Why creationists won't listen to rational arguments

[Kooky]

I do think simple explanations are the best sometimes . Like when we see a painting we think ' painter ' . Design , designer .
I think its self evident ,but we have to go off to expensive colleges and universities to be taught by professors and boffins to ignore this intuition .

The simplest explanation for why there is a tree next to my house is that the tree grew there all by itself.

 

[Jose Fly]

Yeah ,you just made my point . #39

You're dodging. You've expressed the belief that scientific explanations for the origin of the universe are equally as simplistic as "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth". So naturally I asked what specifically you've read regarding the scientific side.

So again, what scientific paper(s) and/or academic book(s) have you read?

 

[John1.12]

You're dodging. You've expressed the belief that scientific explanations for the origin of the universe are equally as simplistic as "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth". So naturally I asked what specifically you've read regarding the scientific side.

So again, what scientific paper(s) and/or academic book(s) have you read?

Isn't " we don't know " ,currently the leading answer?

 

[John1.12]

The simplest explanation for why there is a tree next to my house is that the tree grew there all by itself.

No one can argue that . I have one in my garden .

 

[John1.12]

Ones religious beliefs should not control what sciences one believes. If one admits to that one admits to being wrong.

Most Christians do not make your mistakes. You should be trying to understand why.

When science is science I don't have a problem with that .

 

[Jose Fly]

Isn't " we don't know " ,currently the leading answer?

You're still dodging, which leads me to conclude that the true answer to my question is that you've read nothing on the subject, but you have too much pride to admit it.

So unless you demonstrate otherwise, that's the conclusion I'll take from our discussion.

 

[John1.12]

You're still dodging, which leads me to conclude that the true answer to my question is that you've read nothing on the subject, but you have too much pride to admit it.

So unless you demonstrate otherwise, that's the conclusion I'll take from our discussion.

likewise .

 

[Mock Turtle]

I do think simple explanations are the best sometimes . Like when we see a painting we think ' painter ' . Design , designer .
I think its self evident ,but we have to go off to expensive colleges and universities to be taught by professors and boffins to ignore this intuition .

It's quite natural to look for the simpler explanations but folly when they turn out to be incorrect, which is why so many do leave their minds open if the evidence is inconclusive - and much worse when we try to fit the evidence so it corresponds with what we might want.

 

[John1.12]

It's quite natural to look for the simpler explanations but folly when they turn out to be incorrect, which is why so many do leave their minds open if the evidence is inconclusive - and much worse when we try to fit the evidence so it corresponds with what we might want.

Like molecules to man evolution?

 

[Mock Turtle]

Like molecules to man evolution?

I think you'll find that is pre-evolution - as in evolution describing how so many species arrived on Earth, not how life originated - and hence the TOE doesn't involve itself in that. Perhaps one day we will get there, and then the full theory can go up against Creationism - if still around then.

 

[Heyo]

This whole thread comes across like a bit of aggression, a thinly veiled insult directed at people that you consider your opponents. It's meant to put them down as intellectual inferiors, puff those like you up as the intellectually superior ones and hence seems like little more than trolling. An expression of spiritual immaturity, one might say.

Let's face it, believers in general and YEC specifically are intellectually inferior. It's just a result of the fact that you can't always win. Believers have faith, a trait non believers are completely lacking. 0 - non believers : 1 - believers. (And one should assume that the believers value their faith.) In exchange for their lack of faith, the non believers have intellect. And I don't say that believers completely lack in that category, they just have less. Now it's 1 : 1. (And the non believers value their intellect.)
That should serve both side. Everyone wins a bit, everyone loses a bit and both can be happy as they have more of that what they value more.
But believers are like spoiled little brats. They are not happy with what they got, they also want what the others got, preferably without working for it. While the believers were praying and reading their preferred holy texts, we were studying logic, rhetoric and science. We worked for our intellectual superiority, just as the believers worked for their spiritual superiority.

 

[PureX]

Many of these people are not being "attacked" out of the blue by vile rationalist hit squads while minding their business, but set up their beliefs as a deliberate reaction to the passive existence of science that has often been around for centuries in their respective culture.

But you aren't looking at it from their perspective. They have found a "truth" that works for them. It's because it works for them that they believe it to be true. (Same as you do, by the way.) And they want to share it for several reasons. One reason is that they assume you 'need' it, too, as they do. Another is that we all want universal acceptance of our ideals, because it validates them, and gives us added surety (i.e., control). It's the same reasons that 'rationalists' also tend to want to 'spread their truth around'.

And it's not that one might be deliberately "attacking" them. It's more that any contradiction to their accepted truth, is a lie. And lies are bad, we all agree. So they need to be exposed and eliminated. And that's what they seek to do.

In many cases, it is these people who go out of their way to attack established scientific consensus out of a combination of private, religious, political and economic reasons, and often it is academics who find themselves on the defensive, and unduly attacked for alleged blasphemy by simply doing their job.

They are attacking the lies they are encountering, as a defense against them and the damage they believe those lies can do to all of us. You think they are attacking, they think they are defending. This is a constant problem whenever humans clash. Each perceives the other as the 'aggressor'. And the only way to counter this phenomenon is to recognize it, and try to work past the blame game.

 

[Heyo]

I was actually about to create a thread on rationality vs irrationality in this argument. So thank you.

The reason why creationists won't listen to rational arguments, is because those "rational arguments are really just subjective opinions of irrational beings who think they are being rational, but really aren't.
That was a mouthful.
So let's debate. What are we debating? Creation vs evolution?

I think we've done that. And it isn't what you were supposing above. What about "rationality vs irrationality". Sure evolution and creationism are prime examples for the topic but I wouldn't constrict it to those. I'd especially enjoy finally someone supporting irrationality directly. These kind of discussions are often dishonest as the irrationalists try to sell their irrationality as rationality.

 

[PureX]

I think we've done that. And it isn't what you were supposing above. What about "rationality vs irrationality". Sure evolution and creationism are prime examples for the topic but I wouldn't constrict it to those. I'd especially enjoy finally someone supporting irrationality directly. These kind of discussions are often dishonest as the irrationalists try to sell their irrationality as rationality.

It's a different kind of rationale. A rationale based on emotional function rather than physical function.

 

[John1.12]

The simplest explanation for why there is a tree next to my house is that the tree grew there all by itself.

And the universe?

 

[Subduction Zone]

When science is science I don't have a problem with that .

LOL! You have no clue as to what science is.

 

[John1.12]

LOL! You have no clue as to what science is.

Observable and repeatable.. Let's stick to it .

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

you are assessing and judging their response to the world via your ideological paradigm, not theirs.

Yes, of course. You seem to imply that it should be otherwise. I try to see the world through their eyes in order to understand them, but even that will be evaluated by my values and beliefs, not those of the person whose thinking I reject.

So of course their response makes no sense to you.

What's there to understand bedsides that they don't use evidence, they don't use reason, they don't know the science they criticize, they make false claims, and they frequently have emotional reactions to it all in which they feel attacked. They're very predictable. Their thinking makes no sense because it is irrational.

And then you blame them, or dismiss them because it doesn't.

I dismiss them because they are irrational and arguing against what they don't understand. Why wouldn't I dismiss such opinions?

For someone who fancies themselves as a rationalist, that doesn't seem very rational.

I think it's very rational. What would be irrational would be to accept their unsupported opinions.

What if that is not possible for them? What if they just are not 'wired' that way?

Then they have to do the best they can wired the way they are. I've already mentioned that if they haven't been interested in a scientific education or in developing critical thinking skills, and now are underequipped to debate with those who possess those skills, yet still engage such people, then feel attacked when disagreed with, then they are responsible for the outcome.

If they don't like it, they can modify their Internet presence. If they keep coming back with new threads repeating their previous mistake and keep getting the same response, whose fault is that? Who has the power to change that?

If you were to encounter a large rock fallen onto your path, while hiking, is it more rational to alter your course, or to assume that the rock should alter it's; since it has fallen onto your path?

I would go around the rock, if not the first time, then after walking into it once to discover that I could not move it. The irrationalist will keep walking into it. He doesn't respond to evidence. His choices are faith-based. Perhaps he believes that he can move mountains with his faith, an irrational belief once its been tested and failed. He'll keep walking into the rock to demonstrate his faith.

And what good does knowing this do you? What good does it do him?

What good does it do me to understand how the creationist thinks? That's an odd question. For one think, it helps me understand the limitations in what is possible in a discussion with him.

What good does my knowing how he thinks do him? None.

Perhaps what is more important to know is how YOU think. And how you are being emotional/irrational. Because that would be the only area of thought that you would have any possible control over. And that could provide any meaningful change (for you).

They never understand how we think. They always get it wrong. How many have learned what an atheist is, or what an atheist believes or professes? I can't remember one that didn't think it means saying that gods don't exist.

Sorry, but you haven't made the case that I'm emotional or irrational, just the claim.

I'm happy with the changes I've made in the past, and can't find a reason to change how I view and interact with faith-based thinkers any further. My present approach works well for me. If you can suggest how it doesn't, I'll consider your opinion.

It may well not be his choice at all, as he does not have the ability to choose otherwise. And, there isn't really any way for you to determine this.

Nor do I need to. I'm not sure why you suggest otherwise. What matters to me is how that person is, not whether it is by choice or not. He does have the choice, however, to modify his comments if he doesn't like the responses they evoke, or as I suggested earlier, take it to a friendly and safe space in his tribe, where he will be agreed with - maybe an RF DIR for creationists only, or a Sunday school class in a fundamentalist church. His choice.

It's a mistake from your 'rationalist' paradigm. It's not a mistake from their 'emotionalist' paradigm, however. Once again you are expecting an apple to behave like an orange.

No, I expect them to act like apples. I don't see any mistake I've made here or in my approach to this matter. As I said, it's the culmination of an extended experience with such people, one in which I acquired information and modified my view as new data came along, more frequently at first, rarely later, and never now.

It's like a recipe one is creating. One makes larger changes initially (add lime, remove honey, twice as much salt), followed by smaller changes later (cook 25 minutes at 350 F rather than 30 at 325 F), and finally, when the desired taste and texture is achieved, no further changes. Likewise with this. Why fix what works?

What I am suggesting is that if we are here to learn from each other, the rational (effective) question is what can YOU learn from them, not what can they learn from you.

I don't learn from them in the sense that their words influence my beliefs (except about them). I learn from them by examining their thinking patterns and observing their responses to assorted comments and questions. I used to try to find the words to get through to them, but have learned from these interactions that that just doesn't happen however clearly things are explained. That's what I learn from them.

I really only learn new ideas from other skeptics and rationalists. That's why I have in the past called this activity atheist school. The lecture section is the discussions between the people participating with strong backgrounds in academic areas. Such people taught me most of what I know about climate science, for example, a few years back in another now defunct discussion forum - the geometry of a greenhouse gas, proxies for global warming, the insolation balance sheet, the Keeling curve, etc.. The creationists were able to contribute nothing of value to such discussions.

We can learn physics, geology, mathematics, chemistry, and biology from qualified teachers participating here. Need a little help with quantum entanglement or understanding clades and monophyly? We've got the people here qualified and willing to teach us. That's the lecture section.

And the lab section is the observation of the faith-based thinkers, where we tap the glass so to speak and note responses to effectively generalize about the spectrum of types present. What fraction of believers are educated and rational apart from their god beliefs? Some I wouldn't be able to tell are believers at all if they didn't announce it. Their beliefs are otherwise indistinguishable from my own. I simply never disagree with them (I'm thinking of a molecule and a bunny now)

Others just can't think well about anything, and have nothing of value to add other than to be another data point. They get everything wrong and understand almost nothing written to them.

And there are those that are between these extremes.

What is interesting is their relative distribution - what's common, and what's rare.

Yes, this is elitist, but I happen to think that elite is still a compliment. There are elites in every area - sports (MVPs), the military (special forces), Hollywood (Academy Award winners), science (nobelists), music (hall of fame), academia (Ivy League, Stanford), etc.. I admire them, not look down on them. These are people to emulate, not derogate. Of course, there are also elites that are unlikeable, but not because they are elites.

Dismissive? You bet. Elitist? I hope so. As I indicated, I believe that being elite is good and should be pursued. Be all that you can be. Human development including self-development, and human achievement, are humanist values. Be the best dancer or restauranteur you can. Reach for the ether. Become an elite of you have it in you.

Good discussion. It's remained unemotional and impersonal while covering interesting topics.

 

[Jose Fly]

There's an elephant in the room here that I think is important. In my 20 years of debating creationists one thing that's stood out to more than anything else is how consistently intellectually dishonest the typical internet creationist is. Asking them simple questions like "What have you read", or "What do you mean" usually results in hours and days chasing them around, trying to get them to answer.

I recall one time here when a creationist went on and on about how "transitional fossils" don't exist. So I asked an obvious and simple question....How are you defining "transitional fossil"? Like I described above, the creationist spent days dodging the question, never answered, and eventually accused me of some things and then put me on ignore. Yet all he had to do was define his own terms and we could've moved on.

And of course there's the poster child for creationist dishonesty, quote mining, where a creationist takes the writings of a scientist and cuts it up to make it seem like the scientist said something other than what he actually said. In all the times I exposed a quote mine after a creationist posts one, I've yet to see any of them respond with something like "Well that's not right; I'll stop using that source!". Instead, pretty much every one continued to use the same discredited source.

All this dishonesty stems from one basic factor.... creationism is an inherently dishonest proposition. It requires its advocates to deny and discount so much observed reality, it's impossible to advocate it in an honest manner.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Observable and repeatable.. Let's stick to it .

Like I said, you have no clue as to what science is or how it is done.

By the way, even your short version was wrong. It is the results that need to be observable and repeatable. Evolution is that.