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?

[Hamsaka]

[Replying to post 67 by Bust Nak]

So if I feel good then it's moral or if I feel bad?

For you, as you appear to be a person with conventional morals, yes. There is a small percentage of persons who lack interpersonal empathy or 'conscience' who cannot use this 'if I feel good' as a moral benchmark. What makes them feel good is often victimizing others. Fortunately, many of them end up in prison or mental hospitals (but mostly prison)

Will this be true in all times and places?

Yes, pretty much.

Unless you are a closet sadist (animal or baby torturer) or a closet thief, closet uber-controller/abusive person, then your 'if I feel good it's moral' is a decent compass to use.

[Wootah]

[Replying to post 71 by Hamsaka]

I feel like I'm in that psychological experiment where everyone is in on the experiment except me and there is a number on the screen and it is says 8 but everyone says it is a 5.

[Hamsaka]

[Replying to post 71 by Hamsaka]

I feel like I'm in that psychological experiment where everyone is in on the experiment except me and there is a number on the screen and it is says 8 but everyone says it is a 5.

I honestly feel the same way sometimes, when you and I are going back and forth! Like we are talking past each other, using the same words but meaning different things, because what is deep inside prompting our thoughts/beliefs/feelings is . . . so different. It's got to be that different, how else could two (well, lots more but let's stick to two) people, speaking the same English language, have such trouble understanding one another?

I mean that going BOTH ways, not just you misunderstanding me cuz you are a stoopid or brain washed (or vice versa, where I am so steeped in sin I've lost my way). We are genuinely speaking different things, but using some of the same words to do it with.

As I write this, I am feeling more curiosity and dismay than any sort of judgmentalism. I'm glad you said it, and you are certainly not alone.

[Danmark]

[Replying to post 71 by Hamsaka]

I feel like I'm in that psychological experiment where everyone is in on the experiment except me and there is a number on the screen and it is says 8 but everyone says it is a 5.

It really is a 5.

What is happening is that the general public as well as the courts are ever so slowly getting away from specific details in laws and seeing the essential core of the law in terms of fundamental fairness, while discarding purely temporal, culture specific rules. Some questions from Justice Ginsberg during marriage equality arguments at the Supreme Court are instructive:

“Marriage was a relationship of a dominant male to a subordinate female,� she explained. “That ended as a result of this court’s decision in 1982 when Louisiana’s Head and Master Rule was struck down … Would that be a choice that state should [still] be allowed to have? To cling to marriage the way it once was?�

“No,� replied John Bursch, the somewhat chastised lawyer for the states who are seeking to preserve their ban on gay marriage.

Bursch was similarly eviscerated by Ginsburg when he tried to argue that the sole purpose of marriage was to ensure a stable relationship for procreation.

“Suppose a couple, 70-year-old couple, comes in and they want to get married?� remarked the 82-year-old Ginsburg, to laughter, after a protracted debate over whether it was fair to ask couples if they wanted children before allowing them to wed.

“You don’t have to ask them any questions. You know they are not going to have any children.�

[instantc]

[Replying to post 67 by Bust Nak]

So if I feel good then it's moral or if I feel bad?

For you, as you appear to be a person with conventional morals, yes. There is a small percentage of persons who lack interpersonal empathy or 'conscience' who cannot use this 'if I feel good' as a moral benchmark. What makes them feel good is often victimizing others. Fortunately, many of them end up in prison or mental hospitals (but mostly prison).

Your post seems to me to be inconsistent and misunderstand the essence of morality.

What you are saying is this: If you feel good about doing morally right things, then it is true that 'feeling good' indicates the morality of an act. On the other hand, if someone feels good about doing morally wrong things, then this does not apply to him. It seems to me that you already have a standard of morality, independent of how anyone feels, by which you judge whether someone is 'feeling good' about the right or wrong things. How did you come to determine that standard?

[instantc]

What is happening is that the general public as well as the courts are ever so slowly getting away from specific details in laws and seeing the essential core of the law in terms of fundamental fairness, while discarding purely temporal, culture specific rules.

In the United States perhaps. In the European Union the development is going to the other direction. New layers of more specific regulations are being made through delegated mandates by the expense of the courts' discretion to make rulings based on what they find fair.

[DanieltheDragon]

What is happening is that the general public as well as the courts are ever so slowly getting away from specific details in laws and seeing the essential core of the law in terms of fundamental fairness, while discarding purely temporal, culture specific rules.

In the United States perhaps. In the European Union the development is going to the other direction. New layers of more specific regulations are being made through delegated mandates by the expense of the courts' discretion to make rulings based on what they find fair.

I am not familiar with the laws and practices of the EU as I should be, perhaps you could provide an example that you think sticks out?

[instantc]

What is happening is that the general public as well as the courts are ever so slowly getting away from specific details in laws and seeing the essential core of the law in terms of fundamental fairness, while discarding purely temporal, culture specific rules.

In the United States perhaps. In the European Union the development is going to the other direction. New layers of more specific regulations are being made through delegated mandates by the expense of the courts' discretion to make rulings based on what they find fair.

I am not familiar with the laws and practices of the EU as I should be, perhaps you could provide an example that you think sticks out?

I don't know if this is a perfect example, but take the mutual recognition of products within the EU. In the early days, the law provided a broad framework, within which the national courts and administrators could identify the most reasonable ways of practice. Today there are multiple layers of case law and legislation governing these issues to such an extent that often even fully reasonable measures are not feasible. To me, this is the opposite of what Danmark is describing.

[DanieltheDragon]

[Replying to post 78 by instantc]

Yeah that is a bit ridiculous lol. I reckon there is no perfect answer but staying away from both extremes of the pendulum is probably a good idea. To me less is more but I can certainly understand the need for some specificity.

[Hamsaka]

[Replying to post 67 by Bust Nak]

So if I feel good then it's moral or if I feel bad?

For you, as you appear to be a person with conventional morals, yes. There is a small percentage of persons who lack interpersonal empathy or 'conscience' who cannot use this 'if I feel good' as a moral benchmark. What makes them feel good is often victimizing others. Fortunately, many of them end up in prison or mental hospitals (but mostly prison).

Your post seems to me to be inconsistent and misunderstand the essence of morality.

What you are saying is this: If you feel good about doing morally right things, then it is true that 'feeling good' indicates the morality of an act. On the other hand, if someone feels good about doing morally wrong things, then this does not apply to him. It seems to me that you already have a standard of morality, independent of how anyone feels, by which you judge whether someone is 'feeling good' about the right or wrong things. How did you come to determine that standard?

Good old fashioned observation.

I was speaking to Wootah, addressing his particular question, and brought out the exception to the rule, which illustrates why a person can't simply count on 'that felt good' as feedback to indicate a moral action.

The independent standard of morality you are perceiving in my post is the knowledge that there are some humans, about 4% of the general population, that have abnormal reward pathways in their brains, little sensitivity or empathy for a gregarious creature such as a human being is. This small percentage are called sociopathic. What makes them feel 'good' (as I sensed Wootah meant such) is often far from 'good' and therefore can't be trusted as perhaps you and I and Wootah can trust that sense within ourselves.