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?

[H.sapiens]

[Replying to post 170 by Danmark]

Just above your "editor-in-chief" quote is this section, I have bolded my favorite passage.

VIII. Paper Review Process
Upon the reception of a paper the editor-in-chief will follow the procedures below:
A. Receive and acknowledge to the author the paper’s receipt.
B. Review the paper for possible inclusion into the ARJ review process.
The following criteria will be used in judging papers:
1. Is the paper’s topic important to the development of the Creation and Flood model?
2. Does the paper’s topic provide an original contribution to the Creation and Flood model?
3. Is this paper formulated within a young-earth, young-universe framework?
4. If the paper discusses claimed evidence for an old earth and/or universe, does this paper offer a very
constructively positive criticism and provide a possible young-earth, young-universe alternative?
5. If the paper is polemical in nature, does it deal with a topic rarely discussed within the origins
debate?
6. Does this paper provide evidence of faithfulness to the grammatical-historical/normative interpretation
of Scripture? If necessary, refer to: R. E. Walsh, 1986. Biblical hermeneutics and creation. Proceedings
First International Conference on Creationism, vol. 1, pp. 121–127. Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania: Creation
Science Fellowship.

What a bunch they are, dishonest to thier very core.

[Goat]

[Replying to post 100 by Goat]

Hello Goat,

I will also address some of H.Sapien’s issues here in addition to my post for him.

You said, “And how does the Bible back that up? I mean,I can point you to a document that show Scarlet Ohara lived, but we know that is fictional Just because something say something, and other people tell you that it is so, doesn't mean that it is so. What independent verification do you have that what you were told is true? �

Signers, witnesses, observers, and users, may be independent verifiers of a written document. The document testifies of itself whether good or evil by its fruit. The Bible testifies of itself daily and is backed up by archaeology. Aren’t there adverse consequences for an author that produces fictitious documents as truth? One way I’m able to tell you what’s good is by basing my talk on my good experience in addition to what’s been passed to me.

Some of it does, but a lot of it does not. The supernatural claims do not get backed up from archeology. For that matter, the entire story of Exodus has been shown to be false as written.

So, your saying 'the bible testifies of itself daily' sounds like the phenom en known as 'confirmation bias'. I don't see you giving any tangible support beyond 'because I said so' or 'because someone else said so'

Isn’t there such a thing as trusted authority? Who may you fully trust above all? When your parents told you it’s wrong to tell a lie, how did you know they were right? Did you ask them to employ a scientist to verify? Your parents proved their trust simply because they cared for fed you from birth. We even have a degree of general trust for each other. Can’t we trust the Guy that keeps our hearts beating and feeds us our momentary breath?

Yes.. but you have to show WHY an authority is trusted. Because I said so is not showing an authoirty to be trusted/

We are all scientists engaged in the experiment of life that learn from each other. Or should we deprive ourselves of the knowledge by isolating ourselves.

If we can’t trust God as faithful with His authoritative word, who can we? Please? False authorities that want to steal our trust abound. If we know not who to trust, why not Him that feeds us our breath? Is there another that does the same?

Before trust can be rationally given to god, first, you have to show that God exists. Testimony, and old books do not show that God actually exists.

How about first 'define what is God'. Do not put it in terms of 'What god did', but rather 'What IS God'.. Can you define God with terms that can be shown to actually have meaning beyond themselves. For example, a term that is often used to define god is 'Spirit', but no one can show that 'Spirit' exists in a more than conceptual manner.


HOw about tackling those issues first.

[Erexsaur]

[Replying to H.sapiens]

Hi Guys,

This is for you, H.Sepaiens, Bust Nak, and Danmark. I will answer yours later, Goat.

As I read the recent posts, I see that we get along with each other like Hillbilly bear and his buddy that love to war with each other and thus shoot at each other only to be shooting. Foghorn Leghorn and that ol dog “git� along better than we do. We are as “scientific�as mad scientists.

I see that you guys are familiar with Answers in Genesis that I suggested and that you treat the people on that sight along with Ken Ham as badly as you treat po lil me. Yall mean!

I will address you first, Danmark.

You concluded, “In other words, ARJ is not a scientific journal at all, but dedicated to proclaiming 'the gospel.'  and, “AiG and ARJ are jokes.�

Through science we gain knowledge of natural things and through the gospel we gain hope for humanity that’s beyond the ability of natural science. What’s the problem, please? I only find mad science in conflict with the gospel. Is that your preference?

Thanks for sharing Dr. Ham’s requirements with me. Don’t you appreciate his unwillingness to compromise? Are you and H.Sapiens very angry that the people of AIG are so very faithful with the use of science for showing the glory of God? Why?

You only again showed in your speech the clash between worldviews that are as different as a picture is to its negative. One is based on God’s truth and the other is not. What’s truth in one camp is only silliness in the other. As you showed, those of the “legitimate peer� group want none of Ham’s work and Ham wants nothing of the anti-Biblical “legitimate peer� group.

Besides the ARJ, there is the “Answers� magazine and the “Answers In Depth� magazine. Then there’s the TV broadcast called the “Answers Creation Hour,� the last episodes of which were a series of videos titled, “Body of Evidence.� I never before saw the workings of your and my body presented is such clear and exquisite detail! The better a mechanic admires the craftsmanship under the hood of a fine car, the more he appreciates the car’s builder. So do we appreciate God's handy work in our bodies that are far better than the finest automobiles.

Are you and HSapiens also angry at Dr. Ham and those working with him because of his glorying God with our bodies and the sciences? I ask again, why? Yall mean!

- - - - -

To you, Bust Nak,

You said,

‘The problem with the sandcastle analogy is that complexity is not the deciding factor with the conclusion that it was made by men. We did not come to the conclusion that a sandcastle was the product of men because it is complex. A sand dune is far more complex than a sandcastle yet we conclude it is the product of wind.“

Of course the things of nature are a lot more complex than man-made things. However, are you telling me that a sand dune is more fancy and ornately decorated than a castle?

- - - - - -

To you, H.Sapiens,

As for your statement you made in post#168, “Sounds to me like you slipped a mental cog,� 

Did I? Sorry ‘bout dat!

Don’t we all slip mental cogs from time to time to create needs to put them back into place? That’s why it does not pay to ignore the Bible that warns us when we do. I don’t mind being warned when I slipped a cog but have you first made sure that none of your mental cogs have slipped?

Speaking about Moses, I only know that important laws that protect us today came from him. I hope it wont be necessary to shut off the benefits of his laws from you for you to see that he is your friend. Yes, scholars have their views of Israel’s past and it’s up to us as to which to believe. Israel’s history has much to teach us.

As for your statement, “Perhaps it's the lack of convincing evidence that a god, any god, exists?,� you know very well and are well convinced that God exists. Otherwise you wouldn’t fight His existence so hard. The Bible tells us that we all know. Aren’t you familiar with Romans 1:18–21? I am trusting you as one that does not fall into the category described in that scripture.

Take care,
Earl

[Hatuey]

[Replying to post 173 by Erexsaur]

I neither agree that our laws today came from Moses or that moses's laws are necessarily good.

For example, I think the law about honoring God with one day a week would have been better replaced by a law that made it a crime to own another person. I wonder how many millions of slaves held by bible believers in the past two hundred years Would have been free if the bible had such a commandment against slavery. Instead, the bible only speaks honorably of slavery, slave masters, and rules on how to treat them.

[Bust Nak]

To you, Bust Nak,

You said,

‘The problem with the sandcastle analogy is that complexity is not the deciding factor with the conclusion that it was made by men. We did not come to the conclusion that a sandcastle was the product of men because it is complex. A sand dune is far more complex than a sandcastle yet we conclude it is the product of wind.“

Of course the things of nature are a lot more complex than man-made things. However, are you telling me that a sand dune is more fancy and ornately decorated than a castle?

I am telling you a sand dune is more complex than a castle. Hence my point: complexity does not factor into the decision. Fancy and ornately decorated is different to complexity. We conclude that a sandcastle was the product of men because a) it looks like something men would make, b) it doesn't look like something nature could make.

[Blastcat]

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

I can't speak for any other atheist other than myself, but I believe in morality because I want to live in a society where I, and my loved ones will be treated fairly.

I might mock someone who believes that fantasies are real stories, but that has nothing to do with morality. I am NOT at all impressed by some religious morality, however.

[Blastcat]

[Replying to post 71 by Hamsaka]

I feel like I'm in that psychological experiment where everyone is in on the experiment except me and there is a number on the screen and it is says 8 but everyone says it is a 5.

Join the club.

I live in a mostly Christian society. I am the "logical" outcast. North America is FILLED with people who take some god as real. They generally have weird ideas about morality, too. FORTUNATELY, we have SECULAR LAWS to protect us all from each others religious moralities, which are NOT all the same or necessarily fair, nor fairly interpreted.

[Blastcat]

How may you or I know that the presupposition that God exists is correct? Have you considered the sampling of reasons I gave below that serve as evidence?:

1. People throughout all ages and cultures worship some god or the other. Even those that claim to serve no god live by philosophies with absolutes as if from some kind of sovereignty.

So what? This has no bearing on the TRUTH of the beliefs in question.

2. Have you considered the countless times you heard of God mentioned in conversations? Even if an idea you received of Him isn’t clear, have you considered the abundance of material available to clarify?

So what? The AMOUNT of talk about a belief has no bearing on it's TRUTH.

3. You and I are fortunate that much written material is available to tell us who God is and contain countless subjects about Him. The luxury of the availability of material and to be in the presence of so many that talk of God is rare.

So what AGAIN!...The fact that we can luxuriate in mountains of verbiage has NO bearing on the truth of the beliefs being talked about.

4. Have you ever met anyone or a group who have accepted and received God at His calling and are thus convinced and testify of Him? What about the many books by authors that testify of Him?

Testimony relates to WHAT is believed, but does not give evidence that it is TRUE... It's not enough for someone to testify that a belief is true. We need some way to TEST the testimonies to see if they are true or false.

5. We that testify of God speak as witnesses of personal encounters with Him. What better evidence is there than that of a witness? There is a natural and supernatural side of all of us.

Witnesses are NOTORIOUSLY inaccurate. This is a well known phenomena in courts where all too many people have been UNJUSTLY convicted on so called eye-witness testimony.

6. Have you considered that His existence and His spoken words are documented in a book called the Bible that tells us that more than enough is around us that silently points to the reality of His existence?

The Bible is the claim.. it's NOT evidence FOR itself.

7. Are you familiar with a group of people called Jews that gave us the Bible that documents the reality of God? What about a nation called Israel that’s smaller than Rhode Island but always in the news?

Again, so WHAT? What the Jews believe isn't to be just taken as TRUE.

8.If Texas went to war against Rhode Island, which do you think would win? But Israel won many miraculous victories against nations much larger than her! Do you perceive any possibility of their having received help from any Person above the natural?

Why think there is supernatural HELP before establishing that some supernatural anything exists?

I continually assure myself of His presence and goodness by thanksgiving and praise for His goodness.

You don't concern yourself overmuch by circular thinking and bias confirmation. That's fine, you can believe whatever you want for whatever reasons you choose. However, if you want to convince anyone else that what you believe in is true, then you will have to give some more evidence than what anyone can produce using an active imagination.

Do we need elite scientists to verify God’s calling to us?

Your imagination will suffice for that imaginary calling.

What better way is there to verify than obedience to His calling based on good conscience that opens up to much greater knowledge?

You would have to demonstrate this "greater knowledge".

You might want to bring evidence, that would be a much better method than telling us what you believe in is true, and end it there. When I read what I am replying to here, I see a person in the grips of an imaginary belief system.. but with no connection to any real thing at all.

The imagination is a very powerful thing.
That's all I see happening here.

You show me a book that you believe in.
You tell me the book is true.
You tell me that your belief is proof for your belief.
You tell me that a LOT of people believe what you believe.
and you also tell me that these people ever write many BOOKS about what they believe in.

None of this is evidence that what you believe in is TRUE.

But that necessitates overcoming the rebelliousness of human nature that’s inherent in us all.

This rebellious notion is yet another religious belief you own.
You would have to somehow demonstrate that this is a fact, and not some religious opinion.

Scientists continually reveal much to convince us of the universal presence of God.

Maybe you can kindly give us an example of that. I have YET to see just ONE.

[Blastcat]

You suggest that a sane person could carefully observe a man empty a beer bottle from close distance without distractions and somehow come to a conclusion that the man never drank the beer?

Eye-witness accounts are NOTORIOUSLY unreliable.

Try this.. it might help to open your eyes a bit.

[H.sapiens]

You suggest that a sane person could carefully observe a man empty a beer bottle from close distance without distractions and somehow come to a conclusion that the man never drank the beer?

Eye-witness accounts are NOTORIOUSLY unreliable.

Try this.. it might help to open your eyes a bit.

... and when combined, as it is here, with confirmation bias, well ... it becomes passing difficult to take supernatural claims seriously solely on the basis of personal belief.