that you are probably correct. I am entirely cool with that.

I welcome correction if my numbers are wrong.

Regards.

[Warren Stupidity]

16. No sorry, rug is completely wrong on this issue.

In U.S., 46% Hold Creationist View of Human Origins
Highly religious Americans most likely to believe in creationism

http://www.gallup.com/poll/155003/hold-creationist-view-human-origins.aspx



That is 46% with creationis views, with another 32% believing in some sort of divine intervention.

The argument made here that this is some small minority is just total bullshit.

[longship]

18. I think rug was talking about the breakdown by religion.

I was talking about effects. We were just talking past each other.

There are probably many liberal believers around. They just don't seem to have much political power. Nor the atheists. I'd like to see that change.

Moral Mondays warms my heart as it looks to be an exemplar of what can be done with a united front. I'd proudly stand next to that reverend. And I'm a lifelong atheist.

Your chart is scary. I've seen it before, over the years. The uptick in the past couple of years is most worrisome, if it is not an artifact of the polling errors.

My argument also is that opposition to science is substantially religious, as is demonstrated by the Gallup poll you cite. (With the notable exception of libertarian opposition to climate science, which is a sort of religion of a different kind, Ayn Rand worship.)

That is Steve Novella's position as well.

[Warren Stupidity]

19. The vast majority of christians belong to sects that espouse belief in an interventionist god.

Either outright creationism or some form of ID.

Here is a very detailed analysis of the data:
http://ncse.com/rncse/24/5/creationists

The Bible Belt is bigger than readers may have thought, not only geographically but also metaphorically, in the sense that biblicism in the United States clearly affects the reaction to evolution on the part of persons who are not in any strict sense biblical literalists. Scholars in the humanities, accustomed to look at broad historical patterns rather than details of statistical analyses, may nonetheless come up with diagnoses that have the ring of truth. Thus, a remark of Sloan (2000), discoursing on the "Bible belting" of this country, is relevant in pondering the results laid out here, even if it goes beyond what can be rigorously demonstrated: "Ecclesiastical institutions … continue to implant powerful psychological deterrents to independent thought." To the institutions most likely to have influenced our older respondents may be added the burgeoning creationist web sites and the Discovery Institute — well known to readers of RNCSE — not to mention the legion of TV preachers and other sources of disinformation in various media and the clear willingness of some prominent legislators to destroy whatever science gets in the way of their program to make these United States into a Christian theocracy.

[longship]

21. That's my opinion as well.

And I am a huge fan of the NCSE. They do great work. I have a huge crush on Eugenie Scott. She will be missed at NCSE. Ann Reid has taken over the helm at NCSE. I hope she's equally great. What I've seen and heard of her looks good.

[rug]

30. This is part of the problem I think.

Religion is a global phenomenon. Science is a universal method. Yet, the two are measured by the yahoos in the U.S. who are emblematic of the literalists. The rhetoric and arguments about religion become proportionately skewed.

The other part of the problem is what we're really talking about are civil acts done in the name of religion that, if unchecked, can have catastrophic effects on society. On this, I don't really think we disagree.

The problem with Novella is he conflates the two.

The real issue is separating religion and government, not examining strawmen with microscopes.

Imho.

[WovenGems]

33. One problem

"Nearly 60 percent of evangelical Protestants and 38 percent of all surveyed believe “scientists should be open to considering miracles in their theories or explanations.”"

This would make science pointless as what is a miracle changes with science advancements.

[Beachwood]

4. Interesting, Steven Novella's own remarks back to one commenter:

"You have raised a good point – what is the value of an intellectual discipline based on fantasy? I would argue – none. Which is why I am completely non-religious."

...

"In order words – I choose to focus my efforts on keeping religion out of science and teaching critical thinking skills. If you are successful in this, then supernatural beliefs will tend to moderate, become marginalized, and even fade away."

[hrmjustin]

5. Religion is not going away.

[Beachwood]

6. He didn't say religion was "going away"

He said that beliefs in the supernatural will fade.

Can there not be religions without beliefs in the supernatural? Of course there can, and there are many.

[hrmjustin]

7. By supernatural do you mean miracles today?

[rug]

9. Name one.

[Beachwood]

17. That's what is wonderful about the day and age we live in.

We have this thing called "Google" to search and investigate topics such as this. Just another part of life's never-ending quest for reasonable answers? Most of us who post here would like reasonable answers to our questions, and we take our own paths to searching those out.

I can think of three religious groups that are practicing here and elsewhere around the world. But I will leave that fun for you to discover on your own.

But honestly, I'm a bit surprised that a person so knowledgeable about religion as yourself hasn't already done such research. Did you require your choice of a religion to include a set of beliefs in the supernatural?

Or is it that you claim there can be no religion without a belief in a supernatural power of some sort? Is that the deciding factor, fro you, in finding some set of beliefs a "religion" ? This question has come about many times before, perhaps not here, but enough for U.S. courts to have already ruled upon this topic, more than once, in cases involving First Amendment rights and tax exempt status.

If you require a religion to include a set of beliefs in the supernatural, unfortunately, U.S. courts do not agree with that premise.

"The tax status of Ethical Societies as religious organizations has been upheld in court cases in Washington, D.C. (1957), and in Austin, Texas (2003). The Texas State Appeals Court said of the challenge by the state comptroller Carole Keeton Strayhorn, "the Comptroller's test requiring a group to demonstrate its belief in a Supreme Being fails to include the whole range of belief systems that may, in our diverse and pluralistic society, merit the First Amendment's protection."

http://www.lawandreligion.com/ (Report on Texas Court of Appeals decision)

Search also: "Christ without Christianity; religion without spirit"

[hrmjustin]

23. Getting snarky huh?

[rug]

29. I see. Not one.

You could have saved yourself a lot of blather by simply saying so.

But, while we're on the subject:

Do you consider the Ethical Culture Societies to be religions or are you relying on the Texas tax code to define religion?

Do you consider The Assembly to be a religion as well?

If you'd rather have a snark contest, cut out the bullshit and let me know.

[cbayer]

32. If by supernatural, you mean phenomenon without clear scientific evidence

which is held to be real or true, I would also be very interested to know what "religions" exist without belief in that.

And if all you have is snark, I am going to assume you are unable to provide this information.

[longship]

10. That would be my tact too.

Especially keeping religion out of science part. I would argue that teaching critical thinking is a very good way to help accomplish that.

The polls on science knowledge in the USA are appalling! This provides a gap into which certain religious groups can insert their wedges, like their opposition to biology, physics, and other stuff.

The extent to which these things are happening demonstrates the extent to which education in the USA is really in crisis. The religious home and private schools are not helping this. Many are teaching rubbish science.

[MellowDem]

20. This quote...

“This is a hopeful message for science policymakers and educators, because the two groups don’t have to approach religion with an attitude of combat. Rather, they should approach it with collaboration in mind.”

is about as naive as it gets. Science undermines religion. All religion. By definition.

Many people that claim to be religious but don't actually really care or know or follow or even believe the religion they claim to be a part of probably don't view it as a threat, because for them, it isn't. For many of these wishy-washy "religious", the best defense is to just keep worshiping the god of the gaps. If science undermines a religious belief, abandon that belief and continue to believe in something not falsifiable. Hence many of these believers have a very vague, almost useless definition of god.

But religious people who are more honest and consistent in their beliefs (actually willing to stand up for their claims) will always view any scientific claim that undermines their beliefs as a threat. Always. In fact, the only way for them not to view it as a threat is to not be religious, like their "wishy-washy" brethren.

That's because the very foundation that religion rests on is rejected by science.

[longship]

22. Well, it is not Steve Novella's tactic to approach it like that.

Richard Dawkins would agree with you, as would I.

I don't know what Novella actually thinks about this -- he does not say -- but he has stated his position on his actions very clearly on many occasions. He eschews criticizing people about their religious beliefs unless it interferes with science. As an atheist who thinks science is poisonous to religious belief, I still try not to bust people's chops just because they are religious. So maybe I am more like Novella in action. Like him, I am going to take you down hard if you use your religious beliefs to oppose science or spout craziness. However, mostly I just ignore them, unless I am having a friendly discussion, like here on DU. Then, I remain cordial.

I hope I have been clear enough.

[LostOne4Ever]

24. ALL Religion?

What about religions that don't necessarily make claims about the origin of the universe or how it works?

IIRC nothing in the Tao Te Ching says anything contradictory to science (though traditional organized Taoism is another story altogether), similarly Deism and Pantheism make no claims falsified by science. These type of religions tend to be about how you see life rather than claiming to have all the answers.

Other religious traditions, however, fit your description. They try to claim to have all the answers and in manufacturing those answer inevitably make claims that are not true.

[MellowDem]

26. Any religion that is based on a presumption...

I can't think of any that aren't, deism and pantheism included. Any claim based on no evidence, much less a belief based on something that isn't falsifiable, is rejected by science. In that case, saying "I don't know" is how to remain consistent with science.

There are some philosophies and ideologies that make no supernatural claims, but those aren't religions as I understand the definition.

[longship]

27. Well, desists just put their god into the biggest gap. IMHO.

The clockmaker. But quantum cosmology could conceivably fill that gap some day, too. The deist god evaporates in a poof of logic. (Thank you, Douglas Adams.)

I think all religions based on some kind of god must necessarily be at odds with science.

Pantheism, Spinoza's god -- and Einstein's -- may be a different story. Einstein talked about god, but as a metaphor for nature (or the universe) as a whole, not as a separate entity existing outside of nature.

So I think only Spinoza's god survives science. That's not a god anybody would pray to, or worship.

Thanks for the response.

[LostOne4Ever]

25. Ugghhhh

Nearly 60 percent of evangelical Protestants and 38 percent of all surveyed believe “scientists should be open to considering miracles in their theories or explanations.”

UGGGGHHHHHH!!!!

This shows an extreme misunderstanding of the purpose of science. The purpose of science is to systematically, methodically, and provably acquire knowledge. Accepting "miracles" as explanations goes against that. To quote a biology professor of mine, "Saying that water goes down hill is because the river nymphs are trying to return to their father Poseidon explains nothing. Saying god did it in no way increases our understanding of the world around us."

If anything this shows me that there should be a requirement that all students take a history and philosophy of science course before being allowed to graduate.

[longship]

28. One has to consider the source of funding for the study.

John Templeton Foundation which tries to tread the line between science and religion. They do some good work, and some not so good work. This study is the latter.

Their bias is clear in their apparent continual desire to have science endorse religious views. The Templeton Prize is a big deal, big bucks. As one of his fellow atheists said to Dan Dennett one day, "Dan, if you ever come on hard times...". Needless to say, Dennett would likely never stoop to that level.

[BlueStreak]

31. Since when do 20% of the public get to define all the rules?

20% of Americans are actually serious about religion. The rest are just punching their card in the hope that there actually is a heaven and eternity. Yet this 20% has successfully bullied the rest of the country into believing that the religious are actually a majority.