STRATEGISTS <----> JOURNALISTS <----> PUBLICS
Matthew C. Nisbet, Ph.D, is a professor in the School of Communication at American University where his research focuses on the intersections between science, media, and politics. E-MAIL: nisbetmc@gmail.com
« More Blogger Reaction to AAAS Religion Panel | Main | In Defense of Negativity in Politics »
Category: Framing Science • New Atheism • Religion
Posted on: February 26, 2008 1:51 PM, by Matthew C. Nisbet
There's more press coverage and follow up on the AAAS session "Communicating Science in a Religious America." My colleague Dietram Scheufele, a professor of Life Sciences Communication at the University of Wisconsin, has this blog post up outlining his presentation on how religious Americans view nanotechnology and the role of framing in this process. Also see the ScienceDaily press release and discussion at the Wall Street Journal's BizTech blog.
Find more posts in: 
Environment
Politics
TrackBack URL for this entry:
YES! Send me a free issue of Seed.
If I like what I see, I'll receive 5 more issues (6 in all) for just $14.95. That's 50% off the cover price! If I'm not completely satisfied, I'll simply write "cancel" on the invoice and owe nothing. The free issue is mine to keep.
(Non-U.S. subscribers, click here.)
Comments
This is from your Science Daily link:
new survey results that show religion exerts far more influence on public views of technology in the United States than in Europe.
I have got to say that I don't get it! I am in the God camp and science camp as well. I can see the Christian getting flustered at something like embryonic stem cell research or the like, but this almost seems like being inordinately afraid of science. Technology is going to bring more tough moral and ethical questions as time goes by and I believe we all need to be willing to hear everyone's input. I guess there is going to be a certain amount or seemingly irrational phobias on both sides!
Dave Briggs :~)
Posted by: Dave Briggs | February 26, 2008 5:11 PM
Dave,
With all due respect, I think that the time has come in this country (assuming you're in the USA) where we aren't "willing to hear everyone's input." Present company excepted, of course, but there are simply far too many people in "the God camp" who are unable or unwilling to use the mental faculty for reason with which evolution has endowed them. Frankly, I don't see any reason why they should have any say, whatsoever, in public discourse on matters of morals, ethics and science.
Posted by: Woody Tanaka | February 26, 2008 5:39 PM
Dave, science is only going to trample futher into the territory of the gods.
Evolution and stem cells is only a tiny part of the undermining that science is doing already. Everything from Astronomy to zoology goes against what religions want you to believe. The problem is people will still choose to believe their chosen religion over scientific evidence and that this opinion is more important than facts.
I think it will only be a matter of time before you yourself may come up against such issues and have to make not a moral choice but a choice about what you really, truly believe.
Posted by: Richard Eis | February 28, 2008 4:16 AM
I think its a leard habbit. Science and the American brand of evangalical or fundamentalist Christianity have so many seperate conflicts, they just start to see all science as The Enemy. Just to give some idea of the list of conflicts:
- Evolution
- Plate tectonics
- Carbon dating
- Stem cell therepy
- Embryology (Justifies abortion)
- Reproductive medicine (Contraception permits sin)
- Epidemiology (Promotes the use of contraception)
- Speed of light (Disproves young universe)
- Global warming (Creates political conflict)
- psychology (Denies the soul)
- Medicine (Denies the healing power of God)
- Neurology (Denies the soul)
Just a few examples. After a while they must all merge into one, and science in general becomes the enemy.
Posted by: Suricou Raven | February 28, 2008 5:20 AM
Just one quick question, Dave (or anyone else who wants to propose answers to this): what are the "seemingly irrational phobias" on the side of science? Or does "both sides" refer to some two other sides than religion and science?
Posted by: Opisthokont | February 28, 2008 7:02 AM
To a man of god the only seemingly irrational side of science would have to be the fact that science sees itself as having to be in conflict with religion. If someone is able to somehow reconcile a belief in both science and god, that would be their conclusion. They would say, why does their have to be a conflict between the two? I believe that there must be a conflict because science is destroying all the old reasons for belief. The more you learn about the real world the less you need to believe in god to explain things. The religious will not let go of their power without a fight. And they still have a considerable amount of power over the uninformed, and are trying to keep it that way, hence the attack on education in this country and around the world.
Posted by: Eric P | February 28, 2008 12:20 PM
I would be very interested in seeing the whole survey. Talk about framing issues . . . question order and question wording can make big differences in the results.
I find it hard to believe that religious Americans who are willing to use modern medicine and modern technology would balk at nanotech.
Posted by: Anna K | February 28, 2008 5:00 PM