"Oh, well that's your opinion"

[Aught3]

So suddenly opinion is too good for these people. If they reject both facts and opinion what's left? Believing because it's absurd?

 

[Giliell]

Well, everything has its time, as we say in German.
Friendly dialogue is for when you think there might be a chance of convincing your "opponent", of showing them "the error of their ways".
In case of most creationists that might be useless, but it's a good strategy for everyday problems like people parking in front of the disabled/baby-pram ramp.
Next step is a hard, merciless debate. In this case you clearly have no intention of convincing your opponent. You want to win the bystanders, those on the fence by destroying your opponents arguments (the arguments, not the person) piece by piece.
Ridicule also has its uses, but it works best if done in a group to a group. A fellow German here on the board (was it Maffiaaffe?, no clue, bad memory for names) pointed out that this might be the reason why there are so few creationists over here: they're laughed at, collectively. Individually they are pitied and patronized. Nobody wants to belong to such a group.

"That's your opinion" simply shows the disrespect for and ignorance of the scientific method again.

 

[ImprobableJoe]

So suddenly opinion is too good for these people. If they reject both facts and opinion what's left? Believing because it's absurd?

That goes back to the point I'm making. They accept things that fit their underlying understanding of the world... and, maybe more importantly, they accept things that come from sources that reinforce that worldview. Maybe they don't even value the concept of understanding things, and instead value and support the views that come from their in-group.

 

[5810Singer]

So suddenly opinion is too good for these people. If they reject both facts and opinion what's left? Believing because it's absurd?

That goes back to the point I'm making. They accept things that fit their underlying understanding of the world... and, maybe more importantly, they accept things that come from sources that reinforce that worldview. Maybe they don't even value the concept of understanding things, and instead value and support the views that come from their in-group.

Aren't they always talking about "the mystery of God," "the mystery of faith," etc, etc? (see emphasis)

I think you inadvertently hit the nail on the head there Joe.

 

[ImprobableJoe]

Aren't they always talking about "the mystery of God," "the mystery of faith," etc, etc? (see emphasis)

I think you inadvertently hit the nail on the head there Joe.

Well, it wasn't exactly inadvertent... I probably would have gotten around to it eventually. Had to go make a pot of coffee.

Invoking all of the "mystery" nonsense is a way to preserve belief in the face of contrary evidence. The underlying reason for that is the belief that their religious faith is valuable, and part of that value is maintaining their position in the in-group. So when we're coming at them with evidence and facts and logic, and those things contradict their religion, we're not just presenting them with new facts. We're inadvertently attacking their in-group, what the believe is the source of their values and maybe even their [i[personal value as a human being.[/i]

Science doesn't trump someone's sense of community and sense of self.

Oh, and I'm editing this to add one more thing, so you don't think I accidentally forgot it :lol: :

I'm not sure if religious people even really believe the things that they say. They believe that their faith is a good thing, but I'm not sure they actually understand the details enough to really believe any of it. They believe in belief, and that's part of the problem in talking to them.

 

[5810Singer]

I'm not sure if religious people even really believe the things that they say. They believe that their faith is a good thing, but I'm not sure they actually understand the details enough to really believe any of it. They believe in belief, and that's part of the problem in talking to them.

I know exactly what you mean, and I agree 100%.
In fact this very thought has been rattling round my head for a couple of weeks.

Most fundies seem to me like kids playing make believe, and kids playing make believe know that their fantasies aren't real, but they can still get pretty bent out of shape over them.

It's my sincere opinion that fundies suffer from some form of arrested development that prevents them from using their adult reasoning.

 

[Gnug215]

Actually....

In connection with my thread (the one OP mentions) and with what I was talking to ImpyJoe about, I'd actually like to see some "personally oriented narratives".
Like a narrative about how a piece of everyday technology, like the computer, works, and what scientific theories and concepts are behind that, and how some of those theories and concepts support the various positions that go against Creationism. (It's probably important that it isn't worded in a manner that states how these theories and concepts disprove Creationism.)

I've actually just asked a similar thing in my thread, but now it's here, too.

 

[Sinue]

What we maybe need to do is create a compelling narrative to compete with the narrative presented by religious people, pseudoscience supporters, and conspiracy theorists. That we have facts on our side is almost secondary to the issue of presenting those facts in an emotionally meaningful way.

I'm not even sure this is a wise move. There's a huge temptation to anthropomorphize when you apply the connectivity of human emotion to describe a mechanical universe, and from there it starts to be moralized. Such endeavors haven't turned out well for the Environmental movement. People are still rather ignorant about the ecosystem, the climate, and biology... but it presents lots of potential for flaunting moral superiority to each other, like old women comparing clothes at church. Bleh.

I saw a thread on a conspiracy site where someone who thought they knew evolution and science was trying to glean "life lessons" from Evolution - such as "Don't kill those of your own species", "take only what you need", "respect your fellow life forms", "respect the planet, and keep it clean", etc. All of which "enlightened truths" run quite contrary to what we observe in nature or are completely irrelevant to evolution.

I replied to it, ending it with this note.

Evolution doesn't have to be a bad thing.

Evolution is not good or bad. It just is. You know what would make Evolution a bad thing? Turning it into a religion. Of course, it would just be the silly interpretative and moralized belief structures of men projected onto some other arbitrary and mindless mechanistic process of the universe.

Might as well be worshiping the lightning bolts and thunder of gathering storms again for all the enlightenment you'll get.

And of course, a "survival of the fittest" Social Darwinist had a different interpretation on the enlightenment the story of Evolution....

I prefer to think of evolution as brutal and unfair.

Reality doesn't care what you prefer to think. It just is. It can be gentle and belligerent. Fair - and unjust. It can be both simultaneously, because it is neither. It doesn't care. It can't care. Appearances of gentility and aggressiveness are just subjective perceptions of the circumstances of an objective moment.

And then of course, the narcissistic "Indigo Children" came in with their quantum mysticism and Christian Fundamentalists with their bibles... and well, it's not pretty. If you care, the thread is here.

I'm not saying it's a bad idea, or that it can't work, but I've had nothing but negative experiences with trying to put evolution and science in general in more "human" terms, and with dealing with other people who try to do the same.

 

[Gnug215]

I'm not even sure this is a wise move. There's a huge temptation to anthropomorphize when you apply the connectivity of human emotion to describe a mechanical universe, and from there it starts to be moralized. Such endeavors haven't turned out well for the Environmental movement. People are still rather ignorant about the ecosystem, the climate, and biology... but it presents lots of potential for flaunting moral superiority to each other, like old women comparing clothes at church. Bleh.

I agree that there's a danger in this, but it depends on how you do it.

My suggestion is mostly to use as a starting point something everyone can relate to, like, their own computer, and connect that to science.

I suppose it's not so much a narrative as it is an explanation of scientific facts as it pertains to practical items that we all can relate to.

Oh, and that forum you mention sounds like a fun place.

 

[Squawk]

But after you do such an explanation and they come back with "oh, well that's your opinion", how on earth do you respond?

I have absolutely no idea. I can think of lots of things and I know that each and every one will bounce off without making a dent.

The problem is one of basic philosophy, not science. It is a question of methodology and acceptance. You have a person who is more inclined to accept dogma than observation, more inclined to accept the supernatural than the empirically testable. Such a person cannot be reasoned with in the space of a few minutes. A series of discussions over the course of a year or two, maybe. A one off, waste of time.

 

[obsidianavenger]

The problem is one of basic philosophy, not science. It is a question of methodology and acceptance. You have a person who is more inclined to accept dogma than observation, more inclined to accept the supernatural than the empirically testable. Such a person cannot be reasoned with in the space of a few minutes. A series of discussions over the course of a year or two, maybe. A one off, waste of time.

this is the problem exactly.

 

[ImprobableJoe]

But after you do such an explanation and they come back with "oh, well that's your opinion", how on earth do you respond?

I have absolutely no idea. I can think of lots of things and I know that each and every one will bounce off without making a dent.

The problem is one of basic philosophy, not science. It is a question of methodology and acceptance. You have a person who is more inclined to accept dogma than observation, more inclined to accept the supernatural than the empirically testable. Such a person cannot be reasoned with in the space of a few minutes. A series of discussions over the course of a year or two, maybe. A one off, waste of time.

I think that's where we need to start building a counter-effort that not only presents new facts, but also creates an acceptance of the methods and standards of logic and reason. That's one of the narratives we need to push... not so much stories about specific facts, but ones that allow people to understand the underlying foundational stuff that is based in skepticism and rationality.

 

[Sinue]

I agree that there's a danger in this, but it depends on how you do it.. My suggestion is mostly to use as a starting point something everyone can relate to, like, their own computer, and connect that to science.

True, and for some that's a good start until they experience their first "epiphany" when they finally start cross applying what you tell them and it starts coming together. But it's really something they themselves are going to have to want, because you can't force open a mind that is hell bent on maintaining their delusions. In my experience, I've noticed that many of those who were brought out of religion, especially by that Zeitgeist rubbish, have only stripped their previous judeo-christian worldview of the ornaments, and have filled the void with more modern legends and lore - building a new worldview on ideas like dualism and the noble savage as if they're true just because they're so pervasive in our culture. Nature becomes god, the government/finance/buisness and church the devil, sometimes aliens as angels, and replace the fall of man with the noble savage. It's sad, because people like my cousin are genuinely curious about the universe and damned well smart enough to get it, but they fall into that "new religion" trap and have only succeeded in rejecting his old religion for the new one he custom built.

It's like trying to build a new structure on a piece of land, you have to tear out the old foundations or else everything else has to adapt to or work around it. For a lot of older generations, this might not be easily accomplished - but for children still in school as the next generation who will inherit our world, I think it would be far easier. Richard Dawkins had a great idea of impressing upon teachers that school isn't so much about filling young minds with knowledge, but "debugging" common sense and "human perception" to see the universe for what it is... possibly giving them toys and games which mimic or familiarize them to these concepts early. Toys in which the rules of the game operate on the physics of the very small and very large to get their minds out of only "middle world" and form the necessary mental shortcuts & models necessary to conceptualize the very big and very small.

I think there may be some merit to this, because when I was young I was very much into dinosaurs and because of that, I read Crichton's Jurassic Park. Now, I know he's just a fiction writer... but that book introduced me to the mindset of complexity theory and bottom-up organization, reinforced by a "Chaos" program on the PC that let me play around with models for strange attractors and fractal sets and whatnot. And considering how unintuitive it seems for most people to think in terms of complex systems and emergence. I wonder if what worked for me could work for others. I think a significant portion of the problem with people understanding evolution (outside of religion) may be that evolution & common ancestry (as well as abiogenesis) are themselves examples of emergence from the bottom up.

And I also think we need a new science superstar like Carl Sagan who can inspire as well as educate. Dawkins is about the most likely candidate in my mind, but his vocal Atheism is too polarizing IMO. This can cause entrenchment into fundamentalist views, and justify the persecution complex. Stubbornness and abrasive tactics are unwise, because fundies have already mastered that skillset millenia ago. You can't win, and their worldviews are more appealing to most of those who are hesitant to accept unpleasant truths for what they are. Better to have someone who speaks on a more broadly human level and can humanize people's conception of science in a way that speaks to our nobler ambitions and the wonderment driving us forward, but yet can still firmly define and keep that boundary between the rightly emotional observer and the mechanistic universe being observed.


(Btw: Speaking of that Chaos: The Software program, one thing I miss about DOS and old computers is that you didn't have the memory/disk space to waste on in-depth explanatory resources... and there was no Wikipedia/Internet... so software often came with user-friendly books about the subject matter you could keep on your bookshelf long after the floppy disks corrupted. And while the info is more available now than ever online, I still miss those physical and tangible "books". Now I've gone and made myself kind of sad with nostalgia. )

Oh, and that forum you mention sounds like a fun place.

Depends on your definition of "fun". I only go there to debate, and to expose myself to worldviews and opinions contrary to my own. (Can't change your opinion if you never allow it to be challenged, after all) But after a few months it gets to the point where the negativity and bleakness starts to sap your soul, and there's a very real danger for breaking your nose from constant face palming. There's quite a few bright posters there, and even more who's intelligence shines, though sadly dimmed by a thick veneer of bullshit. That's the worst part... the wasted potential of those still lost in the howling wilderness.

 

[borrofburi]

possibly giving them toys and games which mimic or familiarize them to these concepts early. Toys in which the rules of the game operate on the physics of the very small and very large to get their minds out of only "middle world" and form the necessary mental shortcuts & models necessary to conceptualize the very big and very small.

Those would be interesting... Not sure how you'd do it.

I think there may be some merit to this, because when I was young I was very much into dinosaurs and because of that, I read Crichton's Jurassic Park. Now, I know he's just a fiction writer...

I was taught from a young age that the universe is made of tiny little particles. I work with atoms rather well, but **** quantum mechanics.

 

[Squawk]

Can I propose Ken Miller as the perfect charsimatic person to get people interested in science. The guy is a first class presenter.

 

[Sinue]

Can I propose Ken Miller as the perfect charsimatic person to get people interested in science. The guy is a first class presenter.

Yeah, Ken is one of the names which comes to mind. In regards of charisma and stage presence, I think Steven Pinker would actually be much more apt. Though Ken would have a far better reputation and mass perception as a representative of science in general, considering the general public sees Psychology as rather soft science. After all, self-help quackery camouflaged as psychology have their own subsection is some book stores... but when was the last time you saw a self-help book on evolution, genetics, or chemistry?

There's just not that level of general trust in accuracy and confidence when comparing psychologists to chemists, physicists, or biologists.

 

[Gnug215]

True, and for some that's a good start until they experience their first "epiphany" when they finally start cross applying what you tell them and it starts coming together. But it's really something they themselves are going to have to want, because you can't force open a mind that is hell bent on maintaining their delusions. In my experience, I've noticed that many of those who were brought out of religion, especially by that Zeitgeist rubbish, have only stripped their previous judeo-christian worldview of the ornaments, and have filled the void with more modern legends and lore - building a new worldview on ideas like dualism and the noble savage as if they're true just because they're so pervasive in our culture. Nature becomes god, the government/finance/buisness and church the devil, sometimes aliens as angels, and replace the fall of man with the noble savage. It's sad, because people like my cousin are genuinely curious about the universe and damned well smart enough to get it, but they fall into that "new religion" trap and have only succeeded in rejecting his old religion for the new one he custom built.

It's true that many will likely replace one belief with another, but I'm actually not talking so much about breaking down their faith in God as I am talking about breaking down their disbelief and mistrust of science. These people should be shown clear, tangible, irrefutible evidence of working science - science they themselves not just believe in, but know to be true.
One their mistrust in science has been dealt with, then it might just be possible to instill in them a more skeptical view on claims that aren't supported scientifically. Well, that's a bit of a stretch, but at the very least we might be able to get rid of this stupid idea that science is a conspiracy of hostile (to them) and unsupported beliefs.

It's like trying to build a new structure on a piece of land, you have to tear out the old foundations or else everything else has to adapt to or work around it. For a lot of older generations, this might not be easily accomplished - but for children still in school as the next generation who will inherit our world, I think it would be far easier. Richard Dawkins had a great idea of impressing upon teachers that school isn't so much about filling young minds with knowledge, but "debugging" common sense and "human perception" to see the universe for what it is... possibly giving them toys and games which mimic or familiarize them to these concepts early. Toys in which the rules of the game operate on the physics of the very small and very large to get their minds out of only "middle world" and form the necessary mental shortcuts & models necessary to conceptualize the very big and very small.

And I also think we need a new science superstar like Carl Sagan who can inspire as well as educate. Dawkins is about the most likely candidate in my mind, but his vocal Atheism is too polarizing IMO. This can cause entrenchment into fundamentalist views, and justify the persecution complex. Stubbornness and abrasive tactics are unwise, because fundies have already mastered that skillset millenia ago. You can't win, and their worldviews are more appealing to most of those who are hesitant to accept unpleasant truths for what they are. Better to have someone who speaks on a more broadly human level and can humanize people's conception of science in a way that speaks to our nobler ambitions and the wonderment driving us forward, but yet can still firmly define and keep that boundary between the rightly emotional observer and the mechanistic universe being observed.

I've actually been thinking a lot about this myself, and I really felt RD was on the right track when he talked about this stuff; teaching people how the mind can trick you, and basically learn to think critically.
He has, however, seemingly turned his focus more to atheism and anti-theism, which wouldn't bother me in the least if it weren't for the fact that this seems to have removed his focus from what I think would have helped more (the stuff mentioned above.)

Ken Miller was also (as seen in other posts here) the first person that came to my mind, actually, but I'm sure there are others qualified for this that we haven't seen yet.

Depends on your definition of "fun". I only go there to debate, and to expose myself to worldviews and opinions contrary to my own. (Can't change your opinion if you never allow it to be challenged, after all) But after a few months it gets to the point where the negativity and bleakness starts to sap your soul, and there's a very real danger for breaking your nose from constant face palming. There's quite a few bright posters there, and even more who's intelligence shines, though sadly dimmed by a thick veneer of bullshit. That's the worst part... the wasted potential of those still lost in the howling wilderness.

I looked at the thread you linked to. I saw one other bright mind, one weirdo, and one creationist. Not entirely lost, but well...

I agree that one should seek out challenges, but once it all devolves into antagonism, then all is truly lost.

 

[Sinue]

It just dawned on me a little bit ago that another good candidate for a science celebrity would be Robert Ballard. I know some people have mixed feelings on him, but he's well known to the public for his discovery of the Titanic and he can give one hell of an inspirational speech. He's also in a unique position to plead the case for increased science and reason given the limitations of the tools we have to explore Earth's last and largest frontier. He exudes a zest for discovery, and delivers the very large left-field discoveries that the public loves.

I looked at the thread you linked to. I saw one other bright mind, one weirdo, and one creationist. Not entirely lost, but well...

I agree that one should seek out challenges, but once it all devolves into antagonism, then all is truly lost.

Yeah, Astyanax is one of the few posters there who has my utmost respect. Though he doesn't post nearly often enough. Sadly, it takes far more effort to correct a misconception than it does to just spout bullshit - so rational minds are few and far between there.

 

[Dragan Glas]

Greetings,

We seem to be discussing this in several different topics...

As I've posted elsewhere, one of the problems is the fact that - on YouTube - videos are being posted by both sides in the "debate" (whether openly or as "double-agents", secretly attempting to damage their "opponents" with OTT videos).

Personally, I believe that's one of the contributing factors to the problem - "debates" tend to be antagonistic/confrontational in nature; what's needed is to approach it as a "discussion" - like a group discussing a topic around a table. Or as two people standing side-by-side - instead of face-to-face - looking at the same thing (Edward De Bono made this point in one of his books).

Another part of the problem is - as has been pointed out - the name-calling, etc., which just causes the victim to "switch off" - to close an already half-closed (due to the fact they "know" you're going to try to "convert" them to your way of thinking) mind.

Again, it's not about "lacking intelligence".

I've posted this link before - and will include it in my proposed "Critical Thinking Resources" article: perhaps I should simply link to the video(s) instead...

This could be called The Tortuca Approach.

For simplicity's sake, here is the video of his talk (in three parts) - his delivery is rather fast, so you may prefer to read the article of his talk at the above link:

Part 1



Part 2



Part 3



I've also posted - in Gnug's topic - the suggestion of approaching the subject by using the idea of "guided probability", to counter the Literalists' idea of a "random" or "pure chance" (Big Bang) Cosmos and/or Evolution.

As the Big Bang ("Creation") resulted in the Laws of Nature, they essentially restrict what can happen ("all things are possible" really becomes "some are more probable than others") - the laws of physics "guide" what's possible for energy and matter in the formation of galaxies, stars, etc; the laws of chemistry "guide" the fact that the chemical elements react with some better than others to form compounds, etc - hence, everything that happens in the Cosmos is based on "guided probability", including evolution.

The question they should ask is not "How does Science explain the origin of Life?" but "How did God do it?"

Answer: Guided probability.

Of course, they'll ask, "What about the soul?".

The fact is - for theists/deists - the body is to the soul as clothes are to the wearer. Our bodies are just "clothing for the soul".

There is a difference (a division) between the physical and spiritual aspects of reality.

In this way, you get past the argument about "Why are we here, then, if all we are is a body?"

They'll accept evolution as part of the pre-determined physical Creation which was started by God through the Big Bang - evolution is just another "domino" in the chain of guided probability of physical reality.

I realize that critical thinkers - atheists and others - may not accept the above explanation, ... BUT it would be accepted by theists (and particularly Literalists - which are the people you're trying to reach.)

It provides the "wedge" - something to "shoe-horn" into Literalists the fact that evolution is *not* "The End Of God/Faith". From there - in time - one can get them to start to think critically about "life, the universe and everything".

Kindest regards,

James

 

[Aught3]

The above approach might work to soften a literalist but then you a lift with the problem of believing that evolution is 'guided' when no such assumption is necessary or even likely.