Faith vs. Facts

[cbayer]

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/19/opinion/sunday/t-m-luhrmann-faith-vs-facts.html

April 18, 2015


Adam Malda

T. M. Luhrmann

JERUSALEM — MOST of us find it mind-boggling that some people seem willing to ignore the facts — on climate change, on vaccines, on health care — if the facts conflict with their sense of what someone like them believes. “But those are the facts,” you want to say. “It seems weird to deny them.”

And yet a broad group of scholars is beginning to demonstrate that religious belief and factual belief are indeed different kinds of mental creatures. People process evidence differently when they think with a factual mind-set rather than with a religious mind-set. Even what they count as evidence is different. And they are motivated differently, based on what they conclude. On what grounds do scholars make such claims?

First of all, they have noticed that the very language people use changes when they talk about religious beings, and the changes mean that they think about their realness differently. You do not say, “I believe that my dog is alive.” The fact is so obvious it is not worth stating. You simply talk in ways that presume the dog’s aliveness — you say she’s adorable or hungry or in need of a walk. But to say, “I believe that Jesus Christ is alive” signals that you know that other people might not think so. It also asserts reverence and piety. We seem to regard religious beliefs and factual beliefs with what the philosopher Neil Van Leeuwen calls different “cognitive attitudes.”

Second, these scholars have remarked that when people consider the truth of a religious belief, what the belief does for their lives matters more than, well, the facts. We evaluate factual beliefs often with perceptual evidence. If I believe that the dog is in the study but I find her in the kitchen, I change my belief. We evaluate religious beliefs more with our sense of destiny, purpose and the way we think the world should be. One study found that over 70 percent of people who left a religious cult did so because of a conflict of values. They did not complain that the leader’s views were mistaken. They believed that he was a bad person.

more at link

[edhopper]

1. Good read

[Buzz Clik]

2. Great story, but there are other aspects to denying facts:

A lot of people reject scientific evidence as "fact" because science seldom reaches that level. Supported hypotheses, prevailing theories are presented by science, not fact. When people are afraid of the unknown, they will allow themselves to cling to science only when it agrees with their fears:

The fear of the unknown impact of continued CO₂ emissions leads to people agreeing with global science change science.

Fear of the unknown impact of vaccinations leads people to reject science

Uncertainty of the impact of consuming genetically modified foods convinces people the science is wrong

No doubt, these people have the same mental function as those who turn to faith.

[cbayer]

3. Excellent points.

The internet has generally contributed to this dynamic, as one can generally find "science" to back up whatever one want to believe.

The inability to distinguish good science from bad may be the most pressing problem that we face.

[cleanhippie]

4. The "fears" you've listed stem not from a lack of facts, but from an abundance of ignorance.

The people that have those fears are fearful because they are (willfully) ignorant about the subject, not because there aren't any facts to support the scientific assertions.

No doubt, these people have the same mental function as those who turn to faith.

I couldn't agree more.