Why do some use science selectively to support religious beliefs?

Krishna :

“Why do theists reject agnosticism or atheism and see religious texts as literal truth, despite scientific evidence like the Big Bang and abiogenesis?”

For religious people their beliefs are their lifelines. It is part of their core identity. It is their comfort zone. Their minds are conditioned in that way. If you try to dislodge it without providing proper alternatives and in the right way that can successfully negotiate their mental states, you will fail utterly.

"Science adjusts its views based on what’s observed. Faith is the denial of observation so that belief can be preserved." - Tim Minchin

It is very difficult to open completely closed minds. For a fruitful collaboration/ debate/ discussion, you need a shared praxis or a shared ground - even a partial one will do. If there isn't one at least you have to have open minds. But the moment a person thinks he has all the answers, his mind will be closed and it is difficult to deal with closed minds. (3)

But presenting data and facts don't win arguments (3)! Why?

A group of Dartmouth researchers have studied the problem of the so-called "backfire effect," which is defined as the effect in which "corrections actually increase misperceptions among the group in question." According to them... people typically receive corrective information within “objective” news reports pitting two sides of an argument against each other, which is significantly more ambiguous than receiving a correct answer from an omniscient source. In such cases, citizens are likely to resist or reject arguments and evidence contradicting their opinions – a view that is consistent with a wide array of research. (3)

So when people read a news story that presents both sides of an issue, they simply pick the side they happen to agree with and it reinforces their viewpoint. But what of those individuals who don't simply resist challenges to their views, but who actually come to hold their original opinion even more strongly?

The authors describe the "backfire effect" as a possible result of

the process by which people counterargue preference-incongruent information and bolster their preexisting views. If people counterargue unwelcome information vigorously enough, they may end up with 'more attitudinally congruent information in mind than before the debate,' which in turn leads them to report opinions that are more extreme than they otherwise would have had."

Also cognitive dissonance, or the uncomfortable tension that comes from holding two conflicting thoughts simultaneously plays a role and makes people reject things that don't make them comfortable processing them. Then people spin-doctor facts to fit preconceived beliefs to reduce dissonance.

Even if authentic people like scientists present the facts, some people think that we are only expressing our opinions because they don’t know the difference between opinions and evidence based facts!

Science communication is a very difficult process. We have to explain each and every letter, word, sentence, meaning of the whole para, and overall gist of reports and articles. Doing lab work and publishing papers are easy compared to this.

“Why do some use science selectively to support religious beliefs?”

Some individuals selectively use science to support religious beliefs due to a variety of factors, including the desire to reconcile faith with scientific understanding, to reinforce existing beliefs, or to use science as a tool for evangelism. This approach often involves interpreting scientific findings in a way that aligns with pre-existing religious views, sometimes leading to misinterpretations or selective emphasis on certain scientific ideas. This is how pseudo-science is being created.

Science is emerging as a great force. Some fear this will dislodge their support base and power. So they take the help of science to authenticate their ancient beliefs. They know very well that their beliefs are not supported by common sense and are contrary to critical thinking conclusions. So they need some support from legitimate fields.

Some individuals find it difficult to reconcile scientific knowledge with their religious beliefs, leading them to seek ways to align the two. They can’t argue against evidence based facts. They may use science to support their faith, even if it means interpreting scientific information in a way that favours their religious worldview. They might use scientific findings to demonstrate the validity of their faith or to provide further evidence for the existence of a supernatural force.

In some cases, individuals use science to promote their religious beliefs. This can involve presenting scientific information in a way that highlights its compatibility with their faith or using scientific arguments to persuade others to adopt their religious perspective.

A common practice is to selectively emphasize certain scientific findings that support religious beliefs while ignoring or downplaying those that do not. This can lead to misinterpretations of scientific information and the creation of arguments that don't accurately reflect the scientific understanding of the world.

Some people may find comfort in using science to support their religious beliefs, as science is often viewed as a source of certainty. By associating science with their faith, they may feel that their beliefs are more firmly grounded and less subject to doubt.

This spreads misinformation and distorts scientific evidence. Because evidence actually plays different roles in science and religion. Religion has traditionally leaned on eyewitness testimonials, narratives, symbols and personal, experiential evidence, and it strives for certainty and confirmation.

In contrast, empirical science relies on controlled and repeatable experimentation, statistical uncertainty and the possibility of falsification. This is experimental in nature. Can we generalize to say that religion mostly relies upon experiential evidence ( which is also called anecdotal) while science relies on experimental evidence ( which is confirmative in nature)?

There is no single, universally held view of the relationship between science and religion. Different people view this differently.

The important difference between science and pseudo-science is a difference in approach. While pseudo-science is only set up to look for evidence that supports its claims, science also accepts challenges and look for evidence that might prove it false.
If a scientific depiction of the world is wrong, the scientific outlook allows us to accept this and seek a different picture. The scientific position is aimed at locating and removing the false claims - something that doesn't happen in pseudo-sciences. (1)

Instead of starting with the facts and reaching a conclusion, the pseudo-science promoters first take a conclusion and try to cherry pick facts to support it. Of course, sometimes there will be no facts, so they have to 'invent' them. (1)

The people who take refuge in science think comforting lies are better than uncomfortable truths. Not everybody has the courage to accept agonizing truths which remove them from their comfortable zones. So they try to stay in those zones by taking the help of science.

It is the question of their survival. So …. (2)

Some business people want to sell things and make money. So you have things like magnetic belts, they claim, can cure any disease or health condition.

Then you have some God men (I need not mention their names) who try to sell their spirituality with pseudoscience. There are also the folks making money based on the number of clicks on viral pseudo-scientific videos. The other set is the religious/cultural warriors, and they seem to be particularly strong in India. Stretch and twist science until it can be made to validate some religious practice or claim cultural superiority. Most of the fake claims in circulation are the creation of a handful of sources with a deliberate agenda. (2)

Then there are these professionals. Doctors, engineers, professors, teachers and scientists, instead of opposing this epidemic, often become part of it. They either do not realize the effect that the credibility that their support gives to such falsehoods, or do not care because it supports their religious and cultural identity. There are even academics who try to ride the current wave of cultural pseudoscience and try to get funds for absolutely ridiculous research.(2)

Then we have journalists. Instead of doing their job of fact-checking everything they publish, they are gullible folks who will share anything they come across if it is impactful.

We have politicians who propagate it. I need not go into details, everybody knows about them.(2)

Whatever the reasons might be for this state of affairs, we are fighting this misinformation, disinformation, pseudo-science and anti-science propaganda day in and day out.

Are we succeeding when the whole anti-science world is fighting us constantly? To a certain extent, yes!

Footnotes:

1. Love Science, not its impostors!
2. Reasons for pseudo-science prevalence in this part of the world
3. Why it is difficult for scientists to debate controversial issues w...

(These are my own articles)