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?

[Danmark]

[Replying to post 25 by Danmark]

Actually taking extreme positions in order to seff justify is quite common. Think of suicide and self harm and really behind both examples the person is saying, "now do you believe me? See what you did?"

Or think of the temper tantrums a child can act out when not getting their way in comparison to the issue they are crying about.

It doesn't scream sincerity to me.

I don't see it that way. I see what must be inner turmoil and distress from being different, from not fitting in. In some it may cause over achievement, like with Bruce Jenner. In others, despair, but in both cases distress. We know from basic psychological research that people will experience profound stress when they repeatedly encounter scenarios where everyone disagrees with them.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asch_confo ... xperiments

Try to imagine what it would be like if everyone, plus your own body, tells you, you are a boy, when inwardly you feel like a girl. A prank elementary school kinds sometimes play on others is to privately conspire to stare at one fellow student. It is the rare 3rd grader who can withstand such treatment with poise.

My understanding of the teachings of Jesus leads me to believe the essence of what he taught was love, not rules; that he would be particularly sensitive to the outcast, the oddball, the unlovely. He was even accepting of abrasive loudmouths, like Peter and despised tax collectors. Today, this seems to be too often transformed into rule conformity taking precedence over love.

I agree with your understanding of Jesus. I think those that followed him found the strength in him for their weaknesses.

What I don't agree with is accepting absurdity as normal when it clearly isn't. It's like the Monty Python sketch the black knight or the emperors new clothes story.

My compassion for Bruce Jenner shouldn't change my beliefs and comes from my beliefs.

I agree with you in principle; however just because new information is presented to us is no reason to reject it, just because it confronts our previous beliefs. Another way to support my claim of sincerity is with the suicide statistics I added to my edited post:

According to surveys, 4.6 percent of the overall U.S. population has self-reported a suicide attempt, with that number climbing to between 10 and 20 percent for lesbian, gay or bisexual respondents. By comparison, 41 percent of trans or gender non-conforming people surveyed have attempted suicide.
http://www.vocativ.com/culture/lgbt/tra ... r-suicide/
In other words a transgender person is about ten times more likely to kill him/herself.

[DanieltheDragon]

[Replying to post 30 by Wootah]

What I don't agree with is accepting absurdity

Absurdity is the state of being absurd

Absurd:

adjective
1.
utterly or obviously senseless, illogical, or untrue; contrary to all reason or common sense; laughably foolish or false:
an absurd explanation.
noun
2.
the quality or condition of existing in a meaningless and irrational world.

Calling a whole group of people absurd is pretty offensive not to mention your use of the word is wildly inaccurate, just because you can't understand something doesn't mean you should denigrate something.

This does seem contrary to the message of Jesus where he gives caveats for loving or accepting someone.

Is there a bible verse that says you should not tolerate what you personally find "absurd"?

[Wootah]

[Replying to post 32 by DanieltheDragon]

Hey it could be my issue and not a Christian perspective. When one becomes a Christian one doesn't simply stop being who they were and many atheists know Christianity really well.

Loving and accepting are often conflated. I can love someone but not accept their choices. Accepting their choices is often the least loving thing we can do. Accepting the choices of others is often our way of demanding others accept our choices.

[DanieltheDragon]

[Replying to post 33 by Wootah]

What person would choose to be transgender, that is an irrational and illogical assumption. Who would choose to be ostracized by the vast majority of those around them?

Regardless of accepting or not accepting, denigrating someone goes beyond that. Love is defined as having a strong feeling of adoration or affection. Calling someone existence absurd betrays the claim that you love them. Your dealing with inherently mutually exclusive concepts.

If you think it's a choice try and think of the reasons why someone would choose to live with gender dysmorphia. Come up with a list of pros and cons. If you can convince me or anyone else on his forum it's a good think I will eat crow.

[Wootah]

[Replying to post 33 by Wootah]

What person would choose to be transgender, that is an irrational and illogical assumption. Who would choose to be ostracized by the vast majority of those around them?

Regardless of accepting or not accepting, denigrating someone goes beyond that. Love is defined as having a strong feeling of adoration or affection. Calling someone existence absurd betrays the claim that you love them. Your dealing with inherently mutually exclusive concepts.

If you think it's a choice try and think of the reasons why someone would choose to live with gender dysmorphia. Come up with a list of pros and cons. If you can convince me or anyone else on his forum it's a good think I will eat crow.

What person would choose suicide?

No I'm not dealing with mutually exclusive concepts. You're creating false dichotomies in order to dismiss.

If the issue is genetic then there is nothing they can do about it and yet they do not benefit from classifying it as normal any more than a paraplegic benefits from being classified as normal.

Similarly if the issue is a psychological disorder then they do not benefit from classifying them as normal.

It it's a choice then top of my head would be: love, attention, narcissism.

Love is defined as having a strong feeling of adoration or affection.

I'm not so sure that is what love is or what Jesus preaches. It might however explain your responses. Would you say that when Jesus said to love our enemies that it an impossible command since we have no affection for our enemies or would you consider your definition an over simplification?

[DanieltheDragon]

[Replying to post 35 by Wootah]

What person would choose suicide?

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1715802/

This might help you understand.

Sometimes non existence is perceivable better than existence. Suicide can be quite a complex issue and often people who choose that see it as a solution to their problems.
I reckon contributing to ones problems by ostracizing them and deionizing them is not really an act of love.

If you would like to define love so I can better understand your position, I can only go by the common parlance if you have a special definition please provide it.

[Goat]

[Replying to post 33 by Wootah]

What person would choose to be transgender, that is an irrational and illogical assumption. Who would choose to be ostracized by the vast majority of those around them?

Regardless of accepting or not accepting, denigrating someone goes beyond that. Love is defined as having a strong feeling of adoration or affection. Calling someone existence absurd betrays the claim that you love them. Your dealing with inherently mutually exclusive concepts.

If you think it's a choice try and think of the reasons why someone would choose to live with gender dysmorphia. Come up with a list of pros and cons. If you can convince me or anyone else on his forum it's a good think I will eat crow.

What person would choose suicide?

No I'm not dealing with mutually exclusive concepts. You're creating false dichotomies in order to dismiss.

If the issue is genetic then there is nothing they can do about it and yet they do not benefit from classifying it as normal any more than a paraplegic benefits from being classified as normal.

Similarly if the issue is a psychological disorder then they do not benefit from classifying them as normal.

It it's a choice then top of my head would be: love, attention, narcissism.

Love is defined as having a strong feeling of adoration or affection.

I'm not so sure that is what love is or what Jesus preaches. It might however explain your responses. Would you say that when Jesus said to love our enemies that it an impossible command since we have no affection for our enemies or would you consider your definition an over simplification?

This is a false dichotomy. They found that the brain structure of transgender individuals match their perceived gender, rather than the brain structure of 'cis-gender' individuals. (cis-gender is your self identity matches your physical body). While it might not be genetic, it could be developmental, due to the environment of the womb. So, it could be non-genetic, yet not fit any of the categories you claim (love, attention , narcissism). The evidence pretty much eliminates your options.

[Wootah]

[Replying to post 37 by Goat]

If I have left out an option then let's add it.
Genetic
Psychological
Developmental
Choice

I'm not rushing to position 4 here, I felt unfairly pushed into that position. I think positions 1-3 are far more likely.

[Goat]

[Replying to post 37 by Goat]

If I have left out an option then let's add it.
Genetic
Psychological
Developmental
Choice

I'm not rushing to position 4 here, I felt unfairly pushed into that position. I think positions 1-3 are far more likely.

I personally think 3 is most likely, 1 is a little less likely, and I think for the main part, 2 happens sometimes, and 4 can be eliminated. From what I gather, when it comes to treatment of people who think they are transgender, there is a large psychological evaluation that goes on to eliminate 2 from the equation before they consider the surgery as an option. Developmental is in the natal environment, and if there is a genetic component, that is when it would express itself.. so 1 and 3 are very closely linked.

I am just glad I don't have to deal with it in my own personal life.

[DanieltheDragon]

[Replying to post 38 by Wootah]

I can love someone but not accept their choices. Accepting their choices is often the least loving thing we can do. Accepting the choices of others is often our way of demanding others accept our choices.

You are the only one positing and asserting choice as an option. Where did you offer any of the other options in this quote or previous statements?

Additionally someone has already put forth some pretty persuasive evidence to suggest it is anything remotely close to a choice. If you think choice is the least likely option why suggest that first?