Can I Still Call It Love If I Only Listen to the Science That Serves My Beliefs?
I’ve always considered myself someone who believes in science. I was a biology major in college. Organic chemistry was one of my favorite classes.
So, when people deny climate change, I get frustrated. For me, the data is clear. The consensus is overwhelming. Of course, humans are causing the planet to warm.
When I hear people dismiss it, saying the climate has always changed, or we’re just coming out of an ice age, I roll my eyes. I assume they’re scared, uninformed, or just so set in their beliefs that they are not open to consider the true facts.
But then I caught myself doing the exact same thing. Not with climate. With testosterone.
I was reading T: The Story of Testosterone by Carole Hooven, and it made me uncomfortable. The book lays out what testosterone actually does in straightforward language. It’s not the cause of all male behavior, but it shapes it. Not by creating dominance or aggression, but by influencing how we respond to the world around us.
Here’s what is really staying with me, and quite honestly, causing some discomfort. There are people on the political right who love this kind of science. It gives them ammunition to argue for rigid gender roles or to dismiss trans inclusion in sports. They point to testosterone and say, “See? Biology proves our point.”
I hate that. I push back hard.
But then I noticed something. People on the left, sometimes ignore this science entirely. Because it complicates the narrative they want. Because it raises questions that don’t have easy, affirming answers.
So instead of getting curious, they pretend the science isn’t there.
That’s when I caught myself. That’s what I’d been doing too. I wanted to believe that gender roles were purely cultural creations. That testosterone was just a convenient scapegoat for bad behavior.
But the more I read, the more I had to admit testosterone is real. Its effects are measurable. And pretending otherwise doesn’t help anyone.
This humbled me. Because if I only believe in science when it confirms what I already think, is that really love? Or is it fear dressed up as certainty?
I realized I do the same thing with climate science. Yes, human activity is driving climate change. That’s overwhelmingly clear. But it’s also true that the Earth has natural cycles. That other forces are at play.
I’ve dismissed those arguments not because they’re wrong, but because I’m afraid that acknowledging them will weaken my position.
But that’s not love. That’s fear.
Love is curious. Love makes space for complexity. Love says Yes, and.
Yes, testosterone matters. And so does culture. Yes, natural climate cycles exist. And human behavior is accelerating change. Yes, gender is socially shaped. And biology plays a role.
I don’t want to cherry-pick science to support my values. I want my values to be strong enough to hold the full truth, even when it’s messy.
Maybe that’s what I’m really learning about love. It’s not about being right. It’s about staying open.
If you want to read more about my wrestling with testosterone and masculinity, I wrote a longer piece exploring what the science actually shows and why it matters for how we think about men and change.
What do you think? Have you caught yourself cherry-picking science that serves your beliefs? I’d love to hear your struggles.
I remember a time when my beliefs about climate change were jarred by learning something new. I was at a conference on climate at the university in Orono. The head of the climate center there, a well-respected climate scientist, presented information on the history of climate over the last several hundred thousand years. He showed a graph, indicating that the climate fluctuated over long periods, which led to the various ice ages and warming periods. The shocker was that he showed where we were on the graph and pointed out that we were at a point where we were overdue for another ice age. Thinking about what this could mean for the current climate debate made me wonder about my previous strong assertions re': the impact of climate change.
Jeremy,
I am glad you have started conversation. Your reflections and awareness encourage me to be more curious; and more importantly, I am reconsidering assumptions and opinions with which I had become too complacent. i.e. I drove by the VFW Post in Wiscasset on my way back from Ames hardware and felt a curiosity in my body about what their meetings were like, could I join them, aren’t I too a veteran of our nation’s foreign wars though I chose to be a conscientious objector, what are their stories, could I talk about mine.
Thanks for wrestling with pain, hope, anger, power, love, gender, science, and stories. Ah, stories. The ones we tell ourselves, the ones that challenges us, the surprising turns an old story can take, the shock of realizing that in some of our best stories, we made up events, people, and atmosphere to suit hidden needs. Thank goodness for friends who disabuse us of our grasp of truth and detail. And for those that enjoy the stories that we create even if they aren’t true to what happened then and there.
I hope we can look at faith too, not as dogma, answer, or institution. I don’t have words yet. I think that faith is a part of the ecology of our exploring. Though the word ‘G_D’ has been sufficiently defiled to make conversation extremely difficult, as in debating if there is or is not a Supreme Being or a Higher Power, I wrestle with an other who does not fit into my world. I am steadied by an unchanging, unhasting who is silent as light. I experience being held by love, a comfort and an insistent challenge to more.
Foreward,
Jon