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?

[Strider324]

[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.

Gee, that's exactly what southern plantation owners said in their justification for slavery. "Please, no more silly laws! We're making such good bling right now!"

[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.

Gee, that's exactly what southern plantation owners said in their justification for slavery. "Please, no more silly laws! We're making such good bling right now!"

How do you suppose an equal rights law would have changed the issue? Does that law miraculous make men good or does it simply legislate the use of force against the slave owner?

Whether the law exists in a law book for a country or not, your morality should be telling you to act against slavery. If you need a law to be moral ... God help you.

[Wootah]

[Replying to post 50 by Hamsaka]

My point, which I guess I want to make clearer is that it's ridiculous to equate my disagreement on an issue with science denial. Which is why I began in this thread asking what the science says, which should be the actual issue..

Since the only moral high ground left in the Western world is science, then many people are trying to elevate their beliefs to the level of science in order to claim that morality and shove it down the throats of the masses. It's science - so eat it.

The problem is because of evolution everything is now science. A proportion of a population is naturally gay. Well so to is a proportion of the population naturally homophobic. Science gives us no reason to favour either side and since it is all now deterministic no reason to believe we can change.

But, we know it's not science because I really don't have to accept it. Whereas with gravity, electricity, physics, chemistry I really do have to accept it regardless of what I think of boyle's law.

So it is absurdity. Think of the story of the emperor's new clothes or even Monty Python's Black Knight skit. I can't argue with everyone and sure there may really be clothes on the emperor but he looks naked to me.

Since 'science denial is not a choice' is true then we can understand why we try to elevate our agendas to science.

[DanieltheDragon]

[Replying to post 52 by Wootah]

Whether the law exists in a law book for a country or not, your morality should be telling you to act against slavery. If you need a law to be moral ... God help you.

Laws don't make people moral they are design to protect people from immoral behavior. By your rationale we shouldn't have laws against theft or murder. If your morality tells you to act against slavery, enacting laws against slavery is acting against slavery.

The problem is because of evolution everything is now science. A proportion of a population is naturally gay. Well so to is a proportion of the population naturally homophobic. Science gives us no reason to favour either side and since it is all now deterministic no reason to believe we can change.

But, we know it's not science because I really don't have to accept it. Whereas with gravity, electricity, physics, chemistry I really do have to accept it regardless of what I think of boyle's law.

This is a prime example of science denial infused with misinformation. We don't know if people are naturally homophobic best evidence indicates that is entirely cultural. If we go by the philosophy of do no harm, then supporting homophobia causes harm and there is no discernible harm for supporting LGBT rights nearly all evidence indicates it increases mental health, economic opportunity, and family well being.

Then you go onto say that you don't really have to accept science or it's conclusions. You are 100% correct and this is an admission of science denial. However just because you don't accept it doesn't mean something is not based on science, or conclusions are drawn from the scientific method. You are perfectly free to deny science.

[Danmark]

[Replying to post 50 by Hamsaka]

My point, which I guess I want to make clearer is that it's ridiculous to equate my disagreement on an issue with science denial. Which is why I began in this thread asking what the science says, which should be the actual issue..

Since the only moral high ground left in the Western world is science, then many people are trying to elevate their beliefs to the level of science in order to claim that morality and shove it down the throats of the masses. It's science - so eat it.

The problem is because of evolution everything is now science. A proportion of a population is naturally gay. Well so to is a proportion of the population naturally homophobic. Science gives us no reason to favour either side and since it is all now deterministic no reason to believe we can change.

But, we know it's not science because I really don't have to accept it. Whereas with gravity, electricity, physics, chemistry I really do have to accept it regardless of what I think of boyle's law.

So it is absurdity. Think of the story of the emperor's new clothes or even Monty Python's Black Knight skit. I can't argue with everyone and sure there may really be clothes on the emperor but he looks naked to me.

Since 'science denial is not a choice' is true then we can understand why we try to elevate our agendas to science.

Let's forget the word 'science' for the moment, for the sake of the argument. We can refer to our quest for truth, or for the facts instead of using any other label. We've come to accept basic physical laws and principles of physics and chemistry because they have shown themselves to be reliable in determining what is. We use our measurement of time and our knowledge of the location of the stars to determine where we are, so we can sail all over the world to any particular destination.

We also have certain principles of morality and fairness that we agree with, regardless of our particular religion or lack thereof. If the facts and logic show us that people have gender identities and preferences that are beyond their own choosing, then our universal sense of morality suggests we should not blame them for simply being the way they are. It took us many centuries, but we came to this conclusion regarding racial differences and gender. We no longer, at least in the West, deny women the right to vote and we do not deny rights to others because of race. Both these changes have occurred simply because we have accepted certain facts and applied our universal morality to those facts.

The evidence now seems overwhelming that gender preference and identity sometimes operate independently of our external gender. If we agree on the facts, and we agree that all people should be treated equally and fairly, then we have no choice but to grant those rights to transgender people and those attracted to the same sex.

When I say that for some, 'science denial' may not be a choice I am only suggesting that in the short term. Eventually even those who claim man's contribution to polluting the atmosphere has ZERO effect on climate, will be forced by the sheer weight of that evidence to admit there is SOME effect. Some may be hard wired to resist change, to resist new ideas, whether from their fear or for other reasons, but eventually the evidence becomes so strong they accept the change.

In other words, the statement:

... many people are trying to elevate their beliefs to the level of science in order to claim that morality and shove it down the throats of the masses

is one I disagree with. Science is not, and never will have a claim on morality. Its only claim is its ability to discover facts.

IF the evidence is clear that homosexuality and transgender status is something the individual has no control over, then every one will agree they should be treated as tho there is no fault in their status.

What some very specific religious based rules do is to work against the acceptance of what would otherwise be obvious. There is no dispute about the general moral laws as set forth in the Bible, for example. We all agree that we should not murder, or steal, or bear false witness; that we should not steal another man's wife or another woman's husband.

But some rules in the Bible are obviously temporal or culturally determined and they should not imprison the mind. Even the hidebound Paul agreed that circumcision, and observance of certain days or specific foods were not important compared to loving each other and loving God. It is long since time to let go of the non essential rules and follow the heart of the law which is to love and be fair.

[JoeyKnothead]

From Post 55:

...
If the facts and logic show us that people have gender identities and preferences that are beyond their own choosing, then our universal sense of morality suggests we should not blame them for simply being the way they are.
...

My emphatatin'

Not that you say otherwise, but I reject the notion that such a condition must be 'beyond their choosing'. If a heterosexual chick chooses to have sex with the pretty thing, 'cause the pretty thing'll do that from time to time, and they let me watch, then "beyond her choosing" is beside the point. I don't care if either one of 'em's turned on by it, 'cause I sure am. I don't care if both of 'em find it morally repugnant; I don't. I just care if they let me watch, or help out from time to time.

In a society that cherishes freedom, one's choices, barring harm to others, should be their own. Our being upset they made 'em should be tempered by our pride of knowing we live in a society that doesn't care if your condition is innate, it merely cares if your condition causes harm to others.

We risk the gay community losing their battle for full and unfettered freedom when we argue on the basis of whether they can, or can't choose to be gay. God forbid we find out it's a choice in every instance, that the battle for their rights must begin anew.

Freedom ain't what you are, or what you think; that can't be taken away.

Freedom is what you're allowed to do.

[Danmark]

From Post 55:

...
If the facts and logic show us that people have gender identities and preferences that are beyond their own choosing, then our universal sense of morality suggests we should not blame them for simply being the way they are.
...

My emphatatin'

Not that you say otherwise, but I reject the notion that such a condition must be 'beyond their choosing'. If a heterosexual chick chooses to have sex with the pretty thing, 'cause the pretty thing'll do that from time to time, and they let me watch, then "beyond her choosing" is beside the point. I don't care if either one of 'em's turned on by it, 'cause I sure am. I don't care if both of 'em find it morally repugnant; I don't. I just care if they let me watch, or help out from time to time.

In a society that cherishes freedom, one's choices, barring harm to others, should be their own. Our being upset they made 'em should be tempered by our pride of knowing we live in a society that doesn't care if your condition is innate, it merely cares if your condition causes harm to others.

We risk the gay community losing their battle for full and unfettered freedom when we argue on the basis of whether they can, or can't choose to be gay. God forbid we find out it's a choice in every instance, that the battle for their rights must begin anew.

Freedom ain't what you are, or what you think; that can't be taken away.

Freedom is what you're allowed to do.

Joey, I am not referring to people who are indiscriminately sexually promiscuous. I can understand why a Christian would get uptight about promiscuity and active bisexuality.

It is an entirely different matter when they make sacrifices including social disparagement and often risk professional and financial disadvantage to be true to themselves. I have no way of knowing, and don't particularly think it is any of my business if people have sex with whomever. But if a woman feels so strongly that even after two years of counselling she decides she needs to have her penis amputated, I take her at her word that she is not being frivolous.

I won't pretend that it does not seem strange to me, but the evidence suggests that there are measurable genetic and hormonal differences between transgender folks and "normal" people. And, Joey, if you want to watch, it's no skin off my . . . .

[Goat]

I won't pretend that it does not seem strange to me, but the evidence suggests that there are measurable genetic and hormonal differences between transgender folks and "normal" people. And, Joey, if you want to watch, it's no skin off my . . . .

Now, it would be if you wanted to convert to Judaism, but that would be entirely your own free will.

[Wootah]

[Replying to post 54 by DanieltheDragon]

Laws don't make people moral they are design to protect people from immoral behavior. By your rationale we shouldn't have laws against theft or murder. If your morality tells you to act against slavery, enacting laws against slavery is acting against slavery.

Making laws that give people rights is against the point of laws, which are about taking away the right to some behaviours.

I guess I am more for laws that are along the lines of 'thou shalt not', than 'thou shall'. Laws along the lines of 'thou shall' are endless. This is why I am against rights and equality laws as well as the fact rights don't exist.

Strider conflated the fact that rights don't exist with an immoral behavior slavery. All we need to defeat slavery is equality under the law.

This is a prime example of science denial infused with misinformation. We don't know if people are naturally homophobic best evidence indicates that is entirely cultural. If we go by the philosophy of do no harm, then supporting homophobia causes harm and there is no discernible harm for supporting LGBT rights nearly all evidence indicates it increases mental health, economic opportunity, and family well being.

Asking me to support rights is asking me to believe the emperor has clothes on when he is naked or asking you to believe in God. Why do atheists believe in morality and yet mock Christians for believing in God?

Then you go onto say that you don't really have to accept science or it's conclusions. You are 100% correct and this is an admission of science denial. However just because you don't accept it doesn't mean something is not based on science, or conclusions are drawn from the scientific method. You are perfectly free to deny science.

If that's what you read then that's what you read. But it's not what I said. If something is science then there is no not accepting it.

[Danmark]

[Replying to post 54 by DanieltheDragon]

Laws don't make people moral they are design to protect people from immoral behavior. By your rationale we shouldn't have laws against theft or murder. If your morality tells you to act against slavery, enacting laws against slavery is acting against slavery.

Making laws that give people rights is against the point of laws, which are about taking away the right to some behaviours.

I guess I am more for laws that are along the lines of 'thou shalt not', than 'thou shall'. Laws along the lines of 'thou shall' are endless. This is why I am against rights and equality laws as well as the fact rights don't exist. .

I think this is a false dichotomy. For example, the right to equal treatment, can also be stated as a negative:

"Thou shalt not deny equal access."

I have a hard time understanding why any moral person would object to laws that say "thou shalt not prevent people from eating, banking, living, resting, sleeping in a public place or place open to the public solely because of their race, religion or national origin." That is the law of the United States. It also is moral. It is also reflected in the teachings of Jesus of Nazareth. If not, then what was the meaning of the story of the 'good Samaritan' or the story of the Canaanite woman? What was the meaning of Jesus bar Joseph's continual preaching and acting to help the poor and the outcasts if not to claim that to act otherwise is immoral?

Treating people the way we want to be treated is part of our national law. It is stated by courts as "equal protection under the law" and in phrases such as "fundamental fairness."