What Creationists Should Learn Here

[Pyrotex]

NOTE Concerning Our Future Creationist Visitors:

 

It may be impossible to change the mind of a true-blue believer that God created the world 6,148 years ago on a Tuesday morning. Typically, such folk thrash about here and then they leave.

 

But I pose this question to all of us:

What do we want them to take away after they leave ?

(whether they leave voluntarily or are suspended)

 

I propose that we strive to get just one tiny point across, a point that may stick with them for a long time. That point is this: What scientists DO, what WE do when we "do science" is NOT the same as reading a book and believing it is true. Or listening to an "authority" and believing what is heard.

 

Science is NOT the same as what theologists do.

 

The very thought processes and mental skills we take for granted are DIFFERENT from the thought processes of the theologist and the believer.

 

I propose that we try to convey the realization that there are OTHER ways to THINK, OTHER ways to OBSERVE, OTHER ways to use our minds and construct explanations for Reality -- than they currently have, or have been exposed to.

 

I propose that they (somehow) leave us realizing that the logic WE use is inherently a different KIND of logic than what they use; and that people like US exist and have a kind of reasoning that is more adept for certain uses -- like understanding the universe. They don't have to accept this. They certainly don't have to agree. But they should see that Science is NOT just belief.

 

Comments?

[Moontanman]

I agree, From what I seen in these discussions almost to a man (or woman) most of the religious think that science is just another type of belief in arbitrary authority. No checks or balances, just belief, many seem unable to conceive of questioning their religions authority and assume science works the same way. In some cases I would go as far to say that they believe that science does nothing but look for ways to disprove religion and the entire reason for science is to show religion to be untrue. Research, data, facts, falsifiability, and change are foreign to them and their thought processes and they assume science to be the same way.

[Pyrotex]

Excellent point! :lol:

 

What if we turned our situation around and applied it to them? Like this:

 

dear theo,

I took your "theory" of baptism to the Catholics and they said your "theory" was totally bogus. That's not the way baptism works at all. And they've been around for 1000 years longer than your bunch of god researchers. Then I took your "theory" to the Unitarians, and they said baptism wasn't even important anymore! If all you god researchers can't even agree among yourselves, then this whole religion thing must be bogus.

 

That didn't come out quite as good -- as "parallel" as I had hoped it would. But, do you get the general idea? Maybe we could use a technique like this to "inspire" them to realize that science is NOT just another religion. Any more ideas? :evil: ;) ;)

[modest]

I think applying the scientific method to whatever religious topic is at hand would have the best results.

 

I've noticed that theists often assume that atheists reject religious ideas simply because they are *religious* ideas. If a scientifically minded person approached the topic as an investigation of an hypothesis then that could dispel that preconception while demonstrating firsthand what science is all about.

 

For example, the other day somebody was asking why science would reject the creation story in the bible. Of the following, I think the first would be far better than than the second:

1. The fables in the bible are testable because they make testable predictions. The book of Luke lists a few dozen generations between Adam and Jesus. This leads to a testable prediction: all human ancestors lived less than 200 generations ago. This kind of prediction fails confirmation when (for example) the most recent matrilineal common ancestor lived approximately 10,000 generations ago. If DNA studies had found all humans were related by less than 200 generations then the bible's prediction would have been confirmed. But, the prediction failed showing the bible is unmistakably wrong.
    
   
2. Believing God made people out of dirt 6 thousand years ago is no different from believing the flying spaghetti monster raped an invisible monkey and had the first human baby. They're both made up stories with no evidence so you'd have to be just as stupid to believe either.

I think the first might help teach the scientific method and demonstrate that common negative presumptions about atheists and science are wrong while the second teaches nothing and reinforces religious preconceptions about atheists and science.

 

I honestly don't mean this as a criticism of people who choose the second method, but I do believe strongly that the first method is all-around more beneficial and effective.

 

~modest

[Pyrotex]

I think you're right, Modest.

But I also feel that there's a way to show them that their own logic probably does NOT work the way they want it to, when it is turned upon their own belief structures.

 

I keep thinking of the guy who said, "your science stuff is just another religion, and that proves it is bogus!"

 

I missed the opportunity to retort, "then you admit that your religion is bogus, too, yes?"

[modest]

I think you're right, MooMan.

But I also feel that there's a way to show them that their own logic probably does NOT work the way they want it to, when it is turned upon their own belief structures.

 

I keep thinking of the guy who said, "your science stuff is just another religion, and that proves it is bogus!"

 

I missed the opportunity to retort, "then you admit that your religion is bogus, too, yes?"

 

I agree :)

 

If somebody's reasoning seems irrational then it's best to show them how their thinking is irrational and show them the more-rational (scientific method) way to go about it. So, yeah... showing them that science is fundamentally different from faith would be a kind-of first step.

 

I also think you're spot on that 'science-is-just-another-kind-of-faith' has to be one of the most frequent criticisms waged against science by religious fundamentalists. It's the same as 'Atheism-is-just-another-Religion' and those sentiments, I think, first and foremost need refuted.

 

;)...We could write an Atheist vs. Theist faq to address those kinds of misconceptions as much as they come up... not that I'm volunteering :)

 

~modest

[Turtle]

...

:hihi:...We could write an Atheist vs. Theist faq to address those kinds of misconceptions as much as they come up... not that I'm volunteering ;)

 

~modest

 

Oh sure; leave it to the Turtle. ;)

So anyway...

I propose that they (somehow) leave us ...

 

That's the crux, i.e. that they leave. If they come at all, they haven't done their homework here. Fact is, the SOB's ain't/cain't keep from spewin' out they "special" spiritual yada yada, but necessarily it's not reproduceable by scientific experiment. That's a problem...nay THE problem with all this religious crapulence. If prayer worked, I wager I'd be dead now. Sorry to disappoint. ;)

 

What creationists ought learn here is to expect a Turtle lambast for their trouble. :D

[carlton-temple]

Ah, but at least you can't deni that "creationists" are creative nor lacking in fantasy can you.:cocktail:

[Turtle]

Ah, but at least you can't deni that "creationists" are creative nor lacking in fantasy can you.:hihi:

 

:eek2: Erhm...ahhh...no; can't deny that fo shizzle. But then, affirnming the creativity comes off as maybe a compliment and then I think, "Boy! Wasn't that Ted Bundy a creative fella with his fantasies!?" :doh:

 

Hey! Maybe that Louisiana Governor Jindal will join Hypog and put some real muscle behind creationism? Wouldn't that be a treat. :eek: :cocktail:

[carlton-temple]

Most learned Turtle, slitter of fossils, banger of bangs, turner of millstones. Hail !!!

 

Although we don't want them back, please go sparingly with your American creationalists as they amuse us Europeans no end. Here we only have that abstinence chap in Rome with his "contraceptive-phobia" to make jokes about, plus the odd bishop or two and their "leanings", and they're really not in the same class as your comical creationalists.

 

P.S. Question: Why didn't Noah put a couple of dinosaurs in the Ark? Answer: Because Noah was by nature was a neo-cretaceousianist ! (sorry). :)

[Pyrotex]

...Although we don't want them back, please go sparingly with your American creationalists as they amuse us Europeans no end. Here we only have that abstinence chap in Rome with his "contraceptive-phobia" to make jokes about... :P

I see you have met our most notable Turtle.

I don't know how we could manage around here without him. :(

I applaud your using our creationists as a source of humor,

But it won't be so funny when they get a serious foothold in Europe.

In fact, they appear to have begun tormenting the English government.

They are much like weeds. Once they take root, they are very

hard to get rid of. Kind of like the Taliban, if the truth be told.

 

What really makes the creationists angry, is the (unspoken) knowledge

that they are the darwinian rejects of humanity, lacking the intelligence

to keep up with science and technology. If they get annoying enough,

we'll have Turtle flip them over on their backs, and then

I'll get out my magnifying glass. ;)

[carlton-temple]

Eureka !!!!!

 

It's obvious !!!! The Egyptians used Diplodocuseseses to build the pyramids !!!! :confused:

[Thunderbird]

The only way I see the scientific thought to beat out the creationist view is to improve the way we teach children how to use their brains. Currently science is barley even taught is school, kids may learn to pass a test but do not develop critical thinking to understand how that answer was found, and how this accumulated information relates to a larger world view .

If critical thinking is not a tool you possess how could you possibly expect a person to follow an argument based on it ?

Critical thinking gives facts profound meaning when used in context with many other facts. Without this ability the world view is based on the story, the myth that resonates within human emotions, in fact it evolved over time to manipulate the mind in this way . If there is a God, or some sort of R&D entity in charge of human development, fundamentalist religion would look like a computer virus.

[Turtle]

This poem seems applicable to the OP. :)

 

The ABCs of skepticism | Bad Astronomy | Discover Magazine

 

...C is Creation, 6000 years past;

But when looked at the evidence is always half-assed.

...

[Pyrotex]

This poem seems applicable to the OP.

 

The ABCs of skepticism | Bad Astronomy | Discover Magazine

Turtle, me lad!

 

What a fine and excellent poem you've discovered! :lightning Me thanks tooya.

[carlton-temple]

Thank goodness; at last the state of Texas has finally legally "fixed" a probable time-frame for the creation of the universe, which time-frame, Texas feels should be acceptable to all parties. Namely : The Universe was clearly created somewhat before the landing of the Pilgrim-fathers and a little after infinity. (Plus or minus a small margin of scientific uncertainty).

 

Advertisement.

 

"Beware the gates of Bedlam"..................Quote from a book I may or may not write..........

Reserve your copy before its to early. :)

[Pyrotex]

Well, I think that most of us have done a good job at demonstrating critical-thinking to the creationists who have stumbled in here.

 

The trouble is, they don't recognize it as such. It occurs to me that if they've never actually "seen" critical-thinking in action before, it might "look" to them like "gobbledegook" or "techno-babble".

 

Perhaps we're feeding it to them in chunks too large for them to swallow. Many of our response posts to the creationists run on for a page or two. Perhaps shorter answers wouldn't short-circuit their tiny little attention spans?

 

And then there are the fallacies. Have you noticed how their logic and reasoning is full of fallacies?

It might be a better use of our time to point out their fallacies before we pressed them to actually follow our arguments. I don't know. Comments requested.

 

Another idea that occurs to me is to preface my arguements with something like:

"My response to you is going to be based on Critical Thinking, not 'belief'. If you have not been exposed to this before, it may sound strange to you. Feel free to ask questions as to why I worded my response in a strange way, or why I may have used words in a way strange to you."

 

I believe that there is a lot we could say, that we don't say, because we take it for granted.

For example, we should frequently explain:

 

"I would like to point out that a Fallacy is what is known as 'counterfeit logic' -- just like fake money, it looks like logic, feels like logic, and among the undiscerning, even passes for logic. But it is still just play-pretend logic and it has no ability to persuade the discerning."

 

Even if the creationist is behaving badly, perhaps we should treat them as, say, teenagers from dysfunctional families, and our job is coach them in how to speak, reason and eventually think, so they can at least state their positions without being rude and making fools of themselves.