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?

[DanieltheDragon]

[Replying to post 39 by Goat]

http://www.dsm5.org/Documents/Gender%20 ... 0Sheet.pdf

To supplement your comment here is the DSM V manual

[Wootah]

[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.

There is a wide range of sources available to understand suicide, but thanks.

I want to make it clear I don't think they are demons. I just don't think we should call it normal. It's another false dichotomy to think that Christians think that way.

I would say love is a promise to love others as you love yourself.

[DanieltheDragon]

[Replying to post 42 by Wootah]

I would say gender dysphoria is not the mean and is rare. However it does occur at a pretty consistent rate and there is a means to treat the dysphoria and gender reassignment seems to have consistently effective results.

Marginalizing them also has consistently negative results.

How would you treat gender dysphoria?

[Wootah]

[Replying to post 42 by Wootah]

I would say gender dysphoria is not the mean and is rare. However it does occur at a pretty consistent rate and there is a means to treat the dysphoria and gender reassignment seems to have consistently effective results.

Marginalizing them also has consistently negative results.

How would you treat gender dysphoria?

How would you treat people that feel like a limb is not part of themselves and want it removed? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Body_integ ... y_disorder

[DanieltheDragon]

[Replying to post 42 by Wootah]

I would say gender dysphoria is not the mean and is rare. However it does occur at a pretty consistent rate and there is a means to treat the dysphoria and gender reassignment seems to have consistently effective results.

Marginalizing them also has consistently negative results.

How would you treat gender dysphoria?

How would you treat people that feel like a limb is not part of themselves and want it removed? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Body_integ ... y_disorder

There is not enough research on the matter to come to a conclusive answer. There are ethical considerations surely. However this is a straw man used as a means of dodging an answer to a question. Apples and Oranges are both fruit yet are distinctly different.

[Wootah]

[Replying to post 45 by DanieltheDragon]

In that case my reply is similar: There is not enough research on the matter to come to a conclusive answer. There are ethical considerations surely.

But in general my layman's advice is to see a medical professional.

[DanieltheDragon]

[Replying to post 45 by DanieltheDragon]

In that case my reply is similar: There is not enough research on the matter to come to a conclusive answer. There are ethical considerations surely.

But in general my layman's advice is to see a medical professional.

Except there is significant research on gender dysphoria.

Sharp declines of suicide and depression rates show great promise in the current available treatments. There is far less research on BIID. You essentially saying you can't treat ADHD because we don't fully understand fibro myalgia.

I agree with your layman advice and that is to see a medical professional.

With that in mind, how do you feel you should treat transgendered people you encounter?

Do you think they should have equal rights?

[Wootah]

[Replying to post 47 by DanieltheDragon]
If we both agree they should seek medical advice we probably both agree the behavior isn't normal.

Do you think they should have equal rights?

I don't believe in equal rights at all. It's a fantasy notion akin to how atheists view God. I believe the laws we have now are enough for everyone.

[DanieltheDragon]

[Replying to post 47 by DanieltheDragon]
If we both agree they should seek medical advice we probably both agree the behavior isn't normal.

Do you think they should have equal rights?

I don't believe in equal rights at all. It's a fantasy notion akin to how atheists view God. I believe the laws we have now are enough for everyone.

I don't think it is a behavior and the nature of it should not be classified as normal or abnormal. It is more a product of neurological development. I don't view them as abnormal. Seeking a medical professional can give them the much needed guidance and information to move forward with their best interests at heart. Whether that is gender reassignment or hormonal treatments or simply a therapist to talk about things they are dealing with in how people treat them.

I have ADHD which effects only 5% of the population, I seek medical attention and I consider myself normal. Normal is pretty subjective how many people do you think have athletic build, good vision, good social skills, good mental health, and are intelligent to boot? If you seek medical attention does that make you abnormal?

If you don't think there should be legal equality do you think there should be discrimination?

[Hamsaka]

[Replying to post 22 by Hamsaka]

Wow awesome reply. So do you think Danmark's position is fair in light of what you said? Is it cognitive bias to see scraps of evidence in favour of a belief and call the other side deniers (a word closely related to holocaust denial)?

Thank you. I get what you are saying, I think, about cognitive bias causing a person to overly value a few scraps of information, and then accuse those who don't overly value those few scraps 'deniers'.

Straight from the hip, I agree with Danmark about the phenomenon of 'science denial' especially in the Biblical literalist crowd. This does appear to be happening, it is a hypothesis drawn from repeated and consistent observations of this crowd over the years.

The Dover, PA Supreme Court case is one of many such public 'statements' (perhaps it is the most infamous one) made by Biblical literalists. This case illustrates your point about cognitive bias extremely well. "Scraps" of "evidence" (fallaciously determined by cognitive bias in the literalists) are overly valued against scientific consensus. These same 'scraps of evidence', which do not meet the same scientific standards we rely upon to keep airplanes up and your surgeon's equipment safely operating, are aggressively promoted as 'science'. And when those claims are rejected, Ben Stein makes a movie called "Expelled:".

We all have cognitive biases, though, and it goes nowhere fast unless all parties concerned are willing to use ruthless honesty in self-examination, rather than just pointing fingers at others. In my experience, most Christians are unwilling to subject themselves to ruthless and impartial examination of their beliefs. Faith is like a soap bubble, it must be shielded so gently, and defended so vehemently.

Atheists can get in the same kind of trouble with their ideas, too, but 'atheists' aren't singled out as a group . . . because, well, we aren't one (except for places like this ). Cognitive bias is a human being problem, and all of us are rattling around with cognitive biases we've never questioned.

As it appears to me, (and in responding back and forth with you, Wootah), the theory of evolution, just as a for instance, makes a case for 'no God necessary', thus deeply challenging the premise of a Creator. This sets up a cognitive dissonance for Christians of a literalist persuasion. In spite of 'evolution' being considered standard knowledge by scientific consensus, the Biblical literalists can't even go there, as from their perspective, 'evolution' is an abomination because it suggests (so far) life proliferated on Planet Earth pretty much on it's own, no Divine intercession necessary to start it or promote it.

The cognitive bias against the theory of evolution is understandable, then. In turn, scientific claims that are similarly dissonant with the actual existence of a God will receive the same responses from Biblical literalists. As I see it, this is the meat in Danmark's OP.