Scivillage.com Casual Discussion Science Forum

No, really? Scientists find anti-Christian prejudice in the science world
https://evolutionnews.org/2020/01/no-rea...nce-world/

EXCERPT (David Klinghoffer): I suppose there’s some value in demonstrating the obvious. Writing in the journal PLOS ONE, four academics from Arizona State University ask, “Are scientists biased against Christians?” I could have told them in a word: Yes! Clearly, there is significant, overt prejudice against Christians in the science world. Aggressive atheist biologists [..] may not be typical of their profession in how much time they have spent in their writing attacking religious believers, Christians in particular, but neither do they seem to have experienced much criticism for it from colleagues.

To be specific, the bias is not directed, for the most part, at

To be specific, the bias is ... directed ... at Evangelicals. And that is just what [...was...] confirmed. They conducted three separate studies ... that “scientists call” this group “fundamentalist and/or evangelical” makes it sounds as if that is an objective, scientific label. After all, scientists are our culture’s preeminent objective truth tellers, are they not? [...But...] not ... many Christians affixing it to themselves. The word ... today functions mostly as a term of mockery or reproach. I’m not a Christian of any kind, but I’ve known enough Evangelical Christians, a very diverse group, to know that “fundamentalists” exist more in the imagination of those who loath them than in the real world.

[...] " Most frequently, scientists say they only have negative attitudes towards religions that are “fundamentalist evangelical” in nature, partly because of the perception that this type of religion tries to encroach on the authority of science. While most scholars of religion would consider “fundamentalism” and “evangelicalism” distinct groups, scientists themselves tend to use these terms interchangeably ... bias against Christians in science may be restricted to evangelical Christians, or may be stronger against evangelical Christians than Christians who do not identify as evangelical."

In other words, they found that “most frequently,” scientists, unlike “scholars of religion,” freely and contemptuously use a term intended to denigrate a large swath of Christians [...] ” If that is not gross prejudice, what is? I mentioned that there is value in confirming the obvious. But how much value? The four authors note at the end, “This project was supported by the National Science Foundation,” followed by three grant numbers. The grants, which I assume went to other things besides the studies reported here, are in the amounts of $9,800,382, $292,767, and $423,003. That’s right, a total of more than $10.5 million dollars from the Federal Government. Apparently, documenting what everybody already knows pays pretty well. I think I’m in the wrong business! (MORE - details)

RELATED: The intellectual & moral decline in academic research

---

HIV patients experience improved quality of life if religiously inclined, study suggests
https://www.business-standard.com/articl...628_1.html

RELEASE: Persons diagnosed with HIV are more likely to feel better emotionally and physically if they are more religiously inclined, a new study suggests. The study done on adults living with HIV in Washington, DC, and published in Psychology of Religion and Spirituality, found that people with HIV attended religious services regularly, prayed daily, felt the presence of God and self-identified as religious or spiritual, were more likely to feel higher levels of emotional and physical well-being.

Maureen E. Lyon, Ph.D., FABPP, a clinical health psychologist at Children's National Hospital, and senior study author said: "These findings are significant because they point to the untapped potential of encouraging patients living with HIV who are already religious to attend religious services regularly. "Scientific evidence suggests that religions that present God as all-powerful, personal, responsive, loving, just and forgiving make a difference in health-related quality of life," she added. "In general, patients living with HIV have reported that they wished their healthcare providers acknowledged their religious beliefs and spiritual struggles. Additional research is needed to gauge whether developing faith-based interventions or routine referrals to faith-based programs that welcome racial and sexual minorities improve satisfaction with treatment and health outcomes," Lyon stated.

The researchers conducted the study by distancing three classes of religious beliefs. Class one applied to those people who have the highest level of religiousness/spirituality, more likely to attend religious services in person each week, to pray daily, and the ones who identified as religious and spiritual.

Class two applied to privately religious people who engaged in religious activities at home, like praying and did not attend services regularly.

Class three participants self-identified as spiritual but were not involved in organized religion.

Taking a comparison of the three classes, class one, those who are inclined towards religiousness/spirituality was associated with increased quality of life, mental health, and improved health status.

I wonder why the prejudice settles over Christianity ...and not equally over Judaism and Islam? The latter two have their foundations based on the Old Testament (just like Christianity), which is the main point of contention in matters of science. (Genesis, etc) There isn't too much to debate in the NT, in terms of science. Why does Christianity offend more than any other religion? Seems like ''religion'' and all that people hate about it, is really just code for Christianity.

Christianity is what people feel judges them the most. The problem is that such an aversion to judgement telegraphs their own judgement of themselves. Otherwise, they'd recognize nothing to judge.

(Feb 7, 2020 05:58 PM)Leigha Wrote: [ -> ]I wonder why the prejudice settles over Christianity ...and not equally over Judaism and Islam? The latter two have their foundations based on the Old Testament (just like Christianity), which is the main point of contention in matters of science. (Genesis, etc) There isn't too much to debate in the NT, in terms of science. Why does Christianity offend more than any other religion? Seems like ''religion'' and all that people hate about it, is really just code for Christianity.

With respect to the Islamic world, I'm purely guessing that it's difficult to near-impossible for non-theist orientations to be vocal there; even the scientists apparently have to refer to "Allah willing a reaction between two chemicals happening" and that sort of thing. With Judaism, there are examples like Isaac Asimov (further down) in which even non-believers can be protective of their heritage.

In the Anglophone world, Christianity (like white people) is something less politically sacred these days that applicable public figures can more freely disparage with less worry of consequence (if they're not on the traditionalist side of the fence). Accusations of Islamophobia and anti-Semitism lurk around the corner for those getting a little too loose with criticism, so why put one's self at unnecessary risk by venturing into those territories.

"Secularism has been a controversial concept in Islamic political thought, owing in part to historical factors and in part to the ambiguity of the concept itself. In the Muslim world, the notion has acquired strong negative connotations due to its association with removal of Islamic influences from the legal and political spheres under foreign colonial domination, as well as attempts to restrict public religious expression by some secularist nation states. Thus, secularism has often been perceived as a foreign ideology imposed by invaders and perpetuated by post-colonial ruling elites, and understood as equivalent to irreligion or antireligion."

Notwithstanding his rejection of Jewish practice and his marriage to a gentile, Asimov remained sensitive to anti-Semitism and proud of his Jewish heritage. Moreover, he developed a lifelong interest in the Bible and, although he rejected the very idea of divine revelation as illogical, he distinguished himself from radical atheists by crediting “biblical writers and editors” for producing a meaningful and important text and by never disparaging the Bible or its followers.

He later authored several Biblical works, including Words of Genesis (1962) and Words from the Exodus (1963) – in which he cited Biblical passages and analyzed how these references entered the English language – and the ambitious and well-received Asimov’s Guide to the Bible (1968).

Other than his Biblical works, however, Asimov rarely wrote about Jews or addressed Jewish themes. This silence is probably because – as he explained in his foreword to Wandering Stars (1975) – science fiction involves “battles with space pirates, outer-world monsters and evil wizards” and “what kind of place [is] that for Jewish boys?” He added that he just didn’t think of Jews “in connection with robots, wrecked spaceships, strange worlds with six suns, and Galactic Empires.”

However, by the time of the publication of a sequel, More Wandering Stars, only six years later in 1981, he had completely changed his view: “[T]he Holy Writings lead the way to science fiction” and “[I understand] why there are so many Jewish writers of science fiction and fantasy, and why so many Jewish themes are used.”

It is difficult to argue that Asimov’s first novel, Pebble in the Sky (1950), is not conspicuously a “Jewish story.” https://www.jewishpress.com/sections/fea...019/03/20/

[quote pid='34317' dateline='1581124017']
Christianity is what people feel judges them the most. The problem is that such an aversion to judgement telegraphs their own judgement of themselves. Otherwise, they'd recognize nothing to judge.
[/quote]
So people who object to (say) radical Islam are expressing their dislike of their own judgment of themselves?  Fascinating.

(Feb 9, 2020 11:12 PM)billvon Wrote: [ -> ]

(Feb 8, 2020 02:06 AM)Syne Wrote: [ -> ]Christianity is what people feel judges them the most. The problem is that such an aversion to judgement telegraphs their own judgement of themselves. Otherwise, they'd recognize nothing to judge.

So people who object to (say) radical Islam are expressing their dislike of their own judgment of themselves?  Fascinating.

Try read the immediately preceding post, which asked why Christianity rather than Islam. Now try your question again.

(Feb 8, 2020 02:06 AM)Syne Wrote: [ -> ]Christianity is what people feel judges them the most. The problem is that such an aversion to judgement telegraphs their own judgement of themselves. Otherwise, they'd recognize nothing to judge.

So, you're suggesting that it has little to do with their aversion to the Old Testament's origin story which Judaism, Christianity and Islam draw from, and more to do with just a generalized prejudice of Christianity.

(Feb 7, 2020 05:58 PM)Leigha Wrote: [ -> ]I wonder why the prejudice settles over Christianity

Most of it is coming from Europe and North America, where the traditional religion is Christianity.

Quote:...and not equally over Judaism and Islam?

Since World War II any criticism of Judaism was treated as "antisemitism", and hence socially off-limits. Since 9-11, Islam became a darling of the moralistic left, and any criticism of Islam became a moral sin/psychological defect/thought crime called "Islamophobia".

In a word, Judaism has historically been (though that's changing) and Islam currently is socially sacrosanct. Christianity once was far more sacrosanct than either Judaism or Islam are now, but that day has long since passed. Memory of Christianity's once institutional status sends a thrill up a certain kind of person's leg when they attack it now. (They are edgy you see, fighters, rebels, dangerous people.) And Christianity's associated in many people's minds with many other aspects of the culture around them that they want to attack.

Quote:The latter two have their foundations based on the Old Testament (just like Christianity), which is the main point of contention in matters of science. (Genesis, etc)  There isn't too much to debate in the NT, in terms of science. Why does Christianity offend more than any other religion?

Christianity is here, it's the majority religion of this culture, a culture that many on the cultural left feel alienated and estranged from. Judaism and Islam represent what the trendier academics call difference from the majority culture, standing in 'outsider' distinction to it. Christianity symbolizes the mainstream established culture that so many people want to bring down.

Attacking Christianity is a way of attacking a perceived weak spot of a civilization and a history that many of them would like to attack more generally. So Christianity stands in for those things and becomes their symbol.

Quote:Seems like ''religion'' and all that people hate about it, is really just code for Christianity.

Yes.

This is one of several reasons why I'm not impressed by the intellectual quality of much of today's 'atheism'.

(Feb 10, 2020 03:08 AM)Syne Wrote: [ -> ]Try read the immediately preceding post, which asked why Christianity rather than Islam. Now try your question again.

I am not suprised you are unable to answer the question.  It must create some serious cognitive dissonance for you.

---

(Feb 7, 2020 05:58 PM)Leigha Wrote: [ -> ]I wonder why the prejudice settles over Christianity ...and not equally over Judaism and Islam? The latter two have their foundations based on the Old Testament (just like Christianity), which is the main point of contention in matters of science. (Genesis, etc)  There isn't too much to debate in the NT, in terms of science. Why does Christianity offend more than any other religion? 

I think because:

1) It's more common to most Westerners, and thus their opposition to things like evolutionary science is more immediate
2) Judaism and Islam don't seem to base as much of their faith in a literal interpretation of religious tomes.  (To be fair, neither does most of Christianity, but the sects that do are very vocal about it)

Overall Xian’s seem peaceful. Jews took a shit-kicking in 20th century and it doesn’t look like they’ll tolerate another 100 years of that sort of behaviour. OTOH Muslims have car bombs and appear unafraid to use violence.

So if I’m a scientist and I want to take a shot at a religion then Christianity would be my choice. Of course always exceptions happening. How’s Salmon Rushdie doing these days? He’d be my measuring stick..... on the Rushdie Scale I’d say pissing off Islam is not a good choice.