Sociologist identifies science-oriented religious group in US politics

[rug]

UWM sociologist Timothy O’Brien has been studying the intersection of science and religion in U.S. politics. Credit: UWM Photo/Elora Hennessey

September 13, 2016
by Sarah Vickery

Science and religion have been butting heads since the days of Copernicus and Galileo, and it seems especially true in American politics. The conservative right tends to be more religious, while the liberal left tends to embrace science.

However, said University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee sociologist Timothy O'Brien, there's a third group out there – a portion of the American population that is both religious and scientifically literate. He explores the "post-seculars," as he has dubbed them, in his recent paper "A Nation Divided: Science, Religion, and Public Opinion in the United States," published in Socius: Sociological Research for a Dynamic World.

"We were looking at the assumption that science and religion are conflicting sources of knowledge," O'Brien said. "There is this assumption in the popular imagination that if you're scientifically oriented you can't be religious, and if you're religious you can't be scientifically oriented. What was found was that it is true to some extent. We found three big groups of Americans based on their attitudes about science, their knowledge about science, and their attitudes about religion."

O'Brien and coauthor Shiri Noy of the University of Wyoming, Laramie, looked at publicly available survey data and sorted respondents into three categories: The "moderns," those most familiar with and favorable toward science; the "traditionals," the most religiously devout and the least familiar with science; and the post-seculars, whose worldviews blend elements of both science and religion.

http://phys.org/news/2016-09-sociologist-science-oriented-religious-group-politics.html#jCp

http://srd.sagepub.com/content/2/2378023116651876.full.pdf+html

[muriel_volestrangler]

1. "religious and scientifically literate"="rejects scientific accounts of evolution and the big bang"

From the paper:

In a 2015 American Sociological Review article, we found
that the U.S. public is marked by three broad perspectives on
science and religion: a traditional one, which holds religion
in relatively high and science in relatively low esteem; a
modern one, with the opposite point of view; and a postsecular
one, which is knowledgeable about and appreciative of
science but which is religiously devout and which rejects
mainstream scientific accounts of evolution and the big bang
(O’Brien and Noy 2015). Moreover, we found that these
worldviews correspond to attitudes about controversies
related to science and religion, such as stem cell research,
independently of other antecedents of public opinion, including
race, socioeconomic status, gender, and political ideology.
An important implication of this and other recent
research is that the science-religion boundary is an area of
cultural rather than epistemological conflict (Baker 2012;
Evans 2013; Evans and Evans 2008; Johnson, Scheitle, and
Ecklund 2015). This suggests that perspectives on science
and religion may be associated with deeper divides in public
opinion. As central institutions in American public life, elites
often invoke scientific and religious knowledge and authority
in public controversies. Consequently, individuals’ views
of science and religion may correspond to their sociopolitical
attitudes in far-reaching ways. However, little research to
date has examined how public orientations toward scientific
and religious understandings fit into American political culture
more broadly.

I'd question whether someone who rejects evolution can be called 'scientifically literate'. Or the scientific account of the big bang, for that matter (if they say yes, it all happened like you say, but God must have caused it somehow, then they might get away with it, but if it's "no, God did decree that the Earth would form", that's not scientifically literate).

[rug]

2. That depends on the "mainstream scientific accounts" being presented.

If the current theories are then used as proof that there is no god(s), then of course they would be rejected (although no credible scientist would assert there is a one single experiment that exists to destroy the god hypothesis).

To be scientifically literate simply means one understands the principles and hypotheses and data being presented; it does not mean one accepts the conclusions. Likewise, the definition of religious literacy, minus the data.

The only thing more frustrating than speaking to a science illiterate is speaking to a religion illiterate.

[muriel_volestrangler]

3. Looking at the paper, it appears to mean answering 'false' to these 2 questions:

"The universe began with huge explosion"
"Human beings developed from earlier species of animals"
(Table A1, p.13)
So, yes, I'll call people who say 'false' to those "scientifically illiterate". The questions don't specify if a god was involved in causing the events.

[rug]

4. Technically, that is not a correct statement.

There was an immense and instantaneous expansion, not an explosion, according to current theory.

[muriel_volestrangler]

5. But I doubt very many people were making that distinction, which is debatable

It was an expansion with an extremely high temperature. To nearly everyone, that is an 'explosion', even if it did not involve the chemical or nuclear reactions we associate with an explosion. Combined with the denial of the evolution of humans from animals, and the 0% of 'postsecular people' saying the Bible is a collection of myths and fables (while 12% of the 'traditionals' said that), it seems clear 'postsecular' means "understands science, but rejects it when it shows their chosen religious book to be factually wrong".

[rug]

6. That is an assumption that can not be made given the limited parameters of the survey.

You can certainly repeat your opinion again but it is beyond the data at hand.

[muriel_volestrangler]

8. Meh - it's an assumption that 99% of people will make

Get real - few people quibble over the definition of 'explosion' like that, and those that do are not the people who then deny humans evolved from animals.

[rug]

9. Literacy is literacy.

Facts are facts.

Opinions are opinions.

And there's another assumption in your title.

[Brettongarcia]

7. Some science is mainstream because the vast bulk of data points in one direction

So for example,.an old earth, and chemistry, and evolution both,.dovetail. Geology and chemistry and material science all suggest that rocks, mineral formations, take millions of years to form. And the fossil record confirms bio evolution over millions of years too.

Anything other than that isn't just "alternative" science; it's nonsense, wishful thinking, science fiction, that is contradicted, unsupported by, the vast bulk of evidence.

Creation Science is a dangerous and dishonest attempt to grossly twist, bend, and misuse real science, to match extravagant dreams and delusions.