« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

FRONT PAGE CONTRIBUTOR

Pew and the Democratic War on Science.

By: Moe Lane (Diary)  |  December 14th, 2009 at 10:52 AM  | 

RESIZE: AAA

For the record, I don’t actually care if somebody believes in stuff like astrology. But fair’s fair, and if we’re going to have to listen to liberal elites sneering about creationists, said elites can take the time to explain why they don’t sneer at astrology devotees*:

Pew

For those limited to text: somewhere around 30% of Democrats believe in a whole range of New Age stuff, explicitly including astrology. This is roughly double the number of Republicans also surveyed. Similar numbers and ratio for conservatives/liberals**.

A quote for you, to roll this up:

A touchstone to determine the actual worth of an “intellectual”- find out how he feels about astrology. – Robert Heinlein

I would have added that quote attributed to G.K. Chesterton about the implications of ceasing to believe in God, but the actual quote is hard to pin down.

Moe Lane

*And before anybody starts muttering about enshrining beliefs into policy, kindly explain why the Democrats want to subsidize ‘alternative medicine’ in their health care rationing bill.

**And as an aside, it’s a real pity that Pew didn’t poll for anti-vaccination sentiment.

Crossposted to Moe Lane.

Tags: , ,

COMMENTS

POSTING RULES  |  LOGIN TO COMMENT  |  REGISTER TODAY
  • http://guyaverage.blogspot.com guyaverage

    Astrology is one of those. The danger is in the spiritual realm, which is why The Bible warns about not having anything to do with it. In addition, it takes one’s focus off of reality, IMHO.

    Liberals believe in Socialism and Communism, so it fits the pattern that they would believe in astrology.

  • Warrior

    attributed to Umberto Eco, it’s G.K. Chesterton’s quote:

    ?When men stop believing in God they don?t believe in nothing; they believe in anything.?

    Like astrology, Scientology, gubmint healthcare, The Won, spending your way out of debt, penumbras, emanations, anthropogenic global warming…actually, the list is almost endless…

  • buzzyboop

    If these wacky libs are so enamored with this “New Age” stuff, why did they get so ‘wee-weed’ up when Nancy Reagan consulted astrologer Joan Quigley?

    http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,967410,00.html

    Cheers, Frank

  • aelie

    Completely vague statements without details on how wonderful your future will be? Sweet promises that everyone knows that can’t possibly occur under given circumstances? Incredibly general (and false) statements to sway the greatest possible number of audiences?

    I don’t know about you, but astrology is a very accurate description of Obama’s politics if you ask me.

  • Richard Mullins

    That’s when the the first salvos of the war began. When you start to move into philosophy, you’re a part of that war.

  • ceili_dancer

    (Insert star sign)- (Insert date of birth)- You will be thinking of someone you haven’t thought about in a long time. You will be in for a surprise today.

    Also, this goes along the same lines of John Edwards and his cold reaings.

  • redneck_hippie

    I expect ’10 and to an even greater extent, ’12, to be a national referendum on liars and the lying politicians who support them.

    Whole swaths of people who distrusted evangelicalism and/or Christianity in a politician will now take a second look at people who wear their morality and uprightness on their sleeves. I’m talking about people who have a track record of doing the right thing, not blabbermouths who play one on tv.

    Great post, Moe. The secular socialists/Marxists in power now have relied on us not listening to our better angels. But we still have them and they are doing much more than whispering these days.

  • jackhammer

    In a western enlightenment based culture, astrology might seem strange…but tell that to my friends form India. Most of them base who they marry, what job they do and a number of other important life decisions on whether the stars align or not.

    I am not saying I put any credibility in it myself, but for them it is a cultural thing, and given their divorce rates, they might be on to something…..

  • earlgrey

    made the tabloids (back in the day) for supposedly consulting with astrologers. I think the old double standard goes for this too.

  • http://www.criterionchemical.com Chemical Sam

    I wouldn’t expect them to distinguish the differences between astronomy and astrology.

  • Read Chesterton in New Improved Jersey

    It doesn’t get any better than this.

  • Read Chesterton in New Improved Jersey

    Apologies for the apologetics…

  • archer52

    I wrote an article about the movie and the points Stein and the producers were making. The obvious danger in allowing bad science to trump all other thoughts or principles is highlighted by Stein linking Darwin to Eugenics to Hitler. The point made was that once you deny the existence of a higher power YOU become the highest power. Along with that comes all the failings of man; greed, madness, hunger for power and control.

    I highly recommend watching it for no other reason than to listen to the arguments of the other side- mostly atheists. Some of their comments as to the origin of life are almost comical and would be so if they weren’t the driving force behind the corrupted science our children are being taught.

    Here is the post-

    http://truthandcommonsense.com/2009/12/14/ben-stein-strikes-a-cord-and-shows-us-climategate-isnt-the-only-science-corrupted-the-expelled-movie/

    We we are seeing, in my opinion, is the communist/state first belief system exposing itself through the desire to eliminate “God” from the conscience of all mankind. As one of the scientist openly said in the movie.

    Scary stuff and supported by most of the democrats.

  • lunarmanathome

    ……

    “Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies because they become fashions.”

    Why be surprised at the contradictions that liberals represent? It has been said that liberalism is a disease after all.

  • http://www.veronicaestrada.com/ Veronica Estrada

    but I get your point.

    What strikes me is PZ Meyers obvious lie in the film.

    If you watch it closely, you’ll see his eyes shift when he says something about not wanting to control Christianity.

    If you so much as visit his site or find an article about him, his presence litterally shoults — destroy God.

    If there were no God, why does he care?

    Guy’s a freak. Probably mentally ill.

    But you know Ben! Wow.

    Nice site, btw.

  • Alberta

    However, having about half of you Americans believing in ghosts is a little troubling.

  • Alberta

    However, having about half of you Americans believing in ghosts is a little troubling.

  • http://beaglescout.wordpress.com LJ “Beaglescout” Miller

    So her belief in astrology, whether it was real or media invention, was irrelevant to what Reagan did.

  • archer52

    In the end, whether bad science leads to bad morality (as in Darwinism) or that bad morality exists and seeks justification for its evil by hanging onto bad science (Hitler), or that bad politics promotes both (Stalin/Mao/Wilson) in order to justify its actions, the end result is the same. Since our beginning we have had two arguments ongoing in our civilizations- are we independent of any accounting for our actions or are we in fact somehow linked to a greater power and should act accordingly.

    People like Barney Frank, Rahm and his brother (who I think would do just as well wearing lightning bolts on his uniform as he is does wearing a suit in D.C.), Holdren, and the others all seek the freedom of being justified in their actions because there is no higher power holding certain laws and principles as holy.

    There is no other explanation for their desire to abandon the elderly and infirm, or to have even a philosophical argument for fun’s sake where the idea would even be discussed. It would be like arguing in a serious manner the execution of your mother and father or maybe your not so smart child as a way to improve the efficiency of the workers for the good of the state… Wait, we have had that argument… in China, Russia, Germany and now in certain parts of Europe.

    Watch the movie, listen to the arguments made to limit certain types of people because of the drain they have on society and ask yourself who decides who is a drain? Short people, tall people, blondes, redheads, old, weak, young, slow, too thin or too fat- who decides the make up of this new world.

    You can be assured somehow fat, gay, ugly, useless, out of shape Barney Frank would somehow be exempt even if all of those characteristics would be grounds for elimination for others. That is the ugly truth behind Eugenics. It is just a tool for those who rule to crush those who resist that rule. Without guilt, without remorse and without accountability. It is the horror and the monster that dwells in the souls of far too many men who would kill millions to reign for just one more day.

  • anotherindyfilmguy

    is why they believe. It’s also how people get suckered into thinking communism is a good idea, marx was right-on and so forth… They are the sort whom Barnum loved to see pay for the joy of seeing the egress…

  • iteabagu

    Of course, the whole Jesus story is a big astrological fable (12 apostles are the zodiac etc.) His symbol is a fish and he calls fishermen because he is the God of the new Piscean age when the sun enters pisces (just like the golden calf was made during the Taurian age). The bible, like most myths, is an anthropomorphization of the sky. That’s just how ignorant, ancient people thought about the sky – it was a mirror of Earth and so very important. Of course, the bible also puts forward the idea that Earth has four big columns that hold up the sky and that it floats on water. You guys are really coming from a rational place to criticize the New Agers (of which I’m not one btw).

    Oh yeah – the early Christians were communists too. Read acts. I’m not one, but they were.

  • Uma Richie

    Really, I’m flattered. Does your partner know you fantasize about Conservatives?

  • Jake W

    Even if the early Christians were Communists, as we know of the word now, it was because of a voluntary submission, which is different from the government enforced kind that you Libs love so much. “Voluntary”…that’s not a word you Libs know much about is it?

    What’s the over/under on the time before this one is BLAMMED?

  • http://moelane.com/ Moe Lane

    NT

  • merryj1

    That whole “What would Jesus do?” (and “In today’s world, Jesus would be a liberal”) mantra is nonsense: Jesus spoke to the individual, not to the collective, and He admonished the individual to be charitable. Passing that personal responsibility off to “government” is the antithesis of Christianity.

    The early (18th century) communist was a French revolutionary who resided in Paris (a “commune”).

  • merryj1

    “For the record, I don?t actually care if somebody believes in stuff like astrology. But fair?s fair, and if we?re going to have to listen to liberal elites sneering about creationists, said elites can take the time to explain why they don?t sneer at astrology devotees”

    Well, “Millionaires don’t hire Astrologers, Billionaires do.” J.P. Morgan.

    And, according to Business Week (quoted in Henry Weingarten’s “Investing by the Stars,” 1996 copyright), “This is the dawning of the Age of Financial Astrology. At a time when the market has rarely seemed more unfathomable, astrology is gaining popularity as a forecasting tool.”

    And, astrology is “a time-honored if little-acknowledged Wall Street tradition. … Morgan kept an astrologer on staff, and scores of today’s analysts, brokers, and traders quietly rely on planetary data to help guide their investment decisions…” (Weingarten relied on astrology to accurately predict the 1990 Tokyo Stock Market Crash and the start of the Persian Gulf War).

  • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens
  • Next93

    One of the most infuriating parts ofthe 2008 campaigns for me was watching Joe Biden claim that Obama had steel in his spine when, in fact, he’s never gone against his party or the fringe left, and never actually done anything difficult. He’s lived a life of comfort and everything he’s ever “accomplished” has actually been handed to him.

    John McCain, love him or hate him, stood firm against *real* torture for years as a POW, and literally walked through a sea of flames when an accident on his aircraft carrier set off the fuel tanks on the jet he was strapped into (I’ve seen the video, and it’s amazing).

    Sarah Palin, lover her or hate her, is just the opposite; she repeatedly stood up against her own party both before and during her term as governor, when she found out she was pregnant with a special-needs child at a time in her life when most women are looking forward to grandchildren, she didn’t turn her back on her values, and when she found out that her oldest daughter had made a stupid (and potentially politically crippling) mistake, she still stood by her values.

  • Jeffrey_Goldberg

    You are correct that belief in astrology and New Age BS is an embarrassment to people on the left (like me). But it is important to understand why people like me worry more about the Creationists than the New Agers (although I ridicule both).

    Creationists are on a campaign to undermine science education. We don’t find New Agers trying to present the “theory” behind homeopathy in chemistry classes, nor do we find them trying to present astrology along side astronomy in science classes. Yet we do find Creationists routinely doing exactly that.

    I’m sure that readers here will be able to dig up some examples where New Agers have tried to impose their nonsense in schools (indeed, I encountered an example of something similar recently that had me fuming), but New Agers don’t come close to scale or the near success of the Creationist’s efforts.

  • CincoSolas_del_Bronx

    produce embarassment, worry, ridicule and fuming. I can’t recall references to the research.

    Oh, and if you wouldn’t mind, an additional note about whether those terms can possibly bear more than a subjective reference to phenomena occuring only within your own brain?

  • CincoSolas_del_Bronx

    missed Reply to This again

  • Jeffrey_Goldberg

    CincoSolas,

    I’m sorry but I think that through posting or formatting difficulties, I was unable to understand your question(s). Could you clarify and respost them please.

    Thank you.

  • Vaughn Harold

    just a little of what people who believe in a Creator have felt for several decades now!

    By the way random events can never produced order.

    And, where did all that stuff that makes up our universe come from to begin with.

    Science can never answer these questions with any validity, yet the theory of a creatorless universe is being forced upon our public education system as fact.

    One last thing, you’re in no position of authority to “ridicule” anyone, ever!

  • Streiff

    I agree they’ve succeeded in scaring the bejeezus out of you and I agree that you people have reacted to it the only way you know how, which is to try to legislate them out of existence rather than confronting them in public forums and making your case.

    Can you show me a school district that actually teaches Creationism in high school biology? If you can I’d feel a lot more comfortable in attributing your fears to something other than some kind of inchoate bigotry.

    On the grander scale, are you seriously contending that the notion of Young Earth or Creationism have entered the popular culture in the same way as homeopathy, crystals, healing auras, etc.?

    I think this is simply a case of your ox being gored.

  • CincoSolas_del_Bronx

    rather than to your comment.

    The terms “embarassment … ” etc. were your own.

    You seem to have declared yourself a non-Creationist, which indicates a high probability–correct me if I’m wrong–that you consider yourself a Materialist.

    Materialism is ultimately not at all kind to the concept of one aggregate of matter making truth claims about another aggregate of matter. A vast array* of forces and reactions occurring, an infinitesimally tiny fraction of these being sensed by other loci of matter/forces/reactions, to be sure, but the terms you used are really nothing more than one aggregate of matter’s subjective reference to processes occurring–within itself.

    * classical-objective reference–beware!

  • Aaron Gardner

    Well done.

  • Vaughn Harold

    nt

  • CincoSolas_del_Bronx

    And lest the mods become embarassed, worry, ridicule or fume about where this is going–I’m outta here on this one!

  • http://stores.lulu.com/iconicfreedom iconicfreedom

    What freedom loving American cares what a person believes? Have faith? Don’t have faith. Have a deity, don’t have a deity.

    Believe whatever you want to believe, but government stays out of it.

    No funding anything of a “belief” system with pluralistic tax dollars. Let free market principles create opportunities for communities to donate and extend charity.

    Stop funding all this science stuff. Government out of it, causes too much corruption. If something is worth pursuing, then Americans paying less taxes being redistributed to things they don’t want to participate in, will create the opportunity for science to make other discoveries.

    Jerry Lewis and his gang have been raising millions for decades, irrespective of government, doing just fine in their personal endeavors.

    If Republicans uphold free market principles, then it has to be about all such things not just the things they want to feel “entitled” to or want favor for.

    We supply a military to protect the entire nation and all Americans, we get that.

    Let Americans put their money where their interests lay not in what the government “thinks” their interests lay.

    However, everyone wants their personal agenda favored so they rationalize, justify and excuse all the reasons why their particular cause “deserves”.

    Either you’re about freedom or you’re not. You can’t be a little bit pregnant.

  • Jeffrey_Goldberg

    Yes, I consider myself a materialist, but I don’t see that it follows from being an anti-Creationist. (Though the converse is certainly true: Materialism pretty much rules out Creationism).

    Now to your main question, if I understand it correctly, you are claiming that materialism entails relativism/solipsism. But I don’t follow your argument. You acknowledge that we have sense perceptions, but you seem to ignore that sensory input affects the internal state to which person responds.

    Consider a video camera set up with face recognition (a very imperfect technology at the moment). Before the computer program makes the final judgement, it has done a great deal of processing of the initial signal from the sensors behind the lens. Its final judgement is a response to an internal state, but non-the-less it is an aggregate of matter making a truth claim about another aggregate of matter.

    Indeed, even a thermostat is an aggregate of matter making a truth claim (and modifying its behavior based on that claim) about another aggregate of matter (the air).

    I’m sure you know all of this, so I suspect that I have once again misunderstood your point. Could you post a link to the criticism of materialism you are raising?

    By the way, are you a Creationist? And how to you feel about Astrology?

  • Vaughn Harold

    Your two illustrations are of items that were made (created) to do something.

  • CincoSolas_del_Bronx

    break my word, and step back into the ring for one more round. Moe–don’t shoot–I’ll keep one hand in the air!

    That’s why I said “high probability” rather than “it follows”.

    Vaughn makes one huge point–so I’ll leave that one to him.

    Let’s just say I’ll be more interested in listening on the day I hear my face recognition system and/or my thermostat tell me–or maybe each other–they’re embarassed, worried, moved to ridicule and fuming because other comparison algorithms and bimetallic strips aren’t giving the same readouts that they are giving.

    To your btw: 1) yes and 2) the electro-chemical processes in what-I-call-my-brain have indicated the reception of a large, coherent system of referents containing objectively-verifiable material/historical aspects, among which are both a) propositional claims about the cosmic significance of a peculiarly empty hole in the ground on the outskirts of a particular city at a site 31°46’40″ N, 35°13’57″E ± 1km during a time frame 1979 ± 2 solar years ago, and b) statements claiming to be from both the source of the referents themselves and the prime actor in the events surrounding the peculiary empty hole in the ground that Astrology–Warning! Shields up against possible incoming objectivity radiation!–is Not a Good Thing.

  • realskinny

    I’ll have to see this film.

  • Jeffrey_Goldberg

    Vaughn, yes my two examples are of things that are the product of deliberate, mindful design.

    I was merely responding to Cinco’s epistemological point. Cinco appeared to be saying that a mere aggregate of matter couldn’t make a truth claim about another aggregate of matter. I provided examples where aggregates of matter do precisely that.

  • realskinny

    What do you call the anti-science of AGW? The Left has not only ejected science from the classroom they have distorted history, literature, biology and virtually every field of learning. None of this bothers you but if someone points out the numerous holes in evolutionary theory and don’t want it taught as fact, you get your shorts in a knot and start screaming “Creationist!”.

  • Jeffrey_Goldberg

    Vaughn, you say, “By the way random events can never produced order.”

    And I (largely) agree. However natural selection is a non-random process. The mutations and variation may be random, but natural selection is distinctly non-random.

    Consider the wing of a bird. It contains a great deal of information about, among other things, the density of the atmosphere in each it evolved and the pull of gravity in its environment. And the non-random selection of its ancestors allows for that order.

    You also ask “where did all that stuff that makes up our universe come from to begin with.”

    There are speculative theories that may answer that, but I am not competent to judge how persuasive those accounts are, so I will just answer with a simple “I don’t know”.

    And you say, “Science can never answer these questions with any validity, yet the theory of a creatorless universe is being forced upon our public education system as fact.”

    Well science has perfectly well answered the first question. (It’s Creationists who misquote the second law of thermodynamics and information theory.)

    Whether the second question will every be adequately answered. But there were times when people thought that science could never explain the motion of the planets or what stars were made of. History is filled with things that science was thought to “never be able to explain” that since have very good explanations.

    To my knowledge there is nothing that is taught in science classes in school for which there isn’t overwhelming evidence. Exceptions are always labelled as speculative or uncertain.

    Finally you say, “One last thing, you?re in no position of authority to ?ridicule? anyone, ever!”

    We both live in a free society. I need no “authority” to ridicule anyone and neither to you. I do try to limit my ridicule to beliefs and not to people.

    I also attempt to limit my (public) ridicule only to “public” as opposed to “private” beliefs. Religious beliefs have shaped history and will continue to do so. As such they are very much in the public sphere and are just as open to ridicule as, say, Communism (which I also ridicule).

  • Vaughn Harold

    to do so.

    In order for your philosophy to have validity you will need better examples than what you have provided. Otherwise your arguements only reinforce Creationism (deliberate, mindful design), they do not refute it.

  • Jeffrey_Goldberg

    Strelff,

    Please note that I said, “near success” in my original post.. Look at last year’s battle with the Texas State Board of Education or a few years ago in Kansas. Nothing like that has ever happened with astrology or homeopathy in science classes.

    Image if you had a narrow vote about including homeopathy in the science curriculum in some state. And if you did, I can promise you that many the same people who now criticize Creationism in education would be leading the charge against that pseudo-science. (Sadly, I can’t say “all of the people” because there are few idiots on “my side” like Bill Maher.)

    You also ask a bigger question:

    “On the grander scale, are you seriously contending that the notion of Young Earth or Creationism have entered the popular culture in the same way as homeopathy, crystals, healing auras, etc.?”

    No, I don’t believe that these have entered to popular culture in the same way. While they are equally anti-scientific they have come into our culture through different routes. Creationism comes in through formal religion. The New Age junk is less organized, yet in some ways more perversive.

  • Vaughn Harold

    Nature (matter) produces life for some unknown reason (maybe just because it can), but doesn’t have the power to sustain it so it simply reabsorbs it back into itself. Therefore, a person?s life really has no long term purpose. This goes against everything within us that struggles to live, but always succumbs to death. That isn’t natural selection.

    What one believes determines their reality, what one doesn’t believe determines their future!

  • Jeffrey_Goldberg

    Thank you. I acknowledge that you said “high probably” that I was a materialist. I should have been careful in my response.

    I’ve responded to Vaughn’s point in a reply to him. My examples were to refute the argument that I thought you were making. Apparently you are making a different argument, but I’m still not sure about what it is.

    I, also, am curious about the when and whether we can develop machines that have human-like experiences. But just because we are currently unable to do something or even know how to begin doesn’t mean that it is fundamentally impossible.

    Also thank you for clarifying that you are a Creationist. My posting here wasn’t so much as addressed to Creationists, but to those who were claiming that Democrats were hypocritical in condemning one kind of pseudo-science while giving a “pass” to another kind of of pseudo-science.

    Whether you consider conflicting reports written decades after the alleged miraculous occurrence sufficient evidence to believe all that you do about the supernatural is your business. But to me that evidence is no more credible than the evidence that Mormon’s claim about the Book of Mormon. Nor is it any more credible than the evidence that Muslim’s claim for the Ascent of Mohammad. Nor is it any more credible than the evidence that exists for King Arthur and his Quest for the Holy Grail.

    I suspect that you see all of these other claims and the evidence for them pretty much the way that I do. It’s just one in the list that we disagree about. But I hope at least to give you some feeling for how I see the evidence for your belief system.

  • CincoSolas_del_Bronx

    syntax error at line 0, near “should have been”
    syntax error at line 2, near “curious”
    syntax error at line 2, near “doesn’t mean”
    syntax error at line 4, near “no more credible”
    syntax error at line 5, near “suspect”
    syntax error at line 5, near “hope at least to give”
    - has too many errors.

  • notasdyedinthewool

    um… this is also the reason most Christians are Christians. How many start from an unbiased position, go out and study science and reach the conclusion that there’s a God, and furthermore, he’s the Christian God, and the Bible is factually accurate?

    I think we can agree most Christians were just raised in that faith, and feel it’s right… then they may go on to find supporting evidence if their beliefs are ever seriously challenged, but even then, it’s with the understanding that they’re already right.

    Not too different from astrology. The only difference is one faith has been a cultural power for hundreds of years now. In other parts of the world, e..g. India as one earlier poster pointed out, astrology holds a similarly privileged position.

    You do have a point about communism, though :)

  • DONTREADONME

    i.e. Creator… e.g. a wide guassian distribution appears to be random in nature however, viewed at infinite it can be seen as a single value.

    The singularity all that is and ever was, No man can view the world as does the Creator since his perspective is biased in that world created. End of story; btw, I subscribe to the theory evolution.

  • Vaughn Harold

    to the answers of the questions I posed, and I don’t have the faith in the scientific minds that you do. I see that placing this information in text books of those who haven’t fully developed their reasoning skills as a blatant attempt to indoctrinate the youth of our society. And by the way, simply “labeled as speculative or uncertain” really doesn’t do anything (just smoke and mirrors), the better way is to teach all the views that exist, but that would insert doubt that is evidently not acceptable.

  • Jeffrey_Goldberg

    You say,

    “What one believes determines their reality”

    I say,

    http://jpgoldberg.blogspot.com/2009/11/whence-relativism-of-right.html

  • Vaughn Harold

    All scientific theories are just another belief system that some find comfort in, and many of its followers often use the guise that the theories just haven’t been proven yet. This is no different than me saying that my beliefs are justified even though Jesus Christ just hasn’t returned yet. I know you find great comfort in objective facts so explain to me how does scientific theories reconcile the fact that over 92% of the world’s aggregate matter believe their is a Creator in some form or fashion?

    Also, I suppose scientific theories don’t have a good answer to the life vs death issue of my post at this time.