Do creationist beliefs encourage anti-intellectualism?

[pitabread]

The issue with Wigner's friend is that superposition and waveform collapse are independent objective states. It is like saying something can be a liquid and solid at the same time. If objective states are not mutually exclusive but depend on whether they are under observation, the universe is not independently verifiable as we can only state what is true for a universe that is currently under observation rather than what it is in fact. An objective state may exist, but it is not what our direct observations are recording.

I don't dispute this as being a challenge when it comes to quantum mechanics and making observations thereof.

Pascal's wager takes us towards that, at least with all else being equal excluding all beliefs that do not provide a reward. The question then is no longer "does God exist?" but "Which god should I believe in?"

The issue I take with this is two-fold:

1) It seems to feed upon basic human greed and the idea of needing a reward in the first place; and,
2) It cheapens the idea of spirituality journeys down to shopping for an insurance policy.

I forgot to address your latter point, if we do not have the ability to choose our beliefs at least to some extent than the entire enterprise of argumentation is undermined. It also assigns disbelief a neutral value, which according to many of the views under consideration it is not as it is not held to be a passive holding out but a willful suppression.

The choice is not in the belief itself, but rather the information we expose ourselves to. In such cases, I think belief itself isn't a willful suppression, but rather the information that may result in one changing their beliefs.

For example, I've found that creationists largely avoid any educational material about the subject of biology and evolution. By doing so it's naturally easier to retain a disbelief in evolution.

 

[Mark Quayle]

You may not believe that all of the scientific evidence supports the theory of evolution, but you are of course wrong. You may not understand the claim. I am not saying that there cannot be evidence against the theory of evolution. It may be found some day. No one has found any yet. Your belief does not affect that.

Plus there is no scientific evidence for creationism. And that of course is the fault of creationists. Why believe something that not only has not supporting scientific evidence, but is contradicted by existing scientific evidence.

It appears from the last half of your post that you do not understand what either reliable evidence is and that you definitely do not understand what scientific evidence is. Existence is not scientific evidence for a creator.

Apparently to you, scientific evidence = empirical evidence. Your structures resemble (to me, granted) a house of cards. My point now is not to show that your house of cards is unstable, but that it is the reasoning concerning evidences that stacks the cards. Every step along the way, you make the same kind of assumption that I do, when I say that First Cause is the only explanation for the fact of existence. You see A, you propose an explanation. You see B, you see A as related, you propose an explanation.

Lines of reasoning are as necessary to science as data.

 

[Hans Blaster]

If that is the case, why are you on a religious forum? What you are arguing for is "positive proof." I suggest you read Karl Popper on the philosophy of science and why "falsifiability" is a more consistent standard. No matter how much positive proof you build, all it (hypothetically) takes is a single counter example to destroy the whole thing. Take, for example, the poll in question. Certainly, there are a lot of creationists who are anti-intellectual. A lot. But I am a creationist, and I think our conversation stands to show I am not opposed to intellectual conversation/topics. Simply because you have no time for philosophy and are content in begging the question doesn't mean philosophy is useless for determining truth, nor is science the only intellectual tool.

Cause I'm *not* on a religious forum or board, I'm on a pseudoscience forum (in this case "creationism") where I came to discuss pseudoscience (and real science, which is even better).

 

[Subduction Zone]

Are you saying science begins as a blank slate? Makes no claims from which to proceed in its investigation? What do you mean "works?" Does it predict things that are mechanical in nature? Absolutely, but does that mean the universe is fundamentally mechanical? I have no issues with the method, what I have a problem with is the transmission from tenative, contingent claims to metaphysical truth which is the move that atheists regularly attempt to make.

I am sorry, but I do not play silly nihilistic games.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Apparently to you, scientific evidence = empirical evidence. Your structures resemble (to me, granted) a house of cards. My point now is not to show that your house of cards is unstable, but that it is the reasoning concerning evidences that stacks the cards. Every step along the way, you make the same kind of assumption that I do, when I say that First Cause is the only explanation for the fact of existence. You see A, you propose an explanation. You see B, you see A as related, you propose an explanation.

Lines of reasoning are as necessary to science as data.

Not "to me". Scientific evidence is very well defined. The definition that I took came from Wikipedia, but there are many science based resources that use essentially the same definition. And no, you are projecting again. Your beliefs appear to be a house of cards. You refuse to place a strong base on your beliefs.

Scientific evidence consists of observations that support or refute a scientific hypothesis or theory. That is it. To have scientific evidence against evolution you would need to find an observation that goes counter to it. A failure of phylogeny would be a big one. The reason that there is no scientific evidence for creationism is because creationists are too afraid to put their beliefs in the form of a testable hypothesis. Without a hypothesis creationists cannot have evidence. That is their failure.

It also appears that you are not using the word assumption properly. What sort of assumption do you think that I make that is the same sort as you do? The only assumption made in the sciences is that the universe that we live in makes sense. It is counterproductive to not make that assumption. If you don't make that all you have is nihilism and that never accomplishes anything.

You also make the mistake of going beyond a "First cause" assumption. You make the unjustified assumption that some being had to be at the root of it. Right now the evidence seems to indicate that no such being is necessary.

 

[Fervent]

I don't dispute this as being a challenge when it comes to quantum mechanics and making observations thereof.

It undermines our confidence in the objectiveness of our observations entirely. At the very least it eliminates naive realism as a possibility, and calls into question whether we can know what the objective state of the universe is because all of our observations are contaminated by the fact that we must observe them indirectly.

The issue I take with this is two-fold:

1) It seems to feed upon basic human greed and the idea of needing a reward in the first place; and,
2) It cheapens the idea of spirituality journeys down to shopping for an insurance policy.

Yeah, though I primarily view it as a springboard rather than a final position. A basis for justifying entertaining the possibility of God rather than resting purely on the logical priority of agnostic skepticism.

The choice is not in the belief itself, but rather the information we expose ourselves to. In such cases, I think belief itself isn't a willful suppression, but rather the information that may result in one changing their beliefs.

For example, I've found that creationists largely avoid any educational material about the subject of biology and evolution. By doing so it's naturally easier to retain a disbelief in evolution.

Except we choose what we expose ourselves to, as your example demonstrates. Atheistic naturalists tend to gravitate towards other atheistic naturalists and rarely seriously engage with discussion with theists or consider our positions. There's an arm-folding demand to "prove it" and often there is an open hostility/condescension in the discussions. Occasionally there will be an adversarial sparring but rare is the skeptic who listens. Just like with creationists, if you never seriously consider a position it is easier to reject it.

On a related note(and somewhat ironic), Richard Dawkin's The Selfish Gene is what finally tipped the scales for me to accept creationism rather than fighting to hold on to both my love of the scientific method and my love for God.

 

[Fervent]

I am sorry, but I do not play silly nihilistic games.

Cool, keep assuring me that the world is supported by turtles.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Cool, keep assuring me that the world is supported by turtles.

The Earth is a self-gravitation body of rock and metal with a water ocean and a thin atmosphere of nitrogen and oxygen. It is the internal pressure of those substances that prevent the Earth from collapsing to a singularity. Turtles are only found on the surface (and nowhere else in the universe).

 

[Fervent]

J
There once was a woman who insisted the Earth rested on the back of a turtle. When asked what the turtle rested on, she said another turtle. This question-answer routine repeated a few times until recognition dawned on her face and she declared "there's turtles all the way down." Now, the atheist/agnostic crowd assures me there are turtles all the way down, but as soon as the turtle can no longer be seen my questioning becomes irrational and I am accused of being a nihilist. There never seems to be any willingness to justify their own premises, simply a desire for me to give up mine.

The Earth is a self-gravitation body of rock and metal with a water ocean and a thin atmosphere of nitrogen and oxygen. It is the internal pressure of those substances that prevent the Earth from collapsing to a singularity. Turtles are only found on the surface (and nowhere else in the universe).

I wasn't being literal, though I excuse you for not getting my self-reference.

 

[Hans Blaster]

On a related note(and somewhat ironic), Richard Dawkin's The Selfish Gene is what finally tipped the scales for me to accept creationism rather than fighting to hold on to both my love of the scientific method and my love for God.

Frankly, I'm not that surprised. There are certain arguments for the scientific reality that make it hard to hold the "middle position" of "evolution+Christianity". I frankly only was able to do so because I didn't explore the conflict between my faith and the scientific model of origins. (That my church didn't force the issue helped a lot.) When I did become strongly interested in "anti-creationism" it helped that the proponents of that bit of anti-science were also theologically wrong in other ways.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Cool, keep assuring me that the world is supported by turtles.

That appears to be your belief if anything. Why say such foolish things? Is it because you know that you cannot support your beliefs and you like to pretend that others cannot support theirs?

 

[Bradskii]

"I merely fail to believe Darwinian Evolution is true."

Bear in mind that to show the existence of God is false, something needs to be shown that shows it to be false.

The first sentence is incomplete. It should reference the fact that the person making it has either rejected basic scientific facts (and they would need to put forward an argument for why that is so) or has been given insufficient evidence (they need to be given more). Or that they reject it for reasons not associated with science. Maybe...I dunno...a religious belief that doesn't allow for the evolutionary process?

The second sentence is absolutely correct.

 

[Bradskii]

BTW I don't believe all those things; i.e. I fail to believe them all as a complete set (not individually). I'm not sure just what vapour-dome would entail; and, though I do not doubt the six days could be six days, such as we experience here as marked by sunset to sunset, the six days I believe could be six millenia or six epochs; but the notion that thorns showed up only after and as a result of the fall to me is not what the Bible says. "Cursed is the ground because of you; With hard labor you shall eat from it All the days of your life." to me doesn't mean that thorns and other such things weren't around before, nor do I recall reading in the bible that predators ate grass. Lol, in fact, to claim that they did not would invoke at least a certain amount of either creation after the fall, or evolution after the fall!

Science class isn't supposed to claim either evolution or creation as fact, but to show how both theories are said to work.

I agree with the 'throw the baby out with the bathwater' thing. But the 'baby' in this case (if by 'baby' you are referring to the theory of Darwinian Evolution) is not, after all, a being, but a compilation of many members —in fact, a compilation of interpretations of combinations of much raw data. "This would suggest that", and such, comes into play here. The data should be taught, and possible interpretations of the combinations with the logic behind the interpretations. Likewise, with the notion of First Cause and creation.

The 1960's school I grew up in, as you would suppose (a missionary kid's school), taught both, but with heavy emphasis on what was assumed fact, and what was not supposed fact was ridiculed. While I'm sure you would chafe at this method, I'm not so sure you would chafe at the opposite —that evolution be taught as necessary fact and creationism be taught, but ridiculed.

I basically agree with what you've said. Although in my 'baby and bathwater' comment I was proposing that someone looking to Christianity as a means to perhaps live a better life and find 'the truth' would listen to someone saying that herbivores became carnivores the afternoon that someone ate an apple and there was a dome and then thorns...might think - sheesh, this makes no sense. And reject not just that interpretation of scripture but might, reasonably, doubt the whole basis of that religion. As in 'If they got something as basic as that wrong, then what else is wrong'.

As I said earlier, it doesn't really worry me what people think. But truth be told, if I were a Christian, it would drive me up the wall. I'd be constantly trying to convince people that these fundamental beliefs should not, must not be taken seriously. They do not define what Christianity is meant to be. I'd be one very angry man...

And I believe that beliefs that are ridiculous leave themselves open to be ridiculed. Don't you find scientology ridiculous?

 

[Bradskii]

I don't need to provide a list.

Not at all. But if you say there are many scientist who have been rejected by the scientific community because of their religious beliefs then it's reasonable for someone to ask you to name some. And if you do, but everyone on the list turns out not to fullfil the criteria then it's reasonable to have that pointed out and to ask you if you'd like another attempt.

What seems unreasonable is for you to then say - no, I don't want to, you'll only find fault with them.

 

[Fervent]

Frankly, I'm not that surprised. There are certain arguments for the scientific reality that make it hard to hold the "middle position" of "evolution+Christianity". I frankly only was able to do so because I didn't explore the conflict between my faith and the scientific model of origins. (That my church didn't force the issue helped a lot.) When I did become strongly interested in "anti-creationism" it helped that the proponents of that bit of anti-science were also theologically wrong in other ways.

There is a degree of incompatibility, partly because methodological reductionism has been conflated with metaphysical reductionism. Of course a lot of the sloppy understanding of science comes from a sloppy ability to engage logically, and there is a strong thread of anti-intellectualism because there is a corolation between ability to think analytically and lack of religosity. That anti-intellectualism bleeds into theology as well resulting in a lot of bad theology based on a poor understanding of logic and rhetoric. I can't tell you how many Christians I have had to justify my attempts to learn Greek to from "Just use the KJV."

 

[Fervent]

That appears to be your belief if anything. Why say such foolish things? Is it because you know that you cannot support your beliefs and you like to pretend that others cannot support theirs?

It's a reference to infinite regress that is so often the fall-back for atheistic metaphysics. You assure me that every cause has an infinite number of causes, but if I question a cause you cannot explain the response I get is to discredit my skepticism. So you are like the woman who tells me that there are turtles all the way down when pressed on her belief that the world is on the back of a turtle by asking her what each subsequent turtle is based on.

 

[Hans Blaster]

It's a reference to infinite regress that is so often the fall-back for atheistic metaphysics.

Atheism isn't a philosophy, so why would it have "metaphysics"?

 

[Fervent]

Atheism isn't a philosophy, so why would it have "metaphysics"?

A common canard. Are you denying that the cohort "atheists" within academia do not tend to share common metaphysical commitments? There's a thing called "context" that informs semantics that makes it abundantly clear I was speaking of "atheist" in a narrow sense, not the broadest sense of the word.

From some of your responses(and I want to be clear this is not meant as an insult), are you on the spectrum?

 

[coffee4u]

All of that could be accepted as being true. And if it turned out that God didn't make the world in six days and there wasn't a vapour dome (or whatever it was) and thorns didn't just make an appearance after Adam ate some fruit then it wouldn't change any of those truths.

It doesn't concern me that you believe these things (although I seriously object to them being taught as facts in a science class). But do you appreciate that a lot of people listen to those who believe in creationism and associate these non-scientific views with Christianity as a whole. And then throw the baby out with the bath water.

Scripture isn't science it is truth.

Science is man's efforts to make sense of what he sees. To figure why things happen the way they do.

Both deserve their own class.

God told the ancient Israelite's to quarantine. They didn't understand why and he didn't explain. He knew mankind would eventually figure out about germs. I assume he likes to see mankind discover things. So there is nothing wrong with mankind using his intellect-

But he also gave us his word.
16 All Scripture is God-breathed 2 Tim 3:16
So that we would not be led astray by what we see. It was meant as a guide for discovery. Both to spiritual matters and to worldly matters.
When science disagrees with scripture it has gone astray.
Isaiah 53:6 We all, like sheep, have gone astray, each of us has turned to our own way
You choose to disregard it, I choose to follow it.

 

[Hans Blaster]

From some of your responses(and I want to be clear this is not meant as an insult), are you on the spectrum?

I'm into the electromagnetic spectrum.