Why do some people cling so tightly to their beliefs?

Starfox

Today I was poking around Science-Based Medicine, which you should all read (thanks Scrym). I got thinking about how tightly some people hold onto their beliefs, even in the face of (perhaps overwhelming) evidence that suggests otherwise. Why do they do this? Are their preconceived notions so strong that they literally cannot change their opinion? Are they terrified of the possibility that what they believed for their entire life could be wrong? That their life's work is invalidated?

When presented with evidence that contradicts their view, they are inevitably quick to the defense, attempting to use sheer vehemence to overcome the fallaciousness of their arguments. No amount of well-reasoned, thought out debate will change their opinion. Why are these people incapable of being swayed by reason?

The catalyst for this was this thread and the comments for this post on Science-Based Medicine.

Viga

I always chalked it up to people not wanting to be wrong. Not wanting to be made a fool of. Most of my evidence of this is anecdotal though.

Li_Akahi

I think the problem stems from the fact that many of the beliefs are drilled into people's heads from a young age by their families and that most of those people just nod and say yes to what they are being fed. Others decide to stand up and not be forced into believing something that they find to be unfounded and fairly idiotic.

Mr. Eric

http://crapbasedmedicine.wordpress.com/ Is a better website.

snookernet

In addition to admitting that they themselves were wrong, they'd also be admitting that their parents, grandparents, and other people who have perhaps had a large impact on their lives and really look up to were wrong. I wouldn't put it past some people not being able to let go or reconsider their beliefs because their memories and perceptions of certain individuals are too sentimental to reevaluate.

Sparkybuzzed

Perhaps we're just happy. And perhaps the smugness of atheism does not appeal to us. Yes, when you attach someone's beliefs, the person gets defensive. That's what happens when you attack someone. Honestly, when you go and preach at someone telling them that everything they believe in is wrong, how do you expect them to react? "Oh, thank you for opening my eyes! I see now that my deeply held beliefs were actually completely insane!" How do you like people doing that to you? It's the same thing. Atheism is a belief structure the same as any organized or unorganized religion. It involves choice and faith. You have faith that there is nothing out there. In a logical argument, you probably have the better case. What you lack is concrete proof. Without that, it's all just faith.

And, since no one has honestly answered the question here or anywhere else on this board, why do you really care if someone believes or not? If my belief doesn't affect you directly...it's none of your concern. Why bother trying to make me change my mind. I don't care what you believe. Why should you care so much about what I or others do?

Apreche

Reality sucks. We live in an uncaring and dangerous universe. People would rather believe in lies that make them happy than accept reality. Accepting reality, aka "handling the truth", takes a lot of courage. It means you have to take responsibility for your own actions. It means you are going to have to work super fucking hard to get anything you want, and even then you might not get shit. If people were give a choice of realities to live in, I doubt this one would be at the top of many lists. Given the option of believing in a fantasy world instead of accepting this one, it's no wonder why cowards refuse to accept the truth.

Alex

Yes, when you attach someone's beliefs, the person gets defensive. That's what happens when you attack someone.

That is the problem in a nutshell, though not in the way you mean. If disagreement and/or argument is viewed by one of the parties as a personal attack, the need for self-defense kicks in, and any chance of actually bringing the argument to mutual agreement is removed.

This can be as much the fault of those who bring personal attacks into an otherwise reasoned argument as of those who see attacks where there are none.

EDIT: However, I do see the latter as being more common than the former.

Neito

The Rogues Gallery is a good blog, as is Pharyngula.

Diagoras

Critical thinking is in short supply because it is not taught. Most students in public school are taught by rote memorization. While they may soak up information, they are not given a mechanism to use that information with. Add this to a poor upbringing, you end up with Sherri Shepherd-types.

This situation has gotten so bad, some universities have had to make a special course to combat this.

George Patches

And, since no one has honestly answered the question here or anywhere else on this board, why do you really care if someone believes or not? If my belief doesn't effect you directly...it's none of your concern. Why bother trying to make me change my mind. I don't care what you believe. Why should you care so much about what I or others do?

You I'm not worried about, it's the 20,000 or so Islamic extremists half way around that world intent on bringing fiery death upon us in the name of God.

Reality sucks. We live in an uncaring and dangerous universe. People would rather believe in lies that make them happy than accept reality. Accepting reality, aka "handling the truth", takes a lot of courage. It means you have to take responsibility for your own actions. It means you are going to have to work super fucking hard to get anything you want, and even then you might not get shit. If people were give a choice of realities to live in, I doubt this one would be at the top of many lists. Given the option of believing in a fantasy world instead of accepting this one, it's no wonder why cowards refuse to accept the truth.

I agree, the world is a crappy place and above all else, death is the end. I find this to be the key reason most people believe in God or religion, they're afraid of death being the end.

spotdart

I'm somewhat bothered with people on both sides of the issue being so militant about their beliefs (not here, but out in the rest of the world). I don't think everyone should be an atheist (as I am), but I do think that people of faith should recognize the boundaries between their faith and the real world. My best example is teaching 'intelligent design' in schools. The controversy over evolution isn't even a conversation we should be having. Classes taught in public schools are in the realm of empirical science, Creationism is in a realm of faith. Keep those realms of science and faith separate, and I can't take issue with what you personally believe. If you confuse those boundaries however, then you yourself are confused.

Erwin

Reality sucks. We live in an uncaring and dangerous universe. People would rather believe in lies that make them happy than accept reality. Accepting reality, aka "handling the truth", takes a lot of courage. It means you have to take responsibility for your own actions. It means you are going to have to work super fucking hard to get anything you want, and even then you might not get shit. If people were give a choice of realities to live in, I doubt this one would be at the top of many lists. Given the option of believing in a fantasy world instead of accepting this one, it's no wonder why cowards refuse to accept the truth.

Reality does suck but it is up to any of us to change that. You are right by saying that cowardly people hide from this world but there are many people out there that see the world for what it is and they are trying to change it and some people endure many hardships because of their believes, whatever they are. The end justify the means? Well as long as those people do not go forcing other people to change their believes. And you know what maybe in this sucky world we might find people like that.

Some time I wonder why people do not respect other people But then again I remember back when I was young kid in Peru I would cared less what other people believes were (most of the population is catholic). However, if we were to see someone with a different religion/ believe I would see that person as an oddity and try to approach to him/her with caution. I was very prejudicial toward other religions and I though that all the rest were wrong. And I am ashame to say it but I was antisemitic. I was closed minded and ignorant of many different cultures. Until I became 15 years old and I went through confirmation.

It was an interesting experience and really opened my eyes to how the world really is, it also made me see how sheltered I was from the world. I then decided to inform myself a little bit more about the different cultures/ believes from this world. And I find them all of them (well the ones that I know so far) fascinating.

Now, I try to treat other people in the same way I want to be treated. No matter their race, believe, religion, or socio economical status. Maybe if we all treat other with some respect the world would be different place. But then again I like to day-dream a lot so know I should get back to my studies.

Cremlian

That is the problem in a nutshell, though not in the way you mean. If disagreement and/or argument is viewed by one of the parties as a personal attack, the need for self-defense kicks in, and any chance of actually bringing the argument to mutual agreement is removed.

So many people do this, but sometimes it's as much the fault of the person who is attacking. If you start your statement, "Your a Moron, of course there is no evidence of a god intervening in the real world, here is my proof... blah blah" your going no where fast since as soon as you insulted their intelligence it was all over. As a rule try and appeal to someone's intelligence instead of insulting it. You'll get a lot farther in a disagreement.

Apreche

So many people do this, but sometimes it's as much the fault of the person who is attacking. If you start your statement, "Your a Moron, of course there is no evidence of a god intervening in the real world, here is my proof... blah blah" your going no where fast since as soon as you insulted their intelligence it was all over. As a rule try and appeal to someone's intelligence instead of insulting it. You'll get a lot farther in a disagreement.

If they're incapable of understanding, does it matter?

Cremlian

If they're incapable of understanding, does it matter?

You'll never know if they are if you lead with a personal insult.

For example, many times in the FRC, Scott says a opinion that we just say "Oh here we go again a typical Scott Rubin response". Which then causes Scott to go completely defensive for the next oh... 3-4 hours and we'll get stuck in a circular argument about some inane topic. It's all because we started by disregarding his opinion instead of explaining why Rubin opinion was crazy in the beginning politely massaging his ego while we do it.

Apreche

For example, many times in the FRC, Scott says a opinion that we just say "Oh here we go again a typical Scott Rubin response". Which then causes Scott to go completely defensive for the next oh... 3-4 hours and we'll get stuck in a circular argument about some inane topic. It's all because we started by disregarding his opinion instead of explaining why Rubin opinion was crazy in the beginning politely massaging his ego while we do it.

You could just admit you are wrong.

Katsu

You could just admit you are wrong.

Or you could just admit you're wrong.

HungryJoe

Scott admitting he was wrong would likely result in something like those episodes of Star Trek where Kirk makes a computer burn itself out by asking it a grammar school logic puzzle.

TheWhaleShark

People cling tightly to their beliefs mostly, I think, out of need. People, in general, feel an impetus to do things with themselves, probably to give meaning to their otherwise meaningless existence. A trick of the brain to encourage productivity, basically. Coupled with that, people tend to develop beliefs that support what they are doing, and eventually the beliefs become sort of ingrained into their personality and what they do with themselves, forming the foundation for all that they are as a person. When those beliefs are attacked, it's like you're trying to undermine their whole being; hence, most people become defensive very quickly.

While I do usually talk about religious beliefs this way, to be perfectly fair, there are a great many scientists and other logicians who are just as bad, if not worse. I would say that such irrationality has a statistically significant lower rate of occurrence (though I have no data for that, so do with it what you will) among scientists, but it's still way higher than it should be. If you don't believe me, try arguing with a Ph.D. some time and try to convince them that they're wrong. It's an experience.

Erwin

Scott admitting he was wrong would likely result in something like those episodes ofStar Trekwhere Kirk makes a computer burn itself out by asking it a grammar school logic puzzle.

Or the universe would implode.

spiritfiend

My best example is teaching 'intelligent design' in schools. The controversy over evolution isn't even a conversation we should be having.

I disagree. My biology textbook had other non-scientific concepts such as spontaneous generation. This was the idea that life spontaneously generated out of the environment, such as maggots in rotting meat or mold on bread. They also showed experiments that were run to disprove this concept. I don't see anything wrong with creationism being taught in the same vein, ie this is what people believed when they didn't have science.

Rym

I disagree. My biology textbook had other non-scientific concepts such as spontaneous generation. This was the idea that life spontaneously generated out of the environment, such as maggots in rotting meat or mold on bread. They also showed experiments that were run to disprove this concept.

No one proposing the teaching of Intelligent Design intends for it to be "disproven" in class: they expect it to be taught as an actual, viable alternative, which it is most certainly not.

Furthermore, "Intelligent Design" is not a testable hypothesis, and really has no place whatsoever in the science classroom except as an example of pseudoscience.

Jason

You can't argue against their infallible proof.

TheWhaleShark

My best example is teaching 'intelligent design' in schools. The controversy over evolution isn't even a conversation we should be having.

I disagree. My biology textbook had other non-scientific concepts such as spontaneous generation. This was the idea that life spontaneously generated out of the environment, such as maggots in rotting meat or mold on bread. They also showed experiments that were run to disprove this concept. I don't see anything wrong with creationism being taught in the same vein, ie this is what people believed when they didn't have science.

As long as creationism is taught as "Back before we were enlightened, we believed this crap," then I'm OK with it. Religion does not belong in a science classroom.

Now, if a public school wanted to have some sort of religion/theology/philosophy class, wherein all religions were treated with equal regard, I could be OK with that.

Sail

You can't argue against their infallible proof.

I'd like to see them explain pineapples. All people who enjoy them must be sinners, because God clearly meant them not to be eaten if he covered them in spikes.

Apreche

You can't argue against their infallible proof.

I'd like to see them explain pineapples. All people who enjoy them must be sinners, because God clearly meant them not to be eaten if he covered them in spikes.

Pineapple is such a weak example. How about durians?

Sail

How about durians?

Heh. How about them indeed.

Erwin

I didn't know what a durian was so I went to check a picture of it and it sure looks creepy. By the way how does it taste?
Spontaneous regeneration is also though in microbiology but as a part of the history of it. I guess its function now is to show how there was a huge a long discussion about it back in the day so we are not suppose to be discussing about it today.

Lyddi

I grew up as a christian, and just KNEW that what everyone told me is true, just like I knew that my mom was my mom and my house was where I lived, etc. As a child, you believe what your parents tell you because you look up to them and you trust them. So I always believed in God and was happy I was going to Heaven. But then as I got older and started getting interested in science and critical thinking, I couldn't help but see that my religion made no logical and physical sense to me. I was told magic isn't real, and my religion was real. But eventually I found them to be very similar. I didn't want to accept it for at least a few years. I struggled with the fact that I didn't believe it was possible for God to exist. The main reason was because that meant no one was looking after me anymore, and that Heaven also doesn't exist. That is why I clung to Christianity for so long. But now I cling to my beliefs as an atheist because I know why I have them. It is not because someone told me it was true, but because I had to find it out for myself.

And about the whole teaching intelligent design issue, it would be very difficult to actually implement it because so many religions have different takes on it. How would we know which so called "theory" of intelligent design to teach? As soon as one theory would be put down, everyone from every religion would complain that it was incorrect. And since it is not technically science, it does not belong in a science textbook (although I think every science textbook I've had has briefly mentioned it as an "alternate theory"). Maybe if an optional class on religion was created instead, if would be more appropriate. But isn't that what sunday school is? If you want your kids to learn about religion, force them to learn it at church instead of school so other kids don't have to be involved.

HungryJoe

I was told magic isn't real, and my religion was real.

I don't have time to look, but wasn't there a bit in Exodus about how Pharoah's magicians tried to duplicate the tricks Moses was showing Pharoah? And weren't they almost doing it? Aren't there bits in the Bible about sorcery and witches? Do the fundies still believe in sorcery and witches too?