These charts finally explain where science denial comes from

[cbayer]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2014/11/11/whats-a-bigger-driver-of-science-denial-politics-or-religion/

By Chris Mooney November 11 at 10:10 AM


Credit: Bigstock

In the past week, a debate has been building surrounding this provocative paper, which concludes that religious belief, rather than political ideology, better explains why some people resist the science on issues like climate change, evolution, and stem cell research. "Partisan identification is not generally predictive of attitudes toward contested scientific issues," the paper asserts.

Is that really right? I have to say, I'm pretty skeptical.

First, let's concede the obvious: The rejection of evolution is deeply intertwined with certain religious beliefs. The same goes for embryonic stem cell research, where resistance is wrapped up with religiously grounded views about the sanctity of life.

But at the same time, we also know that these causes tend to be taken up on the religious right, not the religious left. And as for climate change? While there are some hints of a religious component to climate science denial -- for instance, if you think we live in the "end times," you really have no reason to worry about the planet -- the vast bulk of research concurs that this phenomenon is strongly tied to conservative economic beliefs, not religious ones.

more at link

[rug]

1. Good article.

While there are some hints of a religious component to climate science denial -- for instance, if you think we live in the "end times," you really have no reason to worry about the planet -- the vast bulk of research concurs that this phenomenon is strongly tied to conservative economic beliefs, not religious ones.

Occam is right again. It will cost corporations fortunes to reverse climate change.

[cbayer]

2. I have long thought that political ideology might play a greater role than

religious belief when it comes to science denial.

While not definitive, this is some really interesting data.

[rug]

3. Money and power trump everything and motivate all things.

[cbayer]

4. Hence Occam's razor.

As someone recently said, people bring their ethics to their religion. They don't derive them from it.

I think they also bring their political ideology.

[okasha]

5. Radix malorum cupiditas est.

Greed poisons everything. Together we can find the cure.

[Jim__]

7. The data is sliced differently on "the charts" and "the paper."

The chart distinguishes low religiosity from high religiosity, but not within religion; and it gives us gradations across the liberal/conservative spectrum:

[center][/center]

The paper distinguishes between certain religions, and only a high-level political distinction between Democrat and Republican - I could not find a description for the Ideology row on this chart, which is interesting since that row is significant all the way across. From Table 3 of the paper:

[center][/center]

It would be interesting to see a report with a finer granularity, the political granularity from the chart and the religious granulartiy from the paper. I'd also like to see a breakdown on some other issues, for example skepticism about: GMOs, reported results from pharmaceutical tests, and compulsory vaccination laws.

The conclusion of the article in the Post seems to have it right:

In light of this, it really doesn't make much sense to assert the power of one over the other.

[cbayer]

10. I would also like to see more breakdown, but this preliminary assessment is interesting.

I think ideology refers to political ideology and correlates with the categories at the bottom of the first graph you posted here.

From the original paper:

We also estimate the effects of 7-point ideological self-placement scale, running from “extremely liberal” to “extremely conservative.”

[trotsky]

8. Bad headline.

It's only on some issues. As the article also points out, the correlation of science denial and religious belief is quite strong in other areas. Lo and behold, on issues like climate change where big business has a stake in the issue, it ties tightly to political AND religious belief, since right-wingers tend to be more religious.

Thanks for posting this, cbayer. If definitely confirms what many of us have been saying a long time, that religious belief plays a significant role when it comes to people's stances on issues.

[rug]

9. Gee, I never saw you use the adjectibe "significant" before the noun "role".

You usually leave it unmodified or use a more definite adjective.

[Warren Stupidity]

11. "there are some hints of a religious component to climate science denial "

uh, what the fuck? Does the author live in a bubble someplace? Look up Dominion Theology. Oh never mind here is Ricky Santorum frothing it for you:

We were put on this Earth as creatures of God to have dominion over the Earth … for our benefit not for the Earth's benefit.

http://www.coloradoindependent.com/111924/santorum-and-gingrich-dismiss-climate-change-vow-to-dismantle-the-epa

Google the Cornwall Alliance. Oh never mind, I'll do it for you:

The Cornwall Alliance is led by E. Calvin Beisner, who believes that since God granted humans “dominion” over the earth, humans have a right to exploit all natural resources. As Randall Balmer writes in Thy Kingdom Come, Beisner “asserts that God has placed all of nature at the disposal of humanity.” Balmer quotes Beisner’s own summary of his dominion theology: “All of our acquisitive activities should be undertaken with the purpose of extending godly rule, or dominion.” As Balmer notes, “the combination of dominion theology from the Religious Right and the wise use ideology of corporate and business interests has created a powerful coalition to oppose environmental protection.”

http://www.pfaw.org/rww-in-focus/the-green-dragon-slayers-how-the-religious-right-and-the-corporate-right-are-joining-fo