News Article: Conservatives trust in science has declined sharply

Bamabuzzard · Apr 2, 2012

The God of the Bible claims to be spirit. So if "science" is trying to disprove the existence of the God in the Bible then they have to have mehtods that deal with proving the lack of existence of a spiritual world.

I for one do not think science in and of itself is about disproving God. Nor do I think it is possible. I do think people within the science community use it to develop their own personal opinion about the subject matter (i.e. those who are atheist). As do scientist who use it to point to the existence of God. Science deals within the physical realm. Not the spiritual. And until we have methods that can prove whether a spiritual realm does or doesn't exist. Then using "science" to try to prove or disprove God is a waste of all our time.

Now, one can give an opinion about it, be it an atheist or theist. But it is just that. An opinion. I'm a Christian and FOR ME, science confirms my faith more and more. The more I learn about how detailed so many things are and how exact so many things have to be (and are) for us to live and survive. It just makes my faith in God that much more. I know it doesn't do that for everybody. But I'm not responsible for "everybody". So I don't lose much sleep over it.

mittman · Apr 2, 2012

Bama_Dawg said:
This thread is doing everything it can to confirm that the distrust conservatives have with science is religious.

Well duh :smile:

Of course belief in God plays a part. That does not mean the people who have concluded that there is a God completely discount all scientific evidences or findings.

Science always starts with a hypothesis. What has always been the wall between the two is the fact that a hypothesis posed by one is dismissed by the other simply because the other has an ingrained belief.

However, this does not mean that every conservative instance of distrust in the scientific community is based on religion. In fact my main problem is purely secular spending and vested interest based. The discussed naturally turned into existentialism because of the biases of the ones discussing it.

Bamaro · Apr 2, 2012

selmaborntidefan said:
Sure it does. Not gonna get any funding otherwise. Thank you for pointing that out.

But in the larger picture it makes no difference.

In a weird sort of way you are right. Nobody in their right mind, gov included, would want to knowingly fund a 'scientist' who didn't believe the earth was billions of years old.

mittman · Apr 2, 2012

cbi1972 said:
Not even sure what argument you are talking about here, ...

Maybe I was misinterpreting where you were going, but this statement seems to have been the start of that argument for me:

"My claim is that God is not an explanation of anything because it makes no falsifiable predictions."

cbi1972 said:
... but scientists simply don't go about trying to disprove nonscientific concepts. ...
[\QUOTE]

I understand that this is the goal. The reason for the distrust (whether it is perception or reality) is that may believe that this is not the case.

cbi1972 said:

Sure, there are outspoken atheist scientists who deride religiosity as a mental defect, but even that is not "disproving God"

Click to expand...

Disproving or not a scientific finding that it is mental defect would imply a bias from the atheist scientist that there is no God. We are going in circles again here, but it illustrates the point.

mittman · Apr 2, 2012

Bamaro said:
In a weird sort of way you are right. Nobody in their right mind, gov included, would want to knowingly fund a 'scientist' who didn't believe the earth was billions of years old.

Well I guess that would depend upon what scientific research we are funding them to do. I guess I am not in my right mind :wink:

Bama_Dawg · Apr 2, 2012

mittman said:
Point taken. Yes I would categorize it as fringe. I would probably be categorized as conservative and have never visited the site. In fact I have never visited rightwingnews.com, and it looks pretty far out there to me too.

I think that is a common issue when viewing the other side of our current political landscape. I know a lot progressives who consider MoveOn.org a fringe group, but a lot of conservatives think it is fully representative of the other side.

That's a fair point. I've never really been on MoveOn so I don't have much of an opinion about it, but I'm sure there are plenty of liberal sites just as stupid as Conservapedia. The only caveat I would make is that in my opinion the chief flaw of generic liberal arguments (as opposed to generic conservative ones) is their intellectual smugness, not their hostility toward science.

mittman · Apr 2, 2012

Bama_Dawg said:
That's a fair point. I've never really been on MoveOn so I don't have much of an opinion about it, but I'm sure there are plenty of liberal sites just as stupid as Conservapedia. The only caveat I would make is that in my opinion the chief flaw of generic liberal arguments (as opposed to generic conservative ones) is their intellectual smugness, not their hostility toward science.

Both sides can get intellectually smug. I have found that hostility toward science is usually based on whether science is currently proving what is already believed or not.

Bama_Dawg · Apr 2, 2012

mittman said:
However, this does not mean that every conservative instance of distrust in the scientific community is based on religion. In fact my main problem is purely secular spending and vested interest based. The discussed naturally turned into existentialism because of the biases of the ones discussing it.

This is actually the reason I jumped into this thread -- to test my assumption that conservative distrust in science is based mostly on the threat it poses to their religious beliefs. So I'm tickled that you brought us back to that

Setting aside your personal reasons, do you think most conservative distrust is secular in nature? If so, why don't we see the same thing in the democratic party?

mittman · Apr 2, 2012

Bama_Dawg said:
This is actually the reason I jumped into this thread -- to test my assumption that conservative distrust in science is based mostly on the threat it poses to their religious beliefs. So I'm tickled that you brought us back to that

Setting aside your personal reasons, do you think most conservative distrust is secular in nature? If so, why don't we see the same thing in the democratic party?

That would depend on how you define conservitism. I think most people from the left lump them in the same bucket. Personally I think it is two fold. There is a great deal of mistrust from secular conservatives based on funding concerns alone. Mistrust that the findings are so slanted at keeping the funding that they can't be used to determine policy. That does not mean there is not a great deal based on the bias as well.

I think we do see the same thing from the Democratic party. It may be due to my vantage point, but dissent in scientific findings seem to be less tolerated on the left than on the right. Findings that tend to disprove the current talking point thread seem to get piled on hard. There appears to be a real fear in the scientific community to stay orthodox (for lack of a better word).

cbi1972 · Apr 2, 2012

mittman said:
I understand that this is the goal. The reason for the distrust (whether it is perception or reality) is that may believe that this is not the case.

Not sure if you just made a typo here, but disproving nonscientific concepts is not a goal of science.

mittman said:
Disproving or not a scientific finding that it is mental defect would imply a bias from the atheist scientist that there is no God. We are going in circles again here, but it illustrates the point.

The belief that religiosity is a mental defect is not so much a "scientific finding" as an opinion. I cannot speak for all atheists or all scientists, but my bias is in favor of rationality, and as such, my beliefs are subject to change as evidence accumulates and logical explanations are presented. If preferring the scientific method to religious faith as a means of determining objective truth is biased, then I am happy and proud to be biased, because faith makes no sense.

Bama_Dawg · Apr 2, 2012

mittman said:
I think we do see the same thing from the Democratic party. It may be due to my vantage point, but dissent in scientific findings seem to be less tolerated on the left than on the right.

On what issues though? We talked briefly about gun control earlier, but it seems like there's very little public discourse about that when compared to issues like global warming, creationism, abstinence education, etc.

cbi1972 · Apr 2, 2012

The basis for distrust of science depends on which issue is on the table.

In the case of global warming, it is the belief that scientific rigor is tainted by political pressure.

In the case of evolution, it is a rejection of an idea that violates articles of religious faith.

Bama_Dawg · Apr 2, 2012

cbi1972 said:
The basis for distrust of science depends on which issue is on the table.

In the case of global warming, it is the belief that scientific rigor is tainted by political pressure.

In the case of evolution, it is a rejection of an idea that violates articles of religious faith.

I'm not sure you can equivocate like that though. For starters, something like 98% of all researchers publishing papers on global warming agree with the basic tenets of anthropogenic climate change. And when they do engage those who disagree with them, they do so scientifically, don't they? That's not at all what happens with conservatives who oppose evolution.

cbi1972 · Apr 2, 2012

Bama_Dawg said:
I'm not sure you can equivocate like that though. For starters, something like 98% of all researchers publishing papers on global warming agree with the basic tenets of anthropogenic climate change. And when they do engage those who disagree with them, they do so scientifically, don't they? That's not at all what happens with conservatives who oppose evolution.

I am talking about the basis for distrust, not the scientific merit of the beliefs themselves.

Bama_Dawg · Apr 2, 2012

Also, we're kind of missing the point, which is: Why don't democrats distrust scientists as much as conservatives do?

cbi1972 · Apr 2, 2012

Bama_Dawg said:
Also, we're kind of missing the point, which is: Why don't democrats distrust scientists as much as conservatives do?

I would say those with strong religious beliefs tend to feel threatened by a worldview that marginalizes faith, especially when its some of its most vocal adherents are overtly hostile to religion.

gmart74 · Apr 2, 2012

Bama_Dawg said:
Also, we're kind of missing the point, which is: Why don't democrats distrust scientists as much as conservatives do?

bc dems have a long and strong history of being hand in hand with eugenicists. so maybe they accept anything "science" says.

mittman · Apr 2, 2012

cbi1972 said:
Not sure if you just made a typo here, but disproving nonscientific concepts is not a goal of science.

Pure science i agree. There is at least a perception that scientists are not being pure. Just as a lot of people see and understand that not all believers in God practice what would be called pure religion.

cbi1972 said:
The belief that religiosity is a mental defect is not so much a "scientific finding" as an opinion. I cannot speak for all atheists or all scientists, but my bias is in favor of rationality, and as such, my beliefs are subject to change as evidence accumulates and logical explanations are presented. If preferring the scientific method to religious faith as a means of determining objective truth is biased, then I am happy and proud to be biased, because faith makes no sense.

Most if not all of us believe our bias is based on rationality, and subject to change if the evidence is strong enough. You may be surpised to find out just how biblical your last sentence is.

mittman · Apr 2, 2012

Bama_Dawg said:
On what issues though? We talked briefly about gun control earlier, but it seems like there's very little public discourse about that when compared to issues like global warming, creationism, abstinence education, etc.

That could take all night :wink:

mittman · Apr 2, 2012

Bama_Dawg said:
Also, we're kind of missing the point, which is: Why don't democrats distrust scientists as much as conservatives do?

Personal opinion here, but again my personal experiences are that most people trust scientists when they are proving what they believe. I don't have that threshold, but I think that is the norm. I think the OP article basically gets this right.

News Article: Conservatives trust in science has declined sharply

FB Moderator

All-American

TideFans Legend

All-American

All-American

1st Team

All-American

1st Team

All-American

Hall of Fame

1st Team

Hall of Fame

1st Team

Hall of Fame

1st Team

Hall of Fame

Hall of Fame

All-American

All-American

All-American

TideFans.shop - NEW Stuff!