Very serious Christians (e.g. those who deny science on the grounds that it contradicts the Bible) and very serious atheists (e.g. those who deny religion on the grounds that religious books contradict science) both tend toward the high end of the Buxton Index. The people who ignore the contradiction and are only religious on Sundays tend toward the low end.
I don’t think this is as symmetric. Denying religion on the grounds of contradictions with logic and science is an extremely common position between atheists, probably damn close to universal in the west. Denying science altogether (prayer instead of medicine, flat earth, etc.) is fringe, even amongst fundamentalists. That said, I have always said I respect fundamentalists more because at least they take their ideals seriously. So, yes, you might be right. Those that refuse science have resolved the contradiction the other way around, but ultimately may be suffering of the same ‘condition’.
I have, incidentally, encountered fundamentalists who perform the odd contortion of denying science as an enterprise while embracing all of its actual products (e.g., medicine and accurate cartography).
I don’t entirely understand this position, but as near as I can figure it out, they have decided that because those things are reliable, they aren’t actually the result of science; rather, they are the result of God and science merely takes credit for them.
Very serious Christians (e.g. those who deny science on the grounds that it contradicts the Bible) and very serious atheists (e.g. those who deny religion on the grounds that religious books contradict science) both tend toward the high end of the Buxton Index. The people who ignore the contradiction and are only religious on Sundays tend toward the low end.
I don’t think this is as symmetric. Denying religion on the grounds of contradictions with logic and science is an extremely common position between atheists, probably damn close to universal in the west. Denying science altogether (prayer instead of medicine, flat earth, etc.) is fringe, even amongst fundamentalists. That said, I have always said I respect fundamentalists more because at least they take their ideals seriously. So, yes, you might be right. Those that refuse science have resolved the contradiction the other way around, but ultimately may be suffering of the same ‘condition’.
I have, incidentally, encountered fundamentalists who perform the odd contortion of denying science as an enterprise while embracing all of its actual products (e.g., medicine and accurate cartography).
I don’t entirely understand this position, but as near as I can figure it out, they have decided that because those things are reliable, they aren’t actually the result of science; rather, they are the result of God and science merely takes credit for them.