[note: I am woefully going to focus on Christian beliefs for the majority of this blog because they are the beliefs I am most well-versed in and surrounded by on a daily basis. Another day Islam and Judaism. Another day.]
Recently, the New Yorker published this article by Maria Konnikova, a writer on psychology, entitled "I Don't Want To Be Right." Give it a quick read because I think it’s important.
In case you’re not feeling it, I’ll give a quick run-through. Konnikova opens discussing Dartmouth professor __ experiment, which determined that parents will ignore all obvious facts in the face of all previously conceived notions. In this case, a study of 2,000 parents set out to decide if informed parents will choose to vaccinate their children after being given a pamphlet outlining how vaccinations are not correlated with autism and no vaccinating your children will expose them to a multitude of diseases. It was found that most parents disregarded, or even used the pamphlet as reasoning for not vaccinating their children. No matter the facts, the parents ignored the information in favor of preconceptions.
This segues into numerous examples from history where disseminated misinformation will convince people even after corrections of false information. Examples include Galileo, the “raw milk” movement, and fact-checking (or lack thereof) in the 2000 presidential election.
The finding detailed in this article is a wonderfully interesting explanation for beliefs held by most fundamental religious observers and why they're so obstinate in opinions contrary to all evidence proven. The theory of evolution comes to mind. A friend of mine vehemently opposes evolution due to strongly held religious beliefs, including the belief that the earth was created 10,000 years ago and men could not have possibly descended from apes. I asked what his explanation for fossils found on the coast of South America matching those found on the coast of Eastern Africa and he said (paraphrased), “‘Scientists could easily plant those fossils or make up studies to give to the public.” As if all scientific endeavors are based on a lack of evidence and people desperately looking for a justification of their views. It does sound familiar, but not in this context.
The whole “convergence of science and religion” has sort of woven together evolution with Christian beliefs, the majority of Christians believing that God, their Creator, made this process occur over millions of years just as science ascertains. I still don’t quite see how this meshes with the “world-created-in-seven-days” story but it’s progress.
One discovery by Stephan Lewandowsky, a psychologist, struck a chord. Konnikova writes, "One thing he learned early on is that not all errors are created equal. Not all false information goes on to become a false belief—that is, a more lasting state of incorrect knowledge—and not all false beliefs are difficult to correct." This begs the question: why is religious fundamentalism so deeply cemented? It probably has to do with childhood indoctrination, or being instilled with these values from a young, impressionable age. No matter what one tells an adult predisposed to an ideology, they see all assertions contrary to their viewpoint as biased, therefore stregnthening their own beliefs.
Konnikova echoes this: "When there’s no immediate threat to our understanding of the world, we change our beliefs. It’s when that change contradicts something we’ve long held as important that problems occur."
And further, "If someone held a contrary attitude, [a] correction not only didn’t work—it made the subject more distrustful of the source."
The article closes on this point: "Vaccines, fortunately, aren’t political. 'They’re not inherently linked to ideology,' Nyhan said. 'And that’s good. That means we can get to a consensus.' Ignoring vaccination, after all, can make people of every political party, and every religion, just as sick." While vaccines are not linked to ideology, religion will forever be linked. Religious beliefs affect political beliefs, which can be infinitely destructive toward scientific research and even women's rights (That whole contraception debate. Yeah.).
I have no qualms with spirituality-- it's only when this "spirituality" is distorted to fit an agenda and oppress other people's beliefs and rights.
0 comments:
Post a Comment