What factors contribute to individuals holding onto their personal beliefs despite scientific evidence contradicting them?

[Man Jau]

Mimi ni atheist. Sikubali dini yoyote.Hivyo suala la kutetea dini yangu na kupinga dini yako halipo.

atheist ni dini kama zilivyo dini zingine...jitahidi usiwe shallow minded kwenye mtazamo wako...ooh sorry, you don't have any,

corrections...kwenye mtazamo ulioamua kuuchagua..

 

[Man Jau]

i have a theory, if something has already being thought by someone else, well, keep learning.... You would wonder what has been hidden in front of you all time long...

 

[Smart911]

Ngoja tuone...


Cc: Mahondaw

 

[dosho12]

Ngoja tuone...


Cc: Mahondaw

Upo upande Gani mkuu full scientist au full religious au fifty fifty 😃😃😃

 

[Kiranga]

atheist ni dini kama zilivyo dini zingine...jitahidi usiwe shallow minded kwenye mtazamo wako...ooh sorry, you don't have any,

corrections...kwenye mtazamo ulioamua kuuchagua..

Kwanza jifunze Kiingereza.

Atheist ni mtu.

Labda ukitaka kusema atheism ni dini.

Wewe ni Maimuna hujui hata tofauti ya atheist na atheism.

Wewe ngumbaru tu, hujafikia kiwango cha kujadiliana na mimi.

Hujui tofauti ya atheist na atheism, nitajadiliana nawe nini?

 

[Ego is the Enemy]

Kwanza jifunze Kiingereza.

Atheist ni mtu.

Labda ukitaka kusema atheism ni dini.

Wewe ni Maimuna hujui hata tofauti ya atheist na atheism.

Wewe ngumbaru tu, hujafikia kiwango cha kujadiliana na mimi.

Hujui tofauti ya atheist na atheism, nitajadiliana nawe nini?

Can you use English so that we can understand you. This is English forum discussion,

 

[Kiranga]

Can you use English so that we can understand you. This is English forum discussion,

The guy does not understand the difference between atheist and atheism.

He is saying "atheist is a religion".

I am correcting him so he kniws the difference between atgeist and atgeism, ine being a person and another being an idea.

I am also mentioning that I have a very low level of confidence that he will have a good grasp of the philosophical discussion given that he does not even know the difference between atjeist and atheism.

 

[P J O]

There are many factors and reasons that lead a person to hold onto their beliefs and personal opinions, even when they contradict certain facts and scientific theories. The most prominent of these factors and reasons can be summarized as follows:

1. Cognitive Frameworks that Underpin Beliefs and Opinions: When individuals rely on a metaphysical or ideological framework for their convictions and beliefs, rooted in emotional psychological influences and specific logical constructs, they often find that the central roots of their religious or ideological beliefs are based on emotional ties rather than rational reasoning. This emotional connection provides them with a sense of security and psychological stability, allowing them to reject any scientific theory or fact that contradicts their beliefs.

2. Personal Existential Concepts: Sometimes, when a person believes in a particular view of consciousness and existence, this perspective serves as a criterion for evaluating and judging various cognitive and scientific outputs. For example, if someone believes that existence is merely an illusion and that individual consciousness is also an individual illusion claiming to know the truths, it becomes easy for that person to reject any scientific product, regardless of its significance or evidence.

3. Incorrect Scientific Concepts: If an individual possesses incorrect scientific concepts, such as a misunderstanding of the scientific theory and its distinction from scientific truth, they may consider any scientific theory as merely a non-fixed possibility, regardless of the evidence supporting it. They might assert that scientific truth is only absolute and cannot be denied or refuted, which allows them to dismiss any credible scientific theory that contradicts their personal beliefs.

4. Ignorance of Scientific Methodologies and Rational Knowledge: When a person is unable to understand the epistemology of sciences, its methodologies, verification methods, and other aspects related to scientific thinking, along with ignorance of reasoning tools, types of logic, forms of evidence, and methods of judgment and preference, it becomes easy for them to reject any scientific or cognitive product that conflicts with their personal beliefs.

Science itself does not provide answers to all questions especially on how we came to exist and so it is in our intuition to seek answers and have faith that there is a creator. How one believes may differ but know for a fact science was a religion that tried to prove God's non existence and in the end the scientist became believers of God.

 

[Alvin_255]

Science itself does not provide answers to all questions especially on how we came to exist and so it is in our intuition to seek answers and have faith that there is a creator. How one believes may differ but know for a fact science was a religion that tried to prove God's non existence and in the end the scientist became believers of God.

Religion and science are partners.

Religion and science go hand in hand. Religion is not scientific and science does not provide metaphysical answers, but together they form the basis of a far more comprehensive and powerful worldview than either alone. But they go even further than complementing, they actually inform each other:

Religion informs science. The earliest scientists such as Newton and Descartes sought to see God through his orderly creation. They were driven to scientific discovery by their belief that God had placed symmetry and mathematical precision of the core of his creation. This continues today to a much smaller degree with religious hypotheses. For example, John Polkinghorne has speculated that [scientific] stochastic phenomena might bridge between a deterministic physical universe and another, non-deterministic universe in his [religious] book, Quarks, Chaos and Christianity.
Science informs religion. Almost all Christians today have modified their [religious] interpretation of Genesis to say that God created life through the [scientific] mechanism of evolution.

Science and religion do NOT conflict.

The so-called conflict was invented in the mid-1800s but was immediately rejected by both the scientific and religious communities. And unfortunately this alleged conflict is perpetuated today by dogmatic, agenda-driven theologians and scientists.

A vocal minority of religious people insist that their scripture must be interpreted literally, and this introduces contradictions. A high-profile example is Ken Ham, who insists that the Earth is 6000 years old.
A vocal minority of scientists use their solid reputation in science to promote distinctly unscientific opinions about religion. High profile examples include Richard Dawkins (geneticist) and Stephen Hawking (physicist) who imply that science says there is no God.

Science and religion are both human creations.

God did not create religion. Religion is the collected wisdom of people, including cultural, social and intellectual elements, as well as revelations from God.

God did not create science. Science is what people discovered about the repeatable, deterministic universe which God created. And throughout the universe, God left evidence of his existence.