Science Denial is Not a Choice

[Danmark]

Watching Diane Sawyers interview with Bruce Jenner tonight on 20/20 I realized something that has been puzzling me. There is a common psychological issue or learning disorder that is associated with religious thinking, at least for some religious people, particularly with Muslims and Christians. Im not sure if it comes from deference to authority or simplistic thinking or both or other factors in combination. But this much Ive observed: there is a common thread running through their thinking that seems to converge on not accepting facts that disrupt simple stereotypes.

We talk about science denial, but it is much more pervasive than just denying the science of evolution and denying the ancient age of the Earth despite the overwhelming evidence. Recently I realized science denial is involved when it comes to the obvious fact that manmade contributions to air pollution contribute to climate change.

What clarified this for me is the transgender issue. A segment of Christians and apparently an even larger segment of Muslims have long been in denial about same sex gender attraction being a something that is not a choice.

More recently we have the issue that has become more openly talked about because of Bruce Jenner. Here is a guy who set a world record in the decathlon, proclaimed the worlds greatest athlete, who has achieved the masculine ideal, yet he has always known he is female inside, not male despite his outward appearance. He is heterosexual, attracted to women not men, but he has always felt he was not a male deep within his psyche. Science supports this issue that gender attraction and gender identification are two separate issues. Because he has felt he has no choice but to be who he is, Jenner has suffered both economic and social consequences. Why would someone choose to be this way if it were not so compelling as to not be a choice at all?

But these facts seem impossible for a large segment of religious folk to accept. It struck me that expecting them to accept the truth, the facts, the evidence regarding homosexuality, transgender issues, evolution and other scientific evidence is impossible for them; that it is just as crazy to expect them to accept this reality as it is for the rest of us to accept that they cannot help but think they way they do. They are not being obstinate or evil or mean spirited. They simply cannot accept or appreciate what seems so obvious to others. Hence they deny the facts science presents and honestly believe there is a conspiracy among scientists to pervert the truth.

I dont pretend to understand why this is so, but I am willing to accept that their science denial is as rigidly fixed as is gender attraction and identity. In other words, perhaps they have no more choice about denying scientific truth than homosexuals and heterosexuals have in denying who they are attracted to.

So, the affirmative of this subtopic is:
The refusal to accept evolution, a billions of years old Earth, climate change, homosexuality, and transgender issues is:
A. Science denial
B. These issues are related
C. Religious belief plays a role in denying the science behind these facts
D. People who deny these facts have little or no choice in their denial (they can't help it).

Finally, more for discussion than debate: "What is it about these religions that in large segments, causes the denial of obvious truths as confirmed by scientific discovery and experiments?

[DanieltheDragon]

[Replying to post 6 by instantc]

Consequently, I find it hard to believe that there is any neurological difference between you and a creationist, which would make the latter's brain somehow incapable of recognizing the obvious truths.

I don't think there is a neurological difference between theists and non-theists as you yourself point out that you only agree with evolution not because of the evidence but because the majority of scientist agree that it is fact.

There is a difference neurologically between individuals though my brain doesn't produce dopamine the same way an average person does as a result I have a terrible time focusing. What's funny is I thought I had bad memory, turns out I have really strong memory but my attention span is in the toilet so I don't remember to many details. Everyone is not cookie cutter the same. In that vein for some people they are less reliant on group think than others and for some people they are more reliant on group think. This doesn't make one smarter than another, I believe it is what makes for good leaders and a strong cohesive group. I believe there is a difference neurologically speaking with those that blindly follow the group and those that do not.

In the case with climate change those promoting the idea that it is not happening are probably knowingly propagating a lie, for a monetary gain and are just sociopathic enough to do it knowing full well the harm it will cause in the long term. The followers of the group have no idea how to discern whether or not their leaders are in fact lying to them instead they just trust their leaders in their respective social ecosystem.

[Excubis]

[Replying to post 1 by Danmark]

What confounds me is use of technology such as smart phones and gps and still standing behind science denial. I could understand if you were deprived of, or lived a life away from said technology, but to use such and still deny science makes no logical sense to me. I would also add medical care especially the science is all relative and used in our daily lives. So I can understand why many Anabaptist sects have a logical reason to reject or deny, but not to the majority in modern christian society.

So in my opinion science denial is a choice if you choose to live a technologically modern lifestyle. All technologies are applied scientific discoveries in some form and by use of technology new discoveries are made. They go hand in hand, only science and it's application has brought about the world we live in as per innovation in applied sciences(engineering).

[Divine Insight]

[Replying to post 2 by Divine Insight]

I certainly can see how fear may play a small part for some people, however I think the vast majority are more apathetic than we think.

Some clarification on the concept of "Fear"

I know that for me "fear" was the greatest obstacle that needed to be overcome before I could truly put Christianity to rest. And it may even continue on to this very day. Although this isn't the necessarily the kind of fear that we normally think of.

For example, in the very early going my greatest fear was actually concerned with what my family and friends might think of me if I openly confess that I don't believe that Christianity is true. The reaction to that alone was a huge social shocker in many situations. Say that when surrounded by devout believers and they all start acting like you just announced that you have cancer and you're doing to die within days. They all want to pray for you and hope that you are "healed".

In fact, that reaction right there pretty much demonstrates that they are indeed convinced that to stop believing is a horrible thing. They also tend to look "down" on you in a way. At least proclaiming that you are confused, or possibly giving into "evil desires" etc. Many Christians truly do view a disbelief or "lack of faith" as a sign that someone is turning away from God.

So the social fears alone are paramount. I think the social fears were far greater for me than any fears associated with the actual religion. After all, it's hard to continue to fear a God that I no longer believe is real. But the social fear remains as something quite profound and very real as a practical matter.

Also, the fear of things taught in the Bible don't exactly fade away quickly either. For example, Jesus taught that anyone who discourages "his children" from believing in him will suffer the greatest of damnation. You better be absolutely certain that this religion is false if you're going to teach against that otherwise you're damnation will be the greatest of all.

And all you hear from the Christians (who are also your family and friends) are things like:

1. "Oh you don't really mean that?"
2. "How can you stand against Jesus?"
3. "What has gotten into you? You used to be such a nice person, now you are acting like some sort of evil demon."
4. "I'll pray for you. I don't know what has gotten into you, but I pray that God heals your broken soul."

I mean the list just goes on and on. Everyone around you, (your very own family and friends) are acting like you've just confessed that you've decided to become a serial killer or something.

So you've got these threats from the Bible threatening you that to speak out against the Christ is the worst thing you can possibly do, and you have everyone around you supporting that very ideal. They will frown on you whether Jesus exists or not.

So there's tons of social and biblical threats to overcome just to stop believing in this religion.

Today I am 100% certain that the Bible cannot be true as printed. So I have absolutely no fear at all anymore. But it wasn't like that when I was first recognizing that the religion is false. I began to see problems in my late teens and early 20's. But I wasn't 100% totally convinced of the obvious conclusion until I was well into my mid 30's. So it took me basically 15 years to work out the last of my "fears".

Also, I might add here that I didn't have the slightest fear of death, or losing out on an imagined eternal paradise. That was the least of my concerns. Yet for many Christians there are additional "fears" associated with merely being rejected by this God and missing out on the eternal Disneyland vacation.

So I think that fear is without a doubt the greatest thing that keeps people under the thumb of this religion. Including the fear of missing out on the gift of eternal life.

Climate change being a prime example. There is nothing in the bible that could prevent anyone from admitting that climate change exists and that humans are the primary catalyst for this change.

I'm not sure if I totally agree with this Daniel.

For many people placing their total faith in God is paramount. To question God at all, in any way, would be the same as denying God (for many people).

The idea that humans could screw up the earth doesn't fit well in the context of a God who has a "Master Plan".

Moreover, even if humans are screwing up the environment? So what? That must also then be part of God's Plan and perhaps it just means that the end is near. Praise the Lord! Jesus will be returning SOON!

What are we going to do about it? Try to change the weather and escape God's Plan to end the world? For the devout believe it's far better to leave everything in the "Hands of God".

In fact, that's what the Bible teaches. Don't try to do anything of your own desire. Instead relinquish control to the Lord. There is nothing in the Bible that instructs people to try to change whether patterns. That is God's domain. If we screwed up that domain, then this is just another fact that shows us that we aren't in harmony with God. So instead of continuing down the path where we think we can fix everything it's time to surrender to the Lord and confess that we have no power of our own.

They may not be as much in denial of climate change. They are probably more in denial that we should be trying to do anything about it other than kneeling at the feat of a Jesus statue and praying for forgiveness. Only that act will save us from our sins.

To try to fix the climate ourselves would be the same as trying to fix our own sins. That's the worst thing you could do in Christianity. That's considered to be personal arrogance and pride. We need to turn everything over to Jesus. It's the only way.

So they might not be in denial of climate change exactly. What they question is how we should go about fixing it. Praying at the feet of Jesus is the only solution for many religious people. They can't imagine us fixing the problem anyway. This is a problem where we need to call upon Jesus.

To not trust Jesus would be the same as denying him, and we can't have that lest we lose our ticket to a paradise heaven and end up being cast into eternal damnation for having refused to place our trust in the Lord.

And besides it's printed right our on money, "In God we Trust". So it must be true. That's what we need to do. If it wasn't so it wouldn't be printed on all our bills and coins. Get on your knees and pray to Jesus. It's the only way!

We need to humble ourselves and confess to the Lord that we are in over our heads.

And if we don't do this, we will be doomed for sure. <- The fear factor again.

[Danmark]

[Replying to post 1 by Danmark]

What confounds me is use of technology such as smart phones and gps and still standing behind science denial. I could understand if you were deprived of, or lived a life away from said technology, but to use such and still deny science makes no logical sense to me. I would also add medical care especially the science is all relative and used in our daily lives. So I can understand why many Anabaptist sects have a logical reason to reject or deny, but not to the majority in modern christian society.

So in my opinion science denial is a choice if you choose to live a technologically modern lifestyle. All technologies are applied scientific discoveries in some form and by use of technology new discoveries are made. They go hand in hand, only science and it's application has brought about the world we live in as per innovation in applied sciences(engineering).

Of course one needs the will to use those resources. Starman recently published some stuff by Michael Behe on 'irreducible complexity' and Behe's Darwin's Black Box.
Jashwell responded with a link to an excellent article refuting those claims:
http://udel.edu/~mcdonald/mousetrap.html

There's another, longer articicle on the subject at http://www.talkdesign.org/faqs/icdmyst/ICDmyst.html

But one would actually have to read it and appreciate the details of the long article to get any benefit from it. It's so much easier to just parrot the generalities and mined quotes from creation blogs.

Starman likes to refer to atheists' "Big Lies" and call ALL atheist arguments "irrational" without explaining why he thinks so and demonstrating he is correct. There's an anti evolution site called "evolutionfairytale" where they actually have a rule [break it and you are banned] agains using http://www.talkorigins.org/ arguments. It's hard to imagine, but they are so afraid of good arguments based on fact, that this site bans them.

This is part of the problem with the vast amount of information on the internet. It allows people to keep from learning, and use selected news and websites to reinforce their prejudices.

Too bad more aren't like my wife. She listens to what she calls "hate radio" because she says she likes to hear both sides. Besides it makes her laugh to hear the nonsense they spout.

[instantc]

I believe there is a difference neurologically speaking with those that blindly follow the group and those that do not.

What exactly do you mean by blindly following the group, am I blindly following the group when I accept the evolution as a fact without examining the evidence?

I have never seen any evidence of the moon landings, although it would be available to me through a 50 dollar investment in a telescope. Yet, I am confident that the Americans did land on the moon, merely because it is accepted as common knowledge by the community at large. Am I blindly following the group?

If not, then it is hard to see how that phrase would apply to those who grow up in an extremely religious community and come to accept the claims of religion as properly basic knowledge.

[Regens Küchl]

Science is about what we can see, what we can learn, what we can prove, try out and prove again.
Religion is rather about things like believe, faith, indoctrination versus reasoning, making things up you cant prove, harboring cognitive dissonance and finally generating pseudo-sciences lige theology and demonology.

Now this nature of the two leads rather often to unsolvable contradictions and that leads to denying.

[DanieltheDragon]

[Replying to post 15 by instantc]

When I say blindly follow the group aim talking about group think. It is an efficient form of collective thought. Not everyone needs to know the intricacies of evolution or the moon landings.to a certain extent everyone of us blindly follows something. There is just to much information out there for everyone to know everything. The extent of which individuals rely on group think is what I am getting at. Someone who allows group think to override their own opinions vs someone who does not operate very differently. I am not saying either one is better than the other it is just a different way of operating in the world and both are necessary. For a society to function efficiently.

[DanieltheDragon]

[Replying to post 13 by Divine Insight]

I agree with a lot of what you said about fear in regards to keeping religion. The concepts of fear and other motivators come from the collective culture of a group, to me it's not just fear. Even though it is without a doubt a factor.

Moreover, even if humans are screwing up the environment? So what? That must also then be part of God's Plan and perhaps it just means that the end is near. Praise the Lord! Jesus will be returning SOON!

What are we going to do about it? Try to change the weather and escape God's Plan to end the world? For the devout believe it's far better to leave everything in the "Hands of God".

In fact, that's what the Bible teaches. Don't try to do anything of your own desire. Instead relinquish control to the Lord. There is nothing in the Bible that instructs people to try to change whether patterns. That is God's domain. If we screwed up that domain, then this is just another fact that shows us that we aren't in harmony with God. So instead of continuing down the path where we think we can fix everything it's time to surrender to the Lord and confess that we have no power of our own.

That's what I meant there is not much preventing someone from admitting it, I didn't say they were going to do something about it. You also found more reasons than just fear in this post to there is a lot of positive reinforcement around submission to authority.

[Baz]

Human nature, original sin, animal instinct makes it difficult to be open to other peoples ideas unless they fit easily into our own. Small shifts in our outlook are part of our individual development but it all takes time and is dependent on where you start from and the intensity given to the exercise.
I think using the term exercise describes it well, as it either requires voluntary effort or forced participation to have an effect.
It has taken a long time for beer and chocolate bars to make me fat. My social group visit the pub regally and sweet treats are a norm at home.
For me to change my shape I would need to stop or reduce my intake of junk food and beer, actively exercise my body in ways I probably wouldnt like.
Hay I hope this doesnt sound as though I dislike being fat. I am very comfortable with who I am, as I also was in my youth when running everywhere was the norm, the gym and bowling alley my club house. What was I thinking? No time for my family, no hops in my water and far too self-cantered.
My point, if not too obscure is; As we all know, what you believe is usually the result of what you do, where you live etc.
To each person it will probably feel right as the time (and I must add could well be right) the way we think, what we believe to be true changes all the time but usually very slowly.
Present somebody with an idea a long way out of their present mind set and you are most likely to at best be ignored.

[Hamsaka]

[Replying to post 1 by Danmark]

So, the affirmative of this subtopic is:
The refusal to accept evolution, a billions of years old Earth, climate change, homosexuality, and transgender issues is:
A. Science denial
B. These issues are related
C. Religious belief plays a role in denying the science behind these facts
D. People who deny these facts have little or no choice in their denial (they can't help it).

Finally, more for discussion than debate: "What is it about these religions that in large segments, causes the denial of obvious truths as confirmed by scientific discovery and experiments?

From personal experience (and observing similar processes in others, including discussing it with them), folks deeply cherish their paradigms. They (me included) rely heavily upon their paradigm as a tool to manage the chaotic nature of experience and awareness.

So much of life's experience is beyond our immediate ability to understand, and this information that we may or may not understand is what we rely upon to make important decisions. To have any confidence in our decisions at all, we must have confidence in the integrity of our paradigm (or world view) and how it manages this flow of information. Nay, let's just admit it -- our paradigms are dam essential whether we admit it or not.

A metaphor I find useful is to regard the human brain as having 'concurrency' as described in computer science. Several processes execute simultaneously and interact with one another. Most processes execute beneath conscious awareness. An obvious example of that is how the brain manages physical processes, but I believe this occurs with purely mental and emotional processes as well.

The paradigm or world view is similar to the motherboard, as a flexible modular infrastructure that processes information. Add chips here and there, and change how you sense and monitor incoming and outgoing processes.

You could say the differences in our personal motherboard infrastructures are due in part to what we were born with and with the results of our interaction with the environment we live in. Genetics and epigenetics. So why would not individual humans have contrasting information flows? And to make it more complex, have simultaneous yet 'unconscious' processes humming along beneath awareness, shaping and defining experience?

Remember the deeply cherished paradigms, and why they are deeply cherished.

What happens when an 'illegal instruction', like evolution showing 'no God necessary' enters the system? It can cause the system to crash, at worst. Hopefully the 'illegal instruction' can be shut down and the system can recover.

Brings new meaning to 'does not compute'

Is God an 'illegal instruction' for a nonTheist's motherboard?

Anyway, hardly any of this is consciously experienced, and the 'work arounds' establish themselves firmly over time, in order to prevent future system crashes. The human brain remains plastic (ie with the capacity for change and growth) throughout life, and such 'work arounds' are what I believe I am witnessing when I observe a Theist process well-known and accepted modern science by rejecting it.

Evolution is an illegal instruction because it contradicts basic operations for the folks you describe in your OP, Danmark. Or something similar to that.

We are conscripted by our operating systems, like fish are conscripted by water. It takes a remarkable amount of enduring effort to re-wire such a deeply cherished and trusted paradigm. It is terrifying and painful, as those who've lost their faith are well aware. It . . . changes everything.

Which is exactly why some facts, no matter how 'obvious' or foundational, are impossible to process.

I think that hits almost all of your points.

There does appear to be a 'common theme' that the atheists/nonTheists on this forum share. We are not all coming up with widely diverging explanations for this phenomenon of religious belief. We may be reluctant to stereotype, but we can't deny the presence of commonalities (though explaining them is another story).

I have been on both sides of the fence. There are folks here who claim to have been atheists prior to converting to Bible Christianity.

I would wager something extremely huge and important to affirm that I could NOT be converted to Bible Christianity, or any organized religion, probably. I do not believe I am the same 'kind' of atheist as the person who converted to Christianity claimed to be. I couldn't be converted 'back', I say it would be impossible, because my pre-atheist life/experiences are INCLUDED, embedded inextricably with my belief that there is no Christian Bible God (thus rendering the entire religion nonsense and irrelevant as currently practiced).

God was not 'removed' from my motherboard. God experienced a microevolution, so to speak. Some stuff got added, rather than removed, and God is no longer God (or necessary, for that matter), but better describes for me personally, a less comprehensive paradigm that I have moved beyond. Not ahead of, as if it were a race (though it may be), but beyond.