Biblical literalism correlates with anti-science

[River Jordan]

Recently I read through the following paper: The Political Context of Science in the United States: Public Acceptance of Evidence-Based Policy and Science Funding (sorry, it's behind a pay wall). The gist of the paper is that the authors recognized the correlation between conservatism, religious belief, and overall distrust of science. But the authors dug deeper into the data and found something even more explanatory. They found that the primary predictor of a person being distrustful of science is Biblical literalism.

IOW, if you're a Biblical literalist (defined as agreeing with the statement "The Bible is the actual word of God and is to be taken literally, word for word"), it is extremely likely you also hold anti-science attitudes, and generally don't trust it. Also interestingly, the authors found a correlation with anti-science attitudes and the psychological trait of authoritarianism (described as "a tendency to see issues in sharply black-and white terms"). I'm sure that sounds familiar to many of you here. ;)

Finally, the authors also found that with such individuals, the more science they're exposed to, the more they distrust it. So if you're someone like me who defends science to fundamentalists, it's actually counter-productive to spend your time trying to explain the science! All you're doing is pushing them deeper and deeper into an anti-science mindset.

For me this research is extremely helpful and informative. I've always suspected that when a fundamentalist says something like "Well prove it then" or "Show me the data", they're not really asking in good faith. Instead of asking out of genuine interest and curiosity, it's more of an attempt to stump me (likely because they've been told by their anti-science sources that the data doesn't exist). That's why when I do produce the data, there's rarely (if ever) a genuine attempt by the fundamentalist to look it over and understand it. Instead, since it was always about trying to stump me, producing the data only generates more attempts to stump me.

So with all that in mind, I do plan on approaching my discussions of science here at CB a bit differently. We'll see how it goes. ^_^

 

[StanJ]

You see, here is the real problem.....taking a non-believers opinion over God's Word. The issue is NOT how literal one takes the Bible, it's how one understands the Bible IN context. That context does not come from a worldly POV, it comes from spiritual one. God sent His Holy Spirit to empower us and bring His word into focus. That you believe man's science and theory over God's supremacy is quite sad to say the least.

 

[River Jordan]

You see, here is the real problem.....taking a non-believers opinion over God's Word.

Why do you think of science as "opinions of non-believers"? You do know there are plenty of Christian scientists, right?

The issue is NOT how literal one takes the Bible, it's how one understands the Bible IN context. That context does not come from a worldly POV, it comes from spiritual one. God sent His Holy Spirit to empower us and bring His word into focus.

So you believe your interpretive abilities to be absolute and infallible?

That you believe man's science and theory over God's supremacy is quite sad to say the least.

From my POV, that you ignore the reality of God's creation and think yourself infallible is sad.

 

[lforrest]

What I don't see very often are people that say, "I don't know."

I don't know if the rapture is going to be pre-trib, post-trib, or pan-trib.
I don't know how creation can be 6K years old and carbon dating show things with an age > 50K years.
I don't know if man is contributing to the changing climate, or if there is merely a perturbation in the natural cycle.


I do know that God can be trusted, and therefore his word is trust worthy.
I do know that there is absolute truth, the only things that are subjective are our perceptions.
I do know that people have personal bias and agendas. No one is to be trusted in areas where they have a vested interest in the results.
I know that people invest much into their egos, and do not want to be wrong.

 

[River Jordan]

What I don't see very often are people that say, "I don't know."

I've always felt that if we do know something (or at least are extremely certain of it), then we have to be honest with ourselves, admit it, and adjust our thinking accordingly. What I see too often from fundamentalists is a reluctance to even consider the possibility that they might be wrong on some things. But I think that's a personality trait that's described in the OP, i.e., absolute black/white thinking where it's either "I'm completely right" or "I'm completely wrong".

I don't know if the rapture is going to be pre-trib, post-trib, or pan-trib.
I don't know how creation can be 6K years old and carbon dating show things with an age > 50K years.
I don't know if man is contributing to the changing climate, or if there is merely a perturbation in the natural cycle.

So with those last two, the question is....why don't you know?

I do know that God can be trusted, and therefore his word is trust worthy.
I do know that there is absolute truth, the only things that are subjective are our perceptions.

And that includes our ability to record, translate, interpret, and preserve God's word, correct?

I do know that people have personal bias and agendas. No one is to be trusted in areas where they have a vested interest in the results.
I know that people invest much into their egos, and do not want to be wrong.

Would that include people who's agenda and vested interests are to maintain particular interpretations of scripture?

 

[pom2014]

A cloud to ground stroke of lighting fuses nitrogen from the air and distributes a half kilogram of that element over a three meter area. That way the growing things are fertilised.

Now think how clever God is as a scientist that he could put into place a system he doesn't even have to manually operate that sustains his creation.

Science, to me, proves there is God.

 

[StanJ]

Why do you think of science as "opinions of non-believers"? You do know there are plenty of Christian scientists, right?

Well as much of the work in THIS area is done by non-believers, yes I do. Anyone who purports theory to be fact, in my book, is not a real scientist.

So you believe your interpretive abilities to be absolute and infallible?

So you also like to prevaricating about my WRITTEN responses?

From my POV, that you ignore the reality of God's creation and think yourself infallible is sad.

What's sad is trying to make your point by prevaricating. I readily see the REALITY of God's creation, just as His Word states. You and your ilk are the ones looking at it through eisegetical glasses.

 

[the stranger]

Have you not heard of answersingenesis? Google founders of science. Google science in the bible. Science 'facts' have a dark history of changing, though not early on when the bible was its foundation. Science 'fact' was the world was flat and those who opposed based on scripture were thought of as stupid and trouble makers. I would encourage you to try a study from a different angle. Trust me, i have done this. True science facts will never go against the bible. That my friend is beyond 'scientific' fact. :-)

 

[StanJ]

Have you not heard of answersingenesis? Google founders of science. Google science in the bible. Science 'facts' have a dark history of changing, though not early on when the bible was its foundation. Science 'fact' was the world was flat and those who opposed based on scripture were thought of as stupid and trouble makers. I would encourage you to try a study from a different angle. Trust me, i have done this. True science facts will never go against the bible. That my friend is beyond 'scientific' fact. :-)

Amen!

 

[justaname]

I tend to agree with the OP. I do know from witnessing discussions RJ has many who posses opposing views tend to get ugly in their responses.

I have also viewed this topic from both sides, and have witnessed an almost paranoid view of science along with what I perceive as blatant tampering of scientific data or creating hoaxes to support a theory or to gain recognition. History proves man is not perfect in any respect, yet I know God to be perfect, so where is the balance?

Billions of years...maybe but I am not convinced.
Thousands of years...maybe but my interpretation is fallible.
Either way my faith is not dependent.

In any case even for this particular study those collecting the data, the standard for conducting the study, the interpreter of the data, and the author of the paper all have their own bias. Perhaps if conducted from a different staff and control group the opinions of the interpreters may be different.

It is not that I don't trust the science, it is the men and women behind the science I don't hang my hat on. Yes there are many more cases where integrity is the prevailing character trait of the scientist, yet I see worldview within interpretation of data and fallen humanity attempting to understand a divine creation.

Philosophically Kant tells us the only thing we can know is that we exist, and this only for myself...that means the rest is faith.

 

[lforrest]

I've always felt that if we do know something (or at least are extremely certain of it), then we have to be honest with ourselves, admit it, and adjust our thinking accordingly. What I see too often from fundamentalists is a reluctance to even consider the possibility that they might be wrong on some things. But I think that's a personality trait that's described in the OP, i.e., absolute black/white thinking where it's either "I'm completely right" or "I'm completely wrong".
I see what you mean. People make assumptions all the time, it is unavoidable. The intellectually honest thing to do is to always keep track of your assumptions and do not present them as fact. Build trust in your assumptions with evidence. I see far too often, be it in some off the wall scriptural interpretation, or some biased news report. Assumptions are presented as fact, and it seems they can't even recognize what they are doing.

So with those last two, the question is....why don't you know?
The waters have been muddied by conflicting evidence, and personal bias. Good luck trying to find out the truth about a politicized issue: "Where there is shouting, there is no true knowledge"
For example, I was convicted by the Lord for teaching my false assumption that the days of creation are not literal days, as the Hebrew translation for Yom can mean a time.


And that includes our ability to record, translate, interpret, and preserve God's word, correct?
There is personal evidence for the Holy Spirit. He would ensure a translation is done in earnest. But caution is necessary, because many false prophets have their own interpretations and agendas.


Would that include people who's agenda and vested interests are to maintain particular interpretations of scripture?
Yes. It is good to test the interpretations of scripture.

 

[pom2014]

Stranger.

No scientist ever believed the world was flat.

The flat earth was invented by the American author Washington Irving for his biography of Christopher Columbus.

No one believed it was flat. Every sailor knew, every Bible scholar knew. Ptolemy had maps that showed it to be true in the library at Alexandria.

The world was round. So please don't blame science for a myth perpetuated by poorly educated people.

 

[StanJ]

In any case even for this particular study those collecting the data, the standard for conducting the study, the interpreter of the data, and the author of the paper all have their own bias. Perhaps if conducted from a different staff and control group the opinions of the interpreters may be different.
It is not that I don't trust the science, it is the men and women behind the science I don't hang my hat on. Yes there are many more cases where integrity is the prevailing character trait of the scientist, yet I see worldview within interpretation of data and fallen humanity attempting to understand a divine creation.
Philosophically Kant tells us the only thing we can know is that we exist, and this only for myself...that means the rest is faith.

I agree with your perspective here.

 

[Wormwood]

The difference between early scientists and the predominant scientific worldview today is that early scientists...and many Christian scientists today...see their work as exploring and understanding the mind and handiwork of God. Their view was that things could be discovered because they were created by a designer who wanted to be understood and gave us intellects to see his beautiful work and divine power. Theology was seen as an umbrella and every other discipline of study was under that overarching understanding.

Today, theology has been pushed in a corner and God has become an optional, and often viewed as an ignorant concept that is opposed to discovery and exploration. The early Christian scientists who made some of the greatest scientific discoveries must be rolling in their graves. The idea that man operates by an unaided universal reason, is not only religious, but is without any scientific basis. The idea that the aim is to find how things came about "naturally" (which now means, apart from any design or mind) is not a scientific necessity, but is one that is continually rammed down people's throats. We think we have power over the creation because we can label things, learn how they work and put them under a microscope to be categorized and filed. The truth is our intellects and each breath is a gift and all of creation is an expression of God.

A beetle does not exists in and of itself. It is an expression of the mind of God, and the more we learn of its intricacy and incredible functions should draw us closer to God. Not only that, but it exists each moment because the word of God and power of God holds it together as with every other molecule in all of creation. The ultimate goal of science and every other field of study should be worship. When people miss that, they miss everything.

The goal should not be to make the Bible-thumper less anti-science. It should be to stop pretending that these two areas of study are opposing or conflicting. You cant blame religious people for being defensive when the large majority of today's scientific community fail to glorify God for the beauty and design and instead pretends "God" is nothing but a plea to ignorance and a clinging to "gaps." "God did it" is not a cop out. Science should be about praising God for how he did it, and not a means of showing God had nothing to do with it but it was all "natural." If creation is from the hand of God and is sustained by God, and our means to contemplate its order and complexity is a gift of God...then "natural" takes on a whole new meaning.

 

[StanJ]

Well put WW, and very astute. The fact is today those that hold even the simple view of "intelligent design", are castigated and black balled by the main scientific & academic communities.

 

[the stranger]

Wormwood, good post. Pom2014. based on my research their is clear evidence of many-leaned people that believed in a flat earth. I will list the names upon request. However, it was hotly debated for too many years to know and is not believed to be the majority belief by the days of Columbus. There is truly a wide dose of opinion out their concerning places, times, and believes on such but please do note it was more believed than you may want to believe and many learned people was in the flat earth group.

 

[aspen]

Hi River - I have experienced the results of the hypothesis of the researchers. Fundamentalism is a closed and self fulfilling belief system. Perpetualing it is consistent with tribalism / fan-ism. Opposition fuels martyrism.

The only hope we have is the narrow road of Christ which destroys dualism with love

 

[HammerStone]

The Bible is the actual word of God and is to be taken literally, word for word

I'd love to see the definition of "taken literally." That phrase means a hundred different exegetical arguments to one hundred different people.

For me this research is extremely helpful and informative. I've always suspected that when a fundamentalist says something like "Well prove it then" or "Show me the data", they're not really asking in good faith. Instead of asking out of genuine interest and curiosity, it's more of an attempt to stump me (likely because they've been told by their anti-science sources that the data doesn't exist). That's why when I do produce the data, there's rarely (if ever) a genuine attempt by the fundamentalist to look it over and understand it. Instead, since it was always about trying to stump me, producing the data only generates more attempts to stump me.

Interesting, so you weren't aware of confirmation bias?

I'm glad you were able to find so much from this ground-breaking study! Well done!

 

[StanJ]

Sadly this is quite an issue with some who don't really understand that language cannot always be "literally" translated. The structure and syntax is often different, and needs to be handled by reputable scholars. When I say reputable, I mean just that, those who have a good reputation with their peers.
I find it really helps me to be bilingual, as my French teaches me I cannot translate it word-for-word into English, and vice versa.

 

[HammerStone]

Annnnd, depending upon what your epistemology permits, this is either one heck of a coincidence, or one heck of a divine intervention. This article is why I love Patheos. (Well, perhaps that and the little detail that a family member is an Editor there...)

This blog entry started out with an explanation on why political conservatives and political progressives do not tend to have faith in scientific findings that go against their political perspectives. Obviously pure confirmation bias on the part of those conservatives and progressives is a factor. Ironically, confirmation bias among academics may also play a role in the lack of scientific faith as well. Since conservatives and progressives become very skeptical of scientists who conduct research that works against their political interest, they are likely to observe elements of confirmation bias among those scientists, which may contribute to their lack of faith. Perhaps the main reason why academics should consider dealing with confirmation bias in their own ranks is that it may help them win over those who have lost their scientific faith.

Read more: http://www.patheos.com/blogs/blackwhiteandgray/2015/03/confirmation-bias-everybodys-problem/#ixzz3UHIPVtfi

And, it looks like cookies went awry and lost the remainder of my post! So here we go again!

Sadly this is quite an issue with some who don't really understand that language cannot always be "literally" translated. The structure and syntax is often different, and needs to be handled by reputable scholars. When I say reputable, I mean just that, those who have a good reputation with their peers.
I find it really helps me to be bilingual, as my French teaches me I cannot translate it word-for-word into English, and vice versa.

Agreed. Your are a blessed man to be in a country/location that sort of compels you to learn to be bilingual. This is something that I wish the US education system had maybe compelled me a bit more when I was younger to recognize the value of knowing another language. I passed all my Spanish courses with good grades, but that didn't translate into much fluency. It's still on my list of "nice things to have" and maybe when the kids get a little older I can gain fluency with the right circumstances. I took a Linguistics class as part of my English requirement, and man I struggled with it but found the interrelationships of language quite fascinating.

I find it a bit academically sloppy, though to employ the term "literal." I know it's easy red meat and usually is the bedfellow of words like fundamentalist, but employing the word literal means a host of different things to a host of different people. For some, it means the dragon of Revelation is a real dragon, for others, literal would mean simply that it's clearly a literary device to convey a point. I would say this could lead to a flawed premise.

For example, I am an oddball in this apparently in that I have subscriptions to both the Smithsonian and Christianity Today. For those that know me, being an oddball is not new, but hey...

I guess where I see this study potentially going awry - and I cannot fairly judge this behind a paywall - is in terms employed. For instance, what does distrust mean? I am sure the term is defined in the study, but distrust could mean simple skepticism to outright denial. I am not here to deny a portion of Christianity will deny valid science, but neither am I here to submit to a sort of technocratic submission to whatever empirical data says at every turn. Christianity says we are more than our material composition, so it says things that empirical data won't necessarily touch.

Further, even though science in the macro sense is viewed as apolitical, all of these groups have a political interest in continued funding. We trust that these biases are accounted for an controlled, but let's not deny confirmation bias doesn't exist for all. It's easier to drum up support when you're the underdog and need it. I am not 100% convinced that in a nation where we love our technology that we have quite such an anti-science mindset as is sometime verbalized.

Even with the anti-vax movement (which contains a surprising atheist element), most Christians still trust doctors for their knowledge and medical care, all built on science. I wonder aloud how much is an overcommitment verbalized in a poll or questionnaire, but might be lesser in actual deed?