The box on the right shows that I have published two books, both within the past year. Chapter 4 in Book 1 reports on global warming, and points out the greater peril of THE VENUS SYNDROME, with methane, not carbon dioxide, as the threat. Chapter 5 of Book 2 is a different take on religion, and wonders why 90% of Americans believe in the afterlife, while this figure is below 25% in most of Europe, Israel and Japan. The following synthesizes those two chapters, and anyone desiring details can go to those books, for 731 full references are provided.
Decision-makers are influenced by their constituency. If the public does not care that much about a problem, these leaders tend to ignore the significance of the issue. Conversely, if an overwhelming percentage of, say, voters, believe in something, then potential candidates take heed.
For example, most polls taken over the past few decades seem to indicate that around 90% of Americans believe in some afterlife and a God. It would thus behoove political candidates to be religious. The odds are, of course, that most of them actually believe themselves. At the national level, only Congressman Pete Stark is on record as not believing in God. However, he does not plan to run for office again. The fact of the matter is that something on the order of 90% or more of Americans would consider a black person or woman, but less than half would vote for an atheist.
As an interesting sidebar, only 5% of biological scientists in the National Academy of Sciences believe in the afterlife. Is there something this elite group knows that we don't?
Well, no. There are certain things that might not ever be known, while there are some other things that should be scientifically provable. Let's take global warming as an example. Ninety-seven percent of climate scientists believe that the global average temperatures have increased over the past 50 years, and 84% say that the cause is human-induced. Only 13% believe that there is relatively little danger to Planet Earth and us. Only 1% of them believe that the TV/cable media are very reliable and 3% rate local newspapers as very reliable. You can make your own conclusions on what these numbers mean.
We all know that polls can be skewed by how you ask the question and who you solicit. So take the following any way you wish, but most recent surveys show that the American public is split about the environment being given priority over the economy and vice versa. In 2000, 67% favored the environment. Today, this percentage has slipped to 49%.
Last year 56% thought that cars and industry at large are mostly to blame, but the fault dropped to 54% this year. Slightly more feel that government should fine or tax company emissions, but only 52% to 45%. We tend to be concerned about water and air pollution, but only 37% worry about global warming.
Yet, Al Gore and others like him might be having an effect, as in 1997 only 25% said that global warming would pose a threat to their way of life (with 69% saying no), and this year the apprehension shifted to 40% yes and 58% no. All in all, though, climate change is not a huge concern to our populace.
I might add that a World Public Opinion poll reported this year that 43% of Americans felt that carbon dioxide was a pressing problem, while the returns from the world showed: Australia at 69%, Argentina 63%, Israel 54%, China 42%, Russia 32% and India 19%. Interestingly enough, 71% of those in the United Kingdom believed that this was all a natural occurrence and not a result of this gas. The recent UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report by more than 2,500 scientists found a 90% chance that people were the main cause and drastic action was needed to cut greenhouse gas emissions.
How then is global warming related to the afterlife? No, nothing to do with afterlife being hell, although that might make for a entertaining movie. Simply, for both, logic seems almost irrelevant. We tend to believe what we want, heavily influenced by our upbringing. Science is not welcomed in religion, for can you imagine the fate of a political candidate who might foolishly state: the greatest immorality of religion is that there is no proof of an afterlife. It's particularly worrisome that science is failing to have much effect on public opinion. There is no simple solution, but I'm trying, with Chapter 3 on education and Chapter 5 on religion in SIMPLE SOLUTIONS for Humanity.
You state that we human beings tend to believe what we want. It is my observation that people tend to believe what they *need* to believe in order to maintain equilibrium, to function, and to be "happy." What people need to believe may or may not correspond with the truth or with the available evidence (as Nietzsche pointed out, for all we know the truth may be poisonous to us).
I certainly think it would be a mistake to assume that most people are motivated primarily by a desire to know the truth - and this may be a mistake that scientists are more likely to make than, say, successful politicians. The notion that, if we just get the facts known, then people will get on board for the correct solution does not appear to be born out by the available evidence.
I would also note that it seems to be the case that, for many people, hope of reward or fear of punishment in the afterlife constitutes their reason for being "good," and that, without that hope or fear, they may indeed adopt a very selfish stance. They may, for example, well adopt a "renter's attitude" toward the earth, the future, and other people - "I'll be dead in 100 years, what's it to me?
Fanaticism, literalism is the problem with religions. The Christians controlling the USA have Rapture beliefs. the conservative interior secretary Watt infamously said "I do not know how many future generations we can count on before the Lord returns, whatever it is we have to manage with a skill to leave the resources needed for future generations." Bush is a, rapture in our time, believer.
It's time that literalism was viewed for what it is:
a mental illness.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_EWwzFwUOxA
Thank you again.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_EWwzFwUOxA
Any sort of war between the two has been mostly imagined or distinctly on the periphery. A close examination of the history of science and religion supports me on this. With me, my faith informs my reason and reason informs my faith. I find it rational to accept the possibility of an afterlife and not require proof. Yet I understand clearly the need for good data, sound interpretation, verifiable predictions, and multiple demonstrations of results when it comes to the empirical world. Where the two magisteria interact, I expect that one will ultimately yield if its premises are vacuous.
I do not believe I am alone in this mode of reasoning. But I don't expect to hear much from us curious souls in no man's land when the two antipodal views take up all the available discussion bandwidth.