Continue reading »]]>

Lisa M. Ortuno

by Lisa M. Ortuno, PhD

I do believe that ignorance can play a role in making what seems to us Bahá’ís a rational choice—to believe in something.

I have often thought to myself, that if many of the people who are bashing religion (where often the “easy” targets of Biblical literalism and the historical facts of church-sponsored violence and oppression are cited) were just exposed to the concept of progressive revelation and other key Bahá’í concepts, they would understand the difference. Then, while they may not necessarily decide that this is the path for them, at a minimum they may “soften up” with the realization that there is a religion out there that actually does make sense in this age.

A religion that requires investigation of truth, rejects superstition, refuses to hand over power to clergy, refuses to accept money from non-members(!), has—as a guiding principle—the harmony of science and religion, truly reflects in its membership the diversity of the human race, actively promotes gender and racial equality and so many more things that the detractors themselves already espouse.

But then there’s human psychology.  A very interesting article in Mother Jones by correspondent Chris Mooney entitled “The Science of Why We Don’t Believe Science,” (http://motherjones.com/politics/2011/03/denial-science-chris-mooney),  focuses on a case study wherein a small, Chicago-area cult called the Seekers were faced with the undeniable refutation of their core belief (they expected a UFO to come down and pick them up on Dec 21, 1954—something that simply failed to happen).

In the article Mooney remarks:

… an array of new discoveries in psychology and neuroscience has further demonstrated how our preexisting beliefs, far more than any new facts, can skew our thoughts and even color what we consider our most dispassionate and logical conclusions. This tendency toward so-called “motivated reasoning” helps explain why we find groups so polarized over matters where the evidence is so unequivocal: climate change, vaccines, “death panels,” the birthplace and religion of the president, and much else. It would seem that expecting people to be convinced by the facts flies in the face of, you know, the facts.”

The article goes on to cite how often “when we think we’re reasoning we are actually rationalizing”, how “scientific evidence is highly susceptible to selective reading and interpretation”, “how people’s deep-seated views about morality and about the way society should be ordered strongly predicts who they consider to be a legitimate scientific expert,” and how “head-on attempts to persuade can sometimes trigger a backfire effect, where people not only fail to change their minds when confronted with the facts—they may hold their views more tenaciously than ever.”

Several examples are cited in which individuals refuse to change their minds on a topic in the face of clear evidence against their belief. Some conclusions that have come from these insights are that for new, contradictory information to be considered and possibly accepted by someone holding a strong belief, that information should come from someone they feel is credible, and the new evidence must be presented in a context that doesn’t trigger a defensive, emotional mechanism.

I admit it: This makes me start to re-think my natural tendencies of information delivery.

Mooney’s article is well worth a read; the premise behind it is worth some serious thought.

=============

Lisa M. Ortuno is a biologist who lives and works in South Carolina.