Understanding

[Grengor]

It's all about understanding the other person's position. Only when you know your opponent can you not only understand him but his position at well. Only then do I consider actual beneficial conversation able to take place. I had the benefeit of being raised in "freethinker" atmosphere, and it's taught me to try and look behind the argument and into the person. "Why would a person say ___, unless he/she's concern was ___?"

This brings me to my point: So many times, an argument on Evolution/Creation would go in a circle, simply because the debaters couldn't see what the other person was trying to say, so confusion naturally breeds. I admit, I've not always followed my own "creed", but recent events have showed me that it's imperitive that I do so.

Surely someone has a similar philosphy, would anyone add anything?

 

[Grengor]

I'm thinking about writing an essay on the subject. Ah to be a wayward philospher.

 

[FreezBee]

Surely someone has a similar philosphy, would anyone add anything?

Yes, it's usually called ethical hermeneutics. Instead of forcing your own interpretation down on the other person, you actually try to understand, what he/she's saying. The problem with this approach in C&E is that people in general don't want to understand the opposite view at all - they are afraid they might learn something, maybe


- FreezBee

 

[Tenka]

I'm actually a reforming (mild) sociopath, I have to try very hard not to view the world and it's people through a proverbial window.
In a way this forum is a way to help me practise relating to people without the usual dangers. The 'alienness of some beliefs here is helpful.

 

[JohnR7]

This brings me to my point: So many times, an argument on Evolution/Creation would go in a circle, simply because the debaters couldn't see what the other person was trying to say, so confusion naturally breeds.

The reason creationists and evolutionists often do not understand each other, is because even when they speak the same language, they define the words different. They are using two different dictionarys. For example, some people seem to think that to evolve means to make progress. But to the evolutionist it does not mean progress at all, it only represents change.

 

[AnEmpiricalAgnostic]

The reason creationists and evolutionists often do not understand each other, is because even when they speak the same language, they define the words different. They are using two different dictionarys. For example, some people seem to think that to evolve means to make progress. But to the evolutionist it does not mean progress at all, it only represents change.

I agree that semantics play a big part in the confusion but I’d also like to add that it seems that it really has become a common modus operandi that a creationist will enter the debate, throw their best haymakers at the ToE (or what they think is the Toe, wich goes back to semantics) and then the exhausted supporters of the theory lash back. I haven’t seen anyone here conducting a civil rational discussion on the subject in a long while.

 

[JohnR7]

I agree that semantics play a big part in the confusion

Evolution is a word in our dictionary. Everyone believes in it to some degree. We just can not seem to find any agreement on what where we (creationists and evolutionists) agree, and where they do not agree. No one seems to quite know where to draw the line. Actually, that is one of the reasons why I like this board because the line is not so clear. When you have a YEC and a OEC it is a lot more clear where they disagree. The battle line is a lot more distinct.

 

[AnEmpiricalAgnostic]

Evolution is a word in our dictionary.

The fist problem stems from the fact that it has literally seven definitions in the dictionary I use alone.

Everyone believes in it to some degree. We just can not seem to find any agreement on what where we (creationists and evolutionists) agree, and where they do not agree. No one seems to quite know where to draw the line.

Because the line seems to be drawn depending on one’s interpretation of their religion. From what I see, the theist will agree until they feel uncomfortable reconciling their beliefs with evolution.

 

[JohnR7]

The fist problem stems from the fact that it has literally seven definitions in the dictionary I use alone.

Actually, it is a problem getting even hard core evolutionists to agree on just what evolution is. They do not debate among themselves so much here as they do when they get off on their own boards. Even the ID debate is a scientific debate between people who believe in evolution. Even if the arguement against it is that there is nothing scientific about it.

The two professors at Harvard could not even agree upon major aspects of the theory.

 

[TeddyKGB]

I'm thinking about writing an essay on the subject. Ah to be a wayward philospher.

We prefer the term "freelance philosopher" these days.

 

[Phred]

It's all about understanding the other person's position.

Nah... science doesn't give a flying hoot why a person says something, only whether they can back up what they say with evidence. For a forum like this, yes, the motivation for some of these ridiculous concepts is relevant. In the overall picture however, the motivation is meaningless.

 

[AnEmpiricalAgnostic]

Actually, it is a problem getting even hard core evolutionists to agree on just what evolution is.

It usually comes down to context. We could talk about the evolution of the music industry or even the evolution of Young Earth Creationism. I think gladys even dedicated a whole thread to this once.

The two professors at Harvard could not even agree upon major aspects of the theory.

I’d like to see the details of this.