Science Denial is Not a Choice

[Danmark]

Watching Diane Sawyer’s 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. I’m not sure if it comes from deference to authority or simplistic thinking or both… or other factors in combination. But this much I’ve 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 world’s 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 don’t 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?

[H.sapiens]

Proof is something that is impossible to prove, just as statistics do not always convince people, they can always attack the method of collection.

"Proof" in the non-technical sense means 100% absolute surety and that only exists in mathematical proofs. "Proof" in science means eclipsing a predefined level of probability, typically 0.90, 0.95, or (rarely) 0.99.

"People" can always attack anything that they want to, and will sometimes be successful in their attack even when they are dead wrong. Proper experimental design, rigorous data collection is what is required and public criticism of statistics that they do not understand should not be taken seriously, though misuse of statistics needs to be detected early and stamped out quickly.

In my threads, people routinely ask me for 'proof' of God, and I tell them that you can't offer material proof for something immaterial, (besides the universe, which they deny is proof), so to turn the tables:

"Proof," as you use the word, does not exist, all that there is is possibility and probability. It is impossible to "prove" that God(s) do not exist because the boundaries of the universe are infinite and it is impossible to look everywhere in the universe at once. But it is possible to infer, from multiple lines of inquiry that while it is still possible that God(s) exist, the probability is passing small.

Science Denial is Not a choice:

Prove this to me. (You won't be able to).

Prove to me homosexuality is a choice (you won't be able to)
Prove to me climate change is real (you won't be able to)
Prove to me vaccines are safe (You won't be able to)

This will be fun.

All of the "prove to me" items that you list are similar, but they have a high possibility and a high probability, with just enough wiggle room for naysayers to claim that one in ten to the almost infinite power "proves" that absolute proof is not possible.

Common sense, uncommon sense and scientific common sense all support those claims, those who deny them are, by and large, identified as "willful ignorant."

Just to illustrate that I'm not straying off topic, everything is a choice, I am choosing to deny science, I am choosing to deny whatever proof you offer to me.

That's the "Forest Gump" solution, this will get real stupid, real fast.

[Blastcat]

Proof is something that is impossible to prove, just as statistics do not always convince people, they can always attack the method of collection.

You want to prove that proof is impossible to prove?

In my threads, people routinely ask me for 'proof' of God, and I tell them that you can't offer material proof for something immaterial, (besides the universe, which they deny is proof), so to turn the tables:

You can't prove that something immaterial exists. So, you have no proof, and you seem to think that no proof is available for anything else. Your extreme skepticism seems to be across the board EXCEPT for when it comes to YOUR cherished beliefs.

Don't bother trying to prove anything you write is true.
We won't bother paying attention to whatever it is you want to prove to us.
You don't believe in "proof".

Science Denial is Not a choice:

Prove this to me. (You won't be able to).

Prove to me homosexuality is a choice (you won't be able to)
Prove to me climate change is real (you won't be able to)
Prove to me vaccines are safe (You won't be able to)

This will be fun.

Maybe you will have fun, but to the rest of us, it will be boring.
Proof is meaningless to you.
So, it's absolutely meaningless to talk to you about any proof.....

Just to illustrate that I'm not straying off topic, everything is a choice, I am choosing to deny science, I am choosing to deny whatever proof you offer to me.

You can chose to believe whatever it is you like for whatever reason you chose. AND if you ever want to have a conversation, you can.

[enviousintheeverafter]

The Bible has been under attack against its authenticity since day one but it stood up.

In what sense has its authenticity "stood up"?

The side trusted is dependent on ones worldview and whether one trusts in God or not.

This is somewhat revealing as to the difference between the religious and non-religious mindset: why suppose its simply a matter of trusting an authority (outside of your own capacity for reason and judgment)?

The best way I know how to show evidences of God outside of scripture is by speaking of natural hints and human aspirations for a higher guardian being.

Why would human aspirations be evidence that what is aspired to is true/real/exists? Clearly, our aspirations and reality do not always coincide.

Who or what brought the universe including you and me into existence?

Do we know that the universe was brought into existence in the first place? Since we do not, don't you think this question is jumping the gun a bit?

Why is it so much easier for some to attribute the origin of the universe to mere chance than an intelligent being? Is it because mere chance is their god?

Not usually, no.. Again, this just seems like a revealing look into a certain type of mindset- the (erroneous) assumption that everyone must have a god, and if it isn't a religious entity then it must be something else. And if you're referring here to the view expressed by those like Lawrence Krauss, that the universe came into existence due to random fluctuations at the quantum scale, then its easier to attribute the origin of the universe to this than God because the proposal is, unlike God, coherent and intelligible, and supported or at least supportable (i.e. in principle) by empirical evidence.

Is God an invisible spirit? Day-to-day events give us hints there is an invisible power above us. As for a person unfamiliar with the written word and thus never told of God, things beyond man’s control like the weather, sea, quality of harvest, or even a thunderclap of which we are at mercy serve as hints of a superior being that determines their course.

Really? And here I thought it hinted at natural forces.

So does conscience. The fact that conscience may be obeyed or disobeyed indicates a Being other than ourselves on the other side of the telephone line

Not necessarily. It also could just indicate humans having a capacity for moral judgment/behavior- for instance, because cooperative strategies benefited our ancestors and so were selected for.

All that’s around us serve as more than sufficient evidence that God is.

Since nothing of what's around us serves to distinguish God's existence from his non-existence, there's no plausible way it could constitute sufficient evidence for God's existence. Sufficient evidence for God's existence would have to, at a minimum, be more consistent with his existence than his non-existence; but if anything, the opposite is the case. The absence of evidence we would expect to find if scriptural/doctrinal claims about God were true, the abundance of gratuitous suffering, the evident exhaustiveness of the physical and the causal closure thereof, the evident incoherency of most conceptions of God, all indicate God's non-existence, and the only evidence for God's existence is weak anecdotal evidence and apparent evidence of design far more concretely and exhaustively accounted for naturalistically.

I would ask an atheist why he prefers not to believe there’s a promised reward beyond this life. Don’t we all want a greater hope? Who doesn’t?

And I would respond by asking what logical relation you think there is between my hopes and preferences and what is the case? Rational belief is concerned with the latter, not the former. Believing something merely because one hopes it is true, or would prefer that it is, is not rational. It is wishful thinking.

[PghPanther]

[Replying to Danmark]

I tend to think of it on more simplistic yet still effective terms.

The Abrahamic faith world views depends on proclaimed absolute truths (even though they are all in conflict with each other).

These absolute truth proclamations are from an authority which cannot be questioned and they are never allowed to be revised or rejected.

If they would be proven infallible then their whole world view collapses......and they believe in vain.

As a result, they touch their knowledge toes into the ocean of science only enough to back engineer cherry picked evidence they can fit into their world view and have no other recourse to deny anything else that doesn't confirm to their absolute truth claims..

Its a hell of way to go through life since the marching of scientific progress is impossible to stop by them........and its been going on ever since the scientific method demonstrated how to create working models of consistency and predictability within realty.

So they live in denial of any overwhelming evidence from science that doesn't confirm to what they have to accept.

Sad sad stuff.........

[PghPanther]

[Replying to Danmark]

I tend to think of it on more simplistic yet still effective terms.

The Abrahamic faith world views depends on proclaimed absolute truths (even though they are all in conflict with each other).

These absolute truth proclamations are from an authority which cannot be questioned and they are never allowed to be revised or rejected.

If they would be proven infallible then their whole world view collapses......and they believe in vain.

As a result, they touch their knowledge toes into the ocean of science only enough to back engineer cherry picked evidence they can fit into their world view and have no other recourse to deny anything else that doesn't confirm to their absolute truth claims..

Its a hell of way to go through life since the marching of scientific progress is impossible to stop by them........and its been going on ever since the scientific method demonstrated how to create working models of consistency and predictability within realty.

So they live in denial of any overwhelming evidence from science that doesn't confirm to what they have to accept.

Sad sad stuff.........

correction I meant fallible not infallible stated above...