Thank you for pointing this very important information to us! We think that there's global immigration chaos now, just wait till National migrations start developing.
Well, he can't pile them all on you! This has been known and studied since like the 1500's already and the religious are and have always been the majority of science denialist's through the board: Religious scriptures rarely if ever comport to reality, and none have any evidence for them, and science the grand masters of evidence gathering see no reality to their scriptures, making them the enemy! Too bad even proving all of science completely wrong, will never add up to evidence for any of the magic supernatural nonsense BS religions spew!
I think part of the reason for religious rejecting climate change is the fact that for 20 year, Richard Dawkins his friends have insisted on insulting and ridiculing religious people. To paraphrase, the religious are, according to Dawkins, "stupid, ignorant or wicked", and he says people must choose between religion or science. The two statements are easy shown to be false be existence of my prominent scientists who also are religious. However, some religious people do make this choice, some choosing atheism and some choosing religion. And those that choose to reject science will reject climate change. Solving climate change requires all parties to cooperate and this will only happen if modern-atheist stop belittling/bully others to boost their own illusory sense of intellectual superiority.
@@PhilHalper1 I'm not sure there's any concrete data on how many christians have heard of him, but he's very well known. The point is he is an example of how many new atheist love to insult religious people. This is not a way to get different groups to cooperate, which is desperately needed.
@@bobbobbybobson2282 Hes very well known in certain spheres, but Im not ocninvced he's well know to most Christinains, without any data on that its hard to corroborate your conjecture.
@@PhilHalper1 Cults attract people through offering a sense of meaning, providing a strong sense of belonging and community, often with charismatic leadership, fulfilling a desire, touching on self-esteem, exploiting vulnerability, using manipulation and deception, instilling fear and intimidation, promising knowledge or enlightenment, appealing to the desire to change the world, and employing psychological manipulation and indoctrination. These factors draw people in, because skepticism does not offer the comforting answers to the meaning of life.
Probably not. Isn’t climate change denial the result of anti-intellectualism? Seems like correlating this doubt to religious belief is an antireligious prejudice. Btw, I absolutely loved every video that you made with physicists, keep up the great work.
If Santa (I mean "God" of course) is gonna save us all (or some of us at least), there's nothing to worry about, right? Whatever happens, good or bad, it's always "God's will". Nothing to worry about: pray and do nothing at all. That's the religious mentality, at least the theist one. Said that, a healthy spirituality can still provide many boons, but it'll probably work better with something like Pantheism (which is Atheism by another name and possibly a slightly different attitude).
The barking mad evangelical Christians in the US are always praying for the victims of the latest recent mass shooting in their country, and give it a day or two and they have a whole new bunch of people to pray for.
Would have been convenient to link the Pew poll in the description . That it is a study on the US alone I think somewhat undermines a generalization about religion , as you point out we already know that US christian views tend to be at odds with science where it conflicts with scripture. In a Demon Haunted World (1995) Carl Sagan bemoans his nations science education, nothing really new said in this 2022 Poll.
You are right Dave, I have now added that in the description. Yes its US alone, but as the US is the leading emitter of CO2 I think its important enough.
@@PhilHalper1 Are you using a per capita measure ?. Looking at some convenient stats China as a country is the largest total emitter , has over half(8.85) the emissions of the US(14.44) per capita(2022), with of course a population about 4 times the US, The UK by comparison has 5.0 per capita (tCO2/cap/year). Other countries per capita exceed the US( e.g. Saudi, Canada and Australia ), the US is certainly A leading emitter. The US has reduced C02 per capita by about a ton since 2017, whilst China has increased it's by a similar amount over the same period. Whatever, there is lots of C02 being pumped out, and how it is measured attributed to a particular state is complex. I think it would be quite hard to correlate C02 emissions to religiosity. Easier to show a correlation with skepticism over scientific findings more generally in the religious. There are many studies that claim to show a negative relationship between reasoning, such as probabilistic reasoning, and religiosity, . Anyhow hope you and yours are well Phil , all the best.
This is gonna be true for many fundamentalists (Christian and other) and is a good, valid criticism of them (and there should be many others!). But it's not nearly so true for reformed groups; for example, I'd bet those in the Church of England are probably just as on-point with climate change as atheists and agnostics, if not more so. In other words, the issue as always is bad religious dogma, not belief in a god per se, even the Abrahamic one.
I agree with you . But the claim is that religion makes you more likely to oppose climate change, not that it makes it inevitable. So, like smoking, the more intense you smoke, the more likely you are to get cancer. Similarly, the more intense your religious belief I think the more likely you are to oppose climate change science.
@@PhilHalper1 "intense" is vague and it's only *certain* bad beliefs associated with religion that are harmful: a religious person could have the most intense belief that there's a creator, but nothing like climate change denial is ever goinna follow from that alone. But if 'intense' means something like 'dogmatic' then maybe you could argue that the religion's original set of beliefs are less likely to be let go of in a process of reform, so in that sense dogmatic religious belief might be a problem pre se, as opposed to just specific dogmas.
@@infov0y fair point. Maybe I can phrase it this way. Religions with creation stories that contradict science are more likely to reject other science like climate change
@@PhilHalper1Yep, pretty much... I'd probably go with: 'Religious fundamentalists from religions with creation stories that contradict science, are more likely to reject other science like climate change'
@@infov0y@infov0y ok, but keep in mind the actual data we see in this survey. Athiests have double the rate of acceptance as Chrsitians as a whole and almost triple that of evangelicals.
I am an atheist, and have a scientific background. I don’t agree . Perhaps the overwhelming lies by the various governments UK,Canada,USA is a larger factor. Too many holes in your argument Phil.
i'm an artist and always have been atheist and i disagree with you. now what? we wait for the seas to rise so i can say "i told you so" as we both drown. someone pointed out to me that this is science's pascals wager, but if you DO something about climate change, you get new technology, cleaner air and water, we benefit from addressing climate even if it is not happening, if you ignore it and it's true - you're dead. true or not it is better to deal with it as if it is. we are developing ways to stop asteroids - should we stop cos "it's probably nothing to worry about"? use yer head mate, please.
I’m an atheist and agree with you. Believers and non believers both “contribute” to climate change, but ultimately I’m not convinced that by switching to veganism and walking everywhere will stop the climate from changing. What’s more important is what tech will allow us to adapt best.
@@creatinechris Ironically the IPCC in their projections invoke imaginary technologies (e.g. carbon capture) that will curb the modeled crisis,, the technology being used today ,lauded as having a positive impact, are often way over sold or even miss sold being overall contributors. We are way off the starting blocks but it all amounts to talk , as evidenced in events like Davos where they shed crocodile tears having landed in their private jets on mass. Much like the way wealth accumulates to a few percentiles what follows it is large carbon footprints. I'm pretty cynical anything is going to meaningfully change.
everythung people have done has been dangerous, when we discovered how to make fire i don't recall anyone suggesting how dangerous it would be, how many people have been squashed by the wheel - try putting _that_ genie back into the bottle, electricity? even drinking water (to excess) can kill you. science _has_ dangers, but science is keeping (most) people alive today. i notice you're using science to type your comment.
