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?

[Difflugia]

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?

Because from a particular point of view, that's how the game looks like it's played. I think I can say without controversy that most people would agree in general with the following statements about themselves in relation to others:

• Smart people know how to evaluate evidence.
• I'm smart.
• Other people are smart.
• Smart people agree with me.

There are a bunch of different ways that this can play out. The best case category is for someone with whom most others agree most of the time. Disagreements lead to cognitive dissonances that must be resolved, but there aren't many disagreements, so no main premises are seriously challenged. Resolving a particular dissonance does require more closely examining the areas of disagreement, though. Whatever one concludes, evaluating evidence is a learned, practiced skill and the exercise can't help but improve that skill. That process overall also reinforces each of those internalized premises. In addition to improving their own evaluation skills, those in this camp also become more and more expert at identifying differences in how others evaluate evidence.

Imagine someone in this category being told that they're catastrophically wrong, that they don't understand the evidence, don't know what they're talking about, or are stupid. How would they react to that? It doesn't happen often, so somebody is really wrong and someone good at evaluating evidence will generally be able to at least pinpoint exact areas of disagreement such that if the dissonance can't be completely resolved, it can at least be compartmentalized. However, if one's experience is that others dismiss all of their evidence as worthless, then the least comfortable resolution is that their evidence is genuinely worthless. An easier one to swallow is to imagine that honest debate involves asking for evidence and then ignoring it.

A corollary to this is that someone that is very good at evaluating evidence assumes that others can evaluate evidence just as well. If that's true and a particular interpretation of the evidence is very obviously flawed, then an easier conclusion is sometimes that the opponent is lying. Now imagine both halves of that interaction. One participant repeatedly calls the other a liar and one participant is repeatedly called a liar, knowing that they're not. In particular, further imagine the conclusions one might come to through repeatedly and falsely being called a liar. One is that claims of lying are a normal part of debate. Another is that dishonesty itself is actually a valid debate tactic.

I think many debates show these patterns as well as similar ones, which I'll leave as an exercise for the reader (cue the search function causing a spike in the server's CPU usage).

[Jose Fly]

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?

Because from a particular point of view, that's how the game looks like it's played. I think I can say without controversy that most people would agree in general with the following statements about themselves in relation to others:

• Smart people know how to evaluate evidence.
• I'm smart.
• Other people are smart.
• Smart people agree with me.

I guess that makes me an outlier then, because I don't take that sort of approach (at least as far as I can tell). I'm very much a "if it's important, don't rely on what others say...go look for yourself" person.

Also, I think it's important to keep in mind that my OP isn't just about creationists and debates with them, but is about how I've never been able to relate to the conservative religious way of thinking on much of anything (end times, faith healing, etc). So I'm wondering if the same is true for those on the other side. Are they just as baffled by my way of thinking as I am by theirs?

There are a bunch of different ways that this can play out. The best case category is for someone with whom most others agree most of the time. Disagreements lead to cognitive dissonances that must be resolved, but there aren't many disagreements, so no main premises are seriously challenged. Resolving a particular dissonance does require more closely examining the areas of disagreement, though.

But from what I've seen, many of those on "the other side" resolve these conflicts mostly by denying the conflicts exist, waving them away in a shallow manner (e.g. attributing it all to Satan, relying on platitudes), or attacking the source of the conflict but not resolving the actual issue. For example, because I asked too many questions that they couldn't answer, our church leaders basically went after me and my parents because I "ask too many questions" and "needed to learn what it means to have faith", which of course was my parents' fault. It's like it never occurred to them to actually try and answer the questions I asked!

That's in direct contrast with the reactions I got to the questions I'd ask as an undergrad in biology. There, I was praised for asking good questions and I was not only given resources to seek answers on my own, but taught the tools and techniques necessary to answer future questions on my own.

That makes me wonder....would a conservative Christian from my old church be just as confused by that approach to questioning as I was by our church's approach to my questions?

Whatever one concludes, evaluating evidence is a learned, practiced skill and the exercise can't help but improve that skill. That process overall also reinforces each of those internalized premises. In addition to improving their own evaluation skills, those in this camp also become more and more expert at identifying differences in how others evaluate evidence.

Yet from what I've seen, that sort of thing is actively discouraged in many religious circles. There, people are praised and rewarded for having strong, unshakable faith. So again I have to wonder....were the people in the church (and the creationists I've debated) just as confused and frustrated by all my questions as I was with their responses to them? Just as I was thinking "Why can't they just answer the question", were they thinking "Why is he so lacking in faith"?

Imagine someone in this category being told that they're catastrophically wrong, that they don't understand the evidence, don't know what they're talking about, or are stupid. How would they react to that? It doesn't happen often, so somebody is really wrong and someone good at evaluating evidence will generally be able to at least pinpoint exact areas of disagreement such that if the dissonance can't be completely resolved, it can at least be compartmentalized. However, if one's experience is that others dismiss all of their evidence as worthless, then the least comfortable resolution is that their evidence is genuinely worthless. An easier one to swallow is to imagine that honest debate involves asking for evidence and then ignoring it.

I know what my approach is after hearing all that....ask the person who's accusing me to explain and show how those things are so. When I posed some questions to our church leaders and they would say "You just don't understand", I would practically beg them to explain so I could understand.

A corollary to this is that someone that is very good at evaluating evidence assumes that others can evaluate evidence just as well. If that's true and a particular interpretation of the evidence is very obviously flawed, then an easier conclusion is sometimes that the opponent is lying. Now imagine both halves of that interaction. One participant repeatedly calls the other a liar and one participant is repeatedly called a liar, knowing that they're not. In particular, further imagine the conclusions one might come to through repeatedly and falsely being called a liar. One is that claims of lying are a normal part of debate. Another is that dishonesty itself is actually a valid debate tactic.

That aspect of these debates is probably the most fascinating for me. I recall one creationist who would post copied material from a creationist website, then after I (or others) would post rebuttals, the creationist would actually say "Since no one even replied to my post...", which we all found to be completely bizarre. We'd point out that yes, we did reply to the posts, and the person would just repeat that no one had replied. It was so bad that one person eventually put it as "I don't think you understand the difference between truth and a lie", which eventually led to a significant admission from the creationist....to her, anything that agrees with and supports scripture is "truth" and anything that conflicts with, or otherwise casts doubt on scripture is "a lie".

That was quite a revelation to me, and when I think of my experiences with our church and my family members, it explains a lot. Questioning what I was being told was seen as a form of doubt, rather than as genuine curiosity, and as such was something that needed to be quashed right away. That's why Sunday sermons don't have a 10 minute Q&A session at the end.

I think many debates show these patterns as well as similar ones, which I'll leave as an exercise for the reader (cue the search function causing a spike in the server's CPU usage).

LOL! Thanks for the thoughtful reply!

[Inquirer]

There are a million points of view in the world, some Christians do handle dangerous snakes and literally claim to speak in tongues and others regard it as a discontinued practice or as not even referring to physical speech at all, many different ways to interpret what we find in a Bible.

So I don't perceive some of these differences as indicating an "other side", there are many "sides", societies are hugely complex.

There are no doubt Christians that you and I would find equally absurd just as there are likely other categories of people we'd find equally absurd.

Of course there will be people who ignore information presented to them but there are also people who will take a look and reject a particular interpretation of that information, some for sound reasons others for unsound.

The point about evidence that I think is given too little attention in these debates is that it must be interpreted and there are often different ways to interpret something. I for example interpret the "fossil record" as revealing discontinuity far more than continuity because that's what I see, that's stands out to me. Others interpret it as the opposite - but each is an interpretation and each interpretation has its merits and deficiencies.

What's often glossed over by those who advocate a science-centric worldview, is that science is not and never has been a steady accumulation of gradually ever increasing knowledge. Yes it can be perceived that way if one wants but the history of science is characterized by revolutions, worlds being turned upside down, mavericks or radicals being at odds with the prevailing views of the time.

Einstein certainly did not look at "the evidence" and interpret it as everyone prior to him had done for centuries. Likewise, Newton, Galileo, James Clerk Maxwell, and so on. Each of these often radically departed from accepted views, established interpretations of evidence, sometimes in the face of strong opposition.

[Jose Fly]

There are a million points of view in the world, some Christians do handle dangerous snakes and literally claim to speak in tongues and others regard it as a discontinued practice or as not even referring to physical speech at all, many different ways to interpret what we find in a Bible.

So I don't perceive some of these differences as indicating an "other side", there are many "sides", societies are hugely complex.

I generally agree, but I also think applicable categories exist as well.

There are no doubt Christians that you and I would find equally absurd just as there are likely other categories of people we'd find equally absurd.

And that's the gist of the thread. For creationists like yourself I wonder....are you as baffled by the behaviors of "evolutionists" like me as much as I'm baffled by the behaviors of creationists?

Of course there will be people who ignore information presented to them but there are also people who will take a look and reject a particular interpretation of that information, some for sound reasons others for unsound.

The point about evidence that I think is given too little attention in these debates is that it must be interpreted and there are often different ways to interpret something. I for example interpret the "fossil record" as revealing discontinuity far more than continuity because that's what I see, that's stands out to me. Others interpret it as the opposite - but each is an interpretation and each interpretation has its merits and deficiencies.

This is a good example of what I'm talking about. From my POV, this "it's all interpretation" response is mostly a means of dealing with (and basically dismissing) inconvenient information. So for example when an end times preacher makes a failed prediction, rather than admit the error and deal with the consequences, he can just say something like "People have misinterpreted what I said" or "I interpret events as having fulfilled my prediction", with the underlying assumption being that all interpretations are equally valid....my interpretation that his prediction failed is just as valid as his interpretation that it was successful, even when the prediction was about specific events on specific dates.

And to reiterate, it's not that I don't understand (I understand it to be a coping mechanism), it's that I can't relate to the behavior and how the preacher is seemingly oblivious to what he's doing.

At the moment, I'm thinking that this all has to do with open-mindedness and how some folks being less open to the possibility that they're wrong forces them to employ defensive/coping mechanisms when faced with inconvenient info. This was illustrated in the Ken Ham vs. Bill Nye debate, where upon being asked what would change their minds, Nye replied "data" and Ham answered "nothing". At the very least, Ham's response was honest.

So if you have a group of people who not only hold a set of beliefs, but are so wedded to them that they will never budge an inch on them, you can expect them to do whatever they can to maintain those beliefs. If that means waving away inconvenient info as "interpretation", ignoring it outright, chalking it up to nefarious forces (Satan), or even lying about it ("no one has replied")....so be it.

IOW, for some folks the belief must be maintained at all costs.

That's in direct opposition to how I approach things. I want to know if I'm wrong, I deliberately seek out potentially contrary info, I ask lots and lots of questions. Perhaps that's the root psychological factor here.....openness to the possibility of being wrong. I suppose if my entire worldview and emotional well being were directly tied to evolution being true, the earth being ancient, faith healing not working, end times being nonsense, etc., then I would be more likely to do whatever I could to protect all that.

[brunumb]

The point about evidence that I think is given too little attention in these debates is that it must be interpreted and there are often different ways to interpret something. I for example interpret the "fossil record" as revealing discontinuity far more than continuity because that's what I see, that's stands out to me. Others interpret it as the opposite - but each is an interpretation and each interpretation has its merits and deficiencies.

A significant factor that is perhaps being overlooked here is the level of expertise in an area that is being applied to the 'interpretation'. In what way are you qualified to analyse and interpret the fossil record? Do you place yourself at the same level or above those who have devoted their lives and careers to the subject? It's a bit too easy to say "well it doesn't look like that to me" and expect to be taken seriously.

[brunumb]

What's often glossed over by those who advocate a science-centric worldview, is that science is not and never has been a steady accumulation of gradually ever increasing knowledge. Yes it can be perceived that way if one wants but the history of science is characterized by revolutions, worlds being turned upside down, mavericks or radicals being at odds with the prevailing views of the time.

When one looks at the overall picture, regardless of the ups and downs along the way, science has resulted in a steady accumulation of gradually ever increasing knowledge. It's all in how you have chosen to interpret the history.

Einstein certainly did not look at "the evidence" and interpret it as everyone prior to him had done for centuries. Likewise, Newton, Galileo, James Clerk Maxwell, and so on. Each of these often radically departed from accepted views, established interpretations of evidence, sometimes in the face of strong opposition.

They all looked at the evidence, added their own, and interpreted what they had. Being able to see things differently or having greater mental capacity or imagination allowed them to make more significant contributions compared with others.

The creationist concept of interpretation seems to be based on making up unverifiable scenarios that somehow might fit their preferred outcome.

[Inquirer]

The point about evidence that I think is given too little attention in these debates is that it must be interpreted and there are often different ways to interpret something. I for example interpret the "fossil record" as revealing discontinuity far more than continuity because that's what I see, that's stands out to me. Others interpret it as the opposite - but each is an interpretation and each interpretation has its merits and deficiencies.

A significant factor that is perhaps being overlooked here is the level of expertise in an area that is being applied to the 'interpretation'. In what way are you qualified to analyse and interpret the fossil record? Do you place yourself at the same level or above those who have devoted their lives and careers to the subject? It's a bit too easy to say "well it doesn't look like that to me" and expect to be taken seriously.

Probably the same qualifications as any laymen who interprets it as evidence of continuity. It's not my goal to convince others that I'm correct, I interpret information all the time across a multitude of disciplines. Additionally I've seen and read many of the arguments for continuity and those for discontinuity and I'm satisfied - unless something totally new arrives - that its evidence of a discontinuous process to a far greater extent than evidence of a continuous one.

Furthermore who's to say what "qualifications" one must have?

[Inquirer]

What's often glossed over by those who advocate a science-centric worldview, is that science is not and never has been a steady accumulation of gradually ever increasing knowledge. Yes it can be perceived that way if one wants but the history of science is characterized by revolutions, worlds being turned upside down, mavericks or radicals being at odds with the prevailing views of the time.

When one looks at the overall picture, regardless of the ups and downs along the way, science has resulted in a steady accumulation of gradually ever increasing knowledge. It's all in how you have chosen to interpret the history.

Einstein certainly did not look at "the evidence" and interpret it as everyone prior to him had done for centuries. Likewise, Newton, Galileo, James Clerk Maxwell, and so on. Each of these often radically departed from accepted views, established interpretations of evidence, sometimes in the face of strong opposition.

They all looked at the evidence, added their own, and interpreted what they had. Being able to see things differently or having greater mental capacity or imagination allowed them to make more significant contributions compared with others.

The creationist concept of interpretation seems to be based on making up unverifiable scenarios that somehow might fit their preferred outcome.

There are millions of creationists, like anyone else we use reason and logic to support our beliefs. Consider Barbarian or Prof. John Lennox for example, there are countless such people. Consider the 99% of those who contributed to the scientific revolution, they were creationists, how do you interpret that evidence?

[Inquirer]

There are a million points of view in the world, some Christians do handle dangerous snakes and literally claim to speak in tongues and others regard it as a discontinued practice or as not even referring to physical speech at all, many different ways to interpret what we find in a Bible.

So I don't perceive some of these differences as indicating an "other side", there are many "sides", societies are hugely complex.

I generally agree, but I also think applicable categories exist as well.

There are no doubt Christians that you and I would find equally absurd just as there are likely other categories of people we'd find equally absurd.

And that's the gist of the thread. For creationists like yourself I wonder....are you as baffled by the behaviors of "evolutionists" like me as much as I'm baffled by the behaviors of creationists?

No, evolution advocates do not baffle me at all. I used to advocate it myself, it's a reasonable hypothesis, there are reasonable arguments underpinning it. But likewise there are reasonable arguments to reject it, sure some reject it because they've been educated to do so in some religious context but I don't think one can defend a belief in evolution by pointing out that some subset of those who doubt it are poorly educated and superstitious and often irrational.

Of course there will be people who ignore information presented to them but there are also people who will take a look and reject a particular interpretation of that information, some for sound reasons others for unsound.

The point about evidence that I think is given too little attention in these debates is that it must be interpreted and there are often different ways to interpret something. I for example interpret the "fossil record" as revealing discontinuity far more than continuity because that's what I see, that's stands out to me. Others interpret it as the opposite - but each is an interpretation and each interpretation has its merits and deficiencies.

This is a good example of what I'm talking about. From my POV, this "it's all interpretation" response is mostly a means of dealing with (and basically dismissing) inconvenient information.

This is in fact your own interpretation of what some others mean by "the interpretation of evidence", I do not see it as you do.

So for example when an end times preacher makes a failed prediction, rather than admit the error and deal with the consequences, he can just say something like "People have misinterpreted what I said" or "I interpret events as having fulfilled my prediction", with the underlying assumption being that all interpretations are equally valid....my interpretation that his prediction failed is just as valid as his interpretation that it was successful, even when the prediction was about specific events on specific dates.

Yes, there's often scope for ambiguity and some fundamentalists are as you describe, I have no more time for that than you.

And to reiterate, it's not that I don't understand (I understand it to be a coping mechanism), it's that I can't relate to the behavior and how the preacher is seemingly oblivious to what he's doing.

Well we could apply the label "coping mechanism" to huge numbers of people be they Christian fundamentalists or fierce evolution advocates.

At the moment, I'm thinking that this all has to do with open-mindedness and how some folks being less open to the possibility that they're wrong forces them to employ defensive/coping mechanisms when faced with inconvenient info. This was illustrated in the Ken Ham vs. Bill Nye debate, where upon being asked what would change their minds, Nye replied "data" and Ham answered "nothing". At the very least, Ham's response was honest.

This may well be true, in my opinion the John Lennox vs Richard Dawkins debate could have shown the same thing, when the debate began to move toward morality Dawkins was at a loss and was speculating wildly (he said stuff like "we could rise above what are genes dictated" or some such) - was that a coping mechanism?

So if you have a group of people who not only hold a set of beliefs, but are so wedded to them that they will never budge an inch on them, you can expect them to do whatever they can to maintain those beliefs. If that means waving away inconvenient info as "interpretation", ignoring it outright, chalking it up to nefarious forces (Satan), or even lying about it ("no one has replied")....so be it.

IOW, for some folks the belief must be maintained at all costs.

This is true but hardly unique to Christian fundamentalists!

That's in direct opposition to how I approach things. I want to know if I'm wrong, I deliberately seek out potentially contrary info, I ask lots and lots of questions. Perhaps that's the root psychological factor here.....openness to the possibility of being wrong. I suppose if my entire worldview and emotional well being were directly tied to evolution being true, the earth being ancient, faith healing not working, end times being nonsense, etc., then I would be more likely to do whatever I could to protect all that.

What you describe likely typifies most of those who drove the scientific revolution yet they were almost all of them creationists! The pursuit of underlying patterns and meaning and structure and causal relationships (in other words "science") is not confined to the materialist atheist. Most of those people from the 17th, 18th, 19th and even 20th centuries had no problem whatsoever exploring what they (and I and Barbarian) regard as a created universe of immense order, beauty, structure and wonder.