Jump to content
Science Forums

What Creationists Should Learn Here


Pyrotex

Recommended Posts

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.

 

On the boldened I take exception. They don't stumble in here, they barge in. I find it the height of rudeness at the least and, if a spade be a spade, it is an outright attack. I point out yet again, scientists aren't joining theologic forums in similar numbers and making such attacks. All this turn to molly-coddling and beating around the bush on this creationism and religious, erhm...stuff, is not satifying either the intent or the letter of our Theology section rules or the entire forum for that matter.

 

Now where's that magnifying glass you spoke of a few posts back? :naughty:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think this is a pretty good group. I am one of those horrible monsters you are talking about, so if it is OK, I'll put in my two cents.

 

I think you are right about some of what you said. Many creationists have never stopped to consider why they think what they do, and some are completely impossible to reason with. There is no reason without clear thinking. I'll grant you that.

 

However, if you really do want to leave them with something beneficial, I would venture to offer my advice. Tell them that there is a difference between evidence and theory or hypothesis. Explain that this forum welcomes those who want to debate, but that scientific debate comes with certain expectations:

 

* That before you begin to discuss a religious theory/assertion etc, you must accept that what you are discussing is something which is not proven by scientific "evidence", and you must therefore accept that you could be wrong about your theory / hypothesis etc - and you cannot profess others to be wrong for the same reason (because there is not established evidence).

 

How many of you actually accept that there is a possibility that they might be right and you might be wrong? The very idea is inconceivable to some. This same idea is what they are asked to do, so be patient because it might not happen in 5 minutes - and examine your own approach to theories to be fair.

 

Accepting that they might be wrong is a huge step, and it is the beginning of knowledge for people who have not been exposed to science. They are told they are right their whole life, and weather they are or not, one cannot go into a discussion assuming they are right without scientific evidence. There are other places online for that. It's completely fair to have standards here, which they must adhere to.

 

Being brand new here myself, another thing I would tell people is that its good to: stop and read before you post. If I had done that, I would have made a better impression and avoided rubbing people the wrong way.

 

However, calling people names and presupposing creationists are ignorant or otherwise making fun of them for their views is not appropriate either. Some people have been fairly rude to me, and I have tried to be genuinely humble and accepting of the policies etc. I assumed it might be because some came before me who warranted the hard feelings.

 

Keep in mind that it is always easier to tear down a building, than it is to design it and painstakingly build it carefully. People who come here, who may have never been exposed to science at all, might never give science a chance if they are treated badly, or with contempt from day one. Consider that, because you might actually be able to make the difference in someones life. Perhaps your actions will dictate whether they send their child to a science class, or even come to question their own beliefs.

 

Many Christians are told that they will be ridiculed by secular people, and so they might be afraid to speak to you, and if they do, then what? Will they be met with understanding and patience, or with something which makes them reaffirm their previous beliefs?

 

You might be thinking, "who cares, it's not my job to reach out and be supporting to some guy who ever took science in school". OK, fair enough. But I thought I might write to the group and let them know that what you say really might matter to people, in ways you might not fully understand.

 

Maybe people don't "deserve" a chance to be introduced to science, but just maybe, a positive experience (or perhaps less negative) by highly religious people will result in generations of changes you might not witness, but which can bring others to science.

 

That's my two cents.

Glenn

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think this is a pretty good group. I am one of those horrible monsters you are talking about, so if it is OK, I'll put in my two cents.

While i do feel you are not a monster, are you a creationist? I rather hate that label as well as many other labels, so shall we say that you believe in the creation story as told in the bible?

Suppose god then, was merely using conjecture.Being written that a day is as a thousand years and a thousand years is as a day is not an absolute.Well food for your thought, anyway:) I will not laden you with the vast amount of information out there as to why this cannot be true, I am confident that you will seek it out and gain comprehension

However, calling people names and presupposing creationists are ignorant or otherwise making fun of them for their views is not appropriate either. Some people have been fairly rude to me, and I have tried to be genuinely humble and accepting of the policies etc. I assumed it might be because some came before me who warranted the hard feelings.
yes, not a nice thing, i agree.
Keep in mind that it is always easier to tear down a building, than it is to design it and painstakingly build it carefully. People who come here, who may have never been exposed to science at all, might never give science a chance if they are treated badly, or with contempt from day one. Consider that, because you might actually be able to make the difference in someones life. Perhaps your actions will dictate whether they send their child to a science class, or even come to question their own beliefs.

:naughty:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, I am not a creationist, in the traditional sense. I do not believe the story of the bible. In fact, I disagree with those who believe the bible is inspired by God and therefore must be believed. I think it has value, but it is not a magic book.

 

I don't want to say too much about what I believe because people will accuse me of proselytizing etc. I believe there is a being responsible for the existence of the universe, and it is responsible for the big bang, and the plan of evolution - thus such theories are perfectly OK with me. I am just explaining what I personally think, and I'm not trying to preach it to others here, but I was asked. I believe enough scientific support by probability, intuition and other reasoning exists for me to believe in a necessary being who creates and provides order to the universe.

 

Unfortunately, like string theory, which has not provided quantitative experimental predictions, the "God theory" cannot be tested. Some theories or causal relationship hypotheses are not testable. I disagree with people who seem to think that an untestable theory must be wrong.

 

I do accept that because it has not been tested, I must accept that as a finite being, capable of mistakes, it is not the case that I can proclaim to be right, and exclude the theories of others to a certainty. That being said, I can believe I have the right answer based on how compelling the reasons for my belief are (to me), but even so, I have a responsibility to proceed with a healthy scientific skepticism.

 

By this same token, I think other scientific minds have a responsibility to be "open minded," or perhaps a better term would be "healthy skeptics." To me, this means accepting that all possibilities exist, until a cause for the universe is proven by testable means. I do not expect that only of others, but I expect it of myself as I professed above. Two scientists might work to prove different theories of the same observation true, but neither can definitively exclude the theory of the other until the proof is in. That is my belief about how people who genuinely possess scientific curiosity and methodology should proceed in good faith.

 

Of course I accept that others disagree. Some feel it is perfectly acceptable for a scientist to proclaim the theory of another is wrong, despite any established proof that it is another cause. I just think that's irresponsible and not scientific skepticism. But again, it's my personal belief and I don't want a bad reputation here so I'll leave it at that.

 

I have no interest in forcing my beliefs down the throats of other people, or in discounting the ideas of others out of hand (without proof). Doing so is both rude, and unscientific. I enjoy discussing religious ideas with others, in a way which is respectful to science.

 

It might seem like an odd thing to say, but I want to thank you for asking me about my beliefs, you are the first to actually ask before judging me for my views.

 

Have a good one.

Glenn

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have no interest in forcing my beliefs down the throats of other people, or in discounting the ideas of others out of hand (without proof). Doing so is both rude, and unscientific. I enjoy discussing religious ideas with others, in a way which is respectful to science.

 

This is quite impossible to do, unless you choose to focus solely on psychology, the power of mass delusion, anthropology, or cultural evolution. Anything outside of those limited research domains and you're forced to acknowledge how religion absolutely spits in the face of and shits squarely upon science, the scientific method, and the need for evidence and prediction to continue holding belief.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

you had referred to yourself as the horrible monsters of which this thread was about, hence my question;)

I do not pass judgement on people for their beliefs, nor would i want someone to judge me for there lack of.Unfortunately where there is anger, resentment and hatred, this will remain common place.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is quite impossible to do, unless you choose to focus solely on psychology, the power of mass delusion, anthropology, or cultural evolution. Anything outside of those limited research domains and you're forced to acknowledge how religion absolutely spits in the face of and shits squarely upon science, the scientific method, and the need for evidence and prediction to continue holding belief.

 

Do you believe in compassion ? The power of love over fear? I work with the churches in the community to help ex-offenders reintegrate back into the community. I rely on them to contribute money to fund theses projects I initiate. The church and church going public are a positive in my community. You have a very narrow view Inow. Not everything is about being the smartest, I have learned that people that have little education can express good in deeds based on beliefs, You may call them stupid or crazy but they contribute just the same. :jumpforjoy:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have no doubt that religious people and "the church" do good things in all communities, with in the narrow limits of helping people religion is a good thing in many ways. But religion, when it steps out into the world and starts trying to dictate reality and human behaviors it quickly becomes a very toxic influence on people. Not many schools of thought dehumanize people quicker or better than religion. Religion can indeed act as a base of operation for some really great things and even if belief is BS in trying to describe reality it can have a profound effect on individuals. This shows how humans in groups can support each other and effect real change in behaviors. Many use this to show that God and other aspects of religion have to be true when in reality it just shows how humans can connect with positive thinking in supportive groups to over come obstacles. Non religious groups can and do impact society in a positive but these groups are few and far between mostly because even the non religious will use religious organizations to provide a platform to allow them to help others. It's much easier to use something that is already in place than it is it reinvent the wheel.

 

Religion taken in moderation can be a good thing! :jumpforjoy:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

INow, "religion absolutely spits in the face of and shits squarely upon science"

 

Saying that you believe that religion and science are at odds with each other is certainly your right. However, you imply that it is the purpose of religion to be at odds with science, and this is an uneducated assertion. I do not see either of them as the victim of the other.

 

It might be that it is in the nature of both to use different methods, and therefore they are incompatible. However, religion is, at least to some degree, the sum total of the people which subscribe to its' tenants. Such people as Nicholas Copernicus, Sir Francis Bacon, Johannes Kepler, Galileo Galilei, Rene Descartes, Isaac Newton, Robert Boyle, Michael Faraday, Gregor Mendel, William Thomson Kelvin, Max Planck, and Albert Eistein were all men of science who also possessed religious beliefs. Of course there are countless others.

 

To say that religion "spits in the face of science" is to discount these men, and others like them. It is possible to be both religious and scientific.

 

I see a trend in your posts, which often displays rudeness and incivility to others, and for no obvious reason. Maybe you should take a look at that. Using swear words and inflammatory language does not reinforce your arguments - and in fact, it makes you look like a weak man, possessing weak skills of communication and scientific debate. I'm not calling you weak or trying to upset you, I'm simply suggesting that your methods make you appear weak and uneducated/unscientific.

 

I hope you wont take it the wrong way, I'm not making a personal attack, I'm simply commenting on the way you express your ideas. I'm sure you have some other qualities which are positive and desirable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Such people as Nicholas Copernicus, Sir Francis Bacon, Johannes Kepler, Galileo Galilei, Rene Descartes, Isaac Newton, Robert Boyle, Michael Faraday, Gregor Mendel, William Thomson Kelvin, Max Planck, and Albert Eistein were all men of science who also possessed religious beliefs. Of course there are countless others.

 

To say that religion "spits in the face of science" is to discount these men, and others like them. It is possible to be both religious and scientific.

 

Not without significant cognitive dissonance, hypocrisy, and/or double-standards.

 

Your appeal to authority does nothing to disprove my assertions, and I'd further like to point out how many of those men were deists, not theists. Additionally, their belief was quite often just part of the culture of their time, and not some profound choice based on the merit of the belief itself (as the words in your post seemed to imply).

 

I reject belief in god for the same reasons I reject belief in the tooth fairy, unicorns, and leprechauns. If you think that is a weak position, that's certainly your prerogative.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not without significant cognitive dissonance, hypocrisy, and/or double-standards.

 

I reject belief in god for the same reasons I reject belief in the tooth fairy, unicorns, and leprechauns. If you think that is a weak position, that's certainly your prerogative.

 

I don't think you have a weak position. Its' different than my own but so what, that does not weaken it. I don't think using a straw man approach, tossing out words like "magical thinking, fairy tales, tooth fairy, unicorns" or any number of fallacious tactics is appropriate when discussing views with your fellow man though. I think it shows frustration and hostility to do that.

 

I read your posts and I know you have some good arguments. So from that perspective, I do respect your viewpoint and I do not think your logical arguments are weak. I used to share those same views myself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, I am not a creationist, in the traditional sense. ...

 

:hyper: The current/recent challenges in US public schools also claim(ed) they are not putting forward any "traditional" arguments. Nevertheless, the creationism claim is religious in nature and foundation and both here and in the courts, that doG don't hunt. :dog:

 

You might follow through with your earlier suggestion for newbies to read what's here at Hypog first, as we have covered the subject ad nauseum. :read: Here's a ready source for all of us. :) Evolution and Creationism in Public Schools: Index of Court Cases

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Turtle,

 

I agree with you about teaching creationism in school. Preaching from the bible is not OK in public schools.

 

Evolution is well supported by science. It does not explain how the matter of the universe came into existence to begin with, or a number of other principles which people argue from science and intuition that God exists, but it helps explain how people came to exist in the form we are today. I believe in evolution. :)

 

I think it is OK to teach arguments for the existence of God in school, as long as it also teaches the primary objections along side. That's education, not indoctrination. :hyper:

 

You stated that the creationist claim is religious in nature. It is, if you take it from a religious text and preach it as the truth. The argument that the universe was created is not as well supported by science, and should be taught cautiously so that students understand what is evidence and what is theory etc.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Turtle,

 

 

I think it is OK to teach arguments for the existence of God in school, as long as it also teaches the primary objections along side. That's education, not indoctrination. :)

 

 

I vehemently disagree. (As if. :hyper: )I know how much, and what, is written here in our Hypog threads on the subject (let alone the outside links they contain) and you have introduced nothing new, let alone had enough time in your short residence to have read them. :read:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Should we also teach children the stork theory of childbirth?"

 

No. The stork theory is not a prevalent believe in our society and it has not shaped our society etc. It is not a highly debated subject or the source of contention between nations etc. Religion is relevant to the beliefs of most living people today, and is a very important societal issue. It is the foundation of many laws and Governmental systems. It's such a monumental issue that your attempts to try to make it seem trivial are misguided.

 

We all know you do not believe in religion, and you think it is at odds with science. Fair enough. But I wonder what you are trying to accomplish by trivializing the subject? It is a debate, with thousands of years of conflict and theory. If you really think it is so trivial, maybe you should think again.

 

Stick to your arguments from logic, that's your strong point. People will find your respectful arguments difficult to contend with.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...