Religious Intolerance May Predict Anti-Science Beliefs

Author: Ohio State University
Published: 11 Jul 2022 - Updated: 17 Sep 2026
Publication Details: Peer-Reviewed | Informative

Table of Contents:
Synopsis - Definition - Overview - FAQs - Insights, Updates - Related Content

Synopsis

This paper examines the foundations of anti-science beliefs, identifying four key factors: perceptions of scientific sources as lacking credibility, alignment with groups holding anti-science attitudes, conflicts between scientific messages and personal beliefs, and mismatches between message presentation and individual thinking styles. The paper delves into the complex relationship between religious beliefs and science denial, exploring whether deeper religiosity or intolerance of other faiths more strongly predicts rejection of scientific findings. It draws on a study that uses local religious diversity as a measure of tolerance, revealing that counties with greater religious homogeneity often show higher rates of science skepticism, as seen in behaviors like reduced social distancing during the COVID-19 pandemic. The piece is particularly useful for those interested in understanding how cultural and spiritual perspectives intersect with public health and scientific acceptance, including seniors or people with disabilities who may face unique barriers in accessing or trusting medical advancements. Its clear analysis and data-driven approach make it an engaging read for anyone curious about the social dynamics shaping attitudes toward science.*

At a Glance

• 1 - The review was published on July 11, 2022, in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. Lead author Aviva Philipp-Muller conducted the work as a doctoral student at Ohio State.
• 2 - Counties with greater religious homogeneity often showed higher rates of science skepticism. This appeared in behaviors such as reduced social distancing during the COVID-19 pandemic.
• 3 - Co-author Richard Petty noted the sudden growth of anti-vaccination advocates in the United States and elsewhere. He linked this shift to social media and the growing role of political identity.
• 4 - The authors recommend acknowledging valid concerns on the other side while explaining why the scientific position is preferable. They also advise finding common ground, even on topics unrelated to science.

Topic Definition

Antiscience

Antiscience is defined as a set of attitudes that involve a rejection of science and the scientific method. Antiscience rejects mainstream scientific views and practices or their replacement with unproven or deliberately misleading theories, often for nefarious and political gains. Antiscience often targets prominent scientists and attempts to discredit them. People holding antiscientific views do not accept science as an objective method that can generate universal knowledge. New religious movements such as New Age thinking also criticize scientific worldviews favoring a reductionist, atheist, or materialist philosophy. It is essential to develop an accurate understanding of those who deny science - avoiding stereotyping them as backward and uneducated - and to attempt outreach via those who share cultural values with target audiences, such as scientists who also hold religious beliefs.

Overview

The same four factors that explain how people change their beliefs on a variety of issues can account for the recent rise in anti-science attitudes, a new review suggests. But politics in modern society have amplified how those factors work, making them a potent force in the growing rejection of science.

In a paper published July 11, 2022, in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, three researchers who study attitudes and persuasion explain the rise in anti-science beliefs today and what can be done about it.

"The classic work on persuasion still applies to what we're seeing today as many people reject the science of vaccines, climate change, and other subjects," said Aviva Philipp-Muller, lead author of the paper. "But there are evidence-based strategies that can work for increasing public acceptance of science."

Philipp-Muller, who did the work as a doctoral student in psychology at The Ohio State University, is now an assistant professor at Simon Fraser University.

Anti-science beliefs are built on four foundations, or bases, the authors said. These foundations are:

• Thinking scientific sources lack credibility.
• Identifying with groups that have anti-science attitudes.
• A scientific message that contradicts a person's current beliefs.
• A mismatch between a message's presentation and a person's thinking style.

"What all four of these bases have in common is they reveal what happens when scientific information conflicts with what people already think or their style of thought," said co-author Richard Petty, professor of psychology at Ohio State. "These kinds of conflict are hard for people to handle, making it easier for them to reject scientific information that doesn't already fit into what they believe."

While these foundations can explain why people reject science, the authors said there had been a marked increase in anti-science attitudes in the past decades. Petty said he had been particularly struck by the sudden growth of anti-vaccination advocates in the United States and elsewhere.

"Vaccinations used to be a standard thing that everyone accepted. But there have been a few developments in recent years that have made it easier to persuade people against the scientific consensus on vaccinations and other issues," he said.

One, of course, is the rise of social media and various news sources where people can get their version of the facts. But the authors point to another related development: the growing importance of political ideology in the modern world.

"Politics were always around, and people had political views, but politics didn't permeate everything. Science and scientific beliefs were separate from politics at one time, but not anymore," Petty said.

And because politics today are a core part of people's identity, ideology affects how they react to scientific evidence that has been politicized, such as climate change.

"Some people may reject new scientific information because it is easier to do that than overturn their pre-existing political beliefs," Philipp-Muller said.

Politics can trigger or amplify basic mental processes across all four bases of anti-science attitudes, Philipp-Muller said.

For example, take source credibility. Research shows that people see others with similar political views as more expert and knowledgeable. Because liberals and conservatives find different news sources credible, they expose themselves to different sources of scientific information - and misinformation.

"Social media platforms like Facebook provide customized news feeds that means conservatives and liberals can get highly varied information," Philipp-Muller said.

Research on attitudes and persuasion shows how to address some key principles that drive anti-science attitudes, according to the authors. One way to counteract anti-science attitudes, for example, is to convey messages that show an understanding of other viewpoints.

"Pro-science messages can acknowledge that there are valid concerns on the other side, but explain why the scientific position is preferable," Philipp-Muller said.

For example, messages on preventing the spread of COVID-19 can acknowledge that wearing masks can be uncomfortable but explain that discomfort is worth preventing the spread of the disease. Another key is to find common ground with people who reject science - even if what you have in common has nothing to do with science.

"People get their defenses up if they think they are being attacked or that you're so different from them that you can't be credible," Petty said. "Find some places where you agree and work from there."

Petty and Philipp-Muller said they hope more scientists learn about the psychology of how to communicate their work to the public.

"It's often not enough just to present a simple and accurate message," Petty said. "Psychological research can help scientists learn to present their work to different audiences, including those who might be skeptical."

Philipp-Muller added:

"There's an opportunity to counteract the anti-science attitudes and sentiment out there. We have to use evidence-based strategies to increase public acceptance of science."

Spike W.S. Lee of the University of Toronto also co-authored the paper.

Frequently Asked Questions

NOTE: Researched FAQs by Disabled World (DW)

What are the four foundations of anti-science beliefs

The review identifies four bases: viewing scientific sources as lacking credibility, identifying with anti-science groups, receiving messages that contradict personal beliefs, and a mismatch between how a message is presented and a person's thinking style. Each reflects what happens when new information conflicts with existing views.

Which university led this research on science denial

The paper was led by researchers connected to The Ohio State University. Co-authors included Richard Petty of Ohio State and Spike W.S. Lee of the University of Toronto.

Does deeper religiosity or religious intolerance better predict science denial

The article explores whether stronger personal faith or intolerance of other faiths more strongly predicts rejection of science. It points to intolerance, measured through local religious diversity, as a notable signal.

How is religious tolerance measured in the study

Tolerance is estimated using local religious diversity as a proxy. Areas with greater religious homogeneity are treated as showing lower tolerance of differing faiths.

Why has anti-science sentiment increased in recent decades

The authors attribute much of the rise to social media and fragmented news sources that let people find their own version of the facts. They also point to the growing role of political ideology in personal identity.

How does political identity affect acceptance of science

When science becomes politicized, people may reject findings rather than revise deeply held political beliefs. Political alignment also shapes which sources people see as credible experts.

What communication strategies help increase acceptance of science

Effective approaches acknowledge opposing concerns while explaining why the scientific position is preferable. Finding shared common ground with skeptics also lowers defensiveness and builds trust.

How does this topic relate to people with disabilities and seniors

Seniors and people with disabilities may face unique barriers in accessing or trusting medical advancements. Understanding science acceptance can support better public health outcomes for these groups.

Insights, Analysis, and Developments

Editorial Note: Addressing anti-science attitudes requires a multifaceted approach that considers the psychological and social underpinnings of such beliefs. While the debate between science and religion continues, it's crucial to recognize that both can coexist and contribute to human understanding. By embracing scientific knowledge alongside spiritual beliefs, we can foster a more inclusive and progressive society that benefits all individuals, regardless of their abilities or backgrounds. The key lies in maintaining an open mind and a willingness to engage in respectful dialogue, ultimately leading to better-informed decisions and improved quality of life for everyone. By fostering trust in scientific institutions and tailoring communication to resonate with diverse audiences, we can enhance public understanding and acceptance of science, ultimately benefiting societal health and progress.*

Attribution/Source(s): This peer reviewed publication was selected for publishing by the editors of Disabled World (DW) due to its relevance to the disability community. Originally authored by Ohio State University and published on 11 Jul 2022, this content may have been edited for style, clarity, or brevity.

* Editorial additions by Ian C. Langtree.