America: Stupidly stuck between religion and science

[cbayer]

http://www.salon.com/2014/04/12/america_stupidly_stuck_between_religion_and_science/

The "Cosmos" flap, the creationist media moment, New Atheism and our nation's endless struggle with faith

ANDREW O'HEHIR
SATURDAY, APR 12, 2014 11:30 AM CDT



Neil deGrasse Tyson, Bill Maher (Credit: Reuters/Kevork Djansezian/AP/Janet Van Ham/Salon)

Karl Marx’s famous maxim that history repeats itself, first as tragedy and then as farce, can apply just as well to the history of ideas as to the political sphere. Consider the teapot-tempest over religion and science that has mysteriously broken out in 2014, and has proven so irresistible to the media. We already had this debate, which occupied a great deal of the intellectual life of Western civilization in the 18th and 19th centuries, and it was a whole lot less stupid the first time around. Of course, no one on any side of the argument understands its philosophical and theological history, and the very idea of “Western civilization” is in considerable disrepute on the left and right alike. So we get the sinister cartoon version, in which religious faith and scientific rationalism are reduced to ideological caricatures of themselves, and in which we are revealed to believe in neither one.

Young-earth creationism, a tiny fringe movement within Christianity whose influence is largely a reflection of liberal hysteria, is getting a totally unearned moment in the spotlight (for at least the second or third time). Evangelist Ken Ham of the pseudo-scientific advocacy group Answers in Genesis gets to “debate” Bill Nye the Science Guy about whether or not the earth is 6,000 years old, in a grotesque parody of academic discourse. Ham’s allies, meanwhile, complain that Neil deGrasse Tyson’s new “Cosmos” TV series has no room for their ludicrous anti-scientific beliefs. If anything, Tyson’s show has spent a suspicious amount of time indirectly debunking creationist ideas. They seem to make him (or, more properly, his writers) nervous. Not, as Ham would have it, because somewhere inside themselves these infidels recognize revealed truth, but because religious ecstasy, however nonsensical, is powerful in a way reason and logic are not.

Everyone who writes a snarky Internet comment about why the T-Rex couple didn’t make it onto Noah’s ark betrays the same nervousness, and so do earnest Northeast Corridor journalists who rush to assure us that Ham’s elaborate fantasy scenarios about fossils and the Grand Canyon are not actually true, and that we would all find science just as wonderful as religion if only we paid attention. (Such articles strike me as totems of liberal self-reassurance, and not terribly convincing ones at that.) Repeating facts over and over again doesn’t make them any more true, and definitely doesn’t make them more convincing. I suppose this is about trying to win the hearts and minds of some uninformed but uncommitted mass of people out there who don’t quite know what they think. But hectoring or patronizing them is unlikely to do any good, and if you believe that facts are what carry the day in American public discourse then you haven’t paid much attention to the last 350 years or so.

This creationist boomlet goes hand in glove with the larger political strategy of Christian fundamentalism, which is somewhere between diabolically clever and flat-out desperate. Faced with a long sunset as a significant but declining subculture, the Christian right has embraced postmodernism and identity politics, at least in the sense that it suddenly wants to depict itself as a persecuted cultural minority entitled to special rights and privileges. These largely boil down, of course, to the right to resist scientific evidence on everything from evolution to climate change to vaccination, along with the right to be gratuitously cruel to LGBT people. One might well argue that this has less to do with the eternal dictates of the Almighty than with anti-government paranoia and old-fashioned bigotry. But it’s noteworthy that even in its dumbest and most debased form, religion still finds a way to attack liberal orthodoxy at its weak point.

more at link

[mindwalker_i]

1. It's so much easier to just say God did it

And avoid all that data collection and analysis, all that time thinking about things, how they work, deducing the patterns. And believing in God gives people a sense of purpose and morality without having to come up with the reasons themselves.

It's just easier, man!

And it's easier to let fast-talking politicians define, or redefine, that morality. Yeah, it suits their own purposes, but the people who follow them are then free to just relax and watch TV. They get something in return!

Democracy is too hard.

[cbayer]

2. You are talking about those that reject science in favor of religious belief.

It is a pretty broad brush statement to say that believers do not struggle with purpose and morality. While some may just use the easy explanation of "God did it", others see a much more complex world in which those things may be granted some guidance by their religion, but the path they choose is really of their own making.

I think that here on DU, we have a large population of theists who both embrace science and do not just swallow their religion whole.

They see the complexities and the conflicts and are generally thoughtful and questioning of the role their beliefs play in their lives.

[mindwalker_i]

3. That's true, and I meant for my comments to be more directed

at the fundamentalist groups. For most of my life I've been kind of careful to allow people to believe what they choose without passing judgement. However, as of late the religiotistas have been pushing their beliefs of everyone else a bit too much. Cosmos comes to mind, but it's just the latest. The politicians who purport to be religious aren't, but they're using it to control other people. Too many people are just happy to be controlled.

Thus, my patience is waning.

[cbayer]

4. Thanks for the clarification and I tend to agree with what you are saying,

I just think it's important to clarify who we are actually talking about.

Interesting that you use the word religionista. There is currently a thread in this group about that word, as it has been used to describe some people who post here.

What do you mean when you say it?

[mindwalker_i]

32. I think I saw that thread, but the term doesn't apply to anyone here

I haven't seen anyone here who's totally crazy about religion. If anyone is that religious, they haven't made it known. There do, however, seem to be people in this country who would like nothing more than to force religion on everyone - particularly, their version of christianity. Hell, that's been going on since I was a kid and probably before. The difference is, the Republicans have embraced it to a level that they didn't before, partly to play to that base, but also to kind of force people to buy into it. People with beliefs, meaning things they believe and don't question, are easier to control.

So, by religionistas, I mean people who want to force their religion onto everyone else at least partly to control them.

[cbayer]

33. So, when you use the term you are referring to a group that

has really gone overboard with their beliefs and want to impose those beliefs on everyone, right?

I would agree that if DU has any of those sorts of people, they don't talk about it.

The religious right has had a stranglehold in this country for too long. Fortunately, I think that is waning. The "leadership" really didn't come through on their promises about GLBT rights and abortion and went way too far for your basic middle of the road believer.

[AlbertCat]

5. Word salad.

Not very observant either.

&quot Christian Fundies) it suddenly wants to depict itself as a persecuted cultural minority entitled to special rights and privileges."

It's not sudden. It's been going on as long as Christian fundies have existed.

"We already had this debate, which occupied a great deal of the intellectual life of Western civilization in the 18th and 19th centuries, and it was a whole lot less stupid the first time around." No it wasn't. Religion was making just as ridiculous claims then as now.

And what is one to think about baloney like "religion still finds a way to attack liberal orthodoxy at its weak point." Liberal orthodoxy? What is he talking about?

"the Christian right has embraced postmodernism" "Such articles strike me as totems of liberal self-reassurance" "Young-earth creationism, a tiny fringe movement within Christianity whose influence is largely a reflection of liberal hysteria"

Oh please shut up!

[Brettongarcia]

6. The oppressor often poses as victim: as a martyr

From the first, Christians thought they were suffering martyrs. But of course the allegedly persecuted Christians have long governed the rest of the world. Through their colonies and so forth.

[hrmjustin]

7. There are real persecuted Christians in this world and in the past.

I would agree not in this nation but in other parts of the globe.

[Brettongarcia]

9. There have been SOME Christian victims/martyrs. But ...

But arguably 1) soldiers and others who died for Christianity in part, died for their own leaders.

2) More important, look at the bigger picture; overall statistics. For some time Christianity overall dominated the globe, through colonization and so forth. Especially from about 1600 to say 1980. In this period, in spite of a few exceptions you might note, overwhelmingly, percentage wise, Christians were the overlords, not the victims.

The rest of the world, arguably, was the real victim. By around 1950 or so, anglo-Americans probably consumed more than 85% of the world's total energy and other key resources. Though they represented less than 10% of the total world population.

To be sure, eventually the rest of the world benefited from this industrialization. But short term, there was some suffering and persecution in the world. Though some individual Christians suffered, overall they were the world overlords.

[hrmjustin]

10. Today they are not soldiers but in the past few centuries your probably right.

But today it is average believers in several countries that are persecuted.

[Brettongarcia]

11. That might be. But percentage wise, averaged out historically?

Probably Christians were overall overlords, not victims. By say 75% vs. 25%.

[hrmjustin]

12. I can't account for the past but today Christians are persecuted.

[edhopper]

15. All Christians?

Some Christians?
What percentage?
As a whole are they more persecuted than black people, or Native Americans or Gay people or Jews?
Are there whole populations that live under persecution, like the Kurds?

The point is how certain Christians groups make a few incidents of persecution of some Christians (which is very real and like any persecution, unacceptable) and turning that into "Christians are a persecuted population"

[hrmjustin]

16. This is not about percentages.

There are persecuted Christians in China, North Korea, Saudi Arabia, and other countries.

[cbayer]

20. I think the author is specifically talking about the religious right in the US

who have painted themselves as being persecuted and really are not persecuted at all.

[edhopper]

21. Thank you

yes, this.

No one is denying that Christians are persecuted in places. And the countries Hum listed pretty much persecute everyone.
To not put it into context and not reference what the Christian groups pushing this agenda are saying is to dismiss what is really going on.

[edhopper]

22. Who don't those countries

persecute?

[hrmjustin]

26. Does that excuse it?

[Goblinmonger]

24. Are those countries specific to their hatred of Christians?

Because I think I remember hearing about those countries having some atheist hate, too.

[hrmjustin]

27. Depends on the naton but yes there are atheists persecuted in those nations as well.

[AlbertCat]

35. I can't account for the past but today Christians are persecuted.

Not in the USA.

[hrmjustin]

36. Yes not in the US.

[cbayer]

17. Yes, one can see all kinds of examples of that.

Bullies often paint themselves as the ones oppressed/matyred and use it as a justification to bully other people.

It's generally very easy to see through.

[pinto]

8. On the creationism point, I think he's saying liberals give too much time on a fringe group.

And that attention = "air time" so to speak. Better to just ignore them. I see the point. I mean what can you say to folks who think the Earth is 6,000 years old?

[cbayer]

14. I agree with you and others have made that point as well.

Ham lives for the attention and the more he gets, the more he "wins".

[trotsky]

19. Forty percent.

Is that a fringe group?

[el_bryanto]

23. It depends on how the question is asked

Was trying to find out how many young earth creationists there are and came across this article, which I found interesting.

Depending on how you ask the question the number could be higher than 44% or considerably lower.

I was curious because I don't recall knowing any young earth creationists growing up, and I belong to a pretty conservative faith. Possibly some of the arguments were going in one ear and out the other.

Bryant

[trotsky]

28. 39% is "considerably lower" than 40%?

But he also found that 39% agreed “God created the universe, the earth, the sun, moon, stars, plants, animals, and the first two people within the past 10,000 years.”

[el_bryanto]

29. Well there was also this bit.

In 2009, Bishop ran a survey that clarifies how many people really think the earth is only 10,000 years old. In survey results published by Reports of NCSE, Bishop found that 18% agreed that “the earth is less than 10,000 years old.” But he also found that 39% agreed “God created the universe, the earth, the sun, moon, stars, plants, animals, and the first two people within the past 10,000 years.” Again, question wording and context clearly both matter a lot.

For more evidence that the number of true young-earthers is fairly small, consider another question from the survey run by the National Science Board since the early ’80s. In that survey, about 80% consistently agree “The continents on which we live have been moving their locations for millions of years and will continue to move in the future.” Ten percent say they don’t know, leaving only about 10% rejecting continental drift over millions of years. Though young-earth creationists often latch onto continental drift as a sudden process during Noah’s flood (as a way to explain how animals could get from the Ark to separate continents), they certainly don’t think the continents moved over millions of years. This question puts a cap of about 10% on the number of committed young-earth creationists, lower even than what Bishop found. More people in the NSB science literacy survey didn’t know that the father’s genes determine the sex of a baby, thought all radioactivity came from human activities, or disagreed that the earth goes around the sun.

At any rate, I think the figure is unfortunately probably closer to the 30s/40s. I also think scientific illiteracy plays a role in this, and that's only partially explained by religious doctrine (our school system has to shoulder part of the blame there as well).

Bryant

[trotsky]

30. And my biggest concern is dismissing YEC as a "tiny fringe".

It is most definitely not.

[el_bryanto]

31. Tiny definitely not.

Another vector might be passion for the issue though - which I don't know if there is any information on that. I'm not sure how you collect that data - but of that 40% (lets say) who accept young earth creationism, how much do they care about it? Or what percentage is deeply invested in it? The leadership of many of these congregations and the Ken Hams of the world obviously are (and Ken Ham, at least, has a profit motive in promoting it). But are the rank and file as invested in it?

At any rate, it also points to the need to make sure that Creationism isn't taught in schools.

Bryant

[pinto]

25. I find that surprising.

Here's the wording of the question used in the poll, Dec. 2010, fwiw -

34. Which of the following statements comes closest to your views on the origin and development of human
beings --
1) Human beings have developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God guided this process, 38%
2) Human beings have developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God had no part in this process, 16%
3) God created human beings pretty much in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years or so? 40%

[AlbertCat]

37. liberals give too much time on a fringe group.

But liberals wouldn't even bring it up if the "fringe groups" weren't given so much time on the news and in the Chambers of government. Liberals didn't bring up the baloney fringe groups shout about daily..... unless you mistakenly think the media is liberal!

And ignoring them doesn't make them go away. It makes them take over school boards and get elected to Congress.

[pinto]

38. Oh I definitely feel we ought to challenge their involvement in the civic / political spheres.

On separation of church and state grounds in general. That's the key, imo. No need to debate a specific belief - uphold the constitutional standard. And, fwiw, I think one-trick ponies can be successfully challenged on a wide range of topics. To get locked into their one "thing" can be counter productive.

[cbayer]

13. Er, no. That's not word salad, not even close.

You may want to look up the definition of that (and other psychiatric terms) before throwing them around.

You may have had trouble following it and may disagree, but that's not word salad.

Anyway, sorry you didn't like the article.

[trotsky]

18. "Young-earth creationism, a tiny fringe movement within Christianity"

Your author has absolutely ZERO credibility thanks to that statement.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/145286/four-americans-believe-strict-creationism.aspx
"Four in 10 Americans, slightly fewer today than in years past, believe God created humans in their present form about 10,000 years ago. "

FOUR in TEN. FORTY PERCENT. That's a "tiny fringe"???

Of course there those (like yourself, cbayer), who say that we cannot tell anyone their religious beliefs are wrong unless we can PROVE they are wrong. And ultimately, no, we can't prove YEC adherents wrong. Their god *could* have created the universe to look as if it were billions of years old, with evolution, etc. Or an alternate theory, Satan planted all the false evidence. So that complicates the problem, wouldn't you say?

[Act_of_Reparation]

34. Bullshit

Young-earth creationism, a tiny fringe movement within Christianity whose influence is largely a reflection of liberal hysteria, is getting a totally unearned moment in the spotlight (for at least the second or third time).

46% of Americans believe God created humans in their present form less than 10,000 years ago. This is a "tiny fringe movement"?

[cbayer]

39. Agree that that belief is widespread and not a "tiny fringe movement".

I think he may be referring more to the attempts to incorporate this into science curricula, which I think (but am not sure) is opposed even by those who believe it.