Nearly
half a century ago, in what passed as outrage in pre-Internet times,
people across the country became incensed by the latest edition of Time
magazine. In place of the familiar portrait of a world leader — Indira
Gandhi, Lyndon B. Johnson, Ho Chi Minh — the cover of the April 8, 1966, issue was emblazoned with three red words against a stark black background: “Is God Dead?”
Thousands
of people sent letters of protest to Time and to their local
newspapers. Ministers denounced the magazine in their sermons.
The
subject of the fury — a sprawling, 6,000-word essay of the kind Time
was known for — was not, as many assumed, a denunciation of religion.
Drawing on a panoply of philosophers and theologians, Time’s religion
editor calmly considered how society was adapting to the diminishing
role of religion in an age of secularization, urbanism and, especially,
stunning advances in science.
With astronauts walking in space, and polio and other infectious diseases
seemingly on the way to oblivion, it was natural to assume that people
would increasingly stop believing things just because they had always
believed them. Faith would steadily give way to the scientific method as
humanity converged on an ever better understanding of what was real.
Almost
50 years later, that dream seems to be coming apart. Some of the
opposition is on familiar grounds: The creationist battle against
evolution remains fierce, and more sophisticated than ever. But it’s not
just organized religions that are insisting on their own alternate
truths. On one front after another, the hard-won consensus of science is
also expected to accommodate personal beliefs, religious or otherwise,
about the safety of vaccines, G.M.O. crops, fluoridation or cellphone
radio waves, along with the validity of global climate change.
Like creationists with their “intelligent design,”
the followers of these causes come armed with their own personal
science, assembled through Internet searches that inevitably turn up the
contortions of special interest groups. In an attempt to dilute the
wisdom of the crowd, Google recently tweaked its algorithm so that
searching for “vaccination” or “fluoridation,” for example, brings
vetted medical information to the top of the results.
But presenting people with the best available science doesn’t seem to change many minds. In a kind of psychological immune response,
they reject ideas they consider harmful. A study published this month
in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences suggested that it
is more effective to appeal to anti-vaxxers through their emotions, with stories and pictures of children sick with measles, the mumps or rubella — a reminder that subjective feelings are still trusted over scientific expertise.[...]