Intelligent Design Naturalism News Science

Pew Research: Highly religious Americans less likely to see faith-science conflict

Spread the love


Highly religious Americans are less likely than others to see conflict between faith and science.

People’s sense that there generally is a conflict between religion and science seems to have less to do with their own religious beliefs than it does with their perceptions of other people’s beliefs. Less than one-third of Americans polled in the new survey (30%) say their personal religious beliefs conflict with science, while fully two-thirds (68%) say there is no conflict between their own beliefs and science.

People’s sense that there generally is a conflict between religion and science seems to have less to do with their own religious beliefs than it does with their perceptions of other people’s beliefs. Less than one-third of Americans polled in the new survey (30%) say their personal religious beliefs conflict with science, while fully two-thirds (68%) say there is no conflict between their own beliefs and science.

Least Religiously Observant Are Most Likely to Say Science and Religion Are Often in ConflictMoreover, the view that science and religion are often in conflict is particularly common among Americans who are, themselves, not very religiously observant (as measured by frequency of attendance at worship services). Some 73% of adults who seldom or never attend religious services say science and religion are often in conflict. By contrast, among more religiously observant Americans – those who report that they attend religious services on a weekly basis – exactly half (50%) share the view that science and religion frequently conflict. More.

To the extent that people espouse naturalist atheism, they should see a conflict between their beliefs and science.

Many of their beliefs are one step from a Sokal hoax.

See also: What great physicists have said about immateriality and consciousness

Follow UD News at Twitter!

5 Replies to “Pew Research: Highly religious Americans less likely to see faith-science conflict

  1. 1
    Robert Byers says:

    That makes sense.
    Very religious people hold great esteem for science things as anyone. So if they love their faith and science they will not see and say they don’t a conflict between their two lovers.
    Yet people will say it about others faiths if they think that faiths doctrines arte rejected by science.
    Simple logical thinking on all accounts.

  2. 2
    Axel says:

    It’s artifice and vacuity or the insensate that are the impossible match; little different from everything coming from nothing.

  3. 3
    bornagain says:

    The only real conflict between science and religion is between science and the religion of naturalism.

    The Importance of the Warfare Thesis – Cornelius Hunter, PhD in Biophysics – July 26, 2015
    Excerpt: Historians have understood for the better part of a century now that this Warfare Thesis (between science and religion) is a false history. It was constructed by evolutionists to frame the origins debate in their favor. In fact the conflict is the exactly the opposite—it is between the metaphysical foundation of evolutionary thought and science. That metaphysical foundation of naturalism is unyielding and unbending, and it makes no sense on the science. It is the evolutionists who have a conflict between their religious beliefs and science. The Warfare Thesis is an attempt to turn the tables and turn the attention away from the obvious problems with evolutionary thought.
    Evolutionists say that their skeptics suffer from bad religion and bad science. In fact, the metaphysical foundation of naturalism is not biblical (in spite of the fact that it comes from Christians), and evolutionary theory is not scientific. Science does not indicate that the world spontaneously arose.,,,
    Clear scientific evidence for evolution? Abundant genetic and fossil evidence for evolution? Yes, the scientific evidence is clear, and the genetic and fossil evidence is abundant, but it does not support evolution. Not even remotely.
    Of course Scripture can have different interpretations. But the science leaves no such wiggle room. It does not prove, indicate or suggest that the species arose spontaneously, as a consequence of natural laws and processes. That is a metaphysical mandate that is in conflict with the science.

    James K. A. Smith on The Territories of Science and Religion – July 2015
    Excerpt: There is no perennial conflict between “science” and “religion” because the phenomena didn’t exist to war with one another before the 17th century. But they do exist now, and if there is a conflict between them (now) it’s because “science” — the myth-making “science” invoked by “ideological atheists” — isn’t content to describe the territory; it’s after your heart. Thus Harrison closes by suggesting these “skirmishes” are less conflicts between science and religion and more like “theological controversies waged by means of science.”

    The Two Guys to Blame for the Myth of Constant Warfare between Religion and Science – February 27, 2015
    Excerpt: Timothy Larsen, a Christian historian who specializes in the nineteenth century, notes:
    The so-called “war” between faith and learning, specifically between orthodox Christian theology and science, was manufactured during the second half of the nineteenth century. It is a construct that was created for polemical purposes.
    No one deserves more blame for this stubborn myth than these two men:
    Andrew Dickson White (1832-1918), the founding president of Cornell University, and
    John William Draper (1811-1882), professor of chemistry at the University of New York.

    “‘War Is Over, If You Want It’: Beyond the Conflict between Faith and Science” – Timothy Larsen 2008 (Flat Earth myth, Chloroform myth, Missionary position myth)
    Excerpt: the story of religion and the Victorians has usually been told as one of “the loss of faith.” The Victorian crisis of faith or loss of faith has been a reigning theme for over fifty years now in the scholarship,,,
    Despite this being presented as the main story, it does not, however, measure up against the reconversions of secularists. In these collections of deconverts by Willey, Wilson, and others, there is not a single prominent Christian leader who lost his or her faith–no celebrated preacher, no bishop, no key functionary in a Christian denomination or organization–whereas, as has been said, at least 20% of the prominent secularist leadership came to faith.

    The War against the War Between Science and Faith Revisited – July 2010
    Excerpt: …as Whitehead pointed out, it is no coincidence that science sprang, not from Ionian metaphysics, not from the Brahmin-Buddhist-Taoist East, not from the Egyptian-Mayan astrological South, but from the heart of the Christian West, that although Galileo fell out with the Church, he would hardly have taken so much trouble studying Jupiter and dropping objects from towers if the reality and value and order of things had not first been conferred by belief in the Incarnation. (Walker Percy, Lost in the Cosmos),,,
    Jaki notes that before Christ the Jews never formed a very large community (priv. comm.). In later times, the Jews lacked the Christian notion that Jesus was the monogenes or unigenitus, the only-begotten of God. Pantheists like the Greeks tended to identify the monogenes or unigenitus with the universe itself, or with the heavens. Jaki writes: Herein lies the tremendous difference between Christian monotheism on the one hand and Jewish and Muslim monotheism on the other. This explains also the fact that it is almost natural for a Jewish or Muslim intellectual to become a pantheist. About the former Spinoza and Einstein are well-known examples. As to the Muslims, it should be enough to think of the Averroists. With this in mind one can also hope to understand why the Muslims, who for five hundred years had studied Aristotle’s works and produced many commentaries on them failed to make a breakthrough. The latter came in medieval Christian context and just about within a hundred years from the availability of Aristotle’s works in Latin,,
    If science suffered only stillbirths in ancient cultures, how did it come to its unique viable birth? The beginning of science as a fully fledged enterprise took place in relation to two important definitions of the Magisterium of the Church. The first was the definition at the Fourth Lateran Council in the year 1215, that the universe was created out of nothing at the beginning of time. The second magisterial statement was at the local level, enunciated by Bishop Stephen Tempier of Paris who, on March 7, 1277, condemned 219 Aristotelian propositions, so outlawing the deterministic and necessitarian views of creation.
    These statements of the teaching authority of the Church expressed an atmosphere in which faith in God had penetrated the medieval culture and given rise to philosophical consequences. The cosmos was seen as contingent in its existence and thus dependent on a divine choice which called it into being; the universe is also contingent in its nature and so God was free to create this particular form of world among an infinity of other possibilities. Thus the cosmos cannot be a necessary form of existence; and so it has to be approached by a posteriori investigation. The universe is also rational and so a coherent discourse can be made about it. Indeed the contingency and rationality of the cosmos are like two pillars supporting the Christian vision of the cosmos.

  4. 4
    bornagain says:


    Einstein Is Right About General Relativity — Again – by Jesse Emspak – October 27, 2015
    Excerpt: Time after time, experiments have proved that Einstein’s theory of general relativity, which describes the way gravity behaves, especially when dealing with high speeds and large masses. In the new study, physicists looked at gobs of data on planetary orbits to look for tiny anomalies that couldn’t be explained by either Isaac Newton’s theory of gravity — in which gravity is a force between objects that depends on their masses — or Einstein’s general relativity theory, which says gravity is a warping of space-time itself.
    And Einstein’s theory holds up, once again.,,,
    To quantify the difference between the current predictions of general relativity and the actual observations, physicists use numbers called Standard Model Extension coefficients, or SMEs, which should be zero if relativity and Newton’s laws account for all of each planet’s motions.
    The SMEs weren’t necessarily zero, though they were really small, with ranges from 10^-9 (one in a billion) to 10^-12 (one in a trillion), which means they agree with Einstein’s laws to at least one part in 10,000 to one part in 100,000.

    Of related interest:

    “On the other hand, I disagree that Darwin’s theory is as `solid as any explanation in science.; Disagree? I regard the claim as preposterous. Quantum electrodynamics is accurate to thirteen or so decimal places; so, too, general relativity. A leaf trembling in the wrong way would suffice to shatter either theory. What can Darwinian theory offer in comparison?”
    – Berlinski, D., “A Scientific Scandal?: David Berlinski & Critics,” Commentary, July 8, 2003

  5. 5
    bornagain says:

    OT: Beautifully done Timelapse – Huelux
    Speaks a tension between time and timelessness that almost makes watching the video a ‘religious’ experience

Leave a Reply