Other studies have also found that atheists are not a trusted group.
The question then is:
Do you think that many people associate scientists with atheists? And if so, could this explain why many people do not seem to trust the scientific community when they come up with theories and findings that do not conform to those people’s world view?
This seems to be particularly true when it comes to climate change science. These scientists are "not to be trusted’, are “fudging the data” and “are only in it for the money”
Certainly there are Christians who support climate change research, so I 'm not trying to paint with a broad brush here. But do you think that a distrust of atheists is rubbing off on scientists, with a resultant loss of trust in the scientific community?
Could be. But I think a lot of religious folk have this image of atheists as people out to end religion. Like we were all a bunch of Mill Mahers, or worse. Fact is, most of us don’t give two shits about what other people believe, as long as they keep it out of politics.
Not really, what I see is that there is a very specific distrust aimed at specific scientists, when many religious people think that some scientists are stepping in the toes of religions beliefs, like biologists are with evolution. But, more often than not, things like medicine and physics are not being attacked.
Climate science in itself has no strong religious justification to be opposed to it, unlike abortion, stem-cell research, opposing gay marriage that have religious reasons for being. But scripture-based justification for anti-environmentalism?
Oh, I have seen that some conservatives are trying their damndest to make a connection and make Climate Science be a secular thing that needs to be counteracted at all costs with religious fervor (I’m looking at you Senator Inhofe), but they are being ridiculous IMHO.
I really think scientists have shot themselves in the foot by lying too often for financial or political gain. Mercury in vaccines, climate change, and origin of dogs are only a few subjects where scientific reports are contrary to the data.
I am not sure much of the public is really concerned with the creation/evolution controversy. The way I see it is that homosexuals are misusing science to attack Christianity and the Bible. They have largely won the war for rights, but will never gain the respect they desire as long as the undeniably anti homosexual Bible has much credibility.
I don’t feel that mess has much impact on science in general. In general, I see a flight from rationality, reality, and evidence based decision making.
Not sure what you are saying here, there was no link found with the mercury in the previous vaccines and autism, and climate-gate was in itself a hoax, several investigations and reviews have taken place to check if the climate scientists lied or changed the data, **they did not. **
They mostly gave up on attacking medicine, but there has been religious objections to admitting to problems like the evolution of drug resistant bacteria and to admitting that cancer cells evolve. But there have been plenty of religious objections to medicine in the past, like objecting to anesthesia for women giving birth because God wants women to suffer for the sin of Eve. Then there’s abortion and things like the Terri Schiavo case.
Seriously, you missed it? There’s been plenty of religious objections to environmentalism; I recall it making the news as far back as Reagan and James Watt. As for religious justifications; there’s interpreting the idea that humans have stewardship of the Earth as their right to use it up; there’s the idea that as soon as all resources on Earth are consumed Jesus will return; there’s the belief that a massive disaster like extreme global warming will mark the return of Jesus and it should be encouraged instead of fought; and then there’s the belief that environmentalism is sinful because it involves a concern for the future, which betrays a lack of faith in the imminent Second Coming.
No more or less ridiculous than any other religious claim; it’s all ridiculous. And there’s no reason to think that the anti-environment Christians are any less genuine in their beliefs than any other believer.
Firstly, no. Scientists are frequently (always) in the top 10 of most respected professions in the United States. (cite)
I think people distrust atheists so much for two reasons. The first reason is as John Mace said, many believe atheist is synonymous with someone who basically is an anti-theist. There are some genuine anti-theists out there, but they are a very small portion of atheists. Secondly, many people are very stupid and literally don’t know anything about ethics, formal or informal. These people basically get 100% of their code on “right and wrong” from their parents who often train them using the bible. So these people basically don’t understand how you can be a good person if you don’t read and follow the bible, because they are too ignorant to know of any other way.
Most of these people would probably be shocked to learn there are many famous philosophers who have created systems of ethics or that you can study such a thing and develop your own, secular ethical code. These people literally do not understand that there is such a thing as a secular ethical code, or that one could possibly exist.
A smaller portion of religious people are those who just hate atheists outright because they aren’t part of their group.
Der Trihs, I agree mostly with you on this, but this being the Straight Dope one has to step on erratas.
Nope, he did not said that, but don’t feel bad, even the guys at Grist fell for it:
Still, there is more evidence on that cite to show that the main angle some fundamentalists are taking is to dismiss efforts to preserve the environment as those efforts run counter to many cherished “end of times” beliefs, as I said, they are being ridiculous.
I guess I was not clear - I’m not asking about scripture based justification for being against climate change science.
Rather, I’m asking if it might be the case that if some people mistrust atheists in general, could there be a connection between atheists and scientists, such that those people could then think that scientists are untrustworthy?
Well, again, if that was the case we would see the same un-trustworthiness launched against physicists at CERN and other institutions.
Physicists and astronomers have slightly less levels of belief (7.5% in God, 7.5% in immortality) than biologists involved with evolution (5.5% in God, 7.1% in immortality)
I would not be surprised that there is some distrust launched to physicists too, but not at the levels seen against biologists and climate researchers, if the distrust was just by their atheism, then I would not expect to see the extreme level of distrust on just specific branches of science but applied to all of them.
Which is why I didn’t mention that specific notorious alleged quote of his; however, it was hardly the only time he used religion to justify a lack of concern for the environment.
And at any rate, I have heard other people say what he was alleged to have said; so yes, some people genuinely do believe that as soon as they destroy the last bit of nature Jesus will return.
Oh, and another example of religious objections to medicine; all the attempts to stop treatment and research into AIDS for religious reasons. There was that Bush official who insisted AIDS could be treated by prayer, for a recent example.
Well, just saying Der Trihs, in any case, I do agree that reaching for biblical or other religious justifications is really dumb for reasons mentioned by you, but it is even more so when one considers that that not all evangelicals are at odds with climate science.
This BTW is a little bit of a “secret”, while denier propaganda peddles fringe evangelical groups that are in cahoots with dirty energy companies, the reality is that fundamentalists are not 100% in agreement with the deniers on this item.
I wonder though… One of the strategies of the climate change denial community is to sow doubt and create confusion by giving out disinformation (See Hoggans book).
I wonder if there might be moves by this community to actively link scientists and atheists, in order to help move the scientists down the ladder of respected careers.
Goodness knows that the corporations behind climate change denial have stooped at nothing to discredit the science. They have a long history of tobacco lobbyists to call upon for advice as to how to defend the indefensible.
I don’t think that’s something that is going on to any meaningful degree, no.
On a fundamental level the common man doesn’t understand science or how it works. They don’t understand the peer review process. They do not understand that accepted science goes through a process in which the scientific community vigorously tries to falsify it before they ever accept it. The default belief of a scientist is that a new idea or theory is false, and only after exhaustive experimentation shows that it can’t be easily falsified does it gain traction.
To even know what the scientific consensus is you have to be at least semi-cognizant of the various scientific journals out there. You don’t have to actually read the published research, although that’s always helpful, but most Americans don’t even read more accessible resources like Scientific American and such that could at least keep them informed.
Because of this deep level of ignorance, all it takes is better marketing for your crack pot idea to make it more believed than the real truth. Scientists tend to be average to piss poor marketers at best, most of them couldn’t give a damn if the public believes anything they publish. It’s only a small sliver of the scientific community that has gone out of their way to try and be part of environmental causes and such who try to market the message to the masses, most scientists prefer to be in the lab or working or whatever versus going head to head with the religious right.
On top of all of that, because again, of the massive level of public ignorance, most people don’t understand just how much goes into any scientific theory. How much high level experimentation, thought, and etc are involved. So these people literally believe they can read a few articles on the internet and just conclude whatever “logically makes sense to them” and that is just as valid as science that took a multinational team of researchers 15 years to come up with, and that itself was built on a foundation laid by over 200 years of scientific endeavor from the Enlightenment to the present, most of which the ignorant masses know nothing about.
But but but… You insulted them! No wonder climate scientists are so unpopular and Democrats can’t win elections. :rolleyes:
Vote Republican. They’ll tell you that your beliefs are just as good as any highfalutin’ elitist so-called “scientist” who thinks he’s better than you.
I actually do vote Republican, and I do support pandering to idiots from the religious right because if you don’t pander to idiots you can’t win Presidential elections. Sort of how President Obama wouldn’t have won without all the soccer moms.
I see nothing to be proud of there, the problem is that in the long run it is not good for any nation to ignore the evidence and continue to pander to willful ignorants or to vote for the ones that do that pandering; because, if you are not aware of it, the current crop of Republicans are not pandering they are denying science and siding with the polluters.