When forming attitudes about embryonic stem cell research, people are influenced by a number of things. But understanding science plays a negligible role for many people.
“More knowledge is good – everybody is on the same page about that. But will that knowledge necessarily help build support for the science?” says Dietram Scheufele. “The data show that no, it doesn’t. It does for some groups, but definitely not for others.”
Along with Dominique Brossard and Shirley Ho, Scheufele used national public opinion research to analyze how public attitudes are formed about controversial scientific issues such as nanotechnology and stem cells. What they have found again and again is that knowledge is much less important than other factors, such as religious values or deference to scientific authority.
“Highly religious audiences are different from less religious audiences. They are looking for different things, bringing different things to the table,” explains Scheufele. “It is not about providing religious audiences with more scientific information. In fact, many of them are already highly informed about stem cell research, so more information makes little difference in terms of influencing public support. And that’s not good or bad. That’s just what the data show.”On the other hand, a value system held by a much smaller portion of the American public works in just the opposite direction. The attitudes of individuals who are deferential to science – who tend to trust scientists and their work – are influenced by their level of scientific understanding.
I’m only surprised by how polite the authors managed to be.
I’m frankly surprised that people think its only a scientific discussion.
A life without a faith is unfulfilled, it is in human nature to seek the divine through the artifice of truth. Facts are not subject to the opinion or the religeous aspirations of the individuals who measure them. The article merely states that, far from being coldly dogmatic, religeons will use facts, if it is to their advantage to do so. This is a phenomenon. And a very interesting article.
Personaly, I don’t think anyone truly has an objection to stem cell research. It’s just a back door to their objections about abortion
#2 edwinrogers said,
“A life without a faith is unfulfilled, it is in human nature to seek the divine through the artifice of truth.”
That’s a huge load of crap. There have always been non-believers and always will be. They lead very fullfilling lives and contribute greatly to society. Human nature does not seek the divine. Religion is thrust upon the impressionable using fear and peer pressure. Its days of evolutionary advantage are over. It will one day be shed.
There is no god. Don’t defer your morality to superstition. Take charge of your life and have the courage to make the world better, not because of threats or rewards, but because it strengthens the humans race.
#4 – julieb
Good post.
#3 In a way you have a point Les. Its not the Stem Cells themselves, but how they are obtained.
When its Embrionic Stem Cells and the embrio is destroyed, this is whats unacceptable from the Pro-Life perspective.
You are correct seeing a link to the pro-life stance on abortion.
I had heard a while back that some scientists had discovered how to get stem cells from a source other than Embrios. I thought this was great news, as they do hold great promise to fight disease.
But for those who hold that live begins at conception, the embrionic source for such cells will always be a show stopper.
I hope the other research gains more funding. That would get my solid support.
#3, I find that it’s the pro-embryo-research side that gets manipulated. Companies play to their pro-abortion/pro-choice leanings and link the issue of cloning to abortion in order to get support and money for their work.
The lazy media doesn’t even mention breakthroughs in non-embryo stem cell research, mainly because the corporate public relations offices don’t send out press releases touting those.
#4.
You tell ’em!
Love, Joey Stalin
#8,
Fail for ad hominem.
Atheism is not dogmatic. That can not be said for religion.
#9 Dunno, it sure seems to on this site!
How can you say Atheism isn’t dogmatic?
(ps. and isn’t religion supposed to have dogma?)
Embryonic stem cell research has already been shown to be a scam. Venture capital ran the other way when it failed, failed again, and yet failed again. So they then went to the public to get tax funding. They know that controversy gets more media attention and it’s easy to dupe the public when you wave “death without it” in front of their face.
When I first heard about the California taxpayers getting ready to fund this crap a couple years ago to the tune of BILLIONS, I ran across this great article from FOX news that called it emotional extortion to provide funds for already wealthy venture capitalists [who didn’t want to waste their money on embryonic stem cell research anymore].
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,135697,00.html
and another fun compilation of sentences http://www.fumento.com/biotech/stem-cell-scam.html
Hmmmm… Haven’t followed the links yet. But I can’t say I’d be sad to see it go down.
Anyone who thinks atheism isn’t a belief system is intellectually challenged or uneducated.
A belief system is a set of postulates that is used to assess events.
When someone thinks they see Jesus in their toast, thinks they saw a painting of the Virgin Mary cry or some other “miracle” occurred, I know it to be false without any need for evidence of the specific situation.
Believing something to be false (or true) without evidence is, by definition, a belief.
An atheist believes without any precondition that any divine explanation is automatically invalid.
And rightly so 😉
>>#4 – There is no god.
You’re so dogmatic, so evangelistic, Jules. How could you possibly know that?
>>#13 – Not for me it isn’t. How could you know?
Most people of faith have been faith-free at least some time in their lives. So they can compare. On the other hand, how could a life-long Atheist know what the benefits of faith might be?
>>Please describe said dogma? I’ve never seen it.
cf. JulieB’s post #4. If that’s not dogma, I don’t know what is.
#15 – Mister Mustard,
Since you believe atheism to be a faith, how could you understand a lack of faith. You’ve never experienced that. You were an atheist of faith, whatever the hell that means, presumably something I’ve never encountered, now you are religious and of faith. You don’t believe in faithlessness. So, your comment is sillier than usual.
As for dogma, here are some definitions from dictionary.com. Pick a real definition and make your case.
1. a system of principles or tenets, as of a church.
2. a specific tenet or doctrine authoritatively laid down, as by a church: the dogma of the Assumption.
3. prescribed doctrine: political dogma.
4. a settled or established opinion, belief, or principle.
Warning though, if you pick definition 4, which is the one that really makes sense in your argument, then the fact that every opinion is established in a world of 6.6 billion homo-fucking-sapiens, makes absolutely everything a dogma and hence is a null point.
If you pick definition 3, well, maybe, but then again, nearly everything is a dogma from social security to national health care to climate change regardless of which side you’re on. So, again, that would be meaningless.
And, if you attempt to make the point that somehow atheism falls into either definition 1 or 2, I will say that you are more delusional than I thought.
So, which is it?
Careful, agnosticism will fit any of these definitions exactly as well as atheism, i.e. not at all for 1 and 2 and in a meaningless and trivial way for 3 or 4.
Humorous bumper sticker, obviously not for me:
MILITANT AGNOSTIC: I DON’T KNOW AND NEITHER DO YOU!
#15–Mustard==indeed, you don’t know what dogma is. Or, more accurately, you can’t list atheist dogma==because there isn’t any.
The generalized “value” statements at #4 are not dogma.
Formally, dogma is infallible revealed truth of the Catholic Church that cannot be denied. There is nothing specific in the statement at #4.
Such a dogma that you would look for is “To better the human race, you must set your thermostat to no lower than 81 in the summer time.”
But “by definition” all things are open to discussion, superceding evidence, theories that fit more observations. Not so with dogma.
Very consistent of you to hold this nucleus of perverted word definitions. Could be a dogma in itself?
Scottie, either one of these definitions would work for the Church of Atheism:
>>1. a system of principles or tenets,
>>as of a church.
>>2. a specific tenet or doctrine
>>authoritatively laid down, as by a church
and don’t think you’re going to snooker your fan base by pointing out that the Church of Atheism has no bricks ‘n’ mortar building nor printed Bible.
They have the only thing that really counts, the dogma of the One Commandment: There is no God.
That says it all.
#14 – HMeyers,
Anyone who thinks atheism isn’t a belief system is intellectually challenged or uneducated.
I disagree. In the loosest possible sense of the term belief system, it is still a belief about the evidence required to give credence to an hypothesis. God is not a special hypothesis. It is a hypothesis that requires exactly the same level of evidence as would be required for any other supernatural creature. Thus far, there is zero. So, I do not believe in god for the same reason that I do not believe in dragons.
Believing something to be false (or true) without evidence is, by definition, a belief.
So, being an adragonist is also a belief. I don’t agree with you on that one. Sorry.
An atheist believes without any precondition that any divine explanation is automatically invalid.
I disagree. I believe it to be extremely unlikely. However, if someone comes to me with even one shred of strong credible evidence, I will immediately become agnostic. There are some extremely unlikely things that I have become convinced are true, for example quantum mechanics.
So, I could be persuaded to give credence to the god hypothesis. All it would take is evidence. That is a position of reason, not a belief without evidence. At most, it is a belief about evidence, not about god. That god does not exist is merely a rational conclusion based on available data at present.
Ditto for dragons, the Loch Ness Monster, unicorns, elves, zeus, thor, baal, and even ganesh/ganesha (who I quite like for the cute elephant head, despite his/her non-existence).
Bobster, I’m afraid YOU are the one who doesn’t know what dogma is. It has nothing to do with bettering the human race or where you set your thermostat. To wit:
>>a religious doctrine that is
>>proclaimed as true without proof
Take the categorical proposition put forth in message #4 (“There is no god.“) in that context.
I report, you decide.
#14 “Believing something to be false (or true) without evidence is, by definition, a belief.”
Nice try, but that’s a circular argument. Try using Occam’s Razor. In the absence of evidence the simplest answer is that it doesn’t exist.
>>In the loosest possible sense of the term
>>belief system, it is still a belief about the
>>evidence required to give credence to an
>>hypothesis.
You’re starting to ramble, Scottie. In my experience, self-proclaimed Atheists don’t say “there is not enough evidence for me to give credence to your hypothsis that God exists”. Nfw. They’re loud and in your face with their dogma “THERE IS NO GOD” or “GOD DOES NOT EXIST”, typically followed by disparaging remarks about the intelligence of people of faith, comments about “sheeple”, blah blah blah. Blah. And then they break out silly irrelevant analogies like “the sky is falling, but you can go out into the front yard and see for yourself”.
As I said, blah blah blah. Blah.
#18 – Musty Mouseturd,
Wow!! You’ve really out deluded yourself this time. Have you considered simply inventing your own dictionary and language so that you can call a rose a turd and a turd an elephant and any of a hundred gross of other words whatever you want?
The rest of us use words as they exist in the dictionary. That way, when one of us talks or writes, we are speaking a common language that the listener or reader will understand.
You’ve got your own whole set of definitions that match no one else’s in the known world.
Doesn’t that make communication difficult?
There’s no church, as you already acknowledge. There’s no bible, as you must admit. What you call a commandment is no such thing.
It is merely the defining characteristic of the word atheist.
So, it is equally dogmatic to state that no one can know whether or not there is a god. Certainly it is a dogma by your silly-assed definition to claim that there is more reason to think that god may exist than that dragons may exist. So agnostics are suddenly much more dogmatic than atheists.
It is equally dogmatic to say simply that there must be a purpose to the universe. In fact, it is equally dogmatic to state that the big bang happened and that relativity is proven science.
What, by your definition, is not a dogma?
Is stating that I believe we need nationalized health care a dogma?
Is stating that I believe privatization of social security would kill it a dogma?
Is stating that I believe a progressive tax is more fair than a flat tax a dogma?
Is stating that I believe the sky, on a clear day, is blue a dogma?
Is stating that humanity has caused severe degradation of the biosphere a dogma?
I think I may be a member of many religions by your definition. Apparently you can take any statement and make it a dogma, right?
I think when you misuse words like this they lose all meaning. Oops!! I have another dogma, the dogma of the dictionary. Shit!
>>What you call a commandment is no such thing.
I think you’re the one who has out-deluded yourself. Since you’re such a big fan of dictionaries, I suggest you review the definition of “dogma” and “commandment”.
>>So, it is equally dogmatic to state that no
>>one can know whether or not there is a god.
No argument there. Any belief that is strongly held in the absence of any proof is equally as dogmatic as any other.
>>Is stating that I believe [blah blah] dogma?
Of course not. But that’s not what Atheists state. Of course, it’s the truth (“I believe that God does not exist”), but instead they insist that their belief that God does not exist is not a belief, it’s a self-evident truth. Atheists are some of the most dogmatic people I have ever met.
>>I have another dogma, the dogma of
>>the dictionary.
Well, you’re going to buuuurrrrnnnn in a lake of everlasting fiiiiiiiiire then, Scottie. You turn to the dictionary when it supports your dogma, but ignore it when it doesn’t.
Tsk.
I guess this is why zero was the last number (sic) developed by man?
The null concept being a difficult concept for those that look, listen, touch, taste and all the other concrete perceptions?
So Mr Mustard why when you tout the continuum do you place all degrees/types/definitions of no belief in god, aka atheists, as the minority type that do on first view appear to be evangelical in their zeal?
Since I’m not one of them, and have never met the type of atheist you seem surrounded by, I wonder what these “in your face” atheist would say if you asked them what they would think of god if for instance prayer was shown to work?
You are a trip Mister Mustard.
>>I wonder what these “in your face” atheist
>>would say if you asked them what they would
>>think of god if for instance prayer was shown
>>to work?
Oh, I know what they’d say, Bobbolina. They’d say “that’s a ridiculous question. everybody who’s not a delusional ranting lunatic sheeple knows that prayer doesn’t work, because God doesn’t exist”.
On the other hand, if you asked people of faith if prayer “works”, you’d get a lot of much more nuanced answers. Of course, people of faith are much less dogmatic than Atheists. It must be something about the introspection and self-examination. Atheists have the One True Answer, courtesy of their One Commandment.
Kind of pitiful, don’t you think?
>>So Mr Mustard why when you tout the
>>continuum do you place all degrees/types
>>/definitions of no belief in god, aka
>>atheists, as the minority type that do on
>>first view appear to be evangelical in their
>>zeal?
Christ, Bobster. Christ. I think I’m going to ask Santa to bring you a copy of Strunk & White for Christmas. The mysteries of the universe are easier to understand than whatever the fuck that sentence meant.
Mustard–I like you’re postings here. I have done the same, take an idiot’s position that you might lean towards but go all the way and see how the argument goes. I can’t keep it up for more than a day or two.
Fantastic street performer. You have no peer.
>>I have done the same, take an idiot’s position
Heh heh. I’ve noticed that about you, Bobster.
#24 – Mooseturd,
We’ve already been through the definition of dogma. Here’s the definition of commandment.
1. a command or mandate.
2. (sometimes initial capital letter) any of the Ten Commandments.
3. the act or power of commanding.
Since there is no one commanding atheists, i.e. no god, how the fuck could there be such a concept to atheism.
You are really far out there on this one. I think the whites of your eyes are becoming brown.
Scottie, you’re becoming agitated again.
A commandment need not be an utterance by a guy with white hair/beard and a robe. Another fully accepted definition is “teaching or precept”.
But if the notion of Atheism having a “commandment” sounds too holy for your tastes, how about if we call it a CENTRAL DOGMA. Something that, if you don’t believe it, you’re out. A very important belief, in other words.
#30–MM==can you list a few atheist dogma? Certainly a list can’t include you don’t believe in god because that is the very definition that forms the category. Dogma is “sub category” type stuff that validates your inclusion in the category.
I can’t think of any “required” beliefs of atheists——because it ain’t no group/church/formal belief system.
Help us out with your expertise: What must atheists believe in order to be a “good” atheist?