Show me where dirt can form complex forms and component positioning over and over again and I'm all ears .
That's not possible with a creationist. His mind is closed to interpreting evidence any other way than that it supports his beliefs. Most, like you, imply that they can be taught given a compelling, evidenced argument, but a few have been refreshingly candid about the fact that their minds cannot be changed by evidence:
[1] The moderator in the debate between Ken Ham and Bill Nye on whether creationism is a viable scientific pursuit asked, “What would change your minds?” Scientist Bill Nye answered, “Evidence.” Young Earth Creationist Ken Ham answered, “Nothing. I'm a Christian.” Elsewhere, Ham stated, “By definition, no apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the scriptural record."
[2] "The way in which I know Christianity is true is first and foremost on the basis of the witness of the Holy Spirit in my heart. And this gives me a self-authenticating means of knowing Christianity is true wholly apart from the evidence. And therefore, even if in some historically contingent circumstances the evidence that I have available to me should turn against Christianity, I do not think that this controverts the witness of the Holy Spirit. In such a situation, I should regard that as simply a result of the contingent circumstances that I'm in, and that if I were to pursue this with due diligence and with time, I would discover that the evidence, if in fact I could get the correct picture, would support exactly what the witness of the Holy Spirit tells me. So I think that's very important to get the relationship between faith and reason right..." - William Lane Craig
[3] “If somewhere in the Bible I were to find a passage that said 2 + 2 = 5, I wouldn't question what I am reading in the Bible. I would believe it, accept it as true, and do my best to work it out and understand it."- Pastor Peter laRuffa
[4] “When science and the Bible differ, science has obviously misinterpreted its data. The only Bible-honoring conclusion is, of course, that Genesis 1-11 is actual historical truth, regardless of any scientific or chronological problems thereby entailed.” – creationist Henry Morris
Even though none of them use the word, all of these men except Nye are proud to tell you that their minds are shut. You cannot teach them about abiogensis because they've already decided that it didn't happen.
You, however, categorize all such experiences as hogwash, and ignore them. So, my cousin, who’s the one with their head in the sand?
Is that really a fair description of somebody who has heard the claims, considered the offered evidence in their support, and decided that they aren't sufficiently supported? The ones with their heads in the sand are the men I quoted above.
And for the record, I recognize why you won’t accept any supernatural account (out of the documented thousands) to be genuine…. You need all of them to be fake, to support your naturalistic worldview. I, on the other hand, only need 1 to be real, to support mine.
You're assuming that he thinks like the people cited above - that he has irrational prejudices believed by faith that cause him to dismiss compelling evidence a priori. That's how faith-based thought works. Critical thinkers have learned how not to do that. He goes from evidence to justified conclusion. The faith-based thinker doesn't do that. He only examines the evidence AFTER he has formed an opinion and understands it in the light of that belief.
Adjust their viewpoint, after assessing the source is reliable.
I asked, "What would you propose the critical thinker who has no such experiences himself [of spirits] do with that information [that somebody else claims to have experienced them]?" When I say that Sgt Pepper is somebody that I believe is sincere and thoughtful, that doesn't mean that I believe that she has actually contacted spirits. Maybe she has, maybe she hasn't. I don't think that opinion can or should be adjusted. I also don't think I should change my belief set or the way I deal with the topic, which is to ignore it. Even if she is correct about spirits and contacts them, that changes nothing for me and my world. I'd do nothing differently. I doubt that I would live any differently even if I contacted one myself.
What about the critical thinker who has experienced contact with intelligent invisible entities? Does he cease being a critical thinker? I’d say he becomes an even better critical thinker.
I'd need to know why he thinks he has experienced such contact. I have more experience with people claiming to know or experience a god. I don't consider them critical thinkers. I've had that experience myself, when I was a Christian. I now understand that I allowed myself to understand certain euphoric experiences as being a god contacting me when they were generated endogenously like a sense of beauty or a dream. Dreams are also frequently understood as received messages rather than as products of the mind. At one time, even creative impulses were understood as received rather than generated by human brains, hence the muses. If one creates a dance, for example, it was at Terpsichore's instruction.
So, no, if one tells me that he's had such contact, I would reject it as a sound conclusion derived from fallacy-free reasoning applied to evidence. My position remains agnostic, which IS what critical thought requires regarding propositions that can neither be confirmed nor excluded. And that is not to disparage Sgt Pepper. If anybody I've encountered has contacted spirits, it's probably her, but that still doesn't allow me to conclude that she actually has.
You’ve just described her as intelligent & thoughtful.
So believe her when she says she’s having these contacts.
That's not critical thought. One cannot go beyond
maybe she does to
she does without a leap of faith.
realize that natural methodologies might not be all there is!
Methodological naturalism (empiricism) is all we have to decide what is true or real. Other paths to belief are faith-based and don't generate knowledge.
Well, I never knew this! To hear you talk, I thought you wouldn’t have.
I wrote, "Accept the possibility of a god? I already do." I'm an agnostic atheist. What that means is that I have no god belief because I lack sufficient evidence to believe that gods exist - the atheist part - but that I don't say that gods do not or cannot exist - the agnostic part, just like with the spirits. That's as far as critical though can take one. There is no need to guess. One lives his life as if they don't exist until he has sufficient reason to believe otherwise.
