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?

[Divine Insight]

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?

When it comes to the Abrahamic religions I seriously believe that it's the fear factor.

These religions teach that this is a jealous God. If you fail to believe in him and support the religion at the very least you will miss out on great rewards. At worst you'll suffer unimaginable horrors after you die with no possibility of parole or being given a second chance. They are taught that if you don't make the right choice in this life, it's going to be too late to do anything about it after you die. That a pretty serious fear factor.

I think the people who pretend that it has nothing to do with fear or the reward of an afterlife are in serious denial. There really is no rational or sane reason to believe in these religions. These religions make the claim that we are all in the doghouse with God and this is a deep psychological guilt trip that apparently people buy into even if on a totally subconscious level.

That may be it right there Dan. It may be this underlying subconscious fear that if they fail to make this God happy things are going to be really bad for them. So it's far easier to deny science and everyday reality to prevent angering an almighty God who might hurt you if you fail to acknowledge him and support him to the hilt.

After all, it's only Christianity and Islam that actually do this. Most other world religions don't claim that God will be mean to you if you fail to believe.

That thought right there can be all that is necessary to have people simply too afraid to even consider the idea that this God might not exist. What if the religion is right? They could be damned forever for not believing and obeying!

In other words, on a subconscious level they aren't about to take a chance that Pascal's Wager might be wrong. It's simply too risky. If atheism is wrong and the Christian or Muslim God exists, then having rejected it for any reason at all would be grounds for eternal damnation.

It's the fear factor, plain and simple. It has to be. What else could cause people to cling to something like this with such tenacity? Either fear of being punished, or fear of missing out on the trip to eternal paradise. Either one is just too big of a risk to take. Better off denying science. After all science isn't threatening to hurt anyone if they reject it. Neither is it promising eternal life in paradise.

These people are simply scared to death. At least on a subconscious level.

And that was the whole design behind these religions. These religions were designed specifically to literally scare the hell out of people. Do as you're told or burn in hell, don't even THINK about doing otherwise.

These religions make some seriously horrific threats. That's their tactic and apparently it works on the vast majority of humans.

That's why these religions have hung around for so long. People are simply scared to death to even question them in any serious way. In fact, it's only been very recently that freedom of speech allows people to openly question these religions. It wasn't very long ago at all that a person could suffer serious social condemnation for publicly questioning these religions.

The threat of these religions was real even on a social level. No God required.

We are only just now entering an age where these religions can be openly challenged. It won't be long now before they are indeed abandoned. Give it a couple hundred years and these religions will be a thing of the past entire.

What we are seeing today are the dying pangs of an old dragon.

[Danmark]

[Replying to post 2 by Divine Insight]

Thanks. Fear is certainly a very powerful motivator and it likely operates on an unconscious level as well as consciously. In part what I'm trying to do is to transition away from thinking these folks are obstinately in denial and insensitive to people who are different, and trying to learn how to accept that they can't help themselves. This sounds condescending of course. Maybe it is. But understanding the fear or whatever it is that drives them to intolerance is helpful to me. However, I have to admit this conflicts with what I think of as a duty to teach. As I recall the root word of "educate" means "to draw out" or "to lead." If fear is part of the problem then helping people to let go of their fears is part of the solution. Perhaps this is one of the reasons debate is such a poor way to help people learn. Whether it is fear or the desperate need to hold on to the ego and the beliefs that sustain that ego, or something else I do not know.
But I am beginning to think my time spent debating these issues is a waste of time from that perspective. I think it is valuable as an exercise to keep an aging brain agile, to perfect or at least to stave off the inevitable loss of one's ability to write.

But as a teaching tool, the process of arguing is not very useful for most. I am probably guilty of projection, because I have learned so much from others and their arguments that I thought mine might have some effect as well. [sigh] It's probably time for me to move on to something more productive.

[DanieltheDragon]

[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. 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.

Fear is an easy target and certainly plays a role in why one would hold on to a general sense of belief in a particular religion. On specific issues though something far different is occurring. It's like a grand milgrim experiment, about 65% administered the final shock even admitting to being against it. Humans are social animals and in any social species there is a hierarchy. It's not fear or fervent belief that drives one to deny the obvious facts. It's a desire to conform into ones group. If the alpha members of the group think it the entire group supports it. Social species tend to fail if there are to many independent thinkers. I suspect some humans are naturally hard wired to conform within their respective groups. So you look at an issue like transgender most people will not encounter a situation where they have to deal with it, it is far easier to just accept what the group around you thinks and be done with it than to try and change the mind of the group. Path of least resistance wins.

[Baz]

I will agree with Divine insight on all of the above, but think the social pressures are probably the more dominant. That being the reason religion is related to where you live rather than what the religion teaches.
For a lot of people it would appear that being part of a group is in itself more important that what the group is actually abut. Once in many religious groups the pressure to stay and conform to the group norm is huge.
I don’t believe that the denial talked about by Danmark is as deep seated as suggested; I think it’s more like the emperors coat. But it would take the religious leaders to speak out not just us little boys, and that’s not happening any time soon they enjoy the power too much.




.

[instantc]

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.

[Danmark]

Naturally my post deals in generalities. There certainly are many exceptions. But I am intrigued by the YEC-fundamentalist religion-conservative politics-pure capitalism-science denial package of beliefs. The are often a set piece. You could probably add anti-immigration and 'close our borders' to the list. I suppose with each addition the generality applies to fewer people. But as several have said fear is part of a unifying theme.

I think fear was a factor in the research relied upon in The Republican Brain.

Recent investigations into the psychology of liberals and conservatives have found a number of subtle differences, from conservatives exhibiting more squeamishness to liberals paying less attention to negative stimuli or threats.
....
Republicans showing more activity in an area linked with reward, fear and risky decisions and Democrats showing more activity in a spot related to processing emotion and internal body cues.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/02/2 ... 17731.html

Regarding evolution, I have real trouble understanding the denial. I suppose it may in part be that altho' I was raised in an evangelical Christian home and community, evolution was accepted as much as the weather and people who denied it were thought of as hicks or boobs. Also, frequent trips to the Woodland park zoo in Seattle by the age of five or earlier presented me with evidence before I knew the name of the theory. I have a distinct memory of looking at the face of a gorilla and comparing it to the human faces around me. My childish approach was hardly scientific, but the facts were literally staring me in the face.

[instantc]

Regarding evolution, I have real trouble understanding the denial.

What is so hard to understand about it? If you are raised in a community where the young earth belief is accepted as common knowledge, then it hardly seems reasonable to change your mind just because your high school teacher or a stranger in the internet says otherwise.

Naturally my post deals in generalities. There certainly are many exceptions. But I am intrigued by the YEC-fundamentalist religion-conservative politics-pure capitalism-science denial package of beliefs. The are often a set piece. You could probably add anti-immigration and 'close our borders' to the list.

It's curious to me that you'd add things like pure capitalism and anti-immigration to the same list with young earth creationism. The latter is evidently false while the former are matters of perspective to a large extent.

[Danmark]

Regarding evolution, I have real trouble understanding the denial.

What is so hard to understand about it? If you are raised in a community where the young earth belief is accepted as common knowledge, then it hardly seems reasonable to change your mind just because your high school teacher or a stranger in the internet says otherwise.

Naturally my post deals in generalities. There certainly are many exceptions. But I am intrigued by the YEC-fundamentalist religion-conservative politics-pure capitalism-science denial package of beliefs. The are often a set piece. You could probably add anti-immigration and 'close our borders' to the list.

It's curious to me that you'd add things like pure capitalism and anti-immigration to the same list with young earth creationism. The latter is evidently false while the former are matters of perspective to a large extent.

That's the very point. It doesn't make sense, but it seems to be packaged together. don't know why. I suppose fear is a factor. As for clearly true or false, it's all a matter of perspective. Too me pure capitalism is clearly a very bad idea and closing our borders is wholly unrealistic. To be anti immigration is to be anti-American, but that is not how they see it, forgetting we are a nation of immigrants. While I'm at it, I'll throw racism into pot. There is a well documented association between conservative and Republican politics with issues that appear to be less sensitive to the interests of racial minorities, as well as the poor and recent immigrants.

Some studies link not only fear and the need for structure, but also low IQ to prejudice.

"Socially conservative ideologies tend to offer structure and order," Hodson said, explaining why these beliefs might draw those with low intelligence. "Unfortunately, many of these features can also contribute to prejudice."

In another study, this one in the United States, Hodson and Busseri compared 254 people with the same amount of education but different levels of ability in abstract reasoning. They found that what applies to racism may also apply to homophobia. People who were poorer at abstract reasoning were more likely to exhibit prejudice against gays.
http://www.livescience.com/18132-intell ... acism.html

[instantc]

That's the very point. It doesn't make sense, but it seems to be packaged together. don't know why. I suppose fear is a factor.

I can comfortably relate to all of the beliefs that you've mentioned without any kind of fear being involved.

Take being anti-immigration, for example. I don't think anyone is saying that citizens should not be allowed to move from one country to another in principle. To my understanding, they are simply acknowledging that their grandfathers have built a specifically good nation, and they do not want to share that good fortune with other people from poorer countries. Just like you don't want to share your house with the homeless people, although that might be a gracious thing to do.

While I'm at it, I'll throw racism into pot. There is a well documented association between conservative and Republican politics with issues that appear to be less sensitive to the interests of racial minorities, as well as the poor and recent immigrants.

Perhaps you could give a concrete example of what you mean by an act of racism, since the word has recently been twisted beyond recognition in the media and public debate.