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?

[lamar1234]

[Replying to post 1 by Danmark]

May I take a crack at this, my friend? There are many who speak quite highly of Danmark.

I was having a thought similar to yours or let's see if it is.

I just watched Diane & Bruce, as well.

There is a link with the literal meaning of credulity, a willingness to assign primacy of place in one's thinking to the beliefs they hold over, perhaps, reasoned discourse and the acceptance of what are commonly called Conspiracy Theory. If a person is convinced that the moon landings were faked and digs and digs and digs can they find facts they believe support their position? Without much argument, I would think.

Now, we associate 'credulous' not solely with believing but, at times, we've included elements of gullibility, as well. There is a common perception that lower cognitive functioning individuals fill the convention halls of America with JFK, 9/11, take your pick.

Doesn't it seem that that lacks bite as the sole responsible party for the makeup of the turnout for these events?

There are some intelligent folk in attendance.

Maybe it's a brain-training issue. The psychological tools favored by religions might be the same ones that favor conspiracy over generally accepted theories for significant historical events.

Successful retention of faith in a person must be something that could be measured, surely? I truly mean no disrespect. I'm not saying religion IS some sort of Conspiracy Theory, I'm wondering if the mental requirements for having and holding faith in a supernatural Creator is analogous to an anti-faith in George Bush or the Warren Commission? Could those separate beliefs, that "George Bush let terrorists strike us on purpose," and "the Creator of the Universe wrote us a Book that survives in any meaningful sense today" require similar, I really don't know, neural pathways or some such? More activity in this area of the brain vs. that. No better or worse, just different or similar?

Certainly not all members of the faithful lend any credence to these alternate explanations for historic events.

I am making no value judgement about the beliefs or the people who hold them. For the purpose of this post, someone who believes in Conspiracy Theories is ONLY that. They are not a good or bad, smart or dumb, person. I am assuming that Conspiracy Theorists, as people, are no different than anyone else. The same, in my mind, holds for Christians or any label of belief you'd care to offer.

I think I hypothesize that there are significant similarities between the attributes necessary in these two fields.

[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. .

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."

You don't think you are now falling into a bottomless pit? 'Thou shalt' laws are endless.

Equal protection under the law is not about equal rights, it's about the law.

[Bust Nak]

Why do atheists believe in morality and yet mock Christians for believing in God?

Because the existence of morality can be demonstrated, where as God cannot.

Equal protection under the law is not about equal rights, it's about the law.

But rights are matters of law.

[Wootah]

[Replying to post 63 by Bust Nak]

Please demonstrate.

[Bust Nak]

Please demonstrate.

The existence of morality? Easy enough, here is an experiment you can do:

Do something to harm another person.

Expected result: You either feel bad afterwards; or you fail to actually go through with it in the first place; or you rationalise that the good out weights the bad.

Any of the three would indicated the existence of morality.

[Wootah]

[Replying to post 65 by Bust Nak]

How can I measure it?

[Bust Nak]

[Replying to post 65 by Bust Nak]

How can I measure it?

There are a number of ways to measure subjective feelings, a typical method is self-reporting. On a scale of 1 to 10, with 1 being don't feel bad at all, to 10 feeling unbearably bad.

[DanieltheDragon]

[Replying to post 54 by DanieltheDragon]

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.

So you do accept evolution?

[Wootah]

[Replying to post 67 by Bust Nak]

So if I feel good then it's moral or if I feel bad?

Will this be true in all times and places?

[Bust Nak]

So if I feel good then it's moral or if I feel bad?

Yes, bearing in mind that feeling good here means morally good as opposed to feeling pleasure; bad as in morally bad as opposed to discomfort. Although they often line up.

Will this be true in all times and places?

I love ice-cream, but will ice-cream still be tasty, if I am not around to taste ice-cream? I propose that the question doesn't make sense because you are not around to feel anything at all times. It is true in all times and places where you could feel.