4 ms·

I had a one hour disagreement with someone at my college who was a creationist. Not only did he believe the world was only a few thousand years old, but he also

by jxcole 16y ago

I had a one hour disagreement with someone at my college who was a creationist. Not only did he believe the world was only a few thousand years old, but he also believed that at some point there were floating layers of ice in orbit around the earth. I completely disagreed with him on all fronts. However, I'm not sure that he was stupid. The impression I got was that he was working with a completely different set of axioms than I was. At some level, you can't ask why any more. There has to be some sort of core base to your beliefs. My core belief is in things like science and math. His core belief was in the concrete word for word truth in the bible. Intelligence didn't really play into it. When you think something is stupid, a lot of times it has to be with the core assumptions that underly their beliefs. Unearthing and understanding these beliefs and agreeing to disagree is very important.

btilly 16y ago
One of my best friends in grad school was a creationist. We discussed the subject exactly once. He realized that I knew rather more about the debate than he did, I knew there was no percentage in pushing it, and we both knew that neither person was going to change their opinions soon. So we found other things to talk about. I got him through his topology qual so he could get a masters. (He went on to get a PhD in math.) He introduced me to Linux. On the whole I think I got the better long-term bargain.
- eru 16y ago
  Seems reasonable. One interesting question you can ask each other is "What would it take to change your mind?". In a certain sense--which may remind you of Karl Popper, the weaker the conditions you can offer on which you'd change your mind, the stronger your standpoint is. Of course asking this question can be quite uncomfortable for yourself. For example, I like to think of atheism as the reasonable person's natural point of view. But I could not offer good conditions that would make me change my mind. Because I suspect I'd rather doubt my sanity than accept sensations that would be incompatible with no-gods.
deleted 16y ago
[deleted]
deleted 16y ago
[deleted]
gnaritas 16y ago
> His core belief was in the concrete word for word truth in the bible. Intelligence didn't really play into it. Intelligence plays a key role in that, that core belief didn't get there by accident and an intelligent mind would not allow such a stunningly ignorant belief like that to take hold. You can't believe the earth is a few thousand years old and also claim to be intelligent. You might be intelligent about other things but in this you'd have to be willfully ignorant to not know how wrong that is. A truly intelligent mind re-examines any belief that is called into question with reasonable evidence. Sticking to your beliefs against all evidence to the contrary is stupid, and it makes you stupid.
- eagleal 16y ago
  > an intelligent mind would not allow such a stunningly ignorant belief... I'm not sure about that. Maybe a scientific (ie. exploratory) mind would do that. However you're assuming that ignorance is any axioms except science axioms (which at their time are facts that will time they may change, ie. the more recent Global Warming). Same applies to the evidence reexamining. An analogy: if you know by experience (a lot of trial-error) that if you touch the red button, you will seriously hurt yourself, would you push it again to re-examine your previous knowledge? I think the same dogma applies to (blind) beliefs if you were not allowed to explore in the "exploratory age". EDIT: Trial-error of beliefs cannot be based on factual experience, since they can't exist (eg. is there a God? Does the Heaven exist?).
  - gnaritas 16y ago
    > Trial-error of beliefs cannot be based on factual experience, since they can't exist (eg. is there a God? Does the Heaven exist?). Yes, and it is foolish to hold beliefs that cannot be tested or validated in some way. Believing in that for which there is not or cannot be evidence is ignorant.
kalid 16y ago
You raise a good point re: assumptions -- I think the hidden axiom is "The bible is the literal word of God. Therefore, if there's a contradiction then my idea of a perfect God is flawed, and probably doesn't exist". Maybe I'm naive, but I cannot fathom how someone could -really- believe the world was N thousand years old (when there are trees 5000 years old!), and not as an elaborate way to defend their faith. In this context I think "believe" means "hope" -- "I hope the world is 6000 years old, because I need to reinforce my axiom of literal biblical truth" vs. "I believe the world is 6000 years old, and would bet money the radioactive dating on this piece of rock will say so (or that this tree will have no more than 6000 rings)." The separate question is what you call someone who easily believes / defends ideas which are easily disproven -- if not stupid, then gullible? Naive?
- nl 16y ago
  These ideas aren't easily disproven. The evidence you are giving (basically carbon dating) is widely disbelieved by creationists: http://www.google.com/search?q=carbon+dating+false http://www.google.com/search?q=carbon+dating+false Basically they find themselves enough problems with the theory of carbon dating that it lets them keep an internally consistent model (eg, "yes, I am a rational person, but all those scientist using carbon dating didn't take into account the effect changes in the earths magnetic field have on Carbon 14 production" http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/nab/does-c14-disprove-the-bible http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/nab/does-c14-dispro...) Yes, you can disprove this too. But soon you are requiring such a level of knowledge that you and the other person are just quoting random sources from the Internet. Sure, your sources may be real peer-reviewed journals and theirs may be blogs, but then you'll have to prove your sources are better than theirs (which isn't easy, given the amount of valid criticism peer-reviewed journals get). Soon the argument will come down to authority on the internet you'll end up arguing that Perelman's (Fields medal winning) non-peer reviewed solution to the Poincaré conjecture is okay, but other crazy theories in the same pre-print archive are not okay because umm.. they just aren't. I agree they are gullible. But I don't think proving it is as easy as you may think.
  - sp332 16y ago
    >Sure, your sources may be real peer-reviewed journals and theirs may be blogs Or they might just start a peer-reviewed journal to point at. This one's been around for a while. http://creation.com/periodicals#journal_of_creation http://creation.com/periodicals#journal_of_creation There's even a pretty sophisticated cosmological model that tries to fix some of the timescale issues. http://www.icr.org/article/seven-years-starlight-time/ http://www.icr.org/article/seven-years-starlight-time/ This kind of thing makes the argument even harder.

by jxcole 16y ago

btilly 16y ago

One of my best friends in grad school was a creationist. We discussed the subject exactly once. He realized that I knew rather more about the debate than he did, I knew there was no percentage in pushing it, and we both knew that neither person was going to change their opinions soon. So we found other things to talk about. I got him through his topology qual so he could get a masters. (He went on to get a PhD in math.) He introduced me to Linux. On the whole I think I got the better long-term bargain.

eru 16y ago
Seems reasonable. One interesting question you can ask each other is "What would it take to change your mind?". In a certain sense--which may remind you of Karl Popper, the weaker the conditions you can offer on which you'd change your mind, the stronger your standpoint is. Of course asking this question can be quite uncomfortable for yourself. For example, I like to think of atheism as the reasonable person's natural point of view. But I could not offer good conditions that would make me change my mind. Because I suspect I'd rather doubt my sanity than accept sensations that would be incompatible with no-gods.

deleted 16y ago

[deleted]

deleted 16y ago

[deleted]

gnaritas 16y ago

> His core belief was in the concrete word for word truth in the bible. Intelligence didn't really play into it. Intelligence plays a key role in that, that core belief didn't get there by accident and an intelligent mind would not allow such a stunningly ignorant belief like that to take hold. You can't believe the earth is a few thousand years old and also claim to be intelligent. You might be intelligent about other things but in this you'd have to be willfully ignorant to not know how wrong that is. A truly intelligent mind re-examines any belief that is called into question with reasonable evidence. Sticking to your beliefs against all evidence to the contrary is stupid, and it makes you stupid.

eagleal 16y ago
> an intelligent mind would not allow such a stunningly ignorant belief... I'm not sure about that. Maybe a scientific (ie. exploratory) mind would do that. However you're assuming that ignorance is any axioms except science axioms (which at their time are facts that will time they may change, ie. the more recent Global Warming). Same applies to the evidence reexamining. An analogy: if you know by experience (a lot of trial-error) that if you touch the red button, you will seriously hurt yourself, would you push it again to re-examine your previous knowledge? I think the same dogma applies to (blind) beliefs if you were not allowed to explore in the "exploratory age". EDIT: Trial-error of beliefs cannot be based on factual experience, since they can't exist (eg. is there a God? Does the Heaven exist?).
- gnaritas 16y ago
  > Trial-error of beliefs cannot be based on factual experience, since they can't exist (eg. is there a God? Does the Heaven exist?). Yes, and it is foolish to hold beliefs that cannot be tested or validated in some way. Believing in that for which there is not or cannot be evidence is ignorant.

kalid 16y ago

You raise a good point re: assumptions -- I think the hidden axiom is "The bible is the literal word of God. Therefore, if there's a contradiction then my idea of a perfect God is flawed, and probably doesn't exist". Maybe I'm naive, but I cannot fathom how someone could -really- believe the world was N thousand years old (when there are trees 5000 years old!), and not as an elaborate way to defend their faith. In this context I think "believe" means "hope" -- "I hope the world is 6000 years old, because I need to reinforce my axiom of literal biblical truth" vs. "I believe the world is 6000 years old, and would bet money the radioactive dating on this piece of rock will say so (or that this tree will have no more than 6000 rings)." The separate question is what you call someone who easily believes / defends ideas which are easily disproven -- if not stupid, then gullible? Naive?

nl 16y ago
These ideas aren't easily disproven. The evidence you are giving (basically carbon dating) is widely disbelieved by creationists: http://www.google.com/search?q=carbon+dating+false http://www.google.com/search?q=carbon+dating+false Basically they find themselves enough problems with the theory of carbon dating that it lets them keep an internally consistent model (eg, "yes, I am a rational person, but all those scientist using carbon dating didn't take into account the effect changes in the earths magnetic field have on Carbon 14 production" http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/nab/does-c14-disprove-the-bible http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/nab/does-c14-dispro...) Yes, you can disprove this too. But soon you are requiring such a level of knowledge that you and the other person are just quoting random sources from the Internet. Sure, your sources may be real peer-reviewed journals and theirs may be blogs, but then you'll have to prove your sources are better than theirs (which isn't easy, given the amount of valid criticism peer-reviewed journals get). Soon the argument will come down to authority on the internet you'll end up arguing that Perelman's (Fields medal winning) non-peer reviewed solution to the Poincaré conjecture is okay, but other crazy theories in the same pre-print archive are not okay because umm.. they just aren't. I agree they are gullible. But I don't think proving it is as easy as you may think.
- sp332 16y ago
  >Sure, your sources may be real peer-reviewed journals and theirs may be blogs Or they might just start a peer-reviewed journal to point at. This one's been around for a while. http://creation.com/periodicals#journal_of_creation http://creation.com/periodicals#journal_of_creation There's even a pretty sophisticated cosmological model that tries to fix some of the timescale issues. http://www.icr.org/article/seven-years-starlight-time/ http://www.icr.org/article/seven-years-starlight-time/ This kind of thing makes the argument even harder.