Belief and the Rejection of Empirical Evidence

Why Does Belief Reject Empirical Evidence

Belief as Anti-Intellectual Denial as the subject of this post suggests that belief itself is counter to intellectual pursuits, To think

otherwise is to transport oneself back in time to something like the Bronze Age. Belief systems rely on dismissing empirical evidence, favoring dogmatic adherence to unverifiable claims. Believers often eschew observable, testable facts. For instance, scientific evidence that the universe is 13.9 billion years old is rejected in favor of biblical assertions of a 6,000-year-old Earth. Where evidence cannot be ignored, it is dismissed as falsehood or even labeled the work of malevolent forces. This anti-intellectual stance creates a stark divide between belief and knowledge, dismissing fields like cosmology, biology, and geology as irrelevant to “truth.”

Community as a Byproduct of Belief

Despite its intellectual shortcomings, belief fosters a sense of community and order. Shared beliefs create a fellowship of like-minded individuals, offering solace in a chaotic world. This shared illusion often blinds adherents to alternative truths discoverable through observation and experimentation. For many, belief is a birthright, instilled early by parents, ensuring ignorance of scientific and intellectual advances. Such communities replace critical thinking with a comfortable, though false, certainty.

Many options beyond belief are far more satisfying intellectually. Science tells far more interesting origin stories as well as predictions through theoretical proposals that have either been confirmed by experimental data or are awaiting confirmation.

Rather than discuss those predictions, I want to concentrate briefly on what the word “Theory” means to a scientist. In the simplest of terms, a theory suggests ideas and makes predictions. It is presented to the scientific community who go to work trying to either confirm the predictions or it cannot. When the former occurs, the theory is confirmed. One miss, however, cancels the validity of the theory itself. Yes, this is why I think Belief as Anti-Intellectual Denial is a menace to progress in the world.

In the common parlance, one might hear someone complain, “But it’s only a theory.” This common conception is simply wrong. Science and scientists work to discount or confirm the Theory. When there are no well-structured experiments to disprove the theory and all experimental data confirms the predictions of the theory, the theory is confirmed. Now, Richard Rorty wrote of normal and abnormal language and Thomas Kuhn spoke of scientific revolutions. These two philosophers suggest that over time a theory no longer answers new questions that suggest a limit to the theory itself.

For Rorty normal discourse relates to Khhn’s notion that there are limits to scientific knowledge and when that happens, questions cannot be answered using Rorty’s normal discourse. New questions are asked and new instruments are created for experimentation. In Kuhn’s schema, this is the stuff of scientific revolutions. For Rorty, it is a period of abnormal discourse; a time when new ideas are suggested, tested, and either confirming or not confirming the new theories. Scientific revolutions occur when the standard modes of science fail to answer new questions.

This does not mean the old theory is abandoned. In many cases, the findings of older theories are of significant use. Think of Isaac Newton’s understanding of gravity. He called it a force but could not imagine much more than that given the time and the instrumentation needed to understand gravity as a force of nature. A little more than 400 years went by with nobody questioning Newtonian Physics. The rather brilliant mind of Albert Einstein a theoretical physicist proposed his theory of General Relativity.

The cornerstone of the theory is Einstein’s describing the nature of Gravity as a function of Space and Time. Four years after Einstein published his Special Theory of Relativity suggesting gravity is a function of mass and distance in which space itself is warped to accommodate the movement of planet, and star motions, as experienced in spacetime. Much of the experimental data confirms the truth of Einstein’s understanding of the universe as a whole.

But Einstein’s ideas no longer work at the quantum level in which small particle physicists are working to find a way to integrate Einstein and hundreds or more are trying to integrate Einstein’s understanding of how large objects in the universe work. The particle physicists have not abandoned Einstein. Quite the contrary, They are spending their time trying to integrate both areas of physics into a “Theory of  Everything.”

No, my friend, they did not drop Einstein’s general or special relativity, nor Newtonian physics of objects and motions; math that continues to work for specific purposes is not abandoned. Rather what science does is to build on the past to better understand the future. I find arguments like these to be far more interesting than Belief as Anti-Intellectual Denial.

Fear as the Measure of Belief

Fear is central to the structure of belief. Heidegger’s concept of “being toward death” reflects humanity’s fear of mortality, which religious beliefs exploit. Eternal rewards or punishments promise relief from this existential dread, reinforcing belief through fear of the unknown. This narcissistic focus on humanity’s supposed special status in a vast universe underscores how belief inflates human importance while dismissing empirical realities.

Religious authorities manipulate belief as a tool for control, fostering fear of “otherness” and demanding obedience. Institutions like the Catholic Church promote exclusivity with doctrines like “The One, The Only” (TOTO), reinforcing the idea that all other beliefs are inferior. Such dogmas often perpetuate misogyny, as seen in Orthodox Judaism’s relegation of women to secondary roles, and extract wealth through tithes, exploiting fear to maintain authority.

Monotheistic religions often condemn diversity, insisting on the supremacy of their doctrines. Evangelical Christians and sectarian Muslims aggressively convert others, dismissing alternative beliefs as heretical. Even within these religions, sects war over differing interpretations, undermining claims of unity. Judaism, while less evangelical, exhibits internal fractures between Orthodox, Conservative, and Reform movements, showing that belief systems struggle to tolerate variety even within their ranks.

Belief replaces scientific understanding with mythology. Creation stories, like the biblical seven-day account or the Lakota flood myth, serve cultural purposes but fail to align with scientific evidence. Dismissing science as “fiction” betrays a fundamental misunderstanding of empirical processes. For instance, evolution is often dismissed as “just a theory,” ignoring the rigorous testing and validation that elevate it to a cornerstone of biological science.

Monotheistic belief paradoxically accepts diverse depictions of a single God, from Allah in Islam to the Christian Trinity and the numerous Hebrew names for God. This multiplicity highlights the inconsistency within monotheism itself. Such divergence often breeds inter-religious hostility, as adherents of one system perceive others as threats to their “absolute truth.”

Belief thrives on ignorance and deliberate misinformation. Misunderstanding terms like “theory” perpetuates the dismissal of scientific achievements. For example, evolution is supported by countless experiments, yet many believers reject it without understanding its predictive and explanatory power. This willful ignorance obstructs intellectual progress and denies the practical benefits of scientific discovery. This augments the argument “belief as anti-intellectual denial.

The Philosophical Problem of Spiritualism: Belief as Anti-Intellectual Denial:

Philosophical dualism, as articulated by Descartes, contributes to belief by separating the mind and body, aligning the “ghost in the machine” with religious concepts of the soul. Such frameworks perpetuate notions of divine control over human existence. Judaism, with its concept of multiple souls, exemplifies how belief systems craft exclusive doctrines to bolster group identity, often fostering prejudice against outsiders.

Conclusion: Belief vs. Truth

Belief systems often distort reality, replacing empirical evidence with mythology and dogma. This anti-intellectual denial suppresses progress, fosters division, and perpetuates ignorance. Science, grounded in observation and experimentation, offers a path to truth that belief inherently rejects. A society valuing intellectual rigor over dogmatic belief is essential to overcoming the limitations imposed by anti-intellectual denial. While I do not doubt that belief brings peace and satisfaction in their practice.

That being said, however, Belief as Anti-Intellectual Denial is rational. Belief, for example, tells us children’s stories about the origin of the Universe. Rationality, on the other hand, tells us a far more interesting story both in the origin of the Big Bang and while the scientific origin story is theoretical, it has been confirmed by experimental scientists.

While science cannot tell the whole story just yet, experimental physics PhDs are working on that very problem. We may not know in my lifetime, but I am certain that it is forthcoming. And if it is discovered in my lifetime I will be over the moon. Belief as Anti-Intellectual Denial eschews science for Bronze Age mythology.  I ask you which makes more sense.

Suggestions for Further Reading

“The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark” by Carl Sagan
A compelling defense of skepticism and the scientific method as antidotes to belief-based thinking.

“Breaking the Spell: Religion as a Natural Phenomenon” by Daniel C. Dennett
Here Dennett explores belief systems from a scientific and evolutionary perspective, offering insights into their psychological foundations.

“God is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything” by Christopher Hitchens
A sharp critique of religious belief systems and their impact on human progress and intellectual inquiry.

“The Blind Watchmaker: Why the Evidence of Evolution Reveals a Universe Without Design” by Richard Dawkins
This book dismantles belief in intelligent design, offering a clear explanation of Darwinian evolution as a counter to dogma.

“Faith Versus Fact: Why Science and Religion Are Incompatible” by Jerry A. Coyne
In this piece, Coyne argues that the core methodologies of science and religion are fundamentally irreconcilable.

“Religion Explained: The Evolutionary Origins of Religious Thought” by Pascal Boyer
A fascinating exploration of how belief systems evolved and how they persist in human culture.

“The Varieties of Religious Experience” by William James
It is a classic work examining the psychological basis of religious belief and its effects on individuals.

DISCLAIMER: The images on this page, and across the whole blog are created using AI imaging and are intended to illustrate the argument in the post. They are NOT representing real people or events directly, rather the images enhance the overall argument and nothing more. We do not intend any offense, nor do we plan to single out individuals in any way by the images themselves.