The "Culture War"
by MikeGeneAccording to the PewResearchCenter :
Interestingly, many of those who reject natural selection recognize that scientists themselves fully accept Darwin's theory. In the same 2006 Pew poll, nearly two-thirds of adults (62%) say that they believe that scientists agree on the validity of evolution. Moreover, Americans, including religious Americans, hold science and scientists in very high regard. A 2006 survey conducted by Virginia Commonwealth University found that most people (87%) think that scientific developments make society better. Among those who describe themselves as being very religious, the same number "“ 87% "“ share that opinion.
So as we can see, the data clearly show that religious people are pro-science.
So what is at work here? How can Americans say that they respect science and even know what scientists believe and yet still disagree with the scientific community on some fundamental questions? The answer is that much of the general public simply chooses not to believe the scientific theories and discoveries that seem to contradict long-held religious or other important beliefs.
When asked what they would do if scientists were to disprove a particular religious belief, nearly two-thirds (64%) of people say they would continue to hold to what their religion teaches rather than accept the contrary scientific finding, according to the results of an October 2006 Time magazine poll. Indeed, in a May 2007 Gallup poll, only 14% of those who say they do not believe in evolution cite lack of evidence as the main reason underpinning their views; more people cite their belief in Jesus (19%), God (16%) or religion generally (16%) as their reason for rejecting Darwin's theory.
This reliance on religious faith may help explain why so many people do not see science as a direct threat to religion. Only 28% of respondents in the same Time poll say that scientific advancements threaten their religious beliefs. These poll results also show that more than four-fifths of respondents (81%) say that "recent discoveries and advances" in science have not significantly impacted their religious views. In fact, 14% say that these discoveries have actually made them more religious. Only 4% say that science has made them less religious.
Fascinating. This explains why people like Dawkins and Myers are such good allies for the Creationists. When Dawkins bashes religion with one hand and proposes/explains Darwinian evolution with the other hand, because of his position, he effectively frames the situation where working people perceive they must make a choice between their religious faith and evolution. And people clearly choose their faith in overwhelming numbers.
Many people, on both sides of the aisle, view this all as a "culture war." If we get beyond the slogan and ponder this description from an objective perspective, we would recognize two things. First, there is no true "war." That is just a metaphor to describe a conflict of values and priorities in a diverse, democratic society. Second, what you do have are different cultures. It is this second point that is most significant given that the social sciences have provided us a wealth of information about cultural differences. Most significant is that different cultures come with different modes of cognition and different perceptions. This is why it is often folly for one culture to accuse another of "lying."
September 1st, 2007 at 5:08 pm
There is definitely something interesting about these findings… i do want to comment on your Dawkisn blurb here… even if he is indeed using wrong tools to wage his war against religion, do you think it's entirely unnecessary?
The religion I have the most qualms about is Islam and if there is anything that should be cured as fast as possible, that's the one Dawkins, Hitchens, Harris and others atheists should focus on first.
I believe Islam poses the biggest threat to the world, whilst all others are child play compared to it.
Comment by dimasok — September 1, 2007 @ 5:08 pm
September 1st, 2007 at 5:15 pm
Hi Mike,
This gets to the heart of why I think the OMA/NOMA concepts are fundamental to understanding the "Culture War".
Dawkins and Myers reject NOMA, clearly and loudly. I happen to disagree with them on this point, but I respect the ethics of holding a position even when it is uncomfortable.
Ken Miller obviously embraces NOMA. I realize I have a higher opinion of his ethics than you appear to have, but, hopefully, you will agree Miller is reasonably consistent with his position.
Young Earth Creationists generally reject NOMA. The Bible is the inerrant word of God and the source of scientific knowledge. While I wish Salvador T. Cordova was a little more consistent in his debating tactics, I generally respect his stance on this.
I present myself as representative of the fourth example of the four quadrant map. I embrace NOMA, while rejecting established religious teaching.
Based on this understanding, I see the ID Movement as exploiting the common practice of separating one's philosophical/religious outlook from day-to-day science outlook. The ID Movement is clearly about the "problem" of evolution as stated by Dembski when, on 16 June 2006, he posted this on Uncommon Descent…
"The problem is not that evolution implies God does't exist. The problem is that if God does not exist, then evolution is the only possibility."
Dembski is entitled to his opinion. And if he was consistent with presenting his opinion, I could respect it. On 17 June 2007, Dembski's quote was changed to read….
"The problem is not that evolution implies God does't exist. The problem is that if God does not exist, then evolution is the only possibility (well, actually, space aliens who seed the Earth, time travelers, and telic organizing principles in nature are ID alternatives that don't require God; but these are way down the totem pole for most people)."
Now I am not going to call Dembski a liar, just a very intelligent operator of the weapons deployed to fight the "Culture War".
The Penrose-Hameroff Orch OR model of consciousness is one of those ID alternatives that "are way down the totem pole for most people". It is struggling for acceptance for a lot of the same reasons other ID Scientific hypotheses are struggling.
IMO, the ID Movement makes the struggle more difficult than it has to be.
Comment by Thought Provoker — September 1, 2007 @ 5:15 pm
September 1st, 2007 at 5:34 pm
No, actually, it isn't. Some ID proponents take that view - but as should be clear now, whatever ID may have been at one point (and ID's origins is its own debate), the field has changed - and views run the gamut from those that fully accept common descent, to pushing the problem back to panspermia, to purely philosophical, to YEC.
And really, even with the theistic minds involved with (for and against) ID, this is no surprise. Contrary to popular opinion, theistic belief tends to promote quite a multiplicity of competing ideas, even within a single sect. ID differs in that there's plenty of room for both atheists and theists in the core concept (that there's plenty of room for both atheists and theists even when considering evolution is also true - and downright petrifying to those occupying Dawkins' quadrant on that map.)
Comment by nullasalus — September 1, 2007 @ 5:34 pm
September 1st, 2007 at 6:55 pm
The NOMA solution is a bit disorienting. According to Wikipedia:
While I have no problem with religion dealing with certain moral values (as long as they don't harken back to any book, but simply profess the same moral values the majority of human beings support "ab initio"), I do have a problem with "ultimate meaning" since it's an entirely incoherent concept. Even if we speculate that there is a purpose to the universe and to our existence (basically if we go against Existentialism), then we must also reach a consensus that this meaning is either incomprehensible to beings such as ourselves or that it may also forever remain concealed from us.
Either way, NOMA reeks of hubris, and that is something that requires evidence.
Comment by dimasok — September 1, 2007 @ 6:55 pm
September 1st, 2007 at 9:33 pm
I can't say I like the tone of the Pew analysis. It gives the impression that religious people are making a simple choice: faith in creation or evolution. How anyone chooses to believe anything by pure force of will is beyond me. I know William James was cool with that, but I can't agree. Maybe, just maybe, Americans are getting the message that Darwinian evolution is a philosophical position, and are able to separate that from progress in robotics or heart medication.
And maybe, just maybe, the same public might exercise similar caution when it comes to consensus among a pool of experts. Keeping with the theme of the first commenter above, most of us would probably agree that most imams accept Mohammad as the prophet of Allah, without agreeing to the belief ourselves.
Comment by tm1919 — September 1, 2007 @ 9:33 pm
September 2nd, 2007 at 1:09 pm
A few thoughts: First, isn't the finding that most people would reject science and accept their faith at least something like what most mean when they say a "war" between science and religion?
Second, current perceptions of science and religion don't say much about any perceived 'historical' "war" between science and religion.
I mean, why expect that religious believers would outright hate a vague "science" when the same percentage of scientists (~42%) attend church each Sunday as the general public?
Comment by Ben Z — September 2, 2007 @ 1:09 pm
September 3rd, 2007 at 7:27 pm
Dimasok,
I must confess that I have a problem making out exactly what you are saying here, because it seems to be somwhat contradictory. You say that you have no problem with religion dealing with certain morals as long as they don't harken back to any book. You ignore the fact that most religions get their morality from their written works - especially the Judeo-Christian religions. You have a problem with "do to others what you would have them do to you?" You have a problem with "The fruit of the spirit are love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, gentleness, faithfulness and self-control. Against these things there is no law?"
Then you say
What is incoherent about the idea that there is meaning and purpose to our lives? Even Darwinists believe that our ultimate purpose is simply to survive for whatever reason that might hold.
Then:
Why must we reach a consensus? Why can't some people be simply wrong (such as the Hitlers and the Stalins of the world) while others be right? You seem to desire a sort of Universalism, but the fact remains terribly real that there are people who will not conform. Truth is NEVER reached by consensus. If anything, consensus gives us the lowest common denominator, and not truth at all. Consensus waters down the basic truths of life, because we have to compromise with falsehood. If it is truth you are looking for, you must be willing to be alone in your beliefs against the tide of consensus.
Comment by Randy — September 3, 2007 @ 7:27 pm