June 16, 2006

The desire for belief preservation.

In the previous post we saw how human beings are believed to not be natural critical thinkers, preferring instead to believe in the first plausible explanation for anything that comes along, not seeing these initial explanations as merely hypotheses to be evaluated against competing hypotheses.

But one might think that when we are exposed to alternative hypotheses, we might then shift gears into a critical mode. But Tim van Gelder, writing in the article Teaching Critical Thinking: Some Lessons from Cognitive Science (College Teaching, Winter 2005, vol. 53, No. 1, p. 41-46) argues that what foils this is the human desire for belief preservation.

He quotes seventeenth century philosopher Francis Bacon who said:

The mind of man is far from the nature of a clear and equal glass, wherein the beams of things should reflect according to their true incidence; nay, it is rather like an enchanted glass, full of superstition and imposture, if it be not delivered and reduced.

In other words, van Gelder says, "the mind has intrinsic tendencies toward illusion, distortion, and error." These arise from a combination of being hard-wired in our brains (because of evolution), natural growth of our brains as we grow up in the Earth's environment, and the influence of our societies and cultures. "Yet, whatever their origin, they are universal and ineradicable features of our cognitive machinery, usually operating quite invisibly to corrupt our thinking and contaminate our beliefs."

All these things lead us to have cognitive biases and blind spots that prevent us from seeing things more clearly, and one of the major blind spots is that of belief preservation. van Gelder says that "At root, belief preservation is the tendency to make evidence subservient to belief, rather than the other way around. Put another way, it is the tendency to use evidence to preserve our opinions rather than guide them."

van Gelder says that when we strongly believe some thing or desire it to be true, we tend to do three things: "1. We seek evidence that supports what we believe and do not seek and avoid or ignore evidence that goes against it. . . 2. We rate evidence as good or bad depending on whether it supports or conflicts with our belief. That is, the belief dictates our evaluation of the evidence, rather than our evaluation of the evidence determining what we should believe. . . 3. We stick with our beliefs even in the face of overwhelming contrary evidence as long as we can find at least some support, no matter how slender."

This would explain why (as vividly demonstrated in the popular video A Private Universe) people hold on to their erroneous explanations about the phases of the moon even after they have been formally instructed in school about the correct explanation.

This would also explain the question that started these musings: Why for so long had I not applied the same kinds of questioning to my religious beliefs concerning god, heaven, etc. that I routinely applied to other areas of my life? The answer is that since I grew up in a religious environment and accepted the existence of god as plausible, I did not seek other explanations. Any evidence in favor of belief (the sense of emotional upliftment that sometimes occurs during religious services or private prayer, or some event that could be interpreted to indicate god's action in my life or in the world, or scientific evidence that supported a statement in the Bible) was seized on, while counter evidence (such a massive death and destruction caused by human or natural events, personal misfortunes or tragedies, or scientific discoveries that contradicted Biblical texts) was either ignored or explained away. It was only after I had abandoned my belief in god's existence that I was able to ask the kinds of questions that I had hitherto avoided.

Did I give up my belief because I could not satisfactorily answer the difficult questions concerning god? Or did I start asking those questions only after I had given up belief in god? In some sense this is a chicken-and-egg problem. Looking back, it is hard to say. Probably it was a little of both. Once I started taking some doubts seriously and started questioning, this probably led to more doubts, more questions, until finally the religious edifice that I had hitherto believed in just collapsed.

In the series of posts dealing with the burden of proof concerning the existence of god, I suggested that if we use the common yardsticks of law or science, then that would require that the burden of proof lies with the person postulating the existence of any entity (whether it be god or a neutrino or whatever), and that in the absence of positive evidence in favor of existence, the default assumption is to assume the non-existence of the entity.

In a comment to one of those postings, Paul Jarc suggested that the burden of proof actually lay with the person trying to convince the other person to change his views. It may be that we are both right. What I was describing was the way that I thought things should be, while Paul was describing the way things are in actual life, due to the tendency of human beings to believe the first thing that sounds right and makes intuitive sense, coupled with the desire to preserve strong beliefs once formed.

van Gelder ends up his article with some good advice:

Belief preservation strikes right at the heart of our general processes of rational deliberation. The ideal critical thinker is aware of the phenomenon, actively monitors her thinking to detect its pernicious influence, and deploys compensatory strategies.

Thus, the ideal critical thinker
• puts extra effort into searching for and attending to evidence that contradicts what she currently believes;
• when “weighing up” the arguments for and against, gives some “extra credit” for those arguments that go against her position; and
• cultivates a willingness to change her mind when the evidence starts mounting against her.

Activities like these do not come easily. Indeed, following these strategies often feels quite perverse. However, they are there for self-protection; they can help you protect your own beliefs against your tendency to self-deception, a bias that is your automatic inheritance as a human being. As Richard Feynman said, “The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool.”

The practice of science requires us to routinely think this way. But it is not easy to do and even scientists find it hard to give up their cherished theories in the face of contrary evidence. But because scientific practice requires this kind of thinking, this may also be why science is perceived as 'hard' by the general public. Not because of its technical difficulties, but because you are constantly being asked to give up beliefs that seem so naturally true and intuitively obvious.

POST SCRIPT: The people who pay the cost of war

I have nothing to add to this powerful short video, set to the tune of Johnny Cash singing Hurt. Just watch. (Thanks to Jesus' General.)


Trackback URL for this entry is: Global warming-4: Is there a scientific consensus on global warming?
Excerpt: Is there a scientific consensus on global warming? Naomi Oreskes from the Department of History and Science Studies Program, University...
Weblog: Mano Singham's Web Journal
Tracked: July 28, 2006 07:55 AM


It is readily appearant that human beings are strongly inclined to adhere to their existing beliefs. This can be seen in politics where voters routinely re-elect incumbent officials despite their poor performance, or in persoal relationships where individuals often seek out destructive environments in the futile hope that 'this time it will be different'.

The danger in this concept is to believe that any of us, just because we are able to think 'critically' are beyond the corrupting influence on our thoughts. In fact it is often the case that the systems we exist in are much too complex to understand in pure cognitive fashion. Our emotional responses allow us to make decisions rather than being held immobile due to a lack of complete understanding.

What I find particularly interesting the examples you cite for your change in personal beliefs. In particular you have recently mentioned natural disasters as evidence for your change of heart. This logic is no more compelling than if I claimed that beauty, love, art, poetry and any manner of other good things are evidence of a divine creator.

Catastrophes, while terrible, create a necessary balance in life. If there were no tragedy could there be triumph? Without love could there be hate? If we lived in a world where everything was controlled, there was no death, no birth, no sadness, no hapiness, no ignorance, no discovery, would that not be akin to the bordem of heaven we were discussing just a few days ago.

Critical thinking is a valuable tool, but it must be applied evenhandedly. If there is a creator would it not be a logical conclusion that he would allow things to happen for reasons we can't understand? Would it not be foolish to abandon a belief due to a few facts that don't fit the mental image that we have of that belief - even when those facts are easily encompasable within our belief system?

Posted by bob on June 16, 2006 09:48 PM

Bob's comment is the heart of why I tend to shy away from existence of God debates with friends. There is absolutely NO argument that can refute his claims. All Bob has to do is say "God did it and we just don't understand why" and there is nothing any of us can say to argue that point. Now THAT is belief perseverance.

There are tons are possible rebuttals, all of which I'm sure will fall on deaf ears. All I can say is: how can you come to a "logical conclusion" that claims Man is not logical enough to understand God? Either you have the ability or reason logically, or you don't. It's that simple.

Posted by Barry on June 19, 2006 02:18 PM

Barry wrote:

All I can say is: how can you come to a "logical conclusion" that claims Man is not logical enough to understand God? Either you have the ability or reason logically, or you don't. It's that simple.

Is it? I'm reminded of Gödel's Incompleteness Theorem - in any sufficiently expressive, self-consistent formal logic system, there are true statements that can be stated in that system, but which cannot be proved in that system. Our own cognitive process probably doesn't qualify as a formal system, but it may have similar limitations: there may be ideas that we can conceive of, and that may be true, but that we can't convince ourselves of (even if only because we doubt our own ability to follow a complicated line of reasoning without making a mistake).

Posted by Paul Jarc on June 20, 2006 10:58 AM


I'm intrigued by your statement, but I'm confused as to how you would apply it in this case.

What would be the statement that is true, but we cannot prove? That God exists?

My point was simply to poke fun at the idea that I could boldly claim I was created smart, but not smart enough to be able to comprehend why I was created. Why would God put limits on the intelligence of his creation?

Posted by Barry on June 20, 2006 03:29 PM

What would be the statement that is true, but we cannot prove? That God exists?

Sure, for example. As you say, there is no argument that can refute this. Even if it isn't true, it is apparently self-consistent. At least I see no contradiction in “I'm intelligent enough to know that my intelligence is limited.”.

Posted by Paul Jarc on June 20, 2006 06:56 PM

Great article. Although the area of "new age" psychologies such as NLP (or "pseudo-science" as some call it) might not get much weight on this board, I am reminded of the teachings of one of it's original teachers, Robert Diltz. In his "sleight of mouth" teachings, he puts forward his thoughts on how we form beliefs based on our environment, and the lengths we'll go to to defend them. Though he put one above this - the "who am I?" as opposed to what do I believe. To oppose this is to attack one's very existence, and they'll defend it at all costs. Eg "I am black" is an identity statement, whereas "I am Christian" is a belief. He call's it the ABC of personality I think, where:

A - who I Am
B - What I Believe
C - My capabilities
D - What I Do
E - My Environment?

The closer you go towards A, the persons identity, the more fervently they'll oppose what it is you present. With this model he teaches it's possible by re-presenting data to challenge our own or others beliefs.

Like I said, probably not a field of particular interest here, but worth a look anyway, even if only to discredit it :)

Posted by Paul on January 6, 2012 11:40 AM

To some, trying to prove the existence of God using our physical world, is like trying to prove the existence of your mother by examining your own body, or like trying to look back at your own eyes without a mirror. In other words, how can we prove the existence of the creator by looking at the created, other than to assess that it has some sort of intelligent design? The existence of God is more a philosophical question than a scientific one.

Posted by Paul on January 6, 2012 05:25 PM