Sunday and The Reveres have discharged their pastoral obligation to do a Freethinker Sermonette but there is other news on the religion front so we'll do a religious twofer. We've already discussed the nomination of Francis Collins to be NIH Director a couple of times (here, here and here; one post was linked in a Wall Street Journal online column by Steven Waldman, much to our surprise). Collins has religious beliefs that are quite different than most scientists because he has them at all. Just how different that is was revealed by a recent Pew Poll on public views of science, one section of which looked at differences between scientists and non-scientists regarding belief:
The United States is a highly religious nation, especially by comparison with most Western industrialized democracies. Most Americans profess a belief in God (83%), and 82% are affiliated with a religious tradition. Scientists are different. Just a third (33%) say they believe in God, while 18% say they believe in a universal spirit or higher power and 41% say they don’t believe in either. Just less than half of the scientists interviewed (48%) say they have a religious affiliation, while as many (48%) say they are not affiliated with a religious tradition. (Summary of Pew Report)
Scientists who admit to a religious affiliation cleave to about the same ratio of Protestants to Catholics as the general population (two to one) but there are more proportionately more Jews (8% vs, 2%). Proportions aside, there are dramatically fewer who identify with a religious sect than among the general public. The unaffiliated scientist group is about evenly distributed between "nothing in particular" and atheist, with agnostic the least favored. I guess for a scientist to say he or she doesn't know if there is a god or not is like being agnostic about anything else about which there is no evidence: not popular. Makes sense. What was somewhat surprising was differences by age, with Pew reporting that younger scientists were much more likely to believe in a god than older ones. Belief in a god was most prevalent among chemists. Weird.
On the political front, most scientists polled were aware of charges the bush administration meddled in science policy and most of them thought it was both true and worse than other administrations. Only a minority of the public (28%) had heard this, although most of them believed it was true, only one in six thought they were worse than previous administrations. Given the difference, it isn't surprising most scientists are Democrats (55%) or independents (32%) while only 6% identify as Republicans. If you count those among the independents who say they "lean Democrat", the figures go up to 81% versus 12% (counting those independents who "lean Republican"). The comparable figures for the general public are 52% versus 35%. Interestingly, 47% of scientists who work for private industry also call themselves Democrats.
I think Republicans have lost the scientist vote. Or the godless vote. Or the godless scientist vote. And given how the Christian Hard Right feels about Francis Collins, even the non-crazy benighted scientist vote.
- Log in to post comments
The GOP didn't "lose" the godless vote or the scientist vote, any more than they "lost" the gay vote. The modern GOP has targeted all these groups as political scapegoats. They drove off those voters, as purposely as any political party can.
If English isn't your native language, perhaps that would explain why throughout your essay you use the word "affiliation" when, clearly, the proper term is "affliction".
Matt: Comment?
I'm not surprised that chemists are the most afflicted by superstition. Chemistry has as many weird mind-warping observations as physics, but generally slightly less faith/facility in math to explain them. Hence a greater reliance on 'magic'--put these two things together in the black box and out comes this other thing, by magic (mechanism unknown).
But, it happens reliably enough to build technology on it, so there's not so much incentive to fund research into what's in the box.
Physics deals with the origins of the Universe: obvious God implications. Biology deals with the origin of species: obvious God implications. Chemistry deals (as per comment # 4) with "add this to that and shake it & out comes some stuff". God implications not so clear, so you wouldn't be so crippled in that discipline by clinging to some weird religious views.
I love your description of chemistry, Oz. :D
Dude, Republicans have lost *every* vote other than the sick-fuck racist, misogynist, theocratic, ignorant dumb-fuck vote, and a smattering of oligarchs, the vast majority of whom have jumped ship for the Democratic Party.
CPP
That's still 47% of voters, apparently.
"I guess for a scientist to say he or she doesn't know if there is a god or not is like being agnostic about anything else about which there is no evidence: not popular. Makes sense."
Yeah, as much sense as in actually believing in the Many Worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics.
When something can not be tested or proven, and for scientists who understand that the absence of evidence is not disproof, agnosticism makes perfect sense, while belief one way or the other does not. Einstein believed in Spinoza's God, but I guess he did not care about the lack of evidence or popularity.
Maybe when scientists can get a handle on consciousness and free will, and a reasonable explanation for this universe and life, their opinions on spiritual matters might be more meaningful.
But 51% still believe in God or a higher power so you can not claim an atheistic consensus among scientists, despite it's supposed popularity.
What's equally bad, or worse, for the "accomodationist" view of the world is an older poll I saw on the proportion of nonbelievers and believers among the national academy of science. It's members were about 90% non-religious on average, I think 96% for biology, 94 for physics, and a shocking 75% for math. I don't remember the others, but they were in the 90 range, although bio was highest.
So if we can assume that NAS scientists are on average better scientists then non NAS scientists, than being non-religious not only correlates with being a scientists, but with being a good scientist, and very strongly.
Coriolois: NAS members are certainly older on avg. than other scientists, which in the Pew data also correlates with more unbelief (strangely). I gues it is the average US citizen that's the weird one, not the scientists, who are more like European lay people.
I don't think it's actually that strange, many people don't think much about this issue while they are young - too many other things on our minds hehe. I have talked to many grad students like myself who simply have no great interest in the issue, one way or another and just follow their family tradition. I think most older scientists on the other hand have thought about it somewhat more, and the results are obvious.
However, I don't think you can look at age as the reason for the much higher degree of non-belief among NAS members. Among scientists generally, that's still 72% among 65+ year olds, whereas for the NAS scientists it was 92% or so.
Here is a link to a nature letter about the study I was talking about, I had forgotten that it actually shows the growing disbelief over the past century or so:
http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/news/file002.html
This is the first time Reveres that I will espress myself on this issue in my Life. As a pro-active in InterFaith Movement as a First Nation Leader, a Laique Franciscan and a Sikh I have a lot to say but neer dared to because my positions in the marges might not be good to espress, but from my correspondances on the states of affairs in many continents made me do it and what can I say Que Sera, Sera, as always.
Religions IMO after loosing their Facist powers to Politicals still has managed to influenced the politics in many ways until Science rose out of the blue and began to be used by the politics to become the instruments of political powers, we all know where that lead too, first to biological weapons since so many centuries, then to the military industrial complex that lead to the A bomb and today to even worst weapons that most do not know the existence of.
What happened to the scinetific community to become the instrument of Mass destruction and mass control (modern slaverism). Scientific have avoid since two centuries considering their facist contributions that opress, generate sufferings and killed the political ennemies of whom they served.
The Scientific Community did never had the guts to create a new power based on Ethics pretexing that belong to philosophy and/or that this was out of their powers.
Look straight to the facts, scientifics becames and still are good Nazis just following the rules, the orders, the protocols, etc...
Because scientific real True Pharisees (because that's what they are) Modern Pharesees that is (separate from all other class), with their own languages above the understanding of the Gentiles, they have put our specy to the verge of extension.
Do I still believe that Scientifics can become a power of their own?...
As usual I will say yes, I do, Scientific cannot denied that Creative Forces have generated what scientists perceived without becoming denyist of the blunt reality.
Today in 2009, with boots on the ground as an American Autochtones, with memory still active, and realism capacity, I SEE NO ALTERNATIVE THAT SCIENTIST MUST BECOME THE DIPLOMATS OF THE SURVIVAL OF NATURE, HUMANS AND SOCIETIES.
But most Scientist have been wisely put by politics prisonners of researchs, subsidies, etc...
Maybe Public Health Scientists because they reach Ethical Principles of Religious, Economical Dynamics of Politicians, Social Imperatives of Military can make a change.
By the Nature of the notion of Public Health, the Scientists investing themselves into this field are probably the sole Science Field that can gradually oriented Politics, Religious, Economicals and Ecologicals of our Future.
They must regroup, adopt the evident Agendas of Public Health and Welfare, but nor subsedized first by Economical powers, not by GovernMental Powers and nor by Religious Powers.
Public Health Scientist IMO have the Future of Mankind as an Agenda.
Will they succeed in this task, it belongs to them to gathered and elaborate an Agenda and get no-bounding conditions from volontary contributors.
How are you gonna make it when all the above Powers keep you busy in their hasty and urgent agendas.
In fact what I am telling all Public Health Scientists you are the SOle one who can make a significant change as the artists did in the Renaissance.
I Pray that you succed, I work that you succeeed and I slaim loud and clear that you are the narrow Path that will free us at last from all usurpator, but you all need Diplomacy course 101 and a great project managing.
May all creative forces supported all of us.
Snowy Owl