ATTN: People Who Believe in Creation Myths

[BigBallinStalin]

@chang50:

I generally agree. What bothers me about philosophy is that testing soundness is often neglected. People don't really bother to check the empirical data and can't foresee consequences which are more apparent to other fields (like economics).

[tkr4lf]

This doesn't necessarily pertain to this thread, but I thought I should post it anyway.

People always seem to worship rationality and logic, as if they're the be all to end all.

Here's a good quote I quite enjoy from Einstein, someone who should be pretty well respected by most around here.

The intuitive mind is a sacred gift and the rational mind is a faithful servant. We have created a society that honors the servant and has forgotten the gift.

Rationality and logic is the be all and end all.
Intuition is merely filler where we are lacking certainty.

It's cool if you disagree, I was merely posting a quote that I like.

I do have to disagree that intuition is just filler for when we are lacking certainty. The definition of intuition is basically knowing something without any sort of rational reason for knowing it. I mean, it happens. There's not really any evidence, well, just anecdotal evidence.

Eh, anyway, I'm not really sure where I'm going with this and I keep losing my train of thought going back and forth between my speed game and trying to compose this message, so I think I'll just end it now.

I'd call intuition a 'gut feeling', perhaps with experience backing it, but most definitely without absolute knowledge, one way or the other.

Well, duh. That's kind of in the definition of the word.

[BigBallinStalin]

further... what is wrong with an academic believing something stupid? they too will fail. that's how the marketplace of ideas works.

I disagree, john. Adhering to incorrect ideas can still be profitable (i.e. psychic/mentally perceived profit), so the adherence would continue in the market of ideas.

Three Issues:

1) Updating
Some people refuse to update their positions, and/or are incapable of seeing beyond their cognitive biases. Aversion to truth-seeking can be rewarding, so perhaps some individuals choose not to question their fundamental beliefs for "good" reasons. ("good" as in "profitably sound")


2) Social attachments/club goods
Believing in creationism gives the individual access to a social network. Increased devotion to a common set of ideas signals to other members one's commitment to the group. It might be social attachments at work, and maybe club goods are available to members. Usually, there's some positive reinforcement mechanism at play, so the belief in the "incorrect" idea remains profitable.


3) Ignorance
The information is out there, but the individual doesn't have access to it. (If he does, see #1).

[Maugena]

2) Social attachments/club goods
Believing in creationism gives the individual access to a social network. Increased devotion to a common set of ideas signals to other members one's commitment to the group. It might be social attachments at work, and maybe club goods are available to members. Usually, there's some positive reinforcement mechanism at play, so the belief in the "incorrect" idea remains profitable.

Ugh. And that is exactly why I hate being an Atheist.
I want to find myself a pretty, interesting woman to be in a relationship with, but it seems more difficult seeing as there could potentially be this religious compatibility problem. And I sure as hell am NOT going to embrace some bullshit. Even if it's for the love of my life. I mean f*ck. The closest I'd get to converting would be if I did find the love of my life. I'd fake it if it meant I could be with her.

[BigBallinStalin]

2) Social attachments/club goods
Believing in creationism gives the individual access to a social network. Increased devotion to a common set of ideas signals to other members one's commitment to the group. It might be social attachments at work, and maybe club goods are available to members. Usually, there's some positive reinforcement mechanism at play, so the belief in the "incorrect" idea remains profitable.

Ugh. And that is exactly why I hate being an Atheist.
I want to find myself a pretty, interesting woman to be in a relationship with, but it seems more difficult seeing as there could potentially be this religious compatibility problem. And I sure as hell am NOT going to embrace some bullshit. Even if it's for the love of my life. I mean f*ck. The closest I'd get to converting would be if I did find the love of my life and I'd fake it if it meant I could be with her.

Leading a double life tends to create psychological issues... I wouldn't recommend it.


There's plenty of non-religious groups out there. Of course, your opportunities depend on the size of the town, its specialization of labor, etc. And you got the internet and it's billions of markets, clubs, etc. I'm guessing that the problem isn't being atheist; it's something else...

[john9blue]

further... what is wrong with an academic believing something stupid? they too will fail. that's how the marketplace of ideas works.

I disagree, john. Adhering to incorrect ideas can still be profitable (i.e. psychic/mentally perceived profit), so the adherence would continue in the market of ideas.

Three Issues:

1) Updating
Some people refuse to update their positions, and/or are incapable of seeing beyond their cognitive biases. Aversion to truth-seeking can be rewarding, so perhaps some individuals choose not to question their fundamental beliefs for "good" reasons. ("good" as in "profitably sound")


2) Social attachments/club goods
Believing in creationism gives the individual access to a social network. Increased devotion to a common set of ideas signals to other members one's commitment to the group. It might be social attachments at work, and maybe club goods are available to members. Usually, there's some positive reinforcement mechanism at play, so the belief in the "incorrect" idea remains profitable.


3) Ignorance
The information is out there, but the individual doesn't have access to it. (If he does, see #1).

these all apply on an individual and short-term level, but in the long term i don't believe they will prevent the most reasonable ideas from achieving the greatest success.

every new generation shatters some of the preconceived cognitive biases of their elders. social networks are not static. and the rapid spread of information in this day and age should help remedy #3. what truly influential person today doesn't have access to the internet?

[Maugena]

2) Social attachments/club goods
Believing in creationism gives the individual access to a social network. Increased devotion to a common set of ideas signals to other members one's commitment to the group. It might be social attachments at work, and maybe club goods are available to members. Usually, there's some positive reinforcement mechanism at play, so the belief in the "incorrect" idea remains profitable.

Ugh. And that is exactly why I hate being an Atheist.
I want to find myself a pretty, interesting woman to be in a relationship with, but it seems more difficult seeing as there could potentially be this religious compatibility problem. And I sure as hell am NOT going to embrace some bullshit. Even if it's for the love of my life. I mean f*ck. The closest I'd get to converting would be if I did find the love of my life and I'd fake it if it meant I could be with her.

Leading a double life tends to create psychological issues... I wouldn't recommend it.


There's plenty of non-religious groups out there. Of course, your opportunities depend on the size of the town, its specialization of labor, etc. And you got the internet and it's billions of markets, clubs, etc. I'm guessing that the problem isn't being atheist; it's something else...

You're right, I just don't try. /sadface

[john9blue]

Leading a double life tends to create psychological issues... I wouldn't recommend it.


There's plenty of non-religious groups out there. Of course, your opportunities depend on the size of the town, its specialization of labor, etc. And you got the internet and it's billions of markets, clubs, etc. I'm guessing that the problem isn't being atheist; it's something else...

You're right, I just don't try. /sadface

edit: no homo version:

show

[Maugena]

Leading a double life tends to create psychological issues... I wouldn't recommend it.


There's plenty of non-religious groups out there. Of course, your opportunities depend on the size of the town, its specialization of labor, etc. And you got the internet and it's billions of markets, clubs, etc. I'm guessing that the problem isn't being atheist; it's something else...

You're right, I just don't try. /sadface

edit: no homo version:

show

Haha... thanks.

Sorry for making this thread lame. :S

[natty dread]

Sorry for making this thread lame. :S

I object to your usage of ableist slurs.

However, a few things...

1. some people seem to be making a sort of false dichotomy between intuition and logic. Intuition is simply a natural part of the problem-solving process of the human mind. It's like a search algorithm of sorts - you have a problem, intuition proposes a solution for you... the only problem is if you stop there, instead of taking the process to it's end.

2. there's no such thing as "the love of your life". Maybe you mean something else by it, but I dislike the term because it implies there's some one person who is the greatest love for you and if things don't work out with that person then you'll never find a person you'll love as much. That's just wrong. Love isn't a pre-decided, deterministic attribute between any two persons - it's rather something that two persons "build up" for each other by being in a relationship. Of course there still needs to be at least some initial attraction between the two.

[PLAYER57832]

lemme play semi-devil's-advocate here

what's wrong with an ordinary person believing something stupid? why is it so bad for a working-class individual to believe something that is probably wrong? they aren't a "danger" to others... in fact, if they try to convince others that their beliefs are true, they will probably fail due to a lack of coherent reasoning.

further... what is wrong with an academic believing something stupid? they too will fail. that's how the marketplace of ideas works.

Individuals believe stupid stuff all the time, but its not science. And they are not allowed to hold up the certification of textbooks, force school districts across the country to actually change their teaching for fear of being brought into court, etc. They are brought into the light and resoundly declared "stupid". Creationists try to hide the lies behind religion.

I have no problem with someone saying "I believe Genesis... period". I have a LOT of problem with people saying they have PROOF that the Earth is young, that millions of scientists studying the Earth, geology, Chemistry, etc are wrong and that people pretending to be scientists put forward things they darned well ought to know are NOT scientifically based (not following standards for critique, testing, etc.). I particularly have a problem when any criticism of those people is met with "well, you are all just biased and anti=Christian".

Creationism is growing precisely becuase schools just don't have the time and teachers too often just don't have the training to teach real science. Even things like natural selection.. absolutely proven to occur, is often misstated.

[PLAYER57832]

every new generation shatters some of the preconceived cognitive biases of their elders. social networks are not static. and the rapid spread of information in this day and age should help remedy #3. what truly influential person today doesn't have access to the internet?

That only applies if the information being transmitted is real and true. And, if you have a reference point to understand what is and is not true. This is what is so very wrong with the Creaionist movement. IF it were just about where humans came from biologically, it would not be the huge problem it is. However, to believe what young earthers are saying you have to literally disbelieve vast realms of science. That they pretend this is not true actually makes it worse, because it teaches kids and young adults to NOT look at veracity, to NOT trust the scientific process.

For example, Creationist "scientists" are constantly trying to be published. No problem there, if they want to challenge accepted ideas.. fine. EXCEPT, they continually fail. They do very sloppy science at best, make false conclusions, etc. And many of their techniques frankly amount to flat out lying. I went through countless papers put up by the Creation Science institute. Many had no references at all, but several of those that did cited papers.. and then claimed the exact opposit of what the paper actually said. Any child taught to investigate would find that to be the case. But, they are not taught that. They are being taught exactly the opposite by young earth creationists.

Let's put it another way John. The world has seen many societies advance.. and then collapse.

[PLAYER57832]

But hey, it's my choice, I can teach whatever I want to my kid.

You should go ahead and do that. Teaching kids about religion and creation does not hinder their social interactions. You just think it makes them all idiots, which is also patently false.[/quote]
Teaching them ABOUT religion and creation absolutely doesn't make them stupid. Teaching them that creation beliefs are equal to science and disputing verified science, teaching outright lies as if they were true is not only harmful, it is flat out unChristian.

Christ does not teach his followers to lie. Believing Young Earth ideas requires being utterly ignorant of scientific processes, of how the Earth and geology works. It requires either lying or believing a lie.

[PLAYER57832]

[ Creationists should be taken on an individual basis, not lumped together and given no respect, especially when a creationist is not pushing his or her agenda. You can disrespect the idea without disrespecting the people who believe the idea. This thread wasn't created by a creationists. It was created by whatever pimpdave happens to be today (presumably atheist).

I absolutely agree with this fundamentally. However, the problem is that Creationists are flourishing in an environment of isolation and lack of education. Too many school districts are avoiding the dicussions because they are too worried about "no child left behind" or too afraid of lawsuits, etc.

They are not just innocuous bystanders wiht odd views. They are seriously impacting and impeding the education of ALL children in this country. They are not just believing what they believe and letting us go. They are actively attacking science on many, many fronts. Therefore, the pushback is not only warranted, it is extremely critical.

[BigBallinStalin]

further... what is wrong with an academic believing something stupid? they too will fail. that's how the marketplace of ideas works.

I disagree, john. Adhering to incorrect ideas can still be profitable (i.e. psychic/mentally perceived profit), so the adherence would continue in the market of ideas.

Three Issues:

1) Updating
Some people refuse to update their positions, and/or are incapable of seeing beyond their cognitive biases. Aversion to truth-seeking can be rewarding, so perhaps some individuals choose not to question their fundamental beliefs for "good" reasons. ("good" as in "profitably sound")


2) Social attachments/club goods
Believing in creationism gives the individual access to a social network. Increased devotion to a common set of ideas signals to other members one's commitment to the group. It might be social attachments at work, and maybe club goods are available to members. Usually, there's some positive reinforcement mechanism at play, so the belief in the "incorrect" idea remains profitable.


3) Ignorance
The information is out there, but the individual doesn't have access to it. (If he does, see #1).

these all apply on an individual and short-term level, but in the long term i don't believe they will prevent the most reasonable ideas from achieving the greatest success.

These can apply to any individual--depending on how he values these choices. Society is composed of individuals, so I don't see how your implied criticism is relevant (re: "apply on an individual").

RE: "long-term"
Religious beliefs have been fairly persistent for several millenia... And how long is long-term?

In the 1930s, there was the socialist calculation debate where Ludwig von Mises and F. A. Hayek basically slam dunked on those little bitches, but it didn't matter. The idea of socialism doesn't have to reconcile with logical arguments if its adherents hold fast to theoretical assumptions about empirical reality:

1. Capitalism fails
2. Socialist organization begins!
3. ??????
4. UTOPIA

60 years later, applied socialism failed. Thriving markets require property rights, law of contracts, prices, etc. It took over 60 years for many to find out the hard way (and many have yet to update, or suffer from persistent cognitive biases).

Just like with Creationism, the applicability of socialism doesn't stand up to intense scrutiny, yet the belief still holds... (Why? Primarily, because of reasons 1, 2, and 3.)

every new generation shatters some of the preconceived cognitive biases of their elders. social networks are not static. and the rapid spread of information in this day and age should help remedy #3. what truly influential person today doesn't have access to the internet?

RE: Question. Reread #3, it redirects to #1, which remains. Everyone is limited by their cognitive biases; some more so than others. New generations haven't shattered much about Creationism, so the belief remains. How do you explain that?


Not sure why "social networks are not static" is relevant.

[Maugena]

Sorry for making this thread lame. :S

I object to your usage of ableist slurs.

However, a few things...

1. some people seem to be making a sort of false dichotomy between intuition and logic. Intuition is simply a natural part of the problem-solving process of the human mind. It's like a search algorithm of sorts - you have a problem, intuition proposes a solution for you... the only problem is if you stop there, instead of taking the process to it's end.

2. there's no such thing as "the love of your life". Maybe you mean something else by it, but I dislike the term because it implies there's some one person who is the greatest love for you and if things don't work out with that person then you'll never find a person you'll love as much. That's just wrong. Love isn't a pre-decided, deterministic attribute between any two persons - it's rather something that two persons "build up" for each other by being in a relationship. Of course there still needs to be at least some initial attraction between the two.

Haha.

Regarding your #2, I agree. I suppose the brainwashing from Disney still hasn't run its course yet. It really was just a hypothetical statement, though.

[tkr4lf]

1. some people seem to be making a sort of false dichotomy between intuition and logic. Intuition is simply a natural part of the problem-solving process of the human mind. It's like a search algorithm of sorts - you have a problem, intuition proposes a solution for you... the only problem is if you stop there, instead of taking the process to it's end.

Some people? You mean Einstein?

Seriously though, there is a big difference between logic/rationality and intuition. Intuition, by definition, is devoid of all logic and reasoning.

The following is strictly anecdotal, so can be taken with a grain of salt, but it is true (or at least I believe her).

A long time family friend recently lost her son. On his 18th birthday he was shot in the neck by some gangster thug type walking down the street, for no reason. His sister was with him when it happened, and somehow she survived unscathed. The mother and father were at home sleeping, and right about the time that the shooting happened, the father woke up suddenly and proclaimed that something wasn't right, that something bad had happened. As it turns out, he was right.

Again, completely anecdotal, no true evidence for this sort of thing happening, but it does happen. And I truly see no hint of logic/reasoning in the above, simply intuition.

[john9blue]

@player:

you seem to have two major problems with YECs:

- you think that them forcing others to accept their YEC beliefs (e.g. by teaching them in schools) is wrong
- you think that them believing in YEC is wrong

i agree that the first one is wrong. but why is the second one wrong?

if you're willing to condemn YECs for believing that the earth is a few thousand years old, are you also willing to condemn native americans for believing that plants are spiritual beings?

@bbs:

you're correct in pointing out that religion is unique among most scientific ideas in that it has a great deal of staying power. the reason for this is because religion occupies a unique place in two domains: the philosophical/scientific domain, and the cultural domain.

religion's staying power is due to its beneficial impact on society (which is why i feel that atheism is a more dangerous belief than young earth creationism). this concerns the cultural aspect of religion.

the philosophical/scientific aspect of religion (YEC in particular) is minimal. most philosophers and scientists reject YEC due to the huge amount of evidence against it.

when i was talking about the marketplace of ideas, i had the philosophical/scientific domain in mind. that's the "academic" i mentioned. in this domain YEC does not have much of an impact at all.

you seem to be mostly concerned with the cultural aspect of YEC (and religion in general). i agree that in this "marketplace" (which is largely irrational compared to the other domain), inferior ideas such as YEC can flourish. but that's not what i had in mind with my earlier posts.

furthermore, why should we be concerned about the truth of an idea in the cultural domain? what is more important is the actual impact it has. i would argue that religion's ubiquitousness throughout history is solid evidence of its beneficial impact on a society/culture.

tl;dr academics shouldn't worry about YEC because none of them believe it anyway, and the average person shouldn't worry about YEC because it can be good for society.

but remember, this concerns YEC as an IDEA only. when you start forcing it on others, then that's an act of aggression and i disapprove (see my response to player above)

[natty dread]

1. some people seem to be making a sort of false dichotomy between intuition and logic. Intuition is simply a natural part of the problem-solving process of the human mind. It's like a search algorithm of sorts - you have a problem, intuition proposes a solution for you... the only problem is if you stop there, instead of taking the process to it's end.

Some people? You mean Einstein?

Seriously though, there is a big difference between logic/rationality and intuition. Intuition, by definition, is devoid of all logic and reasoning.

The following is strictly anecdotal, so can be taken with a grain of salt, but it is true (or at least I believe her).

A long time family friend recently lost her son. On his 18th birthday he was shot in the neck by some gangster thug type walking down the street, for no reason. His sister was with him when it happened, and somehow she survived unscathed. The mother and father were at home sleeping, and right about the time that the shooting happened, the father woke up suddenly and proclaimed that something wasn't right, that something bad had happened. As it turns out, he was right.

Again, completely anecdotal, no true evidence for this sort of thing happening, but it does happen. And I truly see no hint of logic/reasoning in the above, simply intuition.

Your anecdote is explained by confirmation bias. We always remember the times when we think of a friend and instantly afterwards he happens to call us, but we never remember the times when we think of a friend and nothing happens...

How many times had that father woken up and felt that "something was wrong", yet it turned out nothing was wrong? Probably lots. Yet, those events don't stay in our memory as clearly, as they're not as interesting. It's kind of like our brains are hard-wired to recognize patterns, so we superimpose patterns on things even where none exist...

As for intuition being devoid of logic, recent research suggests that it may not be that simple. Intuition seems to be a way for our consciousness to access unconscious information. When we solve a problem, intuition proposes a solution for us, and then it's up to us to use logic to evaluate that solution.

[natty dread]

i would argue that religion's ubiquitousness throughout history is solid evidence of its beneficial impact on a society/culture.

Religion is beneficial to society, because religion exists in society, because religion is beneficial to society...

♻

[john9blue]

i would argue that religion's ubiquitousness throughout history is solid evidence of its beneficial impact on a society/culture.

Religion is beneficial to society, because religion exists in society, because religion is beneficial to society...

♻

the appendix is beneficial to the human body, because the appendix exists in the human body, because the appendix is bene... oh wait your "circular reasoning" claim is bullshit as always.

[tkr4lf]

Your anecdote is explained by confirmation bias. We always remember the times when we think of a friend and instantly afterwards he happens to call us, but we never remember the times when we think of a friend and nothing happens...

How many times had that father woken up and felt that "something was wrong", yet it turned out nothing was wrong? Probably lots. Yet, those events don't stay in our memory as clearly, as they're not as interesting. It's kind of like our brains are hard-wired to recognize patterns, so we superimpose patterns on things even where none exist...

I would agree that confirmation bias can explain it, because likely it had happened many times before and nothing was wrong. But it's still intuition. Nobody ever said intuition is always correct.

I also agree that our brains are hard-wired to recognize patterns. I think it's our brain's attempt to impose order on a chaotic world. But that doesn't explain the odd phenomenon of somebody waking up at the time of their child's death and sensing that something bad has happened.

As for intuition being devoid of logic, recent research suggests that it may not be that simple. Intuition seems to be a way for our consciousness to access unconscious information. When we solve a problem, intuition proposes a solution for us, and then it's up to us to use logic to evaluate that solution.

Even assuming that the above is true, that intuition is simply our conscious mind accessing information stored in the unconscious mind, it's still an illogical thought that one would be acting on.

Let's say you suddenly get the feeling that something isn't right, so you start investigating to find out what it is that isn't right. As far as your conscious mind is concerned, the only reason you're investigating is because of a strange feeling you had. It's not because of any logical thought process, or based on any reasonable evidence. It's based on emotion, which is in and of itself illogical.

Even if there is a logical reason you received that emotion, the reason is unknown to your conscious mind, making acting upon that emotion an illogical response.

I'm not entirely sure I'm explaining my point well, so if this sounds like worthless rambling, well, it probably is.

[tkr4lf]

i would argue that religion's ubiquitousness throughout history is solid evidence of its beneficial impact on a society/culture.

Religion is beneficial to society, because religion exists in society, because religion is beneficial to society...

♻

the appendix is beneficial to the human body, because the appendix exists in the human body, because the appendix is bene... oh wait your "circular reasoning" claim is bullshit as always.

But the appendix isn't beneficial to the human body. It does nothing except occasionally rupture, forcing people to receive surgery or die. Maybe at one point it was beneficial to our bodies, but we must have evolved to the point where we don't need it, since modern science/medicine has revealed that it serves absolutely no purpose.

So, your response doesn't really work...

[john9blue]

i would argue that religion's ubiquitousness throughout history is solid evidence of its beneficial impact on a society/culture.

Religion is beneficial to society, because religion exists in society, because religion is beneficial to society...

♻

the appendix is beneficial to the human body, because the appendix exists in the human body, because the appendix is bene... oh wait your "circular reasoning" claim is bullshit as always.

But the appendix isn't beneficial to the human body. It does nothing except occasionally rupture, forcing people to receive surgery or die. Maybe at one point it was beneficial to our bodies, but we must have evolved to the point where we don't need it, since modern science/medicine has revealed that it serves absolutely no purpose.

So, your response doesn't really work...

that's exactly my point.

natty said that i claimed religion was beneficial just because it exists (i didn't). i gave an example of something that was not beneficial even though it exists.

edit: i suppose i didn't explicitly claim why i felt religion was still beneficial to society. i think that is partly a matter of perspective. but it is a different debate for a different thread.

[tkr4lf]

i would argue that religion's ubiquitousness throughout history is solid evidence of its beneficial impact on a society/culture.

Religion is beneficial to society, because religion exists in society, because religion is beneficial to society...

♻

the appendix is beneficial to the human body, because the appendix exists in the human body, because the appendix is bene... oh wait your "circular reasoning" claim is bullshit as always.

But the appendix isn't beneficial to the human body. It does nothing except occasionally rupture, forcing people to receive surgery or die. Maybe at one point it was beneficial to our bodies, but we must have evolved to the point where we don't need it, since modern science/medicine has revealed that it serves absolutely no purpose.

So, your response doesn't really work...

that's exactly my point.

natty said that i claimed religion was beneficial just because it exists (i didn't). i gave an example of something that was not beneficial even though it exists.

Fair enough. I thought you were trying to give an example where circular reasoning would be correct, or something. I don't know. Ignore my post.