Do you understand those on the other side?

[Jose Fly]

As I've pointed out many times (probably too many times), I grew up in a fundamentalist Christian environment. I was taught young-earth creationism from an early age, was told prayer and reading the Bible were the answer to most of life's problems and questions, and witnessed all sorts of "interesting" things such as speaking in tongues, faith healing, end times predictions, etc.

Yet despite being completely immersed in this culture, I can't recall a time in my life when I ever believed any of it. However, unlike some of my peers at the time I didn't really find it boring. In fact, I found a lot of it to be rather fascinating because.....very little of it made any sense to me. I just could not understand the people, their beliefs, their way of thinking, or much of anything that I saw and heard. When I saw them anointing with oil someone who had the flu and later saw the virus spread (of course), I could not understand what they were thinking. When I saw them make all sorts of failed predictions about the Soviet Union and the end times, yet never even acknowledge their errors while continuing to make more predictions, I was baffled. Speaking in tongues was of particular interest to me because it really made no sense to me.

In the years that I've been debating creationists it's the same thing. When I see them say "no transitional fossils" or "no new genetic information" only to ignore examples of those things when they're presented, I can't relate to that way of thinking at all. When I see them demand evidence for things only to ignore it after it's provided, I can't relate. When I see them quote mine a scientific paper and after someone points it out they completely ignore it, I can't relate.

Now to be clear, I think I "understand" some of what's behind these behaviors (i.e., the psychological factors), but what I don't understand is how the people engaging in them seem to be completely oblivious to it all. What goes on in their mind when they demand "show me the evidence", ignore everything that's provided in response, and then come back later and make the same demand all over again? Are they so blinded by the need to maintain their beliefs that they literally block out all memories of it? Again....I just don't get it.

So the point of discussion for this thread is....how about you? For the "evolutionists", can you relate to the creationists' way of thinking and behaviors? For the creationists, are there behaviors from the other side that baffle you, and you just don't understand? Do you look at folks like me and think to yourselves, "I just cannot relate to his way of thinking?"

Or is it just me?

[Jose Fly]

Indeed, and perhaps the worst is how widespread this is, including a former President who is only semi literate, claiming he "has the best words" while his admirers are so deficient they actually believe him... or pretend to.

In that setting I can kind of understand the behaviors. It strikes me as mostly tribalism coupled with anxiety over looming loss of status and privilege.

The stories the original Dunning and Kruger included in their research stunned me. I recall one where the worst student in the professor's class approached him when he received his grade. The student was smiling confidently as he spoke of the "clerical" error about his failing grade. He spoke as if he actually believed and the professor 'knew' he was the top student in the class.
It surprises me, even tho' I've experienced the same thing. After completing my undergraduate work, I taught Intro to Sociology, just one class, one quarter because the head of the dept. was (obviously ) desperate. After the grades came out, a kid (ironically a professor's son) approached me about his grade. He seldom came to class, never did any work and in the one test he took, got the lowest grade in the class. I do not know where such lack of self awareness comes from.

Exactly! It's the apparent complete lack of self-awareness that's baffling. How can they not see what they're doing? How can they think no one else sees it?

I have relatives who love the televangelist Jim Bakker. They gave him a fair bit of their money in the 1980's, and even after he was exposed as a scammer living a ridiculously lavish lifestyle, they insisted that he was a "Godly man and a good Christian". Now that Bakker is out and has yet another televangelism scheme, they're giving him their money again!

I try and avoid singular and simplistic explanations for things, because reality is often more complex than most folks realize. With the above, it seems to me to be a combination of tribalism, lack of critical thinking skills, lack of self-awareness, self-delusion, and some other things.

Yes, the behavior is baffling. We had a guy on this subtopic insist you had not referred to Young Earth Creationism in the OP, but only creationism in general. Even when the quote from the OP was specifically pointed out, he continued to insist on the contrary. There is little point in reading, and even less in responding to this kind of behavior; ignorance touted as knowledge.

Yep, it's positively bizarre. In that case, I'd throw in a high level of pride as a factor as well.

[JoeyKnothead]

I've stopped reading your posts, so consider that when composing another lengthy diatribe, probably not the best use of your time.

Yet one more in a long line of Christians who come here thinking only their questions regarding worthy of a response.

I remind the observer, this'n here's ducking on on whether he believes the Bible claim/s of Jesus' resurrection 're truth.

Let that sink in - a promoter of Truth(tm) just can't bring himself to answer a question so fundamental to that belief.

And now has the temerity to take the time to tell us all he's stopped reading my posts - as if that's gonna keep me from calling out his hypocrisy every chance I get.


NOTICE TOO, HE WAS FINE RESPONDING UNTIL I CALLED OUT HIS HYPOCRICY regarding demands for definitions when I ask questions, while offering no definitions when he asks em.


"INQUIRER" IS SUCH AN APT NAME, CAUSE IT'S OBVIOUS YOU HAVE NO ANSWERS.


How can it possibly be that I, likely the least educated among us, can scare off so many JUST BY ASKING A QUESTION?


Lomfpoc

[Inquirer]

....
Just the other day I was reading some of my very old (2006) exchanges with a creationist, where she kept insisting that I'd never addressed a page from AiG. No matter how many times I showed that I did (by posting a link to where I did and even reposting my rebuttal), she just kept repeating "You ignored the AiG page I posted". IMO, that's not only bizarre, it's borderline psychotic.

"Our research suggests that there may be a problem of overconfidence getting in the way of learning, because if people think they know a lot, they have minimal motivation to learn more," Light said. "People with more extreme anti-scientific attitudes might first need to learn about their relative ignorance on the issues before being taught specifics of established scientific knowledge."

....
So maybe that's part of what's going on with these folks? They overestimate their own expertise while greatly underestimating their ignorance, so when they're provided papers and other scientific material, they figure they don't even need to look at it because they think they already know more about the subject than just about anyone.
....
I recall a time when our youth pastor was warning us about all the horrible things that Islam teaches its followers, so I asked her if she'd ever read the Quran. Nope. Had she ever spoken with a Muslim? Nope. Had she ever even met a Muslim? Nope. Nevertheless, she fully believed herself to be more knowledgeable about Islam than any Muslim.

It truly is bizarre to behold something like that.

Indeed, and perhaps the worst is how widespread this is, including a former President who is only semi literate, claiming he "has the best words" while his admirers are so deficient they actually believe him... or pretend to.

The stories the original Dunning and Kruger included in their research stunned me. I recall one where the worst student in the professor's class approached him when he received his grade. The student was smiling confidently as he spoke of the "clerical" error about his failing grade. He spoke as if he actually believed and the professor 'knew' he was the top student in the class.
It surprises me, even tho' I've experienced the same thing. After completing my undergraduate work, I taught Intro to Sociology, just one class, one quarter because the head of the dept. was (obviously ) desperate. After the grades came out, a kid (ironically a professor's son) approached me about his grade. He seldom came to class, never did any work and in the one test he took, got the lowest grade in the class. I do not know where such lack of self awareness comes from.

Yes, the behavior is baffling. We had a guy on this subtopic insist you had not referred to Young Earth Creationism in the OP, but only creationism in general. Even when the quote from the OP was specifically pointed out, he continued to insist on the contrary. There is little point in reading, and even less in responding to this kind of behavior; ignorance touted as knowledge.

Accuracy is important in the sciences, clarity of the spoken and written word are paramount if one wants to avoid misunderstandings. Those in the soft sciences can perhaps be forgiven for not appreciating this but those of us who understand the importance of precision like we see in mathematics, physics, engineering and computing will notice such sloppiness.

Can you please show me where anyone - me or anyone - insisted "you had not referred to Young Earth Creationism in the OP"? where did anyone insist that?

With this in mind, let us review the OP to which you inaccurately referred:

As I've pointed out many times (probably too many times), I grew up in a fundamentalist Christian environment. I was taught young-earth creationism from an early age, was told prayer and reading the Bible were the answer to most of life's problems and questions, and witnessed all sorts of "interesting" things such as speaking in tongues, faith healing, end times predictions, etc.

Yet despite being completely immersed in this culture, I can't recall a time in my life when I ever believed any of it. However, unlike some of my peers at the time I didn't really find it boring. In fact, I found a lot of it to be rather fascinating because.....very little of it made any sense to me. I just could not understand the people, their beliefs, their way of thinking, or much of anything that I saw and heard. When I saw them anointing with oil someone who had the flu and later saw the virus spread (of course), I could not understand what they were thinking. When I saw them make all sorts of failed predictions about the Soviet Union and the end times, yet never even acknowledge their errors while continuing to make more predictions, I was baffled. Speaking in tongues was of particular interest to me because it really made no sense to me.

In the years that I've been debating creationists it's the same thing. When I see them say "no transitional fossils" or "no new genetic information" only to ignore examples of those things when they're presented, I can't relate to that way of thinking at all. When I see them demand evidence for things only to ignore it after it's provided, I can't relate. When I see them quote mine a scientific paper and after someone points it out they completely ignore it, I can't relate.

Now to be clear, I think I "understand" some of what's behind these behaviors (i.e., the psychological factors), but what I don't understand is how the people engaging in them seem to be completely oblivious to it all. What goes on in their mind when they demand "show me the evidence", ignore everything that's provided in response, and then come back later and make the same demand all over again? Are they so blinded by the need to maintain their beliefs that they literally block out all memories of it? Again....I just don't get it.

So the point of discussion for this thread is....how about you? For the "evolutionists", can you relate to the creationists' way of thinking and behaviors? For the creationists, are there behaviors from the other side that baffle you, and you just don't understand? Do you look at folks like me and think to yourselves, "I just cannot relate to his way of thinking?"

If you read the last three highlighted sentences you'll see that he deliberately left out any qualification as to what type of creationists he was critiquing. Had he written "young earth creationists" then I'd be agreeing with you, but as you can see, he did not he wrote "creationists" without any qualifying prefix. Furthermore the quotations of mine that you are referring to are absolutely correct, I wonder if you'd gain some benefit in a writing class, I'm sure it would help you.

[JoeyKnothead]

...
...I wonder if you'd gain some benefit in a writing class, I'm sure it would help you.

This you?...

... if you want to know if the resurrection story is true then you have to be clear on whether your seeking scientific support or historic support, you do not know what kind of truth your seeking so I cannot answer your question.

"Is that you, Dunning?"

"Naw man. It's me, Kruger."

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to Inquirer in post #392]

Yes that is weird, some Christians probably do that but so too do some atheists. Consider how some confidently claiming "Evidence for God doesn't exist", being shown examples of it, ignoring them, and later repeating "Evidence for God doesn't exist".

This is probably because what is being presented as evidence by the theist is not considered evidence by the atheist, who may demand empirical evidence but even that term can have different meanings. Wikipedia's article on Empirical Evidence starts with this (underline mine):

There is no general agreement on how the terms evidence and empirical are to be defined. Often different fields work with quite different conceptions. In epistemology, evidence is what justifies beliefs or what determines whether holding a certain belief is rational. This is only possible if the evidence is possessed by the person, which has prompted various epistemologists to conceive evidence as private mental states like experiences or other beliefs. In philosophy of science, on the other hand, evidence is understood as that which confirms or disconfirms scientific hypotheses and arbitrates between competing theories. For this role, it is important that evidence is public and uncontroversial, like observable physical objects or events and unlike private mental states, so that evidence may foster scientific consensus.

If I were presented "evidence" that god(s) exist and it was something like the Kalam cosmological argument, or some claim such as the universe cannot have created itself therefore a god must exist, or that the person cannot fathom how something as complex as a human being could arise without the input of a god and therefore this god must exist, I'd not consider any of those as evidence but rather opinions or philosophic ramblings.

Do you have any evidence that gods of any kind exist now, or ever did exist, that would qualify as empirical evidence in the philosophy of science context as underlined above (ie. the evidence is public and uncontroversial, like observable physical objects or events and unlike private mental states (or opinions))? This is generally the kind of evidence most atheists that I know are referring to when they ask for evidence of the existence of gods. If you have such evidence, please present it. I doubt anyone would ignore it, but if it is some philosophical argument presented as evidence or proof you'll likely be rightfully challenged on it.

[Jose Fly]

If I were presented "evidence" that god(s) exist and it was something like the Kalam cosmological argument, or some claim such as the universe cannot have created itself therefore a god must exist, or that the person cannot fathom how something as complex as a human being could arise without the input of a god and therefore this god must exist, I'd not consider any of those as evidence but rather opinions or philosophic ramblings.

But the key difference is, you would at least acknowledge the argument and respond to it. The behavior I'm talking about is when a creationist is presented something they insisted doesn't exist, they ignore it completely. They don't acknowledge it, address it, or offer any sort of response to it at all. Then a bit later they just repeat that it doesn't exist (sometimes even adding that no one has shown them anything).

That happened yet again in this thread.

[Inquirer]

[Replying to Inquirer in post #392]

Yes that is weird, some Christians probably do that but so too do some atheists. Consider how some confidently claiming "Evidence for God doesn't exist", being shown examples of it, ignoring them, and later repeating "Evidence for God doesn't exist".

This is probably because what is being presented as evidence by the theist is not considered evidence by the atheist, who may demand empirical evidence but even that term can have different meanings.

The universe and laws of nature is empirical evidence, at least last time I looked.

[Inquirer]

If I were presented "evidence" that god(s) exist and it was something like the Kalam cosmological argument, or some claim such as the universe cannot have created itself therefore a god must exist, or that the person cannot fathom how something as complex as a human being could arise without the input of a god and therefore this god must exist, I'd not consider any of those as evidence but rather opinions or philosophic ramblings.

But the key difference is, you would at least acknowledge the argument and respond to it. The behavior I'm talking about is when a creationist is presented something they insisted doesn't exist, they ignore it completely. They don't acknowledge it, address it, or offer any sort of response to it at all. Then a bit later they just repeat that it doesn't exist (sometimes even adding that no one has shown them anything).

That happened yet again in this thread.

I've acknowledged all of your arguments that are worthy of such a lofty term, and they are stunningly deficient, that's why I remain unconvinced. You can only see what you want to see in your evidence, for you the fossil record is the result of continuity so all you can see is continuity, its called wishful thinking, confirmation bias.

Confirmation bias is the tendency to search for, interpret, favor, and recall information in a way that confirms or supports one's prior beliefs or values.[1] People display this bias when they select information that supports their views, ignoring contrary information, or when they interpret ambiguous evidence as supporting their existing attitudes. The effect is strongest for desired outcomes, for emotionally charged issues, and for deeply entrenched beliefs.

That describes most of the people here who have ignored the huge problems the fossil record presents.

For me the fossil record also was proof of continuity (I'd been told that a hundred times in books and TV and accepted it without question) until I manned up and was frank about what I needed to see to convince me beyond doubt, its the emperors new clothes, brain washed evolution devotees can only see what the so desperately want to see.

[Diogenes]

[Replying to Inquirer in post #392]

Yes that is weird, some Christians probably do that but so too do some atheists. Consider how some confidently claiming "Evidence for God doesn't exist", being shown examples of it, ignoring them, and later repeating "Evidence for God doesn't exist".

This is probably because what is being presented as evidence by the theist is not considered evidence by the atheist, who may demand empirical evidence but even that term can have different meanings. Wikipedia's article on Empirical Evidence starts with this (underline mine):

There is no general agreement on how the terms evidence and empirical are to be defined. Often different fields work with quite different conceptions. In epistemology, evidence is what justifies beliefs or what determines whether holding a certain belief is rational. This is only possible if the evidence is possessed by the person, which has prompted various epistemologists to conceive evidence as private mental states like experiences or other beliefs. In philosophy of science, on the other hand, evidence is understood as that which confirms or disconfirms scientific hypotheses and arbitrates between competing theories. For this role, it is important that evidence is public and uncontroversial, like observable physical objects or events and unlike private mental states, so that evidence may foster scientific consensus.

If I were presented "evidence" that god(s) exist and it was something like the Kalam cosmological argument, or some claim such as the universe cannot have created itself therefore a god must exist, or that the person cannot fathom how something as complex as a human being could arise without the input of a god and therefore this god must exist, I'd not consider any of those as evidence but rather opinions or philosophic ramblings.

Do you have any evidence that gods of any kind exist now, or ever did exist, that would qualify as empirical evidence in the philosophy of science context as underlined above...? This is generally the kind of evidence most atheists that I know are referring to when they ask for evidence of the existence of gods. If you have such evidence, please present it. I doubt anyone would ignore it, but if it is some philosophical argument presented as evidence or proof you'll likely be rightfully challenged on it.

This is really the point, evidence, evidence that can be tested. I'm willing to concede that there are many ways of knowing, but the problems with those not related to empiricism can 'prove' ANYTHING. There is no reliable way to distinguish between personal divine revelation and the ravings of a lunatic. The book of 'Revelation' is an example. So is the Book of Mormon. An epistemology has to be able to separate gods from goblins

[Inquirer]

[Replying to Inquirer in post #392]

Yes that is weird, some Christians probably do that but so too do some atheists. Consider how some confidently claiming "Evidence for God doesn't exist", being shown examples of it, ignoring them, and later repeating "Evidence for God doesn't exist".

This is probably because what is being presented as evidence by the theist is not considered evidence by the atheist, who may demand empirical evidence but even that term can have different meanings. Wikipedia's article on Empirical Evidence starts with this (underline mine):

There is no general agreement on how the terms evidence and empirical are to be defined. Often different fields work with quite different conceptions. In epistemology, evidence is what justifies beliefs or what determines whether holding a certain belief is rational. This is only possible if the evidence is possessed by the person, which has prompted various epistemologists to conceive evidence as private mental states like experiences or other beliefs. In philosophy of science, on the other hand, evidence is understood as that which confirms or disconfirms scientific hypotheses and arbitrates between competing theories. For this role, it is important that evidence is public and uncontroversial, like observable physical objects or events and unlike private mental states, so that evidence may foster scientific consensus.

If I were presented "evidence" that god(s) exist and it was something like the Kalam cosmological argument, or some claim such as the universe cannot have created itself therefore a god must exist, or that the person cannot fathom how something as complex as a human being could arise without the input of a god and therefore this god must exist, I'd not consider any of those as evidence but rather opinions or philosophic ramblings.

Do you have any evidence that gods of any kind exist now, or ever did exist, that would qualify as empirical evidence in the philosophy of science context as underlined above...? This is generally the kind of evidence most atheists that I know are referring to when they ask for evidence of the existence of gods. If you have such evidence, please present it. I doubt anyone would ignore it, but if it is some philosophical argument presented as evidence or proof you'll likely be rightfully challenged on it.

This is really the point, evidence, evidence that can be tested. I'm willing to concede that there are many ways of knowing, but the problems with those not related to empiricism can 'prove' ANYTHING. There is no reliable way to distinguish between personal divine revelation and the ravings of a lunatic. The book of 'Revelation' is an example. So is the Book of Mormon. An epistemology has to be able to separate gods from goblins

Yes but "evidence" is also interpreted, I discussed this here recently. The evolution devotee seems to believe there is only one way to interpret evidence and that their interpretation is the true interpretation, that this mindset mirrors that of the Catholic authorities who persecuted Galileo, goes right over their heads.