The Volokh Conspiracy is ruminating over why so many academics are hostile to some religions rather than others. Todd Zywicki cites data:
According to a study by the Institute of Jewish and Community Research, 53% of professors have an unfavorable view of Evangelical Christians but only 3% have an unfavorable view of Jews. A summary of the study is here. 33% have unfavorable views of Mormons. Muslims, Atheists, and Catholics all score in double-digits.
He goes on to express his astonishment…
It is almost impossible to imagine any identifiable group of Americans today who would hold such a reflexively negative view of other groups of Americans. I can’t imagine that any degree of racial bigotry by any group toward any other group would even approximate this degree of bigotry and prejudice.
Until, of course, his commenters point out an inconvenient fact: this “prejudice” pales next to that against atheists.
Co-blogger Ilya Somin then chimes in with a theory — it’s all just bias against conservatives.
Overall, I think the data confirm my theory that most academics are not hostile to religion as such, but merely to those religious groups that they perceive (for the most part correctly) as politically conservative.
The study Todd cites shows that 53% of academics have an “unfavorable” view of Evangelical Christians and 33% say the same of Mormons. By contrast, only 13% have an unfavorable view of Catholics and 3% towards Jews. As Todd points out, Evangelical Christians and and Mormons are generally seen as politically conservative, while Jews tend to be liberal, and Catholics somewhere in between. Todd may well be right that academics’ views of Evangelicals and Mormons are based on stereotypes rather than personal experience. However, the stereotype that these groups tend to be politically conservative is actually correct.
I have a different theory. What if academics had an unfavorable view of evangelicals and Mormons, and a generally favorable view of Catholics and Jews, because of how those groups view academia? Crazy, I know, but bear with me here. Catholicism and Judaism, whatever their other faults, have long traditions of valuing learning and scholarship, while Mormonism and evangelical Christianity … not so much. (Those are wild generalizations, of course, but the trends are clear.) Perhaps these unfavorable views are not actually prejudices at all, but informed opinions based on empirically verifiable realities?
Just a theory.
Sean: you mean, of course, “just a hypothesis.” ;)
It is interesting to see what is the attitude of people toward “Islam”, is there any result about that?
I think the most important thing which control the outcomes is personal experiences. Most of people have not studied religions and related issues and most of imformation they have is obtained through society they grown up there or media or people they encountered before.
From my point of view the theory which relates mentioned statistics to the relation between religions and science is partially true! While I can hardly think of a friendly relation between catholic church history and science! I know lots of good Jewish scientists which is much more than what is expected from Jews population. As someone whose religion is “Science”, this point make me a little bit more positive about Jews!
I guess the positive attitude of people toward catholics could be understood by noting majority of responding people have been catholics!! (25%)
At least your realistic enough to say that you are speaking about gross generalizations, not the actual stances.
To even generally compare Evangelical Christians and the LDS (mormons) is blatantly wrong, especially when you look at how each of them view our world, science and academics.
I’d be interested in seeing where you’ve encountered the LDS Church having a hostile view towards academia. One of core beliefs of a Mormon’s life is to gain as much education as possible. I think you’d be hard pressed to find any single privately funded group that invests more in education than the Mormons.
Catholicism is a difficult thing. In toto the catholic church has been anti rational and highly dogmatic throughout the years, at the same time it is very intellectual. That said, in Europe you’d be unlikely to find such a positive opinion of catholicism. Especially in Spain and Italy where its socially conservative dogma still is very much alive and influential.
To further the two theories, perhaps there is a correlation between conservative opinions (and the groups that tend to hold such viewpoints) and a respect for academia.
However, there is also a historical consideration: the Catholic church, and many other churches besides (including Judaism) were the centers of scholarship (and hence, academia) throughout many of the ages. The Mormons, as pointed out by Rational Zen, are highly educated, and value such education highly. I think that neither of these theories encompass the reality, and that further (and historically realized) theories are needed to gain a full view. I don’t have the history though, so I’m sorry to say that for now, I’m just a debunker.
A different observation immediately leaped out at me. Academics have an unfavorable view of those religious groups who possess political power and are responsible for anti-intellectual policies.
In the USA, at least, Catholics and Jews have founded colleges and mostly stayed out of politics. Evangelicals have founded low-quality and unaccredited colleges and gotten their fingers in politics as much as possible. Mormons are in between, having founded a fairly top-notch university, but aligning as a bloc with evangelicals on political issues.
It’s the re-election, stupid!
I know that my husband and I have negative opinions of evangelicals because we believe they tipped the election to Bush in 2004. I found and still find the idea of Bush being blessed and chosen by god to be extremely disturbing. In fact, I find religious influence on politics always disturbing, in any form.
typical evangelical on electing Bush in 2004:
I really can’t trust any politicians that claim they have been chosen by god to lead, that’s grandiose thinking typical of a sociopath.
Fundamentalists and other radical sects have to be anti-intellectual. When their members get good educations, they become apostates. Long-established denominations are less vulnerable to this trap because they have become far more moderate and reasonable over time, albeit at the cost of losing the dynamism (and church attendance!) that goes along with rip-roaring, balls-out superstition.
Sean, I think you’re on to something with noting the academic views of some religions are somewhat “retaliatory” with respect to those religions’ view of academia.
The cited quotes use words like “bigotry” and “prejudice.” I think one has to be careful with these words. When someone has feelings towards or makes assumptions about, say, women in general, this is rightfully frowned upon because it ignores the diversity among women and lumps them all together based on some stereotype.
In the case of religion, there is no presumption — it seems to me perfectly OK to presume that a Mormon adheres to the tenets of that faith. I could be a real hypocrite or jerk for frowning upon Mormons for what they believe, but this is very different than if I held certain views about, say, women in general.
Of course there is diversity in belief among the members of religious denominations, but I think if critics were more careful with their speech they would make clear they are criticizing the religion, and the behavior of those who follow the orthodoxy, and not people who might claim to belong to the religion but really don’t represent the orthodoxy.
I think you should focus on specific actions and policies of religions that you find problematic, rather than attempting to justify hostile or prejudicious views toward people who are often just born into them. The analogy was merely a reference to the wide use of “scientific studies” in the early part of the 20th century to justify discrimination, and worse.
Sean, thanks for acknowledging that Catholicism has a long and strong scholarly tradition. Of course prior (and many current) attitudes, corruption, and repressions were awful, but many know that a great education in logic and rhetoric can be had at Catholic institutions. I think your theory is about right overall.
I searched for the word evolution in the report. Not a single mention. I think at least amongst science faculty the widespread opposition to Darwinian evolution theory, is the principal reason for the unfavourable view of evangelical Christians. They have written 97 pages and not understood anything. Oh yes, of course, I am sure there is no mention of “Young Earth Creationism” in the report.
Just for the background, I am a Jewish college student, I study math at a very well-respected university, and am an aspiring prof. and an agnostic. I grew up in Rural Utah. My best friends are mostly Mormons and evangelical Christians.
I do think there is unfair hostility to some religions among academia. It’s quite ironic to see educated people belittling a demographic en masse for their closed-mindedness. It’s quite ironic, to my mind, to see atheists mock religious people for being blindly certain of their beliefs. The evangelican friend I know best, and the group of my Mormon friends taken as a whole, have a great deal of respect for science and learning. They’re certainly not the drones I fear too many would write them off as for being Mormon or evangelical Christian.
They are not unaware of the scorn they are often held in by the academic community, and it does hurt them. They don’t fully understand why they are looked down on for what is to them a personal characteristic and an important part of their lives. One of them has told me directly he feels unwelcome and unwanted among the academic community, which is a shame, because he is one of the smartest and most creative people I know.
Instances of religious people’s hostility to science are much better documented, and if the topic were that I could write a much longer screed – being a Jew in rural Utah brings you face-to-face with the worst as well as the best of the religions which predominate. You just have to remember there are intolerant and obnoxious people amongst any demographic. To my mind that is the important thing to take away from a discussion like this: No demographic index, including education, can be a reliable predictor for the traits of closed-mindedness and obnoxiousness. You’ll find it anywhere. We could all do with being a little more tolerant and decent towards other people.
Why the 20% difference between Mormons and evangelical xtians? AFAICS both are completely at odds with academics view of the world and equally hostile to academia perse.
I personally prefer to discriminate against all these religions equally. So they’re all 100% unfavorable in my view. I’m tempted to give Jews and Budhists a bit of a respite, b/c they have accomplished so much for academia and they’re generically harmless, but that seems to me to be a bit of a fallacy so they both get lumped in as well.
Pingback: Why Would Academics Have Problems With Mormons and Evangelicals? « Matt Zeitlin: Impetuous Young Whippersnapper
There is, I believe, a much better theory as to why secular academics dislike evangelical Christians. This same group that dislikes evangelicals also has a tendency toward leftist politics. That is no accident. As government funding of education and research has grown, so has the number of academics who depend on that funding. The result is a group of academics who view government as the source of their prosperity. It is not surprising that this group would have a socialist leaning Another prominent example of a similar group with a decidedly socialist leaning is the National Education Association, the largest labor union in the US.
Government funded education and research is a wonderful thing, providing knowledge of the natural world and contributing to overall prosperity. But it does have this unintended consequence. Many academics imagine that evangelicals are hostile to education and scholarship, and are therefore a threat to their way life. This is unfortunate and, in my view, reflects badly on those academics. Evangelical Christians have a high regard for education and scholarship. They have many very good colleges and universities. I recently read a news report that Christian colleges are growing in enrollment while state universities, in general, have declining enrollments.
I am an evangelical Christian and I know the evangelical community well. I can say that the unfavorable views toward evangelicals described by Sean can best be explained as uninformed prejudice.
Anthropologist Scott Atran has observed this particular prejudice of secular academics and termed it “tribal atheism.” You can hear his remarks at the 2007 version of “Beyond Belief” conference. At the conference he saw a mostly atheist, mostly academic group and observed their primitive “us versus them” behavior. I believe that is what is in play here.
Otis
math man, while I agree that it seems a little unfair to “write someone off” immediately because of their religion, without stopping to consider any of their scientific thoughts/skills, I must confess I don’t understand why it is “ironic” for atheists to “mock religious people for being blindly certain of their beliefs.” I suppose if said atheists are just as dogmatically certain of the non-existence of God as their religious counterparts are of the existence of God, the irony is definitely there. But, in my experience, atheists (myself included) are so because the evidence simply points to a Godless universe. Being an atheist is like believing in quantum theory… so just as it would seem weird to believe that there are little men with hammers preventing electrons from spiraling into the centers of atoms in a tiny fraction of a second, it seems weird to believe that there is a big man up in the sky somewhere controlling the entire universe.
On a slightly different note, I would just like to state that I have some difficulty understanding religious scientists in general. I suppose many such scientists are not so religious, so there’s not so much conflict, but there ARE creationist biologists out there (and they must be the most interviewed biologists in the world… fundies LOVE them), and that just seems like complete double think to me.
To end lightly, did you hear about the dyslexic, agnostic insomniac? He stayed up all night wondering if there really was a Dog.
The forms of fundamentalist religion we have today are completely different from those in the past. We have what might be called media religion. Just as televized messages are able to convince people to buy things in a one minute advert or to “cover” news in two minute sound bites, modern religion is a similar system of quick messages which frame people’s minds. Many of these fundamentalist churches have their own evangelical programs on the CBN or other networks, or even their own channels. The media system has in some ways reprogrammed our minds or rewired our brains to think in patterns which have little precedent in the past. Religion has entered this as well. It has to in order to keep the “God meme” alive.
George Orwell wrote of this in his treatise on totalitarian government within a novel format — 1984. In restructuring language and the usage of language the ability of people to think and form statements of significant depth is curtailed. Religion has been buffeted by science in the last couple of centuries, and its ability to really challenge science has been reduced to nil. The recent intelligent design controversy is case in point. That thesis has been found to be lacking not only in its demonstrable evidence, but is also not properly a scientific theory. However, the purpose of this has been established. ID arguments are here to stay and they will continue as “sound bite” theology expounded on evangelical programs and from pulpits. As a result old falisfied creationist canards continue to be sounded. If the message is reduced to a two minute expose, with all the depth seen in selling Coca-Cola, the message will continue to gel in people’s minds.
Lawrence B. Crowell
“But, in my experience, atheists (myself included) are so because the evidence simply points to a Godless universe.”
I agree with the sentiment, but I would be careful with the use of the word evidence.
I think you might be better off stating that philosophy and science have concluded that the existance of God can not be explained rationally.
All existing evidence indicates that all the workings of the universe can be explained rationally.
Therefore God cannot exist within any construction of the universe. Thus, the existance of God can only be viewed as an irrational construct “existing” outside the bounds of the universe, and has no real physical form.
Or as, in street terms, “Its all in our heads”
And now for a joke:
So a creationalist dies and goes to purgatory.
While waiting he bumps into the devil, who offers the creationalist a chance to see hell for a day and see what its like, no strings attached.
The creationist figures it might be worth seeing who ended up in hell, and all the horribles things that were being done to them, so he agrees to the journey.
When he gets to hell, it’s the complete opposite to what he expected. Everyone is having a great time, there is plenty of food to eat, and everything is gleamingly clean.
“Wow!” exclaims the creationalist, “This is awesome, I never thought hell would be like this!”
At the end of the day, the devil takes the creationalist back to purgatory. The creationalist, now faced with a long wait to get into heaven, turns to the devil and asks if he could just spend eternity in hell.
The devil is a little hesitant at first, but spends the night listening to the creationalist’s pleas, eventually he relents and pulls out a contract and has the creationalist sign.
The devil and the creationalist then journey back to hell. Once they get there, the creationalist is suddenly horrified to find himself amidst the most dreadful horrors, straight out of Dante’s inferno.
Confused he turns to the devil and demands an explanation.
The devil smiles and explains, “You see, yesturday you were a candidate. Today you are staff.”
Another creationist goes straight to Heaven and is surprised to be greeted by God himself. God leaves briefly and then returns with some baloney and cheese sandwiches and Coca Cola. An awkward silence follows while the man eats, frankly afraid to say anything that might be perceived as gauche.
Finally, God clears his throat and asks, “So, do you have any wishes that I could grant?”
“Well,” the man says, “Maybe this is a strange request: but could I just see what Hell looks like. I don’t want to visit, just see it from afar so that I can revel in the fact that the sinners are finally getting their justice.”
“OK, look,” says God somewhat sheepishly opening up a trap door in the floor. To the creationist’s amazement, he sees a sumptuous party, filled with all sorts of fine cuisine and drink. All the “guests” seem to be laughing and enjoying themselves. God closes the trap door.
Feeling a bit annoyed and disappointed, the creationist throws caution to the wind and vents. “All those heathens and debaucherers enjoy loving comaraderie and the finest food down there while I come here and get cold sandwiches and soft drinks. I don’t understand.” God looks a bit embarassed and finally says in a low voice, “It’s just really hard with so few people.”
FSM: “All existing evidence indicates that all the workings of the universe can be explained rationally.” This shows that you (and like-minded) do not understand the point of modern style philosophical theology, of the sort done by Paul Davies. The issue is why the universe is like it is, not how the workings come from the laws that are already there (almost a mere tautology, so what), why does this universe exist instead of other possible worlds that could be “platonically modeled”, why indeed is there anything substantially “in existence” at all (or even, per modal realism, whether such existence distinct from being a conceptual description is even possible.)
……..”Catholicism and Judaism, whatever their other faults, have long traditions of valuing learning and scholarship, while Mormonism and evangelical Christianity … not so much. (Those are wild generalizations, of course, but the trends are clear.)”
Those are very wild generalizations!! Facts, statistics or just stereotypes perhaps?? Now maybe I am just biased because I am Mormon, but I thought that Utah has one of the highest high school graduation rates in the nation and also is ranked 2nd in proportion of the population who are high school graduates. Have you ever heard of BYU? The lds church owns three Universities, plus various other schools. Our leaders constantly stress us to get as much education as possible. So can you please expound on how you came to the conclusion that the LDS church values academia less than Jews or Catholics?
“why indeed is there anything substantially “in existence” at all”
Until someone can properly articulate the alternative, it seems obvious that it exists because there is no alternative. I have yet to see someone produce a self consistent definition of nothingness.
FSM,
Okay, okay, I shall rephrase: “But, in my experience, atheists (myself included) are so because rational scientific thinking (most notably Occam’s razor), and theories that explain the existence of life and the universe, which are well-backed by scientific evidence, point to a Godless universe as the most likely possibility.” Is that better?
Lawrence B. Crowell, I wholeheartedly agree with your statements about “soundbyte” theology, and I would like to add the observation that religions have largely gone from being God-fearing (think Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God), to feel-good God-loves-everyone institutions. I would like to think that this is a sign that religion is on its way out… the idea being that if churches have to promise a cushy eternity in heaven for just about everyone to get people to follow, they can’t be far from losing their followings altogether. Also, in my personal experience with (mostly young) people, it seems that large numbers of them are becoming disillusioned with religion… but that might change when they get older, I don’t know. Unfortunately, I think the possibility exists that feel-good religion is more an artifact of our culture (people are too lazy or too busy to put much energy into being good and Godly, but they don’t want to be told that being devoted to their careers or televisions means they can’t go to heaven), and not so much a sign that people want to let go of God… just to let go of the part where they have to work hard to win God’s favor. I’m rooting for the first interpretation though.
I can’t think of another relevant joke at moment, so I instead choose to quote from my favorite atheist ever:
“The Babel fish is small, yellow and leech-like, and probably the oddest thing in the Universe. It feeds on brainwave energy received not from its own carrier but from those around it. It absorbs all unconscious mental frequencies from this brainwave energy to nourish itself with. It then excretes into the mind of its carrier a telepathic matrix formed by combining the conscious thought frequencies with nerve signals picked up from the speech centres of the brain which has supplied them. The practical upshot of all this is that if you stick a Babel fish in your ear you can instantly understand anything said to you in any form of language.
Now it is such a bizarrely improbable coincidence that anything so mind-bogglingly useful could have evolved purely by chance that some thinkers have chosen to see it as a final and clinching proof of the non-existence of God. The argument goes something like this:
“I refuse to prove that I exist,” says God, “for proof denies faith, and without faith I am nothing.”
“But,” says Man, “the Babel fish is a dead giveaway isn’t it? It could not have evolved by chance. It proves that you exist, and so therefore, by your own arguments, you don’t. Q.E.D.”
“Oh dear,” says God, “I hadn’t thought of that,” and promptly vanishes in a puff of logic.
“Oh, that was easy,” says Man, and for an encore goes on to prove that black is white and gets himself killed on the next zebra crossing.”
FSM has written: “All existing evidence indicates that all the workings of the universe can be explained rationally. Therefore God cannot exist within any construction of the universe. Thus, the existence of God can only be viewed as an irrational construct “existing” outside the bounds of the universe, and has no real physical form.”
What FSM has written begs these questions: Why is the universe rational? Why can humans understand it? Why are humans rational? Why is the universe orderly? If the universe is fundamentally mathematical, why can humans do the math? Where did the laws come from? Why those laws and not others? Why are there laws at all?
In order to do science at all, one has to begin with a theistic view of the natural world. The Christian Bible answers all of the above questions and establishes the conditions under which humans can do science.
Paul Davies has written about this and despite taking a log of abuse, he is correct. (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/24/opinion/24davies.html?scp=1&sq=%27taking+science+on+faith%27&st=nyt)
God is a necessary being and he is not going away.
Otis