Six in 10 Americans wouldn't vote for an atheist: Good news for New Atheists?

[rug]

Jerry Coyne is trying to do math. A new survey out from Pew finds that, as in 2007, 61% of Americans say they'd be less likely to vote for someone who did not believe in God. Coyne thinks:

The unchanged level of disapprobation is a bit disconcerting, but at least gives the lie to accommodationist claims that vociferous atheism is turning people off. And we know that lack of religious belief is still increasing everywhere in America.

Several problems arise here, exacerbated by the generally handwavy attitude Coyne-as-blogger takes towards data and logical argument. We have to guess what hypothesis he thinks he's falsified, and how he thinks the data do that.

First, I don't think the reach of New Atheism has become so wide that it would necessarily have any dramatic (outside the margin of error) impact on broad surveys of public opinion. The only substantive evidence I've ever seen offered for the influence of New Atheism - number of book sales and number of Youtube videos viewed - are at best crude estimates. The Left Behind series sells well, but its influence on the broad culture is small, after all.

http://scienceblogs.com/tfk/2011/06/six_in_10_americans_wouldnt_vo.php

[mike_c]

1. I've often said, that's why I can never seek elected office in America....

That, and I inhaled. Frequently and with gusto. :smoke:

[kestrel91316]

2. In my case I inhaled repeatedly and at great length, and then there were

those artistic but still nude B&W photos with my face barely visible in some.

:rofl:

And yeah, the whole nonpracticing neopagan ecofeminist with Anabaptist leanings thing.......most folks simply wouldn't understand.

[rug]

3. You can always post them in the Photography Group.

[kestrel91316]

6. Well, the photos and negatives got left behind with a box of stuff I forgot

to take when I left my college BF and never looked back, lol. way back in 1980!

With any luck they got dumpsterized decades ago. But one never knows. They might still be out there. And they were published in the college newspaper, anyway (but I was not identified).

Originally only 4 people on earth knew it was me.

[Vehl]

4. It's a part of human evolutionary process

There was a time when Slavery was considered quite normal..then people evolved out of such primitive thoughts
There was a time when the segregation was the norm....people evolved out of it
There was a time when anti miscegenation laws were in effect...people evolved out of it too
There was/is a time where same sex couples are still discriminated against...some states have evolved out of this

One day the majority of Americans would also evolve out of the need to hate anything that does not profess a belief in god.
Those who subscribe to "exclusive/closed" worldviews ultimately fail. This has been true throughout human history and will be proven true in regards to this issue too. Atheists have to continue standing for their rights and for the separation of church and state..one day this religious fundamentalist fervor that holds the majority of Americans in its sway will be recognized for the outdated and silly idea it is and would be thrown out. My only fear is that the fundamentalists might run America to the ground before this happens..

[MrModerate]

5. I've generally followed an accommodationist strategy . . .

As in "sure you believe in fairy tales, but most people have some sort of faith-based belief that can't be verified independently -- that their children are smart, or their spouse is attractive, or the special dessert they make is outstanding -- that it would be churlish of me to call you on your religion."

But I'm now wondering if such a strategy is sustainable in a world where (supposedly) 92 percent of Americans believe in god, and live their lives (and make political choices) as if that were true.

Most atheists would agree, I think, that decisions made through the lens of superstition are often suboptimal and sometimes disastrous. I may have to reevaluate my accommodationism and move toward more activism, at least on a social level. It's less important now I'm living in Australia (one of those countries where religion is on the way to becoming extinct) than when I lived in the States, but I may well return to the States one day and I should probably prepare myself now.

[Bragi]

7. Good questions

I'm in Canada, and also mostly accommodationist, as you describe, but I'm not sure that I should remain so. I'd hate to see religionism get a serious foothold in Canada.

Since we are now suffering under an extreme conservative government (elected by 39 per cent of voters!)I should probably become more alert -- and confrontational -- about any incursion of religion into our politics.

[Jim__]

8. Rosenau's reasoning is convincing. - n/t

[struggle4progress]

9. I've never considered anyone's faith, or lack thereof, when voting

I have been predisposed not to vote for people who make a big deal of religion in public -- because I figure it's irrelevant to the issues, so I wonder why it's being discussed: uh oh, here's a person who is unclear on the concept "res publica"

Typically, this view has applied to rightwing wackos, since they're generally the ones who who make a big deal of their religion. But I would have the same reaction to anyone who made a big deal of his/her atheism: uh oh, here's a person who is unclear on the concept "res publica"

[laconicsax]

11. +1

[AlecBGreen]

16. I havent voted in many elections

I only have a few cycles under my belt as a young(ish) voter but religious beliefs, now, would play a role in my decision. With that said, all things being equal, I would more likely vote for a progressive atheist than an in-your-face-repent-or-die conservative Republican.

To me, a persons freedom to choose is more important that restricting the access to a healthy abortion. To me, a persons desire to preserve God's creation is more important than the idea that we should subdue the whole planet for our own material gratification. I am a Christian, and I am a progressive democrat. Both of these factor into making my decisions when voting.

[LeftishBrit]

18. I am interested in whether someone is right-wing or not, not their religion

Politicians are supposed to represent all their constituents/citizens, regardless of religion.

In the UK, often you don't even know what religion a candidate is (well, except in Northern Ireland, where there is still poisonous sectarianism); and if you do, it's not usually seen as a key issue.

However: if religious right-wing groups or individuals become particularly preoccupied with defeating a particular candidate, that would make me a little *more* likely to vote for that candidate.

[dimbear]

10. There is only one bright side. Since there is no taxation without

representation, eventually atheists will, quite fairly, not be required to pay taxes. Small consolation.

[laconicsax]

12. Unfortunately, there is taxation without representation.

Residents of DC don't have representation in Congress.

[Leontius]

13. Well there is that little problem of the Constitution and

they do have a non voting rep.

[laconicsax]

15. A non-voting rep is hardly representation.

Being allowed to sit on the sidelines is different than being allowed to play in the game.

[sudopod]

14. The best way to decide what to believe is to poll your neighbors. nt

[JoeyT]

17. Meh.

They're comparing two different kinds of data. It's like comparing two differing bacteria to try to determine the reproduction rate of a virus. It just doesn't work.


Also: A science blogger that hasn't banned Kwok? How strange.

Edited to add: Jeez his comment thread is awful. A bunch of people building a giant strawman of NAs and insisting that we have contempt for or hate religious people. Hating or contempt for believers isn't the least bit necessary. New Atheists are just atheists that don't accept the validity of faith or think it should be considered equal to science. Atheists that aren't going to pretend that religion is a virtue, in other words.

[trotsky]

19. Spot on. n/t

[dimbear]

20. We should always remember that discrimination against atheists is ended.

Now that this thread has died down, let me remind everyone that official discrimination against atheists in government is over and done with. The seven US states whose constitutions banned atheists from holding public office have been overturned by a Supreme Court decision which went down in 1961.

No sense holding grudges.

Hold up your hand if you are shocked and surprised that one of those states is Texas.