The surprising links between faith and evolution and climate denial — charted

[cbayer]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2015/05/20/this-chart-explains-why-faith-and-science-dont-have-to-be-in-conflict/

By Chris Mooney May 20



For a long time, we’ve been having a pretty confused discussion about the relationship between religious beliefs and the rejection of science — and especially its two most prominent U.S. incarnations, evolution denial and climate change denial.

At one extreme is the position that science denial is somehow deeply or fundamentally religion’s fault. But this neglects the wide diversity of views about science across faiths and denominations — and even across individuals of the same faith or denomination — not all of which are anti-climate science, or anti-evolution.

At the other extreme, meanwhile, is the view that religion has no conflict with science at all. But that can’t be right either: Though the conflict between the two may not be fundamental or necessary in all cases, it is pretty clear that the main motive for evolution denial is, indeed, a perceived conflict with faith (not to mention various aspects of human cognition that just make accepting evolution very hard for many people).

The main driver of climate science rejection, however, appears to be a free market ideology — which is tough to characterize as religious in nature. Nonetheless, it has often been observed (including by me) that evolution denial and climate science rejection often seem to overlap, at least to an extent.

more at link

[trotsky]

1. "At the other extreme, meanwhile, is the view that religion has no conflict with science at all."

Wise words to keep in mind, cbayer. I'm actually pleasantly surprised Mooney acknowledged that, albeit grudgingly ("a perceived conflict&quot .

[exboyfil]

2. Two arguments from religious dogma expressed by leadership

in the Republican party in regards to AGW. The first is that we are incapable of making such a change in the world - only God has that power (an insane argument given what we know about our capabilities in other areas including nuclear weapons and biological agents.

The second argument is one of that it really does not matter because Jesus is coming back soon. This argument has been walked back by some politicians, but it is an underlying theme when they talk about end times.

[cbayer]

5. That is true, but I think the data here is hopeful.

The chart indicates that there is a correlation between belief in evolution and support for environmental regulations. In addition, there appears to be far more support for evolution than denial of it.

So there is a great opportunity here to continue to increase the numbers of people who understand and accept evolution with the potential result of increasing the numbers who support environmental regulations.

While the arguments that you outline are true, we can work towards lessening their impact.

[trotsky]

24. "there appears to be far more support for evolution than denial of it"

Depends on how you define "evolution." You will find that a whole lot of people (as evidenced by many surveys) state that they accept evolution, but think their god was involved in the process somehow. If we want to be precise, that is NOT evolution.

When you ask the question: "Do you think humans arose strictly via natural processes with no gods assisting or intervening?", you get a (depressingly) much different answer. Yet that is precisely the evidence we have. (To circle back around to your simplistic thought process about how to differentiate between "creationists" and "believers.&quot

[Buzz Clik]

3. Not sure how the questions were asked, but there are important differences...

... between climate science denial and support for environmental regulations.

[cbayer]

7. I would suggest that support for more regulation is even strong than

just believing in global warning. That would indicate not only acceptance of the science but a desire to do something about it.

He based it on the breakdown of this specific question:

Stricter environmental laws and regulations cost too many jobs and hurt the economy; or Stricter environmental laws and regulations are worth the cost

[NeoGreen]

4. "Surprising"?...

...how so?

[trotsky]

6. Here, let me explain.

Evil bigoted horrible atheists (like me) are supposed to think that religion is 100% pure evil and that every believer is stupid and is a literal creationist.

This article is therefore supposed to "surprise" me! Take that, straw man atheists everywhere!

[NeoGreen]

8. Right, how could I forget Rule #1...

...so easily. Stoopid (and evil) Atheist am I.

Begs the question in my mind... is the evilness/bigotness/horribleness of an Atheist a binary value or is it gradational with how much said Atheist thinks religion is Pure Evil®.

That is to say, can I be a 99%'er (i.e. I think religion is only 99% pure evil) and be a Good Atheist ™?

Or, is it that if I postulate that religion is only 1% Pure Evil® (FSM excepted) that I automatically fall into the evil-bigoted-horrible (EBH) class?

People want to know...

[trotsky]

21. It's pretty much binary, it appears.

Either you think religion is swell and it shouldn't be criticized, or you don't. If you fall into the latter category, you are an Evil Atheist Bigot and should be shunned.

[longship]

9. Well, I rather like Chris Mooney.

I have his first book, The Republican War on Science, on my bookshelf.

But I think that he gives a bit more deference to religion than I would. I am of the opinion more like Neil deGrasse Tyson, Richard Dawkins, Lawrence Krauss, PZ Myers, and the like. I think religion is inherently anti-science. In other words, I do not buy Stephen Jay Gould's non-overlapping magisteria (NOMA)
for one second. Religion is always attempting to overlap with science. Indeed, they far too often claim to be superior to science, which is precisely why religion and science are historically at loggerheads.

So I have a real problem with giving comfort to any religious sect simply because they endorse some scientific finding.

Why? Because science is only answerable to nature, and religion is often only answerable to some dude -- in case people haven't noticed, it is most often a dude -- who professes to know, no nature required.

And religion has a never ending conflict with nature, and science. So any claim to NOMA has to be utterly cast aside, ignoring the aspects of the scientific method (which are another issue).

So, to that extent, I disagree with Chris Mooney.

[cbayer]

10. I think the point of this graph is that it shows that there is no

inherent conflict between science and religion.

While there are clearly religious groups that are anti-science, there are clearly religious groups that are very much pro-science.

Why the need for it to be one way or the other? Why not see this as an opportunity to support those groups in the upper right quadrant and push on those towards the middle? As he points out, if the pope is going to come out strong in favor of addressing climate change, this is a great opportunity to work with those catholics in the middle of the graph and push them towards following his lead.

It's not about giving comfort to a religious sect, it's about supporting them when they take a position that is consistent with scientific data.

I really object to this position that puts all of religion in a negative category when there is data to show that there are many religious organizations that are clearly on the side of addressing climate change.

Well, it's almost like creationists and climate change deniers who hold onto their unsubstantiated beliefs despite the data being clear.

[longship]

15. But the anti-evolutionists and the climate deniers...

so often term their denial in overtly religious terms. For the evolution deniers that likely is close to 100%. For climate change deniers, likely less so (many just worship Ayn Rand, or Reagan, or the oil companies, etc.).

But I do not know of any politico arguing against evolution who does not also argue against climate change. Do you? So there is likely a connection. And the craziest of those specifically argue against climate change in overtly religious terms. And there are a scary proportion of the GOP who do both, likely including all of the 2016 presidential candidate clown car -- all the dozens of them.

As one edumacated in science, I worry more about this than almost anything politically. Physics has been good to me.

E.G., Remember Dan Quayle?

Hope you are well.

[cbayer]

18. Yes, there is no question that there are religious underpinnings for those

that hold on to creationism and deny climate change. That's the whole point here. Those people are in the lower left quadrant.

But they are only part of the picture and the danger is in taking the position that they represent everyone. Clearly they do not.

The chart shows that the two go hand in hand, both in a negative way and a positive way. Let's show that we have the ability to distinguish between them and not hand a victory to the climate change denying creationists.

This graph shows that a substantial part of the population embraces science when it come to climate change and evolution. That's where the money is. If we write all the religious off as anti-science we lose a tremendous opportunity, because those little tiny atheist/agnostic circles just aren't going to be able to do this on their own.

I'm doing ok. Life is complicated and challenging right now.

Hope you are enjoying your spring.

[longship]

22. I hope you are correct, my friend.

But these days, I see and hear the narratives, and what the GOP state houses are doing (or attempting), and I worry an awful lot.

BTW, in case anybody hasn't noticed the GOP has a majority of the US House of Representatives, the US Senate, the governorships, and the state legislatures. If they get the White House in 2016, we are all totally screwn!

[cbayer]

23. Of course, not all religious people are republicans, right?

We have reason to be seriously worried about the GOP. Even more reason to align ourselves with those in the upper right quadrant here. We have to take back our government and we aren't going to do it by writing off all the religious people in this country who agree with us on critical issues.

[eomer]

33. I don't think the graph shows there is no inherent conflict between science and religion.

What it might show is that religion doesn't require every religious person to be opposed to every aspect of science. So it's possible for a person to have religious beliefs in one area and accept science in other areas, like believing that Jesus was divine while otherwise broadly accepting science. Such a person is not anti-science in general but is anti-science with regard to that belief about Jesus.

In other words, the inherent conflict between science and religion is (in my opinion) something very specific that the chart doesn't measure.

[cbayer]

34. Well, I think we may be saying the same thing.

When I refer to an inherent conflict, I mean that one would inherently be opposed to the other. So we are both saying that one can hold both religious and scientific ideas.

It seems that you are labeling anything that does not have scientific proof as "anti-science". If that is your position, then I can see why you might see an inherent conflict.

On the other hand, belief based on faith may have absolutely nothing to do with science at all and others would not find those beliefs "anti-science". In fact, I would suggest that it is only those who do not hold such beliefs that would take that position.

When something is that subjective, it might not make sense to measure it at all.

[eomer]

38. There's a difference between not having scientific proof and being outside of science.

There can easily be things that are beyond our abilities to prove or disprove but are still just part of nature and science. They would be potentially provable by science if scientists could just figure out a way.

But to say that Jesus was divine is to say that science doesn't apply to him - that we shouldn't even try to find a scientific explanation for a miracle that he (allegedly) worked because miracles are a way of suspending science and nature. A belief in miracles is, by definition, anti-science.

[cbayer]

41. I agree that there is a difference and I think that somethings

are outside of science and claiming that there is proof of anything is a pointless endeavor.

At this time, i think the general category of religious beliefs falls in that area. There may be a potential for proof for existence or non-existence, but I am very skeptical.

You are right. Claiming divinity is claiming something supernatural. Divinity has nothing to do with science. Look for scientific explanations all you want and dismiss those things for which you find explanations, but you won't be able to disprove that person's divinity. And no one will be able to prove it either.

A belief in miracles is the belief in something supernatural, a belief in something that exceeds what we can or do understand from a scientific stance. IMO, that does not make it "anti-science" as that would indicate that it was against science, while it may be just outside it as you initially stated here.

[eomer]

42. Right, we agree on most of this, just not the last part (but that part is critical).

A willingness to accept anything as being outside of science is anti-science. Science is about trying to find an explanation for everything. Some things may remain forever beyond our abilities but we still try. That's science.

[cbayer]

43. We will have to disagree.

I am a lover of science. I am a scientist. I believe that most everything can be explained by science.

But I'm not willing to take that final step and say that science can explain everything. I'm just not sure about that.

I strongly support that we never stop looking, but I believe there may always be some mystery.

And I like seeing the world that way. It's not anti-science, imo, it's what makes life worth living.

[eomer]

46. I too like a feeling of mystery but I can get that and still have definitions of science and nature

that encompass everything that is and every way that anything can possibly work. I don't need to draw some artificial lines around reality that purposefully leave some things outside of them so that I can get a pleasing feeling of mystery. Instead I can watch a movie or read a book and with my imagination I can satisfy that need. And then I can have definitions of science, nature, and reality that make sense. Because a definition of nature that doesn't encompass everything makes no sense - there is no possible justification for leaving some things (or some thing) out and keeping everything else in. The definition of nature is everything that is.

[cbayer]

51. I'm not drawing artificial lines around reality in order to get a pleasant feeling of mystery.

I'm just allowing for possibilities that I may not understand or even have the capacity to understand.

That we do things and experience things differently is one of the wonderful things about life as a human. It's not necessary for yours to be right and mine to be wrong.

[eomer]

53. Okay, but that leaves my point intact, I believe.

Clearly there are things we don't yet understand and most likely even things we don't have the capacity to understand. But that's not a reason to say they are supernatural. And, yes, we experience things differently, I'm sure. But again no reason to say there are things that are supernatural. Supernatural is a fuzzy feel-good concept without a definition. If you try to define it I think it falls apart.

[cbayer]

54. Perhaps it is the definition of supernatural that is the problem here.

There are things that cannot be explained by our current scientific understanding or what we know about the laws of nature. This is the definition of supernatural.

Your position is that those things which would currently fit the definition of supernatural, can be explained by science, we just don't know the explanation yet.

My position is that I'm not going to assume that, though I lean towards it probably being true. I am willing to say that there may be things that we can not explain now and may never be able to explain. I am willing to say that there may be something that is beyond our ability to understand, although I am skeptical.

Of course, we will never know which of our positions is correct because we will never understand everything. Where I would object to your position is where you say it is superior to others by calling it fuzzy and feel-good. It's a perfectly legitimate position and the position of all of those that have religious beliefs.

[eomer]

56. That definitely isn't the definition of supernatural.

By that definition gravity would be supernatural - it cannot be explained by our current scientific understanding or what we currently know about the laws of nature.

Or, another example, electricity would be supernatural during earlier times but not so much (but probably still a little bit) supernatural today.

That's definitely not the definition.

[cbayer]

57. No, that is the definition and gravity would not fit it.

Gravity is a law of nature and I included that in my defintion. Where do you get the idea that gravity is not included there?

Electricity is well understood by our current scientific knowledge. It may have met the definition of supernatural at one point, hence ideas about gods and thunderbolts, but it is well understood now.

If you reject this one, what would you say the definition is?

[eomer]

58. Electricity wasn't ever supernatural, not before we understood it, not before we existed.

It was always part of nature, like gravity was. Also like dark matter and parallel universes are, if they exist. The definition of supernatural is definitely not just stuff that we haven't yet come to understand.

If things like that, things that are part of nature but we don't understand, are all you're talking about then we agree apparently on everything except what to call those things. I say they are called, "things that exist in nature but we don't understand". You think (incorrectly) that those things are the definition of supernatural.

To your last question, I don't have a definition of supernatural because my position is that a definition that makes any sense cannot be coherently stated.

[cbayer]

59. Of course it was not supernatural.

People thought it was, but then they found it there was a scientific explanation.

That does not, however, make the case that nothing anywhere ever is supernatural.

You really can't reject my definition and the accepted definitions if you do not have an alternative to offer. I understand that you reject the concept, but the word exists and does have a definition.


As I said, this is where we differ. You think that there is a scientific explanation for everything, even if we don't know it yet. I think you are probably right, but I'm not absolutely sure and I'm willing to leave that door open. You do not believe there is anything that might be supernatural. While I am skeptical, I'm willing to say that there might be.

Your position is no more valid than mine. It's just different, and until you have proof that nothing exists for which there is not a scientific explanation, yours is just a belief.

[eomer]

60. No, that's not what I say.

I don't say there isn't anything that might be supernatural. What I say is that the definition of nature is everything that exists. So whatever the thing is that you say might be supernatural, I say that by definition it is part of nature. So there isn't any (can't be any) "might be, might not be" judgement about it - if it exists it's nature. There's no way around that except being unclear about the definitions of nature and supernatural.

[cbayer]

61. Does nature include things that may not be physical?

Are you confining your definition of nature to that which can be scientifically observed?

I would say that there might be things which are non-physical and not scientifically observable. You can not say with certainty that there aren't.

When it comes down to it, the argument is about god. You seem to think you have proof that god could not exist because you believe that it is not possible for something to be supernatural, non-physical and not scientifically observable.

While I tend to think you are likely correct, I'm not entirely sure and I don't think you have any evidence of that being the case.

[eomer]

64. My definition of nature was everything that exists, so yes.

It's not clear, of course, what you mean by "things that may not be physical" but if they are things that exist then, yes, they are part of nature.

Our observing or being able to observe isn't required for something to exist. Earth existed before we evolved, before worms evolved. Whatever is inside a black hole and however it behaves - those are part of nature and the laws of nature though beyond our reach to observe. Same for dark matter, dark energy, and other universes in the multi-verse - if they exist they are part of nature. Entangled particles are entangled whether we can figure out how or not.

And, no, I'm not saying I have proof that god could not exist. Rather, I am asking someone to give a coherent explanation of what they mean by god.

[cbayer]

65. Everyone's explanation for what they mean by god is different.

There is not a single definition. Just look at the rather silly thread going on right now about what people would do if they were god.

I believe that the concept of god develops within those that believe. A concept also develops within those that don't believe, but that is only purpose of that is so they can reject it.

No one will ever give you a coherent explanation that you can accept because you don't believe, and you will likely never accept that their explanation is coherent because it will not make sense to you.

I don't have a belief in god, but I'm not certain that this thing does not exist in some form. I like to hear other people's descriptions of what they believe in.

What I don't need to do is set up complicated theses which will lead to the conclusion that god does or does not exist, because it makes absolutely no difference to me and I think it's impossible anyway.

[eomer]

66. My thesis is actually simpler than yours.

Mine is that nature means everything that exists and the laws of nature mean the ways that all things in nature work. Mine doesnt include any concept of supernatural, mainly because that's adding a complication that has no justification I can see, in fact has no meaning that I can recognize.

Whoever proposes a concept of supernatural ought to be willing to give some coherent explanation of what they mean by it. I don't think anyone can because I'm skeptical that there's any justifiable way to distinguish between things that are inside nature and things that are outside it. On what basis?

[cbayer]

67. I don't really have a thesis. That was kind of my point.

You have a thesis that excludes something you can neither prove nor disprove because you find it too complicated and meaningless.

I would only point out that this is not the kind of rigorous scientific approach that I general endorse, but I see that it serves your purpose.

It is not necessary for you to pursue this line, unless, and this is the important part, you want to take a position on it's existence or lack thereof.

It seems the more logical position would be, "I don't know if anything supernatural exists and I really don't care".

Oh, wait. That's my position.

[eomer]

68. That's not the more logical position because it includes a word that we don't know what it means.

A logical position would require using words in a way that they convey some coherent meaning and that we understand what that meaning is.

[cbayer]

69. You can't reach a logical position if you

are unwilling to provide definitions for some of the words at play and seem to prefer just to reject them.

It would be like trying to make enchiladas without using any tortillas. You would just get a big mess of stuff.

It might be tasty, but it's not an enchilada.

Anyway, I'm not really interested in a "logical position" when it comes to the supernatural/god question, because, like you, I don't even know if it exists or not.

[eomer]

70. I can't think of any definition of supernatural that means anything.

Someone who posits the idea will need to tell me what they mean by it.

[cleanhippie]

72. I find it fascinating to see one argue for the existence of something can't or won't define...

You've been very clear on what your definition of natural and supernatural are, yet your interlocutor refuses to even attempt to agree or provide their own definition.


You're probably going to get better results using this...

[cbayer]

73. And you reject my definition.

So there we are.

Nice talking to you.

See you around next time.

[eomer]

74. I don't reject your definition, it just doesn't get to what I'm talking about.

Having some word that means the category of things that we don't understand scientifically is fine. That category would include, for example, quantum entanglement. But I don't think "supernatural" is a good choice for the word to assign that definition to since just about everyone agrees that there are things we don't understand scientifically but that are still just part of nature and still follow the laws of nature.

And, as I said, it doesn't get to what I'm talking about, which is the vague notion that there can be something outside of nature, when to my understanding the definition of nature is: everything that exists. Clearly just because we don't understand something scientifically that does not mean it is outside of nature.

[cbayer]

75. Your argument is so circular eomer.

Because you reject the idea that there can be anything outside nature, you won't accept that there is a word that would describe those things.

You have already decided that the category does not exist, even though you really do not have definitive evidence that that is true. It is based on your belief.

It's rather silly. You can't have the discussion because you simply reject the concept.

The "laws of nature" may not cover everything. We know so very little.

A good scientist would never throw out the possibility that there is something that may exist that we can not understand or know using our present intelligence.

[eomer]

76. No, I just insist that you explain what you mean by supernatural.

It's definitely not just things that we don't understand scientifically. Quantum entanglement is not supernatural - it's just some aspect of the natural world that we don't understand yet and may never. Do we agree about that?

[cbayer]

77. I gave you my definition.

You reject it because you don't accept the concept.

Let's start here - love.

Do you have a scientific explanation for love? Do you think there is a scientific explanation? Are you willing to agree that that there may be something there that we don't understand and may never?

If so, might that not be supernatural?

[eomer]

78. Yes, I do think there is a scientific explanation for love.

It is a feeling created by chemicals in our brain and is a result of evolution.

http://www.youramazingbrain.org/lovesex/sciencelove.htm

[cbayer]

79. Well, if "Your Amazing Brain" says so, it must be true.

And it's just chock full of top notch scientific research by Helen Fisher, an anthropologist who has been hired by match.com. Nothing against her, but she is long on theory and very, very short on data.

Now, clearly there are biological changes associated with falling in and being in love, but there is not one iota of evidence in your link as to causation.

But the article gives a really profound takeaway at the end:

And finally … how to fall in love
Find a complete stranger.
Reveal to each other intimate details about your lives for half an hour.
Then, stare deeply into each other’s eyes without talking for four minutes.

Seriously, anything I put up there would be countered by you with some links from the internet, some of which might even be move valid than this. The thing is that you have rejected the whole concept.

I saw an interesting movie last night that you might enjoy called "I Am". Parts of it went too far for me, but other parts were really intriguing.

[eomer]

81. Oh, sheesh, you really think that's the only source for the science?

That was just the first Google hit. I can supply a bunch more references if you need me to. But, seriously?

[cbayer]

82. Of course you can. I said i my reply that you could...

and that your would find lots of links for anything I put up there.

It is important that science never stop looking for the answers to any questions, no matter how absurd they might seem.

The question is whether science will be able to offer answers to all questions.

You have already decided that it can and will.

I am not so sure.

[eomer]

83. Okay, we're narrowing down the part that we disagree about (by eliminating some things we agree on).

So the question narrows to the things that science might never be able to offer answers to. My position is that there will definitely be areas like that but that the only difference between them and the things that science can explain is just the limitations of human knowledge and capacity to understand. In other words, if science never manages to explain quantum entanglement it will just forever remain in the same category that electricity was some centuries ago - something that is part of the way that the natural universe works and something that follows the laws of nature, though we in our human frailty haven't figured out how that is.

[cbayer]

84. I think we can agree on this.

I agree that there may be things that we are unable to know because we and our tools have limitations.

I would offer that we might call those things supernatural, but there might be a better word.

BTW, the movie I suggested to you briefly discusses the concept of quantum entanglement, which I had not heard of before this conversation with you!

Coincidence or something supernatural??

[eomer]

85. Thanks for telling me about that documentary film, I watched it last night.

I think it is great, mainly the parts about what we can do about the things wrong with our world. For some years I've been saying things similar to the conclusions that Tom Shadyac comes to in the film but haven't had the courage to act on them like he has - what a remarkable person!

The science parts were quite interesting but there are some extraordinary claims (humans have some sense that tells them what is going to happen in the future even when there is no ordinary evidence to go by) and extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. I'd love to learn that some of those findings can be reproduced; that would be fascinating and lead to some very interesting science to try to figure out how and why.

[cbayer]

86. I'm really glad you like it.

I also found it really inspirational and positive. I give Shadyac a lot of credit for taking this on.

I also agree that some of the science went over the edge. The part about the heart I found particularly difficult to swallow, but he recovered nicely.

It was consistent with POV in general, I thought. There was a general assumption that everything does have a scientific explanation even if we haven't found it yet.

Thanks so much for getting back to me on it. I would like to see the film get a wider audience.

[Yorktown]

80. I'm not really interested in a "logical position" when it comes to the supernatural/god question

You wrote that

I'm not really interested in a "logical position" when it comes to the supernatural/god question

I would say it does summarize well your attitude about religion.

[cleanhippie]

71. "A logical position would require using words in a way that they convey some coherent meaning..."

Bingo. Yet believers in the supernatural abhor that requirement, for it shows just how incoherent, illogical, and irrational said belief in the supernatural actually is.

[gcomeau]

37. It doesn't show that at all.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1218199955#post36

"Why the need for it to be one way or the other?"

There is no "need" for it to be one way or the other, it simply is one way or the other. Like liquid water is either wet, or it's dry. You can't just claim you think it's both wet and dry and then declare that the ideas that liquid water is wet and liquid water are dry are therefore compatible based solely on the fact that you're saying both are true so they must work together somehow.

[AtheistCrusader]

48. I think this chart is scary as hell. The RcC holds as official doctrine that

Evolution is real. A real thing. And the circle representing Catholics is just barely peeking over the 0.5 demarcation. That's with the guy in the funny hat saying evolution is real.

They are way, way below that on climate change. If all that official church proclamation can't move Catholics to trusting in the ToE, what in the hell can convince them that climate change is real? A hundred foot rise in sea level? What's it going to take?

This graph is frightening as all get out. The bulk of religious people are neutral or negative on both concepts. This is really, really bad. The scant few religions that get up into the positive quadrant are also hopelessly outnumbered.

[cbayer]

52. I agree that parts of it are scary and it clearly points out where the work needs to be done.

Whatever we are doing to try and counter this problem, we appear to be failing pretty miserably.

So the church proclamation on certain topics clearly is not the magic bullet here. I would guess the problem has more to do with our abysmal educational system and the power of the fundies.

I certainly don't see us and the religious groups in the upper right quadrant as hopelessly outnumbered, but I tend to be an optimist when it comes to things like this.

I do see some pretty clear marching orders though and am very interested in ideas about how we change this.

As you say, what is it going to take?

[Gothmog]

11. Cool chart

[edhopper]

12. Once again we see

atheists and agnostics are better than almost everyone else.
I am also happy to be a non-believing cultural Jew who thinks the Orthodox are meshugina.

At least that's what I take from this.

[cbayer]

13. That's one take away and not a surprising one…..

but really only important if one must see themselves as superior.

Too bad you don't also have a Buddhist connection, then you would be better than pretty much everyone.

[edhopper]

14. My brother is sort of Buddhist

so I really am better than everyone.

[cbayer]

16. Of course you are.

[edhopper]

17. Kidding asisde

it is an interesting intersection of the two subjects.

[cbayer]

19. I think it's pretty good news, actually.

[AtheistCrusader]

49. That's the best part.

Entire circles of religion categories this chart displays, reject Buddhism as a religion outright, at best granting it status of 'philosophy'.

Some religious groups commonly call Buddista 'atheists' as an invective.

[cbayer]

55. He doesn't note the color coding, but it is telling in many ways.

Buddhism is included in the "other" category (orange), which PEW defines as major belief systems that are not christian. For the most part, they do seem to cluster in the upper right.

No religion (black) also clusters there.

Where the real problem is can be seen in the green and pink categories - evangelical protestant and historically black protestant.

Many groups graphed here reject other groups, but that doesn't really help us address the problem. I think it's more helpful to look at whose basically on our side and who we really have to work on.

[AtheistCrusader]

62. I think it calls into question the balance.

So if we lump atheists, agnostics, 'none in particular' and Buddhist together, does the chart still make you optimistic?

I hope we're wrong about the amount of human forcing we actually impart on the climate, because if it's accurate, I think we are going to die, or, maybe a little more realistically, most of us are going to die.

Starvation, most likely.

If they can't wake up, or worse, if they actually embrace a cataclysmic end, we're toast.

[cbayer]

63. Yes, the chart does make me optimistic.

I see no need to lump or divide any further than the chart already does. I see a great many people in the RUQ and another great many close enough that I think they could be moved.

We are going to be toast if we just throw our hands up in the air and say that we can't do anything to change their minds. We are going to be toast if we just sit around and hope that they will come around.

You may see no reason to be optimistic. I see reasons to get to work.

[longship]

20. Gotta love you, Ed.

I wish I had your erudition and did not so often stick my foot into it.

A big fan.

[cbayer]

25. I share your respect for ed….

but if you don't think he often sticks his foot into it, you aren't paying attention.

[longship]

26. OMFG, you are correct.

Arguing a position is always allowed here. Arguing against a person is cheap. And Ed stays above the fray, which is why I like his posts.

If we could all only remain above that level, this group would be a great place. So many take it personally.

[cbayer]

27. Both you and ed really keep it civil and stay above the personal attacks.

Although we often disagree, I enjoy talking to both of you.

Sometimes it's hard not to take things personally when they are so clearly meant as personal, but it can and should be done. I recognize that this is an area where I could really use some work.

Wish we could get together for a beer!!

[longship]

28. As long as it's not Corona.

Or Bud.
I'm in.

[cbayer]

29. I've developed a fondness for IPA's.

Bud and Corona were never on my list.

[longship]

30. Hops! That's fine! nt

[edhopper]

45. True

and half the time, I own up to it.

[edhopper]

44. Thanks

[immoderate]

31. Be aware that "free market fundamentalism" is a dogma, similar to religion.

These are principles that are accepted only on faith.

According to economist John Quiggin, the standard features of economic fundamentalist rhetoric are dogmatic assertions combined with the claim that anyone who holds contrary views is not a real economist.[7] This approach follows from evidence that neoclassical economics provides a scientific explanation of economic phenomena, an explanation that economists state represents the status of scientific truth (if, and only if, all of the assumptions involved in deriving the economic analysis are simultaneously satisfied). However, Kozul-Wright states in his book The Resistible Rise of Market Fundamentalism that "ineluctability of market forces" neo-liberals and conservative politicians tend to stress, and their confidence on a chosen policy, rest on a "mixture of implicit and hidden assumptions, myths about the history of their own countries' economic development, and special interests camouflaged in their rhetoric of general good".[8]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Market_fundamentalism

--imm

[cbayer]

32. IMO, fundamentalists can be found anywhere.

Hallmarks:

Dogmatic assertions
The belief that anyone that holds contrary views is not a real (fill in the blank)
A belief that one holds the truth

[trotsky]

35. Neat.

Dogmatic assertions
The belief that anyone that holds contrary views is not a real (fill in the blank)
A belief that one holds the truth (Mormons definitely don't hold the truth, according to that poster!) Nor do Scientologists.

I'll keep that list handy for sure. Thanks for the guide!

[Rob H.]

39. This post contains another

dogmatic assertion to add to the list, and it's a doozy.

[trotsky]

40. Oh my, I can't believe I brainfarted on that one.

"This harsh criticism of people because of their position on religion is more dangerous than any religion itself."

Because, that's why. Not dogmatic at all.

[AtheistCrusader]

50. I'd wager the force holding atheists from pegging the

Climate change axis is the free market libertarians/ ancaps, randroids, etc.

All political ideologies that libertarian atheists might blind themselves with on climate change.

[gcomeau]

36. I'll just re-post what I commented there yesterday...

I really wish people would stop confusing "look, people can hold these two ideas in their heads at the same time!" with "Look, these two ideas are compatible!"

Yes. People can both believe in religion and accept science. That does not in the slightest way render science and religion to be compatible concepts. Just like if I declare that I both accept that liquid water is wet and believe liquid water to be dry that does not make those two ideas compatible. It just means I am holding onto two contradictory concepts and refusing to face that fact.

A fundamental principle of the scientific method is that hypotheses about the way the world works must be falsifiable.

"A supernatural all powerful creator entity exists" is a completely unfalsifiable hypothesis. The principles of the scientific method dictate it be rejected.

Pointing at some groups of people who either don't know or refuse to acknowledge this and so declare they both accept science and believe in God does not alter that basic fact. If they insist on retaining the God hypothesis they are rejecting science by definition. And yes, that remains true even if the people we're talking about are scientists. Scientists are every bit as capable of special pleading and mental compartmentalization to avoid exposing their treasured beliefs to logical scrutiny as anyone else is.

[hrmjustin]

47. Good Chart.

Anglicans/Episcopalians would be higher except for the more conservative churches.