[ExI] evading cognitive dissonance (was Re: Human extinction)

[Damien Broderick]

At 11:35 AM 8/18/2008 -0500, I mentioned:

>what Leon Festinger named "cognitive dissonance" and the ways people 
>find to minimize its discomfort

Here's a somewhat startling example--how people can accept and praise 
science while ignoring the parts that upset them:


<http://pewforum.org/docs/?DocID=243>How the Public Resolves 
Conflicts Between Faith and Science
DAVID MASCI, Senior Research Fellow - Pew Research


The relationship between faith and science in the United States 
seems, at least on the surface, to be paradoxical. Surveys repeatedly 
show that most Americans respect science and the benefits it brings 
to society, such as new technologies and medical treatments. And yet, 
religious convictions limit many Americans' willingness to accept 
controversial scientific theories as well as certain types of 
scientific research, such as the potential use of embryonic stem 
cells for medical treatments.

Science and religion have traditionally, and often incorrectly, been 
viewed as enemies. This perception has been fueled in part by a 
number of famous episodes in history that have pitted scientists, 
like Galileo and Darwin, against the prevailing religious 
establishments of their time. But more often than not, scientists and 
people of faith have operated not at cross purposes but simply at 
different purposes.

Today the situation is much the same. Certainly, there are modern 
scientists who are actively hostile to religious belief. British 
biologist Richard Dawkins, for instance, in his best-selling book, 
The God Delusion, argues that many social ills - from bigotry to 
ignorance - can be blamed, at least in part, on religion. In 
addition, a significant number of scientists - roughly a third 
according to a 2006 Rice University survey of more than 750 
professors in the natural sciences - do not believe in God, compared 
with only one-in-twenty in the general population. But regardless of 
their personal views, most scientists tend to view the two 
disciplines as distinct, with each attempting to answer different 
kinds of questions using different methods. The late evolutionary 
biologist Stephen Jay Gould famously referred to this complementary 
relationship as "non-overlapping magisteria."

But there are times when the "magisteria" do overlap. The debate over 
the origins and development of life is the most compelling example of 
this. All but a small number of scientists regard Darwin's theory of 
evolution through natural selection as an established fact. And yet, 
a substantial majority of Americans, many of whom are deeply 
religious, reject the notion that life evolved through natural forces alone.

Indeed, according to a 2006 survey from the Pew Forum on Religion & 
Public Life and the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press, 
42% of Americans reject the notion that life on earth evolved and 
believe instead that humans and other living things have always 
existed in their present form. Among white evangelical Protestants - 
many of whom regard the Bible as the inerrant word of God - 65% hold 
this view. Moreover, in the same poll, 21% of those surveyed say that 
although life has evolved, these changes were guided by a supreme 
being. Only a minority, about a quarter (26%) of respondents, say 
that they accept evolution through natural processes or natural 
selection alone.

Interestingly, many of those who reject natural selection recognize 
that scientists themselves fully accept Darwin's theory. In the same 
2006 Pew poll, nearly two-thirds of adults (62%) say that they 
believe that scientists agree on the validity of evolution. Moreover, 
Americans, including religious Americans, hold science and scientists 
in very high regard. A 2006 survey conducted by Virginia Commonwealth 
University found that most people (87%) think that scientific 
developments make society better. Among those who describe themselves 
as being very religious, the same number - 87% - share that opinion.

So what is at work here? How can Americans say that they respect 
science and even know what scientists believe and yet still disagree 
with the scientific community on some fundamental questions? The 
answer is that much of the general public simply chooses not to 
believe the scientific theories and discoveries that seem to 
contradict long-held religious or other important beliefs.

When asked what they would do if scientists were to disprove a 
particular religious belief, nearly two-thirds (64%) of people say 
they would continue to hold to what their religion teaches rather 
than accept the contrary scientific finding, according to the results 
of an October 2006 Time magazine poll. Indeed, in a May 2007 Gallup 
poll, only 14% of those who say they do not believe in evolution cite 
lack of evidence as the main reason underpinning their views; more 
people cite their belief in Jesus (19%), God (16%) or religion 
generally (16%) as their reason for rejecting Darwin's theory.

This reliance on religious faith may help explain why so many people 
do not see science as a direct threat to religion. Only 28% of 
respondents in the same Time poll say that scientific advancements 
threaten their religious beliefs. These poll results also show that 
more than four-fifths of respondents (81%) say that "recent 
discoveries and advances" in science have not significantly impacted 
their religious views. In fact, 14% say that these discoveries have 
actually made them more religious. Only 4% say that science has made 
them less religious.

These data once again show that, in the minds of most people in the 
United States, there is no real clash between science and religion. 
And when the two realms offer seemingly contradictory explanations 
(as in the case of evolution), religious people, who make up a 
majority of Americans, may rely primarily upon their faith for answers.