# Richard Dawkins says American religion holds back science **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [October 5, 2015, 10:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/richard-dawkins-says-american-religion-holds-back-science/733595 "2015-10-05T10:03:26Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 5
**Author:** ![Urbanredneck](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ea5d25/32.png) [@Urbanredneck](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Urbanredneck)\ **Post date:** [October 6, 2015, 7:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/richard-dawkins-says-american-religion-holds-back-science/733595/81 "2015-10-06T19:34:29Z")
> [@Stranger\_On\_A\_Train](#): > > He was not speaking from his expertise as an evolutionary zoologist, if that is what you mean. He was making an observation about the composition and beliefs of the electorate, a significant portion of which do not accept scientific theories that have been widely regarded as demonstrated to be factual beyond any reasonable doubt and in absence of any exceptional evidence to the contrary, e.g. natural selection. Were this four hundred years earlier, he would doubtless be railing upon the Catholic church for rejecting heliocentricism. While Dawkins is certainly militant and abrasive in his screeds against religion (stemming from his personal experience with an ex-wife who insisted on raising their child in a particularly backward and Fundamentalist sect of Christianity) he makes and defends his points with clarity and citation. It certainly isn’t a stretch to observe the anti-intellectualism and education atavism of a nation in which a substantial portion of the population refuses to acknowledge established scientific principles and in which the teaching of evolution is contraversial in many states to the point of attempting to insert pseudoscientific gobbledygook like Intelligent Design into the science curriculum. > > As for the impact upon science, one can see it in gene therapy research, which has been substantially restricted in the use of embryonic stem cells over nothing more than religious objections to abortion. The only reason religious uathorities aren’t railing more heavily in other fields such as high energy particle physics is because that work is already internationalized thanks to the cancellation of the Superconducting Supercollider. (While the cancellation was a political move rather than religious, there was a small but vocal minority of Pentacostalist whackjobs who were lobbying against operation of the SSC on some flaketastic basis about bringing the Apocalypse prematurely or some other absurd horseshit.). But the largest impact that religion has had on science in the US has been on education, which is ironic because what we now view as the hard sciences of chemistry, physics, biology, and astronomy all had their origins in the education and communication traditions of the European Enlightenment. > > Stranger I can see some of your points but again I ask, why is he picking on the United States? Why doesnt his beloved UK (or Canada and Australia) pick up the slack and do the stem cell research the US will not? Or for that matter every other country in Europe? Arent their scientists in France, Germany, Netherlands, Denmark, and Italy? Does he make similar attacks on the Japanese and their Asian religions getting into conflict with science? Does he go to China or Russia and talk about how their official policy of atheism has made them scientific leaders? ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [October 6, 2015, 8:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/richard-dawkins-says-american-religion-holds-back-science/733595/82 "2015-10-06T20:26:48Z")
[QUOTE=Voyager] Once a scientist, always a scientist. But opinions don’t have to come with tables of data. [/QUOTE] Opinions that are worth anything need some kind of hard evidence to back them up. > [@](#): > > If Dawkins were a sociologist he might do a study on the influence of religion on science, but he’s not. He knows anecdotal data can drive opinion pieces, not papers. That’s being a scientist. No, basing your views on anecdotalal data is not being a scientist. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [October 6, 2015, 8:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/richard-dawkins-says-american-religion-holds-back-science/733595/83 "2015-10-06T20:29:09Z")
> [@Urbanredneck](#): > > I can see some of your points but again I ask, why is he picking on the United States? Why doesnt his beloved UK (or Canada and Australia) pick up the slack and do the stem cell research the US will not? Or for that matter every other country in Europe? Arent their scientists in France, Germany, Netherlands, Denmark, and Italy? Reading around it is clear that the United Kingdom is not slacking on this. [http://www.eurostemcell.org/story/new-purpose-built-stem-cell-research-facility-edinburgh](http://www.eurostemcell.org/story/new-purpose-built-stem-cell-research-facility-edinburgh) > [@](#): > > New purpose-built stem cell research facility in Edinburgh > Thu, 31/05/2012 > > The £54 million Scottish Centre for Regenerative Medicine (SCRM) was officially opened by Her Royal Highness, the Princess Royal this week. > > The University of Edinburgh’s Scottish Centre for Regenerative Medicine will carry out cutting-edge stem cell research to help find therapies for patients with conditions such as multiple sclerosis, Parkinson’s disease, motor neurone disease, and heart and liver diseases. > > The centre is the first large-scale, purpose-built facility of its kind and provides accommodation for up to 250 stem cell scientists. EuroStemCell is also based at this new building, as SCRM is our coordinating partner. What I do know is that currently there are many protects were the US is involved with the UK scientists, the point here is that if a Republican is elected president it is very likely that a lot of these efforts will be curved in the USA, leaving us once again behind in the progress of the science. And it is clear that there will be no other reason for a ban in the USA other than the conservative politicians following the dictates of the bible belt. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [October 6, 2015, 8:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/richard-dawkins-says-american-religion-holds-back-science/733595/84 "2015-10-06T20:32:00Z")
> [@Urbanredneck](#): > > I can see some of your points but again I ask, why is he picking on the United States? Why doesnt his beloved UK (or Canada and Australia) pick up the slack and do the stem cell research the US will not? Or for that matter every other country in Europe? Arent their scientists in France, Germany, Netherlands, Denmark, and Italy? > > Does he make similar attacks on the Japanese and their Asian religions getting into conflict with science? > > Does he go to China or Russia and talk about how their official policy of atheism has made them scientific leaders? When was the last time you started a thread criticizing some American for bad mouthing a European country? Perhaps we’re none of us perfect and even handed all the time. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [October 6, 2015, 8:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/richard-dawkins-says-american-religion-holds-back-science/733595/85 "2015-10-06T20:45:25Z")
> [@Qin\_Shi\_Huangdi](#): > > So how exactly has there been a causal relation in religion affecting science education in the United States? Is America significantly less scientifically innovative? Does it have disproportionately less youths going into the sciences? I could say that we are doing good, but we could be doing much, much better. And when one looks at the current leadership in congress one has to wonder aloud if we are not beginning to decline. Once again I look at what Neil DeGrasse Tyson said recently: > **[Neil deGrasse Tyson on Science Literacy (Part Two) | Moyers & Company |...](https://billmoyers.com/episode/neil-degrasse-tyson-on-science-literacy/)** > > Bill talks with the astrophysicist about why science literacy is critical to the future of our democracy, economy and standing in the world. > [@](#): > > BILL MOYERS: All right. According to the Pew Research Center, back in 2009, a comfortable majority of Republicans accepted human evolution as a fact. But now, a plurality rejects it. So I ask you, politics can trump science, can’t it? > > NEIL DEGRASSE TYSON: Well, in a free, elected democracy, of course. You vote who you want on your school board. There is no provision in the constitution for the government to establish what’s taught in schools. That’s all relegated to the states. Hence, we speak state to state about what’s in their science textbook versus another. > > And so that’s the country we’ve all sort of bought into, if you will, or born into. I think it’s a self-correcting phenomenon. Nobody wants to die, okay? So we all care about health. But above all else, among the Republicans I know, especially Republicans, nobody wants to die poor, okay? > > So educated Republicans know the value of innovations in science and technology for the thriving of an economy and business and industry. They know this. If you put something that is not science in a science classroom, pass it off as science, then you are undermining an entire enterprise that was responsible for creating the wealth that we have come to take for granted in this country. So we’re already fading economically. If this, if that trend continues, some Republican is going to wake up and say, “Look guys, we got to split these two. We have to. Otherwise, we will doom ourselves to poverty.” And so I see it as a self-correcting, I don’t know when it’ll happen, but they know. > [@](#): > > NEIL DEGRASSE TYSON: By the way, my father was active in the Civil Rights Movement in the 1960s. And a lot of my cultural awareness and sensitivities, as I’m floating in the universe, were anchored by just that kind of awareness. The inequality of, the unequal distribution of wealth, but that’s almost fundamental to a capitalist system, but you, what you don’t want to have happen is to have unequal access, okay? \*\*People will sort themselves out by who works harder than the rest of us. I got that. I even embrace that. But if everyone does not have equal access, you are not getting the best people. Your country will falter. > \*\* > BILL MOYERS: And that’s where inequality matters– > > NEIL DEGRASSE TYSON: \*\*Because you have disenfranchised a whole community of people that might’ve been contributing, but no, because they never even saw the light of day. So, the light of the intellectual day. So yeah, that’s bad. And it is not the sign of a healthy democracy. It’s not even the sign of a healthy capitalist democracy. > > Being at the top of your game intellectually, philosophically, politically, is not a forever thing. I read history, I look at countries that rise up and contribute mightily to eradicating ignorance and to making discoveries about our place in the universe. And then by change of force, by change of vision, by change of, by shortsighted leadership, the entire operation collapses. > \*\* > Look at Islam a thousand years ago, Baghdad was the center of intellectual, it was the intellectual capital of the world, while Europe, they were disemboweling heretics, okay? That’s why our numerals are called Arabic numerals, because they pioneered the use of these numerals and invented algebra, itself an Arabic word, and algorithm. Two-thirds of the stars in the night sky have Arabic names. How does that happen? Because they had navigating devices, astrolabes. That culture of discovery ended and has not arisen since. > > I look at America, post-war, 20th-century America and say, we were the top of our game. Investing in science and engineering, and education. And yeah, we had our inequalities and we had our problems, but culturally as a nation, we had our vision statement. We were thinking about our future. > > We weren’t thinking about the now, we were thinking about the tomorrow. That’s what the World’s Fair was, inventing a tomorrow that doesn’t yet exist today. When that’s how you think about your country and run your country, you have policy that points in that direction. Innovative, inventive, creative policy that takes you from the present into the future. > > Without it, you live in the present and the rest of the world passes you by, you might as well physically be moving backwards. Because that’s what you look like to the rest of the world. So as a scientist, I don’t care who does the work next, if it’s not America. I want to see good scientific results no matter where they’re done. But as an American, I feel it. I feel the fading of our luster, the fading of our vision statement as a nation. ---
**Author:** ![RickJay](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/bb73d2/32.png) [@RickJay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RickJay)\ **Post date:** [October 6, 2015, 9:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/richard-dawkins-says-american-religion-holds-back-science/733595/86 "2015-10-06T21:22:49Z")
> [@Urbanredneck](#): > > This was a piece by Richard Dawkins: > > "Dawkins, an evolutionary biologist and author of The Selfish Gene and The God Delusion, said it was a wonder “that America is the leading scientific nation despite having this incubus around its neck of an uncultured ignorant almost majority.” I am absolutely flummoxed as to how a man like Dawkins who is presumably quite educated and had at some point taken a few math classes could find this a wonder at all. > [@](#): > > He suggested that if “the fundamentalist-not-quite-majority” were not hindering America, science might have advanced further. “You have to wonder what it could be like if it didn’t have that burden,” he said." It would be exactly the same, of course. There are 320 million people in the United States. The number of Americans who are NOT evangelical, science-denying Christians is greater than the combined population of Germany and France and Canada thrown in for good measure. The number of intelligent Americans able and willing to fill research posts at good school is well beyond counting. Dawkins’ wonder would only make sense if EVERY American was a fundamentalist. Being surprised that a country with such a huge population and considerable material wealth can support both churches and research labs is kind of like being amazed that New York City has enough people to support both a baseball team and a hockey team, or that London can somehow accommodate the dietary preferences of people who prefer pizza and people who prefer Indian food. For all that Dawkins and Tyson complain about scientific illiteracy - and shit, I complain about it - the United States is indisputably a country with many, many millions of highly LITERATE people. To draw another analogy, is anyone amazed that Elizabethan England produced William Shakespeare even though a lot of Britons were illiterate? Of course not, because it’s just sort of stupidly obvious that playwrights were not drawn from the illiterate portion of the population. It is theoretically possible - though I am not totally sold on it - that less scientific illiteracy and religious stupidity would mean MORE Nobel prizes for Americans. But the fact that it can coexist with lots of Nobel prizes in a country of immense wealth with 200 million or more people who aren’t religious extremists living in and amongst the most extensive and elite higher education system in the history of the world is not exactly a puzzle. ---
**Author:** ![Princhester](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/3e96dc/32.png) [@Princhester](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Princhester)\ **Post date:** [October 6, 2015, 9:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/richard-dawkins-says-american-religion-holds-back-science/733595/87 "2015-10-06T21:39:10Z")
…or in other words what I said at #70. ---
**Author:** ![Dr.Strangelove](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dr.strangelove/32/6613_2.png) [@Dr.Strangelove](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dr.Strangelove)\ **Post date:** [October 6, 2015, 9:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/richard-dawkins-says-american-religion-holds-back-science/733595/88 "2015-10-06T21:49:38Z")
> [@RickJay](#): > > The number of Americans who are NOT evangelical, science-denying Christians is greater than the combined population of Germany and France and Canada thrown in for good measure. It’s not just the absolute numbers–America also has a high per-capita rate of good science. Take [this list of Nobel prizes per-capita](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_Nobel_laureates_per_capita). The US is by no means the highest, but nevertheless does quite well, beating the EU average as well as many more secular nations. So it’s not just that there are plenty of people left over to do good science–it’s that religion is not a huge factor in the first place. The rate would not be where it is if half our population were excluded from the results. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [October 6, 2015, 10:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/richard-dawkins-says-american-religion-holds-back-science/733595/89 "2015-10-06T22:31:38Z")
> [@RickJay](#): > > For all that Dawkins and Tyson complain about scientific illiteracy - and shit, I complain about it - the United States is indisputably a country with many, many millions of highly LITERATE people. To draw another analogy, is anyone amazed that Elizabethan England produced William Shakespeare even though a lot of Britons were illiterate? Of course not, because it’s just sort of stupidly obvious that playwrights were not drawn from the illiterate portion of the population. > > It is theoretically possible - though I am not totally sold on it - that less scientific illiteracy and religious stupidity would mean MORE Nobel prizes for Americans. But the fact that it can coexist with lots of Nobel prizes in a country of immense wealth with 200 million or more people who aren’t religious extremists living in and amongst the most extensive and elite higher education system in the history of the world is not exactly a puzzle. Dawkins IMHO is looking mostly at the news coming from the USA about the kind of people that are being selected as the ones making legislation and what they are doing with what science is telling us about climate change and other issues, they are ignoring it on purpose. I bet Dawkins sees things like this as reported by the BBC and that is why he is coming with statements like the one in the OP: > **[Pope unlikely to sway top US critics on climate](https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-34342808)** > > The Pope's address to Congress on climate change will not sway some influential energy politicians in the US. > [@](#): > > The Pope’s plea to tackle climate change is likely to get a cool reception from some key energy politicians in the US. > > Republican Marsha Blackburn, the second-highest ranking member on the House energy committee, says the jury is still out on global warming. > > Pope Francis is to speak on the subject in an address to Congress on Thursday. > > He told a White House audience on Wednesday the problem could “no longer be left to a future generation”. > > Speaking earlier this year as part of a forthcoming Radio 4 documentary series “Climate Change - Are we Feeling Lucky?”, she asserted that the earth had cooled in the last 13 years by 1F. And she said no evidence would persuade her of man-made warming. > > She also rejected the theory of evolution. Scientists say her views are “complete nonsense”. The problem is that many in the USA are still unaware of how the Republicans are so much out of step even with many republicans, so yes, it may be not much of a problem for our education and the science we make (IIRC there are a lot of dick moves the Republicans made recently to limit NASA from investigating climate change) but as I said the reason why science is being held back is in areas that are no less important. It is then crucial to educate and develop more informed citizens to prevent situations like this one. Interesting bit from Tyson and Dawkins from October 3: [http://therealnews.com/t2/component/hwdvideoshare/viewvideo/79714/political-humor/real-time-with-bill-maher-neil-degrasse-tyson-a-richard-dawkins-on-climate-change-and-the-survival-of-the-human-species](http://therealnews.com/t2/component/hwdvideoshare/viewvideo/79714/political-humor/real-time-with-bill-maher-neil-degrasse-tyson-a-richard-dawkins-on-climate-change-and-the-survival-of-the-human-species) As Dawkins acknowledged, Tyson is like Darwin, not a confrontational fellow so he is the likeable guy; but Dawkins is like Huxley, the then attack dog for evolution against the attempts of religion to stop science. ---
**Author:** ![wolfpup](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wolfpup/32/10618_2.png) [@wolfpup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wolfpup)\ **Post date:** [October 6, 2015, 10:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/richard-dawkins-says-american-religion-holds-back-science/733595/90 "2015-10-06T22:49:53Z")
> [@RickJay](#): > > The number of Americans who are NOT evangelical, science-denying Christians is greater than the combined population of Germany and France and Canada thrown in for good measure. The number of intelligent Americans able and willing to fill research posts at good school is well beyond counting. Numbers alone are misleading. It’s not the absolute number of evangelicals that matters, it’s their political influence, and it’s substantial. It’s substantial enough to have banned federal funding for embryonic stem cell research, to have formally introduced amendments to teaching evolution in certain jurisdictions that labeled it “just one theory”, to have had major impact on gay rights and abortion policy (which would be, respectively, non-existent and totally illegal in many states were it not for Supreme Court rulings) and to have political parties cater to them. At the end of the first Republican presidential debate the last audience question to the candidates was whether God had been talking to them lately and what God was telling them to do, and every candidate – one of whom may well be the next president – had to seriously answer that. And for slightly different reasons but along similar lines, when the kind of intelligent scientific minority that you’re talking about at the National Academy of Sciences issued a report on the dangers of climate change some years ago, the Bush White House altered the report by redacting and rewording sections of it to make it more palatable to their base. This may not have been religiously motivated but it illustrates the fact that one should never underestimate the impact of an irrational minority catering to irrational beliefs. The October 29 - November 4, 2011 issue of _New Scientist_ had a cover story titled “Unscientific America: A dangerous retreat from reason” about some of these phenomena. Evangelicals are a significant though not exclusive part of the problem. Dawkins isn’t wrong, he’s just being hyperbolic. The negative impact of religion on science in America isn’t large, but it isn’t zero, either. ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [October 6, 2015, 10:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/richard-dawkins-says-american-religion-holds-back-science/733595/91 "2015-10-06T22:54:17Z")
> [@Your\_Great\_Darsh\_Face](#): > > Yup, Dawkins is, as I understand, an accomplished and qualified biologist. For anyone - including himself - to tout the view that _on that account_ his views on anything at all are necessarily worth more than the man in the street is to be guilty of the Appeal to Authority fallacy. Incorrect. His views on biology are authoritarian. He\* is \*a authority in that field, to appeal to his expertise is a correct thing- we call this a 'cite". You have commited two fallacies here: 1. Assuming the SDMB is a High School debating club. 1. A misuse of a “informal fallacy”. His views on _American religio_n, however, are just his opinion. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [October 6, 2015, 11:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/richard-dawkins-says-american-religion-holds-back-science/733595/92 "2015-10-06T23:18:39Z")
“Republicans are so much out of step even with many republicans”… I meant to say that: Republicans\*\* in congress\*\* are so much out of step, even with many rank and file republicans. ---
**Author:** ![Stranger\_On\_A\_Train](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/13edae/32.png) [@Stranger\_On\_A\_Train](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stranger_On_A_Train)\ **Post date:** [October 7, 2015, 12:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/richard-dawkins-says-american-religion-holds-back-science/733595/93 "2015-10-07T00:05:12Z")
> [@Urbanredneck](#): > > I can see some of your points but again I ask, why is he picking on the United States? Why doesnt his beloved UK (or Canada and Australia) pick up the slack and do the stem cell research the US will not? Or for that matter every other country in Europe? Arent their scientists in France, Germany, Netherlands, Denmark, and Italy? > > Does he make similar attacks on the Japanese and their Asian religions getting into conflict with science? > > Does he go to China or Russia and talk about how their official policy of atheism has made them scientific leaders? He’s specifically addressing the United States because it was the uncontested leader in advances in both theoretical and applied science, as well as STEM education post-WWII, but has lapsed in all areas due to social conservatism, religious ferment, and the shallow, self-congratulatory exceptionalism that has persuaded a generation of leaders that science is lest important than things like brand management and political lobbying. The nations you list and others have advanced in stature in science because of this lapse, and it is only the influx of foreign students seeking the already established centers of academic research in the US that have maintained the position in STEM education. While American students have increasingly moved away from the core arts and sciences curriculum to finance, fashion/design, and other well-compensated but unchallenging educational programs, students from Asia and elsewhere have come to the US in droves, some remaining to enjoy the relative social freedoms and fiscal opportunities, other returning to take their skills back to build a domestic technical base in their home countries. I can’t think of a single example of the largely Shinto and Buddhist traditions of Japan (and Buddhist influence religions elsewhere in Southeast Asia) coming into conflict with science specifically because those practicianers are not dogmatic about their beliefs and accept that conflict be resolved by accepting factual evidence in support of scientific theories versus the blind rejection of science in favor of obtuse faith that an old and oft-mistranslated book or the claims of people in funny hats represents “The Truth, The Way, and the Life”, or whathaveyou. Like the more moderate Christians, Jews, Muslims, and other faiths that understand that evidence must be accepted as it is observed instead of distorted to reflect a pre-established dogma, scientists from Japan and Korea separate their spiritual belief from scientific fact. Indeed, the original purpose of objective scientific inquirity, a la Kepler, Linnaeus, et cetera was to examine natural phenomena to discern the true nature of the Christian God instead of accepting the authoritarian doctrine of the Catholic Church. Both China and Russia have a long cultural tradition of developing science and mathematics which was unfortunately interrupted by the Communist dogma, which in its own way was every bit as distorting and repressive as any relgion, e.g. the Great Leap Forward, Soviet Lysenkoism, et cetera. Religion has no exclusive claim on distorting fact, especially when it comes to authoritarianism. Dawkins himself is an avowed humanistic socialist who has sternly criticized both dogmatic authoritarianism and the obtuse interpretation of Darwinian selection in a social and economic mileau. As **wolfpup** already addressed, while fundamentalist Christians may be a minority of the electorate, they are a very vocal minority with a powerful voting block, hence why we see Donald Trump submitting (with obvious extreme discomfort) to being fondled and prayed over by a bunch of fundie nutters wishing upon a star for a Magic Negro to come to his aid and show him God’s Path to the White House. They’ve held this sway since the Reagan era when Jerry Falwell and his “Moral Majority” attained unprecidented policy development access to the office of the chief executive, notwithstanding that Reagan was never noted as being particularly religious or church-going. (Never mind that one of the most unquestionably and genuinely pius presidents–Jimmy Carter–rarely invoked any kind of religious sentiment in policy making or used it as a shield to justify his actions.) Most Americans who don’t reguarly interact with people from Europe don’t realize how just bizarre and medieval it seems to everyone else for public figures to be praying in the function of their office or invoking God as a decision-making authority in their policy and legislative decisions. Even in putitive religious nations with a state church such as England, such overt display of religion looks like rank superstition. Dawkins may be most vocal, but he is hardly alone in his impression or opinion. Stranger ---
**Author:** ![brickbacon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/898d66/32.png) [@brickbacon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brickbacon)\ **Post date:** [October 7, 2015, 12:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/richard-dawkins-says-american-religion-holds-back-science/733595/94 "2015-10-07T00:17:03Z")
> [@wolfpup](#): > > Dawkins isn’t wrong, he’s just being hyperbolic. The negative impact of religion on science in America isn’t large, but it isn’t zero, either. I think the negative impact is quite large when viewed objectively. However, it’s probably canceled out by the positive effects. You have to include the positive effects of having religious people motivated to serve at home and abroad to providing medical intervention, education, and basic needs to people around the world, almost assuredly creating many more future scientists. You need to include the all of the universities and schools that would not exist but for religion. You need to account for the impact of religions like Judaism that hold scholarship and education in high regard. All those things and others have probably done more good for the cause of science than the negatives that have been mentioned thus far. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [October 7, 2015, 12:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/richard-dawkins-says-american-religion-holds-back-science/733595/95 "2015-10-07T00:40:25Z")
> [@brickbacon](#): > > I think the negative impact is quite large when viewed objectively. However, it’s probably canceled out by the positive effects. You have to include the positive effects of having religious people motivated to serve at home and abroad to providing medical intervention, education, and basic needs to people around the world, almost assuredly creating many more future scientists. You need to include the all of the universities and schools that would not exist but for religion. You need to account for the impact of religions like Judaism that hold scholarship and education in high regard. All those things and others have probably done more good for the cause of science than the negatives that have been mentioned thus far. Yes, already acknowledged, that is not what Dawkins is talking about, but the issue is what the world is seeing now. And this will be more painful to notice once the Paris meeting about dealing with climate change takes place. [http://www.politico.com/story/2015/09/gop-congress-climate-pact-paris-213382](http://www.politico.com/story/2015/09/gop-congress-climate-pact-paris-213382) > [@](#): > > A top policy aide to McConnell (R-Ky.) has had conversations with a select group of representatives from foreign embassies to make it clear that Republicans intend to fight Obama’s climate agenda at every turn, sources familiar with the efforts say. > > Sources say the aide, Neil Chatterjee, hasn’t tried to persuade other countries to oppose a climate deal, though he is informing them about the GOP’s options for undercutting it. He has had conversations with officials representing both developed and developing countries. Environment & Energy Publishing first reported on his efforts. > > McConnell himself warned foreign leaders last spring to "proceed with caution before entering into a binding, unattainable deal” with Obama, noting that “two-thirds of the U.S. federal government” — Congress and the Supreme Court — hasn’t signed off on the president’s plans. > > Republicans have no direct way of interfering with December’s climate summit in Paris, and Obama’s domestic climate strategy relies almost entirely on executive branch regulations that don’t require Congress’ approval. But the resistance could threaten to gum up progress in carrying out Obama’s policies, making it easier to undo them if the GOP retakes the White House in 2016. > > The Republican tactics are partly aimed at an audience abroad: countries that have long expressed doubts about the sincerity of the United States’ climate efforts ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [October 7, 2015, 1:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/richard-dawkins-says-american-religion-holds-back-science/733595/96 "2015-10-07T01:24:12Z")
I’m okay with the U.S. being a leader in scientific and technological research, based on the ~60% of its population that _hasn’t_ been doing the equivalent of guzzling lead paint. 60% of 330 million is still one of the largest countries in the world, after all. It’s when the 40% is allowed to be in charge of anything more significant than a tollbooth that they become a nuisance. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [October 7, 2015, 5:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/richard-dawkins-says-american-religion-holds-back-science/733595/97 "2015-10-07T05:47:24Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > Opinions that are worth anything need some kind of hard evidence to back them up. No, basing your views on anecdotalal data is not being a scientist. > > Regards, > Shodan Being a scientist means you know the difference between a clearly marked opinion piece (which does not get peer reviewed) and a paper which does. As I mentioned, I publish both so I think I’m reasonably aware of the difference. Opinion pieces need some evidence - I think Dawkins has plenty. Lots of hate mail from moronic creationists as a start. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [October 7, 2015, 5:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/richard-dawkins-says-american-religion-holds-back-science/733595/98 "2015-10-07T05:56:27Z")
> [@RickJay](#): > > The number of intelligent Americans able and willing to fill research posts at good school is well beyond counting. You got a cite for that? While I’m not at a university I do hire PhDs. I don’t remember the last time I’ve seen a resume from someone born in the US. And while we obviously do not ask about this, I strongly suspect few if any of the PhDs I hire are Christian. As for universities, very few of the professors I know in my field under 40 were born in the US. I’m not complaining, I love how we steal really smart people from other countries. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [October 7, 2015, 6:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/richard-dawkins-says-american-religion-holds-back-science/733595/99 "2015-10-07T06:00:10Z")
> [@Stranger\_On\_A\_Train](#): > > As **wolfpup** already addressed, while fundamentalist Christians may be a minority of the electorate, they are a very vocal minority with a powerful voting block, hence why we see Donald Trump submitting (with obvious extreme discomfort) to being fondled and prayed over by a bunch of fundie nutters wishing upon a star for a Magic Negro to come to his aid and show him God’s Path to the White House. > > Stranger Speaking of Trump, I bet he’s not a creationist, and not very religious (except in the sense of self-worship.) It would be interesting to see if he could get away with making fun of the creationism of his opponents, and if his reality distortion field would handle that. ---
**Author:** ![Urbanredneck](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ea5d25/32.png) [@Urbanredneck](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Urbanredneck)\ **Post date:** [October 7, 2015, 3:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/richard-dawkins-says-american-religion-holds-back-science/733595/100 "2015-10-07T15:34:49Z")
> [@Voyager](#): > > Opinion pieces need some evidence - I think Dawkins has plenty. Lots of hate mail from moronic creationists as a start. Evidence? LOTS of hate mail you say??? Has he ever given an actual number? Well no matter. Lets stop and think. Lets say he can pull out a file and show 1,000 pieces of “hate” mail. The US has 300 million people. Plus his books are sold in other countries like the UK and Canada so lets figure 500 million. He has been written 13 books since 1976 (39 years). Let’s do some math. So how bad then is 1,000 or even 10,000 or heck even 100,000 pieces of mail from a country with a population of 300 million or a potential audience of 500 million in 39 years (100,000 of 300 million is .03%) AND the man uses those letters to be the foundation of his argument that all Americans are “moronic creationists” that hate science and can somehow influence all government and private scientific research? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/richard-dawkins-says-american-religion-holds-back-science/733595.md?page=4) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/richard-dawkins-says-american-religion-holds-back-science/733595.md?page=6)