Scientists are god-less liberals

Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

mook

The 2018-19 season was the best I've seen
Joined
Sep 16, 2008
Messages
8,309
Likes
3,944
Points
113
As Stephen Colbert once said, "Reality has a well-known liberal bias." Turns out those who study reality, aka, scientists, do too:

http://people-press.org/report/?pageid=1549

Most Americans do not see scientists as a group as particularly liberal or conservative. Nearly two-thirds of Americans (64%) say they think of scientists as “neither in particular”; 20% see them as politically liberal and 9% say they are politically conservative.

In contrast, most scientists (56%) perceive the scientific community as politically liberal; just 2% think scientists are politically conservative. About four-in-ten scientists (42%) concur with the majority public view that scientists, as a group, are neither in particular.

The scientists’ belief that the scientific community is politically liberal is largely accurate. Slightly more than half of scientists (52%) describe their own political views as liberal, including 14% who describe themselves as very liberal. Among the general public, 20% describe themselves as liberal, with just 5% calling themselves very liberal.

Most scientists identify as Democrats (55%), while 32% identify as independents and just 6% say they are Republicans. When the leanings of independents are considered, fully 81% identify as Democrats or lean to the Democratic Party, compared with 12% who either identify as Republicans or lean toward the GOP. Among the public, there are far fewer self-described Democrats (35%) and far more Republicans (23%). Overall, 52% of the public identifies as Democratic or leans Democratic, while 35% identifies as Republican or leans Republican.

Majorities of scientists working in academia (60%), for non-profits (55%) and in government (52%) call themselves Democrats, as do nearly half of those working in private industry (47%).
....
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.
On evolution:
A majority of the public (61%) says that human and other living things have evolved over time, though when probed only about a third (32%) say this evolution is “due to natural processes such as natural selection” while 22% say “a supreme being guided the evolution of living things for the purpose of creating humans and other life in the form it exists today.” Another 31% reject evolution and say that “humans and other living things have existed in their present form since the beginning of time.”

Nearly all scientists (97%) say humans and other living things have evolved over time – 87% say evolution is due to natural processes, such as natural selection. The dominant position among scientists – that living things have evolved due to natural processes – is shared by only about third (32%) of the public.
On climate change:
By contrast, 84% of scientists say the earth is warming because of human activity. Scientists also are far more likely than the public to regard global warming as a very serious problem: 70% express this view, compared with 47% of the public. Public attitudes about whether global warming represents a serious problem have changed little in recent years.
 
It's very complex. They make a lot of sense but I really have a hard time believing the big bang theory. I also don't believe in organized religion. I'm stuck in the middle.
 
Thanks for those numbers, mook. As an engineer with a pretty decent science background, it makes me pause a bit.

One of the hypotheses that I've developed since becoming a Christian that's somewhat related to this is that many scientists/researchers are pretty intelligent folks, and have been accustomed to being told that their entire lives. It lends itself very easily to a worldview where we control our lives and actions through our industry and intelligence, and you can think through anything. It doesn't lend itself to a religio-spiritual worldview where you believe that an Intelligent Imaginary Friend created the earth (whether in 6 days or 5B years) and we exist to glorify the IIF and enjoy/be stewards of that creation. It's one of the struggles I've gone/am going through personally.
 
How did they define "Scientist?"

Results for the scientist survey are based on 2,533 online interviews conducted from May 1 to June 14, 2009 with members of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), under the direction of Princeton Survey Research Associates International. A sample of 9,998 members was drawn from the AAAS membership list excluding those who were not based in the United States or whose membership type identified them as primary or secondary-level educators.

Founded in 1848, AAAS is the world’s largest general scientific society, and includes members representing all scientific fields. AAAS publishes Science, one of the most widely circulated peer-reviewed scientific journals in the world. Membership in AAAS is open to all.

barfo
 
I'm assuming that this poll was on social issues, not economic ones. Not believing in God doesn't mean you don't believe in a free market.
 
So anyone can join? Sort of like the Unitarian Church?

Yep. Not sure what effect that has on the results - certainly there must be some non-scientists who sign up for AAAS membership. No idea how many.

barfo
 
I'm assuming that this poll was on social issues, not economic ones. Not believing in God doesn't mean you don't believe in a free market.

Doesn't seem to discuss economic issues much. Although scientific funding, stem cell research and climate change certainly have economic aspects.
 
Yep. Not sure what effect that has on the results - certainly there must be some non-scientists who sign up for AAAS membership. No idea how many.

barfo

Nor am I. I wonder if Al Gore is a member...
 
Ben Franklin didn't invent electricity, I invented electricity.
 
Nor am I. I wonder if Al Gore is a member...

He is a member of the other AAAS (American Academy of Arts and Sciences), don't know about this AAAS.

barfo
 
Yes! He's listed under "the inventor of the internet".

I don't know why this stupid claim persists.

From Snopes.com:
http://www.snopes.com/quotes/internet.asp
Claim: Vice-President Al Gore claimed that he "invented" the Internet.
Status: False.

Origins: Despite the derisive references that continue even today, Al Gore did not claim he "invented" the Internet, nor did he say anything that could reasonably be interpreted that way. The "Al Gore said he 'invented' the Internet" put-downs were misleading, out-of-context distortions of something he said during an interview with Wolf Blitzer on CNN's "Late Edition" program on 9 March 1999. When asked to describe what distinguished him from his challenger for the Democratic presidential nomination, Senator Bill Bradley of New Jersey, Gore replied (in part):During my service in the United States Congress, I took the initiative in creating the Internet. I took the initiative in moving forward a whole range of initiatives that have proven to be important to our country's economic growth and environmental protection, improvements in our educational system. Clearly, although Gore's phrasing might have been a bit clumsy (and perhaps self-serving), he was not claiming that he "invented" the Internet (in the sense of having designed or implemented it), but that he was responsible, in an economic and legislative sense, for fostering the development the technology that we now know as the Internet. To claim that Gore was seriously trying to take credit for the "invention" of the Internet is, frankly, just silly political posturing that arose out of a close presidential campaign. Gore never used the word "invent," and the words "create" and "invent" have distinctly different meanings — the former is used in the sense of "to bring about" or "to bring into existence" while the latter is generally used to signify the first instance of someone's thinking up or implementing an idea. (To those who say the words "create" and "invent" mean exactly the same thing, we have to ask why, then, the media overwhelmingly and consistently cited Gore as having claimed he "invented" the Internet, even though he never used that word, and transcripts of what he actually said were readily available.)If President Eisenhower had said in the mid-1960s that he, while president, "created" the Interstate Highway System, we would not have seen dozens and dozens of editorials lampooning him for claiming he "invented" the concept of highways or implying that he personally went out and dug ditches across the country to help build the roadway. Everyone would have understood that Ike meant he was a driving force behind the legislation that created the highway system, and this was the very same concept Al Gore was expressing about himself with his Internet statement. Whether Gore's statement that he "took the initiative in creating the Internet" is justified is a subject of debate. Any statement about the "creation" or "beginning" of the Internet is difficult to evaluate, because the Internet is not a homogenous entity (it's a collection of computers, networks, protocols, standards, and application programs), nor did it all spring into being at once (the components that comprise the Internet were developed in various places at different times and are continuously being modified, improved, and expanded). A spirited defense of Gore's claim by Vint Cerf (often referred to as the "father of the Internet") notes "that as a Senator and now as Vice President, Gore has made it a point to be as well-informed as possible on technology and issues that surround it," although many of the components of today's Internet came into being well before Gore's first term in Congress began in 1977. It is true, though, that Gore was popularizing the term "information superhighway" in the early 1990s (although he did not, as is often claimed by others, coin the phrase himself) when few people outside academia or the computer/defense industries had heard of the Internet, and he sponsored the 1988 National High-Performance Computer Act (which established a national computing plan and helped link universities and libraries via a shared network) and cosponsored the Information Infrastructure and Technology Act of 1992 (which opened the Internet to commercial traffic).In May 2005, the organizers of the Webby Awards for online achievements honored Al Gore with a lifetime achievement award for three decades of contributions to the Internet. "He is indeed due some thanks and consideration for his early contributions," said Vint Cerf.
 
Clearly, although Gore's phrasing might have been a bit clumsy (and perhaps self-serving), he was not claiming that he "invented" the Internet (in the sense of having designed or implemented it), but that he was responsible, in an economic and legislative sense, for fostering the development the technology that we now know as the Internet. To claim that Gore was seriously trying to take credit for the "invention" of the Internet is, frankly, just silly political posturing that arose out of a close presidential campaign.

'Nuff said. lol.
 
'Nuff said for those that don't actually give a shit about the truth, just want to criticize and mock.

You've never heard of a running gag? Nobody actually believes that Gore believed (or claimed) that he invented the Internet. But because he chose his words poorly, he left himself open to (good-natured, at least in my case) ribbing. I bet if you walked up to him and mentioned it, he'd get a chuckle out of it.
 
One of the hypotheses that I've developed since becoming a Christian that's somewhat related to this is that many scientists/researchers are pretty intelligent folks, and have been accustomed to being told that their entire lives. It lends itself very easily to a worldview where we control our lives and actions through our industry and intelligence, and you can think through anything. It doesn't lend itself to a religio-spiritual worldview where you believe that an Intelligent Imaginary Friend created the earth (whether in 6 days or 5B years) and we exist to glorify the IIF and enjoy/be stewards of that creation. It's one of the struggles I've gone/am going through personally.




scientists reject religious belief at a higher rate than the average person does because they care about objective evidence a lot more than the average person does, not because being told they're intelligent all their lives lends itself to an egocentric worldview.
 
scientists reject religious belief at a higher rate than the average person does because they care about objective evidence a lot more than the average person does, not because being told they're intelligent all their lives lends itself to an egocentric worldview.

They also don't believe in miracles.

But I do.
 
scientists reject religious belief at a higher rate than the average person does because they care about objective evidence a lot more than the average person does, not because being told they're intelligent all their lives lends itself to an egocentric worldview.
I'd be willing to bet that being told they're intelligent all their lives does in fact lead one to an egocentric worldview, which in turn would lead to caring about objective evidence a lot more than the average person.
 
I'd be willing to bet that being told they're intelligent all their lives does in fact lead one to an egocentric worldview, which in turn would lead to caring about objective evidence a lot more than the average person.


i'd argue the opposite is true. a scientist's higher average intelligence (and presumably also higher than average education) lends itself to more humility in their worldview because it better equips them to be realistic about what they don't or can't know without objective reasons. they care about objective evidence because of rational humility, not emotionally-driven egocentrism.

religious people are the ones with the more egocentric worldview, because they've been told all their lives they are special to god, the universe was created for them, and their personal "faith" renders their belief immune from objective evidence.
 
I wouldn't say "immune from objective evidence". I'll happily talk with just about anyone (and have on here) about objective evidence, and I'm by no means a scientist whose job is to figure this stuff out.

I didn't mean "ego-centric" in a demeaning way, because it's not my place to change someone's worldview. But there really is a one-or-the-other choice...you either think that the universe was created by higher being for a purpose, or that it was all an accidental miracle of nature that the universe happened and we went from goo-to-you-by-way-of-the-zoo. In one of them a person is accountable to a higher being than ourselves, just as clay is to the potter. In the other, one's accountable only to himself and the society he adopts.
Naturally, if one wants to be accountable only to himself, the idea that there is a higher power that requires things of you is repulsive. The idea that you are held accountable for not following someone else's rules is unthinkable, and the idea that you must believe in a miracle to avoid a horrendous potentially-imaginary eternity is laughable.
 
This stupid claim persists because it's funny.

And that's good enough for me. :pimp:

Us liberals aren't allowed a sense of humor. *scowl*

Unless, of course, it's taken from somebody else and handed to us by the government.
 
i'd argue the opposite is true. a scientist's higher average intelligence (and presumably also higher than average education) lends itself to more humility in their worldview because it better equips them to be realistic about what they don't or can't know without objective reasons. they care about objective evidence because of rational humility, not emotionally-driven egocentrism.

religious people are the ones with the more egocentric worldview, because they've been told all their lives they are special to god, the universe was created for them, and their personal "faith" renders their belief immune from objective evidence.
I didn't say anything about arguing. I said that I'd be willing to bet, lol...:P
 
I didn't mean "ego-centric" in a demeaning way

i know you didn't. you were just trying to concoct some sort of excuse for why religious belief such as your own correlaties to lower levels of intelligence and/or education.

But there really is a one-or-the-other choice...you either think that the universe was created by higher being for a purpose, or that it was all an accidental miracle of nature that the universe happened and we went from goo-to-you-by-way-of-the-zoo. In one of them a person is accountable to a higher being than ourselves, just as clay is to the potter. In the other, one's accountable only to himself and the society he adopts.
Naturally, if one wants to be accountable only to himself, the idea that there is a higher power that requires things of you is repulsive. The idea that you are held accountable for not following someone else's rules is unthinkable, and the idea that you must believe in a miracle to avoid a horrendous potentially-imaginary eternity is laughable.

wow that's quite a collection of creationist mantras there. no secret what influences you. goo-to-you. lol.

first, the default worldview everyone is born with is agnostic/weak atheistic (depending on your view of semantics). there is no necessary choice between theism and hard atheism. in fact there is a continuous range from one extreme to the other, and most people fall in between. also there are a lot of other possibilities beyond the universe being caused by a purposeful higher power that's interested in us, and it being purely "accidental". it could be eternal. it could be its own cause. there could be some form of deistic creator that could care less about us etc. pigeonholing everyone into necessarily having to believe in polar extremes is just a creationist excuse to validate believing in something without evidence.

second, most people (including scientists) that reject various religious belief do so because they don't see the evidence as supporting it, not because they don't like the idea of being accountable to a higher power or whatever. it is only laughable to them in the same sense as having to worry about lightning bolts from zeus is laughable to you.
 
Naturally, if one wants to be accountable only to himself, the idea that there is a higher power that requires things of you is repulsive. The idea that you are held accountable for not following someone else's rules is unthinkable,

Seems to be a bit of a disconnect there with the fact that most scientists are liberals, who by definition prefer a fascistic, socialistic, Obama/Hitler to tell them what to do and to control every phase of their lives.

and the idea that you must believe in a miracle to avoid a horrendous potentially-imaginary eternity is laughable.

Well, yes.

barfo
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top