"Poll: Big Bang a big question for most Americans" (so, religion?)

[smartphone]

Religious values are similarly important.

Confidence in evolution, the Big Bang, the age of the Earth and climate change decline sharply as faith in a supreme being rises, according to the poll. Likewise, those who regularly attend religious services or are evangelical Christians express much greater doubts about scientific concepts they may see as contradictory to their faith.

“When you are putting up facts against faith, facts can’t argue against faith,” said 2012 Nobel Prize winning biochemistry professor Robert Lefkowitz of Duke University. “It makes sense now that science would have made no headway because faith is untestable.”

But evolution, the age of the Earth and the Big Bang are all compatible with God, except to Bible literalists, said Francisco Ayala, a former priest and professor of biology, philosophy and logic at the University of California, Irvine. And Darrel Falk, a biology professor at Point Loma Nazarene University and an evangelical Christian, agreed, adding: “The story of the cosmos and the Big Bang of creation is not inconsistent with the message of Genesis 1, and there is much profound biblical scholarship to demonstrate this.”

http://ap-gfkpoll.com/featured/findings-from-our-latest-poll-2

[el_bryanto]

1. That last bit will cause some consternation - one thing I've learned

is that if you believe in God you inherently don't believe in Science. Funny that.

Bryant

[spin]

6. Thats a broad statement. It is quite possible to believe in a god or a creator and still ...

believe in science.

NOVEMBER 5, 2009
Scientists and Belief

***snip***

A survey of scientists who are members of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, conducted by the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press in May and June 2009, finds that members of this group are, on the whole, much less religious than the general public.1 Indeed, the survey shows that scientists are roughly half as likely as the general public to believe in God or a higher power. According to the poll, just over half of scientists (51%) believe in some form of deity or higher power; specifically, 33% of scientists say they believe in God, while 18% believe in a universal spirit or higher power. By contrast, 95% of Americans believe in some form of deity or higher power, according to a survey of the general public conducted by the Pew Research Center in July 2006. Specifically, more than eight-in-ten Americans (83%) say they believe in God and 12% believe in a universal spirit or higher power. Finally, the poll of scientists finds that four-in-ten scientists (41%) say they do not believe in God or a higher power, while the poll of the public finds that only 4% of Americans share this view....emphasis added

***snip***

The Pew Research Center poll of scientists also found that levels of religious faith vary according to scientific specialty and age. For instance, chemists are more likely to believe in God (41%) than those who work in the other major scientific fields. Meanwhile, younger scientists (ages 18-34) are more likely to believe in God or a higher power than those who are older.
http://www.pewforum.org/2009/11/05/scientists-and-belief/

[cbayer]

8. I'm pretty sure (but can't speak for him) that he was being sarcastic.

[spin]

12. I found that it always helps to add the sarcasm thingy. In passing ...

a while back you asked me to read The Sparrow.

I'm fond of well written science fiction and this novel was one of the best that I have read in recent years. I followed it up with the sequel Children of God which helped explain why Father Emilio Sandoz suffered so much.

I personally feel that there are other planets who harbor intelligent life. In order to visit such a planet it is necessary for the travelers to develop a much higher level of scientific knowledge than we currently have.

Warfare can cause scientific advancement but eventually the knowledge gained will enable a civilization to destroy itself unless it can overcome its inherent tendencies toward aggressive behavior.

If we can overcome our love of warfare we may be able to use our scientific knowledge to journey to the stars. If we do so, we will have passed the ultimate test of our civilization's true value. If we fail we will find ourselves, at the best, back in the Stone Age starting over.

The sad part is that while most religions teach the same basic message, religion is often used by those in power as an excuse for war.

[cbayer]

13. Agree about using the sarcasm thingy.

I am so, so glad you enjoyed the Sparrow and Children of God.

Gee, I literally have goosebumps right now. It is so rare to recommend a book to someone on the internet, then find out that they read it and really enjoyed it.

I particularly liked the Jesuit influence in these novels and agree entirely with you about needing to emphasize that we would have to approach any intelligent life in a profoundly different way than we approach each other on this earth much of the time.

Thank you so much for getting back to me on this, spin. I doubt you can know how much that means to me.

[spin]

14. Thank you for suggesting that I read the Sparrow. (n/t)

[cbayer]

2. Interesting data presented here, but not terribly surprising.

There is a lot of work to be done.

In another article posted here recently, the point was made (I think by Neil deGrasse Tyson and others) that in order to educate the highly religious about science, it must be done in a way that does not threaten their fundamental beliefs.

I believe this is possible, but it has to be done with care and thought and a basic respect for those beliefs that don't contradict science.

It certainly would be a worthwhile approach.

[smartphone]

3. A thoughtful idea

Do you have any suggestions as to how that kind of teaching can be brought about?

Some new ideas about how to teach science or how to not offend traditionally unscientific belief systems?

I'm sure we would all benefit if there were a way to overcome scientific ignorance, a way to foster greater understanding between people with different beliefs. Is there any research going on into that? I ask as someone not familiar with any research into religion, and only a layman's familiarity with what is going on in the scientific community on topics like global climate change, evolution, the age of the universe. (And, I must admit, my physics and astronomy education is sadly lacking to understand fully "the big bang"; I'm just barely able to understand quantum mechanics in the simplest of ways, and I did graduate from college more than a few years back.)

So how would we teach science, as you say," in a way that does not threaten their fundamental beliefs"? I am honestly stumped, as an educator, as to how we would do this.

[cbayer]

4. There are many eloquent speakers on this who propose that

the basic concepts we are most worried about (the big bang theory, global warming, evolution) can be thoughtfully presented in a way that is "compatible" with overall religious beliefs. I read yet another article about it today, I think in GD.

The problem, some propose, is that when you go after people with the "Are you really that stupid?" approach or resort to ridiculing their beliefs as a whole, you drive people further into a dark corner.

I'm not an educator and I don't know if people are developing curricula around this idea, but I think it's an idea worth pursuing.

And if NDT thinks it can be done, I'm going to support him on this.

[Prophet 451]

5. I think that's true but..

There is a whole group of people who you are simply not going to be able to reach. Their entire faith rests on the Bible being entirely true in every word (at least, as long as it comports with their RW interpretation of it).

[cbayer]

7. I agree. There are still flat-earthers.

You are never going to get everyone and some groups are going to be harder than others, but the stats on this are appalling.

We shouldn't let the proposed failure rate keep us from trying.

A member who frequents this group (a believer) recently made a statement that he believed god created the big bang. He was attacked and ridiculed for taking this position.

But there really is no reason to attack this position. No one yet knows what there was before the big bang and the god explanation may be as good as any based on our current knowledge base.

What was the point of attacking how his beliefs could be congruent with a theory we would like to see more people embrace?

[smartphone]

9. But we are all adults here, at DU, aren't we? Don't we mostly agree that science is a value?

The video I linked to was the video that linked me to the survey. I did my own research on the survey, and the many responses it was from devout fundamentalist religious folks, educated religious scientists, and from non-believers, (as I prefer to call people who link themselves to no established "faith" or religion).

Sometimes we need a slap on the side of the head to wake up and realize that the house is on fire, that many forms of religious thinking are antithetical to modern science. When the ocean is rising a foot or two in the next 100 years and the polar ice caps are disappearing, religion has nothing to offer in the form of a solution, global climate change is a slap to our sleepy heads. It's real, it's painful, and it can't be stopped by any beliefs in ancient folktales from the bronze age. We have about 25 to fifty years to wake up most of the world, or suffer the consequences of drought, famine, massive losses of arable lands near coastlines, shortages of fresh water, gigantic catastrophic storms, etc. As Ross Perot would say, "it won't be pretty".

So some of us need to wake the rest of the nation, (the world) up, I'm thinking. It's not like we can do this over the same 1200 years that led from orthodox Catholicism to Protestantism, then to the American and later European concepts of self-governance, from early holy empires and lords and ladies to America's great experiment in self-governance, 1775 onward. We have, really, only a few moments to turn off the ticking time bombs of anti-scientific, denialist thinking, most of which is protected and continuously promulgated by simplistic religious dogma. This isn't a fire drill, it's the real thing.

Tyson does this, a bit at a time, in hundreds of messages in his revised Cosmos TV series. He neither insults any people of faith, yet challenges them by presenting little bits of information they may not have considered. But is he moving fast enough? Are others working with him? Where are those thinkers and resources, both within and outside of religious institutions? I don't know of any.

Can you be more specific or show us some links to how people of faith and people who are not of a faith are working together on designing such a non-"ridiculing" curriculum? I would love to know where to look.

[cbayer]

11. No, I really am not interested in doing this research for you.

There were many articles around the time of the 1st NDT Cosmos show. As I said, I saw another today, possibly in GD.

Yes, I think we all agree that science is valuable and that is why I will support programs that address some of the alarming statistics that have been recently released.

IMO, it will not happen if we attack those whose religious beliefs are interfering with their becoming more scientifically proficient. We have to think of ways to do this that do not further alienate them.

What solutions do you have?

[trotsky]

10. Does it show a basic respect for creationist beliefs...

when you call them "dumbasses"?