First, everyone can be skeptical of science, including of course scientists themselves — after all, scientists are skeptics by profession. But skepticism pushed toward extreme denialism is mostly limited to the political right, some scientific issues standing out (e.g., climate change). And general distrust of science is broadly and consistently found only among religious conservatives.
This is a point that was made by Chris Mooney in his research showing that there is no equivalent on the political left — as far as I know, not even among the religious left. For example, the smart idiot effect is primarily found on the political right, such that knowledge really does matter to those on the political left (research shows that liberals, unlike conservatives, will more likely change their mind when they learn new info).
The role religion plays is in magnifying this difference between ideological tendencies.
Not All Skepticism Is Equal: Exploring the Ideological Antecedents of Science Acceptance and Rejection
by Bastiaan T. Rutjens, Robbie M. Sutton, & Romy van der Lee
To sum up the current findings, in four studies, both political conservatism and religiosity independently predict science skepticism and rejection. Climate skepticism was consistently predicted by political conservatism, vaccine skepticism was consistently predicted by religiosity, and GM food skepticism was consistently predicted by low faith in science and knowledge of science. General low faith in science and unwillingness to support science in turn were primarily associated with religiosity, in particular religious conservatism. Thus, different forms of science acceptance and rejection have different ideological roots, although the case could be made that these are generally grounded in conservatism.
Study: Conservatives’ Trust In Science At Record Low
by Eyder Peralta
While trust in science has remained flat for most Americans, a new study finds that for those who identify as conservatives trust in science has plummeted to its lowest level since 1974.
Gordon Gauchat, a sociology professor at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, studied data from the General Social Survey and found that changes in confidence in science are not uniform across all groups.
“Moreover, conservatives clearly experienced group-specific declines in trust in science over the period,” Gauchat reports. “These declines appear to be long-term rather than abrupt.”
Just 35 percent of conservatives said they had a “great deal of trust in science” in 2010. That number was 48 percent in 1974. […]
Speaking to Gauchat, he said that what surprised him most about his study is that he ran statistical analysis on a host of different groups of people. He only saw significant change in conservatives and people who frequently attend church.
Gauchat said that even conservatives with bachelor’s degrees expressed distrust in science.
I asked him what could explain this and he offered two theories: First that science is now responsible for providing answers to questions that religion used to answer and secondly that conservatives seem to believe that science is now responsible for policy decisions. […]
Another bit of surprising news from the study, said Gauchat, is that trust in science for moderates has remained the same.
Here is the second point, which is more positive.
Religious conservatives are a shrinking and aging demographic, as liberal and left-wing views and labels continually take hold. So, as their numbers decrease and their influence lessens, we Americans might finally be able to have rational public debate about science that leads to pragmatic implementation of scientific knowledge.
The old guard of reactionaries are losing their grip on power, even within the once strong bastions of right-wing religiosity. But like an injured and dying wild animal, they will make a lot of noise and still can be dangerous. The reactionaries will become more reactionary, as we have recently seen. This moment of conflict shall pass, as it always does. Like it or not, change will happen and indeed it already is happening.
There is one possible explanation for this change. Science denialism is a hard attitude to maintain over time, even with the backfire effect. It turns out that even conservatives do change their opinions based on expert knowledge, even if it takes longer. So, despite the evidence showing no short term change with policies, we should expect that a political shift will continue happen across the generations.
Knowledge does matter. But it requires immense repetition and patience. Also, keep in mind that, as knowledge matters even more for the political left, the power of knowledge will increase as the general population moves further left. This might be related to the fact that the average American is increasingly better educated — admittedly, Americans aren’t all that well educated in comparison to some countries, but in comparison to the state of education in the past there has been a dramatic improvement.
However you wish to explain it, the religious and non-religious alike are becoming more liberal and progressive, even more open to social democracy and democratic socialism. There is no evidence that this shift has stopped or reversed. Conservatism will remain a movement in the future, but it will probably look more like the present Democratic Party than the present Republican Party. As the political parties have gone far right, the American public has moved so far left as to be outside of the mainstream spectrum of partisan politics.
We are beginning to see the results.
by Molly Worthen
(see Evangelicals Turn Left)
70 percent of evangelicals now tell pollsters they don’t identify with the religious right, and younger evangelicals often have more enthusiasm for social justice than for the culture wars
Trump Is Bringing Progressive Protestants Back to Church
by Emma Green
In the wake of Donald Trump’s election, some conservative Christians have been reckoning with feelings of alienation from their peers, who generally voted for Trump in strong numbers. But at least some progressive Protestant churches are experiencing the opposite effect: People have been returning to the pews.
“The Sunday after the election was the size of an average Palm Sunday,” wrote Eric Folkerth, the senior pastor at Dallas’s Northaven United Methodist Church, in an email. More than 30 first-time visitors signed in that day, “which is more than double the average [across] three weeks of a typical year,” he added. “I sincerely don’t recall another time when it feels like there has been a sustained desire on people’s part to be together with other progressive Christians.”
Anecdotal evidence suggests other liberal churches from a variety of denominations have been experiencing a similar spike over the past month, with their higher-than-usual levels of attendance staying relatively constant for several weeks. It’s not at all clear that the Trump bump, as the writer Diana Butler Bass termed it in a conversation with me, will be sustained beyond the first few months of the new administration. But it suggests that some progressives are searching for a moral vocabulary in grappling with the president-elect—including ways of thinking about community that don’t have to do with electoral politics. […]
Even if Trump doesn’t bring about a membership revolution in the American mainline, which has been steadily shrinking for years, some of the conversations these Protestant pastors reported were fascinating—and suggest that this political environment might be theologically, morally, and intellectually generative for progressive religious traditions.
Southern Baptists Call Off the Culture War
by Jonathan Merritt
Indeed, disentangling the SBC from the GOP is central to the denomination’s makeover. For example, a motion to defund the ERLC in response to the agency’s full-throated opposition to Donald Trump failed miserably.
In years past, Republican politicians have spoken to messengers at the annual meeting. In 1991, President George H.W. Bush addressed the group, Vice President Dan Quayle spoke in 1992, and President George W. Bush did so in 2001 and 2002 (when my father, James Merritt, was SBC president). Neither President Bill Clinton nor President Barack Obama were invited to speak to Southern Baptists during their terms. Though Southern Baptists claim not to be affiliated with either major party, it’s not difficult to discern the pattern at play.
Vice President Mike Pence addressed the convention this year, which may seem like the same old song to outsiders. But there was widespread resistance to Pence’s participation. A motion to disinvite the vice president was proposed and debated, but was ultimately voted down. During his address, which hit some notes more typical of a campaign speech, a few Southern Baptists left the room out of protest. Others criticized the move to reporters or spoke out on Twitter. The newly elected Greear tweeted that the invitation “sent a terribly mixed signal” and reminded his fellow Baptists that “commissioned missionaries, not political platforms, are what we do.”
Though most Southern Baptists remain politically conservative, it seems that some are now less willing to have their denomination serve as a handmaiden to the GOP, especially in the current political moment. They appear to recognize that tethering themselves to Donald Trump—a thrice-married man who has bragged about committing adultery, lies with impunity, allegedly paid hush money to a porn star with whom he had an affair, and says he has never asked God for forgiveness—places the moral credibility of the Southern Baptist Convention at risk.
By elevating women and distancing themselves from partisan engagement, the members of the SBC appear to be signaling their determination to head in a different direction, out of a mix of pragmatism and principle.
For more than a decade, the denomination has been experiencing precipitous decline by almost every metric. Baptisms are at a 70-year low, and Sunday attendance is at a 20-year low. Southern Baptist churches lost almost 80,000 members from 2016 to 2017 and they have hemorrhaged a whopping one million members since 2003. For years, Southern Baptists have criticized more liberal denominations for their declines, but their own trends are now running parallel. The next crop of leaders knows something must be done.
“Southern Baptists thought that if they became more conservative, their growth would continue unabated. But they couldn’t outrun the demographics and hold the decline at bay,” said Leonard. “Classic fundamentalist old-guard churches are either dead or dying, and the younger generation is realizing that the old way of articulating the gospel is turning away more people than it is attracting. “
Regardless of their motivations, this shift away from a more culturally strident and politically partisan stance is significant.
As the late pastor Adrian Rogers said at the 2002 SBC annual meeting in St. Louis, “As the West goes, so goes the world. As America goes, so goes the West. As Christianity goes, so goes America. As evangelicals go, so goes Christianity. As Southern Baptists go, so go evangelicals.”
Rogers may have had an inflated sense of the denomination’s importance, but the fact remains that what happens in the SBC often ripples across culture. In Trump’s America, where the religious right wields outsized influence, the shifts among Southern Baptists could be a harbinger of broader change among evangelicals.
The divide between the religious and the rest of the population is smaller than it seems. That is because media likes to play up conflict. To demonstrate the actual views of the religious in the United States, consider a hot button issue like abortion:
- “As an example of the complexity, data shows that there isn’t even an anti-abortion consensus among Christians, only one Christian demographic showing a strong majority [White Evangelical Protestants].” (Claims of US Becoming Pro-Life)
- “[A]long with most doctors, most church-going Catholics support public option and so are in agreement with most Americans in general. Even more interesting is the fact that the church-going Catholics even support a national plan that includes funding for abortion.” (Health Reform & Public Option (polls & other info))
- “[M]ost Americans identify as Christian and have done so for generations. Yet most Americans are pro-choice, supporting abortion in most or all situations, even as most Americans also support there being strong and clear regulations for where abortions shouldn’t be allowed. It’s complicated, specifically among Christians. The vast majority (70%) seeking abortions considered themselves Christians, including over 50% who attend church regularly having kept their abortions secret from their church community and 40% feeling that churches are not equipped to help them make decisions about unwanted pregnancies.” (American Christianity: History, Politics, & Social Issues)
Whatever ideological and political conflicts we might have in the future, it won’t be a continuation of the culture wars we have known up to this point. Nor will it likely conform to battle of ideologies as seen during the Cold War. The entire frame of debate will be different and, barring unforeseen events, most likely far to the left.
* * *
As an additional point, there is another shift that is happening. There is a reason why there feels to be a growing antagonism, even though it’s not ideological per se.
The fact of the matter is “religious nones” (atheists, agnostics, religiously non-identifying, religiously indifferent, etc) is growing faster than any religious group. Mainline Christians have been losing membership for decades and now so are Evangelicals. This is getting to the point where young Americans are evenly split between the religious and non-religious. That means the religious majority will quickly disappear.
This isn’t motivated by overt ideology or it doesn’t seem to be, since it is a shift happening in many other countries as well. But it puts pressure on ideology and can get expressed or manipulated through ideological rhetoric. So, we might see increasing conflict between ideologies, maybe in new forms that could create a new left vs right.
Younger people are less religious than older ones in many countries, especially in the U.S. and Europe
by Stephanie Kramer & Dalia Fahmy
In the U.S., the age gap is considerable: 43% of people under age 40 say religion is very important to them, compared with 60% of adults ages 40 and over.
If nothing else, this contributes to a generational conflict. There is a reason much of right-wing media has viewers that are on average older. This is why many older Americans are still fighting the culture wars, if only in their own minds.
But Americans in general, including most young Evangelicals, have lost interest in politicized religion. Christianity simply won’t play the same kind of central role in coming decades. Religion will remain an issue, but even Republicans will have to deal with the fact that even the young on the political right are less religious and less socially conservative.
7 thoughts on “Two Views of Present Christianity”
The statistics are fascinating and very revealing. Do you think it touche son the issue of gerrymandering? I mean in the sense that if there is broad consensus on issues like abortion but the government remains split along predictable lines is that the result of bogus district lines drawn up in “back rooms” vs actually being honest representations of community views?
Gerrymandering is a main tool in the oligarchic toolbox. Along with shutting down polling locations and voter purge lists (and much else), gerrymandering makes possible heavy-handed social control. It’s how Republicans can win even when the popular votes goes to Democrats. Trump, for example, won not mostly because of who voted for him but who didn’t vote for Clinton. This is also how the GOP has dominated the South for so long, in spite of the majority of Southerners leaning toward the Democratic Party.
The American public is a silenced majority. Most are surprisingly far left on a wide array of issues. I’ve covered many specific issues in posts over the years, but I mostly stopped bothering once the pattern became repetitive. Still, I occasionally bring it back up with posts like this, as it is good to remind ourselves of the basic facts. Most ‘debate’ in corporatocratic politics is a non-issue as far as public opinion goes.
I got into following this kind of data back in the Bush administration. Nothing I say here is all that new, per se. But the ongoing trends are getting harder to ignore. Many of these demographic and public opinion shifts can be traced back decades. The mainstream, including the Democratic Party, has often gone to a lot of effort to ignore, dismiss, and obfuscate the data. It’s part of the long-term propaganda campaign that has allowed both parties to push the entire spectrum of allowable debate far to the right. Plus, there is a lot of confusion, much of it intentionally created and maintained, but some of it the side effects of a confused system.
Most Americans never noticed what happened. It wasn’t even that well hidden, more of an open secret really. Any given part of this data would occasionally pop up in the MSM, not that it ever got full or extensive attention. It’s the kind of thing that is rarely if ever put into context, the pieces to the puzzle left in isolation as if they stand alone and indicate no greater meaning. I sometimes suspect that, in the process, much of the media elite and political elite and economic elite have ended up fooling themselves. Many of them seem to have come to believe their own spin. Otherwise, it would be hard for them to sleep at night.
There is a theory that the purpose of right-wing think tanks is to target propaganda specifically at the most influential within the comfortable classes. Think tanks, maybe more than anything else, have been the key players in this game. Some major think tanks go back to the early Progressive Era.
“Chief among the common misconceptions about the way official propaganda works is the notion that its goal is to deceive the public into believing things that are not “the truth” (that Trump is a Russian agent, for example, or that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction, or that the terrorists hate us for our freedom, et cetera). However, while official propagandists are definitely pleased if anyone actually believes whatever lies they are selling, deception is not their primary aim.
“The primary aim of official propaganda is to generate an “official narrative” that can be mindlessly repeated by the ruling classes and those who support and identify with them. This official narrative does not have to make sense, or to stand up to any sort of serious scrutiny. Its factualness is not the point. The point is to draw a Maginot line, a defensive ideological boundary, between “the truth” as defined by the ruling classes and any other “truth” that contradicts their narrative.”
~ C.J. Hopkins
All of this has been focus for a long time. There is something fascinating about it. The whole operation is impressive in how effective its been over multiple generations. This is the wave that Bannon and Trump are able to ride. But this has had the unintended consequence of waking up ever larger numbers of Americans who wonder how this craziness happened right in front of their face.
The question, such as with inequality, is what will the citizenry do once they realize the depth of lies, injustice, and betrayal. There is a tipping point in public awareness when the silenced majority gains their own voice and, in hearing others, realize they are a majority. That is when protest movements and revolutions sweep a country. And often it happens suddenly, as if out of nowhere.
After reading some of Corey Robin’s pieces on the mindset behind these kinds of political practices, it seems like the main selling point of reactionary narratives is that ordinary people get to feel like they are thinking like elites do, or at least getting in on the party, even if they’d never make it past the velvet ropes.
I don’t know. There are many aspects to it. And it is hard to pin it down. But Robin does a good job at the essence along with some of the typical patterns.
There is one point Robin makes that is sort of related to what you say. The most reactionary often are the outsiders whose position is questionable. Edmund Burke was an example of this. He was Irish and his family had a Catholic background. It wasn’t easy for him to break into the English social order and become a politician. Such people have a tendency to fear other outsiders and a desire to pull the ladder up behind them.
Maybe its a similar pattern to why reactionary politics so often show up in the middle class. It is precisely the middle class that is precarious in shrinking and declining right now. And Trump’s largest support came from the middle class. These are the people who have been aspiring for socioeconomic mobility. Now they find their dreams of being part of the elite snatched from them.
You mention that frequent mass attendees are more conservative and more likely to be ‘pro-life’. I wonder if many of them are aware of the church’s long debate regarding abortion and ensoulment. In 1591 Pope Gregory XIV restricted a papal bull regarding punishment of early term abortions.
Clearly, such social issues are not black and white topics. I would agree that people are better educated and this is a main reason that conservatism and religiousness are declining. Furthermore, less mentally adept individuals usually cling to dogma and rigid thinking despite facts or evidence that would influence a more reasonable person to have a broader perspective and more complex value system.
Not many of them are aware of much of anything involving history. If they were, their ideological views would be far different. I’ve written about the long history of Christianity, abortion, ensoulment, etc.
I’m less concerned about the genuinely ignorant, as they are largely uneducated and disinformed. They are victims of powerful forces conspiring to manipulate them. For that reason, my worries focus on the masterminds and perpetrators of this evil: Bannon, Kochs, Mercers, etc.
Education and knowledge will improve over time. We are seeing that across the generations. Still, the reactionary mind is mercurial and adaptive, the source of its power and influence. There is nothing the reactionary mind can’t adopt and adapt to.