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?

[instantc]

If you are designing a new public transport system so the the poor folks on one side of town are as well served as the rich folks on the other, is there no a moral component?

Certainly, but that is my point as well. The mere fact that it is alleviating suffering does not make it moral, other elements are required as well. Such as, in your example, selfless motive of helping the less fortunate.

[Bust Nak]

So what does a moral act entail in your opinion?

...

This is so very broad that it does not in fact tell me anything about what you consider to be a moral act.

What taste is considered yummy in your opinion? You can talk about sweetness, texture and so on, but I can just follow up with question such as what makes that level of sweetness tasty, as opposed to too sweet. The bottom line is always "it's yummy because I just like it that way." Same with morality. It is moral because I just like it that way.

[instantc]

So what does a moral act entail in your opinion?

...

This is so very broad that it does not in fact tell me anything about what you consider to be a moral act.

What taste is considered yummy in your opinion? You can talk about sweetness, texture and so on, but I can just follow up with question such as what makes that level of sweetness tasty, as opposed to too sweet. The bottom line is always "it's yummy because I just like it that way." Same with morality. It is moral because I just like it that way.

That's true, but with regard to morality there are observable criteria that seemingly make us intuitively recognize an act as moral or immoral. When a person calls act 'moral', he is saying more than that he just happens to feel that way about this particular act. Immanuel Kant, for example is saying that an act is immoral when it is contrary to one of his categorical imperatives.

This user seems to be saying that an act is moral whenever it alleviates suffering, regardless of things like motive, which seems like a strange use of the word to me.

[Hamsaka]

In my opinion, a moral act is one which supports well being of self and other and the collective. It promotes pleasurable and meaningful living and as an act, works to avoid the suffering of persons including nonhuman persons as such that can and do suffer.

As you say yourself, this is so very broad that it does not in fact tell me anything about what you consider to be a moral act. As far as I can see, many moral and immoral acts have both negative and positive consequences on somebody's well-being. Also many amoral acts support well-being. The design of a new public transport system certainly enhances the well-being of the citizens, but that really doesn't have anything to do with morality.

Good point. And to your last question, no, of course it doesn't. Morality is imposed upon life, which makes it easy to psychologically project a sky-dad imposing some kind of objective morality onto humanity. But we're the ones generating this imposed morality.

What I wrote was more of a world view than a specific morality generator. Morality enters into the picture where suffering does, but not until then. Your metaphor about the design of a new public transport system holds up well as one that meets the requirement of enhancing pleasure, but says nothing about morality because suffering (human or that of any sentient creature) has little to say about designing public transportation.

So where suffering enters the scene, then so does morality.

Say a neighborhood of low cost housing is sold to a developer who intends to raze the homes and use the property for a new metro rail hub. Morality has entered the picture (or, will be perceived as being relevant) because folks will lose the only homes they can afford, for instance. Or the ground being developed is known to contain burial grounds for a local Indigenous people's tribe.

Morality arises in the presence of suffering. That's how some situations can be regarded as deeply immoral by some and not by others. The developers hoping to raze a low income neighborhood will regard the outcomes as pleasurable, enhancing, and may send a whole bunch of kids to college and buy Mom a small house closer by to keep an eye on her in her age. We have a moral dilemma when a 'neutral' act has results that cause suffering from some and pleasure for others. This kind of dilemma is the essence of those six hundred and something rules for life in Leviticus and Deuteronomy et al. Finding moral solutions is tough, so in my own mind, I've come to distill it down to who (or what) is suffering. Certainly, this needs ongoing work!

It is an error of attribution, a failure to identify the necessary component that impacts a situation and gives rise to an issue of morality. Morals are irrelevant without context, perhaps. This is too easily picked apart semantically, I realize, but I don't put much value into arguments that debate semantics and other such goal post moving-all-around types.

"Morality enters the scene when suffering does"

Okay, so what in your view constitutes a moral act in the context of suffering?

I'm not asking for examples of moral acts, which you already gave above, but rather I am asking what is it that makes an act moral in your opinion?

A moral act is a decision to diminish or alleviate suffering. What is done to diminish/alleviate the suffering is particular to the situation.

Well, if the citizens of a town are suffering because of full buses and metros, then the a decision by the authorities to redesign the public transport system is a decision to alleviate suffering. But, we already established that that has nothing to do with morality. Thus, there must be another element, right?

What I bolded has gotten me stuck.

When you use the term 'morality' in this context, what is your definition? In my mind, when I use the term 'morality', I'm thinking of a human choice to take action to alleviate suffering.

Hold on now, I thought you agreed with me above when I said that redesigning the public transport system has nothing to do with morality. Sorry, I must have confused something in your reply.

So, according to your definition all sorts of things, such as designing public transport systems and inventing headache pills, are moral actions. That's fine, but I find it a bit absurd and definitely very unusual use of the word 'moral'.

You got me. No idea.

I'm not out to get you. Your initial comment on morality seemed a bit curious to me, so I'm trying to get a grip on your views.

Oh, I know you aren't out to get me I absolutely did agree with you in that post, and found my exact words -- to realize my position is shakey and needs clarification (which I'm happy to do).

It does sound absurd to put public transportation improvements into a 'moral' category. The uncertainty of my position has no trouble at all regarding government's upkeep and improvements as acts of morality -- but this is extremely loose use of the word 'moral', and I think this is part of my issue.

In this vein, the US is primarily a 'moral' nation, in that tax dollars received are used for the social good (ostensibly). When a pothole forms in one of the local roads, I can rest assured it will eventually be repaired, unlike someone in a less fortunately governed country.

Whatever the particulars, the US government puts on a good show of doing what they say they will, and we can count on it for the most part, as a society. Making promises and keeping them is a 'moral' behavior.

So when I backtracked and said "Hey, wait a minnit!" what came to mind was that there is a 'moral' theme in the government promising to improve transportation and then actually improving it.

"Keeping your word" would be the moral of this story.

Now you say that you find it absurd to use the word 'moral' and I agree I'm using the term very loosely, and perhaps losing coherence in the meantime.

I hope this gives some clarity, if nothing else but a glimpse into a need for me to clarify what I'm saying.

[Erexsaur]

[Replying to Danmark]

Hello Damark,

Ouch!! Why did you treat your buddy like this?

Do I really see from your speech that I am part of a group of people with a terrible learning disorder that causes religious denial of science? What “science� are you speaking of? The science that I know and love very much has repeatedly proven the fact that God created the magnificent order around us! Did Newton also have this terrible “learning disorder?� He thought that science opened him up to a deeper understanding of God's creation. That makes much sense to me!

The only “learning disorder� I'm familiar with that “plagues� me is what's called discretion that often leads me to reject some things handed to me. Is that what you are speaking of? This action is deliberate, not a "can't-helpitus" situation!

Should I make an about face to believe that evolution is an undeniable fact? This is a move that would require me to deny science! Maybe my tendency to “stubbornly� reject some things handed to me is the consequences of a rock-headed tendency to believe that truth is based only on what was given by a trusted source, shared by a witness, observed, and/or verified by scientific law. I know my name because my parents told me and called me by it. I trusted them. Will you please tell me who personally witnessed evolution to confirm it as fact and what scientific law supports it as factual? Was Darwin the witness? Was it a layer? A judge? Judges are honorable, ya know. But some are as “honorable� as Brutus.

What led you to the point of certainty that Christians like me are stubborn deniers of knowledge because of this “learning disorder?� The word “science� comes from the Latin word for knowledge. What impression you want me to have of you because of your claims?

As long as I am “spoiled� by the presupposition that God made you and me, I tend to have a sense of thanksgiving for the great work He did with my body as well as all around me that's good. So do people inwardly thank the maker of their fine automobiles as they enjoy them. The presupposition also makes me think better of you. When bad things happen, I find myself forced to think to discover deeply hidden goodness that I wouldn't have otherwise. How would it be if I presuppose myself evolved with no hope unless I steal it from someone weaker than I?

I am happy to be led by a sense of dignity, hope and purpose that only comes from God! But how can I or anyone expect these things from evolution's daddy named Chance? If true, evolution by chance brought us here for what purpose? What's your purpose?

You communicated to me that preaching supposedly breaks the rules. But why was it found necessary to preach that people like me should be placed in a bad mental category because of our rejection of the preaching of “holy� evolution? Should evolution be so strongly preached that people like me should be sent to a Babylonian kiln for making bricks (what the fiery furnace was believed to be) that's heated 7 times hotter than fire? I didn't know that people should be considered as having learning disorders because of things they voluntarily reject. What bad category do you want me to place you in because you reject creation truth?

As for your last statement, Jesus revealed to us that true worshipers worship Him in spirit and truth. But where does that leave him that believes there's no spiritual side of us?

In response to some that responded to this post, may I add that fear and the lack of trust are factors that drive people away from God to keep them away, not to Him? To approach Him, one must face his fears and lay them aside. Attempts to serve God out of dread and fear are based on erroneous motives. Such have caused me to do lots of stupid things in the past. But those that trust Him despite their fears are delivered from their fears to find peace and rest.


Take care,
Earl

[DanieltheDragon]

[Replying to post 95 by Erexsaur]

Should I make an about face to believe that evolution is an undeniable fact? This is a move that would require me to deny science!

What scientific theory has been posited that rejects the premise of evolution? If you want to reject evolution on the grounds of religious belief go for it. Let's not play games and say it is scientific to reject it. No one is saying you need to believe in evolution. The idea of teaching people through deception that evolution is not scientific fact and "controversial" is problematic though. You might as well try to teach the controversy of flat earth theory.

[Goat]

[Replying to Danmark]

Hello Damark,

Ouch!! Why did you treat your buddy like this?

Do I really see from your speech that I am part of a group of people with a terrible learning disorder that causes religious denial of science? What “science� are you speaking of? The science that I know and love very much has repeatedly proven the fact that God created the magnificent order around us! Did Newton also have this terrible “learning disorder?� He thought that science opened him up to a deeper understanding of God's creation. That makes much sense to me!

There are certain factors missing in that statement for it to be 'science'. It is a metaphysical position that takes as an axiom that God exists, but items that are not addressed are
1) What is God. What are God's properties.
2) How do you know that?
3) What is the veritable evidence for this God's existence, and how can it be tested'.

[H.sapiens]

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?

I think that your concerns are somewhat misplaced Danmark. Often the denial of evolution, for example, can be explained simply by a lack of involvement in the issue.

I'm not a big fan of evolution debates, as I don't understand much of biology. However, I once listened to one such debate, and painful as it was to listen, I have to say that neither side was more convincing than the other to a layman's ear. I am convinced about the truth of the evolution, not because of the evidence, but because of the consensus among scientists. In other words, I believe in evolution essentially because I'm told that that's where the evidence points. To my understanding, religious people believe in the young earth for the exact same reason.

Neither me or Danny the creationist have adopted our views on evolution based on any real evidence. I can fully relate to a person who grows up in a religious community where young earth creationism is accepted as common knowledge and evolutionary scientists are depicted as nihilists and sinners who do not practice proper science.

What it comes to believing that homosexuality is a choice, I think it directly follows from one's other beliefs. Surely God who does not tolerate homosexuality would not make someone homosexual. Thus, it must be a choice. On one side there is your whole belief system that you have grown to accept as properly basic, and on the other side there are merely shaky testimonies of homosexuals themselves. Naturally one would choose to follow that which follows from their most basic beliefs.

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.

Blaming personal ignorance as the driving factor for disbelief in evolution is not exactly a new observation.

You make a good case for atheism though: "Surely God who does not tolerate homosexuality would not make someone homosexual" combined with the current knowledge that sexual identify and preference is a continuum with a least a partial genetic basis.

The neurological differences that you are finding "hard to believe" have been demonstrated by FNMR scans contrasting liberals and conservatives, but not yet shown on a gross anatomical level.

[Erexsaur]

[Replying to Goat]


Hello DanieltheDragon and Goat,

I will answer you in the order of occurrence.

For you, Daniel,

Although you ask me what scientific theory was posited that rejects the premise of evolution, may I ask you what scientific theory supports it? Isn’t it possible to come to a conclusion simply by common sense even before having to arrive at a theory?

I ask again after asking others many times before: If you walk alone on a beach and find a sandcastle, would you conclude that someone was there to make the sandcastle or that it would be a chance product of the wind and waves over a long period of time? Please? Would you find it necessary to have a scientist form a theory to explain the possibility of someone having been there?

If the sandcastle points to involvement of a person that was on the scene, how much more does the magnificent order around us that’s far more complex point to involvement of a much greater intelligence than us humans? Is there any need to fear the reality of such?

As for me, do you think that I reject evolution because of religious belief? My answer is “yes� in the sense that genuine Biblical religion is based on the foundation of Truth. That automatically precludes belief on anything not supported by truth. What foundation is evolution based on? Please?

Random House tells us that science is “a branch of knowledge or study dealing with a body of facts or truths systematically arranged and showing the operation of general laws: [such as] the mathematical sciences.� The Latin word for “science� is “knowledge.� But isn’t knowledge gained by many other ways than observation and experimentation (The scientific method)? What about the many things simply told us? Was it necessary for scientists to prove that your name is yours or did you simply believe your parents?

The KJV Bible contains two occurrences of the word, “science� and 169 occurrence of the word “knowledge.� Please note the following scripture I happened to find while seeking these occurrences:

“O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called: (1 Timothy 6:20)�

Please note the phrase, “falsely so called� that modifies the word, “science.� I ask again after many times before: what scientific law supports evolution, please?



For you, Goat:

In reference to your post #97, what if I ask you to show me evidence that God doesn’t exist?

My presupposition that God does exists is based on much. I was told that He exists and that a document called the Bible backs up what I was told by my parents, etc. Even if not told, each of us have a conscience that convicts and all have violated that conscience one way or the other.

How may you or I know that the presupposition that God exists is correct? Have you considered the sampling of reasons I gave below that serve as evidence?:

1. People throughout all ages and cultures worship some god or the other. Even those that claim to serve no god live by philosophies with absolutes as if from some kind of sovereignty.

2. Have you considered the countless times you heard of God mentioned in conversations? Even if an idea you received of Him isn’t clear, have you considered the abundance of material available to clarify?

3. You and I are fortunate that much written material is available to tell us who God is and contain countless subjects about Him. The luxury of the availability of material and to be in the presence of so many that talk of God is rare.

4. Have you ever met anyone or a group who have accepted and received God at His calling and are thus convinced and testify of Him? What about the many books by authors that testify of Him?

5. We that testify of God speak as witnesses of personal encounters with Him. What better evidence is there than that of a witness? There is a natural and supernatural side of all of us.

6. Have you considered that His existence and His spoken words are documented in a book called the Bible that tells us that more than enough is around us that silently points to the reality of His existence?

7. Are you familiar with a group of people called Jews that gave us the Bible that documents the reality of God? What about a nation called Israel that’s smaller than Rhode Island but always in the news?

8.If Texas went to war against Rhode Island, which do you think would win? But Israel won many miraculous victories against nations much larger than her! Do you perceive any possibility of their having received help from any Person above the natural?

I can go on and on.

I continually assure myself of His presence and goodness by thanksgiving and praise for His goodness.

Do we need elite scientists to verify God’s calling to us? What better way is there to verify than obedience to His calling based on good conscience that opens up to much greater knowledge? But that necessitates overcoming the rebelliousness of human nature that’s inherent in us all.

Scientists continually reveal much to convince us of the universal presence of God.


Take care,
Earl

[Goat]

For you, Goat:

In reference to your post #97, what if I ask you to show me evidence that God doesn’t exist?

My presupposition that God does exists is based on much. I was told that He exists and that a document called the Bible backs up what I was told by my parents, etc. Even if not told, each of us have a conscience that convicts and all have violated that conscience one way or the other.

And how does the Bible back that up? I mean,I can point you to a document that show Scarlet Ohara lived, but we know that is fictional Just because something say something, and other people tell you that it is so, doesn't mean that it is so. What independent verification do you have that what you were told is true?

[/quote]

How may you or I know that the presupposition that God exists is correct? Have you considered the sampling of reasons I gave below that serve as evidence?:

1. People throughout all ages and cultures worship some god or the other. Even those that claim to serve no god live by philosophies with absolutes as if from some kind of sovereignty.
[/quote]

That does not mean it's true. You are appealing to tradition, but that does not show that the tradition is correct. That is argument by popularity ..

2. Have you considered the countless times you heard of God mentioned in conversations? Even if an idea you received of Him isn’t clear, have you considered the abundance of material available to clarify?

I also have heard plenty of people mention Harry Potter and Hogsworth. That does not mean that it is true. I have not seen anything more than empty claims and appeals to authority/tradition, and 'just because I say so'.

3. You and I are fortunate that much written material is available to tell us who God is and contain countless subjects about Him. The luxury of the availability of material and to be in the presence of so many that talk of God is rare.

And so what?? Just because someone wrote something down , and perhaps even believed it doesn't mean it's true.

4. Have you ever met anyone or a group who have accepted and received God at His calling and are thus convinced and testify of Him? What about the many books by authors that testify of Him?

There are plenty of people who accept without thought. That is nothing more than appeal to popularity. All that testimony does is show that some people believe, it doesn't mean that their beliefs are true. They could just be suffering from confirmation bias.

5. We that testify of God speak as witnesses of personal encounters with Him. What better evidence is there than that of a witness? There is a natural and supernatural side of all of us.

6. Have you considered that His existence and His spoken words are documented in a book called the Bible that tells us that more than enough is around us that silently points to the reality of His existence?

7. Are you familiar with a group of people called Jews that gave us the Bible that documents the reality of God? What about a nation called Israel that’s smaller than Rhode Island but always in the news?

8.If Texas went to war against Rhode Island, which do you think would win? But Israel won many miraculous victories against nations much larger than her! Do you perceive any possibility of their having received help from any Person above the natural?

I can go on and on.

I continually assure myself of His presence and goodness by thanksgiving and praise for His goodness.

Do we need elite scientists to verify God’s calling to us? What better way is there to verify than obedience to His calling based on good conscience that opens up to much greater knowledge? But that necessitates overcoming the rebelliousness of human nature that’s inherent in us all.

Scientists continually reveal much to convince us of the universal presence of God.


Take care,
Earl

And more and more of the say. None of that is being 'Look how many people believe, and 'truest me'. I don't see you showing what you say is actually TRUE.