Psychic

Most of us here have gone many times through the futile debate with creationists. They are our friends, relatives, colleagues, and everywhere around us.

Haven’t you been amazed with the unshakable beliefs they have? Doesn’t it shock you dead that you are so sure of the way you perceive the world while still unable to shake some mythical beliefs?

I have interests in psychological sciences. and applying some knowledge to the creationist/evolutionist debate I have come to see the fact that logical arguments won’t get you any where with them. Their minds can’t allow them to be face the fact that their lives have been based on mythology. So their defense mechanisms will unconsciously shred your fancy logical arguments into snowflakes.

Because there’s no place for too much details here, I would give you the example from the movie “the Matrix” when Morpheus apologize to Neo for waking him from the Matrix above the acceptable age, telling him that most people’s minds would crash, and wouldn’t be able to tolerate the truth.

It’s nothing wrong with your arguments, it something wrong with you approach to the problem. You trigger many defenses and alarm systems while going in, that the whole system rejects you and prevents you from taking another step closer.

I am trying to collect all the information I need on this subject, with the aim of writing a short paper about it. any ideas?

mike_decock

On another forum I participated in a thread where we concluded that beliefs are more often based on emotional needs than on rational objectivity.

Evolution vs. Creation is one of those topics that seems pointless to argue because the emotional reason for a belief in Creation lies not with Creationism, but elsewhere in the religious belief system.

I think that most Creationists think that evolution, considering the overwhelming evidence, is at least rational, but they defend Creationism because it is part of their belief system.

To get through their defense mechanism, you have to find the element that they are emotionally uncomfortable with. For me, it was the belief that all those innocent people were going to Hell, mostly because they are ignorant of the "truth". I couldn't find justice in that concept.

-Mike...

Albion

The creation-evolution debate isn't really about science; that's clear when a creationist is backed into the corner of realising that creationsim is simply bad science. The real struggle then starts because the creationist has to face the fact that if his faith is tied up with creationism and creationism is false, what does that say about his faith? Some creationists decide that their faith has a problem and either lose it altogether or become more liberal and less fundamentalist, but some simply can't make the leap and are forced back into excuses of the "well, scientists are mostly atheists and they've been misled about the implications of the data" variety. But when push comes to shove, it isn't the science that's the sticking point.

Doubting Didymus

I have no idea about psychology, but do be sure your starting premise is good before you go much further. A proportion of creationists can and do deconvert, and another portion are willing to revise their veiws as they explore evidence. We have had several deconverts on these boards alone, and many many more who, while not entirely abandoning the idea of godly creation, have made an admirable effort to alter their beliefs and opinions to suit the evidence.

On the other hand, another large proportion of the creationist number are exactly as you describe them: as immovable as the white throne itself. You might want to consider writing about the differences between the various levels of open/closed-mindedness in creationism.

manderguy

Another way to look at it: creationists are making a completely rational choice from a cost-benefit standpoint. This starts with the idea that belief in the bible and belief in evolution are mutually exclusive.

What are the costs of believing in the bible? Not much (not including brain tithe, etc.). You go to church (which can even be fun), you chip in when the plate is passed, etc.

What are the benefits? Heaven. Eternal bliss. Etc. Etc. Etc.

Costs of believing in evolution? You go to hell. Eternal torment. Gnashing of teeth. Etc. Etc. Etc.

Benefits of believing in evolution? None for the avg. person. We could point out how it may heighten appreciation for the natural world or what not, but most people don’t get a benefit from personally accepting evolution.

When you think of it this way, it’s an easy choice. Believe the bible. At this point, as a friend of mine says, the pastor doesn’t even have to make sense.

Of course the way to help at this level is to underscore how you can have both the bible and evolution. That approach helps a lot of students who are initially very uncomfortable with learning about evolution.

Vampyric

I think your cost/benefit analysis is rather skewed (although not completely invalid).

Allow my to suggest my own:

Costs of believing in the bible:
- Tithe
- Addition laws/codes
- Guilt
- Church on Sundays

Benefits of believing in bible:
- Chance to go to heaven (eternal bliss etc)
- Simple solution/explanation to everything complex

Cost of believing in evolution:
- Nothing

Benefits of believing in evolution:
- Little if any for the average person.


I agree that the benefits of belief in the bible are greater than those of belief in evolution (again assuming mutual exclusivity). But without belief in the bible there is no hell or anything detrimental/any loss at all in evolution. However belief in the bible means that you pay in this life for a chance in the next while most of those you know will be spending eternity in hell.

On a completely personal note, I would rather (given those options alone) think of life as ending at death and being evolutionary than bound by the bible and see most of the people in the world, good, bad or neutral suffering eternally over the whims of a divine being.

cricket

Choose a belief based on a "cost/benefit analysis"? No can do. If I chose a religious belief based on such analysis, I would nonetheless remain ineligible for the happy afterlife - because I wouldn't really believe. And how is it you would go about choosing? Which heaven would you aim for; which hell would you try to avoid? Won't help to "believe" in Christianity if it turns out you shoulda bet on Islam.

Wounded King

Having done a brief cost/benefit analysis, on the back of a packet of Rizlas, I can announce that the most profitable belief is one that 68% of all tables are hermaphrodites.

I have a truly remarkable proof for this which, sadly, this margin is too small to contain.

trillian

I think it goes something like this:

Man since the dawn of intelligence makes up stories to explain his existence.
You find the story of your "tribe" as being the most familiar and therefore the logical, its comfy.

In the face of education and rational thought, there still is nothing to fill the void (nothing as definitive) if you expelled your belief. Therefore, better keep it and feel comfy again. phewwww.

Actually, I think it has more to do with the fact that if you take creation away, then the rest of the Bible is up for grabs. Kinda like the NRA and their staunch view on gun laws, no matter if they make sense or not. Slippery slope fears.

Hey WK...I did my analysis too, scratched in wax and came up with 94% of termites who wish they had an Ark right now.

Azathoth

I agree.Personally,I am of the opinion,that the religions that hold to Creationism as being a fact,will have to change,or slowly wither away.

Scientific inquiry can't be halted,or gotten rid of,like many fundies,and other religious hardliners wish.

The only way to get rid of one theory in science,is to present one that works even better.Religion hasn't done this,yet,and it seems it never will.Eventually,though it may take hundreds of years,more and more people will use naturalism as the way to find out about the world.

Revealed religious discoveries were good for their time.They explained,and gave order to a world,that the ancients found comforting,regardless of how correct it was.

Now,however,we have a way to actually find out how things work,without relying on the stories of shamans priests,witchdoctors,or other storytellers to give us comfort,and a semblance of order.

I believe that the best course for religion,in general,is to limit itself to speaking about non tangible things,like souls,angels and the pope(j/k about that last one )

I can guarantee that no scientist,ever,will be able to show proof that angels can't dance on the head of a pin.But even in this last century,more and more things have been found,that obliterate the credibility of certain religious works purporting to explain how the world actually works.

Whether it's elephants holding up a flat world on a turtle's back,or a literal version of genesis,religion would be wise,for it's own future survival,to concentrate on non-tangible things,instead of trying to shoehorn the world into a literal interpretation of their scriptures.