Freethought & Rationalism Archive

wdog · 01-05-2002, 05:30 AM

I love reading all your posts but I wonder at the futility of responding to a non-scientist with refutations and the like based in a methodolgy and structure that the creationists reject in the first place. It usually goes like this: the creationist will post some sort of fallacy or sophistry, then someone responds elegantly with a refutation based in sound science. The creationist then will either not respond to that point, totally misunderstand the point and go on with their nonsense, default to a godidit, miracle, or just a plain "i don't accept that", and rarely they will actually address the point with some substantial response.

I am interested in someday teaching a course at the local university on how pseudoscience works to undermine our civilization (a dream for now). The question that keeps popping into my head is what is the most effective response to this? First of all we must accept that the typical creationist is not an expert in the area they are trying to call into question and they are also unfamiliar with how science works, but they seem to have no problem asserting their beliefs onto science. Do we keep responding as we are to their specific points (which are getting worn)? or should we shift the debate to what is the most effective way to understand the world around us, the successes of science, and get them to debate the merits of their methods into the realm of science, then maybe move to specific points of the argument? What has been the experience of you more seasoned debaters? Do we need to consider the emotional attachment that the creationist holds to their beliefs, or how the creationist mind views science?

btw- I have become enamored with ken hamm's "were you there?" and have decided to make it my mantra, lol

Beelzebub · 01-05-2002, 06:44 AM

Excellant post. Creationists reject science simply because they want to. Nothing logical about it. In order for them to cling to thier religion, they have to reject it. No argument can "convert" them. I feel that they come here as a test for themselves and then leave when they fail it. I wish you good luck on your course. Unfortunately, the ones in most need of it will not attend. If you can change a few fence-sitters to logic and reason, you will have accomplished a lot.

Stabby- · 01-06-2002, 04:08 AM

How about debating the Aesthetics of Evolution vs the Aesthetics of Creationism?

This way, you accept all their assumptions on spirituality, but counter then with the beauty of evolution?

Think it would work?

Stabby---------------------

lpetrich · 01-06-2002, 04:49 AM

One must realize that others think in different categories, such as considering the important truths to be moral.

Thus, some creationists seem to consider the whole issue some kind of moral issue, as odd as it may seem. They believe their religion to represent the only true morality, and thus that all other religions and ideologies are sunk in depravity.

wdog · 01-06-2002, 06:02 AM

thanks for reponding...

so are we resigned to the fact that we cannot get someone else to accept the logic of science?

Interesting thought stabby, not sure how that would work. I personally am not in favor of 'end runs' but would would be willing try many tools to get enlightenment.

There must be some level at which we can relate, isn't there? I mean there must be a point at which a mind must accept something as logically sound as the well accepted foundations of science with all the evidence around us? I once tried to illustrate the validity of the scientific method by pointing out the technology of the world around us, not really sure what impact it had. I just don't understand how a person can turn on a personal computer and then use it to reinforce beliefs that reject the science which in turn created their computer. This religion stuff is truly scary, it makes humans behave in dangerous ways, do we need more of sept.11 to illustrate that or what?

Coragyps · 01-06-2002, 06:29 AM

I really am pretty much resigned, as you ask, to never getting some people to see what science is about. I really feel that "the fundamentalist mindset" is one where the only "Truth" is the unchangeable "truth" of a single authority. That authority is the Bible for Ken Ham, the Q'uran for bin Laden, and the pronouncements of the Feurer for an SS lieutenant.
I know little of psychology, and less about how to logically search its literature, but I would love to know if any meaningful data exists on whether this "type" of mindset, as opposed to our correct, sceptical, scientific one

, really reflects a different sort of personality. It would be wonderfully politically incorrect to do the work, though...

Cave hominem unius libri.

Coragyps

Ojuice5001 · 01-06-2002, 07:48 AM

To argue presuppositions with a creationist, you would have to get them to admit their presumptions are different from yours. Most creationists claim to be basing their beliefs on science, so you would have to go back a step and convince them that they are pseudoscientists. And that would probably be just as hard as addressing their specific points.

Boshko · 01-06-2002, 08:09 AM

One thing to try is to get Creationists to admitt that some of their arguments against evolution are completely irrelevant to its truth or falsity even if they were true. Such arguements as "I don't want to be related to monkeys" and "if humans evolved then my reasons for being moral would be undermined" fall under this category easily. Then try to argue that these irrelevant arguements are coloring their view of evolution. Of course they'll respond with arguments about Satanic conspiracies and whatnot, but its at least as effective as trying to teach them real science (which isn't saying much).

Stabby- · 01-07-2002, 05:59 PM

"Making" one admit one is wrong is probably poor psychology.

If one is to "relate" to anyone, one must accept them. Non-judgemental communication seems contradictory in this debate, but it seems the only way to solve it.

You can make no demands of creationists. You can only present logical and natural consiquences to their thoughts and beliefs.

What would you consider a logical and/or natural consiquence of a strict belief in creationism?

What would be the best way to present those in a non-confrontational method?

You can't assume this debate can function like a science peer review. It is a psychologcial process.

Stabby----------------

Arrowman · 01-07-2002, 09:05 PM

OG, I think you express very well some of the problems creationists have with rational thought processes, and therefore the utter futility of debating with them if your purpose is to "win".

I think the point of debating with creationists in a forum such as this, is not to change their minds (if you think it is, you're in for serious disappointment!) but to
a. display "our" side of the debate to lurkers; and
b. sharpen our knowledge and wits for other forms of debate - see below.

The "real" debate is what happens in public forums - letters to the editor, school boards etc, and also dinner parties etc where the subject might come up*. It is here that you have a chance to influence the views of the great majority of people who have little or no knowledge or understanding of this debate.

The decisions about what is taught in our schools are ultimately made not by scientists or professional educators, but by politicians and schol board members. And they in turn are all too often swayed not by what is right, but by what is popular. Hence the need to educate and persuade both those people and the broader public - to defend the integrity of our children's education and more broadly, to advance the cause of rational thought in our society.

Debating directly with a creationist is pointless if your objective is to "win". But it's valuable exercise for the broader public debate.

* Example: Last year I was talking with a woman who was a reasonably rational, clear thinking person - in fact she lamented the lack of critical thinking being taught in schools. Yet when the subject of creationism came up, she wanted to know "what harm in teaching differing views?" I politely explained the degrading effect creationism has on science and rational thought, and I think I swayed her. Point being - you don't have to be totally deluded, religious, irrational or ignorant to be prepared to allow creationism into the classroom - especially in a predominantly Judaeo-Christian society - you just have to be human.

01-05-2002, 05:30 AM	#1
wdog Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Ohio, USA Posts: 1,547	relating to creationists I love reading all your posts but I wonder at the futility of responding to a non-scientist with refutations and the like based in a methodolgy and structure that the creationists reject in the first place. It usually goes like this: the creationist will post some sort of fallacy or sophistry, then someone responds elegantly with a refutation based in sound science. The creationist then will either not respond to that point, totally misunderstand the point and go on with their nonsense, default to a godidit, miracle, or just a plain "i don't accept that", and rarely they will actually address the point with some substantial response. I am interested in someday teaching a course at the local university on how pseudoscience works to undermine our civilization (a dream for now). The question that keeps popping into my head is what is the most effective response to this? First of all we must accept that the typical creationist is not an expert in the area they are trying to call into question and they are also unfamiliar with how science works, but they seem to have no problem asserting their beliefs onto science. Do we keep responding as we are to their specific points (which are getting worn)? or should we shift the debate to what is the most effective way to understand the world around us, the successes of science, and get them to debate the merits of their methods into the realm of science, then maybe move to specific points of the argument? What has been the experience of you more seasoned debaters? Do we need to consider the emotional attachment that the creationist holds to their beliefs, or how the creationist mind views science? btw- I have become enamored with ken hamm's "were you there?" and have decided to make it my mantra, lol

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

01-05-2002, 06:44 AM	#2
Beelzebub Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Connecticut Posts: 554	Excellant post. Creationists reject science simply because they want to. Nothing logical about it. In order for them to cling to thier religion, they have to reject it. No argument can "convert" them. I feel that they come here as a test for themselves and then leave when they fail it. I wish you good luck on your course. Unfortunately, the ones in most need of it will not attend. If you can change a few fence-sitters to logic and reason, you will have accomplished a lot.

01-06-2002, 04:08 AM	#3
Stabby- Regular Member Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: the west Posts: 161	How about debating the Aesthetics of Evolution vs the Aesthetics of Creationism? This way, you accept all their assumptions on spirituality, but counter then with the beauty of evolution? Think it would work? Stabby---------------------

01-06-2002, 04:49 AM	#4
lpetrich Contributor Join Date: Jul 2000 Location: Lebanon, OR, USA Posts: 16,829	One must realize that others think in different categories, such as considering the important truths to be moral. Thus, some creationists seem to consider the whole issue some kind of moral issue, as odd as it may seem. They believe their religion to represent the only true morality, and thus that all other religions and ideologies are sunk in depravity.

01-06-2002, 06:02 AM	#5
wdog Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Ohio, USA Posts: 1,547	thanks for reponding... so are we resigned to the fact that we cannot get someone else to accept the logic of science? Interesting thought stabby, not sure how that would work. I personally am not in favor of 'end runs' but would would be willing try many tools to get enlightenment. There must be some level at which we can relate, isn't there? I mean there must be a point at which a mind must accept something as logically sound as the well accepted foundations of science with all the evidence around us? I once tried to illustrate the validity of the scientific method by pointing out the technology of the world around us, not really sure what impact it had. I just don't understand how a person can turn on a personal computer and then use it to reinforce beliefs that reject the science which in turn created their computer. This religion stuff is truly scary, it makes humans behave in dangerous ways, do we need more of sept.11 to illustrate that or what?

01-06-2002, 06:29 AM	#6
Coragyps Veteran Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: Snyder,Texas,USA Posts: 4,411	I really am pretty much resigned, as you ask, to never getting some people to see what science is about. I really feel that "the fundamentalist mindset" is one where the only "Truth" is the unchangeable "truth" of a single authority. That authority is the Bible for Ken Ham, the Q'uran for bin Laden, and the pronouncements of the Feurer for an SS lieutenant. I know little of psychology, and less about how to logically search its literature, but I would love to know if any meaningful data exists on whether this "type" of mindset, as opposed to our correct, sceptical, scientific one , really reflects a different sort of personality. It would be wonderfully politically incorrect to do the work, though... Cave hominem unius libri. Coragyps

01-06-2002, 07:48 AM	#7
Ojuice5001 Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: A city in Florida that I love Posts: 3,416	To argue presuppositions with a creationist, you would have to get them to admit their presumptions are different from yours. Most creationists claim to be basing their beliefs on science, so you would have to go back a step and convince them that they are pseudoscientists. And that would probably be just as hard as addressing their specific points.

01-06-2002, 08:09 AM	#8
Boshko Regular Member Join Date: Jun 2001 Location: Wesleyan University Posts: 361	One thing to try is to get Creationists to admitt that some of their arguments against evolution are completely irrelevant to its truth or falsity even if they were true. Such arguements as "I don't want to be related to monkeys" and "if humans evolved then my reasons for being moral would be undermined" fall under this category easily. Then try to argue that these irrelevant arguements are coloring their view of evolution. Of course they'll respond with arguments about Satanic conspiracies and whatnot, but its at least as effective as trying to teach them real science (which isn't saying much).

01-07-2002, 05:59 PM	#9
Stabby- Regular Member Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: the west Posts: 161	"Making" one admit one is wrong is probably poor psychology. If one is to "relate" to anyone, one must accept them. Non-judgemental communication seems contradictory in this debate, but it seems the only way to solve it. You can make no demands of creationists. You can only present logical and natural consiquences to their thoughts and beliefs. What would you consider a logical and/or natural consiquence of a strict belief in creationism? What would be the best way to present those in a non-confrontational method? You can't assume this debate can function like a science peer review. It is a psychologcial process. Stabby----------------

01-07-2002, 09:05 PM	#10
Arrowman Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Adelaide, South Australia Posts: 1,358	OG, I think you express very well some of the problems creationists have with rational thought processes, and therefore the utter futility of debating with them if your purpose is to "win". I think the point of debating with creationists in a forum such as this, is not to change their minds (if you think it is, you're in for serious disappointment!) but to a. display "our" side of the debate to lurkers; and b. sharpen our knowledge and wits for other forms of debate - see below. The "real" debate is what happens in public forums - letters to the editor, school boards etc, and also dinner parties etc where the subject might come up. It is here that you have a chance to influence the views of the great majority of people who have little or no knowledge or understanding of this debate. The decisions about what is taught in our schools are ultimately made not by scientists or professional educators, but by politicians and schol board members. And they in turn are all too often swayed not by what is right, but by what is popular. Hence the need to educate and persuade both those people and the broader public - to defend the integrity of our children's education and more broadly, to advance the cause of rational thought in our society. Debating directly with a creationist is pointless if your objective is to "win". But it's valuable exercise for the broader public debate. Example: Last year I was talking with a woman who was a reasonably rational, clear thinking person - in fact she lamented the lack of critical thinking being taught in schools. Yet when the subject of creationism came up, she wanted to know "what harm in teaching differing views?" I politely explained the degrading effect creationism has on science and rational thought, and I think I swayed her. Point being - you don't have to be totally deluded, religious, irrational or ignorant to be prepared to allow creationism into the classroom - especially in a predominantly Judaeo-Christian society - you just have to be human.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.